UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2021: +0.08 deg. C

June 1st, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2021 was +0.08 deg. C, up from the April, 2021 value of -0.05 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 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 17 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 0.27 0.26
2020 08 0.30 0.34 0.26 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.24
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 0.44 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
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for May, 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


4,398 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2021: +0.08 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Clint R says:

    Thank you, Dr. Spencer.

    It’s interesting that USA48 is the lowest, but NHEM. is the highest!

  2. Willard says:

    Brace yourselves, the ice age is coming:

    Heat alerts have been issued by the National Weather Service in parts of California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Idaho.

    Areas in the excessive heat warning will see temperatures that could cause heat illnesses, including heatstroke and heat exhaustion.

    https://weather.com/forecast/regional/news/2021-05-29-west-record-highs-late-may-early-june

  3. bdgwx says:

    +0.08C for May on the new 1991-2020 baseline is equivalent to +0.20C on the old 1981-2010 baseline. Considering that the ENSO 3.4 phase is now in positive territory it is looking unlikely that all of those predictions that the UAH-TLT anomaly would go below zero on 1981-2010 baseline that were posted here will actually pan out. I will say that we are due for a VEI 6 eruption and a La Nina double dip is still possible so there is still a chance we could drop below the 1981-2010 baseline.

    • Scott R says:

      bdgwx,

      I see NOAA has the chances of a double dip la nina at around 50% for next winter. The way the data looks now, I don’t think it is necessary at all for a double dip la nina. The average is around 3.6 years for the phase to change (1/3rd solar cycle) but you certainly can’t set your watch by that. The wave from the end of 2018 to present DOES look short… extending the down move to the end of next winter certainly seems logical, but that wave might be done. I do see there were 2 Kelvin waves, and that region 4 is cooling. Once the Kelvin waves pass the mid / east ocean we could see a drop.

      As far as the intermediate trend, that is down since 2016. You have a lower swing high and a lower swing low. You will need to go above the 2020 highs to get an intermediate time frame reversal. If that doesn’t happen, you could easily head below the old baseline. I think it will happen, just not sure if it will make it this winter, or in 3-4 years.

      As for the VEI6, who knows when that will happen, but it definitely plays a roll comparing 1980-2000 and 2000-2020.

    • Bindidon says:

      bdgwx

      I read below your comment:

      ” As far as the intermediate trend, that is down since 2016. ”

      It is really incredible how many people insist on what is an evidence, as in 2016 we had the highest UAH LT anomaly since beginning.

      A period starting with its highest value can by definition only give a down trend.

      Even Monckton, the “Third Viscount” of Brenchley, unlorded since years, persists on publishing at WUWT, month after month, that we have now x years and y months with zero trend.

      Of course: he moves back month by month until the trend is zero, and that nice little exercise stops each time in… 2016.

      If you shift the trend period’s by just one year, the trend becomes totally different.

      Strange days. Thanks, Internet!

      J.-P. D.

      • Bellman says:

        Strictly speaking the “pause” generally starts just before 2016. This month it will be starting April 2015.

        In fact, at present a trend starting in May 2016 or later will be positive.

        • Bindidon says:

          Bellman

          You are of course correct when having a strict look at the data.

          Before the May 2021 anomaly, the last negative or zero trend in UAH LT for May 2015 till April 2021 is indeed -0.03 C / decade (but +- 0.11, what makes the trend ‘statistically insignificant’ anyway, but this never disturbed the ‘Third Viscount’).

          J.-P. D.

          • angech says:

            indidon says: Of course: he moves back month by month until the trend is zero, and that nice little exercise stops each time in… 2016.
            Bellman says:
            Strictly speaking the “pause” generally starts just before 2016. This month it will be starting April 2015.
            Bindidon says
            Bellman You are of course correct when having a strict look at the data..

            There is cherrypicking and there are pauses.
            The latest pause always starts at the last measurement.
            No cherrypicking.
            That is what it is..
            It will usually show a pause when there has been a higher previous value..
            The pause will usually go back beyond that highest value as it does not equal that highest value.
            The previous pause went back several years before the peak in 1998?.

          • Bellman says:

            angech,

            Much as I like reverse chronology fiction, I still don’t understand why so many Monckton apologists insist that his pauses start at the end. I really cannot see why you think this excuses his obvious cherry picking. The earliest date for any of his pauses is the date that will give him the longest possible negative trend. He ignores all other starting (or ending if you prefer) dates, either because they would show a positive trend, or a shorter negative trend. I don’t know what other word you could use to describe this careful selection of end points.

            The irony being he himself attacked the IPCC of doing just that when they published a graph showing warming over the last 25 years. He called this the end-point fallacy, and said it was a shoddy fraudulent technique where by carefully selecting the start point you could produce any trend you wanted.

          • angech says:

            Bellman
            “I still don’t understand why so many Monckton apologists insist that his pauses start at the end.”

            Really?

            If you are looking at a trend to see when a pause starts the only place you can do that from is the end.
            Whether it is trending up or down.

            If a pause develops you can pretend it is not happening.
            But that is like saying I lost the argument but I am not going to listen.
            Pauses are always occurring.

            The only other explanation is that you cannot afford to have a cherished belief contradicted in any way and so deny reality.
            Pauses are always occurring.

            You could adopt a better approach and say,
            yes I see a pause but I do not think it is significant.
            Whether it is Monckton or not.
            It is just one of a number of methods of measuring temperature.

            Sadly you and Bindinon cannot afford to give one inch because the other side would take a mile?
            Tough.
            You get credit in my view for facing facts and arguing their relevance, not playing games in a misleading fashion.

            The irony being he himself attacked the IPCC of doing just that when they published a graph showing warming over the last 25 years.
            Irony?
            In a modified wording of your comment you would shoot the IPC in the same way you would smear Monckton.
            “The earliest date for any of their pauses is the date that will give them the longest possible positive trend. They ignores all other starting (or ending if you prefer) dates, either because they would show a negative trend, or a shorter positive trend. I don’t know what other word you could use to describe this careful selection of end points.”

            Natural variation is the pits. Just one more La Nina would have blown CAGW out of the water 10 years ago. Now we have to wait until the 2 pauses join [if ever]. I guess if they did giving say a 27 year pause you would still close your eyes.

          • Bellman says:

            “If you are looking at a trend to see when a pause starts the only place you can do that from is the end.”

            I’ve no idea what you are saying here. If I have some time series data and I want to see if there is a trend I would simply calculate the linear regression across the entire range. The comparison is between the data and the time. If data tends to increase as time increases there is a positive trend and if it decreases as time increases the trend is negative. My assumption is that time flows forward so a trend starts at the beginning (earliest time), and finishes at the end (later times).

            If it looks like there is some deviation in the trend, such as increase or decrease in the trend, I could either try to fit a non-linear model, or estimate where the change in trend started, calculate the respective before and after trends, and see if they were significantly different. I’d also want to make sure the change date didn’t cause an unrealistic break in the trend, unless I thought it was plausible that the data had a discontinuity in it. (If I was more than an armchair statistician I’d probably have better tools at my disposal to more objectively establish the point change).

            What I wouldn’t do is start at the final piece of data and work back until I’d found some disconnected trend that I could use in a blog post. Doing that I can easily find trends starting at the end point that show greatly accelerated warming – e.g 10 years of warming over 4C / century.

          • Bellman says:

            angech,

            “If a pause develops you can pretend it is not happening.
            But that is like saying I lost the argument but I am not going to listen.”

            The thing is I’ve been debating this all through the previous, more plausible pause, and all I want is for someone to define what they mean by pause, and then justify it’s existence statistically. If you define the pause as Monckton does, as any period with a zero or less trend, then I don’t pretend it isn’t happening. It clearly is happening. I just don’t think it’s a useful or meaningful thing. It’s not something that has any statistical meaning. Statistics requires that you can distinguish a claim from the noise that results if the claim is not true. Statistics knows that all data is noisy, things happen by chance, and requires that a claim has to be supported by data that is unlikely to have occurred by chance.

            “Pauses are always occurring.”

            Which is the problem. You can look back through the UAH data and find many 6 year pauses. You can also find many 6 year periods when the rate of warming was much greater than the underlying rate, 7 or 8 degrees per century. Neither trend tells us much about the underlying trend, except the UAH monthly data is noisy, and short term trends are spurious.

          • Bellman says:

            angech

            “In a modified wording of your comment you would shoot the IPC in the same way you would smear Monckton.”

            If the IPCC ever tried to claim that a six year warming trend showed that warming had greatly accelerated, than I would indeed object.

          • angech says:

            Bellman says: June 3, 2021 at 11:42 AM
            “If you are looking at a trend to see when a pause starts the only place you can do that from is the end.”
            I’ve no idea what you are saying here.”

            Bellman
            “I still don’t understand why so many Monckton apologists insist that his pauses start at the end.”

            Get over Monckton.
            Get over defining a pause as only something that fits your narrative only [AKA cherrypicking.

            You have a graph of a variable.
            The graph is ongoing to the present.
            Whether it has a positive or a negative trend it has an endwhich is constantly changing.
            When you look for a new pause this is where you start.
            The moment it trends the other way you create a new pause.

            Significance?

            The longer the pause goes the less likely that it is noise and more likely that it is showing some sort of cause.

            Indeed that is why you are able to talk of warming in the first place.

          • angech says:

            If the IPCC ever tried to claim that a six year warming trend showed that warming had greatly accelerated, than I would indeed object.

            Pehaps you should write to Hansen?

            The World Has Cooled Off Whats the Significance?
            13 May2021 James Hansen
            Sat Global temperature in April continues to be much less than a year ago. ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) is the principal cause of year-to-year global temperature change. We are in a moderately strong La Nina.NCEP
            (NOAAs ) current forecast suggests that tropical temperatures are headed for a double-dip La Nina. Nino forecasts are notoriously difficult, however, so we need towait a few months to see
            Global temperature is highly correlated (61.4%) with Nino3.4 index, with global temperature lagging Nino3.4 by 5 months

            The 12-month running mean temperature is dropping fast)and probably will not reach a minimum until November
            That minimum is likely to be well below the1970-2015 trend line )and 2021 will be much cooler than 2020.
            Will that global cooling imply that the apparent global warming acceleration of the past six years was a misleading deviation, rather than a significant change of the warming rate”
            He certainly claimed 6 years was significant until it was not.
            Is he part of the IPCC?

            Good to see you having fun with W.E.

    • gbaikie says:

      Most volcanic eruption occur in the ocean, or next larger volcanic event will occur in the ocean, the question is, will we detect it.

    • Richard M says:

      Bdgwx, it appears the 40 year baseline would produce something like 0.14 C. Do you realize what that means? In another 40 years (2061) we might skyrocket to a 0.28 C anomaly. How will humanity survive?

      • bdgwx says:

        UAH-TLT trend is +0.14C/decade. The next 40 years will be another +0.56C on top of what occurred in the previous 40 years. Humanity will survive.

        • RLH says:

          Linear trends are useless on data < 60 years in length and pretty much for periods longer that than too.

        • Nate says:

          Where do you get 60 from?

          • RLH says:

            Because there is a well acknowledge 60 year cycle to the weather.

          • Nate says:

            Not generally agreed..

            One or so ~ 60 y up-down may not be a real cycle.

          • RLH says:

            Ok. So it should have been ~60 years. Or somewhere between ~60 and ~75.

          • barry says:

            There is no such “well acknowledge 60 year cycle to the weather.”

            And if you meant “climate,” there is no well-acknowledged 60-year cycle, or 65 or 70-year cycle.

            There are 11-year solar cycles, which have little impact on surface temps, there are multidecadal fluctuations in ocean temps within at least two basins, which are not symmetrically phased nor any confidence that these are cyclical or even quasi-periodic.

            What we do have is a lot of noise and chatter devoted to making much of these fluctuations, while scientific studies about them are far more circumspect regarding their influence on “weather” and climate.

            By comparison, the periodic ENSO events are what we can call “well-acknowledged.”

          • RLH says:

            Well the Chinese have a calendar based on 60 years and used for farming predictions.

          • Nate says:

            And the Mayan calendar predicted our doom…sort of.

            And Astrology sez..let me check.

          • RLH says:

            There have also been many cycles of this sort of length discovered in many of the climate series, both temperature and proxy.

          • Nate says:

            Show us one.

          • RLH says:

            “The influence of the lunar tidal cycle on world mean temperature produces a natural quasi 60-year cycle in the Earth’s climate system.”

          • RLH says:

            https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0016793218070241

            “60-Year Cycle in the Earths Climate and Dynamics of Correlation Links between Solar Activity and Circulation of the Lower Atmosphere” S. V. Veretenenko & M. G. Ogurtsov

          • RLH says:

            “Church and White (2011) estimated the acceleration term to be 0.009 [0.004 to 0.014] mm yr2 over the 18802009
            time span when the 60-year cycle is not considered.”

          • Nate says:

            Here is an actual long temperature record in England. No obvious 60 y period.

            https://tinyurl.com/jfpv7nyk

            I cant see your paper.

          • Nate says:

            1.5 oscillations make it periodic?

          • RLH says:

            Going back before 1850 is tricky, though I have some proxy data that goes back further. All with ~60 years in them

          • RLH says:

            How far back would you like to go?

          • RLH says:

            I can do proxy data back to 1500 if you like

          • RLH says:

            “Shen, C., W.-C. Wang, W. Gong, and Z. Hao. 2006.
            A Pacific Decadal Oscillation record since 1470 AD reconstructed
            from proxy data of summer rainfall over eastern China.
            Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L03702, February 2006.”

          • barry says:

            Theorised – not “well-acknowledged.”

            “Past research argues for an internal multidecadal (40 to 60-year) oscillation distinct from climate noise. Recent studies have claimed that this so-termed Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is instead a manifestation of competing time-varying effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols. That conclusion is bolstered by the absence of robust multidecadal climate oscillations in control simulations of current-generation models. Paleoclimate data, however, do demonstrate multidecadal oscillatory behavior during the preindustrial era. By comparing control and forced “Last Millennium” simulations, we show that these apparent multidecadal oscillations are an artifact of pulses of volcanic activity during the preindustrial era that project markedly onto the multidecadal (50 to 70-year) frequency band. We conclude that there is no compelling evidence for internal multidecadal oscillations in the climate system.”

            https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6533/1014.abstract

          • RLH says:

            So you don’t acknowledge that there is a lunar 60 year cycle?

            And that the Moon causes tides in the atmosphere as well as oceans and land?

          • barry says:

            The notion of a 60-year lunar cycle is news to me. I doubt that if such a cycle existed it would have an impact on global temperatures in 60-year oscillations. In the list of papers you googled above, the cause of the purported 60-year cycle was unknown in one, lunar in another, solar in another…

            We don’t have a long enough record to determine if there are 60 year cycles in global temperature. We certainly don’t have a determined mechanism, just theorizations, not much agreement, and the originators of the AMO have now rescinded it. There’s always the PDO to keep the fans interested.

            No, a 60-year climate cycle is not a “well-acknowledged” fact, but I will acknowledge that 30 and 60 year cycles in global climate have been discussed for at least 3 decades.

          • RLH says:

            https://judithcurry.com/2020/02/13/plausible-scenarios-for-climate-change-2020-2050/#comment-909589

            “C. The influence of the lunar tidal cycle on world mean temperature produces a natural quasi 60-year cycle in the Earth’s climate system. This is also accompanied by a longer-term Gleissberg-like (88.5 years) and De Vries-like (208.0 years) tidal cycles that are synchronized with similar cycles in the level of solar activity.”

          • Nate says:

            “Going back before 1850 is tricky”

            I showed you real temperatures in Central Europe and Central England, going back to 1700s. I dont see the ’60 y cycle’ going back then.

            For European data over 6 sites can see spectral variation at various periods from 30s to 80s, nothing standing out.

            https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Left-panel-DFT-of-M6-average-from-six-central-European-instrumental-time-series-Right_fig4_280572883

          • barry says:

            None of the references you cited show a lunar periodicity of 60 years. None of the references that appear in the blog comment (seriously?) at Curry’s either. Other than the statement made by the person who posted the comment.

            And I looked further afield, interested in what citing papers would make of the references. I got a couple positing a lunar cycle of 31 years and 35 years, but not 60 years. They weren’t half a cycle that we can double to corroborate, unfortunately.

            No, I definitely DO NOT acknowledge a 60-year lunar cycle.

            This is pretty obscure stuff, these references. And I see no reason to change my view that the 30 and 60 year cycles in global climate are not well-acknowledged facts.

            Looks to me like you are on a mission to dismiss AGW, hence the interest in obscure references to buttress a case of ABC (anything-but-CO2).

            The global temperature records are unreliable you say, with an uncertainty that defies a meaningful construction. And yet there is a discernible 60-year oscillation in the global temperature record you also say. A remarkable feat to hold these two views at the same time.

            And though you haven’t said it outright, I believe you mean to imply from the talk of climate cycles that much or all the warming in the modern record is likely from natural, not man-made causes.

          • Nate says:

            “Second highest peak is at 61 years”

            Meh. Others about the same. A broad distribution.

            Also, You are referencing Comments at Blogs by nutty cycle fanatics???

          • RLH says:

            No. Are you denying that a 15 year low pass filter reveals’ the frequencies you see?

            The problem with a periodogram is it can easily become critical as to if you infill (pre and post the window of interest) with 0s or white, pink or even red noise. 0s rarely occur in nature. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colors_of_noise)

            You do not deny, I note, that the 61 year cycle achieves > 95% confidence levels. You really ought to blank the curve below the yellow line.

            The 248 year cycle may well be end artifacts from the end infilling. I would want to see re-runs with different types and level of noise in those areas.

          • RLH says:

            “Now, when reviewing the plot above some have claimed that this is a curve fitting or a cycle mania exercise. However, the data hasnt been fit to anything, I just applied a filter. Then out pops some wriggle in that plot which the data draws all on its own at around ~60 years. Its the data what done it not me! If you see any cycle in graph, then thats your perception. What you cant do is say the wriggle is not there. Thats what the DATA says is there.”

          • Nate says:

            ” Are you denying that a 15 year low pass filter reveals the frequencies you see?”

            No. I am saying there are 1.5 apparent periods that can be fortuitous, and they don’t seem to be there in the prior 150 y of the Central European record. It also doesnt seem to be continuing past 2000.

            There is no doubt that overall the data show a quadratic rise, together with mid-20th century pause in that rise, a plateau.

            Starting with Krakatoa in 1883 you have a period of high volcanic activity up to 1920.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_of_the_19th_century

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_of_the_20th_century

            This has the effect of suppressing temperature, and it looks like another minima of your sine wave, but if we remove volcanic contribution the minima will go away.

          • bill hunter says:

            barry says:

            Theorised not ”well-acknowledged.”
            —————————–

            Actually barry that would be ”theorized” and ”well-acknowledged”.

            And not just by a little bit!

            The ancients who actually went outside and observed the climate acknowledge it very well. And for the entire instrument temperature record it has recorded 2 full cycles plus over the past 142 years.

            it is very well acknowledged and the only thing about it not acknowledged is its cause and whether the cycle has regular intervals. It currently stands as the biggest exception to the theory of CO2 being solely responsible for the modern warming over the instrument record with CO2 models failing completely to duplicate its effects clearly demonstrating a natural climate cycle.

          • Nate says:

            “Volcanoes do not explain this”

            ‘This’ shows TWO minima, which seems to convince you we have an ongoing cycle.

            Volcanoes explain one of those minima. Now there is one minima left to explain.

            Still think its cyclic?

          • barry says:

            bill,

            The “ancients” did not observe 60-year climate cycles. You just made that up.

            You can find calendars based on a 60-year period (eg, Chinese calendar), but these are not based on climate observations.

            The irony of people who say that the global temperature record is unreliable, and who also say that 60 year cycles are evident in it…

            Most people familiar with the temperature records know that they become less certain the further back you go.

            But as you seem to approve of the longer constructions today, perhaps you could point out the inflection points of the 60-year cycles.

            https://tinyurl.com/4486bxbn

            I’m seeing the first ‘cycle’ at 1850 to 1910 or thereabouts, a second from 1910 to 1970, roughly, and then from 1970… well I’m not seeing a curve down yet after 50 years.

            Is that why ‘skeptics’ are so eager for cooling to occur? Is it because they believe that this supposed 60-year cycle “currently stands as the biggest exception to the theory of CO2 being solely responsible for the modern warming over the instrument record.”

            By the way, it is only after 1950 that CO2 is reckoned, according to the IPCC to have been the dominant cause of warming. No straw men, please.

            IPCC AR5 – “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”

            Criticise by all means, but at least properly understand and reflect what it is you are criticising.

          • bill hunter says:

            barry says:

            But as you seem to approve of the longer constructions today, perhaps you could point out the inflection points of the 60-year cycles.

            https://tinyurl.com/4486bxbn

            I’m seeing the first ‘cycle’ at 1850 to 1910 or thereabouts, a second from 1910 to 1970, roughly, and then from 1970… well I’m not seeing a curve down yet after 50 years.
            ———————
            Why should I name the inflection points when you already appear to have named 2 1/2 cycles? Though I would put the end of cycle two at 1976-1980 instead. The cycles have run about 66 years though the astrometeorologists like to claim a celestial 72 year cycle for the effect. Internal cycles like ENSO obviously can create a plus or minus one decade delay or shortening if using the earth’s temperature response as a measuring device. And there is no reason to necessarily believe that the cause is a rigid cycle also as it is clear there is a plus or minus 20% for the length of the so-called solar cycles.
            ——————
            ———————
            ——————-
            —————–

            barry says:
            By the way, it is only after 1950 that CO2 is reckoned, according to the IPCC to have been the dominant cause of warming. No straw men, please.

            IPCC AR5 – “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”

            ————————–
            Well its not a strawman to point out that the entire IPCC is made up of institutional scientists whose institutions depend to a very large extent on the funding derived from gloom and doom forecasts of climate change.

            Nor is it a strawman to point out that not one of the souls that make up the IPCC owe you any obligation to tell you the straight story. The only incentives they have are reappointment, appointment to other cherry positions, and to their employer.

            And despite this people are ignorant to suggest you should believe them like you should blindly believe your doctor.

            Trust your own personal doctor. . . .yes! He owes you an obligation to tell you the straight story. But you should still trust and verify. But one should never trust those that don’t have a legal obligation to tell you the straight story. Every single profession has found the need to create that sort of obligation to protect their credibility.

            to do otherwise is no different than going into a utility rate commission meeting where every soul on the commission works for an energy-selling company.

          • RLH says:

            “Still think its cyclic?”

            Browse though https://tinyurl.com/w6brrffp and its tabs which shows low pass filtering of many climate data sources and tell me if there are cycles there.

          • barry says:

            “Well its not a strawman to point out that the entire IPCC is made up of institutional scientists whose institutions depend to a very large extent on the funding derived from gloom and doom forecasts of climate change…”

            No, that’s just a red herring you’ve brought up when the straw in your man got torched.

            And it’s a false red herring at that. None of the scientific contributors to the IPCC get paid, and the administrative staff are not made up of climate scientists.

            You’re a political animal, bill, which is exactly why you got the IPCC view wrong, why you got your red-herring wrong, and why you have far more interest in rhetoric than analysis.

          • bill hunter says:

            barry says:

            No, thats just a red herring youve brought up when the straw in your man got torched.

            And its a false red herring at that. None of the scientific contributors to the IPCC get paid, and the administrative staff are not made up of climate scientists.
            —————–
            You are just a nave babe barry. All the scientists are paid by the institutions they work for to participate in this. Its exactly like a corporation paying a lobbyist to represent their viewpoint. I can assure you thats the case as that is exactly what i have been doing for almost 25 years representing the interests of NGOs in political processes. And the IPCC is a political process.

            The only red herring around here is the argument these scientists instead have your interest at heart. I have had the experience of reorganizing and changing the culture of large institutions as part of my professional work prior to retiring and devoting my time to not-for-profit volunteer work. The people participating in these processes are politically appointed as suitable for representing the interests of the major institutions with the most political influence who in turn nominate the appointees.

            That is not a slur against any one individual participating. Where it shows though is in how the science is distilled and importance assigned to the science. Its purely political and has zero relationship to the normal processes of science that are based on the scientific method.

            Understand me clearly, the science behind global warming is highly uncertain. It would be insanity to do nothing and ignore it because of the uncertainty. Promoting research into alternative forms of energy is critical should the science determine that CO2 emissions represent a viable threat. But the idea of entering into agreements to allocate emissions among nations is off the rails and way premature. This explains the big disparities seen between the bodies of science represented in the main IPCC reports, the executive summaries, and finally the confabs of Presidents and politicians implementing a socialist approach to a solution of a problem than might not be a problem.

            Barry projects anyway:
            ”Youre a political animal, bill, which is exactly why you got the IPCC view wrong, why you got your red-herring wrong, and why you have far more interest in rhetoric than analysis.”

            LOL! And you are the guy that thinks we should do something now because the alleged built-up imbalance represents an unrealized warming threat while at the same time pooh poohing natural variation because solar activity peaked a few decades ago. To be an advocate for truth Barry you have to sometimes listen to your own silly rhetoric.

          • Nate says:

            Cycles there?

            Seems consistent with others. Possible cycle 1870-2000. No continuing ‘cycles’ further back in time, nor after 2000. You are leaving out 2010-2020?

            What are ignoring Volcano impacts 1880-1920??

            In addition to your 15 y filter, could you somehow remove the ultra-low-frequency, IOW the apparent long-term quadratic trend?

          • Nate says:

            Early study accounting for T record using volcanoes, sun, and CO2. See fig. 5b.

            https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

          • bill hunter says:

            Here is a very good article on the topic.

            https://judithcurry.com/2021/06/01/truth-or-consequences-global-warming-consensus-thinking-and-the-decline-of-public-debate/

            An aware person who has studied history will quickly recognize the obvious difference between religion and science and how traditionally the two have operated.

            When science begins to act like religion wise men who have been around the rodeo more than a few times recognize it. And those who have been around the rodeo long enough understand that its a lack of confidence in defending their position that brings about the approach being that the ”consensus” must be disproved scientifically and in the meantime the tactics will be derision and avoidance of discussion.

          • RLH says:

            “In addition to your 15 y filter, could you somehow remove the ultra-low-frequency, IOW the apparent long-term quadratic trend?”

            If you supply the appropriate frequency band expected then I should be able to provide a low pass filter that isolates that and displays it. You could then be able to use that to remove that signal, cyclic or non cyclic, from further considerations.

            You know, exactly like decomposition in Fourier series is supposed to work.

          • Nate says:

            OK, say 150 y period.

          • RLH says:

            https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2016.0871

            The Fourier decomposition method for nonlinear and non-stationary time series analysis by Pushpendra Singh, Shiv Dutt Joshi, Rakesh Kumar Patney and Kaushik Saha
            15 March 2017

            “For many decades, there has been a general perception in the literature that Fourier methods are not suitable for the analysis of nonlinear and non-stationary data. In this paper, we propose a novel and adaptive Fourier decomposition method (FDM), based on the Fourier theory, and demonstrate its efficacy for the analysis of nonlinear and non-stationary time series.”

          • RLH says:

            “OK, say 150 y period.”

            Trial data?

            I would expect that a Gaussian low pass at 150/2 = 75 y would suffice.

          • RLH says:

            I will require I suspect 4 * 75 years of data to provide the basic curve, longer if you have it

          • Nate says:

            Dont have 300 y except for England.

            http://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=UKMOData/cet&STATION=Central_England_Temperature&TYPE=t&[email protected]

            The paper above has Central Europe, but dont know how to get raw data.

            For standard series it seems easier to fit to a quadratic and subtract.

          • RLH says:

            CET is an odd one. Easy to see wriggles at each end.

            https://tinyurl.com/67xywwvs

          • Mark B says:

            Nate says: In addition to your 15 y filter, could you somehow remove the ultra-low-frequency, IOW the apparent long-term quadratic trend?

            Removing low frequencies implies applying a high pass filter. For instance, one might subtract a 30 year running average from the temperature anomaly series which is an instantiation of high pass filter which nominally passes periodic signals with periods shorter than 30 years.

            An issue is that there will be end effects, that is, one can’t directly calculate a 30 year average closer than 15 years from the endpoint, confounding interpretation of the most recent data.

            The cascade of high pass and low pass filter is a band pass filter. So with 15y low pass and 30y high pass one would nominally see only periodicities in that range.

            To see the alleged 60 year period the high pass would have to be higher than that, thus having end effects on the order of 30 years or more. This quickly becomes problematic with, for instance the GISS series of about 140 year, and for which the most interesting part is the most recent decades.

            In short, what you propose is possible in theory, but probably not appropriate to the problem of interest. Regression techniques, while not without their own issues, make more sense in this context.

          • Mark B says:

            For what it’s worth, here’s a 15 year low pass filter applied to GISS with data to present:

            GISS LOTI LPF

          • Mark B says:

            And a piecewise linear fit to GISS using breakpoint analysis:

            GISS LOTI piecewise linear

          • Nate says:

            Yep. Looks like the apparent cycle has failed to return.

          • Mark B says:

            Nate says: Yep. Looks like the apparent cycle has failed to return.

            With the most recent data, the ~60 year cycle hypothesis seems less plausible than it did a decade ago. Even then, I don’t know that the available high resolution paleo proxies showed supporting evidence.

          • RLH says:

            Mark B: I have a PDO from rainfall records by Chen et al that goes back to 1500s that demonstrates cyclic behavior.

          • RLH says:

            “Removing low frequencies implies applying a high pass filter.”

            Decomposition by removing any long term cyclic or non cyclic behaviors is a better approach IMHO.

          • Mark B says:

            RLH says: “Removing low frequencies implies applying a high pass filter.”

            Decomposition by removing any long term cyclic or non cyclic behaviors is a better approach IMHO.

            That’s pretty much what I concluded in the cited post. My point there was to describe the issues in a pure filtering approach.

          • RLH says:

            DSP decomposition is about identifying and removing cyclic and non-cyclic frequency bands from consideration.

            Which is all I an trying to do. That requires filters. Preferably ones that have low distortion impulse characteristics, like Gaussian.

          • RLH says:

            “The cascade of high pass and low pass filter is a band pass filter.”

            Pass band + stop band = signal.

            A gaussian filter has both a pass band and a stop band.

            Pass band > the window used. Stop band < window used.

            So pass band = low pass.
            Stop band = high pass

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            June 10, 2021 at 7:06 AM
            Yep. Looks like the apparent cycle has failed to return.

            —————————-

            If there is the 60-72 year cycle the most recent warming phase would have ended sometime between 2010 to 2016. . . .beyond the end of the 15 year low pass.

            Continuing forward you could see the blue line pulled down below the existing redline as in the 1940’s.

          • Mark B says:

            bill hunter says: If there is the 60-72 year cycle the most recent warming phase would have ended sometime between 2010 to 2016. . . .beyond the end of the 15 year low pass.

            Fair enough, we’ll see what it looks like in a few years. There is some curious irony to cyclic lukewarmers counting “the pause” years to weigh on the rising side of the cycle.

            Here’s a view with the Lowess smooth extended to 72 years. This intended to show the hypothesized 60-72 year periodic behavior of the 15 year LPF curve vs a trend that nominally suppresses that signal content.

            GISS_LOTI_LPF15_L72.png

          • RLH says:

            Mark B: GISS LOTI LPF https://southstcafe.neocities.org/GISS_LOTI_LPF.png So you are saying that any cyclic behavior which was clearly present until the 1980s has disappeared since?

            That’s very late to be able to claim that it doesn’t exists at all.

            Do you have a mechanism that would operate on that sort of recent timescale?

            But all we have to do is wait another 10-15 years or so and we will see if this is an actual disappearance or some other factor causing any cycle, if present, to be depressed.

