The Snow Hits the Fan on Saturday: Global Warming Alarmism to Follow

January 27th, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The various weather forecast models are coming closer to a consensus: During Friday night through Saturday night, New England and coastal portions of the mid-Atlantic states are going to experience an historic snowstorm.

For eastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island it looks like up to 3 feet of snow are possible with wind gusts of 50 to 60 mph. Here are the forecast snow totals from three weather forecast models: ECMWF, Canadian, and the high-resolution NAM. The GFS model (not shown) is still wanting to take everything farther offshore (all images courtesy of WeatherBell.com):

Now, we all know that global warming was going to make snow a thing of the past. But when we continued to experience snowstorms, that, too, was blamed on global warming. Global warming theory explains every outcome, apparently.

And the recent cold in the NE U.S…. if it happened to be a warm winter, that would be due to global warming. But unusual cold is also due to global warming, since it apparently causes sinister waviness in the jet stream.

So, beginning Saturday and into Sunday, brace yourselves, because global warming hysteria is coming.

 


408 Responses to “The Snow Hits the Fan on Saturday: Global Warming Alarmism to Follow”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. argusmanargus says:

    Better than the British again…

    • CharlesStevens says:

      I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. I’ve never believed like it can be achievable however YTGR one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to avail…View

      more instructions visiting this web page >>> http://Www.Easywork2.com

  2. I didn’t expect a weather report here, but I’m happy I left New York in 1977 … and moved to Michigan where it was colder!

    40+ years later, Michigan winters are generally not as cold as they were in the 1970s, thanks to global warming. But 2021, and 2022 so far, have been cold, reminding us of the nasty 1970s, although with less snow.

    We like global warming here in Michigan. Who in a similar climate would not want warmer winter nights?

    In fact, the most warming since the 1970s was in the Northern half of the Northern Hemisphere, mainly in the six coldest months of the year, and mainly at night (TMIN). A climate emergency would be if that 47 year warming trend suddenly stopped.

    Those people who don’t enjoy global warming, for any reason, please send your warming to Michigan, so we can finally retire our snow shovels.

  3. Roy Spencer says:

    My memories of living in the UP are dominated by being cold.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      There was an enlisted Yooper on my submarine in the late 1980s with whom I occasionally stood watch. We enjoyed his Winter photos from back home in the UP with the snow so high you could only see the rooftops of the houses and the cars were buried.

    • I live in southeastern Michigan.
      It’s cold enough here.
      The UP winters are for eskimos,
      polar bears and penguins,
      or so they say in Detroit.

    • Swenson says:

      Roy Spencer,

      I must admit the term UP had me foxed. Luckily, the Yooper reference from stephen p anderson helped. I had to ask a colleague of mine what Newfies were after hearing a joke about them (well, several actually). Gets cold up there, too. Global warming for sure?

      Anyway, a climate related Swedish joke – “Nothing beats the Swedish summer – it’s simply the best day of the year.”

      • patrick healy says:

        So please tell this foreigner what UP stands for except the lying United Press?
        Thank you

        • UP is the Upper Peninsula portion
          of the state of Michigan
          The people who live there are called Yoopers.

          Mainly rural — small population — no big cities.
          Lots of snow machines (snowmobiles)

          The UP has one unusual national park:
          Isle Royale National Park
          in northwestern Michigan,
          782 Kms or 485.6 Miles from Detroit
          (which is in in southeastern Michigan
          near where I live).

          UP is connected to the “lower peninsula”
          by a long suspension bridge.
          Nice place to visit …
          in the Summer.

          • patrick healy says:

            Thank you Professor Green,
            Sounds a lovely place to enjoy. Hopefully the heroic Canadian truck drivers will enact the real Great Reset and allow you to enjoy Gods lovely creation for many more years.

      • Denny says:

        There is a ton of yooper jokes. The yoopers love them and tell them on themselves, specializing in Eino and Toivo jokes. They also had disparaging comments about the “trolls” , those living in the lower peninsula because they lived below the Mackinac bridge. That harkens back to when people could laugh at themselves.

        I remember the Keewanaw Peninsula getting over 300 inches of snow, in the 1970s I’m sure. There is a reason the old houses in Houghton/Hancock have entrances on the 2nd floor.

        I worked with many yoopers and they couldn’t wait to retire and get back to “God’s County”

        Swedish summer joke. Reminds me of the new Harbor Springs City Manager who had just moved there from Colorado in the early 1970s. He came down to meet with me and said they only have 2 seasons in Harbor Springs, Winter and the 4th of July. Poor guy. I’m not sure how long he stayed.

  4. Ken says:

    Ottawa is going to be a fun place with all those truckers and all that snow.

  5. Nate says:

    One of the channels gives snowstorms names like hurricanes. Weather hype.

    • Winter storms are now bomb cyclones.
      You’d think the nation was at war.

      A snowstorm in January is now “climate change”.
      Used to be called bad weather.
      You’d think there was never a snowstorm
      in January before 2022.

      New York Times predicted the end of snow in 2014.
      Central park NYC snow set a record in January 2016.

  6. Eben says:

    I live right where the highest numbers are

  7. Norman says:

    Roy Spencer

    I agree with your view on Climate Change and all bad weather events.
    Every flood, tornado, hurricane, snowstorm, wind event, fire, heat wave, cold snap is caused by Climate Change but only if it is bad.

    You look at historical severe weather events and they have always happened but now every one is blamed on Climate Change with or without any connecting evidence. I will agree that the planet surface has warmed but the rest, not so much.

  8. Good weather and cold weather = just weather
    Bad weather and hot weather = climate change

    Any catastrophe that takes place outdoors = climate change.
    Example: Wind knocked down a dead branch, which tore down the electric line, which landed on a steel link fence next to the house, which caused sparks that set the home on fire, and burned it to the ground. Happened to my friends, who escaped in their pajamas, in very cold weather, and lost everything inside their home too. They blamed climate change.

  9. Tim S says:

    When a theory has to rely on hype and attempting to hide valid data such as the satellite temperature record, it is not science any more. The best evidence that changing climate is mostly natural and not caused by human activities is this effort an public relations rather than true science. It has become “belief” in a political position.

  10. Bradley Ruiz says:

    Sorry for asking here. My car broke down and the insurance won’t cover the costs. Who knows a good lender where you can get quick help?

  11. Ivan says:

    I miss these posts, good to have them back; keep it up.

  12. Entropic man says:

    This wont help you persuade Google to remonetise you.

    Google’s liberal arts graduates may not understand the science, but they recognise propoganda when they see it.

  13. John W. Garrett says:

    Dr. Spencer,
    I’ve alerted NPR so they’ll have an opportunity for a real news scoop.

    With their team of crack investigative reporters and journalists, I have no doubt NPR will give their audience a fair and balance assessment, presenting alternative facts and opinions on the “Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change” CONJECTURE.

    /SARC
    (just in case anybody was wondering)

    • Nate says:

      Unlike cable news, talk radio, online news and click-bait, NPR is not Infotainment.

      It is not driven by ratings and has little incentive to hype news stories.

      Therefore it is probably one of the best sources of news these days.

      • John W. Garrett says:

        ROTFLMAO

        Are you kidding me?

        When it comes to climate, NPR is the new Iraqi Information Ministry.

        For the last two decades, they’ve been incessantly promoting the “Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change” CONJECTURE.

        NPR’s climate reporting is about as objective as Edward Bernays.

        • Frank from NoVA says:

          I had to look up Edward Bernays. My preferred comparison for NPR’s objectivity would be the NYT’s Walter Duranty.

      • Greg61 says:

        LOL, just LOL

      • NPR is strongly biased pro-leftist.
        NPR should not get any federal funding.
        Anyone who thinks NPR is fair and balanced
        is a nitwit, or a dingbat, or both.
        And should be banned from commenting here.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          The entire Federal government is strongly pro-leftist. They should not get any taxpayer funding. We are funding those who undermine the Constitution.

        • Entropic man says:

          Richard, Stephen

          Alt-Right commenters like yourselves complaining about Lefties are not going to help convince Google that this is a science site and not a propoganda site.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            The world got along without Google for a few billion years.

            I’m surprised that you think anyone needs to “convince” Google of anything in particular. Google sells advertising for profit. If they decide they don’t want to, that is their affair, I suppose.

            All advertising is propaganda, one way or the other.

            That’s their business – it just depends on the propaganda you want to push.

            Anyway, as Neil Young’s threat to Spotify – “Choose me or Josh Rogan” – showed, a commercial business might think about future profits, and choose propaganda of one sort over propaganda of another.

            The laws of the universe don’t depend on what Google or anybody else thinks. That’s the nice thing about science for some. As Richard Feynman said – “. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

            So far, as you might have noticed, there is not even a Greenhouse Theory to be found. If you believe that the non-existent Greenhouse Theory is science, good for you. I’m waiting for someone to produce the Greenhouse Theory.

            Are you hiding it somewhere?

          • Claiming NPR is leftist biased is reality.
            I don’t gave a damn about Google.
            I don’t use their search engine.

            And science is not always wrong predictions of a coming climate crisis, that began 65 years ago. Google may believe that is science, and you probably do too. Because you are a dingbat.

            Getting in trouble with Google is proof Mr. Spencer is a good scientists and good communicator. Google goes after the best.
            GOOGLE would never ban the usual misinformation from a loser like you

        • Nate says:

          ‘Global warming, climate change, Conjecture’

          Not a conjecture anymore, well established science.

          If NPR reports on established science, then thats leftist?

          I guess reality has left bias..

          Actually they do science pretty well, eg Science Friday, Radio Lab, etc

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry Nate, but your beliefs are showing.

            If you weren’t such a dedicated cultist, and if you knew any science, you would know the AGW nonsense was debunked long ago.

          • Always wrong wild guesses of the climate in 100 years — predicting a climate crisis for the past 65 years — is not established science. It is climate astrology. The fact that you are a dingbat is well established, however, by your many comments here.

          • Nate says:

            RG,

            I thought YOU agreed with Roy Spencer that AGW is real.

            Did you change your mind?

            That is what I am calling ‘established science’.

            Whether, and how much that warming is ‘catastrophic’ is a different issue, and not firmly established yet.

          • Richard Greene says:

            “Climate change” is not about AGW.
            It is the claim of CAGW in the future.

            CAGWQ is guess about AGW (TCS), with no proof the guess is correct, multiplied by 2x to 4x from an imaginary water vapor positive feedback.

            The claim of warming for AGW alone, while just an assumption, is within reason — more CO2 should inhibit our planet’s ability to cool itself, even if measurement of the exact effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is impossible.

            We know there are many other causes of climate change:

            Warming from 1920 to 1940 with little CO2 change

            Cooling from 1940 to 1975 with a moderate CO2 increase.

            There is minimal evidence that CO2 is the “climate control knob”, and that future global warming must be rapid and dangerous. But that is exactly what Climate Alarmists claim.

            As a Climate Realist, I’ve enjoyed the mild, harmless global warming since the mid-1970s, and would like another 47 years of similar warming. That warming meant warmer winters here in Michigan, and less snow. This winter, unfortunately, has been unusually cold. Hopefully this will not be the end of our warming trend. If it is, I hope Michigan declares a climate emergency.

            (A) Believing AGW is a reasonable assumption, and actual warming has been beneficial for the past 47 years,

            versus

            (B) Believing in always wrong predictions of the future climate, where the climate can ONLY get worse, with CAGW, are two very different beliefs

            (A) is based on reality: Measurements, data, anecdotes, the greenhouse effect and the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

            (B) is imaginary, with no data. There are no data for the future. And every prior prediction of environmental doom, since the 1960s, has been wrong. So there is no logical reason to believe predictions of climate doom … coming in 10 or 20 years … since 1957 !

          • Nate says:

            Catastrophic or CAGW are not terms used in climate science literature, AFAIK.

            It is a term invented by climate ‘skeptics’ and deniers to malign genuine climate science.

            Once again, RG, the UP of Michigan is undeniably cold in winter. I’ve driven across the bridge, in fact a buddy and I drove a loop around Lake Michigan. Beautiful up there.

            But the UP of Michigan is not ‘The World’.

            Most of the world’s population evidently doesnt need it to be warmer, else they would have migrated toward the equator. Climate stability in temperate zones has historically led to prosperity.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:
            ”Actually they (NPR) do science pretty well”
            and
            ”Whether, and how much that warming is ‘catastrophic’ is a different issue, and not firmly established yet.”

            https://www.npr.org/2021/08/09/1025898341/major-report-warns-climate-change-is-accelerating-and-humans-must-cut-emissions-

            NPR reports: ”Scientists warn that humans are running out of time to curb greenhouse gas emissions and avoid catastrophic global warming.”
            ————————
            Hmmmmmmmmmm!!! I guess Nate thinks reporting anonymous sources and labeling them generically as scientists when Nate and thousands of other scientists don’t even agree is pretty good reporting.

            Oh my!! IMHO, if climate change is good or bad for mankind has not even been established to any significant degree yet.

            Contrary to the assumptions of some, not all climate change is bad. I would offer as a scientifically based observation. . . .human society has been incredibly thriving throughout this brief interglacial interlude over the past 15,000 years. Suggesting that we could dodge a catastrophe has to be by any measure the odds on favorite.

            In fact is the world is a rather cold place with the slower adapting populations huddled around the equator.

            A bunch of Chicken Little idiots with PhDs running around is the stuff fables are made of.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Just only yet another conclusion Nate reaches with certainty without a shred of scientific/statistic/investigation source to provide any support for the supposition.

  14. Entropic man says:

    Discuss the effect of increasing Atlantic Ocean average temperatures on the frequency of bomb cyclones.

    • John W. Garrett says:

      LOL.

      Discuss your anxiety disorder, your innumeracy and your scientific and economic illiteracy and the effect they have on your fervid imagination.

    • coturnix says:

      easy. Don’t care, and neither should anyone else.

    • John W. Garrett says:

      Boston (Logan Airport) Snowfalls:

      Feb. 17-18, 2003: 27.6 inches (70.1 centimeters)

      Feb. 6-7, 1978: 27.1 inches (68.8 centimeters)

      March 31-April 1, 1997: 25.4 inches (64.5 centimeters)

      Feb. 8-9, 2013: 24.9 inches (63.2 centimeters)

      Jan. 26-27, 2015: 24.6 inches (62.4 centimeters)

      Feb. 16-17, 2003: 23.6 inches (59.9 centimeters)

      Jan. 22-23, 2005: 22.5 inches (57.1 centimeters)

      Feb. 9, 2015: 22.2 inches (56.4 centimeters)

      Jan. 20-21, 1978: 21.4 inches (54.3 centimeters)

    • When I lived in New York,
      from 1953 to 1977,
      we didn’t have “bomb cyclones”

      We just had winter storms.

      And it was cold every January,
      just like in January 2022.

      • Nate says:

        I live in New England. This is par for the course. Havent seen any Climate Alarmism around here on this snow storm yet.

        Sorry folks, Roy may have gotten this one wrong.

