The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2021 was -0.01 deg. C, down from the May, 2021 value of +0.08 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 18 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2020 01 0.42 0.44 0.40 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 0.27 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 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.65 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.13 -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
2021 06 -0.01 0.30 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 +0.63 -0.76
Despite the near-normal global average temperatures, the USA Lower 48 temperature anomaly of +1.44 deg. C was the warmest in the 43 year satellite record, ahead of +1.15 deg. C in 1988. In contrast, the Antarctic region (poleward of 60 S latitude) experienced its 2nd coldest June (-1.25 deg. C below the 30-year baseline), behind -1.34 deg. C in June, 2017.
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for June, 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
Possibility for deep La Nina this fall.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
How low will temp go next summer?
You are reading it wrong , according to Alarmistas we are accelerating into ElNino, they have “trends” to prove it.
https://i.postimg.cc/ZRxJ4SsR/w2nino34-Mon.gif
I forgot the reference link
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-718935
From the standpoint of the pseudo-debate on AGW, it hardly matters whether the remainder of the year is la nina, el nino , or neutral. In a decadal scale, the temp keeps going up. If next year is a solid el nino, it will probably be a new record. If the remainder of this year goes super la nina, it will still be warmer that every year prior to 2000. (Talking surface temps here, but probably RSS TLT too. UAH is an outlier.)
robert…”If next year is a solid el nino, it will probably be a new record. If the remainder of this year goes super la nina, it will still be warmer that every year prior to 2000″.
I guess you have not been informed that the years between 1979 – 1997 were forced low due to volcanic aerosols. Therefore the warming during the error was far less than the UAH graph reveals. I think UAH calculated it at 0.09C/decade.
Let’s not forget the 18 year flat trend following the 1998 El Nino.
Natural variability.
This what you all should be watching…
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
From iowa… la nina cycles
The 1998 cycle, I carried a long pipe in the back of my truck to bang on the wheel hubs of my truck when my break liners froze, -20
The 2017 cycle, two continuous nights at -30. I no longer consider iowa a zone 5 growing season…
The 2021 cycle, 2 weeks at -20 continuous, along with the texas fiasco.
The La nia cycle is warming the deep ocean(pulling up cold water), El nino the oppisite
“I guess you have not been informed that the years between 1979 1997 were forced low due to volcanic aerosols.”
Gordon, that is pretty fascinating. Is there any evidence that El Ninos and Hurricanes can and do actually remove aerosols from the atmosphere, cleaning the sky, and allowing more incoming radiation to reach the oceans?
My bet is that this is just another exogenous factor that climate models fail to address that unsettle this settled science.
Robert Ingersol,
You might not realise how insulting your outlier comment is. You should consider making an apology to the UAH team.
Outlier has specific meaning in statistics. It is a measure that a value or values depart from the best value by more than a specified amount.
In this case, the science is relatively young and there is not yet an established best value.
Rather, we have many teams working in global temperature research, still at the stage of making public corrections to earlier estimates of best value.
In an ideal scientific world, these might have come together by now. In the non-ideal world some have lost scientific rigour and are adjusting for ideology rather than for hard science. It is not now possible to claim an outlier because there is no best value to compare, only many adjustments claiming to be best. Time wounds all heels. Geoff S
“In this case, the science is relatively young and there is not yet an established best value.”
Geoff, didn’t you get the memo? This is settled science. This is the only science in the history of science that is actually settled, but it is settled.
“In the non-ideal world some have lost scientific rigour and are adjusting for ideology rather than for hard science.”
Perhaps you should apologize, Geoff, to the team(s) you are accusing of scientific misconduct without a shred of evidence.
Mr. Ingersol
All global average temperature calculations were made with data collected DURING a warming trend. That makes the ‘hottest year on record’ claims almost meaningless.
It is EXPECTED to have frequent “hottest years on record” as that warming trend continues.
Hottest year on record is not news — it is merely stating the obvious — a rising trend.
A rising trend that has been in progress for about 325 years, starting long before man made CO2 emissions could have had an effect.
Someday the rising global average temperature trend will end, as all prior rising trends have, and we will stop hearing “hottest year on record” announcements.
You must also remember that the global average temperature data are a very short record.
I would say with decent accuracy only since 1979.
Others would pick 1950 as the stating point for decent accuracy.
Prior to 1950, global coverage was unacceptable for a decent global temperature average.
Prior to 1920, there was far too little Southern Hemisphere coverage.
Prior to 1900, almost no Southern hemisphere coverage.
This adds up to 42 years of decent global average temperature compilations, since 1979, out of 4.5 billion years of earth’s history.
That’s a tiny portion of climate history.
Also there is no way to determine what global average temperature is average, or normal.
I can imagine that almost evermore moderate climate we have today.
In fact, today’s climate is the best climate for humans, animals and plants in 325 years.
We should be celebrating our wonderful climate, happy that we are living in a mild, harmless warming trend, during an inter-glacial period.
Your comment appears to be a focus on the leaves of a tree (one year) while I have described the whole forest (climate history).
They don’t need actual facts. Just scream warmest on record and then hold their hand out for the carbon tax trillions.
Well said… always hard to disagree with objective logic.
It is mostly fact and logic based up until this:
“In fact, today’s climate is the best climate for humans, animals and plants in 325 years.”
This is no longer fact-based. It is pure opinion.
It can’t be neither proven nor falsified.
Arrrgh.
It can neither be proven nor falsified.
You had it correct the first time Nate. The evidence is everywhere and overwhelming.
“In a decadal scale, the temp keeps going up”
and good thing too, had it been going down at the same rate we’d see far more (justifiable) panic
“If the remainder of this year goes super la nina, it will still be warmer that every year prior to 2000”
no, a little cooling would make 2021 colder than 1988
over thirty years of exponentially increasing CO2 emissions ago
just not compatible with scenarios of ECS>2
physics doesn’t care about your politics
For current and past temps in the oceans see
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
and
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
rlh…”For current and past temps in the oceans see”
NOAA is the last place you should look for the SST. They retroactively fudged it to get rid of the flat trend from 1998 – 2012 admitted by the IPCC.
Just look at the maps
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/NMME_plume_graph_202105_large.png
Hahaha. Eben just called Clint an alarmist.
“Possibility for deep La Nina this fall.”
-Well, despite what troubles this may cause in parts of the world i.e. U.S. west coast drought – The ensuing cooling in the global temperature is certainly needed to prove a point.
May the La Ninas continue!
As least until next year – or so it seems.
I didn’t know if Dr. Spencer would post any new posts on july 4th or 5th, so I decided to go ahead and write and advanced congratulation:
Happy Aphelion Day, everyone!
If we compare the 2021 to the start of the 21st century we see little warming. Both years are coming out of La Nina. Here’s the last 4 months.
2001 -0.01 C
2021 0.00 C
The same period values for SST shows a little warming.
2001 0.34 C
2021 0.47 C
How will we ever survive?
Now we will get to see all the alarmists using trends so they can take advantage of the recent El Nino events to claim more warming. The fact is, the changes when looking at similar circumstances are minor.
Youve got it backwards.
Now we will get to see all the deniers using trends so they can take advantage of the recent La Nina events to claim more cooling.
There are many examples in the record after 2000 with spikes down to -0.4 C or up to 0.6.
Its quite silly to look at spikes that persist for at most a couple of months, as meaningful to climate change.
Nate, due to the high level of noise in global temperature data, the goal is to find times with consistent natural conditions. Then we can compare apples to apples.
What I showed is very little warming has occurred in the past two decades. Did it warm? Yes, it appears it has warmed slightly. However, all of that could be due to the AMO. There is no convincing evidence for any dangerous warming driven by human emissions.
Trying to find an earlier year with sufficiently similar conditions is fraught with difficulty. Compare decadal means (or 11-year if you want to negate the solar cycle.) Temp keeps going up.
Just like one would expect temperatures to do coming out of the Little Ice Age, one of the Holocenes coldest periods. Exactly on cue.
So, a spike that persists for several months is very meaningful?
A spike that persists for several months is very meaningful?
“What I showed is very little warming has occurred in the past two decades.”
You didn’t show that.
Proper way is to
1. do a fit to all data over >20 y.
or
2. Remove the portion attributable to ENSO, and fit. I can show you that.
Nate, you appear to think only ENSO affects the global temperature. Nope, there is also an ongoing effect from the AMO (as well as PDO effects). It jumps out at you in this graphic.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1997/to/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1997/to/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1997.5/to:2015/trend/plot/none
This is why I mentioned the AMO in my comment.
Then you admit your “goal is to find times with consistent natural conditions” is unlikely to be achieved.
This is why we look at all of the data over a long-enough period.
“It jumps out at you in this graphic.”
Step back and look at bigger picture:
https://tinyurl.com/2e3raakk
Nate: So how long, if at all, do you consider the UAH temps will be below the now 0c line?
I think the red line (13 mo av) unlikely to go below 0.
Unless we get another Pinatubo.
nate retreats to ”regional” anomalies.
RLH, how much do you expect the Gaussian 15 y LP filtered UAH to be impacted by this months drop?
Or this years La Nina?
“I think the red line (13 mo av) unlikely to go below 0”
I rather suspect you may be wrong. Especially if the forecasts are correct and it turns into a full blown La Nina by the end of the year.
“how much do you expect the Gaussian 15 y LP filtered UAH to be impacted”
It is more the trajectory that matters, rather than anything else. Big things like the Earth’s climate tend to take a while to turn direction.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/NMME_plume_graph_202105_large.png
“Big things like the Earths climate tend to take a while to turn direction.”
Indeed. One month or one La Nina won’t do it.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/NMME_plume_graph_202105_large.png0
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
I think you will find that it is going to be more than just a few months.
I’ll try that again
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/NMME_plume_graph_202105_large.png
So we had a weak La Nina in 2018. Then what? A weak El Nino in 2019, and we were back to the same temp or higher temps.
ENSO’s effect will always be small and oscillatory, so unless you are expecting an unprecedented 15 y of exclusively La Ninas…a reversal of the warming trend in LP-15y running mean seems rather unlikely.
“A weak El Nino in 2019, and we were back to the same temp or higher temps.”
A weak (or strong) La Nina in the later half of 2021 does not make it likely that global temperatures will climb during the rest of this year.
OMG..
So you agree then? Little chance of higher temps this year.
Ur a professional point misser..
So little chance of higher temps this year then.
“The CFS.v2 ensemble mean (black dashed line) predicts ENSO-neutral followed by weak La Nia conditions during late fall and winter 2021-22”
After a record breaking heatwave here in New England last week, we are now having a cool patch with temps well below normal. All ACs turned off.
Of course nobody is canceling their beach going plans for July and August. No one is lamenting summer is over. We all get that this is simply the vagaries of weather (and personally I like it).
Skeptics of AGW can get all excited if they want about the possibility of another middling La Nina in the works, and the resulting slight cooling of the Globe.
But of course, the temps over the last 5 y have remained almost exclusively ABOVE the linear warming trendline of the last several decades. If that trend continues it upward march, as models predict, then that still means temps MIST spend ~ 50% of the time BELOW the trendline…
The fact that temps this year are now finally below the trendline, and the prospect of more next year, doesnt bother me or climate science one bit, since it is par for the course for ENSO.
So you are saying that there is little chance of higher temps this year then.
Non sequitur..
But anomalies should rise this year…in response to rise from La Nina to neutral.
That rather depends on how many La Nina or Neutrals there are in the reference period.
Not really.
We can see what happened as a result of the similar rise nino3.4 in early to mid 2018. A global temp rise a few months later of ~ 0.2C
Care to answer if the reference period for the anomalies has more La Nina or El Nino in it?
Without that knowledge predicting anomalies is suspect.
“Care to answer if the reference period for the anomalies has more La Nina or El Nino in it?”
Tell me how much difference you think it makes.
Did you not prefer tree rings over rainfall records for the PDO? Shall I update you?
Of course biasing your reference period for anomalies by including more of La Nina or El Nino will make a difference. Not much true, but it will matter.
Still not got over the fact that ALL prediction sources say lower than the centerline of 0 for the rest of the year and going into a La Nina for the end of the year have you?
“Did you not prefer tree rings over rainfall records for the PDO? Shall I update you?”
Pls do.
“Of course biasing your reference period for anomalies by including more of La Nina or El Nino will make a difference.”
Did you figure out how much?
“Not much true, but it will matter.”
Unless you calculate it, you cannot know if it matters significantly or negligibly.
As it turns out, negligibly.
Macdonald
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/macdonald2005.jpeg
Darrigo 2006
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/darrigo2006.jpeg
Darrigo 2001
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/darrigo2001.jpeg
Biondi
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/biondi.jpeg
Take you choice as to which best represents the PDO.
Thanks.
Any of those or Shen..who knows?
How do you decide?
Well as none of the tree rings even agree with each other it is difficult to chose any of those above the rainfall records from China.
“Shifts in the preinstrumental period show varying correspondence with those of a North American-based tree-ring reconstruction of the North Pacific index (NPI), another indicator of Pacific decadal climate variability. Differences between these two time series hint at modulation of local climate from Asian monsoon, El Nio-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and volcanic forcing”
From Darrigo 2006.
Darrigo 2014 from Japan different.
All suggesting local effects dominate.
“to chose any of those above the rainfall records from China.”
Bias much??
Tree rings ARE rainfall records…
“All suggesting local effects dominate.”
Agreed.
“Tree rings ARE rainfall records”
Local rainfall records.
Shen is regional, not local.
“In this present study, 28 regions with complete or relatively complete (very few gaps, which were filled using the index from their nearest regions) time series and strong PDO signals are selected from 58 available regions in eastern China (2240N, 110122E)”
“These regions located at the two ends of the PDO-related summer rainfall dipole (Figure 1) are expected to produce a robust reconstruction of the PDO. The 1925 to 1998 annual PDO index (http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO. latest) was used for calibration and verification.”
MacDonald uses similar approach, two regions along dipole.
Do you honestly think that you can pick winners and losers among PDO data?
“Hydrologically sensitive tree-ring chronologies from Pinus flexilis in California and Alberta were used to produce an AD 9931996 reconstruction of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and to assess long-term variability in the PDOs strength and periodicity. The reconstruction indicates that a ~50 to 70 year periodicity in the PDO is typical for the past 200 years but, was only intermittently a strong mode of variability prior to that. Between AD 1600 and 1800 there is a general absence of significant variability within the 50 to 100 year frequency range. Significant variability within in the frequency range of 50 to 100 years reemerges between AD 1500 and 1300 and AD 1200 to 1000. A prolonged period of strongly negative PDO values between AD 993 and 1300 is contemporaneous with a severe medieval megadrought that is apparent in many proxy hydrologic records for the western United States and Canada.”
I would have thought that changing modes around 1800 (the low point in temps worldwide, aka The Little Ice Age) was a reasonable occurrence.
So we have mode 1, 1400 to 1800. Mode 2 1800 onwards. Sounds OK to me.
Visible in Shen et al too.
“In the context of climate variability and resources
planning the reconstruction of the PDO possesses two
particularly important features. First, the reconstruction
provides evidence for the persistence of a strongly negative
PDO state, suggesting a cool northeastern Pacific, during
the medieval period ( AD 900 to 1300). This prolonged
episode of negative PDO values corresponds to a period of
severe and prolonged dry conditions evident throughout
western and central North America [Cook et al., 2004].
There is also additional evidence for cooler northeastern
Pacific SSTs, higher rates of upwelling and increased
marine productivity along coast during this general time
period.”
PDO does not correlate with MWP. PDO does not correspond to global temperature in this analysis.
The time period between 1400 (ish) and 1800 (ish) show one periodicity. The time period after 1800 (ish) shows a different periodicity.
I think you even observed that yourself.
Keep in mind that people seek and like to find patterns, sheep in clouds, faces on the Moon, cycles in random noise.
Meanwhile Barry’s very good point seems to have been dodged.
PDO seems not to be a coherent Pacific-wide mode. It seem not to be a big influence on low-frequency global temperature variation.
“Keep in mind that people seek and like to find patterns, sheep in clouds, faces on the Moon, cycles in random noise.”
The data produces what you see. Not me. If you see patterns then the data says they are there.
“Meanwhile Barrys very good point seems to have been dodged.”
Barry does not address the suggestion that there are 2 different periodicity seen in the data. Prior to 1800 and after. Which you also noted.
“PDO seems not to be a coherent Pacific-wide mode. It seem not to be a big influence on low-frequency global temperature variation.”
It seems to be Pacific wide currently. Why would the past be different?
“If you see patterns then the data says they are there.”
If you see a man on the Moon, then he is there???
I don’t see any of the patterns you claim to see.
“Barry does not address the suggestion that there are 2 different periodicity seen in the data.”
It seems you think only points that you have made deserve attention?All others can be safely ignored?
He makes a point about the PDO being inconsequential to Global Temps. That would seem to make the rest of the discussion moot.
“It seems to be Pacific wide currently. Why would the past be
different?”
You tell me.
“He makes a point about the PDO being inconsequential to Global Temps. That would seem to make the rest of the discussion moot.”
So the ENSO changes global temperatures but the PDO doesn’t. Got it.
“on low-frequency global temperature variation.”
PDO and ENSO both influence high frequency variation, probably because ENSO is part of PDO.
I quoted the same paper that RLH quoted (but didn’t link to). The MWP and prolonged negative PDO are anti-correlated.
RLH: “Barry does not address the suggestion that there are 2 different periodicity seen in the data.”
Is that consequential when…
RLH: “Why would the past be different?”
“PDO and ENSO both influence high frequency variation, probably because ENSO is part of PDO.”
I wouldn’t call >30 year behavior high frequency.
“Barry does not address the suggestion that there are 2 different periodicity seen in the data.”
Barry still fails to address this point.
The negative PDO is anticorrelated with the MWP according to the paper you cited. Therefore, PDO doesn’t influence global temps.
If you are responding to this point with “2 different periodicities,” you’ll have to be clearer. Otherwise I think you are trying to change the subject.
“>30 year behavior high frequency.:
Hasn’t been demonstrated.
Do you not understand that to demonstrate correlation requires multiple coincident features?
The MWP lasted some 200+ years. There will have been at least 1 if not 2 PDO cycles in that period.
Do you understand that it is very unlikely that simple period matching is unlikely to occur, especially if we are talking before the 1800s.
Do you understand that it is very unlikely that simple period matching is going to occur, especially if we are talking before the 1800s.
So no correlation means correlation to you?
Noting a different periodicity does not respond to the finding that MWP and PDO are anti-correlated. It’s a different topic.
On a geospatial feature of the PDO you said, “Why would the past be different?”
Now you seem to be implying that the past could be quite different regarding PDO ifluence on global temps.
Your argumentation is opportunistic.
“So no correlation means correlation to you?”
I would not expect a simple correlation to hold prior and post the 1800s. As I said before, there are likely to be 2 separate regime.
“Now you seem to be implying that the past could be quite different regarding PDO ifluence on global temps.”
What part of 2 sperate regimes pre and post the early 1800s did you not get?
OK, lets’s summarize.
PDO has had at most a on-off effect on the derivative of Global Temperature in the mid 20th century, 1930-1980. As we discussed, earlier from 1850-1930, and after 1990, that relationship seems absent.
Then the reconstructions going back 1000 (which disagree) show little correlation to reconstructed temperature, or the well-known features such as the MWP.
So where does that leave the hypothesis that PDO plays a significant role in Global temperature?
Urgggh
‘on-off’
should be ‘one-off’
Regimes and periodicities, baby. That answers everything. PDO didn’t influence global temps then, but they do now. Because why would the past be any different….
Brtzzzzt… fzzt.
That’s the sound of automated reasoning shorting out.
nate…”Its quite silly to look at spikes that persist for at most a couple of months, as meaningful to climate change”.
Mainly because there’s no such thing as climate change in the context in which you present it. All we’ve had the past 40 years is minor global warming and thus far no climates have changed significantly. In fact, no climates have changed significantly in the past 170 years since the Little Ice Age ended.
The reason you alarmists use the phrase ‘climate change’ is that it is sounds more scary than minor global warming.
Yes Gordon, we know, and there is also no such thing as HIV, AIDS, COVID, or heat transfer….
Yes, there is heat transfer, an engineering subject which you clearly do not understand. Nor do you understand the engineering subject of thermodynamics. Try to look up the 2nd law of thermodynamics, maybe it will point you in the right direction.
@cementafriend
greenhouse effect does not violate the 2nd law off thermodynamics
Man made Climate change is the biggest thread to mankind. We need to move to zero carbon very soon
@markus
THE biggest threat to mankind by far is moving off carbon fuels without replacing them with something better. Guess waht – once a better alternative comes up, the move will be spontaneous and voluntary. So, all one has to to is to invent a better or at least comparable alternative to fossil fuels. So far, it hasn’t been done. Therefore, our only reasonable choice is to adapt to whatever allegedly deleterious consequences that co2 emissions allegedly prduce, whilst researching for better alternatives.
> once a better alternative comes up, the move will be spontaneous and voluntary.
See COVID response, for instance:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/07/984697573/vaccine-refusal-may-put-herd-immunity-at-risk-researchers-warn
“So, all one has to to is to invent a better or at least comparable alternative to fossil fuels.”
Solar and wind are better than coal, even the market agrees. And that with out the societal costs of coal factored in.
>>Solar and wind are better than coal, even the market agrees. And that with out the societal costs of coal factored in.<<
Words, lies and propaganda. Perhaps they CAN be better ta some point,also there is no market.
I shall elaborate on what is said.
>>Solar and wind are better than coal
what does ‘better’ means? I mean, it really depends on who;s judging and the criteria are. It is pretty obvious, that nuclear is better than them all, in theory… but it faces certain obstacles in practice. There is no way wind can be better than anything in the long run, it really is a 17th century tech, as opposed to coal which is 19th century tech. Still, solar has the potential to be useful, but it is not very much yet.
>> even the market agrees.
No, there is no such thing as ‘market’ when it comes to the general energy generation. There is market in fossil fuels and hence in transportation energy, but electricity generation is effectively nationalized pretty much everywhere. Hence, when it comes to electricity – and all the alternative energy sources suggested so far are nearly all geared exclusively towards electricity generation – the market cannot know what is better because there is no market.
And that is both sad and stupid. It is sad because without the market evaluation of the alternatives, ‘we’ are pretty much blind with regards to knowing where to move towards. let me repeat it, such knowledge sinmply doesn'[t exist. Is coal better? Nuclular? Wind? Solr? hydro? We simply DON”T KNOW, we can’t know that.
And It is stupid because the electricity generation doesn’t need to be this way. Electricity generation and distribution is not a natural monopoly, nor it needs not be nationalized. Unlike some other ‘utilities’ such as water, sewage, or other the municipal infrastructure maintenance, electricity can be completely market based, with only private entities and the complete freedom of entrance to the market, just like the internets is. But for some reason it is not, wonder why?
>> And that with out the societal costs of coal factored in.
like what?
“electricity generation is effectively nationalized pretty much everywhere.”
Evidence?
Societal costs of coal (and some other FF):
Aside from GHG emissions, Air pollution from coal has been extremely costly to human health. You visibly see it in Chinese cities, but it is still present in the US.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-1983-8
It has also been costly due to environmental damage from its extraction. Mountain top removal, toxic runoff, etc. Then there is acid rain and mercury that ends up in fish.
‘Clean coal’ is more expensive than renewables.
Nuclear is more expensive than all others.
Wind and water are cheaper too.
>>“electricity generation is effectively nationalized pretty much everywhere.”
Evidence?
<<
that's like providing evidence that the sky is blue. Ptretty much would include going through all the countries and reviewing eaah case separately. And proving in each case it is so, while explaining away any special cases and exceptions (like here in alberta for example). I mean, the sky is not totally always blue, do that mean that 'the sky is blue' is a lie?
>>Wind and water are cheaper too.<<
yeah, and not having any electricity is even more cheaper.
Ill make it easy for you. Just show that Elec generation in the US is ‘nationalized’.
So many people here declare ‘truths’ that they cannot back up. Is this one of those?
@nate ye, it is one of those. Like that the sky is blue. Otoh, thereis this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ
Nonsense.
@nate yeah, sure, whatever. In my opinion, the very fact that there exist non-overlapping ‘grids’ in my opinion is a sure fact that the electricenergy market in the usa is not free. At best it is a cartelized guld-like structure, at worst it doesn’t exist. And tah’s USa, the most market-oriented contry in the world. everyone else is worse. And that is why innovation in the energy sector is gargantuously stifled and is nearly doomed to fail. And that is why all this ‘green energy’ bullsheet is a mostly wasted effort. I’ll keep to my opinion on this.
‘In my opinion’
Ok so no evidence can be provided.
It is fact that in many regions in the US, the electricity is produced by many different companies.
In many places, retail electricity is supplied by many different companies (including where I live in New England).
You could see the free-market in action in the Enron scandal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal
You could see the free market in action in Texas during the Winter power crisis, when retail prices ballooned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis
i don’t care what you say, I know that the free market in electricity doesn’t exist, even in texas, and your arguments are no match to mu knowledge. I don’t know if it is possible to have free market in electricity at all, but since i can’t possibly change it in any way i don’t care. But even if free market in e/e existed in the usa it would not matter because the successful solution to the renewable problem would require the worldwide free market if possible at all.
” your arguments are no match to mu knowledge. ”
Great that you are so knowledgeable.
Not great that you can’t share it with us.
There’s no such thing as ‘climate’ scientifically speaking. There’s only weather. Climate was an arbitrary definition but now its a political one.
If you rephrase the question to include the things we can actually measure and control: “What level of CO2 in the atmosphere will produce the weather you want?” You see the futility.
If we are arguing about what is natural variability, there is no argument to be had. For climate catastrophe to be plausible there cannot be any way for UAH temps NOW to be anything like close to an average line through a multi-decadal dataset. There is no climate catastrophe all you raving greenies. Stop destroying energy grids and making electricity expensive and go and live your off-grid lifestyles where you aren’t draining my taxes!
“cannot be any way for UAH temps NOW to be anything like close to an average line through a multi-decadal dataset”
Huh?
You may not be aware that other data shows more warming than UAH, at the surface where most people live, using ordinary thermometers.
The land in populated continents has warmed ~ 3 degrees F in 50y. This is not ignorable.
https://tinyurl.com/y4zasnrw
So, despite all other temperature sources also showing a fall over the last few months, don’t believe it just because it is UAH?
Why are you on here then?
“also showing a fall over the last few months, dont believe it just because it is UAH?”
How do you get that from anything Ive said, RLH? Weird trolling.
I have not anywhere denied Temps have fallen in the last few months, due to La Nina. We discussed it at length!
In any case, it is a red herring for this thread.
And I have asked and you have dodged just how long do you think the current state is likely to continue. Do you agree with Hansen that tempos are likely to continue falling until the end of the year?
When do you expect that to show up in GISS, Had, etc.? How deep will it go?
No dodge. I answered it. Go back and look.
“Do you agree with Hansen that tempos are likely to continue falling until the end of the year?”
I said based on 2018 response to ENSO, temps should rise by the end of the year. I think by 0.1 or 0.2.
Hansen was talking about the 12 mo smoothed curve, which will have a delayed rise.
Can you explain, RLH, why previously you were obsessed with applying 15 year Gaussian LP filters to every time series, with the goal of removing all short-term noise to see the long term behavior,
but now you you are obsessed with the short-term wiggles that previously you thought it so important to remove?!!
“Can you explain, RLH, why previously you were obsessed with applying 15 year Gaussian LP filters to every time series, with the goal of removing all short-term noise to see the long term behavior”
I have been doing just that with as many of the temperature series as I can. See my blog. Soon to get this months updates.
The trends that they show over longer time periods are important too. I may well add an S-G filter to the mix (better known to you as LOWESS).
Simple running means are acceptable to you (as used by almost everyone) but mathematically correct version of them are not. Hypocrite.
Why is it that people in climate, who readily acknowledge that >30 years is required to determine climate, are unwilling to apply things that are able to see things operate in those timescales to their data? Most restrict themselves to 5 or at best 10 year running means without any justification as to why that method or those particular lengths are chosen.
Selective reading again?
“but now you you are obsessed with the short-term wiggles that previously you thought it so important to remove?!!”
@Nate
Of course I know that. Which temp record do you want to use? CET? GISSTEMP? Same deal. The problem with long term ground based records is finding one that hasn’t been moved, or had urban encroachment or land use change around it is really difficult.
Pick your best long term remote, unpopulated site, tell us where it is and post a link to the data. I’ve done it for islands in Scotland where the UK has long periods of data and there’s no ‘AGW fingerprint’. Just boring steady warming with massive natural variability like you’d expect. The reason I like UAH is as far as we can tell, the only artefacts are with the instrumentation and analysis, not the site.
The moment there is so much as a cobweb on a temperature sensor, it’s not going to read correctly. Perth where I live in Oz has had enormous changes in the last 30 years. Correcting for them all would be impossible. There is undoubtedly a warming fingerprint due to human activity in the temp data. But between the swamp draining, bush clearing, house and road building and site moves, I don’t think much of it is due to CO2 from fossil fuels.
Sure, sensors drift with age, no instrumental method is perfect, but when CET, UAH and GISSTEMP are all telling you the same thing you can be pretty confident that the warming trend has well and truly changed – for now. Roy has always been reasonable, never used the hysteria for advantage or funding and for me, that counts for a lot. He has my respect. People who’ve spent their whole lives doing experiments with computer code? Not so much.
My point is that NOTHING measures climate, it’s a made up concept and not really fit for purpose. If a trend is to be real, it needs to be well outside the ‘noise’. But you stupid alarmists have forgotten that the noise is actually the only signal you have and instead invented a fake signal through inappropriate statistical manipulation.
“There’s no such thing as ‘climate’ scientifically speaking.”
Where is the science backing that highly biased opinion? Not seeing it.
“My point is that NOTHING measures climate, it’s a made up concept and not really fit for purpose.”
Gibberish. The globe is warming. That is clear. Whether you call that ‘climate change’ or not makes no difference.
“If a trend is to be real, it needs to be well outside the ‘noise’.”
Fair point. In 1981 Hansen made the same one.
He modeled the previous century of climate noise, which wiggled within a range of 0.4 C, using the known forcings.
Using the now tuned model, he further predicted that over the next decades Global temperature would clearly rise out of the climate noise range of the previous century. He also predicted the spatial pattern of the rise. He predicted faster warming of Arctic, NH, and W. Antarctica.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html
He was accurate on the major predictions within error. Over the next 40 y, the Global Temperature has risen well out of the noise. Here is pre- and post- prediction.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:1981/mean:36/plot/gistemp/from:1978/mean:36
“The globe is warming. That is clear.”
Except that it has been cooling again for the last (insert required period here). Even AIRs agrees on that.
I know that you expect that warming will resume again shortly, but that is belief not fact.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2000
Declining since 2020 I see.
Nope, not in Gaussian 15y LP filtered GISS.
According to last month’s RLH, that’s what matters.
You still havent explained:
“now you you are obsessed with the short-term wiggles that previously you thought it so important to remove?!!
“I know that you expect that warming will resume again shortly, but that is belief not fact.”
So you think the response to ENSO this time will be different from previous instances?
Other than hoping against hope, what is the logic behind that belief?
This ENSO?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/enso.jpeg
Yep. The one that is rising since late 2020.
“so they can take advantage of the recent La Nina events to claim more cooling. ”
Just like rabid alarmists use El Ninos to claim warming.
Even though they cannot possibly be caused by atmospheric CO2.
“Just like rabid alarmists use El Ninos to claim warming.”
I think I saw one of those types on this board recently, the only time I ever have here. Even semi-intelligent understand that the monthly ups and downs are meaningless, and that it is the long-term trend that matters.
“12-month mean (temperatures) should continue to fall during the next six months, reaching a minimum in November.” May 2021 Hansen.
Quoting Hansen’s larger context for your (and others) benefit.
This 12-month mean should continue to fall during the next six months, reaching a minimum in November, as discussed in the April 2021 Temperature update.
On the longer run, global temperature will increase in response to the present large planetary energy imbalance (absorbed solar energy exceeds thermal emission to space by about +1 W/m2)1 and the continuing growth of human-made greenhouse gases. In addition, solar irradiance reached the minimum of the present solar cycle during 2019, so for about the next six years solar irradiance will add a small positive (warming) forcing (global temperature response to solar cycle forcing lags the solar cycle by 1-2 years due to the climate system’s thermal inertia).
Global temperature should reach about +1.5°C in conjunction with the next El Nino. — May 2021 Global Temperature Update, 14 June 2021, James Hansen and Makiko Sato
I would expect that someone who believes in CO2 being the main driver of climate to say that.
We will see won’t we.
P.S. I did read the whole quote which you seem to think I didn’t.
RLH is like a naive young retirement investor:
‘The stock market is going down the last couple of months. Should I sell everything?’
Hansen is his wise financial advisor:
‘Here are the fundamentals and the long term history of the stock market, which is what you need to worry about. Over the long term, it rises. Ignore what is does over a few months’
Nate is like all con artists, follow the trend and make money. Until you don’t.
Im just a sensible long-term investor. You?
And for climate, I get that the fundamental physics at work should not be ignored. You?
“I get that the fundamental physics at work should not be ignored.”
I get that large physical system tend to resonate at very low frequencies. In most natural systems these are not expected to be sinusoidal in nature except in the broadest of sense.
Sure, cycles are one type of dynamics that can occur in driven dynamical systems. Other less-predictable chaotic dynamics can occur as well.
But whether specific effects of that former type are important contributors to global temperature rise needs to be demonstrated.
A problem is that cyclic dynamics are not compatible with a long term exponential rise in temperature.
Meanwhile the specific physics behind the GHE and AGW has been demonstrated to be correct, and should not be set aside in favor of speculative causes of warming.
And of course you must be aware that the 12 mo smoothed data will warm with a delay in response to any warming beginning this month.
So you think we have reached the bottom of the dip. Interesting seeing as others disagree.
What others?
So you think the response to ENSO this time will be different from previous instances?
How long do you expect it to be before the next EL Nino occurs and what ratio El Nino/La Nina do you expect over the next decade (or longer)?
What others?
Again ENSO is a short term noise. It disappears with your LP15 filter.
Hansen’s June update speculates we’re currently near minimum for the projected double-dip La Nina:
By Northern Hemisphere summer, ENSO forecasts for the following winter become reasonably reliable, so the NOAA NCEP forecast of a double-dip La Nina (Fig. 4) is probably reliable. Nevertheless, the 12-month running-mean global temperature (Fig. 5) is probably near a minimum, because it is not difficult for global temperature in upcoming months to match the temperatures 12-month-earlier temperatures that were cooled by a strong La Nina.
. . . referring to 12-month running average on GISS LOTI of course. The monthly be noiser:
here
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/NMME_plume_graph_202105_large.png
While some climate realists do cherry pick short term trends and make long term claims, at least they use real data.
That is bad science, and I point out that fact.
in
But at least they live in reality, with real data, not in the fantasy world of you climate alarmists (aka science deniers).
You science deniers, Nasty Nate, specialize in fantasies of a future climate crisis.
This alleged coming climate crisis has been predicted every year since the late 1950’s, starting with oceanographer Roger Revelle and a few associates.
But predicted with uncertainty, of course, because scientists stated uncertainty in those good old days of science.
The always wrong coming climate crisis predictions are accompanied by grossly inaccurate computer game projections, hysterical hand waving, fake high confidence, and other imaginary nonsense.
,
The 664 years of predicting rapid dangerous global warming … included the past 45 years of ignoring ACTUAL, mild harmless global warming, that was GOOD NEWS.
GOOD NEWS based on about seven billion witnesses, who have lived in some, or all, of that 45 years of global warming
GOOD NEWS because the mild warming since the 1970s most affected cold areas in the Northern Hemisphere, mainly during the six colder months of the year and mainly at night.
The “Poster Child” for global warming since the 1970s is warmer winter nights in Siberia !
It’s quite silly to live through 64 years of wrong climate predictions, and live though up to 45 years of actual mild, harmless global warming, yet wind up as a hysterical science denying believer in a climate emergency.
Beyond silly, actually it’s dumb.
But that is what life is like for science deniers — in their dreams they see the future climate ONLY getting worse — it can never get better.
The so called climate emergency exists ONLY in the overactive imaginations of leftist science deniers … yet the actual climate keeps getting better and better with each passing decade.
Pick a trend, any trend!
So will this month (July) be the same or lower/higher than last month (June)?
Why not settle last month’s bets before that, Richard:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-744245
Hindsight is always right!
I didn’t have a bet with you, only with EM (and he paid up).
The June UAH value is probably on the high side of the + or – .1 C error range. Antarctica was very cold in June but is not well covered by the UAH data. The -0.07 C number is probably more accurate.
To continue for how long?
I suppose this counts as a response:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-744534
“The -0.07 C number is probably more accurate.”
To continue for how long? Up or down from there I mean.
Doing it month by month and also year by year makes much more sense.
y tho
Idiot
RLH says:
Doing it month by month and also year by year makes much more sense.
The time period of interest depends what information one is looking find (or not) in the signal.
Mark B: Single figures prove very little. Month on month and year on year prove a little more.
Still no answer to: y tho.
z
545
It’s the number of “idio” on the page, dummy.
We’re at 555. Let’s see you reach a thousand while accumulating moar blunders.
RLH says:
So will this month (July) be the same or lower/higher than last month (June)?
My guess is that UAH TLT for July will be higher than June, perhaps somewhere in the range of 0 – 0.1, but with low confidence.
The rational is that UAH on this timescale correlates fairly well with ONI lagged 5-6 months and ONI started trending up over that period.
“My guess is that UAH TLT for July will be higher than June, perhaps somewhere in the range of 0 – 0.1, but with low confidence.”
What is low confidence? What next higher confidence level do you have?
Low confidence: I’d bet a beer on it and my intuition is that I’d win more often than not. I recognize there is significant residual randomness in these measurements and haven’t attempted to quantify this. I could be more rigorous if it mattered.
Did you want to make a projection?
Well you said ‘low confidence’. I just wanted to know what that meant
I’m still waiting for explanation from warmistas how CO2 causes heatwave without raising the earth temperature first
Trying to find an earlier year with sufficiently similar conditions is fraught with difficulty. Compare decadal means (or 11-year if you want to negate the solar cycle.) Temp keeps going up.
There was a heat wave of similar intensity which struck Northern California counties back in the summer of 1957.Temps were triple digit for over two weeks straight. That heat wave lasted almost one full month.
Because scintists said so, that’s how! Think this way, if .7 degrees of global warming caused heat waves to be 10K warmer, we should expect that 4.5K warming would cause heat waves that are 65K warmer than normal, bringing summer temperatures in california to over 100*C.
“Im still waiting for explanation from warmistas how CO2 causes heatwave”
CO2 doesn’t cause heatwaves.
In the current La Nina, temperatures barely dipped below zero. During the 1999-2001 La Nina, temperatures went way lower.
Krakatoa
Yeah. And in addition, you have to add the monthly differences between 1991-2020 and 1981-2010:
Jan: 0.14
Feb: 0.16
Mar: 0.13
Apr: 0.12
May: 0.12
Jun: 0.13
Jul: 0.13
Aug: 0.12
Sep: 0.17
Oct: 0.16
Nov: 0.13
Dec: 0.12
June 1999 was at -0.15 C; with 0.13 C added to this year’s June, we have a difference of 0.27 C worldwide, that’s a lot indeed.
J.-P. D.
Do you expect future UAH temps to be above where they are now, and, if so, in what time frame?
RLH
I assume you’re asking your question of Krakatoa or Bindidon, but if you don’t mind, let me take a crack at it.
In the short run, global temps, whether in the UAH dataset or any other reputable dataset, will start to rise four or five months after the current La Nina ends. La Ninas depress global atmospheric temperature so when they end, temps rise. There is a time lag involved, so it takes four or five months before it becomes evident in the temperature data.
In the longer run, global temps will rise as long as we have elevated levels of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and especially as those levels keeps rising. That’s why global temperatures have risen significantly in every reputable dataset over the past 42 years, as calculated by least-squares regression analysis. There is no reason to think this trend will not continue.
“start to rise four or five months after the current La Nina ends”
Well the current long term forecasts are for La Nina to continue into next year.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/NMME_plume_graph_202105_large.png
“Well the current long term forecasts are for La Nina to continue into next year.”
You’re saying this again?
La Nina is over, according to all the major monitoring groups, as well as the graph you linked, and they are also predicting neutral conditions ahead.
Are you like some others around here, who wish for a la Nina, and cherry-pick whatever they can find to hold that view?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
The NMME project team doesn’t make forecasts, but they contribute to other groups who do. Human judgement does better than sheer model output, especially for long-term forecasts.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/enso-forecast-mash-ups-what%E2%80%99s-best-way-combine-human-expertise-models
So you are saying that the predictions for a return to La Nina later on this year are false?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
“So you are saying that the predictions for a return to La Nina later on this year are false?”
I just provided links to 3 major ENSO monitoring groups forecasting neutral conditions continuing is the most likely scenario.
I also provided a link to a study showing models+human judgement does better than just model output at forecasting longer term ENSO.
Dunno what game you are playing. Not interested.
“The CFS.v2 ensemble mean (black dashed line) predicts ENSO-neutral followed by weak La Nia conditions during late fall and winter 2021-22”
You said:
“the current long term forecasts are for La Nina to continue into next year.”
Even your selected quote belies you. There is no continuing la Nina.
Tellme, which forecast predicts the warmer side of the 0, central line, is going to occur and when?
Which forecasts predict anything other than a La Nina for the start of next year?
“Goal post shifts, argumentative, boring”
Idiot.
No U.
s t . v w
Krak, we had persistent La Nina conditions in 1999-2001 for almost 3 years. Time has an effect. I have mentioned many times that it will take another La Nina to counteract the effects of recent Al Nino events.
We may very well see that happen starting this fall. Watch the SSTs as they will be the prelude to where UAH goes 5-6 months later.
The other big factors are the ocean cycles. The PDO may have switched recently. Always hard to tell as ENSO also has similar effects. The AMO is still running positive.
‘In the current La Nina, temperatures barely dipped below zero. During the 1999-2001 La Nina, temperatures went way lower.”
You have declared the conclusion to an event that is barely only half way in and still has one to two years to go. And of course the halfwit Bendydong jumps right in support,
That’s what makes it fun saving these posts
“the USA Lower 48 temperature anomaly of +1.44 deg. C was the warmest in the 43 year satellite record”
Well, that is except the +1.45 in 11/2020 😉
E. Schaffer
” Well, that is except the +1.45 in 11/2020 ”
Njet.
Nov 2020 anomalies were wrt the mean of 1981-2010; since Jan 2021, UAH uses 1991-2020.
For June months, the difference is 0.13 C, what would have given 1.57 C when using the old reference period.
J.-P. D.
Bellman is right, I didn’t look at the 1991-2020 data before writing the comment.
My bad.
J.-P. D.
The temperature anomaly figures Dr. Spencer published in today’s article, including +1.44 degrees C for June 2021 and +1.45 for November 2020, are all with respect for the same baseline, the one based on 1991-2020. Before the baseline change, Dr. Spencer was saying the anomaly for USA-48 for November 2020 was +1.56.
He mean the warmest june
There are others as well. I saw a 1.97 C in April of 1981.
RLH
Your bet. I’m sending 10 pounds to the RNLI.
As I used to live in Poole all I can say is good news : )
\o/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ah. You’re back I see.
…and you would have a problem with me asking Willard to stop trolling because?
Richard is working for your place, Kiddo.
He is more senior, but you have seniority.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nice extrapolation there!
I expected a faster recovery from the La Nina. (Rueful smile)
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/NMME_plume_graph_202105_large.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-744920
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
Are you saying that, despite the forecasts on reputable sites, there will be no La Nina at the end of this year?
“The CFS.v2 ensemble mean (black dashed line) predicts ENSO-neutral followed by weak La Nia conditions during late fall and winter 2021-2201”
Are you trolling?
From the 3 links:
“The ENSO Outlook is INACTIVE. This means the El NioSouthern Oscillation (ENSO) is neutral with little indication that El Nino or La Nina will develop in the coming months. During this time, other drivers, such as the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD), the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) or localised sea surface temperatures, are likely to play a bigger role in influencing Australian rainfall and temperature patterns. All seven climate models surveyed by the Bureau suggest a neutral ENSO state is the most likely scenario for the coming season.”
“ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere summer (78% chance for the June-August season) and fall (50% chance for the SeptemberNovember season).”
“The La Nia event that started in summer 2020 has terminated.
ENSO-neutral conditions are likely to continue through to next autumn (60%).”
Let’s see what you said:
“the current long term forecasts are for La Nina to continue into next year.”
Even your selected quote belies you. There is no continuing la Nina in any of the forecasts.
“Are you saying that, despite the forecasts on reputable sites, there will be no La Nina at the end of this year?”
There could be. These forecasts are not deterministic, they are probabilistic. They are also less certain further out.
“Some models favour a return to la Nina by NH Winter.”
There. It’s not hard to be accurate.
“There is no continuing la Nina in any of the forecasts.”
Well as the forecast don’t even cross the center line towards warmer times, I think it is quite fair to say that La Nina (or closeness to it) will dominate for the rest of the year.
Colder side of neutral is what ALL the forecasts say. Do you deny even that?
Goal post shifts, argumentative, boring. Enough.
Failure to acknowledge expert sources. Typical.
> Goal post shifts, argumentative, boring
That’s Richard in a nutshell.
Nut more applies to you than me.
No, dearest Richard.
U.
s t . v w
No, the 1.45 for Nov 2020 is using the new base period.
Though I’m not sure it makes sense to compare anomalies for different months. 1.44 above the June average is going to be warmer than 1.45 above the November average.
That comment was meant to be in response to Bindidon’s comment to R. Schaffer.
I think Spencer meant it was the warmest June anomaly for the USA 48.
Eyeballing the graph, the 13month average is now close to the 2010 peak.
Its too bad we dont have this data going back to 1600 or so. But the statistical significance of both the increase since 1979 and the decrease since 2016 demand assignable caused. Doesnt look like CO2. Doesnt look like single La Nia or El Nio events. Maybe ocean currents? Maybe clouds and cosmic rays and earth and solar magnetic variations and movement about the Barypoint and extrasolar events and and the ocean acting as a capacitor? I no longer consider anyone saying unprecedented and CO2 at this point a scientist.
Well satellite data back to 1600 would be nice, but we do have instrumental data back to at least 1880 and global proxy data showing how the climate changed in the past at least back to the start of the Holocene. These data show extreme warming coinciding with rapidly increasing CO2 levels in the 20/21st centuries. I suppose that could be a coincidence, except for the fact it was predicted quantitatively over 100 years ago.
But science denial is popular these days. Some deny global warming. Some deny the globe itself.
“…except for the fact it was predicted quantitatively over 100 years ago.”
Now is that really accurate? Wasn’t the “prediction” somewhat nebulous? Isn’t that what “ECS” and “TCR” are all about? Trying to find the correct values to make the models work?
Or is the “fact” more a “belief”?
And some deny the existence of the Holocene Thermal Maximum, Roman and Medieval Warm periods as well as the Little Ice Age. Everyone has their hustle. True science would try to show that this warm period is unprecedented. So far no one has. The question is not either or, but rather the proportionality of AGW and natural variability. Sea level rise began 200 years ago. Glaciers began melting during the same period. Signs of warming preceded the apparent effect of CO2, according to the IPCC. Temperatures rose and sea levels rose 100 years ago before leveling off. If the AMO flips as expected, then we might be involved in decades of flat temperatures. Its hard to believe that all the low frequency oscillations will be disappearing just because of AGW.
So, should it be flattal warming or diskal warming now?
Dirk McCoy
One guy more who doesn’t understand that the trend since 2016 cannot be positive: 2016 was the year with the highest anomalies since Dec 1978.
Start with 2017, and it goes the other way ’round…
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:2017/trend
J.-P. D.
Accurate data back to 1600 would make no difference.
The science deniers would still be predicting a coming climate crisis, with one one way to avoid it: Put them in charge of all governments, ask no questions, and let them print money for their green projects and dreams.
You live in climate reality.
Current and past climate data matter.
Science deniers live in a future climate fantasyland.
Past climate data data are irrelevant.
Note how they ignore the mild, harmless global warming since the 1970s — during every year of that mild warming trend, they were predicting rapid, dangerous global warming that never happens. Those predictions actually started in the late 1950s.
When one lives in a climate fantasyland, climate history does not matter.
Science deniers have their beloved green dreams of climate doom — and that’s good enough for them.
A climate crisis that is always coming, but never arrives.
A climate crisis that exists only in one place — in the over active imaginations of deluded science denying leftists.
Told people this was coming in 2007 when I walked out of a Carbon management company, we have wasted trillions on a lie and have no plan for cooling. Covid1984 is part of the same lie.
Oh, my I wasn’t expecting -0.01C for June, however, by looking at global sea surface temp anomalies, there are huge areas of the Indian, Southern, Pacific and Atlantic oceans that are below normal so it makes sense.
ENSO forecasts show a high probability of another La Niña cycle developing at the end of this year, and if this happens, we could see UAH 6.0 hit a temp anomaly of around -0.4C sometime next year.
It also seems like both the Pacific and Atlantic are approaching their respective 30-year cool cycles within the next few years, which will cause 30 years of global cooling as occurred from 1880~1913, and 1945~1978.
CAGW is so busted.
Time alone will tell if that claim is justified.
RLH-san:
Yep, Truth is the daughter of time.~Sir Francis Bacon.
Bacon had his head on the clouds. If history is written by the victors, truth is an orphan.
You cannot just ignore facts if they don’t suit you.
Barry can ignore facts, data and logic, any time he wants to, and he does. Because he is a leftist.
Truth is not a leftist value.
Political power is a leftist value.
Rule by leftist “experts” is the goal.
Saving the world*** from an imaginary climate crisis is more important than truth.
*** With leftists in charge, of course — which is the actual goal. Fighting an imaginary coming climate crisis is just a strategy to reach that political goal.
Joe is center-right, Richard.
If you think he’s a leftist, you need to have your political compass checked.
I was burning Bacon. You guys are talking politics.
More care needed in the kitchen then.
Knowledge is Power.
France is Bacon.
https://www.tridge.com/intelligences/bacon/export
I doubt we will even see -0.3 C with the next La Nina. All the stronger La Nina events this century were during -PDO/+AMO conditions. We’ve had +PDO/+AMO conditions for the last 7 years which would limit the cooling effect of La Nina. It is possible the PDO is changing again so there is some uncertainty.
The AMO provides yet another level of uncertainty as does the millennial cycle.
Richard-san:
During La Nina events, the global temp anomaly usually drops between 0.5C~1.0C, depending on the strength of the La Nina event.
Since this is likely going to be a double-dip La Nina event without an El Nino preceding it, the global temp anomaly will likely start at around +0.2C, and the fall 0.6C down to -0.4C.
Obviously, if it’s a very weak La Nina event, it may just fall to -0.3C, but no one knows.
We’ll see soon enough..
Projections are for it to be a La Nina by later this year. But as you say, we will see how true that is by the year end.
So with the coming ice age in the 50s 60s and 70s , while CO2 was increasing. How do we reconcile that?
Mick-san:
From 1945~1978, there was 30-year PDO cool cycle, in effect and global temps always fall when during PDO cool cycles.
This is just more evidence how weak CO2 forcing actually is.
The same thing happed from 1880~1913, and will happen again from around 2024~2054…
CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypothesis.
The only reason this CAGW Hoax is still a thing is that we’ve been in an extended PDO warm cycle since 1979 to the present. Once the PDO switches to its 30-year cool cycle, CAGW is dead.
samurai-san…”Once the PDO switches to its 30-year cool cycle, CAGW is dead”.
It appears the PDO is a misnomer since it is referenced as a decadal oscillation. It was named in the 1990s after being discovered in 1977, known then as The Great Pacific Climate Shift.
If what you say is true, and it is a multidecadal oscillation like the AMO, then we should see an uptick in La Ninas when the PDO switches to its cool phase.
Gordon, More recent research shows the PDO may very well be of variable length and a multiple of 7-8 years. The PDO was positive from 1977-2006 and then went negative until 2014. The 2006-2014 negative PDO was one of the major reasons for the 18 year pause. When it flipped positive again the pause came to an end.
The PDO index has been running negative this year but that is normal for La Nina events.
Does the PDO drive the frequencies of La Nina or does La Nina drive the PDO?
IN “IN CONTRAST, THE ANTARCTIC REGION” NEWS
https://phys.org/news/2021-07-183c-antarctica.html
Why ignore the very low current temps down at the South Pole? Temps have dropped into the minus 90s F over the last several months. These are the coldest temps seen down there in many years…. https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=168.56,-92.34,672/loc=50.927,-79.800
Did you forget about Turner, 2016 which showed a lack of warming since the 1990s in the Peninsula, or were you just ignorant of the paper?
roberto (Duran???)…”…or were you just ignorant of the paper?”
Willard is just plain ignorant.
It’s Turner & alii, Roberto.
Gordon might appreciate that Eric said something similar around that time, i.e.:
https://www.nature.com/articles/535358a
You were saying?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Cold spot is -69.4C. The ice is not melting.
18.3 must have last all of 3 seconds.
Let me get this straight, temperatures are basically flat going back to 1980, CO2 has increased by 30%, and many people believe CO2 is causing warming and climate change? That is a complete joke. Clearly, the oceans are controlling the atmospheric temperatures and the oceans are warmed by warming visible radiation.
If you control for H2O and the UHI it is very very easy to find no warming. NASA is simply attributing warming to exogenous variables that they appear to have no interest in accounting for.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
https://imgur.com/I2Lua3l
The joke is everyone was taught in elementary school that we are living in an Ice Age.
If it warmed it would be good news.
And did warm from the cold period we call the Little Ice Age- and cold period was covered in elementary school history class.
Obviously the educational system is not working.
> we are living in an Ice Age
Wut?
I wasn’t taught that.
Then your education is sorely lacking, Willard. Ice Age: Roughly, when there is year-round ice at the poles.
I think Willard’s tongue is firmly planted in his cheek.
When will be the next glaciation period, Dave?
Also known as Icehouse global climate which in addition polar ice caps, is also defined as having a cold ocean.
Our Ocean is cold- some fiction writers sometimes mention it’s cold.
But our ocean has average temperature of 3.5 C. It’s also commonly described as 90% of the ocean is 3 C or colder.
Anyhow 3.5 C or 38.3 F is cold.
And 15 C is also cold.
But if ocean average temperature was 15 C, then we wouldn’t be in Icehouse global climate or an Ice Age. It would then be within range of Earth’s “normal temperature”. Though opinions differ, some might say that this counts as a Greenhouse global climate [the warmest climate state of Earth}.
Since the last time the Antarctica was ice free was 34 million years ago, gb, nothing much might follow from your speculations.
“Antarctica hasn’t always been covered with ice – the continent lay over the south pole without freezing over for almost 100 million years. Then, about 34 million years ago, a dramatic shift in climate happened at the boundary between the Eocene and Oligocene epochs. The warm greenhouse climate, stable since the extinction of the dinosaurs, became dramatically colder, creating an ‘ice-house’ at the poles that has continued to the present day.”
“Let me get this straight, temperatures are basically flat going back to 1980, ”
I think not.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1980/to:2022/every/plot/uah6/from:1980/to:2022/every/trend
Thanks for the Graphic ET, I guess I should have said basically the same level of 1980, and well below the level on 1987 and 1990.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1980/to:2022/every/plot/uah6/from:1980/to:2022/every/trend
Once again, CO2 is much higher, yet temperatures aren’t, and they are clearly tied to ocean oscillations.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
I changed that regression to 1995 to 2015 and the temperatures are flat as a board. 20 years of no warming at all and CO2 increased.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1980/to:2022/every/plot/uah6/from:1995/to:2015/every/trend
Let me save you some work, Life:
https://skepticalscience.com/escalator
Williard, that chart you highlighted is totally counter to the physics of the CO2 molecule. How could CO2 possibly cause steps? It also shows significant warming since 1979. The Chart at the top of this page shows no warming. How can two charts measuring the exact same event show such different results?
Alternative, Life, the Escalator is a recurring contrarian trick that, if transposed into puts and calls, would make them lose infinite money.
Willard: Alternatively everything is driven by a hockey stick.
That… does not even make sense, Richard.
If the escalator graph was a stock, would you buy or would you sell?
So you don’t dispute it?
Dispute what, that you’re conflating indicators with reality?
That would be hard.
So you do believe in the hockey stick.
Does the Auditor do, Richard:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/03/mcintyre-mann-and-gaspe-cedars.html
If you could find an occurrence of “hockey stick” in the IPCC deliverable, that’d be great.
You ight know it better as Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
Oh, and volcanoes.
“[B]ecause the feedbacks in the climate system often respond similarly to warming with different causes (warmer air will tend to melt more snow and ice, and to pick up more greenhouse-gas water vapor from the vast ocean, whether the warmth came from rising CO2 or increasing solar output or alien ray guns or a giant hair dryer), data showing larger climate changes in the past in response to some estimated forcing actually increase the concerns about future warming. If, for example, scientists had somehow underestimated the climate change between Medieval times and the Little Ice Age, or other natural climate changes, without corresponding errors in the estimated size of the causes of the changes, that would suggest stronger amplifying feedbacks and larger future warming from rising greenhouse gases than originally estimated.”
You, like others, suggest a lot and deliver nothing.
No U.
s t . v w
“Let me get this straight, temperatures are basically flat going back to 1980,”
You got it crooked in your first sentence there.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1980/plot/uah6/from:1980/trend
You have to be some kind of horse’s ass not to see that temps have been generally rising since 1980.
BREAKING “WHO DID THIS” NEWS
Compare:
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/62-new-wildfires-29k-lightning-strikes-reported-in-24-hours-in-b-c-state-of-emergency-possible-this-summer-1.5493358
Contrast:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-743065
willard…”BREAKING WHO DID THIS NEWS”
Environment Canada has announced an alert for lightning storms in the BC interior. Of course, EC are alarmist schw.e.i.nh.u.nds as are most of the media in Canada, including the government run CBC (Canadian Broad-casting Corporation). Every summer there are lightning storms due to drought in the BC (British Columbia) Interior and that has been the case for the past 100 years, at least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Canada
“Although most regions of Canada have experienced drought, many of the southern regions of the Canadian Prairies and interior British Columbia are most suscep-tible. During the past two centuries, at least 40 droughts have occurred in western Canada with multi-year episodes being observed in the 1890s, 1910s, 1930s, 1960s, 1980s, and the early 2000s”.
***
I had it out with a senior poobah at CBC over this. He could not offer scientific evidence nor was he interested. He told me the CBC follows the direction of the IPCC. When I pointed him to UAH for an alternative scientific view, he was not interested.
The CBC science department is now run by a disciple of David Suzuki, one of the Mothers of all Alarmists, who used to rule the roost at CBC in The Nature of Things. Suzuki is driven by misguided environmentalism and if anyone at CBC prints anything scientific that disagrees with his pseudo-science, he goes after them ranting and raving till they recant.
Years ago, a CBC program, The Denial Machine, passing itself off as having a scientific interest, went after the late Fred Singer. Their ruse was an interest in his skep-ticism but what they really tried to do was discredit him by tying him to the tobacco industry in the 1960s. They did not allow him to talk about his skep-ticism, they only badgered him about ties to the tobacco industry.
There is not a shred of evidence that wildfires and heat waves are connected to anthropogenic sources. Nor are other weather events like droughts, tornadoes, and tropical storms. If you had an ounce of sense you’d be open to that truth but you are a major climate alarm troll whose only interest is in spreading propaganda.
> The CBC science department
The newsie comes from CTV, Gordon.
At least make an effort.
“went after the late Fred Singer”. Well deserved. Infamous tobacco and fossil fueled denier of science that hurt their bottom line.
Willard, please stop trolling.
CO2isLife
Temperatures are not going back to 1980s levels. The coldest months now are as warm as the warmers months in the 80s.
Just like how a cold July day can be as warm as a very warm January day. But then you also wouldn’t say that we are back to January temperatures.
Yep, those Northern Hemisphere Dec/Jan/Feb days are now as warm as the Jun/Jul/Aug days.
Krakatoa, control for UHI and Water Vapor and you get no warming.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
Why would you think we need to ‘control for water vapor’ which is part of the Earth’s predicted response to AGW?
Keep arguing about the weather and blaming yourself for every weather event in the world. Succumb to the politicized scam…. allow yourself to be further manipulated by your government. Spread false alarms to enable the elimination of more freedoms liberty. I just watched the world news… and this chart wasn’t there… it was only segment after segment of folks complaining about hot weather. SHAME.
a. smith…”Succumb to the politicized scam. allow yourself to be further manipulated by your government. Spread false alarms to enable the elimination of more freedoms liberty”.
***
Same is true of the covid scam. It was finished by mid-2020 and politicians, listening to epidemiologists, using unvalidated computer models (crystal balls) have kept it alive for another year. The most recent scam is variants, all of them conjured on unvalidated models.
At no time, would any of them consider that the tests may be wrong, even though ample proof exists that the tests cannot possibly test for an infection. They test for products of infection…any infection, as well as pregnancy and papayas and the common flu.
> It was finished by mid-2020
C’mon, Gordon.
The South Pole is experiencing very low temps over the last 2 months right in the middle of the continent. Temps have been as low as minus 97F in some spots. … https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=168.56,-92.34,672/loc=50.927,-79.800
“Temperatures are not going back to 1980s levels. ”
Well, not till the ozone layer recovers substantially at least..
Robert,
I understand your point. There is global warming, but the case for a climate emergency or that there is a scientific reality for a climate crisis is all about the magnitude of the future warming. A return to major La Nina would likely take global surface temperatures out the range of model predictions over the 40 years of satellite data and the most elevated CO2. Ultimately, the case for the extreme action required to reduce global CO2 requires extreme risk to Earth ecosystems and recent warming like Eemian show we are not reaching high risk. Typically, models are adjusted to calibrate to the actual data. It seems an unbiased assessment would require major changes to climate models. If you took the average of had C.RUT plus RSS over 40 years the data should be withing a standard deviation of the model mean. An unbiased, non partisan equivalent to IPCC would demand model updates already. Do you think models and predictions need adjusted? So the world doesn’t make a poor decision.
goldminor
Yeah, it’s quite cold in the Antarctic these days.
But when you mention ‘-97 F’ aka ‘-72 C’, I think that the list below, showing the 20 least temperatures ever recorded during April/May/June by Antarctic stations, might calm you down a little bit:
VOSTOK_____ 2012 5 26 -81.2 (C, not F!)
VOSTOK_____ 1995 5 20 -80.6
PLATEAU_STN 1966 5 11 -80.6
VOSTOK_____ 1993 5 22 -80.5
VOSTOK_____ 1998 4 21 -80.4
PLATEAU_STN 1966 5 12 -80.0
PLATEAU_STN 1966 5 18 -80.0
PLATEAU_STN 1968 5 19 -80.0
PLATEAU_STN 1968 5 6 -80.0
VOSTOK_____ 2012 5 24 -79.7
VOSTOK_____ 1995 5 13 -79.4
VOSTOK_____ 1999 5 22 -79.4
PLATEAU_STN 1966 5 17 -79.4
PLATEAU_STN 1968 5 20 -79.4
PLATEAU_STN 1968 5 27 -79.4
VOSTOK_____ 2012 5 26 -79.3
VOSTOK_____ 1997 5 12 -79.2
DOME_A_____ 2019 5 25 -79.1
VOSTOK_____ 2010 4 23 -79.1
VOSTOK_____ 2012 5 25 -78.9
*
And don’t forget to look at the altitudes…
AYW00077401 -79.4667 040.5833 3505.2 PLATEAU STN
AYM00089606 -78.4500 106.8670 3488.0 VOSTOK
AYM00089577 -80.3700 077.3700 4084.0 DOME PLATEAU DOME A
J.-P. D.
binny…”Yeah, its quite cold in the Antarctic these days”.
These days??? When has it never been cold in Antarctica?
> When has it never been cold in Antarctica?
Good question:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/17/antarctica-tropical-climate-co2-research
goldminor…”Temps have been as low as minus 97F in some spots.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=168.56,-92.34,672/loc=50.927,-79.800 ”
Thanks for link. I had never seen the Antarctic Peninsula like this before. It is stuck right out into the ocean where the surrounding ocean temperatures are near 0C. No wonder it shows such warm temperatures compared to the core of Antarctica.
For other viewers, click on the map till the green circle moves to the Peninsula then check the adjacent ocean temps.
It is the highest deceit to claim Antarctica is warming based on this nonsense. Yet Mann and Steig produced a paper claiming Antarctica had warmed the past 50 years, basing much of their temperature data on the Peninsula.
The Climate Clown Mann even managed to include a surface station that was under 4 feet of snow.
> Yet Mann and Steig produced a paper claiming Antarctica had warmed the past 50 years
See for yourself:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/st00910q.html
willard…”> Yet Mann and Steig produced a paper claiming Antarctica had warmed the past 50 years
See for yourself:”
***
And the paper was proved to be more junk science like Mann’s hockey stick. Two critiques were that the authors used mostly temperature data from the warmer Peninsula and that one station they used in their report was buried under 4 feet of snow.
Here’s a fair warning, Gordon:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/Antarctica
“And the paper was proved to be more junk science”
Oh yes? Who ‘proved’ Steig et al was junk science? All they said was that Antarctica had warmed over a given period, and the only published effort I know of to dispute that agreed that it had warmed over the period, but not as much.
It’s a long story:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/189106851189
Willard, barry, please stop trolling.
I will take -0.1C gratefully.
Even with an adjustment to the 30 year baseline as a backup cause.
Very happy as UAH often goes the other way to what I would like to see..
Nick Stokes Moyhu also shows a temple mesh anomaly that is very low though not negative.
This and February are the only ones on a <0.10 C anomaly and there was only one negative month anomaly since 2014 that being Feb 2014.
A long,long way to getting temperatures down to where sensible debate can begin.
–
Even natural variability has to obey the rules of physics in terms of mass, insolation and change.
A steep drop over a few months or a year is more or less predestined to have a more or less even backswing.
–
However we need a sustained drop for,I would say, 3 years to give a false impetus to the figures to enable reliable discussion on the actual unbiased assessment of CO2 effect.-
–
current trend is downwards for a while but could reverse totally by next month.
Hopefully it will persist for months to 3 years.
Wishful thinking.
Angech, we will likely see some recovery from the current La Nina induced values over the next 6 months. I would expect to see July back into positive numbers and values of at least +0.2 C before the end of the year.
If another La Nina occurs, the strength of that La Nina will determine how low we go in 2022. I’m thinking around -0.2 C or possibly a little lower. The oceans will be cooler going in and that should lead to lower anomalies.
hope so.
I cannot do else than to refer to my graph which shows that the 13-month average is ruled by an exact period of 3.6 years. I don’t doubt that it will continue to rise and fall
https://udoli.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uah_3.6_graph.gif?resize=320%2C320
Sorry, wrong link:
https://udoli.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uah_3.6_graph.gif
Joe Biden is blaming climate change for the collapse of the Florida Condo. Here is the temperature chart for Plant City Fl.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00087205&dt=1&ds=14
It is flat as a board between 1890 and 2015. It is shocking how little scrutiny the media gives to these kinds of nonsensical claims.
CO2…”It is flat as a board between 1890 and 2015″.
The real laugh is that the graph’s steep trend used to begin circa 1990. They have now moved it forward a decade. That was when Mann claimed the 1990s as the hottest decade on record based on his faulty statistical tree proxy analysis.
Another laugh is that the Climate Clown, Mann, has been inducted into the National Academy of Science. I am thinking of applying myself. All you need is to convince the alarmists who took over NAS that you elief their bs.
Tony Heller demonstrates that and more fudging by NOAA and NASA GISS.
> [Teh Goddard] demonstrates that
What is “that,” Gordon?
willard…”> [Teh Goddard] demonstrates that
What is “that,” Gordon?”
You’ll have to watch some of Tony’s videos but with your attention span I guess that would be a but much to ask of you.
Tony demonstrates where NOAA and GISS fudged the data. I realize you stuff your ears full of wool so you won’t hear any criticism of the fudgers. You know, your authority figures.
Your handwaving is duly noted, Gordon.
Here’s a classic:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-its-hot-in-washington-how-about.html
There are dozens of episodes where teh Goddard fumbles the Climateball like this.
Willard, please stop trolling.
This complex being named Earth is complex enough for us to expect some movement about long term means of measured properties. Natural variation, as best we can tell, is ever present.
Those who believe there was a little ice age a few decades ago can start their thinking from this LIA which might be the coldest few decades in 100,000 years. So, at that time, Mother Earth had 4 options; to cool more; to stay the same; to warm; or to flutter around meaninglessly up and down as usual.
In a social world going through yet another mania about the end of life as we know it, vast numbers of people have seized upon a barely measurable warming and elevated it to religious status.
All are welcomed to join the club but it will end in tears. Jonestown did.
Please do us all a favour when commenting here by sticking to hard science and leaving your kits of illusions elsewhere. Thank you Geoff S
geoff s…”vast numbers of people have seized upon a barely measurable warming and elevated it to religious status”.
I am questioning whether or not we are dealing with mental illness here, with the political correctness. Not the psychotic type of mental illness, but a neurotic mental illness. I mean, what would make all those people at Jonestown line up to kill themselves based on a belief?
Most people are neurotic to a degree, which is a propensity to misinterpret reality and substitute a mental image of it. It’s basically the way the human brain work and not many people are able to be aware of the conditioning. However, when people distort science to enable such neurotic conditioning, that is falling into mental illness.
Unfortunately, we are seeing it unravel before our eyes as world leaders fall in step to accept belief systems based on consensus rather than the scientific method. Politicians have always been liars of one variety or another and they justify it as ‘just politics’.
One climate modeler, the late Stephen Schneider, went so far as to wonder if it was appropriate to lie to the public for their own good. The first co-chair of the IPCC, John Houghton, stated,’unless we announce disaster, no one will listen’. Later he tried to recant the statement by offering a different interpretation, just like Trenberth trying to cover up his statement during the flat trend, that warming has stopped and it’s a travesty that no one knows why.
A Canadian politician once claimed that it does not matter if the science (AGW) is wrong, it’s the principle that matters.
I have really had enough of the politically-correct telling others how they should think, and when the others refuse, trying to shame them or ostracize them. That’s mental illness at work.
Well stated, Geoff (and Gordon).
Unfortunately, the “hard science” left when the “barely measurable warming” got elevated to “religious status”. It’s no longer a “club”, it’s a “cult”, filled with braindead worshipers of “anti-science”.
Your mention of “Jonestown” was exactly appropriate.
You can see here a psychological phenomenon known as “projection”. Another example is Donald Trump.
pp, can you identify the most salient science that makes you believe in AGW?
Try this, Pup:
https://www.ipcc.ch/
willard…IPCC = International Propagandists for Climate Change.
Is there any claim you’d like to dispute, Gordon?
Well pp has produced no science to support his beliefs.
Typical.
Willard: Everything is driven by a hockey stick. According to loads of people.
You sure like to say stuff, Richard.
True stuff apparently
AGW does not rest on trees, Richard.
Proxies based on trees do not correspond at all well with AWG. Unless you have a data url that shows different of course.
Whether I can spoon feed you or not is quite independent from tree rings and AGW, Richard.
Idiot
You might like:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/rememberyamal
“Mann seems to have a bit of trouble with this. He thinks his 2008 publication confirms his earlier 1998 paper.
It’s the only field I know where two completely dissimilar results can be seen as confirmation of each other.”
Yup
“In response to your point that I wasnt diligent enough in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that Id had since 2004.”
Mann 2003 totally ‘proves’ AGW. Or not.
As does Mann 2008 (or not again)
You’re not Carrick, Richard.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/mann2008.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/07/04/mann-2003-1400-to-1980/
Ooops.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/mann2008-1.jpeg
Oups indeed, silly Richard.
Just a small labeling error. The data stays the same.
You’re conflating data with its representation, Richard.
But more importantly, you’re deflecting once again.
It’s a summary of the data to date. Idiot.
Since when filters summarize data, Richard?
You do know what addition is don’t you?
Addition does not summarize, Richard.
And the point you’re missing is that a graph does not stand alone: it’s meant to support something, something that you’d claim.
If you had any honor you’d know that.
prof p…”You can see here a psychological phenomenon known as projection.
Must be a bit of a bummer for you, dropping in to see Roy’s monthly summary, hoping the global average has risen due to the hysteria over heat waves, and see that it has dropped.
Remember, climate is not weather.
BTW…projection is what the IPCC practices. They use unvalidated models to project ridiculous climate catastrophe and it never happens. They once had the temerity to call it a prediction until expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, straightened them out. Pointed out that unvalidated models cannot predict.
If only the clowns using unvalidated models to predict covid catastrophe would clue in.
> expert reviewer, Vincent Gray
You’re a gift that keeps on giving, Gordon:
https://www.desmog.com/vincent-gray/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Compare and contrast:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-747368
So much greatness!
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Somewhere else:
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/
I was arguing that advanced spacefaring civilization would not using a lot energy than Earthling currently do. Instead I claim per person
they would use less and when Earthling become spacefaring they will use less energy per person than present earthlings are.
It was somewhat challenging argue this, because if you are spacefaring civilization one access to lot more energy as compared to energy poor planet Earth.
Easier argument perhaps would be spacefaring earthlings will use a lot less “fossil fuels”- because there isn’t any fossil fuels in space- though there a lot Methane- and a fair number of people call natural gas a fossil fuel.
To be exact, instead of fossil fuel, one could say a spacefaring civilization will use less chemical energy- which would include, Methane, Hydrogen, gasoline, and Oxygen {or other oxidizers].
But I would to stick with the harder argument, spacefaring civilization will use less energy than then the present energy starved Earthlings per human creature.
Which leads to different question- will there be AI and would their energy use count as human use?
And to make make harder, yes, as the AI are simply counted different human tools. But alien AI and other alien creatures don’t count as energy used by Humans.
Not counting AI is like not counting the energy used by a talking automobile.
So question really is, if humans have cheaper energy, will that make humans “waste more energy”?
If you have been brainwashed by crazy Lefties, then the answer can only be, yes.
So, yes or no?
Do you believe people have been abducted and probed by aliens?
Just asking.
Baikie’s definitely been abducted and probed by aliens…but he doesn’t seem to have realised it.
There is a lot things I have not realized or understood.
A significant energy costs of not living in or near the tropical region is the costs of heating and cooling building [homes and whatever].
And I was wondering what heating/cooling cost would be for an L-5 colony.
https://space.nss.org/settlement/MikeCombs/SCTHF.html
The High Frontier
Gerard K. O’Neill
THE FUTURIST, February 1976
And Gerard says:
“Electrical energy for a space community could be obtained at low cost, within the limits of present technology, by a system consisting of a concentrating mirror, a boiler, a conventional turbogenerator, and a radiator, discarding waste heat to the cold of outer space.
It appears that, in the environment of a space community, residents could enjoy a per capita usage of energy many times larger even than what is now common in the United States, but could do so with none of the guilt which is now connected with the depletion of an exhaustible resource.”
Gerard seems to feel guilt regarding depletion of resource AND
thinks one would “enjoy a per capita usage of energy many times larger even than what is now common in the United States”
Anyhow, what seems like would cost more energy to heat or cool
an L-5colony?
Now it seems one couldn’t frolic in L-5 fields with full intensity of 1360 watts per square meter sunlight, as such sunlight heats things to 120 C. And in addition lower the intensity of the sunlight reaching the fields of romping. one might control amount sunlight entering the structure.
But it seems one could control amount of sunlight entering structure- fairly easily.
Here:
“A Model IV colony consisting of two cylinders, each 19 miles long and four miles in diameter, could house several million people comfortably. Its atmosphere would be deep enough to include blue skies and clouds.”
I don’t I would want blue skies and clouds, I think black sky would be nice. And seems one could have black sky and have ground lighting.
But I would like others opinion, on whether one would a lot energy for, and would be air conditioning or energy used for heating?
Obviously it depends on how it’s designed, and so asking would it be designed so it’s on the warmer or cooler side of things and then requiring making difference by the need of using some amount energy use to make it so it can be at a comfortable temperature.
gbaikie…”Which leads to different question- will there be AI and would their energy use count as human use?”
AI is programmed by humans, most of whom exist on artificial intelligence. Most would not have a clue what intelligence is, so what exactly would they be programming an AI unit to do?
There is a lot of sci-fi out there about AI, mainly from people who fail to understand the limits of computers, their programmers, and the nonsense residing in most human minds.
We have an example of AI in driverless cars. Based on my lengthy experience with real computer systems, that is computers that actually control things in real time, I think a lot of people are going to be killed by these driverless cars before people clue in to the inherent dangers.
Same with drones.
–AI is programmed by humans, most of whom exist on artificial intelligence. Most would not have a clue what intelligence is, so what exactly would they be programming an AI unit to do?–
Most? Who are the exceptions?
It seems related to meaning of life?
Which seems to me, is on going issue.
I don’t know much about computer programing, but why can’t computers program. Why do we need human programmers?
It seems once that happens we could start imagine them as not just a tool.
They probably are still a tool, but maybe they aren’t.
robert ingersoll…”But science denial is popular these days. Some deny global warming. Some deny the globe itself”.
Don’t know why you alarmists have to exaggerate. I have seen no skeptic on this site deny global warming, it’s the cause of it we are arguing against.
You seem to think AGW theory is science, but it’s not really. Some of it is based on science, like Tyndall’s discovery that certain gases could absorb infrared energy. Tyndall provided a good example of the scientific method by setting up an elaborate experiment to prove his point. However, interpolating his finding to an atmosphere made up of only 0.04% CO2 cannot be done using the scientific method. It’s all based on consensus and pseudo-science.
Since then, no one has used the scientific method to prove anthropogenic warming. They have relied on climate models programmed with inaccurate science to reach errant conclusions. The only argument presented by alarmists is ‘what else could be causing the warming’? I have yet to encounter an alarmist who is willing to look for another cause, or even consider one.
A fascinating analysis of global warming denial indicates 5 stages:
Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists
Stage 2: Deny We’re the Cause
Stage 3: Deny It’s a Problem
Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It
Stage 5: It’s too Late
Roy Spencer bounces between the second and fourth stages of global warming denial, claiming that solving the problem is too expensive and will hurt the poor.
Gordon appears to have only just crawled out of stage 1 into stage 2.
Beware of people using ‘we’ as applied to solving the alleged global issues. Usually that indicates a socialist hiding his lust for power behind a thin veil of a common good rhetoric.
I found one:
What do I win?
>>using ‘we’ as applied to SOLVING the alleged global issues.<<
"damn it, why won't it read" (c) steve jobs @south park
One way to solve a problem is to dissolve it, Cot.
In chemistry
In alcohol too.
That’s just an intoxicating form of chemistry.
So when you have a beer you’re drinking chemistry, Richard?
The outcome of simple chemistry, sure.
And yeast.
The outcome is a good time, Richard.
Unless you like to drink alone in sadness, but even then.
Idiots talk to themselves or so I am told. You seem to fit that description. Of perhaps its just babbling after all.
Perhaps it might have been wiser to acknowledge that “alcohol is a form of chemistry” was a silly category mistake, old man.
Idiot
Is that chemistry too?
No. That’s a fact.
Chemical facts are not facts, Richie?
You being an idiot is a fact.
No U.
s t . v w
prof p…on the other hand, those who believe humans cause global warming have no scientific proof and rely on butt kissing to the consensus of authority figures.
I have never heard Roy claim solving the problem is too expensive. If I recall correctly, he and John Christy maintain the problem is too complex to understand clearly.
The thing that separates Roy and John from the wannabees is their integrity and compassion. It would have been far easier for either to join the status quo and forget the poor, who will suffer if fossil fuels become limited.
“..those who believe humans cause global warming have no scientific proof and rely on butt kissing to the consensus of authority figures.”
I take it you include Roy and John in this group.
How disrespectful.
Don’t forget that Willard doesn’t like Roy either.
Roy is indifferent to me, Richard, whereas I don’t like you.
Do you like Rush? No, not the Canadian band. This guy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/a-tribute-to-rush-limbaugh/
So you agree you don’t like Roy then.
No, Richard.
I agree that I don’t like you, and this kind of response or yours shows why.
Well the fact that I think you are an idiot is uncontested.
No U, dear Richard.
s t . v w
Gordon,
You might like:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/
Willard, please stop trolling…
I cannot find the answer to this question. How long does CO2 stay warm after it has been warmed by sunlight if not rewarded by sunlight? Is it hours, days, years?
The typical cooling rates for the whole atmospheric column are on an order of 1..3K/day
neil…I doubt if you’ll find an answer because there’s no way to measure it. If you read Gerlich and Tsceuschner on that they describe the difficulty of tracking IR radiation to GHGs in the atmosphere. It’s virtually impossible and requires Feynman diagrams.
At 400 ppmv, there is roughly 1 CO2 molecule in 2500 molecules of nitrogen and oxygen. If the CO2 molecule absorbs IR from the surface, and warms, it would seem to have a very short warming life among so many N2/O2 molecules.
You never see the issue talked about re incoming solar. You see a lot of theory about surface IR because its range at terrestrial temperatures contains the frequencies at which CO2 absorbs. However, that area of IR is off the end of the solar spectrum’s IR band and contains very little solar IR energy. I have never heard of that solar IR warming CO2.
On the other hand, the solar spectrum is broad and it should contain frequencies that warm N2/O2 when absorbed by either. I never see that discussed, how much incoming solar warms N2/O2, which make up 99% of the atmosphere.
The IPCC has no mandate to investigate that so most of the funding goes to what it does have a mandate to investigate, the anthropogenic cause of warming.
It’s really a political scam.
> The IPCC has no mandate to investigate that
Worse is that you seem to believe yourself, Gordon:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf
Willard, please stop trolling.
If this article reports the conclusions correctly, a temperature chart over some 30 year periods can rise or fall based on the suns affect on El Nio cycles. So anyone fitting a trend line to 1979 may be looking at the effects of the sun, not CO2. Interesting use of the word groundbreaking in 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/05/08/sun-el-nino-study/
dirk…your link requires a subscription.
I read it for free. (Left hand box)
Ocean oscillations are a HUGE factor in climate/weather. ENSO is the most well-known and studied, but many others have been identified — AMO, PDO, NPO, IOO, AOO, etc.
When one ocean is releasing thermal energy and another ocean is absorbing thermal energy, the two somewhat cancel. But, if two oscillations work together, watch out! This is what caused the “heat dome” over northwest US and west Canada.
The phrase “It’s the Sun, stupid” has been used for years to negate Alarmists, but the phrase should be: “It’s the Sun and oceans, stupid”.
Translation:
AMO: Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
PDO: Pacific Decadal Oscillation
NPO: North Pacific Oscillation
IOO: Indian Ocean Oscillation
AOO: Arctic Ocean Oscillation
“If this article reports the conclusions correctly..”
The whole paper is linked right there in the article.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020EA001223
Christ, people are lazy. RTFR.
“Its the Sun and oceans, stupid.”
No, it is the sun stupid, the sun warms the oceans. Think of the climate as a pressure cooker, and the pressure valve is El Nino and Hurricanes. The Hurricanes and El Nino rapidly release huge amounts of energy to cool the system. Once that energy has been released, and the oceans cool, the sun goes about warming them again. That is why there are cycles. Energy gets built up and then released, and that cycle has absolutely nothing to do with CO2, nada, zip. It is also why catastrophic warming can never happen unless CO2 can somehow stop Hurricanes and El Ninos.
Anyway, if you remove Water Vapor and the UHI effect, you literally get no warming. Here are many charts, some going back as far as 1880, that show no warming trend even though CO2 has increased by 30% or more.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
CiL, just wanting to argue with everyone makes you appear as a hyper, unmannered adolescent.
Barry, that is odd, I searched that entire article and CO2 didn’t appear once. Shocking.
https://imgur.com/qJKT0eR
Shocking indeed:
So the PDO does drive global temperatures.
Everything confirms what the cycle nut knew all along, Richard.
Everything just confirms you’re an idiot.
No U.
s t . v w
The paper attests no mechanism for the hypothesis. There is even less work done establishing PDO/climate links. Curve-fitting and conjecture, not much else, and that’s only for the former matter.
The paper references the “hockey stick” graph in figure 4. But there is no such graph in figure 4. What on Earth are they talking about? The work is ill-disciplined once they stray from the topic of expertise (check the authors’ publications).
“at this point we again acknowledge that correlation is not causality”
Blood out of a stone is like getting sense from a statistician.
“Such circulation changes are only likely to intensify in a future with higher tropical heat and moisture at the sea surface, affecting not only tropospheric climate but also stratospheric dynamics.”
Babble away.
You’re my Reply Guy here, Richard, so No U.
Another quote from the paper you have not read:
“We reserve the search for potential pathways for future works, particularly if (as) the 2020 La Nia exists.”
You mean this paper?
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020EA001223
I offer this in response
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/sunspot.jpeg
That’s not a response, Richard.
That’s just a graph.
That you do not understand.
With which you like to play smug without commiting to anything.
So no honor, once again.
Why would anyone assume that an idiot could have understanding?
Not only you’re JAQing off, old man, you’re begging lots of silly questions.
Idiot
That’s one of them.
OTOH, No U.
s t . v w
Canadas heatwave is a forerunner of what we have to expect in the future if we dont move to zero-carbon as soon as possible.
And the extreme cold events suffered at the beginning of the year were caused by what? AGW also?
“Nearly 500 people may have been killed by record-breaking temperatures in Canadas westernmost province, as officials warn the grim toll from heat dome could rise again as more deaths are reported.”
“Nah”, say the deniers, “nothing unusual here”.
Nah, nothing unusual here. Sure, GW has made the heat wave hotter by a degree or two, which probably made the death toll slightly greater, but that’s about it. Think of all the billions of people that the use of the fossil fuels have saved from the short brutal existence and early death.
“GW has made the heat wave hotter by a degree or two”
At least you acknowledge its contribution. Well done!
“Think of all the billions of people that the use of the fossil fuels have saved from the short brutal existence and early death.”
Should those dead Canadians be grateful!
Stupid argument.
>>Should those dead Canadians be grateful!<<
It is possible they wouldn't have been alive to begin with either, so yes.
Also, I’d think those people had been using fossil fuels and all the tremendous benefits of the civilization that power abundance brings, for all their life. Assuming they are not Amishes, they don’t really have a moral right to complain about the alleged GW-related nature of the fires. Hell, if they were amishes they’d probably be better off as they’d not be so wound up about ‘saving the nature’, since amishes worship the crucified carpenter god and not the mother nature goddess as many people do today, so they’d have no problem putting proper firebreaks around their settlement – that is if they could do it without the tractor powered plows and gasoline chainsaws.
Fossil fuel use allows billions of people to live, saving most lives in most situation where they’d be otherwise lost, but perhaps causing deaths in other situations where supposably they’d not be lost without all the extra GHGs – just like any other great human-thriving-promoting technology, like cars and other industry. So yeah, it’s like a lottery in reverse – overwhelming majority of people get so much better off from fossil fuels, but some ‘win’ a bad ticket. So what? We’re all in this together.
To summarize, it is your arguments that is stupid. People that ideologically live at the pre-industrial level, such as 17th-century-style anabaptist communities or uncontacted tribes, perhaps they have the moral right to complain, bit everyone else doesn’t.
“Nah, say the deniers, nothing unusual here.”
Can you identify a period of time when the weather wasn’t volitile? Hint, the earliest known writings tell the story of a giant flood in Mesopotamia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth
What is truly shocking is how Marxists can convince such a huge number of people that a trace gas can cause such harm to the system with so much evidence to the contrary. It is truly a religion of fanatical true believers.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
“Marxists” ?
Showing your right wing bias are we?
Note that he also conflates Marxists with a religion. I don’t think that idea holds water.
Marxism is a “belief system”. To some, their beliefs become a religion. A false religion quickly slides into a cult.
It’s what we’re seeing with the CAGW crowd.
CAGW is a contrarian meme, Pup:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
Labeling someone a “contrarian”, just because they’re not in your cult, is the meme used by idiot trolls, Will.
(Your response time longer than 2 minutes will be ignored. I don’t tolerate incompetent stalkers.)
You ignore all my comments, Pup.
As for “contrarian”:
https://climateball.net/but-semantics/
“You ignore all my comments”
There’s sensible for you.
Why don’t you try it, Richard.
Ignoring idiots. I could try.
Meanwhile, No U.
z
“may have been” is the new scientific standard
Whereas certainty has always been the political standard.
Markus and sb, same question to you that pp has so far dodged: Can you identify the most salient science that makes you believe in AGW?
Answer: the same science that owner of this site (Roy Spencer) believes. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him.
Dr. Spencer has indicated he doesn’t want to contest the physics of the GHE, so he let’s others do that. His expertise in now in developing the new technology of satellite measurements. Being a scientist, he uses the skills he has to debunk the extremist nonsense. He calls himself a “Lukewarmer”.
Are you a Lukewarmer?
“Dr. Spencer has indicated he doesn’t want to contest the physics of the GHE,”
Huh? Show us all proof of that claim.
DMT, are you so DeMenTed that you believe you can just demand things?
I would say you first need some credibility. And, of course, that means that you recognize and accept reality.
So, show us where you have accepted reality?
[PUP THE SKY DRAGON ASKS] Are you a Lukewarmer?
[PUP THE SKY DRAGON SAYS] Are you so DeMenTed that you believe you can just demand things?
4 minutes is much improved, Will.
But you need to do better. No one wants an incompetent stalker.
From your pathetic responses, we can all see you have incorrectly stated Roy’s position on the science. Admit it, you are a lying denialist.
DMT, if I agree to verify my statement, will you agree to share with us why you joined the AGW cult?
Did you join because:
1) You believed you were saving the planet?
2) You have no clue about physics, but you worship NASA?
3) You’re a loser, and joining a cult might make you a winner?
4) Some other reason you will explain in full?
Do you agree?
There is no verification. Admit you are a lying denialist.
All you have to do DMT, is tell why you joined your cult.
Are you ashamed of your cult?
Agree to share why you believe in AGW, and I’ll verify my statement.
Clint R says:
Dr. Spencer has indicated he doesn’t want to contest the physics of the GHE, so he let’s others do that.
Dr. Spencer has indicated that he broadly agrees with the mainstream understanding of the GHE.
It’s also the case that he generally tolerates posters who don’t. One has to wonder how exhausting it must be to balance plausibly mainstream legitimacy without completely alienating the obvious cranks in his base.
In fairness, Roy may not tolerate Pup.
Pup created many socks. Same for Mike Flynn.
I expect every board moderator has to deal with bad apples, but my point was whether one would want to be associated with even the all-star team or is it cranks all the way down.
DMT, Willard, Mark B, please stop trolling.
Infrared Spectroscopy
bob just throws anything out there, hoping it will make sense. He doesn’t understand any of the science. Let’s help him out:
“Inverse Frequency Modulation”
Just wait until Richard grill you about that expression, Pup.
I didn’t know we were talking about recording color moving pictures on optical disks.
Clint R,
I am sure that “Inverse Frequency Modulation” has something to do with the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Not sure what though.
CLint R is baffling with bullshit again.
Decreasing modulation index?
I’m trying to help poor bob with his perversions of reality. He seems to be stuck. He doesn’t know what nonsense to try next.
Try this: “Heterodyned doppler depreciation”.
Always enjoy this game of random technobabble generation.
https://www.makebullshit.com
No results found for “Heterodyne doppler depreciation”.
Ent finally got it!
RLH, try “Hamiltonian cheeseburger with quantum onion rings”.
No results found for “Hamiltonian cheeseburger with quantum onion rings”.
A positron emission tomography scan of Clint R’s brain after ingestion of 2-fluor-2-deoxyglucose indicated no cerebral activity
bob, please stop trolling.
The only reasonable expectation of what might happen in the future is that of anthropogenic climate change adherents conflating every extreme weather event with climate change.
The notion climate change is driven by carbon dioxide is an extraordinary popular delusion. There is very little scientific evidence to support anthropogenic climate change.
As the fable of Chicken Little is meant to demonstrate, for every extraordinary popular delusion there is a fox. The problem occurs when I get dragged down because of your stupidity. Otherwise I couldn’t care what you believe.
For every Chicken Little (I wonder why cranky uncles never saw the movie) there’s a Cassandra.
Willard, please stop trolling.
A tropical storm is forecast to bring heavy downpours to the Gulf of Mexico coast on July 7 (possibly overnight).
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2021/07/07/1000Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=precip_3hr/orthographic=-85.84,29.75,5960
The same mechanism (blocked jetstream) that brings summer heat to Canada will bring extreme cold to North America in winter. The cause is a very weak solar wind, which affects the pressure spikes over the Arctic Circle.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_150_NA_f000.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_ALL_NH_2021.png
“The cause is a very weak solar wind, which affects the pressure spikes over the Arctic Circle.”
That can’t be correct. It somehow has to be tied to CO2 or else the researchers would lose their funding. Somehow they must not have gotten the memo, and are most likely now re-writing their conclusion. I’m sure Winston Smith is working on it already.
“The AMO is correlated to air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular in the summer climate in North America and Europe. Through changes in atmospheric circulation, the AMO can also modulate spring snowfall over the Alps and glaciers’ mass variability. Rainfall patterns are affected in North Eastern Brazilian and African Sahel. It is also associated with changes in the frequency of North American droughts and is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricane activity.”
ren…”The same mechanism (blocked jetstream)…”
ren…how does a blocked jetstream prevent hot air from rising, so it forms a dome?
What do you think of the suggestion posted here that heat from the Iceland volcano is related?
At one point, Portland, Oregon (inland) was 42 C while Astoria, Oregon, near the Pacific Ocean was only 18 C. This was a pocket of hot air sitting over a large area. How does that happen? Where did the hot air come from?
The suggestion of a dome, used by meteorologists, suggests a greenhouse effect. But how can atmospheric gases trap heat? Glass can, but not gases.
For you alarmists, why did the GHGs not radiate the heat to space?
It is difficult to prove that the solar wind pushes ozone away from the Arctic Circle. This affects the circulation in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere. Just as water vapor affects circulation in the troposphere, ozone, which is a heavy gas (O3 – molecular weight 3×16=48), affects circulation in the stratosphere. The difference is that water vapor rises upward to the stratosphere, while ozone sinks toward the poles. Ozone is produced in the upper stratosphere and falls in the lower stratosphere toward the poles.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t01_nh_f00.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t100_nh_f00.png
Spencer Quote:
“Despite the near-normal global average temperatures, the USA Lower 48 temperature anomaly of +1.44 deg. C was the warmest in the 43 year satellite record, ahead of +1.15 deg. C in 1988.”
My comment:
About one inch above that claim, the November 2020 anomaly showed +1.45 deg. C.
Since +1.45 deg. C. for the USA Lower 48 is higher than +1.44 deg. C,. how is +1.44 deg. C. “the warmest in the 43 year satellite record” ?
Maybe this requires math that I don’t understand?
An oversight, obviously.
less waffle is good.
Watch the nature around you extensively. My observation which I assume is related to climate cooling is the reproductive cones on cedars in Lebanon this year which are appearing more this year and even on cedars that are on low altitude of 250 meters above sea level. Cedars are known to be a climate sensitive
Jihad Choufani
” Watch the nature around you extensively. ”
That is exactly what we do here in Germany.
No climate cooling here, except a slight one in the spring during the last three decades.
But in opposition to you, viewing Lebanon’s cooling as a prototype for the global climate, I view Germany’s strong warming during winters as a phenomenon rather local to Eurasia.
It is always wrong to think, like do North Americans, that the Globe is similar to your local corner.
See e.g.
https://postimg.cc/hfWYfbSR
(no area weighting here, superfluous)
versus
https://postimg.cc/VdwWMK21
(with area weighting, imperative here)
J.-P. D.
MOAR PROOF THAT CLIMATE IS GETTING BETTER AND BETTER
https://grist.org/science/is-climate-change-amping-up-the-pacific-northwest-heat-wave-yes-and-its-time-to-stop-asking/
I prefer a more percussive analogy: putting a hammer in a washing machine.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
” . . .concluding that climate change made almost all of them more likely or more severe.”
You don’t seem to realise that “climate” is the average of weather, which includes things like “heat waves”, “cold snaps”, wind, precipitation, and all other weather parameters.
Of course the “climate” changes, nitwit! It’s an average of something that has already happened!
Oh well, you lose at “climateball”, “silly semantic games”, and “auditing”.
No doubt you should just play with yourself more often. That way, maybe less people will be inclined to think you are a complete idiot. Just a complete wanker.
You don’t need to thank me for the tips.
swenson…”No doubt you should just play with yourself more often”.
Appears he does play with himself, feeble mindedness has set in. Wonder if his eyesight is deteriorating as well?
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
You’re taking your Saturdays off?
willard…more fiction from Andrew Dessler, one of the more stupid alarmists. He claims the onus is now on skeptics to prove the heat waves are not related to global warming but he has yet to prove, using valid science, there is a relationship.
The proof they offer is based on models and statistical analysis involving probability. Not a shred of proof as to where the heat dome originated or why it stayed over the Pacific Northwest. And not a shred of proof as to how 1C warming over 170 years can amplify temperatures to 10C above the norm for an area.
Plain stupidity.
Dessler strikes me as being a stupid person, lacking the ability to think intelligently. Let’s not talk about the messenger, a known idiot.
> The proof they offer is based on models and statistical analysis involving probability.
That’s how it goes, Gordon.
Got a problem with that?
Well some people might not like the current situation but it seems everyone agrees was much worse in pre-industrial times.
Even Cubans are driving around in late-industrial times cars.
I am not seeing any fad for using horses, perhaps it’s not far enough back in time to count as these pre-industrial times.
And Germans as an minority, in particular, seem to always pine for quite ancient times.
The chicken little analogy is more apt.
Unfortunately the kings are in bed with the foxes..
Putting a chicken in a washing machine would be cruel, Phil.
So would putting a fox in instead.
Good luck with that.
First – catch a fox.
Good luck with that.
Repetition – you lose.
Were we playing questions, Richard?
Just a Minute
Pure banter breaks the spirit of that game, Richard.
Also think about how the Deviation rule would forfeit all your comments.
You’re not the chairman however.
And you can’t keep score properly, Richard.
The scorer keeps score.
They sure can pretend, in which case you’re a perfect fit.
You don’t have to pretend to be an idiot. You are one already.
No U.
s t . v w
Climate caused catastrophes – it’s just like this
https://youtu.be/f3HebsWpZ1Q?t=37
CO2…can’t watch soccer anymore, I played the game for years and was a typical soccer nut. Today’s game is not soccer, it’s a load of sissy runners, with no ball skills, chasing a ball.
The heat wave in Vancouver, Canada is gone and the climate is still the same as it has always been. There is no evidence of any climate change in Canada. Changes in weather patters…yes …but not in climate.
The analogy of fake drama probably flew right over your head ,
The claim global warming caused the heat wave when the global temperature is below the average base line is like claiming you were run over by a parked car.
On the related note – Canada after the historical heat wave declares the state of faggotry
https://i.postimg.cc/JnMbsWLv/1625360743585.png
..and you are still a nut case.
Gordon, you may like my “soccer story”.
I had always enjoyed “backyard” soccer. But my high school didn’t have organized soccer. In my senior year, we got transferred to a larger city where the school had soccer. I decided to try out for the team.
After about three practice sessions, I noticed that the other players seemed to enjoy kicking the crap out of my shins. I was dating one of the cheerleaders, and soon decided I would rather sit on the sidelines with my girlfriend and WATCH soccer.
It was a good decision….
“Football is governed internationally by the International Federation of Association Football”
willard…re your article from Moyhu on Tony Heller…
Nick Stokes states…
“In one of Steve Goddard’s posts at WUWT, there was some mocking of interpolation in GISS. “Is the temperature data in Montreal valid for applying to Washington D-C.? ” was asked.
Well, it turns out, yes it is, using anomalies. I looked in the raw GHCN data at McGill Montreal (71627/003), which has the only long GHCN record there, vs Washington NA (WMO 72405/000), which also has a very long record. I used a 4-year tapered smoothing filter (triangle) on the monthly data. Here’s how it turned out:…”
***
It is sheer insanity to interpolate the temperature data from Montreal to cover Washington, D-C, some 600+ miles apart. I don’t care how well they correlate over a few years, it is plain stupid to presume that will always be the case. Furthermore, the GHCN record has been fudged since 1990, therefore Stokes is likely using fudged data. In other words, he is using data that has already been interpolated and homogenized.
Stokes has ignorantly missed Heller’s point, which is not about the interpolation using Montreal and Washington alone, but the wholesale usage of interpolation and homogenization by NOAA and GISS to infer a global average using many stations. In one case, they interpolated a temperature for Bolivia, which has considerable altitude, from sites at lower, warmer altitudes.
part 2…
Nick Stokes aka Moyhu is a nut job who thinks a global average can be calculated using 60 stations (1 station per 8.5 million km^2). He can only claim that if the global average has already been calculated so claiming to do the same with 60 stations is an idiotic exercise in working toward numbers that are already known.
I could do that myself through judicious cherry-picking of certain stations.
Are you alarmists all this stupid?
Once again, Tony Heller is a highly qualified professional who worked at Intel as a quality control expert. Who the heck is Nick Stokes, someone who uses a name from fiction and reveals nothing about his background and abilities?
ping
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature/
So yeah, that’s the kind of “expert” you’re rooting for right now, Gordon.
willard…”he [Heller] is simply averaging absolute temperatures rather than using anomalies. Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time. []
His second error is to not use any form of spatial weighting (e.g. gridding) when combining station records. []”
***
Duh!!!! Anomalies are preferred to absolute temperatures. Double-Duh!!!
Heller, an expert in statistical analysis did not use a form of spatial-weighting (gridding).
Triple duh!!!
Why the heck does anyone need to weight anything when the exact absolute temperatures are available? Oh, yeah, they’re not available…the oceans cover 70% of the Earth’s surface and they cannot cover it adequately, so they use statistical analysis to guess the temperatures in grids. They can’t even cover the surface where thousands of real stations are available but not used in lieu of guessing the temperatures of the areas represented by real thermometers.
The purpose of this cheating is obvious. Alarmists get to replace temperatures of colder areas with warmer temperatures from warmer areas.
So, you are agreeing with this pseudo-science that it is good enough to guess temperatures using interpolation and homogenization, the basis of gridding.
You know the real problem? You and your alarmist authority figures are too stupid to understand the difference between real temperature data and synthesized data.
How do you imagine UAH data can be used to form averages for continents and heights in the atmosphere? Like all data, it represents samples of averages over certain horizontal and height scales. It is not an infinite collection of data points. To form the larger scale averages, some assumptions have to be made. That is the basis of synthesis. Now do you understand? Otherwise you are arguing that averages must be, by definition, meaningless. Is that what you really think?
When you talk about “real temperature data”, do you mean the collection of point observations? If so, nobody would be allowed to draw a map!
Use USCRN for the USA rather than UAH if you wish.
https://imgur.com/m39TvP8
That’s your wish, Richard.
Quit projecting.
Just offering an alternative land based data source.
Just putting your own wishes into your interlocutor’s mind, Richard.
Idiot.
You’re a dishonorable man, Richard.
You’re just an idiot.
No U.
z
> Why the heck does anyone need to weight anything when the exact absolute temperatures are available?
What did you just told me, Gordon?
Do you have access to EXACT ABSOLUTE temperatures?
Where?
While you search for them, have another cookie:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperatures-part-2/
USCRN produces absolute temperatures that cover the whole of the USA.
https://imgur.com/m39TvP8
You’re missing the exact part, Richard.
Notwithstanding the rest of the Earth, of course.
I though you were able to interpolate to make up the rest. My bad obviously.
And I thought you understood why Gordon insisted on having exact absolute temperatures, Richard.
You mean that interpolation is NOT able to create such detail. You must tell those who think it is.
I mean you will NOT be able to coatrack your actual pet topic, Richard.
You can still try.
Which topic would that be? Low pass filters as an accurate summary of data to date?
The topic is “Why the heck does anyone need to weight anything when the exact absolute temperatures are available,” Richard.
You sure can try to peddle other topics.
Is that a cycle you are pedaling?
No U, Richard.
s t . v w
Gordon Robertson says:
Once again, Tony Heller is a highly qualified professional who worked at Intel as a quality control expert. Who the heck is Nick Stokes, someone who uses a name from fiction and reveals nothing about his background and abilities?
It saddens me that the layers of irony in this post are not intentional.
Nick Stokes is his real name. Specialises in fluid dynamics.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nick-Stokes
Gordon’s arrogance is vying mightily to outdo his ignorance, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.
“It is sheer insanity to interpolate the temperature data from Montreal to cover Washington, D-C, some 600+ miles apart. I don’t care how well they correlate over a few years, it is plain stupid to presume that will always be the case.”
Furthermore it takes no account of weather systems/fronts and their timings that cover one but do not cover the other.
Time as well as distance counts here.
> Furthermore
That’s where you’re wrong, Richard.
How long does it take a weather system to cross between Montreal and Washington, D-C?
Go raise your concerns to Nick, silly data thug:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-its-hot-in-washington-how-about.html
No answers to simple questions I note. Just an expectation that others can do the work for you.
This ain’t your class, old man.
You have no class at all. Just stupidity.
No U:
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/blog/westnet/Montreal.jpg
s t . v w
“Putting a chicken in a washing machine would be cruel, Phil.”
Hello Willard,
No doubt. But not as cruel as letting Texans freeze in the dark rather than cranking up the coal power plants…
People died because companies were not “incentivized” to weatherize their plants, Phil, and it may not change soon enough:
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/03/texas-electricity-bills-winter-storm-legislature/
Rejoice: the power of capitalism at work!
studentb…”Nearly 500 people may have been killed by record-breaking temperatures in Canadas westernmost province, as officials warn the grim toll from heat dome could rise again as more deaths are reported.”
A month ago, around her in BC, they would have blamed those deaths on covid. Since July 1st, they have moved into a new phase, allowing casinos and the likes to re-open, not requirement to wear a mask, so they can no longer blame anything on covid.
I accept the fact that some poor souls, likely the elderly stuck in an apartment with no ventilation, have died. Extremely sad. The real sad part is that nothing was done to reach out to those people other than the warning of a heat wave. They offered cooling centres but no effort was made to check on the people who died.
I can understand part of the reason. We have never had such a heat wave here in the Vancouver since the 1930s and we likely won’t see another in June for another 100 years. But why do we wait till people die before we become aware?
People have died from the common flu by the thousands over the years and no one gave a damn. 25,000 people died from the common flu in Italy during the 2016 – 2017 season and nothing was done about it. When the same thing happened with covid in the Milan area in 2020, overwhelming medical facilities, all hell broke loose, not only in Italy but around the globe.
It was not till covid came along and the bean-counting epidemiologists were allowed to act like petty dictators that deaths related to a virus became an issue.
Are we now going to be subjected to alarmist climate clowns infringing on our democratic rights?
Frog in a beaker talk – (soon to become frog in a blender)
“The real sad part is that nothing was done to reach out to those people other than the warning of a heat wave”
Amazing! This is exactly what so-called alarmists want!
They warn of the predicted warming and its effects, and demand that something be done to ameliorate it. So, Gordon, my boy, you may be beginning to see the light!
Never noticed so-called alarmists wanting to subsidize unnecessary air conditioners?
DMT and pp, what is your best evidence that CO2 caused the heat dome?
Lying denialist.
You have no evidence then?
Which evidence would convince you, Pup, and do you realize that your question makes little sense?
You have no verification of your claim re. Roy Spencer.
I repeat, lying denialist.
DMT, here’s where this started. My offer still stands. Do your part, and I’ll do mine.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-745042
As you may have noticed, your attempted insults and slanders have no effect on me. That’s just an indication that you have NOTHING,
Whereas you have no science.
Where I think Clint R is wrong on almost all the topics he posts about (GHE, Moon rotation)
On this one I would agree with his conclusion. But not just him, you have an expert meteorologist agreeing.
https://tinyurl.com/ykrcsxkt
And also look at history. Severe heat waves are not unusual and occur somewhere on this globe on a regular basis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heat_waves
It is a bad day when one agrees with Clint R on anything.
Agreed
Norman, you’re trying to think for yourself. That’s good.
Just try to avoid letting others think for you. That’s what gets you in trouble. Don’t be afraid of reality. Embrace it.
You’re too quick to throw out simple examples and analogies. The ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating about its axis, no matter how many idiots claim it is. Earth is NOT 33K hotter than it’s supposed to be, no matter how many idiots claim it is.
“ball-on-a-string” has nothing to do with the Moon.
RLH provides a great example of throwing out the simple analogy that proves him wrong.
ball-on-a-string is not an analogy of anything other than a ball-on-a-string.
Wow RLH, a 1-minute response time! Very impressive.
You get to be my new stalker. Willard doesn’t understand the difference between “stalking” and “slacking”. He’s fired.
Now, don’t let me down….
Chance does a lot of things. Including me posting soon after you do.
Clint R
And yet a horse must rotate on its axis as it moves forward to run in a circular path just as you must if you walk around a tree. The ball on the string analogy is not comparable to the Moon around the Earth. You can take a can of food. If you move it around another can in a circular path (orbit) you will have to rotate it as you move it in the circular path to keep the same side facing the central can. These are things you can do now.
The Earth surface is much warmer than solar input can cause it to be. The Earth surface radiates away more energy than it receives from the Sun. I have shown you this already. You do not wish to accept the facts.
I do agree that concluding extreme weather events are caused by global warming is unscientific conjecture. It does not mean global warming may not be responsible for some extreme weather, it is just not a scientific conclusion as the evidence is not sufficient to warrant these conclusions. Too little data.
On the GHE I will offer again data that clearly shows it as fact.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_60e1d0ca3ff15.png
The incoming solar is not enough energy to sustain the continuous upwelling IR without GHE (added downwelling IR) which reduces the energy lost to a much smaller value.
When you add DWIR the Solar input exceeds the NET IR loss. The remainder of the surface energy loss is by both evaporation and convection.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_60e1d18902eb5.png
> I do agree that concluding extreme weather events are caused by global warming is unscientific conjecture.
I’m sure you can find a more plausible caricature, Norman. Here’s what you need to ridicule:
https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/extreme-weather
Okay Norman, there’s a lot of confusion there. Let’s take it one point at a time. If you go off in different directions, or deny reality, I’m gone. I know I can’t teach physics to idiots. Stay focused, if you truly want to learn.
Let’s start with your first sentence — “And yet a horse must rotate on its axis as it moves forward to run in a circular path…”
That’s WRONG.
You believe the horse is rotating because you are viewing from the wrong reference frame. You are viewing from the “fixed stars”. The fixed stars cannon differentiate between “revolving” and “rotating”. That’s why the ball-on-a-string is so useful. Like Moon, and the horse, it always keeps one side facing the inside of its orbit. BUT (and this is the point you refuse to consider) the string is NOT wrapping around the ball. If the ball were rotating, the string would wrap around it.
This an experiment that you can actually do for yourself.
Before I go on to the rest, see if you can understand this simple concept, without going off on tangents or perverting reality.
Clint R
On the horse. No it is not the perspective, it is the reality of what the horse does with its legs. Far better for you to do it yourself and forget the horse. Go outside and walk around a tree. Observe your feet as you walk. You lift your foot and MUST pivot (rotate it) for you to move around the tree. As you place your foot on the ground the rest of your body pivots (rotates) to match your foot.
A horse running will continue to move straight ahead with no rotation. It rotates its body to move in a circle just as you do. Observe that as you rotate your body as you walk around the tree the same side of your body faces the tree.
If you do not pivot (rotate) your feet as you move around the tree every side of your body will at some point face the tree.
You are obsessed with the wrong analogy (ball on string). You already know it does not explain at all the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. It is not a practical or good analogy to describe how gravity acts on planets and moons. Why you think it is so good is one to ponder.
Norman, you discard the simple analogy because it destroys your cult nonsense. You are so lost you even linked the simple analogy to Earth! (Earth rotates about its axis, Moon does not.) As I warned, once you start perverting reality, I’m gone. I can’t teach physics to idiots.
If you can’t understand the simple stuff, you can’t understand the surfrad stuff. Today is a celebration of freedom. You are free to be an idiot.
Let me know if anything changes.
You don’t do the Pole Dance Experiment because it would defeat your Moon Dragon crap, Pup.
Clint R
I reject the “ball on the string” simply because it is not a good analogy for gravity.
Did you walk around a tree yet and observe you feet (they rotate).
You see unscientific idiots and cults all around you. Do you know why this is? It is because you are projecting what is within you outside. I gave you very rational points (like walking around a tree and watching your foot rotate as you do this). Rational logical thought are not your strong points. Cult mentality and idiotic posts seem your specialty.
Norman, this is why I no longer try to teach physics to idiots. You can’t learn. You just keep repeating the same things over and over, or else you come up with another way to pervert reality.
I’m going to address a couple of your misconceptions, but then I won’t respond to any more of your nonsense.
The ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. That’s all! It is NOT a model of Moon, Earth, gravity, or anything else. Quit trying to pervert that reality. The fact that none of you Spinners can provide a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, should tell you something. But you can’t face that reality.
Walking around a tree, your feet are supplying the centripetal force supplied by gravity in an orbit. Gravity changes the direction of the orbiting body. Gravity does NOT produce axial rotation.
Like I stated, I won’t respond to any more of your nonsense today. Insult me and pervert reality as much as you like. You’re free to be an idiot.
Clint R
No a ball on the string does not represent orbital motion without axial rotation.
Orbital motion with no axial rotation would have all sides of the Moon face the Earth as it orbited.
Why is it difficult for you to accept that the reality that when the Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit it will keep the same side facing Earth? You can do it with a can of soup and see.
You persist in a deluded thought and falsely think you can teach physics. Tim Folkerts can teach physics. You don’t know enough to teach anyone including yourself. You just make up ideas based upon your limited reasoning skills and what you think are common sense.
Norman believes: “Orbital motion with no axial rotation would have all sides of the Moon face the Earth as it orbited.”
Then if you apply that nonsense to Earth/Sun, Earth is then not rotating!
That’s why Norman is an idiot.
NO way no how does the moon rotate on it’s axis in relation to the earth…. it is tidal locked and will likely always be unless some event strikes it. It rotates about the earth but in relation to the earth it is does not… but the earth does.
You agree with a question, Norman?
Willard
I agree to his point to question DMT fanatic stance like blaming the hundreds of deaths on global warming. If you look at the historic record many people have died from heat waves in the Earth’s cooler years (2 F cooler). Fewer die today because we have invented climate control systems like air conditioning.
I do agree the globe is warming. I accept additional CO2 is the most likely cause. I disagree with the media and fanatics who peddle bad science like extreme weather events are caused by the global warming.
On the previous thread you posted this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-745931
It seems you might lack some reading comprehension as you form your conclusions.
You incorrectly claimed I said the heat wave in the Northwest was a 1 in 3 year event. No I made NO such claim. I said Portland Oregon had temperatures 100 F or above that often.
Then you put a quote in this post that I never actually said.
YOU: First you tried the current wave is a 1 out of 3 years event. Then you switched to we do not have have enough evidence. Now youre into we do not have evidence at all.
And then I looked into some of the claims on Carbon Brief. As always the studies are limited in scope.
For South African droughts I found this one.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/204770
For the heat wave in Sweden I found it was hotter in the past this just had more hot days.
“Sweden’s hottest temperature ever 38C was recorded in 1933 and 1947. This year shows no sign yet but this month does have in total the highest number of days over 30C.k”
From:
https://www.thelocal.se/20180723/sweden-heatwave-hottest-july-in-at-least-260-years/
Norman,
Sky Dragons lie at the extreme side of the contrarian spectrum. But on the contrarian spectrum they lie, along luckwarmers, cycle nuts, and all the other contrarians. Today you’re helping me build my “but extreme events”:
https://climateball.net/but-extreme-events/
Whether you or Pup peddle contrarian crap is immaterial to me.
As for your recent denial, here’s what you said:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-742596
You can count this as the first time the rooster crows between us.
A contrarian is anyone who disagrees with full blown AGW.
Not really.
Willard
Yes your exact quote of what I said is correct. I DID not make the claim the current heat wave of 110 F+ temperatures took place every 3rd year and I am not sure how you could assume that from what I correctly stated.
It is not contrarian to ask for more data to prove a conclusion. Especially when dealing with very rare events (things that might take hundreds of years to reoccur, like a super heavy rain in some location).
You seem to suffer you own error of reasoning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_to_conclusions
Maybe you need to include that to your list.
> I am not sure how you could assume that from what I correctly stated.
I assumed that what you said was relevant to the issue at hand, Norman. Here’s how the dialog progressed:
[D] More than 230 deaths have been reported in British Columbia since Friday as a historic heat wave brought record-high temperatures, officials said Tuesday.
[N] Maybe look at historical data. Here is a list of yearly all time highest temperatures in Portland. […] This record does not indicate a heat wave or duration of hot weather, it is just the hottest temperature recorded for a given year.
[W] How frequently?
[R] Idiot.
[N] In my count I got 51 temperatures in Portland Oregon 100 F or above out of 145 years. That would be more than once every 3rd year.
Informal dialogues are a cool tool:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/06/06/estragon-and-the-expert/
So it’s clear that you were (and still are) minimizing. If you could own what you do, that’d be great. We’d both save time.
Willard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heat_waves
Once again look at actual data, information before making a conclusion.
The facts are heat waves over the globe are common. Frequency is high in the record. Look at the deaths long before the globe warmed 2 F.
“1901 – 1901 eastern United States heat wave killed 9,500 in the Eastern United States.”
We have mitigated deaths from heat waves with air conditioning run with reliable power.
10 years later
“1911 – 1911 Eastern North America heat wave killed between 380 and 2,000 people.”
https://www.weather.gov/ilx/july1936heat
You can dig up more if you so desire.
You fail to understand that outright denial and fanatic belief are both dangerous. No action or no concern or ignoring evidence are bad but so is fanatic beliefs based upon emotional mental states.
The acatual rate of sea-level rise is 3.6 millimeters a year with some acceleration of rate which is still very small. It will take 278 years (at this rate) to rise 1 meter. New York City is 10 meters above sea level. But images coming from the alarmist world (not the science one) show New York City underwater. You have people like Greta (and others) who see these images and it terrifies them. They believe this will happen in their life time and become fanatic. You saw what fanatic beliefs can do on January 6th. Most people do not have the scientific rational mind and feeding people information like there will be constant horrible heat waves that kill thousands continually is dangerous in that it creates fanatic belief states that are no longer bound with rational or logical processing and are liable to cause destruction driven by their blind fears.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3504667/New-York-London-underwater-DECADES-Scientists-say-devastating-climate-change-place-sooner-thought.html
This type of manipulation and fear-mongering will create fanatics that are no longer rational.
> You fail to understand that outright denial and fanatic belief are both dangerous.
Bothsidesism won’t do, Norman, and your squirrels should take frequency into account. As Barry suggested earlier, RTFR:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdf
Yeah, I noticed the last sentence.
That’s the third time the rooster crows.
Be seeing you,
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good climate news this week:
1 EU adopts net zero by 2050 climate law
2 Indonesia to introduce new carbon tax
3 Canada bans new petrol cars from 2035
4 Oregon goes 100% renewables by 2040
5 Chinas biggest bank ditches Zimbabwe coal plant
6 EBRD stops funding upstream oil & gas
studentb…”3 Canada bans new petrol cars from 2035″
Any political party trying to enforce that will be out of office real quick. The governing party, the Liberals, lead by Justin Trudeau, his mother’s son, not his father’s son, is facing an election soon. He leads a minority government propped up by idiots.
The Liberals are fear-mongering about climate change. The former environment minister, a blond female, was referred to as a Climate Barbie. She was that superficial.
The problem is, the only alternative, the Conservatives, are just as stupid. For some reason, they are mired in the past re social programs, and their leaders are so witless they cannot relate to the average Canadian.
The same Trudeau, who talks about banning gasoline-driven cars, also supports oil pipelines. It’s all about politics. AGW is a political hot potato with no scientific substance.
Hey? What’s the relevance of these snarks:
“Justin Trudeau, his mother’s son, not his father’s son,”
and
“The former environment minister, a blond female..”
Gordon, why are you so perpetually angry and mean? Get a life man.
“The problem is, the only alternative, the Conservatives, are just as stupid. For some reason, they are mired in the past re social programs, and their leaders are so witless they cannot relate to the average Canadian.”
Conservative are basically using a flower to stop a train.
As Trump would say, low energy.
The Conservative need a Trump. But they will also hate the Trump.
All pols are very lazy and witless creatures.
Or use a better word, evil.
Yeah only solution is using lamp posts to hang them every once in a while.
Though I think it would be a lot better to just become spacefaring civilization.
gbaikie…”The Conservative need a Trump. But they will also hate the Trump”.
***
They had a decent leader in Stephen Harper but he was not really a Tory. He came from the Alberta Reform Party, and since they have reverted back to real Tories they cannot produce a viable leader.
I could not believe an ad from a Tory leadership candidate recently. He came out with videos promoting his relationship with his mother…aka known as motherhood and apple pie. Tories are that naive, they think Canadians will fall for that schlock while substance is lacking.
Doh!!! Exactly what every Canadian wants, a momma’s boy as leader. We already have one and he’s willing to support social programs while the Tory leader wanted to support only corporations. That’s why the Liberals have thrived, they know to support the people as well as the corporations, a lesson that might be learned by Republicans in the US.
I know Trump was even worse in that way but at least he was willing to shed political-correctness and say it like it is.
“That’s why the Liberals have thrived, they know to support the people as well as the corporations, a lesson that might be learned by Republicans in the US.”
It seems, pol seek support rather any pol anytime in history supporting anything, other than things like, Joe Biden supporting crackhead son- if the deal includes Joe getting part of the money.
AOC was against her grandmother getting money from a GoFundMe to fix her roof. That is not strange. That is what all pols are.
So, going to whine more or less?
>AGW has made the heat wave at least two degrees hotter….LOL.
No heat wave here. It was a nice 75F yesterday and more of the same today.
Croak! croak! I hear.
Frogs?
Yes, an oblivious frog.
stephen…”No heat wave here. It was a nice 75F yesterday and more of the same today”.
Anthropogenic warming is not only elusive, it is quite variable. That is, here today, gone tomorrow.
NEXT ICE AGE UPDATE
https://usanewslab.com/science/west-gets-hotter-days-east-hot-nights/
USCRN will show it soon.
https://imgur.com/m39TvP8
Cycle nuts always agree, at least on a periodic basis.
Whereas idiots like you are always idiotic.
No U is the ultimate fixed point.
s t . v w
is the ultimate answer
As long as it suits yourself, Richard.
Hearts, Clubs, Spades or Diamonds?
Whatever is forever:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/modern-alchemists-turn-airborne-co2-into-diamonds/
What has manmade diamonds to do with AWG?
Sorry AGW.
Why do you keep asking silly questions, silly Richard?
Because ‘stupid’ keeps replying.
Here’s a hint, silly Statler:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200616-how-iceland-is-undoing-carbon-emissions-for-good
Keep askin’ silly questions.
Iceland has rather cheap energy/electricity.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/technology/why-steaming-hot-iceland-has-very-cheap-power/article593551/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Iceland
“Iceland” starts with “Ice”:
https://en.vedur.is/climatology/iceland/climate-report
“About 85% of the total primary energy supply in Iceland is derived from domestically produced renewable energy sources. Geothermal energy provided about 65% of primary energy in 2016, the share of hydropower was 20%, and the share of fossil fuels (mainly oil products for the transport sector) was 15%.”
“Iceland pulled off one of the biggest shocks in international soccer history Monday by beating England 2-1 at the Euro 2016 tournament. Here are five reasons why the Nordic nation should be your new favorite team.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iceland-beats-england-euro-2016-5-things-love-about-nordic-n600126
Deflection is, as usual, your standard fare.
You’re the one who’s been deflecting, dummy.
Football is a deflection from Energy supply. Idiot.
And energy supply is a deflection from carbon capture, dummy.
Well you brought it up.
“At present, three aluminium smelters, two manufacturing plants and the energy company Reykjavik Energy are investigating becoming carbon neutral by 2040.”
> You brought it up
No I didn’t, Richard.
Look. You asked me how producing diamonds out of CO2 was relevant to AGW. You got served: it’s a form of carbon capture. Instead of acknowledging that you had a brain fart, you played squirrels. I’m good at playing squirrels.
Besides, I was responding to “Hearts, Clubs, Spades or Diamonds” – how is that related to AGW?
God you suck.
Idiot.
You’re a dishonorable man, Richard.
You’re just an idiot.
No U.
z
Greenhouse gases are trace gases in thin Earth atmosphere.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: a.earth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation factor Φ.earth = 0,47
(Received by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet……Te……..Tmean…..Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…325,83 K…..340 K
Earth…….255 K….287,74 K…..288 K
Moon…….270,4 Κ…223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……209,91 K…213,21 K…..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Cristos,
They’re going to accuse you of what they do. Build an equation (model) in hindsight that fits your narrative.
How would the Earth act like a black body? It’s blue!
Spot the schoolboy error.
Those who have seriously studied the science will see it straight away.
All the arm chair experts will struggle.
prof p …”Spot the schoolboy error”.
Breathlessly awaiting your analysis of the so-called error.
You mean – you can’t see it? Try again.
christos…”Greenhouse gases are trace gases in thin Earth atmosphere”.
***
The term greenhouse gas is derived from a bad theory. It was incorrectly presumed that greenhouses warmed by trapping infrared energy. For some reason, it was thought that trapped IR could somehow warm a greenhouse.
That idea persisted till around 1909 when R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2, began to question the theory. He set up two identical containers in the Sun, one covered by ordinary glass, which tends to block IR, and another covered with a sheet of halite (rock salt), which passes it freely. After exposing both to solar energy, he found no difference in the temperatures inside the containers. Both warmed, but to the same temperature.
He reasoned from that experiment that greenhouses are warmed due to a lack of convection, which makes eminently more sense. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, and Wood proved it was not IR emitted by the atoms that was trapped and warmed the greenhouse, it was the actual excited atoms themselves producing the heat and blocked from escaping by the glass. When the doors of the greenhouse were opened, allowing the heated atoms to escape, the greenhouse cooled.
Physicist/meteorologist, Craig Bohren, stated that the idea of GHGs trapping heat in the atmosphere is not only a metaphor, it is ‘plain silly’. Could not agree more. In fact, the entire AGW theory is stupid.
Not only that Gordon, but have based this non-scientific theory on the notion that all of the atmospheric CO2 increase has been due to burning fossil fuels. Well, maybe not silly if it fits your political narrative.
stephen…”Not only that Gordon, but have based this non-scientific theory on the notion that all of the atmospheric CO2 increase has been due to burning fossil fuels”.
***
Good point, Stephen…we humans produce about 4% of atmospheric CO2, the rest coming from the oceans, vegetation, and volcanoes.
One day you’ll learn about the carbon cycle, Gordon:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle
Tell us about the carbon cycle. Or, maybe you want to join in the discussion here.
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint3/
Dr. Richard Courtney?
And there you have it. Back to square one again with gR and spa.
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
studentb…”And there you have it. Back to square one again with gR and spa”.
Do you have a scientific rebuttal or are you going to settle for slinging ad homs and insults?
Look who’s talking, Gordon.
Willard, please stop trolling.
So, the question again can spacefaring civilization use less energy, but can have a lot more energy, and therefore “will” they use less energy as compared earthlings living on Earth?
A premise is we can use the Moon {and Mars] to lower the electrical cost in space.
A simpler premise, assume we are mining lunar water and making lunar rocket fuel on the Moon.
Earth rocket fuel is about $1 or less per kg.
Lunar rocket might start off at $500 per kg [or more} but within
20 years lunar rocket fuel could $100 per kg or less.
Though it’s possible lunar rocket start at about $100 per kg and
within 20 year is less than $10 per kg. And then within several decades lunar rocket fuel could be cheaper than Earth rocket fuel.
But right now we don’t know if lunar water is mineable. Pretty certain there are billions of tons of water at lunar polar regions, but that does not tell you whether it’s mineable.
One make it simple, no one ever mines anything on Earth without first exploring the site which one thinks could be mineable of anything.
Another way to look at it, is can you sell books on the internet and make money. Amazon CEO is worth more 200 billion dollar, so that answer is yes.
You have mine the moon is the right way. Lots of people could mine lunar water the wrong way and go bankrupt. But at this point don’t know enough. And we will send crew to the Moon and we will be surprised with what we find- this is very predictable. It will certainly be said, but also it will be true. And same applies to Mars- we don’t know if it’s possible for humans to live on Mars, it need to be explored and more explored than we can do with robots. But to the point,
What temperature is 100 meter diameter sphere of water, in space.
The location in space will be L-1 [Earth/sun L-1] which stays in same spot between Earth and Sun and is about 1.5 million km from
Earth. It’s further but easier to get than closer lunar surface [if lunar surface doesn’t have rocket fuel you can use.]
So at time when lunar rocket is about $100 per kg- this could be within 3 years, it’s far more likely within 20 years.
So 100 meter diameter sphere of water is encased clear plastic, about 2 cm thick in average amount per square meter. Above the plastic going to have transparent solar panels- two layers. Top layer will glass- like this:
https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2015/02/transparent-solar-panels
They aren’t effective, but don’t want the plastic, one want glass meeting the vacuum of space. These framed and removable. 1/2 meter below it is more transparent solar panel, but this solar panel will have more conductive mass to serve as “electrical grid” so electrical energy from top layer with conducted down to less transparent layer. Or one could say layer has more structural strength and ability conduct a lot amps of electrical power, and 10 cm below that will be the clear plastic. And between these layers: 10 cm and 40 cm there will be water. And below plastic the 100 meter diameter sphere of water.
The sunlight on earth can shine thru 100 meter of water, and the sunlight in space should likewise shine that water, and it should glows a blue color. And generally be brightly reflective.
Looking at it with blackness space behind it should be blue and shiny. Though if sunlight at your back, and looking at it still shiny but not very blue. If someone swimming within sphere of water, one might see them.
But going to put 12 meter pipe thru north and south pole extend 50 meter and attach where people live, and spins so there is some artificial gravity at these ends.
But climatic question is, how warm is the water.
The 1% efficient solar panel should give about 213.6 kW.
Probably need a lot more power than this for 1000 people.
Oh, I don’t give my answer, so I would say around 5 C.
It’s going to spin and if need to can mix water so it’s uniform, or take warm water [in some hot spot] away to use as hot water.
So I mean average temperature of water [moving around water is lot cheaper per thermal mass, then is air].
clint r…”Heterodyned doppler depreciation”
Heterodyning is the application of a low frequency signal onto a high frequency carrier wave. The low frequency signal could be a voice signal from a microphone. At the frequency of audio, the signal could not be transmitted since an antenna needs to be excited by a radio frequency signal that changes at least hundreds of thousands of times per second in order to be transmitted as an EM wave.
With heterodyning, they take a constant amplitude radio frequency signal, eg. 60 megahertz, and apply the audio signal to it so the audio modulates the RF signal. That means, the audio alters the amplitude of the RF signal so you have a high frequency signal changing amplitude in step with the audio signal.
That process is called amplitude modulation. However, you can modulate the frequency while keeping the amplitude of the RF signal constant, a process called frequency modulation. Or, you can modulate the phase of the signal.
Or, you can take square waves at an RF frequency and vary the width of the pulses, a process called pulse width modulation. I’m sure you get the concept.
The word doppler in heterodyned doppler depreciation, (or is that deprecation?) refers to the way a transmitted signal is changed when transmitted from a moving body. When the moving body is a star, it means the frequency of the actual EM emitted by the star is shifted from its normal frequency. Hence we have red shifts, where the frequency is moved toward the red (IR)end of the EM spectrum and blue shift, where it is moved toward the blue end (UV).
So heterodyned doppler suggests two doppler shifted signals mix so that one modulates the other, probably as a frequency modulation where the doppler shifted frequencies are degraded, or deprecated.
That my story and I’m sticking to it.
willard…”Sky Dragons lie at the extreme side of the contrarian spectrum”.
***
You’re awfully confused. Sky Dragon is a term thought up by scholars like Claes Johnson as a metaphor for the greenhouse effect. His book was about slaying the Sky Dragon. It is you and other alarmists who represent the Sky Dragon. As you state above, Sky Dragons lie, and you are the Sky Dragon rep.
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-kill-sky-dragon-by-mathematics.html
“Our new book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory is topping Amazon eBook lists. The paperback version will appear after Christmas along with radio and TV presentations.
The message of the book is that the so-called atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Effect GGE, presented by IPCC as the scientific basis of CO2 alarmism, lacks sound mathematical and physical rationale.
My role in the team of authors is to shoot with the weapon of mathematics at the heart of climate science consisting of the two chambers
-blackbody radiation: transfer of heat energy by electromagnetic waves
-thermodynamics: interplay of heat energy and kinetic/potential energy under gravitation”.
some Swedish on this site but English too, and good links.
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/
I know what I said, Gordon.
The Dragon meme is JohnO’s meme.
I’m using it to refer to that kind of crap.
Sky Dragon. Moon Dragon. Everything Dragon.
Dragons don’t exist. Except on blogs and books.
Anyone can invent memes.
willard..”I know what I said, Gordon. The Dragon meme is JohnOs meme”.
And you are wrong. As I pointed out, the Sky Dragon bit came from the Dragon Slayer’s book by Claes Johson et al.
I’m not wrong, Gordon, I’m telling you it’s about time that silly table of yours get flipped.
You’re rooting for something that does not exist.
Dragons don’t exist.
Sky Dragon it is.
Oh, Woebegone Wee Willy,
The “Sky Dragons” are you and your ilk.
Mythical creatures, just like the GHE which created them.
The Earth has cooled. Standing next to a fire is not evidence that the Earth is heating, you idiot. The burning of fossil fuels creates heat and CO2. Some idiots have convinced themselves that the CO2 creates the heat!
Silly Sky Dragons!
Mike Flynn,
From now on you’re a Sky Dragon.
Embrace it!
Witless Wee Willy,
You fool. Slaying “Sky Dragons” is Claes Johnson’s term for pointing out the mythical nature of the GHE.
Sky Dragons are in denial of reality.
How about, you, Wee Willy? Do you still deny the Earth has cooled from the red hot state? Ask your mate Ken Rice. He will set you straight. Here’s what he said about increasing snow and ice in Antarctica a few years ago –
“All previous bases were close to the coast and over time would be covered by snow and ice, requiring that the entrance hatches be raised by about a metre or so every year.”
At least Ken Rice was smart enough to accept reality (you can actually die, if you don’t), and he’s an astrophysicist, just like James Hansen, the climate crackpot!
So carry on, puppy. Deny away. See how many people change their way of life because of your stupid opinions.
Mike Flynn,
When was the last time you exchanged with AT?
Wistful Wee Willy,
More avoidance, puppy? It won’t work you know!
Trying to avoid the inconvenient fact that the Earth has cooled in spite of all your mythical Sky Dragon assertions about GHGs, makes you look as stupid as the rest of the climate cranks.
Who is AT? Is he another obsession of yours, like “Mike Flynn”?
Oooooh! Cryptic!
What fresh idiocy are you going to come up with, to support your denial of reality?
Mike Flynn,
Tell me more.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ClintR: “Dr. Spencer has indicated he doesnt want to contest the physics of the GHE, so he lets others do that.”
Where is the evidence for this statement?
Lying scum.
DMT, here’s where this started:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-745042
My offer still stands. Do your part, and I’ll do mine.
As you may have noticed, your attempted insults and slanders have no effect on me. That’s just an indication that you have NOTHING.
clint…”As you may have noticed, your attempted insults and slanders have no effect on me”.
As Philip Latour put it, when alarmists start ad homing him and insulting him, he walks away knowing he has won his point.
That’s all alarmists have, insults, ad homs, and threats.
You omitted that we have the science on our side. Plus the observations. Plus 97% of the world’s scientists etc etc.
All you have is a bunch of RWNJs, Trump supporters and some lunatics who should be in asylums.
You don’t “have the science” on your side, DMT. You have “anti-science”. It’s a cult. In fact, it is such a cult that you cannot identify why you joined!
It’s like you’re ashamed of your own cult.
You don’t get to make the rules.
The rule is: if you make a statement, be prepared to back it up.
Otherwise, apologise or cease posting.
DMT,
You don’t get to make the rules.
The rule is: You don’t get to make the rules.
You are an impotent idiot.
captain droll…”Hey? Whats the relevance of these snarks:
Justin Trudeau, his mother’s son, not his father’s son,
and
The former environment minister, a blond female..
Gordon, why are you so perpetually angry and mean? Get a life man”
***
I support democracy and good science. Justin Trudeau and the Climate Barbie, Catherine McKenna, who has since been removed from the environment portfolio, have lead us down a path of pseudo-science.
Trudeau’s father, Pierre Trudeau, would never have stood by and watched our democratic rights diluted by the inane science behind AGW and covid. Pierre Trudeau instituted our Charter of Rights and Freedoms while his son Justin has done everything he can to be politically-correct, and to undermine the Charter.
That Charter guarantees certain rights to all Canadians, yet Justin Trudeau is willing to overlook it while Muslims snub their noses at it by forcing their women and children to obey religious edicts rather than the rights of the Charter. When the Muslims wanted to institute Sharia Law in lieu of our Charter, he said nothing.
Now he is supporting Indigenous people and their whine about Residential Schools. The schools were in effect foe 100 years and no has said anything till recently, in line with the Black Lives Matter movement in the states. I have never heard any White person claim that Black lives don’t matter.
The residential schools were wrong to abuse Indigenous children and should have been prosecuted. What the current Indigenous people are ignoring is that the children were put in the schools because they were abused and neglected at home.
Even today, in Canada, there are more Indigenous children under government care than at any time during the Residential School era. Many Indigenous people simply don’t care about their own children but are quick to criticize those who have taken them away, based on Canadian law, due to abuse and neglect.
Trudeau wants modern Canadians to apologize for the wrong of a few misguided Catholic residential schools in the past. He has glibly suggested that Canada could be sued big time by them rather than being angry about such nonsense and defending us. He is a silly, self-serving/self-centred person who is devoid of any awareness.
That comes from his mother, who was the quintessential flower child, a reference to superficial twits who ran around with flowers in their hair pretending to be enlightened. Trudeau is acting like an anachronism, a flower child who is 60 years out of date.
Man, you are seriously deranged. I even feel sorry for you. It must take a lot out of you being perpetually outraged by everyone and everything. It certainly is not healthy.
Get a life -or better still, get a dog.
captain droll…” It must take a lot out of you being perpetually outraged by everyone and everything. It certainly is not healthy”.
yes…I am annoyed, that so many fine, young Canadian and US men volunteered to go oversees to fight in WW II, losing their lives and being seriously injured, then having some politically-correct, wannabees disregard the way of life they fought to protect.
While those young Canadians were overseas fighting for a great cause against despots, Pierre Trudeau was in Quebec, urging Quebecois not to go and fight, even though their mother country, France, was under the heel of the Nazi jackboot. Then he disappeared to who knows where for the rest of the war.
Now his son is trying to sell our Canadian heritage down the river based on some politically-correct nonsense. Yes, I’m annoyed, and anyone who is not is a lost sheeple.
I am watching the US lose its birthright to losers, fearing that it will soon filter North. It’s not just about US problems heading North, there are a lot of good US people who are affected by this insurrection of cowards and terrorists. The US is our ally and I care what happens in the States. Not at all happy they have an idiot like Biden running the place.
Recently, Vancouver cops were called to a bar brawl where a Black guy was identified as a prime trouble maker. They tried to subdue him and while they were correctly doing doing their job, the crowd was taunting the police as racists. One White guy was screaming at the cops and at one point took a swing at a cop. Now they are looking for him and I hope they find him.
I regard people like you as utterly naive. You don’t have the sense to see where Canada is headed, nor do you care about our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I understand to some extent – the world is imperfect, it is changing, and some people cannot cope. Still, I do not understand how endlessly moaning, groaning and complaining benefits anybody – let alone yourself.
c,
Why do you keep doing it, then?
willard..”It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale”.
***
The new science…’it is likely’. No scientific proof, but likely, the IPCC mantra.
Philip Latour, who has a degree in chemical engineering, arguably the toughest degree to acquire at any university, has pointed out that correlation and causation can be very different in science.
He claims, that just because two phenomenon exist side by side, and appear to be related, does not mean they are related. To prove correlation, he claims, one has to supply physical evidence which he claims does not exist for anthropogenic gases and warming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ55koi7vaA
ps. Norman and Swannie will love Latour’s explanation of the 2nd law, a law which he is eminently qualified to speak about. He too contradicts the textbook bs that heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures.
He also points out that AGW contradicts the 1st law, since it implies the creation of heat via perpetual motion of the 2nd kind.
> arguably the toughest degree to acquire at any university
There are only two tough degrees to get at a U, Gordon. Physics. Philosophy.
Everything else is mostly as easy as cooking. And I abide by Ratatouille’s dictum:
Everyone can cook.
As for Pierre, it’s still hard to tell, e.g.:
https://principia-scientific.com/skeptical-arguments-that-don-t-hold-water-pierre-latour-s-rebuttal/
Yet, ClintR maintains that:
Dr. Spencer has indicated he doesnt want to contest the physics of the GHE, so he lets others do that.
How does this square with the fact that:
“On April 25, 2014 prominent skeptic climate scientist, Dr Roy Spencer published his defense of the so-called greenhouse gas effect” ??
C’mon ClintR, explain this for us all.
DMT, here’s where this started:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-745042
My offer still stands. Do your part, and I’ll do mine.
Please explain how Roy is letting dragons contest the Tyndall effect while writing posts about the silliness of their arguments, Pup.
You have been caught out fabricating.
And behaving like a spoilt child with “you show me yours and I will show you mine” diversionary nonsense.
I say you are lying, scum.
DMT, please continue trolling. You just prove me right about braindead cult members. And, I like being right….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-745470
Maybe some climate crackpot could try to provide some physical reason which would prevent the Earth cooling from over 1000 C to its present temperature.
Of course they can’t. Not without invoking magic.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. No GHE. As Einstein reputedly said “”If you cant explain it simply, you dont understand it well enough.”
Red hot things cool if they are 150,000,000 km from the Sun.
Simple enough?
Please. Just move on to something relevant. Honestly, this perpetual obsessing is something only the mentally deranged engage in.
DMT,
So you don’t deny the Earth has cooled to its present temperature?
You are a delusional idiot who can’t even describe your delusion!
Stick to sucking scum and writing imaginary lists.
Here, just to humour a lunatic, do some homework and tell us what you estimate to be the average rate of cooling since Earth was formed compared to a value of, say, 1 degree of per century.
DMT, please stop trolling.
willard…”There are only two tough degrees to get at a U, Gordon. Physics. Philosophy”.
