DrRoySpencer.com has been demonetized by Google for “unreliable and harmful claims”. This means I can no longer generate revenue to support the website using the Google Adsense program.
From a monetary standpoint, it’s not a big deal because what I make off of Google ads is in the noise level of my family’s monthly budget. It barely made more than I pay in hosting fees and an (increasingly expensive) comment spam screener.
I’ve been getting Google warnings for a couple months now about “policy violations”, but nowhere was it listed what pages were in violation, and what those violations were. There are Adsense rules about ad placement on the page (e.g. a drop-down menu cannot overlay an ad), so I was assuming it was something like that, but I had no idea where to start looking with hundreds of web pages to sift through. It wasn’t until the ads were demonetized that Google offered links to the pages in question and what the reason was.
Of course, I should have figured out it was related to Google’s new policy about misleading content; a few months ago Google announced they would be demonetizing climate skeptic websites. I was kind of hoping my content was mainstream enough to avoid being banned since:
- I believe the climate system has warmed
- I believe most of this warming is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning
Many of you know that I defend much of mainstream climate science, including climate modeling as an enterprise. Where I depart of the “mainstream” is how much warming has occurred, how much future warming can be expected, and what should be done about it from an energy policy perspective.
From the information provided by Google about my violations, in terms of the number of ads served, by far the most frequented web pages here at drroyspencer.com with “unreliable and harmful claims” are our (UAH) monthly global temperature update pages. This is obviously because some activists employed by Google (who are probably weren’t even born when John Christy and I received both NASA and American Meteorological Society awards for our work) don’t like the answer our 43-year long satellite dataset gives. Nevermind that our dataset remains one of the central global temperature datasets used by mainstream climate researchers in their work.
For now I don’t plan on appealing the decision, because it’s not worth the aggravation. If you are considered a “climate skeptic” (whatever that means) Google has already said you are targeted for termination from their Adsense program. I can’t expect their liberal arts-educated “fact checkers” to understand the nuances of the global warming debate.
Beyond ridiculous.
We all need to find a way of deleting all program from our phones and computers that are owned an run by these creeps.
Agree
I actually have received $30,700 in no extra than 30 days via running part-time via a laptop. Just once I had misplaced my final job, (dro-69) I changed into so perturbed however happily I received this easy on-line provide now doing this I am equipped to get thousand of greenbacks from the consolation of my home. All of you may actually do that profession and advantage extra cash on-line traveling following site.
.
>>>>>>>>>> https://dollarscash12.blogspot.com/
Roy, I don’t think you’re getting your money’s worth from that “(increasingly expensive) comment spam screener.”
As for Google, it’s predictable: they’re a leftist outfit, and the Left is at war against science, and against Christian values. You are both a very fine scientist and a follower of Christ. From Google’s perspective, that’s two strikes against you.
I wouldn’t doubt that their “fact checking” is similar to facebook. In court preceedings, they admitted that their fact checks were meerly opinion.
Roy, please keep up the good work. i’ve been following you for years with many visits to your website. i just wish i could follow the math better. Maybe start publishing on rumble? Gotta be a host for your website that believes in free speech.
soldier on!
best regards,
scott Harder (chemistry from UWM)
What has happened to Roy is symptomatic of the ideological basis of AGW. It is a pseudo religion which dictates policy in the West and one of the results of that is sceptics are punished.
In Australia Dr Peter Ridd, an outstanding scientist, was fired and vilified by his university employer. Unfortunately after a first great result in court, when his matter went to the High Court, it was decided while he had a right to critique AGW, he could only critique AGW in a manner consistent with what his employer determined was acceptable. That is a classic give with one hand while taking away with the other situation. The government has promised to remedy this legislatively but since an election is imminent nothing will happen for the forseeable future.
There is no point trying to reason with alarmists and their corporate supporters. They are acolytes and have no capacity to reason about their belief. That leaves legal and political action as the only recourse.
Taking flack means you are over the target.
Bombs away!!
Congratulations, Dr. Spencer. Clearly your impact is far-reaching!
If you want privacy and security but need most of the bells and whistles in terms of smartphone functionality you’ll need a “de-googled” phone. You’ll need to do a some research on how to get one.
I suggest use Tails (Private and secure operating system on a USB stick) for general internet browsing on a PC. I recommend Metager.org as a search engine. I recommend Mullvad VPN. For operating systems I recommend Ubuntu, Debian or one of the Redhat related variants (note: Redhat itself is now owned by IBM).
Rob Braxman gives quite a lot of useful info on understanding and navigating your way around the big-tech creeps:
https://odysee.com/@RobBraxmanTech:6
Dear Mr Spencer. You have my full support. Keep doing what you are doing. Thank you for all your hard work too.
“If you are considered a “climate skeptic” (whatever that means)”
Good question. I don’t think it means being skeptical.
Skeptical:
1: not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
or
2 philosophy
relating to the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.
–Synonyms
disbelieving, distrustful, doubting, incredulous, mistrustful, negativistic, questioning, show-me, suspecting, suspicious, unbelieving
Antonyms
credulous, gullible (also gullable), trustful, trusting, uncritical, unquestioning —
It might be impossible to know what a “climate skeptic” means.
Aside from difficulty in the definition of those that do not blindly accept the alarmist faith the real crunch is coming. Here in Europe natural gas prices have shot up due to the September and October lack of wind which forced suppliers to scramble for gas generated electricity when there was not enough to go around. We are at the start of an energy crisis in Europe due to the virtue signalling alarmists like Google that demonise fossil fuel to the point the poor and the old are going to die. The public that has swallowed the false and erroneous overstated narrative of warming and its effects are going to wake up as inflation and shortages hit home.
As an energy expert the looming storm has been identified and the gathering storm understood. Germany has volunteered to close 3 nuclear power stations at 5he end of 2021. The U.K. has just shut one die to end of its useful life and another goes in a few months. We will have only 10% of our electricity from nuclear this decade down from over 32% o& supply at its peak. All this while people buy electric cars that were cheap to charge and which will add to electric demanded as supply reduces…… there is a reckoning coming….
https://www.cfact.org/2022/01/07/energy-anguish-hits-britain/
Let the reckoning begin. Google be damned.
Google and political ideologues are principal culprits in undermining the public understanding of what science is and confidence that it is the strongest approach to understanding the natural world. I have used your data on various occasions, noting that warming per decade over the past three decades has been around .14 C rather than the .3 C projected by the U.N. in 1990 or the .2 C projected in 2014. I noted a few days ago that going back four decades, your measured rate seems to be closer to .2 C. I was planning to ask you what the prediction is in the most recent U.N. report. This is called an intelligent, open discussion about the issue based on facts. Google more and more is highlighting the fact that its goal is not to allow access to all the knowledge of the world but, rather, to promote a “narrative” and never mind the facts. I say sue them.
Social media in general, and 24h cable news has enabled the situation we have where there is no shared truth anymore.
Every group has their own facts now, and trust in all institutional knowledge has declined.
More accurately, Nate, each group selectively chooses a subset of facts that they embellish with unfounded allegations and unsupported leaps of faith to arrive at fodder for sensational headlines, regressive opinion pieces, and non-contextual sound bites–all in the name of click rates, ad revenue, fund raising, and, most egregiously, manipulation of public opinion to control the electorate.
Great wisdom in that comment.
is this the old “Nasty Nate”,
or a different Nate?
The science was being undermined in the 1980s when wild guess predictions of an imagined coming climate crisis got louder (they began in the pate 1950s), and the 1980s were before Google existed.
It was not yet heavily politicized in the 1980s. The scientific community was not yet heavily demonized in the 1980s.
IPCC established in 1988
Infamous James Hansen
“triple prediction” (all wrong)
global warming pitch to Congress
in 1988 too.
1988 was the launch of
high confidence (unjustified)
climate alarmism
1988 is in the 1980s
I was right
and you were wrong
nyah nyah nyah
In a speech at NOAA.
Fast forward to 2016, not one of a dozen R presidential candidates was free to acknowledge that AGW was real.
Thus, the topic was much less politicized 30 y ago.
This meant to be after below post.
hallo
A Republican President said this in 1990.
”
I reaffirm America’s commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention and it’s central goal, to stabilise atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate. Our immediate goal is to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our economy.
My administration is committed to cutting our nation’s greenhouse gas intensity – how much we emit per unit of economic activity – by 18% over the next 10 years. This will set America on a path to slow the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, to stop and then reverse the growth of emissions.
This is the common sense way to measure progress. Our nation must have economic growth – growth to create opportunity; growth to create a higher quality of life for our citizens. Growth is also what pays for investments in clean technologies, increased conservation, and energy efficiency. Meeting our commitment to reduce our greenhouse gas intensity by 18% by the year 2012 will prevent over 500m metric tons of greenhouse gases from going into the atmosphere over the course of the decade. And that is the equivalent of taking 70m cars off the road.
To achieve this goal, our nation must move forward on many fronts, looking at every sector of our economy. We will challenge American businesses to further reduce emissions. Already, agreements with the semiconductor and aluminum industries and others have dramatically cut emissions of some of the most potent greenhouse gases. We will build on these successes with new agreements and greater…”
If you believe Bush Sr., Jr, or any of that clan are actual republicans, you probably also believe Kaitlyn Jenner is a woman.
Totally ridiculous act from Google. I’d consider moving your whole blog to a WordPress site, as there’s no idea to provide content to Google if they are that subjective. Happy to offer help in the moving process, no fee due to your great openness policy regarding your data. Do contact if my help would be welcome.
I’ve built Gindex to estimate upcoming months for Global Lower Troposphere, and your UAH-result was essential in the beginning of its development. I still follow its success comparing to UAH6 LT. So far.
They probably know that the global temperature will soon start to fall dramatically now when GSM is kicking in.
No doubt this decision by Google will be applauded by the usual crowd of alarmists on this forum. You know who you are.
Unbelievable. What is the climate expertise of the person that made this decision? A degree in social studies? Find a new home Dr. Spencer, it won’t be long before they censor you.
Just another salvo from the anti-science brigade. This too will pass.
No point taking legal action (particularly in the US). Like Facebook, Google will eventually just admit that “unreliable and harmful claims” are actually just “opinions”, and thus protected under the First Amendment.
It may well be that Google is trying to punish you for allowing those such as myself to express opinions, and having the temerity to base opinions on facts.
My sympathy extends to contemplating the previously unthinkable – a donation to ensure your blog continues
All the best. Unfortunately, the ravening mob with their torches and pitchforks often get their way – for a while, at least.
Found it.
Might be appropriate –
“First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.”
Great quote. Did Gandhi steal it from a speech from the 1918 Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America strike? https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/And_Then_They_Build_Monuments_to_You
Regarding climate, which is commonly regarded as synonymous with weather, there a lot to be skeptical about. But weather in terms of two day forecast, is pretty good.
One could say we have got a lot infrastructure related to weather which allows forecasting for the next 2 days and lots of “good work” which allows this.
I am not very skeptical, about it being roughly and mostly being “accurate enough”. Beyond two days, they can generally give a clue, 5 or 6 days is less of clue but useful enough to consider as more possible than not.
And obviously, lifesaving in terms tornadas and dangerous things like that.
But that still requires some skepticism- as does everything. As in simply, double checking things which you regard as important.
Not being skeptical of climate, seems to merely to indicate ignorance.
It also seems to be insisting that climate is not important.
I think, weather is fairly important.
And its elementary stuff, that we are living in an Ice Age.
What climate means to some people, is the mystery.
Some apparently don’t even understand what causes seasons,
and it’s hard to understand, what world they are living in.
Just remember that Facebook lawyers said their “fact checkers” write an “opinion” not “facts” according to submissions to the court.
Would creating a new anomaly offset based on the early years of your data or some estimate of 100 years ago plicate their objections (make the headline numbers look bigger but trend remains the same)?
Would disabling all public comments plicate their objections?
Is it even possible to speak with a real person at Google (or the 3rd party contractor) to negotiate?
I don’t agree that this blog fits into their criteria, unless they include the Comments section.
I think its a mistake.
i think it is a mistake for you to say that. Under the communist regime, correctly anticipating and towing the party line is a question of life and death. Juts saying what you said pretty much makes you a climate denier, how do you like that?
Luckily this is not China.
not china *yet*
not China yet.
Exactly correct, and that is what is being missed by most everyone. The psychology of censoring free speech by moral Supremacists is the most insidious threat from this incident. Having an opinion and expressing it in any forum, should be sacrosanct. Defending the rights of individuals to express their opinion even when we disagree, should take precedence over concerns about any topic. This is shades of the Red Guard, Brownshirts and KGB.
“shades of the Red Guard, Brownshirts and KGB.”
Exactly! There is no difference between fascistic and Soviet crack down. The First Amendment of the US constitution was first for a reason. Humanity’s biggest threat is not CO2.
Maybe read the First Amendment before deciding it is relevant here.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Censorship in China or in other authoritarian regimes is not the same at all as what is going on here.
Censorship is a government banning publication of criticism of the government, information embarrassing or detrimental to the regime.
In this instance, if a publisher chooses not to publish my speech, there is always another one who may choose to, or there is the public square.
I think there is a reasonable fear of what google has become. They started as a search engine and now are a censorship engine. But they’ve monetized the web better than most through their add sales and that involves collecting information that can be sold to others, like add buyers. But can they record tremendous amounts of data and that data can potentially be used by political entities.
There are two lessons from this action against this web site. A small amount of money stopped flowing to Dr. Spencer which is of little consequence. I suspect Google made as much if not more than Dr. Spencer from these same adds. But look at the news publishing industry as a whole. It is a shell that has been hollowed out by loss of add revenue but also because companies like google end up with half the online add revenue.
I also fear that google has greater fear of regulation by Democrats than they do by Republicans. Censoring actions like this I suspect these gestures are bones they throw to the regulatory state to show they are a useful team player to the party in power. And wasn’t it just revealed that the Pelosi’s showed confidence in the continued success of the Silicon Valley tech sector by their stock purchases?
google dropped its “don’t be evil” motto a few years back… Perhaps under the standard that it was misleading.
Nate, when said “publisher” is a major economic engine that is aligned with a government ideology, whether willingly or by force, especially when that ideology currently holds a tricameral majority, it is evidence of a free society devolving into socialism. As for First Amendment applicability, the allegation that Google is acting as an agent of the Democrat party in deed supports the assertion that “Google Gov” is in fact “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” When the likes of Google, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook/Meta, Wikipedia, Snopes, MSM, and education sectors, supporting Democrat ideological goals, all conspire to censor free dialog, it now is a case that “there was no one left to speak for me.”
“when said ‘publisher’ is a major economic engine that is aligned with a government ideology”
Is it really hard to find right-leaning content on Youtube, Facebook, Twitter?
Kinda hard to believe.
Speaking of media empires aligned with one ideology, how bout Sinclair Media, who owns countless numbers of local TV and radio stations, and imposes politically conservative content on them.
Anytime media becomes a near monopoly its not a good thing. Im in favor of breaking them up.
They are virtually the same Nate, when the government structures the law to exempt the social media companies (publishers) from liability for any content, and then calls them on the carpet to demand that they censor the content – or lose their exemption. Not so subtle a method of achieving the desired censorship.
The current issue is about monetizing content with ads.
Google is essentially forming a partnership with the content providers, providing them with ads and both receive income from this.
Its like an ad company placing ads in magazines or in a baseball stadium.
Who they partner with is their business decision. They may not want to partner with Breitbart, because Breitbart publishes anti-science anti-Green content.
They may not want to partner with content providers who may hurt their reputation as ‘green’ with customers and Ad buyers.
Its their decision who to partner with, one that all companies make all the time.
All companies worry about their reputation.
” when the government structures the law to exempt the social media companies (publishers) from liability for any content, and then calls them on the carpet to demand that they censor the content ‘
Im not aware of the government doing that. They may have asked them to remove content of international terrorists organizations like ISSIS.
Currently Congress has been pressured by the public (their constituents) to do some thing about social media.
One big issue was the algorithms that are designed to send you content that may be harmful to young people. A young girl looks at a pretty and skinny model, so she gets linked to information on how wonderful Bulimia is.
Agreed, Nate. This blog should not be demonetised.
I dont agree that this blog fits into their criteria, unless they include the Comments section.
Oops Nate lets it slip. Clear supporter of Google censoring opinions he disagrees with.
No doubt hed also claim to be a champion of free speech.
You don’t seem to know what free speech means.
If I send my book to a publisher, do they have to publish it? Maybe its crap. Thats not a free speech issue.
If I send a letter to a newspaper, do they have to publish it?
Are you saying an online publisher must publish my speech? And I should get paid for it? Otherwise its censorship?
What happened to free enterprise?
So the real question remains…. is Google a publisher or a platform? Should Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. have the same power and protections as the traditional print-publishers?
I would have sympathy for Google and support their right to choose what they publish if they were not a defacto monopoly. But they are a monopoly. We have a legal framework for monopolies, it should apply here.
They are platforms – or at least they claim they are when seeking exemption from liability (section 230). And I agree with them on that point. However, when they start to control the content on their platforms, they become publishers. Two distinct things Nate.
AT&T/Ma Bell provided platforms for voice communications for many years, even in a monopolistic fashion. They were not allowed to listen to our conversations and restrict them if they thought we were not truthful or if the particular company listener disagreed with us. That would have been considered outrageous. And it still should be considered outrageous.
How is this any different?
“They were not allowed to listen to our conversations and restrict them if they thought we were not truthful or if the particular company listener disagreed with us.”
Apples and oranges. Those are private conversations, not public postings or publications.
I disagree that they are apples and oranges. Whether you are communicating one to one (phone conversation) or one to many (internet), the medium owner should not be monitoring the content.
Public or private, the ones generating the content of their speech are the ones responsible for it.
Censorship is NEVER desirable. I think in this case when we talk about these monopoly providers and realize that one or two companies can destroy a company like Parlor, we’ve let things get out of hand.
I think that is the point here and that is what underlies all this argument about minutiae, as these comment sections always seem to devolve into.
Libel-
“a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation”.
Doesnt appear to apply to a private phone call.
Different beast.
Nate gave his answer obviously he believes it is OK for a public accommodation to discriminate and deny participation based upon a persons beliefs.
Seems pretty darned anti-liberal to me. Free enterprise???
Nate what in the world gives you the idea that free enterprise should get or even desires a free pass to discriminate? Only bigots desire that.
Google is restricting free speech. They are neither an advertiser who may choose where to place their ads, nor are they a publisher of Roy’s website.
All Google does is provide a public accommodation for advertisers to place ads (giving advertisers choices regarding where they desire to advertise) and also acts as a public accommodation to website publishers who desire ad revenue and also can select the type of advertising they desire.
Google is just a middle man accommodator. This sort of behavior is repugnant if not down and out illegal. If it is not illegal it should be.
But its definitely the sort of behavior one can expect when anybody becomes too powerful, whether it be government or enterprise.
“Public accommodations, in the law of the United States, are generally defined as facilities, whether publicly or privately owned, that are used by the public at large. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments, and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centers.”
“Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of ‘race, color, religion, or national origin.[1][2]’
I don’t think any of that applies here.
Nate now fancies himself to be a lawyer.
Google’s services may not currently be considered a public accommodation; but thats would be simply because hardly any commerce was occurring online when the law was written.
today access to online services is a necessity for many.
Very clearly what Google is doing. . . .denying services on the basis of ones beliefs is immoral. And you are an immoral man supporting such discrimination.
Thank you Bill. Well put. I always forget to stop debating with someone who is irrational, or whose ethics prevent meaningful discourse. I think what a lot of us realize is that these continued efforts to silence certain people are just plain wrong and should not be tolerated. Part of the answer may be to just side-step individuals like Nate and move on and try to devise and promote solutions.
“denying services on the basis of ones beliefs”
Nope.
Deciding who to form a business partnership with based on the potential partner’s profile, statements, etc is a completely normal business decision.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1135655
“stop debating with someone who is irrational, or whose ethics prevent meaningful discourse. ”
You guys seem to agree that anyone who can articulate a different opinion than yours, on a complicated issue like this, must be crazy or fascist, as Bill noted!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1116563
there’s gotta be other ad networks, i mean it is a free market, innit?
>> and an (increasingly expensive) comment spam screener
not very effective neether, haha
No more ads?
Great success!
there used to be ads here?
Yep.
Not if you use ad blockers, like adblock for Windows and ublock for the UNIX family.
only the “tracker blocking”. Which btw says that it blocks 3 tracker from google syndication right now. Go figure…
No more Willard would be
a greater success !
Oh Nate, so Google, Facebook and Twitter ARE publishers now? And to think theyve been telling us that theyre not. Whod have guessed? Cats out of the bag.
True, it is a complicated as to whether and how much they are ‘publishers’.
They want protection from being sued for libel as a newspaper can be.
But on the other hand they have advertisers like TV or newspapers. Advertisers don’t want to have their ads posted adjacent to speech by neo-Nazis or Isis.
They thus need to figure out how to prevent that. Are you saying they don’t have the right to this thing that keeps their business functioning?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/17/google-ministers-quiz-placement-ads-extremist-content-youtube
I agree Nate, it is absolutely the right of Google (or any other faceless internet entity) to take any action it sees fit…
Just so long as the decision making process and the names of the individuals responsible for making any decision are in the public domain.
The only way to expose bias is to shine a light on it
Nate says:
But on the other hand they have advertisers like TV or newspapers. Advertisers don’t want to have their ads posted adjacent to speech by neo-Nazis or Isis.
They thus need to figure out how to prevent that. Are you saying they don’t have the right to this thing that keeps their business functioning?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/17/google-ministers-quiz-placement-ads-extremist-content-youtube
====================
LMAO! So now Nate is claiming drroyspencer.com is the equivalent of ISIS or Neo-Nazi content?
Google uses technology to provide its customers and clients choices of advertising content (such as sexual content). There would be nothing wrong with also including other categories; but thats not what Google is doing. They aren’t even qualified to do what they are doing, nor do they have any mandate to go to the extremes they are taking.
Nate you are just a plain old ordinary run of the mill goon.
Typical Bill, loses again, and switches into ad-hom mode.
“So now Nate is claiming drroyspencer.com is the equivalent of ISIS or Neo-Nazi content”
Typical Bill slander.
I already stated that I don’t think this blog fits their criteria.
In a world where responsibility actually applies to at least some, by definition, what they do is their criteria.
Others will simply claim a lack of responsibility. Admitting responsibility only occurs when the boom is dropped on them.
Hiding behind the skirts of others and condoning, rationalizing, advancing, and/or giving into tyranny is what cowards do.
And as to your claimed slander Nate. . . .you are the one that made the argument with conditions stated as ISIS and Neo-Nazi. I don’t hear you condemning what Google has done to any degree. All I hear you doing is making excuses for it and not-so-subtly supporting their actions.
Sounds like if it was Isis or neo-Nazis youd be ok with Google demonetizing their blog?
No actually I am not for Google defunding anything. Giving advertisers options to advertise or not I am completely for.
As to organizations recruiting or encouraging people to commit crimes I would favor Google working with law enforcement to get the people arrested. Not defunding the site would seem to be the better strategy in not tipping the aholes off.
Ok, so if you were CEO of Google you would enable neo-Nazi or ISIS blogs to be funded and have access to hundreds of millions of Google’s customers eyeballs? That’s your ‘morality’?
Easy to say, but not easy to do with stock holders, the public and congressmen of both parties breathing down your neck.
Obviously Nate you are opposed to speech you don’t like. Its not Google’s call. People should not be deprived of liberties without due process.
Now when ISIS has been blogging they are recruiting criminal activity. Thus they should be reported and law enforcement should get involved.
The reason you are a complete jerk is you think your eyeballs and your intelligence is superior to the general population. You are the perfect fit as a Nazi.
“Its not Googles call. People should not be deprived of liberties without due process.”
Don’t be daft.
You have no ‘liberty’ of free access to space on Google’s hard drives nor to receive income from this company.
“Now when ISIS has been blogging they are recruiting criminal activity. Thus they should be reported and law enforcement should get involved.”
Sure, we’ll just send some cops over to wherever they are to arrest them, dimwit.
Gee Nate are you really so stupid that you can’t actually think of a single alternative?
You just like Google, Facebook, and Twitter doing it as they are the corporate supporters of your particular brand of fascism.
The results are a perfect example of how fascism works.
Nate says:
”Don’t be daft.
You have no ‘liberty’ of free access to space on Google’s hard drives nor to receive income from this company.”
what a fking moron! Google ads aren’t free dimwit!
Bill, You are spinning out of control.
Seems like you want to impose your will, your beliefs, your so-called ‘morality’ onto a company and force them to conduct their business how YOU think they should-to force them to post ALL content without restrictions on their servers.
Conservatives and libertarians, and the SCOTUS will have a problem with that.
Now, if a company like Google goes too far in restricting content they risk pissing off a bunch of customers.
Nate says:
Bill, You are spinning out of control.
Seems like you want to impose your will, your beliefs, your so-called ‘morality’ onto a company and force them to conduct their business how YOU think they should-to force them to post ALL content without restrictions on their servers.
Conservatives and libertarians, and the SCOTUS will have a problem with that.
Now, if a company like Google goes too far in restricting content they risk pissing off a bunch of customers.
———————–
Wholly Krap! You don’t have a clue about what you are talking about!
Google Ads isn’t a content provider! Your mouth is moving and nonsense is pouring out.
And the Supreme Court would not need 5 minutes to realize how ridiculous your argument is.
Its like a cake store. If you sell cakes to the public you have sell to everybody. If you personally make cakes and sell them then you don’t necessarily have to make certain cakes if it violates your beliefs. Google sells ad space like cakes but they don’t make or own the space or the ads.
“Its like a cake store. If you sell cakes to the public you have sell to everybody. If you personally make cakes and sell them then you don’t necessarily have to make certain cakes if it violates your beliefs. Google sells ad space like cakes but they don’t make or own the space or the ads.”
Well at least this part is an attempt at civil dialogue and logic, Bill. If you can keep it civil, I’ll keep discussing.
Analogies to a publisher or a baker are not perfect here.
The baker case ” Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state’s public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation”
But recently SCOTUS ruled that a baker did not have to serve the customer, and provide a cake for their gay wedding celebration.
And conservatives applauded this. It was an infringement of the business owner’s First Amendement Rights.
But I DO think that this is a contradiction, by conservatives, and by your earlier argument .
Google “acts as a public accommodation to website publishers who desire ad revenue and also can select the type of advertising they desire.
Google is just a middle man accommodator. This sort of behavior is repugnant if not down and out illegal. If it is not illegal it should be.”
Google owns Youtube which hosts content. They also facilitate the posting of ads and the income stream to Google and then to the poster.
As I pointed out earlier people do not want their ads next to extremist content. That is quite reasonable. It is reasonable, IMO, for Google to demonetize extremist content to make their business work and to meet the demands of Congress and the public.
But again, I dont agree that Roy Spencer’s blog fits the bill.
Nate says:
”Google owns Youtube which hosts content. They also facilitate the posting of ads and the income stream to Google and then to the poster.”
———————-
Still you don’t understand that ‘hosting’ content isn’t even remotely similar to ‘providing’ content. Our cake company was a custom cake maker/provider. The fact they no doubt had regular cake designs they also sold that they are required to sell to anybody isn’t relevant at all.
=
=
=
=
Nate says:
”As I pointed out earlier people do not want their ads next to extremist content. That is quite reasonable. It is reasonable, IMO, for Google to demonetize extremist content to make their business work and to meet the demands of Congress and the public.”
———————-
I pointed out Nate that yes Google can provide categories where advertisers can select the type of site their ads will display and website owners can select certain types of ads they don’t want. They already provide that service to both websites and advertisers.
They are out of place making the decisions themselves.
That is purely politically motivated. And as you well know comparing what they are doing to Roy has absolutely nothing to do with ISIS or Neo Nazis. Yet you choose to make that comparison as your primary line of argument.
I don’t know when they stopped teaching kids in school that free speech involves tolerating speech you don’t like. There are obvious reasons for that that perhaps are a bit too complex for you to grasp.
Though the argument here is in regards to an entirely different issue. You have chosen to ignore that issue because you know you can’t make a case for it.
=
=
=
=
Nate says:
”But again, I dont agree that Roy Spencer’s blog fits the bill.”
Well since the only ”bill” you have so far described is ISIS and Neo Nazis that 1) seems way to abundantly obvious; and 2) Says absolutely nothing that even marginally distinguishes you from the usual tactics of those very same ISIS and Neo-Nazi idiots.
Bill, You did very well at keeping it civil up until
” seems way to abundantly obvious; and 2) Says absolutely nothing that even marginally distinguishes you from the usual tactics of those very same ISIS and Neo-Nazi idiots.”
None of these issue are as cut-and-dried and obvious as you portray them. That I have a different opinion than you does not make me evil, Bill.
Not even the cake case was obvious for SCOTUS.
The SCOTUS majority opinion stated they would have ruled in favor of the gay married couple, had the Colorado Civil Rights Commission “remained religiously neutral in their evaluation”
Nate says:
”None of these issue are as cut-and-dried and obvious as you portray them. That I have a different opinion than you does not make me evil, Bill.”
I never said it did Nate. What I said is your response didn’t at all demonstrate that you aren’t virtually the same.
When one draws a line so extreme you suggest everything short of that line is OK. You said that you think Roy’s blog doesn’t qualify but you continue to defend Google’s right to decide if Roy went over the line.
In the end this approach is indistinguishable form the early actions of the Nazis and ISIS punishing people without due process. Actions that continually became worse and worse over time.
I would say next we will see political litmus tests in hiring decisions but I am afraid we are already there.
“In the end this approach is indistinguishable form the early actions of the Nazis and ISIS punishing people without due process. Actions that continually became worse and worse over time.”
Every argument like this ends up with someone being called a Nazi…
Again you guys applaud when a business aligned with you applied an ideological litmus test to the customers USE of their product, without ‘due process’ in the case of the cake baker.
You seem to feel businesses do have rights to do this. You make a tortured argument about why that case was different, but even SCOTUS is equivocal. And in that instance the customer was in a specific group protected undrr the law. .
So you have your opinion, I have mine. Enough with hyperbolic ad homs!!
Nate says:
Every argument like this ends up with someone being called a Nazi…
——————————-
Nobody called anybody a Nazi Nate. The thing about Nazi’s is never forget what, who, and how they came to be.
=
=
=
=
Nate says:
Again you guys applaud when a business aligned with you applied an ideological litmus test to the customers USE of their product, without ‘due process’ in the case of the cake baker.
You seem to feel businesses do have rights to do this. You make a tortured argument about why that case was different, but even SCOTUS is equivocal.
———————————-
again you fail completely to see the distinction. If Google were a custom cake maker they as a Company would have no protection of the law against being ‘personally’ being forced to build a cake that violated their religion. However, individual employees would and that was decided in a different case where the Company demanded work from Muslim employees in a situation the Company could have worked around. . . .i.e. it wasn’t the only job they did.
And it was not in regard to the customer ‘use’ of the product at all. It was about actually building a custom cake that was a violation of the religious laws of the actual person building the cake.
I don’t know all the details of the case and perhaps this particular cake maker would have lost the case if the lower courts had found the company had an employee whom would not object to making the cake. So in that case they weren’t truly protecting individual freedom of religion and instead were deciding for their employees. Using corporations as surrogates of the state is exactly what fascist nations found as a fantastic avenue to their objectives.
But the case brought in front of them was on the basis of religion. . . .obviously a ‘Company’ cannot have a religion. . . .maybe that was the mistake of the State regulator as mentioned by the SCOTUS.
It is truly distressing these principles are no longer taught in school. It seems we are building entire generations of ignorant individuals for the precise purposes of serving Government authority.
That is what Fascism is and is only what it is.
Do you also think the Nazi’s had a Conscientious Objector exemption? Or ISIS for that matter either? Not hardly could you call it an exemption. . . .it is more like an execution.
As Mussolini was famously noted for in a speech. ”Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”
Protecting individual freedoms is the only thing that stands between us and fascism. And that is why so many immigrants want to come here and today we have a major political party that wants to regulate the air we breathe on the sole basis of some fantastic wholly projected disaster scenario. This is the sort of krap I have been working against for decades.
=
=
=
=
Nate says:
”And in that instance the customer was in a specific group protected undrr the law. .”
———————–
Indeed! The fact that the law is incomplete in that it doesn’t envision all groups equally remains a continuing problem still in need of resolution. We now have the Government officially endorsing discrimination by race for the sole purpose of winning votes from bigots.
Bill,
It seems to me that the distinctions you are making between the rights of different types of businesses to reject customers (ok if it was a custom cake for a gay marriage) are rather legalistic, nuanced and poorly qualified. You even admit you dont know the details.
Yet you feel righteous in your certainty that this kind of thing, poorly defined as it is, will lead to the equivalent of facsism?!
Nate says:
It seems to me that the distinctions you are making between the rights of different types of businesses to reject customers (ok if it was a custom cake for a gay marriage) are rather legalistic, nuanced and poorly qualified. You even admit you dont know the details.
Yet you feel righteous in your certainty that this kind of thing, poorly defined as it is, will lead to the equivalent of facsism?!
——————————-
The only thing certain Nate is you are incapable of reading and understanding what I wrote.
I rather clearly stated that conscientious objection is not limited to fighting in a war. It also covers not be required to bake a certain kind of cake.
But Google can’t tell the government they can’t draft any of their employees because the owners of Google are pacifists and are conscientious objectors (hypothetically).
So if even you have a business baking and designing customs cakes and you can only claim the right for you yourself to not bake the cake and not for your whole company. If its a one man shop then the company will not be required to bake that cake.
But if the company has employees who bake cakes that aren’t conscientious objectors then the owner of the company cannot exempt them simply because he owns the company.
If they don’t have employees who object then the business cannot be required to bake the cake anymore than the telephone company could be required to bake the cake.
When I said I don’t know the details of the case, I don’t know if the business should have been required to bake the cake. And I don’t know that because the enforcement commission was too incompetent to make an enforceable and reviewable case that would require the company to bake the cake. Which is a fact you already noted.
Nate says:
”Again you guys applaud when a business aligned with you applied an ideological litmus test to the customers USE . . . .”
——————–
Nate you are such a fascist tool! You fail to understand completely what a conservative stands for.
”you guys” is some invented strawman whose characteristics have been sold to you by your daddy. Right out of the Joseph Goebbels playbook!
As carefully explained above conservatives (especially the conservatives on the Supreme Court!!!!!!!!!!) stand for individual rights, not the rights of corporations! Conservatives simply understand that free enterprise is absolutely a necessity to prevent the accumulation of absolute power by the government.
But there is still an incredibly great danger of fascism when you have corporations doing the bidding of the socialists whom to a man are either completely ignorant of the need for individual freedoms or are in on the scam and plan to benefit greatly from the power they plan to accumulate.
There are only two possibilities. Either you are ignorant of that or you are in on the scam. Many people do have one foot on the personal freedom dock and the other foot on the socialist ferry they believe is headed to Utopia. . . . but always turns out to be Fascist Hell.
Nate says:
Every argument like this ends up with someone being called a Nazi…
Again you guys applaud when a business aligned with you applied an ideological litmus test to the customers USE of their product, without ‘due process’ in the case of the cake baker.
———————-
Seems Nate has run away. To be clear I am not calling anybody a Nazi or a Fascist. And it seems those who are calling ‘fascist’ don’t even know what a fascist is.
One can review the 26 points of fascism and recognize that the key attribute is what the inventor of the term, Benito Mussolini, defined it as: ”Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”
https://archive.org/stream/Twenty-sixPointManifestoOfTheSpanishFalange/ProgramOfTheFalange_djvu.txt
I agree with much of The good Dr’s opinion and will use Duck-Duck Go as my browser and have removed my fb app (try posting a link).
I disagree with the assumption that the people behind this are liberal arts majors. There are plenty of Information technology and other science tech majors that tow the sky is falling line and some liberal arts majors who disagree.
Since that would mean that Android and Apple IOS must be deleted from our phones……can you tell me a simple Linux based degoogleed phone operating system? The we could drop them, I already deleted FartBook and Twitter.
I am routinely censored/blocked here (by google?), but if you need money to continue this vital site of freedom of speech please let us know. Thank you Roy.
No one is ‘censored/blocked here’.
Simply avoid comments (and within them, especially links) containing problematic character sequences, like
– ‘d’ immediately followed by ‘c’
– ‘p’ immediately followed by ‘t’.
As an example, Roy Spencer can publish his own links to UAH data
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncd c_lt_6.0.txt
whenever he wants, but we – and… you – can’t do that because the link contains ‘d’ immediately followed by ‘c’ (separated here by a blank, of course – otherwise the comment wouldn’t become posted).
If this is true i thank you for the advice,
but why in the hell should such a sequence be problematic???
let me test this by fixing “HAD.CRUT”
“Also, the HAD.CRUT temperature record for 1910-1945 indicates a global warming roughly the same as 1970-2005, even though the CO2 increase rate was 4 times greater in the latter period. What caused this warming?
[see: https://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2058 ]
The alarmist propagandists will never acknowledge this difficulty.
I am not saying the 3C/doubling ECS high sensitivity is wrong, simply that there is observational and theoretical evidence that it could reasonably be wrong. The question is not settled. This reasonable possibility will never be acknowledged by alarmist propagandists , as you would expect.”
Hurray it worked. Thank you Bindidon for taking the time to help me.
Does everyone know this? does Roy?
Are there any other sequences to be avoided?
Roy knows about, tried to fix it, but was unable to fix it.
Most posters know about it, and other gitches.
The regulars here know about these things (and more), and for some of them Roy is mystified why they occur.
The d c thing is purely because of a banned commenter and their numerous sock puppets. Why putting p and t together voids comments in unknown. Someone may know why certain characters turn into gobbledygook when copied and pasted, but I haven’t seen it articulated.
In short – you are not being censored, the website has glitches.
m d mill
Glad to have helped a little bit.
No other problematic sequences are known to me.
But… another undocumented problem was that if you tried to post a comment containing more than 4 links, it simply disappeared.
Nowadays, the comment is placed ‘under moderation’ (but is never published), so at least you can modify it if you had forgotten to save it in some text editor before.
Not sure about the link thingy – I believe that might be more to do with what is contained in the url string. I’ve never had a problem with posting more than 4 links, but I usually have at least 3 tinyurls among them.
Eg, posted 6 links with no moderation here a couple days ago.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1118751
barry
In theory, it’s IMHO IMHO really trivial to understand: all your 6 links are using the HTML anchor feature, and thus hide http[s]//: off the stream processed by the blogs probably ugly scanner, what prevents it from counting the number of links.
I tried 8 successive anchors, but that didn’t work.
Awful, just awful! Your work has been impeccable for decades and reflects the best of the scientific community — and, unfortunately, the small kernel of objectivity and honesty that remains in the climate science community. That Google considers your consistently well-reasoned and civil postings “unreliable and harmful” speaks volumes about mental disorder afflicting their staff and so much of Big Tech. They have no clue how much damage they are doing to science and to the country.
So unfortunate this has happened, but if you relocate, wherever you go, I will follow. Godspeed!
Banning people is usually due to one of two reasons
They are so big and powerful they can
Or
The content is making them look foolish.
Probably a combination, hopefully just the latter.
I stopped using Google search and Chrome a few years ago. Good to know that I made the right choice. Never again.
Heres a prescription: dont use Google, use DuckDuckGo. Dont use Twitter, use GETTR. Dont use YouTube, use Rumble and Odysee.
These Marxists will not stop until they are deprived of their economic power.
I think you should find an organization that will sue on your behalf. This has to stop. Theyre violating their own terms of service, with real harm as a result.
Today if you are not spouting the world is gonna end in 10 years and we have to eat the babies you are in the denier camp
https://youtu.be/oBJlzD0BFXI
Probably nothing to do with Google.
This site has very eccentric filters. Words like absor*bed will get a comment blocked.
So will the letter d followed by the letter c, legacy of an awkward long-gone commenter. For example, references to the National Sea Ice Data Centre (NSID*C) tend to be blocked.
Recommended strategy. Copy your comment before submitting. If it is rejected, submit it again one paragraph at a time until you find the problem.
Using tiny for links is good idea, and if long link, just use tiny as habit:
https://tinyurl.com/app
Or, say:
https://tinyurl.com/2p8katy6
[Dennis Pragers Guide to New Years Resolutions]
I’ve been banned by WUWT, Tallbloke and Bob Tisdale. Should I be reinstated?
You should go to Appel’s Quark soup and just stay there
Double standards,Eben?
You complain when Dr. Spencer’s right to free speech is compromised, but want to do the same to me.
Don’t understand why WUWT banned you? You’re too easy to debunk.
To the contrary.
I suspect I was banned because I found them too easy to debunk.
Bob Tisdale banned me because I kept showing that his views made no sense when you considered the energy flows required.
Linky or it does not exist, EM.
Shrug. You could always ask him.
I suspect it was because you were being disrespectful, like Arple was banned on this site. He was very disrespectful to Berry too on his site. Berry crushed him. You can’t argue against math. When Arple couldn’t refute the math he succumbed to insults, somewhat as he did with Spencer.
Arple is funny, not funny, funny, but nutso funny. He returned to Berry’s site under another name but Dr. Berry didn’t pick up on it. I picked up on it immediately because Arple is so obvious. You can’t disguise a warped brain.
I assume you mean Mr. Apple?
Yes he is disrespectful
However he also understands basic climate science.
While Berry is a crackpot “sciemtist”.
Apple’s problem is he also believes the future climate can be accurately predicted, can only get worse, and will be a catastrophe. That’s after 120 years of inaccurate climate predictions. And maybe there were some inaccurate predictions in the 1800s too.
Those predictions can not be based on data, because there are no data for the future. Predictions are a mix of unproven theories and speculation — that’s not real science.
So even knowing a lot about basic climate science does not mean you know anything about the future climate. Mr. Apple does not agree. But at least he does not rewrite basic climate science like Berry does.
I have never been banned from anywhere, and I am probably
quite annoying.
But they complained I posted too much at
https://selenianboondocks.com/
So, I have been restraining myself, there.
Also talking about pipelaunchers is seems to annoy
people.
I like to talk about it- so it can be annoying, but I want someone to show how I am wrong.
Which main reason post anywhere, it’s about learning, stuff.
Anyhow, pipelauncher is huge pipe which very tall, for instance,
10 meter diameter and 100 meter tall. Which has one end capped.
And put in water, and it will float vertically.
And put rockets on top of it.
But with the tall and massive Starship, it seem also have
to rocket inside of it, rather than on top of it.
And it accelerates the rocket at blast off.
It seems to easier to use it lift rocket around 800 tons or less,
or gets too complicated with something like the Starship.
What need to do, is add air inside it. Use a lot air in fairly short time period [seconds}, but that easy, because liquid air is explosive if dropped in water.
And one can also add warmer water [which floats] so need to use less tons of liquid air.
Liquid air is air [nitrogen/oxygen, and maybe argon} or we mine Earth’s atmosphere and separate the nitrogen and oxygen and Argon and other trace gases. But you don’t have to separate it- or Liquid air, and it’s cheap {particularly if buying by ton}
You could use less air, if warm it up to 90 to 100 C, but it seem better to design it, so uses less air. Which I call a staged pipelauncher, or is less simple.
Keep up the great work Roy.
All empires fall one day Googles monopoly will too.
I’ve reduced my use of Google (DuckDuckGo), GMAIL (no longer), Chrome (no longer), and android, although I still use Youtube. I stopped using Facebook, canceled Twitter, and all other social platforms. I still use Yahoo (mail) to get a good hoot at the leftist propaganda.
I would gladly pitch in a few bucks a month for Dr. Spencer’s site. Put up a “donate” button, Dr. S.
It’s on the right panel, scroll down. It’s been there for years.
Ding!
George Orwell: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
Big Brother is here, and his name is Big Media and Comrades. George Orwell was prophetic. The new tyrants must have read Orwell’s book not as an educating exercise but as a user’s guide how to rule the world.
Exactly, Alex:
It’s not new. The American government has the bad habit of trying to shut down public opposition to policy.
Consider McCarthy.
The US was in the Cold War with Russia and anyone supporting communism was seen as an enemy and fired or censored.
Consider the Vietnam war and how many opponents of the war ended up fired from government posts, censored or exiled to Canada.
Now government policy is climate change mitigation and they’re trying to shut down the opposition.
Have fun.
The leftists want to find another way to defeat capitalism. The Democrats want to tax it.
Another old story.
The Left want to redistribute the wealth until it’s all gone.
The Right don’t want to redistribute it at all.
Always amused by the indoctrinated “woke again” flock that worship the government who post the sermon they have been preached. Never an original independent thought only the government gospel that they believe without question.
History doesn’t repeat but historical situations recur.
EM,
I agree.
Have you also noticed that if you point out that adverse outcomes have occurred in the past, people often say “Ah, but it will be different, this time!”
Currently amused by the political right (mainly in the US) now spouting the same stuff the left was warning about decades ago.
Used to be that the left warned against the corporate sector, now the right is bright-eyed and loud saying similar stuff but for different reasons.
The left warned about big brother, and the right used to say if you’ve done nothing wrong there’s nothing to worry about. Surveillance keeps us safe, they said, and only criminals railed against all those cameras and pesky government intrusions into cyberspace. Gov access to personal data helps them catch pedos, right?
Yep, it is interesting and amusing to see political factions change their spots when they imagined they’re under siege.
They don’t censor or try to undermine those of who they are beating in a debate. Censorship is nothing more than an admission of defeat. If you can’t win the debate, end the debate by preventing the other from being heard. Cowards, all of them.
Sunspot number: 38
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 08 Jan 2022
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2022 total: 0 days (0%)
2021 total: 64 days (18%)
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 7.77×10^10 W Cool
Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +9.1% High
48-hr change: +0.2%
Max: +11.7% Very High (12/2009)
Min: -32.1% Very Low (06/1991)
It’s got some activity, but it has not really entered Solar Max
yet.
Space radiation is still high, and thermosphere is still cool.
Isn’t a bit early to be expecting the solar maximum. It’s an 11 year cycle, so the max isn’t due for another 4-5 years.
No, it’s predicted to end in 4-5 years.
But it is, early and could actually be solar Max in few months, in sense of warming thermosphere and reducing the radiation in Space.
It’s sort of acting like last one, with its double peak.
The Max also expands the thermosphere, causes orbits to decay faster, or reduces space junk in LEO.
It was predicted by some to be like the last one and follows the notion that we could be entering a Grand Solar Minimum.
Actually, less people think it will be unlike the last one.
But probably because it was predicted wrong, last time.
And if it does, certainly would not “prove” we are entering Grand Solar Minimum.
For better proof, one probably will get some useful data from the Parter Solar Probe- and/or other space missions.
http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
This is NOAA,s data and projection.
Minimum in 2019 from the data and peak projected in 2025.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Haven’t seen anything yet to expect a different outcome.
Right I said when end, should have said when peak.
Though such a peak might be unrelated to period when there is lower space radiation {GCR} and/or Solar Max where Earth atmosphere produces more drag in LEO.
I am interested in when in the solar Max these effects start taking effect.
Though also interested in when, they stop occurring- which might/could occur long after the solar Max peak.
Or I think or imagine this will start soon.
I suppose I could search when is GCR the lowest.
But I would expect it would say during solar Max.
{we in beginning of solar Max}
Google: when if GCR radiation the lowest:
during solar maximum
or
“The GCR fluence rate varies with solar activity, being lower when solar activity is higher. At solar minimums, due to lower solar magnetic field shielding, the fluence is significantly higher than at solar maximum.”
https://www.radiation-dosimetry.org/what-is-galactic-cosmic-radiation-gcr-definition/
Or it’s mostly related to my interest in space exploration, but GRC are also supposed have some effect on cloud formation on Earth.
Unreliable and harmful claims: This website has been demonetized by Google
Unreliable and harmful claims: This website has been demonized by Google.
Google is behaving in a very malicious fashion.
hope more people get the word out that they are defunding science sites from reputable scientists and the behaviour is abhorrent.
Google is bureaucracy.
Bureaucracies tend to filled with idiots.
It’s job of CEO to control the idiots he/she creates.
When the idiots are excessively unaccountable it’s
like being infected with virus, which will kill it.
The question is, is Google already dead or still fighting
the virus.
Right on:
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/07/19/tesla-asked-china-to-censor-admitted-business-failures/
I think the bigger issue, is Tesla car factory being in China.
[And NOT about the cars, all being powered by coal.
Maybe he imagines China will quickly transition to nuclear power: that, is rather overly, optimistic- even for Musk.]
[[But on smaller scale of wrongheadedness, is having Tesla made in Germany {another coal burning country] which could have future potential issues.
Though maybe both China and Germany are going to get a lot of natural gas from Russia. One could say, it might be one or the other- and its just covering both bases.]]
I agree, G. But, those complaining Tesla employees were probably Communist Party members, not Elon Musk himself. Also, you really don’t know what’s going on there. There are all kinds of deception and subterfuge in China; the real story is never heard.
“French regulators have hit Google and Facebook with 210 million euros ($237 million) in fines over their use of “cookies”, the data used to track users online, authorities said Thursday.”
– France 24
Google anD Facebook have been demonetised by France.
A rich new income source for countries which aren’t the USA. Oh well, maybe Google and Facebook can refuse to have anything to do with the 95% of the world’s population which doesn’t reside in the USA, and refuse to accept money from anyone who disagrees with their opinions.
They should stand up for their principles! If it means they go broke, that’s the price they have to pay for upholding the moral high ground. A worthy sacrifice to maintain truth, justice, and the American way!
What goes around, comes around.
Artemis Generation Wants To Go To The Moon. Apollo Generation: Not So Much
“”The new poll found 61% of adults surveyed wouldn’t be interested in taking a trip to the Moon even if money weren’t a factor.”
Keith’s note: The title of this article is accurate. It is also misleading. 52% of people aged 18-34 said they’d go. And they are all tax paying, voting age adults. Just sayin’.”
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2022/01/artemis-generat.html
I am Apollo Generation, I don’t want to go to the Moon.
I rather have someone else go to the Moon.
I don’t even want to go on an sub-orbital trip.
If I was younger, I might.
If we have sub-orbital travel, I might want to go faster to some destination. Or I would go into space to travel faster to somewhere else on Earth.
And added danger is not much of issue. Though sub orbital could become safer than current air travel, but don’t imagine, any sub-orbital travel happenning soon, would not expect early suborbital travel being safer- it would at least, have to long enough track record that one could say that.
Early adoption fits better with younger people. One could argue, it actually has more value to them.
But I could change my mind about it.
Another thing is what on the Moon or what is on Mars.
And there would a lot work to go to the Moon or suborbital flight.
Though the prep, might be more interesting than the flight:)
Not too keen to travel by rocket.
An aircraft is fail safe. If the engines fail you can glide and have a reasonable chance of surviving the landing.
A rocket is not fail safe. If the rockets on a Starship fail during landing you explode.
Watching videos of Starships landing has not improved my confidence.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LFPhnnsKkgc
With my not-so-little pink body aboard I would expect a rather safer system.
The two rocket companies currently sending people to space as joyride:
https://www.virgingalactic.com/
{it does not need rocket to land and an airplane carries up from runway take off}
https://www.blueorigin.com/new-shepard/
{Does not need a rocket to land}
Starship has not come close to being used to carry passengers, and has not launched yet
Falcon 9 which carries crew to ISS, lands in ocean with parachute, and has abort mode, for launch into space {like rockets which have carried crew in space- other than the Space Shuttle].
The Starship is mostly about going to Mars- and Mars has thin atmosphere- typical ways would not work.
But airplanes most dangerous time is take off and landing.
The most critical aspect about Starship, is reuse of first stage.
Or if reuse first stage, it will best rocket ever made, though it reuse the second stage, it’s even better. So, Musk, wanted to reuse entire rocket, and Starship a way thought to be a way to do this.
And going to Mars, probably lift off will be the least dangerous aspect of it. Anyways, for Starship to fly anyone, it will have to go thru a process, like Virgin Galactic and Blue Orgin did.
And climbing Mount Everest has killed far more people than space flight. Neither Virgin Galactic or Blue Orgin approved for travel in similar way as airline travel- it’s more taking jet fighter for a joyride- or like jumping up a plane, is regarded as dangerous. So people are allowed to do stuff like jumping off a cliff with parachute.
I don’t need to do it, either.
You just picked up a new reader. Google is demanding groupthink. It’s anti-American.
Roy and John,
Thank you for integrity for so many years. The great awakening to this censorship is starting but takes time. This is another example for the records of history of science as a candle in the dark, and the darkness coming from those seeking political control. Just please keep the data going to keep shinning the light into the dark.
I wonder if R:S:S also got censorship?
This is getting scary, like the behaviour of totalitarian regimes. It all started with the word “denial” which is associated with history’s darkest moment and has no place in science. I remember I once asked a really dumb question of you and you patiently answered it. At that point I decided you were one of the good guys with the white hat. Keep going and keep telling it as it is. (I am reading the paper by Lacis at this time and I am having real difficulty trying to make sense of it. All these arts graduates have drawn conclusions while being totally unable to understand the science. No doubt about it.
You might like:
https://climateball.net/but-denier/
Before fainting on your couch, don’t forget that Roy speaks of “Climate Nazis.”
Oh, so you know Roy, Mr. Anonymous?
You’re conflating pseudonimity and anonymity, Troglodyte.
It’s not as easy as to find Roy’s Donate button, but you know, had you read that blog as Bender implored regarding the Auditor’s, you should know the answer to your silly question:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-global-warming-nazis/
You’re such a wordsmith. You’re conflating cuteness with intelligence.
Also, a pseudonym or a pen name isn’t necessarily intended to maintain anonymity. You, posting here, under Willard, is. And, you don’t identify yourself at Climate Ball either. Chihuahua.
Stephen
A lot of academics, including a number of climate scientists, participate in blog discussions using a nom de plume.
This allows them to participate off the record, without the professional constraints of communicating on the record under their professional names.
Dear Troglodyte,
When the police receives an anonymous tip, the tip is usually unsigned. When the group Anonymous releases information, they sign their drops with “Anonymous.” The only time when anonymity and pseudonymity might be synonymous is for that group’s name.
If you think there’s no distinction, try to sign your comments by pretending you’re from Anonymous, then see how this works for you.
To me, “Troglodyte” is good enough for you. That you sign your comments with a name that looks real does not tell me anything about you. If your comments were libelous, I would not sue you, but Roy.
In the end, Roy is responsible for every single comment on this website.
Whacky Wee Willy Idiot,
You wrote –
“If your comments were libelous, I would not sue you, but Roy.
In the end, Roy is responsible for every single comment on this website.”
If my bicycle had three wheels, it would be a tricycle. You are a slimy little grub. You have no intention of suing anyone, nor could you.Your implied threat (presumably to scare Dr Spencer into banning people with whom you disagree) is typical of deranged, vicious, climate cranks.
Look at the results of the fake, fraudster, scofflaw and deadbeat (Michael Mann), suing Tim Ball. What a loser – and having lost, Mann refuses to comply with the court’s decision! That would be your stance, would it?
You’re a whiny little Warmist worm, Wee Willy.
Go on, wheel out some more of your slimy attempts to get your way. None seem to have worked too well so far, have they?
Good luck with convincing a court anywhere that an anonymous claimant could succeed in libel litigation. Whose reputation was damaged? Mr Anonymous? You don’t actually think before you start banging away at the keyboard, do you?
What an idiot you are – typical nasty, gutless, climate crank.
Mike Flynn, My Favorite – Sock puppet, that is.
Have some legalese:
https://wordpress.com/tos/
Check section 4.
You’re dumb, but at least you’re innoffensive.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
You’re a Chihuahua. Sue me.
Oh, wait! You name call. What a conundrum? Ankle biter.
Whining Wee Willy,
Your silly link looks like WordPress Terms of Service.
Go off and try and get Dr Spencer banned, fool!
If that doesn’t work, have a tantrum, threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, and run to your Mommy!
You idiot – “legalese”? Pathetic. Try another pointless slimy threat, grub.
Mike Flynn, Massacred Finding – WP’s servers are under the laxest of laws. You could suggest that Roy’s botched installation resides in a stricter jurisdiction if you please. That won’t help your case, but then it never stopped a sock puppet like to to double down.
Speaking of which, here’s one about your favorite Tim:
https://www.desmog.com/2007/06/14/ball-bails-on-johnson-lawsuit/
Seems that your guru has no qualms against libel threats!
Cheers.
Whickering Wee Willy,
Trying to change the subject, much?
You post a link to something irrelevant, saying “here’s some legalese”, and “Check Section 4”, showing you are ignorant as well as stupid.
Now you write –
“WPs servers are under the laxest of laws. You could suggest that Roys botched installation resides in a stricter jurisdiction if you please.”
I am suggesting nothing – it is obvious you are a slimy little rat who has been caught out, and is now trying to avoid being held to account for your idiocy. It seems that Ball is smarter than Mann, by your account. Mann lost, Ball didn’t. Don’t you bother thinking before you start hammering away on your keyboards?
Rhetorical question, of course. You don’t appear to think at all.
Carry on being an impotent, powerless grub.
“stephen p anderson says:
January 9, 2022 at 11:51 PM
Youre a Chihuahua. Sue me. ”
Sounds a good idea. You’ve made a number of comments which might qualify as libellous. Please reprise your comments in a published source to qualify them as libellous.
Also make your true name and address public so that you can be served.
Worrying Wee Willy,
So sue me too, you ignorant idiot.
You have no intention of suing anybody. Anonymous retarded dimwits like you claiming your reputation has been damaged by comments directed at you?
You just demonstrate how disconnected from reality you are.
Got any more implied threats, you slimy little Warmist worm?
[chortles]
Mike Flynn, Masterminding Frailty – you were the one who mentioned Tim Ball, an old crank who pretends to hold the first climatology PhD in Canada. Since you still pretend not being Mike Flynn after being evidence for months, no wonder you might feel for him!
Furthermore, you state:
“I am suggesting nothing”
Of course you are, my little sock puppet bully.
In fact that’s all you can do!
Do continue.
Long live and prosper.
Wonky Wee Willy,
The faker, fraud, scofflaw and loser (Michael Mann) sued Tim Ball.
Michael Mann lost, even against a person you categorise as an “old crank”. How incompetent is that?
Feeling bullied, are you? That’s because you are a gutless sack of slime, with no backbone. As the old saying goes, take a spoonful of cement and harden up (or stiffen up, if you prefer that saying). Whining about bullies – especially people whom you claim are really a conspiracy of others just created to annoy you, just shows how pathetically insecure you are.
Pretending to read my mind might impress a gaggle of retarded climate cultists, but any rational person might just laugh derisively at your pretensions.
Carry on trying to convince the universe that you can make thermometers hotter with either CO2 or your awesome mental powers.
Idiot.
Mike Flynn, Marginalized Foolhardy – here’s a more accurate way to put it:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/28/1881956/-Tim-Ball-Pleads-For-Mercy-As-An-Irrelevant-Sick-Old-Man-Gets-It-Declares-Victory
Are you an informed person, my favorite sock puppet?
Pray tell us about John’s novel.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“So sue me too, you ignorant idiot.”
Says Swenson smug in his anonymity.
I was sued once myself, so I know the routine. I have enough money.
Two problems.
1) It would probably have to be done inthe UK, like being sued under Canadian law.
2) I need to know who to serve. Anonymous troll is not a sufficient address.
Chicken.
Eman,
Stephen P Anderson is my actual name, and you’re an ignorant twit.
You’re also a Climate Nazi, very apropos. (Thanks for the link, Chihuahua.)
BTW, very hard to claim libel in the US. That damn first amendment. I know you Brits hate that. But, we still keep running and saving your asses every 50 years or so.
I don’t put you in the same category as Chihuahua. You’re in the BGDWX, B4 Category. You’re mainly Utopianists, but don’t think you’d go Himmler on us. I think this worldwide depression we’re heading into will solve your FF emissions problem.
> Stephen P Anderson is my actual name
So you say, Troglodyte.
And considering the quality of everything you say here, that does not mean much.
Prove it.
Really? If I were going to post under a pseudonym, it would be Brutus, my hero.
Stephen
I raised the issue over lunch at my club.
The consensus was that if you were a public figure with published articles it might be worthwhile. If you were just an anonymous troll, then why bother?
The other problem was identity. I found half dozen possibilities; an artist, a judge, a couple of businessmen and a couple of minor academics.
Overall a suit would only be likely to go ahead by mutual agreement. Care to dance.
Neither of us would get very far. I don’t have the time to waste. Do you?
I’d rather spar in the arena of ideas? Care to dance?
I’m curious about your “club.” Do they all think like you? Leftists?
Eman,
Also, it’s kind of creepy that you’re trying to stalk me. I must be putting a dent in your beliefs.
LOL, Eman and his little leftist goony birds are huddling around trying to find ways to shut Berry up. This intimidation isn’t aimed at me. It is aimed at Berry. They are terrified of Berry’s work. They can’t refute it, and they know it. Won’t work, Little Eman.
Dr. Spencer,
Here are your culprits: Eman, Chihuahua, and their leftist myrmadons. They’re fat, dumb and happy, and emboldened.
Sorry, myrmidons.
My club is halfway between gentleman’s club and local chamber of commerce. Mostly businessmen with a few other professionals. I’m not sure what the American equivalent would be. A good place for a discussion.
You asked to be sued. Twice.
stephen p anderson says:
January 9, 2022 at 11:51 PM
Youre a Chihuahua. Sue me.
“Swenson says:
January 10, 2022 at 6:20 AM
Worrying Wee Willy,
So sue me too, you ignorant idiot.”
I’m trying to oblige, but you are making it difficult.
“myrmidons”
I’ll take that as a compliment. The Myrmidons were the elite Thessalian troops who fought beside Achilles.
Now you’re getting me and Swenson confused. We’re brothers in arms but not the same person. I only demanded to be sued once. Leftist myrmidon isn’t complimentary. You should spend more time at your club, and less time on this board. Difficult to believe you’re a businessman. I would have pegged you as a government bureaucrat.
>Ill take that as a compliment. The Myrmidons were the elite Thessalian troops who fought beside Achilles.
Yes, very robotic.
Stephen
Robotic?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrmidons
Ah,I see. Congratulations, that’s insulting with style. You’re definitely not Swenson.
I’m not a bureaucrat. Retired biologist and teacher. I even did some climate research back in the days when the best tool for measuring past temperature was a peat bog.
Boys grow from the top. The deeper you go, the older the layers of peat and the pollen they contain. Counting the different types of pollen tells you which plants grew around the bog when that layer grew.
Trees have definate limits to their spread defined by upper and lower average temperature limits. In 5000 year old peat you might find pollen from a cold climate willow species with an upper limit of 6C and a temperate willow with a lower limit of 5C. You can then infer that the average temperature around the bog was between 5C and 6C.
Scotland?
Wales
Borth bog near Aberystwych, now known as Cors-fochnu.The counting was done in London.
https://naturalresources.wales/days-out/places-to-visit/mid-wales/dyfi-national-nature-reserve-cors-fochno/?lang=en
Most of the counting I did ended up in the data tables here.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Peatlands-Peter-D-Moore/dp/0236154737
> Really?
Look, Troglodyte.
Grown-ups support their claims.
You said it was your real name.
Support your claim.
Do you think you’re the only “Stephen P Anderson” in the universe?
Wales, wow! You sure have fallen far from your roots. I enjoyed reading about the Welsh coal miners who became soldiers in “Fall of Giants.”
I guess, take a bog, wait a few million years, it becomes charcoal. Wait tens of millions of years and it becomes coal. Is that correct?
Pretty much.
Borth is currently at sea level. Raise the sea level or drop the land and it would be buried by sediment. The peat is already mostly carbohydrates like cellulose and lignin soaking in acid water. Bury it deep enough, heat and pressure will convert it to coal in time.
EM,
You wrote –
“I need to know who to serve. Anonymous troll is not a sufficient address.”
Get over yourself. Imagine the laughter when you are asked to provide a basis for your action. “Oh, I am offended because an anonymous person disagreed with some anonymous remarks I made.”
Go on. Waste your money trying to get your legal representative to draft the necessary documents. Oh, you won’t do that because you’re not that stupid?
Pity. I was hoping you might have been. As they say, a fool and his money are soon parted.
Next meaningless, threat, please.
Amazon UK doesn’t offer a looky-loo. Probably a pretty interesting book. Some of my ancestors are from the UK (Scotland). I enjoy reading about UK history. Local knowledge of the bogs helped the Welsh win many battles.
>Look, Troglodyte.
Grown-ups support their claims.
You said it was your real name.
Support your claim.
Do you think you’re the only “Stephen P Anderson” in the universe?
Chihuahua,
I know. Ask Dr. Spencer. He can verify I’m Stephen P. Anderson. I just donated to him. Paypal. Now, how about you. Are we going to find out who the real Chihuahua is?
I’m afraid Peatlands is rather boring if you’re not into mosses or palynology.
I’ve left a souvenir at Borth which might fossilise. I once stepped into a sphagnum lawn (looks like short grass, actually moss floating on water) and sank in to the hips. While getting out I lost a Wellington boot which is now well buried.
If you want to know about Welsh warriors read about Owain Glendwr. There’s also a lot of history regarding the Scottish highlands clans and depressing days like the massacre of Glencoe or the battle of Culodden.
I’d love to visit the Culloden battlefield.
We met a couple from Cardiff while on vacation in Orlando a few years ago. They both worked for the NHS. He was an administrator, and she was a nurse—eight weeks of leave every year. My kids spent a lot of time with their kids swimming at night. Nice family. They said without a doubt that US healthcare is the finest in the world, not even close. Socialism is not going to produce top healthcare. But, socialism is inculcated into the fabric of Great Brittain. They believed socialism provided more even healthcare. (Everybody gets the same shitty healthcare.) They said that when visiting Great Brittain, you better have an insurance card. If bleeding on a gurney in the emergency room and you don’t have insurance, then you will bleed to death. This is the compassion of socialism.
> Ask Dr. Spencer.
Sorry, Troglodyte. You don’t get to hide under Roy’s dress. He wears big boys pants.
Anything online from you we can read, besides your compendium of ankle biting?
” If bleeding on a gurney in the emergency room and you dont have insurance, then you will bleed to death. ”
I don’t recognise that description. I was a haematolgy technician for six months after leaving teaching. Patients in my hospital went straight into “Accident and Emergency” for triage. If in immediate danger of death they went straight into surgery. If less serious, they joined the queue.
The paperwork comes later. UK citizens pay for health care through taxation so it is “free at the point of delivery” .
US citizens get immediate free emergency treatment in the same way as UK citizens, but for recovery care and other medical treatment you would be charged a fee. That’s why travel insurance would be a good idea.
https://uk.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/medical-information/
If I had a serious accident, or needed insulin for my diabetes while visiting the US, how would it work?
“They said without a doubt that US healthcare is the finest in the world, not even close. Socialism is not going to produce top healthcare. But, socialism is inculcated into the fabric of Great Brittain. They believed socialism provided more even healthcare.”
Uhhh.
I was noticing on Worldometer that UK had extremely high peak number of COVID cases this month, but not much of a peak in deaths at all, about 1/10th of their previous peak last winter.
Whereas in the US, the number of cases has shot up similarly as in UK, but the number of deaths is now about 1/2 of the previous peak last winter.
Why 1/10 in UK and 1/2 in US?
“They said without a doubt that US healthcare is the finest in the world”
I think the point is, at its best, it is the best.
But at its average, it is below average for developed countries.
If you are lower income in the US, then you will get hardly any preventative care at all and die relatively young.
That is why our life expectancy in the US is way down the list, 40th in the world.
And one of the worst for improvement in life-expectancy with only 1.8 y increase in the last 20 y.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
That they should attack a website like yours is truly shocking. Fortunately, its unlikely to influence anyone who is likely to read your excellent content.
Attacks on free expression of ideas, in general, are the reason why I avoid using Google and other, biased, Big Tech/media output whenever possible.
It’s not social media or 24 hour news. It’s an authoritarian attack on a free society by people in a position to – and increasingly eager to – take advantage of the steadily increasing capabilities of information control. The internet was supposed to be an information freeing technology but it is rapidly becoming a technology for stifling independent thought and freedom of information. The old methods of dispersal are both controled, directly or indirectly, by centralizes oligopolies as well, and anyway act too slowly to compete with the digital world.
There has been an arrogance that has allowed it to get as far as it has, and a failure of education, also borne of the same arrogance, that is creating the impetus to plow ahead into an authoritarian dysyopia.
And no, companies don’t care if their ads run on a climate website that doesn’t fully embrace the narrative of the IPCC. This is coming from google andtheir employees. The only way the companies would care is if those same forces push hard enough to get the companies also thrown in a “poor social credit score” and banished from the walled tech garden. And that would just be another turn of the same spiral of authoritarian control and poor education.
If we don’t identify the problem then we can’t fight it.
They are “climate nazis”. “You dare bring data to oppose us? We will make sure you are defunded. No climate discussion for you!”
Roy is still free to post his views – the demonetisation (which I think is wrong) does not impact his ability to do that.
Keep your shirt on.
Thank you for allowing Dr. Spencer to continue to post his views. What a relief.
You seem to be missing the context of my post. Here is the post I was replying to. I don’t know why my post was placed down here, away from that post.
———–
Willard says:
January 9, 2022 at 10:19 AM
You might like:
https://climateball.net/but-denier/
Before fainting on your couch, dont forget that Roy speaks of Climate Nazis.
——
Regarding your dismissal of demonetization as a method of censorship, it is either short-sighted or it is disingenuous. Advertisers don’t care if their ads are being placed on Dr. Spencer’s site. It’s entirely Google and their employees that are the impetus for the demonetization and the intent of the demonetization is as a form of censorship. It is simply strategic censorship because they don’t quite have the power for outright censorship.
Matt,
Could you explain how ‘strategic censorship’ actually causes censorship in Roy’s case?
How is he more censored today, in real terms, than he was a month ago?
I’m not seeing any material change in his ability to promulgate his ideas here, nor for any audience to to read them.
I see the problem. When I reply from mobile it doesn’t append the message to the thread properly. Let me repost this here:
Do you think whatever policy Alphabet is enforcing will apply only to Dr. Spencer? Of course it wont. It applies to anyone expressing opposition to the narrative. Then all the little fish find it harder to survive. And without a thriving colony of little fish youre less likely to get new big fish. What affect will it actually have? I cannot say. Alphabet knows, I imagine.
Are you arguing it is not censorious? Then what is the purpose? I contend that advertisers do not care if their ads show up on such websites, at least not without some sort of extortion campaign against them.
Even if the end result is only to satisfy those that ultimately demand it be done, it must be that those demanding it imagine some benefit to seeing it done. What benefit do they see if it is not to stop others from getting their message out? What do they hope to gain? The intention is clearly one of censorship. That is the case irrespective of how it affects Dr. Spencer.
Projecting what might occur for anyone else who may or may not be demonetised for whatever reason does not respond to my point that Dr Spencer has not been hampered one iota, contrary to your concern for him.
As to your generalising, these are private companies, not publicly owned entities. They may do as they wish. If they “censor” views you don’t like that will be annoying for you.
But it’s not censorship. It’s a private company withdrawing a service, or, in this case, a source of income.
Is Twitter obligated to host everyone on its platform? Is google obliged to make its servers, storage and algorithms available to everyone?
Obviously, no.
How much the right has changed when they insist private companies behave like publicly owned utilities. This is the issue that they call ‘censorship’.
No one is censored, they are booted off a company’s platform. They can go to tons of other places and push their message out. How many intelligent liberal commentators get invited onto “fair and balanced” Fox News? Virtually none. Does Fox censor cogent liberal argument? No. They are privately owned. They simply don’t host it. That makes them a crap news service, but not censorious.
“Projecting what might occur for anyone else who may or may not be demonetised for whatever reason does not respond to my point that Dr Spencer has not been hampered one iota, contrary to your concern for him.”
Haha, it’s YOUR off-topic point that I am avoiding, is it? You’re a card.
And then you claim that being booted off a platform is not being censored. If you expect people to take you seriously you need new tactics. You’re going to have to work a whole lot harder to conflate “censorship” and the First Amendment in such a way that “censorship” only means what directly violates the First Amendment. Where did you get the crazy idea that once an Amendment was passed to attempt to prevent the government from engaging in censorship that the definition of censorship somehow shifts to mean only what violates that law? I suppose no one can kidnap me except for a state actor because of the Fourth Amendment? When Twitter chooses to throw someone off the platform they are censoring them. Whether they should do it or not is a completely different discussion.
Then you go on to try to obfuscate the difference between a publisher of opinion or news, as in Fox, and a platform, like Google Ads. It’s irrelevant what Twitter is “obligated” to do.
All I can say is at least your mask has come off and you aren’t any more trying to argue that Alphabet isn’t trying to affect the speech of people in their behavior of demonetizing people for presenting evidence and making arguments. You just now try to argue that isn’t “censorship” because it doesn’t violate the First Amendment. Nonsense, of course, but perhaps progress? I dunno. Try again though.
Matt,
Google considers the sites where it places ads ‘partners’:
“The Display Network: Google sites like YouTube, Blogger, and Gmail, plus thousands of partnering websites across the Internet.”
And as they note ads are placed initially across its whole network.
“By default, new ad campaigns are set up to show ads across the entire network to give your ads the most visibility.”
Advertisers are entrusting Google to choose its network of partners.
Are you suggesting they should not be free to choose who to partner with?
Nate said:
”
Matt,
Google considers the sites where it places ads ‘partners’:
“The Display Network: Google sites like YouTube, Blogger, and Gmail, plus thousands of partnering websites across the Internet.”
And as they note ads are placed initially across its whole network.
“By default, new ad campaigns are set up to show ads across the entire network to give your ads the most visibility.”
Advertisers are entrusting Google to choose its network of partners.
Are you suggesting they should not be free to choose who to partner with?”
Why are you also changing the topic as barry did? My post had nothing to do with what they were free or not free to do. The issue at hand is what Google are doing and what their intent is. What they are doing is trying to shut down discussion by only allowing incentivization of the discussion in one direction. In this way they hope to gain a “consensus” just like world governments consistently do by controlling the purse strings and career opportunities and those controlling the world governments do by controlling the social environment. It is not the only method of propagandizing on the issue for all those who are so inclined to exert such a force. There is a multi-pronged attack on dissent and dissemination or consideration of opposing evidence. But it is one method, and the method that Google is here employing. What I am suggesting is that Google is employing that method, regardless of whether they should be free to do so or not, and that Google acting in such a way is Google engaging in a form of censorship. Is that point of mine really so difficult to understand? Or is it merely so difficult to refute?
“just like world governments consistently do by controlling the purse strings and career opportunities and those controlling the world governments do by controlling the social environment. ”
Hyperbole, Matt. It is nothing like that.
This is simply a company doing what all companies do and have always done.
Maintaining/enhancing their reputation with customers and the public.
Which means choosing business partners that accomplish that.
No different then Nike choosing to partner with Tiger Woods and other successful athletes, but not choosing to partner with Lance Armstrong (anymore).