          • RLH says:

            I must bring this https://tinyurl.com/pazwzcdf up to date. It clearly shows that there is some wriggle that needs to be explained

          • RLH says:

            Mark B: You invoke Poe’s Law as a defense against Gauss! So much for science

          • Nate says:

            On MarkB’s plot the two clear minima are ~ 55 y apart.

            So the maxima of 1945 ought to repeat in ~ 2000 for a sine wave.

            So that is ~ 20 years late

            The maximum upward slope of the sine wave was ~ 1930, ought to repeat in ~ 1985.

            That one is ~ 35 y late.

          • RLH says:

            I do love it when people will insist on everything being a pure sinusoid. It is extremely unlikely that it would present as such. It is like thinking the the tides and their exact height present in such a simple way in an given ocean basin.

            Of course things will vary in periodicity over time. They will present as sometimes a cycle of 40 years, at others 90. They may even ‘disappear’ for a cycle or two. This is not a finely tuned instrument. In any given ‘basin’ they may well be driven more by other, more local, factors. This is chaotic nature.

            Which is why I prefer the term wriggles. That is a semi chaotic bunch of cyclic, semi cyclic and non-cyclic random behaviors presenting as an overall curve.

            What is needed is a generic low pass filter, longer than weather and shorter than climate, that allows for any frequency or frequencies that may be present to show their presence. If you run a periodogram or other tool over the available climate data, then it rapidly becomes apparent that there is a period, around 15-20 years, where there is little energy in the system.

            Which is why I use it.

          • Mark B says:

            RLH says: June 2, 2021 at 4:57 AM,
            Because there is a well acknowledge 60 year cycle to the weather.

            RLH says: June 12, 2021 at 3:49 AM,
            Mark B: GISS LOTI LPF https://southstcafe.neocities.org/GISS_LOTI_LPF.png So you are saying that any cyclic behavior which was clearly present until the 1980s has disappeared since?

            RLH says: June 14, 2021 at 12:16 AM
            Which is why
            I prefer the term wriggles. That is a semi chaotic bunch of cyclic, semi cyclic and non-cyclic random behaviors presenting as an overall curve.

            I like the terms “consistent” and “coherent”.
            “Consilience” is good too, but we seem to have different objectives here.

          • RLH says:

            Mark B: So are you saying that before 1980 or so there were wriggles in the data and since then there are not?

          • Mark B says:

            RLH says: Mark B: So are you saying that before 1980 or so there were wriggles in the data and since then there are not?

            By your definition “wriggles” is a “semi chaotic bunch of cyclic, semi cyclic and non-cyclic random behaviors presenting as an overall curve” which is so non-specific that it couldn’t possibly go away in any measured time series.

            As I and others said previously the hypothesis of nominally 60-72 year cyclic behavior in GISS LOTI is growing increasingly less plausible in light of recent data. That data is more consistent with the hypothesis of non-periodic cooling perturbations in the early 1900s and the 50s & 60s.

          • Nate says:

            “Of course things will vary in periodicity over time. They will present as sometimes a cycle of 40 years, at others 90. They may even ‘disappear’ for a cycle or two.”

            Ahh, then, not really a ‘a well acknowledge 60 year cycle to the weather” at all.

          • Mark B says:

            RLH, In the not unlikely case that you’re simply trolling the board, it’s kind of a shame the rules don’t allow you to break character long enough take a bow for “wriggle”.

          • Nate says:

            ” They will present as sometimes a cycle of 40 years, at others 90. They may even ‘disappear’ for a cycle or two.”

            Sounds like what we could expect if we have broadband noise that has no special frequencies in it, and apply your filters, 15 y and 75 y to it.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            Ahh, then, not really a ‘a well acknowledge 60 year cycle to the weather” at all.

            —————————–

            No doubt for consistency Nate would argue that a 11 year solar cycle doesn’t exist either using the same argument.

          • Nate says:

            “would argue that”

            Again Bill prefers rebutting things I never claimed.

            Becoming a specialty.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate you were only capable of comprehending half the post. I said if you were consistent you would argue that.

            But you admitting your purpose here as a propaganda slinging liar troll works even better.

          • Nate says:

            Troll handbook: What to do when you have no good arguments?

            Sling ad-homs..sure that’ll get em.

          • bill hunter says:

            Except of course when the fact itself is an adhom. so you also see your own behavior in the same light?

          • Nate says:

            It is fact that you often shoot-down arguments that I NEVER MADE, as you obviously did here.

            I never tried to deny that there is an 10-11 y solar cycle, which is a well established fact.

            Pointing this out is not an ad-hom, it is just a fact. I never made that argument, and never would.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate that because either you lie or make really ignorant arguments.

            Your argument was regarding the regularity of the 60 year cycle not being widely acknowledged because of its irregularity.

            Yet it would require waiting until 2029 for the cycle to cycle to cooling to be as irregular as the 11 year well-acknowledged solar cycle that varies from 9.0 years to 13.6 years a 51% variation rate.

            One can use the 9 year minimum to measure it because the 60 year cycle has 3, 33year half phases in the books and is currently at 40 years for the fourth, which is less than a 25% variance so far.

        • bdgwx says:

          RLH,

          Linear trends have limitations for sure, but they certainly aren’t useless. I’m curious though…which technique would you use to quantify the warming from 1979-present given the UAH-TLT dataset?

          • RLH says:

            Like all signal processing I would use low pass filtering. Preferably with a gaussian or similar sampling characteristic.

          • bdgwx says:

            No doubt those are superior techniques when you want some temporal locality to the fitted curve.

            I think Richard M’s context was to assume the same amount of warming over the previous 40 years will continue through the next 40 years. He just made an arithmetic error. The warming trend via linear regression is +0.14C/decade not +0.14C/40-years.

            I do have a question though. Using a low pass filter on the UAH-TLT dataset how would you answer the question of how much warming occurred over the period of record?

          • RLH says:

            Why do you focus on that narrow question? Nature will not present in such a clear way. It will have cycles and quasi-cycles at multiple frequencies, phases and distributions. It is like asking what will be the precise height of the next tide. An approximation is easy. The exact number is very, very tricky.

          • Willard says:

            > Why do you focus on that narrow question?

            A simple “no, it’s just for curve-fitting purposes” would do, Richard.

          • RLH says:

            What curve fitting?

          • bdgwx says:

            RLH said: Why do you focus on that narrow question?

            Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Richard M’s context was to extrapolate the previous 40 years warming over the next 40 years. To do that we need to objectively quantify the warming that occurred over the last 40 years and extrapolate. Linear regression is one method of doing this. Exponential regression is another. If you know of a better method of quantifying the warming that has already occurred in the UAH-TLT dataset that is still reasonably easy to implement I’ll do the calculation in Excel and we’ll see how it compares.

          • RLH says:

            It is the error range in the input data and what you do with it that matters.

            The first day of your trend could be +/- the uncertainty, let us assume +. the last day likewise but lets choose -.

            Or vice versa. That is the range of slopes over which the data could have been trending.

          • RLH says:

            Willard: I know what that says, I authored it.

          • bdgwx says:

            The standard error on the linear trend is +/- 0.0065C/decade. That means the uncertainty on the +0.56C of warming in 40 years is +/- 0.025C (1-sigma). That means the warming could be as low as +0.51C (2-sigma). That is hardly worth quibbling over, but is still significantly different than the +0.14C figure Richard M used above regardless.

          • RLH says:

            That is still a center to center calculation. It can quite easily be what you claim. What has that to do with the uncertainty range for each daily figure that makes up that range?

            You cannot make a cheap +/-5.0c thermometer into a +/-0.1c one just by taking 1,000,000 measurements with it. You may be able to reduce the central tendency to that figure if the errors when using it are randomly distributed but the inaccuracy will still remain at +/-5.0c. Regardless

          • bdgwx says:

            This has little to do with the uncertainty on daily mean values at single sites. We are discussing the linear regression trend slope in C/decade and the uncertainty on that figure.

            No one is saying that you can make a thermometer more precise/accurate by taking more measurements. We’re saying that the mean of a population of measurements are more precise/accurate as long as the errors are normally distrusted. That is usually the case when dealing with large numbers of instruments.

            And if the thermometer has a bias then the bias cancels out when doing anomaly analysis. The same is true for any dataset that induces a bias as part of its spatial/temporal averaging process. Any bias cancels out either way as long as it is time invariant. In other words, even if our global mean temperature monthly anomalies have a 5C bias on them it won’t matter when you subtract of the baseline reference computed using the same biased dataset.

            The fact remains that if you extrapolate the warming that has occurred as observed by UAH over the next 40 years you will get an additional 0.56C of warming. Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I not saying that WILL happen. It likely won’t because the +0.14C/decade is not likely to remain static. I’m just playing out the what-if scenario Richard M proposed above.

          • RLH says:

            The whole concept of using (min+max)/2 as a daily temperature estimate is wrong as the USCRN shows. That is unless you are prepared to add a range uncertainty to the figures so used.

            See elsewhere in another thread for precise details

          • RLH says:

            “Were saying that the mean of a population of measurements are more precise/accurate as long as the errors are normally distrusted.”

            They are not normally distributed. If you are talking about daily figures constructed using (min+max)/2 that is

          • Willard says:

            > I know what that says, I authored it.

            I’m sure you do, Richard:

            And there we have it. A simple data treatment for the various temperature data sets, a high quality filter that removes the noise and helps us to see the bigger picture. Something to test the various claims made as to how the climate system works. Want to compare it against CO2. Go for it. Want to check SO2. Again fine. Volcanoes? Be my guest.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/16/crowdsourcing-a-full-kernel-cascaded-triple-running-mean-low-pass-filter-no-seriously/

          • RLH says:

            Are you complaining that is works or that you don’t understand the maths behind it?

          • Willard says:

            No, dummy, I’m supporting my claim that your filter is meant for curve fitting.

          • barry says:

            “You cannot make a cheap +/-5.0c thermometer into a +/-0.1c one just by taking 1,000,000 measurements with it.”

            You say that so often that it has become a mantra, such that you drop it when discussing the satellite record, as now (UAH).

            You understand, I hope, that the satellite global temperature does not rely on thermometers?

            It is such a mantra, that not only does it occlude your mind when discussing the satellite record, it prevents you from acknowledging that many measurements DO improve the uncertainty on the ESTIMATE.

            And when working with anomalies, taking the ‘true’ temperature doesn’t matter, as long as the offset, if any, is consistent.

            The only thing that could possibly matter is if there is a time-dependent bias.

          • RLH says:

            “You understand, I hope, that the satellite global temperature does not rely on thermometers?”

            Do you understand what the satellite repeat cycle rate for any arbitrary lat/long means for signal processing accuracy of the measurements?

          • RLH says:

            “Im supporting my claim that your filter is meant for curve fitting.”

            Then you would be lying at best, distracting at least.

            The maths behind using gaussian sampling is well supported in the signal processing world. Especially for step changes or random movements in the input data.

          • Nate says:

            Well, notice that fancy bogus curve fit did a bang up job predicting the next 5 years…

          • RLH says:

            You do need to add the new data to get it up to date

          • Nate says:

            One can fit every wiggle in that series but not really useful to fit noise when interested in long-term climate change.

          • RLH says:

            Low pass filters do not do curve fitting.

          • RLH says:

            Interesting that VP supports the use of CTRMs but used here in a 22 year low pass. I’m sure you are not suggesting that VP does spurious curve fitting are you?

          • RLH says:

            Decomposing is not curve fitting

          • Willard says:

            You decided on a function, then applied it to the data. You then get a curve that filters out what you pretend is noise. Curve fitting. No intent necessary.

            I just showed you a solution within a God damn millikelvin, btw.

          • RLH says:

            A function that provides a gaussian low pass filter. One which has no little to no impact on the data supplied. As VP notes. I believe him

          • RLH says:

            You do realize that one of the and pass filters used is at 15 years don’t you? How long is climate supposed to be as a summation of weather? Do you know what an energy sweep of sampled data is and why you use it?

          • Willard says:

            Here is what you yourself say, Richard:

            And there we have it. A simple data treatment for the various temperature data sets, a high quality filter that removes the noise and helps us to see the bigger picture. Something to test the various claims made as to how the climate system works. Want to compare it against CO2. Go for it. Want to check SO2. Again fine. Volcanoes? Be my guest.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/16/crowdsourcing-a-full-kernel-cascaded-triple-running-mean-low-pass-filter-no-seriously/

            A food fight won’t erase the record.

            You got nothing against this.

          • RLH says:

            Those who say that filters remove data obviously have never done anything with band pass ones. They split the information into 2 parts, an upper part and a lower part. In digital (and even in analogue but there with some losses and phase problems) you can always get the bit you are not looking at by subtracting what you are looking at from the original signal. Which you always have to hand.

          • RLH says:

            “Were saying that the mean of a population of measurements are more precise/accurate as long as the errors are normally distrusted.”

            That’s a BIG assumption right there. There is NO evidence that day to day temperatures are normally distributed. In fact there is firm evidence to the contrary.

          • Willard says:

            > In digital (and even in analogue but there with some losses and phase problems) you can always get the bit you are not looking at by subtracting what you are looking at from the original signal.

            If you assume to have the original signal, Richard, you haven’t reconstructed it, have you?

          • RLH says:

            Idiot. The original signal before the low pass filter.

          • Willard says:

            “Original signal” isn’t that hard to grok, Richard. What I’m asking is how you get it back from your output and that other part you filter out. If you prefer, I’m asking if your filter is invertible.

            Once again you’re stuck within your own perspective.

          • RLH says:

            What part of band pass filter do you not understand? You know, the type of filter than splits the data into low pass and high pass.

            That is what we are talking about.

            A filter that has its corner frequency at 15 years. Thus removing the ‘noise’ of weather and annual cycles but preserves climate and other signals.

            And still you don’t like it because it has the word filter in its title.

            Signal processing is done this way all the time.

          • RLH says:

            “When I applied a standard time/energy low pass filter sweep against the data I noticed that there is a sweet spot around 12-20 years where the output changes very little. This looks like it may well be a good stop/pass band binary chop point. So I choose 15 years as the roll off point to see what happens. Remember this is a standard low pass/band-pass filter, similar to the one that splits telephone from broadband to connect to the Internet. Using this approach, all frequencies of any period above 15 years are fully preserved in the output and all frequencies below that point are completely removed.”

          • Willard says:

            I’m asking a simple question, Richard. A “no, it can’t” would do. A “yes, and here’s how” would do too. If it’s “no, it can’t,” it does not matter if you can claim to have all the original data. You lost information.

            Which is fine, really. I already hinted that not having invertibility is no big deal.

            If you don’t know, it’s no big deal either.

          • RLH says:

            I don’t know how much simpler I can make

            signal – high pass = low pass
            signal – low pass = high pass
            signal = high pass + low pass

            So, yes, I can get one from the other (provided I have the original signal).

          • Willard says:

            > signal = high pass + low pass

            So that’s a yes, your filter is indeed invertible.

            You should then be able to get your signal back by “adding” back your two bins.

            How does that “+” work exactly?

          • RLH says:

            “How does that + work exactly?”

            If we were in analogue them a simple summation. In digital exactly the same.

            You appear to be under the delusion that filters lose information. Nothing could be further from the truth. Filters (of the type we are talking about) assign information to either pass band or stop band. Nothing is ‘lost’

          • Willard says:

            The point of smoothing data is usually to reduce information, Richard. Glad to know that you found a reverse filter that behaves so well it can reconstruct the climate data you’re smoothing.

          • RLH says:

            Band pass filtering is not smoothing. It is selecting frequency ranges.

            Terms like smoothing, lost information, etc. just show that you are prejudiced against the use of filters in signal processing.

          • Willard says:

            “A low pass filter is the basis for most smoothing methods.”

            https://www.l3harrisgeospatial.com/docs/lowpassfilter.html

          • RLH says:

            Can be used as is not the same as is.

            LPs can also be used as a simple low pass as it is here, to extract all frequencies below a corner frequency. i.e. 15 years

            That’s the problem with taking simple things and using them as if you know what you are talking about

          • RLH says:

            “Now, when reviewing the plot above some have claimed that this is a curve fitting or a cycle mania exercise. However, the data hasnt been fit to anything, I just applied a filter. Then out pops some wriggle in that plot which the data draws all on its own at around ~60 years. Its the data what done it not me! If you see any cycle in graph, then thats your perception. What you cant do is say the wriggle is not there. Thats what the DATA says is there.”

          • Willard says:

            > Then out pops some wriggle

            You mean smooth wriggles:

            Low-pass filters provide a smoother form of a signal, removing the short-term fluctuations and leaving the longer-term trend.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-pass_filter

          • RLH says:

            With a corner frequency at 15 years. Nothing in climate is lost. All annual and weather is removed.

          • Nate says:

            BTW, here is a calculation of total Effective Radiative Forcings.

            http://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=LeedsData/Total_ERF&[email protected]

            Gives you an idea of the causes of Temperature trend other than internal cycles.

            And here is just Anthro portion.

            http://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=LeedsData/Anthropogenic_total_ERF&[email protected]

            Notice there is a Raw Data button to obtain data.

            One could for example scale this data appropriately and subtract from Temperature to see what remains.

          • RLH says:

            Doesn’t look like there is much variance in that data

          • Nate says:

            Yep. Lacking internal variability like ENSO.

          • RLH says:

            Nate: PDO shows long term cyclic behaviors

          • Nate says:

            Ok, how much does PDO contribute to global temp? You have a long record?

          • RLH says:

            Now run a greater than 15 year low pass filter (running mean if you cannot source anything else) and see what happens.

            I have a proxy set for the PDO from Shen at al based on rainfall records that goes back to 1470.

            Shen, C., W.-C. Wang, W. Gong, and Z. Hao. 2006.
            A Pacific Decadal Oscillation record since 1470 AD reconstructed
            from proxy data of summer rainfall over eastern China.
            Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L03702, February 2006.

          • RLH says:

            For you much shorter dataset try

            low-pass box 180 month

          • RLH says:

            Willard: Just ask VP if 12, 10, 8 is not a good implementation of his 1, 1.2067 and then 1.5478 observations to produce a 12 month Gaussian.

          • Willard says:

            Ain’t your monkey, Richard.

          • RLH says:

            You said you were great friends and met very few days/weeks

        • Richard M says:

          Bdgwx, I wasn’t assuming any trend but if you use what I stated the trend would be .035 C / decade (.14/4).

      • Bindidon says:

        ” Bdgwx, it appears the 40 year baseline would produce something like 0.14 C. ”

        ” In another 40 years (2061) we might skyrocket to a 0.28 C anomaly. ”

        Yeah.

        We see how knowledgeably the geniuses write about simplest things like a trend per decade.

        Until now I thought only the Robertson dumbie would write such a nonsense.

        It seems I was ‘plain wrong’.

        Ah well ah well, Flynn would have said.

        J.-P. D.

  4. E. Schaffer says:

    I will still go with the reduction of contrails being a primary reason for temperature decline, although there is certainly a lot of NINO/NINA noise.

    Anyhow, people might appreciate my profound re-analysis of the GHE.

    https://greenhousedefect.com/

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gschaffer…”I will still go with the reduction of contrails…”

      As Roy Rogers (and Dale Evans) would have said, “Happy contrails to you”.

  5. CO2isLife says:

    So basically we are statistically the same as we were back in Mid-1980s. CO2 has increased by 25%, and Temperatures haven’t changed. How can anyone say with a straight fact that CO2 drives temperatures. We don’t need proxies for the past 40 years, we have actual measurements, and the models still fail miserably. Why? They model CO2 instead of what is actually causing the warming.

    Here are the charts that prove all this CO2 drives temperature hype is nothing but nonsense.
    https://imgur.com/a/IrE63Xo

    • Bellman says:

      There was only one month during the 1980s warmer than this month, only 14 equal to or warmer than last month.

      How did you decide that current temperatures are statistically the same as they were in the mid 80s?

      • CO2isLife says:

        Bellman, help me understand how a flux that falls below a level set 40 years ago somehow is evidence of CO2 causing warming? Unless the atmosphere is a battery, there has been absolutely 0.00 energy accumulated in the atmosphere over 40 years every though CO2 increased by 25%. Also, the current level is statistically the same as basically the entire 40 years to a 95 or more confidence level. I’m pretty sure that the current level is well within 3 standard deviations, so if is basically 0.00, and not statistically different from 0.00. Lastly, isolate the locations that are natural controls for CO2 and water vapor and you get no warming at all.
        https://imgur.com/a/IrE63Xo

        • Ball4 says:

          CO2isLife, as I have been pointing out, the black climate line in the top post moved up (increased) at the last change so you are wrong, there has been a lower atm. thermodynamic internal energy increase measured in the period globally for the Earth’s near surface climate during the satellite era.

          Sure, if anyone cherry picks station locations & time periods, anyone can get no warming at all due the many forcing variables. The challenge for global climate is better handled properly using all the available statistically meaningful observed multidecadal weather data.

          • CO2isLife says:

            Ball4 says: CO2isLife, as I have been pointing out, the black climate line in the top post moved up (increased)

            CO2 has increased 25% since that graphic started, and the temperature is up 0.08 Degree, basically statistically 0, and well within the normal variation of temperatures. Over that time period temperatures have increased, decreased, remained flat. CO2 increased. If you think you can take an independent variable that only increases, and model something that increases, decreases and remains flat apparently in a nearly random pattern or tied to El Ninos that have nothing to do with CO2, then you have discovered a whole new form of statistics and mathematics.

          • Craig T says:

            The TLT data above shows over 0.5C warming during the last 40 years.

          • Bellman says:

            CO2isLife

            “CO2 has increased 25% since that graphic started, and the temperature is up 0.08 Degree…”

            May 2021 is up 0.08 from the 1991-2020 average, not up by that much over the period CO2 increased by 25%.

            If you insist in comparing individual months, you could compare 2021 with the first monthly UAH data, December 1978, which was -0.48, so the temperature has increased by 0.56 degrees over that period.

          • CO2isLife says:

            Ball4 Says: CO2isLife, as I have been pointing out, the black climate line in the top post moved up (increased) at the last change so you are wrong, there has been a lower atm. thermodynamic internal energy increase

            I don’t think you are grasping the concept here. Last month the system zeroed out, and fell below zero. The atmosphere isn’t a battery, the energy level in the atmosphere was equal to the level 40 years ago. CO2 had increased over the past 40 years by 25%, and has had no measurable effect. Clearly, the higher CO2 level didn’t “trap” energy in the atmosphere. Now, this month the temperature increased. That means energy was added to the system. Thermalizing outgoing radiation doesn’t add energy to the system. Incoming radiation has to be the cause of the warming, not CO2.

            Anyway, explain this. How can CO2 increase by 25% and not cause any warming. Even if I give you the statistically insignificant 0.08Degree increase as actual warming, that is nothing to get alarmed about. Also, how does CO2 cause such variability in the temperature and ocean oscillations?

            You have to admit that is CO2 is such a great threat, those temperature numbers aren’t justifying the hype. My bet is that we will continue lower from here, and we are doing nothing more than recovering from an El Nino caused bump in temperatures.

          • Ball4 says:

            “How can CO2 increase by 25% and not cause any warming.”

            CO2 was a monotonic game in town during the black line period and the black line reasonably and meaningfully measured did move up the amount as predicted from the increase in global atm. IR opacity due added ppm CO2.

            “Incoming radiation has to be the cause of the warming, not CO2.”

            Well, sure, SW and LW acted as predicted on the increased lower atm. IR opacity due added ppm CO2. The upper atm. regions equally cooled in response.

            I will leave your political comments for someone else.

        • angech says:

          CO2isLife says: help me understand
          Not relevant.
          The question is how to sort the signal out from the background noise [natural variability.
          The evidence does not lie in the effect which is very small but in the physics including back radiation.
          Theologians often have to chuck the baby out with the bath water.

        • Bellman says:

          CO2isLife,

          “Bellman, help me understand how a flux that falls below a level set 40 years ago somehow is evidence of CO2 causing warming?”

          Always a bit of a tell when someone changes the subject like that. I was asking how you determined temperatures today are the same as in the mid-eighties. I said nothing about what causes of any warming might be.

          “Unless the atmosphere is a battery, there has been absolutely 0.00 energy accumulated in the atmosphere over 40 years every though CO2 increased by 25%.”

          The atmosphere is not like a battery. That’s why the fluctuations of individual months do not tell you much about the current temperature. The world doesn’t accumulate energy like a battery, rather it fluctuates around an “expected” value.

          “Also, the current level is statistically the same as basically the entire 40 years to a 95 or more confidence level.”

          That’s a flawed way of looking at it. If you take the confidence interval of a warming data set, of course the range of values will be large because the range includes the warming. It’s inevitable that most months will be within the 95% confidence interval because by definition only 5% of months should be outside it.

          If you want to compare current temperatures with the 1980s, you need to look at the confidence interval of the 1980s. It seems pretty obvious though, that if current months are considered cold are comprable to the warmest months during the 80s, there must have been some warming.

          • barry says:

            CO2isLife has been answered on this and many other objections here. They are impervious to learning anything, and simply repeat the same fatuous lines. I recommend not wasting your time.

    • gbaikie says:

      We have been living [maybe some of us} for 34 million years in an icehouse climate.
      It’s acceptable to call an icehouse climate, an Ice Age, 34 million year Ice Age, called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age or it’s also called the Antarctic Glaciation.
      What it’s not called is Greenhouse Climate or it’s not a Hothouse Climate. And it seems to me, Greenhouse or Hothouse climates don’t last a long time {in terms of tens of millions of years.
      It’s unlikely our current civilization {if you want to call it that] is not going to be in a Greenhouse Climate.
      Or it’s close to impossible that within the next 1000 year, Earth’s climate could go from Icehouse to a Greenhouse climate.

      Now due to manner Earth goes around the Sun, which usually called the the Milankovitch hypothesis with it’s Milankovitch cycles, the Earth climate warms and cools, which called glaciation period and warmer shorter period between than called interglacial period.
      Our present interglacial period is call the Holocene. And it appears to me, we past our peak in our Holocene, and possible within thousand years or so, we might mark a time where have considered we have entered a glaciation period.
      We actually sort of already did this, as called a period recently the Little Ice Age, and some guess the Little Ice Age might been the beginning, but more than 100 year later, it seems it was not the beginning. And the “not the beginning” morphed into some crazy people thinking Earth is going in the direction of the Planet Venus.
      Everyone knows such people were idiots, nor is their any shortage of human idiots. Though some call them liars and/or have “serious” mental problems. It seem humans are liars, but some people become more lost in their delusions they get to from constantly lying. They end up like Joe Biden {or even worse} or they simply spend too much of their lives as politicans or mere wannabes.
      Anyhow, icehouse climate’s definition tells you why Earth is cold. Part definition of Icehouse or greenhouse climate is coolness of the Ocean.
      The average temperature of ocean is said to be 3.5 C. And commonly said this way, over 90% of the ocean is 3 C or colder.
      Getting out of this Icehouse climate doesn’t require the ocean warm by much, a few or several degrees. But Greenhouse climate requires the ocean to warm by quite a lot, like 10 degrees or more.
      Anyhow the average temperature of our ocean has never warmed quickly- unless something one call “world ending” happens. 100 km diameter space rock hitting Earth is easily something one could call “world ending” and mass extinction type events. And Earth has had many of them during it’s long history.

  6. CO2isLife says:

    Germanys DWD: May 2021 Among Coldest In 140 Years Spring 2021 Clearly Too Cool
    http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.fxIbe7zk.dpbs

  7. TheFinalNail says:

    Good spot!

    • RLH says:

      “Our results indicate that when using maximum or
      minimum temperatures from the U.S. Cooperative
      Station Network, it is essential to employ yet another
      bias correction. Without adjustments to the data, large scale area averages of mean maximum and minimum
      temperature could have biases as large as 0.4° and
      0.3°C, respectively, and even larger for the mean
      diurnal temperature range (0.7°C). “

      • Willard says:

        ” The robustness of the biases we obtained from our analysis was derived from the eight combinations of tests we performed. “

        • RLH says:

          But the data we started with….

          • Willard says:

            With emphasis:

            “The robustness of the biases we obtained from our analysis was derived from the eight combinations of tests we performed.”

            Or if you prefer, with emphasis…

          • RLH says:

            Tell me how to create a robust anomaly dataset with data that has a random left and right skew (or none at all) at any given point on any given day.

          • Willard says:

            Would you like mustard or mayo in your sammich, Richard?

            Or are you suggesting you don’t know how to test and are just saying stuff you only support by eyeballing graphs?

          • RLH says:

            I am suggesting that you cannot create an anomaly dataset with randomly skewed data. You get way too many sidebands.

          • Willard says:

            Please send your suggestions to the NOAA, Richard.

            They might update their FAQ on anomalies.

          • RLH says:

            Anomalies are normally (pun) created assuming that the data is normally distributed. Skewed data produces way too many ‘sidebands’ which can make them almost flat or even U shaped depending on the degree of skew and its occurrence

          • Willard says:

            I thought anomalies were mere substractions:

            A temperature anomaly is the departure from the average temperature, positive or negative, over a certain period (day, week, month or year). In standard usage, the normal average temperature would be calculated over a period of at least 30 years over an homogeneous geographic region. For example, if the reference value is 15 C, and the measured temperature is 17 C, then the temperature anomaly is +2 C (i.e., 17 C −15 C).

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_anomaly

            I suppose one could argue that anomalies are what remains when you filter out the reference values. The reverse function would then be: add the reference value to each anomaly!

          • RLH says:

            The reference periods from which anomalies are created make the assumption that data within them is normally distributed for each period in the sequence.

            In fact because of the normally short periods of time, 30 cycles for instance, quite a bit of the ‘noise’ in each time period leaks through to the output.

  8. Richard M says:

    The HadSST3 November anomaly was down only .017 which led me to expect a UAH number pretty close to April. December 2020 had a bigger drop of .092 so it’s possible we will see one more value close to zero before heading up again.

    What will be more interesting is where we are around September when the La Nina effect is gone.

  9. Bindidon says:

    Some more serious data concerning Germany

    Gosselin’s (No?)TricksZone is always 100% fixated on showing what cools here and there, but never tells about what doesn’t cool at all.

    1. Here is a chart showing, for Germany from 1880 till 2021, absolute and anomaly data:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k7cy95jYxFm_mh-ovnLCWXA8gl-3e4Lm/view

    This is the chart of a country which is moderately warming, and is way away from any cooling.

    For the last 30 years, the absolute data has a trend of
    0.09 +- 0.32 C / decade (hmmh)

    For the same period, the anomaly data has a trend of
    0.34 +- 0.09 C / decade

    *
    2. This is a chart showing for Germany, out of the same absolute data, the usual, seasonal separations (DJF, MMA, JJA, SON):

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_Cua0oSCHG3-UCln5kuImVcUo2XXnC1N/view

    It is easy to see that only spring data shows a negative trend since 30 years, but that conversely, the winter data has a pretty good positive trend.

    For the last 30 years, the winter data has a trend of
    0.36 +- 0.32 C / decade

    For the same period, the spring data has a trend of
    -0.14 +- 0.16 C / decade

    *
    Germany has never been a highly warming corner.

    But to keep fixated on decreasing spring temperatures while keeping silent about what happens during the winters: That is simply dishonest.

    J.-P. D.

    • Swenson says:

      Binny,

      So what warming trend have you calculated?

      It doesn’t really matter, because you refuse to commit yourself to how long it will continue!

      Grow some cojones, Binny. Take a wild stab – will the seas boil dry within 10,000 years?

      Cat got your tongue?

      • Bindidon says:

        As usual: dumbie Flynnson’s pseudocultivated sarcasm.
        How boring that the guy can’t stop with that.

        • Swenson says:

          As usual, Binny seems to be bereft of cojones – demands others demonstrate theirs, obviously jealous.

