UAH Global Temperature Update for February, 2022: 0.00 deg. C

March 1st, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2022 was 0.00 deg. C, down a little from the January, 2022 value of +0.03 deg. C.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).

Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 14 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST 
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.50 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.65 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.13 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.31 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.63 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
2021 08 0.17 0.27 0.08 0.07 0.33 0.83 -0.02
2021 09 0.25 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.37
2021 10 0.37 0.46 0.27 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.06
2021 11 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.50 -0.42 -0.29
2021 12 0.21 0.27 0.15 0.03 1.63 0.01 -0.06
2022 01 0.03 0.06 0.00 -0.24 -0.13 0.68 0.09
2022 02 0.00 0.01 -0.02 -0.24 -0.05 -0.31 -0.50

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for February, 2022 should be available within the next several days here.

The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt


742 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for February, 2022: 0.00 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. RLH says:

    “UAH Global Temperature Update for February, 2022: 0.00 deg. C”

    Cue complaints about how it would be different with different base periods.

    • Alick says:

      This is what I was referring to when I got in the first post two months ago. I incorrectly called it the “running centerline” something. The base period is what I was complaining about. It has nothing significant to say about gorbal warming since it is arbitrary. The plot of the graph would look the same with the actual temperatures.

      • Bellman says:

        Well, the fact that the 1991 – 2020 base period is about 0.14C warmer than the 1981 – 2010 base period says something about the overall warming trend over the last 40 years. In fact it results from 2011-2020 being 0.41C warmer than 1981-1990.

        • Bindidon says:

          Correct.

          • Ava Rose says:

            I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use these…

            check The Details……… https://workstore01.blogspot.com/

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Yes indeed correct. Climate is always changing. Had a few of those 1.6c multi-decadal warming spurts consecutively in the early 20th century that climate models for some reason can’t reproduce.

            Trashes the unprecedented warming argument or that some new thing must be occurring that never occurred before.

          • Nate says:

            Sure, you can argue anything if you invent your own facts, as you did there.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate you probably ought to check the facts before opening your gigantic blabber mouth.

            Both the UK HC and Best report about six tenths of a degree warming over 3 to 4 decades in the early 20th century.

          • Robert Ingersol says:

            @Bill Hunter. BEST and HAD and GISTEMP for that matter show nothing like 0.6C warming in the early 20th Century. Are you talking about YOY variability or a multi-decade trend? If you cherry pick the local minimum around 1912 and the local maximum around 1942, you could maybe get 0.5C, but that isn’t surprising considering the increase in CO2 over that period. Even starting with the cherry picked 1942 peak, we have seen 0.9C since then. So, 1.4C of warming in a little over a century, and most of that during my lifetime. That is AGW.

            https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/styles/node_lightbox_display/public/key_figures/climate_data_set/Lenssen-f2.png?itok=5X_CoNDI

          • bill hunter says:

            Robert Ingersol says:

            If you cherry pick the local minimum around 1912 and the local maximum around 1942, you could maybe get 0.5C, but that isn’t surprising considering the increase in CO2 over that period.
            ————-

            Robert:
            1) picking 1910 to 1945 isn’t anymore cherry picking than picking the end of the record to the present.

            2) Current version of HC lowered the warming due to modeling of the arctic when no thermometers were available for the latest version, thus HC 4 isn’t even an instrument record prior to 1980.

            3) And it is surprising as about all the climate models do is model CO2. So the issue is precisely that the models do not account for the warming in the early 20th century despite the lies you have heard.

            4) I am not going to quibble about your 5.0 despite its obvious you haven’t actually checked. But why quibble when .5 degrees divided by 3 decadal shift in base line equals .167 degrees for each baseline shift and what we are comparing it to is the most recent baseline shift of .16 degrees?

          • Nate says:

            “Had a few of those 1.6c multi-decadal warming spurts consecutively in the early 20th century”

            I recommend proofreading before hitting send.

            “Nate you probably ought to check the facts before”

            “about six tenths of a degree warming over 3 to 4 decades in the early 20th century.”

            I recommend reading your own posts before blaming others for them.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Had a few of those 1.6c multi-decadal warming spurts consecutively in the early 20th century

            ————————–

            Yeah not ideal English for sure but how many multi-decadal warming spurts can one have in the early part of a century? Shouldn’t be too hard to figure out there was some mismatching of idioms.

            If you are still confused perhaps “had a few of those 1.6c warming spurts consecutively in the early 20th century bunched up in a fashion similar to the last few decades.” will get the message across without confusion.

          • Nate says:

            nope, non of that makes any sense.

          • bill hunter says:

            Sorry Nate I can’t do anything for you.

        • Alick says:

          So what? Maybe a graph of all possible base periods is in order. Point is, nobody knows what the planets average temperature “should” be to compare to what it is. Perhaps God.

          • gbaikie says:

            Considering the average ocean temperature is about 3.5 C, the global average temperature is about where it should be.
            Weather and general variation such different ocean circulation or such things as El Nino, can make it +/- 1 C. As can volcanic eruptions.

          • BrittanyFloyd says:

            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-66) 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/

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bellman…”In fact it results from 2011-2020 being 0.41C warmer than 1981-1990…”

          ***

          Only if you are using fudged surface data and/or climate models.

          • Bellman says:

            Gordon Robertson: “Only if you are using fudged surface data and/or climate models.”

            I was using the UAH data. Something you could easily check by downloading the data from the links in this article.

            I’m not sure why you would think the last decade was 0.41C warmer than the 1980s in the UAH data, given that

            a) The whole point of using the 1991-2020 base period rather than the 1981-2010 is because they are different – and specifically the later period is around 0.14C warmer. What’s different about the two periods? 1991-2020 does not include the 1980s, but does include the 2010s. The other 20 years, 1991-2020, are common to both. Therefore any difference has to be caused by the difference between the 80s and the 10s, and as that contributes only 1/3 of the average it’s obvious that that difference has to be 3*0.14 ~= 0.41.

            b) As Dr Spencer keeps saying the trend across the data is around 0.13C / decade. That would mean over 3 decades, e.g. from the 1980s to the 2010s, temperatures have risen around 0.13C * 3.

      • Robert Ingersol says:

        Yes is would look the same. The global average for Feb 2022 would be about -8°C or 15°F. Doesn’t change the warming trend.

    • Alick says:

      Exactly. That’s what I meant to say two months ago when I got the first post in. A plot of the actual temperatures would look the same as the plot of deviations from some arbitrarily irrelevant set point.

    • RLH says:

      “The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land)”

      • DMacKenzie says:

        Yeah, but it’s currently 0.3 degrees, or 2 1/2 decades worth, below its 4 decade trend line….

    • Keith Carron says:

      I am a PhD chemist. Graphs in science and math have the Y-axis as depedent. That comes from math equations of the form Y = f(x). But you redefine the Y scale with ever x point. This relative method wrong. Chose your Y axis as an absolute.

      Sorry, Roy, I would not allow a student to do what you do.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Keith, are you new to climate science? It is conventional to plot the temperature data with respect to time. It has not much to do with dependence of T on t.

        “But you redefine the Y scale with ever x point.”

        What did you mean to have written?

        • Keith Carron says:

          Hi Chic,

          I guess I question the Y axis values. I have a good eye for data. I do not believe 1991 to 2000 average delta is 0. Please explain the Y axis values. They cannot average to zero. I’ll use scissors and paper and a balance to prove it.

          My point over changes with each recording is: Why are we not setting a new scale for 2000 to 2010 or 2010 to 2020? What makes 1991 to 2000 the Gold Standard?

          My trained eye sees a postive slope. Honesty let’s show a trend line.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Keith,

            Dr. S plots the lower troposphere temperature anomalies from an “industry standard” baseline which is updated and shifted up a decade every ten years, I think. Anyway that baseline is arbitrary, but is consistent with respect to all the past readings so that the trend reflects a true change in temperature within applicable measurement errors. So don’t expect the average of the data to be zero. Dr. S states the trend which is around 0.13 K/decade and has been for years and it is irrespective of the baseline which is the average of the temperatures in the baseline years.

            People occasionally discuss the anomalies. baselines, and trends usually in the first few days of the month as if there is anything special about one month of new data. I like to tweak some of them who argue that the trend has any bearing on what the actual temperature is. For example, if you go back to around 1997, the average anomaly is actually exactly 0.0. So what!

            Another amazing thing is how vehemently people will argue that today can’t be only about 0.04 K warmer than two decades ago when the trend predicts +0.26 K warmer.

  2. SAMURAI says:

    I thought we’d get more of a drop at the tail end of the current double La Nina cycle, but we’ll only get about another month or two of cooling and then a slow rise during the ENSO neutral phase and then faster rising global temps as new weak/moderate El Nino cycle starts towards the end of this year.

    The 30-year PDO cool cycle seems to have already started and the 30-year AMO cool cycle will likely start around 2025, which will bring 30+ years of global cooling (as occurred during the PDO/AMO cool cycles from 1880~1913 and 1945~1979), leading to the final demise of this infernal CAGW scam.

    • Stephen Richards says:

      It will be too late by 2025-30. The scammers will have taken their money and run while the rest of us remain immobile in our houses and freezing slowly to death.

      It’s that lack of accountability thing again. If all experts and scientist were told of penalties for making wrong predictions I’m sure their prognostications would be fundamentally different

    • RLH says:

      The CFSv2 projection is for La Nina to continue for at least the next 12 months.

      https://postimg.cc/Lgzg213q

    • Scott R says:

      This might seem like a small drop, but in some respects we see an acceleration of cooling. Jan 2022 was 0.12 cooler than Jan 2021. Feb 2022 is 0.2 cooler than 2021. I’m predicting next month is between -0.06 and -0.21 which will be the coldest reading in a while.

      • bdgwx says:

        You might be right. I will say the GFS is forecasting the next 7 days to be about 0.2 warmer than the February average. The GFS 7 day forecasts have been underestimating the global average surface temperature for most of 2022. It is important to note, however, that UAH TLT is not correlated tightly with the surface temperature. Sometimes they even move in opposite directions. Also, a -0.21 C anomaly would be more than 0.5 below the trendline and close to a record setting deviation from it. I would think we would need a significant volcanic eruption to augment the La Nina to get down to -0.2 C. Although it was quite explosive Honga Tonga did not release much SO2 into the stratosphere.

      • Bindidon says:

        Due to major advection streams from the Tropics to the North Pole, the temperatures in the lower troposphere are highly influenced by the ENSO system, with a lag of about 5 months.

        Here is the most accurate ENSO time series, based – as should be done by all others – not only on anomalies wrt rolling means, but also on Darwin-Tahiti pressure diffrences, on winds etc etc:

        https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data

        Thus none of us will wonder if in the next months, anomalies keep lower than usual, and even drop below zero (due to the change of the reference period from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020, which lowered the anomalies by on average 0.14 C).

        But… a comparison between this current La Nina period and that of 2010-2012 tells you everything.

      • Richard M says:

        Scott R, it’s not very likely we will see much colder anomalies as the oceans are warmer now than they were last year. They did start venting more energy the last couple of months but it’s going to take much more to see anything very cold.

    • Richard M says:

      The PDO is not a 30 year cycle. It appears to be multiples of 7-8 years. Could be 30 years, could be much less.

      We did have a cool phase from 2006-2014. It often goes negative during La Nina periods so can’t really tell what will happen after this La Nina ends.

      The UAH anomaly lags the ENSO area by 4-6 months so we should continue to see cool anomalies for several months no matter what happens to this La Nina.

  3. bdgwx says:

    The 1991-2020 baseline is 0.16 C lower than the 1981-2010 baseline for the month of February. So the +0.00 C on the 1991-2020 baseline is +0.16 C on the 1981-2010 baseline. We still need a significant drop for those pre-2021 predictions that UAH TLT would drop below the zero line to be correct.

  4. Rawandi says:

    Zero anomaly means zero climate change.

  5. Mark M says:

    $ grep cite feb-2022#comments.html | grep RLH | wc -l
    949

    $ grep cite feb-2022#comments.html | grep Emergency | wc -l
    736

    For those of you not fluent in bash, the number is how many comments posted last month. If one spends 12 hours a days, everyday for 28 days in Feb., that is 336 hours.

    Writing a comment on a website roughly every 20-30 minutes, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, month after month is very worrying compulsive behavior. I really hope you both will consult a mental health care professional.

    MM

  6. TechnoCaveman says:

    Dr. Spencer – thank you for getting this out so quickly.
    No wonder NOAA stopped their climate reports.
    0.0 for Feb. 2022 surprised me. Sunspot average is below normal but higher than this time in cycle #24.
    Will have to check USDA crop progress in June/July. Plants need a number of Degree Growing Days (DGD) of warmth for all the chemical reactions. Ukraine’s wheat may be worth fighting over.
    Cross posting to Suspicious Observers.

    • Bindidon says:

      ” 0.0 for Feb. 2022 surprised me. ”

      Why?

      We are still in a La Nina period. And going back in it with a 5 month lag explains a lot.

      ” No wonder NOAA stopped their climate reports. ”

      Really?

  7. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The temperature of the stratosphere at the tropopause boundary above the 65th parallel is now reaching its lowest values since satellite measurements began.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/100mb9065.png
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2022.png

  8. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Still very low UV radiation in the current solar cycle.
    https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png

  9. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    There is no impact of a volcanic eruption because the temperature in the stratosphere above the equator remains low.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/100mb2525.png

  10. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    La Nina is recovering and will remain for a third season as solar wind strength slowly increases. SOI index high. More rain will be in eastern and southern Australia.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
    https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_45ns.gif

  11. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    SSW begins in the middle stratosphere, which will slowly move into the lower stratosphere. The polar vortex behaves as it does in the middle of winter.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/10mb9065.png
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_JFM_NH_2022.png

  12. Maz says:

    Nate,
    According to their own graphic BOM are saying there was not a La Nina at all.
    Then again according to their own weather forecasts last week everyone in Eastern Australia is only imagining that they’re currently flooded.
    Give BOM a few weeks and when they eventually report they’ll be saying that this summer has been irrefutable proof of global warming.
    BOM are magical.

  13. Bellman says:

    The Monckton pause now starts in October 2015, and is 7 years 5 months long.

    This pause so far has caused the overall trend to rise from 0.11C / decade up to 0.13C / decade.

    • Bellman says:

      That should be October 2014.