This is how free-enterprise works.
Going back to an earlier point you made Matt:
“The internet was supposed to be an information freeing technology but it is rapidly becoming a technology for stifling independent thought and freedom of information.”
I would say, compared to when I was coming of age, the opposite is true.
Back then, we all had ~ the same set of facts. There was only the 3 network news programs, and newspapers, and they largely agreed on the facts (not necessarily policy).
Today information is so free that groups can easily find their own set of ‘facts’ that works for them, on the internet or cable news.
And that has led to deep division.
Dr. Spencer,
If it makes you feel any better, I demonetized Google a while ago.
Dr Spencer, I have tried to navigate the IPCC website to find out what its temperature data was compared to what you and Dr Christy provide with your monthly global averages. I can’t seem to find any data. All the IPCC seems to offer is supposition and projected outcomes, no real data. From your published temperatures, my calculations suggest the temperature has risen about 0.16 deg over that past 6 years. I can’t compare yours to the IPCC because I can’t find any of its published temperatures. Is their much or any difference to yours, and if so where might those temperatures be published. If I may so bold to ask.
IPCC doesn’t create any data. They collate information and assess.
Some main groups who provide global temperature data are…
Lower troposphere:
Remote Sensing Systems
Surface air temperature:
UK Meteorological Office
Goddard Institute for Space Sciences
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Berkeley Earth
Japan Meteorological Association
They created their data for their Carbon Cycle Model, and Berry falsified it, Barry.
IPCC does not create climate models or data, or do original research. They collate and assess the work of international researchers.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
b,
And what qualifications does the IPCC possess?
Please don’t tell me that the “members” of the IPCC collate and assess their own work. How completely stupid would that be? The supposed “experts” are all appointed by Governments who supposedly know nothing about “climate”, but are expected to appoint “climate” experts to tell them what to do about “climate”!
Lunacy, and putting the inmates in charge of the asylum.
Just how gullible are you? Do you really believe the mathematician Gavin Schmidt is a world famous climate scientist? If so, he said of the IPCC a couple of months ago “”You end up with numbers for even the near-term that are insanely scary — and wrong,” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Science.”
Who to believe?
The IPCC collects whatever information supports their goal — proving global warming is man made and dangerous.
Contrary information is not wanted.
The media just repeat IPCC press releases like trained parrots.
Some people do read the Summary For Policymakers,
which is written by scientists, activists and politicians.
the summary has to be approved by activists and politicians, so is not a scientific document. The scientific backup material is usually released months later, so no one will compare the two. They are NOT the same. For example, back up documents include uncertainty.
The IPCC participates in climate science fraud.
Their goal is repeated predictions of climate doom.
not climate science — the predictions are climate astrology.
Anyone who takes IPCC predictions seriously should have their heads examined The organization suffers from severe confirmation bias.
The climate models are obviously programmed to scare people — not to make accurate global average temperature predictions, which they have never done.
Model accuracy has not improved in 40 years, and the Russian INM model gets no special attention, in spite of the fact that it over predicts global warming by the least amount.
IPCC = a political organization
spinning a coming climate crisis hoax,
using climate computer games as props,
for their climate astrology nonsense.
>IPCC does not create climate models or data, or do original research. They collate and assess the work of international researchers.
Sure they do. They create the narrative to fit their agenda.
The IPCC collects information to support their narrative.
They start with their conclusion.
That’s politics, not science.
Every IPCC report can be summarized as follows:
Assuming global warming is man made and dangerous, we predict future global warming will be man made and dangerous.
That’s circular reasoning for gullible leftists, based on fake “science”, bought and paid for by leftist governments.
Thanks Barry.
You’re welcome. IPCC reports of the past have generally relied most on the UK Met Office global temperature data. In more recent reports they compare various (GISS, and NOAA as well as Met Office for surface temps). If you use those three you will be using the right data for IPCC surface temps.
aryIPCC spends much time writing about the imagined future climate, for whisch there are NO DATA.
Past climate data gets less reliable before 1979 and are especially unreliable before 1920, with few Southern hemisphere measurements.
Past climate data are constantly being revised..
A global cooling of near 0/5 degrees C. from 1940 to 1975, as reported by NCAR at the time, is currently reported as nearly no global cooling at all by NASA-GISS.
Arbitrary revisions of climate history are science fraud … and you love it when inconvenient climate history is rewritten !
“A global cooling of near 0/5 degrees C. from 1940 to 1975, as reported by NCAR at the time, is currently reported as nearly no global cooling at all by NASA-GISS.”
Assuming you mean 0.5 C, where did NCAR ever report that for global temps? What does “at the time” mean?
I’ll bet either that you don’t furnish the specific reference, or if you do we will discover it isn’t for global temps.
” of climate history are science fraud ”
Lets face it, claiming the data is fraudulent is where a losing ideological argument must go when it has otherwise run out of supporting facts.
Looks like Richard Greene didn’t want to take that bet up.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj9341
Still working through this paper, but note they provide PCO2 in figure 4 from ice core data showing CO2 was very low back into the Pliocene, which is broadly considered the “warm earth conditions” with elevated sea level. This is prior to the extensive glaciers on Norther Hemisphere. In rocks I have studied you can see sea level was greatly elevated then.
I am thankful that there men of integrity like you who do honest scientific research.
We can only hope the expected midterm shift brings Congressional members interested in having Google testify regarding their editorial decisions and search manipulation as a monopoly. And many of us will continue to use Bing or Duck Duck Go and GoDaddy instead of Google search and gmail.
“Over two decades researchers collected enough micrometeorites (ranging from 30 to 300 micrometers in size) to be able to calculate how much extraterrestrial dust falls to Earth each year.
The scientists estimated that a total of 15,000 tons (13,600 metric tons) of cosmic dust rains down on the Earth annually, though most of the material is lost on entry as it burns up in Earth’s atmosphere. This leaves 5,200 tons (4,700 metric tons) of interplanetary dust to settle on the surface of our planet each year.
The culprit for a majority (around 80%) of this interplanetary dust is the Jupiter family comets. These cosmic snowballs of frozen gases, rock and dust primarily originate in the Kuiper Belt, just beyond the orbit of Neptune.
Whilst the rest of the space dust is thought to come from asteroids; the small rocky bodies leftover from the formation of our solar system.”
5,200 tons of space dust falls on Earth each year, study finds
By Daisy Dobrijevic published April 16, 2021
Not “news” I was just wondering are much dust is near Earth, so, googled- and got how much hits Earth.
I was wondering how much dust is ejected from the Moon, but apparently, according to this, none. 🙂
Anyhow, they always giving different estimates over the years, but maybe this the most accurate.
You’ve made a good start.
You know the mass of dust swept up by Earth in a year.
Now calculate the volume swept by the Earth in a year and divide the mass by the volume to get the density.
Cross section of the Earth is π 6000^2 = 113 million square kilometres.
It sweeps a path equivalent to the circumference of its orbit, which is 150 million*2π = 942 million kilometres.
The swept volume is 113 million * 942 million = 1.06 * 10^17 cu. Km.
The density of the dust is 5200/ 1.06 * 10^17 = 4.9 * 10^-14 tons / cubic kilometre.
1 gram of dust for every 4.9 * 10^20 cubic kilometres.
To put that into perspective, a sphere the diameter of the Moon’s orbit would contain 2.5 * 10^-10 grams.
(Warning. This commenter is notoriously bad at powers of ten calculations. Please check the numbers. Smile emoji)
Yep. Got it wrong again.
Make that :-‘
1 gram of dust for every 4.9 * 10^8 cubic kilometres.
To put that into perspective, a sphere the diameter of the Moons orbit would contain 24 grams of dust.
For parochial Americans that would be an ounce of dust.
According to NASA, an asteroid 10 km high, by 10 k diameter is around 4 x 10^15 kg.
A strike normal to the surface, impact velocity 1 x 10^4 m/s, would generate about 2 x 10^23 watts.
Don’t be near the impact site if you wish to avoid serious personal injury.
In the meantime, feel free to worry about global warming.
The lastimpact that size finished wiping out the dinosaurs and let the mammals take over.
I wonder who will replace us next time.
This is sad, but not surprising.
I go out of my way to avoid anything made in China, and anything that enriches Google. Big tech are a menace.
The same people, who fight against discrimination and defend minorities, are afraid of ideas different from their own. This is the magical world of mainstreaming, where everyone apparently has the right to be different but they have to think the same way.
Go straight on your way, Dr.
Thanks for your site.
Well Dr Spencer,
what can a humble no-body add to all the learned commentators above?
Your work and integrity are beyond dispute.
The only caveat I have is when you state you are NOT skeptical of mans contribution to the minuscule temperature rise resulting from our fortunate exit from the last ice age.
It is blindingly obvious that weather will do what weather will do and vary.
If by your adherence to the man made global warming crap, you may be hoping the crocodile will spare you till last, I am sorry you are not far enough down the queue (or line as you might have it) to evade consumption for very long.
“The only caveat I have is when you state you are NOT skeptical of mans contribution to the minuscule temperature rise resulting from our fortunate exit from the last ice age.”
Roy says:
-I was kind of hoping my content was mainstream enough to avoid being banned since:
1 I believe the climate system has warmed
2 I believe most of this warming is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning
Many of you know that I defend much of mainstream climate science, including climate modeling as an enterprise. Where I depart of the mainstream is how much warming has occurred, how much future warming can be expected, and what should be done about it from an energy policy perspective.-
You said, since last ice age.
Maybe you meant since the “little ice age” which is not an ice age.
We are in an Ice Age.
We will not leave this Ice Age.
Ice Ages informally mean a glaciation period, that was about 20,000 years ago. There is very large temperature difference between a glaciation period and the peak temperature of an interglacial.
Anyhow, everyone expects that we are going to re-enter a glaciation period- people have different predictions of when.
And since we will re-enter a glaciation period, we are still in an Ice Age [we are between glaciation periods {ie, in an interglacial period- which called the Holocene interglacial period, which had a peak global temperature over 5000 years ago, called Holocene climatic optimum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Our Ice Age is called: Late Cenozoic Ice Age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
It is just completely wrong for a competent, honest, and experienced scientist, who contributes objective content, to be treated this way. The UAH satellite data represents essential data in any analysis of climate science, and sadly, probably would not be published anywhere else. Maybe that is the real objective of the people at Google who should be aware of the truth, and know better. RSS is a compliment, not a substitute.
The UAH satellite data is not affected by google’s decision. Nor is Roy prevented from posting his opinions here.
I think google erred in demonetising the forum, but that doesn’t necessitate histrionics.
Sometimes posting spin comments solely for the sake of argument just make a person seem stupid. I will not attempt to defend your strawman, other than to point out that it has nothing to with my comment. Most of the people who post here to share honest opinions can easily see that. By the way, RSS is a complement, not a compliment. My bad.
Speaking of straw, Tim, maybe Roy is saying or suggesting other things besides what he could remotely support with his data series.
Just a thought.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Put in my Facebook, just to show my closest how the world is getting away of science, and how lucky we were to have this window of liberty we enjoyed
Thanks Roy you are one of the great small persons I know
It’s a good thing people like Tycho Brahe were rich enough to ignore the small minded idiots who criticised their data gathering.
Sir Isaac Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants. Today, he would have been trampled by a baying mob of retarded midgets.
Luckily, reality just keeps on keeping on, much to the annoyance of people like climate crackpots and ankle-biters generally.
Perhaps writing propaganda leaflets for Donald Trump was a mistake.
EM,
I’m guessing you didn’t get paid for them, anyway. You aren’t very good at propaganda, are you?
Try climate crackpottery. You should do well.
You don’t need to thank me.
Was there any false content?
Not deliberately false. More misleading, selective, casting doubt etc. All the tools developed by the leaded petrol lobby, refined by the tobacco lobby and now used by the fossil fuel lobby.
Eman,
Petrol is good. Coal is good. Capitalism is good. Big oil, cheap energy, God is good.
Or, maybe just facts and opinions you do not like.
“Or, maybe just facts and opinions you do not like. ”
Lots of opinions about that I don’t like. Lots of people don’t like my opinions. Opinions can be sound of absurd. You expect that in life.
Facts are different.
Data can be checked. Observations and experiments can be replicated. If Willie Soon says that the Sun is warming you can check (Its not). If Ed Berry says that most of the extra CO2 increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is natural you can check (It’s not).
Now why would Soon and Berry publish inaccurate information? Two main possibilities.
1) They are incompetent.
2) Their publications serve a political agenda, which makes what they publish propoganda.
Consider this article from Ed Barry’s website.
https://newswithviews.com/Berry/ed115.htm
The title is “WHY OUR CO2 EMISSIONS DO NOT INCREASE ATMOSPHERE CO2” .
We”‘ll leave the science for later. This is how his objective, fact based scientific presentation starts.
“Give Al Gore an A for marketing and an F for science. But, hey, we all know the sale is in the marketing. The genius of Al Gore was to make his invalid myth simple:
1. Our CO2 emissions increase Atmosphere CO2, and
2. Atmosphere CO2 heats the Earth.
What could be simpler? Al Gore assumed his two invalid claims were true. His marketing job was to make you believe bad things happen when Atmosphere CO2 rises.
Everybody believed Al Gore. Well, almost everybody. His simple, inaccurate description of how our climate works created a generation of science deniers, some with PhDs. Al Gore turned climate science into a political-environmental movement.
The alarmists goal is to scare you into believing our CO2 causes climate change. Once scared into an invalid belief, you will tend to hold that invalid belief forever.
Those who believe Al Gores marketing believe they can make the Earth cooler by reducing our CO2 emissions. Al Gore has sold them a bridge to nowhere.
Climate alarmists are like the Aztecs who believed they could make rain by cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple steps. ”
Propoganda?
“Data can be checked. Observations and experiments can be replicated. If Willie Soon says that the Sun is warming you can check (Its not). If Ed Berry says that most of the extra CO2 increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is natural you can check (Its not).”
That your opinion. Not a fact.
Do I agree with Willie Soon and/or Ed Berry?
No.
But they have their theories.
Earth carbon cycle is large. I can’t say how large it is.
I would say, no one can. But it’s very large.
It’s possible Ed Berry is somewhat correct, but as far as I know, he has provided enough evidence. If he would give me accurate number on Earth Carbon cycle, I might find it interesting.
I read some things of Willie Soon, I don’t have particular objection, but I have my own opinions.
As said, the big question for me, is what caused cooling of the Little Ice Age.
I would guess neither addresses this, so not it’s very important to me.
But compared to Greenhouse Effect theory- which not even theory,
they have far less objectional points.
Why not allow subscription business model? Google ads are obnoxious and distracting. You do valuable interesting work. Go Brandon! Any parallel to f^*k Google?
Whining Wee Willy wrote –
“> Ask Dr. Spencer.
Sorry, Troglodyte. You dont get to hide under Roys dress. He wears big boys pants.”
Oooh! How manly! Wee Willy demonstrates his impotence, yet again.
Wee Willy obviously lives in a fantasy where he gets to direct what people can and can’t do, all the while whining about being bullied! Unfortunately for him, reality decrees otherwise.
What a dropkick! For those wondering, I believe “dropkick” came from rhyming slang, where the phrase “dropkick and punt” was taken from football usage. If anyone wants to associate the full phrase with Wee Willy’s character, they are free to do so.
Wee Willy claims mind reading abilities, so I don’t need to enlighten him.
Mike Flynn, Monstruous Formidability – you are commenting at Roy’s since 2013 at least and now are hiding under a silly sock puppet. While your vulgar display of powerlessness can easily be understood, the reasons why you constantly show off your dishonor might always remain unfathomable.
As long as you are having a bit of fun, suit yourself!
Cheers.
Wee Willy Wanker,
The contents of your fantasy do not affect reality, you know.
I’m not sure what you mean by “While your vulgar display of powerlessness can easily be understood, the reasons why you constantly show off your dishonor might always remain unfathomable.”
Neither are you, I suggest. Are you sure you are not using random nonsense generating software? Some of it, like SCIgen, writes nonsense papers which have passed peer review, editorial review, and have been published in prestigious journals!
Would you be silly enough to believe a paper titled “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature.” Is not a spoof? Looks like a nonsense computer generated paper to me.
So off you go, Wee Willy. Batter on about vulgarity and dishonour. It still won’t give CO2 the magical properties you so desperately want it to have.
Mike Flynn, Malady of Feelings – you’re trying too hard. Here you are, a sock puppet. Pretending to fail to grasp a very simple point. Why are you constantly making a fool of yourself: because you’re having a bit of fun?
Fair enough.
Do continue!
Whinging Wee Willy,
You idiot. Your fantasies about being able to read my mind are not reality.
All of your opinions (plus $5) will probably get you a cup of coffee.
Carry on, dropkick. It’s a possibility that someone, somewhere, cares for your opinions. Maybe you can find them, if you try really hard. Let me know if you do. I’ll make sure to keep out of the way of such a person, as they are obviously suffering from a severe mental deficiency.
You never know, if you throw in a fact from time to time, rational people might think you are not such a complete wanker. A faint hope, but miracles might still occur. Who knows?
Mike Flynn, Mysterious Fart is that you or your sock puppet that we can smell?
Elderberries, I say!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson
The phrase “Whining Wee Willy”
is not polite, and harms
the reputation of this website.
Please try to be polite
in your future comments
by changing your salutation
to “Mister Whining Wee Willy”
Thank you in advance for improving
the standards of this fine website.
“Just as 2021 closed out, the Kremlin massively escalated its pressure campaign against American tech companies by issuing its largest-ever fines of U.S. tech firms: $100 million to Google and $27 million to Facebook for what it called a “systemic failure to remove banned content.””
Google and Facebook can do as they wish. It’s called capitalism.
Russia, the UK, France, the EU, Australia, China, . . . , can enforce their laws. It’s called sovereignty.
On the other hand –
“Despite Google’s whining about iMessage, it seems to have learned nothing from its years of messaging failure.
Whining Wee Willy will probably claim that I wrote that (masquerading as Mike Flynn or something), and whine “Look everyone! Someone used the word “whining”! Evidence that Swenson is really Mike Flynn!”
Both Google and Wee Willy whine and threaten others to try to get their way. And of course, Google is attempting to bully Apple into doing Google’s bidding. Like Wee Willy’s attempts, Google doesn’t seem to be doing too well.
Oh dear!
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn, everyone!
*Everybody applauds their favorite sock puppet!*
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Your campaign to get your fantasies accepted as fact doesn’t seem to be getting much support, does it?
By all means keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.
The outcome might be interesting.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Mercurial Fantaisist – your sock puppet is far from being a fantasy!
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
It is a pity that big tech companies start to behave like activists and with that try to limit science debate.
Keep up the good work Dr. Spencer because your work is a objective beacon in a sea of manipulated datasets.
Mr. Spencer wrote:
I believe the climate system has warmed
I believe most of this warming is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning
I would define Mr. Spencer as a luke-warmer.
Apparently Google will not even tolerate luke-warmers.
But … congratulations on upsetting Google — that is a badge of honor among Climate Realists.
That means you have been credible and an effective communicator of REAL climate science.
Your UAH temperature compilation, in my opinion, is a check and balance on the surface temperature numbers — I believe they would show more warming if UAH did not exist.
But I do have one criticism.
Why would you “do business” with Google (or Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube)?
They all hate conservatives, libertarians. Republicans and everyone else who favors free speech.
And then whine when they get deleted or de-monetized ?
Give us a break !
For privacy reasons,
I have never “done business” with Facebook or Twitter.
Not once have I visited their websites.
I stopped using Google searches after the Hunter Biden censorship before the 2020 election. I do have three blogs on Blogspot.com, which I later found out that Google owns, but I can’t more my archives elsewhere. The blogs are free and I’m stuck with them.
I stopped providing a YouTube link once a week, to my favorite song, on one of my blogs.
Don’t support or do business with any company that hates you unless there is no other choice.
–I would define Mr. Spencer as a luke-warmer.
Apparently Google will not even tolerate luke-warmers.–
I am lukewarmer, except generally lukewarmer has meant about 2 to 3 C of warming by 2100. I don’t think it CO2 will cause 2 to 3 C of warming by 2100 AD. I used to think this was possible.
I don’t we will have increase of 2 C, by any means by 2100 AD.
We had about .14 C per decade, times 8 = 1.12 C.
It seems to me, everyone is lukewarmer, and I think it’s unlikely we get 1.12 C of warming before 2100 AD.
But I am lukewarmer, in sense it seem possible CO2 increases could cause global warming. And I think it’s 0 to .5 C if we double CO2 levels before 2100 AD.
But I tend to think a lot of things going to happen before 2100 AD.
I am pretty certain that Governments are not going to do much, as they have done little so far. But people have, and they will continue to change our world.
Anyhow I don’t think any thinks global air temperature will warm more than 3 C before 2100 AD.
So, we are all lukewarmers.
Btw, anyone want to guess when China will reach peak coal.
I going to give a number, when Chinese coal reaches $300 per ton.
Anyone want to guess when Chinese coal reaches $300 per ton?
Anyone want to give another number, like $1000 per ton?
$2000 per ton??
In Oct 5 it peaked at $264 and now down to $197
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal
If likewise, if peaked in day to $300, that doesn’t count, it’s about $200 now, so I meant when it stays around $300 or more.
And US is about $136.00. And Europe about $100 or less.
Check US again:
https://www.eia.gov/coal/markets/
It’s about Europe or lower than Europe.
Maybe that number exported US coal or something.
India also peaked like China, but about it’s about $140 now.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/coal-price
Gbaikie
You seem to believe the future global
average temperature can be predicted
in the long term, with no evidence
that is possible.
You believe the
long term trend
has to be warmer
with no evidence
that is true.
You talk about predictions with no data
but not much about past climate change
based on data
You do mention warming since 1979
but that is data mining.
CO2 has been added to the atmosphere
for over 120 years. Not only since 1979.
There was very little warming
from 1900 through 1975 and that warming claim is based on
very inaccurate global average temperatures in the early 1900s
with very few Southern Hemisphere measurements.
So what you are is
a modest climate alarmist.
Unlike a Climate Realist who knows
100 year predictions are meaningless,
and always have been.
You apparently have not learned that yet.
You are a believer in climate predictions.
The track record of wrong predictions
is not something one should promote.
Real climate science requires data
There are no data for the future
Just unproven theories and speculation
about the future climate.
That’s all “climate change” is
= scary predictions.
We are NOT all luke-warmers.
No one alive today KNOWS if the average temperature
in 2100 will be warmer or colder than today.
Some of us are intelligent enough to say
“no one knows what the climate will be like in 2100”.
You, apparently, think you know better.
“You seem to believe the future global
average temperature can be predicted
in the long term, with no evidence
that is possible.”
I can’t predict weather.
Global temperature is the temperature of the entire ocean
which is about 3.5 C.
“You believe the
long term trend
has to be warmer
with no evidence
that is true.”
Hundred year trend is about 1 C
5000 years trend is slight cooling
We are still recovering from Little Ice Age.
The peak Holocene temperature was during:
“The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period that occurred in roughly the interval roughly 9,000 to 5,000 years BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP.” – wiki
Tropical ocean stays constantly warm in Interglacial or Glaciation period.
We in icehouse climate.
Coldest time of our Ice Age was last 2 million years.
We unlikely to return global warm period of Holocene Climate Optimum within 100 years.
Sea level rise has been about 7″ over last 100 years.
It seems to me unlikely we will get another 7″ rise within
80 years.
I made no prediction about cooling, but seems unlikely to cool to temperatures below, UAH start temperature, within 30 to 40 years.
But it’s possible to have quite cold northern hemisphere temperature- bad cold weather. Could recover Artic polar sea ice, within 30 years. Or in terms of warming, doesn’t seem we will have ice free polar sea ice in the summer, within 30 years.
“So what you are is
a modest climate alarmist.”
Other than I wish we would get warm enough to green the Sahara Desert, even vaguely like what happened in Holocene Climate Optimum. And average global air temperature of about 15 C, is obviously, cold.
“Unlike a Climate Realist who knows
100 year predictions are meaningless,
and always have been.”
The ocean has been about 3.5 C for thousands of years, and probably be close to that temperature in another 1000 years.
So, I can predict global climate much longer than 100 years, but I can’t predict global weather, next month.
But don’t know what caused cooling of Little Ice Age, it seems sea levels fell and ocean might have cooled by as much as two tenths- which is a lot. And we had all those glaciers, also.
But also, it seems, it took centuries.
“Real climate science requires data
There are no data for the future
Just unproven theories and speculation
about the future climate.”
There is lack data of how much cold water is falling into the Ocean. And that is something one needs data on.
And our ocean is unexplored.
And we don’t know what the temperature of ocean, nor the surface air temperature.
But everyone know the temperature of ocean determines global climate, our cold ocean is why we are in icehouse climate, and during our 34 million year Ice Age, the last 2 million years has had the coldest ocean within our Ice Age.
I don’t think we had a 5 C ocean within the last 2 million years.
And 5 C ocean is much warmer world.
There were no accurate ocean temperature measurements
until the use of ARGO floats about 20 years ago.
How can anyone know the average ocean temperature in the past without a large margin of error, whether in 1950, or 1850?
Climate reconstructions are certainly no more accurate than
+/-1 degree C. and I’m being very optimistic with that guess.
–Richard Greene says:
January 12, 2022 at 9:53 AM
There were no accurate ocean temperature measurements
until the use of ARGO floats about 20 years ago.
How can anyone know the average ocean temperature in the past without a large margin of error, whether in 1950, or 1850?
Climate reconstructions are certainly no more accurate than
+/-1 degree C. and I’m being very optimistic with that guess.–
The 3.5 C is given commonly and well before ARGO floats.
ARGO is good for what does but doesn’t measure the entire ocean.
Not is science papers, but commonly the ocean is said to be: 90% of ocean is 3 C or colder.
But “about” 3.5 C is given in old references.
And I agree with you, 3.5 ocean or 15 C global air is not a precise number.
I go with average global land surface air is about 10 C, and average global ocean surface air is about 17 C.
The ocean surface temperature is likewise old, the “about” 10 land is somewhat recently with Berkeley Earth “estimate”.
And northern Hemisphere land and ocean average is warmer than southern hemisphere. And has been argued about in term of “why” for more than a century. Or Southern Hemisphere has more ocean and ocean should be warmer and we closer to sun when tilted south. Obviously due to Antarctia being a cooling effect.
And I say as general thing, oceans warms and land cools.
Or agree with everyone, the ocean warms our world.
“Obviously due to Antarctia being a cooling effect.”
But there are other factors, one discussed is southern ocean warming northern oceans, which seems part of it, also.
But I would tend to say this is not necessarily a permanent thing, or Antarctia location the basic element, and such ocean currents could be more of variable factor over decades to centuries of time.
More of global weather thing, rather than global climate.
I would be interested in whether the southern hemisphere has been warmer than northern. Or seems to something related oscillation in this regard but I would guess southern Hemisphere is more stable and northern is more variable, southern hemisphere only gets warmer, when northern hemisphere gets warmer.
Or southern hemisphere only follows rather than leads, though in terms of analogy, southern hemisphere is anchor or “bedrock” of our icehouse global climate.
Dr. Spencer
” I cant expect their liberal arts-educated fact checkers to understand the nuances of the global warming debate. ”
Agreed.
Most Liberal Arts graduates would be unable to recognise the scientific merit of the UAH dataset.
Hoever, liberal arts include history, political science, sociology, psychology and media study. A normal part of their curriculum is the recognition, workings and purpose of propoganda. They would have no problem recognising propoganda when they see it.
https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/propaganda-misinformation-and-histories-of-media-techniques/
The pamphlets you organised for the Trump government may have been a mistake.
It is quite possible that Google demonetised you because they now regard you as a propogandist.
>They would have no trouble recognizing propaganda when they see it.
LOL-So sayeth the propagandist.
Eman,
What do you think about “An Inconvenient Truth” or “12 years until the world ends.” I wonder if Gore’s or AOC’s accounts have been restricted? What about the UN? They publish a falsifiable report on Climate, but we still give them money and promote their work. I wonder if Google has interfered with any of their proclamations or demonetized myriad sites that regurgitate their garbage?
“What about the UN? They publish a falsifiable report on Climate, ”
It is indeed falsifiable, like any good science, but no competent scientists have yet done so.
That is why most scientists accept the AGW paradigm.
It is also why most nations and about half the US population accept that climate change is a problem and some policies to mitigate it would be welcome.
It is also why Dr Spencer’s political activities have become regarded as “unreliable and harmful” and he has been demonetised.
So, what about Berry’s work makes it incompetent?
I want specifics.
>That is why most scientists accept the AGW paradigm.
Too bad for you that science isn’t a popularity contest.
Someone who comes on here and calls Spencer a propagandist and then calls Berry incompetent and himself is too much of a COWARD to debate Berry and call him out on his site is a propagandist of the first order.
I was on Berry’s site.
https://newswithviews.com/Berry/ed115.htm
The two of you have remarkably similar styles.
Am I already debating with Ed Berry?
Ask Troglodyte about the Revelle factor, EM.
Why not?
Would you care to comment, Stephen/Ed?
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3-4-2.html
So you do realize the Revelle Factor has nothing to do with Berry’s hypothesis? Chihuahua will lead you down a rabbit hole. Why don’t you ask Berry? Coward.
Ballantyne et al. found “there is no empirical evidence” that the ability of the land and oceans to absorb atmospheric CO2 “has started to diminish on the global scale.”
Ooooh!
Another climate cultist convinced people aren’t who they claim to be!
Who cares? Facts are superior to speculation or fantasy.
Cultists try to find any excuse to avoid facing facts. Just look at the response if they are asked to show an experiment demonstrating that CO2 can make thermometers hotter!
Or for that matter, trying to get a clear scientific description of the GHE.
Weird Wee Willy crows about playing “silly semantic games”, and “making” commenters “waste space”. Typical climate cultist refusing to accept reality.
Sad and pathetic, but true.
Troglodyte confuses the fact that Ed ignores the Revelle Factor with irrelevance.
If Ed forgot that there is a limit to how much CO2 can be dissolved in the oceans, then so much the worse for his “paper.”
> Ballantyne et al. found
Where?
i WaNT spEciFicS.
As usual, whacky Wee Willy tries confusion and diversion (notice the “if”) –
“Troglodyte confuses the fact that Ed ignores the Revelle Factor with irrelevance.
If Ed forgot that there is a limit to how much CO2 can be dissolved in the oceans, then so much the worse for his “paper.””
And if he didn’t”?
Wee Willy still can’t accept the reality that nobody, anywhere, has managed to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and a heat source!
All this blathering about “CO2, it’s CO2, I tell you!”, is just irrelevant nonsense without experimental support – and, of course, experimental support is notable by its absence.
How hard can it be? Professor John Tyndall did experiments which showed CO2 reduced the temperature of thermometers, when interposed between the thermometers and a heat source. Surely some “climate scientist” can show that Tyndall was mistaken?
Only joking. Of course they can’t. Hence delusional idiots like Wee Willy Willard.
Mike Flynn, Marathon of Feloniousness – TL;DR.
Wee Willy Idiot retreats into fantasy.
Plaintively bleating “i WaNT spEciFicS” rather than doing his own research, Wee Willy manages to avoid addressing the reality that nobody has yet managed to heat anything using CO2.
Poor Wee Willy. No respect, no science, no power and no clue.
Mike Flynn, Maladroit Firecracker – the “I want specifics” mimicked Troglodyte’s sammich request.
Have you noticed how he always makes demands without ever giving us anything? A bit like you, in a way.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Witless Wee Willy,
Trying to involve others in your “sammich” fantasy? What the hell is a “sammich”?
Have you considered learning how to write English?
You are obviously to stupid to figure out why nobody accords you respect, so I’ll tell you – you are a delusional dimwit.
Have you considered talking about science, or is that beyond your intellectual ability?
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The crowd falls asleep.*
Wonky Wee Willy’s definition of a crowd – Wee Willy.
Has difficulty staying awake – at all times. Probably as a result of diminished mental acuity.
[chortles]
Chihuahua,
The Revelle Factor is a myth. It doesn’t exist. The current “myth of the day” cultists use to support their other legends like humans caused the CO2 rise or global warming will destroy the planet.
“So you do realize the Revelle Factor has nothing to do with Berrys hypothesis?”
Stephen we discussed this and you had no sensible explanation whatsoever about why Revelle Factor can be ignored!
Berrys model is math that doesnt apply to the real world, and wont until he includes real world constraints in his math.
Chihuahua,
If the IPCC states that turnover time is somewhere around 3.5 years, and, it has stayed 3.5 years for the past 250 years. Then, how can the Revelle Factor or any other carbon uptake myth be relevant?
You too, Nate, yes we discussed this. Answer the question.
“If the IPCC states that turnover time is somewhere around 3.5 years, and, it has stayed 3.5 years for the past 250 years. Then, how can the Revelle Factor or any other carbon uptake myth be relevant?”
Turnover is the exchange of CO2 between the three CO2 reservoirs, land, ocean and atmosphere. The 3.5 year turnover time is the average time a random C02 molecule spends in the atmosphere before moving to another carbon sink.
Exchange between land and atmosphere and land is mostly biological, by photosynthesis and respiration. Exchange between ocean surface and atmosphere is mostly by diffusion, which is where Revelle comes in.
The three sinks try to remain in equilibrium, with about 50% of the total circulating carbon as CO2 in the atmosphere, 25% as DIC and DOC in the ocean and 25% as carbon compounds on land. Apart from gradual weathering and the odd volcano the total amount of carbon remains constant.
Think of the sinks as three water tanks. The largest tank has a water surface of two square feet, the other two one square foot. Label the larger tank Atmosphere and the others Land and Ocean. Add siphons connecting the Land and the Ocean to the Atmosphere and half fill the tanks with water. The area of the tanks represents the proportion of carbon partitioned to each tank. The volumes represent the amount of carbon in each sink, and the total volume the total circulating carbon. In a short time the siphons will bring the three tanks to equilibrium at the same water level.
Now we can experiment. In a normal preindustrial year there is a net transfer of carbon from atmosphere to land in Summer by photosynthesis, returning to the atmosphere all year by respiration. You see it in The Keeling curve as an annual cycle. You can represent this by pouring a mug of water from Atmosphere to Land. You get a temporary decrease in the amount of water in the Atmosphere tank, followed by a recovery as water siphons back from the Land. The total volume has not changed.
Human emissions come mostly from fossil fuel burning and cement making, adding extra carbon from outside the three sinks. This is released into the atmosphere. Half remains in the atmosphere and half transfers to the land and ocean sinks. The total carbon in circulation increases year on year.
Simulate a year’s emissions by adding a litre jug of water from the tap to the Atmosphere tank.
Initially you get a rise in level and volume in the Atmosphere tank. The siphons then transfer water to land and Ocean. When you reach equilibrium the water levels are equal, the volume in the Atmosphere tank has increased by 0.5l and the Land and Ocean tanks by 0.25l each. The total volume has increased by 1l.
Finally, over very long time scales (centuries up to millions of years) weathering and sediment formation traps carbon and removes it from circulation. This is why over centuries CO2 concentrations are expected to drop back to preindustrial levels as the amount of circulating carbon gradually decreases. In our tanks this might be represented by evaporation.
“So, what about Berrys work makes it incompetent? ”
His maths does not match reality in two basic ways.
Somehow human carbon emissions disappear from the system without accumulating in any of the sinks. This is equivalent to adding a jug of water and then removing it again.
He also misrepresents the equilibrium, partly by ignoring processes like the Revelle effect. The result is that he is spontaneously moving carbon from land and ocean to the atmosphere. This is equivalent to pumping water up the siphons from Land and Ocean to the Atmosphere tank against a pressure gradient.
Governments love climate fear porn — they love a scared population demanding that the government “do something”.
Leftists never let a “crisis” go to waste.
The “coming crisis” does not have to be real
— it only has to be believed.
The coming climate crisis is not real — it is imaginary, and has been imagined since the late 1950s. Meanwhile, the current climate is the best climate in over 325 years.
You remain oblivious to climate reality.
Your thinking ability is distorted by the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy and the belief that consensus science is real science. And your mother wears Army boots.
Please have your head examined.
Hopefully, they will find nothing.
Which would explain your comment.
Stephen
“Why dont you ask Berry? ”
His site is closed. You have to join and log in.
Your long-winded reply didn’t answer my question. Since turnover time is around 3.5 years according to IPCC, and turnover time has not changed since 1750, (which specifically applies to the atmosphere to land and surface ocean exchange) how is Revelle Factor relevant to the discussion? Also, go to Berry’s site, click on “paper” and you can ask any question on the message board. Berry will reply.
>He also misrepresents the equilibrium, partly by ignoring processes like the Revelle effect. The result is that he is spontaneously moving carbon from land and ocean to the atmosphere. This is equivalent to pumping water up the siphons from Land and Ocean to the Atmosphere tank against a pressure gradient.
So are you saying the IPCC’s carbon cycle model is incorrect?
>Somehow human carbon emissions disappear from the system without accumulating in any of the sinks. This is equivalent to adding a jug of water and then removing it again.
You obviously didn’t read his paper. He accounts for all the fossil fuel emissions from 1750. They became part of the fast carbon cycle. It is the IPCC who wrongly accounted for fossil fuels and they violated conservation of mass. Can’t do that.
A couple more things, in order to make their Carbon Cycle Model work, they claimed nature can distinguish between a human carbon and a natural carbon after human carbon enters the fast cycle and they also claimed carbon uptake is a non-linear process while also demonstrating in their carbon cycle model that it is linear. There is no evidence that the conservation of carbon is a non-linear process. Can you provide any? (You’ll need to change all the atmospheric textbooks if you can.)
I put a comment on Berry’s site inviting him to join us here.
I hope you read and understood my “long-winded” post and now understand that the carbon cycle describes three carbon reservoirs continually exchange carbon. That 3.2 years is the time it takes for CO2 molecules in the atmosphere to turn over between reservoirs and has very little to do with the long term increase in total circulating carbon.
Now for the Revelle factor. This is going to be long-winded again.
In physical chemistry, Henry’s law is a gas law that states that the amount of dissolved gas in a liquid is proportional to its partial pressure above the liquid.
This is an equilibrium. For a given atmospheric concentration you should get a given amount of dissolved CO2. Individual molecules keep crossing back and forth while the concentrations above and below settle to constant values.
Henry’s Law is not the whole story.
When CO2 dissolves some of it reacts with water to form carbonic acid H2CO3.
Some carbonic acid decomposes to bicarbonate ions HCO3- and protons H+.
Some bicarbonate decomposes to bicarbonate ions CO3– and more protons H+.
These reactions also have an equilibrium. If you add extra CO2 the reactions run towards carbonate and some of the extra CO2 is converted to ions. If you reduce the amount of CO2 the reactions convert ions back towards more dissolved CO2. (If you know your chemistry this will sound familiar. Sodium bicarbonate/ sodium carbonate buffer is used to stabilise pH)
The overall effect is to buffer the concentration of CO2.
For a given increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration the dissolved CO2 increases less than expected from Henry’s Law because it is converted to bicarbonate. The ocean continues to absor*b and store CO2 in greater quantities than Henry’s Law would predict.
Revelle’s factor measures the degree of buffering. It is the factor describing the difference between the amount of CO2 absor*bed according to Henry’s Law and the actual amount absor*bed. A smaller Revell’s factor indicates a higher buffering capacity.
If Berry did not included Revelle’s factor in his model, the model would show less removal of CO2 to the oceans and overestimate the amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere. In turn, this would make the apparent CO2 increase larger than explainable by human emissions and give the illusion that some CO2 must be coming from natural sources.
> in order to make their Carbon Cycle Model work, they claimed nature can distinguish between a human carbon and
Be specific, Troglodyte: provide chapter and verse.
Speaking of mythology, how do you reconcile Ed’s and Christos’ work?
“He accounts for all the fossil fuel emissions from 1750. They became part of the fast carbon cycle. ”
Berry and IPCC got human emissions right.
Berry’s problem is that his model overestimated the increase in atmospheric CO2, which created the illusion of an extra natural CO2 source.
“So are you saying the IPCCs carbon cycle model is incorrect? ”
The IPCCs carbon cycle model is correct. Berry’s is wrong.
“In order to make their Carbon Cycle Model work, they claimed nature can distinguish between a human carbon and a natural carbon after human carbon enters the fast cycle”
Not necessary. Just follow the totals. Accountants don’t need to record the number on every dollar passing through their accounts.
“they also claimed carbon uptake is a non-linear process”
That’s right. Revelle’s factor increases as the atmospheric concentration increases. A higher proportion of CO2 remains in the atmosphere and the rate of change accelerates. Look at the Keeling curve. It is getting steeper over time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve#/media/File%3AMauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg
Almost everything you stated above is wrong. Are you going over to debate Berry?
>Speaking of mythology, how do you reconcile Eds and Christos work?
Geez, if you’d only read even one of Berry’s papers. He doesn’t address GHE in any of them. His papers only address the rise in CO2 from 1750 until the present.
>The 3.5 year turnover time is the average time a random C02 molecule spends in the atmosphere before moving to another carbon sink.
This is an incorrect definition of turnover time. The continuity equation is a first order LINEAR differential equation. The integral is its solution. This defines Te.
Thats a nice explanation Entropic Man.
I would also add to this part “Finally, over very long time scales (centuries up to millions of years) weathering and sediment formation traps carbon and removes it from circulation.”
That also over long time scales (centuries) the excess carbon in ocean mixed layer will be removed to the deep ocean, which is a much larger reservoir. That time-scale is determined by the Revelle Factor, and other parameters.
> He doesn’t address GHE in any of them.
Ed might need a new Champion:
What “effects” would that be, Troglodyte?
DOI is 10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.1, BTW.
Willard, please stop trolling.
>If Berry included (fixed) Revelles factor in his model, the model would show less removal of CO2 to the oceans and overestimate the amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere. In turn, this would make the apparent CO2 increase larger than explainable by human emissions and give the illusion that some CO2 must be coming from natural sources.
So where would the Revelle Factor fit into his model? He used IPCC emission data and turnover time. He used the mass conservation equation published in countless atmospheric textbooks. He tested IPCC’s natural carbon cycle to his continuity equation (you know the one in atmospheric textbooks) and it fit perfectly. I know all about alkalinity relationships and you don’t need to teach me about Henry’s Law. I’ve been using both for years. You’re using a hypothesis to falsify a hypothesis. Science doesn’t work that way. Let’s see your data.
[TROGLODYTE] Your long-winded reply didnt answer my question.
[ALSO TROGLODYTE] So where would the Revelle Factor fit into his model?
Dragon cranks have little more than abuse.
Oh, poor, poor, Witless Wee Willy!
Abused, bullied, mistreated. How does he manage to survive?
It’s a hard, hard, world for the slightly retarded climate cultists. Fewer and fewer people believe their claims that CO2 is the cause of the world’s ills. Reality is starting to rear its ugly head, which is just too much for cultists like Wee Willy.
He can’t even find a fellow cultist who wants to play with his (Climate)balls. Well, maybe Ken Rice, but he’s about as thick as Wee Willy.
Mike Flynn, Miscalculating Folly – you might need to revise the size of your bandwagon:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
Oh, and you’re playing the “But Consensus” square of the Climateball Bingo:
https://climateball.net/but-consensus/
Well played!
Willard, please stop trolling.
“I know all about alkalinity relationships and you dont need to teach me about Henrys Law. Ive been using both for years. ”
Then why, Stephen, do you ignore them?
” He tested IPCCs natural carbon cycle to his continuity equation (you know the one in atmospheric textbooks) and it fit perfectly.”
Huh?
What the hell is ‘IPCCs natural carbon cycle’?
The IPCC refers to the Bern model, which was developed from observations of the carbon cycle. It involves both short and longer time constants.
Promoting burning wood to lower CO2 levels is Propaganda.
Saying we in crisis and not doing anything effective about the crisis, is solely propaganda.
Propaganda is everywhere, talking about past Propaganda, is Propaganda, and selling ads is Propaganda.
Offering contrary opinion is only way “fight” propaganda.
But fighting propaganda by censorship, is sort of like stupidity promoting wood burning in order to lower CO2 levels.
Saying we are in 34 million year Ice Age, is not propaganda, it can be not refuted, it is annoying to the Propagandist message that the world is too warm.
Global warming is religion, and like any religion it has conflicting aspects. Part of the religion is concern about future energy- and burning wood, could seen as solving this, but it’s not about lower CO2 emission, as is it claims it is.
But it’s a bad way to solve this concern of future energy. Burning Coal is better solution {and burning coal is not particularly a good solution- but also allowing coal to burn naturally is no solution- effort to stop unwanted burning of coal, have been a global failure, it said to be impossible to do- one could suspect there is some propaganda connected to this- no doubt it might be excessively expensive}
The only way to defeat Propaganda is by education.
Bad education is propaganda, we have bad education full propaganda.
Solution, end educational unions, and promote competition in education.
> Global warming is religion
https://climateball.net/but-religion/
The world is going to end in 5 years, 12 years, 10 years, is without doubt, exactly a religion. And once owner of CNN, Ted Turner forecasting everyone being a cannibal, is a small sect/minority of this religion:
Ted Turner: Global warming can lead to cannibalism:
“Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals,” said Turner, 69. “Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state like Somalia or Sudan and living conditions will be intolerable.”
One way to combat global warming, Turner said, is to stabilize the population.–
https://tinyurl.com/yckrp7m4
Fear of over population is another very old religion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mys_AQjM4U0
8 degrees of warming, 10, no 20 to 30 years.
so …7 to 17 years from now.
And he is billionaire- and he did nothing about it.
Never apologized for lying.
Though why should he, it’s what he believed.
> The world is going to end in 5 years, 12 years,
https://climateball.net/but-12-years/
Weepy Wee Willy,
Haven’t you realised nobody wants to play with your balls except you?
How many people have asked to play? None?
Colour me unsurprised!
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn – you are replying to my comments.
Cheers.
Weary Wee Willy,
Oh, I see. You are delusional enough to believe that you can determine who comments on this blog?
Here’s a hint – I can comment as I wish, subject to the wishes of the blog administrator – who happens not to be you, fool!
Have I mentioned the words powerless and impotent (not to exclude delusional) in relation to your blathering?
Carry on avoiding reality.
“We indeed have a very short window of opportunity before too much carbon dioxide gets stuck in the atmosphere virtually forever.”
Willard we have a cold ocean.
Your “virtually forever” is a lie.
No one can support forever or “virtually forever” unless you are fruit fly.
It goes up and down every year, up and down over decades.
Change your propaganda “number”.
> Your “virtually forever” is a lie.
Strong argument you got there, gb. The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this.
Chihuahua,
Your problem is that Berry’s paper is out there. You nor the IPCC can do a damn thing about it. Got evidence?
“The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever”…is a weird cult belief. Weird cult beliefs ain’t science.
The reality is that CO2 gets sucked up by strawberry plants, and other hungry floral. What is not eaten by land vegetation goes into the oceans to furnish the food chain there. It all works to bring food to the starving children of the world.
The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this.
“> Your virtually forever is a lie.
Strong argument you got there, gb. ”
Just admit your statement is feckless.
Is invented, or do got someone else who would agree with you?
We are in an Icehouse Climate. Our icehouse climate has
a cold ocean and a cold ocean is why we have a very low global CO2
level.
It’s somewhat a wonder is how plants can live with this low level, it’s generally assumed 150 ppm can not support plant life.
Our last 2 million years has brought close this death line.
“The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this.”
It’s the thermostat level which cause more CO2 emission than cars.
> Just admit your statement is feckless.
That’s not my statement, and in fact it is not even controversial.
As for your new step in your Gish Gallop:
https://climateball.net/but-life/
The ever delusional Wasted Wee Willy wrote –
“> Your “virtually forever” is a lie.
Strong argument you got there, gb. The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this.”
Wee Willy presents wild-assed guesses as fact, and the attempts the usual meaningless cultist “essentially” ass-covering weasel word.
Wee Willy still can’t accept reality. The GHE is just another fantasy based assertion. No experimental support whatsoever. It cannot even described in any useful way.
No wonder Wee Willy chooses fantasy over reality.
Mike Flynn, Microdosing Forbearance – here you go:
https://climateball.net/but-abc/
What were you saying again about that Climateball, that you got none?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Weepy Wee Willy,
Still can’t name a single person who wants to play with your balls?
Maybe you should talk about science, rather than your “silly semantic games”.
Mike Flynn, Materializing Forgetfulness – once again, Mike Flynn is the answer.
If you have other questions, feel free to ask!
Wearisome Wee Willy,
You really expect people to believe Mike Flynn wants to play with your balls?
That’s about as demented as thinking that I would contemplate such a nauseating thought!
But you are such an idiot you probably don’t know the difference. Go and play with yourself – your ejaculatory “Oh! Oh! Oh!” shows you do it often enough.
Oh well, if no one wants to play with you, you can always take your balls home and play with yourself. Or you could play “silly semantic games” with yourself if you want to look even more like a loser.
Finding the study of science a bit too much, are you?
5 years or 12 years is baloney
everyone knows real science
requires at least three decimal places
12.528 years would be real science
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn – speaking of ejaculation:
Here’s the Bingo square:
https://climateball.net/but-science/
Ooooh!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Amen, G!
I must say that a search for the word “donate” in this discussion returned only three results and the button was not one of them. But look people, you can find the button.
Now to donate, the very least I could do.
Francis
I would be glad to contribute to ensure the continued good work by Dr. Spencer. How about an “old school” approach. Is there an address and official entity that could accept a check via the US mail? I don’t think that would be tracked or get us all cancelled.
I am not in the USA I am in the UK and I don’t care who can track me so sending a small donation using the button was not an issue for me. If you are in the USA I am sure that you could find a way to send a check to Dr Spencer if you wanted to.
Maybe you could find an address to mail to using Google!
BTW I don’t donate to ensure that Dr Spencer continues his work, although I do hope that he will, I donate in support of Freedom of Speech and against those who seek to inhibit it.
Amen, brother!
Do not call them liberal, they are fanatics.
There is absolutely nothing liberal about these censure-loving dullards who fail to even realize that what goes around comes around.
Guess, to give but one example, what spending four entire years yelling over and over “the elections were stolen” got them.
Anyway.
Please do not stop providing the monthly satellite data updates. The effort is truly appreciated
The US has had two disputed elections in a row.
Clearly the wheels are coming off your constitutional system.
Time for a change.
Putin for King?
The 2016 election dispute was Hillary Clinton baloney
The 2020 election dispute was real and unprecedented.
The two most inprecedented 2020 polling results:
Trump won 18 of 19 bellwether counties, yet “lost” the election = extremely hard to believe there was no fraud top get such unprecedented results, and
In the post-Election Census Survey, the sample of people polled claimed four million fewer votes than were actually counted.
That was unprecedented.
In all past polls people claimed to have voted when they actually did not vote. Several times the votes claimed in the polls were nine million MORE VOTES than actually counted.
This result of 4 million fewer votes claimed in the poll, versus actual votes counted, was unprecedented.
Joe Biden did his “best” with ballots arriving after midnight on Election Day in Detroit, Atlanta, Wisconsin and Arizona — all ion Democrat controlled cities.
The Trump lead at midnight was erased by votes showing up after Election Day ended = very suspicious.
There are videos of ballots arriving after midnight, using unmarked trucks in detroit, for one example.
You’re preaching to the choir, Richard.
Much Better than preaching to a room
full of leftist trained parrots !
The common factor of the two elections was Donald Trump.
You might occasionally try logic, inference, and deductive reasoning.
The uncommon factor was a huge increase
of absentee ballots in 2020.
“You might occasionally try logic, inference, and deductive reasoning. ”
An excellent idea.
“The uncommon factor was a huge increase
of absentee ballots in 2020. ”
The swing states Trump lost in 2020 had Republican electoral management. This usual result is that it is made more difficult for the poor (usually Democrats) to vote and easier for Republicans to vote.
All sorts of tricks. Put fewer polling stations in poor areas and position them a long way from the housing blocks. Put more polling stations in Republican areas and make them front-end ( More republicans have cars). Require photo id. (More Republicans have photo-id). I could go on!
(Note. I make no claims that Democrats don’t try to fiddle the system. Gerrymandering etc seem universal in the crappy American system. But in the 2020 election the swing states were run by Republicans.)
As a result a higher proportion of Republicans vote in person and a larger proportion of Democrats use postal votes.
On the day, the in-person votes are counted before the postal votes. At the end of the in-person count the % reflects the higher proportion of in-person votes among Republicans and will give an artificially high % for the Republican candidate at the expense of the Democrat.
The postal votes were then counted. Since a higher proportion of Democrats used them the postal votes will reduce the Republican % vote until all votes are counted.
In a state with a large Republican majority this has no effect on the result.
In a state with a large Democrat majority this has no effect on the result.
In a swing state the result is close enough that the difference in proportion between in-person and postal votes is enough to make the difference.
Several swing states showed the same pattern. A small Republican majority after the in-person count and a small Democrat majority after the postal count was completed.
Nothing to do with cheating, just the electoral system in action.
Entropic your response to my comment is complete malarkey.
There was no discrimination against Democrat voters in 2020.
Certainly not in cities controlled by Dumbocrats where the electors for the key battleground state were decided entirely by ballots arriving after midnight on election day.
In case you didn’t notice, there were more Democrat votes than Republican votes for President. How were Democrats blocked from voting? You complained about the unfair voting procedure in Democrat controlled cities, nitwit !
In the Congressional races, the Republicans did better than Democrats. Very unusual when the Republican presidential candidate also does not win his race.
So we are stuck with Adolph Biden, king of the Biden crime family, and the first President with early dementia, which is probably why you love him. You are fact free on elections, probably also suffering from early dementia.
Thank you, Entropic Man, for notifying me of the discussion about my paper herein.
First, I am very sorry about what Google is doing to excellent websites like Roy’s. This will become a problem for all of us because Google will find us, and Google does not have the competence to understand climate physics.
Second, the journal “Science of Climate Change” published my paper on December 14, 2021. You can link to, read, and comment on my paper here:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-co2-temp/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/
Some comments above refer to a public article I wrote for another website in 2016. That is not the place to learn about my 2021 paper.
So, if you really have comments or questions about my 2021 paper, now you know where to find me.
Best wishes to Roy.
Sincerely, Ed
Eman,
I readily await your debate with Dr. Berry on his website.
Thanks, Ed.
Do you have a DOI by any chance?
Eagerly awaiting that Stephen (whom I affectionately call “Troglodyte” because, well, he’s one) shows any evidence he understands any of it,
W
Woeful Wee Willy,
Are you too lazy to look things up for yourself, or just outstandingly incompetent?
Or maybe you are just being your usual grubby self, trying to make people waste their time, pandering to your idiotic desires.
Tell me you really can’t find the DOI which you so stupidly beg for! I’ll enjoy the laugh at your expense.
>Woeful Wee Willy,
Are you too lazy to look things up for yourself, or just outstandingly incompetent?
Or maybe you are just being your usual grubby self, trying to make people waste their time, pandering to your idiotic desires.
Tell me you really can’t find the DOI which you so stupidly beg for! I’ll enjoy the laugh at your expense.
Swenson,
Chihuahua was pretty sycophantic toward Dr. Berry. Wonder why because he displays so much disdain towards him? Hey sycophant, I can send you a copy of the paper if you give me your email address.
Mike Flynn, Miserable Freak – it should be easy for Ed to cite the official source of his paper, don’t you think?
After all, he’s the one who touts about passing peer-review and being published.
Cheers.
Whacky Wee Willard,
Why should anybody at all care what you think?
Who is Ed, anyway? You can’t provide a single reason why anybody should do anything at all for you, can you?
If you wish to appear lazy and incompetent, bully for you. You’re a gutless ant-science slimeball, but at least you serve as an excellent object of derision.
[derisive chuckling]
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn – you ask:
Very good question!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Watery Wee Willy,
I suppose you are self-obsessed enough to think anybody cares whether you think a question is “good”?
Oh dear, delusions of grandeur have you in their grip again, do they?
No wonder you repetitively perform that activity which cause you to ejaculate “Oh! Oh! Oh!”
Carry on Wee Willy, you can batter away at the keyboard using your other hand, I suppose.
Mike Flynn, Motorcycle Fratricide – you are replying to my comments.
Aw diddums!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Dr. Berry’s going to have courses later this year that explains his papers to laypeople. He is charging for them. You’ve failed to indicate you’ve read one of them, Chihuahua. Ask me another foolish question?
Answer the question, Troglodyte.
I want specifics.
Whining Wee Willy,
So you want specifics, do you?
I want a Bentley with a boot full of Laphroiag Quarter Cask.
Want in one hand, pee in t’other – guess which one fills up first?
Mike Flynn, Malaises Feuilletonist – perhaps you forgot how Troglodyte operates:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1123015
Perhaps you don’t and are ankle biting for fun.
Fair, fair enough.
Ha!
Wee Willy Idiot,
I don’t care how anyone “operates”, and I don’t know what form of mental defect leads you to think that I do.
Providing links that I can’t be bothered following, shows that you have a far higher opinion of your importance to me, than I do.
That’s probably because you are a strange delusional climate crank, but I suppose you might suffer from some other form of looniness.
Carry on being an obscure and pointless nitwit.
Mike Flynn, Melancholic Fruit – you asked for specifics, you got served. Play dumb to your heart’s content!
Cheers.
Ed? Geez, you really don’t know? Undergrad in physics at Caltech, graduate in physics at Dartmouth and then PhD in physics from University of Nevada. Authored I believe over 50 papers on Atmospheric Physics.
Try reading one of his papers on cloud droplet formation. It will make CO2 kinetics look like 3rd grade.
Do you have a point, Troglodyte?
>
Who is Ed, anyway?
Very good question!
I guess you can’t keep track of all your blather.
Now you’re being silly, Troglodyte. Mike Flynn usually interjects in exchanges he has not read. Here’s how ends the first comment of that thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1123697
Here’s a pro-tip – to address people with how they sign their missives is more than fine.
I hope you can do better than that.
Best,
W
You reposted, didn’t you? You blather all over the place.
If by “reposted” you mean I riposted, Troglodyte, then you’re right. Otherwise heat and kitchen, and next time keep your head up.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Charging for misinformation?
A true con man.
Thank you, but Stephen and I are doing well here. If we moved to your site we’d have to start again.
Berry can defend his paper much better than I can. Why are you so afraid?
You tell me that I am a propogandist.
Which site would a propagandist choose?
If you can find an actual scientific problem with his paper, he will listen. He’s not a propagandist. He’s a real scientist, like Spencer.
Chic Bowdrie found a bunch of issues with his paper. Berry corrected them all. He is looking for truth.
the so-called journal required a payment from Mr. Berry to publish his “paper:
Source of essay below written by a science Ph.D.
https://dailyinterlake.com/news/2016/apr/10/opinion-ungrounded-denial-of-climate-change-6/
OPINION: Ungrounded denial of climate-change consensus
by Jerry Elwood, Ph.D.
In the words of the popular saying, “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.” It’s also a major problem facing irrational people who cannot or won’t accept the logical conclusions derived from scientific evidence.
This is a particular problem facing scientists, policymakers, and educators who are confronted by organized efforts enabled by fake experts to spread doubt, denial, and rejection of the scientific community’s consensus that humans are causing global climate change.
It’s also a problem for a public unable to distinguish pseudoscientific opinions spouted by fake experts from established scientific evidence and facts produced by real experts.
Denialists rationalize their rejection of scientific evidence by cloaking their factually ungrounded beliefs in a mantle of science without being restricted by or adhering to its requirements. This includes the requirement that conclusions about how nature works be rooted in evidence-based tests, not opinions or suppositions that lack an evidential basis. They also share other characteristics, including making logical fallacies that lead to invalid conclusions, and misrepresenting and ignoring any evidence that conflicts with their predetermined beliefs.
These characteristics are demonstrated in Ed Berry’s response (Daily Inter Lake, March 6) to a guest opinion by Matt Bradley that pointed out Berry’s baseless and illogical opinions about climate-change science and the important effect of CO2 on climate. While Bradley freely admitted that he is not a climate expert, he understands the scientific method and is able, as a non-expert, to realize the preponderance of evidence that humans are causing climate change. Berry’s attempt to discredit Bradley was both illogical and unscientific. Berry doesn’t understand either climate science or modern biology.
For example, he grossly misreports results of a study by John Cook et al. published in 2013 in Environmental Research Letters (https://iopscience.iop.org/article /10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024) that quantified the level of consensus in the scientific literature on climate science about the cause of global warming.
Berry claims that only 64 of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers published over a 21-year period in scientific journals agree with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. But the actual finding of that study is that 3,900 peer-reviewed papers accept the consensus position, a number 60 times larger than that stated by Berry. The approximately 8,000 remaining papers analyzed in the study expressed no position on the cause of global warming because it was not germane to the issues addressed in those papers.
In my opinion, the only reasonable explanation for the large difference in the level of consensus expressed in the scientific literature about the cause of global warming between what Berry claims and what the study actually shows is that he intentionally misreported the true number because he is unwilling, as a denialist, to acknowledge the high level of consensus among scientists actively engaged in and publishing results of climate change research that humans are causing global warming.
Of course, he has every right to disagree with the findings and conclusions of any published study, but purposely misreporting the actual findings and ignoring other important results is scientifically irresponsible, casting doubt about his scientific honesty and integrity.
Berry believes that people should simply accept as truth whatever he says about the cause of climate change because he proclaims himself an expert on climate science and it fits with the denialist culture that exemplifies the majority Republican thinking on the subject. An examination of his background and credentials, including his publication record, however, reveals that his self-proclaimed expertise on the subject is unwarranted.
For example, his resume states that his Ph.D. thesis was about the science of rain formation, which is about a different subject, meteorology, not climate science. Further, based on the list of his published papers posted on Google Scholar, there is no evidence that Berry published anything dealing with climate science during his entire career as a practicing scientist. While he published papers in the mid-60s and early ’70s dealing with raindrop formation, none of his papers are about climate science, and he hasn’t published anything at all in the peer-reviewed literature since the 1970s, well before the vast majority of research on climate change has been conducted.
To bolster his self-proclaimed expertise, Berry also brags about the continual citation of his raindrop (but not climate science) publications every month by other scientists, but none of his papers have been cited since the 1980s, an indication that his work has become irrelevant and that he misrepresents it. Thus, Berry’s claim of being a climate expert is not supported by information posted on Google Scholar about his publication record and the citation of his papers in the scientific literature.
To further justify his climate denial position, Berry also likes to invoke the names of other fake experts, including Ivar Giaever (a Nobel laureate in solid-state physics) who also denies that humans are causing climate change. Some scientists, like Giaever, from non-climate fields believe they have sufficient expertise and knowledge to understand and comment on climate science despite not being familiar with the body of published scientific knowledge on the subject and having done minimal, if any, research on it.
Both Giaever and Berry fit this mold. Their contrarian, uninformed opinions come from a position of extreme ignorance on the subject, which Giaever himself readily admits. He personifies the classic stereotype of the physicist who thinks he’s smarter than everyone else and understands all scientific fields of study, and therefore that everyone should heed his opinions. But the fact that someone is a Nobel laureate in a non-climate field does not mean he or she knows anything about climate science.
Another characteristic of Berry’s denial is that his arguments may seem grounded in scientific evidence when, in fact, they are not. These falsehoods include his bizarre claims that water vapor and clouds keep the earth’s greenhouse effect constant when CO2 changes and would do so with or without any CO2 in the atmosphere, including even under conditions of increasing CO2.
Those claims are illogical, pseudoscientific nonsense and are contradicted by both theory and data. If the addition of more water vapor from the vaporization of ice was necessary to maintain the current greenhouse effect in the absence of any CO2, then logical deduction alone tells you that CO2 has to be important to the overall greenhouse effect of our planet, which Berry denies.
Secondly, Berry fails to explain how the addition of more water vapor to the atmosphere from vaporization of ice (referred to as sublimation) would occur in the absence of CO2 if the greenhouse effect remained constant. Under those conditions, it would be impossible for sublimation to increase and the capacity of the atmosphere to hold more water vapor above that already present unless the climate warmed, and that would not occur if the current greenhouse effect was maintained in the absence of CO2.
In fact, physics of the greenhouse effect tells you the climate would cool without CO2, which would mean there would be less, not more, water vapor in the atmosphere from sublimation and evaporation.
With regard to Berry’s claim that increasing CO2 causes water vapor to decline to maintain a constant greenhouse effect, Berry ignores data which shows that water vapor is increasing, not decreasing, and the greenhouse effect is increasing, not staying constant, with the increase in CO2. So Berry’s claim about the greenhouse effect remaining constant with or without CO2 not only defies logic but also is completely inconsistent with observational data, with well-accepted facts about the physics of the greenhouse effect, and with established knowledge about the factors that control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Lastly, results of a modeling experiment also refute Berry’s claim about a constant greenhouse effect with or without any CO2. An experiment to answer that question was conducted by Andrew Lacis and others at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and published in Science in 2010. The study’s conclusion is that earth’s greenhouse effect would collapse if the atmosphere contained no CO2, leading to a runaway glaciation that would produce an ice-ball Earth. So, Berry’s claim is also refuted by experimental evidence.
The reality is that Ed Berry and other climate change deniers of his ilk have not provided any scientific evidence or theory that refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus of human-caused climate change. The important thing about this scientific consensus is that it isn’t a result of peer pressure or someone policing scientists’ opinions. It results from the scientific method.
The contrarian opinions and ideas put forward by denialists like Berry about the cause of global warming have been tested and rejected because they fail to withstand scientific scrutiny. It is how science works.
Jerry W. Elwood, of Kalispell, has a Ph.D. in environmental science. He is the retired director of the Climate Change Research Division in the U.S Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
Again, science isn’t a popularity contest and none of this refutes Dr. Berry’s paper.
“The contrarian opinions and ideas put forward by denialists like Berry about the cause of global warming have been tested and rejected because they fail to withstand scientific scrutiny. ”
That is what refutes Barry’s paper. The predictions he makes, when tested, do not match observed reality.
If you want to defend Barry’s paper scientifically you need to show that it is a better fit to the observed data than any of the alternatives. You haven’t even tried to do so.
let-them-fight.gif
No facts from Wonky Wee Willy, then?
Here would be one, Mike Flynn –
You’re a sock puppet!
Swoon.
No facts from Weary Wee Willy, then.
Just more irrelevant gibberish.
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn everyone:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/the-weakness-of-tropospheric-warming-as-confirmed-by-airs/#comment-351162
Same voice. Same memes. Same silliness.
The one and only Mike Flynn!
Willard, please stop trolling.
>The contrarian opinions and ideas put forward by denialists like Berry about the cause of global warming have been tested and rejected because they fail to withstand scientific scrutiny.
That is what refutes Barrys paper. The predictions he makes, when tested, do not match observed reality.
If you want to defend Barrys paper scientifically you need to show that it is a better fit to the observed data than any of the alternatives. You havent even tried to do so.
What the hell are you talking about? The only prediction Berry makes is that if all human CO2 emissions were to stop, CO2 level would tend back to about 390ppm by 2100 if natural emission stayed the same. That is human CO2 doesn’t hang around in the atmosphere for centuries.
You’re not going to go over there are you, coward? You and Chihuahua.
Richard,
I really enjoyed Berry and Elwood’s debate. I learned a lot from their debate. Most of the criticism that Elwood had were small details and semantics. Nothing regarding the major hypothesis of the paper. In the end, Berry answered every one of his criticisms and changed a number of things in his paper but it only strengthened his argument. It made the details more exact. The accounting, as Eman calls it.
Scientific orthodoxy comes about when most scientists recognise it as the best explanation of a set of measurements.
Science moves on to a better explanation when someone challenges the orthodoxy and is correct.
Challenges such as Ed Barry’s are to be encouraged, but so far they’ve been wrong.
This is normal. For every Galileo there are a thousand Fedyakins.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater
It just takes one piece of evidence to falsify Berry’s paper. Let’s see it.
Elwood seems unable to identify anything wrong with Berry’s work, and I’m neutral as I’ve not seen any of it. But I am well aware of the signals of cultism. Elwood seems very frustrated, angry, and bitter.
Berry has three papers. You need to start with the first.
It’s important to debunk any IPCC nonsense. But isotopes and ice cores are not my areas of expertise. I prefer the easy ways, like pointing out the basic flaws — such as, Earth is not an imaginary sphere.
This is basic physics and simple linear equations. If you can solve a linear integral you can understand it.
No problem with physics, it’s sorting though endless assumptions, estimates, guesses, opinions and “papers” on such that I avoid. More power to Ed, if he can do it.
As I said, “It’s important to debunk any IPCC nonsense.”
The greenhouse effect and CO2 as a greenhouse gas are not nonsense.
The nonsense starts after those two facts.
mainly the predictions of rapid, dangerous global warming completely unlike the mild, beneficial global warming in the past 47 years.
Warming since 1975 that most affected higher, colder latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, mainly in the coldest six months of the year, and mainly at night. Beneficial warming. Warmer winter nights in Siberia. Nothing like the IPCC predictions (computer game climate astrology) since the late 1980s.
RG,
A couple of things.
Yes, journals charge to publish. For example Nature. “From 2021, the publisher will charge 9,500, US$11,390 or 8,290 to make a paper open access (OA) in Nature and 32 other journals that currently keep most of their articles behind paywalls and are financed by subscriptions.” – nature.com
You didn’t know this?
As to the rest, repeating a farrago of nonsense does not make it any more scientific.
You cannot point to a scientific definition of the GHE, nor a single experiment which supports the delusional thinking that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer (the consequence of increasing the amount CO2 between the thermometer and a heat source).
Your appeal to the authority of a delusional propagandist falls a bit flat. He doesn’t seem to accept that climate is the statistics of past weather. A climate crackpot, given to preferring fantasy to fact.
Based on 25 years of climate science reading, I would estimate that at least 99.9% of climate scientists believe there is a large greenhouse effect, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
(2) It appears that Mr. Berry and you disagree.
Either (1) is right,
or (2) is right,
but not both.
My money is on (1)
— the climate scientists.
You and Berry are alt-science tin-hat conspiracy nuts.
A Ph.D. degree does not make Berry the bastion of truth.
An estimated +200ppm of CO2 was emitted by fossil fuel burning in the past, and the atmospheric CO2 level increased bu +100ppm. That means nature absorbed about 100 ppm of the +200ppm increase.
People who claim the +100ppm increase of atmospheric CO2 since the 1800s was NOT from burning fossil fuels, must then explain where all that +200 ppm of CO2 went, and what caused atmospheric COS to rise by +100ppm, if not the fossil fuel CO2 emissions. I believe you and Berry have never provided a believable alternative explanation, because there is not one.
Therefore you and Berry are not credible in any way.
And you are also dork for repeated character attacks of the Ph.D. scientist whose essay I posted, with no attempt to explain why he should not be believed.
Your childish, generic character attacks are the tool of climate science mental midgets, and based on your comment, you are one.
Have a nice day.
Richard Greene
Bingham Farms, Michigan
> Your childish, generic character attacks are the tool of climate science mental midgets, and based on your comment, you are one.
So beautiful.
Richard,
Almost everything you stated above is incorrect. Are you intentionally lying or just ignorant?
I guess you are in the 0.1% alt-science crowd.
Dream on.
It is you who are ignorant.
In the extreme
And rude too.
A double loser.
I wrote a comment so simple that a ten year old
child would understand it. So go out and find
a ten year old child to explain it to you.
“People who claim the +100ppm increase of atmospheric CO2 since the 1800s was NOT from burning fossil fuels, must then explain where all that +200 ppm of CO2 went, and what caused atmospheric COS to rise by +100ppm, if not the fossil fuel CO2 emissions. I believe you and Berry have never provided a believable alternative explanation, because there is not one.”
Well using natural gas, can lower amount CO2 emitted.
Burning coal can lower amount of CO2 emitted compared to burning wood.
And more people are breathing, now.
Idiots want to subsidize wood burning. And subsidize wind and solar power, it seems government have increased CO2 emission not fossil fuels.
There is nothing government has done to lower CO2 emission and a lot fossil fuel have done to lower CO2 emission.
Raising taxes has increased CO2 emission.
Not exploring the Moon, has increased CO2 emissions.
Doing nothing, when one is paid to do something, increases
CO2 emission.
Here is Richard in 1906:
-99% of the physics agree with Sir Isaac Newton
-He’s just a patent clerk, are you kidding?
-He married his cousin
-He made poor grades in High School and barely got out of college
-Equivalence? What the hell is he taling about?
-Don’t forget, he’s a Jew, an atheist Jew at that
-E=mc^2, LOL
–
Almost funny Anderson
Maybe you should post
a photo of yourself too.
Showing your best side.
(With your back facing the camera
and you bent over to tie your shoelace).
Nothing surprises me anymore with the left wing Marxists who run Google, Twitter and Facebook. Either get on board with the narrative or you will ne silenced.
Hell, I am currently restricted on FB due to a Jeffrey Epstein, Christmas Vacation meme of all things.
Give Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity a call. They might want to hear about this nonsense.
Just stopped using Them for good. There are alternatives to BIG tech
Here is Nature’s editorial summary of Ballantyne et.al.:
The current state of land and ocean carbon sinks has been the subject of intense debate, because it has implications for how the carbon cycle might respond to climate change. About half of the current carbon dioxide emissions are taken up by land and ocean carbon sinks. Model studies predict a decline in future carbon sinks, resulting in a positive carbon-climate feedback, and several recent studies have suggested that land and ocean carbon sinks are beginning to wane. These authors use a global mass balance approach to audit the global carbon cycle, focusing on well-constrained observations of atmospheric carbon dioxide and estimates of anthropogenic emissions and a rigorous analysis of uncertainties. They find that carbon sinks have actually doubled during the past 50 years and continue to increase significantly. There were no signs, as of 2010, that carbon uptake has started to diminish on the global scale
“They find that carbon sinks have actually doubled during the past 50 years and continue to increase significantly. There were no signs, as of 2010, that carbon uptake has started to diminish on the global scale”
We discussed this. If the ocean carbon sink only followed Henry’s Law , then the rate of increase in storage would increase linearly with atmospheric CO2.
The buffering of oceanic CO2 by the carbonate pathway makes it nonlinear; the Revelle factor can be expected to increase slowly at first and rapidly later. If atmospheric CO2 continues to increase the graph will resemble an ascending rectangular hyperbola, with an initial near linear increase, then a flattening as the ability to absorb extra CO2 declines and an almost flat top as the ocean saturates.
Ballantyne et al are correct that as of 2010 we have not reached the inflection point, but there is no guarantee that we never wiil.
Yes, we discussed this. Nice hypothesis. Show me your evidence. You’re trying to falsify a hypothesis with a hypothesis.
I just showed you Ballantyne’s evidence to the contrary.
You say carbon uptakes are diminishing. I show you evidence to the contrary. I tell you tau hasn’t changed in 250+ years. You ignore. Show me the evidence where tau has changed? Show me where Revelle has any relevancy?