          However, he refuses to state the trend he spends so much time boasting about working on. I don’t blame him – he realises he will look very stupid, if he claims it will keep going until the Earth melts!

          He will also look very stupid if he has to explain when the trend will stop, and try to explain why.

          He looks very stupid anyway – with or without cojones!

    • esalil says:

      Is it somehow dangerous to the humanity or to the nature that winters are warming?

      • Bindidon says:

        esalil

        I have nothing against warm winters.
        I have something against cool springs.
        I have much against cool Mays!

        But… I don’t like people always exaggerating situations in whichever direction.

        Weeks ago, the TricksZone wrote a ‘Woooah’ thread about the ‘coolest April in Germany so far’.

        By end of June, all 929 German stations with valuable 2021 data will have sent their May stuff to NOAA’s GHCN daily corner.

        We will then see how that looks like for the whole spring in full historical comparison.

        J.-P. D.

    • RLH says:

      About what I would expect

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”Here is a chart showing, for Germany from 1880 till 2021, absolute and anomaly data:”

      Yet another faked graph by Binny.

      • RLH says:

        You can’t call it fake without examining the methodology

        • Bindidon says:

          RLH

          Don’t care about Robertson’s trash.

          It’s compulsive, like his permanent hatred against NOAA, GISS, Had-CRUT, RSS etc etc.

          Not only is he unable to examine any methodology behind data processing; he is above all unable to process any data.

          J.-P. D.

  10. Darwin Wyatt says:

    At the risk of setting off the crazies, exactly how much co2 must we emit to prevent the next ice age? I gots to know!

  11. barry says:

    A few years back there were a couple of posts about the Oroville Damn overflow, and I think greenies were getting the blame from the regulars here.

    So there is a you tube vid out where the vlogger spells out what happened based on a 600 page report prepared to assess what went wrong.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxNM4DGBRMU

    Here’s the report:

    https://damsafety.org/sites/default/files/files/Independent%20Forensic%20Team%20Report%20Final%2001-05-18.pdf

    • barry says:

      Short story is that the original geological survey was wrong, and the spillway was designed poorly. Engineers made the original errors, and these were compounded later.

      • RLH says:

        Watched it live and agree with the report.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Short story is that the original geological survey was wrong, and the spillway was designed poorly”.

        And the reason for that is typical. California residents don’t want to pay out the money required to build a proper dam. Every year they suffer from wildfires because they are too cheap to spend the money for proper fire protection.

        At the same time, they probably have the highest per capita swimming pools in the world. A state that suffers from droughts regularly does not mind using valuable water to fill swimming pools while wasting it further on car washes and water slide fun parks.

        California, despite it’s reputation as a fun state is just plain weird.

      • barry says:

        Your harrumphing is happily ignored, Gordon. The report is there for you to read, and become informed, rather than take a blog comment as an opportunity to lash something you don’t like.

  12. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”It is really incredible how many people insist on what is an evidence, as in 2016 we had the highest UAH LT anomaly since beginning”.

    Yes, Binny, put away your number-crunching calculator and look at the evidence. Prior to the record EN in early 2016, there had been a flat trend for 18 years The EN raised the global average and for some reason those high temps lingered for 4 years, going up and down. However, the average trend ‘looks’ pretty flat albeit about 0.1C above the 18 year flat trend average.

    The same thing happened after the 1998 EN, a step increase. Seems the ocean oscillations are playing around with the global average, just as Tsonis claimed.

  13. Tim Wells says:

    To say spring and summer only just started in the UK I find this strange, I have seen the extreme cold weather reports around the world and volcanos are going mad every where.

    • RLH says:

      Weather is not climate

    • Bindidon says:

      Tim Wells

      The cold around western Europe (below 60N of course) are due to the coupling of

      – an increase of low pressure areas travelling from Northwest Atlantic regions down to Denmark, and all turning CCW;

      – an unusually stable high pressure area located between Portugal and madeira, turning CW of course.

      Draw a picture of that, and you soon understand that this worked like a giant Arctic air aspirator all the time between March and now.

      Duh! Grrrand Coooling ahead.

      J.-P. D.

  14. Gordon Robertson says:

    willard…”Heat alerts have been issued by the National Weather Service in parts of California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Idaho”.

    Yes, Willard, summer is nigh and heat alerts tend to occur in summer. Since we are talking about the US, particularly the West – Northwest, remember that the heat wave record for the US is still in the 1930s and well ahead of anything today.

    And don’t forget as well, we are talking a few tenths of a degree average warming. All this catastrophic nonsense has been about 1 C over the past 150 years, and most of it is re-warming from the Little Ice Age.

    • Entropic man says:

      ” It is re-warming from the Little Ice Age.”

      I never understood this.

      Why did we cool during the LIA?

      How much did we cool?

      Why are we re-warming?

      How long will the re-warming continue?

      At what temperature can we expect to stabilise?

      • Bindidon says:

        Entropic man

        And above all: if it was rewarming from the LIA all the time, why has it been so cold between 1880 and 1920, and between 1940 and 1980?

        Robertson ignores really everything what doesn’t fit into his trivial narrative.

        J.-P. D.

        • RLH says:

          Do linear trends suggest that cooling occurred in the centauries before the start point at the same rate or is this another attempt to create a hockey stick?

          • Bindidon says:

            RLH

            I couldn’t decipher this rather introverted message.
            Please develop in clearer terms.

            J.-P. D.

          • RLH says:

            An observation that if linear trends show warming in the decades ahead then they also show a cooling in the decades prior.

          • Bindidon says:

            RLH

            No progress, sorry. You often write very general statements.

            Let me be a bit more concrete concerning this boring ‘hockey stick’ stuff.

            Last year I downloaded a PAGES2K article

            https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788

            together with the data.

            Out of that, I made some comparisons of their temperature series for the ‘thermometer era’, one with JMA (from 1891) and one from Had-CRUT4 (from 1850), together with UAH LT.

            Here is the second one:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H3mDVGgtHXG4Nct8LM9qcB85jnM1U_v1/view

            Then I made a graph out of their complete series, starting with 0 AD:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QNmA5_rTVCHEOCo87TcPvmuB2GO_jiSV/view

            It is evident that what looks quite flat when occupying 100 % of a full 150 year interval, suddenly looks quite different when becoming 7.5 % of a 2000 year interval.

            *
            Now, maybe you geometrically accept that stick look, but nonetheless doubt a lot about the MWP and the Roman era looking so horribly low, compared with today.

            Then please address your contradictory claims to the PAGES2K people… it makes few sense to restrict your doubt to a blog like this.

            J.-P. D.

          • RLH says:

            “No progress, sorry. You often write very general statements.”

            I am sorry. I thought I was being clear.

            A linear trend has 2 ends. One for the future. One for the past. I at any point an observation is made about the future then a similar observation can be made about the past.

            So if the linear trend future ‘shows’ a warming trend then a similar conclusion could be drawn about the past. Continuous warming ahead means continuous cooling in the past.

            Unless an observation is made that only recent warming is implied in which case we have a hockey stick, starting with the bend possibly at the beginning of the linear trend.

          • Bindidon says:

            RLH

            Now you ‘speak’ clearly.

            What you write is the reason why I mention linear estimates in comment texts, but prefer to use running means in graphs, whose period is subjectively adapted to the data shown (e.g. 36 months for the satellite era).

            J.-P. D.

          • RLH says:

            Box car sampled running means are probably the worst mathematical choice there is. See the article over on WUWT referred elsewhere if you want the full details.

            Do at least use gaussian input sampling filter or a CTRM filter (which is possibly easier to implement – just 2 added steps to what you are doing right now) and reduce the mathematical errors to close to 0.

          • Willard says:

            > See the article over on WUWT referred elsewhere if you want the full details.

            There is no such detail in your post, Richard.

            Invertibility is cool in theory, but what does it give us here?

          • RLH says:

            “Invertibility”

            What has that to do with what we are discussing?

          • Bindidon says:

            RLH

            ” Box car sampled running means are probably the worst mathematical choice there is. See the article over on WUWT referred elsewhere if you want the full details.

            Do at least use gaussian input sampling filter or a CTRM filter (which is possibly easier to implement – just 2 added steps to what you are doing right now) and reduce the mathematical errors to close to 0. ”

            *
            When will you FINALLY stop writing here this pompous stuff, RLH, and start doing YOURSELF what you expect from others?

            I’m getting sad of your condescending remarks lacking any real, proving data coming from your side.

            At WUWT, there are dozens and dozens of people like you, who speak loud but never show anything of their own.

            J.-P. D.

          • RLH says:

            When you start reading the article and see the mathematic reasons why box cars are the worst possible choice.

            Or would you prefer to disagree with Vaugh Pratt as to the accuracies of CRTM filters?

          • RLH says:

            “who speak loud but never show anything of their own.”

            Sure. It is not like I don’t show the data, methodologies, code or anything else for open criticism.

          • Bindidon says:

            RLH

            I repeat: as many, you speak loud but show nothing.

            Case closed for me…

            J.-P. D.

          • Willard says:

            > What has that to do with what we are discussing?

            You said that “Box car sampled running means are probably the worst mathematical choice there is.” Then you handwaved to your post. Your post does not contain anything to support that claim.

            If you prefer more direct:

            > Nothing is lost

            So give us a workflow using a freeware image processing package (e.g. gimp). If you can do it then youve just got the Noble prize for physics cause I know a whole populous of astronomers (including astrophysicist) who need your brilliance right now.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/16/crowdsourcing-a-full-kernel-cascaded-triple-running-mean-low-pass-filter-no-seriously/#comment-1220890

          • RLH says:

            “Then you handwaved to your post. Your post does not contain anything to support that claim.”

            So you didn’t understand all that complex maths then?

            Please enlighten us as to the mathematical errors introduced by using ‘Square wave’ or ‘box car’ sampling methods as compared to gaussian windows.

          • RLH says:

            “So give us a workflow using a freeware image processing package (e.g. gimp).”

            Signal – low pass = high pass
            Signal – high pass = low pass
            Low pass + high pass = signal

            We have the advantage of always having the signal to use. Before or after the filters.

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH, I agree that “box car” (moving average) filtering is a poor choice. I presented a paper using a modified cosine filter to compare satellite data sets, which you may find interesting. The results demonstrated clear differences between the data sets, which point to a potential error in the UAH processing to combine the data from successive satellites into continuous time series. Other researchers have found similar problem areas, which continue within the current UAH product(s) AIUI.

          • Willard says:

            > So you didn’t understand all that complex maths then?

            There’s no complex maths in your post, Richard.

          • RLH says:

            So tell me what are the advantages and disadvantages of ‘box car’ over gaussian then.

          • RLH says:

            “RLH, I agree that box car (moving average) filtering is a poor choice. I presented a paper using a modified cosine filter to compare satellite data sets, which you may find interesting.”

            Read my article (and comments) for details on a whole load of proposed filters and why CTRM is the easiest and simplest solution.

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH, I found your article, but I haven’t had the time to digest the comments.

            I should note that one must use an odd number of data points, whereas you used even numbers. A simple centered moving average with an odd number of points would preserve the timing of the result WRT the original data. Also, as you mention aliasing is a problem, the moving average will add a component to the output with the same period as the averaging period. I’m not sure what the consequences would be when applying repeated filtering with other moving averages. Of course, one would lose data points at each end of the filter outputs, which will compound the loss of data at the ends. Your suggestion to use convolution may introduce errors, though I’m not familiar with the technique you suggest.

            When applying a sliding window filter to time series, such as climate data, there’s another problem. Part of the data is the result of non-cyclic events, such as volcanic eruptions or even solar flares, which introduce “spikes” into the climate data set. A large volcanic eruption dumps a single sided impulse with a rapid rise and exponential decay into the climate system. Running a sliding window filter over the resulting data “smooths” that input such that the effects appear in the output before the actual date of the eruption. To see what I mean, try running a moving average across a test case with a single impulse or an impulse with exponential decay. When plotted, the area under the resulting curve will be the same as that under the original input, but spread over a wider period.

          • RLH says:

            “I should note that one must use an odd number of data points, whereas you used even numbers. A simple centered moving average with an odd number of points would preserve the timing of the result WRT the original data.”

            Or you could shift the output by 1 month.

          • E. Swanson says:

            RHL wrote:

            Or you could shift the output by 1 month.

            Would that be the month before or the month after?

            For example, the satellite monthly data is an average over the entire month, thus the associated time point should be the middle of the month. Using an odd number of points assigns the resulting value to the middle of the month, as in the original data.

          • RLH says:

            Months consist of 28,29,30 and 31 days.

            Which center day of the month would you suggest is used?

            As the year, too, is 375 or 366 days long where then is the center of the year? In month 5 or month 6?

          • RLH says:

            Typing without re-reading what I type

            As the year, too, is 365 or 366 days long where then is the center of the year? In month 6 or month 7?

  15. RLH says:

    So it looks like a paper with the title

    “Temperature readings alone, from both ground based thermometers and satellite ones, do not provide a reasonable estimate of thermal energy in the lower atmosphere without taking into account, moisture content of the air, wind and pressure, and frost, ice, snow, rain on the surface”

    is worth considering.

    Anything others would like to add?

    • Bindidon says:

      RLH

      What you write is so desperately, tremendously evident that I’m asking why you feel the need to write about it anyway on this blog.

      Go, RLH, study how climate models are really constructed, and send their designers and constructor your wonderful critique.

      We are all simple lay(wo)men here, and mostly talk about temperature, sea ice extent, sea level, solar flux and the like.

      J.-P. D.

    • RLH says:

      After refection I suppose I should add, the thickness of the PBL, the height of the cloud layer, the thickness, density pf that cloud layer to that at least

    • Nate says:

      “do not provide a reasonable estimate of thermal energy in the lower atmosphere without taking into account, moisture
      content of the air, wind and pressure, and frost, ice, snow, rain on the surface

      Seems you like to emphasize complications.

      You dont think weather effectively moves thermal energy around between all these?

      I agree that temperature is not sufficient for comparing desert and rainforest locations.

      But for a global measure of thermal energy, temperature is fine.

      Still better to look at ocean heat content which is vast majority of thermal energy. Its been consistently rising in last 25y.

      • Entropic man says:

        RLH, Nate

        Interesting to compare your different approaches.

        RLH is focused on the micro scale, a few metres difference around a single station.

        Nate is thinking on a macro scale, the gain in heat content of the entire ocean.

        If you are interested in weather detail, fair enough.
        Personally I think you learn more from a planetary energy budget. Terajoules and and Watts/m^2 give you a better insight into what’s happening to the climate, though temperature is easier for politicians to understand.

        • RLH says:

          Not really. The scale I work with goes from a few meters to a few km or even 10km or more.

          The ability to confuse temperature with thermal energy is one of my biggest bug bears.

    • RLH says:

      “I agree that temperature is not sufficient for comparing desert and rainforest locations.”

      So you agree that moisture in the air is a significant factor?

    • RLH says:

      “You dont think weather effectively moves thermal energy around between all these?”

      So why remove all the other weather information from consideration and only keep temperature as the sole data of importance?

      • Entropic man says:

        “So why remove all the other weather information from consideration and only keep temperature as the sole data of importance?”

        Don’t be silly.

        Weather and GCM models use 40 variables.

      • Nate says:

        “So why remove all the other weather information from consideration and only keep temperature as the sole data of importance?”

        No one is saying remove.

        GCM models consider all. Ice melt is obviously important and being studied. Ocean heat content important. Water vapor important. Clouds important.

        Short term variation in temperature, water vapor, pressure, wind, are all weather moving energy around.

        Global temperature trend is a good indicator. With higher temps comes higher water vapor content.

        Heat a pot of water on a burner. Measure the temperature rise at several locations. The average predictably warms.

        At the same time there is lots of convective turbulence in the fluid moving heat and kinetic energy around.

        Interesting, but the average temp rise is still a good indicator of the heat content rise. And in principle, predictable.

        • RLH says:

          I know what GCMs use. The point is that you can’t use just 1 series, temperature, and then compare it to them or to the real world either

        • RLH says:

          “Interesting, but the average temp rise is still a good indicator of the heat content rise. And in principle, predictable.”

          But until steady state conditions occur, I poor approximation to the actual energy in the system

  16. Cheshire Red says:

    So the ‘catastrophic climate emergency’ warming anomaly is… erm…less than one tenth of one degree, over a period exceeding 40 years.

    Righto.

    • Bindidon says:

      Cheshire Red

      ” … less than one tenth of one degree… ”

      A linear estimate of 0.14 C per decade, that is after all 0.56 C over 40 years.

      Still nothing to whine about, however.

      J.-P. D.

      • RLH says:

        With an uncertainty range of -6.95c/+3.6c, 0.56c over 40 years is kinda unimportant.

        • bdgwx says:

          Where are getting -6.95/+3.96C? Do you really think the global mean temperature could have been as low as 7C with ice sheets expanding into the United States and Europe in the last 40 years and no one noticed?

          • RLH says:

            The daily range of USCRN over the last 20 years differs that much between using (min+max)/2 compared to hourly means provides just that range. (methodology provided previously on previous main thread)

            So each days temperature data could be that much in error.

            It is the width of the line you draw, not the accuracy of the center of it that matters.

            The slope of the line that you claim lies not just between the center to center, but as an x between highest and lowest at each end.

          • RLH says:

            As usual I typed means but meant medians.

          • bdgwx says:

            Do you think it’s possible the global mean temperature trend over the last 40 years was -1.75C/decade?

          • RLH says:

            Can you prove it wasn’t? Given that the end points, the start and finish days, could be that much in error.

          • bdgwx says:

            Yes. We can definitely eliminate -1.75C/decade. The beginning and ending points have about +/- 0.15C uncertainty for UAH and about +/- 0.05C for surface datasets. That’s kind of moot though since it is considered cherry-picking to use only the beginning and ending points to establish trends. Instead it is standard to use linear regression or similarly robust technique which incorporate all data. The UAH trend is +0.135C/decade +/- 0.013 (2-sigma). Surface station trend uncertainty is a little lower at about +/- 0.011. They cluster around +0.19C/decade for full sphere and +0.17C/decade for partial sphere. There is no dataset that comes even remotely close to -1.75C/decade for the 1979-present period. Not even Mount Tambora which caused the year without a summer could cool the planet by 7C. Like, not even close.

          • RLH says:

            “The beginning and ending points have about +/- 0.15C uncertainty for UAH and about +/- 0.05C for surface datasets.”

            USCRN begs to differ

          • bdgwx says:

            RLH said: USCRN begs to differ

            USCRN is even better.

            Per Hubbard 2005 – “On the USCRN Temperature System” the single site monthly uncertainty is +/- 0.3C (2-sigma) or lower depending on the configuration used (RMY, PMT, or PRT sensor). Plugging that into E=S/sqrt(N) with S = 0.3/2 and N = 100 sites we have E = 0.15/sqrt(100) = +/- 0.015C for the error of the mean of all sites.

          • RLH says:

            We are not talking about that. We are talking about the uncertainty that arises from using (min+max)/2, which USCRN was designed to remove as an error with its very high sampling rates.

            If you were to calculate the day using a sum of the 5 min samples (which are derived from an even higher sampling rate) and then averaging that over a day, it does not even come close to (min+max)/2.

            That is what the range uncertainty shows. The basic daily data from which the monthly figures are then created has a large uncertainty range built into them from the start.

          • RLH says:

            e.g.

            Station,Date,avg,min,max,(min+max/2),uncertainty
            26494,20060203,-27.13,-32.1,-15.3,-23.7,-3.43

          • bdgwx says:

            I’m assuming ‘avg’ is the sum(Tn)/24 where Tn is the temperature at hour n?

            That 3.43 figure is the difference between the sum(Tn)/24 and (Tmin+Tmax)/2 methods. The (Tmin+Tmax)/2 method yields a value that is biased 3.43 higher wrt to the more accurate sum(Tn)/24 method. That’s just for one day at one site.

            What you need to do now is repeat the procedure for all sites and all days in the record. Compute the mean of this bias between the (Tmin+Tmax)/2 and sum(Tn)/24 method and standard deviation. Obviously check to see how different the population is from a perfect normal distribution.

            Next, compute monthly conus mean temperature anomalies using both methods. Because the USCRN sites are somewhat reasonably homogenously spaced you can probably due a trivial average here without having to deal with the complexities of more advanced spatial averaging techniques. Build a population of difference between the (Tmin+Tmax)/2 and sum(Tn)/24 methods. What is the mean difference? What is the standard deviation? Is the population normally distributed?

            Finally, do a linear regression of the monthly anomalies using both methods. Are there any significant differences?

            If you can show that the (Tmin+Tmax)/2 and sum(Tn)/24 produce significantly different trends then that would be useful to know.

          • RLH says:

            “Im assuming avg is the sum(Tn)/24 where Tn is the temperature at hour n?”

            Yup.

            “If you can show that the (Tmin+Tmax)/2 and sum(Tn)/24 produce significantly different trends then that would be useful to know.”

            Work is underway as we speak.

            What I can show is that using the (Tmin+Tmax)/2 produces an uncertainty as to the figure provided for each individual day when compared to the ‘true’ figure so far.

            A quick look at the data so far does not indicate that it is normally distributed but, as you say, the proof is not there yet.

          • Willard says:

            > Thats just for one day at one site.

            Bingo.

            Perhaps in a few months Richard will tell us how the errors propagate. If that does not imply the good ol’ excursus into stationarity, that’ll be something new in Climateball.

            But I’m not holding my breath.

          • RLH says:

            Well the fact that the distribution is biased (i.e. is not equally distributed about the center) tells us that some correction will be needed. -6.95/+3.6 for the whole of the USCRN over 20 years is most definitely not a normal distribution.

            This is (Average over 24 hours) – (min-max)/2 so (min-max)/2 overstates the ‘true’ daily temperature much more than it understates it.

          • bdgwx says:

            RLH said: Well the fact that the distribution is biased (i.e. is not equally distributed about the center) tells us that some correction will be needed. -6.95/+3.6 for the whole of the USCRN over 20 years is most definitely not a normal distribution.

            Is that true for all sites and all days in the record?

            And are you sure that it isn’t normally distributed or is the distribution just shifted to the left by around -3.5?

            RLH said: This is (Average over 24 hours) (min-max)/2 so (min-max)/2 overstates the true daily temperature much more than it understates it.

            Again…Is that true for all sites and all days in the record?

            Either way this bias should get removed when doing anomaly analysis.

          • Nate says:

            ” -6.95/+3.6 for the whole of the USCRN over 20 years is most definitely not a normal distribution.”

            Thought you hadnt yet done the work?

            Weather variation is on longer time scales, thus that error is almost certainly negligible compared to weather-caused variation in the monthly mean.

          • RLH says:

            “Thought you hadnt yet done the work?”

            I have done some of the work. The rest is in hand.

            “Weather variation is on longer time scales, thus that error is almost certainly negligible compared to weather-caused variation in the monthly mean.”

            Means are probably the worst choice for non-normal data. See any stats book

          • RLH says:

            “Is that true for all sites and all days in the record?”

            Yup

            “And are you sure that it isnt normally distributed or is the distribution just shifted to the left by around -3.5?”

            It shows typical skewed data characteristics. Left and right.

          • RLH says:

            How do you do anomalies of left tailed and right tailed data?

        • Bindidon says:

          RLH

          ” With an uncertainty range of -6.95c/+3.6c, 0.56c over 40 years is kinda unimportant. ”

          *
          Here you become really very, very arrogant, RLH.

          Either you calculate the exact uncertainty range for the UAH LT time series and publish it in a publicly available, signed document, or you definitely shut up.

          Your tendentious assertions, based on sheer guesswork, are just gross.

          J.-P. D.

          • RLH says:

            Give me the sample time in days for an arbitrary lat/long position here on Earth and I can give you and estimated error range quite easily.

          • RLH says:

            I admit the error range came from land based thermometers but I am told the 2 series are quite close to each other : )

          • bdgwx says:

            RLH,

            Just be clear…the task is to quantify the uncertainty on the global mean temperature trend using monthly anomalies. The uncertainty on individual monthly anomalies either globally average or within a specific cell in UAH’s grid mesh are interesting in their own right, but that’s NOT what is being discussed here. We are specifically discussing the global mean temperature trend which has units of C/decade and which is valid only for the global mean.

          • RLH says:

            “Just be clearthe task is to quantify the uncertainty on the global mean temperature trend using monthly anomalies.”

            I know what is done. But what if those monthly anomalies are in themselves inaccurate? What then the conclusions?

          • bdgwx says:

            They do have uncertainty. But remember, the standard error of the mean temperature of the grid mesh is much lower than the standard error of the temperature in each grid cell by itself. The standard error of the linear trend slope is lower still. For UAH the standard error on a individual cell is on the order of few degrees C. The standard error of the mean is on the order of 0.1C. And the standard error of the linear regression slope is on the order of 0.001C/month. What we are discussing here is the standard error of the linear regression slope which even integrated over a 40 year period is no where close to +/- 7C. It’s more like +/- 0.03C.

          • RLH says:

            As I said , you cannot turn bulk data into simple data unless you make one big assumption. The errors have to be normally distributed. They are not.

          • bdgwx says:

            That I do agree with you there. This definitely assumes the error on the monthly anomalies for individual grid cells is normally distributed. For the linear regression trend slope it also assume no time dependent bias contaminates the trend.

          • RLH says:

            The best that can be said of linear trends is that they are only valid over the time period covered and do NOT represent any future (or past) trend. Despite leading the eye to assume so.

  17. Willard says:

    Small world:

    “Since this is your first foray into climate science, Richard, let me help with the basics you will need to know.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/16/crowdsourcing-a-full-kernel-cascaded-triple-running-mean-low-pass-filter-no-seriously/#comment-1220655

  18. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Entropic:

    “Dont Panic!

    If you read the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, it will tell you that humanity has already pumped out enough CO2 to postpone the next glacial period by at least 40,000 years.”

    So aco2 will forestall the ice age for 40,000 years but not one of the worst winter in 30 years? https://www.fox5ny.com/news/us-had-its-coldest-february-in-more-than-30-years-noaa-reports

    • bdgwx says:

      Via the most widely accepted definition we have been in an ice age for last 2.5 million years. It is the glacial and interglacial cycles within the ice age that cause the ice coverage to ebb and flow. 400 ppm is within the range in which the evidence suggests that the next glacial advance will be postponed for quite some time and possibly indefinitely. Weather still happens though. Global warming does not mean that winter goes away. And while the recurrence intervals of cold spells will likely change they won’t go away.

      • 400 ppm is within the range in which the evidence suggests that the next glacial advance will be postponed for quite some time and possibly indefinitely.

        The 400 ppm in Earth 1 bar atmosphere is a very small quantity. The glacial advance is a very powerful natural phenomenon…

        • bdgwx says:

          Has any of the glacial maximums over the Quaternary period occurred with over 400 ppm?

          • What I think is glacial-interglacial periods occur due to multimillennial scale orbital phenomena.

          • bdgwx says:

            Yes. Orbital perturbations are important in explaining the timing of the glacial cycles. But they cannot, by themselves, explain all of it. The mid-Pleistocene transition where the cycles transitioned from 40k to 100k intervals is a good example. Nevermind that orbital perturbations cannot explain the magnitude/amplitude of the cycles. But my point is really only that no glacial maximum has ever occurred with over 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. That should at least give you some pause as to whether it is possible or not.

          • Why do you think “…orbital perturbations cannot explain the magnitude/amplitude of the cycles.”?

            They explain it very precisely.

          • Entropic man says:

            Plot CO2 against time for the last few interglacial and you get this.

            https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/images/27/2747.png.htm

            An oscillation with a rapid rise at the start of each interglacial followed by a slow decline.

            Concentrations oscillate between 200ppm and 300ppm.

          • Entropic man says:

            The temperature difference between a normal glacial period and the peak of an interglacial is 5C.

            IIRC the direct increase in temperature due to orbital changes at the start of an interglacial is 1.2C.

            Increased CO2, decreased ice albedo and other feedbacks then contribute another 3.8C.

          • “The industrial revolution has caused a dramatical rise in CO2.”

            Yes, that is true. The rise in CO2 is caused by the fossil fuels burning. And the rise is dramatical.
            But still it cannot overturn the natural climate trend because the natural climate trend is a warming trend, and not a cooling trend.

          • Entropic man says:

            “But still it cannot overturn the natural climate trend because the natural climate trend is a warming trend, and not a cooling trend. ”

            That turns out not to be the case.

            The Industrial Revolution interrupted a 5000 year cooling trend.

            http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg

          • Entropic man,

            I visited the link.
            “Global temperature reconstruction of Marcott et al (2013)”.

            When drawing a line from the position “Holocene” to the position “You are here” the trend will appear as a slight rise of the Global temperature. So it will be a warming trend.

            It cannot be a 5000 years cooling trend, because now we are in the culmination phase of the current orbital cycle. If it was a cooling trend, there couldn’t be any industrial revolution – The entire North Europe would have been covered with ice.

            https://www.cristos-vournas.com

          • Entropic man says:

            I think we interpret the graph rather differently.

            You can’t just pick a point 5000 years ago, a point today, draw a line between them and say “Look, a warming trend.” You have to take account of what happened in between.

            It’s a bit like CO2isLife drawing a line from the top of an earlier El Nino to the bottom of the current La Nina and saying “Look, no trend.”

            5000 years ago orbital changes shoved us off the Holocene Optimum sweet spot and we started cooling towards the next glacial period.

            Then around 1850 the Industrial Revolution kicked in and we went from slow natural cooling to rapid artificial warming.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            The warming is strongly correlated with the Industrial Revolution in both the UK, and Japan. Both island nations, with very different Industrial Revolution dates. Peer reviewed and all.

            Tends to fit with population centres becoming more industrialised, with consequent greater energy use, and of course more heat released Into the environment.

          • gbaikie says:

            –That turns out not to be the case.

            The Industrial Revolution interrupted a 5000 year cooling trend.

            http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg

            The cooling trend includes less grasslands in Sahara deserts and lower the tree line, and addition of glacier ice.
            The Industrial Revolution has not restored these warmer conditions, yet.
            Nor has our 3.5 C ocean, warmed back up.

          • RLH says:

            “The Industrial Revolution interrupted a 5000 year cooling trend.”

            I wish I could be so certain. Just because the 2 coincided in time does not mean that one caused the other.

          • gbaikie says:

            Warmer periods are generally a time of prosperity.
            Likewise cooler periods may regarded as more desperate times, in desperate time one can get more political change- the Industrial Revolution was the biggest revolution.
            So having willingness to change and getting better conditions = boom!
            Or you might need farm tractor to get by in cooler conditions, but then getting better conditions, you do a lot better.

            Or both cold and warm could be regarded as causational, rather Industrial Revolution causing cooling or warming.
            Of course people were warmer- as weren’t so poor and freezing to death. That people live in warm comfortable homes, will make people think the world is warmer. If their house was a 15 C, it would be cooler world.
            And having dry feet, also helps.

          • Willard says:

            > Just because the 2 coincided in time does not mean that one caused the other.

            More generally, just because X does not mean Y, unless X entails Y in some way.

    • Bindidon says:

      Darwin Wyatt

      I have nothing in mind with this good old CO2 guy, but… as far as (especially winter) temperatures are concerned, it has never been a good idea to confound tho ConUS states, or even Europe, with the Globe as a whole.

      From a recent processing (2021, May 17) of the data of all available GHCN daily stations (worldwide over 40,000 for the whole period), you see here the top of the descending sort of the monthly average of the anomalies of the daily absolute values, wrt the mean of 1981-2010:

      2016 3 0.97 (C)
      2016 2 0.88
      2020 11 0.84
      2015 12 0.83
      2016 4 0.73
      2020 3 0.72
      1881 12 0.72
      2020 2 0.69
      1882 1 0.69
      2007 1 0.65
      2020 1 0.64
      1998 6 0.64
      2019 12 0.63
      2015 11 0.63
      2017 3 0.59
      1998 7 0.59
      1998 2 0.59
      2015 10 0.58
      1998 5 0.56
      1998 4 0.55

      Feel free to believe those worldwide renowned specialists telling you : “It’s all El Nino”.

