Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2021 was +0.20 deg. C, up from the June, 2021 value of -0.01 deg. C.
REMINDER: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.
The 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 19 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 -0.95 -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 0.84 -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 0.42 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 0.21 -0.07 0.29 0.44 0.13
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.50 -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 0.31 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.63 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for July, 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
Only has one job to do.
Report the facts as they are, not as I want them to be.
Always next month I guess.
GH theory says the gap is not vanishingly small. Because of the GHG molecules some of the outgoing surface energy takes a significantly longer random walk before going out into space, longer in both distance and time. Some of the energy even returns to the surface. This wandering about means there is more energy in the system, even if all the incoming energy ultimately leaves.
Greenhouse theory does not say energy is stored. GHGs just briefly increase the average amount of time the energy is in the Earth system. Thus at any given time there is a little more energy wandering around in the system than there would be without the GHGs. This adds an estimated 33 degrees C to the average temperature at the surface.
A crude analog would be that when there are customer lines in the bank there will be more people inside, even though everyone gets served and leaves.
In other words you are claiming that the GHG are heat sources producing their own extra energy.
There are no extra customers inside.
Like the magic infinity hotel the guests coming in are a known number and equal the customers going out.
They might be doing a bit of covid room hopping but they are not splitting into new customers. That would be creation of energy from nothing.
When more crowd into the lobby the lobby gets hotter but that just means there are less guests in the rooms.
When you heat a piece of metal in a fire the atoms in the metal reach a new energy level that lets them radiate infra red.
They do this because they were in a steady state but now have to get rid of the extra energy to return to that basal state.
Previously the fire would have burnt you, now the hot metal does.
Take it outside and it rapidly cools down until all the last of the incoming energy can be dissipated.
This energy is not extra energy or stored energy or energy waiting in lines.
It is the last of the energy that went into it.
At the time you removed it from the fire it was in a steady state at the energy in/energy out.
No energy it cools down.
Not instantaneously because unlike its heat source as it cools down it can only radiate the heat away slowly.
Living on earth we conceive of such a cooling as if night comes on forgetting that the sun is still pumping its millions of hydrogen bombs into the other side of the earth.
In reality no sun , extremely rapid freeze, as that last lots of nuclear energy to enter more slowly leaves. being exactly that last bit of energy to come in.
Your lines of wandering customers make a dash for the exit as that 1360 W/M squared warming the earth returns to space.
GHGs are not heat sources producing their own extra energy.
It is a chimera.
“GHGs are not heat sources producing their own extra energy.
It is a chimera.”
Well, you are right, GHGs are not producing energy or heat. What they do however is to elevate the emission layer which in combination with the atmospheric lapse rate, provides higher temperatures to the surface.
It is a tragedy so few climate scientists have understood the actually pretty simple GHE. But just because they got it wrong, will not mean it would not exist. I hope this brings some clarity to the subject matter..
https://greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/the-tiny-atmosphere-effect
Eben says “It’s the Sun, stupid!”
This seems unlikely since the Sun’s output peaked in the 1960s and has been decreasing since.
I do not blame the sun, at least not with recent warming. Rather I will point to contrails.
Peaked in the 1960s.
The Sun has been shining on us for the last 14 billion years and you know that it peaked in the 1960s and will steadily decrease for some time into the future? Can I try some of that kool-aid?
I have the good fortune not to be an American, so I miss a lot of the more parochial references.
What is kool-aid and what does it have to do with solar output?
Kool-aid is fruit-flavored powdered drink mix concentrate. The idiom is a reference to the .
Kool-aid has to with “electric kool-aid” which is a hallucinogen. LSD or THC based.
Kool-aid has to do with a cult mass suicide at Jonestown by drinking poison in Kool-aid, to make it easier on the kids.
A Congresswoman who was there, witnessed the events, and was shot but survived, recently compared the way the 900 cult members followed their mad leader, Jim Jones, to what is currently happening with the R party members and their leader Donald Trump.
“…what is currently happening with the R party members and their leader Donald Trump.”
With good reason.
“…to what is currently happening with the R party members…”
Cultists always think it is everyone else who has been brainwashed.
always
I am always amused by the “woke again” flock that worships the government as their deity posting that Trump supporters are cultists. That’s like Michael Moore Calling you fat.
“AUBURN, Ala. When I had just moved here six years ago and a lifetime ago I was shopping at Publix, wheeling my cart out to the car. My baby sat in the buggy; I hit a bump and the bottle of sparkling water Id just bought skittered onto the ground, exploding. A young man in a Publix uniform ran up; I anticipated frustration (Id made quite a mess) but instead he apologized for my mistake and ran inside to get another bottle to replace it.
I tell that story to illustrate the extreme, sometimes unbelievable courteousness of the South. Here my neighbors think nothing of building a bridge over the creek in my backyard, so that all our children can play on it.
I love this place. Out of all the places in the world, I feel most comfortable in the South.”
“But as I told a friend a few weeks ago, I didnt know that moving here would mean I would be at a disadvantage in future pandemics. As I write this, JUST 34% OF ELIGIBLE ADULTS HERE IN LEE COUNTY ARE VACCINATED. When I went into Ace Hardware last week, my 6-year-old son and I were the only people in the entire store wearing masks.”
“Because even as parts of the country with higher vaccination rates start to return to something resembling normal, were basically back to where we were last year. Our hospital, East Alabama Medical Center, where my younger son was born three years ago, is again being flooded with Covid patients. The Delta variant is ripping through our community, and people are furious, but their anger is directed at, variously, the pediatricians who are encouraging vaccines for older children, the City Council who appointed the school board who passed the mask mandate and businesses that are not ‘Pro-Freedom.'”
from NYT op-ed By Anton DiSclafani, a novelist and an associate professor of creative writing at Auburn University.
“… the Suns output peaked in the 1960s…”
Not the peak that counts. It’s the area under the curve. That increased in the latter half of the 20th century.
Correct. When you do the integration you find that the sun caused the ocean heat content to increase all the way to 2003, after which time it started to fall. The custodians of the data didn’t like that so they started removing ARGO buoys which showed cooling “because they must be faulty”.
“because they must be faulty”
You think sophisticated equipment always works as designed!
Evidence?
Bart, Can you show us a model that actually produces this very delayed response?
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2165
Yes angech, and even the “33K” is nonsense.
The 33K comes from comparing Earth to an imaginary object. That’s like me claiming I can out run an Olympic track star because I’m faster than a one-legged unicorn.
Speaking of false claims-
Dr. Spencer has indicated he doesnt want to contest the physics of the GHE,
We are still waiting for you to admit you lied.
Test
Q˙
angech
I like your analogy.
The “temperature” of the bank measures the number of customers it contains.
The temperature of Earth’s climate system measures the number of units of heat it contains.
The “temperature” of the bank increases when more customers enter than leave.
The temperature of the Earth system increases when more units of heat enter than leave.
The conventional view explaining the current warming trend is that increasing CO2 is decreasing the number of units of heat leaving, hence the imbalance and the accumulating energy.
If you think that CO2 is not doing this, then something else is causing the imbalance.
Suggestions?
Water vapor. It has been increasing about 1.49% per decade. That is about 43% faster than possible from just temperature increase.
Humans breath out water vapor at body temperature. How does the increase of 1.49% per decade track with human population? Well human population has gone up about 1.1% per year.
But humans are only a small fraction of the total mass of animals on the earth. So we exhale only a small fraction of the H2O from respiration. And respiration is small compared to evaporation.
So nope, not due to more humans breathing.
Animals (including humans) also breath out CO2 as well as water vapor.
I was observing that the human population has a growth rate of 11%/decade or so recently.
Most of that is concentrated in urban locations which have a well know heat concentration. Just as we humans prefer indoor temperatures of approx 20c which will inevitably leak into the surrounding atmosphere over time.
All of this will have some effect on local concentrations of both heat, CO2 and water vapor.
What effect does adding 10%/decade of warm, evaporative swamp to the environment have?
Burning hydrocarbons produces at least two things – H2O, and CO2.
Carbon based animal life also produces at least two things – H20, and CO2.
Luckily, neither of these in the atmosphere have the slightest heating effect. Try and find some SkyGragon GHG cultist silly enough to claim that the GHE can be observed at night, while the temperature is dropping, or winter, or indoors, or in the laboratory, or . . .
Like Trenberth’s missing heat, the GHE cannot actually be found, and to use Trenberth’s words “it’s a travesty”!
No wonder the judge in Mann’s defamation case against Steyn threw out all of Mann’s “expert witnesses”. All form and no substance, and didn’t want to acknowledge the “scientific method”.
What a travesty!
“the GHE can be observed at night, while the temperature is dropping”
FYI for the perpetually ignorant, night is generally cooler than day. Something to do with the lack of sunshine.
About 90% of the extra WV is from increased irrigation.
CO2 is not doing this.
You understand the greenhouse effect raises temperature from -14C to 15C … because the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere decrease direct thermal radiation to space by some 342 Wm-2. That makes out about 1C per 10 Wm-2. About 30 Wm-2 is due to CO2.
According to William Happer article ‘Radiation Transfer’, the Schwarzschild equations closely match the observations. That means Schwarzschild can be used to project what will happen when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled from its current concentration of 400 ppm to 800 ppm. The answer is you get an additional decrease of direct thermal radiation to space by 3Wm-2.
3Wm-2 should result in about 0.3C warming in the next 200 years.
Its not CO2 that is causing the modest 1C warming observed in our climate since 1880. So what is causing the warming? I like Carl Otto Weiss suggestion of cycles. Solar Cycles, major ocean cycles like AMO PDO and ENSO. Since each cycle is different length there are times the net of the cycles are positive and there are times the cycles are negative. That results in cycles of warming and cooling in our climate. The warning comes that we are due for cooling similar to that experienced in the mini ice age.
“So what is causing the warming?” A combination of ocean surface temperature cycles, cloud augmented solar change and mostly (about 2/3) water vapor increase. The water vapor increase, (about 90% from irrigation) can account for all of humanity’s contribution to planet warming. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Measurements in De Bilt (The Netherlands) show an increase in solar irradiance of more than 10 W/m2 since 1980, much more than the theoretical contribution of the additional CO2.
Global relevance?
Got a link.
angech
“Greenhouse theory does not say energy is stored. GHGs just briefly increase the average amount of time the energy is in the Earth system. Thus at any given time there is a little more energy wandering around in the system than there would be without the GHGs. This adds an estimated 33 degrees C to the average temperature at the surface.”
angech, you say
“…This adds an estimated 33 degrees C to the average temperature at the surface.”
I have shown in my site that
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.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech, please also visit Ron Clutz’s Blog
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
Thanks for the link, Christos. Your work is very compelling. The politicians treated Copernicus with disdain too.
The difference between Christos and Copernicus is that Copernicus’ hypothesis was correct.
Have you falsified Christos’ hypothesis? It should be easy.
Here is how Cristos deals with contradictory facts
Opponent:
“The same satellite data you use to benchmark your calculation also shows that Earths 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?”
Cristos Answer:
“Yes, 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.”
Thus one of the biggest problems is that when Cristos can’t explain observations, he simply denies they are true.
Nate
“Here is how Christos deals with contradictory facts”
Nate
“Thus one of the biggest problems is that when Christos can’t explain observations, he simply denies they are true.”
Christos Vournas
says:
July 29, 2021 at 8:15 AM
Opponent:
“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?”
Christos Vournas:
Yes, 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.cristos-vournas.com
It was simply deduced that those certain ranges of the IR spectrum were absorbed by Earths atmosphere.
It happened so, because it was wrongly compared the Earths actual emission ranges with the blackbody uniform 288K Stefan-Boltzmann emission law curve.
Conclusion
Earths 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.cristos-vournas.com
“a mistaken comparison of the measured IR spectrum emitted by the surface with the alleged blackbody emission curve at 288K.”
Nope, False. The graph shows no such thing.
The BB spectrum of various temperatures are shown in the background.
These are IRRELEVANT to the large chunks missing from the outgoing Earth spectrum which is shown, that can only have been removed by atmospheric GHG.
This is simply denial of straightforward but inconvenient facts.
Nate
“These are IRRELEVANT to the large chunks missing from the outgoing Earth spectrum which is shown, that can only have been removed by atmospheric GHG.”
Nate, please visit “Earth’s Energy Budget”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:Diagram_showing_the_Earth's_energy_budget,_which_includes_the_greenhouse_effect_(NASA).png
What do you see in the “Earth’s Energy Budget”? Please comment.
“Have you falsified Christos’ hypothesis? It should be easy.”
Yes indeed it is.
Cristos makes several Fundamental errors.
A BIG one is as follows.
He calculates the reflected fraction of incident Solar Radiation to be
“(1 – Φ + Φ*a)S – is the reflected fraction of the incident on the planet solar flux”
R = 1 – phi+ phi*a = 1 – (0.47)+(.47)*(0.3) = 0.67
where phi is ‘radiation accepting factor’, a = planetary albedo ~ 0.3
The incident Flux is S = 1361 W/m^2, which gives a global average incident flux of S/4 = 340 W/m^2.
Cristos predicts the global-average reflected flux will be
0.67*340 W/m^2 = 228 W/m^2
But science calculates the reflected fraction of incident Solar Radiation to be
R = a = 0.3
and predicts the global-average reflected flux will be
0.3*340 W/m^2 = 102 W/m^2
What do measurements find?
Satellite measurements clearly agree (within error) with science’s calculation and disagree with Cristos.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014RG000449
“According to these CERES EBAF data, the global, annual mean all-sky reflected flux
is 99.7 W m−2 (equivalent to a global albedo of 0.293)”
For clarity:
“According to these CERES EBAF data, the global, annual mean all-sky reflected flux
is 99.7 W/m^2 (equivalent to a global albedo of 0.293)”
“What do you see in the “Earths Energy Budget”? Please comment.
What am I supposed to see there?
I see nothing there that helps your argument.
Stephen
“Christos,
You’re saying there’s GHE when 96% of the atmosphere is CO2? Holy crap! GHE is proved!”
Yes, when 96% of the atmosphere is CO2.
Also we know Venus’ atmosphere ground density D = 65 kg/m³.
It is not only the CO₂% content in the Earth’s atmosphere general content that matters, but we have also to consider how many CO₂ molecules are in Earth’s atmosphere in total.
If Earth’s atmosphere was consisted from the actually existing CO₂ molecules only, the atmospheric pressure on the Earth’s surface would have been 0,0004 bar.
–
Planet Earth has a very thin atmosphere…
Yes, that is exactly what we said. Earth’s atmosphere is very thin.
But how? We are accustomed to the opposite opinion.
What it is we believe about Earth’s atmosphere thickness? Does anyone think the Earth has a thick atmosphere? A very thick, maybe?
No, but we think our atmosphere is not thin. It is not very thin.
What we think about the Earth’s atmosphere is that it is just all right. The Earth’s atmosphere is just the way a planet’s atmosphere should be.
The Earth’s atmosphere pressure at the sea level is 1 bar. It consists mainly of 79% N2 and 21% O2, and water vapor 1%, and CO2 0,04% and the other trace gasses.
Let’s compare Earth’s atmosphere with Venus’ atmosphere. Venus is almost the same size planet as Earth is. That is why Venus is called a sister planet.
The Venus’ atmosphere pressure at the ground level is 92 bar. It consists mainly of 96% CO2 and 4% N2, and other trace gasses. And Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect.
For someone living on Venus the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be thin. It appears to be very thin, very-very thin.
Compare the figures:
1 bar with 0.04% CO2 for Earth, and 92 bar with 96% CO2 for Venus.
How much more CO2 Venus has?
Let’s calculate: 92 bar * 96% / 1 bar * 0.04% =
So we shall have
92*96*25 = 220,800 times more CO2 Venus’ atmosphere at ground level has compared to Earth’s.
So what we compare is 1 to 220,800 !
For someone living on Venus the conclusion would be the planet Earth doesn’t have any CO2 in its atmosphere.
–
Earth’s-Without-Atmosphere Surface Mean Temperature Equation Tmean.earth gives:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹ ∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0.306)1,362 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)1.362 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5.67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴]¹∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287.74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures for Earth, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
But when we calculate Venus’-Without-Atmosphere Surface Mean Temperature by the same Equation, using planet Venus’ data we are getting:
Tmean.venus = 259.7 K
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.venus = 737 K, measured by satellites.
Those two temperatures for Venus, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are completely different !
That is why we confirm here that yes, Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect because of its very thick atmosphere, Venus has a very strong greenhouse effect.
The Earth, on the other hand, doesn’t have any measurable greenhouse effect. Earth has only some traces of greenhouse gasses.
Earth has only some tiny traces of greenhouse effect, if to speak scientifically, in full accordance with the physics.
We cannot completely deny Earth having greenhouse effect, how could we… we only compare it being
1 to 220,800 !
And yet you continue to ignore the large chunks removed from the outgoing IR spectrum removed by atm GHG.
You ignore the satellite measurements of reflected solar that totally disagree with your calculation.
As Feynman noted, doesnt matter how much you believe in your theory, if the observations don’t agree with your theory, it’s wrong.
moree that doesnt make sense in Cristos analysis:
“The Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law
Planet Energy Budget:
Solar energy absorbed by a Hemisphere with radius ‘r’ after reflection and dispersion:
Jabs = phi*pi*r^2*S*(1-a) (W)”
Lets find input flux averaged over the sphere, so divide both sides by 4pir^2.
Fin = phi/4*S*(1-a)
= (0.41)/4*1361*(1-0.3)
= 97.6 Watts/m^2
This way lower than the actual measured solar Fin, which is 240 W/m^2.
“Total energy emitted to space from the entire planet:
Jemit = A*sigma*Τmean^4 /(beta*N*cp)^.25 (W)”
the factor in the denominator is 3.5 for Earth. Average outgoing flux is
Fout = Jemit/A = sigma*Τmean^4/3.5
this 3.5 x lower than the SB law requires! Makes no sense.
Arrhg
Correction
Fin = (0.47)/4*1361*(1-0.3)
= 112 W/m2
Again this abs*rbed input is way too small, actually measured to be 240 W/m2
Cristos,
Another hint that something went wrong in your model is that for another Earth spinning faster, say N =16rev/day, its temperature will be doubled to 576 K!
And yet it will emit only half as much radiant flux, 61 W/m^2!
This does not make sense.
Sorry Not 61 W/m2
56 W/m2.
Nate
“August 4, 2021 at 4:22 PM
Christos,
Another hint that something went wrong in your model is that for another Earth spinning faster, say N =16rev/day, its temperature will be doubled to 576 K!
And yet it will emit only half as much radiant flux, 61 W/m^2!
This does not make sense.”
Nate, for another Earth spinning faster, say N =16rev/day, the sixteenth root of N =16rev/day is 1,189
The new mean surface temperature will be 288K * 1,189 = 342,5K
But, according to the Rotational Warming Phenomenon, planet will IR emit the same exactly amount of EM energy.
It is phi*(1-a)So*pr^2 ( W )
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ok you are right, I missed the additional power of 1/4.
And I neglected the T^4 in numerator of Jemit. So Jemit remains constant.
So you agree that the Temp of 16 x faster spinning Earth has warmed from Tmean = 287 K to 342 K, while the emitted radiation remains constant.
The rise would come from the night-side temperature warming up more than the day side temperature cools down. The two sides should equalize with a small net increase in Tmean.
But the current average Earth day-night temperature difference ~ 10 C (remember mostly ocean!). Thus the rise in Tmean should < 10C.
But you calculate a rise in Tmean of 55 C!
How do you make physical sense of that?
You say emitted total Power = " phi*(1-a)So*pr^2 ( W )"
Which gives an Earth average emitted flux = Power/(4pr^2)
Fav = phi*(1-a)*So/4 = (.47) *0.7*1361/4 = 112 W/m^2.
Yes/No?
This still is very far below the measured Fav = 240 W/m^2.
Same goes for your calculated input ab*sor*bed Fin = 112 W/m^2.
Still way below the measured Fin = 240 W/m^2.
So again, your theory does not agree with observations.
It is falsified.
“92*96*25 = 220,800 times more CO2 Venus’ atmosphere at ground level has compared to Earth’s.
So what we compare is 1 to 220,800 !”
Not the correct way to compare GHE on Venus and Earth.
The actual calculation depends on the concentration and the total pressure.
However the GHE on Earth grows proportionally to the ln(Pa)
So a rough calculation with the ratio of Venus to Earth GHE to be ln(220,000) = 12.3.
Your own estimate of the GHE enhancement of T on Venus is ~737-259 ~ 480 C.
So a rough estimate of GHE enhancement of Temperature on Earth is 480 C/12.3 ~ 39 C.
Science has measured the actual GHE enhancement of Earth temperature to be 33 C.
I am not saying planetary surface emits everywhere 112 W/m^2.
Fav = phi*(1-a)*So/4 = (.47) *0.7*1361/4 = 112 W/m^2.
I said it is average value.
Planetary surface does not emit average values, surface emits at the every infinitesimal spot and at every infinitesimal moment differently. Only when integrated the entire planet surface emits at every given instant the 112 W/m^2.
Also, the blackbody effective temperature 255K is by definition a uniform surface temperature.
In the GHE theory they compare the 255K with the Earth’s actual average (mean) surface temperature Tmean = 288K.
It is a huge mistake, because they treat the 288K as Earth’s uniform surface temperature, which is not.
Earth does not emit at the average 288K…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nate
“Not the correct way to compare GHE on Venus and Earth”.
Yes, it is not the correct way, it compares the CO2 contents only.
Earth atmosphere has also the greenhouse gas H20 on average 1%.
……………………………
“Science has measured the actual GHE enhancement of Earth temperature to be 33 C.”
It is a mistaken result when comparing different physic terms – the theoretical uniform surface temperature Te = 255K
and the actual average surface temperature Tmean = 288K
Those two temperatures cannot be compared, because they are different physic terms.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Only when integrated the entire planet surface emits at every given instant the 112 W/m^2.”
That is still WAY below the average observed by satellite which is 240 W/m^2.
The observed value is equivalent to a uniform temperature of 255 K, which is quite close to the TOA mean temperature of emission.
It is not consistent with your calculated average temperature of 288 K.
Sorry your result is contradicted by observation. It is wrong!
“‘Not the correct way to compare GHE on Venus and Earth’.
Yes, it is not the correct way, it compares the CO2 contents only.
Earth atmosphere has also the greenhouse gas H20 on average 1%.”
Cristos you cannot make up your own GHE physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
The GHE forcing is proportional to the logarithm of the CO2 pressure.
Plseas do show us evidence that your’s is the correct way to calculate the GHE. Show us a legitimate source that agrees that the GHE is directly proportional to CO2 pressure.
Cristos,
This shows the Net outgoing IR Flux from Earth is measured to be 239.9 W/m^2 on average.
https://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2020/07/ERB-poster-combined-update-8.2019v4.pdf
This is simply not compatible with your theory.
In science that means your theory is wrong or needs major revision.
Nate
“Please do show us evidence that yours is the correct way to calculate the GHE. Show us a legitimate source that agrees that the GHE is directly proportional to CO2 pressure.”
I never said that the GHE is directly proportional to CO2 pressure…
What I said is:
“For someone living on Venus the Earths atmosphere appears to be thin. It appears to be very thin, very-very thin.
Compare the figures:
1 bar with 0.04% CO2 for Earth, and 92 bar with 96% CO2 for Venus.
How much more CO2 Venus has?
Lets calculate: 92 bar * 96% / 1 bar * 0.04% =
So we shall have
92*96*25 = 220,800 times more CO2 Venus atmosphere at ground level has compared to Earths.
So what we compare is 1 to 220,800 !
For someone living on Venus the conclusion would be the planet Earth doesnt have any CO2 in its atmosphere.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nate
“Christos,
This shows the Net outgoing IR Flux from Earth is measured to be 239.9 W/m^2 on average.
https://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2020/07/ERB-poster-combined-update-8.2019v4.pdf
This is simply not compatible with your theory.
In science that means your theory is wrong or needs major revision.”
The answer:
It is not measured… it is the 1,361 W/m^2 /4 = 239.9 W/m^2
They wrongly average solar flux over the entire planet surface.
It is the same operation they do when calculating the Te =255K.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“It is not measured”
FALSE.
Unless you can show alternative data that agrees with you, we will have to go with what has been reported in the science literature.
It has been measured by CERES and other satellites.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/398d1f93-810f-48d2-bccc-c31c861f3f03/jgrd18237-fig-0001.png
red curve is total Outgoing LW radiation. Its mean is ~ 240 W/m^2
from this paper
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD017997
Again, it is your theory, not the observations, that needs revision.
Nate
“Unless you can show alternative data that agrees with you, we will have to go with what has been reported in the science literature.
It has been measured by CERES and other satellites.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/398d1f93-810f-48d2-bccc-c31c861f3f03/jgrd18237-fig-0001.png
red curve is total Outgoing LW radiation. Its mean is ~ 240 W/m^2
from this paper
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD017997
Again, it is your theory, not the observations, that needs revision.”
Nate, can you please tell me which part of my theory needs revision?
The calculations I do for every planet in solar system are very much precisely close to those satellite measured… What other conclusion one could have other than the theory is correct.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Nate, can you please tell me which part of my theory needs revision?”
It needs to match observations for emitted and reflected flux. It currently does not.
Your phi factor is not needed, since Planetary albedo (0.3) already accounts for angular dependent reflection.
It needs to be consistent with SB law emission. It is not currently.
For Earth, except for a small area of arctic and antarctic, the Temps remain close enough to the Mean, thus a uniform approximation and the SB law should get close to the actual integrated flux for actual Earth, as measured.
Your Tmean of 288K is inconsistent with SB law and 240 W/m2 mean emission. We need a GHE to get a match.
Christos, work is very compelling for people who click on all those ‘with this one simple trick’ ads.
Nate,
You pretend to be a man of science, but you’re nothing but a propagandist. You carry water for Marxism.
Stephen, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Can you explain why his science is better than the standard GHE..other than that it fits your politics?
Nate,
His science explains there is no 33K warming on Earth. Tell him where his math or the NASA temperature measurements are wrong. Also, Berry has shown mathematically in paper #3 that IPCC carbon cycle is wrong (using their own data). You propagandists hate math, don’t you?
Nate,
Isn’t it good Christos has discovered that we can burn all the fossil fuel on the planet and it won’t affect temperature? But, you Marxists will have to find some other way to destroy capitalism. Oh, I’m sure you’ll come up with something.
‘One simple trick’ – like the CO2 story?
“we can burn all the fossil fuel on the planet and it wont affect temperature’
Stephen confirms that his peer-review of blog-science is based on political implications. If it fits his politics, it passes.
Whether the science is valid or bogus, he cannot say. That’s not really important.
Thank you!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
interesting that Ron has found value in your work.
He is a tireless and hardworking commentator.
cristos,
What about Venus?
I don’t see you discussing it much. Does your model account for Venus’s temperature?
The GHE does account for and explain it..
Oh OK, I see it, now.
Basically it appoears you admit that your model cannot explain Venus and it does require a GHE.
Then how is it you can call it a New Universal Law, if it does not work for Venus?
Nate
“Basically it appears you admit that your model cannot explain Venus and it does require a GHE.
Then how is it you can call it a New Universal Law, if it does not work for Venus?”
Nate, I never said there is not GHE. What I have shown is that Earth’s atmosphere is very thin and the greenhouse gases content is very small, it is trace gases in a very thin atmosphere…
I have calculated Venus’ surface temperature theoretically using the New Equation, by adding in the equation the greenhouse gases’ density factor.
The result is very satisfactory. I have also theoretically calculated by the use of the greenhouse gases’ density factor the mean surface temperatures for Earth’s and Titan’s atmosphere and the results were again very much satisfactory.
Please Nate visit the page in my site about Venus’ 735K globally averaged surface temperature.
Thank you Nate for asking about a very important aspect of the theme.
Link to the page:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446364348
Christos,
You’re saying there’s GHE when 96% of the atmosphere is CO2? Holy crap! GHE is proved!
Stephen, I am afraid, I pasted my reply in the wrong place above.
Best regards,
Christos
“Greenhouse theory does not say energy is stored. ”
But Earth’s ocean does store vast amounts of energy.
The potential to store vast amounts of energy. The majority of it is very cold right now.
In terms of coldness we are about mid range in terms a million years of time. Average for interglacial period, but quite a bit cooler than peak ocean temperatures in other interglacial periods in last couple million years.
And in terms of warmer part of our Holocene, as in:
“Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the “middle Holocene,” a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.” And/or: Holocene Climate Optimum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
I suspect, our ocean was not much warmer than about + .5 C during such times more the 5000 years ago.
Or for last 5000 years, it’s been about 3.5 C even during the warmer time periods lasting a century or so. And Little Ice Age was about 3.4 C or cooler. It seems if LIA was cooler than 3.3 C then the warmer periods in last 5000 years could have been perhaps more than .2 C warmer than the Little Ice Age.
A variable seems to me, if we were to green the Sahara desert, we would increase global air temperature without changing ocean temperature, and +5000 years ago, we had a Green Sahara desert.
But I don’t think greening the Sahara desert would have much effect upon polar sea ice or raise our treeline in the Arctic region like it was +5000 year ago. As seems that seem primarily about ocean temperature.
“The potential to store vast amounts of energy. The majority of it is very cold right now.”
Ah, I suppose you might have meant our ocean which has average temperature of 3.5 C doesn’t cause warming to the average surface air temperature of about 15 C.
Or global ocean average surface temperature of about 17 C and Land global average surface temperature of about 10 C.
Or more specifically tropical ocean which is about 40% of entire ocean surface has average surface temperature of 26 C and the rest of ocean [60%] has average surface temperature of about 11 C.
There no doubt that tropical ocean is the world’s engine and does
most of global warming. And the temperature of entire ocean has no effect upon warm slabs of tropical surface waters.
But tropics are really disconnected from what we call global warming or global cooling. Glaciation periods are not stopped or started or effect the tropics. And polar amplification are aspect related to “global warming”.
Or if the polar sea ice doesn’t melt, there is no global warming.
A sign of coming glaciation period is growing polar sea ice.
Btw, all arctic polar sea ice could melt and it could result adding glacial land ice. But liquid water evaporates more than ice. And sun at low angle will warm the top of liquid ocean the top surface water can get quite warm [and evaporate more]. This how you increase “global water vapor”- the tropics can’t do it.
If somehow add more water vapor to tropics, and cool will it self down.
If round to whole numbers, tropics has about 3% water vapor and rest of world has 0 percent- because it’s .3 % or something or around 3000 ppm. So 40% is less than 1/2 of global, it’s the 60% of global which get more water vapor, if you get “global warming”.