Try here.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-long-term-trends-of-sea-surface-sAlk-sDIC-Salinity-and-Revelle-Factor-in-the_fig5_342184641
Note the increase in Revelle’s factor over time.
Remember that a low Revelle’s factor indicates greater buffering and higher ocean CO2 uptake.The
An increasing Revelle’s factor indicates a reduction in C02 uptake capability.
I’m cursing to myself because I found and then lost a graph of long term ocean uptake ability. It showed the rectangular hyperbola I described, flattening around 2100.
Enough. I’m off to bed.
For the greenhouse effect deniers, and those who deny man made CO2 caused the last +100ppm increase of atmospheric CO2, here’s a new belief for you:
There is no such thing as a global climate.
And the global average temperature alone would not define a global climate, is there was a global climate.
Not one person lived in the global average temperature.
There is local weather.
Since our planet is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, weather is always changing — warming trends and cooling trends — weather does not stay the same from year to year.
If there is ever a climate crisis on our planet, the problem would be changes in local weather that affected crops and human health.
That would include increases of the number and intensity of harmful weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes and heat waves.
Fortunately, as more CO2 has been added to the atmosphere in the past 120 years, the number of harmful weather events has declined.
And extra CO2 has greened our planet. Food production has boomed, partially from more CO2 in the atmosphere.
For some examples:
US major land falling hurricanes declining for over 100 years
US major tornadoes declining since 1954
US heatwaves and maximum temperatures peaked in the 1930s.
Warmer winter nights in Alaska (also the Arctic and Siberia)
Pacific Ocean typhoons formed declining since 1951
Note:
Minor hurricanes and tornadoes were often missed before the satellite era in the 1970s, so should not be included in these trends — including them would create an artificial rising trend from the pre-1970s counting errors.
This adds up to a lot of good news for our weather in the past 60 years.
In fact, the weather is the best since the late 1600s, during the coldest decade of the Maunder Minimum low solar energy decades.
The only current problem with our weather is the bellowing leftists waving their arms and predicting a coming climate crisis
… which they have been predicting since the 1980s, while their imaginary climate crisis never shows up.
Perhaps all American leftists can be deported to Bulgaria, allowing the rest of us to enjoy our weather? Bulgaria, however, is asking for a lot of money to take our leftists, so we may be stuck with them !
> The only current problem with our weather is the bellowing leftists waving their arms and predicting a coming climate crisis
https://climateball.net/but-predictions/
https://climateball.net/but-politics/
By a guy who made his money in stock picking, no less.
The stock market tracks GDP growth and inflation.
Growth in almost nine years of every ten
Inflation in every year
Those trends are your friends.
Sometimes the average stock
is very highly valued (now)
and sometimes cheap
(during recessions)
No need to “pick stocks”
Diversified very low fee
ETFs are available
and no load mutual funds.
Hold more cash
when people are over fearful
and hold less cash
when they are over confident.
The hardest part is saving money
for investments.
Such buying a cheap Toyota,
instead of an expensive Tesla,
and keeping it a long time.
Agreed, Richard.
Now, apply the same common sense to AGW.
And you’re good to go.
Risk costs money.
Insurance is your friend.
Beware oil snake from think tanks.
And so on and so forth.
I hav applied common sense to climate science since the 1990s
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Increasing a greenhouse gas should cause some amount of global warming
The amount of global warming is unknown because there are so many other variables that can cause climate change.***
If one assumes all warming in the past 120 years was caused buy CO2 and trust the temperature measurements in 1900 (not actually accurate, the worst case is that CO2 caused mild, harmless warming. If that is the worst case, the debate over ECS barely matters.
There is no climate emergency. I would say the climate change in the past 325 years has been very good news.i
And we certainly want more warming in Michigan where I live.
The following variables are known to influence Earth’s climate:
1) Earth’s orbital and orientation variations
2) Changes in ocean circulation,
ENSO and others
3) Solar Irradiance and activity
4) Volcanic aerosol emissions
5) Greenhouse gas emissions
6) Land use changes
(cities growing, crop irrigation, etc.)
7) Changes in clouds and water vapor
8) Variations of a complex, non-linear system
9) Unknown causes of climate change
The variables above are not all independent.
Whickering Wee Willy,
More irrelevant nonsense.
Try talking about science.
Carry on with the diversions.
> the worst case is that CO2 caused mild, harmless warming.
See, Richard? That’s not common sense. That’s just you being yet another libertarian luckwarmer. As for your variables:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/lots-of-theories/
Why would you keep 20% in cash if not to pick stocks, BTW?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wee Willy Idiot,
Trying to get people to fondle your balls, are you? Hoping you can crow about making people “waste space” again?
Who cares who made money stock picking? Thats one of your more bizarre appeals to authority. Typical for a delusional anti-science crank.
As Richard Greene implies, you are a nitwit.
Learn some science – real science, not political, social, or climate science.
Mike Flynn, My Favorite sock puppet – We’ve been there already:
https://climateball.net/but-science/
You suck at not playing Climateball!
In fairness, you don’t even realize that Richard’s not a Dragon crank like you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“For the greenhouse effect deniers, and those who deny man made CO2 caused the last +100ppm increase of atmospheric CO2, heres a new belief for you:
There is no such thing as a global climate.
And the global average temperature alone would not define a global climate, is there was a global climate.”
I would tell deniers, we in Icehouse global climate, and the clever humans have enriched the low levels of CO2 which is a serious problem with any Icehouse climates.
And btw there is no shortage of C02, and in future we can mine it and make it, a lot cheaper.
So, we are not really wasting this precious resource, and one could say we are increasing the market for it.
“Since our planet is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, weather is always changing warming trends and cooling trends weather does not stay the same from year to year.”
Our cold ocean causes thermodynamic equilibrium, but a warmer ocean or higher thermodynamic equilibrium, creates less extreme weather.
Some people might be overly fond of extreme weather and having 1/3 of global land being deserts.
Well, Mars is planet of a global desert, so there is actually no real shortage of desert and extreme conditions. And we can give Mars more thermodynamic equilibrium condition by creating lakes within this global desert of Mars. Or living in thermodynamic equilibrium conditions and explore the rough and dangerous wilds.
But Mars largely about becoming spacefaring. An outpost to the universe, and in terms Earthling, using energy resources of our solar system. And most people don’t want a lot deserts and extreme weather.
From the abstract of Ed Barry’s most recent paper.*
https://scc.klimarealistene.com/produkt/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/
“After the bomb tests, δ14C returned to its original balance level of zero , ”
That turns out not to be the case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_pulse#/media/File%3ARadiocarbon_bomb_spike.svg
The rate of decrease has been 4% a year and it will never go to zero because it is replenished by cosmic rays hitting nitrogen atoms.
*Incidentally, is there an open access pdf available?
Just because it’s you, EM:
https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13
Thanks for your longwinded comments from yesterday.
Have you seen Harde/Salby’s recent paper on 14C? What Berry meant was it essentially returned to its zero level. It is exponential decay. So, the first 1/e time is 10 years, the second 1/e^2 is 20 years, the third 1/e^3 is 30 years, etc. The (1/k) tau time is 10 years for 14C. So, now there will be roughly 2% of the 14C left. The 14C curve fit D(14C)/dt=-k(14C) perfectly. You still don’t understand anything.
Sorry,
d(14C)/dt=-k(14C)
What’s your email? I’ll send anybody Berry’s paper if you don’t want to pay the $10. That’d be what 6 pounds? Salby’s is the same.
Thank you, Willard.
I was a bit long winded. It was necessary to supply the lurkers with enough information to understand the context of the discussion.
If you don’t understand the carbon cycle there is no hope of understanding the relevance of Revelle’s factor.
Carbon cycles used to be part of my professional competence, but that was a long time ago. : o ).
Stephen
Thanks for the offer, but I don’t give out my email. I once gave my identity to a sceptic who then publicised it, to the great inconvenience and annoyance of my children.
Here’s my email: [email protected].
I won’t publish your information.
Here’s Murry & Hermann’s paper:
https://scc.klimarealistene.com/produkt/control-of-atmospheric-co2-part-1/
If you look at the PDF, you’ll see a DOI:
10.53234/scc202112/210
If you enter the DOI at DOI.org, you’ll see “This DOI cannot be found in the DOI System.”
Details like that don’t help Dragon Cranks.
I have no trouble buying papers on the site.
Papers that need to be bought are worthless to me.
So all the papers that “Nature” requires you to buy are worthless?
I don’t know of any scientific publication that gives its publications away for free.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access
Another pointless link from the diversionary and delusional Wee Willy Chihuahua.
Wee Willy refuses to pay for scientific papers because it would be a waste of money. He is unable to understand scientific concepts, and prefers fantasy to fact.
Strange lad is Wee Willy.
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The crowd starts a good fight.*
The crowd consists of Wee Willy Dimwit, himself, and him.
That’s what he gets when he argues with himself?
Mike Flynn, Midget Freakshow.
Even journal publishers have to eat.
In my day you went to the University Library and read the paper in the journal.
If you knew the author he might post you a preprint.
The authors did not have to pay to publish, but a Nature subscription was a hefty sum, which was why you went to the library.
Then along came the Internet. Libraries still pay journal subscriptions, but a big part of a journal’s income is now from downloads.
If an author wants his paper to be open source, the journal loses the download income on that paper, and charges the author for open access instead.
Paywalling is annoying, but a normal part of the commercial environment publishers operate in.
TANSTAAFL
From a peer reviewed article –
“Against this background, it hardly comes as a surprise that the profit margins of corporate publishers are obscenely high (up to 40%) in the field of academic publishing compared to other sectors.”
Ain’t capitalism grand?
One slight error. Turnover will mix the 14CO2 into the three reservoirs, so you would expect 14C to decrease by half the addition in 3.2 years after a bomb pulse.
This is in addition to the (14C)/dt=-k(14C) decrease.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_pulse#/media/File%3ARadiocarbon_bomb_spike.svg
You can see this accelerated decline in the first years after the PTBT pulse.
These aren’t stovepipes. So k = (K1 + K2)
Not, 1/K1 + 1/K2
Sorry,
I said that backward. Tau is shorter than the shortest tau.
So for instance, if Te(land) is 5 years, and Te (ocean) is 7 years, Te (total) is 3 years. The slower sink only helps.
“After the bomb tests, δ14C returned to its original balance level of zero ”
Or it returned its original balance level.
Or there has always been carbon 14.
It was increased, with atmospheric nuclear bomb testing, it then returned to “its balance level”.
Or I suppose it goes up and down and one can say that it roughly averages zero.
g,
What difference does it make?
CO2 has no effect whatsoever on thermometers. Just another diversionary tactic by reality denying anti-science climate cultists.
“And in the late 1980s and early 1990s (and even today), evidence about the positive and negative effects of carbon dioxide on global climate was (is) controversial.
Enter Richard Kerr, longtime global-warming writer at Science, the flagship publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He chronicled how the mainstream of climate science disputed James Hansen’s assertions of the arrival of global warming and the enhanced greenhouse effect as opinion rather than science.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/13/hansen-vs-the-world-richard-kerr-on-uncertain-climate-science-in-1989/
An opinion of a NASA bureaucrat,
I would add.
And still after billions dollar spend, no one knows how much warming has occurred due to CO2 levels- it’s still a matter of opinion.
But It’s opinion, that Hansen not knowing why Venus was so hot is
related to unfound worry about CO2 levels. NASA bureaucrats seem to think Venus and Earth are similar- and they are not.
There was no Earth climate data to support it. And Earth climate data indicates we in an Ice Age.
And I think Venus at Earth distance, would be colder than Earth.
One thing related to topic of Space is habitable zones, thinking has something to with distance from the Sun. Such thinking is related to old information and doesn’t include the discovery life found ocean hot vents. Therefore we now have people imagining life on moons of Jupiter {not in habitable zone] and still think habitable zones actually make any sense.
And those looking for ET, are interested in Habitable zones- and habitable zones make no sense, in terms spacefaring civilization or creation of simple life.
My latest thinking of why they aren’t here, is our star is poor star to travel to and also there probably less than 1000 spacefaring civilizations in our Galaxy. Or very rare.
Also if we ever make contact, they probably going to want deal with our governmental bureaucracies.
And our governmental bureaucracies make cave men seem like geniuses.
Who would want to talk with our governmental bureaucracies, there is no sane human, that does.
And if aliens imagined Google was a government- it’s not much better than any governmental bureaucracy.
I remember a short story suggesting why we haven’t heard anything.
Briefly, any civilization advanced enough to have radio telescopes also has government bureaucracies, accountants and grants committees.
Scientists request funding for a radio telescope able to send a signal powerful to reach another solar system and sensitive enough to hear a reply.
The committee notes that 90% of the cost is in the transmitter. They suggest a compromise. Let the other solar system build a transmitter. We’ll build a receiver and build the transmitter once we have someone to talk to.
Since bureaucracies are the same all over, every civilization in the galaxy is listening and nobody is transmitting.
CO2 has an effect on infrared thermometers.
RG,
Well, yes. So does anything above absolute zero, ie. having a temperature.
If you are trying to say that CO2 has some connection to a supposed GHE, but cannot articulate your thoughts clearly, then join the other climate cultists who apparently find the GHE so complicated that it cant be usefully described.
‘Ive been getting Google warnings for a couple months now about policy violations, but nowhere was it listed what pages were in violation, and what those violations were’.
Ah yes. In line with their usual condescending tone – much like a parent or teacher lecturing a disobedient child – they are implying, “You know what you did wrong”.
In fact, you (and everybody else) do know that. Disobedience – that’s what you are guilty of. Just as when a child gets above himself, the answer is, “Because I’m the Mommy”.
Try here. Graphs of Revelle’s factor against time.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-long-term-trends-of-sea-surface-sAlk-sDIC-Salinity-and-Revelle-Factor-in-the_fig5_342184641
Note the increase in Revelles factor over time.
Remember that a low Revelles factor indicates greater buffering and higher ocean CO2 uptake.The
An increasing Revelles factor indicates a reduction in C02 uptake capability.
Im cursing to myself because I found and then lost a graph of long term ocean uptake ability. It showed the rectangular hyperbola I described, flattening around 2100.
Enough. Im off to bed.
For one thing, you can talk about the increased alkalinity of the surface seawater, which makes sense, because it is in equilibrium with the atmosphere, but it is also in equilibrium with the deep ocean. But, it doesn’t tell you which way the net flow is. All that tells you because of Henry’s Law is that the surface is in equilibrium with the atmosphere. If the atmosphere is increasing then the surface ocean should be increasing and vice versa. Ballantyne et. al says sinks have increased. This also implies emitters have increased. If surface temperature has increased the surface is a net emitter.
“Increased alkalinty”
I think you are going the wrong way.
Rather than getting involved in word games I tend to directly use pH change.
Since the Industrial Revolution upper ocean pH has dropped from 8.18 to 8.07. That’s an increase of about 10% in H+ concentration. That is because of the bicarbonate/carbonate buffering we discussed earlier and it indicates that the amount of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) has increased in the surface waters, and will in due course increase in the deep ocean, as Ballentyne et al say.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
“Henry’ Law”
This is where it starts getting complicated. Too many interacting variables
As we’ve already agreed Henry’s Law describes the equilibrium between pCO2 in the air and ocean. This is indeed affected by temperature. All else being equal a rise in air and ocean temperature reduces the solubility of CO2. The equilibrium shifts towards a higher pCO2 in the air and less CO2 in the ocean. Until things stabilise the ocean becomes a net emitter.
Buffering also upsets the Henry’s Law equilibrium by turning dissolved CO2 into other ions. It keeps the CO2 below equilibrium concentration and keeps the ocean absorbing long after Henry’s Law would predict otherwise.
Coming back to CO2, the buffering equilibrium is pH sensitive.
https://www.zimmerpeacocktech.com/knowledge-base/faq/ph-co2-equilibrium/
As you can see, below 8.0 pH buffering becomes less effective . This will raise the amount of dissolved CO2 and reduce the CO2 absorbed from the air according to Henry’s Law.
Put together Henry’s Law, increasing temperature and decreasing buffering. The overall effect will be to make the ocean a less effective carbon sink.
Let’s review facts
Urban Heat Island effect does cause warming in regional area.
Most people live in urban area.
Satellite measurement of global air temperature is little
effected UHI effect- mainly because urban area is small
portion of the world.
Satellite measure global rather than local.
UHI effect have been measured and the amount of
warming is knowable, though not discussed much, or
not much of public issue.
Which different as compared to CO2 levels.
No one can measure or know how much warming higher CO2
levels have caused.
The IPCC has said, very confident higher CO2 levels have caused
at least .2 C in global warm.
I would say it might cause .2 C in global warming- and much
of global warming is warmer nighttime temperature.
It certainly has not increase daytime highest temperature, but that is not what global warming is.
UHI effect is mostly nighttime, but urban environments where measure air temperature can increase a daylight high measured temperature, and cities can have worse heatwave events.
A human can’t feel the temperature change of 1C over 100 years, but humans can easily feel UHI effects.
It said polar amplification is related to global warming. I would say polar amplification is global warming.
I would also say polar amplification is largely affected by “natural variability”- Altantic and Pacific osculation/cycles, and natural variability more globally with El Nino type natural variability or roughly, global weather patterns.
So, things arctic sea ice, is both global warming and natural variability, and even we get more arctic sea ice in the future
it might not mean we have ended are recovery from the Little Ice Age, it could be more of changing of these natural cycles.
Or things prove “global warming” is sea level rise [7″ in last 100 years], highest ever recorded daytime high ever measured being over 100 years ago, and less arctic polar sea ice.
But in terms of facts, don’t know how warming is cause higher CO2, though it seems one can say higher CO2 levels, don’t cause global cooling.
gBalkie
There is far too much accurate information and common sense in your 1/13 %:57 comment.
This is in violation of internet Rule 2a
You are hereby banned from posting for one week.
Use your time off to create some character attacks,
insults, nasty names, etc. for future comments.
This is mandatory for internet comments according to
Al “I invented the internet” Gore’s
Rules of the Internet Guidelines.
Richard Greene, you seem to be arguing with yourself here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1125305
Do you believe adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will increase Earth’s temperature?
I hope I won the argument.
CO2 is expected to cause some warming.
Actual CO2 warming can’t be measured.
It can only be assumed.
Lab experiments suggest CO2 over 400ppm
is a mild greenhouse gas.
One assumption would be blaming CO2 for all
measured warming in the past 120 years.
That worst case assumption says CO2
is a mild, harmless greenhouse gas.
There was no evidence of a water vapor positive feedback
that might increase warming to potentially dangerous rates.
that’s
So we have a potential likely range of warming from CO2
most likely a TCS in the range from zero to +1.5 degrees C
I don’t pretend to know the correct TCS.
But the entire likely range is harmless to humans and animals.
We have hundreds of different guesses for TCS and ECS.
I suppose one of them is right?
Meanwhile, plants love the extra CO2 in the atmosphere
— they would prefer 1000ppm.
And quite a few people enjoy the warmer nights, from the warming since 1975. We sure do here in Michigan where I live.
So, based on common sense, I prefer a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, and warmer nights. So do my outdoor plants.
We love global warming here in Michigan, and we are not happy that 2021 was colder than 2020.
A climate emergency might be if the global climate got a lot colder.
“Lab experiments suggest CO2 over 400ppm
is a mild greenhouse gas.”
Really? You are just making this nonsense up as you go along, aren’t you? CO2 doesn’t affect thermometers at all.
You can’t provide any evidence about these “lab experiments”, so I won’t bother asking for details.
I don’t make things up
I rely on sources i believe are reliable.
The lab experiments with Co2 use artificially dried air to avoid interference by water vapor, a much stronger greenhouse gas.
the experiments are done with a closed system so there are no feedbacks. The process is spectroscopy. The first experiments were in the late 1800s. Back when CO2 was called carbonic acid.
One can’t say that the lab spectroscopy experiments duplicate the actual effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, where there are varying percentages of water vapor change, and there may be feedbacks.
One can say the first 100ppm of CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas … but after 400ppm the greenhouse effect is much less.
Even the IPCC recognizes that CO2 alone is a mild greenhouse gas.
They promote a climate catastrophe by claiming a water vapor positive feedback will amplify the claimed effect of CO2 alone by 2x to 4x.
There is no evidence that our warming atmosphere has increased water vapor by more than a small amount.
RG,
No, spectroscopy does not indicate that a GHE exists, or warms anything.
Prof John Tyndall’s meticulous experiments in the 19th century showed that gases like CO2 placed between a heat source and a temperature sensor result in less radiation from the heat source reaching the sensor, with a concomitant drop in temperature.
Climate cultists obviously cannot comprehend the written works of people such as Tyndall, far less appreciate the incredible accuracy of the instruments which Tyndall and others designed, built, calibrated (often taking months just for calibration), and then taking extreme precautions not to fool themselves with erroneous conclusions.
I am unaware of a single “climate scientist” who has performed a single experiment showing the supposed heating powers of CO2, in any serious way.
Given the billions of dollars poured into “climate research”, does this not appear odd to you?
Swenson
Greenhouse gases don’t “heat” like the sun does.
They form a partial barrier between Earth’s suface and the infinite heat sink of space.
The greenhouse effect impedes Earth’s ability to cool itself every night, resulting in higher night time temperatures than would happen without any greenhouse gases.
The planet’s surface is estimated to be 60 degrees F. warmer than it would be with no greenhouse gases. Meaning that outdoor plants would freeze every night.
The greenhouse effect should increase by some amount from more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The exact effect from CO2 is unknown and unknowable.
There is no evidence the last ++100ppm increase of CO2 has been harmful,’
The next +100 ppm addition of CO2 will be even less effective as a greenhouse gas than the prior +100ppm addition.
There is no known natural cause(s) that explain more than a small amount of the last +100ppm CO2 increase in the past 120 years.
A small amount of CO2 comes from volcanoes and a small increase of water vapor comes from irrigation and a warmer troposphere that hold a little more water vapor.
This is not complicated.
Richard Greene,
You wrote –
“They form a partial barrier between Earths suface and the infinite heat sink of space.
The greenhouse effect impedes Earths ability to cool itself every night, resulting in higher night time temperatures than would happen without any greenhouse gases.
The planets surface is estimated to be 60 degrees F. warmer than it would be with no greenhouse gases. Meaning that outdoor plants would freeze every night.”
And, of course, they form a partial barrier” between the surface and the a sun, reducing temperatures accordingly.
The atmosphere also reduces the amount of radiation reaching the surface, but climate cultists refuse to accept reality.
Indeed! Prof Tyndall pointed this out more than 150 years ago. He also pointed out that without an atmosphere we would all boil to death during the day, but once again, climate nutters deny reality and science at every turn. I’m happy to go along with science and physics.
You?
>We have hundreds of different guesses for TCS and ECS.
I suppose one of them is right?
See, Richard? That’s how a stock picker thinks. A wiser one would pick an index. Here’s one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#/media/File:Frequency_distribution_of_climate_sensitivity,_based_on_model_simulations_(NASA).png
I am not a stock picker, Willard the Dullard.
I prefer low fee market ETFs and sector ETFs.
I am in 100% cash this year because of ultra high stock valuations and the Fed needing to fight the inflation they caused. You are a nit picker, and a nose picker. Get lost.
Were you born a dingbat,
Willard the Dullard,
or was that something
you worked on
for many years?
I wrote about ETFs
in my comment
as an alternative
to stock picking,
yet you keep bringing up
stock picking.
You are an inaccurate nitpicker.
but an accurate nose picker.
You are slow to learn,
but compensate by being
fast to forget.
I can tell your mind is resting,
so I won’t try to insert any facts.
It appears that your mind
has been greatly influenced,
by many books you’ve never read.
There has been an alarming increase
in the number of subjects
that you know nothing about.
Wee Willy Dimwit,
Of course, you haven’t made any fortunes on the stock market, have you? Picking an index is just a lazy way of hoping someone smarter than you will put money in your pocket while you sit around trying to look intelligent. A fool and his money are soon parted, because they are too stupid to realise that operators of index funds are not clever enough to work their magic and get rich – buy the yacht and penthouse, the Bentley, champagne and cigars all round – but certainly clever enough to part the lazy and the greedy from their cash on an ongoing basis.
That!s why they have to work for a living.
Indexes are rigged, of course. The Dow Jones index of today bears no relationship to the index of even 25 years ago, because ill-performing companies are dumped, and replaced with the company de jour. This means that an index manager who actually has to buy and sell stocks making up the index is always behind, and stock prices are artificially inflated or deflated, as numerous fund managers buy and sell at the same time to reweight their holdings.
To put it simply –
“Moreover, owning an index does not mean you are immune from risk or losses if the markets take a downturn.” – from Investopedia, but can be verified by looking at returns when any market falls.
So go out, borrow beyond your capacity to repay, practice all that nonsense you preach, and return to thumb your nose at doubters like me. Boast about your vast fortune.
Alas, it’s all fantasy, isn’t it, Wee Willy?
Carry on telling everyone how clever you are.
> I am in 100% cash this year
See, Richard?
That’s not passive investing,
Now, is it?
So spare me the “I brought ETFs.”
Luckwarmers are sensitivity pickers.
Deal with it.
***
> Picking an index is just a lazy way of hoping someone smarter than you will put money in your pocket while you sit around trying to look intelligent.
You should have a word with Richard, Money Frustrated Mike Flynn.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“You should have a word with Richard, Money Frustrated Mike Flynn”.
And why would that be, O stupid one? I should give a sh*t what you think because . . . ?
Go away, dummy. Contemplate your stupidity.
Mike Flynn, Mincemeat Fabada,
Either you do not know what an ETF is, or once again you are making a fool of yourself by butting in without reading. Which is it?
Richard is the ETF guru here, not me. He tries to time his entries in them, which is one of the reasons why individual investors underperform markets in general, but he is the real McCoy. So go read his newsletter!
Enough chatter about the stock market !
I retired at age 51, at the end of 2004, giving up a six figure income, to live a life of leisure with income from my investments. So I don’t need any lectures on investments.
There is no need to be 100% invested at all times.
I consider 2022 as one of those times.
I’m too old to invest for the long run.
ETYs eliminate the risk of stock picking.
By the way, I earned a Finance MBA from the Stern School of Business at New York University, and also published a financial newsletter, with hundreds of subscribers, from 1977 through early 2000, when I decided to stop, to devote more time to my Climate Science and Energy Blog, which has had over 279,524 visits so far.
In my spare time, I climbed Mount Everest in my bare feet, swam across the Atlantic Ocean, where I knocked out a 20 foot great white shark with a left hook to his “nose”, and trained for an Apollo moon mission, but had to drop out because of a blister on my finger.
So, what have you been doing in your spare time?
Impressive, Richard! As I was telling Mike Flynn, with whom you might wish to discuss ETFs, you’re the real McCoy! Speaking of which, you definitely need to alert the online world about one of your feats:
https://bikehike.org/has-anyone-climbed-everest-barefoot/
A man of such power surely knows better what climate sensitivity should be than the average climate scientist!
Questions:
How long does warming effect of increase CO2, take to occur?
With increase of 100 ppm of CO2, how long does it take to get 50%
and 95% of any expected warming.
I say doubling of CO2 is zero to .5 C but I limit the time period to
be within 100 years.
Zero means we will never be able to measure it. And .5 C is hard to measure but it seems possible.
Or I am hopeful that at some time, within decades, the warming effect from CO2, is possible.
“I say doubling of CO2 is zero to .5 C”
Did you leave off the minus sign?
Clint R,
He could have just stopped typing after the zero.
That would have been a good start.
Compared to the airless Moon, the atmosphere provides enough insulation that maximum surface temperatures are about 30 K less on Earth, compared to the Moon.
Good thing, or we would be consumed by that particular Sky Dragon (the lack of an atmosphere).
Some people believe CO2 is cooling effect with Antarctica- I don’t.
Depends on the temperature.
Once the surface temperature in the high Antarctic goes below -53C it is cooler than the tropopause. The greenhouse effect reverses and heat flows upward increases due to CO2 rather than decreasing. It is not a strong enough effect to cause runaway cooling, but it does contribute to making the Antarctic plateau the coldest place on the planet.
EM,
I think not. Heat flows from hot to cold. And, like everywhere else on Earth, the surface is hotter than “outer space”, nominally 4 K or so.
No GHE, reverses or otherwise. Just the laws of the universe in action.
–Swenson says:
January 14, 2022 at 4:51 PM
EM,
I think not. Heat flows from hot to cold. And, like everywhere else on Earth, the surface is hotter than outer space, nominally 4 K or so.”–
Well LEO is quite hot and effectively has no temperature.
Or it’s long distance from low LEO to “outer space”.
But tried to post about this:
“Once the surface temperature in the high Antarctic goes below -53C it is cooler than the tropopause. ”
and didn’t post, try again:
“The average temperature of Canada is -3.5 C
The average elevation of Canada is 487 m
Per 1000 meter above where you are measuring is about 6.5 C
colder.
I don’t think anyone knows what average temperature of say arctic
ocean surface is. When covered by polar sea ice, it can be quite cold and would be at sea level.”
[[That was the gist of it]]
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/14/nearly-140-scientific-papers-detail-the-minuscule-effect-co2-has-on-earths-temperature/
Not that read this pile of stuff
But I think saying .1 to .5 C is probably better than saying 0 to .5 C
A new study in Health Physics corroborates Berry’s work. Their study concludes human contribution is 23%. Berry concluded 25%. You should be able to get this DOI, Chihuahua.
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx
It is the Skrable, Chabot study.
No, I misstated. Their article is a little confusing. The total anthropogenic component in the atmosphere according to their study is 47ppm. So, this would be 37% of the rise. 63% of the rise is natural. Berry’s work is 25%.
So where did the +200ppm CO@ from burning fossil fuels go?
Fossil fuels still have the same d13C composition as when they were formed, many millions of years ago. 12C and 13C are stable isotopes.
Now, as we burn fossil fuels, the ratio of C13 to C12 is going down.
The declining C12 / C13 ratio is evidence it went into the atmosphere.
The 13C/12C ratio is decreasing in the atmosphere and in the upper oceans, over about 150 years, since mankind was using fossil fuels in increasingly amounts.
The interesting point of d13C ratio’s is that there are only two known sources of low d13C, that are fossil fuels and decaying vegetation.
All other known sources (volcanic degassing, deep oceans, ocean surface, carbonate rocks,…) have slightly negative to slightly positive d13C values.
Since about 1990 we have oxygen measurements (at the edge of analytical possibilities), which are accurate enough to see the small difference between oxygen use from fossil fuel burning and the oxygen use/production of vegetation decay/growth.
This revealed that (at least) since 1990, somewhat less oxygen was used than calculated from fossil fuel burning.
Vegetation produces more oxygen than it uses.
Because vegetation growth prefers 12C over 13C, more 13C is left in the atmosphere.
Vegetation is not the cause of the d13C decline
As fossil fuel burning is the only known source of 13C depletion in the atmosphere left, it probably is entirely responsible for the whole d13C decrease
Even during natural variations, the d13C decrease from the emissions by far dominates the change in ratio’s, that is why you don’t see a difference between short term and long term variations in d13C.
This alt science fraud from Berry is tiresome.
Richard Greene,
What’s wrong with CO2?
Just putting back what nature took out – before everything dies!
And you are opposed to humanity surviving because . . . ?
Are you mad, or just stupid?
Richard Greene
Thanks.
Don’t bother with this Swenson guy who has nothing relevant to say and is therefore constantly obsessed
– to say something unimportant
– to insult anyone who says something relevant.
Nothing wrong with CO2
It is the staff of almost
all life on our planet
I’d like a lot more in the atmosphere,
and so would my plants — they’d like
about 1000ppm.
When I tell leftist climate zealots
we are recycling CO2 that had been
temporarily stored underground
as carbon in oil, coal and natural gas,
that was once CO2 in the atmosphere,
they go berserk. Especially after I tell
them we love warming here in Michigan
and want a lot more warming ubtil we
cab retire our snow shovels.
10 degrees F. this morning !
Richard Greene
” I’d like a lot more in the atmosphere,
and so would my plants — they’d like
about 1000ppm. ”
Very certainly they wouldn’t.
You seem to confound tomatoes in a greenhouse with the entire Globe’s vegetation.
*
I think it would be better to let people who are 20 years old now what will be good for them in 50 years.
Cite your real source, Troglodyte:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-co2-temp/skrable-chabot-and-french-limit-human-co2-effect-to-48-ppm-in-2020/
Be honest for a change.
The source is Health Physics.
Were it not for Ed you would never have found this paper in a radiology journal by a guy who has gone emeritus and just happened to be the buddy of its previous editor-in-chief.
Here’s a version of the paper:
https://www.radsafety.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Skrable-article.pdf
Note the website. Also note sentences such as “The word delta represents the change or difference of a quantity from some reference quantity” and Bulwer Lytton Fiction Contest paragraphs such as this one:
Here’s the resource it tries to criticize with its curve fitting:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/isotopes/mixing.html
That’s not serious stuff.
Deranged Wee Willy,
From memory, this would be NOAA telling lies for children, quoting Dr Seuss and blathering about bank balances.
You are right. Not serious stuff at all. Quite laughable, in fact.
Don’t you realise that CO2 Is the basis of human existence? The staff of life?
Because you are deranged, you want to exterminate all life on Earth! More CO2, more photosynthesis, more wheat, more food for man!
And you hate mankind because . . . ?
That isn’t how science works, Chihuahua. It has to be falsified, not criticized.
You’ll need to spend a little time at it. Can’t do it overnight. I know you’ve hung your hat on the whole CO2 is “bad” mantra. Maybe H20?
Pay me and I will, Troglodyte. Otherwise it’s your job to show that you understand a rant that should have been desk rejected.
You obviously don’t.
All I need to know is that it does not cite *any* paper that it alleges to refute. Here could be one:
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/39/10361
Welcome to the Mike Tyson conception of science – everyone has an idea of it until it punches you in the face.
We will see, won’t we?
We will see, won’t we? I’m referring to the word “plausible.”
By the way, I don’t have a lot of time to look at this. Why don’t you post this over on Berry’s site and await his response?
More ankle biting, Troglodyte?
Have another cookie:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053019614541631
Why isn’t this discussed by your gurus?
Answer the question.
I want specifics.
Obviously, his study is a refutation of past isotopic carbon studies that have promoted this view that humans caused all the CO2 increase. WE KNOW THAT. Again, why don’t you post these on Berry’s site and await his response? REPEAT.
Obviously Troglodyte has no idea what the lichurchur on the question looks like, which is understandable considering that his gurus don’t cite any of it. He obviously misrepresents Ed’s work since one does not simply refute a model with another one. So his whole You-and-Him-Fight schtick amounts to a very simple Climateball move:
https://climateball.net/but-debate-me/
Has Ed ever contacted the researchers he does not even cite?
Obviously slimy sock puppet Willard has no idea what he’s talking about. He never does. He just links to stuff he doesn’t understand, hoping that someone out there will be fooled into thinking he’s onto something. What a slimy little sock puppet he is.
Chihuahua doesn’t have the courage of his convictions. He would instead remain anonymous, obfuscate, and burn through the pages of his thesaurus.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted –
“We find there is isotopic evidence of widespread human impact on the global environment, but different isotopes have registered changes at different times and at different rates.”
Gee. Name anyone who doesn’t believe that life of any sort doesn’t change the environment in which it lives, if you can.
That’s how living things live.
Do you you go out of your way to to find “authorities” who make witless statements, just so you can appeal to them?
Maybe you could spend time trying to find someone, anywhere, who claims to have made a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and the Sun, but you know that this would be impossible.
No wonder nobody can describe the GHE in any way that involves the known laws of physics.
Carry on trying to get people to follow your stupid links inviting them to play with your balls. Don’t be amazed if they don’t accept a second invitation.
Mike Flynn, Mediocre Fool –
Why do you keep trying to bait me with your silly pet topic?
Do you believe your ankle biting will work this time?
Have you ever realized how silly your cafetaria bully act looks to everyone who knows you’re hiding behind a sock puppet?
Ha!
"A sock puppet is an alternative online identity or user account used for purposes of deception"
The only one using their alternative online identity for purposes of deception would be universally hated, slimy sock puppet Willard! What a universally hated, slimy sock puppet!
Chihuahua,
Now that I have a little more time, did you read the Skrable paper? NOTHING you linked refutes or even addresses the Skrable paper. He uses NOAA data. He acknowledges the Suess Effect. He acknowledges that there is anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. He uses published C14 specific activity, C14/C12, and C13/C12 data. He uses linear conservation of mass equations. He uses the IPCC natural carbon cycle and the Keeling curve. He shows based on using published data, the Suess Effect, and conservation of mass that anthropogenic CO2 is only 46ppmV.
Our slimiest sock puppet does not seem to appreciate to have been found out:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-278090
> Now that I have a little more time, did you read
Troglodyte does not always have a little more time, but when he does he’s not doing the reading himself.
Typical! Slimy little sock puppet Willard wants to try to shift the focus onto someone else! He clearly doesn’t understand that everyone around here realizes he is the only one looking to deceive others! What a universally hated, slimy little sock puppet!
Who’s doing the reading, Chihuahua? You’re paranoid.
Wee Willy Slimeball,
Oh, dear! Feeling bullied, are you?
Poor precious petal.
Maybe you are feeling a bit peeved because I wrote –
“Maybe you could spend time trying to find someone, anywhere, who claims to have made a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and the Sun, but you know that this would be impossible.
No wonder nobody can describe the GHE in any way that involves the known laws of physics.
Carry on trying to get people to follow your stupid links inviting them to play with your balls. Dont be amazed if they dont accept a second invitation.”
How are your science studies going? Found any CO2 with magic heating properties recorded by anyone, anywhere, anytime? Models, and the sheep-like bleating of climate cultists, or the contents of your own fantasies, are not valid statements of fact.
Carry on feeling impotent, powerless, and trodden down. It suits you, grub.
> Who’s doing the reading
Certainly not you, Troglodyte.
What are you afraid of?
Nothing the slimy little sock puppet says even makes any sense! What a grubby, disgusting, lying, pathetic, slimy little sock puppet!
As I see it there are two options:
1) Our slimiest sock puppet was a genuine commenter, willing and interested to learn more about Dragon Crank stuff.
2) He played the part of a genuine commenter, willing and interested to learn more about the subject. In reality he only played this part to string people along who, in their good nature, wish to help others. He abused this trait in others in order to drag out lengthy conversations in which he can sow as much confusion as possible, so that other people reading along (those who are genuinely ignorant of such matters, but who wish to learn) will be led astray.
Let me just say now that our slimiest sock puppet thinks the person no 2 is not a good person
Our slimiest sock puppet does not pretend to be 2 anymore.
Progress!
Slimy little sock puppet Willard is still trying to shift focus away from himself! Just because everybody here knows that he is not genuine, that he is only here to further an agenda, and he wants to try to project his own failings onto others! What a disgusting, slimy little sock puppet!
Third option,
You were afraid to read the publication and instead resorted to your usual spray and pray.
Fourth option,
Maybe you’re just lazy.
Our slimiest sock puppet soldiers on, feeling the emptiness of a month without the argument he lost:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1121428
It’s been four years and Kiddo can’t even write “Moon” correctly.
Fifth option, Troglodyte – you haven’t paid me to be your monkey.
You can always try to read it to me. Should be fun!
Slimy little sock puppet Willard just can’t take what he dishes out, always trying to pass the buck onto somebody else! Sorry you slimy little sock puppet, just because you’re a universally hated slimy little sock puppet doesn’t give you the sock puppet excuse to pass on your sock puppet abuses onto better people!
Listen, sock puppet – you know you’re a sock puppet, I know you’re a sock puppet, even Captain Sock Puppet knows you’re a sock puppet! So just sock puppet it up and get on with it.
Sock puppet.
Our slimiest sock puppet lies about me in the hope that nobody will notice that he’s one of three sock puppets that have been running a Dark Triad circus show at Roy’s for years.
Lies about you!? So now you’re calling me a liar! Slimy sock puppet Willard wants to call me a liar! What a slimy little sock puppet! You are the one with the intent to deceive, slimy sock puppet Willard, so you are the one that meets the definition of a sock puppet! Sock puppeting around here with your sock puppet-y ideas, like you’re the sock of the walk! Socking hell, Sockard, you are the biggest sock puppet we’ve ever had at this blog! Just sock off…
And of course our slimiest sock puppet continues to slime and lie.
"A sock puppet is an alternative online identity or user account used for purposes of deception"
Who has the intent to deceive, slimy little sock puppet Willard? It’s you, you slimy little sock puppet!
“alternative”
Oh, slimy sock puppet Willard…"alternative", is it? Is that the part of the definition of "sock puppet" that you object to? You’ve always used the same pseudonym (as far as we know), therefore it’s a huge insult to be called a sock puppet!? Is that right? You see, I thought it might be the "used for purposes of deception" that you would object to! But I guess you acknowledge that part of it just fine. No point you trying to pretend you’re not out to deceive others, I suppose…
…you slimy little sock puppet.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2127107-sock-puppet-accounts-unmasked-by-the-way-they-write-and-post/#ixzz7I07FT47n
So that is the part you object to, huh sock puppet?
… our slimiest sock puppet soldiers on.
Wee Willy Idiot will go to any lengths to avoid discussing the physics of the atmosphere, or the mythical GHE.
Unfortunately for Wee Willy, all his bizarre efforts are merely likely to encourage onlookers to examine atmospheric physics (or physics in general) and draw their own conclusions, as is right and proper.
I am quite happy to continue “feeding the troll” (as is said), to allow others to see what a delusional, dimwitted, impotent and powerless (yet bitter) climate cultist looks like, when allowed to show his true nature.
No, it’s fine, slimy sock puppet Willard! If you’re happy to admit that the only difference between you and a person "using a sock puppet" is that you have never changed pseudonym, for absolutely any reason at all, but you acknowledge that your intent is to deceive others with the online identity you do maintain, who am I to stand in your way? Carry on.
Chihuahua lost his job as a forum moderator.
Troglodyte has no time to read us his Dragon Crank papers.
Sadz.
Is Wandering Wee Willy a first class manipulator, or a world class masturbator?
He’s a science denying fact avoider, that’s for sure!
Physics? A deep mystery to dimwits like Wee Willy. He is so incompetent he cannot even get himself, let alone anyone else, banned.
Poor Wee Willy. He just has to remain bitter, powerless and an object of derision. He isn’t even effective as a troll! Pathetic attempts to get people to waste their time at Wee Willy’s behest don’t seem to be working all that well.
That’s because Wee Willy Asshat is an idiot.
At least he has stopped whining about being bullied – nobody was paying attention. There’s a lesson for Wee Willy Numbnuts in there, I surmise.
Mike Flynn, Mayonnaise ‘n Fries.
Slimy sock puppet Willard, please stop trolling.
Whinnying Wee Willy talking in tongues again.
Good little fanatical cultist is Wee Willy. Avoid discussing science at all costs, even at the cost of appearing as stupid as you are!
You’ll have to wait until Troglodyte finds the time to read us his Dragon Crank papers, Mike Flynn.
Whickering Wee Willy,
Good little fanatical cultist is Wee Willy. Avoid discussing science at all costs, even at the cost of appearing as stupid as you are!
Carry on talking in tongues.
Mike Flynn, Mod Foy.
Slimy sock puppet Willard, please stop trolling.
“Mark Zuckerbergs Meta is being sued for 2.3bn in a class action lawsuit that claims 44 million Facebook users in the UK had their data exploited after signing up to the social network” – Guardian.
Ain’t freedom grand?
Agree that google can ban what they want but the real question is what is the rationale behind the action? Dr Spencer is a real scientist and his position is very scientific. So google is being driven by non-science motivations. Just like the fascists and communists and all of the totalitarians of the past. So everyone should know google doesnt stand for science, they are biased and wrong. So to me that is what should be conveyed. Google stands for oppression and silencing dissent.
” So google is being driven by non-science motivations. ”
It is, of course political. Since the climate change debate became polarised along party lines Democrats have been making life difficult for coolists and Republicans have been making life difficult for warmists.
Wearing his lukewarm scientific hat Dr Spencer was regarded as a neutral.
Once he hitched his horse to Trump’s coolist wagon he became a political target for Trump’s opponents.
That was the whole point of Trump the destructor.
And Trump is done.
The greatest president ever.
Trump, the New York Democrat, was summoned by the press or if you like, the establishment; and he came, and he won.
And the People won.
Americans have a habit of demonizing their own citizens.
Think of the Salem witch trials, the Red Scare of 1919, McCarthyism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
Swenson: I nearly joined Facebook some time ago – until it came up with a display that gave me details of people it suggested I might enjoy contacting. Among these were relatives that (tellingly) don’t have my surname, and various other people with whom I’d only had fleeting dealings. Clearly all this information had been obtained electronically without my consent.
Just for fun this warmist is linking to an interesting paper about peat bogs mentioned on a coolist website.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/14/rising-atmospheric-co2-concentrations-globally-affect-photosynthesis-of-peat-forming-mosses/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-02953-1
It illustrates the amount of work, the thousands of papers and millions of man-hours that go into constructing a quantitative carbon cycle.
Not sure I’m in a position to state “the truth” of what is causing climate warming but NONE of us can figure that out or even consider a mitigation unless we pay attention to the actual data. I commanded an organization once with a significant simulation complex, and during a staff meeting, some of our engineers were upset because they couldn’t construct a flight test profile where the resulting data matched the simulation and wanted to cease the effort. I could scarcely believe my ears and had to remind them of George Box’s famous saying (..”all models are wrong…”) and the fact their task was to use the validated flight test data to improve the model to make it “more useful” so we could make our manned testing safer and more efficient. Ignoring the correlation of 43 years of spacecraft sensed data (and tens of thousands of years of geologic data) because it conflicts with somebody’s model (that matches a certain political goal) is certainly not “science”. (Regardless of the model’s outcome, “accrediting” the model for some purpose before verifying or validating the model is backwards application of the modeling and simulation process.)
“Not sure Im in a position to state the truth of what is causing climate warming but NONE of us can figure that out or even consider a mitigation unless we pay attention to the actual data. ”
None of us know “The Truth”, that’s not how science works.
Reality runs by rules. Science is about collecting data and working out the rules.
You then test the rules by experiment and models.
The first model is a simulation using your first guess at the rules. It will be wrong, giving results different from reality.
The full quote is “All models are wrong, but some are useful”.
The errors in the first model help you refine your rules.
It is recursive. You use the model to refine the rules and the updated rules to refine the model. Round and round you go and eventually you get a model as close to reality as it’s simplified nature allows.
Just as the map is not the territory, the model is not the reality. It does allow you to go places that would be difficult in reality.
In your example it might guide a test pilot venturing into the U2’s “coffin corner”; the maximum altitude situation in which there is a 3 knot wide airspeed sweet spot between stalling and Mach buffet.
In climate change it allows you to venture into the future and estimate the outcome of different policies.
Stay on this site for a while and you will get great entertainment from people who don’t understand models and even more entertainment from those with eccentric ideas about the rules of physics.
Ent, don’t forget that you believe passenger jets fly backwards.
It’s called “Full disclosure”.
Hey, Eman considers himself the pinnacle of objectivity. Pretty delusional.
EM,
“In climate change it allows you to venture into the future and estimate the outcome of different policies.”
Which a 12 year old child (given 30 minutes of my excellent tutelage) can do as well, if not better, at far less cost.
I am prepared to wager as much as you would like (you pay for the legals) that you cannot predict future climate better than I, given objective verifiable measurements being involved.
Gavin Schmidt leapt in, in another arena to demolish a similar challenge, but smartly ran away when the conditions were explained. You would need to look carefully at what I wrote, before you start making claims about climate models and the future, and wagers thereon.
In the meantime, you might be able to point to a single instance of any benefit accruing to humanity as a whole, as a result of climate change modelling.
Swenson
“In the meantime, you might be able to point to a single instance of any benefit accruing to humanity as a whole, as a result of climate change modelling.”
They keep eejits like you posting here, rather than inflicting your weird ideas on the rest of the population.
EM,
That would mean you can’t point to a single instance of any benefit accruing to humanity as a whole, as a result of climate change modelling, would it?
I know reality is an inconvenience for climate cultists, but it won’t go away just because you don’t want to accept it.
In simpler language:
The climate models predict what the programmers want predicted.
The scientists who use the models are paid by governments, in salary or with grants, to predict rapid dangerous global warming.
So their computer games predict rapid dangerous global warming.
The predicted global warming is always coming far in the future, so there is no way to verify the accuracy of the models.
One could look at the first few decades of a 100 year climate prediction, but the models didn’t actually project the warming would be the same in every decade for the next 100 years, so that argument does not work that well.
The big problem with predictions is there are no data for the future. Only unproven theories and speculation. The precise causes of present and past climate change, which do have data, are not yet known. That’s why predictions can not be “accurate”, except by chance.
There is no evidence the climate predictions have become more accurate over the past 40 years. In fact,it appear the latest CMIP6 models are predicting faster global warming, than the prior batch of CMIP5 models, which over predicted the global warming rate, so far, by about 100%.
In addition, the one model that least over-predicts global warming, the Russian IMN model, gets no individual attention — it is merely averaged with several dozen other models, all of which over predict global warmer by an even greater amount.
Always wrong predictions from computer games
are not real climate science — they are nothing
more than climate astrology !
In even simpler language:
https://climateball.net/but-modulz/
Worried Wee Willy,
Still linking to WeeWillyWorld, are you?
Got many visits yet? Apart from retards, of course.
Who else would willingly want to play with your balls, climate or otherwise? Maybe you should trademark “Climateball” in case another retard wants to steal your intellectual” property!
Go for it.
[sniggers]
Once again that’d be you, Mike Flynn –
https://climateball.net/but-climateball/
Try again!
Whiny Wee Willy,
Still trying to demonstrate you are a delusional dimwit?
Keep at it. Maybe one day you will get some retard to visit your link. Once.
Have you figured out how to monetise your efforts yet, or do you just do it because you imagine it might make people think that you are wise, powerful and respected?
[chortles mightily]
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The crowd, not being from Australia like Mike Flynn, soon goes sleep.*
Weary Wee Willy’s “crowd” – he, himself, and him.
Him, himself, and he, cannot distinguish reality from fantasy.
[adopts serious mien for effect]
\o/
Slimy sock puppet Willard, please stop trolling.
Outrageous censorship. We need more scientists, not more tools of the state who will sell their souls for the almighty dollar. Hang in there Dr. Spencer.
Do not use Google search. Change your default search agent to DuckDuckGo.com or some other search engin.
DuckDuckGo uses the Bing search engine and is as good as google 99% of the time. I switched at the beginning of 2021.
Keep up the good work Roy. Its disheartening to see this rubbish happening. In a world where Greta Thunberg and Leonardo Di Capprio are listened to ahead of people like yourself its hard not to feel a bit depressed at the total lack of any sort of analysis by the general public. When someone tells me “just look at the science” I point them to your website but I fear very few actually go and have a look. The world needs people like you, I always love to hear what you have to say.
Greta Thunberg was the 2021 Climate Buffoon of the Year at my climate science and energy blog. She also won in 2019 for her climate scaremongering. But in 2021, Greta won for her political incompetence. So now she is both a climate science dingbat, and a political dingbat.
She attacked COP26 proceedings (the Climate Liars Annual Party, or CLAP, whose final report is called The Claptrap Report”).
And the whole world heard Greta bellow “Blah, Blah, Blah” about COP26. Of course that was true, and said it too, but leftists listen to Greta (I don’t know why).
Greta has become so angry and radical that she is openly attacking the people leading her Coming Climate Crisis Religion.
She is saying things that should not be stated in public unless she deliberately wants to harm “the cause”.
Of course “Nut Zero” is not feasible, and will never happen, so there is nothing the green zealots can do to satisfy Greta Thunberg … which will make her more and more hysterical.
Climate Realists like us get no attention, but Greta is a master at getting attention.
Leftists ruin everything they touch, and then get angry with each other. That’s happening now.
Greta Thunberg is an example of how leftists abuse children.
Earlier Wee Willy Slimeball wrote (complete comment) –
“And of course our slimiest sock puppet continues to slime and lie.”
Hmmm, as they say. The eminently witless one cannot define the GHE, cannot provide any experimental support for his indefinable GHE (unsurprising), and believes that he is amazingly powerful and authoritative, capable of using his awesome intellectual powers to create fact from fantasy.
Alas and alack, associating himself with frauds, fakers, scofflaws and deadbeats of the ilk of Michael Mann, or delusional fantasists like Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen, merely leads others to believe that the fool using the pseudonym of “Willard” (and known as Wee Willy), is just another science denying, bitter, climate cultist – with precisely nothing to offer relating to the study of the atmosphere.
But, hey ho!, it’s a free world.
At the very least, Wee Willy Wanker’s conniptions show the mental state of a devoted climate cultist, disconnected from reality.
Others, of course, are free to leap to Woeful Wee Willy’s defence. I await the droves of the dimwit’s supporters providing verifiable facts to show that Wee Willy is not, in fact, completely off with the fairies, living in a fantasy world of his own.
I fear my wait will be a long one.
You said the magic word, Mike Flynn:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-264597
Congratulations!
Horse kicks tree, farts on dogs, then runs away.
Wee Willy can’t talk about science, so fondly imagines himself to be The Great Detective, for some bizarre reason known only to himself.
Wee Willy resembles Chief Inspector Clouseau of Pink Panther fame, rather than Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot. All fictional, of course, like Witless Wee Will’s estimation of himself.
At least it allows Wee Willy Idiot to avoid addressing anything at all of a scientific nature.
What a clown he is!
Maybe one day, I will explain the reason for his confusion, but he is so wedded to his conspiracy fantasy, he would refuse to accept the facts. Best let him carry on, demonstrating the stupidity and avoidance tactics of the fanatical climate cultist.
Mike Flynn, Melodious Funk.
Carry on as instructed, dummy.
Mike Flynn, Malevolence Forestalled.
Indeed.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
I don’t follow your links, but I suppose in your deranged state, you believe that If I use words which have been used by others, then I must be those others!
There are people in power who work on the same premise, and see conspiracy and threat at every turn. You would no doubt subscribe to the idea that Sir Francis Bacon wrote the plays attributed to one William Shakespeare – based on, amongst “coded references” in Shakespeare’s plays, which indicated that Bacon was the “real” author . . .
Shakespeare and Bacon used the same words at times! How spooky is that?
I write as I wish. You can write what you wish. Mike Flynn may write what he wishes.
It doesn’t make you any the less the science denying, fact avoiding, slimy little grub that you are. I give thanks that you are at least powerless and impotent. As stupid as you are (and some of your comments indicate that you imagine yourself to be intelligent, wise, and respected – the fanciful notions of a stupid person), it would be terrifying if you could actually influence facts.
So carry on with your nonsense. Pointless, meaningless, and irrelevant, but if you think nobody will notice you are avoiding bring up anything involving fact or science, you are even more stupid than I assume.
Mike Flynn, Mastiff Fence.
Wee Willy Nitwit,
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Moss Florist.
Weary Wee Willy,
I wrote previously –
“So carry on with your nonsense. Pointless, meaningless, and irrelevant, but if you think nobody will notice you are avoiding bring up anything involving fact or science, you are even more stupid than I assume.”
I’ll rephrase slightly. You are demonstrably as stupid as I assume.
Carry on with the demonstration.
Mike Flynn, Mannakin Fizz, you said it alright –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/sea-level-rise-human-portion-is-small/#comment-304772
Cheers.
Witless Wee Willy,
I agree with Mike Flynn, even if I might express those sentiments in slightly different ways.
You are indeed stupid, ignorant, and irrelevant. If you had an equation it would probably be meaningless, irrelevant and pointless, and you would no doubt thrash around wildly, trying to escape the consequences of your folly.
So carry on, dummy. Keep quoting people who think of you as I do.
You can always hope that someone will leap to your defence. Someone who thinks like you perhaps? I use the word “think” loosely” of course.
How is your study of physics going? Not well, I gather.
Mike Flynn, Misbehaving Franklin – when you say “I agree with Mike Flynn,” you in fact are agreeing with yourself.
Teach us some physics if you dare.
It is very easy to spot the propagandists. They don’t understand anything. Lots of cut and paste.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Teach us some physics if you dare.”
I assume that would be you, and yourself?
Gladly. Just tell me what physics you need to be taught, your current level of understanding, and convince me you have made strenuous efforts to overcome your lack of knowledge.
Otherwise, I, and others, might assume you are just being your usual idiotic self, trying to make others waste their time at your behest.
Your “silly semantic games” don’t appear to be achieving much (apart from making you look like a dimwitted troll), do they? Apropos of Mike Flynn, are you still of the firm conviction that when Mike Flynn commented here recently, it was really someone else pretending to be him? Exactly how did you come to that conclusion? Mental telepathy? Tinfoil hat?
Carry on being silly, Willy.
It’s easy to recognize Troglodyte and Mike Flynn – the first pretends to talk about science but never really does, and the second still denies being Mike Flynn, just like he denies that the greenhouse effect exists.
Mike Flynn should teach us some physics, and Troglodyte should read us the two papers to which he courageously handwaves.
That’d be instructive.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You suggested again -“Mike Flynn should teach us some physics, . . .”, and I assume that in the depths of your tinfoil hat fantasy, you really mean myself.
As I wrote before “Gladly. Just tell me what physics you need to be taught, your current level of understanding, and convince me you have made strenuous efforts to overcome your lack of knowledge.”
I realise this upsets your little trollish game, but that’s life. You just want me to waste time on a completely pointless task, whereas I believe it is up to me to determine how I spend my time, and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.
I suppose you could try whining, moaning, or bleating about the unfairness of it all, but this might just make you look like an ineffectual and incompetent troll. As usual, you attempt to cover your complete ignorance of science by accusing me of denying something that does not exist. Dimwit, if the GHE existed you could at least describe it, and tell where it might be observed, measured and quantified. Of course you can’t, because you are just another emotionally retarded climate crank.
Off you go now, like a good little troll. You really need to try harder.
So no physics again, Mascerpone Flammekuche Mike Flynn?
Do your bit about how an IR measuring device responds to a heat source reflected in a mirror.
Wee Willy Peabrain,
More nonsense.
If you have something to say, why not say it?
Because you’re a slimy little grub, is that why?
Tell us all about how IR reflects, peabrain. Show your knowledge of physics, dimwit.
Or just deny science altogether, as slimy little cultist grubs do!
[chortle]
Mike Flynn, Manque’ as a Futurist – do your bit about night temperatures.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, Manque as a Futurist do your bit about night temperatures.”
Maybe you should ask Mike Flynn – or better still, quote him if you can, and support any disagreement you might have with anything he says.
I’m sure night temperatures exist. What about you, peabrain?
Mike Flynn, Macaroni of Fibs.
Slimy sock puppet Willard, please stop trolling.
Here’s the continuity equation Chihuahua:
dL/dt= I-O
It’s a first-order, homogeneous, differential equation. I studied it in Pchem. Reaction kinetics.
Very good, Troglodyte.
Pray tell more, and don’t forget to quote and cite, even if according to your logic that would make you a propagandist.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Not even a good effort at baiting.
Try harder next time. Have you considered going back to troll school, or can’t you meet the entrance requirements?
What form of mental instability leads you to the conclusion that any rational person would value your opinion? After trying to help you – once, of course.
Mike Flynn, Frantically Masturbating.
Slimy sock puppet Willard, please stop trolling.
You are mistaken.
Shakespeare’s plays were written by Elizabeth I.
Before you complain that no woman could have written Shakespeare’s plays, this is proof that Elizabeth I was a man.
Welsh humor?
Earlier, Richard Greene wrote –
“Based on 25 years of climate science reading, I would estimate that at least 99.9% of climate scientists believe there is a large greenhouse effect, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”
A couple of points. Climate is the statistics of past weather. 12 year old child standard arithmetic. Not much science there!
Belief is no substitute for fact.
Believe away, but don’t expect me to find your belief, nor to feel sympathetic if you discover you’ve been fooled.
Maybe you could name a “climate scientist” who has actually advanced knowledge of the statistics of past weather?
Only joking, of course. Climate science is more of a joke than political science or social science, which are both probably less important than astrology to members of the public.
Testing
Finally!
Stephen
I think I’ve falsified Berry.
I’ll use ppm equivalent for convenience.
First to describe one year using Berry’s model and the IPCC model. Seasonal exchanges cancel out.
Berry
Atmospheric CO2 increases by 2ppm/year.
59% comes from human activity. That is 1.2ppmm.
41% transfers from Land and ocean to atmosphere. That is 0.8ppm.
Land and ocean show a net decrease of 0.8ppm/year.
IPCC
Human activity releases enough to raise atmospheric CO2 by 4ppm/year.
Atmospheric CO2 increases by 2ppm/year.
Land and ocean absorb 2ppm/year from atmosphere.
Land and ocean show a net increase increase of 2ppm/year.
Not the different predictions.
The Berry model predicts that the amount of carbon in the land and ocean will decrease.
The IPCC predicts that it will increase.
What is happening?
The pH of the ocean is decreasing as the ocean takes up more CO2 and buffering converts more carbon to bicarbonate and carbonate. This releases more H+. Ballentyne et al concur.
The Land is greening as vegetation stores more CO2 removed from the air.
Land and ocean are net absorbers of cO2 as predicted by the IPCC but not by Berry.
Berry is falsified.
I put this on Dr. Berry’s website. Awaiting a reply.
You have a response:
“Dear Entropic, Thank you for your comment because I always like challenges.
However, you will have to do much better than your comment to have any impact on my paper. Your comment, as made above, is simply full of sweeping assumptions with no connection to data or physics.
You need to show the sources of your numbers and your calculations. And you need to point to the parts of my paper that you challenge. You have not shown that there is any error in my paper.
Have you even read my paper?”
Thanks, DREMT.
This was my reply:-
Are you sure you aren’t Stephen P Anderson? You sound very like him, right down to the uninformative debating style.
The IPCC model comes straight out of the literature. The numbers come from them.
The only significant assumptions for both models are that seasonal exchanges cancel out over the annual cycle, that except for human input the total circulating carbon remains constant and that the equilibrium distribution of carbon between land, ocean and atmosphere remains constant unless disturbed.
This is sufficient for our purposes since we are discussing the fast carbon cycle, not the slow cycle.
I have read your paper, courtesy of Willard and the Berry model is based on it.
The 59% human emissions and, and 41% natural emissions figures are yours. If they are wrong, then please indicate what they should be, how much you expect the land and ocean reservoirs change each year and in what direction.
Dr Berry responds:
"Dear Entropic, You say, “I have read your paper, courtesy of Willard and the Berry model is based on it.”
That won’t work because you don’t give a reference for Willard and the data you claim are mine are not my data.
So please get a copy of my paper and read what it says before you claim there is an error in my paper. Are you too cheap to spend $10?"
Perhaps our slimiest sock puppet will go remind Ed that his paper has been published online?
You seem to have a big problem with me. Don’t know why.
I keep telling Eman to read his paper first. I even posted my email address, and I will send him the paper. Eman, Dr. Berry is very nice, but that was about a third-grade level of understanding. Eman, William Happer couldn’t falsify Berry’s paper. Do you think you can?
Also, thank you very much for thinking I’m Dr. Berry. Dr. Berry is an intellectual giant. I’ve got a really high IQ but Berry is at least 20 points higher. I’m not even close to him.
In fairness, Troglodyte, your debating style is at least 20 EQ points higher than Ed’s.
Eman,
For you to insult scientists like Berry and Spencer is psychopathic. To post something so idiotic on his site is delusional. He was very nice to you.
I think Dr. Berry quickly concluded that you are a loony bird.
Ed’s honor needs your defense not far from here, Troglodyte:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1121637
Beware that our Real McCoy could climb up a spacecraft naked, with you attached to the hair on his back.
Richard is all over the place. I try to leave seniles alone.
How courageous of you, Troglodyte.
What if I told you that the scientific community did the same with Ed?
Willard slimes Berry. What a slimy little sock puppet Willard is!
I would tell you Berry has three papers out there. None have been falsified.
I would also tell you there is a new independent paper by Skrable et al. that corroborates Berry’s papers.
Repeat after me, Troglodyte:
One does not simply falsify a model.
Falsification happens at the level of theories. Since all models are wrong, one could argue that they’re eo ipso falsified. Besides, falsification is not as easy as you presume:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#BasiStatFalsConv
That’s a common, yet fairly basic mistake.
My latest response at Dr Berry’s.
This is getting boring. Your paragon of scientific excellent hasn’t yet written anything scientific. I’m doing all the work and he’s doing eff all. If he wants respect, let him earn it in debate.
In my day scientific debate took place in seminar rooms. It was the custom for one party to make their point and back it up with evidence. The second party reciprocated and they played evidence tennis until time ran out of one prevailed. So far Ive given you a basic argument but got nothing back.
https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13
Lets start at the beginning.
The first two sentences in your 2019 abstract read:-O
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent and natural CO2 is 95 percent of the CO2 inflow into the atmosphere. The ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere must equal the ratio of the inflows.
The first sentence is about right. The second sentence is nonsense.
First may I remind you of the difference between gross flow and net flow. In a year the land absorbs x Gt of carbon by photosynthesis and returns x Gt by respiration. The gross flow is the sum of the two flows. The net flow is zero. Similarly the oceans exchange considerable CO2 with the atmosphere in a year, but the net flow is zero.
In a year the net contribution of the natural sinks to increasing atmospheric CO2 is nothing. The only contribution to increasing CO2 is human emissions.
Now the third sentence:-
Yet IPCC claims human CO2 has caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm, which is now 130 ppm or 32 percent of todays atmospheric CO2.
Correct.
The total circulating carbon is located in three reservoirs. About half is in the atmosphere and the other half in the land and ocean. They are in equilibrium, so if you are 2xGt of carbon to the Atmosphere from an outside source such as fossil fuels, x remains in the Atmosphere and x transfers to the land and ocean over the next few years.
You can get the total emissions from records of total fossil fuel burn and cement manufacture. That figure is enough to increase total carbon in the atmosphere by twice the observed atmospheric 130ppm. Half of the emissions stay in the Atmosphere and the other half transfer to the land and ocean.
Chihuahua,
You could falsify Berry’s Physics Model by providing evidence that turnover times have increased to decades or centuries. Another way to falsify would be to provide evidence that nature can distinguish between natural and human CO2. A third way to falsify his model would be to show evidence that conservation of carbon mass is a non-linear process. A fourth way to falsify his model would be to provide evidence that outflow isn’t proportional to level using Henry’s Law and the Ideal Gas Law.
Eman,
You’ll need to show evidence that nature can discriminate between human and natural CO2 and that uptake is not proportional to the level (concentration).
In order to do this, you’ll need to contradict the IPCC and also the Equivalence Principle. (Do you understand the Equivalence Principle?)
That’s, how should I put it gently, not how it works, Troglodyte.
Pray tell: is the current carbon cycle in a steady state, or not?
What do you mean by “it?” The fast carbon cycle is described by the continuity equation. “Steady State” would not be an apt description.
The slow carbon cycle is described by the continuity equation also (conservation of mass). Linear, homogenous differential equations. However, it has much longer turnover times.
Eman,
After your comment about Shakespeare, I think you’re joking and wasting everyone’s time, especially Dr. Berry’s. I doubt he gives you any more of his time. He can tell you’re either not serious or a fruitcake.
> What do you mean by it?
The “it” refers to how we would refute Ed’s toy model in particular and how science works in general, Troglodyte.
Take Ed’s strawman about treating human and natural CO2 differently. To establish that fact would in fact caution Ed’s strawman. It may not refute Ed’s model. From different assumptions different conclusions may follow.
Think of it this way. Suppose my budget consists in two main sources of income: a salary, and some ninja gigs. My salary does not increase, yet at the end of the day, I have more money in my bank account. Would you say that the nature of my money is different?
No. That’d be absurd. Yet that’s what Ed argues with his silly strawman. Where did he got that weird idea, BTW? Rooting for Ed is all well and good. At some point you’ll have to quote and cite properly.
As for the “steady state” term, don’t sweat it: a simple yes or no would do. And no need to handwave: I have the paper. What I want to know is if you read it.
“Youll need to show evidence that nature can discriminate between human and natural CO2 ”
Whatever for?
Once they mix all molecules behave in the same way.
For example, if I add 10Gt of humans emissions to the atmosphere it upsets the equilibrium. To restore it, 5Gt is absorbed by the land and ocean reservoirs.
That 5Gt is not going to be from human emissions only or natural CO2only. It will be whatever molecules happen to be absorbed.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
‘And no need to handwave: I have the paper. What I want to know is if you read it.”
And anybody at all is supposed to care about what you ” . . . want to know . . .”, because . . . ?
What a stupid attempt at a gotcha! If you have some evidence to support whatever point you are trying to make, why not just say what it is?
Because you are a slimy pea brained ineffective troll, perhaps?
By the way, thanks for the flattery. I notice you are using words like “slimiest”, obviously doing your best to imitate my style. Or does that mean you are really the estimable Mike Flynn, because you think I am he, and you are using the same types of words to make people think Wee Willy is really Mike Flynn pretending to be Swenson, or vice versa, or something? Gets real confusing real fast, but I can arrange a tinfoil hat for you, if you think Mike Flynn is stealing your brainwaves!
More Mike Flynn quotes, please. I might get some useful words or quotes that I can use.
You really are stupid, aren’t you?
Mike Flynn, Macabre Marginalization.
Slimy sock puppet Willard, please stop trolling.
I like Ed Berry’s theory.
The glaring problem is about the source of the CO2. What might be causing the small change in the natural carbon cycle so that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is increasing as it has apparently not done before?
That’s not a problem for Ed’s theory unless you can show that it is a problem. It is a problem for the IPCC.
You can’t be serious, Troglodyte!
How about the claim that:
?
Well, how about it, dummy?
Got something to say?
Mike Flynn, Moribund Fissiparousness.
Well, that certainly demonstrates your intellectual capacity, doesn’t it?
Carry on, peabrain.
Mike Flynn, Marauding Futilely.
You are getting good at four word idiocy, aren’t you?
Most impressive.
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn – I’m glad you ask.
I finally reached 200 Words-that-start-with-M-and-Words-that-start-with-F.
I’m tempted to try to find others, but if you keep recycling the same lame lines, I might reciprocate.
Hope you like that kind of responses, for soon enough that’s all you’ll get!
Carry on, my favorite sock puppet!
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Im tempted to try to find others, but if you keep recycling the same lame lines, I might reciprocate.
Hope you like that kind of responses, for soon enough thats all youll get!”
You may do as you wish. I do.
Reciprocate, masturbate – what difference does it make to me? You can hope in one hand and pee in the other if you want – I can make a guess as to which will fill up first.
Off you go now, grub. Dream up some more pointless comments. What an impotent and powerless troll you are! Go and threaten one of your fellow chihuahuas, or a small child, if you think it will make you feel important.
[long chortle at impotent and powerless troll]
Mike Flynn, Macarena Fan, I think you distilled the essence of your character –
“Reciprocate, masturbate what difference does it make to me?”
Whacky Wee Willy,
And anybody is supposed to care what you “think” because . . . ?
Carry on with your threats to reciprocate (or masturbate, if you think that might terrify horses and small children more).
Have you considered threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue?
Oh dear, well all be put in our places then, won’t we? That’s sarcasm, in case you’re too slow to work it out for yourself.
How are the science lessons going? Have you learned why insulators are used to keep things cold? Probably a bit advanced for a peabrain like you.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Macer Fraud.
Slimy sock puppet Willard, please stop trolling.
That’s the problem.
He claims that the atmosphere is gaining CO2 from the land and ocean. He also tells me that my calculation showing that the land and ocean sinks are decreasing is false.
Logically that means that CO2 is entering the system from some other natural source. I’ve been reading his 2019 paper and can’t find where it’s coming from.
Continued constant emissions imply dL/dt=0.
He doesn’t comment on where the increase in natural emissions is coming from. Salby says it is due to a rise in surface temperature. Salby provides evidence for it, and we’ll see it in future papers.
Also, Berry cites Ballantyne et al. (Nature 2018) that sinks are increasing.
Just as an aside, have you guys read any of Berry’s papers on cloud droplet formation? The guy is a giant in the field of meteorology. His research on cloud droplet formation was used to write rain prediction software. He is an atmospheric physicist of the first order. He has published in the Journal of Physics, Atmospheric Sciences, and others. The National Science Foundation has sponsored him. He is uniquely qualified to address CO2 flow through the different reservoirs.
You guys challenging his qualifications would be like you challenging Aristotle in the field of Philosophy. You two come off as a couple of loony birds. So does Jerry Elwood.
Carbon molecules do not spontaneously create themselves.They have to come from somewhere.
The current sources are the atmosphere, the land reservoir, the ocean reservoir, fossil fuels and limestone used to make cement.
Selby and Berry must have found a new source. What is it?
“Just as an aside, have you guys read any of Berrys papers on cloud droplet formation? The guy is a giant in the field of meteorology. ”
And a midget in the field of carbon cycles. Nothing so pitiful as an old scientist trying to work outside his field.
> The guy is a giant in the field of meteorology.
I saw two papers cited more than 400 times, one written in the 60s and the other in the 70s. Do you have his H-index?
Here’s one you might wish to pass on to Christos:
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/7249785
Oooooh! Goody! A fight about who can quote the most “authority”!
Who cares? What difference does it make?
Without the atmosphere, we would all boil (literally) during the day, and all turn into meat popsicles at night.
No warming properties for CO2 – none.
And as far as “but insulation . . .”, the dummies that bleat this mantra seem totally unaware that their refrigerators would be useless for keeping their contents cold without insulation, and firemen couldn’t get as close to fires as they do without the benefit of the highly technical insulating clothing they wear.
Reality and science are frightening prospects to be avoided at all costs, by the fanatical climate crackpot. These idiots even spout nonsense like “Stop climate change!”, without realising how stupid they are. Intelligent and rational?
Bumbling buffoons.
Mike Flynn, Mountebanks’ Finest, you ask – “who cares”?
Here’s one who does:
You’ll have to settle that one with Troglodyte.
Oooooh!
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Youll have to settle that one with Troglodyte.
Oooooh!”
And why would I “have” to do that? You really are stupid, aren’t you? Detached from reality.
Hers’s a hint, peabrain – I do as I wish. There is not a damned thing you can do about it, so get used to it. Oh dear, feeling bullied again, are you? Poor diddums!
Run to Mommy. Have a good cry, and maybe maybe Mommy will kiss it better.
Then you can come back and tell me what I “have” to do again. Be prepared to burst into tears once more.
Idiot.
[snigger}
Mike Flynn, Miserly Fancy-Ass.
Troglodyte is the one who cares about Ed’s authority.
I definitely don’t.
So why don’t you ask him that question?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
I’ve concluded you two are (1) not serious, (2) loony birds, or (3) dumber than a box of rocks. Berry’s unfalsified papers are still out there. So is Skrable, et al.
If by unfalsified you mean not even wrong, Troglodyte, then you got a point!
Whining Wee Willy,
you wrote –
“So why don’t you ask him that question?”
Are you as thick as a short plank, or as thick as two short planks?