      Don’t wonder about so many winter months in the sequence: the purpose of anomaly construction is to remove the annual cycle (i.e. the seasonal dependencies), what gives every month the same ‘power’, including of course negative anomalies in summer months.

      Here are the lowest ones since… 1880:

      1904 8 -1.24
      1896 8 -1.27
      1909 6 -1.28
      1890 7 -1.28
      1882 7 -1.28
      1896 7 -1.30
      1881 6 -1.31
      1912 8 -1.32
      1911 6 -1.32
      1891 8 -1.32
      1912 7 -1.33
      1908 8 -1.36
      1909 7 -1.44
      1904 6 -1.46
      1882 6 -1.52
      1903 6 -1.57
      1895 7 -1.57
      1891 7 -1.57
      1908 6 -1.75
      1913 6 -1.94

      Yeah.

      J.-P. D.

  19. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Nate and I have been having a month long discussion on CO2 residence time in the atmosphere. That thread is simply too long to keep scrolling back to make a reply.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-713938

    The discussion originates from Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet model fitting the Mauna Loa data using math that requires the removal rate of CO2 from the atmosphere to be proportional to the difference between the level now and the pre-industrial level. My revised spreadsheet model removes CO2 proportional to the current CO2 level only. Both models fit the data, but my model uses the correct physics.

    Dr S model: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/a-simple-model-of-the-atmospheric-co2-budget/

    I think this topic is both climate-relevant as well as scientifically interesting. But to have a coherent discussion, basic agreement on the definitions of scientific terminology must be adhered to. Rather than continue going round and round with Nate, who seems only interested in disagreement, I would like other opinions on the definitions of terms related to e-time which is the reciprocal of the rate constant determining exponential decay.

    Problems arise when one refers to residence time which can have many definitions depending on the scientific field. I use e-time because it has a precise definition: the time for the level to move (1 1/e) of the distance from its present level to its balance level. It also can be defined by level/inflow or level/outflow if the level remains constant. E-time lends itself wonderfully to cases in between where the level is neither constant nor exponentially decaying.

    What do you think?

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      E-time: the time for the level to move (1 – 1/e)….

    • Nate says:

      Noted physicist and climate skeptic Freeman Dyson has explained why there is more than one e-time for CO2.

      “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 Monckton labels Residence Time, but they don’t disagree on not what will happen.

      Chic misses 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 (Monckton’s) 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 not disagreeing with Monckton that the time it will take the atmospheric CO2 concentration to decay is ‘about a century’. He is disagreeing on calling that RESIDENCE TIME.

      Now let’s be very clear, Chic’s e-time for the atmosphere has always been defined as (Total Mass of Atm CO2)/(Annual Natural CO2 Inputs).

      But that IS RESIDENCE TIME as Dyson and just about everyone else in science defines it. Because it is calculating the time for all of the atm CO2 to be cycled out–replaced by CO2 from land, bio and ocean reservoirs. And that is 4 years according to Chic and ~ 12 years according to Dyson.

      Meanwhile a measurement of the Residence Time for C14 from Bomb Tests shows that it is ~ 16 years.

      Dyson is crystal clear that Residence Time is NOT EQUAL to the CO2 concentration decay time. And most skeptic-scientists, like Spencer, Christy, Curry, etc understand this.

      And of course the main reason is that the ocean has a natural bottleneck (Stratification and Revelle Factor) for taking up added CO2.

      For some reason, Chic simply chooses to ignore this real-world constraint on e-time.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Right off the bat, Nate shows you why he is the King of Obfuscation! The late Dr. Dyson did not mention e-time in his reply to Lord Robert M. May (not Lord Monckton, Nate).

        http://www.acamedia.info/sciences/sciliterature/globalw/reference/freeman-dyson-How_Long_Will_They_Stay.pdf

        “Chic misses the point that Dyson was making”

        No, I’m not missing any of your pathetic attempts to cloud the discussion, divert attention from the fact that you don’t have supporting data, models, and knowledge to make a decent scientific argument, and avoid dealing with the real issues of evaluating the e-times of atmospheric CO2 and C14.

        One wonder how Nate speaks for Dr. Dyson who died last year. Channeling perhaps? But what about for our host Dr. Spencer, and for the other two good Drs. Christy and Curry?

        “And of course the main reason [most skeptics understand Nate-think] is that the ocean has a natural bottleneck (Stratification and Revelle Factor) for taking up added CO2.”

        Unfortunately for Nate, the natural bottleneck hasn’t made much of a dent in the atmospheric CO2 4-year e-time of 410ppm/100ppm/year.

        • Willard says:

          You’re in dissertation mode for no good reason, Chic:

          “He says that the residence time of a molecule of carbon dioxide in theatmosphere is about a century, and I say it is about twelve years.”

          That’s all that matters.

      • Nate says:

        “Dr. Dyson did not mention e-time”

        OMG. Now that is actually obfuscating.

        That’s because physicists don’t call it e-time. Who does?

        But they are clearly talking about decay times for atmospheric CO2 concentration and Residence time. The latter is clearly what you are calling e-time.

        • Nate says:

          And yes you are correct, May not Monckton.

        • Nate says:

          Googled e-time. This is all I got

          https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=e-time

          time spent on-line on the www, or on a computer game or computer activity; time experienced subjectively while on line that feels short, but has been much longer in real time

          1. in e-time it seemed like I’d been online for 5 minutes, when in real time six hours had passed

          2. I spent 2 hours e-time in this beautiful electraglade I stumbled upon.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          “That’s because physicists don’t call it e-time. Who does?”

          Anyone who wants to avoid the confusion Dr. Dyson and Lord May were embroiled in.

          And I’m glad you admit that atmospheric CO2 decay and residence time are the same as e-time.

          • Nate says:

            “Anyone who wants to avoid the confusion Dr. Dyson and Lord May were embroiled in.”

            I think you meant ‘wants to avoid reality’.

            There is a legitimate difference between the two decay time constants because they are fitting different processes.

            “And Im glad you admit that atmospheric CO2 decay and residence time are the same as e-time.”

            Exponential decay is a mathematical relationship used to fit many different physico-chemical phenomena.

            Here we have two different phenomena, CO2 removal with or without replacement, both can have quasi-exponential decay, but have different decay time-constants in this system.

            Science gets this. Scientist-skeptics get this, and have explained it to you. They are not obfuscating you.

            It is your choice to remain oblivious to these differences.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “There is a legitimate difference between the two decay time constants because they are fitting different processes.”

            No. They are describing the same process with two different definitions of residence. The process being discussed was atmospheric CO2 life cycle. I carefully chose those words to avoid using decay, residence, relax, etc., because without definition those terms induce confusion.

            Do you want clarity or to continue with obfuscation? If you want clarity, please use equations to describe how Lord May and Dr. Dyson differ in their interpretations of the process or processes if you insist. Lord May (according to Dr. Dyson) meant residence with replacement. Dr. Dyson meant residence without replacement. Both interpretations are fictional, because FF will continue being burned and plants will continue decomposing. Their century versus 12-year residence time disagreement, as Dr. Dyson says, “is a matter of arithmetic and not a matter of opinion.”

            I believe Dr. Dyson tried to avoid confusion by describing the argument three different ways while addressing a non-technical audience. I expect Dr. Spencer’s audience to be somewhat more perceptive than you appear to be.

            “Here we have two different phenomena, CO2 removal with or without replacement, both can have quasi-exponential decay, but have different decay time-constants in this system.”

            I partly agree with that. You describe the fictional/hypothetical scenarios as different phenomena which I describe as the same process undergoing different circumstances. To be clear, a time-constant defines an e-time. For exponential decay, the equation is Level = exp(-a*t) where “a” is a time-constant and 1/a is e-time. That same e-time applies regardless of whether the process is undergoing removal or replacement. The latter just needs an input function.

            However, to declare two processes with different time constants requires data to back it up. I can fit the C14 data to any time constant allowing for additional C14 input or one single time constant of about 1/16 years, without allowing for any additional C14 inputs. Otherwise, only one time constant can produce the C14 data.

    • Nate says:

      For added context, Dysons fuller statement:

      ” My residence time is the time that an average carbon dioxide molecule stays in the atmosphere before being absorbed by a plant. He is talking about residence with replacement. His (Monckton) residence time is the average time that a carbon dioxide molecule and its replacements stay in the atmosphere when, as usually happens, a molecule that is absorbed is replaced by another molecule emitted from another plant.”

      Thus residence time (Dyson’s and science’s) is time for individual molecules to remain in a reservoir. And a trace isotope like C14, measures residence time because once it leaves it is replaced by regular C12 or C13.

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        The IPCC calls it “turnover time.” Are they all of science? It isn’t decay; it is outflow. e-time is a linear function of level. Berry called it e time because of all the confusion between residence time, adjustment time and half life. e-time is the the time it takes for level to travel 1-1/e the distance to the balance level. There are different e times for the different carbon isotopes with C12 being the shortest at approximately 4 years. C12 is approximately 99% of the carbon so its e time will dominate. Check Berry’s preprint 3. The Revelle Factor isn’t a factor.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Nate,

        What equation did Dyson and science use for the residence time of individual molecules remaining in a reservoir?

        • Nate says:

          IDK, look it up.

          Residence time is the time to remove a tracer like C14 permanently.

          The simple calculation of residence time (C in atmosphere)/(annual C replacement) assumes that once removed, the carbon is mixed into a LARGE semi-infinite reservoir (the ocean) and effectively NEVER returns.

          But this is too simple, because C14 can be removed to short-lived bio, surface soil or ocean mixed layer, which are FINITE reservoirs, and be returned quickly to the atmosphere.

          Apparently semi-permanent removal of C14 requires longer, 16 y, as it is incorporated into long-lived bio (wood), and penetrates the deeper ocean.

          Because the carbon cycle is not simple.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “Residence time is the time to remove a tracer like C14 permanently.”

            That doesn’t happen unless you specify what amount of all is sufficiently “permanently” removed. That is why one e-time is defined as the level being reduced to (1 – 1/e) from the baseline. One e-time removes 63%, two removes 86%, three 95%, and so on.

            In one sense C14 is exactly like CO2. Without the bomb pulse, C14 would also have a relatively steady level in each reservoir slowly modified by time and circumstances. In another sense, they are completely different as evidenced by the 4-yr e-time versus 16-yr e-time. Am I to conclude you are now on board trying to discover the reasons why? I mean scientifically, not just assertions.

          • Nate says:

            ” That is why one e-time is defined as the level being reduced to (1 1/e) from the baseline. One e-time removes 63%, two removes 86%, three 95%, and so on.”

            Yes we are all aware of what exponential decay means. That has never been the issue.

            “In one sense C14 is exactly like CO2. Without the bomb pulse, C14 would also have a relatively steady level in each reservoir slowly modified by time and circumstances. In another sense, they are completely different as evidenced by the 4-yr e-time versus 16-yr e-time. Am I to conclude you are now on board trying to discover the reasons why? I mean scientifically, not just assertions.”

            When I show you papers, or describe what is known, that is hardly ‘just assertions’.

            ‘In another sense, they are completely different as evidenced by the 4-yr e-time versus 16-yr e-time.’

            The 4 year residence time has never been observed, has it? It has always been just a model.

            The claim that C14 isotope and C12 isotope behave very differently has always been a hand-wave excuse, with nothing to back it up.

          • Nate says:

            “Residence time is the time to remove a tracer like C14 permanently.”

            To clarify, I mean what Dyson means, to remove tracer molecules like C14 molecules without return. This process results in an exponential decay of C14 concentration towards equilibrium.

            If you have a single reservoir, R, connected to an infinite reservoir, and the annual exchange between them is dR, then each year a fraction dR/R of any tracer molecules present in R will be removed permanently to the infinite reservoir. That leads to an exponential decay of the tracer with decay time-constant R/dR. This is residence time, and same as Berry’s e-time.

            But the residence time for C14 in the atmosphere, 16 y, is longer than this simple model calculates, as I said, because the carbon cycle is not that simple.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “… hardly ‘just assertions.'”

            Don’t be so touchy. I’m only interested in putting the petty residence time issue to rest. Solving the C14 and CO2 e-time discrepancy will require equations. A spreadsheet model is simply a tool to visualize those equations and compare them to the available data.

            The 4-year e-time is not just a model. It is the manifestation of the data that CO2 is about 410 ppm and the yearly CO2 inflows and outflows are about 100 ppm. The maximum variation in those numbers confines the e-time to approximately 4 years. That would be R/(dR/dt) to be mathematically accurate using your terms.

            Except for the extra neutrons, C14 is just CO2 and susceptible to the same inflows and outflows, but apparently not the same e-time. It’s a fascinating puzzle. Let’s work together to solve it.

          • Nate says:

            “The 4-year e-time is not just a model.”

            Are there any measurements of it showing 4 y? No. The only measurements we have indicate Residence e-time is 16 y. Need to specify that.

            The model that produces 4 y is wrong (and makes no sense, see my post for Stephen). This is an experimental test that it fails.

            You can’t invent new data for inputs with the right magnitude and time-history to magically give 4 years. That is cheating.

            You need to let go of assuming it is correct.

            “It is the manifestation of the data that CO2 is about 410 ppm and the yearly CO2 inflows and outflows are about 100 ppm. The maximum variation in those numbers confines the e-time to approximately 4 years. That would be R/(dR/dt) to be mathematically accurate using your terms.”

            This would be an accurate estimate of residence time for a single atm reservoir connected to an infinite reservoir. But that is too simple to match the Earth. And of course gives the wrong answer.

            “Except for the extra neutrons, C14 is just CO2 and susceptible to the same inflows and outflows, but apparently not the same e-time.”

            Not the same as a too-simple model’s e-time. Not surprising.

            “Its a fascinating puzzle. Lets work together to solve it.”

            OK, well I suggested what one problem was above. What do you think?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “Are there any measurements of [yearly CO2 inflows and outflows of about 100 ppm] showing [the e-time for the atmospheric CO2 is] 4 y?

            The IPPC present it this way in Figure 6.1:

            http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf

            Notice that natural emissions increase from 168.9 to 195.1 PgC from preindustrial to 2000-2009 more than 20 times the FF input.

            Happer, Koonan, and Lindzen describe it this way:

            “There is a nearly-balanced annual exchange of some 200 PgC between the atmosphere and the earths surface (~80 Pg land and ~120 Pg ocean); the atmospheric stock of 829 Pg therefore “turns over” in about four years.”

            https://tinyurl.com/28syx6d4 (scroll down next to the figure on page 19.

            “You cant invent new data for inputs with the right magnitude and time-history to magically give 4 years. That is cheating.”

            Without providing any valid contradictory data or models, you are in no position to make demands or false claims. If Stephen doesn’t destroy your “experimental test,” I will.

            “too simple …and gives the wrong answer.”

            You keep saying that without proof. I keep wondering why I waste time on you when I could be investigating the C14 problem. If you think your reply to Stephen was any problem, I think you need psychological help.

            The doctor is in.

          • Nate says:

            “You keep saying that without proof. ”

            Nope I keep saying that we have data! Any theory can be proven wrong by experimental data. Thats how science works.

            The available data are not consistent with an e-time of 4.

            “‘Are there any measurements of [yearly CO2 inflows and outflows of about 100 ppm] showing [the e-time for the atmospheric CO2 is] 4 y?'”

            No. That is not data for e-time it is FLOW data plugged into a wrong model.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Let the record show Nate claims the sworn testimony of Drs. Happer, Koonan, and Lindsen is false; he thinks that nearly balanced FLOWs between the atmosphere and the surface of 200 PgC/year do not indicate a 800 PgC atmospheric turnover rate (e-time) of 4 years.

            “That is not data for e-time it is FLOW data plugged into a wrong model.”

            You have no alternative model that fits the FLOW data that the IPCC and everyone except you recognize as fact. Your denial of this is laughable. There are bigger mountains to climb. Quit sweating the small stuff.

            No model, no data, no contradictory argument.

          • Nate says:

            “Let the record show Nate claims the sworn testimony of Drs. Happer, Koonan, and Lindsen is false”

            Lets see the ‘testimony’ of these guys on this issue.

            Certainly Happer and Lindzen have never claimed the rise in atm CO2 is mostly natural. They dont agree with Berry.

          • Nate says:

            I see that you have now switched to ‘atmospheric turnover rate’.

            Obviously if the atmosphere is exchanging 1/4 of its mass per year then you can call that turnover rate.

            But that will not NEED TO match tracer decay rate (residence time for no-return) because, as I noted, if neighboring reservoirs are FINITE, the tracer can be RETURNED.

            You are illustrating right there that all e-times need not be equal.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            It’s possible Happer and Lindzen don’t realize the contradiction between recognizing the validity of a data-derived 4-yr turnover rate and regurgitating AGW dogma. Coming from you, it’s questionable what you write is true.

            Turnover rate is their term. As explained to you many times, we use e-time to avoid confusion and people wanting to obfuscate.

            A tracer can be returned whether the neighboring reservoirs are finite or not. A “residence time for no return” doesn’t apply here because C14 does return and that affects the C14 e-time.

            I never implied that all e-times are equal. Why do you continue to lie and obfuscate?

          • Nate says:

            “I never implied that all e-times are equal. Why do you continue to lie and obfuscate?”

            OMG…

            “That is why one e-time is defined as the level being reduced to (1 1/e) from the baseline. One e-time removes 63%, two removes 86%, three 95%, and so on.”

            “Turnover rate is their term. As explained to you many times, we use e-time to avoid confusion and people wanting to obfuscate.”

            Turnover rate is specific term that can be clearly understood. “Obviously if the atmosphere is exchanging 1/4 of its mass per year then you can call that turnover rate.”

            You guys have been consistently trying to smear all the e-times together, which ADDS TO confusion. That is straight-up obfuscation.

            You are doing it again right here:

            “Its possible Happer and Lindzen dont realize the contradiction between recognizing the validity of a data-derived 4-yr turnover rate and regurgitating AGW dogma.”

            AGW dogma is that there are different e-times!

          • Nate says:

            “I never implied that all e-times are equal. Why do you continue to lie and obfuscate?”

            Nate: ‘There is a legitimate difference between the two decay time constants because they are fitting different processes.’

            Chic

            “No. They are describing the same process with two different definitions of residence. The process being discussed was atmospheric CO2 life cycle. I carefully chose those words to avoid using decay, residence, relax, etc., because without definition those terms induce confusion.”

          • Nate says:

            Here’s Berry:

            “This paper uses e-time rather than ‘residence’ time because
            there are many definitions of residence time. E-time has a
            precise definition: the time for the level to move (1 1/e) of
            the distance from its present level to its balance level. The
            balance level is defined below.”

            The only data we have on this e-time using his definition is C14 data, showing e-time is 16.5 y, according to his paper.

            BUt his Model’s e-time is found by his hypothesis:

            “The Physics Model has only one hypothesis, that outflow is proportional to
            level:

            Outflow = L / Te”

            This matches ‘Turnover Time’ used by you Happer, Koonan, and Lindzen, which is clearly 4 years.

            His Model e-time = Turnover Time, as defined by Skeptic-Scientists.

            This does not match 16.5 years. The only Measurement of e-time as defined by his paper.

            And again, his model is SIMPLE but not physically appropriate to the Earth we have, as I showed below.

            It is quite starange then that he is able to claim that:

            “The Physics Model exactly replicates the 14C data from
            1970 to 2014 with only two physical parameters: balance level and e-time.”

            Huh?! The Physics Model predicts an e-time! And it is 4 years.
            “The 14C data trace how CO2 flows out of the
            atmosphere. The Physics Model shows the 14 CO2 e-time is a constant 16.5 years.”

            NO! The Physics Model does NOT show that. The data show that! The ironically titled ‘Physics Model’ does NOT allow e-time to be an adjustable parameter. It makes a very specific prediction for it to be LEVEL/OUTFLOW.

            “Other data show e-time for 12CO2 is about 4 to 5 years.”

            What other data? The only other data showing that is for

            ‘Turnover Time’ AKA ‘Residence Time’

            “Also, IPCC [3] agrees 12CO2 turnover time (e-time) is about 4 years.” “Segalstad [10] calculated 5 years for e-time.” This is RESIDENCE TIME from an unpublished essay.

            Then in his paper’s Conclusions Berry states:

            “atmospheric CO2 must be able to replicate the 14C data.
            The Physics Model exactly replicates the 14C data after
            1970. This replication shows the e-time for 14CO2 is 16.5
            years and that this e-time has been constant since 1970.”

            “The replication shows the Physics Model hypothesis that
            outflow equals level divided by e-time is correct.”

            HUH?!

            Outflow = 100 ppm/year, DOES NOT EQUAL 400 ppm/16.5 years

            Pure Obfuscation.

          • Nate says:

            And now I’ve read your cite of the ‘Testimony’ of the 3 well known skeptic-scientists.

            Read their Answer to Question 7 and try to understand it.

            “Question 7: What are the main sources of CO2 that account for the incremental buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere?”

            “Returning to the present, human emissions of CO2 have
            grown dramatically since 1900, as shown in the adjacent
            AR5 WG1 Figure 6.8. Most of this CO2 comes from
            combustion of fossil fuels for generating electrical power,
            heating, and mobility, but about 4% is from cement
            manufacture, where fossil fuel is used to bake limestone,
            or calcium carbonate (CaCO3) to make calcium oxide (CaO)
            and CO2. The natural land and ocean sinks have kept pace
            with human emissions, maintaining the airborne fraction
            at about one half. Growing human emissions have increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2, from about 280 ppm in 1900 to just over 408 ppm today.”

            “The long atmospheric lifetime of CO2
            and the roughly constant airborne fraction mean that this
            concentration growth is proportional to the cumulative
            human emissions.”

            These guys are respected scientists, but have shown that they are skeptics who have no problem disputing what the IPCC says.

            Yet here they are absolutely clear that Anthro CO2 is the cause of the rise, and that it takes a long time for it to removed from the atmosphere.

            They are not obfuscating you.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “Turnover rate is specific term….”

            Not unless defined. That is what e-time does. Which I’ve written 100 times. Two reasons why you don’t get that. You want to keep obfuscating and you can’t bear to agree with the rest of us. That would create too much cognitive dissonance in your belief system.

            That is why one e-time is defined as the level being reduced to (1 – 1/e) from the baseline.”

            This doesn’t mean all e-times are the same.

            “AGW dogma is that there are different e-times!”

            That’s correct, but not what I was referring to. Even skeptics are divided on how much humans contribute to global warming. This doesn’t take anything away from the data that indicates a 4-year e-time for the atmosphere.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-718714

            I agree with all that. What is the problem?

            “The only data we have….”

            Now you are just being stupid. We have C14 decay 16-year e-time and we have Level/inflow = 4-year e-time for the atmosphere. Why can’t you see that?

            “His Model e-time = Turnover Time, as defined by Skeptic-Scientists. This does not match 16.5 years. The only Measurement of e-time as defined by his paper.”

            You really don’t understand that C14 decay and CO2 e-time are different processes, do you? Why would you expect their e-times to be same?

            Nothing you showed me invalidates a simple model.

            “And it is 4 years.”

            The same simple model fits both processes, but their levels and e-times are different. You really don’t get that do you?

            “Physics Model does NOT allow e-time to be an adjustable parameter.”

            That proves you don’t get it. There’s no hope for you.

            “What other data?”

            Dr. Berry goes back and forth showing how the two processes fit the same model. Any competent scientist would know that.

            “Pure Obfuscation.”

            Don’t co-opt my word unless you have a good reason. The C14 level is not 400 ppm. How many times do I have to say the simple model works for both species and they don’t have the same levels or e-times.

            “…this concentration growth is proportional to the cumulative human emissions.”

            That is true and deceptive, because it ignores natural emissions which are 20 greater than FF emissions.

            I understand what you and the AGW crowd are up to. You and they are the ones doing the obfuscation.

          • Nate says:

            “That is why one e-time is defined as the level being reduced to (1 1/e) from the baseline.”

            Yes, I get that: I clearly stated thats how Berry defines it.

            “This doesnt take anything away from the data that indicates a 4-year e-time for the atmosphere.”

            No! WHAT DATA!!??

            There is ONLY DATA measuring TURNOVER TIME = 4 y.

            THERE IS NO DATA measuring a 4 year e-time with your’s and Berry’s stated definition!

            Then there is Berry’s HYPOTHESIS. That he claims in his conclusion was proven, but with no measurements of e-time that match his hypothesis!

            He is a smooth talker, but in the end he is relying on people being confused about what was actually measured.

            Pure obfuscation.

          • Nate says:

            “Nothing you showed me invalidates a simple model.”

            But nothing supports it.

            There is noting in Berry’s paper that supports his conclusions

            “The replication shows the Physics Model hypothesis that
            outflow equals level divided by e-time is correct.”

            “The same simple model fits both processes, but their levels and e-times are different. You really don’t get that do you?

            Sure they COULD BE different.

            But the measurements show a factor of 4 larger e-time then the prediction.

            There is NO evidence provided that the factor of 4 larger e-time is due to the Mass of CO2 being 46 instead of 44.

            There is no prediction in his paper of a factor of 4 increase in e-time for C14.

            There is no data shown to explain that factor of 4.

            “That proves you don’t get it. There’s no hope for you.”

            Yes, I don’t get it. How NOT replicating the predictions somehow counts as proof of the prediction?

            Clearly you are content to be part of a cult.

            The one rule is the cult cannot be criticized.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Now it seems you don’t think turnover time and e-time are the same. Can you make up your mind? Please demonstrate with equations to show how atmosphere’s CO2 e-time and turnover time are different.

            “THERE IS NO DATA measuring a 4 year e-time with your’s and Berrys stated definition!”

            Our stated definition: Level/inflow = level/outflow = e-time. The data is level is about 400 ppm and the inflows and outflows about 100 ppm. That is the data which results in an e-time of 4 years.

            “But nothing supports [a simple model].”

            Only if you ignore the data staring you in the face.

            “But the measurements show a factor of 4 larger e-time then the prediction.”

            No one is predicting anything. The Physics Model is simply a hypothesis that fits both CO2 and C14 only with different levels and e-times. How many times do I have to repeat that? And it’s not just Berry that adheres to that hypothesis. He has much support outside the AGW cult.

            The discrepancy between the 4-year and 16-year e-time is still an open question. You have had plenty of time to provide alternative models that can resolve this conundrum.

            You are the one obfuscating by bringing up predictions. What predictions? The Physics model fits data for CO2 and C14. No one is predicting anything other than to hypothesize a model and fit the data to it.

            How pathetic you are. You continue to dispute Dr. Berry’s model with no alternative. How long are you going to continue with this pointless pissing contest?

          • Nate says:

            “That is why one e-time is defined as the level being reduced to (1 1/e) from the baseline.”

            That is your stated definition. Thats it.

            Berry made a big deal of being PRECISE about his definition.

            But then he, and now you, are pulling a switcheroo, with the one used for Turnover Time.

            “Our stated definition: Level/inflow = level/outflow = e-time.”

            Nope. That is Berry’s unproven Hypothesis, his Model’s prediction for e-time.

            The one that fails.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Here we go round and round again. You are a pathetic obfuscator.

            E-time for exponential decay is level being reduced to (1-1/e) from baseline. E-time when the level stays relatively constant is level/inflow or level/outflow.

            “That is Berry’s unproven Hypothesis”

            Do you have evidence that his Hypothesis is incorrect?

            “his Model’s prediction for e-time.”

            It’s not a prediction, dummy. When data is applied to the model, the model gives the result of a 4-year e-time. All you need is some alternative hypothesis or method of determining why 400ppm/100ppm/year is not an e-time of 4 years. Otherwise Dr. Berry’s model stands.

            If you want to make new definitions for decay e-time and constant level e-time, knock yourself out.

            How much longer are you going to keep up this pointless pissing contest?

          • Nate says:

            This Berry’s attempt to make a precise definition.

            This paper uses e-time rather than residence time because
            there are many definitions of residence time. E-time has a
            precise definition: the time for the level to move (1 1/e) of
            the distance from its present level to its balance level. The
            balance level is defined below.

            You now have decided that you can use different one. Why?
            One that only works if his simple model is correct. The burden is on him to prove it correct for the Earth. He has failed to do that.

            If you don’t get that you are definitely delusional.

          • Nate says:

            I think another way in which Berry is obfuscating you and others is the claim that :

            “The Physics Model (8) accurately replicates the 14CO2 data
            from 1970 to 2014 with e-time set to 16.5 years, balance level
            set to zero, and starting level set to the D14C level in 1970.
            Figure 7 shows how the Physics Model replicates the 14C
            data.”

            He seems to be trying to say that simply the fact that the data can be fitted with an exponential is somehow confirmation of his model.

            But this is utterly ridiculous. This is like saying the data fit a line, and my model predicts a line, this proves my model!

            Exponential or quasi-exponential decay is a ubiquitous feature in nature. Particularly for chemical kinetics such as this.

            Even a multi-exponential decay can be fit by an exponential over a short time period. Exponential or quasi-exponential decay is a ubiquitous feature in nature.

            No scientist finds this to be a convincing argument.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “You now have decided that you can use different one. Why?

            I’ve explained it over and over. Get it through your thick skull. There are two basic circumstances defined by an e-time. One is exponential decay. The other is constant level with constant inflows and outflows.

            The exponential decay for C14 and CO2 levels and annual flows are easily shown to fit Berry’s Physic’s model. They both work for the available data.

            How much longer are you going to continue this facade?

            “He seems to be trying to say that simply the fact that the data can be fitted with an exponential is somehow confirmation of his model.”

            Duh, yes he is and so would any intelligent scientist. You’ve been invited to show alternative data and a model that is contradictory to that obvious fact that the data can be fitted with Berry’s exponential decay model.

            Nothing is proven by fitting a model and no reputable scientist would claim that it’s anything other than evidence. Alternative hypotheses, data, and models are required to prove otherwise. After all this time, you continue to go round and round trying to defame Dr. Berry and others who share his views.

            The rest of your rant is blah, blah, blah. No scientist will be convinced by it without contradictory models and data.

            You are a mental case. The doctor is in.

          • Nate says:

            If it doesnt bother you to be conned, thats up to you.

            Getting the ignorant contrarian masses to think that exponential decay is somehow new and special, and a unique signature of Berry’s model is a con job.

            “There are two basic circumstances defined by an e-time. One is exponential decay. The other is constant level with constant inflows and outflows.”

            The first is the only Definition promoted by Berry.

            The second is derived directly from his Hypothesis/Model:

            The annual CO2 Output from the atmosphere = Level/e-time. Thus the equilibrium Level occurs when Input = Output

            You cannot use this Hypothesis as a new Definition. That makes no sense, since the whole point of any science paper is to Test a hypothesis.

            He Concludes his paper stating that his Hypothesis was proven correct.

            But nowhere in the paper does he actually do that. Again, if being conned by him is ok, thats up to you.

            It aint convincing to knowledgeable people, even well-known skeptic scientists. That ought to give you pause.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            You really do need help. You are in total obfuscation mode now. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

            “It aint convincing to knowledgeable people, even well-known skeptic scientists.”

            Names and references, please.

            I’m done throwing pearls after swine. The Physics Model was explained to you. I went back and forth giving answers to your questions in good faith. You’ve had plenty of opportunity to provide alternative models and data to rebut the simple model that describes the turnover e-time for the atmosphere.

            Let’s analyse the psychology of our debate. You love to obfuscate and argue with anything that disagrees with AGW dogma. I hate that. I love to argue with anything that doesn’t seem scientifically correct. So we have a love/hate relationship.