So the average ocean of 3.5 C is “only” affecting the 60%.
A warmer planet against a constantly cool space does increase the temperature gradient which increase thermal loss, i.e., a negative feedback. Thermo 101.
But space is a vacuum. Only thermal radiation can be transferred to the constantly cool space.
If there’s an ever increasing concentration of gases accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere, which absorb and re-emit this outgoing radiation, then the equilibrium temperature will increase.
“What they do however is to elevate the emission layer which in combination with the atmospheric lapse rate, provides higher temperatures to the surface.”
Not always. Entirely dependent upon the state of convective overturning.
Duh, that’s called weather.
But on average, globally, it moves higher, which is relevant to Global warming.
As usual the tropospheric temperature is following the temperature of the ocean mixed layer 5-6 months prior. January 2021 was the low point and the oceans then saw several months of warming. I expect to see UAH follow the same pattern.
For those hoping to see UAH go lower, you will be encouraged by the June ocean data which saw a drop. This could be the start of the next La Nina generally forecast for this fall/winter.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/trend
How do you determine the 5-6 month lag. To me any lag seems variable, but I find the best fit to be a lag of 2 months.
From what I can tell the lag varies dependent on the cause. It takes longer for changes in the tropics to manifest in the data. Since ENSO is often the subject of interest I usually go with 5-6 months.
Arctic changes seems to only lag by 1-2 months. However, they are pretty predictable so not really worth worrying about.
In addition, month to month changes tend to be small so the + or – 0.1 C error can easily mask some of the changes in both the SSTs and the satellite data.
Have you lost the plot dude?
The monthly compilation is the composite satellite temperature of the troposphere. It simply mentions nothing about greenhouse gases at all not seeks to attribute any temperature changes to them.
It does however confirm that C02 has little effect on temperature at the global Satellite AVG continually drops as C02 continues to rise.
“It does however confirm that C02 has little effect on temperature at the global Satellite AVG continually drops as C02 continues to rise.”
I think you mean it confirms what is well understood, that more than one variable affects global temperature.
angech
Have you lost the plot dude?
The monthly compilation is the composite satellite temperature of the troposphere. It simply mentions nothing about greenhouse gases at all nor seeks to attribute any temperature changes to them.
It does however confirm that C02 has little effect on temperature at the global Satellite AVG continually drops as C02 continues to rise.
“global Satellite AVG continually drops as C02 continues to rise.”
What I see is a lot of sort-term random variation, but a long-term increase in global AVG.
Where do you get that the AVG continually drops? Or maybe you simply mean that some months it drops while other months it increases.
Wasn’t expecting this July anomaly to spike +0.2C with all the global ocean cooling going on, but so be it
The NINO3.4 SST is now -0.14C and falling every week which means we’re definitely heading into a back-to-back double La Nina cycle which will soon cause significant global cooling.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml
By the middle of next year, the double La Nina cooling will cause UAH6.0 to hit -0.3C or even -0.4C., which will entirely negate the 2015/16 Super El Nino spike.
I too was caught out by this monthly figure but I also agree that it is more than likely that we will see a La Nina at the end of this year/early next year.
How many months that cold do you predict for next year?
It will be surprising to me if we do hit -0.3 often if at all, given there have only been 8 months that cold this century, and none since 2012. The last time UAH dropped below -0.4C was January 2000.
You do need to be careful of base lines and base line changes but I rather suspect that Roy’s 13 month line will fall to -0.3c before it rises.
Colder than 1994, and the biggest drop on record, more than the the drop from after the 1998 spike. That would be impressive.
How long do you think it will take to reach -0.3?
Next year. Probably less than half way into.
“Roy’s 13 month line will fall to -0.3c”
Given that neither of the last two strong La Nina’s in 2008 and the double in 2011-12 produced that level of cooling, that is some serious level wishful thinking.
We will see wont we.
RLH, But, “we” are already seeing warm conditions, such as the continuing loss of sea-ice. Here’s the latest graph, which now includes September:
https://tinyurl.com/ydxc4xn
The last time the trailing 13 month average was -0.3 was in 1994 as the recovery from Pinatubo moved the average upwards from a dip to about -0.45.
Time will tell. I am quite happy to wait.
“Next year. Probably less than half way into.”
Are you hoping the Earth will suddenly remember to jump down to the minimum of the 60 y cycle?
Are you hoping that natural cycles do not exist?
Even if 60 y cycles exist as you propose, they aren’t producing the rapid changes you need to get your prediction to come true in 1 year.
So where is the logic behind your prediction?
Most of the charts I have show that temperatures are dropping (on average). The only question I suspect is how far are they going to go.
https://imgur.com/wzP7Qeh
Already we are back in the same territory as 2002 to 2003.
Achieving 2008 to 2009 is not impossible.
Weve just had a moderate La Nina and the 13 mo. red curve is 0.2. Might reach 0.1.
2002-03 was a moderate El Nino, and the 13 mo red curve reached ~ 0.1
Similar to El Nino 2019-20, when the 13 month red curve reached ~ 0.4
Sorry, the stars cannot all align the way you want them to.
So few months and we will see who is closer to the truth then.
Nate: When was it we saw back to back La Nina years?
The point of this blog is to argue with science and logic, not belief.
Back to back la Ninas in 2010-11, 98-99. Not unusual.
And what were global temperatures doing when that happened?
Dropped by 0.3c or so?
“The point of this blog is to argue with science and logic, not belief.”
And disbelief in what Roy says, obviously.
Roy said what?
My point is to follow science and logic with you prediction, rather than just hope for cooling that has no rationale.
Your rationale should consider current temps (red line 0.2) and recent ENSO conditions (La Nina) , but will require some OTHER significant short term cooling mechanism that you havent described, to get the red line another 0.5 degrees lower.
“Back to back la Ninas in 2010-11, 98-99. Not unusual.”
RLH says:
August 4, 2021 at 2:47 PM
And what were global temperatures doing when that happened?”
The red line has two consecutive minima. In both instances the second minima is not quite as low as the first.
If that pattern holds, I predict the red line will reach a minimum of 0.1 this year and a bit over 0.1 next year.
A lot depends on the strength of the La Nina. I see some predictions for a near record. That could certainly lead to colder UAH anomalies about 5-6 months later.
Keep an eye on the SSTs late this year. That will tell you what to expect early next year from UAH.
NOAA’s August ENSO Projection just came out yesterday which supports a back-to-back La Nina event later this year and early next year:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
The Pacific Equatorial deep water temp anomalies show it’s certain a new La Nina cycle is developing.
It’s just a matter of how strong the coming La Nina cycle will be on how far UAH6 will fall early next year.
looks like a rally forming
could be a short squeeze in the offing
Literally nothing out of the ordinary is happening.
Yep
Yep
Yep.
Well it looks like I was wrong then. Exactly on 0.2c. Who would have guessed that?
These monthly variations are just noise, the effect of short term variations in weather, ENSO, etc.
You need at least a couple of decades of data to say confidently whether or no there is, or is not, a long term trend.
You can see how the short term variation in rate of warming damps out as you go from 5-year trends to 10 years and then the whole 42 years.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:1989/trend/plot/uah6/from:1989/to:2000/trend/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2011/trend/plot/uah6/from:2011/to:2022/trend/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2022/trend/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:1984/trend/plot/uah6/from:1984/to:1990/trend/plot/uah6/from:1990/to:1996/trend/plot/uah6/from:1996/to:2001/trend/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2007/trend/plot/uah6/from:2007/to:2012/trend/plot/uah6/from:2012/to:2018/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/to:2022/trend
Straight lines are of little use in nature. Linear trends are straight lines.
By inspection of the graph I would suspect that the best fit to UAH would be quadratic.
Could you do a quadratic fit to see if the UAH data shows acceleration in the long term warming trend?
Entropic man says: By inspection of the graph I would suspect that the best fit to UAH would be quadratic.
I added a quadratic fit to the code for this plot a few years ago when our host did so, “just for fun”. It’s over fitting now as it was then.
UAHTLT.png
You will be unsurprised by the fact that I prefer the LOWESS (I would use S-G myself and slightly longer base lines). Both are shorter linear least squares fitted to the curve.
“A Savitzky–Golay filter is a digital filter that can be applied to a set of digital data points for the purpose of smoothing the data, that is, to increase the precision of the data without distorting the signal tendency. 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. “
An S-G produces a very similar curve to the Gaussian that I use.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uah.jpeg
It just depends on what filter length you use.
Here’s UAH with both a 12 month S-G projection and an 8 year S-G low pass filter.
https://imgur.com/wzP7Qeh
One can have daily trends, monthly trends, yearly trends or decadal trends (or even longer if you wish). Climate is the sum of 30 years worth of data (or more).
A continuous set of changes in the shorter ones leads to a change in the later ones.
The question is which is the optimal one to choose.
Daily and monthly are too short and very variable. Yearly is also pretty volatile. If we have to wait for 30 years worth of data then most of us are unlikely to be able to see that.
“A continuous set of changes in the shorter ones leads to a change in the later ones.”
Yes indeed. But the short-term T change we are currently seeing is a predictable response to ENSO noise, which has historically been oscillatory.
Thus, it makes no sense to look at the current dip below the long-term trend line and conclude that is foretelling a changeover to a long-term cooling trend.
That is simply wishful thinking.
It is also wishful thinking to assume that no long term patterns exist.
“Who would have guessed that?”
My master guessed that – but is too modest to gloat.
Human conceit has no bounds. How can one think that the Earth’s troposphere can accumulate energy when in fact it is extremely thin. Humility characterizes those who observe the Earth from orbit.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2021.png
Hubris is a significant factor in the absolutism that exists in climate science. Hopefully we are about to witness some humility in the coming decades. The science will be the better for it.
4-month sequence of vertical temperature anomaly sections at the equator, Pacific for August 2021
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202108.gif
Does a decrease in UV radiation affect the temperature in the upper stratosphere below the -60th parallel?
Does a decrease in UV radiation affect the temperature in the upper stratosphere below the -60th parallel?
Comparison of UV solar activity in the three most recent solar cycles (SC) 22-24. The thick curves show the Mg II index timeseries twice smoothed with a 55-day boxcar. Dates of minima of solar cycles (YYYYMMDD) were determined from the smoothed Mg II index.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2021.png
Currently no sunspots on the solar disk.
https://i.ibb.co/jycjWsz/AR-CH-20210801.png
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Here is an interesting fact: Atmospheric pressure is the same as a water column of 34 feet. Based on 71% ocean coverage and water having about 4 times the specific heat of air, the first 12 feet of the world’s ocean depth has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere.
Which is why a number of people, including Richard Linzden, have suggested that the best measure of global warming is ocean heat content.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Figure1a_separate_English.png
I agree the ocean is a tremendous heat sink, but that does not necessarily mean it is an effect temperature regulator of either the atmosphere or the land mass.
“I agree the ocean is a tremendous heat sink, but that does not necessarily mean it is an effect temperature regulator of either the atmosphere or the land mass.”
It’s not global average surface air regulator.
But it determine what it is for some period of time.
On the order of thousands of years.
Our average temperature of entire ocean is about 3.5 C.
That 3.5 C temperature is an arrow which says, you are here.
A 5 C temperature is somewhere completely different.
As is a 3 C temperature.
If one could accurately measure the ocean temperature instead just saying it’s about 3.5 C.
So, if you could honestly claim it was say, 3.52 C, then it’s on order hundreds years or decades.
Or ocean has about 1000 times more heat content than atmosphere, so saying ocean is 3.5 C is similar to saying our surface air is about 15 C.
Or 15 C +/- 2 C.
Though I would rather say global average ocean surface air is about 17 C and global average land surface air is about 10 C.
Because that seems to give more information than saying global average surface air temperature about 15 C.
It could gives a clue what global air temperature is, and tells you ocean warms land. Or a lot people might imagine ocean is cooling land.
Ocean does not cool land, but it certainly maintains global air temperature, and moderates {or makes more uniform] land surface temperatures.
And everyone knows our cold ocean is why we are in an Icehouse global climate.
A cooling ocean that some mark as beginning 34 million year ago.
Though it goes up and down, over millions of years and during shorter periods glaciation and interglaciation periods. And within interglacial periods {a little bit in terms temperature but quite a bit in terms amount stored or released oceanic heat. And quite a bit relative to say, a year of energy of the sun reaching Earth.
–Geothermal ocean warming discussion thread
Posted on July 21, 2019 by curryja | 210 Comments
by Judith Curry
The atmosphere bias of climate science makes it impossible for them to see geological forces and therefore, impossible for them to understand the earths climate. Thongchai–
https://judithcurry.com/2019/07/21/geothermal-ocean-warming-discussion-thread/
This was Dr Spencer’s comment.
“The vertical profile of ocean warming (if it can be believed) suggests warming decreasing with depth. Its hard to imagine that the heat is originating from below. Also, we need to distinguish between the average geothermal heat flux versus any increasing in that over time, the latter being forcing. Finally, any increase in geothermal heat flux would probably take centuries to be felt at the surface the ocean abyss has stable stratification, and so must be slowly forced upward on the large scale by convective sinking in certain polar regions.”
The oceans take up 163W/m^2 from above and 0.1W/m^2 from below. The equilibrium temperature is determined almost entirely by the solar input.
Secondly, we know that the Earth system is gaining heat because the rate of heat loss to space has decreased. There is no evidence that the geothermal heat flow has increased. This means that it contributes to the long term equilibrium temperature but is unlikely to be causing the observed increase in OHC.
-Entropic man says:
August 2, 2021 at 4:39 PM
This was Dr Spencers comment.
The vertical profile of ocean warming (if it can be believed) suggests warming decreasing with depth. Its hard to imagine that the heat is originating from below. Also, we need to distinguish between the average geothermal heat flux versus any increasing in that over time, the latter being forcing. Finally, any increase in geothermal heat flux would probably take centuries to be felt at the surface the ocean abyss has stable stratification, and so must be slowly forced upward on the large scale by convective sinking in certain polar regions.–
I don’t see much to disagree with in regards to Dr Spencers
comment.
I would say it’s may not be much about a uniform ocean geothermal heat. Rather global climate variation is about ocean circulation and we don’t know much about “intense” heat flow due to geothermal heat, nor about “intense” cold flows due to cold ocean water falling. Nor even about warm denser salty ocean water falling.
“The oceans take up 163W/m^2 from above and 0.1W/m^2 from below. The equilibrium temperature is determined almost entirely by the solar input.”
Well ocean is cold, because cold water falls.
Cold water falling is warming surface air- no one even counts this warming effect. And no one knows how much it is.
Cold water falling is similar to getting a loan- too much debt makes you bankrupt. Glaciation periods are bankrupt periods.
I also tend to think glaciation periods are when books are balanced and profit is actually made. Or need profits to get out of the bankruptcy. Otherwise you have mythical death of snowball Earth. And I think ocean thermal heat, will stop a Snowball Earth.
Or since always had more ocean than land and always had raging super volcanoes in the sea, we have never had a Snowball Earth.
Or never seen any compelling evident of it.
Heat comes in at the Equator and leaves at the Poles. Mostly.
mostly but not quite, tropics still radiate more on average, as earth poleward heat transport is far from perfect. I wish it were though, want the tertiary polar forests back.
I blame vodka.
there was no wheat back then, therefore not likely
I thought it was made out of potato.
the true vodka is made from grains. In reality however, it is made from any concentrated filtered ethanol (including completely synthetic sources) that has been watered down.
Surprised after all the hysteria in the UK media as they ramp upto Glasgow thst we only see a 0.2 rise.
I would have thought we would have been at least 20 degrees higher.
Mark Wapples
My question to you: how can you compare
– temperatures measured on single, local surface points
with
– the global average of all temperature measurements performed at an altitude of about 5 km?
Are current measurements of 45 C in southern Italy, Greece, Turkey the result of some hysteria?
In Germany, we have no heat wave at all, it’s a bit cold, due to a continuous stream of low pressure areas coming from the Northwest Atlantic.
J.-P. D.
Most of the monthly UAH temperature anomalies since 1979 fall within a +/- 0.4 degree C. range, until 2013.
That change is obviously a climate crisis, emergency. disaster, catastrophe, debacle, apocalypse, armageddon, doomsday, holocaust, or maybe even worse.
Extreme panic is justified.
Everyone should consider moving to Alaska, Canada, Sweden, Iceland or Siberia.
Well said, Richard. You’ve put it all into a sensible perspective.
Dangerous man-made global warming,rebranded as climate change, is surely as Dr Nils-Axel Morner has commented, the greatest lie ever told.
Here we are, just fractionally heading out of La Nina and into ENSO neutral conditions, and yet we immediately get the 5th warmest July in the UAH record. The four Julys that were warmer all occurred as a result of El Nino conditions.
Surely it is not a push, even for some here, to see that the next El Nino, be it even a modest one, will break all previous global temperature records. The globe is warming.
El Nino is still a long way off and the northern hemisphere will get an early and harsh winter.
El Nino is still a long way off and the northern hemisphere will get an early and harsh winter.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20210720.nino_summary_4.png
I also see signs of cooling taking place in different parts of the atmosphere. That can be seen around the Arctic and Greenland as well as at the South Pole…. https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-5.68,85.55,506/loc=15.668,72.783
The globe is warming.
Given we are coming out of one of the coldest periods of the Holocene, that shouldnt even be debated. Of course we have been warming for nearly 200 years as confirmed by uncountable studies on sea level rise and glaciers.
So, the real question is how much AGW and how much natural and internal variability. Everyone is just guessing. Anyone who says they arent guessing, is drunk or shooting up.
roberto…”the real question is how much AGW and how much natural and internal variability”.
***
Already worked that out using the Ideal Gas Law. The warming from each gas in the atmosphere is based on the percent mass of each. CO2 at a percent mass of approximately 0.04% contributes about 0.04C to a 1C overall warming. Nitrogen and oxygen combined at a percent mass of about 99% account for 99% of a 1C warming.
” Everyone is just guessing”
You have a rather dim view of science it seems.
Climate science and meteorology do tons of measurements and use physics based modeling that builds on successful weather models, and can compare a natural only model to one with increasing CO2, and compare to history. Without CO2, we don’t get nearly the warming we’ve had.
This was first done 40 y ago. In that instance the model made sense of the past century with a small contribution from CO2 and the rest natural. Then looked forward 40 y.
It was able to successfully predict (within error) the substantial increase in warming, and its spatial pattern, that actually occurred.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html
IMO, this shows that they are doing far better than guessing.
The models are running hot and the establishment is just beginning to admit this. The last 40 years have had internal variability acting as a tail wind. The next 40 years will be a tough slog. Wait for the IPCC6 and how much it will show uncertainties and confidence levels drop from IPCC5.
“The last 40 years have had internal variability acting as a tail wind. ”
How so? Evidence?
I hope you’re not going with the vague, untestable, catch-all theory of the ‘Recovery from the Little Ice Age’?
It is difficult to explain after 200 y or so of no/slow recovery, its strong acceleration 40 y ago.
‘models running hot’
I agree with this assessment:
“Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.
Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.”
IOW, we don’t yet know what the future Anthro emissions will be.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
The climate modeling situation today is similar to weather or hurricane forecasting 30 y ago. Forecasts were FAR better than guesses. But they are much improved today, with much better 5 or 7-day Forecasts.
Acceleration of warming and hiatus have been associated with internal variability as well as early 20th Century warming.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5cc8
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818120300394
TFN, you are correct. The oceans have warmed as a result of multiple natural cycles. That energy won’t disappear soon.
There is evidence the globe has warmed. There is no evidence that demonstrates the warming will continue. In fact, the PDO is looking like it could go negative and the AMO is on the downward slope as well.
” Currently no sunspots on the solar disk. ”
The Sun ‘currently’ is definitely not like it was in October 1957, no doubt!
According to Belgium’s SILSO
https://tinyurl.com/4wamabzx
and to Space Weather Canada
https://tinyurl.com/6tvvedeb
it could be in a far worse state than right now:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_tvwCYUBQgWOV1oCaU1fSXHUCg6kw4Da/view
{ Anyone who thinks the graph is wrong is of course invited to offer us one s/he thinks being more correct… n’est-ce pas? }
*
As usual, much depends on what we put behind ‘currently’.
J.-P. D.
For those who think that observing solar spot numbers and measuring the F10.7 cm flux lead to completely different results which cannot be compared, here is a graph comparing them on a percentile basis:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ShXgzae4Fr_fOs9kWJiSzD8yXkcewQZY/view
Last month’s bet re the July value.
“Agreed. 10 to the RNLI if I am wrong.
Reply
RLH says:
July 6, 2021 at 4:26 PM
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.”
Hey! A miracle!
BTW – my bet was the more heroic since I nominated a value very different to the starting point. In any case, I am still happy to make the donation to the RNLI.
I will keep my latinum strip
“Thank you so much for being part of our lifesaving crew. Your donation will power our lifesavers through the tough times. Thanks to your kind support, we can still answer every call for help this year.”
I know. Exactly on 0.2c is not something I thought was possible. But life has a strange way of doing things.
Bindidon:
I think I have cleared up why the numbers you have are not as expected.
If I do 2 separate passes over the data, first at Monthly and then at Daily the results are different as you will see. This is, I suspect, down to differences caused by rounding in the numbers reported at each value.
Monthly
2009/10 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Monthly Average = 12.8 Count = 1
Daily Average = 12.8 Count = 31
Hourly Average = 12.8 Count = 742
SubHourly Average = 12.8 Count = 8904
Daily
2009/10/28 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 6.2 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.6 Count = 288
Moral is, you should not use numbers that may well have been rounded as actual values unless you have large numbers to deal with which will then help to even them out.
Oddly, using the rounded Hourly values in Medians will not cause such errors.
A reply from USCN (who I asked about the discrepancy) may help out here.
“The Daily value is derived from the hours 20091028 0100 to 20091029 0000 (the hour number is the end of the hour it represents).”
So technically
20091028 0100 should be 20091028 0059(59)
and
20091029 0000 should be 20091028 2359(59)
Having corrected for the observations from USCRN I get
2009/10/28 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.5 Count = 288
Hello? Bindidon:
Are you about to correct your figures for Daily average temperatures or not?
Are you about to withdraw your incorrect assertations about my access to USCRN data?
Are you about to withdraw your absurd claims that I am incapable of doing basic research?
Are you about to do anything at all?
angtech….”Because of the GHG molecules some of the outgoing surface energy takes a significantly longer random walk before going out into space, longer in both distance and time. Some of the energy even returns to the surface. This wandering about means there is more energy in the system, even if all the incoming energy ultimately leaves”.
***
There’s the old generic energy obfuscation again. Are we talking about thermal energy or electromagnetic energy? It is thermal energy that causes warming, not EM.
Furthermore, you have re-introduced the notion that the Earth cools via radiation to space only. That is an odd theory developed by climate alarmists to support the anthropogenic theory, which is based on increasing levels of CO2. It makes no scientific sense.
Warming of the atmosphere is a very complex process, and the cooling of it just as complex. There is no way that CO2, at 0.04% can be responsible for the theoretical 33C warming claimed by the AGW theory. In fact, R. W. Wood proved that theory wrong circa 1909.
According to Wood, the atmosphere is warmed by nitrogen and oxygen molecules that receive most of their heat directly from the surface via conduction, However, they are unable to radiate the heat away and can only dissipate it by rising to a higher altitude where the heat is dissipated naturally due to gas expansion.
A heat budget based on EM in vs EM out is science fiction. There is obviously a lengthy delay between solar EM input and the time before it is re-emitted. The difference in heat levels in the oceans and atmosphere, due to the delay, is the warming we call the GHE.
The oceans and atmosphere store heat, with most heat being absorbed in the Tropics. Then it is distributed via the atmosphere and oceans.
Tracking EM through the atmosphere is an exercise in futility. EM is not heat, we need to track heat, aka thermal energy. Furthermore, EM radiated from GHGs in the atmosphere to the surface does nothing. EM from cooler gases in the atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the warmer surface that allegedly emitted the EM in the first place. Such a recycling of heat, as claimed by AGW theory, is perpetual motion.
It is very well understood that Earth’s equilibrium temperature is maintained solely via radiation to space. Conduction and convection are practically nonexistent in space.
final nail…”Here we are, just fractionally heading out of La Nina and into ENSO neutral conditions, and yet we immediately get the 5th warmest July in the UAH record”.
***
Warming caused by La Nina action in the south Pacific. Not by a trace gas in the atmosphere.
I was curious whether the recent heat waves over the Pacific Northwest of North America and over Europe would affect the global average. It did, accounting for the 0.2C rise,
Look here…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
See the darkest orange/brown regions in the epicentres…about 3.5C warming. Those regions were stuck in place for a week or more, obviously inflating the global average by 0.2C
The major heating came exactly in those two locations. Surprisingly, there was a small blip between the tip of South America and the Antarctic Peninsula. Don’t know what’s going in that small area but alarmists are sure making a big deal out of it.
Note that the rest of the globe had virtually no warming at all. See all the light blue spots of cooling and the vast amount of white, indicating no warming.
Even though Willard made a big deal over record warming in Australia, the sat data showed Oz cooled for the most part. Surprisingly there was a slight warming area over New Zealand. I wonder if the cheaters at the BOM have seen this? If so, they will be trying to hack UAH to change it.
This cooling pattern is of interest. Note how far up into the Pacific this is reaching…. https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-133.62,-65.77,481/loc=-142.669,-25.103
goldminor…”This cooling pattern is of interest”.
***
Pretty wild alright. Roy’s contour map shows cooling over Antarctic as might be expected in the lower hemisphere winter. There is cooling elsewhere, even in the northern hemisphere.
“Roy’s contour map shows cooling over Antarctic as might be expected in the lower hemisphere winter.”
Roy’s maps are of anomalies. Not absolutes.
lol gordo,
Like when you go to the Dr. and he claims you have a 103* temp you tell him but my feet feel cool Doc so your overall temp is wrong.
Can anyone really be this dense?
Obv gordo can.
lou…”Like when you go to the Dr. and he claims you have a 103* temp you tell him but my feet feel cool Doc so your overall temp is wrong”.
***
Your analogies leave much to be desired. The sat contour maps indicate significant warming in two small areas of the planet not the whole planet. A global average influenced to rise 0.2C by extraordinary warming in two small areas is not much of a global average. It indicates how useless the number is in reality.
A global average tells you nothing about various locales. If you look at the small hot areas on the contour map, they show +3C warming, yet the global average rose by only 0.2C. There was absolutely no warming in most of the planet.
Same thing with the nonsense about climate change. The inference is that all climate are changing. However, climate is a 30 year average of weather and the changes we have experienced in June 2021 have nothing to do with climate.
That does not stop alarmist meteorologists from making stupid claims like the heat waves are a definite sign of climate change.
Are all you alarmists idiots?
“A global average tells you nothing about various locales.”
Well duh gordo.
Darn it all UAH, you don’t do locales in your ‘global average’ so your average must be wrong says dumdum.
“I was curious whether the recent heat waves over the Pacific Northwest of North America and over Europe would affect the global average. It did, accounting for the 0.2C rise,”
It did not.
The SH (+0,39 Deg) and the Tropics (+0,27 deg) counted for the temperature rise.
The NH was up only 0,02 degrees.
Upthread:
“This could be the start of the next La Nina generally forecast for this fall/winter.”
Another one wishing for a la Nina. Let’s see how ‘general’ this forecast is.
“The ENSO Outlook is INACTIVE. This means the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is neutral with little indication that El Niño or La Niña will develop in the coming months, with most ENSO indices at neutral levels. While three of the seven climate models surveyed by the Bureau of Meteorology suggest there is potential for a La Niña to form in [Southern Hemisphere] spring, the majority maintain neutral conditions until the end of 2021.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
“In conclusion, ENSO neutral conditions are likely to continue until next autumn (70%)”
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
JMA forecast to NH Winter is also favoured neutral.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
But the uncertainty increases further ahead.
“ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere summer and into the fall (51% chance for the August-October season), with La Nina 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
La Nina is forecast for NH Winter if you are very selective in your choice of forecasts rather than general.
barry…quoting the cheaters at BOM is entirely uncool.
Troll.
barry…at least I’m not as asstroll, like you.
66% chance of La Nina is better than even. All forecasts keep the projected figures the lower side of the zero neutral line.
“66% chance of La Nina… ”
Is the odds given by one out of three monitoring sites surveyed. The rest give more likelihood to neutral conditions.
Are you American, RLH, and if so, is that why you are blind to forecasts outside the US?
Good examples, barry. Obviously they don’t have a clue. They all make a guess, then the one that gets closest to actual claims “the science is settled”!
We’ve seen it all before.
Barry, by living in the US I likely see NOAA influenced reports more often. I’ll admit I haven’t taken a worldwide survey.
I think the negative PDO needs to be considered as well. It keeps dropping. This tends to up the probability for a La Nina.
Seeing the HadSST3 June data drop a bit was another factor I was considering.
We shall see ….
Gordon Robertson says:
angtech…. the notion that the Earth cools via radiation to space only. It makes no scientific sense.
Warming of the atmosphere is a very complex process, and the cooling of it just as complex.
A heat budget based on EM in vs EM out is science fiction. There is obviously a lengthy delay between solar EM input and the time before it is re-emitted. The difference in heat levels in the oceans and atmosphere, due to the delay, is the warming we call the GHE.
The oceans and atmosphere store heat, with most heat being absorbed in the Tropics. Then it is distributed via the atmosphere and oceans.
–
Gordon, absolutes are difficult concepts.
There are no doubt some ways that Earth might cool other than radiation to space.
The fact remains that in terms of natural events and science that the usual, main and only way for the earth to cool from incoming radiation is by exiting radiation.
How and why the heat gets to where it exits, despite Willis recent article at WUWT, is immaterial.
The fact is that the heat that exits does match the heat that comes in.
There is no new energy generated by GHG.
Just a redistribution of where the energy gets to in a GHG system.
–
There is no lengthy delay between solar EM input and the time before it is re-emitted.
–
People see a hot atmosphere and a hot ocean and think that it must take months or millennia for the energy to build up.
You talk in terms of storage.
–
There is no store of heat in the atmosphere or the oceans.
Only an illusion because we see the sun working all the time and then seeming to stop at night with a slow drop of energy.
In reality all the suns energy that came in previously has already gone out.
The last millennium, the last year the last minute, the last second.
–
The fact is that the heat that exits does match the heat that comes in.
–
If we turn the sun off,completely bang,gone,evaporated, teleported, what happens.
–
First we have 8 minutes of energy still coming in.
That is an important part.
Next we have nothing in.
No infrared warming the upper GHG layers.
None !
Instantly the upper atmosphere cools markedly as the IR radiated to space is not replaced.