    • RLH says:

      OLS trends are not much use on quasi-sinusoidal data.

      • Bindidon says:

        Tell that Roy Spencer.

        • RLH says:

          Roy is well aware of that fact but also that many other series use it as though in actually means something. How come, given that all climate data is driven by cyclic functions, using straight lines is considered appropriate?

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            You wrote –

            “How come, given that all climate data is driven by cyclic functions, using straight lines is considered appropriate?”

            Another gotcha, by golly!

            Minor problem is that you cannot actually specify these “cyclic functions” at all, can you?

            Nobody can. Climate is the statistics of weather, and the motions of the atmosphere are unpredictable, making weather unpredictable in any useful way. Naive persistence forecasts are generally as good as anything else, and are employed commercially to forecast wind turbine generation output (to the surprise of many people, who picture clusters of highly qualified experts poring over the output from massed supercomputers!).

            If you want to claim that day/night, winter/summer, and suchlike are “cyclic functions”, then you need to explain why an expert can use this information any better than a child.

            You are just babbling, hoping that no-one will actually call your baseless assertions out.

            Try learning some physics. You obviously have no talent for writing gotchas.

          • Ken says:

            ‘Minor problem is that you cannot actually specify these cyclic functions at all, can you?’

            Actually yes we can. See Carl Otto Weiss ‘Climate change is due to natural cycles’.

            using Fourier analysis on several temperature records there are clearly several cycles, the most prominent being Solar, AMOC, and PDO.

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            No you don’t. You are posting pictures.

            Here’s one definition of a function – “In mathematics, a function from a set X to a set Y assigns to each element of X exactly one element of Y.”

            You can’t come up with any functions that would give rise to your pretty graphics, can you?

            Bear in mind that John Von Neumann said “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”, so you need to be careful with the parameters you are plugging into your functions (if you can find any).

            Come on, ‘fess up – you are just trying to pretend that you know stuff.

            You can’t actually back your statements up with anything except your imagination, can you?

            Keep at it.

          • Swenson says:

            Ken,

            You wrote –

            “Actually yes we can. See Carl Otto Weiss ‘Climate change is due to natural cycles.'”

            The speculations of Carl Otto Weiss are just that – speculations with no practical value, or predictive ability, if you are talking about the Carl Otto Weiss who was an author of this –

            “Differing projections rangefrom a sharp sunspot-related cooling this century; a cooling of 1 C by 2200 CE; a warming of 1.5-2C by2100 CE, and an additional cooling component from millennial cycles acting over the next 1000 years. Wediscuss compatibility/incompatibility of these results inview of parameters and assumptions used in the different studies.”

            As to Fourier analysis of the products of chaotic processes, if you can find some idiot to pay you to do it, why not? A fool and his money are soon parted – in this case, taxpayers’ money being given to self described “experts”.

            So actually, no you can’t.

            Moron.

          • Ken says:

            There is no signal in the nause in Swenson’s delusional ramblings.

          • Swenson says:

            K,

            You wrote –

            “There is no signal in the nause in Swenson’s delusional ramblings.”

            I guess you think that using bizarre colloquialisms makes you look sophisticated and intelligent.

            You might be more impressive if you could actually find something to complain about, and provide something more than the unsupported assertions of a moron as backup.

            But of course, you can’t.

            Carry on.

          • RLH says:

            “You are posting pictures”

            Wrong. I am posting graphs. Typical that you don’t know the difference.

            Idiot.

          • RLH says:

            “You cant come up with any functions that would give rise to your pretty graphics, can you?”

            Yup. They are Gaussian as well as Savitzky-Golay low pass filters set at the frequencies noted.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_filter
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter

            Implemented in C# with data sources as noted.

          • Carbon500 says:

            A plea to Ken – it’s ‘noise’ not ‘nause’.

          • RLH says:

            It’s a pun.

          • Nate says:

            “using Fourier analysis on several temperature records there are clearly several cycles, the most prominent being Solar, AMOC, and PDO.”

            Uhh, do you have the spectrum handy?

            The 11 y solar is barely detectable.

            The others are broad low peaks.

            Are any of them sufficient to account for the T rise of the last century, the last half century?

  14. Maz says:

    Ren,
    It obviously is La Nina.
    I was referring to the BOM chart Nate had linked to.
    Sadly my replies are coming out of sequence.

  15. maz says:

    Ren,
    Thanks 🙂
    I think your data and RLHs links are urging me to buy floaties 😉

  16. AaronS says:

    I tend to agree that the warming in UAH (and RSS) is best described as a simple stair function with jumps at major El Nino events and then hiatus between. Challenge is to predict the next super El Nino.

  17. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Let’s look at the circulation in the Northeast Pacific. How far away we are from spring in North America.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer&timespan=24hrs&anim=html5

  18. Chic Bowdrie says:

    UAH data is closing in on no warming for 19 years. Year end difference between 2021 and 2002 was 0.054 K. Next, January difference, 0.038 K. This past February 19-year difference is only 0.025 K.

    Alas, it will take a -0.4 drop next month to get to the 19 year mark.

    • Bellman says:

      Trend since 2002 is 0.15C / decade.

      • RLH says:

        OLS trends are not much use on quasi-sinusoidal data.

        • barry says:

          As Chic’s is the worse method, why not point that out?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            You don’t even understand what my method means. It’s an anathema to AGW cultists.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            …who worship the trends.

          • barry says:

            Your ‘method’ is to draw a straight line between endpoints, based purely on the longest period available to you where those endpoints have a similar value, and then to claim that this reveals something about the change/non-change of the selected period.

            “UAH data is closing in on no warming for 19 years.”

            I took a reading of the sea level at low tide and another of the sea level at high tide. Why were they the same? Because I looked at the data and found the peak of a wave at low tide that matched the height of a trough at high tide.

            Overlooking (or not understanding) the notion of quick changes in the height of sea level (i.e. waves), I pronounce that the tide did not change.

            IF GMT had been warming at a trend of 0.3C per decade, and year to year variability could be a change of as much as 0.6C, then 20 years of global warming could be ‘wiped out’ by the next year having an anomaly 0.6 lower than the year before.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Apparently, it won’t help, but I will try again to explain why a trend is not a temperature and why it cannot tell you if there is any warming between two time periods. First of all, realize that my time points are carefully chosen months or years so that a June-to-June year is not compared with a February-to-February year.

            If I measure my average lab temperature today at 25C and compare it with any previous day that averaged 25C, then my lab is at the same temperature (not warmer, not cooler), although it did warm and cool in almost every day in between. Daily variability has no bearing on the average value.

            Also, note that the trend of a y=sin(x) sine wave from zero to one is non-zero, but the change in y from x=0 to x=1 is zero.

            And, yes, a 0.6 drop, no matter how utterly unlikely for any next year following a 0.3/decade rise, would reverse a 20-year trend. So what? A 0.4 one month drop, again somewhat unlikely, would result in securing a full 19 year pause in global warming based on UAH LTT measurements.

          • barry says:

            No, Chic, that’s like saying high tide suddenly “reversed” because you measured the high tide sea level in a trough between waves.

            It’s still high tide, you’ve just made too much of your single measurement and not understood the difference between short term fluctuations and longer term changes.

            Is this a good analogy? Sure is. Let’s see where the peaks and troughs are in the UAH temp record.

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2002/to:2003/trend/detrend:-0.138/offset:-0.06/plot/uah6/from:2021/to:2022/trend/detrend:0.189/offset:0.08

            So there’s “no warming” for 19 years, caused by picking a peak at the beginning of the period, and a trough at the end. it’s the exact same method that would tell you high tide is over because you measured sea level in a trough.

            Is there further reason to think that the wave analogy is apt? You bet!

            The primary driver of interannual rises and falls in global temperature is el Nino/la Nina. These are the ‘waves’ in global temperature.

            So the end of the period (right now) is a long-lived, moderate to strong la Nina.

            Whereas 2002/2003/2004 were el Nino years.

            Your ’19 year’ analysis compares a temporary peak in global temperatures at the beginning of the period with a temporary trough at the end.

            High tide doesn’t suddenly “reverse” because of poor measurement choices. Global warming doesn’t suddenly “reverse” because of poor measurement choices.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I understand your point of view. You have faith in AGW which allows you to see the future. Weather and climate follow the same pattern as tides only climate ebbs and flows with a warming trend. You’ve seen this pattern now for over a hundred years. What could go differently in the future?

          • barry says:

            AGW has nothing to do with what I’m saying, nor does predictions of the future. We’re only speaking of what we have data for, and how you are misinterpreting that data.

            Weather is the waves. Climate is the tide.

            An ENSO event doesn’t last 19 years, it lasts a few months to a couples of years. It is a weather event that primarily causes the waves (peaks and troughs) in global temperature.

            And like ocean waves, ENSO events have different amplitudes.

            If you measure on a scale of ENSO, you will only be comparing weather, not climate. And two ENSO events do not account for 19 years of global temperature.

            Climate is the average of weather over a lengthy period.

            Average out the waves and you’ll get sea level.

      • Richard M says:

        Bellman is right, it has warmed and all it takes is a look at the ocean data to understand why.

        Why have the oceans warmed? Simple. More solar energy is reaching the surface.

        “The declining TOA SW (out) is the major heating cause (+1.42 W/m2 from 2001 to 2020)” – Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001-2020, Hans-Rolf Dbal and Fritz Vahrenholt, October 2021, Atmosphere

        There’s warming but no evidence of any CO2 driven warming.

        • Swenson says:

          RM,

          The paper to which you linked is nonsensical.

          As to warming oceans, they aren’t of course, if you are claiming that you can heat an ocean with sunlight!

          Just completely contrary to physical laws as understood. Warmer, less dense water floats on on colder, more dense water. Heat does not diffuse or travel deeper in any permanent way. Any water heated at depth expands, and rises to the surface, where it radiates its increased temperature away to space at night.

          You might care to wonder why the abyssal depths are as even in temperature as they are, considering the Earth is only a little less spherical than a bowling ball, so cold water does not “flow” from the Poles to anywhere.

          Basic physics will provide the answer, if you don’t already know.

          • Ken says:

            Decoder

            ‘nonsensical’ – he don’t understand.

            ‘physical laws as understood – by him, which by all indicators isn’t very reliable at all.

            ‘basic physics’ – fairy dust learned from watching Al Gore.

            ‘cold water does not flow from the Poles to anywhere’ – a complete lack of knowledge of ocean currents; the basics of which can be found easily on the internet.

            No signal in the nause.

          • Swenson says:

            K,

            It doesn’t matter what you wish to believe, denser water sinks, less dense water floats.

            Water does not flow around a sphere just because you think it should. It doesn’t matter if you are at the Equator, the abyssal water is much the same temperature as that at the Poles. No magical water creeping along the ocean floor.

            The basics of ocean currents as found on the internet contain such gems as “Winds drive currents near coastal areas on a localized scale, and in the open ocean on a global scale.”, from NOAA. About as reliable as the National Science Foundation taking several years to acknowledge that floating sea ice does not change sea levels at all when it melts.

            The NSF did not want to believe that Archimedes’ principle still applied, in spite of Archimedes being an ancient Greek.

            Cary on with your fantasies.

          • RLH says:

            “It doesnt matter if you are at the Equator, the abyssal water is much the same temperature as that at the Poles. No magical water creeping along the ocean floor”

            So, oh knowledgeable one, where did the quite cold abyssal water come from? The ocean bottom has magma underneath it to the cold does not come from below.

          • RLH says:

            Current ocean temperature anomalies. I’ll let you find the actual temperatures for yourself.

            https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif

          • Bill Hunter says:

            RLH says:
            So, oh knowledgeable one, where did the quite cold abyssal water come from? The ocean bottom has magma underneath it to the cold does not come from below.

            —————————
            It comes from a couple of sources. 1) brines squeezed out of freezing seawater resulting in freshwater sea ice. 2) high latitude open sea waters exposed to very dry frigid winds both evaporating the water making it more dense and cooling it in the process.

            Also polynyas are wind driven ice features. these are common where very dry offshore winds push ice offshore opening holes in the ice and both processes are at work creating very cold sinking water and ice formation further offshore.

            the wind driven evaporation process that causes water to sink occurs throughout the ocean, just that in tropic and temperate regions the waters don’t sink below the thermocline but can cause the thermocline to deepen from the denser water.

          • RLH says:

            I know. Swenson thinks it comes from nighttime surface water in the tropics.

          • bill hunter says:

            It is widely believed that deep water flows from the poles to lower latitudes in the cold phase of the thermohaline circulation system.

            There is no other known way to create and maintain the mean negative temperature gradient found in all the worlds oceans since the oceans are sandwiched between a 15C surface temperature and a much hotter core of the earth.

    • Bindidon says:

      Chic Bowdrie

      ” UAH data is closing in on no warming for 19 years. ”

      Sorry, that is sheer nonsense, as Bellman noted.

      You can’t simply draw a line in a time series and think it informs you about warming / cooling.

      The linear estimate for 2002/2022 is 0.15 C / decade, giving an increase of about 0.3 C; the quadratic fit shows a tiny bit of acceleration, giving 0.33 C increase for the 20 years.

      • RLH says:

        “You cant simply draw a line in a time series”

        except if it is an OLS one. Apparently.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          There have been two step-changes since 1979 as Salby describes them. Between 1979 to 1994 the temperature was averaging -0.3 to the average or mean. Then there was a step-change. Between 1994 and about 2010 it averaged about -0.1 to the mean. From 2010 until now it has averaged about +0.3 to the mean. Salby says these are non-systematic changes but doesn’t guess at what the cause only that it is natural. (I think probably changes due to Sun.)

        • Bindidon says:

          1. Only incompetent people compare a line drawn through a graph with a linear estimate.

          2. The quadratic fit confirms the linear estimate.

          3. I will bookmark this comment, and we will see in future how often you suddenly come back to OLS estimates: namely each time they manage to perfectly fit your personal narrative.

          *
          4. If you have problems with linear estimates based on ordinary least squares: why don’t you tell that each month in a comment addressed to Roy Spencer and his team?

          I’m sure they will enjoy your incredible experience in the domain.

          • RLH says:

            As you well know I produce Roy’s data with 2 cyclic trends in them and post them on here every month.

            Roy’s full data isn’t out for this month yet so the best I can do is repeat Jam 2022 data.

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-1.jpeg

            Strang how accurate those projections are for this month isn’t it?