            The farce is strong in this one.

          • Nate says:

            “I went back and forth giving answers to your questions in good faith.”

            You really think so? I don’t. I think your answers are always based on the principle that your heroes, like Berry and Salby, must be right, and must be defended at all costs, rather than looking at the facts and truth of the matter.

            “Youve had plenty of opportunity to provide alternative models and data to rebut the simple model that describes the turnover e-time for the atmosphere.”

            Dishonest. I have shown you alternative models and data to rebut, many times. See below.

            “Lets analyse the psychology of our debate. You love to obfuscate and argue with anything that disagrees with AGW dogma. I hate that. I love to argue with anything that doesnt seem scientifically correct. So we have a love/hate relationship.”

            Sure, lets.

            I have never actually obfuscated you. Ive supported science that I think is solid with what I believe is supportive evidence or logical arguments.

            Anything that you don’t get, or contradicts your beliefs, you call obfuscation, which is dumb, and a sign of deep insecurity.

            Someone doing actual science could deal with critique. You can’t, because you are doing BELIEF not science.

            “I love to argue with anything that doesnt seem scientifically correct.”

            Like some others here, you LOVE contrarians, like Berry and Salby. I dont think it even matters if their ideas hold water.

            Because you LOVE that they are sticking it to the IPCC.

            The problem is that reality is what it is, regardless of the IPCCs position on it.

            As you can clearly see, renowned skeptic scientists, like Lindzen, Koonen, Spencer, Curry, Dyson, Happer, etc AGREE with the IPCC and Climate Science on the anthro origins of CO2 rise.

            They are skeptics, but are also experts who have seen the evidence, understand it. THEY are not obfuscating you. They just don’t believe the crap Berry and Salby are selling.

            Read the testimony on Q7.

            That should concern you. Why doesnt it?

            I guess you have sworn a contrarian oath or something.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “I have never actually obfuscated you.”

            Proof that you are the King of Obfuscation.

            Get help, Nate.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Get help’

            Ok maybe I’ll form a support group with Lindzen, Koonen, Spencer, Curry, Dyson, Happer, on how to ‘recover’ from Anthro Carbon Confusion.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          You really do need help. You are in total obfuscation mode now. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

          “It aint convincing to knowledgeable people, even well-known skeptic scientists.”

          Names and references, please.

          I’m done throwing pearls after swine. The application of the Physics Model to both decay and constant level was explained to you. I went back and forth giving answers to your questions in good faith. You’ve had plenty of opportunity to provide alternative models and data to rebut the simple model that describes the turnover e-time for the atmosphere.

          Let’s analyse the psychology of our debate. You love to obfuscate and argue with anything that disagrees with AGW dogma. I hate that. I love to argue with anything that doesn’t seem scientifically correct. So we have a love/hate relationship. But I refuse to go insane responding to your never ending obfuscation.

          The farce is strong in this one.

      • Nate says:

        Stephen, there are lots of papers on this subject that show Revelle Factor is important.

        The problem is if you ONLY read Berry, you get a very limited, biased POV.

        • Nate says:

          From Berry’s ‘paper’

          “Kohler [7] claims Hardes [24] model and therefore the
          Physics Model is ‘too simplistic’ and ‘leads to flawed results
          for anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere.’
          Kohler is wrong. There is no such thing as a system being
          ‘too simplistic.'”

          I’m sorry but how ignorant is that!

          And other things to marvel at:

          “IPCC [3] defines ‘adjustment time (Ta)’ as:
          The time-scale characterising the decay of an
          instantaneous pulse input into the reservoir.
          Cawley [5] defines ‘adjustment time (Ta)’ as:
          The time taken for the atmospheric CO2 concentration to
          substantially recover towards its original concentration
          following a perturbation.
          The word ‘substantially’ is imprecise.
          Cawley follows IPCC to define ‘residence time (Tr)’ as:
          The average length of time a molecule of CO2 remains in the
          atmosphere before being taken up by the oceans or terrestrial

          Some authors use ‘residence time’ to mean ‘e-time’ but
          other authors, such as Cawley and IPCC, have a different
          meaning for residence time. This paper uses e-time because its
          definition is precise.”

          OMG.

          His definition of e-time IS EQUIVALENT TO the definition of Residence Time.

          While he is misrepresenting it as measuring exactly what Adjustment Time measures.

          How imprecise and obfuscating he is here!

          • Stephen P. Anderson says:

            e-time is a mathematical term. It simplifies it. We know precisely what it is.

          • Stephen P. Anderson says:

            >How ignorant is that? So, the Law of Parsimony doesn’t apply in physics? Einstein was ignorant?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Stephen,

            I think Nate is just complaining that Dr. Berry doesn’t equate the precisely defined e-time with the ambiguously phrased, “The average length of time a molecule of CO2 remains in the atmosphere before being taken up by the oceans or terrestrial” which Cawley and the IPCC seem comfortable with.

        • Stephen P. Anderson says:

          Berry’s POV? So, are you saying the continuity equation, Inflow-Outflow= DL/dt, doesn’t describe atmospheric CO2? Are you saying Murry Salby is wrong? Daniel Jacob is wrong?

          • Stephen P. Anderson says:

            Are you saying the IPCC is wrong?

          • Nate says:

            Yep the Berry model just never made much sense physically.

            Einstein said ‘as simple as possible, but no simpler.’

            It is entirely possible for someone to produce a model that is too simplistic to fit the real system. Why not?

            And his is.

            Just consider some implications:

            He finds Level/e-time = outlow or inflow.

            The inflow and outflow correspond to ~ 100 ppm rise in the atmosphere for a year.

            But in order for their to be an actual FLOW, which apparently is measured, there would need to be a Level difference between the atmosphere and another reservoir, B.

            EG (LevelB-LevelA)/e-time = 100 ppm for inflow. If e-time is 4 years as he calculates, then we need Level B-Level A = 400 ppm. IOW Level B = 800 ppm since Level A = 400 ppm.

            Same goes for OUTPUT to reservoir C (LevelA- LevelC) = 400 ppm. So Level C is 0.

            These would need to be active for a whole year to achieve the observed annual flows.

            Is there any evidence of large reservoirs with 800 ppm and 0 ppm??

            if the flows are operating only part time then the level difference would need to be higher.

            The model just makes no sense.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Stephen,

            Nate’s comment is naively convoluted or intentionally obfuscational.

            I’ll defer to you as thread initiator.

          • Nate says:

            Specifically?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            You created a nonsense example to fool someone who doesn’t understand the physics and mathematics of mass transport. You may just be obfuscating again or you simply don’t understand CO2 cycling.

            The levels are concentrations. The FLOWs between the levels are masses/year. So LevelB/e-time – LevelA/e-time cannot be 100 ppm/year. Using the atmosphere data, LevelA being 400 ppm with e-time 4 years is 100 ppm/year. But LevelB is something like 2mM which fluctuates when an annual mass of the atmosphere exchanges with the ocean. That annual amount exchanged will be 100 ppm * the weight of the atmosphere, call it A. Mass A divided by the mass of the ocean is some small concentration A*mM. So the e-time for the ocean is 2mM/A*mM/year which would be quite a bit larger than 4 years I’m guessing. I’ll leave the exact number as homework.

            The key to your deception is trying to subtract concentrations between levels of two reservoirs with different masses.

            Adding a reservoir C to the model, say by separating the ocean into a mixed layer and deep ocean, just makes for the need for another rate constant between those two layers. This is at best a theoretical exercise since the data on that exchange is vague. The two-reservoir model has been solved using differential equations for both CO2 and C14 by Kevin Hashemi. IIRC, he concludes no need to split the ocean up.

            https://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/12/carbon-cycle-equations-and-diagram.html

          • Nate says:

            “LevelA being 400 ppm with e-time 4 years is 100 ppm/year.”

            Yes, and it also can be expressed as a partial pressure, Pa

            “But LevelB is something like 2mM which fluctuates when an annual mass of the atmosphere exchanges with the ocean.”

            Yes, that is concentration. Concentration reaches equilibrium with a specific partial pressure in the atmosphere above it, via Henrys Law. Thus concentration can be expressed as an ocean partial pressure, Po.

            When out of equilibrium, this can be described as a Pressure Difference between them, Pa-Po.

            There is no flow from atm to ocean UNLESS Pa-Po > 0.

            “So the e-time for the ocean is 2mM/A*mM/year which would be quite a bit larger than 4 years I’m guessing. I’ll leave the exact number as homework.”

            Yes e-time for ocean is larger, proportional to Volume. To =Ta (Vo/Va).

            Since Mass = PV, this difference in e-time cancels when working with pressure change due to a mass flow between them: (I can show you the algebra, or you can work it out)

            For atm: dPa/dt = (Po-Pa)/Ta

            for ocean it is dPo/dt = (Pa-Po)/To

            So for the atm, if you have a flow out to the ocean of dP/dt =100 ppm/year equivalent, and Ta is 4 y, Then that requires a Pressure difference with the ocean of Pa-Po = 400 ppm.

            But we know that the partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is always tracking closely to that of the atmosphere. The difference is nowhere near 400 ppm.

            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2017GL073814

            See figure 3.

          • Nate says:

            And notice my eqns with P are equivalent to his for M, using ka = 1/Ta.

          • Nate says:

            And hmm. Compare Kevins eqs. to mine, using ka = 1/Ta, kr = 1/To

          • Nate says:

            Posting issue, so ignore 7:29 AM post.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            First problem for both of us is we only considered the 80 PgC atmosphere-ocean flux. We ignore roughly 120 PgC atmosphere-land flux if we base our arguments on ocean data alone.

            Other than that, there is gross misuse of scientific principle contortion in your attempt to get a 400 ppm discrepancy. What for?

            “Since Mass = PV, this difference in e-time cancels when working with pressure change due to a mass flow between them: (I can show you the algebra, or you can work it out)

            Please show the algebra, because there in no way the e-times cancel with reservoirs of different volumes.

            Your problem is in trying to get mass transfer to act like a pressure difference. The difference initiates the mass transfer, but the proper starting point is dMa = dMo, not dPa/dt = (Po-Pa)/Ta. That abuses the input = Level/e-time relationship. (Pa-Po) does not equate to inflow in mass/time units.

            Your link provides good data supporting the IPCC position that CO2-ocean fluxes are about 80 PgC/year or 4 ppm/yr. Check Figure 3 to see for yourself.

            As for the Hashemi definitions being analogous to yours, you are simply misusing mass vs. concentration again. kaMa does not equal Pa/Ta.

            Keep working on it and maybe the coin will drop.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            …CO2-ocean fluxes are about 80 PgC/year or 40 ppm/yr, not 4 ppm/yr.

          • Nate says:

            “Your problem is in trying to get mass transfer to act like a pressure difference.”

            C’mon, These are simple proportional relationships. As I explained the mass density of carbon in the atm or ocean in ppm can be easily converted to partial pressure. Everyone understands that partial pressure is proportional to the mass of carbon per unit volume.
            P ~ M/V.

            The paper in figure 3 reports ocean carbon content as a partial pressure in micro-atmospheres.

            Do you doubt any of that?

            “The difference initiates the mass transfer, but the proper starting point is dMa = dMo, not dPa/dt = (Po-Pa)/Ta. That abuses the input = Level/e-time relationship. (Pa-Po) does not equate to inflow in mass/time units.”

            Puleez, abuse? Just different units and algebra.

            my equation:

            dPa/dt = (Po-Pa)/Ta
            = Po/Ta -Pa/Ta

            Now as noted the e-time for ocean larger due to larger volume.

            To =Ta(Vo/Va) Yes/No?
            so

            dPa/dt = Po/[ToVa/Vo] -Pa/Ta now multiply both sides by Va

            VadPa/dt = VaPo/ToVa/Vo]-VaPa/Ta

            = VoPo/To -VaPa/Ta

            dMa/dt = Mo/To – Ma/Ta

            dMa/dt = koMo – kaMa

            Familiar?? This is Kevin’s eqn.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Well done. I’m impressed, with your algebra at least.

            Now we should be able to agree that e-time doesn’t cancel out, but is in fact necessary to be corrected by the difference in reservoir volumes.

            Also we should agree that the data from AJ Sutton et alia shows that seawater pCO2 varies +/- 40 microatm depending on the year. Not 400 ppm and this is consistent with a CO2 flux of 40 ppm as it should be to be consistent with IPCC estimates.

          • Nate says:

            Thank you.

            “Now we should be able to agree that e-time doesnt cancel out, but is in fact necessary to be corrected by the difference in reservoir volumes.”

            I can agree that e-time relates to volume of the reservoir.

            “Also we should agree that the data from AJ Sutton et alia shows that seawater pCO2 varies +/- 40 microatm depending on the year. Not 400 ppm and this is consistent with a CO2 flux of 40 ppm as it should be to be consistent with IPCC estimates.”

            OK. First, we need to agree that ‘not 400 ppm’ means not consistent with the Berry model.

            There is no physical reality that matches his Model whereby there is simply a flow of 100 ppm from atm at 400 ppm (micro-atm) to an ocean/land reservoir at 0 atm, with 4 y e-time.

            The reality is that pco2 of the ocean (presumably land also) is quite close on average to the pco2 of the atm.

            But I can believe that with seasonal warming/cooling there can be variation of, as you say, +-40 ppm. (probably for half the year)

            For a 40 micro-atm to drive a flux of 40 ppm would require the e-time to be 1 year, or maybe 0.5 y if the 40 mic-atm was applied for only half of the year.

            I would again suggest these are solar-powered driven flows.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “OK. First, we need to agree that not 400 ppm means not consistent with the Berry model.”

            That is wrong. The fluctuation of approximately 40 ppm is consistent with IPCC estimates and Berry’s model when you add the 60 ppm from the land sources. 40 ppm + 60 ppm = 100 ppm.

            The rest of your comment is gobbledygook. A 1 or 0.5 year e-time? You have no model and no data in your efforts to find fault with Dr. Berry’s hypothesis, model, and supportive data.

            Throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks is not how science is done. Is climate science the exception to the rule?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Think of it this way. Each year, about 100 ppm of natural emissions pour into the air from both ocean and land. Also each year, a percentage of those natural emissions plus the extra CO2 from FF are reabsorbed. You can quibble about what the exact percentage is, but you can’t deny the data indicating that about 100 ppm are also being reabsorbed each year. That is outflow. So the level/outflow = 400ppm/100ppm/year or approximately a 4-year e-time.

          • Nate says:

            our quote: “There is a nearly-balanced annual exchange of some 200 PgC between the atmosphere and the earths surface (~80 Pg land and ~120 Pg ocean)”

            So in ppm units this is 60 ppm from the atm to the ocean.

            Berry’s hypothesis , again, Output = Level/e-time.

            Again, Level here is understood to be RELATIVE to the level of the Ocean the place the the Output is going. It is the DIFFERENCE IN LEVELS that drives the Flow.

            If you are saying relative to the Ocean the Level of the atmosphere is ~ 40 micro-atm at most, and we use e-time = 4 y,

            Then we get Output = 40/4 = 10 ppm. That is 10 ppm.

            It just makes no sense.

            To get an output of 60 ppm requires an e-time of 2/3 of a year.

            Do facts such as these matter or not??

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “If you are saying relative to the Ocean the Level of the atmosphere is ~ 40 micro-atm at most, and we use e-time = 4 y,”

            No one is saying that. Stop making stuff up and obfuscating. I mixed up the ocean and land emissions, but that doesn’t invalidate the Physics Model.

            “Then we get Output = 40/4 = 10 ppm. That is 10 ppm.”

            No dummy. The combined inflows are 100 ppm/year which maintains the 400 ppm level. You are intentionally obfuscating. Why? It won’t change anything. The Physics Model is not going away. The 400 ppm will continue to rise as the 100 ppm inflows continue to rise.

            If you have a problem with that, find an alternative model that fits the data. That is what a legitimate scientist would do.

            Don’t you have a life outside this blog? Are you living in your parents basement collecting unemployment instead of going back to work at Burger King?

          • Nate says:

            ‘Then we get Output = 40/4 = 10 ppm. That is 10 ppm.’

            “No dummy. The combined inflows are 100 ppm/year which maintains the 400 ppm level. You are intentionally obfuscating. Why?”

            Im simply plugging the available data into his Model.

            40 is the Level relative to the Ocean.

            4 is the e-time..Level/e-time 10 = Predicted Output.

            10 is not = 60 which is the measured flux from atm to ocean.

            What am I missing here?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “40 is the Level relative to the Ocean.”

            No, it is not. CO2 was 400 ppm in the atmosphere in 2015, which equals 400 microatm of pCO2 in seawater. You can check that by Figure 3 in the Sutton et alia paper you cited some days ago.

            The 40 microatm is the fluctuation in CO2 flux which represents the inflows and outflows between the ocean and atmosphere. The value of 40 I referred to previously was wrong. I had mixed up the land and ocean emissions. Based on that mistake I am about 20 microatm short of the 60 needed to have natural emissions totaling 100 assuming the 120/80 PgC ratio is correct and assuming the sealevel fluxes are correct. That discrepancy needs to be investigated.

            My prediction is that you will use this as evidence of the Physics Model failure. Unfortunately, I may not be able to address your concerns while I’m away on a consulting trip.

            Maybe you should take a break too and ask yourself why arguing with Dr. Berry’s model is so important to you. Maybe counselling would help. In case you were wondering the same about me, I use your contrarian answers to improve my models and be better prepared for public presentations. But as said above, I won’t continue arguing with someone who mind is infinitely more closed than mine.

          • Nate says:

            “40 is the Level relative to the Ocean.”

            “No, it is not. CO2 was 400 ppm in the atmosphere in 2015, which equals 400 microatm of pCO2 in seawater. You can check that by Figure 3 in the Sutton et alia paper you cited some days ago.”

            Uhhh, where we you when we looked at the paper showing PCO2 in seawater is NEARLY the same as the PCO2 in the atmosphere???

            Did you somehow miss the whole point of the discussion about the correct equations for dP/dT being proportional to Pa-Po???

            First of all, you agreed that FLOW is driven by a pressure DIFFERENCE. If the pressure is the same in the atmosphere and ocean their will be NO FLOW between. But FLOW between them is measured to be 120 ppm/year.

            Second, look at Berry’s Model. He is schematically showing the LEVEL in the atmosphere relative to an ocean level that is 0.

            We know it is not really 0 in the ocean. What matters is the atm level relative to the ocean level.

            The difference in pressure level between the ocean and atmosphere is not close to 400 micro-atm.

            The paper shows that the ocean average was ~ 380 mic atm in 2015, when the atmosphere was 400. So the difference is ~ 20.

            You said pm 40 variation. I believe it.

          • Nate says:

            “My prediction is that you will use this as evidence..”

            Sure, I get it, you need an out, since you have run out of sensible answers..

            Here’s a simple solution.

            Stop bringing up, and endlessly defending the indefensible Berry and Salby BS, and I will stop arguing with your posts.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I want an out, because it is wrong to waste my time with a professional obfuscator who isn’t interested in exploring any science. You just like to argue with anyone exposing the AGW dogma as flawed.

            I got under your skin. I get that. But instead of dealing with it, you will stalk me forever trying to prove something. Are you compensating for not being able to get it up?

            Eventually you will eat crow, because Berry and Salby’s science is valid as demonstrated by your lack of credible evidence to the contrary. What a fool you made of yourself.

            One thing I do give you credit for…being the King of obfuscation.

          • Willard says:

            > Berry and Salbys science is valid as demonstrated by your lack of credible evidence

            That’s not how validity works, Chic.

          • Nate says:

            “Waste my time with professional obfuscator who isnt interested in exploring any science.”

            Always the last thing said when deniers run out of sensible answers to legit science questions.

  20. RLH says:

    USCRN hourly data

    Station,Date,Hour,Median,Min,Max,(min+max)/2,Uncertainty
    94060,20011221,16,-10.5,-7.8,-13.3,-9.15,-1.35

    And that is just for one day.

    And, no, it doesn’t all average out as a normal distribution would

    • RLH says:

      USCRN Daily data

      Station,Date,Median,Min,Max,(min+max)/2,Uncertainty
      53877,20010605,15.4,11.9,26.7,19.3,-3.9

      This stuff cascades

      • RLH says:

        All Stations, all days, from 2000 to date

        MinErr,MaxErr
        -6.95,3.6

        • Entropic man says:

          You seem to have wandered off into some statistical fairy land. Please describe your calculation.

          Are you using something like this to calculate the uncertainty in the median?

          https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/292871/uncertainty-propagation-upon-taking-the-median#:

          • RLH says:

            The methodology for it you mean (pun)

            1) Take a copy of the USCRN data, 5 min of you want precise figures, hourly if you are prepared to get up just a little accuracy.

            2) Extract from that the temperature figures per 5 min or hour as required.

            3) Create an accurate summation, avg, or median of the day using the above.

            4) Calculate the (min+max)/2

            5) Derive the uncertainty from avg-(min+max)/2 or median-(min+max)/2

          • Willard says:

            That won’t tell EM what you did, Richard.

          • barry says:

            I’m concerned that because things like humidity and wind speed are not factored, and because these temperature readings don’t include all of a 3 metre volume of air around the thermometer, that the results of this uncertainty test will be spurious.

          • barry says:

            Gordon now thinks plotting a linear trend estimate for temperature data is OK. How can this be when:

            “There is no way to draw a line through the data… representing a linear trend line, and have it represent, even closely, what actually happened.”

            Surely he hasn’t changed his mind because of the start date? Or because of the source?

            The article is 7 years old, plotting temp data for the full 10 years of the USCRN data.

            10 years.

            But never fear! WUWT updated 3 years later.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/08/the-uscrn-revisited/

            Though they tried to spin it as the same story, a cooling trend had changed to a warming one (0.6 C/decade (+/- 0.9), so instead of repeating that the pause continued, they adjusted the rhetoric to “still no statistically significant warming,” despite that the trend was negative in the 2014 post…

            But never fear! I’ve downloaded the data for the latest update:

            USCRN = 0.9 C/decade (+/- 1.2)

            Dang! Warmer, but still not statistically significant based on annual averages.

            But the p-value and the F statistic have both improved, and don’t the kids just love it.

          • RLH says:

            “Im concerned that because things like humidity and wind speed are not factored, and because these temperature readings dont include all of a 3 metre volume of air around the thermometer, that the results of this uncertainty test will be spurious.”

            This is not test of uncertainty, this is an observation that uncertainty exists if the temperature only figures are used because they do not take into account all the other factors.

            This is all about confusing simple temperature with thermal energy. Unless you consider other factors there is no direct link.

          • RLH says:

            “rlh no significant warming shown in USCRN data”

            That article is 6 years old. Care to update it to cover recent times?

          • RLH says:

            “USCRN = 0.9 C/decade (+/- 1.2)”

            Where did you get that from? Mind you, it would show that the uncertainty range for the last 20 years worth of data is quite large.

          • barry says:

            I got that estimate from running a linear regression on the USCRN annual data in Excel using the “add-on” statistics pack and reading the upper/lower 95%.

            Data from here:

            https://tinyurl.com/9hdhr6ry

            Yep, no surprise that a linear regression using data from a small percentage of the Earth’s surface (more noisy than global) isn’t statistically significant after only 16 years. I would have been very surprised if it was. I wouldn’t even bet on a warming trend for regional data that short (post 1950).

            You can find 16-year linear estimates with statistical significance in global surface data, but it’s not convincing – partly because that is not a consistent feature. Multidecadal periods are required.

          • RLH says:

            “I got that estimate from running a linear regression on the USCRN annual data”

            and you think that provides what?

          • barry says:

            An update to Gordon’s article.

            It’s odd, because he doesn’t like linear trends either. But apparently they’re ok when he likes the gist of the article using them.

          • RLH says:

            Linear trends provide an observation only over the time period they cover. They provide NO information at all about time periods before of after that central period. In fact they cannot only be very wrong but misleading too.

          • Mark B says:

            RLH says: Linear trends provide an observation only over the time period they cover. They provide NO information at all about time periods before of after that central period.

            The warming temperature trend is evidence broadly consistent with AGW theory. The temperature trend is merely a statement of some characteristic of the observation and does not necessarily have predictive power in and of itself.

            The rational for expecting the trend to continue is that the observation is consistent with the expected increase in forcings per AGW theory. Further that AGW is the only cohesive coherent explanation for the observed trend.

            It’s the theory that allows us to speculate about the future, not the supporting observations from the past, but the more the theory-consistent observations we accumulate, the more confidence we have in projecting from theory.

          • RLH says:

            There is no specific evidence that we are out of the natural range so far.

            To say that there is no natural range to the signal is stupid

          • Mark B says:

            RLH says: There is no specific evidence that we are out of the natural range so far.

            What source(s) are you using to bound the natural range?

            To say that there is no natural range to the signal is stupid.

            I’d feel smarter about not having said that if it weren’t likely that no one has ever said that.

          • RLH says:

            What source(s) are YOU using to bound the natural range?

  21. Darwin wyatt says:

    Natural variability explains all of the cold and warm periods not just now but before aco2 could ever be a problem (1950). The recent Eemian interglacial (geologically speaking) with its much higher sea levels, is probably where we’re headed. Co2 is nowhere near the driving force of our climate. You jokers need to let go of the stone.

  22. AaronS says:

    Dr. Spencer or another expert,
    Any thoughts or statement about this paper?

    I am just not qualified and seek better understanding, but sure seems based on media coverage to be an attempt to muddy the “Luke warm” story that seems to be emerging over the last 40 years of satellite data.

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/aop/JCLI-D-20-0768.1/JCLI-D-20-0768.1.xml

    • barry says:

      I’m not qualified either, but from the abstract it looks like they are comparing temperature trends in the lower and mid troposphere, the lower stratosphere and sea surface and in atmospheric water vapour, checking those against what is expected from modelling of the 1979 to 2019 period, and finding some discrepancies of note for the tropical region.

      Specifically, if the models have the ratio between the trends correct, they think that either satellite temperature trends of the tropical troposphere are too low, or that observed trends in atmospheric moistening are too high. They are as yet unable to determine which.

      I couldn’t find a free full copy of the paper, unsurprisingly.

    • E. Swanson says:

      AaronS, That article should be a good one. The list of authors includes most of the NOT UAH satellite data community, as I recall. Too bad it’s not open access.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      aarons…look at the author list, it’s a who’s who of climate alarmists. Mears and Wentz are in it, proving RSS is now part of the climate alarmist clowns.

      Susan Solomon is an IPCC poobah and ordered Chapter 9 to look into allegations by McIntyre and McKitrick for irregularities in the Mann hockey stick. Chapter 9, being friends of Mann, ignored her and she did nothing about it. An investigator appointed by the IPCC to look into irregularities in the hockey stick, Wegmann, suggested Chapter 9 reviewers were nepotic. Besides being friend of Mann, they only cited each other’s papers.

      Santer, of course, is a well known alarmist.

      You won’t get scientific truth from that horde of clowns.

      • barry says:

        Could you even understand what Gordon wrote?

        Wegman wrote:

        “Although Michael Mann remains an author with high centrality, Tett, Briffa and Cook emerge as belonging to their own cluster and they also exhibit high centrality. Schweingruber and Collins also appear to have relatively high centrality. One interesting observation is that although Tett is fairly central, he has no direct linkage to Mann. Similarly the Gareth Jones-Allen-Parker- Davies-Stott clique also has no direct linkage to Mann. There are two Joneses. Gareth Jones is not the same person as the person previously labeled as Jones.”

        In a field as small as it was at the time, it’s not surprising that there was a lot of cross-collaboration. The above quote is concerned with 75 the most frequently published authors and co-authors in the field of climate reconstruction.

        • Willard says:

          Ed basically discovered that Mike was at the center of his own clique:

          8. At the hearing you were asked if you disputed the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report, and you stated that you did not. Were you referring solely to Dr. Wegman’s criticism of the statistical approach of Dr. Mann, or were you also referring to Dr. Wegman’s social network analysis and conclusions?

          ANSWER: Dr. Wegman’s criticisms of the statistical methodology in the papers by Mann et al were consistent with our findings. Our committee did not consider any social network analyses and we did not have access to Dr. Wegman’s report during our deliberations so we did not have an opportunity to discuss his conclusions. Personally, I was not impressed by the social network analysis in the Wegman report, nor did I agree with most of the report’s conclusions on this subject. As I stated in my testimony, one might erroneously conclude, based on a social network analysis analogous to the one performed on Dr. Mann, that a very active and charismatic scientist is somehow guilty of conspiring or being inside a closed community or ‘mutual admiration society’. I would expect that a social network analysis of Enrico Fermi or any of the other scientists involved with the development of modern physics would yield a similar pattern of connections, yet there is no reason to believe that theoretical physics has suffered from being a tight-knit community. Moreover, as far as I can tell the only data that went into Dr. Wegman’s analysis was a list of individuals that Dr. Mann has co-authored papers with. It is difficult to see how this data has any bearing on the peer-review process, the need to include statisticians on every team that engages in climate research (which in my view is a particularly unrealistic and unnecessary recommendation), or any of the other findings and recommendations in Dr. Wegman’s report.

          http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/10/gerald-north-dishes.html

      • Swenson says:

        GR,

        From the abstract x

        “If model expectations of these four covariance relationships are realistic, . . . ”

        If wishes were fishes, no one would starve.

        Just more bumbling buffoons wasting taxpayer money. Some of them might not be frauds, fools, or fakers.

    • AaronS says:

      So this issue of moisture and temperature is also related to cloud life time and is a potential blunder in recent C.M.I.P.6 models with to much warming and there is apparently a need to consider returning warming back to v5 models. Or perhaps as the previous paper cited suggests it is the satellite “Luke warm” data that is wrong. It will be interesting to watch this academic debate unfold.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01038-1

      “This suggests that model errors in cloud-precipitation processes may bias cloud feedbacks by as much as the CMIP5-to-CMIP6 climate sensitivity difference. Reliable climate model projections therefore require improved cloud process realism guided by process-oriented observations and observational constraints.”

  23. Darwin Wyatt says:

    I have dibs on Eric the red’s property in Greenland. Just saying.

  24. TomIsAlwaysRight says:

    Oy bozo, try telling g that to Punxsutawney Phil…

  25. Afterthought says:

    Again, literally nothing is happening.

  26. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”A linear estimate of 0.14 C per decade, that is after all 0.56 C over 40 years”.

    Typical comment from a number cruncher.

    Context!!! There is no way to draw a line through the data from 1979 onward, representing a linear trend line, and have it represent, even closely, what actually happened.

    The first 18 years of anomalies were largely below the baseline and it was explained in the UAH 33 year report that those anomalies were largely due to cooling from volcanic aerosols. Therefore, any trend line in that data was a recovery from cooling.

    From 1998 – 2015, there was a flat trend that ended in early 2016 with the major El Nino. That EN helped maintain the global average at an unrealistic level from which it has recently descended.

    Anyone trying to claim a 0.56C warming based on such variability is from another planet.

    • barry says:

      “it was explained in the UAH 33 year report…”

      You’re nae true skeptic, laddie. Ye believe it when ye like the politics of the people writin’ it.

    • Bindidon says:

      Typical trash from the one who distorts, discredits, denigrates everything what doesn’t fit to his dumb, uneducated narrative, and insults all people whose meaning differs from his own ‘meaning’.

      Better to be a number cruncher than a disgusting guy like you, Robertson.

      And btw, people like the UAH team itself, or like commenter RLH, are number crunchers as well.

      But… they all crunch for the Cosa Nostra, don’t they?

      J.-P. D.

  27. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Seems like if you jokers really believed aco2 to be the climate threat you say, you’d be promoting planting trees instead of snipe hunting all day on Reagan’s military communication system.