You are so naive. Philosophy??? Easy credits. Law students take philosophy to train them for not falling asleep during lectures. We had songs for arts students in engineering …… M-i-c-k-e-y-M-o-u-s-e”. There is no such thing as a hard Arts course.
So is a physics degree compared to the requirements of the chemical engineering program.
Besides, how would you, a high school dropout, know anything about higher learning?
Do you have a scientific rebuttal or are you going to settle for slinging ad homs and insults, Gordon?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Are you denying the Earth has cooled to its present temperature? Gee, what sort of magic did you invoke to stop a red hot ball 150,000,000 km from the sun dropping to 288 K?
Wow, just wow! In you, the power of self delusion strong is!
You are a denialist idiot!
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
Witless Wee Willy,
Others might notice your stupid attempt at avoidance.
Do you really deny that the Earth has cooled?
Are you associating yourself with those silly “Sky Dragons”, (GHE cultists), who believe that “We will be toasted, roasted and grilled” by the radiation from the atmosphere? By the breath of the “Sky Dragon”?
Oh, Wee Willy, what a delusional idiot you are! Ask any astrophysicist – they will refer you to as many scientific references as you can cope with. If you like formulas and models, you will find many.
Or you can just hide your head up your ass, and deny reality.
The choice is yours,
Mike Flynn,
Do you know the Doritos story?
It’s a good one:
[Vaughan]: Well, predicting is hard, especially futures anomalies.
[MattStat]: Yeah, this is a bummer. But how do you think that people
[Don Don]: Hey guys, you talking Doritos?
[MattStat]: Come on, Don Don. Dont do this again.
[Don Don]: I just thought maybe you were having the old Doritos discussion.
[Vaughan]: Dude, for the last time: well tell you if we ever have a conversation about Doritos.
[Don Don]: You promise?
[MattStat]: Of course, Don Don. We know how you love Doritos.
[Vaughan]: Yeah, man. Everyone knows.
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/40263311176
Wandering Wee Willy,
Still trying to deny that the Earth has cooled? No longer a red hot blob in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight? And your reason is – Doritos?
Can’t face reality, kiddo? Pull your head out of your ass, and look around.
Try finding a physical reason that prevented the Earth cooling to its present temperature.
Can’t do it? Tha’s because there isn’t one, you idiot!
Mike Flynn,
We all know how you love Doritos.
We’ll tell you when we’ll talk about Doritos.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Stupid attempt at diversion.
Got any better? No?
Why am I not surprised?
Mike Flynn,
The Doritos epitomizes the diversion here.
Enjoy your afternoon,
Wee Willy Doritohead,
Here’s a tip: deny and divert, look like what you are – a diverting denier!
Get a grip, Doritohead. You are not only an idiot, but occasionally a target for derision.
[derisive laughter]
Mike Flynn,
You’re discovering peddling.
Your repertoire is already limited.
Don’t go for peddling:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/peddling/
Willard, please stop trolling.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature!
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature!
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature!
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature!
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature!
etc etc
Honestly, give us a break you idiot.
DMT,
Nope, you aren’t finished yet.
Every time you write “The Earth has cooled to its present temperature”, you have to add “and neither CO2 nor anything else stopped it!”
Repeat 50 times.
If reality has still not penetrated your thick skull, repeat until it does.
Off you go now. Tell me when you have accepted reality.
> and neither CO2 nor anything else stopped it
Show me, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”Do you have a scientific rebuttal or are you going to settle for slinging ad homs and insults, Gordon?”
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
No really, Gordon.
What if I told you that architecture and fine arts were considered among the toughest diplomas to get at Oxford?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“The surface of the planet emits IR according to the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law. The surface of Earth at 288 K emits 390 W/m2, some 150 W/m2 more than the earth emits to space.
That 150 W/m2 of heat retention is the cause of the 33 ºC temperature rise over the non-GHG Earth with the same albedo” Prof Hayden
–
No.
–
The temperature at the TOA is 255 K. which is roughly 240 W/M2
–
the flux emitted by Earth at TOA equals the flux absorbed at the earths surface from the sun.
Theoretically the surface of the earth should be 255K, with no atmosphere or a non absorbing atmosphere [and albedo].
–
The temperature at the surface of the earth is 288 K.you will get E = = 390 W/m2.
–
Lost on everyone is that there is no continuimg 150 W/m2 of heat retention.
The flux in equals the flux out.
It is not adding 150 W/m2 constantly to the atmosphere.
It did heat up 33 C due to GHG H2o and CO2.
In the distant past.
Now the energy in equals the energy out more or less. on daily scales subject mainly to clouds [albedo] and a little solar variation.
–
The earth surface emits 390W/M2 but not to space.
It has to get through repeated layers of opaqueness to do so.
Half of everything going up comes back then a half of that etc.
Resulting in a surface re-emission of part of the original 240W/M2 multiple times until it built up enough upward energy to reach the TOA.
–
“The surface of Earth at 288 K emits 390 W/m2, some 150 W/m2 more than the earth emits to space.”
The surface of the earth receives 240 W/M2 which all goes out to space. No heat is retained.
The TOA is identical to the surface of the earth in the amount of incoming and outgoing radiation.
That is why it is called the TOA.
The surface is not magically providing an extra 150/W/M2 to heat the atmosphere.
It is not an engine.
It is not the sun. It is not a heat generating source.
It does not magically make energy.
–
This must be wrong but I cannot see why.
Help.
a,
I see a problem. You wrote – “Theoretically the surface of the earth should be 255K, with no atmosphere or a non absorbing atmosphere [and albedo].”
So when the Earth’s surface was molten, which theory said the temperature should be 255 K?
This is presumably the same theory which has managed to give the wrong answer every year for the last four and a half billion years! Impressive!
Maybe a new theory is needed. One which agrees with facts.
What do you think?
For God’s sake shut up.
DMT,
Why should I? Because an idiot who denies reality makes demands he can’t enforce?
Do you know how stupid that makes you look?
And you wonder why people are sniggering at you!
I vote we bring back the guillotine.
DMT,
I second that. Can I cheer as the tumbrils of climate crackpots clatter by?
Apparently you have a list. I can supply you with a few names, if you wish.
That sound you hear is me sniggering.
And lobotomies.
I’d rather have a full bottle in front of me, than a full frontal lobotomy.
DMT doesn’t need a lobotomy. He’s a brainless climate crank. He just hasn’t realised he’s brain dead yet.
Oh well.
[laughter]
It must be a full moon.
DMT, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
You need to try harder
a,
I asked – “So when the Earth’s surface was molten, which theory said the temperature should be 255 K?”
Too hard for you, obviously. You have no answer at all.
I don’t need to try harder, do I?
Doc, Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn, Doc.
Now you know each other.
Willard says:
Doc, Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn, Doc.
Now you know each other.
–
Thank you Willard.
I see what you mean.
I asked So when the Earths surface was molten, which theory said the temperature should be 255 K?
‘-
I am in awe.
–
Swenson,
To be more precise, the original statement should have been:
“Theoretically the surface of the earth should
beapproach 255K after a sufficiently long period of time, with no atmosphere or a non absorbing atmosphere [and albedo].”This is simple energy balance. A surface COOLER than 255 K would warm toward 255 K (given current conditions). A surface WARMER than 255 K would cool toward 255 K. I can’t see why this concept continues to elude you.
You can forgive the author. 4 billion years is more than sufficient time for some initial transient surface conditions to have decayed away.
There is an article ‘Radiation Transfer’ by William Happer that might give some understanding of why you are wrong.
Ken,
Thank you for both the advice and non answer.
angtech: “This must be wrong but I cannot see why. Help.”
Indeed it is wrong. The entire 33K, “average” flux, flux “adds”, is all anti-science.
The 33K comes from comparing an imaginary object to Earth! They attempt to “balance” flux when flux doesn’t balance. Then, they treat flux as a scalar by adding and subtracting!
How unscientific can they get?
Clint R
Why do you feel compelled to preach false misleading physics?
If fluxes in and out do not balance you have either a decreasing or decreasing temperature, simple as that.
Yes fluxes can add. A flux is equivalent to a flow. It is a flow of energy. A quantity of energy per time and area.
As with a flow of water you can have different flows and yet balance.
If you have 1000 GPM flowing into a tank and ten 100 GPM flowing out of a tank, the level of the tank remains the same.
You can have all types of flows in and out, as long as the in balances the out the tank level will stay the same.
You are just totally wrong and will continue to be wrong until you learn to think about what you post. Just mindlessly repeating stupid mantras over and over does not make them correct.
Learn to think you have shown no ability to do so on this blog.
Norman claims: “If fluxes in and out do not balance you have either a decreasing or decreasing temperature, simple as that.”
That was right after he asked “Why do you feel compelled to preach false misleading physics?”
Idiots are so entertaining.
Clint R
Your point is too illogical to follow. You make no sense and peddle garbage. In your mind you believe repeating false claims over and over makes them correct.
Anyone for ball on the string trope? Repeat some more, do not think about anything and plow ahead.
Tim Folkerts is giving you excellent physics but you are not capable of thinking about what he posts. You reject it with stupid comments about cults. You do not even think about what he says, just mindless rejection. I am astounded that you cannot analyze your own cultish thought process. You do not think about ideas that challenge your own misconceptions but repeat your own ideas over and over. That is cult mentality. You are the cult your reject. You are the bad science you claim of others.
Norman can’t understand his mistake “If fluxes in and out do not balance you have either a decreasing or decreasing temperature, simple as that.”
He just keeps abusing his keyboard, unable to learn.
That’s why this is so much fun.
It appears Norman found his mistake. He now realizes what an idiot he is.
He’ll recover, forget about this, and come back as perverted as ever.
Idiots can’t learn.
Clint R
Yes I see the mistake. Should be increasing or decreasing. Most people can see the mistake and infer the correct word use. Not really a big deal, maybe to you.
The concept is still correct.
In the past you make claims fluxes don’t add because a 1000 W/m^2 flux hitting one m^2 surface is not the same flux as 5 200 W/m^2 fluxes. Yet they are equivalent. They both transfer the same amount of energy.
An object with an area of 5 m^2 will reach the same steady state temperature (assuming good heat transfer from one part of the surface to the others…a good conductor of heat) if it has 5 200 W/m^2 fluxes heating an individual square meter or a 1000 W/m^2 flux hitting one square meter and the energy is rapidly distributed to the other non-illuminated surfaces.
I can not grasp your illogical points but you will keep making them. I wonder if anyone on this blog grasps your points besides Gordon Robertson.
I was right, again.
Norman finally found his mistake, took a couple of hours off to recover, and is now back, as perverted as ever.
Idiots can’t learn.
I wonder if he’s noticed where he implied Earth is not rotating? His nonsense has Moon rotating, but Earth not rotating!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Norman, don’t waste time with lying scum. It just makes things up out of thin air.
DMT, please stop trolling.
–“The surface of Earth at 288 K emits 390 W/m2, some 150 W/m2 more than the earth emits to space.”
The surface of the earth receives 240 W/M2 which all goes out to space. No heat is retained.–
If Sunlight were blocked [or the sun disappear] the Earth surface would retain the past heating of the Sun for quite a while.
The Moon which has no ocean and has vacuum like atmosphere would also retain heat from the sun. The lunar surface where Sun is directly over head heats heats to about 120 C, without sunlight the surface would take many hours to cool to 0 C {273 K}- During the Earth days of lunar night the surface cools to around 100 K [-173 C].
With Earth it would take years before the surface of all the ocean would freeze [reach 0 C] if sun disappeared. And entire ocean would never freeze due to geothermal heat. Or if under a mile rock it also wouldn’t freeze due to geothermal heat.
“The surface is not magically providing an extra 150/W/M2 to heat the atmosphere.”
The tropical ocean surface maintains a fairly uniform temperature- it’s warmer in day but does not cool much at night- as it has thick layer of warm water at the surface- the top surface waters cool and replaced with warmer water- the warmest water is at surface.
The large atmosphere mass of Earth also retains it’s heat, but ocean retains far more heat than the atmosphere.
It’s the Sun stupid
https://bit.ly/3hiNdrv
Authorities in Cyprus have said a deadly forest fire that was the worst to hit the island in decades .
Arghh! – I was just about to book a flight there.
s,
Arghh! And I was just about to pay for your ticket!
Phew!
New Zealand has experienced its hottest June since records began more than 110 years ago, according to official climate data.
Another one crossed off the list.
s,
Going into the weather reporting business?
Don’t give up your day job.
Like 110 years is SO long ago.
Whereas UAH…
Unprecedented since…
It happened before therefore…
It was precedented then.
And since it was precedented…
Unprecedented since a 110 years ago.
And since it was unprecedented since 110 years ago…
We don’t know what happened before 110 years ago.
And since we dont know what happened before 110 years ago…
Guess work wont cut it.
Neither will appeals to ignorance.
Nor being an idiot like you.
No U.
Another climate warrior who flies around on jet planes for his own fun , isn’t he cute
Is the radiation to space at TOA 255C?
Is the radiation the earth receives directly from the sun 255C?
Therefore the earth emits to the atmosphere 255C of flux from the sun.
It is also involved in receiving and emitting back radiation but this is not extra energy that has to go off to space.
It is just the energy that a heated atmosphere with GHG emits to and fro regardless of the sun.
–
Proof?
When the sun goes down the temperature drops to that what a heated surface only radiates.
TOA on the night side much lower than on the lit side.
angech,
The earth theoretical blackbody surface uniform temperature equation when calculated (Albedo a=0,306 and Solar flux So=1361W/m^2) obtains Te.earth = 255K
The 255K is a theoretical the entire earth surface uniform temperature.
It is so much theoretical that it cannot be expected to be somewhere measured no matter what.
The 255K is a theoretical uniform surface temperature. Thus it cannot be measured, and it has not any physics analogue on the real planet surface – it is a mathematical abstraction.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Exactly CV. In fact, the “255K” is so “theoretical” that it is nonsense.
“The 255K is a theoretical uniform surface temperature. Thus it cannot be measured, and it has not any physics analogue on the real planet surface – it is a mathematical abstraction.
–
Not so.
In two ways.
An average surface temp [a theoretical uniform surface temperature] is derived from taking an average of either actual or estimated temperatures so the average can be estimated from measurements.
Further there is an equivalent of the real planet surface, that of the nearly airless moon.
It has the same solar irradiance.
Once the matter of albedo adjustment is sorted out the moons average [estimated, theoretical, whatever] temperature turns
–
Moon Earth
Bond albedo 0.11 0.306 0.360
Solar irradiance (W/m2) 1361.0 1361.0 1.000
Black-body temperature (K) 270.4 254.0 1.065
–
angech, you may have missed CV’s point. The “255K” is illusionary. Earth’s average temperature is nowhere near 255K. The 255K is for an imaginary object that has NO relation to Earth.
From theorical to abstraction to illusory.
Things escalate quickly in dragon-land.
Au contraire, Clint R.
“The 255K is for an imaginary object that has NO relation to Earth.”
The moon is not an imaginary object.
It is the same distance from the sun as the earth and receives the same solar irradiance.
The two differences are an extremely pauce atmosphere
and a lower albedo.
Hence is surface temperature is fairly close to that of what earth would be without an atmosphere.
temperature (K) 270.4 slightly higher due to less reflection.
–
” the “255K” is so “theoretical” that it is nonsense.”
–
It is right in the ball park.
It is nonsense to deny it
Earth’s surface develops temperatures as an airless celestial body, like Moon or Mars.
We cannot ignore the fact Earth is a planet and that Earth should behave accordingly to the same Universal laws which are valid for every planet in the solar system.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Cristos,
Your arguments about Tsat vs. Tmean for the Moon and Mercury can’t be ignored.
Of course it can.
Not by science.
Of course it can.
Thank you Stephen.
Au contraire, mon ami.
The average global temperatures reported by the NASA Planetary Fact sheet (Williams 2014) for the Moon (270.7 K)
–
Yet Christos Vournas
lists it as
T sat.mean.moon = 220 K
–
Have I missed something?
Should I believe Christos or NASA?
The NASA sheet is the only easy reference I can find one way or another.
–
Perhaps Christos could give a link to his satellite data assertion?
–
Anyone know?
angech, thank you.
What I actually do is “Planet temperatures comparison method”.
The planet temperatures I have found in Wikipedia.
In Wikipedia, for every planet or moon in the solar system, even for a smallest one, there is a separate article with all the known information including temperatures.
What I think is that for Wikipedia the only source is NASA satellite planet temperatures measurements.
Only because of NASA very precise planet temperatures measurements it became possible for me to discover the “Planet rotational warming phenomenon”.
The planet mean surface temperatures (everything else equals) relate as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
Below is the link to the Wikipedia article for Moon where the 220K is taken from.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
Thanks Christos.
–
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
gives Surface temp. min mean max
equator 100 K 220 K
–
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
gives
Surface temp. min mean max
Equator 100 K[12] 250 K 390 K[1
–
Moon Fact sheet NASA
gives
– Moon Earth
Solar irradiance (W/m2) 1361.0 1361.0 1.000
Black-body temperature (K) 270.4 254.0 1.065
–
You have put a lot of work into your analysis which I thank you for.
Unfortunately it is very hard to get an average temperature analysis for the moon.
TRhe figure you are quoting may not be correct [220C]
The NASA vesion is the 270.4 C which equates well with albedo and TOA [which is basically the moon surface].
Sorry.
angech, thank you.
“You have put a lot of work into your analysis which I thank you for.
Unfortunately it is very hard to get an average temperature analysis for the moon.
TRhe figure you are quoting may not be correct [220C]
The NASA vesion is the 270.4 C which equates well with albedo and TOA [which is basically the moon surface].
Sorry.”
Thank you, angech, for your good faith, it is the most important!
Well, I am sorry too. When I first looked for lunar surface temperature (Dec. 2015) it was 220K.
Yes, I am fully aware of that…
When earlier this year I wanted to refer to Wikipedia, I realized the Moon surface temperature 220K was changed to 250K…
It was a very unpleasant surprise for me. How could that suddenly have changed?
So, I looked in other Wikipedia pages, I looked in other languages’ pages to demonstrate the prove I had the 220K for Moon surface temperature taken from Wikipedia…
And, therefore, it was from NASA, because Wikipedia has not any other source, except NASA, for the Planet surface temperatures data.
Then, I looked in the “simple Wikipedia” page and found it in English again.
But first let me present you some other pages:
Arabic, Russian, French, Japanese, Chinese, Portuguese, Romanian…
All of them, among many others, state about Lunar temperature 220K
Of course there are many which state for 250K.
……………
angech, sorry to bother you with all those links to Wikipedia, but, you see, I have to defend my discoveries.
I have to defend the rightness of my discoveries.
I have to make them known, and I have to explain them so they become well understood and well accepted.
Thank you angech.
Christos Vournas
Thermodynamically Earth is a closed system, exchanging energy with its environment but with no significant exchange of matter.
You can look at the behaviour of the system at all scales, from individual locations upwards.
The largest scale is the black box, in which you measure the energy flows in and out of the planet as a whole, rather than considering differences within the system.
Applying the laws of physics to this black box you can calculate that the planet takes up an average of 240W/m^2 and radiates 239W/m^2, equivalent to the radiation you would expect if the radiating surface was at a uniform 255K.
This is your null hypothesis, the simplest behaviour of the system. You can then examine the internal behaviour of the system, observe how it deviates from the null hypothesis and formulate hypotheses to explain the differences..
Sounds reasonable Ent, but it’s WRONG.
You can’t compare Earth to an imaginary object, and expect reality. You cannot corrupt physics and claim you are “applying the laws of physics”.
You’re welcome to try again.
Are you suggesting that laws of physics are real objects, Pup?
Sorry Will, but you’ve been replaced as my stalker.
RLH and Norman are competing to see who will get the job. RLH is amazingly prompt, but Norman is funnier.
Answer the question, Pup.
Are you suggesting that laws of physics are real objects?
Wow, a 1-minute response from Will! He’s back in the running to be my stalker.
Competition does that. That’s why Capitalism is such a great system.
Still no answer, Pup.
How about albedo: is that a real object?
Will is the Quip Master. He believes nebulous esoteric quotes pass for brilliance.
Will is an idiot.
No U, Richie Boy.
s t . v w
“You cant compare Earth to an imaginary object, and expect reality. ”
Not an imaginary object, but what I get when I apply measured solar insolation, measured OLR and the Stefan-Boltzman relationship to a real planet.
What would really interest me would be your rational explanation of the difference between the emission temperature derived from the black box (255K) and the surface temperatures derived from local observation (288K).
Ent claims: “Not an imaginary object, but what I get when I apply measured solar insolation, measured OLR and the Stefan-Boltzman [sic] relationship to a real planet.”
Ent, which “real planet” would that be?
Is OLR an object, Pup?
Earth, of course.
Sorry Ent, but Earth is NOT a black body.
All caps is NOT an argument, Pup.
Is the Stefan-Boltzman constant a real object?
You’re slowing down again, Will.
Step it up. The competition is tough.
And, it’s “Boltzmann”.
Youre in my thread, Pup. So youre the Reply Guy here.
Still no answer. How about emissivity: is that a real object?
> Youre in my thread
Correction. You’re in EM’s thread.
God I hate Roy’s parser.
Maybe it’s your incompetence you hate, Will? Self hate is common in cults.
Maybe you’re a troll who has no idea about science works for real, Pup?
Just a thought.
Will, you were given an chance to show your prowess in science, but you choose to run.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-742926
Just think, if you weren’t so immature and incompetent, you might not be so hateful, and have to resort to calling people names, huh?
I point at
[PUP] if you werent so immature and incompetent, you might not be so hateful
and I point at
[PUP] and have to resort to calling people names
That is all.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re in my thread, Pup. So you’re the Reply Guy here.
Still no answer. How about emissivity: is that a real object?
And there I was thinking that EM started this thread.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-747189
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-746899
You show me a link when mine shows I already saw it, dummy.
Idiot.
No U.
Ent, you must be CORRECT since the lying scum suggests otherwise.
I am loathe to provide the answer to this problem since the oafs here will not appreciate it.
The radiating temperature of 255 K for the Earth is correct BUT, it is the radiating temperature of the EARTH SYSTEM comprising the solid surface AND the atmosphere. i.e. it represents a sort of average temperature of the underlying hot surface (288K) and the overlying colder atmosphere. 255 K is the temperature you would find 5 to 6 km above the surface.
i.e. the layer there can be thought of as representative of the whole system.
Please, no stupid comments. I am perfectly correct.
The temperature of the atmosphere changes from surface to TOA.
So yes, you can find 255K. You can also find temperatures above and below that. The 255K refers to a spherical black body. It has no relevance to Earth.
Is TOA a real object, Pup?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Entropic man, thank you.
I understand what you say.
I see things somehow differently.
Earth exchanges energy with its surroundings – it is radiative energy exchange and we both agree in that.
You say:
“Thermodynamically Earth is a closed system, exchanging energy with its environment but with no significant exchange of matter.
You can look at the behaviour of the system at all scales, from individual locations upwards.
The largest scale is the black box, in which you measure the energy flows in and out of the planet as a whole, rather than considering differences within the system.
Applying the laws of physics to this black box you can calculate that the planet takes up an average of 240W/m^2 and radiates 239W/m^2, equivalent to the radiation you would expect if the radiating surface was at a uniform 255K.
This is your null hypothesis, the simplest behaviour of the system. You can then examine the internal behaviour of the system, observe how it deviates from the null hypothesis and formulate hypotheses to explain the differences..”
Well, I agree with the basic statement:
“Applying the laws of physics to this black box you can calculate that the planet takes up an average of 240W/m^2 and radiates 239W/m^2, equivalent to the radiation you would expect if the radiating surface was at a uniform 255K.”
What I do is correcting the above:
“Applying the laws of physics to this black box you can calculate that the planet takes up an average of 111W/m^2 and radiates an average 111W/m^2, equivalent to the radiation you would expect if the radiating surface was at an average 288K.
And this is my null hypothesis…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
NEXT GLACIATION UPDATE
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/05/new-zealand-experiences-hottest-june-on-record-despite-polar-blast
Will,
So, explain to us showing evidence what has caused New Zealand’s warmest June since 1909?
AGW.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Weather is not climate.
How do you explain the fact that, worldwide, warm records are being broken at a much faster rate than cold records?
Don’t tell me the data is fudged – that argument died last century.
So tell me why warm records are being broken but still the global temperatures go down?
Do they?
UAH says they do. As do most other records I can find. Over the last few months at least.
UAH does not represent global temperatures, Richard.
It measures global temperature. Hadn’t you heard?
Only for the specific layers of the atmosphere, Richard.
Natural Variation
UAH Global Temperature Update for June 2021: -0.01 deg. C
You can only legitimately claim natural variation if the June 2021 average is less than 2SD above the long term June average.
Can you show that?
No Ent, I can claim “natural variation” without having to fit into your nonsense.
It’s a big planet, and the ocean all have their own oscillations and time tables. We don’t know them all. But we do know when ocean oscillations work in sync, look out.
> UAH Global Temperature
Is that a real object, Pup?
E man,
No one can accuse you of being a propagandist. Can you show us where the increase in CO2 from 1981 until now (roughly 70ppm) has caused an increase in the flux that would support a 3C rise in temperature in New Zealand? Can you show us how it could could cause a 1C rise in temperature? A 0.5C rise? 0.4C rise? 0.3C rise?
Causality isn’t something one can observe, Stephen.
Do you have a more coherent sammich to request?
Willie,
So you’re saying you believe?
Math be dammed?
No Stephen, I’m saying that the Humean predicament is the human predicament.
Knowledge as justified true belief is an old idea.
Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, et.al. didn’t observe causality according to Willie. That damn causality can’t be observed.
Which part of “Humean” did you not get, Stephen?
Before you reiterate your silly incredulity, you might wish to consult:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/
That was an answerable question, Willie. Maybe not the answer that fits your agenda.
Someone who believes that causality is observable can deny any response he receives, Stephen.
Nobody can force you to make correct inferences.
Stephen, RLH
When you plot temperature data from a station as a frequency distribution you get a normal distribution as seen in Figure 2 here.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/2012_hansen_17/
Temperatures several degrees above or below the average are less probable, but not unheard of.
Global warming shifts the average and the whole distribution to the right, towards higher temperatures, as seen in Figure 3. This makes new warm records more likely and cold records less likely.
The idea of a Climate Dice can help illustrate the irrelevance of Stephen’s “have caused” quite well:
Two calibrated dice will converge toward seven. One could say that the calibration of the dice “have caused” the convergence, but one can only observe the convergence. No specific dice roll can be said to have been caused by the calibration.
Same for AGW. It loads the Climate Dice. We’ll get more 8s, then 9s, then 10s, up to 13s, like the Northwest got.
So as I see it the question if some event has been caused by something like calibration is a contrarian’s errand. That’s not how empirical sciences work.
Causation gets harder to demonstrate when the cause is a change in average temperature and the effect is a change in the frequency of climate events. You can see the change in frequency given enough data, but you can’t identify which events were specifically caused by the increase in temperature.
Let’s try an analogy.
I take an honest six-sided dice and throw it 1000 times. I expect to see about 167 sixes.
I drill a hole in the one face (opposite the six face) and glue in a lead shot. When I throw it another 1000 times I get 200 sixes.
The dice is now clearly fixed. You can say that 33 of those sixes would not have occurred if I hadn’t fixed the dice, but you can’t distinguish which individual throws were due to the fix and which would have been sixes anyway.
So, let’s assume your shifted and broadened curve is correct. Again, prove that has anything to do with CO2 and how CO2 caused this broadening from 6C to 8C?
“Global warming shifts the average and the whole distribution to the right, towards higher temperatures, as seen in Figure 3.”
Since the 1950s. The change actually went backwards between 1960-1970. i.e. the yellow peak is to the left of the red peak.
Or are you saying that CO2 has only had that effect since the 1960s?
> So, let’s assume your shifted and broadened curve is correct. Again, prove that has anything to do with CO2 and how CO2 caused this broadening from 6C to 8C?
Stephen’s incredulity is invincible.
Prove me wrong.
It looks like to me you’re just taking natural temperature variation and believing it is caused by AGW. Can you show how a 70ppm rise in CO2 caused this? There must be a physical explanation. Isn’t natural variation as good an explanation as any?
Willie,
Whose incredulity? Yours or mine?
Who cares about how it looks to you, Stephen?
>The dice is now clearly fixed. You can say that 33 of those sixes would not have occurred if I hadnt fixed the dice, but you cant distinguish which individual throws were due to the fix and which would have been sixes anyway.
What evidence do you have that this is occurring instead of natural variation?
>Who cares about how it looks to you, Stephen?
Propagandists wouldn’t. You say stupid stuff all the time.
Stephen
Science didn’t prove things, it tests hypotheses and estimates probabilities.
The evidence that CO2 is causing warming is complex and involves observing changes in the relative strength of different emission frequencies in the outward longwave radiation and downward longwave radiation, plus much reference to energy budgets. It also involves vocabulary which Roy’s site rejects.
Much easier to read Chapter 8 here.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
“Isnt natural variation as good an explanation as any? ”
No.
“Natural variation” is the sum of stochastic variation (which we measure via frequency distributions) and natural forcings. These include solar insolation, albedo, vulcanism, ozone, CFCs, orbital cycles and plate tectonics.
We have enough monitoring capability in place to measure all of them and know that their sum is a slow cooling effect.
Two artificial changes, in CO2 and land use, are also monitored. Together they are sufficient to explain the observed warming.
OK, then explain mathematically how a 70ppm rise in CO2 caused a 3C temperature rise in New Zealand?
You keep repeating a question that already has been answered, Stephen, i.e.:
The evidence is that the likeliness of the extreme events under consideration increased.
If that does not count as evidence to you, you’ll need to revise your conception of evidence. Alternatively, you can crank up your incredibilism:
http://planet3.org/2012/08/24/incredibilism/
In that case everyone will be justified to dismiss you as a contrarian crank.
E man,
Berry has already shown that IPCC’s core hypothesis is wrong. Salby, Harde and Berry among others have shown that CO2 lags temperature on both short and long time scales. Maybe natural variation is a better explanation?
Willie,
You keep showing evidence of random natural temperature variation and assuming a cause. You are a believer, no doubt.
Ed is simply proposing a silly bathtub model of the carbon cycle, Stephen.
How did it succeed in fooling such a fine auditor as you?
> You keep showing evidence of random natural temperature variation and assuming a cause.
You mean that *you* are assuming a cause, Stephen.
I already told you why I don’t.
You’re taking 0.0000025% of the planet’s temperature data and claiming the data isn’t random. How could you possibly know?
Dr. Berry’s bathtub model is in Daniel J. Jacob’s textbook and Murry Salby’s textbook among many others. You apparently haven’t ready many Physics textbooks have you?
Here, Stephen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
If all you assume a black box, don’t complain if you can’t see inside your box.
> claiming the data isnt random
A quote would be nice.
Willie,
You do understand that AGW implies systematic non-random data? Hansen’s use of a Gaussian distribution would imply a random step change.
Dear Stephen,
You said:
“Youre taking 0.0000025% of the planets temperature data and claiming the data isnt random.”
Where did I make such a claim?
Climate variability isn’t exactly random, BTW:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_variability_and_change
Willard, please stop trolling.
Real simple, scroll back through earthnullschool through the month of June, and watch the changes in surface winds.
Why was New Zealand’s winter so warm on 1909 in June.
Hasn’t there been global warming for 100 years.
Does it maybe mean global warming has stopped?
I think we probably are still having global warming, and so, it’s just weather.
Thank you.
“What would really interest me would be your rational explanation of the difference between the emission temperature derived from the black box (255K) and the surface temperatures derived from local observation (288K).”
Easy peasy…
The Earth hasnt yet cooled to the computed floor temp of 255 K … Give it another few billion years…
The Earth has an atmosphere because it is warm… It is not warm because it has an atmosphere… Confusion of cause and effect leads ro all kinds of erroneous ideas..
“The Earth has an atmosphere because it is warm It is not warm because it has an atmosphere Confusion of cause and effect leads ro all kinds of erroneous ideas.”
I would agree. By your logic Mercury, being warm, should have an atmosphere, so should the Moon.
Something wrong with your logic?
The Sun, being the hottest, is also the atmospheriest.
Entropic Man, Willard, please stop trolling.
The warm temps for the month of June down in New Zealand are simply caused by surface wind flows. You can go back to see for yourself at earthnullschool.
So, goldminor, are you saying due to natural variation?
Yes, I would call that natural variation. Warm wind flows swept into NZ for most of the month. That only changed in the last 4 or 5 days of the month when cold air flows from the south moved in.
I always enjoy the rambling blah-blah from the anti-science crowd. Here’s Entropic man, at his best:
“The evidence that CO2 is causing warming is complex and involves observing changes in the relative strength of different emission frequencies in the outward longwave radiation and downward longwave radiation, plus much reference to energy budgets. It also involves vocabulary which Roy’s site rejects.”
Translation: There is no evidence CO2 is causing warming.
Translation.
Roy Spencer’s site is, ironically, not a good place to discuss the technicalities of CO2 induced global warming.
Go read Chapter 8.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Then try critiquing it here, using the proper technical vocabulary, and see how far you get.
E man,
Ed Berry has completely debunked AR5. Go find another Bible.
“Ed Berry has completely debunked AR5. ”
That turns out not to be the case. Of course, that won’t stop you believing that he debunked it.
Why don’t you go over to Berry’s site and explain to him where he’s wrong? It would be thrilling to see two intellectual giants debate AR5.
Pay me and I will.
I’ll pay what you are worth to shut you up.
No U, dearest Richard.
s t . v w
Ent, the IPCC makes the same mistake as you. They start with the belief that CO2 causes warming. Then they pretend to prove what they believe!
That ain’t science.
Have you ever considered to RTFR, Pup.
Start with the summary:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
I emphasized the word that should make you rethink your silly accusation of circularity.
Thanks Will. That’s a good example of what I was mentioning.
They start from their belief, then they look for things to support their belief. Of course, they have to actually “invent” some things along the way….
That ain’t science.
You seem to be really into those “ity” words today.
Is this a pattern? I think Goebbels used “ity” words often.
> They start from their belief
No they don’t Pup.
Here’s how it works:
– increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere
– positive radiative forcing
– observed warming
– understanding of the climate system
=====================================
Human influence on the climate system is clear.
It’s not even a nice try.
We know Earth has warmed from LIA. And we know warmer oceans release more CO2.
Your problem is to prove CO2 causes “positive radiative forcing”. That’s where your nonsense hits a brick wall.
And “understanding the climate system”? You anti-science types don’t.
You had your chance to make an intelligent comment, Pup.
You blew it.
5-minute response time, Will. You’re slipping again.
That’s the kind of trolling you can afford, Pup.
Keep at it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Since the 1950s. The change actually went backwards between 1960-1970. i.e. the yellow peak is to the left of the red peak.
Or are you saying that CO2 has only had that effect since the 1960s? ”
I’m restarting. The thread was getting too long.
Firstly, distinguish between warming and statistically significant warming.
Increasing CO2 has been warming the climate since the increase began in 1880. Global average temperature was 13.8C or anomaly -0.2C.
Statistically significant warming required a temperature rise of 0.2C, which didn’t occur till the 1970s at 14.0C or anomaly 0C
The warming has been taking place for 140 years, but we’ve only been 95% confident that warming is occurring since the 1970s.
Secondly, you’re getting as bad as CO2isLife. For the umpteenth time, the increase in CO2 is causing the long term upward trend, but it is not the only variable. Everything from weather to ENSO, PDO, volcanoes and industrial pollution can change the rate of warming. This can cause the slope to increase, decrease, flatten or even go negative for a few years.
E man,
Yeah, make sure your model has those frequent negative sloping variables. It would be too embarrassing otherwise.
Talking of embarassment, perhaps you should resist this temptation to make foolish statements.
Well either you accept what the diagram you mentioned shows or you do not.
Do you recognize that world wide temps were falling from 1400 or so to 1800 or so and rising from 1800 onwards?
and yet
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/mann2008-1.jpeg
Mann’s hockey stick is clearly on show (as also in his 2003 work) and he doesn’t match in detail almost anything else from 1400 onwards either from other sources.
Are you saying that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice age didn’t exist?
The hockey stick is cleaner with your graph, dummy.
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/ipcc-1990-figure-7-1-bottom-panel.png
The hockey stick is Mann’s invention.
I bet you never played hockey in your life, that you don’t know what’s the most important part of a hockey stick, and that you have no idea when the MWP happened, Richard.
What do you mean by exist?
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
You can see a flat spot around 1000AD which is presumably the MWP. After the MWP the downward slope is steeper than before the MWP, which is presumably the LIA.
Neither varies enough to go outside the green confidence limits, so neither is statistically significant.
Perhaps I should reverse the question. Are you convinced that the MWP and the LIA existed? What temperature data do you have to support your belief?
When did the MWP end?
“Neither varies enough to go outside the green confidence limits, so neither is statistically significant.”
So you fall into the group who do not recognize either the MWP or the LIA.
“Analyses from central and southern Greenland (see Greenland Stable Isotopes) show that this region did experience a Medieval Warm Period (culminating around ad 1000), a Little Ice Age cool period (ad 15001900), and warming to the mid-twentieth century (Alley and Koci, 1990; Cuffey et al., 1994; Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998).”
“Medieval period of warming, also known as the Medieval climate anomaly, was associated with an unusual temperature rise roughly between 750 and 1350 AD (the European Middle Ages). The available evidence suggests that at times, some regions experienced temperatures exceeding those recorded during the period between 1960 and 1990.”
“The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900 A.D. to 1300 A.D. when global temperatures were apparently somewhat warmer than at present. Its effects were evident in Europe where grain crops flourished, alpine tree lines rose, many new cities arose, and the population more than doubled. The Vikings took advantage of the climatic amelioration to colonize Greenland, and wine grapes were grown as far north as England where growing grapes is now not feasible and about 500 km north of present vineyards in France and Germany. Grapes are presently grown in Germany up to elevations of about 560 m, but from about 1100 A.D. to 1300 A.D., vineyards extended up to 780 m, implying temperatures warmer by about 1.01.4 C (Oliver, 1973). Wheat and oats were grown around Trondheim, Norway, suggesting climates about 1 C warmer than present (Fagan, 2000).”
> roughly between 750 and 1350 AD
A pity we can hotlink graphs, Richard:
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/mann2008-1.jpeg
“The climatic mechanisms driving the shift from the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) to the Little Ice Age (LIA) in the North Atlantic region are debated. We use cosmogenic beryllium-10 dating to develop a moraine chronology with century-scale resolution over the last millennium and show that alpine glaciers in Baffin Island and western Greenland were at or near their maximum LIA configurations during the proposed general timing of the MWP. Complimentary paleoclimate proxy data suggest that the western North Atlantic region remained cool, whereas the eastern North Atlantic region was comparatively warmer during the MWP—a dipole pattern compatible with a persistent positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation. These results demonstrate that over the last millennium, glaciers approached their eventual LIA maxima before what is considered the classic LIA in the Northern Hemisphere. Furthermore, a relatively cool western North Atlantic region during the MWP has implications for understanding Norse migration patterns during the MWP. Our results, paired with other regional climate records, point to nonclimatic factors as contributing to the Norse exodus from the western North Atlantic region.”
Mann 2008 (and 2003) is a perfect example of contamination in the later record. No other study shows such deviation over that time period.
That also suggests that his whole determination is suspect.
“If you consider the world today, many communities will face exposure to climate change,” says Dugmore. “Theyll also face issues of globalization. The really difficult bit is when you have exposure to both.””
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-greenland-vikings-vanished-180962119/
“After all, they remained in Greenland for at least a century after the climate changed, so the onset of colder conditions alone wasnt enough to undo them.”
“How profitable was the ivory trade? Every six years, the Norse in Greenland and Iceland paid a tithe to the Norwegian king. A document from 1327, recording the shipment of a single boatload of tusks to Bergen, Norway, shows that that boatload, with tusks from 260 walruses, was worth more than all the woolen cloth sent to the king by nearly 4,000 Icelandic farms for one six-year period.”
Oh, and I think you meant to emphasize:
“at least a century after the climate changed”
Updated Greenland T record:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change
Good grief, Richard.
You’re really not as good as you pretend to be at this:
There are various suggestions as to when the MWP ended. I chose 1400 as being beyond the end of it and when temperature would definitely have started to fall.
Do you differ?
So lame. Using Wikipedia to define MWP. Talk about being out of date and wrong. Will should invest in time doing research about all the papers that have found evidence of warming all over the globe during that period. Time to get current with the science.
> Do you differ?
Mike’s graph does not cover the MWP, dummy.
Mann’s graphs make up his hockey stick.
I prefer your own hockey stick, Richard:
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/mann2008-1.jpeg
Tell me what (other than Mann’s other work) that corresponds to.
A shaft.
“what other”
Many.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0
All AGW fanatics agree that CO2 (and other such things) are the only drivers of global temperatures. Now there’s a surprise.
False, dummy:
“All AGW fanatics agree”
So you admit that you were wrong that just Mann who is finding a hockey stick shape?
So you are forced to now claim that all who do this kind of measurement must be fanatics?
Are they all faking the results?
For the diagram in question (Fig 2)
https://imgur.com/reyOdIH
You might find this interesting.
http://berkeleyearth.org/archive/summary-of-findings/
You are still hooked on trying to disprove your own straw man, the idea that you should be able to explain post-1880 temperature changes using only CO2.
In fact it is considerably more complex. Talk to anyone in the climate trade. They’ll all tell you that industrial pollution, variations in albedo, ENSO and other factors have all added noise to the temperature record.
Look at the second and third graphs in my link. You’ll see that something lifted temperatures above the trend in the late 1930’s and early forties, then depressed temperatures in the 1960s. That’s where your flat spot comes from.
I am suggesting that between 1400 and 1800 temperatures were falling (mostly) and 1800 they have been rising.
“I am suggesting that between 1400 and 1800 temperatures were falling (mostly) and 1800 they have been rising.”
We can agree on that.
You’ve heard my hypotheses regarding the reasons why and seen data like this
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
Unfortunately you’ve been rather vague regarding your own explaination and haven’t supplied data in support.
The most extreme hockey stick ever presented.
Perhaps you could show me your global temperature data for the period from the MWP to the present.
I am suggesting that between 1400 and 1800 temperatures were falling (mostly) and since 1800 they have been rising.
The lowest point is likely to be about -2c below present and the highest about +1c higher than present.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Who? Me?
“The lowest point is likely to be about -2c below present and the highest about +1c higher than present.”
Or unlikely, if one prefers evidence-derived facts.
Berkley Earth are believers.
Here’s why BEST sucks for you, Stephen:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
Dragons don’t exist outside blogs.
It’s been a good career choice for him. He was nothing before, now he has a secure income.
Anti-science has its rewards.
> He was nothing before
You really should stick to pure trolling, Pup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller
Silly Dragons die by the first para of the Wiki entry they fail to check.
Don’t be a silly Dragon.
Anti-science has its rewards.
I thought you were against namecalling, Pup.
Woeful Willy doesn’t realise Sky Dragons are GHE cultists. Well, actually he probably does, but has put his foot in his mouth, and then compounded his stupidity by shooting himself in the foot!
As to Muller – called his tax-exempt non-profit propaganda organisation “Berkely Earth . . . “, obviously hoping that donors would be silly enough to think it was associated with UC Berkely, which of course it isn’t.
Silly enough to include Steve Mosher as a “scientist”.
According to its form 990, one of two main projects in 2019 is –
“Continued work on the science of global warming”. Really? Science? At least Elizabeth Muller gets 94500 USD for 10 hours work per week. Tough job, but someone has to do it!
Mike Flynn,
TL;DR.
Willard, please stop trolling.
EM
” Increasing CO2 has been warming the climate since the increase began in 1880.””
–
This is why debate is so hard.
–
Pick a date,any date??
Why 1880?
No humans on the planet before that??
–
perhaps the comment, “Global average temperature was 13.8C or anomaly -0.2C.” gives it away.
Temperature goes up 0.2C since then, claim CO2 goes up then by mankind only. Claim evidence of an effect that took another 90 years before manifesting itself.
–
Yes CO2 increase on its own mandates a temperature increase long term. But natural variability, cloud cover and compensatory mechanisms are not taken into consideration
Why pick 1880?
It is the first year for which enough stations are available to measure global average temperatures.
Before then you have to rely on proxies.
Much of your post is inaccurate. You might want to check the temperature record.
The temperature record includes the effect of all variables.
When you match the physics with the record you find that the best fit projection for temperature is the warming effect of the CO2 concentration 25 years earlier. The lag is due to the effect of the ocean heat sink on surface temperatures.
Thus the current temperatures were set by the CO2 concentration in the mid-1990s. Current CO2 is setting the temperatures for the 2040s.
Ent, you anti-science types can make up nonsense faster than a blow torch melts ice!
CO2 does NOT heat the oceans. There is NO 25-year lag.
You’re out cherry-picking again.
Clint R says:
CO2 does NOT heat the oceans.
–
It does heat up the air which does help heat up the oceans.
No atmosphere equals an icy meteorite.
255C average means melting temps at equator during day which gives an atmosphere then a sea then global warming.
–
There is NO 25-year lag.
I am happy to concede a mild lag during adjustment due to some feedback.
Entropic man says:
Why pick 1880? It is the first year for which enough stations are available to measure global average temperatures.
–
No.
Man did not start making CO2 only in 1880.
Temperature records do exist before this time.
–
When you match the physics with the record you find that the best fit projection for temperature is the warming effect of the CO2 concentration 25 years earlier.
–
Did they have enough stations to measure global average CO2 in 1855?
No. What did they use?
Proxies.
–
Before then you have to rely on proxies.
I see.
So perhaps you should be comparing proxy temps with proxy CO2?
Awfully messy and often inaccurate.
–
Much of your post is inaccurate. You might want to check the temperature record
.-
The proxy ones? the real ones? The adjusted temps?
The historical written descriptions?
The adjusted UHCN using proxy stations?
–
No. the one whose figures agree with the best fit projection for temperature is the warming effect of the CO2 concentration 25 years earlier.
–
Current CO2 is setting the temperatures for the 2040s.
–
That is such a relief to know. The 415 ppm is actually not doing anything for 25 years.
The air temperature today knows it does not have to respond to 415 ppm.
Voodoo science?
It should be much colder now.
Have you told the IPCC that we do not have to worry for 25 years?
For the diagram in question (Fig 2)
https://imgur.com/reyOdIH
“I would agree. By your logic Mercury, being warm, should have an atmosphere, so should the Moon.
Something wrong with your logic?”
Hello Entropic,
Mercury has pretty much finished cooling. Thus I suspect its observed surface temp will be pretty close to the computed floor temp of a BB absorbing the insolation that Mercury does…
A planet loses atmosphere as it cools, either blown off to space or deposited on the surface…
Saying that the planet would be colder without an atmosphere, is akin to saying that when the planet has cooled… It will be colder… Well of course! No GHE needed..,
“A planet loses atmosphere as it cools..”
You ought to audition for ‘Climate deniers say the darndest things!’ the new reality show on the History Channel.
Again, literally nothing is happening.
Again:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/trend
angtech…”The surface of the earth receives 240 W/M2 which all goes out to space. No heat is retained.
The TOA is identical to the surface of the earth in the amount of incoming and outgoing radiation.
That is why it is called the TOA.
The surface is not magically providing an extra 150/W/M2 to heat the atmosphere”.
***
There are problems with the notion of energy balance.
1)Start with Stefan-Boltzmann. The equation started with Stefan, Boltzmann was his student who later took the equation into the realm of statistical mechanics. Stefan got the idea from Tyndall, who had heated a platinum filament wire electrically, noting the different colours produced in the wire as the current was increased.
Another scientist correlated the colours to colour temperature, that is the equivalent colours emitted by a typical piece of metal when heated in a forge. Stefan noticed a T^4 relationship between the temperatures of the heated wire and the frequency of light given off, which is electromagnetic radiation with different frequencies.
The thing to note is that the S-B constant that relates EM intensity to emissivity, area, and temperature, applies only in the temperature range of about 700C to 1400C through which Tyndall’s heated wire ranged. However, scientists since have applied S-B to a theoretical blackbody range of temperatures.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner have already pointed out that the S-B constant does not apply at terrestrial temperatures.
2)Your analysis presumes that radiation is the only means of heating and cooling the atmosphere. It’s far more complex than that. The surface also heats air molecules that touch it and those molecules rise to higher altitudes, being replaced by cooler air molecules from above.
R.W. Wood, an expert on gas radiation/absorp-tion, has pointed out that once the major atmospheric gases, nitrogen and oxygen, are heated at the surface, they cannot radiate away the heat. So, they maintain it. Eventually, as the gases rise to higher altitudes, the pressure will drop and the heat will dissipate naturally.
That is why it becomes so complicated. Heat is being retained by atmospheric gases and the oceans, and there is no way to easily calculate an energy balance. Furthermore, the planet is rotating so that parts of it are receiving solar energy while parts are not.
Also, the planet is tilted and in an orbit that varies the amount of solar input to various parts of the planet. That sets up varying circulations in the atmosphere and oceans, not only annually, but decadally.
“Your analysis presumes that radiation is the only means of heating and cooling the atmosphere.”
–
No
–
Demands, because radiation is the way that the atmosphere cools by radiating to space.
–
Note Roy often mentions extra cloud cover as another way of cooling the atmosphere.
–
“R.W. Wood, an expert, has pointed out that once the major atmospheric gases, nitrogen and oxygen, are heated at the surface, they cannot radiate away the heat. So, they maintain it.
–
The surface radiates intensely in the IR band, this radiation heats H2O and CO2. The molecules move faster transfering energy to O2 and N2 by collision.
This creates the heat rise.
It takes time to build up a steady state in which the O2 and N2 are moving fast enough to give kinetic energy back to the H20 and CO2 so the can emit IR.
At this stage there are three sources of energy to GHG, radiation, back radiation and kinetic energy.
and one way out.
To space.
Convection etc is just a lot of hot air transferring heat around in the atmosphere.
Earlier on, Whacky Wee Willy Gongbeater wrote the following comments at different times –
– and yet
– You’re in my thread, Pup. So you’re the Reply Guy here.
Still no answer. How about emissivity: is that a real object?
– Correction. You’re in EM’s thread.
God I hate Roy’s parser.
– Is OLR an object, Pup?
– Of course it can.
– Of course it can.
– From theorical to abstraction to illusory.
Things escalate quickly in dragon-land.
And so on.
The usual collection of nonsense from idiots of the climate crackpot variety.
He also asked me to prove that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from its molten state.
Hmmmm. How difficult is that?
I could suggest to the brain dead Wonky Wee Willy Willard that he look at his feet, but he is obviously so delusional that he would not know that his feet are not actually on fire!
What a ninny he is!
I, and others by the look of it, are still waiting for dim-witted climate cranks to come up with a physical reason that would prevent the Earth cooling to its present temperature.
The wait will be long, and in the meantime the GHE cultists will continue their mad denial of reality. All good fun.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
Is there something you’d like to say?
Willard, what do you think Mike would do if we admitted the Earth has cooled? Hyperventilate? have a stroke? explode?
Boys, you are being mean to an old man. Let him be.
I’m more interested by the next part, DMT:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-746997
Perhaps you don’t know Mike:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/27/year-in-review-top-science-stories/#comment-754797
Craig the Warmist Worm!
[Snigger.]
Wriggly Wee Willy,
So you deny the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, do you, idiotic one?
Keep wriggling. Deny, divert, and confuse.
No GHE. No 255 K. Just accept reality. You’ll feel like an idiot, because that’s what you are.
Just like the rest of the denialist climate cranks.
Got anything useful to contribute?
Mike Flynn,
No trace of “CO2” in your comment.
Skipped.
Joy!
Willard, please stop trolling.
studentb…”How do you explain the fact that, worldwide, warm records are being broken at a much faster rate than cold records?
Dont tell me the data is fudged”
***
It’s just the era in which e live. Furthermore, it is only recently that anyone cared.
I don’t think the so-called record temperatures are being fudged, although I have queried the obvious use of weather models in predicting the temps. I am wondering if they are using models locally and messing with the thermometer data to match their predictions.
At the same time, I am not in denial that temperatures were inordinately high in the Vancouver, Canada area ***FOR THE END OF JUNE***. We also set a record cold day for June earlier in the month.
Environment Canada’s records from the Vancouver Airport, which are on the ocean, are several degrees cooler than other reporting media. I am wondering how they determine temperatures farther from the airport.
I contacted EC recently and asked why they have no thermometers at the tops of the local mountains, which average 300 feet. They seemed amused by my suggestion that they were only measuring hot temperatures in heat island atmospheres.
How much of the record temperatures are due to the massive heat islands in our cities?
Re fudging. It is known that GISS has fudged temperatures downward in the 1930s for the US and Canada to give the impression that a uniform warming has occurred since 1850. We really don’t know if we are experiencing unprecedented warming these days.
No one is looking for record cold temperatures since NOAA and GISS are alarmists who have fudged the record to replace cold areas with warm areas via interpolation and homogenization.
“Lapland under extreme heat right now. 34.3°C at Banak, Norway Flag of Norway This level of heat has never been observed above 70 degrees north in Europe before. Scandinavia has been in the oven for a while. A very hot June followed by a hot start to July. Widely 10-15°C hotter than average.”
The question now is:
WHAT PARTS OF THE PLANET ARE NOT EXPERIENCING AN INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE AND HEAT WAVES.
Take a look for yourself, … https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-66.94,79.36,506/loc=-129.443,42.984
What parts of the planet are not experiencing an increase in temperature and heat waves?
See the data in the graph at the top of the thread. None of it, other than localized extreme weather events such as BC Canada was experiencing last week.
This week temperatures in BC Canada are normal.
Meanwhile the cold spot is -62C and the ice is not melting.
Ken
” See the data in the graph at the top of the thread. ”
What’s that for a sheer nonsense?
That data is a worldwide average of temperatures measured at an altitude of 4-5 km.
The student is talking about SURFACES.
And when I look at locations like Kitimat, Stewart, or Fort Simpson above BC, I’m not quite sure the temperatures there are ‘business as usual’.
But… feel free to do your best in looking away, no problem!
J.-P. D.
“NOAA and GISS are alarmists who have fudged the record to replace cold areas with warm areas via interpolation and homogenization.”
You are not paying attention. I explicitly said:
“Dont tell me the data is fudged”
I am not interested in paranoid conspiracy theories.
What? They admit they’ve adjusted it, especially third world data.
“Fudged” ain’t “adjusted,” Stephen.
Also, beware your wishes:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
Whickering Wee Willy,
And of course, you can’t say how much the “world” has “warmed”, can you?
Maybe you could post a link to an irrelevant site which doesn’t know, either?
Give it a try.
Mike Flynn,
Enjoy your afternoon.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> Environment Canadas records from the Vancouver Airport, which are on the ocean, are several degrees cooler than other reporting media
Still 4-8C higher than normals:
https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_data/daily_data_e.html?StationID=51442&Month=6&Day=1&Year=2021&timeframe=2&StartYear=1840&EndYear=2021
Willie,
Please explain showing evidence why Vancouver’s temperature is 4-8C higher than normal?
Stephen,
There you go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-747148
Most welcome!
Witless Wee Willy,
Still trying for a job as a weather reporter?
Keep trying.
Mike Flynn,
Gordon mentioned the Vancouver Airport.
He made me look.
Go bite his ankles!
Bite your own.
You are 75 years old, Richard.
Wrong.
No, Richard.
U are wrong, I am correct.
Should I bother with the Monday LaNina update ?, The forecast has come a long way since I pointed out the second Lanina is brewing 3 month ago, Everyone is now pretty much aware it is coming,
except few climate wackos like Bidendong and barry, they still can’t see it, but don’t tell them, make it a surprise.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/archive/20210703//plumes/sstOutlooks.nino34.hr.png
But we can’t have a La Nina later on this year. Global temperatures are not likely to rise if that is the case.
What puzzles me is that denialists are happy to place their faith in the models which forecast weather and El Ninos. Yet they disparage the very same models which predict global warming. Can somebody pleas explain this?
Short term forecasts are more likely to be accurate than long term ones?
ENSO models are based on REAL data.
AGW models are based on nonsense.
Surprise? What surprise?
I’m watching far more ENSO forecasts that you ever would be able to do.
For dec 2021: 20 % Nino, 60 % neutral, 20 % Nina.
Try harder, Ebenito, try harder.
J.-P. D.
Are you saying
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/archive/20210703//plumes/sstOutlooks.nino34.hr.png
is wrong?
RLH
The BOM forecast using a model ensemble. 75% of their model runs forecast a La Nina by the end of 2021. 25% of the model runs predict a neutral outcome.
You seem very confident that the outcome will be a La Nina. Why?
Because most forecasts sites are saying so?
A consensus?
How confident is someone who would not bet a beer?
You laying a bet? Like EM did? He had the honesty to pay up at least.
EM sure is honest, Richard.
Whereas U…
You wouldn’t know honesty if it bit you.
No U.
z
12-month mean (temperatures) should continue to fall during the next six months, reaching a minimum in November. May 2021 Hansen.
You didn’t believe Hansen’s hockey stick.
Why do you believe him now?
Perhaps you only believe scientists when they tell you what you want to hear?
The discussion surrounding your Hansen citation implies the projection is based on an attribution model using weighted and time-lagged components of the Nino 3.4, solar cycle, SOI (volcanic), and radiative energy imbalance due to GHE. It’s based on statistical attribution ala Foster/Rahmstorf 2011.
By citing this reference are you acknowledging the utility of the model?
“Why do you believe him now?”
I was quoting him for your (and others) benefit.
“By citing this reference are you acknowledging the utility of the model?”
Nope. I have been saying this for some time now.
“I was quoting him for your (and others) benefit.”
Idiot.
Why would you wait next year before betting with MarkB, Richard?
Bet what? That global temps will go down until at least Nov? Well you have voices much more weighty than mine saying so – apparently.
Why are you JAQing off, Richard?
Are you afraid to bet a beer?
Do you feel more confident now that Jim is on your side?
I thought you might like to know that he and I am thinking the same thing.
You think?
As you are an idiot, thinking is obviously hard,
No U.
z
I’m saying that these people
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
publish since years the best ENSO forecasts.
We will see later on in the year who is more correct then.
Ten day forecasts:
Today: Low 72 F Clear Skies 17 mph winds
Tues: 103 F high 74 F Low Clear Skies 20 mph winds
Wed: 107 F high 76 F Low Clear Skies 20 mph winds
Thurs: 107 F high 78 F Low Cloudy 21 mph winds
Fri: 108 F high 78 F Low Cloudy 22 mph winds
Sat: 110 F high 79 F Low Cloudy 21 mph winds
Sun: 110 F high 80 F low Cloudy 21 mph winds
Mon: 109 F high 75 F low Cloudy 21 mph winds
Zero predicted chance of rain this week.
If forecast correct, we have lots wind mills around here- they
should be happy.
Though seems could be bad for any forest fires.
Highest predicted Humidity is 16%, with most days about 15%
One reason to write down was to check how it worked out.
And seems pretty good. It seems pretty hot today and now saying to will as hot tomorrow. And as had lots of clouds, and now predicting clouds forever and a bit cooling next week. No rain and continues to be windy all next week.
THE EARTH HAS COOLED UPDATE
https://scitechdaily.com/nasa-satellites-find-upper-atmosphere-cooling-and-contracting-due-to-climate-change/
THE EARTH HAS COOLED UPDATE
James Hansen, Willard.
Global temperature in May was +1.07C(relative to the 1880-1920 base period, which is a best estimate of preindustrial temperature). The temperature was well below a year earlier due to the La Nina that peaked in November 2020.
Global temperature anomalies are correlated with ENSO with global temperature lagging the Nino 3.4 index by 5 months on average. The 12-month running-mean global temperature at +1.13C is now near the 1970-2015 trend line. This 12-month mean should continue to fall during the next six months, reaching a minimum in November.
And how is that relevant to that article, Doc?
Global temps are likely to continue to fall for the next 6 months or so.
And so it’s not.
Has CO2 concentration gone down? Otherwise CO2 warming things is not happening this year then.
You’re just discovering peddling, Richard.
Do you have a (bi)cycle then?
No U have one, Richard.
Since when “CO2 warming things” is a time thing?
Idiot.
Carbon dioxide traps heat, Richard.
Even if we accept that it’s the control knob, it’s not the whole mecahnism.
“CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere”
Thank you for showing that truth isn’t enough, Richard:
https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas/
Next time, try to be relevant.
Next life, try not to be an idiot.
No U.
z
Willard says:
July 5, 2021 at 10:47 PM
–
And how is that relevant to that article, Doc?
–
Sorry, I thought I was commenting on the headline THE EARTH HAS COOLED UPDATE
–
Trying to point out that it is cooling now according to Hansen.
–
Re the article
The fellow James Russel saying “Carbon dioxide traps heat just like a quilt traps your body heat and keeps you warm.
Then “an increase in greenhouses gases like carbon dioxide means more heat is lost to space and the upper atmosphere cools
is, I hate to say, contradictory.
–
His comment “In the lower atmosphere, there are plenty of molecules in close proximity, and they easily trap and transfer Earths heat between each other, maintaining that quilt-like warmth.”
is lacking in specificity or if he is being specific is quite wrong.
To reiterate, both H2O molecules [the major GHG he neglects to mention] and CO2 molecules absorb Infra red and then increase in energy which translates to more kinetic energy.
They lose energy in two ways by emission in all directions [back radiation included].
They also collide with other much more abundant , usually non heat trapping molecules, like O2 and N2 making them move faster and hence heat up.
These usually do not radiate much to space themselves but have to collide with H2O and CO2 to give energy back to them to cause further emission to space.
–
The reason the atmosphere cools is due to the fact that there are much fewer molecules per square meter in the upper atmosphere.
–
“That means little of Earths heat makes it to the higher, thinner mesosphere”
–
This statement is poorly worded as well. The earth receives a large amount of heat each day from the sun and puts all of it back out.
That is what a non heat producing body of any composition does once it has been warmed up.
Doc,
My title refers to Mike Flynn’s new meme, e.g.:
By his logic, the only thing that exists is entropy.
In fairness, I’d be willing to concede that his comments make a strong case to that effect.
Hope this helps,
Nothing will help you be less of an idiot.
No U.
z
Wondering Wee Willy,
Quilts? What an idiot! As bad as some of the dimwits at NASA.
Put a quilt between a thermometer and the Sun. Watch the temperature drop!
Your “quilt” didn’t stop the Earth from cooling to its present temperature, did it?
Accept reality.
Mike Flynn,
Do you have a point?
Witless Wee Willy,
Don’t blame me for your inability to comprehend.
Or for your inability to accept the reality that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature!
Come on, kiddo! Get with the program! The Earth has cooled since its creation. It doesn’t matter how inconvenient you find this truth. If you don’t like it, just deny it!
Good luck to you (and the rest of the climate cranks).
Mike Flynn,
You know that this new meme of yours has no relevance whatsoever with AGW, right?
What relevance do you have to anything?
You are 75 years old, Richard.
Wrong.
In this case, close enough is good enough.
Typical AGW verbiage: “Carbon dioxide traps heat just like a quilt traps your body heat and keeps you warm.”
What he’s talking about is CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of electromagnetic energy. What he fails to understand is that CO2 ALSO emits some wavelengths of electromagnetic energy. So, CO2 adds NOTHING.
It’s the same for all matter. Water, buildings, trees, clouds, bicycles, rocks, all absorb and emit certain wavelengths of EM energy. The idiots believe CO2 is making things warmer, but it’s NOT. They could say the same thing about bananas, or shrubbery, or marshmallows.
Cults can have such funny beliefs.
“In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or by its common interest in a particular personality, object, or goal. This sense of the term is controversial, having divergent definitions both in popular culture and academia, and has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study. The word “cult” is usually considered pejorative. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
Will looked up the word “cult”.
Let’s see if he learned anything….
A cult entertains unusual beliefs, Pup.
AGW isn’t unusual.
However, Dragons hold unusual beliefs.
Their beliefs are so unusual that they only exist on blogs.
Nope, he didn’t learn.
Not a surprise. Idiots can’t learn.
I added your line to the “but religion” square, Pup:
https://climateball.net/but-religion/
Thanks a bunch!
Idiots are comforted by the strangest of things.
You are 75 years old, Richard.
Close, but inaccurate. As usual. Idiot.
Close enough is all I need, Richard.
Thanks Willard.
–
The team analyzed how temperature and pressure changed over 29 years, using all three data sets, which covered the summer skies of the North and South Poles. They examined the stretch of sky 30 to 60 miles above the surface. At most altitudes, the mesosphere cooled as carbon dioxide increased. That effect meant the height of any given atmospheric pressure fell as the air cooled. In other words, the mesosphere was contracting.
–
The lack of insight is staggering.
The CO2 is naturally at higher concentration in cooler air.
Looking at what they are trying to claim.
AGW gives more CO2 gives higher concentration in Atmosphere gives shrinking of colder mesosphere
–
Reality ? Higher CO2 indicates higher temp from any cause of GW including natural variation.
Total atmosphere expands.
Colder area has to be further out.
As the volume of cold air has to stay the same but now further out the radius or height of that volume of air further out has to contract.
Nothing to do with H2O or CO2 other than they are the radiating molecules available.
“Carbon dioxide traps heat just like a quilt traps your body heat and keeps you warm.”
Slower cooling is not warming
Lol
My coat warms me.
Sorry.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You idiot. Your body produces internal heat. That’s what warms you!
Put your coat on a corpse, or a tailor’s dummy. No warming there!
I’m sorry too. Sorry you are an idiot, and an ignorant one, at that.
[laughing]
Mike Flynn,
You’re playing silly semantic games.
Language is a social art.
Grow up.
Wistful Wee Willy,
So when you wrote –
“My coat warms me.
Sorry.”,
you didn’t mean what you wrote? Just playing your “silly semantic games”? If language is a social art, you obviously failed art school.
You’ll have to do better, laddie. Just telling everyone you aren’t an ignorant idiot is unlikely to convince anyone that you aren’t, in fact, an ignorant idiot.
Carry on, puppy. Yapping nonsense doesn’t impress adults, or even big dogs!
Mike Flynn,
My coat warms me when its temperature is hotter than me.
My coat keeps me warm by preventing my body heat from escaping.
I have a warm coat, and an autumn coat, which is less warm but less warm.
Do you need more English lessons?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Do you need more English lessons?” Oh, patronising! Oh, sarcasm! Unfortunately, you also wrote-
“I have a warm coat, and an autumn coat, which is less warm but less warm.”
And you are more stupid, but more stupid!
If language is a social art, you need a new brush.
As to science, you wrote –
“My coat warms me when its temperature is hotter than me.” Duh!
I’m curious, though. How do you get your coat hotter than 37 C or so? Use one of Tim Folkerts’ magic heaters? Actually, the Black Bedouins wear thick dark robes in full desert sun to keep cool. Peer reviewed and all.
You must have a magic CO2 powered self-heating coat! Well done!
You are still an idiot, but at least you are an idiot!
Mike Flynn,
Do you know the thing called winter?
No, not that Australian facsimile.
Real winter?
It does snow in Australia.
https://xplorevic.com/does-it-snow-in-australia/
Winter average temperature range in Australia is 3C to 20C.
A bit too warm to feel cold pain, as the skin needs to be under 18C.
But it’s when one loses pain sensation that things become serious.
“Night time temperatures in winter rarely drop below -2 or -3C”
That’s not winter.
That is winter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_in_Canada
Anything below freezing is winter.
Average temperatures are -8C in Nunavut, Richard.
Try to tell the Innus that their coats don’t warm.
Call that winter? It -40 to -45 C in Siberia.
The average temperature in Siberia is about −5C, Richard.
Crickets.
Do they like cold?
“By far the most commonly occurring climate in Siberia is continental subarctic, with the annual average temperature about −5 C (23 F) and an average for January of −25 C (−13 F) and an average for July of +17 C (63 F)”
We were discussing winter, not annual, but don’t let that distract you.
> We were discussing winter
No, dummy.
We were discussing your claim that “Anything below freezing is winter.”
In the UK that is true.
[VLAD] Anything below freezing is winter.
[ESTR] Average temperatures are -8C in Nunavut
[VLAD] Call that winter? It -40 to -45 C in Siberia.
[ESTR] The average temperature in Siberia is about −5C.
[VLAD] We were discussing winter.
[ESTR] No, dummy. We were discussing your claim that anything below freezing is winter.
[VLAD] In the UK that is true.
Idiot.
<3
Flynnson is, like Robertson, by dimensions more an idiot and an ignorant than are, summed all together, those he permanently denigrates and insults.
How dumb and stubborn must one be to ignore the simple fact that Earth is permanently heated by solar radiation, and therefore produces internal heat like does a human body.
No corpses, no tailor dummies.
The coat analogy referred to by Willard is absolutely correct.
[laughing a lot more]
J.-P. D.
Binny,
Don’t be an idiot.
External heat is not internal heat.
As a matter of simple observation, in the absence of sunlight, the surface of the Earth cools – below freezing in many places. By contrast, the living human body maintains its internal temperature in the absence of sunlight.
Maybe you believe in the “heat creep” hypothesis of a certain prior commenter, whereby four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight was supposed to have raised the temperature of the interior to thousands of Kelvins, whilst allowing the surface to remain relatively cool.
If so, good for you!
Maybe you would like to provide some physical reason for the Earth being unable to cool from the molten state? No? I told you not to be an idiot, but you chose to be one anyway.
Oh well.
Again, I would like to humour the resident lunatic.
Swenson, go away and do some homework and tell us what you estimate to be the average rate of cooling since Earth was formed compared to a value of, say, 1 degree of per century.
DMT,
Don’t be more stupid than you have to be.
First, just give a single physical reason why the Earth could not cool to its present temperature. Oh, you can’t?
Ah well, you are determined to appear as stupid as you are. Good for you.
Why do you care how fast the Earth has cooled? I guess you are stupid enough to think it cooled below its present temperature by some magical process, and then heated itself back to its present temperature, by some other magical process!
You are not only stupid, you are an idiot of the climate crank variety.
You also said you were coming for me. How’s that particular idiotic threat working out for you? Obviously, I believe you are an impotent and powerless blowhard. Are you?
Bindidon has admitted that he doesn’t have a clue about the science. But, sometimes he gets so absorbed in denigrating people that he forgets his own limitations.
It’s a characteristic we see often with blowhards….
Flynnson
” External heat is not internal heat.
As a matter of simple observation, in the absence of sunlight, the surface of the Earth cools below freezing in many places. ”
You keep stubborn, as always.
What about comparing Earth with the Moon, Flynn?
People like you haven’t anything to say, but urge in always saying anything.
You are so incredibly boring, Flynn.
J.-P. D.
Clint R
I indeed do admit not to be a specialist in science – no engineer should claim that, unless s/he has been additionally educated in that field.
The major difference between us is that though being a triple zero in science, you do NOT admit that.
One just needs to look at your absolutely ignorant opinion about the Lunar spin, and your reckless, disrespectful comments about Cassini and others.
Even Eben and RLH do understand what scientists tell us about that.
You don’t – you won’t.
Like Robertson, Flynnson, hunter, Vournas and some associated stubborn ignorants.
I do.
J.-P. D.
Wrong Bindidon. Your lack of science knowledge does not allow you to judge my science knowledge. I’ve got answers, you’ve got insults. I’ve got a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. You’ve got NOTHING.
Your comments are all we need to see that you have no science bone in you, Pup.
Thanks for the verification, Will. But, you’re late again. Stalkers should be on time.
Stalkers are very important, as you verify the correctness of my comments by slandering them. But, it’s very important for you to be on time.
Get with the program.
“Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Yes Will, that’s why your independent verification is important. But, you’re late again.
You know the rules.
Clint R
” I’ve got a model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’. ”
WHAT did you get?
Present your ‘model’ on an Open Review Web site, where it will be carefully and thoroughly disassembled and literally dissected, and we will see the result.
Till then, I will stay on real results provided by Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, Mädler, Habibullin, the Kazan Astronomy team, Eckhardt, Calamé, Chapront, Migus, Moons, etc etc etc.
You are a nobody being nowhere, Clint R.
All you are able to do is – comfortably hidden behind your pseudonym – to distort, discredit and denigrate the work you would never be able to undertake.
J.-P. D.
Clint R
” I’ve got a model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’. ”
WHAT did you get?
Present your ‘model’ on an Open Review Web site, where it will be carefully and thoroughly disassembled, and we will see the result.
Till then, I will stay on real results provided by Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, Mädler, Habibullin, the Kazan Astronomy team, Eckhardt, Calamé, Chapront, Migus, Moons, etc etc etc.
You are a nobody being nowhere, Clint R.
All you are able to do is – comfortably hidden behind your pseudonym – to distort, discredit and denigrate the work you would never be able to undertake.
J.-P. D.
“Present your ‘model’ on an Open Review Web site…”
Been there, done that, Bindidon.
But idiots, trolls, and stalkers like you refuse to accept it. They can’t show why the physics is wrong. They just don’t want to talk about it.
They’re afraid of reality. If the Moon hoax is fully exposed, what’s next? The CO2 hoax?
Why haven’t people from NASA been here to defend their nonsense? You know NASA types view this site. You know the Moon issue has been discussed a lot. So where are the NASA types defending the nonsense? It reminds me of Gavin refusing to debate Spencer.
They can’t defend their garbage. And they don’t have to because idiots, trolls and stalkers greedily swallow it down, without hesitation.
I try to make things simple.
Anything tidally locked, doesn’t spin on it’s Axis.
But the general idea is, it’s orbiting something.
And when something is orbit they revolve around things.
Ie, we in orbit around our center of our galaxy and are revolving
around the center of our galaxy
Earth is spinning upon it’s axis which about 23.5 degree
relative to our orbital path around the sun.
Our Moon axis is about 1.5 degree relative to Earth’s orbital
path around the Sun. The Moon is tidally locked with Earth and is not spinning upon it’s 1.5 degree axis.
Earth’s orbital path is not same inclination as Sun’s equator, no
planet in our solar system is.
Humans have agreed the Earth orbital inclination is zero {as it makes things easier}. The Moon does not spin upon it’s axis in regard to Earth or in regards to the Sun.
The least elliptical planet’s orbit, is Venus.
“Orbit inclination (deg) Venus: 3.395 Earth: 0.000
{that is not some magical chance, we made it that way}
“Orbit eccentricity Venus: 0.0067 Earth: 0.0167”
Clint R
” Been there, done that, Bindidon. ”
So? And where is the proof, Clint R?
Show us the link to the document!
Bindidon, it’s the simple analogy you’ve rejected several times — ball-on-a-string.
You reject the model because it proves your cult is wrong. You reject it, but you can’t come up with a model that works.
You’ve got no science.
ball-on-a-string is only relevant to ball-on-a-string.
Clint R
” Bindidon, it’s the simple analogy you’ve rejected several times — ball-on-a-string. ”
*
“Bin there, done there”.
You are a liar. You never presented your simple-minded, trivial stuff anywhere.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, when you call me a “liar”, I know I’ve won.
Here you are rejecting the “ball-on-a-string”:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-712416
(That’s why this is so much fun.)
I have realized one thing with this AGW. When I’m eating alone in my living room, the food gets colder much faster compared to when I’m with my gang of friends. Obviously due to the CO2 concentration in my house. What more proof do you want?
“12-month mean (temperatures) should continue to fall during the next six months, reaching a minimum in November.” May 2021 Hansen.
“Lets just start with next year shall we?”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-744534
You think that things will improve after November?
I’m not the cycle nut, Richard.
You are.
The tradition (e.g. Lucia’s) is those who like to opine on weathery things make (mostly symbolic) bets.
Since there’s little Climateball at Lucia’s these days, why wouldn’t you rekindle it for Roy’s?
So, as usual, you wont commit to anything.
Richard,
Willie isn’t a nut. You would be letting him off the hook with that attribute. He’s only a nut in the sense that he is a leftist propagandist. He isn’t a cultist either. World history has mostly been dominated by leftists. Look back at the history of the world. Leftism is where a small group exercises one party rule. Monarchists, Totalitarians, Marxists, Socialists, Nazis, Fascists, etc. etc. They are essentially Utopians. They are the elite masterminds. When you understand this then you understand Willie, E man, Bindi, Barry, BGDWX, etc. etc. This is about using science as a tool to advance their agenda just like they use class, racism, gender inequity, etc. Easy to understand.
I tend to ignore politics and religion as regards climate matters.
> you wont commit to anything.
Let’s see, Richard:
– carbon capture is related to AGW;
– Mike’s graph does not cover the MWP;
– the Vikings left Greenland first and foremost because the ivory market crashed;
– Roy’s post regarding Global Ocean Temperatures was misleading at best;
– anomalies sometimes suffice to correlate two stations;
– you behave like a cycle nut.
And that’s just from the top of my hat.
Please acknowledge that you’re lying to bait me.
Richard,
IPCC isn’t a scientific body. It is a political body.
Why would I do that? You’re just an idiot.
> Why would I do that?
Because you’d show honor, Richard.
Your “you wont commit to anything” is clearly false. A delicious accusation considering the number of times you ironize, use three dots, and handwave to graphs.
I many commitments during our exchanges. I gave you some examples. I can find more by looking for the word “blunder” in the previous thread.
So you’re lying to get me to commit to some silly bet. I’m not that interested in that kind of bet. Many are, including Mark B, to whom you offered no bet.
But I still offered you the idea to check back Lucia’s and see how you could organize a betting game for Roy’s. Why? Because I’m trying to be constructive even when I’m not playing home.
Now look at you. You pretend playing the Hall Monitor and you can’t buy a clue. More than that: you show time and time again that you have no honor.
But do go ahead: tell me I’m an idiot.
I offer you a chance to say if you think temperatures will go up before the end of the year and you decline.
OK. You’re an idiot.
I offer you a chance to show honor, Richard:
Admit that I commit to claims all the time.
Admit that you’re trying to bait me.
You’re just an idiot.
Res ipsa loquitur, dear Richard.
Which is latin for “No U.”
Didn’t study Latin did you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CxX8nvLalE
You’re a joke, even in Latin. Idiot.
No U, dearest.
z
COOLING EARTH UPDATE
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1917546051652
I would not trust CBC to report that your name is Willard without checking at least two other sources. Your reliance on fake news for your information explains a lot about the profoundly wrong statements that occur too often in your boring posts.
Please, Ken.
Feel free to check two other sources.
Report.
Ok. At least 2 other sources say you are an Idiot.
No U, dishonorable old man.
Ageism too I note.
Cope.
You admit to ageism then.
After you admit to sanism, Richard.
Why would I admit to something that is not true. You, on the other hand, are definitely an idiot.
No U, dear Richard.
z
“After you admit to sanism, Richard.”
Might be better to say:
Use sanism in a sentence, Richard.
Wiki: “Mentalism or sanism describes discrimination and oppression against a mental trait or condition a person has, or is judged to have.”
Karen, a meaning: –“Karen” has, in recent years, become a widespread meme referencing a specific type of middle-class white woman, who exhibits behaviours that stem from privilege.–
An example sentence:
A Karen screamed to express political opposition to Sanism.
> Use sanism in a sentence.
That’s easy, gb:
Search for the occurences of “idiot” on this page.
There are more than 80.
I was going to look for a quote which said something like the wisest can be idiots. But it became a tiring search- and it might give you the wrong impression.
I liked this:
“In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made school boards.”
-Mark Twain
https://www.wisesayings.com/idiot-quotes/
Thanks, gb.
To be sure, Richard’s meek jabs have little effect. It won’t prevent me from grooming him into become a better Hall Monitor. To that end he needs to learn forthrightness and constructiveness.
If he does not, so much the worse for Roy’s.
Willard appoints himself hall monitor and then complains other are usurping the job. Typical.
“Search for the occurences of “idiot” on this page.”
That because you are an idiot.
I can’t be the hall monitor, dummy.
Think about it.
You just act like you think you are.
God you’re silly.
Do I look like a contrarian, Richard?
No. You act like an idiot.
“Hall monitors are peculiarly nosy, prying, arrogant and self-entitled people who feel better about themselves for picking on kids who are more than half their age.”
Checks out.
Sounds just like you.
You are 75 years old, Richard.
Wrong. And even if you were right, so what?
So you don’t mind me reminding you that you’re 75, Richard?
No more than I feel the need to remind you, you are an idiot.
Prfct, old man.
“heat dome hovering over the region”
So what are cannadiens going to do about it ???
They already declared the state of faggotry
https://i.postimg.cc/JnMbsWLv/1625360743585.png
Do you even know that the permafrost releasing CO2 is because it used to be much warmer than today with booming vegetation that froze over. and now it’s melting again as a perfectly normal natural climate variations.
It is a nonsense global warming claim that literally debunks itself if you have any brains at all and think for 29 seconds about it.
> faggotry
Always classy, Eben.
And yes, we know about dinosaurs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_Provincial_Park
I suppose we could reenact Cretacean climate to replenish our supplies of petroleum.
Might take a while tho.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Did somebody day the chances for a La Nina by the end this year were 75% ?
I am happy to bet they will be wrong.
Whoever says it’s 75% should be able to bet 2 to 1.
That was RLH. I would be happy to have a bet with anybody that the UAH global temperature for July will be at least +0.2 deg. I admit to losing this bet for June but feel like sticking my neck out.
I referenced
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
and
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/NMME_plume_graph_202105_large.png
I never said a percentage.
> I never said a percentage.
A 1:1 bet speaks louder than whatever you might say, Richard.
You’re just an idiot. Say what you like but it’s true.
Very soon that’s all you’ll have left, Richard.
Counterpoint: No U.
s t . v w
Burke had good things to say about churchgoers, Richard.
Idiot.
That’s not what Edmund said, Richard.
It’s what you are.
A 1:1 bet could represent a 51% confidence in your belief, Richard.
You, however, never commit to anything. Just make what you think of as cleaver words to hide that fact.
> You, however, never commit to anything
You already said that untrue thing, Richard:
Search for
I can find other blunders if you please.
Idiotic still I see.
Keep saying that, dummy.
I’ll keep proving you wrong.
Your audience is almost certainly confined to yourself. Idiot.
No U.
Same Bet as EM? 10 to the RNLI?
Damn Roy’s parser. 10 UK Sterling
Agreed. 10 to the RNLI if I am wrong.
So you pay if it less than +0.2 deg.
I pay if it is more than +0.2 deg.
Exactly +0.2 deg we call it a miracle.
agreed
“+0.2 deg we call it a miracle”.
A divine intervention? I may even go to church!
That might be taking things too far : )
Burke had good things to say about churchgoers, Richard.
No-one has good things to say about you.
So you say, dearest.
Idiot.
No U.
z
I see no reason in data why temp should go up over +0.2 deg, other than the normal erratic jumping possibility , If anything it should go down further still, so I will bet one latinum strip against it
“I would not trust CBC to report that your name is Willard without checking at least two other sources.”
They (the CBC) have been pumping out their climate hysteria propaganda with extra gusto this week..
What drivel…
> climate hysteria propaganda
Two for the price of one:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
https://climateball.net/but-politics/
Well done!
That clip with a guy wading through the knee deep snow in the Forrest mumbling something about the trees takes the cake, you can tell they went out of their way to find some real climate experts
That’s another Bingo Square, Eben:
https://climateball.net/but-the-press/
I need to work on that one.
Bingo is what you excel at. Apparently.
I’m too young, Richard.
Whereas you…
You are too idiotic you mean.
No, Richard.
I mean whereas you’re old.
Perhaps you’re too lonely and bitter to play a social game such as Bingo, however.
Ageism. Whatever. You are still an idiot though.
Sanism, whatever.
Still the idiot aren’t you?
When are you turning 76, Richard?
Later. No chance of you turning into anything other than an idiot though.
No chance for you to understand that my comments today are on you, old man.
I am not responsible for what you, as an idiot, post.
You actually were, dummy:
Still makes you the idiot for posting though.
Just added “offered an experiment that an old coder and Dragons failed” to my contributions. Thanks again!
And No U.
Witless Wee Willy strikes again!
Stupid irrelevant links, trying to promote himself as wise and respected. Ho ho ho!
Climateball? The fantasies of a delusional climate crackpot.
Wee Willy is off with the fairies, as usual.
Just denies that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature. He cannot give a reason – just asserts it is impossible!
What a Wally! Denialist idiocy personified!
Mike Flynn,
Do you have a point?
I could be wrong, but I think Mike is implying that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Wondering Wee Willy,
Why, do you need one?
Mike Flynn,
I’ll take that as a no.
Which is fine.
Very fine.
Enjoy your morning,
Whickering Wee Willy,
You can take anything any way you like.
You probably do, on a regular basis.
Yo uhave my permission to continue as you see fit.
Mike Flynn,
Taking time for what, skipping your comments?
It takes a second or so!
You’re worth it.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You can waste as much of your time as you wish, doing whatever you wish. I am sure that someone, somewhere, values your opinion.
You might find that your local fast food outlet prefers cash.
Mike Flynn,
I’ll stick to wasting as little time as possible with you.
Thanks anyway!
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“I’ll stick to wasting as little time as possible with you.”
This would be you wasting time by not wasting time, would it? Just like not reading comments by reading comments, or not responding to comments by responding to comments!
Make up your mind, Wee Willy. You’re confusing me – confusing me with someone who gives a tinker’s curse about what you think.
Consider the merits of not being an idiot by being an idiot. That would seem to suit you.
Feel free.
Mike Flynn,
Allow me to illustrate.
You said:
“This would be you wasting time by not wasting time, would it?”
No need to read more of that comment:
It’s just a silly semantic game.
See?
It does not take long to read!
“It’s just a silly semantic game.”
Everything you say is just a silly semantic game. Idiot.
You know that’s untrue, Richard.
You’re just hurt.
And you’re just an idiot.
One example among many, Richard:
[VLAD] Anything below freezing is winter.
[ESTR] Average temperatures are -8C in Nunavut
[VLAD] Call that winter? It -40 to -45 C in Siberia.
[ESTR] The average temperature in Siberia is about −5C
[VLAD] We were discussing winter
[ESTR] No, dummy. We were discussing your claim that anything below freezing is winter.
Imagine if you got played like this by a real idiot.
Wouldn’t change the fact that you’re still an idiot.
In your own mind perhaps, Richard.
If thinking so makes you use it, it’s a fair deal.
I don’t have to think you are an idiot. You just are one.
You got the first part right, Richard.
Idiot.
No U.
z
Bindidon wrote –
“Flynnson
” External heat is not internal heat.
As a matter of simple observation, in the absence of sunlight, the surface of the Earth cools below freezing in many places. ”
You keep stubborn, as always.
What about comparing Earth with the Moon, Flynn?
People like you haven’t anything to say, but urge in always saying anything.
You are so incredibly boring, Flynn.
J.-P. D.”
You can see what I wrote. External heat from the sun is not internal heat. And shielding the surface from the Sun with a quilt, overcoat, atmosphere, or anything else, does not raise the temperature of the surface.
So what is Binny’s response? Deny, divert, and confuse!
He asks Flynn or Flynnson (or possibly me), about comparing the Earth with the Moon! Without any reason. of course.
A typical witless climate crackpot reply. Avoid reality, change the subject, and make a few puerile and ineffective attempts to be gratuitously offensive.
Oh well, still no physical reason advanced to rebut the very simple supposition that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a hotter state.
The man’s a fool, in a state of denial.
I see. You think “the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a hotter state.” (as opposed to cooling from a colder state). If you could expand on this point a few more times I believe we will be better able to infer the point you are attempting to make.
DMT,
As I said, the Earth has cooled from a hotter state. No GHE, no assistance from any mythical GHG. Just normal physical laws. No magic.
I trust you agree that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, but of course, if you are a denialist climate crank, you won’t.
Have you given up your threat to come after me, realising how stupid it sounds?
Just accept reality. You don’t have a list, you have no intention of coming after me, and the Earth has cooled to its present temperature. By the way, Gavin Schmidt is not a climate scientist, nor even a very good mathematician. Michael Mann (faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat) did not win a Nobel Prize, despite printing a certificate to that effect.
Reality. It hurts.
I see. You are convinced that “the Earth has cooled from a hotter state” (Correct me if I am wrong)
Now we have established your position, it would be useful if you could state how and why you feel the way you do about Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann. After all, I think they would tend to agree with you about the Earth cooling.
DMT,
Do you accept that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature?
Feel free to keep repeating what I have said. Maybe it will sink into the thick skulls of denialist climate cranks like yourself.
As to Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, why do you ask such stupid questions? What have feelings to do with facts?
You wrote “Now we have established your position, it would be useful if you could state how and why you feel . . .”
We? You and which other idiots would that be? Useful to whom?
Why should I respond to a pack of idiots? Are you going to make a list, check it twice, and come after me if I don’t?
Maybe if you could toss in a fact or two, you might advance your cause, but you don’t seem to have any facts.
Carry on regardless.
I am pretty sure Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann would agree with you. I am still weighing up the arguments for and against. Give me time.
DMT,
What particular form of mental defect leads you to think I give a toss about whether a couple of climate crackpots agree with facts or not?
You have my permission to weigh up anything you want, of course. Take all the time you like.
Argue with yourself if you think it will help.
Maybe you can convince someone that they should care about your opinion. Threaten to put them on a list and come after them, if they don’t!
[loud laughter]
REAL CLIMATE EXPERTS UPDATE
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/northern-hemisphere-wildfire-season-flares
Woeful Wee Willy,
Climate is the average of things that happened in the past. It increases nothing, you fool!
Your climate crackpottery knows no bounds.
How many facts have you changed with your “silly semantic games”?
None, apparently – you are still a denialist idiot.
Carry on.
[laughing]
Mike Flynn,
Climate, climate change.
Please learn the difference.
Wondering Wee Willy,
Weather changes. Averages change.
You don’t – you are still a denialist climate crank.
Mike Flynn,
Climate does not increase anything.
Climate change can increase kinds of events.
See what I mean by silly semantic games?
Take the time to have a coffee before commenting in the morning.
“It is the worst forest fire in the history of Cyprus,” Director of the Department of Forests Charalambos Alexandrou told local television over the weekend.”
After I told Charalambos that “Weather changes. Averages change” he was mightily relieved and decided to take off for a holiday. I also asked him to pass that pearl of wisdom on to the families of the deceased. I am sure they will be comforted.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Climate change can increase kinds of events.”
Nope. Climate is the average of weather. The average of things that have already happened. It can increase nothing. It is a number.
A changing average has no effect on the numbers from which it is derived. Obviously, denialist climate crackpots such as yourself (believers in mythical Sky Dragons about to fry us all), refuse to accept reality.
You still haven’t managed to provide a reason of any sort which would explain why the Earth could not have cooled to its present temperature, have you? That’s because there isn’t one, you fool!
Keep claiming that an average can affect the numbers from which it was derived. Lunacy of the climate crackpot type!
Remember worse fires in history = worse governing in history.
Only worse people in history in the sense that people [in theory} elected them.
dmy…”It is the worst forest fire in the history of Cyprus, Director of the Department of Forests Charalambos Alexandrou told local television over the weekend.
We have one particularly hot summer and everyone claims climate change.
Rubbish!!!
> We have one particularly hot summer
You made me look, Gordon:
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/temperature-change.html
Whacky Wee Willy,
So it has been hotter on the past? Really?
Cooler now than before?
Must be a fine example of climate crackpottery. Is it “colder” really means “hotter”, or the miracle of averages?
Do tell.
Mike Flynn,
Yes, it has been colder in the past.
Which means it’s warmer now.
Hope this does not contradict your pet topic!
Wondering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“The warmest winter and spring recorded were both in 2010.Footnote 2 The warmest summer was in 2012, while the warmest autumn was in 1998.”
So you were really lying, is that it?
Or was that someone else?
Maybe you could try quoting something which actually supports you?
Oh, I forgot. You arent going to waste any time on me. (As little time as possible = zero time, I assume).
Thanks.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote:
“You wrote”
Not really.
Better luck next time!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Changing climate.
willard…”The 2021 Boreal wildfire season in the Northern Hemisphere is flaring up, with a large and increasing number of intense fires; most notably across northeastern Russia, western Canada and the western United States.
High temperatures and severe drought during recent weeks may be contributing to a higher number of more intense fires.
There is growing evidence that climate change increases the frequency and/or severity of fire weather around the world”.
Several points to note about this statement:
1)It is summer in the Northern Hemisphere, forests dry out, fires start, mainly due to lighting storms.
2)The second paragraph claims high temps and severe drought ***MAY*** contribute to a higher number of more intense fires.
The new science…may, maybe, likely, possibly, probably, etc.
3)Where is the growing evidence that climate change has anything to do with these fires or their intensity? The interior of British Columbia, Canada has always been a leader in Canada for forest fires because the existing climate has always been conducive to drought conditions and lighting storms.
The climate in the BC interior is the same as it has always been. No change. That’s why people vacations there. The Interior has trees, lakes, rivers and nice hot, dry weather in summer.
> Where is the growing evidence that climate change has anything to do with these fires or their intensity?
In the resource cited:
https://news.sciencebrief.org/wildfires-sep2020-update/
That’s propaganda Willie, not evidence.
We already established that you have no idea what evidence is, Stephen.
Wee Willy,
Who are the “we”, Wee Willy – you, you, you, and yourself?
Or are other idiots involved?
Mike Flynn,
“We” refers to me and Stephen:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-747261
Thanks again!
“We already established that you have no idea what evidence is, Stephen.”
Only an idiot would include the party under discussions in the ‘we’.
Only an old and lonely guy establishes things all by himself.
Idiot.
Here’s how he does, Richard:
“No-one has good things to say about you.”
Even more idiotic than usual I see.
Here’s a double bind, Richard:
(B1) It would help if you were social.
(B2) It just confirms you prefer that otters do the work.
Which is an interesting one, as both horns of the dilemma have been refuted!
You’re still an idiot.
No U.
z
The team analyzed how temperature and pressure changed over 29 years, using all three data sets, which covered the summer skies of the North and South Poles. They examined the stretch of sky 30 to 60 miles above the surface. At most altitudes, the mesosphere cooled as carbon dioxide increased. That effect meant the height of any given atmospheric pressure fell as the air cooled. In other words, the mesosphere was contracting.
The lack of insight is staggering.
The CO2 is naturally at higher concentration in cooler air.
Looking at what they are trying to claim.
AGW gives more CO2 gives higher concentration in Atmosphere gives shrinking of colder mesosphere
Reality ? Higher CO2 indicates higher temp from any cause of GW including natural variation.
Total atmosphere expands.
Colder area has to be further out.
As the volume of cold air has to stay the same but now further out the radius or height of that volume of air further out has to contract.
Nothing to do with H2O or CO2 other than they are the radiating molecules available.
I like this argument so much I will put it up again.
Flux out equals flux in.
Flux at a higher TOA is from a much larger surface area. The volume of cod air radiating is the same the radius length of that volume is reduced as it is further out.
Nothing to do with how much CO2 is present.
Does not indicate anything re AGW.
Is your armchair comfortable?
a,
You wrote –
“Flux out equals flux in.” Whoever came up with this nonsense is just being very, very, silly. If an object (such as the Earth) cools, then obviously “flux out” exceeded “flux in”, unless a climate crackpot changed the laws fo physics while I wasn’t looking.
I assume that climate crackpots use the “TOA” because nobody knows what it is – and of course the “energy budget” nonsense becomes accepted wisdom amongst the “climate experts”.
Either way, all this “energy imbalance” is just nonsense, when tossed around by climate cracks.
Matter heats. Matter cools. Very occasionally, energy in equals energy out, and the temperature remans stable. Exceptionally rare in nature, and exceptionally difficult to achieve in the laboratory.
Your statement about the larger surface area of any supposed TOA being of greater radius than the surface is correct. This why nonsensical “steel greenhouse” analogies of the Willis Eschenbach type fail.
Dont tell me. Let me guess.
“Matter heats. Matter cools.” Brilliant!
I bet that is why some people such as Michael Mann think the Earth has cooled over time. I may start to lean towards the same opinion but dont hold your breath.
DMT,
I already told you, you idiot! You don’t need to pretend to guess.
You may bet anything you like. Tell me how many takers you get.
Now you have accepted that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, tell me about “global warming” again. Pardon me if my laughter at your fumbling attempts to defend the indefensible distracts you.
Maybe you could just agree that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, and face reality.
Worth repeating for the benefit of any denialist climate crackpots who still choose to reject reality.
By the way, how is your nonsensical threat to come after me working out for you? Have you been contacted by a horde of “climate warriors” bearing torches and pitchforks, all baying for my blood?
Michael Mann believes himself to be a “climate warrior”. He looks more like a bearded, balding, bumbling fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat to me, but I suppose nongs like you have to take whatever is offered.
Good luck with the crusade. It will probably be as successful as every other Crusade. That’s why you might need the luck.
Mike Flynn,
You say
“tell me about “global warming” again.”
That’s not how it works.
The onus is on you to show how the fact that Earth has cooled to its present temperature refutes AGW.
If you can do so, fame and fortune awaits.
Best of luck!
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“The onus is on you to show how the fact that Earth has cooled to its present temperature refutes AGW.”
Really? As you say, the fact is that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature. What has your mythical “AGW” got to do with the fact that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature?
You are just being stupid, now, because you still refuse to accept reality, even though you stated it yourself!
Or maybe you redefined “warming” to mean “cooling” while I wasn’t looking. Is that it? Or does AGW really mean Anthropogenic Global Whatever-I-want-it-to mean?
Typical climate crackpottery.
Mike Flynn,
You ask:
“Really?”
Yes, really.
Why else should we care about this charade of yours?
“Now you have accepted that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature..”
I don’t think I have (yet).
“Maybe you could just agree that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature”
Huh? You think I agreed then (apparently) think not.
Such confusion is a sign of dementia. Take a deep breath and think before you type.
“By the way, how is your nonsensical threat to come after me working out for you?”
Why should I tell you ? Just be afraid – be very afraid. That could be me standing on the road outside!
Just for the record, I have grown a beard and shaved my head in order to discomfit you when we meet. I will look a bit like Michael Mann.
Willard, DMT, please stop trolling.
Swenson
“Flux out equals flux in.” Whoever came up with this nonsense is just being very, very, silly. If an object (such as the Earth) cools, then obviously “flux out” exceeded “flux in”,
–
No .
the statement is based on the flux coming in first.
If it cools it is because it is getting less flux in, hence putting less flux out.
You know that.
–
I assume that climate crackpots use the “TOA” because nobody knows what it is.
Everyone knows what it is.
Where flux in equals flux out.
Everyone knows what it should be
1360 in 1360 out.
More correct to say that nobody is able to measure the output even though they already know what it is.
Clouds, satellite angles etc etc.
Hence they can make up continuing retention and heating
We know the input .
we know the output.
We just do not accurately measure the product in between and obscure the results by making up retention on an ongoing basis over and above the natural varying amount.
a,
The Earth did cool, however, whether you like it or not. Not only that, the amount of “flux out” exceeded the amount of “flux in” by a large amount.
I assume that you might be referring to energy from the Sun, which is irrelevant to “global temperature” as you are correct if you are really trying to say that all of the energy from the Sun received during the day is lost during the night, as Fourier pointed out hundreds of years ago.
No heat retention. The Earth has managed to cool in spite of the “energy imbalance” nonsense promoted by climate crackpots.
But who really cares? Like any popular madness, this too will pass.
Swenson,
“I assume that you might be referring to energy from the Sun, which is irrelevant to “global temperature” as you are correct if you are really trying to say that all of the energy from the Sun received during the day is lost during the night, as Fourier pointed out hundreds of years ago.”
Not true, maybe you could actually cite that Fourier said something like that.
Bob, Mike just makes things up. Or maybe he hears voices telling him this bs.
No, say it ain’t so.
Flynn Swenson
So do you make things up?
Swenson
-The Earth did cool, however, whether you like it or not. Not only that, the amount of “flux out” exceeded the amount of “flux in” by a large amount.
–
A history lesson on 4 billion years of very slow cooling is irrelevant to the current discussions on minute but important changes over the next 50 to 500 years in the temperature of the earth and whether human impacts have any effect on this.
–
While you persist in this irrelevance you forfeit the chance to make a meaningful contribution or contradict your opponents on points where they are obviously wrong
“The Sun appears to be waking up from the quiet period of its 11-year cycle.
On 3 July 2021, at 14:29 UTC (10:29 EDT), our wild star spat out its first X-class flare of Solar Cycle 25; it was the most powerful flare we’ve seen since September 2017.”
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-sun-just-spat-out-its-first-x-class-flare-of-the-new-solar-cycle
And:
“Once the poles have switched, the magnetic field strengthens, and solar activity rises to a solar maximum before subsiding for the next polar switch. The most recent solar minimum took place in December 2019, so, over the coming months and years, we should expect to see the Sun getting more rowdy, peaking at maximum in around July 2025.”
{linked from: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/ }
I wonder about it’s affects our crewed landing on the Moon.
Around mid 2025 [or anywhere around Solar Max it’s better time to travel to Mars, as higher solar activity result lower GRC radiation which significant aspect related the long travel times of getting to Mars. But going to Moon take much shorter time and lower GRC is not anywhere as important as possible lethal effect of solar flares.
Also:
“The sunspot that produced the flare, named 2838, developed overnight out of nowhere, and was also responsible for an M2 flare. It has since rotated away out of view to the far side of the Sun, where it may still be active. We’ll have to wait a few days to see if it rotates back.”
More like few weeks. But could see it with satellites sooner. Like Parker Solar probe. It seems it see it now, going fly nearer to it:
http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/The-Mission/index.php
And having things like Parker Solar probe flying is going to be pretty helpful for crewed mission to Moon.
How much do you expect it to wake up by?
Predicting solar activity is a bit like predicting the weather, but I tend to think it will be like the Max of solar cycle 24.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_24
“Prior to the minimum between the end of Solar Cycle 23 and the beginning of Solar Cycle 24, two theories predicted how strong Solar Cycle 24 would be. One camp postulated that the Sun retained a long memory (Solar Cycle 24 would be active) while the other asserted that it had a short memory (quiet). Prior to 2006, the difference was substantial with a minority of researchers predicting “the smallest solar cycle in 100 years.” Another group of researchers, including one at NASA, predicted that it “looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago.”
NASA was wrong, and now NASA “generally” is predicting Max solar cycle 25 will like Max of solar 24, which was less than 23, 22, 21, etc. So tend to go with NASA- which predicted 24 Max, wrong.
Most say same, some a lot less, and it seems less people say, it’s going to be huge.
But it could pointy or a long swell [which of these might be more important]. But having Parker solar probe operating throughout it [as long it doesn’t get killed] will probably get us more understanding- but working thru all that data, may take a decade or more.
It’s not so much it is waking up, that was certain to happen at some point. The question is how large will this cycle be?
philj…”They (the CBC) have been pumping out their climate hysteria propaganda with extra gusto this week.. ”
So have Environment Canada. They are supposed to report the weather scientifically but they have taken to spreading AGW propaganda, which has no scientific basis.
The person largely responsible for CBC pseudo-science is Bob MacDonald. The department used to be run by David Suzuki, who at one time was an objective biologist who studied fruit flies. He was a professor at UBC.
MacDonald is his heir-apparent. CBC likes to keep its pseudo-science in the family. Suzuki got into eco-alarm and became arrogant, hostile, and opinionated, the antithesis of scientific behavior. He was one of the first to bleat, ‘the science is settled’, with reference to AGW.
One one occasion, when a female reporter pressed Suzuki on this belief system re eco-alarm, he told her to eff-off. He may be suffering from fruit fly larvae in his brain, or what is left of it.
BTB (by the by)…Willard used a link to the uber-alarmists at desmogblog the other day. There is a connection between desmogblog and David Suzuki. The alarmist running desmogblog, James Hoggan, once sat on the David Suzuki Foundation board. CBC called him as an expert witness in their attempted character assassination of skeptic Fred Singer.
Turns out Hoggan was a public relations specialist, but, hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good character assassination?
CBC – EC – MacDonald – Suzuki – Hoggan – Desmogblog ….birds of a feather.
As Shakespeare put it, “Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows”.
BTW…Desmogblog is famous for being funded by a convicted felon.
http://redmaryland.blogspot.com/2008/05/tom-pelton-cites-blog-funded-by-dirty.html
You’re citing a closed blog, Gordon.
Speaking of Fred Singer:
https://www.desmog.com/s-fred-singer/
If there’s an incorrect information on that page, feel free to correct it.
Suits your closed mind then.
Perhaps you’d prefer:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/12/hard-times-s.html
Idiot.
How about:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2020/04/fred-singer-good-there-is-lots-of-bad.html
Does that rabbet like carrots?
Indeed he does:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/02/on-priors-bayesians-and-frequentists.html
Silly idiot.
Have more carrots:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/08/there-is-no-free-lunch-but-how-about.html
Silly, idiotic, idiot.
Did I hear “I want more carrots”?
Here you go:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-note-about-roger-revelle-julian.html
Eevn more idiotic than usual. If that is at all possible.
I have a fever and the only remedy is more carrots:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-richard-lindzen-shows-up-at-your.html
Still an idiot then.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/s.-fred-singer
Keep going. Idiot.
I sure will, dummy.
And in the end you’ll have a collection of “idiot” and I will have a collection of tid bits on Fred.
Which will mean absolutely nothing along with all your other idiotic behavior.
How much tid bits would you like for my profile of Fred, dummy:
74, one of each of your years of age?
Can you count that high? Idiot.
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2013/04/consequences-of-abnormal-normal-climate.html
People who are older than 70 years are likely to personally remember what 60 years ago was actually like.
rlh…”Damn Roy’s parser. 10 UK Sterling”
Nothing to do with Roy, the parser is implemented by the blog provider, WordPress.
Too ugly to be implemented on WP, Gordon.
Probly a wp.org install.
Well WP then. Either way it sucks.
Remind me – was our bet in sterling or farthings?
UK Sterling. It may well be cheaper by the end of the month.
Today Earth is at the Aphelion point, the farthest from the sun 152,1 million kilometers.
When comparing with the Perihelion point, which is at January 2, the solar irradiance Earth receives now is 7% less.
As a result we have at the North Hemisphere much cooler summers and much warmer winters.
It is a unique era we live in. It is a Natural warming trend culmination phase.
Yes, we still are in our Earth surface Natural warming trend, that is why climate gradually continues to become more and more warm.
The fact Earth is warming from natural cause does not mean we are justified to uncontrollably burn fossil fuels…
Yes, we should try and reduce the fossil fuels burning. Also we should protect our forests from the wildfires…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
On the fifth of July, the Earth was in the farthest from the Sun during the year. This doesn’t have much effect on temperatures in the northern hemisphere due to the large angle of the sun, but it is clearly seen in temperatures in the southern hemisphere, where aphelion falls in the middle of winter.
“Just then, in winter, the Earth was at perihelion, which is the smallest distance between the Sun and Earth in 2021. The difference in that distance between perihelion and aphelion is 3.3 percent, and if you take into account the amount of radiation reaching Earth, we’re talking about a value of about 7 percent.”
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced2_t2anom_1-day.png
Most important for climate change is long-term changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, which I believe is related to the strength of the solar wind magnetic field that reaches the Earth. For example, a renewed La Nina during the next winter will cause severe drought in California.
Actually, having the aphelion in the NH summer means cooler summers for the northern hemisphere, and warmer winters. As the aphelion shifts back to the southern hemisphere over the next several thousands of years, that should provide a warming effect. The north pole is less reflective and having hotter summers in the north warms the globe. That said, obliquity is decreasing, which means more energy is received in the tropics, and less is received at both poles. That is a long term cooling effect. Eccentricity, the last piece of this is still heading us towards a more circular orbit. (warming) Overall, the Holocene is looking stable for thousands of years to come.
Global surface air temperature is ocean surface air temperature.
Northern hemisphere average land temperature is about 12 C, and significantly increases this average at the moment is the large area
of land of Africa in northern hemisphere. What bring the average land temperature down is the two largest countries in World Russia and Canada. Russia average is about -4 C and Canada is -3 C. US if exclude Alaska is around 12 C {and China is 8 and Europe is 9 C}.
If Northern Hemisphere summer at perihelion, it not clear to me, than Canada and Russia will get increase in average temperature and could get a decrease. But how much warming would you think Canada and Russian, would get?
When comparing with the Perihelion point, which is at January 2, the solar irradiance Earth receives now is 7% less.
As a result we have at the North Hemisphere much cooler summers and much warmer winters.
In 10.000 (ten thousand) years from now, Earth’s axis will be pointing at star Vega, instead of Polaris at which it points now.
So in 10.000 years the Winter Solstice will occur when Earth is in Aphelion (it happens now with Earth in Perihelion).
As a result in 10.000 years we would have at the North Hemisphere much warmer summers and much colder winters.
A shift of 7% in the Hemispheres’ insolation intensity will happen. Instead of the Southern Hemisphere (as it happens now) with its vast oceans accumulative capacity… there would be a +7% stronger insolation on the North Hemisphere’s plethora of continental areas.
We know continents do not accumulate heat so much effectively as oceans do, thus Earth will gradually cool down, until a New Ice Age commences!
As for the current warming phase – we receive the +7% solar energy onto Southern Hemisphere’s oceans… and oceans willingly accumulate the excess solar energy…
It happens so during the current Winter Solstices, when Earth is tilted towards sun with its Southern Hemisphere’s vast oceanic waters.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A 40 min chat about where we are in the Space Age.
https://www.pacificresearch.org/glenn-reynolds-americas-new-destiny-in-space/
It don’t think space power satellite beaming earth to Earth surface
is happening soon {in significant practical way], but as Glenn says if talking about 100 years in future, as climate people do, then it seems quite doable. But since most of Earth’s industry might be in space by then, beaming energy to Earth would be “interesting” but not as critical as it might seem.
I was writing about lowering energy per capita one could get with ocean settlements on Earth [since no one seems interested in lower energy per capita in Space]. But I accidently deleted it. So I will give another shot, some time, later.
Btw, New York City has per capita CO2 emission of 6.1 metric tons
and New York State has per capita CO2 emission of 8.2 metric tons per person.
Obviously, NYC is lowering the average per capita CO2 emission of New York State.
I think I know why, but I am interested in other views of why this is the case.
[[The broadly accepted answer is it’s due to higher population density.
Which I am not disagreeing too much with.]]
DMT wrote earlier –
“Just for the record, I have grown a beard and shaved my head in order to discomfit you when we meet. I will look a bit like Michael Mann.”
As a humorist, this idiot would make a good carpenter, if he knew anything about carpentry.
Either that, or he is truly deluded, in which case he is just your average loony climate crackpot.
My carpentry skills include constructing coffins.
BTW – how tall are you?
DMT, please stop trolling.
“My coat warms me.
Sorry.”
Hello Willard,
Following that logic, that slower cooling is warming,
You must think that the polar ice cap warms the ocean..
Ludicrous!
Phil,
It’s not logic. It’s language.
Language is a social art.
Deal with it.
It would help if you were social, instead of just an idiot.
No U, dearest Richard.
Doesn’t change the fact that you are an idiot.
Here’s evidence that undermines your claim that I’m not pro-social, dummy:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/28/ng-s-audit
It just confirms you’re an idiot who prefers others to do the work.
You’re embarrassing yourself once again, Richard:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/28/ng-s-audit
That took more than the five minutes you refuse to Binny.
You’re an idiot.
No U.
z
COOLER SUMMER NEWS:
https://archive.vn/VbbSv#selection-433.5-441.225
Weather is not climate.
Global temperatures have been falling for months.
Local temperatures have been rising recently.
Which do you think will prevail by the end of the year?
Start your own threads, dummy.
You’re the dummy, idiot.
Not really, Richard.
You might like:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/28/ng-s-audit
I am driven by the data, which you want to ignore, not some ideology. Summaries of it too (you do know that addition creates summaries don’t you?)
You’re driven by something else, Richard:
[D] James Hansen, Willard.
[W] And how is that relevant to that article, Doc?
[R] Global temps are likely to continue to fall for the next 6 months or so.
[W] And so its not.
[R] Has CO2 concentration gone down? Otherwise CO2 warming things is not happening this year then.
[W] Youre just discovering peddling, Richard.
[R] Do you have a (bi)cycle then?
[W] No U have one, Richard. Since when CO2 warming things is a time thing?
[R] Idiot.
[W] Carbon dioxide traps heat, Richard. Even if we accept that its the control knob, its not the whole mechanism.
[R] CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere.
[W] Thank you for showing that truth isnt enough, Richard: https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas/
[R] Next life, try not to be an idiot.
[W] No U.
[R] z
You are just an idiot. With a big mouth.
No U.
z
@willard
so wait, let me get this straight: do you imply that the .7K warming that we’ve had up to now compared to the mid-20th century, causes ++25F heat waves? Does that mean that further 4.5K of warming will give us 25*6=>++150F heat waves? like, air temperatures above the boiling point of water lasting for weeks in the SW USA? Now that’s a doom f valyria if I ever saw one!
You might be new to Climateball, cot.
Here’s your first lesson:
Don’t ask leading questions.
If you have a point, make it.
Ok, point is simple: how can a .7k f warming “create” a 25F (or is it 25K? you the people of america should learn of units, really) of warming, as you and all other warmmongeres are cnstantly implying? Tt can’t. It can make a 23F heat wave into a 25F heat wave, but that’s about it.
> as you and all other warmmongeres are cnstantly implying?
See, cot?
That is a leading question.
It’s also a loaded question.
And it’s question-begging.
So you hit the trifecta.
I see that you’re a natural at Climateball!
Whereas you’re just an idiot.
Compare and contrast:
Do you think you’ll be able to replace Kiddo, Richard?
Nobody could convince me that you are not an idiot.
“I dont have to think you are an idiot.”
I know you’re an idiot.
How so, Richard?
I can’t answer as to why you’re an idiot. It is just that you are.
[VLAD] I know youre an idiot.
[ESTR] How so?
[VLAD] I cant answer as to why youre an idiot.
>>See, cot?
That is a leading question.
It’s also a loaded question.
And it’s question-begging.
So you hit the trifecta.
I see that you’re a natural at Climateball!<<
and yet you actually cannot answer the actual question. Because you know, that the answer is:it can't and it doesn't. But you are physically can not even type these words, because they go against your religion.
@willard
the religion of warmmongers that is. Although, perhaps it is a part of a greater civil religion of let me presume, of ‘democratic etatism’, or whatever that may be.
> you actually cannot answer the actual question
You’re confusing not being able to give you a sammich with not giving you one, cot.
When you’ll make a real question, you’ll get a real answer. Just like I did with Gordon.
No-one knows how dumnb you are. Just that you’re an idiot.
See for yourself:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-749595
@willard
as needed to be demonstrated
You’re still stuck at the “as you and all other warmmongeres are cnstantly implying,” trou duc.
You are still stuck at being an idiot.
You are 74 years old, Richard.
So?
So?
Well ok, maybe it is not you, maybe it’s the media. But I didn’t see you counteracting their false and misleading claims anywhere, therefore I automatically assume and stick to the opinion that you do too.
Then perhaps that’s another Bingo Square:
https://climateball.net/but-the-press/
The gist of it should be that scientists are only responsible for what they say.
so , you have learned all the skeptical talking points by the heart…. why is that supposed to make me sad? It either proves that the skeptical propaganda is effective or that you are a paid troll.
also, i wasn’t talking about scientists, I was talking about you. Also, people can be responsible for things they don’t say, easily. For example, If you started quoting ‘mein kampf’ on and on and on again, in the positive cntext without clarifying your opinion on it, i’d say it is quite rational to assume that you condone it, which certainly makes you responsible for things you kept quiet about.
> is that supposed to make me sad?
yes-chad.png
Willard, please stop trolling.
About the (Tmax+Tmin)/2 versus median averaging polemic
*
Commenter RLH wrote a lot about the allegedly erroneous daily temperature data sets based on the averaging of lowest and highest temperature of the day, which in his opinion should be generated by the hourly median value of the days instead.
If I well remember, RLH even managed to claim that a significant part of the warming could be due to the difference between median and (tmin+tmax)/2, and that without having dlone any substantial comparison work! Wow.
A while ago, I wrote:
” Btw, I still await you delivering three time series for a comparison of daily
– averages of hourly data;
– medians of hourly data;
– (tmin+tmax)/2,
for any longer temperature data period with hourly recording, VISIBLY proving your claim that median-based series is far more accurate than the other two. ”
Did I overlook something? Until now, still nothing visible.
*
During June, I downloaded the complete hourly station data set (3 GB, roughly 600 stations in the sum) compiled by the German Weather Administration (DWD), and started doing the comparison job by myself.
For test purpose only, I made the comparison of daily data for a single, randomly chosen station, during single years:
– 2009
https://i.postimg.cc/VkVhsBH4/DWD-daily-minmax-median-avg-Grossenkneten-2009.png
– 2020
https://i.postimg.cc/gc5VSSQY/DWD-daily-minmax-median-avg-Grossenkneten-2020.png
Such spatiotemporally very restricted views in fact are of few interest; but we can see here that the difference between (tmin+tmax)/2 and median is more of spatiotemporal nature than due to technical averaging aspects.
And while the (tmin+tmax)/2 trend is higher than the median trend for 2020, the inverse holds for 2009.
*
Now let us look at what we in fact want to use and compare with other data, namely a monthly average of all station data available starting with 1941 (DWD’s record starts with 1893, but till 1940 there is only one station):
https://i.postimg.cc/g0GG1tDw/DWD-monthly-minmax-median-avg-1941-2021.png
Here, the comparison of (tmin+tmax)/2, median and 24h average becomes more meaningful, with roughly 100 stations since 1955, and 500 since 2005.
The plots are so similar that you can see only bits of the red median data, and nothing of the green 24h average data.
Estimates for 1941-2021, in C / decade
0.18 ± 0.09 / 0.19 ± 0.09 / 0.19 ± 0.09
– for 1979-2021:
0.42 ± 0.23 / 0.45 ± 0.23 / 0.44 ± 0.23
The interval for ‘median – (min+max)/2’ for the 965 months is [-0.23, +0.65].
But the median interval therein is [-0.11, +0.12].
*
Thus, RLH’s claim about a significant difference between (tmin+tmax)/2 and median is clearly incorrect.
For me, the case is closed; but that should by no means prevent Superengineer RLH from making the same comparison on a worldwide basis, by using e.g. all data available from 1000 stations in
https://dev.meteostat.net/bulk/hourly.html
Allez-y, RLH, et bon courage.
J.-P. D.
Sources for DWD data
https://tinyurl.com/2ccrfwj9
ftp://opendata.dwd.de/climate_environment/CD-C/observations_germany/climate/hourly/air_temperature/ (drop hyphen)
Why don’t you check USCRN which has both values listed in their data?
(Min+Max)/2 and a true average during the day calculated from a near continuous sampling.
Then do a little comparison one with the other and tell us all what ranges you see in that data.
P.S. Check any stats book and see what they say about median and mean and when to use each type of average.
RLH
Don’t try to divert, do the job.
J.-P. D.
The diversion is all yours. The data is there clear and simple. Both real and manufactured ‘average’ are already done and presented in glorious detail.
You could calculate the median from the 5 min data if you wish.
You want me to do the work on your sample which contains none of the above.
The stats book you can look up without any work (other than reading).
It just confirms youre an idiot who prefers others to do the work, Richard.
I’ve already done the work on USCRN. Idiot.
And you found nothing.
How would an idiot like you know?
Here, Richard:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-746972
Hello, idiot.
That’s better.
Can you be a better idiot?
You go first.
RLH
” Ive already done the work on USCRN. Idiot. ”
Where is that work?
Don’t tell me you mean with ‘work’ your ridiculous comments
RLH says:
June 2, 2021 at 12:58 PM
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 doesnt all average out as a normal distribution would
Reply
RLH says:
June 2, 2021 at 2:36 PM
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
Reply
RLH says:
June 2, 2021 at 2:38 PM
All Stations, all days, from 2000 to date
MinErr,MaxErr
-6.95,3.6
*
I’m still waiting for your graph showing, for USCRN, three plots comparing the monthly averages of the daily data computed by
– the daily averages of TMIN and TMAX
– the daily 24h averages
– the daily medians
and
– the monthly averages of the difference between median and the TMIN and TMAX average.
Exactly what I did here:
https://i.postimg.cc/g0GG1tDw/DWD-monthly-minmax-median-avg-1941-2021.png
When will you show us THAT work, RLH?
J.-P. D.
What range did you get for the differences? The orange line I mean. Min and max would help. Just remember the uncertainty is often measured in 10ths of a degree.
” the daily averages of TMIN and TMAX
the daily 24h averages
the daily medians”
Well the first 2 are in columns in the USCRN data
” 8 T_DAILY_MEAN [7 chars] cols 55 — 61
Mean air temperature, in degrees C, calculated using the typical
historical approach: (T_DAILY_MAX + T_DAILY_MIN) / 2. See Note F.
9 T_DAILY_AVG [7 chars] cols 63 — 69
Average air temperature, in degrees C. See Note F.
“
I have a csv database of col 8 – col 9 if that will help.
“Where is that work?”
On my computer where I have ben busy doing other temperature series in case you hadn’t noticed.
https://imgur.com/undefined for the USCRN data work to date.
That didn’t work as expected. Try https://imgur.com/E65b0p0
https://i.postimg.cc/g0GG1tDw/DWD-monthly-minmax-median-avg-1941-2021.png
Anymore details of the yellow line, its range and its distribution?
RLH
” 8 T_DAILY_MEAN [7 chars] cols 55 – 61
Mean air temperature, in degrees C, calculated using the typical
historical approach: (T_DAILY_MAX + T_DAILY_MIN) / 2. See Note F.
9 T_DAILY_AVG [7 chars] cols 63 – 69
Average air temperature, in degrees C. See Note F. ”
*
You behave much more like an elementary school teacher than like an experienced engineer.
Could you please stop telling us here how to do such incredibly trivial work, and start doing real work instead?
What is amusing for me is that you surprisingly don’t mention how to implement the hourly median (no, no, please: I don’t need it, I have finished the work already).
Btw, the historical data of DWD’s hourly temperature records for Germany has 133,910,143 lines.
What takes time on todays’ 10GB/10GHz desktops, RLH, is certainly NOT the size of the data! It’s rather the software you’ve to write, I guess.
But… who has implemented software for JMA, UAH 2.5 deg grid, GHCN V3, GHCN daily, Acorn, PSMSL, HadISST Ice/SST stuff already, just needs to add some small objects and methods to his software to get anything new running in a short time… :- ))
Now I can go back to my PSMSL stuff and look at what is still wrong with this damnd SONEL corner I use for VLM correction of raw tide gauge data.
After that, I think I’ll start using the DWD hourly methods, in order to process Meteosat’s worldwide hourly data.
Who knows? Maybe I get thru it before you finish your USCRN work…
Good luck, RLH, have some fun!
J.-P. D.
“What is amusing for me is that you surprisingly don’t mention how to implement the hourly median”
You mean you think I can’t do that? In that case you are seriously mistaken. Medians are quite trivial to implement on computers.
I note you don’t answer the “Anymore details of the yellow line, its range and its distribution?” question. Which should be trivial given that you already have done the work.
“Its rather the software youve to write, I guess.”
I write mostly in C# but can do others on request.
https://imgur.com/HeWEja9
For the USCRN histogram of average (true) minus mean (estimated) over the entire dataset.
It will take some time as there are some 133,562,248 temperature records to deal with in the historical directory. I wont do the recent directory as most of the records are short (less than a day in some cases).
Which comprises of some 5,532,404 full daily records.
RLH #2
Don’t try to divert, do the job.
I did the job on Germany’s hourly data set.
Until now, YOU did NOTHING.
And it becomes more and more evident that you either do not intend to do it, or aren’t able to do it.
J.-P. D.
“Until now, YOU did NOTHING.”
Sure. You keep telling yourself that.
It will take some time as there are some 133,562,248 temperature records to deal with in the historical directory. I wont do the recent directory as most of the records are short (less than a day in some cases).
Which comprises of some 5,532,404 full daily records.
RLH
” https://i.postimg.cc/g0GG1tDw/DWD-monthly-minmax-median-avg-1941-2021.png
Anymore details of the yellow line, its range and its distribution? ”
Couldn’t you manage to read what I wrote above?
” – the monthly averages of the difference between median and the TMIN and TMAX average. ”
More above, you read:
” The interval for median (min+max)/2 for the 965 months is [-0.23, +0.65].
But the median interval therein is [-0.11, +0.12]. ”
… because hourly data is not the only place where we have to make use of medians, n’est-ce pas?
J.-P. D.
I asked for min/max and the distribution of the calculation i.e., the yellow/orange line. That is what matters.
It is quite difficult to see but it seems that it is biased below the 0 line.
https://imgur.com/HeWEja9
For the USCRN histogram of average (true) mean (estimated) over the entire dataset.
Hansen has pretty much called it right since 1988, so there’s that.
Hansen got it badly wrong in both his 2003 and 2008 papers.
The samples are very obviously contaminated at the later end and compare to nothing else that covers that time period.
> Hansen got it badly wrong in both his 2003 and 2008 papers.
Did he?
Yup.
y tho
z
So you’re just saying stuff, Richard.
As always.
Stuff that makes sense. Unlike you, idiot.
Your proof by assertion is duly noted, dummy.
You’re the dummy, idiot.
You could at least link to the papers, dummy.
I have already posted my graphs of his work.
You know what I think of them.
So you don’t like simple additions applied to the data? But are able to accept running means by others. Hypocrite.
You are incredibly thick:
Claim. Argument. Evidence support.
In a way, honor makes life easier.
Doesn’t change the fact that you accept summaries (additions) of the data from one source but not from another.
“Summary” is just another trick of yours not do any analysis and to relitigate an irrelevant formal point, Richard.
Graphs don’t stand alone. They have a legend that describes them. They represent the end result of work that supports an argument made by their authors.
You want to criticize Jim? Fine. Make a clear claim. Support it properly.
Until then you’re just another old guy on the Internet with too much time on their hand.
“Graphs don’t stand alone.”
A picture is worth a thousand words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_picture_is_worth_a_thousand_words
A picture is worth a thousand words, but which ones?
Idiot said a thousand times still makes you an idiot.
Keep on handwaving, Richard.
Bye, bye.
o/
https://i.postimg.cc/pdFKHHMC/predictions.png
Eben
Where do you have that megastoopid graph from?
Why are you all the time unable/unwilling to show the source of the graphs you post here?
Why don’t you understand that it is a dumb manipulation to compare
– surface temperature data
and
– the coolest evaluation data of the troposphere temperature measured 4-5 km above that surface?
Why are you so stubborn, Eben?
J.-P. D.
binny…”Where do you have that megastoopid graph from?”
Statement by an authority creating megastoopid graphs.
It’s stated right on the graph, ‘Observational data is from Hansen and Lebedeff. The graph gives far more information than anything you have produced in your fudged Excel contributions.
> Its stated right on the graph
No it’s not, Gordon.
The graph comes from H88.
The meme is a variant on what teh Goddard did.
Perhaps it’s from teh Goddard too, but I have no trace of that specific meme.
That’s what happens when cranky uncles save memes without sourcing them.
willard…”> Its stated right on the graph
No its not, Gordon.
The graph comes from H88″.
You have a fundamental inability to think intelligently. It is stated right below the graph that the original comes from Hansen and Lebedeff circa 1988. That’s when Hansen produced his fairy tale projections he classified as scenarios.
It’s obvious the graph has been updated, and updated (in red)accurately. It’s equally obvious the projections of Hansen were totally wrong.
Eben’s point is well made.
Here’s where the graph comes from, Gordon:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf
Hansen & Lebedeff 1987 is another paper:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00700d.html
Your claim that you know the source of Eben’s meme isn’t supported, and rubber stamping his point means little.
As usual, Robertson is so dense that he doesn’t even understand what I wrote, let alone that the graph Eben posted has NOTHING to do with the Hansen & Lebedeff original picture.
As Willard correctly pointed out, It is a recent MANIPULATION of that graph.
J.-P. D.
He called it right in 1981.
Oh no he didn’t.
willard…”> Hansen got it badly wrong in both his 2003 and 2008 papers.
Did he?”
Yes…he’s had it wrong all along. After making major alarmists predictions circa 1988, he admitted within 10 years that he’d been wrong. However, he did not take the blame, he blamed it on his computer, even though he had programmed it.
Alarmists are twits.
So you have no idea, Gordon.
willard…”So you have no idea, Gordon”.
You should try to stifle these inane replies. They indicate you have no answer and that you are confounded as to offering an intelligent response.
> They indicate you have no answer
No answer to what, Gordon?
There’s nothing to counter.
You’re just saying stuff.
No real claim.
No argument.
No evidence basis.
Pure castigation.
Banter is fine with me, but at least realize that you seldom raise your fist to the sky and shout at clouds.
> seldom raise
“seldom do more than raise”
God I hate Roy’s parser.
Willard, please stop trolling.
mark b…”Hansen has pretty much called it right since 1988, so theres that”.
When were you officially declared brain-dead? Hansen has been retired for at least 10 years, and after making his original scary scenarios circa 1988, he admitted within 10 years that his projections were wrong, blaming it on an error in his computer.
Why would any serious scientist get on national TV in 1988, on a hot summer’s day, after having the studio turn off the air-conditioning so he’d appear to be suffering from the heat, to announce climate disaster if we did not amend our ways? We did not amend our ways, where’s the climate disaster?
Why would the same scientist get arrested with actress Daryl Hannah for protesting the Keystone Pipeline? Was he that desperate to get jailed in the same cell with Darryl Hannah, or was he a corrupt scientist with political connections? Or both?
> Was he that desperate to get jailed in the same cell with Darryl Hannah
You’re a funny guy, Gordon!
What’s the title of his big book, again?
Willard, please stop trolling.
binny…re the DWD/CD-C German weather data you tried to pass off on RLH.
Poking through their site I found the information I needed. They are nothing more than climate alarmists associated with NOAA, the chief fudgers.
https://www.dwd.de/EN/climate_environment/climatechange/climatechange_node.html
I plan on including the German hourly data in some future work (now I have the data).
It will take some time though as there are over 100,000,000 records.
Mein got! How dare you accuse the germans of nefarious behaviour. Ve vill not forget this slur!
Racism?
binny…”If I well remember, RLH even managed to claim that a significant part of the warming could be due to the difference between median and (tmin+tmax)/2, and that without having dlone any substantial comparison work! Wow”.
A typical reply from Binny when he gets caught with his trousers down.
Binny would be wrong in that case.
I never said anything about warming.
What I said there was uncertainty in the temperature record for each day because (min+max)/2 is well acknowledged as being a poor way of determining that actual temperature during any day.
You are correct in that the simple arithmetic average of the extrema is a rough (but useful) indicator.
The answer to your problem is simply to analyze the trends in min and max temperatures separately.
pP,
So, having analysed the “trends”, what use are they?
When do they stop? Why?
Or do they continue until the seas boil dry? At 1 C per century, that’s less than 10,000 years,
Are you purporting to be a Professor of Idiocy, or Stupidity?
Or just another climate crank playing the fool?
A day where Mike Flynn JAQs off is a joyful day!
Willard, please stop trolling.
One approach would be to look at the extremes rather that try and construct a central value.
However trends are missing the point of what I was observing. If we cannot be certain as to the exact figure produced by any site on any given day, how can we then conclude things to 0.001c accuracy as some would claim?
(And please don’t go to central limit theorem as temperatures are most definitely NOT random variables which is a prerequisite of using it)
> please dont go to central limit theorem
Binny asked you to support your point empirically, Richard.
No need for that shadowboxing.
Idiot.
If CLT applied in its strictest sense, there would be no need to check if the median is better than the mean, dummy.
Should I spell out why?
Should I spell out why CLT does not apply to temperatures?
“In probability theory, the central limit theorem (CLT) states that, given certain conditions, the arithmetic mean of a sufficiently large number of iterates of independent random variables, each with a well-defined expected value and well-defined variance, will be approximately normally distributed, regardless of the underlying distribution.”
You sure can spell “banana,” Richard, but you don’t know when to stop.
Now, focus. That’s Binny’s thread. Your task is to show how the difference between using medians instead of means means all the difference in the world.
Pick any stats book for the best average to use regardless of distribution.
If CLT strictly applied, the mean would be equivalent to the median, dummy.
CLT does not apply to auto-corelated variables.
If CLT applied, Binny wouldn’t have to ask you to support your claim dummy. All he’d need is to remind you of CLT.
There are many CLTs, btw.
Central Limit Theorem = CLT. Idiot.
Don’t quit your day job, Richard:
http://www.ledoit.net/iewwp480.pdf
Oh, right. You don’t have one anymore.
CLT does not apply to auto-corelated variables. All the text books say so.
” independent random variables, each with a well-defined expected value and well-defined variance, will be approximately normally distributed, regardless of the underlying distribution.’
RLH you are always laser-focused on red-herrings.
You don’t think chaotic weather that drives T variability is effectively random?
I think it certainly is.
“CLT does not apply to auto-corelated variables. All the text books say so.”
Nope. Not true.
Correlation decays to 0 soon enough, then randomness dominates.
The core reasoning behind CLT is that each sample should be a random, unrelated event compared to any other sample. That is most definitely not true for temperatures.
“You dont think chaotic weather that drives T variability is effectively random?”
No it most certainly is not. It is perfectly possible to predict, sometimes weeks in advance, what the future weather patterns are going to be based on the current situation. That is most definitely not a random event in any meaning of the word.
“It is perfectly possible to predict, sometimes weeks in advance”
Ur dreamin. One week maximum.
Another red herring. On time scale of months, weather is effectively white noise.
“”It is perfectly possible to predict, sometimes weeks in advance”
Ur dreamin. One week maximum.”
You had better tell the BBC then.
“Latest weather conditions and forecasts for the UK and the world. Includes up to 14-days of hourly forecast information, warnings, maps, and the latest editorial…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/outlook
“Low pressure over the UK in early July is expected to linger into the middle of the month and keep things more unsettled than usual. High pressure to the southwest will lead to a finely balanced pattern with a changeable outlook bringing a mix of wet, cool days and dry, warm days.
The best chances for prolonged warm and dry weather will be in late-July when high pressure is more likely to remain overhead for a time. However, as we head into August Atlantic weather fronts are likely to return and bring fresher air and more wet weather.”
“Monday 19 July to Sunday 1 August
Decent chance of a warm, dry spell later
For the second half of July the large-scale pattern may be shaken-up, thanks to some tropical rainfall anomalies around Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Historically, this supports high pressure in the Atlantic shifting eastwards across northern Europe and heading into Russia in the following weeks. In recent months this has been a useful forecasting aid, bringing a couple of warm spells, such as the one at the beginning of June.
We still think the best chances for a warmer and drier spell will be in late-July as high pressure shifts overhead from the southwest before continuing eastward into Russia. This period will likely last around a week bringing some prolonged dry, sunny, and warm weather for the whole UK. This would be a more southwesterly wind carrying sub-tropical Atlantic air, which is warm but not overly hot. There is a slight chance that we could see a hot southerly wind for a few days as high pressure shifts into Germany, but confidence is low on that.
Towards the end of the month and into early August as the high moves far enough east, low pressure is likely to return from the northwest. This will bring some fresher Atlantic air and more unsettled weather back to the UK. The cooler weather is likely to be the norm for this summer, with only temporary deviations to warmer, drier spells.
Confidence is low for the second half of July due to the potential for tropical rainfall anomalies to fail to develop, or to fail to link to the European weather pattern. In this case low pressure will linger throughout the month with only brief dry spells as weak highs move through. There is a 35% chance of this developing instead.”
RLH
” What I said there was uncertainty in the temperature record for each day because (min+max)/2 is well acknowledged as being a poor way of determining that actual temperature during any day. ”
You really, really start becoming dishonest.
Because neither do you show us a document originally containing your claim, let alone were you until now able to technically contradict me.
In a comment above
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-749188
written about seven hours earlier, and to which you soon replied, I wrote:
” Estimates for 1941-2021, in C / decade
0.18 ± 0.09 / 0.19 ± 0.09 / 0.19 ± 0.09
for 1979-2021:
0.42 ± 0.23 / 0.45 ± 0.23 / 0.44 ± 0.23
…
*
Thus, RLHs claim about a significant difference between (tmin+tmax)/2 and median is clearly incorrect. ”
*
For both time periods, the averaging of all DWD stations, based on (tmin+tmax)/2, (0.18 resp. 0.42 C / decade), shows even a slightly lower trend than that based on medians (0.19 resp. 0.45 C /decade).
*
Thus:
– either you post a link to an article scientifically AND technically proving that the (tmin+tmax)/2 method gives poor results;
– or you finally manage to implement a software clearly proving your claim, with plots of time series using (tmin+tmax)/2, 24h averages and medians through processing of e.g. USCRN data.
Until then, RLH, it would be better to follow the good old rule
” Put up, or shut up! ”
J.-P. D.
I have other work I am mostly concentrating on.
https://sites.stat.washington.edu/peter/statclim/ma&guttorp.pdf
“Estimating daily mean temperature from synoptic climate observations” Yuting Maa and Peter Guttorpa
“We compare some different approaches to estimating daily mean temperature (DMT). In many countries, the routine approach is to calculate the average of the directly measured minimum and maximum daily temperature. In some, the maximum and minimum are obtained from hourly measurements. In other countries, temperature readings at specific times throughout the day are taken into account. For example, the Swedish approach uses a linear combination of five
temperature readings, including the minimum and the maximum, with coefficients that depend on longitude and month. We first look at data with very high temporal resolution, and compare some different approaches to estimating DMT. Then, we compare the Swedish formula to various averages of the daily minimum and maximum, finding the latter method being substantially less precise. We finally compare the Swedish formula to hourly averages, and find that a recalibrated linear combination improves estimation accuracy. Copyright 2012 Royal Meteorological Society”
https://www.njweather.org/content/better-approach-calculating-daily-mean-temperature-0
“The convention of the weather and climate community has been to calculate the observed daily mean temperature by summing the maximum and minimum instantaneous temperatures during a 24-hour period and dividing by two. However, does this recording method capture and represent the true average temperature over the course of a day? This conventional approach fails to integrate significant behaviors of temperature associated with rapid weather events, frontal passages, sea breezes, and even seasonal temperature variations. It is possible that sampling more frequently and finding a more representative value for daily temperature averages will reveal patterns in which the daily mean temperature skews towards the daily maximum or minimum (i.e., the full-day average temperature is more often closer to the daily maximum or the daily minimum).”
Empirical estimation of the monthly-mean daily temperature range
B. Geerts
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/bart/daily_range.pdf
“The main factor affecting the DTR is the afternoon relative
humidity, which is dynamically linked to low-level cloud cover. An empirical relationship between DTR and afternoon relative humidity has an uncertainty of about 1.4 K for monthly-mean values.”
“It is possible that sampling more frequently”
Not what Binny asked.
“post a link to an article scientifically AND technically proving that the (tmin+tmax)/2 method gives poor results” was what he asked.
So I did.
“It is possible that sampling more frequently”
Idiot.
You’re 75 years old, Richard.
Notice how I did not say that it’s possible that you are.
Close but not correct.
Correctness isn’t exactness, Richard.
You are just an idiot.
It’s supposed to be your domain of expertise, dummy.
You’re both a dummy and an idiot.
As I said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correctness_(computer_science)
Aren’t you supposed to a system engineer or something?
Aren’t you an idiot?
Not really, dummy.
Idiot still I see.
I forgot to add “reminded an old systems engineer about the concept of correctness” to my list of contributions.
Thanks!
And No U.
https://imgur.com/HeWEja9
For the USCRN histogram of average (true) – mean (estimated) over the entire dataset.
coturnix…”Ok, point is simple: how can a .7k f warming create a 25F (or is it 25K?”
This is the point fumbled by alarmists. Exactly how does a trace gas, making up 0.04% of the atmosphere, which is claimed to have caused a 1C warming since 1850, suddenly cause a heat wave with temperatures 10C to 15C above normal?
The Ideal Gas Law shows clearly that a trace gas, which is a tiny part of mixed gases, under a relatively constant volume, cannot cause more than a tiny fraction of a degree of warming. Where’s the rebuttals?
Where’s the scientific explanation for the mechanism which can suddenly create this heat, then have that same heat move on within a few days, leaving temperatures back at a normal level?
It is claimed the Arctic is warming dangerously, yet any scientific observation of the Arctic shows only hot spots that relocate month to month. Only changing weather systems can do that and not a permanent climate change.
> Exactly how does a trace gas, making up 0.04% of the atmosphere, which is claimed to have caused a 1C warming since 1850, suddenly cause a heat wave with temperatures 10C to 15C above normal?
There you go:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/06/heat-waves-and-climate-change-is-there-a-connection/
“In other words, extremely hot days occur more often.”
As do extremely cold days/periods.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdf
Ooooooh! A prediction! In the best climastrolgical tradition!
Dreamed up by the delusional for consumption by the gullible.
Enter Wee Willy, and that other astrophysicist (not the climate crackpot James Hansen), Ken Rice.
Ken Rice wrote “There is clearly no way to frame a climate change analysis in a way that will satisfy the RCP*.* vigilantes (well, other than – of course – ignoring worst case scenarios).”
Yes indeed, Ken. Nobody could possibly fault you for saying precisely nothing of any use to anybody. Backside covered against all criticism or examination.
Climate crackpot? Too clever by half?
No wonder Witless Wee Willy appeals to the authority of Ken Rice. Dumb and dumber?
In the meantime, neither can propose any physical reason why the Earth has not cooled to its present temperature – without the need for CO2, the GHE, pollution, or prayers to Gaia!
[chortle]
Amazing news from Australia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1P_PLAdLQs
Synopsis: Australia gets 2nd coldest June on Record. Record Cold June in Canada (prior to the heat wave). West Virginia records freezing lows. Record Cold in Brazil and South Africa. New Zealand records highest snowfall on record. UK records unusual July frost.
Global warming isn’t happening.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote–
“[AT] wrote”
Where?
> Australia
Incorrect, Ken.
Revise and resubmit.
Weird Wee Willy wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
You wrote–
“[AT] wrote”
Where?”
I wouldn’t blame “Mike Flynn” for just letting Wee Willy find out for himself.
Lying Wee Willy claims he spends zero time looking at my comments, so the slimy little lying sneak won’t be able to claim he is offended by anything I might say.
Maybe Woeful Wee Willy could employ his vaunted “auditing skillz” to find out what Ken Rice said, but as Wee Willy doesn’t look at my comments, he won’t see my good advice.
Maybe Witless Wee Willy could accuse “Mike Flynn” of lying. Maybe “Mike Flynn” wouldn’t care what an idiot climate crackpot thinks.
Questions, questions. Who cares?
Mike Flynn,
You say–
“I wouldn’t blame “Mike Flynn””
Why do you speak of yourself in the third person?
I hope you’re not denying that you’re Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn!