What business is it of yours? Why do you want to know? Is it because you are so stupid that you think that I care what you think?
Get over yourself, Wee Willy. Or not, as you wish.
If I feel like justifying my actions to you, I will. If I don’t, you can go and bay at the Moon for all I care.
In the meantime, how are going with your physics lessons? I offered to teach you, but you haven’t shown that you have made any effort to help yourself in this regard. I help the needy, not the greedy, and particularly not lazy, incompetent, slimy little grubs.
Have you learnt why CO2 has no magic warming properties, or why the surface cools in the absence of heat?
I thought not.
Carry on.
Cristos.
Right. Cristos.
Sorry, Cristos.
Wait:
Is there anything about which you can be trusted, Troglodyte?
Witless Wee Willy,
Is there anything you say that any rational person gives a toss about?
Mike Flynn, Maccaboy Function.
Slimy sock puppet Willard, please stop trolling.
–Ken says:
January 15, 2022 at 3:24 PM
I like Ed Berrys theory.–
What is Ed Berrys theory?
Basically that a large proportion of the 145ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 observed since 1880 comes from natural sources rather than human fossil fuel emissions.
In Ed’s words:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-co2-temp/contradictions-to-ipccs-climate-change-theory/
Not sure where he gets the idea that the “the IPCC model cannot replicate the data.” It’s not clear what he means by that as the argument in section 3.3 is “all over the place,” to borrow from Ed’s biggest fan’s wordology.
To give you an idea of how Loopy things can become with Ed, try to follow his “Bern (13) predicts.” That should lead you here:
https://doi.org/10.1260/095830509787689123
I doubt the IPCC’s position rests on a paper from 2009, who has been written by a single author whose name is not Bern.
Read the Berry JAOS 2019 paper, Section 4 on the IPCC Bern Model. That should resolve the confusion you display in both your comments here.
EM,
I’m sure you know, but perhaps Troglodyte doesn’t realize that Ed’s citation for his “Bern (13) predicts” is a paper in Energy & Environment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%26_Environment
"Not sure where he gets the idea that the “the IPCC model cannot replicate the data.”"
Actually, that would be Section 5…Figure 9, for instance.
EM,
Also note that the author is Tom Quirk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Quirk
So yeah – Ed cited a known contrarian as a source for the Bern model!
Yeah, but if you read through Section 4, as I said, you’ll soon see he uses all sorts of references in his explanation of the Bern model. It certainly doesn’t all come down to this one paper, as you are trying to assert.
P.S: I’ll stop now. I know first-hand how frustrating it is when someone you have said you will not respond to starts writing comments addressed to you. I get that all the time. Got it with you, too, Willard, when I tried to ignore you. Of course, you wouldn’t stop, because you have no honor. I will stop, proving I’m the better man, once again.
EM,
It is important to note that Ed’s citation to “(13)” in the blog post does not lead to the same “(13)” in his published paper.
In the 2019 paper (from now on B19) we can read:
That leads to Beck 2007, 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods. You can still find it here:
https://21sci-tech.com/Subscriptions/Spring%202008%20ONLINE/CO2_chemical.pdf
I could not find any reference to the Bern model in that paper. At least Ed kept to Energy & Environment. So in the end all is well.
However, as you can see, we should expect Ed’s paper to mostly be a Climateball fog of war.
Well, I think everyone agree, but that doesn’t mean human C02 emission didn’t increase natural emissions.
I don’t know about you, gb, but to me human influence is kinda human. Land use, for instance, shows that the distinction should not be constructed like a dichotomy. At the end of the day, either we can explain the CO2 we got with all natural processes, or we can’t.
So far Ed’s fog of war indicates that he’s more into creative accounting than physics. Which is fine. He had a good career. He had success. He can indulge into a cranky hobby to his heart’s content.
* * *
Looking for Beck 2007 led me to this page:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/anti-agw-papers-debunked/
A great resource I forgot to add to my repertoire:
https://climateball.net/repertoire/
There are a few references that counter the paper. Most of them have deprecated URLs. Here’s the DOI of the main one:
https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.18.5.635
DOIs are more persistent than other kinds of URLs.
In any event, Beck 2007 is clearly not the proper source to the so-called Bern model.
–Basically that a large proportion of the 145ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 observed since 1880 comes from natural sources rather than human fossil fuel emissions.–
Let’s do this again.
It would disprove, CO2 emitted humans stays in atmosphere “virtually forever”, but no one is saying this.
But doesn’t disprove that by adding CO2, human have not increased the amount of CO2 in Earth’s carbon cycle {which is huge- and was huge before humans existed}.
Now there may be more the argument. But you wouldn’t expect to find much of human emitted CO2 staying in the atmosphere.
It seems it would or should be complicated proving what causing the CO2 increase.
Some things are known, we living in icehouse climate and icehouse climate have very low amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
And our ocean is still very cold.
> It would disprove
So you say, but you say a lot without showing much.
Suppose Ed gets 5 bucks each time he sells his “peer-reviewed paper.” Assume that all his other sources of income have not budged since last year. Same for all his expenses. His bank account shows that he’s 40 bucks over this year.
While we could argue that selling eight copies of that paper took a supernatural effort, a buck is a buck is a buck, don’t you think?
PS: I lost a longer comment, but that one will have to do for now.
From linked paper:
–Abstract
Aims: Test the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) theory that human CO2 has caused all or most of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1750 or above 280 ppm.–
Well we don’t know what Global CO2 levels were in 1750 AD.
It is assumed [or agreed] the Little Ice Age ended in 1850 AD.
I assume, the Little Ice Age, was coldest time period in over
10,000 years. And no one knows why.
Though we had gradual cooling for 5000 years.
And our Holocence thermal maximum was during what is called the thermal maximum:
Holocene Climatic Optimum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
So, one could say that Little Ice Age, was not “unexpected”.
And we had similar warm and cold periods in last 5000 years.
It seems to me, ice core record, all show the interglacial thermal maximum. It’s steep rise following a glaciation period.
This steep rise was called “global warming” or in this definition of global warming, we had it about 10,000 years ago.
Anyhow, no one apparently understands what causes this global warming {though it seems obvious to me}. What is known, is it’s not caused by CO2 levels.
One could argue we not in interglacial period, but that seems quite unpopular, but it more popular to say are interglacial period appears, odd. But it’s very fashionable to discuss this at the moment.
What I call the cargo cult, seems to be making the argument that we going to have a double peak. I would call this “quite optimistic” or even unable to accept, bad news.
But I am optimistic about it, also, for various reasons.
So, anyhow, it seems one would have lower CO2 levels when it’s colder, and LIA seemed to have a slightly colder ocean and sea levels lowered during this time. And so I expect CO2 levels to lower during the coldest period in 10,000 years.
Now, it 1750, humans were burning wood.
Today, a lot energy use is related to warming buildings- despite greater understanding of insulation. Starting around 1800 the US was keeping stats on how much coal was being used. And was much lower than England, US exceeded coal use of England somewhere around the American Civil War.
Anyhow, a lot of this CO2 mania, is related to counting. And having a government count, was sort of became an American thing. Counting coal use was a way to predict the future. Anyhow, it didn’t work as far as predicting the future, but it was something useful for a government to do. But then and now, governments don’t count very well. Considering the end of world mania, it counts very poorly. Next:
“Methodology: Derive a simple Physics Model that makes only one assumption: outflow is proportional to the level (or concentration) of CO2 in the atmosphere. Compare and evaluate the Physics Model and the IPCC model.”
But that rather silly, we know it’s not following proportional.
But we also are not counting CO2 emission correctly.
But though those doing the poor counting know what is counted is inversely proportional {and imagine, it could “turn around”].
Or they are dingbats and have cargo cult religion.
> One could argue
One could indeed. One could ramble too.
“So, anyhow, it seems one would have lower CO2 levels when it’s colder, and LIA seemed to have a slightly colder ocean and sea levels lowered during this time. And so I expect CO2 levels to lower during the coldest period in 10,000 years.”
And indeed it was lower during the LIA than the previous 600 y or so according to Law Dome ice core. It was ~ 7 ppm lower than during the Medeival Warm Period.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/Image18.gif
So the subsequent rise of 150 ppm since the LIA cannot have been caused the warming since then.
Arrgh,
‘Cannot have been caused BY the warming since then.’
–Willard says:
January 16, 2022 at 4:22 PM
I dont know about you, gb, but to me human influence is kinda human. Land use, for instance, shows that the distinction should not be constructed like a dichotomy. At the end of the day, either we can explain the CO2 we got with all natural processes, or we cant.–
The dichotomy of Man vs Nature is a religious view.
Human is obviously natural. Is interacting and dependent on Nature.
Some might imagine humans were implanted on this planet, thereby “unnatural”, but that would count as a religious view.
The idea that human can’t effect nature, is an oddball or perhaps wildly insane religious view.
Nature effects Nature.
–So far Eds fog of war indicates that hes more into creative accounting than physics. Which is fine. He had a good career. He had success. He can indulge into a cranky hobby to his hearts content.–
I don’t know much about Ed.
But I would hear about his views from his “fans” – and not interested in climate issues. My cranky hobby relates to space exploration.
All I can get from climatic fans, is they don’t know how to terraform Mars. And don’t realize that Venus at Earth distance would be much colder than Earth.
So, impress, me.
Prove that it’s not some crazy cargo cult.
Cranking up with stronger claims may not terraform your argument by assertion into a stronger argument. Corporations sell their earning reports to shareholders using the same logic as the IPCC. Unless you are willing to call profits a religious concept, you might wish to pipe down a bit.
https://archive.org/details/grammarofscience00pearrich/page/36/mode/2up?ref=ol&view=theater
“It is such criticism which is the essence of the scientific use of the imagination, which is, indeed, the very life-blood of science”
In such a context, I would say that the cargo cult, lacks the imagination.
As one should expect from a committee and not having an author.
And I would say politicians have different kind of imagination which appears to be small and rather limited.
Though worsened as with disease with committees and too much idiocy in general.
Because someone says Google should not censor websites, it does not mean they believe the government should enforce this opinion at gunpoint. I understand that Democratic Socialists and Liberal Democrats have trouble understanding this distinction.
Avoid Google. I google on DuckDuckGo. Use DuckDuckGo, Rumble, Odyssey, etc. Google is an enemy of free thought.
What effect will Tonga Hunga have on climate? Is it large enough to compare to Pinatubo?
Too early to tell.
The big emitters tend to combine high output with a long duration.
One source says much less SO2 than Pinatubo. But who knows.
Very certainly not.
Hunga has a VEI of 2, whereas Pinatubo had VEI 6, and El Chichon VEI 5.
Pictures from space show that the eruption column could not break through the tropopause.
Testing again.
Dr Berry’s latest response:
“Dear Entropic,
You wax poetic about how to conduct a scientific debate. Then you break all your own rules.
You have not read my paper. You have not referenced any part of the body of my paper. You are not even talking about my 2021 paper.
Your elaborations agree with much of my paper, but you assume my paper disagrees with your elaborations.
You are not debating my paper. You are debating your constructed strawman of my paper. I don’t have time for your nonsense.
If you want to debate any part of my paper, give section number and quote, or give equation number.
I will give you one more opportunity to make a intelligent comment. If you fail, I will block you from further comments.”
Eman has had a good week. First, he insulted Spencer on his web page. Then he goes over and insults Berry on his page. He’s building quite a legacy.
That would be the fourth denialist site to block me. It might even be worth it for the bragging rights. : o )
Actually Dr Berry was a great disappointment. You promised me a scientific debate, but I got nothing. Indeed I’m getting a better defence of Berry’s views from you.
He demands that I pay $10 to buy his paper, but from what I’ve read so far it is mostly either trivially obvious, wrong or meaningless and not worth $10. I’m coming round to Willard’s view that it is unfalsifiable because it’s not even coherent enough to be wrong.
“but from what I’ve read so far…”
You are funny, Entropic Man. So you haven’t read the paper, but you think you can refute it! No wonder he threatened to ban you. I haven’t read it either, but I’m neither challenging it nor accepting it. He repeatedly asked you to quote the specific parts of his paper which you disagreed with, which is a completely reasonable request. It is an especially reasonable request that you should actually read it before criticizing it. Just to be clear, if this is why you get banned from places, it seems like you might deserve it. Why not read the paper, do as he requests, and have the scientific discussion he seems to be trying to arrange and encourage, but you seem to be refusing (whilst blaming it all on him, on his own blog)?
I’m partway through the 2019 paper, trying to understand Figure 5.
Dr Berry shows the exchange between the land/ocean reservoirs and the atmosphere as balanced as it should be.
He also shows all the emitted human emissions as absorbed by the land/ocean reservoirs and his examination makes no sense.
Physically one would expect his 4.6 to partition between the reservoirs. Among other things his version of reality violates Henry’s Law.
Perhaps you or Stephen could clarify.
I have no idea. Haven’t read any of his papers and I’m not here to defend them.
Precisely, that’s the point that Berry is making. That is the IPCC human carbon cycle. It doesn’t make any sense.
OK, you’re looking at the paper from JAOS. Of course, it makes sense. The 4.6ppm human emissions become part of the fast carbon cycle. There is no differentiation between human and natural CO2.
The thing with Eman is he goes over there to Berry’s page and makes comments like “this is getting boring,” as if he’s made a coherent comment, and Berry has failed to respond. He hasn’t made one logical point yet. I can see him back in 1905 reading Einstein’s paper. “This is getting boring. You’re not making any sense. You’re a patent clerk.” Einstein and Berry respond as if flicking a gnat.
Eman,
You were a biology teacher. It is a very noble profession. But, don’t you think you might be a little out of your realm?
“The 4.6ppm human emissions become part of the fast carbon cycle. There is no differentiation between human and natural CO2. ”
Exactly. But Berry claims otherwise. His figure 5 implies that natural CO2 partitions between reservoirs while human CO2 all leaves the atmosphere.
Barry’s claim that the IPCC distinguishes between human and natural CO2 after release is a straw man. He is the one doing so.
EM has more than enough competence to solve what looks like a simple accounting problem:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1128581
You had no response to this pickle, Troglodyte. Why is that?
Paul
“You were a biology teacher. It is a very noble profession. But, dont you think you might be a little out of your realm? ”
Would “patronising” he the correct term for that statement?
You can be a physical chemist without knowing any other science except what impinges on your specialist subject.
A biologist cannot. To properly understand living organisms requires a broad understanding of a wide variety of other sciences.
Consider Henry’s law. It applies to gas exchange between air and fluid in a lung just as it applies to exchange between air and ocean. Even the CO2 buffering is relevant.
Consider the exchange of carbon between land and atmosphere. This is primarily through two biological processes, photosynthesis and respiration. Who better to understand the subtleties than a biologist? Carbon cycles are part of my professional expertise.
Overall I would not claim to match your expertise in your own area of expertise. I would bet that my understanding of the Earth and the universe as working systems is considerably broader than yours.
>“The 4.6ppm human emissions become part of the fast carbon cycle. There is no differentiation between human and natural CO2. ”
Exactly. But Berry claims otherwise. His figure 5 implies that natural CO2 partitions between reservoirs while human CO2 all leaves the atmosphere.
Barry’s claim that the IPCC distinguishes between human and natural CO2 after release is a straw man. He is the one doing so.
No, it doesn’t. You’re misunderstanding the diagram. The 4.6ppm human emissions become part of the fast cycle and then the 4.6 ppm exchanges with land and oceans as does the 98ppm natural CO2. 98 + 4.6=102.6ppm. He’s showing there is no differentiation as does his physics model. Also, I continue to insist that I will send you the newest paper. What is the issue?
"His figure 5 implies that natural CO2 partitions between reservoirs while human CO2 all leaves the atmosphere."
Having now completed one brief read-through of the 2019 JAOS paper, I can’t see how you are getting that from his figure 5. Still not here to defend his papers, necessarily, more just concerned they’re being misrepresented by the usual suspects. I am not decided either way on who is right yet or anything as I’ve only just started to learn about it. So more than willing to accept I could be wrong.
>EM has more than enough competence to solve what looks like a simple accounting problem:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1128581
You had no response to this pickle, Troglodyte. Why is that?
There’s no validity to anything he said. We’re discussing it now. The 10Gt becomes part of the fast cycle and outflow is proportional to level. Carbon achieves a new balance level. Berry isn’t saying human emissions haven’t raised the balance level. It has. But, all the math shows human emissions have only raised it 30ppm. Nature has raised it 100ppm.
You’re looking at it correctly DREMT. Also, all the stuff in the JAOS paper is in the new paper plus the falsification of the IPCC carbon cycle. Gladly send it to anyone. [email protected].
> We’re discussing it now.
You’re not discussing Ed’s claim that the nature of the CO2 matters in the Bern model, Troglodyte. It’s a mere accounting exercise. Ed’s Goalpost Moving Model has nothing to do with physics. It’s pure rhetoric.
Have you find a proper citation for that model yet?
I guess that would be discussed beginning here:
"The IPCC Bern model that evolved from models like [31] artificially partitions human CO2 into four separate bins. The separate bins prevent human CO2 in one bin from moving to a bin with a faster e-time. This is like having three holes of different sizes in the bottom of a bucket and claiming the smallest hole restricts the flow through the largest hole. The IPCC Bern model is unphysical. It begins with the assumption that human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2. Then it creates a model that supports this assumption. The Bern model fails Occam’s Razor because it is unnecessarily complicated. "
and
"The four terms in (13) separate human (but not natural) CO2 into 4 bins. Each bin has a different e-time. Only one bin allows human CO2 to flow freely out of the atmosphere. Two bins trap human CO2 for long times. One bin has no outflow and traps human CO2 forever. Figure 6 shows the size of the four Bern-model bins in percent and the amount of human CO2 that remains in the atmosphere 8 years after an artificial pulse of human CO2 enters the atmosphere."
We’ve gone through that. The Bern model is not an accurate mathematical descriptor. The Bern model implies turnover times are additive so that K=K1 + K2 + K3…… which implies turnover time is slower than the slowest time. 1/K1 + 1/K2 + 1/K3 describes tau. The total turnover time is faster than the fastest turnover time. Think of a large water of tank with a 5-inch drain. Now add a 2-inch drain. Does flow speed up or slow down?
Salby, in this lecture, demonstrates how the Bern model, as IPCC uses it, incorrectly partitions CO2. The Bern model could be correctly used if it was applied correctly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtIgMftbUuw&t=3635s
> The Bern model implies turnover times are additive
That description is incompatible with Ed’s strawman, according to which in the Bern model nature can discriminate between human and natural CO2. Purely additive models usually don’t distinguish types of entities they contain. They only need to add what shares the same units: one pile of CO2 plus one pile of CO2 equals two piles of CO2.
Have you found Ed’s source for the Bern model yet?
“Weve gone through that. The Bern model is not an accurate mathematical descriptor. The Bern model implies turnover times are additive so that K=K1 + K2 + K3 which implies turnover time is slower than the slowest time. 1/K1 + 1/K2 + 1/K3 describes tau. The total turnover time is faster than the fastest turnover time. Think of a large water of tank with a 5-inch drain. Now add a 2-inch drain. Does flow speed up or slow down?”
Very good Stephen. That makes sense for drains in parallel.
But the drains from atm to ocean mixed layer (ML), and from ML to deep ocean are in SERIES, the equilibration times are additive.
There is a 10 inch drain from atm to ML, but only a 1 inch drain from ML to deep ocean, due to the Revelle Factor’s bottleneck effect.
The 1 inch drain dominates the equilibration time for atmospheric CO2.
The bottleneck effect was first explained 64 y ago:
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/bolin.1958.carbon_uptake.pdf
page 133
“if we consider only the ‘mixed layer’ of the ocean, the surface layer which contains about as much carbon as the atmosphere, less than 10% of excess fossil CO2 will have been taken up by the mixed layer (in equilibrium). It is therefore obvious that the mixed layer acts as a bottleneck for transport of fossil CO2 into the deep sea.”
Dr Spencer, anything about Tonga to post? You’ve posted some cool stuff about volcanoes in the past.
Ocean waves traveled at about 400 mph and reached US west coast.
In Northern New Zealand damaged boat docks and sunk some boats.
Some say it could affect global temperature like other large volcanic eruptions.
This satellite image
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FJJDdjKXEAMwZGP?format=jpg&name=900×900
tells us that the eruption’s plume propagated under the tropopause and hence did not breach it.
A strong spread of SO2 in the lower stratosphere however is a prerequisite for a large volcanic influence.
Maybe I’ll have to retract my previous comment: newest satellite images (I couldn’t provide for any) seem to show that the Tonga plume reached an altitude of 30 km.
And… if the explosion could be heard in northern Alaska and registered by acoustic instruments in Germany: then it might well have been something stronger than VEI2 suggested.
Just for comparison.
This is what the Earths carbon cycle looks like.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg#/media/File:Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg
This is what your own internal carbon cycle looks like.
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/666955026040516601/
This is the simplified version. Also remember that each arrow is an enzyme and each enzyme requires three genes to inform and control it’s synthesis.
Perhaps you can understand why I find climate science rather simple. By comparison with your own body chemistry it is.
Yeah, that one looks a little outdated. It is showing land and oceans as net emitters. Also, it is not accounting for the human carbon cycle fully. The human carbon becomes part of the fast cycle and exchanges with land and ocean.
I think there was a typo in my first link. Try this one.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/04/can-we-rebalance-the-carbon-cycle-while-still-using-fossil-fuels/
At the time
Natural output 60+60+1.6+90=211.6
Natural uptake 121.3+0.5+92=213.8
Net uptake 213.8-211.6=2.2.
Human emissions 5.5
Net output and increase in atmospheric CO2 =5.5-2.2=3.3Gt/year.
I have a more recent but simplified version here.
https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle
Natural output 120+90=210
Natural uptake 123+92=215
Net uptake 5
Human emissions 9
Net increase in atmospheric CO2 9-5=4Gt/year.
EM,
Even if your figures are correct (it should be more), what a wonderful thing that we are trying to replace the CO2 removed from the atmosphere by nature.
More plants means more food. And, unless you want to indulge in a spot of genocide from time to time, that seems like a good thing to me.
I am sure you can justify your wish to maintain current levels of poverty, starvation, and disease, but I’m content to let nature take its course. As it will, whether you like it or not.
Hopefully, you are not one of those idiots who think that removing CO2 from the atmosphere will stop the climate from changing!
Climate science is rather simple – climate is the statistics of past weather, and anyone who thinks that is “science” is rather simple as well.
I need to work on that one:
https://climateball.net/but-the-poor/
Perhaps Mike Flynn’s comments might prove useful.
There’s always hope!
Wee Willy Dimwit,
You wrote –
“Perhaps Mike Flynn’s comments might prove useful.”
I’m sure they would. Why don’t you provide some? I assume you have spent quite some time collecting his comments, so why not share them with others if you regard them so highly?
On the other hand, you might think his comments are factually incorrect, in which case you should post some, and provide factual correction for the benefit of others.
Oh, and not Facebook style “fact checking”, which Mark Zuckerberg admitted was only “opinion” covered by the First Amendment, and therefore not required to be factual in nature.
Off you go now Witless Wee Willy, quote your favourite obsession, and see what good it does you. Same as before, I suppose. No good at all.
Witless Wee Willy,
I’m sure they would.
Post a few from your vast collection. We will all benefit from them, if past history is any guide.
Or have you finally realised that, and are too frightened to post anything that can be checked as to factual support?
Have at it. The result should be amusing, at the very least.
That turns out not to be the case. A few plants like tomatoes have higher yields with increased CO2.
Some crop plants have had a million years to adapt to 200ppm. Given 400ppm they produce more cellulose and lignin and less sugar, starch or protein. The biomass goes up but the food value per acre actually decreases.
Some are not limited by CO2, but by light, temperature of mineral nutrients. Increased CO2 does nothing to increase their yield.
Overall, increased CO2 leads to lower food production. Counterintuitive, but true.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/co2-friend-foe-agriculture/
> his comments
They’re your comments, Mack Face Mike.
Weird Wee Willy,
So you are frightened to post comments from the anonymous Mike Flynn because you think they were written by some other anonymous commenter? Or because they were written by Mike Flynn, and seem to be factual, making you look like a complete idiot if you post them?
You really are a delusional, reality avoiding, science-denying, little slimeball, aren’t you? Be a man – Mike Flynn cannot harm you, or make you look stupid. You are perfectly capable of doing that with no outside assistance.
[laughs out loud]
Mad Fabulist Mike Flynn will do as he pleases. Unless we do as our Mike Flynn orders, we’re scared.
No wonder Mike Flynn is a Mad Fabulist.
Whacky Wee Willy wrote –
“Mad Fabulist Mike Flynn will do as he pleases. Unless we do as our Mike Flynn orders, were scared.
No wonder Mike Flynn is a Mad Fabulist.”
Wee Willy Dimwit excels himself.
Threatens to post comments from Mike Flynn, then realises this not be the smartest plan of attack. Waffling Wee Willy seems upset that anybody choosing to do as they please, can possibly be allowed to do so!
As usual, the slimy grub known as Willard runs away, blubbing like a baby! “We’re scared!” Oh, the terror!
Ah well, the dummy might eventually realise that everybody is free to do as they wish, and that their actions may attract adverse consequences. Luckily, Worried Wee Willy is completely powerless to compel anyone to do anything at all. Just another anonymous impotent fool, free to batter on about anything he wishes.
And, of course, people are perfectly at liberty to value the opinions of a delusional climate nutter like Wee Willy Willard. It’s a free world (sort of), much to the dismay of dimwits like Wee Willy and some of his ilk.
Freedom!
Magistrally Fizzling Mike Flynn misreads the following phrase:
Hence Mike Flynn’s response magistrally fizzles.
Let’s thank him for this variation on “Magistral Fizz”!
Whining Wee Willy,
Here’s a hint for the mentally challenged climate crackpot like you – I do as I wish, and there’s nothing you can do about it, is there?
If you were powerful, influential, wise and respected, your opinion might mean something to me.
But you aren’t, so it doesn’t.
Name someone who values your opinion, if you like. I will do my best to ignore their fantasies, too.
Main Fatwa Mike Flynn reveals another side of his personality.
That’s why we love Mike so much.
Wonky Wee Willy probably sees himself at the head of a mighty army of “climate warriors”, like that other nitwit, the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat – Michael Mann!
Either that, or he has delusions of grandeur, and is using the Royal “we”.
In any case, Wee Willy would be hard pressed to get anyone else to admit to being complicit in his fantasies and delusional thinking. Given more than seven billion other people on Earth, that’s a wee bit sad, even for a bumbling incompetent like Wee Willy.
Even an autistic strange teenage girl like Greta Thunberg attracts more followers than Wee Willy.
How sad is that?
Majestic Fetish Mike Flynn,
Did you know that Newton, Tesla, Turing, and Einstein, were most probly on the spectrum? About Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Elon Musk? How about Dan Akroyd?
Dan Akroyd, Mike!
Come what may, you are neither more nor less intelligent than you really are, which says a lot.
Wee Willy Dimwit,
What are you blathering about?
Are you attempting some obscure gotcha, or are you really deranged?
Why should I care about your opinions? You obviously have an inflated sense of your importance to me. I have no impact on your thoughts, nor do I claim mind reading ability.
You are perfectly free to spout any delusional nonsense you wish, and I am perfectly free to ignore it, or laugh at it, as I wish. Surely you support freedom of expression?
That’s Major Floridity Mike Flynn right there!
While carbon cycle models are usually fairly rudimentary {1}, the accounting involved in the carbon budget can get daunting, e.g.:
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-605-2016
Without its budget, a carbon cycle isn’t worth much. In B19, there are two hits for “budget,” both in citation 40. This lone citation is the following URL:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/a-simple-model-of-theatmospheric-CO2-budget/
This leads to a 404. Here is the correct URL:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/a-simple-model-of-the-atmospheric-co2-budget/
Roy’s “budget” isn’t the same kind of exercise as the ESSD paper I cited.
Ed should definitely have hired an editor.
{1} They’re rudimentary, but up to a point: double accounting techniques are fairly recent as it dates back to the MWP.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Ed should definitely have hired an editor.”
Two things – who cares for your opinion about the past, and who cares for your opinion about the past.
Oh, a third thing.
You’re a slimy little troll, and endlessly trying to divert attention away from the fact that the GHE cannot be shown to exist, indicates that you are also a reality denying, anti-science slimy little troll.
That’s quite a big thing, I suppose.
Carry on with your trolling.
Mike Flynn, Mache Fact.
Oh, of course, you are repetitively delusional as well.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Machine Gun Firing.
“outflow is proportional to level. ”
Which level?
Consider what is happening.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing.
Because of buffering dissolved inorganic carbon is increasing but dissolved CO2 is staying relatively constant.
Plug this into Henry’s Law.
The system is drifting further from equilibrium towards net uptake by the ocean. The higher the atmospheric CO2 the greater the uptake.
The amount of uptake is not proportional to either level, it is proportional to the difference between them.
It is also inversely proportional to atmospheric concentration. As the atmospheric CO2 and the gradient increase uptake to the ocean increases. Output is negative and getting more negative.
EM,
Presumably, you have some good reason for demanding that human food supplies be reduced by lowering the amount of CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere.
This doesn’t seem terribly logical or rational to me, but I’m sure you can propose a good science-based reason for ensuring that others should suffer starvation, disease, and poverty because this is what you think is of benefit to mankind.
Or maybe not.
You might be at your best playing guessing games – about the amount of carbon in the system (unknown and unknowable), or maybe the future (again, unknown and unknowable). What do you think?
See my 6.18 post above.
“outflow is proportional to level. ”
Which level?
Total level. The level we see at Mona Loa.
Consider what is happening.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing.
Because of buffering dissolved inorganic carbon is increasing but dissolved CO2 is staying relatively constant.
Dissolved inorganic carbon in what form?
Plug this into Henry’s Law.
The system is drifting further from equilibrium towards net uptake by the ocean. The higher the atmospheric CO2 the greater the uptake.
This bolded text is the only thing you’ve said that is correct.
The amount of uptake is not proportional to either level, it is proportional to the difference between them.
This statement is in direct conflict with the mathematical solution to the continuity equation (linear homogeneous differential equation). You are arguing with mathematics. This is reaction kinetics which is in every PChem and Calculus class in Wales.
It is also inversely proportional to atmospheric concentration. As the atmospheric CO2 and the gradient increase uptake to the ocean increases. Output is negative and getting more negative.
Again, this is in direct conflict with the solution to the continuity equation. There is no evidence this occurs.
outflow is proportional to level.
Which level?
Total level. The level we see at Mona Loa.
Consider what is happening.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing.
Because of buffering dissolved inorganic carbon is increasing but dissolved CO2 is staying relatively constant.
Dissolved inorganic carbon in what form?
Plug this into Henrys Law.
The system is drifting further from equilibrium towards net uptake by the ocean. The higher the atmospheric CO2 the greater the uptake.
This bolded text is the only thing you’ve said that is correct.
The amount of uptake is not proportional to either level, it is proportional to the difference between them.
This statement is in direct conflict with the mathematical solution to the continuity equation (linear homogeneous differential equation). You are arguing with mathematics. This is reaction kinetics which is in every PChem and Calculus class in Wales.
It is also inversely proportional to atmospheric concentration. As the atmospheric CO2 and the gradient increase uptake to the ocean increases. Output is negative and getting more negative.
Again, this is in direct conflict with the solution to the continuity equation. There is no evidence this occurs.
You’re contradicting yourself.
In one statement you say the higher the atmospheric CO2 the greater the uptake.
In another statement you say uptake isn’t proportional to level but the difference between them.
This is contradictory and nonsensical.
> You are arguing with mathematics.
Ed’s Troll Bridge Model ain’t mathematics, Troglodyte.
Some fool wrote –
“> You are arguing with mathematics.
Ed’s Troll Bridge Model ain’t mathematics, Troglodyte.”
Looks like a climate crackpot trying to appear clever, but failing miserably. It may have meaning to another mystic, but maybe not.
Perhaps Magnificient Fiasco Mike Flynn dislikes models because he treats them as mere mathematical abstractions. Perhaps he does not.
Who cares!
Wasted Wee Willy,
Certainly not me.
Don’t be so humble, Mike.
Wondering Wee Willy,
My sense of self is exceeded only by my overwhelming humility.
You are an idiot, which is why I am taking no notice of your stupid advice.
What happened to your “Mike Flynn” delusion? Only fifty percent as deluded as you were, hence “Mike” instead of “Mike Flynn”?
C’mon Whacko Wee Willy, hold on to your delusion as tightly as you can. Don’t let anyone convince you that you are more of an ineffectual, incompetent, fool, than you are in reality!
That’ll fix ’em!
You’re not a delusion, Mike.
You’re a real human bean.
EM,
An opinion piece by a journalist is not fact, regardless of whether the sponsoring organisation calls itself “factcheck.org”.
You claim to know something about biology, so hopefully you will agree that photosynthetic plant life dies without light, water, or CO2.
In the extreme, removing all H2O and/or CO2 from the atmosphere wipes out humanity.
I have seen studies in Nature which cry about the deleterious effects of providing additional plant food in the form of CO2, resulting in reduced growth for those plants, and trying to skip over the fact that the plants surrounding them grew like crazy, gobbling up the extra CO2 like mad. Result – total output increased when additional food was made available.
It’s called competing for available resources, and you should be aware that all living things tend to look after themselves first.
Looking at other peer reviewed papers, it’s amazing the lengths to which people will go, to try to show that the indisputable “greening” of the Earth is a terrible disaster because it is due to increased CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere, which some people claim are deadly poisons!
I suppose that you, having wide knowledge, realise that burning hydrocarbons releases H2O as well as CO2 into the atmosphere, and you would be able to calculate the additional plant mass that this would create on soils previously plant free due to a lack of CO2 and H2O – other nutrients being available, of course, (otherwise the plants would not be able to grow). Even NASA measures increases in plant cover apparently due to increasing CO2 levels, and NASA doesn’t seem to be a hotbed of CO2 and H2O enthusiasts.
Or you could just appeal to your own authority, and claim that the additional plant growth due to increased CO2 and H2O is a “bad thing”!
You keep stating Henry’s Law and then incorrectly interpret and use it. Henry’s Law is simple. It states that the amount of dissolved gas in a solution is directly proportional to its partial pressure above the solution. This does not affect the continuity equation. It is independent from Henry’s Law or Revelle Factor. It is a HOMOGENEOUS differential equation. Do you understand that? The solution is not the Bern solution. Go to reaction kinetics in physics and Pchem textbooks and calculus books. YOU CAN’T CHANGE SCIENCE BECAUSE IT IS NOT GIVING YOU THE ANSWER YOU WANT.
Ed should sell is solution to soft drinks companies.
Imagine the amount of energy they would save!
Ah, the idiot bobs up again.
“Ed should sell is solution to soft drinks companies.
Imagine the amount of energy they would save!”
Cryptic, obscure, irrelevant and pointless into the bargain. Climate nutters obviously flock to his standard, being of similar deranged mentality.
Either Magazine Fad Mike Flynn fails to see the connection between soft drinks and Henry’s Law, or he’s playing dumb.
But why not both?
Whacko Wee Willy wrote –
“Either Magazine Fad Mike Flynn fails to see the connection between soft drinks and Henry’s Law, or he’s playing dumb.
But why not both?”
Here’s the idiot’s original comment –
“Ed should sell is solution to soft drinks companies.
Imagine the amount of energy they would save!”
Weasely Wee Willy doesn’t have to play dumb. It comes naturally, whenever Witless Wee Willy tries to show how clever he is.
O Mike Flynn. You good ol’ Mail Fanboy.
As demonstrated by the following meaningless gibberish –
“O Mike Flynn. You good ol’ Mail Fanboy.”
Keep on giving, Mike.
Love.
“Keep on giving, Mike.
Love.”
Ah, unrequited love. I’m sure Mike will be suitably unimpressed. Yuck, or maybe not.
Mike Flynn said it best:
“Reciprocate, masturbate – what difference does it make to me?”
So true, Mike – what difference does it make to you?
Whimsical Wee Willy,
You may reciprocate, masturbate, masticate or prevaricate to your heart’s content.
Maybe you could go for a record, and try to simultaneously perform the lot!
What form of mental affliction leads you to think I care? Nothing to do with me, is it? You may do as you wish – I have no influence over your actions, nor you over mine.
Off you go now Wee Willy. Try complaining about being bullied, or something. You might have difficulty finding a small enough bag to store all the sympathy you’re likely to get.
That’s the trouble when you’re a slimy little grub like you – you could poke yourself in the eye with a needle and roll around on the floor screaming in agony, and nobody would care.
[merriment ensued]
Stephen
“YOU CANT CHANGE SCIENCE BECAUSE IT IS NOT GIVING YOU THE ANSWER YOU WANT. ”
That should be tattooed on your forehead, Dr Berry’s forehead and the forehead of every climate change denialist.
Gregory Benford identified two types of thinking.
Human-level thinkers put themselves at the centre. The universe is expected to conform to their beliefs and is there to give them what they want. Any evidence and science which contradicts their beliefs is automatically assumed to be wrong.
Universe-level thinkers do not put themselves at the centre. The universe is what it is, systems which follow rules. Human beliefs and wishes are irrelevant. Any opinions of beliefs which contradict the evidence and the science are automatically wrong.
“This does not affect the continuity equation. It is independent from Henry’s Law or Revelle Factor. It is a HOMOGENEOUS differential equation. Do you understand that? The solution is not the Bern solution. Go to reaction kinetics in physics and Pchem textbooks and calculus books. ”
Nope, I don’t understand why you think this simple kinetic equation applies to the not-so-simple Earth? Nor why it should not incorporate the Revelle Factor?
This is pure assertion, not a fact.
EM,
Your customers will never find the Bern model.
Should I give it to them?
Who cares?
Madonna Fanbase Mike Flynn cares. He really does.
Weak Wee Willy,
Did you ask him? Or are you just claiming mind reading powers?
You are an idiot.
Everyone knows you’re Roy’s Care Bear, Mike.
Wastrel Wee Wily,
What are you blabbering about?
Roy? Care Bear? Mike?
Your descent into complete mental disintegration is fascinating to watch.
More please.
Oh, Mike.
Here, just for you.
<3
Another link to ignore?
How clever is that?
Well, it is Witless Wee Willy, you know.
Sweet dreams, Mike Flynn.
Time for your afternoon nap.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Is it Mike or Mike Flynn?
Added another member to your fantasy, have you?
You wrote –
“Sweet dreams, Mike Flynn.
Time for your afternoon nap.”
What fresh nonsense is this? What are you trying to say?
You are an idiot.
It’s Mike Flynn, Mike. This is who you are, always, forever. Which is a good thing – I love you just the way you are.
Good night.
Whinnying Wee Willy wrote –
“It’s Mike Flynn, Mike. This is who you are, always, forever. Which is a good thing – I love you just the way you are.
Good night.”
What a strange lad is Wee Willy. One of these days he might make sense, although it seems unlikely, given his repetitive delusional disorder.
Oh well, I suppose he has his love of Mike Flynn to give him solace, in lieu of the lack of interest I show in regard to his opinions.
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn everyone!
What a performance!
*The audience gives a standing ovation.*
W
Admit it W, you are just jealous. You love them standing ovations.
Everybody secretly wishes to be Mike Flynn, Pozzo.
Confidence. Charisma. Comedic timing.
The perfect clown.
Alas, there’s only one Mike Flynn.
My customers, Willard?
Surely, as the owner of this madhouse, they are Dr Spencer’s customers.
Nevertheless a proper link to the Bern model might help.
Scroll down and open your eyes.
EM,
And yet, you love it. Harry S Truman supposedly said “If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the . . . ” – kitchen madhouse, or something.
Apparently, a “madhouse” is where some people’s opinions differ from yours. Life is a madhouse, by that definition. Luckily, facts don’t care about opinions.
If you have some new facts, trot them out. My views change if I become aware of new facts.
What about you?
EM,
There are many Bern models. The relevant one to Ed’s claim should at the very least be cited in Ed’s IPCC reference:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf
That’s [2] in B19.
If you look at the first hit for “Bern” in that document, you get:
That’s on page 186. The quote should have been enough for Ed to infer a few things.
First, the IPCC use more than one model.
Second, some of them are simplified for computational expediency.
Third, the “Bern” name is missing something. What he’s looking for is “Bern-CC.”
The Bern-CC model is described in Box 3.7. You should see that it has many components. The box-diffusion type ocean carbon model is called HILDA. It has many versions. The three citations they give are:
– Siegenthaler and Joos, 1992;
– Joos et al 1996;
– Joos et al 1999b
The last one includes “the effect of sea surface warming on carbonate chemistry is included,” as it says on the tin.
The specification continues, but that should be enough to get your ankle biters up to speed.
Enjoy your day.
https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijaos.20190301.13.pdf
“The Joos [33] Bern model is an integral equation rather than a level equation. It is necessary to peer inside IPCC’s Bern model. To deconstruct the integral version of the Bern model…”
Ref [33] is:
F.Joos, “Parameters for tuning a simple carbon cycle model”. 2002. https://unfccc.int/resource/brazil/carbon.html
In that second link we find:
“CO2 concentration approximation The CO2 concentration is approximated by a sum of exponentially decaying functions, one for each fraction of the additional concentrations, which should reflect the time scales of different sinks. The coefficients are based on the pulse response of the additional concentration of CO2 taken from the Bern model (Siegenthaler and Joos, 1992).”
That Siegenthaler and Joos, 1992 reference is also listed in Berry’s 2019 paper, as Ref [30].
https://climatehomes.unibe.ch/~joos/papers/siegenthaler92telb.pdf
Berry writes:
“The four terms in (13) separate human (but not natural) CO2 into 4 bins. Each bin has a different e-time. Only one bin allows human CO2 to flow freely out of the atmosphere. Two bins trap human CO2 for long times. One bin has no outflow and traps human CO2 forever. Figure 6 shows the size of the four Bern-model bins in percent and the amount of human CO2 that remains in the atmosphere 8 years after an artificial pulse of human CO2 enters the atmosphere. Bern (13) predicts 15 percent all human CO2 entering the atmosphere stays in the atmosphere forever, 25 percent stays in the atmosphere almost forever, and only 32 percent flows freely out of the atmosphere.”
Note that (13) refers to Equation 13, not Ref [13].
Where do I start? Berry has made a number of conceptual errors.
“The four terms in (13) separate human (but not natural) CO2 into 4 bins.”
False. There is no separation between human CO2 and natural CO2. Once released into the atmosphere human CO2 becomes part of the common pool. From then on all transport and e-times between the four bins refer to all the molecules involed.
“Only one bin allows human CO2 to flow freely out of the atmosphere. ”
False. CO2 can flow freely from the atmosphere into the LS(low latitude ocean surface), HS(high latitude ocean surface), and biomass bins.
“Figure 6 shows the size of the four Bern-model bins in percent and the amount of human CO2 that remains in the atmosphere 8 years after an artificial pulse of human CO2 enters the atmosphere. ”
This comes back to Berry’s misconception that humans and natural CO2 can be separately followed once they are mixed in the atmosphere. For example, if you add a pulse of 4.6 Gt of human CO2 to the atmosphere it increases the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 4.6Gt.
Part of the 4.6Gt increase in atmospheric CO2 will gradually redistribute between the boxes as the whole system returns to equilibrium. Note that this is NOT the same as saying that only the human CO2 molecules are redistributed.
“Bern (13) predicts 15 percent all human CO2 entering the atmosphere stays in the atmosphere forever, 25 percent stays in the atmosphere almost forever, and only 32 percent flows freely out of the atmosphere.
Once again Berry fails to realise that Bern refers to bulk flows of molecules and not flows of human CO2 molecules. The percentages refer to the changes in total CO2 in the atmosphere, not the precise molecules introduced.
Berry misinterprets timescales. Bern is discussing the fast CO2 cycle. In this context a decade is a short time, a century is almost forever and a millenium is forever.
Been is saying that the extra ppm CO2 will be around for a while even if we stop emitting. It will take years to decades for the atmospheric CO2 to reach a new equilibrium with the biosphere, LS and HS. It will take centuries to reach equilibrium with HD(the deep ocean) and 10,000 to 100,000 years for the slow carbon cycle to return concentrations to the pre-industrial level of 280ppm.
Again, as I said earlier, I have only just read the paper. I am completely new to the subject, so I’m not going to sit here and pretend I understand the intricacies of the Bern model. Berry seems to think that the Bern model treats human CO2 separately to natural CO2, whereas he is arguing that in reality there is no separation between human and natural CO2. So you are not going to refute him by pointing out that in reality there is no separation between human and natural CO2, because that is also what he is arguing. What you need to do is show that the Bern model does not treat human CO2 as separate to natural CO2.
I would add that Berry argues:
"If applied to natural CO2, the Bern model predicts 15 percent of natural CO2 sticks in the atmosphere. Then in 100 years, 1500 ppm of natural CO2 sticks in the atmosphere. This clearly has not happened. Therefore, the Bern model is invalid."
He also goes on, in Section 5, to compare how his model and the Bern model fare in fitting 14 C data (Figures 8 and 9). Those sections (5.3 and 5.4) seemed particularly damning of the Bern model. But again…what do I know?
DREMT
“Berry seems to think that the Bern model treats human CO2 separately to natural CO2, whereas he is arguing that in reality there is no separation between human and natural CO2. ”
Everybody, Berry, Bern, the IPCC, all the scientists competent to hold an opinion and the dogs in the street agree that there is no separation.
For some reason Berry has built a straw man claiming that Bern and the IPCC are treating human and natural CO2 separately. The GFSM alone knows why.
This might be a clue, from a pre-print of the new paper:
"IPCC’s Box 6.1 bases all its conclusions on its assumption that the natural CO2 level has remained at 280 ppm. This assumption requires human CO2 to have caused all the CO2 increase, which in turn requires human CO2 to have a long turnover time. However, human CO2 and natural CO2 must have the same turnover times because all 12C carbon atoms are identical."
DREMT
Thanks for the link.
Watch the Salby presentation I linked above. He explains their error in the Bern model.
Salby is a proven fraud, and has many misrepresentations in his presentations.
Why are your so un-skeptical of these characters, Stephen?
https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/dissembling-with-graphs-murry-salby-edition/
Any journal that lets an author call his basic mathematical model ‘The Physics Model’ obviously has very little, if any, peer review.
“Figure 3 shows the Physics Model system for atmospheric
CO2. The system includes the level (concentration) of CO2 in
the atmosphere and the inflow and outflow of CO2.”
Whats shown is the most basic single-box kinetic model. A proper physics model would include the real-world constraints of the system, the Earth’s Carbon cycle.
This one does not.
While the original Siegenthaler and Joos paper DOES include the real-world constraints that had been observed prior to the paper, such as the Revelle Factor.
In order to model the actual carbon cycle, that paper showed that a multi-box model was required. This meant a much more complicated kinetic equation than Berry’s.
Berry’s insistence that the Carbon-cycle must be MUCH SIMPLER, with a much shorter e-time, than had been understood 30 y ago is simply not credible, and not based on any new evidence.
A multi-box model, See figure 1.
See equation 1.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1975.tb01671.x
Did you read Berry’s third paper? This is the exact model he uses.
Any journal that lets an author call his basic mathematical model ‘The Physics Model’ obviously has very little, if any, peer review.
He presents it in opposition to the non-physics model that IPCC used.
Whats shown is the most basic single-box kinetic model. A proper physics model would include the real-world constraints of the system, the Earth’s Carbon cycle.
Berry applies the physics model to the entire carbon cycle in the third most recent paper.
Berry’s insistence that the Carbon-cycle must be MUCH SIMPLER, with a much shorter e-time, than had been understood 30 y ago is simply not credible, and not based on any new evidence.
It is the IPCC who have published the short e-times in all of their AR’s. Also, the short e-times have been determined through numerous studies.
Discussion of eqn 1. term that involves buffering action of the ocean.
“If the atmospheric CO, content increases by x percent, the resulting relative increase of oceanic CO, (including carbonate) will in equilibrium only be x/chi percent. This buffer action of the sea water is taken into account by multiplying the excess CO, content n, by chi in the expression for the flux from the mixed layer to the atmosphere (of. Bolin, 1960). (For a further discussion of [ see chapter 7.1.)”
This sort of constraint, among others, is simply missing from Berry’s ‘The Physics equation’, with no sensible explanation.
This does not constrain ocean uptake. You’ll need to show evidence that it does.
Why not? You’re supposed to be the chemist.
So then their equation is not the same as Berry’s, is it?
“It is the IPCC who have published the short e-times in all of their ARs. Also, the short e-times have been determined through numerous studies.”
FALSE. Show us what you are talking about.
Berry wants people to think that there is only one e-time, but in reality there are at least two. And he misleads people by mixing them up.
No, it isn’t false. Read the ARs. You can’t say natural carbon e-time is short and human e-time is long. Nature can’t differentiate between human and natural carbon. If so, you’ll need to show how.
All carbon dioxide in the fast cycle has one e-time.
This is what we’ve been discussing, Nate. IPCC incorrectly uses the Bern model.
“Nature cant differentiate between human and natural carbon. ”
Yes, that is the mantra of Berry. But no one is claiming that. We have explained this to you several times.
If the IPCC is referencing residence time, then that is not the same as concentration decay time.
If you are claiming that the IPCC mixes up residence time and concentration decay time, as Berry does, No.
IPCC simply references papers such as the Bern papers, which clearly do not agree that the e-time for concentration to decay is short.
That’s exactly what they’re saying. For their Bern model to be correct human carbon would have to have one turnover time and natural carbon would have to have another turnover time. So if a human carbon emits into the atmosphere and becomes a “fast carbon” molecule, how do the sinks differentiate between it and the natural carbon molecule? (hint: They can’t.)
> their Bern model
You’re not paying attention much, do you?
Name calling doesnt falsify Salby. Thats not how science works. Youll need to falsify Salby with evidence.
How about:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1996.t01-2-00006.x
Note the “HILDA” name.
Berry falsified this in his most recent paper.
So you say.
You say a lot of stuff and show little.
That is not how science works.
I want specifics.
Etc.
Witless Wee Willy,
So you want specifics, do you?
I want world peace, and a cure for cancer. Who is more likely to get what they want?
Think about it, if you wish.
Etc.
You are right, Mike Flynn.
To expect anything else than a word salad from Troglodyte might be too much.
Against all odds, I still wish him to try to provide falsifying evidence..
Just like I expect you to teach us physics!
Hope springs eternal, autumn leaves grey.
Wee Willy Idiot,
What form of mental retardation leads you to think that anyone to whom you refer to as Troglodyte, would pay attention to your witless wishes?
He probably couldn’t be bothered give you the time of day if you were on fire. Maybe you have an inflated view of your importance and influence, but please feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
Mike Flynn, Makeup Featurette – I was replying to Troglodyte, and I referred to him enough times as “Troglodyte” that I am referring to him.
You’re such a blatant buffoon!
> that I am referring to him.
That he knows by now that I am referring to him, of course.
Worrisome Wee Willy,
As I asked, what form of mental retardation leads you to think that anyone to whom you refer to as Troglodyte, would pay attention to your witless wishes?
He probably couldnt be bothered give you the time of day if you were on fire. Maybe you have an inflated view of your importance and influence, but please feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
You can’t even be bothered reading your own comments before you post them, can you?
Maybe you think your importance is such that other people must waste their time trying to figure out what you mean, and then comply with your desires!
You were saying “blatant buffoon”? Maybe you should add sloppy, incompetent and impotent, when you castigate yourself in the mirror.
Mike Flynn, Maladroitness Felt.
Stephen
“This does not constrain ocean uptake. Youll need to show evidence that it does. ”
“Name calling doesnt falsify Salby. Thats not how science works. Youll need to falsify Salby with evidence. ”
I think Nate already has.
Henry’s Law says that air and ocean reach pCO2 equilibrium at equal partial pressures. If they are out of equilibrium a net flow occurs between them in the direction necessary to restore equilibrium.
At present atmospheric CO2 is 50% above preindustrial and the ocean is buffering pCO2 much closer to preindustrial. They are a long way from equilibrium. The expected restoring action is net flow from atmosphere to ocean.
Selby and Berry predict net flow from ocean to atmosphere.
When you measure transport across the ocean surface you get net uptake by the ocean.
This is as predicted by Henry’s law. It is the opposite of the Selby and Berry predictions.
This is how you falsify a hypothesis, by showing that it’s predictions do not predict reality.
Salby and Berry are falsified.
You have a gross misunderstanding of Henry’s Law. The only thing that affects the solubility of CO2 in water is temperature and pressure. The solubility constant of CO2 affects the form.
Mind probing doesn’t falsify EM. That’s not how science works. You’ll need to falsify EM with evidence.
More incomprehensible garbage from Wonky Wee Willy, attempting to appear intelligent, but failing miserably.
Troglodyte surely has understood the reference, as most of these words are his.
Instead of playing the hard of hearing, Major Failure Mike Flynn should do his bit about the transmittance of the atmosphere.
Weak Wee Willy,
Who cares what you think? You suffer from a delusional condition, which keeps you detached from reality.
I see you are telling Mike Flynn what he should do.
Only a delusional dimwit like yourself would assume that Mike Flynn likely to do as you request.
As to the transmittance of the atmosphere, what are you blabbering about? Why not just quote whatever it is you are not prepared to face? Be a man Wee Willy, don’t be scared to face reality. If you are concerned about the transmittance of the atmosphere, convince me you have made sincere efforts to learn about it, and if you still cannot comprehend the physics involved, I can no doubt help you.
I will follow your example, and expect to be handsomely paid. How much are you prepared to pay, dummy?
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn,
You say –
“I see you are telling Mike Flynn”
That’s imprecise.
I am telling you, Mike Flynn!
Have you ever seen the movie Gaslighting?
Wobbly Wee Willy,
Still as delusional as ever, I see.
No matter. Just repeating your fantasy won’t make it become reality.
Why do you ask me which movies I have watched? Are you quite mad, or do you make a practice of asking random anonymous strangers random and pointless questions?
Get a grip, Wee Willy. Movies?
You really have lost it, haven’t you?
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn everyone!
*Golf clap.*
Stephen,
Revelle and Seuss showed 65 y ago that the buffering effect does indeed restrict the ocean uptake of CO2, and explains why the atm CO2 rose as quickly as it did.
The history explained well here:
https://history.aip.org/climate/Revelle.htm
And every successful carbon cycle model since, has included this effect.
This 1959 paper a couple years after Revelle and Seuss, really clarifies things with the ocean uptake of CO2.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/bolin.1958.carbon_uptake.pdf
It accurately predicted the rapid rise in CO2 due to fossil fuel burning, that indeed occurred over the next several decades.
EM,
For some reason I can’t post this reference. Search for “The Bern Simple Climate Model (BernSCM) v1.0”
It’s not the latest, but it’s recent enough, and it’s both open access and open source.
If only climate scientists could switch their impulse response functions with Ed’s impulsive ones, everybody would save time.
Oh, and you might find this useful.
Already done. But he has a gross conceptual misunderstanding. I didnt call him a fraud, Chihuahua.
Explain.
Stephen
Now that I have access to a free copy of Berry’s 2021 paper I can do a few calculations.
As one of his proofreaders you will be familiar with Fig. 1 showing the IPCC carbon cycle.
It shows an increase of 4Pg CO2/year, a net flow of 2.3 into the ocean and a net flow of 2.0 from the surface into the deep ocean.
Berry’s 2019 paper, referenced on page 32 of the 2021 paper estimates that the human contribution is 17ppm out of 135ppm since 1880.
On that basis Berry’s model projects that the annual natural contribution to the Atmosphere is 0.5 Pg from human emissions and 3.5 Pg naturally.
The last paragraph of the 2021 paper says
“Finally the D14C balances remained near zero even as the 14CO2 and 12CO2 levels changed, which shows the ocean is the primary source of the natural 12CO2 increase.”
If that is correct the flow should be a net outflow from the ocean of 3.5Pg whereas the value calculated from measurements is an inflow of 2.3.
If the IPCC data is correct, then Berry is falsified.
To show that his model based hypothesis is correct Berry needs to find measurements showing that the ocean emits a net 3.5Pg of CO2.
Eman,
You do realize the data in the two papers is only estimates. The 2019 paper was a paper that he introduced his physics model. There were two papers he used to present his physics model. The 2019 paper was just a generalized estimate of data. The 2021 paper used his physics model to falsify the IPCC carbon cycle model using their assessments of the natural carbon cycle and the human carbon cycles. Do you understand how he did that? Some damn chihuahua keeps biting my ankle. Do you know who owns it?
I realise that he has a hypothesis based on a model of his own creation.
He has no evidence to support it and it contradicts a large body of experimental evidence about carbon flow accumulated by many workers over many years.
It has become obvious that the biggest flaw is that his hypothesis requires a net CO2 flow from ocean to atmosphere, when both theory and measurement expect and show a net flow from atmosphere to ocean.
His hypothesis fails the ultimate test. Its predictions do not match reality.
Eman,
If I can give you a hint on how to falsify his model. His only hypothesis is outflow is proportional to Level. Everything else flows from first-order kinetics. You have to falsify his hypothesis. If you can’t falsify that, you can’t falsify his model.
No, it doesn’t depend on net flow. It depends on the hypothesis. Outflow is proportional to Level. (Another hint: You’ll need to physically explain how outflow isn’t proportional to Level.)
You’ll also need to disprove LeChatlier’s Principle and the Ideal Gas Law while you’re at it.
If CO2 didn’t react with water, he might have a case.
Henry’s Law says the concentration of gas in water is proportional to its atmospheric partial pressure. What if it is a completely inert gas? No hydrogen bonding and weak Van Der Waals forces? It doesn’t matter. If its partial pressure goes up its concentration in water goes up.
Exactly.
As the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the amount of dissolved CO2 in the ocean should increase as well. This requires a net flow from atmosphere to ocean.
Salby and Berry’s hypothesis requires a larger flow from ocean to atmosphere against the flow due to Henry’s Law They do not explain what mechanism is causing this and show no experimental evidence that it is happening.
As you said earlier
YOU CANT CHANGE SCIENCE BECAUSE IT IS NOT GIVING YOU THE ANSWER YOU WANT.
Berry’s papers are an example of someone trying to do exactly that. Berry has started with a belief that the existing evidence regarding the carbon cycle is wrong and built a fantasy to support his belief.
They don’t have to show what’s causing it. It isn’t against Henry’s Law. Henry’s Law doesn’t restrict emissions. It doesn’t determine the net exchange.
Berry’s papers are an example of someone trying to do exactly that. Berry has started with a belief that the existing evidence regarding the carbon cycle is wrong and built a fantasy to support his belief.
Actually no. Berry was an Atmospheric Physicist and a pilot studying cloud droplet formation to help predict weather patterns. But then he looked at the simple idea that if human emissions have been no more than about 4% of total emissions (based on IPCC’s own data), then how can all of the carbon dioxide increase be due to humans? Then, this question then leads to how can humans be causing AGW? Just on the face of it, it doesn’t make any physical sense. Then he started thinking of all the billions of dollars being spent on climate research based on a false premise. He is a self-made man. He gets no money from climate research.
By the way, this is from IPCC, 2007:
Turnover time (T) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the
atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal
process, separate turnover times can be defined.
Their turnover time is e-time. This is a solution to the homogenous differential continuity equation used in Berry’s physics model.
> was an Atmospheric Physicist
Actually, no. Ed has a BS and a MSc in Meteorology. At least this is what he himself says on his Linkedin page:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ed-berry
Since none of this is relevant to whether his Pay Me Ten Bucks Model has any empirical significance, why would anyone tell an untruth that can be falsified with a quick search?
Somebody step on that Chihuahua.
And here would be a citation to support your quote:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm
Have you read the latest report?
Reading the latest in everything is critical.
If you send 10 bucks to Clown Without Borders, I will send it to you by email.
You can find my email on my website.
All this argy bargy about the presence of a gas which has no effect whatsoever on thermometers when compared with any other gas.
At least it serves as a diversion for the reality denying anti-science climate crackpots.
Pity they can’t actually tell anyone where this GHE may be observed, measured, and documented. The surface gets hotter when the sun shines, cools down when it doesn’t.
Clear as night and day.
Maybe the nutters are confused about sunlight and greenhouses?
If you’ve worked as an academic you will know the custom and practice of proposing a new hypothesis.
You describe your hypothesis and show your calculations.
You present any observational evidence available. You suggest observations and experiments to confirm it.
You also discuss the faults and weaknesses in your hypothesis. Suggest observations and experiments which would falsify it. You do this yourself before others embarrass you by pointing them out.
Berry has not lived up to that standard.
I realise that Berry is your hero and your mentor, but your uncritical support is doing him no favours.
Well, Entropic Man, you have one more chance over at Berry’s site. You have your 4:24 PM comment. You are at least sort of vaguely quoting something from his paper now. Why not give it a shot?
DREMT
We’ll see.
I stuck a toe in by replying to another commenter.
Nate is doing much better. I think I’ll let him make the running for now.
We will see, I suppose.
Contrarians always struggle to live by the rules they set for others, Troglodyte. Dragon Cranks make it worth studying, at least for a while.
Nevertheless, I would agree on principle with you – whatever personal knowledge supports your clattering has absolutely no import on scientific discussion.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Contrarians always struggle to live by the rules they set for others, Troglodyte. Dragon Cranks make it worth studying, at least for a while.”
I assume this incomprehensible nonsense has some meaning to your warped sense of reality.
Maybe you could tell people what you mean, in English.
Good morning, Mike Flynn – I’d rather wish for world peace than for you to stop being thick as a brick!
Really don’t mind if you sit this one out, my word’s but a whisper, your deafness a shout.
Wanking Wee Willy,
Still not over the delusion, I see.
You can wish for what you like, or want what you like.
I really don’t care about what you mind, or don’t mind, because it has precisely no effect on me. Maybe you could provide some reason why I should care about the random nonsense uttered by someone who is impotent and powerless, but. I doubt it.
You may whisper, shout, or hurl yourself in multiple directions, for all I care.
It’s a free world.
Mike Flynn, Maker of Futility – whatever you care for is quite irrelevant. In the grand scheme of Climateball things, only that you care matters. And you show you care every day.
Thank you for caring so much.
Wee Willy Idiot,
Delusion climate crackpots like yourself have this touching faith that their fantasies are reality.
Believe as you wish. My care factor remains at zero.
But of course, you believe I am really Mike Flynn, that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, and that Michael Mann is a Nobel Prize winner, rather than a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat.
I point out the blindingly obvious, just in case any onlooker makes the bad mistake of assuming that you are wise, respected, and important.
Carry on with your delusions. At least you are powerless to inflict your fantasies on anybody.
Phew! Thank goodness for that!
Mike Flynn, Makeshift Flutist, once again you said the magic words –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/electric-blue-night-clouds-are-invading-the-u-s/#comment-357708
There are more than 100 examples like this one.
All you need to do is search
site:https://www.drroyspencer.com "mike flynn" "gavin schmidt"
Do continue, show that you care about gaslighting!
Waggling Wee Willy,
Don’t be stupid, dummy. Links are not explanations, and any link you provide is an exercise in stupidity.
Nobody has managed to even say where the mythical GHE may be observed, measured, and documented. Referring to what Mike Flynn (presumably) said, and referring to some “inconvenient facts” which you conveniently don’t explain, just makes you look like a rather stupid troll.
If you have something to contribute, why not just say what you mean to?
You really are a stupid climate crank, aren’t you? Telling me what “I need to do” is characteristic of the dimwit who imagines he is important and respected. As you are neither, your advice is obviously rejected as completely worthless.
I doubt you will ever be able to accept that I do as I wish, regardless of what you may think about it.
Carry on with your foolish comments. Maybe someone (presumably suffering from the same mental affliction) may understand what you are trying to achieve, but obviously reality is a bit beyond your grasp.
How are your efforts to comprehend physics going? Have you accepted that CO2 has no heating ability at all?
C’mon, dummy – it’s not that hard for anyone of average intelligence, you know.
Mike Flynn, Maladroit Firecracker, the explanation is so simple even the simpleton you pretend to be should get it – if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s Mike Flynn!
Cheers.
Whacky Wee Willy,
And your point is?
Who cares what you think?
Nobody, that’s who.
Why would anyone take much notice of a slimy embittered little grub like you, who is impotent and powerless?
Carry on talking about ducks. I’m sure it has some meaning to you.
Mike Flynn, Mystical Failure, the point is so simple and obvious that your whole act is undone by it. You might not care – after all, how could you distinguish this iteration from all the ones you had here since 2013.
The answer you sure know is this:
You.
Are.
Mike.
Flynn.
This is the point. This is the only reason I do not ignore your silliness.
Please, oh please, very please, do make me repeat it again, and again, and again.
And again.
Thank you for your concerns.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Please, oh please, very please, do make me repeat it again, and again, and again.
And again.”
Be a man, not a snivelling baby. Why do you believe that I have the power to “make me repeat it again, and again . . “. Do it yourself. It’s your decision, as deranged as that decision might be.
Presumably, you have a mental defect which makes you refer to me as Mike Flynn continually. If it makes you content, keep it up. No facts seem to be affected by your delusion.
Beg away, slimeball. I laugh at your efforts to grovel. It will do you no good at all, except make you look like a whiny dimwit.
Carry on.
Your silly question is easy to answer, Mike – your power to deny the obvious.
It is your super power.
From your great power of clowning comes a great illustration of how contrarians are lost in the windmills of their minds.
Ta.
Worrying Wee Willy,
You claim my ability to accept reality (which involves denying that your fantasy is real), forces you to write idiotic nonsense like “Please, oh please, very please, do make me repeat it again, and again, and again.”
Don’t blame me if you sound like s deluded, grovelling retard.
Why you think your pleading engenders any emotion except mocking derision on my part is a mystery to me.
Repeat what you like as often as you like. You will discover it has no effect on fact, just like another climate nutter who used to repeat a link to a piece of irrelevant stupidity. Did him no good, either.
Carry on Wee Willy. Have you considered repeating some of Mike Flynn’s previous comments? He seems to have only commented once recently. Maybe you upset him.
> You claim my ability to accept reality
Not exactly, Maladministered Fiduciary – I claim that you deny the reality that you’re Mike Flynn under a sock puppet.
That’s where the evidence leads.
All you offer so far to counter that is denial, denial, and more denial.
Aw diddums!
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“I claim that you deny the reality that youre Mike Flynn under a sock puppet.”
Claim away, you idiot.
Who asked you, anyway? I suppose you imagine that there are people out there who actually care about your claims? You could claim to be wise, respected,, important and powerful, too. So claim away.
I guess you think you have a reason for your “claim”, but it may well be a bizarre psychosis from which you suffer. Making claims that achieve precisely nothing of practical benefit to you or anyone else is symptomatic of the delusional personality. Do you, or anyone else, benefit from your “claims”?
If the answer is no, then you are most definitely disturbed. Why would any rational person waste their time and effort on an activity which has no benefit?
Carry on. Your time is yours to waste as you see fit. Others may not be interested in your fantasy, but that would be up to them. Nothing to do with me.
> Who asked you, anyway?
Who asked me what, Mike Flynn?
Witless Wee Willy,
What makes you think Mike Flynn would bother answering you?
I wouldn’t bother responding to a plaintive attention-seeking delusional psychotic either.
Why are you making your sock puppet speak of you in the third person while probing my mind, Mike?
Astronomy: why are there so many lunar missions in 2022?
January 10, 2022
https://www.archyde.com/astronomy-why-are-there-so-many-lunar-missions-in-2022/
[That there is so few, I blame on Trump. But Trump never indicated
he was very interested in it. Biden seems more interested, but it’s a small difference to measure. One might say, it’s a card he has- and Trump was overloaded with issues.]
“This year will see a multitude of missions to the Moon, after a year of fallow in 2021 without any moon landing.
NASA will kick off its Artemis program and sponsor a number of other missions to deliver equipment and supplies to the Moon for use by future astronauts.
India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates will also launch lunar missions this year, and besides countries, a number of companies will also be rushing to reach Earth’s satellite this year. .
All of these unmanned space flights will lay the foundation for a lasting human presence on the moon’s surface in less than ten years.”
I would agree that internationally speaking, “a lasting human presence on the moon’s surface”, but US involvement on the Moon largely depends on what happens internationally. The shortage will result in a growing focus on going to Mars.
Or if we see more international interest, the US will do both Moon and Mars- and NASA will get significant bump in it’s budget, due to this interest. Otherwise, explore Moon, then focus on hard part of exploring Mars.
Or US can easily do both at same time, but Congress needs to fund it, and how much it wants to do on the Moon, will related to the increase- 5 billion per year, added, could do things like Lunar bases. But that seems unlikely. So, explore Moon, and determine, if and where there is mineable lunar, and lunar water will be mined if investors, agree and act on it being mineable.
“But that’s not the ultimate goal: the installation of a lunar space station is just one step on the path of manned missions to the red planet, Mars.
University of Bristol astrophysicist Dr Zoë Leinhardt believes this year marks the start of a new space race involving new countries.”
I agree what would exciting in more involvement by new countries- and I include UK as a “new country” but it’s commonwealth nations also, New Zealand, and etc. Lacking news, I wonder about middle east countries, which I also would include Iran. And I don’t count India as “new”.
I am bored.
So, I checked out Scott:
Nighttime Lecture on a New Branch of Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etg3E63rX5o
And uses the white board and it’s brief.
Going to listen longer morning one, now, at double speed.
{one should always listen to scott at double speed}
Report: SpaceX’s Boca Chica Plans Face Serious Objections from FWS, NPS
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2022/01/17/report-spacexs-boca-chica-plans-face-serious-objections-from-fws-nps/
Looks like Starship will not launch from Boca Chica.
And NASA crewed mission will be delayed.
I would ramp up more lunar robotic missions.
I always been in favor of a lot lunar robotic mission before
crewed mission. A lot is dozens.
It’s worse than we thought –
“Our results could give us a new perspective on the evolution of Earth’s dynamics,” Murakami said. “They suggest that Earth, like the other rocky planets Mercury and Mars, is cooling and becoming inactive much faster than expected.”
Climate nutters have to reinvent physics – having a body where the interior cools, the energy being lost is apparently destroyed, whilst gases with no heating properties create energy to make thermometers hotter!
Or those same nutters could just argue about estimates and speculation, whine about peoples’ qualifications, and generally deny reality and the scientific method.
Meanwhile, the universe doesn’t give a toss, and the Earth continues to cool – measurably. No models or flights of fancy involved.
Earlier, EM wrote –
“That should be tattooed on your forehead, Dr Berry’s forehead and the forehead of every climate change denialist.”
Climate crackpots make all sorts of bizarre threats. Maybe they are so detached from reality that they imagine they can create fact from fantasy – like making thermometers hotter by cooling them by using CO2 to block sunlight,
And of course, neither EM, nor any other climate crank can actually name anyone who denies that the climate anywhere is changing.
On the other, there are demonstrably numbers of totally deranged climate cultists who wave banners and placards saying really stupid things like “Stop Climate Change”.
Oh well, nature doesn’t care. The climate keeps changing, the Earth keeps cooling. The nutters remain impotent and powerless to change reality.
The problem comes when the ravening nutters get into government where they can do real damage to the economy.
Here is Environment Canada Net Zero plan. It includes a survey that I would urge you to fill out.
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/net-zero-emissions-2050.html
Mike Flynn is not in Canada, but down under!
Canada is at the pointy end of the net zero agenda. It doesn’t matter where anyone is on the world; the agenda is going to adversely affect you if you don’t take steps to vote the clowns out and make it clear that you will not tolerate being returned to what amounts to a feudal society.
Will you vote for St.Maxime or for that other Con Man, what is his name again, rhymes with Oil and Money?
Your dataset is probably the most valuable tool in the climatology toolbox at this time. I hope you can continue your excellent work and I, for one, support your efforts wholeheartedly. Good luck!
EM,
Since your ankle biters are having a slow day, you might like:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/oh-no-not-again/
Non nova, sed nove.
“this doesnt mean that an enhancement of atmospheric CO2 will decay in only a few years, because there is both a flux of CO2 out of the atmosphere and into the atmosphere the molecule leaving the atmosphere is replaced. ”
It’s something I’ve been thinking about.
A regular sceptic meme is that human emissions are only a few % of the natural emissions to the atmosphere and therefore have little effect.
They miss the point that the natural emissions are part of a cycle. For every molecule entering the atmosphere a molecule leaves. The net change in concentration is zero.
The human emissions increase the total CO2 in circulation and accumulate over time.
Since 1880 the average annual increase in CO2 has been less than 1ppm/year. Over 145 years the total increase has been 135 ppm, almost 50%.
To quote Stephen Anderson on Berry:-
“he looked at the simple idea that if human emissions have been no more than about 4% of total emissions (based on IPCCs own data), then how can all of the carbon dioxide increase be due to humans? ”
Berry has missed the point that natural emissions are cancelled out by natural uptake, while human emissions accumulate.
Exactly, EM. Hence why Troglodyte refuses to address the simple accounting analogy by waving his arms really really fast while spouting jargon.
You could try this reductio:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/oh-no-not-again/#comment-92450
It won’t prevent more jargonizing, but then if Ed loses his “real talk” edge, he’ll lose subscribers.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Or you could forget about pointless and irrelevant analogies (so beloved of anti-science reality deniers), and address science and its foundation, the scientific method.
Not possible for slimy little grubs like you, is it?
Go and get the idiot Ken Rice to play with your balls (climate or otherwise).
Maybe between the two of you, you can create fact out of fantasy.
By the way, how are your efforts to get anybody banned from this blog going? Not well? Maybe you could try accusing me of actually having another pseudonym (or two, or three). Maybe your imaginary awesome powers of manipulation aren’t what they used to be1
Oh well, you could always try playing “silly semantic games”, or boasting about “making” another commenter “waste space”. That sort of thing would suit a grubby little toe-rag like you, wouldn’t it?
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn,
You are the champion of wasting space. If Mike Hulme ever wanted a champion in wasting space, he could put all his confidence in you. If you want more detail, you will have to read the emails you pretend to have read.
The space is all yours. Waste! Waste!
Oh, and why would I want you banned – are you suggesting that you are trying to bypass a ban with your little sock puppets?
This is your tenth year here. Let us celebrate!
Weird Wee Willy,
“Oh, and why would I want you banned are you suggesting that you are trying to bypass a ban with your little sock puppets?”
I haven’t got the faintest idea why you imagine that your wants are considered important by anybody. I am saying that you are insane if you think you have the power to ban anyone!
Obviously, what you want or don’t want has no affect on anything. I suggest that you are an ineffectual idiot, and having put your foot in your mouth, went on to shoot yourself in the foot!
But hey, what “ban” are you talking about?
If you are referring to the Mike Flynn who commented here recently, you are obviously deluded. He didn’t seem to have been banned, but of course you will claim it was somebody imitating him, just to annoy you!
It makes no difference at all, whatever you think, does it?
You seem to be obsessed with sock puppets for some reason, with Mike Flynn, for yet another reason, and seem to believe that others are imitating Mike Flynn just to make you look stupid!