    • barry says:

      Learn about logical fallacies before wasting bandwidth here.

      https://www.thoughtco.com/tu-quoque-logical-fallacy-1692568

      Example III is all you.

      To answer your question as if it isn’t rhetorical detritus, I vote for parties in favour of CO2 mitigating policies, I recycle, I consciously lower my CO2 footprint in little ways.

      In this forum the interest is in science, not activism. Try to keep your politicking to a minimum.

      • Steve Case says:

        Barry says:

        “… I vote for parties in favour of CO2 mitigating policies,…”

        Increasing atmospheric CO2 is not a problem. Warmer weather, more rain, more arable land, longer growing seasons and increased food production all due to that extra CO2 in the air just doesn’t add up to “The existential crisis of our time.” that the Democrats have been screaming about for the last 40 years.

        Life on Earth is dependent on two chemical compounds, H20 and CO2, and one of them is in short supply

        Here are links to NOAA and NASA web pages that deal with the benefits of extra CO2 in the air:

        Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth NASA

        Finding Significant Greening in Earth’s Vegetative Areas NOAA

        Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Emergency, Climate Crisis, The Existential Crisis of Our Time … is no doubt the most successful propaganda campaign of all time.

        So you ignore all that and vote to mitigate CO2. Do you deny the upside of CO2? Do you deny that most of the predictions and projections such as polar bear extinction, increased tropical cyclones, increased tornadoes, increased droughts, increased floods all due to a one degree rise in temperature since 1850 really haven’t happened? Do you deny all that?

        The only thing your side of the coin has is that one degree increase since 1850 and sea level rise which precedes the rise in CO2 by more than a century.

      • barry says:

        “Do you deny the upside of CO2?”

        Not at all. Only one of does the denying, Steve. You deny the downsides that cause me to make the choices I do.

    • Willard says:

      Where’s your rolling coal, Darwin?

      • Swenson says:

        Waffling Wee Willy,

        I give up. Where is it?

          • Swenson says:

            Witless Wee Willy,

            Yet another pointless attempt to get me to click on yet another of your pointless links?

            Where are your cojones, Wee Willy? Can’t bring yourself to take responsibility for what you point to?

            Get a grip, kiddo. I know obscure idiocy is your forte, but you might find nobody cares for your opinion.

            Carry on trying to appear clever. There are no doubt some people even more stupid than you appear to be. How are your “silly semantic games” going”? Do you have any opponents, or do you just spend your time playing with yourself?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            You asked –

            “Where is it?”

            You got served.

            Don’t whine if that makes you unhappy.

            Ho! Ho! Ho!

          • Swenson says:

            Whacky Wee Willy,

            You provided a link – to what, who knows?

            Does it really explain where Darwin’s rolling coal is? No?

            At a guess, it wouldnt contain the words “Darwin Wyatt” at all. Am I right? All you have done is illustrate your pointless attempts at trolling – yet again, kiddo’

            I don’t need to tell you to keep on being an idiot – you’re doing fine without my direction.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Once again you get caught butting in an exchange without having read it.

            And now you’re playing dumb.

            And?

            Nothing.

            That’s why you’re so much fun!

          • Swenson says:

            Weird Wee Willy,

            You provided one of your irrelevant links.

            You are definitely not just playing dumb, you are positively stupid. Point out where Darwin Wyatt’s comment would prompt you to respond as you did. Silly request – you can’t, of course.

            More “silly semantic games”?

            You need to try harder, kiddo!

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            How can you tell if my link is irrelevant if you don’t click on it and if you fail to understand the exchange in which you butt in?

            The answer is easy –

            You’re Mike Flynn!

            Cheers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

          • RLH says:

            Hare a Troll, there a Troll. Everywhere a Troll

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            RLH, please stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            RLH, please stop trolling.

  28. ren says:

    The global temperature will not rise in the following months due to the low temperature of the eastern tropical Pacific and will fall again in November.
    The magnetic activity of the solar wind is still at the level of the last solar minimum.
    https://i.ibb.co/MB01J0D/onlinequery.gif

  29. ren says:

    It is important to realise that the northern hemisphere astronomically is already past its interglacial peak.
    These plots present time series (updated daily) of the current amount of water stored by the seasonal snowpack (cubic km) over Northern Hemisphere land areas (excluding Greenland).
    https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png

    • Entropic man says:

      Snowpack is tricky.

      In a warmer climate extra evaporation from water upstream increases precipitation and therefore snowpack.

      At the same time the warming climate turns the earliest and latest snowfall to rain.. This reduces the number of days in the snowpack season and reduces total accumulation.

      Overall it is difficult to know whether the observed warming would be expected to increase snowfall or decrease it.

    • Entropic man says:

      On the orbital cycles, I agree with you. We are past the peak of the Holocene, so without our interference the natural trend would be cooling.

  30. RLH says:

    So I think we can all agree that there are sufficient thermal energy flows in Earth’s climate to do with freezing/thawing and evaporation/condensation that using air temperatures alone, regardless which instruments are used to measure them, land or satellite, without too considering those other local factors is a poor way of describing that climate.

    • Entropic man says:

      A good weather station measures temperature (at standard times of day plus max and min), relative and absolute humidity, wind speed and direction, rainfall, light intensity and UV index.

      Hardly measuring air temperature alone.

      You’ve built a straw man argument that weather and climate studies focus entirely on air temperature. You’ve been waving it around for weeks now, despite its poor fit to reality. Please stop.

      • RLH says:

        Only if others also stop claiming that rising air temperatures imply that climate is also at risk

      • RLH says:

        Do you claim that rising air temps alone are a risk?

      • RLH says:

        “at standard times of day plus max and min”

        Do you know how bad mathematically (min+max)/2 is for assessing what the true temperature over a day is?

        • Willard says:

          If anybody does, it certainly won’t be because you showed how bad it was mathematically.

          • RLH says:

            So you don’t understand the maths even though Vaughn laid it out for you (and me)

          • RLH says:

            Oops. Sorry. That was for CTRM filters, not (min+max)2

          • RLH says:

            It is just a simple case of applying appropriate sampling methodologies. Above you I suspect

          • Willard says:

            There’s something about “mathematically” that seems to escape you, Richard.

          • Willard says:

            > Vaughn laid it out for you (and me)

            It’s Vaughan, Richard, and I already showed you evidence that I read that thread where Vaughan spank you gently over and over again. Just as I gave you evidence I read the comment thread to your own post.

            Who do you think you’re kidding right now?

          • RLH says:

            Signal processing seems to escape you.

            And VP (typing mistakes to the contrary) uses the same CRTM filter as one of the simplest possible with which I concur.

          • Willard says:

            > [Vaughan] uses the same CRTM

            I’d say it’s the other way around.

            Note the date of the two posts.

          • RLH says:

            I am aware of the fact that his post predates mine, but I was unaware of his work when I wrote my article.

          • Willard says:

            Look, Richard.

            Even assuming you know your shit as well as Vaughan, which is a stretch, your defensiveness is getting the better of you. You’re botching most if not all the responses you made to just about everybody here. That slows you down more than anybody else. It’s your quest. If you can’t take feedback constructively, what the hell are you doing here?

            There’s nothing wrong with curve fitting. Even overfitting can be useful sometimes! At the very least, own it. Vaughan does. Why wouldn’t you?

            At the end of the day you need to come up with a mechanism. You won’t find it in Hume, Burke, or whatever old conservative thinkers for whom you may be rooting.

            Meanwhile, you’re still conflating systematic with random error. That may not be the best way to buttress your condescension. But hey, you’re old enough to be your own man.

            You do you.

          • RLH says:

            Because the use of a simple low pass filter does not do curve fitting. It does pass band

          • Willard says:

            Sure, Richard.

            You just filter data and then you stop and do nothing.

          • RLH says:

            Do you understand what pass band filtering does?

          • Willard says:

            You understand that Vaughan knows he’s fitting curves, right?

          • RLH says:

            You do understand that VP knows a lot more about what he is doing than you do. and most of it is not what you think.

          • Willard says:

            I do understand that you’re not Vaughan, Richard.

            Do you?

          • RLH says:

            Of course. Do you think you have insights into what he does and writs about that are any better than mine?

          • Willard says:

            I actually think I do, Richard, but that’s irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that you haven’t shown anything mathematically.

            Just like handwaving to textbooks does not establish formally how observational errors propagate, paying lip service to Vaughan does not replace a proof.

          • RLH says:

            Assuming that errors are normally distributed without any evidence to support it is about as bad statistics as you can get.

          • RLH says:

            You’ll be telling me next that thermometers measure only sensible heat and that latent heat is of no importance.

          • Willard says:

            > Youll be telling me next

            I don’t need to extend the commitments I made so far, Richard.

            Please don’t conflate reductio with ridicule.

          • RLH says:

            Ridicule is all I have of you and your thinking.

          • Willard says:

            Another thing that distinguishes you from Vaughan, Richard.

          • RLH says:

            IYHO of course

          • Willard says:

            Sure, Richard.

          • RLH says:

            Your discipline sampling theorem then? Do you know that it turns out that even very, very minor variations in clock sampling rates are audible on CD/DVD record or replay?

          • Willard says:

            Imagine a Climateball player boasting his system guru creds and not being able to deliver, Richard.

            You’re supposed to be too experienced not to make that mistake.

          • RLH says:

            I don’t play Climateball

          • RLH says:

            Found the latent heat yet?

          • Willard says:

            Arguing by ignorance using a rhetorical question may not be the best way not to play Climateball.

          • RLH says:

            Do you agree that whilst thermometers track both sensible and latent heat in the atmosphere and that, without considering wider climate data, temperatures alone may be a poor track of thermal energy in the climate system?

          • Willard says:

            I agree that you’re playing Climateball, Richard.

          • RLH says:

            Giving no answer is not an answer you know?

            Do you think that temperature alone is sufficient to observe climate and climate trends?

          • Willard says:

            I don’t need to flash my creds for what I do, Richard.

            How about you?

          • RLH says:

            Observations about reality not your strong point then

    • RLH

      > “…using air temperatures alone, regardless which instruments are used to measure them, land or satellite, without too considering those other local factors is a poor way of describing that climate.”

      Yes it is. Thermometers measure the surrounding environment temperature, not the air temperature…

      Thermometers are in the Stevenson standardized screens with air natural circulation, thru louvers.

      No, it is impossible to accept thermometers measure air temperature.
      Not by the current very advanced science’s standards…

      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • RLH says:

        That is but a small concern when considering the point sample to lower atmosphere volume problems

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        christos…”Thermometers are in the Stevenson standardized screens with air natural circulation, thru louvers”

        I have not looked into this. Do you mean the thermometers are in contact with the walls of the Stevenson screen or are they suspended independently?.

        The only one I have seen was decades ago at an airport. The thermometers were for weather prediction and they kept a sling psychrometer for measuring humidity in the same box. Look at the Stevenson screen at this link. It is filled with material and even has an electrical outlet in it.

        I think you’re right, the thermometer should be suspended independently to reduce direct conduction.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygrometer

  31. RLH says:

    “For a normal distribution, the standard deviation is a very appropriate measure of variability (or spread) of the distribution. But for skewed distributions, the standard deviation gives no information on the asymmetry. It is better to use the first and third quartiles, since these will give some sense of the asymmetry of the distribution.”

    Who here really believes that daily temperature data is normally distributed?

    • RLH says:

      Or monthly or Yearly temperature data likewise

    • Craig T says:

      The UAH monthly global TLT has a range from -0.67 to 0.70, a mean of -.077, a median of -0.07 and mode of -0.07. That doesn’t scream skewed distribution.

      • RLH says:

        Do you know what the repeat cycle time is for an arbitrary lat/long position are on Earth of the satellites and how that effects any signal analysis?

        • Craig T says:

          That sounds more like a question for Dr. Spenser since he converts the satellite data to temperatures. How does the repeat cycle time relate to the monthly temperature data distribution not being skewed?

          • RLH says:

            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.”

            See fig 5 in particular

        • Craig T says:

          Or monthly or Yearly temperature data likewise?

    • Craig T says:

      Can you show us a graph of the 1st and 3rd quartiles of the UAH TLT?

  32. RLH says:

    Or monthly or Yearly temperature data likewise

  33. We are past the peak of the current astronomical cycle centuries before industrial revolution commenced…

    If the trend was cooling, it would had been impossible for the industrial revolution to flourish, since North Europe would have been covered by glaciers now.

    Fortunately, we are past the peak of the current astronomical cycle, but the trend is still a warming trend.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • ren says:

      Glaciations in the Northern Hemisphere ended when the greatest insolation was at the 65th parallel in July. Now it is different and snowfall in the northern hemisphere will increase because the oceans are warmer in the winter. Glaciation in the northern hemisphere could happen in as little as 100 years (with low solar activity) or in 8,000 years. Nothing will stop this process.

    • ren says:

      The trend in the troposphere can change quickly if you look at Pacific temperatures.
      https://i.ibb.co/QX3XnbV/gfs-nh-sat4-sstanom-1-day.png

  34. Clint R says:

    RLH has taken on the AGW nonsense from a statistical stance. He’s battling the cult mentality, but RLH is also obsessed, so the battle is interesting to watch.

    But the fact that RLH makes so many good points indicates the shallowness of the AGW nonsense.

    Let’s look at the scoreboard:

    1) RLH has compelling arguments against the data manipulation.
    2) All of the perversions of physics have been easily debunked — “33K”, “claiming solar is only 163 W/m^2, instead of the actual 960 W/m^2”, “steel greenhouse”, etc.
    3) The phony “EEI” (Earth Energy Imbalance), that tries to “balance” flux, which doesn’t balance!
    4) The sea level nonsense where some, like Entropic man, claim sea levels are “accelerating”, but they don’t know what the sea level is supposed to be!

    5) The work by Christos Vournas and “CO2isLife”, and verified by the physics of a rotisserie, that indicates no CO2 is needed for Earth’s 288K average temperature.

    The list goes on and on.

    That’s why this is so much fun.

      • RLH says:

        You don’t do relevance do you?

        • Willard says:

          You do realize that Clint is a sock puppet, Richard. Right?

          You’ll never guess what was his previous sock.

          • RLH says:

            Why would I care?

          • Willard says:

            Perhaps you don’t care that when you’re responding to my comment, you’re responding to my comment.

          • RLH says:

            True. But what do I care about socks, puppet or otherwise?

          • Willard says:

            Why should I care if you care or not, Richard?

            Every time you get a response that displeases you, you punt.

            I hope you do not treat any employee like that.

          • RLH says:

            I’m retired, I don’t get to employ people any more

          • RLH says:

            You getting personal or what?

          • Willard says:

            One big problem with bragging is that you become a target, Richard.

            But in our case I only want to make sure that you keep your defensive patterns to online exchanges. I don’t mind them. Few here do.

          • RLH says:

            I don’t brag. Doesn’t work in business. I do deal with idiots though all the time.

          • RLH says:

            If you have qualifications then you state them if pushed. You pushed, I stated them. Get over it.

            You can’t imply or state that I have no experience in the fields in which I have worked without prompting some sort of response.

            I have done digital signal processing since the very early days, and analogue before that.

            I have done computing since the days before personal computers were possible.

            If you think that none of that means that I cannot observe what I see as the deficiencies in the work done in climate or counter what people who claim ridiculous things put forward, well…..

          • Willard says:

            > You can’t imply or state that I have no experience in the fields

            The original implication was that you’re either dense or inexperienced, Richard. My own point was that it’s easy to say stuff on the Internet. That’s when you responded that you have three letters. As if it meant anything.

            Later on you admitted that your three letters were a master certificate. And when pushed you also said that your experience was acquired before that title. So your justification does not even float.

            Being dense wasn’t that farfetched after all. I prefer to interpret it as defensiveness.

          • RLH says:

            “The original implication was that youre either dense or inexperienced, Richard. My own point was that its easy to say stuff on the Internet. Thats when you responded that you have three letters. As if it meant anything.”

            So you were as wrong in your initial assertion as you have been ever since.

            Those letters were hard earned. Do you have anything similar to provide weight to your assertions?

          • Willard says:

            > So you were as wrong in your initial assertion

            It wasn’t my assertion, Richard.

            My own point still stands.

          • RLH says:

            An implication is not an assertion, who knew?

          • Willard says:

            When I say “and I’m a ninja,” I’m not implying that I value credentialism, dummy. On the contrary.

            So shining your own medal does not counter what I’m implying.

          • Mark B says:

            If you think that none of that means that I cannot observe what I see as the deficiencies in the work done in climate or counter what people who claim ridiculous things put forward, well…..

            Certainly one can observe deficiencies in others work. That’s why it is important to remain humble about one’s own work enough to accept and objectively evaluate criticism of such.

            To that end, you apparently have downloaded hourly data from several stations, but it’s not clear that you’ve tested your theory that using (min+max)/2 rather than higher resolution metrics significantly affect the long term temperature anomaly trend. This is not a great way to convince anyone of the merit of your theory nor does it show critical self-evaluation.

            Feynman: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

          • RLH says:

            I supplied the methodology. Why don’t you repeat the work and try and refute it?

          • Mark B says:

            I supplied the methodology. Why don’t you repeat the work and try and refute it?

            You provided methodology to show that (min+max)/2 provides a “daily” temperature than does a mean or median of hourly samples. This is hardly surprising. Unless I missed it, you haven’t shown a comparison of the long term trend computed from a series of such measurements.

            I find it strange that you’ve gone to the trouble of sourcing hourly data and computed daily differences without taking the obvious next step of comparing the long term trend from these time series which seems central to your assertions.

          • RLH says:

            If you can tell me how you compare one day with leftwards skew with another later day at the same site with rightwards skew them I am all up for listening.

        • Mark B says:

          If you can tell me how you compare one day with leftwards skew with another later day at the same site with rightwards skew them I am all up for listening.

          Statistics!


          Ordinary_least_squares

          • RLH says:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skew_normal_distribution works for consistently skewed data. Nothing AFAIK works for data that randomly includes left and right skewed data

          • RLH says:

            Sorry. Randomly here means that may or may not. Pure random would get back to normal distributions

          • Willard says:

            > AFAIK

            That’s obvious.

            Think of two loaded dice. Nothing works?

          • RLH says:

            If at each throw there may or may not be loaded dice there then proving that there is one present is quite non trivial

          • Willard says:

            I’d rather say that your point then becomes irrelevant, Richard.

            If you don’t know what are the true values, on what grounds would you reject outliers?

          • RLH says:

            I think that is my point precisely

          • Willard says:

            Mine is that one still can process skewed data.

            See the paper that shows how the climate signal increases skewness.

          • Mark B says:

            For what it’s worth, here are trends calculated for a couple representative stations using (min+max)/2, mean, and median daily values. For the stations I’ve looked at the trend shows little dependency upon the technique.

            ParisDeGaulle.png

            PhoenixSkyHarbor.png

            Trends are calculated from daily values derived from hourly sampling.

            Plots show an annual running average of the daily values.

            I picked Paris because it was used in the previous thread and Pheonix because it showed the most dramatic difference in min/max rates of the stations I’ve tested.

          • RLH says:

            “Mine is that one still can process skewed data.”

            If it were consistently skewed I would agree But as you observe, if it is inconsistently so then the problems arrive

          • RLH says:

            “Trends are calculated from daily values derived from hourly sampling.”

            Other studies have shown wider differences.

            “This study assesses the spatial variability of the differences in these two methods of daily temperature averaging [i.e., (Tmax + Tmin)/2; average of 24 hourly temperature values] for 215 first-order weather stations across the conterminous United States (CONUS) over the 30-yr period 19812010. A statistically significant difference is shown between the two methods, as well as consistent overestimation of temperature by the traditional method [(Tmax + Tmin)/2], particularly in southern and coastal portions of the CONUS.”

            “An analysis of the spatial and temporal (monthly, seasonal, annual) differences in mean daily temperature between the traditional [(Tmax + Tmin)/2] and 24 hourly observations at 215 CONUS first-order weather stations sampling a wide range of climate types is undertaken for the recent climate normals period (19812010). Such an analysis is predicated on the need to identify any statistical biases present in near-surface air temperature data derived utilizing the traditional method that is used routinely in studies of recent climate trends and changes. Moreover, the possibility that spatial patterns of the temperature differences between the two methods may not be stable temporally is assessed in a preliminary way by comparison with the more recent period of rapid temperature increase (200115).”

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/3/jcli-d-17-0089.1.xml

          • Willard says:

            > But as you observe, if it is inconsistently so then the problems arrive

            That’s not what I observe, Richard. Neither does the citation you “borrow” from me does, if only because they do indeed presents an analysis of skewed data that evolve over time.

            Perhaps you forget why the difference between the two methods matter:

            Comparing spatially the differences between the two temperature-averaging methods for the most recent climate normals period (19812010) with the last 15 years of the most rapid temperature increase (200115) reveals a shift, on average, toward underestimation by the traditional method. This result strongly suggests that the shape of the daily temperature curve is changing, such that more hours per day are spent closer to Tmin than Tmax during the more recent (200115) period versus the base period (19812010). A physical driver of this shift appears to be an overall increase in specific humidity at all 215 stations studied, aligned with the observed warming. Air with more moisture warms more slowly, thus allowing for more time to be spent closer to the Tmin than to Tmax. Of course, clarification of this possible shift requires the continued forward extension of temperature records at the 215 first-order stations used here, culminating in the next climate normals period of 19912020, and consideration of the impact of the changeover to ASOS data.

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/3/jcli-d-17-0089.1.xml

            So what you would be tempted to filter out as noise is actually signal.

            Real scientists don’t simply shrug because data does not meet their inner High Expectation Auditor.

          • RLH says:

            “a shift, on average, toward underestimation by the traditional method. This result strongly suggests that the shape of the daily temperature curve is changing, such that more hours per day are spent closer to Tmin than Tmax during the more recent (200115) period versus the base period (19812010).

            Real scientists don’t ignore facts that are observed by others either

          • RLH says:

            “Neither does the citation you borrow from me does”

            I’m not sure that you provided that citation, but either way it shows that the traditional method has some question to answer.

            Like how it accounts for latent heat in the thermometer record. You know, the stuff that weather forecasters are so concentrated on.

          • Willard says:

            > Real scientists don’t ignore facts that are observed by others either

            Hence why I quoted it, dummy.

          • Willard says:

            > Like how it accounts for latent heat

            Real scientists don’t move goalposts.

          • Willard says:

            > you “borrow” from me does,

            Correction: looking back the April thread, I found that this citation was provided by JP:

            In 2019, I read this excellent paper: […]

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-707703

            I only searched into my own bookmarks when writing the above, and it’s dated the same day as JP’s note.

            Sorry, JP.

          • Mark B says:

            Like how it accounts for latent heat in the thermometer record.
            If (min+max)/2 is skewing higher because of increased water vapor content doesn’t that suggest the possibility that it is, quite by happenstance, a better metric for accounting for latent heat?

          • RLH says:

            Unless you know what the air moisture content and ground conditions are (ice, frost, snow, dew, etc.) temperature alone will tell quite little at 1.5m. In 1850 or now.

          • RLH says:

            “Real scientists dont move goalposts”

            Real scientists consider all the facts.

          • RLH says:

            “Hence why I quoted it, dummy.”

            You quoted it first did you? I think your latter comment shows that neither of it of us were first here.

          • Willard says:

            > Unless you know what

            Unless we don’t know everything, we know nothing.

            ***

            > Real scientists consider all the facts.

            There’s no such thing as ALL THE FACTS, and here this illusion serves as another goalpost switching.

          • RLH says:

            “So what you would be tempted to filter out as noise is actually signal.”

            Do tell me how band pass filter with a corner at 15 years reduces the climate signal in the data.

          • Mark B says:

            RLH says: Unless you know what the air moisture content and ground conditions are (ice, frost, snow, dew, etc.) temperature alone will tell quite little at 1.5m. In 1850 or now.

            Still, it gives us a reasonable approximation of the observed temperature progression at that point in space over time. That you’d like to know something different doesn’t make what it does tell you wrong.

          • RLH says:

            Mark B: You do realize just how much temperature movement there is by adding, say 10% humidity, to the temperature of the air you are measuring don’t you?.

          • RLH says:

            Mark B: You do realize just how much temperature movement there is by adding, say 10% humidity, to the temperature of the air you are measuring don’t you?.

          • RLH says:

            I’ll try that again. (to satisfy Willard)

            A low pass filter with a corner frequency at 15 years does not remove any climate signal in the data

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      clint…”RLH has taken on the AGW nonsense from a statistical stance”.

      That’s what Meier did with the lunar orbit. He estimated the motion of each particle on the Moon statistically and reached the unbelievable conclusion that the Moon rotates on a local axis. Binny has been pushing Meier’s bad physics, still unable to understand the difference between rotation and libration.

      The big test for RLH will be whether he can see that the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth, even though NASA claims it does. I’ll even give RLH a hint. The Moon’s orbital trajectory is translation with no local rotation, the only explanation for how it can orbit while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.

      My point is that statistics alone, model theory, and bad science lead to erroneous conclusions. It’s the inability to think clearly that leads to climate alarm.

      • RLH says:

        Does the Moon have rotational inertia? Around the axis on which it rotates?

        • Clint R says:

          RLH, everything has inertia. Inertia is nothing more than the tendency of a mass to maintain whatever motion it has, unless acted on by an external force.

          I think you are asking if Moon is rotating about its own center of mass axis. Moon is NOT rotating about that axis.

          Moon’s only motion is orbiting. In pure orbital motion, the front side always faces the direction of instantaneous travel, and the same side faces the inside of the orbit. That’s the same motion as a ball-on-a-sting, or a jet airplane circling the globe.

          • RLH says:

            Yup. Rotational energy around the central axis of the Moon. i.e. the Moon rotates around its own axis once per orbit around Earth.

          • Clint R says:

            Yup, you don’t understand physics, orbital motion, or anything I said.

          • RLH says:

            And you don’t believe that NASA can do orbital calculations.

          • RLH says:

            DREMT:
            “Another one of Teslas particular quirks was a strange obsession with the number three. He would often engage in rituals that involved the number three, including his habit of walking three times around a building before entering it.”

          • Clint R says:

            RLH, “NASA calculations” and “Tesla quirks” are just your effort to troll away from the issue.

            The model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” is the ball-on-a-string, or a jet airplane circumnavigating Earth. Neither is actually rotating about its axis.

            I’ve learned that you can go all day, obsessively learning nothing. So unless you have a mature response, I’m done here.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            And?

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH has taken the troll bait, thinking that he is responding to posters who actually accept factual information. This “The Moon doesn’t rotate on it’s own axis” diversion has been ongoing for months. Consider the sock puppet ClintR/DRsEMT, who just wrote: “…the same side faces the inside of the orbit.” That statement is clearly false, as is obvious from this graphic.

            The fact is that Moon’s rotational axis is tilted WRT the orbital plane. As a result, a slightly different “view” is presented to an observer as the Moon orbits.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            An imaginary line passing through the moon remains tilted WRT the orbital plane, due to the way the moon moves as it passes through its orbit. Explain precisely why you believe this proves the moon rotates on its own axis.

          • RLH says:

            “RLH has taken the troll bait”

            It is useful for sorting out those who believe in science and those who believe in fairy tales.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, very basic science, the moon does not rotate on its own axis.

          • Nate says:

            ” due to the way the moon moves as it passes through its orbit. ”

            You guys call it ‘the way it moves’. Hilarious.

            Everyone else calls it spinning on an internal axis.

          • Clint R says:

            E. Swanson, here’s some factual information for you to reject:

            * Moon does not rotate about its axis. Its only motion is orbiting.
            * “The same side faces the inside of the orbit” is true. That’s why a jet airplane circling the globe always has its bottom side facing Earth.
            * You’re confused by “libration”, which has been explained numerous times.
            * We only see one side of Moon. You’re trying to claim Moon rotates about its axis because it has an elliptical orbit. That just implies you don’t understand orbital motion.

            Also, Swanson, where’s your model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”? Until you have a model that works, you have NOTHING.

          • Craig T says:

            Rotational axis are imaginary lines, ones that have real geographic features that travel around them. If the Moon’s rotational axis was exactly 90 degrees to its orbital plane arguing about if the Moon rotates could be just a matter of semantics. That is precisely why the angle between the Moon’s orbital plane and rotational axis proves the moon rotates on its own axis.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nonsense, Craig, it just proves that the moon remains oriented a certain way WRT the orbital plane whilst it moves around its orbit. It is still just orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis.

          • Craig T says:

            “Where’s your model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’?”

            That would be an orbiting object that tumbles in relation to the orbital plane. Axial rotation creates stability (think gyroscope.) That’s why planets and moons have a stable orientation that asteroids lack.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            If it was "tumbling" it would be "rotating on its own axis".

          • RLH says:

            The Moon used to rotate more frequently on its own axis. What made it slow down?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Once again, I do not dispute the tidal locking mechanism. All you need to realize is that from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, a tidally-locked moon is one that does not rotate on its own axis.

          • Craig T says:

            Tumbling is “a more complex state of rotational motion than simple principal axis rotation.” It involves differing angular velocities on the X, Y nd Z axis.
            https://trs.jpl.nasa.gov/bitstream/handle/2014/32558/94-0304.pdf

            Spin stabilization is the most efficient way to maintain the orientation an object in space and avoid tumbling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The point went straight over your head, Craig. Never mind.

          • RLH says:

            “a tidally-locked moon is one that does not rotate on its own axis.”

            A tidally-locked moon is one that has reduced its rotation to once per orbit of the body it orbits around.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …from the “Spinner” perspective, RLH.

            From the “Non-Spinner” perspective, a tidally locked moon is one that does not rotate on its own axis.

          • RLH says:

            They would be wrong then.

          • Clint R says:

            Until you spinners can come up with a model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”, you have nothing.

            You’re just spinning…

          • RLH says:

            Until you can come up with a url reference for that phrase (that is not your own) then….

          • Clint R says:

            Keep spinning, RLH.

            That’s all you’ve got.

          • Willard says:

            Where’s your model, Pup.

          • RLH says:

            As I suspected, the phrase is you own made up one. Keep on being deluded in your own little world

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The meaning of "orbital motion without axial rotation" is obvious. Just because you can’t find an "url reference" for that phrase doesn’t suddenly make it meaningless. What an odd argument.

          • Clint R says:

            RLH has demonstrated he has no understanding of physics or orbital motion.

            Now, he demonstrates he doesn’t even understand his own nonsense: “A tidally-locked moon is one that has reduced its rotation to once per orbit of the body it orbits around.”

            The conventional view claims Mercury is also “tidally-locked”, but it makes 3 axial rotations in 2 orbits!

            They cling to things they don’t even understand. Typical cult behavior.

          • RLH says:

            Whoever said that 1:1 was the the only resonance possible doesn’t understand much about resonance. 3:2 is also in there.

          • Clint R says:

            Now RLH rushes to deny his own words!

            That’s why this is so much fun.

          • RLH says:

            The Moon is in a 1:1 tidal lock with Earth (which its what we were mostly discussing) Mercury is in a 3:2 tidal lock with the Sun (which you brought up). Neither is evidence of the object not rotating about its own axis. In fact Mercury proves it is so rotating.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            RLH, tidal locking proves absolutely nothing about whether the moon rotates on its own axis or not.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Point?

          • Willard says:

            Look above your head.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Not going to explain yourself, then. OK.

          • Willard says:

            It’s rather self-explanatory, kiddo.

            You said “proof.” That’s silly.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, I will rephrase.

            RLH, tidal locking suggests absolutely nothing about whether the moon rotates on its own axis or not. It simply does not factor into the argument at all. It resolves nothing. It is a complete non-issue.

          • Willard says:

            > tidal locking suggests absolutely nothing

            Of course it does, if only it’s also called synchronous rotation.