Down below, the surface is still heated for a millisecond but now there is no upper buffer stopping it coming out.
CO2 freezes and drops,
TOA drops rapidly to the surface
Water turns to ice.
Oxygen and Nitrogen freeze.
–
As the surface turns stone cold there is a decay in the release time of the remaining heat as it radiates more slowly as it gets colder.
It would be like placing our hot sword into the depths of outer space. almost instant cooldown.
–
The temperature outside the earth is now nearly 0 Kelvin.
Instantly.
–
All that so called heat storage is a mirage.
A product of the last 8 minutes of radiation.
–
See above
Spencer/GBaikie
The oceans take up 163W/m^2 from above and 0.1W/m^2 from below. The equilibrium temperature is determined almost entirely by the solar input.
Tim: Atmospheric pressure is the same as a water column of 34 feet. Based on 71% ocean coverage and water having about 4 times the specific heat of air, the first 12 feet of the world’s ocean depth has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere.
Now how many Hiroshima bombs hit the Earth surface every second?
Are there enough of them to warm the atmosphere and sea surface as the the energy in the sea surface air and land exists each second.
–
If so then the so called heat storage is a myth.
angech
“The fact remains that in terms of natural events and science that the usual, main and only way for the earth to cool from incoming radiation is by exiting radiation.
How and why the heat gets to where it exits, despite Willis recent article at WUWT, is immaterial.
The fact is that the heat that exits does match the heat that comes in.
There is no new energy generated by GHG.
Just a redistribution of where the energy gets to in a GHG system.”
“There is no lengthy delay between solar EM input and the time before it is re-emitted.”
Exactly, the same amount of solar energy in – the different way of absorbing-emitting process.
It is the Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon we observe here…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas at 1:56 AM
What does your “Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon” tell you about Venus’ 735K globally averaged surface temperature?
TYSON
What does your “Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon” tell you about Venus’ 735K globally averaged surface temperature?
Please TYSON visit the page in my site about Venus’ 735K globally averaged surface temperature:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446364348
Exactly, don’t know if this is relevant enough angech, but I notice when clouds block the sun, especially thick. Wide ones, the earth’s temp around there cools like 15F. To me that seems to also confirm the sun controls on a less rigorous scale the temperature for the average person, and can also help in the naturally changing climate support from your answer.
Exactly, don’t know if this is relevant enough angech, but I notice when clouds block the sun, especially thick. Wide ones, the earth’s temp around there cools like 15F. To me that seems to also confirm the sun controls on a less rigorous scale the temperature for the average person? Although I think your answer is WAY too perfect, it’s why “they have a consensus and are teaching global warming in school, specifically environmental science classes now because they want to ground into people’s heads I guess that “GHG indeed cause global warming when, eh they really don’t.
Exactly, don’t know if this is relevant enough angech, but I notice when clouds block the sun, especially thick. Wide ones, the earth’s temp around there cools like 15F. To me that seems to also confirm the sun controls on a less rigorous scale the temperature for the average person? Although I think your answer is WAY too perfect, it’s why “they have a consensus and are teaching global warming in school, specifically environmental science classes now because they want to ground into people’s heads I guess that “GHG indeed cause noticeable, long term global warming” when, eh they really don’t.
tj…”dont know if this is relevant enough angech, but I notice when clouds block the sun, especially thick. Wide ones, the earths temp around there cools like 15F”.
***
It’s not the air temperature dropping, what you are experiencing is a reduction in the warming effect produced by electromagnetic energy from the Sun as your skin absorbs it and converts it to heat.
Its not the air temperature dropping, what you are experiencing is a reduction in the warming effect produced by electromagnetic energy from the Sun as your skin absorbs it and converts it to heat
-TJ is sitting in a tent out of the sun on a 30 C day and feels warm
A cloud comes over temp drops 15C and he feels cold.
No change in the EM his skin is absorbing from the sun
Why does he feel cold again?
Can we talk about a global temperature trend when winter temperatures in the mid-latitudes depend on the stratosphere?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f000.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/70mb6525.png
ren…”Can we talk about a global temperature trend when winter temperatures in the mid-latitudes depend on the stratosphere?”
***
All I can add is that stratospheric air is very cold when it rushes down to Vancouver, Canada in mid-winter as Arctic air.
We are a lot closer to very cold temperatures vertically than we ever are horizontally.
Space itself is closer than the next town over a large proportion of the worlds surface.
Does the strong decrease in UV radiation in the 25th solar cycle cause a decrease in ozone production in the upper stratosphere?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/01mb9065.png
There is no warming in the southern hemisphere. I remind you that the Earth is farthest from the Sun in orbit in July.
https://i.ibb.co/9cRDjXk/gfs-world-ced-t2anom-1-day.png
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/31/frigid-polar-air-brings-very-rare-snowfall-icy-rains-to-southern-brazil/
nate…”Climate science and meteorology do tons of measurements and use physics based modeling that builds on successful weather models, and can compare a natural only model to one with increasing CO2, and compare to history. Without CO2, we don’t get nearly the warming we’ve had”.
***
You cannot offer a shred of scientific evidence, based on the scientific method, that CO2 is causing any kind of significant warming. Correlation is not causation, you have nothing to link CO2 to warming, only consensus and rash claims.
Forecasts based on models are often guessing. Meteorologists cannot always be certain. One of the honest ones admitted it is not beyond him to call another station to see what is going on there. Although the accumulation of data and historical scenarios available to meteorologists are impressive, they often cannot say for sure what is to come.
As John Christy of UAH confided, and he has a degree in climate science, climate theory is complex, far too complex to be fully understood. I have no problem with a man of integrity and honesty like John, my problem is with idiots running unvalidated climate models who make unwarranted and catastrophic claims about the future.
The models are unvalidated because they are based on unvalidated science that cannot be proved. Modelers have arbitrarily programmed a warming factor for CO2 into the models and they have invented a positive feedback in the atmosphere that cannot possibly exist there. Remove those pseudo-scientific additions to the program and catastrophic warming disappears.
Gordo, The Christy/Spencer UAH data is based on the identical theory and math as is the basis for the Green House Effect. So, is Christy being “honest” by using “unvalidated science that cannot be proved” when presenting their monthly UAH data?
Inquiring minds want to know. Yours appears to lack any effort at real inquiry.
ES,
You wrote –
“The Christy/Spencer UAH data is based on the identical theory and math as is the basis for the Green House Effect.”
Nonsense. You can’t even define the mythical “Green House Effect”! Even NASA have given up, and now refer to it as a “process” which supposedly heats the Earth – but only works in direct sunlight, apparently, unless there is too much (in arid tropical desserts). Or too little.
You are just talking crap. How about some facts, for a change?
Swenson, Why give you facts when you simply ignore them? Perhaps you can tell us how S & C arrived at their UAH v6 equation combining MSU channels 2, 3, and 4 (and for later periods, AMSU 5, 7 and 9).
ES,
Why don’t you read what I wrote, instead of avoiding it?
There is no “Greenhouse Effect”, dummy. Otherwise, someone would have described it by now. Where may it be observed and measured?
You are obviously far too gullible for your own good.
Swenson/Flynn, as expected, you continue to ignore the vast amount of information regarding the (poorly named) Greenhouse Effect. Spectral data for atmospheric IR transmission has been around a long time now, yet you continue to insist that such data is meaningless.
You ask for a description of the Greenhouse Effect, failing to acknowledge that the description is via mathematical models of the atmosphere. Those models require a CO2/Greenhouse Effect to accurately represent the dynamics of the atmosphere and the vast amount of data which has been gathered for decades. HERE’s ONE EXAMPLE.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Does the geomagnetic field affect the circulation during the winter season, especially during periods of weak solar wind magnetic fields?
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Swarm_probes_weakening_of_Earth_s_magnetic_field
The image shows how the strength of the magnetic patch over Canada has weakened and how the position of the north magnetic pole has changed between 1999 and 2019.
https://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2020/05/tug_between_magnetic_blobs/22014897-1-eng-GB/Tug_between_magnetic_blobs_pillars.jpg
angech…”The fact remains that in terms of natural events and science that the usual, main and only way for the earth to cool from incoming radiation is by exiting radiation.
The fact is that the heat that exits does match the heat that comes in”.
***
These are contradictory statements. There is no heat in/heat out, only EM in/EM out. EM, aka electromagnetic energy, is not heat. It’s vital to understand that.
Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. Heat cannot be transferred through space from the Sun as heat, that would require a mass, such as atoms. The solar wind is such a transport system since it is comprised of electrons and protons but that’s not what reaches the planet since our magnetosphere diverts it.
Heat can exist on the planet only in the form of atoms. Many people use the word molecules, but molecules are simply a fancy name for two or more atomic nucleii bonded by shared electrons (covalent bonds} or shared electron charges (ionic bonds). Therefore, the temperature of the Earth is dependent on the kinetic energy of atoms.
Consider this. The solar EM is most intense at the Equator. If that EM is converted to heat in the ocean, the heated ocean will directly warm N2/O2 molecules in contact with it and that air will rise. If there is cooler air aloft, it will replace that risen air. But what if the air aloft is as warm as the rising air? You have thermal equilibrium and no more heat will be transferred till the Sun’s EM intensity reduces.
This is known with the S-B equation but you don’t see it being taken into account often. S-B was only tested with a radiating body between 700C and 1400C with surrounding air at room temperature. Will it hold as T surrounding approaches T radiating, then exceeds it. Anyone got the answer?
EM from the Sun impinging on the Earth’s mass is converted to heat by atoms in the material affected. Once that heat is created, it is a property of mass. The heat can be dissipated via EM radiation but it can also be stored in atmospheric molecules and ocean water molecules. That’s why the Earth’s global average is around 15C. Without the ability of nitrogen and oxygen to store heat and water molecules in the ocean, all incoming radiation would be immediately re-radiated and Earth’s temperature would be far lower than it is now.
Radiation at terrestrial temperatures is a poor means of dissipating heat. That’s why older homes did not bother with insulation against radiation. The R-rated insulation used in walls is intended only to slow conduction of heat through the walls and ceiling. It has been only recently that homes have included a reflective barrier to resist heat loss by radiation.
According to R. W. Wood, a world-renowned expert on gases like CO2 in his time, he expressed doubt that CO2 could play a significant role in global warming. He reasoned that nitrogen and oxygen gathered heat from the surface and the heated gases rose. Because N2/O2 cannot radiate the heat away, they hang onto it and that alone explains the GHE.
Gases rising into thinner and thinner air will eventually expand. As they expand, they lose heat naturally. Temperature is directly related to pressure in the atmosphere and as the gases rise and become less dense, they have fewer and fewer molecules per unit volume. That means less gas collisions, less kinetic energy, and less heat.
This does not mean that energy delivered by the Sun as EM does not need to be balanced, it means the amount in does not have to equal the amount out in real time. Based on the solar EM intensity at TOA, the EM would only have warmed the planet to a certain temperature, much lower than the current global average. Since the atmosphere and oceans can store this heat, no one knows what global temperature we’d have with solar input alone and no storage.
Put another way, the current solar input is only topping up the current heat levels when converted to heat. I liken it to a house that has been allowed to cool to exterior temperatures in winter. Once the furnace is turned on, it takes a while to heat the infrastructure and the interior air. Once they are heated to room temperature, the furnace is only required intermittently. I see the Sun’s input in the same manner.
What we refer to as GHE warming can be explained by the need of N2/O2 to retain heat. They cannot radiate it away at terrestrial temperatures. So, they have to rise to an altitude where the kinetic energy (aka heat) is low enough that the gas temperature equals the surrounding temperature.
Nothing to do with CO2.
With a high of 19.0°C, yesterday was Kingston’s (Ontario) coldest Aug 1st in more than 90 years, since 1925.
“New record highs in the Yukon and NWT on this 2nd day of August.
The NW winds allowed the usual lake cooling to stay off of Yellowknife, which reached a new all-time high of 32.6°C! (previous 32.5°C Aug 16, 1989)”
https://twitter.com/Pat_wx/status/1422417232836050945
Current temperature anomalies in South America.
https://i.ibb.co/zZ6r6cL/gfs-T2ma-samer-1.png
Current temperature anomalies in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/F5LqgN2/gfs-T2ma-aus-1.png
On that basis, its 0.1C warming in 32 years. Crisis its not.
“climate theory is complex, far too complex to be fully understood.”
As you have so comprehensively demonstrated for the umpteenth time. What a load of cretinous nonsense.
For 30 years, the Sun has maintained high activity, which has encouraged the accumulation of energy by the oceans. The trend was clear, now reversing in the other direction. Those models that relied on data from the previous 30-plus years are now out of date.
https://i.ibb.co/ng8z5Pt/international-sunspot-nu.png
Your DeMenTed hatred of reality is duly noted, troll DMT.
DMT,
Climate is the average of past weather, by definition.
Maybe you don’t know this. I’m still waiting for you to “come for” me, so that when you do, I can teach you about the difference between weather and climate.
Also the difference between heat, energy, temperature, radiation flux – and all those other things that climate crackpots don’t understand.
Why are you so keen on being humiliated? Are all climate cranks also members of the “Whip me, beat me” club?
Swenson, No, climate is the statistics of weather. Average is only one of the statistics, also included is the distribution and the extremes.
Hello. It didn’t take long for good ol Mike to surface. Tell us more about your “Whip me, beat me” club.
(Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves and attributing them to others)
Swanson,
Fair enough. Here!s the definition from the World Meteorological Organisation, who seem to know something about it –
“Climate, sometimes understood as the “average weather,” is defined as the measurement of the mean and variability of relevant quantities of certain variables (such as temperature, precipitation or wind) over a period of time, ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.”
Measurements. Past weather. Control nothing, change nothing. Get it?
DMT obviously doesn’t believe it.
So there is no “climate theory”. Climate cranks just make up nonsense, trying to sound intelligent.
Here’s a chance to demonstrate your grasp of the use of climate –
What is the measured climate of California (or the city of Los Angeles, if you prefer)?
What changes have there been in the last 50 years, say? Too complicated for you? You don’t really know what you are talking about, do you?
GR says
“These are contradictory statements. There is no heat in/heat out, only EM in/EM out. EM, aka electromagnetic energy, is not heat. It’s vital to understand that.
–
Then says both
“Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.”
and “energy delivered by the Sun as EM”
and “The heat can be dissipated via EM radiation” *
–
Heat is energy
EM is energy.
–
Most people except nit pickers understand that the words heat and energy are interchangeable in this circumstance, except by nit pickers.
–
Could you reconsider this opinion of yours as well?
–
“If that EM is converted to heat in the ocean, the heated ocean will directly warm N2/O2 molecules in contact with it and that air will rise.”
–
The oceans are releasing heat as IR *.
O2 and N2 are fairly poor at absorbing IR.
How does the ocean then directly warm these molecules?
–
“Most people except nit pickers understand that the words heat and energy are interchangeable in this circumstance “
I have to disagree a bit here, angech.
In colloquial discussions, we can be loose with our choice of words. In technical discussions, it is important to use words carefully and consistently. In thermodynamics, there is an important distinction between:
Q = “heat” = a transfer of thermal energy between thermodynamic systems
U = “internal energy” = microscopic-level energy within a thermodynamic system.
Since this is clearly becoming a technical discussion, then we should use the words carefully.
(Gordon consistently used the word “heat” when he means “U” which is one source of confusion, until you get used to it.)
It is also vital to decide what model you want to use for photons/EM energy. There are two common models:
1) Radiation is Q = “heat”, transferring energy ‘instantly’ from a one system to a different system (for example, from your heated metal rod to a cooler room). This is common in pretty much all engineering settings, where there is basically no need to think about the energy existing for 0.00000 001 second as a photon before being absorbed by something else.
2) Radiation is U = “internal energy” of a photon gas. In this model, the first system would be the rod and the second system is the photons. “Q” would be the transfer of energy from the rod to the photons. This model makes a fair amount of sense when the sun creates photons that exist independently for several minutes before being absorbed by the earth (or for many years before being absorbed elsewhere in the universe).
Tim Folkerts
“Most people except nit pickers understand that the words heat and energy are interchangeable in this circumstance “
I have to disagree a bit here, angech.
In colloquial discussions, we can be loose with our choice of words. In technical discussions, it is important to use words carefully and consistently.
–
You may disagree.
This is however a colloquial discussion site on technical issues, I specified a specific circumstance and commented that my choice of word was one that is commonly and frequently used in such scientific discussions without people getting nit picky.
The meaning was perfectly clear.
If I was to say to you that a fire was hot would you turn around and say “”I have to disagree a bit here, angech.]
You have not specified Q, U, OMEGA or Delta.
Hopefully not.
–
we should use the words carefully.Agreed.
Q = “heat” = a transfer of thermal energy between thermodynamic systems
–
U = “internal energy” = microscopic-level energy within a thermodynamic system.
–
No, it is more than that, It specifically encompasses not only microscopic movement but also chemical bonds, mass and and charges.
–
“The internal energy describes the entire thermodynamic information of a system, and entropy, both cardinal state functions of only extensive state variables.
Thus, its value depends only on the current state of the system and not on the particular choice from the many possible processes by which energy may pass to or from the system.
It is a thermodynamic potential.
Microscopically, the internal energy can be analyzed in terms of the kinetic energy of microscopic motion of the system’s particles from translations, rotations, and vibrations, and of the potential energy associated with microscopic forces, including chemical bonds.”
–
-the heat supplied to the system (Q)
“The flow of heat is a form of energy transfer. Heating is the natural process of moving energy to or from a system other than by work or the transfer of matter”
–
When standard Thermodynamic texts use the words “transfer of heat to a system” in a definition there are no Gordon’s around saying heat cannot be transferred.
Everyone except nit pickers know what they mean.
Nor are there complaints about the correct use of P and Q’s [pardon the pun.
“What we refer to as GHE warming can be explained by the need of N2/O2 to retain heat. They cannot radiate it away at terrestrial temperatures. So, they have to rise to an altitude where the kinetic energy (aka heat) is low enough that the gas temperature equals the surrounding temperature.”
–
Atmospherics is an interesting field.
Your take on it may be biased by your disbelief in CO2 and H2O and other GHG.[or not].
Like me you have to be a bit hypercritical
when your views diverge from the mainstream.
The GHG theories have been around a long time and have a lot of advocates.
The problem with your theory is that temperature is related to height and pressure but there is no one idealized gas. They come in all shapes and sizes with different physical chemical and spectral properties.
I have no issue with people trying different approaches to the same outcome except when they deny the other sides common sense observations.
With that out of the way I would say that for the moment I am prepared to give credence to the idea that GHG make a significant difference.
Feedbacks are another issue entirely.
When your explanation disses GHG You have to come up with some pretty good scientific reasons for your explanation.
Lets start with the possible flaws.
–
“the need of N2/O2 to retain heat”
What does this mean?
Are you saying that N2/O2 are resistant to losing heat unlike all the other molecules/atoms you were talking about?
They have a unique way of taking in energy by gathering heat
[Kinetic energy] from barely moving earth and water surface particles.
and then cannot release it instead getting faster and faster [more kinetic energy] until they fly into the sky where it is cool even though the excited little particle is very hot[lots of kinetic energy as it is not having any collisions to slow itself down?]
– something does not gel with this explanation.
First up kinetic energy is heat.
Temperature is a totally different entity to heat.
You are confusing the heat of the object with the temperature of the mass of kinetic particles.
The atmosphere is cold up high but the kinetic energy of the particles is the heat of the particles.
There is radiation going out which is fairly cool because the GHG are able to release it at these low temperatures from the very large volume and low mass because they are emitting thousands of times a second.
Secondly if your theory was right there would be no outgoing radiation. The O2/N2 would just keep getting hotter and higher ad infinitum.
third how does a thermometer in glass recognise the temperature?
Lots of kinetic particles tapping on the glass which then excites the mercury or EM radiation [not from O2/N2] going through the glass and heating up the mercury?
“they have to rise to an altitude where the kinetic energy (aka heat) is low enough that the gas temperature equals the surrounding temperature.”
Kinetic energy and temperature are different entities.
When the sun hits an atom on a spaceship that atom is hot even though the temperature of the space around it is extremely low.
N2 and O2 rising have to have a lot of heat [energy to rise but where they are as an entity has a low temperature and I presume, could be wrong, that an egg would cook very quickly in direct sunshine at that height so the energy in that cold space is very high It has just not been converted into heat yet.
“Kinetic energy and temperature are different entities.”
But of course (as I assume you know) they are closely related. Temperature is proportional the average KE of the particle.
“When the sun hits an atom on a spaceship that atom is hot even though the temperature of the space around it is extremely low.”
The temperature of the gas in the thermosphere where many spacecraft like the ISS orbit is actually quite hot — over 1000 C. But the gas is so thin that you wouldn’t feel warm.
“Space” itself is indeed cold — 2.7 K for the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Objects in direct sunlight in space can indeed get quite warm. Gaining heat by radiation from the sun; loosing heat by radiation to space, and pretty much unaffected by any tiny amounts of gas that might be around.
“N2 and O2 rising have to have a lot of heat”
What they need is a lower density than the surrounding air. They need a higher temperature than the gas around them (and/or a higher water vapor content).
Kinetic energy and temperature are different entities.
–
“The temperature of the gas in the thermosphere where many spacecraft like the ISS orbit is actually quite hot over 1000 C. But the gas is so thin that you wouldnt feel warm.”
–
I saw this comment at the NASA site.
–
So which would you say is correct?
The egg is freezing cold because very few 1000-2000C particles are hitting it to warm it up?
Or there are billions of particles in the egg being hit by unshielded sunlight that will also turn all the egg components into 1000-2000 C hot particles?
Temperature of a substance is more closely related to the volume and mass [density of an object] times the amount of radiation per second it is receiving.
Being surrounded by a layer at 1000 C does not mean the earths surface is hotter than that does it?
–
Gaining heat by radiation from the sun; loosing heat by radiation to space, and pretty much unaffected by any tiny amounts of gas that might be around.
True.
but movement through it can cause a meteorite to heat up so much that it is destroyed by those same tiny amounts of gas.
“I presume, could be wrong, that an egg would cook very quickly in direct sunshine at that height”
If you mean something like an egg in orbit, then it would reach an average surface temperature of ~ 255 K if is was painted black to absorb sunlight. If you cooked the egg ‘sunny side up’ (one side always toward the sun), then the sunny side could get quite a bit above 255K. but the back side would be quite a bit colder.
(If it were orbiting near the earth, it would be a bit warmer because the IR from earth is warmer than the 2.7 K IR from space. )
Tim,
Good attempt at avoidance.
The surface of the Moon gets up to about 127 C or so.
Maybe you are thinking of mythical climatological eggs. Ordinary ones cook easily in boiling water at 100 C.
You are just being stupid.
Last I checked, 127 C is “quite a bit above 255 K” for the sunlight side.
Last I checked, the moon’s average temperature is below 255 K; also as I predicted.
So I am ‘being stupid’ for coming to exactly the same conclusions as you. 🙂
An egg, not a painted black egg.
The sunny side would be a lot hotter than 255k and would lead to cooking
The earth side with Ir from earth would not be very hot at all
There would be reflected earth shine light and Uv as well which might boost it a little.
Not much as the energy is being dissipated.
A white egg in space that reflected 90% of the sunlight would only absorb about 136 W/m^2 of sunlight. If the emissivity for thermal IR was 0.9 (like many white paints), the lit side would only reach about 135 K (about -140 C). Definitely frozen, not cooked!
A white egg on the ground would be .. about the same temperature as the surroundings. Go take an egg outside and set it on the grass at noon. I guarantee it will not cook!
If you did something like set a black pan under a glass cover at noon on a hot day, then you could certainly cook an egg. But that is because the *black* pan is absorbing sunlight (not the white egg). And because the glass cover reduces convection losses and radiation losses.
The layer of very rare air above the mesosphere is called the thermosphere. High-energy X-rays and UV radiation from the Sun are absorbed in the thermosphere, raising its temperature to hundreds or at times thousands of degrees.
The surface of the Moon gets up to about 127 C
The moon looks white but has an albedo lower that earth’s
An egg looks white [when cooked] but still has an albedo fairly low.
I think it would absorb a lot of energy.
One can see thru egg with bright light. Sunlight is much brighter than bright light.
It seems possible, that if painted an egg black, it could be colder, and glossy black paint might make colder than flat black paint.
It seems crew on ISS should see what would happen. It seems possible it could explode but wouldn’t be dangerous just perhaps messy.
“I think it would absorb a lot of energy.”
You seem to have forgotten what you just wrote about the the thermosphere: “very rare air”. There is just not enough of this hot air to conduct appreciable heat to objects. They can lose it faster by radiation, so they would stay cool (at least when not it direct sunlight.)
–Tim Folkerts says:
August 5, 2021 at 10:05 PM
“I think it would absorb a lot of energy.”
You seem to have forgotten what you just wrote about the the thermosphere: “very rare air”. There is just not enough of this hot air to conduct appreciable heat to objects. They can lose it faster by radiation, so they would stay cool (at least when not it direct sunlight.)–
Well at ISS one has less than 1 hour of sunlight in 90 min orbit.
In terms of explosive possibilities I am thinking of not slowly getting to vacuum from the air pressure of station {1 atm} but rather within a min or so. If was 10 min or longer going from 1 atm to vacuum it’s less likely. But if going from 1 atm to vacuum in a minute, it might not explode- I just think it might possible.
In meantime, I wonder if anyone done it, and I seen videos of people have put eggs in vacuum chamber. Two things, it takes a while to reach vacuum and eggs add water vapor to chamber, which makes even longer to get to low pressure, and secondly not very low pressure. Anyhow the egg shell seems like it’s strong enough.
Anyhow they had lots of fun with it, and if take eggs out shell then can see eggs boil at low temperature.
But back to how warm eggs in space get.
One aspect is in video the eggs got cold due to evaporation, some were forming ice. But need to the gases to leave or build up pressure inside the egg shell to cool. So saw no video adding heat while in vacuum. But even slow out gassing water vapor would be a powerful cooling effect.
It could be a good way to cook a egg. I doubt it cook an egg as fast as boiling them in water, so, might take 3 to 4 times longer.
Tim Folkerts says:
August 5, 2021 at 10:05 PM
“I think it would absorb a lot of energy.”
You seem to have forgotten what you just wrote about the the thermosphere: “very rare air”. There is just not enough of this hot air to conduct appreciable heat to objects. They can lose it faster by radiation, so they would stay cool (at least when not it direct sunlight.)
–
Tim the level of the thermosphere would cook an egg because of the gamma rays x-rays , uv, light and infrared radiation hitting it sunny side up.
–
No one said the atmosphere was heating it up . The atmosphere thin as it is , is at the temperature it is because of all that unobstructed radiation. Put something solid there like an eg to absorb all that heat ( GM) and the egg absorbs a lot of energy and cooks..
Gavin Schmidt on “climate sensitivity models” – “Schmidt says. “You end up with numbers for even the near-term that are insanely scaryand wrong.””
Dang! Call the CIA!
Gavin’s been reading my mail – or he’s finally coming to his senses.
A good fraction fo the earth surface is unlivable. The extra bit of GW will make some of the unlivable to be livable, and some of the livable to be unlivable. Philosophical question is, why is anyone or anything obliged to keep it livable for you? No one is. The fact that most of the unlivable earth is currently at the cold end of the climatic spectrum doesn’t mean that it will have to stay this way.
c,
Even better, is that the arid tropical deserts are only sparsely inhabited. Hotter makes little difference. As you say, returning Antarctica to its previous ice-free state, or the frozen plant matter in permafrost to its unfrozen state, would open up new agricultural vistas.
Climate cranks believe that the climate can be prevented from changing! What a pack of bumbling buffoons!
Ask any of these idiots what an unchanging climate would look like, or who would suffer from such a nonsensical proposal, and listen to the illogical nonsense they spout.
Remove CO2 from the atmosphere? Stop burning hydrocarbons, so that we can all freeze to death in the dark? That is, If starvation does not kill us first. Plants need CO2 and H2O to survive. Guess what burning hydrocarbons produce at a minimum – CO2 and H2O,
Duh!
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 Europe’s 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/
Greetings from the chilly UK, France, Germany and Poland.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2021/08/03/1700Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-352.33,58.61,745
Needles in the eyes.
Europe burned
Are the lobsters ready yet? They have been boiling in the oceans for decades now. Price of butter should be going through the roof by now.
Language is a social art, Roberto.
Willard, please stop trolling.
In the summer time………
The longer you live the more chance of records you see, hot and cold.
What and where was the hottest temp you read about when you were growing up Willard?
Or the coldest.
Did you ever hope to see a new record set in your life time.
Did you expect to see one?
We will both see what we want to see.
FYI:
“Record highs are occurring more often than record lows due to climate change. In a stable climate, the ratio of new record highs to new record lows is approximately even. However in our warming climate, record highs have begun to outpace record lows, with the imbalance growing for the past three decades.”
s,
Climate is the average of past weather. Stable climate? When was weather stable? Never?
Are you really that stupid, or just pretending?
student:b
“Record highs are occurring more often than record lows due to climate change.
–
No.
Record lows occur more often than record highs with climate change as well.
–
It all depends on which way the climate is changing
–
Swenson is correct.
—
Your comment implying that the climate has only begun warming in the last 3 decades is firstly wrong and secondly well within normal variation.
–
If you take 30 year segments you will find some which get hotter and some which are colder over the last 210 years.
You will find that there is of course a slightly higher chance of cold records in cold decades and hot records in hot decades.
But not in all 30 year spells.
And certainly not in the same locality
You will find cold records set in otherwise cold decades and hot records in otherwise cold decades.
Short term record claiming reeks of desperation.
Mike Flynn is once again irrelevant, Doc.
The concept you are missing, once again, it has been what, ten years now, is AGW.
Willard says:
Mike Flynn is once again [correct, irreverent certainly], irrelevant.[if you believe rather than try to understand AGW]
“The concept you are missing, once again, it has been what, ten years now, is AGW.”
–
The concept of AGW has not been missing anyone, Willard for a lot more than the last 10 years.
–
–
At least one can talk openly here so here are a few pertinent comments.
–
There is no hope of converting you to a different position, your mind was made up years ago and only an extremely unlikely
road of Damascus situation would change that.
–
Your reasoning is based on a lot of sound premises, else you would not be expressing a majority view.
–
Your dedication, once belief has set in is admirable in its strength. That is both praise and caution. Loyola being a prime example.
–
It is a tough gig when people do not agree with something that is so obvious and perfect and right.
–
Some people can be converted, some are stubborn but convertible if you stretch the truth [the means justifies the ends.
Most of the others are ignorant, uneducated or malicious. They could not possibly have rational thoughts yet reach the same conclusions as you.