Woebegone Wee Willy,
I don’t care what you hope. Hope in one hand, pee in the other – see which fills up first.
“Mike Flynn” may care.
Do you suffer from psychiatric pseudonymic psychosis, perhaps?
Or maybe you were concerned about “Very Unsettling’: Mike Flynn’s Brother Is In Charge Of U.S. …”?
Maybe you need to suck up to “Mike Flynn”, lest his brother comes after you?
[laughing at demented climate crank]
Mike Flynn,
You say–
“I don’t care”
I don’t care about what you care either!
There’s only one Mike Flynn who plays Climateball.
It’s you!
Enjoy your afternoon,
There’s only one person on here who is a total idiot, that’s you.
You might not be the only 74 years old here, dear Richard.
But you rank as the top idiot.
No U.
z
Maybe if “extreme” things happen all the time they are not extreme.
C)2 – the miracle gas – causes everything
https://i.postimg.cc/nhrrPGTz/the-miracle-gas-900px.gif
E,
It also seems to cause delusions of grandeur in mammalogists named Tim Flannery, who believe they are world famous climate scientists, rather than alarmist climate crackpots.
Powerful and miraculous – no end to the miracle of CO2!
Our Man in Australia Reports:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/summary.shtml
No, our Man in Australia isn’t not Mike Flynn.
Willtard is a classic example of kindergarten level climate shystering.
You must be new at Climateball, Eben.
You must be an idiot.
You must be 75 years old.
So?
You’re a bit old for that kind of silliness, don’t you think?
Whatever your age, it doesn’t prevent you being an idiot. As you so capably demonstrate.
You should be old enough to realize that one does not simply poison one’s own well, Richard.
Still an idiot I see.
So says our 74 years old contrarian.
I am not a contrarian.
Luckwarmers are contrarians, Richard.
I a happy to be lumped in with Roy.
Splendid!
To those who believe in CO2 (and similar things) driving everything, everybody else is a contrarian.
No, dummy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrarian
You accept only the science that agrees with you.
No U.
z
E,
I think you give the idiot too much credit. The young puppy has yet to prove he is up to kindergarten standard.
Needs to be house trained. Lacks control of his bowels, craps everywhere. Snaps and whines, desperately seeking attention.
Seems strangely attracted to balding, bearded, bumbling buffoons of the climate crackpot variety.
Oh well, he might mature one day.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“No, our Man in Australia isn’t not Mike Flynn.”
Is that an example of sloppiness, stupidity, ignorance or just another one of your “silly semantic games”?
You do realise that an average consists of numbers above and below the mean (in this case), don’t you?
Maybe you don’t realise that the BOM declared all official temperatures prior to 1910 were declared unreliable, which coincidentally got rid of an inconvenient severe heat wave in 1896. Only about 450 people died due to the heat, compared with 1500 who expired in New York City from the heat wave there in the same year.
Do you think that the US thermometers were more “reliable”, causing more heat related deaths?
Oh, I forgot – you don’t read my comments.
[laughing]
Mike Flynn,
I see your “1896” and meet it with a comment from the other
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-was-the-1896-heatwave-wiped-from-the-record-33742
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-742032
There’s nothing else to read from your comment, and writing that comment has mostly been done 8 days ago!
Cheers.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Your reiteration of what I said is pointless, as you admit yourself.
Carry on stating the obvious.
Mike Flynn,
You say–
“Your reiteration of what I said”
You mean, the 1896 meme?
Refuting that contrarian meme is far from pointless.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Wriggling Wee Willy,
So 1500 people really didn’t die in New York during the 1896 heatwave?
What contrarian meme “silly semantic game” are you blathering about?
Trying to deny the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, are you?
Or maybe you are stupid enough to think that the Earth is getting hotter. So when will the seas boil dry? Or will your “warming” stop? Not enough sunlight?
Did you put a lot of effort into becoming a denialist Skydragon climate kook?
So many questions. So few answers.
Mike Flynn,
Your incredulity is duly noted.
Your idiocy likewise.
You are 75 years old, Richard.
74 actually. And what does that prove? Ageism?
74 it is then.
I’m just stating your age and you take offense, Richard.
Can’t even get that right. Just in the ball park. Doesn’t make you less of an idiot though.
Being the ball park is good enough for my purpose, Richard.
And No U.
z
High pressure, characteristic of La Niña, persists in the eastern Pacific. Drought will continue on the west coast and tropical storms will develop in the Gulf of Mexico.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
That big blue patch of water to the West of the USA is not going anywhere anytime soon.
SOI is rising again.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
Yup.
With your 15 year filtered data we’ve established that the phase relationship between pdo and temperature have a large phase shift between the apparent cycles and become anti-correlated with your preferred pdo proxy. That makes it hard to claim a significant relationship qualitatively, never mind analytically.
There’s always the possibility that we’re missing some natural contribution to the long term rising trend, but ‘unkown unknowns’ is inherently a weak hypothesis in the face of a consistent coherent alternative.
I consider the period prior to 1800 (ish) as being one set of criteria and after as another. Which you yourself also noted.
Data filtered to only concentrate of climate (> 30 years) seems like a sensible approach.
The important part of what I said is that there’s a coherency problem with connecting the pdo metric with temperature anomalies.
Are you saying that the PDO doesn’t effect global temperatures but the ENSO does?
Mark says that there’s a coherency problem with connecting the pdo metric with temperature anomalies, Richard.
That’s why he says “the important part of what I said is that there’s a coherency problem with connecting the pdo metric with temperature anomalies.”
But he also claims that the ENSO effect global temperature and that the ENSO is effected by the PDO.
You often switch between formal and material modes when you’re in a tough spot, Richard.
Mark’s point is related to a formal difficulty in your approach, so you ask a material question.
When I ask you to support your criticism of Jim materially, you switch to the formal mode.
Throwing wrenches won’t solve a problem that is yours and yours alone.
Your idiocy does not abate.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/pdo-reconstruction-1470-1998-shen-2006-with-gaussian-low-pass-30-and-75-year-filters-and-had crut-overlay.png
(Remove the space)
You are 74 years old, Richard.
This is not your playground.
Says who?
Certainly not you.
Nor you either.
Says who?
Well you said
“This is not your playground.”
Well you said “Nor you either.”
Have another one, idiot.
Another playground?
No. Another idiot, idiot (and there’s another 2).
You’re conflating use and mention, dummy.
Idiot.
You are 74 years old, Richard.
So?
Exactly.
Be precise.
I’d prefer being correct.
Have you considered showing the wisdom of age?
Have you ever considered you are an idiot?
How many of your blunders should I point out until you realize how silly is that line of yours, dummy: 74?
Dummy is your go to phrase. Idiot. Is that because you have only just given a dummy up?
“Dummy” is when you just said something really dumb, dummy.
z
The map illustrates how the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet gains and loses mass on a daily basis. This is known as the surface mass balance. It does not include the mass that is lost when glaciers calve off icebergs and melt as they come into contact with warm seawater.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20210707.png
Will the coming winter be very snowy in the Northern Hemisphere? I am convinced that it will.
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png
ren…”The map illustrates how the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet gains and loses mass on a daily basis”.
Look at the extent of the error bars, which indicate there may or may not be significant ice loss.
Excelent eye opener tid-bit on rapid respond climate schiester team
https://youtu.be/kf2syFayuGY?t=1541
You might also like:
https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/scott-adams-chris-and-matt-go-to-hell
Idiot.
Listen to the episode, Richard.
I have a shout-out at the end.
Am I supposed to be impressed?
No, Richard.
You’re supposed to be 74 years old.
An unimpressed 74 year old.
Obviously.
Still the idiot I see.
No U don’t.
z
It is time for you people to realize that just like the rapid respond climate schiester team, Willtard is a hired troll who sits here 24/7 to screw up the place, so just ignore him.
Pay me and I will stop commenting, E boy.
That is, pay me more than I already am.
I agree.
Yet there are 158 “idiot” on this page, Richard.
Want another one? Idiot.
He’s paid to be an idiot. And, when he leaves another idiot will arrive.
The left do not like this UAH site. It is an inconvenient site that they can’t control.
You know what to do to make me stop, Stephen.
Easy to find my email.
No virtual currency, please.
Flies can be annoying but not very significant.
I’m gad to be called a fly.
You’re an idiot.
[EBEN] Just ignore him.
[RICHARD] I agree.
[ALSO RICHARD] Idiot […] Idiot […] Idiot […] Idiot […] Idiot […] Idiot [……………………..]
That’s because you ARE an idiot.
Richard does not always agree with Eben that he should ignore me, but when he does he can’t resist calling me an idiot.
OK. Idiot.
You’re 74 years old and you’re stealing Kiddo’s lines, Richard.
Whereas you are just an idiot.
No U.
z
Three month after I started talking about secondary LaNina coming the experts are starting to catch up,
https://bit.ly/3wrnOjB
Eben
Did I read ‘experts’ ? Really?
If there is anything Gosselin and his gang are experts in, then that is to distort everything until it matches their ‘no warming’ propaganda.
J.-P. D.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://time.com/6078374/hottest-june-north-america/
And yet global temps go down.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/
“The UAH satellite temperature dataset, developed at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, infers the temperature of various atmospheric layers from satellite measurements of the oxygen radiance in the microwave band, using Microwave Sounding Unit temperature measurements.”
So?
Does AIRs not agree?
Going down from when, last June?
Yup (ish)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/airs7.jpeg
At which layer do you live in Oxford?
The chaotic surface boundary layer same as everybody else.
Why? Are you suggesting that there is no correlation between TLT and the surface layer?
So you don’t live in the stratosphere or the troposphere, Richard.
Is that correct?
Idiot.
Take a look at this:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/plot/best
Notice anything?
They both show cooling over the last few months.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/plot/best/offset:-0.6/from:1979
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/airs7.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/airs6.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/ersst.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/rss.jpeg
> They both show cooling over the last few months.
It’s a 20-year scale, dummy.
Here are more obvious observations:
The one you favor is lower in the graph than the other.
And in contrast to you, it is also younger.
Oh, and FIFY:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/plot/best/from:1979
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/plot/best/from:1979/offset:-0.7
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/best/from:1979/offset:-0.7/mean:12
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-751057
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-751147
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/detrend:12/plot/best/from:1979/offset:2/mean:12
Only an idiot could post that treatment.
I suppose “treatment” is on any 74 yo’s mind.
Well sensible posts are not on yours. Idiot.
Would I need to spell out my point for you, dearest Richard?
My point is simple:
Sometimes, one needs to spell out one’s point.
I am continuously surprised you can write, let alone spell. Idiot.
> let alone
That’s your problem right there, Richard.
Whereas your problem is that you are an idiot.
Not at all, dummy.
You thinking I’m an idiot is your problem.
You might be 74 years old, you still are a Climateball rookie.
A lot of other people agree that you are an idiot.
They’re contrarians, dummy.
What do you expect?
Are all people who believe in AGW idiots too?
No U.
z
global temps go down. And Antarctica sea ice continues above average. And Greenland SMB going like gangbusters. SLR Samo Samo
Keep up this trend and people will talk.
So?
For those who have been sucked into the CAGW with both feet are going to have their foundation of reality shaken to the core. Won’t be a pretty picture.
You said the magic word, Guido. Game on:
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414
Knock knock. Pay attention. Check out the CURRENT Antarctic Sea Ice extent, as in this year for the last several months. Do you really think I don’t keep current, as in what is going on here and now.
The overall thrust, especially for you, is that we are approaching an inflection point where the mythical hold of CAGW comes to a screeching halt, with the commensurate psychological collateral damage for those who have been living in Fantasy Land (and I don’t mean the Disney kind) for 40 years, is about to go Kaboom.
Dear Guido,
Take a good look at this picture:
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Antarctic_Sepmax_1979-2020_620.gif
Here is the legend:
https://climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent
For Pete’s sake, stop using all caps.
It immediately shows me what you’re occluding.
WILLARD
PAY ATTENTION
IT IS ABOUT CURRENT ANTARCTIC SEA ICE
What is that “IT,” Guido?
Another ClimateBall pro-tip:
Please beware undefined pronouns!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Guido
1. Which ‘global temps’ do you exactly mean?
Those of the LT as measured and processed by UAH, or the entire rest, surfaces and other LTs?
I ask because I just had a look at the monthly surface temperature data of Japan’s Met Agency, which is way cooler than any other.
No significant cooling there.
*
2. When Antarctica goes up average, the Arctic goes down, and vice-versa, as shown by the latest sea ice download some days ago:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
And therefore, we shouldn’t wonder about their sum:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnrnCfQjICj21o1gOeFMbMI1xsF0nZoj/view
3. Here, you are ‘plain right’:
polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20210707.png
4. What now concerns SLR: I didn’t download data since quite a while, no idea of how it really looks right now.
J.-P. D.
AIRs v7 shows similar cooling.
Guido
What exactly do you mean on July 8, 2021 at 5:37 PM, with
” Knock knock. Pay attention. Check out the CURRENT Antarctic Sea Ice extent, as in this year for the last several months. ”
when I show you the latest data in a comment posted on July 8, 2021 at 2:04 PM?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
Are you also one of these Pseudoskeptics who deliberately ignore what others write, Guido?
J.-P. D.
Notice how Temps are quite oscillatory, just like ENSO.
Regardless of RLH’s dreams that it will be different this time, what goes down must come back up.
And judging by ENSO, they will shortly.
Also notice that the LT response to ENSO is larger than the surface. It has larger variability.
Judging by Hansen they won’t before the end of the year.
“Regardless of RLHs dreams that it will be different this time”
I only say what the data shows.
“Judging by Hansen they won’t before the end of the year.”
The 12 mo running average is what he clearly stated won’t rise until the end of the year.
Why do you persist in misrepresenting what he said?
I don’t. He observed that global temperatures (as a 12 month running average or similar yearly filter) will not rise until the end of the year, if then.
Do you dispute that?
willard…”June 2021 was the warmest June recorded in North America.”
Except for the 1930s.
How do you know?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
“The fact that the hottest northern hemisphere Junes have all happened in the past six years gives us a pretty good indication of where things are going next.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
So, I was wondering how many people could in Venus/Sun L-1 and answer is about 1 trillion people. And this trillion people could live in any artificial gravity they wanted, though Mars gravity takes less spinning and less structural strength. The design is called by some as a stick and people could live on each end of stick with small town of about 500 people on each end. And in middle of the stick would 100 diameter sphere and both sides could water and sandy beach {and since near hub, quite low gravity and one could swim and fly in the 100 meter diameter sphere. Extending about 50 meter beyond the sphere would places people live. There would be 8 floors of residential areas and 4 floors commercial or public spaces- Malls, offices, workshops, small basketball court which be used volleyball or whatever. So both sides total population of about 1000. But within 10 km of one of these there could another 8 them.
So on average could 8000 people within 10 km [ 523.6 cubic km 8000
/ 525 equals about 15 people per cubic km. But I would call high density population because there is 1000 people within 1 km of each other in each of the “towns”. But these are more suburbs and included in mix be could have cities of more 100,000 people, So say with 50 km distance there could 1 or 2 cities.
Anyhow rather have settlement changing randomly in there orbits one could more than 1 million people belong a State which travel together in ground in which they fairly close to each other.
So if 1 trillion total population at L-1, that would be about a million States.
Travelling within L-1 depends on how fast you go which depends far you going. You could travel 20 mph, but take 1 hour to go the 20 miles of distance. And you have speed limit within some distance of town- like say 50 mph if pass within 1/2 km of something and if not going to get within 1 km of something 200 mph speed limit. But if going to 1 of 8 town within 10 km, one travel a speed of a bicycle on Earth {but use a lot less energy per mile}. Could spacesuit with jet pack and go anywhere within 100 miles. So could be within 50 miles of spaceport, with a spacesuit and jet pack go to it, then board spacecraft, and then go to Mars or Earth.
Anyhow with 1 trillion people in L-1, they can use about same amount energy or less per capita as 7 billion Earthlings and energy they use could be much cheaper than what Earthlings are paying.
And Ocean settlements on Earth could have same type high population density advantage as space but it mostly two dimensional rather than three.
So living on Land could use more energy than living on ocean, and living in space could be the least.
Living on ocean allows higher Earth populations with lower energy use but space allow a lot much population.
If/when we become spacefaring, we will have ocean settlement- as one “has to” launch from the ocean. But tomorrow we could start living on ocean- main thing needed is to be able to buy cheap “land” on the ocean. Or make it expensive and not pay “property taxes”. But with cheap ocean it will increase in property value fairly quickly and if taxed as everything is, that means currently it is potential governmental revenue being ignored.
But rather just allow ocean real estate to be sold, one could have governmental involvement in making low cost low income housing with a beach.
I read upthread:
” ‘In other words, extremely hot days occur more often.’
As do extremely cold days/periods. ”
This is not true, even not for the Contiguous US states.
Recently, John Christy evaluated for the USHCN stations the distribution of the number of their maximal and minimal temperatures over the period 1895-2020:
https://tinyurl.com/11wxlmzl
There, we can see that the number of daily minima measurements decreases more over time than does the number of highest daily maxima.
*
I did the same comparison as Mr Christy, but by integrating the numbers of daily maxima, lowest (plus highest) minima in a single chart, and using GHCN daily data instead (because as opposed to USHCN, it has global character):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sVA3c7j94Cr12tNcfzSQwdNX8gIV9hjq/view
And for the Globe, the difference between the number of lowest minima and highest maxima is, over the years, much more evident:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18lbRjGp4rkACp6EgJ2LF1YmVYATkMGcM/view
No reason at all to panic – like does Gosselin’s TricksZone when it gets colder during April – but it is as it is.
J.-P. D.
Nicely done.
Beware that there are folks who can’t distinguish red from green.
Here are some palettes, with simulations:
https://www.tableau.com/about/blog/examining-data-viz-rules-dont-use-red-green-together
binny…”There, we can see that the number of daily minima measurements decreases more over time than does the number of highest daily maxima”.
Normal response following the Little Ice Age.
***
“I did the same comparison as Mr Christy, but by integrating the numbers of daily maxima, lowest (plus highest) minima in a single chart, and using GHCN daily data instead (because as opposed to USHCN, it has global character):”
Once again, and for the umpteenth time, GHCN has been heavily fudged since 1990. Only an idiot would continue to rely on it.
Robertson
Here we all see how incredibly dumb, inexperienced and stubborn you are.
GHCN daily is the source of USHCN: the latter is a monthly average of the data reported by the GHCN daily stations labeled ‘HCN’.
” Only an idiot would continue to rely on it. ”
What does John Christy think about your words, Robertson?
J.-P. D.
That’s NCEI not USCRN which has only been in operation since 2002.
Why are you talking about USCRN? It’s not mentioned in this subthread.
USHCN and GHCN-daily are (some of the) data sets that NCEI hosts.
barry
Indeed, and USCRN of course belongs to NOAA’s data sets too, here we see them all together, GHCN, USHCN, USCRN, in one long column with radiosondes, satellites etc etc:
https://tinyurl.com/yzn58xkk
Robertson rants again GHCN without having a bit of a clue of anything.
He is a gullible sucker of all what people like Goddard or ‘chiefio’ E.M. Smith spout.
My biggest laugh about chiefio was long time ago:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/
(he manifestly did not notice that exactly at that time, NOAA moved the whole stuff from V2 to V3)
and the second best one was about Bolivia:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
which in fact looks like this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/125hoAWPb-C9t1X4WCUuBrQxBBvaxowap/view
When I see on a blog something like
” Zero. Nada. Zilch. ”
I immediately understand.
J.-P. D.
“Recently, John Christy evaluated for the USHCN stations the distribution of the number of their maximal and minimal temperatures over the period 1895-2020:“
Sorry I missed the lack of R in the USHCN.
https://tinyurl.com/2nt6ztet
willard…”The UAH satellite temperature dataset, developed at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, infers the temperature of various atmospheric layers from satellite measurements of the oxygen radiance in the microwave band, using Microwave Sounding Unit temperature measurements.”
Inference is a guess, there is no guesswork in the UAH temperature record.
Oxygen molecules radiate at a microwave frequency representative of their temperature and that temperature can be directly correlated with altitude. The lapse rate is defined with an exact temperature/altitude gradient.
The AMSU telemetry detects the frequency of the radiating O2 molecules and breaks them into channels centred at certain frequencies. Nothing to do with inference, the data has been compared with radiosonde data and found to be equivalent.
> Inference is a guess
Oh, Gordon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_inference
Why are you giving me all these free throws?
Idiot.
You’re making it too easy, old man:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-consequence
Double idiot.
Very sciencey of you, old man.
Very idiotic of you, as usual.
No U.
z
eben…”It is time for you people to realize that just like the rapid respond climate schiester team, Willtard is a hired troll who sits here 24/7 to screw up the place, so just ignore him”.
That has been apparent to me from the start. A troll is someone who intentionally tries to disrupt an online blog or group by interjecting meaningless and contrary information aimed at disrupting the group. What many of them miss is that the people participating in the blog/group are often a lot smarter.
That’s the case here, we are mainly way ahead of his pathetic trolling. In general, it’s the situation between skeptics and alarmists. Skeptics are generally skeptics because they have the intelligence to see through rhetoric, political-correctness and general bs. Alarmists are followers who revel in an appeal to authority.
Nothing comes out of Willard that has scientific value, it’s all predictable alarmists rhetoric and bs. He knows about Mike Flynn, however, which means he has been here before under another alias.
> He knows about Mike Flynn, however, which means he has been here before under another alias.
It’s the other way around, Gordon. I know about Mike Flynn because Mike used to hang around Judy’s, and he hasn’t changed his style.
Oh, and as a full blown Dragon you’re trolling.
“Nothing comes out of Willard that has scientific value, its all predictable alarmists rhetoric and bs.”
Yup.
A blast from a recent past:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-750558
Idiot.
Another blast:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-749107
Another blast:
That was a blast:
One last blast for the road:
Perhaps I should stick to saying “idiot.” That’d be sciencey.
That’s “I am an idiot” please.
Res ipsa loquitur.
You ARE an idiot.
Your claim HAS been refuted, Richard.
“Has been refuted” contains “has been,” so you may understand it.
Which claim is that? The one that says that simple additions make for easier understanding of what had happened in climate?
That one, Richard:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-750581
“”Nothing comes out of Willard that has scientific value, its all predictable alarmists rhetoric and bs.”
Yup.”
I agree with that.
It’s still false, dummy.
Says only you amongst the human population.
Dare to tell me that’s not sciencey, Richard:
http://www.ledoit.net/iewwp480.pdf
One is never too old to learn, even you at 74.
You are already too old to stop being an idiot.
My dad is younger than you, Richard.
Have another sciencey bit:
Show your obliviousness to what the quote implies. Add another “idiot” to the page.
“My dad is younger than you, Richard.”
So what? Does he know he fathered an idiot?
No U.
z
“Its not logic. Its language.
Language is a social art”
Hello Willard,
Glad to see you acknowledge that calling slower cooling ‘warming’ is not logical..
Precision in language is crucial to correctly conveying ideas and understanding one another…
A colder atmosphere cannot warm a warmer ocean.
Phil,
Thanks for acknowledging that Dragons are first and foremost pedants.
Witless Wee Willy,
You are almost right. Sky Dragons (climate crackpots), try their hardest to avoid reality by being pedants, and trying to get others to participate in their “silly semantic games”, and other diversionary idiocies.
Ask a Sky Dragon how long this mythical AGW will last – no answer.
Ask a Sky Dragon how the Earth managed to cool to its present temperature in spite of CO2 or anything else of that nature – no answer.
Ask a Sky Dragon to name a “world famous climate scientist” whilst keeping a straight face – no answer.
Sky Dragons deserve a good ignoring and laughing at!
Mike Flynn,
See?
That is a silly semantic game!
Snort!
Wee Willy Idiot,
As I said. Do you think you could try telling me something I don’t already know?
I appreciate the flattery of your pathetic attempt at imitation, but you really need to try harder. You don’t seem to possess my panache. You could try pretending to be wise and respected, but I doubt you would get away with it.
One of the idiots was going to imitate Michael Mann to frighten me, so maybe you could try it also. Two idiots might be more scary than a single idiot – what do you reckon?
Mike Flynn,
You said–
“As I said”
You always do.
The same silly similes of something.
As long as it makes you happy, feel free!
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”[GR]> Exactly how does a trace gas, making up 0.04% of the atmosphere, which is claimed to have caused a 1C warming since 1850, suddenly cause a heat wave with temperatures 10C to 15C above normal?
[Willard]There you go:
Why does a modest increase in the average temperature lead to extreme heat?
Consider a graph of temperatures plotted on a bell curve.
Most temperatures fall near the middle of the curve, and those temperatures would be considered typical. Any temperature that falls on the edges of the curve is considered extreme”.
***
You are undoubtedly one of the most stupid alarmists I have encountered. It’s encouraging, however, that alarmists can be this stupid.
Where in your explanation does it address my question of how a trace gas at 0.04% of the atmosphere, which has been credited with creating a 1C warming since 1850, possibly cause temperatures to temporarily increase by 10C to 15C over a few days, then allow the warming to settle back to normal?
Come on, you can’t be this stupid. Answer the question.
Gordon,
Let me ask you this:
Are you pulling me in right now because you’re a glutton for punishment?
MODEST INCREASE UPDATE
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/north-america-heatwave-almost-impossible-without-climate-change
Wee Willy,
From your quote –
“It raises serious questions whether we really understand how climate change is making heat waves hotter and more deadly, . . .”
Not really, it is obvious they understand almost nothing. Climate crackpots think that an average of a series of numbers has the power to influence future numbers!
People suffering from that sort of delusion obvious don’t understand the concept of “reality”.
You really should appeal to a better authority. One that makes sense.
Keep trying.
Mike Flynn,
You are a blowhard and a bully.
Yet you say nothing.
Why?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Remember the time when you said stuff that you should not had you RTFR, Richard?
Let me jog your memory:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-749595
See? That is something. It’s even sciencey!
Linking to yourself just proves you are an idiot.
Linking to me just proves you are an idiot.
Linking to you linking to yourself two hours before you said “Linking to yourself just proves you are an idiot” proves I’m an idiot, Richard?
Yup. Everything you do is idiotic.
Is being consistently inconsistent a mark of consistency or inconsistency, Richard?
Is being idiotic a sign of being Willard?
Does logic change when becoming a senior citizen, Richard?
I rather suspect that you will never change from you being an idiot.
No U are suspect, Richard.
And you also are 74 years old.
So what?
Exactly.
Be precise.
Correctness is good enough for me.
Idiot.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
z
Here’s the sort of stuff that Wee Willy Willard’s hero, Ken Rice links to –
Titled “The Climate Crisis Is Worse Than You Can Imagine. Here’s What Happens If You Try.”, here’s a sample –
” . . . physics colloquium at Columbia University, where he was working on an astrophysics Ph.D. The topic that day was the energy imbalance in the planet — how more energy was coming into earth’s atmosphere from the sun than our atmosphere was radiating back out into space. Peter was rapt.”
There must be something about some astrophysicists. Ken Rice, James Hansen, Peter. Peter even built an outdoor toilet to reduce his carbon footprint. Poor Peter – no one else in the family will use it.
He is definitely a climate crackpot. Just like Ken Rice and Wee Willy.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
A pity you do not link to what AT cites.
Whining Wee Willy,
And I pity you for being such a gormless idiot. Why do you call Ken Rice “AT”? Is this another bizarre fantasy, or are you just trying one of your “silly semantic games”?
I am glad to see you not disagreeing with anything I said, just having a general whinge.
Carry on, puppy.
Mike Flynn,
So you don’t know AT’s?
Your bad:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/28/ng-s-audit/
Wriggly Wee Willy,
Divert, deny, and confuse. You are certainly confused!
As I wrote –
“Why do you call Ken Rice AT? Is this another bizarre fantasy, or are you just trying one of your silly semantic games?”
No answer? Why am I not surprised?
Mike Flynn,
You ask who’s AT, I lead you to his blog, and you play dumb.
Why am I not surprisedY?
Willard, please stop trolling.
WAY upthread, I asked the trolls why they believe in the AGW nonsense. I got no response, except one provided a link to the IPCC nonsense.
As if nonsense supports nonsense.
They can’t defend their nonsense in clear, concise words. Yet, their nonsense can be debunked in clear, concise words.
Very telling, huh?
They believe Earth is 33K warmer than it should be. — Easily debunked.
They believe Earth’s energy balance is out of balance. — Easily debunked.
They believe Earth is like the “steel greenhouse”. — Easily debunked.
They’ve got NOTHING.
> They cant defend their nonsense in clear, concise words.
Here, Pup:
https://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/08/roger-pielke-jr-s-inkblot/
You’re a decade too late.
Wrong conclusion, Willard.
Temperatures have increased, slightly. But CO2 does NOT cause a temperature increase.
They believe Earth is 33K warmer than it should be. — Easily debunked.
They believe Earth/s energy balance is out of balance. — Easily debunked.
They believe Earth is like the “steel greenhouse”. — Easily debunked.
So you got NOTHING.
Thanks for playing, Pup!
Wrong, Will.
I got plenty.
Tell me why you believe the AGW nonsense in your own clear, concise words, not links to things you can’t understand or explain.
Clint,
Why do you even read Willie’s crap? He’s a propagandist and he’s here to disrupt. Please, ignore him.
Be afraid to read Texas State Meteorologist, Stephen:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/28/ng-s-audit/
Be very afraid!
> Meteorologist
Erm. Climatologist.
Stephen, the best way to defeat trolls is with reality.
Even better, Pup:
Do the Poll Dance Experiment!
8-minutes is unacceptable, Will. You need to do better.
Sorry.
You’re not responding with reality, Pup.
You’re just responding with trolling.
Clint,
Reality has no meaning to propagandists. Their world is propaganda.
“Propagandist,” stammered he.
“Propagandist,” said he, this time with more confidence in his voice.
“Propagandist!” exclaimed the Freedom Fighter who is very against propaganda.
I agree Stephen. Trolls have no interest in reality.
My guess is Dr. Spencer allows trolls to operate here as a learning tool. Adults can learn how trolls operate. Trolls attempt to pervert reality while attacking others that contribute reality.
I see that more and more people are learning what’s going on. That’s good.
Pup,
Of course Roy allows trolls.
Here you are.
The lowest form of them, a sock puppet!
Rejoice.
Like someone said: ” Trolls attempt to pervert reality while attacking others that contribute reality.”
Slayers slay trolls and
Rick A Slayers never gonna give you up
Willard, please stop trolling.
Everyone,
Let’s try this experiment:
I won’t comment tomorrow, tomorrow defined by EDT, unless someone mentions me (by name or indirectly) or responds to my comments.
If you do, I reserve a right of response.
Let’s see if y’all can resist!
See you in two days,
Hopefully (for you),
W
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Let’s not.
You are a pretentious idiot.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You can ignore me.
I can crush you all like it was a simultaneous exhibition with the patzers you all are.
Your choices.
Wacko Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“I can crush you all like it was a simultaneous exhibition with the patzers you all are.
Your choices.”
In your dreams, Wee Willy, in your dreams!
Crush away, oh idiotic one!
Maybe in your fantasy world you are not impotent and powerless, but in reality? Impotent, powerless, and an object of derision! Crush on, puppy. Let me know when you are finished.
[laughing out loud]
So be it, Mike Flynn.
You are making your fellow Sky Dragons proud!
Enjoy your afternoon.
Weird Wee Willy,
Have I been crushed yet?
Apparently, people who don’t believe in the mythical GHE are “Sky Dragon Slayers”.
Have you been sufficiently “slayed”, or don’t you accept reality yet?
You don’t seem to have provided any reason why the Earth has not cooled to its present temperature, and you don’t seem to be getting much support from others who presumably believe in the chimera (Sky Dragon) which is known by climate crackpots as the GHE!
Maybe you really are stupid and despised, as well as being powerless and impotent!
Keep howling, puppy!
Mike Flynn,
Yes, many times!
See the first line of that comment for an example.
Snigger!
Whacky Wee Willy,
So the “crushing” exists only in your mind. I thought so. Completely meaningless, and of no import at all.
Keep “crushing”, or whatever synonym you use for playing with yourself.
Mike Flynn,
I don’t think Roy’s only exists in my mind.
Try to deny that you’re Mike Flynn once more.
See what happens.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Would you please consider refraining from commenting here permanently? Its not like you’re contributing to the discussion in any meaningful way.
Pay me, Ken, and I will.
No need to lie to ask me anything, you know.
Extremely Strange Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“No need to lie to ask me anything, you know.”
Is this another demonstration of your “silly semantic games”?
Or just the inability to express yourself clearly using the English language?
What do you mean?
Mike Flynn,
Love how you play dumb!
Never stop.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Forecast for Death Valley officially going for a staggering 131°F (55°C) on Sunday.
Dammmit! – I was intending to go there for a holiday.
s,
Oooooh’
Another meaningless prediction!
You do realise that temperatures up to 90 C or so can be achieved on the surface, using energy from the unconcentrated rays of the Sun?
No CO2 or other GHG required. Underwater, even.
Are you a believer in the Sky Dragon, perhaps? Or are you just a common or garden variety climate crank?
The Sky Dragons are those who invented the concept. They wrote a book projecting their inexistence into mainstream science. That makes you one, Mike Flynn.
Sky Dragons don’t exist outside Climateball realms of freaks like you.
Foolish Wee Willy,
You wrote “The Sky Dragons are those who invented the concept. They wrote a book projecting their inexistence into mainstream science. That makes you one, Mike Flynn.”
More “silly semantic games”, eh, Wee Willy?
What in blue blazes is a “Climateball realm”? Is this a part of your fantasy world?
Possibly a part where you are not impotent and powerless, and you can convince yourself that you are wise and respected, rather than stupid and despised.
Keep on redefining reality all you want. It won’t help, you know. You might not like this quote -“Exposed is the greenhouse gas chimera–mythical sky dragon.”, but that’s just your bad luck.
Carry on yapping and whining, puppy. Just like the rest of the climate crackpots – desperately seeking attention, hoping some kind soul will love them enough to keep feeding tham and stroking their egos. Some hope.
“Possibly a part where you are not impotent and powerless, and you can convince yourself that you are wise and respected, rather than stupid and despised.”
“Carry on yapping and whining, puppy. Just like the rest of the climate crackpots desperately seeking attention, hoping some kind soul will love them enough to keep feeding tham and stroking their egos.”
Classic projection. The poor man must be miserable.
Mike Flynn,
Your character only exists in the Climateball realm.
What you hold is not taken srsly by anyone but fellow cranks.
It does not exist. Dragons don’t exist.
Sky Dragons projected their insecurities and turned it into a few books.
That’s all there is to it.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Your character only exists in the Climateball realm.”
I have been trying to tell you that for some time, haven’t I? in your fantasy, not in reality.
At least you have accepted that. Keep trying.
Mike Flynn,
You say–
“I have been trying to tell you that for some time, haven’t I?”
See? That is a silly semantic game!
Did you publish your Sky Dragon theory in a scientific outlet somewhere? I don’t think so. That is what I mean by you only exist in Climateball realm.
We both know you’re the Mike Flynn from Judy’s we all know and love.
Swoon,
Woolly Wee Willy,
What are you blathering about? What “Sky Dragon Theory” are you referring to? Is this another fantasy artefact of your bizarre “Climateball” fantasy?
You wrote –
“We both know you’re the Mike Flynn from Judy’s we all know and love.” You are really strange, Wee Willy. You do realise that trying to tell people what they think, makes you sound a little delusional. You certainly think you are other than powerless and impotent, with your nonsense about “crushing” people. Maybe you should just try to be more cryptic and obscure.
Your “Mike Flynn” obsession appears to be affecting you. What emotion is it supposed to engender?
Maybe you could address the role of your mythical “GHE” in the fact that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature – does anything else require a “GHE” to cool? Or just the Earth? I assume you don’t think that the Moon required a “GHE” to cool to its present temperature, but I am not certain. Maybe you could tell me where this “GHE” may be observed.
It seems to exist only in the imaginations of climate crackpots.
Mike Flynn,
You’re Mike Flynn.
You hold a Sky Dragon theory.
Write as much words as you want to denying these two facts.
It won’t work.
Enjoy your afternoon.
Professor P, Willard, please stop trolling.
“Another meaningless prediction!”
Not quite. The prediction is based on a little known theory that the Earth has cooled since its inception. In this case, it suggests that Death Valley has not cooled as much as elsewhere. In fact, it may even be warming again due to unusual heat flows below the desert from the Earth’s interior. I would even bet that most of the observed global warming is, indeed, due to this same phenomenon. There goes the enhanced greenhouse effect theory out the window!
> I would even bet
How much?
One fish head.
That’s a lot!
So tempting.
s,
Learn to read. I said “Another meaningless prediction!”
Meaningless. Useless. Of no use whatsoever.
Unless, of course, you can produce some evidence that a prediction functionally no different from one made by a 12 year old child, after looking at previous temperatures, has real value!
Of course, you could always try and convince anyone that you are going to alter your life by believing the prediction!
What an idiot you are!
willard…”The Sky Dragons are those who invented the concept. They wrote a book projecting their inexistence into mainstream science”.
Yes they did and Sky Dragon is a reference to CO2 in the atmosphere. Their book was about slaying the Sky Dragon, that’s why it’s called Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.
Man, are you confused.
Gordon,
The books did not slay anything.
That leaves them with a bunch of straw.
Why not recycle this straw and make a Dragon out of it?
So they themselves are Sky Dragons.
Please, do continue to miss the point I’m making.
I love making it!
willard…”So they themselves are Sky Dragons”.
And you can’t read, or comprehend. Like I said, you’re stupid.
Gordon,
AGW isn’t a Sky Dragon.
That’s their fabrication.
I have no reason to honor that brand.
Let them be the Dragons of the story.
That’s all I’m suggesting.
Thank you for the kind words, they mean a lot when you so often fail to grok just about everything.
Gordon is correct, and Willard is wrong, as usual.
“Sky dragon” refers to the bogus concept that CO2 can “warm the planet”. The clever reference is a spoof of a fire-breathing dragon.
“Slayers” are then those that recognize “sky dragon” can be easily debunked.
The terms came from the book “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, as Gordon stated.
https://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory/dp/0982773412
> “Sky dragon” refers to the bogus concept that CO2 can “warm the planet”.
Just about everything is wrong in that sentence, Pup.
And notice the difference: Sky Dragons are not concepts, they’re silly guys on the Internet who say stuff about a stupid strawman they call “Sky Dragon.”
Willard has to pervert reality, because that’s what trolls do.
Here’s reality:
“Sky dragon” refers to the bogus concept that CO2 can “warm the planet”. The clever reference is a spoof of a fire-breathing dragon.
“Slayers” are then those that recognize “sky dragon” can be easily debunked.
The terms came from the book “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, as Gordon stated.
https://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory/dp/0982773412
> here’s reality
That’s a book, Pup.
In that book, there’s a nickname.
This nickname is a fiction.
That book has been written by guys who are more than contrarians in the scientific community. They’re cranks.
What they propose is so ludicrous nobody in the community takes it seriously.
The only persons who still talk about that book is fools like you.
You’re an online character.
You defend a fictional theory.
Dragons are fictions.
You and them are the true Dragons of the story.
Willard has to pervert reality, because that’s what trolls do.
The terms came from the book “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, as Gordon stated.
https://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory/dp/0982773412
There is no reality behind Pup’s constant appeals to reality.
Pup’s cranky heroes haven’t slayed anything.
Pup is a silly sock puppet who keeps trolling with empty comments.
Both he and them belong to the fictional land of Dragons they created.
“Sky dragon” refers to the bogus concept that CO2 can “warm the planet”. The clever reference is a spoof of a fire-breathing dragon.
“Slayers” are then those that recognize “sky dragon” can be easily debunked.
Willard just has to pervert reality. That’s all he knows.
The terms came from the book “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, as Gordon stated.
https://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory/dp/0982773412
Pup can’t refute the following facts:
The cranks he roots for haven’t slayed anything.
AGW is the only game in town.
He’s a sock puppet.
See, Pup?
That is a felicitous appeal to reality.
If you could return to the imaginary land where all the other Dragons are, that’d be great. But you can stay here, trolling.
You’re so much fun!
Willard just keeps trying to pervert reality. But reality doesn’t pervert. Willard only perverts himself.
“Sky dragon” refers to the bogus concept that CO2 can “warm the planet”. The clever reference is a spoof of a fire-breathing dragon.
“Slayers” are then those that recognize “sky dragon” can be easily debunked.
Willard just has to pervert reality. That’s all he knows.
The terms came from the book “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, as Gordon stated.
https://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory/dp/0982773412
Pup still conflates a brand his cranky Dragon heroes invented with reality.
This is not about me, Willard. This is about your obsession with trying to pervert reality.
“Sky dragon” refers to the bogus concept that CO2 can “warm the planet”. The clever reference is a spoof of a fire-breathing dragon.
The terms came from the book “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, as Gordon stated.
> This isn’t about me
No, Pup. It’s about your conflation between a myth you’re trying to sell, and the reality in which we live. In that reality, the cranks you’re promoting don’t have any leg to stand on.
All they got is a book they self-published.
So let’s put things in perspective: you and your cranks are dragon-like.
I’m not doing any of that, Willard. That’s just more of your perverting reality.
Did I mention that you’re obsessed with perverting reality?
Of course you do, Pup. But you also are doing something worse. You’re trying to gaslight me.
Do you really think I don’t know about that book?
What would be the odds that I come up with Sky Dragons if I did not?
Who do you think you’re kidding right now?
For a sock puppet who constantly appeal to reality, you really should get real from time to time.
Now you’re not only obsessed with perverting reality, but you’re also paranoid.
No wonder you don’t have a life….
For how many years have you been trolling Roy’s, Pup?
The complexity of your repertoire is the ballpark of Mike’s.
So you admit you knew about the book, Willard. That means you admit to perverting the terms. See, you can’t pervert reality.
Reality always wins out.
You really are a very good investigator, Pup:
That was five days ago.
I’m showing you my hand, but you don’t look.
That’s why it’s so much fun!
The more confirmation, the better.
Next time, Pup, try reasoning.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”What we are seeing is unprecedented. Youre not supposed to break records by four or five degrees Celsius (seven to nine degrees Fahrenheit). This is such an exceptional event that we cant rule out the possibility that were experiencing heat extremes today that we only expected to come at higher levels of global warming, said Friederike Otto, of the Environmental change Institute at the University of Oxford”.
***
Not one shred of scientific evidence that any of this temporary warming is related to anthropogenic gases. No one has explained how CO2, claimed to have warmed the atmosphere by 1C since 1850 can suddenly create heat levels that are claimed above.
Where’s your scientific proof Willard. Not interested in idiot climate alarmists opinion or your pathetic appeal to authority..
Correlation is not causation!!!
Gordon,
What kind of scientific proof would you like, and why should I care to give it to you?
After all these years, haven’t you learned to click on the proper reply button?
Can you distinguish what I’m saying and what I’m quoting?
Haven’t you read my offer?
When was the last time you contributed anything else than conspiracy or speculation?
The warmer weather was caused by drier air.
Global warming has more water vapor in the atmosphere.
Drier air in general, is global cooling.
The heat wave is actually due to global cooling.
A cooler atmosphere, caused by a decrease in UV energy from a less active sun, means a smaller atmosphere. The Jet Stream becomes much wavier increasing the length of the Jet Stream and the boundary conditions that trigger extreme weather events.
The heat wave event was characterized by an omega shaped jet stream that encompassed the heat dome.
The Jet Stream is not controlled by carbon dioxide. Its controlled by an electro-magnetic connection between earth and sun.
Galactic radiation has remained at very high levels since 2019 with no change in sight, indicating extremely low solar wind magnetic activity.
https://i.ibb.co/PNpxGbw/onlinequery.gif
Willie couldn’t even stay away for 10 minutes. LOL.
You weren’t paying attention. Willard said that he would stay away for a day if his name was not mentioned.
Gordon mentioned Willard’s name, hence the early return.
Which way does causation run in your case? Are you stupid because of your Right Wing politics or Right Wing because of your stupidity.
Ent, don’t tell us you’re as confused about politics as you are about science.
“Wrong” is the opposite of “right”, in both politics and science.
There’s no future in being an idiot, even in a cult.
Listening to Republicans discussing science in the US, it rapidly becomes obvious that Right is synonymous with wrong.
Did one of them claim passenger jets fly sideways and backwards?
That would be wrong….
As no-one said that ever you would be wrong.
RLH, do you understand this issue?
Or, are you just trolling again?
I understand Gravity quite well. Its application too.
Gordon wasn’t alone, EM, and Stephen does not seem to understand what EDT means.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The satellites behind the UAH series change frequently and until recently are strongly affected by orbital decay over their lifetime. I’m not saying the surface series are without issues, but the satellite series are almost certainly less trustworthy. Witness the large trend shifts between each of the major revisions of the satellite series.
Does that include AIRs?
Gordon Robertson wrote this.
“Inference is a guess, there is no guesswork in the UAH temperature record.
Oxygen molecules radiate at a microwave frequency representative of their temperature and that temperature can be directly correlated with altitude. The lapse rate is defined with an exact temperature/altitude gradient.
The AMSU telemetry detects the frequency of the radiating O2 molecules and breaks them into channels centred at certain frequencies. Nothing to do with inference, the data has been compared with radiosonde data and found to be equivalent. ”
This is wrong in so many ways. I wonder if a discussion would be worthwhile.
EM, you are correct and, as usual, GR is completely wrong. To state that “there is no guesswork in the UAH temperature record.” is pure nonsense (and he knows it). Just look at the guesswork that is needed to convert satellite data into temperatures:
“Satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, from which temperature may be inferred. The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have obtained different temperature data. Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The satellite series is not fully homogeneous – it is constructed from a series of satellites starting with the 1978 TIROS-N, where different satellites had similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for satellite drift and orbital decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
Agreed.
I estimate that there are about ten steps in the chain of reasoning that starts with the voltage generated by the sensor and ends with a local lower troposphere temperature.
“Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.”
Been there. Mentioned that.
2. Moon’s Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.moon
Surface temp..Tmin..Tmean..Tmax
Kelvin………….100.K…220.K…390.K
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Moon’s albedo: amoon = 0,11
Moon’s sidereal rotation period is 27,32 days. But Moon is Earth’s satellite, so the lunar day is 29,5 days
Moon does N = 1/29,5 rotations/per day
Moon is a rocky planet, Moon’s surface irradiation accepting factor Φmoon = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S* Φ*π*r²*(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
cp.moon = 0,19cal/gr oC, moon’s surface specific heat (moon’s surface is considered as a dry soil)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Moon’s Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.moon:
Tmean.moon = [ Φ (1 – a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Tmean.moon = { 0,47 (1 – 0,11) 1.361 W/m² [150* (1/29,5)*0,19]¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ }¹∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.moon = ( 2.488.581.418,96 )¹∕ ⁴ = 223,35 K
Tmean.moon = 223,35 Κ
The newly calculated Moon’s Mean Surface Temperature differs only by 1,54% from that measured by satellites!
Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K, measured by satellites.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Two mistakes:
(1) referring to the Moon’s rotation rate which is irrelevant.
(2) referring to a % temperature difference. e.g. I could equally say that the difference of 3.35 deg C compared to a mean value of -53 deg C equals 6.3%. This is a common error that amateurs make.
If he’s using an equation that includes rotation rate then how can rotation rate be irrelevant?
Up to date UAH data with CTRM filters
https://wordpress.com/post/climatedatablog.wordpress.com/3089
Up to date USCRN
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn.jpeg
USCRN average minus mean histogram
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/histogram.gif
Am I missing something here?
How does that graph square with:
“Despite the near-normal global average temperatures, the USA Lower 48 temperature anomaly of +1.44 deg. C was the warmest in the 43 year satellite record, ahead of +1.15 deg. C in 1988.”
Ask USCRN. They provide the data I show. If that shows the network hasn’t warmed much then it hasn’t. I got the latest data from them a few days ago. I’ll update it again next month.
Sorry, but no. If you show a result which apparently contradicts another, it is incumbent on you to try and explain. You cannot just say “ask USCRN”.
A true sceptic would note that:
“Since it achieved nationwide coverage at the start of 2005, the warming rate (trend) in USCRN annual temperatures is 0.86F per decade.”
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/claim-of-no-us-warming-since-2005-is-directly-contradicted-by-the-data-it-is-based-on/
I suggest you go back and check your analysis.
The USCRN data is there for all to see. Just add it all up and see if you c an get a different value to the one I have presented.
“the warming rate (trend) in USCRN annual temperatures is 0.86F per decade”
I don’t do linear trends as they have no value outside the date range over which they are taken and provide no clue at all as to future values.
Which linear trend suggested that there would be some 6 months of global temperature decline since 2020?
Try ftp://ftp.ncd c.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/daily01/ fro the data
(Remove the space)
ftp the USCRN data?
Again, no.
You produced a result, defend it.
I suspect you are not a trained scientist.
You are dodging and weaving here.
“Just add it all up and see if you c an get a different value to the one I have presented”
What value might that be?
Especially as you claimed you “dont do linear trends”.
Admit it, your suspicious graph conveys no information.
Its value to the discussion is zero.
I suspect you like to show off your ability to filter numbers and produce graphs rather than your ability to interpret the results.
“You produced a result, defend it.
I suspect you are not a trained scientist.”
Yup.
Linear trends are not a predictor of future values, unluckily for some people who think they are. Witness the falling global temperatures for the last 6 months or so.
The summary via accumulation of the past data is a valid treatment of the data to date. Which is all the graphs show. The methodology is unchallenged. It is correct. All of the data to date from all of the stations is added up and then displayed. You can see the annual seasonal cycle which a 12 month Gaussian filter removes.
If you don’t like what the data shows, then you are hardly a scientist.
Filters are a way of uncovering long term behaviors. Gaussian filters do not add distortions to the data. In that fact they are almost unique.
I do this same treatment of loads of data sources. Only those who are not prepared to admit what the data shows object.
So let me get this correct.
You like linear trends, running means and LOWESS.
You do not like Gaussian low pass and S-G (Savitzky–Golay, look it up) filters and any other non-linear trends.
Oh, and anything that does not conform to your belief that everything is just rising without end towards infinity.
“I suspect you like to show off your ability to filter numbers and produce graphs rather than your ability to interpret the results.”
Yup.
Whereas you contribute nothing.
A sample of my contributions, dummy:
– the Carbon cycle with Stephen
– climate variability and randomness with Stephen
– Climate forcings with an old coder
– the nature of theorical entities with Pup
– appeals to ignorance with Norman
– why Vikings left Greenland with an old coder
– CLTs and dependent data with an old coder
– carbon capture with an old coder
– changes in extreme events with Norman
– how Texan utilities did not weatherize their power plants with Phil
– how to use anomalies with an old coder
– the MWP and the hockey stick with an old coder
– the IPCC and the O2/N2 ratio with Gordon
– Antarctica with Guido, Gordon, and others
– scientific wordologies with EM
– the correct meaning of “contrarian” with an old coder
– Fred Singer with an old coder
– the Goddard with Gordon
studentb says: Am I missing something here?
How does that graph square with: ‘Despite the near-normal global average temperatures, the USA Lower 48 temperature anomaly of +1.44 deg. C was the warmest in the 43 year satellite record, ahead of +1.15 deg. C in 1988.’
The USA lower 48 monthly average temperature typically peaks in July with June also lower than August. Thus the sinusoidal-ish daily temperature hasn’t yet peaked in the 2021 cycle. From the RLH plot it’s difficult to see a monthly average across years.
The CTRM filter RLH used to remove the annual cycle doesn’t show monthly anomolies at all, never mind the most recent. It’s rather more comparable to a running average annual value.
Note that I’m not claiming there is any apparent technical issue with RLH’s plot in so far as it goes.
For what it’s worth, I pulled down monthly USCRN data and computed June anomolies as a straight (non-area-weighted) average for the USA lower 48. It shows June 2021 clearly as the warmest in the USCRN series, but the trend isn’t particularly robust across months given the rather short series.
Willie,
You just cut and paste leftist propaganda. Soros Soldier Willie. LOL.
“Its rather more comparable to a running average annual value.”
Running means produce distortions. Gaussian 12 month filters don’t.
“A sample of my contributions” about which no-one else cares.
You only speak for yourself and you’re moving the goalposts, dummy.
Are those soccer or football goalposts?
LUCKWARM UPDATE
https://berkeleyearth.org/the-pacific-northwest-heatwave-in-context/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1459107/why-is-this-summer-so-cold-met-office-forecast-EVG
SUMMER is here, although looking out the window you would be forgiven to mistake the weather for an average day in January. But with many of us questioning why it is so cold and dreary this year, Express.co.uk has spoken to the Met Office who, you may be surprised to hear, say its not abnormal at all.
All is not about North America.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/forecast/gcpn7mp10#?date=2021-07-11
I can look out of the window to get that.
19 18 16 16 16 15 15
You look out the window and you get numbers?
A look out of the windows confirms that the temperature projections seem to be likely true.
Weather is not climate.
Correlation is not causation.
What would be a third pity saying, Richard?
Willard is an idiot.
No, dummy.
U.
z
And, while I am here, NOAA has just reported that:
“June 2021 was the hottest June on record for U.S.;
Nation has also experienced 8 BillionDollarDisasters so far this year.”
When ocean oscillations synch up, the results can be very interesting.
UAH (amongst others) say global temps have been falling recently.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2021_v6.jpg
Irrelevant.
The reference is to the US, not global.
USCRN is not much help either. You could do Roy’s USA only stuff if you like.
The reference to the US is irrelevant. The topic here is global climate.
Ken says:
July 9, 2021 at 6:14 PM
On the other hand the coldest place is -64C and the ice is not melting. No one lives there; its too cold.
Weary Wee Willy,
Surely you can do better than repeat what is already known.
At least plagiarise, and pretend you thought of it yourself.
Pathetic attention seeking academic wannabes do it all the time! How hard can it be?
Try harder, kiddo. Get with the program.
Mike Flynn,
I thought you took your Saturdays off.
Perhaps you’re just off your game, otherwise even you could notice how Ken expresses two conflicting ideas in a lapse of four minutes.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Keep trying, idiot.
Deny, divert, avoid.
How are you going with trying to explain why the “GHE” didn’t stop the Earth cooling to its present temperature? Not too well?
Maybe you could avoid addressing reality, and fly off at some witless tangent.
Others might just think you are an idiot.They would be right!
Mike Flynn,
You’re right —
“Deny, divert, avoid.”
That’s exactly what you just did!
Willard, please stop trolling.
And, to top off the week:
“More than 31 million people across the US west and south-west are bracing for a brutal heatwave that could bring triple-digit temperatures this weekend, with authorities warning that records could be broken in many regions of California and Nevada. Officials have said that Las Vegas could even surpass its record-high temperature of 117F.
The heat risk is classified as very high across much of this area, meaning all residents there face very high risk of heat-related illness due to both the long duration heat, and the lack of overnight relief, the National Weather Service (NWS) has said.
On the other hand the coldest place is -64C and the ice is not melting. No one lives there; its too cold.
student b…”More than 31 million people across the US west and south-west are bracing for a brutal heatwave…”
It’s summer…it’s weather. Records get broken occasionally. Nothing new, move along folks.
Croak! Croak!
DMT, please stop trolling.
Three month after my prediction calls for secondary LaNina The experts are starting to catch up.
https://bit.ly/3AK6F86
https://bit.ly/3hsaWFF
Ha ha ha haaah.
“Experts” at JoNova and Electroverse… hmmmh.
JoNova, one of the best fossile fuel public relation Aussie ladies, together with Marohasy.
Electroverse, the people “Documenting Earth Changes during the next GSM and Pole Shift”:
” NOAA declares “La Niña” watch for the Fall: the Global Cooling Accelerator ”
Wow.
Nice to see how naive and gullible you are, Eben… Weiter so!
J.-P. D.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
and
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/NMME_plume_graph_202105_large.png
say similar things also.
mark b …”The satellites behind the UAH series change frequently and until recently are strongly affected by orbital decay over their lifetime”.
The orbital decay problem was fixed circa 2005, in cooperation with RSS, before they sold out and joined NOAA. At worst, the orbital decay error was well within the stated error margin.
Please do try to keep up.
AIRs also agrees with both RSS and UAH.
My comment was intended as a response to Dixon’s “The reason I like UAH is as far as we can tell, the only artefacts are with the instrumentation and analysis, not the site” statement. The point is simply that there is an orbital decay factor, which is effectively a change in siting. This isn’t even a little bit controversial.
Which does not affect AIRs which agrees both with UAH and RSS on current temperatures with some offset differences.
entropic/prof p…”EM, you are correct and, as usual, GR is completely wrong. To state that there is no guesswork in the UAH temperature record. is pure nonsense (and he knows it). Just look at the guesswork that is needed to convert satellite data into temperatures:”
***
If that’s the case, they had better scrap the lapse rate because it states a definite temperature/altitude gradient. Is that based on guesswork too?
So, if the temperature at a certain altitude is known, under steady-state conditions, and can be verified directly by radiosondes, where is the guesswork in AMSU telemetry, receiving radiation from O2 molecules and converting the known temperature of O2 at a certain radiation frequency, then extrapolating that to an altitude?
When you measure a temperature with a thermometer, it averages the temperature at the thermometer bulb. It tell you nothing about the temperature 10 feet away, or whether an inversion has occurred and the air aloft is temporarily warmer. Thermometers for weather are also located at very different altitudes, from 5 feet above sea level to several thousand feet.
You won’t see a thermometer surface station at the top of Everest or any of the Himalayan peaks, even though those temperatures are typically below zero in summer. I would venture that most surface stations are below 5000 feet.
NOAA likes to omit thermometer readings for high altitude countries like Bolivia since it would upset their global warming meme.
You alrmists are so blatantly ignorant of the technology because your heads are full of pseudo-scientific bafflegab. I found it entertaining that Entropic offered to go into it, as if he could if he wanted to.
Which lapse rate would that be?
Go on, make a guess.
s,
Are you as stupid as you seem?
You do know what a “lapse rate” is, don’t you?
Climate crackpots just redefine inconvenient words – slow cooling becomes heating, mathematicians and astrophycists become “climate scientists”, and so on.
Have you discovered any new physical laws which require a “GHE” to allow the Earth to cool from a molten state? No?
You are an idiotic blowhard.
> redefine inconvenient words
See, Mike Flynn?
That is a silly semantic game!
Witless Wee Willy,
Deny, divert, avoid.
Others can see you can’t even tell anyone where your mythical “GHE” may be observed – let alone quantified or measured.
That’s because you are a fact-free climate crackpot!
Carry on, puppy. Pee where you wish. It doesn’t change facts at all!
Mike Flynn,
Do you do anything else that deny, divert, and avoid?
I don’t think so!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson, Swenson
You don’t seem to know that there are three lapse rates, one of which is mostly theoretical and two of which are variable.
In fairness, scientific wordologies are frault with difficulties:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/28/ng-s-audit/#comment-198618
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
“The lapse rate is the rate at which an atmospheric variable, normally temperature in Earth’s atmosphere, falls with altitude.”
Idiot.
“Lapse rate arises from the word lapse, in the sense of a gradual fall.”
Click on links and read, dummy:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/28/ng-s-audit/#comment-198621
“Dont get me started on hearing degrees Celcius when people are talking about Celcius degrees.”
Typical North Americans. Stay with Imperial even though the rest of the world phased it out years ago.
Can even spell Celsius correctly.
Gets caught suggesting stuff, turns to grammer.
Idiot.
The lapse rate of your old brain will soon turn to z.
Wont make you less of an idiot though.
No U.
z
rlh…”I dont do linear trends as they have no value outside the date range over which they are taken and provide no clue at all as to future values”.
Are you really 74? If so, I think that’s cool and I hope you are still participating at 150, as I plan to be still participating at that age.
Re linear trends, I don’t think anyone has the slightest idea where the current trends are heading. We may never see it go back down in our lifetimes but our lifespans are so brief compared to the temperature record.
I certainly hope we don’t get another Little Ice Age in my lifetime but I’d put up with one without complaint just to shut up the alarmists. Of course, they’d claim another LIA is caused by AGW and that it’s only temporary, even though it lasts another 400+ years. A 400 year hiatus.
Our Canadian PM, on a trip to Alberta, which is right-wing oil-country, chided certain Albertans for their belief that climate change is not real. I am currently writing an email to him, explaining that I am one of the non-believers.
I plan to challenge him to send me scientific proof that climate change is real while offering my scientific reasons why it is not.
A brief synopsis of my reasoning:
1)correlation is not causation. The IPCC has erred by claiming increasing CO2 since 1850 has warmed the planet. It is obvious that the warming since 1850 is a re-warming from the Little Ice Age which ended circa 1850. In other words, the IPCC has correlated the warming to a trace gas in the atmosphere to warming while ignoring the fact that the planet is rewarming from the LIA.
2)The Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps expanded down a valley during the LIA so much that it wiped out farms and villages along the way. The glacier expanded at the peak of the LIA circa 1700 AD. Since then, it and all glaciers are receding. Furthermore, most glaciers have been receding the past 5000 years.
3)Climates are based on a 30 years average of local weather. There is no such thing as a global climate and anyone speaking of climate change must identify which climate is changing and why. Claiming CO2 as the cause is unscientific without proving a direct correlation, which does not exist at this time.
4)There is no way that CO2, which is credited by the IPCC for warming the planet by approximately 1C since 1850, can cause arbitrary heat waves and severe weather. No scientific explanation has been offered as to how CO2 can do that.
***
Then I am going to briefly outline the Ideal Gas Law and the limitations it imposes on a mixed gas like the atmosphere. The IGL, based on a constant volume and constant number of air molecules, suggests CO2 can warm the atmosphere no more than about 0.04C per 1C warming. Nitrogen and oxygen, making up 99% of the atmosphere are the prime warming gases.
Of course, this is an exercise in futility since the PM’s alleged beliefs have nothing to do with climate change. His position is a politically-correct position aimed at manipulating the public into believing we have a severe problem. A former party member spilled the beans on that, claiming it does not matter if the science is wrong, taking action is the proper thing to do.
I don’t mind them taking some kind of action, but not based on the perversion of science.
Go for it old man!
Keep shouting at the clouds!
DMT,
Have you grown a beard and shaved your head? Why you would want to imitate a fraud, faker, deadbeat and scofflaw like Michael Mann seems a bit odd, but to each his own.
You were going to come for me, remember?
From time to time, I come across the odd bumbling, bearded, balding buffoon, but I feel more sorrow for their plight, than fear.
Maybe you are stupid enough to believe in the mythical “GHE”. Have you managed to observe it, or does it vanish in the presence of doubters?
[derisive sniggering]
“You were going to come for me, remember?”
All in good time my little pretty!
All in good time.
DMT,
I normally try not to laugh at the delusional and mentally afflicted, but in your case, I’ll make an exception.
You don’t mind, do you?
To be honest, I am glad to have been of service. A bit of levity every now and then is welcome, wouldn’t you say?
DMT, please stop trolling.
If you send such a letter, and it actually reaches the PM, it would be accompanied by the advice of the government’s scientific advisors.
They will tell him that you are talking nonsense, that you’re is the perverted science.
Save yourself the stamp.
I did that and I got a note stating the matter had been passed to the climate minister, Climate Barbie (who thankfully won’t be running again in the next election). I had also passed a similar missive to her and got no response at all.
The problem isn’t with the MP’s except that I think they do understand.
The problem is with voters; there is an extraordinary popular delusion, as per those described by Charles MacKay in his famous book. Trudeau et al know that in order to get re-elected they irresponsibly have to go along with the delusion.
One day the deluded will understand that they have been fooled and there will be a backlash. I expect it will be a long slow process; people don’t like to know how easily they can be fooled.
Its a classic ‘Chicken Little’ tale complete with a fox waiting to take advantage.
latest ENSO updates:
JMA forecast favours continuing ENSO neutral through to Jan 2022. for those who like pictures, here is the relevant.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
BoM forecasts continued neutral ENSO to December.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
NOAA forecasts ENSO neutral conditions continuing from present until NH autumn/winter, where some of the US models indicate a possible la Nina developing (66% chance as of July 8).
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html (this web page updates periodically).
Caveats: forecasts are probabilistic, with wide uncertainty bars 2 seasons forward. ENSO interannual variability has little influence on long-term (multidecadal) global temperature trends, but can have a noticeable affect on short-term trends.
Other sources:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
These pages also update periodocally.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
and
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/NMME_plume_graph_202105_large.png
say slightly different things.
JMA’s Tokyo Climate Center publishes since years the best ENSO forecasts, which have shown to be nearest to reality.
I watch them since many years.
J.-P. D.
All ENSO predictors show lower than zero positions, changing into mild La Nina towards the end of the year.
None show a return to EL Nino positions any time soon.
“ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere summer, with chances of La Nia increasing into the fall and winter 2021-22.”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/nino_fcst/indices/indexninofcst.html agrees
“All ENSO predictors show lower than zero positions, changing into mild La Nina towards the end of the year.”
Bullshit.
“The dynamical and statistical model averages predict ENSO neutral to continue through winter 2021-22.”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
A couple of models even forecast an el Nino by then, which is of course unlikely given that only a few do.
JMA forecasts neutral by Winter.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
So when you say “All,” you are basically full of shit. Or you are so ignorant that you think “below the zero line” is the criterion for la Nina.
It doesn’t matter to me what ENSO state emerges. Why are you so fixated on la Nina?
“Or you are so ignorant that you think below the zero line is the criterion for la Nina.”
No. Below the zero line means below the zero line. Which is a fact.
I mean all you have to do is read the links provided just above.
“A majority of the models in the IRI/CPC plume predict ENSO-neutral to continue through the fall and winter 2021-22 [Fig. 6]. However, the latest forecast model runs from the NCEP CFSv2, many of the models from the North American Multi-Model Ensemble, and some models from our international partners indicate the onset of La Nia during the Northern Hemisphere fall, continuing into winter 2021-22. The forecaster consensus favors these model ensembles, while also noting the historical tendency for a second winter of La Nia to follow the first. In summary, ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere summer and into the fall (51% chance for the August-October season), with La Nia potentially emerging during the September-November season and lasting through the 2021-22 winter (66% chance during November-January…”
“”All ENSO predictors show lower than zero positions, changing into mild La Nina towards the end of the year.”
Bullshit.”
Fact.
Reference please – googling the text you “quoted” came up with nothing. Where did you read that?
I have already posted links which set out that it will be La Nina by the year end.
We will see who is correct in a few months. I can wait.
You just have to cherry-pick, don’t you RLH?
Or maybe you mistakenly believe that the criteria for la Nina is “below the zero line.”
Either way, la Nina is not “continuing” according to any of the forecasts, and some US models indicate a la Nina by NH Winter.
Half the reason I wrote the post was to demonstrate how to write about of ENSO forecasts accurately.
But you keep right on selecting only the models that (partly) support your view and pretending that this is the general view of the ENSO monitoring groups.
I am reporting that most/all ENSO sites say there is likely to be a return to La Nina later on this year. None are reporting that there will be a El Nino this year or next (so far).
The BoM isn’t saying that, they’re saying ENSO neutral through to December. I’ve cited them several times so I know you haven’t missed it.
JMA is saying ENSO neutral through NH Winter. I’ve cited them several times so I know you haven’t missed it.
Even NOAA’s ensembles aren’t in agreement, with “A majority of the models in the IRI/CPC plume predict[ing] ENSO-neutral to continue through the fall and winter 2021-22 [Fig. 6].”
How have you missed all this that has been laid out for you here? Are you blind? Ideologically compromised? What?
“a return to La Nina…”
Progress. You’re no longer saying la Nina will “continue.” You’re on the road to being accurate.
“I am reporting that most/all ENSO sites say..”
Hedging much? “most/all” – give me a break.
NOAA – la Nina by Winter (CFS2 modelling, but not IRI/CPC)
BoM – Neutral to December
JMA – Neutral to NH Winter
Which other “ENSO sites” would you like to refer to?
We will see then as the rest of the year progresses.
If it turns out that a La Nina occurs before the year end then we will know who is correct.
Neither of us will be right if ENSO neutral or la Nina eventuates by Winter. Only one of us is accurate on what ALL the forecasts said last week.
You still haven’t said why you are keen for la Nina to emerge.
NOAA have updated their main forecast.
“ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere summer and into the fall (51% chance for the August-October season), with La Nia potentially emerging during the September-November season and lasting through the 2021-22 winter (66% chance during November-January).”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
“66% chance during November-January”
The odds on me being correct are improving.
“Neither of us will be right if ENSO neutral or la Nina eventuates by Winter.”
As I said below the zero line until the end of the year with a possible La Nina at the year end those are the criteria to judge on.
That’s not what you said.
“the current long term forecasts are for La Nina to continue into next year.”
You ignored all evidence to the contrary, and claimed that most/all monitoring groups were saying this. Incorrectly.
You also ignored that ALL monitoring groups had ENSO neutral for the near term, not a continuing la Nina.
Whatever emerges won’t obscure your bias.
Why ARE you keen for a la Nina?
The Young Faint Sun’s Paradox solved!
What was the Earth’s mean temperature 3,5 billion years ago (3,5 Bya ) ?
Lets see:
Sun’s irradiating intensity was weaker.
It was only 75 % of the present,
S = 0,75*So
And Earth rotated twice as fast then,
1 rotation in 12 hours.
Lets calculate:
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Surface Mean Temperature calculation Tmean.earth.3,5 Bya
So = 1.362 W/m² ( “So” is the present Solar constant )
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,30
Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 2 rotations /per day, was Earth’s sidereal rotation spin at 3,5 Bya
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Surface Mean Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth.3,5 Bya = [ 0,47(1-0,30)*0,75*1.362 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *2rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth.3,5 Bya = [ 0,47(1-0,30)*0,75*1.362 W/m²(150*2*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth.3.5 Bya = ( 6.167.274.722,0 )¹∕ ⁴ = 280,23 K
Tmean.earth.3.5 Bya = 280,23 Κ
or Tmean.earth.3,5 Bya = 7 oC.
Conclusion:
3,5 billion years ago planet Earth had a sustainable for life mean temperature of 7 oC.
From Wikipedia: ” Among the earliest fossil evidence for life is microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone in Western Australia,[63]”.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Now I know what BYA stands for, awesome.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://news.sky.com/story/lapland-records-hottest-day-for-more-than-a-century-as-heatwave-grips-nordic-countries-12350722
https://metro.co.uk/2021/05/15/uk-weather-why-is-it-so-cold-in-may-2021-14583111/
“Why is it so cold and wet in May this year?”
2021-05-20, dummy.
That’s this year isn’t it? Just a couple of months ago. Idiot.
Learn to restrict your searches, old guy.
And No U.
z
Why should he, puppy?
Your bite is as ineffectual as your bark!
Mike Flynn,
You’re the sock puppet here.
You’re the idiot.
You’re 74 years old, Richard.
So what? You’re still an idiot.
No U.
And you’re still 74 years old.
z
Bill Gates Just Gave a Climate Lecture to Billionaires, he told them they can easily dim the sun by flying their Private Jets more
That’s as plausible as contending that you are witty.
On the millennial scale, the Earth is cooling. This graph proves it.
The Earth’s cooling has been on since 8000 years ago and nobody can stop it same as nobody could have stopped the rise out of the glaciation that occurred 14,000 12,000 years ago and peaked 8,000 years ago.
No man is causing warming and no man will cause cooling. Our universe consists of rotating bodies circling other bodies obeying the laws of nature. Everything changes in a sinusoidal way. A point on the rim of a wheel travelling in space and time.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Alex
” Our universe consists of rotating bodies circling other bodies obeying the laws of nature. ”
With, according to a few Pseudoskeptics, one exception: the Moon.
Apart from that, other Pseudoskeptics will tell you that Earth is even cooling since 4.5 billion years.
Thus: what are your little 8000 years?
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, you appear obsessed with the Moon issue. You understand nothing about it, but you can’t let it go.
Do you actually believe Moon is violating the “laws of nature”?
Or, are you just trolling again?
It gets even better when point out for 8,000 years CO2 and temperature go in the opposite directions
https://i.postimg.cc/YSHhhV3d/tempco2.gif
… on Greenland.
Idiot.
No U.
z
Silly Billy Willy,
Is your trolling meant to influence those who are even more stupid than you?
It doesn’t seem to be working too well with rational and intelligent commenters, but keep trying. Maybe cryptic and obscure comments might be more your forte.
What do you think?
Mike Flynn,
Good morning.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
> nobody could have stopped the rise out of the glaciation that occurred 14,000 12,000 years ago
Counterpoint:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/human-emissions-will-delay-next-ice-age-by-50000-years-study-says
Oh no! Another “study”!
Predictions out to 50,000 or even 100,000 years!
Idiot climate crackpots believe in infinite trends. According to their intense calculations, the seas will boil dry in less than 10,000 years.
Maybe grounds for more “studies”?
Mike Flynn,
You almost said something!
Great progress!
Keep trying!
Wacky Wee Willy,
Troll away, kiddo, troll away.
How are you going with your study of the scientific method? If it is a bit too hard for you, maybe you could study liberal arts. If you take a Political Science or Social Science subject, you could call yourself a scientist.
In the meantime, you could try telling me why the Earth could not cool to its present temperature without the assistance or otherwise, of the mythical GHE.
Or not, if you don’t feel like it.
Mike Flynn,
Is there something you’d like to add:
https://climateball.net/but-science/
Willard, please stop trolling.
I believe its projections out to 50,000 to 100,000 years as UN employees of IPCC don’t do predictions.
I will foretell there will 1/2 trillion humans living in Venus orbit
within 50,000 years. And imagine some foolish humans will traveling out to Alpha Centauri within 2000 years. Unless there something serious wrong with that particular solar system.
I have been thinking about idea of making surfing beaches, because low income ocean settlements need surfing beaches. I am not expert on making barrel waves, which surfers seem to like. But I was looking about, and apparently Fiji – Cloudbreak is something they get excited about. And seems if one could make something like Cloudbreak, then they wouldn’t need to fly to Fiji.
Per km, it seems it cost more than floating breakwater, but also sort acts like a breakwater.
What makes you think we’ll last long enough to colonise the solar system?
It’s fifty years since anyone went beyond Earth orbit and only the Chinese are taking long term manned space exploration seriously.
What makes me think I will last long enough to colonise the
solar system?
I am highly optimistic.
I think Joe Biden will be the US President when we land crew on the south polar region of the Moon. It seems he has picked NASA administer who could manage it.
AP news says:
“TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES, N.M. (AP) Swashbuckling billionaire Richard Branson hurtled into space aboard his own winged rocket ship Sunday, bringing astro-tourism a step closer to reality and beating out his exceedingly richer rival Jeff Bezos.”
https://apnews.com/article/virgin-galactic-launch-richard-branson-37fd721264b1421f8a1223ee5e5626e3
Make that 1 billion years.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131216142310.htm#
Date: December 16, 2013
Source: CNRS
Summary:
“The natural increase in solar luminosity — a very slow process unrelated to current climate warming — will cause the Earth’s temperatures to rise over the next few hundred million years. This will result in the complete evaporation of the oceans. …”
I said there could be 1/2 trillion people living in the orbital space of Venus within 50,000 years. And 50,000 years is less time than hundred million years.
The only way I can see 1/2 trillion people living around Venus is humans will already mined Earth’s ocean amount of water from Space and there many Earth oceans amounts of water in space.
100 meter sphere of water is 5.2410^5 / 1000 is 524 tons so
Each of 1/2 trillion on average would have 524 tons of water in their backyard and collectively add that amount again so at least
5.24 x 10^17 kg of water in Venus orbit of which 2.62 x 10^17 kg in their backyard. And earth ocean amount is 1.3 x 10^21 kg allowing large amount not to be in Venus orbit.
A significant amount of water could put on Lunar surface, one make space elevators, get electrical power from dropping water via a space elevator onto lunar surface. One can also do this with Mars, it is slightly harder to do. And do this with Earth which is a lot harder to do- probably have make stronger material to do this in regards to Earth. But Earth has a lot water and probably only has population less than 50 billion people. And Earth orbit could have 10 times more people than Earth surface.
Venus orbit should have highest population, though probably not many people living in sky of Venus. Likewise there would few people living on Mars surface, probably less than 1 billion, or Mars surface might have 10 times as much people as Venus surface. Perhaps Mercury has more people living on it’s surface than Mars, and it need a lot imported water. But by that time, Mercury water would cost less than what earthling paying for it currently.
Probably a factor related to population of any of these planetary surfaces is want going on in terms living underground- Mercury, Mars, and the Moon have much more area underground which could used as compared to Earth [which has an active plate tectonics and a water table which make any deeper than 1 mile, difficult, whereas tens of miles under surface is quite possible with those other planets. And if there is large natural underground structure it could encourage adding to this natural area underground. And like a bad habit, they just continuing doing it.
Sorry.
I was referring to Swenson’s comment about the seas boiling in 10,000 years
“Entropic man says:
July 11, 2021 at 2:02 PM
Sorry.
I was referring to Swenson’s comment about the seas boiling in 10,000 years”
Well there no evidence any planet lost it’s ocean due to boiling oceans. And sunlight can’t cause oceans to boil even at Mercury distance from Sun.
But getting hit by Mars size planet does cause very high surface temperatures and it’s thought during formation the surface and atmosphere was over 1000 C.
And don’t need space rocks as big as Mars, but you do needs high orbital velocity. So if planet during formation is orbiting more than say 20 km/sec, it’s surface should get higher than 1000 C.
So Mars [average orbital velocity: 24.07] and assuming formed where had such orbital velocity would have surface over 1000 C.
As Swenson mentions a lot, Earth started out hot. And Earth had a lot water when hot, and didn’t lose the water even when well about boiling temperature {+1000 C}. With Venus, there is zero evidence it has ever been cooler than it is at moment. And that sunlight caused some imagine ancient Venus ocean to boil away into space is fairy tale.
If dropped a lot 200 C water on Venus, Venus would cool. And in billions of years wouldn’t lose much water [despite not having magnetic field, and Venus currently kind of looks sort like comet [if squint your eyes}.
What would happen if added 20 trillion tons of water to Mercury.
Obviously one get white polar ice caps. And then added 20 trillion tons of Nitrogen. The nitrogen can’t freeze out.
But Mars has 25 trillion tons of CO2 and Mars about size and mass of Mars. 20 trillion ton is very thin atmosphere.
200 trillion tonnes nitrogen is still a thin atmosphere- and should lose much of nitrogen or water added and one could have liquid water rather than just frozen water.
So, Earth in it’s Ice Age is dry, and with 200 trillion tonnes of atmosphere, Mercury has much thinner and much drier atmosphere with some liquid water and a lot frozen ice.
“No man is causing warming and no man will cause cooling.”
Humans are part of nature.
Here’s a comment from Wee Willy the Idiot, in full –
“Mike Flynn,
Good morning.”
In the Wizard of Oz, the straw man lamented his lack of a brain.
Witless Wee Willy knows lots about straw men, but precious little about brain. He spends much of his time trying to convince people that his IQ is larger than his shoe size.
His comments show otherwise.
Here’s a sample –
“Mike Flynn,
Do you do anything else that deny, divert, and avoid?
I don’t think so”
Sloppiness or stupidity? You be the judge.
Woebegone Wee Willy also quotes dummies like himself, in his appeals to authority –
Apparently from Ken Rice’s blog (an astrophysicist and self appointed “climate expert”) –
“Dont get me started on hearing degrees Celcius when people are talking about Celcius degrees. Another sloppy use of terminology that has become ubiquitous.”
Sloppy? Just a little. The man after whom the units were named was Anders Celsius. Nitwits like Wee Willy don’t let little things like facts get in the way of a good rant. Don’t get him started, indeed. His nonsense generator is powered by the magic of CO2, and achieves perpetual motion!
Mike Flynn,
You write–
“Don’t get him started”
I think you’re confusing me with the author of the comment you quote.
His name is Bob.
Weird Wee Willy,,
You are confusing me with someone who cares. You want to quote some other sloppy idiot, go your hardest.
If you think it makes you look clever, good for you!
Mike Flynn,
You say–
“You are confusing me with someone who cares”
No, I don’t:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-744354
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Willard, please stop trolling.
ken…”I did that and I got a note stating the matter had been passed to the climate minister, Climate Barbie (who thankfully won’t be running again in the next election). I had also passed a similar missive to her and got no response at all”.
****
I write directly to the PM asking them not to forward my message to Climate Barbie because I have no confidence in her. It’s all an exercise in futility but I feel an obligation to write anyway.
It’s similar to playing the Lotto. There’s not much of a chance of winning but if you don’t play, the odds against winning become infinite.
You’ll get a polite acknowledgement and nothing more, the usual response to letters from the green ink brigade.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/green-ink_brigade
Gordon,
You should also point the PM to actual physicists like Murry Salby, Ed Berry, Hermann Harde, Richard Lindzen, et. al. who have falsified AGW. It is remarkable they have done this because AGW was such a loose theory much like Darwinism.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/26/new-theory-proves-agw-wrong/
“Sceptic science” related to AGE tends to suffer from three contradictions.
1) It tends to contradict existing evidence. Dr Soon has published a number of papers suggesting that the Sun has been warming and causing the climate to warm, despite the solar physicists observing a reduction in solar activity.
2) It tends to contradict basic physics. Gerlich & Tscheuschner(2009) ignores conservation of energy.
3) It tends to be self-contradictory. The different papers claimed to falsify AGW also falsify each other.There is no underlying common theme which might point to an alternative pardigm.
AGW is just another hoax.
* CO2 absorbs and emits photons, as do bananas. CO2 can’t “warm the planet”, just like bananas can’t “warm the planet”.
* The contrived “33K” is nonsense.
* Instead of “proving” GHE, the “steel greenhouse” disproves GHE.
* The conjured up “energy imbalance” is anti-science — flux is NOT conserved.
Pup, you are trolling again with Dragon crap.
Do you actually believe the atmosphere is violating the “laws of nature”?
Do the Poll Dance Experiment.
Clint R says:
CO2 absorbs and emits photons, as do bananas. CO2 can’t ‘warm the planet’, just like bananas can’t ‘warm the planet’.
Call me a catastrophist if you will, but living in a world where 36 billion tonnes of bananas were injected into the atmosphere each year might be unpleasant.
Willard and Mark offer more of the “no science, none of the time” meme from the AGW nonsense.
I forgot that other contribution:
YOU GOT NOTHING
You know why you’re parroting the same thing over and over
You got nothing
You label your beliefs facts
You dont like having your beliefs attacked
Hence why you started the ad homs
And still are trying to malign me
Thats what trolls do
Your avoidance of reality and your immaturity is not just opinion, its fact
You were indoctrinated
You are now a cult member
Your devotion to your cult is admirable
Did your cult instruct you to resort to irrelevant nonsense
Your fantasies aint science
Incompetence and immaturity aint science
You accept academics over science and common sense
They fool you with all that nonsense
Just more anti-science nonsense
You seldom attempt any science, and I now understand why
You have no science background
You dont know how to interpret data
You cant think for yourself
You cant learn
Youve already demonstrated you dont understand science
You dont understand the issue
Youll never understand
You have a poor record of understanding physics
I will accept your admission of incompetence
Thats a lot of blah-blah
Over 90% of that comment was garbage.
You may not have realized how confused your comment was
You have to be smarter than your keyboard.
Sorry child, but you play
So that I wont be wasting my time, lets see if youre ready to face reality
If you really want to learn, answer the simple question, and lets get started
Dont let that stop you from attempting science
Theres nothing wrong with a good laugh
Keep wasting your time trolling
(2021-06-26)
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-738679
That’s correct, Willard. You’ve got NOTHING.
Just more of your “no science, none of the time” meme.
That’s false, Pup:
Thanks to you, I at least got a poem.
What I’d need in my collection is your Pole Dance Experiment.
That’s correct, Willard. You’ve got NOTHING.
But at least you’re stalking within 5 minutes.
Good job.
A poem isn’t NOTHING, Pup.
Your appeals to science are as empty as your appeals to reality.
Which is fine for your trolling.
False accusations ain’t reality, Willard.
Like I stated, you’ve got NOTHING.
Here is how we do the Poll Dance Experiment, Pup:
https://youtu.be/IO9XlQrEt2Y
Like I stated at the start, you’ve got NOTHING.
As the Pope of the luckwarm church, Dick believes in AGW, Stephen.
You’re so predictable. This sure seems like a falsification.
https://notrickszone.com/2020/06/15/mits-dr-lindzen-pokes-fun-at-the-naive-well-funded-scientific-reasoning-that-1-factor-co2-controls-climate/
Go to the source, Stephen:
https://books.google.ca/books/about/Dynamics_in_Atmospheric_Physics.html
If you prefer a more unvarnished version:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-11/documents/global_warming_what_is_it_all_about.pdf
I’ll add this to my list of contributions.
It’s not a falsification. He’s set up and knocked down a straw man that CO2 is the only possible cause of changes in climate.
Anyone in the climate trade will give you a long list of forcings which can warm or cool the climate.
One suggestion is to join a political party and then try to influence the party platform. Its difficult because the main parties have been infested with ‘Greens’ and ‘Woke’.
But your chances of getting somewhere are better than trying to write the PM. Political party’s have a stabilizing influence on government but the downside is that political party’s MPs are representing the Party platform instead of the constituents that elect them.
Its not solid either. Conservative Party platform says ‘no carbon tax’ but the Party Leader is campaigning on something that isn’t a carbon tax. O’Toole bucks isn’t really distinguishable from a carbon tax. A clear case where the platform isn’t being followed by the leader of the party. Its going to cost him the election.
The other option is to look at Mad Max and the PPC. Their platform is relatively sane compared to all the other parties that are going around the bend sinister to the left. No telling if that will remain the case if Mad Max actually wins seats.
LUCKWARM UPDATE
https://berkeleyearth.org/the-pacific-northwest-heatwave-in-context
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1459107/why-is-this-summer-so-cold-met-office-forecast-EVG
“SUMMER is here, although looking out the window you would be forgiven to mistake the weather for an average day in January. But with many of us questioning why it is so cold and dreary this year, Express.co.uk has spoken to the Met Office who, you may be surprised to hear, say it’s not abnormal at all.”
All is not about North America.
UK isn’t the world anymore:
https://news.mongabay.com/2021/07/as-arctic-melt-sets-early-july-record-hard-times-lie-ahead-for-ice-studies/
“UK isn’t the world”
No shit Sherlock. But it is at the Eastern edge of the Atlantic.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
> No shit Sherlock.
You just said “All is not about North America,” dummy.
Which is true. Idiot.
> Which is true
So is “UK isnt the world anymore,” dummy.
Doesn’t make you less of an idiot.
[VLAD] All is not about North America.
[ESTR] Teh UK isn’t the world anymore
[VLAD] No shit Sherlock.
[ESTR] You just said “All is not about North America,” dummy.
[VLAD] Which is true. Idiot.
[ESTR] So is “teh UK isn’t the world anymore,” dummy.
[VLAD] Doesn’t make you less of an idiot.
Idiot. 2 things can be true at the same time.
Weather is not climate proved yet again.
[VLAD] All is not about North America.
[ESTR] Teh UK isn’t the world anymore
[VLAD] No shit Sherlock.
[ESTR] You just said “All is not about North America,” dummy.
[VLAD] Which is true. Idiot.
[ESTR] So is “teh UK isn’t the world anymore,” dummy.
[VLAD] Doesn’t make you less of an idiot.
[ESTR]
[VLAD] Idiot. 2 things can be true at the same time.
Still an idiot I see.
You’re still 74 years old.
So what? Doesn’t make you less of an idiot.
No U, and it doesn’t make you less of a 74 years old.
z
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://news.mongabay.com/2021/07/as-arctic-melt-sets-early-july-record-hard-times-lie-ahead-for-ice-studies/
https://i0.wp.com/4castwidgets.intelliweather.net/enso/wuwt/SMB_curves_LA_latest.jpg?ssl=1
https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/689574main_MinSeaIce_20120916-orig_full.jpg
The point was that Greenland was not losing Ice Mass whilst Artic Sea Ice may be low for this time of year.
Sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean isn’t Greenland surface melt extent.
So could Greenland be where all that ice that has been ‘lost’ is being deposited?
Just Asking Questions isn’t looking for answers.
Ignorance isn’t knowledge.
Idiocy is always going to come from an idiot such as you.
Being 74 yours old isn’t always being old.
But in your case it is.
Being an idiot can occur at any age. As in your case where your age is unimportant.
No U are unimportant, old guy.
You are only important in your own mind. Idiot.
Keep your mind probing to yourself, dummy.
Keep your idiocy to yourself likewise.
My idiocy tells you to keep mind probing, now.
God you’re dumb.
Not as dumb as to not be able to recognize an idiot such as you.
No U.
About the (Tmax+Tmin)/2 versus median averaging polemic [part 2]
This is a Continuation of my comment posted on July 7, 2021 at 10:12 AM, showing the difference between the two averaging techniques (with the 24h average in addition):
https://i.postimg.cc/g0GG1tDw/DWD-monthly-minmax-median-avg-1941-2021.png
RLH’s last comment about it was:
” I asked for min/max and the distribution of the calculation i.e., the yellow/orange line. That is what matters.
It is quite difficult to see but it seems that it is biased below the 0 line. ”
WOW!
That is exactly why I name people like RLH ‘Pseudoskeptic’s, namely because they stay all the time in guessing instead of clearly contradicting the dataq you post with other data.
They say: ‘I think you are wrong, prove me wrong’ instead of proving me wrong.
Until now I still didn’t see a graph made by RLH out of USCRN hourly data, which would clearly, exactly compare two plots:
– (tmin+tmax)/2
with one obtained when using the
– daily median instead,
and, additionally, a third plot showing the
– difference between median and (tmin+tmax)/2.
Did I overlook anything?
C’mon RLH!
Where is your graph?
J.-P. D.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/histogram.gif
Ha ha ha haaah
Are you joking, RLH?
You think a histogram is not the way to show distribution and range?
Moar silly questions.
Our dummy’s signature move, really.
So what would you consider the correct way to show range and distribution if not by histogram?
Why do you keep dodging what Binny asked you a few times already, dummy?
Binny himself answered the question as to which is more accurate, the median or the mean when comparted to the true average temperature during a day.
That’s not what he asked, dummy.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-755646
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-755988
As my original point was that the mean (calculated by (min + max)/2 ) was an inaccurate way of obtaining the true average temperature during the day and the USCRN conveniently provides that data already, I just accumulated that into a distribution graph.
As to median versa mean, just check any stats book. Unless you want me to prove that the temperature distribution is not a normal, gaussian, one.
> Unless you want me to prove that the temperature distribution is not a normal, gaussian, one.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/histogram.gif
Do you realize that
1. It is not a normal distribution.
2. It is quite wide in its range.
Do you realize what “central” stands for in “central limit theorems,” Richard.
You do realize that you are an idiot don’t you.
Mean and median converge when you have a center, dummy.
Only if the data is in a normal distribution. Did you not study statistics?
In any case the histogram I presented is for average-mean. That shows the inaccuracy in (Tmin+Tmax)/2, mean.
Unless you want to take a median of average-mean that is. Idiot.
The – sign stands for minus.
Symmetry suffices, dummy.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
You have no competency in statistics.
No U.
z
My understanding of your original point was that the method of calculating daily station temperature significantly affected the long term trend and/or long term trend uncertainty. You have not quantitatively supported that apparent assertion. Further Bindidon’s calculations on the DWD subset seem not to support that assertion.
If you wish to clarify that your contention is simply that there are differences in values calculated via (min+max)/2, mean, and median but these differences do not significantly affect the trend or trend uncertainty, I expect no one will disagree.
“My understanding of your original point was that the method of calculating daily station temperature significantly affected the long term trend and/or long term trend uncertainty.”
Wrong. What I said was that (min+max)/2 was an inaccurate way of determining the true accurate average temperature during any day, which then widens the uncertainty of any measurement based on it.
RLH says: Wrong. I said was that (min+max)/2 was an inaccurate way of determining the true accurate average temperature during any day, . . .
No argument, it’s used for historical instrumentation reasons.
. . . which then widens the uncertainty of any measurement based on it.
This is unsupported conjecture. Your distribution curve shows the measures differ from each other. It does not demonstrate that the resulting trend or trend uncertainty are significantly different. Again, Bindidon’s July 7th post apparently contradicts this assertion for the DWD subset.
“No argument, its used for historical instrumentation reasons.”
I know.
The range of inaccuracy that USCRN shows is from -4.0 to +4.4, with over 10% of samples falling outside +/- 1.5c.
No-where do I see that inaccuracy/uncertainty presented in the historical dats records.
“It does not demonstrate that the resulting trend or trend uncertainty”
It does demonstrate that any one station can be as much as that in error on any one day.
RLH says:
The range of inaccuracy that USCRN shows is from -4.0 to +4.4, with over 10% of samples falling outside +/- 1.5c.
No-where do I see that inaccuracy/uncertainty presented in the historical dats records.
Trend and trend uncertainty are properties derived from the time series under analysis independent of what that data represents.
Your exercise demonstrates that the daily (min+max)/2 process produces a series of data points that are point-for-point different than a daily mean or median process. It does not demonstrate that the relevant statistical properties of trend slope and slope uncertainty are significantly changed with the different daily metrics.
Consider an example where one takes a time series and adds a constant offset to each point. The mean will change by that offset, but the standard deviation stays the same, so the linear trend will have the same slope and slope uncertainty but with the added offset. If one is using anomalies the offset is nominally removed as well.
If one further adds random noise to the offset time series, the linear trend slope is nominally unaffected, while the slope uncertainty increases. However, if the added random noise power (standard deviation) is small relative to the noise power of the original signal the uncertainty is minimally affected. In the case under consideration, your analysis shows roughly 1.5C at two standard deviations which is typically much smaller than the deviation of the daily temperature metric be it median or whatever.
That’s a bit of a hand-wavy argument for why I don’t expect detailed analysis to meaningfully change the result should you choose to put in the work. Also this expectation of “no significant difference” in trend/trend uncertainty is consistent with the handful of stations I looked at per a previous thread and more compellingly with Bindidon’s more rigorous but not yet comprehensive work.
“Your exercise demonstrates that the daily (min+max)/2 process produces a series of data points that are point-for-point different than a daily mean or median process. It does not demonstrate that the relevant statistical properties of trend slope and slope uncertainty are significantly changed with the different daily metrics.”
As I never said that you are missing the point.
Any 1 day can be inaccurate by at least +/-4.0c at any one station according to the USCRN (actually it is even higher than that but my normalization calculation dropped off single errors. It is VERY long tailed out to +/- 10c or more).
10% or more of the sampling can be in error by over +/- 1.5c.
No-where in any of the calculations done based on that data acknowledges that degree (pun) of uncertainty in the individual station measurements. Just an assumption that it does not matter.
If I were to add (or subtract) ‘noise’ with a similar distribution randomly to the data provided are you so certain that nothing would change?
“Bindidons more rigorous but not yet comprehensive work.”
Bindidons work is very suspect as it shows continuous bias for Mean against Average. It also shows that Median is much closer to Average than Mean is.
Unfortunately I cannot accept either as being of use.
“the linear trend slope”
Linear trends are only useful over the date range they represent. They provide no clue as to the changes both prior and post their calculation.
“Bindidon’s work is very suspect” because his actual computations on real world data do not support your intuition. I’ve attempted to explain why your intuition is suspect.
I may or may not get around to testing my explanation which does make an implicit assumption that the error distributions are sufficiently close to stationary except in the mean. Even if I do, it’s unlikely to convince you unless you follow through and do it for yourself.
> Linear trends are only useful over the date range they represent. They provide no clue as to the changes both prior and post their calculation.
If the trends don’t change, the difference you find makes no difference at all in the end. As I told you the very first time we met.
You can dance around that point as long as you like. Climateball is a long game.
“Bindidons work is very suspect because his actual computations on real world data do not support your intuition. Ive attempted to explain why your intuition is suspect.”
So do please tell me why his mean, median and average show no overlap as would be expected then.
Unless you are going to tell me that the USCRN are wrong when they say that some considerable overlap exists in those datasets.
“If the trends dont change, the difference you find makes no difference at all in the end. As I told you the very first time we met.”
Which linear trends predicted that there would be 6 months of global temperature decline since 2020?
> Which linear trends
You don’t get to JAQ off in a formal discussion, dummy.
Dodge away whenever you are asked serious questions. It’s almost as if you don’t know what the answer should be.
You never ask any serious question, dummy.
Mark B is being too kind with you.
You are just an idiot who does not speak for others.
What I say that Mark B is too kind to you, I’m not speaking for him, dummy.
And No U.
In your opinion which is worth less than nothing.
You are 74 years old, dummy.
You are an idiot. I may well get older. You won’t improve on your situation of being an idiot.
Being old has little to do with age, dummy.
And No U.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-755646
I’m still tracking your blunders, dummy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-753305
RLH,
Again this issue is insignificant for any measurements relevant to climate change.
Unless you can show that the current approach creates a BIAS on the mean monthly temperature for a location. Can you?
The errors produced by using min-max are caused by weather fronts moving in at random times of day, and tend to cancel over a month. The central limit thm makes the monthly mean have a Gaussian distribution.
The variation produced directly by weather on monthly Tmean is much larger than this effect, thus it will be insignificant.
Just wait until Richard tells you about his theory of how inaccuracies propagate, Nate.
Nate says: RLH, Again this issue is insignificant for any measurements relevant to climate change.
Unless you can show that the current approach creates a BIAS on the mean monthly temperature for a location. Can you?
Climate change metrics are usually based on temperature anomalies which would effectively remove any fixed bias.
For the different approach to matter much, there would have to be a long term change in the bias, which is to say there would be a significant different in the temperature anomaly trends between the different metrics.
“Fig. 2. Shifting distribution of temperature anomalies for Northern Hemisphere land for June-July-August. The graph shows the frequency of occurrence (y-axis) of local temperature anomalies divided by the local standard deviation (x-axis) obtained by binning all local results for the indicated region and period into 0.05 frequency intervals. Area under each curve is unity. Standard deviations are for the 1951-1980 period.”
https://tinyurl.com/4x3ujx87
Clearly a Gaussian distribution.
Clearly shifting and getting broader over time leading to more extreme warm T.
Why broader?
“Rossby waves, the upper tropospheric jet stream, and storm tracks guided by the jet stream are all related, and all are affected by the global warming caused by increasing greenhouse gases. The jet stream is driven by the temperature gradient from middle to polar latitudes. An especially cold Arctic tends to cause a strong, tightly-wound jet stream. However, an increased greenhouse effect warms the Arctic more than mid-latitudes, reducing the temperature gradient, thus slowing the jet stream and allowing it to have more extreme waggles. This was likely a contributing factor in the Pacific Northwest heat wave”
About the (Tmax+Tmin)/2 versus median averaging polemic [part 3]
Of course: Germany is a small piece of the Globe, even much much smaller than the US.
Thus, like I say:
“CONUS is no more than 6 % of the Globe’s land surface”,
anyone can say:
“Bindidon’s analysis might be valid for Germany, but he should confirm with a global analysis”.
100 % agreed.
For this reason, I processed METEOSTAT’s worldwide hourly data, in exactly the same manner as I did for the data obtained from the ‘Deutscher Wetterdienst’ (DWD), i.e. to only consider those days in all station records which show complete hourly data.
*
Here is METEOSTAT’s Germany chart, for comparison with DWD’s
https://i.postimg.cc/kXLkHmD0/METEOSTAT-DE-monthly-minmax-median-avg-1941-2021.png
[ The reason for starting with 1941 is that the hourly data is rather poor everywhere. ]
Next chart: the US
https://tinyurl.com/ektz4wu2 (this d-c syndrome is horrifying)
Next chart: the European Union together with a few European states around it (Serbia, Croatia etc)
https://i.postimg.cc/qvVCvNzj/METEOSTAT-EU-monthly-minmax-median-avg-1941-2021.png
Next chart: the Globe
https://i.postimg.cc/gkTrxnjf/METEOSTAT-GL-monthly-minmax-median-avg-1941-2021.png
*
Do not forget: these charts are only intended for a comparison between different evaluations of all daily temperature records containing hourly data, and are of no use to show temperatures as a whole.
***
Thus, RLH, stop boasting with your superficial teacher statements based on simple guessing, like
” It is quite difficult to see but it seems that it is biased below the 0 line. ”
and start doing real engineering work instead, with four charts for Germany, the US, Europe and the Globe, proving me wrong.
And if you can’t do that: I hope you’ll have balls enough to admit you were wrong.
J.-P. D.
To download the full METEOSTAT data was a hard job: there is no possibility to download the entire data like in GHCN.
You have to download the stuff station by station:
https://dev.meteostat.net/bulk/hourly.html#endpoints
and moreover, there seems to be a maximum of data downloadable in one step; you thus have to split the download in several steps.
Their answer to my critique about that:
” We don’t offer a single archive of all (hourly) data, yet, It’s however a good suggestion which I will put on the roadmap. ”
Magnifique.
J.-P. D.
“To download the full METEOSTAT data was a hard job: there is no possibility to download the entire data like in GHCN.”
Here is a json file that contains all of the weather stations at https://bulk.meteostat.net/v2/stations/full.json.gz.
It should be fairly trivial to iterate over that dataset to download all of the stations data, either in Hourly, Daily or Monthly or to get the Normals as required.
Jesus… that is exactly what I did, Superengineer…
By using grep, sed, gawk, sort, uniq and a few own tools, and then running over the generated file within a for loop in the shell.
Why do people like you always think others don’t know how to work?
” It should be fairly trivial to iterate over that dataset… ”
Hmmmh.
J.-P. D.
“”It should be fairly trivial to iterate over that dataset ”
Hmmmh.”
I am doing it right now. C# makes that sort of thing quite easy.
OK. There are 13,237 stations with some hourly data in that dataset.
” OK. There are 13,237 stations with some hourly data in that dataset. ”
No.
Crickets.
“” OK. There are 13,237 stations with some hourly data in that dataset.”
No.”
Are you suggesting the maths are incorrect?
How many of those records have at least 12 hourly data points in any 1 day?
Our dummy’s signature move: ask silly questions.
Never to get any answers, let alone sensible ones, from Willard.
You pretend having done the work but then instead of showing it, dummy, you point at unexplained graphs, ask silly questions, and issue cheap innuendos.
You deflect without committing yourself to anything. Perhaps you should be committed.
I don’t need to fall for your bait, dummy.
And no I’m not deflecting: I’m countering your deflection.
Countering your deflections is enough for me.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-755646
You’re punting, dummy.
Here was Binny’s challenge:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-753270
Binny was wrong in what I said, wrong in his calculations and interestingly then apparently managed to show that what I actually said was correct.
Oh, and wrong about how difficult it was to download the data. I did it all in a few lines of C#.
grep, sed, gawk, sort, uniq and a few own tools is SO last decade.
You’re deflecting again, dummy.
Binny is asking you to do something. You should have done the work by half the time you’ve been punting. And that’s a very conservative estimate.
C# is an old tool which shows you’re an old guy. At least get your bragging right.
I am correct about (min+max)/2 not being an accurate method of determining the true average temperature during the day. As USCRN proves.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/histogram.gif
A histogram isn’t a proof.
A histogram show range and distribution. Idiot.
And your histogram shows centrality.
No it doesn’t. A true normal would be equally sided. This is not. It has different ranges above and below for a start.
It also shows that (Tmin+Tmax)/2 is inaccurate by at least +-1.5c in 10% or more of the samples.
> a true normal
Centrality, dummy.
Idiot.
A 74 year old coder who pretends to know stats presents a histogram with a clear center as evidence that medians will outperform means, while gloating about his training and his experience.
You can’t make this up.
No-one has to make up that uou are an idiot.
“presents a histogram with a clear center as evidence that medians will outperform means”
As it shows that average is different to mean you obviously understand nothing.
Here, dummy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurtosis
That hardly applies to average minus mean does it?
It applies in general, dummy.
Check all the non-normal but symmetric distributions.
As Bindidon’s graph shows a continuous bias for both Mean and Median from the Average it looks like anything based on his work as shown is suspect.
As to what are the statistics that can derive from a calculation of Average minus Mean or Average minus Median I await your considered argument.
Keep dodging, dummy.
You’re the one dodging. What statistics do you expect to be relevant in average minus mean and average minus median and why?
> What statistics do you expect to be relevant
If your statistic shows centrality, mean and median will converge. That’s, like, the very definition of centrality, dummy.
Furthermore, I expect “relevant” to be measured in terms of fitness of purpose. You’re not doing econometry, you’re trying to analyze temperature trends. That implies some trendology.
Without any trend analysis, your work is without any climatological merit. This does not exactly follow from the defition of climate, but it’s close. It follows from doing something useful, in contrast to bickering over nits.
Do you understand what mean, median and average are in the first place?
What do you expect to be shown when you subtract one from the other?
What statistics, specifically, do you expect to be of interest and why?
You’re still asking leading questions, dummy:
https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda35b.htm
Non-normality does not imply what you think it implies.
The histogram shows quite clearly that the data is NOT symmetrical around the center line. I have the figures (not normalized) to prove it if required.
mean = (Tmin + Tmax) / 2
median = middle value of min and max
average = sum of the near continuous samples divided by the count of same (the ‘true’ average temperature during a day).
Statistics books will tell you that median is preferred when the distribution is not a normal one. That is the distribution of the temperatures taken during that day not anything else. Do you have proof that hourly (or 5min) temperatures are normally distributed during the day? I think not. If you have any doubts then the median is the choice you should make.
If, as you claim, the temperatures are normally distributed. then the median will equal the mean. If they are not normally distributed (I will work that proof up for you if you require it, though others have already shown that to be the case) then using the mean is statistically inaccurate and incompetent.
> If, as you claim, the temperatures are normally distributed.
Where did I claim that, dummy?
I’m telling that this is of no relevance whatsoever to whether a version of a Central limit theorem applies.
All you need is centrality.
God you’re dumb.
All versions of CLT require random, unrelated, events in order to meet the criteria for use.
It is the way that it is constructed.
“The central limit theorem states that if you have a population with mean μ and standard deviation σ and take sufficiently large random samples from the population with replacement, then the distribution of the sample means will be approximately normally distributed. This will hold true regardless of whether the source population is normal or skewed, provided the sample size is sufficiently large (usually n > 30). If the population is normal, then the theorem holds true even for samples smaller than 30. In fact, this also holds true even if the population is binomial, provided that min(np, n(1-p))> 5, where n is the sample size and p is the probability of success in the population. This means that we can use the normal probability model to quantify uncertainty when making inferences about a population mean based on the sample mean.”
There is NOTHING in CLT that considers correlated, non-random, sampling as being random samples.
Centrality
The quality or fact of being in the middle of somewhere or something.
Centrality does not mean what you think it means. (puns intended)
> The quality or fact of being in the middle of somewhere or something
Congratulations, dummy: you could find an irrelevant definition!
You, as you continuously show, are irrelevant for anything to do with sense.
After confusing mode and median, now you’re having problem with centrality.
That’s just great.
Mode is better than mean for some distributions. Know that they are?
Better for what, dummy?
As a measure of central tendency.
“In statistics, a central tendency (or measure of central tendency) is a central or typical value for a probability distribution. It may also be called a center or location of the distribution. The most common measures of central tendency are the arithmetic mean, the median, and the mode.”
“There are three main measures of central tendency: the mode, the median and the mean. Each of these measures describes a different indication of the typical or central value in the distribution.”
Intelligent people chose the correct one for the job in hand based on the distribution of the data they see.
> As a measure of central tendency.
That’s what they are, dummy, not types of average like you suggested elsewhere. That does not tell you what you’re doing with that measure.
A hammer is not better because it’s a tool. It’s better because it helps you do certain things in a more efficient way than say a rock.
So you’re stuck back at square one: coming up with an empirical demonstration as to why medians would work better…but for what? Perhaps you should start with the basics: focus on what is it you want to do. That way you’d clarify your schtick about “truer” averages in a way that might be useful for something else than your own chest beating.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-755646
Statisticians disagree.
“There are three different types of average. These are called the mean, the median, and the mode.”
“The mean (average) of a data set is found by adding all numbers in the data set and then dividing by the number of values in the set.”
The mean is only 1 type of average. There are 3 types.
Just because you think that it is called that does not exclude the others. Just shows sloppy definitions.
The mode ain’t an average, dummy.
Willard knows better than the rest of the world.
“There are three different types of average. These are called the mean, the median, and the mode.”
Dummy keeps quoting without sourcing.
NO, RLH, YOU ARE NOT!
The only way to prove it would be to evaluate all the data EXACTLY like I did.
All you prove here is that there is NO DIFFERENCE between you and people like Robertson. You stay in guessing, using pseudoarguments.
But as use to say elder Spanish women, you lack the ‘cojones’ to admit it.
*
You are by no means a real engineer, RLH.
You are what is termed in my native tongue “un ingénieur d'opérette’.
J.-P. D.
J.-P. D.
Just because I show it a different way to that which you demanded does not make it wrong.
RLH
You show NOTHING, and you know it.
How can you be such a coward?
J.-P. D.
Answer the below first.
Why is your graph so inaccurate?
“You are by no means a real engineer, RLH.”
I have letters after my name and validation of them having worked in industry for over 40 years for to my claim to be an engineer. A real engineer doing real engineering. A consultant in doing just that in fact.
I am working up your preferred global dataset (Metostat) though I am not using your rather odd toolset but one that Metostat themselves are more used to. I have suggested to them that they consider adding a mean and average field to their daily dataset to correspond with that which USCRN already has.
I have already obtained all of the global hourly tables and now am doing some data validation on them. What data validation did you use and why?
> I have letters after my name
You’re an old coder, dummy.
You’re just an idiot. Not even a competent one.
Well there are only 371,3014 days with better than 12 hours of data in them. Quite a reduction.
What will you do about it, dummy: sit down and cry, shout at the clouds, show more graphs?
And No U?
Produce some relevant statistics of course. Any idea what those should be?
You have yet to produce any statistic at all, dummy.
A histogram, with labels, is not a treatment of basic statistics. Who knew?
So let me get this straight, dummy:
There only 371,3014 days with better than 12 hours of data in them, and to do something about it you’ll produce a histogram, with labels?
That’s just great.
So what would you suggest is the best way to treat daily data,. A liner trend?
I suggest that unless you can show that your favorite pet tricks are better we stick with what we got, dummy.
What? Being an idiot? You’re good at that.
See, dummy?
You give me another free win.
You’re free to be an idiot all the time if you like.
No U.
What might be difficult to understand in the comment above is that the high differences in the plot showing the difference between
– the (Tmax+Tmin)/2
and
– the median
are a clear hint on the fact that these differences are due to spatial and/or temporal factors, and not to the theoretical and or technical differences between the two methods.
Otherwise, all four charts evidently would show a similar orange plot.
*
It is really shameful for a retired engineer to see how people try to discredit such evidence with a trivial histogram, instead of presenting a contradiction on the technical same level as what they think being wrong.
That reminds me people discrediting and denigrating centuries of work on the Lunar spin, based on such incredibly trivial stuff like coins, merry-go-round or ball-on-a-string.
What is the mental difference between
– RLH
and
– Robertson, ClintR, DREMT, hunter, Vournas and a few other geniuses?
Zero dot zero.
Of course: using my software, I could show the same for the USCRN data set.
And no: I won’t, because that IS RLH’s job.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, I see you’re still obsessed with “lunar spin”. You must know that your false beliefs are crumbling. If simple analogies like the ball-on-a-string can mess you up, just think what a study of the vectors acting on Moon would do. You’re obsessed now, but if you could understand the physics, you wouldn’t be able to sleep!
Your phony world of make-believe is falling apart, and you really have no one to blame but yourself. You joined the cult. You’ve chosen to “go along to get along”. You don’t understand ANY of the science, so now you’re reduced to nothing more than a whining troll.
“It is really shameful for a retired engineer to see how people try to discredit such evidence with a trivial histogram”
It is difficult to say how sad it is for people who I might otherwise respect that do not grasp what a histogram of range and distribution shows.
“What is the mental difference between
– RLH…”
Training and study.
Doing a treatment for median requires I download the 5-min USCRN dataset again. I will do that again in a few days. I used to have it, but discarded it previously, as I understand that it is true daily average against (Tmax+Tmin)/2, mean daily that matters and USCRN daily supplies that without further work.
Bindidon: Why is your graph so inaccurate?
“About the (Tmax+Tmin)/2 versus median averaging polemic [part 3]”
Which only goes to prove you did not concentrate when I first laid out the problems in temperature sampling.
1. (Tmin+Ymax)/2 = Mean
2. True average (by accumulating from some frequent sampling methodology – hourly, 5 minutes or even faster)
3. Median of the above sampling made in 2.
Those are the 3 options for an average temperature for any given day.
Everybody agrees that 2 is the most accurate. EVERYBODY.
The only question is how much is either 1 or 3 are out from 2 and, therefore, which is less inaccurate..
I used the USCRN to show that the range of inaccuracy 1 versa 2 in the histogram I prepared. That comes directly from the data that USCRN supplies. That shows both range (-4.0 to +4.4 – I inadvertently included the extra 0 counts at the end previously) and the distribution over that range. It shows that at least 10% of cases fall outside +-1.5c and up to -4.0 and +4.4. That is the inherent inaccuracy of ALL measurements of temperatures that use that (Tmin+Tmax)/2 methodology. Now or in the past. Unless you have good reason to believe that past history is somehow not the same as present technology.
The fact that I could not, from your graph, accurately determine what you purport to show (which is 1 versa 3 in the above methodologies) is because you did not provide that information in an appropriate fashion. Even though you had the data.
Either because you cannot do it, or because you do not know how to do it, or because you are not skilled enough in statistics to realize that it is what matters.
In any case it is number 1 versa number 3 we should concentrate on. It is which of 1 or 3 is closer to 2 which is the true average for a day and how much they are both inaccurate by.
That is what actually matters. Despite your bluster otherwise.
n any case it is not number 1 versa number 3 we should concentrate on.
The data sampling rate of the USCRN thermometers is 5 seconds and temperature signals averaged over 5-minute intervals are output. USCRN provides a method for coupling its continuous measurements to the past observations
“Here is METEOSTATs Germany chart, for comparison with DWDs”
Why does you chart show unnormalized data as well as mean and median? All you do is make it almost impossible to determine any details.
Hourly average (the average of 24 hourly measurements) is the most accurate method for temperature measurements in any day that you use. It would be even more accurate if it were based on 5min or even higher sampling such as USCRN does.
Please show just average-mean and average-median, preferably with a histogram showing range and distribution of the same.
“The data sampling rate of the USCRN thermometers is 5 seconds and temperature signals averaged over 5-minute intervals are output. USCRN provides a method for coupling its continuous measurements to the past observations”
I have to challenge your postings of
https://i.postimg.cc/qvVCvNzj/METEOSTAT-EU-monthly-minmax-median-avg-1941-2021.png
This appears to show that the (Tmin + Tmax)/2 (blue) are continuously lower than either the Median (red) or the Average (green).
This is very, very unlikely and throws into question your whole graph. The USCRN shows no such continuous bias and it is very, very unlikely that Germany and the USA would be so different, statistically speaking.
Without a histogram to show the range and distribution of the differences between (Tmin + Tmax)/2 and the Average and the Median and the Average it is difficult to be sure but by eye it would appear that the Median is much closer over the whole run to the Average than the Mean is, which would kinda make my point.
RLH
The only way for you to challenge something I did is to redo it by yourself, and not to simply write ‘I have to challenge…’.
If you had a bit more experience in time series data processing, you would understand that all five comparison graphs posted until now (one DWD, 4 METEOSTAT) were generated by exactly the same software.
The difference is in the data.
You are really unable to grasp the difference between
– Germany and the US
– Europe and the Globe.
This difference is due to a lack of homogeneity.
That the three running means for (Tmin + Tmax)/2, the median and the 24h average, might be even closer together in a graph made out USCRN data than they are for Germany already, is imho quite possible.
Again, RLH: stop smalltalking, start hardworking!
J.-P. D.
Provide your reasoning as to why you show that Mean is continuously lower than Average in your graph. Statistically that is impossible.
“If you had a bit more experience in time series data processing, you would understand that all five comparison graphs posted until now (one DWD, 4 METEOSTAT) were generated by exactly the same software.”
If you had any knowledge of statistics you would understand that your results are statistically impossible.
Do you agree that Median is closer to Average than Mean is as shown in your graph?
I am just doing some data verification on the global Metostat hourly dataset. I think that a requirement for at least 12 hours of data during any one day is reasonable otherwise the calculations don’t make much sense.
What data vet did you chose and why?
Well there are only 371,3014 days with better than 12 hours of data in them. Quite a reduction.
I’m definitely sad of all the blah blah written by pseudoengineers like Robertson and RLH.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, you’re as obsessed with Robertson and RLH as Willard is with stalking me.
What is it with you sicko losers?
Why are you trolling Binny, Pup?
18 minutes response time is unacceptable, stalker.
What is two times 31 minutes, Pup?
Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTgj1HxmUbg
24 minutes is getting even worse, stalker.
What’s 13 minutes divided by four, Pup:
https://youtu.be/GHMjD0Lp5DY
Getting worse, stalker.
28 minutes of pure joy, Pup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CrXugKLziM
Willard is very self centered. He thinks that the whole world revolves around him.
“Willard is very self centered. He thinks that the whole world revolves around him.”
That’s not Willard; that’s ClintR, who thinks the Moon revolves around him as well.
: )
Willard, Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
Clint R
“Bindidon, youre as obsessed with Robertson and RLH as Willard is with stalking me.
What is it with you sicko losers? ”
Possibly the contempt working scientists feel for those who purport to be scientists but do not live up to the ethical and professional standards expected of the profession.
Once they start perverting reality, they can’t even “purport to be scientists”. And it follows that you can then forget about “professional standards expected of the profession”.
You’ve got idiots here claiming that passenger jets fly backwards!
Can you believe that, Ent?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-641925
“Youve got idiots here claiming that passenger jets fly backwards! ”
Said by the idiot who fails to understand that in some reference frames this is quite possible.
Ent, you do not get to pervert reality to fit your “reference frame”.
Your cult is finished. You idiots got NOTHING.
Smile.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
I am definitely sad that you are both such a bad scientist and a bad statistician.
RLH
” … both such a bad scientist and a bad statistician. ”
Like you, I’m neither a scientist nor a statistician; thus I can’t be bad in either.
Prove us, RLH, that you are REALLY able to challenge me in the engineering discipline!
Until now, with your laughable toy-like histograms, you keep light years away from that goal.
J.-P. D.
You do realize why histograms are required here don’t you?
You do realize that your own graph proves my point that medians are more accurate than means when compared to averages don’t you?
Binny made clear right from the start that the discussion is about the “significant difference between (tmin+tmax)/2 and median,” dummy.
When compared to the true average otherwise it makes no sense. Idiot.
The decision is if the median or the mean is less inaccurate when compared to the true average calculated from a near continuous sampling.
See https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-753457
> The decision is if the median or the mean is less inaccurate
That’s not a decision, dummy.
What Binny asked amounts to support the contention that this purported inaccuracy makes a significant difference.
Well do you admit that both mean and median ARE inaccurate? And that one will be less inaccurate than the other?
Your problem, old man, is that you think I’m an idiot:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-716124
Also:
<blockquote
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.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-717172
Notice how you follow up with another batch of irrelevant and leading questions.
You cannot avoid the truth. A mean of daily temperatures is less accurate than a median of the same. Both are less accurate than a true average.
Though Bindidon’s graph showed quite clearly which is the better of the 2 (not quite what he intended I’m sure).
“you think Im an idiot”
I don’t think you are an idiot. I KNOW you are an idiot.
You forgot the justification part, dummy.
And No U.
> A mean of daily temperatures is less accurate than a median of the same.
I already gave you studies to that effect more than a month ago, dummy. They were less categorical than that. You need at least four measurements per day to see any difference.
But repeating that won’t hide the fact that you still have to show how this is significant.
All the evidence points to the fact that the median is a better choice than the mean. Otherwise an uncertainty range needs adding to all temperatures that use the mean as a method of assessing temperatures.
Mind you. nothing is significant to those who want to ignore facts.
Keep armwaving, dummy.
As long as you are an idiot. Which might be a long time.
No U, old man.
z. Idiot.
After U.
z
Climate shystering update
https://youtu.be/8OUUlIho0Hg
That’s a 2009 speech, Eboy.
“global warming is biggest challenge facing humanity”
How long has global warming been the biggest challenge facing humanity?
Since, 1960, 1980, or since 2000?
I have never considered global warming as biggest challenge facing humanity.
Is anyone who does?
But suppose that global warming has been the biggest challenge facing humanity since, 1980.
What was the biggest challenge facing humanity before 1980.
Was it Soviet Union totalitarian government?
And Reagan and other others can take credit for doing something to resolve this challenge.
I never thought Soviet Union totalitarian government was biggest challenge facing humanity.
I didn’t like the Soviet Union totalitarian government and maybe was a challenge, but didn’t really think of it as biggest challenge facing humanity. And I was more concerned about the poor way US politicans were dealing with it, as a bigger “problem”. Or wasn’t soviets which I thought was the problem.
The soviet government was more a problem for it’s citizens, I thought they were being mistreated, and there were lot more people in the world which were likewise being mistreated by their governments.
Or since soviets were the only people suffering from a insane government, I wouldn’t single out the Soviet Union’s totaliatarian government as the biggest challenge facing humanity.
Though related to that, was nuclear weapons.
Was nuclear weapons the biggest challenge facing humanity before 1980?
I could understand how someone could think this was true, but personally, it wasn’t biggest challenge facing humanity.
Now, not really a person who spends much time on this topic of biggest challenge facing humanity, but was argument about over population of Earth and like nuclear weapons, I could see why people could regard it as problem. But at moment, I generally see as mostly racist thing. I mean it was hard to think US or Canada were over populated. Europe would have to have “more of problem” than US. And seemed it more about other nations and needing control those other nations, rather than a domestic issue. If was domestic issue, one do something about, and other nations might learn best practices from this effort. And only US thing was promoting abortions, which mostly was getting black woman to get abortions. Which was rich white women not really doing it, rather poor people should do it.
Anyhow, someplace India has large population in fairly small region- compared to say China or US. And of course a focus on Africa and other places.
Now India has average temperature of about 24 C and has 1.4 billion in land area 1/3 of China.
US 3 time more land area, 1/4 of population, and average temperature of about 12 C.
So how could be any hope India? If either were problems?
So, don’t really have any idea of the biggest challenge facing humanity.
It seems if get rid of teacher unions, we could get better education.
Normally, I regard that a fairly big problem, but I guess if could improve education globally that would good, but because Teacher Unions, the US can’t lead in this regard, and don’t see any other nation stepping up yet. But it might something some other country might do- have not seen it yet, but doesn’t mean it will not happen.
I am interested space and ocean settlement but they don’t really count as large challenge facing humanity.
But one thing one could have elections in which the people can have a lot confidence in. Dems have complaining about it for decades- and have been stealing elections for centuries.
But it would good for entire world if they could trust election results.
Also big fan of everyone getting indoor plumbing.
Most immediate problem is the intersection of food supply and population.
To be healthy an average person needs at least 2250 kilocalories.
Food production is 1.9*10^13 kcal, enough to give 2700kcal/day to 7 billion people.
At 2250kcal/day we can feed 8.4 billion people.
Population is forecast to peak around 10 billion, who would get 1900 kcal each.
Ent, you would enjoy the book “The Population Bomb”, written in 1968. The fear mongering was promoted by quotes like:
“In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”
Also, there are monsters under your bed. Be afraid. Be very afraid!
Around 9 million people still die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases, Pup.
That’s despite a reduction of 200M in 40 years, and notwithstanding the pandemic numbers.
Speaking of monsters under your bed:
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/66956/how-much-money-has-rick-astley-made-rickrolling
The greatest service I could do for humanity would be to invent a time machine, return to the date of your conception and give your parents a contraceptive.
If that doesn’t work Ent, there’s always censorship, imprisonment, and execution.
Anything to keep your perversion going, huh?
Poor puppy.
Cheer up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO9XlQrEt2Y
Willard, Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
A 1/3 of land is desert. 70% of world is ocean and large part of ocean lacks nutrients to support much life.
One could turn Sahara desert into arable land. There are few ways to do it.
Though Sahara desert was arable land when Earth had more global warming.
And the adding CO2 to atmosphere does not seem like going cause enough global warming make Sahara desert green.
Solar power is not viable to give electrical power to a electrical grid. But using solar power to “somehow” make freshwater, doesn’t have the battery storage issue.
So one could build endless amounts of solar power or wind mills if
the energy task was to get a trillion tons of water to Sahara desert.
If make Sahara desert into lots arable land it should cause global warming- probably more global warming than doubling of CO2.
But we are in Ice Age and even that would not cause us to leave it.
“According to the FAO ( United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization), the average minimum daily energy requirement is about 1,800 kilocalories (7,500 kJ) per person.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake
What’s the median minimum daily energy requirement?
Which average do think is most relevant and why?
A median is not an average, dummy.
Shouldn’t you be the median guru around here?
Willard knows better that the whole world of statistics.
“Mean, median, and mode are three kinds of ‘averages'”.
They’re central estimates, dummy.
“For a data set, the arithmetic mean, also known as average or arithmetic average, is a central value of a finite set of numbers: specifically, the sum of the values divided by the number of values.”
An average IS a central estimate. And there are 3 types. Do keep up.
We’re using “central estimate” for a reason, dummy. Using “average” would be confusing AF when mean, median, and mode do not coincide.
Another word for central tendency is average.
“A measure of central tendency is a single value that attempts to describe a set of data by identifying the central position within that set of data. As such, measures of central tendency are sometimes called measures of central location. They are also classed as summary statistics. The mean (often called the average) is most likely the measure of central tendency that you are most familiar with, but there are others, such as the median and the mode.”
Your quote does not prove that, dummy.
hmm:
“According to new research, scheduled for presentation Friday at the Goldschmidt Geochemistry Conference, Earth was struck by a city-sized asteroid an average of once very 15 million years between 3.5 and 2.5 billion years ago — a rate 10 times higher than earlier estimates.”
Ah, I didn’t know what was meant by “city-sized asteroid” as space rocks size is usually about size space rock which wipe out a city, are city size rocks and they showed a picture of Arizona crater which would city destroying space rock. But anyhow the “city-sized asteroid” means space rock size that killed dinosaurs, which “recently” do occur every 150 to 200 million years.
But it saying that 2.5 to 3.5 billion ago it was at rate of 15 to 20 million years. Which is “news” to me.
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2021/07/08/ancient-impacts-earth-evolution/8001625772887/
Which was linked from:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
Anyhow if interested global climate {can’t say I am} there seems there was conference and somehow one might sign in and maybe more details.
But 10 times the rate 2.5 to 3.5 billion ago is interesting factoid, if true. And that it affected evolution, is interesting {if interested in evolution}.
The Moon shows quite clearly the likely size and distribution of impacts over its lifetime.
It is very unlikely that the Earth encountered less impacts per square km than the Moon did during the same time.
The only real question is, how much occurred on Earth/Moon during the last 1 million years and what are the chances in the next million years.
> The only real question is
Speaking of self-centeredness.
Idiot.
Own your damn tricks, old man.
Own being an idiot, idiot.
You’re 74 years old, Richard.
You should know by now that there are more scientific questions than we can answer, and that the very idea that there’s only one question left regarding an issue is at best egocentric.
You are just an idiot. You have no other reasoning.
Idiocy isn’t a reasoning, dummy.
There is no reasoning behind your idiocy.
What data validation on the hourly global Metostat dataset would you consider reasonable?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-701542
You have a big backlog of corrections, old man.
As usual Willard never answers any questions, just creates a deflection.
You forgot to respond to Tim, dummy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-707368
More than fifty days for this silly charade.
I can keep going as long as you are an idiot. That looks to be forever.
“central tendency
the tendency for the values of a random variable to cluster round its mean, mode, or median.”
“the median is called ‘robust against outliers’, whereas the mean actually is ‘sensitive to outliers’.”
Now where did I see a histogram of how just bad the outliers were for the true average minus the mean?
You’re 74 years old, dummy.
I can play a longer game than you.
Outliers are completely irrelevant if they cancel each other, dummy.
You are 74 years old. “Forever” might be shorter than you presume.
How high is your blood pressure?
“Outliers are completely irrelevant if they cancel each other”
But they don’t. Do you want the non-normalized data from USCRN?
Keep asking silly questions, dummy.
Keep deflecting because you don’t know what the real answers are.
The topic was your own self-centeredness, dummy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-754183
Just because you don’t really understand statistics no need to try and change the subject.
I started at the Auditor’s, dummy.
You’re the one who’s biting more than he can chew here.
What you claim and what is reality differ quite considerably I suspect.
You started at Roy’s less than two months ago by confusing modes and medians, dummy.
You started a long time ago being an idiot, and things have not improved since then.
You are a 74 years old Climateball rookie, dummy.
And No U.
When will you test for skewness, dummy?
Climateball is your own construction which is only relevant to you and no-one else.
Your performance so far illustrates fairly well why we need a concept like Climateball, dummy.
I bet you did not even notice that it was an inclusive concept, since you have difficulties with symmetry.
Climateball is an inclusive concept, dummy.
Speaking of symmetry, when will you test for skewness?
God I hate Roy’s filter.
Still only relevant to you alone.
Keep denying that you’re far from doing science or even statistics, old man.
Climateball is all you do.
Keep denying you are an idiot.
That Climateball move of yours meets a rejoinder that emphasizes how mature it is:
No U.
z
–RLH says:
July 12, 2021 at 1:36 AM
The Moon shows quite clearly the likely size and distribution of impacts over its lifetime.
It is very unlikely that the Earth encountered less impacts per square km than the Moon did during the same time.”
Made think of question, why is far side of Moon different, so wondered what answers there was:
—
Near-side/far-side impact crater counts
Is it true that the reason the far side of the Moon has more impact craters than the near side is because the Earth shields the near side?
Thank you very much.
The Earth partially shields the near side of the Moon from incoming asteroids, but that is not a large enough effect to influence crater densities. Just using simple straight-line geometry, you can calculate how much of the lunar sky is obscured by the Earth, about 4 square degrees out of 41,000 sq degrees for the whole sky. This makes the Earth negligible as a shield for the Moon. The real reason there are more impact craters on the far side of the Moon is that the near side has a much thinner crust which has allowed volcanoes to erupt and fill in ancient large basins (or large impact craters). These large lava flows have covered craters that were formed early in the Moons history through the late heavy bombardment, which is when the largest percentage of impacts were occurring in the inner solar system. It is likely that each side of the Moon has received equal numbers of impacts, but the resurfacing by lava results in fewer craters visible on the near side than the far side, even though the both sides have received the same number of impacts. Further, the oldest areas in both near and far side are saturated, meaning that they have reached equilibrium (each new crater, on average, destroys one old one). In this case, the density of craters is no longer an accurate measure of the number of hits the surface has received.
David Morrison, Senior Scientist
Brad Bailey, Staff Scientist
—
That seems to be reasonable answer. So we don’t know how much Moon been hit, as Moon been hit so much it wipes out past impactor craters. But one could say far side with thicker crust is better in some way- depicts a longer history heavy rain of impactors, and near side “better” as shorter history of rain of impactors.
What appears obvious is that Earth is bigger and biggest impactors are most rare, Earth has higher probablity of having more biggest impactors hitting it.
So inventing a number, every 1 billion years earth get hit by 500 km impactor, with Moon it could every 3 billion it gets hit by 500 km diameter impactor.
If we knew something about the Moon’s largest impact crater:
“The South Pole–Aitken basin (SPA Basin, /ˈeɪtkɪn/) is an immense impact crater on the far side of the Moon. At roughly 2,500 km (1,600 mi) in diameter and between 6.2 and 8.2 km (3.9–5.1 mi) deep, it is one of the largest known impact craters in the Solar System. It is the largest, oldest, and deepest basin recognized on the Moon.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole%E2%80%93Aitken_basin
when it impacted and how big it was, then chances favor Earth being hit 3 times by same size rock in same time period. Or
“The South Pole-Aitken Basin is estimated to have been formed about 4 billion years ago.”
Same size [roughly] impactor 3 of them hitting prior to “about” 4 billion and prior to “about” 3 billion years. Unless it caused something unique like it was a moon of the Moon rather than solar system’s rain of space rocks.
“Stratigraphic relationships show that SPA is the oldest impact basin on the moon, but scientists are intensely interested in just how old it is. Lunar samples suggest that most of the major basins on the moon formed around 3.9 billion years ago in a period called the late heavy bombardment. …
How can we find out just how old the SPA impact basin is? The best way would be to sample materials from the interior of the basin and use radiometric age-dating techniques to determine when they were last molten, as heat from the impact would have melted a large volume of material, resetting radiometric clocks. But the basin is so old that its surface has been cratered many times over, meaning that some of the rocks would have had their radiometric ages reset by these subsequent impacts. So it may be difficult to find rocks with ages that truly reflect the SPA event without careful consideration of the local geology. ”
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lro-20100709-basin.html
Fortunately, we going sent crew to lunar South pole, targeted by 2024 AD, maybe we get some data about it, and more importantly, see if there is any minable water on the Moon.
If get to point of commercially mining lunar water at south pole, we will find out a lot about impactor- within pretty short period of time. We could get dump truck loads of lunar samples from this region per year.
gbaikie…”According to new research, scheduled for presentation Friday at the Goldschmidt Geochemistry Conference, Earth was struck by a city-sized asteroid an average of once very 15 million years between 3.5 and 2.5 billion years ago a rate 10 times higher than earlier estimates.”
***
I don’t call that research, I call it wishful thinking. There is a possibility Earth was not always in its current position in the solar system, or maybe not even in the solar system. It may have been located somewhere where it was more vulnerable to asteroids or planetary junk.
When you look at the solar system, the inner 4 planets are made of solid material while the outer four, excluding Pluto, are referred to as gas giants. They are made literally of frozen gases.
No one has the slightest clue as to how the solar system was formed or about the conditions in which planets existed millions of years ago.
barry…”“All ENSO predictors show lower than zero positions, changing into mild La Nina towards the end of the year.”
Bullshit.”
Barry is getting emotional. He hates it when fact is presented to counter his alarmists propaganda.
We will see by the year end who is better at reading what the various web sites say. I can wait.
binny…”Prove us, RLH, that you are REALLY able to challenge me in the engineering discipline!”
***
More humour from Binny. RLH has already done that and you have revealed on your own that your engineering skills are non-existent. You cannot distinguish libration from local rotation.
Leave that kind of trolling to Pup, Gordon.
Robertson
” You cannot distinguish libration from local rotation. ”
*
You are the one who does not understand anything about the different kinds of Moon’s libration
– optical, only apparent: longitudinal; latitudinal; diurnal
– physical, real: forced; free.
You are so incredibly dumb, ignorant, stubborn and pretentious…
J.-P. D.
“You are so incredibly dumb, ignorant, stubborn and pretentious”
Pretentious seems to fit you quite well.
Figured out what the difference between mean, median and average temperatures are yet and which is closer to the ‘truth’ and which are less inaccurate?
Binny made clear right from the start that the discussion is about the “significant difference between (tmin+tmax)/2 and median,” dummy.
As that only make sense if we are talking about a difference between the real average and the mean or median…
I estimate that the mean is out by 0.5c from the true average during any one day based on the USCRN data.
Blindion got the Median to be about 0.1c out from the real average temperature during any one day.
You sure like to say stuff when you don’t ask silly questions, old man.
Whereas you are an idiot all the time.
You will only be 74 for a year, but No U springs eternal.
Being an idiot never gets better.
No U.
z
entropic…”Youve got idiots here claiming that passenger jets fly backwards!
Said by the idiot who fails to understand that in some reference frames this is quite possible.”
***
You are suffering a strange delusion that the content of the human mind, stored as thought, is real. Reference frames are not real, they are products of the human mind, and the only way a plane can fly backwards is in the human mind.
Then again, you’re Irish. ☺ ☺
You Paddys think differently. Why, the other day, in a Belfast newspaper, there was an article about a skeleton being found up a tree near Belfast, up the River Lagan. Turned out to be the Irish hide-and-seek champion.
☺ ☺
Leave silly emoticons to Kiddo, Gordon.
willard…”Leave silly emoticons to Kiddo, Gordon.”
Willard is envious, doesn’t know how to produce an emoticon.
Willard is envious of anyone who can think for themselves.
╭∩╮(︶_︶)╭∩╮
Idiot. In pictures.
No U:
https://postimg.cc/mzYTBqky
z
binny…”Im definitely sad of all the blah blah written by pseudoengineers like Robertson and RLH”
***
You’re sad because you don’t understand engineering. Yet, you are willing to call someone a pseudo-engineer when you have no idea what engineering means.
Heck, you still don’t understand libration or what causes it.
Willard is furiously searching through the Net trying to find a response.
He needs to ‘cut n paste’ from something, somewhere because he is unable to actually think for himself.
Ask more silly questions, dummy.
Is ‘are you an idiot’ a silly question?
It’s not even a question, dummy.
And No U.
z
We understand engineers.
Rote knowledge of some basic 19th century physics and a bad attack of Dunning-Kruger regarding everything else.
You also have a bad habit of using sexist and racist insults. Respect is reciprocal. You don’t receive it if you don’t give it.
Tell us again about your belief that passenger jets fly backwards and sideways, Ent.
I find there is significant reluctance to respect those in the computing profession, even though much of what is now considered ‘simple’ has only been brought about by the use of computers.
Also, no models, good or bad, would really be possible without computers bringing them to life.
Understanding what limitations and benefits computers bring as well as their basic advantages and disadvantages is an essential part of using them.
We’re talking about real engineers here, dummy.
Show EM your patents.
I have a few. Do you?
So you say, “RLH.”
Do you have any patents, or are you as stupid as you appear?
Moar silly questions!
As I thought, you are as idiotic as on first appearance.
How courageous of you, dummy.
How idiotic of you, idiot.
No U.
z
RLH
I’m happy to respect your professional competence IN YOUR FIELD.
The problem comes when you move out of your field. A disproportionate number of climate change sceptics are computer and electronics engineers.
I suspect that their view of science is distorted by several aspects of your thinking, perhaps trained in.
1) Your field is entirely based on Maxwell’s equations published in 1861. You have no experience of discovering or investigating unknown science.
2) You are entirely lab based, with no experience of fieldwork or observational science.
3) You have no concept of uncertainty. Working in a field in which gives you absolute control, you find it difficult to comprehend that for many sciences uncertainty is an inherent property of the phenomena studied.
4) Your concept of feedback differs from that used in biology or climate. You think of feedback as a runaway to a limit. Biologists and climate researchers think of it as a negative feedback maintaining homeostasis.
5) Your professional universe is simple and controlled, with a limited number of variables and interactions programmed into software you created. Reality is much more complex and we only have limited control over it.
“1) Your field is entirely based on Maxwells equations published in 1861. You have no experience of discovering or investigating unknown science.”
Wrong. I have dealt with DSP in radar which is kinda more modern than that.
“2) You are entirely lab based, with no experience of fieldwork or observational science.”
Wrong. I have dealt with and analyzed SatNav signals in the field in DSP. Often in real time with limited logging.
“3) You have no concept of uncertainty. Working in a field in which gives you absolute control, you find it difficult to comprehend that for many sciences uncertainty is an inherent property of the phenomena studied.”
Wrong. We call it noise (of various wavelengths). I am quite well versed in how it effects signal recovery.
“4) Your concept of feedback differs from that used in biology or climate. You think of feedback as a runaway to a limit. Biologists and climate researchers think of it as a negative feedback maintaining homeostasis.”
Wrong. Both positive and negative feedback, phase and phase angles are sort of thing I meet everyday and expect to deal with.
“5) Your professional universe is simple and controlled, with a limited number of variables and interactions programmed into software you created. Reality is much more complex and we only have limited control over it.”
You have a very strange view of computing where almost nothing is absolutely certain and most of the time is taken up with dealing with the unexpected.
“The problem comes when you move out of your field.”
One of my fields was DSP in audio. DSP does not care if the x axis is in milliseconds or millennia. The same rules and techniques will apply. The Earth is a very large and complex natural system that will have resonances, feedbacks and periods in it like all natural systems.
Do you object to any of that?
binny…”That reminds me people discrediting and denigrating centuries of work on the Lunar spin, based on such incredibly trivial stuff like coins, merry-go-round or ball-on-a-string”.
***
There were centuries of work done on other science that was wrong. Heat, for example. Initially, it was thought to be a fluid and later, scientists thought it could flow through space as heat rays.
Same thing with atomic structure. There have been hypotheses about the atom going back to the Ancient Greeks and beyond and it was all wrong. It was not till 1913 that Bohr hypothesized the composition and shape of the atom and he was later proved right, based on an explanation of hydrogen spectra. Still, we are not clear about the exact composition of the atom because we have never seen one at that level.
Till the time of Tesla, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, it was accepted that the Moon rotated exactly once per orbit. Tesla, disproved it using kinetic energy theory and now we here on Roy’s blog are taking up the challenge in a different manner.
You dismiss the MGR, coins, and the ball on a string, but those models demonstrate precisely that it is impossible for the Moon to rotate locally.
Proofs for this are incredibly simple yet people are so conditioned to accepting an appeal to authority that they cannot bring themselves into the required awareness to see the truth. I have not seen one scientific rebuttal from you about my coin theory, all you offer is an appeal to authority, thinking that is science.
You spinners fail to grasp the obvious, which explains to me why you cannot grasp the obvious about global warming/climate change. You all lack the awareness to ‘see’. Sight is a complex process in which we see electromagnetic radiation directly then process what is seen through a filter of conditioning. Often as not, we don’t really see what is in front of us, rather we see a mentally-biased ‘image’ of what we think is there.
You cannot use reference frames to see. They are products of the human imagination hence are prone to fantasy, like an airliner flying backwards.
The horse on the MGR is a perfect example. When anything is bolted to a base, it is impossible for it to rotate about its COG unless it is bolted right over the axis of rotation of the base to which it is bolted. Even if you pick the base up and rotate it, and the horse is not bolted over the base axis, the horse is still not rotating about its COG. The base may be rotating about its COG but the horse bolted to it cannot rotate about its COG, wrt the base.
Local rotation requires an angular velocity about a local COG/axis. With the horse bolted to the MGR floor, it is not possible to have such an angular velocity about a local COG/axis.
If a giant could pick up the MGR platform, break it free of the Earth, and rotate it, so it was turning about the COG/axis of the horse, then we could have rotation about the horse’s axis but I doubt if that would be around the COG of the MGR with horse attached.
You spinners have tried everything to make it appear as if the bolted horse is rotating wrt the MGR base but it is not possible. It is certainly rotating about the centre of the base, in the case of the MGR, but the bolts prevent it from rotating about its own COG.
This is a physical reality check, are you in touch with reality or not?