        • John W. Garrett says:

          ROTFLMAO

          See Bloomberg. See NPR.

        • Nate says:

          Bloomberg is one. But most others did not bring up climate change. Not NYT, CNN, Boston Globe, etc.

          NPR? What did they say?

          The possible strengthening of such storms by a warmer ocean, could well be true. It makes some sense. You know otherwise?

          I don’t think they are saying storm frequency is increased.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Obviously Nate you got it wrong. And Roy did get it right. But bottomline is the reduction in alarmist reporting is based upon the financial penalties and loss of viewers each time that BS that you are tacitly acknowledging as BS is walked out by media. Bloomberg just hasn’t gotten the memo yet.

          • Nate says:

            USAtoday article mentioned by Roy said:

            “Each decade between 1965 and 2005, New England has lost nine snow-cover days due to less precipitation falling as snow and from faster snow melt, according to a 2008 study”

            This is true. And it has been noticeable.

            Hardly ‘alarmist hysteria’ to report such trends.

            I agree with Tim F appraisal.

            “Roy: ‘So, which is it? Global warming causes less snow, or more snow?’

            Dr. Roy, that is a false dichotomy. It is quite possible for warming to cause fewer snow storms, but for warm oceans to cause this particular storm to intensify and drop more snow. There is no contradiction”

          • Bill Hunter says:

            The possible masquerading as science is fine as far as you are concerned huh? Is that responsible reporting?

            Is there any remaining difference between fiction and non-fiction?

  15. Nate says:

    Some actual science related to this.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2020JD033668

    “Among the most common structural features of the earth’s atmosphere are the narrow, meandering ribbons of maximum wind speed known as the jet streams. On any given winter day, there are usually two such jet streams; one located at ∼9 km (the polar jet) and another, further south, located at ∼12 km (the subtropical jet). These jet streams are both important weather producing features as well as influential governors of regional climate. This study considers trends in the wintertime waviness of the two jets as portrayed in three different data sets with long time series. The analysis reveals three important results. First, the waviness of both jets has been systematically increasing since ∼1960. Second, despite their increasing waviness, the maximum speed of both jets has hardly changed. Third, the polar jet has been creeping slowly, but persistently, poleward over the last several decades. All three of these results are consistent with predictions that have recently been made about the behavior of the jets in a warmer climate and thus offer observational support for these forecasts.

    • Larry says:

      Nate,

      That’s a fine example of the “single study syndrome” (‘here is a paper that agrees with me, yea I’m right’). But the vast and growing climate literature means that a single paper tells us nothing. That’s why we have the IPCC. Such as the WG1 of AR6.

      It has scores of paragraphs about changes in the jet stream. Most conclusions are given with low confidence (and a few with medium confidences). For example, see pages 4-6 and 4-64 – which are typical.

      • Willard says:

        > Most conclusions are given with low confidence (and a few with medium confidences).

        For instance:

        For the Southern Hemisphere, human influence very likely contributed to the poleward shift of the closely related extratropical jet in austral summer.

        • Larry says:

          Your mastery of the search function is …mildly interesting. It is however irrelevant to my comment. There are scores of mentions, at least, of jet stream in the report. I didn’t say that there were none with confidence higher that “medium.”

          This is a serious subject. Not, as your comments suggest, trivia pursuit.

          • Willard says:

            > I didn’t say that there were none with confidence

            You actually said that most conclusions are given with low confidence and a few with medium confidence, Editor. How very likely conclusions do you think that would make?

            In fact, did you count for real, or is it just a guesstimate based on your vast experience in technical analysis?

          • Swenson says:

            Worrying Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “How very likely conclusions do you think that would make?”

            I know you think it makes you look clever, but mangling the English language, hoping that people will be silly enough to ask you what you mean, might be self-defeating.

            As to attempting semantic diversions, it’s all fairly pointless, isn’t it?

            In regard to this –

            “In fact, did you count for real, or is it just a guesstimate based on your vast experience in technical analysis?”

            What a poorly phrased and nonsensical gotcha! Are you a complete moron, or are you still not quite there yet?

            Carry on.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Maximal Fleer –

            Read the sentence again, this time by recalling that Very Likely has a specific meaning in the IPCC’s vernacular.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Idiot,

            You wrote –

            “How very likely conclusions do you think that would make?”

            Do you think this is a valid English sentence?

            You don’t have to answer. You obviously do, otherwise you wouldn’t have flown off at a tangent about some IPCC irrelevance.

            Learn some English grammar, correct your sentence, and do try not to be so sloppy next time.

            You can do it, if you try.

            Carry on.

          • Willard says:

            Read the sentence again, Mike.

            One day you’ll get it.

    • RLH says:

      Do you have a study of the jet streams for the last few hundred years?

    • Nate says:

      “Single study syndrome”

      Not aware that I claimed this study is the last or best word on the subject.

      Did I?

      Nor do I see where I claimed this paper proves Im right.

      But it is relevant science, as opposed to hype.

      • Nate says:

        But thanks for the refs.

        • Larry says:

          Nate,

          You are missing the point. To cite one study as significant in a subject with scores or hundreds of papers – with differing conclusions – is at best misleading. I suggest using the IPCC or other similar reviews as a more useful guide to the present consensus opinion of climate scientists.

          To do otherwise is the essence of single study syndrome – a useful term coined by Andrew Revkin, then at the NYT:

          https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/04/29/latest-news-about-a-climate-disaster/

          • angech says:

            single study syndrome a useful term coined by Andrew Revkin, then at the NYT:

            Andrew Revkin?

            Well. if he did it, it could not be very useful. Could it.

            Most single studies,
            Einstein, Tectonic plates etc quickly become multiple studies when they are right.
            You are just looking at the people in the life raft thanking god for survival.
            Not a good modus operandi for a conclusion.

          • Nate says:

            Larry, I’m fully aware of single study syndrome. Youve made wrong assumptions about what Im thinking.

            Many posters here have little trust of the IPCC reports. They think its just political BS. They should understand that they are simply summaries of the science literature, but they don’t.

            They think that the possibility that deep south cold blasts could become more extreme with GW is pure hype, an invention of the media, and not a serious subject of research.

            The posted paper (2021) shows that it is a serious subject of research. But I fully agree there is no consensus yet.

            Can you point to a paper doing the same analysis that contradicts this one?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Many posters here have little trust of the IPCC reports. They think its just political BS. They should understand that they are simply summaries of the science literature, but they dont.
            ———————–
            That’s a nave look at the situation Nate.

            The Summary for Policy Makers is untrustworthy and not edited by scientists but instead politicians.

            The main body of work by the IPCC expresses another take, far broader with far reaching additional uncertainty. But who ploys through the thousands of pages? Hardly anybody.
            ======
            ======
            ======

            Nate says:

            They think that the possibility that deep south cold blasts could become more extreme with GW is pure hype, an invention of the media, and not a serious subject of research.

            The posted paper (2021) shows that it is a serious subject of research. But I fully agree there is no consensus yet.

            Can you point to a paper doing the same analysis that contradicts this one?
            —————————-

            LOL! The objective of a carnival barker hyping the Bearded Lady and actually earning money of the hype is also a serious topic according to your analysis.

    • Swenson says:

      Nate,

      I’d be most interested to see the definition of “actual science” you relied on.

      Science depends on the scientific method, and the paper you linked to is just speculation based on wishful thinking.

      You may not agree with Richard Feynman, who said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

      A lot of “actual scientists” might agree with Feynman, but obviously the scientific method is not favoured by “climate scientists”. Who do you think is right?

      • Nate says:

        “Science depends on the scientific method, and the paper you linked to is just speculation based on wishful thinking.”

        Swenson, as you have shown little interest in trying to understand actual science, and regularly reject it without a single thought, your opinion on whether a paper is science or not is demonstrably worthless.

        Too bad.

        • Swenson says:

          N,

          You wrote –

          “Swenson, as you have shown little interest in trying to understand actual science, . . . “.

          You still haven’t managed to say out what “actual science” is. Presumably, your “actual science” is some climate crackpot definition which is nothing to do with science based on the scientific method, and where speculation is taken as fact, without the need to bother about inconvenient experimental verification, or disproof, as the case may be.

          Of course, my opinion, like yours, or any other so-called “scientist” is worthless, unless confirmed by reproducible experiment. The paper you linked to is opinion – nothing more, nothing less.

          Too bad.

        • Nate says:

          If you had bothered to read even the abstract, you would see that it analyzes actual weather data “in three different data sets with long time series. The analysis reveals…”

          So it is the opposite of ‘opinion nothing more’

          Thanks for the perfect illustration of your MO on science:

          ‘regularly reject it without a single thought’

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Nate says:
      ”All three of these results are consistent with predictions that have recently been made about the behavior of the jets in a warmer climate and thus offer observational support for these forecasts.”

      ——————
      I have no idea what predictions the authors are referring to.

      But I am very much aware of the effect on climate from ENSO, including major ocean current pattern variability that produces the ocean oscillations that have long term impacts on climate by moving water masses around on a decadal time scale and possibly even longer term changes in these water masses that approach a centennial time scale.

      If we accept the science proposition that doubling CO2 will increase surface temperatures by 1.5 deg C or thereabouts arising from recent observational studies we are still a long ways from establishing that increased weather variability is connected to that and not something else.

      In addition we are also a long ways from establishing that the MWP and LIA are products of orbital variation, or for that matter even the early 20th Century warming. These are genuine questions and uncertainties that can’t simply be dealt with via an effort to sweep them under the rug.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Nate says:

      First, the waviness of both jets has been systematically increasing since ∼1960. Second, despite their increasing waviness, the maximum speed of both jets has hardly changed. Third, the polar jet has been creeping slowly, but persistently, poleward over the last several decades. All three of these results are consistent with predictions that have recently been made about the behavior of the jets in a warmer climate and thus offer observational support for these forecasts.
      —————————-

      LOL! Isn’t that a bit like me predicting today that Cincinnati would beat Kansas City in this years AFC Championship Game?

      Are we really pretending that the ‘recently made predictions’ were made without peaking at the last 60 years of jet stream performance and/or if the climate was warming or not?

      I might conclude from the abstract only (since the study is paywalled) that they are also saying the jet stream was getting wavy during the cooling period of ~1960 to 1980.

      ROTFLMAO!!

      A more interesting study might be how often the powers that be waste taxpayer money in commissioning such a nakedly pat oneself on the back manner.

  16. Amara Wiega says:

    Hello. Sorry for asking. Who took a loan and can share information?

  17. Adam Friedman says:

    Hello Amara Viga. I have experience with loans. I think that everyone at least once in their life faced difficulties with money. When I didn’t have enough cash, I decided to take out a loan. Nowadays, it is quite possible to get qualified financial assistance. I recommend the Fit My Money website where you can find a lot of information on which lenders to choose. There is a wide range of lending institutions and financial service providers that offer quick solutions to consumers in need. The main thing here is to choose the most reliable and best.

  18. Willard says:

    Amara,

    If what Adams offers is not to your liking, you can always go with RA Capital.

    They never give up on anyone!

  19. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Such stratospheric ozone will invade the eastern US and bring freezing temperatures even across Florida.
    https://i.ibb.co/nnDHGtz/gfs-toz-NA-f036.png
    https://i.ibb.co/FHMN8nT/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f048.png
    The distribution of ozone in the lower stratosphere at high latitudes gives the pattern of circulation in the upper troposphere.
    https://i.ibb.co/TTtGh2d/gfs-t100-nh-f24.png
    Some believe that stratosphere is too thin to rule the weather. However, during the winter season, the troposphere is the tail and the stratosphere is the dog.
    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_nh.gif

  20. AndyHce says:

    I’ve been trying to get an answer to this for awhile now, which I repeat below. No one who purports to know anything about weather forecasting has so far made any reply. I was quite surprised by the claim that real, in use, weather forecast models use atmospheric CO2 concentrations. If that is true, I would think something very interesting is not being discussed or acknowledged anywhere I have read in the last twelve years.

    This article claims that weather forecast models are now being used to show the strong relationship (attribution) between nasty fossil fuels and extreme weather. This is accomplished by running a weather forecast model multiple over a real weather event, each run using different concentrations of atmospheric CO2.

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-weather-forecasts-can-spark-a-new-kind-of-extreme-event-attribution

    Are atmospheric CO2 concentrations part of REAL weather forecast models? If so, why?

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      Carbon Dioxide Surface Concentration
      the fraction of carbon dioxide present in air at the earth’s surface
      https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular/loc=-82.652,40.778

    • Entropic man says:

      AndyHce

      Weather forecasting models divide the planet into cells and calculate the energy flows into, between them and out of them.

      Temperatures, wind, clouds and rainfall follow.

      CO2 concentration affects the amount of energy leaving to space or redirected back to the surface (the greenhouse effect). It would be necessary for a workable model to include it.

      Indeed, if you leave it out the models don’t work.

      • Ken says:

        Its one of the credibility problems with climate models.

        The basic assumption in any climate or weather model is that CO2 does cause climate to change. Whether it actually does remains unproven.

        Classic GIGO computer programming.

      • AndyHce says:

        On weather forecast time scales, CO2 concentration does not change. It may effect various aspects of weather but the current measures of those aspects must be input to each run because they determine what comes next. This seems, to me, to say that CO2 concentration, whatever its effect, would be redundant; it is already accounted for in the values of all the active elements (temperature, H2O concentration, wind speed and direction, air pressure, cloud cover, and whatever else is involved.

        Your answer sounds like the circular reasoning of a true AGW believer. However, I am not saying you are wrong, only that I am skeptical of your answer. Do you, or do you not know of a fact that CO2 concentration is a parameter of real, in use, weather forecasting models, or are you answering based on you understanding of atmospheric physics?

        • Entropic man says:

          Light reading.

          http://www.clim*ate.be/textb*ook/inde*x.html

          Take out the * before linking.

          • AndyHce says:

            Your link takes me to an ad for some book on climate models. A climate model is not a weather forecast model.

          • Swenson says:

            AndyHce,

            Climate cultists like Entropic Man refuse to accept that climate is just the statistics of past weather, and as such – changes!

            They are convinced that “climate” is a supernatural “forcing” which bends “weather” to its will.

            Climate crackpots manage to believe all sorts of impossible things, sometimes several simultaneously. For example, some believe that CO2 is well mixed throughout the atmosphere, while simultaneously claiming that its concentration varies between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere – and elsewhere.

            Another wonderful impossibility is that climate cultists believe that all photons of any frequency are absorbed by any matter they impinge upon, whilst claiming that the non “GHG” atmospheric gases are totally transparent to infrared, and neither absorb nor emit IR.

            Unfortunately, the morons also claim to be able to measure the temperature of air which, according to them, flouts the laws of physics by not emitting any radiation – which of course is required to establish temperate. These people obviously can’t explain how they can see outside through a solid sheet of glass, nor how light can be reflected from a surface.

            But hey, what role does reality have when you are a climate crank?