So carry on being a dimwit. At least you are ineffectual and stupid.
Mike Flynn, Maladaptive Fastballer – TL;DR.
Consider too that natural emission and uptake is between reservoirs. The total natural carbon remains constant.
Human emissions come from a reservoir outside the fast carbon cycle ie. fossil fuels.
Natural flows move carbon between reservoirs without increasing the total. Human emissions increase both the amount in each reservoir and the overall total.
Not unlike trans fats.
“Oh no, not again!”
I’m starting to feel like that bowl of petunias.
If that may console you, our Dragon Cranks might feel like kakapos:
https://youtu.be/_ZG8HBuDjgc
EM,
HOw is it natural carbon must conform to the continuity equation but human carbon doesn’t? Are there two laws of physics? ONe for nature and another for humans?
“They miss the point that the natural emissions are part of a cycle. For every molecule entering the atmosphere a molecule leaves. The net change in concentration is zero.”
It’s a big assumption to say that the natural carbon cycle is always in balance, that natural CO2 levels have remained at 280 ppm all this time. Why wouldn’t the natural levels change? The oceans have warmed, for one thing.
Given enough time concentrations do stabilise. For most of the Holocene (10,000 years) CO2 concentration has stayed close to 280ppm.
There are positive feedbacks (in the biological sense of amplifying the change, not the electronics sense of runaway to a limit.)
Increasing temperature reduces the solubility of CO2 in seawater as Stephen pointed out. That causes the balance to shift towards increased pCO2 in the atmosphere relative to the ocean.
There are others. Increased temperatures thaw and decay permafrost, releasing CO2 from long-term storage into the atmosphere.
Methane clathrates built up under Arctic and Arctic sea beds also thaw and release methane. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas in its own right and breaks down over a few years into CO2.
The effect of global warming on both the permafrost and clathrates thawing has only been observed indirectly through the glacial/interglacial cycle. Their exact amplification is uncertain. Consider it a work in progress.
"Increasing temperature reduces the solubility of CO2 in seawater as Stephen pointed out. That causes the balance to shift towards increased pCO2 in the atmosphere relative to the ocean."
Yes, that’s why I mentioned that the oceans have warmed.
So what does the causation look like?
We increased CO2.
Increased CO2 increased temperature.
Increased temperature caused more CO2 to leave the ocean.
The released CO2 increased temperature even more.
Fortunately this cycle damps out before it runs away. At least partly because the increasing imbalance between atmosphere and ocean starts to drive CO2 back into the ocean.
At some point the effect of increased output of CO2 due to increasing temperature and the effect of the increased atmosphere pCO2 on diffusion cancel out.
EM,
You wrote –
“Increased CO2 increased temperature.”
Complete nonsense. Nobody has managed to increase the temperature of a thermometer by putting more CO2 between the thermometer and the source of heat.
You are simply confused. Thermometers react to heat, and of course CO2 (or any gas) provides no heat. Try facing reality, rather than hoping people will believe the bizarre rubbish promoted by climate cultists.
Maybe you could point to a reproducible experiment supporting your fantasy?
You might read the records of experiments conducted by Prof John Tyndall involving CO2 and H2O, if you want some pointers on how to properly conduct experiments of this nature.
Not necessarily.
Temperatures increased.
Increased temperature caused more CO2 to leave the ocean.
I’m not getting into a debate about the GHE. You know (or should do) my position on that. So no, I don’t agree that increasing CO2 increases temperature.
So what does the causation look like?
We increased CO2.
Increased CO2 increased temperature.
Increased temperature caused more CO2 to leave the ocean.
The released CO2 increased temperature even more.
Fortunately this cycle damps out before it runs away. At least partly because the increasing imbalance between atmosphere and ocean starts to drive CO2 back into the ocean.
At some point the effect of increased output of CO2 due to increasing temperature and the effect of the increased atmosphere pCO2 on diffusion cancel out.
Unfortunately, science demands evidence. You have no evidence for any of this. If only your imagination were evidence, then you’d be set.
So what does the causation look like?
We increased CO2.
Increased CO2 increased temperature.
Increased temperature caused more CO2 to leave the ocean.
The released CO2 increased temperature even more.
Fortunately this cycle damps out before it runs away. At least partly because the increasing imbalance between atmosphere and ocean starts to drive CO2 back into the ocean.
At some point the effect of increased output of CO2 due to increasing temperature and the effect of the increased atmosphere pCO2 on diffusion cancel out.
Unfortunately, science demands evidence. You have no evidence for any of this. If only your imagination were evidence, then you’d be set.
> Unfortunately, science demands evidence.
Unfortunately, one does not simply “see” causation.
Science also demands inferences.
Wayward Wee Willy ,
You said Troglodyte (me, presumably) wasn’t Science (me again?).
Are you now claiming to be Science, and demanding inferences?
Awww, Im deeply hurt. Please make up your mind. Who is Troglodyte, who is Science, and who am I?
You are an idiot, but at least you’re an unstable and erratic idiot.
Carry on.
No, they (human CO2) don’t accumulate over time. They have the same turnover time that natural carbon does. They flow through the atmosphere like all CO2. It is called the equivalence principle. Do you understand the equivalence principle? Berry’s paper is out there and there is nothing you can do about it except continue to utter your nonscientific falsehoods.
> It is called the equivalence principle.
Which part of
do you not get?
Whinnying Wee Willy.
What part of “assertions by anonymous commenters are not necessarily fact” do you not get?
All of it, I surmise.
Humans are hopefully putting back into the atmosphere some of the CO2 taken away by nature in the past, before levels get so low that plants (and therefore humans) die.
There’s an extinction event for you!
You may be unaware that the human creation of CO2 by oxidising carbon in one way or another, generates lots and lots of heat, raising temperatures.
Do I add that to the already long list of things you deny?
Chihuahua,
Envision if you can a fossil fuel emitted carbon dioxide molecule into the atmosphere, carbon, and two oxygens. Then imagine a CO2 molecule emitted from nature (respiration, outgassing, plant decay, etc.)floating alongside it. Please explain how a sink like the ocean or a plant can tell the difference and react differently to it? Please give us details.
Answer the question, Troglodyte.
I want specifics.
Stephen.
Ask anyone working in the field and they will tell you that CO2 molecules released by fossil fuel burning and CO2 molecules released from natural sources behave in exactly the same way after release. There is no physical reason for them to behave differently.
Berry’s assertion that the workers in the field expect them to behave differently is a straw man.
How can it be a straw man? If the human CO2 molecules and the natural CO2 molecules are not given different turnover times in the Bern model(s), then how is it that the Bern model(s) result in all the increase in emissions being due to human CO2 molecules and none at all from natural CO2 molecules?
Not a gotcha, by the way…a genuine question.
DREMT
An analogy. My grandson has a piggy bank. At the beginning of the year it contains 1000 pennies.
Each day his father adds 100 pennies and Granny adds one penny.
Each day the child removes and spends 100 pennies.
At the end of the year the piggy bank contains 1365 pennies.
Clearly the 365 penny increase in the total is due to Granny’s pennies,but very few of them will remain in the piggy bank.
Over the year 36500+365=36865 pennies were added and 36500 removed. Most of Granny’s pennies were spent.
Now let’s try it with CO2.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/04/can-we-rebalance-the-carbon-cycle-while-still-using-fossil-fuels/
The atmosphere contains 750 Gt of CO2.
Over a year 211.6 Gt of natural carbon are added, plus 5.5 Gt of human emissions. Total additions 217.1 Gt They all mix.
Over the year 213.8 Gt are removed from the atmosphere.
The atmosphere CO2 has increased to 750 +217.1-213.8 = 753.3, an increase of 3.3 Gt.
You can say that because of humanity the atmosphere CO2 increased by 3.3 Gt, but you don’t know what happened to each molecule. They blended in and went with the flow.
EM,
You wrote –
“An analogy. My grandson has a piggy bank. At the beginning of the year it contains 1000 pennies.”
That’s a fantasy, of course. Completely pointless and irrelevant.
As such, analogies are frequently used by reality deniers of the anti-science type. If you actually know what you are talking about, you will find that you don’t have to insinuate that your audience are so far beneath your level that you have to treat them like small children.
I appreciate that you are trying to present speculation as fact, but anybody who appreciates the scientific method will, at best, simply ignore your posturing.
For example, you go on to say “Over a year 211.6 Gt of natural carbon are added, plus 5.5 Gt of human emissions. Total additions 217.1 Gt They all mix.”
Oh yeah? Good try. If that is true, why waste time with your stupid analogies?
Wishful thinking, and pointless anyway.
You still haven’t managed to address the fact that CO2 has no effect on thermometers, so the amount of carbon, natural or otherwise (I have no knowledge of “unnatural” carbon), is irrelevant to higher temperatures observed over time.
Maybe you need to appeal to your own anonymous authority again.
Entropic Man…I was kind of hoping that you would explain the Bern model(s) in a bit more detail. Not just provide an analogy in which you are implying, once again, that nature remains in perfect balance, whilst only human input increases the amount of CO2 resident in the atmosphere. I don’t need an analogy to understand the concept you are presenting, I already got that earlier.
It seems to me that the Bern model(s) must be treating anthropogenic and natural carbon differently in some way. After all, the emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere are overwhelmingly natural over anthropogenic in origin. Both sides of this argument agree there. So it must be a question of what is leaving the atmosphere to the various sinks, and at what rate. For some reason the Bern model(s) suggest that over time, only anthropogenic CO2 is building up in the atmosphere.
I’m genuinely trying to understand why, in a way that doesn’t involve nature remaining in perfect balance despite the fact that the oceans have increased in temperature, etc, and in a way that doesn’t involve the models treating anthropogenic CO2 differently to natural CO2. If the IPCC had just said that the increase in CO2 was mostly anthropogenic in origin, it wouldn’t have triggered my BS detectors so harshly. But they’ve gone all in. 100% anthropogenic. Just doesn’t seem plausible.
We know that natural CO2 emissions increase with increasing temperatures. There have been increasing temperatures. So there must be an increase in natural CO2 in the atmosphere, at least to some extent!
Google is the early Catholic Church and you’re Galileo because your dataset is showing no significant warming beyond natural variability. Could you post now on the likelihood of a volcano plunging us into the next ice age or little ice age.
Folks, if you haven’t been to Seward, Alaska there is a glacier there with a nice national park service center. It would be under ice during the little ice age. They have markers of its advance during said. And dead trees showing from earlier in the glacier. It’s a must see to understand the natural climate cycle. There use to be a great website but it showed glacial retreat at far higher levels than now in the early 20th century and so “they” took it down. Or maybe it’s just my old phone doesn’t open it anymore?
https://home.nps.gov/kefj/learn/nature/upload/the%20retreat%20of%20exit%20glacier.pdf
Carl Otto Weiss makes the strong case of climate being cyclical. When Grand Solar Maxima or Minima are in phase with Major Ocean Current such as PDO and AMOC then you get warming or cooling.
Here is Carl Otto Weiss
https://schillerinstitute.com/media/carl-otto-weiss-le-changement-climatique-est-du-a-des-cycles-naturels/
Volcanoes may have a cycle too, perhaps related to earth-sun electro magnetic cycles, but that remains unproven.
I have a thought in regards to the possibility of a major eruption. This comes in the form of an aware dream that I had back in 2019. Now I can just imagine what most of you would think about such a claim, but I have had 3 aware dreams in my life which later came ro pass. Here is the content of the dream.
It starts with me driving down to Redding in my F-150 in the late morning. I am in the foothills and probably getting close to the town of Shasta which sits on highway 299. It is a beautiful blue morning. The type of light and the smell of the air suggests that this is around the end of summer or early fall (August to early October).
Then out of the blue I hear the loudest sound that I have ever heard in my life, indescribable really. Looking to the north northeast a massive towering column of ash soars high into the atmosphere in the blink of an eye. It is coming from Mt Shasta, and it is a complete cataclysmic eruption of the mountain. The ash column had to be completely into the stratosphere. The upper portion of this mass then started moving east southeast, essentially on a heading towards Chico. The ash quickly blotted out the blue sky to the north of me, and was then gradually fanning out with the southern edge moving close to my position all in a matter of minutes. My position would have been around 40 miles southwest from the mountain.
At that point I turned around on the highway and headed home to get supplies and my cats. I made it to my cabin and ran in and started grabbing things to put in the truck. Around that time fireballs started raining down all around my position, and that was the end of the dream.
The total experience was so powerful though that I immediately told this story on FB on my ex wife’s page. I could not believe that I could encompass a dream of such magnitude. I have never witnessed anything like that in my life. The scale of the eruption was beyond massive. The surging ash column moved like a living creature, black in the main column with whiter surges of smoke on the exterior of the column likely coming from part of the snow cap evaporating.
The ramifications of a catastrophic event of that level would change the world as we know it today. The ash layet would impact maybe 1/3rd of the US? Nearby states such as Northern Nevada and much of Utah would be buried in ash. The mudflood from the snow cap melting would roar down into Shasta Lake and destroy Shasta dam. The entire Sacramento valley and Sacramento itself would be destroyed in the ensuing flood. California would lose a large part of their hydropower, and a large part of their water resources. The low lying areas of the SF/Bay Area would also be negatively affected displacing several more million people as the flood waters made their way into SF Bay before entering the ocean.
So after saying all of that this is still only a dream, but it was a special aware dream. Will this take place in the not too distant future? Will this become aware dream #4 which will actually come to pass? Will the current weak solar cycles be the final trigger for such an event just like in the early 1910s when Mt Lassen last erupted? Then there are the examples of the major eruptions around the Dalton minimum, and the same for the Maunder minimum. That history is what makes me wonder about such a probability coming to pass.
-While we could argue that selling eight copies of that paper took a supernatural effort, a buck is a buck is a buck, dont you think?
PS: I lost a longer comment, but that one will have to do for now.-
I put this on the bottom {maybe it will increase the odds of posting it].
Maybe 8 people got their money’s worth.
I am interested in how cold Venus would get at Earth distance from the Sun.
If someone give a better answer then what I assume, I will pay them $10 bucks. Some people have different interests.
Now maybe Venus doesn’t currently absorb and emit about 160 watts per square meter. But if Venus absorbed and emitted about same as Earth {about 240 watt} if Venus was at Earth distance, it seems very likely it would absorb less sunlight.
But assuming Venus absorbs 160 watts per square meter on average, it seems to me, to absorbing and emitting less per meter average than our Moon is.
If our Moon was orbiting Venus, it seems it would absorb more sunlight and would have higher average temperature.
Assuming Venus does absorb and emit about 160 watts per square meter at Venus distance from the sun.
I assume one could change Venus, itself, so at Venus distance it could absorb less than 160 watts. Or I have claimed if added water to Venus, it would cool Venus. But I imagine there other ways to reduce how much Venus absorbs.
Though if Venus was 1 AU from the Sun, it would appear everyone should assume it absorbed less sunlight.
So, I have wild ideas, of how to increase or decrease how much energy Earth gets from the Sun- which I mentioned a few times.
But I mostly interested space, and have endlessly mentioned how to make Mars, absorb more sunlight. But not important for Mars to get warmer, what important is to give pressure and more uniform environments for Humans- which need some pressure and a warmer environment.
Well that worked.
Now I think Venus at Earth distance from the sun, could absorb as little as 50 Watts on average per square meter.
And a poster thought it would be about 110 watts, has I recall- that was thousands of posts, ago or would require some effort to search get the name and the number given.
Anyhow I agreed that 110 watts seemed reasonable guess. But I giving it some thought since then, and seems it could be as low as 50 watts.
Related to this, is that Venus has apparently has a tiny ozone layer, and part of my doubt, is related to how warming or how much absorbing is done by Venus ozone layer {or for that matter, Earth’s ozone layer]. Or generally don’t even consider to count how much Earth budget in terms absorbing the Ozone does. Earth absorbs a lot energy, but since Venus hardly absorbs any energy, the small amount absorbed by this barely detectable Venus ozone layer, should or could be more significant portion with Venus- as compared to Earth.
Gbaikie
You might find this useful.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2704
https://tinyurl.com/4zvaksyf
Was supposed to be here
What a sad state of affairs. It is great that you are able to shrug it off. We live in very troubled times. I am in my early 70s, and I can not think of another point in time where I saw so much danger building up in the world. The cancel culture crwod is a threat to freedom of the people of the US.
You won’t want to read this then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60036911
My honest opinion on this subject is that the US should from into 2 semi autonomous nations. The divide between left and right continues to grow. The question is our we actually as advanced/civilized as we like to think we are? Imo, if we were truly advanced, then we would understand/recognize that nothing in life ever stays the same. As such should we not be intelliegent enough to realize that the superior way forward would be to recognize the extreme differences in our nation, and so peacefully separate into two groups.
The upside to this is that everyone gets what they want then. The left can have their open borders, their crt, transgenders competing with women,their multiple genders,their never ending victomhood mentality. The rest of the country can go back to the business of living life under the original constitution/Bill of Rights along with more modern additions to the original content as deemed necessary for the good of the nation.
The flip side to the above is that we risk the horrors and destruction that a real civil war would bring to the entire nation. SO at the end of the day the real question is “How intelligent are we as a society?”
I like Robert Heinlein quote: Never Underestimate the Power of Human Stupidity.
Heinlein and Asimov were my two favorite scifi authors back in the 1960s.
Berry’s paper takes the IPCC carbon cycle model and calculates e-times using his physics model. The e-time is calculated at 3.5 years. Then he takes the IPCC human carbon cycle and you can’t even calculate an e-time. They’ve distorted the data so bad to fit their narrative that they don’t even follow their own rules.LOL.
Hey EM,
What happened to surface ocean carbon in the IPCC human carbon cycle?
Stephen.
“Hey EM,
What happened to surface ocean carbon in the IPCC human carbon cycle?”
AFAIK nothing has changed. Is there a problem?
Stephen.
“Hey EM,
What happened to surface ocean carbon in the IPCC human carbon cycle?”
AFAIK nothing has changed. Is there a problem?
I knew you’d dodge and dart. Can’t answer, can you? Science demands an answer.
That alone falsifies their Carbon Cycle.
> Science demands an answer.
You’re not Science, Troglodyte.
Did you know that there were more questions than answers?
Wondering Wee Willy,
Who is Troglodyte, and how do you know he is not Science?
You seem to be convinced that I am Mike Flynn (amongst others?), so why not claim that I am Science? Maybe I am Troglodyte as well.
All very confusing. Do you believe that people are against you, and trying to make you look stupid?
You don’t need any help to look stupid. You’re doing fine all by yourself.
Have you thought of occupying yourself by learning physics? It might help.
You’re gonna miss your afternoon nappie, Mike Flynn.
Why are you bringing conspiracy theories into a scientific debate?
That opens the door to speculation about Berry’s motives, yours and mine.
Do you really want to go down that path?
EM,
Why are you pretending that the IPCC is anything to do with science?
Climate is the statistics of past weather. No science there. CO2 affects thermometers not at all – unless you happen to be an anti-science reality denying climate crank, more interested in conspiracies, debating, and threatening opponents with physical harm, imprisonment, executions, lingering death by disease, and so on.
You can’t even propose a testable hypothesis, because you can’t describe the GHE without having to invoke magic at one point or another.
Give it a go. Cut and paste all you want, but don’t be surprised if somebody points out that you seem to be describing a phenomenon which involves thermometers becoming hotter when exposed to the sun, and cooling down in the absence of sunlight.
You run away from inconvenient truth, accompanied by furious handwaving and sundry attempts to fly off on multiple tangents at once. Got any facts to throw into the discussion? No?
I thought so.
Answer the question.
Start here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf
Page 197.
If you want more in your sammich, that’d be 10$ per condiment, preferrably to Clowns Without Borders.
Wearisome Wee Willy,
More denial of reality, combined with diversionary anti-science
Sammiches?
You really are a stupid little slimeball, aren’t you?
Your pathetic faith in IPCC fantasies, supported by nothing remotely resembling science, is an object lesson in the gullibility of the devout cultist.
C’mon Wee Willy. Cut and paste the non-existent testable hypothesis relating to the equally indescribable GHE!
If you can’t, just appeal to the authority of other cultists. That’ll show the doubters who’s in charge, won’t it?
Mike Flynn, Malady of Feelings – do your bit about how we should define “warming faster.”
Woebegone Wee Willy,
What are you blathering about?
What is “warming faster”?
Maybe you could quote Mike Flynn so I know what you are talking about. I certainly claim no mindreading powers, nor would I want to peer into that worm ridden foetid mess sitting under your asshat!
Clarity, laddie, clarity! Leave cryptic obscurity to the climate nutters.
Thank you for showing once again that all you got are silly semantic games, Manchurian Funambulist Mike Flynn.
Pray tell – what’s the single experiment that proves AGW theory wrong?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Ash from Tonga volcano eruption reaches record altitude but climate cooling unlikely
The Tonga volcanic eruption was the most powerful our planet has experienced in 30 years.
https://www.space.com/tonga-volcano-eruption-wont-cool-climate
linked from:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
Points to ponder, maybe?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/14/nearly-140-scientific-papers-detail-the-minuscule-effect-co2-has-on-earths-temperature/
First hit:
https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12
Kenneth swings and misses again!
Wee Willy Idiot,
I know that paper.
It states “This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact.”
Who is Kenneth, what did he swing at, and what did he miss?
Do you agree with the paper to which you linked, or are you just being sloppy and incompetent, yet again?
Mike Flynn, meet Mike Flynn –
What’s up with that, my favorite sock puppet?
Weak Wee Willy,
What are you blathering about? Have you the attention span of a goldfish – or somewhat less?
I’ll type more slowly, just for you –
Who is Kenneth, what did he swing at, and what did he miss?
Do you agree with the paper to which you linked, or are you just being sloppy and incompetent, yet again?
Why do you link to papers that seem to support your opponent’s point of view? You do it time after time. I can only assume that it is seen as a cunning trick by cultist idiots like you.
In the meantime, keep on with your “suck puppet” obsession, if you think it will divert attention away from the fact that CO2 does not make thermometers hotter.
Mike Flynn, Missionary Frivolity – that one ought to be simple:
Either you click on links, or you don’t!
Cheers.
Worried Wee Willy,
Maybe you blinked and missed it. Here you go –
Who is Kenneth, what did he swing at, and what did he miss?
Do you agree with the paper to which you linked, or are you just being sloppy and incompetent, yet again?
Why do you link to papers that seem to support your opponents point of view? You do it time after time. I can only assume that it is seen as a cunning trick by cultist idiots like you.
As you don’t care if I click on your links or not, why waste your time stating the obvious – again.
I know you can’t help yourself, so –
Carry on.
Another silly question, Mammoth Forger Mike Flynn?
Stay thirsty.
Weary Wee Willy,
Twist away, you slimy little grub.
Again –
Who is Kenneth, what did he swing at, and what did he miss?
Do you agree with the paper to which you linked, or are you just being sloppy and incompetent, yet again?
Why do you link to papers that seem to support your opponents point of view? You do it time after time. I can only assume that it is seen as a cunning trick by cultist idiots like you.
A dirty little toe rag like you thinks he is oh-so-smart, but in reality is an idiot, and finds he has nowhere to go when his idiotic trolling attempts are called out.
What an idiot you are!
Keep at it.
Manageable Futurelessness –
If you don’t know who Kenneth is, that means you haven’t clicked on the link Carbon cited.
If you know the paper I cited, that means you have clicked on my link.
With a protective friend like you, contrarians can feel safe!
Testing3
I give computor lessons , only $100 an hour
This site locks me out intermittently and is in dire need of some maintainance.
Perhaps you should offer your services to Dr. Spencer.
Richard could do it.
Eboy got no skillz.
Wistful Wee Willy,
Ooooh! Obscure!
Oooooh! Cryptic!
Ooooooh! Skillz?
You are an idiot.
Mike Flynn, Michael Flynn.
Whining Wee Willy,
Oooooh! Delusional!
Oooooh! Repetitive!
Oooooh! Pointless!
How cynical of you, Mike Flynn!
Whacky Wee Willy,
Oooooh! How obscure!
Oooooh! How cryptic!
Oooooh! How pointless!
Ooooooh! How meaningless!
Mike Flynn, prepare to be Amazed.
Worried Wee Willy,
You are an idiot. Why do you bother posting links that you know I will ignore?
Is there some point to your apparent delusionally psychotic behaviour?
If it keeps you relatively calm, then carry on. No harm done, and it generates a bit of amusement at your obsessive behaviour.
Mike Flynn, Amazing Flynnson – I am not providing the links for you. You are providing comic relief. Such is the cycle of Climateball life.
Enjoy,
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, Amazing Flynnson I am not providing the links for you.”
That’s obvious, You responded to Swenson. You provided the links for me presumably, rather than those others you mentioned.
You correctly assess that I am not interested in your pointless links, nor, it seems, is Mike Flynn.
As I mentioned before, if your pointless and irrelevant stupidity makes you giggle at yourself, there is no harm done.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Malaises Feuilletonist – that I am responding to may not imply that my comments are for you.
Sock puppets are not my target audience.
Do your bit on the word “equilibrium.”
Wee Willy Dumdum,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, Malaises Feuilletonist that I am responding to may not imply that my comments are for you.
Sock puppets are not my target audience.”
A couple of points. On the other hand, that you are responding to Mike Flynn (in your fantasy) may well imply that your comments actually are for him. In the real world, many assume that responses addressed to them are for their consideration.
Obviously, you are disconnected from reality, to a greater or lesser degree.
If “sock puppets” are not your target audience, maybe you could stop addressing those whom you claim are “sock puppets”. Is this a cunning ploy used by dim climate cultists – to address an audience by not addressing them?
Seems a bit convoluted to me. Probably even beyond a practitioner of Zen.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Mistaken Fingerprint – TL;DR.
Do your bit on measuring the Earth’s skin temperature.
Whickering Wee Willy,
It seems Mike Flynn is ignoring your demands.
As do I.
And there’s nothing you can do about it, is there?
Carry on.
Malevolence Forestalled – perhaps you’re starting to get it.
Mike Flynn ignores more than demands. Mike Flynn ignores everything that makes society what it is. Reciprocity, truthfulness, consistency, decency. Basic pragmatics too!
Mike Flynn illustrates why Dragon cranks don’t have a knowledge problem. They have personality issues.
And you know the best of all?
That Mike Flynn is you.
Cheers.
Whacko Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn ignores more than demands. Mike Flynn ignores everything that makes society what it is. Reciprocity, truthfulness, consistency, decency. Basic pragmatics too!”
More mind reading claims, is it?
If you find his general attitude so annoying, and you can do precisely nothing about changing it, why do you appear so obsessed with Mike Flynn? Because his comments generally contain verifiable facts? At least the ones you have so graciously quoted. I don’t know about others.
Keep whining, Wee Willy. Stick to”silly semantic games” and “basic pragmatics”. Leave reality to realists. Stick with fantasy and fantasists – that should suit you.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Malnourished Fountainhead – no need to read your mind. Reading your contributions since 2013 here and earlier at Judy’s is more than enough.
Sleep well.
First part Earth says 79 watts absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere
and 100 reflect
Next Mars 14 watts absorbed Mars atmosphere {without global dust storm}, 29 reflected from surface, total 38 reflected
Dust storm: 81 watts absorbed by atmosphere, and 43 reflected
Venus 135 absorbed in cloud layer or “middle layer”, 496 reflected
And says in longwave IR 160 W from Venus
Mars dust storm longwave 106 W
Non dust Mars: 110 W
And Earth 239 watt longwave emitted.
[Also claims 219 of it from atmosphere and 20 from surface]
With Mars dust 99 of 106 emitted {7 from surface}
And in non dust: 20 watts of 110 from atmosphere- and 90 watts from the surface
So with Venus all it emitted 160 watts comes from clouds/middle atmosphere
And Venus Ozone is not middle atmosphere. It’s high atmosphere
AND Venus has more atmosphere above “middle atmosphere” than Mars entire atmosphere. Unless middle atmosphere means pretty high and I am not sure where Venus [“possibly”/could be] thin ozone layer is.
Earth’s ozone, google:
“The ozone layer lies approximately 15-40 kilometers (10-25 miles) above the Earth’s surface, in the stratosphere.”
https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/basic-ozone-layer-science
Google: Venus middle atmosphere:
“In the middle atmosphere the temperature increases smoothly with decreasing altitude, from about 173 K (−148 F, −100 C) at 100 km above the surface to roughly 263 K (14 F, −10 C) at the top of the continuous cloud deck, which lies at an altitude of more than 60 km (37 miles).”
Ah middle is higher, than I thought so Clouds layer plus including middle atmosphere and could roughly mean all significant atmosphere above cloud deck.
Google: Venus Ozone:
“To date, ozone has only previously been found in the atmospheres of Earth and Mars. ” and:
“The small amount of ozone in Mars’ atmosphere has not been generated by life, but rather it is the result of sunlight breaking up carbon dioxide molecules.
Similarly, Venus is thought to have built up its ozone by non-biological means. The ozone layer on Venus sits 62 miles (100 kilometers) above the planet’s surface, which is roughly four times higher in the atmosphere compared to Earth, and is also a hundred to a thousand times less dense.
Astrobiologists have theorized that a planet’s ozone concentration must be about 20 percent of Earth’s value before life should be considered as a cause. The results of this new study line up with this theory, since Venus remains well below this threshold.”
https://www.space.com/13244-venus-atmosphere-ozone-layer.html
So, is above middle atmosphere, but as said, they might have meant “all significant” atmosphere above cloud deck.
That was supposed to be:
https://tinyurl.com/4kn5rz6t
there.
“… the NASA MSIE E-90 atmosphere model … which models the composition of Earth’s atmosphere up to an elevation of 1000 km.”
http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2014/08/01/the-composition-of-earths-atmosphere-with-elevation/
Sort of unexpected.
Anyhow wanted composition at about 15 miles or 25 km because I wondering ozone layer:
https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/Q1.pdf
“In the stratosphere near the
peak concentration of the ozone layer, there are typically a few
thousand ozone molecules for every billion air molecules”
Or a few ozone molecules per million. And:
“Earth’s surface, ozone is even less abundant, with a typical
range of 20 to 100 ozone molecules for each billion”
Or .02 to .1 per million and variance due pollution or whatever.
[Or perhaps one can smell it at .1 per million]
Anyhow, I am wondering about a climate thing and that more of a space thing. But imagine also must apply similar to Venus and Mars.
Someone comment asked whether the O and H could related to impactors {I guess too small of cross section- or not enough O and H in pathway and don’t think one could have compression waves or something related it} Or more worry to do with the space rock itself- maybe some small effect}.
Anyhow, didn’t find what I was looking for.
As the word “harmful” is used you can be sure the complaints from Google is based on the new religion where science has no place.
Whenever you are against their belief system you are its enemy.
This is a problem of its own and has nothing to do with climate. It is the post modern infiltration into all branches of society. It shows Google is suffering as well.
Marking something “harmful”, only means you may cause trouble for people indoctrinated as the have no other way to be informed that to believe.
Here is a core seminar how the religion works
https://youtu.be/_AvyqUOKhGA
Dr Berry has responded to Entropic Man’s earlier (January 17, 4:24 PM) comment – or a version of that comment, anyway:
"Dear Entropic,
As my paper shows using IPCC data, there is a natural equilibrium between all four reservoirs and the natural carbon cycle defines this equilibrium.
The IPCC data also show how fast the system will return to its equilibrium after any deviation from equilibrium. My model properly calculates the dynamics of IPCC’s carbon cycle data.
If you don’t follow my model, then you can draw incorrect conclusions. First, you must separate IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data from its human carbon cycle data. Second, you must recognize that IPCC’s natural carbon cycle is very close to equilibrium, so close that we can assume it IS at equilibrium. We calculate the six e-times from the data at equilibrium.
Then, we use the same e-times to calculate the human carbon cycle, which is not at equilibrium so long as we keep pumping CO2 from the slow carbon cycle into the atmosphere. Now, one key to understanding what is happening is to realize we can (and should) calculate the natural and human carbon cycles independently.
So, look at my calculated human carbon cycle. It’s pretty obvious that this human carbon flows from the atmosphere to the land and ocean. But this calculation shows the limits of how much human carbon is in the atmosphere as of 2020. And this limit shows that natural carbon had to add to atmospheric CO2.
Where did this natural carbon come from? Skrable et al. (2022) and Quirk indicate most of this added natural carbon originated in the ocean and flowed to the atmosphere. The IPCC has no data for that because it assumes human carbon causes all the increase. So, you are not going to find that in IPCC’s Figure 6.1."
Dr. Berry is a moron and here is why.
“Its pretty obvious that this human carbon flows from the atmosphere to the land and ocean.”
Therefore the cause of the increase can’t be from natural sources.
Yeah, natural carbon can exchange with human sourced carbon in the atmosphere, but that’s irrelevant.
Cause carbon dioxide molecules have no hair, you can’t tell where an individual carbon dioxide molecules came from.
bobdroege is a moron, and here is why.
bobdroege is a moron because there is no proof he isn’t.
Mike Flynn is using a sock puppet, and here is why:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388221
Aw diddums!
Whining Wee Willy,
You are an idiot. Mike Flynn has commented here recently, although you seem to think that denying reality will make inconvenient facts go away.
Was his assumption wrong? Are you seriously deranged?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Missing Fireshot – Kiddo used your nick to show that one could use it to comment. A bit like here.
Nothing prevents you from removing your sock and claiming back your original identity.
Except your lack of courage, perhaps?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Weird Wee Willy,
So Mike Flynn is not really banned? He can actually comment, but you are claiming that someone else you claim is Kiddo, actually used the name Mike Flynn as “sock puppet”, is that it?
What is your obsession with the use of one pseudonym in preference to another, if it comes to that?
Have you realised that nobody at all has to take any action at all, at the behest of an irrational and demented anonymous blog commenter?
Have you considered that your time might be better employed learning some physics, rather than doing things that you seem to have just now realised are completely pointless.
Or you could just continue flogging a horse which is not only dead, but non-existent into the bargain!
Carry on.
Malcontent Fiction – you thought you were banned, and understandably so since Roy told you at the time:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
It took you a few weeks to get back to the site. It took you a few tries before you settled on that last sock.
You’re not really playing dumb – you are!
Aw diddums!
Whacko Wee Willy,
Are you seriously trying to tell anyone you can turn fantasy into fact?
Maybe Mike Flynn accepts your claim that you can read his mind, but I don’t believe in mind-reading. Anybody who claims to know what someone else is thinking is deluding themselves.
It’s obvious to any normal person that I am not “banned”, as you put it. You don’t seem pleased with that fact, but that’s the nature of climate nutters like you. It seems that Dr Spencer suggested to Mike Flynn that he start his own blog. I have suggested to some commenters that they might start their own blogs, if they want to be able to censor people.
Flog away Wee Willy – that particular equine appears deceased and smelly. Life has departed its body. Carry on with whatever it is you are trying to do. Obviously, you are not managing to achieve it, so you just look incompetent and useless, as well as impotent and powerless.
Do I care if you think I’m dumb? Not a bit of it. Why should I care for the unhinged opinions of someone who is obviously living in a weird cultist fantasy world? Would you?
Maldistributed Filibuster – you asked a silly question, so I stopped reading your silly comment.
Enjoy your evening!
Wishful Wee Willy,
You’re learning.
Maybe you should just stop reading my comments.
Or not, as you wish. I have no control over your actions, nor do I wish to have.
Mike Flynn, Malignant Flamingo.
Swenon Flynn Bot
I am not a moron until proven a moron.
You haven’t met the burden of proof.
b,
No, you are confused. Proof is for mathematics. The scientific method employs disprovable hypotheses. As Albert Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Obviously, you are ignorant and stupid, as well as being confused. Certainly not a good start to supporting the contention that you are not, in fact, a moron.
Does it matter? Maybe you should stick to facts. At least you might look less moronic.
Droege calls himself a scientist. He’s a sellout.
Stephen,
Not a scientist, that would be a lateral move.
My official title is Chem Cnslt, Nuclear Manufacturing.
Stephen,
Not a scientist, that would be a lateral move.
My official title is Chem Cnslt, Nuclear Manufacturing.
You’ve described yourself as a scientist on more than one occasion. Maybe you should stick to Nuclear Manufacturing?
Strange lad, bobdroege.
His official title says it all – Chem Cnslt.
Obviously either he or his employer wants to make sure that he remains an obscure mystery – or they can’t afford a more explanatory sign.
I’m sure he can be trusted to push the right buttons with sufficient training.
Why don’t you two clowns try and get the science correct, instead of worrying about whether or not I am a scientist.
This is fun, but somebody has to get up before the sun comes up and then make the antimatter and then count it.
b.
You wrote –
“Why don’t you two clowns try and get the science correct, instead of worrying about whether or not I am a scientist.’
I’m not worried at all. Why should I be? What science are you claiming is not correct? You don’t seem to know much about science from your comments about proof.
Assertions and speculation are not science.
CO2 doesn’t seem to make thermometers any warmer when it reduces the amount of radiation reaching the thermometer. Unless you have experiments showing the opposite, don’t be surprised if people think you are just another climate crackpot.
Swenson,
I guess you forgot that you admitted that there is a greenhouse effect a while ago.
Remember the correlation between the Keeling curve and the graph that Dr. Roy produces each month?
And that the more CO2 in the atmosphere means there is more insulation keeping the Earth from cooling as fast as with less CO2 in the atmosphere, meaning it makes thermometers more hotter.
bob, you’ve written a “therefore” without explaining how your conclusion follows from Dr Berry’s statement.We
DREMPTY,
It’s obvious,
He said the CO2 goes from the atmosphere to the oceans and land sinks, therefore the increase can’t cone from the oceans and land sinks.
b,
Presumably you have a reason for not supplying a quote from the author.
Would that reason be discourtesy, stupidity, or just plain old idiocy?
Can a molecule of anthropogenic CO2 be absorbed by the ocean and land and be replaced by a molecule of natural CO2?
P.S: why are you still calling me names when I reverted to calling you bob months ago?
Stephen
I know enough, we humans put the CO2 in to the atmosphere and it goes into the oceans and land sinks.
So the increase can’t be natural.
It’s as simple as that.
e-times have nothing to do with it.
DREMPTY,
To answer your questions,
Yes
and
because you are an asshole
Swenson,
I did quote him from one of his papers.
So sorry I didn’t cite him properly.
“Yes”
Well, Dr Berry said, “its pretty obvious that this human carbon flows from the atmosphere to the land and ocean”. If human carbon can be absorbed by the land and ocean and be replaced by natural carbon, then why can’t human carbon be flowing from the atmosphere to the land and ocean whilst natural carbon flows the other way? That being the case, why then can’t some of the increase in atmospheric CO2 be due to natural causes?
“because you are an asshole”
Seems like you are the aggressor, most, if not all of the time.
DREMTPY,
Why don’t you contact Dr. Berry and tell him that it’s the net flow that’s from the atmosphere to the land and ocean sinks.
Maybe that will sink in.
Aggression for the sake of science is no vice.
The net flow of what? Human or natural carbon?
So you pretend your relentless hostility is for the sake of science. How noble of you to pretend that.
DREMTY
The net flow of CO2 is from the atmosphere to the ocean and land sinks.
Dr. Berry didn’t specify human or natural, and neither do I.
Do you think that matters and why?
It’s a well mixed gas, do you understand what that means?
“Dr. Berry didn’t specify human or natural, and neither do I.”
He did:
“Its pretty obvious that this human carbon flows from the atmosphere to the land and ocean”
and that’s what we are talking about, bob. You said that this statement led to your conclusion:
“Therefore the cause of the increase can’t be from natural sources.”
You still haven’t explained yourself.
“The net flow of CO2 is from the atmosphere to the ocean and land sinks.”
If more CO2 was flowing from the atmosphere to the land and ocean than was flowing in the other direction, then the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be decreasing.
Except we are burning more CO2 than stays in the atmosphere.
I should have said producing more CO2 than stays in the atmosphere.
Yes. And?
So the flow of CO2 is from the atmosphere to the oceans and land sinks.
Or it could be going into space.
Where else in the carbon cycle could it be going?
Yes, bob:
“Its pretty obvious that this human carbon flows from the atmosphere to the land and ocean”
So why can’t there be more natural carbon flowing in the other direction? Making the natural carbon part of the increase in overall atmospheric CO2?
DRMEPTY,
Because it’s the net flow of all carbon that is into the ocean and land sinks.
If the natural flows were increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then all the man-made CO2 would be staying in the atmosphere as well.
But it’s not.
If more CO2 was flowing from the atmosphere to the land and ocean than was flowing in the other direction, then the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be decreasing.
DR EMPTY,
“If more CO2 was flowing from the atmosphere to the land and ocean than was flowing in the other direction, then the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be decreasing.”
And why is that?
It’s not true if there is more CO2 flowing into the atmosphere from another source than is flowing into the land and ocean.
Right, that’s where the biscuit is.
Natural CO2 plus man made CO2 in to the oceans and land is greater than natural CO2 out of the oceans and land.
"Natural CO2 plus man made CO2 in to the oceans and land is greater than natural CO2 out of the oceans and land."
Natural CO2 plus man made CO2 in to the oceans and land cannot be greater than natural CO2 and man made CO2 out of the oceans and land. If that was the case, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be decreasing. This:
"If the natural flows were increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then all the man-made CO2 would be staying in the atmosphere as well."
is nonsense. There is no reason for the oceans and land to suddenly stop being able to absorb man-made CO2 and only be able to absorb natural CO2.
DR EMPTY,
You don’t even seem to be trying to understand what I am saying.
“is nonsense. There is no reason for the oceans and land to suddenly stop being able to absorb man-made CO2 and only be able to absorb natural CO2.”
I never said anything of the sort. The ocean and land sinks are still taking in the CO2.
What I said was that if the natural CO2 flow out of the oceans and land was more than the flow of all the CO2 into the oceans and land, then all man-made CO2 would be staying in the atmosphere.
and this
“Natural CO2 plus man made CO2 in to the oceans and land cannot be greater than natural CO2 and man made CO2 out of the oceans and land. If that was the case, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be decreasing. This:”
Once the man-made CO2 goes into the ocean and land sinks, you can’t tell if it was originally man-made or natural when it comes out.
You do understand that?
What I actually said was that Natural and man-made CO2 into the ocean and land sinks is greater than the natural CO2 out of the ocean and land sinks.
We know this because the amount of CO2 in the oceans is increasing, because we know the pH of the oceans is decreasing. And it is decreasing because we are adding CO2 to the oceans and CO2 gas plus water increases the concentration of H+ ions.
You said:
"If the natural flows were increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then all the man-made CO2 would be staying in the atmosphere as well"
Which is nonsense, as I explained.
"What I actually said was that Natural and man-made CO2 into the ocean and land sinks is greater than the natural CO2 out of the ocean and land sinks."
What you actually originally said was:
"The net flow of CO2 is from the atmosphere to the ocean and land sinks."
Which would imply that the flow of natural and man-made CO2 into the ocean and land was greater than the natural and man-made CO2 out of the ocean and land. Which is of course wrong.
Lots of waffle from bob has ensued since his original non-sequitur, but he’s still no closer to a coherent argument. Oh well. Best to just let him have the last word, as he’ll just go on and on forever otherwise.
DR EMPTY,
“Which is nonsense, as I explained.”
Sorry, no you did not explain.
“Which would imply that the flow of natural and man-made CO2 into the ocean and land was greater than the natural and man-made CO2 out of the ocean and land. Which is of course wrong.”
But you have not provided any evidence my statement was wrong.
Sorry charlie it don’t work that way.
Because there is no man made CO2 coming out of the ocean.
Well except for a few scuba diver bubbles.
DREMPTY,
Its obvious,
He said the CO2 goes from the atmosphere to the oceans and land sinks, therefore the increase cant cone from the oceans and land sinks.
How can you reply to this and know so little about the carbon cycle?
Droege,
Have you read any of his papers? Read one of his papers on cloud droplet formation and tell me he is a moron. If he is a moron, what does that make all of us? BS Caltech, MS Dartmouth, PhD Nevada. Only an embecile would call someone like him a moron. Calling him a moron doesn’t falsify anything he says.
Stephen,
Yes I read one of his papers, took about a minute.
He’s wrong.
Yes, and calling him a moron doesn’t change that.
Neither do all your scholarly achievements.
Try refuting the fact that emissions of CO2 are going into the oceans and land sinks, not coming out of them.
“Yes I read one of his papers, took about a minute.
He’s wrong.”
…and they call me arrogant.
Stephen,
Yes I read one of his papers, took about a minute.
He’s wrong.
Yes, and calling him a moron doesn’t change that.
Neither do all your scholarly achievements.
Try refuting the fact that emissions of CO2 are going into the oceans and land sinks, not coming out of them.
What happened to you? So, before fossil fuels where did emissions originate?
“What happened to you? So, before fossil fuels where did emissions originate?”
Coal can naturally burn [it’s doing globally] and governments can’t stop it]
And wood can burn naturally, as it also doing so, global, and governments don’t stop it or prevent it, very well.
You can’t tax a lump of coal, a thunderstorm, or a tree.
Stephen,
“What happened to you? So, before fossil fuels where did emissions originate?”
You really don’t know, or are you being a dick?
It’s a rhetorical question.
According to you, they didn’t originate in the land or oceans so yeah I want to know?
Stephen,
now you are lying, I never said where the natural CO2 originated.
So you are confirming you are a dick and a liar.
It’s fun we can continue playing games and insulting each other.
I’m down with that.
You pop up and spout off like you’re an authority, and you don’t have a basic understanding of the carbon cycle. You have no understanding of Berry’s paper or care to. Your only goal is to advance your agenda; it ain’t science. Nothing you’ve said refutes anything. Until you make a coherent statement, I’ve got no further discussion with you.
Bob “Thunberg” Droege
b,
You are just being moronic now. You wrote –
“Try refuting the fact that emissions of CO2 are going into the oceans and land sinks, not coming out of them.”
A fact? Really?
Presumably you have a source for these “facts” of yours. Maybe you could define a “land sink”, and then explain where all the CO2 in the atmosphere prior to mankind appearing on the Earth came from. If it didn’t come from the oceans or one of your undefined “land sinks”, was it created by magic?
Off you go now, bob. find some “facts” explaining how the atmosphere managed to get CO2 if it didn’t get it from the land or the sea.
You can do it.
Stephen,
“You pop up and spout off like you’re an authority, and you don’t have a basic understanding of the carbon cycle. You have no understanding of Berry’s paper or care to. Your only goal is to advance your agenda; it ain’t science. Nothing you’ve said refutes anything. Until you make a coherent statement, I’ve got no further discussion with you.”
Come on Stephen, you claim to have a PhD, you could refute anything I have said if it was wrong.
Your claims that I have no understanding of the carbon cycle are just baseless.
You and Swenson with your questions of where the CO2 came from before there was Man, just do your own research, I never said anything about that.
You are the ones looking like you have no understanding of the carbon cycle.
“…you claim to have a PhD”
Where did Stephen claim that?
“BS Caltech, MS Dartmouth, PhD Nevada. Only an embecile would call someone like him a moron.”
I assume that here Stephen was talking about Dr Berry, not himself.
“…you could refute anything I have said if it was wrong”
You have yet to make any coherent argument to refute.
DREMPTY,
It was the “all of us” before the list of credentials.
Here is something to refute, it is what I have been saying in this thread.
The net CO2 is flowing from the atmosphere to the land and ocean sinks, therefore the rise in CO2 can not be from the oceans or the land, which are the natural sources of CO2. It must be because we are burning coal and hydrocarbons.
The evidence is the decrease in pH of the oceans and the increase in vegetation.
CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3 -> H+ + HCO3-
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1135485
DREMPTY,
Asking me to explain is not a refutation, if you want science lessons you need to pay up.
And then you are doing what assholes do, referencing your own post.
And I answered those questions in that post.
Remember that Dr. Berry also said human CO2 is indistinguishable from natural CO2, so how do you tell the difference?
Then there are the isotopic ratios that help with that.
For instance a Carbon-14 atom could be natural or man-made, but not from fossil fuels.
I should know, being licensed to handle man-made C-14.
Well I had to ask you to explain, because your opening comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1134731
Was a non-sequitur.
DR EMTPY,
Your inability to follow an argument does not make it a non-sequitur.
You are in the shower mixing the hot and cold water to your liking, now is the water flowing back up through the pipes?
Your inability to make a coherent argument is not my fault or responsibility.
The net CO2 is flowing from the atmosphere to the land and ocean sinks, therefore the rise in CO2 can not be from the oceans or the land, which are the natural sources of CO2. It must be because we are burning coal and hydrocarbons.
No, Berry has falsified that the 130ppm rise from 1750 until now is due to fossil fuels. Most of the rise is natural. The natural carbon had to come from the land or surface ocean.
Then what caused the natural CO2 to go against the flow and cause the rise in atmospheric concentration of CO2.
And don’t say the rise in temperature, that has not been near enough to cause the increase.
The continuity equation is
d(CO2)/dt=Inflow-Outflow
This is a linear homogeneous differential equation. Study it.
DREMPTY,
It was the all of us before the list of credentials.
Here is something to refute, it is what I have been saying in this thread.
The net CO2 is flowing from the atmosphere to the land and ocean sinks, therefore the rise in CO2 can not be from the oceans or the land, which are the natural sources of CO2. It must be because we are burning coal and hydrocarbons.
The evidence is the decrease in pH of the oceans and the increase in vegetation.
CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3 -> H+ + HCO3-
The Revelle Factor is a hypothesis. You are trying to falsify a hypothesis with a hypothesis. Show your evidence.
DREMPTY,
It was the “all of us” before the list of credentials.
Here is something to refute, it is what I have been saying in this thread.
The net CO2 is flowing from the atmosphere to the land and ocean sinks, therefore the rise in CO2 can not be from the oceans or the land, which are the natural sources of CO2. It must be because we are burning coal and hydrocarbons.
The evidence is the decrease in pH of the oceans and the increase in vegetation.
CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3 -> H+ + HCO3-
The Revelle Factor is a hypothesis. You are trying to falsify a hypothesis with a hypothesis. Show your evidence.
I thought you were going to leave me alone.
“The continuity equation is
d(CO2)/dt=Inflow-Outflow
This is a linear homogeneous differential equation. Study it.”
I do believe it’s more complicated than that.
Is this for the atmosphere or the oceans?
Do you want me to bake a loaf of quick bread?
I thought you’d read the paper, in about a minute…
One of his papers is very short.
And I studied Evelyn Wood’s methods.
OK, bob.
DR EMPTY,
So you have no evidence that the CO2 rise is natural.
We are done here.
If you say so, bob. I don’t really care enough either way to keep an endless back and forth going, I was just mostly pointing out that you had made no coherent argument. You can have your last, obnoxious word again.
>I do believe it’s more complicated than that.
So does your sister Greta.
DR EMPTY,
Just because you can’t follow and argument doesn’t mean it’s incoherent.
What kind of sammich do you want?
The CO2 flow is into the ocean and land sink, so the source of the CO2 can’t be the ocean and land, or the source of the CO2 can’t be natural.
An eighth grader could follow that argument.
Stephen,
Looks like Greta is smarter than you.
Stephen
“d(CO2)/dt=Inflow-Outflow”
And the solution to that equation is
CO2 = At + b
by inspection it is wrong.
And you took diffy Q?
Ask Greta for corrections.
Upon reviewing:
–Coal can naturally burn [its doing globally] and governments cant stop it]
And wood can burn naturally, as it also doing so, global, and governments dont stop it or prevent it, very well.–
Governments have probably wasted more tax dollars failing to put out
forest fires as compared to failing to but out “natural” coal fires.
The forest fires will stop without any governmental “help”, but coal fires burn for centuries. If government spent 10 times more putting out a natural coal fire as compared to forest fires, they would doing something of value. But government was “smart” which they will never be, they could possibly stop natural coal fire without spending any tax dollars doing it. All you need is being slightly above moron intelligence.
use https://rightforge.com/
Sunspot number: 57
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 9.05×1010 W Cool
Max: 49.4×1010 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×1010 W Cold (02/2009)
I think warmest so far, bouncing back
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +8.0% High
48-hr change: -0.6%
Max: +11.7% Very High (12/2009)
Fairly low GCR
Or getting towards Solar Max type conditions, though
another month or two could be a lot better.
Here is an interesting tidbit. In the summer of 1957 my dad took my brother and I on a fishing trip to the Trinity River Ca. We left early in the morning in mid July from San Francisco. As we drove through Sonoma Co there was a huge forest fire raging to the east of H101. I remember my mom waking me up to watch the fire, and the fire roared high up into the night sky. It tok over an hour before the fire faded away behindf us.
When we got to Trinity Co we found that we were in the middle of a major heat wave.Temps were record setting and in the triple digits (up to 116 F)for the entire time of our vacation. I am saying this because I can’t help but wonder if that Max Hot in 1957 was the driver for that intense heat wave. The heat wave extended from Sonoma Co and north into Southern Oregon.
Part 2 to the above comment has to do with current temps here in Northern California. Recently daytime temps in the mountains here have risen into the high 50s F. At night time though temps are still dropping below freezing. Are these higher daytime temps being driven in part by the current higher activity on the sun?
I’m restarting this thread as it got lost in an insultfest.
Stephen, DREMT
“Hey EM,
What happened to surface ocean carbon in the IPCC human carbon cycle?
AFAIK nothing has changed. Is there a problem?
I knew youd dodge and dart. Cant answer, can you? Science demands an answer. ”
I’m not clear what the question was.
For the ocean surface.
Diffusion from ocean to atmosphere 90 Gt
Diffusion from atmosphere to ocean 92 Gt
Net diffusion 2 Gt from atmosphere to ocean
For the atmosphere, including human emissions.
Flow into atmosphere 217.1 Gt
Flow out of atmosphere 213.8 Gt
Net gain by atmosphere 3.3 Gt
Since the gain is smaller than human emissions we can infer that human emissions are the primary cause.
Note also that without human emissions atmospheric CO2 would be declining by 3.3-5.5 = -2.2 Gt/year. This would be expected if we were cooling towards the next glacial period.
Think it through.
We are releasing 5.5Gt/year into the atmosphere.
If the atmosphere CO2 is going down, then the net loss is greater than our emissions something natural is removing CO2 from the air faster than we are adding it.
If the atmosphere CO2 is increasing faster than 5.5Gt/year then the net increase is because something natural is adding CO2 to the atmosphere on top of our emissions.
If atmosphere CO2 is increasing by less than our emissions then there is a net loss from the atmosphere smaller than our emissions.
If the measured carbon cycle showed the second case Berry would be confirmed.
Since we measure the third case Bery is falsified.
Eman,
Why do you have to have everything explained to you? You claim you’re intelligent enough to falsify Berry, but you have to have things presented to you.
In IPCC’s human carbon cycle, there is no carbon in the surface ocean reservoir. Why not?
Then how is it possible for Berry to propose diffusion from ocean to atmosphere as an alternative to human emissions?
Again, obfuscation and answering a question with a question. Answer the question.
Which part of
you do not get, Troglodyte?
You haven’t discussed my answer to your previous question. As a debater you suck.
So you are still using IPCC Fig. 6.1?
“Where did this natural carbon come from? Skrable et al. (2022) and Quirk indicate most of this added natural carbon originated in the ocean and flowed to the atmosphere. The IPCC has no data for that because it assumes human carbon causes all the increase. So, you are not going to find that in IPCC’s Figure 6.1."
This one?
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx
At first glance it seemed an impenetrable mass of maths and tables.
Could you explain it, please.
In particular could you give us flows in Gt so that we can compare them with the IPCC figures.
I haven’t read it. Who’s “us”?
English usage. “Us” is me.
I found the paper incomprehensible.
Units are grams of carbon when the standards in the field are Gt or pCO2. The table headings are numbers referring to somewhere else in the article. It seemed designed to be difficult to understand.
I hoped you might be able to help.
“In particular could you give us flows in Gt so that we can compare them with the IPCC figures.”
Is “we” just you as well?
I keep asking you where the surface ocean carbon is in the IPCC’s human carbon cycle. You keep ducking and obfuscating. Again, where is it?
You keep asking the same question because you keep ignoring the response, Troglodyte:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1134642
For a guy who keep asking and asking, you don’t give much in return.
Judge,
It’s a trick question.
I am not answering it.
Incidentally, why was a paper on carbon cycles published in a radiation safety journal.
Usually out-of-context publishing indicates either desperation or vanity publication.
I don’t know why the paper was published in that journal.
Ah. That’s why.
https://www.desmog.com/michael-fox/
He’s a physicist who has specialized in the bioassay of the human body and saw where he could apply the same physics to the atmosphere.
Huh?
What has Michael Fox got to do with it?
https://www.desmog.com/michael-fox/
Read this.
Note the connection to the Heartland Institute.
Note the comments and publications on a climate sceptic theme.
Note the advocation of opening up oil drilling prospects.
Note the links to the Health Physics Society and its journal Health Physics. (That last was how I found him.) His influence at Health Physics allowed the publication of Berry’s papers and Skrable et al. Their low quality would make them hard to place elsewhere.
To a cynical warmist like myself that is the classic profile of an expert recruited by the fossil fuel lobby as a discreet lobbyist for their cause.
He’s been dead for ten years. Can’t see him having had much influence on the publication of Skrable et al. How many of Berry’s papers have been published at Health Physics?
In reality, it is absolutely immaterial where the papers are published. We all know Big Climate controls the Journals. The only thing that matters to Science is who is correct.
> The only thing that matters to Science is who is correct.
Only those who view Science like a boxing match makes that mistake, Troglodyte.
The only thing that matters in Science is what is supported by the evidence.
If Einstein hadn’t had scientists with integrity like Max Planck, he would never have gotten his Special Relativity paper published. Where are the Max Plancks today?
Please don’t make me look, Troglodyte.
For now you and your guru barely can identify the Bern model.
Give yourselves a chance before crying out loud “But Galileo”:
https://climateball.net/but-galileo/
Witless Wee Willy,
Begging again, dummy?
You really believe that others can make you do things that you don’t want to do, don’t you?
You must be exceptionally weak-willed, Wee Willy. Grovelling obsequiousness won’t give you a backbone, you know.
Mike Flynn, Manuring Flirt – do you think Troglodyte is a glutton for punishment like you are, and is it a proposition?
–According to Time the world currently spends 1% ($0.8 trillion / year) of global income on renewables. But for the “surprisingly low cost” of $2.4 Trillion / year, we could make all the green energy fantasies come true, though we might also have to become vegans and surrender our pension funds.–
Time Magazine: We Only Have to TRIPLE the Global Renewable Energy Budget to Achieve Green Nirvana
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/19/time-magazine-we-only-need-to-triple-the-renewable-energy-budget-to-achieve-nirvana/
We make solar shade for 100 billion per year. But would only useful if you wanted to cool earth by 1 to 2 C, and nobody wants this.
But could make solar shade for Venus for about same amount- I think more people might want cool Venus by 100 C, as compared wanting cool Earth by 1 C.
But we warm earth and cool the global surface air temperature, for less 10 billion per year. And if just wanted to cool Europe, we just had divert Gulf stream, rather focus on that, could put ocean settlements in the way of Gulf Stream, and “make money”- and maybe get spaceport, also. Though why the freezing Europeans want it colder, and want waste more energy heating their homes, makes no sense to me.
Jan. 19 (UPI) — NASA’s James Webb telescope completed alignment all 18 of its primary mirror segments and the secondary mirror on Wednesday, the agency reported.
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2022/01/19/nasa-james-webb-telescope-mirrors-deployed-success/2471642623938/
And:
“Approximately five months of further alignment and calibration lay ahead as it completes a million-mile journey, before scientists will start getting the first images from the telescope, the agency said.
That work also includes settling into a stable operating temperature and calibrating onboard science instruments.”
Going to be months before get a real picture from it.
[Though I guess could get something things taken from it as part of further set-up operation/calibration, before then.]
Earlier, Wee Willy Wanker wrote –
“Pray tell whats the single experiment that proves AGW theory wrong?
Oh! Oh! Oh!”
Now that Wee Willy has brought himself to a happy ending, I have to point out a rather large flaw in the delusional fantasy of dimwitted climate cultists like Wee Willy – there is no AGW theory!
That might be because is no AGW hypothesis, which would be because no one can say that there is any need for one.
What phenomenon related to thermometers indicating temperatures cannot be adequately explained by current knowledge of physics?
He is being quite delusional. His fantasy is not reality.
Again Management Fabrication Mike Flynn struggles with his own criterias –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1134823
Nevermind the myth of the experimentum crucis for the moment, AGW is the disprovable hypothesis. Dragon cranks have nothing against it. Hence their ankle biting.
So sad, too bad.
Sorry Dud but the AGW nonsense is only a belief. It ain’t science. It’s a cult.
To believe in the AGW nonsense, you must also believe that ice cubes can boil water. And, cult idiots believe that, even though they know not to admit it.
Even the JWST engineers debunk the AGW nonsense — An atmosphere cools, it does not warm, and surfaces must be very cold to absorb low energy photons.
You won’t understand any of this because you’re a braindead cult idiot.
Sorry.
pups, Sorry, troll, if a surface can emit photons at a particular wavelength/frequency, that surface will also absorb photons at that wavelength/frequency. The temperature of the surface is only relevant regarding the net transfer of photons in and out or reflected.
Absorbing the same photon as emitted would not result in any temperature increase, Willard Jr.
You don’t understand any of this.
(When is your next cult meeting?)
Suppose someone tells you that the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops, Pup.
What would you reply to that someone?
Dud, AGW is your belief. You have no science. You can throw food at the wall all day. That’s what you do. You’re a worthless troll. Each time you throw something, it can easily be debunked. After you’ve exhausted your bag of distractions, you just start over from the beginning. You have no interest in learning.
You can believe ice cubes can boil water, if you want. I have no problem with you believing in nonsense. But, that ain’t science.
So you have no answer, Pup.
Suppose that this someone tells you that less GHGs means less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.
What would you respond?
The short answer Dud, is that this has all been addressed numerous times. But, you can’t learn. It’s just more stuff you’re throwing against the wall because you have NOTHING. It’s your choice to be a worthless troll. No one is forcing it on you.
The term “GHG” is a human invention. There is no gas in the atmosphere that can “trap heat” or warm the planet. Sun warms the planet. All matter can absorb and emit photons. The atmosphere has mass. All mass can be warmed. The atmosphere can be warmed. But the atmosphere can NOT warm itself. Nor can the atmosphere warm the planet. Turn off Sun and watch what happens to your “GHGs”.
As systems, the sky can NOT warm the surface, because the surface is always hotter. The heat transfer is from surface to space, hence the “lapse rate”. The main heat flow is from Sun to surface to space. CO2 doesn’t change that.
Now I know you will be trolling here all day because you have nothing else to do. But I don’t have time for your childish “puppet-dance” antics. So I end this now. Someone has to be the adult here.
The shortest answer is that you got none, Pup.
Pure contradiction isn’t the answer.
Suppose someone tells you that the atmosphere is an insulator.
What’s your reply?
@Clint R
I love it when you people put your errors and misconceptions into a simple list, makes for a fun reply =)
>> The term “GHG” is a human invention.
yes
>> There is no gas in the atmosphere that can “trap heat”
the term itself is dubious so irrelevant
>> or warm the planet.
there are, most of them, even nitrogen and oxygen have very very weak GH activity
>> Sun warms the planet.
yes
>> All matter can absorb and emit photons.
yes, to a different extent (see emissivity)
>> The atmosphere has mass.
yes
>> All mass can be warmed.
yes
>> The atmosphere can be warmed.
yes
>> But the atmosphere can NOT warm itself.
the term as used here is dubious
>> Nor can the atmosphere warm the planet.
yes it can
>> Turn off Sun and watch what happens to your “GHGs”.
they will cool down slowly
>>As systems, the sky can NOT warm the surface,
yes it can
>> because the surface is always hotter.
locally not always but it doesn’t matter. Indeed it can
>> The heat transfer is from surface to space,
NO
>> hence the “lapse rate”.
NO
<> to space.
NO
>> CO2 doesn’t change that.
yes it does, although H2O is the primary culprit
>> Now I know you will be trolling here all day
look who’s talking =)
>> But I don’t have time for your childish “puppet-dance” antics.
oh yeas you do
>> So I end this now. Someone has to be the adult here.
I’d be surprized =DD
@clint r
sorry i missed this one
>> The main heat flow is from Sun
yes
>> to surface
yes
>> to space
no No NO
coturnix is having fun.
I will play too.
“There is no gas in the atmosphere that can “trap heat” or warm the planet. ”
There are radioactive gases, and radioactive stuff can emit heat/energy.
And gas molecules have kinetic energy, and for gases to cool they have to somehow convert kinetic energy by warming something with less kinetic energy.
In Earth’s atmosphere the gas molecules travel at high velocity
and mostly transferring kinetic energy themselves. Because they are so many air molecules {more air molecules than stars in this knowable universe] the overcrowded air molecules near Earth land and ocean surface, which are on average faster than bullets, travel very short distance before exchanging kinetic energy with other air molecules. And constant collision roughly keeps zillions of them have “the same kinetic energy” on average. It’s similar to pool table with zero frictional loss but it’s a 3d, “pool table”, and add the energy of cue ball and all pool balls can move and will continue to move until the energy from the cue ball somehow “leaves the pool table”.
Are any radioactive pool balls adding anything significant to “this energy”, no. It’s like butterflies vs a train.
Speaking of trains, each square meter of surface is a 10 ton train. Or a 10 by 10 meter area is a 1000 ton train.
And these trains or hitting the land and ocean surface. And when the surface is warmed by sunlight, it gives kinetic energy to the trains. But one could say the transfer energy is muted/blunted.
Or one can have ground surface which much warmer [has more kinetic energy] and call this amount of kinetic energy, 60 C
and air train colliding with is 30 C and takes a while to warm or cool the train.
“Sun warms the planet. All matter can absorb and emit photons.”
All matter can absorb and emit photons, but one can say what we could call a “surface”, absorb and emit photons “better” than other matter. One could say loosely or analogously that a surface is more organized [less chaotic or directional] in “some way”.
“The atmosphere has mass. All mass can be warmed. The atmosphere can be warmed. But the atmosphere can NOT warm itself.”
The atmosphere has gases which change from gas into liquid or liquid into gas. Can have chemical reactions, it moves, and can be radioactive, and etc., but one could ignore them, mostly.
As one can mostly ignore what humans, do.
“Nor can the atmosphere warm the planet. Turn off Sun and watch what happens to your “GHGs”.”
Well atmosphere transfers kinetical with its itself- which one could call “greenhouse effect” by non cult believer.
But let’s turn off the Sun, or put solar shade in front of the Sun.
They least complicated way to make a solar shade is with dust.
Let’s fill Earth/Sun L-1 with billions of tons of dust.
Now if you were in L-1, one might see the sun. Well, easily see a bright spot call the sun, but might see anything else, unless someone was say, less than 100 meters from you, one would/should be able discern in the heavenly fog. Or at least one of you probably will be able to see the other. So, Sun, easy to see, other things not as easy.
From Earth, the sun is not bright, kind of like a comet. Though not really- a very crazy weird comet. But if not seen comet, you might think it looks like comet {what else could be, but one might even know anything about comets at all, maybe you think it’s God or something, but it’s quite dim from this distance in blackness of the sky. Or it should have darker halo….
So giving less heat than from the Moon and not a bright as Moon normally is but much bigger than Moon- and much further away.
But it would very close to what Comet would looked like if any human has seen a comet this close [though no one has}.
So, Earth takes days or thousands of years to cool by much.
But cool quite bit fairly shortly for humans which currently living in an Ice Age. Whales don’t notice much change very quickly.
Given the number of insults that flow freely on this website, the following historical definitions might be of interest. These will perhaps allow for a more nuanced approach.
Merriam-Webster gives the following:
Idiot, imbecile, and moron were once used in a psychological classification system, each one being assigned to a fairly specific range of abilities.
Idiots: Those so defective that the mental development never exceeds that or a normal child of about two years.
Imbeciles: Those whose development is higher than that of an idiot, but whose intelligence does not exceed that of a normal child of about seven years.
Morons: Those whose mental development is above that of an imbecile, but does not exceed that of a normal child of about twelve years.
Edmund Burke Huey, Backward and Feeble-Minded Children, 1912
Thanks. You might wish to look into “delusional,” “retarded,” “lunacy,” and “fraudster” too. Especially the last one, which is actionable.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Why don’t you look things up for yourself? Is it because you are lazy or incompetent? Or is it because you are a delusional, retarded, lunatic?
As to being a fraudster, you make the moronic claim that CO2 in the atmosphere makes thermometers hotter. Either you believe this nonsense, which makes you ignorant, stupid, or Bothe, or you know it is nonsense, which makes you a fraudster.
Of course, you have no intention of taking any action except that which makes you look ever more witless.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Maniacal Fingerling – suppose someone tells you that there is no gas in the atmosphere that can “trap heat.”
What would you reply to that someone?
Weary Wee Willy,
Suppose someone told you that you were a delusional psychotic.
What would you reply to that person?
In the meantime, how are you going finding that AGW theory (the one that requires a magical GHE to explain the known fact that thermometers respond to heat)? Not well, I surmise.
Carry on acting the fool.
Mike Flynn, Magical Function – you’re a bit rough on Pup, don’t you think?
You’re confusing hypothesis and theory, but nevermind. Your silly gotcha is easily met by what a very wise crank once said:
And that wise crank was you!
Awww! Diddums!
Whacko Wee Willy,
CO2 can be heated. So can everything else in the known universe.
You call this the AGW theory?
You are deranged, ignorant and stupid, if that is the case.
I assume you quoted Mike Flynn. Do you disagree with what he said?
You continue to be a reality denying anti-science climate crackpot.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Manichean Flipper – you keep referring to AGW as a theory. It’s not a theory.
Take another guess!
Wee Willy Idiot,
Earlier, you wrote –
“Pray tell whats the single experiment that proves AGW theory wrong?”
A completely witless gotcha, of course.
There is no “AGW theory”.
If there was, someone, somewhere, would have recorded that fact. The fact is it doesn’t exist – except in the fantasies of deranged climate cranks like yourself!
If you are demented enough to think that I believe an “AGW theory” exists, good for you. You are free to believe what you like. You might even believe the delusionally psychotic Mike Mann is not a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat.
Mike Flynn, Manque as a Futurist – in “what’s the single experiment that proves AGW theory wrong,” the word “theory” does not belong there. It’s a typo! I should have written instead:
What’s the single experiment that proves AGW wrong?
What’s the single experiment that proves the Greenhouse theory wrong?
Hope this helps!
Wily Wee Willy,
Oh I see! You are sloppy and incompetent as well as delusional.
You ask –
“What’s the single experiment that proves AGW wrong?
What’s the single experiment that proves the Greenhouse theory wrong?
Hope this helps!”
As to the first, thermometers respond to heat. Why would I think otherwise?
There is no “Greenhouse Theory”. The physical principles behind the operation of greenhouses have nothing to do with climate cranks’ “greenhouse gases”.
You can’t find a “Greenhouse Theory”, can you? That’s because such a bizarre notion is just silly. So no, your hopes that you are helping are dashed. You are still an idiot.
Mike Flynn, Manly Flavourless – pray tell about negative facts:
Where can I find a negative fact?
Sloppy! Sloppy! Sloppy!
Wee Willy Wanker,
You can’t produce anything resembling an AGW theory which would require the non-existent “greenhouse effect”, can you?
That’s because it doesn’t exist.
Let me put you out of your misery, Mike Fancy Pants –
AGW is a hypothesis that rests on a set of theories. The greenhouse effect is explained by a subset of these theories. Dragon cranks have called this subset the Greenhouse theory or a GHG theory, e.g.:
https://principia-scientific.com/r-i-p-greenhouse-gas-theory-1980-2018/
All these terms can be explained in one way or another:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structure-scientific-theories/
Next time, dare to try!
Wistful Wee Willy,
I said you couldn’t provide an AGW theory, and you can’t.
You wrote –
“AGW is a hypothesis that rests on a set of theories. The greenhouse effect is explained by a subset of these theories.”
You now say AGW is a hypothesis, not a theory? You do understand the difference, I hope.
As you haven’t actually provided anything apart from some deranged assertions, let me examine your non-existent “hypothesis”.
Maybe you could provide details of this “hypothesis”? Of course you can’t – I’m just playing with you.
You’re an idiot. Try flying off at another tangent, and see how far you get!
You really have no clue about science and the scientific method, have you?
Mike Flynn, Manufacturing Fenestrations – I said that your idea of an AGW theory was silly, and I showed you why.
The long and the short of it is that you’re still stuck at having to disprove AGW.
Long live and prosper.
For the purposes here, “idiot” is someone that rejects reality.
And “braindead” is someone that can’t learn.
So by your own definition you are both braindead and an idiot.
Do you feel better now Ken? Just randomly insulting someone is your purpose here?
Some call that “trolling”….
That’s a tad unkind toward Mike Flynn, Pup.
Does it suck to be hoisted on your own Petard?
You seriously lack Discipline and Responsibility.
K,
Oooooh! Discipline and Responsibiliy!
And you think anybody cares for your opinion because . . . ?
You’re as silly as Willy, with his moronic Mike Flynn and Pup obsession.
You do know the difference between a petard and a Petard, do you? Or are you ignorant as well as uncouth and stupid?
Get lessons in idiocy from Witless Wee Willy – he can teach you sloppinessnd incompetence as well, I’m sure.
You don’t need to thank me.
Ken, are you unable to finish what you started? It must be so frustrating to be so incompetent, huh?
As Zappa said, “All she really needed was some Discipline”
Or some King Crimson.
If others take an interest in this thread, they’ll want data they can compare with what you cheerfully call the IPCC carbon cycle.
The IPCC carbon cycle is published with each AR. It hasn’t changed, only updated.
Has the planet changed?
Em,
Of course it has. It has cooled, shrunk, changed its shape and weight . . .
Presumably you were aiming for a gotcha, but it seems your gotcha was a fizzer.. Try harder, or stop posing stupid gotchas in an attempt to appear superior.
EM was responding to “The IPCC carbon cycle is published with each AR. It hasnt changed, only updated,” Mike.
If you want to butt in an exchange, try to read it first.
Wee Willy Idiot,
He wrote –
“Has the planet changed?”
Your deranged interpretation –
“EM was responding to The IPCC carbon cycle is published with each AR. It hasnt changed, only updated, Mike.”
C’mon. Wee Willy Idiot, at least read what I respond to. As to your instructions, I will do my utmost best to ignore them. I will respond to comments (or not), as I see fit. if you have a problem with that, tough.
Carry on.
EM’s not referring to the whole history of the Earth, Mike.
You’re just being dumber than usual, sorry.
Wee Willy Dimwit,
He wrote –
“Has the planet changed?”
If your mind reading has established that he was temporarily insane, and really meant to write something else, off you go and instruct EM to write what you think he should have written! My goodness, you are a deranged slimy little grub, aren’t you?
In the meantime, if someone asks “Has the planet changed?”, I can respond if and as I wish.