–
What to do with them when your arguments do not work.
You can block your ears so you do not hear the misguided views.
You can lecture them or you can admonish or berate or belittle them.
Good fun as they do it to you.
–
What you do not do, and cannot allow yourself or others to do is sit back and play the Devil’s advocate role.
There are arguments out there, which if you allowed them and cannot refute them would undercut yours and others beliefs.
–
Play your climateball. this is a good, reasonably well behaved site.
Then go back to the echo chamber and get some pats on the back and recognition.
Beats having to think and argue and explain.
>>were forecast to approach Europe’s all-time record of 48 degrees
I suppose, if without all the extra co2 it would be approaching 46*C that’d make a BIIIG difference!
I suppose that if you had an argument you would not have to rely on sarcasm.
you suppose incorrectly.
So you say.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The AGW nonsense can be debunked in one sentence:
“Atmosphere emitting at 264K cannot raise the temperature of surface at 288K.”
(Now watch the desperate attempts to pervert reality! That’s why this is so much fun.)
I have a little heating pad for my aching muscles. On a cold winter day (240 K) I plug it in outside. The surface happens to warm to 288 K.
The atmosphere warms to 264 K. The surface of the heating pad:
a) stays at 288 K
b) raises in temperature above 288 K.
Only Clint could imagine the answer would be (a).
What is the temperature that the surface is emitting into?
If it is colder than 264K, say 2.7K (outer space in the shade), and as the effective radiation depends on the difference in temperatures (if they were all the same at 288K then nothing much would happen) then, sure, an atmosphere at 264K makes a difference.
The AGW nonsense is based upon Earth’s equilibrium temperature, which because Earth radiate on average about 240 watt per square meter. And in vacuum a blackbody surface temperature of about 255 K [-18 C } radiates around 240 watts.
Earth surface is not in a vacuum.
Earth equilibrium temperature is not -18 C
The Moon is in a vacuum. It’s average temperature is something like
200 K [-73 C]. But it’s not uniformly -73 C. So that doesn’t seem to indicate much. But Moon is not increasing it’s average temperature- but again doesn’t mean much- and we can’t measure the Moon well enough to determine if it’s warming or cooling.
The other thing is we can use a model. An ideal thermal conductive blackbody would have an uniform temperature of about 5 C, and uniformly radiate 340 watts.
No object in vacuum at 1 AU should radiate more than an uniform temperature of about 5 C or more than what is equal to average of 340 watts- unless it has some other energy source other than sunlight from the sun.
Because an ideal blackbody surface emits the most amount of energy.
There is no such thing as ideal blackbody, it’s ideal. It’s a model. It’s in your head. It’s based on various assumption, one is imagining such material can be found or made. Simple carbon soot is regarded as close enough to make a blackbody surface, and you need a material under it, which is highly thermally conductive. The moon lacks such this highly thermally conductive material, the Moon has highly insulative material behind it’s blackbody like surface. So, not surprising the moon is much colder than average temperature of 5 C.
But what work as highly thermally conductive material is a fast spin rate. The moon doesn’t have a fast spin rate. But small space rocks do, and some are around 5 C.
There is no reason to accept AGW nonsense.
It like imagining a bunch of CNN reporters got together and “did some science”.
CNN reporters are idiots.
“But what work as highly thermally conductive material is a fast spin rate.”
Is this official denialist thinking? – that the rate of spin affects the temperature?
C’mon, lets see who agrees with this.
Of course the spin is relevant. The little photons coming from the sun are flung off the surface before they get absorbed. Just like a dog flinging off water by shaking itself vigorously. Believe me – I have seen it with my own eyes.
You lazy sob. Stop playing on your laptop and go and wash the dog.
s,
Seeing that climate crackpots love a good average to confuse the issue, presumably you mean average temperature.
You may be aware of rotisseries, either horizontal or vertical (as used for donor kebabs).
If the rotating stops – disaster! See the difference rotation makes? Same heat source, same meat being heated – just adjust the speed of rotation to get the desired average temperature.
You really don’t know much about the real world, do you?
studentb,
I am one of the chief “anti-denialists” and I will tell you flat out spin rate matters for average temperature. The more uniform the temperature of an object, the warmer the average temperature.
As a simple example, consider a blackbody (made from an excellent thermal insulator) that is eternally lit with 480 W/m^2 on one hemisphere and with 0 W/m^2 on the other henisphere. The lit ‘daytime’ side will be 303 K and the unlit ‘nighttime’ side 0 K (or 3 K if you bother with CMBR). In either case, the average is just over 150 K. (Going to 960 W/m^2 eternally for 1/4 of the surface lowers the average to about 90 K)
But if it is spinning rapidly, the day side never gets as hot as 303 K and the night never gets as cold as 3 K. In the limit of rapid spinning, the whole surface will approach 255 K.
(You can’t get “any” temperature by spinning a rotisserie the right speed, but you can get a wide range of average temperatures.)
“And in vacuum a blackbody surface temperature of about 255 K [-18 C } radiates around 240 watts.”
Let’s stop right there and clarify. A blackbody surface temperature of about 255 K [-18 C] radiates around 240 watts — whether in vacuum or not! That is what blackbodies do.
I suspect that what you meant is something like “In vacuum OF SPACE @ 2.7 K, a blackbody surface temperature of about 255 K [-18 C } radiates A NET AMOUNT OF around 240 watts [per square meter].
“Earth surface is not in a vacuum.
Earth equilibrium temperature is not -18 C”
Again, you need to be clear about what you mean.
When you talk about “earth’s surface” in relation to radiation, that would mean “the layer from which the thermal IR comes”. This is a variable height.
* For some wavelengths it is at the solid/liquid surface.
* for other wavelengths it is high in the atmosphere
* If there are clouds, it can be the top of the clouds.
It turns out that the ‘average temperature’ of these various ‘surfaces’ is indeed around 255 K. And these various surfaces are indeed surrounded by the 2.7 K vacuum of space.
“And in vacuum a blackbody surface temperature of about 255 K [-18 C } radiates around 240 watts.”
Let’s stop right there and clarify. A blackbody surface temperature of about 255 K [-18 C] radiates around 240 watts — whether in vacuum or not! That is what blackbodies do.
I suspect that what you meant is something like “In vacuum OF SPACE @ 2.7 K, a blackbody surface temperature of about 255 K [-18 C } radiates A NET AMOUNT OF around 240 watts [per square meter].—
It not my rules, but I do agree the idea is in regards to outer space.
But since you brought it up, what about a vacuum on Earth, to eliminate convection loss. You don’t need a near perfect vacuum, say 1/10th of earth’s atmosphere.
With 1/10 atm, it seems Earth surface intensity sunlight would heat black body to around 80 C.
Or with 1120 watts of direct and indirect sunlight shining on a sidewalk in 1/10th atm it should easily get hot enough to fry eggs.
Whereas with 1 atm and 15 C air, it’s only get to about 60 C. Or less.
Oh another thing is the sunlight weaken going thru a clear atmosphere. Or in sense you making less intense sunlight. If move an ideal thermally conductive blackbody to distance of where get this lower intensity sunlight, the model will indicate a different result.
Or model is about a specific sunlight intensity
which at 1 AU distance from the Sun in vacuum of outer space.
“Earth surface is not in a vacuum.
Earth equilibrium temperature is not -18 C”
Again, you need to be clear about what you mean.
Not really. But I will help. What kind of Earth would have this equilibrium temperature of -18 C.
There are lot’s of answers, for instance you could claim earth currently has equilibrium temperature of -18 C.
Earth radiates 240 watts on average so it’s has equilibrium temperature of -18 C.
All this tells you is Earth absorbs a lot of energy- as compared to Venus or the Moon {or Mercury or Mars} and is different, mainly because 70% is covered with ocean. But not as much an ideal thermal conductive blackbody 340 watts per square.
Earth only radiate about 70% of total energy emitted as ideal thermal conductive blackbody. Which is quite impressive.
The average ocean surface temperature is 17 C, and average land surface temperature is 10 C.
More precisely, southern hemisphere land including Antarctica is
about 8 C and northern hemisphere average land is 12 C. US is close to this temperature, Europe is about 9 C, China is about 8 C, Canada and Russia are largest and coldest areas, in which Africa in northern hemisphere very large and hot, does heavy lifting bringing it up 12 C. And in terms ocean, southern is a bit cooler than Northern Hemisphere ocean surface temperature.
The hotter ocean is apparently the Indian ocean, which helpful in bringing up southern ocean average temperature. [India average of 24 C and southeast Asia not as big of land mass as Africa are also bringing up the Northern Hemisphere average temperature].
Anyhow oceans dominate global air temperature, and because global air is warmer, it warming the world’s land areas.
And tropical Ocean [mostly Pacific ocean} is the world’s heat engine and warms entire world.
But in terms of Earth’s higher equilibrium temperature it seems to me it’s mostly related to Earth’s ocean, which the other planets, lack.
“Earth radiates 240 watts on average so its has equilibrium temperature of -18 C.”
I would say it has an “effective black body temperature” of -18C. That is a more precise way of expressing the idea.
“All this tells you is Earth absorbs a lot of energy- as compared to Venus or the Moon {or Mercury or Mars} “
How do mean? Moon, Mercury and Mars all have lower albedos, so they absorb a higher percentage. Venus is closer to the sun, so it absorbs a similar flux.
“Earth only radiate about 70% of total energy emitted as ideal thermal conductive blackbody. “
I assume you now are referring to the solid/liquid surface, rather than the ‘effective radiating surface’. And yes, it is quite impressive. It shows how effective the GHE is at keeping the surface warm while only emtting a much smaller amount of IR to space.
–“All this tells you is Earth absorbs a lot of energy- as compared to Venus or the Moon {or Mercury or Mars} “
How do mean? Moon, Mercury and Mars all have lower albedos, so they absorb a higher percentage. Venus is closer to the sun, so it absorbs a similar flux.–
The ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere absorbs the most energy.
At 1 AU distance from our Sun it as a uniform {not average] temperature of about 5 C.
This means in comparison lunar surface when the sun is at zenith has a surface temperature of 120 C, the ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere surface when at zenith has a temperature of 5 C.
It doesn’t get warmer or cooler than 5 C anywhere on it’s surface.
If you spin a sphere you get something similar. If spin a sphere it absorbs more energy. Mars spins and is warmer because it spins as compared Mars not spinning. Mars 24 hour day, but it’s smaller than Earth- it’s surface speed not as fast as Earth.
At Earth’s equator the surface travels at about 1000 mph.
“Thus, the surface of the earth at the equator moves at a speed of 460 meters per second–or roughly 1,000 miles per hour.”
460 meter per second speed may be better way to express it.
“The planet has a rotational speed of 868.22 km/h at the equator. The similarity if the length of the day allows the engineers as NASA to switch their day to a ”Mars day” when they are working with rovers on the planet.”
868.22 km/h is 241.1722 meter per second
If Mars surface traveled at 500 m/s it would absorb more sunlight, it would not warm as much at noon, but it cool less at night and have a higher average temperature.
Any way you can be like a ideal thermally conductive blackbody will absorb more energy. And there many ways to do this. A purpose of such a model is it’s useful. Of course another aspect of model other than absorbing the most, is it also emits the most energy at the lowest temperature. Or it’s not really how to make things hotter, it’s also how to make it colder- it’s pretty good refrigerator at 1 AU, requires no electrical energy and can keep the surface in daylight almost at the temperature of a refrigerator [around 3 C}. So if destroy or alter it, you can wreck this refrigerator- make it so it does not radiate as much energy into space or not absorb as much energy of sunlight could make it colder.
I would say Earth fast rotation is not as important in terms of how much energy Earth absorbs because Earth has an ocean but is more “helpful” because Earth has some land area.
Another factor other it’s ocean, is it’s atmosphere- having atmosphere also replaces the “need” for higher rotational speed to absorbed more sunlight. Mercury would absorb a lot energy if had faster rotation speed. If added atmosphere to Mercury, it would reflect more sunlight, but would absorb more energy from sunlight. If put Mars with it’s rotational speed and thin atmosphere in Mercury’s orbit, it should absorb a lot more energy than Earth.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Since July 27, roughly 9.37 billion tons (8.5 billion metric tons) of ice has been lost per day from the surface of the enormous ice sheet twice its normal average rate of loss during summer, Polar Portal, a Danish site run by Arctic climate researchers, reported. The huge loss comes after temperatures in north Greenland soared to above 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius), which is double the summer average, the Danish Meteorological Institute reported.
High temperatures on July 28 caused the third-largest single-day loss of ice in Greenland since 1950; the second and first biggest single-day losses occurred in 2012 and 2019. Greenlands yearly ice loss began in 1990. In recent years it has accelerated to roughly four times the levels before 2000.
https://www.space.com/greenland-massive-melting-event
Willard
Not much of a vacation.
Speak for yourself.
Witless Wee Willy,
For whom would he speak, if not for himself?
Wake me up when Antarctica is ice-free again, dummy.
Mike Flynn,
Playing dumb again.
Most Facile!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Its irrelevant. 9.37 billion tons sounds like a lot but its not. One hurricane will replace all that lost water content.
The only way you get significant climate altering melting on Greenland is if you have another Hiawatha crater event.
It’s just twice the normal, Kennui.
Willard, please stop trolling.
No U.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”Since July 27, roughly 9.37 billion tons (8.5 billion metric tons) of ice has been lost per day from the surface of the enormous ice sheet twice its normal average rate of loss during summer…”
***
It’s weather, Willard, summer weather. All the ice will be back, maybe more, by year’s end.
You see, Willard, when there is no solar input, things freeze and get very cold, down to -70C at time. Ice reforms, Willard.
Do pay attention.
Tell me Willard, does this Danish Polar Portal go out on the Greenland ice sheet and measure every single ton of missing ice? Do they go out mid-winter and measure anything? I seriously doubt it. They use models programmed by alarmists to exaggerate the ice loss. And, they never mention it is melting because it’s summertime.
Duh!!!
These idiots need funding, and they won’t get it if they report there is no problem.
More tin foil, Gordo?
Tell me where you worked as an engineer.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The Sun fell asleep momentarily
https://i.postimg.cc/fyrWWMBj/Clipboard01.jpg
https://youtu.be/pDXdFqPEynk
swannie…”The Christy/Spencer UAH data is based on the identical theory and math as is the basis for the Green House Effect”.
***
Up till now I was willing to write you off as cantankerous. Now I am questioning your sanity. The UAH data is collected by advanced telemetry that receives real EM emissions from oxygen molecules in the microwave band. Those emission give very accurate temperatures based on altitude.
What the heck does that have to do with the voodoo science upon which the GHE theory is based? Where are the instruments that measure the alleged warming effect of CO2 on the atmosphere?
Finally, where is the science that provides a causal relationship between CO2 and atmospheric warming? All you have are equations scribbled out by a scientist, Arrhenius, over 100 years ago and allegation he made based on them. No science.
And what math reveals that CO2 is warming the atmosphere like nitrogen and oxygen warm a real greenhouse? Any math used by UAH is well established. There is no math to support the GHE.
studentb…”Is this official denialist thinking? that the rate of spin affects the temperature?
Cmon, lets see who agrees with this”.
***
I do, I do.
Look at the Moon, it doesn’t spin at all and the side facing the Sun rises to 127C and stays there for up to two weeks. That happens when one side of the Moon is facing the Sun.
When that heated side reaches a point in the orbit where it’s on the far side of the Earth from the Sun, and pointed away from the Sun, temperatures plummet to -180C. So, the Moon has about 2 weeks on one face at 127C and about two weeks at -180C.
As the Moon orbits the Earth, it is essentially between the Sun and the Earth for about 14 days and has the Earth between it and the Sun for another 14 days. Although there are periods where it is in-between those two states, the point is that the Sun is shining directly on an exposed face of the Moon for half its orbit.
The Earth, on the other hand, rotates 27 times faster and that gives solar energy less time to heat one face.
With a higher planetary velocity, the global minimum temperature is higher because the cooling time is shorter.
And the maximum temperature is lower because the warming time is shorter.
Are you saying that the average temperature is independent of rate of rotation but faster rotation reduces the variation either side of the average?
Because the cooling time is shorter the temperature across the planet is more even and the average temperature is higher.
The near side always has Earth in the same spot in sky. Earth light goes through phases, and during lunar night on Near side, Earth is full and Moon is New as seen from Earth.
Far side of moon has no Earth light.
Earth light is unlike Moonlight. Earth is bigger and brighter but does not interfere with looking at stars [nor does sunlight interfere with looking at the stars]. Near side has the brightest or Full Earth light during the lunar midnight. And during lunar mid-day the Earth is New and during this time Earth can block the Sun- and then Earth has red ring of light around it
Also Apollo landing were {all??} in lunar morning [easier to land and not as hot] When we go to lunar polar region, it’s always morning or evening whatever you want to call it or Sun is always low on horizon.
So we might get different views of Earth.
gbaikie…”CNN reporters are idiots”.
***
That’s the spirit. Not just idiots…raving idiots. Some are wankers, when they think no one is looking.
For all you spin believers:
At the average Earth-Sun distance the intensity of solar radiation is close to 1360 Watts per square meter.
The Earth presents as a circular disk (radius r) with area Pi R squared square meters.
It therefore intercepts pi R squared times 1360 Watts.
The average intercepted by the Earth as a sphere (with total area 4 pi R squared) is therefore 1360/4 = 240 Watts.
Allowing for reflection, a fraction of this, about 70%, is absorbed by the sphere, which at equilibrium, is emitted as long wave radiation according to the SB Law.
This average emitting temperature T is determined solely by
sigma T**4 = 168 Watts.
Tell me, how does spin enter into the calculation? e.g. does it cause T to be higher or lower?
s,
Try not to appear so stupid. You forget the Earth is hotter than sunlight can account for. More than 99% molten. What should the surface temperature be, then? Measure it, and find out!
You are an idiotic climate crackpot.
The Earth does not present as a circle, it presents as an oblate spheroid, with an orbital obliquity of some 23.5 degrees. The optical qualities of the surface are constantly changing, as is the crust itself. Maybe you are too thick to realise why polar regions exposed to 6 months of continuous sunlight do not warm up appreciably.
Your “average temperature” is a fiction, and about as valid as an “average” family having fractional children.
You really have no idea at all, you? You can’t even figure out why temperatures drop at night, or why the Antarctic Ocean doesn’t freeze.
Got any more stupid and irrelevant calculations?
Fail.
Anybody else ?
s,
If T is temperature, it is measured, dummy. Surface temperatures vary between greater than 1000 C, to -90 C or so.
Your equations are totally pointless and irrelevant – climastrological pseudoscience, dimwit.
How hot is your soup? Try working it out with your “equations”. Don’t wait too long. Your soup might get cold!
Don’t take your fail so personally.
Calm down and you may learn something.
DMT,
What “fail” would that be, dummy?
studentb…”This average emitting temperature T is determined solely by
sigma T**4 = 168 Watts.
Tell me, how does spin enter into the calculation? e.g. does it cause T to be higher or lower?”
***
Note that S-B does not calculate the radiating temperature, it calculates the radiated EM intensity. EM is not heat.
This is what happens when you apply math for a theoretical body to a surface that is rotating and has many different materials with different emissivities. Your equation MIGHT apply to a plate of steel sitting still with an electrical, internal heat source, depending on the temperature of the environment in which it is located..
It does not apply to Earth’s surface at terrestrial temperatures. The S-B constant was derived from an electrically-heated platinum filament wire with temperatures ranging from 700C to 1400C. The constant does not apply at terrestrial temperatures.
Furthermore, the T in your equation is not derived solely from solar energy, nor does it apply to the entire surface. When the Earth rotates so that is is no longer receiving solar input, it begins to cool. Therefore, you have different parts of the planet radiating at different temperatures.
The faster it rotates, the less time it has to warm from solar input and the less time it has to cool. Since the Moon does not rotate at all, it has one hemisphere facing the Sun for about 14 days while the other hemisphere faces cold space for the same time.
“Since the Moon does not rotate at all”
The Moon rotates on its axis once per orbit around Earth. As you then indicate with your comment about 14 day day/night periods.
Wrong RLH, you still don’t understand orbital motions.
Moon’s 14 day/night periods are caused by its orbital motion. It is NOT rotating about its axis. It always faces the inside of its orbit, but presents different faces to Sun due to its orbit around Earth.
Just think of a ball-on-a-string, swinging around you, with a huge spotlight shining on you from one side.
The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string will help you understand.
Ball-on-a-string is not a useful analogy for gravitationally connected objects.
It introduces a torque because of the string connected to the ball’s surface. No such force exists under gravity.
RLH, you keep trying to discredit the simple analogy, because it destroys your cult beliefs. The string does NOT introduce a torque!
The ball-on-a-string is a simple-to-understand analogy of orbital motion. It is used throughout academia as an introduction to the science. Here are 3 links for you to deny:
“Orbital Motion is much like a ball whipped around on a string”
https://people.astro.umass.edu/~tripp/a101fall08/lectnotes/a101lect13_f08.pdf
“Sort of like balls on strings, but there are no strings”
https://www.unf.edu/~n00006757/astronomylectures/ECP4e/First%20Lectures/Newton's%20Laws,%20Motion,%20and%20Gravity.pdf
“For Newton’s cannonball, the Earth provided the acceleration. For a ball on a string, the tension in the string provides the acceleration.”
http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/physics/astronomy/astr101/specials/newtscannon.html
As usual, I predict you can’t understand any of this.
(I won’t respond to nonsense.)
“The string does NOT introduce a torque!”
If the string is attached to the surface, what do you call the lever that exists between the surface and the center? Magic?
“much like … ”
“sort of like .. ”
I see. We all see. We all know that those profs would disown your position in a heartbeat.
“much like … ”
“sort of like .. ”
I see.
We all see.
Those page don’t say that the moon is just like a ball on a string.
We all know that those profs would disown your “moon does not rotate” position in a heartbeat.
Clint has sources!
But as unfortunately Clint missed some inconvenient facts from his sources:
https://www.unf.edu/~n00006757/astronomylectures/ECP4e/First%20Lectures/Newton's%20Laws,%20Motion,%20and%20Gravity.pdf
“Over time the Moon’s rotation has slowed so much that it matches its orbital period”
“It is now in synchronous rotation with its orbit”
“it orbits Earth in the same time it takes to spin once around its rotational axis”
Tim, please stop trolling.
another fail.
student b, please stop trolling.
Cooling is close to a straight line. Heating is not.
–This average emitting temperature T is determined solely by
sigma T**4 = 168 Watts.
Tell me, how does spin enter into the calculation? e.g. does it cause T to be higher or lower?–
To make simple, faster in spins increases the amount of sunlight is absorbed.
But in terms of Ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere, it doesn’t make any difference.
One could say spin increases the thermally conductivity of a sphere.
Ideal thermal conductive blackbody sphere model is “infinite thermal conductivity” or ideal or perfect.
One could say an advantage of an Ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere is it allows one to avoid the complexity the thermal conductivity of a planet. All models must ignore various complexities of real world. So in terms of T = 168 watts, spin does not enter into the calculation. Except is sense part the fundamental equation- you dividing by 4. Or dividing 4 is “justifiable” or “more reasonable” because of earth’s existing spin rate.
or it’s not really exactly 4 but Earth spin make closer being sort of right.
[This is how I explain it, one can’t explain insanity but you can give a guess] But rather this heretics view, I give you a somewhat official answer. Here:
Note the ratio of the two areas. Common assumptions for this ratio are 1/4 for a rapidly rotating body and
1/2 for a slowly rotating body, or a tidally locked body on the sunlit side. This ratio would be 1 for the subsolar point, the point on the planet directly below the sun and gives the maximum temperature of the planet — a factor of √2 (1.414) greater than the effective temperature of a rapidly rotating planet.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature
And same place:
The Earth has an albedo of about 0.306. The emissivity is dependent on the type of surface and many climate models set the value of the Earth’s emissivity to 1. However, a more realistic value is 0.96. The Earth is a fairly fast rotator so the area ratio can be estimated as 1/4. The other variables are constant. This calculation gives us an effective temperature of the Earth of 252 K (−21 °C). The average temperature of the Earth is 288 K (15 °C). One reason for the difference between the two values is due to the greenhouse effect, which increases the average temperature of the Earth’s surface.”
And of course the “greenhouse effect theory” is based on ideal thermally conductive blackbody with weird addition that it reflects sunlight. And you got to ignore that Earth does not have uniform temperature or that average temperature is about the same thing as uniform temperature.
Cargo cult.
studentb you spin believers:
At the average Earth-Sun distance the intensity of solar radiation is close to 1360 Watts per square m
The Earth presents as a circular disk (radius r) with area Pi R squared square meters.
It therefore intercepts pi R squared times 1360 Watts.
The average intercepted by the Earth as a sphere (with total area 4 pi R squared) is 1360/4 = 240 W
Allowing for reflection 70%, is absorbed by the sphere, which is emitted as long wave radiation
This average emitting temperature T is determined solely by. sigma T**4 = 168 Watts.
how does spin enter into the calculation?
e.g. does it cause T to be higher or lower?
–
Your presentation is a bit too glib.
There are two circular discs.
1 receiving 1360
The other technically getting 0 as no direct sunlight especially if not rotating.
Practically the dark side is not 0 K
Both radiate energy.
–
The result is in part that dark side is also emitting energy to space so you have more energy going out than comes in or need to modify your steps.
The average emission would be higher than 168 W on your argument.
–
Correcting your wrong assumptions is not easy.
–
Secondly due to SB combining two average temperatures of different energy emission levels for similar periods does not give a correct average temperature for an average emitting energy.
Spin does not change the energy going out, you get one point.
However it does change the average of the combined temperatures.
This is not rocket science or consensus, just fact
–
Swenson winning two rounds clearly.
–
Round 3?
A,
Thank you.
The climate nutters obviously believe that continuously repeating nonsense will somehow make it come true. I suppose this is why the undistinguished civil servant Gavin Schmidt claims to be a “climate scientist”, and the university lecturer Michael Mann (faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat), claimed to be a Nobel Laureate – even printing himself a certificate to that effect!
That’s the “woke” world for you.
Fail number 3.
I think I can safely say the whole class has failed.
I can definitely say you are a dimwit.
Is your condition congenital, or did you have to work hard to achieve the levels of ignorance and stupidity that you demonstrate?
Definitely hard work for many years.
Probably in the same Dojo as the Panda.
Impressive once you consider the starting level
The Faster a Planet Rotates, the Warmer its Average Temperature
September 28th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
This is a followup to my post from yesterday where I provided time-dependent model results of the day-night cycle in lunar temperatures.
double fail.
Has nobody here ever heard of the conservation of energy?
If I were you I would question the quality of the educational institutions you attended (if any).
Where do you find problems with the Conservation of Energy, studentb?
Dont play dumb. Look at the post by Mike below.
Nice distraction, DMT.
But, even the times don’t work out for you. Nevermind you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
s,
Thank God you are not me.
Are you one of those idiotic buffoons who claims “energy in” equals “energy out”?
You do realise that the Earth has cooled from the molten state, don’t you?
Show me your “equation” that calculates the rate of cooling, and the present temperature.
You are an incomplete idiot, but keep going and you will achieve your goal of becoming a complete idiot.
Off you go now.
studentb, the issue is not with conservation of energy, but with the T^4 nature of radiation. Imagine 10 m^2 emitting 5000 W. It could be …
* 500 W from each m^2 –> 306 K average
* 1000 W from 5 m^2 and 0 from the other 5 m^2 –> 182 K average
* 2500 from 2 m^2 and 0 from 8 m^2 –> 91 K average
* 5000 from 1 m^2 –> 65 K average.
The same total power can lead to very different average temperatures! The more extreme the variations, the colder the average
A slowly rotating planet has more extreme variations, and hence lower average temperature.
Dont forget we are talking about the average, steady state temperature for a well mixed global atmosphere and ocean.
The rate of spin is irrelevant.
Otherwise, show me the equation which has spin in it.
“Dont forget we are talking about the average, steady state temperature for a well mixed global atmosphere and ocean.”
Actually, the discussion started with the moon, and the fact that its slow spin rate keep the average surface temperature well below the value calculated from (albedo)*P/A = (sigma)(epsilon)(T^4). The sunny side is above this value, but the night side is way below this value. The average is well below T = [(albedo P/A)/(epsilon sigma) ]^(1/4)
If the moon spun faster with the exact same solar input, then its average surface temperature would be closer to value calculated above.
Even for the earth with a faster spin and fairly well-mixed oceans and atmosphere, there is a noticeable different between night and day, and thus the earth’s average temperature — as measured by the radiation emitted to space — will be less than the 255 K calculated as the effective BB temperature.
TF, you are making the common mistake of confusing “orbiting” with “rotating”. Moon only orbits, it does NOT rotate. If it rotated about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
Moon has the same motion as a ball-on-a-string.
“Moon has the same motion as a ball-on-a-string.”
The Moon it NOT the same as a ball-on-a-string. At all.
You sure are a ‘one trick pony’ Clint. Even when the post has nothing to do with your odd personal theory about the moon, you bring it up.
However we describe the motion of the moon, the slower it spins on its axis, the longer the days and nights will be, the more extreme the temperature changes, and the cooler the average temperature. If the moon spun once every 24 hr on its axis, the average temp would be much warmer than it is now. If it spun once every 3 hours, the average would be warmer yet.
Tim, please stop trolling.
You could try looking up Dr Spencers post that I quoted?
Or you could choose not to. Not my loss.
Anyone reading this can look it up and see proof that your contention is wrong.
I dont think so.
studentb, please stop trolling.
I have noticed that denialists shy away from equations. Hand waving seems to be their preferred method of argument.
You reality denialists shy away from most science.
For example “studentb” perverts solar flux:
“The average intercepted by the Earth as a sphere (with total area 4 pi R squared) is therefore 1360/4 = 240 Watts.”
First, flux cannot be averaged, and second, if it could be averaged it would still have units of “flux”.
“This average emitting temperature T is determined solely by sigma T**4 = 168 Watts.”
Then, “studentb” has Earth at about -40F!
Give him an equation he can’t understand, and he’s dangerous.
T is actually 255K.
Which is the average emission temperature of the Earth-Atmosphere system. It is not the surface temperature.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
“T”, for your 168 W/m^2 (NOT 168 “Watts”), would correspond to 233K, young one.
NOT 255K.
I understand that you have no science background.
Well spotted.
255K corresponds to 238 W /m^2 (which is the correct value
for an albedo of 0.3)
However, note that spin does not enter the calculation.
Yes, you were wrong again.
But considering the effect of rotation is a more advanced issue. Emission from a surface is different than conduction within a body..
Learn to get the basics right, and we can move on.