            Not much at all, by the look of it.

          • Ken says:

            Earth Nullschool shows CO2 concentrations.

            The data shows CO2 is well mixed, particularly over ocean. The concentrations don’t change before during or after weather events no matter how extreme.

            The only places where the concentration changes is over areas of heavy vegetation during the growing season where CO2 levels drop rather dramatically.

            These observations are supported by data collected at Mauna Loa.

          • RLH says:

            “The only places where the concentration changes is over areas of heavy vegetation during the growing season where CO2 levels drop rather dramatically”

            Which is not reflected in local temperature changes over the same area during the same time periods.

          • Entropic man says:

            Andy Hce

            It’s not an ad. It is an online textbook on climate modelling.

            You should read it. Know your enemy.

          • Ken says:

            “Which is not reflected in local temperature changes over the same area during the same time periods.”

            A telling point.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            “Climate crackpots manage to believe…”

            nope they don’t believe that.

            “Another wonderful impossibility…”

            Nope, that is wrong as well

            “Unfortunately, the morons also claim to be able to measure the temperature of air which, according to them, flouts the laws of physics by not emitting any radiation which of course is required to establish temperate. These people obviously cant explain how they can see outside through a solid sheet of glass, nor how light can be reflected from a surface.”

            Emission of radiation is required to establish temperature?

            Also the greenhouse effect is due to the air emitting radiation.

            You should know better, but you don’t.

          • Willard says:

            The meteorological fallacy strikes again!

          • RLH says:

            The ability to predict decades or longer from what is agreed is not accurate for even months ahead is also noted.

          • Willard says:

            Exactly, Richard –

            Because you can’t know if your next throw will be a 6, you can’t say that you have one chance out of six to throw one.

          • RLH says:

            So you are saying that all the predictions are just random?

          • RLH says:

            “Because you cant know if your next throw will be a 6, you cant say that you have one chance out of six to throw one”

            It is not the last throw that determines the odds. It is the number of sides that the dice has.

          • Nate says:

            “Which is not reflected in local temperature changes over the same area during the same time periods.’

            Another assertion by RLH that hasn’t really been thought through?

            Shocking.

            Given that the LARGE seasonal changes in temperature are happening at the same time and place. How would you tell?

            Also, the change in CO2 happening over these regions is much smaller than the total increase since 1800s.

          • RLH says:

            So you agree that natural seasonal changes considerably outweigh any excess CO2 based changes? Do you also agree that H2O is about 10 times more effective as a GHG?

          • RLH says:

            Given that seasonal changes are semi-cyclic, which statistics do you think are appropriate to use and why?

          • Nate says:

            I think it would be difficult given the reasons I stated, and probably not really worth bothering with.

          • RLH says:

            Given that seasonal changes are at best semi-cyclic, which statistics do you think are appropriate to use and why?

        • Clint R says:

          “However, I am not saying you are wrong”

          Andy, it’s okay to say Ent is wrong. That’s well established.

        • Entropic man says:

          Climate models and weather models are much the same.They both solve the Navier Stokes equations for a planetary grid.

          The only real difference is that the weather models step in hours (minutes if you’ve a supercomputer) while the climate models step in months.

          • RLH says:

            Weather ‘models’ are agreed to be only accurate for a few days/weeks.

            Climate models are supposed to be ‘accurate’ for decades/centauries.

          • RLH says:

            P.S. Nyquist says that simply switching from hours to months, when sampling a continuous time series, should make any conclusions at least 700 times less accurate. And that assumes that the horizontal/vertical grid is unchanged.

          • Nate says:

            “P.S. Nyquist says that simply switching from hours to months, when sampling a continuous time series, should make any conclusions at least 700 times less accurate. And that assumes that the horizontal/vertical grid is unchanged.”

            If a month is the average over the 30 days of Temps, then no, not correct.

            The averaging is a low pass filter.

          • RLH says:

            Using averages in a low pass filter does not alter the uncertainty that exists in Nyquist sampling of a continuous time series. Particularly if it is cyclic. Think about OLS of a sine wave. Any ‘height’ that then exists reduces to zero.

            P.S. OLS is the ultimate in low pass filters.

          • Nate says:

            “Think about OLS of a sine wave. Any height that then exists reduces to zero.”

            Not every detail matters here, RLH.

            The height of the sine wave is irrelevant to determining the long-term warming trend.

          • Nate says:

            My work involves doing time-series measurements and consideration of such issues.

            If you have short term variation but are interested only in long term variation, then you can:

            1. Sample very often and see both short term and long term variation.

            or

            2. Filter short-term variation out (eg by averaging) and sample less often.

            Same result.

      • RLH says:

        So given the disparity in concentrations between North and South of CO2, do you expect different temperature trends? If so, how much?

        • Entropic man says:

          Compare the Northern and Southern hemisphere temperatures here.

          https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/

          The majority of CO2 is released in the Northern Hemisphere, so the increase in the SH CO2 lags.

          So does the temperature, but that probably has more to do with the SH having a higher proportion of ocean and therefore a better heat sink.

          • RLH says:

            By far the majority of CO2 ‘churn’ is to do with vegetation. The relative temperature increases, some of which will be ‘natural’ and cyclic, across the globe do not match up with the land/ocean, latitude based, ratios.

          • Entropic man says:

            What should they be?

            Show your working.

          • Entropic man says:

            Thank you.

            Between 60S and 60N you can see a small difference. The SH has a greater proportion of ocean. Since that is where 90% of the energy imbalance ends up you can expect more energy to be absorbed, leaving less to warm the land and atmosphere and a temperature differential, warmer in the North.
            Above 60N and 60S you are into polar effects. The North is a frozen ocean surrounded by land. The South is a frozen continent surrounded by ocean.
            The North melts more easily, leading to Arctic amplification as albedo drops.

            I doubt you can explain much of the Hemisphere difference because of CO2. The mixing is fast enough and the difference small enough to be lost in the noise.

            Don’t get trapped by the straw man that every temperature variation is due to CO2. It is probably responsible for the global long term trend, but in the short term there is a lot more going on.

          • RLH says:

            The general trend does not match the land/ocean/latitude ratio over most of the year.

          • RLH says:

            These are decadal trends so short term effects can be ignored.

          • Entropic man says:

            The thermodynamics is above my pay grade, but the rule of thumb is that nights warm faster than days, Winters warm faster than Summers, land warms faster than water, high latitudes warm faster than low latitudes, low altitudes warm faster than high altitudes and the Northern Hemisphere warms faster than the Southern Hemisphere.

            Overall the Arctic ocean is warming fastest and the Antarctic plateau is warming slowest.

          • RLH says:

            But that does not hold for Antarctica it seems.

          • RLH says:

            Your thermodynamics I mean.

          • RLH says:

            “Winters warm faster than Summers”

            See graph. That only holds true for NH winters.

            “land warms faster than water”

            Does not hold true for the whole of the Earth, mostly consistent.

            “high latitudes warm faster than low latitudes”

            Only true for NH.

            “low altitudes warm faster than high altitudes”

            And yet we mostly only measure low altitudes at the surface.

            “the Northern Hemisphere warms faster than the Southern Hemisphere”

            For part of the year.

          • Entropic man says:

            Judge for yourself.

            https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4964

          • RLH says:

            Unreachable.

          • Nate says:

            “The general trend does not match the land/ocean/latitude ratio over most of the year.”

            You sure?

            The big rise in trend is just where most of the land is in the NH medium to high latitudes.

            Are you claiming this is a failure of theory or models? What does the theory or models show?

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        Unfortunately, you wrote – “CO2 is uniformly mixed.” Why would it affect different parts of the world differently? Wouldn’t the non-existent greenhouse effect operate identically everywhere?

        Maybe you could provide a copy of the greenhouse effect, and see what actually says. I think you are making it up – just propaganda plucked out of your imagination.

        Nitrogen is also well mixed. If you don’t include nitrogen, do the models work?

        Maybe you need to consider water vapour. Concentrations vary widely. You haven’t actually seen the code for a “weather forecasting model”, have you?

        None of them work better than a reasonably intelligent 12 year old (or me, for that matter), with a pencil and ruler. Naive persistence forecasts are as good as anything in most cases. A working meteorological forecaster with local knowledge can generally make pretty good guesses. You might have noticed that even they don’t always get it right.

        You really believe the Greenhouse Effect propaganda, don’t you?

      • Willard says:

        > provide a copy of the greenhouse effect

        Wait, Mike Flynn – are you suggesting that the greenhouse effect is a book?

        Oh! Oh! Oh!

    • gbaikie says:

      The Cargo Cult made “airport runways” for planes which weren’t landing or taking off.
      Global warming is a cargo cult- which causes global poverty- not mention, making people stupid.

      • Willard says:

        Thanks for reminding me to add the following idea to but religion:

        One could argue that contrarians indulge in a cargo cult when they play Climateball while pretending to do science.

        • Clint R says:

          Dud, you wouldn’t know “science” if someone hit you over the head with it.

          All you’ve got is your cult’s beliefs and your immature trolling.

          Keep on trolling. People need to learn about you idiots.

          • Willard says:

            I certainly wouldn’t know science by reading your comments, Pup.

            But then sometimes you admit it:

            I’ve learned not to try to teach physics

            The least you could do is the Poll Dance Experiment.

        • Thiago says:

          W has already been hit over the head, more times than we could count.

          That is why it is such a challenge for him to be coherent.

        • gbaikie says:

          “One could argue that contrarians indulge in a cargo cult when they play Climateball while pretending to do science.”

          Yes, one could argue that.
          But also obviously, contrarians need other contrarians.

          And one might guess, that the cargo cult was just a way to annoy or on a brighter side, to entertain people.

          Got people living tropical island paradise, but it lacks indoor
          plumbing [and has endless other problems].
          And got some people who pine for days of the airplanes were landing on the island.
          Such pining and talking leads to visions and a religion, but perhaps this religion continues *mostly* because there are others who are annoyed and argue with freaky/crazy airplane fanatics.
          Both sides argue endlessly, and can find much enjoyment in this non physical fighting.
          The Jews would agree that they are stiff neck people:
          “”Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people.”.

          • Willard says:

            > contrarians need other contrarians

            It’s called the established viewpoint, gb.

            Sometimes reality is just as simple as a light switch.

  21. AndyHce says:

    I don’t know how the first word, a contraction of I have (I’ve) ended up looking so peculiar in my posted comment. However, it is the weather forecast model question that needs addressing, please.

    • Entropic man says:

      This is an old and neglected site. You’ll find that a lot of punctuation comes out strange. A number of words like absor*bed are only accepted if starred and the letter c is not allowed to follow the letter d.

      Copy your posts before submitting them in case of rejection and then submit them one paragraph at a time of you can’t see the fault.

  22. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Arctic air is reaching the southeastern US. It will be over Alabama overnight.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/namer/mimictpw_namer_latest.gif

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      Too bad this animation does not include CO2 only water vapor. Surely that would be evidence for the effect of CO2 on heat transfer in the troposphere.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Maybe the lack of the affects of CO2 is evidence.

        • bobdroege says:

          Call Greta and she can tell you whether to use effect or affect in your writing.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            As soon as I posted it, I knew that it was “e” instead of “a,” but if that were all you did wrong in your writings, I wouldn’t say a thing. Since there is no edit button, shit happens.

          • Swenson says:

            stephen,

            bobdroege is a moron. He doesn’t realise that his amateurish attempts at gratuitous insults are kindergarten standard, like his knowledge of physics.

            I’ve offered him lessons in both, but he thinks he can do better on his own.

            I believe he would qualify for instantaneous admission to the Society of Morons, but others may have different opinions, of course.

          • Willard says:

            > I’ve offered him lessons

            What textbook did you intend to use, Mike?

          • Swenson says:

            Weird Delusional Wee Willy,

            Why do bother asking such a pointless, irrelevant gotcha? Because you are a moron trying to appear intelligent?

            Carry on.

          • Willard says:

            Mike, Mike – if you could find a copy of the textbook that you’d use to teach Bob physics, you would.

            You can’t.

            Don’t blame me your incompetence.

            Aw diddums!

          • Swenson says:

            Woeful Wee Willy,

            Did you take lessons to learn how to write incomprehensible sentences of the “Don’t blame me your incompetence.” type, or are you just naturally sloppy and incompetent? Do you think you might have left out a word?

            You are not just moronically repetitious with your “Mike Flynn Mike Flynn”, or your “Mike, Mike”, but also with your bizarre attempts to corrupt English – words such as lichurchur, lulz, and all the rest, just make you look like a juvenile moron.

            By the way, you have yet to reveal any particular reason for insisting I am some other anonymous blogger – apart from you being a delusional fixated moron, of course! Oh well, if it keeps you calm, it should be a matter of supreme imbuggerence to me, I suppose.

            Maybe you can convince others that you have some other reason for your odd behaviour, apart from some sever mental defect, but I doubt it.

            Carry on.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            “I’ve offered him lessons in both, but he thinks he can do better on his own.”

            Yeah, you have little to offer in science lessons, why don’t you start with Newton’s law of cooling and see if that supports your molten earth theories?

          • Swenson says:

            bobdroege,

            You wrote –

            “Yeah, you have little to offer in science lessons, why dont you start with Newtons law of cooling and see if that supports your molten earth theories?”

            Have you gone quite mad? What are you banging on about? If you are trying to unleash a ferocious gotcha, it’s not even up to ankle-biter standard.

            Why don’t you just revert to type and utter some ineffective and puerile obscenities, in lieu of trying to appear intelligent?

            You are as much a moron as Whining Wee Willy Willard!

            [laughs at ignorant fool]

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            Go ahead and show your source for the Earth cooling from its molten state to where it is today.

            And then compare it to the prediction from Newton’s Law of cooling.

            See if your interpretation is correct.

            But then, that would be doing science, which you have not a minute of experience with.

          • Nate says:

            “He doesnt realise that his amateurish attempts at gratuitous insults are kindergarten standard”

            And our most prolific poster of ‘gratuitous insults’ would certainly know!

      • Ken says:

        What would you expect to see in an animation that includes CO2?

        We’ve already discussed that atmospheric CO2 is well mixed and that concentration doesn’t change in response to weather systems.

  23. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The GCW/FMI SWE Tracker illustrates the current winter records for 2014/2015, relative to the long-term mean and variability of the snow water equivalent for the Northern Hemisphere (±1 standard deviation calculated for 1982-2012), excluding mountains. The historical SWE record is based on the time series of measurements by two different space-borne passive microwave sensors. The current data combines these satellite measurements with groundbased weather station records in a data assimilation scheme. Updated daily by GlobSnow, a Global Cryosphere Watch initiative, funded by the European Space Agency and coordinated by the Finnish Meteorological Institute.
    http://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe_tracker.jpg

  24. Clint R says:

    That much snow, and winds that high, mean power outages.

    Hope many there have a good generator and plenty of fuel.