If you were standing at the point where the Earth’s N-S axis emerged, and you stood over it with each foot equidistant from the axis, over 24 hours you would rotate about your own head-foot axis. The moment you move a few feet away from the axis, so you are no longer straddling it, you are no longer rotating about your COG. You are rotating about the N-S axis.
Suppose you have a circle around the N-S axis, with a diameter of 1000 feet. Circumference = pi.D = 3.14 x 1000 feet = 3,140 feet. Close to a kilometre. You could walk that in 10 minutes and walk right around the entire Earth at that latitude. Provided, of course, there was ice there and not water.
As you walk around the N-S axis, you are translating. If you walk CCW, your left shoulder always points to the N-S axis but during one walk around the circumference, you face in every direction through 360 degrees, obviously in an east-west plane.
That describes the motion of the Moon exactly. It’s translating with the same face always pointed to the Earth.
Yet, when an object is launched from a trebuchet it continues rotating. Therefore the moon is rotating. Simple.
sb, your understanding of the physics is as bad as several of the others. Just because one thing is rotating does not mean Moon is rotating.
Your object is rotating due to the release mechanism of the trebuchet. It has angular momentum. So if you were traveling along side it, you would see it rotating. But, if you were traveling along side Moon, you would see it NOT rotating. Moon has NO rotational angular momentum.
The test used for idiots is the ball-on-a-string, swung around you. If the ball is rotating as it is revolving, the string would wrap around it. But, the string does not wrap around it.
Those that believe the ball is rotating about its axis are idiots.
“Moon has NO rotational angular momentum.”
How does it achieve that, unique in the whole universe, behavior?
Many moons have no rotational angular momentum. So it’s NOT “unique in the whole universe”.
You need to learn something about this subject RLH.
Clint R
You are spouting nonsense.
Every tidally locked moon in the Solar system has zero angular momentum by your definition, yet they all have different diurnal periods.
An observer standing on one moon sees all the others rotating at different rates.
In theory only one of them can have zero angular momentum. In practice none of them have zero angular momentum.
Ent, you have no knowledge of the subject.
* “Tidally locking” is nonsense.
* Angular momentum has NOTHING to do with diurnal periods.
* Trying to determine other moons rotation by an observer standing on Moon called “lunacy”.
* Moon has zero angular momentum
You’re obsessed with perverting reality. You believe passenger jets fly backwards and sideways. You’re an idiot.
If anything changes, let us know.
“Many moons have no rotational angular momentum.”
Many moons are at rest with respect to the fixed stars? Who knew?
RLH, thanks for indicating your ignorance.
I don’t have to prove you’re an idiot. You did it for me.
Know much about inertial frames and their application?
RLH, you know nothing about the science. I’m not going to waste time with you all day, like you want to do. You’re just like Willard, you have no clue, and no life.
Bye!
That makes you unaware of science and the scientific method.
Over the years we’ve learned how to interpret Clint-speak. Basically whatever he says the opposite is true.
“RLH, you know nothing about the science.”
Translation: “RLH, I know nothing about the science.”
“Im not going to waste time with you all day” like you want to do. Youre just like Willard, you have no clue, and no life.”
Translation: “I have nothing to support my claims, its a waste of time, I am just like Gordon, I have no clue”.
“Bye”
Translation:
“Stop confusing me with facts”
Agreed.
Nate, do you believe making stuff up makes you look smart?
It’s not working….
Gordon Robertson
“There were centuries of work done on other science that was wrong. ”
That includes your obsolete ideas regarding rotation around an axis, revolution around an orbit and angular momentum.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
Gordon states “You spinners fail to grasp the obvious”>/i> … or perhaps you fail to grasp the subtle.
“The base may be rotating about its COG but the horse bolted to it cannot rotate about its COG, wrt the base.”
Yes! This is “the obvious”. Everyone agrees. With respect to the rotating base, the horse does not have any additional rotation.
“You spinners have tried everything to make it appear as if the bolted horse is rotating wrt the MGR base but it is not possible. “
No! Please read carefully. We have tried no such thing. This is the misconception of you and the ‘contrarians’.
Scientists and mathematicians recognize that the horse rotates about the COG with respect to the ‘fixed ground’! Draw a vector from the COG to the tip of the nose. That vector points north. later it points east. then south. then west, and finally north again. With respect to the COG, the vector and the horse are continuously changing orientation (with constant radius), ie rotating.
We could ALSO draw a vector from the center of the base (COB) to the tip of the nose. This vector will also rotate — maintain a constant length but change orientation. (You could actually draw a vector from any point on the rotating base and the nose and that vector would ALSO rotate at the same rate!) The horse is rotating with with the same angular velocity respect to ANY of these points. (Much like a car has the same linear velocity relative to ANY point on the ground.)
So we can perfectly well say the horse is rotating at the same rate WRT the the ‘fix ground’ about ANY of these axes. Once we accept this reality, then the question becomes “What are the advantages of picking the COG vs athe COB” Similarly, the question becomes “What are the advantages of picking the COG of the moon vs picking the center of orbit (COO)?”
For objects on a merry-go-round, it can be convenient to use the COG. It is often easy to measure or calculate (or look up in a table) the moment of inertia about the COG (call is I_COG). For The total angular momentum is then simply
L = L(orbit) + L(spin) = mR^2(omega) + I_COG(omega)
(m = mass of object, R = distance from COB to COG, omega = angular speed of the base)
This saves us from having to do some rather difficult/tedious integrals of r^2(rho)dV to find I_COB (r = distance from the COB to an individual dV in the object)
It turns out that for the moon there is an even stronger reason why the COG of the moon is a better choice than the COO.
Tim…the wooden horse on the merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis, wrt the fixed ground or anything else. It is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. You really seem to have a problem understanding this simple point.
The only way you could describe it as rotating on its own axis is if you claimed the motion was a combination of translation in a circle plus rotation on its own axis, i.e. a general plane motion. But the rule there is you do not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation. The wooden horse on the merry-go-round is a straightforward case of pure rotation, about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. So it is not to be described as a general plane motion.
So the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis. That is the reality, regardless of appearances from a specific reference frame.
> The only way you could describe it as rotating on its own axis is if you claimed the motion was a combination of translation in a circle plus rotation on its own axis
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
There is an infinity of ways one could describe that movement.
Think about it.
Troll somebody else. I am not taking the bait.
So says the kiddo who has been repeating his Dragon stuff for years now.
Go away, troll.
You go first, Kiddo.
#2
Go away, troll.
Please return in that other thread, Kiddo.
#3
Go away, troll.
Just as I described with my two clocks.
#4
Go away, troll.
“The only way you could describe it as rotating on its own axis is if you claimed the motion was a combination of translation in a circle plus rotation on its own axis”
Yes! Exactly! You get the gold star!
“But the rule there is you do not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation.”
1) There ain’t no such ‘rule’. It is very common, for example, to describe diagonal motion as a combination of x-component motion and y-component motion. It is common to describe pure circular motion as Rsin(theta)i^ + Rcos(theta)j^ The ‘rule’ is to describe things however it is handy.
2) Suppose for the sake of argument we do accept this ‘rule’. For the moon you CANNOT describe the motion as a pure rotation about the barycenter! The distance varies! The ONLY accurate way to accurately describe the motion is a combination of translation IN AN ELLISPE (with varying angular speed) plus rotation on its own axis (at a constant angular speed). This is the idea I alluded to at the end of my post about why choosing the COO is a bad idea for the moon.
> For the moon you CANNOT describe the motion as a pure rotation about the barycenter! The distance varies!
This is where Kiddo and Pup handwave stuff about the ball-on-a-string not really be a model.
As for Gordon, well, he never really gets to that point, as before that he diverges toward Einstein and anecdotes of his past.
Tim, there is indeed such a rule:
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
“General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class.”
The wooden horse on a merry-go-round is a case of pure rotation about the center of the merry-go-round. So it is not a general plane motion, so it can not be described as rotating on its own axis.
Forget about the moon, for now. I want to hear you accept that the wooden horse on a merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. Once you have accepted that, we can discuss the moon.
You forgot the sentences that follow, Kiddo:
No, I did not forget those sentences. They were just irrelevant to the point being made.
Yes, a general plane motion is the sum of a translation and a rotation.
If you were to describe the motion of the wooden horse as a translation in a circle plus a rotation on its own axis, then that would be a general plane motion. However, you should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation. The wooden horse on the merry-go-round is a straightforward example of pure rotation about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. So it should not be described as a translation in a circle plus a rotation on its own axis. So the wooden horse on the merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis.
> They were just irrelevant to the point being made.
Here’s what wou said, Kiddo:
.
Here again is what you forgot to cite:
I mean, srsly. Who should we believe, you or what you cite to back up your position?
There is no contradiction. I agree with what I cited (obviously).
DREMT, you have the reasoning backwards. You should have read one more line.
General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.
So while the motion of the horse on the merry-go-round CAN be written as a pure rotation, we see it can equally be ‘be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation’ (paraphrasing your source). So thanks for finding a source that says the motion *can* be thought of (at least in part) as a rotation about the horse’s COM.
“I want to hear you accept that the wooden horse on a merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. ”
Well, since you are letting me choose the reference frame, I choose one that:
a) has its origin at the COM of the horse (ie translating in a circle)
b) has its axes aligned East, North, and Up (ie aligned with the ‘fixed ground’).
In that frame, the horse is most definitely rotating. The nose will continuously change orientations from +x to +y to -x to -y and back around to +x. A camera mounted to this reference frame would see the horse lazily turning circles about its axis.
Or let me frame the question differently.
a) I mount a toy horse on the vertical shaft of a motor and turn the motor on. I want to hear you accept that the horse is rotating on its own axis.
b) I mount the motor on an x-y plotter (https://www.robotshop.com/media/files/images2/makeblock-xy-plotter-robot-kit-no-electronics-desc1.jpg). The plotter moves left/right at various speeds as the motor continues to turn. I want to hear you accept that the horse is rotating on its own axis.
c) the plotter moves forward/backward at various speeds. I want to hear you accept that the horse is rotating on its own axis.
d) the plotter moves in left/right & forward/backward in just the right way to move in a circle at the same rate the motor is spinning. I want to hear you accept that the horse is rotating on its own axis.
I call art:
[K] The rule there is you do not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation.
[T] There aint no such rule. The “rule” is to describe things however it is handy.
[K] There is indeed such a rule: “Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class”.
[W] You forgot: “a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
[K] I did not forget those sentences. They were just irrelevant to the point being made.
Tim, you seem to be unable to read.
My source points out that general plane motion is the sum of a translation plus a rotation, yes.
But it says that only motions which are not a pure rotation or a pure translation fall into that class. Now, the horse on a merry-go-round is a case of pure rotation about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. So it does not fall into the class of general plane motion. So the horse on a merry-go-round cannot be described as rotating on its own axis.
When you are ready to admit that the horse is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of how it might appear to be moving, from a specific reference frame, we can continue.
Moar art:
[K] The rule there is you do not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation.
[T] There aint no such rule. The rule is to describe things however it is handy.
[K] There is indeed such a rule: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class.
[W] You forgot: a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.
[K] I did not forget those sentences. They were just irrelevant to the point being made.
[W] Who should we believe, you or what you cite to back up your position?
[K] There is no contradiction.
[T] You should have read one more line[:] a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.
[K] You seem to be unable to read.
“But it says that only motions which are not a pure rotation or a pure translation fall into that class. “
No. Rotations and translations are SUBSETS of general rigid body motions. They are special cases. Rotations and translations are not distinct from general motions.
Or look further to the boxed, highlighted statement “Rigid motion can be decomposed into the translation of an arbitrary point, followed by a rotation about the point.” Or for our case, “Rigid motion of the merry go round horse can be decomposed into the translation of the center of mass, followed by a rotation about the center of mass.”
You got caught up in one statement and appealing to authority, rather than thinking critically about the whole topic.
Tim now tries to pretend that this sentence does not exist:
“General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class.”
The horse on a merry-go-round is a case of pure rotation about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. Therefore it is not a general plane motion.
General Hint: Never rely on one brief passage from one source. Look at multiple passages from multiple sources about a topic before feeling you are an expert who can teach the subject.
This applies to rigid body motion or voter fraud in presidential elections or diagnosing your own medical problems — basically anything.
DREMT pretends that one line from one webpage from one engineering course is the ultimate authority on rigid body motion.
“The most general motion of a free rigid body is a translation plus a rotation about some point P.”
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/dynamics/three.pdf
Worth looking at Wolfgang Pauli and Niels Bohr staring in wonder at a spinning (gasp!) top.
Please find some more examples that do not contradict what I have written, Willard.
You mentioned a rule that isn’t in your source, Kiddo.
Tim wins that round.
Sorry for your argument loss.
Of course the rule is in my source. Right here:
“General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class.”
The wooden horse on the merry-go-round is a case of pure rotation about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, therefore it is not a case of general plane motion.
DREMT, I can not only read (a low level cognitive task), I can critique (a high level cognitive skill). I can see that your source is written poorly at that spot and is misleading you.
Open up your thinking!
Maybe this analogy will resonate. ‘General COMPLEX NUMBERS: Any NUMBER that is neither a pure REAL nor a pure IMAGINARY falls into this class.’ But pure reals and pure imaginaries are STILL members of the set of complex numbers.
Or … ‘General plane POSITION: Any plane POSITION that is neither a purely ON THE X-AXIS nor purely ON THE Y-AXIS falls into this class.”. The axes are special cases, not separate cases.
Once you can get past this roadblock, then the merry-go-round discussion has at least a chance.
You are pathetic, Tim. If a source says something you do not like, you claim it is poorly written. The wooden horse on a merry-go-round is a case of pure rotation about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, and therefore it is not a general plane motion.
According to Kiddo’s logic, 1/2 can’t be expressed as 0.5.
More misrepresentation from Willard.
You picked a strange hill to die on, DREMT!
If one interpretation of one (or two) lines in one set of lecture notes from one university is not 100% correct, your whole argument falls apart. That is certainly not a position I would like to be in!
“If a source says something you do not like, you claim it is poorly written. “
No. If a source says a phrase I ‘don’t like’ then I look for other sources to understand the topic better. My own experience, other lecture notes FROM THE SAME COURSE, other lecture notes I googled, and wikipedia — none support the narrow interpretation you make.
What you really seem to mean is ““If a source says something you DO like, then you blindly accept it and ignore mountains of contrary information. “
No Tim, my whole argument does not fall apart either way. Even if you could describe the motion of the wooden horse as a translation plus a rotation on its own axis, it doesn’t mean you should.
It all ultimately comes back to whether “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left” or the “moon on the right”. Those who think the wooden horse can be described as a translation plus a rotation on its own axis, ultimately have to think that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the right”, i.e translation in a circle/ellipse. Those people need to look up “orbital poles” and then explain how translation can involve an axis.
> my whole argument does not fall apart either way
Then find other sources, Kiddo.
And make sure that this time they mention any rulz at all.
Willard can’t follow the discussion, as usual. Troll elsewhere, little one.
According to Kiddo’s logic, a banana does not fall into the class of fruits.
Troll elsewhere, little one.
I heart this art, Kiddo:
[K] The rule there is you do not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation.
[T] There aint no such rule. The rule is to describe things however it is handy.
[K] There is indeed such a rule: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class.
[W] You forgot: a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.
[K] I did not forget those sentences. They were just irrelevant to the point being made.
[W] Who should we believe, you or what you cite to back up your position?
[K] There is no contradiction.
[T] You should have read one more line[:] a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.
[K] You seem to be unable to read.
[T] You got caught up in one statement and appealing to authority, rather than thinking critically about the whole topic.
[K] Tim now tries to pretend that this sentence does not exist: […]
[T] Kiddo pretends that one line from one webpage from one engineering course is the ultimate authority on rigid body motion. Never rely on one brief passage from one source. Look at multiple passages from multiple sources about a topic before feeling you are an expert who can teach the subject.
[W] Here’s one. Worth looking at Wolfgang Pauli and Niels Bohr staring in wonder at a spinning (gasp!) top.
[K] Please find some more examples that do not contradict what I have written.
[W] You mentioned a rule that isnt in your source, Kiddo. Tim wins that round. Sorry for your argument loss.
[K] Of course the rule is in my source.
[T] Maybe this analogy will resonate. “General COMPLEX NUMBERS: Any NUMBER that is neither a pure REAL nor a pure IMAGINARY falls into this class.” But pure reals and pure imaginaries are STILL members of the set of complex numbers.
[K] You are pathetic, Tim.
[W] According to Kiddos logic, 1/2 cant be expressed as 0.5.
[K] More misrepresentation from Willard.
[T] You picked a strange hill to die on, Kiddo! If one interpretation of one (or two) lines in one set of lecture notes from one university is not 100% correct, your whole argument falls apart.
[K] My whole argument does not fall apart either way.
[W] Then find other sources, Kiddo. And make sure that this time they mention any rulz at all.
[K] Cant follow the discussion, as usual.
[W] According to Kiddos logic, a banana does not fall into the class of fruits.
#2
Troll elsewhere, little one.
Here are your last five contributions, Kiddo:
– You are pathetic, Tim.
– More misrepresentation.
– My whole argument does not fall apart either way.
– Can’t follow the discussion, as usual.
– Troll away.
Please stop trolling.
#3
Troll elsewhere, little one.
Please return to that other thread, Kiddo.
Bob is waiting for moar winz.
#4
Troll elsewhere, little one.
You’re the troll here, Kiddo. I slay.
You just tried to present a pedagogical classification as an operational rule.
You got caught. You lost.
“Even if you could describe the motion of the wooden horse as a translation plus a rotation on its own axis, it doesnt mean you should.”
It is pretty clear that we CAN describe any rigid body motion as a sum of a translation of the whole body plus a rotation about a chosen. The most common way to do this is actually to chose to look at translations and rotations about the COM of the object. It is MORE common to treat rigid body motion as rotating about the COM as the COM moves, rather than rotating about some external axis.
Back to the question of “should” (which was addressed above as well) …
For a purely circular motion (like a merry-go-round horse or your hypothetical ) you can succeed with either approach pretty well — a combo (rotation around COM + translation of COM) vs pure rotation (around the external center of the platform).
However, for a moon in an elliptical orbit (ie all moons), you CANNOT do a “pure rotation around the center of the orbit”. The “rotation” around the center is not actually a pure rotation since the distances change. Furthermore, this ‘pseudo-rotation’ around the center’ proceeds at a variable angular speed while the rotation around the COM proceeds with a constant angular velocity. This approach is simply unworkable.
The simple and accurate way for real moons in real orbits is a translation of the COM along an ellipse and a rotation at constant rate about that moving point.
#5
Troll elsewhere, little one.
> This approach is simply unworkable.
But Kiddo has never promised to provide a workable model, Tim!
It’s just for trolling. He should stop, but he can’t.
#6
Troll elsewhere, little one.
“But the rule there is you do not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation”
Good, so you agree that the Moon’s motion certainly qualifies as a general plane motion, since it is most certainly not a pure rotation!
Thankfully this long absurd argument is over.
Tim waffles on, pretending that he never read the offending sentence. Then he squawks:
“However, for a moon in an elliptical orbit (ie all moons), you CANNOT do a “pure rotation around the center of the orbit”. The “rotation” around the center is not actually a pure rotation since the distances change. Furthermore, this ‘pseudo-rotation’ around the center’ proceeds at a variable angular speed while the rotation around the COM proceeds with a constant angular velocity. This approach is simply unworkable.”
Tim, there are not two rotations happening at the same time (rotation about an external axis plus rotation about an internal axis). Rotation about an external axis (without rotation about an internal axis) already involves the object moving like the wooden horse on the merry-go-round. Any additional rotation about an internal axis would have the object showing all of its sides to the center of revolution, over time.
Secondly, it doesn’t matter that the distances change. Ftop_t showed in his Desmos work that rotation about an external axis can occur in an ellipse. Also, the Wikipedia article on rotation uses the example of Earth orbiting the Sun as a case of rotation about an external axis. That is an elliptical orbit too.
“A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
Clearly astronomy is happy with classifying orbits as a rotation about an external axis.
Clearly astronomers noticed that celestial bodies tend to be rotating on their own axes.
Nate, There is the eternally optimistic side of me that keeps thinking that at some point reason and logic and basic physics will start to sink in. That someone will realize “maybe the 1000’s of scientists who have studies this might know more than I do”. That someone will realize “maybe one statement in one set of notes that could be interpreted to say the moon doesn’t rotate on its axis doesn’t outweigh the 1000’s of statements from equally qualified scientists that says the moon does rotate.”
I am almost always disappointed.
Tim, a chalk circle drawn towards the outside edge of a merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis. The wooden horse on the merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis. The ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis. The “Soft Spinners” agree with all of that. Why don’t you go and argue with them?
Tim,
Kiddo’s ignorance runs deeper than that. In a nutshell, he’s conflating a typology with a classifier.
It’s as if he did not realize that squares are parallelograms.
More BS solely designed to irritate and inflame from Willard.
DREMT, you surely know that for every example you have, I can find many many counter-examples.
You appeal to wikipedia, but wikipedia also agrees with me in other places — places that specifically discuss orbits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
You can’t win an “appeal to authority” when the vast majority of authorities disagree with you.
That Wikipedia entry you linked to does nothing to establish orientation of the object whilst it orbits. You need it to. You need it to state that the object remains oriented towards a fixed star whilst it moves, or to state that orbital motion is translational. Otherwise, it no more supports you than it does me. Saying that an orbit is just a path, or trajectory, is neutral.
P.S: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-758037
“Tim, a chalk circle drawn towards the outside edge of a merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis. ”
Sure it is!
Rotation: a circular motion about an axis.
So if I look at the axis moving with the COM and then look at some mark along the circle, that mark will first be north of ‘its own axis’, then west, then south, then east, and finally north again. (for a CCW rotation). That mark (and every other point on the circle) moved in a circle relative to ‘its own axis’.
Or perhaps you have some other definition for “rotation”.
Tim, the chalk circle is a case of pure rotation about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. It is not rotating on its own axis.
Go and argue it out with the “Soft Spinners”.
DREMT, your only argument seems to be “because I said so”.
Do you disagree with the definition I gave? It doesn’t seem so.
Do you disagree with the analysis I gave? You never said so.
On what basis do you say the circle is not rotating about its own axis, when clearly it fits the definition!
So you want me to repeat the entire discussion we have just had, from the very beginning!?
> That Wikipedia entry you linked to does nothing to establish orientation of the object whilst it orbits.
Neither does your handout, Kiddo.
I have linked to a couple of sources that describe orbital motion as rotation about an external axis, Willard. You guys need sources that describe orbital motion as translational.
“So you want me to repeat the entire discussion we have just had, from the very beginning!?”
Nope. Just answer the two simple questions!
Do you disagree with the definition I gave? It doesnt seem so.
Do you disagree with the analysis I gave? You never said so.
On what basis do you say the circle is not rotating about its own axis, when clearly it fits the definition!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-757314
“I have linked to a couple of sources that describe orbital motion as rotation about an external axis”
So are you trying to say this is a *definition* of orbital motion? That orbits by definition are circular paths? Because the definition of “rotation” includes “circular.
Or perhaps these sources are saying that for some simplified discussions, describing some orbits a circular is ‘good enough’ for lay people.
“You guys need sources that describe orbital motion as translational.”
Pretty much everyone (who is being technical) describes orbits as elliptical paths that the COM of the moon or planet follows.
Here are about 23,000,000 sources (https://www.google.com/search?q=orbital+motion), the vast majority of which will be compatible with “translation of the COM along an ellipse” but not compatible with “circular rotation about an extremal axis”.
A typology organizes concepts whereas a classifier has rulz to organize typologies, Kiddo
And here we ‘go around again’.
“The only way you could describe it as rotating on its own axis is if you claimed the motion was a combination of translation in a circle plus rotation on its own axis”
Yep! Thanks for agreeing. That is exactly how it is done.
The only way *you* can get around this is to incorrectly place your entire faith on one statement of one prof in one set of lecture notes.
“Secondly, it doesn’t matter that the distances change. Ftop_t showed in his Desmos work that rotation about an external axis can occur in an ellipse. Also, the Wikipedia article on rotation uses the example of Earth orbiting the Sun as a case of rotation about an external axis. That is an elliptical orbit too.
“A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
Clearly astronomy is happy with classifying orbits as a rotation about an external axis.”
“Ftop_t showed in his Desmos work that rotation about an external axis can occur in an ellipse. Also, the Wikipedia article on rotation uses the example of Earth orbiting the Sun as a case of rotation about an external axis. That is an elliptical orbit too.”
OK so your own source for Rigid Body Kinematics
https://mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
says NOPE:
“Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel
planes along CIRCLES centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). If this axis, called the axis of rotation,
intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.”
I guess you now think this textbook has it all wrong?
Deep down, I think you know you are misrepresenting the facts.
“The only way *you* can get around this is to incorrectly place your entire faith on one statement of one prof in one set of lecture notes.”
I have nothing to “get around”. I made an argument, and backed it up. It makes sense besides the support, anyway. Why would you describe as two motions that which can be described as one? The chalk circle, wooden horse, ball on a string and Mt. Everest are all not rotating on their own axes. Concede that, and we can go on to discuss the moon. Time for you to join the rest of the “Soft Spinners”, Tim.
Oh darn. Another source (Brown, Kinematics of Rigid Bodies, https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics) agrees:
“5.1.2 Properties of Rigid Body Motion
In the following, we identify two properties of the motion of rigid bodies that simplify the kinematics significantly. In order to do this, observe that an arbitrary rigid body motion falls into one of the three categories:
Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.
Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.
General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
Good God, man! Can you think for yourself?
“Clearly astronomy is happy with classifying orbits as a rotation about an external axis.”
How about you? Are *you* happy?
* Is a rotation necessarily circular around some axis? Yes/No?
* Are orbits necessarily circular about some axis? Yes/No?
1) If you answer “No” to the first question, then you are using a different definition than your wikipedia source (and different from every other source in math or physics or astronomy) so there is no point is continuing the discussion.
2) If you answer “Yes” to the second, then you are disagreeing with everyone since the time of Kepler.
3) If you answer “Yes” and then “No” then you yourself are unhappy classifying orbits as a rotation about an external axis.
Which is it? What do YOU think?
No, rotation is not necessarily circular, as ftop_t showed and as the various sources on orbits (which are generally elliptical) confirm. If you want to say that is the end of the discussion, then that is fine with me. I am getting quite bored of talking to you tbh.
DREMT’s sources must feel so betrayed by his fickle changes of heart. Why, just a few lines ago, Wikipedia was all the rage, but now Wikipedia (“A rotation is a circular movement of an object around a center (or point) of rotation.”) it has been relegated to the dust bin of history.
“No, rotation is not necessarily circular, as ftop_t showed and as the various sources on orbits (which are generally elliptical) confirm.”
Obviously not. But one can always make believe!
Sorry FTOP is not a legit source.
If Kiddo could explain how Pup’s Pole dance keeps him “parallel to its original position,” that’d be great.
“The chalk circle, wooden horse, ball on a string and Mt. Everest are all not rotating on their own axes. Concede that, and we can go on to discuss the moon. Time for you to join the rest of the “Soft Spinners”, Tim.”
“Pretty much everyone (who is being technical) describes orbits as elliptical paths that the COM of the moon or planet follows.”
“A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
“The chalk circle, wooden horse, ball on a string and Mt. Everest are all not rotating on their own axes. Concede that …
We would need to have a common definition of “rotating” before I could tell you if something is “rotating”. I propose:
Rotating: moving in a circle around a defined axis.
Either agree, or propose another definition. A specific definition — not just circular definitions like “a rotation is an orbit”, and “an orbit is a revolution” and “a revolution is a rotation”. If ‘rotating’ doesn’t have to be in a circle ,then what specific shapes are included? ellipses? parabolas, hyperbolas? squares? The Indy 500 track?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-758037
Clint R wrote:
“In those days, anyone that believed Mt. Everest was rotating about its axis would be considered an idiot”
RLH, a “Soft Spinner”, responded:
“They would be considered to be one now. Everest is part of the Earth’s surface and rotates around its center like all the rest of it does.”
See, Tim? Go and argue it out with the “Soft Spinners”.
Ok so not only his favorite Kinematics text, but also one from a Brown Univ course on Kinematics, and presumably many more Kinematics courses and textbooks can be found, all presumambly defining Rotation in precisely the same way.
But DREMT believes they all simply got it wrong.
Tim? Where have you gone?
DREMT.
Rotation is a circular motion about an axis. All points rotating about the axis remain at the same distance from the axis. All points change angular orientation by the same amount.
If you can’t accept/understand, then you need to propose an equally precise counter-definition — or just admit you don’t understand the topic well enough to provide meaningful input.
Why are you not arguing with the “Soft Spinners”?
Arguing that you can’t describe orbital motion as “rotation about an external axis”, just because most definitions of “rotation” specify circular motion is a bit desperate, Tim. How come Desmos could be programmed to rotate an object in an ellipse? How come those sources define orbital motion as “rotation about an external axis” in the first place? You can’t just hand-wave it all away.
And the ball on a string, chalk circle, wooden horse and Mt. Everest examples are all motion in a circle, anyway. So, instead of getting hung up on how rotation is defined, why not try to explain your inability to see that these are examples of pure rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object itself? Why can you not see what the “Soft Spinners” can see?
“most definitions” ???
Now THAT is a bit desperate.
“How come Desmos could be programmed to rotate an object in an ellipse?”
I vaguely remember seeing this — and vaguely remember seeing the error. If you want to repost the link, I am sure in 2 minutes I could find the error.
“So, instead of getting hung up on how rotation is defined, why not try to explain your inability to see that these are examples of pure rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object itself? “
For the umpteenth time …
1) Those are indeed examples of objects rotating about an external axis with no rotation about their own axis.
2) They are ALSO examples of objects translating along a circular path and rotating about their own COM. Both can be true at the same time. Both can describe exactly the same motion.
3) The moon can NOT be described as rotating about an external axis, It can only accurately be described as translating around an ellipse and rotating about its own COM.
******************
You have in backwards. I have no trouble seeing that (1) is true. Instead, you have trouble seeing/admitting that (2) and (3) are also true.
You really are full of it. Are you aware that there are those who do not accept 1) is true? Why do I never see you arguing against them?
“Are you aware that there are those who do not accept 1) is true? Why do I never see you arguing against them?”
1) It is not my job to argue against every misconception on the internet.
2) I am not aware of any such people in the discussions here. I have only seen people like you who accept (1) but not (2). Tell you what — if if can actually find some one who makes such a claim here and provide a link, I will personally make a comment about their mistake.
bobdroege, Ball4, repeatedly. Pay more attention.
I See you failed the part about “provide a link” …
I did go back anyway and looked at some of their comments. Short answer — Bob & Ball4 are MUCH more accurate than you.
88888888888888888
Longer answer — Words often have different meanings in different contexts.
In math, “rotation” is as I described above. The term “autorotation” is sometimes used specifically when the axis is through the COM of an object. This is, of course, still a rotation — just a specific example.
In astronomy, the term “rotation” means the same as “autorotation” as used by the mathematicians. This is because the only rotations of interest (that I can think of) in astronomy ARE autorotations. A rigid structure like a merry-go-round can constrain the horse to rotate around an external axis. A rigid structure like the earth can constrain Mt Everest to rotate around the an external axis. But no rigid structure ever constrains a planet or moon to rotate around an external axis.
If you can find a place where they specifically say that a merry-go-round horse (as opposed to a moon) is NOT rotating around the center of the merry-go-round, then you would have caught them in a mistake. It is rotating about the center of the platform *and* about the COM, (and about an infinite number of other axes).
But you *definitely* made the same mistake numerous times when you claimed the moon was NOT rotating on its axis. It is. Period.
“It is rotating about the center of the platform *and* about the COM”
No, Tim, it is not. If it was rotating about the center of the platform and its own center of mass, you would see all sides of the horse from the center of the platform. And you are going against what you said in 1).
DREMT constantly refers to and quotes from The kinematics text of Madhavi.
But when it CLEARLY defines:
“Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along CIRCLES centered on the same fixed axis”
he dismisses it, and all other textbooks or college lecture notes saying the very same thing.
This definition jut doesnt work for DREMT.
What to do?
Find better sources that work for him:
– Some dude FTOP
– Random mentions of the word ‘Rotation’ on Wikipedia or when dredging the bottom of the internet.
Facts: they are replaceable as needed.
“I did go back anyway and looked at some of their comments. Short answer — Bob & Ball4 are MUCH more accurate than you.”
Sure you did, Tim…bob thinks that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object, is motion like the “moon on the right”!
“If it was rotating about the center of the platform and its own center of mass, you would see all sides of the horse from the center of the platform. “
Let me be more clear, since an aspect of this eluded you. This was actually in the very first post I made in this thread.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-757298
Rotations must be measured relative to some agreed upon direction — eg a N/s, E/W grid. If the platform turns once every 10 s, then the horse rotates at 6 RPM about an axis through the center of the platform relative to North. The horse also rotates at 6 RPM about the axis through the center of mass of the horse relative to North.
Now if the platform was rotating relative to the ground and the horse was rotating relative to the rotating platform, THEN the horse would be rotating 12 RPM relative to the ground and we would see all sides as you correctly deduced above.
—————————–
That might be the idea that has eluded people. The ‘standard’ view just takes as given that all rotations of moons are measured relative to the ‘fixed stars’. The ‘contrarian’ view seems to think that rotations of moons should be measured relative to the rotating vector from the barycenter to the center of the moon.
The wooden horse is not rotating about both the center of the platform and its own center of mass. It has only one axis of rotation, and it is in the center of the platform.
You agreed here:
“1) Those are indeed examples of objects rotating about an external axis with no rotation about their own axis.”
No going back on it now.
“bob thinks that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object, is motion like the ‘moon on the right’!”
[I have no idea anymore which is ‘the moon on the right’.]
As in the previous post, this hinges on rotation relative to what.
If we mean “with no rotation about the center of mass of the object RELATIVE TO THE FIXED STARS, then the moon would keep the same side always “upward” on the screen.
If we mean “with no rotation about the center of mass of the object RELATIVE TO THE ROTATING LINE FROM THE CENTER OF THE EARTH TO THE CENTER OF HTE MOON, then the moon would keep the same side always “inward” toward the earth.
It is ambiguous as to which one is meant in the the quoted line.
Its much like saying “I am riding in a train and see an object falling straight downward.” It is ambiguous whether that means “straight down relative to me in the moving train” or “straight down relative to the ground under the train”.
***********************************
Scientists have decided (for a variety of good reasons) to remove the ambiguity and say that rotations of moons are measured relative to the FIXED stars rather than relative to the CHANGING planet-moon direction.
Others like you seem to want to measure relative to the moving planet-moon line. That is your choice. I will say that this choice makes calculations SO much harder even if it does seem like the intuitive choice to you.
All wrong, Tim. Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the body, is as per the “moon on the left”:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
There is nothing more to it than that.
“No going back on it now.”
I don’t need to go back — I’ll just go forward. I fell into the same ambiguity trap and was not as clear as I should have been.
A MGR horse is indeed an example of an object rotating about an external axis RELATIVE TO THE FIXED GROUND with no ADDITIONAL rotation about its own axis RELATIVE TO THE ROTATING PLATFORM.
A MGR horse is ALSO indeed an example of an object TRANSLATING in a circle and ROTATING about its own axis RELATIVE TO THE FIXED GROUND.
And for overkill …
A MGR horse is NOT an example of an object rotating about an external axis RELATIVE TO THE FIXED GROUND with no rotation about its own axis RELATIVE TO THE FIXED GROUND.
“If we mean “with no rotation about the center of mass of the object RELATIVE TO THE FIXED STARS, then the moon would keep the same side always “upward” on the screen.”
Then you would no longer be talking about rotation around an external axis.
I will just clarify that:
Then you would no longer be talking about rotation around an external axis (with no rotation about the center of mass of the object).
One more attempt at overkill-level specificity.
A MGR horse is indeed an example of an object’s own axis rotating about an external axis RELATIVE TO THE FIXED GROUND with no ADDITIONAL rotation of the object about its own axis RELATIVE TO THE ROTATING PLATFORM.
A MGR horse is ALSO indeed an example of an object TRANSLATING in a circle and ROTATING about its own axis RELATIVE TO THE FIXED GROUND. (Already correct)
**********************************
It does highlight the need for clarity. It doesn’t change the fact that measuring rotations of a moon relative to fixed directions is far superior. For one thing, there is no ‘platform’ to constrain a moon. For another, the calculations end up much easier. !
Tim is lost in reference frames, no longer listening to or engaging with what I am saying.
Since facts are disposable for you, and logic has little value for you, can’t really blame him for disengaging, can you?
Tim will at least come round to the position of the “Soft Spinners”, eventually. He just lets reference frames confuse him. He had it right, here, regarding the chalk circle, wooden horse, ball on a string and Mt. Everest:
“Those are indeed examples of objects rotating about an external axis with no rotation about their own axis.”
He’ll get there.
DREMT, your problem is that you can’t seem to see beyond one or two individual sentences to see the bigger picture. You can’t seem to consider context.
ME: “1) Those are indeed examples of objects rotating about an external axis with no rotation about their own axis.”
In the context it should be clear that the meaning is “with no ADDICTIONAL, SEPARATE rotation about their own axis RELATIVE TO THE ROTATAING platform/earth/string.
Especially since the very next sentence is
“2) They are ALSO examples of objects translating along a circular path and rotating about their own COM.
Mt Everest is rotating once per day around any axis parallel to earth’s axis. It is rotating around earth’s axis; it is rotating about an axis through it’s peak; it is rotating about an axis through my living room.
This is like your habit of quoting one sentence from a set of lecture notes or one sentence from a wiki article about rotation.
Stop trying to back-pedal, Tim…you were already there! Drop all the “relative to” nonsense. There are only two possible ways to describe motion like the “moon on the left”:
1) Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object. Notice that there is no “relative to” required.
2) Translation in a circle, with one CCW axial rotation per orbit.
Similarly, there are only two possible ways to describe motion like the “moon on the right”:
1) Rotation about an external axis, with one CW axial rotation per orbit. Notice that there is no “relative to” required.
2) Translation in a circle, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object.
Get it? It all ultimately just comes back to whether “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left” or the “moon on the right”. That transcends all consideration of reference frames.
” It all ultimately just comes back to whether ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is as per the “moon on the left” or the ‘moon on the right.’ “
No. I ultimately comes down to predicting how real moons behave, not giving fancy names.
A diagram to show ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ ought to be a moon moving in a highly elliptical orbit to highlight the general elliptical nature of orbits.
So imagine YOU now have to redo the image to show a possible motion of a moon in a highly elliptical orbit. How would draw the picture to represent ‘without axial motion’? Would you align the image of the moon so that
a) Some point on the image always faces exactly toward the center of the earth (ie toward one focus)?
b) Some point on the image always faces exactly forward in the direction of motion (ie along the tangent to the curve).
c) Some point on the image always faces exactly toward the top of the screen.
[or possibly ‘d) Some other orientation’]
Only one of the the options listed matches how an actual moon could move. And that is, after all, what we want to do — describe the motions of actual moons.
Tim, nobody is saying it is about giving things “fancy names”. But, “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left”, not the “moon on the right”. You saw the gif, I linked to it earlier. That is just what “orbital motion” is. The linear momentum of the object acting at right angles to gravity combines to “swing” the object around like a ball on a string, so that the same face of the object is always oriented towards the inside of the orbit.
You think that the lunar libration of longitude is caused by the moon orbiting at varying speeds whilst rotating on its own axis at the same rate throughout. This is a description, though, not an explanation. Why does the moon “rotate on its own axis” at the same rate throughout? What is the physical cause for the moon moving this way?
“Why does the moon “rotate on its own axis” at the same rate throughout? What is the physical cause for the moon moving this way?”
This is why these discussions are both so frustrating and so fascinating. The answer to this should be perfectly obvious to anyone with even a basic background in physics.
Objects maintain the same rate (velocity) unless there is a net external force.
Objects maintain the same rate (angular velocity) unless there is a net external torque.
The only force acting on a moon in its orbit is gravity. This gravitational force does not apply a torque on spherical objects like moons. Hence moons rotate at constant rates.* This is basic conservation of angular momentum!
[* There are very small tidal torques that over millions or billions of years change the angular speed and result in ‘tidal locking’. But these small torques can’t ‘lock’ a moon to a specific orientation the way large torques from train tracks ‘lock’ a train car to align with the direction of motion.
“That is just what ‘orbital motion’ is.”
Not according the definitions used by physics and astronomy. So …
“The linear momentum of the object acting at right angles to gravity combines to ‘swing’ the object around like a ball on a string, so that the same face of the object is always oriented towards the inside of the orbit.”
This is at least is something that has a definite answer, that can be decided with ordinary facts and physics, and can be experimentally tested.
Here is one fact. A ball on a string has the string attached to the ball’s surface. While Gravity acts on the COM of a sphere.
Extend a line following the string thru the ball. That line may not extend thru the ball’s center, the COM. If not then it will apply a Torque on the Ball, pulling it back into alignment facing the center.
Gravity doesnt work that way. Always acting thru the COM of a sphere it cannot apply torque on it.
This means a ball on a string is a bad model for a planet in Orbit. It cannot “swing the object around like a ball on a string, so that the same face of the object is always oriented towards the inside of the orbit”
The question is will DREMT debate honestly, accept proven facts without making up his own alternatives.
https://www.wwu.edu/astro101/a101_lunarlibration.shtml
“Libration of longitude is an effect of the Moon’s varying rate of travel along its slightly elliptical orbit around the Earth. The Moon travels faster when it is at its closest to Earth, and its slowest when it is farthest away. Its rotation on its own axis is more regular, the difference appearing again as a slight east-west "no" oscillation.”
Notice they say “more regular”, implying that the “rotation on its own axis” is not at a completely constant rate. In which case, what causes the variation in rate?
“In which case, what causes the variation in rate?”
There are so many ways to answer this!
PHILOSPHICALLY: Nothing in the universe is perfectly constant. Everything varies.
SEMANTICALLY: Nothing in your googled statement precludes a perfectly regular rotation. A perfectly constant angular speed *is* more regular than any changing angular speed. So there is not any actual claim the rate does vary!
EXPERIMENTALLY: Measurements show that the moon is getting farther from the earth. This will make the orbital period longer, and in turn, the rotation period. (Measurements also show that the earth’s rotation varies. By extension, it should be expected that other orbiting/rotating object might also be varying.)
THEORETICALLY: This is the most fascinating one — I gave you the answer in the last post and you missed it! There are tidal forces at work. Each orbit, these have a miniscule effect, but they exist. Over millennia they integrate to cause a gradual slowing of the orbit and the rotation about the moon’s COM.
[Please don’t focus on the first two — they are the ‘icing’. The experiments and theory are the ‘cake’ and are pretty irrefutable. Actual measurements; sophomore-level mechanics.]
You sure know how to waffle on. Problem for you is, the so-called “rotation on its own axis” does not occur at a constant rate. Here, again:
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-much-of-the-moon-can-we-see-from-earth-lunar-libration/
“Libration in longitude is the moon’s east-west wobble. This sort of libration is a product of the moon’s elliptical (elongated) orbit. Although the moon’s rotation, or spin, goes at a nearly constant rate, its orbital speed varies, going fastest at perigee (moon’s closest point to Earth) and slowest at apogee (moon’s farthest point from Earth).”
So, again, what causes the variation in rate each orbit? Nearly constant is not constant.
”
Notice they say ‘more regular’, implying that the ‘rotation on its own axis’ is not at a completely constant rate. In which case, what causes the variation in rate?”
Now he’s making his argument with facts that are inconsistent with his belief that axial rotation MUST BE ZERO..
Whoops!
Tim,
A nearly constant angular velocity is consistent with a constant angular momentum…just means the Moons mass distribution varies as it orbits? Yes?
Certainly the Moon’s deformation due to Earths gravity will depend on its distance from the Earth, which varies.
“So, again, what causes the variation in rate each orbit?”
For the third time – torques on a non-uniform moon. Only a *perfectly* spherically symmetric moon will experience *exactly* zero torque from gravity and will rotate at *exactly* constant rate about its COM.
This is exactly the same torque that slowly tidally locked the moon to the earth, and that even more slowly works to tidally long the earth to the moon.
In any case, these variations would be like a 0.000000001% correction (which can be explained with standard physics). Meanwhile the “ball on a string” needs a something like a 1% correction to explain libration — a correction with no explanation.
You should examine the ‘beam in your own eye’ before the ‘mote in your brother’s eye’.
Tim, that is pure speculation on your part. You don’t know what the amount of variation they are talking about even is, let alone what it could be caused by. They don’t say. There is no explanation given.
And on a separate note, whilst you can say, "libration of longitude is caused by the moon proceeding through its orbit at varying rates whilst it rotates on its own axis at a steadier rate", I could equally say "libration of longitude is caused by the moon proceeding through its orbit at varying rates whilst it changes orientation at a steadier rate". Ultimately, libration of longitude does not prove axial rotation of the moon.
Nate say: “A nearly constant angular velocity is consistent with a constant angular momentum just means the Moons mass distribution varies as it orbits? Yes?”
That is another potential source. The thing is, these are MINISCULE corrections. Meanwhile DREMT can’t even understand the basic, freshman level calculations. So he finds any sentence on the internet and expects us to take him from 0 to physics major on a blog.
Tim, you can drop all the condescension and insults. There is nothing you have explained that I did not already understand.
That’s our DREMPT. Googling sentence after sentence. No understanding of what they mean or if/why they should be true. Yet expecting others to know and explain advanced topics at his high school level knowledge.
There is nothing you’ve explained that I haven’t already understood, Tim. I don’t expect you to explain anything to me. I’m asking you questions to try and get you to question your own understanding. I don’t need the answers. I link to articles to support my arguments because that is what you’re supposed to do in a debate. Stop trying to make this personal, and focus on the arguments.
DREMT. Every question you ask. I have an answer for!
To a first order approximation, the moon spins at a constant rate because to a first order, the torque is zero. Gravity causes no torque on a spherically uniform object. Freshman physics.
To a second order approximation, the moon is not spherically symmetric — it is distorted by tidal forces. This creates a small torque that can lead to tidal locking. Senior physics.
To a first and a second order approximation, this explains librations. To a first order, neither a ‘MGR horse’ nor a ‘ball on a string’ nor a ‘train on track’ can explain liberations.
I’ll take a second-order success to a first-order failure every time.
“To a first order approximation, the moon spins at a constant rate because to a first order, the torque is zero. Gravity causes no torque on a spherically uniform object. Freshman physics”
The moon is not rotating on its own axis, so it is not spinning at any rate. No torque about the object’s own axis is required to make an object “orbit without axial rotation” as per the “moon on the left”.
“The moon is not rotating on its own axis, so it is not spinning at any rate”
And yet:
“Its rotation on its own axis is more regular”
It seems DREMT is comfortable in a jumble of contradictions.
“No torque about the objects own axis is required to make an object orbit without axial rotation as per the moon on the left.”
Actually, no torque is required for either moon using either of our models. You think “no spin” and “backwards spin”. I think “forward spin” and “no spin. But all are at constant rate and hence involge no torques. That is a draw and tells us nothing. Your model and mine are equal for perfectly circular orbits.
So we go to Round 2.
What do you think the ‘moon on the left’ and the ‘moon on the right’ will look like for highly elliptical orbits? What does ‘without axial rotation’ mean to you when the moon is orbiting at varying speeds, varying angular velocities, and varying distances?
You have never even tried to answer this very basic question, as near as I can recall.
The moon on the left is ‘just orbiting.
But “the moon proceeding through its orbit at varying rates whilst it changes orientation at a steadier rate”
Why does ‘just orbiting’ at varying rate produce this steady change orientation?
It seems DREMT can’t put all the contradictory ideas and facts together and make sense of them. So he has to cherry pick which ones to accept and leave others unexplained.
While physics easily explains all.
You tell me, Tim, you tell me…after all, you are the one who thinks that the motion of the “moon on the left”, if elliptical and not circular, could not possibly move as per our moon. So, how do you think it would remain oriented, if not as per our moon?
“Meanwhile DREMT can’t even understand the basic, freshman level calculations. So he finds any sentence on the internet and expects us to take him from 0 to physics major on a blog.”
Very true.
“There is nothing you’ve explained that I haven’t already understood, Tim.”
If you did truly understand the physics that has been explained, you would never make an ignorant anti-physical statement like this:
“The linear momentum of the object acting at right angles to ‘gravity combines to ‘swing’ the object around like a ball on a string, so that the same face of the object is always oriented towards the inside of the orbit.”
Meanwhile, how does this ‘mechanism’ lead to this:
“the moon proceeding through its orbit at varying rates whilst it changes orientation at a steadier rate”
The mysteries pile up. The contradictions mount.
By the way, Tim…this:
“Mt Everest is rotating once per day around any axis parallel to earth’s axis. It is rotating around earth’s axis; it is rotating about an axis through it’s peak; it is rotating about an axis through my living room.”
Is a hundred times more of an extraordinary claim than “the moon does not rotate on its own axis”. Mt. Everest is rotating around Earth’s axis, same as the rest of the planet. It is not rotating on its own axis and it is most certainly not rotating about an axis going through your living room! I don’t know how you get yourself so confused…
By the way, DREMT, you have no definition of “rotation”. So you have no metric to use to decide if something is rotating or not.
Let’s use the set of lecture notes that you provided. It says “Rigid motion can be decomposed into the translation of an arbitrary point, followed by a rotation about the point.” (Which is, of course, the same basic definition put forth everywhere for motion
Let’s choose Mt Everest as the “rigid body” and the COM of Mt Everest as “the point”. That point translates in a rather complex motion — a combination of earth’s rotation, earth’s orbit, and the sun’s rotation around the center of the galaxy. On top of that translation of “the point”, we can add a rotation of “the rigid body” once every 24 hr about an axis through “the point” and parallel to earth’s axis.
That exactly describes the motion of Mt Everest using your own source to define “rotation”.
Sure, Tim, rigid motion can be decomposed into the translation of an arbitrary point, followed by a rotation about the point, but should it be? Well, that depends on the circumstances. The same source also points out that for general plane motion (the class of motion involving translation plus rotation) that “any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class”. Mt. Everest is a case of pure rotation about Earth’s axis, so it is not therefore a general plane motion. So you should not describe it as rotating on its own axis.
Common sense agrees. As do the “Soft Spinners”.
“Sure, Tim, rigid motion can be decomposed into the translation of an arbitrary point, followed by a rotation about the point”
So, you agree that Mt Everest is rotating about its COM.
The rest of what you write is a narrow interpretation of one line in one source. If I write the authors of that set of notes and get them to agree that they miswrote that one line, would that change your mind? I doubt it.
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis. I am thoroughly bored of this discussion now, so will just repeat the preceding sentence until it is the last word on this sub-thread, as necessary.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/us-heat-dome-killed-off-one-billion-sea-creatures-in-just-five-days/ar-AAM42xm
Were there any dead frogs? (named Gordon and Mike)
Weather is not climate.
Permafrost is neither, dummy.
Ah, so Richard was not commenting on my last Global Cooling Update.
Let’s how far he backtracked in the thread.
Anything less than 30 years is not climate.
And?
You are an idiot.
No U.
z
Wacky Wee Willy,
What a pity that the climate cranks cant’t actually find any sea creatures killed by the “heat dome”.
Which “ecosystem” is supposed to have “collapsed”? The only “massacre” here, is that of truth!
Over a billion? At least that will provide food for the rest.
You have heard of that fellow Darwin, and his theory of evolution?
Maybe you don’t realise that AGW did not affect the more than 99.9 % of life which became extinct without the influence of man. Things like dinosaurs, trilobites, and all those sorts of creatures.
Maybe you could apply your immense intelligence (only joking) to explaining how the Earth managed to cool to its present temperature, all by itself, without the help of any climate crackpot new physics.
Or you could just be like any other trolling climate crank, and deny, divert, and confuse.
Your choice.
The modern view is that of the five major extinctions, four were due to the consequences of a rapid increase in atmospheric CO2, originating from large scale volcanism.
The fifth was the end-Cretacious impact event.
Ent, a “modern view” ain’t science.
Here’s science, Pup:
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/rick-astley-on-benefits-of-rickrolling-taking-cues-from-adele-252023/
modern view ??? Is that a new scientific standard ? or a distant cousin of consensus ?
Probably best called a paradigm, a consensus built on accumulating evidence.
https://phys.org/news/2013-03-link-co2-mass-extinctions-species.html#
Please, no:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2015/05/die-paradigmgemeinschaft.html
Smile.
Paradigm is useful shorthand for “general agreement within a field on the evidence and the explanatory hypotheses based on that evidence”.
If you have a better word…
These days I like “Established View,” as it’s more general than “paradigm,” which is cognitive or structural, and “consensus” which is sociological.
Still four syllables, so we should be able to find better.
Idiot is 3 syllables.
“Paradigm –
a typical example or pattern of something; a pattern or model.”
No wonder climate cranks love a good paradigm! Means whatever you want it to by the look of things, and contains the magic word “model” in one official definition!
Mike Flynn,
What do you mean, “one official definition”?
Lazy Wee Willy,
Which word do you not understand?
“One”, “Official”, or “Definition”?
Why do you want to know? Do you really place great store in my opinions?
I’m flattered, but I suspect you are just trolling.
Mike Silly Semantics Flynn,
Here’s what an official definition looks like:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/#ConcPara
An the other hand, everybody knows you are an idiot.
So you’re not tired anymore, dummy?
Why would I be tired?
Are you too old to recall what you write between one comment and the next, dummy?
Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-755646
Are you too stupid as to recognize the differences between mean, median and mode and which you should use for daily temperatures.
What’s a batting average, dummy?
At cricket? Probably better than yours.
A batting average is better than mine, dummy?
Yeah, that’s not a ‘modern view’, that’s a zeitgeist – a fashionable thing that everyone knows is true because it must be true. In reality, the correlation between mass extinctions and LIPs is far from 100% and only goes one way. Ordovician – cause unclear, but since it is associated with the prolonged cooling episode it is not likely to be LIP-caused. Devonian – cause unknown, some people tried to pull the volcanic cause over it, afaik it’s far from proven. P/T extinction – this one seems legit, certainly well associated with bkth LIPs and massive and rapid tropical warming. However, what is interesting is that P/Tex was more complicated than this. For one, it seems to have not been a singular event but rather a protracted extinction or a series thereof, that lasted beyond the LIP’s duration. The overall ecosystemic instability and oceanic anoxia seems to have started way before the siberian LIP with emeishan LIP and the concomitant end-capitanian extinction, and lasted much after it had ended, overall taking something like up to 15 million years or something. End-triassic extinction is also associated with the LIP (the CAMP) however i read at least one paper that claimed that the extinction and the warming (a small and transient, as that entire interval was already warm and equable) were out of phase, with extinction preceding the warming and warming coinciding the the _recovery_ from the extinction. And then of course, the K/Pg, which ALSO very prettily coincides with some major LIP, and yet doesn’t seem to be related to it in any way if one were to listen to the official science.
So ok, we got 5 major extinctions in the qpanerozoic, one certainly unrelated to co2-gw, one disrelated to co2-gw, one unknown, one maybe and one certainly having something to do with it. Now, question: how many co2-producing LIPs have been there since ordovician? A dozen? a two? several? Where are all the extinctions expected from them??? Minf you that by far the largest LIP in the lst 200ma, and likely in the last 300ma was not the siberian trapps, but rather a mid-cretaceous ontong-javal LIP which was a few times bigger than the former. Did it cause any mass extinction? Well, it seems indeed to be coincidental with some noticeable warming, some massive oceanic anoxic event(s) as well as some minor ‘extinctions’ ergo species overturning events that in the end actually have led to increasing biodiversity.
So to summarize, no, the ‘modern view’ is not science. It’s just that – an opinion, and a zeitgeist.
> far from 100%
I don’t always root for science, but when I do I want it to be 100% certain.
I can be 100% certain you are an idiot.
@rhl nah, he’s not an idiot. He’s a troll, possibly paid though no definitive proof exists. You’re and other slayer/postmers etc one the other hand…
Thank you for the kind words, trou duc.
@willard spasjibo tovaryishtch! But coturnix is not a true duck, it is more of a chicken though.
If it tastes like chicken…
…but quacks like a duck, it’s probably a chuck (or a dick?)
You’d have to ask Franois Alexandre Pierre de Garsault.
I hate Roy’s parser.
Willard, please stop trolling.
China Tackles global warming
https://youtu.be/b1Iu9D5RhqQ
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trouble-alaska-massive-oil-pipeline-threatened-thawing-permafrost-n1273589
” That describes the motion of the Moon exactly. It’s translating with the same face always pointed to the Earth. ”
Says an arrogant, stubborn, ignorant, uneducated person, who
– dares to name Andrew Motte (a honorable translator of Newton’s work) a ‘cheating SOB’, and
– very probably never observed the Moon longer than a few minutes, while Chaldeans, Assyrians, Babylonians and lots of other people observed it day after day during decades (proven by clay tablets written with the Babylonian cuneiform script), and understood that the Moon shows always the same face to us because it rotates at exactly the same speed as it orbits Earth.
Lagrange was pretty good aware of that:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vXxroMHi8H_GBI9925-ZUe437wZLMQeN/view
Who the heck is Robertson?
J.-P. D.
Yeah, that’s been wrong for centuries, Bindidon. It just goes to show you how naive folks like you are. You just believe what someone tells you, unable to think for yourself.
The ball-on-a-string proves you wrong. The ball is smarter than you.
And, so is the string….
The ball-on-a-string is only of relevance to a ball-on-a-string.
rlh…”The ball-on-a-string is only of relevance to a ball-on-a-string”.
***
Actually, the model was introduced way back to demonstrated a rigid body constrained to turn in an orbit by a string. The ball keeps the same face pointed toward the person swinging the string and cannot rotate about a local axis because the string applies tension to the one side, preventing it from turning about its COG.
The model was never intended to model the actual motion of the Moon in orbit.
“The model was never intended to model the actual motion of the Moon in orbit.”
As I said, “The ball-on-a-string is only of relevance to a ball-on-a-string”.
It has NO relevance to anything to do with Gravity as Gravity is not a physical connection. It add forces to the system that are not present in Gravitationally connected environments which can then lead to incorrect conclusions.
That’s right, Norman.
The model represents the two vectors acting on an orbiting body, due to its linear momentum and gravity.
So because of vector addition, gravity and linear velocity turn into orbital velocity/momentum.
Weather is Not Climate Update
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/07/june-2021-earths-fifth-warmest-june-on-record-and-warmest-over-land-areas/
Monthly weather is not climate. Climate is longer than 30 years.
What’s Roy’s baseline, again?
Weird Wee Willy,
Are you really claiming to be so stupid you can’t read?
Wondering Wee Willy,
Can’t you read? Are you just pretending to be stupid?
“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.”
So 1991-2020 is the averaging period from which Roy compute anomalies.
Have you ever wondered why Roy did not take the median?
Wee Willy Troll,
Have you?
Mike Flynn,
Of course I did.
I’m not the one who claims that medians are the GOAT.
Enjoy your morning, seems you woke up early!
What has the median to do with anomalies?
Idiot.
What’s a running, centered, 13-month average, dummy?
A running mean. So what?
Average covers mean, median and mode.
A simple moving average is equivalent to the arithmetic mean, dummy.
There are no arithmetic median or arithmetic modes though.
It takes intelligence to know which of the 3 choices of mean, median and mode is the correct one based on the job in hand. Slavish adherence to just one type shows stupidity and ignorance (and idiocy).
“The arithmetic mean is appropriate if the values have the same units, whereas the geometric mean is appropriate if the values have differing units. The harmonic mean is appropriate if the data values are ratios of two variables with different measures, called rates.”
A running mean has considerable distortions in its output, based on the fact that it is in effect beating a square wave (in sampling terms) with the signal it is passing over.
That is why Gaussian sampling is the preferred option. This is well understood in DSP.
> It takes intelligence to know which of the 3 choices of mean, median and mode is the correct one based on the job in hand.
Then it takes a dummy to say:
willard…”Thawing permafrost threatens to undermine the supports holding up an elevated section of the pipeline, jeopardizing its structural integrity and raising the potential of an oil spill in a delicate and remote landscape.”
Not to worry, the thawing takes place over a few weeks in the month they call summer. It’s been going on forever and the engineers likely knew about it. The rest of the year, the pipeline bases are solid in the ice.
If you don’t mind, Gordon, I’ll listen to the engineers who are busy trying to preserve the pipeline instead of the “move along, nothing to see” from an online troglodyte who, back in the good ol’ days, had a class or two in engineering somewhere.
willard…”Ill listen to the engineers who are busy trying to preserve the pipeline…”
You do mean the eco-alarmist geography students passing themselves off as climate scientists, don’t you? Maybe there is the odd engineer willing to prostitute himself/herself for a few alarmist bucks.
> You do mean
No I don’t Gordon.
You do.
Life is simpler when you keep saying your stuff all by yourself.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Life is simpler when you keep saying your stuff all by yourself.”
You are simple, indeed, but maybe not by choice.
How else would someone say their “stuff”, if not by themselves?
Wondering Wee Willy also wrote –
“Have you ever wondered why Roy did not take the median?”
Wee Willy claims he did. Of course, his wonderings are as worthless as his opinions.
Wee Willy is just trolling, because he is an attention seeking idiot.
OK Willard, I have had just about enough of your nonsense about statistics and how to compile them.
USCRN provides a sufficiently detail look at the daily figures derived from a near continuous sampling of the actual data (5 second intervals which are then used to create 5 minute, daily, monthly, yearly, etc.) over a wide area, i.e. the whole of the USA including Alaska and Hawaii, and over a 10 year time period.
The true ‘average’ can be used as a benchmark and can be considered to be an accurate summation of that data. Unless you know different.
Then we have a daily, monthly and yearly summaries of that data also.
You contend that the mean is a good measure of that data at those intervals. Over presumably all day, month and year periods.
I contend that the median is a better measure of that data in those periods.
Before I do the actual work, is that a fair summary of the 2 positions?
No
No what? You cannot be more explicit?
Yes
So no real answer as to the statistics then.
Does the particular metric for station daily temperature significantly affect the trend and uncertainty of the global temperature anomaly?
Does the inaccuracy of the daily/monthly/yearly figures mean that any linear trends constructed using them need to have an uncertainty factor added?
> I have had just about enough of your nonsense about statistics and how to compile them.
We’re just getting started, dummy.
Where’s your test for skewness?
RLH says:
Does the inaccuracy of the daily/monthly/yearly figures mean that any linear trends constructed using them need to have an uncertainty factor added?
Trend and Trend Uncertainty estimates are emergent properties of the specific time series per typical statistical procedures.
The procedure, broadly, would be to compile a time series based on each station metric (mean of high/low, median, average) over a plausibly linear time period (say 1970 to present) and compare the results.
“Where’s your test for skewness?”
Daily, monthly or yearly? All are computed using means.
“a plausibly linear time period”
That has no relevance out side the time period/date range over which it is created. It tells nothing about past behavior and nothing about the future either.
> Daily, monthly or yearly?
Your histogram, dummy.
Can’t you ever follow through an idea?
So you want to see the range and spread of Monthly temps? The ones that you are so quick to make a mean out of?
Which part of “your histogram” do you not get, dummy?
You don’t recognize your own histogram anymore?
You mean a histogram that simultaneously displays range and spread? But on a monthly basis.
Do you often play dumb?
You claim that your histogram is skewed.
Prove it.
Have you seen what monthly temperatures look like on a month by month basis as a histogram? Nearly flat mostly rather than with any central peak. Although occasionally they do that too.
You haven’t done any test, dummy, have you?
Well I tried to do a Kurtosis test on individual monthly data and it kept on showing in the -300s or so.
Bless your heart, dummy.
Still an idiot.
Skewness and kurtosis are two different things, dummy.
Added to your list of blunders.
rlh..”I find there is significant reluctance to respect those in the computing profession, even though much of what is now considered ‘simple’ has only been brought about by the use of computers”.
***
Don’t get me wrong in the following, I have worked with computers much of my adult life and understand how essential they are. Having said that, I am only too aware of the limitations of computers.
I think you need to distinguish between computers and those who program them. It’s not easy to write a good program, especially a large program, and I think some people are good at it while some are not.
Computers are very good at certain applications, but when applied to an unvalidated model, the model is only as good as the programmer. During the covid crisis, we witnessed the world essentially going into lock down due to a badly programmed model. It was a model created by Neil Ferguson at the UK Royal College that predicted global gloom and doom, and everyone listened to him even though he had been egregiously wrong with his predictions dating back to 2002.
When his prgram and programming technique were analyzed by experts, they were appalled. One expert claimed that had Ferguson been employed at his company, he would have been fired.
Had it not been for computers, the covid crisis would likely have been handled far differently with far less intrusion into peoples’ lives.
Also, depends who we are talking about. I have the utmost respect for Bjarne Stroustrup, who created the C++ language. In particular, I admire the way he can cut through the bs. of concepts that seem to bewilder many people writing on the subject. Had C++ been written by a lesser person it may not have enjoyed the same popularity.
For a while, I got hung up on the meaning of a class in C++. I found that in many books on the subject, authors tended to talk around the subject but could not define a class. Then I read Stroustrup on it and he defined it in one sentence…a class is a user-defined type.
Bingo…on went the lights. I knew what a type is …int, char, etc., but it had not occurred to me that a basic advantage of C++ was being able to define your own types.
I admire Kernighan and Ritchie, and many other authors who can write about programming lucidly without getting into dumb application.
On the hardware side, I admire authors like Russinovich, Pietrek et al. They have done an incredible service to those who need to understand an OS like Windows under the hood.
These days, I think the ability of computers is being over-estimated. I am thinking of the driver-less vehicle. I’ve had more than my share of experience witnessing how a computer can screw up and what a catastrophe can occur from that.
Mind you, I am impressed with how stable computers have become. I have also spent hours, maybe days, in sheer frustration, trying to understand why a computer was not running correctly. Actually, I don’t get frustrated a lot, I enjoy trying to solve mysteries. However, there are times when logic goes out the window for no apparent reason.
I recall working on a computer system way back and finding only a small circle on the bottom corner of the display. If you know what a Lissajous pattern is you’ll recognize that on an oscilloscope, when the horizontal and vertical inputs receive the same frequency, sine wave input, the screen outputs a circle.
How would you troubleshoot that on a computer system? I didn’t bother, reasoning it could take a long time since I was not familiar with the system. I was covering for someone who was on vacation and who knew the system. He left a number where I could reach him and I called. He asked if I had checked the fuse…a no-brainer since that’s a first step in troubleshooting. I told him I did. He then asked if I’d checked the ‘other’ fuse.
The motherboard had two fuses, one on the top side and one on the bottom side. The bottom one was blown. Duh!!! Change the fuse and up came the system. I could have spent hours troubleshooting voltages, etc. and trying to make logical sense of them.
What people like Elon Musk don’t allow for is the myriad of unexplained problems that can go wrong on a computer system’s hardware, never mind the software. Put simply, it is not possible for any computer engineer or team of engineers to foresee every problem that can occur. Of course, one minor computer issue could cause a fatal automobile crash.
If there were guidance systems built into the roadway plus signals being sent from various places onto which the auto computer could lock, I might feel more comfortable. However, even those systems could royally screw up.
I worked as a contractor for a while at an international airport, working on their automated baggage system. Evey day, without fail, the system would break down. It was usually a sensor failing or going out of alignment. Or a motor or motor controller failing.
Your story just goes to show that complex systems should not be dealt with by people who are not trained in them. Even if you are ‘just filling in for a friend’.
I presume you are happy to pay less and accept the speed for the baggage handling because it has been automated. But not prepared to accept that occasionally it will fail because people did not design in enough redundancy to cater for single sensor or motor fails.
That’s what comes from designing down to a low price.
binny…”Who the heck is Robertson?”
***
A good-looking guy who is also a genius.
Part of one of my favourite songs..
Some folks say that I’m “egotistical”
Hell, I don’t even know what that means!
I guess it has something to do with the way
That I fill out my skin-tight blue jeans”
…Mack Davis
***
You have likely never heard of Sigmund Freud. He changed the way we think about our abilities by discovering that much of what we do is based on unconscious thought processes. Whereas much of Freud’s theories are no longer en vogue, what he discovered turned the world on its ear.
Since then, we have learned, thanks to the work of luminaries like Jiddu Krishnamurti and physicist, David Bohm, that we can become aware of the unconscious processes. However, we cannot do that as long as the thought related to conditioning is operating. We need to allow the mind to become quiet, then natural insight and intelligence may intervene, revealing to us the truth.
Freud’s work did not occur till the late 1800s, and till that time, people in the Western world believed they could use willpower to overcome the human condition. He proved that wrong by demonstrations with hypnosis that people suffering certain health conditions could recover immediately, but often temporarily, while under the influence of hypnosis. Using hypnosis one can communicate directly with unconscious processes.
All the scientists you list would have certain levels of impairment in their awareness due to the belief systems en vogue in their times. That is not meant to imply they lacked the intelligence to do impressive work, like LaGrange, it means simply that they had not carefully studied problems like the motion of the Moon in its orbit. Rather they had involved themselves in mathematics without considering the physical problem as Tesla did.
You could gain that awareness that LaGrange lacked in two seconds if you’d empty your mind of preconceptions and look carefully at what I have tried to share with you. Of course, due to your lack of awareness, your conditioned mind and its ego will automatically reject anything I have to say.
This is a shame because awareness, insight, and intelligent are gifted to us at birth. Then, through time, we learn to smother those brilliant qualities with conditioned garbage.
It should be obvious to a child that it is impossible for the Moon to orbit with the same face toward the Earth and still rotate through 360 degrees to complete one rotation per orbit. This is so obvious as to be categorized as painfully obvious. The coins demonstrate it and you have likely used them and found the truth in what I say, then rejected it because it came from me.
I am only the messenger and I am trying to share with you. Make’s no difference to me what you think of me for trying.
“A good-looking guy who is also a genius.”
Gordon, adding to your other qualities, you’re also very humble.
☺
studentb…”Yet, when an object is launched from a trebuchet it continues rotating. Therefore the moon is rotating. Simple”.
***
Are you trying to say the Moon was launched by a catapult?
How did the Moon came to be the Moon, Gordon?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Why don’t you ask your mate, Ken Rice? He’s an astrophysicist. He just pretends to be a climate expert!
Are you saying he knows nothing about the origin of the Moon, or are you claiming that Gordon knows more than Ken Rice?
I think you are just being a silly troll.
Mike Flynn,
Asking AT won’t tell me what Gordon thinks.
Thank you for JAQing off.
Idiot.
I’ll add this one to your debt, dummy.
And No U.
z
Because people on Earth called it the Moon?
No, dummy.
Back then nobody was speaking English.
Ugh.
Classic Brit.
Thinks that because he names things they start to exist.
We probably did it in Norman French for a while, so that would be Lune (from the Latin, Luna).
The most authoritative manuscript we have of La Chanson de Roland, where “Lune” appeared first in French, is in Anglo-Norman. Luna could derive from Selene, whose mother was Theia:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.04536
And, of course, The Isis comes from the the Latin form of the Thames, that is, Tamesis.
That’s how we recognize an old Brit.
Do you really believe that about The Isis?
Do you know what passive aggressivity is, dummy?
Well I know you know what being an idiot is like.
No U, dummy.
z
entropic…”That includes your obsolete ideas regarding rotation around an axis, revolution around an orbit and angular momentum”.
***
Tim supplied an equation for lunar angular momentum as follows:
L = 2pi.m.r^2/p
m = mass of Moon
r = radius from Earth
p – period of orbit
Note that the angular momentum is calculated using a radial line from Earth to Moon, meaning the angular momentum is the momentum of the Moon ‘calculated’ in its orbit about the Earth. I won’t hold Tim to this but he seemed to admit there was no angular momentum about the Moon’s axis.
I say calculated above since the Moon only possesses instantaneous linear momentum along an instantaneous tangent line.
Momentum is the product of mass and velocity = mv. Angular momentum is the same. Note in the equation above they are calculating the circumference of a circular orbit using 2.pi.r and dividing by the period = p = 27.3 days. Then multiplying by the lunar mass.
However, that is not a velocity, it is the average velocity = speed. Velocity is a vector and that calculation is not a vector quantity. Therefore the momentum calculated has to be a pseudo-quantity.
Momentum needs to be an instantaneous quantity in this case and that can only be found by finding the instantaneous tangential velocity and multiplying it by the mass.
The point to be taken is that no angular velocity exists in a tangential direction about the Moon’s axis.
L = 2pi.m.r^2/p is the angular momentum due to the moon’s revolution in its orbit, L revolution.
L= 1/2.I.w^2 is the angular momentum due to rotation on an axis, L rotation. I is rotational inertia and w is angular velocity.
The total angular momentum of the Moon is L revolution plus L rotation.
Yup. Both are there and both matter.
Moon has ZERO rotational angular momentum because it has ZERO angular velocity. Its linear velocity is changed instantaneously by gravity.
Moon has ZERO orbital angular momentum because gravity does not provide a mechanical attachment. If gravity were suddenly turned off, Moon would go hurling into space in a straight line, not rotating.
But, Ent got one thing right. The TOTAL angular momentum of Moon is the sum of rotational and orbital, 0 + 0 = 0.
Not big on vector addition are you.
That ‘linear velocity’ will have some momentum attached. Gravity will act on it to produce an orbit. Hence orbital (revolution) momentum.
The Moon will rotate once per revolution about its own axis. Thus rotational momentum.
Yes, the two vectors will result in an orbit. But, the two vectors will NOT produce axial rotation. There is NO rotational angular momentum. It’s the same for a ball-on-a-string. The ball has zero rotational angular momentum.
For Moon, the mathematical construct of L = mrv goes away the instant gravity is turned off. The only momentum is mv. Since momentum is conserved, the “mrv” never actually existed. It was only a mathematical construct.
> The ball has zero rotational angular momentum.
Until you cut the string.
What if I told you that the Moon has no string, Pup?
“But, the two vectors will NOT produce axial rotation.”
So you agree that its rotation is not caused by orbital parameters then.
How’s about distortions to a sphere?
Willard and RLH, go play with each other like you usually do. You both were given a chance to solve the simple “gravitational torque” problem, but ran from it. That means you understand NONE of this.
And, of course neither of you can produce a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
So, until you have some maturity and can appreciate the science, you know where the exit is.
Nobody can create a model for ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ because it is your own construct which has no meaning in the real world.
> Nobody can create a model for orbital motion without axial rotation because it is your own construct which has no meaning in the real world.
Good grief.
NOTHING in that comment makes sense!
Clint has on various occasions given an explanation for ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ which is not science based.
And you just blundered on model creation, dummy.
You never blunder on being an idiot. It just comes naturally to you.
No U.
z
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/heat-crop-burning-climate-drought-1.6100715
All data sources show that global temperatures have declined in the last 6 months since 2020.
> global temperatures have declined
Revise and resubmit, dummy.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uah.jpeg
or look at the tope of the page. Do you want all the others?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2021_v6.jpg
A graph does not correct the expression “global temperatures,” dummy.
But yeah: why not.
LET’S HAVE ALL THE GRAPHS!
Oh, and you gave me a 1979-2021 graph, dummy.
Do better.
Global temperatures means temperatures of the Globe. Idiot.
Show me an up to date set of figures which show current global temperatures are higher than 6 to 8 months ago.
Global temperatures don’t mean “average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly,” dummy.
Are you saying that TLT is not in line with other datasets?
Or are you saying that RSS, AIRs, etc. are not showing the same decline?
Or are you going to claim that mercury thermometers are not going to show the same sort of decline when they get round to updating their data?
I’m saying that Roy is misrepresenting his product, dummy.
And so are you.
So you think other sources show different things?
“Im saying that Roy is misrepresenting his product”
Why are you so continuously on here then? Without calling Roy out on a regular basis?
Do you know how obnoxious it is to argue by questions, dummy?
Do you want to find out?
Is that a threat?
Since Kiddo lives nearer to you, don’t you think that he’d be better placed to threaten you?
Are you or he issuing threats, over the internet or in person?
Do you feel threatened, dummy?
Are you issuing one, idiot?
Do you think I’ll swim to you?
You’re idiotic enough to try.
How do you know?
That you’re an idiot? Every body knows that.
[ESTR] Im saying that Godot is misrepresenting his product, dummy. And so are you.
[VLAD] So you think other sources show different things? Why are you so continuously on here then? Without calling Godot out on a regular basis?
[ESTR] Do you know how obnoxious it is to argue by questions, dummy? Do you want to find out?
[VLAD] Is that a threat?
[ESTR] Since Pozzo lives nearer to you, dont you think that hed be better placed to threaten you?
[VLAD] Are you or he issuing threats, over the internet or in person?
[ESTR] Do you feel threatened, dummy?
[VLAD] Are you issuing one, idiot?
[ESTR] Do you think Ill swim to you?
[VLAD] Youre idiotic enough to try.
[ESTR] How do you know?
[VLAD] That youre an idiot? Every body knows that.
Idiot.
No U.
z
Spot the outlier, dummy:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2020 01 0.42 0.44 0.40 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 0.27 0.53 0.81 -0.96 -0.04
2020 09 0.40
2020 10 0.38
2020 11 0.40
2020 12 0.15
2021 01 0.12
2021 02 0.20
2021 03 -0.01
2021 04 -0.05
2021 05 0.08
2021 06 -0.01
Now me, I though that -0.01 was less than 0.40.
If looking at the top is too hard
YEAR MO GLOBE
2020 01 0.42
2020 02 0.59
2020 03 0.35
2020 04 0.26
2020 05 0.42
2020 06 0.30
2020 07 0.31
2020 08 0.30
2020 09 0.40
2020 10 0.38
2020 11 0.40
2020 12 0.15
2021 01 0.12
2021 02 0.20
2021 03 -0.01
2021 04 -0.05
2021 05 0.08
2021 06 -0.01
Willard insist that 0.42 is greater than -0.01. Idiot.
Only a dummy would look at anomalies that look like this:
0.40, 0.38, 0.40, 0.15, 0.12, 0.20, -0.01, -0.05, 0.08, -0.01
and claim that temperatures simpliciter have decreased in the last six months since &c.
Are you saying that 0.4c is less than -0.1c?
Anomalies are not temperatures, dummy.
Trends are not averages, dummy.
You want me to add the normals back in so you can compare ‘real’ temperatures?
Trends? Linear trends? What do you think they represent? Do you think they predict the future?
aRE YoU sAYinG tHAt 0.4c Is LEsS tHan -0.1c?
Dummy.
So you are an idiot after all.
Who thinks that 4.0c is smaller than -0.01c.
Who think that anomalies are not a way of telling what is happening, even though everybody uses them.
Our dummy looks at a series of numbers.
He could average them all, or even find out the median.
But no, he has to pick the two end points.
Just like Life would do.
Our old coder is that dumb.
Do you know what an outlier is, dummy?
No need to get snippy just because you cannot read (or think).
You do realize what the last 6 to 8 months means don’t you?
You know that you’re JAQing off, right?
You know you are an idiot don’t you?
I know U are, but what am I?
An idiot.
Wrong answer.
That’s U.
Right answer.
z
Nope.
U.
z
You need some refreshing thing to read after these dark, stubborn, completely scienceless denials of the Lunar spin?
Then please have fun by reading what I have presented here sometimes:
The planetary spin and rotation period: A modern approach
A. I. Arbab, Saadia E. Salih, Sultan H. Hassan, Ahmed Agali, Husam Abubaker
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.4720
It is so full of intelligent thoughts. Here, the World-in-the-large meets the World-in-the-small…
Arbab is a Sudanese professor for Experimental Physics, but his hobby is to help in evaluating characteristics of exoplanets: a wonderful mix of professional work and private initiative.
All these dumb asses denying here scientific work (even that of Newton !!!! look at Robertson’s recent, completely stoopid post) would never and never be able to do 0.1 % of what they discredit and denigrate.
J.-P. D.
Newton never said that the Moon’s rotation was caused by its orbit.
Btw which lunar orbit, the Moon’s orbit around Earth or it’s orbit around the sun.
And to anyone if Moon spins on it’s axis which orbital plane is it spinning, it’s orbital plane around Earth or around the Sun.
Earth is spinning on it’s axis at about 23.5 degrees relative to it’s orbital plane around the Sun. And obviously not relative to Moon. From Moon one see Earth spinning, but there is not axis angle of spin relative to Moon, the plane it’s at 23.5 degrees to is it’s path around the sun. And Moon is 1.5 degrees tilted relative to it’s path around the Sun.
Hmm I suppose the Moon is like Earth, as on Jan 3rd Earth at Aphelion, the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun and Moon would be similar, but due orbit around Earth, the point where it’s furthest from Sun would “favor” when moon is somewhere around a full moon as seen from Earth.
Indeed if you look at the Moon from the Sun you see an interesting braided path that interacts with the Earth’s path around the Sun.
gbaikie
You write quite confused things.
What does the interior axis of rotation of a celestial body have to do with its orbiting around another celestial body?
Nothing.
Nevertheless: should you be interested in real things instead of guessing about them, so may I propose you to read:
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
after having moved to section 9.5.1:
” Locating the rotational axis [of the Moon] ”
starting at page 173.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, you’re always linking to things you can’t understand. Since you can’t understand, you assume no one can, so you can use it to support your false beliefs.
The problem is some people can understand science. The “rotational axis” mentioned is due to libration. Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
Nice try.
Let’s give you an easy one. Mercury rotates on its axis, as it orbits Sun. It can be OBSERVED rotating 3 times in two complete orbits. It is said to have a 3:2 spin/orbit ratio. Moon however cannot be OBSERVED rotating about its axis. It is only a belief that Moon spins.
So, how come Mercury does not hide its spinning, but Moon does?
Do you know what you need, Pup?
Science.
Like this:
https://tinyurl.com/eb97u7h4
More pointless links, donkey?
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
Coffee break?
How’s the avoidance going, donkey?
Still posting pointless links, hoping to make people waste time?
Or just try posting cryptic one-liners! Maybe you can convince somebody that this makes you look intelligent. Nope, just another witless troll.
Chuckle.
Mike Flynn,
If only you clicked on the link…
But you won’t!
Cheers.
It was useful in sense of “equinoctial points” which searched and wiki was offered but keyword “equinoctial” didn’t show up in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
But read the wiki thing anyhow:
” The rotational axis of the Moon is not perpendicular to its orbital plane, so the lunar equator is not in the plane of its orbit, but is inclined to it by a constant value of 6.688 (this is the obliquity). As was discovered by Jacques Cassini in 1722, the rotational axis of the Moon precesses with the same rate as its orbital plane, but is 180 out of phase (see Cassini’s Laws). Therefore, the angle between the ecliptic and the lunar equator is always 1.543, even though the rotational axis of the Moon is not fixed with respect to the stars.”
Key point is “…even though the rotational axis of the Moon is not fixed with respect to the stars.”
That by itself is telling you the Moon does not spin on it’s axis.
And:
[[“The nodes are points at which the Moon’s orbit crosses the ecliptic. The Moon crosses the same node every 27.2122 days, an interval called the draconic month or draconitic month. The line of nodes, the intersection between the two respective planes, has a retrograde motion: for an observer on Earth, it rotates westward along the ecliptic with a period of 18.6 years or 19.3549 per year. When viewed from the celestial north, the nodes move clockwise around Earth, opposite to Earth’s own spin and its revolution around the Sun. An Eclipse of the Moon or Sun can occur when the nodes align with the Sun, roughly every 173.3 days. Lunar orbit inclination also determines eclipses; shadows cross when nodes coincide with full and new moon when the Sun, Earth, and Moon align in three dimensions.”]] which is followed by:
“In effect, this means that the “tropical year” on the Moon is only 347 days long.”
So is related answer to what I was wondering about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_year
“A tropical year (also known as a solar year) is the time that the Sun takes to return to the same position in the cycle of seasons, as seen from Earth; for example, the time from vernal equinox to vernal equinox, or from summer solstice to summer solstice. This differs from the time it takes Earth to complete one full orbit around the Sun as measured with respect to the fixed stars (the sidereal year) by about 20 minutes because of the precession of the equinoxes.”
My question was related to intensity of sunlight at lunar poles [as it should obvious to blog reader, I rather obsessive about lunar water mining- Which I assume will use lunar solar energy]
but question was not summer solstice to summer solstice, rather distance from the sun, but seems within the ballpark, or gives a general idea.
Or can try searching the Moon’s tropical year.
Hmm. Well I got calculator:
https://www.convertunits.com/from/lunar+years/to/tropical+year
There stuff for Earth’s tropical year but I don’t see one for Moon.
“That by itself is telling you the Moon does not spin on its axis.”
No it’s not. It is just saying that its rotational axis is not pointing at one particular star.
–RLH says:
July 15, 2021 at 3:17 AM
That by itself is telling you the Moon does not spin on its axis.
No its not. It is just saying that its rotational axis is not pointing at one particular star.–
I think everyone will agree that Mars is rotating on it’s axis.
But if north or south pole is not point at particular star. Then I would have some doubts that it’s rotating on it’s axis.
Now Mars unlikely to be pointing at our polar star {earth’s north pole hasn’t been, also over time} but Mars north pole should pointing somewhere in the neighborhood of our north star.
Or it would convince me, that we are in Simulation- and people running it are mot mindful of details {or they want endless arguments on the internet].
Earth’s pole star has changed quite a bit over the last few centuries, but don’t let that confuse you.
Bindidon, for someone that is clueless about the science, you sure love anti-science.
You must crave for science, Pup.
Here’s science:
https://tinyurl.com/ehkf6uhf
No, here’s another pointless and irrelevant link from the puppy.
Mike Flynn,
How do you know?
You never click on links!
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Puppies never post relevant links – they just beg people to waste time trying to placate the whining puppy.
Mike Flynn,
So you don’t know.
But you keep saying stuff!
Do continue!
Swoon!
Puppy, if you posted it, it must be irrelevant. Otherwise, you would have been game enough to provide a synopsis.
But you didn’t, so it was – irrelevant, that is.
No change – you are still an idiotic troll.
Mike Flynn,
That’s the response:
Mike Flynn!
Love,
Willard, please stop trolling.
binny…”The planetary spin and rotation period: A modern approach…”
Not one word about lunar rotation.
These raving idiots you quote are trying to compare the spin of an electron to the ALLEGED spin of planets. If you look at the spin of electrons they are quantified as +1/2 or -1/2, which are quantum numbers that have no counterpart with planets. It is not known if electrons spin because no one has ever seen an electron. However, the spin was added as a THEORETICAL means of explaining quantum effects that could not be explained using real physics.
Renaming rotation to spin is bad enough, but the raving idiots distinguish between spin and rotational period.
Some quotes from the rubbish in their paper…
“Einstein’s general theory of gravitation generalizes Newton’s theory of gravitational to give a full account for all these observed gravitational phenomena. Einstein treats these phenomena as arising from the curvature of space. Hence, Einstein’s theory has become now the only accepted theory of gravitation…”
Curvature of space??? Did he say, curvature of space??? What the heck is that??? How does something that is essentially empty, curve??? It’s not space curvature, but space-time curvature, a totally theoretical concept that has no equivalent in physical reality.
And how is that space related to a human invention called time, that has no existence except in the human mind as conditioned thought??? Astronomer Wal Thornhill once commented on the stupidity of superimposing a 4th dimension of time onto a 3_D physical universe. That 4th dimension does not exist, except in the mind of Einstein and his groupies.
The only real physics Einstein has contributed is the photoelectric effect. The rest is sheer conjecture based on thought experiments. He did not seem to realize that time was defined as a constant, based on the relatively constant rotational period of the Earth. He claimed in one of his papers that time is the ‘hands on a clock’. Doh!!! and Duh
111 Why is this guy so revered? A clock is a machine synchronized to the rotation of the Earth.
The underlying math of his relativity theory had already been done in Newtonian physics, a fact he acknowledged.
The difference between that relativity and his was a thought-experiment that somehow time and space could change due to the change in velocity of a mass. To do that, he had to take the absolute time defined by humans and add a theoretical multiplier. Absolute nonsense. If time changes, the rotational period of the Earth must change.
Einstein’s nonsense is now the only accepted theory of gravitation??? Maybe to idiots who cannot think for themselves and I am about to reveal the source of that idiocy from their article.
“…Einstein’s theory of gravitation employing Schwartzchild metric…”
Schwartzchild was a raving idiot who misinterpreted Einstein’s work even further and reached absolutely stupid conclusions.
The idiocy goes on…
“While Einstein attributed the precession of planets to the curvature of space, we ascribe it to the interaction of the spin of planets with the gravitomagnetic field induced by the Sun in the planet frame of reference…”.
Did he say, a graviometric field induced by the Sun in the planet frame of reference…???
Please tell me he did not say that. What’s a graviometric field, is that another part of the new quantum sci-fi? And what does a frame of reference have to do with any of this?
Do they mean a gravitational field made up of a field of forces?
Can anyone see what is going on here? We have pure theorists creating nonsense in which a planet behaves like an electron orbiting an atom. Silly me, I thought electrons were modeled on planets orbiting the Sun.
more idiocy..
“The origin of spin of planets has not been known exactly. One can easily determine the orbital angular momentum of a planet. The spin of a planet however requires knowledge of the planet mass, radius, its rotation period and its mass distribution inside the planet.
Mass has nothing to do with the rotation of a planet about a local COG/axis. Momentum involves mass but angular velocity does not have mass in its equation. The angular velocity of the Moon about its COG/axis is zero. Therefore it is not rotating about its COG/axis.
> Not one word about lunar rotation.
C’mon, Gordon:
Check also Table 2.
Witless Wee Willy,
No wonder you thought philosophy was as hard as physics!
You are equally knowledgeless about both!
Mike Flynn,
You almost said something!
Keep trying!
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”The spin and orbital angular momentum may couple to each other as the case in theEarth-Moon system”.
As I said, not one word about lunar rotation. They have presumed a local rotation, which they call spin, for some reason, but they have not indicated how this spin occurs while the same lunar side always faces the Earth.
What they call spin is obviously translation along a curve WITHOUT rotation.
Furthermore, there reference to angular momentum is not explained. Any momentum possessed by the Moon is not along the curve, it is in a direction tangential to the curve, and instantaneous. The orbital curve represents a resultant path formed by the Moon’s linear momentum being dragged off course by the force of gravity.
In this case, the reference to angular momentum, which is a vector quantity, does not use the vector quantity for velocity, it uses the average velocity of the circumference of the orbital path divided by the time it takes the Moon to complete one orbit (27.3 days). Therefore it does not represent the true momentum of the Moon but gives an average value.
The actual angular momentum of the Moon in its orbit is far more complex. It requires calculating the instantaneous linear momentum, mv, and multiplying it by r = radius of orbit. Then that value has to be summed over the entire orbit.
> willard…”The spin and orbital a
It’s a quote, Gordo.
The quote was there to disprove your “Not one word about lunar rotation.”
We really need better contrarians.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Wal Thornhill once commented on the stupidity of superimposing a 4th dimension of time onto a 3_D physical universe.”
Sensible man. You only have to observe that time is not of the same dimensional quality as space to understand mixing the 2 is daft.
Sensible man indeed:
“The Earth sciences will remain hamstrung for as long as it takes to understand that we live in an ELECTRIC UNIVERSE and the solar system we see today is not as old as the human race.”
https://www.holoscience.com/wp/global-warming-in-a-climate-of-ignorance/
Wasn’t wrong about time being a different sort of dimension though.
So you say.
Idiot.
No U.
About the (Tmax+Tmin)/2 versus median averaging polemic [part 4a]
Before going into the stuff again, thanks to commenter Mark B for his excellent contributions.
*
For weeks, commenter RLH has been annoying us with claims about the inappropriateness of the Max & Min averaging of hourly temperatures compared to a median-based determination.
But as always, such people are only too happy to limit themselves to condescending remarks or even with trivial explanations, such as a histogram (!).
For weeks I have been waiting for a REAL evaluation of the USCRN data by RLH, showing plots of time series generated out of hourly data; so far only lots and lots of sayings came from him.
*
Now I got finally fed up with this lamentable situation last night, and have downloaded and evaluated the data of all 234 USCRN stations available since beginning of the project:
https://tinyurl.com/4m75rnvp
For testing purposes, I took the CRN Alaska station Kenai 29 ENE, which I knew from a comparison with the station Anchorage Airport, made some years ago:
https://tinyurl.com/tfcs4fvk
*
But I think that my monthly averaging of hourly data, together with very poor hourly data especially in many European countries, was not a good idea, as it was misused to discredit what I wanted to show.
Thus I come back now to the very first test of hourly data in Germany, showing daily averages instead:
https://tinyurl.com/m94hub7d
And now… here is, for the Kenai station, the output of the hour-based comparison of the three averaging techniques:
https://tinyurl.com/373jcwtc
Feel free to admire the great differences, in each of the two graphs, between the three different daily evaluations of the hourly data, shown by their running means.
*
More tomorrow with graphs of the 23 USCRN Alaska stations, and of all US stations.
J.-P. D.
> commenter RLH has been annoying
Agreed.
You fellows really are precious, aren’t you?
Unable to produce any facts to support your odd opinions, you resort to being “annoyed” (as if anybody cares about your frail self esteem)!
What next? Are you going to feel “insulted”, or “bullied”, perhaps?
Grow up. Don’t be girly-men!
You’ve been had, diddled, deceived. No, the GHE doesn’t exist. No, the seas won’t boil dry within 10,000 years.
Poor diddums, all upset. Are we?
[mirthy chortles]
July 7, 2021 at 8:14 PM
A day where Mike Flynn JAQs off is a joyful day!
Wacky Wee Willy,
I suppose you think puerile cryptic masturbation references make you look exceptionally gifted?
Oh well, if you were trying to be gratuitously offensive, you wasted your time. I decline to take offence at the maunderings of idiot trolls.
Off you go now – play with yourself some more, if you must.
Mike Flynn,
You say–
“I suppose”
Indeed!
That’s all you do!
Keep supposing.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”> commenter RLH has been annoying”
Then you admit he has been annoying you by calling you an idiot and refusing to participate in your trolling when not necessary?
Good, I have enjoyed him calling you an idiot.
> Then you admit
Why would I be annoyed when someone hands me free wins, Gordon? I love it!
It’s more the JAQing off, the bragging, the blunders, the playing dumb.
As a Dragon, I’m sure you love that he’s poisoning Roy’s well!
Woebegone Wee Willy,
More masturbation references? Oh dear, the puppy tries to appear adult.
Nope. You need to be a bit subtle.
Don’t worry – you can play with the big dogs one day. Maybe.
Mike Flynn,
More JAQing off?
Suit yourself, don’t mind us.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Idiot.
No U.
z
binny…”For weeks, commenter RLH has been annoying us with claims about the inappropriateness of the Max & Min averaging of hourly temperatures compared to a median-based determination”.
Us??? RLH makes perfect sense to anyone who has studied statistics. There is a reason the mean, the mode, and the median are defined in statistics and RLH is only pointing out the obvious.
Gordo, please stop brown-nosing.
willard…”Gordo, please stop brown-nosing”.
Again, you are confused on the premise. Brown-nosing is what you do to your climate alarmist authority figures. It requires a certain amount of narrow-minded groveling.
My reply re RLH was based on actual definitions from statistical theory whereas your appeal to authority figures is based on consensus and bad science.
Nice boy, ah said nice boy, Willard, but yo built too close to the ground, goes…ah said…goes right over your head, boy.
Please stop being an idiot, kiddo!
I know it’s hard to give up something that you have spent so much time and effort on, but you can do it if you really try!
On the other hand, if your idiocy is a congenital condition, you have my deepest sympathy.
Carry on,
> was based on actual definitions from statistical theory
Was it, Gordo?
Perhaps you could entertain the gallery with your savant knowledge.
Share the love.
Totally Confused Wee Willy,
Who am I in your fantasy now. “Gordo”, or “Mike Flynn”, or whom?
You do realise that excessive masturbation, physically or mentally, may be injurious to your well-being.
In this case, your ability to keep your fantasy consistent seems to be slipping.
“savant knowledge”
As an idiot you have no such knowledge yourself.
Mike Flynn and our favorite dummy piling on.
So much beauty.
Idiocy resumes its normal behavior.
No U.
z
“There is a reason the mean, the mode, and the median are defined in statistics and RLH is only pointing out the obvious.”
Only to those who have actually studied and used statistics in real life as opposed to just blindly use what everybody else says they should.
RLH says:
July 7, 2021 at 11:03 AM
P.S. Check any stats book and see what they say about median and mean and when to use each type of average.
Still true. Have you bothered to look at a stats text book? Know what and why the answer should be?
Either what you’re doing is so trivial that reading a textbook will suffice or it takes judgment and experience.
Can’t have both, dummy.
Some of us have actually studied statistics. Other are too idiotic to have done so.
Yes, dummy, and you can’t recognize who did.
I remember my stats classes. You never took one I suspect.
You recall classes you took 50 years ago when you conflated modes and medians a month ago, dummy.
Modes have their place too. Care to say what they are?
What’s the mode of a guy who bats for .366, like Ty Cobb?
Thanks B. You can tell by the quality of the comments that you have again annoyed the hell out of them by dealing with facts.
Like holding up a crucifix to dracula.
studentb, please stop trolling.
Still comparing mean versa median rather than either versa the true average for a day I see.
The median is the more accurate than the mean when compared to the true average as your original graph shows quite well and statisticians will tell you.
And yes, I too have all the USCRN data locally as well. Really difficult that was.
“shown by their running means.”
Do you have any idea of what distortions running means add to the plots. Do you understand nothing about Gaussian sampling?
“three different daily evaluations of the hourly data, shown by their running means.”
So the question to ask is which is the more accurate method of determining the ‘real’ average temperature during any one day.
1. A (near) continuous sampling of the temperature. Say at 5 second intervals (USCRN).
2. The mean of min and max from 1.
3. The median of 1.
USCRN recognizes that 2 is inaccurate and list the differences from 1 in its daily output.
> So the question to ask is
There are many questions to ask, dummy.
B asked you one already.
B failed to ask the important question but instead asked an irrelevant one.
B asked the same question that Mark tried to explain to you many times already, dummy:
If you found anything worth attention, the relevant agencies could make the proper adjustments.
It may have the inverse effect of what contrarians like, but at least they’d have done something else than concern troll a blog.
B does not understand that the observation I posed was that the median was a better estimator of the true average than the mean.
You too, seem to ignore that original observation and go off on some tangent. Not that being off on a tangent is unusual for you.
Look, dummy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-701542
You really don’t seem to realize of your own strawman right now.
To say that medians are “better” means little if you don’t show how using them will make a difference in the end.
Me, B, and Mark have been telling you this for months now.
But do continue to play dumb, coy, and to argue by ignorance or by question while pretending to do something that looks sciencey.
See if I care.
Look idiot, inaccurate means inaccurate. (Pun intended)
No U.
z
“For weeks, commenter RLH has been annoying us with claims about the inappropriateness of the Max & Min averaging of hourly temperatures compared to a median-based determination.”
For years people have been observing that (Tmin + Tmax)/2 is inaccurate. But don’t let science get in the way of your beliefs.
“But as always, such people are only too happy to limit themselves to condescending remarks or even with trivial explanations, such as a histogram (!).”
So how else would you show range and distribution? A data table?
“For weeks I have been waiting for a REAL evaluation of the USCRN data by RLH, showing plots of time series generated out of hourly data; so far only lots and lots of sayings came from him.”
As you are an idiot why should anyone take any notice of what you post?
“here is, for the Kenai station, the output of the hour-based comparison of the three averaging techniques:
https://tinyurl.com/373jcwtc“
And yet he fails to compare the real average with both mean and median (which would be green minus blue and green minus red) and just plot those.
Instead he just persists in being as wrong as ever.
“Feel free to admire the great differences, in each of the two graphs, between the three different daily evaluations of the hourly data, shown by their running means.”
But fails to show the point that was made.
No U.
z
binny…”What does the interior axis of rotation of a celestial body have to do with its orbiting around another celestial body?”
The relationship is obvious: if the planet/moon is not rotating about its interior axis, it keeps the same face pointed to whatever it is orbiting.
Wrong. The trebuchet example shows that a body possesses rotation after it is released from its orbit.
sb, this was explained to you above.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-754789
You mean this, Pup:
That’s not an explanation: that’s how you begged the question!
For more on how to beg questions:
https://tinyurl.com/k5b6j74v
Sorry W, but your immature flak is grossly ineffective.
Maybe if you just keep doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results….
> Maybe if you just keep doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results
Yet here you are, Pup, vintage 2018:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-279985
If you want me to teach you how you begged the question, that’s 75 bucks.
Yes Willard, the famous phrase, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”, is well known to most adults.
There’s a big world out there, when you grow up.
Weird Wee Willy is addicted to idiotic trolling. He thinks pre-pubescent references to masturbation make him look clever.
Others, including myself, may think he is just an immature troll, with low self esteem.
Still can’t or won’t explain why the GHE is completely irrelevant, given that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from the molten state.
Just more deny, divert and avoid any facts.
Ah, the bizarre and twisted fantasy that is WillyWorld.
> when you grow up.
Again vintage 2018, but one month later:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285656
In fairness, you did grow out of that sock, Pup.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard, your search failed you again, girl.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2C3ZTMwaek
How do you know, Pup?
That you’re an idiot? It’s self evident.
“your search failed you again”
Your idiocy never fails you.
Click on the link, dummy.
I don’t need a link to know that you are an idiot.
Keep telling yourself that. Be prepared to change your mind in the (possibly near) future.
I’ll never change my mind about the fact that you’re an idiot. (nor have any reason to).
What mind?
Idiot.
No U.
z
studentb…”Wrong. The trebuchet example shows that a body possesses rotation after it is released from its orbit”.
You can put on a dunce cap and go stand in the corner. Your reply is irrelevant to the Moon in its orbit. The Moon has not been launched from a catapult and it orbits with the same side facing the Earth. Ergo, not possible for it to rotate about an internal axis.
> The Moon has not been launched from a catapult
You still haven’t told us what happened with the Moon to get where she is right now, Gordon.
Cat got your tongue?
Wrong again. The moon is “attached” to the Earth by gravity in the same way as a missile is tied to the trebuchet. Both maintain constant faces. Cutting the ties of the missile when in full motion would be the same as suddenly turning off gravity. Both missile and the moon would continue rotating in free flight. Simple.
s,
Nope. Cutting off gravity (or increasing the velocity of the Moon to above escape velocity) would merely allow the Moon to travel in a straighter line with its front facing forward along its line of travel. As it does at present. Same forces acting on the Moon – gravity.
Unless you want to rewrite physical law, like Alan Trenberth. Not terribly bright, that one.
Orbits provide paths, not rotations.
sb, gravity can be thought of as an “attachment”. That analogy works for creating an orbit, such as a ball-on-a-string, and a “release”, such as when gravity is turned off.
But you have to be careful with actual attachments, such as your trebuchet. The “release” must be perfect, or axial rotation will occur. There can be no torque introduced. It might be possible to engineer a trebuchet to hurl an object without axial rotation, but it would require precision.
Think about a baseball pitcher. For a number of different pitches, the arm movement is basically the same. But, it’s the “release” that makes a difference. The baseball will have different amounts of spin, depending on the “release”.
Or, consider a javelin thrower. The thrower holds the javelin at its center of mass. The release must be such that the last contact is at center of mass. That ensures the javelin will fly without any hint of axial rotation about the wrong axis. If the javelin were thrown from either end, a torque would be produced, causing axial rotation about the wrong axis.
Or consider an orbital body which, without other inputs, would have a ‘face’ pointed towards a fixed star.
“if the planet/moon is not rotating about its interior axis, it keeps the same face pointed to whatever it is orbiting.”
Wrong. If an object orbits something it keeps its face pointed towards the fixed stars. If it rotates about its axis then it might keep its face towards the object it is orbiting.
Your problem with that erroneous belief is that you can’t produce a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The model you have (passenger jet flying backwards and sideways) fails miserably.
The only workable model for “orbital motion without axial rotation” keeps a ‘face’ pointed towards a fixed star. Which you deny is possible.
Impossible I meant.
Yes, “impossible” and “not workable” are essentially the same.
So you agree that its face points towards a fixed star.
gbaikie…”And to anyone if Moon spins on its axis which orbital plane is it spinning, its orbital plane around Earth or around the Sun…”
Orbits in the Earth-Moon orbital plane which is tilted about 5 degrees to the Earth-Sun orbital plane. Most planets orbit in the Earth-Sun orbital plane +/- a few degrees.
Moon’s orbital plane not related to Sun, outside of the Earth-Moon orbital plane. That is, Moon not orbiting the Sun. There is a small gravitation effect on the Moon by the Sun, but Earth’s gravity is so strong it has the only significant effect on the Moon.
You can’t even claim the Earth-Moon system is orbiting as a unit. Earth is orbiting and the Moon is a passenger.
–There is a small gravitation effect on the Moon by the Sun, but Earths gravity is so strong it has the only significant effect on the Moon.–
How strong is Earth’s gravity at lunar distance?
At perigee Moon about 363,300 km away from Earth
Earth’s radius is about 6378.1 km
363,300 / 6378.1 km = 56.9 or about 56.9 radii from Earth.
56.9 squared is 3,237.61
9.8 m/s/s / 3,237.61 = 0.0030269 m/s/s
In millimeter per second^2,
times 1000 = 3 millimeters per second per second
And Sun gravity at Earth distance is about 6 millimeters per second per second
” At earth’s distance from the sun solar gravity is about 6 millimeters/sec^2 . ”
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/36834/what-gravity-does-the-sun-affect-items-with-at-the-distance-of-1-au
{it also has graph indicating Sun’s gravity at Mars distance {and Jupiter}.
Anyhow force of Sun on Earth and Moon is about twice the force between Moon and Earth. But tidal forces are less from Sun since it’s very far away. Or should also apply at Earth/Moon L-1, tidal force should greater from Moon- since it’s a shorter distance vs the longer Earth distance.
And a point where Earth and Moon gravity force is equal/balanced is the Earth/Moon L-1 point {roughly 60,000 km from moon and roughly 300,000 km from Earth}
If put long stick at L-1. If stick uniform mass along it’s length, then need more length towards Earth as compared other end of stick going towards Moon.
{one has to keep this in mind if want Lunar space elevator from L-1 to lunar surface. Lunar elevator seems rather pointless to me, unless you want harvest the energy of dropping water onto the lunar surface from the L-1 distance in space- one could get a massive amount electrical power from this “hydro dam” per ton of water dropped}.
You would also need a supply of water. Reminds me of someone suggesting that hydro power could be got from water falling from a airfield runway into a pit, only to be told that we had to pump all the water that fell into it out on a regular basis.
“Pumped-storage hydroelectricity (PSH), or pumped hydroelectric energy storage (PHES), is a type of hydroelectric energy storage used by electric power systems for load balancing. The method stores energy in the form of gravitational potential energy of water, pumped from a lower elevation reservoir to a higher elevation.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
Grandmother meet eggs.
Added to your blunders.
You are still an idiot.
No U.
z
It takes more delta-v to land on the moon slowly than to do it faster.
When leaving Earth rockets have about 1500 m/s of gravity loss to reach Earth low orbit, with Apollo the lunar ascent vehicle had about 100 m/s of gravity loss to reach low lunar orbit.
If you left earth surface and limited your speed to say 100 mph [reach orbit in about 1 hour] you have way too much gravity loss. Rocket do it is about 7 min, if could do faster they could have less gravity loss than about 1.5 km/sec.
With dropping water to Moon, you want gravity loss.
So if shot with cannon from Lunar surface to L-1, it takes about 2.2 km/sec. And cannon would have no gravity loss- the lunar gravity will slow the projectile- but that what is meant gravity loss. Gravity loss is amount extra delta-v one needs if you don’t have immediate acceleration as would have with a cannon. Or gravity is hovering. Or any heavier than air vehicle which is flying has gravity loss [without motor running it falls}.
So want gravity loss, because water traveling high speed would break things [like turbines} and because you want that extra falling energy.
If drop water from L-1 without slowing it down it will cut through rock. So another use of lunar elevator is one make vertical tunnel miles deep [just don’t slow down the water}.
Where to get the water?
Well you could get it from Mars- it takes energy, but the water could leave Mars via a cannon. You also drop water slowly to the Moon and shoot back up with cannon.
But I thinking of a time where water in high earth orbit is less than 10 times price of water on Earth surface. So it could use some cannon/mass driver to get water off Ceres. Or people are making trillion of dollars per year shipping trillions of tons of water.
At some point water in space will be cheaper than water on Earth.
As there is a lot more water in space, and US uses 600 billion tons of water per year. China uses about 1 trillion tons. And probably have less 1 billion people living off world by 2100 AD- with about 1/2 living in Earth orbits.
And before 2100 AD electrical power in space will be cheaper than electrical power on Earth. And it seems quickest this happen is within 50 years. Or if you Space power satellite beaming energy to earth surface- electrical power in space has to be cheaper than on Earth surface. But since Mars will have higher price of electrical power, one probably do space power satellite beaming to Mars surface where they get higher price for the electrical power [and should a lot easier to beam power to Mars vs Earth surface.
So talking about time which probably after 2100 AD when a lunar elevator is made. Technologically we can make lunar elevator {unlike an Earth space elevator], but not economical doable within 50 years. Within 50 year we would quite lucky to have High Earth water at $10 per kg or $10,000 per ton.
I think Venus orbit will be biggest market for water in space and starts at around $100 per kg and take decade or two before it’s down to $10 per kg.
The Moon, the Moon! We are all obviously turning into full fledged Lunatics!
Newton’s cannonball makes sense to me. The point being that a cannonball does not tumble end over end, nor rotate along its axis of travel, if from a smooth bored cannon.
The front of the ball points to the front. The bottom of the ball points to the ground.
It just goes further and further before gravity forces it to the ground. As Newton pointed out, without air friction, and sufficient muzzle velocity, the cannonball would never actually reach the ground, and just fall perpetually, the front of the ball still facing forward, the bottom of the ball still facing the ground.
If you want to call that motion “rotation about the Moon’s internal axis”, good for you. There is probably a job waiting at NASA, NOAA, or the NSF, for you.
“the front of the ball still facing forward, the bottom of the ball still facing the ground.”
You mean the front of the ball pointing towards a fixed star with the bottom of the ball pointing towards one at right angles to that don’t you?
RLH,
No, not at all. The front of the ball points in the direction of travel. The bottom points towards the ground, as the bottom of any falling object does. The cannonball is just continuously falling.
As does the Moon – around 1/20 in/sec, from memory. Given that the Moon is about 60 times as far from the centre of the Earth as the Earths surface, and the acceleration due to gravity on the surface is around 32 ft/sec2, and gravity decreases inversely as the square of the distance, etc., everything fits to a nicety.
No fixed stars needed. Just gravity, careful measurement, and Newton’s amazing perceptions.
No need to tell me what I mean, particularly if you have no clue. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say – most of the time, anyway.
And yes, I have simplified and rounded things a little. Feel free to calculate with greater precision, if you want.
“The bottom points towards the ground”
No it does not. It moves without rotation of any kind. It may or may not orbit as Newton observed.
RLH,
Yes it does. The bottom is the part beneath the rest. Closest to the Earth. As in the part of the Moon always closest to the Earth, always falling, but never reaching the ground, rotating around the Earth, but not around its own axis.
Precisely as if it were a cannonball, obeying the same physical laws.
And yes, the Moon does orbit the Earth. Unless you have an alternate explanation for its observed motion. Epicycles don’t work, angels pushing celestial bodies around the heavens is no longer considered reasonable, and magic needs to be reproducible.
So what is your hypothesis?
That, as Newton observed, in order for things to change orientation with respect to the fixed stars, some sort of energy input is required. If this energy input is continuously applied then things will accelerate.
“No, not at all. The front of the ball points in the direction of travel. ”
Why? Its not a football. It is not aerodynamically constrained to point always in the direction of travel as a football or airplane does.
For the ‘front’ of the ball to point always in the direction of travel, while the ball orbits, then the cannonball needs to aquire a rotation. It had none at the beginning, so now you need a reason for it to have one now, a torque.
But gravity does not provide a torque on a cannonball…
Only on something that is not spherical. Even then if it is not spherical, because the Earth’s gravitation distorts it, the torque produced is quite low, requiring millennia for it to act enough to be seen.
Flynnson? No answers, as expected.
It seems when the science gets real, Flynnson gets going.
Good comments, Swenson.
Good trolling, but erroneous, and unsupported by any science.
Poor Wee Willy Willard wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
If only you clicked on the link…
But you won’t!
Cheers.”
Oh dear. Whacko Wee Willy seems to think that telling me what I already know is a mark of his intellectual prowess! Unfortunately, it is onl6 in his fantasy that any reasonable person would waste their time at Wee Wiily’s urgings.
He can’t even get my name right!
What a pretentious idiot. I can see why he keeps his identity secret. His boss might not realise what a fragile creature he employs.
Keep peeing and defecating puppy. You’ll probably grow up into a yapping, nipping, lap dog, one day.
Enjoy your afternoon, Mike Flynn.
W., I can see you are enjoying yourself. Mike is the gift that keeps on giving!
Do not worry, Mike Flynn is all yours if you want!
DMT,
Are you still “coming for” me?
The last time I laughed at your pathetic impotence, you implied you were really only joking.
What you really meant, in the best climate crackpot spur of the moment redefinitions, was that you weren’t really joking, but that you were really a joke!
I concur. Good for a laugh, but worthless for much else. I suppose you could hire yourself out as a speed bump. That might suit your level of stupidity.
Have you found out what science is about, yet? Keep trying, kiddo. Woeful Wee Willy can always give you lessons in denial and avoidance if you find facts too difficult.
Mike Flynn,
Go on.
Unlike you who goes on and on and on….
No U.
z
Whacko Wee Willy keeps trolling away.
As usual, irrelevant and pointless.
The mark of a true climate genius, in Wee Willy’s estimation.
The mark of a pretentious blithering idiot to anyone of sound mind.
I notice that Wee Willy the Terminally Confused has stopped giving weather reports. Maybe he has realised that climate is merely the average of weather. Not terribly bright, our Wee Willy!
Ah, well, the puppy has a lot to learn. In the case of Wee Willy Idiot, maybe “a lot” really means “not a lot”. Climate crackpots only have a limited capacity for learning.
June 19, 2021 at 11:53 PM
Mike Flynn,
The only reason I reply to you is to mention your name.
So I could write “Mike Flynn” and it would be enough for me.
If your abuses do you good, suit yourself.
See if I care.
Willard: No-one cares about you and what you think.
No U.
z
Wee Willy Willard’s dementia shines brightly.
One of his comments in full –
“Mike Flynn,
That’s the response:
Mike Flynn!
Love,”
Oh dear! Wee Willy’s pathetic trolling has affected his few remaining brain cells.
Poor Wee Willy. He’ll have his Troll PHD (Piled Higher and Deeper) rescinded for idiocy, if he keeps on being this stupid.
So many words. So little wit.
DMT,
So many trolls. So much idiocy. So much impotence and powerlessness.
Got any more dim-witted threats? You idiots would be dangerous if you had any power.
You’re a sock puppet, Mike Flynn.
You’re an idiot Willard.
You’re 74 years old, Richard.
Still makes you an idiot though.
You being 74 years does not make anyone else anything, dummy.
Old enough to recognize an idiot when I meet one. Such as you.
Imagine if you were older still.
You would still be an idiot.
No U.
z
Clint R
“But, Ent got one thing right. The TOTAL angular momentum of Moon is the sum of rotational and orbital, 0 + 0 = 0. ”
I think not. Your personal reference frame would allow the Moon to have zero L rotation.
It would not allow zero L revolution. The Moon would not be orbiting, it would (briefly) be falling vertically towards the Earth.
Wrong Ent. Your “L revolution”, L = mvr, is merely a mathematical construct. It has no meaning. A non-rotating object traveling through space has L = mv. If the object is captured by a planet, it still has L = mv. It does not have an additional momentum of mvr! You can NOT create angular momentum.
If the gravity of the planet were then turned off, the object would continue in a straight line, with L = mv.
There is a lot of confusion with “angular momentum”, especially in astrophysics. It’s like many astrophysicists never heard of “physics”….
It’s almost like astrophysicists know what they are talking about.
RLH,
Which ones don’t? James Hansen, perhaps? Or maybe Ken Rice?
Listing the ones who do know would take a long time.
RLH,
So how do you know which ones do, and which ones don’t?
Just list two who don’t know what they are talking about, and what leads you to your conclusion.
Nice try at being condescending. Pity it didn’t work out for you. Better luck next time.
Chose from https://www.space.com/19215-most-famous-astronomers-history.html
As being the ones who know what they are talking about.
Angular momentum L = mvr, has no meaning, instead L = mv .
Its Fizuks for yuks made up by our resident Fizukist, Clint.
I thought the r stood for radius.
Indeed so in Physics.
In Fizuks it has no meaning.
Sure. And
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/amo.jpeg
is caused by a random walk.
RLH
“random walk”
Your graph doesn’t exclude a random walk or no oscillation.
Your graph shows an AMO oscillation between -0.1C and 0.1C, which would be within the +/-0.1C 95% confidence limits of the temperature data, if that is what your y axis shows.
Could you please label the y axis and include 95% confidence limits for your green AMO curve.
The collected data shows that the summary as presented in a fair representation of the data.
“Could you please label the y axis”
It is labeled in degrees C (as per the original data – see source ref).
“which would be within the +/-0.1C 95% confidence limits of the temperature data”
Which would not explain the observed patterns nor the fact that it ranges from +/- 0.6c or so.
he temperature data
“Which would not explain the observed patterns nor the fact that it ranges from +/- 0.6c or so.”
That’s the problem. The data has enough spread that it could be explained by an intrinsic AMO cycle, by non-cyclic variations in industrial albedo, by a random walk or by the usual stochastic variation in the absence of a cycle.I could even fit a long term warming trend into your graph.
That is the point of Mann’s 2021 paper. 20 years ago he suggested the possibility of an AMO. With an extra 20 years of data he could not demonstrate to an acceptable level of statistical significance that there is an AMO. There are also plausible alternative explanations for the data which do not require the existence of an AMO.
“The data has enough spread that it could be explained by an intrinsic AMO cycle, by non-cyclic variations in industrial albedo, by a random walk or by the usual stochastic variation in the absence of a cycle.”
Keep telling yourself that. Be prepared to change your mind in the (possibly near) future.
“Random walk” is not equivalent to “appears to reflect the response of the climate system to both anthropogenic and natural forcing”.
My interpretation of the article is that Mann is suggesting the system has (at least) two metastable states and is kicked from one to the other by mechanisms that are not intrinsic to the system. That is, it’s a sort of bistable oscillator rather than a harmonic oscillator.
That is, at best, a supposition.
It’s an interesting question.
Using the available data, how would you distinguish between a genuine cycle and a pair of strange attractors?
Time
You’ve data for less than two cycles, not enough to distinguish between the two hypotheses.
Time alone will tell then.
Mind you, it is the data since 1840 or so.
RLH says: Time alone will tell then.
Mind you, it is the data since 1840 or so.
The recently published study largely forming the basis of Mann’s statement addresses AMO proxy data spanning 850-1850. The instrument period AMO record was addressed in a 2020 paper.
And he said it was all down to chance and that he couldn’t find it in the models.
The fact that the models could be wrong was not addressed.
So a 74 years old Climateball rookie rediscovers concern trolling.
So an idiot discovers he is idiotic.
No U.
z
TM,
That wouldn’t be the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann, would it?
Are you stupid, or just extremely gullible?
Mike Flynn,
You’re a sock puppet.
I guess it struck a nerve!
Willard, Tyson, please stop trolling.
TM,
Or you could just grow trees and use timber for building things.
CO2 removed. Wooden buildings and artefacts can last for thousands of years. No high tech nonsense required. Paleolithic man made things of wood, which are still being found today.
Why do you hate wood?
If you do, you could always bag dead human bodies (mostly carbohydrates) in some plastic (mostly hydrocarbons) that greenies claim take thousands of years to break down. Use appropriate gamma radiation to sterilise the contents. Bury the bagged bodies, chuck them in the Challenger Deep, shoot them into the Sun for a bit of fun, if you want to waste your money and show your high tech prowess.
Just how thick are you? There is no GHE, dummy. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. CO2 is plant fertiliser, which you exhale with every breath. If you stop producing CO2, you are dead. Give it a try – I bet you can’t commit suicide by holding your breath.
Hypercapnia (excessive CO2 levels) is detected by chemoreceptors, and involuntarily forces you to draw breath. See? You would die without the aid of CO2.
You people are just so, so, stupid.
“EOR is a very economic form”
that uses more energy than burning stuff released in the first place.
RLH,
Unfortunately, most “green” ideas are like that. And almost invariably, involve vast expenditures of other peoples’ money.
It seems that to enjoy the “benefits” of civilisation, we have to accept reductions in some other amenities. For example, solar farms prevent sunlight from reaching the soil, and prevent using the land from producing food, or growing forests.
What do you enjoy more? Waving fields of grain, natural forests and wildlife, or night time reality shows on TV? Don’t ask me, I don’t know. What about you?
I believe that using renewable energy sources where possible is a good thing.
Your belief in the goodness of renewable energy sources is not supported by facts.
See Michael Moore’s ‘Planet of the Humans’ for details.
TANSTAAFL.
“Wind power contributed 24.8% of UK electricity supplied in 2020, having surpassed coal in 2016 and nuclear in 2018. It is the largest source of renewable electricity in the UK. … The latest research suggests that the levelised cost of recently constructed offshore wind farms is in the range 100-150/MWh.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/21/may-gales-help-britain-set-record-for-wind-power-generation
“A new record was set in the early hours of Friday for the share of wind power in the generation mix, with wind providing nearly two-thirds of Britains electricity, according to provisional data from National Grid.
Between 2am and 3am, wind was contributing 62.5% to Britains electricity mix, beating the previous record of 59.9% from August last year, when gale-force winds brought by storms Ellen and Francis hit the country.
As the blustery weather buffeted the UK, there were several periods between 10pm on Thursday night and early Friday morning when wind was contributing more than 60% for the first time.”
Capture all the anthro CO2. It will lower atmospheric CO2 by 20ppm in 20 years.
So you say.
Willard, please stop trolling.
TM,
That would have something to do with this, would it –
“The project received Alberta government funding of $745 million and federal government support of $120 million.”
A mere pittance of other peoples’ money, of course. Canadian taxpayers are obviously lining up to give a charity like Shell, an $865 million donation.
Oh, and don’t forget, the project depends on a Carbon Tax, and of course, Carbon Credits. Guess who will hopefully make a motsa by selling things that don’t actually exist, to people who don’t actually need them? That well known charity, Shell? Perish the thought! The shareholders would never stand for it, would they?
Are you really that stupid, or is it only politicians?
Unfortunately the activists are infesting the oil companies as investors.
They’ve voted to turn BP into a green energy company. It no longer prospects for oil.
They’ve forced Exxon to put two ‘Green’ members on the board of directors at the last AGM. Part of that was a large pension fund that is infested with greens too.
The result is oil companies are being impaired by green activists. Its really stupid. It does show shareholders would stand for it. I don’t but neither do I have enough shares to influence the votes. All I can do is sell mine after the share price is plummeted.
> It no longer prospects for oil.
If only:
“Data from Norwegian consultancy Rystad Energy shows BP acquired around 3,000 square kilometres of new exploration licences in 2020, its lowest since at least 2015 and far less than at Shell, which acquired around 11,000 square kilometres, or Total, which bought some 17,000 square kilometres.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-exploration-bp-insight-idUSKBN29U00C
“inject captured carbon dioxide”
At what energy cost?
The forecast for today is 22C.
The average temperature recorded here is 23.1C
I guess the carbon capture must be working.
What is it normally at this time of year?
Ken at 9:02 AM
Isn’t your July average 16.8C?
But what are the mode and the median?
Unless he has access to hourly or better data how can he answer that?
Idiot.
How about the geometric mean?
Geometric idiot.
Is that a sample of your meanness, or the expected value of your contributions?
Would an idiot know the difference?
Could you go any lower?
An interesting challenge.
It is no challenge to see you are an idiot.
No U.
z
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://globalnews.ca/news/8028088/western-canada-heat-wave-glacier-melt-climate/
The story might need to be corrected when our High Expectation Auditor will find the truest medians ever.
Idiot.
Do you have access to hourly or better data, dummy?
Yup. It does take time to download though.
“Jeffrey Kavanaugh, an associate professor from the faculty of science at the University of Alberta, estimated the ice melt during Junes so-called heat dome on the Wapta icefield was three times what was normal over the past dozen years. The Wapta icefield is the source of the Bow glacier and river.”
Deflect. Ignore. Be an idiot.
“Smoke from the hundreds of fires burning in the province is an added problem, with soot that increases melting and a smoke cover that reduces sunlight but also traps heat to increase thawing of glaciers, he said.
“Its a complicated research topic that many people are starting to study and try to better understand,” Menounos added.”
Idiot.
“This rate of glacier melt is usually seen in late July and August, he said.”
Local weather is not climate. Even it it is unprecedented since….
“Glaciers will see a “longer melt season” if temperatures continue to remain above normal, he noted.”
So why are global temperatures declining? As seen from satellites. Are they all lying?
> As seen from satellites.
Roy is up there?
Still playing the idiot I see.
No U.
z
Flooding rages across Germany and Belgium, killing at least 67 amid torrential rains
Another “normal” day on New Earth.
Sure, but what’s the normal long-term median?
More intelligent than an idiot.
“Switzerland also issued travel and weather warnings this week as heavy rainfall and thunderstorms brought flooding to the city of Zurich.”
So why are global temperatures declining? As seen from satellites. Are they all lying?
Why would you ask a silly question that shows you don’t distinguish correlation with causation?
Answer: because you’re a dummy contrarian.
” So why are global temperatures declining? As seen from satellites. ”
Since when?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/offset:-0.353
(The 0.353 C offset for RSS4.0 LT is the mean of 1991-2020 in their still good old 1979-1998 based anomaly time series.)
J.-P. D.
> Since when?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-751211
“Since when?”
Look at the top of the page.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/offset:-0.353
Shows a decline in the last 6 months since 2020 as I claimed..
Oh, and look, RSS does the same
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/rss.jpeg
RLH, Your comment about recent cooling in the RSS data is just another short term variation on a long term upward trend. Even your smoothed data graph doesn’t indicate cooling, which appears after the end of the smoothed curve. Note that the RSS analysis results in a greater trend than the UAH analysis, most likely because RSS excludes the data poleward of 70S, as well as regions with high mountains, which intrude into the view of the MSU/AMSU instruments.
While you are at it, look at the RSS results for the Northern Hemisphere, which show a trend of 0.263 k/decade.
“Your comment about recent cooling in the RSS data is just another short term variation on a long term upward trend.”
Linear trends are only useful over the date range they are created in. They say nothing about the past and nothing about the future either.
I said, with evidence, that global temperatures have been declining for the last 6 months. Do you challenge that?
Or do you want the AIRs data too?
> Shows a decline in the last 6 months since 2020
It’s a 20-year scale, dummy.
So look at the last 6 months. Am I correct or not?
A 20-year scale graph does not a 6-month blip show, dummy.
Have you ever traded stocks?
Do you buy or sell in a declining market?
You buy if you think that the price is lower than you’ll sell it in the time horizon you wish to hold it, dummy.
So if you look at monthly values for yearly returns, here’s what you could look at:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2010/plot/best/from:2010
And if the market continues to fall?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2010/plot/best/from:2010
So have both plots decreased since 2020?
Would you buy the stock or would you sell it, dummy?
Which do you recon is the outlier in the below
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset:0.45/from:2011/plot/rss/from:2011/plot/gistemp/from:2011/offset:-0.25/plot/had crut4gl/from:2011/offset
E. Swanson
Yes there are some bad floods in Europe. But is it a new normal?
Here is a long term study of floods in Europe. It covers many regions and shows graphs of long term flooding of various rivers.
Maybe read through this to get perspective. It is easy to form conclusions based upon small data sets.
I tried to reason with Willard about “Jumping to Conclusions” with little hope of reaching his strange mind. I read some of his posts and he seems really a strange person. Obsessed with an old pop song that he links to constantly. I am hoping you do not possess his limited thought process but will consider evidence and weigh it on the scales
Here is the research. Consider it.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283600391_Historical_Floods_in_Europe_in_the_Past_Millennium
> “Jumping to Conclusions”
Don’t be shy, Norman. Link to the three times you let the rooster crow:
[D] More than 230 deaths have been reported in British Columbia since Friday as a historic heat wave brought record-high temperatures, officials said Tuesday.
[N] Maybe look at historical data. Here is a list of yearly all time highest temperatures in Portland. [] This record does not indicate a heat wave or duration of hot weather, it is just the hottest temperature recorded for a given year.
[W] How frequently?
[R] Idiot.
[N] In my count I got 51 temperatures in Portland Oregon 100 F or above out of 145 years. That would be more than once every 3rd year.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-746149
Hypocrisy is not a Christian virtue, you know.
Willard
You seem about as rational as Clint R.
You take a few words out of my post, misrepresent it purposely (similar to what Clint R does) and think you are doing something of value.
I read your endless banter of nonsense and do not consider you the rational intelligent or thoughtful type like a Tim Folkerts or E. Swanson. You bluster on and produce endless nonsense comments. Then when I am attempting a rational conversation you create a nonsense and misleading representation.
Here is the actual version of the extended posts.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-741847
Without your false distortion of my posts, I stated that Portland frequently had temperatures in the 100 F range. You questioned this so I counted the number of years with a temperature recorded in Portland at 100 F or above. Not sure where you get hypocrisy from that listing.
When I suggested DMT look at Historical data on deaths from heat here is one sample of deaths during heat waves in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heat_waves
9500 people died from heat caused deaths in 1901 in the Eastern US. Thousands died in the 1930’s.
You do not make much sense to me. I think you are a fanatic with little room for intelligent discussion or evidence based debate. You cherry-pick extremist web sites as sources without looking deeper or questioning their conclusions.
Either you or Clint R. No rational debate or digging deeper.
There is a proverb that covers both of you.
Proverb 18: verse 2: “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding,
but only in expressing his opinion.”
You could try the same Proverb verse 15: “An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
Dear Norman,
Your rationalization is duly noted. The fact remains that you were caught minimizing a very rare event using a bad metric.
By your “jumping to conclusion” logic, why should we conclude anything from your anecdata about 1901 or the Dust Bowl?
Something tells me that it’s just a trick for conclusions that are too inconvenient for your lifestyle or your worldview.
A worthless witness mocks at justice, and the mouth of the wicked devours iniquity.
“I read your endless banter of nonsense and do not consider you the rational intelligent or thoughtful type”
Well said.
Willard
I attempted to explain my point. If you were thoughtful you might try to understand it. You are a Clint R type mind. Thoughtful discussion is not possible with you.
If you look at the long term flooding of Europe I linked to in a post above (hundreds of years of data) you may be able to comprehend my point. I think it is the same as RLH’s point.
I was not “minimizing” a very rare event. I was pointing out thousands of humans have lost life in previous heat waves long before the globe warmed by 2 degrees.
You are basing all your conclusions on about 150 years of data collection. The event is rare and extreme. My point was not about that or attempt to minimize. It is about making conclusions based upon a very small data set of information. The frequency of such events is unknown, if they occur on some regular basis is unknown. Do the patterns of atmosphere that produces these intense heat wave events take place routinely? Not known.
They do have records that California had much more severe droughts than what they suffer now. Ones that lasted hundreds of years.
My point is try and look at what data is available in the past.
Also noted, you read Judith Curry’s post on the heat wave. Cliff Mass explained it as all dice loaded. At best global warming increased it a few degrees but was not a major contributing factor. Other events were at play that generated this heat dome.
Norman,
Cliff forgot to mention the number of dice that were loaded. Do you know how much there are? That’s be useful to know, for without them Cliff his explanation if mostly armwaving.
You know what’s armwaving, right? It’s saying something like this:
But it’s more than armwaving: it’s wrong. We’ve never seen such an event, and you’re still wondering if it takes place routinely? Unless you have a notion of frequency that has no meteorological import, we do indeed know that such an event is not frequent!
So once again you’re appealing to all the things we don’t know.
***
Now, my turn. Do you recall when you were suggesting that the Texas State Climatologist did not know his job? Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-743664
Do you realize you were off by something like between 10 and 90 millenia?
Willard
Are you obtuse? Are you able to grasp things?
Your thoughtless rebuttal: “But it’s more than armwaving: it’s wrong. We’ve never seen such an event, and you’re still wondering if it takes place routinely? Unless you have a notion of frequency that has no meteorological import, we do indeed know that such an event is not frequent!”
With the Northwest heat wave, no there has not been one in 145 years of data recording. That is correct. The point I would make is how is it you know that such events don’t take place maybe 3 times every 1000 years (the right combination of atmospheric events happens at that rate)? That would be routinely.
Of course you mislead with false notions. Why do you have the need to do this? I never implied that 116 F in Oregon would be a frequent event. I used the word routine meaning it may take place over long periods of times in regular intervals.
YOUR POST you linked to: “John Nielsen-Gammon tells me (pers. comm.) that taking the historic annual maximum temperatures for Forks, Washington, he gets 4 standard deviations. At 110F, that’s 33K years; at 109F that’s 13K.”
He is abusing statistics in a terrible way to make a lousy conclusion. No I do not respect a person who does this type of analysis. It misleads gullible people like you. I do not know if you are intelligent enough to understand his distortion.
He used Forks, Washington. I don’t have data for that point but there is plenty for Portland, Oregon. If you take only the highest annual maximum you are going to greatly reduce the range of high temperatures available distorting the meaning of Standard Deviation (which determines the range away from the mean). In Portland, if you only use annual high temperatures the range is reduced to 17 F
https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/OR/Portland/extreme-annual-portland-high-temperature.php
If you just use the daily high temperatures for Portland you get a range of 40 F or so. So he intentionally chooses a metric that has a much lower range so the outliers are more rare with his set than with the larger set of all high temperatures recorded. Also using a year as a metric will automatically make the situation seem impossible. It is a manipulation of statistics. If he used daily high temperatures the 1 in 100,000 chance occurrence would be reduced to 274 year event as opposed to one that occurs every 100,000 years.
You are a fanatic so you accept his abuse of statistics without question. As far as I am concerned he is not a good scientist or researcher. More of a manipulator of the gullible. Intelligent enough to misuse statistics but not honest enough to do it correctly.
Norman,
Your
made you lose the modicum of credibility you had left.
Self-righteous troglodytes are too clumsy and too slow in Climateball to be worth any reply. And in contrast to Gordo, you’re not funny.
Be well.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Norman, you are correct in trying to bring some reality to Swanson. You are correct when you recognize that Willard is merely another useless troll.
But, you’re wrong with your worship of Folkerts. He’s trying to pervert reality as much as the other trolls. And, you’re wrong when you claim that I misrepresent you.
About the (Tmax+Tmin)/2 versus median averaging polemic [part 4b]
Still no useful comments from RLH.
” USCRN recognizes that 2 is inaccurate and list the differences from 1 in its daily output. ”
Where is that, please? Why do people like you never show their sources?
What I know is good old, but plain wrong stuff
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/errors-in-estimating-temperatures-using-the-average-of-tmax-and-tmin-analysis-of-the-uscrn-temperature-stations/
Amazingly unscientific.
*
Why does RLH still not show his evaluation of USCRN data, in order to technically contradict me?
Nothing up to now…
*
Thus I continue to show the results of my little data processing.
Yesterday, I have shown a comparison of the three hourly data evaluation techniques (TMIN+TMAX)/2, median, 24h average) for one USCRN station (Kenai 29 ENE, from day 243 in 2010 (station’s life begin) to day 187 in 2021.
Today, I show the average of all 23 USCRN stations in Alaska:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NyNZH3Bv81Ch0lyna8cwbU_CwWRQHd2O/view
Again, as you can see: nearly no perceptible difference between the three hourly data evaluation techniques, otherwise the running means would immediately show the differences.
And… this is exactly what these accurate running means show when you extend the averaging of daily data from Alaska to the entire US, with in the sum 234 USCRN stations:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t-y_KFtDAB0mcXzf83zgpZn4UmOloFah/view
Wow, look! Now, the three hourly data evaluations finally show some really visible differences!
And, now… the 365-day running mean of median-based evaluation is the lowest one! Ha.
But… nah, when looking at the same evaluation, during the same period, of the METEOSTAT stations in Germany, disappointment soon is back:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LfJ-27bjgNw1KbRaFpSIUAX5ied9YgoN/view
Here again, the 365-day running means show nearly the same value from beginning to end.
Thus again and again I repeat: the difference between median and (TMIN+TMAX)/2 is NOT due to the technique, but lies in the data you evaluate.
It is a spatiotemporal problem.
*
An interesting surprise for me came from a closer look at the difference plot in the USCRN graph for all 234 stations: it oscillates visibly following the seasonality in the data.
The highest eye-balling differences are in June, and the lowest ones in December, what is confirmed by a descending sort of the difference data together with the associated year and day.
The other graphs show the same, but it is not so pretty good visible.
This shows some nice evidence for a seasonality bias in the median-based computation of daily data.
Thus, there is some need for further investigation.
– On the one hand, a comparison of the lowest, mean and highest ‘median minus (TMIN+TMAX)/2’ differences should be done for all USCRN stations, in order to understand why 234 US stations differ so much from 23 Alaska stations.
– On the other hand, the absolute daily data generated using the three techniques should be deseasonalized, in order to obtain bias-free differences.
Looks to me like some little further work, resulting in parts 5 and 6.
A bientôt,
J.-P. D.
“Why does RLH still not show his evaluation of USCRN data, in order to technically contradict me?”
Impatient or what? It takes time to download the hourly and 5min data.
“a comparison of the lowest, mean and highest median minus (TMIN+TMAX)/2 differences
That will prove nothing, You need to do an average (calculated from hourly or 5min data) compared to both mean and median.
Which is the more accurate, mean or median in that comparison. Plot only those 2 so that the differences are clear.
Plotting just the differences, average minus mean and average minus median, makes it all quite clear. Why wont you do just that?
RLH
” Plotting just the differences, average minus mean and average minus median, makes it all quite clear. Why wont you do just that? ”
Now you are really dishonest.
Why, do you think, do I use the data provided by
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/
For each station, for each day showing data for all 24 hours, I compute
– (TMIN+TMAX)/2
– the median (i.e. the average of the values for position 12 and 13 in the ascending sort of the 24 hourly values)
– the 24h average
and plot the values in a graph:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z3NYMY8yhVEIVFM_t9xMqsg707x-_JG4/view
Either you don’t understand what I did, or… you don’t WANT to understand what I did. That would be typical for people like you.
*
Here is the time series for the USCRN station Kenai 29 ENE:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n7_8GuGLkPc62MmdFNv1bV6mk8-GQUxh/view
Of course, all days lacking even one hour aren’t in the list.
We will see how much time you need to do exactly the same work.
*
” Impatient or what? It takes time to download the hourly and 5min data. ”
You don’t need the 5min data, RLH.
And… why do you need so much time to download even one station?
That took me a few seconds.
J.-P. D.
“Either you don’t understand what I did, or… you don’t WANT to understand what I did. That would be typical for people like you.”
Or I understand exactly what you did and why it is useless.
Now calculate average minus mean and average minus median and just show those. That way you can show just how inaccurate they both are and which is closer to the ‘true’ value.
“And why do you need so much time to download even one station?”
I am downloading ALL of the stations at both hourly and 5min sampling. And then putting them all into a database.
“For each station, for each day showing data for all 24 hours, I compute
(TMIN+TMAX)/2
the median (i.e. the average of the values for position 12 and 13 in the ascending sort of the 24 hourly values)
the 24h average
and plot the values in a graph:”
And then show the values for all of the data instead of just the average minus the mean and the average minus the median. I wonder why?
RLH
You become more and more dishonest – or show more and more incompetence, I don’t know.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z3NYMY8yhVEIVFM_t9xMqsg707x-_JG4/view
This graph shows, day after day:
– in blue: (min+max)/2
– in red: median
– in green: 24h average
– in orange: median – (min+max)/2
Where is your problem?
Is it that you don’t see red nor green, RLH, apart from tiny places here and there?
Shall I, extra for you Pseudoskeptic, generate two additional charts, one with median on top, and one with 24h average on top, so that you slowly but surely begin to understand?
Mon Dieu. Vous êtes encore plus bête que Robertson.
J.-P. D.
“You become more and more dishonest – or show more and more incompetence, I don’t know.”
SO why is it that you find it impossible to produce just the 2 data points that really matter? Average minus mean and average minus median.
Its almost like you have studied too well Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics ™ and How To Lie Using Statistics ™ too well.
“This graph shows, day after day:
in blue: (min+max)/2
in red: median
in green: 24h average
in orange: median (min+max)/2”
In such a way as to conceal the 2 points that really matter. Average minus mean and average minus median. It you plot only those 2 then the scale becomes much more concentrated, much like using anomalies rather than daily temperatures.
That last point is irrelevant. You already have the data to produce the 2 points I have mentioned. Why won’t you do it?
> Average minus mean
Millions of years plus 74 to get there.
Just because you know nothing and Bindidon is scared to post something useful…
Look how’s talking.
Did you test the skewness of your histogram yet?
I’ve already told you, -300 or worse for monthly data.
Kurtosis. Skewness.
Two different things, dummy.
Nearly flat data distributions play havoc with most statistics.
Nearing symmetry might save the day once again.
The distribution is not symmetrical or even consistent.
My eyeballs tell me otherwise.
A skewness test could convince me otherwise.
If you want a B style graph for Kenai, Redding, Fairbanks or Hilo (or somewhere else entirely) you have to ask B to do one first. One with the true average minus the ‘mean’ at least so we can all see how inaccurate that is.
Quit projecting, dummy.
*You* want “true” mean minus mean for Kenai.
Just Do Eet.
I have don’t it idiot.
A ‘true’ average/mean minus a badly estimated ‘mean’ for all the ones I listed.
Idiot.
You don’t have the data, dummy?
I have it. All 38+ Gb of it.
├───daily
│ ├───2000
│ ├───2001
│ ├───2002
│ ├───2003
│ ├───2004
│ ├───2005
│ ├───2006
│ ├───2007
│ ├───2008
│ ├───2009
│ ├───2010
│ ├───2011
│ ├───2012
│ ├───2013
│ ├───2014
│ ├───2015
│ ├───2016
│ ├───2017
│ ├───2018
│ ├───2019
│ ├───2020
│ ├───2021
│ └───snapshots
├───hourly
│ ├───2000
│ ├───2001
│ ├───2002
│ ├───2003
│ ├───2004
│ ├───2005
│ ├───2006
│ ├───2007
│ ├───2008
│ ├───2009
│ ├───2010
│ ├───2011
│ ├───2012
│ ├───2013
│ ├───2014
│ ├───2015
│ ├───2016
│ ├───2017
│ ├───2018
│ ├───2019
│ ├───2020
│ └───2021
├───monthly
└───subhourly
├───2006
├───2007
├───2008
├───2009
├───2010
├───2011
├───2012
├───2013
├───2014
├───2015
├───2016
├───2017
├───2018
├───2019
├───2020
└───2021
Doing nothing with it, dummy?