If you want to complain about my answer, feel free to do so.
You can’t even think clearly for yourself, dummy.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Manifestly Funny – you sure can respond as you wish.
No harm done in that: most of the times, it’s manifestly funny!
The natural carbon cycle stays the same. The numbers change for the human carbon cycle. But still the same basic myth.
Again, where is the surface ocean carbon in the IPCC’s human carbon cycle?
We had these green little Mother Nature’s planet where the natural carbon cycle stayed the same for millions of years. Then nasty ole capitalists started the industrial revolution and are destroying the earth with fossil fuels. But, Mother Nature’s carbon cycle hasn’t budged. How did delicate Mother Nature keep her carbon cycle so stable?
Millions of years is wrong, do some research and get back with the right number.
Earlier, coturnix wrote (responding to another comment) –
“>> Nor can the atmosphere warm the planet
yes it can” Coturnix asserts that a colder body can increase the temperature of a hotter.
OK, coturnix, try to back up that statement with some experimental fact – if you want to look really stupid.
All you have to do is have something hotter than something else, then use the radiation from the colder object to raise the temperature of the hotter object. You realise you have a very large problem.
The colder object would have to lose energy to the hotter to achieve your miracle, which would result in the colder object getting even cooler. You now have an even hotter object next to an even colder object – without any external heat input.
Maybe you don’t realise it, but you are full of crap, as they say.
Off you go now, divert to the contents of the fantasy which you believe supplants reality.
You don’t even realise the silliness of what you are saying, do you?
> try to back up that statement with some experimental fact – if you want to look really stupid.
Vintage 2019:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388032
Weird Wee Willy,
What has that for to do with coturnix’s mad claim?
The “burner” is called that because it “burns”. It is hotter than the pot of water on top of it. You are amazed that the water gets hotter? I don’t know about Mike Flynn, but that doesn’t surprise me at all.
But you and coturnix appear to believe that you can use the radiation from a cooler object (let me call it a “cooler”), to raise the temperature of something hotter!
You climate crackpots love a good irrelevant analogy don’t you?
Now off you go, and try and find a reproducible experiment which uses the radiation from a cooler object to raise the temperature of a hotter. Before you start flying off at a tangent, and asking stupid gotchas about photons, look through the window, and then look into a mirror.
Photons pass through the first, and bounce off the second! Gee, it looks like photons are not absorbed by everything they strike! And so on. You are not only an idiot, you are an ignorant idiot.
Mike Flynn, Meticulously Freaky – surely you are smarter than this. Have you ever been in an igloo? Here’s an experiment from before you were here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/experiment-to-test-the-temperature-influence-of-infrared-sky-radiation/#comment-1435
Woeful Wee Willy,
More stupid, meaningless, and irrelevant analogies? You are as bad as that other idiot whose name rhymes with Apple!
As you quoted, your body temperature drops, you idiot. Cooling is not heating. Eventually you get really, really, cold, and die. Even putting any number of coats on your corpse won’t heat it up.
Go and try it, if you believe you can keep yourself warm and toasty with ice. Leave instructions with your next-of-kin to notify me when you die.
Why do you keep on quoting material which supports me, and makes you look like a dimwit?
If you refuse to learn physics, that’s your affair. Laughing at your idiocy is mine.
Mike Flynn, Mannakin Fizz – you say:
“Cooling is not heating.”
Weren’t you biting cot’s ankles about the usage of another word?
By Jove you’re sloppy!
Weak-willed Wee Willy,
What makes you think I am inclined to respond to your stupid, irrelevant question?
You might be an idiot, but at least you’re stupid!
Carry on.
We all know the answer to the question you are trying to dodge, Mike Flim-Flam – the word is warm.
You know, these silly (and sloppy!) replies from you warm my heart.
But don’t think they are heating it!
Whacky Wee Willy,
In you usual foolish fashion you wrote –
“We all know the answer to the question you are trying to dodge, Mike Flim-Flam the word is warm.”
You can’t even describe the question, you fool. And of course, you can’t provide a definition of the word “warm” which makes any sense in relation to a non-existent question, which is even more foolish.
Maybe “warm” doesn’t mean what you think it means, eh, dummy?
Many Faces Mike Flynn – more semantic games will have to wait after your afternoon nap. Meanwhile, warm up to the puzzle: how does your question counter Cot’s claim?
Cheers.
Woeful Wee Willy,
If you can’t even answer your own stupid gotcha, what mental defect prompts you to think that I will remedy your stupidity for you?
Geez, you’re a really, really, slow learner, aren’t you?
Mike Flynn, Marathon of Feloniousness – the silly gotcha is all yours:
“Maybe “warm” doesnt mean what you think it means, eh, dummy?”
Pray tell – what does “warm” mean, and according to that meaning can blankets warm?
Look at you. Stuck between acknowledging that greenhouse gasses exist and denying that the greenhouse effect exists.
What a sad, sloppy, silly sock puppet you are!
Wee Willy Idiot,
You can call gases “greenhouse gases” if you wish. Or noble gases, or monatomic gases, or bananas, if you wish.
As to warm, as I told you, it may not mean what you think it means. Have a look in a dictionary if you are unsure of its meaning.
Or you could ask a group of morons to agree to a definition, and use that.
Still no GHE, is there?
Now you’re denying having dodged the question, Flimsy Mike.
What I know about the word “warm” has no bearing on how it is understood by communities that use it.
Heat is moving from my cold fridge to my warm kitchen.
It’s a miracle!
Yes, indeed, and your fridge is solar powered.
But maybe 20% is super nova powered, very inefficient and a really long lead time.
well, that is really irrelevant to the phenomenon as the fridge is a heat pump, the ‘heat moves’ is not really heat moving, it is due to work that the fridge’s compressor preforms.
Right, and as long as you have something to do the work, you can transfer heat from cold to hot.
It’s the Sun that is available to do the work.
>>>OK, coturnix, try to back up that statement with some experimental fact – if you want to look really stupid.
Ok, boomer, that is real easy. Your clothes – they are colder than you, yet they keep you warmer. If you are in denial about that, no I don;t know where you live but I assume not in the deep tropics, but I dare you to support your claim that colder body cannot keep/make warmer body yet warmer by taking off all your clothes (subject to public decency laws) and spend an entire night outside, then talk about that experiment =).
>>>All you have to do is have something hotter than something else, then use the radiation from the colder object to raise the temperature of the hotter object. You realise you have a very large problem.
So wait, radiation? Your question didn’t mention radiation. I quote
“””Coturnix asserts that a colder body can increase the temperature of a hotter.
“””
So, the qeustion is – to show just that – which i just did. I know, now you’ll start whining that it is not due to radiatin but tue to conduction or some mysterious force called ‘convection’ but the truth is – it deos not matter. The colder body CAN keep the wrmer body yet warmer, period. The microphysical details differ slightly in the case of radiation as compared to conduction (or the derived phenomena of convection and evaporation), but macroscopically it is the same phenomenon. In faaact, if you give it a little deeper thught, youll see that even the microscopical details of the effect aren’t that different and are frankly quite homologous between all the named phgenmena.
>> The colder object would have to lose energy to the hotter
No, it does not =)
>> to achieve your miracle,
yep, winners, walmart, mexx – all the miracle stores from the harry potter universe, call the jurnelsts!!
>> which would result in the colder object getting even cooler.
no it would not
>> Maybe you don’t realise it, but you are full of crap, as they say.
if there were midiclorians fro dunning-cruger effect, you’d be emperor palpatin =)
coturnix,
You are confused, certainly, ignorant and stupid maybe.
Insulation works both ways. Firemen wear very heavy clothing to keep cooler.
I suppose you, like most people, think that insulation is a miracle. It’s not. It merely slows the rare of heat flow between a hotter body and a cooler. Some people who don’t think, have been bamboozled into believing that a magic insulator existed which allow more energy in than it allows out! Stupid, aren’t they? Climate crackpots and self appointed climate experts, reality deniers and anti-science donkeys.
However, back to your “experiment”. Let us remove the heat source you forgot to mention (the living body generating around 100 watts, and with endothermic reactions fuelling its cells at such high temperatures, that without an inbuilt temperature regulating mechanism involving breathing, a vast network of blood vessels, sweat glands and all the rest, the body can reach internal temperatures sufficient to literally cook its internal organs). I presume you know that, because your attempt at your illusion fails when your audience knows the facts.
The clothes make the body’s heat regulating mechanism able to function properly with a much lower energy consumption. And yes, climbers do lose digits due to frostbite regardless of their very sophisticated clothing.
As I said. a colder body cannot raise the temperature of a warmer by virtue of the colder’s radiation. Idiots using clothing fantasies reject reality, and depend on a combination of their own ignorance and that of their retarded audience to appear to turn dross into gold.
Wrap a dead body with as many clothes as you like. See how its temperature doesn’t rise! What, that’s unfair? No internal heat source allowed?
Just like the climate crackpots who refuse to acknowledge that the Earth is really a big largely molten blob, with a thin congealed skin. Accept reality.
@swenson
>> Insulation works both ways.
dubious
>>Firemen wear very heavy clothing to keep cooler.
they sure do. Doesn’t mean they can stay among the fires forever.
>> I suppose you, like most people, think that insulation is a miracle.
Uhm no, you do.
>> Its not.
No it is not, but you do =)
>> It merely slows the rare of heat flow between a hotter body and a cooler.
Yes it does. That’s EXACTLY how the Greenhouse Effect works – it slows the heat flow from the warmer ‘surface’ to the colder space, specificlly in the ‘radiative channel’
>> Some people who dont think
like you?
>> have been bamboozled into believing that a magic insulator existed which allow more energy in than it allows out!
strawman; they don’t. The energy ‘in’ flows in the short-wave ‘channel’, while the energy out flows in the long-wave channel, so no contradiction there.
>> Stupid, arent they?
no, but you are
>> Climate crackpots and self appointed climate experts, reality deniers and anti-science donkeys.
no, but you and the likes of you are
>> However, back to your experiment. Let us remove the heat source
“”” let’s take a cockroach, put it on the table and then tap on the table next t it.The cockroach will run. Now, lets remove all of its legs, put it back on the table and tap on it again. the cokcroach stays put. The conclusion is: cockroaches got their ears on their legs!”””. Yep, that’ how stupid you’re being with your ‘let’s remove the heat source’
>> you forgot to mention
it is implied by the problem itself. As are lots of other things, neither I nor anyone else are obliged to mention them at all. If you think that’s missing that’s just mean that you didn’t read into the given and the unknown well enough, just proves how clueless you are.
>> the living body generating around 100 watts
yes, and the earth surface gets 240w/m2. Both are implied, if you have problem with that then you’re not very bright, r u?
>> I presume you know that, because your attempt at your illusion fails when your audience knows the facts.
No, i necessarily implied that, and ‘my audience’ knows that.
>> The clothes make the bodys heat regulating mechanism able to function properly with a much lower energy consumption.
yes, by retarding the flow of heat from you body’s core at +37C to the outside at well typically between +19C for a ‘room temperature’ and as low as -40C or less for the outdoors depending on where you live. The clothes is colder than your body, yet it keeps it from cooling down pretty efficiently.
>> And yes, climbers do lose digits due to frostbite regardless of their very sophisticated clothing.
non-sequitur
>> As I said. a colder body cannot raise the temperature of a warmer by virtue of the colders radiation.
It can if the warmer body is warmer because it is being heated by something else. As is the case for human body+clothes, as is the case for the earth+GHGs
>> Idiots using clothing fantasies
well then be a realist, ditch your clothes =)
>> Wrap a dead body with as many clothes as you like. See how its temperature doesnt rise!
that is correct, I never claimed that it would, and neither does the GHE theory regardless the erath floating in the empty space not being heated by the sun.
>> What, thats unfair? No internal heat source allowed?
That is correct; by the terms of the problem, the heat source is needed, it is a given. Nobody, ever anywhere claimed that without the heat source the GHE would warm the earth. The fact that you and the likes of you claim that nonsensical strawman again and again just attests to either how stupid you are, or that you’re not discussing the problem in good faith (e.g. pretending to be something that you are not).
>> Just like the climate crackpots who refuse to acknowledge that the Earth is really a big largely molten blob,
first of all it is not molten for the most part, second of all it is irrelevant t the problem.
>> with a thin congealed skin.
The thermal boundary of the slid earth system is indeed pretty thin compared to the bulk of the earth. Which again is irrelevant to the problem, as the heat flow associated with the secular cooling of the earth is a few orders of magnitude smaller than the typical climatic heat fluxes and therefore can be neglected in all things climate EXCEPT for the problems of the oceanic deep circulation
>> Accept reality.
r u talking to yourself? There’s noone else here, you must be talking to yourself.
c,
You wrote –
“>> Insulation works both ways.
dubious”
Not dubious at all. For example, a vacuum flask can be used to keep its contents “warmer than they otherwise would be”, or “colder than they otherwise would be”.
Climate crackpots somehow feed the first into their Climatese gibberish translator, and it emerges as a vacuum flask “makes its contents hotter”. Idiocy. An insulator neither heats nor cools. It is inert.
Another exchange was –
“>> It merely slows the rare of heat flow between a hotter body and a cooler.
Yes it does. Thats EXACTLY how the Greenhouse Effect works it slows the heat flow from the warmer surface to the colder space, specificlly in the radiative channel”
Don’t appear more stupid than you really want to appear. Insulation doesn’t raise the temperature of anything by any mechanism. You are delusional, gullible, or both.
You would surely have noticed the surface cools in the presence of sunlight. A reduced rate of cooling is still cooling. The observable fact that the Earth has cooled markedly since its creation apparently means nothing to you. You will probably whine about rates of cooling and other obfuscations, doing anything to avoid facing the reality that you are completely clueless.
The rest of your silliness I will leave for the moment.
In the meantime, you can think about why the surface of the airless Moon gets both hotter and colder than the surface of the Earth. Or, indeed, why the hottest places on Earth have the least amounts of GHGs (in the form of H2O) in the atmosphere above them. When you have figured that out, you will understand why the coldest places on earth are just as deficient in those same GHGs.
Off you go now. Have a cup of tea and a headache tablet. A good lie down might help, but it still won’t create a GHE.
>>>a vacuum flask can be used to keep its contents “warmer than they otherwise would be”, or “colder than they otherwise would be”.
uhm dubious, without the internal heating which is implied in the vacuum flask situation the temperature inside will equilibrate with the outside eventually, it just will take longer than would’ve without the extra insulation. So it WOULD keep it, but only for a limited time. So yes it is dubious.
>>>Climate crackpots somehow feed the first into their Climatese gibberish translator,
climate crackpots use expressive and precise language to describe hat they’re talking about – math (it is not JUST math, obviously, and just using math doesn’t make it physically correct of course), but sometimes it needs to be explained to people who can’t math. And that’s where it becomes challenging as human language is notoriously dubious and imprecise, and some languages are worse than others (hkm-khm-khmenglish, as it has very limited use of declension), and some words being notoriously unfit for precise communication of ideas but very fit for breeding flaming sophistry such as the word ‘warm’, kekeke. So it is not a climate crackpot gibberish, it is yours.
>> and it emerges as a vacuum flask “makes its contents hotter”. Idiocy. An insulator neither heats nor cools. It is inert.
that’s what i’m talking abut
>>Don’t appear more stupid than you really want to appear.
guessing motivations of people is an interesting activity indeed
>>Insulation doesn’t raise the temperature of anything by any mechanism.
then take off your clothes and come to siberia, canada, or at least finland or northern china in winter and prove us wrong =)
>>You would surely have noticed the surface cools in the presence of sunlight.
highly dubious. It may cool, heat, warm, stay put or do anything else. Not to mention that the phrase ‘in the presence of sunlight’ is so higly imprecise (intentionally i pesume) that it could mean anything at all.
>> A reduced rate of cooling is still cooling.
not necessarily. I mean, what do you mean by ‘cooling’ to begin with? Is it (a) decreasing temperature with time, ot (b) the out-going heat flux?
>> The observable fact that the Earth has cooled markedly since its creation
‘creation’? oh lmao. And no, it is not a well-established fact. The surface for one was much much warmer 100 millions year ago, but was at least as cold or colder 300 millions of years ago; as for the internals we don’t really measure it and can only make very removed inferences about its thermal behavior. But those are details, I would agree here that the bulk of the earth most likely cooled since at least archaean. That cannot be doubtlessly stated about its surface.
>> apparently means nothing to you.
correct, because it is irrelevant to the question of the earth climate. The internal heat, heating and cooling of the solid earth doesn’t play any *direct* role in climate. Indirectly, by influencing plate tectonics, it does but that is entirely different conversation.
>> You will probably whine about rates of cooling and other obfuscations,
facts and reality are obfuscating, yes
>> The rest of your silliness I will leave for the moment.
If it is morally wrong to taunt mentally unstable people, am i being worse than hitler here?
>> In the meantime, you can think about why the surface of the airless Moon gets both hotter and colder than the surface of the Earth.
because it is (1) airless, (2) slowly rotating and (3) has low effective heat capacity
>> Or, indeed, why the hottest places on Earth have the least amounts of GHGs (in the form of H2O) in the atmosphere above them.
afaik it is a plain wrong, they do not. Although the topic is interesting indeed, i just don’t think you have enough cranial capacity to be able to discuss it productively
Wee Willy Willard continues to duck and weave, unsuccessfully, of course.
He wrote –
“Mike Flynn, Manufacturing Fenestrations I said that your idea of an AGW theory was silly, and I showed you why.
The long and the short of it is that youre still stuck at having to disprove AGW.
Long live and prosper.”
I don’t have an AGW theory. Wee Willy is endeavouring to play silly semantic games, and losing as he goes.
Wee Willy studiously avoids actually saying what AGW is, and why it needs a “theory” to explain what he can’t being himself to describe. What an idiot!
Here’s the dimwits best effort –
“AGW is a hypothesis that rests on a set of theories. The greenhouse effect is explained by a subset of these theories. Dragon cranks have called this subset the Greenhouse theory or a GHG theory, e.g.: . . .”
So the deranged Wee Willy lurches from crisis to catastrophe, unable to bring himself to actually say anything which can be examined in any scientific sense. He cannot bring himself to face reality – CO2 has no heating (or warming) power, climate is the statistics of past weather, the Earth has cooled since its creation, and Wee Willy is a legless slimy grub, leaving a slime trail wherever he ventures.
How do I know this? Wee Willy demonstrates at every juncture that he hasn’t a leg to stand on!
What an idiot he is!
“Legless Slimy Grub”……You forgot Fat….”Fat Legless Slimy Grub.”
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn everyone!
*The crowd rushes to the stage with pitchforks.*
Weird Wee Willy,
You wish. Wish in one hand and pee in the other. See which fills up first.
> Wish in one hand and pee in the other. See which fills up first.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/
Cheers.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Thanks for quoting Mike Flynn. It seems that he also uses that saying. Gee, how amazing! For all I know, I may have copied him.
No, I didn’t make it up myself. Did you? Are you claiming it as your personal intellectual property?
You are a moron if you think you have the power to dictate what others may or may not say.
Am I allowed to quote Shakespeare, Feynman, or Einstein? Newton?
Carry on being stupid and ineffectual. Experience will teach you the results of your silliness.
You’re still talk about Mike Flynn as if he was not you, Flailing Mike.
You disown the greenhouse effect the same way:
Deny, diss, and duck.
Wiki:
“The greenhouse effect is a process that occurs when a planet’s atmosphere allows unhindered radiant energy from its sun to heat the planet’s surface, but then hinders the radiant heat from the surface from passing to space until the surface warms more than it would have done without the atmosphere. More specifically, most sunlight passes through the atmosphere to reach Earth’s surface, heating it.”
Of course, sunlight is hindered from reaching the surface, and Earth surface is mostly the Earth’s ocean where sunlight continues to pass thru “unhindered” [or far less hindered than passing thru 10 tons of atmosphere per square meter].
The hindering of sunlight reaching most the ocean surface is mostly related to the angle of sunlight reaching the surface.
When the sun is near zenith, it is the least hindered by a clear atmosphere. And when there is clear atmosphere and sun is near zenith about 1120 watts per square meter of direct and indirect sunlight passes thru the surface tropical ocean which is about 80% of surface area of the tropics. And tropics is only place on Earth where the sun can be exactly at zenith, but outside tropics in the summertime, the Sun can be near the zenith.
Zenith is at 90 degrees, near zenith could said to about 15 degrees [or about hour before and after noon when and where the sun reaches zenith] So within 15 degrees away from 90 degree one gets about 1120 watts per square meter. Anyhow above atmosphere, the sunlight is about 1360 watts per square meter. Or 1360 – 1120 = 240. Or 240 watts is hindered by a clear atmosphere when sun is near zenith. But 2 hours [30 degrees] away zenith the atmosphere remove more sunlight- it has to pass thru more atmosphere and atmosphere reflect more sunlight.
3 hours before or after noon, is the period of time call peak solar hours. Or one gets majority of sunlight reaching the surface on clear day in 3 hours before and after noon or don’t much in the other hours of daylight. Of course, one longer hour’s daylight, but wherever one can get say +14 hours of daylight in summer, the sun gives much solar energy, but say peaks would be 1/2 the day [14 hours, so about 7 hours of 14. Of course, in winter one gets less the 6 hours of peak solar hours. Or place Germany very poor place to harvest solar energy, and get most amount in summer, when you don’t need as much. And tends be cloudy in summer- unlike other places.
So, in regard to Germany the sunlight is hindered a lot, and fortunately, tropical ocean heat is transports and Gulf Stream warms regions like Germany.
So here we have it. It didn’t take much of an examination of IPCC’s Carbon Cycle Model to falsify it. Even Eman could do it now. AGW is caput.
Stephen
Are you all right? You seem to have lost the plot.
It doesn’t seem to have occurred to you that if there is no CO2 in the LS and HS, then no diffusion will take place from the ocean to the atmosphere.
This invalidates my model. It also invalidates Berry’s model.
Or perhaps you are mistaken…..
Leftist logic.
This is the obfuscation and circular reasoning of the left. Nothing to do with science. Eman invalidated IPCC’s model but now he’s claiming this invalidates Berry’s model when Berry’s model has nothing to do with the IPCC model.
Eman must have been taught about objectivity at one point in his education but like all leftists, they abandon their objectivity when their agenda becomes paramount.
There’s not a whole lot of difference between Eman and Chihuahua. One pretends science and the other distains science. But the one who pretends science really disdains science because it doesn’t give him the answer he wants.
Stephen
Oddly, the answer I want is that AGW is not happening.
Unfortunately I am a universe-level thinker, not prone to self-delusion or wishful thinking.
I came here hoping to find convincing evidence against global warming and AGW, but you have nothing.
EM,
You wrote –
“Oddly, the answer I want is that AGW is not happening.”
You are going to be disappointed , of course. Generating CO2 and H2O by burning hydrocarbons creates heat. Thermometers respond to heat. If you don’t understand that anthropogenically generated heat affects thermometers in the same way as “natural” heat, then I cannot help you.
Additionally, all work performed eventually creates heat, which is eventually lost to space in the same way as any other heat generated on the surface, whether natural or anthropogenic.
An example of AGW not involving burning hydrocarbons directly, or solar or wind power, is that of the submerged nuclear powered submarine, containing a fission power heat source.
All this heat heats the surrounding water, which rises to the surface, and radiates to space at night.
So, AGW is obvious and measurable. No need for a GHE. No CO2 silliness required. Just a natural consequence of population increase and per capita energy consumption increase. No additional theory needed.
Just garden variety physics.
“It didnt take much of an examination of IPCCs Carbon Cycle Model to falsify it”
Certainly Berry didnt falsify it.
I informed him that with papers that the Revelle Factor has been a crucial piece of the carbon cycle model developed over the last 60 y.
But he can’t figure out whether or not his model already accounts for the Revelle factor. He can’t figure out whether it needs to include the Revelle Factor. He thinks maybe the Revelle factor is important, but maybe not.
I was surprised how much he waffled on it.
You would think that someone trying to overturn the carbon-cycle paradigm would be fully of what’s the key features of the paradigm are.
He clearly wasnt.
Arrggh
“would be fully aware of what the key features of the paradigm are, and whether he has retained those features or not”
EM,
The contributions from contrarians like Troglodyte and Mike Flynn are more than wrong – they’re useless. They don’t debate. They are Sammich Requesters. There are tons of them in Climateball. It’s probably the main contrarian weapon. Tom Nelson is the true master. You should check his tweets.
Asking questions or making requests can be fine, of course. It stops being fine when it burdens with with an impossible or irrelevant task for which there is no real commitment. Moreover, Sammich Requesters can easily turn their little game into a fool’s errand:
Step 1. Ask for a sammich in the most annoying manner.
Step 2. Until they receive their sammich, act like a pest.
Step 3. If they do receive one, they present not being satisfied and then return to Step 1.
Let’s call it the Can’t Get No Satisfaction algorithm. This algorithm is self-fulfilling. It accomplishes absolutely nothing, except state after state of lack of satisfaction.
Unless and until the Sammich Requesters clarify what would convince them , there’s no need to serve them anything. No sammich will slow down requests and abuse. An easy way to test the Sammich Requester is really hungry for a sammich is to ask for their homework or a specification. It usually leads to the realization that they never really considered answering their own questions.
You did well. It’s obvious that Troglodyte did nothing and is just handwaving to his guru of the moment. Have you noticed that he always has a guru behind whom he hides instead of giving back anything? He’s obviously not carrying his own weight on the field. As long as he’s not slowing you down. You moved your ball forward. He got stuck requesting sammiches.
Best,
Willard
“You did well. ”
Unfortunately in Climateball, as in many professions, the reward for a job well done is a harder job.
Unfortunately for you, Stephen won the argument.
By falsifying Berry’s model?
No, by winning the argument.
I must have missed the memo.
How did he win the argument?
This seemed like the section of the blog where we all pat each other on the back and sit around gloating. Certainly that was what was happening with you guys. So I thought I would do the same. Stephen won when he linked to Ed Berry’s site. Fun to watch you guys shamelessly misrepresenting Berry on his own blog. I wonder how long he will put up with it?
So we won the scientific argument and lost the social media argument. I can live with that since my interest is in the science, not the rhetoric.
“So we won the scientific argument and lost the social media argument”
More empty rhetoric from E-man.
No, but maybe you can still pull out a win if you explain where the surface ocean carbon in the IPCC’s human carbon cycle went?
Last time I checked it was increasing.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262735365_Long-term_surface_pCO2_trends_from_observations_and_models
Congrats, you just falsified IPCC’s carbon cycle model again. Can we stop this whole AGW/GHE charade?
“So we won the scientific argument and lost the social media argument. I can live with that since my interest is in the science, not the rhetoric.”
So true EM.
DREMT has long lost the ability to see any difference between these two.
In all honesty, I couldn’t give a shit if the IPCC carbon cycle is falsified by Berry or not. I don’t claim to know enough about it either way, and it strikes me as a moot point, considering there’s no GHE. So I just got involved to pass a bit of time, really. I have seen some good arguments (one advanced by Ken, in particular) in favor of the IPCC carbon cycle. I have seen some good arguments advanced against it. Couldn’t care less. I am not anything that people think I am. Never have been, never will be.
“In all honesty, I couldn’t give a shit..”
Making clear that you will never pass up an opportunity to troll, right? Cuz that’s the goal, isnt it..
My stalker gets it wrong again.
> the reward for a job well done is a harder job
The same applies to contrarians. Look at how Troglodyte has turned into a Riddler:
Writing enigmas takes more energy than making requests. There still isn’t any argument to speak of, but at least we got paragraphs!
Perhaps in a year or two Troglodyte will present us an argument?
I suppose a reversal to the mean was to be expected:
MAKE TROGLODYTE A DAMN SAMMICH, EM!
Whacko Wee Willy,
More gibberish?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Marketable Forstalling – thank you for allowing me to carry on, and more importantly for playing dumb!
Whiffling Wee Willy,
You’re welcome.
Carry on. You don’t need to thank me.
I know, Mike.
I was reading about Bayesian decision theory and came across this.
“If you are certain that global warming is a hoax for whatever reasons, good or bad the Bayesian decision machine in your head will reject new evidence that global warming exists, whatever that may be, and stick to your existing beliefs. It may even lead you to reject all such evidence on the grounds that it has to be part of the hoax. If you dont have strong beliefs either way, new evidence may cause you to modify your views. If you are already convinced about global warming, you may accept new evidence even if it is questionable.”
Politicians may regard it as hoax, but it’s a religion to the believers of global warming.
The believers are living in 34 million year Ice Age with last 2 million years, being *obviously* coldest, and have weird rituals of praying it will get warmer, while fearful of going to hell.
” its a religion to the believers of global warming. ”
More the other way round. The Venn diagram domains of religious belief, political conservatism and human centred thinking tend to overlap with the domain of climate change scepticism.
Analytical thinking, atheism and moderate politics tend to overlap with acceptance of global warming.
Incidentally I don’t believe in global warming. I don’t have to. There is evidence.
EM,
If a thermometer shows an increase in temperature, there should be an explanation. Combustion, and the energy involved in doing work, both produce heat.
CO2 produces no heat whatsoever.
Which process is more likely to affect thermometers, in your view?
Mike Flynn, Marginalized Foolhardy – is your “produces no heat” part of your silly semantic games?
Tell me if I am getting warmer.
Wee Willy Idiot,
What part of “CO2 produces no heat whatsoever.” do you not understand?
Are you truly that stupid?
That’s a rhetorical question.You don’t have to confirm what I already know.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Misfiring Fallacy – the part where you show how that’s supposed to be relevant.
You’re welcome.
Weird Wee Willy,
So you don’t understand, and can’t understand why.
Typical.
Carry on.
Your silly semantic games are quite trivial, Mike.
Ten years and that’s all you got?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about? Is this to do with your ultimate secret goal (a deep dark secret, it seems), or are you imitating a moronic dimwit for no reason at all?
Are all slimy little grubs as retarded as you?
Have you managed to warm anything using CO2 lately? Know anyone who has?
So you don’t or can’t understand, Mike?
Tough luck.
Ineffectual Wee Willy,
Whatever happened to the “Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn” nonsense?
Was it proving ineffectual, and just making you look like another delusional climate crackpot suffering from a compulsive disorder?
Maybe you could try writing –
“Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn.”
That would be twice the quotient of your usual silliness. Do you think it would make you twice as ineffectual, or only half as ineffectual?
A pretty puzzle indeed.
Why don’t you try it out, and report back with the results.
You are an idiot.
Maybe you would be better served by learning some physics, but that is only my opinion. Feel free to ignore it.
You never delivered the physics lectures you promised, Mike.
Tell us about thermal inertia.
Wavery Wee Willy,
What physics lectures were those? Tell me what you don’t understand, and I’ll tell you where can find some basic information.
Rather than providing some unidentified link, just say what you mean. Unless you are too frightened, lazy, or incompetent, of course.
Off you go now.
So now you are denying having offered me physics lessons, Mike.
That is just great.
Wee Willy Dimwit,
What physics lessons were those? I suppose you mean the ones where you refused to indicate in which areas your knowledge was deficient, you refused to make any effort to learn, and you refused to pay me.
Were those the lessons you are whining about?
That’s just great. You really are an idiot.
Carry on whining.
Do continue to play dumb, Mike.
Love it!
Top 10 Religion Quotes
My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness.
-Dalai Lama
Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.
-C. S. Lewis
The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
Thomas Paine
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
Galileo Galilei
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Some other quotes:
“All happy people are grateful. Ungrateful people cannot be happy. We tend to think that being unhappy leads people to complain, but it’s truer to say that complaining leads to people becoming unhappy.” ― Dennis Prager.
“If your religion doesn’t teach you the difference between good and evil, your religion is worse than useless.”
“Happiness is a moral obligation.”
“Only a fool can believe people are basically good.”
“We have a moral obligation to act happy even if we don’t feel it.”
“Expectations can ruin your chances for happiness.”
https://quotefancy.com/dennis-prager-quotes
Still looking for quote I wanted, but here:
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
“Anyone who thinks sitting in church can make you a Christian must also think that sitting in a garage can make you a car.” “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
Oh well I give it. God must be thwarting me.
Do think any of these people don’t know what religion is?
So I say to you, Ask and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you.
Jesus Christ
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
Napoleon Bonaparte
I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn’t, than live as if there isn’t and to die to find out that there is.
Albert Camus
You cannot believe in God until you believe in yourself.
Swami Vivekananda
When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said ‘Let us pray.’ We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.
Desmond Tutu
“When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.”
I imagine Tutu, thought having the Bible was more valuable than the land:
“Desmond Mpilo Tutu OMSG CH GCStJ (7 October 1931 26 December 2021) was a South African Anglican bishop and theologian, known for his work as an anti-apartheid and human rights activist. He was Bishop of Johannesburg from 1985 to 1986 and then Archbishop of Cape Town from 1986 to 1996, in both cases being the first black African to hold the position. Theologically, he sought to fuse ideas from black theology with African theology.”
And probably greatly valued humor.
The point is, do they understand what religion is. Not that I like
Napoleon Bonaparte.
Who I would regard as monster, whereas French still worship him.
But I would say Napoleon Bonaparte had some intelligence- I just don’t like what he did with it.
I’m not sure why anyone thinks the carbon cycle is stable in the long term.
Atmospheric CO2 been as high as 7000 ppm
https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/files/2009/07/Picture-211.jpg
and as low as 190 ppm.
https://i1.wp.com/powerline.wpengine.com/ed-assets/2014/12/vostok_temperature_co2.png
We have a cold ocean.
The global average ocean surface is warm, or about 17 C which is still a cold room temperature. And average global surface air temperature about 10 C, which quite bit colder than the ocean surface temperature.
But in terms human scales, we have vast regions of cold ocean surface water, and winds howl around the continent of Antarctica.
Or the tropical ocean average surface temperature is about 26 C [nice room temperature} and its surface is only 40% of the entire ocean. Or roughly got two halves of 30% of the ocean which is north and south of the tropical ocean. These halves average about 11 C, and much warmer nearer to the tropical ocean. Or say where I live, southern Californian surface water is fairly warm.
Or I live in the warmer 1/2 of the world. And other half is quite cold.
And if have constant and fierce howling winds, the average temperature of the ocean is more relevant, and it’s about 3.5 C
“And average global surface air temperature about 10 C”
I meant:
And average LAND global surface air temperature about 10 C
Tough point to argue is the fact of it being less than 500 ppm for at least a 100 million years. That would make the carbon cycle rather stable.
That is also seen in Mauna Loa data. Its goes up rather steadily; its not going up and down in time with the temperature anomaly.
Ken,
Vesuvius was “rather stable”, as was Krakatoa. The inhabitants of Pompeii discovered that the past is not a good guide to the future, as did the people in the vicinity of Krakatoa.
CO2 has no discernible affect on thermometers, nor does that other necessity for plant life, H2O.
Presumably, you are not silly enough to believe they do.
It seems to me, that if greatest forest in the world was larger and there was large forests in Sahara Desert region, it would lower CO2
levels.
Or after greatest forest got a lot frozen tree stumps and the Sahara desert changed from vast grasslands to vast deserts, one get more CO2.
And we had thousands of years of more flourishing great Forest and Sahara Desert being a vast region of grassland and forests back during the Holocene Climate Optimum.
It’s hard imagine CO2 level within our Holocene has been measured accurately.
If has been accurate, then it disproves planting 1 trillion trees would do anything.
Globally, there are estimated to be 3.04 trillion trees. This is according to a study published in the
journal Nature.Dec 24, 2021
“There are roughly 3 trillion trees on Earth more than seven times the number previously estimated
according to a new tally by an international team of scientists. The study also finds that human activity
negatively affects tree abundance from the boreal forests to the equator. Roughly 15 billion trees are cut down each year,
the researchers estimate; since the onset of human civilization, the global number of trees has dropped by roughly 46%.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18287
So, until recent they were off by more than 7 times, how much off we they be in another couple decades.
I would say if can’t count trees, you can’t get accurate measure of past CO2 levels.
Especially when we got bunch lefty religious fanatics, getting in the way of free speech.
I like spectrum analysis.
The CO2 spectrum is saturated.
The discussion about CO2 is irrelevant to climate. Except that the plants like it resulting in greening of the earth.
Greening should cause changes in climate. On Vancouver Island there are huge Cedar trees attributed with moderating the local temperature enough to slow the advance of glaciers.
“The CO2 spectrum is saturated.”
Ken, IR bands are at Venus’ surface ~90 bar pressure but are not at Earth’s surface 1bar pressure where surface temperature CO2 IR band radiant intensity is observed by satellite borne instruments.
Ken
Look at the graph here.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
You can tell when a greenhouse gas saturates. The black line has less than half the intensity of the red line.
Water vapour is saturated above wavenumber 1500. Ozone is almost saturated. CO2 is saturated at the centre of its band but not the edges, which is why it still absorbs more IR as the concentration increases.
Entropic man, the black line is not intensity units, it is the real radiant flux making its way from below the thermometer 294K altitude to the satellite sensors at each frequency compared to ideal red line (epsilon = 1.0). Note blue and green areas are not zero in the band so not totally saturated measured at TOA (satellite orbit altitude) at that temperature and pressure level.
Although one might be tempted to think that increasing carbon dioxide can only eventually saturate all lines with no other effect, resulting in an upper limit on infrared radiation from the atmosphere, this assumes (probably incorrectly) that the temperature profile does not change. It is as unreasonable to expect an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to eventually result in some asymptotic value for infrared atmospheric irradiance as to expect it to increase indefinitely.
The nice thing about wavenumber graphs is that energy is proportional to area. In this graph the area under the black curve in blue measures the radiation to space. The area between the black and red curves becomes DWLR. When unsaturated the majority of energy at a GHG absor*tion frequency reaches space and the majority of the energy will be below the black line . When saturated half the energy absor*bed by a GHG radiates upward and half downwards. The areas above and below the line should be equal.
Of course, I may be wrong. In which case education on how to interpret this graph would be welcome.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
Ken,
It is certainly not saturated high in the troposphere, where the air thins out. Thats’s where the AGW action is.
The only place there is any AGW action is in climate models. The model projections are wrong when compared to observations. Not just a little bit wrong but profoundly wrong.
AGW is falsified and if it weren’t for the grant money flowing the subject would have been closed long ago.
“The area between the black and red curves becomes DWLR.”
Don’t understand why you write that.
The distance between red and black curves at each wn represents the atm. real emissivity being below ideal at that wn looking down. The real black curve is constrained to be below the ideal BB red curve Planck function at 294K for each wn.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Dont understand why you write that.”
Obviously one of many things you don’t understand. You realise that the surface cools in the absence of sunlight, regardless of any pointless graphics, don’t you?
You don’t have to understand it. Nature doesn’t care whether you do or not. Nor do I.
“Nor do I.”
Agree Swenson doesn’t care about nature since last overnight the surface air temperature in my area warmed in the absence of sunlight.
I’ve long lost the original source, but IIRC the calculated output includes the emissivity correction epsilon, so the red curve shows the expected no-GHG emission to space.You see this in the atmospheric window where The two curves are close together because there is very little adsor*nation of OLR by the atmosphere.
The space between the two curve then represents the amount of radiation absorbed and redirected by the GHGs.
The original source isn’t quickly found.
The red curve is indeed calculated BB Planck emission at 294K for each wn. The atm. windows thru which IR radiation directly escapes the earthen system are where the red and measured OLR black line are closely matched thus atm. transmissivity is high close to (but not equal to) 1 at the red line. Where the lines diverge is increased atm. opacity.
Presumably the black line was instrument measured from space with earth surface in view having thermometer temperature known to be 294K.
Eman,
Chihuahua is going to jump all over your ass if you keep talking like that.
EM is using contrarian weapons to refute your suggestion that CO2 was stable, Troglodyte.
Ain’t that grand?
I’ve never suggested CO2 has been stable. The planet is stable. It has all these buffering and feedback mechanisms that adjust anomalies.
> I’ve never suggested CO2 has been stable.
Here’s what you said, Troglodyte:
You also said:
And you finally said:
Ask Gaia to help you clarify what you really mean.
Winsome Wee Willy,
You told Stephen to ask Gaia.
And if he doesn’t?
You are an impotent, powerless fool. What’s the point of making demands if people are free to ignore you as they wish?
They might even have the courtesy to inform you how stupid they think you are, unlike the moronic slimy grub that would make such a stupid statement as you did.
Carry on.
>Heres what you said, Troglodyte:
You do understand I was mocking the leftist talking point?
Wordsmith?
FACETIOUS
I do understand the ad ridiculum, Troglodyte.
That ain’t it.
Wee Willy Dimwit,
You wrote –
“I do understand the ad ridiculum, Troglodyte.
That aint it.”
Do you really expect anyone to believe the fantasies of a retarded climate cultist?
Would you?
You know little, and understand less. Good luck trying to convince any rational person with knowledge of the scientific method otherwise!
In the meantime, keep making ridiculous moronic assertions – other retards of your ilk might believe you.
Carry on.
Still no refutation of the Greenhouse theory, Marvel of Ferociousness?
So sad, too bad.
Hey, Roy, before your orbit deteriorates anymore, tell your buddy Pat Michaels that if he doesn’t want to be known as a welcher, he better pay the $250 to the Climate Scientists Legal Defense fund as per the bet he lost to me.
Watch out for the collapse of the doomsday glacier, you lying sack.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/pat-michaels-bets-on-25-years-of-no-warming/
Worst wishes,
Scott Supak
Scott Supak,
Who cares if you think someone will object to being called a welcher? I certainly don’t care and out of the more than seven billion people on Earth, you would be hard pressed to actually name more than 3.
If someone owes you money, sue them.
You might have better luck than when that faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann sued Tim Ball, but if you sue Pat Michaels (whomever he might be), try not to do it in a foreign country. Like Michael Mann, he might lose, and just refuse to pay.
Are you a moron, or just pretending?
Mike Flynn, Marauding Futilely – I do hope that Pat will follow your advice and refuse to pay Scott.
That’d be priceless, just like is your ankle biting!
Woeful Wee Willy,
“Thatd be priceless, just like is your ankle biting!”
Have you considered learning English expression?
By the way, how is your “Greenhouse theory or hypothesis or effect or . . .” search going?
Maybe you might have to resort to moronic deflections and diversions to hide the fact that CO2 has no effect on thermometers whatsoever.
Why is “Greenhouse theory or hypothesis or effect or” in quotes, Mike? If memory serves well, the one who can’t distinguish these concepts is you.
Perhaps another 10 years at Roy’s would help you.
Weird Wee Willy,
You will find current reality more likely to serve you well than memory.
Your fantasies are not reality, so remembering their content won’t help you much.
There is no GHE.
I’m sure somebody has already pointed this quote out to you, dummy, but it is obvious you don’t willingly accept reality because you are retarded, so here it is again –
“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.” – Richard Feynman.
Of course, you don’t even have a theory, so you have a way to go before you rise to the level of being able to understand the scientific method.
Keep denying, Mike – that might make the greenhouse effect disappear!
Wistful Wee Willy,
Neither the GHE, unicorns, nor Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize need my help to disappear.
They don’t exist.
Carry on.
That’s, like, your opinion, Mike. Of if you prefer, how did you say it again? Ah, yes:
Your fantasy based opinions are worth nothing.
Wasted Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Your fantasy based opinions are worth nothing.”
I agree, although you haven’t specified what fantasy you believe I have based my opinions on (because you can’t, of course), and neither or yours. I accept reality, and what experience teaches me. Not “science”, for I also agree with Richard Feynman who wrote “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says science teaches such and such, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesnt teach it; experience teaches it.”
You obviously disagree. It doesn’t matter. Facts are facts. If you wish to believe in the GHE, or unicorns, that Michael Mann is a Nobel laureate rather than, or in addition to, being a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, you are perfectly free to do so.
You may order your life in line with your beliefs,but don’t expect any sympathy from me if experience teaches you that your beliefs couldn’t shield you from reality. You may even try to manipulate your fellow morons into agreeing with you, thinking that mass denial of reality will surely prevail. It won’t.
Facts are facts, and don’t care what you or I think. One such fact is that nobody has yet managed to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and the Sun, so I can but hope that your belief in the GHE doesn’t involve belief in such a ridiculous notion.
Otherwise, others, as well was myself, might easily assume that you are a delusional climate crank, of quite possibly a moronic or scientifically retarded mindset. Wouldn’t you agree?
More Fluff, Mike Flynn?
Better luck next time.
You’ll have to email Dr Spencer. He doesn’t read these comments.
Perhaps Richard could email Roy too.
Weak Wee Willy wrote earlier –
“Lets call it the Cant Get No Satisfaction algorithm. This algorithm is self-fulfilling. It accomplishes absolutely nothing, except state after state of lack of satisfaction.”
Wee Willy obviously uses this principle to the maximum.
His motivation in making the bizarre comments he does is crystal clear.
The only problem with Witless Wee Willy’s efforts is that they are completely ineffectual. As per his “algorithm” he has achieved ” . . . absolutely nothing, except state after state of lack of satisfaction.”, as can be seen from his increasingly erratic comments.
Possibly he imagines himself to be a master manipulator. Unfortunately, his incompetence, sloppiness and general idiocy, locks him in an infinite loop of failure.
He doesn’t seem to learn from his continued failures, but that might be the nature of slimy little grubs (fat or otherwise), as they wend their pointless slimy way, leaving a smelly snail-trail behind them . Luckily, he is impotent, powerless, disrespected, and generally despised – by me at least. His mother may have an alternate view.
Poor Wee Willy. His desires to turn fantasy into fact have come to nought. Maybe he needs a new algorithm. The old one seems worn out.
What a moron he is.
Mike Flynn, Marginal Fright – do you have a point?
Weird Wee Willy,
Why do you ask? Trying to avoid admitting that you are completely impotent and powerless?
Carry on. Feel free to write some more incoherent gibberish, you slimy little grub.
You wrote a lot of words without saying much, Mike.
So I’m asking why you do that.
Wee Willy Wanker.
,
Do what? Your fantasy is not reality, you know.
If you keep getting confused, learn how to comprehend English
If it’s still too hard, just give up.
You can do it if you try.
By the way, is your search for anything scientific relating to the non-existent GHE bearing fruit?
You seem unable to actually describe this GHE, and can’t figure out whether you should be looking for a theory, or a hypothesis, or a magical incantation!
There is no GHE, of course. You are just in the grip of an ongoing delusion of the climate crank variety. When you stumble upon something remotely connected to science or reality, let me know.
In the meantime, feel free to continue with your moronic ineffectual attempts to achieve whatever completely pointless goal you imagine you have. Best to keep your aim secret, just in case nobody cares.
Mike Flynn, Melliferous Flower – here’s something at your level:
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/
Have you found the meaning of the word “warm” yet?
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Wee Willy Idiot,
This would be from the same idiots who wrote –
“A greenhouse stays warm inside, even during the winter. In the daytime, sunlight shines into the greenhouse and warms the plants and air inside. At nighttime, it’s colder outside, but the greenhouse stays pretty warm inside. That’s because the glass walls of the greenhouse trap the Sun’s heat.”
No wonder you appear moronic. Do you really believe this nonsense? About the only thing the NASA fools got right – “In the daytime, sunlight shines into the greenhouse and warms the plants and air inside.”
How surprising! Sunlight makes things warmer! No mention of CO2, of course. Just attempts to convince children that fantasy is reality. A greenhouse stays warm in winter? Really? You do understand the meaning of the word warm, I presume. Minus 40 is not my idea of warm.
I guess that scientific retards like you actually believe this nonsense. You reject reality in favour of fantasy. By the way, temperatures on the airless Moon reach in excess of the boiling point of water – during the day, the atmosphere keeps the temperature on Earth below boiling. Did you know that, dummy?
Have you ever heard of the beautiful thing we call an argument, Mike? You’ll need one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1134823
Go right ahead!
Swoon.
Witless Wee Willy,
Have you descended into some moronic fantasy without realising it?
You can’t even describe this GHE, you fool.
Why would I need an argument? Who can argue with the fact that the GHE don’t exist? You, perhaps?
Go for it, dummy. Argue yourself blue in the face about something you cannot describe. You are such a moron, that you will demand that others “prove” the GHE doesn’t exist.
As Albert Einstein said No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Maybe you could try specifying where this GHE phenomenon may be observed, measured and documented. Then you could try convincing other morons that whatever phenomenon you have observed needs some novel explanation, and cannot be explained without resorting to magic. Then you might propose a testable hypothesis, to see if your speculation is justified.
Or you could just rush around like a scientific retard, waving your hands and shouting “The GHE exists, I tell you! Prove it doesn’t!”, but that would just make you look stupid, wouldn’t it?
About as stupid as claiming you were a Nobel Prize recipient (even going so far as to print up a certificate to “prove” it), and hoping nobody would notice that you weren’t actually a Nobel Prize recipient.
Carry on being witless, Wee Willy.
Still no argument, Marmite Frittata?
So sad, too bad.
Whining Wee Willy,
If you want an argument, argue with yourself. Reality is enough for me. Can’t argue with that.
Maybe you can argue a GHE into existence if you argue really, really hard! Only joking. You might as well argue up a Nobel Prize for Michael Mann!
Found an explanation for the GHE phenomenon that you can’t actually describe, yet?
Moron.
Would you like mustard or mayo in your sammich, Monomaniacal Flop?
Wee Willy idiot,
Cranked up the incomprehensible gibberish generator, have you?
How is that helping ou with your search for the CO2 operated GHE?
Not well?
Oh dear. I suppose you will just have to
Carry on.
Lettuce or tomato in your sammich, Maroon Fiver?
Do your bit about arid tropical deserts.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Maybe you could quote something from Mike Flynn about arid tropical deserts – he seems like an intelligent chap who backs up his statements with verifiable facts.
Or you could look up the subject elsewhere, I suppose.
Do you really think I am an expert on the subject, or are you just being a moronic slimy grub?
Let me know, and I will act accordingly.
Maybe you can keep pretending you are not Mike Flynn, Mike.
Do blankets warm?
Weird Wee Willy,
Of course not, you blithering idiot! Walk into a closed up blanket shop in outside temperatures of minus 40 or so. Measure the temperature of the blankets. Poke yourself in the eye with a hot needle for being such a moron. You have just fined yourself for being a fool.
Spare me your “feelings”. I don’t care about your “feelings”, nor do more than seven billion other people.
Deny reality all you like.
By the way, how is your search for the effect of the GHE on blankets going? Or maybe how to produce heat by putting CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer.”
Maybe you could tell everyone how they can heat themselves while lying naked in the snow with all that lovely “back radiation”. You really are an idiotic reality denying any-science slimy sack of lard, aren’t you?
[snigger]
Mike Flynn, Marshmallow Footwear – seems that you forgot to ask those who need blankets at -40C:
https://www.udayfoundation.org/blankets/
Tell me when your physics lessons will be ready.
Whinnying Wee Willie,
What are you on about? Do you deny that insulators exist? They don’t provide heat, you idiot, and increase the temperature of nothing.
Learn some physics. My physics lessons are prepared, and I deliver them. to students who indicate a willingness to learn, unlike moronic dimwits who refuse to accept reality, or refuse to admit they are ignorant, and need help.
You appear to be one of those moronic dimwits.
Feel free to remain ignorant and stupid. Neither reality nor I care – it affects neither one of us.
By the way, it seems you appreciate the use of blankets as insulators, rather than the miracle of “back radiation”. Would you mind digging up a quote about “For most of us, the idea of winter means cuddling under the back radiation for warmth, . . .”. Can’t help laughing at that, can I?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Marshalling Falsities –
If you search for “blanket insulation” you might be surprised by what you’ll get!
But tell me – how does insulation work exactly?
Whifflling Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“But tell me how does insulation work exactly?”
No, I won’t tell you. Why should I tell a fool like you anything? Find out for yourself. If you are either too lazy or incompetent, don’t blame me if you remain ignorant.
Maybe you could debate another retarded cultist. Then you could decide that insulation worked any way you wanted!
Do you get another moron to compose your gotchas, or are they all your own work?
[laughs at dimwit]
Here’s how insulation works, little sock puppet:
“The more insulation you interpose between the Sun and the Earth, the less the surface will heat.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/a-simple-model-of-global-average-surface-temperature/#comment-77037
That’s why blankets don’t work at night.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote (in a fit of fantasy) –
“Thats why blankets dont work at night.”
Really? Why is that?
I suppose if you say it is so, then you believe it. I don’t know what you are talking about.
What is the relevance to the non-existent greenhouse effect?
As to your link, presumably you are quoting Mike Flynn Mike Flynn – Magnificent and Foremost. Excellent. I applaud you appealing to such an outstanding authority.
Who could possibly doubt that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer would result in a temperature drop? Apart from a moronic reality rejecter like you, of course!
More quotes from Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn (see how much I help you with your obsession), please. Does he support your belief in the Greenhouse Effect? No?
Moron.
Maniacal Mike, you ask –
“Why is that?”
Consider:
(P1) The more insulation you interpose between the Sun and the Earth, the less the surface will heat.
(P2) Night is when there’s no Sun.
(C) Blankets don’t work at night.
You might wish to dispute the first premise, of course.
Wait. Isn’t that yours?
Ohhhhh!
Whacko Wee Willy,
Consider this –
You’re a delusional moron.
What is this “work” that insulators do?
Do you understand what work is (in the sense it is used in physics)? Rhetorical question of course. If you did, you wouldn’t make the moronic statements that you do.
Stick to being an object of derision – you are good at it! You might choose to waste your time composing pointless gotchas, I suppose.
In the meantime, I’ll help you with your obsessive compulsive disorder –
Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn . . .
I”ll let you continue the sequence. I can’t be bothered doing all your work for you.
Carry on.
> What is this “work” that insulators do?
Wait for it, Mike – insulators… insulate!
You still have to spell out how that works in Dragon Crank physics, tho.
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).”
As recalled, I thought the trend could lower to +0.13 by around about now. I think could at some point- within a month or 2.
Not that it matters.
But it doesn’t like it could lower to +0.10 within few months,
nor rise to 0.20 within a few months
“Happy new year! This La Niña event is likely near peak strength as we start 2022. Related impacts to global weather and climate will continue through the rest of winter and into the spring, however, because climate impacts lag tropical Pacific sea surface temperature changes. Forecasters favor a transition to neutral in the April–June period.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/january-2022-la-ni%C3%B1a-update-family-game-night
So, cooler next month?
I was wondering if global warming religious followers would
prefer to be called global warming movement followers.
I goggled: what difference between religion and movement
and google gave me the difference religion and cults
Movements, cults, and religions seems all very similar.
But I tend think there isn’t any follower anything.
A follower seems like an overly hopeful expectation of “leaders”.
Now, I would say I follow the news, and people generally like be updated on stuff, so following in that sense.
Anyhow it seems the cold in Europe and problems alternative energy AND the Chinese virus, is dampening the global warming movement. In US we seem to be overly focused Russia.
Keep telling yourself things will be all right. It is much more comforting than reality.
EM,
Maybe you live in a fantasy where the future is reality. Rational people don’t.
Go on, tell me how you can look into the future better than I can.
I presume you have accumulated a vast fortune, power and influence through your predictive abilities? No?
Tell me about the future again.
That seems completely backwards way of doing things, but anyone can choose any direction.
And people can be so confused, that one direction is actually the other.
And of course, backasswards has always been more fashionable.
It’s all very wonderful, in various ways.
And further evidence that God exists {not that I need this}.
But it’s so much evidence, it could be fake.
Actually I have always had some doubt about this particular universe, but not in the sense that it is a simulation- that a Scott Adams, or apparently, a Elon Musk, thing. And it’s possible for them, it is actually a simulation.
I wouldn’t rule that out.
So, regarding, the not any followers of anything, thing.
In scott adams way, people have habits.
I have habits, as does everyone.
So a follower is someone with a habit, and more the obsessive the habit, the more one could call this a fanatic follower, but it’s just a strong habit.
So, I am fanatic follower of coffee.
But I don’t mean Coffee with Scott Adams,
but I will listen to it now.
But a habit I di have is global warming, and I am failing
to kick various bad habits. And I have long list of
bad habits.
g,
If by global warming, you mean the fact that thermometers respond to increased heat by getting hotter, and if this increased hotness is observed over a period around the globe, then why not accept it as a fact? I would, and I do.
I accept facts, and my knowledge of physics (small as it might be) indicates that in the last 100 years or so, it would be stranger if thermometers around the globe showed no rise in temperatures.
As to increased temperatures being due to increased amounts of CO2 between the Sun and those thermometers, that is just complete fantasy, contrary to known physical laws.
However, Lord Kelvin was unaware of radiogenic heat, and insisted the Earth could not possibly be more than 40 million years old, and Professor John Tyndall was certain that the Sun’s heat was due to meteoric impact. Both very intelligent, and certain they were right.
However, the proponents of CO2 induced heating can provide no experimental results to show that current knowledge of physical laws needs revision.
Boo hoo for them – suckers!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqO2U4garFs
It was good.
-g,
If by global warming, you mean the fact that thermometers respond to increased heat by getting hotter, and if this increased hotness is observed over a period around the globe, then why not accept it as a fact? I would, and I do.–
Hotness is odd way to describe an Ice Age.
It seems 100 years ago global air temperature was around 14 C
and now it’s around 15 C, or global air temperature increased
over time period of about 100 years.
In our Age [maybe in all Ages] global warming is a more uniform global average temperature. And global warming is mostly warming the 60% of the world outside of the tropics. And tropical ocean has quite uniform temperature which is about room temperature.
And global warming is about increasing global water vapor. So if deserts in tropical zone get wetter, that also related to global warming when you in an Ice Age. An Ice Age is globally dry and has deserts [1/3 of our total land is deserts] and has extreme daily hot and cold temperatures.
Or tropical deserts get more uniform temperature when wetter, or making deserts wet, cause global warming, but it does make deserts, hotter- quite the opposite. It certainly make nighttime air temperature warmer, and tropical desert which become green, will not have freak snowfalls. Or it’s tropical {non desert}.
If Humans green the Sahara Desert, that will cause global warming. And should also lower CO2 levels- or it’s seems like a good guess. But at minimum, more people would want to live in a greened Sahara Desert.
g,
When I used “hotness” I used it in the sense that thermometers are designed to measure “degrees of hotness”.
-90 C is a degree of hotness, as is 100 C. I hope you don’t mind if I quote the first reference that bobbed up –
“Temperature is the measure of hotness or coldness expressed in terms of any of several scales, including Fahrenheit and Celsius.”
I’ll stick with “hotness” myself, in relation to absolute zero. This circumvents idiots who say that a colder body can raise the temperature of a hotter one, although they usually express this absurd notion in such a way as to confuse the issue totally.
Apologies for butting in, but many people seem to confuse hotter thermometers due to human activities (AGW if you like) with some bizarre and magical “Greenhouse Effect”, which might just as validly have been called “The Gas Operated Electrical Rubber Guitar Effect”, apparently having about as much to do with the one as the other.
Certainly nothing to do with greenhouses, even according to its deluded users.
Earlie, EM wrote –
“Of course, I may be wrong. In which case education on how to interpret this graph would be welcome.”
Certainly. The graph is completely meaningless for determining either the temperatures reached on the Earth’s surface, or the rate at which the temperature of any specific point on that surface varies.
Hopefully, you were not trying to interpret the graph for that purpose. Maybe you could provide some details about what exactly you are attempting to do. The rest of your comment seems quite meaningless, if you are trying to relate it to anything useful.
Thank you for welcoming me for the education. I can provide more if you can tell me what areas you consider need improvement. My pleasure, of course.
“Certainly. The graph is completely meaningless for determining either the temperatures reached on the Earths surface, or the rate at which the temperature of any specific point on that surface varies.”
–and as low as 190 ppm.
https://i1.wp.com/powerline.wpengine.com/ed-assets/2014/12/vostok_temperature_co2.png —
It’s as low as 180 ppm.
It indicates how Holocene, arriving after lowest “measured” global CO2 levels, is different than spikes of past interglacial period.
And the steep rise from Antarctica extreme coldness.
And before cargo cult, this steep unexplainable rise was called “Global Warming” which thought by the father of global warming, to somehow caused but the trace gas, CO2. But as know, Co2 levels merely followed.
Now, was Antarctica 10 degree colder than it is now?
Or Antarctica can get pretty cold at modern times. Or would coldest air temperature be 10 C or colder than coldest recoded air temperature in Antarctica??
It seems hard to believe. But perhaps it colder in the summer?
If was huge amount polar sea surrounding Antarctica which didn’t close melting in the summer, that should make the summer colder.
Or one could walk from tip of south American to Antarctica?
That seems plausible.
And so this polar ice would provided insulation of vast amount ocean would have had a warming effect upon the entire ocean, or ocean not warming the land [Antarctica] as much. Of course one also have colder winter temps, also. But could have more of uniform cold air- or huge mass of more still air, rather howling winds. Or ocean could warm the air at say 500 km perimeter of the furthest extend of winter polar sea ice.
Willard the Fool made the following comment (in full) –
“You’re still talk about Mike Flynn as if he was not you, Flailing Mike.
You disown the greenhouse effect the same way:
Deny, diss, and duck.”
Wee Willy is definitely obsessed with Mike Flynn. I believe I know why, but I will let the dummy explain his goal himself, if he dares. Of course, if he does, he will not look like just a deranged fool, but an ineffectual and incompetent fool.
However, as to the greenhouse effect – there is none!
Thermometers react to heat. Increasing sunlight results in increasing temperature, remove the sunlight, (call it night), and the thermometer indicates a fall in temperature. Of course, climate nutters such as Mad Wee Willy reject reality, and don’t accept the scientific method.
You may have noticed that none of the climate cultists can actually specify where the “greenhouse effect” may be observed, measured, and documented for a very simple reason – it exists only the tortured imaginations of dimwits like Wee Willy Idiot.
But I’m sure Witless Wee Willy will keep talking about blankets, hats, sunshades, water levels,, and all the rest of the nonsense that cultists use to avoid addressing the reality that the “greenhouse effect” has less reality than that other mythical creature, the unicorn.
The slimy grub calling himself Willard is probably a moron, or suffering from severe mental retardation. Reality is forever beyond his grasp, and he will never be able to understand why.
Should anyone care?
Good morning, Mike Flynn. Compare and contrast:
[MIKE’S PUPPET] Arid tropical deserts cool really fast at night. Very little of the supposedly most important GHG, H2O.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-656506
[MIKE] And in the arid tropical deserts, that’s precisely what happens. In the absence of the most important GHG, H2O, the surface cools more quickly.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/#comment-221981
Do continue to deny, Mike. You’re very good at it!
Whacky Wee Willy,
I’ll copy whom I like, when I like, and there is precisely nothing you can do about it, is there? I generally attribute quotes from authors to them, as a matter of good form. Others, not so much. No complaints so far.
As to “arid tropical deserts”, do you agree with the facts as presented, or are you just whining about the fact that I respect facts (well not quite – someone corrected me and pointed out that certain arid deserts were actually sub-tropical, so I will change my wording in future)? Mike Flynn may do as he wishes. Tell him what to do, and see how you get on.
Morons such as you concentrate on ineffectual and pointless debating tactics and semantics, to avoid facing reality.
Again, do you agree that arid “hot” deserts heat up more quickly during the day, and cool more quickly at night – precisely because of the dearth of supposed GHGs in the atmosphere, or by magic?
You are a reality denying moron. Go away and play with yourself, if you wish.
Mike Flynn, Meticulous Facsimile – it goes beyond imitation:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/10/the-52-consensus/#comment-411560
And again:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/18/week-in-review-science-edition-35/#comment-772519
The “arid desert” meme is one of your favorite!
Long live, prosper, and do continue to feign ignorance.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Keep quoting Mike Flynn (or Mike Flynn Mike Flynn, if you prefer).
He seems to deal in facts. I see why you are obsessed with him. Are you trying to use your awesome mental powers to make him vanish?
Are you a moron?
[chuckles]
> He seems
He’s you, silly sock puppet!
Weepy Wee Willard,
As I said, moronic climate cultists do everything they can to avoid accepting reality. Please keep quoting Mike Flynn’s comments from this and other blogs. Presumably you have quite a collection, no doubt because Mike Flynn is a highly intelligent and knowledgeable chap.
I notice you link to judithcurry.com.
What pseudonym are you going to accuse me of using there?
You’re an ineffectual moron. You even keep quoting authorities that show just what a delusional retard you are. Have you ever thought of quoting an authority who supports your fantasy, or would others find your “authority” to be just as idiotic as you?
You appear to have problem with the observation of temperature extremes in places lacking GHGs. Is this because you are a climate cultist, or do you just not understand the physics involved?
Let me know, so I can laugh at your answer, you incompetent idiot.
You’re calling yourself Very Intelligent, Manic Mike, yet you fail to see that I quoted the handle you were using at Judy’s.
It’s “Mike Flynn.”
Witless Wee Willy,
I guess you fail to see that quoting Mike Flynn doesn’t stop me from quoting him too.
I’ll help you out –
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn – Marvellous Fellow.
There you go. I’ve doubled your quota, and saved you the work. Does that make you twice as ineffectual in achieving whatever unstated aim you are trying to achieve?
Maybe you could explain where the Greenhouse Effect (chortle) may be observed, measured, and documented, you reality denying retard!
No?
Carry on.
Marvelous Fiddler – you are not quoting Mike Flynn, you are quoting yourself!
Pray tell: how can cooler insulation further heat the inside of the house?
Wayward Wee Willy,
You moron, you wrote –
“. . . you are not quoting Mike Flynn, you are quoting yourself!”
I thought you think I am Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn?
So Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn is quoting Mike Flynn Mike Flynn?
Really?
Then you go on to be even more moronic –
“Pray tell: how can cooler insulation further heat the inside of the house?” Maybe you haven’t heard of heating devices – you know, those things that produce heat! Maybe you are confused about insulation used to keep heat out, keeping the house cooler. As in the tropics, where houses don’t have any need for internal heaters, and, until recently could only employ fans to circulate air, and insulation to keep cool.
You really are an ignorant moron, aren’t you? How are those physics lessons going?
Maybe you need to quote Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn.
See how helpful I am?
Mike, you say – “Maybe you are confused about insulation used to keep heat out, keeping the house cooler.”
That won’t do, for the same insulation used to keep the cold out is keeping the house warmer!
How does that fit with Dragon Crank Fysikz, Mike?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Mike Flynn Mike Flynn (and Wee Willy Idiot! of course),
(I’m helping Wee Willy Wanker with his Mike Flynn Mike Flynn obsession.)
You really need a new gibberish machine. There are no cold rays” you moron, and insulators heat nothing.
I really don’t know what a Dragon Crank is, although I suspect it to be another creation of your bizarre fantasy world. Did you invent such a silly term?
How is the search for the missing GHE going, dummy? Neither you nor anyone else can say where it might be observed, quantified or documented. Maybe you could call a meeting of the Association of Retarded Morons, and vote a GHE into existence!
What an idiot you are – blathering about everything else in the world except the mythical GHE in your obsessive desire to reject reality!
Earlier, Wee Willy Dumdum wrote –
“Still no refutation of the Greenhouse theory, Marvel of Ferociousness?
So sad, too bad.”
Given the fact that no “Greenhouse theory” exists, the statement is another example of Wee Willy’s complete detachment from reality.
I’ll support Wee Willy’s descent into fantasy – Mike Flynn Mike Flynn. It obviously has great meaning to an obvious retard like him, so I might as well humour the slimy little grub,
> no “Greenhouse theory” exists
Tell that to your fellow Dragon Cranks, Mike:
https://principia-scientific.com/refuting-the-greenhouse-gas-theory/
Wee Willy Idiot,
More references to your altered reality. Dragon Cranks? Never heard of such a thing, apart from your delusional ramblings.
Unfortunately, you still can’t provide a Greenhouse Theory, because it doesn’t exist. Providing links that nobody looks at is just moronic.
Suits you, though.
Carry on.
Too much play and no work makes Mike Flynn a dull sock puppet.
The warm pool theory {for short}:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMH_K8IF-1s&t=1238s
Linked from:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
It sort of falsiable, and so I would say it’s sort of a theory.
First step.
By several different methods you can infer that the ocean heat content is increasing by 3*10^21J/year.
What does your hypothesis project?
Ent, the polar ice caps emit over 130*10^21 J/year.
Kinda makes your imagined OHC increase look somewhat pathetic, huh?
Better start imagining better….
The operative word is increasing, Pup.
Seems you’re having a slow day.
“Ent, the polar ice caps emit over 130*10^21 J/year. ”
And they take up even more, which is why they are melting.
The important thing is not the gross totals, it is the imbalance importing extra energy which accumulates in the system.
Rather like the interest on your bank account.
In your imaginary world, do the oceans not lose energy?
Playing the Riddler again, Pup?
Wee Willy Wanker,
Got your Wee Willy gibberish machine working again, have you?
How are you this morning, Mike Flynn?
By several different methods you can infer that the ocean heat content is increasing by 3*10^21J/year.
mass of ocean: 1.4 x 10^21 kg
specific heat:
3850 J/(kg C)
times 1.4 = 5,390 * 10^21J is 1 C increase
5,390 / 3 = 1,796.66 years to increase by 1 C
1 C increase in ocean would be CAGW or wild climate change.
If ocean is increasing by 3*10^21J/year and continues to
do this for 500 years you would have the promise land of CAGW
within 500 years.
The promise land includes a greened Sahara Desert.
Within 50 year we could have low income housing in the ocean- the poorest people could live on the Beach and not worry about storms,
tsunami, or sea level rise.
And 1 million people living on Mars.
one way in this direction is for FAA to immediately allow one Starship test launch. And re-evaluate after getting more data,
in terms future launches of Starships.
SpaceX itself probably would want to re-evaluate it also for at least 1 month.
As far as ocean settlement, I copy and paste something related
to it:
gbaikie January 23, 2022, 7:34
“An example of spar buoy breakwater in terms of the outer perimeter breakwater:
30 meter tall 4-meter diameter cylinder, .001 meter thick = 376.9908 square meter, 0.3769908 cubic meters * 4500 kg: 1,696.4586 kg
Titanium density is 4500 kg per cubic meter
4 meter diameter disk. 12.56636 square * .002 meter thick = 0.02513272 cubic meters 4500 kg: 113.09724 kg x 2 = 226.19448 kg
Put disks at bottom with 6″ hole in middle and other 30 cm from the top, add 20 cm of sand on top of it, sand dry: 1785. wet: 2000 kg per cubic meter
Assume wet: 2000 times .2 = 400 kg
Hinges [sort of like door hinges}: 10 meter tall .3 meter wide with door hinge near top and near bottom and 1 either side 4 meter diameter pipe
Panels with hinges: 2 meter wide [or any width] with same hinges. And panels and hinges are .002 meter thick.
Per pipe, one panel: 10 times 2.3 meter: 23 square meter, .002 = 0.046 cubic meters * 4500 kg = 207 or say 210 kg
Area of 4 meters diameter: 12.56636 square meter
210 + 400 + 226.19448 kg + 1,696.4586 = 2,532.65308
Every 10 cm displaces: 1,256.36 kg, needs about 15 cm plus to make 1 meter above waterline: 1.15 meter of air at about 1.5 psig.
Will enclose 12.5 times 30 meter = 375 tons of water and some sand
Has about 2.5 tons of titanium if $5000 per ton: $12,500
Has length of about 6 meter or about 20 feet or 125 kg of metal per foot or 416.67 kg per meter.
$12500 / 6 = $2,083.33 or price about about $5000 per meter or 5 million dollars per km.
As rough guess of surfing area about twice as much in costs, or $10 million per km
Compare with length border wall, 302 miles or 486 km, is 4.86 billion dollars.
This just breaks up large waves, need secondary breakwater for local use. local is residential areas, airports, water treatment plant, electric powerplants, etc. But you would not need 300 miles of it and would probably be leaving large areas and large gaps for shipping lanes and other ocean use.
5 km length could be enough a town, airports, water treatment plant, electric powerplants. Or 50 million and 2 million for surfing area.
And if have around 5200 resident its $10,000 per resident. But term full capacity I was thinking about 8000 people.
And if government will sells to low income people this ocean areas as cheap a farmland area, then its lower low income housing.
Which is beach property, and near a city/town which is on land.
And one has parks, stores and etc, but though dont have be on the beach front.
And you can have fresh water lake/ponds . And could residental areas around lake rather than the
ocean type beach/dock. Lakes also could part of grass park area.
And would put powerplant within a freshwater lake.
But would have all this at ocean depth of least 100 feet of water, and more towards 100 meter could be better.
In 1000 or more meter of water, it make anchoring, significantly more expensive.
One could have many such smaller towns, but would keep them smaller towns so people can walk to places within the town.
But these residents should access to cars, but cars would be on land where they could be used. So have a ferry going to parking. But probably most would not have cars or less need of them as a general matter. One could small clinics but seems one should have fast emergency access to hospitals located on land in urban areas. Or have helicopter airport for emergency medical use which also can be used for search and rescue or maritime stuff.”
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2022/01/14/the-long-result-star-travel-and-exponential-trends/
Earlier, coturnix quoted and wrote (amongst other examples of silliness) –
“>> Or, indeed, why the hottest places on Earth have the least amounts of GHGs (in the form of H2O) in the atmosphere above them.
afaik it is a plain wrong, they do not. Although the topic is interesting indeed, i just don’t think you have enough cranial capacity to be able to discuss it productively”
Coturnix rejects reality, and just asserts that an atmosphere allowing more radiation to reach the ground by virtue of having less IR attenuating compounds such as gaseous H2O, is somehow “just plain wrong”.
Of course, he can’t actually say why observable fact, backed up by physics demonstrated by experiment more than 150 years ago, is “just plain wrong.”
Maybe he should convene an urgent meeting of the Society of Morons, and declare all inconvenient facts “just plain wrong”. For example, coturnix (and no doubt his fellow Morons would prefer that cooling really means the opposite – when needed to support their idiocy. Here’s an example –
“>> A reduced rate of cooling is still cooling.
not necessarily. I mean, what do you mean by ‘cooling’ to begin with? Is it (a) decreasing temperature with time, ot (b) the out-going heat flux?”
It doesn’t really matter. Reality doesn’t care what coturnix and his fellow Morons believe. I support reality.
Onwards and upwards!
Coturnix captured well the essence of your idiocy. Oh well, just keep trolling along..
Nate,
Presumably you also wish to abolish the inconvenient fact that you cannot say where this mythical greenhouse effect may be observed, measured and documented.
Are you also a member of the Society of Morons?
Mike,
Still waiting for your refutation of the Greenhouse theory.
Take your time.
Is that the theory where all photons are automatically absorbed?
That leads to ice cubes being able to boil water.
That ain’t science.
Show me, Pup.
Alternatively, do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Witless Wee Willy,
This would be the non-existent Greenhouse Theory would it?
Here’s a hint. When you go looking for it, it is most likely hiding behind Kevin Trenberth’s missing heat (which he called a travesty), so look for a travesty, and you should succeed.