          • Bindidon says:

            I repeat:

            ” 4. If you have problems with linear estimates based on ordinary least squares: why don’t you tell that each month in a comment addressed to Roy Spencer and his team?

            I’m sure they will enjoy your incredible experience in the domain. ”

            *
            As usual, you don’t reply to comments, but write something absolutely irrelevant that, however, lets you appear ‘competent’ instead {/sarc}.

          • RLH says:

            As you well know I produce Roy’s data with 2 cyclic trends in them and post them on here every month.

            OLS trends are only useful for the periods of data they cover. They are useless before or after that time period.

      • RLH says:

        “The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land)”

        Ignore Bindidon as he apparently cannot read.

        • Swenson says:

          RLH,

          The linear trend from when the surface was molten, to now, is one of cooling.

          No cherry picking there.

          • RLH says:

            At about -0.00..01c decade. I may be out a few decimal places.

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            The surface is no longer molten. No cherry picking. Slow cooling is still cooling – except if you are a climate crackpot who claims slow cooling results in rising temperatures!

            What a pack of fools, resolutely refusing to believe that energy production and use results in temperature rises!

          • RLH says:

            The slow cooling will be at about -0.00…01c/decade. I may be out a few decimal places. This is larger than the thickness on the lines used in most graphs of global temperature. Good luck with being able to represent it.

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            You wrote –

            “The slow cooling will be at about . . . “.

            As you wrote – “cooling”.

            No heating, Cooling. You said it, but I suppose you want to disagree with yourself now.

            Be my guest, moron.

          • RLH says:

            The slow cooling will be at about -0.0001c/decade.

            Idiot.

          • RLH says:

            Oops. Forgot this site east ellipses (three . in a row).

            At about -0.00..01c decade. I may be out a few decimal places.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Bindidon,

        We went through this a couple months ago. I’m not drawing a line and calling it a trend. I’m simply pointing out that about 19 years ago, the average temperature of the March through February temperatures were almost the same as the past year average. The past 40 year trend is past and does not predict the future. Only by faith can you imagine a similar trend 40 years into the future.

        Let’s go one farther. How long would it take for you to agree that the trend is meaningless for predicting the future if temperatures continued to remain at 2002 and 2022 levels or lower?

        • Bindidon says:

          Chic Bowdrie

          Are you sure to ask the right person here?

          You wrote upthread:

          ” UAH data is closing in on no warming for 19 years. Year end difference between 2021 and 2002 was 0.054 K. Next, January difference, 0.038 K. This past February 19-year difference is only 0.025 K. ”

          That gave me the impression that like so many people, you think there was no warming between 2002 and 2021.

          I contradicted that with a linear resp. a quadratic estimate for the period you mentioned.

          I wrote:

          ” The linear estimate for 2002/2022 is 0.15 C / decade, giving an increase of about 0.3 C; the quadratic fit shows a tiny bit of acceleration, giving 0.33 C increase for the 20 years. ”

          Nowhere did I mention any prediction in my reply to you.

          A prediction is when you extrapolate into the future on the base of the estimate you computed out of the existing data, and say for example:

          ” According to UAH’s linear resp. quadratic estimate 0f 0.13 C resp. 0.19 C / decade, we will have a temperature increase of 1.3 resp. 1.9 C in 100 years. ”

          Nowhere did I mention any such number in my reply to you.

          Basta ya.

          • RLH says:

            A quadratic fit would imply a runaway to infinity. Do you support that?

          • Bindidon says:

            You become more and more a specialist in asking completely irrelevant, stupid questions, like does the Flynnson guy.

            Quadratic fits are used to see that the data shows an acceleration in the trend, and not to show any ‘runaway to infinity’.

            Only people like you think that this would be misunderstood, misinterpreted and misused.

            Ask people working in (re)insurance companies how they have to calculate insurance premium increase covering systemic risk increases (with tools far more complex than quadratic fits), instead of boasting here all the time.

          • RLH says:

            A quadratic equation has poles at 0 and infinity.

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

          • Bindidon says:

            ” A quadratic equation has poles at 0 and infinity. ”

            Jesus, RLH… You behave even dumber than Robertson, Flynnson and Clint R taken all together.

            I repeat, for the elementary school teacher:

            ” Quadratic fits are used to see that the data shows an acceleration in the trend, and not to show any runaway to infinity.

            Only people like you think that this would be misunderstood, misinterpreted and misused.

            Ask people working in (re)insurance companies how they have to calculate insurance premium increase covering systemic risk increases (with tools far more complex than quadratic fits), instead of boasting here all the time. “

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Bindidon,

            Sorry, that I assumed you were predicting future warming. I think I’m overly fixated on the many others who assume warming will continue because they buy into the AGW hypothesis as fact.

            The UAH trend only tells you that the past 44 years warmed more than cooled. It doesn’t tell you anything about where we are at now with respect to any previous time. The only way to tell how warm it is NOW is to compare now with some point in the past. We are warmer now than quite a few years in the past. But we are well below the 10-year average (cooling), and one must go back to 1991 to find enough cold temperatures such that Feb 2022 is equal to the average temperature of the lot.

            Furthermore, in case that wasn’t clear enough, if today was globally colder than at any point in the past, then the planet has cooled since then regardless of the trend.

          • Bindidon says:

            Chic Bowdrie

            Thanks for the convenient reply, and an apology for the somewhat rude tone due to the manifestly wrong impression that you might belong to these people intentionally misunderstanding and misrepresenting my thoughts.

            The best example is what you see below my comment upthread:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2022-0-00-deg-c/#comment-1194638

            *
            I partly agree with you.

            But… this I don’t understand:

            ” But we are well below the 10-year average (cooling), and one must go back to 1991 to find enough cold temperatures such that Feb 2022 is equal to the average temperature of the lot. ”

            *
            The current 10-year (anomaly) average as I understand it is the average, over all months, of the anomalies since February 2012: that is 0.16 C, and it decreases more or less linearly when running backwards.

            To find the first 10-year average equal to the anomaly for 2012, you just need to go back to March and February 2016.

            Moving further backwards, the running 10-year average is lower than February 2022 till October 2011. From then, it moves slightly up and down.

            From May 2007 on and till December 1978, the 10-year averages decreases more or less linearly, and reaches the end value of -0.28.

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gm8G49UxCTi6NZXgopuazAyvEG2uS1GJ/view

            *
            Did I misunderstand you?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Bindidon,

            You may have misunderstood me because I did not make myself clear.

            The average of the last ten years was hotter than Feb 2022, because of the current La Nina or whatever. No big deal.

            Another trivial factoid is that if you go back in time starting from Feb 2022 and begin averaging ALL the monthly temperatures (not just 10 years), you need to go back to 1991 to get an average anomaly of 0.0.

            These two paragraphs are just my way of saying, hey, the trend is no big deal. Temperatures are fluctuating around the same value for 20 years. Let’s wait and see what the future brings before sacrificing ourselves on the altar of AGW.

          • Nate says:

            “Lets wait and see what the future brings before sacrificing ourselves on the altar of AGW.”

            Said the civilization just before being wiped out.

            The ‘creator’ gave us a big brain for good reason. Not to turn it off in times like these.

            If we decide to use our brain and science to evaluate all the evidence, we would look at all the data and determine what the average trend is rather than just two cherry picked points.

            We would look at other data sets, rather than the just the one with the lowest, most uncertain trend and largest variability.

            UAH 0.135 C/dec

            RSS 0.214 C/dec
            Best 0.193 C/dec

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1978.8/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/best/from:1978.8/trend/plot/rss/trend

          • Bindidon says:

            Chic Bowdrie

            Thanks for the reply.

            It’s not my intention to insist here, but… big deal or not: the trend from Jan 1991 till now is a bit higher than that for the whole 44 years.

            Please let me nonetheless explain your mistake.

            The fact that your average of anomalies since 1991 is zero has nothing to do with warming, cooling, or neither.

            It is due to the fact that UAH’s current reference period (1991-2020) is by accident nearly exactly what you were averaging.

            And the average of all absolute values over a reference period is its baseline, from which all anomalies are computed, by subtracting the baseline value from their absolute source.

            Hence, their average is in turn always… zero, exactly what you computed.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            What mistake? Saying we are around a twenty-year average instead of the thirty-year baseline? I realize a 0.0 anomaly is the baseline value, but it is not an accident. It is what it is, so to speak.

            I’ll say it again. The trend doesn’t make it warmer than it is and it is no big deal.

          • Nate says:

            This is not difficult.

            When you have weather you have T variation. When you also have a warming trend over decades then you will have an upward sloped line with variation (noise) around it.

            That means you must have months above the trend line and below the trendline.

            Thus having a month, Feb 2022, below the trendline is expected.

            No one should be assigning significance to this ordinary noise!

            Particularly when we know its origin is a short term phenomena, La Nina.

            If there were no points below the trendline for a long time (> typical variations) that would indicate an acceleration of the trend.

            If there were no points above the trendline for a long time (> typical variations) that would indicate a deceleration of significance.

          • Nate says:

            “Temperatures are fluctuating around the same value for 20 years.”

            “my way of saying, hey, the trend is no big deal.”

            Just to make this crystal clear.

            Here are the Boston temps we had last month in February (Winter) and the previous June (Summer).

            https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/boston/02108/february-weather/348735?year=2022

            https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/boston/02108/june-weather/348735?year=2021

            As one can see, last month we had some high temps in 60s. 69 was the maximum.

            And the previous June we had some high temps in the 60s, below 69.

            The fact that we can find days with comparable temps in February and June will demonstrate, according Chic’s ‘logic’, that there is no significant warming in New England between February and June.

            Thus the seasonal change in temperature is no big deal, insignificant, barely detectable, according to Chic’s method of checking.

            He will undoubtedly label this ‘obfuscation’.

            But it is simply illustrating the illogical leaps people make, to find excuses to dismiss evidence for climate change.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate makes an obscure and pointless reference to weather in Boston and wants me to avoid calling him out for obfuscation. I don’t usually go in for silly acronyms, but…ROTFL.

            “No one should be assigning significance to this ordinary noise!”

            Then why don’t you just ignore me? I won’t mind or miss you one bit. Make all the excuses for your failure to show any evidence of problematic or unusual climate change you want. It’s no big deal.

          • Bindidon says:

            Chick Bowdrie

            ” What mistake? Saying we are around a twenty-year average instead of the thirty-year baseline? I realize a 0.0 anomaly is the baseline value, but it is not an accident. It is what it is, so to speak. ”

            Sorry, it now becomes too boring.

            You don’t want to understand how baselines work, I give up.

            Leave in peace with you lack of knowledge.

          • Nate says:

            “Nate makes an obscure and pointless reference to weather in Boston and wants me to avoid calling him out for obfuscation.”

            There it is.

            Chip, the professional point misser, just cannot understand the simplest concepts. Even when made as plain as possible with real world examples.

            In this instance, it is that ‘Chics method of checking.’ for warming by cherry-picking two comparable temperatures years apart, is seriously flawed.

            “Then why dont you just ignore me? I wont mind or miss you one bit.”

            This from the guy that follows me around tossing ad-hom grenades after most of my posts?

            That is rich!

        • barry says:

          “We went through this a couple months ago. I’m not drawing a line and calling it a trend.”

          When you say no warming or no cooling over a certain period, you are talking about trend. As in:

          “UAH data is closing in on no warming for 19 years.”

          If you limited yourself to saying:

          “I’m simply pointing out that about 19 years ago, the average temperature of the March through February temperatures were almost the same as the past year average.”

          You would not be talking about a trend and that would be fine.

          By all legitimate methods, UAH temp data has warmed over the period you mentioned. Your original assertion is incorrect.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            barry,

            I accept your revision with one exception, it is exactly 19 years not about 19 years. I don’t want to be accused of cherry picking an inconsistent set of months.

            And for that, I award you the nit pick of the month.

          • barry says:

            “I accept your revision with one exception, it is exactly 19 years not about 19 years.”

            You’re picking a nit that isn’t even there.

      • Nate says:

        “Except an OLS one”

        Yes indeed. An OLS one is finding the average linear trend using all the data.

        It will thus do much better than cherry picking 2 points.

        Doing a linear fit doesnt address the issue of acceleration of the trend. So?

        • RLH says:

          Neither is a projection though they are often misused as one.

        • Nate says:

          Where are we doing projection?

          Models are doing modeling, ie applying laws of physics to available data, for various GHG emission scenarios.

          • RLH says:

            Are you agreeing with me that OLS trends are definitely not projections for either the past or the future?

          • RLH says:

            “Models are doing modeling”

            with grossly under sampled data, horizontally and vertically, on both land and sea.

          • barry says:

            I haven’t seen anyone here recommend that a linear trend is a predictor of future temperatures. In fact, some of us regulars have said it isn’t.

            Yet you keep bringing that point up as if it hasn’t been answered.

          • Nate says:

            “with grossly under sampled data, horizontally and vertically, on both land and sea.”

            You are full of flimsy excuses, RLH.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Sorry Bin I agree with RLH.

        If you look at the ENSO conditions in 1998. ENSO for JJA 1998 was -.08. Then with the requisite delay UAH hit -.01 in November 3 months later.

        It is hard to argue that there has been any global warming since 1996. Yes it appeared so with trend lines heavily influenced by the recent spate of El Ninos pushing the trend up near the end of the series. But immediately prior to those El Ninos we had hit 20 years of insignificant climate change.

        Alarmism ever since the IPPC AR3 tricky hockey stick has been based upon short term warming trends. Yet longer trends were seen in the early 20th century that significantly climate models cannot account for.

        to establish continued global warming we need more than a couple of El Ninos in the past 24 years that didn’t significantly exceed the 1997/8 El Nino.

        How long do we need to wait to see? That depends upon how long it takes to resume significant warming that isn’t ENSO influenced. This will always be the problem as long as warming continues to occur within normal climate variation.

        Yes I can see the probability of human influence, but its not clear to me to be of concern with regards to CO2.

        • Bindidon says:

          ” Sorry Bin I agree with RLH. ”

          No problem!

          Am I interested in the agreement of persons who are not even able to understand the genial work performed by astronomers in the last centuries?

          So what.

          And above all: I’m getting megasad of reading comments conataining things like

          ” .. but its not clear to me to be of concern with regards to CO2.”

          though I didn’t even mention that dumb gas.