RLH
” SO why is it that you find it impossible to produce just the 2 data points that really matter? Average minus mean and average minus median. ”
You, and no one else, are the origin of me concentrating on the difference between median and (min+max)/2.
Simply because you mentioned only these two, ans were ranting all the time against the latter.
By the way: I uploaded yesterday a pdf containing, near median and (min+max)/2, the 24h average as well.
Why didn’t you did the simplest work evah, namely to enter that data into some spread sheet calculator, where you easily could to compute these differences by your own?
Are you that lazy, RLH?
*
” So Bindidon, are you going to post your average minus mean for Kenai or must I do it for you? ”
I’m not your butler, RLH.
Stop smalltalking, and start working.
And start also thinking!
For example, about (1) why the differences between (min+max)/2, median and 24h averaging are so small for
– a single German station
– the average of over 500 German stations
– a single USCRN Alaska station
– the average of 23 USCRN Alaska stations
but become suddenly very visible within
– the average of all USCRN stations?
*
And (2) about what is the reason for the seasonality of the difference between (min+max)/2 and median-based computation for daily averages out of hourly data?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IiBzUk_GNbJk-G13Iz4WoRjF7o2Kpt9j/view
C’mon, RLH. Prove us finally that you are able to do something more than your tiny histogram, instead of all the time expecting others to do the job for you.
*
Ooooh! RLH! I forgot the very best, look at this:
https://tinyurl.com/jwcefjh2
{
Grrr, d followed by c!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pocUIO-bSun7SsSAlS-_6EVHX_hD C1mW/view
}
How is THAT possible?
Now, these crazy damnd medians moved from below the two other guys in the US to the top position in the UK, and 75 % of the differences between (min+max)/2 and median now are positive. Oh no!
For sure: Bindidon certainly did a bad, bad job.
And RLH very certainly will show us a more correct evaluation of Meteostat’s hourly data for the UK.
For sure.
J.-P. D.
“And RLH very certainly will show us a more correct evaluation of Meteostats hourly data for the UK.”
I have that data too. What is it you want to know?
The question is what do you want to know, RLH? You had a hypothesis that this effect matters to climate analysis. Don’t you want to test it?
I maintain a healthy suspicion that things are not accurate to 0.001c.
Given that I would not even attempt to measure a warehouse’s bulk air temperature to that accuracy. And that is a closed space.
“I maintain a healthy suspicion that things are not accurate to 0.001c.”
Who is saying that it is?
Strawman.
Here we are again.
I get tired of skeptics declaring X, Y, or Z really matters for climate change, that climate science really needs to pay attention to X, Y, or Z, but then when asked to back it up with evidence, they are unable or unwilling to do so.
I thought that you claimed that taking multiple temperature readings at multiple places made the answers accurate to 0.001c.
“but then when asked to back it up with evidence, they are unable or unwilling to do so.”
So what is your explanation for the difference between the true average temperature during a day and the ‘mean’ of it and why that difference is so site specific.
In the end it seems like climate scientists know what they are talking about.
“I thought that you claimed that taking multiple temperature readings at multiple places made the answers accurate to 0.001c.”
Once again, nope.
Quote me. With context.
“So what is your explanation for the difference between the true average temperature during a day and the mean of it and why that difference is so site specific.”
WTF is ‘true average’?
An average/mean calculated using near continuous sampling. The ‘mean’ is an inaccurate estimation of the same using (TMax+TMin)/2.
“”I thought that you claimed that taking multiple temperature readings at multiple places made the answers accurate to 0.001c.”
Once again, nope.”
So what accuracy do you claim for sites in the global temperature record?
“So what is your explanation for the difference”
between a mean calculated from ALL the data and a mean calculated only from the extrema?
Obviously, one uses ALL the data, the other uses only two points.
So how much error does this add to a monthly mean in your town?
Show us that it adds significantly to the monthly average temperature in your town, continent, and the globe.
What does it have to do with Median vs Mean?
GISS error discussion
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/uncertainty/
“The resulting 95% uncertainties are near 0.05C in the global annual mean for the last 50 years, and increase going back further in time reaching 0.15C in 1880.”
The rms variation in the annual mean at one station seems to plus-minus 1.0 C or so.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/
The variation in the monthly mean will be larger.
“But then when asked to back it up with evidence, they are unable unwilling to do so.”
So, RLH, here’s where the rubber hits the road. Does it matter?
Can you the evidence that this matters (significantly) for climate science?
> Now you are really dishonest.
Now?
Now you are an idiot. But that is true the whole time.
No U.
z
You are big on bragging. Less so on sense as far as I can see.
Why would USCRN bother with high speed sampling (every 5 seconds) if the mean (Tmin+Tmax)/2) was accurate? Answer it isn’t.
Why does the USCRN bother with (Tmin+Tmax)/2) when they do high speed sampling (every 5 seconds)?
Answer: the best is the enemy of the good.
So you are saying that USCRN is useless? And they have spent a lot of money for no reason.
No, dummy.
I’m saying that you’ve been concern trolling all along.
And I’ve been saying you’re an idiot and been proven true all along.
Confirmation bias strikes again, dummy.
And No U.
Idiot proves he is an idiot.
No U.
z
So having completed the 38.7Gb download of all of the data from the USCRN, 5min, hourly, daily and monthly, are you really sure you won’t produce the graphs required to show which is more accurate, mean or median when compared to the true average? Or do I have to do it for you?
So Bindidon, are you going to post your average minus mean for Kenai or must I do it for you?
Look out!
Richard threatens to do science!
Willard threatens to be an idiot. Pointless really as he already is on.
Do you realize how silly is your stance, dummy?
Why don’t you do the damn work you pretend having done?
Why do you keep bragging about being here for the science when you’re creating standoff after standoff?
You’re a lousy Climateball rookie, old guy.
So do you ant Redding or some other USCRN station?
Want not ant
Do you have Mayonnaise?
Not for idiots.
How about Lettuce?
Apart from being an idiot, what else do you do?
Tomatoes, then?
Continue on, please do. Eventually you’ll run out of ingredients for a sandwich.
Pickles?
Idiot.
Emmental?
I jsut saw one more time the ISS moving over us… amazing.
What a pity that there are people telling others:
“Don’t believe it, it is only an illusion of what is physically impossible! ”
Like the Lunar spin, huh.
J.-P. D.
Makes flat earthers quite mad if you take a photograph.
binny…”I just saw one more time the ISS moving over us amazing”.
***
Are you suggesting the ISS rotates butt over tea kettle as it orbits?
Exactly, Pup.
Here’s how it works:
https://tinyurl.com/k5b6j74v
Are you suggesting that a rotation is not applied when required to keep the station pointed towards Earth.
“The ISS revolves around the Earth at about 17,500 mph (~28,000 km/h) resulting in it completing one revolution in about 90 minutes, and about 16 revolutions per day. The ISS rotates about its center of mass at a rate of about 4 degrees per minute so that it will complete a full rotation once per orbit.”
RLH,
You can believe Sir Isaac Newton, or not, as you wish.
If you wish to believe that rotation about a centre of mass can occur without torque being applied, then do so, by all means.
I’m with Sir Isaac. No torque, just gravity.
Feel free to believe otherwise – it makes no practical difference to anyone, does it?
Whatever makes you happy.
I agree that there is no torque on a spherical body. I also note the Moon is not spherical. I also note that any such torque produced by its non-spherical nature is very small and is dwarfed by orbital parameters.
I conclude that tidal locking takes millennia or longer to occur.
Referring to the ISS, Swenson/Flynn wrote:
The rotation of the ISS is the result of torques applied to maintain that rate of rotation. The ISS has an attitude control system which applies torques as required.
“The ISS revolves around the Earth at about 17,500 mph (~28,000 km/h) resulting in it completing one revolution in about 90 minutes, and about 16 revolutions per day. The ISS rotates about its center of mass at a rate of about 4 degrees per minute so that it will complete a full rotation once per orbit.”
It does, as you say, have a system to ensure that the 4 degrees per minute is maintained.
Neither Swanson nor RLH have a clue about orbital motions. Let’s pose a simple question:
Swanson and RLH, the ISS has mechanisms to counter torques it does not want. Where do these unwanted torques come from?
See https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/501482/how-does-international-space-station-maintain-its-orientation which describes this in some detail.
It’s now been over two hours and neither Swanson nor RLH have answered the simple question.
This isn’t the first time.
They don’t know squat about science. They just like to troll.
Worry about people not taking your shit seriously much?
Why RLH, don’t you like the ISS anymore?
You commented several times about it, pretending to know something.
Reality is you know NOTHING.
You’re just another useless troll.
And troll Swanson has “left the building”, as usual.
pups wrote:
Sorry pups, I don’t work in your “building” (or on your time schedule). Why should I waste time waiting for and responding to your comments, since they usually have nothing of substance to require a reply.
FI, the ISS is a rather large structure, including large solar arrays and thermal radiators. Solar pressure interacts with these appendages to produce different torques during an orbit. There’s also some atmospheric drag effects. So, does this satisfy you, pups?
“Youre just another useless troll.”
You’re almost as idiotic as Willard and that’s saying something.
Swanson was able to do some basic research and come up with the right answer. But does he understand the implication thereof?
The orbit of the ISS does not produce a rotation. So, if there are no actual torques, the ISS would orbit with one side always facing the inside of its orbit. It would be the same for a ball-on-a-string, or Moon. No axial rotation means one side always faces the inside of the orbit.
I predict Swanson will not understand. Just like he doesn’t understand that calling people names makes him look like an immature coward.
“The ISS rotates about its center of mass at a rate of about 4 degrees per minute so that it will complete a full rotation once per orbit.”
But don’t let the facts get in the way.
5 minute response time, RLH!
You are the best stalker here! Congrats!
pups still can’t comprehend that the ISS and the Moon are both rotating once an orbit. pups did get it right with the first part of it’s sphere-and-spacecraft mental model, defining “not rotating” WRT an inertial reference frame, but lost it when making the transition to moving into a gravity field, causing change in direction without changing orientation of the sphere.
In classical dynamics, rotation can only be properly quantified WRT an inertial reference frame.
Inertial reference frames are required for all Gravitational and Inertial discussions.
Swanson proves me right again:
pups, In your initial setup for the sphere-spacecraft, your statement of “not rotating” is WRT an inertial reference frame. Applying that same definition to the Moon, one can not conclude that the Moon can not be “not rotating”, as it clearly rotates WRT an inertial reference frame.
Your own mental model destroys your arguments.
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha…
Child Swanson, pervert my words as much as you want. That’s what incompetent trolls do.
Let’s see your workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
You don’t have one.
In the adolescent rhetoric you thrive on — “Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha…”
pups, As expected, you are still trying to runaway from the implications of your model with a sphere and spacecraft. You can’t even handle the geometry, let alone the dynamics of your initial situation with a non-rotating sphere.
As you’ve been told numerous times, the model for orbital motion without axial rotation is that seen on the RHS of the infamous graph which shows the arrows at different points around the orbit all pointing toward the right. Orbiting without rotation is the same as translation without rotation. Troll, you’s torpedoed your entire argument.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
RLH, you’re only going to get more confused by things like this. You con’t understand any of it, and you can’t learn.
Stick with trolling. You’re good at that….
You have no science and are, at best, a flat earther equivalent.
See, you’re good at it.
An you are lousy at science. As expected.
And, you offer no examples.
That’s just more good trolling.
Your examples, such as a-ball-on-a-string, are useless for solving anything in the real world.
Your inability to understand simple analogies is NOT my problem.
Your ability to construct inappropriate ones is not mine either.
rlh…”if the planet/moon is not rotating about its interior axis, it keeps the same face pointed to whatever it is orbiting.
Wrong. If an object orbits something it keeps its face pointed towards the fixed stars. If it rotates about its axis then it might keep its face towards the object it is orbiting”.
***
Prediction…Willard will cherry pick an irrelevant point in the follow and try to expand on it.
Yes…but not one fixed star…all fixed stars. You can see that from the Earth each night. Earlier in the year I could see Orion in the eastern sky along with Sirius, the brightest star. As the night progressed, Orion appeared to move to the western sky. If you could see the stars during the day, you would sweep the entire local universe during one orbit as we rotate around a N-S axis pointed roughly at Polaris.
You would not see the same sequence of events from the Moon.
Now consider the Moon orbiting the Earth while keeping the same face toward the Earth. It keeps its opposite side always toward the stars. If it is rotating about a local axis, it must exchange those sides by mid-orbit. That is, the far side would be pointed at the Earth and the near side pointed to the stars.
Think about this very carefully. I think there is a tendency to presume the Moon can rotate exactly once per orbit while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.. It’s an illusion that was not really questioned till Tesla questioned it.
Local rotation requires such a 360 degree rotation. Try it using the two coins I suggested. Mark the moving coin representing the Moon and try keeping that mark always pointed to the Earth as you move it around the circumference of the stationary coin.
You will notice two problems. The only way to do a complete 360 degree local rotation on the moving coin is to roll it around the circumference of the stationary coin. Alternately, the only way to keep the mark pointed to the centre of the stationary coin is to slide the moving coin around the circumference.
As you slide it, of course, you have to adjust it by rotating it slightly. That is what gravity does to the Moon’s linear momentum. It constantly adjusts it into a curved path.
You might claim, “aha, you just admitted the moving coin is rotated”. That’s because I lack the manual dexterity to adjust the Moon’s linear path incrementally as gravity adjusts it. By adjusting the Moon’s linear momentum incrementally, it forms it’s linear direction into a curved path, without the Moon having to rotate locally..
If you really want to get into this it can be interesting. Try doing what I described above on a flat surface. Take the coin with the mark on it and place the edge with the mark on the flat surface. Now try to rotate the coin so the mark moves through 360 degrees, completing one full rotation about its axis.
Same thing. To rotate it through 360 degrees you have to roll it. If you move it along the flat surface keeping the mark on the surface, you have to slide it. However, you don’t have to adjust it on a flat surface.
The first, rolling the coin, while moving it along the surface due to the rolling, is rectilinear translation with rotation. The second, sliding the coin, is pure rectilinear translation without rotation.
Suppose the flat surface is a pliable surface than can be rolled into a cylinder. It would be more difficult, but you could both roll and/or slide the coin around the cylinder face, replicating exactly what you did on the flat surface. This time, however, as you slide the coin, you have to continually adjust it to keep the same face pointed to the cylinder centre. Again, gravity does the adjusting for the Moon.
I call that motion curvilinear translation, even if text books tend to offer a myopic and utterly useless example of it. Curvilinear and rectilinear translation are exactly the same kind of motion with the exception that one is along a flat surface and the other is along a curved surface.
Think about this. We live on tangential planes on the Earth which give the illusion that the Earth is flat. However, if we could build a roadway right around the Equator, we would be doing rectilinear translation on the tangential planes as we walked and we would use the same translation around the entire curvature of the Earth, if we walked right around it.
Where does rectilinear translation become curvilinear translation? At all times the same side of us, our feet, would be pointed at the centre of the Earth, unless we intentionally rolled butt over tea kettle to perform rotation.
Here’s why the Moon’s orbital motion is translation. The lunar orbit is normally determined as a path through the Moon’s COG. However, if you regard the orbit as being the thickness of the Moon’s diameter, you can consider a series of concentric circles carved out by particles intercepted by a radial line from the Earth through the Moon.
A point on the near side must always face the Earth along the radial line and follow an instantaneous tangent line perpendicular to the radial line. The same applies to the far side, to the centre, and to every point along the radial line where it intercepts the Moon. Therefore, every particle along the radial line is ALWAYS moving in an instantaneous parallel direction. That is not possible if the Moon is rotating locally.
At the same time, each instantaneous tangent line is changing direction wrt the stars. That is merely the property of any circle or ellipse. It is that action which gives the illusion the Moon is rotating about a local axis.
However, if you examine one of those gifs showing the rotation of the Moon, it becomes painfully obvious that the Moon is translating with no local rotation.
tldr
willard…”tldr”
I realize you are compromised with insufficient comprehension. Your expertise is in trolling and you’re not even a good troll.
Gordon,
You’re talking about Moon Dragon stuff on a Climateball blog.
So spare me the trolling bit, will you?
willard…”You’re talking about Moon Dragon stuff on a Climateball blog”.
There is no ClimateBULL on this site other than yours and your ilk.
What kind of idiot came up with your Climateball crap?
“Who, me?” is pure Climateball, Gordo, but you made me look:
Here’s you with misremembering the Antarctica episode:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-744572
Here’s you peddling teh Goddard’s crap:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-744649
Here’s you whining about modulz while touting Vincent:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-744765
Here’s you forgetting that the IPCC indeed studied the N2/O2 relationship:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-744783
Here’s you shouting at clouds and rehearsing “but alarmism”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-755489
You might need to step up your Climateball game and at least accept GW.
And here you are being an idiot like always.
RLH,
Strange puppy, is Wee Willy.
Definitely lives in a world of his own. Apparently believes that Dr Spencer is running a “Climateball” blog, whatever that is.
Delusional, like all climate crackpots!
Desperately begging people to click on links! Why, nobody knows! Or cares!
Apparently believes passionately in something which he refuses to state, worried that he will be shown to be an idiotic climate crank.
His worry is unfounded – anybody with any sense knows Wee Willy is a nutter. He can’t even get Dr Spencer to ban him! How pathetically incompetent is that?
Mike Flynn,
I missed you.
Where were you?
Willard, please stop trolling.
ps. when I suggested the moving coin is rotated as an adjustment, the purpose of such a rotation is “FOR ME” to keep the near side pointed at the Earth. With the real Moon orbit, there are no such forces as applied by my fingers, and at no time does any point on the Moon rotate 360 degrees about its COG/axis, as is required for true rotation.
A pilot heading down a runway for take off, speaks of rotation when the front wheels come off the ground. For a few moments, the plane actually rotates a few degrees about its COG. If it continued to rotate, it would rotate onto its back and stall and/or crash.
If the Moon rotated about its COG at any time, even over a few degrees, the near side would not longer point at the Earth.
tldr
The Moon does rotate about its axis. Once per revolution round the Earth.
Yup, that’s the chant, RLH.
Say it 1000 times. Maybe it will come true.
If not, say it 10000 times.
Like a good cult member.
Are you a flat earther? You sure sound like one.
RLH, you use “flat earther” quite often. It seems that’s a way for you to divert attention from your own inadequacies. You did it when faced with solving the simple problem about “gravitational torque”.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-742995
You know nothing about science, but you’re really good at trolling.
No I use ‘flat earther; because you are one (in science terms).
“Yesbut not one fixed starall fixed stars.”
Well its ‘face’ will only point at one star. The rest of the craft will point at all the others.
There is the Gordon way or the highway.
I’ll take the highway.
Where’s Mike Flynn?
Where’s Wally? (I mean Willard)
Somebody said he is suffering from heat stroke!
DMT,
It’s a good thing the Earth has cooled from a molten state, then.
It seems that idiots who stand in the Sun complain about the heat!
Show me a ground temperature higher than the theoretical maximum, and I’ll convert to climate crackpottery!
Until then, no GHE. Just weather. And climate cranks being idiotic.
Show Mike Flynn something impossible.
Or else he’ll believe in Dragons!
Show Willard something. or else he’ll believe that idiots know best.
Will showing Richard how to play Questions make him be more direct?
Will Willard ever say anything that is not a deflection or an idiocy?
Will Richard ever tire of showing off his poor Climateball skillz?
Will Willard ever stop being an idiot. Does he even know how?
z?
Just in – breaking news – quote from multinational news organisation –
“Moon wobble to exacerbate climate change flooding effects in next lunar cycle, NASA warns”
Yeah. Right.
Fumbling bumblers at NASA, seeking attention, forecast doom yet again.
Warning noted. Consigned to waste bin, with all the others.
Climate is the average of weather, and the NASA “moon wobble” doesn’t actually refer to the Moon wobbling!
Phew! The climate crackpots at NASA almost had me worried for a moment!
NASNA stated “the wobble is related to minor perturbations of the angular momentum of the moon about its axis”. There – that settles it.
DMT,
NASA said no such thing, did they?
You just make stuff up, hoping no one will notice.
A bit like threatening to come after me, and then saying you were really only joking, when I pointed out how silly you were, not to say impotent and powerless.
Back to your fantasy, kiddo.
Better luck next time.
Here, Mike Flynn:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-16/nasa-warns-moon-wobble-to-exacerbate-flooding-in-next-cycle/100299704
I wonder how our Moon Dragons explain nodal cycles.
Notice the source, DMT. Unless you’re a good swimmer, it may be hard for you to reach Darwin’s shores.
Tell me, in order of importance, what factors need to be taken into account for ocean floods to be a thing.
Unless we know everything we know nothing.
Well an idiot would say that.
That would be U.
z
Indeed, NASA said no such thing. I was referring to Jim Nasna, my local green grocer. He knows everything.
So you need to add up
1. The distance to the Moon.
2. The distance to the Sun.
3. The atmospheric pressure.
4. The fetch, wind strength and wind direction.
5. The depth of water and land profile.
6. Any land movement, above and below the water line.
7. The rise of sea level since the 1800s.
Guess which one is measured in mm?
NASA has changed from “National Aeronautics and Space Administration” to “National Anti-Science Administration”.
The emphasis used to be on science. Now, the emphasis is on perversion, corruption, and agenda.
The change was slow and from within. They need to be defunded. The sooner, the better.
Because you are SO much more knowledgeable than NASA.
Yes, it’s sad what has happened to the original “NASA”.
Now the only solution is to scrap this current monster and start all over.
You are just SO wrong.
“Warning noted. Consigned to waste bin, with all the others.”
Yep that is so Flynnson.
Reads a science headline.
Doesn’t bother to read the article.
Doesn’t understand it.
Instantly decides it must be wrong and stupid.
Not sure why he pretends to discuss science here, when obviously deep down to his core, he despises science and scientists, who do what he can’t.
So Bindidon, are you going to post your average minus mean for Kenai or must I do it for you?
> average minus mean
I thought you claimed that the mean was an average, dummy.
It is. But the ‘true’ average for the day is calculated from near continuous sampling. The mean and the median are less accurate versions of that same thing.
All are averages, some are more accurate than others.
> but the “true” average
Which isn’t a mean at all, no doubt, even if the mean is an average.
Let’s hope it’s a Scottish one.
Idiot.
The ‘mean’ in question is (Tmin+Tmax)/2 not a true average at all.
Go ahead, dummy.
Tell me that the “true” average isn’t a mean.
A near continuous sampling is a mean true. (Tmin +Tmax)/2, often called a mean, is not a true mean at all, just a bad approximation.
So dummy, are you going to post your true mean minus mean for Kenai or must B do it for you?
Do you want to try Redding or some other station?
I can do them both if you want but I am waiting for B to do it first. After all it was he who said I didn’t know how.
Or Fairbanks. Or Hilo. You choose.
So, are you going to post your true mean minus mean for Kenai or must B do it for you, dummy?
I told you. After B does it first. As he was the one who claimed, quite incorrectly, that I couldn’t do what it is rather easy to do once you have downloaded all the data. As I now have.
And that’s a correct daily average/mean made from continuous sampling (5 secs intervals) against an approximated ‘mean’ made from (Tmax+Tmin)/2.
You really ought to know that if you misuse the words and meanings nothing good is going to come from it. As you would most certainly know if you had studied statistics in the first place.
> After B does it first.
Is there a more prfct example of Climateball power move ever?
Perhaps this patronizing crap:
Coming from a guy who recently conflated median with mode and skewness and kurtosis while confusing measurements by calling some “average” and “true average,” that’s just rich.
Coming from an idiot like you, who cares about what you post?
I’m just waiting for you or B to say something really stupid. Shouldn’t have to wait long by the look of it.
What’s our dummy’s mode if not “idiot”?
Looked in a mirror recently?
U?
z
It’s almost like you don’t know statistics at all.
It’s as if you said something inaccurate, dummy.
You know how Very Bad that is.
Western Civilization is at stake!
It’s as though you were an idiot. Oh, look, you are.
Inaccurate.
Inaccurate.
Inaccurate.
Truth to idiots.
No U.
z
Would you like one for Redding too?
Or would you prefer to name another station altogether?
Or Fairbanks. Or Hilo. You choose.
> but the “true” average
Which isn’t a mean at all, no doubt, even if the mean is an average.
Let’s hope it’s a Scottish one.
You are a complete idiot who does not understand statistics.
No U.
z
On This Day, July 16, 1969, Apollo 11 launches to the moon
The “good ol’ days”, when science was rooted in reality and truth.
In those days, anyone that believed Mt. Everest was rotating about its axis would be considered an idiot.
You are an idiot if you believe the moon landing was not faked. NASA has always been a cabal of money grabbing, lying conspiracists who have duped politicians and the public ever since it was formed. Do not believe a word they say.
An observer on the Moon would see Mount Everest rotating around an axis parallel to Earth’s axis approximately every 24 hours.
They would be considered to be one now. Everest is part of the Earth’s surface and rotates around its center like all the rest of it does.
The greatest newspaper correction ever written (49 years too late)
In 1920, rocket scientist Robert Goddard wrote up an article postulating how we could use rocket fuel to launch a ship into space — perhaps even all the way to the moon. His ideas did not meet with a warm reception in the media, where he was roundly mocked. 49 years later, Apollo 11 took-off to the moon, triggering The New York Times to print the greatest newspaper correction ever to run.
This correction has everything: scare quotes, an elaborately roundabout slam on rocket scientist Goddard’s high school education, and, notably, no reference at all to Apollo 11’s launch to the moon that had occurred just the day before, spurring the correction in the first place. The correction, printed in the July 17, 1969 edition of The Times reads:
Robert H. Goddard died on Aug. 10, 1945. On Sept. 16, 1959, the 86th Congress authorized the issuance of a gold medal in the honor of professor Goddard. His widow, Esther Goddard was on hand for the formal dedication of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center on March 16, 1961, 35 years to the day after the professor launched the first liquid-fueled rocket from his Aunt Effie’s farm.
It will surprise nobody that a young Gordon R. wrote that offending article.
Wait. Ze Gordo?
Of course! Don’t forget GR was born in 1899 – he was 21 years old back then when he wrote that article . It is amazing he can still type at his age. He certainly has lost the ability to think.
Since Gordo knew Marx personally, no wonder he found his way into the Gray Lady’s newsroom.
Like GR, the NYT is ancient: 168 years old, and was considered staunchly Conservative until Donald Trumps presidency.
I hear that GR was fired after writing that article, went to Canada and took up engineering. Unfortunately, this ended badly too. On June 17, 1958, 79 workers constructing the new Second Narrows Bridge in Vancouver, BC, Canada, were plunged into Burrard Inlet when a portion of the bridge collapsed during construction, resulting in the loss of 19 lives, including 15 ironworkers, 2 engineers, a painter and a commercial diver who drowned a few days later while trying to recover a body. Twenty others were seriously injured. Following the collapse, the British Columbia Government established a Royal Commission to examine the cause(s) of the collapse and the lessons learned as a result. After an extensive investigation, it was discovered that a temporary bent, designed by an inexperienced engineer and inadequately checked by a senior engineer failed, which lead to the collapse of two spans.
Engineering licensure fail!
“That Professor Goddard with his chair in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know…..Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.”
sounds just like what Gordon, Clint and Swenson say all the time!
Tyson, DMT, Willard, please stop trolling.
And so it was!
Yada yada. JFK was just a lefty do-gooder just like your typical climate alarmist.
Predictably all the windmills and solar panels didn’t stop the rain over Germany. Imagine if they spent all those billions on actual weather protection like re-enforcing the infrastructure and good draining channels instead the useless windmills, they would hardly notice it was raining. But that’s not how stupid humanity works.
Go on and keep whining about “Climate Change”
Interesting that they said ‘worse floods in decades’ here on the news. Not ‘worst floods ever’ I noticed.
Rest assured every place flooded today was flooded in the past at one time or another and many times over. but maybe not many people lived there
We do have a habit of building on flood plains, true.
True:
https://astronomy.com/news/2020/03/ancient-earth-may-have-been-a-water-world-without-any-dry-land
Probly windmills.
Got some more of them “May Have Beens” seance newz ???
Have you ever touched the center of the Earth, Eben?
Verificationnism died in the 30s.
At least learn to spell correctly. Verificationism.
“In 1977, Ayer had noted, “The verification principle is seldom mentioned and when it is mentioned it is usually scorned; it continues, however, to be put to work. The attitude of many philosophers reminds me of the relationship between Pip and Magwitch in Dickens’s Great Expectations. They have lived on the money, but are ashamed to acknowledge its source””.
I bet you don’t even realize why I say that language is a social art, dummy.
How can idiots know anything?
You’re biting more than you can chew here, old man.
“Predictably all the windmills and solar panels didnt stop the rain over Germany.”
True, it is hard to undo the effects of climate change that has already occurred, particularly by one country.
Interestingly the news here said that the floods were the worst for many decades, not the worst ever.
“https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/16/world/europe/germany-floods-climate-change.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage”
This article says “a German meteorologist said on Friday had not been seen in 500 or even 1,000 years.”
But in any case a long time.
Not what the BBS reported, but they could be wrong I suppose. Or just be more careful with what they say.
BBC not BBS
Some say decades some 200 years, some 500, obviously they are just guessing and pulling numbers out of their asses.
In any case the longer the claim the bigger is the oxymoron of blaming it on man-made global warming.
It is quite difficult to assess low level statistical events. Even harder to get people to understand what they mean (pun).
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/07/more-warming-a-threat-to-the-hajj-and-human-habitation-in-the-middle-east/
How medians instead of TMax would reduce aggressive human behavior remains to be studied.
The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/19/eaaw1838
How Willard is every going to not be an idiot is not a question, it is a certainty. He is always an idiot.
“While the heat index which measures heat stress due to high temperatures combined with high humidity is often used to quantify dangerous heat, a more precise measure of heat stress is the wet-bulb temperature (TW), which can be measured by putting a wet cloth placed around the bulb of a thermometer and then blowing air across the cloth.”
Quoting things from the ‘net doesn’t make you not an idiot.
“The wet-bulb temperature increases with increasing temperature and humidity and is a measure of “mugginess”.”
What if the number if i-words was a measure of sluggishness?
What if being an idiot makes you continue on with this.
What if Richard rediscovered Pup’s double-bind technique:
“The U.S. National Weather Service defines the “Danger” threshold for TW at 24.6 degrees Celsius, and “Extreme Danger” at 29.1 degrees Celsius, assuming a 45% relative humidity.”
What if Willard discovered he’s been an idiot all along?
Does our 74 years old coder realize that his styleless immaturity slows himself down?
Hi Wally. Done anything interesting recently?
Here you go, dummy:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/28/ng-s-audit/
See also (I can add a few dozens items):
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-752264
As you are an idiot, why would I follow any of your links?
Here could be a reason, dummy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-758348
You’re becoming Mike Flynn. That’s lower than Kiddo.
And so the answer to:
is yes.
Richard met that challenge in two days!
Willard always meets the challenge of being an idiot.
z
RLH
Stop being an eejit.
Willard’s quotes refer to well known human physiology. At high temperatures our main method of temperature control is sweating, carrying away excess heat as latent heat of vapourisation. That process becomes less efficient as humidity increases, reducing the temperature we can tolerate.
Weather stations measure relative humidity using a wet bulb thermometer, with the bulb wrapped in wet cloth. Evaporation reduces the temperature reading.
The difference between wet bulb and dry bulb thermometers decreases with increasing humidity because evaporation decreases, allowing you to calculate humidity.
In dry desert conditions a healthy adult can tolerate 50C, but as the humidity increases the maximum temperature tolerance decreases. Because of the similar physics of evaporative cooling the human limit matches a wet bulb temperature reading of 35C.
Sustained temperature/humidity combinations above 35C lead to increased death rates from heat stroke, initially among children and the elderly.
Areas which regularly exceed 35C wet bulb are already uninhabitable. The concern is that inhabited regions such as Saudi Arabia and India are starting to exceed the safe limit.
Occasionally even Willard finds things that are true and clips the from the ‘net.
Doesn’t make him less of an idiot though.
No U.
z
RLH (reposted)
SO why is it that you find it impossible to produce just the 2 data points that really matter? Average minus mean and average minus median.
You, and no one else, are the origin of me concentrating on the difference between median and (min+max)/2.
Simply because you mentioned only these two, ans were ranting all the time against the latter.
By the way: I uploaded yesterday a pdf containing, near median and (min+max)/2, the 24h average as well.
Why didnt you did the simplest work evah, namely to enter that data into some spread sheet calculator, where you easily could to compute these differences by your own?
Are you that lazy, RLH?
*
So Bindidon, are you going to post your average minus mean for Kenai or must I do it for you?
Im not your butler, RLH.
Stop smalltalking, and start working.
And start also thinking!
For example, about (1) why the differences between (min+max)/2, median and 24h averaging are so small for
a single German station
the average of over 500 German stations
a single USCRN Alaska station
the average of 23 USCRN Alaska stations
but become suddenly very visible within
the average of all USCRN stations?
*
And (2) about what is the reason for the seasonality of the difference between (min+max)/2 and median-based computation for daily averages out of hourly data?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IiBzUk_GNbJk-G13Iz4WoRjF7o2Kpt9j/view
Cmon, RLH. Prove us finally that you are able to do something more than your tiny histogram, instead of all the time expecting others to do the job for you.
*
Ooooh! RLH! I forgot the very best, look at this:
https://tinyurl.com/jwcefjh2
{
Grrr, d followed by c!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pocUIO-bSun7SsSAlS-_6EVHX_hD C1mW/view
}
How is THAT possible?
Now, these crazy damnd medians moved from below the two other guys in the US to the top position in the UK, and 75 % of the differences between (min+max)/2 and median now are positive. Oh no!
For sure: Bindidon certainly did a bad, bad job.
And RLH very certainly will show us a more correct evaluation of Meteostats hourly data for the UK.
For sure.
J.-P. D.
“You, and no one else, are the origin of me concentrating on the difference between median and (min+max)/2.”
And you deliberately or otherwise failed to take note of what I said.
I said that the median was more accurate than the (Tmax+Tmin)/2 ‘mean’.
How do you show that? Not by subtracting one from another as you have done to date for sure.
What you need to do is subtract each in turn from the true average of the day and see which is closer.
As you may have guessed, I have your style graphs for Dinosaur, Fairbanks, Hilo, Kenai, Redding and Tucson showing the diffs between the true average (as recorded by USCRN) and the ‘mean’ (also as recorded by them on a daily basis).
They are quite interesting in what they show.
You should be able to do the same and see if our graphs then show the same thing.
I haven’t done the medians as yet, but as I now have the data I can do those also if you wish.
RLH
” As you may have guessed, I have your style graphs for Dinosaur, Fairbanks, Hilo, Kenai, Redding and Tucson showing the diffs between the true average (as recorded by USCRN) and the mean (also as recorded by them on a daily basis).
They are quite interesting in what they show. ”
And… why don’t you show us them, if you ‘have’ them?
*
” I said that the median was more accurate than the (Tmax+Tmin)/2 mean. ”
Yes, you ‘said’ that all the time.
But… where is your proof showing that?
Where is this USCRN statement about the median being better than (Tmax+Tmin)/2 ?
I’m interested!
*
” What you need to do is subtract each in turn from the true average of the day and see which is closer. ”
Each of my daily graphs shows, for day 243 of 2010 till now, the three different computations for daily averages of hourly data, together with their 365 day running means, see Meteostat GB aka UK:
https://tinyurl.com/jwcefjh2
Everybody can see that for the station average in the UK, the median data and the 24h average perfectly correlate – what they do not within the USCRN data averaging all stations!
But I will generate the differences between the 24h average and the two others, when I have some little idle time to do, no problem for me.
*
Did you now start thinking about the seasonality bias, RLH, and how to get rid of it?
By the way: why does the median-based daily data show, for 2010-2021, a slightly higher trend than both (Tmax+Tmin)/2 and the 24h average
– for the Kenai station
– for the 23 USCRN Alaska stations
and
– for all the 150+ stations of USCRN?
Any idea?
*
Now, I’ll think about the best way to deseasonalize these three different daily averages of hourly data within my software, and will show the results in a couple of days.
We will see how the data out of
– USCRN
– Meteostat for GB/UK and Germany
then will look like.
J.-P. D.
> why don’t you show us them, if you “have” them?
Our High Expectation Auditor has already answered that one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-758243
It’s that dumb.
Only to an idiot like yourself.
No, dummy.
That’s dumb to anyone who pretends to have any auditing creds.
As an idiot you know all about that no doubt.
Note the URL, dummy:
https://climateaudit.org/
Do us all a favor and with your great skill answer the question that I first posed.
Which is more accurate (i.e. closer to the real average for any day) the ‘mean’ ((Tmin+Tmax)/2) or the median.
“And why dont you show us them, if you have them?”
Oh I have them all right. Which of them do you want me to post? Do you have corresponding ones of USCRN in return? Drawn any conclusions from the work you have done?
“Did you now start thinking about the seasonality bias, RLH, and how to get rid of it?”
You obviously read nothing I have already written. Tradition has it that the yearly cycle can only be removed by accumulating a set of normals, over say a 30 year period, and then deducting that from the measured temperatures to produce anomalies.
Alternatively you could use an accurate 12 month filter to do the same thing.
Your choice.
“I said that the median was more accurate than the (Tmax+Tmin)/2 mean.”
The Median calculated with ALL of the data during a day?
Duh. Of course it will be more accurate than just using two points, max and min!
But that’s apples and oranges. An unfair comparison, and Moot. And with all the data, why not just calculate the mean? That would be most accurate.
Going back in time we don’t have access to all of the data during the day.
I use USCRN as an accurate data source for the last 20 (or nearly) years. If it shows different things from the ‘old’ methods during that time, then it is reasonable to assume that the same holds for older data too.
Got any reasons why the ‘mean’ differs from the average in such a site specific way?
See https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-758675
You are big on saying that others cannot do what you do. Less on thinking about what you do show.
“Why didnt you did the simplest work evah, namely to enter that data into some spread sheet calculator, where you easily could to compute these differences by your own?”
I don’t need simple command line stuff to do what I do.
You are big on saying that others cannot do what you do. Less on thinking about what you do show.
You are just an idiot.
Do you really believe I cannot back up what I have said with images similar to Bs ones of average minus ‘mean’ for the stations I have mentioned on a daily basis from 2004 or so?
Real statisticians use R and it’s a scripting language, dummy.
And R is programmed in what?
Not in C#, dummy.
No. It’s in C with a GNU license. I can even get the source code for it if I were interested. Idiot.
Not full C, dummy:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180612142342/http://librestats.com/2011/08/27/how-much-of-r-is-written-in-r/
And you’re missing the point: R *is* “command-line stuff.”
Freaking asshat.
The core is in C. The use of R to do some of the rest is an example of recursion.
“And youre missing the point: R *is* ‘command-line stuff.'”
So is BASIC on that definition.
You also forget that there is “command-line stuff” in the GNU package, dummy.
That’s Larry Page, dumb snob.
“I certainly treated BASIC as a scripting language”
You’ll be telling me next that batch files are actually the way to go.
Whatever tool works, dummy.
Even dot net crap if that’s how you roll, as long as you share your data, your code, and your results.
You’re too idiotic to be able to share anything with.
You have access to the data yourself. Go ahead and prove my graphs are incorrect.
You are the one who claims doing that kind of work, dummy. But you’re caught within the windmills of your mind, blustering about scripting languages, R, and auditing. Notwithstanding your most recent one, a move you already tried:
[VLAD] Done anything interesting recently?
[ESTR] Here you go, dummy: here, and there.
[VLAD] As you are an idiot, why would I follow any of your links?
And that’s just to mention your blunders in this subthread alone!
I am busy doing stuff. As you so carefully pointed out, I have not been here long on this site (recently at least) and stuff does take time to do.
Willard: I notice you haven’t said anything about
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-758675
Too much effort for you?
I noticed you didn’t comment either, dummy.
Why is that?
“For example, about (1) why the differences between (min+max)/2, median and 24h averaging are so small for”
They are in the 1/0ths of a degree true but you continuously fail to say what they are and which of the 2 is more accurate.
Interestingly one of your first graphs showed that the median was a LOT closer to the average than the ‘mean’ was. Want to think about that?
The differences range from -4c to +4c. But you never show that.
Show it, dummy.
To you? Why would I bother?
Because that’s how auditing works, dummy.
That you, as an idiot, created? I think I’ll give it a miss.
The Auditor created the auditing meme, dummy.
Look at you, regurgitating a variant on Phil’s excuse.
Look at you being an idiot.
a
RLH
” Interestingly one of your first graphs showed that the median was a LOT closer to the average than the mean was. Want to think about that? ”
And… what about YOU starting to think about why ALL daily graphs (Germany, UK, US) show different correlations between median and the two others?
What you NEVER will be able to accept, RLH, is the answer I gave weeks ago: these differences shown in the graphs have nothing to do with the different computations.
The differences have spatial and temporal origin. This is perfectly shown in all the graphs I posted.
YOU, RLH, mention along all of them ONLY the one which seemingly confirms what you GUESS.
J.-P. D.
I would expect that the mean and the median will show different values and that, overall, the median will be closer to the true average value for the day than the ‘mean’. That is what statistics tells us about such things. There is nothing spatial or temporal about it. Just simple application of basic statistics.
Along the way it turns out that the relationship between the ‘mean’ and the true average is a complex one, and which also turns out not to be quite as expected. But you saw all that correct?
You are a true scientist and cannot resist uncovering the unexpected in the most unusual places.
Or you are not.
See
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-758675
How much time will RLH need to understand the reason why these two graphs differ by a LOT?
1. Plots of all USCRN stations: 24h average minus minmax versus 24h average minus median
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p76BwJXvwNOZ78SsnY2KUsiAbc6ETw7a/view
2. 1. Plots of USCRN station Kenai: 24h average minus minmax versus 24h average minus median
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g3DRhowNPzXcpIzG4pKvGENoCtICmkHb/view
It is in both cases exactly the same evaluation by the same software.
Why is that so difficult to understand ???
Tomorrow, I’ll post the same kind of graph for Germany and the UK, in both cases exactly the same evaluation by the same software as for USCRN and Deutscher Wetterdienst.
Again and again: the differences have spatiotemporal character…
J.-P. D.
binny…”How much time will RLH need to understand the reason why these two graphs differ by a LOT?”
Understanding any of your graphs is a chore. Still trying to understand the difference between mean and median???
Robertson
” Understanding any of your graphs is a chore. ”
Not for RLH.
But for Ignoramuses like you certainly it is…
” Still trying to understand the difference between mean and median??? ”
I perfectly understand the difference, and above all I don’t need to look on the Internet how to write software calculating it.
People like you are so permanently busy with discrediting and denigrating other people’s work that they lack the time needed to learn how to do that work.
Poor Robertson.
J.-P. D.
“People like you are so permanently busy with discrediting and denigrating other peoples work that they lack the time needed to learn how to do that work.”
Other people are so busy thinking they are the only ones who can do graphs that they don’t stop to think about statistics and relevant stuff.
Wrong. Any differences can be explained by simple statistics.
RLH
” Any differences can be explained by simple statistics. ”
Oh, very certainly you will soon explain us the dissimilarity between
USCRN’s 23 AK stations
https://tinyurl.com/hx653arv
and Meteostat’s about 100 UK stations (for 2010-2021)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1apXH2OtRL3qanJreBHBMuqEGa22w-cGn/view
on the one hand, and conversely, the similarity between
USCRN’s Kenai 29 ENE station (yes, only one)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g3DRhowNPzXcpIzG4pKvGENoCtICmkHb/view
and Meteostat’s about 500 DE stations (for 2010-2021)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oTgB5NHKF-3gS29V0Mt1jj2qwnxs3P9X/view
on the other hand.
*
But… when will you finally give us the technical and scientific proof for all what you tell us?
Don’t worry! I am very patient.
J.-P. D.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-758675
“Oh, very certainly you will soon explain us the dissimilarity between
USCRNs 23 AK stations
https://tinyurl.com/hx653arv”
And the differences for individual sites within that set? Why is it that the answer is site specific?
See
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-758675
So you should be able to answer the basic question I first posed. Which is closer to the true average for the day, the ‘mean’ or the median? And by how much are those 2 figures adrift?
RLH
Just having a look at the two comparison groups above should convince you that your ‘basic question’ makes NO SENSE at all, as which one is closer depends on the geographic context(s) you analyze.
J.-P. D.
Well one must be more accurate than the other. Which is it?
Why don’t you maintain a blog so that everybody can find all your thoughtful insights into climate in one place instead of relying on 3rd party image posting sites?
“one must be more accurate than the other”
I agree with Bindidon, this makes no sense.
They measure different things. Like saying ‘which is more accurate: someone’s height or weight?’
Median may be a more useful choice for highly skewed distributions, but not more accurate.
Not obvious that temperatures have highly skewed distributions.
So tell me why the center lines of the data I posted at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-758675
differ on a site by site basis?
“Median may be a more useful choice for highly skewed distributions, but not more accurate.”
Useful as in closer to the true average for a day?
Define ‘ true average’.
“So tell me why the center lines of the data I posted at
differ on a site by site basis?”
“the differences between the true average for the day (as calculated by the USCRN from 5 second sampling) and the mean estimated from (Tmax+Tmin)/2.”
As noted, having ALL the data is obviously better than having only the two extrema.
But this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Median vs Mean! You are still making no sense, RLH.
To repeat: Mean and Median are measuring different things, and thus neither one is more accurate.
“But this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Median vs Mean! You are still making no sense, RLH.
To repeat: Mean and Median are measuring different things, and thus neither one is more accurate.”
Well whatever you consider, then one of either median or ‘mean’ has to be closer to the real average during any one day.
P.S. Average is a true mean also. ‘mean’ is an estimation using (Tmax+Tmin)/2.
“Define true average.”
The real average temperature as recorded during a day. See the USCRN for details.
“The hourly values reported in this dataset are calculated using multiple independent measurements for temperature and precipitation.
USCRN/USRCRN stations have multiple co-located temperature sensors
that make 10-second independent measurements which are used to produce max/min/avg temperature values at 5-minute intervals. The precipitation gauge is equipped with multiple load cell sensors to provide independent measurements of depth change at 5-minute intervals.”
“Mean and Median are measuring different things, and thus neither one is more accurate.”
Mean and median are just 2 different forms of average/central tendency.
One will be more suitable than the other for determining the true average temperature for the day.
Statistics tells us that, regardless of distribution, the median is more accurate than the mean. The mean is only similarly accurate if the data is normally/Gaussian distributed (which no-one bothers to test for).
The ‘mean’ normally discussed is not even that. It is a poor approximation using (Tmax+Tmin)/2.
‘Define true average.’
“The real average temperature as recorded during a day.”
Epic fail. You can’t define it.
“Statistics tells us that, regardless of distribution, the median is more accurate than the mean.”
It tells us no such thing!
‘More accurate’ is not applicable here. They measure different things.
“The mean normally discussed is not even that. It is a poor approximation using (Tmax+Tmin)/2.”
Different issue.
What would be the Median calculated from Tmax Tmin?
Mean makes more sense to use because:
1. In the end the CLT applies for climate relevant quantities which become Gaussian. I showed you GISS data that is Gaussian.
2. We need to include the broad tails (eg heat waves) to measure average thermal energy in a region like Pacific NW.
bindidon Willard RLH have posted most of the 3200 comments on this thread.
Whatever happened to the old fashioned notion of it being better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
You three are the most stupid commenters ever heard on any subject ever. Get lost you pack of morons.
Yawn.
Get better material, Ken!
65 are from me.
Robertson: 109
Do you want to count those written by Swenson and Clint R?
Interestingly, people like you always ‘omit’ what they intend to dissimulate…
If you don’t like what some write: what about moving to WUWT?
They have such a nice feature there, you can down/upvote comments.
J.-P. D.
Uncovered anything of value on here then?
My interaction with Willard the idiot takes up most of my posting and those are a few words at best in length. There are others who post pages in length that dwarf my little contributions.
[PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, ASSEMBLER (MORE THAN ONE), C, C++, C#, VB (MORE THAN ONE), R, SQL, PASCAL, AND A FEW OTHERS, TO A LEVEL GOOD ENOUGH TO DEBUG OTTERS CODE AND SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS. MORE THAN 40 YEARS IN THE INDUSTRY, THE ODD QUALIFICATION IN THE FIELD, TEACHING SOME OF THAT TO THE OTHERS]
BUT HE STARTED IT, MOMMY!
HE MADE ME DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Idiot.
Brilliant interaction, Richard.
Idiotic reply.
z
My suggestion is that you stop interacting with the idiot lest you be mistaken for one. You are judged by the company you keep.
Don’t feed the trull.
Probably good advice.
Ken, the act of trolling gives losers a chance to perform. If you notice they never understand the science, but yet are convinced they do. Each one believes he is the brightest, wittiest, most knowledgeable of all. The reality is they are underachievers, over-impressed with themselves.
They aren’t going away, as they have nothing else going in their empty lives, so just enjoy the show.
Whereas Clint R knows better than NASA on how to calculate orbits and rotations.
RLH responds in 11 minutes, with NOTHING of substance.
The loser has NOTHING else happening in his empty life.
I’ve told you before, the rapidity of the response is determined by when you and I post.
Correct RLH. If you responded rapidly, then you responded rapidly.
Coincidence will do strange things.
Willard
Above you offer your opinion of me.
YOU: “Norman,
Your
He is abusing statistics in a terrible way to make a lousy conclusion.
made you lose the modicum of credibility you had left.
Self-righteous troglodytes are too clumsy and too slow in Climateball to be worth any reply. And in contrast to Gordo, you’re not funny.
Be well.”
The opinion of a fanatic does not mean much to me. Maybe it satisfies you.
I will attempt and explanation of why I made my point. I am not sure you will be able to follow it or care to.
I put in a summer of data for Portland Oregon. (2004). I got an average temperature of 79 F with a standard deviation of 9.5. (That is close to the average for Portland high temperature in the Summer) 116 F would be close to 4 sigma (this is a 1/15787). The data points were around 90 days out of a year so you would divide 15787 by 90 to get the chance per year which would be once every 175 years.
If you do it the Texas way. Using just the highest recorded temperature per year you have an average of 98 with a standard deviation of 4. So it is 4.5 sigma to get to 116 F. Now it is one in 147,000 chance with this metric. Since you are only using one point a year you can skew the chance of to very huge time scale. If you use daily data the chance is a much smaller time scale.
Do you see how statistics can greatly alter a conclusion? If not don’t tell me I am the slow one. I think even Gordon Robertson would be able to understand my point on this issue.
If you take just the annual highest recorded temperature you get
Norman,
Here’s NG:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/28/ng-s-audit/
Calculating return periods should not be that hard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_period
Next time, keep the chin up.
Why would anyone follow your links?
Mike Flynn tried that one first, dummy.
Still an idiot I see.
Thank you for your interaction, Richard.
Thank you for being an idiot.
Was that an interaction, dummy?
z
Everyone,
Let’s redo the experiment:
I won’t comment this week end, starting now and defined by EDT, unless someone mentions me (by name or indirectly) or responds to my comments.
If that happens, I reserve a right of response.
Lets see if y’all can’t resist, like the first time!
See you in three days,
Hopefully (for you),
W
willard…”I wont comment this week end,…”
Get over yourself, who gives a hoot whether you comment or not. You’re a legend in your own mind.
Tell that to Ken, Gordo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-758506
Whacky Wee Willy,
Why should anyone do anything you demand?
Do you have delusions of grandeur?
You appear to be a desperate attention seeking wannabe, convinced that you are not getting the recognition you deserve!
Why don’t you just claim to be a Nobel prize winner, and print yourself a certificate to that effect? Then you can be as respected as that faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann. You’d like that, wouldn’t you?
[snigger]
Mike Flynn,
Thank you for JAQing off.
What demand?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Indeed. Only an idiot would think the rest of the world cares about his inane ramblings and diversions.
[PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, ASSEMBLER (MORE THAN ONE), C, C++, C#, VB (MORE THAN ONE), R, SQL, PASCAL, AND A FEW OTHERS, TO A LEVEL GOOD ENOUGH TO DEBUG OTTERS CODE AND SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS. MORE THAN 40 YEARS IN THE INDUSTRY, THE ODD QUALIFICATION IN THE FIELD, TEACHING SOME OF THAT TO THE OTHERS] My interaction with Willard the idiot takes up most of my posting
The majority in posts. Not the majority in lines. Still an idiot I see.
You wrote “most of my posting,” dummy.
Do you even read or understand the difference between posts and lines?
[DUMMY] Most of my posting is with someone of whom I offer the mind probing “Only an idiot would think the rest of the world cares about his inane ramblings and diversions.”
z
Weird Wee Willy,
What form of mental impairment leads you to think that anybody cares about your inane trolling?
If you don’t want to comment, don’t. If you do, do.
There are approximately seven billion people who couldn’t give a rodent!s rectum whether you live or die!
Maybe you could threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, if people respond to your comments, or indicate that they care whether you live or die.
Face reality, idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Thank you for your response.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Well done, everyone!
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”Dozens of temperature records were shattered during the period, including a Canadian record of 49.6 C in Lytton, B.C., the day before fire destroyed most of the community”.
***
So, a couple of degrees C started a fire that burned down the town??? If you believe that, I have a slightly used bridge I can sell you here in Vancouver. We’re a 150 miles SW of Lytton and nary a fire within 150 miles.
No, siree…they now think the fire was caused by an arsonist.
“The day before” may not mean what you make it mean, Gordo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
dmt…”It will surprise nobody that a young Gordon R. wrote that offending article”.
That would be Mr. Robertson to a dimwit stalker like you.
I see the RSS June Anomaly was much higher than the UAH data. I know Roy tends to be the outlier over all the data sets but this seems a significant divergence.
Exactly, Galaxie500.
And that is the reason why Ignoramuses like Robertson permanently discredit and denigrate the RSS people.
J.-P. D.
And the AIRs data shows what?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/rss.jpeg
shows the same basic outcome, though the reference periods are different leading to slightly different right hand axis.
Left hand axis i.e. the vertical one.
While I don’t think temperature data is very important in the grand scheme of things other than it is important to have accurate data, “outliers” have been at the forefront of discovery. Temperature is what it is. We have no affect on it nor can we control it. Outliers were Copernicus, Newton, Franklin, Einstein, etc.
The mean is well known to be sensitive to outliers in data. The median is less so.
The mean would have to be sensitive wouldn’t it?
Funny boy.
“The mean has one main disadvantage: it is particularly susceptible to the influence of outliers. These are values that are unusual compared to the rest of the data set by being especially small or large in numerical value.”
“The median is the middle score for a set of data that has been arranged in order of magnitude. The median is less affected by outliers and skewed data.”
RLH
For the mean sample size n is large. Standard deviation and confidence limits improve with sample size. You can expect them to trend to a minimum.
For the median n=2, because the only samples involved are the maximum and the minimum.
Please explain why the median, with an enormous standard deviation is better than the mean with a much smaller standard deviation.
If the data is normally distributed. Are you saying that both daily and monthly temperature data is normally distributed?
Of you believe that taking only 2 samples in a day against taking many in the same day is a better method then let me introduce you to sampling theorem.
USCRN stations showing the differences between the true average for the day (as calculated by the USCRN from 5 second sampling) and the ‘mean’ estimated from (Tmax+Tmin)/2.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-diffs-kenai.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-diffs-dinosaur.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-diffs-fairbanks.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-diffs-hilo.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-diffs-redding.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-diffs-tucson.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-diffs-everglades.jpeg
To avoid any misunderstanding a propos daily averaging of USCRN hourly data
The daily TMIN (TMAX) I compute as the lowest (the highest) value of the 24 hourly TAVGs (field 10 in the ‘hourly02’ description), and not as lowest (highest) value of the 24 hourly TMINs (TMAXs) (fields 12 and 11).
Simply because I want the daily TAVG, TMIN, TMAX and TMEDIAN to be computed out of the same 24 hourly values.
J.-P. D.
To make sure there is no misunderstanding I used the figures that USCRN already supplies as part of its daily offerings.
“The daily TMIN (TMAX) I compute as the lowest (the highest) value of the 24 hourly TAVGs (field 10 in the hourly02 description), and not as lowest (highest) value of the 24 hourly TMINs (TMAXs) (fields 12 and 11).”
So you are saying that USCRN got the data wrong?
Or that a 5 second sampling scheme is more inaccurate than an hourly one?
” So you are saying that USCRN got the data wrong? ”
Why not try to think outside the box instead of claiming nonsense I never said?
Why should I use a different method for USCRN than the one I use for data from the German Weather Service and from the Meteostat facility?
Feel free to keep in your hyperoptimal USCRN corner, RLH.
J.-P. D.
Well the reason that a hourly figure might differ from an 5 minute one in min/max is because the 5 minute one catches things an hourly one does not.
See https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-758675
P.S. Shouldn’t you be using the 5 min data as that is 12 times more accurate than the hourly figures?
RLH
You wrote upthread, concerning METEOSTAT’s metadata file:
” OK. There are 13,237 stations with some hourly data in that dataset. ”
Again: no. There are 10,552 stations with hourly data.
J.-P. D.
I applied a data vet of more than 12 hours worth of hours data in any one day. Quite a reasonable restriction would you not say?
Are you suggesting that my machine cannot count correctly?
13,237 Files
Hourly: 13,237 Files
Daily: 13,364 Files
Monthly: 11,675 Files
Go to moyhu and the Latest Ice and Temperature Data.
Scroll down to a graph of four terrestrial and two satellite datasets on the same baseline.
Five of them are within 0.05C of each other and UAH is the outlier 0.25C lower.
The trends that they all show over the last 6 months are near identical though. Even if their base periods differ.
P.S . AIRs is not included in that dataset.
The same graph can show data since 2017, again to a common baseline.
I note that for five of the last six months and 33 of the last 44 months UAH was the lowest of the six datasets.
For the last six months UAH showed a large decrease while the other five showed a small increase.
Looks like me there is a systemic error in UAH, it is underreading. It is not a difference between satellite and surface data, since RSS agrees with the surface data.
RSS has been made to conform to the surface data, but then not with the balloon data.
UAH, RSS and AIRs are in broad agreement.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uah.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/rss.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/airs7.jpeg
though their offsets differ.
Sorry, posted last months RSS
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/rss.jpeg
It’s a good thing we’ve got UAH.
Do you think moyhu can find the mistakes in the other 5?
Have you compared the last 6 months data from the various sources?
Entropic man at 10:08 AM
If you torture data long enough it will confess to anything.
“Satellites dont measure temperatures”
They measure the temperature of the O2 molecules in the atmosphere.
No they dont.
They measure the voltage in a microwave sensor.
An algorithm then infers the temperature.
“They measure the voltage in a microwave sensor.”
Those microwaves are generated by the O2 molecules.
You’ll be telling me next that measuring voltages in a thermocouple is not a temperature measurement either.
Still a voltage. You have to convert it to a temperature. If I tell you that the voltmeter reads 3.474mV, what is the temperature and how do you get it?
By calibration.
Explain.
I know what you mean, but I encourage you to think through and describe all the steps involved in inferring a temperature from a thermocouple voltage.
If I calibrate the voltage at 0c and 100c, unless I have good reason to believe it is not linear, then the job is mostly done.
If it is non linear, then the more the calibration steps the better.
RLH
” If the data is normally distributed. Are you saying that both daily and monthly temperature data is normally distributed?”
Yes, it is gaussian.
“Of you believe that taking only 2 samples in a day against taking many in the same day is a better method then let me introduce you to sampling theorem.”
You believe it. You prefer a median based on two measurements, n=2, over a mean of a day’s 5 minute measurements, n=288.
On both a daily and a monthly basis you are wrong.
Daily things look nothing like a sine wave.
Monthly, most of the year is smeared in the direction of the solstices, with them also being quite variable.
Sampling theorem says that 2 samples is almost the worst way of way of assessing daily temperatures. Anything less and you would be completely guessing.
But you keep on ignoring sampling theorem and DSP if you like. Life will move on regardless.
What do sine waves have to do with it?
I’ve been talking about the way in which average daily temperatures are calculated as the mean of a number of measurements from a number of stations, which together form a Gaussian frequency distribution.
Are you discussing the diurnal pattern of temperature change for a single station over a single day?
If individual stations are in error, what makes you presume that those errors cancel out.
Especially when the differences can be shown to be site specific.
Central limit theorem.
We went over the effect of measurement accuracy and precision, and of sample size, on uncertainty some time ago.
Have you forgotten?
Central limit theorem does not hold for auto-correlated items. They have to be purely random. Have we not been through that before?
CLT certainly does not hold if the errors are site specific.
See https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-758675
So the Southern hemisphere plus the Northern hemisphere makes for a Gaussian distribution. Is that on land or ocean or both?
Climate change is like, do you believe in Jesus.
In terms of question, you are going to heaven.
I wonder what my options are.
Most people in world believe in reincarnation so is a option
to return to be some kind of life form on Earth [or somewhere else]
Or Heaven.
Or is Hell, limbo, or Heaven.
But point of question is not to answer the question, point is you suppose want do something now.
And like heaven question, what suppose to do about climate change
is to have government do something.
Now it’s always been the case that government can do any right.
Government has always created Hell on Earth.
If you actually wanted to do something climate change the worst idea is to have government do something about it.
If government is in charge of food production, you are going to starve to death. This is not a maybe, it’s a certainty.
The government which would do something about climate change, is a world government. A government is bad enough, be world government is the worst.
So to question do you want go to heaven? My only question would be does heaven have a world government.
If so, no thank you.
gbaikie…”Climate change is like, do you believe in Jesus”.
Believing in Jesus has another meaning. It does not necessarily about going to heaven, it means believing in what the man stood for.
There is no doubt that Jesus lived and walked the Earth. It is documented by the Romans who murdered him based on the urgings of certain members of the Jewish community who feared him. There are also eye-witness accounts of his activity.
Jesus himself is not about belief, it’s mainly about fact.
The belief in climate change is far more sinister. It’s based on the power/ego trips of certain people whose moral fibre has nothing to do with the teaching of Jesus.
And…please…responders…lay of the Creation bs. Isaac Newton wrote volumes on the Bible, including Jesus. I have no beliefs, Creation and evolution theory included. Everything is a question to me.
I happily admit I do not believe in religion. Any religion. But I can still respect the science that people who do believe in it show.
rlh…”I happily admit I do not believe in religion. Any religion”.
***
I am not religious, I have no religious beliefs. However, since childhood, I have always been impressed with Jesus and what he stood for. There are a lot of questions about Jesus and I am happy to live with the questions, just as I am with the rest of life’s questions. I see no need for answers that fail to adequately answer the questions.
Just because you a lack a belief in religion does not mean you cannot read about it.
Try reading some of the work of Elaine Pagels on the Gnostic Gospels. She got into the findings at Nag Hammadi of books deleted from the Bible by the powers that be when the Nicene Creed was created circa 325 AD.
In one of the books, the Gospel of Thomas, who was the disciple called Doubting Thomas, he wrote about quotes directly from Jesus. Some religious scholars think the book is authentic and predates the 4 beginning gospels of the New Testament. Although most of the quotes are in parable form, one of them is very plain. According to Thomas, Jesus said that everything we need is already within.
I thought that was a powerful statement and it resonated well with other studies I have done on human nature and the human mind. It suggests the opposite of what is written in the Bible, that people need to go through the Church. It also puts the onus on people to pay attention to actions that are contrary to internal intelligence.
I think evolution theory is rubbish. It’s blatantly plain that life has an intelligence that could not possibly have occurred through the chance inherent in natural selection.
You have to ask why humans are born with the capacity for awareness, insight, love, empathy, and compassion. Is all that a product of chance? Don’t think so, especially when you consider that DNA, the basic building block in life includes codes that act as a template for creating proteins. Without those codes, life could not be maintained.
Codes are not a result of chance but of ordered intelligence. It’s obvious that someone or something created life. I have no beliefs regarding who or what that may be. Yet another mystery of the universe.
“I thought that was a powerful statement and it resonated well with other studies I have done on human nature and the human mind. It suggests the opposite of what is written in the Bible, that people need to go through the Church. It also puts the onus on people to pay attention to actions that are contrary to internal intelligence.”
I read the bible, once. I didn’t see anything about needing to go to church. There was something about building a church. But Bible was mostly about Jews, and their failure at governing a State.
But from non bible sources, is that going to church is for sinners, and if you realize you are sinner, you should go to church. And seems people are helped by going to church and it bring more meaning to some people’s lives. I might try at some point, but probably not.
What seems obvious to me, is that Christians and Jews or force of education. Whereas public schools are force of daycare.
The more technology, the less belief in God. This was predicted in the Bible over 2000 years ago.
The more comforts we have, the more we believe in ourselves. All predicted, over 2000 years ago.
Some go as far as to actually claim there is no God. They believe they are “intellectuals”, smarter than the rest, the “elite”. All predicted.
“The more technology, the less belief in God.”
You got to watch more, Doctor Who.
But seriously, belief in one god, made technology.
“This was predicted in the Bible over 2000 years ago.”
2000 year ago Jesus Christ wasn’t nailed to a cross, yet- and
there was no Christians nor Christian Bibles, nor any of the gospels written, yet.
And probably if Christ wasn’t murdered, no Bible would
have been written.
The roman empire had many statues of gods, few believed in them any more than people believe in Doctor Who. The thing that was odd to a roman mind is the faith of believers in Christ, it was nothing like what they called a religion- which more like a duty to pay taxes. Something you were suppose to do, but was also kind of pain in the ass, or not vaguely anything to die for.
So, a seemingly rational person, but also raving mad.
Some have said it was force, that was later harnessed by Roman empire {but that, this led to the doom of the Roman Empire}.
[[It reminds me, how many Empires has the US terminated? Anyone,
counting?]]
World’s Religions:
Christianity (31.2%)
Islam (24.1%)
No religion (16%)
Hinduism (15.1%)
Buddhism (6.9%)
Folk religions (5.7%)
Other religions (0.5%)
Sikhism (0.3%)
Judaism (0.2%)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
In terms of numbers, far more Jews than 2000 years ago
And in terms percentage, I would guess about same- maybe higher.
But more 1/2 the world believes in God [the same one god of the
Jews]
And I would guess most of no religion is Chinese- and seems it would safer to say that one has no religion, in China.
“The more technology, the less belief in God.”
Demonstrate why your ‘God’ is better than all the others.
“Just because you a lack a belief in religion does not mean you cannot read about it.”
I was fed Christian religion at school. Relentlessly. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 2/3 of my years 8 to 16. Eventually I asked one simple question.
Why is your ‘God’ better than all the others?
Yes gbaikie, you’re correct. Jesus was not yet crucified “over 2000 years ago”. I was speaking about all Bible predictions, in general terms. How about this:
“This was predicted in the Bible more or less than, about, approximately, somewhat, give or take a century or two, close to, 2000 years ago.”
Legalistic enough for you?
☺
RLH, the Bible provides a “belief system”, or “religion”. Many historical parts have already been proved. The Bible was used centuries ago by archaeologists. It provided many historical answers, and still does.
An in-depth study of the Bible will reveal that it’s all about your faith. God has provided plenty of evidence, but you must do your part by faith. You can’t get there by “logic”, or “debate”.
What we see today is people using “faith” to accept false science. You’ve got people here that actually belief Mt. Everest is rotating about its axis! That takes a lot of faith….
“God has provided plenty of evidence”
Which God is that?
People can have whatever religion they want, it doesnt bother me.
Gods were invented to explain a completely mysterious world lacking any other explanation.
Naturally as we understood the world better and better thru science, we need Gods less and less to account for it.
Franklin’s Lightning Rod kept houses from burning. Suddenly an unavoidable Act of God was understandable and preventable.
The Bible has stories (like the Virgin Birth) that are found in other mythologies from polytheistic societies.
If the Bible was the word of God, somehow handed down to its various human authors 2000 years ago, then it has been twisted and morphed, rewritten and reinterpreted in multitudinous ways ever since.
Lets understand that history is mostly about wars, burning people, and ethnic cleansing often driven by minor differences in views about what the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud etc says.
“often driven by minor differences in views about what the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud etc says.”
Agreed.
–Gordon Robertson says:
July 17, 2021 at 4:47 PM
gbaikie…”Climate change is like, do you believe in Jesus”.
Believing in Jesus has another meaning. It does not necessarily about going to heaven, it means believing in what the man stood for.–
He stood for being the Son of God.
Which doesn’t seem to me like an outlandish claim.
I am not the son of God, but compared to some roman emperor who claims to be son of a some god, then sure, why not.
If I was a Jew, then, generally it seems proper to think of God as the Father.
Obviously I missing some political details of the time.
It seems possible that Jesus parents considered his birth as being blessed in some way or maybe one could say, magical.
Basically it seems Jesus was Great. And the mucky mucks were not anywhere close to great. That they feared Him, is typical of politicans. Politicians are wretched creatures.
As I said, replacing Politicians with AI, could only be a good idea. And lately I am thinking replacing politicans who space aliens which don’t particularly hate human beings, could be a step up.
An AI would ask one/two questions.
Which ‘God’ is the one I should decide on and why?
The issue of God is above the pay grade of politicans.
The only God a sane AI has, is humans.
An AI might ponder about the inspiration of humans, but human rarely concern themselves with what inspires God.
Or most regard God as inspiration, not that inspiration bring life to God.
Though the atheist author, Terry Prachett of HogFather and various other fine works, suggests in fictional way that humans [through some kind weird a stupid fashion, does make various gods, which blink out existence if humans don’t “create them” – and then everything basically goes to Hell. Or inspiration comes for humans or I guess from any kind of life [mice have a Hogfather and Death- but I suppose it’s consequence of humans with their crazy ideas. Well actually, not humans but rather human children which drives it].
The Undergrad Who Found China’s Nuclear Arsenal
What A Hobby
“A couple of weeks ago, word arrived that 120 new missile silos had been discovered in the desert of Northern China. While the press made much of this evidence that China is busy expanding its nuclear weapons program, they did not look at who found the silos and how he did it.”
https://ashleevance.substack.com/p/the-undergrad-who-found-chinas-nuclear
Linked from:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
“If you actually wanted to do something about climate change the worst idea is to have government do something about it.
If government is in charge of food production, you are going to starve to death. This is not a maybe, its a certainty.
The government which would do something about climate change, is a world government. A government is bad enough, be world government is the worst. ”
I’m not sure where you are going with this.The
Are you saying that we need a world government?
Are you saying that we need to find a non-governmental solution to climate change?
Or are you saying that climate change is inevitable because humanity has no solution?
entropic…”Im not sure where you are going with this.The
Are you saying that we need a world government?”
I think he may be referring to the United Nation, who has entertained the notion of a world government since the 1960s. The UN created the IPCC based on bafflegab from former UK PM Margaret Thatcher. The UN jumped at her fear-mongering about coal emissions because they saw it as an opportunity to scare world governments into joining them on a global taxation program. Taxes, like carbon taxes, are just the beginning.
Entropic man-
Rank the top 3 governments in the World.
And then, next what was best government at any time in
the world-
and what did it do to make it best government, ever.
And finally if we could have bestest government ever, what would
it help you do?
In terms of UN, was the WHO helpful OR did it commit war crimes?
If you were thinking of German government:
Criminal Negligence? Authorities Failed To Heed Flood Warnings…”Let People Drown”…”Monumental System Failure”
” Many of the over one hundred people died in the recent flood disaster in Central Western Germany could have been prevented – had the responsible institutions heeded the warnings that had been already issued days in advance by the weather services.”
As I noted above, weather prediction seems pretty good. And I had no rain.
“Meanwhile science editor Axel Bojanowski at “Welt” commented on claims that the flood was caused by German CO2 emissions: “The climate argument is used by politicians to deflect attention from their own responsibility for a disaster.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/17/criminal-negligence-authorities-failed-to-heed-flood-warningslet-people-drownmonumental-system-failure/
They always do that. Pols love anything which shifts the blame from their failure to govern.
You remind me of Winston Churchill.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others.”
rlh…”I use USCRN as an accurate data source for the last 20 (or nearly) years”.
The problem I have with USCRN is their affiliation with NOAA, who are known to have fudged other record like GHCN. In fact, AFTER the IPCC had declared a flat trend from 1998 – 2012, and AFTER NOAA’s data showed the same, NOAA went back and fudged the SST to show a trend.
NOAA admitted to no warming between 1958 and 1987 then magically found 2F warming since 1987. Same with James Hansen.
The author at chiefio, E.M Smith, has well-documented evidence of the chicanery of NOAA and GISS on his chiefio site and in the following paper he talks about USCRN. The stats will make far more sense to you than to me and I’d be interested in your analysis.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/hurst-dependence-persistence-and-a-fatal-flaw-in-climate-science/
Here, he covers Tony Heller on the USCRN ‘data diddle’…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/08/16/tony-heller-on-ushcn-data-diddle/
It’s imperative that anyone interested, and who has an objective mind, has a look at Heller’s (Steve Goddard’s) credentials. This guy is eminently qualified to do this kind of analysis and is light years ahead of the likes of Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt in that capacity.
Heller is also a bona fide environmentalist who walks the walk. He reveals the chicanery of NOAA, the US EPA, and James Hansen. They have all told blatant lies.
I don’t accept your paranoia about NOAA. Individuals within it maybe, but not the organization.
https://tinyurl.com/Who-Is-Tony-Heller
That ranks up there with Willard in its idiocy.
Our dedicated dummy might prefer Tony’s take:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature/#comment-130003
TM, you forgot to disclose that those were not the words of Tony Heller.
You don’t want to be identified as a prevaricator, do you?
A place in Northern Ireland – Ballywatticock (I’m not kidding!) is now famous for breaking a record.
The UKMO reports :”Today is provisionally the hottest day ever recorded in Northern Ireland. Ballywatticock in County Down reached 31.2 °C at 15.40″
Rude comments welcome.
I live in Northern Ireland.
My car recorded 29C as I drove home from work today.
The name Ballywatticock comes from the English surname Witticock, the family that took control of the area during the Plantation.
entropic…” My car recorded 29C as I drove home from work today. The name Ballywatticock…”
***
According to the climate alarmists at the BBC, that area in Ireland recorded a record high. The BBC does not tell you when the record began, likely circa 1960.
Tony Heller reveals all the damned lies coming out of NOAA and GISS and how they have rewritten the record using blatant lies.
Unprecedented since…
Probably.
maguff…”Satellites dont measure temperatures…”
***
It figured senseless nonsense like that would come out of skepticalscience.
entropic chimes in that AMSU sensors don’t measure temperature, they measure voltages.
Good grief, are all you alarmists this thick?
Temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of a gas. In a solid, it’s a measure of the kinetic energy of the atoms, also known as heat.
So, how are you going to measure the KE? in this case the KE of heat? One way is to stick a bulb containing mercury near or into the heated atoms/molecules and allow the mercury to expand up a capillary tube which has gradations to mark the relative level of KE, hence the relative level of the heat.
According to Entropic, a thermometer does not measure temperature, it measures the expansion of mercury.
If you have a thermistor, a variable resistor that changes its resistance wrt to the KE/heat level, you can represent the temperature change as a voltage across the thermistor. There is a direct correlation between the actual KE and the voltage provided you know how the thermistor responds to temperature.
Same with the AMSU unit in a satellite. Rather than using the expansion of mercury, or the resistance in a heat-dependent resistor, the AMSU telemetry responds to the brightness temperature of oxygen. There is a one to one correspondence between the oxygen temperature, which is the air temperature at a certain altitude, and the output of the AMSU telemetry.
The difficulty with the AMSU unit is deciphering the different frequencies of O2 radiation detected and their correlation to altitude. Some alarmists have suggested the correlation is guessed or somehow manipulated, however, a one to one correlation has also been measured between sat temperatures at various altitudes and the temperatures reported by radiosondes.
This is not a black art, it is a brilliant application of communications theory, EM radiation theory, and heat theory. Alarmists hate it because the sat data disproves their black art.
Gordon Robertson at 6:02 PM
You are way out of your depths old man!
Here’s a little remote sensing for dummies; pay attention:
TM,
Hmmmm. “In principle . . . “, “first guess . . .”, “. . . could be repeated . . . “, “model calculations”.
You really are a gullible little sausage, aren’t you?
Guesses piled on assumptions. Typical climate crackpottery masquerading as science. Somehow, the Earth managed to cool from a molten state. You can’t explain why without looking like a complete idiot, can you?
Can you explain how it is that people from different groups using different satellites with different sensors are able to determine global air temperatures to a degree that corresponds quite closely to radiosondes testing the same air at different altitudes throughout the atmosphere? Luck?
Gordon Robertson at 6:02 PM
You wrote 325 words purporting to “explain” remote sensing but not once did you mention the most important part: the weighting function. Enough of your BS.
TM, you seem to be alarmed by the science of “remote sensing”.
A banana has a temperature that can be measured by a thermometer stuck into it.
Or, the banana’s temperature can be measured by a handheld IR thermometer, “remote sensing”.
Not understanding science can be alarming.
Clint R,
Ah, but bananas absorb IR. They also emit LWIR. Obviously, bananas cause global warming, climate change and psoriasis.
Not only that, bananas are radioactive!
That’s why bananas should be measured by remote sensing – preferably from 300 km!
There is a 0.83 correlation between the cost of bananas, and people dying as a result of becoming entangled in their bed sheets. Adopt the precautionary principle – sleep without sheets when banana prices are high!
All good to know, Swenson.
Banana daiquiris are for sissies!
https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/229666/fresh-banana-daiquiri/
Say it’s not so.
Swenson’s gone bananas. He’s found his true calling.
Keep it up. Leave science to people who appreciate it.
Gordo, As MCGUFFIN asked, what is Brightness Temperature?
furthermore, how does the MSU/AMSU provide these data? Hint: it isn’t you think it is.
So what? Do you think that millions of dollars/pounds have been spent badly on what you obviously regard as being useless data.
RLH, The MSU/AMSU instruments were designed for short term weather prediction, not long term temperature monitoring. Spencer & Christy originally presented a technique to provide this data, then had to switch gears and use another approach. Decades later, after much revision, there are still problems with the results. That’s one reason the UAH approach and that from RSS continue to produce different trends.
Have you looked at the differences between the RSS data and the UAH since 9179?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/rss.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uah.jpeg
Where do you see the differences occurring? What years?
Strange how it occurs over just a few years from about 2003 and then shows much the same behavior both before and since.
1979 – my fingers let me down again
And the fact that AIRs, which uses totally different satellites, produces very similar data.
RLH asked:
Yes. See my paper HERE and the later update HERE.
Have you looked at
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/rss.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uah.jpeg
and got a sensible set of reasons why their output varies quite so much around 2003?
So in your later paper you use Hamming filters at 7 months and 25 months instead of running means. Any idea of their impulse response? Are they Gaussian in nature (which has a very good impulse response)? Almost certainly not.
Why choose those periods in the first place? What is it that are you trying to uncover?
RLH, According to the RSS web site they use 1979 thru 1998 as their base period, whereas UAH has recently switched to 1991 thru 2010. As a result, RSS TLT reports a higher temperature than UAH LT. the year 2003 was date at which they switched from the MSU to the AMSU instruments. Even so, RSS reports a larger trend than UAH.
UAH also now use a much different set of calculations with version 6, compared to version 5.6 and previous, the new calculation requires 3 channels, where the older used only 1. UAH has reported that their AMSU results were said to be too warm, so they changed their processing to select a higher altitude in their version 6 calculation. You figure it out.
As for my selection of filters, 25 months has a roll of at around 12 months, whereas 7 months will smooth the shorter period variations. I used the Hamming filter because it was much better than a centered running mean and does not introduce any shift in the dating of the output, unlike your CTRM filter.
” According to the RSS web site they use 1979 thru 1998 as their base period, whereas UAH has recently switched to 1991 thru 2010. As a result, RSS TLT reports a higher temperature than UAH LT. the year 2003 was date at which they switched from the MSU to the AMSU instruments. Even so, RSS reports a larger trend than UAH.”
A different trend, which if you look carefully, is mainly caused by the years 2003 to 2006 or so in the RSS plots.
“As for my selection of filters, 25 months has a roll of at around 12 months, whereas 7 months will smooth the shorter period variations. I used the Hamming filter because it was much better than a centered running mean and does not introduce any shift in the dating of the output, unlike your CTRM filter.”
So you decide that adding in more months somehow reduces errors even though the seasonal cycle dominates that outcome. And not even full years at that. You smear one year over the next.
I know that running means are a poor choice. That is why I use a Gaussian 12 month filter instead. A cosine style filter has a lousy impulse response which is why they are not often used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raised-cosine_filter#/media/File:Raised-cosine-impulse.svg
There are no shifts as such because you get to decide the offset for the output. Is the middle of the year in month 6 or month 7? Does it matter? Not really. The difference is a small movement left or right in the filtered outputs.
maguff…”Im climate change denier Tony Heller”.
***
Only someone who is mentally ill would create an entire webpage in a pathetic attempt to discredit Tony Heller. Especially a mentally-ill coward who lacks the guts to reveal his own identity.
You are no better. You are too stupid to read Heller/Goddard’s bio and see how impressive are his credentials. By posting such trash, you reveal yourself as an immature twit with a lack of awareness of the physical world around you.
Then again, I already knew that. I have seen your posts, which reveal you as someone lacking even a basic understanding of physics and a dependence on authority figures.
Your appeal to authority vis a vis Tony Heller is hilarious!
TM, a person doesn’t have to be “perfect” to recognize AGW is nonsense.
Do you have any “perfect” people that believe CO2 can “warm the planet”?
maguff…”Tony lives in the US and has a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology and a Masters of Electrical Engineering. He has worked as a teacher, a geologist and a computer engineer”.
***
You are so stupid you cannot differ between an appeal to authority and me referencing the work of Heller that you can disprove, if you can. However, you are the kind of dumbass who quotes someone, as in your quote above, without providing a link.
It was likely a link as ridiculous as your link to skepticalscience.
To claim Heller has worked as a teacher, a geologist, and a computer engineer is an intentional method of discrediting what he really did that qualifies him to discredit NOAA and GISS. He worked for Intel, designing the i7 processor. Part of his job was as a ‘go to’ guy who did quality control work heading off potentially costly mistakes in the templates for processor creation. He was given an award by IBM for his dedication.
Are you seriously so stupid, you cannot related the importance of that experience to his analysis of NOAA/GISS data? He nailed them making dishonest claims. He nailed the US EPA, showing one graphic that showed most critical warming in the US as happening during the 1930s then following with a graphic that showed the opposite.
The thing I get about you alarmists is how miserably stupid you are. You refuse to question your authority figures even though the evidence is presented to you. In your quote above, you reference an idiot who claims Heller made mistakes without explaining what those mistakes might be.
Such innuendo is good enough for you, which reveals you as an idiot.
“You are too stupid to read Heller/Goddards bio and see how impressive are his credentials.”
I am not sure I have read it. He seems to talk a lot and appears to have a large Blog, which I have posts 1/2 dozen times.
But I can’t say I follow it. As I have said, not really interested in the topic.
I have it bookmarked somewhere, https://realclimatescience.com/
and read his bio- if I can find it
” I hate cars and would love to see 90% of them off the road. I have been hit by cars several times riding my bicycle, and they foul the air with pollution.”
Hates cars.
Hmm.
I don’t like roads a lot.
Maybe bicycles should be taxed, to build bicycle paths.
But not keen bicycle paths or bicycles, either.
I like boats, but I don’t use them, nor do I use bikes.
I need a car.
I live in southern California.
But if we were build ocean settlements, bikes could be useful- also boats could fun. And there would be no cars [in the ocean- but you get to places where you could use cars. Or you could just fly places.]
“I dont like roads a lot.”
A lot easier to travel on than crossing fields.
If you cross fields you are basically making a road. Whether with a car or with a bike or everyone walks the same path- rather than destroying the entire field with herds of dumber than cow, people.
With Ocean settlement you make tunnels without digging thru the earth, with land you could make tunnels underground for vehicles, and let the non vehicles traffic have the surface. But this require an advanced civilization [or politicans which aren’t the same type politicans that we had for thousands of years].
Or roads are slightly improved fields, and ancient roman roads were better improved fields.
“If you cross fields you are basically making a road. ”
Well the fist few thousand are making the road.
rlh…”I dont accept your paranoia about NOAA. Individuals within it maybe, but not the organization”.
***
Then you lack objectivity. The evidence of their chicanery has been presented well by Tony Heller and E.M. Smith at chiefio.
Paranoia is an irrational fear. Point out where my arguments are irrational or based on an irrational fear.
For years, NOAA was run by Thomas Karl. Heller presented direct evidence of blatant lies fabricated by NOAA under his leadership. It’s not good enough for others at NOAA to claim they were just following orders. If they lacked the guts to stand up and oppose him, they deserve to be tarred with the same brush.
If you are a student of statistics, as you claim, then you should be able to follow and verify/disprove what Heller is claiming. Yet, I have presented you with links which you have obviously ignored.
If you refuse to consider such evidence from a scholar like Heller, you are no better than Binny with his appeal to authority.
“Then you lack objectivity.”
No. I am a realist. There are scientists both inside and outside NOAA that provide information that is quite valuable.
maguff…”You wrote 325 words purporting to explain remote sensing but not once did you mention the most important part: the weighting function”.
You excel at red-herring arguments.
I have explained the weighting function in recent posts and as far as I am concerned the phrase ‘weighting function’ is a misnomer. A function like y = f(x) relates a unique value of y for each value of x within a range. So we say that y is a function of x.
How can you say with a weighting function that a weight is a function of altitude? If that weight corresponded to an O2 radiation frequency, as it should, then we could say that the radiation frequency is a function of altitude.
It’s a fancy word for response curves. We use them in electronics to represent the response of amplifiers and filters. If you look at the response curves of an octave equalizer you will see the same kind of response curves as on the AMSU units per channel.
In electronics applications, we are plotting the gain of an amplifier or the attenuation of a filter against frequency. With weighting functions they seem to be plotting the signal strength of emitted O2 against altitude. The centre frequencies of the 15 channels in the AMSU receiver correspond to different altitudes in the atmosphere.
All the same, the weighting seems to be a relative level of signal strength at a particular O2 radiation frequency plotted against altitude. Why they used weights rather than actual frequency is a mystery to me since they admit the centre frequency of each weighting function (curve) corresponds to the centre frequency of one of 15 channel in the AMSU receiver.
I did not refer to them in my last post because they were not pertinent to the comment. I was trying to get through to Entropic that AMSU telemetry derives temperature from the colour temperature of oxygen in its gigahertz radiation band and somewhere along the line converts that to a temperature value at a particular altitude.
O2 emissions are received in various channels that are centred to a Ghz frequency. The weighting functions are response curves for each channel and they overlap each other, much as one would expect in an octave equalizer frequency response.
“and somewhere along the line converts that to a temperature value ”
Thank you, you make my point. Satellites so not measure temperature, they measure microwave radiance. A long chain of reasoning is then used to infer the temperature. Direct satellite measurement of temperature is a myth.
Still satellites are put up there and scientists use them to determine global air temperatures.
Their data is not made up and can be verified.
Gordon Robertson at 8:56 PM
How can you say with a weighting function that a weight is a function of altitude?
You clearly have no idea! It’s not my job to educate you or those of your ilk, suffice it to say:
Gordo wrote:
Wrong again, Gordo. The MSU/AMSU instruments measure the intensity of the received microwave energy at specific frequencies. The logic for using different frequency measurements is based on the physics of the O2 emission lines, which broaden as the pressure increases. These frequencies target different widths in those pressure broadened bands, which capture different ranges of pressure levels thru the atmosphere.
The “weighting function” is a theoretical model of the emission vs pressure height at a particular frequency which describes that incident energy at the satellite. The result is reported as “brightness temperature” and is a measure of bulk emissions. There’s no way to calculate the precise temperature at any specific pressure level from the total (bulk) radiance received by each channel of the MSU/AMSU.
But the satellite data has been verified by radiosonde measurements over a significant portion of the vertical temperature range.
RLH, AIUI, the comparison between radiosondes and the UAH results may not provide “verification”, as you claim. The balloon data is gathered at 0:00 and 12:00 GMT. The satellites make about 14 orbits a day, so, selecting orbits +/- one orbit from those times implies only data from 4 orbits a day could be included. The remaining 10 orbits would be outside the time of the balloon launches, therefore of little use. Furthermore, only those below those 4 orbits would be valid, as co-located stations, IMHO. There are very few balloon launches over the oceans, particularly in the SH, but also in the North Pacific.
Then too, the balloon data must be converted to simulated UAH product(s), particularly the LT. The math uses those weighting functions calculated from theory, which usually assume a standard profile of temperature vs. altitude, not adjusted for latitude or season.
Sure. And AIRs is also fabricated.
RLH, I don’t know about AIRS. The MSU/AMSU brightness temperature data isn’t “fabricated”, however that’s just the starting point for the processing which UAH or RSS apply to create the time series we all know and love. The processing is based on the theoretical emission profiles, such as those seen Here. You might begin by reading the paper in SCIENCE Which MCGUFFIN referenced below, plus the earlier references in that paper.
Sure. And you can make sense out of all that data in a way that no-one else can.
And come up with some different answer somehow.
E. Swanson at 8:08 AM
Yes, Gordon Robertson is a misinformed troll.
Why let facts get in the way of a good story.
maguff…”Heres a little remote sensing for dummies; pay attention:
As we [should] know, certain atmospheric constituents most notably CO2, water vapor, ozone, and oxygen are associated with strong a_b_s_o_r_p_t_i_o_n lines…”
****
Where did you dig up that alarmists crap, at realclimate? Sounds like one of the fairy tales from Pierrehumbert. The goof who wrote that crap has not the slightest idea how an AMSU unit works. Or, Gavin Schmidt, who screwed up the explanation of positive feedback.
AMSU sounders have nothing…repeat, nothing…to with CO2. Only an idiot alarmist would try, in a pathetic attempt, to sneak a trace gas into the equation. Or to explain remote sensing with a meaningless equation he obviously pulled out of a hat,
And the mass density has nothing to do with them either. Density is a human invention based on water, which was given a density (weight/unit volume) of 1. The amount of O2 at a certain altitude is related to the number of molecules per unit volume (aka pressure) and that is determined by gravitational force.
I might add, however, that mass density has a lot to do with the proof via the Ideal Gas Equation, that CO2, at a mass percent of 0.04%, can warm the atmosphere no more than about 0.04C per 1C warming.
Ask yourself, dumbass, why CO2 is not used as a temperature indicator in the atmosphere?
Just dig up any old US Air Force publication on remote sensing and have a read you asshat>
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Credibility on climate change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBrN65R1D7E
Still no response from a single climate crackpot as to how the Earth cooled to its present temperature from the molten state.
Easy to see why. If they accept reality, their GHE nonsense is demonstrated to be completely irrelevant.
Maybe one of the 97% consensus might like to have a go?
Fat chance. Fantasy does not trump fact!
[chortle]
As the rate of cooling is so slow, it is very, very difficult to determine it unless we are dealing in millennia.
First you would need to show the earth ever was in a molten state.
We have a molten core. Pressure does that.
“Much of the Earth was molten because of frequent collisions with other bodies which led to extreme volcanism. While the Earth was in its earliest stage (Early Earth), a giant impact collision with a planet-sized body named Theia is thought to have formed the Moon.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth
“Fantasy does not trump fact!”
Surely you mean “Trump’s fantasy: don’t do facts”
No, nitwit.I meant what I said. Try all the idiotic attempts to avoid facing reality you like, it won’t change anything.
As I said, not a single relevant response from any climate crank – yours is a good example.
Geez – you are one hell of a cranky guy. Don’t you ever let up with the whingeing and whining? Can’t you enjoy something witty once in a while?
‘Cranky’ aka ‘not suffering fools and trulls gladly’
Suffering trulls? Sounds painful.
Definition of trull
: PROSTITUTE, STRUMPET
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trull
And now the medians
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-medians-dinosaur.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-medians-everglades.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-medians-fairbanks.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-medians-hilo.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-medians-kenai.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-medians-redding.jpeg
For means see https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-758675
Forgot Tucson medians
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-medians-tucson.jpeg
Swenson says:
July 17, 2021 at 11:46 PM
TM,
Hmmmm. “In principle . . . “, “first guess . . .”, “. . . could be repeated . . . “, “model calculations”.
You really are a gullible little sausage, aren’t you?
Guesses piled on assumptions. Typical climate crackpottery masquerading as science. Somehow, the Earth managed to cool from a molten state. You can’t explain why without looking like a complete idiot, can you?
Again you utter the quintessential layman’s lament!
FYI:
TM,
You are a dimwitted, gullible fool.
Climate crackpots can’t even say where this “GHE” may be observed, let alone formulate a testable hypothesis!
Your comment is not even a good attempt at avoiding reality.
Try explaining how the Earth managed to cool from the molten state to its present temperature, without looking like a laughing stock!
I suppose you could always ask that faker, fraudster, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann, or the self proclaimed “climate scientist”, Gavin Schmidt! How about the imaginary 97% consensus? Maybe a journalist?
Or you could attempt appearing intelligent, hoping people even more dimwitted and gullible than yourself might believe your magical pseudoscientific nonsense!
In the meantime, try explaining how the Earth cooled to its present temperature, if you want to try for credibility.
Mike – we can all see you are recycling your old comments. Cutting and pasting is just downright plain lazy. Try and say something new once in a while.
DMT,
You could always try to avoid answering a simple question.
That’s what climate cranks do.
Here it is again, in case you are going to claim that you missed it –
How did the Earth cool to its present temperature?
Now is your chance to employ more evasionary tactics. Go for it!
Roy answered your question directly 4 or 5 years ago Mike.
G,
Don’t be stupid. Why would anybody believe someone like you who can’t even figure out the difference between 4 and 5. Vague obscure appeals to authority won’t help you, I’m afraid.
You really don’t know anything about reality, do you?
Over how many millennia?
RLH,
Since the Earth’s surface was molten, say. Who cares how many millenia that was? Unless you are a climate crank trying to muddy the waters, I suppose.
The Earth was hotter in the past. It has cooled to its present temperature. Some nutters just point blank refuse to accept reality.
Even these dimwits run round trumpeting that the Sun cannot support an Earth temperature of more than 255 K, or so! Duh!
Still a way to go, it looks like.
The Earth also had no Oxygen for a while
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_oxygen
> Roy answered your question directly 4 or 5 years ago Mike [Flynn].
Where?
The Earth was quite a bit cooler 20,000 y ago. I think 20,000 y ago qualifies as the past. It has warmed to its present temperature. Some deniers just point blank refuse to accept this reality.
Exactly Nate.
The temperature has increased by about 10 degrees since the ice age. The problem for poor old Swenson is how to explain this significant warming?
RLH
” I applied a data vet of more than 12 hours worth of hours data in any one day. Quite a reasonable restriction would you not say?
Are you suggesting that my machine cannot count correctly? ”
Why should I suggest such nonsense?
*
On July, 9 of this year I downloaded METEOSTAT’s metadata file ‘stations.json’.
This file contains 14,542 entries, and thus there are 14,542 occurrences of the ‘hourly’ keyword.
But searching for patterns over several lines gives things like this
“hourly”: { “start”: “1931-01-03”, “end”: “2021-07-08” }
as in the entry for the station with the id “01010”,
or like this
“hourly”: { “start”: null, “end”: null }
as in the entry for the station with the id “01051”.
I thought it would be reasonable to assume that such stations do not have hourly data.
There are 3,990 such stations in the metadata file.
Thus, there are 10,552 stations with hourly data in the METEOSTAT data set.
J.-P. D.
I used C# and the lines
Client.DownloadFile(MetostatFile, LocalFile);
Decompress(new FileInfo(LocalFile));
to create the local files from the uris that Metostat provides in the https://bulk.meteostat.net/v2/stations/full.json.gz in the hourly, daily and monthly subsections.
It created the number of files I mentioned.
I have no reason to believe that it is wrong or that it somehow downloaded erroneous files.
Hourly: 13,237 Files
Daily: 13,364 Files
Monthly: 11,675 Files
Perhaps you missed some.
Any observations on https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-759611 which shows quite clearly that medians are closer to the average temperatures for any day than the ‘mean’s are for the same day?
It may well be the difference between …/obs/… and …/full/… that explains the differences in file count.
OK. So now I have downloaded the data for both the /full/ and /obs/ branches from Metostat.
Obs
Hourly – 10,764 files
Daily – 13,499 files
Monthly – 11,726 files
Full
Hurly – 13,237
Daily – 13,364
Monthly – 11,675
Sorry. Read Meteostat for Metostat throughout my posting to data.
Aplologies for missing the e. The basic start point should be https://meteostat.net/ for casual use and https://bulk.meteostat.net/v2/stations/full.json.gz for bulk data downloads
Full data dumps, including model data as substitute, are available here: https://bulk.meteostat.net/v2/hourly/full/{station}.csv.gz
If you only want real observation data, please use the following endpoint instead: https://bulk.meteostat.net/v2/hourly/obs/{station}.csv.gz
Please replace {station} with the ID of a weather station.
See also
https://bulk.meteostat.net/v2/daily/full/{station}.csv.gz
https://bulk.meteostat.net/v2/daily/obs/{station}.csv.gz
https://bulk.meteostat.net/v2/monthly/full/{station}.csv.gz
https://bulk.meteostat.net/v2/monthly/obs/{station}.csv.gz
“shows quite clearly that medians are closer to the average temperatures for any day than the means are for the same day?”
How are Median and ‘mean’ calculated?
Is one calculated with 2 points and the other with ALL points?
The apples and oranges comparison. Calculate both with the same data, else Pointless!
Medians are calculated using the average for each hour. ‘Mean’s are calculated by USCRN from the same data over a day. Are you suggesting that they somehow got their calculations wrong?
All of USCRN data is driven from 5 second sampling and lumped together from that. That includes, min, max, ‘mean’ and average. It is quite accurate.
I suppose I could make that the sub-hourly (5 minute) sampling for Medians but results suggest that it does not alter the picture seen with hourly data that much.
The ‘mean’ and average reported each day in their daily output by USCRN is derived from that sub-hourly data.
“USCRN stations are equipped with three independent thermometers which measure air temperature in degrees Celsius. The station’s datalogger computes independent 5-minute averages using two-second readings from each thermometer. These multiple measurements are then used to derive the station’s official hourly temperature value.”
Make that 2 seconds rather than 5.
“The apples and oranges comparison. Calculate both with the same data, else Pointless!”
It is the same data. Just accumulated into 5 second, hourly or daily reports. Desperate or what?
…5 minute, hourly or daily reports from the 2 second samplings.
“The mean and average reported each day in their daily output by USCRN is derived from that sub-hourly data.”
You are not specifying what average means and ‘mean’ means.
How do I look at your raw data?
From NWS
“The average temperature for the day, computed by finding the average of the values in columns 2 and 3, then rounding (if necessary). Example; 55.5 rounds up to 56, 55.4 rounds down to 55 degrees.”
Col 2 and 3 are Tmin and T max.
“Medians are calculated using the average for each hour. Means are calculated by USCRN from the same data over a day. Are you suggesting that they somehow got their calculations wrong?”
This makes no sense. Both mean and median are types of averages.
How can median be closer to the average which is likely a mean?
Accurate data for global air temperatures does not exist before 1979 or so.
The time since then has not been long enough for anyone to actually measure what is ‘normal’ for global air temperature not its natural range and periodicity.
RLH, The limitations or the temperature data is the reason that researchers have also sought other indicators of climate change, such as the reduction in summer sea-ice extent and ocean heat content. Would you propose ignoring what data is available and continuing business-as-usual in hopes that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won’t be a big problem?
Why is it that most, if not all, proxies are so bad in measuring global temperatures?
RLH, That’s because they don’t directly measure temperature, thus they are termed “proxy” temperatures. Also, proxies typically provide averages over some time period.
So, why did you ignore my question? Given all the scientific evidence, would you ignore the sum and continue on as if there’s no problem in future?
Why would you ignore the fact that there is insufficient long term accurate global air temperature data?
Got any thoughts on why it appears that (Tmin+Tmax)/2 is in error so much and that the majority of historic global air temperature data is collected using that methodology?
Means
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-758675
Medians
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-759611
RLH you are obfuscating. This has nothing to do with Mean vs. Media. It has to do with using ALL the data or using only two points.
If we have access to only Tmax and Tmin, which is all we have in most cases, then it makes no difference whether you use Mean or Median. They give the same answer!
“The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Metrorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”
From The Cooling World, Newsweek, April 28, 1975
46 years ago is such a long time.
pups regurgitates an old piece, cherry picking a one sided view, as is SOP for denialist. HERE’s an UPDATE.
LOL, an own goal! That article shows a graph of temperatures with a long term warming trend of about +0.7 deg per 100 years.
If that is the best you denialists can come up with it is time to give up. (But I won’t hold my breath)
RLH, Swanson, and sb, the 3 of you together can’t come up with enough science to even fake it!
So, stalking fits you perfectly….
You can’t even come up with enough science and logic to convince anyone other than your own small clique, who are all the scientific equivalent of flat earthers.
RLH, you have a very short term memory, and a perverted view of reality.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-742926
But, you’re a GREAT stalker.
I have quite a good memory, thank you. It say that none of your arguments convince anyone other than your little clique
Here’s the thing – at a supposed “warming” of 0.1 C per decade, the supposed “global temperature” will exceed boiling point within 10,000 years.
This would seem to fly in the face of known physics, given that the Sun was unable to prevent the temperature falling to its present 288 K or so, in the past.
The GHE cannot be observed anywhere by anyone. It cannot even be described in clear, unambiguous, scientific terms!
Pseudoscience at its finest!
Now the blame game, and you guessed it , global warming did it to us, now you see – if we only had more solar panels . . . .
https://bit.ly/3iquLfI
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Source: Aljazeera
Hmmm. So Roy’s parser does not like the paragraph starting with:
Let’s test further:
Could be C-D-C.
On the other hand, a 2020 study (peer reviewed and all) showed –
“But cold temperatures are responsible for almost all temperature-related deaths, according to a new study.”
Wily Wee Willy is an abject failure at pushing AGW propaganda. Getting hotter, is it? Due to process not involving Nature, it seems. The Earth managed to cool to around 288 K all by itself. Whacky Wee Willy might not like facts, but there you are!
What about it Wee Willy? Managed to accept reality yet?
Mike Flynn,
One day you’ll provide links for your diversions.
Enjoy your afternoon!
Elusive Wee Willy,
One day you’ll accept reality – and learn to search the internet.
How did the Earth manage to cool? Can’t find a link?
You’re an idiot of the climate crank variety. Keep avoiding. The exercise might do you good!
Mike Flynn,
No link, no cookie.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
maguff…”Just dig up any old US Air Force publication on remote sensing…”
***
Or you could have a career in electronics, after studying electrical engineering at university, involving high frequency communications theory, and use that to understand the telemetry.
Any idiot with a high school education, if that, could look up an Air Force publication, and present a theory that makes no sense whatsoever.
The Air Force tends to dumb down electronics theory but obviously not dumb enough for you to understand.
Gordon Robertson at 1:10 AM
If what I wrote here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-759324 “makes no sense whatsoever” to you then your “education” is lacking.
TM,
And anyone should take notice of your opinion because . . . ?
You are an idiot, but at least you are patronising and condescending.
A typical climate crackpot?
Carry on.
Are you off your meds again?
Gordon Robertson at 1:10 AM
Congratulations on all your “education;” you’ve cheated the system; unfortunately though, the system has cheated you.
Based on your meager understanding of all things relating to remote sensing, I’m convinced that you could have gotten a much better education for ~$ 1.50 in overdue fines from the public library, had you been studying those unclassified Air Force reports.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
maguff…”The earth-viewing measurements are then calculated as a
brightness temperature (Tb)
The term brightness temperature acknowledges that the temperature measurement is actually based upon radiative brightness and is only equal to a thermometric temperature
when the emitting body is completely black (nonreflective)”.
***
I have stated before that I am Roy’s guest on this blog and I have no intention of being dragged into disputing what he states, especially by an idiot cherry-picking excerp.ts from his work.
Brightness temperature is based on the EM frequencies a heated body would give off when it is heated to a temperature high enough to make it glow various colours. That’s how Stefan found the T^4 relationship between an electrically-heated filament wire and the intensity of radiation given off by it.
Tyndall did the original experiment, noting the temperatures at which varies colours appeared. Someone else converted the colours given off to EM frequencies. Stefan used the data to confirm the T^4 relationship. The colours noted by Tyndall corresponded to the temperature of the electrically heated filament wire. That’s called colour temperature.
Roy is right because bodies in that temperature range are regarded as black bodies, based on the broad spectrum of EM frequencies they give off.
Oxygen does not emit in the EM colour spectrum, therefore it emits no colour. That does not mean the colour temperature scale cannot be interpolated from the part of the scale that does emit EM in colours.
If that was not the case then IR detectors could not work ans the Stefan-Boltzmann equation would not hold in the IR band. IR detectors detect colour temperature in the IR band, but not heat. The IR they detect does not come from black bodies but some scientists are smart enough to work out actual temperatures from the non-colour emitters, by using data from the emitters that do emit colour.
part 2…
What you fail to grasp is that heat measurement is based on relative levels of heat. There is no definite heat level, the relative levels were defined using the boiling point and freezing point of water as set points.
All this nonsense about temperature not being able to be stated as a voltage belies an understanding of temperature as a relative measure of heat. Temperature is a definition, not a real, physical phenomenon like heat. Temperature is a measure of relative heat levels developed by humans.
As such, any means of telemetry that gives an output corresponding with the Celsius scale is valid. If you immerse an electronic detector that outputs 0 Volts in water at the freezing point and 100 volts at the boiling point, then that range of 0v to 100v accurately represents the temperature from 0C to 100C.
The determination of atmospheric temperature by measuring the colour brightness level of O2 is as valid as any other means of measuring relative heat levels. May require sophisticated telemetry and algorithms to acquire it, but it can be done and is done.
Furthermore, it has been confirmed by comparing it to radiosonde data. Alarmist go after AAH with every kind of propaganda about how inaccurate their data sets are. However, the same data is used in weather forecasting and it is readily accep.ted as being accurate.
Alarmists are clowns that are not funny.
correction…
“Alarmist go after AAH…”
…should read…”Alarmist go after UAH…”
But RSS and AIRs are OK. Even though they basically show the same things.
RLH, BTW, in addition to the UAH LT and the RSS TLT, don’t forget the NOAA STAR products and the U. Washington TTT which RSS provides on their web page. Do tell us which is a better indicator of climate change and why you made your selection.
UAH and RSS agree pretty well since about
2007 and over the period 1979-99. They are divergent over the the period 1999-2007 or so which suggests differences in the way the two analysis handle orbital decay, particularly that of the
NOAA-14 satellite.
“Do tell us which is a better indicator of climate change”
I use data from all sources (see my blog) and am prepared to assume that they all measure lightly different aspects of the same thing.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8
Shows where the differences are. They are pretty well aligned until about 2003 or so. Suggestions that difference after that time is due to poor satellite choice is not supported by Roy’s analysis of the various options.
“measure lightly different aspects”
measure slightly different aspects
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:0.25/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8
If you want the differences more clearly laid out.
Or
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:0.45/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8
Sorry Mark, I hadn’t seen you had basically done the same observations with woodfortrees.
See also http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/
RLH says: Suggestions that difference after that time is due to poor satellite choice is not supported by Roy’s analysis of the various options.
I didn’t say “poor satellite choice”, I said “different” treatment. See “Final Comments” section of Spencer’s blog post here:
Second try:
“Comments on the New RSS Lower Tropospheric Temperature Dataset
July 6th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.”
There is clear drift in the difference between the new NOAA-15 AMSU and the old NOAA-14 MSU, with NOAA-14 warming relative to NOAA-15. We assume that NOAA-14 is to blame, and remove its trend difference with NOAA-15 (we only use it through 2001) and also adjust NOAA-14 to match NOAA-12 (early in the NOAA-14 record). RSS does not assume one satellite is better than the other, and uses NOAA-14 all the way through 2004, by which point it shows a large trend difference with NOAA-15 AMSU. We believe this is a large component of the overall trend difference between UAH and RSS, but we arent sure just how much compared to the diurnal drift adjustment differences.
Mark B: I stand by my observation that the date range in question is 2003 to 2006. Roy’s explanation is that RSS failed to track the orbital changes of NOAA-14 during that time.
“Despite the most obvious explanation that the NOAA-14 MSU was no longer usable, RSS, NOAA, and UW continue to use all of the NOAA-14 data through its entire lifetime and treat it as just as accurate as NOAA-15 AMSU data. “
As you also showed here
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:0.22/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:0.45/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8
What Mark B means with
” UAH and RSS agree pretty well since about 2007 and over the period 1979-99. ”
I can agree to, because the similarity in the beginning period is better shown when plotting UAH displaced by its anomaly mean for 1979-1998, which is indeed -0.22
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:12/offset:0.22/plot/rss/mean:12
than by plotting RSS displaced by its anomaly mean for 1991-2020, which is +0.35
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/offset:-0.35
*
How that looks like when comparing monthly stuff you see here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V4GBOpFHMwl_2OAS_KJbJQ4okVdLnXMb/view
*
I recall many discrediting made on this blog against me when displacing plots in WFT by the mean of some reference period.
” You cannot change GISS anomalies wrt 1951-1980 to anomalies wrt 1981-2010! That’s PLAIN wrong!”
Here is a graph comparing, for UAH6.0 LT
– the monthly time series obtained by generating anomalies wrt the monthly means over 1979-1998 out of UAH’s reconstructed absolute grid data
with
– the monthly time series obtained by displacing UAH’s own monthly time series wrt 1991-2020 by the anomaly mean over 1979-1998:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q0DxE8jVIEgiPw8_njP69gGbDbGAb87w/view
Apart from tiny bits of blue here and there, the difference is imperceptible.
J.-P. D.
Well you tell me what the date range that UAH and RSS differ over is them if not as shown by him and me at woodfortrees. I make it to be 2003 to 2006. I could make that 2000 to 2006 if you like.
RLH, How about comparing UAH 5.6 vs RSS? Where’s your break point in this graph?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:0.2/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8
Why would I do that? The latest UAH is Ver 6.0
Do you somehow believe that switching to V6.0 is not valid? Have you told Roy? Do you think he might have had some reasoning behind it and posted it here before to show just that reasoning?
Where is your critique of it and what is Roy’s response?
Like at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
2015!
RLH wrote:
UAH v6 is a much different animal than 5.6 and previous. For starters, they use 3 channels, instead of just one. As I pointed out in my JTECH paper, there was a glich in the LS data at around 1986, long before the AMSU introduction. A similar glitch was also noted by Po-Chedley and Fu (2012a), in case you think I’m the only one to notice. There are other references in my paper, if you only took the time to read them. I can’t do your homework.
For the TMT, there’s another divergence at around 2004, which you also found. Not to forget that the TP product from UAH goes all the way back to 1979, else it could not be used to calculate the LT. Back in 1992, Spencer and Christy presented their new analysis in part due to the fact that the TP in early years experienced many problems. RSS also has a product from MSU channel 3, but they exclude those early years, starting their time series in 1987. I have no clue what Spencer and Christy did to clean up the earlier data in order to produce a complete time TP series. Why don’t YOU ask Roy?
“UAH v6 is a much different animal than 5.6 and previous.”
And better for it.
RLH claims that UAH 6 is better than UAH 5.6. By what metric do you use to reach this conclusion? Hearsay is not allowed as evidence.
Because over the last 5 years or so no-one has proven Roy or John incorrect in their update, Have you?
RLH, What do you think about this finding:
Satellites May Have Underestimated Global Warming in the Lower Atmosphere Over the Last 40 Years
This is the paper:Using Climate Model Simulations to Constrain Observations,
Benjamin D. Santer, Stephen Po-Chedley, Carl Mears and others…
Models can be tweaked to prove anything. Real actual measurements are a bit harder.
The top 4 temperature series agree quite well together. UAH, RSS, GISS and Had4 as I have shown elsewhere below.
All show that global air temperatures have been falling for the last 6 months at the same time as people have been claiming that ‘Global Warming’ has been causing floods, heatwaves, etc.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset:0.45/from:2011/plot/rss/from:2011/plot/gistemp/from:2011/offset:-0.25/plot/had crut4gl/from:2011/offset
(Remove the space)_
“The top 4 temperature series agree quite well together. UAH, RSS, GISS and Had4 as I have shown elsewhere below”
RSS-LT 0.215
HAD-KRG 0.191
GISS 0.188
BE 0.193
UAH-LT 0.135
1978.9-present
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
“All show that global air temperatures have been falling for the last 6 months at the same time as people have been claiming that Global Warming has been causing floods, heatwaves, etc.”
So you are implying that the 0.1 C noise above and below the 50 y trendline (in eg GISS) ought to be consequential?
Gordon Robertson at 1:51 AM
You’ve already lost the thread of the argument, how pathetic!
To recap:
TM ,
What are you blathering about?
Are you being pointless and obscure just for the hell of it, or are you rambling for a reason?
What is the point of your strange comment?
July 7, 2021 at 8:14 PM
A day where Mike Flynn JAQs off is a joyful day!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson has gone to great lengths to defend the accuracy of the UAH dataset.
No doubt be also accepts the UAH measurement that the global average temperature is increasing by 0.14C/decade.
EM,
And some people would no doubt believe that 0.14 C per decade (1.4 C per century and 14 C per millennium) will haven the oceans boiled away in less than 10,000 years!
Go on, tell me that you believe that this is what will happen! Be prepared to support your assertion with physics.
I’m waiting – and so are others, no doubt!
[ laughter ]
“The associated period of massive carbon release into the atmosphere has been estimated to have lasted from 20,000 to 50,000 years. The entire warm period lasted for about 200,000 years. Global temperatures increased by 58C.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PaleoceneEocene_Thermal_Maximum
5-8C
God I hate Roy’s parser.
To avoid this, simply put your stuff here in the top window of
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
and paste its result below.
J.-P. D.
Useful. Thanks.
Good trick! I prefer to type HTML by hand.
But I still forget to replace the dashes.
Silly Swenson builds a straw man called exponential growth.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExponentialGrowth.html
The rest of us expect temperature growth to be sigmoidal.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/SigmoidFunction.html
Is that what science does, expects and predicts?
There is not much difference between real science and Dragon science. The only difference is that Dragons don’t really exist. They have no scientific bench.
Think of it as a reductio ad absurdam argument.
In the near future which is more likely?
Will the temperature continue to increase at 0.14C/decade until the seas boil or will it level off before then?
Willard, please stop trolling.
RLH
I still await your results for the differences between
– 24h average – (TMIN + TMAX) /2
and
– 24h average – median
for averages over Alaska
https://tinyurl.com/hx653arv
and the whole US
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p76BwJXvwNOZ78SsnY2KUsiAbc6ETw7a/view
Somewhere you posted a link to your time series for AK_Kenai_29_ENE, but it is totally indistinct compared with my graph:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g3DRhowNPzXcpIzG4pKvGENoCtICmkHb/view
Please manage to use thin line plots in your graphs, together with 365 day running means. These teenager dot plots are simply useless, as well as your fantastic filter output.
What I miss as well is your upload of your daily data for AK_Kenai_29_ENE, as I did from my side:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n7_8GuGLkPc62MmdFNv1bV6mk8-GQUxh/view
Last not least: where are your simple statistics explaining all the spatial and temporal differences in these three USCRN graphs above?
– What is your explanation for all blue plots peaking where the red plots drop, and vice-versa?
– What is your explanation for the average difference between blue and red plots shown by the running means (and, of course, visible in the spread sheet data)?
*
I generated, for for all USCRN stations, the mean value of their daily difference between (TMIN + TMAX) /2 and the median.
That this value is positive in nearly all cases is evident.
But that here isn’t.
Top 20 of the descending sort:
CA_Fallbrook_5_NE: 3.0
CO_Stratton_24_N: 2.5
KS_Oakley_19_SSW: 2.4
OK_Goodwell_2_E: 2.4
OK_Goodwell_2_SE: 2.4
CO_Akron_A_4_E: 2.4
CO_Eads_16_ENE: 2.3
CO_La_Junta_17_WSW: 2.2
CO_Springfield_6_WSW: 2.2
TX_Muleshoe_19_S: 2.2
CO_Rocky_Ford_1_ESE: 2.2
CO_Genoa_35_N: 2.1
NM_Clayton_3_ENE: 2.1
NE_Whitman_5_ENE: 2.0
NM_Clovis_7_N: 2.0
CO_Eagle_13_SSE: 2.0
LA_Monroe_26_N: 1.9
NM_Raton_26_ESE: 1.9
AL_Scottsboro_2_NE: 1.9
CA_Redding_12_WNW: 1.9
Top 20 of the ascending sort:
AZ_Ajo_29_S: -0.2
SA_Tiksi_4_SSE: -0.1
AK_Utqiagvik_formerly_Barrow_4_ENE: -0.1
AK_Tok_70_SE: 0.0
AZ_Yuma_27_ENE: 0.1
AK_Kenai_29_ENE: 0.1
AK_Ruby_44_ESE: 0.1
AK_St._Paul_4_NE: 0.2
AK_Ivotuk_1_NNE: 0.2
AK_Port_Alsworth_1_SW: 0.3
AK_Red_Dog_Mine_3_SSW: 0.3
AK_Toolik_Lake_5_ENE: 0.4
AK_Selawik_28_E: 0.4
AK_King_Salmon_42_SE: 0.4
AK_Gustavus_2_NE: 0.4
AZ_Tucson_11_W: 0.4
AK_Bethel_87_WNW: 0.4
AK_Metlakatla_6_S: 0.4
AK_Aleknagik_1_NNE: 0.4
AK_Glennallen_64_N: 0.5
16 of 23 AK stations at the bottom, 8 of 23 CO at top. Hmmmh.
I’m sure you will find an explanation fitting best to your narrative.
*
At least one could get rid of these temporal discrepancies by generating the same data as departures from a common mean with removal of seasonal dependencies (or, as Roy Spencer prefers to say, the annual cycle).
But how you want to normalize CA_Fallbrook_5_NE and so on with AZ_Ajo_29_S and so on: that will be interesting.
I posted the differences between the true average and the ‘Mean’ and the median for a load of USCRN stations. They are on my blog, https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/ if you cannot find the refs on here.
Only the differences matters as that is all I claimed in the first place. That the Median was closer to the ‘truth’ than the ‘mean’ was. Not a great surprise as statistics says it will be so.
Those graphs prove it.
They also show something else of interest.
The actual values for the ‘mean’ and the median are site specific relative to the true average. That was unexpected and is worth looking further into. What other characteristic that drives that difference? Altitude, distance to the Ocean, Latitude, Rainfall? What?
“I generated, for for all USCRN stations, the mean value of their daily difference between (TMIN + TMAX) /2 and the median.”
That is a useless statistic that tells nothing. It is the difference between those 2 variables and the true Average that matters. Not the distance between them. Do you understand nothing about what you do?
RLH
” It is the difference between those 2 variables and the true Average that matters. ”
Are you able to read graphs?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p76BwJXvwNOZ78SsnY2KUsiAbc6ETw7a/view
*
Btw, here is the same graph for the station OK_Goodwell_2_E:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/167hCpD4V2so2E-Td2GRUiwHVydL1Fo_4/view
And that you want to compare with AK_Kenai_29_ENE ???
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g3DRhowNPzXcpIzG4pKvGENoCtICmkHb/view
The stat I produced is, for all stations, the mean of the daily differences between
– 24h average – (TMIN + TMAX) /2 (blue)
and
– 24h average – median (red).
And to know that, for each station, RLH, matters very well: because it gives you an immediate feeling of how the two differences vary from station to station, without having to produce a graph for each of the 234 stations!
Are you so stubborn?
*
I have seen your teenie graphs. Completely useless.
What I expect:
– graphs with the two difference plots superposed, like I did
– not only for single stations, but for the entire US as well
– readable graphs with data plotted as thin lines
– your data output for AK_Kenai_29_ENE, in the same format as in the PDF file I uploaded.
If you don’t do that, I stop communicating. That makes no sense anymore.
*
What I suspect is that you use this median idea only because the daily median temperature is, here and there, on average lower than than the TMAX/TMIN (not in Germany, for example).
And with that “idea” you try to discredit all surface temperature time series! Ha ha.
If the median was on average just a tiny bit higher than the classical method, you wouldn’t even mention it.
Maybe you become a bit less pretentious, RLH, have a look at the graph below
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OhsNLiPz9Rs87SCaxcEv2TE8pONmHSbc/view
and start reasoning instead of robertsoning.
J.-P. D.
“Maybe you become a bit less pretentious”
Maybe you want to be a little bit less arrogant.
“If you dont do that, I stop communicating”
Good.
The data shows I was correct.
Goodwell station ‘mean’s
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-diffs-goodwell.jpeg
Goodwell station Medians
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-medians-goodwell.jpeg
Why do you use the dishonest trick on putting lines between the data points. You have no knowledge of if the data follows those lines or not. Putting just the points is a more statistical way of doing things.
You want bigger ones? I can alter that with a few key strokes. What sizes would you prefer?
As you have no method for determining if the mean is above or below the true average on a station by station basis, then lumping them all together makes a large presumption that it is indeed a valid treatment. I prefer to work that out rather than make assumptions.
“But how you want to normalize CA_Fallbrook_5_NE and so on with AZ_Ajo_29_S and so on: that will be interesting.”
2 approaches come to mind.
1. Average out all the measurement in average at a station over the whole time period from when it started to now and remove that from the data. That makes the data self leveling.
2. Take a 12 month Gaussian filter and remove the annual cycle that way.
Kenai ‘means’ are here
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-diffs-kenai.jpeg
Kenai Medians are here
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-medians-kenai.jpeg
Notice that the Medians are closer to zero than the ‘Mean’s, therefore are more ‘accurate’.
Goodwell ‘mean’s are here
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-diffs-goodwell.jpeg
and Goodwell Medians are here
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-medians-goodwell.jpeg
“I generated, for for all USCRN stations, the mean value of their daily difference between (TMIN + TMAX) /2 and the median.”
Why?
An example of a faster rotating planet which is a warmer planet is Earth vs Moon.
Moon, because of the lower Albedo (a=0,11) than Earth’s Albedo (a=0,306), Moon receives 28% more solar energy than Earth…
Nevertheless, Moon is considered a much colder planet than Earth.
Moon’s rotational spin is 29,5 times slower than Earth’s.
And Moon’s average surface specific heat is 0,19 times of that of Earth’s. Moon has almost five times lower average surface specific heat than Earth.
Because Moon’s surface consists of lunar regolith (soil), and Earth’s surface consists of water (ocean).
Both those physics data (the rotational spin and the average surface specific heat) are measured evidence.
What we did here is to compare two celestial bodies’ the average surface temperatures… The method we use is the “Planet Surface Temperatures Comparison Method”.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Very interesting CV.
But remember, Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. Moon’s exposure to Sun (diurnal period) is determined by its orbital motion. Always be careful to distinguish between “rotating” (“spinning”) and “revolving” (“orbiting”). So the correct wording is:
Moon’s diurnal period is 29.5 times slower than Earth’s.
Both those physics data (the diurnal period and the average surface specific heat) are measured evidence.
Also, you should use the non-European standards for decimal points and “000” seperation. Such as 10.5 instead of the European 10.5, and 1,000,000 instead of 1.000.000.
Other than that, your English is amazing. You make others here that are not English-speaking by birth look uneducated. Did you ever live in an English-speaking country?
Another typo!
Should be Such as 10.5 instead of the European 10,5…”
Thank you Clint.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Clint
“Moons diurnal period is 29.5 times slower than Earths.”
Yes, thank you, that is the correct wording.
In my theoretical calculations of Earth and Moon mean surface temperature I actually use Earth’s and Moon’s diurnal period.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It is amazing to see that the same commenter, while agreeing with Robertson and his gullible followers about the alleged inability of the Moon to rotate, nonetheless manages to write in his most recent comment:
” Both those physics data (the rotational spin and the average surface specific heat) are measured evidence. ”
and inevitably gets a little ‘lesson’ from the usual ideologue.
Wonderful world!
J.-P. D.
binny…” Both those physics data (the rotational spin and the average surface specific heat) are measured evidence. ”
***
Did not write that, your comprehension is diminishing.
Read again the sentence starting with “It is amazing to see that the same commenter,” Gordon.
This time more slowly.
Robertson never reads; he merely scans texts for presence of what he dislikes or absence of what he likes.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon is just jealous that CV has a much better grasp of English than he.
Bindidon is so far behind, he would be better named “Behindon:.
Excellent post, Clint R.
Yes, it quite succinctly refuted your lame nonsense.
In all modesty, that’s easy to do….
In Other Global Cooling News:
https://tinyurl.com/vpp2r668
willard…”…it is virtually certain that 2021 will be a top 10 year…”.
You dimwit, you are quoting known, fudged NOAA surface data.
These same clowns declared 2014 the hottest year ever based on a ‘likelihood’ of 48%. What kind of climate scientists work with likelihoods? And why would a valid scientist stoop to using a likelihood as low as 48%? Might as well toss a coin and I would not put it past them to do exactly that.
In your quote, they claimed a 1% chance it will be the warmest. Are they operating out of Las Vegas these days? I can see the head of NOAA operating a craps table, wearing a visor, and taking bets.
Alarmist cheaters and con men.
Gordon,
Do you have a point?
Gordon,
You keep saying stuff about the NOAA.
Where’s your evidence?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here’s a graphic of the last 10 years of annual GISS LOTI anomaly evolution showing 2021 running in 7th place through June which is probably about where it will wind up.
GISS_LOTI_Annual_Cummulative_Anomaly.png
NOAA
2021 “This graphic compares the year-to-date temperature anomalies for 2021 (black line) to what were ultimately the ten warmest years on record: 2016 (1st), 2020 (2nd), 2019 (3rd), 2015 (4th), 2017 (5th), 2018 (6th), 2014 (7th), 2010 (8th), 2013 (9th), and 2005 (10th).
.
I presume this means if it 2021 is lower than 2005 it will not be in the 10 warmest years on record.
Currently running in 7th place?
–
The NOAA prediction is based on average past monthly anomalies, not the trend.
The trend is currently downward sharply so will produce larger negative anomalies than what NOAA is using.
–
Consequently a much higher chance of a finish outside the top 10 than 1%.
Currently I would predict a 25% chance
Looks like it will be another above average snow year for Greenland.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20210718.png
They’re going to have to melt some of that snow soon before the island tips over….
Please explain why you think that a warmer Arctic climate climate would have less snow.
entropic…”Please explain why you think that a warmer Arctic climate climate would have less snow”.
When it warms from -50C on average, to -45C on average, there’s no reason for snow. In the summer, it doesn’t snow anyway.
However, no one has proved the Arctic is warming in winter. There is little or no solar input for a good portion of the winter in the Arctic, and even if the fairy tale about CO2 warming the Arctic was true, it cannot warm without solar input.
The AGW propaganda is clear that GHGs are warmed by IR from the surface, and if the surface is well below 0C, any IR emitted won’t be warming anything.
It is clear from the UAH global contour maps that the Arctic warms only in local hot spots that move around month to month. That is due to interactions between ocean oscillations like the AMO, PDO, and AO. Nothing to do with CO2.
Go to the moyhu Latest Ice and Temperature Data page.
Scroll down to the Artic temperature graph. Note that recent Winter temperatures are running well above the longer term average.
Note also that Summer temperatures have not risen. This is not because of a lack of global warming, but because extra heat reaching the Arctic in Summer melts extra ice instead of increasing temperature.
“However, no one has proved the Arctic is warming in winter. There is little or no solar input for a good portion of the winter in the Arctic”
You forgot about the Gulf Stream and the atmosphere carrying heat and moisture from the tropics to the Arctic.
Roy Spencer among others has proven that the Arctic is warming in the Winter.
In fact, it is not illogical to suppose that if more snow falling on the Greenland ice sheet would imply at least a regional cooling, then there should be a comparable increase of sea ice in the region.
Nothing of that can be seen at the moment, the Arctic sea ice extent stays a tick below its 5-year average:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J9kx750_CtARv4sKfXBddRnkZm3E2U4v/view
J.-P. D.
Nice try Behindon, but reality is Greenland is having an above average snow mass gain.
Reality always wins, huh?
No, Pup…
Reality is NOT ONLY “Greenland is having an above average snow mass gain”.
Reality is ALSO ‘the Arctic sea ice extent stays a tick below its 5-year average’.
Keep blind on the ‘right’ eye, Pup!
That’s good for you (and… for us).
J.-P. D.
“Pup”?
That makes 4 of you now, all the same.
Just like braindead cultists.
Meanwhile in Manitoba
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-drought-crop-feed-cattle-pressures-1.6104523
“not seen in decades.”
Shock. Horror.
“One multigenerational farming family in the Ashern area is expected to sell its entire herd in the coming weeks, said Kirk Kiesman, a farmer and the general manager of the Ashern Auction Mart.”
Here is the top 30 of a descending sort of UAH’s Arctic anomalies:
2016 1: 2.12
2016 4: 1.48
1981 1: 1.42
1980 2: 1.38
2016 10: 1.37
2017 12: 1.28
2016 2: 1.25
2016 3: 1.25
2012 6: 1.18
2010 5: 1.10
2017 2: 1.09
2020 11: 1.09
2017 3: 1.08
2018 1: 1.05
2016 9: 1.02
2005 12: 1.01
2006 9: 1.00
1995 4: 0.99
2014 2: 0.99
2007 4: 0.96
2020 10: 0.95
1996 11: 0.94
2003 10: 0.93
2018 2: 0.93
2009 12: 0.89
2011 1: 0.89
2017 9: 0.86
2010 4: 0.85
1998 7: 0.84
2020 5: 0.83
Winter months: 12
Spring months: 8
Summer months: 2
Fall months: 8
I tell you, guys & dolls: that’s 101 % El Nino.
And El Nino, that’s 101 % natural.
Compris, brigadier?
Oui, mon lieutenant!
J.-P. D.
Consider how you get snow.
Water evaporates from water sources such as lakes or oceans. It condenses into clouds which then form rain, or in colder climates hail or snow.
If snow falls through air above 0C it turns to rain. If it falls through air below 0C and lands on ground below 0C it will stay and be measured.
Whether the temperature is -50C or -45C makes no difference to the amount of snow. Whether the water it evaporated from is covered by water or ice, or at 5C instead of 4C makes a big difference. Both increased the mass of water evaporated and hence the mass of snow which falls on Greenland.
It is counterintuitive, but you can expect global warming to increase Winter snowfall onto the land ice sheets of the Arctic.
That’s pretty desperate, Ent.
But not as desperate as your passengers jets flying backwards and sideways.
Now, THAT’S desperate….
Not really, Pup.
Here’s desperate:
https://youtu.be/AGZGEOhKgw4
Willard, please stop trolling.
Entropic man says: July 19, 2021 at 3:24 PM
Please explain why you think that a warmer Arctic climate climate would have less snow.
–
Entropic man says:
“Consider how you get snow.”
“Water condenses into clouds which then form rain, or in colder climates hail or snow.”
–
Thank you EM.
–
As you so clearly explain, colder climates produce snow, warmer climates produce rain.
–
hence the warmer an Arctic climate gets the more likely it will form rain instead of snow.
–
Text book physics.
Or common sense.
Clint R says: July 19, 2021 at 5:05 PM
Thats pretty desperate, Ent.
re “It is counterintuitive, but you can expect global warming to increase Winter snowfall onto the land ice sheets of the Arctic.”
–
Desperate times need desperate answers.
This argument is used by warmists when a contradiction to their belief system arises.
–
This one was previously applied to try to explain why Antarctic sea ice was increasing when Arctic ice was decreasing.
The sad fact is that snowfall is purely seasonal and more snow falls in winter than summer
–
The moment he says counterintuitive he means as opposed to common sense.
Nonsensical.
Very few things in life are actually counter intuitive.
–
Warmer climates on Earth have less snow.
They are at lower altitudes and closer to the equator.
If the Arctic was to get warmer it would have less snow.
Anyway EM said as much above himself, so if he wishes to tie himself in the knots of counterintuitive reasoning.
i.e nonsense,
let him go for it.
He needs it to win an unwinnable argument in this case.
The idiots are amazing.
If Greenland is losing snow mass, it’s due to “global warming”.
If Greenland is gaining snow mass, it’s due to “global warming”.
Cults don’t realize how stupid they really are.
Were these quotes, Pup?
Willard, please stop trolling.
maguff…”Again you utter the quintessential layman’s lament!”
***
Only an idiot would cite works without supplying a reference. We know you got that propaganda from a pseudo-site like realclimate or skepticalscience. Or, maybe you got desperate and cited garbage from desmogblog.
Either way, you represent the desperation of climate alarmists who have lost the scientific battle and have turned to pseudo-science to prop up their false beliefs.
Break out the Kool-Aid.
Gordon,
You claim:
“Only an idiot would cite works without supplying a reference.”
Mike Flynn never supplies any reference for his quotes.
What should we conclude?
Weary Wee Willy,
We would conclude you are an idiotic climate crank. You do realise that there is a difference between citing and quoting, don’t you?
As to supplying references for you – what are you, incompetent or lazy?
If you are going to believe a reference without checking, you are stupid. If you can’t look it up as I did, you are either incompetent or lazy.
I notice you are not disputing that my quotes are factual – just whining about not being bottle fed.
Poor diddums!
Mike Flynn,
Who’s that “We” – you and all your sock puppets?
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Whacky Wee Willy,
So you and your crowd of bumbling buffoons haven’t actually “concluded” anything yet?
Typical. More denial!
By the way, good luck with trying to convince others that your idiotic portrayal of climate realists as “SkyDragons” (when the precise opposite is the fact), doesn’t make you look like a delusional climate crank, with close to zero comprehension.
The sort of dimwit who thinks slow cooling is “warming”, but can’t or won’t admit that the Earth cooled from the molten state to its present temperature.
You’re probably even stupid enough to think that higher temperatures recorded by thermometers exposed to additional heat is a sign the world is getting hotter!
Accept reality, Wee Willy. A frightening thought, I know, but maybe you can do it!
Mike Flynn,
You can read the conclusions here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/
When Dragon freaks such as yourself will have something to propose, don’t hesitate to share.
Oh, I forgot – you don’t do links!
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard
Actually I think you have it backwards.
The Sky Dragon is the greenhouse effect, metaphorically blowing heat across the land.
Sky Dragon Slayers are those trying to falsify the greenhouse effect.
Witness this book by some of the usual suspects.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9797090-slaying-the-sky-dragon—death-of-the-greenhouse-gas-theory
I know that’s what Dragons say, EM.
They also pretend to be slayers.
As a troll slayer, I take offense.
As an idiot you mean.
z
Gordon Robertson at 3:24 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World
p 21.
You’ve said in the past that you don’t read books! Go figure.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson at 1:51 AM
Since you took the trouble to write a 500 word reply to my post I felt it deserved the courtesy of a careful reading, cringe and all.
I could do without the ad homs but I accept them as confirmation of the validity of my comments and your impotence to refute them.
You are either confused or ignorant about the principles of the brightness temperature. It is based on the one-to-one relationship between the intensity of the radiation emitted by a blackbody and its temperature; it is the inverse of the Planck function of the observed radiance. At microwave wavelengths the brightness temperature is highly dependent on the emissivity of the medium, and for emissivity not equal to 1 the brightness temperature may be substantially less than the physical temperature. However, the Rayleigh-Jeans approximation facilitates sensor calibration relationships making it possible to calculate brightness temperature to further invert for physical temperature.
***an ad hom free response***
maguff…”You are either confused or ignorant about the principles of the brightness temperature. It is based on the one-to-one relationship between the intensity of the radiation emitted by a blackbody and its temperature;”
***
You are talking about a theoretical concept whereas I am talking about the physical reality. There is no such thing as a black body and I find the concept to be rather stupid.
Have you never heated a piece of metal till it begins turning red, then orange, then yellow…till its glowing white hot? Those colours are directly related to the temperature of the metal and each colour has a frequency. You won’t see blues and violets because the metal would melt long before that, but using a filter, you could likely make out the finer gradations from red to orange to yellow, etc.
This is what black body theory is based on. Tyndall actually ran a current through a platinum filament wire and watched the colours develop as he increased the current. He also noted the temperature at each colour.
This was done long before Planck’s work on the EM spectrum. In fact, Planck leaned on the work Of Boltzmann who was a student of Stefan. You may see references to the fact that S-B can be derived from Planck, but it’s actually the other way around. Planck had to know about the physical manifestations of heating a metal till it glowed in order to formulate his theory based on EM frequencies being modeled as tiny oscillators.
However, there was another problem, after Planck derived his ‘h’ constant. EM became quantized as hf, where ‘f’ is the frequency of emitted EM. The equation was E = hf. Obviously as frequency increases, the EM intensity increases without bound, a condition known at the time as the ultraviolet catastrophe.
In order to fix that, Planck introduced some statistical smoke and mirrors. He reasoned, perhaps brilliantly, that not all frequencies of EM radiation increased. He messed with the math, and found he could create a reasonable approximation to what was actually measured by introducing an exponential function into his equation. That’s why the EM curve starts low at the red end, increases to the visible green range, then decreases toward the UV end.
Colours from green toward the UV end are more intense than any other colours but there are less of that kind of radiation available.
And another problem. Even Planck knew nothing about the origin of EM when he devised his equation. It was not till 1913 that Bohr laid out the theory relating EM to electrons. Later, Planck acknowledged, that had he known about electrons, it would have made his work much easier.
It’s not all as cut and dried as it seems and neither is blackbody radiation theory. For example, it is claimed that a BB is a perfect absorber and emitter, which is not true. The Sun approximates a BB in that it emits over a broad range of EM frequencies from the IR to the UV. However, no one can claim it is a perfect absorber.
So, what does BB theory tell you in reality? Not a hell of a lot. I am sticking with my interpretation of colour temperature as a real, physical phenomenon.
If you want to understand BB theory better look up Claes Johnson on it. He lays out an in-depth mathematical example of it, explaining cut-off frequencies and why they exist. In essence, a BB does not emit as well as it absorbs.
Gordon Robertson at 8:57 PM
You are talking about a theoretical concept whereas I am talking about the physical reality.
wrong again. This last word salad just shows how little you know about satellite derived temperature measurements which, let me remind you, was the subject of the discussion.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Czechs the voices of reason
https://motls.blogspot.com/2021/07/will-people-rise-up-against-eu.html?m=1
“Klaus is known for his Euroscepticism, climate change denial, homophobia and anti-immigration”
NOAA
2021 This graphic compares the year-to-date temperature anomalies for 2021 (black line) to what were ultimately the ten warmest years on record: 2016 (1st), 2020 (2nd), 2019 (3rd), 2015 (4th), 2017 (5th), 2018 (6th), 2014 (7th), 2010 (8th), 2013 (9th), and 2005 (10th).
.
I presume this means if it 2021 is lower than 2005 it will not be in the 10 warmest years on record.
Currently running in 7th place?
The NOAA prediction is based on average past monthly anomalies, not the trend.
The trend is currently downward sharply so will produce larger negative anomalies than what NOAA is using.
Consequently a much higher chance of a finish outside the top 10 than 1%.
Currently I would predict a 25% chance
Reply
angech…”I presume this means if it 2021 is lower than 2005 it will not be in the 10 warmest years on record”.
***
What it mans to those who pay attention to the bs coming out of NOAA is that NOAA are liars.
They presented 2014 as the hottest year ever with a 48% confidence level. Why would any scientists with integrity do something that stupid? Because they know the public and the politicians are gullible and don’t check the small print.
NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut are climate alarmists.
They presented 2014 as the hottest year ever with a 48% confidence level. Why would any scientists with integrity do something that stupid?
–
Money?
Money beats integrity most times.
Peer pressure?
Concern about future employment?
No Money will do.
Gordon Robertson, angec
The 2014 GISS global average temperature was 2 Standard Deviation above the previous record, about 0.1C. Hence the 48% probability that it was a genuine new record.
To be 95% confident would require a 4 SD difference, about 0.2C.
To be 100% confident in a new record is impossible, the maths does not work like that.
EM, I think you slipped a decimal point. 2014 was only 0.02C above the previous GISS LOTI record, 0.74C vs 0.72C (2010) so nearly a tie. Two years (2005 and 2013) were also statistically close at 0.68C.
“EM, I think you slipped a decimal point”
Quite possibly.
I think I also got the standard deviation wrong. Would I be correct that one SD difference between means gives a 50% probability that there is a causal difference between them and 2SD gives a 95% probability?
Actually, Gavin Schmidt, supposed mathematician, calculated the probability of 2014 being the “hottest year ever” as being 38%. which meant near-certainty to someone like Gavin Schmidt!
Dang! Who needs reality, when you can get handsomely paid for fantasy?
Swenson,
Did another year, according to Gavin’s calculations, have a higher probability than 38%?
entropic…”No doubt be also accepts the UAH measurement that the global average temperature is increasing by 0.14C/decade”.
***
That’s not what is implied by the 0.14C/decade trend. That trend applies to the UAH data from 1979 – present. If you read the 33 year report, they clarify the context somewhat.
We have to be careful comparing anomalies to absolute temperatures. In the UAH data set, according to the 33 year report, between 1979 and about 1997, there was a cooling effect due to volcanic aerosols. When they are removed, obviously due to estimation, the trend was reduced to 0.09C/decade but that trend was below the baseline, meaning below the average.
However, that was in the anomaly version. I think it would be a mistake to claim the same for absolute temperatures over that range. I am sure they increased slightly but not enough to be significant.
Then again, the global average is just a number. It is claimed that some regions on the planet have warmed while others have cooled. In order to get a net warming of a few tenths C there would have to be significant cooling to offset warming in some areas up to 5C.
The 33 year report (2012) was based on the old baseline of 1980 – 2010. The 33 year report claims that a clear net warming occurred in 1998 when the El Nino struck. That means the anomalies changed from mainly negative, which NOAA defines as colder than the baseline, to a net warming, which they define as being above the baseline.
I realize the 1979 – 1997 range does not infer a global cooling, but over the UAH range, temps before 1997 were below the 1980 – 2010 average. After the 1998 EN, the trend became flat for 18 years, and 15 of those years were confirmed by the IPCC in the 2012 review.
Then another super EN drove global temps nearly to the 1C level in early 2016. As you noticed, last month, the global average anomaly level was back below the baseline.
You have to take that 0.14C/decade warming with a grain of salt. John Christy referred to a see-saw action which influenced the trend.