Notable travestys include Michael Mann (faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat) claiming to have won a Nobel Prize, and Gavin Schmidt pretending to be a scientist. Using the words climate and scientist in the same sentence is itself a travesty, so you might look there, as well.
Let me know how you get on, moron.
Wee Willy Moron,
You wrote –
“Show me, Pup.” Are you insane? Demanding that others show you how to heat water with the radiation from ice cubes?
Idiots who believe that would believe anything – that a magical greenhouse (or banana, it’s just as nonsensical) effect exists – which can cause heating through cooling!
What? You can’t find anyone from the Society of Morons who can do the impossible, so you demand a normal, rational person to perform miracles at your behest?
Why should he? Are you powerful, wise, and respected?
Of course not – you are powerless, moronic and reviled.
Carry on.
Why the two responses, Mike Flynn – problems expressing yourself?
Grab some coffee, then come back.
“Is that the theory where all photons are automatically absorbed?
That leads to ice cubes being able to boil water.
That ain’t science”
No it sure aint. And who said it is?
@clint r
>>Is that the theory where all photons are automatically A-WORD?
If they fall upon an ideal blackbody they will. In reality the ideal black bodies don’t exist, but some objects can approach them quite closely.
Now my understanding of this topic is superficial at best (still way better than yours 😉 so I’d ask somebody with a better understanding of the topic to correct me if I produce raving nonsense, but when we’re descending down to the level of individual photons… blackbodies at that level of approximation don’t exist. Indeed the blackbody is a ‘bulk phenomenon’ and can only exist in the macroscopic world. When a photon falls onto some substance (I see it as easier to imagine in the case of a gas), it continues to travel through it until it encounters an atom (or other entity, in the case of a condensed matter) that can have it A-WORD by virtue of having the transition between the two different allowed energy levels with the energy of the transition matching that of the incident photon, AND at the same time being in the lower energy level. Thus, the photon is NOT ‘automatically A-WORD’, but the rate of A-WORD must depend on the temperature of the substance. Indeed, as the temperature of the substance increases, the population of the upper energy levels of the relevant transitions increase relative to the lower levels, with ratios depending on exp(-hv/kT) or something. If T=inf, then all the atoms would spread evenly across all the energy levels and then the sample would become 100% translucent; but that never happens as infinite temperature is just a mathematical artifact; in reality the temperature is always finite and the population in (close to) thermal equilibrium are always such that there are more entities at the lower energy levels than at the higher energy levels thus photons will always get A-WORD, eventually – unless they are reflected beforehand. Of course, the lower the hv is compared to kT the more ‘translucent’ the substance should become for a low-energy photons; so it seems to me. Thus the ‘cold’ photons, not in the sense of being emitted by cold bodies but in the sense of having low energy will have lower chances of being A-WORD, still they will get A-WORD eventually in a sample thick enough. In practice, this phenomenon only significant for photons much ‘colder’ than the irradiated sample’s characteristic kT, and this small detail neither invalidates the idea if blackbody not does it contradicts the existence and action of the GHE.
>>where this mythical greenhouse effect may be observed, measured and documented.
lol, what would you consider an observation of the GHE? Is the fact that when looking up at the cleare skye, you see a considerable flood of the lw-Ir radiation overall corresponding to a finite temperature that is much higher than the -270C expected in the case that GHE do’t exist, not a good observation of the said effect? Why not?
>>Coturnix rejects reality, and just asserts that an atmosphere allowing more radiation to reach the ground by virtue of having less IR attenuating compounds such as gaseous H2O, is somehow just plain wrong.
oh lol, rufing serious? I thought we were talking about the GHGE, this is quite irrelevant. I would not assert that the h2o attenuation of the near-IR solar input is negligible, but it is probably rather irrelevant, and the hot deserts are hot bot because if it. In fact many hot deserts are not that sunny, featuring both quite a dusty atmosphere and sometimes clouds.
>>It doesnt really matter.
I matters because people use words carelessly when they use them colloquially. In the everyday speech ‘cooling’ as well as ‘warming’ could mean the seemingly contradictory things. Which is why ultimately talking about such a refined effects as the GHE in the rude and crude terms suh as ‘cooling’ and ‘warming’ is pointless. It just generates floods of nonsense, which is 99.9999999999….% of all the dragonslayer comments are
We have discovered the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states: Planets mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
The discovery has explained the origin of the formerly observed the planets average surface temperatures comparison discrepancies.
Earth on average is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon and because Earths surface is covered with water.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
And has been thoroughly debunked!
No, Nate, it is not at all debunked. No scientist argued with that!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You mean it got published in a science journal where scientists could judge its worth?
Nope.
It will do you no good to keep ignoring the glaring flaws and inconsistency with standard laws physics, that the scientists or engineers among us here have pointed out.
“the glaring flaws and inconsistency with standard laws physics”
Please, show me one flaw and inconsistency.
https://www.cristos-vournas
Well, one Christos’ BIG flaw is not including the earthen atm. IR opacity/emissivity in the surface 1LOT eqn.
It is not relevant, since earth has a very thin atmosphere.
But you also still refuse to read my site’s thoroughly argumentated equations.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yeah, what is it? The Earth’s imaginary surface temperature that’s 255K because we say it is.
Surface 1LOT equation. What is that?
Stephen, thanks for asking. You & Christos can find 1LOT applied to our atm. in a first course atm. radiation text used in college meteorology curriculum. You will need the pre-req.s already accomplished to understand the course material.
Christos uses a part of the basic surface 1LOT eqn. but leaves out an important part.
Ball4, since you have the pre-reg.s already accomplished, there is something not in the textbooks yet, the “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon”.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The rotation of a planet is well covered in text books Christos, that there is nighttime and daytime does not escape their attention.
Dr. Spencer has already noted the daytime and nighttime planet surface rotational warming phenonmena has an effect on avg. temperature:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/
Ball4
“The rotation of a planet is well covered in text books Christos, that there is nighttime and daytime does not escape their attention.
Dr. Spencer has already noted the daytime and nighttime planet surface rotational warming phenonmena has an effect on avg. temperature:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/ ”
One doesn’t have to study physics to understand there is nighttime and daytime. Is that what your textbooks saying? Do they note there is not solar irradiance at nighttime hours?
Ball4, please read, at least, Dr. Spencer’s work…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ball4, please, also read my work.
One has to study modern physics to understand the cause of nighttime and daytime since the ancients had it wrong.
There is also daytime and nighttime on our moon indicating our moon is rotating on its own axis wrt sun so also has a planet surface rotational warming phenomenon per Dr. Spencer’s work.
Yet Christos claims our moon “does not rotate” (see link) and still Christos applies the Christos’ planet surface rotational warming phenomenon factor (unlike Dr. Spencer’s proper work) to our moon.
Why apply the rotational warming factor to our moon that Christos claims “does not rotate”?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1116746
Ball4
“Why apply the rotational warming factor to our moon that Christos claims “does not rotate”?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1116746”
It is a rhetorical question, isn’t it?
Since you know the definition of axial sidereal rotation?
Ball4
“One has to study modern physics to understand the cause of nighttime and daytime since the ancients had it wrong.
There is also daytime and nighttime on our moon indicating our moon is rotating on its own axis wrt sun so also has a planet surface rotational warming phenomenon per Dr. Spencer’s work.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“It is a rhetorical question, isnt it?”
No. Question was asked to get an answer. The correct answer shows Christos’ work is flawed.
It is not relevant, since earth has a very thin atmosphere.
But you also still refuse to read my sites thoroughly argumentated equations.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, Earth’s atm. is not optically thin.
Although N2 and O2 are the numerically dominant atmospheric gases, they are not radiatively dominant. The contribution to earthen emissivity (over the Planck spectrum for typical terrestrial temperatures) of Earth’s atmosphere is mostly from comparatively small amounts of certain infrared-active gases.
I know Christos’ blog is flawed & a waste of time because of Christos’ comments here totally ignoring the downward radiation from the total mass of Earth’s atmosphere of about 5.5 quadrillion tons since Christos’ sets such radiation to zero in the 1LOT.
Ball4
“I know Christos’ blog is flawed & a waste of time…”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
These things have been shown to you many times. You simply ignore the facts and make up your own.
SB law violated.
No deep trenches in the spectrum emitted by the Earth’s surface at the CO2 abs*orp*tion bands. You simply made that up!
Arbitrary unphysical parameters.
SB law is not violated by me.
Planets do not emit as blackbody.
Parameters used are all well and thoroughly explained.
What I am doing is to inform the new generations of scientists and also I make efforts convincing the old generations of scientists.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nate
“No deep trenches in the spectrum emitted by the Earths surface at the CO2 abs*orp*tion bands. You simply made that up!”
Would you like to discuss Earth’s surface emission curve?
Please answer the following questions:
1. How this graph been drawn?
2.Is it a single time measurement?
3. Is it a sum of various measurements?
4. What latitudes and what diurnal cycle hours the measurements been done?
5. Should a real body at T>0 K which emits J = εσT^4 to necessarily have the blackbody’s wavelengths emission distribution curve?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Please explain how any of those could possibly cause deep trenches in the emitted spectrum at the CO2 wavelengths, without atmospheric CO2.
Swenson.
You can stop now.
Dr Spencer no longer makes any money from your comments.
Three bad people, who have devoted their entire lives to lying on the internet about climate change, have been banned from Ed Berry’s blog I see.
That’s the fourth denialist site to ban me.
Please thank Dr Berry on my behalf for the extra street cred it gives me among those warning of AGW.
Nate and Tom Dayton too.
It is always much easier to defend dubious science in an echo chamber where no dissenting voices are allowed.
It’s always much easier for a blog to function without professional sophists deliberately manipulating and distorting everything.
"I learned the hard way that your blog is infested with ‘tag teams’ of anonymous, gaslighting trolls who try to slither away when shown to be wrong and who get abusive when asked to apologise for smears and falsehoods.
I first came across the despicable ‘Entropic Man’ on ‘Tallbloke’s Talkshop’. Entropic Man specialises in making up stuff then complaining he is being assailed by “wordy diatribe” when clear refutation of his tripe is provided.
Tallbloke says of ‘Entropic Man’ “Richard, don’t worry, entropic is one of those retired science teachers who :- 1) Thinks he’s clever at bamboozling curious students who ask awkward questions
2) Is way out of his depth with anything which wasn’t spoon fed to him in a syllabus.”
If that is so then I sympathise with any students he had because logic and reason are way beyond the capabilities of the pathetic individual who posts as “Entropic Man’.
I suffered from trying to respond to that creature with reason and respect.
I do not know about ‘Nate’ but he seems to be similar to ‘Entropic Man’ in that he seeks a feeling of self-worth by making meaningless attacks of the works of those whom he perceives as being more capable than himself. Again, rationality is not his strength as is demonstrated by his comments to you.
As for Tom Dayton, he seems to be using a name instead of hiding behind a pseudonym. I could be wrong about that because he makes ridiculous assertions. For example, Dayton claims atmospheric CO2 molecules behave differently in the air if they were emitted (a) from an anthropogenic source or (b) from a “natural” source: if he had more than two brain cells which could work together then he would know he must be wrong about that because a molecule does not know from whence it was emitted.
Ed, these gaslighting trolls are trying to consume your time by posting nonsense. Please stop treating them with respect. Swat them and move on to dealing with comments from constructive posters.
In other words, walk away when tempted to wrestle with a pig: you can’t win, you get dirty, and the pig likes it.
Richard"
DREMT
You were the one who sent Nate and I to Dr Berry’s site to wrestle with the pig.
Notice the irony.
This post is where Dr Spencer complains that Google is restricting his freedom of speech.
Yet DREMT is pleased that Dr Berry has restricted our freedom of speech.
Another lie. DREMT didn’t send you, I did.
Dr. Berry’s not going to allow propaganda. If you want to argue science or math, no problem. Nate and Eman won’t do that. Those two are the masters of obfuscation and propaganda.
Ent is the one that claims passenger jets fly backwards, to defend his Moon beliefs.
Among other perversions of reality.
"Yet DREMT is pleased that Dr Berry has restricted our freedom of speech."
Incorrect.
Stephen, DREMT
“Another lie. DREMT didnt send you, I did. ”
I bet your pardon. It was not Richard who sent Nate and I to wrestle with a pig. It was Stephen Paul Anderson.
Richard, I should have recognised you from Tallbloke’s. I realised when I saw your name among those acknowledged in Berry’s paper.
You realize I’m not Richard, right? I just quoted his comment from Dr Berry’s site. That’s what the quotation marks were for.
“You realize Im not Richard, right? ”
As you wish
What do you mean, "as you wish"?
“Its always much easier for a blog to function without professional sophists deliberately manipulating and distorting everything.”
Translation:
It’s always much easier to sell patent-medicine when you don’t have anyone showing folks that it really doesnt work, and in fact is a fraud.
Meanwhile, DREMT has already admitted that he is just trolling and gas-lighting when he takes Stephen and Berry’s side on this issue he ‘couldn’t give a shit’ about.
Did Nathan Israeloff of Northeastern University just accuse Dr Ed Berry of being a fraud!?
Non sequitur.
Let’s see…I wrote:
“Its always much easier for a blog to function without professional sophists deliberately manipulating and distorting everything.”
And I wrote that about Dr Ed Berry’s blog.
Nathan Israeloff of Northeastern University wrote:
"Translation: It’s always much easier to sell patent-medicine when you don’t have anyone showing folks that it really doesnt work, and in fact is a fraud."
I’m not sure of any way to read that which doesn’t suggest Nathan Israeloff of Northeastern University implied Dr Berry is a fraud, or at the very least that his work is fraudulent.
‘Fraud’ is not really applicable to him, but his ‘The Physics Model’ is bad science that ignores lots of facts, and is sold to the masses as the easy remedy for human caused climate change:
Humans didnt cause it!
I pointed out to Berry where he was uninformed about certain crucial facts. I showed him papers. He obfuscated.
In real science, you have to deal with scientific criticism. On a blog you can ban all except your adoring fans.
Ultimately he had to shut-down our obviously science-based discussion with a lie:
‘they make irrational claims and have no intention to discuss science”
Where specifically do you think I ‘deliberately manipulating and distorting everything’ with Berry?
Nathan Israeloff of Northeastern University surely knows by now that I don’t directly respond to him, so why does he ask questions of someone who is not in a position to answer them? Is it because, when he doesn’t get an answer, he can make it look as though I don’t have an answer? I would love to respond to him on so many issues, and to counter all the false accusations, misrepresentations and insults he has thrown my way, but I made a decision not to directly respond to him a couple of years ago, and have to abide by that.
Now, here’s where he will try to say that I usually "find a way to respond to him without directly responding to him", and that "if I had an answer I would find a way to answer him, so obviously DREMT has no answer". That seems to be one of his latest tricks. More manipulation from the master manipulator.
The problem for Nathan Israeloff of Northeastern University is, he can’t just go around calling Dr Ed Berry a fraud (and now a liar!) and expect to get away with it.
Nobody cares about my name, rank, employer, serial number, or shoe size. And I have not been inclined to try to use my credentials to bludgeon people.
But as usual, DREMT makes it all trolling, now elevated to threatening, the messenger, while ignoring the message.
“he can’t just go around calling Dr Ed Berry a fraud (and now a liar!)”
Nope, didnt call him a fraud, as you clearly see.
I did say his science is ‘bad science that ignores lots of facts’ which is my opinion of his work.
If you think ‘I can’t just go around’ giving my negative opinion of another scientist’s work, then you are quite mistaken. That is how science works, my friend.
Then after a discussion on his blog that was ALL ABOUT SCIENCE, he said I
“make irrational claims and have no intention to discuss science”.
Apparently DREMT thinks its perfectly ok for Dr. Berry to ‘go around’ saying such obviously untrue things about me.
Hilarious.
Nathan Israeloff of Northeastern University has appealed to his own authority as a physicist a great number of times, whilst still trying to remain anonymous! But, Nathan Israeloff of Northeastern University needs to realize that he is not anonymous, having "accidentally" written his name in full a few times on the blog, which you can easily find with a search on "site:drroyspencer.com nate israeloff" or "nathan israeloff".
Nathan Israeloff of Northeastern University ought to be able to have a discussion about Dr Berry’s work on a website without having to resort to potentially libelous comments! But, with these people being what they are, you’re only ever one step away from libel in anything they say. They tend to play the man and not the ball wherever possible. That’s my point.
Let’s see what spin Nathan Israeloff of Northeastern University will now try to put on this comment.
No science DREMT? Just more pointless trolling while ‘not talking’ to me?
Predictable spin from Nathan Israeloff of Northeastern University. Tries to make it about me rather than dealing with any criticism of his own actions. Tries to pretend I am talking to him, and not about him. Taking a look at his comments about his discussion with Dr Berry:
“It is very surprising to me that he can claim to be overturning the carbon-cycle paradigm, while being ignorant of key features of the paradigm!”
Throughout this comment Nathan Israeloff of Northeastern University tries to imply that Dr Berry is ignorant of the Revelle factor. This appears to be for the purposes of getting others to dismiss Dr Berry as being a legitimate source for a challenge to the “current paradigm”. “Sorry Stephen, your emperor has no clothes”, as he puts it. This is despite the total lack of evidence that Dr Berry is ignorant of the Revelle factor, and it appears to be an attack on Dr Berry himself, rather than his arguments.
In the next comment, Nathan Israeloff of Northeastern University tries to imply that Dr Berry has lost sight of the scientific method altogether. This appears to be another attack on Dr Berry himself, rather than his arguments. He is insinuating throughout that Dr Berry relies only on his model, to the extent of ignoring observations, when in fact Dr Berry had already pointed out in his blog that an independent group of researchers (Skrable et al) had shown results that confirmed his calculations.
I await more spin…
Yet another misguided attempt to distract from the facts here, by desperately trying to undermine the messenger.
A dude named Nate who claims to be a physicist criticized the very bad science of Berry, another physicist, who claims to have overturned the carbon cycle paradigm, and tries to sell it as a cure-all for human caused climate change.
But DREMT discovers the hidden truth. The dude is named Nate and is a physicist!
Weak.
Nathan Israeloff of Northeastern University tries to spin his way out by falsely accusing me of doing what he himself is doing, attacking the person rather than the arguments.
“falsely accusing me”
It is nakedly obvious.
Still playing the victim card?
They are what they are…
Eman,
Dr. Berry doesn’t ban anyone who disagrees. In cases where someone makes good points, he takes their advice and has changed much of his papers. He bans contemptuous idiots.
So here is Eman’s same dumb argument and he used it with Dr. Berry:
His piggy bank analogy.
Eman doesn’t realize his piggy bank analogy is an example of the Bern Model. Natural carbon flows through the atmosphere but human carbon stays in the atmosphere. Eman and his piggy bank.
Dr. Berry should have asked Eman what happened to IPCC’s surface ocean carbon in the human carbon cycle. Crickets.
Already answered, Stephen.
Your turn to make the sammich.
Oh, yeah. You falsified the IPCC carbon cycle. So, don’t understand questioning Berry’s paper? He falsified it too.
Could you imagine Eman hosting his own Climate blog and comments page? No real science would be allowed. You’re banned! And, you’re banned! You too!
Only contrived piggy bank scenarios. LOL. Did you find that piggy bank in a peat bog?
"Please thank Dr Berry on my behalf for the extra street cred it gives me…"
I wonder why getting banned from Dr Berry’s site for misrepresentation and distortion is seen as such a good thing for the Paid Liars, and yet if the Honest Skeptics are banned from Dr Spencer’s site for telling the truth about the GHE, they’re demonized?
“Thats the fourth denialist site to ban me.”
Ha!
Apparently ‘tag-teaming’ with EM will get you banned!
Berry’s ban justification:
“You are correct. Nate, Entropic Man, and Tom Dayton make irrational claims and have no intention to discuss science.
Therefore, I have blocked Nate, Entropic Man, and Tom Dayton from making further comments, but their comments will remain so others can read them.”
Ha! I guess he’s leaving it up to Stephen to make the last stand here at Roy’s.
“For his part, Nate does not understand either my physics model or models in general. He claims I should add a Revelle effect to my model, but he cannot provide a flow definition or a quantification of the Revelle effect. And his last comment argues about Ballantynes semantics.”
Yes indeed, he should incorporate the Revelle effect into his model. I informed him on its discovery 60 y ago, and that is has been shown to be necessary, and included in models ever since. He offered no scientific rationale to remove it.
In fact he seemed very confused about the basic Revelle facts, and whether or not it was already included in his model or not.
He completely misunderstands the Ballantyne paper, which never even mentions the Revelle effect, and is discussing ‘feedbacks’ of climate change on the carbon cycle, as somehow proving that
“there is no observable evidence of the Revelle effect.”
As I noted: “You are confusing acceleration and velocity.”, which he never rebutted.
Theis makes no sense, given that the paper’s conclusion that about 45 % of human emissions have remained in the atmosphere, completely disagrees with Berry’s latest claim that only 15 % remains.
“Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere, of which about 55 per cent has moved into the land and oceans.”
It seems his removal of the Revelle effect from his model (relative to previous models) is based purely on his ignorance of it.
It is very surprising to me that he can claim to be overturning the carbon-cycle paradigm, while being ignorant of key features of the paradigm!
Then, laughably, after this discussion of the central science issues, he concludes that I “have no intention to discuss science.”
Sorry Stephen, your emperor has no clothes.
More from the highlight reel.
Berry “But the only way to check those rumors is to do calculations like my physics model does using IPCCs data.”
Nate: ‘A model is not an experiment, not data, not an observation. Only those can test a hypothesis.’
Berry “My Figure 16 shows how fast a pulse of carbon in the atmosphere flows to the other reservoirs. It is mostly done in 20 years.”
Nate: ‘No it doesnt! It only shows what your model produces.’
Berry “So, I dont accept any of the claims of ‘well established’ that it takes several hundred years to approach equilibrium in IPCCs carbon cycle.”
Nate: “So you have more faith in a model than in observations? That is back-assward!”
Berry: “First, please tell me your educational background and experience. There is obviously a disconnect between your comments and physics and engineering.
First, you do not understand that my physics model is entirely different than, say, climate models. My physics model simply calculates how human emissions change the carbon cycle based upon IPCCs own data.
So, your claim that my model is not trustworthy shows you are incompetent in this area.”
I pointed out that I’m also a physicist.
The problem is that his model makes ASSUMPTIONS, like Revelle factor should not be in it! These assumptions could be wrong! In fact they are wrong.
He is so high on his own supply that he has forgotten this basic tenet of the scientific method:
A ‘model’ cannot replace observations.
When bad people get banned for understandable reasons, it’s still not good for freedom of speech. Even though we all here know that these professional sophists don’t debate in good faith, that they’re agenda-driven sociopaths who would happily push their opponent to suicide if only it led to the appearance that they had "won an argument"…I still think it’s better if these dangerous monsters are allowed to continue to disgrace themselves at the various websites. They shouldn’t be banned. People need to see what these soulless abominations of human filth are capable of. They need to know what it’s all about.
” human filth”
“professional sophists”
“agenda-driven sociopaths”
“dangerous monsters”
“happily push their opponent to suicide”
Yes, DREMT believes he is just a
“a decent, honest human being, who just happens to disagree with you on some trivial matters.”
^^ That sort of manipulation is what they’re all about ^^
As to the suicide comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-391327
See for yourselves…they stop at nothing.
Arguments get heated. But that was uncalled for, over the top.
But is it really fair to think that many of your opponents, who ‘just happen to disagree with you on some trivial matters”, are all those things you stated above?
They stop at nothing. When the abuse is getting rained down on you from all sides for being correct about a trivial issue…up they’ll pop. The same online sociopathic personalities, taking their chance to add insult to injury. Why should I go easy on them when they certainly won’t extend to me the same courtesy!?
Sure, maybe some of them are just misguided, perhaps underneath it all they may even have good intentions. But I’m afraid the ends don’t justify the means. In fact, if the means are this bad, the ends can’t actually be any good in the first place.
Maybe some of them don’t even realize they’re constantly misrepresenting, falsely accusing, and insulting. Maybe their belief system is so strongly engrained in them that they can no longer even correctly read what their opponents are saying. They see the words, but just read the straw man they’re prepared to attack.
Who can explain their desire to falsely summarize and put spin on arguments after they’ve already been had, online, in a permanent record that anybody can see and check for themselves anyway? Just bizarre.
Well, they are what they are, as their comments demonstrate.
Seriously, DREMT, you appear to have lost it. Take a break from all your online enemies. Get some rest and perspective.
They are what they are, as their comments demonstrate.
EM,
I see that you reached another Climateball level today. Well played! You might wish to consider the role of abuse in a sammich request.
As you may already have noticed, it helps our Dragon Cranks in shifting the burden of proof. Consider:
(1) Gimme a sammich.
(2) Gimme a sammich, you moron.
(3) I see you’re not giving me a sammich, moron.
(4) What are you afraid of, moron?
(5) Are you so dumb as being unable to make me a sammich?
(6) You worthless, dumb, moron – can’t even make me a sammich.
And so on and so forth.
This litany of insults has one main exploit – to make you feel attacked. This baits you into producing the damn sammich by switching the focus on your sense of worth. You probly know that the circle of jerks you are facing won’t stop attacking you even if you produced the sammich.
Yet I bet you’re still tempted. And sometimes it’s OK to play as if you “fell” into these silly baits and switches. But never forget: this isn’t your sammich.
And this is how abuses help sammich requests hide a shift in the burden of proof.
Enjoy your evening.
Dud, that’s quite a rant about your “sammich”. But, you forgot your “puppet dance”.
As always, you’ve got NOTHING, except your juvenile nonsense. At least Norman tries to fake a knowledge of science in his rants. Maybe when you graduate to a more advanced keyboard class?
Nobody died and made you King of Reality, Pup.
She’s the ultimate Riddler, so you ain’t it.
Wonky Wee Willard, you wrote –
.Nobody died and made you King of Reality, Pup.”
How would you know that, moron?
Mind reading again? Now you know everything because you can read the mind of God (plus more than seven billion other people)?
Maybe you think you are better than you are.
Wrong again, young’un.
Reality doesn’t have a “king”. Reality IS “king”.
And you’re an incompetent, uneducated, juvenile, worthless troll, because you deny reality.
Glad to help.
Mike Flynn, Mascarpone Flammekuche, you ask –
“How would you know that”
It’s called Realism:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/
You said you were a realist, but then you say lots of phony things under your silly sock puppet!
> Reality doesn’t have a “king”.
Then why are you speaking for it as it was your divine right, Pup?
Reality is for all that partake of it, you incompetent, uneducated, juvenile, worthless troll.
> Reality is for all that partake of it,
It indeed is, angery diggity Pup. Yet here’s you:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1138761
That you’re directly plugged into REALITY might explain why your comments bypass any kind of scientific argument.
Keep linking to my comments, Dud.
Then maybe you can learn something, and won’t be such an incompetent, uneducated, juvenile, worthless troll.
(You shouldn’t link to your hundreds of “puppet dance” comments however.)
Nay not worry, angery, silly Pup – I’m only documenting your tricks. Here’s another one I like:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1139293
It begs a rather mundane question: what simple physics?
You boast and you goad and you huff and you puff, but when’s the time to show your hand, you ALWAYS run away.
What a Brave Sir Pup that makes you!
Yes, keep linking to my comments, Dud.
Then maybe you can learn something, and won’t be such an incompetent, uneducated, juvenile, worthless troll.
(You shouldn’t link to your hundreds of “puppet dance” comments however.)
Will do, angery bubbly Pup – documenting your tricks helps me move my ball forward while you spit and pout and lulz and dodge. No substance, no style, only some kind of dedication to entertain us.
In a way we should feel lucky. You *could* have been a more competent fraud.
Dud, if you don’t link to my comments, you won’t have any substance. It will be obvious you have NOTHING, and are only interested in having the last word like an incompetent, uneducated, juvenile, worthless troll.
More generally, Pup, if I don’t provide any evidence for what I say, I would not substantiate the point I’m making. Then I might act as insubstantially as you do.
I’d rather not.
See Dud, your comment is inconsequential. You should have linked to one of my comments so you would have something useful. Otherwise, you’ve got NOTHING.
As usual, I must break this off, as you will be here all day since you have NOTHING going in your life. Someone has to be the adult in the room.
> inconsequential
Here’s what I said, Pup:
See how quoting works?
So much fun!
Willard
A hit! A palpable hit!
I don’t think I’ve ever triggered such a vitriolic response from any denialists.
For some reason Nate and I really got under their skins on this one.
EM,
What are you babbling about?
A hit? Are you sure you didn’t hit yourself in the head with your stupid stick?
You are as witless as Wee Willy Wanker – you and your fellow morons seem to believe in “hits” and that “getting under peoples’ skins’ will somehow turn your fantasies into facts.
No wonder scientists enjoy a good snigger at your pretensions.
Go away and hit somebody else. Get under their skin. Maybe you can find the Greenhouse Effect while you’re there!
Moron.
Mike Flynn, Masked Fatuousness.
Weary Wee Willy,
What, no Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn?
Is your magic incantation losing its power?
Morons need magic, because they reject reality.
Keep it up, moron.
“Mike Flynn, Masked Fatuousness.”
Wee Willy Moron,
Whatever happened to your usual Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn?
Achieved nothing, except making you look like a moronic reality denier?
Gee. What a pity!
Carry on. Maybe you could try to get under someone’s skin, do you thinK
Right here, Mike –
“Mike Flynn, Masked Fatuousness.”
You might have missed it.
Wayward Wee Willy,
You moron.
That’s not Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn, is it?
Can’t you read, numbskull?
You have no chance at all of finding the non-existent Greenhouse Theory, have you?
> That’s not
Of course it is, Mike.
Are you going to play dumb about that too?
Good!
You’re a gift that keeps on giving!
Ent, you must have missed the discussion about reality, above.
Reality squashes all your nonsense, like passenger jets flying backwards.
Of course, you’ve still got your imaginations….
Have you found a way to additive groups yet, Pup?
> I don’t think I’ve ever triggered such a vitriolic response from any denialists.
Ah stahp, or you’ll cause Mike Flynn much chagrin.
Weeping Wee Willy,
What happened to your Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn?
Has your gibberish machine malfunctioned? Have you checked the vitriolic response trigger?
Moron.
[sniggering]
“Ah stahp, or youll cause Mike Flynn much chagrin.”
Methinks you got too much coffee in a short while, Mike.
Witless Wee Willy,
You (or your gibberish generator) wrote –
“”Ah stahp, or youll cause Mike Flynn much chagrin.”
Methinks you got too much coffee in a short while, Mike.”
With a bit of work, you could achieve total diversionary obscure incomprehensibility!
C’mon, Wee Willy, you can do ti if you try! It will give you a good excuse not to produce your non-existent Greenhouse Theory, won’t it? That way, who could possibly disprove something that doesn’t actually exist? Clever, clever – not.
Carry on.
[derisive chortling]
Can you act any dumber, Mike?
I’m sure you can!
Whinnying Wee Willy,
I’ll help you out, moron –
Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn. Enough for you? Pointless enough? Or do you think you don’t need any reason to act like a moron?
How’s your quest for the non-existent Greenhouse Theory that you want refuted, going?
Maybe you could just avoid reality, and make some other witless comments.
How hard can it be, dummy?
Wait, Mike – are you really denying the theory that Sky Dragon Cranks have spent decades trying to defeat to no avail?
You can’t be that dumb! Wait. Perhaps you are!
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Wandering Wee Willy,
This would be the Greenhouse Theory that nobody would try to refute because it doesn’t exist?
What are Sky Dragon Cranks? These would be the nutters who believe that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, would they?
Trot out your Greenhouse Theory, dimwit.
Only joking, you haven’t got one, have you?
Carry on with your nonsense.
> This would be the Greenhouse Theory that nobody would try to refute
Almost nobody, Mike.
Sky Dragon Cranks have a tiny tiny tiny bench!
Very tiny.
Aw diddums!
Wee Willy Woebegone,
You wrote –
“> This would be the Greenhouse Theory that nobody would try to refute
Almost nobody, Mike.
Sky Dragon Cranks have a tiny tiny tiny bench!
Very tiny.
Aw diddums!”
Managed to get your gibberish generator almost functioning, have you?
Mike, Mike, you can’t be that dumb –
The idiom “a team has no bench” refers to the lack depth of a team. When I say that Sky Dragon Cranks have no bench I am expressing the idea that your team has more than a minority viewpoint. It’s a fringe belief. You got to be a crank to seriously consider it.
That’s just the way it is.
So sad, too bad.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote” . . . the lack depth of a team.” What is a “lack depth”? Is it another stupid Americanism? You bang on about Sky Dragon Cranks, a term apparently plucked out of your bizarre fantasy, which I presume is not used by anyone else in the world!
I don’t belong to any team, so you are obviously relying on the contents of your fantasy.
However, go ahead and join as many teams with as many benches as you like. Adopt as many or as few viewpoints as you desire. Nothing to do with me, is it?
Nothing you do, and no consensus of any type, will make the slightest difference to any physical law at all. Your fantasy obviously suits you, but I have no desire to be part of it. You can no doubt find willing participants at your local Society of Morons, although they may be out carrying “Stop Climate Change” placards.
Moron.
Congratulations, Mike, you said absolutely nothing!
If I spent more than ten years on a blog to deny the Greenhouse effect, I’d try to get up to speed. So pray tell – did you ever search for the Greenhouse theory somewhere except in Tyndall?
Alternatively, you could always testify that you’re really really really interested in the science you never discuss!
Cheers.
Here is one for you three stooges:
Climate Change causes Volcanoes. Who knew?
We really can’t fix the stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98iCqj5XeXI
We sure can’t, Kennui:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1137194
It’s still fun!
Wonky Wee Willy,
Climate is the statistics of past weather. It controls nothing. It is a number, and you are a moron.
I suppose in your fantasy, you believe you can predict the future?
> Climate is the statistics of past weather.
You got that right, Mike. If you don’t forget the “typically averaged over a period of 30 years” part, you simply repeated the first sentence of the Wiki entry for “Climate.”
Why do you keep repeating this as if it was some kind of Dragon Crank trump card?
Wavery Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“You got that right, Mike. If you don’t forget the “typically averaged over a period of 30 years” part, you simply repeated the first sentence of the Wiki entry for “Climate.””
If a bicycle had three wheels it would be a tricycle. You are also a moron. Have you abandoned your silly Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn fantasy? I don’t blame you – it didn’t achieve anything at all, except to make you look look like a deranged obsessive compulsive object of contempt.
Wikipedia doesn’t say what I wrote – to help others to understand your moronic attempt at diversion whilst rejecting reality, here is what the first sentence says –
“Climate is the long-term pattern of weather in an area, typically averaged over a period of 30 years.”
And here’s what you fantasise I copied from Wikipedia –
“Climate is the statistics of past weather.”
In any case, because you are a really, really, retarded moron, I will inform you, yet again, that I write what I wish, and there is not a damn thing you can do about it!
Then you wrote –
“Why do you keep repeating this as if it was some kind of Dragon Crank trump card?”
Why should I respond to your moronic gotcha? Because you are an impotent, powerless moron?
Dragon Crank? I know you reject reality, but trying to create your own just makes you look more retarded and ineffectual than ever. By the way, have you found the greenhouse effect yet? Is it truly a travesty, as Kevin Trenberth claimed?
Mike Flynn, Masquerade Flimsy – the concept of average should have provided you a big tell.
Love how you’re playing dumb!
Whining Wee Willy,
Got caught out fabricating – again – did you, moron?
Maybe someone cares for your opinion, but not even you can name one, can you, peabrain?
Let me “fabricate” a syllogism, Mike:
(P1) Climate scientists consider that climate is defined as a 30-year weather average.
(P2) Average is a statistical concept.
(C) Climate is the statistics of weather.
Just FYEO.
Do continue to play dumb!
Wee Willy Idiot,
You wrote –
“Let me fabricate a syllogism, Mike: . . .”
Why do you ask me for permission, dimwit? Do you believe you need it?
Grow a pair! Fabricate whatever you like – and I will call you out on your fabrications if I feel like it.
Nothing you can do about it, either.
Fabricate away! Maybe some other climate crackpot will agree – you can but hope.
Carry on.
Mike, Mike,
Once again you’re sweating too hard –
Everybody knows that climate is the statistics of weather. Including those from whom you borrowed the idea. There’s nothing very deep behind the idea.
There are some implications, however. Perhaps not the ones you might wish to imply, but for that you’d have to spell it out.
Do you have a point when stating that truism?
Enjoy your afternoon nap,
Ta.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Thanks for finally acknowledging that “Everybody knows that climate is the statistics of weather.” I know, but obviously the members of the Society of Morons who believe that they can “Stop Climate Change” don’t.
Now, all you have to do is accept reality, and acknowledge that as I said, “It controls nothing”, as in “Climate” controls nothing, being a statistic. Weather “controls” nothing either. Weather is just the manifestation of natural laws at work in the atmosphere.
Keep whining. Fabricate away. That just makes you a liar, as well as a moron.
> I know
Thank you for confirming that you were playing dumb with your denial of what expresses the first sentence of thy Wiki, Mike.
Now that you speak about the belief that we can “Stop Climate Change” I got to ask – are you drunk typing?
By your logic, you might as well argue that a strike rate can’t be changed because it’s a statistics of cricket.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Whatever you say, dummy.
Whatever you say.
Think it through, Ken.
What aspect of climate change makes tsunamis worse?
Ken,
“Aspect” is a code word for forcing factor.
EM,
“Code word” is a hint that Troglodyte is hinting at something Very Scientific.
Then Stephen’s wrong again. Sea level rise is a feedback.
EM,
Think it through, EM. Climate is just the statistics of past weather.
Of course it changes. Only morons would think otherwise.
Here’s a tip. Don’t take gotcha lessons from Wee Willy Wanker.
He’s not very good at it. By the way, have you discovered where this greenhouse effect may be observed, measured, and documented, yet?
No? What a pity!
A few inches of sea level rise?
I am going to blame 1 inch on China.
But China has been puppet of western politicians.
Earlier, Ball4 (worthy candidate for admission to the Society of Morons) wrote –
“The rotation of a planet is well covered in text books Christos, that there is nighttime and daytime does not escape their attention.”
It certainly seems to have escaped the attention of some at NASA, who have a pointless “energy budget” graphic depicting the entire globe evenly lit – no night at all!
Some people prefer fantasy, and reject reality.
Another incomprehensible comment from a moron who can’t even produce the “Greenhouse Theory” that he demands others refute –
“Will do, angery bubbly Pup documenting your tricks helps me move my ball forward while you spit and pout and lulz and dodge.”
Must be a climate crackpot, who fanatically believes in the magical heating properties of CO2!
He is obviously completely detached from reality. It doesn’t matter, because the moronic author is ineffectual, powerless, and anonymous! Who would take any notice of the opinions of such a person (apart from another member of the Society of Morons, perhaps)?
Nothing wrong with laughing at climate cranks – they obviously enjoy a good laugh at themselves (otherwise they wouldn’t say the silly things they do).
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn everyone!
*The crowd chants “Flynnson! Flynnson! Flynnson!*
Whacky Wee Willy,
Even a moron like you could do better than that, couldn’t you?
Maybe I overestimated you.
Try again. Maybe more “Mike Flynn” repetitions. Einstein may have been wrong – repeating the same actions hoping for a different outcome may not be the definition of insanity.
Or maybe not. What do you think?
Maybe you could learn some physics while you ponder the nature of your form of mental affliction
Carry on.
“FLYNNSON! FLYNNSON! FLYNNSON!”
Weird Wee Willy,
Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn.
There, restored your favourite fantasy for you, dummy,
Who is FLYNNSON?
Mike, you can’t be that dumb –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1112659
A purer form of gaslighting is hard to find, so thank you!
Whacky Wee Willy,
So FLYNNSON. Is the fantasy of an anonymous commenter using the pseudonym of Bindidon, whom Mike Flynn referred to as Binny!
You moron.
I don’t know what gaslighting is, but I assume it is some form of stupid Americanism, used in an effort to avoid using English.
Whether you refer to me as FLYNNSON, Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn, Mike, Warnie, or whatever, you can’t admit why you are doing it can you? You would look like even more of an ineffectual powerless moron, wouldn’t you?
Master manipulator or mass debater?
Hmmmmm.
> So FLYNNSON.
Yes, FLYNNSON:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1112685
You silly sock puppet!
Whacky Wee Willy,
Make up your mind, moron.
Who do you believe, yourself or some other moron? Your fantasy or the fantasy of some other member of the Society of Morons?
Go on, tell us the deep and devious purpose you think you are achieving with your fantasy?
Nothing at all?
You are a moron, but at least you are an ineffectual and stupid moron. Do you really believe that people won’t notice that all your stupidity is just attempted diversion away from the fact that you can’t even produce this invisible Greenhouse Theory to which you refer.
That is why you continually and maniacally write witless phrases like Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn, FLYNNSON, and all the rest.
How does it feel being so incompetent and ineffectual the you can’t even get yourself banned, let alone anyone else? You might have to accept reality, unpalatable though that might be.
Carry on, dummy.
Mike, Mike,
When you pretended not to know to whom “FLYNNSON” referred, you acted like a fool. For “FLYNNSON” refers to you. And you should know it, my little sock puppet.
You can’t be that dumb.
But you can dare to try!
Wee Willy Dimwit,
I asked you who FLYNNSON was. You told me it was me.
Who should I believe – you or me? You may call me whatever you like – FLYNNSON, Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn, Mike, Warnie, Kiddo, Pup, Dick – anything you like.
It still won’t get you banned, I fear. It makes no difference to me, because you are a delusional moron. Why should I care what you think or do?
You are an ineffectual, anti-science, reality denier.
So you can whine about whatever you like, and everyone knows you can’t do a damn thing about any of it. You can’t even upset, annoy, or offend me. Try, if you don’t believe me.
The sound you will hear will be me (and possibly others) sniggering at a delusional moron. Off you go now, and –
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Masquerading Forcefully, you ask –
“Who should I believe”
Whatever you please!
Why should anyone care what you think, silly sock puppet?
As long as you continue to play dumb, all is well!
If you say so, moron. If you say so.
Too much play and no work makes Mike a dull sock puppet.
If you say so, moron, if you say so.
–“The effort to detect, track and measure the UFO phenomenon in the field, in real time, has recently entered a new phase,” Rodeghier told Space.com. “The technology has gotten better, software tools have improved and the current interest in UFOs has attracted new, qualified professionals.–
https://www.space.com/2022-turning-point-study-ufos-uap
Well I think they look in climate change as that much easier than UFOs.
How has warming has CO2, warmed the world.
And a number for global warming which is caused by doubling CO2 levels.
One thing we can certain of is we don’t want the UN to focus on UFOs, and UN has failed its decades long mission regarding CO2 levels
–Or could they be, well, aliens? What if Earth has been on the receiving end of extraterrestrials speeding in from Alpha Centauri who found themselves lacking brake fluid and crashed into New Mexico?–
Where would extraterrestrials from Alpha Centauri be going to?
The Sol system is bad place for interstellar travel main due our Sun. And extraterrestrials aren’t coming here to find about warming effect of CO2.
linked from
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
There has actually been a lot of traffic.
To service every US citizen who claimed to have been abducted for an 8 hour proctology examination would require 10,000 UFOs working 24 hours a day since 1947.
Sorry, I had a verbal report that 20% of the US population claimed to be abducted. A poll in 1991 put it at only 3.7 million.
That would only require 76 UFOs working 24 hours a day between 1947 and 1991.
Aliens that look almost human except for the meat slashing jaws.
Now you know why you have to wear a mask everywhere.
I’m an omnivore. I’ve always had meat slashing jaws.
Not many realize Al Gore was born in 1948 about 9 months after the “flying disc” was discovered in Roswell, New Mexico. That explains quite a lot.
Here’s a complete comment from the moron known as Willard –
“Why the two responses, Mike Flynn problems expressing yourself?
Grab some coffee, then come back.”
The ankle-biter isn’t even a two-dimensional thinker. His reading comprehension is sorely lacking.
Garden variety troll whose only purpose in life is to clutter up this page with pathetic tripe.
He’s gonna be shocked when the Great Reset comes and he is sent out into the fields to pick bugs off the lettuce.
I dare you, Kennui – Mike Flynn isn’t a bug!
The Great Reset will first require Guerra Sucia. I won’t survive to join you in the field.
I prefer Borges.
Детские игрушки в Киеве с доставкой по Украине. Большой выбор детских иррушек,
аксесуары, каляски, столики для кормления и многое другое переходите
на наш сайт:
babystreet.com.ua
gbaikie says:
January 23, 2022 at 8:21 PM
“I am going to blame 1 inch [of sea level rise] on China.
But China has been puppet of western politicians. ”
Probably more that the West are becoming China’s puppets. The $1.2 trllion debt the US owes China buys a lot of string.
Berkeley’s global report for last year has some interesting graphs.
Berkeley’s long term trend graph projects 1.5C globally in 2033 and 2C in 2059 relative to 1850-90.
China has already warmed by 2.5C since 1850.
http://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2021/
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/china
China is quite cold.
It might get as warm as Europe, and not likely as warm as
US.
Relative to 1735 it’s more like 0.5C globally.
We’re currently at 14.9C global average.; anomaly 1.1-1.2C anomaly relative to the latter 1800s.
That would mean you have data showing that the global average was 14.4C or anomaly 0.5 in 1735.
Sounds rather high. The proxy data doesn’t show any global temperature that warm between 5000 years ago and the latter 20th century.
See Central England Temperature Anomaly. 1735 is that high.
Further, the proxy data indicates temperatures were higher for most of the Holocene as now.
So why do you think Proxy data shows cooler for most of Holocene/
The anecdotal history suggests you are wrong.
Battle of Thermopylae was fought over a strip of land 100 meters wide. Its now a kilometer wide. Where did the sea level go?
Wine was produced in quantity in Northumberland England during the Roman occupation. Willnot will pull the fetid cork out his famous Scottish wine collection that requires strong cheese to make it palatable but that is not wine in quantity enough to meet the needs of a Roman population that needed wine to purify water enough to drink.
1300’s Greenland Vikings grew barley with which to make beer. Its still to cold on Greenland to grow barley.
Britain has a lot of ports in the fens along the east coast that are now too shallow to float a boat. Sea levels have dropped due to cooling.
More recent is the Bloedel Fire 1938 where there was a hot June with fires from Alaska to California. Sounds exactly like last summer’s heat dome.
History is full of such anecdotes.
Ken,
Here’s another –
“In Saxon and Norman times, Chester continued to be an extremely important port and military base. Ships sailed to and from British and Irish ports, France,
Spain and Germany, and troops gathered there for Welsh and Irish campaigns. During the Middle Ages the world climate grew colder causing the sea level to drop, . . .”
The climate grew colder? But, but but . . .
That’s why you use anomalies.
Latitude and altitude determines the temperature. IIRC China averages around 8C to the CONUS 13C.
Anomalies show how the temperatures change over time. Both have warned by 2.4-2.5C.
China’s problem is that it is on the downwind side of a big continent so it is overendowed with cold deserts and a warming climate isn’t going to help much without the water.
factually, non sequitur. Eastern US and Canada are also on the downwind of the large continent, yet they are not owerendowd with cold deserts. Overendowed with cold forests, for sure. The deserts of china are mostly inland mind you, and far so. In fact the geographical center of asia is located in the eastern ‘china’.
Here’s a complete comment from Massacred Finding Mike Flynn –
“If you say so, moron. If you say so.”
Whacky Wee Willy,
If you say so, moron. If you say so.
Try this, Masterfully Failing Mike Flynn:
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=greenhouse+effect+theory+hypothesis
Report what you find!
Whacky Wee Willard,
Why should I, moron? You just want onlookers to believe you can produce a Greenhouse Theory, but you can’t!
That’s why you are a moron. You seem to believe that you can convince others that your fantasies are fact.
The plain fact facts are that you are impotent, powerless, ineffectual and moronic.
> Why should I
You owe it to yourself, Mike.
Perhaps you prefer:
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=site%3Adrroyspencer.com+greenhouse+effect+theory+hypothesis
Too much play and no work makes Mike a dull sock puppet.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You really are a moron, aren’t you? Telling someone that they should do what you want, because you are telling them what they want?
Then backing it up with an irrelevant link in which I have no interest whatsoever!
That looks like the actions of a delusional moron, to me!
Mike, Mike, you really need to think before you type –
“Telling someone that they should do what you want”
First, you do that all the time, not without hurling abuses. Second, I’m not doing that. I’m rather trying to help you get what you want.
It’s easy to find the greenhouse theory. It takes minutes. Scientists might use another descriptor. No, I’m not gonna tell you which one. You’ll have to find yourself. After all, it’s your sammich, and you’re old enough to learn how to make yourself a damn sammich.
It’s been ten years, Mike.
Too much play and no work makes you a dull sock puppet.
Time for you to work.
If you say so, moron.
If you say so.
You still can’t find a Greenhouse Theory for me to laugh at, can you?
You can’t copy and paste the contents of your fantasy. Bad luck for you.
If I produce the theory for you, Mike, would you stop commenting until 2023?
Wee Willy Moron,
You don’t have a Greenhouse Theory, moron.
Try another gotcha.
Give me some odds, Mike.
How about 1%?
You checked everywhere and found nothing, only fair.
Whacko Wee Willy,
You are a truly deranged moron.
Why should Mike or I give you anything?
Go and beg somewhere else. You’ll get nought from me. What mental affliction causes you to think otherwise, dimwit?
Keep dreaming.
> Mike or I
There’s only one person there, Mike.
Giving odds would provide me with a measure of your confidence in your claim. If you’re sure of what you’re saying, you should be 97% sure.
50/1 odds would mean I get a year if I win, you get a week or two if I lose.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You dimwit!
I don’t care what your moronic opinions are. Why should I?
You are an ineffectual irrelevance, as far as I am concerned. Others can form their own opinions.
I”ll give you odds that you are deranged – 100 to 1 on – hang on, 1000 to 1 on.
How much are you prepared to wager, you deranged moron? Nothing at all?
I thought so.
Dream on.
> I don’t care what your moronic opinions are.
You don’t show any care for your own opinions either, Mike.
Dare to put your money where your mouth is!
Weird Wee Willy,
Posting irrelevant links to propaganda sites is just silly.
There is no “climate science”, and no “climate scientists”.
There is no Greenhouse Theory because there is no Greenhouse Effect to need one!
You are so incompetent, you have to resort to linking to other peoples’ rubbish, rather than preparing your own!
What a moron you are!
Too much play and no work makes Mike a dull sock puppet –
Search for The Earth’s Atmosphere. Its Physics and Dynamics.
Report.
Wee Willy Idiot,
You wrote –
“Search for The Earths Atmosphere. Its Physics and Dynamics.
Report.”
No. Why should I do anything at all for you? You are a moron, trying to waste my time. Why do you waste yours by issuing commands that you have no power to enforce? I’ll ignore your demand, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Nobody cares about your opinions except other morons, and don’t care what they supposedly think, either.
They are as powerless and ineffectual as you.
Go off and look for a Greenhouse Theory. Take your time. One of us will be dead before it appears – it’s in your imagination, you moron!
Carry on.
> Why should I do anything at all for you?
You would be doing your homework for yourself, Mike.
Why are you trying to burden me with your homework?
Let me try to help you again:
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/chapter4.pdf
Moron.
Keep trying to avoid admitting that you can’t find a Greenhouse Theory.
Keep providing irrelevant links that don’t contain a Greenhouse Theory.
As to “looking” for a Greenhouse Theory – you seem to be trying hard, with precisely no success. What should I join you in your fantasy?
Let me know when you have located a Greenhouse Theory. just copy and paste it, if you want to be “helpful”. You idiot, your fantasy is just that. Unless you can produce a Greenhouse Theory (or a unicorn), it doesn’t exist.
You’re an obsessive Moron.
Carry on.
Silly sock puppet of Mike Flynn,
You still haven’t answered a very simple question:
How do you know that the Greenhouse theory does not exist?
Sky Dragon Cranks sure believe it does:
https://principia-scientific.com/refuting-the-greenhouse-gas-theory/
How can they refute something that does not exist?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Wondering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“How can they refute something that does not exist?”
How should I know, and why should I care? Why ask me?
How are going with your search for the Greenhouse Theory, dummy?
Maybe if you get your hand off it, you might be able to search harder. Then you’ll really have a happy ending, and your “Oh! Oh! Oh!” won’t result from your penchant for self abuse.
Either way, carry on.
> How should I know
Because you looked into the matter before opining, Masterly Feeble.
You could have searched for it in the lichurchur.
You could have consulted websites dedicated to it.
You could have read online physics courses material.
You could have sifted through radiative physics textbooks.
But no, Mike. You never work.
Ten years of not carrying your weight on the Climateball field.
Too much play and no work makes Mike a dull sock puppet.
“Because you looked into the matter before opining,”
You really are a moron, aren’t you? You might believe you can read my mind, (because you are deranged,I suppose), but I don’t believe you can, and I should know, I suppose.
You also dementedly wrote –
“You could have searched for it in the lichurchur.
You could have consulted websites dedicated to it.
You could have read online physics courses material.
You could have sifted through radiative physics textbooks.”
Is a “lichurchur” like a “sammich”, or even sillier?
I can do what I like, and I don’t care about your opinion any more than I care for the opinions of other powerless, impotent, anonymous morons. Why should I? Because a moron desires something?
Dream on, dummy.
There is no Greenhouse Theory.
So you say, silly sock puppet:
https://climatecite.com/wp-content/uploads/Greenhouse_theory_refuted_by_17_papers_f.pdf
Whacko Wee Willy.
You wrote –
“New research from 17 papers refutes Greenhouse theory”
You would have no trouble quoting this Greenhouse Theory, then?
You are a moron.
There is no Greenhouse Theory, and you have shown yourself to be not only a moron, but a lying moron.
So what is this Greenhouse that you claim has been refuted in 17 papers? Do you realise what you are saying?
Probably not, because you are a fat, slimy, lying grub!
Fantasise away.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1144988
My last comment was in response to this other one by our dull sock puppet:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1144694
Still no homework from him.
So sad, too bad.
Wee Willy Dimwit.
More pointless links, but you still can’t produce a Greenhouse Theory, can you, moron?
The links help establish that you’re a lying piece of shit, Mike.
I would not say they’re not useful.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“The links help establish that youre a lying piece of shit, Mike.
I would not say theyre not useful.”
Which states precisely nothing specific. Just more moronic and no-useful opinions.
Of course, your efforts to avoid accepting the reality that there is no Greenhouse Theory won’t make anybody with any sense believe that the non-existent will miraculously become fact.
Maybe you could point out where I lied? A quote or two would be helpful in supporting your assertion. I don’t need to lie – your own words indicate that you are a lying moron, and others can check for themselves, and form their own opinions.
If you think you are perceived as wise, powerful and respected, good for you!
Carry on.
> Maybe you could point out where I lied?
Indeed I could.
Why would I?
You’re just a piece of shit.
If you say so, lying moron.
If you say so.
Oh I do say so, lying piece of shit.
And more than that – we co-created a page that establishes it once and for all.
Earlier, Willard the putative Moron wrote –
“So pray tell did you ever search for the Greenhouse theory somewhere except in Tyndall?
Alternatively, you could always testify that youre really really really interested in the science you never discuss!”
Or I could just tell the Moron that he gives me precisely no reason to acted to his moronic demands that I “tell” him something. He is as powerless, impotent, and ineffectual as usual.
Woeful Wee Willy pretends that his vaunted “Greenhouse Theory” exists. It doesn’t. If it did, he would no doubt gallop up on his Climate charger, brandishing his “Greenhouse Theory” for all to gaze upon, in wonder. More likely to desperately wave an ill-written placard saying “Stop Climate Change!”.
His second sentence is the product of his deranged mind. There are, of course, many things I could do, but the Moron’s witless attempt at cryptic insinuation only indicates what a Moron he is!
Too much play and no work makes Mike a dull sock puppet.
If you say so, moron. If you say so.
Would you still claim that CO2, like any other matter, can absorb and emit energy of any wavelength, Mike?
Weepy Wee Willy,
What sort of moronic gotcha is that?
Found a copy of your Greenhouse Theory for me to deride yet?
No?
Have you tried looking on the internet?
A simple yes or no would do, Mike.
Guess who once said:
If you say so, moron.
If you say so.
Found a copy of the Greenhouse Theory yet?
Here’s where you said it, Mike:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/how-can-home-insulation-keep-your-house-warmer-when-it-cools-your-house/#comment-76720
April 2013.
Time flies, and Mike Mustard Fly likes to ask for sammiches.
Well, that was a completely pointless waste of time, wasn’t it, moron?
Carry on.
Don’t be too hard on yourself, Mike.
You’re too lazy for that.
Where’s your homework?
Whining Wee Willy,
What are you blathering about, moron?
Your homework, dear Mike, refers to the work you should have done to ascertain your claim.
If you think you can hide behind a negative claim, prepare to be mesmerized.
Weird Wee Willy,
I decline to be amazed, and there is precisely nothing you can do about it, is there, moron?
You are so pretentiously stupid it is positively amazing!
Here’s a suggestion – write a farrago of nonsense, and call it the Greenhouse Theory.
Use something like SciGen, which can generate nonsense scientific papers good enough to pass peer review, editorial scrutiny, and be published in prestigious journals (which demonstrates that journals will publish anything if you pay the appropriate steep fee).
After all, that faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat (not to mention self-proclaimed Climate Scientist) Michael Mann wrote himself a Nobel Prize!
How hard can it be? Of course, someone might want to see the hypothesis which precedes the theory, and the inexplicable phenomena which led to the testable hypothesis. No problem, just get some of your fellow morons to help out.
Off you go now. Get stuck in.
> Here’s a suggestion
Here’s mine, Most Important Mike Flynn in the World –
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience.html
Until you do your homework, stay thirsty.
Whoops! Was in the wrong place, but worth saying twice –
Weird Wee Willy,
Posting irrelevant links to propaganda sites is just silly.
There is no climate science, and no climate scientists.
There is no Greenhouse Theory because there is no Greenhouse Effect to need one!
You are so incompetent, you have to resort to linking to other peoples rubbish, rather than preparing your own!
What a moron you are!
Materializing Forgetfulness, you say –
“I decline to be amazed”
I said “Amazed”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-466193
I’m tempted to use that line in response to your sammich requests.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Moron. More raving about a sammich? More irrelevant links?
How are you going with producing a Greenhouse Theory, rather than demanding everyone else find this non-existent mirage for you?
Even a deluded moron like you has to accept reality eventually. You disagree?
Why am I not amazed?
You’re a moron.
Carry on.
So, sill sock puppet – when will produce your homework rather than demanding everyone else to do it for you?
Too much play and no work makes Mike a dull sock puppet:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
Wee Willy Idiot,
How many times do you intend providing irrelevant and pointless links which I have told you I have no (repeat no) intention of clicking on?
Albert Einstein said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. A Moron would keep posting links time after time, hoping that a person who had said he was not going to follow them, would eventually do as the moron requested. Ho ho! Foolish Moron!
Insanity writ large.
The Moron might even think that I cared about the opinions of other Morons. Wrong. I don’t.
Your mad appeals to the authority of other Morons won’t help.
None of them have a Greenhouse Theory, either, do they?
Keep being Moronic.
Too much play and no work makes you a dull sock puppet, Mike.
Search for Principles of Planetary Climate.
You’ll need to read something if you want to produce your homework.
The clock is ticking.
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Search for Principles of Planetary Climate.”
No. Keep fantasising.
You’re not a master manipulator. You’re a Moron.
Tell me to search for something else. I’ll refuse – again. What do you intend to do about it, you powerless, impotent, ineffectual fool?
Carry on.
It’s your sammich, Mike.
I won’t make that sammich for you.
That’d be to reinforce an abusive pattern of behavior.
Time for you to grow up.
Playing the bridge troll at Roy’s for a decade is long enough, don’t you think?
Weird Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about? What’s a “sammich”?
You are a moron, and delusional to boot.
Carry on.
Oh, and by the way, there is no Greenhouse Theory.
> there is no Greenhouse Theory.
So you say, Mastodon of Feebleness.
Here’s a fellow Sky Dragon Crank who holds otherwise:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/REFUTATION-OF-THE-%E2%80%9C-GREENHOUSE-EFFECT-%E2%80%9D-THEORY-ON-A-Miatello/6a93cbe437f1d747eab5f3ebed984751d8a0d45a
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You quoted something about someone claiming to refute a “Greenhouse Effect Theory”. I suppose you think that a Greenhouse Effect Theory is the same as a Greenhouse Theory, but it doesn’t matter, does it?
Neither exists, and just saying that someone refers to something doesn’t mean it exists. There are many references to all sorts of non-existent things – fire-breathing dragons, unicorns, Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize, and any number of other things.
You are truly deranged if the best and only source for the non-existent Greenhouse [Effect] Theory is to somebody who has refuted it. Obviously, something that doesn’t exist is not easily refuted, so the refutation is obviously flawed. Are you sure the authors are not as semi-literate as yourself, and really meant to agree with me that no Greenhouse Theory exists?
Maybe they don’t mean what you think they mean – ever consider that, dummy?
Follow your link and report back.
There is no Greenhouse Theory.
You are a moron, if that’s the best you can do.
> Neither exists
Keep denying, silly sock puppet:
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/comprehensive_refutation_of_greenhouse.pdf
Whacky Wee Willy,
There is no Greenhouse Theory. You can’t even produce any of the other members of the Society of Morons who say there is.
They are obviously too clever for you, and they are Morons in good standing.
Simple bizarre.
Carry on.
> You can’t
So you say, Mike. It’s actually quite easy to produce. In fact I gave you all the tools to do it yourself.
Do continue to play dumb and argue by denial.
I’ll keep adducing the evidence that too much play and no work makes you a dull sock puppet.
.
Wee Willy Wanker,
In regard to the non-existent Greenhouse Theory, you wrote –
“Its actually quite easy to produce.” Except for one problem – you can’t!
You are not only a moron,, but a lying moron into the bargain!
Do you really believe that your fantasies are reality? Go on, try convincing anyone not as silly as you that they can easily find the non-existent Greenhouse Theory – that all they have to do is use your imaginary “tools”. The main “tool” is you.
You really need to stop playing with yourself so much. Doing it too often, or too vigorously, might well turn your Oh! Oh! Oh! into Ow! Ow! Ow!
Best you go back to sleep and keep dreaming That’s the “tool” you can use to find the Greenhouse Effect – until you wake up, of course.
Moron.
Mathematical Fusillade, you wrote –
“you wrote”
I didn’t.
Have another cookie:
https://homunizam1.wordpress.com/2018/11/12/greenhouse-theory-is-wrong-all-gases-are-greenhouse-gases/
Where’s your homework?
My last comment was in response to this other one by our dull sock puppet:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1144694
Still no homework from him.
So sad, too bad.
Weary Wee Willy,
You are either a liar, or you have the attention span of a retarded goldfish. You claimed you didn’t write “Its actually quite easy to produce.”, when in fact a retarded goldfish can plainly see that you did! Your fantasy is not reality, and hoping you can make inconvenient facts disappear at your command just demonstrates your mental state.
I’ll cut back to the chase.
You still haven’t produced a Greenhouse Theory, so I assume your “Its actually quite easy to produce.” comment is a self serving lie.
Providing links which don’t produce a Greenhouse Theory either is just silly, and makes you look like a lying moron.
How do I know your links don’t produce a Greenhouse Theory? Because it doesn’t exist, that’s why!
The spectacle of you plaintively begging that I refute something which doesn’t exist is interesting to watch, but achieves exactly nothing, does it?
Oh well, it’s quite obvious that your lying statement “Its actually quite easy to produce.” is a desperate attempt to avoid being labelled a lying moron, but it didn’t work, did it?
Lying moron.
> You claimed you didn’t write “It’s actually quite easy to produce.”
Incorrect, Mike.
I claimed I didn’t write “New research from 17 papers refutes Greenhouse theory.”
You sure you want to continue playing dumb like that?
I got all the time in the world.
Wee Willy Lying Moron,
Anyone can see what you wrote, and what I quoted you as writing – that’s why I used quotation marks, you moron.
Trying to blame for your constant slip-ups, sloppiness, and general ineptitude, might make you feel better, but is unlikely to convince anyone of your truthfulness or ability – other than a fellow moron, I suppose.
Keep trying to avoid reality. There is no Greenhouse Effect.
Carry on.
Mike, Mike, mistakes happen.
You lied about me saying something I did not. It was a quote.
It’s no big deal.
Do you really want to double down on this?
You can’t even show your homework.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“You lied about me saying something I did not. It was a quote.
Its no big deal.
Do you really want to double down on this?”
Do you really want me to point out, yet again, what a moron you are?
What nonsense are you on about – “double down on this” – you are babbling again. Facts are facts, opinions are worth what you are prepared to pay for them. I am prepared to pay precisely nothing for yours, and I assume you are fully prepared to reciprocate.
Carry on being a whining lying moron.
> What nonsense are you on about “double down on this” you are babbling again.
You are playing dumb once again, Mike.
Why is that?
You made a mistake. It’s no big deal. Calling me a liar won’t do. I showed you that you were wrong.
Again, no big deal.
Right above Masterful Faff Mike Flynn pouts –
“he gives me precisely no reason to acted to his moronic demands that I “tell” him something”
He’s also playing dumb once again, as I already suggested that he spent more ten years at Roy’s denying the greenhouse effect and the theory behind it. Has Mike ever did his own homework on that question? He should have done some research.
Has anyone ever seen Mike making himself a sammich?
So far it looks like I spent more time finding words-that-start with-M and words-that-start-with-F than he looked into an effect he denies, along the theory. It’s as if every single commenter Mike responds to owes him the sammich he has never made for himself.
Mike owes himself that sammich.
Too much play and no work makes Mike a dull sock puppet.
Wee Willy Moron,
You still give me no reason to “tell” you anything.
The moron can only respond by asking himself gotchas, making moronic comments about “sammiches” (some sort of food attractive to semi-literate morons, I suppose), and doing his best to deny the reality that there is no Greenhouse Theory!
What a !
I really like how you play dumb, Mike.
Try this:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=greenhouse+effect+theory+hypothesis
Do continue!
If you say so, moron, if you say so.
Found a copy of the Greenhouse Theory yet? No?
What a pity!
[MIKE] Telling someone that they should do what you want, because you are telling them what they want?
[ALSO MIKE] Found a copy of the Greenhouse Theory yet?
Too much play and no work makes Mike a dull sock puppet.
If you say so, moron.
If you say so.
Too much play and no work makes Mike a dull sock puppet:
https://www.ipcc.ch
If you say so, moron. If you say so.
Fess it, Mike –
During this decade where you acted as Roy’s bridge troll, you haven’t checked anywhere, have you?
It’s never too late to do your homework:
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/
If you say so, moron.
If you say so.
You are still too useless and ineffectual to even get yourself banned, let alone anyone else, moron.
Mike Flynn, the troll bridge without a bridge:
https://open.oregonstate.education/climatechange/chapter/weather-and-climate/
Science is beautiful, bridge trolls are ugly.
Whacko Wee Willy,
Pity you can’t find anything useful to quote.
How are you going with your search for the Greenhouse Theory? Maybe it is hiding inside the Holy Grail – find one, you might find the other!
Moron.
Chihuahua,
What’s the propaganda curriculum like in college?
Carl Marx 101
Joseph Goebbels Filmology
Famous Quotes of Mao Zedong
??
Have you looked over there, Mike –
https://climateprimer.mit.edu/
Prepare to be Amazed, to borrow the name of one of your previous socks!
Swen,
I’m thinking Chihuahua looks like Jabba the Hutt.
Did you know that the author of the Climate Primer, Kerry Emanuel, is a life long GOP guy, Troglodyte?
By your standards that makes still makes him a leftist, but I thought you’d like to know.
Wonky Wee Willy,
More stupid and irrelevant links, moron?
Why am I not amazed?
Good morning, Mike.
How would you know it’s irrelevant for your homework if you don’t click on links?
If you ever change your mind and wish stop acting like a silly bridge troll without a bridge, here’s another resource you could peruse to find what you’re looking for:
https://climate.nasa.gov/
Silly Billy Willy wrote –
“How would you know it’s irrelevant for your homework if you don’t click on links?” Homework?
Are you serious? You are a moron, and why would I waste time following links posted by a moron trying to waste my time?
Posting links to NASA, who employ deranged idiots who don’t even understand how real greenhouses operate, is not going to help you.
If you believe you have the ability to copy and paste, you could try to post a copy of the imaginary Greenhouse Theory here. Unfortunately, the contents of your fantasy don’t translate into reality, do they?
Wriggle and squirm as much as you like, moron.
Time for an appeal to authority, is it? Or maybe you could whine about your poor, precious “feelings”. I’m sure you can try to convince others that you a not an ineffectual, powerless, semi-literate slimy fat grub, but I’m not sure how successful you’ll be.
Or maybe you could take lessons on how to manipulate people into doing your bidding? You don’t seem to be very good at it.
That’s because you are not only a moron, but a deluded moron.
> why would I waste time following links
Because you would find what you’re looking for, Mike.
Afraid of what you’ll find?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Too much play and no work makes Mike a dull sock puppet.
Witless Wee Willy wrote –
“Because you would find what you’re looking for, . . .”
Couple of minor (or major) problems for the moron.
First, I’m not “looking” for something that doesn’t exist, namely, Greenhouse Theory.
Second, the Moron thinks that perpetually posting meaningless links will make other Morons think that a Greenhouse Theory actually exists.
If Wee Willy Moron can show that such a thing exists, he is perfectly free to post it. Of course he can’t. He can’t post a copy of the Nobel Prize award which that other moron Michael Mann (faker, fraud , scofflaw and deadbeat) claimed he received. That doesn’t exist either.
There is no Greenhouse Theory. There is no record of a Nobel Prize being awarded to Michael Mann. Morons can claim what they like, but reality is not affected by the fantasies of Wee Willy or Michael Mann.
Keep providing links. I’ll continue ignoring them. Why would you care?
Are you a Moron, worried about what I think or do? What difference does it make to you? None at all?
I thought so. You are definitely a moron.
Carry on.
Search for Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, Mike. You should study a bit, for sooner or later you’ll need to produce your homework.
Too much play and no work makes you a dull sock puppet.
Wee Willy Wanker wrote –
“Search for Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, . . .”
No. Keep doing the same thing over and over, hoping for a different outcome.
Moron.
Oh, Mike, you’re being too kind.
Don’t worry. I’m spoon feeding you only for a short while.
But look who’s talking –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/does-a-greenhouse-operate-through-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-86515
You’ve been playing the bridge troll since at least 2013 here.
With the same charade.
Without ever opening a physics book.
Whiffling Wee Willy,
No Greenhouse Theory, then?
Carry on with your moronic attempts at diversion, moron.
If I don’t care about your opinions, do you think anybody else does?
Apart from the inhabitants of the fantasy in which you are wise, powerful, and respected, perhaps?
[splutters with amusement]
Have you ever got an A+ on an essay by simply denying that your subject exists, Mike?
Me neither.
I was asked to support my claim.
Where’s your homework, bridge troll without a bridge?
Wriggling Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“I was asked to support my claim.”
What claim was that, and who asked you? A quote or two would be nice, just to confirm that you aren’t just making stuff up as usual.
I assume you are disputing the fact that no Greenhouse Theory exists.
Dispute away. I don’t care what you think, and I doubt anybody else does, either. You might dispute the fact that unicorns exist, while you are at it. Once again, why should I care what you think?
You are a Moron, and you are free to believe any fantastic thing you wish – Greenhouse Theory, unicorns, or any other non-existent thing.
Dream away, moron.
> What claim was that
You’re returning to playing dumb, silly sock puppet:
You stated it a few times already.
Where’s your homework?
Idiot Wee Willy,
There is no Greenhouse Theory.
There are no unicorns.
There is no Nobel Prize for Michael Mann.
You are free to believe in your bizarre fantasies, but I don’t have to, and you can’t make me.
You are a moron.
Carry on.
Silly sock puppet,
Seems that you got some splainin’ to do, Mike:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317572928_The_Refutation_of_the_Climate_Greenhouse_Theory_and_a_Proposal_for_a_Hopeful_Alternative
How can we refute something that does not exist?
Or not. You can keep arguing by denial.
Bridge trolls have a cleanlier act when they have a bridge, but you do you, silly sock puppet.
Witless Wee Willy,
There is no Greenhouse Theory. You can link to as many people claiming anything they like as much as you like, but there is still no Greenhouse Theory.
You can believe what you like, but your beliefs have no effect on physical fact.
How about actually producing a copy of the Greenhouse Theory? You can’t?
Oh,I see, you have one, but you aren’t letting anybody see it in case they wear it out!
You are a moron, as well as a fat slimy grub.
Carry on.
Matchbox Flintstone,
You have no homework.
More than ten years and you checked nowhere.
Keep arguing by denial, it won’t produce your homework.
Too much play and no work makes you a dull sock puppet.
Find yourself a bridge to troll.
Witless Wee Willy,
Still can’t produce a Greenhouse Theory, then?
Maybe it doesn’t exist?
Moron.
Still denying that climate scientists exist, that climate science exist, and that you’re Mike Flynn, Mike?
No wonder you’re denying that the Greenhouse theory does not exist.
When will you show your homework about your quest for it?
Witless Wee Willy,
Even though a lying moron like you will probably deny it, you wrote –
“No wonder youre denying that the Greenhouse theory does not exist.”
Do you actually bother reading what you write?
Moron.
I got to ask, Mike –
Is this the first typo you notice?
Do you think you’re worth wasting time editing?
Wee Willy Wanker,
You can ask what you like. I don’t have to answer.
Especially dimwitted questions from a lying moron trying to claim his stupidity is due to a typo.
You wrote “Do you think youre worth wasting time editing?”
Quite apart from your interestingly bizarre use of English, what has that to do with anything? Why should I bother myself thinking about what you waste your time on? You seem to look like a perfect waste of time – not to mention oxygen!
Maybe you should concentrate your efforts on being clever, rather than trying to appear clever.
How is your search for the Greenhouse Theory going? Have you tried asking a “climate scientist”? Do you think one of them might have a copy of the Greenhouse Theory?
I doubt it, of course, but feel free to try and find one.
> what has that to do with anything?
You’re still playing dumb, Mike. It has something to do with your last comment.
How’s that homework coming? Oh, and to your list of silly denials we should add –
“No iceball Earth. Physically impossible.”
You don’t have anything to support that other one, right?
Woebegone Wee Willy.
You wrote –
“It has something to do with your last comment.”
Ooooooh! Cryptic! Ooooooh! Obscure!
If you say something has something to do with something else, who could assert otherwise?
You also wrote –
“You dont have anything to support that other one, right?”
If you say so, moron, if you say so. Maybe you should learn something about science.
Carry on.
> Maybe you should learn something about science.
Thanks, Mike.
Where should I look?
Srsly. Where?
Tell me.
Isn’t science the bridge you’re supposed to troll, you silly, sad sock puppet?
Show your homework.
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Where should I look?
Srsly. Where?
Tell me.”