  25. Tom says:

    We have a winner! Dr. Spencer called this! This could be the first piece of “journalism” linking the storm to ‘climate change’:

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/thats-right-climate-change-can-be-linked-to-this-noreaster-the-bombogenesis-if-you-prefer-11643397858

  26. robert says:

    The “storm of the century” was some time during the mid 90’s.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      Rather, I would say it won’t be a big snowstorm, but a big freeze in the southeastern US.
      https://i.ibb.co/pRtd22X/Screenshot-3.png

      • RLH says:

        But things are warming up, aren’t they?

        • Entropic man says:

          Perhaps a little physics.

          The coming storm began as warm air over warm water. That allowed the air mass to pick up a lot of water vapour.

          That air mass is now colliding with cold continental air and dumping its water vapour as snow.

          Warmer air over warmer water lifts more water vapour. More water vapour means more snow.

          In a warming world the record snowfalls you are about to experience will become more frequent.

          The mistake is to assume that warmer means less snow. In the UK that may be true, but then we don’t get noreasters.

          • Clint R says:

            Your hype always sounds good…to you, Ent.

            But where does the “cold continental air” come from?

            You only see one side of it. You only see warm, warming, hot. You miss cool, cooling, cold.

            That’s because you have no interest in reality.

          • Willard says:

            > where does the “cold continental air” come from?

            Take a wild guess, Pup.

            Then do the Pole Dance Experiment.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Chihuahua,

            Clint’s only trying to explain the 2nd LOT to Eman. Got a problem with it?

          • Entropic man says:

            ” Clints only trying to explain the 2nd LOT to Eman. Got a problem with it? ”

            Yes. I’m ROFL.

          • Willard says:

            Trying to explain and playing Socrates are two different things, Troglodyte.

            Pup is not even playing Socrates, he’s just trolling.

          • Clint R says:

            I’ve learned not to try to teach physics to the cult idiots.

            Ent believes passenger jets fly backwards, for example.

          • Willard says:

            Siri, show me a double bind:

            [TROGLODYTE] Pup is only trying to explain

            [PUP] I’ve learned not to try to teach

          • RLH says:

            Colder air from Europe over the North Sea is the cause of most ‘cold snaps’ in the UK. That is to the ‘North East’.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            In Eman’s world, all laws and principles are controlled by the Masterminds. The laws and principles do what the masterminds tell them to do. They supersede the Creator.

          • Entropic man says:

            RLH

            “Colder air from Europe over the North Sea is the cause of most cold snaps in the UK. ”

            Ah, the lazy wind!

            Makes me nostalgic.

            For those who don’t live in East Anglia, the lazy wind starts at the Urals. It crosses the Baltic, the North German plain and the North Sea into East Anglia.

            It hasn’t had to go round anything, so it has become a lazy wind. When it hits you it goes straight through.

            Stephen

            “In Emans world, all laws and principles are controlled by the Masterminds. The laws and principles do what the masterminds tell them to do. They supersede the Creator. ”

            What Creator?

            I live in a universe which runs by its own rules. Human beliefs and wishes are irrelevant and no supernatural beings are involved.

            The rules don’t change because you vote Republican or pray to God for special treatment. There is nothing in natural law to stop a disaster because it is unfair or you don’t deserve to die.

            The universe doesn’t care. It has no mercy or compassion.

            Just the cold equations.

          • Clint R says:

            “I live in a universe which runs by its own rules.”

            There you go again, Ent. Ranting like a phony intellectual. You don’t even obey the rules!

            “Human beliefs and wishes are irrelevant…”

            Well you certainly don’t believe your beliefs are irrelevant. You believe your beliefs are more important than reality. Just like most phony intellectuals.

          • Swenson says:

            EM wrote –

            “Just the cold equations.”

            Not cold, not hot, and often meaningless.

            For example, you may devise an equation to tell you what the weather will be like tomorrow.

            Will it work? Or is it better to just look out the window and decide to take an umbrella?

            I think you are trying to say that the universe doesn’t care what opinions you or I might form.

            If you have an equation which makes life easier for you, fine. Why not?

            If climate crackpots want to waste their time devising pointless and useless equations, fine. Of course, they expect the governments (ultimately the taxpayers) to fund their hobby.

            I would prefer not to have the hands of the climate cranks in my pocket (particularly the slimy hands of a moronic sex-obsessed moron like Wee Willy Willard), but the frauds and fakers don’t take my desires into their machinations. Fair enough, I suppose. The weather takes precisely no notice of their opinions or equations, either.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >There you go again, Ent. Ranting like a phony intellectual. You dont even obey the rules!

            That’s funny. Eman admits Nature has rules. Very precise rules, Eman.

  27. CDR D says:

    East Bay Times is already on it. Morning front page has a huge whine about Tahoe and the former Squaw Valley not being able to host future winter Olympics and buried further in the edition is the East bracing for record snow.

  28. Brian says:

    A reasonably warm winter in western Canada this year. Loving global warming!

  29. rtremblay says:

    propengenda you make.

    you don’t understand climate change. That’s it ! simply

  30. Clint R says:

    * Tens of thousands of customers were without power early Monday in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida.

    *The winter storm dumped as much as 10 inches of snow in some areas of western North Carolina

    *North Carolina Highway Patrol responded to 300 car crashes and nearly 800 calls for service during the storm. Two people died Sunday when their car drove off the road and into trees in a median east of Raleigh.

    https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/winter-storm-east-coast

  31. gbaikie says:

    Since there are so many people who believe in global warming- must be over 10 million people, which would make it religion in terms numbers, rather than a cult.
    Why haven’t they done anything about it, if they don’t like it.

    Take Elon Musk, he says he is believer, so why don’t believer, “use Musk” to get something done.
    And also probably no shortage of billionaires, who also believers.

    Now would count the recent transformation regarding the use of nuclear energy, as a bit progress for the global warming religion who oppose CO2 emission. And it seems people are catching on to idea one can get energy from space, Solar Power Satellites.

    But Musk direction is the way to go.
    Or we aren’t ready, yet, for SPS as Earth’s solution for energy.
    What we need, but I would mainly say, what NASA needs, is to explore the Moon. Now, one could do it backassward, having NASA continuing fail to explore the Moon, until become a crisis. But that seems like the slowest way to do it. Which seems opposition direction of people who claim the world going to end- “have to do something, now”, kind of thing.
    Now, Biden administration has delayed the Lunar exploration program, and the only reason given is due to lack of funding of NASA. It seems Biden administration, needs a win, and Dems are not giving him one. And it very easy for dems to do this.
    So, it seems if the religion had any power, it would help Biden.

    • gbaikie says:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2kfNWJq91o
      SpaceX Starship Updates and Raptor 2 Ramp Up, JWST at Lagrange points 2, and NASA Needs Personnel
      119,897 viewsJan 29, 2022

    • stephen p anderson says:

      NASA should be ended. Space exploration needs to be a private venture. Private companies will do it more efficiently.

      • gbaikie says:

        Most space exploration will be done by private sector.
        I think NASA should explore a very part of Moon {lunar polar regions} and terms if and where there is mineable lunar water.
        If private sector mines lunar water, then private sector will explore the Moon more, to find minable lunar water and other stuff which is mineable. Or if lunar water is mined and lunar rocket fuel
        is made, then people going to the moon will costs less.
        Also after demonstrating NASA can explore space, then NASA should explore Mars.
        Now, if private sector want to explore Space, right now, I suggest to send up an artificial gravity station into LEO and explore that, but they haven’t, so, NASA should also do that. Neither NASA or private sector has any excuse for not doing that, already.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          I think it would be cheaper to take water to the Moon and then recycle it.

          • Entropic man says:

            Some discussion here.

            https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/4720/what-is-the-marginal-cost-of-landing-on-the-moon

            At $1.2 million per litre from Earth to lunar surface would it be cheaper to mine?

            There’s another option. Once you are into interplanetary space you’ve already spent most of the ∆v.

            If you have time, why not send robots to Saturn orbit where the water is floating there waiting for you.

          • gbaikie says:

            Water on the Moon is largely about splitting water and getting oxygen from it, because liquid oxygen is most of the mass of rocket fuel. 9 kg of water makes 8 kg of oxygen and 1 kg of hydrogen.
            Rocket fuel mixture is typically optimized at about 6 kg of LOX and 1 Kg of Liquid Hydrogen.
            There also could be frozen CO2 on the Moon, which also can be used to make rocket fuel.
            Water on Mars [also useful to make rocket fuel] but water would mostly used for other uses, like growing food, and also as coolant
            for powerplants, and water creates pressure. On Earth with Earth gravity, 1 meter depth makes 1.47 psi {or 10 meters makes 1 atm or 14.7 psi]. On Mars it’s 0.55713 psi per meter depth.

            If can’t mine lunar water so cost is more than $500 per kg, or it’s not mineable if more. Mars water which mineable is about $1 per kg.
            Mining is NOT what NASA does. NASA is rather obsessed with mining which they call In site resource use, ISRU, and what they imagine to could lower the cost of exploration. I think it increases cost of NASA exploration.
            So I want NASA to find it, and not mine it.
            Determine if and where there is lunar minable water, then immediately start Mars exploration program, Mars exploration is complicated, but roughly related to whether on have Mars settlement which viable {private sector stuff- not governmental colonies, which btw Congress has long forbid NASA from considering- and NASA considers anyhow].

          • gbaikie says:

            –Some discussion here.

            https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/4720/what-is-the-marginal-cost-of-landing-on-the-moon

            “All this got me wondering. If we assume for a second that we would want to go to the Moon in some manner, then roughly how much higher would the monetary cost be just to land on the Moon and getting back into lunar orbit, compared to only establishing a (reasonably) stable lunar orbit? It’s probably safe to say that it would add a fair bit to the cost of the mission, but how much?”

            The costs if mining lunar water and making rocket fuel and have reusable lunar lander, to go to lunar surface, would be about the same as going to ISS.
            So, per seat, to ISS could be about 40 million, and 20 million in future, and in future costs 40 million per seat to go to moon and return to Earth [obviously] it’s 40 million while it’s 20 million to go a space station in LEO. And at 40 million per seat, more people would probably want to go the lunar surface than something like going to ISS.
            And one could probably bring back lunar material worth more than 40 million dollar- and not saying it’s free, but rather if can bring back 40 million worth of lunar rocks as part of seat price, than seat is 40 + 40 = 80 million per seat which brings back this amount of lunar material. But one could do other stuff on the Moon, and have it end up with net zero cost or profit by going to lunar surface. Which also possible currently, with going to ISS.

            If talking about at time further in future when have towns of Mars, probably 1/10th of cost per seat to Moon.
            Or going to the Moon [if there rocket fuel on moon] should be 1/2 cost per seat of going to Mars {one way}. Crazy Musk says costs will be 1/2 million per seat, if so, 1/4 million per seat to Moon and back.

        • gbaikie says:

          [I think NASA should explore a very part of Moon]
          Should have been:
          I think NASA should explore a very small part of Moon.

          Btw, a NASA problem is limiting the areas of Mars to explore- Planet Mars is Huge compared to Lunar polar region or huge compared to the area of US.
          Both lunar poles {and NASA should explore both} is about size of California – which is also quite large, but is much much smaller than Mars.

          I tend to think, one has NASA Mars base, in order to limit the area of Mars that one wants to explore.
          Or another way to say this, is you start a Mars base- somewhere easiest to land and do logistics in general, in order to find a better place to put a Mars base. And that Mars base or Mars bases, is looking for best places to have Mars settlements. Which mostly as NASA says, about following the water.
          NASA wants to follow the water because they overly obsessed with finding alien life, or dead life, but it should about where to have human life- where could there be the most viable human settlements. And when got human settlements, humans will look for better or other places for Human settlements- a never ending thing.

  32. Swenson says:

    Earlier, the moronic bobdroege whiningly wrote –

    “Emission of radiation is required to establish temperature?

    Also the greenhouse effect is due to the air emitting radiation.”

    The first sentence was presumably an attempt at sarcasm, but only served to show that bobdroege doesn’t understand concepts such as temperature, heat, energy or EM radiation.

    His second sentence is a piece of consummate stupidity – implying the existence of something that no one can actually produce, and then claiming it is “due to the air emitting radiation”, presumably causing some form of temperature increase, which he disavowed in his first attempt to appear clever.

    There is no Greenhouse Effect. There are no unicorns, and climate change has no effect on future weather.

    The equally moronic Witless Wee Willy Willard wrote –

    “Wait, Mike Flynn – are you suggesting that the greenhouse effect is a book?

    Oh! Oh! Oh!”, – addressing Mike Flynn (for some bizarre moronic reason, Wee Willy thinks a rose by any name would not smell as sweet, apparently), and also trying to appear clever. The Greenhouse Effect does not exist, either in printed form, digital form or written on papyrus with a thumbnail dipped in tar!

    It is a moot point who is more detached from reality – bobdroege or Willard. Neither seems to exceed the other in the ability to post pathetic immature obscenities, in lieu of rational comments.

    [chortles at stupidity of morons trying to appear “clever”.]

    • Willard says:

      > There is no Greenhouse Effect.

      Where have you checked, Mike?

      • Swenson says:

        Whacky Wee Willy,

        You are a moron. If you could find a copy of the Greenhouse Theory, you would. You can’t. Don’t blame me your incompetence.

        There is no Greenhouse Theory, dummy.

        If you believe there is, all you have to do is slide your head out from under your asshat, and find it – if you can use the power of your awesome intellect to create fact from your Greenhouse Theory fantasy.

        Carry on.

        • Willard says:

          Mike Flynn,

          Let’s test your logic.

          If you could find a copy of your homework, you would. You can’t. Don’t blame me your incompetence.

          Oh, and notice how “copy of your homework” makes more sense than “copy of the greenhouse theory.”

          Oh! Oh! Oh!

          • Swenson says:

            Woeful Wee Willy,

            Awww, you didn’t even castigate me for my intentional typo. Missed an opportunity there, dummy.

            How are you going inventing a cogent reason for wasting your time calling me Mike Flynn?

            Probably about as well as inventing a reason for not being able to produce a copy of the Greenhouse Theory. Have you managed to convince anybody at all that such a bizarre thing exists?

            Maybe you could convene an Extraordinary Meeting of the Society of Morons, and have a vote?

            Moron.

          • Willard says:

            Uh?

            Try English, Mike!

          • Swenson says:

            Weird Wee Willy Idiot,

            You wrote –

            “Try English, Mike!”

            As you desire, gumby, as you desire!.

            [chortles]

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Chihuahua doesn’t understand third-grade math. It takes a third-grade mind to believe in the GHE, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny. Droege is an angry white man who hates capitalism.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Droege and Nate are angry white brothers. Chihuahua and EM are idiots.

          • Willard says:

            Usually Troglodyte cheers for intellectual giants like Ed or Christos. Today he’s Mike’s cheerleader.

            Wave these pom poms, Troglodyte!

          • bobdroege says:

            Who can show any post of mine that indicates I hate capitalism.

            Stephen you have to clear your prejudices in order to think clearly.