What’s a ‘denialist’, exactly?
If you don’t believe in the holy view that climate change is caused by humans and that there is a looming crisis then you are a ‘denialist’.
Its a weird religion because if you look at salient climate data and still think there is a looming crisis then you really are in denial about the reality of the situation.
‘Denialist’ is a pointless and meaningless description that is in keeping with the rest of the Woke Cancer that is sweeping our culture.
When someone starts bandying about the word ‘denialist’ it is not worth your time to engage because they are dipped-in-the-koolaid believers. You can’t ignore them because there is a real and present danger in their anti-science Marxism.
Denialist:
Old, male, untrained in maths and physics, conservative, probably a Trump supporter, paranoid, bitter, retired, hates everyone, ….sad.
Yes. Yes. No. No. No. No. No. Yes. No. No.
The No’s have it, the No’s have it.
quote Denialist:
Old, male, untrained in maths and physics, conservative, probably a Trump supporter, paranoid, bitter, retired, hates everyone, ….sad. unquote
You mean Pessimist. Optimists (aka denialists) have more fun but pessimists are more often correct. Sad but true.
pP,
Precisely. Climate crackpots deny reality, and believe that fantasy is superior to fact.
They seem to be obsessed with things like “consensus” , “arguments”, “winners”, “losers”.
The scientific method is a foreign concept to climate cranks – just look at their stupid comments.
Who cares what you “noticed”? You can’t even name one of your ilk who cares about what you “noticed”, can you?
That’s sad. Really sad.
[sighs of sympathy]
The so-called scientific method you refer to does not rely on hand waving.
Here is your equation, straight from Einstein
https://i.postimg.cc/mZ3czjfn/einsteinshow.jpg
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
The capital city of the Northwest Territories measured a high temperature of 32.6°C on Aug. 2, 2021, eking out a new place in the records. The previous all-time high temperature for the city was a 32.5°C reading on July 16, 1989.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/it/news/article/extreme-heat-scorches-yellowknifes-all-time-temperature-record-northwest-territories
Woebegone Wee Willy reduced to copying weather reports.
Obviously unaware of difference between weather and climate.
Desperately seeks attention. Instead, becomes object of derision on account of his desperation.
[derisive snorts]
Mike Flynn,
Marvellous Failure.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The capital of the Northwest Territories logged its hottest-ever day on Monday, Aug. 2, edging out the previous record by a hair.
Hottest ever day
Ever? Really? Even during the Holocene Thermal Maximum? Even over the last 1,000 years?
You are making it way too easy for you to be an object of ridicule. Pick up your game. I know you have it in you.
And another:
“Out of control fires everywhere in Greece. Athens is burning. Hundreds of houses are gone. Unimaginable disaster unfolding”
And prove that hasnt been happening all through the Holocene.
Good luck.
Are you saying Athens is regularly destroyed by fire?
And that this is not unusual?
Studentb: wildfires in Greece are nothing new. There’s plenty to read here for example:
https://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1007/BF03400631
Note the reference to the climate of Greece. Nothing new there, either.
Suburbs of Athens, not Athens itself.
Prove that God does not exist, Roberto.
Willard: Which God is that?
Whichever you wish to take, dummy.
Good luck trying to prove that kind of negative existential.
The idiot calling himself studentb has delusions of grandeur.
No doubt he is a legend in his own lunchbox. Just another climate crank, who is in denial of reality.
What an idiot he is!
I forgot to include “boringly repetitious” in my definition of a denialist.
DMT, please stop trolling.
Flood management Chinese style
https://youtu.be/eBmicuwleZI?t=40
For those who have not been dropped from class, the story continues:
“The global average mean surface temperature of the earth is 288 K. Above we deduced that the emission temperature of the Earth is 255K, considerably lower. Why? The atmosphere is rather opaque to IR, so we cannot think of terrestrial radiation as being radiated into space directly from the surface. Much of the radiation emanating from
the surface will be absorbed, primarily by H2O, before passing through the atmosphere. On average, the emission to space will emanate from some level in the atmosphere (typically about 5 km, in fact) such that the region above that level is mostly transparent to IR. It is this region of the atmosphere,
rather than the surface, that must be at the emission temperature. Thus radiation from the atmosphere will be directed downward, as well as upward, and hence the surface will receive not only the net solar radiation, but IR from
the atmosphere as well. Because the surface feels more incoming radiation than if the atmosphere were not present (or were completely transparent to IR) it becomes warmer than Te. This has become known as the greenhouse effect. +
That is indeed the AGW nonsense, in a nutshell, studentb. You have been well indoctrinated.
But, we know from science that back-radiation from the sky does not add. That’s like trying to boil water with ice cubes.
It is well known in ClifF’s universe that you cannot be shot twice because bullets do not add.
Are you just being a silly troll Ent, or it that another attempt to pervert reality?
It’s hard to tell the difference….
Just being satirical so about your mistaken belief that fluxes cannot be added.
No, you’re trying to pervert reality.
If you believe fluxes add, then try boiling water with ice cubes. An ice cube emits about 300 W/m^2. Most of you idiots don’t even understand what that means. You believe that two ice cubes is then emitting 600 W/m^2. Ten ice cubes would be emitting 3000 W/m^2.
So, get a truck load of ice cubes and try boiling water, so you can learn your beliefs ain’t science.
Or, just admit you’re an idiot troll with no understanding of the relevant science.
Your choice.
Laughing stock ClintR muffs it again; the proper belief is that two ice cubes are then emitting 600 W/2m^2. Ten ice cubes would be emitting 3000 W/10m^2.
ClintR can’t add up emitting areas properly and has shown no ability to ever understand climate physics. Carry own ClintR, the entertaining 3 ring circus needs your comedy talents on this blog.
Ball4
You are correct. Clint R cannot understand his flawed thoughts but he keeps posting as if he knows things. Pity the fool. He is blinded by his arrogance and too stupid to know better.
Arrogant stupidity is a curse but it won’t help his even if you tell him about it. Too arrogant to see his own ignorance.
Troll Ent got caught perverting reality. Then trolls Ball4 and Norman jump in to help Ent, using their insults and false accusations.
They’ve got NOTHING of value.
Yes, Norman 8:26pm, if there were actually something false about my physics Clint R would have properly pointed it out but Clint R 3:48am could not do so. I do appreciate the continuing Clint R entertainment act.
“If you believe fluxes add …”
For the umpteenth time…
* Fluxes absorbed BY a surface DO add. Measure the flux arriving at a surface from a light bulb (or from an IR heater or from a block of ice). Then add a second light bulb (or IR heater or block of ice). The flux arriving will be the sum of the two (plus the flux arriving from any other sources around). If one lightbulb (or IR heater or block of ice) provides 20 W/m^2 to a surface, then a second light (or heater or ice with a similar size and location) will also provide 20 W/m^2, for a total of 40 W/m^2.
* Fluxes emitted FROM a surface don’t add. If one block of ice emits 300 W/m^2, then another similar block will also emit 300 W/m^2. Not 600 W/m^2
Everyone seems to get this except you, Clint.
Ball4, Tim, please stop trolling.
A good summary.
Tim,
Except for the fact that the atmosphere absorbs IR In both directions.
And, of course, that during the night, all the heat of the day escapes to space (plus a little of the Earth’s primordial heat).
And, of course, that the Earth has managed to cool all the way to its present temperature.
And, of course, that the hottest places (arid tropical deserts) have the smallest amounts of H2O in the atmosphere above them
Denialist climate cranks can’t admit such facts exist. They just deny reality – that there is no GHE at all!
You are a gullible fool.
Yes, the atmosphere absorbs in both directions. What would make you think I believe otherwise?
No, not all of the day’s energy necessarily escapes. This is not some ‘fixed law of physics. if one day is warmer than the previous, then that area had a small net gain in energy. If one month globally is cooler then that past month then there was a net loss of energy. IF one year is warmer than the past, there was a net gain of energy. The imbalance is thought to be on the order of 1 W/m^2. This swamps the geothermal loses on the order of 0.1 W/m^2. The earth as a whole is GAINING energy lately, despite the geothermal losses!
Yes. No one doubts that the surface was once molten and is not any longer.
Yes, deserts are hot — for a variety of reasons. Yes, arid areas don’t have as much water vapor for greenhouse warming. But as you noted earlier, this also mean less incoming solar energy gets absorbed, so sunlight is more intense. And few clouds, so more sunlight. And no water in the soil, so no evaporative cooling.
You think you understand and can explain, but you are several steps behind.
Tim, please stop trolling.
“For those who have not been dropped from class, the story continues:
“The global average mean surface temperature of the earth is 288 K. Above we deduced that the emission temperature of the Earth is 255K, considerably lower. Why? ”
One could say that Earth is cold and absorbs a lot the sun’s energy and emits as cold planet would, at 255 K the blackbody spectrum.
Now one expect a planet in an ice Age to be cold, but I think even if Earth was in warm period, it would still roughly emits as cold planet which that absorbs a lot of the Sun’s energy.
Now a planet that doesn’t absorb a lot of the sun’s energy is Venus.
And due to the fact that Venus absorbs as much [or less when consider how close Venus is to the Sun] of the sunlight than our moon does, perhaps the Moon and Venus is more similar to each other, like for instance, both lack oceans.
And both have long days.
Venus is also similar to Mercury, which lacks and ocean and also has long day.
And spectrum of Moon and Mercury and Venus though they absorb less of the sunlight emit at much higher blackbody spectrum when in daylight but at much lower blackbody spectrum when at night.
Very similar and none have oceans.
RLH (1 of 3)
Just like my comments about what you wrote were very probably useless for you, most of your remarks about what I wrote were not so terribly useful for me either.
But every rule has its exception. I thank you very much for this one remark
” Just to be clear, you do know the difference between LST_DATE and UTC_DATE don?t you? ”
which was very useful because though having written about that in my informal working spec (even with bold emphasis), I simply forgot it!
Of course I knew this difference. But knowledge is only useful when we apply it.
If one suddenly forgets, e.g. in
” 26563 20210101 0100 20201231 1600 ”
to use positions 4 and 5 instead of positions 2 and 3, many things look nice but nonetheless it’s all plain wrong.
Even if plots and running means undoubtedly look very similar, the differences simply are too big to be ignored.
J.-P. D.
RLH (2 of 3)
The following graphs show this clearly.
1. A single CRN station (NM_Carrizozo_1W), 2009-2014
UTC:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OEs81Q6Cq6S4iAcHYd3VS3Mx0_BfFGU6/view
LST:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_vtCk3qUEYzsCUthpWIHjdBMrFcIDo5G/view
2. All CRN stations, 2002-2021
UTC:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wuby_0CEGOQSrnbaklZVr5KvxvCoXXYP/view
LST:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZygssQsfA1c4e21HV8nCyEg1HjkxewTg/view
Btw, it would be interesting for me, and possibly for you, to find the reason for the accumulations of higher differences, e.g. during the period ‘end of 2013 – begin of 2015’:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZygssQsfA1c4e21HV8nCyEg1HjkxewTg/view
What daily temperature do you calculate for the day and station given?
2009/10/28 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.5 Count = 288
RLH (3 of 3)
However, I guess that you might much less appreciate the four following graphs because they probably go, in your opinion, in the ‘wrong’ direction.
3. Comparison of hourly Tmean, Tmedian and Tavg
UTC:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g5nAr4M2z0BXZ9uUZH1711MLpZrsm4m6/view
LST:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1un5XUcoBo58oSKkK4dy379z9eHgnmTb3/view
4. Comparison of the difference between ‘Tavg – Tmean’ and ‘Tavg – Tmedian’
UTC:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vURtK_aCD69tASBt166YNmSBna4Hwxvs/view
LST:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bROlI9vVCBE4ZFEfBhrcEyVaznDbrKtB/view
*
If you can’t prove me wrong, then it becomes evident that this Tmean vs. Tmedian vs. Tavg discussion is moving to a discussion about the sex of angels.
Simply because the absolute value of the mean, for 2002-2021, of all daily differences between Tavg and Tmean not only is lower than the absolute value mean for the differences between Tavg and Tmedian.
It’s value is 0.09 C, i.e. below the precision of the published data (0.1 C).
*
Maybe you have already published your graphs for the average of all available CRN stations since 2002, like I did in (3.) and (4.) ?
If you did, please post here a link to the place where you did. Otherwise, I’ll enjoy you publishing your graphs right here.
J.-P. D.
Did you read anything of what USCRN themselves wrote? The 0000 hour of a day refers to the hour preceding that on the previous day.
Until you apply that correction also, all your calculations are worthless.
I have confirmed that the above is true. Hence my calculation of the average temperature on a given day being the same, regardless if you use the USCRN daily, hourly or sub-hourly dataset.
2009/10/28 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.5 Count = 288
Likewise the nn00 minute refers to the previous hour and the nnn0/nnn5 5min refers to the previous 5 minute periods.
To place the values in the correct measurement slot you need to take 1 second off the time as decoded from the text fields.
” Until you apply that correction also, all your calculations are worthless. ”
Stop smalltalking, and publish the result of your work
– for the average of all stations between 2002 and now
– in the same format as I did, by using a similar spreadsheet tool (Excel, Libre Office Calc or the like) and plotting in the same way (lines instead of dots, together with the tool’s running means).
Until then, your condescending words are even less than worthless, RLH.
I know right now: you won’t do that work.
J.-P. D.
Do you agree that the USCRN know their own data best? Or are you arrogant enough to think that what they say doesn’t matter and they you are correct regardless?
What daily temperature do you calculate for the day and station given?
“plotting in the same way (lines instead of dots, together with the tools running means).”
So you magically know what the values are in between the dots do you? Another show or your arrogance.
“I know right now: you wont do that work.”
I know right now that you know better than USCRN do about their own data.
You see, RLH?
While I stay in front of the wall, ready for a fair comparison, you comfortably, cowardly keep behind the wall, keep smalltalking instead of publishing your work, in order to avoid the comparison.
I know right now: you wont do that work.
J.-P. D.
You are an arrogant twat of the highest order. Unless things are done exactly your way under your precise control and direction then nothing is of any value.
“I know right now: you wont do that work.”
I have done the work, again and again. But you wont accept that others do things differently to you and still have questions that require answers rather than presuming that what you have done is the only way things can be done.
Arrogance in the extreme.
What daily temperature do you calculate for the day and station given?
2009/10/28 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.5 Count = 288
RLH
Didn’t you understand that this information matters only when you consider UTC time?
”
3 UTC_TIME [4 chars] cols 16 — 19
The UTC time of the observation. Time is the end of the observed
hour, so the 0000 hour is actually the last hour of the previous day’s observation (starting just after 11:00 PM through midnight).
5 LST_TIME [4 chars] cols 30 — 33
The Local Standard Time (LST) time of the observation. Time is the end of the observed hour (see UTC_TIME description). ”
Why do you mention UTC info?
Do YOU, RLH, restrict your computations to LST time?
I hope so! And I hope you know why you should.
J.-P. D.
“Do YOU, RLH, restrict your computations to LST time?”
Yes. And I subtract 1 second to place the measurement within the time period it actually measures. Do you?
What daily temperature do you calculate for the day and station given?
2009/10/28 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.5 Count = 288
“Didn’t you understand that this information matters only when you consider UTC time?”
USCRN confirmed for me that the placing of the measurement in the next hour occurs for all times/days regardless if it is UCT or LST.
USCRN confirmed for me that the placing of the measurement in the next hour occurs for all times/days regardless if it is UTC or LST.
“The Daily value is derived from the hours 20091028 0100 to 20091029 0000 (the hour number is the end of the hour it represents). While the data are stored to three decimal places in Degrees Celsius, we did get 5.5 Deg C for the daily average when we calculated using the correct column of data from Hourl02 rounded to one decimal place.”
3 UTC_TIME [4 chars] cols 16 19
The UTC time of the observation. Time is the end of the observed hour, so the 0000 hour is actually the last hour of the previous days observation (starting just after 11:00 PM through midnight).
5 LST_TIME [4 chars] cols 30 33
The Local Standard Time (LST) time of the observation. Time is the end of the observed hour (see UTC_TIME description).
“Didnt you understand that this information matters only when you consider UTC time?”
You going to withdraw that incorrect assertion?
If you can tell me, ahead of time, which particular station will be mean or median as the more ‘accurate’ and by how much, then what you have done is of little use.
If you cannot tell me….
Bindidon: You went from “You cannot retrieve the data like I can” to “You can’t calculate temperatures like I can” to “You can’t draw graphs like I can” to “You can’t figure out dates like I can”.
You are arrogant in the extreme.
What daily temperature do you calculate for the day and station given?
2009/10/28 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.5 Count = 288
Direct from CRN daily data: 5.5
24 h avg of CRN hourly data: 5.53 -> 5.5 after rounding
And your count/average of the 5min data gives what? The same 5.5c as mine does?
So you agree that using the Daily average gives the same answer regardless of if you choose Daily/Hourly/5Min data source?
You must also agree that Min, Max and ‘Mean’ produce the same answers if you get the results from either the daily USCRN figures or calculate them yourself.
There are 2 separate claims here which are in danger of getting confused.
1. The ‘mean’ is an inaccurate way of determining true average temperature during a day.
This is reflected in the daily data provided by USCRN with the 2 fields
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.
9 T_DAILY_AVG [7 chars] cols 63 — 69
Average air temperature, in degrees C.
No calculation is required to distinguish those differences which is what I do.
2. The median is likely to be more accurate than the ‘mean’ in most circumstances.
This I do by taking the hourly data and find the median for a day and plotting that.
Do you dispute that methodology?
Are you two arguing who has a better data slicer/dicer? It’s ok , keep Bidendong occupied so my ankles have a chance to heal
I think that he thinks that command line tools that other wrote are better than things you craft for yourself.
Well, Eben: I think you are the better ankle biter of us here.
Instead of endlessly spitting your useless polemic on me, you’d better try to compile statistics on consecutive sunspot-free days and show us a nice graph about that.
That would be a serious progress compared with your usual Boom Pseudoscience nonsense…
J.-P. D.
RLH
After a long fight with strange things happening in Libre Office Calc (what a pale copy of Microsoft’s superb Excel!), I have now the proof of the correctness of my hourly evaluations of USCRN data, which gives for Tavg a series differing from USCRN’s daily data by less than USCRN data’s precision (0.1 C).
1. NM_Carrizozo_1W
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_vtCk3qUEYzsCUthpWIHjdBMrFcIDo5G/view
2. AK_Kenai_29_ENE
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fNnL7PsaHjYXcibgF8cLBdWnGdV0qC0H/view
3. The graph for the average of all CRN stations
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bROlI9vVCBE4ZFEfBhrcEyVaznDbrKtB/view
shows that Tmean (i.e. (Tmin+Tmax)/2) is nearer to Tavg than is Tmedian.
Do you remember your claim that Tmedian is better because it is closer to Tavg than is Tmean?
This claim is based on a minuscule subset of all 230+ stations, RLH.
*
You may name me an arrogant twath as long as you want.
Better would be to technically contradict me by finally processing the entire USCRN data into one time series.
*
Until now, your claim about Tmean being inaccurate for temperature measurements still is no more than a superficial, proofless claim based on single station analysis.
And that won’t be changed by keeping in the bits of single stations, moving down even to subminute measurements.
*
By the way: where is your version of this difference calculation for all CRN stations (about 2 weeks old in between)?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l1H0v-FOq_mR079g0goPSWEgH4I3uOec/view
I didn’t see much of it until now…
J.-P. D.
Tmean is an inaccurate way of assessing the true average temperature in the day. Do you dispute that?
Statistics tells us that Tmedian is a better choice that Tmean in most cases. Do you dispute that?
Why do you persist in showing graphs that display the actual temperature during a day? It is like using absolute temperatures to try and show anomalies. Useless.
Do you dispute that https://imgur.com/q6KdGTr shows that Tmedian is better than Tmean is this case at least? Far better. Where is your graph (without the distracting actual temperatures) showing that station?
Or https://imgur.com/a5bq96L which shows the same.
Or https://imgur.com/oQYS3p5
This later one is AK_Kenai_29_ENE which is one of your posts.
“proofless claim based on single station analysis.”
Liar.
I have posted various stations which demonstrate the truth of my claims. You have not disputed those individual observations. AT ALL.
“2. AK_Kenai_29_ENE”
How do you still get the daily average temperature to be different when using the daily and hourly averages? When USCRN have said that the figures come out the same? Are you saying that they are wrong?
If not, how come you show them as different?
Pfizer has published their 6-month vaccine study. There is no difference in deaths between the vaccine group and the placebo group. Therefore, Pfizer concludes the vaccine is effective.
Not quite what the study says
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-confirm-high-efficacy-and-no-serious
Anderson
What should we expect from a person writing – on this blog! – that the bloodthursty dictator Pinochet is a ‘leftist’ ?
J.-P. D.
OMG How is it that Stephen always gets things so back-asswards?
“Analysis of 927 confirmed symptomatic cases of COVID-19 demonstrates BNT162b2 is highly effective with 91.3% vaccine efficacy observed against COVID-19, measured seven days through up to six months after the second dose
Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”
None of you leftist morons can read, can you?
We don’t have the ideology-filtering glasses that you wear.
“Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”
I think death from the disease would typically require first having SEVERE DISEASE, which is effectively prevented.
“Science advances one funeral at a time.”
The fact that you’re touting these cases means he was right about the vaccine.
“…died from complications…”
I wonder if the complications involved a motorcycle accident, snake bite, lightning strike, or gunshot?
“Science” is about knowing ALL the facts, not just cherry-picking items that fit beliefs.
Clint R
I wonder if you are stupid? No I know you are.
Quit acting like you know anything about science you phony liar! I have posted links to real science (not your idiot version you post on here like the Moon does not rotate on its axis or the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for heat transfer is bogus) and you are too stupid to understand the content. What is your response? That I do not understand the link. No, my friend, it is you who do not understand the links.
Poor Norma has been reduced to a babbling idiot. He used to attempt physics, which was always humorous. But since his cult beliefs are being shattered, all he can do is hurl insults.
He’s no longer humorous, he’s pathetic.
Probably that’s the end result for all cult idiots.
Clint R
Your post does not make you less stupid. You still are totally clueless of physics and you lack logical thought process.
You can’t understand your ice cube points.
I can help (not you, you are too stupid to understand and lack the needed logic to grasp it).
Ice emits IR at 0 C. If left to itself with no surroundings it would keep cooling until it reached whatever ambient temperature was around. So it keeps cooling. Surrounding an ice cube in a sphere of ice (which is at 0 C) will slow down the cooling of the ice cube.
You can’t understand that it means the cube is losing energy at a reduced rate with the ice sphere around it. You reject logic and science in favor of blatant stupid notions.
Have you walked around a tree yet without rotating your feet?
Norman, when you can boil water with ice cubes, let me know.
(I won’t respond unless you can drop your immature insults and false accusations. Grow up.)
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/04/covid-death-of-sydney-man-in-his-20s-prompts-calls-for-young-people-to-get-vaccinated
“Covid death of Sydney man Aude Alaskar, 27, prompts calls for young people to get vaccinated”
“COVID started out as a virus, but it became an IQ test.”
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/pcr-tests-are-reliable-to-detect-and-monitor-covid-19-infections-which-are-real-and-had-caused-millions-of-deaths-worldwide/
Perhaps it is, what’s it to you? Get vaccinated, put on the mask and wait until your opponents deny themselves to extinction. True, such a thing would be difficult thing to do in teh case of the allegedly deleterious climate change, where the consequences are necessarily being changes to the single shared environment though i till believe you should resort to individual action in the case of the cacc as well, but it is easy in the case of the epidemics. I mean, if vaccines really work, right?
Smallpox and Polio vaccines worked didn’t they?
The defining role of smallpox vaccineis being questioned, thankes to pepel like TmG and such. As for the polio vaccines, which ones? Cause even I know that tyhere were more than one and not all of thom worked.
So you are saying that both Smallpox and Polio vaccines are faulty. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
@RHL no, I’m asking questions (c) south park. I also am pointing that it is the totalitarian frenzied zealots like TmG and people like him that incline all the liberty-minded people question and review the entire concept of vaccination. I didn’t use to be antivaxxer before this scandemics, but i feel like for all the practical purpose i am now.
but, i did say that that some of the polio vaccines might be faulty. Among other reasons also because I happen to have had personal issues with them.
Well I hope you don’t die from your beliefs as so many others have.
“I didnt use to be antivaxxer before this scandemics, but i feel like for all the practical purpose i am now.”
So I see you are now letting your politics guide your medical decisions.
Good luck with that!
@nate actually quite the opposite, now I WON’T let POLITICians make my medical decisions for me, where before this i didn’t really care
@rhl sounds like you believe that if if don’t adhere to the decision that you are wishing to forcibly impose (ur unimpose0 on people, i’d live forever with 100% certainty. It ain’t so,what matters is relative increase of getting killed vs the absolute one. For a person in my age cohort, the all-cause mortality is 1 in 1000 per year (half of it from suicides and dangerous behaviour). Should i care about a virus that kills people with chances comparable or less than that? Perhaps. Should i support totalitarian government because of that? perhaps not. Remember that government is like ratchet or a quick tie, it tightens easily but releasing the grip takes lots of effort and often lots of blood.
I am just hoping you dont die from your beliefs as so many others have already done.
“I WON’T let POLITICians make my medical decisions for me”
I don’t recall ever having to do that.
Give me an example where that happened.
People are now making self-destructive choices, just to troll the left.
Brilliant!
@nate this scvmdemic became political before it even started. In some way it is worse than the GW, which was a real science thing before it got irreversibly politicised in the early 90s. If you fail to see that… well, good for you. Blessed be fools.
@rhl sorry but i can’t say the same thing about you. except that it’s none of your business.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9874201/Vaccine-sceptic-46-dies-Covid-warning-similar-thoughts-jab.html
“Should i support totalitarian government because of that?”
Its odd that you frame it that way given that the vaccines are produced by private companies. Thus far it has only been companies, and universities requiring or incentivizing vaccines for employees.
Coturnix, cannot rationally explain his choices. He is simply following the directives of his tribal leaders.
As one commentator explains it:
“here we are: Trying to limit a deadly pandemic, even via vaccines that convey huge benefits at little risk, has become a deeply partisan issue.
How did that happen? Id tell the story this way: Americas rapid vaccination pace during the spring was very good news for the nation but it was also a success story for the Biden administration. So influential conservatives, for whom owning the libs is always an overriding goal, began throwing up roadblocks to the vaccination program.
This had far-reaching consequences. As Ive written before, the modern G.O.P. is more like an authoritarian political cult than a normal political party, so vaccine obstruction not necessarily denunciation of the vaccines themselves, but opposition to any effort to get shots into peoples arms became a loyalty test, a position you took to prove yourself a loyal Trumpist Republican.”
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus, in many Western countries, there appears to be a considerable share of people questioning the existence and anthropogenic cause of climate change. Climate change disbelief includes the absolute rejection of the existence of anthropogenic climate change (climate change denial) as well as a lack of sureness about the anthropogenic cause of climate change (climate change uncertainty). Although considerable research on this phenomenon has been conducted, the roots of climate change disbelief are not yet fully understood. In this article, data from Round 8 of the European Social Survey are used to study the possible socioeconomic roots of climate change disbelief at the individual, regional, and country level. Results show that climate change denial is a marginal phenomenon among European populations but that a great share of people attributes climate change equally to human influences and natural processes. Thereby, it appears that the level of climate change disbelief varies between countries, and even more so between regions within countries. Results of various three-level multilevel models show that socioeconomic factors can partly explain this variation. Individuals who feel insecure about their economic future are significantly more likely to reject the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Furthermore, climate change denial and uncertainty are more common in more rural and less prosperous regions and in countries more economically dependent on fossil fuels. The results contribute to a deeper understanding of climate change disbelief among the European population and have important implications for climate change mitigation efforts.
https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcab035/6333558
Dud favors dogma over science.
Not a surprise….
Thats science, Pup.
That’s sociology, you idiot.
No science, just opinions, based on wishful.
About as scientific as Political Science.
You are getting desperate, if you post that sort of rubbish claiming it is science!
Sociology is a science, Mustard Fly Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Victory will be achieved when average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science.” –American Petroleum Institute, 1998
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/03/APIquote1998_1.pdf
Today, average citizens are more skeptical of the anthropogenic cause of climate change than are the oil companies.
maguff…”Today, average citizens are more skeptical of the anthropogenic cause of climate change than are the oil companies”.
***
Yes…every time they raise the price of gas, claiming it’s aimed at reducing greenhouse emission, they laugh hysterically, all the way to the bank. It should be noted that governments profit immensely from this since their taxes on gas are vulgar.
Where did you work as an engineer, Gordo?
Dud, what’s your real name and personal information.
Have you ever even had a real job?
When I will brag about being more than a ninja, Pup, you will have a point.
Gordo’s mythomania deserves due diligence.
Willard: You just brag about being an idiot. Which you are.
No U.
‘scientific consensus’
Willard has discovered ‘Oxymoron’.
Try ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusion and the Madness of the Crowd’.
There is no science to be found in climate change claptrap.
See ‘Climate Consensus and Misinformation: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change’ Legates et al.
K,
He’s not terribly bright, Wee Willy Wanker.
He’s a typical denialist climate crank, with little knowledge of physics. He just refuses to believe that climate is derived from historical weather data – arithmetical calculations doable by a 12 year old.
Try and get one of these idiots to define the climate of any location numerically, and they will rapidly vanish through the nearest door.
Just look at the ever-more pointless and irrelevant comments some of the more rabid climate cranks post!
Mike Flynn,
Mushy Fiddler
Willard, please stop trolling.
Try to use links, Kennui.
You don’t need links. you can do your own searches using the words.
I don’t need to work for your ‘but C13’ squirrel, Kennui.
Funny how your cite elides teh Monktopus.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus, in many Western countries, there appears to be a considerable share of people questioning the existence and anthropogenic cause of climate change”.
***
Scientific consensus??? There’s an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Since when is science about consensus?
Gordo,
Science is a human endeavour and humans are social animals, notwithstanding antisocial cases like Mike Flynn.
Tell me where you practised as an engineer.
Science is applied math. No room for consensus when 1 + 1 = 2 always.
Except when it is 10
Funny that you are using an example of mathematics, Kennui. It’s as if you had no idea what is an empirical science.
But never fear:
https://mobile.twitter.com/andrejbauer/status/1297290895520337928
Willard, please stop trolling.
angech…”Kinetic energy and temperature are different entities”.
***
You and Tim F need to go back and get your fundamentals straight.
Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. Temperature is a human invention designed to measure the relative levels of KE. SO heat is a real phenomenon and temperature is an invention for measure relative levels of it.