        • Nate says:

          “If you look at the ENSO conditions in 1998. ENSO for JJA 1998 was -.08. Then with the requisite delay UAH hit -.01 in November 3 months later.”

          Bill wants to start the race in a peak super El Nino year 1998.

          “That depends upon how long it takes to resume significant warming that isnt ENSO influenced.”

          But he doesnt want to end the race in ‘El Nino influenced’ years!

          Follow Bill to self-delusion.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Bill wants to start the race in a peak super El Nino year 1998.
            ——————

            And ended in it with an even bigger super El Nino years in 2014-2016

          • Nate says:

            Or we could avoid cherry picking biases and self-delusion completely by averaging the trend over all the data.

            Just a thought.

          • RLH says:

            And then not use the trend over a time period to suggest a continuation of it into either the future or the past.

          • Nate says:

            “And then not use the trend over a time period to suggest”

            Its not that complicated.

            Compare the observed trends to models.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Its not that complicated.

            Compare the observed trends to models.

            ——————-
            Yes that even works when the tested variable is actually fluctuating. Doesn’t work so well when the tested variable variability is near linear. Unless of course you want ice ages to come and go and you want to completely ignore natural millennial, centennial, and decadal nature variation that science has completely failed to adequately explain.

            Skeptics are simply folks who wonder about the jagged lines in the ice records, open arctic oceans in the mid-holocene, little ice ages, Medieval warm periods, and multi-decadal temperature minimums and maximums. Actually developing a CO2 model that explains the early 20th century warming would be a great start.

          • Nate says:

            “Actually developing a CO2 model that explains the early 20th century warming would be a great start.”

            It is a strawman to require CO2 to explain all T variation.

            We need solar, volcanoes, ENSO, aerosols from anthro-pollution, etc. for 20th century.

  19. Nate says:

    Odd that the surface data, from gfs reanalysis, are showing present is considerably warmer than last year.

    https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2022-02-28.gif

    • Richard M says:

      Given the lag with UAH, this surface data won’t show up for a few months.

    • Nate says:

      Yes really. What part of ‘gfs reanalysis’ did you miss?

      “Given the lag with UAH, this surface data wont show up for a few months.”

      Perhaps, but last year had a La Nina also. The comparison is to same months last year.

      • RLH says:

        https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-month-on-month.jpeg

        shows UAH has lower figures this year than last year, month on month. Apples to apples.

      • Bindidon says:

        Here is the result of a SQL query over the entire UAH time series in my database, asking for all years having in each of the 12 months an anomaly lower than that of the year before:

        ser | year
        —-+—–
        uah | 1982
        uah | 1992
        uah | 1999
        uah | 2011

        Looks pretty good, apart from a detail: 2021 is… missing!

        OMG! Why this?

        Yeah. Simply eye-balling at the graph won’t help anyone in finding what’s wrong.

        The reason why 2021 is absent in the list is best shown by the data itself:

        2020:
        {0.42,0.59,0.35,0.26,0.42,0.3,0.31,0.3,0.4,0.38,0.4,0.15}
        2021:
        {0.12,0.2,-0.01,-0.05,0.08,-0.01,0.2,0.17,0.25,0.37,0.08,0.21}

        2021 has only 11 months with anomalies lower than that in the year before. This cheeky December had the chutzpah to misbehave, oh noes: it brazenly let the SQL query fail.

        *
        After this bit of SQL irony, let us come back to serious matters, and exclude the December month off the query, now giving this output:

        ser | year
        —-+—–
        uah | 1981
        uah | 1982
        uah | 1989
        uah | 1992
        uah | 1999
        uah | 2011
        uah | 2021

        *
        What do have 1981, 1982, 1989, 1992, 1999, 2011, and – of course: 2021 – in common?

        All these years were cooler than their predecessor, nearly month by month, because
        – they were strongly influenced by volcano eruptions (St Helens, El Chichon, Pinatubo)
        or
        – they were intensive La Niña years.

        *
        There is a much simpler way to look at all that, namely by averaging the UAH months into a yearly series, and performing a descending sort of it:

        1999: 0.50
        2011: 0.31
        1992: 0.30
        2008: 0.26
        1989: 0.25
        2021: 0.22
        1984: 0.20
        1982: 0.19

        And suddenly we see that
        – 1999 was way, way above the rest
        – 2021 was not at all something special
        – 2008 was added to the list, though not having so many anomalies lower than 2007 (only ten!)
        – the only exception was 1981 with a low 0.07 wrt 1980.

        Thus, sorry for the stubborn Coolistas, but numbers have spoken.

        *
        Last year, the permanent, stubborn answer was:

        ” 2021 was over months cooler than 2020. GET OVER IT. ”

        Yeah.

        • Bindidon says:

          ” … and performing a descending sort of it: ”

          Apos, mistyping, should read

          ” … a descending sort of the differences between a yearly average and that of the year before: “

        • RLH says:

          My data is correct. Month on month a year before, 2021 is cooler than 2020 as you show.

          UAH has lower figures this year (2021) than last year (2020), month on month (except Dec but also true for Jan 2022 against Jan 2021).

          2021 1 0.12
          2022 1 0.03

          Apples to apples.

          Idiot.

          • Bindidon says:

            For the stubborn, insulting elementary school teacher, I repeat the sorted sequence of the average differences between a year and its preceding year:

            1999: 0.50
            2011: 0.31
            1992: 0.30
            2008: 0.26
            1989: 0.25
            2021: 0.22
            1984: 0.20
            1982: 0.19

            Nothing unusual in 2021: it is a La Nina year, but a weak one compared with earlier ones, e.g 2010-2012.

            *
            You on the contrary want to make it a sign toward cooling. Feel free to think so, why not?

            *
            I feel pretty fine with people like you naming me an idiot.

          • RLH says:

            I have never been an elementary school teacher.

        • RLH says:

          Good. Idiot.

      • Nate says:

        “What part of gfs reanalysis did you miss?”

        One can easily compare apples to apples in other data, like the GFS Renalysis data, and see that the same months last year were cooler.

      • Richard M says:

        Nate, the AMO went stronger positive the last 4 months of 2021. My suspicion is this has kept the oceans warmer overall.

        While ENSO may be the biggest factor in setting ocean temperature, it isn’t the only one.

  20. Bindidon says:

    Some people seem to be a bit under-educated concerning things as simple as anomalies.

    The anomaly for February 2022 wrt the mean of 1991-2020 is, indeed, 0.0 C.

    But if the reference period had not been moved up by 10 years by January 2021, it would be 0.16 C.

    And if UAH had, for whichever reason, decided not to go with WMO’s recommendations anyway, they would still stay of 1979-1998 as reference period, like RSS.

    And for February 2022, that would give an anomaly of 0.27 C.

    Simply because the mean of the absolute UAH 6.0 LT temperatures for the February months is 263.27 K for the period 1991-2020, 263.11 K for 1981-2010, and 263.00 K for 1979-1998.

    • RLH says:

      “if UAH had, for whichever reason, decided not to go with WMOs recommendations”

      Sure ignore any WMO recommendations as what do they know anyway.

      • Swenson says:

        RLH,

        The Australian Bureau of Meteorology ignores WMO recommendations in many areas, not the least of which is the way in which temperature readings are to be taken and used.

        The effect of ignoring WMO recommendations is to create new maximum temperature records. Combined with refusing to acknowledge recorded minima on the basis that the equipment was unsuitable for recording low temperatures (among other attempts to pretend that they were not trying to support the GHE agenda), Australian data has been manipulated to depress the past and elevate present temperatures.

        This practice was taken to the extreme in declaring all official temperature records prior to 1910 unreliable. This had the effect of removing record heat waves prior to this date from the official record.

        Who is right? The Australian Bureau of Meteorology, or other countries using the same equipment, who apparently did not find the same fault with their pre 1910 temperature records?

        Or maybe the World Meteorological Organisation?

        • RLH says:

          The World Meteorological Organization recommends that reference periods are kept up top date. Why do you have a problem with that?

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            What are you babbling about?

            What have reference periods to do with anything?

            If you want to disagree with something I said, why are you so afraid to say what it is?

            Moron.

          • RLH says:

            Because, idiot, it was the change to a more modern reference period by Roy as recommended by the WMO that started this discussion.

            Not only can you cannot read, you cannot think either.

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            You wrote –

            “Sure ignore any WMO recommendations as what do they know anyway.”

            Are you changing your view to not ignoring WMO recommendations now?

            I was pointing out that the BOM was following your direction to ignore WMO recommendations, something which with I disagree. Why do you have a problem with that?

            Do you think the BOM should follow WMO recommendations, or ignore them to create spurious warming, as they have done?

          • RLH says:

            I was pointing why UAH has changed their refernece period to keep it up to date.

      • Bindidon says:

        Thank you very much, Clint RLH, for intentionally distorting and misrepresenting what I wrote.

        • RLH says:

          Thank you for being an idiot.

          • Bindidon says:

            Better to be an idiot in your, Robertson’s, Clint R’s or Flynnson’s opinion than to be an incompetent boaster in my opinion.

            You move every month a bit near to them: your opinion about the lunar spin doesn’t change much to that.

          • RLH says:

            Just because it turns out that people other than you can do data gathering and graph production there is no need for you to get your kickers in a twist.

            Figured out why using already rounded data is considered a very bad idea yet?

  21. Dan Pangburn says:

    Nate,
    Back at https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1187975 you state that you have pointed out flaws in my work. You have that backwards. Perhaps you never noticed, I pointed out a flaw in your work here’:
    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1088189
    I observed that you got a different answer and explained what you did wrong. My work stands correct.
    Your assertion that I treat the atmosphere “as a uniform temperature box of gas” is ludicrous.

    • Nate says:

      Nope. I tried your method and still didnt get your result. It is not reproducible. I got the same answer as my simpler analysis Youve done something wrong. Try again.

    • Nate says:

      The point is if water vapor (WV) rises 6.7%/degree K, that produces exponential increase over a large T range.

      Over a small T range, your period of time 1988-2020 had ~ 0.6 K rise, the rise in WV will be ~ linear.

      It is like compound interest. Over a long time it produces exponential growth in the principal. Over a short period, < 1 year, a simple interest calculation is good enough.

      If we have principal, P, and interest rate of 6.7%/year, over 0.6 years we will see a growth of ~ 0.067*0.6*P.

      A better approximation is found by using the average value of P during the period, which would be Pav = 1.033 P. Then the growth would be ~ 0.067*0.6*1.033P.

      This is what my formula calculated for WV was, except for 0.6 Kelvin rather than 0.6 years.

      WV rise ~ .067*WVav*0.6 = 0.067*29 Kg/m^2*0.6 = 1.166 Kg/m^2

      Which a gives a trend over the 32 y period of 1.166Kg/m^2/32y

      = 0.036 Kg/m^2/year.

      I had actually used GISS for the Temp rise which was 0.66 K, which gave a result of

      0.040 Kg/m^2/year.

      I recall that the actual measured trend in WV you showed was 0.043 Kg/m^2/year.

      When you consider the error bars on these trends, there is little to no disagreement between the predicted and measured trends.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Nate,
        I think that your analogy with compound interest is misleading you. It should be clear that the average temperature increase over the time period should be used. Assuming linear, a starting increase of 0.0 K ending increase of 0.6 K and all in one step the average increase is 0.3 K. The total WV increase is then 0.067/K * 0.3 K * 29 kg/m^2 = 0.58 kg/m^2. The yearly rate is then 0.58/32 = 0.0182 kg/m^2/yr which is less than the multi-step calculation along the actual path of 0.0237 kg/m^2/yr.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Nate,

        Dan’s hypothesis is that changes in water vapor are proportional to changes in temperature resulting in a 6.7% increase in WV/K. His algorithm calculates the monthly estimated change and cumulatively adds it month by month. Dan is comparing those estimates with the data.

        But you are multiplying the dimensionless 6.7% times the temperature trend and then times a mean of water vapor values. Where did the mean come from? You can’t use known data to predict estimates. These latest calculations are even more convoluted than before.

        The 6.7% is supposed to be multiplied by the change in temperature to get the resulting expected change in water vapor. IOW, if the original initial WV was 20 Kg/m2 and the temperature change that month was 0.15, the new WV would be 20 + 20 * 0.067 * 0.15 and that is exactly Dan’s formula (and that makes me wrong, too)! WVn = WV(n-1) + (delta T) * R * WV(n-1).

      • Nate says:

        “Assuming linear, a starting increase of 0.0 K ending increase of 0.6 K and all in one step the average increase is 0.3 K. ”

        Dan that is ludicrous. There is no logical reason to divide the temperature change by by 2!

        We need the total change in temperature over the period to find the total change in WV over the period.

        This is not rocket science.

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          Nate,
          It’s not ludicrous, it’s correct. Consider a case where the temperature increased 0.6 K in half the time and stayed there for the rest of the time. By your calculation the WV increase would be the same as if T ramped up at a constant rate over the full time. That’s ludicrous.

          You have just made a convincing demonstration that either you are experiencing a mental block or this is beyond your skill level.

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          Nate,
          I hate it when I’m wrong. Apparently I was experiencing the mental block. Please ignore my above post. Thanks for the challenge. If you care, the problem with what I did was use WV(n-1) (which is too low in an overall uptrend) in the multiplier. I have some fixing to do . . .

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Dan,

            Before you start fixing anything, please explain why you think your algorithm is wrong. I think it is mathematically correct after realizing that my initial version of it was wrong.

            Nate’s use of trends to short cut numerical integration introduces a bias. I am working on a way to illustrate why.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Chic,
            I sure thought it would work too but it doesn’t. As Nate pointed out the WV increase at the end has to be equal to the calculated WV increase from temperature increase at the end, K * .067/K * WV of about 28.8 kg/m^2. I have implemented a simple fix (added 0.0010207 kg/m^2 each month for GISS, 0.0007228 for H4, 0.0009242 for UAH) to force the algorithm to do that. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com has been updated with changes and new graphs.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Dan,

            By using the trend in water vapor instead of the actual values, you are using the trend’s endpoints instead of the actual data. The trend biases the data. To see this effect, calculate the slope of a sine wave between 0 and 1. The endpoints are equal, but the slope is non-zero. The trend converts a numerical integration of zero into some non-zero artifact.

            You have changed the slope of your predicted WV from real delta Ts of 0.015 Kg/m2 to 0.026 Kg/m2 simply by using the trend line value of 0.0135 instead of the actual monthly delta T in stepwise fashion.