As far as I am concerned, the 0.14C/decade trend exists only as a statistical average that means nothing. You could get close to the same trend by selecting end points and drawing a straight line between them by viewing the clusters of data points. Tells you nothing cause and effect.
That trend line does not tell you what occurred, like the 18 year flat trend. Alarmists like you are inferring the positive trend means something like anthropogenic warming. However, the flat trend for 18 years belies an anthropogenic cause.
That mealy mouthed nothingburger was awesomesauce, Gordo!
Wallowing.
“At the risk of sounding rather arrogant, I find myself getting more and more frustrated by people justifying their position on the basis of a flawed understanding of the scientific evidence.”
My sentiments exactly.
Remind me again,
Does the CO2 stick around for millennia or is it the effects of the CO2?
The former at least seems a little flawed.
“As far as I am concerned, the 0.14C/decade trend exists only as a statistical average that means nothing.”
Reminds me of the frog in a heated beaker of water croaking:
“As far as I am concerned, the temperature trend of +20 deg per minute exists only as a statistical average that means nothing.”
DMT,
As you don’t even have the brains of a frog, maybe you could predict when your pointless “trend” might end.
No?
The usual witless climate crank comment, then.
Ribbit, ribbit!
[Frogs laughing.]
As far as I am concerned the last 6 months have shown a downwards tendency in global air temperatures.
Go to moyhu’s Latest Ice and Temperature Data page and scroll down to the temperature dataset comparison graph. You will see a flat or rising trend.
Go to GISS
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
The first graph shows the usual seasonal warming as the Northern Hemisphere land warms faster than the Southern Hemisphere ocean.
Look at GISS monthly values for 2021 and you see an upward trend.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2021/to:2022/every/plot/gistemp/from:2021/to:2022/every/trend
That’ll be novel as GISS too shows a decline in temperatures over the last 6 months.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/giss.jpeg
Not much help. I give you a plot for 2021 including a trend estimate clearly showing warming.
You give me a graph for 140 years with no recent trend and expect me to blindly accept that it shows six months of cooling this year.
Raise your game, sir.
And I give you a plot that contains up to date data (this month – Jun). Look for yourself over the last 6 months.
The fact that there is no trend for that data (because it is too recent) does not make what I said incorrect.
You almost want to make me reinstate the S-G filter which will go to the ends of the plot. I discontinued it because it is speculative rather than fact.
S-G is the equivalent of LOWESS if you want that instead.
UAH is running 0.25C lower than the other datasets at the moment and showing much more (random?) variability.
I don’t think I’ll bet this month. Too difficult to judge the odds.
Entropic man says: UAH is running 0.25C lower than the other datasets at the moment and showing much more (random?) variability.
The Moyhu plot tool baselines everything to the time period 1980-2010. Most of the difference between UAH and RSS is a divergence through about the first half of the 2000 decade. This choice of baselines weighs the “pre-divergence” UAH more heavily.
Which is to say, in the last 15 years there isn’t much difference between UAH and RSS except for a constant bias on this baseline. This, probably not coincidentally, is also the era when the METOP satellites, which do not induce orbital decay effects came online.
“Most of the difference between UAH and RSS is a divergence through about the first half of the 2000 decade.”
Almost all of the divergence only occurs between 2000-2006, which as you correctly observe is the first half of the 2000 decade. The 2 agree pretty well outside that period. As you showed previously.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:0.22/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:0.45/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8
“UAH is running 0.25C lower than the other datasets at the moment and showing much more (random?) variability.”
Baselines apart, they all seem to agree quite well.
Certainly RSS and UAH do.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset:0.45/plot/rss
Satellite temperatures are dropping, but as the sceptics here keep reminding me, they show a six months lag between surface anomalies and troposphere anomalies.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2021/to:2022/every/plot/uah6/from:2021/to:2022/every/trend/plot/rss/from:2021/to:2022/every/plot/rss/from:2021/to:2022/every/trend
The satellite cooling reflects the latter half of last year, not the first half of this year.
You are incorrect.
We are not yet in the latter half of this year only having data up until Jun.
And all the figures show that the first 6 months of this year are lower than the last 6 of last year.
I won the bet that we would return to +0.2c on this month data. Want to double down for next months too?
RLH
You are very keen to promote a cooling trend for 2021 which only shows in a minority of the monthly datasets.
May I ask what significance you place on this cooling.
Do you regard it as as a short term variation or are you promoting a subtext that global warming has ended and you expect a long term cooling trend?
I take EM’s point to be that the El Nino indexes, say ONI, are negative but trending up after the end of 2020. Considering only the ~6 month lagging correlation of El Nino with UAH global, the expectation is that UAH will generally trend up over the next 6 months.
The correlation factor is about 0.15 and ONI goes up about 0.8C over the 6 months to present, so something on the order of +0.12C rise is a reasonable central estimate. Getting above 0.2C for July or any specific month over the rest of the year seems like the wrong side of an even-money bet on this analysis.
My expectation is that UAH Global will be in the range 0.0-0.1C for the next 6 months averaged and for the annual average.
“May I ask what significance you place on this cooling.”
Just responding with some factual observations.
The real question is, “when will the global air temperature figures start rising again?”
They are bound to do so at some point. The question is, how long before they do so.
“My expectation is that UAH Global will be in the range 0.0-0.1C for the next 6 months averaged and for the annual average.”
I would pitch it slightly lower than that.
I expect UAH global to be in the range 0.0C to -0.3C for the next 6 months, leading to a running mean/CTRM that also dips below -0.1c.
“a cooling trend for 2021 which only shows in a minority of the monthly datasets.”
Most of the datasets are not up to Jun 2021 yet.
Tell me which dataset is out?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset:0.45/from:2011/plot/rss/from:2011/plot/gistemp/from:2011/offset:-0.25/plot/had crut4gl/from:2011/offset
Today in history: charlatan GR wrote this eight months ago; I’m still ROFLMAO
Gordon Robertson says:
November 20, 2020 at 7:10 PM
Here’s feedback I just sent to NASA re Bob’s link.
Hi…would you please correct the error on your misconceptions page about the Moon rotating on its axis. It is simply not possible for the Moon to keep the same face toward the Earth while rotating on its axis. You are likely confusing a change in pointing direction of the near face during the orbit as local rotation but it is actually due to curvilinear translation.
A quick check of the NASA website this morning reveals that:
And also:
“Yes! The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once on its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.”
Correct.
TM, did you accidentally miss the proof that Moon does NOT rotate? Or did you avoid it on purpose?
Clint R
We’ve seen your “proof” . It only works in your personal reference frame, in which you are the centre of the universe.
Professional astronomers use the inertial reference frame, sometimes called “the fixed stars”
In that reference frame the Moon rotates once on its axis for each revolution around its orbit.
We are concerned that you are unable to accept that you are not the centre of the universe. Perhaps psychiatry is indicated?
Wrong again, Ent. The proof works throughout the Universe.
The “fixed stars” can mislead the uninformed.
You reject reality, just as you attempt to claim everything is caused by CO2! You have no knowledge of orbital motion, as demonstrated by your failed attempt to answer the simple “gravitational torque” problem.
You actually believe passenger jets fly sideways and backwards, to support your cult beliefs.
That ain’t science.
“The fixed stars can mislead the uninformed.”
You have another term for a static inertial reference frame?
pups, Did you “accidentally” forget that your model of a sphere and spacecraft starts with a non-rotating sphere, which is the same as non-rotation in inertial space? By your very own definition, the Moon rotates, as measured in inertial space, which is the only proper way to describe rotation in physics.
https://javalab.org/en/one_side_of_the_moon_en/
Click on “Moon Centered”, then zoom out to see the bigger picture. When people speak of “inertial space” they are really talking about the “Moon Centered” view with the origin fixed on the center of mass of the moon. But as you zoom out, until the origin is fixed on the Earth/moon barycenter, you gain the necessary perspective to see through that illusion. The moon only appears to be rotating on its own axis, wrt “inertial space”. In reality, the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team stop trolling!
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Swanson, you failed to solve the simple “gravitational torque” problem. You can’t understand the simple examples. And, you have no workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. That means you know NOTHING about the subject. Your only contribution now is to march in lockstep with your cult. That’s all you can handle.
But blind devotion to a cult ain’t science.
I rather suspect that my ‘cult’ is larger than your ‘cult’. My quite a margin.
pups, I understand your sphere-and-spacecraft mental model. You began by proclaiming that the sphere was not rotating as the sphere and spacecraft traveled in the same direction and at the same speed so that you would continue to observe the same side of the sphere. Your setup for the sphere is the basic definition of a non-rotating body as measured in inertial space. I agree with that definition and when that definition is applied to the Moon, one finds that the Moon is rotating once an orbit.
The sphere/Moon can’t be both “not rotating” while moving in a straight line and also “not rotating” WRT the Earth while orbiting. You are confused because your perspective of the line of sight vector is itself rotating WRT the stars. The Moon rotates once each orbit.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
That’s correct indeed!
See for example Mayer’s excellent treatise over Moon’s rotation about its polar axis:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
He calculated, with an amazing accuracy for that time and given his primitive observation tools (a small telescope he enhanced with a micrometer of own fabrication, and a one-second metronome),
– the inclination of Moon’s polar axis wrt the ecliptic
– its rotation period, for which he gave as result on page 168 of his treatise:
27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 11 seconds, and… 49 sixtieths of a second.
In decimal days, that gives 27.321665 days.
The current value for Moon’s rotation, computed through evaluation of Lunar Laser Ranging data, is 27.321661 days.
After calculating all of this, he was able to determine the exact lunar latitude and longitude of all the Moon craters that he could observe, what enabled him to create a lunar cartography with a precision that was only surpassed after 100 years.
*
Curiously, Eric Gray Forbes, a British professor for science history, above all married to a German linguist woman, wrote long articles about Mayer’s work, but never mentioned his computation Moon’s rotation period.
Like many others, he was totally fixed on Mayer’s explanation for Moon’s libration in longitude, on his accurate cartography work, and on his use of the average of nine groups of three equations for the axis inclination instead of using one group only.
*
Mayer’s accuracy is a posteriori a terrible lesson for all these self-named ‘statistician’s claiming everywhere that you can’t accurately compute anything based on instruments lacking the ‘necessary’ precision, inevitably causing alleged ‘systematic errors’. So what…
J.-P. D.
I forgot to add a little bit of absolute misrepresentation by the most ignorant commenter writing on this blog:
” Thats 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 Meiers bad physics, still unable to understand the difference between rotation and libration. ”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-715296
Poor Robertson!
Mayer of course never estimated the motion of any Moon particle.
Instead, he used Newton’s gravitation theory in order to get convinced that Moon’s spheroid shape was sufficiently spherical to allow him to use spherical trigonometry for his selenographic computations.
J.-P. D.
It is really amazing how people manage to discredit and denigrate even such documents:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/nasa_tn_d_2795.pdf
(discovered, if I well recall, by barry).
But these people also are those who discredit and deniǵrate the evidence that without considering special & general relativity together with the Sagnac effect, GPS never could work.
J.-P. D.
Behind, until you have a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, you got NOTHING.
Even with it you have less than nothing.
Any thoughts on how the famous ‘clock slowdown’ would work if the planes flew North-South rather than West-East?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
Meanwhile in Manitoba
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-drought-crop-feed-cattle-pressures-1.6104523
“That report suggests large swaths of central and southern Manitoba, as well as the Interlake, are facing “extreme” and “exceptional” droughts not seen in decades.”
Is that “in the last 60 years?”
No, dummy.
So how many decades is it then?
https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-1-in-100-year-weather-event-and-why-do-they-keep-happening-so-often-157589
Centuries are not decades.
It’s about your “unprecedented” interpretation, dummy.
No it’s about “droughts not seen in decades.”
“1 in 50 years” does not mean “unprecedented since 49 years ago,” dummy.
“droughts not seen in decades” means just that. Not a 1:50 chance. Just not seen at all.
“An extreme drought is an event that normally happens only once every 20 to 50 years, said Hadwen, and an exceptional drought is defined as a twice-in-a-century event.”
So what? Not seen in decades means not seen in decades.
Ever thought about how silly the “unprecedented since” phrase is?
“Anecdotally, Hadwen said, his agency continues to hear reports from farmers about how this year compares to 1988, when a severe drought ravaged much of Western Canada, particularly in the southern Prairies.”
> Ever thought about how silly the unprecedented since phrase is?
Make your case, dummy.
If you’re going to peddle, at least don’t try to bait.
The case that you are an idiot? That was made long ago.
1988 is SO long ago.
“Anecdotally,” dummy.
And z.
Idiot.
Temperature is not drought index, dummy.
Added to your list of blunders.
Who said it was? Added to your long list of deflections.
You’re the one trying to deflect with your “but unprecedented…” line, dummy.
It’s irrelevant for that kind of index.
I think on extreme weather events I would side with the points of RLH over those of Willard.
Willard shows little desire to consider longer term data. He is out to prove all current bad weather events are directly linked and caused by Climate Change (or a 2 F warming of the globe). He rejects a deep analysis given by Cliff Mass of the cause for the extreme heat dome that took place in late June in the Pacific Northwest region and would favor it is caused by Climate Change with no linking mechanisms proposed. Just a graph showing that hotter weather is more likely with global warming but this type of extreme goes far beyond the graphic explanation. A reasonable explanation was given but Willard could not accept it as viable.
Now he is going after droughts.
Here is a paper covering Germany’s droughts since 1500. When the time is extended the extremes caused by Climate Change go away. It seems the case any time the data is stretched. Like for the California drought.
Germany history of droughts:
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/16/1207/2020/
“Historical reconstructions can contribute to the question of whether the recent extreme droughts, such as in 2018, 2015 and 2003, must be seen as another indicator of climate change. The given results show that the recent development of precipitation alone is still within the historical variability.”
California megadroughts without Climate Change as a cause (so what caused these?):
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/
Unlikely a ideologue like Willard will let something like evidence change his fanatic course (maybe a disciple of Hansen the most unscientific of fanatics, just as bad as goofy Joe Postma…two fanatics on opposite sides of one coin) but the hope is others like E. Swanson or Entropic man may weigh the evidence presented and at least consider it.
I will point out that it is possible climate change could make things worse but one needs good mechanisms to explain it, not just apply blame in a generic unscientific fashion.
Even with Germany’s heavy rain. An increase of temperature of 2 F will only increase the atmosphere water vapor holding capacity between 6 to 9& depending upon the temperature. So instead of a 6 inch rain Germany may have had a 5.6 inch rain (Bindidon sorry for inches). It would still been a terrible flood.
https://www.shsu.edu/~dl_www/bkonline/131online/CourseGraphics/GraphicsMaster/G178.gif
> extreme weather events
Droughts, Norman.
At least keep up.
And just in case our in-house Troglodyte plays dumb, I’m referring to his “Even with Germanys heavy rain” squirrel.
Which is a bit silly, as the signal connecting AGW and droughts is clearer. (So no, not “even.”) Which is something our in-house Troglodyte ought to know, as we quoted him the chapter and verse of the IPCC.
Willard
Now you are playing stupid on purpose. You have linked to as many extreme weather events you can find. I am giving you some long term studies that show extreme weather events from the past in longer data. I already know you will not rationally think about it. You found a new word to coin “Troglodyte”.
I think RLH might be correct about you. I was hoping he was not correct but your posts indicate a low level of reasoning ability.
Anyway with your IPCC maybe look at this.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/11/little-change-in-drought-over-60-years.html
There is a paper in Nature magazine that he refers to.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11575
This is a paywall article but you can read the abstract.
Is the Germany flood “a bit silly”
It is already in the media it is caused by Climate Change
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/16/world/europe/germany-floods-climate-change.html
So on this blog we have the deniers of science and evidence and the fanatics who are just as bad (but think they are the good guys). Need more rational thinking people on Climate blogs if the truth of the issue is what is sought. I can get as much useful information from Willard as one can get from Gordon Robertson. One a contrarian denier of science and the other an irrational fanatic unable to think outside a bubble of his own making.
You call me a “Troglodyte” by researching material and linking it to you to read and then discuss. That is really a stupid ad-hominin attack as what is the basis for it? Just because I don’t blindly accept your fanatic proclamations?
Norma,
The concept of Troglodyte is fairly well understood:
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm
You’re at the rant part.
Handwaving to studies is all well and good, but it does not replace a rational argument. To suggest that it could be worse isn’t one. It’s more something like a bad asshattitude.
Before you cite Junior’s, make sure you consult the archived version. For some reason, he deleted all the comments on his blog. Sometimes it matters.
Why not quote the SREX? After all, Junior tried to sell a butchered version of it. Here is a quote you might recognize:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX_Full_Report-1.pdf
That should put Junior’s conclusion that “there is very little evidence to support claims that the influence of such changes can be observed in the observational record of extreme events” into perspective, if you catch my drift.
Willard, please stop trolling.
We know California Drought occurs in La Nina.
Megadrought could be from a long term La Nina. One that lasts 200 years due to global cooling. As per the mini ice age.
From our in-house’s Troglodyte’s cite:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210301055615/https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/
Willard
Get the wisdom from this video clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwPWDMvT21E
The article relates there was “Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.”
These terrible droughts happened in a cooler era yet something caused them. That is what you are missing. You have zero historical content for your fanatic views. You just see some terrible weather and seem to attribute it to climate change without any supporting evidence that there is a casual link between the event you post and global warming.
Norma,
You’re missing Scott’s point:
To suggest that because something already happened it will be a piece of cake amounts to live in a dream world.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard
You make up false conclusions from my posts I have never stated nor has any rational connection to things I have stated.
I had NEVER indicated a severe drought today will be a “piece of cake” today. Nor do I think that of extreme heat waves, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, hail, extreme cold, etc. They are all bad for people who experience them.
So to clarify my point so you do not get it wrong. There were severe droughts in the Southwest US without Climate Change. Scientists are working on trying to determine the cause of these events. At this time no conclusive theory exists (or at least I found none). Here is the point. If conditions existed in the past that caused severe droughts without climate change attribution why is it the cause today? (That is without some strong linking mechanism demonstrating why this drought is caused by climate change and the others were the result of some other conditions not related to a warming planet).
Willard I am not of the same cloth Clint R, Gordon Robertson or Swenson are. They deny regardless of any evidence and will continue to do so, it is their nature. I am driven by evidence. If you can link me to articles that discuss mechanisms of why they believe Climate Change is causing this current Southwest drought. What I read currently is ideas based on loosely based potential.
Things like warmer air can hold more water so any heavy rain must be caused by climate change is terrible science. It is more like astrology. Have a nebulous possibility but assert with boldness. I have already posted a link that shows exactly how much more water warmer air holds. A 2 F increase will give between 6 to 9& more water vapor in saturated air so you will potentially get more rain in a rain event but that would not translate to an extreme rain event or indicate extreme rain events will occur more frequently. A valid argument from this fact would be a region could expect a 6 to 9& increase in yearly rainfall. If your region got 30 inches of rain a year it may now get 32″.
Global warming should increase you yearly temperature by a couple degrees. That would not translate that global warming will increase the frequency of events where the temperature is 40 F above the average.
> There were severe droughts in the Southwest US without Climate Change.
Let me see if I got your logic right, Norman. The Black Death wiped out half of the European population in the 14th century, so humans can’t kill. Is that correct?
AGW might be older than you presume, BTW:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/24694452.2020.1846488
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
The first humans-in-space mission by Blue Origin was successful, this morning.
It’s nice to see some real science and engineering, for a change.
Do we count the Las Vegas loop in that?
Nice. Only took 60 y to repeat what NASA did.
Is it time to check back on that Pacific ocean accelerating into ElNino ?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-736415
Until the blue bits go away things are not likely to get much hotter.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
Hmmh.
On the CoralReef stuff, we all can see (at least for the moment, but that is plain usual for Pseudoskeptics and Coolistas), that a warmer spot over 1+2 currently dares to block the Humboldt.
That is plain unusual for a La Nina rebirth.
Still no more than 20 % Nina at TCC? Duh.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
Wait and see.
J.-P. D.
Other ENSO sites disagree. We will see who is right in a few months.
Experts are starting to notice
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/20/signs-of-a-resurgence-in-la-nina-and-the-potential-implications-on-global-temperatures-and-the-upcoming-winter-season/
It is well known, by those who know it well, that most people’s smartphones are more powerful than the guidance computer that took Apollo 11 to the Moon in 1969. Now, however, Apple developer Forrest Heller convincingly argues that even a modern USB-C charger has more processing power than the spacecraft’s guidance computer.
Heller reckons the modern charger is 563 times faster than the Apollo 11 computer, can store 1.78 times more instructions, and has a little over twice the amount of RAM. The Apollo 11 Moon landing guidance computer had a clock speed of just 1.024 MHz.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2020/2/11/21133119/usb-c-anker-charger-apollo-11-moon-landing-guidance-computer-more-powerful
A fun thought experiment that highlights a couple of different things. First is obviously the sheer amount of progress technology has made over the past half-century, but more important are the amazing feats that are still achievable on modest hardware.
In my student days we had a PDP-8e with a whole 8K of memory to play with. And used it to display ‘real time’ 3d graphics. Times have changed indeed.
I used a PDP-11/34 for several years early in my career. Rugged and reliable for field work in harsh environments.
I once saw one at a show in America after shipping. The drives were mounted in the top and they had managed to drop it on the way. All that was left was some broken PCB boards. They just packed it up and nothing more was seen of it.
In 1980 my school purchased a Sinclair ZX80 with 0.5K.
The following year they bought a ZX81 with a whole K!
Smile. I wrote a flight simulator for it.
I still have my ZX81, built from the kit. It was still functional last time I fired it up, but that’s been a few years.
I designed and built a multiple board Z80 based computer that outperformed a lot of commercial computers for quite a while. Created a multiple CPU, parallel processing block, for the newspaper industry back when Fleet St Unions were still a thing.
I’m afraid I blew you both – I wrote as a student a few small programs in Algol 60 on a German Z23 computer over 50 years ago.
It had 256 40-bit words of core memory (thus 1,280 bytes), together with a 8,192 word sized drum.
How they managed to get that ALGOL compiler running in such a tiny place I don’t know.
But… they did, and it was visibly not a subset of the language.
J.-P. D.
Oh wow! I have consistently worked on small, real time, CPUs in assembler where 100s of bytes of memory is considered ‘big’.
I love such ignorant nonsense like
” The ‘fixed stars’ can mislead the uninformed. ”
Oh well oh well. That sounds soo funny, soo sweet.
Clint R still does not understand why and how fixed stars are used in astronomy…
Isn’t there an observatory near him where he can get help in understanding?
Or does he prefer to keep uninformed?
Clint R, be honest – at least today.
Why did Newton write, in his Principia Scientifica, Book III, Prop. XVII, Theor. XV
” The spots in the sun’s body return to the same situation on the sun’s disk, with respect to the earth, in 27 1/2 days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25 1/2 days. ” ?
Is it really so hard to grasp that
– when you observe a sun spot visible on the Sun at a given place SP and note – at the same time – the position FS of a fixed star,
– that same fixed start will have passed that FS position you noted since 2 days, when you see the same sun spot again at its same SP position in the telescope?
Why should that simple thing suddenly become wrong when looking at the Moon?
*
If you again misinterpret that paragraph, then you are pupping, and hence I’ll definitely will have to name you… Pup.
I’ll then be happy when you name me Behindon in turn! For sure…
J.-P. D.
Behind, you’re still behind.
You’ve got NOTHING.
Well you have less than nothing.
OK, Clint R.
You intentionally bypassed here the point of no return.
What you do is exactly the same as the Flatearthers, who deny all of the Earth captured images from above like they were the plague, and say:
“That’s all faked stuff.”
Perhaps one day you will take courage and go to an observatory and ask people there to explain what you are missing all the time.
Pup, I wish you all the best!
Behindon
Behind, making stuff up on your keyboard ain’t science.
You just get farther and farther behind.
And quit acting like you’re signing off with me. You trolls will be here until your keyboards explode. You can’t stand reality.
Until you’ve got that model, you’ve got NOTHING.
Pup
” And quit acting like youre signing off with me. ”
Me, signing off with you, Pup? Ha ha.
You really have funny ideas!
Behindon
Thanks for proving me right, Behind.
And you did it in 8 minutes! You’re becomming as good at stalking as you are at trolling.
Got that model yet?
There is no model that would satisfy you without breaking the whole of the rest of science. Including what Newton said.
Clint R,
We have given you several models.
I got one more.
Take a Yo-Yo, and drill a hole in it such that you can put a magnet in it.
Loosen the string so it’s not very twisted.
Swing it around in a magnetic field strong enough to get the Yo-Yo from rotating with respect to the string.
There you have the Yo-Yo orbiting, but not rotating.
Orbital motions without axial rotation.
“Orbital motions without axial rotation.”
That’s not a orbit, They are attached.
Yes, it’s a model, what part of that do you not understand.
Like Clint’s model of a ball-on-a-string, it demonstrates attached objects, not orbiting ones.
To say that it is a model of orbits is thus incorrect (as is the ball-on-a-string).
” without breaking the whole of the rest of science. Including what Newton said.”
Well put.
Its better than the ball on the string if it is frictionlessly attached at the center, so that, like gravity on a sphere, it applies no torque.
Unlike the string attached at the surface of the ball, applying torque if the ball’s center and string are not aligned.
The physics that poor Clint is unable to learn.
Frictionless attachment to both centers would allow allow either end to rotate as required.
But I still think that any physical attachment risks creating an unrealistic concept in peoples mind.
Coming back from the Moon, I land in between for a short visit in the US.
Here are two graphs showing the evaluation of USCRN hourly data over the whole period from 2002 (the first year with all days present) till now.
You see the comparison of
(1) the mean of TMIN and TMAX, with
– TMIN = lowest hourly TMIN of the day
– TMAX = highest hourly TMAX of the day
(2) the median value of the 24 hourly TAVGs
(3) the average of the 24 hourly TAVGs.
*
1. Showing the daily plots for the three values
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E28K5J8k8Y_Z5AlVowYsIDojsgRGr8q5/view
*
2. Showing the daily differences between
– the 24h (true) average and the TMIN/TMAX mean (blue)
– the 24h (true) average and the median (red)
as well as
– the mean of the two (orange)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16cNNYP8_KWugKPbuX9ZhyHixJFg-21iZ/view
*
You could already guess that in the first graph: the blue TMIN/TMAX average plot and the red median plot are nearly equidistant.
The median value for the first choice is -0.61, that for the second choice is 0.64. The mean for the average of the two is 0.03.
*
This means that none of the two choices – mean of TMIN and TMAX, median value of the 24 hourly TAVGs – is really closer to the ‘true’ daily average of these 24 than is the other one.
This moves the decision to choose one of the two from the technical to a rather political context: if you prefer cooler temperature measurements, then you’ll choose the median, and vice-versa.
*
For me, this discussion (especially when restricted on individual stations) becomes more and more sterile and useless.
Especially because I never have been primarily interested in showing absolute values of anything: be it temperature, sea ice extent, sea level etc.
How could we really accurately compare UAH’s LT with the surface, distant by 24 K, let alone UAH’s LT and LS levels, distant by even 50 K, without using anomalies with annual cycle removal?
It becomes now really interesting to get daily anomalies for all USCRN stations with sufficient data in a joint reference period, e.g. 2011-2020. There are a lot of such stations, says the USCRN data set.
cu
J.-P. D.
Un petit dtail
The reason for the two graphs being so heavily colored at their left side is that for 2002 and 2003, there are much less active USCRN stations (25 and 44 if I well do recall) than later on (150 on average).
Less stations = less data in the averaging process = higher deviations from the mean for that average = broader plots.
J.-P. D.
Willard would say: “I hate Roy’s parser.”
Un petit détail
” the mean of the two (orange)”
What does that calculation prove/show?
How do you explain that some sites show that that mean and the median are the same, but others show that they are not?
Magic?
Most show that the median is closer to the average than the ‘mean’, some do not (that is not too surprising really).
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-combined-dinosaur.jpeg
This site there is no real difference.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-combined-fairbanks.jpeg
“– the mean of the two (orange)”
What does that calculation prove/show?
How do you explain that some sites show that that mean and the median are the same, but others show that they are not?
Magic?
Most show that the median is closer to the average than the ‘mean’, some do not (that is not too surprising really).
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/
RLH
I repeat, for now the very last time, because that becomes too BORING:
” For me, this discussion (especially when restricted on individual stations) becomes more and more sterile and useless. ”
OK, you are in a tiny progress: your teenie graphs with dot plots indeed show the combined difference view in between.
But.. you still keep on your ridiculous single station graphs, like this strange Dave Burton, who produced during years big, big amounts of graphs showing well selected PSMSL tide gauges, but never was willing (able?) to produce averages of the whole gauge data (over 1,500 stations).
*
Manage to get a complete average of the stuff for all available stations since 2002, and we can talk again.
Till then, RLH, you know the rule:
” PUT UP, OR SHUT UP! ”
Until then, I won’t react to any of your comments anymore.
In my native tongue we say: ” Trop, c’est trop. ”
J.-P. D.
> Trop, cest trop.
You can also say “pousse, mais pousse égal.”
> égal.
God I hate Muricans sometimes.
binny…”Till then, RLH, you know the rule:
PUT UP, OR SHUT UP! ”
***
I have been following the discussion between you and RLH and it strikes me he is patiently trying to explain something to you and you are failing to grasp it.
Same thing with your understanding of the lunar orbit. You are incapable of understand even basic orbital theory yet you are willing to quote material as your source that you don’t understand either.
Robertson
I would rather say that, as usual, you didn’t understand anything of the discussion between RLH and me.
Same thing with your absolute inability to understand the lunar motion as a whole.
I, on the other hand, understand very well
– how relevant it is to average measurement data to get a vue d’ensemble, instead of merely looking for data at single points (that, Robertson, is evident for UAH as well, but you don’t even know anything about their 72×144 cell grid data, let alone would a dumbie like you ever be able to correctly process it)
– how Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, Beer/Mädler, the Kazan Observatory Group, Habibullin, Eckhardt, Chapront, Calamé, Migus, Moons and so many others have given totally different, but exactly converging proofs for the lunar spin (you, Robertson, never even managed to TRY to understand anything of it).
J.-P. D.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Till then, RLH, you know the rule:
” PUT UP, OR SHUT UP! “”
Climate cranks make these sorts of wild and unenforceable demands all the time.
Maybe you don’t realise that you do not operate, or moderate, this blog.
By the way, when do you think the temperature “trend” will stop? Before the seas boil dry? Just after Antarctic returns to its previously rich flora and fauna?
You have no clue, have you? Just demands that others dance to your discordant cacophony!
When you get sick of being a prima donna, maybe you could learn about physics.
Mike Flynn,
Why are you Just Asking Questions?
Silly Billy Wee Willy,
Why are you Just Asking a Question?
What mental defect leads you to assume I might deign to answer?
You are an idiot, but at least you are delusional. If you are attempting to troll by being gratuitously offensive, you are confusing me with someone who takes offence at being trolled by idiots.
Carry on with the idiocy. It suits you.
[Chortling]
July 14, 2021 at 11:20 PM
Mike Flynn,
More JAQing off?
Suit yourself, dont mind us.
Whacky Wee Willy,,
More adolescent masturbatory references?
Have you decided where the GHE may be observed yet? No?
Try another diversion, if you can stop playing with your climateballs long enough.
You really are a denialist Sky Dragon, aren’t you? When do you think the seas might boil dry, due to the Sky Dragon’s fiery CO2 powered breath?
You are as silly as James Hansen and Carl Sagan combined! Their “tipping points” obviously tipped them from fact to fantasy.
Accept reality, laddie. Young pups fantasise, but have to face reality eventually, if they want to run with the big dogs. Or just continue whining, yapping, and peeing and cropping in all directions, looking for attention.
[woof]
Mike Flynn,
You ask:
“Have you decided where the GHE may be observed yet? No?”
You also ask:
“What mental defect leads you to assume I might deign to answer?”
That is all.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Bindidon is requiring RLH to show his work and deal directly.
Interesting that ‘skeptics’ think this is unfair.
Lax standards are fecund for bullshit.
barry, please stop trolling.
DREMT
Could you please stop with your permanent, highly selective, requests to people for stopping their alleged trolling, while letting others troll as often as they want?
Robertson and Swenson are trolling 1,000 times more than barry, who belong to the most serious commenters on this blog
You make yourself ridiculous with this childish behavior, and… slowly but surely become a troll.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
“Interesting that skeptics think this is unfair.”
If you believe that the calculations of USCRN are in error, please demonstrate how that is so.
“For me, this discussion (especially when restricted on individual stations) becomes more and more sterile and useless. ”
Because you cannot say why individual stations differ so much. How do you know that you can just lump them all together and produce something sensible without knowing what it is that causes an individual station to be in error?
You are just hoping that large numbers will obscure the outcomes.
Until I can explain why and how a station will be differ, how can I determine a function to accumulate them into wider groups?
Please note that the errors persist over the whole lifetime of the station. They are not just occasional phenomena.
“PUT UP, OR SHUT UP!”
I do not obey your orders. I am trying to understand something I had not expected. That individual stations are persistently in error when using ‘mean’ over their whole lifetime.
If you do not find that interesting, then off you go. It is pointless discussing with those who are not interested in the unexpected, only in the status quo.
I notice that you do not challenge now, the well known statistical knowledge, that the median is better than the ‘mean’ if the distribution is not well known in advance.
“For me, this discussion (especially when restricted on individual stations) becomes more and more sterile and useless.”
A good example of those who wish to step round the fact they have been proven wrong.
Those sites are correct and show what they do. You want to just ignore that. I don’t.
“Manage to get a complete average of the stuff for all available stations since 2002, and we can talk again.”
I can do that without problem. Tell me why you think that a simple average will produce sensible and meaningful results?
So would you consider ‘average elevation’ or ‘average latitude’ or ‘average ‘longitude’ a useful summation?
Especially because I never have been primarily interested in showing absolute values of anything: be it temperature, sea ice extent, sea level etc.
–
protesting too much
I note you have switched from your belligerent “you do not have the data” to “you do not know how to draw graphs”.
You were wrong then and are wrong now.
Bindidon says: . . . 2. Showing the daily differences between . . .
An interesting thing about this plot is that it shows a clear seasonality signal in the differences. Two observations about this:
1) Median moving seasonally relative the 24h average implies that the probability density function has a seasonal component. This isn’t surprising and is probably related in part to absolute humidity/dew points bounding overnight lows during the summer season and less so in winter.
2) Using monthly anomalies for climate work should largely remove both the bias and seasonality of these metrics. Which returns us to question of when specifically does any difference in the three metrics matter significantly.
If you can tell me why the ‘mean’ is so consistently off on a site by site basis I might be able to answer that. By more than one criteria probably.
Is it elevation? Is it Latitude? Is it Longitude? Is it something else?
A secondary factor might be monthly climate but it cannot be the main characteristic. Otherwise an individual station would not show a consistent offset.
“Why” the statistics differ is an interesting question, but is independent from evaluating where it causes a meaningful difference in derived metrics.
> where it causes a meaningful difference in derived metrics.
Keep your eye on the ball, Mark.
One day we’ll get there.
I have just noted what is evident from the facts. We can be sure that stations using (Tmax+Tmin)/2 are not faithfully tracking the true average temperature for the day.
Unless you know what predicts how far out that error is per station and why, how can you say that it is not significant?
July 22, 2021 at 8:28 AM
Your burden of proof reversal is added to your list of blunders, dummy.
Sea levels are not quite as they seem.
“Islands of Truth Emerging from the Murky Depths of ‘Sea Level Science'”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/19/islands-of-truth-emerging-from-the-murky-depths-of-sea-level-science/
C’mon RLH. Be properly skeptical of ALL blog ‘science’.
Any opinion piece about GLOBAL MSL rise with a cherry picked graph of one city with flat sea level rises…should be filed where it belongs…
in the trash bin.
Sea levels from satellite are just one area that requires a significant number of variables to be taken into account, and the actual track of the satellite is just one.
You also need to track
1. The distance from the Earth to the Sun.
2. The distance from the Earth to the Moon.
3. The air pressure on a given day.
4. Any significant wind direction and fetch.
5. The basin parameters.
6. Land vertical motion, short and long term.
7. Local factors.
It would appear that some people think that all this can be reduced to mm rise per decade. I have my doubts.
And you assume they don’t account for these factors?
“1. The distance from the Earth to the Sun.
2. The distance from the Earth to the Moon.”
Well known.
“3. The air pressure on a given day.
4. Any significant wind direction and fetch.”
Not for Global Ave.
“5. The basin parameters.
6. Land vertical motion, short and long term.”
Well know.
“7. Local factors.”
Not for global ave.
Bin,
Why is there a systematic offset of 0.6 in these? I cannot think of a sensible reason for that.
“This means that none of the two choices mean of TMIN and TMAX, median value of the 24 hourly TAVGs is really closer to the true daily average of these 24 than is the other one.”
If only TMIN and TMAX are available in much of data, then one cannot calculate Median in any case.
Nate says: Why is there a systematic offset of 0.6 in these? I cannot think of a sensible reason for that.
From a statistical point of view, there is typically an offset between the average and the median for any asymmetric probability distribution.
https://www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and-statistics/skewed-distribution/
In climate, one mechanism for such a distribution, as I suggested above, is the dew point. Simplistically if we postulate that the daily energy flow is sinusoidal, once the air temperature hits the dew point, considerable energy is associated with condensation/vaporization of water so the temperature is not sinusoidal, rather it is flatten on the low end. For such a “clipped sine wave” the average shifts upwards while the median does not.
There are, no doubt, other such mechanisms that cause the system’s energy state and the temperature to not be linearly related. Some weeks ago, RLH made the observation that temperature is a less than perfect proxy for energy state, which is clearly true. What’s not apparent is that the imperfection of our observational metrics makes much difference to the broad understanding of climate change.
I accept the fact that air temperature are a poor reflector of energy input, but I do not think that dew point is the factor here. Otherwise the effect would not be as consistent as it on a site over decades.
In any case, there are numbers within the USCRN dataset which should correlate to the offset, I have yet to find one that does. The search goes on.
“Whats not apparent is that the imperfection of our observational metrics makes much difference to the broad understanding of climate change.”
A non relevant reply from Willard as usual.
“Mark B says:
July 21, 2021 at 8:51 AM”
God you’re dumb.
Not as much as you are an idiot.
z
“Whats not apparent is that the imperfection of our observational metrics makes much difference to the broad understanding of climate change.”
Agree. The ‘unless we have perfect knowledge, we know nothing’ meme is anti-thetical to science.
The pot of water on the burner analogy. Even though complex dynamics and energy transfers are happening, a single measured parameter, temperature, tracks the state of the system.
“In climate, one mechanism for such a distribution, as I suggested above, is the dew point. ”
Yes that seems to make sense, Mark. The distribution will include more low temps near the dew point. No such cutoff of high Temps.
Thus (Tmax +Tmin)/2 will often be a bit higher than the 24h Mean.
maguff…rather than searching for external sources to prove me wrong, why don’t you try something original? Try thinking about the problem on your own, doing research if necessary, and rebut what I am saying.
That way, we can have an intelligent discussion. I won’t fling ad homs at anyone who is seriously trying to explain physics, but if that person throws out opinions with no scientific basis, inferring that I’m the idiot, I will likely respond in kind.
If you are going to cite scientists, try citing someone like David Bohm, Newton, Clausius, depending on his/her specialty.
I have never said that I don’t read books, however, I almost never read fiction. I read almost every night before going to sleep but it’s all non-fiction. Mind you, I don’t often read technical books before going to sleep although I occasionally get out my old electrical engineering text to review material on semiconductors. Each time I do, it annoys me to see them using the stupid old convention in which electrical current is deemed to run positive to negative.
With reference to your link to Demon-Haunted World, I don’t get what you are referencing on P.21. I looked at both the actual page 21 and the Adobe reader p.21 of 438. All I could see was…
“Spurious accounts that snare, the gullible are readily available. Sceptical treatments are much harder to find. Scepticism does not sell well”.
Sagan was about as gullible as it gets, with his beliefs on the BB theory and the greenhouse theory about Venus.
In a quote from Carl Sagan in the wiki article, he says:
“Sagan explains that science is not just a body of knowledge, but is a way of thinking. Sagan shows how scientific thinking is both imaginative and disciplined, bringing humans to an understanding of how the universe is, rather than how they wish to perceive it”.
I have always regarded Sagan as an arrogant SOB. He is the last one who should be talking about skepticism or the scientific method. His MO, as the smart-assed SOB he was in life, was to look down his nose at other scientists and to try embarrassing them on camera.
In that respect, he was like The Science Guy who dared to correct Lindzen on the Gulf Stream. Lindzen sorted him out with a few words. Sagan had a serious mental problem in which he saw himself as a luminary and everyone else a dumbass.
He talks in the quote about science bringing humans to an understanding of how the universe is. However, in any video I saw him speaking, he would use phrases like “when the Big Bang happened…”. He tended to talk like Elmer Fudd, which made him appear even more of an ass.
No scientist who understands the scientific method would make a dumbass statement like that. There is not a shred of evidence, based on the scientific method, that the universe suddenly appeared out of nothing. Anyone who believes that is a raving idiot. The BB theory is nothing more than an entertaining thought…to some. To me it is one of the more stupid theories in science, about on the level of evolution theory.
James Hansen, formerly leader of NASA GISS, before it went right down the tubes under Gavin Schmidt, was a disciple of Sagan. That’s where Hansen got his ridiculous tipping point theory, from Sagan’s disproved runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. Since Sagan made a fool of himself with that theory, it has been discovered that the surface temperature on Venus is 450C, and a greenhouse warming would be a direct contradiction of the 2nd law.
Here’s the scientific method in a nutshell.
1)Make a statement outlining what you are trying to prove.
2)Lay out your method
3)describe your equipment and setup
4)run experiment and make observations
5)form conclusions.
Tell me how that method can be applied to the Big Bang theory, evolution theory, the GHE, or AGW.
> Tell me how that method can be applied to the Big Bang theory, evolution theory, the GHE, or AGW.
We’ve been there already:
https://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/08/roger-pielke-jr-s-inkblot/
There’s not much difference between cooking and sciencing.
Witless Wee Willy,
What a load of rubbish! You included the following crackpot statement –
“Hypothesis: the surface of the Earth is warmer than in the past.”
Considering that about 70% of the surface is underwater, and that no climate cranks actually measure surface temperatures anyway, your confusion between observation and hypothesis is irrelevant, apart from making you look like one of the aforementioned climate cranks!
So try again, Wee Willy Idiot.
Read about the “scientific method” first, if you wish. You don’t seem to understand it, if your nonsensical comment is any guide.
July 10, 2021 at 11:48 PM
Mike Flynn,
You almost said something!
Great progress!
Keep trying!
Willard, please stop trolling.
It is NOT science that “The rate of increase of such gases is sufficient to cause global temperatures to rise by a couple of degrees by the middle of the next 21st century.”
That is “belief”. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause global temperatures to increase. Correlation is NOT causation.
More emitters (CO2 molecules) in the atmosphere would emit more energy to space.
> More emitters (CO2 molecules) in the atmosphere would emit more energy to space.
Counterfactuals are NOT facts, Pup.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson at 5:56 PM
Here’s the scientific method in a nutshell.
1)Make a statement outlining what you are trying to prove.
The Moon rotates on its axis once for every revolution around Earth.
2)Lay out your method
Go outside and observe the Moon.
3)describe your equipment and setup
My own eyes and a lawn chair in my backyard.
4)run experiment and make observations
I notice that the Moon always keeps the same side turned to Earth as it orbits.
5)form conclusions.
Conclusion:
The Moon rotates once on its axis in the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.
Further, If the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then we would see different parts of the Moon throughout the month.
Done!
P.s.: mic drop
TM,
You don’t understand. The Moon is falling continuously – towards the Earth. Stand under a falling piano (if you want a lesson in Newton’s Laws of Motion).
Look up.
See the bottom as it falls towards you. No rotation. Why should there be?
Look at the bottom of the Moon, as it falls toward the center of the Earth. What force would make it rotate?
And if your viewpoint is from “the fixed stars”, you will see all sides of the Moon. Just as you would see all sides of a carousel horse viewed from outside the carousel. The horse, however does not rotate about the pole upon which it slides up and down.
But have it your way. Other climate cranks will expound vigorously about anything which diverts attention from reality – for example, that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from the molten state!
No amount of climate crackpot grumbling or hand waving will make this inconvenient truth vanish.
Mike Flynn,
The Moon librates.
Sorry.
Weary Wee Willy,
No, the Moon does not “wobble” back and forth, or up and down. It is an apparent movement, resulting from the observer’s position with respect to the Moon.
So your faux sorrow has been for nought. Sorry.
Presumably you believe that forces other than gravity affect the Moon’s motion, but are too gutless to come right out and say it. Ask a climate crank who happens to be an astrophysicist – Ken Rice, for example.
Am I right, or am I right?
Mike Flynn,
The Moon librates.
Sorry.
Willard, please stop trolling.
But we don’t see precisely the same side as it ‘continuously falls’ toward us. It ‘rotates a little back and forth’ from our position looking ‘up’ as it falls. Does a falling piano wobble back and forth regularly as it falls? No. What in your hypothesis explains libration? Nothing!
And … no amount of grumbling or hand waving will make this inconvenient truth about libration vanish.
TF,
Don’t be stupid. You do realise that the Moon orbits the Earth, don’t you? Otherwise, it would just fall on your head – which might be something to be hoped for, but exceptionally unlikely to happen. Pity.
And, of course, the orbit is not perfectly circular, and inclined to the plane of the ecliptic. Also, it precesses in at least three different modes.
So – replace the Moon with a piano (bottom towards the Earth), or a cannonball, or a circle of climate buffoons with their noses firmly up the backside of the crackpot in front. The result is the same. Falling.
My “hypothesis”, as you call it, is merely rephrasing Sir Isaac Newton expressing how his Law of Universal Gravitation explained the observed motion of the Moon.
If you wish to believe that celestial creatures push the Moon hither and yon, back and forth, up and down – good for you. I wish you well in convincing anyone less stupid than yourself that Newton was wrong, and you have corrected him.
“You do realise that the Moon orbits the Earth, dont you? ”
Yes, its orbits — the center of mass of the moon follows a curved path due to the force of gravity. It does NOT “rotate” around the barycenter — there is no circular motion and no torque causing the moon to rotate.
Let’s take your piano — or two pianos. Let’s assume they start not rotating with respect to the stars, high above the earth. Let’s suppose they are above the norht pole so the top is facing the north star. I give 1 piano a push straight sideways so as to import no torque. So right after the push, one is falling ‘straight down’ and one is moving to the side as it falls. Neither is rotating with respect to the stars. The tops are parallel
Gravity causes no torques on the pianos, so neither one has any angular acceleration. You correctly surmise that the top of the ‘falling’ piano remains oriented with the north star. What possible torque causes the second piano to start to turn its top away from the north star?
Folkerts, your confused understanding of the falling pianos confuses you.
The piano that gets the “push straight sideways” will go into orbit, if the “push” were the correct value. That piano would then keep the same side (bottom) facing Earth, as it orbits. It would NOT be rotating about its axis.
I predict you will not understand this.
“That piano would then keep the same side (bottom) facing Earth, as it orbits. ”
You state that as if it is an obvious fact. Why the same side “facing earth” rather than “facing the North Star”?
WHY should it change orientation relative to the North Star? What torque causes this rotation to start and make the two pianos face different directions? You have calculated that gravity produces no torque. What else would cause the torque?
Folkerts, I stated it as an obvious fact because it is an obvious fact. That’s the advantage of the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. One side always faces the inside of the orbit. That’s “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It’s the same with Moon.
With the falling pianos, there is no torque. That’s your confused misunderstanding caused by your cult. There is NO torque, and NO rotation.
A vector analysis reveals the same thing. People that aren’t comfortable with vectors can still understand the simple analogy.
But idiots can’t understand anything.
I know you will be here all day, trying to pervert reality. But, I don’t have time for nonsense. I will ignore all responses that deny reality. I can’t teach physics to idiots.
> with falling pianos, there is no torque.
Depends on the initial conditions, Pup.
Ask any piano mover how hard it is to move a piano squarely in the air.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“But, I dont have time for nonsense.”
Translation: ‘I have plenty of time to come here and troll. But, I have no answer to your question, “WHY should it change orientation relative to the North Star”
So, as usual, I’ll just declare that it does, and moan about not having time ‘
Swenson at 9:05 PM
Your layman’s intuition is duly noted.
Gordon Robertson at 5:56 PM
With reference to your link to Demon-Haunted World, I don’t get what you are referencing on P.21. I looked at both the actual page 21 and the Adobe reader p.21 of 438. All I could see was
“Spurious accounts that snare, the gullible are readily available. Sceptical treatments are much harder to find. Scepticism does not sell well”.
You are quoting from p. 5 paragraph 4 of the 1997 paperback edition, although in that printing Sceptical is spelled with a “k”. This is not a ringing endorsement of your research abilities.
For an educated person, your definition of who is a scientist is very peculiar. It is almost as if you have never met any scientists. Newsflash, new scientists are being minted as we speak. Science survived Pope Urban VIII’s attack on Galileo, it survived Stalin’s attack on Darwin, it survived Hitler’s attack on Einstein, and most recently it survived attacks from Donald Trump and his ilk.
As to your opinion on the expansion of the Universe, all I have to say read Edwin Hubble, a scientist, and then we’ll talk.
Now, go back to reading your one(?) electrical engineering text.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
Orbital period 27.321661 d
(27 d 7 h 43 min 11.5 s[1])
Synodic period 29.530589 d
(29 d 12 h 44 min 2.9 s)
Rotation period 29.530589 d
(29 d 12 h 44 min 2.9 s; synodic; solar day) (spin-orbit locked)
Sidereal rotation period 27.321661 d (spin-orbit locked)
Conclusion:
The solar day on Moon lasts 29.530589 d
spin-orbit locked = doesn’t rotate about its axis
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” spin-orbit locked = doesnt rotate about its axis ”
Utterly wrong.
Spin-orbit locking means equality of spin and orbiting period.
How can you pretend such a nonsense?
Moon’s rotation period about its polar axis has been computed, giving exactly the same time (five equal digits after the decimal point)
– by the astronomer Tobias Mayer in 1750 (!!)
– by many evaluations of Lunar Lase Ranging data since 1976.
How can you dare to ignore or even dissimulate that?
J.-P. D.
As usual Bindidon, you’re FAR behind.
Moon is said to have a spin/orbit ratio of 1:1. But, the “spin” is NOT observed, as the same side always faces the inside of the orbit. Your cult believes an orbit includes a “spin”.
Mercury is said to have a spin/orbit ratio of 3:2. Three “spins” can be observed in two complete orbits. So, if an orbit includes a “spin”, why don’t they say Mercury has a 5:2 spin/orbit ratio?
Here’s the reality:
Moon spin/orbit ratio = 0:1
Mercury spin/orbit ratio = 3:2
I predict you can’t understand any of this.
“spin-orbit locked = doesnt rotate about its axis”
Wrong
spin-orbit locked = rotates on its axis once per orbit.
Yes, earth’s atmosphere is very thin. Earth’s atmosphere is not capable to develop any greenhouse warming effect.
They believe in that very mistaken narrative – they believe Earth without atmosphere would have been a snowball…
Moon is in our immediate neighborhood. But Moon is not a snowball.
Moon has very high daytime temperatures and very low nighttime temperatures, but snowball it is not.
And Moon does not have atmosphere…
What then?
Then the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon has been already discovered.
The Rotational Warming is what makes the Earth’s surface on average a warmer than Moon planet.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Water and water vapor will have quite an effect on a planet.
I could observe that the Earth is mostly a water planet and the Moon is not.
The idiots still can’t understand the simple examples. They can’t understand the difference between “orbiting” (revolving) and “spinning” (rotating).
That’s why the easy-to-understand example of a ball-on-a-string is so important. It clearly demonstrates that in “orbital motion without axial rotation”, one side always faces the inside of the orbit.
Bindidon and Folkerts STILL can not understand libration, which is easily explained:
Lunar Libration
Lunar Libration is nothing more than a change in how Moon appears as viewed from Earth. Moon appears to “wobble”, but the motion is not actual. An example makes it much clearer.
A runner runs on an oval (elliptical) track. An observer stands at one focus point of the ellipse. When the runner is closest to the observer (semi-minor radius of ellipse), the observer sees only the left side of the runner, if the runner’s “orbit” is counter-clockwise.
As the runner progresses down the track, the observer can see more of runner’s back. At a certain distance, the observer may be able to read the number on the back of the runner’s shirt. When the runner is at the far end of the track (apogee), the observer again only sees runner’s left side. As the runner starts back, the observer may be able to see the number on the front side of runner’s shirt.
The observer can see more than just the left side of the runner, depending on where runner is in the orbit. It’s the same with Moon.
Moon’s orbit is a little more complex, as it is also tilted relative to Earth’s orbit. It would be similar to the runner running on a transparent tilted plane. At one end of the oval, the observer may be able to see the bottom of runner’s shoes. At the other end of the track, the observer may be able to see the top of runner’s head.
All the different views of Moon is what is referred to as “libration”. It is not hard to understand. At no time does the observer ever see the right side of the runner because the runner is NOT rotating about his axis.
“They cant understand the difference between orbiting (revolving) and spinning (rotating).”
Nor do you. You even ignore Newton.
“Thats why the easy-to-understand example of a ball-on-a-string is so important. ”
Which is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string, nothing else.
> Lunar Libration is nothing more than a change in how Moon appears as viewed from Earth.
Libration is more than an effect, Pup. It’s a set of phenomena that that Moon Dragons can’t explain with their silly examples. Have you ever seen a ball on a string librate?
Your only way out is to try the Poll Dance Experiment.
“Folkerts STILL can not understand libration,”
Actually, I understand all that … AND MORE!
The “runner” example gives the general idea about (one specific form of) libration for someone completely unfamiliar with the concept, but it does not accurately predict the correct amount of libration. Both the runner and the moon have ‘libration’, but the moon has MORE libration than a runner on a track. As they say “Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.” The runner is ‘close’ to the right amount of libration. But not the right amount.
You should try understanding more sometime. It is fascinating!
Folkerts, this is just another example of you trying to pervert reality.
I didn’t give any dimensions, so you’re ASSUMING things that aren’t valid. You’re desperate.
A model of Moon’s orbit and libration could be constructed as accurately as you had money for. It wouldn’t change a thing. Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
> A model of Moon’s orbit and libration could be constructed as accurately as you had money for.
We already have many, Pup, e.g.:
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA045591
Do Moon Dragons have anything like that?
We already know you don’t understand any of this, Will.
You had your chance back with the problem about “gravitational torque”. But, you ran for cover.
You’re just another troll/stalker searching for things on the Internet you can’t understand.
I understand that Moon Dragons have no numerical model, Pup.
That’s almost all there is to it, really.
What’s left is for you to do the Poll Dance Experiment.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.”
Oh yes it is.
Look, Clint, we don’t really care about names. We care about observations.
If you were standing on the moon, you would see the stars move across the sky at a constant rate — 360 degrees per 27.3 days, or 0.55 degrees per hour. That is a simple fact; that is “reality” with no perversion.
How can this be explained? Well, it is not because the moon ‘rotates around the earth’ at a constant 0.55 degrees per hour. Sometimes it goes faster, sometimes slower. It’s also not because the moon is moving ‘just like a runner on an elliptical track’. This also would have the stars moving sometimes faster than 0.55 degrees per hour and sometimes slower. The ‘runner on a track’ analogy ‘perverts reality’.
The simplest description consistent with reality is that the moon is rotating at a constant rate around its own axis. This is also consistent with your conclusion that gravity exerts no torque on the moon, causing no angular acceleration for the moon, and letting it turn at a constant rate.
You can insist again and again, but that does not change how the moon moves!
Look Folkerts, the simplest description consistent with reality is that Moon is orbiting Earth, without axial rotation.
You can insist again and again, but that does not change how Moon moves!
See, Pup?
You don’t have a numerical model, so you’re shadowboxing.
At least choreograph properly!
Willard, Folkerts doesn’t need any help making a fool of himself. He does that quite well, all on his own.
But your comments are most revealing. I noticed above you still can’t spell “pole”.
Idiots can’t learn.
I get that a merry-go-round horse is not rotating with respect to the platform. For example, you could draw a line from the center of the MGR to the COM of the horse, and then from the center of the horse to any point on the horse. Because the horse is bolted to the platform, this angle, θ, does not change, so the angular speed ω = dθ/dt is zero, and there is ‘no axial rotation’ measured from the the platform.
1) If the horse’s nose regularly pointed a bit inward and later a bit outward, would you say the horse is rotating on its axis a bit? Brief periods of CW rotation followed by CCW rotation?
2) What unchanging angle is there for the moon, such that ω = dθ/dt = 0 and there is no axial rotation of the moon?
Folkerts, you’re getting yourself wrapped about your axle, again. You STILL don’t understand any of this.
Your constructed angle θ would not change on a MGR, but it would change for an object on an oval track. But, that is NOT axial rotation. You continue to confuse the different motions.
You just don’t have enough physics background to understand, and you can’t learn.
“But, that is NOT axial rotation.”
So just exactly what is your definition of “axial rotation”? What can I measure to determine if something is under going “axial rotation”? What does “without axial rotation” mean for an elliptical orbit?
You claim to know physics well. Surely you can write simple sentence to define the concept. Surely you can write an equation (and define precisely what the variables mean). Your intuition does not count. Just writing “NOT” in all caps does not count.
Until you can write a definition, we have no idea what you are talking about.
Clint R doesn’t know what he is taking about either.
Folkerts, the reason you’re not learning is you have a blatant desire to pervert reality. I don’t understand such behavior, but it’s common here. So since you’re not learning, and there’s been no progress. We’re going to have to change the routine. You’re going to have to face responsibility. You’re going to have to own up to your own stupidity. I suspect you have never had to do that. You were likely a trust-fund baby, never had to work at a real job, and never were in the military. You were raised to be a snowflake, and that’s what you are.
So, do you admit that your questions about the “changing/unchanging angle” were stupid?
We can’t make progress if you can’t face reality.
“Changing angle” is part of the definition of rotation! You know if something is rotating when the alignment is changing. So I am not ever going to admit including measurements of angles is stupid.
Define “axial rotation”.
We can’t make progress until you can communicate the idea you mean by “axial rotation”.
Quit avoiding the issue, Folkerts.
Your questions were stupid. Admit that, or combined with the fact that you/ve got NOTHING, we’re done.
Did I mention that you’ve got NOTHING?
“What does “without axial rotation” mean for an elliptical orbit?”
Tim, you evaded this question up-thread, so I will try again here. If we agree (for the sake of argument) that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left”, here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Then what would be the orientation of that moon throughout the orbit when the orbit is elliptical, like our moon’s? How would you expect the moon to remain oriented, throughout the orbit, if not like how our moon remains oriented? Because it seems like you are the one arguing that it would notbe like how our moon moves. So what are we supposed to compare it to? How should the “moon on the left” move, in an elliptical orbit, in your opinion, if not like our moon?
You have dodged the question so many times now, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-736019
Where’s the Moon Dragon numerical model of the Moon?
DREMT, you are mis-stating the issue.
Let’s get a concrete image to refer to so we are both on the same page. (hope this works). https://ibb.co/jfzjjNB
The ‘moon’ starts at “A” and moves around the ellipse. This moon is “tidally locked” and keeps one face ‘more or less’ toward the planet the whole time. This is like “the moon on the left”. The arrow at “A” marks the location of an observer, and shows the direction ‘straight up’ for that observer, toward the planet. By Kepler’s Laws, the moon sweeps out equal areas in equal times, as illustrated (each slice is 1/12 of the period).
By the time the moon gets to “D” where is the observer and which way is “up”?
1) “up” from the observer is still straight toward the planet (the arrow mostly left and a bit up on the screen)
2) “up” from the observer is still perpendicular to the direction of travel (the arrow mostly up an a bit left on the screen)
3) “up” from the observer is 90 degrees from where it was originally (the arrow straight toward the top of the screen).
4) Other (be specific).
Any one who understands orbital mechanics should immediately know the correct answer.
Folkerts fumbles and the insane stalker tries to cover for him.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Tim, how should the “moon on the left” move, in an elliptical orbit, in your opinion, if not like our moon?
The answer is 2), perpendicular to instantaneous linear velocity.
I only answer Folkerts because you actually did some real work here.
Now, admit your previous comment was stupid.
Quit avoiding the issue, Pup.
Where’s the Moon Dragon numerical model of the Moon’s non-rotation?
“Tim, how should the ‘moon on the left’ move, in an elliptical orbit, in your opinion, if not like our moon?”
Well … the ‘moon on the left’ SHOULD move ‘like our moon’. I just don’t think you know how our moon should and does move — when the elliptical orbit is examined in detail.
So I gave an exaggerated diagram for a moon in a clearly elliptical orbit so anyone could give their own clear answer as to which way this moon should face along the orbit.
“The answer is 2), perpendicular to instantaneous linear velocity.”
Sorry, the answer is (3)!
Each sector is 1/12 of the total period for the orbit. The moon has traveled for 3/12 = 1/4 of the total period. Since it turns at a constant rate relative to the stars, it has turned 1/4 of a total rotation in 1/4 of the period = 90 degrees.
“Well…the ‘moon on the left’ SHOULD move ‘like our moon’.”
So…you have no argument then. If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left”, but the eccentricity of that orbit (that of the “moon on the left”) was the same as our moon’s -instead of being circular – you are saying you would expect the orientation of that “moon on the left” throughout the orbit to be exactly the same as how our moon is observed to move.
Wrong again, Folkerts.
You’re STILL confused by the motions. Moon is being steered by the two vectors, but there is NO rotation involved.
One of us is right and one of us is wrong. We aren’t going to decide this by just contradicting the other. I can yell “WRONG again!” too.
We could find actual data, but unfortunately I suspect that you would simply dismiss data that disagreed with you. I could ask a bunch of physics profs. We could look at planetarium software that can let is look from the moon’s surface. We could appeal to conservation of angular momentum and the lack of torque you have professed to believe.
At this point I may just leave it Occam’s Razor. Either
a) Clint is right, and no physicists or astronomy professors ever realized their data and their theories are wrong.
b) people who study these things got it right
Wrong again, Folkerts.
You’re still trying to use “the stars”. You can’t learn.
Let’s go with your “angular momentum”, since you mentioned it. Moon has zero rotational angular momentum. That means the “front” always faces the direction it is moving. That means that the arrow always faces the inside of the orbit, and remains perpendicular to the instantaneous linear velocity.
If you understood physics, it would all be clear to you. But since you’re still trying to make stuff up, I have to remind you that…you’ve got NOTHING.
“You are saying you would expect the orientation of that moon on the left throughout the orbit to be exactly the same as how our moon is observed to move.”
You need to clarify what you are thinking. Since the orbit is now elliptical rather than circular it is difficult to interpret what ‘exactly the same’ might mean to you.
One thing that SHOULD be ‘exactly the same’ (in a good simulation) is the rate of change in the orientation of the image on the screen. On my screen at least, the moon takes 4 seconds to orbit and 4 seconds to change orientation. A point on the moon that is exactly “up” on the screen (relative to the center of the moon) will be exactly “left”, exactly “down”, exactly “right” and then exactly “up” again at successive seconds.
This will be ‘exactly the same’ for an ellipse. The image should still turn at a uniform 90 degrees per second.
“Moon has zero rotational angular momentum. ”
Either Clint is right … or 8 million google hits to professors, textbooks, homework solutions and more are right.
https://www.google.com/search?q=angular+momentum+of+moon
Occam’s Razor.
All those physics textbooks couldn’t help you Folkerts.
But idiots can usually find things on the Internet they don’t understand.
It’s kind of an infinite source of stupidity…perfect for idiots.
You’ve got NOTHING.
8 million hits ain’t NOTHING, Pup.
There may not even be 8 Dragons in the universe.
It is mildly amusing to hear Clint simultaneously tell me I need to learn more physics … and also say that all the people who have learned more physics are wrong.
So you are arguing that the “Non-Spinner” position (“orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left”) can account for libration of longitude just fine. That’s good to know, Tim.
Folkerts, earlier you claimed “20 generations of scientists” and “all physics textbooks” agreed with you.
Now, you’re claiming “8 million google hits” support your nonsense.
Yet you can’t come up with a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
It almost appears as if you’re making things up, again….
> you cant come up with a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”
Can you, Pup?
Perhaps that’s a reason why we only have workable models of the Moon-Earth system where the Moon rotates, Pup…
“Yet you cant come up with a workable model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’.”
Asked and answered many times (with the standard answer that is consistent with … well everyone except you).
“Orbital motion” = motion of the COM of an object, typically in an ellipse due to gravity.
“axial rotation” = change in orientation (for example, of a vector or rigid body) relative to a non-rotating set of axes (ie relative to the ‘fixed stars’)
“Now, youre claiming ‘8 million google hits’ support your nonsense.”
That’s still better than having no google hits and no textbooks support *your* position. Occam’s Razor.
Sorry Folkerts, but those two lame definitions ain’t a model. You fall short again. Very short, as in, you got NOTHING.
He’s a lot better of that the less than nothing position you hold.
So a ball bolted to a train car travelling in an ellipse is a “model” of the moon, but a ball on a freely turning axle is NOT a “model”. Got it.
Tim, please stop trolling.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/temperatures-may-hit-an-all-time-record-on-wednesday-and-thursday-1.4626170
> Met ireann
That’s Met Éireann
Let’s hope Roy has no Irish blood!
Some tests:
é
É
\o/
And yet global air temperatures are falling. Have been falling for the last 6 months or so if you look below.
Tell me which dataset is not showing this?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset:0.45/from:2011/plot/rss/from:2011/plot/gistemp/from:2011/offset:-0.25/plot/had crut4gl/from:2011/offset
“Falling”
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset/from:2011/trend/plot/rss/from:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2011/offset:-0.25/trend
“for the last 6 months”
Can you not read?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset/from:2020/trend/plot/rss/from:2020/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2020/offset:-0.25/trend
Or
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset:0.5/from:2020/trend/plot/rss/from:2020/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2020/offset:-0.25/trend
if you prefer.
RLH
Look up a few comments.
You were the one talking about 2011.
I was showing the basic agreement of the 4 sources since 2011. The comment about falling temperatures was about the last 6 months. There is a difference.
Can you be relevant, dummy?
Here’s an erratum:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset/from:2011/trend/plot/rss/from:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2011/offset/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset/from:2020/trend/plot/rss/from:2020/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2020/offset/trend
Here is what I said. Idiot.
You didn’t say anything, dummy.
Wrote then. Only you could be so pedantic.
There’s nothing pedantic about pinning you down on clear, relevant, and explicit claims, dummy.
You only like linear trends when they show a upwards slant.
Your mind probing is duly noted, dummy.
Your idiocy too.
z
And what did you say in the year 2000?
https://tinyurl.com/4eukuwyp
Offsets for WFT wrt UAH LT L+O 1991-2020 at 0.0:
– RSS4.0 :-0.35
– Had-CRUT: -0.47
– BEST: -0.57
– GISS: -0.62
– NOAA: -0.62
” And yet global air temperatures are falling. ”
When it’s warming, we don’t need to talk about it: it’s El Nino.
When it’s cooling, we really need to tell about it: no warming!
J.-P. D.
That showed the basic alignment since 1990. Do keep up.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset:0.5/from:2006/plot/rss/from:2006/plot/gistemp/from:2006/offset:-0.25
Here is since 2006
“since 1990”
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1990
Our dummy’s an Escalator Man!
Idiot.
Our dummy does not always dislike trends, but when he does he’ll ask silly “since” questions.
I can play linear trends all you like. Not that they mean much outside the period they are created over.
And you can even hide your Climateball strategy by asking a “since” question, dummy.
Now try to pretend the two series are well correlated:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/from:2020/offset:0.6/plot/best/from:2020/offset
OK https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/from:2020/offset:0.6/trend/plot/best/from:2020/offset/trend
Try this one instead, dummy:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/from:2020/trend/offset:0.7/plot/best/from:2020/trend
Even better:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/from:2020/trend/offset:0.68/plot/best/from:2020/trend
If you want to fit the other end:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/from:2020/trend/offset:0.65/plot/best/from:2020/trend
So they show the same trend. Well done.
No they don’t, dummy.
The offset is 100% of the signal, btw.
Offsets are used because the reference periods differ. Idiot.
You use offsets because UAH lowballs temperatures, dummy.
What reference periods do the various temperature sources employ? How do you think that effects the numbers they display?
July 21, 2021 at 2:08 PM
If you cant eyeball two series without offset, chances are you need to get better resolution.
Offsets make up for different reference periods. Idiot.
Cool story, bro:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5-land/trend/plot/best/trend
There were no satellites (or reference periods) around in the 1800s.
The Moon was there, dummy.
Gistemp rising.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset/from:2021/trend/plot/rss/from:2021/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2021/offset:-0.25/trend
Is 2021 2020?
No wonder you offset UAH, dummy:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:2020/plot/uah6-land/from:2020
I offset because the base periods are different. Idiot.
“I offset because the base periods are different.”
RLH says:
July 8, 2021 at 6:38 PM
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/plot/best/offset:-0.6/from:1979
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/plot/best/from:1979/offset:-0.6
And that shows what? That I was correct?
Correct about which irrelevant claim, dummy?
Keep your lowballing to yourself:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/plot/best/from:1979/
If you can’t eyeball two series without offset, chances are you need to get better resolution.
Try https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/plot/best/from:1979/offset:-0.6
July 8, 2021 at 7:10 PM
Its a 20-year scale, dummy.
July 21, 2021 at 2:08 PM
If you cant eyeball two series without offset, chances are you need to get better resolution.
Well if the linear trends match….
They don’t, dummy.
Check one end. Then check the other.
At best you can say you got the sign right.
The claim was that global air temperatures have declined in the last 6 months. That claim is satisfied. As you yourself have shown.
The claim is irrelevant, and you lowball anomalies.
As everybody uses anomalies…
Every ellipsis is a tell, dummy:
“The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2021”
You prove my point
“The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2021
A convention isn’t a point, dummy.
Are you really saying that global air temps have not dropped since the beginning of the year. Even when the facts say otherwise?
Are you really saying that unless there’s an extreme event immediately after a global rise temperatures can’t influence extreme events, dummy?
Idiot.
z
RLH
” Sea levels are not quite as they seem. ”
And that you derive from a WUWT head post???
Not untypical for you…
What about reading some REAL work, like e.g.
Dangendorf et al. (2019): Persistent acceleration in global sea-level rise since the 1960s
That’s behind paywall in many places, but I downloaded the pdf as it was in free access:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-ilhh3ov20tfb03P5ZKDHTzZuJ9rD4P8/view
If you look at all the work performed by such people in comparison with the poorish post written by Jim Steele… OMG.
Feel free to compare their splendid evaluation compared with my little layman work:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_33qttKhTvMpbdjhnJUCL_-kO6HYlmht/view
or here, together with an evaluation by Grant Foster, and the NOAA altimetry data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nMqjTy4vtwwR3HUX_kiARXnGQuLkDk_n/view
andd here, comparing the acceleration shown by a 2nd order polynomial
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qBSUtBULXrWDDhbMYoe3fA9Iw9wytyY2/view
*
There isn’t only the San Francisco tide gauge on Earth, RLH.
And as opposed to statistician Grant Foster (permanently denigrated by Robertson) and layman Bindidon, Dangendorf & al. integrated much more in their global averaging than solely gauge and GPS data.
*
Maybe you try to do the same work as Dangendorf, RLH, instead of linking us simple-minded WUWT trash?
J.-P. D.
Sierra Jim plays Climateball like a Boss:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/like-a-boss/
Sure and sea level measurement is SO simple that anyone can do it.
binny…”And as opposed to statistician Grant Foster (permanently denigrated by Robertson) ”
***
Foster, aka Tamino, a statistician??? You mean a frustrated musician, don’t you?
https://motls.blogspot.com/2008/09/who-is-tamino-grant-foster-identity.html
His counterpart over at skepticalscience once passed himself off as a solar physicist. Turned out he was making a living as a cartoonist.
Do you have a scientific rebuttal or are you going to settle for slinging ad homs and insults, Gordo?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“And that you derive from a WUWT head post???”
No. I pointed out that there are a number of factors needed to determine sea level rise. Do you disagree with them?
Are you really an idiot?
Answer Mark’s question, dummy.
You are an idiot.
Here’s Mark’s question, dummy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-762645
Sooner or later, you’ll have to answer it.
I already did.
“Unless you know what predicts how far out that error is per station and why, how can you say that it is not significant?”
A question isn’t an answer, dummy.
Why are you an idiot is a question too.
Your burden of proof reversal is added to your list of blunders, dummy.
You cant improve on being an idiot.
Your “how can you say that it is not significant” also strawmans Mark’s point.
So how do you determine significance? Are you not allowed to ask what is and what isn’t significant? Typical Willard the idiot.
First, find a difference in derived metrics.
https://hpklima.blogspot.com/2014/06/confidence-intervals-around-temperature.html?m=0
So what determines if a station will be close when comparing mean to average and how many of them are in the historical database?
http://gph.is/1Kncn2v
Another idiotic non-answer from Willard.
https://hpklima.blogspot.com/2014/06/hypothesis-testing-of-temperature-trends.html
Nate
Thanks for your reaction.
1. ” Why is there a systematic offset of 0.6 in these? I cannot think of a sensible reason for that. ”
I don’t know. All I can say is that these incredibly similar 365 day running means reflect the data of on average over 150 stations.
*
2. ” If only TMIN and TMAX are available in much of data, then one cannot calculate Median in any case. ”
From a political view, that is EXACTLY the reason why some people try to misinterpret USCRN statements in order to entirely discredit all data for which a median based diay temperature computation is impossible, i.e. nearly everything what has been done since about a century.
This discussion is for me relatively useless when we consider the fact that all climate people, beginning with Roy Spencer at UAH, till those people busy with e.g. sea levels, are not primarily working with absolute data, but rather with their departures from a common mean.
How else could you compare
– UAH’s lower troposphere data with that coming from the lower stratosphere
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OO6HpUOvk_N_tC2fUt8wzDDvMzhYM8C_/view
– or tide gauge and altimetry data between 1993 and now?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nMqjTy4vtwwR3HUX_kiARXnGQuLkDk_n/view
*
I learned that years ago when comparing stations with different absolute temperatures, e.g. Anchrage AP and Kenai 29 ENE in Alaska
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D6Plbj3pZiYE3kQS05B6_6mcgOLxNB5n/view
become something different when you compare them using departures from a mean
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OhCuDiAFUT80Ws4S8XopciaWQTp4rorn/view
*
It will be interesting for me, when I now start hourly based computations of daily anomalies for the USCRN, to compare them with the TMIN/TMAX averages stored for all USCRN stations in the GHCN daily data set.
J.-P. D.
“UAHs lower troposphere data with that coming from the lower stratosphere”
Don’t you mean UAHs lower troposphere data with that coming from within the turbulent surface boundary layer.
What’s that for a strange reply? What do you mean?
Well mercury thermometers are in the turbulent surface boundary layer and I thought that was what you meant.
Possibly you didn’t.
Do you agree that there are 1217 stations in Meteostat that are in Germany/DE?
I think your data for ‘Mean’ and Median are adrift somehow.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-combined-carrizozo.jpeg
That shows the Median is almost the same as the Average whereas your table has it at 0.54C above it.
RLH
You wrote above
1. ” Because you cannot say why individual stations differ so much. How do you know that you can just lump them all together and produce something sensible without knowing what it is that causes an individual station to be in error? ”
How does anybody know that one can just lump together all 9,504 cells of UAH’s grid data, and obtain a pretty good, meaningful average of them as shown every month by Roy Spencer?
I have done that work 5 years ago, RLH, and my average gave a perfect fit to Mr Spencer’s graph, with monthly averages differing by maximal 0.01C.
And that though lots and lots of grid cells show strange behavior!
What is the difference between single CRN stations, tide gauges and grid cells in UAH, whose data seems spurious?
2. “… in error”, you say? That should be proven over more data than the very, very local USCRN network is able to offer.
*
3. ” You are just hoping that large numbers will obscure the outcomes. ”
Tell that to Roy Spencer, RLH, or to the people evaluating tide gauge data. They will all welcome your arrogant meaning, for sure.
By the way, here is some stat work I thought you would have published since a while:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l1H0v-FOq_mR079g0goPSWEgH4I3uOec/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17HqJT9g72QWqq5i_FWmm3iuWHee8bfPn/view
Did I overlook a post of yours with similar info?
J.-P. D.
“How does anybody know that one can just lump together all 9,504 cells of UAHs grid data, and obtain a pretty good, meaningful average of them as shown every month by Roy Spencer?”
What has gridding to do with my question?
“By the way, here is some stat work I thought you would have published since a while:”
Fine. Now do an abs() of the 2 to see which is the nearest to the average and mark them.
Now see if you can predict which will be best on any given station. V1 or V2. All you have to do is find the reason. Should be easy for you.
Your data appears to be slightly out
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-combined-carrizozo.jpeg
“In Napa Valley, climate change is already wiping out vintages from winemakers who produce some of the country’s finest cabernet sauvignons, zinfandels and other reds. Drought means less water to irrigate, even as hotter temperatures make irrigation more important.
Those grapes that survive can be ruined by smoke from wildfires, which destroyed much of last year’s crop.” (NYT)
AAARGHHHH! Now my only source of solace is under threat. Is there no end to this climate change misery?
studentb…”In Napa Valley, climate change is already wiping out vintages from winemakers who produce some of the country’s finest cabernet sauvignons, zinfandels and other reds.”
***
Straight from downtown Napa City.
“No doubt we’re in a drought. Since the last major statewide drought ended about five years ago, the winters of 2016-17 and 2018-19 were two of the wettest in recorded history”.
http://www.cityofnapa.org/1018/Drought-Update
OMG…it’s been 5 years since Napa last experienced a drought which went state-wide. Meantime, climate change let up and produced two of the wettest years in recorded history. Go figure.
Of course, the NYT had a reporter living there the past 5 years to ensure accuracy in reporting. I guess covid had nothing to do with wine makers going belly up.
> OMG…it’s been 5 years since Napa last experienced a drought which went state-wide
That may not imply what you make it imply, Gordo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”That report suggests large swaths of central and southern Manitoba, as well as the Interlake, are facing “extreme” and “exceptional” droughts not seen in decades”.
***
The Canadian prairies, which include Manitoba, which is part of Alsaskatoba, along with the Interior of British Columbia, are the most drought-prone parts of Canada.
The bit about extreme and exceptional are akin to calling a 0.1C global warming extreme or exceptional. That’s especially true because a 0.1C global warming has no meaning.
If this drought becomes persistent over the next 10 years, then we’ll worry.
It’s weather Willard and it’s summer. Started a bit early this year but even in the Vancouver rain forest environment, I have seen summers decades ago when it did not rain at all during July and August.
It’s weather Willard.
> Its weather
That’s called denial, Gordo:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-drought-crop-feed-cattle-pressures-1.6104523
Go tell Jason that it’s “just weather.”
“The three longest drought episodes occurred between July 1928 and May 1942 (the 1930s Dust Bowl drought), July 1949 and September 1957 (the 1950s drought), and June 1998 and December 2014 (the early 21st-century drought).”
“Environment Canada predicts a series of heat warnings will be in effect through much of central and southern Manitoba for the rest of the month, bringing consistent daily temperatures over 30 C, said agency meteorologist Alysa Pederson.
The effects of climate change mean in years to come, these prolonged heat waves will become more and more common, she said.
The average total precipitation from September to June is about 365 millimetres for Winnipeg and 335 for Brandon, she said. Those places received about half that 185 and 186 millimetres, respectively during the latest September to June period, said Pederson.”
willard…”bringing consistent daily temperatures over 30 C, said agency meteorologist Alysa Pederson.
The effects of climate change mean in years to come, these prolonged heat waves will become more and more common, she said”.
***
Alysa is a pseudo-scientist who dabbles in weather. I wrote to her and managed to stop myself from calling her an idiot. I did ask her, however, to supply scientific evidence, based on the scientific method, that climates are changing as she describes.
Another clueless and empty rant, Gordo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
rlh…”The three longest drought episodes occurred between July 1928 and May 1942 (the 1930s Dust Bowl drought)…”
***
And that ’30s Dust Bowl drought was the worst they have seen by far. Not only that, temperatures and heat waves exceeded what we are currently experiencing.
I took a year of geology as part of my engineering curriculum and we studied the Dust Bowl a bit. They blamed the dust on the way farmers were ploughing their fields in long, parallel furrows but no one bothered to ask where all the dust came from. We did not discuss the heat waves at all.
Geologists in general don’t discuss heat, yet Mann is a geologist who considers himself an expert on climate.
> I took a year of geology
Six minutes earlier, Gordo was talking about having “sunk to the level of using hearsay evidence.”
Well done!
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”Jason Bednarek has never seen drought this bad in Manitobas Interlake region, and midway into July, the third-generation farmer is already racked with worries about what hell have to do to make it through winter”.
***
Alarmists have sunk to the level of using hearsay evidence from one farmer.
Here you go, Gordo:
https://climateball.net/but-alarmism/
At least that’s a better Bingo square.
Willard, please stop trolling.
This is getting really silly. In Tyrone we are supposed to know it’s Summer because the rain gets warmer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57920672
But temps are all auto-correlated, EM.
As we can mostly predict what the end of the days temperature will be based on the first few hours of it, do you not thing they are auto-correlated.
Oh, and summer temps tend to be hotter than winter ones to.
Yet it’s our winters that are getting warmer the most, dummy:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/12/02/warmer-winters-take-social-economic-environmental-toll.html
They haven’t reached summer temps though.
Sriracha?
Wee Willy Peabrain,
So when do the seas boil dry? Your pathetic attempts at alarmism are not going to be effective if you can’t actually specify what there is to alarmed about.
If the cold places like Antarctica and Siberia return to their previous conditions, a golden age will emerge. Plenty of land, food, resources for all.
Miserable genocidal lunatics like yourself (wanting to reduce the amount of that essential plant food, CO2, available), just demonstrate their desire for everyone to share their miserable existence.
You witless fool, you can’t even come up with a reason why the Earth didn’t just cool to its present temperature without the need for any magical GHE.
You and your silly attempts to supplant facts with strange attention-seeking fantasies, engender cynical laughter, but not much else, by the look of things. How are your attempts to get people to click on your self-serving links going? Anyone interested in your “silly semantic games”?
[derisive laughter, continuing]
Mike Flynn,
As you yourself say–
What mental defect leads you to assume I might deign to answer?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Chilis, although hot, don’t increase air temperature.
In a sammich?
Idiot.
z
willard…”Temperatures may hit an all-time record on Wednesday and Thursday, according to Met ireann”.
***
Meantime, in the sleepy burb of Vancouver, Canada, temps have dropped from a record high, during summer,from 32C back to the norm of 21C.
Perhaps Willard could explain how a trace gas in the atmosphere can do that?
It’s weather Willard…summer weather.
Hasn’t rained for a month but it often does that around here in summer.
Meantime, in Willard’s stomping grounds, around Portland, Oregon, temps have dropped back from 42C to a seasonal 21C.
This weather system over Ireland will move on too.
Gordo,
Here you go:
https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas/
I never thought this dumb square could be that useful!
Comments welcome.
Dumb is what all idiots are.
z
willard…”I never thought this dumb square could be that useful!”
***
It’s still not useful, I don’t open your powerbull links. If you have something scientific to say about trace gases, let’s hear it. I won’t hold my breath.
I base my trace gas facts on the Ideal Gas Law, not on some alarmist’s pseudo-science.
> I don’t open
I don’t care much about your third-rate rants either, Gordo.
How can a trace gas be plant food, BTW?
Well gardeners have long added CO2 to greenhouses to increase plant growth.
“CO2 enrichment in greenhouses allows crops to meet there photosynthesis potential. Enriching the air with CO2 can be done by means of the combustion of natural gas or with liquid CO2. The supply of extra carbon dioxide is an often applied method to increase the yield of greenhouse crops. The amount of carbon dioxide in the outside air is, depending on your location, 350 parts per million. This amount is sufficient for plants to grow, however when placing a lot of plants together in a greenhouse, the carbon dioxide levels drop as all plants are using carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. By adding CO2 (CO2 enrichment), it is possible to increase the photosynthesis potential of the crops, especially on sunny days.”
“C4 plants are in general relatively unresponsive to elevation of atmospheric CO2 above current ambient levels.”
Tell the gardeners that. I’m sure they want to save on CO2 enrichment.
“The majority of plant species on Earth uses C3 photosynthesis”
Ask gardeners about weeds, dummy:
“increased CO2 also benefits weeds that compete with farm plants”
Ask idiots about idiots.
zzz
Idiot.
zzzz
Idiot^3
Idiot^4
“however when placing a lot of plants together in a greenhouse, the carbon dioxide levels drop as all plants are using carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. ”
Ok. So they are mitigating a reduction of CO2 in the artificial environment.
Very different from enhancing CO2 above natural levels.
“enhancing CO2 above natural levels”
The question has always been, what are natural levels?
For those who think the Grand Solar Minimum is on the road since a while
I downloaded solar flux data a week ago from the usual place
ftp://ftp.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/spaceweather/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt
Here is a comparison of the transitions from
– SC23 to SC24
– SC24 to SC25
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mzMcLJnNgIMleySZ1BxAZRaZPny57G8J/view
The new young man does not appear to be so terribly rickety.
J.-P. D.
Well as the 2 low points don’t match I think you alignment is slightly out.
His starting points are miss shifted
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
I rather thought that was the case.
RLH
You should download the data instead of eye-balling as usual.
The cycles’ superposition was chosen as accurately as possible, of course not on the base of 2 or 3 single days.
And Eben is as usuual too, absolutely unable to make a difference between
– Mg II and F10.7
– the scaling used for the plots.
OMG…
Now: what is the better way to describe the solar activity?
That I leave to true specialists.
All observations, estimations and predictions made by Leif Svalgaard were truastorthy all the time-
J.-P. D.
“You should download the data instead of eye-balling as usual.”
So tell me why your graph does not align the minima?
From looking at Bidendong’s charts alignment I think he has crossed eyes.
: )
“Our ensemble forecast indicates cycle 25 would be similar or slightly stronger than the current cycle and peak around 2024.”
“The predicted size of the new cycle 25 is 12810 (on the new sunspot number version 2 scale), slightly larger than the previous cycle.” Leif Svalgaard
The predicted size of the new cycle 25 is 128±10 (on the new sunspot number version 2 scale), slightly larger than the previous cycle.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57861067
willard…”In the provincial capital Zhengzhou, the equivalent of a years average rainfall has fallen in just three days”.
***
And your proof this is related to anthropogenic gases is….????
It’s weather, Willard.
Do you think a colder world leads to a world where you can receive the equivalent of a years average rainfall has fallen in just three days, Gordon San?
You should not use concepts you do not master. Proof is one of them.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Impressive! But what was the exact meteorological context of this event? Alot depend on that, o mean if it was due to a ‘stuck’ pattern of retreating thundercells that’s one thing, something else might be a different thing.
Also, might I put this in a different context: the annual rainfall in the city in question is about 640mm (surprisingly small for a humid supposedly climate at that latitude). July there being the rainiest months with about 140mm of rainfall and about 12 rainy days per that month giving normal of about 12mm per rainy day. A years worth of rainfall over 3 days, thus gives 213mm per day which still is more than a month’s worth of precipitation, and constitutes about 18 days worth of rain-normals of the season. Pretty bad, but not as impressive anymore, ain’t it?
Armwaving and irony don’t mix well, cot.
This is not a competition to impress you, and you cite data without sourcing it.
6 min, impressive! source: wikipedia, also common sense.
Thy Wiki. Common sense.
How impressive.
Willard, please stop trolling.
@willard
are you one of those people who refuse to learn math because hitler learned it?
Dear Cot,
You might like:
https://twitter.com/andrejbauer/status/1296555230184837122
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”New research from a consortium of American and Canadian scientists, supported by the New Hampshire-based non-profit Hubbard Brook Research Foundation, measured the effects of climate change in the region…”
**
And how exactly does one go about measure climate, defined loosely as th average of weather over a 30 year period.
The peabrains in the study used “snow-making days” as one metric.
Idiots!!!
Gordon Robertson says:
July 4, 2021 at 4:43 PM
Do you have a scientific rebuttal or are you going to settle for slinging ad homs and insults?
willard…for the resident troll, Willard.
“The peabrains in the study used “snow-making days” as one metric”.
Manitoba is in a drought region in Canada where temperatures go well below freezing in winter. The result is powder snow and not much of it, except where the wind blows it into drifts several feet thick.
The peabrains who wrote your alarmist article think they can measure “snow-making days” in a region known for a lack of precipitation and extrapolate that into a 30 year average to get climate change.
Anyone with half a brain would have gotten that but with Willard the troll, I have to explain it. The peabrains who wrote the article are obviously alarmists trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the gullible and it worked well with Willard.
Dear Gordo,
This blog ain’t yours. You’re not playing home. As a Dragon, you don’t have a real home. Joe’s, perhaps?
You have been peddling Dragon crap for years on this blog.
Also, most if not all of your contributions bait people.
That’s trolling, Gordo son.
Spell out all you want. I like to spell out too.
Enjoy your evening,
W
“This blog aint yours.”
Nor yours either.
Neither is it yours, dummy.
I have never clamed it is, not acted as though it was. Unlike you. You have decided that you want to be hall monitor all on your own.
I’m not playing home, dummy.
Hall monitors play home.
You play home.
You have 200 more comments than I do. The “idiot” count is at 474.
So I still own you at least 200 “dummy.”
None of that makes you less of an idiot.
Your mishandling of the concept of hall monitor is added to your list of blunders, dummy.
Nothing can make you more of an idiot.
z
Wonky Wee Willy,
This blog ain’t yours. You idiot Sky Dragons can’t even say how hot your stupid mythical GHE is supposed to make the globe!
You climate crackpots just forecast doom, doom, and more doom. Not a shred of science between the whole pack of bumbling buffoons calling themselves “climate scientists”!
Carry on trolling.
July 11, 2021 at 8:00 AM
Mike Flynn,
Youre the sock puppet here.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Carry on attempting to troll.
Maybe you’ll succeed one day.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
[The crowd cheers.]
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”How can a trace gas be plant food, BTW?”
***
This is the basic problem you alarmists have, a failure to understand contexts. The context in which plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, and the amount required, is not the same context of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere creating heat in the same.
In other words, creating nutrition for plants is unrelated to producing heat in the atmosphere. The atmospheric heat content depends on the percent mass of each gas, ergo, nitrogen and oxygen combine to make up nearly 99% of atmospheric gas mass. Therefore, N2/O2 supply 99% of the heat.
To understand that, Willard, requires more than your elementary school education. Since most alarmists don’t get that either, maybe they too are academically-challenged.
Alternately, there is easily enough CO2 in the atmosphere to supply all plants with nutrition but the percent mass, at 0.04%, is insufficient to add more than about 0.04C to every 1C contributed by N2 and O2.
> This is the basic problem
That’s where you’re wrong, Gordo.
The basic problems Climateball orthodoxy has is to make contrarian like you work.
Imagine if we could alleviate energy poverty using troglodytes’ keyboards:
https://solarbuddy.org/about/energy-poverty
If it was not of AGW, I would not deal with loons like you.
Weaseling Wee Willy,
At least you realise that the sun vanishes at night! Consequently, all the heat of the day flees to space. And a little of the Earth’s primordial heat. And this is why the Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Donkeys like you just refuse to accept reality.
Mike Flynn,
If you did not exist, your sock puppet would not exist either.
What a fantastic logic you have!
Witless Wee Willy,
Donkeys like you just can’t accept reality.
Mentally defective, not necessarily unintelligent.
Just delusionally psychotic, at worst.
Mike Flynn,
You don’t speak for Nature.
She speaks for Herself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmVLcj-XKnM
Sorry about that.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Oh, and why not:
You just don’t get it, Gordo, do you?
Either some stuff is insignificant or it’s not. If there’s enough CO2 to create life on Earth, there’s enough CO2 to prevent heat from escaping its atmosphere. And in fact the two goes hand in hand: if CO2 did not help create the proper atmosphere for life to thrive, so much the worse for the plants ability to suck it.
So your appeal to context is a dud.
Dimwitted Wee Willy,
You wrote, misguidedly, –
“If there’s enough CO2 to create life on Earth, there’s enough CO2 to prevent heat from escaping its atmosphere.”
Prevent heat escaping from the atmosphere? Have you lost your senses?
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. CO2 obviously did not prevent heat escaping from anything!
Maybe you had a minor brain explosion. Ask a real physicist to run an experiment which shows the ability of CO2 to prevent heat escaping! Be prepared for laughter.
You do talk crap at times, don’t you?
Mike Flynn,
One can win money. One can lose money. If in the end there’s a profit, everyone’s happy.
Same for CO2.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Money? Have you gone completely looney?
I point out how stupid you are, you confirm it by talking about something completely irrelevant!
Try making sense some time.
Geez, these climate cranks.
Mike Flynn,
Even you should be able to grasp the concept:
Your Aussie team scores 8 goals and 8 behind. That’s 56 points.
The other team scores 9 goals. That’s 54 points.
So even if your team got scored more goals, your team wins by two points.
> even if your team got scored more goals
Less goals, that is.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”The highest temperature ever recorded in Ireland was 33.3 degrees at Kilkenny Castle, on June 26th, 1887. The highest ever recorded in the 20th century was 32.5 degrees at Boora Co Offaly on June 29th, 1976″.
***
Surprised NOAA/GISS/Had-crut have not erased that record. Doesn’t fit their alarmists and fudged temperature series.
Willard says:
July 19, 2021 at 3:47 PM
You keep saying stuff about the NOAA, Gordo.
Wheres your evidence?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Whacky Wee Willy wrote –
“How can a trace gas be plant food, BTW?”
Wee Willy rejects reality. CO2 is indeed plant food. The fairly small amount in the atmosphere at any given time is only that amount not yet consumed by plants.
Oxygen breathing life exhales CO2 in vast amounts, plants rapidly utilise this as food. As a matter of fact, plants removed CO2 from the atmosphere faster than other life forms exhaled it, and CO2 levels dropped to near critical levels, until humans started burning some of the sequestered hydrocarbons in the form of fossil fuels.
But clueless dimwits like Wee Willy can’t accept reality and blindly follow frauds, fakers, scofflaws, and deadbeats like Michael Mann and his brain dead acolytes.
All good fun – if you appreciate the farcical nature of so-called “climate science”.
Mike Flynn,
When exactly did “CO2 levels dropped to near critical levels”?
Quite a flimsy flimflam fabulist, this Mike Flynn!
Probably the last Snowball Earth 700 million years age.
The only phoosynthesisers were cyanobacteria and a few simple eukaryotes,
Wily Wee Willy,
How incompetent or lazy are you?
Look up some experimental science. Starve a plant until it dies from lack of food – CO2. Measure the concentration at which this occurs. Look at lowest recorded (not estimated) levels known in the atmosphere.
Now tell me who is the flimsy flimflam fabulist. You can’t even get my name right, you fool!
Your fantasy does not overcome fact. Sad but true, for you.
Mike Flynn,
You said that CO2 levels dropped to near critical levels.
When?
As for CO2 being plant food, well, it’s more complicated than contrarians usually think:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/
Plant foods are simple sugars.
Plants use water and light to make ATP.
Then plants use CO2 and ATP to make simple sugars.
We usually don’t call water plant food, do we?
CO2 is not plant food, plants expend energy to convert CO2 to actual plant food.
Without CO2 plants will not grow.
Yeah, thanks for your erudite reply.
Plants don’t grow without water or light, that doesn’t make water or light plant food.
OK. Without water, light and CO2 (amongst other things like Nitrogen) plants will not grow.
Temperatures usually have problems growing under 0C.
> Temperatures
Well, plants do.
Plants also have problems growing when it’s too hot.
Sometimes too sunny too.
Too dry.
Too much pest.
The list goes on and on.
So everything plants need to grow is food.
My opinion is that food is something that provides energy to a plant.
Plants make their own food, from light, CO2, and water.
Without plants plants will not grow.
So plants are plant food.
So you are an idiot. Got that.
What’s the Calvin cycle, dummy?
So you are still an idiot. Got that too.
That’s the zzz cycle, dummy.
z
Is that contrarian food?
No. It’s an idiot being idiotic.
A simple “Bob, you’re right” would do, dummy.
A simple “I am an idiot” from you would do better.
No need, dummy.
We all know you are.
Everybody thinks you are an idiot. With good cause.
zzz
Courtesy of a certain DA.
“This is important and once more reinforces that the cloud feedback to climate change is positive, that is to say, causes more warming:
“Global satellite data shows clouds will amplify global heating,” 7/19/21
https://phys.org/news/2021-07-global-satellite-clouds-amplify.html
The paper is:
“Observational evidence that cloud feedback amplifies global warming,” Paulo Ceppi and Peer Nowack, PNAS July 27, 2021 118 (30) e2026290118; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026290118
from the abstract:
“We show that global cloud feedback is dominated by the sensitivity of clouds to surface temperature and tropospheric stability. Considering changes in just these two factors, we are able to constrain global cloud feedback to 0.43 0.35 W⋅m−2K−1 (90% confidence), implying a robustly amplifying effect of clouds on global warming and only a 0.5% chance of ECS below 2 K.”
Did they take into account that cloud cover is not 100%?
“One study based on nearly a decade of satellite data estimated that about 67 percent of Earths surface is typically covered by clouds. This is especially the case over the oceans, where other research shows less than 10 percent of the sky is completely clear of clouds at any one time. Over land, 30 percent of skies are completely cloud free.”
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/85000/85843/globalcldfr_amo_200207-201504_lrg.jpg
See also https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MODAL2_M_CLD_FR
“67%%”
They are working in units of energy. Area of cloud cover would have been one of the factors in their observation and calculation.
EM,
“Cloud feedback”? Are you quite mad?
Have you maybe not noticed that when a cloud passes between you and the sun, the temperature drops? No?
You must be a certified climate crackpot.
Looked at Africa?
You’ll be familiar with how clouds affect energy flux. They reflect infra-red back towards the surface and sunlight upwards.
Low cloud reflects more sunlight than IR, so low cloud has a net cooling effect.
High cloud reflects more IR than sunlight, so high cloud has a net warming effect.
In a warming world high cloud cover is increasing faster than low cloud cover, giving a net warming effect.
Except for most of Africa.
Data please.
Why not Africa? Is the physics different there?
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/85000/85843/globalcldfr_amo_200207-201504_lrg.jpg
And Australia
And Northern Chile
Entropic man says: Why not Africa? Is the physics different there?
From the graphic it looks more like land regions with low soil moisture availability, so most of Africa, Australia, Antarctica, Mexico/U.S. Southwest . . .
Got it. You are talking about low rainfall areas where cloud formation is limited by lack of water.
Those areas would not show cloud feedback because there aren’t any clouds except in the wet season.
Areas with sufficient water will show the cloud feedback.
Ceppi and Nowack 2021 discussed the effect on the global energy budget, so they are working with global averages, rather than individual regions.
Whilst we are at it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2TOrKdJsqs shows CO2 is not well mixed as such for the whole of the year.
“they are working with global averages, rather than individual regions.”
That’s like leaving holes in the greenhouse roof.
The top level reporting in the press release is a global average effect. The study itself is a “gridded global” view with explicit analysis of the impact of grid size.
As I have just pointed out, global averages do not cater for the ‘holes in the roof of the greenhouse’ effect.
Either on cloud cover or CO2.
So?
The greenhouse has a very leaky roof with big holes in it. Why should it retain anything?
A question isn’t a point, dummy.
Where’s the point in a hole?
Is there something you’d like to hold with these holes, dummy?
Look! An idiot.
Spotted in Africa:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTQbiNvZqaY
An idiot being idiotic.
“The greenhouse has a very leaky roof with big holes in it. Why should it retain anything?”
You are aware that the heat in South Dakota (110 F expected this week) can’t leak out of a hole in Australia?
Also, cloudless skies with greater GHG, CO2, water, etc. ALSO produce greater warming.
Its a physics thing.
Nate: CO2 is mainly a seasonal Northern Hemisphere thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2TOrKdJsqs
“Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas released to the atmosphere through human activities.”
What part of ‘Northern Hemisphere’ didn’t you get?
If the humans that dump most of CO2 into the atmosphere were in the South hemisphere, what would happen, dummy?
Uhhh…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZQG59_z83I
RLH says:
Nate: CO2 is mainly a seasonal Northern Hemisphere thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2TOrKdJsqs
The extent of your information arsenal and the persistence with which you misuse it is really quite impressive.
It’s really hard to believe other than it is by design.
It is quite incongruous when RLH says “Some of us believe is science too.” Then demonstrates the complete opposite.
Mark B, Nate: Are you suggesting that the uneven distribution of CO2 on a hemispherical/seasonal basis is untrue?
“The extent of your information arsenal and the persistence with which you misuse it is really quite impressive.
Its really hard to believe other than it is by design.”
Willard is still an idiot. Worth saying more often.
I’m saying CO2 seasonality and year over year growth are both facts.
The growth in atmospheric CO2 is global
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/co2SpoSmoMlo.png
The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 is global
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/co2SpoSmoMlo.png
I’m saying CO2 seasonality and the northern hemisphere dominance in contributions while fact are not relevant. You know this, and you insert into the discussion to mess with people and for no other good faith reason.
I’m saying you seem well informed and clever enough to do better, but chose otherwise. You are pathetic by your own choice. Only you have to live with it.
RLH says: Willard is still an idiot. Worth saying more often.
Willard is just your image in a mirror. If you stop being a dick, he will do the same.
Neither of you are idiots.
Bother . . . fixed link
The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 is global:
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/co2GrowthRate2SpoSmoMlo.png
Thanks for being here, Mark.
How can I stop being Richard?
To observe that all is not as simple as everybody claims is now an offense?
“CO2 seasonality and the northern hemisphere dominance in contributions while fact are not relevant. You know this, and you insert into the discussion to mess with people and for no other good faith reason.”
Whereas you mess with people for no reason at all.
You are 74 years old, Richard.
You should have developed the maturity to own your shit.
As an idiot, have you learned not to shit your pants yet?
Mark was talking to you, dummy.
And he was talking about you.
“CO2 is mainly a seasonal Northern Hemisphere thing.”
Ok so this was meant to not be taken literally…got it.
Nate: It was part of an observation that, given that both CO2 and water vapor are so unequally distributed globally, it would be reasonable to expect larger differences between North and South than there are.
Willard: I was taking both at and about you.
Willard: I was talking both at and about you.
“given that both CO2 and water vapor are so unequally distributed globally, it would ”
Ok.
For GHE, apparently CO2 is more important as an initiator of warming or cooling because it is non condensible, and it quickly spreads all over (see ‘pump-handle’ video), whereas water vapor is condensible, responds to warming, and is hugely variable.
Richard: you were deflecting by issuing another silly “No U.”
[SCIENTISTS] There’s only a 0.5% chance of ECS below 2 K.
[LUCKWARMERS] So you’re saying there’s a chance?
Idiots say that idiots are relevant.
z
So you are not 100% sure, so that means you know nothing.
Richard’s main stratergery, basically.
Idiot.
That’s more of a tactic, dummy.
That’s more of an idiot, idiot.
Use is not mention, dummy.
An idiotic response.
498
An even more idiotic response.
532
More idiocy.
545
Not a very good random number generator are you? Still an idiot though.
It’s the number of “idio” on the page, dummy.
We’re at 561. Let’s see you reach a thousand while accumulating moar blunders.
The blunders are all in your offerings. Iddiot.
You’re about to fail on statistical significance, dummy.
Willard says: is at 1,225. Got a way to go then.
Willard: You already fail on any form of significance.
“RLH says:” = 1458
“idio” = 588
You still have lots of work to do, dummy.
I’ll help you out.
Idiot^1. Idiot^2. Idiot^3. … Idiot^n.
You’re helping me so much you now hiding your “idiot” behind a link, dummy.
Swenson
“Have you maybe not noticed that when a cloud passes between you and the sun, the temperature drops? ”
You did read my post? From what I said you could infer that the surface shaded by a cloud would be cooler.
A low cloud reflects more sunlight upwards than it reflects IR downwards.
Therefore the surface receives less energy under clouds and is cooler.
We agree that the surface cools when a cloud hides the Sun. The difference is that I understand why and you do not.
Except in large parts of the world where they don’t do clouds at all. At any height.
Are there large parts of the world where they don’t do clouds at all?
I doubt it.
I’ve heard several scientists talk about how little we know about clouds and the effect they have on climate. Its an oft repeated complaint about climate models that they don’t model clouds at all.
Perhaps you know something about global cloud cover that the people who study clouds don’t?
I doubt it.
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/85000/85843/globalcldfr_amo_200207-201504_lrg.jpg
Ken
The models up to CMIPS, some twenty years ago, assumed that cloud feedback was neutral.
The current generation of model, CMIP6, include an estimated positive cloud feedback.
Ceppi and Nowack 2021 indicates that the feedback is positive, but may have been overestimated.an
RLH
Careful. You are falling into the logical fallacy that because a few deserts do not have cloud feedback, nowhere has cloud feedback.
I did not say that. I said there are areas without much in the way of clouds.
Good. The logical fallacy I described is common among deniers.
Things like “Wigan is cold today. What global warming?”
Speaking of which, time for a Global Cooling Update.
The globe HAS been cooling for the last 6 months, see GISS, RSS, Had, UAH.
When you lower the heat, are you cooling your eggs, dummy?
Do you deny the facts?
Are you suggesting that the trend is significant, dummy?
Are you suggesting that 6 months is insignificant?
You really have no idea how claims work, dummy, do you?
I do know an idiot when I see one.
Every day you look at one in your bathroom.
Entropic man
I am wondering where Ceppi and Nowack 2021 got data to determine clouds would have a positive feedback. The listed CERES as a data source so you can make your own graphs form this page.
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAF41Selection.jsp
Put your email in and click Visualize Data. You will get some graphs. The last graphs are total surface net flux (solar input, longwave both in and out).
If you look at the graphs from 2000 to 2021 you will see very little change in any values. You will see that the positive NET total radiant energy (the graphs do not include the other cooling mechanisms that reduce surface temperature, evaporation and convection).
For Clear sky conditions over the entire globe, the value fluctuates from 120 W/m^2 to 140 W/m^2 averaging around 130 W/m^2 net surface gain of radiant energy. With all sky (clouds included and this would be real clouds not hypothetical) the value fluctuates from a little lower than 105 W/m^2 to 115 W/m^2. Average seems a little below 110 W/m^2 for cloud mix. So the clouds reduce the surface radiant energy by at least 20 W/m^2 over clear sky conditions. You would have to go a long way before clouds act as a warming mechanism. I am not sure how they were able to get a warming condition from the available data. At this time I would be very skeptical of any source that lists clouds as a positive feedback. From actual CERES graphs you would have a cooler surface if cloud percent increased.
Anyway I hope you go the link and try to make some graphs of your own.
Willard: You are the idiot, not me.
You’re poisoning Norma’s only good contribution on this thread, dummy.
Idiot.
Hall monitors are not supposed to poison their own well, dummy.
Idiots just continue being idiots.
Go on, dummy.
“Are you suggesting that 6 months is insignificant?”
Yes. Yes I am. Knowing that ENSO can change its tune on that time scale, is good reason to.
And the 15y LP filtering RLH, should agree.
Not sure where that guy went.
Richard’s a random guy:
July 9, 2021 at 4:17 PM
I dont do linear trends as they have no value outside the date range over which they are taken and provide no clue at all as to future values.
So you want linear trends sometimes, but at other times that are inconvenient?
No U, dummy.
You can’t make this up.
“And the 15y LP filtering RLH, should agree.”
The 15 year filtering serves to see climate purely related stuff. i.e. greater than 30 years.
The 6 month linear trend serves to demonstrate purely short term effects. How can you, with a straight face, claim the GW is to blame if for the last 6 months global air temperatures are falling?
“You cant make this up.”
That you are an idiot? I don’t. You are.
z
“How can you, with a straight face, claim the GW is to blame if for the last 6 months global air temperatures are falling?”
IDK. Where’d I do anything like that?
I have consistently blamed the short term cooling on ENSO.
The point is not to get too excited about short term trends, as they are short term, small, and inconsequential.
And if it lasts the whole year?
It seems you want to believe the Effects of the GW of the last century should all go away with the slight cooling of the last 6 months?
Of course not, the warming is ~ 1.0 C, the cooling is ~ 0.1 C. And the Global ocean heat content remains elevated regardless. The Arctic Sea Ice is again near its record lows.
Effects such as
http://graphs.water-data.com/lakemead/
So you are saying that the upwards march will resume before the year end?
Every time you get cornered you come back with a silly question, dummy.
Every time you open your mouth (or write something down), you show you are an idiot.
Focus, dummy:
“It seems you want to believe the Effects of the GW of the last century should all go away with the slight cooling of the last 6 months?”
Strawman. I never said that.
You never say anything, dummy.
You Just Ask Questions.
“So you are saying that the upwards march will resume before the year end?”
Non sequitur.
Still fixated on short term noise. And Swenson is fixated on 3-4 BY ago.
Both of you are fixated on irrelevant time scales.
“I never said that”
UHHH..
…. You said
“How can you, with a straight face, claim the GW is to blame if for the last 6 months global air temperatures are falling?”
which implies that 1.0C GW effects should be cancelled by 6 months of cooling by 0.1 C.
So yes, you did say it!
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/climate-change-could-push-temperatures-at-the-tokyo-olympics-to-the-danger-zone-for-athletes-report-warns-1.5459859
The globe HAS been cooling for the last 6 months, see GISS, RSS, Had, UAH.
zzzzz
Another idiotic response from Willard.
Spot the outlier, dummy:
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.49 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.65 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.13 -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
2021 06 -0.01 0.30 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 +0.63 -0.76
Spot the idiot, idiot.
Thanks for playing, dummy.
Thanks for being a continuous idiot.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/June2021/202106_map.png
Idiot.
No U
z
Whining Wee Willy,
Thanks for losing, idiot child.
You make other climate crackpots look positively brilliant!
So would a retarded hair follicle, so maybe that’s not really a compliment!
Oh, well.
Mike Flynn,
Losing what, exactly?
Dragon freaks still have no bench!
Cheer up!
Willard, please stop trolling.
@willard aka true duck:
Haha, that’s great, artie. Journalists perverting reality since time immemorial.
>>Intense heat and high humidity could pose a serious risk to athletes at this year’s Tokyo Olympics, according to a new report.–
yeah, and that’s why they decided to hold SUMMER olympics in “…the former city of Tokyo and the majority of Tokyo prefecture lie in the humid subtropical climate zone (Köppen climate classification Cfa), with hot, humid summers and mild to cool winters”
Indeed, the august temperatures in tokyo these days is +31.3/+23.5*C with 75% average humidity.That’s up from bonechilling +29.8/+21.9*C (humidity not specified) a hundred years ago – a whopping +1.5K increase. However, that’s not really relevant as no people living today would remember times that far ago, what people today consider ‘normal’ is what used to take place 20-50 years ago, from 60s to 90s.
Either way, given that and also this
“A start WBGT [wet-bulb temperature] of >21°C resulted in MCI or midrace cancellation in several races. Twin Cities Marathon data show a rapid increase in the rate of unsuccessful marathoner starters above a start WBGT of 13°C. The event experienced an area-wide MCI at a start WBGT of 22°C with an unsuccessful starter rate of 160 per 1000 finishers.”
Using this one useful humidity calculateur, we calculate that WBGT 31.3*C and 75% humidity would be 27.4*C, while in the 100-years-old bone-chilling ice age climate, assuming the same humidity would be 26*C. While the difference is probably noticeable, it is wholly irrelevant as both values are way above what is safe for the stenuous outdoor exercise.
>>The report, published Wednesday by the British Association for Sustainable Sport, details the concerns of leading athletes and scientists about the health impacts of soaring temperatures in Japan.–
once again, these people seem to think that climate didn’t exist before they started making these ‘epistolary terrorist reports’
>>According to the report, the average annual temperature in Tokyo “has increased by 2.86 degrees Celsius since 1900, more than three times as fast as the world’s average.–
yeah, every place in the world nowdays warms twice as fast as the world average, that’s warmist arithmetics for you. Trice now, twice doesn’t scare people any more. For a more relevant info see above.
So, basically, first they resolve to conducto summer olympics, originally a northern/western european idea, in a oceanside city that features a hot summer and very humid subtropical climate, and then wonder how the athletes would be doing? lmao, some logic right there.
===
sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo#Climate
https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2010&issue=02000&article=00002&type=Fulltext
http://www.michell.com/calculator/
It’s as if you’d like to say something, Cot.
But what?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
It’s as if you had something to say.
But you haven’t.
So sad, your bad.
Willard is just an idiot.
z
Mike Flynn,
I asked if Cot had a point.
Is that clearer this time?
Cheers.
Why would anyone respond to idiots?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-765132
Idiot.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-765214
An idiot goes round in circles as idiots are prone to do.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-765242
An idiot still going round in circles I see.
[VLAD] Why would anyone respond to idiots?
[ESTR] *Links to Vlad’s last comment.*
[VLAD] Idiot.
[ESTR] *Links to Vlad’s last comment.*
[VLAD] An idiot goes round in circles as idiots are prone to do.
[ESTR] *Links to Vlad’s last comment.*
[VLAD] An idiot still going round in circles I see.
[ESTR] *Shows this dialog.*
Willard confirms he is an idiot.
[VLAD] Why would anyone respond to idiots?
[ESTR] *Links to Vlads last comment.*
[VLAD] Idiot.
[ESTR] *Links to Vlads last comment.*
[VLAD] An idiot goes round in circles as idiots are prone to do.
[ESTR] *Links to Vlads last comment.*
[VLAD] An idiot still going round in circles I see.
[ESTR] *Shows this dialog.*
[VLAD] Estragon confirms he is an idiot.
Willard is still an idiot.
Keep on amplifying Mike Flynn, dummy.
Keep on being an idiot, idiot.
You’re making it too easy, dummy.
Keep going.
I have to keep it simple for idiots. Otherwise they would never keep up.
zz
Point: the olympics are stupid, the olympics organizers are corrupt and should be in jail for squandering public funds, and the media are corrupt and enemies of the people who make sensationalism out of nothing.
Better.
The operative word is “report.”
The operative word is idiot.
Find the report, dummy.
RLH
” Do you agree that there are 1217 stations in Meteostat that are in Germany/DE? ”
*
According to METEOSTAT’s metadata: no.
Total: 1174
With hourly data: 1106
*
Often enough, data sets contain more data than their metadata set shows.
Though I wouldn’t have any problem to do, I’m not arrogant enough to bypass people’s metadata.
*
I prefer to do some more useful work, by showing them what my complete metadata-based evaluation of their worldwide data detected, namely that
– their metadata contains one severe error;
– their data contains severe errors in 21 stations.
METEOSTAT’s Reply: ” Thanks for all the info you shared! ”
J.-P. D.
Apos, I’m too busy!
Correct number for DE stations in METEOSTAT’s metadata is 1134.
Correct number for DE stations with hourly data therein is 1097.
Converting the Metostat station data into a database and running some SQL over it
SELECT [MeteostatID], [Name] FROM [Station] WHERE [Country] = ‘DE’
returns 1217 rows
from
09161 Boltenhagen / Ostseebad
to
KQKT0 Schweinfurt / Geldersheim
Database loaded from
https://bulk.meteostat.net/v2/stations/full.json.gz
and converted to SQLce
” their metadata contains one severe error;
their data contains severe errors in 21 stations.”
And those errors were?
RLH
” I think your data for Mean and Median are adrift somehow.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-combined-carrizozo.jpeg
That shows the Median is almost the same as the Average whereas your table has it at 0.54C above it. ”
*
USCRN station: 03082 33.6476 -105.8945 NM_Carrizozo_1_W
*
Only days having data for all 24 hours were considered.
MinMax: (lowest hTmin + highest hTmax)/2
Median: mean of positions 12:13 of the ascending sort of the 24 hTavg
Avg: mean of the 24 hTavg.
*
The generated data has been
– compared for 2 days with the source for Carrizozo_1_W found in
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/
and
– verified by redoing the same computation for the 2 days (2009 07 10, 2010 01 02) in a spreadsheet containing ne generated data at all.
Name, year, month, day, year day, MinMax, Median, Avg
NM_Carrizozo_1_W: 2009 7 10 191 25.70 26.10 26.35
NM_Carrizozo_1_W: 2010 1 2 2 1.80 -2.50 0.09
Values for generated data and data verified by hand were identical.
*
Charts for the station:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XUlrPKr9BPoQPzjZjoZMnvfhru3MGhnA/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/146C9KCY90KA0bXujGbda2GOiwKH9fwlO/view
J.-P. D.
It would appear that you have some rounding or other errors going on when compared to the USCRN daily average figures for the same site.
WBANNO LST_DATE T_DAILY_MEAN T_DAILY_AVG
03082 20090710 25.7 27.1
03082 20100102 1.8 0.9
I rather suspect that USCRN is going to be correct in their daily output, being a summation of their 5 second data.
I take my mean and average directly from what USCRN supplies for the daily data. I calculate (with the same 24 hour criteria) only the Median from the hourly data.
RLH
And… what is now remaining from your strange claim
” I think your data for Mean and Median are adrift somehow.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-combined-carrizozo.jpeg
That shows the Median is almost the same as the Average whereas your table has it at 0.54C above it. ” ???
J.-P. D.
Do you agree that the daily average temperature you show for 2009/07/10 at Carrizozo_1_W is 26.35c whereas the actual daily average temperature is 27.1c?
Some 0.75c adrift.
Why should I trust anything else you have calculated?
So it looks like my calculation of average minus median was at least 0.21c adrift. You are even worse off than I thought.
Earlier, Entropic Man wrote –
“High cloud reflects more IR than sunlight, so high cloud has a net warming effect.”
Complete and utter nonsense. A figment of a “climate scientist’s” imagination .
Notice how the illusion is performed. Two apparently disparate things (iR and sunlight) are identified. Obviously, to quantify either, in terms of either wavelength or total energy, or even whether it is night or day would bring the illusion undone, so vagueness rules.
Why do high clouds have different properties than low clouds? Because some “climate scientist” decrees it to be so?
Absolute codswallop.
Mike Flynn,
Good morning.
Exactly Swenson.
Ent gets so many things wrong.
(I had to look up “codswallop”. You got it right again.)
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/codswallop
This might be a bit above your pay grade, Pup:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Clouds/clouds4.php
Perhaps it works differently down under?
Willard, 8 minutes response time is unacceptable.
You can’t stalk, and you can’t troll.
Have you considered garbage collection?
(When you grow up, of course.)
If you prefer something more at your level, Pup, there’s always:
http://tiny.cc/fklauz
Willard, please stop trolling.
Witless Wee Willy,
More NASA nonsense. Written by some climate crank, obviously.
In your usual fashion, you quote bizarre rubbish, hoping to look intelligent.
Nope.
From your quote –
“. . . they are near the surface and at almost the same temperature as the surface.” A meteorologist might choke on his cornflakes at that.
Even given a notional laps rate of 6.5 C/1000 m., stratocumulus at 2000 m is 13 C colder than the surface, and you cannot make something hotter solely with the radiation from something 13 C colder!
As to cirrus clouds, their temperature ranges from about -20 C to -80 C. Good luck with warming anything hotter.
Your NASA reference is full of nonsense, having to acknowledge that lower level clouds do, indeed cool the surface by blocking sunlight, but ascribe magical climatological properties to higher level, colder clouds.
Appeals to the authority of other climate crackpots just makes you appear as you are – thick and gullible.
Perhaps they have less clouds and rain down under.
RLH,
If “down under” refers to Australia, the second driest continent on Earth after Antarctica, then maybe they do, as Witless Wee Willy suggests.
But he is only a brainless troll, so any of his suggestions that are actually worthwhile are complete flukes!
I agree, Willard is an idiot.
Looks like the Aussies have the same classification system as everybody else, dummy:
Looks like you are still an idiot.
Looks like physics is the same down under, dummy.
How can idiots tell?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/
So you are an idiot for sure.
z
A fun thing to do on a day of blue sky filled with clouds. Take a barometer and measure when the sun is visible and when it is not. Huge difference.
Barometers measure pressure, not temperatures.
Yes barometers measure pressure.
Pressure changes should be significant factor in determining the effect of clouds.
“Pressure changes should be significant factor in determining the effect of clouds.”
Agreed. But weather systems determine air pressure.
ρ=m/V
p=F/A
ρ ~ 1/T
Many smartphones have built-in barometers (like my previous one). I could easily measure going up and down hills, but I sure never remember seeing any impact of clouds (but i wasn’t really looking, so maybe there as something.
In any case, if the pressure did change, it should be easy to see this sitting inside, since the pressure would change inside as well as out.
Like RLH, I suspect the difference might be more related to the barometer physically changing temperature outside in/out of the sun, rather than a pressure change as each cloud goes by.
Doesn’t make my ears pop.
So not much pressure change.
entropic…” A low cloud reflects more sunlight upwards than it reflects IR downwards.
Therefore the surface receives less energy under clouds and is cooler”.
***
You alarmists need to pay more attention to the science. It’s not possible for the air temperature, created mainly by nitrogen and oxygen molecules, to change temperature quickly. In fact, the N2/O2 cannot dissipate heat via radiation at terrestrial temperatures.
Your skin is warmed by direct sunlight when the skin molecules absorb radiation from the Sun and convert it to heat. That makes your skin warmer than the surrounding air and it’s why moving air feels cooler against your skin. Surrounding air would need to be in excess of 100F (about 38C) before it can warm skin directly.
When clouds block the Sun, they block SW EM radiation, which heats your skin but the air temperature does not drop due to solar radiation being blocked/diffused.
willard…” Intense heat and high humidity could pose a serious risk to athletes at this years Tokyo Olympics, according to a new report….
According to the report, the average annual temperature in Tokyo has increased by 2.86 degrees Celsius since 1900, more than three times as fast as the worlds average.”
***
Willard needs his daily dose of propaganda. Alarmists thrive on it. He really believes anyone here is paying attention to his alarmist whine.
You’re baiting me once again, Gordo son.
Do you have a scientific rebuttal or are you going to settle for slinging ad homs and insults?
Woeful Wee Willy,
Do you have anything scientific to say, or are you going to settle for slinging ad homs, insults, and generally spewing trollish nonsense?
Mike Flynn,
Are you suggesting that Gordo son’s question is trollish nonsense?
You are just an idiot.
536
An idiot for sure.
544
Idiot again.
552
Not so much a random number generator as an idiot.
567
Idiot.
z
“are you going to settle for slinging ad homs, insults, and generally spewing trollish nonsense?”
WOW, next time I need to explain what POT-KETTLE means, this will come in handy.
If you need the source:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-746354
If you need the sauce, ask Willard.
Guacamole?
See. I told you so.
No, dummy:
You asked for it.
I was wondering if there was a correlation between anti-vaxers and denialists. If so, (and I know it is cruel) wouldn’t that be nice?
There isn’t. Some of us believe is science too.
God you’re dumb:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-deniers-turn-to-attacking-coronavirus-models/
Not as much as you are an idiot.
Added to your list of blunders, dummy.
Idiot.
z
Dems are largest demo of anti-vaxers. Both VP and President said would trust a vaccine made by Trump administration. And historically have been most vocal against taking Vaccines made American Drug companies.
I got Trump’s vaccine, but if I knew that I have already been infected by the Chinese virus, then there of course won’t have been good reason to get the vaccine, though there some evidence there could be some benefit from getting the shot, even if you had previously been infected by this virus. Anyhow, I had zero side effects that I am aware of from taking the Johnson and Johnson shot. It seemed less noticeable than any other kind shot I had in past.
I expecting possibility some kind pain, but no immediate or later effects at all- and it was weeks ago.
I’ve only looked at U.S. polling data, but without a doubt Covid vaccine and climate skepticism are correlated.
In general, conspiracies reinforce one another.
But Richard, our SCIENCE ™ guy, is Very Different.
At least until he starts to apply Nyquist to Covid data…
Only an idiot could think of an idiotic response.
Go ahead, dummy:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/covid-19:all
I know you want to.
Covid rotted your brain?
z
First you’d need proof that he had one to rot.
I doubt it.
There is that.
TM,
Anybody who trusts Facebook, Instagram or Twitter as a source of fact is as stupid as anyone who believes that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, or that climate is anything but the average of weather which has already occurred.
Apart from trolling, what is the point of your post?
Mike Flynn,
Covid contrarians are often climate contrarians.
Hope this helps!
Willard at 8:31 AM
Willard, Tyson, please stop trolling.
Thanks TM. They deserve an award. In the words of the Darwin Awards panel recipients eliminate themselves in an extraordinarily idiotic manner, thereby improving our species chances of long-term survival
That competition is a tad unfair, DMT:
Mike Flynn *is* from Darwin!
Is that true? Not that surprising since it is known that IQ decreases with proximity to the equator.
Careful. That might be considered a racist remark.
Not really. It is just a statement of fact. The reasons are fascinating:
“The average IQ tends to grow towards the poles (on both hemispheres – Argentinians tend to have higher average IQ than Venezuelans).
But there is a catch. It isn’t the latitude per se, but the hostility of the climate. The more hostile the climate, the higher the IQ of people who live there. The mountaineers tend to have higher IQ than the lowlanders, and steppe dwellers having higher IQ than those living in river valleys.
The reason is simple: the harsher the climate, the more your survival depends on your ability to reason, to catch and store food, to build a shelter and to stay alive. Evolutionally it is a good idea in such conditions to invest on brains and brain growth. Brain is an extremely complex organ and evolutionally an expensive on, but little improvements can carry a long way and make difference between death and survival.
Likewise, nutrition at harsh climates tend to consist more of protein (fish, cattle, game) while at milder climates of carbohydrates (grain, fruits, berries). While obtaining protein-rich food is difficult, it is nutritionally more contributing than easily obtained carbohydrate-rich food.
The long winters also contribute long learning and indoors periods, which in turn contribute on slow maturing and long youth and childhood. This favours the K strategy on K/r procreation strategy. People at colder climates tend to have few children – but which are taught and educated as well as possible.” (source:Susanna Viljanen)
I would be willing to surmise that Mike from Darwin has several siblings, is a tad overweight due to a carbohydrate-rich diet, and has a below average brain (but we knew that anyway!).
DMT, please stop trolling.
Climate shyesterin 101
https://youtu.be/gMlMH1RfnF0
But here is my question , After the Germaniens clean up the mess will they figure out they need to make some drainage channels or will they crank up building more wind turbines ???
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/how-bad-is-the-bootleg-fire-its-generating-its-own-weather/
Global air temperatures have been declining for the last 6 months. Even though you don’t like to admit it.
Your claim relies on a trend, but you won’t say if it’s significant.
Are you claiming that 6 months is insignificant?
Your claim, dummy.
You back it up.
Meanwhile:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/June2021/202106_map.png
You don’t have to back up your idiocy. It is self evident.
RLH says:
July 9, 2021 at 4:17 PM
I dont do linear trends as they have no value outside the date range over which they are taken and provide no clue at all as to future values.
Is the 6 months within the immediate past? Yes.
Does it display temps have fallen in that period? Yes.
Is Willard an idiot? Yes.
Is 6 months ago immediate? No.
Has our dummy supported his claim? No.
Is our dummy accumulating blunders? He can’t help himself.
To an idiot 6 months ago is not immediate. Only yesterday is.
How is AUST’s cold spell related to the Bootleg fire in southern Oregon, dummy: teleconnection?
Is being Willard related to being an idiot? 100%
Why do we say that climate is not weather, dummy?
Is weather 6 months now? I though that was seasonal.
Is climate 6 months now, dummy?
RLH,
What is the uncertainty for the trend for the last 6 months?
GISS seems pretty certain of it. : )
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2020/trend
Doesn’t answer the question.
But then, try just 2021
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2021/trend
Since when was 2021 2020? I specifically said ‘since 2020’.
Also, if you are going to use such very short term trends, 6 months is stretching it as well you know, do you expect that the upwards trend will continue forever or are you expecting i to flip to downwards also, possible quite soon?
My betting is that it will switch back and forth quite quickly.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2019
Still doesn’t answer the question.
Besides:
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2018/trend
Well, you said the last 6 months, that’s what I provided in the graph I posted.
Yes the temperatures can go up and down, but the trend isn’t worth mentioning until the uncertainty is less than the trend.
Usually takes a few years for that to happen, and even sometimes you can get long trends. like 30 years, say from 1940 to 1970 where the uncertainty is still larger than the trend.
So you agree that global air temperatures have fallen for the last 6 months or so but also are prepared to accept that extreme weather events within that period must be caused by GW. Got it.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2018
“The GISS Surface Temperature Analysis ver. 4 (GISTEMP v4) is an estimate of global surface temperature change,” dummy.
And there I was thinking it was driven by thermometer measurements.
“Yes the temperatures can go up and down, but the trend isnt worth mentioning until the uncertainty is less than the trend.”
Added to your list of blunders, dummy, that and how you misrepresent GISS.
Willard
I will link to material.
https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2009_littell001.pdf
Look at Figure 1 of this article.
This graph starts at 1950 which is a low wildfire time. Why is this done when longer time scales are available like in the article I linked to above?
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2830/six-trends-to-know-about-fire-season-in-the-western-us/
Then there are these articles
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/03-5019
Which, if you impose this graph on then one in Figure 1 of the first link, seems a reasonable conclusion.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chao-Li-49/publication/323553944/figure/fig1/AS:738091979530242@1552986249516/PDO-over-the-last-100-years-Nine-years-moving-average-PDO-index-is-indicated-in-black.ppm
Norma,
From the abstract of your first article:
Don’t ask leading questions.
Willard
Did you take the time to look at Figure 1?
Willard is too busy to take time off from being an idiot.
Norma,
Do you have a point?
Willard: Do you have a hole for that point?
One would be that China is far from Oregon, dummy.
Another would be that you are just an idiot.
“While drought and fire appear to be tightly linked between 1700 and 1900, the relationship between drought and fire occurrence was disrupted during the 20th century as a result of land use changes.”
But I thought that land use changes didn’t help cause climate change.
zzz
The floods in Germany are nothing out of ordinary, they happen regularly but just on a longer time scale. It was totally predictable and just simply a matter of time.
This guy lays it out, But the climate shisterz are having a field day.
https://youtu.be/9c_gHVimTjY?t=455
> They happen regularly but just on a longer time scale.
https://gph.is/g/Z2pRgXp
Idiot.
How regular are big floods in Germany, dummy?
“The Flooding In Parts Of Germany Is The Worst There In 60 Years”.
Hardly long ago then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_floods_in_Europe
[DUMMY] 60 years is hardly long ago then.
[ALSO DUMMY] To an idiot 6 months ago is not immediate.
Willard: Just say you are an idiot and get over it.
z
How regular is you being an idiot? Continuous.
Here’s how we measure regularity, dummy:
10.5194/nhess-9-1409-2009
Strange how floods have been a constant thing ever since records began.
Perhaps we have more people now and have just run out of high ground.
Read on, dummy:
https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/5125/2020/
Willard is just an idiot. Perhaps I should ignore him.
Thank you for another great contribution, dummy.
Thank YOU idiot.
NO U, dummy.
z
From the “The internet never forgets files:” an old chestnut, a piece of the long and well-funded Big Lie whose purpose is to cast doubt on science.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week – The “Urban Heat Island” Crock
We failed to foresee the pandemic — these other big risks are staring us in the face
Although the pandemic has been a shock, “Black Swan” author Nassim Nicholas Taleb points out that it was entirely predictable. Science journalist Laurie Garrett and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates warned about the threat of pandemics for years — decades, even.
Taleb sounded the alarm about this particular outbreak in January 2020.
Taleb argues that the pandemic was no unpredictable event, but rather an entirely foreseeable “white swan” disaster. His observation should make us think about other white swans coming our way in plain sight.
Climate change: Like the pandemic, this is no black swan: Experts have warned about this threat for decades. This mounting crisis could eventually make the pandemic look like a relatively small-scale event.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/we-failed-to-foresee-the-pandemic-these-other-big-risks-are-staring-us-in-the-face-11616596971
TM, some things for you to learn:
1) When an article is titled “Opinion”, that’s what it is. “Opinions” ain’t science.
2) When encountering crises, always remember “Never let a crisis go to waste” is how governments gain control. And when they get control, they NEVER give it back.
Climate change isn’t a threat. Even if you accept that the climate changes being observed are partially caused by humans, it still isn’t a threat.
Pandemic is a small scale event. Look at information regarding death from all causes and its not different from previous years. Look at Spanish Flu 1918; that was a pandemic. COVID is not the virus that Prince Philip wanted to be.
And neither is climate change. Climate change claptrap is a load of codswallop.
https://apnews.com/article/science-health-coronavirus-pandemic-fac0863b8c252d21d6f6a22a2e3eab86
US life expectancy dropped by 1.5 y in 2020.
“It was the largest one-year decline since World War II, when life expectancy dropped by 2.9 years between 1942 and 1943. Hispanic and Black communities saw the biggest declines.
For African Americans, life expectancy dropped by 2.9 years from 74.7 years in 2019 to 71.8 in 2020.
U.S. Hispanics who have a longer life expectancy than non-Hispanic Blacks or whites saw the largest decline in life expectancy during the pandemic, dropping three years from 81.8 years in 2019 to 78.8 years in 2020. Hispanic males saw the biggest decline, with a drop of 3.7 years. COVID-19 was responsible for 90% of the decline among Hispanics.”
The propagandist crowd is now led by Willard and Tyson. Sad.
<3
stephen..,”The propagandist crowd is now led by Willard and Tyson. Sad”.
Yeah…the other alarmists are wearing bags over their heads in embarrassment after the way these two have lead the charge deeper into pseudo-science.
Gordo, Sir,
This is an Arby’s.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yikes ! Now might be a good time to sell up and leave the US entirely.
An international team of weather and climate experts has analyzed the late June heatwave in the U.S. Pacific Northwest and come to a conclusion that the event was a roughly 1-in-1,000-year event in todays climate.
With another 0.8 degrees Celsius of warming it has been projected experiments projected that a heatwave like the June event would return not once per millennium, on average, but AS OFTEN AS ONCE OR TWICE PER DECADE !!!
https://climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/preliminary-analysis-concludes-pacific-northwest-heat-wave-was-1000-year
Where would be the safest place to live ?
People so easily forget the Dust Bowl. How frequently do we expect that to (re)occur?
There was the fellow who could see WWII coming like a freight train. He opted to migrate to a nice quiet remote island named Iwo Jima.
There is no safe place to live.
The cause of the heat wave was an omega shaped wave in the jet stream that trapped high pressure dry air long enough to drive the temperature way up.
Jet stream is not driven by surface temperatures or CO2. Reduced solar activity isn’t heating the upper atmosphere. The result is a smaller colder atmosphere with attending wavier jet stream. Global Cooling causes much more extreme weather events due to the increased transition zones at the longer jet stream boundary.
You don’t get it, SB.
The Dust Bowl happened.
Nothing else can happen.
Stop worrying. Live like it was your last day. Spend all your money. Never mind tomorrow.
Be an idiot like Willard.
z
s,
You wrote –
“An international team of weather and climate experts has analyzed the late June heatwave in the U.S. Pacific Northwest and come to a conclusion that the event was a roughly 1-in-1,000-year event in todays climate.”
Perfect illustration of Richard Feynman’s observation that “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
Just crawl under the bed you will bee safe there
https://youtu.be/e3EsCIjvrSw
No way. It is mighty hot there.
“Where would be the safest place to live ?”
In warmer parts of the oceans.
Not that I have any particularly negative views in regards tropical island paradise ocean surface temperatures, but I think having ocean surface average temperature of about 15 C or warmer is warm enough.
“Average annual water temperature on the coast in Victoria is 49°F, by the seasons: in winter 46°F, in spring 48°F, in summer 53°F, in autumn 51°F.”
Which could be a bit too cold.
“The ocean off San Francisco is at its warmest from mid August to late September when the temperature averages 60 degrees Fahrenheit (15.5 degrees Celsius). The coolest months are January and February, when the sea temperature is typically at 53 °F (11.7 ° C).”
Which about as cool as one should want.
What seems essential to living on the ocean is making great places to surf.
I think governments should allow low income housing on the ocean with access to great places to locally surf.
Maybe. But you would need to watch out for sea level rise, increased storm surges etc. On the other hand, coastal locations benefit from sea breezes when it gets hot so you may have a point.
Earlier, the Idiot-in-Chief, Willard, wrote –
“How is AUST’s cold spell related to the Bootleg fire in southern Oregon, dummy: teleconnection?”
Well, a meteorologist of some note, Edward Lorenz, delivered a talk titled “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil Set off a Tornado in Texas?”
If Witless Wee Willy complains that I have not provided him with a link, he might need the assistance of the following –
“The following is the text of a talk that I presented in a session devoted to the Global Atmospheric Research Program, at the 139th meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in Washington, D.C.; on December 29, 1972”
Note the context.
Woebegone Wee Willy is sadly lacking in relevant knowledge, preferring to slavishly lap up the slop churned out by delusional psychotics like the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann!
Even the IPCC accepted Lorenz’ work, over the strong objections from many climate cranks.
In lieu of any better explanation – chaos rules, and the future is unknowable!
Unless we can get the models down to 1mm cubes (or better). Even then I don’t expect we can get to 30 years.
rlh…”Unless we can get the models down to 1mm cubes (or better). Even then I dont expect we can get to 30 years”.
***
As Gerlich and Tscheuschner pointed out in their paper falsifying the GHE, there are no computers powerful enough to run outputs to that detail.
This paper is worth reading over and over since it represents cutting edge thermodynamics theory from experts. It surgically dismantles the GHE and AGW theories as well as the radiative balance theory. Furthermore, it disproves the claim that back-radiation from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface can raise the temperature of the surface.
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
That’s not the major problems with models, however. They have programmed into them egregious errors, like a positive feedback that cannot exist without an amplifier and a warming effect for CO2 drawn from a hat.
In the paper above, G&T, dismantle the notion that CO2 as a gas can act anything like a black body radiator.
Gordo,
Here’s all you never wanted to know about G&T:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html
Here’s all you need to know about Willard. He is an idiot.
z
“there are no computers powerful enough to run outputs to that detail”
A bold claim given just how fast computing strength is ramping up. However I will accept that is unlikely to be any time soon.
Gofdo is so ignorant of physics that he can’t understand that it’s easy to prove that back radiation from a cooler body can cause a warmer, heated body to exhibit a higher temperature. And G&T didn’t “prove” the opposite, they just stated the claim that such would represent a violation of the 2nd Law of thermo. That radiant shields work is a well known fact in engineering.
He’s hopeless.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
“But Chaos” is a bit of a dud:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/04/butterflies-tornadoes-and-climate-modelling/
willard…”[H]ow can climate be predictable if weather is chaotic? The trick lies in the statistics. In those same models that demonstrate the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, it turns out that the long term means and other moments are stable”.
***
More alarmist propaganda from the idiots at realclimate. One of the owners, now head of NASA GISS, was party to the incredible propaganda that 2014 was the ‘hottest yeah evah’. They constructed that terrible lie by using a 38% confidence level.
Please refrain from citing liars.
Wacky Wee Willy,
You quoted –
“How can climate be predictable if weather is chaotic? The trick lies in the statistics. In those same models that demonstrate the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, it turns out that the long term means and other moments are stable. ”
Complete nonsense. People like Gavin Schmidt have no clue, and Schmidt once said he had seen nothing to convince him that chaos existed. Chaos obviously doesn’t care what Schmidt thinks, nor do I.
Climate crackpots have no clue. Talk of “butterfly patterns” just shows their complete and utter lack of knowledge of chaos, confusing one view of a 3D plot of 3 specific equations, with very precise inputs, and then assuming that the pattern, out of an infinite number of possible outcomes is meaningful. The idiots at realclimate.com would not know a strange attractor from a hole in the ground.
In that respect, their sum intelligence is about that of a box of hair. They still refuse to accept the reality that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
About as stupid as you, in other words.
Mike Flynn,
I believe in seasons.
What about you?
Cheers.
Dimwit Wee Willy,
What a stupid comment.
Climate crackpots taking credit for “believing” in seasons, are they?
Next thing you know, you’ll be claiming you are “predicting” the Sun will rise! What are you – a six year old?
Not even a good attempt at diversion. You need to try harder. How are you getting on with your “auditing skillz” and your fantasy companion, Mike Flynn? Lives in Darwin, does he? Maybe you should track Mike Flynn down, and confront him. Seeing as how you are gullible enough to believe that pseudonyms are real, be careful of that Unicorn that Mike Flynn is riding.
I hear that Unicorns impale idiot trolls, and then stomp on their climateballs,
[laughing out loud]
Mike Flynn,
I believe it’s winter where you are, just like last year at the same time. And chances are that in one year it’ll be winter.
Isn’t that amazing?
Come to think of it, your comments are the best example of chaotic determinism!
Aww diddums!
Weird Wee Willard,
Predicting the Earth will continue to orbit the Sun, are you?
This is the pinnacle for climate crackpots, obviously. Repeating assumptions that can be made by a six year old.
Presumably you are trying to sound knowledgeable about chaos or something. But of course you aren’t, and glancing at Wikipedia is unlikely to help.
You wrote –
“I believe it’s winter where you are, just like last year at the same time. And chances are that in one year it’ll be winter.”
So you “believe” something, and that “chances are” that in a year, a year will have passed. That’s about as clever as saying that “chances are” that one year after 1 January it will be 1 January again! Are you really as stupid as you make out?
Rhetorical question – of course you are!
If you have nothing more than assumptions made by six year olds, you have my permission to continue pointlessly trolling. Off you go now!
Mike Flynn,
Chaos isn’t randomness.
Deal with it.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
“Chaos isnt randomness”
“What is the difference between Chaos and Randomness? Randomness is – broadly speaking – just the absence of any pattern. Chaos refers specifically to a process or system that’s sensitive to initial conditions.”
Chaotic systems are just as unpredictable at a granular level as though they were random though. Indeed, one approach to chaos is to treat it as just that, random.
Weary Wee Willy,
I see you have noted that I have given you permission to continue your pointless trolling.
Well done!
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Chaos isn’t randomness.
Deal with it.
Oh! Oh! Oh!”
Truly meaningless. You address a mythical person, say something quite meaningless without context and then tell “Mike Flynn” to “Deal with it.”.
Carry on trolling. You truly are a dimwitted chappie, Wee Wily, aren’t you?
Mike Flynn, Dummy,
Start here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chaos/
Stupid Wee Willy,
Read the whole thing.
By definition, chaotic systems are deterministic. You don’t even understand what you read, do you?
Try an English comprehension course.