I think it was Boltzmann and Maxwell who came up with the notion that temperature is the average kinetic energy of a gas.
Anders Celsius proposed a centigrade scale circa 1740, more than 100 years before Boltzmann and Maxwell studied gases as statistical units and formulated their theory.
The original centigrade scale was based on the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water. Since the heat related to those two points is based on the kinetic energy of atoms, the centigrade scale is measuring the relative level of the KE of atoms, aka heat.
A few other human inventions…
-density…based on the weight of a cc of water at 4C.
-time…based on a fraction of the Earth’s period of rotation.
-kilometre…fraction of distance from Equator to North Pole.
Gordon get your fundamentals straight.
–
What is this article about then?
–
Energy Education: Concepts and Practices
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Although technically incorrect, the word heat is often used to mean thermal energy. In strict scientific terms, there is a distinct difference between the two. Thermal energy pertains to the kinetic energy of the molecules within an object. Heat is the transfer of energy between two objects. Wherever possible, we have tried to remain true to these distinctions. However, since heat is the more familiar term we often use that to facilitate understanding.
“SO heat is a real phenomenon and temperature is an invention for measure relative levels of it.”
?? Heat is defined by potential and kinetic energy of molecules, which are also inventions!
Science deniers say the darndest things!
rlh…”Covid death of Sydney man Aude Alaskar, 27, prompts calls for young people to get vaccinated”
***
I’m sorry the young guy died. However, there is absolutely no excuse for any medical personal to engage in blatant fear-mongering over it. What they are claiming is bs…no sign of pneumonia, just difficulty breathing.
The tests are fraudulent. A consortium of lawyers in Germany have launched a class-action suit based on the tests, and the leader Dr. Reiner Fuellmich has referred to them as fraudulent. Fuellmich has beaten Volkswagen and the Deutsch bank in court.
They are going after the inventor of the covid RNA-PCR test claiming he mislead people about it. This goes back to the same kind of test for HIV invented in part by Anthony Fauci. The inventor of the PCr method for DNA amplification, the Late Kary Mullis, called Fauci a liar for claiming the tests can identify a virus or infection.
We have all been duped into buying into this pseudo-science by unscrupulous medical personnel who are still preaching that HIV causes AIDS. The scientist credited with discovering HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, admits he has never seen HIV and that it does not cause AIDS. He is now adamant that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system and the data suggests strongly the same is true for covid.
This poor guy in Australia dies where the number of deaths are 925 out of a population of 25.36 million, and creeps use his death as a scare tactic to get people vaccinated. The number of deaths in Oz is 0.036% or about 4/100ths of 1%. Such number don’t even qualify as a pandemic.
Pfizer, who produces one of the vaccines, has already been fined 2.3 billion dollars for lying about their products. They have also received immunity from prosecution.
So, we are to take the word of convicted felons that the vaccine works. Maybe you, mate, not me.
We will see if that wins in court. I suspect that it wont.
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/pcr-tests-are-reliable-to-detect-and-monitor-covid-19-infections-which-are-real-and-had-caused-millions-of-deaths-worldwide/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9874201/Vaccine-sceptic-46-dies-Covid-warning-similar-thoughts-jab.html
maguff…”July, 31st, Glen died from complications due to Covid19″.
***
Prove it. The tests cannot test for a virus or an infection and they could be testing for natural processes in the body. If that’s the case, and it’s quite likely, the vaccinations could be setting people up down the road for serious autoimmune disease. It is not worth taking that chance.
Note that you made no mention of people who have received the vaccine and died shortly afterward. One vaccinated woman is claimed to have died of covid. I can’t accept that because covid has not been physically isolated and no one has it’s genome with which to compare with the deceased.
The genome they claim to have was fabricated on a computer model using a few strands of RNA that were synthesized into a complete genome using an unrelated genetic sequence as a template. No one has isolated a full sequence of RNA for a complete genome.
Same with the variants. They are inferred from the same synthesized RNA sequences. Variants exist on paper only. What is killing people is a mystery. However, only a tiny fraction of 1% of any population has died from whatever the infections may be.
COVID started out as a virus, but it became an IQ test.
Ecce Signum: Gordon Robertson at 12:47 AM
Actually TM, COVID has become another “belief system” for your cult. You question none of the nonsense. You swallow it religiously, with never a doubt.
Here’s what we know:
* The J&J and Astrozeneca vaccines have had dangerous side-effects beyond normal vaccines.
* The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have not had side-effects worse that normal, but their positive effects are limited and reduced with time. Some people may have to be vaccinated several times a year.
* I would never force people to get a vaccine, but your cult is willing to force vaccines on people.
Cults are dangerous.
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/pcr-tests-are-reliable-to-detect-and-monitor-covid-19-infections-which-are-real-and-had-caused-millions-of-deaths-worldwide/
The PCR process was developed as a means of amplifying DNA/RNA for clinical testing. It was never intended to be used as a test for virus. The process involves “cycles”. Too many cycles and ANYONE will test positive for Covid. The current PCR “testing” uses 37 cycles! That’s why there are so many false positives.
When a person “tests” positive, with no symptoms, they just say that person is “asymptomatic”, to cover up the fact that the “test” is so inaccurate. A “test” that will give you any results you want/need, is NOT a valid test.
Those who deny Covid and PCR tests, etc. should talk to those families who have had people die from having had Covid.
RLH, have you been “tested” today? Has it been more than 2 weeks since you “got the jab”?
Better get another shot. You don’t want to take any chances….
Why would I need to get re-vaccinated? I have had 2 already. Perhaps I may need a top-up in the Autumn. The data on that is not clear yet.
Why do you think that a lot of people who have died have regretted not taking a vaccination when it was offered? There are numerous stories to that effect in the press.
“It was never intended to be used as a test for virus.”
“Too many cycles and ANYONE will test positive for Covid. ”
Do you have a source for this information?
Ha ha, who am I kidding? Its Clint.
Clint R at 5:00 AM
My family Physician of 35 years recommended that I take the Covid vaccine and on this, as I do on most health related matters, I listened to him.
That is how these decisions should be made. You must have been raised by wolves and so it’s understandable that you wouldn’t know how human society works.
I have nothing against people following their beliefs. Just don’t force your beliefs on me.
If a vaccine-believer gets vaccinated, then he should have nothing to worry about, if he actually “believes”.
P.s.: Over the years and on my Physician’s advise I’ve also taken the Shingles vaccine as well as the Pneumonia vaccine.
One thing I regret not following his advise on is when, several years ago, he asked me to stop running to preserve my knees. Nowadays I have bad knees and sporadic lower back pain, but I still have the cardio fitness of a teenager; so not many regrets.
“Just dont force your beliefs on me.”
Likewise for your Covid denialist behavior.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9874201/Vaccine-sceptic-46-dies-Covid-warning-similar-thoughts-jab.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9874201/Vaccine-sceptic-46-dies-Covid-warning-similar-thoughts-jab.html
studentb…”Much of the radiation emanating from
the surface will be absorbed, primarily by H2O, before passing through the atmosphere. On average, the emission to space will emanate from some level in the atmosphere (typically about 5 km, in fact) such that the region above that level is mostly transparent to IR. It is this region of the atmosphere”,
***
R. W. Wood, an expert on gases, who was consulted by Neils Bohr on the spectra of sodium, has a different take. He thought all surface radiation would peter out in a few metres due to the inverse square law.
I have offered an example of that in the past. Heat up a 1500 watt ring on an electric stove till it is glowing red. If you hold your finger very close to it, the ring will cook your finger, or at least, blister it badly. However, at 4 feet you can barely feel the effect of the radiation.
The Earth’s surface is not even close to that glowing ring in intensity, and I claim Wood was right. Surface radiation won’t be a factor after a few feet.
With regard to where the radiation occurs to space, consider the fact that it may not have to. As heated gases at the surface rise higher and higher into the atmosphere they grow gradually cooler by the simply action of expansion (loss of pressure plus less molecules per unit volume). Eventually they could lose all heat simply by expanding enough as they rise to an altitude that permits that.
Ask a meteorologist what affects weather more, convection or radiation. Radiation is a minor player that has been over-hyped by dumb climate alarmists. When it comes from a source like the Sun, with an internal temperature close to 1 million C, that’s another matter.
Radiation from the Moon can light up the night but it does nothing to warm you.
“He thought all surface radiation would peter out in a few metres due to the inverse square law.”
Now that is dumb. Energy can’t “peter out”
It can’t be created or destroyed. It has to go somewhere. If it can’t go somewhere it accumulates and temperature rises.
You and Woods are describing a system which violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
“Eventually they could lose all heat simply by expanding enough as they rise to an altitude that permits that. ”
Ditto.
Ent, you don’t understand any of this.
“It [energy] can’t be created or destroyed.”
Flux is reduced by distance, per the Inverse Square Law. The energy is not “destroyed”, it is “dissipated”.
“It [energy] has to go somewhere.”
See “Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation”.
“If it can’t go somewhere it accumulates and temperature rises.”
WRONG! Adding more identical photons has NO effect on temperature. Adding ice to ice will NOT increase the temperature of the ice.
You don’t understand any of this.
“Flux is reduced by distance “
Correct. But going from a radius of 6400 km to 6400 km plus a few meters is not to ‘dissipate’ the flux to any appreciable degree.
“See ‘Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation’.”
CMBR is not light from stars that has dissipated due to the inverse square law.
“Adding more identical photons has NO effect on temperature.
Seriously? If there were two suns creating a second set of ‘identical photons’, you think the earth would be the same temperature as it it now? That is literally what you are claiming here!
Folkerts, you keep twisting my words because you can’t stand reality.
The CMBR is the end result for low-energy photons that can no longer be absorbed.
And two suns cannot raise the temperature above the temperature of the hotter sun.
Now twist away. I may choose not to respond if you get too ridiculous.
“Folkerts, you keep twisting my words because you can’t stand reality.”
No. I keep quoting you exactly. It is up to you to make your case carefully and accurately. You failed here, since I could quote you exactly and find a simple counterexample.
“And two suns cannot raise the temperature above the temperature of the hotter sun.”
Ah this is a completely different issue. And this is quite true. You cannot raise the temperature of an object higher than the temperature of the hottest radiation source available. That is a simple corollary of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
This is not really an issue for the earth and its climate, since we are never talking about raising temps anywhere close to the 5700 K limit set by the temperature of the sun.
******************************
Here is are a series of little thought experiments to explore how objects react to thermal radiation. Consider some small, unheated, spherical, blackbody object floating in the vacuum of space far from any star or planet. Lets suppose it is a good thermal conductor like copper. It will cool asymptotically to a temperature of 2.7 K.
What will the temperature become if we add thermal radiation …
1) from one sun (1360 W/m^2 from a 5700 K source)? [T = 278 K]
2) from two suns? [T = 331 K]
3) from a spherical shell of ice (315 W/m^2 from a 273 K source)? [273 K]
4) from a hemispherical shell of ice? [230 K]
5) from one sun and hemispherical shell of ice? [306 K]
6) from one sun and spherical shell of ice? [328 K]
4->3 shows that more ice warms the object more (but never above the temperature of the hottest source)
4->5 shows that ice + sunlight raises the temperature higher than either source alone (but never above the temperature of the hottest source)
The simple fact is that adding more photons — identical or not! — has a simple and intuitive effect on temperature. More photons = more incoming energy = higher steady-state temperature.
Tim, please stop trolling.
“He thought all surface radiation would peter out in a few metres due to the inverse square law.”
No one anywhere with any knowledge of physics ever tough that. It would be fascinating to know what chain of logic brought you to this conclusion.
From a spherical source, the inverse square law is calculated from the *center*. So if ou went 1 earth radius (6400 km) the radiation would still be 1/4 as large as at the surface.
Perhaps you are thinking about attenuation due to absorp.tion. In the 15 um CO2 absor.ption band, a few meters of atmosphere would be enough to absorb most of the surface radiation.
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planets solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet..TeTmean.Tsat.mean
Mercury.439,6 K.325,83 K..340 K
Earth255 K287,74 K..288 K
Moon..270,4 Κ..223,35 Κ..220 Κ
Mars209,91 K..213,21 K..210 K
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earths mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You idiot. There is NO SUCH THING AS A
“Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant”
You must be the stupider than GR and Mike.
Yes, there is. It is β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal.
LOL. That makes 2 idiots.
I have just discovered the universal law constant for denialists:
It is β = IQ*education*(number of friends)/(age*time spent venting their fury on blogs) and is a vanishingly small number.
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earths mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you Stephen!
Cristos, you are not doing science if, when you cant explain observations, you simply deny they are true or ignore them.
Your theory does not agree with observations. And you offer no explanation.
Thus it is falsified.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-783118
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781622
Nate
“Christos, you are not doing science if, when you cant explain observations, you simply deny they are true or ignore them.
Your theory does not agree with observations. And you offer no explanation.
Thus it is falsified.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-783118
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781622”
–
Nate, here is my answer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-784223
It is wrong observations… there is No +33C GHE enhancement on Earth surface.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Also, the blackbody effective temperature 255K is by definition a uniform surface temperature.
In the GHE theory they compare the 255K with the Earths actual average (mean) surface temperature Tmean = 288K.
It is a huge mistake, because they treat the 288K as Earths uniform surface temperature, which is not.
Earth does not emit at the average 288K
Those not knowing that, they do not falsify science, they just do not know
– they are ignorant of things.
I am not falsifying anything, it is so much obvious Earth atmosphere is very thin and transparent… and there are only 400 ppm CO2 in a very thin atmosphere.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, Cristos.
Your theory predicts the outgoing IR radiation from Earth is, on average, less than HALF of the observed value.
Your theory predicts way too much reflected solar, way more than observed.
It is thus simply WRONG.
Now you can act like you care about science facts, or you can double down with continued diversion/denial.
Uniformity is not the issue since the outgoing IR is directly measured via satellite.
Your calculation is crap since it involves two meaningless factors:
Φearth = “surface solar irradiation accepting factor”
and
β= “Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant”
and unnecessarily refers to cp
The correct equation to use is
(Tmean.earth)⁴= (1-a) So /4σ = 255K
which states that the amount of energy emitted by a sphere at temperature T equals the amount of solar energy absorbed at the mean Earth-sun distance.
“The correct equation to use is
(Tmean.earth)⁴= (1-a) So /4σ = 255K”
“which states that the amount of energy emitted by a sphere at temperature T…”
DMT, Cristos is going to invoke the non-uniformity excuse.
But this is a red herring because the Earth’s T is uniform enough that your equation will give quite close to the correct answer.
“it is so much obvious Earth atmosphere is very thin and transparent and there are only 400 ppm CO2 in a very thin atmosphere.”
“There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature”
Uhhh, no its not at all obvious. And you havent demonstrated that.
Nate
“But this is a red herring because the Earth’s T is uniform enough that your equation will give quite close to the correct answer.”
What do you mean, I don’t fully understand.
Also
““There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature”
Uhhh, no its not at all obvious. And you havent demonstrated that.”
It is demonstrated by the New equation planet temperatures calculations results.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“It is demonstrated by the New equation planet temperatures calculations results.”
Which is a hypothesis, not in of itself evidence of anything.
And since this hypothesis does not agree with several observations, as discussed, it can be considered falsified.
” T is uniform enough that your equation will give quite close to the correct answer.”
“What do you mean, I dont fully understand.”
I mean that if you find the average temperature by latitude of Earth, such as here
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap16/geo_clim.html
You can find the area fraction of each latitude. That is by multiplying by (1/2)cosine(latitude).
You can then area-weight the temperature at each latitude and average to find the average temperature of the Earth.
You can also find the SB-law emission, sigmaT^4, at each latitude and area-weight it, and average to find the average emission.
It turns out that area-weighted average emission flux is very very close to the value found by using the SB law applied to the average Temperature, sigmaTmean^4
You can try it yourself.
If Tmean =288 K, you will find an average emitted flux of 390 W/m^2.
This is of course way higher than the observed value of 240 W/m^2. Because of the GHE, it is reduced by 150 W/m^2!
Because the GHE reduces emission from the surface. The effective average emission temperature is 255 K at the top of the atmosphere.
Put this into the SB law nd we find 240 W/m^2.
Nate, I have the New theory to explain better…
There is a method I use, which is the comparison method.
In case of the planets surface temperatures it is the “Planets Temperatures Comparison Method”.
The Method lead to discovery of the “Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon”.
It states that planet mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
And I have demonstrated it in my site, by doing the on various planets the satellite measured mean surface temperatures comparisons, which proved the rightness of the Phenomenon statement.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
OK, you are doubling down on a theory that thoroughly fails to account for Earths radiant emissions.
So you don’t think it is essential that your theory match observations?
Then you are not doing science, are you..
Nate, here is an article:
On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earths atmospheric thermal effect
Den Volokin
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4447774/
“An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 40064_2014_Article_1586_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1
Illustration of Hlders inequality between integrals. Due to a nonlinearity of the SB law and a non-uniform distribution of the incident solar radiation on the surface of a sphere, the equilibrium temperature (Te) computed from a spatially averaged radiation flux is always higher than the arithmetic average temperature (Tm).”
“…the equilibrium temperature (Te) computed from a spatially averaged radiation flux is always higher than the arithmetic average temperature (Tm)”
Christos,
That is an interesting paper.
I don’t see how it helps you. It disagrees with your statement that “There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.”
On the contrary it concludes that the Earth’s GHE may be larger than 33 K.
You still have the problem that your theory does not match observations, and is off by a huge amount.
This is simply not ignorable.
The effect of Holders inequality is shown in the paper to be very large for an airless slowly rotating body like the Moon.
But as I discussed above, it is not very significant for the Earth and the paper does not disagree.
The paper is arguing to compare current Earth temperature to an airless Earth. Thats ok, but it is simply a matter of taste, and not changing any results, and not eliminating the GHE.
Nate
The paper disagrees with yours:
“…area-weight the temperature at each latitude and average to find the average temperature of the Earth.”
It says:
the equilibrium temperature (Te) computed from a spatially averaged radiation flux is always higher than the arithmetic average temperature (Tm)
Nate
“I dont see how it helps you. It disagrees with your statement that There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.
On the contrary it concludes that the Earths GHE may be larger than 33 K.”
Nate, I know, the paper says the difference is close to 90C.
I insist on There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.
Do you agree with the paper on anything?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“I insist on There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.”
And yet you promote a paper that thoroughly disagrees!
You can insist all you want– in science we need actual evidence.
“The paper disagrees with yours:
‘…area-weight the temperature at each latitude and average to find the average temperature of the Earth.’
That is simply the basic math of finding an average..so no it does not disagree.
The Holder inequality effect is true for the Earth, I found difference between the area-weighted average emitted flux and the average flux calculated using sigma*Tm^4 is ~ 5 W/m^2 out of 390 W/m^2.
It is a small effect because, as I noted, the Earths temperature is uniform enough.
“the equilibrium temperature (Te) computed from a spatially averaged radiation flux is always higher than the arithmetic average temperature (Tm)”
Exactly, I found it is higher by ~ 1 K for Earth.
Nate, the paper disagrees with yours +33C!
Nope. What are you referring to?
Look, This is all a distraction from the fact that your theory still does not agree with observations.
That SHOULD concern you. Why doesnt it?
What may be confusing you is that my calculation was focused on what would be the actual flux for Earth @ 288 K, but ignores the GHE, in order to compare to your calculation.
“If Tmean =288 K, you will find an average emitted flux of 390 W/m^2.
This is of course way higher than the observed value of 240 W/m^2. Because of the GHE, it is reduced by 150 W/m^2!
Because the GHE reduces emission from the surface. The effective average emission temperature is 255 K at the top of the atmosphere.”
Nate
“If Tmean =288 K, you will find an average emitted flux of 390 W/m^2.”
Yes
Jemit = [390 (W/^2) /sigma ]^1/4 = 288 K
The 390 W/m^2 is the flat surface T =288 K IR emission intensity.
But Earth is not a flat surface, Earth is a rotating sphere!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“But Earth is not a flat surface, Earth is a rotating sphere!”
So the sphere part as already discussed, makes a small difference, 1 K.
The spinning also makes a small difference for Earth. The dark side is a bit cooler, the light side a bit warmer, but in the end not very much difference.
CERES shows the actual measured flux is 240 W/m^2.
What I have discovered is the ROTATING PLANET SPHERICAL SURFACE SOLAR IRRADIATION ABSORBING-EMITTING UNIVERSAL LAW
Jemit = 4πrσΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
Planet Energy Budget:
Jabs = Jemit
πrΦ*S*(1-a) = 4πrσTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It should show:
Jemit = 4πr^2σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)^1/4 (W)
Planet Energy Budget:
Jabs = Jemit
πr^2Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr^2σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)^1/4 (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)^1/4 /4σ ]^1/4 (K)
Christos Vournas at 12:33 PM
“What I have discovered is the ROTATING PLANET SPHERICAL SURFACE SOLAR IRRADIATION ABSORBING-EMITTING UNIVERSAL LAW”
No, what you’ve done is plagiarize the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and fudged it to fool the gullible. It’s that simple.
Tyson
“TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
August 7, 2021 at 2:01 PM
Christos Vournas at 12:33 PM
“What I have discovered is the ROTATING PLANET SPHERICAL SURFACE SOLAR IRRADIATION ABSORBING-EMITTING UNIVERSAL LAW”
No, what you’ve done is plagiarize the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and fudged it to fool the gullible. It’s that simple.”
–
In short
The Rotating Planet Spherical Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law
–
Here it is the planet surface IR emittance Universal Law
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
–
The solar irradiated rotating sphere (planet) does not emit as a flat surface in accordance to the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
4πr²σΤmean⁴ (W)
No, the solar irradiated rotating sphere (planet) emits as a rotating planet in accordance to both, the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law and the Newly discovered Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
–
Let’s continue…
Planet Energy Budget:
Jabs = Jemit
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tyson
“No, what youve done is plagiarize the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and fudged it to fool the gullible. Its that simple.
Nate?
“the solar irradiated rotating sphere (planet) emits as a rotating planet in accordance to both, the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law”
No it obviously does not emit in accordance with the SB law.
You find the Earth emits ave 112 W/m^2.
According to SB law. much much higher, ~ 387 W for an airless sphere with Earths actual T distribution.
The atmosphere and GHE reduces that to 240 W/m^2.
Your continued denial of these flaws just makes you look more and more foolish.
Nate
“You find the Earth emits ave 112 W/m^2.”
I calculated it in comparison with 240 W/m^2…
I never said Earth* surface emits uniformly at the uniform emission temperature of 288K.
On the other, if you consider Earth as a uniform IR emitter at the uniform emission temperature of 255 K it will emit 240 W/m^2… as a flat surface according to the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“I never said Earth* surface emits uniformly”
Nor did I ever say you did!
You keep playing the non uniformity card but never show it how it actually solves your problems. It doesnt.
I calculated the SB emission from an airless planet with Earth’s actual Temp distribution. Try it yourself! It is not anything close to 112 W/m^2.
That is a real problem. You need to fix it, or start over from scratch.
Nate
“I calculated the SB emission from an airless planet with Earths actual Temp distribution. Try it yourself! It is not anything close to 112 W/m^2.”
Nate, please, copy-paste here your calculations with Earth’s actual Temp distribution. I am interested.
lat (deg) lat(rad) A(lat)/R^2 T(lat) flux(lat)*A(lat) T(lat)*A(lat)/R^2
90 1.570796327 1.20917E-17 238.08 2.20274E-15 2.8788E-15
88.2 1.5393804 0.006200235 239.628 1.159154922 1.485749989
86.4 1.507964474 0.012394352 241.176 2.377624286 2.98922018
84.6 1.476548547 0.018576236 242.724 3.655877808 4.50889842
first few lines
A(lat)/R^2 = 2p*cos(lat)*delta-lat(rad)
flux(lat) = sigmaT(lat)^4
Then find sum(T*A)/4pi = 287.32 K
Find sum(flux(lat)*A(lat)/R^2)/4pi = 391.8 K
Find (flux/sigma)^.25 = 288.3237918
T(lat) from here
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap16/geo_clim.html
First line correction
lat (deg) lat(rad) A(lat)/R^2 T(lat) flux(lat)*A(lat)/R^2
Thank you Nate.
I will study it more tomorrow, because it is becoming late in Athens-Greece.
“Find sum(flux(lat)*A(lat)/R^2)/4pi = 391.8 K”
I think you meant = 391.8 W/m^2.
I will study it more tomorrow…
Thank you again,
Christos
Right..
Nate, you have calculated the SB emission from an airless planet with Earths actual Temp distribution:
Jemit = 391,8 W/m^2
I have calculated Earth*s energy in:
phi(1-a)So = 112 W/m^2
The postulate
energy in = energy out
should be necessarily met.
The difference between the yours Jemit = 391,8 W/m^2
And the mine Jemit = 112 W/m^2
is that you consider in your calculation a planet having the classical blackbody surface properties…
The planet average surface temperature 288 K is not capable of emitting Jemit = 391 W/m^2 because it is not a blackbody, but a kind of a grey body.
Thus, for the same 288 K the grey body planet surface emits less.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Thus, for the same 288 K the grey body planet surface emits less.”
Yes, a grey body will have emissivity less than 1. You are claiming the average emissivity must be ~ 112/390 = 0.287.
Ocean and land typically have emissivity > 0.9. The Moon’s surface has similar values.
You seem to think that your theory will stand on its own, without ever needing it to agree with observations. That is not how science works.
Do you know of any measurements that agree with your claim?
Nate
“Yes, a grey body will have emissivity less than 1. You are claiming the average emissivity must be ~ 112/390 = 0.287.”
The average emissivity must be
~ (112/390)^0.25 = (0.287)^0.25 = 0,7319
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nope, not Correct.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Eq 2
q/A = Flux = e sigma T^4, where e is emissivity
e = Flux/(sigmaT^4)
Nate
“q/A = Flux = e sigma T^4, where e is emissivity
e = Flux/(sigmaT^4)”
Yes, you are right!
Jemit = sigma T^4
and
Jemit.grey = e*sigma Tgrey^4
For the same emission Flux
sigma T^4 = e*sigma Tgrey^4
e = sigma T^4 /sigma Tgrey^4
e = (T /Tgrey)^4
Tgrey = (1/e)^1/4 T
–
Τ = 288Κ
T1 = (Flux1 /sigma)^1/4 = (390 /sigma)^1/4 = 288K
T2 = (Flux2 /sigma)^1/4 =
= (112 /sigma)^1/4 = 210 K
and
T1 = [(Flux2 (beta*N*cp)^1/4 /sigma]^1/4 =
= [112 (150*1*1)^1/4 /sigma ]^1/4 = (112 *3.5 /sigma)^1/4 =
= (390 /sigma)^1/4 = 288K
3.5^1/4 = 1.368
1 /1.368 = 0,7311
T1 = 1,368*T2
–
For Earth (beta*N*cp)^1/4 = 3,5
(beta*N*cp) = 150
Thus, the 1/3,5 = 0.287
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“e = Flux/(sigmaT^4)”
Yes, you are right!”
Ok, now simply plug in T =288, Flux = 112
e = 112/((5.67e-8 *288^4)
= 0.287. You are agreeing with this result!
Your work that follows does not agree. So youve done something wrong.
It is not my job to find all your algebra errors. CHECK YOUR WORK BEFORE POSTING!
I see. What youve done is departed from the SB law, and reality when you you introduced Beta.
Youve lost what the discussion was about, and are using circular logic.
The point is your result MUST be consistent with the SB law, which is established physics, AND observations.
It is consistent with neither!
112 W/m^2 emission is not consistent with observations (240 W/m^2)
It is not consistent with SB Law unless e = 0.287, which is very inconsistent with observations.
You cannot introduce new parameters in order evade established laws of physics and established facts!
Nate
“112 W/m^2 emission is not consistent with observations (240 W/m^2)”
Yes, exactly and it should not be consistent, because those are different physic terms.
(240 W/m^2) is not an observation, it a result of averaging solar flux (flux cannot be averaged), thus 240 W/m2 is an impossible, it does not exist.
The 112 W/m^2 doesn’t exist either, it is also a calculation, it cannot be observed.
112 W/m^2 = 390 W/m^2 /(β*N*cp)^1/4 = 390 W/m^2 /(150*1*1)^1/4 =
= 390 W/m^2 /3,5 = 112 W/m^2
Nate, you compare two different physic terms, which do not exist, and which cannot be observed.
https://www,cristos-vournas.com
“(240 W/m^2) is not an observation, it a result of averaging solar flux (flux cannot be averaged), thus 240 W/m2 is an impossible, it does not exist.”
Nope. I showed you a link to observations by CERES of 240 W/m^2.
As I noted from the very beginning, this is how you seem to deal with observations that don’t agree with your theory. You deny they exist!
“The 112 W/m^2 doesnt exist either, it is also a calculation, it cannot be observed.”
BS.
It was a prediction of YOUR theory for Earth. If it cannot be observed then your theory is wrong. Its that simple.
Lets’s be clear Christos, you are not doing science, nor being honest.
Nate, have you considered the
Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
It states, planets mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products* sixteenth root.
I have demonstrated by comparison of different planets and moons in solar system, I have those comparisons posted in my site.
Nate, it is an observed evidence, that the Planet Rotational Warming indeed exists!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
You are in deep deep denial of reality.
Nate
“Nope. I showed you a link to observations by CERES of 240 W/m^2.”
Also
Solar flux on top of the atmosphere (TOA) So =1,361 W/m^2
(1-a)So /4 = (1-0.3)1,361 W/m^2 /4 = 240 W/m^2
Those two values are identical.
But planet does not emit uniformly, because planet does not have uniform surface temperature even close!
Also
Solar flux cannot be averaged over the entire planet surface…
And
Planet does not have albedo at nighttime hours!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nate
“DMT, Cristos is going to invoke the non-uniformity excuse.
But this is a red herring because the Earth’s T is uniform enough that your equation will give quite close to the correct answer.”
Nate, please have a closer look to the Graph below. You have used the Graph when calculating the average Jemit = 390 W/m^2
Graph clearly shows Earth’s surface does not have uniform surface temperature… Not even close!
Earth*s latitudinal average temperature gradient is 0.86 K/Lat
see below article and Graph.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap16/geo_clim.html
Christos,
You are just going in circles. All this has been discussed. You do not pay attention.
” I think that he thinks that command line tools that other wrote are better than things you craft for yourself. ”
Ha ha haaah. Wonderful.
Of course: data like
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l1H0v-FOq_mR079g0goPSWEgH4I3uOec/view
(deprecated in between)
of course was not generated by own software! It would be sheer nonsense to exactly reproduce what you can easily do by using powerful text processors like e.g. awk.