            Your data still supports your water vapor hypothesis only less strongly now. I still think you were right the first time.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Chic,
            You make a good point with a good example (forehead slap). The temperature decline trend since the el Nino peak in 2016 is causing the linear trend from Jan 1988 to decline so the fix needed to satisfy Nate’s point is in decline. We’ll see what happens.

      • Nate says:

        “Where did the mean come from?”

        It is explained above. Did u read?

        No matter. Use the starting WV if you prefer. Hardly a difference.

    • Nate says:

      Dan, Interesting discussion of WV increase here.

      https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-investigating-climate-changes-humidity-paradox

      Interesting point. The ‘constant relative humidity’ scenario seems to be the ‘model’ you are testing.

      In contrast to you , they claim that in fact the WV has been rising LESS THAN this scenario would give.

      ” However, the real world does have limiting factors – and so relative humidity is decreasing.”

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Nate,
        Thanks for the link.
        That 7% value that is commonly used can be misleading. The correct value is the slope of the saturation pressure curve divided by the temperature at that point. This is graphed at Figure 4 in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com along with the saturation pressure vs temperature curve itself. This is the most accurate data available. As determined there, what is commonly called the 7% value varies from 5.7 to 7.5% on the surface but with decreasing T with increasing altitude the value increases to about 12%/K. For a given T increase, the accommodation for WV in the atmosphere is greater than the increase in saturation vapor pressure at the surface. This helps explain why, with increasing T, absolute humidity has been increasing and RH decreasing.

        It is also misleading to assert that the 7% is according to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. The CC equation relates the volume change to the enthalpy change AT SATURATION. The 7% comes from an approximation of the CC equation which is useful for meteorology work.

        I am baffled by these statements “Interesting point. The ‘constant relative humidity’ scenario seems to be the ‘model’ you are testing.

        In contrast to you , they claim that in fact the WV has been rising LESS THAN this scenario would give.”
        I’m not testing a constant RH scenario per se. I am challenging the assertion that warming was initiated by CO2 rise by showing that measured WV has increased faster than possible from just T increase.
        It will be interesting to compare their assessment of WV increase at ground level with that reported by NASA/RSS for global average TPW increase.

  22. Gordon Robertson says:

    mark shapiro…”…as he continues to deny climate changed caused by burning fossil fuels”.

    ***

    Nothing to deny, no one has ever proved that the burning of fossil fuels as warmed the Earth. Roy has never denied anthropogenic warming, he as only claimed catastrophic warming is not happening. Anyone who claims it is is a climate idiot.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Dr. Spencer believes humans have contributed to more than 50% of the warming. However, like any good scientist, he states this is what he believes, not what he knows.

  23. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…”ignore any WMO recommendations as what do they know anyway”.

    ***

    Ah, good, Richard is coming around. The WMO and the UN created the IPCC, a load of politically-motivated liars.

  24. Gordon Robertson says:

    stephen…”There have been two step-changes since 1979 as Salby describes them”.

    ***

    The first step change, of about 0.2C, occurred just before 1979, in 1976, and was called the Great Pacific Climate Shift, later to be identified in the 1990s as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/THE_GREAT_PACIFIC_CLIMATE_SHIFT_II.pdf

    If you look closely at Roy’s graph, just after the 1998 EN, you can see another temperature shift. Before the EN, the global average was about 0.2C below what it became after the EN.

  25. Gordon Robertson says:

    mark m…”Writing a comment on a website roughly every 20-30 minutes, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, month after month is very worrying compulsive behavior. I really hope you both will consult a mental health care professional”.

    ***

    Anyone who has nothing better to do than pry into how many times a poster posts needs professional help. Your analysis is an abuse of statistics since you have failed to indicated how long the posts were and why they were posted.

    • Ken says:

      Still no signal in the nause.

      • Swenson says:

        K,

        Are you trying to compete with Witless Willard to see who can be the most obscure and cryptic?

        Moron.

        • RLH says:

          No he is saying that you (amongst others) do not contribute anything useful. Idiot.

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            So what exactly would you consider to be useful? Mindlessly parroting belief in a mysterious GHE which can’t even be described, let alone observed, measured, and documented?

            Come on, tell me what you think a “useful” contribution might look like.

            If you can’t even do that, you are a moron for mindlessly criticising what you don’t understand.

            Agreed?

          • RLH says:

            I have said little to nothing about GHE. I just analyze and report climate related data on https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            So what exactly would you consider to be useful?

            Analysing and reporting what everybody else has already analysed and reported?

            Why precisely do you imagine that what you are wasting your time on has any use at all?

            Climate is just the statistics of past weather, and quite meaningless.

            You are free, of course, to waste your time as you wish.

            Carry on.

          • RLH says:

            You know anyone else that uses Gaussian and S-G low pass filters on the data? I don’t.

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            You wrote –

            “You know anyone else that uses Gaussian and S-G low pass filters on the data? I dont.”

            Why do you think you make data more valuable by removing the bits you dont like (or agree with)?

            Nature certainly seems to be absurd, preferring uncertainty, indeterminacy, and chaos, so trying to impose your expectations on reality may well result in disappointment.

            Nature is noisy. Filtering out shot noise, for example, doesn’t make it go way. It might make you happy, if the shot noise annoys you. Use whatever filter that gets rid of the reality you don’t want to accept!

            You can always accept reality, if you feel like it.

          • RLH says:

            Decomposition of temperature series into bands of fairly broad sets of frequencies is a well known technique for discovering what drives them.

            Gaussian and S-G low pass filters are a great way of doing this They create minimum distortions to the data.

            You don’t remove any of the information/data with low pass filters but simply assign it to the range of periods those create.

            There is no doubt that daily and yearly cycles exist. Large physical systems have other resonant frequencies drive by such periodic input. Being natural cycles they are not like pure sine waves but are quasi-cyclic/quasi-periodic.

            e.g.

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah-residuals.jpeg

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah-long-term.jpeg

          • Nate says:

            “I just analyze and report climate related data on https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com

            And we have learned that it is cherry picked and massaged to ‘make the case’ for cycles, and cooling.

          • RLH says:

            Low pass filters do not have an opinion on the data that they filter. Nor do they cherry pick. Nor do they erase things either. They just put them in bins with particular frequency bands on them.

            Less than 7 years
            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah-residuals.jpeg

            Greater than 7 years
            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah-long-term.jpeg

            (7 years was chosen because of the length of the data series)

          • RLH says:

            I particularly use low pass filters because they are not based on sine waves as such and are therefore not prone to exaggerated peaks or induced oscillations.

            Things based on sine waves can be quite difficult to use when looking at natural quasi-cyclic/quasi-periodic behaviors as can tuned filters.

          • RLH says:

            “‘make the case’ for cycles”

            Cycles exists and it is foolish to suggest they don’t.

            Daily and yearly are the most obvious. Long term orbital such as Milankovitch ones too. Short term orbitals such as tides of ocean, earth and atmosphere as well.

            https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

            The only question is there something between 1 and 100,000 years. Large physical systems will have loops in them that are prone to such cycles, weather, ocean currents, etc. These are likely to fill that gap.

            Only by looking at the natural periodicity that occurs in climate will we hope to uncover what the time periods and effects that are there are. The problem is that most of these cycles are not going to be pure sinusoids (other than orbital ones) so using tools that focus on them is not likely to be informative.

            Hence the use of broad bandwidth low pass filters as I do.

  26. angech says:

    Thank you Roy Spencer.

  27. angech says:

    Good start to the year with 2 lowish results under the belt.
    Same as last year which had 5 but the La Nina did not kick in as predicted.
    No one can predict whether we have a new weak La Nina or a change to El Nino.
    Let’s hope we grt another 5 months of low temperatures thus time to stir up the pidgeons

  28. coturnix says:

    5550 comments! not bad, not bad at all! best since august and third-best of the last year.

  29. Antonin Qwerty says:

    Mr Spencer – you need to update “Latest global temp anomaly” at the top of the page to February.

  30. Pobi says:

    This is me

  31. Entropic man says:

    RLH

    Different baselines have advantages.

    The GISS seasonal cycle graph uses an 1980-2015 baseline to keep the data current.

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

    Their 140 year annual temperature record continues to 1951-1980.

    I find GISS very useful because their 1951-1980 baseline is a true temperature of 14.0C. This makes it useful for calculating overall warming.

    Thus the latter 1800s were stable around anomaly -0.2 or 13.8C true

    Current GISS annual temperatures peaked at anomaly 0.9C or 14.9C true.

    Thus the modern warming has been 14.9-13.8 = 1.1C.

    On a longer timescale it allows comparison with proxy data, 9C for the last glacial period and 19C for the hothouse Earth Eocene.

    • RLH says:

      There is a good argument for keeping the same baseline and also for keeping it up to date as UAH does.

      There is also an argument for using all of the data as a reference period instead.

      All have their advantages and disadvantages.

    • RLH says:

      Proxy data is quite suspect as it often does not agree with other proxy data for the same time period.

      • Entropic man says:

        RLH

        Proxy data, by its nature, is less accurate and reliable than thermometer data.

        Ensembles like Marcott et al and PAGES2K have 95% confidence limits of +/-0.2C compared with +/-0.05C for thermometer data.

        That does not make it useless.

        UAH reads significantly lower than the surface datasets because it is measuring troposphere and lower stratosphere temperatures. This does not invalidate either data source.

        Similarly ice cores from Antarctica, peat bogs in the UK and sediments from Lake Victoria are measuring different regions and would not be expected to give identical results.

        I note your use of the word “suspect”. Not a conspiracy theory, I hope?

        • RLH says:

          “I note your use of the word ‘suspect’. Not a conspiracy theory, I hope?”

          Nope. Just a caution if other data, especially proxy data, gives different answers for the same time period.

          • Willard says:

            For a less romanticized version:

            The complaints are mainly about some recent spikes. My main criticism of the paper so far is that they do plot data in recent times with few proxies to back it. It shows a “hockey stick” which naturally causes excitement. I think they shouldn’t do this – the effect is fragile, and unnecessary. Over the last century we have good thermometer records and don’t need proxy reinforcement. Indeed the spikes shown are not in accord with the thermometer record, and I doubt if anyone thinks they are real.

            https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2013/03/my-limited-emulation-of-marcott-et-al.html

            It’s really hard to pretend one sticks to the data when citing the Auditor.

          • RLH says:

            When you quote Moyhu you show that you are a rabid hocky stick proponent.

          • Entropic man says:

            Gentlemen, before you get het up about the relative merits of Nick Stokes and Tony Heller as authorities, perhaps you should take note.

            Between 1880 and 1950 Marcott et al, PAGES2K and the thermometer record all agree within their respective confidence limits. This is known in the trade as consistence and is generally regarded as a good thing.

          • RLH says:

            No-one expects that people publish things that don’t agree with themselves. The challenge is to acknowledge or refute what other people with different viewpoints conclude.

            Do you dispute the conclusion that simply tacking a measurement series onto a proxy one is good scientific behavior? Aka ‘the hockey stick’.

          • Willard says:

            > good scientific behavior?

            That’s where we recognize the data analyst.

            Try this:

            https://www.turingtrader.org/blog/2019/09-feature-splicing-data-source/

          • RLH says:

            Care to show me where the proxy datasets and the measurement series overlap with good agreement all over the world for a number of years?

            I have a load of proxy series (see my website) and they do not even agree with each other, let alone the measurement series.

          • Willard says:

            Care to show me where you got the idea that splicing was Very Bad, Richard?

            Meanwhile, enjoy the Auditor’s latest investigations:

            https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/

          • RLH says:

            Unlike you, I don’t take either religion or politics into account in climate and climate data.

            And yes, I do think that Russian invasion of Ukraine is wrong and no, I do not believe there is a God.

          • RLH says:

            “Care to show me where you got the idea that splicing was Very Bad”

            If you cannot get a good area of overlap, then any splicing is at best a guess.

          • Entropic man says:

            ” Do you dispute the conclusion that simply tacking a measurement series onto a proxy one is good scientific behavior? ”

            Dumb question.

            You don’t “just” tack one series into another. You overlap them to check the calibration.

            At the time Marcott et al was published in 2013 it was attacked by two different group of sceptics who disagreed with each other.

            One group complained that each proxy was continued as far into the measurement era as possible. “You don’t need any overlap. You can use the measured temperatures instead.”

            Another complained that you can’t simply tack a measurement series onto a proxy without an overlap to allow calibration.

            Of course the problem was that Marcott’s group and the other proxy groups were all telling a story of long term slow cooling followed by rapid warming, which to the sceptics was anathema.

          • RLH says:

            “You dont ‘just’ tack one series into another”

            So you don’t like the hockey stick either?

          • Entropic man says:

            More like a golf club.

            6000 years of slow cooling from 14.3C to 13.8C followed by 140 years of rapid warming from 13.8C to 14.9C.

            That’s a cooling rate of 0.0008C/decade followed by a warming rate of 0.08C/decade.

            Do you deny these figures? If so what should they be and what is your evidence?

          • Entropic man says:

            Are you familiar with the “wheelchair”?

            http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-wheelchair.html

            Note the rapid increase in the Marcott et al blue graph in the late 1800s and the way it closely tracks the red temperature record.

            That is the period of overlap needed for calibration. The temperature record was not “just” grafted on to the proxy data.

          • Entropic man says:

            Proxy data, except for ice cores, is local and therefore noisy. That’s why you build ensembles of many studies, it keeps the noise down.

            There’s probably some of my work in there. In the early 70s I worked under Peter Moore on Borth Bog near Aberystwyth. We produced a 5000 year temperature record for the area by palynology,long before the modern proxies came into use.

            Hammer a drainpipe into the bog to take a peat core.

            Take samples from different depths and soak (carefully) in hydrochloric acid to dissolve most of the organic matter.

            What remains is odd bits of lignin, dust and pollen grains.

            The dust gives you a timeline from volcanoes (carbon dating too scarce and expensive). The pollen tells you what wind pollinated plants grew around the bog at the time.

            The geographical distribution of plants follows quite well defined average temperature contours (Which is why treelines look so sharp from a distance.)

            Knowing which plants are growing you can constrain the temperature.

            For example,tundra willow A has a maximum average temperature limit of 6C. Temperate willow B has a minimum temperature tolerance of 5C.

            If you see both species pollen in the bog the local average temperature is between 5C and 6C.