            And the imperfection of the locking is even more suggestive.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Synchronous rotation” implies two rotations happening synchronously, the moon rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and the moon rotating about its own center of mass. I can state with absolute certainty that the two rotations are not occurring at the same time. If they were, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.

          • Willard says:

            > I can state with absolute certainty that the two rotations are not occurring at the same time.

            Certainty means little without some precision.

            How does the ball-on-a-string theory account for the fact that 59 percent of the Moon’s total surface may be seen with repeated observations from Earth?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            If the moon were rotating about both the Earth-moon barycenter, and about its own center of mass, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth. Just a fact about rotation, I’m afraid.

            You might be confused…many "Spinners" argue that the moon’s motion is comprised of a translation in an ellipse plus a rotation on its own axis.

          • Willard says:

            > I’m afraid

            Don’t be afraid, kiddo.

            Just say how does the ball-on-a-string theory account for the fact that 59 percent of the Moons total surface may be seen with repeated observations from Earth.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            There is no “ball on a string theory”. The ball on a string is a simple analogy for “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It is not meant to encompass libration.

          • Willard says:

            Fair enough.

            Can the analogy be extended to other celestial bodies, or is it just the Earth Moon that behaves that way?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The ball on a string is a simple analogy for “orbital motion without axial rotation”.

          • Willard says:

            Let’s rephrase, then:

            How does “orbital motion without axial rotation” account for the fact that 59 percent of the Moons total surface may be seen with repeated observations from Earth?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Because that "orbital motion" is elliptical rather than circular, and because the moon’s orbital plane deviates from the ecliptic.

          • Clint R says:

            The idiots still can’t understand “libration”.

            And it’s so easy.

            But, that’s why this is so much fun.

          • Willard says:

            I thought you were of the opinion that trying to denigrate just indicates you have NOTHING, Pup.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, that shows it nicely. Thanks for your support, Willard.

          • Clint R says:

            For you Willard, “idiot” is a compliment.

            And no, I won’t be feeding you anymore tonight.

          • Willard says:

            I don’t mind feeding you your own words, Pup.

            Don’t forget that Sky Dragons are the trolls here.

          • Willard says:

            > Yes, that shows it nicely.

            What “it,” kiddo?

            Look back at the animation, this time focus on the position of the biggest crater you can spot top left:

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Moon_Phases_2019_-_Northern_Hemisphere_-_4K.webm

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “What “it,” kiddo?”

            Libration of longitude and latitude.

          • Willard says:

            I thought the “it” was “orbital motion without axial rotation.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Well you thought wrong. Have a read through again and see if you can get yourself sorted.

          • Willard says:

            Whenever you’re ready to show me for the “orbital motion” to which you allude that looks like this, kiddo:

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Moon_Phases_2019_-_Northern_Hemisphere_-_4K.webm

            I’ll be here for you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            As I said, your animation shows what we see from Earth as a result of the fact that the moon’s "orbital motion" is elliptical rather than circular, and because the moon’s orbital plane deviates from the ecliptic. Libration of longitude and latitude.

          • Willard says:

            The animation shows the Moon rotating, kiddo.

            Care to try again?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "The animation shows the Moon rotating, kiddo."

            No, it does not. Care to try again?

          • Willard says:

            It does, kiddo.

            You know, you could try to pull your trick without saying stuff.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You can’t even tell the difference between libration and rotation. You have no idea what you are talking about, once again. I’ll put you on ignore for this sub-thread, as well.

          • Willard says:

            You’re trying to gaslight what I see with my own eyes, kiddo.

            The craters appear in disappear in the left side of the animation.

      • Craig T says:

        Glad to see we got back to the important debate.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Indeed.

          • Craig T says:

            Here’s more from the Gospel of Lord Tesla:

            “In a third section of the same paper Tesla explodes still another popular delusion, viz., that wireless waves follow the curvature of the earth when messages are transmitted, let us say from a point in the United States to a point in Europe. In his revolutionary arguments, supported by facts as well as by logic, Tesla shows why the currents do not travel around the earth but directly thru it.”

            Care to defend the idea that radio waves travel through the Earth?

          • Clint R says:

            Craig T, trying to denigrate Tesla just indicates you have NOTHING.

            There is no doubt about Tesla’s contribution to electromagnetic theory. In fact, he is honored by the unit for magnetic flux density being named after him — the “Tesla”.

            Like the others, you have no model for pure orbital motion. You have NOTHING.

          • RLH says:

            But I like pearls!

          • Craig T says:

            The Moon rotates on an axis that is 6.7 degrees off from its orbital plane. That can’t be explained by claims the rotation is an illusion.

            DREMT argues with articles written by Tesla as proof the Moon doesn’t rotate, that and stories about horses and airplanes. In the past I’ve linked to NASA papers on the Moon based on laser – reflector measurements with accuracies in the millimeter range. Here’s another:
            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246734681_Lunar_rotational_dissipation_in_solid_body_and_molten_core

            Tesla never studied the Moon’s motion. He was grossly wrong about many things. I denigrate Tesla because that is all you have to back your position.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "The Moon rotates on an axis that is 6.7 degrees off from its orbital plane. That can’t be explained by claims the rotation is an illusion."

            An imaginary line passing through the moon remains tilted WRT the orbital plane, due to the way the moon moves as it passes through its orbit. Explain precisely why you believe this proves the moon rotates on its own axis.

            "DREMT argues with articles written by Tesla as proof the Moon doesn’t rotate"

            No I don’t. I link to articles written by Tesla because it summarizes the main arguments succinctly, in an attempt to save having to go through the same points over and over again.

            "in the past I’ve linked to NASA papers on the Moon based on laser – reflector measurements with accuracies in the millimeter range."

            The fact those reflectors are always facing the Earth shows that the moon is not rotating on its own axis, it is only orbiting.

          • RLH says:

            “The fact those reflectors are always facing the Earth shows that the moon is not rotating on its own axis, it is only orbiting.”

            Or turning once on its axis for every orbit of the Earth. As almost everybody else claims.

          • Nate says:

            Apparently it is not OK to point out that Tesla was right about some things and wrong about several others…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "As almost everybody else claims."

            Wrongly. A ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. To argue that it is, is to do away with the concept of "rotation about an external axis" altogether.

          • Willard says:

            > trying to denigrate […] just indicates you have NOTHING.

            Good to know, Pup.

          • RLH says:

            A ball on a string is the physical equivalent of a rod of similar dimensions. Does that describe the Moon/Earth orbit?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "Rotation about an external axis" exists. Therefore the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. The ball on a rod is not rotating on its own axis. They are instead rotating about an external axis. Forget about the moon for a moment. Just realize those facts, first. You’ll get there.

          • RLH says:

            Just a rod will do. The far end of the rod is the same, regardless if a ball is on the end or not.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sure, obviously the far end of the rod is not rotating on its own axis.

          • RLH says:

            And also very clear that the Moon is not like a rod. The Moon used to rotate faster than it does not around its own axis. What sense do your claims make then?

          • RLH says:

            not = now

          • Craig T says:

            Obviously a ball on a string has a physical connection that keeps it from rotating on its own axis. Objects in free fall have no such constraints.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Makes perfect sense, RLH. From the “Non-Spinner” perspective, if the moon once rotated on its own axis, then it slowed to a stop, and no longer rotates on its own axis. From the “Spinner” perspective, if the moon once rotated on its own axis faster than once per orbit, it slowed to once per orbit.

            Since “Non-Spinner” zero axial rotations per orbit = “Spinner” one axial rotation per orbit, it shouldn’t be too difficult to work out.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Obviously a ball on a string has a physical connection that keeps it from rotating on its own axis. Objects in free fall have no such constraints.”

            Obviously, Craig. The point is that you recognize that the motion of a ball on a string is movement in which the ball is not rotating on its own axis.

          • Craig T says:

            “Since ‘Non-Spinner’ zero axial rotations per orbit = ‘Spinner’ one axial rotation per orbit, it shouldn’t be too difficult to work out.”

            When the Moon had more than one axial rotation per orbit, all the features on it rotated around an axis. Those features are still rotating around that same axis.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            If the moon was at some point in the distant past rotating on its own axis, such rotation would have been visible from Earth.

          • Craig T says:

            “If the moon was at some point in the distant past rotating on its own axis, such rotation would have been visible from Earth.”

            It would have and it still is visible. Cassini saw that over 300 years ago through close observations of the Moon.

          • RLH says:

            “If the moon was at some point in the distant past rotating on its own axis”

            What do you mean ‘if’?

          • Craig T says:

            “If the moon was at some point in the distant past rotating on its own axis, such rotation would have been visible from Earth.”

            It was just as it is now. That’s how Cassini recognized that the Moon was rotating but tidally locked with the Earth over 300 years ago. He saw the same thing in some of Saturn’s moons.

          • Clint R says:

            Until you spinners can come up with a model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”, you have nothing.

            You’re just spinning…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "It was just as it is now"

            Craig, no rotation of the moon is visible from Earth. We always see the same side (a little bit more than one side if you take into account libration, but we do not see all of the Moon’s surface over time as we would if it were actually rotating on its own axis).

          • RLH says:

            “The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis. As a result, the moon does not seem to be spinning but appears to observers from Earth to be keeping almost perfectly still. Scientists call this synchronous rotation.”

          • RLH says:

            “”The moon keeps the same face pointing towards the Earth because its rate of spin is tidally locked so that it is synchronized with its rate of revolution (the time needed to complete one orbit). In other words, the moon rotates exactly once every time it circles the Earth.

            “The same forces that create tides in the Earth’s oceans (from the gravitational pull of the moon and, to a lesser extent, the sun) also act on the solid body of the moon. The Earth’s gravitational force on the moon distorts the moon into a slightly prolate, or football, shape; in addition the moon’s intrinsic form is somewhat egg-shaped. If the tip of the football/egg does not point toward the Earth, then gravitational forces exert a torque that makes the tip point back toward the Earth (in reality, the moon oscillates a small amount around perfect alignment, a motion called the lunar libration).”

            It is very unlikely that the moon started out synchronized; that would indeed be a surprising ‘coincidence.’ As Boss explains, ‘The moon’s synchronous spin state is thought to have arisen billions of years ago, when the moon was much closer to the Earth, and so tidal forces were much stronger than at present. The Earth’s gravity maintained this spin state even as other gravitational interactions caused the moon to move outward to its present orbital radius.'”

          • Clint R says:

            The conventional view is that Moon rotates about its axis. We have presented evidence that this is wrong, and why.

            So what does RLH do? He copies and pastes from conventional view sites!

            He has no ability to think on his own. He can’t reason, or deal with reality.

            You just can’t make this stuff up.

          • Willard says:

            > We have presented evidence

            All you got is a thought experiment, Pup.

          • Craig T says:

            “…if you take into account libration…”

            And how do you explain librations without the axial rotation of the Moon?

          • Craig T says:

            “He has no ability to think on his own.”

            Rejecting what others have found through observation to come up with a personal theory from your armchair is not thinking on your own. It’s sophistry.

          • Clint R says:

            Craig T says: “And how do you explain librations without the axial rotation of the Moon?”

            Libration is only due to Moon’s orbit. It is not an actual motion. If you watch a track runner, from the center of the oval, you see more of his back as he passes, then you see more of his front when he returns.

            Rejecting what others have found through observation to come up with ways to pervert reality to protect your cult is not thinking on your own, Craig. It’s sophistry.

          • RLH says:

            “The Earths gravitational force on the moon distorts the moon into a slightly prolate, or football, shape; in addition the moons intrinsic form is somewhat egg-shaped. If the tip of the football/egg does not point toward the Earth, then gravitational forces exert a torque that makes the tip point back toward the Earth (in reality, the moon oscillates a small amount around perfect alignment, a motion called the lunar libration).”

            And there I was thinking that reasoning why the Moon is tidally locked would be important.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "And how do you explain librations without the axial rotation of the Moon?"

            Explain why you think librations prove axial rotation of the Moon.

          • Willard says:

            That the Moon rotates on its axis explains better this phenomenon than any ball on a string:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration#/media/File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_(continuous_loop).gif

            There are also other kinds of libration, one of which could be incorrectly attributed to Galileo.

            If that could appease contrarians who self-identify with him, I don’t mind the misattribution.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Explain why you think librations prove axial rotation of the Moon.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You can’t. Exactly.

          • Willard says:

            I can’t do what exactly, kiddo?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I will just ignore you from now on, child.

          • Willard says:

            Promises, promises.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Just in this one, specific, sub-thread, mind.

          • RLH says:

            You 2 still at it? Get a room

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            RLH, please stop trolling.

          • RLH says:

            DREMT: Please get a life

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            RLH, please stop trolling.

          • RLH says:

            A soulless automaton resorts to a count

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #3

            RLH, please stop trolling.

          • Willard says:

            You 2 still at it? Get a room

          • RLH says:

            : ) There appears to be a double echo in here now

          • RLH says:

            Microphone and speaker characteristics and placement are important in that film.

          • Willard says:

            They *too* are sitting in the room!

          • RLH says:

            I know. Not done much room audio setups have you?

          • Willard says:

            They could be standing instead, however.

          • RLH says:

            3D placement of everything in the room effects it’s audio characteristics.

      • Willard says:

        > model theory

        Since you mention it, Gordon:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory

  35. Jeff Gannon says:

    REMINDER: They have changed the 30-year averaging period from which they compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends. It just makes it easier to argue those trends are no big deal, which is this sites’ entire reason to exist.

    • Nate says:

      “It just makes it easier ” How so?

    • RLH says:

      “It just makes it easier to argue those trends are no big deal”

      Actually changing the reference period does not effect the trends. Only where the 0 line is drawn on the graph. (OK so that e-are some small differences between different reference periods but you get the basic thrust).

  36. Willard says:

    BREAKING:

    BBC Weather forecaster Helen Willetts said most of Europe will see higher temperatures over the weekend. Western and southwestern parts of Europe will see the hottest temperatures with Spain expected to reach 35C.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1442953/BBC-Weather-Europe-temperature-update-latest-heatwave-news-update-vn

    Ice Age incoming!

  37. moira says:

    Another resounding victory for naive forecasts (based only on the satellite trend itself) vs nearly all the GCMs with ECS > 2.0 — GCMs are still far away from justifying their decades of driving policy.

    Science will reveal the truth.

  38. gbaikie says:

    What are the big questions?

    Meaning what do you all think is big questions.

    I googled it. And apparently there is 8:
    https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/biggest-questions/
    And there is 20 big Questions:
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/20-big-questions-about-the-future-of-humanity/

    I was going to say Aliens would be one. UFOs and/or etc.
    #1: Does humanity have a future beyond Earth?
    “I think it’s a dangerous delusion to envisage mass emigration from Earth. There’s nowhere else in the solar system that’s as comfortable as even the top of Everest or the South Pole….”

    Whereas my question would be does humanity have future without going beyond Earth.
    I have often wondered about that.
    For instance, it’s possible fusion energy could work. But I have tended to think we will have to become spacefaring before we will make fusion work.
    Oh, my big question is will politicans ever become rational human beings. Is there a cure for this disease. If politicans weren’t such sick puppies, then we probably could manage stay on Earth forever.
    And of course the alien thing will be mostly a political thing- meaning it would involve human politicans and therefore become a really big problem and billion of humans will suffer enormously- because, all politicans are sick puppies.
    Hmm:
    4. Will the entire world one day have adequate health care?

    The entire world will never have an uniform health care.
    That would be just too dumb to do. But adequate health care would be indicated by average lifetime would be over 100 years. And that seems likely.
    I think if just made people happier when +80 years old, that do a lot. But as I said politicans kind of get in the way of making people happy. So, getting back the problem of the crazy, criminal politician problem. We have at least one political creature who wants limit human life to the age of 75. And no one has killed son of a bitch, yet.
    How deeply dysfunctional is that??
    But wasn’t really wondering about the authoritative/expert list of big questions. And don’t even want a list. 1 big question would better than few, but if want to give 100 of them, that would ok if you rank them.
    My one question is, will there be a cure for politicans?
    I think replacing them with AI might work.

    • gbaikie says:

      “9 Where do we put all the carbon?

      For the past couple of hundred years, we’ve been filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide – unleashing it by burning fossil fuels that once locked away carbon below the Earth’s surface. Now we have to put all that carbon back, or risk the consequences of a warming climate. But how do we do it? One idea is to bury it in old oil and gas fields. Another is to hide it away at the bottom of the sea. But we don’t know how long it will stay there, or what the risks might be. Meanwhile, we have to protect natural, long-lasting stores of carbon, such as forests and peat bogs, and start making energy in a way that doesn’t belch out even more.”
      https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/01/20-big-questions-in-science

      Or what do you with all the methane {carbon}?

      According to the cargo cult methane is a very dangerous greenhouse gas- much worse than CO2.
      So you got all this methane hydrates in the ocean, but it’s not safely stored in the ocean.
      So you got all this methane {and CO2] sitting ocean floor like a bomb, but since it’s not manmade bomb- then you don’t worry about it?
      And you coal mines which might burn because human accident, but also coal which starts burning from natural causes.

      Another question:
      “7 Why is there stuff?

      You really shouldn’t be here. The “stuff” you’re made of is matter, which has a counterpart called antimatter differing only in electrical charge. When they meet, both disappear in a flash of energy. Our best theories suggest that the big bang created equal amounts of the two, meaning all matter should have since encountered its antimatter counterpart, scuppering them both and leaving the universe awash with only energy. Clearly nature has a subtle bias for matter otherwise you wouldn’t exist. Researchers are sifting data from experiments like the Large Hadron Collider trying to understand why, with supersymmetry and neutrinos the two leading contenders.”

      I was wondering, the energy we mostly “see” is from normal matter, but I guess there a lot energy from Anti-matter combining with normal matter.
      Is there any difference in this energy, if source is from antimatter and matter combining?

      • Swenson says:

        g,

        Where do we put all the carbon?

        In plants? Grow timber and use it to build things? Let the deserts become green again – and all that sort of stuff. Let Nature take its course. 99.9% of all life that has ever existed became extinct before the advent of Homo sapiens.

        Why is there stuff?

        Because. Just because. Sounds silly, but might be true. Who knows?

        • gbaikie says:

          So, you saying to be safe, we have to mine the methane hydrate, and burn it for energy and then trees can be used to store CO2?

          “Let Nature take its course.”

          Or we could turn Sahara desert into forests.

          • Swenson says:

            b,

            Probably easier to mine the easy stuff first. Coal, oil, uranium etc.

            I see that China has managed to sustain 120 million degree Tokamak fusion reaction for over 100 seconds. Dang! Maybe we only need to keep mining coal and oil for making steel, motor fuels, lubricants, plastics and similar stuff.

            Fission and fusion only produce heat, things like wind and solar PV produce electricity, which is then turned into heat. Cut out the middleman, I say.

            Try to do it all safely, minimise harm, of course, but life is uncertain anyway. I’d rather have the benefits of coal, oil, and their products, than not. I have no desire to freeze in the dark, subsisting on roots and berries. I am happy to leave that to the woke brigade.

          • Craig T says:

            “Fission and fusion only produce heat, things like wind and solar PV produce electricity, which is then turned into heat. Cut out the middleman, I say.”

            Electricity is what leaves a nuclear plant.

          • RLH says:

            A by-product is heat

      • Craig T says:

        “So you got all this methane {and CO2} sitting ocean floor like a bomb,but since its not manmade bomb- then you don’t worry about it?”

        Yes, you worry about it.
        https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      “Where do we put all the carbon?”

      Where we’ve been putting it?

      Some say CO2 in the atmosphere was over 10,000 ppm at some point in the past. Why didn’t it stay there?

      Where did it go?

    • gbaikie says:

      Buzz! You took too long.
      So, in this time period I manage to think or remember what is
      a big question- as it relates to climate.
      Certainly what to do with the carbon is a pretty big
      question. But it’s governing type thing rather a big question
      to be answered.
      And big question like what do about war- it’s a governing type thing. Or the answer probably going to be a bad answer. Some hideous manner of stupid is what will be done- being the “correct answer” to that big question.
      Anyhow, a Big Question.
      Why is our ocean so cold?
      Or would be more optimistic, and ask why isn’t our ocean colder?
      What make the ocean temperature what it is.
      So ocean temperature being average temperature of entire ocean.
      That is simple, in that you make more complicated and include all the ice we got.
      If going to include the ice, then got to decide what ice is included, and is some ice more important and etc.
      Like is Greenland ice equal to polar sea ice {ton = ton} or equal to Himalayas glacial ice.
      Per ton or per cubic km is all ice equal, or is some more important then others. And if going about ice, what about the ice in all the clouds? Do know how many cubic km of ice is in the clouds.
      I like to know how much ice is in clouds, but also like to make simpler by just talking about average temperature of the liquid ocean water.

      It seems something causes ocean average temperature to increase in temperature, but something make it so doesn’t get much warmer than 5 C.
      I loosely think glaciation period somehow warm ocean water, and interglacial periods include the warmest ocean gets, but something related to interglacial periods, cause ocean average temperature to cool.
      It’s my belief that over last 5000 years the ocean was warmer, and it’s cooled to around 3.5 C average temperature it is today, and as continue along within our interglacial period, the average ocean temperature will go down to 3 C.
      Or not blaming our interglacial period, rather all interglacial period do this- cool ocean average temperature. And we would get get out of glaciation period, unless it warm up again.
      So what we call glaciation periods, warm the oceans, and what call interglacial period, cool the ocean, but in terms highest ocean temperature it is leaving and starting an interglacial period- the big spikes are warmer ocean water being “un lost” in the ocean.
      It could be or probably must have something to ocean circulation, and probably something to do with insulative effects of polar sea ice. And is effected by geothermal heat.

      • gbaikie says:

        I was re-reading my hideous post. I wondered, can get solar pond under ice.
        This might interesting in regards a climate issue, also I wondering about in regards to Mars settlements.
        As perhaps some people might aware, I think people should live in lakes on Mars.
        It’s sort of like lakeside real estate, except people would/should live in the lake.
        Anyhow, kind of going back and forth on idea of whether the lake surfaces are liquid or ice. A bit of problem with ice covered lakes
        is water is pretty cold. And I kind of like idea swimming under water in warmer water.
        So, one can see usefulness a solar pond under ice- warm water protected by a salt gradient. But the salt gradient must be still water. And don’t really like idea of swimming in saltwater {and activity water is problem relate needing still water}.
        So, need floating barrier, separating lower water which is warm fresh water, and saltwater with salt gradient which has ice on top.

        In terms of climate, what happens if go under some meter plus thick polar sea ice and pump/dump a lot warm water under it.
        Should that not make a solar pond type thing?

  39. Eben says:

    This is how climate back radiation greenhouse effect energy amplifier models work,

    https://youtu.be/RHoXUP804vg

    But real thermodynamix doesn’t

  40. Gordon Robertson says:

    christos…”Fortunately, we are past the peak of the current astronomical cycle, but the trend is still a warming trend”.

    ***

    We have no idea what the average temperature of the Earth is meant to be. We have not been around long enough.

    Akasofu claimed that we are warming 0.5C/century since the end of the Little Ice Age. That’s about right.

  41. Gordon Robertson says:

    barry…”Youre nae true skeptic, laddie. Ye believe it when ye like the politics of the people [UAH] writin it”.

    Ach, awa the noo.

    There are no politics at UAH. As John Christy once explained, he got his degree in climate science studying under Kevin Trenberth. He learned Trenberth’s POV and he was surprised to find the UAH sat data sets did not agree with what he’d been taught.

    I admire him for having the guts to say so.

    Roy tends to support the notion that CO2 can cause warming in the atmosphere but neither he nor John think it could amount to much. Their data sets prove as much. That’s not politics, it’s science.

    UAH is just the messenger, please put your ordinance away.

  42. Mark Wapples says:

    Willard

    Uk met office predicts temperatures in 20s this week.

    Being a little bit older I know this is what we expect at the start of May in the UK.

    Not at the start of June.

    The UK weather seems to be a month late this year.

  43. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”And btw, people like the UAH team itself, or like commenter RLH, are number crunchers as well”.

    Roy has a degree in meteorology and John has a a degree in climate science. I would think that puts them in the realm of science and not the realm of mathematics, where true number crunchers exist.

    RLK has revealed he has a degree in systems analysis and I would think number crunching is merely a tool to him. His original approach to the blog was not about statistics, it was about boundary layers and the reliability of data taken at certain altitudes as applied to the whole.

    You, on the other hand, take seriously fudged data from the likes of GHCN and try to pass it off as legitimate without giving a hoot what it means.

    • Bindidon says:

      ” You, on the other hand, take seriously fudged data from the likes of GHCN and try to pass it off as legitimate without giving a hoot what it means. ”

      Ha ha ha haaaah

      Wunderbar.

    • RLH says:

      “His original approach to the blog was not about statistics, it was about boundary layers and the reliability of data taken at certain altitudes as applied to the whole.”

      You would be correct. I should now add to that the problems with thinking that thermometers only measure sensible heat and leave latent heat (at any height) unrecorded.

  44. RLH says:

    I still hold that rather obviously temperature holds only a passing relationship to thermal energy in the system. Be that in boundary layers or elsewhere.

    If people wish to draw a high degree of coincidence then that is their limitation IMHO

    • Swenson says:

      RLH,

      Agreed. A candle flame has a temperature of around 1000 C, corresponding to a lot of W/m2.

      Now try and heat 200 litres of water with that intense, high temperature, candle flame.

      The donkeys are in charge of the feed store.

      Oh dear!

    • Norman says:

      RLH

      I believe your view is wrong. Thermal energy is directly related to temperature by the definition of the term. Maybe you are meaning something else when you use thermal energy, but to avoid confusion you should keep the established definition.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy

    • RLH says:

      How much thermal energy is there in freezing/thawing and evaporating/condensing which will not result in any change in air temperature

      • RLH says:

        “Sensible heat is the heat that causes an object to change temperature. When an object is heated the increase in heat is called the sensible heat. When the temperature of an object falls, the heat removed is called sensible heat. Latent heat is the heat the heat added to an object in order for it to change state. All natural substances can change state; solids become liquids (ice turns into water) and liquids can turn in gasses (water turns into vapour) when heat is added removed from them. However, latent heat does not affect the temperature of a substance or object. Water for example boils at 100C and the latent heat keeps the water boiling. Total capacity in an air conditioner is the sum of the sensible and latent heat values. The term sensible capacity defines the cooling capacity of an air conditioner, whilst the term latent capacity defines the capacity of the cooling unit to remove the moisture from the air.”

  45. RLH says:

    Has it never occurred to most people that there will be tides in the TOA to surface distance of the atmosphere in the same way as there are tides in water height in the oceans and tides in land height all over the globe?

    And that the Moon has a 60 cycle period in its orbit around Earth.

    Hardly surprising then if this shows up in the climate here on Earth.

    The AMO has a quasi 60-year pattern to observe but one.

  46. RLH, here is a lecture about tides you might be interested.

    Chapter 9
    Atmospheric tides
    Supplemental reading:
    Chapman and Lindzen (1970)
    Lindzen and Chapman (1969)
    Lindzen (1979)
    Lindzen (1967b)

    “One of the most straightforward and illuminating applications of internal
    gravity wave theory is the explanation of the atmosphere’s tides. In any real
    problem we must adapt the theory to the specific problem at issue.

    For tides,
    we must consider the following: 1. We are on an unbounded atmosphere; and
    2. We are on a rotating sphere.”

    https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/earth-atmospheric-and-planetary-sciences/12-810-dynamics-of-the-atmosphere-spring-2008/lecture-notes/chapter_9.pdf

    • RLH says:

      Thanks for that. It puts into an academic perspective the rather obvious atmospheric tide observation.

      What I find odd is that no acknowledgement is made. here or elsewhere IFAIK, on how that will also effect air temperatures measured by any instrument in the long term.

      I would add

      3) The depth of the atmosphere is small compared to its horizontal span. We are, in lots of places on Earth, closer to space than we are to the nearest population center.

      • RLH

        “The depth of the atmosphere is small compared to its horizontal span.”

        Yes, that is why we think of atmosphere as of something big and thick.
        I live at an elevated place. I can see from my window as far as 150 km. Over the sea gulf the mountains tops on the other side. When in summer it is hot, there is a a lot of moisture in the air. The visibility is limited to 5-7 km.
        But it is a 5-7 km of the horizontally oriented warm and water saturated air.

        We do not have on the vertical direction 5-7 km warm and water saturated air.

        Also, when on summer holidays on a Greek island, you cannot see the other islands nearby because of the moisture in the air.
        Once a short summer rain occur and I went inside… but suddenly everyone run out shouting…
        The moisture in the air momentarily condensed and as a miracle we saw the surrounding us the other closely islands.
        Unfortunately this phenomenon lasted only for a minute. Then the moisture took over again and the spectacular view the same miraculous way disappeared.
        But in cooler times of the year the view around the islands is always spectacular.

      • RLH says:

        Ever thought about the latent heat in that moisture?

  47. Bindidon says:

    El Robertsonito shows one more time his endless ignorance of facts.

    He writes

    Roy has a degree in meteorology and John has a a degree in climate science. I would think that puts them in the realm of science and not the realm of mathematics, where true number crunchers exist. ”

    *
    1. When ‘Roy’ and ‘John’ (Germans say: “er ist ja mit ihnen auf du und du”) collect and process atmospheric O2 microwave emission data and transpose it, in several steps, into a monthly time series of absolute Kelvin temperatures in a 2.5 degree grid, whose end result looks like this

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EbBQi-znfR5ywqScG3BOxGh2dPTL-rPb/view

    this has evidently NOTHING to do with number crunching.

    *
    2. And when they compute, out of that absolute data, a similar grid of temperature anomalies wrt a reference period, as is visible in the head post, of course no number crunching was needed: it was done by magic…

    *
    3. When ‘John’ uses NOAA’s USHCN temperature data set to show that in CONUS, the number of daily maxima observations was higher in the 1930’s than today

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qno66UybjEWAPKBJiQxxaIXaOu-MO3Xz/view

    so is his use of “seriously fudged data” suddenly, by magic, absolutely correct.

    But when doing the same job, on the base of nearly identical input (GHCN daily’s source of the monthly USHCN station data, with an own, severe quality check eliminating more stations)

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p1WcqGyE6IingEZMb9VFO1LXzBo_UCax/view

    ‘binny’ of course tries “to pass it off as legitimate without giving a hoot what it means“, especially when showing the same stuff

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sVA3c7j94Cr12tNcfzSQwdNX8gIV9hjq/view

    in a different way!

    *
    Wunderbar, magnifique, wonderful.

    That is El Robertsonito… always ready to distort, discredit, denigrate anything what doesn’t fit into his ignorant narrative!

    But… zero real knowledge of what he is talking about, regardless what it is: climate data, viruses, lunar spin, Clausius 1854 vs. 1887, Essen vs. Einstein, etc etc.

    J.-P. D.

    • RLH says:

      1. When Roy and John collect and process atmospheric O2 microwave emission data and transpose it, in several steps, into a monthly time series of absolute Kelvin temperatures in a 2.5 degree grid, whose end result looks like this

      They do not do absolute temperatures. The methodology they use does not allow for that type of calculation. They use differentials, as in anomalies, to compare one pass with the next.

      • Bindidon says:

        RLH

        Please stop playing teacher.

        That the O2 stuff by no means can directly result into temperatures: that’s absolutely evident.

        But… the end result nonetheless is a 2.5 degree grid monthly time series, basta ya:

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/

        Why, do you think, does the UAH team provide a reference period climatology for each observed atmospheric layer (LT, MT, TP, LS)?

        Where, do you think, do these four monthly 30 year averages of the UAH grid come from? Magic?

        Here is the LT guy:

        https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0

        You seem to love hiding evidence. Frogs name that ‘jeter de la poudre aux yeux’.