          • Nate says:

            “Droege and Nate are angry white brothers.”

            Whatever that means…

            Did you figure out about series and parallel pipes yet, Stephen?

            Do you agree that the pipes from atm to mixed layer to deep ocean are in series?

    • bobdroege says:

      Swenson,

      You are not looking very clever.

      Here is the post of yours I was responding to.

      “Unfortunately, the morons also claim to be able to measure the temperature of air which, according to them, flouts the laws of physics by not emitting any radiation which of course is required to establish temperate.”

      Showing off your stupidity again.

      You want me to break it down?

      So you are saying

      1- You can’t measure the temperature of air?
      2- Some morons that support the greenhouse effect claim air does not emit radiation? But actually the greenhouse effect is due to air emitting radiation, what part of that are you having problems understanding?
      3- Emitting radiation is not required to establish temperature.

      Best check your physics texts while you wait for your sammich.

      • Ball4 says:

        Swenson has physics texts? Not.

      • Swenson says:

        bobdroege,

        What are you babbling about?

        Why don’t you just read what I wrote, instead of telling me what you think am saying?

        That would be the actions of a moronic climate crackpot like yourself, just trying to avoid reality.

        You write “But actually the greenhouse effect is due to air emitting radiation, . . . “, but you cannot say what the greenhouse effect (supposedly a phenomenon) actually is, or what its supposed effects are!

        That’s because you are a delusional climate crank.

        Maybe if you try to define the greenhouse effect, you will discover that neither you, nor anybody else, can, without running into contradictions you cannot resolve.

        Go off, now, and give it a try, dummy.

        • bobdroege says:

          Swenson,

          I am done with explaining the greenhouse effect to you, because you don’t understand it.

          I quoted what you wrote, exactly, it makes no sense.

          Sorry chap, the sandwich making and eating is up to you.

          Your psychopathic sociopathic ramblings don’t make any sense.

          Try thinking about it with a straight-jacket on, may not help, but certainly can’t hurt.

        • Swenson says:

          b,

          Not even a nice try.

          Maybe you could try disagreeing with something I wrote – and toss in a verifiable fact or two to help you out.

          You wrote –

          “I am done with explaining the greenhouse effect to you, because you dont understand it..

          Excellent! Even a moron like you needs an excuse to avoid facing the reality that the Greenhouse Effect does not exist, except in the twisted imaginations of climate crackpots.

          I realise you had no chance of understanding what I wrote – I did not expect you to, and I wasn’t disappointed. You have made a wise decision – trying to explain something which does not exist to someone who knows that it does not exist is not a guaranteed path to looking like anything except a delusional moron.

          You don’t understand that, either, do you, dummy?

          • bobdroege says:

            I could disagree with something you wrote, if you could write a coherent sentence or phrase, instead of babbling incoherently.

            I have already explained it to you.

            You reject it because you don’t understand it.

            That’s not an excuse, that’s a fact and it means you are lying about it.

            In fact, you have even told me where it can be observed.

  33. Swenson says:

    Just point of clarification. Some people hold that AGW is due to CO2 and other gases magically creating more heat than there was, say 100 years ago.

    AGW seems to be regarded as an observed increase in average temperatures in some thermometers over that time.

    Hardly surprising, given that humans create about 70 – 150 times as much heat around the globe, as they did 100 years ago. Of course, this additional heat is dutifully recorded by thermometers before it flees in its entirety to outer space in line with the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    Why invoke magic in the form of a non-existent Greenhouse effect that nobody can document in any consistent scientific way, when it is completely unnecessary? Anthropogenically Generated Warming would seem to be a result of an increase in anthropogenically generated heat over.

    AGW is proportional to AGH.

    • Clint R says:

      “Why invoke magic in the form of a non-existent Greenhouse effect that nobody can document in any consistent scientific way, when it is completely unnecessary?”

      Exactly!

      The rapid growth of pizza parlors is the perfect “hockey stick” to match CO2. All the pizza ovens are heating the planet. And, the cult idiots don’t even have to pervert the laws of physics. No more nonsense that leads to ice cubes can boil water. No more claiming there is a “real 255K surface”.

      If the cult idiots don’t believe pizza ovens can “heat the planet”, they can go to the nearest pizza place and stick their heads in the oven.

      • Swenson says:

        Weary Wee Willy,

        Not another link, is it? To a newspaper, by the look of it, too.

        If 99.9% of morons agree they are actually intelligent “climate scientists”, and you are sufficiently moronic to believe them, good for you!

        If you don’t believe thermometers respond to heat, and 99.9% of scientists agree with you, the Society of Morons has an ever increasing list of potential members.

        Carry on blogging that particular deceased equine! A bit of physical exercise is good for a fat slimy grub, I guess.

        • Willard says:

          [MIKE FLYNN, SOWING] for some bizarre moronic reason, Wee Willy thinks a rose by any name would not smell as sweet, apparently

          [MIKE FLYNN, REAPING] Not another link, is it? To a newspaper, by the look of it, too.

          • Swenson says:

            Weary Wee Willy,

            What are you babbling about, moron?

          • Willard says:

            Mike, Mike – love how you play dumb.

            If a rose by any name smells as sweet, the same applies to teh Grauniad.

            Deny, diss, and dodge!

          • Swenson says:

            Weak Wee Willy,

            What are you babbling about, moron?

          • Willard says:

            You’re not even trying to castigate me for me pointing out your lame double standard, Mike.

            Progress!

            Does it mean that our silly sock puppet tires of too much play and gets ready to work?

          • Swenson says:

            Whining Wee Willy Moron,

            What are you still babbling about, dummy?

            Why do you think you deserve credit for being a cryptic moron?

            Trot out a Greenhouse Theory, and who knows, someone might take note of your opinion.

            In the meantime, carry on.

            [snigger]

          • Willard says:

            > Trot out a Greenhouse Theory

            As you so desire, Mawkish Facetiousness Mike Flynn.

            Pray tell – when you demand a theory, what do you expect it to look like? Something tells me that you would not recognize one even if someone hit you over the head with it.

            Meanwhile, if you could produce your homework, that’d be great. Here’s what I expect: citations.

            Cheers.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Idiot,

            You wrote (in relation to my contention that no Greenhouse Theory exists) –

            “Pray tell when you demand a theory, what do you expect it to look like? Something tells me that you would not recognize one even if someone hit you over the head with it.”

            I expect it to look like a theory. What else would it “look like”? A banana, perhaps?

            You do understand what a theory is, I hope.

            As to “something” telling you, that is often a sign of schizophrenia – although more usually described as “someone” rather than “something”. Do you often listen to “something”? What else does it tell you, apart from saying you are worthless, useless, and should do away with yourself by refusing to emit any more poisonous CO2 from your
            body)?

            You always have the option of seeking treatment, or getting support from an appropriate source over the telephone. Just tell them that Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn sent you, and they will listen attentively to your complaints.

          • Willard says:

            > I expect it to look like a theory

            So you have no idea, Mike.

            Have you ever seen a theory?

            Give me an example of one.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Wanker,

            You wrote –

            “Have you ever seen a theory?

            Give me an example of one.”

            Why should I comply with your demand? I have certainly never seen a Greenhouse Theory, so obviously I cannot give you a copy of something that doesn’t exist.

            You are as thick as two short planks, with your desperate attempts to appear clever.

            If you need an example of a theory, I suggest you won’t find one called “Greenhouse”. Obviously, you don’t think it important enough to learn about the scientific method.

            Carry on pretending you believe in myths, legends and the Greenhouse Theory!

          • Willard says:

            Mike, you stupidly ask –

            “Why should I comply with your demand?”

            I can think of at least three reasons:

            First, to show you understand what’s a theory.

            Second, to show what kind of answer would meet your own request.

            Third, to show you can follow basic reciprocity.

            When will you do your homework, and where’s your Insulation Effect Theory?

          • Swenson says:

            Whining Wee Willy,

            When I asked you why I should take any notice of your importunate begging, you wrote –

            “I can think of at least three reasons:

            First, to show you understand what’s a theory.

            Second, to show what kind of answer would meet your own request.

            Third, to show you can follow basic reciprocity.”

            You are a moron. I don’t care what you think. None of your so-called “reasons” are of the slightest importance to me. Feel free to keep demanding or begging (whichever you feel most appropriate), and I’ll keep laughing at a moron who is incapable of learning.

            Keep doing the same thing, keep hoping for a different result. Foolish or insane?

          • Willard says:

            > I don’t care what you think.

            But you care about the sammiches I could make you, Mike?

            OK.

            Have another one.

          • Swenson says:

            Wobbly Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “But you care about the sammiches I could make you, Mike?”

            I can’t speak for Mike, but I certainly don’t care about the opinions of a semi-literate sloppy incompetent slimy grub, who also happens to be a moron. Sammiches?

            I’m sure you are a legend in your own lunchbox, as the saying goes, but I doubt that you could name anyone who really cares whether you live or die. I certainly don’t care.

          • Willard says:

            > I can’t speak for Mike, but

            It’s the other way around – Mike speaks through you.

            Remember. You are his sock puppet.

    • “a non-existent Greenhouse effect”

      The greenhouse effect keeps outdoor plants from freezing at night. You have a non-existent brain ! Have your head examined. Hopefully they will find nothing.

      • Swenson says:

        Richard,

        You wrote –

        “The greenhouse effect keeps outdoor plants from freezing at night.”

        No, that’s the insulating effect of an atmosphere. The same effect keeps us from boiling during the day. The airless Moon provides some idea of daytime temperatures (same distance, same exposure time) which are reached without an atmosphere – around 127 C max.

        If you believe that a Greenhouse Effect exists, you should at least be able to say where it may reliably be observed, measured, and documented. You would also be able to point to reproducible experiments which could be used to either support or disprove any hypothesis you might propose in relation to the Greenhouse Effect.

        But of course you can’t. There is no Greenhouse Effect. You can point to precisely nothing which would require a mythical Greenhouse Effect to explain it.

        As to having a “non-existent brain”, I point out that accusing someone of possessing something which you claim doesn’t exist, is the mark of the climate crackpot.

        Go then, trot out the Greenhouse Effect, and the phenomenon which has been observed and requires it for explanation. Or fly off at a tangent, appeal to authority or consensus, put up some irrelevant and pointless analogy – do anything you like to avoid reality. It won’t change a single physical fact.

        Are you all mouth and no trousers?

        • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

          As everyone knows air is an excellent insulator and radiation does not escape quickly from the surface, despite the very thin troposphere.
          https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2021.png

          • Swenson says:

            IP,

            Insulation works both ways, resulting in cooler days and warmer nights, compared with the airless Moon.

            No need for any Greenhouse Effect.

        • Norman says:

          Swenson

          What is sad about you phony skeptics (unscientific ones who do not care at all about evidence but preach their endless pseudoscience) is that I have already given you all you ask for but you ignore it.

          Why do you ask for information that you will just ignore and pretend no one has addressed your request?

          YOU: “If you believe that a Greenhouse Effect exists, you should at least be able to say where it may reliably be observed, measured, and documented.”

          Here is the measured, documented reality of the Greenhouse Effect exists.

          https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_61f6983d93131.png

          I already know Clint R can’t understand the contents of this graph, getting a person like you to understand the contents never will happen. I am only addressing your claim that no one has shown you evidence of the GHE. If you continue to say no one has given you evidence, consider yourself no just an unscientific fool but also a liar as well.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, I’ve already offered to explain why your interpretation of that link is wrong. I offered to explain it, if you would agree to not comment here for 90 days. But your desire to troll exceeds your interest in learning.

            Better rethink your errant ways before the price goes up.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            No you never explained anything and you do not understand the graph at all.

            All you did was give this stupid incomplete nonsense about two fluxes and the amount of energy emitted. It was really dumb and meant nothing. That is how you explain things? With very stupid incomplete problems? That is not an explanation.

            You are too stupid to calculate or figure anything out from the graph that is why it is pointless to present it to you. I already know that you, Swenson and Gordon Robertson cannot grasp the content. That is not my point here. My point is it clearly shows the GHE with measured values. Your ignorance of logic and rational thinking are not my problem. The evidence it there.

          • Clint R says:

            As I stated Norman, I’m willing to explain why your interpretation of that link is wrong. But you must agree to not comment here for 90 days. Agree, and I will fully explain, including answering responsible questions.

            You’d better take advantage of this special offer before the price goes up.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            I will be honest with you. You are full of crap. You don’t understand the graph at all and you do not understand any actual heat transfer physics. Your explanation is worthless and I could care less if you post some stupid opinion of yours. It is all garbage. You are a junk troll that spews stupid opinions over and over. In just a comment below you show how stupid you are and how lame your opinions.

            YOU: “For you to believe in the GHE, you must then believe that ice cubes can boil water.”

            It is a very stupid point and NO you don’t have to believe that to understand the GHE. You just have to have a few basics in physics to understand it. You have none but you offer your endless opinions over and over.

            So no I am not the least bit interested in your stupid opinions on science you do not understand.

            Maybe figure out how this equation works, then you might have something.
            q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah

          • Clint R says:

            I will be honest with you, Norman. I was hoping you wouldn’t take the offer to learn. I like you like you are — braindead. And always in meltdown!

            You can’t even get your invalid equation right. Even with all your keyboard training, you can’t copy and paste correctly! You’re braindead.

            BTW, did you ever find your fictitious “real 255K surface”?

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            What is wrong with the equation. It is a copy/paste.

            https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html

            You can get the non pasted version here. It won’t make a bit of difference. You do not know how the equation functions and you believe the stupid opinions of Claes Johnson that a hot object is not able to absorb IR from a colder one. The equation is based upon the observed and experimentally verified fact that Johnson is quite wrong and you are as well. No your opinions of me or of your science are most worthless. They stink the same as pile of poop.

            You will keep posting your stupid ideas. Nothing changes. You will ignore and reject all evidence in favor of your dumb opinions. It is endless with you uneducated trolls. Over and over you repeat the same stupid points. Over and over scientific minded people show you wrong with evidence, facts, data. Nothing changes you just keep spouting your stupid opinions.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, I know you can’t understand the links you find, but at least try to understand the need for “^”, as in “Tc^4”.

            Where’s your invalid “real 255K surface” to go with your invalid equation?

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            The broken record. I have explained the 255 K radiating surface to you several times. Why do you keep asking for it? You don’t understand any of the logic I use to explain it. I have even given you the definition of “surface” and explained how it works with a radiating surface. You keep thinking it has to be a specific location to be considered a surface. I have provided you with ample information to counter that thought of yours but it does not matter.

            Nothing matters with you. Logic, evidence, facts. None of it matters you don’t listen to anything anyway and go on trolling the blog. Why do you pretend I have not answered you question several times already?

          • Clint R says:

            Yes you are a broken record, Norman. That’s because you’re braindead and can’t learn. You swallowed Ball4’s nonsense about Earth having a “real 255K surface”, and now you’re stuck with it.