            IIRC we got an average of 9C +/-1C and a slight, but not significant cooling trend. Resolution was about 100 years and we couldn’t get useful data after 1900.

          • RLH says:

            Looking at the proxy series listed above, local factors seem to dominate all proxy series mentioned making them of little use in global temperatures.

          • barry says:

            “Do you dispute the conclusion that simply tacking a measurement series onto a proxy one is good scientific behavior? Aka ‘the hockey stick’.”

            You mean just stuck on the end?

            “‘You dont “just” tack one series into another'”

            “So you dont like the hockey stick either?”

            Yep, looks like what you mean.

            The ‘Hockey Stick’ (MBH98) calibrated proxy data with 93 years of the modern record (1902 to 1995).

            The modern temp record was NOT ‘just’ tacked on.

            “Care to show me where the proxy datasets and the measurement series overlap with good agreement all over the world for a number of years?”

            Why would they? Even thermometer records at different places around the world do not match up over a period of years. What happens locally does not necessarily reflect what’s happening globally year on year. There are even a handful places you can find that cooled over the last 100 years of global warming.

            Why should proxy data be any different? Even in a warming (or cooling) world different locations may have very different temperature profiles with the global average, and very easily so with each other.

        • Bindidon says:

          It is amazing to see that people like ‘Clint RLH’ (a much better pseudonym for that guy) manage to woefully discredit Nick Stokes, though having not even a bit of his scientific education and knowledge, let alone would they be able to contradict him.

          Pfui Deibel.

  32. Mark Shapiro says:

    Here’s two more videos you might me interested in:

    Climate Change and Wildfire:

    https://youtu.be/nOmERN1HoMA

    and

    Climate Change and Megadroughts

    https://youtu.be/q6tuiSWzrrM

    Comments from the peanut gallery always are welcome.

  33. Torbjorn says:

    As always

  34. Bindidon says:

    Solar flux these days

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/16mg6vIMd4IoJaP-AAP-77LIf5hDrhi2_/view

    Now the real comparison can begin.

    After a first advantage due to SC24’s weak begin, SC25 now has to prove it can climb as good as its predecessor.

    That can take a few months.

  35. Bindidon says:

    Sea ice extent

    1. Arctic

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iDvogUBKnCEY43iWK7_LFWBjT_f14eXL/view

    2. Antarctic

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CA75wUnRDRd0aLlC05oom37Oc8sXzosq/view

    Antarctic sea ice extent looks a bit tired this year compared with 2020/21. A bit Popeye spinach would be fine I guess.

  36. RLH says:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/02/the-uneasy-sea/

    “For the last forty years or so weve been treated to endless scary claims that the rate of sea-level rise is increasing and coastal cities are all going to drown. Ive shown that part of this hysteria is due to improper splicing of the four sequential satellite records of the sea level. Here are the four records, along with their respective trendlines.”

    https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/NOAA-satellite-sea-level–720×579.png

    • Ken says:

      Why are satellites showing 3.0 mm per year while tide gauges with 100 years record and stable locations show 1.8 mm per year?

      Nils Axel Morner makes the case that its actually 1.1 mm per year. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284890177_There_is_no_alarming_sea_level_rise_21st_century_science_technology

      • coturnix says:

        for one thing, what if, just what if the expanding earth crowd are actually right on something? once in a while, these things happen and lunatic theories may turn out correct on an accident.

        • Ken says:

          I guess Galileo would have been considered a ravening nutter to suggest the earth was not the center of the universe.

          However, he was able to provide evidence, replicable proof, of his theory.

          Unlike expanding earth hypothesis.

          Not saying its wrong, just saying it hasn’t any supportive evidence.

          • coturnix says:

            How about the fact that the se-levels as seen from the satellites rise much faster than as measured by the tide-gauges? Don’t get me wrong, I too think that the expanding earth crown is mostly wrong based both on the deep-time geological evidence and the known properties of the materials, but if some discrepancies in the observations are consistently unexplainable by the sane theories, it may be actually rational to consider insane theories. because, even though they are almost certainly wrong, they may give a different perspective and tehrefore wil help with the search for the possible solutions.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ken…”I guess Galileo would have been considered a ravening nutter to suggest the earth was not the center of the universe.

            However, he was able to provide evidence, replicable proof, of his theory”.

            ***

            Let’s not forget that he was forced to retract his revelation, and Copernicus too, or be killed. Seems things have not changed a whole lot.

            In those days it was the Catholic Church threatening death, today it is another lot of zealots, like alarmist scientists and alarmist medical authorities, threatening ex-communication for those who utter skeptical heresies.

            I am still waiting to get my democratic rights back for remaining unvaccinated.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            corutnix…”How about the fact that the se-levels as seen from the satellites rise much faster than as measured by the tide-gauges?”

            ***

            It is not possible to accurately measure sea levels or ice extent from a satellite. A whole lot of fudging and averaging is required. Pretty well the same for tidal gauges.

          • Ken says:

            GR there are groups coalescing to end the crimes against humanity that include the vaccine mandates.

            See Criminal Code Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, and International Convention for Civic and Political Rights.

            Try finding the local chapter for Action4Canada. https://action4canada.com/

    • Nate says:

      Stop getting your ‘science’ from blogs..

  37. RLH says:

    “Evaluation of the Homogenization Adjustments Applied to European Temperature Records in the Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset”

    https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/13/2/285/htm

    “While the PHA remains a useful tool in the community’s homogenization toolbox, many of the PHA adjustments applied to the homogenized GHCN dataset may have been spurious. Using station metadata to assess the reliability of PHA adjustments might potentially help to identify some of these spurious adjustments.”

  38. TallDave says:

    0.00? lolwut?

    [bangs on satellite] is this thing even on?

    still not entirely off the GCM projection graphs, but probably obscured by legend

    of course, data notwithstanding, all reputable studies show climate models are still performing excellently

    don’t worry, we didn’t waste trillions of dollars or anything

    • Willard says:

      > trillions of dollars

      Got any receipt, TallDave, or are you just pulling numbers out of your hat?

      • Dave J Price says:

        funny, they asked Bastiat for receipts too

        he didn’t have any either

        • Willard says:

          Here’s what trillions look like Dave:

          The most recent and most comprehensive to date global adaptation costsrange from US$70 to more than US$100 billion annually by 2050 (World Bank, 2010a; see Table 17-2).

          https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-Chap17_FINAL.pdf

          I doubt teh stoopid modulz cost that much.

          • TallDave says:

            lol what’s the total economic impact of every climate initiative since oh, say, 1988?

            trillions is conservative

            every single penny wasted

          • TallDave says:

            but yes, good point, there are also many trillions planned to be wasted in the future

          • Willard says:

            Pull you pants back up before asking questions, Dave.

            You’re too tall to be able to run well pants down.

          • TallDave says:

            the global economy produced $84T in 2021

            if the cumulative drag on GDP in 2021 from the economic dislocation of every climate change policy, both voluntary and coerced, amounted to only .1% (haahahahaha) it would have cost the world $84B in that year alone

            that’s not even counting actual destruction, such as shutting down working coal plants or “cash for clunkers”

            given the scale, pervasiveness, and compounding effects of such efforts the actual reduction in 2022 GDP relative to a world free of policies intended to cool the planet might already be as high as 5% — grid issues alone cost many tens of billions across major economies in just the last year

            superstition often comes at a cost

            somewhere Feynman laughs at yet another cargo cult

            and Bastiat shakes his head at that which is not seen

          • Willard says:

            > if the cumulative drag on GDP

            That’s a big IF you got there, Dave.

            Put up or shut up.

    • RLH says:

      This is for Jan 2022 data (because Roy’s full data wont be available for a few days yet)

      https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-1.jpeg

      The projections say that negative figures are not far off now.

  39. gbaikie says:

    The largest climate change occurs when get a peak interglacial periods and highest sea level rise. Ie:
    “Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today, with Greenland contributing 0.6 to 3.5 m (2.0 to 11.5 ft),[19] thermal expansion and mountain glaciers contributing up to 1 m (3.3 ft),[20] and an uncertain contribution from Antarctica.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
    So, sea levels rose about 140 meter and were about 6 to 9 meters higher than then currently.
    Our Holocene began when global temperature was the coldest it’s been in the 34 million global icehouse climate, that we in, that we call
    Late Cenozoic Ice Age.

    So we were the coldest and within 1000 years or so, we become the warmest.
    What is the theory or explanation of why this occurred?

    “Within icehouse states are “glacial” and “interglacial” periods that cause ice sheets to build up or to retreat. The main causes for glacial and interglacial periods are variations in the movement of Earth around the Sun.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth

    I would say Milankovitch cycles are weak force which requires a long time to effect and are weak effect upon our icehouse global climate, or our icehouse global climate is caused by a cold ocean and Milankovitch cycles have a weak effect upon the temperature of our ocean, which currently has average temperature of about 3.5 C.
    I would say instead that Milankovitch cycles have strong effect upon the ocean surface temperature and that ocean surface temperature is global average surface of Earth- the ocean is about 70% of the surface of Earth.
    So ocean average temperature is global climate temperature and ocean average surface temperature is what we mistakenly call the global average temperature.

    And I would say what causes the ocean to warm in our icehouse global climate is polar sea ice.
    And polar sea ice, cools global surface air temperature.
    Polar sea ice is insulation- or one could say a “greenhouse effect”.

    So, basically the glaciation period warmed the ocean. And Milankovitch cycles pulled the trigger.

    In our icehouse global climate, the warmest global surface air temperature is when all polar sea ice, melts. And when all polar sea ice melts and stays melted in the winter, it’s huge warming effect in terms of global surface air temperature, and huge effect of cooling the entire ocean.
    When there is less frozen polar sea ice in the winter or when only ice free in summer, it cools the ocean less and warms global surface air temperature less.

    As general thing, liquid ocean warms.
    And Land cools. And one can regard polar sea ice as being similar to land area.
    If you have sea ice, the air can be -30 C or colder, and air can’t get this cold if have liquid ocean surface. And thicker the polar sea ice, the more insulation it provides.

    Once one understands this, one change our global climate.
    But I am not very interested in our global climate, but if you put lakes on Mars, it will warm Mars. Warming Mars is not important either, and it won’t warm Mars by much, anyhow.

    On philosophical note, perhaps the people wishing for colder Earth, actually unknowingly yearn to live on Mars.
    But personally I would like a warmer Earth, and think people should have the freedom to live on Mars [or anywhere].
    But what we need to do is explore the Moon to determine if and where there is mineable lunar water. And this should not take too long to do. And then we explore Mars and determine if and where there is mineable water. And determine if there is any problems with living in environment with about 1/3 of the gravity as Earth- and to see if we can resolve any problem related to this.

  40. Gordon Robertson says:

    mark s…”Heres two more videos you might me interested in:”

    ***

    Not interested in your unscientific propaganda, Mark.

  41. Gordon Robertson says:

    entropic…”Proxy data, by its nature, is less accurate and reliable than thermometer data”.

    ***

    True, but it depends on context and concurrent evidence.

    Proxy data alone, applied to evidence of the Little Ice Age extent would not be all that convincing. However, there is a written record of the LIA in various parts of the world that confirm the proxy data. There is also evidence of glaciers expanding enormously in Europe, like the Mer de Glace in the French Alps that expanded down a valley, wiping out farms and villages on its way.

    There is good evidence dating back to 1600 AD from explorers sailing the North Atlantic to the Arctic, looking for a NW Passage. Between 1600 and 1850 they kept records of their explorations and reports from the Arctic show a much colder place than today. Sea ice has melted naturally since 1850, during the summer, and alarmists have blamed it on anthropogenic warming.

    Even explorers from southern Europe in the same period expected to find similar climates along the same latitude but found adverse conditions around what is now Florida and Texas. Aboriginals were starving due to unprecedented cooling in those regions.

    Some have claimed the LIA was local to Europe, but how is it possible for temperatures to decline 1C to 2C over Europe for over 400 years while not affecting other parts of the world? Proxy data has confirmed temperatures did decline around the world.

    Temperature data is dependent on the reliability of those reporting the data. It is also dependent on access to land surface area around the world and to oceans. That was simply not possible in countries like the USSR and China and we have experienced two major world wars. I don’t imagine anyone was taking accurate temperature measurements during those times and in those places.

    Also, until the 1980s, no one gave a hoot about global warming/climate change. Even since 1980, the oceans and land surfaces have not been well covered, especially the oceans.

    Most surface temperature telemetry is located 5 to 25 feet above the surface. How does one get accurate sea surface temperatures with a buoy floating on the ocean surface surrounded by sea spray and high WV levels? That is after the float has been submerged in the ocean for a length of time.

    • Bindidon says:

      Robertson

      ” Proxy data has confirmed temperatures did decline around the world. ”

      Sources?

      You don’t know what you are talking about, and, as usual, endlessly stay in guessing.

  42. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”manage to woefully discredit Nick Stokes”

    ***

    What is there to credit? Stokes is an alarmists who bends statistics to his liking. He has nothing to offer of scientific value.

    I think Entropic compared him to Tony Heller. No comparison. Heller is a bona fide scientist with a degree in electrical engineering. He was the ‘go to’ guy for quality control on the Intel i7 processor team. Ergo, he has the credentials to find and display cheating by NASA GISS.

    Not even sure that Nick Stokes is his real name, Nick Stokes being a fiction character from the comics or whatever. Heller is a nym but at least he admits his real name, Steve Goddard.

    • Bindidon says:

      You behave once more like an ignorant and arrogant person.

      Nick Stokes is his real name: you only try to discredit him with your usual insinuations and lies.

      Stokes is a physicist with an amount of knowledge that bypasses not only yours by dimensions, but also that of Heller aka Goddard – why did that guy hide his real name for such long a time?

      You never tried to understand anything of what Stokes writes: simply because all that does not fit your primitive, egomaniac narrative.

      All what Heller aka Goddard did all the years was to endlessly complain about the adjustments of single GHCN V3 stations.

      Sometimes, his critique was correct, I checked that years ago. But in many cases, he was wrong.

      And if there is on Earth exactly one person who never would be able to check for the accuracy of Goddard’s analysis, than that’s you, Robertson.

      You are only busy in distorting, discrediting and denigrating anything that you can’t understand: lunar spin, Newton’s real statements (and not what you made out of it), Einstein, viruses, GHE etc etc etc.