But how could we ever generate, for example, departures of temperature measurements, snow cover or sea levels wrt a reference period, without using a sophisticated software written in a language supporting OOP, objects, methods, classes?
No idea.
It seems that some people think that by just having learned C#, they stay above the rest.
Simula67? Adele’s message passing Smalltalk? C++? Symbolics’ Flavors? CLOS? Python? Eifel?
How does one implement a fully object oriented software connecting a data driven HTML/JavaScript generator with an SQL database, by using ‘command line tools’ only?
No idea.
J.-P. D.
Do you think that general command line tools and things other people wrote are better than creating coded examples that demonstrate specific examples?
“It seems that some people think that by just having learned C#, they stay above the rest.”
I started using Assembler. I graduated through Fortran, C, Pascal, etc. to C#.
“How does one implement a fully object oriented software connecting a data driven HTML/JavaScript generator with an SQL database, by using command line tools only?”
I don’t know. Perhaps putting the whole of the USCRN stations and Monthly data into a SQL database might help.
You cant even get the daily average temperature to be the same if using the daily, hourly and sub-hourly data sets from USCRN. I can.
Why would anyone believe anything else you say.
I bothered to check with USCRN for any discrepancy and they provided information which removed them. Did you?
On one hand you say that you accept the accuracy of USCRN and on the other you manage to find differences in their output. Logical or not?
P.S. I can get the monthly average figures to be the same, starting from the monthly, daily, hourly and sub-hourly data sets. Can you?
Of course I could if that had sense for me.
But it doesn’t have any sense.
What DOES have sense for me is
– to generate monthly anomalies wrt 1991-2020 out of all CRN stations having sufficient data
and
– to compare the result with UAH6.0’s “usa48” series.
Can YOU?
Yes. But what proof do you have that an average of USCRN temperatures provides for meaningful statistics?
Would not range and distribution be more useful? Have you done that?
And then you post
“2. AK_Kenai_29_ENE
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fNnL7PsaHjYXcibgF8cLBdWnGdV0qC0H/view”
Which demonstrates that daily temps are apparently different depending on if you use daily or hourly data.
So how come the 2 traces for daily average differ? Is USCRN wrong or are you?
select T_MONTHLY_AVG-T_MONTHLY_MEAN AS TDIFF from monthly where T_MONTHLY_AVG > -99 AND T_MONTHLY_MEAN > -99 order by TDIFF
ranges in output from -1.2c to 2.3c.
Do you dispute that?
“Yes.”
So you CAN, RLH? Really?
Then show us something like
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nIMDGEXuDv7KpO5j5g2olHg_–v_05dS/view
using of course the original CRN data (I used that CRN data stored as daily TMIn and TMAX stuff in the GHCN daily data set):
https://tinyurl.com/w2umyj7x
I’m sure you will give us wonderful results, very soon.
” But what proof do you have that an average of USCRN temperatures provides for meaningful statistics? ”
1. What proof do you have for the contrary?
Why do people like you, doubting about X, always expect proofs for that X, instead of providing them themselves a proof contradicting it?
” So how come the 2 traces for daily average differ? Is USCRN wrong or are you? ”
Why do you compare me with USCRN, RLH, while conveniently keeping your results behind the wall?
Publish
– a graph comparing, for Carrizozo, Kenai and for the average of all stations, your daily average of USCRN’s hourly data with their own daily data;
– in a pdf file, your daily time series of hourly averaging out of which you made your graphs.
Please spare us your teenie thumbnail dot plots and your low filter passes, and manage to publish your three graphs in the same way as I did:
– thin lines for the series plots;
– medium lines for the 365 day running means.
After all, you have Excel ‘on board’, don’t you?
Why do you avoid that comparison all the time, RLH?
“Why do you compare me with USCRN, RLH?”
Because you wont admit that you’ve got it wrong.
Either USCRN can calculate the same answers for daily average and the average of hourly averages in any given day and come up with the same answer or they can’t.
You say they can’t. You have even published a graph which purports to show that differences exist between those 2 figures.
You even said that the hours worth of data being published in the next hour after the reading only held for UTC when on reading the USCRN notes it is apparent that it holds for both UTC and LST.
Now is the time for either you to admit you are wrong or conclude that you know better than USCRN about their own data. As if.
2009/10/25 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 10.8 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 10.8 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 10.8 Count = 288
2009/10/26 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.7 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.7 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.7 Count = 288
2009/10/27 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 10.2 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 10.2 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 10.2 Count = 288
Do you need more?
2009/10/28 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.5 Count = 288
2009/10/29 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = -0.3 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -0.3 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -0.3 Count = 288
2009/10/30 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 1.9 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 1.9 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 1.9 Count = 288
More still?
2009/10/31 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.2 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.2 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.2 Count = 288
2009/11/01 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 7.6 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 7.6 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 7.6 Count = 288
2009/11/02 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 11.2 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 11.2 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 11.2 Count = 288
Oh, look. It seems like I was correct. USCRN does know what it is doing and the figures are the same no matter which dataset is used.
And just in case you think that is station related
2015/11/02 CRND0103-2015-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -1.1 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -1.1 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -1.1 Count = 288
2015/11/03 CRND0103-2015-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -2.6 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -2.6 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -2.6 Count = 288
2015/11/04 CRND0103-2015-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -5.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -5.5 Count = 288
Just the same.
2015/11/05 CRND0103-2015-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = 1.0 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 1.0 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 1.0 Count = 288
2015/11/06 CRND0103-2015-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -0.3 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -0.3 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -0.3 Count = 288
2015/11/07 CRND0103-2015-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -2.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -2.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -2.5 Count = 288
Still all the same
“without using a sophisticated software written in a language supporting OOP, objects, methods, classes?”
Which language would that be then?
Pick one from the list above.
Although if necessary I write objects and methods using ANSI C :- )
C is not natively an OOP language.
Self taught no doubt.
https://www.codementor.io/learn-programming/what-skills-do-self-taught-programmers-commonly-lack
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
New Zealand has just experienced its warmest June and July since records began in 1909 and with one month to go – is on track for its second successive warmest winter on record.
https://niwa.co.nz/news/record-warmth-so-far-this-winter
“Sea temperatures around the coast have also been warmer than average, modifying colder air masses tracking towards New Zealand.”
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
It’s the sea what done it.
Should I add the sea to the Contrarian Matrix, dummy?
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/lots-of-theories/
You are an idiot who can do whatever an idiot wants to do.
You would need to come up with a theory of how the sea causes global warming, dummy.
Local warming as we are talking about NZ.
There’s nothing special about NZ, dummy.
Scientific explanations ought to work everywhere, as long as you stick to a similar scale.
Things can and will warm locally. They may or may not be in-sync with warming (or cooling) elsewhere. Idiot.
When you say that the sea done it, you do not spell out what warmed the sea, dummy.
ENSO has caused warm water to concentrate around NZ currently. What causes ENSO? Is it cyclic (or semi-cyclic)?
You are still JAQing off, dummy, and EM already countered that one.
You are an idiot.
Here, dummy:
Entropic man says:
August 5, 2021 at 7:14 AM
New Zealand tends to be warmer than average during La Ninas.
The last La Nina finished six months ago.
You need to find something else.
Are you saying that the warm water round NZ is not due to the ENSO recently?
No U, dummy.
Stop putting words in my mouth, dummy.
An idiot thinks I speak for him. I don’t.
Here, dummy:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-784307
Another instance.
Still an idiot I see.
No U.
“Its the sea what done it. ”
Quite.
Now please explain the chain of causation which led to the sea being warmer than average.
ENSO, at least around NZ recently.
New Zealand tends to be warmer than average during La Ninas.
The last La Nina finished six months ago.
You need to find something else.
Why would you expect anything else from our dummy than irony, rhetorical questions, handwaving or pure bragging, EM?
EM: Did you look at the url? It shows that the waters around NZ are warmer than usual. Even now.
Now please explain the chain of causation which led to the sea being warmer than average, dummy.
RLH
What is The chain of causation?
Willard describes record N Z Winter temperatures linked to above average (record?) sea temperatures.
Now what caused the high sea temperatures? The timing and effect is wrong for ENSO.
Perhaps it is global warming?
Perhaps it is long term behaviors. Do you accept that ENSO/PDO has long term cyclic (or semi-cyclic) behaviors?
The evidence for the long term cycles you mention is very thin.
You haven’t yet made a good case for their existance, let alone their link to global warming.
And before you put up for graphs from your pattern seeking software, remember that correlation is only the first step towards causation. You need a clearly understood mechanism as well.
“The evidence for the long term cycles you mention is very thin.”
Do you accept that both ENSO and PDO have long term cyclic or semi-cyclic behaviors in them? The people who publish that data do.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/nino34-2.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/jisao-pdo.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/shen.jpeg
“graphs from your pattern seeking software”
Low pass filters are NOT pattern seeking. No matter what your attempts to claim otherwise.
You might as well claim that running means are pattern seeking on that basis.
Keep arm waving to your ignorance, dummy.
Keep being an idiot who thinks that running means are pattern seeking.
Running means are just a tool, dummy.
Youre the cycle nut.
So you agree that running means are not pattern seeking then. Just as all other forms of low pass filtering are not likewise.
You are the pattern-seeking tool of the cycle nut kind, dummy.
You are an idiot.
No U.
Here’s a graph from some pattern seeking software for you to chew on:
nzt7_tmean_hist_1909-2020.png
https://niwa.co.nz/sites/niwa.co.nz/files/styles/full_screen_feature/public/nzt7_tmean_hist_1909-2020.png
Linear trends are the ultimate in low pass filters. They produce straight lines which never occur in nature.
RLH says: Linear trends are the ultimate in low pass filters. They produce straight lines which never occur in nature.
Are you saying that the net trend of NZ annual temperature anomaly over the last 110 years is “not natural”?
Are you saying that a straight line is natural?
Are you saying that your low-pass filter is more natural because it wobbles?
Are you still saying that a straight line is natural?
Are you saying that data points are natural?
You are still saying that a straight line is natural?
Stop putting words in my mouth, dummy.
I’m just asking for an answer.
In this context, a straight line is one possible choice of statistical model, commonly used to evaluate whether a time series is stationary in the mean.
The relevance, in the context of climate-related time series, is that non-stationarity is literally climate change, whatever the cause, and these statistical tools allow for objective estimation of the magnitude and confidence in the various metrics.
If you have a preferred objective analytic approach, feel free to present it. To date what you’ve shown is some signal manipulations without objective analysis, statistics of questionable relevance, and a very large dose of evasive rhetoric.
Willardo
Do you ever wake up with a knot in your stomach realizing you bet on the wrong horse. You display all the signs of someone totally, and hopelessly brainwashed in the CAGW meme. Its not too early to get on the right side of history.
But CAGW is the central square of the ClimateBall Bingo, Roberto.
Wait until you get more than 3% to appeal to your bandwagon,
Willard, please stop trolling.
Dickinson City councilman dies days after testing positive for COVID-19 Thursday, August 5, 2021 5:44AM
GALVESTON COUNTY, Texas (KTRK) — The Galveston County community is grieving the loss of Dickinson City council member H Scott Apley. The 45-year-old died Wednesday morning, just days after testing positive for COVID-19.
…
Apley leaves behind his wife and 5-month-old son, who both tested positive for COVID-19. According to a GoFundMe set up for the family, Apley’s wife has not been admitted to the hospital.
…
It is unclear whether Apley and his family were vaccinated, though he was known for multiple social media posts against the practice.
Science advances one funeral at a time.
Keep with that same nonsense of reporting deaths and claiming it “advances” science.
You believe you’re promoting your cult religion, but you’re revealing yourself as just another extremist — irrational and unscientific.
Why do you hate science?
You’re confused.
What I LIKE is debunking anti-science cultists.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Your own cult is very small and closely resembles flat earthers. They too do not believe that science does not believe them.
Clint R at 8:37 AM
Nah, that’s not it. You just hate science. Why?
Well, the trolls are out today!
RLH and TYSON are making false accusations because they have NOTHING else.
RLH couldn’t solve the easy problem on “gravitational torque”. Later on, he indicated he doesn’t even understand what “torque” is. Of course, he has no model for “orbital motion without axial rotation. He’s as incompetent as Norman.
TYSON has resorted to using deaths to somehow support his perverted beliefs. He’s beyond incompetent, he’s sick!
Clint R at 3:05 PM
If you’re triggered bruh? It may be time to change your name again back to JD Huff-n-Puff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque
http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lockhart/courses/Physics111F9%20L22.pdf
TYSON sounds a lot like E. Swanson. He’s making up names because he has NO science.
And RLH continues to copy Norman, providing links to things he doesn’t understand.
Clint R: You have no answer to real observations but persist in your twisted belief that a ball-on-a-string somehow represents a gravitational connected system. It doesn’t and never will.
RLH,
Newton accurately describes the Moon’s motion, using his Laws of Motion, and his Law of Universal Gravitation.
One force, exerted between the COG of the Moon, and the COG of the Earth. The “heaviest” part of the Moon lies along this line, gravity having slowed any previous rotation of the Moon around its axis.
Just as a pendulum or out-of-balance wheel freely rotating perpendicular to the surface will eventually stop, with its heaviest part closest to the Earth’s COG.
If you agree, then you are just disputing Clint R’s form of words.
Mind you, the “string” is stretching, and allowing the Moon to move away – oh so slowly. Or, put another way, the gravitational attraction between the two bodies is just slightly less than is required to keep the Moon from eventually escaping the Earth’s gravitational field.
“Newton accurately describes the Moon’s motion, using his Laws of Motion, and his Law of Universal Gravitation.”
Newton accurately describes the Moon’s orbit, using his Laws of Motion, and his Law of Universal Gravitation.
He says nothing about its rotation which is tidal locked to its orbit as NASA (amongst others) have claimed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
We need to ask Tyson what is so appealing about Marxism? Did Capitalism just kick his ass?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/xrays-show-difference-of-covid-s-effect-on-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-patients-b1896155.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chef-francis-goncalves-covid-vaccine-b1899900.html
A request for Dr. Spencer: I would like to find the value of the “baseline temperature” that is used to generate the “temperature anomaly” that is used in all temperature anomaly vs. years graphs. I would like to be able to get temperatures in Kelvin units as a function of years in order to do some thermodynamic calculations, the first sep of which would be to remove the baseline temperature bias. Can you direct me to a source. Thanks…
You’ll need to email Dr Spencer directly for an exact figure. By comparison with other datasets I would estimate his 1991-2020 baseline as 14.4-14.5C.
GISS data is based on a 1951-1880 baseline of 14.0C.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
The normals that Roy uses are monthly figures and for a grid based system. He reduce that to a global figure because people kept asking for it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
and
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0beta5
This is for the previous normal period and will need updating to the current one.
“We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010.”
This was discussed in last month’s UAH update here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/
Perhaps the most authoritative answer is that the current monthly gridded baseline is available here:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
If one goes up through that file structure, the documentation describes the file format.
Link to post in previous thread should be: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-769134
If I’ve done this correctly, the values using the current baseline are as below. I used simple cosine weighting for latitude rather than a WGS84 which would make a small difference, but this looks reasonable relative to Dr Spencer’s post for the previous baseline period.
Month 1 : 263.179
Month 2 : 263.268
Month 3 : 263.427
Month 4 : 263.843
Month 5 : 264.448
Month 6 : 265.099
Month 7 : 265.418
Month 8 : 265.233
Month 9 : 264.637
Month 10 : 263.945
Month 11 : 263.406
Month 12 : 263.191
Fixed link
href=”https://southstcafe.neocities.org/UahTltDecBaseTempGrid.png”>UahTltDecBaseTempGrid.png
Bother . . .
UahTltDecBaseTempGrid.png
Mark B
” If Ive done this correctly… ”
Yes you did!
We have the same numbers, with one supertiny difference for February, for which I obtained 263.269 K.
Thats is a horrible difference, isn’t it?
Congratulations
J.-P. D.
Mark B
” I used simple cosine weighting for latitude… ”
That’s what I started with, due to many hints on several blogs.
But only the global land+ocean average was correct when using that simple weighting model.
All other latitudinal subsets (especially NH/SH Extratropics, dunno why) were not correct.
I found a bit later a hint to a satisfying formula:
Tlat[i:j] =
forall (x in i:j) sum (Tlat[x]*cos(lat x) / sum (cos(lat x))
That gave for all subsets, from NoPol to SoPol, series sufficiently near to Mr Spencer’s values.
It should not be used for single latitude bands because the cosine correction disappears in this case.
J.-P. D.
Temperature map for December UAH TLT baseline grid:
href=”https://southstcafe.neocities.org/UahTltDecBaseTempGrid.png”>UahTltDecBaseTempGrid.png
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/UahTltDecBaseTempGrid.png
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
BRUSSELS, Aug 5 (Reuters) – Final month was one of many world’s hottest Julys on document, behind solely 2019 and 2016, with unusually excessive temperatures seen in areas from Finland to the USA, EU scientists stated on Thursday.
It’s the newest milestone in a long-term warming development that noticed the final seven years rank because the world’s hottest on document, as emissions of greenhouse gases change the planet’s local weather. read more
“After we take a look at international temperatures, there are swings from yr to yr and even month to month,” Freja Vamborg, senior scientist on the European Union’s Copernicus Local weather Change Service, advised Reuters.
“However in the end, the underlying factor we see is a warming development globally, and in most areas of the world.”
http://www.kapinews.com/2021/08/05/last-month-was-worlds-third-hottest-july-on-record-eu-scientists/
Global anomalies drop for the last 6 months or more and yet we still get ‘Global Warming’ outcomes. Nothing stands in the way of it. Must be logical.
The cooling in the center of Antarctica might take a while to reach Yellowknife, dummy.
Idiot.
Here, dummy:
Australias tropical north recorded its highest day by day most temperature final month, whereas temperatures over Northern Africa have been increased than regular virtually in all places, Copernicus stated.
Some areas have been barely colder than common, together with Germany and elements of Russia.
Ralf Toumi, co-director of Grantham Institute on local weather change at Imperial Faculty London, stated the latest bursts of record-breaking warmth are not any shock, given the long-term sample of rising temperatures.
This can be a fixed on line casino were taking part in, and were simply selecting the excessive numbers time and again, he stated.
Climate change group determines that climate is changing.
The climate is warming, dummy.
Has been warming since the little ice age. It cooled to that from the medieval warm period.
Prove it, dummy.
Proof is easy.
Roman’s grew grapes in the North of England with which to make wine.
Vikings grew barley on Greenland with which to make beer.
It is too cold to do either since the onset of the mini ice age.
Battle Thermopylae was fought over a strip of land 100 meters wide Persians vs Spartans. That strip of land is now 1 km wide mainly due to falling sea levels that indicate the earth is cooler now than it was then.
Three strikes, you’re out.
Willard: The proof of both the little ice age and the medieval warm period is well established. Prove that it isn’t.
Grapes are not thermometers and there is still agriculture in Greenland, Kennui.
You are still trying to reverse the burden of proof, dummy.
So I have to prove things but you don’t. Idiot.
Easy peasy, dummy:
ipcc.ch
Willard: The proof of both the little ice age and the medieval warm period is well established.
The claim you forgot to support is that the MWP is warmer than today, dummy.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah.jpeg
A low-pass filter is a filter that passes signals with a frequency lower than a selected cutoff frequency and attenuates signals with frequencies higher than the cutoff frequency.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-pass_filter
So you agree that a running mean is a form of low pass filter then.
here, dummy::
However, the ideal filter is impossible to realize without also having signals of infinite extent in time, and so generally needs to be approximated for real ongoing signals, because the sinc function’s support region extends to all past and future times.
So you agree that a running mean is a form of low pass filter?
Nuts will always find a way to smooth signals to detect cycles.
Sometimes they even appeal to six-month spurious trends.
So you do agree that a running mean is a form of low pass filter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving
https://www.quora.com/Are-running-means-low-pass-filters
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squirrel_(debate)
Idiot.
Why is your 8 year LP filtered data able to reach to this year? It should end 4 years ago.
Are you inventing 4 years of future data??.
Have you not heard of SavitzkyGolay filters?
As the caption quite clearly states. (Shortened to S-G).
They are much like LOWESS in stats.
“A SavitzkyGolay filter is a digital filter that can be applied to a set of digital data points for the purpose of smoothing the data, that is, to increase the precision of the data without distorting the signal tendency. 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.”
Nate says: Are you inventing 4 years of future data??.
Yes, in a sense. Also 6 months of the 12 month filter.
SG is a class of filters that do a polynomial fit at each data point to determine smoothed value at that point. The specific filter is specified by the width of the window and the order of the polynomial. A 12 month moving average filter is a degenerate case of the SG filter with a window length of 12 and a polynomial of order 0, that is, a simple average.
Software libraries that implement SG generally have an option to select the method for treating endpoints past where the centered filter runs out of data. RLH appears to have selected the option (or taken the default) of computing end values using the last fit of the polynomial.
The effect of this endpoint treatment is apparent in the “S-G 12 month projection” curve which doesn’t reflect the apparent bottoming out of UAH monthly anomaly in the most recent months.
Because smoothed data points are so much more natural…
Willard: “A SavitzkyGolay filter is a digital filter that can be applied to a set of digital data points for the purpose of smoothing the data, that is, to increase the precision of the data without distorting the signal tendency.”
“which doesnt reflect the apparent bottoming out of UAH monthly anomaly in the most recent months.”
So
2021 03 -0.01
2021 04 -0.05
2021 05 0.08
2021 06 -0.01
2021 07 0.20
is bottoming out?
Next month going to be higher than 0.20 is it?
And no, I didn’t choose to add in extra data, the library function I use continues the fit right up until the last data point (as it should).
I don’t see you restricting LOWESS to the same requirement of a shorter window.
Strange how this months is spot on.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-1.jpeg
And no, I didnt choose to add in extra data, the library function I use continues the fit right up until the last data point (as it should).
Regardless, the ends of the filtered are handled differently than the interior points by whatever library you’re using. If you didn’t make an explicit choice for endpoint handling, the default appears to extrapolate using the polynomial from the last defined point as I said.
Actually I have the source code for the function I use. It treats all points as exactly the same. That is, creates a ‘fit’ for them all.
As I say, LOWESS is used a lot in statistics and no-one complains there that it should not ‘run to the ends’.
One rule for statisticians, one rule for the rest.
Indeed if you were to create a LOWESS at around 20% it would follow almost exactly the plot I derived.
Richard: appeal to naturalness as much as you like, a filter is a filter is a filter.
OK, so it is a FIT of the last 4 years.
Clearly when the actual next 4 years of data come in, the last couple of years of filtered T will change, whereas T from > 4 years ago will be stable.
“OK, so it is a FIT of the last 4 years.”
In the same way a LOWESS over the same period would be.
“a filter is a filter”
And your point was?
“no one complains there that it should not run to the ends”
I am complaining right now, and I quite sure that others have done so depending on the application.
My complaint is that in this case it is fitting noise.
I recall you previously showed us a (15 y?) LP T plot ending in ~ 2014 that was curving distinctly downward at the end.
Of course once the later years were added that turned out to have been quite misleading.
But if being misled makes you happier then go right ahead.
“I am complaining right now, and I quite sure that others have done so depending on the application.”
So you would complain if a LOWESS was used instead? I think not. In fact I can find it used all over the place. My people who I rather suspect you agree with.
“My complaint is that in this case it is fitting noise.”
The ‘noise’ is data, just like the rest. Fitting a curve to those points is just like the rest.
“I recall you previously showed us a (15 y?) LP T plot ending in ~ 2014 that was curving distinctly downward at the end.”
That’s why I call it a projection not a prediction.
Your linear trend likewise is inaccurate. The points to follow later in time may or may not ‘fit’ the line you draw.
I note you do not complain that the 365 day running average on https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2021-08-07.gif should be applied to a point 6 months prior to the right hand edge.
P.S. As I mentioned at the time
“Currently shows that we are over a local peak and headed downwards! That may well change so’Caution Will Robinson’.”
I understand about uncertainty. Do you?
P.S. As I mentioned at the time
“Currently shows that we are over a local peak and headed downwards! That may well change so…’Caution Will Robinson’.”
I understand about uncertainty. Do you?
“should be applied to a point 6 months prior to the right hand edge.”
I’m aware of that and can visually shift it where it belongs. That IMO, is different from you filtering to the very end.
I dont have any preference for LOWESS.
When I say ‘fitting noise’ I am talking about that fact that we KNOW that there is short-term variation (ENSO, etc) contributing to whatever the underlying trend is, which is what is of interest for climate science.
A curve FIT that is intended to reveal the underlying climate trend should not be unduly influenced by short-term noise.
> And your point was?
That your appeal to the naturalness of your filter was overly silly.
Now, your turn: what’s the point of posting a graph without commenting on it, if not to create a false sense of plausible deniability?
“I don’t have any preference for LOWESS.”
But you do agree that it usually used to display all points to the end of the graph. And you don’t complain about that.
“That your appeal to the naturalness of your filter was overly silly.”
My point was that a straight line is not normal. The rest is you trying to wriggle around that.
“Im aware of that and can visually shift it where it belongs.”
So you agree that the line will continue to fall for another 6 months or so.
So what is your assessment for the next 6 months of its trajectory?
> My point was that a straight line is not normal.
As opposed to what?
“So what is your assessment for the next 6 months of its trajectory?”
On the gfs? Looks flat to slightly rising.
On the CFSR
So take the 365 day moving average and move it back 6 months to where it should be. Then look ahead for the rest of the year and decide if the data points to come are above or below that point.
“As opposed to what?”
Something other than a straight line.
Nate: Tell me also if you agree that, so far this month, the data points are lower than they were at the same time in last month?
> Something other than a straight line.
All lines are mathematical representations, dummy.
What you have to do is look at August 2020 daily or monthly data, compare to current values. If current values are higher, then the 12 mo average will be rising. If current values are lower, 12 mo ave will be falling.
Nate says: What you have to do is look at August 2020 daily or monthly data, . . .
In so far as one can project UAH from El Nino indicators we probably won’t see anomalies as high as the last months of 2020 this year, so the annual trailing average probably goes down. Effectively this is just saying that 2021 is a cooler year than was 2020 which is common knowledge.
I expect also that we’ll see UAH anomalies in the 0.0-0.2 range for the rest of 2021. If the La Nina projections come true, I’d expect a second dip in early 2022. Current projections suggest a weaker dip, but time will tell.
uahTltVsOni.png
While projecting annual fluctuations is an amusing pass time, on climatically relevant timescales the global anomaly will continue to climb.
“All lines are mathematical representations”
What other parts of nature produce straight lines?
In our case, the line is not meant to represent nature, but to convey a trend.
So it’s not how natural it looks that matters here, but how representative it is of the underlying process.
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2021-08-08.gif
I’ll ask again. Are this months figures higher or lower than last months so far?
If you move the 365 day average back 6 months, are the data points to come (on average) above or below the end point.
> I’ll ask again.
Your graphs should be followed by claims you make, dummy, not silly leading questions.
“In our case, the line is not meant to represent nature, but to convey a trend.”
Least squares produce a trend, true. The only question is how big a window do you wish that to operate over. The whole record? The last 7 years? The last 12 months?
And is a single straight line over the whole record the best way to represent that? Or is a LOWESS/S-G a better way and why?
“Your graphs should be followed by claims you make”
The claim is that LOWESS/S-G makes for a better representation than a straight line.
The residuals are smaller for sure.
> The claim is that LOWESS/S-G makes for a better representation than a straight line.
A representation of what: a trend between just a few data points? And why exactly: it’s more “natural” because it wobbles like a wave?
You’re kidding yourself in both cases.
Willard decides that the whole of science and statistics is not very useful.
I’m not the one who decides how real scientists support their claims, dummy.
But here you go:
https://www.statisticshowto.com/lowess-smoothing/
If you really want to show that one method M1 is better than another M2, here’s how you should do it:
1. Present a family F of problems;
2. Decide on a set of criterias C;
2. Apply M1 and M2 to F and present your results;
4. Discuss them according to your C;
5. Disclose the limitations of your approach.
Alternatively, continue to act like a Climateball rookie.
If you think that a straight line is a better fit than a least squares fitted curve then I await your presentation of the residuals.
I’m not the one who claims that “LOWESS/S-G makes for a better representation than a straight line,” dummy.
“Ill ask again. Are this months figures higher or lower than last months so far?
If you move the 365 day average back 6 months, are the data points to come (on average) above or below the end point.”
The question makes no sense.
If we assume current months are tracking 4 months delayed NINO 3.4, then we expect continued rising for another 3 months or so, then turning down.
If these months are higher than the same ones in 2020, then the 12 mo running mean will keep rising.
Based on that, I think ozcaster 12 mo running mean will rise a bit over next few months.
But there is always weather unpredictability.
“LOWESS/S-G makes for a better representation than a straight line”
Everybody who uses them, and there are quite a lot, does that in the expectation that LOWESS/S-G makes for a better representation than a straight line. But you can always disagree with all of them of course.
“The question makes no sense.”
You already admitted that placing the output of the 365 day filter at the right hand edge is wrong. How can observing that its output should be at half that be wrong?
Does your question have a point? What is it?
Then you are just trolling.
The point is that despite your claim to be able to move the output point back 6 months, you are then unable to ‘see’ what data will then follow and thus make an observation about the likely path it will follow.
“you are then unable to see what data will then follow ”
Ive explained the rationale for my predictions. Youve ignored it.
What is it you think I am unable to ‘see’? Be specific.
“despite your claim to be able to move the output point back 6 months, you are then unable to see what data will then follow”
Moving the endpoint of the 12 mo curve back 6 months doesnt change anything, except where it shows up on the x-axis.
The data that goes into the 12 mo curve, is still all of the data up the present values.
It doesnt change my predictions nor should it change yours.
And his 4th graph shows the 12 month and 3 month running means in correct location.
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2021-08-10.gif
Notice that in addition to ENSO, there is an annual cycle present, with a dip in spring-summer and rise in fall-winter.
And of course the 12 mo running mean eliminates this. IOW it does not follow the spring-summer dip.
Is the data to the right of the end of the green trace higher or lower than it?
“there is an annual cycle present, with a dip in spring-summer and rise in fall-winter”
Interesting as the Northern Hemisphere is supposed to be ‘warmer’ than the Southern Hemisphere in Summer.
“The northern hemisphere has much more land mass which loses its heat quickly. … The heat retained in the southern hemisphere oceans makes the average temperature of the Earth a few degrees higher in July when Earth is furthest from the Sun than it is in January when it is its closest”
You are forgetting these are anomalies.
“Is the data to the right of the end of the green trace higher or lower than it?”
Lower. Now look at the same month in 2020, 2019, 2018,etc
The data (blue curve) to the right of the end of the green curve is Lower in all these years.