            You’ve tried all kinds of distractions, like linking to definitions of “surface”, and computer-generated images of infrared, but you haven’t produced a “real 255K surface”.

            The reality is Earth does NOT have a “real 255K surface”. You’ve been duped, again.

          • Ball4 says:

            … only if one chooses to avoid Dr Spencer’s experimental atm. science and reality & go with braindead cult beliefs like following the choice(s) made by entertainment specialist Clint R.

            Clint still admits not having understood the earthen measured 255 K surface. Funny.

          • Swenson says:

            Ball4,

            I hope you aren’t trying to involve “climate change” in any of your nonsense. It would be completely irrelevant.

            Here’s what Dr Roy Spencer, PhD, has to say about “climate change” –

            “Climate change it happens, with or without our help.”

            I agree.

        • “thats the insulating effect of an atmosphere”

          You’ve just defined the greenhouse effect
          while attempting to refute the greenhouse effect.

          Perhaps if I read you comment in a mirror
          it will make sense?

          • Clint R says:

            RG, I’ve seen your comments before. You don’t seem to understand the science.

            For you to believe in the GHE, you must then believe that ice cubes can boil water. That’s what the nonsense effectively claims.

            It’s your choice — science and reality or braindead cult beliefs.

          • Ball4 says:

            … so of course Clint R as an entertainment specialist always chooses the non-reality of braindead cult beliefs over science and reality. A competent physicist such as Dr. Spencer has already shown Clint how to boil water with ice cubes in the same real way as the earthen GHE works.

            Since Clint must comment to always NOT know how the GHE works then Clint must NOT know how to boil water with ice cubes even though Dr. Spencer experimentally showed Clint how to do so.

            Clint’s entertainment value far exceeds Clint R’s nil value to basic high school physics. That’s why this blog is so entertaining.

          • Clint R says:

            Ball4 believes: “A competent physicist such as Dr. Spencer has already shown Clint how to boil water with ice cubes in the same real way as the earthen GHE works.”

            See RG, they actually believe such nonsense. Spencer has NEVER stated such a thing, but Ball4 is willing to claim he has. Ball4 is so lost in his cult beliefs, reality no longer matters. That’s why he comes up with such nonsense as Earth has a “real 255K surface”.

            And poor Norman swallows everything Ball4 spews.

          • Ball4 says:

            Clint R admits not understanding Dr. Spencer’s experiment on the real atm.; this is understandable due lack of Clint have any physics training preferring instead to learn entertainment techniques.

            Clint admits also has yet to find the measured earthen 255K surface even though Clint’s been given plenty of physical clues.

            Clint providing such great entertainment from a lack of Clint’s physics comprehension is why this blog is so much fun.

          • Clint R says:

            Ball4 admits he’s insane

          • Swenson says:

            RG,

            You wrote –

            “thats the insulating effect of an atmosphere

            Youve just defined the greenhouse effect
            while attempting to refute the greenhouse”

            Don’t be a moron. I haven’t attempted to “refute” the greenhouse effect, because there is nothing to refute. If you believe that the insulating effect of the atmosphere is called the greenhouse effect by some fools, go for it.

            Unfortunately, insulators raise the temperature of nothing heated by the Sun. In fact, the complete opposite. Hats, parasols, shade structures, roofs, Stevenson Screens, are all designed lower the temperature of objects, not make them hotter!

            If you wish to propose a magical one way insulator that allows the passage of energy (in total) preferentially, then you need some experimental support to convince anybody that you have mastered the accumulation of free energy.

            I agree with Richard Feynman “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

            You don’t even have a theory! Just another climate crackpot spruiking “Cargo Cult science.”

          • Ball4 says:

            The GHE agrees with experiment so there really is nothing to refute.

          • Swenson says:

            B4,

            You wrote –

            “The GHE agrees with experiment so there really is nothing to refute.”

            Well, no. You can’t even describe this “GHE”, because it doesn’t exist.

            Give it a try – I’ll help you out.

            You can start by finishing the following sentence – “The GHE is a phenomenon may be observed . . . “. Include details of the experiments performed to support your observations of the phenomenon, if you don’t want to look like a dimwit.

            Off you go now. Make a fool of yourself, if you wish.

          • Swenson says:

            Just checking to see if any morons picked up my intentional typo. It seems not.

            Oh well.

          • Willard says:

            As Vaughan Pratt once said to you, Mike –

            Still here?

          • Swenson says:

            Weak Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “As Vaughan Pratt once said to you, Mike

            Still here?”

            Why should I care what Vaughan Pratt asked Mike Flynn?

            Are you quite mad?

            Or just trying to avoid admitting that you can’t actually produce a Greenhouse Theory?

          • Willard says:

            > Why should I care what Vaughan Pratt asked Mike Flynn?

            Because you’re Mike, silly sock puppet.

          • Ball4 says:

            “The GHE is a phenomenon that may be observed . . . ” by experiment. See Dr. Spencer’s for the details. And remember the Feynman quote.

          • Swenson says:

            Ball4,

            Don’t be a dimwit. Where? What experiment? What was the experiment trying to show?

            You are as much a moron as Witless Wee Willy!

            You wrote “See Dr. Spencers for the details. And remember the Feynman quote.

            No. I’m not going to waste my looking for a non-existent definition of the greenhouse effect. Nor am I going to take any notice of a mysterious Feynman quotation which you can’t be bothered supplying.

            Try another avoidance ploy, dummy. Convince people you are hiding a copy of the greenhouse effect, because you don’t want anyone to see it.

            Moron.

          • Swenson says:

            Weird Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “Because youre Mike, silly sock puppet.”

            So if Mike Flynn writes something, that’s fine – you have even quoted him on several occasions without complaint.

            If I have the same thoughts, and quote him, you have an attack of bed-wetting, so to speak!

            I think as I wish, quote whom I like, and I dont give a fig for your opinion!

            Moron. Learn some physics, and give up trying to be clever. Or keep avoiding reality, play your stupid games, and achieve precisely nothing!

            [shakes head in wonderment at erratic caperings of moron]

          • “Ice cubes can boil water”?
            Are you writing from a mental institution?

            The Greenhouse Effect has nothing to do with ice cubes.

            The Greenhouse Effect is not CO2 heating anything.

            The Greenhouse Effect is green house gases, primarily water vapor and the first 100ppm of CO2, forming a partial barrier bewteen earth’s surface and the infinite heat sink of outer space. Those gases impede earth’s ability to cool itself. The gasses prevent cooling — they do not directly cause warming. There is no violation of thermodynamic laws. i took a thermodynamics course in college and even passed it, so don’t give me any colder object heats a warmer object ant-greenhouse theory baloney.

            The result of a greenhouse is that our planet does not cool by a huge amount every night, causing outdoor plants to freeze.

            Upwelling and downwelling infrared radiation has been measured. Downwelling radiation can be measured in one’s back yard at night, with an infrared thermometer. Dr. Spencer has done such an experiment, and wrote an article about it here in 2010:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/

          • Willard says:

            > So if Mike Flynn writes something, that’s fine

            Your dumb playing act is absolutely delicious, Mike.

            No, writing something under your real Climateball identity does not make it true. It only shows you have some honor left in you.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Where? What experiment?”

            Dr. Spencer’s! Detailed on this blog! I already pointed that out.

            Funny, yet another comedic commenter admittedly ignoring & disagreeing with experiments even when the commenter quoted Feynman writing “it’s wrong” to do so.

          • Clint R says:

            RG, as I suspected you don’t understand any of this.

            Yes, the sky emits toward the surface, as it emits to space. But the CO2 emission to the surface is unable to warm it. A CO2 15 μ photon has a WDL temperature of 193K! (You probably don’t know how to convert temperatures, so 193K = -80.2C = -112.3F.)

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R is telling porky pies again, and perverting physics too.

            “A CO2 15 μ photon has a WDL temperature of 193K!”

            No way dude, a photon doesn’t have a temperature, Wien Displacement Law or any other kind.

            Getting your macro and micro physics mixed up again.

            That’s why you never learn.

          • Clint R says:

            braindead bob, I try to keep my wording simple. I could have elaborated much more, but worthless trolls like you would still attempt to pervert my words.

            The CO2 doesn’t have a temperature, per se, but it does have an energy that corresponds to its wavelength, which corresponds to the WDL temperature. Short and simple — the 15 μ photon represents 193K.

            Pervert away. That’s what you do.

          • Nate says:

            “But the CO2 emission to the surface is unable to warm it.”

            Oh, its reflected then?

            Evidence? Logic? Physics? Anything at all to justify this claim?!

            No, of course not, none of those can be produced.

          • Clint R says:

            Physics.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            There you have debunked your whole argument that the radiation from CO2 can’t warm the surface.

            “The CO2 doesnt have a temperature, per se, but it does have an energy that corresponds to its wavelength, which corresponds to the WDL temperature. Short and simple the 15 μ photon represents 193K.

            If the CO2 doesn’t have a temperature, that debunks the whole cold can’t warm hot argument, and means you can have energy transfer from one molecule to another regardless of temperature.

            Short and simple but not too simple, the 15 u photon is the peak of the spectrum of a black-body at 193K. The body also emits other photons of various wavelengths and energies.

            Long live the greenhouse effect.

            Clint R fails to debunk it again.

          • Clint R says:

            Nice perversion of reality, braindead bob. But that still ends up with ice cubes boiling water. Which means you’re anti-science, besides being a braindead cult idiot.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            No it doesn’t mean that at all, no radiation coming from ice, it’s coming from CO2.

            What part of that do you not understand?

          • Clint R says:

            Braindead bob, you don’t understand any of the relevant physics, and you’re not mature enough to follow the basic logic, so I will only explain this for others.

            To believe CO2 can warm the surface, you must believe that ALL photons are absorbed, and that then causes increased surface temperature. If that nonsense were true, it would mean that emitted flux from ice cubes could warm water. And, if you used enough ice (since braindead cult idiots believe flux adds) you could boil water with ice cubes.

            One of your cult idiots (Folkerts) even made up the equation to “prove” ice cubes could boil water. It’s pure nonsense.

            That ain’t science.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            You don’t have to tell me I have to believe something that isn’t supported by the evidence.

            I don’t “have to believe all photons are absorbed”

            That’s another one of your stupid strawman arguments.

            Let me say it right now, all photons are not absorbed.

            Here is your previous post.

            “The CO2 doesnt have a temperature, per se, but it does have an energy that corresponds to its wavelength, which corresponds to the WDL temperature. Short and simple the 15 μ photon represents 193K.”

            First of all, we were talking about photons having a temperature, but you switched it to CO2, individual molecules that emit radiation don’t have temperature either.

            CO2 will emit 15 u photons at any temperature, you don’t seem to understand that, that’s why you are not qualified to teach physics and Tim could teach you a thing or two.

            Wavelengths and temperature do not correspond.

            Do I need to repeat that, or will you take the plastic wrap off of your physics textbook?

          • Ball4 says:

            Clint R comments: “..it would mean that emitted flux from ice cubes could warm water.”

            bob, Dr. Spencer already showed emitted flux from ice cubes could warm water by experiment on the real atm., Clint R just refuses to accept reality of the results so per Dr. Feynman then Clint R is wrong.

            Clint being continuously wrong is expected from such an entertainment specialist as Clint & of course Clint quite obviously has NO textbooks to unwrap.

          • Clint R says:

            No braindead bob, I had to explain it to you. But, you did learn. That’s why you now admit that not all photons are absorbed.

            Your next step is to understand that even if a photon gets absorbed, it may not be able to increase the temperature of the absorber. For example, a 15 μ photon would not be able to increase the temperature of a 288K surface.

            And of course ice cubes can’t boil water. But notice braindead4 still believes that nonsense! That’s why this is so much fun.

          • Ball4 says:

            I believe Dr. Spencer’s experimental results unlike (Dr. Spencer’s results disbeliever) Clint R. That means Clint R is wrong according to what Dr. Feynman said.

            Funny, Clint R is wrong once again explaining stuff, since a solar 15 micron photon would be able to increase the temperature of a 288K earthen surface. Even icy cirrus photons are able to increase the temperature of a nighttime 288K earthen surface in summertime Alabama over similar one not in same atm. view as shown by Dr. Spencer’s real backyard atm. experiment which entertainer Clint doesn’t care, & isn’t capable, to understand.

            Keep thrashing around in physics Clint, your entertainment doing so always works & you just might get some things right like educating DREMT as you did that location matters when observing our moon’s spin rate wrt to another celestial body.

          • Clint R says:

            Ball4 is rambling incoherently, babbling to himself. Insanity is not pretty. I hope he gets help before he hurts himself.

          • Ball4 says:

            I see it hurts Clint R’s pride to be shown writing atm. physics wrong by Dr. Spencer’s results & data most of the time on a climate blog, but Clint R did correctly explain to DREMT the dependance on location of observation for our moon’s rotation on its own axis wrt to other celestial objects.

            It will definitely not hurt Clint R’s pride and actually be beneficial if Clint learns atm. physics from Dr. Spencer’s experimental results & data and comments accordingly.

          • Clint R says:

            Just so no one is confused by Ball4’s insane ramblings, his “solar 15 micron photon” would not be able to increase the temperature of a 288K surface, either. Photons with the same wavelength have the same energy. A 15 μ photon from Sun is the same as a 15 μ photon from CO2.

            Ball4 is not merely braindead. He’s insane. Possibly the result of too much time in the cult.

            He’ll be here all day, with the same maniacal slobbering on his keyboard. But, I’ve got things to do. Someone has to be the adult, favoring sanity and reality.

          • Ball4 says:

            Clint, ALL photons are indistinguishable. No one (even Clint!) can tell one photon from another. Photons don’t carry little tags announcing whether they are solar or terrestrial. Read up on the subject about which Clint is commenting & comment according to Dr. Spencer’s test results & data.

            But that would of course stop Clint being the blog laughing stock which would be sorely missed. If Clint used wave language for light, then the above few Clint R comments would not likely even have happened. Funny.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            Poor excuse for a physics instructor.

            Note: I never said all photons were absorbed.

            I said 15 u photons were absorbed.

            Now you are going further down the straw road to nowheresville.

            “Your next step is to understand that even if a photon gets absorbed, it may not be able to increase the temperature of the absorber. For example, a 15 μ photon would not be able to increase the temperature of a 288K surface.”

            Bullshitsville wishywashy terminology.

            Depends on the amounts of photons, doesn’t it?

            And whether or not fluxes add.

            And other forms of reality that you deny.

            Let’s go back to your short and stupid remark

            “Short and simple the 15 μ photon represents 193K.”

            You don’t understand any of this.

          • Clint R says:

            Braindead bob, if you don’t have anything of value, why abuse your keyboard? What has your keyboard ever done to you?

            You’re on the fast track to insanity. You should learn from Ball4’s bad example.

          • Nate says:

            Clint,

            ‘Physics’

            Oh ok.

            Here’s yet another device that your ‘physics’ cannot explain.

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

            It measures DWIR from the sky.