    • Ken says:

      GR there are groups coalescing to end the crimes against humanity that include the vaccine mandates.

      See Criminal Code Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, and International Convention for Civic and Political Rights.

      Try finding the local chapter for Action4Canada. https://action4canada.com/

    • Willard says:

      > Not even sure that Nick Stokes is his real name, Nick Stokes being a fiction character from the comics or whatever

      C’mon, Gordo. It’s a TV series, and it’s Nick’s real name:

      https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nick-Stokes

      I’d say you’re more surreal than real.

  43. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Still very high galactic radiation, at solar minima level to cycle 23.
    This level of GCR indicates a weak solar wind magnetic field and low solar activity.
    https://i.ibb.co/BK9pccc/Screenshot-1.png

  44. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…”The PDO, along with many other climate drivers, has a cyclic or quasi-cyclic behavior. Not a step change”.

    ***

    Did not claim the PDO was associated with step-changes, I merely pointed out that the PDO was discovered due to a step-change circa 1976.

    At the time, scientists were so confused about the sudden surge in temperature that many wanted to erase it as a mistake. Persistence by more open-minded scientists linked it to what became known as the PDO.

    When you come down to it, our understanding of the various ocean oscillations is in its infancy. As you point out, the PDO and AMO are cyclic over longer cycles than ENSO. In a paper by Tsonis et al, which examined the relationship of the oscillations going back a century, they concluded that we need to pay more attention to the natural cycles and stop emphasizing man-made theories like AGW.

    The paper noted that when the oscillations are in phase, the globe warms naturally, and when they are opposed, it cools. Chances are the warming we noticed between the 1970s and present, which seems to have leveled off since 1998, could be due to an alignment of the oscillations and now we may be in for a cooling spell.

    Who knows?

    • RLH says:

      “I merely pointed out that the PDO was discovered due to a step-change circa 1976.”

      I merely graphed the recent PDO data which show that it is quasi-cyclic. I also have the Shen 2006 proxy from rainfall in China reconstruction which goes even further back in time.

      • Swenson says:

        RLH,

        Quasi-cyclic? Sort of, nearly, almost, maybe, cyclic?

        Seems to vary in an irregular and irrelevant fashion?

        Predictive value precisely zero, but makes a pretty picture?

        Why do you bother?

        • RLH says:

          Does it have highs and lows? Are these separated by longish periods in years?

          If the answer to the above is yes, then quasi-cyclic is a better description than random.

          Quasi-cyclic means it does not have a defined length in years. You can also use the term Quasi-periodicity.

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

          “Climate oscillations that appear to follow a regular pattern but which do not have a fixed period are called quasiperiodic.

          Within a dynamical system such as the ocean-atmosphere oscillations may occur regularly, when they are forced by a regular external forcing: for example, the familiar winter-summer cycle is forced by variations in sunlight from the (very close to perfectly) periodic motion of the earth around the sun. Or, like the recent ice age cycles, they may be less regular but still locked by external forcing. However, when the system contains the potential for an oscillation, but there is no strong external forcing it to be phase-locked to it, the “period” is likely to be irregular.

          The canonical example of quasiperiodicity in climatology is El NioSouthern Oscillation. In the modern era, it has a “period” somewhere between four and twelve years and a peak spectral density around five years.”

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            You wrote –

            “If the answer to the above is yes, then quasi-cyclic is a better description than random.”

            Ah, I see. The “description” is “better” is it?

            And this would be because . . . ?

            You can call it what you like – but it remains completely irrelevant, and completely useless. You can call slow cooling heating, if you like. Or claim there is a GHE which makes thermometers hotter!

            Appearances can be deceiving. Ask any financial genius who got wiped out believing that “quasi-periodic” fluctuations were meaningful. The past does not predict the future. Anybody who thinks it does is a moron, or afflicted with a severe mental affliction.

          • RLH says:

            For Quasi- cyclic see Quasi-periodicity.

          • RLH says:

            “Cyclic

            A cycle occurs when the data exhibit rises and falls that are not of a fixed frequency.”

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Gordo,
      I disagree it has been level since 1998. There was an obvious step-change around 2010-2012. I see two step-changes in the data since 1979.

  45. Aaliyah Parkin says:

    I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I dont have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use these

    check The Details https://workstore01.blogspot.com/

  46. Swenson says:

    Earlier, RLH posed a gotcha, which actually is worth answering.

    He wrote –

    “So, oh knowledgeable one, where did the quite cold abyssal water come from? The ocean bottom has magma underneath it to the cold does not come from below.”

    RLH attempts to disguise his ignorance, by adopting a superior tone. Unfortunately, he provides nothing but unfounded sneers, as morons do when faced with facts they don’t like.

    The answer is quite simple. The cold abyssal water comes, as RLH accidentally implies, from above. Where else would it come from (pardon the sarcasm)? Hydrothermal vents inject unknown quantities of hot water (up to 400 C or so), which of course rises – until it achieves equilibrium with the water surrounding it, by cooling.

    Back to the cold abyss. This is where the densest water falls to. Water being very odd stuff, it is densest at temperatures above freezing, so it remains liquid. Frozen water is less dense than even warm water, so it floats.

    Briefly, at night, the warmest, least dense water is on the surface. It radiates energy to outer space (yes, even though the atmosphere above may be warmer due to a low level inversion). The water cools, and sinks, displacing the water underneath, which rises to the surface. The cycle continues without cease.

    Any deep body of water eventually winds up with the densest water at the bottom of its basin. Tropics, poles – makes no difference.

    As you mention, the crust beneath the oceans provides continuous heat, more in some locations than others. Hence, convection leading to deep ocean currents, thermo haline circulation included.

    Or you can believe the Internet propaganda of NOAA, NASA, and the like.

    Suit yourself. Reality doesn’t care what RLH thinks, and neither do I.

    • RLH says:

      “The cold abyssal water comes, as RLH accidentally implies, from above” in the Polar regions.

      Those well known and documented plumes of below 0c water/brine at the poles from the base of freezing sea ice are mostly the source of the cold abyssal water. They are 10s of degrees cooler than any surface water temperature at night in the tropics.

      They are also quite salty as well, so are denser in that regard too.

      https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/app/uploads/sites/7/2019/05/figure6.2.3.png

      “Figure 6.2.3 Temperature profile across the Atlantic Ocean from the coast of Florida to the coast of Africa (inset). There is rapid temperature change near the surface in the thermocline zone, but the deep water temperature is fairly stable (eWOCE, http://www.ewoce.org/gallery/eWOCE_Tables.html#Atlantic).”

      See also

      Figure 3.2–5 Temperature profile (potential temperature) in the Atlantic Ocean.
      Figure 3.2–6 Temperature profile (potential temperature) in the Pacific Ocean.
      Figure 3.2–7 Temperature profile (potential temperature) in the Indian Ocean.

      Figure 3.3–3 Salinity profile in the Atlantic Ocean.
      Figure 3.3–5 Salinity profile in the Pacific Ocean.
      Figure 3.3–6 Salinity profile in the Indian Ocean.

      from https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.1201/b22246-3

      “Because of the vast extent of the deep zone, ~75% of all oceanic water has a temperature between 0°C and 4°C”

  47. Bindidon says:

    Ken

    ” Why are satellites showing 3.0 mm per year while tide gauges with 100 years record and stable locations show 1.8 mm per year? ”

    Sorry: you confound the linear estimates for

    – satellite data during the satellite altimetry era (1993-now)
    and
    – the tide gauge data for their respective entire life.

    I made last year a fairer comparison, by computing the average tide gauge trend for all gauges having data during the altimetry era, and comparing this trend with the average trend for the gauges’ entire lifetime.

    { I chosed 2018 as end date because too many elder gauges no longer had data in later years. }

    *
    Let us take a typical example out of the PSMSL directory

    https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip

    the tide gauge

    70;56.105278;15.589444; KUNGSHOLMSFORT

    in Sweden, which is active since 1883, i.e. over a period of 136 years till end of 2018.

    Sea level trends:

    – for the gauges entire lifetime: 0.1 mm / year;
    – for 1993-2018: 2.4 mm / year.

    That alone should be a first hint.

    *
    Taking now all available tide gauges worldwide out of PSMSL, I obtain

    – for the gauges entire lifetime: 2.1 mm / year, from 1498 gauges;
    – for 1993-2018: 3.2 mm / year, from 311 gauges of the 1498.

    After elimination of gauges with a lifetime less than 30 years, lacking sufficient data in the altimetry era, and those showing excessive data discontinuity:

    – for the gauges entire lifetime: 2.0 mm / year, from 850 gauges;
    – for 1993-2018: 3.2 mm / year, from 281 gauges of the 850.

    *
    Last not least, restricting the analysis to these 281 gauges:

    – for the gauges entire lifetime: 1.8 mm / year.

    Thus, we have

    – 1.8 mm / year for all gauges since the respective start of their activity;
    – 3.2 mm / year for their data between 1993 and 2018.

    *
    Some might argue that a lifetime of 30 years is way too short? OK!

    I repeated the check for all PSMSL gauges having

    – a lifetime of at least 100 years;
    – sufficient data in the altimetry era.

    Now we have

    – 1.7 mm / year for all 100 year+ gauges since the respective start of their activity;
    – 3.0 mm / year for their data between 1993 and 2018.

    *
    Many people argued that this increase is impossible, and is due to an ‘adjustment’ of tide gauge data to satellite data since 1993.

    This is nonsense: you only need to compute successive, e.g. 5-year distant trends out of your time series, obtaining this:

    1903-2018: 1.6
    1908-2018: 1.6
    1913-2018: 1.6
    1918-2018: 1.6
    1923-2018: 1.6
    1928-2018: 1.7
    1933-2018: 1.7
    1938-2018: 1.6
    1943-2018: 1.6
    1948-2018: 1.6
    1953-2018: 1.8
    1958-2018: 1.8
    1963-2018: 2.0
    1968-2018: 2.1
    1973-2018: 2.3
    1978-2018: 2.4
    1983-2018: 2.4
    1988-2018: 2.8
    1993-2018: 2.9

    *
    Another problem is that many people are not aware of the fact that sea level measurement by tide gauges must be corrected according to the vertical land movement around them (glacial isostatic rebound, subsidence).

    I tried to take this into account, by applying corrections as provided by GPS stations located in the near of tide gauges.

    The difference is sometimes amazing when you think that some gauges are elevated by glacial rebound with a rate of 10 mm / year.

    *
    Don’t misunderstand me: that is from my personal point of view not very dramatic because I don’t feel very concerned, after all.

    But people living at places where sea levels matter might think thoroughly different.

    We must all take into account that the trends discussed are a global average, and that single gauges might have negative or positive rising trends, sometimes much lower or conversely much higher than the global average (the latter are a vast majority).

    • Swenson says:

      Binny,

      Assuming that there is a reasonably fixed amount of surface water on the Earth, the only changes to “sea level” can occur due to crustal movements changing the shape of the basins containing the oceans.

      Pretending that oceans can be warmed from the top, and forced to “accumulate” heat is just nonsense. Any heated water sits on top, and cools at night. People like Trenberth must have ingested a moron pill somewhere along the line.

      As to ridiculous accuracy claims, bear in mind that 0.1 mm is about the thickness of a human hair!

      To make matters worse, there is no universally accepted definition for the geoid (necessary for sea level reference), nor any accurate way of measuring it.

      There are marine fossils found at altitudes of more than 6000 meters, and fossil fuel deposits more than 6000 meters deep. How relevant is your 0.1 mm sea level accuracy looking now?

      As Mark Twain said “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” They just make up figures to support their lies.

      Off you go, now. Create some more figures. I’m sure some morons will believe you,

      • Bindidon says:

        One more time, Flynnson diverts, confuses, distorts, discredits.

        What a thoroughly redundant trash.

        Have fun, Supermoron!

        • Swenson says:

          Binny,

          Don’t want to accept reality?

          Tough! Others might, you know.

          • RLH says:

            If you want reality, don’t follow anything that Swenson writes/posts.

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            Awwww, I’m cut to the quick!

            What are you going to do if people decline to take the unsolicited advice of an anonymous moron?

            Carry on whining,

          • RLH says:

            Swenson: The man who thinks that Thermohaline Circulation is fiction.

            Idiot.

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            Of course you cannot bring yourself to disagree with anything I actually wrote, can you?

            So you just try to convince others that your fantasy is reality.

            Carry on.

          • RLH says:

            Other people know that Thermohaline Circulation exists and is an important factor in climate will therefore know that you are an idiot.

      • Ken says:

        S.

        Warm water in the arctic isn’t bathtub warm.

        Water at 4 Celsius is at its maximum density and it sinks under both warmer and colder water.

        4 Celsius water will kill you in less than 10 minutes if you fall into it.

        So you have this warm layer of water 4C pushing into the arctic forcing the cooler water in the upper layers out of the arctic like a river and south to where it really warms up again.

        Too bad you haven’t the ability to visualize such currents. It must be like being a blind man trying to understand a rainbow.

        • Swenson says:

          K,

          Don’t be stupid. You wrote –

          “So you have this warm layer of water 4C pushing into the arctic forcing the cooler water in the upper layers out of the arctic like a river and south to where it really warms up again.”

          Maybe you need to look both at thermal profiles in the Arctic oceans, and the currents at various depths before you start sprouting vague nonsense.

          The facts seem to be disagreeing with you, but if you prefer fantasy and wishful thinking, that is your right. Be as stupid as you like.

          • RLH says:

            Google “Thermohaline Circulation”

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            Why should I?

            If you believe I am wrong, you could always quote what I said, and then provide facts to support your belief.

            Just telling me to Google something shows you are a moron.

            There are about 790,000 results. Which one supports your fantasy? There must be at least one, surely.

            Can’t say which one? Afraid you will end up looking like the moron you are?

            Carry on.

          • RLH says:

            Because to list all of the urls that document quite clearly that Thermohaline Circulation exists and is a well know fact would not make anything clearer.

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            Ocean convection exists, causing what you refer to as thermohaline circulation.

            You are putting the cart before the horse.

            About as silly as saying that climate change causes weather.

            No convection, no circulation of any sort.

          • RLH says:

            So the measurement of currents, deep and at the surface, that prove you wrong are what? Inventions?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation#/media/File:Thermohaline_Circulation_2.png

        • RLH says:

          Fresh “Water at 4 Celsius is at its maximum density”.