And did the green curve then follow the blue curve in the summer months after, in those years?
No.
Because as I said, the 12 mo running mean removes the annual cycle.
“You are forgetting these are anomalies.”
So you are saying that recently the hemispheres are reversed?
“the 12 mo running mean removes the annual cycle.”
Badly. Running means add all sort of artifacts to the output. At the expense of slightly more delay, a Gaussian produces a more accurate picture.
Have you seen the frequency response curve for running means/averages?
https://ptolemy.berkeley.edu/eecs20/week12/freqResponseRA.html
The inaccuracy comes from ‘beating’ a square wave sampling methodology with the data.
If the data at the right hand edge is lower than that at the left hand edge, the curve will go lower, and vice versa.
Now tell me what you see.
The left hand edge being 365 days earlier.
“The left hand edge being 365 days earlier.”
What I have been saying. You dont pay attention.
“Badly. Running means add all sort of artifacts to the output. ”
Broken record. Change of subject. Booooring!
“What I have been saying.”
So based on that, do you expect the line to go up or down for the next few months?
“Booooring!”
The truth will out despite your attempts to conceal it.
Produce the “artifacts,” dummy.
Should be easy – you’re the new Engineer in town.
“attempts to conceal it.”
Og puleeez..
Ive seen your promotion of your favorite filter 47 times by now! Im officially bored with it.
And it has nothing to do with the point being discussed.
You have been saying over and over and over ‘LOOK at the 12 mo running mean’ ‘WHAT do you think it will do?’ etc etc etc
So I told you. There is an annual cycle in the anomaly for interesting reasons. The 12 month running mean effectively removes that.
So there is NO reason to expect the 12 mo running mean to ‘follow’ the annual cycle. It has been removed.
Now suddenly the 12 mo running mean has ‘artifacts’ that you want to highlight! We shouldnt be looking at th 12 mo running mean!
Those flaws will not change the fact that ANY 12 mo filter should remove an annual cycle.
And once again, your hyperfocus on short term noise and what it will do in the next couple of months may be exciting for you, but it has nothing to do with climate change.
“I’ve seen your promotion of your favorite filter 47 times by now! I’m officially bored with it.”
Accuracy requires repetition.
“So there is NO reason to expect the 12 mo running mean to follow the annual cycle. It has been removed.
…
Those flaws will not change the fact that ANY 12 mo filter should remove an annual cycle.”
Apparently not as you then claim that there is still an annual cycle left in the anomalies! Make up your mind.
As I observed earlier, there should be not signal of a yearly nature left in the results. Yet there is.
“Produce the ‘artifacts'”
I did already.
Did you not see the frequency response curve above? Oh, I forgot. You don’t do facts.
Idiot.
RLH says: As I observed earlier, there should be not signal of a yearly nature left in the results. Yet there is.
So is your hypothesis that there ‘should not be an annual cycle’ incorrect or is the apparent annual cycle not significant?
This particular case is interesting because someone with the skills and inclination plausibly has sufficient data available to test the hypothesis.
“Apparently not as you then claim that there is still an annual cycle left in the anomalies! Make up your mind.”
There is an annual cycle in the unfiltered monthly data. A 12 mo filter removes it.
Are you a moron, or just trolling?
“As I observed earlier, there should be not signal of a yearly nature left in the results. Yet there is.”
Why?
That means you think the amount of GW in the last 3 decades must have no seasonality?
The GW in Winter and Summer must be the same?!
OR Do you STILL NOT GET what an anomaly means?
Anomaly means compared to history (over a given time period).
So you are saying that recent years are showing differences to the comparison period that exhibits a seasonal related outcome?
“There is an annual cycle in the unfiltered monthly data. A 12 mo filter removes it.”
That would be true of raw data but, unless something recent has changed, should not be true of anomalies.
For instance, Roy’s data after treating with both a running mean and a 12 month filter, shows no such seasonal outcomes.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-2.jpeg
“So you are saying that recent years are showing differences to the comparison period that exhibits a seasonal related outcome?”
Yes.
‘There is an annual cycle in the unfiltered monthly data. A 12 mo filter removes it.’
“That would be true of raw data but, unless something recent has changed, should not be true of anomalies.”
You STILL fail to understand what anomalies do!
Anomaly for January measures how much January has warmed over last few decades.
Anomaly for July measures how much July has warmed over last few decades.
You erroneously assume that January and July must warm by the same amount!
They havent. And there is no logical reason to make such an assumption.
“Roys data after treating with both a running mean and a 12 month filter, shows no such seasonal outcomes.”
OMG
You removed the annual cycle it with your Filter!
UAH decadal trend (degrees C/decade) annually and seasonally by region:
Region J-D DJF MAM JJA SON
Globe 0.136 0.147 0.121 0.121 0.154
Land 0.182 0.182 0.189 0.159 0.197
Ocean 0.118 0.133 0.095 0.107 0.137
NH 0.161 0.176 0.172 0.136 0.159
Land.1 0.191 0.208 0.221 0.151 0.181
Ocean.1 0.142 0.155 0.142 0.127 0.144
SH 0.110 0.118 0.070 0.106 0.149
Land.2 0.160 0.122 0.118 0.175 0.232
Ocean.2 0.100 0.117 0.061 0.091 0.131
Trpcs 0.127 0.122 0.096 0.148 0.143
Land.3 0.160 0.155 0.116 0.189 0.183
Ocean.3 0.117 0.112 0.091 0.136 0.131
NoExt 0.183 0.201 0.213 0.142 0.174
Land.4 0.203 0.215 0.249 0.156 0.188
Ocean.4 0.166 0.190 0.180 0.128 0.161
SoExt 0.098 0.118 0.057 0.072 0.144
Land.5 0.149 0.122 0.116 0.117 0.247
Ocean.5 0.088 0.118 0.046 0.065 0.126
NoPol 0.248 0.253 0.288 0.194 0.255
Land.6 0.227 0.204 0.280 0.218 0.207
Ocean.6 0.272 0.308 0.299 0.167 0.311
SoPol 0.020 0.074 0.017 -0.120 0.104
Land.7 0.090 0.115 0.089 -0.101 0.257
Ocean.7 -0.014 0.055 -0.017 -0.129 0.031
USA48 0.170 0.174 0.185 0.104 0.215
USA49 0.177 0.173 0.194 0.109 0.231
AUST 0.183 0.123 0.148 0.263 0.205
“You removed the annual cycle it with your Filter!”
But you claim that the anomalies on https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/ still have an annual signal in them. You have said it more than once. So do the anomalies contains an annual signal and, if so, why are they different to their reference period in an annual way?
“UAH decadal trend”
UAH decadal linear trend.
Care to do a LOWESS trend (of say 20%) instead?
Here’s the trick of our One-Trick Pony:
1. Almost suggest something;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. Feeble try at insulting
That covers it.
Idiot. Still.
3.
You have said it more than once. So do the anomalies contains an annual signal”
Yes, I’ve said it because obviously they do.
,”Why are they different to their reference period in an annual way?”
Why should GW in winter and summer be the same?
Lots going on.
I know the Arctic ocean winter anomaly is very high, while the summer anomaly is practically zero. In summer with sea ice and open ocean, the air temperature is pinned to 0 C.
“Why should GW in winter and summer be the same?”
Why would this winter and this summer be different to those in the reference period?
2.
Willard = idiot.
The point, RLH, is that you have erroneously declared that there should not be an annual cycle in the anomaly. But the reality is that it has one.
Because the fact is that GW has a seasonality to it.
And, as usual, you offer no logical reason why it cannot. But that never seems to keep you from declaring it anyway.
Do a little investigation if you need to know the details.
“The point, RLH, is that you have erroneously declared that there should not be an annual cycle in the anomaly. But the reality is that it has one.”
How can this January be different to 30 years of previous data for January for instance? That is what an anomaly is. Likewise for July.
Unless something has changed in the between then and now of course. Care to say what that is?
“How can this January be different to 30 years of previous data for January for instance? That is what an anomaly is.”
You mean how can there have global warming?
Are you saying that GW has developed a season signal in the last few decades? If so, what is your mechanism and reasoning?
“Are you saying that GW has developed a season signal in the last few decades?”
Asked and answered several times. WTF is your problem?
“If so, what is your mechanism and reasoning?”
Its a fact, just as GW is a fact.
You have claimed it should not happen. What is your logic behind that? You never answer.
Answer a question before asking anything else!
RLH wrote:
What a long winded batch of comments without any understanding. It’s long been predicted from model studies that there would be seasonal changes in warming, for example, greater warming in NH Fall months, such as Nov and Dec.
It’s evident in the UAH data when comparing the earlier base period of 1981-2010 with the latest base period data of 1991-2020. Here are the average monthly differences for the LT NoPolar after adding the annual average difference:
Jan -0.086
Feb -0.030
Mar 0.024
April -0.140
May -0.061
Jun -0.005
Jul 0.131
Aug 0.088
Sept 0.024
Oct -0.025
Nov -0.028
Dec 0.107
Annual difference -0.261
Shifting the base period removed some apparent warming from the latest data, effectively understating the warming.
I think I will do a month on month comparison to see how this plays out on all of the temperature series.
Thus Jan compared to Jan a year ago, etc.
This will remove the yearly signal without impacting the seasonal differences.
Should be interesting.
“Asked and answered several times.”
You have said it occurs. You have not said why. Other than the rather general opinion that GW is not equally laid out during the year.
Why and how is not covered. Does CO2 go to sleep and only wake up when it is prodded?
“You have claimed it should not happen. What is your logic behind that?”
If CO2 is behind GW, why should it occur more prevalent only in recent years and only in some seasons?
When it is Summer in the North it is Winter in the South and vice
versa. Globally speaking that is.
> If CO2 is behind GW, why should it occur more prevalent only in recent years and only in some seasons?
Step 2 again.
***
> When it is Summer in the North it is Winter in the South and vice versa.
Back to step 1.
Month on Month a Year ago for UAH Global.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
No seasonal pattern there.
“No seasonal pattern there.”
Use your noodle, RLH!
You removed the seasonality.
“If CO2 is behind GW, why should it occur more prevalent only in recent years and only in some seasons?”
Typical. You don’t know why it happens, and this leads you to claim that it should NOT happen.
“When it is Summer in the North it is Winter in the South and vice
versa. Globally speaking that is.”
The Earth and its climate is complex.
Winter and Summer are clearly quite different in their weather patterns.
Winter atmosphere is colder and has less water vapor, but has the same amount of CO2.
NH and SH are obviously quite different (most land in NH, Arctic is ocean, Antarctic is Land).
I already mentioned that in summer the mixture of open ocean and sea-ice in the Arctic ocean pins the air temperature over it to 0 degrees C. The GHE heat melts ice, but doesnt raise the air temperature.
While in winter with no exposed ocean, the T can vary, but the GHE produces increased T relative to the past.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2021.png
“You removed the seasonality.”
Nope. It shows that year on year, month on month, the seasons have up and downs. No continuous trend in either direction.
“Winter and Summer are clearly quite different in their weather patterns”
You don’t say.
None of that explains why winters and summers now are different to the reference periods.
“‘You removed the seasonality.’
Nope. It shows that year on year, month on month, the seasons have up and downs. ”
You’re hopelessly confused.
“None of that explains why”
Then by your rules, it can’t happen?
Don’t like my answer, figure it out yourself.
“shows that year on year, month on month, the seasons have up and downs. No continuous trend in either direction”
You have calculated the derivative of temperature. It doesn’t have much of a trend…
One of the ways idiots avoid reality is to try to discredit the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. RLH, Norman. and Bindidon have all done this. Here’s RLH with his latest attempt:
“You have no answer to real observations but persist in your twisted belief that a ball-on-a-string somehow represents a gravitational connected system. It doesn’t and never will.”
Of course RLH is completely WRONG, as are Bindidon and Norman. Just a quick search found 3 “.edu” sites proving how uneducated the idiots are:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
Clint R: It is you who are in the vanishingly small minority who do not accept what science has determined about the moon’s orbit and rotation. Much like ‘flat earthers’ do not accept the globe.
Wrong again, RLH.
“Science” did not determine Moon was rotating. That came from astrology, and has never been corrected. It hasn’t been corrected because it doesn’t matter to anyone but cultists.
You reject the ball-on-a-string, but now you find out it is a valid analogy for “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It’s the same motion as Moon.
Your rejection of reality has been confirmed numerous times. You have NOTHING, except false accusations like calling people “flat earthers”.
I won’t respond to anymore of your trolling.
Orbital motion without axial rotation means that one face always points towards a fixed star.
Absolutely wrong.
Absolutely correct.
The animations in the following link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Make it clear that in “orbital motion without axial rotation” the same side of the object always faces towards the inside of the orbit rather than towards a distant star.
“Make it clear that in orbital motion without axial rotation the same side of the object always faces towards the inside of the orbit rather than towards a distant star.”
The cannonball is not rotating in that diagram. The red vector that points to the center is not attached to the cannonball. The purple vector is showing orbital path. It too is not attached to the cannonball.
Correct, the cannonball is not rotating on its own axis. It is fired without spin, so it orbits without spin…the bottom of the cannonball always facing towards the Earth whilst it completes the orbit. The same side of the cannonball is not always facing towards some fixed star whilst it orbits. In order for that to happen, the cannonball would have to start rotating on its own axis…
DREMT
I take a cannon floating in space and point it at Sirius. I paint a spot on the front face of the cannonball and fire it at Sirius. The cannonball flies in a straight line and the spot continues to face Sirius. No rotation.
I take a Newton’s cannon on Earth’s surface and point it towards Sirius. I paint a spot on the front face of the cannonball and fire it at Sirius. The cannonball flies in an orbital curve due to Earth’s gravity and the spot continues to face Sirius. No rotation because gravity does not cause a torque on the cannonball.
I am correct, as explained.
Ent, the cannonball would fall back to Earth. And the “spot” points in the direction of motion.
You understand none of this.
“And the spot points in the direction of motion. ”
Why?
” It is fired without spin, so it orbits without spinthe bottom of the cannonball always facing towards the Earth whilst it completes the orbit.”
What causes it to rotate wrt the fixed stars? That energy has to come from somewhere. And, no, gravity cannot act on a smooth cannonball.
It is not rotating on its own axis “wrt the fixed stars”. It just appears to be. No torque required about the cannonball’s own axis because the cannonball is not rotating about its own axis. It is fired without spin, and thus orbits the Earth without spin. And, naturally, that means it keeps the same face always oriented towards the Earth whilst it does so. Just look at the animations, and open your mind.
EM,
You wrote –
“I take a Newton’s cannon on Earth’s surface and point it towards Sirius. I paint a spot on the front face of the cannonball and fire it at Sirius. The cannonball flies in an orbital curve due to Earth’s gravity and the spot continues to face Sirius.”
No, it doesn’t. What’s more, pointing the cannon towards Sirius (or other “fixed” star), may result in you shooting yourself in the face or the foot, as the cannon’s muzzle’s orientation WRT you will be constantly changing.
A spot on the front face of the ball will continue to be at right angles to the force of gravity, as the ball falls. Likewise, a spot on the “bottom” of the ball will continue to face the COG of the Earth.
As occurs with the Moon. Not rotating about an axis through the Moon itself. Just perpetually falling, like a giant cannonball fired from a giant smooth bore cannon, initially parallel to the Earth’s surface.
Newton”s explanation is good enough for me.
“A spot on the front face of the ball will continue to be at right angles to the force of gravity, as the ball falls.”
Wrong. There is no force operating on the ball which would impart rotation to it. Only create an orbit.
“It is fired without spin, and thus orbits the Earth without spin.”
If it is orbiting without spin then it is always pointing at a fixed star.
Wrong, as explained. Scroll up, re-read, look at the animations again. Open your mind. Try not to just restate your conclusion as a premise.
Wrong as explained by many. many people. Including NASA which tried to explain the differences between orbits and revolutions.
Which you and your clique try to ignore.
You are the one insisting on your delusions. The rest of the world understands that the Moon rotates once per orbit.
Please do elaborate on the “differences between orbits and revolutions”.
An orbit is a revolution around another body. A rotation is around an axis of a body.
Wrong as explained by many. many people. Including NASA which tried to explain the differences between orbits/revolutions and rotations.
That was already understood. What I asked you to elaborate on was what you originally said, which was “the differences between orbits and revolutions”.
So you agree with NASA then?
No. I understand the difference between revolution and rotation. Which is why I disagree with NASA on the matter of the moon’s (lack of) axial rotation.
So you agree that the Moon rotates wrt the fixed stars (and the Sun) once per orbital revolution round the Earth.
No.
You would ne wrong then.
No, I would not “ne wrong”.
RLH,
As to all sides of the Moon being seen at different times from a particular “fixed star”, this appears to be your understanding of the Moon “rotating”.
However, this occurrence can only occur from “fixed stars” which are in the plane of the Moon”s orbit.
Take, for example, the view from a “fixed star” which is more or less normal to the Moon’s orbital plane. This view will show one hemisphere or the other, with the point on that hemisphere closest to the Earth permanently pointing to the centre of the Earth.
I assume your definition of the Moon rotating about its axis does not change depending on viewpoint. What do you find contradictory about Newton’s description of Moons, apples, cannonballs and other things obeying the law of gravitation? I prefer it to definitions of rotation which depend on imaginary viewpoints.
The Moon’s path/orbit around Earth and its orientation to Earth are 2 separate things.
The Moon orbits around the Earth in 27(ish) days. The Moon rotates around it axis once in those 27 days.
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html#:~:text=The%20moon%20orbits%20the%20Earth,Scientists%20call%20this%20synchronous%20rotation.
Swenson
You’ve confused the movement of a cannonball in orbit with an arrow flying through the air.
The arrow has a definite front and back. Flights at the back interact with the airflow to keep the arrow pointed in its direction of motion.
A cannonball in orbit is spherically symmetrical with no front, back, top of bottom. It has no flights to align it and no airflow for them to interact with. The cannonball’s rotation is completely independent of its orbital motion.
The painted spot is purely a reference point to help describe rotation. It has no physical effect.
“Newton’s explanation is good enough for me.”
Newton, never discussed a spot on the cannon ball always pointing to the Earth. He didnt discuss its orientation at all.
Nor would he have had any explanation for that, and you don’t either.
So this is pure fantasy.
“You’ve confused the movement of a cannonball in orbit with an arrow flying through the air.”
Look at the animations. As far as I am concerned it is clear from them exactly why a point on the bottom of the cannonball remains oriented towards the Earth whilst it orbits. I cannot understand anyone’s perspective who looks at them and thinks otherwise.
“Look at the animations.”
I have and do not see what you see. Mind you, I have an understanding of mass, inertia, gravity, etc.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html
Look here at the Earth and the moon. Turn on the Gravity Force and Velocity vectors.
You somehow have come to the conclusion that NASA (amongst others) is wrong about orbits and rotations. They are not.
“I’m right because NASA say I’m right”, says RLH, whilst carefully avoiding addressing the point being made.
DREMT accepts nothing other than his own twisted viewpoint.
RLH is a boring “last word-er” troll.
DREMT is a troll who calls other people trolls.
Whatever you say, RLH.
“cannonball always facing towards the Earth whilst it completes the orbit. ”
Newton’s cannonball does no such thing. Newton did not discuss the cannonballs rotation or orientation AT ALL. There are no markings on Newton’s cannonball.
So this seems to a figment of DREMTs vivid imagination.
Or, more likely he is simply lying.
“much like … ”
“sort of like .. “
Clint, Even your own sources clearly state that a ball on a string is only a rough analogy. And you know that the profs who wrote those pages would laugh at your notion that the moon does not rotate on its axis.
No surprise that Folkerts rejects reality. Since he has no workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, he looks even more desperate and pathetic.
Orbital motion without axial rotation means always having your forward face pointing at a fixed star.
Incorrect, as explained above.
Correct as everybody except your small clique agrees.
Until recently you were in denial that “orbital motion without axial rotation” even existed. Now you apparently not only agree that it exists but believe there is a “consensus” that it is motion in which one face remains pointing at a fixed star. A remarkable turnaround.
I have always disagreed with your characterization of Orbital motion without axial rotation. If they rotate at all then they will show different faces to the stars, including the Sun. Which the Moon does for sure.
You just completely side-stepped my comment. Try again.
RLH is as incompetent with logic as he is with science.
But, he excels at trolling.
Everyone should be good at something.
You and your clique can continue all you like. It wont change what the rest of the world understands one jot. The the Moon rotates once per orbit.
Try again.
2. You and your clique can continue all you like. It wont change what the rest of the world understands one jot. The the Moon rotates once per orbit.
No, I meant try again and actually respond this time to the point I made in my 5:19 PM comment.
3. You and your clique can continue all you like. It wont change what the rest of the world understands one jot. That the Moon rotates once per orbit.
This is a clear statement as regards your fallacious claim that the Moon rotates wrt the fixed stars but does not rotate at all.
You are not even coherent.
You are not even sensible.
What is your response to my 5:19 PM comment?
Ultimately, it is quite simple.
Relativity says there is no such think as ‘absolute motion’. There is no way to know if something is “not translating”; no way to know it is not moving.
Rotation is different. There is such a think as “absolute rotation.
There IS a way to know if something is “not rotating” to know is is not spinning.
So “without rotation” can be absolutely defined. It means keeping the same orient relative to the ‘rest of the universe’. it doesn’t matter if the object is “orbiting” or “zig-zagging” or “driving along a winding mountain road.” “Without rotation” always means the same thing.
“What is your response to my 5:19 PM comment?”
That you are wrong and the rest of science is correct.
Sure, Tim, but “orbital motion without axial rotation” is still rotation (revolution) about the barycenter. So “orbital motion without axial rotation” still involves the object changing its orientation.
“orbital motion without axial rotation is still rotation (revolution) about the barycenter.”
No it isn’t. That would be WITH rotation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“If the rotation axis passes internally through the body’s own center of mass, then the body is said to be autorotating or spinning, and the surface intersection of the axis can be called a pole. 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.”
“A rotation is simply a progressive radial orientation to a common point. That common point lies within the axis of that motion. The axis is 90 degrees perpendicular to the plane of the motion. If the axis of the rotation lies external of the body in question then the body is said to orbit. There is no fundamental difference between a “rotation” and an “orbit” and or "spin". The key distinction is simply where the axis of the rotation lies, either within or outside of a body in question. This distinction can be demonstrated for both “rigid” and “non rigid” bodies.”
You are incorrect if you believe that the Moon does not rotate on its own axis once per orbit of the Earth.
More dodging of the point from RLH.
“but ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is still rotation (revolution) about the barycenter. “
This would almost be a compelling argument if moons actually rotated (moved in a circle) around the barycenter. This would be at best a shaky argument if there was no liberation. But there is.
“Rotation about the barycenter with no axial rotation” simply fails to predict the correct motion. “Translation about the barycenter with uniform axial rotation” *does* predict the correct rotation.
More idiocy from DREMT.
Then edit Wikipedia, Tim.
“In astronomy, rotation is a commonly observed phenomenon. Stars, planets and similar bodies all spin around on their axes.”
“While revolution is often used as a synonym for rotation, in many fields, particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis. Moons revolve around their planet, planets revolve about their star (such as the Earth around the Sun); and stars slowly revolve about their galaxial center. “
Indeed. None of which contradicts the parts I quoted.
You missed out the part where an orbit is independent of the objects rotation about its axis (if any).
…and I agree with that. So?
Say the Moon spun on its axis twice as fast as it currently does. Nothing would change about its orbit.
The moon does not currently rotate on its own axis. It only orbits.
The Earth both orbits and rotates on its own axis.
The Moon rotates about its own axis about once every 27 days. It also orbits the Erath at the same rate.
That is what you believe, yes.
I believe it because it is correct. Many other people also believe that it is true.
That’s all you’ve got, really.
What? That by far the majority of people agree that I am right about the Moon’s orbit and rotation and that you are wrong?
Argumentum ad populum.
Better than your two favorites:
Argument by Assertion
and
Argument from Fallacy.
arguement per scientiam
Oh dear.
“In mathematics, an isometry (or congruence, or congruent transformation) is a distance-preserving transformation between metric spaces, usually assumed to be bijective.”
They should get Chuckie Schumer to present.
Reminder: Member Comment Period: Revised APS Statement
“{the} Earths climate is changing”.
Yup.
RLH
Watch the Channel 4 news for an upcoming report on the social effects of sea level rise in Miami.
“We found that most of the city of Miami Beach is stable except for several pockets that show subsidence at a rate of 1-3 millimeters per year. Most of the subsidence occurred in the western side of the city. However, we found one localized area of subsidence in the area of the Champlain tower. That area subsided at a rate of 2 millimeters per year between 1993 and 1999. Subsidence is a common, very slow movement of the ground that cannot be seen by human eyes but is detectable from space by InSAR.”
So is it the sea rising or the land sinking?
Both.
But in what ratio?
Your own source has answered your question.
We found that most of the city of Miami Beach is stable”
If Miami is not subsiding, then the increased rate of fair weather flooding is due to increasing sea level.
“Most of the subsidence occurred in the western side of the city.”
maguff…”The proposed revisions update the statement and provide supporting evidence that Earths climate is changing, referencing new data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”.
***
What is ‘Earth’s climate”? Why do these idiots keep writing propaganda and trying to pass it off as science?
Gordon Robertson at 6:45 PM
Since you’re obviously not a member, you need not concern yourself with this notice. Go back to sleep.
maguff…”The Working Group 1 report, which summarizes the latest physical science, is now due to be published on Monday”.
***
Presumably you are a member and if so, it is incumbent on you to get the facts straight. Working Groups DO NOT do summaries, they offer reports on papers submitted for review by Coordinating Lead Authors. The only summary is the Summary for Policymakers and it is written by 50 Lead Authors who are politically appointed.
Any comments you offer will be summarily dismissed if they don’t support the Summary.
Why are you so frigging naive?
Gordon Robertson at 8:39 PM
By responding to the wrong sub-thread you are only confirming what I said before: your reading comprehension has gone from bad to worse.
Now, about the APS, if you were a member you would have commented on the proposed changes to APS Statement 15.3 Earth’s Changing Climate rather than bloviating about it on some obscure corner of the internet.
And yes, I am a member of APS.
“And yes, I am a member of APS”
Poor Tyson doesn’t realize that any idiot can join the cult — just pay the membership fee!
https://www.aps.org/membership/join.cfm
It takes a real idiot to create and sustain a small clique who disagrees with by far the majority of those people who have an opinion about the Moon’s orbit and orientation, who agree that the Moon orbits Earth once in approx. 27 days and rotates on its axis once per orbit.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Today the Thermopylae Pass is no longer a narrow pass between the land and the sea. The depositional process of the Sperchios River has filled a considerable part of the basin with alluvial sediments, resulting in the delta’s prolongation and the transformation of the narrow pass to a margin between the foothills of the mountainous terrain and the alluvial plain. The distance between the ancient battle terrain and the present shoreline is more than 5 km (Fig. 2) while the absolute elevations on the deltaic plain close to Thermopylae range between 2 – 1.5m asl. Also, the morphology of the ancient pass changed drastically due to the debris of small torrents forming alluvial fans along the edges of Mount Kallidromo and the Sperchios River plain.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3166/ga.23.241-253
I suppose I should But Thermopylae to my But Historical Times page.
Rivers create sediment. Who knew?
Kennui did not, dummy.
Idiot.
No U.
And Chefio, for that matter.
Wonky We Willy,
You could put “But Thermopylae” anywhere you like, of course.
As you seem obsessed with “buts” you could even consider jamming you nonsense up your own.
By the way, in your case, the word is spelled “butt”.
On a more serious note, you seem to be unaware that marine fossils are found at altitudes in excess of 6000 m. Do you really think that sea levels dropped by this amount in the past?
The crust is in constant motion in three dimensions. Measuring the level of water in a container with constantly changing volume is an exercise in futility. A favourite exercise of climate crackpots.
Got the picture, dummy?
Global mean sea level has risen about 89 inches (2124 centimeters) since 1880, with about a third of that coming in just the last two and a half decades. The rising water level is mostly due to a combination of meltwater from glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of seawater as it warms. In 2019, global mean sea level was 3.4 inches (87.6 millimeters) above the 1993 averagethe highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). From 2018 to 2019, global sea level rose 0.24 inches (6.1 millimeters).
8 – 9 inches (21 – 24 centimeters)
s,
You don’t understand, do you?
The basins containing the oceans are constantly changing in volume. Anybody who believes that the volume of surface water on the Earth is measurably increasing is just stupid.
Burning hydrocarbons release H20. Plants sequester it. It freezes. It melts.
Climate cranks are delusional. You sound like a climate crank.
Mike Flynn,
You will never guess what the calculus of variations is for.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Major Failure.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Do you think he cares for your opinion?
I certainly don’t.
Can you name anyone who does? No?
I thought so, dummy.
Mike Flynn,
Mysterious Fallacy
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”Today the Thermopylae Pass is no longer a narrow pass between the land and the sea”.
***
Wee willy Wonky, named by a skeptic-sage, has gone right over the edge. Now he is claiming that alluvial plains are related to global warming/climate change. Anyone who has studied geology knows that alluvial plains are determined by the flow of a river, or rivers upstream. If human mess with the depth or direction of a river, or dam it or divert it for purposes of irrigation, the alluvial plain is affected.
Besides, Willard, it weather…summer weather.
Gordo,
I made no such claim.
Read the paper. An engineer like you might learn something.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If the subsidence is 2 mm per year and the sea level is rising 1.8 mm per year, as measured at stations on stable land and have been recording for a hundred years or more, the the ratio is obviously 50/50.
Except there are parts of the world where sea levels have not changed at all or very little.
https://earthobservatory.sg/faq-on-earth-sciences/why-will-sea-level-rise-not-be-same-everywhere
“Even though the oceans are all connected, sea level does not rise or fall uniformly over the planet. The map above shows where average sea level in 2011 was above or below the long-term average. Places where sea level rose up to 8 inches higher than the 1993-2011 average are dark blue, average levels are white, and places where sea level fell below average are brown. “
rlh…”Even though the oceans are all connected, sea level does not rise or fall uniformly over the planet”.
***
Furthermore, ENSO causes differences in ocean levels between the west coast of South America and Australia.
https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/el-nino
“Currents and tides influence topography, as does temperature. Water expands as it gets warmer, and the lack of cold water dependent nutrients make it less dense. This expanded, less dense water results in a rise in sea level, observable from space. Ocean surface height may rise as much as 6 to 13 inches above normal in some ocean regions during an El Niño”.
How about La Nina? How about the PDO, AMO and AO? What is the overall effect on ocean levels?