Oh, and try to link to something I haven’t already read, if you can.
Mike Flynn,
Analyzing formal concepts is obviously above your pay grade.
Stick to what you do best!
Swoon,
What you do best is being idiotic.
Richard, please stop blundering.
swenson…”Woebegone Wee Willy is sadly lacking in relevant knowledge, preferring to slavishly lap up the slop churned out by delusional psychotics like the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann!”
***
Willard is a total alarmist buttkiss.
Gordo, son,
You might like:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/160205294824
Never ending idiocy more like.
z
The experts are starting getting a whiff of that secondary La Niña cooling. Good to see they are finally catching up.
Most climate model outlooks indicate the central tropical Pacific Ocean is likely to cool over the coming months, with three of seven models surveyed by the Bureau indicating this cooling will be enough to reach La Niña thresholds in spring, with the remaining four models staying neutral. This forecast cooling may also be contributing to the outlook for above median rainfall for much of Australia in the coming months.
nate…”It seems you want to believe the Effects of the GW of the last century should all go away with the slight cooling of the last 6 months?”
***
What GW are you talking about Nate? In order to get a GW of less than 1C over a century, it requires some areas to warm a lot while others cool a little bit lessthan the warm areas have warmed.
Look at the most recent UAH global contour map. You see small areas in the Arctic at +2.5C and small areas in the Antarctic region at -2.5C. That’s a differential of 5C and it’s due to solar input. Those areas move around month to month.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/June2021/202106_map.png
Go back to July 2000 and you see much the same thing.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/Maps_1991_2020_base/JULY_2000_LT_6.png
Look at all the areas in white, showing no warming at all. And look at areas in the Northern Hemisphere showing cooling areas inter-mixed with warming-areas. Most importantly, note that month to month the warming/cooling moves around.
I get it that these maps represent only the past 20 years and are based on a relatively short baseline, although it has a length of 40+ years. They are not representative of GW over the past century. However, why should the rest of the century be any different?
GW is a meaningless term and the amount we have experienced over 150 years is negligible and variable. Furthermore, it’s recovery from the Little Ice Age and has nothing to do with anthropogenic causes.
Earlier the delusional Tyson McGuffin quoted –
“How the Earth stayed warm several billion years ago when the Sun was considerably fainter is the long-standing problem of the ‘faint young Sun paradox’.”
Maybe TM has been believing people like Carl Sagan and James Hansen, who seem to overlook the fact that the Earth is a large molten blob – slowly cooling.
Of course the Earth was warmer in the past! All the Sun can do is slow the rate of cooling a little.
Most climate cranks seem to live in a world where fantasy and unsubstantiated assertions reign supreme. What a pack of fumbling bumblers – with the odd fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat, thrown in.
One of their shining stars is a mathematician who stated that a 38% probability meant near certainty!
Swenson: “Of course the Earth was warmer in the past! “
Why do you persist with this red herring?
Everyone agrees that the average temperature of the 6E24 kg of planet earth has cooled each year for billions of years as geothermal energy escapes.
This fact has absolutely no bearing on the statement that from Tyson, which deals with the 0.0001% of earth’s mass that is contained in the atmosphere. And perhaps a similar fraction in the top layers of land and water. These layers — the biosphere — can and do warm and cool significantly.
> Why do you persist with this red herring?
Mike Flynn is discovering peddling. Suppose he likes Doritos. He’d try to turn each exchange into a discussion on Doritos.
There’s also a cranky hypothesis according to which GW is caused by the Earth’s core.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”Here’s all you never wanted to know about G&T:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html
***
I saw G&T tearing Eli apart under his real name of Josh Halpern. Eli inferred that if heat could be transferred only in one directions, that would mean in a scenario with two bodies of different temperature radiating at each other, one of the bodies would not be radiating.
Duh!!! and Doh!!!
G&T promptly straightened him out by explaining essentially that heat is not EM. In a two body problem like that, one cannot arbitrarily sum heat and EM to claim heat is being transferred in both directions. Heat quantities must be summed separately and based on the 2nd law, heat can only be transferred, by its own means, from hot to cold.
Why do you insist on citing people who have no understanding of physics or thermodynamics?
“heat can only be transferred, by its own means, from hot to cold”
But one should note that space, at absolute zero (or close to), is not the same as another body that is higher in temperature than that.
The direction and amount of heat transferred is dependent of the difference in temperatures of the 2 bodies.
Gordon Robertson
“Why do you insist on citing people who have no understanding of physics or thermodynamics? ”
An amusing question, considering your own lack of understanding of physics or thermodynamics.
Gordo,
Do you have a scientific rebuttal or are you going to settle for slinging ad homs and insults?
Are you ever going to stop being an idiot?
When you’ll stop beating your wife, dummy.
Idiotic arguments attract idiots.
Wait till you make arguments, dummy.
Well there is no point waiting for you not to be an idiot.
zzzz
student…”An international team of weather and climate experts has analyzed the late June heatwave in the U.S. Pacific Northwest…”
***
First thing to note is that temperatures in all these regions are back to the summer norm.
The rest is propaganda from modelers…here are your experts:
1)Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford
-ECIs unique approach uses very large ensembles of simulations
2)Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre
It will use its humanitarian network to identify disasters that will be analyzed by the WWA initiative. Further analysis will help place the event in the larger context of patterns of changing risk, including trends in vulnerability and exposure. The Climate Centre team is also helping develop an index of published articles relevant to specific events and geographical regions that will be consulted when WWA assesses a specific event.
3)Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
The KNMI team contributes statistical analysis tools and climate data built in the KNMI Climate Explorer for event attribution…
Like I said, more bs from wannabees. Simulations, analysis of disasters, and statistical analysis tools….hallmarks of of climate alarm losers.
The problem with low level statistical events is that it is very hard to determine repeat cycle lengths. You can easily be out by factors of 500% or more without noticing.
These extreme events are not cyclic, they are stochastic.
A “1 in 100 years” event does not happen at 100 year intervals. It has a 1% chance of occurring in a particular year, but is otherwise random.
The dilemma of climate change is that it changes the probabilities. In a warming world a “1 in 100 year event” heat wave may become a “1 in 20 year” event with a probability of 5% per year.
Hard to measure and easy to deny.
“These extreme events are not cyclic, they are stochastic.”
Except that they seem to repeat in cycles of varying lengths. All to often we hear ‘not seen in the last 60 years’ which is hardly a random event.
“not seen in 60 years”
You keep seeing cycles, even when they may not be there.
First approximation would be that the your event has a probability of about “1 in 60 years” or 17% a year.
Remember too that 60 years ago was 1961. The International Geophysical Year in 1957 was the first serious attempt to study the Earth as a whole, and a lot of climate and other datasets start with the IGY.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Geophysical_Year
The words were as used in the press, not by me.
Do you agree or disagree with the press on this matter?
I accept that extreme weather events are not random, though they are infrequent. They appear to have some sort of repeatability or periodicity to them.
Extreme weather events are stochastic (random).
Same as earthquakes.
You know they happen from time to time. The problem is no cycle to show when. Definition of random.
Try this definition, Ken:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chance-randomness/
It doesn’t work, but at least it’s a standard definition.
“Extreme weather events are stochastic (random).”
Like volcanoes are random (not), except they tend to occur at specific places on the Earth (Ring of Fire, etc.).
“Volcanic eruptions occur only in certain places and do not occur randomly.”
Are all earthquakes random?
“Here we utilise a dataset of repeating earthquakes which occurred between 2000 and 2019 along the transtensive Pernicana fault system on the northeast flank of Mount Etna, Italy”
“Earthquakes can strike any location at any time, but history shows they occur in the same general patterns year after year, principally in three large zones of the earth”
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/where-do-earthquakes-occur
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA247342.pdf
What is occasional for some, is constant for others.
“extreme events are rare”
Willard
Nice paper. Pearls before swine, unfortunately.
Thanks, EM.
Roy’s parser is acting weird again.
Added to my “but extreme events”:
https://climateball.net/but-extreme-events/
Volcanoes are random events. Yes, we know where they are located. Yes we know they erupt from time to time. The random bit is no one can predict when they will erupt.
There are arguable exceptions: Old Faithful geyser comes to mind. But even here the prediction is +/- 5 minutes.
Most volcanoes are unpredictable true, but some are continuously erupting.
Some go quiet for a millennia or more.
Some are almost predictably cyclic. Most are not.
If looked at with a long enough timetable, you could say that some/most are almost continuous. Especially on the ‘Ring of Fire’.
You have to remember, human timescales are very short.
“Rare events are expected to be separated by long time intervals”
Define long.
Define “define.”
Define Long:
Holocene period has been going on for about 10k years.
The previous three interglacial periods were also about 10k years.
Catastrophism theory says every 12k years an ELE event occurs.
Long time between events and we still don’t know the triggers. Are the triggers random? In terms of knowing they will occur and where they will occur not random. In terms of figuring out date and time; random random random.
> Catastrophism theory says
Citation needed.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/define
“Holocene period has been going on for about 10k years.”
Compared to the life of the Earth not long at all then.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/long
Uh, oh!
From the Guardian “The Guardian view on the climate summit: 100 days to save the world”
Presumably, after 100 days we will all be boiled, roasted, grilled or toasted!
[derisive snorts]
Unfortunate it is that we can’t load all the attendees onto a plane and midway through the trans oceanic flight tell them their gasoline allowance has been exceeded. Then turn off the engines.
I must say that the top troll here is Willard. Well done!
He successfully generates the largest number of words in response to his comments compared to the number of words in his original comment (this is the metric I have devised to measure trolling success).
It is a pleasure to watch him play with his hapless victims Gordon and Mike.
Don’t forget Richard.
The “idio” count for the page is now at 610.
Want a few more? Idiot. Idiot. Idiot.
https://gph.is/2HRmhvA
Idiot.
https://gph.is/2HRmhvA
Still an idiot even with the youtube link.
Sorry, the https://giphy.com/ link.
#3
https://gph.is/2HRmhvA
You want more? OK idiot.
#4, 5, 6, …, N
https://gph.is/2HRmhvA
Still an idiot. No matter how many times I have to say it.
627
Do better, dummy.
OK idiot.
631
632
Do better.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767455
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-748015
“767455” = 8
“idio” = 643
651
pP,
As with any other climate crank, you may devise any metric you like.
It changes nothing, of course. You and your ilk are still a motley ragtag assortment of fumblers, bumblers, and second rate wannabes.
Don’t blame me for Wee Willy Idiot’s inability to string more than a few irrelevant words together.
I gave him permission to troll. I find his yapping and crapping quite diverting – particularly when he covers himself with it.
You, of course, have my permission to make as many pointless and asinine comments as you wish.
Equally diverting as the other deluded idiots.
[chortles derisively]
Why, thank you!
I just scored 101/62 = +16%.
professor P, please stop trolling.
[H]ow can climate be predictable if weather is chaotic? The trick lies in the statistics. In those same models that demonstrate the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, it turns out that the long term means and other moments are stable
Seems straightforward enough.
Weather is very sensitive to small changes in initial conditions, which makes it inherently unpredictable, very hard to forecast far ahead.
Climate is defined by the strange attractor in which the weather moves. This sets the means and the limits of extreme weather.
Climate change moves the position of the strange attractor in parameter space, changing the means and the possible extremes.
Move the strange attractor far enough and it tips into a different attractor with different parameters.
There is a theory that the Earth tends to settle into one of four strange attractors based on global average temperature.
Snowball Earth 4C
Icehouse glacial 9C
Ice house interglacial 14C
Hothouse 19C
One concern about global warming is the possibility that if we force the temperature above anomaly 2.5C (global average 16.5C), the system may naturally tip from the Icehouse Interglacial attractor to the Hothouse attractor.
If you placed ‘It is suggested that’ around the attractors then you would be closer to the truth.
Take a look at Scotese’s phanerozoic temperature curve.
https://www.academia.edu/12114306/Phanerozoic_Global_Temperature_Curve
You can see the tendency to settle at 9C,14C,19C or 25C.
Another viewpoint
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
A graph isn’t a viewpoint, dummy.
Being an idiot is constant however.
You’re my strange attractor, dummy.
You’re just an idiot.
Please remind me that you accept that extreme events are infrequent, dummy.
On what timescale is the question. In milliseconds, everything is random. In millennia less so.
If an event is frequent, dummy, would you say that it’s extreme?
You being an extreme idiot is constant
If an event is frequent but in millennia is it unusual?
Extreme events are rare, dummy.
When an event becomes frequent, it’s not extreme anymore.
And when it does, you can guess that the departure from it is even more extreme.
Is once every millennia frequent?
The Phanerozoic Eon is the current geologic eon in the geologic time scale, and the one during which abundant animal and plant life has existed. It covers 541 million years to the present,[4] and it began with the Cambrian Period when animals first developed hard shells preserved in the fossil record. The time before the Phanerozoic, called the Precambrian, is now divided into the Hadean, Archaean and Proterozoic eons.
Is hourly frequent?
Is daily frequent?
Is weekly frequent?
Is monthly frequent?
Is yearly frequent?
Is every decade frequent?
Is every millennia frequent?
Is every epoch frequent?
“Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one’s opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.”
Just being an idiot allows you to post idiotic things.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-748015
“Sensitive dependence on initial conditions”
EM,
You are talking nonsense.
You cannot “move” the attractor, strange or otherwise. You really have no idea, do you?
You wrote –
“There is a theory that the Earth tends to settle into one of four strange attractors based on global average temperature.”
Anybody who wrote anything of this nature is off with the fairies. Some delusional climate crank, if you haven’t just made it up yourself.
Read Lorenz’ work, if you wish. You might learn a thing or two. On the other hand, Richard Feynman arrived at the same conclusion as Lorenz, merely employing the uncertainty principle, at least in regard to the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere.
Think about it. The conclusions are inescapable.
Mike Flynn,
You sure like to namedrop!
And yet:
http://www.bom.gov.au/nt/forecasts/darwin.shtml
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767455
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-748015
“There is a theory that the Earth tends to settle into one of four strange attractors based on global average temperature.”
I would say the attractors are not strange, rather they the average
temperature of the entire ocean which is currently [last 5000 years] about 3.5 C.
in terms snowball the entire ocean temperature would be less than 1 C, and limited to reaching -1 to -2 C due to ocean geothermal heat.
Our Icehouse in recent interglacial have had ocean of 5 C.
And millions years {+10 million years] in past of Ice Age, interglacial would have had ocean as warm as 10 C and global air temperatures reaching as high as about 20 C.
And if entire ocean temperature is 15 C. One obviously can’t be in icehouse climate and maybe be in Greenhouse global climate with average surface air temperature of about 25 C. In in such global climate you are like the tropics- one doesn’t have a winter, your seasons instead are drier and wetter seasons.
Or if in Canada during December, due to high global surface air temperature, a winter daytime air temperature could reach an average summer time air temperature. One will still have most of summer days being warmer as compared to most “winter” day time, but weather effects one could have many summer like days in winter and very unlikely to any winter night freeze. Some regions may never have freezing, and some region have better chance to have freezing nights- due to weather effects.
Or Canada’s average temperature is presently -3 C, and with ocean of 15 C, it’s average would be around 15 C. Or summer average would be about 20 C and winter would average around 10 C, some days of month in winter might be warmer +20 C and some days less then 5 C.
US yearly temperature could 20 C or more or difference 5 C [or more] with Canada. Current difference of US vs Canada is US: 12 C
And Canada: -3 C Or 15 C difference.
“Our findings corroborate the idea that changes in atmospheric CO2 levels played a distinct role in climate variability during the mPWP.”
Well, that is certainly enlightening – not!
As to CO2 projections, more plant food means more food plants for an ever increasing population. You object for some reason?
Congenital idiocy, perhaps?
Mike Flynn,
Richard tried that “but plant food” line earlier.
Then he met Bob:
Aww diddums!
Cheers.
Willard tries to not be an idiot. But always fails.
Don’t worry, dummy.
That one too was added to your list of blunders.
It’s no blunder to observe you are an idiot.
It actually is, dummy.
At least if you want to become a good Hall Monitor.
Only you aspire to those dizzy heights.
We’ve already been over this, dummy:
July 22, 2021 at 9:42 AM
I’m not playing home, dummy.
Hall monitors play home.
You play home.
You don’t have to play being a idiot. You are one.
z
Gordon Robertson at 12:39 AM
Like I said, more bs from wannabees. Simulations, analysis of disasters, and statistical analysis tools.hallmarks of of climate alarm losers.
Why do you hate science?
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson at 8:20 PM
This paper is worth reading over and over since it represents cutting edge thermodynamics theory from experts.
Let me raise you:
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/08/gordon-robertson-on-a-molten-core/
Naw, the Earth’s core is solid.
Uranium is 2.8 parts per million in the Earth’s crust.
I could teach one how to calculate how much heat that generates, but that’s an advanced topic, beyond the low level physics topics I charge 50 bucks for.
This will cost you 150 dollars.
“Earth’s inner core is the innermost geologic layer of the planet Earth. It is primarily a solid ball with a radius of about 1,220 km (760 mi), which is about 20% of Earth’s radius or 70% of the Moon’s radius.
There are no samples of Earth’s core accessible for direct measurement, as there are for Earth’s mantle. Information about Earth’s core mostly comes from analysis of seismic waves and Earth’s magnetic field. The inner core is believed to be composed of an ironnickel alloy with some other elements. The temperature at the inner core’s surface is estimated to be approximately 5,700 K (5,430 C; 9,800 F), which is about the temperature at the surface of the Sun.”
No charge.
> There are no samples of Earths core accessible for direct measurement
http://gph.is/2lkX4kB
“Iron can be solid at such high temperatures only because its melting temperature increases dramatically at pressures of that magnitude (see the Clausius–Clapeyron relation).”
Earth’s inner core is solid: Official
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2008.49504_5.x
ROB does not believe anything he can’t measure in his laboratory, yet he calls other people idiots.
Willard: Idiot.
zz
TM makes mistake after mistake.
1) It’s spelled with a “p”, not a “b”.
10) When TM has to go to Dunning-Kruger to insult, that just means TM has NOTHING.
Good! Now do verbatim…
As an adverb:
As an adjective:
As a noun:
TM now backs away from his quote!
That’s why this is so much fun.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://archive.vn/Od8zV#selection-725.0-729.720
The world is cooling recently.
zzz
now backs away from his spell check meme!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
It’s rather amazing that we find one of our more persistent denialist commentators, Gordo, posting the same sort of anti-factual comments back then as he does now, such This One. Also, in another post, he leaves out that after John Christy got a B.A. in Mathematics degree (1973), then received a Master of Divinity degree in (1978) and spent time as a missionary, later obtaining his M.S. (1984) and Ph.D. (1987) in Atmospheric Sciences. Both Spencer and Christy appear to be Fundamentalist Christians, which may have influenced their view of Science.
It’s quite pathetic that Gordo apparently has learned nothing since 2008.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://archive.vn/Od8zV#selection-725.0-729.720
But Antarctica. But Antarctica.
Earlier, Dimwitted Wee Willy wrote –
“Plant foods are simple sugars.
Plants use water and light to make ATP.
Then plants use CO2 and ATP to make simple sugars.
We usually dont call water plant food, do we?
CO2 is not plant food, plants expend energy to convert CO2 to actual plant food.”
A couple of points. Plants cannot survive without CO2 and H2O. They die. CO2 is plant food. Define H2O as you wish. Food will do me.
ATP comprises more than hydrogen and oxygen, so can not be made from water and light.
Wee Willy attempts to imply that because H2O is not generally defined as a “food”, it is not necessary for plant existence.
Wee Willy is a dimwit. H2O and CO2 are essential for plant life. Plant life is essential for human life. The end.
Mike Flynn,
Your concept of essence is outdated.
Science does not work with it anymore!
You’re 300 years late.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767455
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767780
The previous little ice age 1300 – 1850 started the same way. Lots of extreme weather events including heatwaves, flooding, droughts; anything but stable weather suited for growing crops.
Sun gets less active. Less UV (and higher f) light warming the upper atmosphere. Cooler upper atmosphere shrinks. Jet stream gets wavier. The wavier jetstream results in greater mixing of cold and hot air resulting in a greater frequency of extreme weather events.
There might be changes to the electro magnetic connection with the sun due to the less active sun. There may be other influences that result from weaker magnetic field around the earth too.
The above is all theoretical/prepper BS, and who knows if its right, but, without doubt, the extreme weather you are pointing to isn’t due to CO2.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/arm-waving
And still, none of the climate crackpots have managed to come up with a single reason why the Earth could not cool to its present temperature from the molten state.
No doubt because that is what happened.
Any observed increases in thermometer readings anywhere have a simple explanation. Increased heat. That is what thermometers are designed to measure – more or less, anyway.
July 4, 2021 at 10:54 PM
Mike Flynn,
We all know how you love Doritos.
Well tell you when well talk about Doritos.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767455
z
I wonder how long before Dr. Roy gets fed up with having this garbage on his blog and just locks it up.
Go right ahead, Eboy:
http://gph.is/153bbLf
Idiot.
z
If any are interested in some facts to go with the fanatic.
Here is a study that used actual data (not models projections) to obtain results.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2011.621895
Some attribute Climate Change to the bad flood in Zhengzhou, China but the experts have a different story. The typhoon headed that way was responsible for the heavy rain.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3141963/devastating-china-floods-caused-typhoon-fas-airflow-hitting-area?module=perpetual_scroll&pgtype=article&campaign=3141963
And, although the rate of rainfall was worse this time, in 1975 this area has a similar intensity rainfall.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202107/1229173.shtml
“The maximum precipitation in Zhengzhou reached 201.9 millimeters per hour, breaking the previous record of 198.5 millimeters in 1975, according to the national meteorological observatory.”
Norma,
Here is how we recognize a Troglodyte who’s throwing spaghetti on the wall:
[T1] Says “some attribute Climate Change to the bad flood in Zhengzhou, China but the experts have a different story.”
[T2] Cites a 2011 study with the name Has the magnitude of floods across the USA changed with global CO2 levels?
Don’t be such a Troglodyte.
Willard
RLH has your number. Not only are you a fanatic you are a real idiot. Your posts are really stupid and pointless. More like an angry priest than a scientific thoughtful intellect.
I don’t think you have enough reasoning ability to comprehend posts that go against your established religious indoctrination.’
I think you should play with Swenson. The two of you seem to have about the same IQ level.
Norma,
Here you go:
https://climateball.net/but-religion/
Considering that you gave me Bible quotes, don’t you think you should stay away from that Bingo square?
Try rational argumentation some day.
It works.
Willard
My initial attempts are rational argumentation. With posters like you, Gordon Robertson, Clint R, Swenson it is demonstrated not to work. So one must adapt to the level of thought process of the poster.
Some like evidence and seek it out and welcome it. You and the others are closed spheres of belief. You no longer are open to any evidence.
You post extreme weather events with remarks like “More Global Cooling”. That is not an intelligent or rational form of behavior.
If you want to convince me the flood in China was caused by global warming then give some conditions that exist now that did not exist before that caused this. I am not interested that it almost rained a whole years worth of rain in 3 days. That point does nothing to explain how global warming created conditions for this massive flood event.
If you want to be the rational poster provide conditions and mechanisms of how global warming produced this event.
It can be done. Meteorologists understand conditions that lead to severe weather and can issue watches well in advance of actual tornadoes. They know the necessary ingredients for super storms and when they observe these conditions developing they are able to offer constructive advise that can save many lives.
Do you see this point? Just claiming an extreme event is caused by global warming is stupid and yet the media does it consistently. I wait for some proof of evidence but none is given. I read technical articles and you get model runs, no real conditions that led to this (like is done with severe weather).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767455
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767780
Norman,
I have no desire to convince you that the flood in China was caused by global warming, and told you three times yesterday that this was a strawman. Otherwise your comment only contains “but prediction” and “but models”:
https://climateball.net/but-predictions/
https://climateball.net/but-modulz/
But since you mention floods, here’s again what the IPCC says:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX_Full_Report-1.
Your point, taken to its extreme, would lead to the conclusion that statistics cannot establish that a dice isn’t loaded because they can’t predict the next dice roll.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-745146
z
A poster going by Willard is super impressed that 617.1 millimeters rain event in 3 days is proof of climate change and extreme weather (that I guess did not happen in the past) but he ignores some real data.
http://www.bom.gov.au/water/designRainfalls/rainfallEvents/worldRecRainfall.shtml
I guess it does not matter to the fanatic that Smethport, Pennsylvania received more rain that this event (782 mm) in just 4.5 hours in 1942. A cooler globe in that year.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019_Time_Series.png
Or that China received far more rain also with 1400 mm in 10 hours back in the cooler 1977 era.
Extreme weather events happen somewhere on the globe multiple times a year. We have access to all this information in real-time, before it may have taken days to get a global extreme weather event to the general public.
I think research into Climate Change is good and useful. If scientists claim an extreme event can be linked to global warming via some mechanism or condition that global warming creates I will consider this topic. Currently the media just claims every (and I do mean every!) extreme weather event we experience today is because of climate change. No one looks to the past to see the level of extreme events that happen. You have fanatics like Willard who peddle this POV and will not consider any other information. He is on a agenda folks and no one will alter his course.
It is like the media is herding the Public with rods of fear into a thoughtless mental state where questioning the Authority is a criminal offense.
Norma,
Here is how we can recognize a Troglodyte:
“is super impressed”
“he ignores”
“I guess it does not matter to the fanatic”
“You have fanatics”
“rods of fear into a thoughtless mental state”
That’s not how you’ll question Authority, you know.
Willie’s here to add as much chaos as possible. That’s what propagandists do. That’s who leftists are. Best thing to do is ignore him.
Wrong, Stephen.
I’m here to make work contrarians properly. For instance, Norma is handwaving to stuff without showing he read any of it. That’s, like, not optimal Climateball.
Here’s how lousy it looks:
[P1] Extreme weather events happen somewhere on the globe multiple times a year.
[P2] No one looks to the past to see the level of extreme events that happen.
[P3] Here is a list of the World’s Record Rainfall
P1 is trivially true, P2 is undoubtedly false, and P3 has not is barely relevant. What should we conclude from them taken together?
Norma does not have the fortitude to spell his conclusion.
It’s as if he was under the impression that handwaving to something problematic was enough to make his opponents fold.
That sucks.
Hope this helps!
Williard (idiot)
P2 is not false for a fanatic like you. You keep posting current extreme weather events without the slightest look at anything that happened in the past. Good scientists look at the past. Media and fanatics like you do not.
If you were not so dumb you could understand my points. I have already stated them above.
The point (idiot) is that extreme rain events took place before global warming. Some conditions allowed this. So why do you believe the current extreme rain events are now caused by global warming when the others were not? What conditions did global warming change to cause extreme rain events that are different from the past? Can you understand that point? I am afraid you do not grasp this point.
Norma,
Read P2 slowly:
No one. Looks to the past. To see the level of extreme events that happen. Do you realize how silly this is?
Of course many do look to the past! Were that not the case, your favorite dummy could not smugly amuse himself with “unprecedented since…”
Every. Single. Newsie. Looks. At. Predecents.
Taken at face value, your claim is still false. So you’re suggesting something else. Here’s my bet:
http://georgiaballauthor.com/2018/01/16/picture-book-spotlight-could-be-worse/
Next time, have the cojones to state your freaking point.
Just to make sure even a Troglodyte like you can get the memo:
https://archive.vn/Od8zV#selection-739.0-743.340
I’m sure you can find other ways to minimize these facts than by lying.
Willard
I am not an English Major. I can see how my statement confused you and that is on me. It was not written well. If you look at the statement before it, it would refer to the Media (not scientists researching the topic, some of them try to find data for the last thousand years, which can be daunting).
I listen to the media and every major extreme weather event is attributed to climate change. None on the media go into past extremes or even indicate if any is outside of historic proportions or what previous records were that were broken. It is not good reporting and more like propaganda to create a false narrative.
I am not making the point “It could be Worse” so I hope you go beyond that limited thought and try to really grasp my points.
Maybe it is my communication skills that are getting in the way.
The point is the question to ask is why were there extreme events in the past. Why would the extreme events be caused by global warming when those of the past were not. What is different and why?
Norman,
Thank you for that comment. It will change my communication style with you.
As I understand it, the basic idea is that warming gets more energy in the system, and more energy means more extreme events. Michael Tobis likes to speak of rolling more 13 on two dice. I prefer to speak of adding a hammer in a washing machine.
That does not imply that AGW is the only thing that causes extreme events. It only implies that AGW will amplify them in one way or another. How AGW will amplify them depends on which kind of extreme event we’re talking about.
Heat waves are more directly related to warming than floods. Droughts are in between, as they involve both warming and water. The overall picture is complex, and the data is far from being pristine.
So that’s how I’d answer your question.
***
Now, let me address its subtext. I am well aware that the extreme events I post prove that AGW is the main culprit. In fact it’s far from clear how attribution for specific events work. As I see it, science works with types, not tokens:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/types-tokens/
So at best we can come up with a bunch of statistics, as rough as return rates, or as abstruse as “odds that an event would happen were it not of AGW.” Scientists know best what kind of indicators they need.
There are two main reasons why I post these newsies. First, I try to compete with Eboy’s crap. Second, I try to get people to talk about something else than the same ol’ same ol’. Aren’t you tired to hear Gordo’s war stories or Mike Flynn’s ridiculous machismo?
That’s all there is to it. If you want to look at historical precedents, be my guest. But please beware that it’s your itch. Don’t try to bait me into scratching it for you.
Enjoy your evening,
I am well aware that the extreme events I post does not prove that AGW is the main culprit, that is.
Willard
Not lies.
https://phys.org/news/2008-10-ice-arctic-ocean-years.html
I am not making the claim global warming is not taking place. The points you make would be expected results of global warming.
My point is that making the claim every extreme weather event is caused because of global warming is highly unscientific conjecture.
If you are a scientific minded researcher on the topic of climate change than you should be as annoyed with the media as I am. It is totally unscientific and fear mongering. When the media chooses to take this path they lose credibility and you have a past President who could use this to destroy the foundation of Truth itself.
You think me a “Norma” (I guess it is a form of insult you like to use, the same one Clint R used when I mistyped my name) or Troglodyte. Not at all correct. I am wanting a scientific based approach to climate change. That means evidence based reporting. If an extreme weather event takes place, before making the claim it is climate change and if we don’t act soon it will become unlivable, get good research done and prove the claim.
My concern is with integrity of Truth being destroyed. That is why contrarians and fanatics are both wrong in my view. They are no longer looking for truth but out to peddle their own brand of reality. Mostly with no supporting evidence.
If you look at my posts I will support all my claims. I am demonstrating how bad the media really is on this issue and more people have to hold them accountable. Why don’t people ask, why do you think this extreme weather event was caused because the globe has warmed a few degrees? Who does this in the media?
> the claim every extreme weather event is caused because of global warming is highly unscientific conjecture.
Once again, Norman, that’s a misrepresentation. Here’s the claim:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX_Full_Report-1.pdf
I’ll add it to my “but extreme events” page:
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“A changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration, and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events.”
Proof absolute that the IPCC is a sheltered workshop for climate cranks.
Don’t theses fools realise that climate is the average of weather (which has already occurred)?
The changes in weather result in a changed average – climate change!
Not the other way round, dummy!
“I am well aware that the extreme events I post does not prove that AGW is the main culprit, that is.”
“GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE”
Sure.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767780
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-745146
Here is the page:
https://climateball.net/but-extreme-events/
Idiot.
Hey Noramn,
Willard is a trull and a bore.
Don’t feed the boring trulls that bring nothing of value to the discussion.
“Ennui only rouses himself from his torpor to cajole other Warriors to be more interesting – without, of course, ever contributing anything of interest himself. Ennui has limited weaponry at his disposal, but his majestic affectation of boredom provides an effective defense to attacks. When pressed in battle he will announce his intention of moving on to a more stimulating forum, but instead he will generally lurk quietly until the threat passes.”
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
Idiot.
Mainstream forecasters are starting to catch up
https://wwmt.com/news/local/la-nina-favored-for-winter-2021-22-prompts-watch-from-seasonal-forecasters
https://www.mlive.com/weather/2021/07/la-nina-watch-issued-for-a-return-this-winter-what-this-means-for-michigan-weather.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/07/08/la-nina-what-expect-return-climate-pattern/7902196002/
Looks like global air temperatures are not scheduled to rise this year after all.
On the other hand, the ENSO might not be linked to the same.
“Looks like”?
To who? More like hopes and dreams.
So when do you expect global anomaly air temps (using UAH) are likely to rise to say 0.2c? This month? This year?
Pay no attention to ankle biters
https://youtu.be/58RRauqK9Bg
Willard
Now that I am realizing you are thoughtless I guess I can take the time to help you grasp my point in this post.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-765662
I asked you to look at Figure 1 of the first link in the post. I did not know you were too dumb to understand the point so now I do I will help you.
Figure 1 shows the amount of forest burned in Western US states in the 1920 decade is comparable to what is burning today. The early era was long before global warming was a factor.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019_Time_Series.png
With a much cooler globe the acres burned is the same. Why would that be? Logically you might look at other factors than global warming to explain graphs like these. They do not fit into the hypothesis that global warming is the primary cause of large fires in Western US. Others have tried to find the links. One that correlates is the PDO. Now a mechanism of why the PDO produces these effects needs to be found if this is to become a valid theory.
Does that help? I hope so.
Norma,
Running to the end of the thread won’t help you, for here’s what you’re trying to dodge:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-766684
If the point you failed to make was about the idea that “global warming is the primary cause of large fires in Western US,” then congratulations: you’ve demolished a straw man!
So next time, once again, make your claims explicit.
Let me ping back to this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767325
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767455
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767865
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-742114
.
You got the point. Well done.
..
Twice as good.
Here’s Wee Willard Idiot reduced to repeating irrelevant comments –
“July 4, 2021 at 10:54 PM
Mike Flynn,
We all know how you love Doritos.
Well tell you when well talk about Doritos.”
Having failed to get himself banned so he can whine about “climate warriors” being silenced by Big something or other, or getting anyone else banned, he now attempts to get Dr Spencer’s blog to shut down.
Flooding the blog with trollish nonsense doesn’t seem to be working too well for Climate Crank Wee Willy. Maybe Dr Spencer is smarter than Wee Willy thinks. Onlookers can figure out for themselves what facts to base their opinions on.
Wee Willy is so entrenched in his own fantasy world, he makes himself an object of derision to many.
He deserves compassion, rather than condemnation. He can’t help being an attention seeking idiot. Just look at his replies when I point out that the Earth has obviously cooled from the molten state!
He just can’t accept reality.
Oh well.
July 4, 2021 at 9:17 PM
Mike Flynn,
Do you know the Doritos story?
Its a good one:
[Vaughan]: Well, predicting is hard, especially futures anomalies.
[MattStat]: Yeah, this is a bummer. But how do you think that people
[Don Don]: Hey guys, you talking Doritos?
[MattStat]: Come on, Don Don. Dont do this again.
[Don Don]: I just thought maybe you were having the old Doritos discussion.
[Vaughan]: Dude, for the last time: well tell you if we ever have a conversation about Doritos.
[Don Don]: You promise?
[MattStat]: Of course, Don Don. We know how you love Doritos.
[Vaughan]: Yeah, man. Everyone knows.
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/40263311176
And yet again. Witless Wee Willy goes off on a reality rejecting rant!
More fantasy to avoid acknowledging that the Earth cooled to its present temperature – all by itself!
No GHE involved. Or Doritos either!
July 4, 2021 at 10:54 PM
Mike Flynn,
We all know how you love Doritos.
Well tell you when well talk about Doritos.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-745146
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767854
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-742114
z
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767455
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767780
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-745026
745026
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-742114
z
Here is Woeful Wee Willy’s level of understanding –
“As I understand it, the basic idea is that warming gets more energy in the system, and more energy means more extreme events. Michael Tobis likes to speak of rolling more 13 on two dice. I prefer to speak of adding a hammer in a washing machine.”
He is an idiot climate crackpot. More energy in the system? Not for the last four and a half billion years. The system has cooled – no longer molten! Continuously shedding internal energy, which the Sun falls far short of replacing.
Two dice adding to 13? Hammers in washing machines?
Is he an idiot, a fool, or just supremely gullible? Or maybe all three!
Who knows?
Mike Flynn,
Just as I was suggesting that you should do what you do best, here you are, playing dumb!
Now we’re talking, baby!
Hee haw!
Enjoy your afternoon,
Woebegone Wee Willy – in his fantasy world again, where his comments make sense.
I am surprised that he hasn’t even given an irrelevant and pointless weather report, desperately seeking attention. He may finally be realising that climate, being the average of weather, is a consequence, not a cause.
There may be hope for the immature puppy yet. Maybe.
July 22, 2021 at 8:11 AM
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
[The crowd cheers.]
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-745026
745026
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-745146
z
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767455
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767780
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-745026
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-748015
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-747073
z
rlh…”“there are no computers powerful enough to run outputs to that detail”
A bold claim given just how fast computing strength is ramping up. However I will accept that is unlikely to be any time soon”.
***
Have you read the paper? It was written circa 2009 but there is no way computers have been upgraded enough to achieve the pseudo-reality required by models.
I strongly urge you to read the paper, back to front, to get an idea of how thoroughly G&T have researched the topic. Gerlich taught math for thermodynamics and he goes deeply into mathematical explanations in the paper.
Pay no heed to Willard’s linke to Eli Rabbett. You can find both his rebuttal of this paper and how much he made a fool of himself as Josh Halpern. G&T destroyed him in their rebuttal but Willard would rather appeal to the authority of a Rabbett than real physicists who specialize in thermodynamcis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law
rlh…I’m looking at the problem from hardware limitations within a semiconductor. A semiconductor device’s speed is limited by the device’s ability to allow current change. Doesn’t matter how many transistors are in a chip, the limiting factor is each transistor in the chip.
Moore can’t do anything about that.
Parallel computing is big these days, not just multiple cores but multiple processors with multiple cores in parallel. Still, I have little confidence that any in-depth modeling of the atmosphere can be accomplished in sufficient detail to give an accurate representation.
Furthermore, the understanding of the complexities of the surface-atmosphere interface involved are not nearly understood. Scientists have only discovered the ocean oscillations recently (past 40 years), so what’s the point of programming models based on radiation only?
I am very low end with only 6 cores to my CPU. And, yes, parallel computing is the way to go. I first did that back in the 1980s so nothing new there.
rlh…”I am very low end with only 6 cores to my CPU.”
That’s all I have. Does the job for me.
: )
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767956
Idiot.
No U.
z
Pay no heed to Gordo’s usual rant about G%T’s 2nd Law claims. Eli’s Green Plate model works in the real world too.
Gordo has still not provided any physics to disprove my Green Plate Demo or my later Ice Plate Demo. Back radiation and radiation shields work.
Swanson, are you still trying to push that nonsense?
You’re adding a whole new dimension to “desperation”.
> real physicists who specialize in thermodynamcis.
Not really:
http://www.muslim-markt.de/interview/2007/gerlich.htm
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-742114
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-742165
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzaZFyn-iJ0
Idiot.
Your outdated view on the so-called Moore’s Law has been added to the list of your blunders, dummy.
If you are saying that Moore’s Law is invalid, think again.
https://siliconangle.com/2021/04/10/new-era-innovation-moores-law-not-dead-ai-ready-explode/
Mark B says:
July 25, 2021 at 10:37 AM
RLH says: I am slowly draining away your time.
Sometimes things are a simple as they seem.
Not simple enough for idiots it would seem.
No U
z
maguff…As other rebuttals of the G&T paper have done, you have cherry -picked inconsequential detail and ignored the main arguments of the paper. The English is not great because their native language is German.
***
“3) the contention that CO2 molecules are too small to absorb IR photons because they are smaller than the wavelength of IR confuses light waves with photons. Waves can be thought of as the sum of a large number of photons, as seen in the classic double slit experiment”.
You may have a degree in physics but your reading comprehension is poor. G&T are arguing that the number of CO2 molecules in a small volume cannot act as a blackbody radiator. I don’t recall G&T saying anything about absorp-tion of IR, in fact, they acknowledge Tyndall’s experiment in which he discovered that property.
***
“4) The contention that the stefan-boltzmann constant is not a constant is flat wrong”.
They did not claim it’s not a constant they claimed it is not a ‘universal’ constant, that is, one that applies everywhere. Stefan derived the constant based on Tymdall’s work, when he electrical heated a platinum filaments wire between about 700C and 1400C. That’s where the constant applies, it does not apply to gray radiators or at room temperature.
If you look again, you’ll see a graph they supply showing the adjustment required for gray radiators.
***
“5) The contention that the IPCCs models ignore incoming IR from the sun can be easily refuted by looking at any of the radiation balance diagrams from the IPCC, which show radiation being absorbed in the atmosphere before it reaches the ground. I believe the figure is about 66 W/m2”.
Then why is that value not in the Kiele-Trenberth budget? And how do they know the value?
^^^
“6) Radiation emitted sideways will be reabsorbed and go up or down eventually”.
Nice try.
***
“7) The authors apparently think that if something wasnt published in german, it doesnt exist”.
Not at all. It just so happens the scientists with the greatest influence on the modern GHE/AGW theory are German. One of them is Stefan Rahmstorf, a good, old German name. He’s the clown who helped perpetuate the nonsense that the 2nd law is not contravened as long as the net energy transfer is positive.
As G&T correctly pointed out, heat transfer is about heat, not energy per se. Rahmstorf et all seem to think it’s OK to lump in EM with heat.
***
8) What is the problem with the concept of average temperature?”
Just that, it’s a concept, not a fact. Has no application but in an equation. Look at the UAH global contour maps, there is more white on the maps, indicating no warming, than any warming or cooling.
***
“9) The contention that back-radiation constitutes a perpetual motion machine of the second kind misunderstands the laws of thermodynamics…”
Seriously…both G&T have degrees in thermodynamics. No…they understand it perfectly well, as laid down by Clausius, in fact, they quote him on it.
Back-radiation represents a perpetual motion machine because AGW claims surface radiation is absorbed by GHGs, warming them. Then the GHGs back-radiate a fraction of the same radiation to the surface, from a cooler temperature source, and that radiation is claimed to be absorbed by the surface, that radiated the radiation, to raise the temperature of the surface beyond what it is heated by solar radiation.
Any self-respecting physicist would recognize that recycling of heat, to create heat, as a perpetual motion machine. And, he/she would recognize it as a contravention of the 2nd law.
The rest of your explanation is bafflegab.
***
“10) I feel sorry for anyone being taught physics by these people”.
I feel sorry for you.
maguff…as a basic review of math, when you create an equation, you begin with a proportional relation ship. If I = radiation intensity from a surface with temperature, T, you might say I is proportional to T^4. To equate them you need a constant of proportionality. So..
I = sigma.T^4
Actually, I = e.sigma.A.T^4
Sigma has to tie all the other parameters together. If the range of T when the constant is created is 700C to 1400C, what’s the likelihood the constant will apply at room temperature?
Furthermore, there is no frequency/wavelength component in S-B. If ‘I’ represents the EM intensity emitted, it’s frequency will vary with temperature, but not in a linear manner. Planck allowed for that by including an exponential function in his equation but there is nothing in S-B to that effect.
The frequency/intensity relationship had not been determined when S-B was discovered till Planck discovered the quantum relationship involving ‘h’. Then he modified the EM spectrum to explain the different intensities from the red region through the blue region.
S-B is really a primitive analysis tool as G&T have claimed. It should be used with great care and never applied to real, physical problems, other than to ballpark the area of observation.
Normally, when an equality is stated, the range over which it applies is also stated. I have never seen a range applied to S-B and it wouldn’t make sense anyway since blackbodies are theoretical.
We know the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is valid because it has both mathematical proof and a century of experimental verification.
The problem comes when people try to us S/B for heat transfer. An emission from one surface does not subtract from the emission from another surface. Trying to use the bogus “radiative heat transfer equation” leads to nonsense like an ice cube can raise the temperature of something hotter.
Clint R
It is NOT a “bogus” equation. It is quite logical and correct and used in engineering of heat transfer. Your endless posts about it just make you seem ignorant and uniformed. I have linked you to real physics explaining the equation.
Only someone who is ignorant that falsely (I think it is an intentional deception on your part as you have been informed correctly more than once so you can’t pretend to be ignorant) makes claims that the valid heat transfer equation states on emitting surface subtracts emission from another.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
The correct understanding of the valid working equation is that the amount of NET heat transfer is altered by the surroundings. The emission from one surface will send its energy to the other emitting surface (regardless of the temperature of each). Based upon the emissivity factor put into the equation and view factor each surface will receive the energy emitted by the other.
You twist the reality in ways NEVER stated and you do it intentionally making you a most deceptive dishonest person. Just a liar and misleader.
Norman, your insults go along with your ignorance of physics quite well. It’s like you were meant to be a useless troll, huh?
Clint R
Again what ignorance of physics can you confirm. I did confirm not only your ignorance but your dishonest lying personality.
Not a troll but one who is pointing out reality. You are just a liar. It is not ignorance when the truth is given to you. I gave it in my post in the link.
I am stating what you are so others are not lured into your false deceptions.
You are like the liars on the Covid vaccine. They make up as many lies as they can think of to manipulate gullible people into not getting a vaccine and then many of them get really sick and some die.
Most evil type of human. Intentional lying that leads to people dying. You might not be on that horrible level but your dishonesty is quite real. It is not just an insult it is what you are. It is really sad you are this way. Wish it was not the case.
If you question things honestly it is a good thing. You actually just lie.
Norman, you have a history of false accusations, not understanding physics, finding links you don’t understand, and insulting. Now you reveal that you’re filled with hatred.
You hate reality.
I no longer choose to waste time with you, but the two recent examples of your incompetence, that come to mind, were your inability to correctly calculate the BB temperature for 173,000 TW incoming. The next one was where your made-up example of “orbital motion without axial rotation” axial rotation would have Earth NOT rotating!
You don’t want to learn, so I will ignore any of your responses that include false accusations or insults.
Learn to be happy in your ignorance–it’s not going away….
“Learn to be happy in your ignorance”
It works for Clint!
Whacko Wee Willy,
Earlier you wrote –
“As I see it, science works with types, not tokens:”
Who cares what you see in your fantasy?
Here’s Feynman “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
You don’t even have a theory, let alone an experiment. Typical climate crackpot – believes in creating fact by a consensus of crackpots!
Others will no doubt make their own decisions. Some believe in facts and reality, some in faith and wishful thinking.
You are such a dummy, you wouldn’t know the difference, so just carry on trolling.
July 22, 2021 at 8:11 AM
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
[The crowd cheers.]
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-745026
“767455” = 8
“745026” = 5
“idio” = 643
656
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-745026
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-747073
“767455” = 10
“745026” = 7
“747073” = 1
“idio” = 643
661
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-746713
(you do realize you are the only one counting – and that no-one else cares)
“746713” = 1
You do realize that you’re 74 years old, dummy?
I am slowly draining away your time. Idiot.
No U don’t, dummy.
Every answer you give is a little less time.
You’re 74 years old, dummy.
Time is relative.
RLH says: I am slowly draining away your time.
Sometimes things are a simple as they seem.
Richard is turning into DR EMPTY.
Willard can’t turn into an idiot. He already is one.
“idio” = 653
Oh wow!
Your point is what? That you are an idiot?
No U, dummy.
I’m not an idiot. You are.
No.
U.
z
Electromagnetism is a property of spacetime itself, study finds
July 23, 2021 by Jussi Lindgren and Jukka Liukkonen
“Imagine if we could use strong electromagnetic fields to manipulate the local properties of spacetime—…”
…
“Conclusions
We believe that empirical research on this topic is important. This means measuring the local curvature of spacetime when there are strong electromagnetic fields present. Perhaps one could use, e.g., superconducting coils and laser light to measure any deviations in the fabric of spacetime. Artificial modifying of spacetime could have extensive benefits in the field of engineering, for example. Finally, it is worth mentioning that our approach has the benefit of simplicity—we do not need extra dimensions, torsion tensors, asymmetric metric tensors or the like.”
https://sciencex.com/news/2021-07-electromagnetism-property-spacetime.html
linked from: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
It seems there is no evidence of it. I would think that with fusion research, it seems “something” would be noticed.
Though then again, maybe related why fusion research has been failure all these years.
Lots of possibilities here.
If you could deliberately change the curvature of spacetime you could produce change the strength of gravity. Antigravity and artificial gravity for spacecraft become possible.
You could also change local time rates. Slow time for a patient in an emergency ambulance to extend the golden hour, or even use it as a time machine to travel into the future by slowing your personal time almost to zero.
Difficult to know whether they are another Faraday and Maxwell or Fleissman and Pons, but it will be interesting to watch.
Time may be another dimension, but it is one that does not exhibit the same characteristics as do the other 3.
We only have limited control over how fast we move through time and no control over the direction.
Otherwise it makes up one of the four dimensions of Einsteinian spacetime.
We all move through time at the same constant rate (locally). We control quite easily our direction (locally) within our space.
How can you say otherwise?
I should point out that it is change in time we measure (i.e. clocks ticking), not time itself.
The first 3 dimensions in space as cartesian space are bidirectional. Both plus and minus. Time is unidirectional.
In spherical space the first 3 dimensions dimensions are unidirectional also (if ‘distance from’ and ‘angles at’ are being considered as positive only). Time is still unidirectional.
We can choose to move through time faster by moving to less curved peacetime by gaining altitude or slow our time rate relative to an external observer by gaining velocity.
Time also constrains our movement through space. We can never go outside the light cone of our point of origin.
“We can choose to move through time faster by moving to less curved peacetime by gaining altitude”
If you wish to measure time in picoseconds (or less), sure.
Now that’s interesting. Do you only accept something as real when you can perceive it with your own senses?
The effect is certainly large enough to require inclusion in GPS position calculations.
There are bigger errors in the transmission times due to water vapor in the transmission path than almost anything else.
Have you not noticed that most GPS (other than very expensive differential ones) drift quite a bit in rain, fog, etc.?
Ever thought what would happen if the aircraft in the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
had flown North/South rather than West/East?
The East/West component of the clock’s movement would differ between 1040 mph at the Equator and 0 at the poles. It would add extra complexity to the calculation and reduce the observed differences in clock rate.
Better to use the east/West flight path and take advantage of the Earth’s rotation.
The point was that North/South there would be no difference due to the Earth’s rotation, but there would still be the same velocity differences between clocks.
rlh…”Time may be another dimension, but it is one that does not exhibit the same characteristics as do the other 3″.
***
There is far more to that than you may realize. What is space, as in space time? In physics, it is defined as a 3-D space with each dimension measured in a unit like a metre. In essence, that 3-D space does not exist.
A metre is defined by humans as a fraction of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole. Time is defined by humans as a fraction of the distance around the Equator. One of those dimensions, the second, is a measure of 1/86,400ths of the distance around the Equator.
You might wonder how such a distance is related to time. Humans built a rotating machine called a clock and they synchronized it to the rotation of the Earth. A hand on the clock, there was only one at first, turned exactly once per Earth rotation.
That period on the clock was defined as one day. Then they broke the day into 24 hours, one hour into 60 minutes, and one minute into 60 seconds. Of course 60 x 60 x 24 = 86,400 seconds and the second became 1/86,400ths of one Earth rotation.
The second is a distance traveled by the Earth in the defined ‘time’. However, we derived that time from an arbitrary distance moved by the Earth. Therefore, time is the distance moved by the machine and it is based on a physical distance along the Equator.
In a moment of insanity, Einstein claimed that clocks would move at different speeds under different conditions, asserting that the length of a time interval could change. However, a clock is not measuring time, it is measuring the distance traveled by the Earth during its rotational period, which is a constant.
The moral to this story is that no matter how brilliant you think you are, or how brilliant others think you may be, you are still prone to the illusions of the human mind.
Spacetime is an illusion and Einstein should have gotten that.
Now do all the 3d stuff in spherical co-ordinates. Cartesian ones are so limiting to your brain.
entropic…”If you could deliberately change the curvature of spacetime you could produce change the strength of gravity. Antigravity and artificial gravity for spacecraft become possible”.
***
Gravity is related to mass, more specifically to inter-atomic phenomena. There is no such thing as spacetime, it’s sci-fi akin to the Big Bang theory, where all current matter in the universe allegedly appeared suddenly out of empty space.
No one can run an experiment to show mass appearing out of empty space and no one can run an experiment to demonstrate spacetime.
Well, is there such a thing as blackhole.
Yes or No?
If there is such thing as blackhole, what is it?
gbaikie…re this quote you provided from another source…
“We believe that empirical research on this topic is important. This means measuring the local curvature of spacetime when there are strong electromagnetic fields present. Perhaps one could use, e.g., superconducting coils and laser light to measure any deviations in the fabric of spacetime”.
***
Before anyone talks about adjusting spacetime they must first identify it as a physical reality. Unfortunately, spacetime is a thought-experiment from Einstein’s mind. Not just my opinion but an observation from Louis Essen, who discovered the atomic clock.
Essen claimed, in essence, that Einstein’s relativity theory is not a theory at all, but a collection of unproved thought experiments. Prior to reading Einstein’s paper, and considering the opinion of Essen, I regarded Einstein as a genius. Now, I regard him as a desperate scientist whose only claim to fame was the photoelectric effect, trying to work out a theory that makes no sense in physical reality.
I have no problem with Einstein’s relativity theory at terrestrial velocities. He admitted himself that he got it from Newtonian relativity theory. We all know that Newtonian theory is limited in that it cannot determine actions at the atomic level. So, Einstein ‘adjusted’ the Newtonian equation by adding a multiplier that caused time and distance to change as velocity increases. Without the multiplier, Newtonian and Einsteinian physics are the same.
IMHO, Einstein made an egregious error by ignoring forces and their effects on masses, and working with kinematics, a study of the velocity/accelerations produced by the action of a force on a mass. The major problem with that approach is that velocity and acceleration contain a time component wherein time has no physical existence.
Einstein claimed that time is the ‘hands on a clock’, one of the most naive statements I have ever encountered from any physicist. Based on the misconception, he added the observational powers of the human brain, which simply cannot follow relative motion. Therefore, E. had to make presumptions about time that were dead wrong. Essen, an expert on time confirmed that with his claim that E. did not understand measurement.
Time has nothing to do with the hands on a clock, it is defined by the rotational period of the Earth. A clock is a machine that tracks the angular velocity of the Earth, and the gradations on its face were defined by human beings based on fractions of the Earth’s rotational period.
Time, then, is a measure of physical distance wherein a distance moved by the Earth as it rotates is defined as a second. That second is fixed, as Newton claimed, and cannot change. Proof of that comes in navigation theory where lines of longitude, representing the Earth’s rotation, are sub-divided into hours, minutes and seconds. Those are physical distances.
Since time is a fabrication of the human mind, spacetime makes absolutely no sense. Ergo, it cannot be changed or diverted by anything, and there is no fabric of spacetime.
“Before anyone talks about adjusting spacetime they must first identify it as a physical reality. Unfortunately, spacetime is a thought-experiment from Einsteins mind. Not just my opinion but an observation from Louis Essen, who discovered the atomic clock.”
Well, I like thought experiments.
Ie, how do we know, that our universe is not in the middle or bottom of blackhole?
I don’t think there is anything wrong or unfortunate about Einstein giving a thought experiment.
Instead I ask, if anyone has a better thought experiment or better than that, give some evidence, that indicates that the thought experiment is not useful.
“Essen claimed, in essence, that Einsteins relativity theory is not a theory at all, but a collection of unproved thought experiments.”
Better to say a collection of thought experiments which have not been disproven, yet.
Which is the state of all science.
Science is not settled, and have my doubts science will ever be settled.
But regard thought experiments and exploration as valid aspect related to Science. I would call them needed precursors to any progress in science.
Gordon,
There is a branch of physics called Theoretical Physics, it’s above your paygrade.
Einstein just continued the work of Maxwell, where it was all derived from first principals, no experimentation necessary.
It’s all beyond your ability, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
Indeed. It might be suggested that F = gamma ma could be re-written as F/gamma = ma : )
Yeah,
Any one can make a suggestion.
The problem is making correct ones.
Prove it invalid.
Earth / Mars satellite measured mean surface temperatures 288 K and 210 K comparison
These ( Tmean, R, N, cp and albedo ) planets’ parameters are all satellites measured.
These planets’ parameters are all observations.
Planet….Earth….Mars
Tsat.mean..288 K…210 K
R……….1..AU…1,525 AU
1/R…….1…….0,430
N……….1…….0,9747
cp………1…….0,18
a……..0,306…..0,250
1-a……0,694…..0,75
coeff…….1….0,72748
As we can see Earth and Mars have very close (1-a); for Earth 0,694 and for Mars 0,75.
Also Earth and Mars have very close N; for Earth N = 1 rotation /day, and for Mars N = 0,9747 rotation /day.
Earth and Mars both have the same Φ = 0,47 solar irradiation accepting factor.
Thus the comparison coefficient can be limited as follows:
Comparison coefficient calculation
[(1/R²)*(cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴
Earth:
Tsat.mean = 288 K
[ (1/R²)*(cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= [ 1*(1)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ = 1
Mars:
Tsat.mean = 210 K
[ (1/R²)*(cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= [ 0,430*(0,18)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ = ( 0,430*0,65136 )¹∕ ⁴ =
= ( 0,2801 )¹∕ ⁴ = 0,72748
Let’s compare
Earth coeff. /Mars coeff. =
= 1 /0,72748 = 1,3746
And
Tmean.earth /Tmean.mars =
= 288 K /210 K = 1,3714
It is obvious, one can calculate Earth’s mean surface temperature by simply multiplying Mars’ satellite measured mean surface temperature by the comparison coefficient.
Earth coeff. /Mars coeff. =
= 1 /0,72748 = 1,3746
Tmean.earth = Tmean.mars * 1,3746 = 210 K * 1,3746 = 288,7 K
Very close!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/564672-at-least-130-dead-as-severe-flooding-hits-india
No “climate change” in that newsie!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-745146
“745146” = 5
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-747078
747078
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-742114
Mark B says:
July 25, 2021 at 10:37 AM
RLH says: I am slowly draining away your time.
Sometimes things are a simple as they seem.
So simple even an idiot can understand.
Simple indeed:
July 25, 2021 at 10:53 AM
Richard is turning into DR EMPTY.
Willard can’t turn into an idiot. He already is one.
RLH
This thread has become so long that clicking links to previous posts has become a waste of time. I’ve stopped bothering.
If you want us to re-read your earlier posts, please copy and paste them
EM,
All of Richard’s self-referential links were meant to bypass my “idio” count. When I started to count his links, he kept changing their ID’s.
It’s that dumb.
Well it keeps you occupied. Which was the point.
Kiddo says the same, dummy.
Keep on being an idiot. It’s what you’re good at.
No. U.
z
Willard
Your media source may not have included climate change in the article but others have.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-57938839
“Many factors contribute to flooding, but experts say climate change caused by global warming makes extreme rainfall more likely.”
Norman,
Yeah, I saw that one, and their “experts say climate change caused by global warming makes extreme rainfall more likely” is not wrong:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX_Full_Report-1.pdf
So I think you need another newsie for your “but the press”:
https://climateball.net/but-the-press/
In fairness, this square belongs to the Bingo Core:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/05/23/the-bingo-core/
The frequency of heavy precipitation will increase if temperatures go up.
The frequency of heavy precipitation will increase if temperatures go down.
Make you mind up.
Which part of “It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe” you do not get, dummy?
Which of “you are an idiot” did you no get?
Which part of “No U” you do not get, dummy?
That you are an idiot? Got it.
“It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe”
It’s not likely you are an idiot. It’s a certainty.
No U.
z
willard…”At least 130 are dead after severe flooding in India, officials in the country said on Saturday”.
***
It’s weather, Willard. Nothing more than an outlier. The ocean oscillations are working together to produce it.
Nothing to see here, folks, move along.
http://gph.is/2kvXCEp
Idiot.
https://gph.is/g/aXmlNKP
A Gify idiot.
No U.
z
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-742165
Richard, please stop making a fool of yourself.
Well you can’t stop being an idiot.
No U.
z
Norman
Asking “Did climate change cause this heat wave” is not a meaningful question.
Suppose I take a die with the normal 17% probability of throwing six and modify it.
I drill a hole in the spot on the one face(opposite the six) and glue in a lead shot. This increases the probability of throwing six to 25%
I then start throwing the die.
Is the first six I throw due to chance or due to the lead shot?
One throw is not enough to decide on 17% probability.
Exactly.
The original 17% is a probability based on two things.
1) The theoretical prediction that an honest die would show a 17% probability of throwing each number.
2) Throwing the die enough times to establish a statistically valid frequency distribution.
To demonstrate that the modified die has a higher probability you need to throw the modified die enough times to generate a new frequency distribution and use something like a chi-squared test to compare the two distributions.
So with heat waves. You cannot infer that one heat wave is, or is not, due to climate change. What you can do is compare the modern record with an earlier record. If the frequency of heat waves has shown a significant increase, you then start testing causation hypotheses.
“What you can do is compare the modern record with an earlier record.”
So how much do you allow for more reporting? There have been times in the past where things are underreported. Now it is less likely to happen.
Due diligence.
Any competent estate manager keeps records of flowering dates, harvest dates and yields from which you can infer temperatures for the last 1000 years.
The Central England Temperature record gives daily temperatures from 1772.
There’s also global data from 1880.
A UK heatwave threshold is met when a location records a period of at least three consecutive days with daily maximum temperatures meeting or exceeding the heatwave temperature threshold. not difficult to pick them out of the data.
“Theres also global data from 1880.”
Yeah. Like that is SO long ago. Less than a couple of centuries by quite a margin.
And?
You ARE an idiot.
No courage once again, dummy.
And No U.
Whereas you are always an idiot.
No U, dummy.
z
Entropic man
With the current accepted definition of a heat wave: “The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) defines a heat wave as a period during which the daily maximum temperature exceeds for more than five consecutive days the maximum normal temperature by 9°F (5°C), the “normal” period being defined as 1961–1990.”
I do think that if you increase the global temperature 2 F you will have a much higher probability of having more of this type of heat wave. These are not extreme events and take place frequently.
Extreme heat, like the heat dome event in the Pacific Northwest at the end of June, which are 30-40 F above the “normal” would not matter if you had a doctored dice. Whatever causes these events is more complex. Cliff Mass did a great job of explaining it and also he forecast it a week before it happened. He understood the conditions that create excessive heat and was able to use his knowledge to correctly predict this event.
> was able to use his knowledge to correctly predict this event.
Cliff wasn’t alone in having predicted the heat wave:
Here’s how Cliff continues:
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-greatest-heat-wave-in-northwest.html
How did that fare, Norman?
People create a relatively new term, heat dome, for what used to simply be called a blocking high and everybody gets excited.
Get over it.
It’s not about terminology, dummy.
It’s about you being an idiot. I know.
No, dummy. That’s your shitty take.
Norman said that Cliff “was able to use his knowledge to correctly predict this event.”
I showed that he wasn’t alone if using his knowledge &c, how Cliff tried to minimize the event with “but uncertainty,” and
how he fumbled his eight-ball on Seattle.
You are just constantly showing everybody how to be an idiot.
No U.
z
You’ve probably had to answer similar questions in your work.
The Production Department want to introduce a change in the design of a circuit board. The reckon a manufacturing cost saving of 10 pounds per board, but they want you to measure the effect on mean time between failures.
How would you do it?
That depends on a load of other factors.
1. The actual cost of the board.
2. The number of sales of the board per year/month.
3. The current rate of failures.
4. The cost of failures.
5. Other reasons for revision.
6. Expected manufacturing lifetime of new/old board.
are the first ones that spring to mind.
RLH
You are generalizing into commercial factors affecting the overall decision whether to change the design.
I was more interested in the specific question of comparing the mean time between failures for the two designs, because it has similarities to the problem of detecting a change in frequency of heat waves.
Norman
The 2021NW heat dome was so far outside the normal range that it may not have a frequency distribution. It is quite possible that we are seeing a phenomenon which a warming climate has only recently made possible.
In that case we have a sample of one and no way to judge how frequently to expect it.
“It is quite possible that we are seeing a phenomenon which a warming climate has only recently made possible.”
It is quite possible that it is not so also. We only have quite a short history of that area really.
I’ve been looking for past heat domes.
I found eight in the last decade, one in 1995 and none before that.
Do you have references to anything earlier?
To calculate the MTBF you need at least the number of hours the board is in use before failure. And the number of boards too.
You also need the cost of any failure, probably to replace/repair.
Only then can you answer your question fairly.
The rest I would include normally to decide on cost effectiveness in the first place.
As a heat dome is a relatively recently defined phenomena would you expect any previous ones to be reported?
What terms might you also look for that describe the same thing?
Blocking highs have been around for a long while. They are nothing new.
“To calculate the MTBF you need at least the number of hours the board is in use before failure. And the number of boards too. ”
And how do you get this information, particularly for a board which is not yet in production?
If the board is not yet in production there is no data, only estimates.
Entropic Man says: . . . And how do you get this information, particularly for a board which is not yet in production?
The process for high-reliability electronics typically involves reliability modeling (e.g. Telcordia SR-332) as part of the design process prior to prototype build, accelerated failure testing (temperature, shock, vibration cycles) prior to fielding, and then statistical monitoring of field failures.
One can reasonably draw rough climate analogies with the first and last at least.
I find it ironic that electronics engineers complain about climate forecasters using techniques already used in engineering development.
Richard’s a coder tho.
I started to realize that all those people who say they know, they actually don’t know. Many of them don’t know, and especially those who say that they know, don’t know, because those who do know say that they don’t know.
— Anna Kiesenhofer (Olympic road cycling champion)
“and then statistical monitoring of field failures.”
You don’t say.
Normally everything just gets rolled into the next version in any case.
“I find it ironic that electronics engineers complain about climate forecasters using techniques already used in engineering development.”
Estimates abound. Real feedback data will have to wait for 60 years or so for stability.
Willard’s an idiot.
Because a payroll sofware requires lots of statistical testing, no doubt.
Never did payroll stuff but why let accuracy get in the way of your idiocy.
Dakal Software does, dummy.
Dakar is not Dakal.
https://www.dakarsoftware.com/
Idiot.
I stand corrected, dummy. “Dakal Software” does not appear in the Companies House registry.
Once again you volunteer very little information. What professional experience would back up your bragging about hardware verification?
Why would I care about an idiot and what he thinks or wants?
Have you considered that Mark would take you more srsly if you were not saying stuff all the time, dummy?
Well no-one would take you for being anything other than an idiot.
Tell that to Mark, dummy:
July 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM
Neither of you are idiots.
You are an idiot though.
entropic…”Suppose I take a die with the normal 17% probability of throwing six and modify it”.
***
So that’s modern alarmist climate science, tossing dice. At least you have moved on from reading chicken entrails.
Have you guys tried producing physical evidence to backup your lame theories?
Gordon Robertson at 1:30 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-767465
I am always thankful to people who want to engage in meaningful dialog; this post of yours is not that; at all.
maguff…as a basic review of math, when you create an equation, you begin with a proportional relation ship.
When I derive an equation I always start with data. I hypothesize which variables are the independent variables and which is the dependent variable that I want to describe. I then use statistics to find the functional relationship between the variables which is the equation I’m searching for.
You have a severe misapprehension of Planck’s function and the S-B law. Planck’s function gives the monochromatic intensity emitted by a blackbody; by integrating Planck’s function over all wavelengths you get the S-B relationship.
I don’t understand what you mean by ” S-B is really a primitive analysis tool.” I remind you that Newton’s laws of motion are even older and the whole field of Mechanical Engineering, built around them, is still doing very well.
maguff…”When I derive an equation I always start with data”.
***
I was referring specifically to the proportionality constant used in S-B. When Stefan derived it he based his relationship between the intensity of emitted EM and the temperature of the emitting surface on data acquired by Tyndall and the conversion of Tyndall’s reported colours to wavelength/frequency in the range of about 700C to 1400C.
G&T inferred that the constant of proportionality he derived is not universal, that it is not applicable in the context it is applied by climate alarmists.
***
“… by integrating Plancks function over all wavelengths you get the S-B relationship”.
Can you not see the problem there? S-B was derived well before Planck’s function. S-B was not based on Planck’s quantum theory, it was based on the direct observation of Tyndall when he electrically heated a platinum filament wire.
Planck was big enough to admit he did a lot of mathematical fudging to get his equation and his theory about quanta. He was influenced by Boltzmann and no doubt based his model for the EM spectrum on S-B.
Even at that, it would not have worked across the full EM spectrum without some imaginative fudging. S-B clearly states that EM intensity is directly proportion to T^4, so why does Planck’s equation peak in the visible green region and drop off dramatically toward the red and violet regions?
Planck explained that, he fudged the math to make it so by including an exponential function. Look in the denominator and you find (e^hc/lkT – 1) where l = wavelength T = temperature, and k = Boltzmann’s constant. Therefore e is dependent on the fraction hc/lkT. That is, it is dependent on temperature and wavelength. By including the exponential function in the denominator, he introduced (fudged) a means of making the black body output conform to observation.
The thing is, he had to know the wavelength of the EM at a temperature T. He got that obviously from Tyndall via S-B.
You could not heat a platinum filament wire or any other object till it glowed violet. The atomic bonds would fall apart long before the required temperature. Even if it was possible, Planck’s equation shows that the intensity of EM drops off blue through violet.
***
“I dont understand what you mean by S-B is really a primitive analysis tool. I remind you that Newtons laws of motion are even older and the whole field of Mechanical Engineering, built around them, is still doing very well”.
Newton’s laws are directly measurable under terrestrial conditions. S-B cannot be applied universally as G&T claimed.
As G&T argued, the only evidence we have of a temperature for Earth with no atmosphere and oceans is a calculated temperature based on S-B. As they claim, the constant of proportionality cannot be applied in that context to measure terrestrial temperatures. Then they asked why the average temperature was not calculated with oceans and no atmosphere.
With no atmosphere, what would be the meaning of a global temperature? When we speak of a global temperature of 15C, we are talking about measurements of air temperature. What temperature are they talking about with the calculated temperature of Earth with no atmosphere or oceans?
We don’t need a global temperature or an insinuation of a theoretical global temperature. It’s all theoretical bs, hence my reference to primitive.
All the fudging that you say Max Planck did is known as Quantum Mechanics.
Stefan derived his empirical relationship in 1879; Boltzmann derived the same relationship in 1884 by applying thermodynamic theory to a Carnot cycle assuming that radiation was the working substance, hence the name Stefan-Boltzmann law. In 1900 Planck announced his function for the monochromatic intensity, which can be analytically integrated to obtain the S-B law. The interconnectedness of science at work.
That’s all I’m going to say about this.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/how-weather-works/high-and-low-pressure/blocks
“These blocks frequently occur on the eastern edges of the Atlantic and eastern Pacific“
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate-change/effects-of-climate-change
willard…”In the future, we project that the UK will see:
Warmer and wetter winters
Hotter and drier summers
More frequent and intense weather extremes”
***
Ha, ha, ha…the Met office, climate alarmists from the UK? The cheaters who were caught in the Climategate scandal, led by Phil Jones who..
-threatened, as an IPCC Coordinating Lead Author, to engage his fellow CLA, Kevin (you know who), to block papers from skeptics, among them John Christy of UAH.
-applauded the death of skeptic John Daly…real classy.
-bragged about using the trick of Michael Mann to fudge data from the 1940s. The trick was a rude method of hiding declining temperatures.
Why are alarmists such schlemiels?
Gordo,
Do you have a scientific rebuttal or are you going to settle for slinging ad homs and insults?
willard…Ha, ha, hathe Met office, climate alarmists from the UK? The cheaters who were caught in the Climategate scandal, led by Phil Jones…
East Anglia isn’t the MET Office, Gordo.
You really are not very good at Climateball.
East Anglia IS the CRU though.
And?
You are an idiot.
You’re not even right about East Anglia being CRU, dummy.
It’s the other way around.
Actually it’s ‘in’ as ‘in University’ but why would an idiot know that?
Here, dummy:
https://lr1.uea.ac.uk/cru/about-cru
As in, teaching in the University, idiot.
Here, dummy:
An idiot proves he has lost the plot.
It’s a thread about the MET Office, dummy.
It’s a thread about you being an idiot.
Gordo is wrong about the MET Office.
Richard is wrong about CRU.
What else is new?
No U.
Willard is an idiot.
z
Climate change (the bad sort) will produce all sorts of things. Including no snow, ice free Artic year round, heat domes instead of blocking highs. The list goes on.
Oh and falling anomaly air temps for the last 6 months.
“More frequent and intense weather extremes,” dummy.
But if the global temps are falling in the last 6 months how can GW be responsible for anything in that time?
I know. They remembered being hotter.
You almost said something, dummy.
You never stop being an idiot though.
More cowardice, dummy.
No U.
z
“But if the global temps are falling in the last 6 months how can GW be responsible for anything in that time?”
RLH, Are you thinking that to be warm, it must be warming?
I cant bake a cake in the oven unless the oven is getting hotter?
In fact, we set the oven to 350, it heats to 355, then cools to 345, heats again to 355, etc.
While its cooling from 355 to 345, you think it won’t bake??
Odd way of thinking..
OK. Global anomalies if you insist.
Non sequitur.
You seem to have missed the point.
Heat a griddle for pancakes. Turn off the heat. Let it cool for one minute.
Now touch the center of the griddle.
It cant hurt you, if its not heating, right?
“After the first 6 months 2021 looks set to be the coldest year since 2014. The annual global average temperature calculated so far is 0.64C relative to a baseline 1961-1990.”
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=10009
“After the first 6 months 2021 looks set to be the coldest year since 2014. The annual global average temperature calculated so far is 0.64C relative to a baseline 1961-1990.”
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=10009
Since…
“There is also evidence of a ring of warmer temperatures encircling the earth at ~40N.”
Sure thing RLH, temperature and derivative of temperature are equivalent!
To see that this is dumb, you need to try this experiment:
“Heat a griddle for pancakes. Turn off the heat. Let it cool for one minute.
Now touch the center of the griddle.”
Not that it matters, but surface temps have risen 0.2 C in the last month. Lets see if UAH does similarly.
So you are saying that UAH will be above 0.2c this month?
Since obviously the LT doesnt always perfectly track the surface, No.
But I suspect it will rise, let’s see.
Nate says: . . . Not that it matters, but surface temps have risen 0.2 C in the last month.
I’m curious where 0.2 C came from. Normally I’d look at the Moyhu NCEP/NCAR daily reanalysis chart for this, but it isn’t updating for about 10 days.
Here:
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2021-07-26.gif
This web page:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/
“But I suspect it will rise, lets see.”
I suspect it wont. As you say, only a couple of days to see.
“I suspect it wont.”
And the logic behind that is?
All the evidence is that we have not reached the bottom yet.
“All the evidence”
Such as….?
ENSO below the zero line trending into a La Nina by year end.
And yet you forget that Nino3.4 was at a minimum in December-January, and has risen by 1.0C since then. There is ~ 5 mo. delay between 3.4 and UAH response.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
Do the math.
Nate says: This web page: https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/
Thanks.
A few weeks back, I’d projected July UAH to be in the range 0.0-0.1 on ONI evolution.
This daily tracking suggests it might be higher than that. I still wouldn’t bet even money at >0.2 but that’s looking less crazy than I thought at the beginning of the month.
rlh…from your link…
“How does the weather become blocked?
A weak jet stream (or its position) is one way in which an area of high pressure can become slow moving. The jet stream helps to develop and steer areas of low pressure around so if its weak or positioned well away from the UK, high pressure can become more influential in our weather”.
***
This does not explain how the naturally rising heated air is prevented from rising and cooling. It does rule out the AGW theory that the atmosphere is cooled by GHGs radiating EM to space, therefore dissipating heat. The jet stream could not prevent radiation from passing through.
As air is heated at the surface, it rises and cooler air from aloft moves in to replace it. The cycle continues. From my perspective, the only way the surface temperature could remain constant is if the air above is not cooler, like some kind of long-term inversion.
NOAA blames it on La Nina…interesting.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/heat-dome.html
Are we talking Omega Block or Diffluent Block. There are 2 sorts.
“It does rule out the AGW theory that the atmosphere is cooled by GHGs radiating EM to space, therefore dissipating heat.”
Sure. Then the atmosphere cools how? By conduction or convection with space????
Weird..
It thinks real hard.
I don’t want to sound alarmist but THE RIDGE OF DEATH is approaching!!!
“A hefty ridge of high pressure is expected to bring intense heat to many of the lower 48 states as we close out July.
Meteorologists expect a phenomenon similar to what caused deadly triple-digit temperatures in the Pacific Northwest last month to begin forming near the same region again as early as Monday. But the so-called heat dome won’t stay put over Portland and Seattle as the week continues.
“Most of the US mainland will be under this huge heat dome of high pressure,” Meteorologist Gerard Jebaily said. “Meteorologists unaffectionately call it a Ridge of Death. It won’t rain fire and brimstone or anything. It gets its name because the sinking air underneath the high-pressure dome suppresses shower and thunderstorm activity and the air becomes hot and stagnant.”
…i suppose ridges didn’t exist before co2.
Arson is impossible because forest fire can have a natural cause.
Arson is irrelevant because the forest has to burn: an organic matter must be either eaten (including by detritivores and/or rotting by fungi under the rainforest conditions), buried by the sediments to be turned into coal/oil/gas, turned into industrial products of civilization or BURN. There ae no other options. So yeah, arson might exist but it is wholly irrelevant. Peple in commifornia took away the first three options so the forests will… nah, ARE GOING TO BURN. So, bad analogy =) Fundamentally, all fires are natural.
The point I’m trying to make is that if P implies Q, that does not mean that only P implies Q.
There are many ways for a forest to burn, for people to die, for cats to get skinned, etc.
Silly Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“The point Im trying to make is that if P implies Q, that does not mean that only P implies Q.”
Why didn’t you just say so? Because it is already well known?
Try to appear clever, dummy?
Try again.
Mike Flynn,
Two reasons.
Concrete expressions are better.
You suck at logic.
Cheers.
Still trying to appear clever, dummy?
Not working!
Try again, fool!
Mike Flynn,
Why are you bragging about being dumb?
Why are you always an idiot?
When will you stop beating your wife, Richard?
You can’t stop being an idiot can you?
Don’t you ever get tired of beating your wife, Richard?
You never get tired of being an idiot. Mind you, you can’t.
Have you asked your wife if she never gets tired of being beaten by you, Richard?
Well have you asked your wife if you have stopped being an idiot yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
“I have not beaten her, and I have not left off”
Are you finally discovering your main tactic, dummy?
Well I see you haven’t stopped being an idiot.
There’s something about presuppositions that escapes you, dummy.
@willard
indeed, i went off on tangent. The real reply should’ve been this: what ur saying is a truism. It adds no new information and therefore is useless. I’ll put it in an even more concrete terms:
arson = Extra co2 making ridges worse
forest fire = ridges
natural cause = “normal” co2 levels, whatever it may be.
Therefore, we get:
(Extra co2 making ridges worse is impossible because ridges can happen at the “normal” co2 levels. == False) == True
Indeed, but just as correct would be to say
(Extra co2 making ridges BETTER is impossible because ridges can happen at the “normal” co2 levels. == False) == True
srsly, how much r u getting paid for doing this?
Cot,
You should stick to implication, for equivalence “== False) == True” would break your parser.
Coturnix: dying is natural, so if people die from a virus, or homicide, or a fire,, whats the diff? No worries.
Except to the individual and their families that is.
more false analogy, hehe. More correct would be this: since dying is inevitable, putting off death due to various interventions during the young age, will increase the rate of death at the old age. Why is dying at a young age is better then? Because you don’t have to deal with it all at once, and with the shock it would bring to the economy. If this conclusion seems weird and stupid to you it is because your analogy is idiotic.
Here’s a primer, Cot:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/16/how-to-reason-by-analogy/
You have no idea how to reason by analogy.
Wacky Wee Willy,
You have no idea!
Mike Flynn,
I actually do!
Willard is an idiot. So he knows that at least.
NOAA has claimed the heat domes are a product of La Nina conditions.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/heat-dome.html
Don’t be shy to quote, Gordo:
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/heat-dome.html
willard…”the scorching heat is ensnared in what is called a heat dome. This happens when strong, high-pressure atmospheric conditions combine with influences from La Niña, creating vast areas of sweltering heat that gets trapped under the high-pressure “dome.””
***
It’s weather, Willard. NOAA says the heat domes are caused by La Nina. Surely even you dare not contradict your authority figure.
You say that the “NOAA has claimed the heat domes are a product of La Nina conditions,” Gordo.
That’s clearly not what the NOAA has claimed.
Did they claim you are an idiot? They would be right then.
No U.
z
BREAKING NEWS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVXheJdfYGg
BREAKING NEWS.
Whacky Wee Willy posts another irrelevant link, hoping to fool people into wasting their time at the dummy’s insistence.
You have been warned. If your brain explodes, don’t blame me!
Mike Flynn,
Your miss.
So sad.
What are you babbling about, dummy?
Idiot.
No U.
z
Idiot.
No U.
z
swannie…”Pay no heed to Gordos usual rant about G%Ts 2nd Law claims. Elis Green Plate model works in the real world too.
Gordo has still not provided any physics to disprove my Green Plate Demo or my later Ice Plate Demo. Back radiation and radiation shields work”.
***
Swannie, old chap, what is it about the following quote from Clausius, when he wrote the 2nd law, that you don’t get?
“Heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body”.
And, why do you fail to understand the process of heat dissipation? The increase in temperature you measured was related to the blocking of heat dissipation, not to a contradiction of the 2nd law, wherein heat could suddenly be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot.
Energy in general can only be transferred from an area of higher potential energy to an area of lower potential energy. Hence water cannot run uphill, by it’s own means, nor can a boulder raise itself onto a cliff, by its own means.
In case you missed this in school, a hotter body is in a higher energy state than a cooler body. Ergo, thermal energy cannot be transferred from a lower energy state in a cooler body to a higher energy state in a hotter body.
I tried to explain that using electron theory but, heck, you don’t even understand basic physics.
You might like:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.03323
willard…”Heat spontaneously flows from hot to cold in standard thermodynamics. However, the latter theory presupposes the absence of initial correlations between interacting systems”.
***
More bs from quantum idiots. The theory offered by Clausius presupposes nothing. He worked it out step by step using a heat engine. Very elegantly, I might add.
These clowns have likely setup a refrigeration system where heat is being moved cold to hot using smoke and mirrors. They have admitted to using a magnetic resonance.
Just as electrical charge is transported from a higher electrical potential to a lower electrical potential by electrons in a solid, the same electrons transport heat from higher energy states to lower energy states. Unless someone interferes with the natural motion of electrons they will not transfer charge or heat in the opposite direction.
These clowns are manipulating the electrons using external means. Idiots!!!
Gullible Wee Willy,
Read and comprehend, dummy.
Then get back and explain the relevance to the non-existent GHE!
Learn a bit of science, before trying to appear sciency. Otherwise, you might just reinforce the fact that you are a climate crackpot.
Mike Flynn,
We’ll tell you when we’ll talk about Doritos.
Just wait.
When you learn about science, maybe someone will talk about science, dummy!
Idiot.
No U.
z
willard…”East Anglia isnt the MET Office, Gordo”.
***
Wrong again, Willard. East Anglia is the university at which the Met office Climate Research Unit is located. The Met office does the weather and CRU, aka Had-crut, does the climate fudging. Still led by the same charlatan, Phil Jones.
Here, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Met_Office
Please take your meds.
2000 – “According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”
Of course, what happened?
Record snowfalls. Due to weather. You may not be aware that the BBC dropped the MetOffice forecasts in 2015. Too inaccurate, apparently.
Not trusted too much by the Armed Services, either. At least the MetOffice has you!
Mike Flynn,
Did I just make you look?
\o/
Look at what, dummy?
Seriously. Is “Mike Flynn” like your best argument? It’s so stupid and boring. Where do you want to go with that?
*Mike Flynn*
Boring is what Mike Flynn does best!
Being an idiot is what Willard does best.
East Anglia’s weather is certainly changing.
In my youth a regular Winter fen skating championship was held each year and we skated every Winter on flooded fields at Earith and Whittlesey.
The last championship was held in the 1996/1997 Winter and there has only been one skating Winter since, in 2010.
https://lr1.uea.ac.uk/cru/cruhome
CRU is still in East Anglia.
Say it, dummy.
OK. Idiot.
No, dummy:
“You’re wrong, Gordo.”
You’re still an idiot.
No U.
z
Finally somebody noticed
The devastating European floods reveal an incredible hypocrisy in the green agenda. They want to spend untold sums, supposedly to prevent natural floods by cutting emissions. But they spend nothing to prepare for these same floods, which they predict will get worse!
https://www.cfact.org/2021/07/26/the-greens-threaten-us-with-floods-but-fail-to-protect-against-them/
There’s an article in today’s NY Times about how Toyota, known for their hybrid cars, is resisting the move to full battery electric vehicles because they had bet heavily on hydrogen fuel cell technology. Fuel cell costs haven’t come down as quickly as batteries over the past decade and a half and hydrogen infrastructure is a big hurdle.
The point being that all the players are driven by self-interest without much regard to the common interest. That’s just human nature.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/25/climate/toyota-electric-hydrogen.html
Turns out that renewable electricity is cheaper than first imagined as well.
Common interest is a common phrase (pun intended) used to subvert the discourse and implicitly impose your own goals onto others. There is ONLY self-interest, that may may not sometimes match in a large groups of people.
Using words like “Deniers” and “Inactivists” merely indicates the political nature of the issue. There is nothing wrong with using alternative energy sources such as wind and solar, but they are NOT reliable. Alternative sources are fine when they work, but enough capacity needs to be maintained by conventional sources–coal, gas, oil, nuclear. Otherwise, we see shortages and outages as we’re seeing.
To deny that a growing population/economy needs more and more reliable sources is really the problem. Real leadership would be pushing for more nuclear power, such as 20-30 new plants in the US alone, in the next 10 years. If we don’t like coal, then a realistic policy would be to replace each 100 MW of coal-powered with 200 MW of nuclear-powered.
> Otherwise, we see shortages and outages as were seeing.
Shortages and outages were not caused by renewables, Pup.
By design:
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/15/668209008/inside-the-russian-disinformation-playbook-exploit-tension-sow-chaos
You’re not a useful idiot. Just an idiot.
No, dummy.
That would be U.
TM, you’ve just described “cult mentality”.
Good job.
Cultish folks entertain beliefs that isn’t shared by many, Pup.
Just like you and your fellow crank dragons:
https://climateball.net/but-religion/
Wrong Willard.
What you attempted to describe is a “minority”. A “cult” is identified by their rejection of reality, often to the point of extremism.
(I won’t be responding to your immature antics.)
Wrong, Pup.
Contrarians are in the minority, and Cranky Dragons form a small minority in that minority.
You only exist on blogs and a self-published book.
Woeful Wee Willy,
“Cranky Dragons” would be misinformation, then.
Obviously used to imply that “Dragons” is generally understood to refer to realists, who used the term in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” (demolishing the mad notion that CO2 controls the Earth’s temperature), rather than the delusional promoters of the mythical GHE.
Just another example of climate crackpots redefining reality, in an attempt to change it.
Bad luck, dummy. You have been hoist with your own petard!
Now double down, and claim you used the term “Dragon” before its accepted use, related to GHE retards!
You are not only a dummy, but a delusional idiot into the bargain!
Mike Flynn,
“Generally” is a bit of a stretch for a self-published book that represents a position that does not exist in the relevant lichurchur.
You represent a mythical side, and therefore are Dragon-like.
Diddums! Diddums! Diddums!
Worrying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“”Generally” is a bit of a stretch for a self-published book that represents a position that does not exist in the relevant lichurchur.
You represent a mythical side, and therefore are Dragon-like.
Diddums! Diddums! Diddums!”
A bit of a stretch? Is it true or not true? You have not defined what is relevant, in terms of fact. Your semi-literate “lichurchur” is presumably an attempt to appear clever, but is the sort of juvenile rubbish used by those of your ilk. Why not use plain English?
I represent no “side”. Sides are for climate cranks trying to avoid facing the inconvenient fact that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, without any mythical GHE.
Dragons are indeed mythical, just like the GHE.
By the way, you do realise that all the articles in prestigious scientific journals are of the “pay us, and we will publish it” variety, don’t you? Self published? Puff press? Who would pay good money for stuff dreamed up by self appointed “climate scientists”?
You have no theory, not even a hypothesis! You can’t even say where this “GHE” may be observed. Just like the unicorn and the dragon! Definitely mythical.
Thanks for the flattery. Imitating my writing shows how limited is your grasp of language. Others may, or may not, disagree.
Mike Flynn,
TL;DR.
TL;DR.
Willard is an idiot.
No U.
z
Shortages and outages were caused by renewables.
So were some of the fires in California.
Blancolirio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WAB5cflHBI&t=34s
GWPF Jo Nova
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYHX-Ib3Q5Q
You’re saying more than boring stuff, Ken:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis
Germany is getting off renewable because its not working.
See controversial gas pipeline deal Nord Stream 2 between Russia and Germany.
“But Germany” is tedious, Ken:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01939-3
“Wind power contributed 24.8% of UK electricity supplied in 2020, having surpassed coal in 2016 and nuclear in 2018. It is the largest source of renewable electricity in the UK. The latest research suggests that the levelized cost of recently constructed offshore wind farms is in the range 100-150/MWh.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom
Climate Change, A Timeline
An mportant point to remember, TM:
Bamboozling and misinformation, using humor, is STILL bamboozling and misinformation.
I bet they won’t teach you that in your cult classes….
One partisan’s opinion….no thanks!
re: flooding in Netherlands.
I was wondering if the unadjusted monthly UAH data is available with the actual global temperature for each month, not a departure from the average for the month. I’d like to examine that data. Thanks!
The normals for the previous anomalies used to be published. I’m sure that Roy has the current ones somewhere.
Add those to the anomalies and you get the absolute temps if you so desire. If you want a gridded version then you will definitely need to ask Roy.
I saved the values from the last time this came up.
Mon. Kelvin
JAN 263.037
FEB 263.108
MAR 263.299
APR 263.721
MAY 264.324
JUN 264.966
JUL 265.288
AUG 265.108
SEP 264.471
OCT 263.786
NOV 263.273
DEC 263.072
Is this the current set or the past one?
Thanks Clint R thats what I needed. Are these the values that go with the new base period? It was just a scientific curiosity thats all. I find it extremely interesting that the global temperature is so much higher at the earths aphelion. Here we are getting excited over tenths of a degree change while a normal year has an order of magnitude more movement which we dont see due to the data being a departure from a monthly average, not yearly average. I doubt the majority of folks understand that.The albedo is that important. Recently changes in the jet stream have yielded greater snow cover in the NH winter and we also see the Antarctic ice at a fairly high extent here. How did you get the data if you dont mind?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
Scott R, Generally speaking, the data is first reduced to 2.5×2.5 degree grid spacing, then averaged zonally. Either at the full grid stage or at the zonal averaged stage, the monthly annual average at each latitude is removed. This is necessary in order to calculate the area averages, such as for the Tropics, the Northern Hemisphere, the Arctic, or the entire globe.
I don’t know what you intend to do, but working with the full gridded data set might be your only option. Also, don’t forget that the LT is constructed from three other series, each of which uses data which has been reduced to a 2.5×2.5 degree grid. Best of luck!
E Swanson I have wanted to take a closer look at the gridded data for years but I havent been able to make the time. I wonder what is available… if I could get the actual temperature in which the departure is calculated by region. (NH, SH, tropics ect) That alone would be very interesting.
Scott R, The UAH LTv6 data is available HERE.
the data is the monthly gridded anomalies, such as THIS FILE for 1980. Also, they give the gridded averages in THIS FILE, which can be added to the anomaly data to re-produce the Monthly Brightness Temperatures.
Extracting different zones from the monthly data would require calculating the zonal averages, then selecting the desired regional extent and area averaging. To area average, one must apply a correction for latitude, since the area of the 2.5×2.5 degree grid boxes becomes smaller as one approaches the poles.
Hope that you like working with large batches of data…
Since the UAH doesn’t measure the global surface temperature but rather a convoluted and weighted air temperature in the thick layers of the atmosphere, such data certainly exists but i’d question its identity as a ‘actul global temperature’. To get that you’d need to apply another adjustment and add the (supposedly known) ‘lapse rate’. Is it even constant?
coturnix…”Since the UAH doesnt measure the global surface temperature but rather a convoluted and weighted air temperature in the thick layers of the atmosphere…”
***
The AMSU telemetry on the sats is sophisticated enough to accurately detect the amount of O2 radiation at various altitudes. Channel 5 can detect nearly to the surface and since the lapse rate is known, it should be no problem extrapolation right to the surface.
As far as being global, the sat telemetry is infinitely more global than surface stations. The telemetry covers 95% of the atmosphere with a far greater sampling rate than two a day thermometer measurements.
Besides, the accuracy has been verified against radiosondes.
What is the surface station record other than a gross extrapolation between stations long distances apart?
And the surface temperature record doesn’t even take into account those things that weather forecasting relies on, humidity, ground conditions, pressure, weather fronts, etc. as well as air temperature.
And that matters to Global temperature trends, why?
FYI, reanalysis takes all that into account to determine T record.
And the Global surface T trend can be found from it:
See https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/m4-cfsra-gta-monthly-1979-2021-06.gif
“The trend in estimated global temperature anomalies since 1979 is +0.00152C per month, +0.0182C per year”
It agrees with the others GISS, BE, Had
“+0.0182C per year”
Based on individual stations that can be as much as +/- 4.0c adrift with no explanation as to why.
And no, CLT wont help you as that requires random variables.
“CLT wont help you”
You bet it will, dummy:
https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-2021-2
CLT does not hold for non-random variables. End of.
“Based on individual stations that can be as much as +/- 4.0c adrift with no explanation as to why.”
Says someone adrift of reality and hyperventilating.
You obviously don’t understand how reanalysis works. The data is fine. It uses all stations and data to model weather everywhere, hourly, each day. Its not getting that wrong, and it will be very good at rejecting anomalous local readings.
“Global numerical weather prediction (NWP) models provide the best available framework for assessing global variability and trends for a variety of weather-climate parameters over time, including temperature. The most advanced NWP models include the Global Forecast System (GFS) model run by the US National Center for Environmental Predictions (NCEP) and the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) model.”
“Based on individual stations that can be as much as +/- 4.0c adrift with no explanation as to why.”
Says someone adrift of reality and prone to hyperbole.
You don’t seem to understand how reanalysis works. The data is fine. It uses all stations and data to model weather everywhere, hourly, each day.
Its not getting the weather wrong, and it will be very good at determining global trends. Roy Spencer concurs.
“Global numerical weather prediction (NWP) models provide the best available framework for assessing global variability and trends for a variety of weather-climate parameters over time, including temperature. The most advanced NWP models include the Global Forecast System (GFS) model run by the US National Center for Environmental Predictions (NCEP) and the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) model.”
So please do tell why an individual station can be so much adrift and yet no-one can predict what causes it and why.
You just hope it is unimportant or wrongly claim that multiple readings will make it all better.
On that basis the whole thing is unpredictable and unpredictably wrong too.
Yes RLH, we get it.
In your opinion, unless all the data is perfect, we know nothing at all!
Science will file that where it belongs, and keep calm and carry on.
“So please do tell why an individual station can be so much adrift and yet no-one can predict what causes it and why.”
So please show us such a station has a 4.0 C error that no one understands, AND is actually being used!
I think you are dreaming it up.
It was +/-2.0c which I misread as 4c.
“In your opinion, unless all the data is perfect, we know nothing at all!”
Honesty about the uncertainties is all I ask. You are not even prepared to do that.
“This error could affect spatial averaging. For example, the Fallbrook CA site with the highest positive DeltaT value of 1.39 C is just 147 miles away from the Yuma site with one of the largest negative values of -0.58. If these two stations were reading the identical true mean temperature, they would appear to disagree by nearly 2 full degrees Celsius using the standard minmax method.”
lol
Oh, Richard.
“For example, the Fallbrook CA site with the highest positive DeltaT value of 1.39 C is just 147 miles away from the Yuma site with one of the largest negative values of -0.58.”
Did you bother to check if these remotely similar sites? Are they at the same elevation? Is one in the desert? One in the mountains?
C’mon, RLH, this is weak.
Are either of these stations used by GISS, BE, Had?
Got a reason why the 2 sites are so different then? That holds across the whole of the USCRN range? That explains why Tminmax is SO bad. Worse than any ‘rise’ in global air temperatures?
“Got a reason why the 2 sites are so different then? That holds across the whole of the USCRN range?”
The reason is straight forward. Using all the data is obviously better than using only the extrema. MarkB also pointed out that Temps should spend more time hovering just above the dewpoint.
You cherry-picked 2 outliers! What holds across the whole USCRN?
“That explains why Tminmax is SO bad. Worse than any ‘rise’ in global air temperatures?”
Talk about hyperbole and ALARMISM.
And you are ignoring facts that don’t fit your narrative.
a. You are picking outliers, and suggesting they are typical.
b. If Tminmax is used consistently, it will not change the TREND.
c. You ignore the effects of averaging.
d. Reanalysis uses hourly data, and computes temperature trends that agree with the others.
Fallbrook, CA
“The average daytime high in Fallbrook is 76 degrees, although in the summer, temperatures sometimes exceed 90 degrees. Most of the area is frost-free; during the coldest periods the average nighttime temperature is about 42 degrees. Due to its proximity to the ocean, days often start with early morning fog; afternoons can be breezy.”
Geography
Fallbrook stands at elevations between 500 and 1500 feet, with an average around 685 feet.”
Yuma:
“Yuma is noted for its weather extremes. Of any populated place in the contiguous United States, Yuma is the driest, the sunniest, and the least humid, has the lowest frequency of precipitation, and has the highest number of days per year175with a daily maximum temperature of 90 F (32 C) or higher.
Yuma features a hot desert climate (Kppen climate classification BWh), with extremely hot summers and warm winters. Atmospheric humidity is usually very low, except during what are called “Gulf surges”, when a maritime tropical air mass from the Gulf of California is drawn northward, usually in connection with the summer monsoon or the passage of a tropical storm to the south.”
Are you surprised that the Temp in these two places behaves quite differently?
Fallbrook is between the Pacific and a mountain range. Yuma is on the desert side of that mountain range.
The difference here and across much of USCRN is available moisture, just like the last several times you’ve raised this point.
Which all show that, for the last 6 months or so, the world has been cooling.
And no one is surprised…
How long does it continue before you are surprised?
Are you hoping for a magical new source of cooling…
instead of paying attention to ENSO and Forcings like science is?
Are you hoping that warming will resume?
Im unrealistically hopeful that you will learn that following the science, and the evidence is the way to go.
entropic…”Then the atmosphere cools how? By conduction or convection with space????”
Nope. Simple expansion with altitude will cool a gas. That’s the only way N2/O2 can cool, by rising and expanding.
PV = nRT
P = pressure and it is dependent on the number of molecules of air per unit volume. The higher you get in altitude, the lower the number of air molecules per unit volume.
You can see that T = temperature is directly proportional to pressure, therefore T drops naturally with altitude.
With regard to the stratosphere, the air would continue to cool with altitude were it not warmed by the capture of ultraviolet energy by oxygen molecules that heat the stratosphere.
One presumption is that all in-coming solar energy must be dissipated immediately, which is not true. In fact, it is stored in the oceans and in gases like nitrogen and oxygen that make up 99% of the atmosphere. The latter explains the greenhouse effect heating, as was explained by R. W. Wood circa 1909.
Because solar heating is stored and the planet turns at an ideal rate, as well as being an ideal distance from the Sun, the incoming solar, when converted to heat, is stored, raising the global temperature from the theoretical -18C calculated without an atmosphere and oceans to the + 15 C with both.
The notion that a trace gas is responsible is sheer pseudo-science. I have just presented real science via the Ideal Gas Law.
Something just dawned on me and I should have got the relationship between gravity and the lapse rate sooner. Rust!!!
Gravity does order atmospheric gases by altitude, making them more dense near the surface than at higher altitudes. That alone cannot explain the variation of temperature with altitude, solar heating has to be factored into the equation.
However, I still think the premise underlying the lapse rate is wrong. It is often claimed that lower temperatures aloft are a result of the lapse rate, but what causes the lapse rate? It has to be gravity. Without gravity, there would be no atmosphere to begin with, however, if gravity was so strong that it compressed the atmosphere in a thinner layer, hot air would tend not to rise as it does now. Therefore the lapse rate is dependent on the strength of the gravitational field.
Then I wondered what would happen if the Sun suddenly turned off. The stratosphere would no longer be heated and the temperature gradient due to gravity would gradually extend from the surface to TOA. At the same time, heat would be removed from nitrogen and oxygen as those molecules rose and expanded.
There would be no heat to replace the lost heat so the temperature of all gases in the atmosphere would drop toward absolute zero. Water vapour would be the first to freeze and drop out as ice. Surprisingly, the next gas would be CO2, which freezes at -78C. Then Argon would drop out at -189C.
That makes me wonder just how much CO2 there is in the air of a colder climate like Antarctica, where CO2 samples from ice cores have been used to claim the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past. Obviously, with a freezing point of -78C, most CO2 would have been frozen and landed on the surface as ice crystals.
Nitrogen and oxygen would not drop out till -210 C and -219C respectively. Then we’d be left with a layer of frozen gas on top of a frozen landscape and oceans.
Oh, dear!!
Is that what happened to the Jovian planets like Jupiter and Saturn? Are they solid underneath frozen gases? Maybe even frozen water underneath.
One thing that was not calculated in theory was the temperature of Earth with a frozen gases surrounding the surface. But that was with the Sun shining. So much is dependent on the size and temperature of the Sun.
“However, I still think the premise underlying the lapse rate is wrong. It is often claimed that lower temperatures aloft are a result of the lapse rate, but what causes the lapse rate?”
https://www.tau.ac.il/~tsirel/dump/Static/knowino.org/wiki/Atmospheric_lapse_rate.html
I will select some quotes:
“Lapse rates are usually expressed as the amount of temperature change associated with a specified amount of altitude change, such as 9.8 K per kilometre, 0.0098 K per metre or the equivalent 5.4 F per 1000 feet.”
And:
“Environmental lapse rate
The dry adiabatic lapse rate and the wet adiabatic lapse rate are both theoretical rates.”
What is theory “dry adiabatic lapse rate”:
“Since the atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude …, the volume of an air parcel expands as it rises. Conversely, if a parcel of air sinks from a higher altitude to a lower altitude, its volume is compressed by the higher pressure at the lower altitude. An adiabatic lapse rate is the rate at which the temperature of an air parcel changes in response to the expansion or compression process associated with a change in altitude, under the assumption that the process is adiabatic (meaning that no heat is added or lost during the process).
{my translation: if we didn’t have the complexity of H2O in our atmosphere- it would work, and sometimes it works when one correctly allows for what amount and when, H2O in state of matter is doing something}
And “a parcel of air” = some mass of air or zillions of air molecules moving- as wind, as in up drafts and down drafts and rivers of air, and etc.
But you don’t have “a” parcel, in real world, one has parcels which are dancing around and up and down, and the mobs of parcels are predictable. Ie, weather forecasting.
What I call “weather” rather than what I call “climate”, despite it being said that the summation of weather is climate.
“Wet adiabatic lapse rate
An unsaturated parcel of air will rise from Earth’s surface and cool at the dry adiabatic rate of 9.8 K/kilometre (5.4 F/1000 ft) until it has cooled to the temperature, known as the atmospheric dew point, at which the water vapor it contains begins to condense (i.e., change phase from vapor to liquid) and release the latent heat of vaporization. At that dew point temperature, the air parcel is saturated and, because of the release of the heat of vaporization, the rate of cooling will decrease to what is known as the wet adiabatic lapse rate. ”
And continuing with “Environmental lapse rate”:
“A committee consisting of 29 organizations and universities in the United States, established an average environmental lapse rate named the U.S. Standard Atmosphere having various values, as shown in the adjacent table, which are dependent on the altitude region of Earth’s atmosphere. From the Earth’s surface to an altitude of 11 kilometres, the value of the U.S. Standard Atmosphere is 6.5 K/km (3.57 F/1000 feet).”
So, generally, temperature lapse rate is 6.5 C per change of elevation of 1000 meters.
Or about 3 F per 1000 feet- if temperature is about 40 F, and raining, then it’s probably snowing up the big hill. If skiing or whether you need chains for tires, it’s quite important.
Or in term of space-time, obviously, water has some effect.
🙂
For the large part the floods are indeed man made
https://youtu.be/UDn0p5a2mFo
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01092-9
willard…”These record-shattering extremes, nearly impossible in the absence of warming, are likely to occur in the coming decades”.
***
It’s weather, Willard, summer weather. No scientific proof there is anything causing it other than natural processes.
NOAA claims the recent heat waves are produced by La Nina conditions. A differential in ocean temperatures on either end of the Pacific, east-west, are producing winds that lead to hot air being shipped in from the Tropics.
Nothing to do with CO2 or humans.
July 25, 2021 at 10:09 PM
Dont be shy to quote, Gordo:
Summertime means hot weather sometimes dangerously hot and extreme heat waves have become more frequent in recent decades. Sometimes, the scorching heat is ensnared in what is called a heat dome. This happens when strong, high-pressure atmospheric conditions combine with influences from La Nia, creating vast areas of sweltering heat that gets trapped under the high-pressure dome.
A team of scientists funded by the NOAA MAPP Program investigated what triggers heat domes and found the main cause was a strong change (or gradient) in ocean temperatures from west to east in the tropical Pacific Ocean during the preceding winter.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/heat-dome.html
Whacko Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Sometimes, the scorching heat is ensnared in what is called a heat dome”
Sometimes, climate crackpots at NOAA have fits of madness!
Heat being ensnared in a heat dome? That is nearly as silly as CO2 raising temperatures by preventing heat from leaving the surface!
I can see the appeal of a dummy like you appealing to the authority of dummies at NOAA. Sadly, unsupported assertions are no substitute fo4 fact.
NOAA – “A heat dome occurs when the atmosphere traps hot ocean air like a lid or cap.”
The atmosphere is trapping hot air? The dimwits at NOAA are hot air experts, obviously. Physics experts, not so much. Learn some physics, dummy.
Ever flown light aircraft in a Summer hot spell?
You get a temperature inversion above 3000ft with cold air sitting on top of warmer air and stopping convection. Without convection the hott air just keeps getting hotter from day to day.
In England you could see this. Below 3000ft a base of polluted hot air limited horizontal vision to a couple of miles. Above 3000ft it was CAVU, ceiling and visibility unlimited.
On one of these hot days I had a test flight in the morning and a cross-country flight planned for the afternoon.
I flew the test flight, including a climb into the cooler air. I had to abandon the cross-country because the visibility was too poor to navigate.
Sure, EM. But have you flown the aircraft for 30 years?
Idiot.
z
“Sure, EM. But have you flown the aircraft for 30 years? ”
Grounded by poor health some time ago, alas.
I still miss it.
willard…”These record-shattering extremes, nearly impossible in the absence of warming, are likely to occur in the coming decades”.
***
It’s weather, Willard, summer weather. No scientific proof there is anything causing it other than natural processes.
NOAA claims the recent heat waves are produced by La Nina conditions. A differential in ocean temperatures on either end of the Pacific, east-west, are producing winds that lead to hot air being shipped in from the Tropics.
Nothing to do with CO2 or humans.
> NOAA claims the recent heat waves are produced by La Nina conditions.
We’ve been over this already, Gordo:
It’s called weather, dummy.
If you average enough weather, you get climate, dummy!
Understand?
Mike Flynn,
What is “it”?
It (Willard) is an idiot.
Continue to spam Roy’s, dummy.
It’s your home after all.
You are allowed to spam but no-one else is. Got it.
I’m not spamming, dummy.
You are.
Only an idiot could think that.
If my intent was to poison this well, dummy, I would not care less if you spammed.
Why do you think people keep telling to stop responding to me?
You really are a Climateball n00b.
You always want the last word.
No, dummy.
U.
z
Blocking highs have been around for a long while and well known to occur in the Eastern edges of both the Atlantic and the Pacific.
How does a ‘heat dome’ differ from those?
Intensity.
There’s some circulation in a blocking high, so some of the incoming heat bleeds away, usually Southwards.
A heat dome is sealed off from its surrounding and capped by a temperature inversion of colder air,
The surrounding jetstream stops heat escaping sideways and the temperature inversion stops convection to the troposphere.
You have a layer of air warmed by the surface but with no way for the heat to dissipate. It just keeps getting hotter and you see those ridiculous new records.
Blocking highs are caused by the jet stream.
‘Heat domes’ are caused by the jet stream.
The length of time they persist depends on a lot of variables, mainly if they are balanced by a local low to the south.
Mustard in your sammich, dummy?
Idiot.
Scratch your own itch, dummy.
Look in a mirror. Idiot.
I’m not hiding my contrarianism behind JAQing off, dummy.
You are still an idiot.
No U.
z
“After the first 6 months 2021 looks set to be the coldest year since 2014. The annual global average temperature calculated so far is 0.64C relative to a baseline 1961-1990.”
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=10009
“There is also evidence of a ring of warmer temperatures encircling the earth at ~40N.”
How does one part being different alter the overall picture?
“The southern hemisphere remains “cooler”.”
So waht?
The current extreme heat waves and floods are not in the Southern hemisphere, dummy.
So what part of a globe consists of 2 hemispheres did you not get.
Who cares if it’s really cold in Antarctica, dummy.
Is that true? I thought the world was getting warmer all over.
You’re thinking, dummy?
That remains to be established.
You, as an idiot. do not know what thinking is.
No U.
RLH,
“Is that true? I thought the world was getting warmer all over.”
Where did you get that from?
Is it what you have been told?
Bob: I was being sarcastic.
Bob caught your strawman, dummy.
No wonder you hide behind questions, ellipsis, and irony.
No wonder you are an idiot.
Just added “pretends to be sarcastic when caught with strawmen” to your list of blunders, dummy.
Your fictional list is only of interest to you and you and alone.
You only speak for yourself, dummy.
Added “pretends to speak for everyone” to your list of blunders.
You certainly do not speak for others.
No, U.
z
RLH says: How does one part being different alter the overall picture?
I think Willard is drawing attention to the fact that a statement to the effect, “2021 is on track to be warmer than any year 1850-2014”, might better represent “the overall picture” than does “2021 looks set to be the coldest year since 2014”.
It only looks stupid because he’s using your usual tactic. Mirrors and all that.
Willard is just an idiot. Who knows what he means.
We’ll see who is correct by the year end then.
Both claims are equivalent, dummy.
That you are an idiot is without a doubt true.
Yep, RLH seems quite determined to miss the signal while keeping a laser focus on the noise.
[VLAD] 2021 looks set to be the coldest year since 2014.
[ESTR] 2021 is on track to be warmer than any year 1850-2014.
[VLAD] Well see who is correct by the year end then.
Willard: I am an idiot says Willard.
Godot you’re dumb.
“RLH seems quite determined to miss the signal”
Is that signal longer than 30 years?
Willard repeats he is an idiot.
> Is that signal longer than 30 years?
July 23, 2021 at 12:26 PM
Every time you get cornered you come back with a silly question, dummy.
You are still an idiot though.
No U.
z
Climate Impact of Increasing
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff
P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell,
Science, 1981
“It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980’s.”
“Is that signal longer than 30 years?”
Yes indeed. Signal was present for ~ a century before 1980, but not distinguishable from the the background of natural variability.
As predicted 40 y ago, it had clearly emerged from the background noise of natural climate variability ~ 1990.
The signal/noise has continued to grow in significance ever since.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1950/plot/gistemp/from:1980/trend
RLH,
As you can see there is a clear quasi-linear trend well out of the noise which began ~ 1980.
But in that period there are roughly two dozen 6-month or longer excursions above and below the trend line, due mostly to ENSO noise.
Now that we have had 6 y mostly above the trend line, we are over-due for excursions below it, assuming a continuation of the current trend for the near future, which is the safest bet.
Even if the current trend changes, there is every reason to expect that it will change gradually, not abruptly.
We have just had a brief excursion below the trend. Based on the record, and recent correlated ENSO activity, this will be no different from the previous two dozen such excursions.
IMO, there is no reason to get to excited about it, since it is noise.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/June-animation.gif
Repeating parts of what I have already posted does not alter things. Idiot.
“Here is an animation of the 3D temperature distribution in June,” dummy.
You’re still an idiot.
You just said that “we’ll see” about who’s right about two claims that are equivalent, dummy.
I added it to your list of blunders.
That you are an idiot requires no claims.
Yet there’s 710 “idio” in this page alone, dummy.
There’ll be more before the month end.
I’m counting on it, dummy.
You’re the only idiot who is.
Here’s a short list of the blunders I noted, dummy:
carbon capture is related to AGW;
Mikes graph does not cover the MWP;
the Vikings left Greenland first and foremost because the ivory market crashed;
Roys post regarding Global Ocean Temperatures was misleading at best;
anomalies sometimes suffice to correlate two stations;
you behave like a cycle nut.
– additions as summaries
– appeal to ignorance
– correctness
– CLTs
– “contrarian”
– “changing climate”
– use and mention
– the MWP
– CLT and medians over means
– eyeballing months on a 20-year scale
– NCEI not USCRN
– It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur through the 21st century at the global scale.
– Linking to you linking to yourself two hours before you said Linking to yourself just proves you are an idiot proves Im an idiot, Richard?
– All AGW fanatics agree that CO2 (and other such things) are the only drivers of global temperatures.
– centrality
– model creation
– meaning of average
– conflates skewness with kurtosis
– hydro power
– Wal Thornhill
– Either what youre doing is so trivial that reading a textbook will suffice or it takes judgment and experience.
– bragging about C# being hip
– defines the true average as the real average
– characterizes his “idiot” as “interaction”
– pretends not to care about the guy with whom he interacts the most
– does not realize that BASIC can be taken as a scripting language
– misunderstands how auditing works
– “Well the reason that a hourly figure might differ from an 5 minute one in min/max is because the 5 minute one catches things an hourly one does not.”
– supposes I created the auditing meme
– regurgitates a variant of Phil’s excuse
– misundertands how satellite measurements work
– opines on verificationism based on the ayer quote on thy wiki
– acts as if satellite measurements are not model-based (modes)
– reverses the burden of proof regarding the question that his data analysis seeks to answer
– misunderstands what’s the role of a hall monitor
– textbook conception of skewness and medians
– skewness and AGW
– could not unpack a tar.gz
– escalator man
– offsets UAH
– “since 1990” and “i don’t believe in trends”
– denies the correlation between the various forms of denial
– accepts that extreme events are infrequent
– misrepresents GISS as “air temperatures”
– poisons his own well
– suggests stuff about the earth’s core
– misunderstands chaos
– plays definition games
– speaks of trends without uncertainty
– deflects with silly No U’s.
– isn’t up to date on Moore’s Law
– misunderstands the institutional basis of CRU
– inflates his engineering competences
– does not see that “2021 is on track to be warmer than any year 1850-2014”, might better represent “the overall picture” than does “2021 looks set to be the coldest year since 2014” are equivalent.
There are more, of course. I started to count a month or so after you started.
Here’s a long list of your shortcomings.
You are an idiot.
Res ipsa loquitur, dummy.
Instead of calling people idiots, try proving them wrong.
It’s a lot easier than proving yourself right.
It’s easier just to call Willard an idiot.
Willard: stultus es
It’s even easier to say “No U,” dummy.
z
The problem with tree ring proxy data.
My understanding is that temperature proxies are determined by tree rings that show how much a tree grew in a given year.
How do we know what the CO2 concentrations were at the time the tree was making its rings?
There is an article ‘180 years of atmospheric carbon dioxide gas analysis by chemical methods’ that shows CO2 concentrations varied quite a lot before there was widespread carbon dioxide emissions.
I have yet to find a tree ring proxy that tracks known temperatures with any degree of accuracy. Sometimes they show things that are completely different.
ken…re tree ring proxies…from an expert on them…Craig Loehle…
https://climateaudit.org/2008/11/30/on-the-divergence-problem/
He has pointed out in the past the problems inherent in tree ring widths. Here, he states…
“On the left-hand side of the curve, as temperature increases, tree ring width also increases, but as temperatures continue to rise and the temperature exceeds a certain threshold, the tree-ring width begins to decline. This could be the result of the physiological response of that particular tree species, or to the influence of other environmental variables (for example, moisture could become limiting at higher temperatures)”.
Makes sense, that as temperatures rise beyond a certain level, rainfall declines.
Loehle tree rings are no more accurate as regards temperature as any of the others.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.058701
The world is actually cooling.
Read again, dummy.
Why idiot? You just say idiotic things. I don’t have to read them.
Here, dummy:
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v14/108
Idiots find idiot things and think they are important. The idiots aren’t.
Is Lucarini an idiot, dummy:
“Our model shows that the western region of Canada can have very strong heat waves [without climate change],” Lucarini says. “But this [current] one seems out of proportion.”
You are out of proportion as an idiot. Doesn’t stop you.
No U.
Dummy.
willard…”Our model shows that the western region of Canada can have very strong heat waves [without climate change], Lucarini says. But this [current] one seems out of proportion.”
***
More modeling bs. It’s weather, Willard. We’ve had 30C+ summer days in the Vancouver area over the several decades, yet some dweeb comes along and claims similar temperatures to be an uncommon heat wave.
The only difference making it uncommon is that the heat wave occurred in late June. It should be noted that summer begins in mid June, however, June is normally a period of unsettled weather in the Vancouver area, especially early June.
Furthermore, this heat wave pales in comparison to the heat waves of 1936. They were so strong they created a drought which led to the Dust Bowl.
Another thing you might notice is the range used to proclaim a record. The alarmist dweebs have taken to starting the range in 1960 so as to omit the severe warming in the 1930s.
Oh, Gordo:
https://climateball.net/but-modulz/
Oh Willard. Idiot.
Oh, Richard, my lovely 74 years old Climateball rookie:
No U.
You’re still an idiot.
z
No U.
z
RLH,
You might have a sampling error, and the uncertainty is larger than the trend.
So your tea is weak.
It is not just a sampling error. It is an unexplained sampling error.
Fifty days ago:
June 4, 2021 at 1:18 PM
[Y]ou 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.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-716002
“its not clear that youve tested your theory that using (min+max)/2 rather than higher resolution metrics significantly affect the long term temperature anomaly trend.”
I said that uncertainty means that things are uncertain.
That broadens the range and weakens the accuracy of all claims.
Still doesn’t explain why the error is unexplained.
More than fifty days ago:
You still are owing B a thank you note for having found that citation, dummy.
Source: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-717241
willard…”This result strongly suggests….A physical driver of this shift appears to be…”
***
What kind of science is this?….’strongly suggests’ and ‘appears to be’.
Such is the vocabulary of the climate alarmists who cannot prove their allegation but resort to guessing. Typical IPCC bafflegab.
Oh, Gordo.
“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.”
He would be wrong in that.
“The 10th-90th percentile range of the errors extends from -0.5 to +0.5 C. Latitude and relative humidity (RH) are found to exert the largest influences on the error, explaining about 28% of the variance.”
> He would be wrong in that.
Strong argument you got there, dummy.
That’s still mostly unexplained in case you can’t count.
A strong argument that you are an idiot? No argument, that is fact.
The 10th-90th percentile range of the errors extends from -0.5 to +0.5 C. Latitude and relative humidity (RH) are found to exert the largest influences on the error, explaining about 28% of the variance.
> A strong argument that you are an idiot?
No, dummy: your empty claim that Bernhardt et alii are wrong.
While I provided more than one argument that you’re a contrarian dummy, you just say stuff.
So what makes up the other 72% of the error in ‘mean’ versa average?
“Seasonal variability was surprisingly low: in more than half of the 121 stations with at least 47 months of complete data, the Tminmax either underestimated (28 sites) or overestimated (39 sites) the true mean in all 4 seasons.”
“The result showed that the stations were very stable across the years, with a Spearman correlation of 0.974 “
“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.”
“Fundamentally, the difference between the minmax approach and the true mean is a function of diurnal variationstations where the temperature spends more time closer to the minimum than the maximum will have their mean temperatures overestimated by the minmax method, and vice versa.”
“Moreover, this paper demonstrates a spatially coherent pattern in the difference compared to the most recent part of the temperature record (200115).”
“This error could affect spatial averaging. For example, the Fallbrook CA site with the highest positive DeltaT value of 1.39 C is just 147 miles away from the Yuma site with one of the largest negative values of -0.58. If these two stations were reading the identical true mean temperature, they would appear to disagree by nearly 2 full degrees Celsius using the standard minmax method.”
“Anthropogenic and ecological systems are sensitive to the shape of the daily temperature curve, and given that it is evidently changing through time (e.g., the present study; Thorne et al. 2016) the change in the overall daily temperature curve, and not just the two values of Tmax and Tmin, must be considered in the context of recent and future climatic changes.”
“The results reveal statistically significant differencesboth over- and underestimationbetween the two methods of daily temperature averaging on monthly and seasonal time scales, and these differences show considerable spatial coherence. The fundamental reason for the difference between the two methods is the assumption inherent in the traditional method, of a symmetrical rise and fall of the daily temperature.”
“However, at all of the stations studied, there is on average a rightward skew in the daily temperature curve; that is, the temperature rises more quickly in the morning than it falls in the evening and at night.”
“There is variation in the shape of the daily temperature curve among stations, including the DTR and the number of hours spent in each quarter of the daily distribution of temperature.”
“Our results support previous work indicating an important difference between the two methods of temperature averaging—agreeing with Wang (2014) and Li et al. (2016) that, on average, the traditional method overestimates the average daily temperature—while expanding upon Gough and He’s (2015) finding for a single station of a strong seasonality in the difference between temperature-averaging methods.”
“Regarding the seasonality of these differences, our work agrees with Wang (2014) for the warm season but disagrees for the cold season. More particularly, mapping the differences at high spatial resolutions in the present study discloses new features of the annual and monthly climatologies of near-surface air temperature for the CONUS. On average, the traditional method overestimates the daily average temperature compared to hourly averaging by approximately 0.16F, though there is strong spatial variability.”
“If it disagrees with experiment, its wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
“For some stations, mainly those located in New England, the upper Midwest, and Great Basin, the traditional method underestimates temperature, while the largest overestimation of average daily temperature by the traditional method occurs in the Southeast, southern Great Plains, and along the California coast.”
> If it disagrees with experiment, its wrong
To see how wrong Dick was, consider:
“Regarding the seasonality of these differences, our work agrees with Wang (2014) for the warm season but disagrees for the cold season.”
Which experiment results do you pick, Wang’s or Bernhardt’s?
What part of neither latitude nor RH is enough to predict the error did you not get.
“Which experiment results do you pick, Wangs or Bernhardts?”
Both are probably wrong.
Then the idea that if theory disagrees with experiment it’s wrong is itself wrong, dummy.
The conclusion that both are wrong is not ruled out.
Empirical sciences seldom rule out things once and for all, and the idea of an experimentum crucis is a myth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimentum_crucis
I never rule out that you are an idiot.
“Entertains a caricatural view on experiment and theory based of Dick Feynman’s dictum.”
Check.
Willard is an idiot. Check.
Nice comeback, dummy.
No U.
Will
You are showing signs of stress. It’s affecting the cognitive functions. Take a break.
Funny you don’t say that to Richard, Roberto.
Vacation time starts tomorrow.
Audits never end.
Idiots never end.
So if there are unexplained sampling errors, how does that affect your conclusion that “the world is actually cooling?”
It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
b,
Obviously, you have figured out a physical reason why the Earth could not have cooled to its present temperature, without the influence of CO2.
Maybe you could share this startling new discovery. No?
As you say, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. In your case, first you put your foot in your mouth, and then shoot yourself in the foot!
Fool. Do you claim to represent all climate crackpots, or only the stupid ones?
The world has been cooling for the last 6 months or so because all the temperature series say it has. These include series that are not built on Tminmax.
The unexplained sampling errors are to do with the uncertainty in individual stations. Without knowing what is causing the Tminmax errors we cannot correct for the uncertainty or predict which will, be in error and by how much.
Latitude and RH have been ruled out as the major cause. It is noticeable that any error, whilst station specific, is pretty constant per station.
Swenson,
What are you babbling about?
You already admitted there is a greenhouse effect, why are you backpedaling?
And the Earth cooled to a lower temperature than present several times, and was also warmer several times.
It cooled rather quickly from its molten state, exponentially rather than linear, only took a few million years.
I only represent me, do you represent all the stupid crankpots spewing the same drivel you are spewing?
Not so intelligent minds want to know.
RLH,
How about the uncertainty is due to the short time period.
It’s also present in the satellite series which do not have stations.
The daily/monthly difference between the ‘mean’ and the average is as published by the USCRN. Are you suggesting they are in error?
Are you seriously suggesting that the data does not show dropping anomaly temperatures for the last 6 months? From ALL data series?
“Without knowing what is causing the Tminmax errors we cannot correct for the uncertainty or predict which will, be in error and by how much.”
This is BS. We CAN know the cause easily if we have the data.
And you have not shown that this affects Trends significantly!
Nate says: . . . And you have not shown that this affects Trends significantly!
Another data point that suggests it doesn’t:
uscrnDinosaurAnomaliesResiduals.png
I’ve only looked at a handful of stations, but have not found any indication otherwise.
RLH,
For one, I showed you a graph for the last eight months that shows warming, but
The point is you claimed it’s cooling and you have to show more than that the last 6 months temperatures are dropping to be able to say that and have that statement be true.
Because as you know, there is uncertainty in the measurement of the trend, and if the uncertainty is greater than the trend, will then, the fact that it is cooling or warming over that trend is uncertain.
It means you don’t know if it is warming or cooling.
Try these graphs
https://imgur.com/8K4luwg
https://imgur.com/ec2w0Sx
https://imgur.com/9lDLjcg
From N D C D
“We CAN know the cause easily if we have the data.”
So tell me which historic stations are in error and by how much.
“Ive only looked at a handful of stations, but have not found any indication otherwise.”
You must have found that there is no easy way to predict if any given station will be in error and by how much though.
“So tell me which historic stations are in error and by how much.”
Show me the data. Its simply weather, which we already know how to model.
Floods can be managed and damage avoided, but not by green debils climate shiesters
https://youtu.be/WPcoTAwJyTQ
willard…”Heres a short list of the blunders I noted, dummy:”
***
Anyone who spends the amount of time cherry-picking words from the posts of others is an obsessive troll. There are other obsessive alarmists who count the number of words a poster writes or the number of posts they make.
Gordo,
Please rest assured that I don’t count the blunders you make because it’d be quicker to count the number of things you get right.
Can idiots count? Who would believe that what they count is accurate?
No U.
z
rlh…in a link to Clive Best’s site above, Clive wrote in a comment:
“In reality the earths average temperature changes by far more during the annual seasons mainly because there is more land surface in the Northern Hemisphere and the solar radiation depends on the ellipticity of the earths orbit. Using temperature anomalies cancels these effects out”.
You seem to have an interest and expertise in statistical analysis. Do you agree with the statement above? I am somewhat skeptical but lack the interest and statistical expertise to investigate.
Why would anomalies cancel those effects and why would we want to do that? It would seem, the large surface area in the NH and the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit are fact, not something to be cancelled.
If the same thing happens every year in the same sequence then anomalies would bake that in.
rlh…I don’t pretend to understand anomalies at more than a superficial level but I have heard that adjustments are made for seasons. It would seem that anomalies are more than simple monthly deviations from a long term average.
Anomalies are traditionally constructed from 30 years worth of months/days averaged together per month/day. This means that if something happens in April or August you are comparing it to 30 years worth of the same.
I prefer to use a 12 month accurate filter which does the same thing.
I don’t understand where the data comes from that is used to determine anomalies. It is certainly not from the full GHCN record, or even a significant portion of it. Se link later in post.
Having trouble posting a link from NOAA, it contains one of those forbidden letter combos. Here’s the pertinent part of the blurb..
“Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region’s average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average”.
Maybe I am missing something but I see no scientific logic in this statement. First of all, they admit to using interpolation in data sparse regions. Then they talk about the difference in absolute temperatures between a mountain top and an adjacent valley. How would they derive an anomaly if the absolute temperature at the mountain top is unknown, basically because there is no surface station on it?
Example, in California, they use three stations, all near the ocean. They ignore the top of the Sierra Nevadas. Locally, I asked the Environment Canada rep why they had no stations atop the local mountains, at 3000 feet? No reply.
Here’s what NOAA means by sparse data…
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
When I first posted this link, the alarmists fell all over it trying to explain that NOAA did not mean what they claim, that they are now using less than 1500 stations to cover the global land surface.
Unless I am missing something, the GHCN record is useless because most of the station data is not used by NOAA. Therefore, how do they derive the anomalies?
“I dont understand where the data comes from that is used to determine anomalies.”
The theory is that 30 years worth of data from a given source allows creation of a set of ‘normals’ for that source.
Gordo says upthread: “I don’t understand”
Sums up Dragon crankiness quite well!
Cheers.
Idiot.
The anomaly baseline is per station. That is, the baseline “average temperature” just a long term average for that station.
As an example, say the average high for Vancouver in July is 23C and the high today is 25.3C, the daily anomaly is +2.3C.
If you go to the nearby mountains where there is no weather station but by altitude differential you expect it to be 3C cooler, you might expect a high temperature of 23C – 3C + 2.3C = 22.3C is a reasonable estimate for the daily high.
But if the anomaly is created using Tminmax then it can be quite a bit in error compared to what the ‘true’ average temperature should be.
That is the point.
Without knowing why this is occurring then it is difficult to determine how to correct for it.
My intent was to illustrate how anomalies are generated and a simple use in practice. Whether they’re reasonably fit for a particular purpose or not is a different topic.
That said, you posted this elsewhere in the thread:
RLH says: July 28, 2021 at 8:19 AM . . . It is noticeable that any error, whilst station specific, is pretty constant per station.
If there is, as you say, a nominally constant bias in a particular daily metric relative to your favored approach then it is in both the baseline and the individual measurement and cancels on average.
One could test this claim with a suitable set of hourly station temperature data by computing anomalies based on each of the daily “averaging” techniques (min/max, median, hourly avg) and showing the differences and divergence over time.
“If there is, as you say, a nominally constant bias in a particular daily metric relative to your favored approach”
It is not an error to my favored approach, it is an error between what is reported using Tminmax and the actual average temperature for the day/month.
Every station in the USCRN reports this ‘error’ as part of their Daily/Monthly figures.
They are all different and with no apparent way to determine what causes this difference. It is NOT Latitude or RH which, although important, describes a minority of the values.
Monthly
8 T_MONTHLY_MEAN [7 chars] cols 57 — 63
The mean air temperature, in degrees C, calculated using the typical historical approach of (T_MONTHLY_MAX + T_MONTHLY_MIN) / 2. See Note F.
9 T_MONTHLY_AVG [7 chars] cols 65 — 71
The average air temperature, in degrees C. See Note F.
F. Monthly maximum/minimum/average temperatures are the average of all available daily max/min/averages. To be considered valid, there must be fewer than 4 consecutive daily values missing, and no more than 5 total values missing.
Daily
8 T_DAILY_MEAN [7 chars] cols 55 — 61
Mean air temperature, in degrees C, calculated using the typical historical approach: (T_DAILY_MAX + T_DAILY_MIN) / 2. See Note F.
9 T_DAILY_AVG [7 chars] cols 63 — 69
Average air temperature, in degrees C. See Note F.
F. The daily values reported in this dataset are calculated using multiple independent measurements for temperature and precipitation. USCRN/USRCRN stations have multiple co-located temperature sensors that make 10-second independent measurements which are used to produce max/min/avg temperature values at 5-minute intervals. The precipitation gauge is equipped with multiple load cell sensors to provide independent measurements of depth change at 5-minute intervals.
e.g.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-combined-dinosaur.jpeg
re: “One could test this . . .”
uscrnDinosaurAnomaliesResiduals.png
Anomaly against what?
Why are you not showing the average of the ‘error’/’residual’ which is what I show?
Please note that the average and ‘mean’ I use is from the daily figures supplied by USCRN. Only the median is calculated from hourly data.
Are you suggesting that the USCRN is wrong or that my calculations are?
RLH says: Anomaly against what?
The daily metric minus the monthly average for that metric for the full dataset.
e.g. today’s mean temperature minus the mean temperature for all days in July, 2004-2021.
Similarly for median and average. So the usual method of baselining temperature anomaly, but with the baseline computed using “like data”.
Why are you not showing the average of the error/residual which is what I show?
That’s the bottom plot except it’s the difference of anomalies, not absolute temperatures as you’ve done. I’ve updated it to show both 30 day and the annual averaging that I think you’re doing. Notably, the annual cycle in your plot isn’t apparent with anomalies.
Are you suggesting that the USCRN is wrong or that my calculations are?
I’m working with anomalies. One might hope that is obvious from the fact that the sub thread topic is anomalies, I’ve said I’m working with anomalies, and the word appears on the graphic on every label.
“So the usual method of baselining temperature anomaly, but with the baseline computed using “like data”.”
Which does nothing other than make the vertical axis operate around a 0 then rather than a given number whilst introducing an additional monthly wriggle into the data.
“That’s the bottom plot except it’s the difference of anomalies, not absolute temperatures as you’ve done.”
I show the calculation of average minus ‘mean’ and average minus median then run that though my usual Gaussian filter to remove any seasonal cycle to produce the thick lines. That will always be in absolute values.
I dislike the common practice of showing lines between data points as you do not know what the actual figures are in those intermediate positions so showing them as lines is factually incorrect.
“I’m working with anomalies.”
Which don’t actually do anything except alter the vertical axis as stated above.
The constant offset in both average minus ‘mean’ and average minus median that I mention is not shown in your plot. Deliberately?
RLH says: “I’m working with anomalies.”
Which don’t actually do anything except alter the vertical axis as stated above.
No, that’s too simplistic. Anomalies have at least two notable effects:
1) Anomalies reference the measurement to a like reference point on the distribution curve since the anomaly is the offset from a statistical “expected value” of that metric. The mean, median, and average of an asymmetric probability distribution are not the same in general so this results in less non-covariant noise across metrics.
2) Anomalies computed monthly mitigate leakage of seasonal signal. The seasonal signal is a result of the probability density function shape having a seasonal component. Moreover both the nominal distribution and its seasonal component are different across stations, so it is important to remove it prior to cross station combination.
The constant offset in both average minus ‘mean’ and average minus median that I mention is not shown in your plot. Deliberately?
My intent is to show that the choice of mean, median, average metrics apparently have little impact on global warming estimates in practice. I’ve done this by performing the trend computation (for a single station) essentially as it is done in practice using each of the mean, median, and average.
Your work demonstrates that “different metrics are different” without addressing the question of whether the differences are relevant and significant to the practical application of the metric.
“No, thats too simplistic.”
It is accurate though.
“Anomalies have at least two notable effects:
1) Anomalies reference the measurement to a like reference point on the distribution curve since the anomaly is the offset from a statistical expected value of that metric. The mean, median, and average of an asymmetric probability distribution are not the same in general so this results in less non-covariant noise across metrics.”
The shorter the reference period, the greater the chance of inclusion of ‘odd’ data in that reference period being included in the output. This can produce incorrect outputs and conclusions.
“2) Anomalies computed monthly mitigate leakage of seasonal signal. The seasonal signal is a result of the probability density function shape having a seasonal component. Moreover both the nominal distribution and its seasonal component are different across stations, so it is important to remove it prior to cross station combination.”
The seasonal signal can be removed by using an accurate 12 month filter as I have shown without the need for anomalies. This can be on a station by station basis too if required.
“No, that’s too simplistic.”
It is accurate though.
“Anomalies have at least two notable effects:
1) Anomalies reference the measurement to a like reference point on the distribution curve since the anomaly is the offset from a statistical “expected value” of that metric. The mean, median, and average of an asymmetric probability distribution are not the same in general so this results in less non-covariant noise across metrics.”
Any ‘odd’ values included in the reference period will pollute the output. The shorter the reference period the more serious this will be.
“2) Anomalies computed monthly mitigate leakage of seasonal signal. The seasonal signal is a result of the probability density function shape having a seasonal component. Moreover both the nominal distribution and its seasonal component are different across stations, so it is important to remove it prior to cross station combination.”
Any seasonal signal can be removed by a suitable accurate 12 month filter as I have shown without the need for anomalies.
“My intent is to show that the choice of mean, median, average metrics apparently have little impact on global warming estimates in practice. I’ve done this by performing the trend computation (for a single station) essentially as it is done in practice using each of the mean, median, and average.”
Which misses entirely the point I was making. That individual stations show constant offset errors when using either ‘mean’ or median which cannot be explained by other factors.
Until that point is clarified all measurements should include an uncertainty to cover that point.
Sorry for the duplication. The previous response failed to show up as expected.
Is it fair to say that you aren’t arguing a specific issue with the anomaly procedure thus we don’t need to be distracted by the specific differences with annual filtering? It should be clear they are not mathematically equivalent algorithms.
Would you agree that the results support the hypothesis that choice of daily average temperature metric doesn’t significantly affect the long term trend estimates?
Mean Trend: 0.60 C/Decade
Median Trend: 0.60 C/Decade
Average Trend: 0.61 C/Decade
Linear trends are only useful over the time period they are created in. They offer no prediction as to either the future or the past.
Low pass filtering uncovers any long term periodicity which may well persist into the future.
Would you also agree that the last 6 months have shown a decreasing linear trend across all major temperature series?
“Which misses entirely the point I was making.”
But RLH, we have made this clear over and over, but you keep missing the point:
If your POINT has little impact on climate TRENDS then it may be interesting to you, but for this climate blog it is a red herring.
How can you state a linear trend if the ends are as uncertain as they are? Even though the linear trend is not a particularly useful number in the first place?
Individual stations are in error. No-one can say by how much or why. Why is it that you do not want to address this error?
This one is fun.
Utqiagvik Station (Barrow Alaska) showing 1.42 C rise per decade! Prominent spikes around the beginning of the year, negative in the earlier part of the record and positive in the latter part. Thus consistent with open water when/where there used to be sea ice.
uscrnUtqiagvikAnomaliesResiduals.png
Except that doesn’t hold for the rest of the stations. So, no that is not the explanation.
This is USCRN we are talking about after all. If they are not accurate then how can you claim that any ‘normal’ station is any better or even close to being as accurate as them?
The more you see problems with USCRN, the more you make it worse for all the other measurements taken elsewhere.
RLH,
Your desire seems to be to find an excuse that the whole effort to track climate change can’t be done, because there are issues like this one. Luckily that is not the attitude of science.
This effect and similar statistical effects are known and have been analyzed in the literature. In some parts of the world T was measured differently from Tminmax.
The point has been to determine how much does this bias the TRENDS (seems to be small), and correct for it if possible.
You need to show that this does bias TRENDS, significantly, not just produce an offset to temperature, which is all you have found thus far.
As I have long mentioned LINEAR trends are NOT predictors of the future (or the past). Despite being used almost continuously as such.
Is it fair to say that in this analysis linear trends are being used only to evaluate the average (mean, median) rate of change within the period of the time series? Further that this analysis is explicitly a comparison of those three metrics on the available data which makes no projection outside of that time period?
“As I have long mentioned LINEAR trends are NOT predictors of the future (or the past). Despite being used almost continuously as such.”
Nothing to do with the issue being discussed.
The point is to accurately track long term CHANGE in temperature, whether linear or exponential or quadratic..
And if it is cyclic? With variable periodicity as seems common in nature?
“Is it fair to say that in this analysis linear trends are being used only to evaluate the average (mean, median) rate of change within the period of the time series?”
What makes you assume that things are always upwards (or downwards) which is almost unheard of in natural systems?
Most large physical systems have resonances and reverberations inside them. Why is climate any different?
The analysis results shown above yield no evidence that using (Tmin+Tmax)/2 anomalies is significantly worse than using higher resolution averaged anomalies for the purpose of estimating long term temperature trends.
If you want to talk about something else, I’m fine with letting this result stand.
If you accept that Tminmax is an inaccurate way of assessing true average temperatures then that’s fine with me. USCRN demonstrates that is true.
So Mark, Nate: Is this months UAH figure going up or down? You have a couple of days to decide.
July 11, 2021 at 12:43 PM
No reason to think different than I did a couple days ago:
July 28, 2021 at 8:10 AM
Mark B: So you agree that it is historically inaccurate to use Tminmax then. By up to a few degrees at any one station which we cannot predict which ones it will be as you have not been able to predict which modern USCRN stations are adrift and by how much.
Nate: So you agree that temperatures are likely to continue to fall until the year end at least.
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2021-07-29.gif
Is that right hand edge falling?
“Nate: So you agree that temperatures are likely to continue to fall until the year end at least.”
Lacking evidence to back your claims that the temperature trends are all bad….
I see you are now moving on to moronic trolling.
“Is that right hand edge falling?”
Right RLH, the current trend is -20 degrees C/year.
Time to go all-in on coal!
Strike that, the trend yesterday was +25 deg C/year.
Back to renewables we go..
If you look at the 365 day running mean (which should really be at Jan/Feb rather than the right edge as it is) that is dropping from where it was on the left hand edge. But why let facts get in the way of your thinking.
“Lacking evidence to back your claims that the temperature trends are all bad.”
So you are unable to take a linear trend on a yearly running average then?
“If you look at the 365 day running mean (which should really be at Jan/Feb rather than the right edge as it is) that is dropping from where it was on the left hand edge.”
Uhhh…. were we talking about the 365 day average?
No. We were talking about the month of July compared to June.
Moving the goal posts again?
You noted “Is that right hand edge falling?”, which showed T had dropped for two days, as if this was somehow highly significant.
Which seemed to me to be inviting ridicule.
“Uhhh. were we talking about the 365 day average?”
Well day to day rates are always going to be up and down by quite a margin as you so amply demonstrated, so no, I was discussing the longer term figure.
That has dropped quite a bit, from left to right.
It does look like the monthly figures could well be in more to you liking but we will see in a couple of days with UAH wont we.
I could always bring back my S-G filter to complete the trace on my 12 month filter right up until ‘now’ if you like. I mean S-G is built of Least Squares just like LOWESS and you don’t object to using that do you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter
“This is achieved, in a process known as convolution, by fitting successive sub-sets of adjacent data points with a low-degree polynomial by the method of linear least squares. “
https://imgur.com/uupHnjr
Can you see that the current year wiggle is simply ongoing noise on the long-term (15ylp) trend?
Can you match the rather characteristic ‘double hump’ at the end with anywhere else in the plot? What hakes you think that what happened there is not going to happen now?
You seem to like long fitted straight lines but dismiss any attempt at anything shorter or the use of curves/filters.
Could that be because it does not fit your agenda?
The use of day to day or hour to hour says little, true. But to claim whole years as noise takes things a little too far.