        J.-P. D.

      • RLH says:

        Sure you can back convert the final anomalies into absolute if you wish. Using the reference period provided.

        • RLH says:

          Doesn’t provide any more insights

        • Bindidon says:

          RLH

          I repeat, as you avoided to reply:

          Why, do you think, does the UAH team provide a reference period climatology for each observed atmospheric layer (LT, MT, TP, LS)?

          Where, do you think, do these four monthly 30 year averages of the UAH grid come from? Magic?

          J.-P. D.

          • RLH says:

            From a summation of data gathered by multiple passes over any given lat/long position over time. Absolutely referenced to balloon data or similar.

            How else do you think it is gathered?

          • Bindidon says:

            RLH

            ” balloon data ”

            Are you kidding me, RLH?

            Which balloon data do you mean?

            – the (worldwide!) 85, highly homogenized RATPAC-A/B stations?
            or
            – the over 1500 IGRA stations with their super raw data?

            And… what about the oceans? How many balloons did you manage to find there, except those located on islands (30 % in RATPAC)?

            Here is a comparison I made years ago, of three monthly time series
            – RATPAC-B homogenized
            – the RATPAC-B balloons, but with their original, raw IGRA data
            – the entire IGRA stuff

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VxPFlXEvnzEvQRdBmWKLdvMiQmr7JwDP/view

            And such a stuff you would use as reference material, or even as calibration source?

            Wow, RLH. Great.

            J.-P. D.

          • RLH says:

            I can’t find the reference that Christy made as to how they convert O2 frequency stats into kelvin but I know it relies on balloon data to do so.

          • RLH says:

            “We believe that lower-tropospheric temperatures measured directly by satellites have excellent long-term accuracy, as seen by comparisons with independent atmospheric measurements from weather balloons.”

          • RLH says:

            I think it is buried in
            https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293

            “Examination of space-based bulk atmospheric temperatures used in climate research by John R. Christy,Roy W. Spencer,William D. Braswell & Robert Junod”

          • RLH says:

            Or else in
            “Several studies compared UAH and RSS products to local, regional or
            global raw/homogenized radiosonde data (Christy and Norris, 2006,
            2009; Christy et al., 2007, 2010, 2011; Randall and Herman, 2008;
            Mears et al., 2012; Po-Chedley and Fu, 2012). “

          • Bindidon says:

            RLH

            I lack today late evening the time for a longer reply to your least comments.

            Let me at least tell you that imho you can’t have read Christy and Norris’ 2006 paper:

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/23/9/jtech1937_1.xml

            Simply because this paper has nothing to do with any trial to correlate satellite readings to balloon data.

            Nothing.

            The goal of the paper was to identify, among the huge IGRA balloon-borne radiosonde data set, a tiny subset of 31 (!) US-controlled (!!!) units, and to compare them with satellite (UAH & RSS) data.

            I read that paper in 2016, after having processed the complete IGRA data stuff.

            I then selected the 31 ‘Christy-Norris’ balloons and generated time series for all their 13 pressure levels, from surface down to 30 hPa.

            It was immediately visible that the 31 ‘Christy-Norris’ units had, ‘by accident’, trends similar to UAH’s data at pressures of 500 and 700 hPa, but which were differing by a lot from those of the full IGRA set.

            More tomorrow, when I have time again.

            *
            Before saying ‘Buenas noches’, here is a little graph I made last year, comparing UAH6.0 LT with NOAA STAR MT:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E-GWkQvAunLlcb2qsC1Qt143aA8IMIhD/view

            I repeat: LT vs. MT…

            Don’t wonder about the genius’ comments about NOAA.

            J.-P. D.

          • RLH says:

            So you tell me how the o2 brightness is calibrated to kelvin then?

          • barry says:

            “So you tell me how the o2 brightness is calibrated to kelvin then?”

            It is verified against onboard devices.

            “Now for the important part: How are these instrument digitized voltages calibrated in terms of temperature?

            Once every Earth scan, the radiometer antenna looks at a ‘warm calibration target’ inside the instrument whose temperature is continuously monitored with several platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs). PRTs work somewhat like a thermistor, but are more accurate and more stable. Each PRT has its own calibration curve based upon laboratory tests.

            The temperature of the warm calibration target is allowed to float with the rest of the instrument, and it typically changes by several degrees during a single orbit, as the satellite travels in and out of sunlight. While this warm calibration point provides a radiometer digitized voltage measurement and the temperature that goes along with it, how do we use that information to determine what temperatures corresponds to the radiometer measurements when looking at the Earth?

            A second calibration point is needed, at the cold end of the temperature scale. For that, the radiometer antenna is pointed at the cosmic background, which is assumed to radiate at 2.7 Kelvin degrees. These two calibration points are then used to interpolate to the Earth-viewing measurements, which then provides the calibrated ‘brightness temperatures’.”

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/

            The comparison with radiosondes is after the data has been produced, and not used to calibrate or verify as part of the original data processing.

            “One can imagine all kinds of lesser issues that might affect the long-term stability of the satellite record. For instance, since there have been ten successive satellites, most of which had to be calibrated to the one before it with some non-zero error, there is the possibility of a small ‘random walk’ component to the 30+ year data record. Fortunately, John Christy has spent a lot of time comparing our datasets to radiosonde (weather balloon) datasets, and finds very good long-term agreement.”

            Although, UAH compares favourably with some sonde data sets but not with others.

          • RLH says:

            My bad, verify rather than calibrate.

  48. RLH says:

    “1. When Roy and John … collect and process atmospheric O2 microwave emission data and transpose it, in several steps, into a monthly time series of absolute Kelvin temperatures in a 2.5 degree grid, whose end result looks like this”

    They do not do absolute temperatures. The methodology they use does not allow for that type of calculation. They use differentials, as in anomalies, to compare one pass with the next.

    • E. Swanson says:

      RLH wrote

      They use differentials, as in anomalies, to compare one pass with the next.

      No, with Version 6, they start with the recorded the swath brightness temperature data in Kelvin, processing it into stacked grids for each channel. At the end of each month, they reduce these data from the stacked grids into a grid for a single pressure height, producing a monthly value at each grid point. These data are then zonally averaged and further processed creating zonal anomalies, which are then combined into the respective regional subsets, area averaging by the cosine of latitude. NOTE: I many not have the exact chain, but you get the point.

      The results are their MT, TP and LS time series. The LT is a combination of those three channels. The LT is not a measured variable, it’s calculated based on weighting which is calculated from atmospheric modeling.

      • RLH says:

        I know. But it is still at the heart a pass to pass differential. As Roy explained to me when I asked him.

        • E. Swanson says:

          RLH, Your comment is not what I understand from reading their published work. Are you thinking of Version 5.x (and previous), instead of Version 6?

          • RLH says:

            Nope. It comes from the basic way that satellite data is collected. From UAH, RSS, AIRS, etc.

            They compared one pass to another pass over the same lat/long to create a differential between those passes. They then reference that to balloon data or similar to proved an absolute vertical base.

            Various methodologies are then used to summate that data collection into data series.

            I you know different then please enlighten me.

          • RLH says:

            As they use the same satellites with the same data collection I rather suspect that although they have refined the analysis f the data the data collection is the same.

            “In Version 6 of the UAH global temperature products, almost all of the dataset correction and processing procedures have been improved.”

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH, Did you read anything of the processing details? For example, S&C don’t calibrate their data with that from balloons which you claimed, although they have presented other papers which do compare these data sets.

          • RLH says:

            So as you are so sure, how is the unreferenced o2 brightness calibrated to kelvin then?

          • RLH says:

            I probably should have used verify rather than calibrate in what I said previously (now I found the quote)

            “To verify the accuracy of temperature data collected by microwave sounding units, John Christy compared temperature readings recorded by “radiosonde” thermometers to temperatures reported by the satellites as they orbited over the balloon launch sites.

            He found a 97 percent correlation over the 16-year period of the study. The overall composite temperature trends at those sites agreed to within 0.03 degrees Celsius (about 0.054 Fahrenheit) per decade. The same results were found when considering only stations in the polar or arctic regions.

            “The idea was to determine the reliability of the satellite data by comparing it to an established independent measurement,” Christy said. “If satellite data are reliable when the satellites are over the radiosonde sites, that means you should be able to trust them everywhere else.””

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH wrote:

            So as you are so sure, how is the unreferenced o2 brightness calibrated to kelvin then?

            If you had done your homework, you might have learned that the MSU/AMSU instruments are self calibrating. They scan cross track, stopping for a short period at different angles WRT nadir to measure the intensity. At one end of each scan the radiometer views a heated target which has several high precision sensors embedded in it. At the other end, the radiometer views deep space at about 2.7 K. I think that the MSU’s analysis assumes a linear scale between, much like the definition of the Celsius scale. The AMSU is calibrated in a thermal vacuum chamber pre-launch to determine the actual non-linear response of the instrument. Over the years, with multiple instruments, some problems with this calibration approach have been reported.

            As for your quote regarding radiosondes, I can’t reply to it without knowing the source. Taking a quote out of context without a reference or link and expecting a reply is a waste of my time.

          • RLH says:

            E. Swanson: As you may have seen upthread I realized I should have use verify rather than calibrate.

            I finally found the quote I was looking for where John said just this.

          • RLH says:

            “Id say the quote comes from that press release:”

            You would be correct.

          • RLH says:

            E. Swanson: Enter the magic of google. Take the first few words of any quote (how many depends on if you want the answer in the top 10 or be the top 1), feed it into google and low and behold….

          • Willard says:

            Giving the link yourself might have saved you this comment, Richard.

          • RLH says:

            True. But I normally expect people to be competent in google

          • Willard says:

            That’s your quote, Richard. Your job to source it.

            Mine is to show that you’re relying on press releases while E asks you if you read the papers.

          • E. Swnson says:

            RLH, AS Willard noted, your quoted passage is from a press release. It appeared as a comment from NCAR about Christy’s 1995 paper. Lots of water under the bridge since then.

            FYI, you might want to go further back and read Reference 3 and 4 from the PR…

          • RLH says:

            Has time changed the method of scanning the planet using MSU satellites and the basic collection of data?

          • RLH says:

            Other than moving to AMSU-A that is

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH asked:

            Has time changed the method of scanning the planet using MSU satellites and the basic collection of data?
            /blockquote>
            The MSU instruments were not designed to provide long term climate data. Spencer & Christy introduced a technique to analyze the data in order to provide such a product. What has changed is the processing and there are other groups, particularly RSS, who jumped into the game because S&C presented questionable results. S & C used one basic analytical method thru V5.6, then they switched to v6, which is a whole different animal.

            Do your homework, I’m not going to be your professor…

          • RLH says:

            So what you are saying is that the basic data collection has not changed but the methodology of analyzing it has.

            And that the orbits do still leave gaps but that can be filled in by other methods.

            You do know how that last statement would be met in signal sampling and analysis world?

          • RLH says:

            “Mine is to show that youre relying on press releases while E asks you if you read the papers.”

            Papers like https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-717345

          • Willard says:

            > June 5, 2021 at 5:15 PM

            About time.

            Well done!

          • Willard says:

            Ah, the good ol’ times:

            [MARKB] See Mears & Wentz, 2016.

            [RICHARD] Try to read Christy, Spencer & Lobl 1998 where they address this issue.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-712966

          • RLH says:

            You mean

            Analysis of the Merging Procedure for the MSU Daily Temperature Time Series John R. Christy1, Roy W. Spencer2, and Elena S. Lobl3
            01 Aug 1998

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/11/8/1520-0442_1998_011_2016_aotmpf_2.0.co_2.xml

            which includes

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/11/8/1520-0442_1998_011_2016_aotmpf_2.0.co_2.xml#i1520-0442-11-8-2016-f05

            as referenced at https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-717345

            and this raised the question about known gaps in the scan data and the potential problems that it brings for signal processing of swath data

          • RLH says:

            Did I mention that was SO last month?

          • RLH says:

            E. Swanson: So I take it that you don’t like the UAH series then

    • goldminor says:

      The comments made on that post are interesting.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gm…another comment by Wentworth in the comments area, agreed to unfortuntely by others:

        “Compression of gases produces transient one-time heating, not ongoing heating in steady-state.

        Steady-state is what is relevant to determining the temperature of an atmosphere”.

        I doubt that this guy has a degree in physics, applied or otherwise. The Ideal Gas Law is clear on this point.

        PV = nRT

        You can see clearly their is a proportional relationship between pressure and temperature. Note that n = number of atoms/molecules is considered a constant in the atmosphere. or close enough to it.

        What is pressure? It is the force created on container walls based on the number of atoms/molecules per unit volume.

        PV = nRT tells you that a pressure increases at constant volume increases T. Wentworth thinks the temperature increase is transient and I don’t see a term in the IGL for transient heat.

        In the atmosphere, P is also a function of gravitational force. Air pressure of air molecules is ordered in a negative gradient with altitude.

        Wentworth is wrong. An increase in pressure does cause a steady state increase in temperature. There are times when you have to put away your theory and look at what is going on. Temperature is a measure of relative heat levels and heat is the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules.

        THE IGL tells us that as the number of atoms/molecules increases in a constant volume, the kinetic energy of those atoms/molecules increases hence the heat increases, as measured by temperature.

    • Clint R says:

      The subscripts are messed up, making it hard to follow. But it appears he makes the same mistake as in the AGW nonsense. He’s trying to average flux.

      I imagine this “physicist, PhD” is someone that has never worked with emitted flux.

      • Willard says:

        > He’s trying to average flux.

        Where?

        The subscripts are fine on my browser.

      • Clint R says:

        I had some time to do more checking on this character. It turns out I was right. He has no experience in physics. He’s some kind of cult leader:

        https://orncc.net/users/bob-wentworth

        And I wasn’t the only one that had the subscripts messed up:

        writing observer
        June 4, 2021 6:25 am
        Im only making one comment here, as this one will probably blow up later today –if a moderator has time, they should replace the U+209b and U+209c codes with subscript tags (i.e., Ms and Mt). These don’t show up properly on many browsers, even my fully updated Foxfire.

        This character is clearly perverting physics, so I won’t be wasting any more time.

        • Willard says:

          “Mt is the radiant exitance into space from the top of the atmosphere of the planet (or from the materials associated with the object). The subscript “t” is for “top-of-atmosphere (TOA).”

          Even Joe follows that convention in his magnum opus, Pup.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…Wentworth’s arguement breaks down right at the beginning when he states:

      “Then, it follows that there is a maximum average temperature that the surface of the planet (or object) can have, unless there are materials capable of absorbing (or reflecting) LW radiation between it and space.

      If the average surface temperature of the planet (or object) is higher than this limit, then that can only happen because of the presence of LW-absorbing (or reflecting) materials between the planetary surface (or object surface) and space”.

      ****

      Wentworth is applying Stefan-Boltzmann, an equation derived from colour temperatures derived from an electrically-heated platinum wire (Tyndall) and the frequency of the colour wrt the wire temperature. Gerlich and Tseuschner, experts in thermodynamics, pointed out that the S-B constant applies only in that temperature range and does not apply at terrestrial temperatures.

      That’s a minor point. Wentworth’s argument that a theoretical temperature can be determined for a planet with oceans and an atmosphere is sheer bs. Under those conditions, heat conduction and convection become major factors. You simply cannot arbitrarily apply S-B to such a complex system.

      It’s obvious there is a time factor involved between solar input and IR radiation. I don’t see a time factor in his equations. The current temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere has much more to do with the ability of nitrogen and oxygen to be heated directly by the surface then to be unable to radiate it away (Wood). Then there’s the retention of heat by the oceans, lakes, etc.

      The warming of the planet to its current temperature is better explained by the amount of nitrogen/oxygen, which amounts to 99% of the atmosphere, than it does to CO2 at 0.04% and WV at 0.3% for the entire atmosphere. The temperature also involves the distance of the Earth from the Sun, its axial tilt, it orbital period, and it local rotation.

      If Wentworth wants to talk science, why has he omitted reference to the Ideal Gas Law. The IGL makes it clear that CO2 at 0.04% could cause no more warming than 0.04C for every 1C warming.

      • gbaikie says:

        The GHE theory starts with an ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
        Which is a model of “something” and the “something” could be something you call a machine.

        So, I want to design an “ideal thermally conductive blackbody machine for Mars distance.
        At wiki, depending it’s distance from Sun, Mars gets the max of sunlight of 715 watts per square meter and min of 492 watts per square meter. Average distance is about 1.5 AU
        1.5 squared is 2.25 and divide that by 1361 watts and get: 604.88
        and divide that by 4 = 151.22 watts.
        And I want my machine to transfer at least the difference of 604.88 – 151.22 watts or about 450 watts. So make engine able to transfer 500 watts per square meter.
        So, 222 K blackbody in vacuum emits 137.7 watts, 225 K = 145.31 watts and 227 K 150.55 watts and 227 K is about -51 F or -46 C

        So my machine in vacuum at same distance as Mars should make the surface have uniform temperature of about -46 C
        So getting 715 watt, with the machine ability transfers 500 watt-
        715 – 500 = equal 215 watts. the surface would be bit warmer than -46 C when sun is at zenith. And we more than enough, make it be able to handle a transfer 600 watts.
        Now whole point of this fun, is to then take the same machine to Earth distance from the sun.
        So when there is more energy to thermally conduct than the machine can handle, what’s it’s average global temperature.
        To make a new machine, we the 340 watt and maxi sunlight of 1,413 and min of 1,321 watts per square meter
        Or 1413 – 340 = 1,073 watts
        So should make machine to be able to handle 1100 watts, but by just moving machine designed for Mars to Earth orbit, and it’s designed for 600 watts. Or night side could emit 600 watts, if had enough energy. But let’s instead look at the limitation of machine designed for Mars. Which means can’t have surface only be 5 C when sun is at zenith, because it had “pull” 1073 watts and can only pull 600 watts {unless my machine over performs it’s design limits- which is possible}. But for safety reasons I could have bureaucrat, which may not allow more 600 watts- could only happen if the bureaucrat makes a mistake {which does also happen}
        So when sun does 1413 then – 600 = 813 watts per square it’s emitting. say 333 K is 697.2 watt square meter.
        And 1,321 – 600 = 721 watt square meter. And average is
        1361 – 600 = 761 watt.
        So at all times when sun’s zenith the surface will warmer than 333 K or 60 C.
        And since warmer on sunlight side, than nightside can’t as warm, as would be if design it to handle 1100 watt rather than using Mars machine, so it’s got to be less than 5 C. But as wild guess I doubt it’s colder than say 0 C.
        Or this wrong designed machine for distance of 1 AU would increase the average temperature global temperature.
        345 K [72 C} emits about 803 watts per square meter, so lunar surface in terms average distance will not warm to 72 C, it’s only when the sun get closest to Sun where surface gets as hot or hotter than 72 C.
        So at equator when nearest sun it’s average of equator area would be 36 C.
        So properly designed machine would be 5 C average at equator.

  49. Theoretically it is possible to calculate the planet mean surface temperature Tmean from the planet effective temperature Te.

    There is a relation for the planets without atmosphere between their planet Te and planet Tmean.

    Te = [ Φ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ – is the planet effective temperature…

    And

    Tmean = Te * X

    or

    Tmean = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ * X

    or

    Tmean = [ (1-a) S* X⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    Where:

    Te – planet effective temperature
    Tmean – planet mean surface temperature
    a – planet Albedo
    S – the Solar flux
    σ – the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
    Φ = 1 or Φ = 0,47 (lets not discus it yet, for the sake of dispute, say it is Φ= 1)
    X – the planet relation (Tmean = Te * X) coefficient, which differs from planet to planet, because every planet has its own different surface properties.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Stephen P. Anderson says:

      I love your webpage CV.

    • Thank you Stephen.

      Lets
      continue with the above syllogism:

      For every planet without atmosphere there is a theoretical uniform surface effective temperature Te.

      And for every planet without atmosphere there is an average surface temperature (the mean surface temperature) Tmean.

      The planet surface Tmean temperatures are very much precisely being measured by satellites.

      Now, we can accept that for every planet (ι) there is a Te.ι and there is a Tmean.ι

      So we have here

      Tmean.ι = Te.ι * Χ.ι
      or
      Tmean.ι = [ Φ (1-a) S (X.ι)⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴

      Conclusion:

      We have admitted that for every planet (ι) there is a different for each planet (ι) a factor [(X.ι)⁴ ], which relates for the purpose to theoretically calculate the planet (ι) the average (mean) surface temperature Tmean by simply multiplying the X.ι with the planet (ι) the theoretical uniform surface effective temperature Te.ι

      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  50. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…”“The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis. As a result, the moon does not seem to be spinning but appears to observers from Earth to be keeping almost perfectly still. Scientists call this synchronous rotation.””

    ***

    How does it rotate once on its axis while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth? When I wrote to NASA with the same question, they replied that their POV is from the stars. In other words, they see the Moon ‘APPEAR TO’ rotate through 360 degrees per orbit wrt the stars and conclude it must be rotating on a local axis.

    You have a masters degree and you should be able to focus on the following. Presume a circular orbit. At ant point in the orbit, draw a radial line from the Earth’s centre through the Moon’s centre and out the other side. Obviously, the radial line enters the lunar face through the side that always points to the Earth and the radial line turns with it.

    Draw a tangent line where the radial line enters the near face and it will describe the instantaneous rate of change of an inner orbit for the near face. Draw another tangent line where the radial line exists the far side (Pink Floyd’s Dark Side) and it will define the the instantaneous rate of change of an orbit for the far side.

    Do the same for the centre of the Moon and you get an instantaneous tangent line describing the rate of change of an orbit for the centre point. You now have three concentric orbits describing three points on the Moon. The near face point, the centre, and the far face points are all turning in concentric circles. You can extend that to an infinite number of points on the radial line within the Moon and you’ll get an infinite number of concentric orbital paths for each point.

    If all points on the Moon are moving in concentric circles it is not possible for them to rotate about a local axis. What you are observing is translation and it is curvilinear translation, even though some bloggers here object to that definition. To keep the peace, I’ll refer to it only as translation.

    I offer another proof of that translation. If you could build a runway right around the Equator, you could taxi a jetliner around that runway and its lower side would always face the Earth while its nose to tail axis appeared to rotate about its COG, wrt the stars. We know that is not true because an aircraft rotating in that direction about its COG would crash.

    If the pilot took off and followed the same path at 35,000 feet, the lower side would still always face the Earth. The nose-tail axis would APPEAR to be rotating around its COG once per orbit, but if it did physically, the plane would crash.

    That’s what the Moon is doing. It’s moving with only linear momentum and the direction of that momentum is being gradually bent into an orbit by gravity. The Moon is translating with no local rotation. The Earth is translating with local rotation.

    • Clint R says:

      RLH, is a new idiot, adding to the fun. I love it when the cult idiots get tangled up in their nonsense. If they believe Moon is rotating about its axis, in a 1:1 spin/orbit resonance, then they must believe Mercury is in a 5:2 spin/orbit resonance. Here’s the accounting:

      3 rotations in 2 orbits, that can be clearly seen
      2 rotations in 2 orbits, that can’t be seen
      5 rotations in 2 orbits, total

      But the own cult claims 3:2! Their cult is confused, and they’re confused.

      That’s why this is so much fun.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        clint…it amazes me that the human mind can be so deluded it cannot see its own delusions. I am not excusing myself since I am stuck with the same delusion creating machinery. However, I have become aware of the faulty mechanism, which helps.

        We have discussed many examples: the ball on the string, the horse on the track, the horse on the merry-go-round, the coins, with one orbiting the other, and still the delusions carry on rather than LOOKING at the problem.

        How can anyone claim that a ball attached firmly to a string, and rotated about a person’s head, is rotating about its COG? Rather than look at the problem, people rush off to arguments about different frames of reference. It doesn’t matter what reference frame you are looking from, if a body is not rotating about a COG in one it is not rotating about the same COG in any of them.

        Even NASA is not immune to those delusions.

        • Clint R says:

          That’s why this Moon issue is so relevant, Gordon. It is easy to understand. There are not hundreds of “papers” to cloud the issue. There is no heavy physics. It’s as easy as a ball-on-a-string.

          People refuse reality because they can’t leave their cult. They would be lost without their false beliefs. They’d have to start thinking for themselves. That idea scares them.

        • RLH says:

          “Even NASA is not immune to those delusions.”

          I would take NASA being less deluded than you any day.

      • Willard says:

        > RLH, is a new idiot, adding to the fun.

        The honeymoon was short.

      • RLH says:

        If you want to live inside your own delusions, then there is nothing stopping you doing so. Just don’t expect the majority of people to join you.

        • Clint R says:

          Realizing that the “majority” is often wrong is part of growing up, RLH. Adults prefer reality over running with the “in-crowd”.

          • RLH says:

            I don’t care about ‘in crowds’. I care about science

          • Clint R says:

            There is no evidence of that, RLH. In fact, there is evidence you reject science.

            You reject the reality that a ball-on-a-string models “orbital motion, without axial rotation”.

          • RLH says:

            There is no reality in that phrase. In fact it is your construction alone and no-one else uses it.

          • Clint R says:

            No reality? Are you saying that objects can’t orbit without also rotating about their axes?

            Then you’re denying jet airplanes, tetherballs, merry-go-round horses, oval race tracks, and Moon!

            That’s a lot of denial there, RLH. But that’s what cults are good at.

          • RLH says:

            I am saying that I am part of the mains stream and you are delusional

          • Clint R says:

            Yes RLH, you cling to your cult and your cult tactics, including personal attacks.

          • RLH says:

            Whereas you….

      • RLH says:

        “Mercury rotates in a way that is unique in the Solar System. It is tidally locked with the Sun in a 3:2 spinorbit resonance, meaning that relative to the fixed stars, it rotates on its axis exactly three times for every two revolutions it makes around the Sun. As seen from the Sun, in a frame of reference that rotates with the orbital motion, it appears to rotate only once every two Mercurian years. An observer on Mercury would therefore see only one day every two Mercurian years.”

    • RLH says:

      “You have a masters degree and you should be able to focus on the following. Presume a circular orbit. ”

      I do indeed. I know when I am being fed bullshit. The conventional view that the Moon rotates around its own axis once per orbit, as supported by NASA, is good enough for me.

  51. Gordon Robertson says:

    craig t…libration without local rotation.

    Consider the orbit to be circular. Draw a radial line from Earth’s centre through Moon’s centre. At all points of the orbital path, gravity is acting straight down the radial line and no libration is possible.

    Now, allow the orbit to be elliptical. The radial line at the lunar end no longer points to the Earth’s centre. To find that radial line you must draw a line from Earth’s centre (at foci 1) to the lunar centre and another line from foci 2 to the lunar centre. That applies to any position of the Moon in its elliptical orbit.

    This means gravity is no longer operating with full force on the near face, it acts with a cosine or sine equivalent force.

    You must bisect the angle formed by the two lines to get the instantaneous direction of a radial line extending from the Moon’s centre. That’s true with any curve. A radial line from a point on the curve must be perpendicular to a tangent line at that point. With an ellipse, that’s how you find the radial line and also determine the tangent line.

    As the degree of eccentricity of an elliptical orbit increases, the radial line of the Moon will point further away from the Earth’s centre. Since that radial line represents the pointing direction of the near face, it means we can see further around the edge of the Moon, and that is libration.

    There is no physical motion with libration, the Moon does not rotate back and forth. Libration is simply a product of an eccentric orbit. Of course, I am talking only about one kind of libration.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “This means gravity is no longer operating with full force on the near face, it acts with a cosine or sine equivalent force.”>/i>

      I don’t understand what you are saying here. Gravity always acts with “full force” = G m(1) m(2) / r^2 where “r” is the distance between the centers of the two objects. This force is always straight toward the other object. Are you claiming this formula is wrong in an elliptical orbit?

      “Since that radial line [perpendicular to the direction of travel] represents the pointing direction of the near face … “
      This would be true for the ‘near face’ of a train car rolling along an elliptical path. It is NOT true for moon orbiting a planet.

      As an example, consider a moon that moves from perigee 1/4 of the total DISTANCE around the orbit (from the major axis to the minor axis). Your prediction would be that the moon also turns 1/4 of a turn so the side that had been facing the earth will now be facing the center of the ellipse.

      In fact, this motion takes less than 1/4 of the total TIME, so the moon would turn less than 1/4 of a rotation. The “near face” will be facing somewhere between the center and ‘focus 2’. This is a different libration than you predict, so we have a testable difference. Only one of these two can be correct.

      HINT Conservation of angular momentum agrees with my hypothesis.

      • Clint R says:

        TF, who are you trying to kid?

        Hint: You don’t know crap about orbital motion.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Clint, if you have something to add, add it. What direction do YOU think a moon will face in an elliptical orbit? Why?

          • Clint R says:

            What direction will a runner face on an oval track?

            Or, is that over your head also?

          • Willard says:

            You might as well stick to the squirrel and the tree, Pup:

            SOME YEARS AGO, being with a camping party in the mountains, I returned from a solitary ramble to find every one engaged in a ferocious metaphysical dispute. The corpus of the dispute was a squirrel – a live squirrel supposed to be clinging to one side of a tree-trunk; while over against the tree’s opposite side a human being was imagined to stand. This human witness tries to get sight of the squirrel by moving rapidly round the tree, but no matter how fast he goes, the squirrel moves as fast in the opposite direction, and always keeps the tree between himself and the man, so that never a glimpse of him is caught. The resultant metaphysical problem now is this: Does the man go round the squirrel or not? He goes round the tree, sure enough, and the squirrel is on the tree; but does he go round the squirrel? In the unlimited leisure of the wilderness, discussion had been worn threadbare. Every one had taken sides, and was obstinate; and the numbers on both sides were even. Each side, when I appeared therefore appealed to me to make it a majority. Mindful of the scholastic adage that whenever you meet a contradiction you must make a distinction, I immediately sought and found one, as follows: “Which party is right,” I said, “depends on what you practically mean by ‘going round’ the squirrel. If you mean passing from the north of him to the east, then to the south, then to the west, and then to the north of him again, obviously the man does go round him, for he occupies these successive positions. But if on the contrary you mean being first in front of him, then on the right of him, then behind him, then on his left, and finally in front again, it is quite as obvious that the man fails to go round him, for by the compensating movements the squirrel makes, he keeps his belly turned towards the man all the time, and his back turned away. Make the distinction, and there is no occasion for any farther dispute. You are both right and both wrong according as you conceive the verb ‘to go round’ in one practical fashion or the other.”

            https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/james.htm

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

          • Willard says:

            You do realize that the Sky Dragon trick is an old one, kiddo, right?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            Willard, please stop trolling.

          • Willard says:

            Does the man go round the squirrel or not, kiddo?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #3

            Willard, please stop trolling.

          • RLH says:

            This man can count

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, I counted that in the last month’s temperature update you wrote about 960 comments, and Willard wrote about 1000. In contrast I wrote about 450. Which includes all the “please stop trolling” comments.

          • Willard says:

            And if you remove your PSTs, kiddo, how much did you contribute to this thread?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            This month, so far:

            RLH = 287
            Willard = 169
            DREMT = 54 (including PSTs)

            So you two are still the biggest two trolls on the thread.

          • Willard says:

            > including PSTs

            Not what I asked, kiddo.

            Does the man go round the squirrel or not?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Shut up, troll.

          • RLH says:

            Look who’s talking

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            RLH, please stop trolling.

          • Willard says:

            Many trolls leave one comment, kiddo.

            Also, your “analysis” omits the possibility of autocorrelations.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #4

            Willard, please stop trolling.

          • RLH says:

            So that was at least 450 useless comments (yours) then

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            RLH, please stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #3

            RLH, please stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #4

            RLH, please stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #5

            RLH, please stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #6

            RLH, please stop trolling.

        • RLH says:

          “Hint: You dont know crap about orbital