            According to your ‘physics’ it should not work when the sky is colder than the device.

            But it does.

            It works because DWIR photons ARE abs*orbed in the blackbody-like surface of the device, even when they come from a colder place!

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            I almost had you actually discussing the physics of the greenhouse effect, but now you are back to your silly games.

            “Braindead bob, if you dont have anything of value, why abuse your keyboard? What has your keyboard ever done to you?

            Youre on the fast track to insanity. You should learn from Ball4s bad example.”

            And your constant comparison of the greenhouse effect to boiling water with ice cubes nonsense.

            Let’s discuss the actual greenhouse effect, not your imagination of what it is.

          • Clint R says:

            Braindead bob, your problem is you don’t know anything about the relevant physics. You just “believe” you do. Your brain is dead and you can’t learn. You had chances to show you understood basic physics, and you failed to hand in your paper. All you have are false accusations and misrepresentations.

            The ice cubes and boiling water is exactly why the greenhouse effect fails. That’s why you don’t want to talk about it. It’s the same as not wanting to take about the ball-on-a-string, as it proves Moon is NOT rotating.

            None of you idiots knows the science. You just keep feeding on your cult nonsense. Nate has now found a link to a pyrgeometer, and “believes” it proves everything will respond as a man-made device responds! He has no clue about how the device actually works, or 2LoT. He just makes false accusations, trying to cover up for his incompetence: “According to your ‘physics’ it should not work when the sky is colder than the device.” He’s clearly wrong, desperate, and has no clue. I understand exactly how the device works, and why. It is designed to do what it does. Nature does not do what a properly designed device does.

            I won’t respond to irresponsible nonsense.

          • bobdroege says:

            See Clint R doesn’t want to discuss the physics which he knows very little about, even his stupid problems where he gets the answer wrong.

            His little vector problem has an object orbiting when the two vectors has the object moving off in a straight line, he just doesn’t understand orbital motion requires two different vectors, ones that can’t be added because they have different units.

            And he calls me braindead.

          • Nate says:

            ” I understand exactly how the device works, and why.”

            Oh? Then please explain it to us, with real physics.

            If not, we will know that you cannot.

          • Nate says:

            Here’s a hint:

            “The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body.”

            IOW its surface is quite black (emissivity ~ 1) for a broad range of the IR spectrum.

            You have previously claimed, without evidence, that such surfaces do not exist in the real world.

            Nothing magical about this surface. Clearly it exists inside this instrument which is in the real world.

          • Clint R says:

            Insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations is NOT being responsible.

            I won’t respond to irresponsible nonsense.

            Feel free to try again.

          • Nate says:

            “Insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations”

            First of all you are talking about YOUR typical post, not mine.

            Second, we know you have no physics explanation, and these are just flimsy excuses.

          • Clint R says:

            You failed again, Nate. You’re not learning.

            Feel free to try again.

        • gbaikie says:

          What warm places do you live in? My cold night air kills plants.

          If we lived in global greenhouse climate, then in winter, and at night, it would be warm enough to not kill my dwarf lemon tree.

          But what make global greenhouse climate is actually, not having a cold ocean, instead a warmer ocean which almost warm temperature enough to not kill humans as quickly.

          Now if someone lived on tropical island paradise, they might be more convinced there this greenhouse effect.

          But if don’t have a global ocean, the planet would always freeze at night, even if in the tropics.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Richard,

        Do you believe all life on the planet has existed for 4 billion years due to something so tenuous and elusive as a “Greenhouse Effect?” Caveat emptor.

        • Entropic man says:

          Something kept Earth at a liveable temperature while the sun warmed by 10% per billion years.

          Suggestions?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Yes, since you’re retired, take a math class and a couple of courses in thermodynamics.

          • Willard says:

            A couple of humanities classes should suffice for you to learn how to read and understand EM’s question, Troglodyte.

            You can stick to cheerleading, of course.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            So, the Sun keeps warming but thank God that GHE has kept us and will keep us alive? Can you explain Chihuahua?

          • Willard says:

            Explain what, Troglodyte, how you miss EM’s “warmed by 10%” bit?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Well yes, Chihuahua. Maybe the atmosphere keeps us cool? Maybe there is no GHE.

          • Norman says:

            stephen p anderson

            The atmosphere (the radiating molecules) is cooled by emissions from GHG in the atmosphere. The surface is not, the surface is kept warmer by GHG than it would be without them. There is a GHE.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, that’s the same old nonsense that means ice cubes can boil water.

            Don’t you have any new nonsense?

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            Do you have a logic progression that goes from GHE to ice cubes boiling water. You can make the claim it does but it is not a conclusion based upon logic.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, you don’t want me to explain science to you, but now you want me to explain your own cult’s nonsense to you?

            You need to contact your cult hero that pushes that nonsense.

          • Willard says:

            > Well yes

            That’s quite easy, Troglodyte – you duck EM’s “10%” because it’d force you to provide an alternative explanation than the greenhouse effect, and you don’t have any. You do have gurus, and riddles. You also have a soap box, from which you harp about your favorite scapegoats.

            Am I missing anything?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Chihuahua,

            You’ll need to put two and two together for me. I don’t understand how the statement 10% warming per billion years implies a GHE. You can start now.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Norman,

            So how does the atmosphere both cool and warm the surface at the same time? If I understand the LOT, heat transfer only goes one way.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Norman,

            I have an IR heater in my garage. If I vent CO2 into it then it will heat up?

          • Ball4 says:

            stephen, yes your room temperature vented CO2 will be warmed. Unless your vented CO2 is at a higher temperature than your IR heater, in which case your CO2 will be cooled.

          • Swenson says:

            Ball4, complete idiot, wrote –

            “stephen, yes your room temperature vented CO2 will be warmed. Unless your vented CO2 is at a higher temperature than your IR heater, in which case your CO2 will be cooled.”

            Oh no! CO2 can be heated, and can cool! What a surprise – not.

            No magical Greenhouse Effect springing Ito action? No magical heating powers due to CO2?

            What a surprise!

            Next thing you know, morons like Ball4 will be admitting that the atmosphere and surface cool at night!

          • Ball4 says:

            Some nights the local air thermometer temperature goes up overnight; some nights the same air thermometer temperature goes down. What a surprise!

          • Norman says:

            stephen p anderson

            I think you did not read my post correctly. Perhaps look at it again. I was careful not to blotch it.

            The surface is warmer because of GHG the atmosphere is cooled off (in Stratosphere) where the emission is to space. Roy Spencer has done a post on this in the past, not sure which one.

          • Norman says:

            stephen p anderson

            The IR heater and CO2 is more complex than the GHE. With the GHE you have only one heat transfer mechanism involved, radiant heat. With your IR heater you still have conduction and convection in the heat transfer process.

            If you eliminated the other heat transfer processes and just isolated your thought experiment to radiant energy it will be more obvious and easy to see.

            If you had two identical IR heaters in space (with no surrounding energy inputs) and each had an internal power supply to produce the heat, in one case you have a large bubble filled with CO2, the other is just exposed to space.

            In this case your heater, in the CO2 bubble, will warm to a higher temperature than the one just exposed to space.

            The CO2 will absorb some of the IR energy emitted by the heater and warm and it will emit energy back to the IR heater. This will increase the temperature of the heater above the other one.

          • Entropic man says:

            Stephen

            Anyone with enough education to properly critique the carbon cycle and the greenhouse effect would have encountered the faint young sun paradox.

            They would also know that energy can flow in both directions along an energy gradient. 1LOT only requires a NET flow towards the lower energy level.

            You are hollow. No point asking a man with no bread to make a sammich.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Eman,

            That’s news to LOT. Heat flows from higher temperature to lower temperature. That includes convection, conduction, and radiation. A cooler CO2 molecule is not going to transfer radiant heat to something at a higher temperature.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            The surface is warmer because of GHG the atmosphere is cooled off (in Stratosphere) where the emission is to space. Roy Spencer has done a post on this in the past, not sure which one.

            I know that’s the GHG theory. It doesn’t occur. I reckon Dr. Spencer believes it. I don’t. You’ll need to show me the physics behind it. You’re not only violating LOT. You’re violating Quantum Physics.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You are hollow. No point asking a man with no bread to make a sammich.

            Rather be hollow than an idiot.

          • Clint R says:

            Ent, you remain confused between “beliefs” and “science”.

            The “faint Sun paradox” is nothing more than conflicts within your beliefs. There was NO “faint Sun”, Your beliefs are just confused.

            You know very little science. As in your confusion about 1LoT and 2LoT. 1LoT relates “work” to “energy”. 2LoT deals with heat transfer from “hot” to “cold”.

            You don’t understand any of this.

          • Swenson says:

            EM wrote –

            “Anyone with enough education to properly critique the carbon cycle and the greenhouse effect would have encountered the faint young sun paradox.”

            There is no greenhouse effect – nothing to critique. You cannot even say what it is. What is the phenomenon that the greenhouse effect is supposed to explain?

            You are just talking nonsense, hoping no-one will think to ask you for details.

            As to the carbon cycle, there is presumably a fixed amount (more or less) within the Earth system. What is the problem?

            The “faint young Sun paradox” was an artifice constructed by people like Carl Sagan to attempt to explain their bizarre contention that the Earth spontaneously froze, and then magically heated up again. There is no “faint young Sun paradox”. If the Earth was created in the molten state (seems reasonable to me), then quite obviously it has cooled to its present temperature. How could it not?

            Are you a paid up maybe of the Society of Morons, or just quite delusional? CO2 has no magical one-way insulating effects, just quite well known physical properties, as Professor John Tyndall established experimentally more than 100 years ago.

            You want to believe your fantasy, go your hardest.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Eman,
            Oh, wait! I suspect it does get colder than 193K at the poles. CO2 can warm the surface there. But, of course, there’s not a whole lot of emission there. Too bad.

          • Norman says:

            stephen p anderson

            YOU: “You’ll need to show me the physics behind it. You’re not only violating LOT. You’re violating Quantum Physics.”

            The physics is the radiant heat transfer equation.

            NO you do not violate the laws of thermodynamics or Quantum Physics.

            You seem to ignore that the GHE works ONLY for a heated surface, a surface receiving an energy input.

            As Dr. Roy has tried to explain to so many, it works like a radiant “blanket”. An actual blanket works by slowing conduction and minimizing convection so these two heat transfer process are less effective in removing heat. With a heated body (like your own) the blanket keeps you warmer than you would be without a blanket in a cold room. The GHG emit energy back to the surface that is absorbed and lowers the amount of heat lost (does not change surface emission just lowers the heat loss). With the same input of energy the surface will warm to a new steady state temperature. Certainly you will agree that insulation around a heated object will cause an increase in the steady state temperature. It is not much different but in this case the insulation works on radiant energy.

          • Willard says:

            > You’ll need to put two and two together for me.

            Show me how you put two and two together, Troglodyte.

            And no, empirical sciences does not work by implication.

          • Swenson says:

            Whinnying Wee Willy,

            Do you have delusions of grandeur, moron?

            You demand –

            “Show me how you put two and two together, Troglodyte.”

            And if he doesn’t? Ooooooh!

            Are you going to smite him with your “stupid stick”? It looks like you have been beating yourself with it, and it seems to be working.

            Why should anybody show you anything, particularly if you can’t even get their name right?

            Moron.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, I see your rambling nonsense above where you’re trying to explain your confusion about your GHE nonsense.

            You really need to find your “real 255K surface”. If you can’t identify where it is, you’re just blowing smoke.

          • Willard says:

            > You demand

            Once again you butt in an exchange without having read it, Mike Flynn. From our Troglodyte’s mouth:

            You’ll need to put two and two together for me.

            Are you suggesting that I should not acquiesce to his “demand”?

            Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh!

          • Nate says:

            “So how does the atmosphere both cool and warm the surface at the same time? If I understand the LOT, heat transfer only goes one way.”

            Same as a coat does.

            Coats keep us warm by insulating us from the cold air.

            At the same time all the heat leaving my warm body is transferred to the cooler coat, then the heat is transferred from the cool coat to the colder air.

            Only in that sense is the coat ‘cooling’ me. It is involved in transferring my heat to the air.

            Similarly only in that sense is CO2 ‘cooling’ Earth, ie involved in transferring Earths surface heat to space.

            While insulating and warming the surface.

          • Clint R says:

            CO2 is definitely “involved in transferring Earth’s surface heat to space”. But CO2 cannot warm a surface that is at 288K.

            To believe CO2 can warm 288K, you’d have to be a braindead cult idiot. They believe ice cubes can boil water.

          • Nate says:

            “CO2 is definitely ‘involved in transferring Earth’s surface heat to space’.

            Ok, So it is just like a coat in that sense.

            The coat molecules are warmed by the heat of the body then transfer the heat on to the air. And as a result it insulates.

            “But CO2 cannot warm a surface that is at 288K”

            So the Co2 molecules are warmed by the heat of the Earth’s surface, then transfer the heat on to space, and as a result it doesnt insulate?

            Why not?

          • Clint R says:

            Nate, are you trying to ask a responsible question? If so you need to clarify what “it” refers to: “…then transfer the heat on to space, and as a result it doesn’t insulate?”

          • Nate says:

            “Co2 molecules are warmed by the heat of the Earths surface, then transfer the heat on to space, and as a result it doesnt insulate?”

            It is obviously CO2.

          • Clint R says:

            CO2 molecules are poor insulators. Low clouds are much better insulators.

  34. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A little “cool” in Florida. Will it be Texas’ turn in February?
    https://i.ibb.co/5KpQsQZ/Screenshot-5.png

  35. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A beautiful winter in New York.
    https://www.wunderground.com/weather/KNYSHIRL22

  36. Willard says:

    Earlier, Norman asks Mike Flynn –

    “Why do you ask for information that you will just ignore and pretend no one has addressed your request?”

    The answer is quite simple. Mike asks for a sammich because he can ignore when fetched to him. Then he can lulz while pretending no one ever made one!

    So here’s a modest proposal – when Mike starts to act like a bridge troll without a bridge, everyone should make him work as much as he requires of others. This is Climateball. Mike needs to carry his own weight on the field.

    Too much play and no work makes Mike a dull sock puppet.

    • Swenson says:

      Weary Wee Willy,

      How are your attempts to be a master manipulator going?

      Anyone taking any notice of your proposals or suggestions?

      It doesn’t seem so, but I’m not a member of the Society of Morons. Maybe you should call a meeting, and get a consensus – about something or other completely irrelevant – just like you!

      Carry on.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn, Meager Flan, do you have a point? Here would be mine: too much play and no work makes you a dull sock puppet.

        How’s that sammich going – are you going to entertain us with your Isolation Effect Theory any time soon?

        No?

        Aw, diddums!

        • Swenson says:

          Whacky Wee Willy,

          Still can’t find a Greenhouse Theory? Just more Wee Willy Moron nonsense words? What about “lichurchur”?

          Very illuminating.

          Carry on.

          • Willard says:

            It’s right here, Mike.