“it does not fit your agenda?”
My agenda is to follow the science and the evidence.
Yours?
The science and evidence says the positive Forcings continue to rise, and will do so for the near future. They have dominated over natural variation for the last few decades.
This predicts a continuation of the warming trend for the near future.
The less certain aspect is aerosols from Anthro pollution which are a net negative Forcing. Globally this seems to have flattened and maybe is starting to go down.
If so, the warming trend could increase for a while.
“The use of day to day or hour to hour says little, true.”
OK.
“But to claim whole years as noise takes things a little too far.”
Your own efforts at filtering suggest you wanted to remove annual noise to see the underlying long-term change on > 15 year time scales.
One can clearly observe ENSO noise dominating whole years throughout the entire record. Only volcanoes have had a comparable impact.
Do you expect a sudden departure from this pattern this year, and if so, why?
Do you expect early next year to be La Nina also? If so, do you agree that global temperatures are not likely to increase over the next few months?
Oz4caster has July monthly global anomaly up about 0.15C over June on reanalysis data:
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/m1-gta-2014-2021-07.gif
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/monthly-trends/
So is your projection for the next 6 months higher or lower than the last 6 months?
If you were to move the 365 day rolling average on oz4caster monthly back 6 months to the point in the year where it should be (assuming that you agree that its output point is in the middle of the year in question instead of where it is now at ‘now’) then there are significant months below its last output point still to come before we get to this months figures. So the average will continue to drop even if it then moves up for one month as you claim.
None of this deals with the fact that the next 6 months are not likely to be an overall increase as La Nina is projected (still) to be more likely towards the end of this year/next year.
“In a recent release from the Climate Prediction Center, there’s a 66% chance a La Nina could develop from September to November, lasting through the 2021-2022 winter months”
“Do you expect a sudden departure from this pattern this year, and if so, why?”
Why don’t you answer a question, before asking another.
“None of this deals with the fact that the next 6 months are not likely to be an overall increase as La Nina is projected (still) to be more likely towards the end of this year/next year.”
Nino 3.4 has risen by ~ 1.0 C over the first half of 2021.
But you seem to believe Global Temps will respond by skipping over this warming period, and respond only to the subsequent cooling??
Weird. Based on what?
RLH says: So is your projection for the next 6 months higher or lower than the last 6 months?
My projection and rational is the same as it was a week or two go when you asked this.
“Nino 3.4 has risen by ~ 1.0 C over the first half of 2021.”
Really?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/nino34-2.jpeg
“My projection and rational is the same as it was a week or two go when you asked this.”
So I guess the next few months will show who is the more accurate.
“Do you expect a sudden departure from this pattern this year, and if so, why?
Why dont you answer a question, before asking another.”
I have been rather consistent in suggesting that global temperatures will drop for the next 6 months rather than rise.
OK. You do have faith that Global Temps will, inexplicably, skip over this ENSO warming period, and respond only to the subsequent cooling.
“Nino 3.4 has risen by ~ 1.0 C over the first half of 2021.’
Really?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/nino34-2.jpeg”
Why are you showing me data that has REMOVED the variation of interest here, in the first half of 2021, with filtering?
You don’t seem to understand what filtering does.
RLH,
You ask what monthly temperatures will do for the rest of the year and discuss what they have done for the previous 6 months.
Then you arbitrarily switch to 12 mo running means and filtered data, as if they are interchangeable with unfiltered monthly data.
They are not.
This is pure obfuscation, and thoroughly dishonest.
Looking at the Oz4caster daily plot by hemisphere etc, the Antarctic was very low in June and quite a bit less so in July. This shows up in UAH as a particularly low value for the SH plus Dr Spencer commented on the UAH seeing it’s second coldest June in the 43 year record.
So the global July increase over June is almost entirely SH. No idea of the significance, just an observation.
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/d2-gfs-grta-daily-2021-08-01.gif
Whining Wee Willy is trying his best to get himself banned, no doubt so he can whine about it on some other climate crackpot blog – maybe that of the delusional Ken Rice, an astrophysicist with the same odd views as the astrophysicist and climate crank James Hansen.
Alas, his efforts seem to be for nought, thus far.
Here’s a recent sample of a convoluted yet meaningless comment from Wee Willy Willard –
“Then the idea that if theory disagrees with experiment it’s wrong is itself wrong, dummy.”
He’s a strange lad, is our Wee Willy. Creates his own version of reality on the fly, and expresses surprise that anyone would have the impudence to disagree.
Oh well, it seems from his comments that characterising Wee Willy as an idiot, a dummy, a pup, delusional, stupid, patronising, condescending, or psychotic are all well justified. He deserves compassion rather than condemnation. A harmless nutter, with delusions of grandeur. Some say trolls should not be fed. Why not? Feed him till he bursts – keep the food flowing! Feed him a constant diet of facts, and who knows? He might even accept reality one day.
If reality differs with the theory then reality must be wrong.
rlh…”If reality differs with the theory then reality must be wrong”.
***
John Christy of UAH related an incident where he took the sat temperature record to a climate modeler, where there was a significant difference between the two. The modeler told John, he did not care, that his model was right.
Don’t tell John that teh Jesus was the first socialist zombie, Gordo:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/the-gospel-according-to-john
Weird Wee Willy,
If you must attempt to be gratuitously offensive and sacrilegious simultaneously, maybe you should learn how to express yourself clearly in English.
Presumably, “teh Jesus” is Wee Willy the idiot putting on an affectation, trying to appear woke” and sophisticated.
You just wind up looking like a slimy little grub, and pathetically incompetent to boot.
Trying to get yourself banned, so you can whine about it to the other Sky Dragons, doesn’t seem to be working too well for you, does it?
Try harder, Wee Willy. Don’t be a girly-man.
Idiot.
swenson…”Oh well, it seems from his comments that characterising Wee Willy as an idiot, a dummy, a pup, delusional, stupid, patronising, condescending, or psychotic are all well justified”.
***
Let’s not forget that Willard is also a Sky Dragon supporter…Sky Dragon being a reference to the alleged alarmist theory that CO2 is warming the atmosphere. We skeptics here are the Sky Dragon slayers.
> We skeptics here are the Sky Dragon slayers.
Most contrarians believe in AGW, Gordo.
Sorry not sorry.
You defend a faction that is so smol that it does not really exists outside blogs. Same as Dragons. So you’re the one who’s holding Dragon-like crap.
Simple, isn’t it?
Weary Wee Willy,
Maybe you should learn English comprehension, and read the comment again.
Is “smol” another of your “woke” affectations, by the way? Or just more Sky Dragon sloppiness?
So what is AGW, and are you stupid or gullible enough to relate it to atmospheric CO2?
Try again, dummy!
Idiot.
You left out the bit about being a bore.
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
Idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Good morning.
TL;DR.
Idiot.
Everyone,
Y’all did well during the second iteration of our first experiment. Except Richard and Mike Flynn, but, well, ankle biters with bite ankles.
Let’s try this other experiment:
Except for a few Global Cooling Updates, I won’t comment until mid August, starting tomorrow, tomorrow defined by EDT.
That’s it. If the ankle biting becomes a bit over the top, I reserve a right of (a small) response.
Lets see if y’all can resist!
See you in three weeks or so,
Hopefully (for you),
W
PS: EM, carry the torch to entertain that bunch of Troglodytes!
Wee Willy Dumdum,
Ooooh! Goody! An experiment! Only joking – just more of your bizarre nonsense!
Get over yourself, dummy. Do you really imagine that anybody cares about you, or your opinions? You sound like just another gutless wonder, trying to save face, because you have fallen flat on yours!
Comment, don’t comment. Who cares? You are a delusional climate crank who refuses to accept reality. Do you really think that threatening not to comment for three weeks is enough?
Maybe you could threaten not to comment “ever again”. Scary, really scary. That should have the crowds demanding that you come back, and dispense your wisdom.
That was sarcasm, nitwit, just in case you didn’t know.
Respond, don’t respond. See if I care.
Mike Flynn, Multiple Failures.
Ah, diddums!
Idiot.
Your fail was spectacular, dummy.
Well done!
Willard,
Hope you have a nice vacation.
I am also vacationing soon.
I will not be climbing Devil’s Tower, among other things I will be doing or not doing.
bob, please stop trolling.
Gordo says upthread: “I dont understand”
Sums up Dragon crankiness quite well!
Cheers.
Idiot.
No U.
How many times can Willard say goodbye?
You wish.
Idiot.
A Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier’s flight deck is 333 meters x 77 meters.
Say you had fairly rigid deck which was 200 meter long and 45 meter
wide and was submerged under water.
The 200 meter length is facing ocean waves so that wave travel across 45 meter width, and side closest to direction of waves was 10 meters underwater and other side is 1 meter underwater.
And it’s anchored so doesn’t move.
So you could stand on platform where it’s 1 meter deep as walk deeper it gets deeper at an average 8″ deeper per step. And if wearing weighs by reach end of platform you under about 30 feet of water- about 45 strides and you at deepest end of platform and beyond it, the water is over 100 feet deep. Or when other way past 1 meter deep platform, the water is also over 100 feet deep.
And question is, would this platform make waves which you could surf on?
You are not alone in your thinking.
The V-Reef Artificial Ocean Wave Concept
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk9Fu2nhSO0
Albany Artificial Surf Reef Project
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZWJj8_uE9Y
Interesting. But both seems expensive. My idea could cost about 1/2 million dollars.
But for about 5 million dollar could make floating sandy beach behind the surfing area. From sandy beach it would short distance to surfing area. But area would be few miles off shore. And main idea is to have low cost housing which has beaches within it {not surfing beaches] and could have access to 5 million dollar public beach and pubic surfing area.
The 5 million public sandy beach would only float about 1 meter above waterline and not have waves. Have things volleyball and restrooms and vendors for food. And be about 200 meter by 100 meter
of floating sand.
I think having surfing are near ocean floor chasm, could improve
the surfing waves. So West of LAX or in Long Beach area which has breakwater which surfer want get rid of because prevents surfing in Long Beach. So it would pretty far out beyond current breakwater where a chasm and I guess far enough away so as to not traffic problem for the very busy port. So don’t have get rid of expensive breakwater made decades ago, and could have surfing region somewhat close Longbeach and other cities. But again main idea is to have low income beach living in ocean settlement.
At least one (the last) appears to have a chance of funding.
https://www.surfertoday.com/surfing/greg-webber-announces-new-concept-for-artificial-ocean-waves
“Webber says that a small 50-meter base model can be built for as little as $100,000.”
That seems cheap. I think it has a picture of little one.
Why not make lots of little ones?
You could put a few of them on any beach.
I was thinking of making one best surfing areas in the world- a question is how big would it need to be the best.
Whereas Webber small ones if they work, would be a way to “improve” a beach. And be good for general public as far everyone surfing.
And I was thinking of appealing to the surfer “fanatics”.
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/18012767.10-years-since-boscombe-surf-reef-look-back/
“Made of 55 giant sandbags, the reef opened in 2009 after lengthy delays. It closed two years later when some of the bags were damaged by a boat’s propeller.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-29816536
My notes:
RAMP Structure:
Plastic I beams: 1 by 1 meters by 200 meter [which can made into smaller lengths which can be glued/melted into 200 meters]
TOP: 1 meter wide by 200 meter long and 1 cm thick. The ends of 1 meter width 2 cm thick and connect to other I beams running cross ways.
In terms amount solid plastic used equals 1.1 meter by 1 cm thick. Below top and part of top [press molded] is rails centered and separated
by 50 cm, each rail is 5 cm thick and 25 cm high, with both totaled 5 cm by 50 by 200 meter. Or more plastic than top part.
What can be clipped over the 50 Cm wide space is 60 cm by 200 meter and .5 cm thick plus clipped opening at ends. As might be useful to confine that mass of water, add weights and/or floatation. And/or any sensors or control elements in general or whatever.
In the other space, 20 + 20 cm. These are going to be held together by neutral buoyant concrete stringers:
4 meter wide and 1 meter deep. And 20 over the 200 meter. And would attached rail and also attached where the 1 meter wide join another 1 meter wide plastic which 200 meters wide. So in terms of construction, concrete floats [which are floating- not neutral buoyant} are spaced with 20 over distance 200 meter wide. These tied together plastic stringer which also meet where the 1 meter wide plastic “clips together”.
So 200 meter wide of concrete floats tied together with plastic springer, on which one builds 1 meter wide 200 meter long top flooring. And as build floor it’s attach to concrete floats. And after this make floats neutral buoyant and brought the location where it will sunk.”
Or a smooth flat plastic deck with concrete floats going perpendicular to it.
Anchoring:
The sinking and holding in location:
The surfing area is sunk and parts are level and other parts are sloped. “landing area for surfer which level and 1 meter below waterline and is 10 meter wide”
So the concrete floats which 4 meter wide and 20 of them over 200 meter wide will be 10 meter long and sunk so top is always 1 meter below the waterline.
At end of each of 20 concrete floats [nearest the shore] will be a pipe, into which the pipe of spar buoy will go up and down with the tides- so pipe in concrete float must be about 3 meter tall. There will be different spar buoys which must be above waterline to keep platform at proper distance below the waterline. So called the spar buoys which keep in same area despite tides, currents, and waves, the sunk spar buoys. And ones
which keep platform same distance from water line, the floating buoys. And the floating buoys float the structure. ”
Also notes:
Or how many tons of plastic, concrete, and/or titanium will take. What kind of plastic and what kind of concrete- and which of two costs more. Ie to just
extrude plastic may require hundreds of thousands of dollars. But how tons of plastic? So this bit: “1.1 meter by 1 cm thick by 200 meters long, is
220 square meter times .01 = 2.2 cubic meter times 45 meters = 99 cubic meter. so +300 tons at 2000 per ton = + $600,000”
But internet says: “How much does plastic extrusion cost?
However, depending on the part complexity and raw materials, one could estimate the costs starting at less than $1,000.”
So spit balling I picked $2000
But it’s about 300 tons of plastic mass and concrete about 1000 tons of mass. Both have structural strength which exceeds “sandbags”.
But if made float [add air to it], it seems one drive cars on it- or seems should fairly firm structure.
The marine environment is corrosive, and titanium is metal which doesn’t corrode in sea water- whereas marine aluminum and stainless steel only resists corrosion to up to decade. Rope material or I imagine sandbag material would deteriorate in sea water. Not mention erosion effect muddy coastal water- and being chewed up engine props
structure
In terms of concrete breakwater floats, generally:
http://www.ingemar.it/en/products-services/product/Floating-breakwaters-9
https://marinetek.net/news/marinetek-installs-its-biggest-ever-breakwater-in-canada/
I think 45 meter is not wide enough. I think 70 meter wide and 12 meter at deepest, should work.
In terms of shark net, I think all need at most is to deter sharks- So, could put fence 2 meters under the water, so deepest part of ramp would be partially enclosed, and have float line at surface marking the underwater fence. If had some kind of marine park nearby which would attract sharks, then perhaps go the security max shark fence.
Another Wee Willy comment –
“”Entertains a caricatural view on experiment and theory based of Dick Feynmans dictum.”
Check.”
Does he actually compose this crap himself, or does he possess a random crap generator?
Willard is just an idiot.
Why do you respond to that bore?
I guess that makes you an idiot too.
My interactions with him have decreased to just a word or 2 when required. Takes a few seconds.
Its never required. Don’t feed the trulls!
I’ll try : )
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
Willard, please stop trolling.
@Scott R, I did not record when I saved the UAH global temperatures. I saved them for my own purposes, but I would guess they are from the previous base period.
But, you hit on my purpose in saving them: “I find it extremely interesting that the global temperature is so much higher at the earth’s aphelion.”
Here again are the values:
Mon. Kelvin J
AN 263.037
FEB 263.108
MAR 263.299
APR 263.721
MAY 264.324
JUN 264.966
JUL 265.288
AUG 265.108
SEP 264.471
OCT 263.786
NOV 263.273
DEC 263.072
As Scott R stated, the temperatures are higher when Earth is farther from Sun (Aphelion)! Aphelion occurs in July and Perhelion occurs in January. Yet Earth is warmer when Sun is farther away!
The reason is Earth’s water surfaces are mostly in the Southern Hemisphere, which gets the most sunlight in January. So Earth knows how to save the energy for when Sun is farther away.
Interesting.
The difference in solar energy arriving TOA is about 90 W/m^2. So Earth can handle a change of 90 W/m^2 without anyone even knowing exactly how it does it! And Warmists are concerned about 0.8 W/m^2?
Some folks just like to worry, I guess.
And I didn’t even mention that the bogus 0.8 W/m^2 comes from the bogus “Earth Energy Imbalance”. The Worriers are frantic about something that isn’t even real, which would have no impact even if it were real!
See https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/ where Roy set them out. They are for v6.
Thanks RLH. I saved it in case I need to reference this information for something. I can’t just reference Clint R.
The values are from V6.0, but from the “old base period”.
From Spencer’s opening post:
REMINDER: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010.
“Since we were asked (once again) for the averages, and had to compute them from the gridpoint annual cycles we post here, I thought I’d list them:”
From Roy. And yes they are for v6.
If you want them to be accurate for the new base period as well, then you will have to ask Roy for them.
Clint R I could not agree more. It seems the AGW alarmists were wrong again about the arctic ice and winter snow cover. For several years in a row, the NH has had above average snow cover. Also, the EGP Greenland station has failed to make it to 0 deg c still. It’s very hard to melt an ice sheet below 0 deg c, so no help there. I suppose it could sublimate. Having the sun up causes some melt, but it just freezes once it hits shade. That’s not nearly enough to offset the gigatons of snow falling every year. So if co2 / ghgs was actually going to hurt our planet, it would have to first make the arctic less reflective and that isn’t happening.
“would have to first make the arctic less reflective and that isnt happening.”
Are u forgetting that Arctic Sea Ice is again tracking at record lows. Compared to 20 y ago it is much less reflective.
Re: Greenland Ice.
The GRACE mission shows continuing Ice Mass LOSS in Greenland last several years.
https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/30/greenland-ice-loss-2002-2020/
What year is it, Nate?
Did anyone predict the EGP station would get to 0 C?
The ice sheet can melt from lower elevations that do get above 0 C.
Go to Greenland Ice Sheet Today, the irl has bad letters in it, so I can’t post it.
The Greenland Ice Sheet is melting.
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent
Looking at the decadal averages for ice extent, yes dear, the arctic is getting less reflective.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20210727.png
That is showing gain-loss thru melt and snow, but ignores ice berg calving. The TOTAL mass has a net loss.
https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/30/greenland-ice-loss-2002-2020/
Sure and the Artic will have no ice year round very soon.
Nobody said that but you.
And you are wrong.
And I am not being sarcastic.
OK. Summer sea ice if you must.
Predicted to happen in about 30 years, do you call that very soon?
Well that’s only 1 climate period away.
Keep backpedaling, soon you will be a card carrying Hansenite.
The extremes that ‘climate change’ has projected rarely, if ever, come true.
That’s because you think the projections for tomorrow are supposed to have happened yesterday.
When actually, many projections are coming true.
The ice caps are melting and the arctic sea ice is going away.
The Northwest passage opened up, remember that?
And what evidence do you have that this has not all happened before?
It has happened before, so no, I do not have evidence that it didn’t happen before.
If you want me to cite some cases where it did happen before it’s fifty bucks.
So you assume that this is a first time event then.
“In 1906, the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen was the first to complete the {Northwest} passage solely by ship, from Greenland to Alaska in the sloop Gjøa. Since that date, several fortified ships have made the journey”
RLH wrote:
That’s a gotcha question, since there’s no way to know the history of sea-ice far into the past. The most accurate evidence of the sea-ice cycle only begins with the satellite era, which has evidenced a steady decline in the yearly minimum over recent decades.
This Year’s Data indicates the melting is proceeding at a rate near that which produced the lowest extent seen in the satellite data.
https://nsid_c.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
(remove “_” from nsid_c.org)
As seen in the graph, the extent is way below the long term average and is outside the 2 sigma band around the average. If there had been a cooling trend over the Arctic these last six months, one must conclude that this decline would not be occurring.
RLH,
Learn to read dear boy.
I said
“It has happened before,”
You said
“So you assume that this is a first time event then.”
Failure to comprehend.
Anyway, it took Roald three years, lately the passage is more open to transit, in 2013 a ship took 73,500 short tons of coal from Vancouver to Pori Finland.
And in 2012 a passenger vessel took 481 passengers through the Northwest passage in 26 days.
And back in the day Greenland supported the Vikings.
RLH wrote:
And back in the day Greenland supported the Vikings.
Another denialist red herring.
The Vikings lived in Greenland for more than 400 years. Unfortunately, we don’t have documented evidence of the cause for their disappearance. Last I checked, there were several possible explanations, climate change being only one. They were a colony and depended on regular supply for some of their needs which they could not make. To pay for their imports, they traded walrus ivory and salt cod and the trade depended on regular visits from Europe or Iceland. The trade dried up after the arrival of The Plague, which reached Iceland late, around 1402 and the last known written correspondence from Greenland was in 1408.
The Greenland Vikings lived a pastoral lifestyle, relying on animals to provide food. They may have overgrazed their limited pasture area and also have cut the larger trees for structures and winter heating. There is evidence from sediment cores for changes in pollen indicating changing vegetation over time. Even today, photos of the main settlement area appear nearly void of trees.
[Search “Greenland viking settlement photos”]
Volcanic eruptions, such as that of Samalas 1257 or Kuwae in 1459 would have hit them hard, just as Tambora in 1815 caused the well documented “Year Without a Summer” in both Europe and New England. Given the marginal nature of the Vikings in Greenland, either event might have resulted in severe problems. The Western Settlement vanished many years before the Eastern areas, perhaps due to the 1257 event.
Nobody knows for sure.
RLH,
Again you get it wrong, the European demand for ivory supported the Vikings in Greenland.
Are you saying that the climate was not better when the Vikings were in Greenland. Against all the evidence to the contrary?
They were there a lot longer than just for the ivory trade.
“If there had been a cooling trend over the Arctic these last six months, one must conclude that this decline would not be occurring.”
I said that all the satellites show a cooling trend in global temperatures for the last 6 months or so. Do you disagree with that?
As for the poles, well see below.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uah-north-pole.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uah-south-pole.jpeg
“In 1906, the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen was the first to complete the {Northwest} passage solely by ship, from Greenland to Alaska in the sloop Gjøa. Since that date, several fortified ships have made the journey”
Except it took 3 years, because he got iced-in!
RLH asks:
No, I’m simply pointing out that there were other factors involved with the disappearance of the Greenland Norse. Perhaps the most significant was their approach to farming, which was directly related to their previous experiences in Norway and then Iceland and which included goats and sheep. The result was widespread soil erosion.
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/10/3658
See also the companion article:
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/10/3664
And there are lots of references in the two as well.
“No, Im simply pointing out that there were other factors involved with the disappearance of the Greenland Norse.”
So what? The point was that the climate was warmer back then than it is now to allow them to setup there in the first place.
You appear not to dispute that.
“Except it took 3 years, because he got iced-in!”
Whereas now we have nuclear powered ice breakers than can virtually ignore any ice.
Part of the reason that the ice is breaking up so much I am sure is because we now so regularly plough through on a near continuous basis.
” I am sure” Good to know.
Are you saying that the near continuous ice breaking now happening in the Arctic does not contribute in any way to the ice loss?
Are you claiming that the near continuous ice breaking now happening in the Arctic is contributing SIGNIFICANTLY to the reduction in Arctic sea ice?
Do you know for sure it is NOT significant?
Hmmm
In 2017 a total of 32 vessels made the journey, but only one of those was a cargo ship. The others included adventure yachts, dedicated icebreakers, a cruise ship, and a tanker.
This level of activity is a very recent development.
This compares with 18 vessels in total in 2016, and 16 in 2015.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45527531
Lets assume 20 icebreakers cut paths thru ice.
Each path is roughly 50 m (.05km) wide, and let’s overestimate the path length to be 5000 km thru ice.
So thats 20 x .05 km x 5000 km = 5000 km^2 area.
Now icebreakers BREAK ice and/or push it aside. The path is cleared transiently. It is not permanent removal.
The Arctic Sea Ice reaches a Minimum each year that averaged 2.5 Million km^2 less over 2010-2020 than the 1980s.
5000 km^2 out of of 2.5 Million km^2 is….. 0.2 %
Is that significant?
That’s how science decides whether an idea makes sense. Maybe you should try it next time.
Yeah. Sure. Like a sheet of glass that is whole acts just the same as if it is broken in two or more pieces.
Ya lost me there…
You dispute the calculation?
If I break a sheet of glass into 20 pieces do you think it will remain the same as if it were a single piece? The cracks themselves are tiny if you mate the pieces up together but the effect is quite drastic.
Same with ice. The channels that ice breakers carve are quite small in area but the effects in freeing up the ice is out of proportion to their size.
Why do so-called skeptics exhibit so much skepticism for well-tested mainstream science, but NO skepticism whatsoever for their own hand-waving speculations? Such as:
“The channels that ice breakers carve are quite small in area but the effects in freeing up the ice is out of proportion to their size.”
Evidence? Data? Modeling? Hints? Anything at all?
By September when the minimum of Arctic Sea Ice Area is quantified, the sea-ice is often already broken up over vast areas which have 15% coverage by ice.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Arctic_min_2014_620.png
ARGGH
‘which have 15% coverage by ice.’ Should say
which have > 15% coverage by ice, meeting the criteria used to define sea-ice area.
How long do the icebreakers tracks last in satellite photographs?
“By September when the minimum of Arctic Sea Ice Area is quantified, the sea-ice is often already broken up over vast areas which have 15% coverage by ice.”
So adding in extra artificial cracks has no effect at all in what then happens.
RLH, The Arctic sea-ice isn’t a static shield, it’s constantly moving around.
For example, LOOK AT THIS ANIMATION from the satellite data. Notice the decline in the portion covered by what’s called “old ice”, as well as the flow of sea-ice out of the Fram Strait and southward in the East Greenland Current. First year sea-ice is thinner and flatter and fractures more readily, which increases the rate of loss during the next summer’s melt season.
I know. It is just that cutting extra cracks, including those in otherwise thick ice, moves and thins.
RLH, Here’s a newer animation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVXOC6a3ME
A little critical thinking is helpful here, RLH.
The point is the Arctic is vast in Area. By comparison, the paths created by a few ice breakers are miniscule in area and transient.
The energy input by a modest amount of shipping is negligible compared to the enormous amounts of thermal energy at work melting and moving ice around in the arctic.
Does Nate know the year?
This is 2021, NOT 2020.
Re aphelion:”The difference in solar energy arriving TOA is about 90 W/m^2.”
From where did you pull that number?
We can all guess!
Incompetent troll “studentb” reveals his/her ignorance of Earth’s eccentric orbit.
(They’re going to need some new trolls. The old ones are just too stupid.)
Perihelion: 1,413 Aphelion: 1,321 Solar radiation (W/m2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
Or specifically:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Intensity_in_the_Solar_System
1,413 – 1,321 = 92 watts per square meter at top of Earth’s atmosphere {in the vacuum space at varying distance of 0.9833 AU and
1.017 AU from the Sun}.
We all guessed it was Wikipedia and we were right!
Now look at what your numbers imply:
90 Wm-2 causes a change in temperature T of close to +1 deg in 6 months
+0.9 Wm-2 (continuously as expected due to EGH) could be expected to cause a change of +.01 deg in 6 months
or +.02 deg in 12 months
or +0.2 deg in a decade
or +2.0 deg a century (as a rough estimate)
Voila! Your numbers confirm the implied sensitivity of the earth-atmosphere system (as predicted). Thanks.
You could also look at it that the current GHG situation decreases direct thermal radiation to space by 342 Wm-2. The greenhouse effect is attributed with making earth habitable by raising average temperature from -14C to 15C, or about 1C per 10Wm-2.
The Schwarzschild equations show that if we double CO2 in the atmosphere from current 400 ppm to 800 ppm, estimated to take 200 years, the direct thermal radiation to space is decreased by a further 3Wm-2.
That makes carbon emissions tracking 0.3C per two hundred years and renders the AGW alarmism false. 3Wm-2 is too small to have any significant effect on climate.
My main source is Happer’s article describing ‘Radiation Transfer’.
“stupidb” gets it terribly WRONG.
Perihelion occurs in January, when Earth is receiving about 90 W/m^2 more than in July. Earth is receiving LESS solar in July, but Earth’s (UAH Global) temperature GOES UP about 2K.
“stupidb” believes less solar flux resulting in more temperature is somehow “proof” of AGW:
“Voila! Your numbers confirm the implied sensitivity of the earth-atmosphere system (as predicted).”
Maybe we can’t help stupid, but we can laugh at it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-v6-LT-thru-feb-2016-with-anncyc-1.jpg
“decreases direct thermal radiation to space by 342 Wm-2”
Uhhh, No. How do you get that?
“Sure and the Artic will have no ice year round very soon.”
Strawman. Moving the Goal Posts. Deflection.
When do you expect global air temperatures to start rising again?
Asked and answered. Nothing better to do than troll?
Yes the ice is melting on Greenland as it does every summer. Then hurricane season starts. When the hurricane moves north, all that rain becomes snow and ice on Greenland and the ice is renewed.
Some years more or less.
Its seldom mentioned in the climate alarmist lexicon. According to the alarmists sea levels are going to rise catastrophically. Its been that way since scientists needed grant money to spend their summers catching butterflies on Greenland.
Tony Heller has posted news articles from the stacks stating ‘the ice on Greenland is melting and the sky is going to be falling soon’ circa early 1900s.
Since Tony Heller doesn’t know what the triple point of water is, I wouldn’t trust anything he posts.
bob, please stop trolling.
Climate shyesterin 101 ya ya ya
https://youtu.be/md5VxWpyyZs
rlh…”The world has been cooling for the last 6 months or so because all the temperature series say it has. These include series that are not built on Tminmax”.
***
I theorized in the past, re the 1998 super El Nino, that such a sudden spike set off an action globally akin to an electronic circuit reacting to a sudden signal spike at the input. The circuit might oscillate strongly before tapering off exponentially, depending on damping factors. If another spike comes along before the original died off completely the oscillation would begin again.
Tsonis et al demonstrated how the various oscillations like the AMO, PDO, ENSO, AO, etc., interact to increase warming and produce cooling.
If you look at the UAH graph on this site, there appears to be a residual warming left over from the 1998 El Nino. Prior to 1998, the anomalies were largely below the baseline but a year after the EN, suddenly they are significantly above the baseline, with a flat trend. That flat trend continued for 18 years past 1998 till the 2016 EN caused a quick positive trend.
There was another lesser EN spike in 2010 and it has occurred to me that maybe this spate of relatively strong ENs has pushed the anomalies above the baseline and kept them there based on a baseline average from cooler times.
Climate history tells us there are periods in which ENs are predominant and others where LNs are predominant. Seems to be related to the PDO but it may be related overall to all the oscillations.
I have used the greater than 15 year low pass filter to try and uncover the longer time period oscillations for temperature series. Unfortunately the UAH series (or any other satellite series) is not yet long enough to do that treatment to it.
Earlier, studentb gave a rough estimate of temperature increase due to CO2 of 2 C per century.
Assuming a current sea surface temperature of 16 C, the seas will boil in 4200 years, according to studentb.
This seems unlikely to me, but of course in Climate Crackpot world, fantasy becomes reality.
Humdrum mathematicians are world famous climate scientists, Michael Mann is a Nobel Prize winner, slow cooling is a heat source, and any inconvenient facts are simply redefined out of existence.
Ah, the richly self-satisfying world of the delusionally psychotic!
I choose to accept facts, in spite of their occasional inconvenience. Why not?
Idiot. If CO2 kept increasing at the current rate then of course the seas will boil in 4200 years. Look at Venus knucklehead.
s,
So you don’t expect the temperature to keep rising if CO2 levels stay the same as at present, then?
What is all this AGW nonsense about, if temperatures are not going to rise?
By the way, Venus is not Earth. Maybe you hadn’t noticed, dummy. Either that, or you are a climate crank who believes that people like Carl Sagan, James Hansen, and others of their ilk, actually know what they are talking about.
Get a grip, knucklehead! Climate crackpots can no more look into the future than you or I.
You can’t even describe this magical GHE, can you? Did it stop the Earth cooling from the molten state? No. Can you think of a reason why the Earth has not cooled to its present temperature? No.
You are an idiot, but at least you refuse to accept reality.
Babble babble babble ….. do you have a point?
More like dribble dribble dribble.
Poor Mike is deteriorating so fast he is becoming incoherent.
Ah, I see.
You are both reduced to “babble babble babble” and “dribble dribble dribble”.
Pretty typical for fact-free climate crank dummies unable to accept reality.
How are you both going with your search for the GHE? Try looking on the shelf between Ether – luminiferous, and Phlogiston.
Maybe you two could make a movie – you could call it Dumb and Dumber or A Tale of Two Nitwits.
Have fun.
Look, he’s typing so fast he can’t even spell his sock right.
bob, please stop trolling.
“stupidb”, Venus atmosphere did not cause Venus high temperature. Venus high temperature caused Venus atmosphere.
Clint R,
Venus once had liquid water on its surface.
Yes bob, we know you have a lot of strange beliefs.
But you probably don’t understand that beliefs ain’t science.
Clint R,
There is scientific evidence for what I say, I have posted it before.
Maybe you read it, maybe you ignored it, maybe you didn’t understand it.
Meatloaf says two out of three ain’t bad.
Yes bob, we know you have a lot of strange beliefs.
You “believe” you have “scienctific evidence”, but that ain’t science.
You have no science. That’s why you have to resort to your childish “meatloaf”.
Clint R,
I do have science, not beliefs, evidence, not the childish charade you provide.
Maybe you can explain the excess deuterium that exists in the atmosphere of Venus.
Lets hear some science from you.
You know I won’t be holding my breath.
Bob, now you’ve gone from childishness to diversions and false accusations. If I waste enough time proving you wrong, you will eventually resort to profanities. That’s been your history. That’s who you are.
I’m content that you have no real science to prove your claim. Until you produce such, I’m done here.
b,
You have no evidence. The fantasies of Carl Sagan, James Hansen, and assorted climate crackpots at NASA, are not fact. Evidence of delusional thinking, that’s all. Obviously, you know all about delusional thinking.
Clint R,
You are done?
Good, take some time and crack a physics book or two.
If you won’t examine the evidence and just stick to your unfounded beliefs, you are nothing but a superstitious quack.
“If I waste enough time proving you wrong, you will eventually resort to profanities.”
Go ahead and try, you haven’t proved me wrong in all these years.
Tell me how 1300 psi of CO2 at 475 C is not emitting enough infrared radiation to heat the surface, after all it’s emitting the same wavelengths of radiation as a block of ice.
Swenson,
You haven’t provided any evidence that Hansen, Sagan and anyone else is delusional.
All you have is crackpot claims.
From a crackpot, delusional I may add.
You call Hansen 2008 and 2003 accurate?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/mann2008-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/mann-2003.jpeg
RLH,
You are getting Mann and Hansen mixed up.
You are not being very accurate, are you?
And how do you know those graphs are inaccurate?
Yes I did post Mann for Hansen. Apologies.
“And how do you know those graphs are inaccurate”
If you can match those to global temperatures over the same timeframe good luck.
I assume you have sound temperature series for that period and have verified that they don’t match.
“If you can match those to global temperatures over the same timeframe good luck.”
RLH says: If you can match those to global temperatures over the same timeframe good luck.
Why wouldn’t one just look at the original papers where they include a comparison with the instrument record?
You may have noticed that this is where the part of the justification of the ‘hockey stick’ came from.
Try matching them to GISS or Had or Berkley etc.
Does GISS, or Hadley, or Berkeley go back to 1400?
Try matching where they do overlap.
RLH says: Try matching where they do overlap.
Again, the 2003 and 2008 Mann papers show a comparison of Had and their proxy estimates. If you think there is a problem and expect to be taken seriously, state clearly what you think is the problem and provide your own graphic illustrating the problem.
The rise at the ends show clear contamination/other factors and the middle shows no real comparison to GISS/Had. If you believe that not to be true please provide a plot with both/all on for comparison.
The graphs for N C D C, GISS, Berkley, Had, etc. are all on my blog. As are the ones for Mann.
If you want them all
https://imgur.com/eo21wPf
or
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/andersonmannammannloehlegisshad crutrss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters1.png (edit out the space)
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Many factors contribute to flooding, but climate change makes extreme rainfall more likely.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57969877
Actually its water that makes flooding more likely. A slug of snowmelt. A broken dam. Extreme rainfall is too unlikely.
Boredom sets in.
Ken says:
July 28, 2021 at 11:17 AM
Why do you respond …
I guess that makes you an idiot too.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Witless Wee Willy,
Do you realise that climate is the average of weather?
Extreme rainfall is extreme rainfall. It’s called weather, dummy.
If it happens often enough for long enough, the climate (the average of past weather) will obviously change. You are obviously too stupid to realise this.
Have you considered looking up the definition of “climate”?
Mike Flynn,
The operative word is ´likely’.
Willard, please stop trolling.
bobdroege wrote earlier –
“You already admitted there is a greenhouse effect, why are you backpedaling?
And the Earth cooled to a lower temperature than present several times, and was also warmer several times.”
Unfortunately, he suffers from a mental defect which results in him believing that his fantasy is reality. There is no “greenhouse effect” so his attempt to put words in my mouth fails miserably.
As to the Earth cooling to a lower temperature several times in the past, this implies it spontaneously heated up, then just as spontaneously cooled afterwards – possibly due to the magic of the mythical “greenhouse effect”‘, which creates simultaneous heating and cooling, as desired!
bob is obviously a delusional climate crank, reduced to making unsubstantiated assertions, hoping to influence those even more stupid than himself!
What a dummy!
Babbler and dribbler, please keep quiet until you have something relevant to add to the discussion.
DMT,
What form of mental retardation leads you to think that I, or anybody else, would dance to your mad tune?
Your determination of what is relevant and what is not, is moot, seeing that nobody is taking any notice of you, and you are both powerless and impotent to enforce your demands – as I have pointed out before.
Maybe you should join Weary Wee Willy at Camp Wottalottanitwits for three weeks. The break from internet access might help arrest your descent into complete irrelevance.
Otherwise, feel free to continue being an idiot.
[laughter]
Does anybody have a face wipe? He is frothing at the mouth.
DMT,
Why don’t you try psychobabbling?
This is the sort of behaviour of climate cranks who are unable to face reality.
Try and explain why the hottest places on Earth have the least amount of supposed GHG’s (in this case H2O) in the atmosphere above them. Can’t do it?
Best return to psychobabbling, then.
Off you go now!
Swenson,
Sorry dear boy,
We had a discussion a while ago and you admitted that the CO2 increase was correlated with the temperature increase and the mechanism is the infrared radiation emitted by the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.
You lost and you won’t admit it.
Typical.
b,
Pity you can’t quote me.
That makes you look like a real idiot, doesn’t it?
Have you no brains at all?
I could, I’m too lazy to search back in the site for the place where I nailed your ass to a post.
b,
So you can’t, then.
Not only an idiot, a lying idiot,
Swenson,
Let me explain the greenhouse effect to you again.
CO2 in the atmosphere radiates infrared, some of which is caught by the surface, increasing the energy and hence the temperature of the surface.
This is experimentally verified by comparing the graph at the top of the page with the Keeling curve.
You are just a nitwit who doesn’t understand it.
Poor bob gets is wrong, again: “CO2 in the atmosphere radiates infrared, some of which is caught by the surface, increasing the energy and hence the temperature of the surface.”
Earth emits a peak of about 10μ, while CO2 emits a 15μ photon. Translation: CO2 emits a photon with 50% less energy than Earth!
Poor bob is still trying boil water with ice cubes!
Clint R,
CO2 also emits at about 2.7 and about 4.3.
So once again Clint R gets the physics wrong.
And then he compounds his error by conflating the peak emission of Earth with the individual emission line of CO2.
Still can’t be bothered to crack that physics textbook.
Poor bob. He won’t be popular at his cult meeitngs.
He’s now got CO2 emitting high energy photons to space.
No wonder Earth is cooling….
“Earth emits a peak of about 10μ, while CO2 emits a 15μ photon. Translation: CO2 emits a photon with 50% less energy than Earth!”
Clint, our most dependable source for fertilizer, dropped another big pile of dung.
He seems thoroughly unfamiliar with the breadth of a Black Body emission spectrum.
Yes troll Nate, we understand you consider reality to be dung.
Here’s some more of that reality for you to munch on: Earth is NOT a black body.
True. Its emission spectrum, compared to a pure Black Body has a big chunk taken out at the peak by CO2.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/2010_schmidt_05/curve_s2.gif
As usual, your claims are easily debunked.
Now we have Clint R calling 2.7 um and 4.3 um photons high energy.
So what’s visible light, super high energy photons?
How about UVB photons, are they extra super high energy photons?
How about my favorite photon, the 511 MeV gamma? Is that extra special super high energy photons?
How about one of my least favorite, the 1.1 MeV Cobalt 60 gamma, is that extra special super duper high energy photons?
Yeah, Clint R, keep demonstrating you knowledge of physics.
Troll Nate proves me right, then claims I’m easy to debunk!
(He must be in a race with bobdroege to see who is the biggest idiot.)
So Clint agrees that CO2 has a huge effect on Earth’s outgoing radiation spectrum?
The planet mean surface temperature equation is for planets WITHOUT ATMOSPHERE the whole planet equilibrium emission concept.
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
When applied to the planets the equation produces remarkable results. The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet………Te………….Tmean…Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…….325,83 K…..340 K
Earth………255 K………287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……..270,4 Κ……..223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……209,91 K……..213,21 K…..210 K
The results speak for themselves – it has become possible to calculate planets mean surface temperatures very closely matching the measured by satellites.
When we compare the results for Planet Earth we realize that there is very small difference between the Tmean = 287,74 K and the Tsat.mean = 288 K.
This observation can only be attributed to the fact that there are only traces of greenhouse gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Also the Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any significant Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, I am afraid your calculations are junk.
Christos Vournas at 4:03 AM
The same satellite data you use to benchmark your calculation also shows that Earth’s atmosphere is highly absorbing in certain ranges of the IR spectrum (see the spectrum here https://ibb.co/8NVdj4Q). How do you explain this contradiction?
Tyson
“The same satellite data you use to benchmark your calculation also shows that Earth’s atmosphere is highly absorbing in certain ranges of the IR spectrum (see the spectrum here https://ibb.co/8NVdj4Q). How do you explain this contradiction?”
Yes, Tyson, I visited the Link you provided. There is not a contradiction with the data.
Graph shows the measured Earth emissions in certain ranges of the IR spectrum…
Earth’s atmosphere does not absorb what is shown in the Graph.
It is a product of a mistaken comparison of the measured IR spectrum emitted by the surface with the alleged blackbody emission curve at 288K.
Earth’s surface does not have a uniform surface temperature of 288K. Thus any measured IR emissions cannot be compared with that curve.
Also it is a question what those measured emissions (the so called atmospheric windows) represent. Are they average globe emissions, are they day-time emissions? What they are?
Conclusion
Earth’s atmosphere highly absorbing in certain ranges of the IR spectrum narrative is fictions, because Earth has never emitted those certain ranges of the IR spectrum.
One cannot measure IR radiative emission that is not emitted…
But that does not make it being absorbed by atmosphere. When certain ranges of the IR spectrum are not there… it is a confirmation planet does not emit as a blackbody.
https://www.cristo-vournas.com
Christos Vournas at 8:15 AM
ok. thanks. You are mistaken, but that’s your problem, not mine.
It was simply deduced that those certain ranges of the IR spectrum were absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere.
It happened so, because it was wrongly compared the Earth’s actual emission ranges with the blackbody uniform 288K Stefan-Boltzmann emission law curve.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas at 4:07 PM
It seems that you didn’t get my point that someone who uses satellite “measured” temperature to benchmark his pet formula should be more knowledgeable of how those measurements are derived.
Satellites are not thermometers in space.
Electromagnetic waves originating at the surface interact with the atmosphere leaving a signature that depends on the composition and temperature profile of the atmosphere. Instruments onboard satellites measure radiance as a function of frequency within the instrument’s bandwidth; measured radiances consist of the sum of the surface emission attenuated by the atmospheric a_b_s_o_r_p_t_i_o_n and the emission of the atmosphere itself.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
student…”Idiot. If CO2 kept increasing at the current rate then of course the seas will boil in 4200 years. Look at Venus knucklehead”.
***
The reason you are a student is that you cannot see past what you are told. You are afraid to look.
Greenhouse warming theory of Venus took a kick in the pants when the Pioneer probes flew past Venus. They detected surface temperatures in the neighbourhood of 450C, far too hot to have come from a greenhouse effect. Something else is heating the surface and that’s likely what is causing the CO2 atmosphere.
Partial pressure of CO2 on Earth is 0.006 PSI.
On Venus it is 1300 PSI.
Put that into your Ideal Gas Law.
Which is still the wrong equation to use.
Well, whole idea of greenhouse effect is a transparent atmosphere to sunlight. Venus massive atmosphere is not transparent to sunlight- it’s surface is much dimmer than earth surface- which gets 1/2 much sunlight at TOA.
At Earth distance the surface would be darkness, when sunlight was at zenith.
gbaikie,
“Well, whole idea of greenhouse effect is a transparent atmosphere to sunlight. ”
Nope, that’s only part of it.
Venus still gets an appreciable amount of sunlight to the surface, like a cloudy day on earth.
Well it would be more stupid to get solar energy at the Venus rocky surface as compared to Earth rocky surface.
What you might not appreciate is the small area of Venus [or Earth] that gets much sunlight.
Obvious one has 1/2 of either planet in darkness, but Earth during daylight hours, generally has enough light to read a book, it’s not the same with Venus. It’s only time when the sun is closer to zenith that there is enough light.
Because Earth’s tilted axis, Earth polar regions can have months of mostly darkness and months of a lot daylight. Such polar regions on Venus are in constant darkness.
And terms of a daylight hours in spot of Venus where the sun passes over near zenith, a significant portion of “daylight hours” is in darkness.
Or with Earth only peak solar hours gets any significant amount of solar energy. On Venus “peak solar hours” are the 6 hours you have enough light to read a book, and other 6 hours, it become harder or impossible to read a book. And peak hours near “polar regions” is when the dark sky is a bit less dark.
Re:
“Nope, thats only part of it.”
Yes and no. If you regard the cargo cult gospel of required indoctrination of “greenhouse effect theory”:
“Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of ultraviolet, visible, and near-infrared radiation. About 26% of the incoming solar energy is reflected back to space by the atmosphere and clouds, and 19% is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds. Most of the remaining energy is absorbed at the surface of Earth. Because the Earth’s surface is colder than the Sun, it radiates at wavelengths that are much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed. Most of this thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and warms it”
So most of absorbed sunlight is absorbed by earth surface and ” “Because the Earth’s surface is colder than the Sun, it radiates at wavelengths that are much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed. Most of this thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and warms it”
With Venus all sunlight is absorbed by atmosphere and clouds. And mostly it’s the clouds. The cargo cult believes radiant energy from Earth’s warmed surface is radiantly captured by atmosphere.
Shortwave sunlight passes thru, converted to Longwave, greenhouse gas prevent longwave radiation from leaving Earth, and these greenhouse gases add 33 K to Earth’s surface air temperature.
Now if you regard the Venus clouds as Venus surface, as I do {and imagine also many others}. Then one can fit it into your cargo cult belief. But don’t forget about lapse rate. Or Venus surface is hot mostly because of lapse rate. And Venus “surface” {the clouds] is not particularly hot “surface air temperature” it’s the 50 km below the heated surface air, which the hotter than an oven”
And we had something similar thing with earth “in a small region of Earth” surface air hot in the bottom of a dried up Mediterranean sea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
It was not greenhouse gases which made the floor of the Mediterranean sea in the middle of Glaciation period the hottest the surface air temperature is ever been, it’s due to lapse rate.
It was of course a regional effect, as globally it had lower average temperature. But with Venus, it is a global thing.
Let me see.
” if GE exists the seas will boil after 4200 years ! ”
sb – “of course, if CO2 keeps increasing, look at Venus ”
” no no no… Venus is too hot.”
What score would you give for that sort of logic?
“Something else is heating the surface ”
i.e. “I refuse to believe in the GE. I would rather believe in
mysterious effects, maybe magic, maybe divine …”
You cannot make this stuff up!
pP,
You wrote –
“You cannot make this stuff up!”
No, climate cranks make stuff up all the time, in order to avoid facing reality.
For example, refusing to accept that the Earth was in a molten state, and cooled to its present temperature.
Come on now, confirm you can’t accept that the Earth cooled to its present temperature. If you do, of course, all your GHE “heating” nonsense flies out the window, so to speak.
What’s the matter? Cat got your tongue, dummy?
Climate cranks make stuff up all the time, in order to avoid facing reality. For example, imagining that scientists don’t know the earth was once molten.
Or that scientists don’t know that the earth’s molten state is presently powered by radioactive heat/energy.
That, Mother Earth is a radioactive monster.
Tim,
And has cooled, as hot things do, without being halted by the mythical GHE!
Some climate cranks seem to believe that not only can the mythical GHE stop the Earth cooling, it can reverse that cooling, and make it hotter!
You wouldn’t be one of those, would you Tim?
“In my book, I conclude that keeping GW under the limit of 1.5C is hopeless”
It’s hopeless in regard to governments being able to do it.
And seems predictable there will be laws in the future which prohibit anyone who can change global temperature, to change global temperature.
What is obvious is that government action has not lowered global CO2 emission.
What government action has done is displaced where CO2 emission are occuring in the World. Politicians are good at stupid ideas and shifting blame- and they don’t accept responsibility for what they have done.
What is known to reduce CO2 levels is nuclear energy.
US has lower it’s CO2 emission per capita, but none this was do with what US politicans have done regarding “problem” of global warming. US politician may reduced local CO2 levels, but done stuff to cause “off shore” CO2 emission- made More CO2 global CO2 emissions.
No one can make the argument that Wind mills or solar panels have lowered “global” CO2 emission.
Even more impossible or utterly hopeless as argument is to claim burning wood creates less CO2. The argument could only be “word games” of saying burning wood is renewable energy.
And solar energy and Wind mills require energy to be made and don’t generate “useful energy” once made. One look at them as making some weird unreliable “batteries”. Pretty good batteries if you want something give power over say 10 years, but these weird batteries can’t all the energy within an hour or day.
Or vastly superior at giving what no one actually needs. But they are a way to make energy, they require a way to make energy, to make them. They are parasitical and environmental disaster- very similar to all politicans.
It’s pretty easy to cool Earth, but Earth is in Ice Age and only a manic wants it colder.
maguff…”In my book Controlling the Future …”
***
Yet another alarmist control freak. His first mistake is presuming humans have anything to do with the warming. Then again, without such propaganda, no one would read his book.
Gordon Robertson at 2:41 AM
The gist of your comments never progresses beyond the dull and tiresome.
TM, Gordon was only responding (properly) to your “dull and tiresome” nonsense about the “alarmist control freak”.
Maybe you’re just frustrated because none of your cult beliefs have any validity.
Clint R at 5:29 AM
It is telling that you and Gordon Robertson at 2:41 AM, two of the least science and technology minded commenters on this site targeted the word “control” for your replies to my comment. Clearly oblivious to the Process Control approach in Béla Lipták’s upcoming book.
I’m not surprised that you don’t get it, but Gordon Robertson fancies himself an Engineer and as such more would be expected of him.
Sorry TM, but what is “telling” is your attack on my qualifications without being able to cite one instance of me getting the physics wrong.
My use of the word “control” was specifically aimed at your fellow cultist. He clearly believes mankind can “control” the climate. That means he has no understanding of the science. It’s the same with all your cult.
Clint R,
Here’s one
““stupidb”, Venus atmosphere did not cause Venus high temperature. Venus high temperature caused Venus atmosphere.”
you want more, it’s fifty bucks each.
Got a million dollars?
bob, are you trying to defend TM’s nonsense, or just being childish for the fun of it?
Clint R,
No, I was citing one instance where you got the physics wrong.
There are more.
Clint R at 6:38 AM
“That means he has no understanding of the science. It’s the same with all your cult.”
Says the person who believes the Moon does not rotate on its axis, once for every revolution about the Earth, because tidal locking is a hoax.
Tell us more about your qualifications!
Well, he almost had a minor in physics, but he dropped out.
TM, Moon does not rotate about its axis, but it’s not because “tidal locking” is a hoax. The “tidal locking” hoax probably started in an attempt to explain why Moon doesn’t rotate. But, they just boxed themselves into a corner.
If you had a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, then you could talk. As it is, you’ve got NOTHING.
Moon is a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It is orbiting, but NOT rotating. So is a ball-on-a-string. Our side is based on physics and reality. Your side is based on following centuries old cult beliefs.
bob increases his adolescent nonsense. Next comes the adolescent obscenities.
Right on schedule.
Clint R at 1:35 PM
What does this even mean? “If you had a workable model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’, then you could talk. As it is, you’ve got NOTHING.”
Every first year engineering student know about this, https://ibb.co/B2XWmKY; and if you set the Rotation Angular Velocity equal to zero you have a body which is orbiting without rotating; that is clearly not how the Moon-Earth system works.
Any chance that you’ll graduate from dull and tiresome sometime soon?
TM, we know you can find hundreds of things on the Web you don’t understand. That’s why the simple analogy of the ball-on-a-string is so useful. Only one side of the ball faces the inside of its orbit. That’s “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Your cult believes that an orbit is also axial rotation. But that’s even easily disproved by Mercury. Three complete rotations of the planet are observed in two complete orbits. They do NOT add extra rotations for the two orbits.
Even some here still believe the MGR wooden horse is rotating about its axis!
You can’t help stupid.
Clint R at 2:38 PM
“TM, we know you can find hundreds of things on the Web you don’t understand.”
I put that one there, I take full responsibility for its content.
I ask again, “Any chance that you’ll graduate from dull and tiresome sometime soon?”
Clint R continues to demonstrate his knowledge of physics.
I’m glad to see you taking responsibility for your stupidity, TM.
The MGR wooden horse is bolted to the MGR platform. It can NOT rotate about its axis. If the ball-on-a-string were rotating, the string would wrap around it. The simple examples verify your stupidity.
Clint R at 3:14 PM
You sound a little more unhinged than usual.
Clint R at 3:14 PM
Your reaction to this description, https://ibb.co/B2XWmKY, was: “I’m glad to see you taking responsibility for your stupidity, TM.”
Which tells me that you have no formal education in Classical Mechanics. So, since you brought it up earlier ( Clint R at 6:38 AM ), what are your qualifications?
TM, the reason I sound “unhinged” to you is that you reject the reality that I present.
You actually believe a MGR, mounted to the platform, is rotating about its axis!
You have to believe that, to remain with your cult.
As far as qualifications, you will NEVER catch up. You can’t learn. If you really understood physics, a vector analysis of Moon would prove to you it is NOT rotating. You refuse the simple analogy of the ball-on-a-string. You reject reality. You don’t understand physics, and you reject reality!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R at 5:26 PM
“TM, the reason I sound “unhinged” to you is that you reject the reality that I present.”
I’m pretty sure that’s not the reason, but go on.
“You actually believe a MGR, mounted to the platform, is rotating about its axis!
You have to believe that, to remain with your cult.”
Bingo!
“As far as qualifications, you will NEVER catch up. You can’t learn. If you really understood physics, a vector analysis of Moon would prove to you it is NOT rotating. You refuse the simple analogy of the ball-on-a-string. You reject reality. You dont understand physics, and you reject reality!
Thats why this is so much fun.”
Show me!
Clint, our self-declared Almost-Physics-Minor is certain that Tim, a Physics PhD,
“dont understand physics”
But it is Tim who rejects reality!??
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Clint R: “You have to believe that, to remain with your cult.”
TM: “Bingo!”
There, TM, I just showed you.
Clint R at 6:38 AM
So it is settled then, you can’t deliver on your offer of“a vector analysis of Moon would prove to you it is NOT rotating”. Didn’t think you could.
Troll Nate, there is NO evidence Folkerts has much understanding of physics. He did guess correctly at the problem on “gravitational torque”, but he probably found the answer somewhere. He didn’t supply the proof. I had to do that. He went on to indicate he still didn’t understand.
Even worse, he claimed that “20 generations of scientists and all physics textbooks” agreed with him. But he still couldn’t produce a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Can you?
TM, maybe you haven’t been paying attention — I don’t attempt to teach physics to idiots.
Are you able to admit that the ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating about its axis?
If so, I’ll be glad to start your education. I enjoy teaching physics to people that have a brain.
Ball-on-a-string is only relevant to ball-on-a-string. nothing else.
RLH, you keep saying that because:
1) The simple analogy destroys your false beliefs.
2) You have NOTHING.
So, please keep saying it.
No physically connected body (loose or hard) will ever represent a gravity connected pair.
“there is NO evidence Folkerts has much understanding of physics.”
Right, other than his PhD in Physics.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/timothy-folkerts-904a4110
Clint, the vast majority of people here have figured out by now that your claims to understand physics better than those of us who are actually well-educated and trained in it, are simply the bluster of an ignorant troll.
Whenever you do try to explain it, whether its heat transfer, angular momentum, orbital motion, gravity, Newton’s laws, vector addition, you get most of these things completely wrong.
And the clincher is that you never, ever have legit sources to back up your claims.
GLOBAL COOLING
Extremes of weather will strike the UK more frequently owing to the climate crisis, scientists said after data showed that last year was one of the warmest, as well as one of the wettest and sunniest, on record.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/29/extreme-weather-will-be-the-norm-and-uk-is-not-prepared-report-warns
willard…”The warming that we see is broadly consistent with what we see globally and our climate seems to be getting wetter as well as warmer, and thats consistent with our broad understanding of the process [of climate change]”.
***
This form a Met office senior scientist who obviously cannot tell the difference between weather and climate.
«
Etremes of weather will strike the UK more frequently owing to the climate crisis, scientists said after data showed that last year was one of the warmest, as well as one of the wettest and sunniest, on record.
Last year was the first to figure in the top 10 for heat, rain and hours of sunshine, in records stretching back more than a century, as moderate British weather is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, according to a report from the Met Office and climate scientists.
The extremely sunny start to lockdown in the spring of 2020 followed the wettest February, while a heatwave striking in August combined to make 2020 the third warmest year, the fifth wettest and the eighth sunniest on record, according to the State of the UK Climate 2020, published in the International Journal of Climatology.
«
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/29/extreme-weather-will-be-the-norm-and-uk-is-not-prepared-report-warns
Willard, please stop trolling.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Extremes of weather will strike the UK more frequently owing to the climate crisis, scientists said after data showed that last year was one of the warmest, as well as one of the wettest and sunniest, on record.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/29/extreme-weather-will-be-the-norm-and-uk-is-not-prepared-report-warns
Last year was the first to figure in the top 10 for heat, rain and hours of sunshine, in records stretching back more than a century, as moderate British weather is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, according to a report from the Met Office and climate scientists.
The extremely sunny start to lockdown in the spring of 2020 followed the wettest February, while a heatwave striking in August combined to make 2020 the third warmest year, the fifth wettest and the eighth sunniest on record, according to the State of the UK Climate 2020, published in the International Journal of Climatology.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/29/extreme-weather-will-be-the-norm-and-uk-is-not-prepared-report-warns
Willard, please stop trolling.
I still hate Roys parser.
Not only is Willard a dumbass and horrible at science but he can’t count. Three weeks, LOL. Three weeks wouldn’t work for a propagandist.
Read the experiments conditions, dumbass.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Ooooh! Conditions! Oooooh! Commands to “read”!
And if he doesn’t comply, what then, dummy?
Will you have a tantrum, or just threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue.
You are a precious wee chappie, aren’t you?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, my mediocre fool,
Stephen might not need your misreadings to cover for his.
Carry on,
Willard, please stop trolling.
La Nina update – preliminary
The Southern Oscillation Index, or SOI, gives an indication of the development and intensity of El Niño or La Niña events in the Pacific Ocean. The SOI is calculated using the pressure differences between Tahiti and Darwin.
Sustained negative values of the SOI below −7 often indicate El Niño episodes.
Sustainted positive values of the SOI above +7 are typical of a La Niña episode. They are associated with stronger Pacific trade winds and warmer sea temperatures to the north of Australia. Waters in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean become cooler during this time.
https://i.postimg.cc/zXNVXSwH/canvas.png
Weird Wee Willy wrote –
” . . .combined to make 2020 the third warmest year, the fifth wettest and the eighth sunniest on record, according to the State of the UK Climate 2020, published in the International Journal of Climatology.”
Look at this differently, and 2020 has been colder, drier, and cloudier than past years.
Who cares, anyway? Apart from climate crackpots, of course. Weather is unpredictable. The atmosphere is chaotic.
Wee Willy is a delusional idiot, posting pointless predictions of doom. At least he’s a dummy, so nobody is going to take much notice.
Every cloud has a silver lining, I suppose.
bob d…”Partial pressure of CO2 on Earth is 0.006 PSI. On Venus it is 1300 PSI. Put that into your Ideal Gas Law. Which is still the wrong equation to use”.
***
Bob, you get dumber every time you post. Wouldn’t think it possible.
What other equation would I want to use when relating the pressure, temperature, volume, and number of molecules in a gas mixture?
Let’s see. Ohm’s law…E = IR…nope.
Newton II…f = ma…nope.
conversion of C to F…F = 9/5C +32…nope
How about PV = nRT? Bingo!!
And where did you get the dumb idea that the partial pressure of CO2 is 0.006 PSI? At what altitude?
Gordon,
The CO2 partial pressure at ground level.
400 parts per million time 14.5 psi.
PV=nRT Bingo?
Willard will have to put that on his card.
Unsurprisingly, you don’t know what the ideal gas law is for.
Gordon Robertson
I would back up your attack on bobdroege. He is correct in his calculation of partial pressure of CO2 at Earth’s surfce.
Here:
https://www.aqion.de/site/99
Gordon Robertson
I think my post was confusing. What should have been “I would back away from your attack on bobdroege”.
N,
By all means, feel free to refrain from attacking bobdroege.
Why should what you do affect Gordon? If he wants to attack bobdroege, what business is it of yours?
Maybe you are not as important as you imagine.
Or were you just being silly for no particular reason?
Yes Norman, you’re usually confused by your own words. Just like you’re confused by the links you find.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R,
What is the partial pressure of CO2 at the Earth’s surface then?
Better crack that physics textbook!
Or maybe you could buy a freshman level chemistry textbook, and maybe then you could share it with Gordon.
bob, please stop trolling.
The science is settled – or not.
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/carbon-tectonic-plates-subduction-environment-b1891612.html
“Their research has revealed that the carbon drawn into Earths interior at subduction zones … tends to stay locked away at depth, rather than then resurfacing in the form of volcanic emissions.”
P.s.: “Strive on-the control of Nature is won, not given.”
TM,
You wrote –
“One of the solutions to tackle climate change is to find ways to reduce the amount of CO2 in Earths atmosphere.”
Bollocks, pure and simple.
Climate is the average of weather, dummy. Reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, and what happens to weather? Don’t know? Can’t say?
You are an idiot, but at least nobody knows who you are, so your mad opinions are completely worthless.
seems you’re off your meds today again!
TM,
Taking up psychobabbling, are you?
[snigger]
Swenson at 4:39 PM
So, I was right, you didn’t take your Lithium pills today!
TM,
If your psychobabbling is supposed to be gratuitously insulting, you could try directing it at someone stupid enough to feel offended by the actions of idiotic psychobabblers like yourself.
You dont need to thank me for the advice. I do my best to help those less fortunate than myself.
[laughter]
Swenson at 6:53 PM
Try this and get back to me in 14 days.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
> In my home state, a young man recently died on the first day of football practice in middle Georgia. According to NBC News, the practice was during a mandatory, non-pads practice period allowing student athletes to adjust to the heat. On that late July day, the National Weather Service (NWS) temperature was 97 degrees F, according to NBC News. However, that is only part of the story. The NWS Atlanta office tweeted on July 27th, “Heat Indices are expected to rise into the 100 to 106 degree range today across portions of central and south GA. Please remember to stay hydrated….” This was a good indicator of heat levels that week. Metrics like Heat Index and Wet Bulb Globe Temperature provide better information on the human impact of extreme heat because they also account for things like humidity or body physiology. While the cause of the aforementioned football incident is still under investigation, it is a good prompt to revisit the “silent weather killer.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2021/07/28/heat-doesnt-grab-attention-like-a-tornado-or-hurricaneheres-why-it-should/
Probly subduction.
A good anecdote should have a happy ending.
Several years ago I was sawing up a 35-foot-high oak tree in the yard, that had been killed by lightning. Oak makes great firewood. It was a hot summer day, and I was sweating profusely. Nearly half-way through the job, I noticed that I was having a hard time breathing. I stopped and staggered to the shade of the patio. It was 109F, in the shade.
I washed off with the hose and rested in the shade until my breathing was normal. My wife fixed me an ice-cold margarita. I don’t remember much after the fourth one, but I’m sure I was pretty happy.
That’s a “heat-related” anecdote, with a happy ending.
Obviously cooked your brain.
I see you have nothing of value to offer again, DMT.
Just another useless troll.
Have another marguarita with your imaginary wife, Pup..
The drink is spelled without a “u”. You’ve obviously never heard of it. Maybe when you get old enough you can have one.
I think I will start calling you “Dud”.
It fits….
Cooked and pickled by the sounds of it.
ClintR,
DMT is still coming for me, I guess.
As in all things, he’s slow to the point of immobility.
Combined with his exceptional idiocy, he is, as you say, just another useless troll.
Good for a laugh, if not much else.
Yes, Dud and DMT make a great comedy team.
Socks often come in pair, Pup.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard,
Did you know that thousands of people die of heat stroke every year? I bet you did you sly devil.
Quick! Quick!
Turn off the Sun!
Nah, it’s OK. “Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun”
Everybody else should avoid it.
How many 15 years old die of heart attacks, smart ass?
Troglodytes are not 15 years old anymore, Stephen.
Please stop projecting your own insecurities.
Willard, please stop trolling.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet………..Te…………Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…….325,83 K…..340 K
Earth………255 K………287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……..270,4 Κ……..223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……209,91 K……..213,21 K…..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What the hell is a:
“Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant” ??
Admit it, you made it up.
prof p…”Admit it, you made it up”.
***
The intelligence of Christos is far beyond yours. You’ll never understand what he is talking about.
He named it. But he didn’t make it up.
Thank you!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If I were a CAGWer rather than lukewarmer, what would advocate doing to about world ending within 10 years?
Well, there is not much which could be done. Doubt we could even build Nuclear Orions that quickly. The only starship we almost have is SpaceX’s Starships which will take another year before they could begin to be “ready”, but it’s not a global solution.
So, only thing could do, is mitigation measures.
Part of that is should stop making solar energy and wind mills as they are unreliable now, and with an end of world climate, they extremely vulnerable to “extreme climate” conditions. Stop all bio-fuel use, obviously. And even nuclear energy is problematic due to the extremeness of possible climate, but one try make nuclear energy robust enough to be safe.
Or wind mills and solar would be impossible due their nature of requiring large area of Earth surface.
Now, what is world ending global climate?
Large sea level rise so like 10 meter rise within a short period of time. Life in ocean dying. Cat 6 hurricanes occurring all the time, a lot more tornadoes. Lots floods {sea level rise and stuff like what happening now in China but worse and all over world. Kanas is flood, France is flooded, India is flooded, ect.
Now global warming is also cooling, so we also get lot’s of snowfall. So NYC is flooded and also has many meters of snowfall.
All Europe is flooded and is buried in snow. We also going locusts, and Malaria, and endless list of pestilence, natural and human created by accident- some sort of “cure” which goes wrong as people in general are all panicking due to the bad weather.
So human all going mad as are the cats and dogs. Governments all fail, guns are everywhere and street gangs have nuclear weapons.
Only about 1 billion people die, the billions of desperate people are rampaging. All polar bears, die.
You can see where is going.
Yes, what we need ocean settlements with marine scientists which can try to save the oceans.
What if takes 50 years rather ending in 10 years?
Well, isn’t there just more of chance the marine scientists could be successful?
gbaikie…”If I were a CAGWer rather than lukewarmer, what would advocate doing to about world ending within 10 years?”
***
In the future, when this heat is gone, we will be laughing about the hysteria. All except the CAGW alarmists who will claim the cooling was predicted by AGW theory.
We had a few days of spotless sun
https://www.spaceweather.com/
But I think the beginning of solar Max will continue.
Here around the the hotter spot in the world, there was a little
amount rain and lot cloudy and windy weather, but nothing much different than typical summer conditions.
Those that like wind mills should be thanking whatever god they
have, but perhaps they holding their breath as weather can be fickle and we still have all the stupid politicans.
Also one should include winter time in the south:
Locals fascinated as rare heavy snow covers Brazil
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
And the globe consists of both warm and cold places.
willard…”In my home state, a young man recently died on the first day of football practice in middle Georgia. According to NBC News, the practice was during a mandatory, non-pads practice period allowing student athletes to adjust to the heat”.
***
As usual, no specifics…length, of practice, intensity of practice, underlying medical conditions, known or unknown, hydration, rest periods, etc.,
People don’t normally die from simply working out in hot weather, and the temperature, around 100 F (~38C), is not critical. I have played soccer games in similar temperatures with no ill effects and soccer is far more demanding on an aerobic basis than North American football.
I found the secret to playing in such heat…tons and tons of Gatorade…all you can mange to drink. It supplies essential levels of potassium and sodium and it’s essential to maintain your electrolyte levelsto prevent heat stroke. Even though Gatorade buckets are supplied by teams, you can’t force players to drink it.
I have worked in similar temperatures over a 10 hour shift and survived. I suffered from heat prostration on one occasion after working for hours in the direct sun. The secret is to remain hydrated with electrolytes and to get in the shade often. On the day I got nailed I was trying to be a hero and finish a job rather than being sensible.
This recent nonsense you have been posting on critical heat levels is essentially propaganda generalized by couch potatoes. I have been hounded much of my life by couch potatoes lecturing me on how running is bad for one’s knees, etc. Nonsense, never had a knee problem in my life.
I know what your angle is, however. You are pushing the climate alarmists agenda, using every means at your disposal, except real science, to pathetically try to prove that global warming is man-made.
You have failed. There’s no proof.
Gordo, The problem isn’t just the temperature, it’s the humidity. The human body cools itself by sweating, the sweat then evaporates, which removes thermal energy and cooling us. When the dew point is above ~35C, the sweat doesn’t evaporate, since the air is already almost saturated, thus there’s no cooling. You could drink gallons of Gatorade and still die from heat stroke.
FYI, the measure called the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature is an index of the severity of the heat, humidity and direct sun exposure in the work environment. People who actually work outdoors face life threatening situations which you, during your life in Canada(?), probably have not. You can ignore the science, as usual, but the facts are clear.
Here’s and idea: build a tall, 5-8km tall sealed hollow towers, filled with hydrogen, with radiators attached at the top atn at the bottom.
The lapse rate in hydrogen on earth is at about 0.7K/km assuming hydrogen is mostly diatomic and has a molar mass of 2. Meaning that the maximal average thermal gradient along the 8-km tall tower would not exceed a mere ~ 5k..6K. with surface temperature of +30*C and the temperature at the top of the tower of -20*C, the mean temperature of the tower can be expected to be at around +5*C, from +8*C at the bottom to +2*C at the top. Thus givethen be a free fridge that is a completely passive cooling tower, not requiring any power to operate, just some effort to maintain it. Btw, being filled with hydrogen, it would also be much lighter than just a structure of the same built, and perhaps even light enough to be close to the neutral buoyancy. Thus, the material challenge of constructing 8-km tall tower is much alleviated. Build one in the centre of each city and the problem of any global wumbo-related heat stress on humans is solved. Of course, that only would work in the large enough cities that can actually afford it.
Climate religion
https://youtu.be/44Q2eGlodVQ
We need a better class of deniers on this site; someone who can make a coherent argument complete with citations that we can sink our teeth into.
Here’s an example of a higher level denier’s argument from the Chemical Engineers site which although wrong can at least be debated quantitatively:
Tyson, please stop trolling.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
> Globally,, June 2021 has been the fourth warmest June since records began in 1850. This is similar to 2015 and 2016, but appreciably cooler than in 2019 and 2020.
http://berkeleyearth.org/june-2021-temperature-update/
“appreciably cooler than in 2019 and 2020”
So it’s been cooler for longer than 6 months then.
And, dummy?
Well I had only previously said it was the last 6 months since 2020 that was cooler and then you posted that it was longer.
In fact you have posted that it is back to where it was 5 years ago.
> then you posted
Where, dummy?
“This is similar to 2015 and 2016”
*This* refers to other warmest Junes on record, dummy.
Also note:
> We estimate that 3.2% of the Earths surface experienced their locally warmest June average, and 73% of the Earths surface was significantly warmer when compared to their local average during the period 1951 to 1980. In addition, 0.02% on Earths surface had their locally coldest June.
“Globally,, June 2021 has been the fourth warmest June since records began in 1850. This is similar to 2015 and 2016, but appreciably cooler than in 2019 and 2020”
I know. I was just quoting from the next few lines. Idiot.
https://imgur.com/uupHnjr
2021 is a La Niña year and it is still amongst the hottest recorded, dummy.
Seen the N C D C plot yet?
You can see them all on my blog (Roy’s parser east N C D C urls)
La Niña years are cooler, dummy.
Yet 2021 is still one of the warmest recorded.
So why do you think that temperatures have been falling for the last 6 months or more? Chance?
La Niña, dummy.
You don’t say. Any idea when this decline will end?
You are the one who needs to come up with a reason why your silly talking point matters, dummy.
Well it’s rather obvious that your viewpoint matters to no-one other than yourself.
No U.
News from the adaptation front.
It has been a long, repetitive, tiresome thread this one.
Let’s hope for a better standard with the update for July.
I value freedom of speech.
But I sure would like to stuff a sock into the keyboard of a couple of useless contributors on this page who rarely, if ever, have anything of value to say.
With no adult supervision it will be the same as the last one
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Agriculture in Greenland faces an uncertain future impacted significantly by a changing climate. It will influence the way farming in Greenland is carried out and the scope of agricultural development. Higher temperatures allow for better crop yields and feed production capability for livestock, as well as new crop, but are mixed with a higher degree of unpredictable weather and droughts, as well as the potential introduction of invasive species and pests. Agricultural management on a local and national level thusly is under pressure to create a framework within which the sector can adjust effectively and continue to contribute to the political ambitions of higher levels of local food production in Greenland.
https://natur.gl/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ENG-Synthesis-Report-on-Agriculture-in-GL.pdf
And I thought I had an uncanny ability to see the negative side of anything, lmao. Yet, I must say that you beat me to it. Bravo! Fearing for the drought damage to the greenland agriculture that doesn’t even exist today…. i got no words. I tip my hat to you, sir!
If Greenland is warm enough to have farming, cot, what would you say if the contention that it was warmer back then?
That Greenland has been warmer than it is right now back then?
Playing dumb might not be the best way to support your earlier claim, dummy.
Witless Wee Willy,
You don’t even need to act dumb, do you, dummy?
Mike Flynn,
My mellifelous flouncer.
meesa yusa gramma not undertanda. Did you mean what would i say OF the contention that it was warmer back then?,? Historical accounts say it was. But I don’t trust history that much lately, it being some of the most ideologically spoiled and abused ‘science’ of them all. But the archaeological evidence seem to corroborate the fairytales of the historians, and so it seems that it was much warmer back then. I heard that there are accounts of vikings swimming in teh fjords of greenland back then. Assuming that the human physiology didn’t and couldn’t change this drastically over less than a millennium [it probably takes 1-2 orders of magnitude more with intense selection], it seems that the waters around greenland must have been much warmer, suggesting that maybe that warming was more ocean driven than the atmospheric. but then again, the cause and effect here is not so obvious. Also, question arises as to 1) if it was so much warmer where did all the melt go? the sealevel 1000 years ago must have been noticeably higher than today, or else some other ice shits must have been bigger, and 2) wouldn’t there be with that climate more than just a few settlements? Which brings me back to the history=lies thesis i started this rant with. I don’t know what to think, it all feels like we’re living in a simulation under some cruel sadistic masters.
Sometimes, cot, I wonder if you are more coherent than gb.
Search for Vikings’ on that page to understand what they were doing in Greenland back then, even decades after it was allegedly colder.
i stopped watching them after the season 4, as the show went down the drain
You have more partience than I.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Australia has deployed the military to enforce COVID lockdowns. Is the US next? What about deploying the military to enforce carbon lockdowns? This is the left folks. It is who they are. Disunion is coming.
>>Is the US next? —
hehe, I’d like to see that. The US folks, say what you want, are not all cucks like nearly all other countries’ folks are. There is still some dignity left in those lands, albeit not much. Therefore, there will be blood…. and the reason i want to see it, is to see how much of it. Alot of blood means hope for the humanity =|. Also wanna see if the fall of the US will trigger wars all over the world, in order to validate or discard the ‘us imperial peace’ hypothesis.
Hmm. Let’s see, among recent Presidents, which one tried to use the Military for political purposes?
Hmmm. Is the right or the left in charge of govt in Australia right now?
I dunno much about ostraliah, but if they are anything like any other country (except the us), they probably have centre-left, left and far-left parties. So, who cares?
Sorry, wrong again. Center-right is currently in charge.
Don’t mean they won’t lock people down. The us is the only country in the world where ‘right’ is loosely associated with liberty; in all other countries, right is NOT about liberty, it is about oppression just in a slightly different way and of different people. But by the modern US standards they’re probably just anther kind of left. Yeah, that’s how distorted the terminology has become. Ok, i’m confused now.
———–
so basically, the ‘right’ ‘left’ ‘conservative’ ‘liberals’ are just a senseless monikers that are there to bamboozle people. In reality, the only way to characterize someone is through their actions. If ‘left’ and ‘right’ are acting the same then they are the same.
No surprise that you idea of the political center is to the right of everyone else…
Here is link to Youtube video by Ivor Cummins where several informed people, in Ireland, discuss what has happened over the past year regarding COVID and trying to reason what will happen next.
Time well wasted, this is highly concentrated science and ethics; something that is severely lacking in the public discourse, in particular about vaccines. I strongly recommend watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1sv8RUO-t0
ken…”Here is link to Youtube video by Ivor Cummins …”
Interesting video but they are missing the point. The RNA-PCR test cannot tell covid from the flu, other diseases, stress, dead cels, and other common bodily dysfunction. It only tells you that the RNA strands detected in a nasal or throat swab came from somewhere in the body (duh!!!) but if the person has known issues, they can claim a causal relationship.
As applied, it is being presumed the tests are reacting to RNA from covid and there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support that. The inventor of the PCR method, the late Kary Mullis, was adamant that the PCR method could not be used to identify a virus or an infection, if the virus could not be isolated in the unamplified state.
Obviously, there would be no need for a PCR test if they had already isolated covid. They could simply take genetic material from it and compare it to nasal or throat samples.
The antigen tests are even worse. Antigens are produced by the immune system when it attacks a foreign invader, but the test cannot tell what the invader might be. Antigen’s don’t come with a little sign stating they represent a covid virus.
If that is all you got out of the video you really missed the point.
ken…”If that is all you got out of the video you really missed the point”.
***
That’s not all I got out of it, however, if they want to make a difference, they need to understand the whole picture. If we are going to counter this covid fraud and turning our democracy over to unelected civil servants, we need to be able to argue the science. In the video, they were presenting the RNA-PCR and the antibody tests as having some validity and they have none.
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and his consortium of lawyers in Germany are attacking the PCR test and the clown who designed it. He lied about its abilities and claimed further that people showing no symptoms were silent carriers. Fuellmich et al are calling the covid test fraud.
Fuellmich has already taken on Volkswagen and the Deutsch bank in court and won. He openly refers to both as criminals, the same word he uses to describe those pushing this covid nonsense.
Let’s be straight. There is something serious going on for a tiny fraction of 1% of any population. They are contracting pneumonia. However, thousands of people die each year from viral pneumonia caused by the common flu.
In the video at your link they discussed the fact that the WHO has quietly discarded guidelines it had in place that would never allowed the current fraud to get beyond the first few month. They removed those guidelines after consultation with drug companies.
I think the WHO are criminals. Pfizer already has a criminal record after being fined 2.3 billion in the US for lying about their products. So, we have vaccinations being pushed by convicted felons and the WHO colluding with them.
https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus/?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=trending#vaccines
A Little Arithmetic:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/31/a-little-arithmetic-the-costs-of-a-solar-powered-grid-without-fossil-fuel-back-up/
Solar energy or Wind energy can’t work. And, aren’t working- if working means, lowering global CO2 emissions.
If you think they working in some other way- say providing jobs or
some other good thing. It’s not doing that either.
But if working is something like taxing poor people more, it works
in that aspect.
It works if want to increase crime and create riots and increase governmental dependency, where one is the hero handing out crumbs to all poor people one has caused to be poor.
One can have more wars of poverty which doesn’t do anything to win the war.
As said it does not work for what it’s sold to do. It’s really is wink, wink, let’s have even more governmental corruption.
In reality were it to work, government would not be doing it- unless they outlawed it others doing it. Or if solar or wind worked, and government did it, it would not work.
As in farming, works, governmental farming, causes people to not have enough food.
Or in addition to the simple arithmetic, it could “NEVER” work no matter, what.
No government has ever won a war of any kind. As is well know, it was US private sector which allowed US to win WWII.
Nor did US government send men to the Moon- again, it was private sector. Without it, no man on Moon.
Government was involved and choose to spend US citizen’s money on something. The Apollo program was probably the most successful thing the US government was ever involved with. It was a stunt.
Specifically, it was a cold war PR stunt. One could say Soviets starting the PR stunts, and US put an end to them, with crazy stunt of landing crew on the Moon and safely returning them to Earth. If was successful because it was cheap, had only up side to it {especially when consider that Lefties were against doing it]. Others could point to the making of Atomic bomb and dropping couple on Japan. But that had a lot bad things coming from it. The side effects were very costly. Other than lower war loses, which might have also been done by political means [if there was the political ability/talent needed- which was unlikely or perhaps way too unrealistic as even a hope].
It would say Apollo had very little downside consequence- but I believe it resulted in delaying humans from becoming a spacefaring civilization.
Or imagine if Soviets had won that game- they were pretty close to doing that. It should be noted that Soviet had competitive soviet companies doing it- they had 3 of them. I guess following US 3 car companies type competition {both being quasi-competitive governmental monopolies]. But competitive loosely speaking- they choose to do various things, to win. But like the robber barons of 19th century. As has been and is currently, free enterprise is about millions of smaller companies and smaller companies which become things like Apple, Amazon, Google, or all of various ventures of Musk, like SpaceX. Which involves engaging roughly what called venture capitalists- people want to beat inflation or bet the farm- or a gambling which one win. And government can sometimes gamble in right things- and Apollo being one of them.
But solar and wind is not a gamble. It does nothing for combating global warming. And it fails at basic math. But it works as way of avoiding to doing anything. It wastes or buys time- a shiny distraction. A hide the pea con game.
It;s the Sun stupid
https://youtu.be/0191e–bXSg?t=804
It’s not the Sun.
Solar activity peaked around 1960.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File%3ASunspot_Numbers.png
Since then solar activity has declined while temperatures have risen.
As we seem to be unable to detect the Earth’s orbit not being a circle, I rather suspect that solar activity and its cycle is not going to be easy to detect either.
There is one place on earth where the eccentricity signal is prtty clear, at least so it seems to me: central africa.
Reference? Evidence?
In most of the world in tropical climates, it seems that the temperature and rainfall follow, such that warmer parts of the year also tend to be the rainy season. Which makes sense as the itcz rainband ‘follows the sun’ in its annual trek about celesial equator. However, if you look at the mean monthly annual temperature course in the few of the cities that exist in the savanna of north-central africa, namely the capitals of south sudan, CAR and perhaps a few adjacent cities that might exist there not too far from equator, something different is seen entirely: their rain and temperatures are in anti-phase, with rains happening in the NH summer at the aphelion, and the temperature peaking in the dry season of NH winter around PERIhelion. OTOH, the temperatures of the tropical africa on the other side of the equator do follow just the sun as it does nearly everywhere in the world. Notice, it means not that the eccentricity cycle doesn’t work there, just that it is in phase with the sun: their dry season is much cooler than their hot season. In other words, in the tropical africa it seem, the rains follow the relative obliquity, but the temperatures follow the eccentricity signal.
Bangui, 4*22’N 370m asl: july high/mean : 30/25, january 33/26, rains peak in august. Hottest if february/march, coldest is july/august, with dt of mean t of 2.3K
Juba, 4*50′ 550m asl: july high/mean 31/25.6, january 36.8/28, rain season peak in july, temperatures peak in february and bottom out in august. The difference between the mean hot-cold months is 4K, the magnitude similar to what can be expected from the annual eccentricity-related solar ‘constant’ cycle. Probably a coincidence, but quite and amazing one.
Kinshasa, 4*19’S, 240m asl: july mean/high 27/22.5, january 30.6/26, rain season peaks in april and then again in november while the jja is exceedingly dry. Hottest month is april tmean=27*C, coolest is july tmean=22.5*C, for a difference of 4.5K.
Notice, that far away from the equator the seasonal insolation cycle would swamp the possible eccentricity signal (not that it would not influence the climate, but it would not be seen right away in the MMT data).
As far as i remember, while researching this topic i didn’t notice any notable eccentricity signal anywhere else in the tropical temperatures, why show up in central africa then? I reckon, it could be because of the great continentality of the region. The earth does have great continents in the mid-latitudes, but at around equator, the large continents seem lacking. Or, perhaps, the heat transport from central africa is retarded somehow, i don’t know. I can only hypothesize. Or perhaps I’m confusing the distorted pre-monsoon heat dome with the eccentricity, who knows.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
ATHENS, July 30 (Reuters) – Greek authorities warned the public against unnecessary work and travel on Friday as temperatures hit 40 degrees Celsius (104 F) in Athens and the ancient Acropolis, its most visited monument, was briefly forced to close.
Temperatures have been high in much of the country in recent days and are expected to reach 44 degrees on Monday and Tuesday, the National Meteorological Service said, warning of a high risk of wildfires during a “dangerous” heatwave.
“We are constantly recording maximum record temperatures all these years, which means that climate change is here,” said Stavros Solomos, researcher at the Centre for Atmospheric Physics and Climatology of the Academy of Athens.
“We are expecting to have more frequent, more intense heatwaves,” he said, as well as “tropical nights” – where temperatures do not fall below 25 to 30 degrees.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/greece-issues-wildfires-warning-over-dangerous-heatwave-2021-07-30/
willard…”ATHENS, July 30 (Reuters) Greek authorities warned the public against unnecessary work and travel on Friday as temperatures hit 40 degrees Celsius (104 F) in Athens…”
Willard thinks that if he repeats propaganda enough it will make it a fact. Meantime, here in Vancouver, Canada, the temperature is currently 26C, a normal temperature for summer.
In Sydney, Australia it’s 26C as well, even in the middle of winter because it’s in or near a sub-tropical zone. In Hobart, further south it’s 10C. In Tierra del Fuego, at the southern tip of South America, it’s 4C.
At the South Pole it’s -63C. At the North Pole it’s +5C (mid summer) and it will drop to 0C on Monday.
The NH is experiencing summer weather, Willard.
Weather is a realization of climate conditions, Gordo.
Well, the heat capacity of the atmosphere is such that it would be naive to expect that without some nice advection the diurnal range would be more than 15 to 20C. If the DTH is +44*C, then +24*C is a very good NTL, especially at the sea level and near the sea.
What I find more interesting is that assuming that the recent preponderance of ‘heat-doming’, assuming it is not a statistical artifact, malicious media bias or just a fluctuation, is an interesting phenomenon. Atmosphere e-mits radiation into the outer space from all levels, from the surface all the way to the toa, albeit at various efficiency. Why does it “choose” to increase the emissions from the (near)surface as opposed to the layers aloft in the middle troposphere, that contribute more to the ra-diative cooling than the surface levels? Hereby one right away recalls the old disputable topic of the missing ‘mid-tropospheric hot spot’, that has been used as a sign of climate models getting it wrong. surprisingly, this recent tendency corroborates that POV, as well as being a possible palpable manifestations of the observations of such that I believe dr spencer and dr christie have talked about so much years ago. Hmmm, i wnder what the actual ‘heat maps’ look like at the 700 and 500 mb. Not the models (or even the reanalysis output) but the actual data. Do the heat waves show up there? I suspect not so much.
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/what-is-a-temperature-inversion.html
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur
Fallacy Man strikes again:
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/9
Have a look for yourself:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-128.95,28.13,303/loc=-112.890,49.405
uhm, tell me something I don’t know.
maguff…”Which tells me that you have no formal education in Classical Mechanics. So, since you brought it up earlier ( Clint R at 6:38 AM ), what are your qualifications?”
***
Who needs a classical education to understand that a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a merry go round cannot turn about its COG/axis? You claim to have a degree in physics but you cannot understand the elegant, simplicity of why it cannot rotate about its COG/axis because IT’S BOLTED TO THE FLOOR!!!
Same with the ball on the string. The ball cannot rotate about its COG/axis because IT’S ATTACHED TO A STRING UNDER TENSION!!!
It’s sad that students in universities these days cannot think problems through for themselves. They are told gravity is not a force but a spacetime anomaly and they accept that utter nonsense verbatim. Because Einstein claimed, based on a thought experiment, that time can dilate, leading to the absurd theory of spacetime curvature, that it must be so. Not one of them can reason that time, based on the rotation of the Earth, is a constant.
They are told that the Moon rotates on its axis exactly once per orbit while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth. That alone should raise skepticism in an objective student’s mind, but…nooo… they go along with it because they were told it is so.
Google:
“People also ask
Can gravity be considered a force?
Gravity is considered a universal force because it acts between any two masses anywhere in the universe. For example, there is a gravitational pull between the Sun and the Moon. Even small masses attract each other. The force of gravity between dust and gas particles in space helped form the solar system.”
Wiki, spacetime:
“In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativistic effects, such as why different observers perceive differently where and when events occur.”
So a model of three dimensions space, is model.
Models can be useful.
Models may be misused.
But just numbers are a model, as using fingers to count is a model.
gbaikie…”Wiki, spacetime:
“In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold”.
***
Models can certainly be useful if they can be validated. In electronics, you validate a model by building a circuit with real, physical components to test it. How can you test three dimensions of space and a dimension of time when none of them have a physical existence?
Space certainly exists as a physical reality but it does not come with dimensions as in the human model of space. Time is defined on the rotation of the Earth and it is actually a measure of the distance the Earth rotates during a certain period, wrt the Sun.
Space does not curve, it’s the human IDEA of space that curves, in a superficial reality created by the human mind. The manifold mentioned above is an abstraction, not a reality.
Einstein’s theory of relativity claims that time, based on a constant, and a length in space, can change as the velocity of a mass increases toward the speed of light. He derived that theory from a thought experiment and no on has ever proved it to be true.
Some claimed to have measured time dilation but they are experience a delusion, just like the delusion that the Moon rotates on its axis. They are actually measuring the change in motion of a mass. There is no reference to force and mass in Einstein’s theory of relativity, which is ironic since force and mass are the two realities in Newton II.
Einstein discarded force and mass and dealt only with acceleration. Although acceleration is a real phenomenon that can be observed, the only way to measure it is by introducing time, which we invented based on the rotation of the Earth.
Some have claimed an atomic clock in a satellite demonstrates time dilation. They are not measuring time, however, since an atomic clock does not measure time. The atomic clock has a natural vibration in its cesium atomic structure that is very accurate. The frequency of that vibration is extremely high and has to be subdivided millions of times to equal the length of the second we derived from the rotation of the Earth.
Gordon,
Keep up with the times, you are referring to the old definition of a second.
The International System of Units now defines the second with respect to the Cesium atom.
An engineer would know to use the standard definitions of units, so that means you were never an engineer.
“Einsteins theory of relativity claims that time, based on a constant, and a length in space, can change as the velocity of a mass increases toward the speed of light. He derived that theory from a thought experiment and no on has ever proved it to be true.”
I would think there would be a fair amount of eagerness to find something which goes faster than speed of light.
Fame- and very useful.
Why don’t things go faster than speed of light?
One needs to be very careful here. The claim is that measured from a body, another body cannot exceed the speed of light.
In the universe jets of matter leaving a common center can often exceed the speed of light when measured tip to tip. Indeed photons leaving a star achieve twice the velocity of light when compared to each other and measured as a sphere across the diameter.
One needs to be very careful here. The claim is that measured from a body, another body cannot exceed the speed of light.
In the universe jets of matter leaving a common center can often exceed the speed of light when measured tip to tip. Indeed photons leaving a star achieve twice the velocity of light when compared to each other and measured as a sphere across the diameter.
How did that duplication happen? Strange.
“RLH says:
August 2, 2021 at 3:43 AM
One needs to be very careful here. The claim is that measured from a body, another body cannot exceed the speed of light.
In the universe jets of matter leaving a common center can often exceed the speed of light when measured tip to tip. Indeed photons leaving a star achieve twice the velocity of light when compared to each other and measured as a sphere across the diameter.”
Couldn’t just use two flashlights shining in opposite directions.
Or the Sun which shines in all directions.
Gordon Robertson at 8:17 PM
I never “claim[ed] to have a degree in physics” because I don’t, and that would be lying. I am a retired Engineer, and we never lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do.
Do you know the definition of a rigid body? If so, aren’t the examples you cite rigid bodies by definition? Are you implying that the Earth-Moon binary is a rigid body?
You say that “students in universities these days cannot think problems through for themselves,” that may be your experience. I, however, mentor young Engineers and every year am amazed at how well prepared they are. There’s some selection bias since I only hire top of the class students, but there is not a lot of difference between the top and bottom quartiles in third and fourth year Engineering students, other than work ethic.
TM misleads: “Are you implying that the Earth-Moon binary is a rigid body?”
TM, no one has implied Earth-Moon is a “rigid body”. That’s your attempt to pervert reality. That’s what you do.
Your cult is wrong so you must use any means including lying, cheating, stealing, and tolerating those that do. You oppose reality. You will not admit that the ball-on-a-string is not rotating about its CoM axis. You can’t admit that.
You’re no engineer. Real engineers must face reality.
So ball-on-a-string is not an attempt to create a soft (rather than rigid) body then ?
The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string demonstrates that in “orbital motion without axial rotation”, only one side faces the inside of the orbit. It’s the same motion as Moon.
All the “rigid-body” nonsense is just a distraction from reality.
“The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string demonstrates” that it only applies to a ball-on-a-string.
Yes RLH, you have NOTHING.
(Knowing that you will troll all day, I will not respond unless you have something relevant, accurate, and responsible.)
Ball-on-a-string is a stupid analogy that only shows how unscientific you are.
Clint R at 6:49 AM
I directed the question at Gordon Robertson at 8:17 PM, but since you appear to speak for him then, what is your definition of a rigid body?
Here’s mine:
TM, if you want me to teach you physics, you must first pass the prerequisite.
Is the ball-on-a-string rotating about its own axis, when being swung in a circle?
If you can’t answer that simple question correctly, then you can’t learn physics.
TM,
That’s not a definition of a rigid body, dummy.
Before you copy and paste from the internet, you need to read and comprehend the question.
If you wrote the question, but can’t even understand what you wrote, you should qualify as a climate expert.
Clint R at 7:50 AM and Swenson at 7:58 AM
I rest my case. Thanks!
TM, your “case” was “resting” from the start.
It was DOA.
That’s what happens when you can’t face reality.
Reality is not something you would recognize.
“They are told that the Moon rotates on its axis exactly once per orbit while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth.”
They are told that because it is the truth.
“Who needs a classical education to understand that a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a merry go round cannot turn about its COG/axis?”
Those who can think of the wooden horse as somehow being a separate part of the merry go round it is bolted to. Once it is bolted down it becomes part of that merry go round. Like a mountain of the surface of a planet has not got a COG for itself. It is just a lump on the surface like the rest is.
…and yet some of your fellow "Spinners" think the wooden horse, and even Mt. Everest, are rotating on their own axes. Will you argue with them?
Fly of into your own delusions all on your own. You do not need my help.
It is not my delusion that some of your fellow “Spinners” think the wooden horse is rotating on its own axis. You disagree with them, not me.
lost my post.
ken…”Here is link to Youtube video by Ivor Cummins …”
Interesting video but they are missing the point. The RNA-PCR test cannot tell covid from the flu, other diseases, stress, dead cels, and other common bodily dysfunction. It only tells you that the RNA strands detected in a nasal or throat swab came from somewhere in the body (duh!!!) but if the person has known issues, they can claim a causal relationship.
As applied, it is being presumed the tests are reacting to RNA from covid and there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support that. The inventor of the PCR method, the late Kary Mullis, was adamant that the PCR method could not be used to identify a virus or an infection, if the virus could not be isolated in the unamplified state.
Obviously, there would be no need for a PCR test if they had already isolated covid. They could simply take genetic material from it and compare it to nasal or throat samples.
The antigen tests are even worse. Antigens are produced by the immune system when it attacks a foreign invader, but the test cannot tell what the invader might be. Antigen’s don’t come with a little sign stating they represent a covid virus.
stephen…”This is the left folks. It is who they are. Disunion is coming.
***
Nothing to do with political left or right, this is about the politically-correct idiots who think they know what is best for everyone. Hitler without his black shirts to brutally enforce his edicts. These clowns are subverting democracy to appease their personal goals.
There are right-wingers involved, like the clowns in the Club of Rome. They believe that democracy cannot save the world and the only solution is one like China, where despots call the shots. Or, nutjobs like Soros.
Don’t kid yourself, the right is into this as much as the left.
Didn’t some bloke order riot police to clear the park in front of the White House so he could walk to a photo-op in front of a church?
I forget, was he Left or Right?
No some bloke did not order riot police to clear the park in front of the White House so that he could walk to a photo op in front of a church that had been vandalized in the rioting.
I would call the bloke you are accusing centrist; neither right nor left.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/09/protestors-cleared-outside-white-house-for-fence-not-trump-photo-op.html
“police violently cleared protesters from a park outside the White House last June to allow a contractor to install security fencing”
It’s the “violently cleared protesters” bit that gets me.
And why did the White House suddenly
need a security fence after 220 odd years without one?
The mob was vandalizing the church. A fence was needed.
Then why did they build it around the White House instead?
You have an odd concept of Centrist.
The political compass spectrum runs from the far Left at -100 to the far right at 100. Trump scores 85 and Biden 75.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020
By international standards even the Democratic Party is far Right.
When you get too far around the bend sinister everything looks as if its far right. That should be a red flag (complete with hammer and sickle) for you.
By any reasonable measure Trump is centrist.
Ken, Stephen
When I took the Political Compass get I scored -10, -10; slightly on the Libertarian Left side of centre.
Why not try it yourself and see how we compare.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Ken is a dormitive troglodyte.
If you respond to him, then good for ye!
FYEO:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=-7.25&soc=-3.64
You went to a leftist site that convinced you that you are right of them?
Do you still think that stretching the Overton window will prevent troglodytes from disappearing?
EM,
-0.25, -2.25 – Am I doomed to burn in Hell forever?
Some of the questions were a bit silly, weren’t they? It’s funny – some people think I am a bit to the right of Attila the Hun, others think I am to the left of Karl Marx.
Who cares?
E man,
You’re about as accurate in matters regarding Trump as you are with Climate Science.
Thank you.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Canadian Forces Station Alert recorded a temperature of 20 C on Sunday — meaning the military listening outpost at the top of Ellesmere Island was warmer than Victoria.
Environment Canada senior climatologist David Phillips says today’s temperature is likely to get even warmer.
Phillips says the “heat wave” is the equivalent of Toronto reaching a daytime high of 42 C — something that’s never happened.
It’s the latest in a series of what are considered in the Arctic to be sweltering temperatures.
Canadian Forces Station Alert recorded a temperature of 20 C on Sunday — meaning the military listening outpost at the top of Ellesmere Island was warmer than Victoria.
Environment Canada senior climatologist David Phillips says today’s temperature is likely to get even warmer.
Phillips says the “heat wave” is the equivalent of Toronto reaching a daytime high of 42 C — something that’s never happened.
It’s the latest in a series of what are considered in the Arctic to be sweltering temperatures.
Amateur forecasters catching up to La Nina cooling
https://youtu.be/XBtPz_i3Dgs
La Nina later on this year/early next year is not going to make temperatures rise.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
“A fierce cold snap prompted snowfall in southern Brazil, with snow accumulating on streets of cities where the wintry phenomenon is rarely seen. The last time a blizzard hit Brazil was in 1957, when 4.3 feet of snow was recorded in the Santa Catarina state.
At least 43 cities registered either snow or freezing rain late Wednesday, according to information from Climatempo, a weather service.”
https://news.yahoo.com/photos-show-snow-brazil-streets-155554547.html
You are equating 1/4″ of snow in 2021 with 4ft in 1957.
Don’t be silly!
“Temperatures are expected to keep dropping, with more snow possible.”
It’s not over yet.
Nothing to get excited about.
https://www.wunderground.com/hourly/br/s%C3%A3o-joaquim/date/2021-8-1
Not happened in over 60 years, so quite unusual.
We’re equating a blizzard in 1957 with a blizzard in 2021 … something that hasn’t happened in the intervening years.
https://www.livescience.com/32210-what-is-a-blizzard.html
1/4″ of snow does not a blizzard make.
You are being as silly as RLH.
… and what is even more silly: the Coolistas ignore the fact that this poor blizzarded corner is at an altitude of far over 1,000 m.
Reminds me these WUWT guys who tell us how cold it is in Germoney – with a hint of a weather station named ‘Zugspitze’ (3,000 m).
J.-P. D.
Figured out how to calculate the average temperature in a day yet?
“You wouldn’t expect Brazil to be the place to build a snowman, but for the first time in 64 years, the country’s streets have been overtaken by a rare winter phenomenon.”
64 years is quite a span.
I’m back after two weeks, and get immediately a big laugh about these Coolistas who don’t know that
– it’s deep winter in the SH (end of July is like end of January in the NH), even at places around 30S, places which of course no one can compare with those around 30N, due to the circumpolar currents in the SH;
-Sao Joaquim is ‘by accident’ the coldest place in whole Brazil.
Two days ago, they had 6 C (1 C at night).
In only ONE week, Sao Joaquim will come back to friendly 23 C, but no one will write about that.
A few years ago, Bolivia and Paraguay were hit by sudden, extremely cold air. Dozens of people died. Hardly anyone thought it worth mentioning.
Warmistas aren’t good people, but Coolistas are even worse.
J.-P. D.
You wouldnt expect Brazil to be the place to build a snowman, but for the first time in 64 years, the countrys streets have been overtaken by a rare winter phenomenon.
64 years is quite a span.
Figured out how to calculate a days temperature yet? Or are you still 0.75c out.
Snowfall in the southern highland states there is not an uncommon phenomenon, it happens much more often than once in half a century. Perhaps, snowfall heavy enough to make solidyhydrogenmonooxidepersons is unusual there, but the snowfall in principle is not a breaking news there, afaik. Except that nowdays, everything is.
Apparently make statements about extremes is unacceptable, unless they are of the hot variety.
That is correct. Just because warmista a lying by omission don’t mean denier should copy them.
Luckwarmistas are the wurst.
No. Idiots are.
No. U.
Yes we are, ’cause we’re the only people in this discourse who are not frenzied zealots. At least some of us =) not me though.
Luckwarmers are totally incoherent, however, for they tout more uncertainty and a lower sensitivity range at the same time.
For more on the prehistory, check the comments:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/03/09/lukewarmers/
I’m sure that Roy will take your arguments to heart and change his viewpoint immediately.
Roy is too caught up in his fight for Freeedoooom, dummy, whereas you…
Have to deal with idiots like you.
No, dummy. U are.
My little finger tells me that the string genius who so nicely informed us about Greenland being hit by huge snow masses
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20210718.png
very probably won’t tell us about the same corner looking now a tiny bit different, due to huge melting:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20210731.png
Warmistas arent good people, but Coolistas are even worse.
J.-P. D.
My little finger tells me that people who cannot accurately calculate average temperatures in a day are not ones to criticize.
rlh…”My little finger tells me that people who cannot accurately calculate average temperatures in a day are not ones to criticize”.
***
Ah, good…you’re onto Binny.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Unseasonable warmth across the north and interior of Australia has made a last-minute dash to break numerous July heat records on the last day of the month.
hot airmass building across the northern half of Australia has been drawn into southern parts of the Northern Territory, western and central Queensland, and western NSW over the last few days. This heat culminated to a record-breaking day on the final day of the month, with numerous stations recording their hottest July day on record, some notable records include:
30.5°C at Charleville (Maranoa, QLD, 79 years of record-keeping)
31.8°C at Alice Springs Ap (NT, 79 years)
26.2°C at Cobar (Upper Western, NSW, 59 years)
35.1°C at Jervois (Alice Springs, NT, 52 years) t
37.2°C at Victoria River Downs (Victoria River, NT, 49 years)
36.3°C at Jabiru (Darwin-Daly, NT, 42 years)
36.2°C at McArthur River (Roper-McArthur, NT, 39 years)
26.6°C at Leigh Creek (NE Pastoral, SA, 37 years)
36.8°C at Kununurra Ap (Kimberley, WA, 32 years}
https://m.weatherzone.com.au/news/late-july-record-breaking-heat-across-the-north-and-interior-/534701
Does Whacky Wee Willy realise that the BOM ignores the WMO guidance on maximum temperature report?
Since the introduction of AWS, abandoning the use of mercury-in-glass thermometers, a positive torrent of record high temperatures have been recorded. The BOM states it does not have to follow WMO standards, and insists that everyone else should install instruments with fast response times, capable of responding to momentary heat events, natural or man made, in the vicinity.
In conjunction with declaring all temperature records pre-1910 as “unreliable”. (abolishing the 1896-97 heat wave), BOM temperature data needs to be carefully scrutinised.
Gullible idiots like Witless Wee Willy are un likely to be aware of the BOM’s “updated” methods.
I await with bated breath the BOM applying consistency, and declaring all prior temperatures taken with mercury-in-glass thermometers “unreliable”.
[muted laughter]
Mike Flynn, mirific fabulator.
Woeful Wee Willy.
Four words, three mistakes. I admit to being mirific..
Of course, you have no real choice but to agree with the facts expresed in my comment.
No doubt you have checked for yourself. Or maybe you are such a gullible wee dummy that you didn’t!
Which is it, dummy?
Mike Flynn,
Weve been there already:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-749725
Why do you keep denying being Mike Flynn?
Ta.
Delusional Wee Willy,
Because I”m not?
You are so stupid, really! Why is “Mike Flynn” so important to you?
You haven’t figured it out yet, have you dummy?
Carry on being a delusional idiot. It suits you.
Mike Flynn, Most Flimsy.
willard…”hot airmass building across the northern half of Australia has been drawn into southern parts of the Northern Territory, western and central Queensland, and western NSW over the last few days”
***
The top of Australia is nearly at the Equator, you ninny. Equatorial regions get very hot. When hot air gets sucked down from the Equator it’s like the Arctic air we experience being sucked down from the Arctic. Actually, from the stratosphere.
The conditions described above are La Nina weather patterns. Australia is on the extreme eastern end of the ENSO system.
It’s weather, Willard, every so often you get extremes.
It is winter in Australia, Gordo.
I was wondering: where did you work as an engineer?
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 4 days
2021 total: 50 days (23%)
2020 total: 208 days (57%)
https://www.spaceweather.com/
And earlier spotless:
2019 total: 281 days (77%)
2018 total: 221 days (61%)
2017 total: 104 days (28%)
2016 total: 32 days (9%)
2015 total: 0 days (0%)
2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
2013 total: 0 days (0%)
2012 total: 0 days (0%)
2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
2008 total: 268 days (73%)
2007 total: 152 days (42%)
2006 total: 70 days (19%)
Will 2021 have more spotless days?
Is next month going to be about the same as last month, or
a drop or rise?
I meant next month UAH global temperature.
So, what is fastest trajectory to Mars?
Googling: “What is fastest trajectory to Mars” is only somewhat helpful.
Of course where you start from matters. Earth surface, LEO or some other orbit around Earth.
Or if start from some orbit around Venus.
Generally and in many ways, some orbit around Venus is faster than some orbit around Earth. And if want go fastest generally starting from some orbit around Earth should be faster than launching from the Earth’s surface.
But starting from anywhere closer to the Sun, than Earth has a faster trajectory to Mars.
I didn’t see anyone mentioning this from a google search.
One thing I got was the mention of New Horizon [which launched from Earth surface to Pluto {and is going beyond this].
“The fastest spacecraft launched from Earth was NASA’s New Horizons mission, which visited Pluto in 2015. In January 2006, the probe left Earth at 36,000 mph (58,000 kph). If such a probe traveled in a straight line to Mars, the time it would take to get to Mars would be:
Closest possible approach: 942 hours (39 days)
Closest recorded approach: 967 hours (41 days)”
Flew past Mars in 41 days which isn’t really trajectory to Mars but is trajectory flies near Mars. And there is a huge delta-v difference if you want to enter Mars orbit or land on it surface.
Though if want to crash into Mars at high velocity, the explosive impact is that huge delta-v difference- or very similar to how space rock “land” on Mars.
The way you approach Mars so there isn’t so much difference in delta-v to planet Mars is to use what is called a hohmann transfer or hohmann planetary transfer.
New Horizon was doing a solar system escape hohmann transfer which crossed a location near planet Mars.
And hohmann transfer from Earth to Mars uses least amount of rocket power to get to Mars distance from the Sun when you start from Earth distance from the Sun. And it also takes long pathway to Mars from Earth.
Since both Earth and Mars are changing their distance from sun as orbit the sun, it’s a bit complicated. Or such long pathway can shorter or longer. Over the years one get a time when long pathway is the shortest [but it’s a large variation} and one use less or more of delta-v needed [but again it’s not a large variation- but it could amount to a difference of say 100 kg to payload, though when paying 30K per kg of payload and there a limit to mass of the payload size, one might say it’s a important difference.
From Venus [because it’s closer to sun] the long pathway of hohmann transfer to Mars is much shorter.
To illustrate this, lets look at something flying close the Sun, the Parker Solar Probe:
2021:
January 17, 2021: Perihelion #7
February 20, 2021: Venus Flyby #4
April 29, 2021: Perihelion #8
August 9, 2021: Perihelion #9
October 16, 2021: Venus Flyby #5
November 21, 2021: Perihelion #10
http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/The-Mission/index.php
So, in 8 days it’s be in perihelion for 9th time and in about 2 1/2 month it will be flying near past Venus, then back to perihelion in about little more than a month. Or less 4 months to orbit the sun.
Now it can’t and no reason to do it, but a spacecraft could add delta-v to such an orbit when at Perihelion and raise it’s Aphelion so at Mars distance from the Sun.
And guess, the 4 month year would become about 6 month year, or from Perihelion to Mars distance it should take less than 3 month. Then going fall into sun and reach much higher velocity, and zoom by earth, Venus and Mercury much faster.
And of the 6 month year most of the time will be spend going past Earth, reaching Mars distant and then passing Earth orbit, again.
Or with Parker Solar Probe, it spend about 1/2 of it’s time, passing Mercury distance and passing Venus distance and crossing Mercury distance again or the speed around the sun is crazy fast.
And with year of about 6 month, it going large portion of 6 months, when passes Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, and back down to reaching again Mercury distance, that will take about 5 of the 6 months year orbit, but about 3 months pasting across earth, and crossing again at Earth distance.
And getting to such trajectory from Earth, is “hard” but instead arriving at Mars with high velocity you getting there at slow velocity and travelling a short pathway to Mars.
But is dramatic example of why going from Venus [closer to the Sun] is shorter pathway to Mars as compared to from Earth.
maguff…”We need a better class of deniers on this site; someone who can make a coherent argument complete with citations that we can sink our teeth into.
Here’s an example of a higher level denier’s argument from the Chemical Engineers site which although wrong can at least be debated quantitatively:”
***
You’re too stupid to understand a coherent, scientific argument. They have been presented to you by me on the Ideal Gas Law and you failed to respond with a coherent argument. You are so stupid that you quote an engineer yet fail to link to his argument, while crossing out names in his quote.
You can’t even understand that a rigid body bolted to a platform cannot rotate about a local axis/COG.
You fail to understand that once bolted down, the part ceases to be independent and becomes part of the whole and thus rotates around a common central axis.
The Moon is not bolted to the Earth. Therefore anything you say about rigid (or even loosely) connected bodies does not apply to the Moon or other things connected by gravity.
Some of your fellow “Spinners” disagree with you, RLH. They think the wooden horse, even bolted down, is still rotating on its own axis. Just thought I would point that out, since “Spinner” will never argue against “Spinner”, even though they so often disagree.
Your delusions do not a reality make.
It is not my delusion that some of your fellow “Spinners” think the wooden horse is rotating on its own axis. You disagree with them, not me.
willard…”Canadian Forces Station Alert recorded a temperature of 20 C on Sunday — meaning the military listening outpost at the top of Ellesmere Island was warmer than Victoria”.
***
Willard sinks deeper into an idiotic state. Unable to chew gum while typing his shoelaces.
The hot air came across the pond from Europe. It’s weather, Willard. Parts of Nunavit have hit the mid-30C range in the past, while that rarely happens in Victoria, about 2000 miles to the south.
You’ll notice…maybe…that your article fails to state a year from which their claimed record is based. The alarmist cheaters have taken to declaring records from 1960 onward, completely omitting the hottest decade in the US and Canada by far, 1936.
correction,,,whereas it’s not beyond Willard to do something dumb, like typing his shoe laces, it should have read ‘tying his shoelaces’.
Nationwide records began in 1948, Gordo.
willard…”Nationwide records began in 1948, Gordo”.
***
Convenient, right after the hottest decade on record, in the US and Canada,the 1930s.
Tin foil is not better than porkies, Gordo.
Try to apply your engineering skills:
https://climate.weather.gc.ca/historical_data/search_historic_data_e.html
Willard, please stop trolling.
rlh…”Those who can think of the wooden horse as somehow being a separate part of the merry go round it is bolted to. Once it is bolted down it becomes part of that merry go round”.
***
The horse still cannot rotate around its own COG/axis.
You’re missing the point, however, just as you are still missing the point that the Moon cannot rotate through 360 degrees about its COG/local axis while keeping the same side pointed to the Earth.
Even NASA has conceded this point but they are sticking to their incorrect claim that it is rotating wrt the stars, which are their reference frame. I don’t think a NASA engineer would miss what I am getting at but the PR types trying to keep up the myth obviously would. It would be huge for NASA to admit they were wrong.
I have already tried to draw your attention to a very practical example of the same motion. An airliner flying around the Equator while maintaining an altitude of 35,000 cannot rotate about its COG/nose-tail axis, or it would crash. If it rotates 360 degrees in any direction it will crash. Yet the nose-tail axis of the airliner changes through every direction of the compass, wrt the stars, while orbiting at 35,000 feet.
I don’t understand why you in particular can’t see this. The airliner orbit is the same as the lunar orbit since they are both held in orbit by gravity. Whereas the Moon has its own linear momentum the airliner momentum’s is supplied by its motors while its wings maintain altitude.
If a road could be constructed around the Equator, and the airliner was able to taxi around the Equator, it’s motion would be recognized as translation, without rotation. When it’s flying at 35,000 feet the motion is still translation without rotation.
Come on, RLH, I’m counting on you to get this.
“Moon cannot rotate through 360 degrees about its COG/local axis while keeping the same side pointed to the Earth.”
Is does just that. Despite your attempts to claim otherwise.
rlh…from GR…Moon cannot rotate through 360 degrees about its COG/local axis while keeping the same side pointed to the Earth.
Is does just that. Despite your attempts to claim otherwise.
…
I have laid it out for you in very simply scientific terms yet you cannot offer the slightest of rebuttals. Let’s see some science to prove your allegation that the Moon rotates about its axis through 360 degrees. Where is its momentum about the alleged axis? If such a momentum existed, the Moon could not keep the same face pointed at the Earth. The moment it turned, the face would point away from the Earth.
Or is your appeal to authority so strong you cannot question the delusion?
Gordo wrote more nonsense again:
An airliner is NOT ORBITING, it’s FLYING. The engines supply thrust to overcome drag and provide lift. Shut down the engines and the momentum continues moving the aircraft forward but, without lift, it falls out of the sky into the ground. The aircraft must operate within the atmosphere and it’s slow rotation as it circles the Earth is the result of the pilot’s efforts to maintain altitude.
swannie…”An airliner is NOT ORBITING, its FLYING. The engines supply thrust to overcome drag and provide lift”.
***
Your understanding of aircraft is about as abysmal as your understanding of the 2nd law.
No, Swannie the motor thrust does not supply lift, it is the wings supplying the lift. Remove the wings and see how long the plane keeps flying. You cannot change
The motors supply linear momentum or acceleration, pushing the wings through the air. That causes a pressure differential between the underside of the wings and the upper sides. Therefore the wing lifts, taking the fuselage with it.
However, without gravity, the plane would continue to fly in a straight line and fly off into space. It is gravity that causes the planes linear momentum to be altered into an orbital path, therefore the plane is orbiting if it maintains 35,000 feet right around the Equator.
That’s exactly the case with the Moon.
And, no…the pilot does not adjust for altitude unless he hits air pockets that cause the plane to drop. I am talking about an ideal condition where no such adjustments have to be made. A plane flying at 35,000 feet that encounters no need to adjust for altitude would be held in an orbital path by gravity.
If he puts the plane in autopilot, there is nothing in the autopilot to adjust for the curvature of the Earth. No need for it since gravity takes care of that.
maguff…”I am a retired Engineer….
Do you know the definition of a rigid body? If so, arent the examples you cite rigid bodies by definition? Are you implying that the Earth-Moon binary is a rigid body?”
***
I am referring to the Moon itself as a uniform rigid body, a sphere, where it’s COG is considered to be the centre of the sphere.
Sorry I called you stupid in another post, did not realize you are an engineer, never mind retired. Had you visualized as someone right out of university with his head full of theory.
As an engineer, you should be able to follow my reasoning re tangent lines and radial lines. Unless of course you majored in agricultural engineering. Even at that, where I studied engineering, each student, no matter his/her desired specialty, had to take a general first year curriculum where advanced physics and math were covered thoroughly, applied via problems sets.
My thing about the Moon comes from portions of my physics class in dynamics where we actually worked on orbital problems and had to be able to calculate a means of getting a space vehicle into orbit around a planet, given its approach speed. We had to calculate how long to fire retros to slow the craft enough to enter an orbit at a certain altitude.
If you have a rigid, uniform body like the Moon orbiting a planet, it angular velocity is that of a rotating radial line from the centre of the Earth through the Moon’s centre. Some posting here have mistakenly reasoned that a point on the far side of the Moon is orbiting faster than a particle on the inside. That does not matter with a rigid, uniform sphere, it’s the angular velocity of the COM that counts.
If the Moon orbits in 27.3 days, it doesn’t matter a whit that outside particles are moving faster than inside particles, with a rigid body, they must all orbit in the same time. Otherwise, the body would fall apart.
It’s crucial to understand this property of a rigid body. The fact that each particle on the Moon on a radial line from Earth’s centre, passing through the Moon, is orbiting in the same time. The angular velocity of the rigid body is the number of radians per second covered by the radial line. The fact that each particle moves at a different local speed is a property of the constant angular velocity. Those individual speeds are irrelevant to the angular velocity of the radial line.
However, if you consider a vector at each point perpendicular to the radial line, each vector represents the instantaneous tangential velocity of that vector moving around a circle. So each point represents a concentric circle with each vector its tangent at any point.
Note that the vectors are pointing in a different direction each instant but they are not rotating about the centre of the Moon. They are, in fact, performing translation without rotation.
NASA and all engineers and scientists concerned with orbital calculation seek to differ I suggest. They will tell you that the Moon rotates once on its axis for each revolution of its orbit it takes around the Earth.
They teach that in all University and School classes that deal with such things. Are all the teachers wrong? All the engineers? All the scientists?
rlh…”NASA and all engineers and scientists concerned with orbital calculation seek to differ I suggest. They will tell you that the Moon rotates once on its axis for each revolution of its orbit it takes around the Earth”.
***
You’re a more intelligent person than someone needing to appeal to authority. However, I did write to NASA and they replied. They did not refute the evidence I supplied with radial lines and tangent lines, all they did was claim they based their theory wrt the stars.
When I wrote back and claimed that a body that is not rotating about its axis in one reference frame is not rotating in any other reference frame, they did not reply.
You cannot use the stars as a reference frame to prove the Moon is rotating about a local axis. All the stars can provide is a reference frame that the Moon is continually pointing in another direction in a relatively circular orbit while keep the same face pointed at the Earth.
Translations explains that, local rotation cannot.
Re your other authority figures, in electrical engineering all text books still claim electrical current flows from positive to negative, an impossibility. All professors teach that in class, and they are all wrong.
The basis of electrical current flow is the electron. It is a tiny particle with mass that carries a negative electric charge. A negative charge can only flow from an area of higher negative electric charge to an area of lower negative charge, often called a positive area when used in reference. In other words if an electron current flows trough a resistor, the resistor end where the current enters is marked negative and where it exists is marked positive.
The basis of the textbooks and the lectures is convention. They have taught it that way since about 1925 and they have formed a paradigm that is incorrect. They would rather stick with their damned convention than tell the truth.
In semiconductor theory, they talk about hole flow. When an electron leaves a position in a semiconductor, it leaves a hole. That’s because semiconductors are pieces of silicon doped with with an element that will create an excess of electrons or a dearth of them. If the silicon has an excess of electrons it is called an N-type and if it has a dearth of them it is called a P-type.
These holes are references to area vacated by an electron in the valence bands of atoms. When the electron leaves, there is nothing there till another electron comes along and fills it. As that happens, the hole keep moving in the opposite direction.
A hole is a hole, it is an empty space. Empty spaces cannot flow anywhere, they don’t exist!!!! However, Schockley, who developed the theory of holes in semiconductors claimed he introduced the concept to help visualize current flow in P-type devices. That was in the 1930s but they retain that concept as a paradigm, teaching modern students that holes exist as a current flow.
Lies!!!
Being Scottish, I refused to accept the model and I developed my own means of visualizing what is going on from the perspective of the electron. My method has served me well and I don’t have to use the word hole in reference to a semiconductor.
BTW…my method is the one sued in electronics theory outside of the university environment. An electrical engineering student is taught that current flows from positive to negative and when he gets into the real world, doing projects for the electronics industry, he has to think negative to positive. Electronics textbooks use the negative to positive convention. I have studied in both fields, that’s how I know.
If you have ever seen an electric/electron schematic, it shows diodes and transistor with arrows representing the direction of hole flow. I treat the current as running in the opposite direction of the arrow and everything works fine.
Sometimes they teach pure bs at university.
ps. I claimed professor teach the conventional positive theory and they are wrong. That is not just my opinion, the professors I talked to admit it is a convention and not a reality. They also admitted that if you reverse the direction, while keeping the signs consistent, the results are the same. So, why not teach it correctly in the first place?
Have to be careful when you employ authority figures.
Gordo insists on posting incorrect physics again:
The stars provide an absolute reference called an inertial reference frame. Your failure to comprehend the difference between translation, such as the velocity required to achieve an orbit, with rotation of the rigid body once in orbit, displays a profound misunderstanding of space vehicle dynamics.
NASA’s got it right, since they do the calculations for a living and failure to understanding dynamics is not an excuse. Give it up, fool!
Sorry for the typo, Should have written “NASA”, not MASA.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
” My little finger tells me that people who cannot accurately calculate average temperatures in a day are not ones to criticize. ”
A first hint I hope you’ll understand, RLH:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r01_21SL4ArLalUT8ZI5Ri-5uZa1ILQX/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wXGnIG3yL5M1nQrEAfx3n-InXFvlyGrA/view
Do you get it? I’m not quite sure.
More on Mr Spencer’s next thread…
J.-P. D.
Have you managed to make your calculation for a daily average temperature from the hourly data meet the USCRN figures for a day then? Previously you hadn’t.
I thought that at least you would have done a quality check on your figures with the source itself. You hadn’t.
USCRN calculate their monthly/daily/hourly/5min data from the same source information. Their near continuous sampling at 10 second intervals. They accumulate that into longer and longer datasets which they then publish.
If you believe that they are incapable of doing that accurately for their daily figures I think you ought to get onto them and tell them that they are inaccurate. I am sure they will be pleased to know.
” Have you managed to make your calculation for a daily average temperature from the hourly data meet the USCRN figures for a day then? ”
Do you mean I would have changed my evaluation of their hourly data in order to get it looking like their daily data?
This, RLH, is once more a typical proof of your mix of incompetence and dishonesty: you see on the two charts exactly the same data as I have shown nearly two weeks ago:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XUlrPKr9BPoQPzjZjoZMnvfhru3MGhnA/view
*
You are the one who is not able to generate data out of the entire USCRN sources; but that you would never admit.
Until now, you produced nothing else than data coming from single station sources: i.e., absolutely trivial work.
J.-P. D.
“Do you mean I would have changed my evaluation of their hourly data in order to get it looking like their daily data?”
Are you saying that USCRN cannot calculate the daily figure accurately? Even though the monthly/daily/hourly/5min figures are directly derived from the same 10 second sampling and then down sampled to provide the above?
USCRN should be informed immediately that they are in error.
” Are you saying that USCRN cannot calculate the daily figure accurately? ”
One more time, this usual mix of incompetence and dishonesty.
Why are you permanently insinuating I would claim that the CRN team would not be able to calculate this or that?
I NEVER thought that, RLH, let alone would I claim it, and you perfectly know that.
But people like you all behave in the same way: they prefer to discredit using cheap polemic instead of contradicting using data.
*
If you were a honest and competent person, you would publish the same as what I did, i.e. a graph showing, e.g. for the CRN station NM_Carrizozo_1W during its entire working period, the differences between
– your daily average of its hourly CRN data
and
– your direct processing of its daily CRN data
and upload the time series of the differences between the two.
You could then show us on this blog how big the differences are for e.g.
2009, Oct 27
2009, Oct 28
instead of permanently writing your unduly insinuations.
Stop sneaking around, RLH, and start working.
J.-P. D.
Just to be clear, you do know the difference between LST_DATE and UTC_DATE don’t you?
“Why are you permanently insinuating I would claim that the CRN team would not be able to calculate this or that?”
Well if you can find a difference between their Daily average figure and the sum of their Hourly figures averaged what else am I suppose to conclude?
” Well if you can find a difference between their Daily average figure and the sum of their Hourly figures averaged what else am I suppose to conclude? ”
For example, the fact that you aren’t courageous enough to do the same job, because you then you would have to admit that my evaluations are absolutely correct.
I know: you won’t do the job, RLH.
You are such a coward.
J.-P. D.
And you are such an arrogant twat. You constantly suggest that I do not have the data I have. That I am unable to do relatively simple calculations. That I cannot draw graphs. That I am unable to do things in C# that you are able to do with command line tools.
In fact, that I can do anything that you can do at all. You are a god. I should bow down to your superiority. Etc.
If you genuinely believe that the average figures for daily, hourly and sub-hourly data do not deliver the same numbers, then I await the conversation with you and USCRN as to who is correct and why.
As I have said on many, many occasions:
The differences between Average and ‘mean’ I take from the daily output which they provide directly and my median calculations from the hourly output and difference that to the daily Average from above.
Do you dispute that those are reasonable choices?
I could switch to using the sub-hourly (5min) data for medians if that would satisfy your cravings.
rlh…”The Moon is not bolted to the Earth. Therefore anything you say about rigid (or even loosely) connected bodies does not apply to the Moon or other things connected by gravity”.
…
The reason we brought in the example of the wooden horse bolted to the floor of the MGR was to create a model of the Moon orbiting the Earth with the same face pointed to the Earth. That’s what the horse represents, a rigid body orbiting a central axis with the same face pointed toward the axis.
I know the mechanics between the two are not the same and that’s why I introduced the airliner orbiting the Equator at 35,000 feet. The mechanics between the Moon and the airliner are much closer, in fact, almost identical. If you don’t like it flying at 35,000 feet, land it on a landing strip that goes, somehow, right around the Equator. While it taxis around the Equator it is performing exactly the same kind of translation, with no local rotation.
The difference between the two is that the Moon orbits where the atmosphere offers no resistance, hence no opposition to the Moon’s linear momentum. The airliner does have considerable resistance to its momentum, presuming it is moving at a constant linear velocity. It’s motors serve to overcome that resistance and they can produce only a linear force.
You need to get it that an airliner is always flying in a straight line if maintaining 35,000 feet. the pilot does not have to keep adjusting the nose of the plane to account for the curvature of the Earth, that is done automatically by gravity. Gravity performs exactly the same action on the Moon, which is also moving only in a straight line.
The Moon cannot turn on the curvature of an orbital path by itself, it has only linear momentum. It is gravity that continually adjusts the Moon’s linear path incrementally into an orbit. The entire action is translation, the same translation as a rigid body moving in a straight line from A to B. Think of the motion as a series of instantaneous straight line pointing in slightly different directions each instant.
Neither can the Moon rotate about its axis. There is no velocity/momentum about its axis (or a turning force…torque).
“The Moon cannot turn on the curvature of an orbital path by itself, it has only linear momentum. It is gravity that continually adjusts the Moons linear path incrementally into an orbit.”
Agreed. That would mean that the Moon would then face a fixed star at all times. It does not. That means that it must rotate around its own axis once per orbit.
The ball-on-a-string destroys your nonsense, RLH.
The ball always faces the inside of the orbit, like Moon. That’s what “orbital motion without axial rotation” looks like.
Now extend your ball-on-a-string nonsense to be a ball-on-a-string-with-a-frictionless-bearing-at-the-centers-of-both-objects-where-the-string-attaches-to and tell me then where the force required to make the Moon always face the Earth as opposed to a fixed star comes from.
This allows the Earth (at least) to rotate around its own axis at a speed that is different to the Moon’s orbit (which it clearly does).
RLH, your lame distractions don’t work. You couldn’t solve the simple problem about “gravitational torque”. You don’t have a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
You’ve got NOTHING.
You’re just another useless idiot, trolling because you don’t have a life.
And you are just a flat earth style idiot who believes that the rest of science has got it wrong and you and your small clique are the only ones who understand the true nature of Moon/Earth interactions.
Wrong RLH. You don’t understand any of the science. That’s why you have to claim things that aren’t true. You can’t accept reality.
(Since you will be trolling all day, I won’t respond unless you have something relevant, accurate, and responsible.)
“Wrong RLH. You dont understand any of the science.”
I understand the science quite well. It is you who do not. As all other scientists agree. Evan at NASA.
Even at NASA. I’m not sure about Evan, he may well be there too.
“The Moon cannot turn on the curvature of an orbital path by itself, it has only linear momentum. It is gravity that continually adjusts the Moons linear path incrementally into an orbit. The entire action is translation, the same translation as a rigid body moving in a straight line from A to B.”
All that is true, but notice you mention only the Moon’s PATH, that is caused to curve by gravity.
There is no mention of ORIENTATION. Because you seem to realize that orientation has to do with Rotation, which is independent of the path an object takes.
An object can follow a path thru space with rotation or without rotation, because rotation and translation are independent.
“rotation and translation are independent.”
Agreed.
Some people do not seem to grasp that when looking at our Earth from a point on the Sun (if that was technically possible), they would say the same about Earth as what they say about the Moon when looking at it from Earth.
They would say: “Neither can the Earth rotate about its axis. ”
*
In the years 1748 and 1749, the German astronomer (and math crack) Tobias Mayer observed various craters on the Moon and noted their apparent positions on the Moon’s disk as viewed from Earth.
And being an all time admired specialist in spherical trigonometry, he was able to successively transform this apparent, Earth-relative data into a selenocentric, Earth-independent coordinate system, what allowed him to compute
– the inclination of the lunar rotation axis wrt the Ecliptic
– the lunar rotation period
and
– the exact lunar coordinates of all the craters he had observed.
The last point is of course the origin of Mayer’s excellent Lunar Cartography…
*
Of course it wouldn’t be a problem for me to translate Mayer’s 130 pages long treatise into English.
But… what would that huge amount of work be for? It would be denigrated anyway by the usual denialists.
*
Denying such results is at the same mental level as denying Earth’s spherical shape. This disease is named ‘Flatearthism’.
*
The spin of celestial bodies is, like their orbiting around greater bodies, a basic feature of each young star’s accretion disk.
No celestial body can achieve a stable orbiting without spinning. Even Pluto and Charon have both a residual spin.
J.-P. D.
"Some people do not seem to grasp that when looking at our Earth from a point on the Sun (if that was technically possible), they would say the same about Earth as what they say about the Moon when looking at it from Earth.
They would say: “Neither can the Earth rotate about its axis. ”"
No, they wouldn’t, and that conclusively proves that you don’t understand the "Non-Spinner" position.
Bindidon, looking at Earth from Sun, you would see Earth rotating, because it IS rotating. But, looking at Moon from Earth, we see Moon is NOT rotating, because it is NOT rotating.
I predict idiots will not understand this simple concept.
Wrong, Clint R
From the Sun you would indeed see Earth rotating because it rotates about 27 times faster than does the Moon.
You can’t see the Moon rotating, Clint R. That is simply impossible for human eyes.
Mayer (1749) and Calamé (1976) computed nearly identical values for Moon’s rotation period, with the same five digits after the decimal point: 27.32166 days.
How could anybody see anything rotating so slowly, when it orbits at the same speed it rotates?
*
Nobody needs to predict idiots will not understand this even simpler concept, Clint R: It is sufficient to consider the present.
Maybe one day you will manage to escape from your coward corner, go to some Observatory, and look at the reality you deny.
J.-P. D.
That’s correct Bindidon, you can’t see Moon rotating. And, that’s because it is NOT rotating.
You don’t need to go to some observatory to verify. Moon always faces the inside of its orbit.
(Your “experts” likely did not understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating”.)
“Moon always faces the inside of its orbit.”
Why?
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Warmest summer on record for the Northern Hemisphere
Record breaking heat aided the rapid depletion of Arctic Sea Ice.
The annual minimum sea ice extent is usually around the middle of September.
2020 was the second lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record; just shy of the 2012 minimum
by 350,000 square kilometres (about the size of Germany).
https://scottduncanwx.com/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-2020/
I rarely visit this part of a long thread but it is fascinating to observe those who inhabit the bottom of such a rancid dumpster. The deniers are particularly rodent-like.
Yes, I have noticed that about you deniers of reality.
prof p …”I rarely visit this part of a long thread”
***
1)We’re happy not to have you
2)you lack the attention span and comprehension to follow a long thread.
Gordon Robertson at 1:23 AM
Based on that dissertation I hereby confer upon you the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Cargo Cult Science in recognition for utmost unfathomable pinheadery.
TM, that term was originated by Richard Feynman. It was purposely intended for those that deny reality, like you.
Got a model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”, yet?
TM,
“Climate science” is a fine example of Cargo Cult Science. Nobody can manage to provide a useful description of the magical GHE, nor describe where it might be observed and measured.
You might have missed the fact that the Earth’s surface has cooled from it’s initial molten state. Nothing stopped this cooling.
You are delusional, stupid, ignorant or gullible – possibly all of them.
You can’t even describe this supposed GHE, can you? Apart from saying it has nothing to do with greenhouses, and has no effect on anything that can actually be distinguished from normal physical processes.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
The setup that led to the intense heat across southeastern Europe included a strong area of high pressure in the upper levels of the atmosphere that has remained over the Balkans, allowing a heat dome to form, according to AccuWeather Meteorologist Alyssa Smithmyer.
Much of eastern Europe had temperatures average 5-10 degrees F (3-6 degrees C) above normal for the month of July. During this time, parts of southern Greece and southwest Turkey reported no rainfall.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/record-heat-bakes-greece-as-wildfires-ravage-turkey/992654
Will Most Flimsy Mike Flynn finally get his Doritos?
Tune in tomorrow!
Weather Reporter Wee Willy avoids climate altogether.
Copies and pastes woke form of US meteorological weather report.
“Heat dome”? For a wry smile (or a good laugh, depending on preferences), look at NOAA –
“A heat dome occurs when the atmosphere traps hot ocean air like a lid or cap.”, accompanied by a multi-coloured graphic showing, not the ocean, but the continental US!
Pseudoscientific attempt at explanation –
“Imagine a swimming pool when the heater is turned on temperatures rise quickly in the areas surrounding the heater jets, while the rest of the pool takes longer to warm up.” Or imagine the climate cranks at NOAA trying to get more funds for “Predicting Ecological Change”.
US taxpayers must be a simple lot. Pity.
Mike Flynn, my Mediocre Fool,
Weather is the realization.of climate.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Woeful Wee Willy,
Weather is the average of past weather, dummy!
No wonder climate crackpots appear stupid and ignorant – they are!
Mike Flynn,
You say
Weather is the average of weather
Magnificient fiasco!
Willard, please stop trolling.
maguff…” Gordon Robertson at 1:23 AM
Based on that dissertation I hereby confer upon you the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Cargo Cult Science ”
***
Anything but offer a scientific rebuttal. And you claim to be mentoring engineering students.
A typical rebuttal from alarmists, “it’s true because NASA says it’s true”.
rlh…”Agreed. That would mean that the Moon would then face a fixed star at all times. It does not. That means that it must rotate around its own axis once per orbit”.
***
Noooooo!!! If the Moon is moving with an instantaneous velocity toward a distant star, and gravity moves it slightly away from the star direction it is now pointing to the left of the star if the orbit is CCW. Instant by instant, the Moon’s linear velocity will point in different directions.
Back to the radial line extending from Earth’s centre and extending through the Moon. We draw the lunar velocity vector perpendicular to the radial line at the centre of mass of the Moon. It is pointing at the star. In the next instant, the radial line has turned slightly and the vector is still perpendicular to the radial line but no longer pointing at the star.
That description, by definition, describes translation without rotation. If the Moon was moving with a linear velocity while rotating, it would be impossible for it to keep the same face pointed at the Earth.
Why is the vector no longer pointing to the star but remaining perpendicular to the radial line? When you have a velocity vector perpendicular to a force vector, there has to be a resultant motion. An instant later, the resultant is expressed as a change of direction.
Go on, draw the radial line with the perpendicular velocity vector and watch the result as the Moon/radial line rotate about the Earth’s centre. Better still, for visualization, use two coins. Drawn the radial line from the centre of the stationary coin through the centre of the moving coin and always keep the radial line straight as the moving coin moves.
You cannot keep it straight if the Moon rotates about its centre. You have to slide the moving coin while adjusting it to keep the radial line straight. That’s what gravity does, it adjusts the direction of the velocity vector.
The fact that the vector is always perpendicular to the radial line explains why the near side always points at the Earth. It also explains why it is impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis. A similar vector representing the near side must always remain parallel to the other vector.
Why you guys cannot see this simple fact suggests strongly that your minds are set to the authority belief and you are refusing to allow your mind to see it.
I’ll bet you have difficulty in the morning seeing the Sun wrt the horizon. You likely see the Sun moving whereas it’s the horizon moving. Same at night. The horizon moves up to meet the Sun then it covers it. The Sun appears to rise and set but it doesn’t.
“If the Moon is moving with an instantaneous velocity toward a distant star, and gravity moves it slightly away from the star direction it is now pointing to the left of the star if the orbit is CCW.”
Its ORBIT changes as you describe. Not its orientation. Gravity will not cause things to change their orientation if they are spherical.
willard…”Much of eastern Europe had temperatures average 5-10 degrees F (3-6 degrees C) above normal for the month of July”.
***
If you care to look at Roy’s new post for July, you’ll see, on the linked contour map, that the heat existed over very small areas of the planet like Europe and the Pacific NW of NA.
The rest of the planet was unaffected. Your propaganda about northern Australia was wrong, the map shows cooling over 9/10ths of Oz.
Local weather, Willard.
Gordo,
Make yourself useful for a change: link to Roys graph.
More information and less naked denial would do you good.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson at 9:36 PM
You want a scientific rebuttal to this: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-778651
My opinion is that scientific rebuttals are wasted on you, and submit the following paragraph as exhibit A of your Cargo Cult Science approach:
“However, if you consider a vector at each point perpendicular to the radial line, each vector represents the instantaneous tangential velocity of that vector moving around a circle.”
What is the reference frame for those vectors? Since the velocity vector is the first Time derivative of the position vector, its value depends on which reference frame it’s defined in. If it is defined in the rotating frame of the Moon it is zero; if defined in the inertial frame of the fixed stars it’s greater than zero. Do you know how to take the derivative of a vector?
Here’s another application of vector calculus:
Tyson, please stop trolling.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Europe roasted under one of its worst heat waves in decades on Monday, as scientists and governments prepared to sign off on a major new warning about the severity of climate change.
Temperatures in Greece were forecast to approach Europes all-time record of 48 degrees and wildfires raged in Turkey, Greece, Italy and Finland.
While parts of Europe burned, negotiations between governments and scientists over the final wording of a major compilation of the last seven years of climate science were taking place online.
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-fries-in-a-heat-wave-made-more-intense-by-climate-change/
Willard, please stop trolling.
The world’s been cooling for the last 6 months or more. Get over it.
maguff…”The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will hold a press conference to present the Summary for Policymakers of the Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report”
***
The Summary is a totally politicized load of garbage. It’s written by 50 politically-appointed lead authors and presented before the main report, which is amended to reflect the views of the 50 lead shysters.
This is so great article! I like the way this blog was organized and presented. This is really informative. Thanks for a great information!
https://electriciangreystanes.com.au/
This is so great article! I like the way this blog was organized and presented. This is really informative. Thanks for a great information! electrician Greystanes
appreciate it a great deal this excellent website is conventional
and informal
Also visit my homepage :: נערתליווייווי
And always, always the same mmanipulation
” When Newton used the term revolving on its axis, he obviously meant the Moon was revolving about the Earth as its axis. ”
made by insidiously taking a portion of Newton’s wording out of its context:
” Jupiter revolvitur horis 9. 56′, Mars horis 24. 39′. Venus horis 23. circiter, Terra horis 23. 56′, Sol diebus 25 1/2, et Luna diebus 27 7 hor. 43′ ”
Thus, when Newton mentions Earth and writes : ” Terra horis 23. 56′ “, he of course means Earth’s rotation about its axis, exactly like for Jupiter, Mars, Venus… and the Sun.
But, but… according to Robertson, the ignorant denialist-in-chief, when Newton mentions the Moon and writes ” et Luna diebus 27. 7. hor. 43′ “, he of course means Moon’s orbit around Earth!
And that in one and the same sentence!
It’s as if Robertson were making us think that Newton was a moron at the time he wrote what we’re discussing.