If you are claiming to be so incompetent or lazy that you cannot figure out where to go to learn about science, why do you bother commenting here?
As to your demand to “Tell me.” – no.
Why should I help an incompetent, lazy, lying moron?
Would you?
> If you are claiming to be so incompetent or lazy
See, Mike? That’s a silly if-by-whiskey.
I claim that you never do any homework.
Too much play and no work makes you a dull sock puppet.
climate: “the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.”
When talk about just climate or climate change, you are talking weather.
But our global climate is called an icehouse global climate.
Other global climates are Snowball global climate and Greenhouse global climate.
Ice house global climate are also called Ice Ages.
A Snowball Earth would also be called Ice Age.
I regard snowball global climate as theory which isn’t very well defined. But one aspect about snowball global climate is connected the idea that there a mystery of how one could get out of global Snowball Climate. Or an aspect of a snowball global climate is idea of runaway cooling effect.
But we likewise appear to have mystery of how Earth gets out glaciation periods. And so a snowball earth would appear to have an even greater mystery of how earth could escape this Snowball Earth.
One argument which opposes a snowball earth is our last glaciation appeared to bring life near death’s door way. Or one could imagine if earth’s CO2 levels were lower than 150 ppm, one could assume it would cause mass extinction.
And Snowball Earth are suppose to be much colder than our last glaciation period.
So, icehouse climate has cold ocean, icesheets at one or both poles, and has low C02.
Earth’s recent part of its 34-million-year-old Ice Age has had an ocean which seems to bounce between 2 and 4 C.
And is now, about 3.5 C.
Has ice sheet in both polar region and has less than 500 ppm of CO2. Which has got as low as 180 ppm according ice core records. And within this last million or so it seems bounce around 230 ppm during most of the time and most of this time is glaciation periods {or at least, not interglacial periods}
So a Snowball Earth would have ocean colder than 2 C, but generally is claimed to be 1 C or colder. And ice sheets covering 70% or more or Earth surface, and it seems lower CO2 levels than 180 ppm. Though as I dimly recall there was suppose to be snowball Earth or at least icehouse climate or Ice Age with very high CO2 levels.
Now, I don’t think ice or snow is a way to cause global cooling.
Or I think if Mars was too be uniformly cover with 100 meter or more snow, then Mars would warmer than without this snow.
Or Canada’s average temperature about -3.5 C, and if Canada was covered in snow, it could be warmer.
g,
I suspect that intelligent people like Carl Sagan forgot that the earth apparently started off as a big molten spinning blob.
No iceball Earth. Physically impossible.
Even Sagan had to start inventing “faint young suns” and various things to try to overcome the paradoxes caused by an apparent initial rush of blood to his head.
He wasn’t the first, and he won’t be the last intelligent person to fool themselves into accepting fantasy as fact. If the Earth started off as a big molten blob, then it has gradually cooled to its present state. Why make things more complicated than needed?
“No iceball Earth. Physically impossible.”
Just curious — in you estimation, what are the bounds on ‘physically possible’ amount of ice covering the earth? What are the bounds on ‘physically possible’ global temperatures of the earth? What do you base you estimates on?
Tim,
Just curious – why do you bother asking such a stupid gotcha?
You made a simple, direct claim — it is ‘physically impossible’ to have an iceball earth.
Usually such claims have simple, direct support. For example, it is physically impossible to fit a 2 cm diameter steel ball through a 1 cm hole. It is physically impossible to have solid water at 10 C (and 1 atm of pressure). It is physically impossible for me to run 100 km/hr.
Your claim seems more along the lines of “it’s physically impossible for planes to fly” or “it’s physically impossible for a person to run a 4 minute mile”. Just because you have a hard time believing or understanding does not make it “physically impossible”.
Either you can support your claim, or you can’t.
Tim,
If you believe that the surface of a large ball of hot rock, receiving around 1000 w/m2 from a body with a surface temperature of some 5500 K or hotter, can freeze, you are a moron.
Physically impossible. Around 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by ocean. It is physically impossible, even after the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, for the oceans to freeze right through. Even deep lakes cannot freeze to their bottoms – physically impossible. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise by means of reproducible experiment, which the average moron cannot do.
I don’t need to support anything – observable reality says it all.
But you are only trying to weasel out of asking a moronic gotcha, which was –
“Just curious in you estimation, what are the bounds on ‘physically possible’ amount of ice covering the earth? What are the bounds on ‘physically possible’ global temperatures of the earth? What do you base you estimates on?”
I said “snowball Earth” was physically impossible. You ask me a moronic gotcha about the direct opposite. If you don’t believe me, show that I am wrong – using physics, not Folkerts Fantasy illusions.
> I said “snowball Earth” was physically impossible.
And you still have to support it, Mike Flynn.
Weird Wee Willy,
That is not science works, moron.
As Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
So prove me wrong, moron.
Or are you really smarter than Einstein? Would you prefer a quote from Richard Feynman instead?
Tell me that you are smarter than both. Ill believe you.
Are you stupid enough to believe that?
> so prove me wrong
Your claims, bucko.
You back them up.
Wee Willy Wanker,
So you really think you are smarter than Einstein and Feynman together?
You are not only a lying moron, you’re delusional as well.
Carry on.
Mike, Mike, you’re being even more ridiculous than you usually are –
Albert and Richard were not saying you can claim whatever you please without ever needing to support your claims. That’s not how science works. Heck, that’s not how argumentation in general works.
You’re supposed to work for your claims.
Too much play and no work makes you a dull sock puppet.
“That is not [how] science works”
Actually, that is exactly how science works. Whether the hypothesis is “x is possible” or “x is impossible”, it is still a hypothesis until there is strong evidence (and ideally a theoretical basis) supporting the hypothesis.
Lack of irrefutable evidence that “x is possible” is NOT irrefutable evidence that “x is impossible”. People better versed in the topic than either you or me seem to be ‘on the fence’ about “snowball earth”. Unless you can present convincing evidence that “snowball earth is impossible”, then we have to live with the idea that we just don’t know!
“It is physically impossible, even after the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, for the oceans to freeze right through.”
Well, there is half your problem right there. The hypothesis is only that the surface (or most of it anyway) froze. Not that the whole ocean froze all the way to the bottom.
“If you believe that the surface of a large ball of hot rock, receiving around 1000 w/m2 from a body with a surface temperature of some 5500 K or hotter, can freeze, you are a moron.”
Let’s explore this. The moon also started as a ‘large ball of hot rock, receiving around 1000 w/m2 from a body with a surface temperature of some 5500 K or hotter’. Thus it provides a second ‘laboratory’ to test your statement.
The moon has a mean global surface temperature well below freezing. While a thin surface layer near the equator gets well above 0 C during the day, the subsurface temperature remains well below freezing pretty much everywhere pretty much all the time.
So, yes, I believe the surface such a large ball of rock can cool to temperatures well below the freezing point of water. There is nothing ‘physically impossible’ about a ‘super-ice age’ where ice covered significantly more of the earth than during recent glacial periods.
Tim,
So it’s a hypothesis, now. Based on what? A scientific hypothesis has to be testable by reproducible experiment, not the contents of a fantasy.
Not a total snowball, you now say, either. So, how much of a snowball? You asked, so I’ll return the favour –
“Just curious in you estimation, what are the bounds on ‘physically possible’ amount of ice covering the earth? What are the bounds on ‘physically possible’ global temperatures of the earth? What do you base you estimates on?”
Neither Carl Sagan, nor James Hansen, nor yourself have the faintest idea, because as soon as you have to justify yourself, you discover you have to invoke magic at some point.
Then you just look like a moron.
The Moon is demonstrably nothing like the Earth. You are just trying to mislead. No “laboratory”, no “experiment”. The Earth is still a large ball of hot rock, with an average surface temperature of around 288 K, according to some. Good luck with getting it to freeze – and the heat up again! You will need more than your beliefs to achieve this. It’s physically impossible, but feel free to believe otherwise.
Well one can make interesting, can you make Earth into a Snowball Earth?
Easily.
Harder if can’t leave Earth to do it. But space aliens could easily freeze Earth. Say if they just wanted planet Earth for some strange reason. Though a good way to “negotiate” with difficult to negotiate with humans.
But without being spacefaring or even vaguely spacefaring, can one do it from the Earth surface?
Well what is significant about Earth is it absorbs a lot energy from the sun. If you lower the amount of energy Earth absorbs, you lower Earth temperature AND Earth is already fairly close to being a Snowball Earth.
Or should be a lot easier than making Earth have a Greenhouse Global climate.
So why is Earth in Ice Age when apparently the Sun is now emitting the most amount sunlight?
So, Venus would snowball at Earth distance- except Venus lack water for the snow. Venus absorbs 160 watts.
If Earth absorbs 160 watts rather than 240 watts, that should do it.
“The Moon is demonstrably nothing like the Earth. “
You are the one who laid down the parameters: “large ball of hot rock, receiving around 1000 w/m2”. The moon is pretty much exactly like the earth by the factors you deemed important. You claimed those specific conditions make sub-freezing global tempatures “physically impossible”. I showed a counterexample to disporve your claim.
“Not a total snowball, you now say, either. “
I never said 100% ice covered. We could go with the estimate at the start of this discussion — 70+ %.
“Good luck with getting it to freeze – and the heat up again! “
And yet exactly that has happened many times. Large portions have frozen and heated up again. Glaciers have advanced and retreated many times as global temperatures Temperatures have swung ~ 10 C up and down.
That is not “physically impossible” — it is well-established fact. Why, then, is it “physically impossible” to have slightly larger swings?
Should we (NATO) be protecting Ukraine?
Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons with agreement they would be protected.
It seems we are teaching lesson, never give up your nuclear weapons and spend money to get nuclear weapons as soon as possible
Because without nuclear weapons, the nuclear states will go to war with you.
Maybe NATO should put nukes in Ukraine fire them at troop build up at the border.
Or if Ukraine govt wants uses nukes, it can order NATO to use them.
And this becomes general policy if a nuclear power, attacks a nation which has given up its nuclear weapons.
Or a Nation which has given up nuclear weapon, is entitled their use IF attacked by a nuclear Power.
There were similar arguments about Germany and Poland. Look how that turned out.
Yes NATO should protect Ukraine.
Will NATO protect Ukraine? No. Western countries have no moral authority to go to war after imposing vaccine mandates. People will not fight for tyrants.
You put up a link earlier saying that China controls the Democrats.
How would the Chinese wish the US to handle the Ukraine crisis?
China is not a friend of the Democrats.
Democrats are the whore of the John.
Johns are not friends of whores.
China are happy with what they cheaply bought.
Dems are good fuck.
That Dems lose is not a Chinese problem.
Dems are losing.
“have no moral authority to go to war after imposing vaccine mandates. People will not fight for tyrants.”
That is quite a stretch!
Maybe it has to do with the fact that we just finished an 18 y war, and the public has no appetite for it.
Other facts: we have never gone to war with Russia, even throughout the many crises of the cold war. Even when they invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and we had the Cuban missile crisis, the Berlin blockade.
Why? NATO didnt have troops and weapons based in these non-NATO countries. If they had been part of NATO, Russia would have been deterred from invading them.
Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Hungary, Macedonia, Czech Rep., Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Albania, are now members of NATO. Notice Russia is not threatening to invade any of these formerly Eastern block countries.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Russia is very worried about any further expansion of NATO.
“Russia is very worried about any further expansion of NATO.”
Why? Does Russia think that the West will ‘invade’ Russia?
Having NATO aircraft patrolling the Russian border in Estonia and Latvia is making Russia twitchy.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-fighter-jets-arrive-estonia-ukraine-russia-tensions
How would the US react to the presence of Russian military aircraft in Cuba?
Russia has always worried about China.
China has always worried about Russia.
China has always been abused by nation such Europe and Japan.
China was saved by the US.
US is the mountain of Gold.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56720589
Look at the second map.
In Latvia and Estonia NATO jets are patrolling Russia’s Western border.
If Ukraine joins NATO then NATO jets will be patrolling Russia’s Southern border.
After centuries of invasion from Europe the Russians are very sensitive on the subject.
The message to NAtO from the troop buildup may be:-
“You are getting too close and you are making us nervous. Please back up a bit.”
I would regard a diplomatic solution as preferable to a war.
If NATO and Russia went to war in Ukraine the only winner would be China.
>>After centuries of invasion from Europe the Russians are very sensitive on the subject.
Was this before or after russia wanted to join NATO 20 years ago? Or is this why russia had been governed for 200 years by german royal houses? Or ruled for 70 years by the western ideology and wa a part of the essentially western movement which it eventully took over, still? So you see, russia has been invaded by the west nly ince – in 1600s, and has been part of the western world ever since.
“What makes Buffon’s estimate stand out is that he not only posited a physical process that required a finite time to occur (the time for the Earth to cool from a hot molten state), but performed experiments designed to help him make the best possible estimates. This is solid scientific practice.” – from a university course site.
So Buffon was wrong, but no buffoon. Like the much later Lord Kelvin, also not a buffoon, just ignorant of radiogenic heat sources.
Dimwits who claim that they can figure out the temperature of the Earth’s surface by using an “equation” are real buffoons.
Do you think whatever policy Alphabet is enforcing will apply only to Dr. Spencer? Of course it won’t. It applies to anyone expressing opposition to the narrative. Then all the little fish find it harder to survive. And without a thriving colony of little fish you’re less likely to get new big fish. What affect will it actually have? I cannot say. Alphabet knows, I imagine.
Are you arguing it is not censorious? Then what is the purpose? I contend that advertisers do not care if their ads show up on such websites, at least not without some sort of extortion campaign against them.
Even if the end result is only to satisfy those that ultimately demand it be done, it must be that those demanding it imagine some benefit to seeing it done. What benefit do they see if it is not to stop others from getting their message out? What do they hope to gain? The intention is clearly one of censorship. That is the case irrespective of how it affects Dr. Spencer.
Every Great Reset requires a Great Purge.
End result is usually a murder of millions.
“End result is usually a murder of millions”
Just like anti-vaxxer RFK Jr saying that Ann Frank and her family had it better than those currently under vaccine mandates..
You guys lose all credibility with this kind of ridiculous hyperbole.
>You guys lose all credibility with this kind of ridiculous hyperbole.
Ann Frank didn’t have her own government doing it to her.
Also, Nate loves debating against strawmen. They’re the only ones he has success against.
Nate did very well against Ed Berry.
You remember. The man whose model claimed that gigatonnes of CO2 were moving from ocean to atmosphere against the pCO2 gradient in violation of Dalton’s Law, Henry’s Law and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Also the man who threw his critics off his website when he couldn’t defend his model.
>Nate did very well against Ed Berry.
You remember. The man whose model claimed that gigatonnes of CO2 were moving from ocean to atmosphere against the pCO2 gradient in violation of Dalton’s Law, Henry’s Law and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Also the man who threw his critics off his website when he couldn’t defend his model.
You’re were a joke with your piggy bank model. You’ll need to explain all those Law violations. This should be good. Also, can you explain where is the surface ocean carbon in the IPCC’s human carbon cycle? Now that truly is a violation of Henry’s Law. Did you miss that? Also, you’ll need to explain why the IPCC can separate out the human carbon cycle but Berry isn’t allowed? You’re just a jumble of contradictions.
I don’t need to explain anything. The onus is on Berry to show that the criticisms of his model are invalid; that his work is coherent, consistent and consilient.
“Also, can you explain where is the surface ocean carbon in the IPCC’s human carbon cycle?”
Obviously Entropic Man never even so much as read the preprint of Berry’s new paper. He clearly has never understood where you are coming from with this question. If he would just read the paper he would see…
The onus is on Berry? Interesting. All the math and science is on his side but the onus is on him? I guess that’s one worldview.
Your paper, your sammich.
Take your cue from Swenson, who keeps demanding that we prove the greenhouse effect.
“Prove” to me that Barry’s hypothesis has merit.
EM,
“Take your cue from Swenson, who keeps demanding that we prove the greenhouse effect.”
Of course, you can’t actually quote me saying any such thing, can you?
You would have to be a moron to make up stuff that can so easily shown to be untrue.
There is no Greenhouse Effect. You, and the rest of the morons (the “we” whom you mention, just think that you can make everyone believe that there is such a thing as the Greenhouse Effect.).
There isn’t. Your wishful thinking is not fact.
Keep dreaming.
> you cant actually quote me saying any such thing, can you?
I could, Mike Flynn, but for every quote I give I’d like you to abstain commenting from
… this website for a week.
I have at least 52 already.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“I could, [Mike Flynn], but for every quote I give Id like you to abstain commenting from . . . ”
You can’t, and I don’t care what you’d “like”. Why should I?
You are a lying moron. Probably as a result of living in a fantasy, where you can control what others say and do.
Bad luck, moron, this is the real world, where you are powerless, ineffectual, and irrelevant.
Dream on.
> You can’t
Here’s a free sample, Mike:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-734019
You’ve been at it for more than ten years at Roy’s.
Is there anything you won’t deny?
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted (I assume) Mike Flynn, not me.
“If you think this was due to the Greenhouse Effect, I would presume you are a climate crackpot.
I don’t think you are that silly, so you might wish to elaborate on your comment.”
This is supposed to be you showing that I lie?
You will have to do better than that, you lying moron.
I agree that anyone who thinks anything is due to a non-existent Greenhouse Effect is a climate crackpot. No lie!
> You quoted (I assume) Mike Flynn, not me.
There’s only one way to find out.
However, you’re still Mike’s latest silly sock puppet.
Berry keeps quoting his supportive ideological ally Happer, who was nice enough to check Berry’s math, and finds it is fine.
But Happer doesnt say that Berry’s model is correct.
Happer tries to be kind in his comments, but it is clear that he really doesnt believe it:
https://issuu.com/johna.shanahan/docs/200616_physics_rate_flow_-_summary
He says:
“The treatment of the all important oceans in Ed’s paper is probably too sketchy”
“It is hard to understand why after some 800 years of apparent equilibrium (as implied by fig 14 (the Law dome ice core)) the deep ocean might start to outgas CO2 more rapidly around the year 1850”
And of course accelerate over the next 150 y.
You do realize this was a review of an earlier paper? Unlike you dogmatic doomaflotchies, Berry listens to his critics and makes corrections if he feels they are warranted. To my understanding Berry addressed all of Happers’ issues and the result was this 3rd paper.
You think Berry fixed his treatment of the ocean? He still didnt account for Revelle factor, which has been known for 60y. Nor did he explain it away.
You think Berry fixed the 2nd issue of ice core data and 800 y of stability? Where? How?
You are much to unskeptical of Berry.
Prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the archival revelations which followed it, some historians estimated that the number of people who were killed by Stalin’s regime was 20 million or higher.
There is a general consensus among historians that after Mao Zedong seized power, his policies and political purges directly or indirectly caused the deaths of tens of millions of people.
The results of a demographic study of the Cambodian genocide concluded that the nationwide death toll from 1975 to 1979 amounted to 1,671,000 to 1,871,000, or 21 to 24 percent of the total Cambodian population as it was estimated to number before the Khmer Rouge took power.
Guerra Sucia. It is estimated that between 9,000 and 30,000 people were killed or disappeared, many of whom were impossible to formally report due to the nature of state terrorism.The primary target, like in many other South American countries participating in Operation Condor were communist guerrillas and sympathisers, but the target of Operation Condor also included students, militants, trade unionists, writers, journalists, artists and any citizens suspected of being left-wing activists, including Peronist guerrillas.
According to the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation (Rettig Commission) and the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (Valech Commission), the number of direct victims of human rights violations in Chile accounts for around 30,000 people: 27,255 tortured and 2,279 executed. In addition, some 200,000 people suffered exile and an unknown number went through clandestine centers and illegal detention.
Source is various Wikipedia articles. Go ahead and tell me where wiki is not reliable in this matter.
Please tell me how Great Reset will be different.
How many people do the Republicans plan to kill in the US?
Hey, is Neville Chamberlain back in charge of the UK?
Would that be NAFAYK?
We have an inept eejit in charge in the UK. Don’t count on a rational response from us at present.
Yes, Ken, horrible atrocities in those countries.
Point?
BTW, ” human rights violations in Chile” was with US help under Nixon.
Point is:
Every Great Reset requires a Great Purge.
End result is usually a murder of millions.
You have to understand that we don’t go from freedom today to murder of dissidents tomorrow; there is a step by step process that gets us from here to there.
Vaccine Mandates where people are fired from their jobs puts us well past the point of signs on park benches stating ‘Jews may not sit here’ as was the case in 1930’s Germany.
Context is the censorship of this page by big tech as a step toward ‘Great Reset’.
“Vaccine Mandates where people are fired from their jobs puts us well past the point of signs on benches stating ‘Jews may not sit here'”
Nope. Its not the Holocaust. Not Nazi Germany. Not even close.
Anyone who says such things is a fool.
“BTW, ” human rights violations in Chile” was with US help under Nixon.”
Currently, the human rights violations in USA are being done in Biden’s name.
“Nope. Its not the Holocaust. Not Nazi Germany. Not even close.
Anyone who says such things is a fool.”
Did you think that the Holocaust happened in one day?
It started with signs on a Park Bench stating ‘Jews may not sit here’ What followed was a steady step by step erosion of rights just like we are seeing now with mandates and other erosions of rights.
Yeah, we’re not at holocaust -yet- and hopefully it won’t get to that point.
We are, however, well past the point of a sign forbidding unvaccinated from sitting on a park bench. If you think that is not a matter for concern then you are the fool.
‘Great Reset’ is not a desirable goal in a free and democratic society.
If people are fired from their jobs because of a govt-imposed vaccine mandate, it is typically because they are first-responders or health care workers.
Both deal closely with the public, in situations where the public is quite vulnerable and has little option.
The people being fired CHOOSE to find a different job.
The purpose of vaccine mandates in those cases is quite rational: to protect the public.
The Nazi’s persecution of, and ultimately genocide of the Jews and others, has NO such rationale.
To try to equate the two situations is shameful.
Furthermore, unlike in Nazi Germany, or in any of those other countries you mentioned, we live in a democracy. We have rule of law. We have a functioning justice system.
You dont like the rules, you can go to court, you can vote the leaders out of office.
But democracy currently is threatened. From the Right.
And the Right is showing love for autocrats. Tucker Carlson and others are embracing Russia and Putin, and Orban in Hungary.
You agree with him, Ken?
Here in Canada its Truck Drivers whose livelihoods are threatened by vaccine mandates. First they came for the health care workers then they came for the truckers. Next it will be everyone else.
The only purpose of vaccine mandate is to coerce people into taking a vaccine they don’t want.
There is no evidence that the vaccine is doing anything to stop the spread of the virus. Witness Israel, Australia, and other countries where vaccination rates are into the 90%, high booster shot uptake, with Israel well into fourth shot and still having dismally high infection rates.
You’ll note I started this by stating that you can’t have a ‘great reset’ without a ‘great purge’. Germany is just one of too many examples in the 20th Century. I am using the example of ‘Jews on a park bench’ as an indicator of how the purges start. Auschwitz didn’t open on the first day; it took years of erosion of societal norms. Vaccine Mandates where people are fired from their jobs is nothing but ‘othering’ in the same way as Stalin and other dictators justified the murder of dissidents and other undesirable people.
I should have added in the nakedly hostile censorship of people like Roy Spencer as another indicator. Climate Skeptic. Vaccine Skeptic. Anti-Socialist. Its all about ideas and dissent.
Go ahead and ignore the tsunami warnings. When your feet get wet its too late to run. Evolution in action.
You should try listening to Putin. Compared to Trudeau and Biden, he makes a lot of sense.
No I am not interested in living under his regime. Russia is better than the CCCP that preceded it but its still too broken for my liking.
If it was merely a choice of leader Putin ranks an order of magnitude higher as someone governed by morality and self discipline than many of the leaders we have in the west. Biden, Trudeau, Macron, Johnson etc, in imposing their ‘Great Reset’ agenda, do not govern in our best interests.
Furthermore, unlike in Nazi Germany, or in any of those other countries you mentioned, we live in a democracy. We have rule of law. We have a functioning justice system.
You dont like the rules, you can go to court, you can vote the leaders out of office.
But democracy currently is threatened. From the Right.
I don’t know where you live. I live in Canada. We have a Constitution that includes a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By any reasonable measure, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, lockdowns, etc are direct violations of the Charter.
Where is the ‘rule of law’ when the ‘elected’ leaders make up rules that are in direct violation of the Charter and by fiat in direct violation of the Constitution?
I’m watching USA. Biden too has tried to circumvent the US Constitution. I think, even as there are problems, the US democracy is showing itself to be more robust than Canada’s.
Lastly, the opposition from the ‘Right’ seems to be more about holding the feet of the corrupt ‘leftists’ in our government up against the Constitution. If forcing government to live by the constitution is what it means to be a right wing extremist, count me in.
> If it was merely a choice of leader Putin ranks an order of magnitude higher as someone governed by morality and self discipline
Goes on to show that troglodytes are willing to put the world on fire because they miss their dads.
Ken,
You’re very concerned about censorship, loss of human rights, liberties, and the possible descent into authoritarianism.
Then, on the other hand you praise Putin, who has been making all of that happen in his country. ‘He makes a lot of sense’?
You guys are a strange lot.
“I contend that advertisers do not care if their ads show up on such websites, at least not without some sort of extortion campaign against them.”
False. Many do care.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/17/google-ministers-quiz-placement-ads-extremist-content-youtube
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-fighter-jets-arrive-estonia-ukraine-russia-tensions
How would the US react to the presence of Russian military aircraft in Cuba and patrolling the US border?
Didnt all the countries of the former Eastern block join NATO voluntarily? AFAIK they werent coerced.
As a consequence, Russia has been deterred from intimidating, bullying, invading these countries.
Given the current situation with non-member Ukraine, who can blame them?
Korea.
Vietnam.
Somalia.
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
The US does not have a good record, even with massively superior technology, overwhelming air power, vast amounts of money, and supposedly the best and brightest advisors using leading edge modelling, even against lightly armed peasants with nothing more than an AK47 and a handful of rice.
Maybe the country can do better against an enemy who can actually fight back on more or less equal terms.
Who knows?
US problem is the State Dept and it’s intelligence agencies-
But they are the same thing.
Hard to say which is worse, but as again, they are the same thing.
We also mention our corporate News, but same “mistake”, they are the same thing.
At least there is constant factor with State Dept- always the place where the useless kids, end up. There has been more than only spoil children which has in the past been involved with the intel and the news.
The US is the capital of the world. They play a special role in the modern world by maintaining peace via its worldwide empire, the god blessed Pax Americana. There are downsides to being a part of the empire, but there sure are benefits. The major benefit is that the client states are not allowed to go to major wars with one another, as well as the possibility of the peaceful and unlimited worldwide business/trade, without parties having to worry to arms themselves constantly to fight piracy and rouge governments. In exchange for these benefits, america gets some preferences. The dollar-printing of course, but also some military preferences. America gets to tame rogue governments, and the client states cannot put their military on the america’s doorsteps without asking permission first, while america does get to put its own military on anyone else’s doorsteps at its choosing [but not inside the countries]. That’s the price of the world peace and prosperity of today, as we know it.
coturnix,
Presumably, your comment was meant to be ironic or sarcastic.
For example, you wrote ” . . . while america does get to put its own military on anyone elses doorsteps at its choosing [but not inside the countries].” That would come as a revelation to the inhabitants of Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, to name just a few.
As I pointed out, the US military record against countries with underwhelming military capabilities is abysmal.
Obviously your comment was meant as a joke. Good one!
haha, neither. I mean it may sound ironic but it is true.
>>Korea,
the us military hs been tehre from before kore became a country. Same for germany =) I don’t know if local koreans hate it, but i’d doubt that.
>> Vietnam,
there is us military in vietnam? news to me.
>> Somalia,
there is us military in vietnam? news to me.
>> Iraq,
there is us military in vietnam? news to me.
>> and Afghanistan,
there is us military in vietnam? news to me.
haha
coturnix,
It no doubt also comes as a surprise to you that the US put armed forces into North Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and got unceremoniously kicked out of each one.
Pathetic. Couldn’t even enforce its will on the Somalis! How sad is that?
Couldn’t stop China, Pakistan, India, or even North Korea from obtaining atomic weapons. Oh dear.
America gets to tame rogue governments? And no doubt decides which governments are “rogues”, and which are not, I suppose. Not doing too well with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq and just a few others.
Doesn’t seem to have “tamed” any governments recently, as far as I can see. Just whines continuously about foreign countries not doing what America wants them to do!
Boo hoo! Couldn’t even defeat the Afghans, but nor could the Russians. At least the Russians left after declaring “victory”. The US thought it would be easy to defeat the worn out Afghans. Wrong again!
Dream on. The US is good at murdering civilians (its own and foreigners) from the safety of an underground room controlling drones, or dropping bombs from B52s (in Cambodia, for instance), but mightily unsuccessful in an actual war situation – with people shooting back. Win all the battles, but manage to lose the war, so to speak.
Maybe you should be in charge? Then you could save people by destroying them all!
Have fun.
Musk will warm the Moon.
After 7 years, a spent Falcon 9 rocket stage is on course to hit the Moon
The impact could offer scientists a peek at the selenology of the Moon.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/01/an-old-falcon-9-rocket-may-strike-the-moon-within-weeks/
Linked from:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
I think any used rocket stage, which could “easily” hit the Moon would be better to hit Moon than hit Earth.
The US govt should even offer to pay $1000 dollars if spent stage hits the Moon rather than Earth. Or encourage it by giving a small prize.
But a government being government would rather tax {punish]. Only political problem with such silly urge, is there a lot governments
that would like to tax, but there not such a problem if lots of governments wish to hand out prizes.
g,
Some governments gave relatively massive inducements – the British Government even passed laws setting out conditions. The Longitude Act refers.
In current society, scientists demand payment from governments for their “work”, regardless of useful results. This is a fairly modern practice.
That’s the way it goes, for better or for worse, I guess.
test.
{posting is not working}
Yes. This site is in dire need of maintainable.
Ask Richard to offer his services to Roy. He can contact him to put the site back on, and he’s on his side.
Weak Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Ask Richard to offer his services to Roy. He can contact him to put the site back on, and hes on his side.”
Why dont you ask? Are you trying to play the master manipulator?
Don’t want to accept the reality that you are more the lying moron that nobody is terribly interested in obeying?
Carry on.
> Why don’t you ask?
Instead of playing dumb again, Mike Flynn, read my comment again.
Wriggly Wee Willy,
You wrote x
“Ask Richard to offer his services to Roy. He can contact him to put the site back on, and hes on his side.”
Why don’t you ask yourself? Scared? Trying to prove you are a master manipulator?
Maybe you could claim you didn’t write what you did – again!
What a moron you are!
> Why don’t you ask yourself?
Read my comment again, silly sock puppet.
Or alternatively, continue to play dumb!
Woeful Wee Willy,
“Read my comment again, silly sock puppet.”
No.
Got it?
Good.
Then I’m afraid you won’t have the answer to your silly question, Mike Flynn.
Got it?
Good.
If you say so, moron, if you say so.
Oh I do say so, Mike.
Got any homework done?
Whacko Wee Willy,
Still can’t produce the Greenhouse Theory, I take it?
Moron.
I already did, Mike, in at least two different ways, and more than ten times already. But you’re too busy playing dumb.
Where’s your homework, silly bridge troll without a bridge?
test
https://tinyurl.com/2s4hwfn2
PHYSICS
Wild New Paper Suggests Earth’s Tectonic Activity Has an Unseen Source
DAVID NIELD26 JANUARY 2022
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-pull-of-the-sun-and-moon-could-be-affecting-plate-motion
Linked from: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
Saw something similar and earlier, here:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022/01/22/tug-of-sun-moon-could-be-driving-plate-motions-on-imbalanced-earth-suggest-researchers/
Anyhow:
“Yet there’s some debate over what causes these giant slabs of rock to move around in the first place.
Amongst the many hypotheses put forward over the centuries, convection currents generated by the planet’s hot core have been discussed as an explanation, but it’s doubtful whether this effect would produce enough energy.
A newly published study looks to the skies for an explanation. Noting that force rather than heat is most commonly used to move large objects, the authors suggest that the interplay of gravitational forces from the Sun, Moon, and Earth could be responsible for the movement of Earth’s tectonic plates.”
This should not be this wild, or we had known about the Moon causing tidal friction. And friction would be more with surface crusts rather the core {obviously}.
{Though core is very dense, one has higher gravity tidal force with such higher density, but just saying not wild, or it’s wilder to not think of a large amount of it is not affecting the crust.}
Dr you should write an article where you claim climate sensitivity is 15, to see if your blog will be closed for spreading misinformation…
Ken
It is an excellent idea to let those who wish to go unvaccinated and unmasked to do so.
They now make up the majority of those hospitalised and dying of the disease.
Think of it as evolution in action.
There are conflicting stories about unvaccinated/vaccinated.
It would seem that vaccinated people are at least as likely to get Omicron as unvaccinated. There are too many stories of adverse reactions to the vaccine. Too, there is apparently a real risk of vaccine exhaustion where your immune system is seriously weakened and not just against the Fauci flu. If you are not in a high risk group the cost – benefit doesn’t make sense.
UK statistics show 17700 COVID deaths in people with no underlying conditions of which 3664 are under 65. UK population is 70 million.
As for masks there still is no evidence that masks do anything at all to stop the spread of virus and in fact do cause lots of other harms.
Evolution in action. We will see about that.
“There are too many stories of adverse reactions to the vaccine”
There are even more stories about people dying having not taken any vaccines.
https://judithcurry.com/2022/01/23/crossing-or-not-the-1-5-and-2-0oc-thresholds/#more-28254
“The goal of the emissions targets is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably 1.5 degrees Centigrade, compared to pre-industrial levels (typically the baseline period 1851-1900). For reference, the climate has warmed in 2020 by about 1.2 C ”
Ok so pre-industrial is baseline of 1851-1900, I would think + 1851 is after the start of industrial.
So emission targets of some politicians are preferably 1.5 – 1.2 = .3 C and well below .8 C
And it should note .3 or much less than .8 C would a lot more in terms of European average temperature which is about 9 C.
Berkeley Earth says:
The world has warmed 1.3C and how much has country warmed?
Canada Already +1.8C in 2020
Heading for around +5.7 C in 2100
And Canada is currently less than -3.5 C
5.7 C – 1.8 = 3.9
So, Canada is claimed to going to have over 0 C by 2100 AD.
No, they said heading for this in 2100 AD
Switzerland about 9 C
Already +2.1C in 2020
Heading for around +4.6 C in 2100
add 2.5 C so heading to 11.5 C in 2100 AD
Germany about 9.5
Already +2.3 C in 2020
Heading for around +4.6 C in 2100
add 2.3 so heading to 11.8 C in 2100 AD
So much more in Canada and Europe and less in warmer parts of the world.
China about 8 C
Already +1.9 C in 2020. Heading for around +5.0C in 2100
Or add 3.1 so heading to around 11.1 C in 2100 AD
Let’s see I live in Lancaster CA and it has average temperature of 17 C according to:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/34.56N-118.70W
I am very quite cold right now, and had a few cool summers, but didn’t get any snow fall this year [probably because it was too cold].
And I haven’t noticed much of a UHI effect, but by 2100 AD, we probably have a lot population growth, locally, and could have more 10 C from UHI effects by then. If I was alive, I think I would want to live on ocean settlement, rather mismanaged vast city in 2100 AD. A large city that probably should not be here. Or it’s fine as larger town.
But currently 17 C is not very warm.
And by 2100 AD, both China and Europe will have less population, probably mostly because they are just too cold for civilized people.
So .3 to at most .8 C, will be “hotter” in Europe, Canada, and China or less where I live or where most of world, lives and/or will be living. Though if Canada warms and Russia warms there will lots of open space for people who desire to live in the colder conditions- far colder than Europe in wildest guesses of berkeley earth. Or colder than Europe was during the little ice age.
“Using the medium emissions scenario (SSP2-4.5), the IPCC AR6 constrained global mean temperature projections indicate that there is a 50% chance that the 1.5oC threshold would be crossed around 2030 and the 2oC threshold would be crossed around 2052.”
So, does global average air temperature have 50% chance of warming by .3 C by around 2030 AD or in less than 10 years?
Well I think it’s going to drop to .13 C rather than be at .14 C per decade in next 2 months. But if remains at .14 C, then no it wouldn’t.
Instead it needs to get to .2 C per decade pretty fast, which I think, is unlikely.
It seems the accurate measurement of global air temperature is a threat to some people’s religious beliefs.
It seems the accurate measurement of global air temperature is a threat to some peoples religious beliefs.”
It’s also a threat to your nation’s infrastructure.
Check the local stories on melting permafrost and its effect on the foundations of your infrastructure.
Check how the ice road season is shortening as you get later freezes and earlier melt.
Once you get away from the Southern rim, Canada’s infrastructure is designed around freezing Winters, which you can no longer rely on.
Gosh, don’t Canadian know about global warming?
And it’s been far less than predicted.
And will continue to less than predicted.
But global warming is about polar amplification, and Canada got a lot of polar regions. They should also expect or prepare for more snowing as most of Canada is well below freezing. And will continue to be well below freezing most of the time.
But:
Sunspot number: 71
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 9.42×1010 W Cool
Max: 49.4×1010 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×1010 W Cold (02/2009)
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +7.3% High
48-hr change: -0.8%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
It seems going in direction of getting into Solar Max conditions, and perhaps the next winter will be less cold. And less dry- so less hot also.
But I don’t predict the weather, so just hopeful.
“Take the Earths ideal blackbody curve for its surface temperature, something like this:
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/modtran_iris.jpg
Then take the radiation spectrum as it actually leaves out the TOA, also shown on that graph. The gap between those two lines is the greenhouse effect. You could do the integral numerically if you want.”
“Take the Earths ideal blackbody curve for its surface temperature…”
The method I use is “Planets Temperatures Comparison Method”.
I consider Earth’s surface being spherical because Earth is a planet.
A planet cannot have “ideal blackbody curve for its temperature”, since planets are not blackbodies and planets do not have uniform surface temperature.
It is the basic definition of the blackbody having uniform surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“It is the basic definition of the blackbody having uniform surface temperature.”
No Christos. That is not a definition. An ideal blackbody can be illuminated nonuniformly like a planet and be out of equilibrium but no one can prove even that right or wrong because blackbodies do not exist in nature.
“An ideal blackbody can be illuminated nonuniformly like a planet and be out of equilibrium but no one can prove even that right or wrong because blackbodies do not exist in nature.”
Yes.
“”An ideal blackbody can be illuminated nonuniformly like a planet and be out of equilibrium…”
In this case we cannot apply the S-B equation J=σΤ^4 to the entire planet surface at a single temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, what you write “we cannot apply” is not applied by experts in the field.
What is properly done is at each thermometer temperature measurement station reading convert that reading using measured emissivity to earthen near surface internal energy (an extensive property) & average that near surface internal energy worldwide then convert to global avg. temperature (an intensive property). You can find all this in a relevant text book about which Christos’ refuses to learn.
Ball4,
What the heck is this supposed to mean? I’ll guarantee you cannot produce a “relevant text book” which states –
“What is properly done is at each thermometer temperature measurement station reading convert that reading using measured emissivity to earthen near surface internal energy (an extensive property) & average that near surface internal energy worldwide then convert to global avg. temperature (an intensive property).”
Writing incomprehensible gobbledegook won’t make anybody believe in a non-existent Greenhouse Effect.
Are you a member in good standing of the Society of Morons, by any chance?
> won’t make anybody
How do you know, silly sad sock puppet?
Have another spoon:
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/analysis-of-a-119-country-survey-predicts-global-climate-change-awareness/
Weary Wee Willy,
I wrote –
Writing incomprehensible gobbledegook won’t make anybody believe in a non-existent Greenhouse Effect.
A lying moron would no doubt provide a link to incomprehensible gobbledegook, and claims it will, indeed, make people believe in a non-existent Greenhouse Effect!
Are you that lying moron?
Maybe you think you could produce a copy of the Greenhouse Effect, but then you would have to make your fantasy become real!
A lying moron – and a fool!
Mike Flynn, Metapsychological Faillibility –
Read your sentence again:
Who but Sky Dragon Cranks like you believe that the greenhouse effect is inexistent?
Tsk. Tsk.
Wee Willy Nitwit,
Who cares? If it doesn’t exist, it doesn’t exist. Just like unicorns, Trenberth’s missing heat, or the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize!
You may believe what you like. Who cares what a lying moron like you thinks?
No one you can name, that’s fairly certain.
Keep dreaming.
> Who cares?
Someone who would ask “Do you actually bother reading what you write,” Mike.
Hope this helps.
Where’s your homework?
Weepy Wee Willy,
So you can’t actually name anyone.
As I thought.
Lying moron, or just moron? Which are you”
> So you can’t name
I quoted you, Mike, but it applies to anyone who’d say something along the same lines as you did.
For a guy who takes pride in writing properly, you lack the flexibility to play well these silly semantic games.
Wee Willy Dumdum,
You wrote –
“For a guy who takes pride in writing properly, you lack the flexibility to play well these silly semantic games.
Mind reading again? Moron. You haven’t the faintest notion who I am, let alone what I think!
I have read your pointless and irrelevant opinion, and rejected it.
By the way, did you mean to write ” . . . you lack the flexibility to play well these silly semantic games.”, or were you just exhibiting your usual syntactic incompetence?
Carry on.
Playing dumb again, Mike?
Plain reading is good enough for me:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1132006
Now, about that homework of yours, where can I find it?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Earlier, you demanded, begged, and pleaded that I teach you physics.
That makes me teacher, you dimwit. The dimwit of course, being a moron, demands that the teacher do the dimwit’s homework, and the moron thinks that he is some sort of master manipulator, instead of a serial masturbator.
Providing irrelevant links is not evidence of your effort to at least acquaint yourself with the basics that were a condition of me entertaining the idea of accepting you as a paying student.
No matter, it is obvious you are totally confused, and delusional.
Blathering about a Greenhouse Effect, which you can neither describe nor provide, just shows that you are doomed to retain your membership of the Society of Morons into the foreseeable future.
Carry on begging and pleading. It will do you no good, because you are an intractable moron, with delusions of grandeur.
> Earlier, you demanded, begged, and pleaded
Not exactly, Mathematically Febrile Mike – I asked you to fulfill the commitment you made:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1128790
And it’s not just for me. It’s for everyone here, including yourself.
Too much play and no work makes Flynnson a dull sock puppet.
Do it as the weather forecasters do.
One grid square at a time.
Weather forecasters tend to do it in 3D ‘cubes’.
Happy enough with that.
The key point is that you break up the planetary calculation into lots of local calculations and then combine them as necessary.
Nyquist says that the smaller the ‘cube’ the better the estimation.
Nyquist is right.
The finer the grid the better. Both in lateral area and altitude. The problem is that solving the Navier Stokes equations for a small grid square takes just as much effort as for a larger square.
As the forecasters dropped from 100km grids down to 50km and then 25 km their calculation load went up fourfold for each decrease in size. It also doubled every time they halved the step interval.
The limit has always been “How much computing power do we have available?”
Strange then that Nyquist is not considered in sampling that same problem.
Why would it be specifically attributed to him? It’s common knowledge in the trade.
–Or the Democrats could think out of the box and nominate — Donald Trump! Think about it: He’s liberal on a lot of social issues. He’s old enough that he won’t stay on the court that long. Sure, he’s not a lawyer, but the Constitution doesn’t require him to be. And this way, they won’t have to worry about him running for president!–
https://nypost.com/2022/01/27/stephen-breyers-retirement-sets-up-a-bumpy-confirmation-battle/
Or he is best dem they got.
[[But Trump wouldn’t accept the demotion.
And also, who actually wants to talk with Senators-
in any context, about anything.
The low energy punks.]]
“Shortages typically lead to higher prices, and this is exactly what happened here as well. As a result, the cost of solar panels, wind turbines, and EV batteries started climbinga development that virtually no renewable energy forecaster had anticipated.
Bloomberg reported this month that solar panel prices had surged by more than 50 percent in the past 12 months alone. The price of wind turbines is up 13 percent and battery prices are rising for the first time ever, the report noted.”
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Era-of-Cheap-Renewables-Grinds-To-A-Halt.html
“no renewable energy forecaster had anticipated”
Huh.
Linked from: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
Dems are probably aren’t going fund raise much, either.
Job done.
Probably, that wasn’t predictable, either.
Some wise man said, don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things up.
> “The blanket does not produce any extra energy.
Neither does CO2..
-Back radiation can only exist when there is an atmosphere capable of redirecting the radiation.
The temperature it gets to, unlike a simple surface, has to be high enough to get the radiation back to space and as such it has to exist in a higher state of excitation [or so it appears to us] as the radiation passes through or is sent back.
It does not manufacture more energy de Novo, all the energy present is from the sun. not made by CO2.”
> “Not always. Venus absorbs less solar radiation from the sun than the earth does. Its temperature is 400 C higher than it should be.”
Earth’s atmosphere has only traces of carbon dioxide CO₂ gas content
CO₂ content in Earth’s atmosphere is measured to be some 400 ppm.
400 parts per million is one part per 2.500 (1.000.000 /400 = 2.500)
So we have one molecule of CO₂ for every 2.500 molecules of air.
Or to make it even more clear: 1 /2.500 = 0,0004 or 0,04 %
Now let’s compare the 0,04% CO₂ content in Earth’s atmosphere with the water vapor content of about 1% on average.
0,04% CO₂ /1% H₂O = 0,04
or one molecule of CO₂ for every 25 molecules of H₂O in Earth’s atmosphere.
One may say there are still too many CO₂ molecules.
But Earth’s atmosphere is very thin, it is an almost transparent atmosphere in both ways – in and out.
It is not only the CO₂% content in the Earth’s atmosphere general content that matters, but we have also to consider how many CO₂ molecules are in Earth’s atmosphere in total.
If Earth’s atmosphere was consisted from the actually existing CO₂ molecules only, the atmospheric pressure on the Earth’s surface would have been 0,0004 bar.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“> ‘The blanket does not produce any extra energy.
Neither does CO2..'”
Strawman. No-one ever claimed that they did. However they both act as blankets which reduce how fast things cool.
RLH,
And, of course, how fast things heat up. That is why, for example, the hottest places on Earth are well below the temperature of the hottest places on the airless Moon.
After the same exposure time, and same distance, of course.
That is because blankets also reduce heat gain. The question is in the balance between loss and gain.
Depends on blankets thickness?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
At least that. Also the efficiency of the insulation at various wavelengths of IR and other frequencies.
“But Earth’s atmosphere is very thin, it is an almost transparent atmosphere in both ways – in and out.”
Nope. Not in the IR.
Have you worked out how surface emission from Earth has deep notches removed at the CO2 wavelengths?
Seems likely you will AGAIN ignore this problem, then simply come back later and repeat the same false claims.
“Have you worked out how surface emission from Earth has deep notches removed at the CO2 wavelengths?”
The tiny CO2 0,04% content in Earth’s atmosphere cannot absorb (deep notches removed at the CO2 wavelengths).
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/modtran_iris.jpg
Also, the tiny CO2 0,04% content in Earth’s atmosphere cannot absorb almost the 1/2 of the emitted (according to the graph) by earth’s surface IR EM energy.
Also, the tiny CO2 0,04% content in Earth’s atmosphere cannot absorb the entire amount emitted by earth’s surface at 15 μκ IR EM energy.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes Christos,
You are showing the observations of deep notches in the emitted IR from Earth in CO2 bands. This is what I asking about.
You are NOT explaining how these notches could be there, without atmospheric CO2, as you have repeatedly asserted.
Put up or shut up!
Stephen, DREMT
Evidence against the Berry model.
If gigatonnes of net movement of CO2 is taking place from the deep ocean to the atmosphere you would see release from upwelling currents such as the Humboldt Current off Peru and the Gulf of Mexico.
Instead most of the new CO2 is coming off the land in the Northern Hemisphere.
Remember. If it doesn’t match experiment,it’s wrong.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/296/global-carbon-dioxide-2020-2021/
Remember. If you’re attacking a straw man, you’re wrong.
Richard
As a scientist you suck.
Not a straw man. I’m doing the hypothesis testing you and Berry should be doing.
Read the abstract of Berry’s 2021 paper.
“It shows how increased surface temperature and deep ocean overturning independently add 100ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere… ”
Deep ocean overturning is known as upwelling.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upwelling
If Barry’s model is correct, these upwelling currents should be major emitters of CO2. The Humboldt Current, furthest from other CO2 sources, should show this clearly.
Watch the West coast of South America off Peru and Chile in the video.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/296/global-carbon-dioxide-2020-2021/
No CO2.
Not Richard, and don’t care if Berry is wrong.
EM,
It’s Rajinder, or Rajinderweb.
DREMT.
EM: Where did you get the idea that I support Berry?
I suspect EM is referring to Richard Courtney, who’s an old Climateball crank, e.g.:
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/06/education-versus-indoctrination-part-ii/#comment-42258
In fact his crankiness can be traced back decades earlier:
https://www.desmog.com/richard-s-courtney/
The Old Left has evolved weirdly. Witness Gordo.
“Read the abstract of Berry’s 2021 paper.
“It shows how increased surface temperature and deep ocean overturning independently add 100ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere… ””
That’s in the preprint abstract, not the abstract of the final published paper.
Did Berry abandon the idea of deep ocean overturn as a source of atmospheric CO2?
If it stayed in the final paper my objection stands.
It is not in the abstract of his final paper, it is only in the abstract of the preprint. Check for yourself. I don’t think “where the atmospheric CO2 comes from” is central to his ideas at all. That is something that Salby and Harde discuss, though. All this is in my very limited understanding of the issue, I have only started reading about it in these last few days. So could be wrong.
This was on his page discussing the 2021/2 paper.
“For example, if nature adds, say 3%, to the deep ocean carbon, the flows out of the deep ocean as this new carbon moves to equilibrium will increase the other reservoirs by about 3% in 100 to 200 years.”
If each and every reservoir is increasing naturally by 3%, where is nature getting the extra 3% total carbon?
I’m sorry, but the more I look at Berry’s work, the worse it gets.
⅘
That’s really not what his work is about, but OK, E Man.
EM,
Here’s the official abstract:
https://scc.klimarealistene.com/produkt/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/
I’m afraid you’re getting played.
“Im afraid youre getting played.”
Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been Climateballed by denialists.
What I said is correct. In the preprint abstract Berry mentions “increased surface temperature and deep ocean overturning independently add 100ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere”. In the abstract of the final, published paper, as you can see, he does not mention increased surface temperature or deep ocean overturning. Why do people falsely accuse me of stuff when I’m demonstrably correct!?
> Wouldn’t be the first time
It might not be the last, EM.
Please beware that a con man can try to get your wallet only by telling truths. The same applies to fallacies. As always, relevance is key.
Whatever I do, whatever I say…someone has a problem with it.
DREMT
Nothing personal.
Let me explain where I’m coming from.
Emotionally I want AGW to be wrong, so I come here seeking evidence falsifying it.
Rationally I was educated as a biologist and taught to hammer at the evidence until it either stood up or fell down, especially if it was telling me what I wanted to hear.
Hence my hammering Berry’s ideas.
I’ve been hammering at the evidence for and against AGW since my palynology days half a century ago and so far the evidence for has been much more robust than the evidence against.
“IPCCs basic assumption requires human CO2 to stay in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2.”
Thats quite a false strawman they let him put in the abstract.
“The 14CO2 e-time, derived from 14C data, is 10.0 years, making the 12CO2 e-time less than 10 years.”
Another whopper. The fit clearly shows the etime is 16.5 y. The claim that this makes the 12Co2 etime < 10 y is declared, not proven.
I don’t have money to buy everyone’s book or paper so my knowledge of Berry’s paper is the abstract. He claims the majority of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to a change in the natural carbon cycle.
According to Berry the CO2 in the ocean has increased too.
The problem then is of identifying the source of the increasing CO2.
Up to now I’ve taken it as read that the CO2 is due to human emissions. The only other logical idea I’ve seen is that of ocean off-gassing as it slowly continues to warm but that would mean less CO2 in the ocean.
Where the CO2 comes from might not be central to Berry’s discussion but I think it should be.
Well, Entropic Man, if you don’t want it to be personal, my advice would be to stop making it personal by saying things like, "as a scientist you suck" and "wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been Climateballed by denialists".
> my knowledge of Berry’s paper
It’s not the knowledge of Ed’s paper that matters here, Kennui.
That’s just the bridge Ed decided to build to bait scientific-minded chaps like EM. Bridge trolls usually try to block bridges people need to cross. Nobody needs to cross that bridge.
Everybody knows Ed’s model. It hasn’t changed. It never will.
DREMT
Apologies. I’m picking up bad habits from ClintR and Swenson.
Though I do wonder at your surprise when, like any scientist, I infer ways to test a hypothesis.
What surprise?
Manual pingback –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/the-snow-hits-the-fan-on-saturday-global-warming-alarmism-to-follow/
Note the title.
I recently I have thinking how to make Earth become a Snowball Earth.
One thing about it, is it’s not impossible to do.
Political people have brainwashed to think Earth could become like Venus, and as I mentioned, we in the coldest part of 34 million year old Ice Age. Or we far closer to Snowball Earth than a Greenhouse Global Climate and a Greenhouse Global Climate would be nice- or nothing vaguely like Earth being like Venus.
Though Greenhouse Global climate would be like the world is more like India, and with India one can still go skiing. Oh, check that. Yep:
“Here is the list of 14 Destinations for Skiing in India for a Thrilling Snow Vacation”
But it seems as general matter there would less skiing opportunities, but it should really limit ice skating on lakes. Ice fishing opportunities also takes a big hit.
But now wondering if Snowball Earth is bad as it sounds, of course there a question about what Snowball Earth is.
Now, my opinion is Earth as never had Snowball Earth, and currently Earth is about as cold as Earth has ever been, though due lack of evidence and what is meant by the term “Snowball Earth”, can’t rule it out. But I guess one start with Earth during a Glaciation period.
In Little Ice Age there were bad stuff, like mountain towns being invaded with glaciers, but it’s not much worse badly managed forests which result in incinerating towns.
Or politicians commonly cause worse things than mere glaciation periods would cause, but I am wondering about the upsides to it.
Now a problem causing a glaciation period or Snowball Earth, is it tend to take a long time.
Or the trick of disappearing the Sun, doesn’t really get there very fast. No one thinks one gets mile high glaciers over New York by disappearing the sun. Or you need the sun’s energy to do the work of making vast ice sheet, which could take thousands of years- which is not normally regarded as fast.
Fast, would similar to being “transported” to Mars quickly. Except one has air pressure, and that is colder than Mars. But currently a lot of our world is much colder than Mars. Or even 15 C air is cold, and -50 C space like vacuum is not cold, just as LEO 1000 C “atmosphere” is not hot.
Or the coldness of Mars, are mostly a matter of “different problems involved” but just “coldness” of Mars air, is not much of a problem.
Top Chinese scientist working in Hypersonic program flees China with critical secrets
https://tfiglobalnews.com/2022/01/27/top-chinese-scientist-working-in-hypersonic-program-flees-china-with-critical-secrets/
linked: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
One can get from anywhere to anywhere on earth surface in about 45 mins.
Does “hypersonic” do this faster. No.
“Hypersonic” is mostly about using more energy to get somewhere- and has slow acceleration.
Chemical rockets have high acceleration, “hypersonic” doesn’t, hypersonic has more delta-v per mass, rockets with higher ISP.
Ion rockets [not generally “hypersonic”] has very ISP, and very low thrust.
If wanted to spend trillions of dollars on lasers, being “worried” about “hypersonic” makes “economic sense”. Nothing accelerates and goes faster than speed of light lasers.
“hypersonic” roughly means, using nuclear energy or beamed power [roughly, lasers]. I tend to think this about nuclear energy, though beamed power could part of mix. If it’s about beamed power, then it’s about “space” or it’s about “space power satellite” keeping in mind one bounce microwave energy which related space power satellite. Or one thinks it only has to do power generated in space with solar farms or nuclear powerplants in orbit. So as said, it could have beamed power “in the mix”, but it seems this most related to nuclear rockets developed and discarded in the 1960s by the US.
Also back then we wanted build nuclear powered airline planes- which is doable, though unless you really, really against using jet fuel, doesn’t make much sense.
Using nuclear rocket on Earth, doesn’t make much sense, unless one needs a Nuclear Orion. Nuclear Orion could useful if want if want get billions of people off Earth, in relatively short period of time. Or when a SpaceX Starship is too small and not fast enough.
But nuclear anything on Moon, could make sense. But mass drivers are generally better.
RLH,
You wrote –
“That is because blankets also reduce heat gain. The question is in the balance between loss and gain.”
Thank you for confirming what I said. As to your “question”, there is none.
Insulators allow exactly as much energy through in both directions. If you believe otherwise, you are forced to accept several impossibilities, not the least of which is “free” energy resulting in perpetual motion.
This is probably why nobody can produce a Greenhouse Theory – it would need to invoke magic at one point or another.
You might (or might not) wish to consider an isolated system consisting of two bodies of different temperatures separated by insulation of any temperature. All the matter in the system will settle at the same temperature, including the insulation and the bodies concerned. No magic involved. Apply the Laws of Thermodynamics to the real system containing the Earth, its atmosphere and the Sun, and try and convince yourself you can raise the temperature of the Earth.
A dedicated climate cultist can – but only in their imagination.
> This is probably why nobody can produce a Greenhouse Theory it would need to invoke magic at one point or another.
How so, Mike Flynn?
It seems an author of a greenhouse theory would be famous.
Actually, one should have list of them, and someone would pick the best from the list.
And such people might even be discussing it.
Mike Flynn would be even more famous if he could publish his refutation of the physics that explains the greenhouse effect, gb.
He’d receive a Nobel prize, so at least 1M.
I bet Australia would erect a statue to him.
Natural history museums would create a scientific cyclorama, with holograms of him with John Tyndall, Albert Einstein, and Richard Feynman.
His name would reach Mars.
Aliens would then realize it’s worth reaching out with the human specie.
What is he waiting for!
I think you perhaps overstating, Mike Flynn.
But I am going to Goggle, Mike Flynn
— Mike Flynn Likens Pelosi to Roman Governor Who Executed Jesus: ‘Modern-Day Pontius Pilate’ —
That’s pretty good.
But Pontius Pilate was pretty good politician.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You moron, he wouldnt be famous at all.
You don’t get famous being stupid enough trying to battle some non-existent entity – well, apart from Don Quixote, I guess.
There is no greenhouse effect (have you finally acknowledged there is no Greenhouse Theory?), you delusional donkey, and no amount of providing links to irrelevant sites that nobody of importance bothers with, is going to produce an imaginary effect, scientific or otherwise.
On the other hand, you would receive world-wide acclaim from climate cultists around the world for being the first climate crank to convert fantasy into fact, if you could just produce the Greenhouse Theory.
They all try, but you would be the first to actually make wistful thinking a reality!
Go for it, Wee Willy! I’m sure you think you can do it if you try hard enough!
Moron.
> he
You, Mike.
You.
Considering your position on Murican foreign policy, no, not the other Mike Flynn, like gb tries to suggest.
Whining Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about?
Do you think anybody cares what you babble about?
Moron.
Playing dumb again, Mike?
Go do your homework, then come back.
I’ll volunteer to set up a gofundme for Dr. Spencer’s family milk and bread account. Figure we could raise about 50 times his monthly Google ad revenue in a week. LOL..
But if Google finds out about it — it’s a 50/50 chance they’ll give GoFundMe some good motivation to cancel the fund drive.
It’s Techno-Tyranny. When it comes to freedom of expression, the excuse that they can do whatever whatever they want to gets lame. Because places like these are actually public accommodations that cannot be replaced. And the bias Google has is LARGELY PUSHED by our very own elected political leadership. Which makes them complicit.
It the case of shutting down Parlor, Amazon Web Services and the other censors got ACTUAL LETTERS from a couple members of Congress “suggesting” the action. That’s CORRUPTION.
Science is getting minced to death by the Woking Dead. In ALL disciplines.
Atmospheres do cause surface temperature variations for physical reasons unrelated to the one size must fit all theory.
I do not say it is all rotation.
Nevertheless the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is so much stronger than Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect, when estimating earth’s mean surface temperature, has a negligible impact on earth’s surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“I recently I have thinking how to make Earth become a Snowball Earth.
One thing about it, is its not impossible to do. ”
The last Snowball Earth was 700 million years ago.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
The Sun has warmer by about 7% since then.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-sun-wont-die-billion-years.html
I doubt that the Earth can get cool enough to go into snowball Earth mode again.
“Proponents of the hypothesis argue that it best explains sedimentary deposits that are generally believed to be of glacial origin at tropical palaeolatitudes and other enigmatic features in the geological record. Opponents of the hypothesis contest the implications of the geological evidence for global glaciation and the geophysical feasibility of an ice- or slush-covered ocean, and they emphasize the difficulty of escaping an all-frozen condition.
A number of unanswered questions remain, including whether Earth was a full snowball or a “slushball” with a thin equatorial band of open (or seasonally open) water.”
The “opponents” aren’t opponents, there is no evidence of global glaciation or slush-covered ocean.
That one could have glaciers in tropics, is not argument. We have glaciers in tropics and Earth is claimed that we are warm at the moment {we are in interglacial period- or we in a rare moment in our Ice Age when it’s considered we are warmer- though we dismiss or not include the crackpots who claim we going to become Venus like, and also dismiss the uneducated that we are suppose to be in the warmest time within our interglacial period. And seems possible in the warmest time in the Holocene, there was tropical glaciers}.
There could easily be very large glaciers in the tropics, in the past, and would mean squat about Earth global climate State [whether it was greenhouse, or icehouse global climate].
This reminds me of fantasy/wild idea of dragging polar ice to the tropics. I think people might like icy/snowy tropical resort.
But we need nuclear powered tugboats otherwise fuel costs would be to too high.
I dub thee Slartibartfast.
–I doubt that the Earth can get cool enough to go into snowball Earth mode again.–
I doubt snowball earth’s existed, but we close to one.
And we could cause a Snowball Earth, if we wanted one.
So, there seems to me there is lack of evidence, proving that our last 2 million years, was not the coldest time ever, on Earth.
Milankovich says you are wrong.
Milankovich was about finding patterns of Glaciation and interglacial period.
He had reason of why, glaciation periods ended. And he was wrong.
In what way?
Why do glacial periods end?
Do you mean, why do glaciation periods end, suddenly?
Or why do glaciation periods, always end, suddenly?
Causation.
What mechanism changed the Earth from glacial 20,000 years ago to interglacial 10,000 years ago?
Why did the average temperature rise from 9C to 14C?
The modern interpretation of Milankovich’s work is that you get an interglacial when enough energy reaches 65N latitude in Summer to melt the snow. Without the snow albedo drops and enough heat is retained to keep it warm.
A glacial period starts when too little heat reaches 65N in Summer to melt the snow. Over years the snow builds up into ice sheets and the increased ice albedo keeps it cold.
Global temperature is the average temperature of the ocean, our ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C, if ocean were warm by 1 C
it would have “CAWG effects” and if ocean was 3 C rather than 3.5 C,
we would entering a glaciation period.
This is indisputable.
Land cools, and the ocean warms.
” Land cools, and the ocean warms. ”
That the oceans warm, is indisputable:
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/data/english/ohc/ohc_global_en_shindan_1955.png
But that land cools, is unknown to me:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/crutem4vgl/mean:12/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:12
“But that land cools, is unknown to me:”
Ocean warms land. Land gets higher nighttime temperature.
If ocean were cooler, it warms land less, land gets colder nighttime temperature.
Ocean is global air temperature. It warms atmosphere the most, and it’s most of the surface of Earth.
Without even counting the heat engine of the tropical ocean.
Notice that tropical land is not a heat engine. And tropical deserts can freeze at night.
The tropical ocean not only warms the world, but it is self regulating- it gets the most sunlight, and got to most greenhouse gases.
Or if you cool the world somehow, the tropical ocean will pump more heat to the rest of the world, and if warm the world it will pump less heat to the world.
What controls global temperature is the temperature of entire ocean, which tropical ocean is as not much of factor.
Or cold ocean or warm ocean is little to do the tropical ocean which sits on thick warm slabs of warm water. Or global air temperature is the air temperature of 60% of world which not the tropical zone. But if world wetter, tropical deserts get wetter, and world drier, makes tropical deserts drier [and colder] though drier desert can get highest daytime air temperatures.
Drier is more extreme of hot and cold.
Gbaikie
So why did the ocean warm at the start of the Holocene?
“So why did the ocean warm at the start of the Holocene?”
Why is the ocean cold?
The ocean is cold because cold ocean water falls and it falls
in the ocean’s polar region.
As we know the entire ocean has thousand times more heat per 1 C as the atmosphere. Or the heat needed to warm ocean [the joules of heat] by 1 would heat atmosphere by 1000 C.
The ocean is slow to warm or slow to cool.
Cold water falling would to replaced by other water {warmer water} and added water in is turn is cooled and replaced. Convectional
process. Via convection process water can cool or warm something quickly, but if there isn’t difference in buoyancy or other ways [ie mechanical stirring the water] than water doesn’t transfer heat [well] or it’s very good insulation.
Anyhow, the simple thing is the cold water falling, makes ocean cold, and make polar region warm. Or it’s short term warming effect and long term cooling effect.
And one could ask a simple question where is there enough time to warm the ocean. Interglacial periods are short and glacial periods are long- over many thousands years of year the ocean is warmed during the glaciation period, until the ocean has enough heat to cause an interglacial period.
And interglacial are periods where ocean gradually cools, and enters, glacial period again.
Or if you have ice free arctic ocean in the winter, you will have a warm arctic region, if polar ice remains remains frozen during the summer, you have cold polar region.
Having thick polar ice, it insulates or reduces cold water falling. Or cuts off the warming effect of ocean in the polar region, or stops cold water from falling.
It’s very simple and also very complicated. And in Greenhouse climate there more warm salty water falling. Giving polar water which never freezes.
Or this complicated, because many ways to warm the ocean, but simple is sense if reduce the amount of cold water falling, the long terms effect is a warmer ocean.
Now, Milankovitch cycles and we could say the main one, wiki:
“The angle of the Earth’s axial tilt with respect to the orbital plane (the obliquity of the ecliptic) varies between 22.1 and 24.5, over a cycle of about 41,000 years. The current tilt is 23.44”
One can say generally that 24.5 causes more global warming as compared to 22.1.
And ocean surface temperature is global air temperature.
24.5 – 22.1 = 2.4 degree
But does 2.4 degree difference make much difference directly to glacial ice.
Well Germany is lousy place to harvest solar energy and might be slightly improved, if had sun angle increase of 2 degree. It would be like Germany was not 2 degrees latitude higher or it was 2 degree latitude lower. And 1 degree is 111 km distance. But Germany might have a greater difference if it was less cloudy in the summer.
Now the way Germany gets some solar energy is it tilts it’s solar panels. If Germans put their solar panel on the ground, they could than manage to get far less solar energy. Though if in the tropics, it wouldn’t matter, but Germany is far from the tropics.
Anyhow 2 degrees is not going effect a glacier, much.
What destroys a glacier, is lots of rain.
But anyhow, the ocean warms and land cools, does 2 degrees effect the ocean much?
Well, everyone agrees it makes the Sahara Desert into grassland and forest- though one can argue how it does it.
Also, everyone agrees that if Sahara was not desert but instead a grassland, it would have global warming effect. Again one can argue how much and why.
Also in terms definitions, one is making the tropical zone larger- if 24.5 rather 22.1 degrees one moves our boundaries of tropics accordingly. If you simply widen boundaries due committee deciding it sends a better message, without any change in reality
it also means the tropics would absorb even more of 1/2 of sunlight reaching earth. So can increase tropics via committee, and/or the world can actually change, but if reality make tropics bigger [which a committee could choose to ignore, that doesn’t change reality].
The sun at low angle warms the top surface more, or tropics makes thick slabs of warm water, and summer sunlight can create thinner
slabs of warm water outside of the tropics. Which seems would make more rainfall.
But we just return to simple, an interglacial period has warmer ocean, without warmer ocean, there is no interglacial period.
Or one can argue, it’s a matter of the definition of what interglacial period is. It’s vaguely my particular argument.
And I am not climate scientist. I am follower of it, and one could say, against my will.
I was just thinking. Recently I posted a theory. Which thought was pretty good, because it seemed possible to falsify.
Now if you are climate scientist, you could use that theory, and see what happens- do those models.
I would guess it’s better than doing it your head.
I don’t do models [at least not with aid of a computer, which
might help someone get a better picture of things].
I guess I should find it…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/22/global-warming-driven-by-pacific-warm-pool-la-nina-itcz-an-alternative-climate-change-theory/
and guy’s name is Jim Steele
{that was longer ago than I thought it was- on page 3 of watt’s up.}
” or its very good insulation.”
Salt water can be very good insulation, as demonstrated:
Solar ponds:
“Without a loss of heat, the bottom of the pond is warmed to extremely high temperatures – it can reach about 90C”
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Solar_pond
Or the salt gradient can prevent convectional heat loss.
But wind or rain can wreck a solar pond.
There isn’t much wind or rain on Mars.
And one put frozen lid on it, if was some problems.
Gotta go on the offensive against Google and big tech. The only way we stop this nonsense is by developing parallel structures and using them. For example Rumble is a great substitute for YouTube, it’s now publicly traded through a SPAC. Rumble is also getting into web services, cloud hosting and numerous of projects designed to go after Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Twitter, and PayPal. It’s up to us to move towards the alternatives and fund them so we hit these companies where they pay attention to which is their bottomline.
Residential and Mobile 4G proxy bandwidth packages are here: https://www.proxies.tv/cart.php?gid=1
Out of sheer curiosity, I would love to know how much of the warnming should really be attributed not to CO2 and fossil fuels, but to a combination of our tanking magnetic field (currently down by 25% on where it has been) in combination with the known Auroral heating that has been published as happening on Jupiter, and therefore MUST also apply to Earth.
Please see the following:
https://www.space.com/jupiter-auroras-cause-mystery-heating
https://earthsky.org/space/jupiters-energy-crisis-auroras-heat-upper-atmosphere/
https://astronomy.com/news/2021/09/jupiters-aurorae-trigger-heat-waves
And the original published (in ‘Nature’) study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03706-w
Unfaithful and harmful claims. We have learned something about math from you here. Thank you very much.
Thank you so much for helping us with this kind of information. We hope you find the information you are looking for helpful.
https://captionspost.com/angel-captions/
https://captionspost.com/sunglasses-captions-for-instagram/
https://captionspost.com/badminton-caption-for-instagram/
Easier said than done.Googles platform has decided that ITS MONETARY CONCERNS are more important than deseminating the facts about GW.Ef them
Well said.An oversite group that fines any platform that inhibits free speech would be an excellent idea.
hallo
We are ready to take care of people’s lives with Pg slots Try to play Pg slots.Pg slots, great web game provider, pg slot, online slots, fish shooting games, online casinos, super slots, one site, all games
สร้างรายได้ Pg ได้อย่างมั่นคง ได้ทุกวัน เกมส์สร้างรายได้ ป้อมปราการคงจะที่ยุด 2022 Slot Online ซึ่งหมายถึง Slot Machine ที่มาในแบบอย่างออนไลน์ pg slot ซึ่ง Slot Machine จะถูกวางไว้ตามคาสิโนต่างๆ
What’s up colleagues, how is the whole thing, and what you desire to say
about this paragraph, in my view its really remarkable designed for me.
I really like it when individuals get together and
share thoughts. Great website, continue the good work!
Google, improving its algorithms, is trying to fight fiercely against paid links and in particular began to warn news sites. In their opinion, advertising sites most often use SEO and Pr information to fill their sites. Google and the news sites, especially the financial ones, like https://tradecrypto.com are starting their war, which will surely be won by the search engine. To date, the network has already provided information that the service GoogleNews will be removed from all sites, which will be determined by the use of SEO or Pr information.
Good day! Do you use Twitter? I’d like to follow you if that would be okay.
I’m definitely enjoying your blog and look forward to new posts.
hi I got he same terme of service dated 5 January 2022 today????? if someone should sue googal is us I lost well broke by phones getting weird response times lost a fold 3 s8 Airways a user of Samsung and google no more no more google no more Samsung i beleve viruses combes frime play stores or Galaxy unreal’,,,,
สล็อตเว็บตรงที่ดีที่สุด แตกหนัก จ่ายจริงไม่มีโกง เราเป็นผู้นำด้านเกมเดิมพันออนไลน์ที่มีผู้เล่นมากที่สุด มีระบบหลังบ้านบริการตลอด 24 ชั่วโมง อีกทั้งยังจ่ายเงินให้กับผู้เล่นมาแล้วกว่า 100000 ยูส มาสนุกกับเราและลุ้นเงินรางวัลจากการเดิมพันไปพร้อมๆ กันกับ pg
เกมเดิมพันออนไลน์ที่มีผู้เล่นมากที่สุด มีระบบหลังบ้านบริการตลอด 24 ชั่วโมง megagame
มาสนุกกับเราและลุ้นเงินรางวัลจากการเดิมพันไปพร้อมๆ กันกับ megagame
This is a very nice blog that I will definitely come back to more times this year! Thanks for the informative post.
S0 The climate is fine we will starve 0r be p0isned by p0luti0n in c0mf0rtable temperatures. Just because y0u have an 0pini0n even an educated 0pin0n d0sent make it true. I say that f0r b0th sides 0f this argument. If we get a well aimed s0lar flare t0mm0r0w it w0nt matter either way. Regardless 0f wh0 is right 0r wr0ng f0ssil fuel w0nt last f0rever. Ive seen the trash dumps 0f d0nated cl0thing in third w0rld c0untries first hand. The 0ld tech m0untains full 0f t0xic materials. The fact that new b0rn babies are b0rn with tefl0n in them. But at least the weather will be nice. Just s0 y0u kn0w I hate g00gle. I believe that if a website is 0ffering inf0 presented as fact a c0mpany with as much influence as g00gle sh0udnt be putting ads 0n it. Just like faceb00k sh0udnt be able t0 decide what c0ntent it sh0ws. When a private c0mpany can reach and influence 100s 0f milli0ns 0f pe0ple the laws sh0uld be a little different f0r them.
My 0 butt0n is br0ken s0 I use the zer0.S0rry
Al0t 0f great ideas started as unpr0vable the0ry that pe0ple hated. The earth n0t being the center 0f the s0lar system being 0ne. Hell creati0n and ev0luti0n are b0th the0ries. If s0me0ne had irrefutable pr00f 0f n0 climate change Im pretty sure they w0uld have the n0bel.
S0 maybe d0n’t st00p t0 the level 0f calling pe0ple names. Als0 its a fact that pe0ple gravitate t0wards what they want t0 believe. Pe0ple that have a little belief 0nly need t0 see a small am0unt 0f supp0rt t0 bec0me fanatical believers. Humans search f0r things that fit their feelings and feel c0mf0rtable. Be nice t0 each0ther we are all we’ve g0t.