          • Swenson says:

            Wacky Wee Willy,

            What is “right here”, moron?

            Why do you think you can fool people into thinking you have a Greenhouse Theory hidden away? What would you gain?

            Only a moron would think that such an action would be considered clever.

          • Willard says:

            > What is right here

            You certainly have a knack for turning interesting questions into stupid ones, Mike.

            Look over there.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Idiot,

            If I can’t be bothered looking “right here”, dummy, what makes you think I would waste my time looking “over there”?

            I”ll guarantee that link doesn’t contain a “greenhouse theory”, either. It doesn’t exist you ass!

            You might be a moron, but at least you are stupid as well.

          • Willard says:

            Tell me, Mike –

            What makes you think I care if you’ll click on the link or not?

            Here is another source.

          • Swenson says:

            Whining Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “Tell me, Mike – ”

            No. I’m not Mike, but I wouldn’t tell you , either.

          • Willard says:

            > I’m not Mike

            So you say, Mike.

            So you say.

  37. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Solar activity has increased (possible X-class flares) and SOI is increasing again.
    https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/

  38. Swenson says:

    Some fool asked –

    “Something kept Earth at a liveable temperature while the sun warmed by 10% per billion years.

    Suggestions?”

    Oh, what a gotcha!!! Intellectual brilliance at it’s peak!!! Or maybe just some idiot climate crank trying to look clever!

    Carl Sagan and James Hansen refused to believe that the Earth started off as a big molten blob. Maybe they were right, and the Earth was created at absolute zero or so, and the heat from the Sun has crept in and raised the interior to Al Gore’s “millions of degrees”.

    Some people have their faith, and I don’t challenge their right to believe anything they want. no matter how fanciful it appears, or how much it is unsupported by fact.

    But to return to the fantastically inept attempt at a gotcha posed earlier, here’s a suggestion –
    heat.

    • coturnix says:

      the ‘cool young sun paradox’ is easily explained away by the ‘high tilt early earth’ hypothesis, credit to ge williams of adelaide as its most persistent (and sadly, seemingly the only as of now) proponent.

  39. Willard says:

    Under his new sock puppet, Mike Flynn asked above –

    “Did you take lessons to learn how to write incomprehensible sentences of the “Don’t blame me your incompetence.”

    The answer is yes, I study his own style very closely:

    Don’t blame me your incompetence.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/the-snow-hits-the-fan-on-saturday-global-warming-alarmism-to-follow/#comment-1150678

    Oooooooh!

    Does Mike recall what he writes from one minute to the next?

    That he would not could explain why he has been trolling Roy’s for so long.

    • Swenson says:

      Wee Willy Dumdum,

      What are you babbling about? Can’t you even manage to cut and paste properly?

      You wrote –

      Did you take lessons to learn how to write incomprehensible sentences of the Dont blame me your incompetence.

      Incompetent or just sloppy? Did you leave something out, or can’t you read?

      Who would take any serious notice of the opinions of a sloppy, incompetent, ineffectual moron like you?

      The sound you don’t hear is the multitudes of other morons rushing to your defence, dummy.

      Carry on.

      • Willard says:

        Mike, Mike, you Miserable Fool –

        You’re the one who wrote “Don’t blame me your incompetence.”

        I copypasted the sentence.

        Do you really think that playing dumb or the hard of hearing will erase that fact?

        Where’s your solation Effect Theory?

        • Swenson says:

          Wobbly Wee Willy,

          You wrote –

          “Wheres your solation Effect Theory?” What is a “solation Effect Theory”, and what form of severe mental affliction would lead you think I had one? Going further, even if I had one, in what alternate universe do you think I would give you anything more than the sweat of my buttocks, even if you were on fire?

          You really are a funny (peculiar rather than ha-ha) slimy little grub, aren’t you.

          You have my permission to –

          Carry on.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, you absolute buffoon, you ask –

            “what form of severe mental affliction would lead you think I had one”

            It’s called reading:

            Insulation works both ways, resulting in cooler days and warmer nights, compared with the airless Moon.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/the-snow-hits-the-fan-on-saturday-global-warming-alarmism-to-follow/#comment-1151294

            Reading your comments can be afflicting, however.

            Oooooooooooooooooooh!

          • Swenson says:

            Whacky Wee Willy,

            Ah, I see. You wrote –

            “Wheres your solation Effect Theory?”, but in your usual sloppy and incompetent fashion, you really meant to write something else!

            You are not trying to dispute what I wrote, are you? Just being a diversionary moron, hoping no-one will notice your continual sloppiness and ineptitude.

            If you do not understand what insulation is, look it up in a dictionary. Oh all right, I’ll help you – this time.

            “Insulation means creating a barrier between the hot and the cold object that reduces heat transfer by either reflecting thermal radiation or decreasing thermal conduction and convection from one object to the other.” – Scientific American, I think.

            Just a definition. What “insulation theory” do you believe exists? Is there one?

            You are one moronic slimy fat grub, I suspect.

          • Willard says:

            Mike “would lead you think” Flynn hath spoken!

          • Swenson says:

            If you say so, Weird Wee Willy, if you say so.

          • Willard says:

            Was this another intentional typo, Mike?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Chihuahua does one thing well. He’s an ankle biter.

          • Willard says:

            How would Ed explain insulation, Troglodyte?

          • Swenson says:

            Weary Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “How would Ed explain insulation, Troglodyte?”

            Asking a completely pointless and eminently stupid gotcha tends to identify you as a moronic troll.

            Who is Ed, who is Troglodyte, who cares what either one thinks, and why are you asking?

            Moron.

  40. Clint R says:

    This “pandemic” nonsense has to be stopped. Canadian truckers are setting the precedent.

    https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/gofundme-releases-6-3-million-for-trucker-freedom-convoy/

    Next step is to get some adults in government positions.

  41. Swenson says:

    bobdroege accidentally brought up an important point when he wrote earlier-

    “Swenson,

    Go ahead and show your source for the Earth cooling from its molten state to where it is today.

    And then compare it to the prediction from Newtons Law of cooling.

    See if your interpretation is correct.

    But then, that would be doing science, which you have not a minute of experience with.”

    The great British physicist known as Lord Kelvin, fell into the same trap. He went to his deathbed firmly convinced that the Earth was no more than 20 million years old. He made a similarly large mistake in relation to calculating the age of the Sun, but for different reasons.

    Suffice it to say that you are a moron, and a simplistic one. Science has moved along over the last few hundred years. Still no Greenhouse Effect to be found, Newton’s Law of Cooling (still widely used where appropriate), notwithstanding.

    By the way, no “source” needed. If the Earth was molten in the past, but is not now, it has cooled.

    • bobdroege says:

      Was it the whole Earth that was molten, or only parts of it?

      What caused it to be molten, in all or in part?

      The point being, it doesn’t take 4.5 billion years to cool from a partially molten state to its current state of only being slightly molten.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        How do you know? Have you done a temperature profile of the Earth for 4.5 billion years? It definitely isn’t warming. We’re still classified as being in an ice age.

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        You moron. It obviously has taken as long as it has to reach the temperature it has.

        Accept reality. Or don’t.

        • bobdroege says:

          Obviously not, Swenson.

          It has been cooling and warming on various time scales since it cooled from its molten state post collision with the object that became the Moon.

          Stephen P Anderson,

          You know it can warm and cool while still being in an Ice Age, you know about glacial and inter-glacial periods, right?

          We know you are a wafer chewing cult member, but are you the kind that believes the Earth is 6000 years old?

          • Swenson says:

            b,

            You wrote –

            “You know it can warm and cool while still being in an Ice Age, you know about glacial and inter-glacial periods, right?”

            You don’t really need to go out of your way to appear more moronic than you really are, you know.

            If by “it” you mean the largely molten blob which is the Earth, then you are both stupid and ignorant, as well as being a moron.

            You cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your bizarre assumptions. Physically impossible – molten blobs don’t spontaneously “warm”, you idiot. They cool, just like the Earth has since its creation. You want to believe in “climate physics”, go right ahead.

            Carry on being a climate crackpot. If you accidentally happen upon a fact, rather than a fantasy, feel free to point it out.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            Do at least try to follow the argument, it refers to the surface of the Earth where we live.

            That part is not a molten blob.

            So where can we find this molten blob theory, any one publish it, or is it just the rambling incoherent nonsense from your addled brain?

            And who said spontaneously? Don’t you have enough straw?

          • Swenson says:

            b,

            You really are ignorant and stupid, aren’t you?

            I’ll tell you why the surface is no longer molten – it has cooled, you moron.

            If you don’t want to believe it, you don’t have to. You can believe that a Greenhouse Effect exists, if you like.

            Off you go now, believe really, really, hard. You might be able to change some fantasies into fact!

            What an idiot you are!

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            So, is it still cooling?

            Contrary to the work of Dr. Spencer?

  42. Willard says:

    Everybody but Mike Flynn ought to appreciate:

    https://tinyurl.com/2p8cxv8h

    • Swenson says:

      Wily Wee Willy,

      Based on your moronic attempts to lead unsuspecting suckers down the rabbit hole, I will assume that the link provided by you definitely does not contain the words “greenhouse theory”, let alone provide a statement of such theory.

      I will, of course, apologise to all and sundry if I am mistaken.

      Of course, what others might or might not “appreciate” won’t create a non-existent theory.

      Off you go, now. Dream up another diversion. Your present ones aren’t working too well, it seems.

  43. Willard says:

    The stupidest sock puppet of all Climateball might be onto something when he quote without really sourcing:

    “Insulation means creating a barrier between the hot and the cold object that reduces heat transfer by either reflecting thermal radiation or decreasing thermal conduction and convection from one object to the other. Scientific American, I think.

    Just a definition. What “insulation theory” do you believe exists? Is there one?

    If only physicists knew that to explain heat transfer all they needed was to look into a dictionary!

    Oh! Oh! Oh!

    • Swenson says:

      Weird Wee Willy,

      I gave you a definition from the Scientific American, I think. If you have a different one, feel free to use it. If you know any physicists that think to explain heat transfer all they needed to do was to look in a dictionary, they are probably members of the Society of Morons.

      You have no clue about science, have you, moron?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn, you retort –

        “I gave you a definition from the Scientific American, I think.”

        Here are few points for you to consider:

        Scientific explanations do not work by definition.

        Scientists use real citations, not half-baked “I think.”

        Science is concerned with producing knowledge, not creating bridges to troll.

        Science is about having fun working on stuff, not getting dull with all work and no play.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Don’t you love the way Chihuahua quotes Wiki and Climate Alarmists sites and claims their authority? Staggers the imagination.

      • Willard says:

        I thought. I was quoting Mike Flynn, Troglodyte.

        • Swenson says:

          Wee Willy Idiot,

          You wrote –

          “I thought. I was quoting Mike Flynn, Troglodyte.”

          Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

          You thought, did you? Who cares? Then you say you were quoting Mike Flynn – the imaginary one you think is me, for some bizarre reason. Were you quoting him for some reason?

          You can see why people might get confused. Not only do you rename people at will, you define anything and everything to mean things that exist in your fantasy.

          Lulz, lichurchur, and all the rest of your nonsensical utterances – and you don’t even have a reason for rejecting reality as you do! You really are a strange retarded moron, Wee Willy. Sometimes you make no sense, and sometimes you make no sense at all!

          Keep it up.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Meaningless Figure – search for Shatner commas.

            You are deflecting from the fact that Troglodyte fails to realize that I quoted you on the Insulation Effect.

            Have another quote:

            Just imagine the atmosphere is a nice warm insulating blanket if you like.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/01/canada-is-warming-at-only-1-2-the-rate-of-climate-model-simulations/#comment-599791

            You can try to support your Insulation Effect theory with insultation, but it might not work.

            Oh! Oh! Oh!

          • Swenson says:

            Whacky Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “You are deflecting from the fact that Troglodyte fails to realize that I quoted you on the Insulation Effect..

            I have never written the words “Insulation Effect”. Maybe Mike Flynn has – I don’t know, of course, so that makes you a liar, as well as a moron. The contents of your fantasy are not reality.

            As to “your Insulation Effect theory”, there is no such thing. Only a moron like you would say such a ridiculous thing (well, another one of your ilk might, I suppose).

            Go off and and perfect your moronic lying skills. Shouldn’t be too hard for a lying moron like you to achieve greatness in the field.

            Toodle-pip!

  44. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Another Arctic front is falling south over Alabama. Heavy frost in the northeastern US.
    https://i.ibb.co/mBvsS49/Screenshot-2.png

  45. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A strong geomagnetic storm is forecast for Wednesday, February second. It will affect the speed of the jet stream in the upper troposphere, and seismic and volcanic activity may increase.

  46. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    There is a strong possibility that an Arctic front will again appear over Texas in February.
    https://i.ibb.co/ZxDpYzX/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f120.png
    Since winter weather is ruled by the stratospheric polar vortex and stratospheric temperatures, it is impossible to show the effect of CO2 on winter temperatures unless you are burning in a fireplace.
    https://i.ibb.co/7v8FxBd/zt-nh.gif
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2022.png

  47. Tim Folkerts says:

    “DrRoySpencer.com has been demonetized by Google for ‘unreliable and harmful claims’.”

    Dr. Roy. I fear you just confirmed Google’s claim with your hyperbole.

    * “Global Warming Alarmism to Follow” — associating “alarmism” with “global warming”.
    * “Now, we all know that global warming was going to make snow a thing of the past” — a claim about England in the future, not about the the US this year.
    * “Global warming theory explains every outcome, apparently.” — as a scientist, you know this is not true. No scientist has ever claimed this.
    * “since it apparently causes sinister waviness in the jet stream.” — climate does not have human motives.
    * “brace yourselves, because global warming hysteria is coming.” — stirring the pot unnecessarily.

    This is exactly the sort of ammunition Google can use to support their decision.

    • Clint R says:

      TF, Spencer could care less about Google’s nonsensical decision. He’s mocking it.

      You really don’t understand subtleties very well. Just like you don’t understand physics. Maybe when you grow up, huh?

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Tim,
      It appears Dr. Spencer doesn’t give a rat’s ass what Google thinks.

    • Swenson says:

      Tim,

      Who cares what some morons at Google think? Their feeble attempt at suppression of scientific free speech through economic coercion is pointless.

      Google can make any decisions they like. So can governments who don’t like Google breaking their laws. Google’s threats don’t seem to be as powerful as they used to.

  48. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The wave of arctic air will now reach California.
    https://i.ibb.co/34n4kZt/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f036.png

  49. TeresaHall says:

    In 2022 many people are now joining online jobs very fast because it has potential. i joined this 3 months qa ago and in 3 months i totally received $50743 and all i was doing is copy and paste stuff in my part time. join now and start making money from this website.

    =-=-=->> http://smartincome240.blogspot.com

  50. CharlesStevens says:

    I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. I’ve never believed like it can be achievable however YTGR one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to avail…View

    more instructions visiting this web page >>> http://Www.Easywork2.com

Leave a Reply