          Sea water is not the same thing.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater#/media/File:WaterDensitySalinity.png

  48. harry cummings says:

    Bindidon

    over the 100 year period what was the average slow increase or fast increase because it won’t be 1.7mm every year

    Regards

    • Bindidon says:

      harry cummings

      Sorry, I did not understand what you exactly mean.
      Could you please develop a bit?

      Buona notte, it’s now over 2 AM at UTC+1.

  49. Go Fish says:

    The book of Genesis covers a historical period near about 2200 years. Thus we are close to 4000 years removed from those days.

    Genesis 8:22

    While the earth remains
    Seedtime and harvest,
    Cold and heat,
    Winter and Summer,
    And day and night
    Shall not cease!

    The Noahic Covenant promise is still true today while the fool says in his heart there is no God. There are many fools on this blog.

    • gbaikie says:

      Well we are presently in an icehouse global climate.
      Now if living in Middle East, the issue of being in an
      icehouse global climate, doesn’t matter much.
      But it does effect the region.
      8000 years ago the Sahara desert was mostly grassland, and some think Sahara Desert might been Eden.
      Maybe God could have mentioned that Eden was not going to return within 100,000 years?

    • Ken says:

      A day was like a thousand years and a thousand years as a day.

      Genesis covers a much longer period than 2200 years.

      Its a serious mistake to use anything Bible as basis for science discussion. Bible says God made the Earth but it says nothing about the processes God used to make the Earth.

    • RLH says:

      Which God do you believe in and why that one?

      • Ken says:

        RLH

        I believe in the God of the Christian Religion. Why? Because he is the only God on record as having sent his son to die on the cross for my sins.

        • RLH says:

          So you believe the myths that you were told as definitive truth.

          Other religions say different things. Why is your God any better than the others?

          • Go Fish says:

            Are you saying there is more than ONE GOD? Have you not read, is the appeal of Jesus during His ministry when confronted by the “religious” leaders (Pharisees and Sadducees) who misunderstood, misconstrued and misapplied the Mosaic Covenant and then taught others to do the same. His appeal was to a CORRECT interpretation of the Word of God that men corrupt, mock and scorn!

            In Exodus 20, the ONLT TRUE AND LIVING GOD said, You shall have no other gods before ME! Verse 3

            He is the One who also said when Moses asked whom shall I say sent me?, when he was to led Israel out of Egypt. The LORD said, I AM WHO I AM, that is to say the One who exists of HiMSELF, or the self existing ONE! Exodus 3:14ff

            This is His Covenant name, I AM, aka Yahweh, the One who keeps His convenant to a thousand generations to those that love Him. Deuteronomy 7:9-10.

          • RLH says:

            There are as many Gods as there are religions. Are you saying that they don’t exist?

          • Ken says:

            Why is your God any better than the others?

            Lets look at the countries that purport to hold one religion or other as their official religion.

            Western nations are based on Judeo Christian values of justice, compassion, and the golden rule. These values are largely absent in most other societies.

            These Judeo Christian principles underlay the legal system in western nations and have allowed western nations to become more innovative and prosperous than any other nations.

            Quantitatively, the mass migration of people is from the so called shit-hole countries to western nations. There is not a corresponding migration in the other direction. You can come up with all sorts of reasons for why this is the case but the main ones are seeking freedom from the tyranny that infests too many shit hole countries and economic opportunity that does not exist in too many shit hole countries.

            The problem right now is that left wing fascists are taking over western democracies and stupidly trying to undermine the Judeo Christian value system that has served us all so well.

            That is a measure by which I hold that my God is better than any other (assuming such exist).

          • RLH says:

            “Western nations are based on Judeo Christian values of justice, compassion, and the golden rule. These values are largely absent in most other societies”

            Would you care to guess which religion, if any, will be the most prominent in 2000 years and amongst whom and why? World wide of course.

          • Go Fish says:

            RLH, there are NOT as many gods as there are religions! What there is, is the ONLY true and living God and the rest are false gods. NOT my words, HIS words.

            Do you CLAIM to be a believer in the person and work of Jesus the Messiah? What convincing evidence would you provide to prove such a thing? That you were baptized as an infant? That you made your 1st communion at 7 years old or that you were confirmed at 11 or 12? That you “attend church”, maybe twice annually or maybe every single Sunday? That when you die, God will look at your good vs your evil and the good will outweigh the evil? That you made charitable gifts of money and wrote checks so that everyone would know that you “gave” (your) money to earn something from a cosmic being that you are not even sure exists? I could go on and on.

            A real test about the validity of your belief can be found only by the tests of Scripture! Do you even know what Scripture says, since you seem to be questioning anything I reference from Scripture as not valid?

            Would you die to defend the truth of God’s word or yield (to the commands of men) and deny it and therefore Him to save your own life? Would you pass this test:?

            Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be as wary as serpents, and as innocent as doves. 17But be on guard against people, for they will hand you over to the courts and flog you in their synagogues; 18and you will even be brought before governors and kings on My account, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. 19But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given you in that hour. 20For it is not you who are speaking, but it is the Spirit of your Father who is speaking in you.

            21“Now brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. 22And you will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.

            23“But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.

            24“A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. 25It is enough for the disciple that he may become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they insult the members of his household!

            26“So do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 27What I tell you in the darkness, tell in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim on the housetops. 28And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in [v]hell. 29Are two sparrows not sold for an assarion? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30But even the hairs of your head are all counted. 31So do not fear; you are more valuable than a great number of sparrows.

            32“Therefore, everyone who confesses Me before people, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. 33But whoever denies Me before people, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.

            34“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I came to TURN A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; 36and A PERSON’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.

            37“The one who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and the one who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38And the one who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39The one who has found his life will lose it, and the one who has lost his life on My account will find it.

            Matthew 10:16-39

            Do you trust the LORD Jesus, the 2nd person of the Trinity, the Son of the Living God who humbled Himself and took upon Himself human flesh (that means He left His throne in Heaven) and became a man so as to be a substitutionary atonement, taking the just penalty (crucifixion/separation from God the Father on the cross, beaten, scorned, mocked then yielded Himself to death and then defeated it at His resurrection) for the sins of His disciples, past, present and future? This was NOT for sins He committed but for the ones others committed.

            What other god (NONE) would do such a thing for the ones HE created? Especially, when they shake their fists in HIS face every day saying I am the captain of my own fate! You have NO AUTHORITY over me!

            Do you know THIS Sovereign God or a false god, a god of your making?

          • RLH says:

            Anyone who bases his thinking on a book that was mostly composed in the middle ages shows his desperation.

          • Ken says:

            I tried starting my own cult based on sun worship. I called it Latter Day Aztecs.

            I figured on selling subscriptions at $5 that would get your named engraved on a glass brick. I would assemble a pile of glass bricks into a pyramid at the highest point in Saskatchewan, 2345 feet above sea level, a number that obviously has religious significance. The gleam of the sun reflecting off the pyramid would bother pilots for hundreds of miles in all directions.

            It failed to catch on for some strange reason. Even after I grew my beard and tried to look wild eyed while selling my pitch. I guess I should have tried setting up as a registered charity like the eco-green fascists do.

            I predict that Christianity will still hold sway 2000 years from now. No one has come up with a better option.

          • RLH says:

            The trend in most nations is less religion, not more, over time so in 2000 years there is a likelihood there will be none.

    • Bindidon says:

      Go Fish

      Could you please spare us your religious obsessions?

      This is a science blog. There are numerous religious blogs all around the Globe.

      Soon a guy suddenly comes by and tells us about Marxism, Mao Zedong and such; he would be just as unwelcome in my view.

      Thanks.

      • Go Fish says:

        I cannot spare it for your sake. Since if you fail to repent and believe you REMAIN dead in your tresspasses and sins!

        Moreover, science IS your god, which is to say Man is your god!

        The other fools above, Ken and RLH, are regurgitating what they have heard or have been taught. The ONE who RULES in the Kingdom of men and is SOVEREIGN over the universe has more than a place in this hypothesis you call climate change and or science. Fall down prostrate before HIM NOW! Since He COMMANDS all men everywhere to repent. Acts 17:30

        Riddle me this batman! Where does death come from? Since in your worldview, a single cell mutated into a higher life form, which mutated into a higher life form, which mutated into a higher life form,……well you get the point. What happened? How did death enter the equation?

        The fool has said in his heart there is no GOD! Psalm 14:1 and many other places!

        • Clint R says:

          Go Fish, they don’t even hold science with any respect. They all belong to a cult that is obsessed with “anti-science”. None of the cult knows any REAL science. If you stay around long enough, you will see that they can’t get the basic physics right. And, they can’t learn.

          BTW, even though the Bible is a religion, it can NOT be disproved by science. Pretty obviously SOMEONE designed it that way.

          • RLH says:

            So why is the Bible (from only one religion) any more accurate than tones from all the other religions?

          • Go Fish says:

            Sorry Clint R, but whatever you are attempting to say is not clear to me. Who is they?

            The Bible is NOT religion but it speaks about the CREATOR and His Creation. Man defines it as religion. You are CREATED in the image of God. Genesis 1:26-27.

            So no one dare explain where death comes from? Since they suppress the truth in unrighteousness and it does not fit into their worldview.

            God wrote using men as His tool, to communicate what HE wants us to know about who He is and how we can be reconciled to Him! That is the major theme of the 66 books within the canon. It’s like 66 chapters in one book as a result.

            God DESIGNED the message and communicated it to His creatures!

          • Go Fish says:

            Oh and by the way, George Washington, never existed, nor did Jesus of Nazareth, right?

            What is the ORIGIN of Israel? How did they come into existence? They do exist don’t they?

            Did apes that became men decide they would create a nation called Israel by some coincidence?

          • Go Fish says:

            You cannot see the forest through the trees! Let alone the pimple on your nose!

          • RLH says:

            You cannot prove that the Bible (from only one religion) is any more accurate than the tones from all the other religions?

          • Clint R says:

            Go Fish, sorry if my comment was not clear. The “they” was referring to your comment: “The other fools above, Ken and RLH…”

            You did the right thing by asking for clarity.

            I encourage you to study the comments here. There’s a big difference between “institutionalized science” and REAL science. Don’t be afraid of REAL science. REAL science does not contradict the Bible.

          • Go Fish says:

            I am glad I did not presume to know what you were saying. Thanks for the clarification.

            Science and whatever RULES exist that govern and are manifested by this discipline are subject to the ONE who created those attributes.

            Notice RLH puts the burden on me to “PROVE” something since he cannot prove to the contrary! He can accept other men’s opinions on presuppositions, conjecture, hypothesis, and guess but he cannot prove anything about cosmology anymore than I can. No one can prove their worldview (and there are only 2; one with a Creator God and one without a Creator God) since it is based upon some measure of “faith” or belief without the corresponding “proof!”

            Again, the fool has said in his heart, there is no GOD!

          • RLH says:

            Wrong. I said there are many Gods.

            Your task, should you wish to undertake it, is to prove that your God is better than all the others.

          • bobdroege says:

            We don’t need science to contradict the bible, the bible does that all by itself.

            Just ask yourself, how did Judas die?

            Then look it up in the bible.

          • gbaikie says:

            “Wrong. I said there are many Gods.”

            Many waters can be ocean.
            Why can’t many gods be one.
            Just because humans can’t be one, it
            shouldn’t be a limitation of God.

            Just because I can think a Goddess is
            important, it doesn’t mean there is not
            One God.
            And there connection between humans and God
            and animals and God.
            {And connection of humans and animals}
            That animals are not machines made by chance or error
            in some system.

          • Go Fish says:

            For the philosophical fools, RLH, bobdroege, gbaiskie:

            Acts 17:16-34 NASB

            Now while Paul was waiting for them in Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he observed that the city was full of idols. 17So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be present. 18And some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers as well were conversing with him. Some were saying, What could this scavenger of tidbits want to say? Others, He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming? 20For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; so we want to know what these things mean. 21(Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.)

            “Sermon on Mars Hill”

            22So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, Men of Athens, I see that you are very religious in all respects. 23For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 24The God who made the world and everything that is in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made by hands; 25nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27that they would seek God, if perhaps they might feel around for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, For we also are His descendants. 29Therefore, since we are the descendants of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by human skill and thought. 30So having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now proclaiming to mankind that all people everywhere are to repent, 31because He has set a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all people by raising Him from the dead.

            32Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to scoff, but others said, We shall hear from you again concerning this. 33So Paul went out from among them. 34But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

          • RLH says:

            More myths from a book that was mostly composed in the middle ages.

          • bobdroege says:

            Some think the book of Acts is a complete forgery.

            Your mileage may vary.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      Go Fish at 9:51 PM
      ” There are many fools on this blog.”

      Yes, but what type of fools are they? According to the Old Testament there are five types of fools:

      The simple (or nave) fool opens his mind to any passing thought. He lacks discernment. He has an over-simplified view of life. He is ignorant of cause and effect. Proverbs 22:3.

      The silly fool believes that his own way of thinking is right. Argument, persuasion, and advice from well-meaning friends fail to convince the silly fool of his errors. Proverbs 29:9 and Proverbs 7:22.

      The sensual fool is determined to make wrong choices. His focus is on that which brings him immediate pleasure. He is unreasonable. His motives and methods are subtle. Proverbs 26:3 and Proverbs 19:29.

      The scorning fool not only rejects truth, but also utterly detests people and ideas that contradict his false thinking. He expresses his scorn through derisive attitudes, behavior, and speech. He turns a deaf ear to rebuke. Proverbs 21:11 and Proverbs 22:10.

      The steadfast fool is the most dangerous type of fool. He is self-confident and close-minded. He is his own god, freely gratifying his lower nature. His goal is to draw as many others as possible into his evil ways. Attempts to reprove him will be futile and bring frustration to the one who tries to influence him. Psalm 14:1.

      • Clint R says:

        TM, typically all fools display all those traits, over time.

      • Go Fish says:

        TM, the kind that when death knocks on his door and he heard the truth of the Gospel but rejected it, has his reward! The fall into sin in the garden of EDEN is the reason for everything that follows Genesis 3.

        Now I repeat for the fools, every kind on this blog; what is the ORIGIN of death? And what is the ORIGIN of Israel? They both exist do they not?

        • Go Fish says:

          These should be pretty easy answers for “science” and “scientists”, no? Does not science possess ALL the answers without question to origins? Is it not in the fossil record? Where is the answer(s)?

        • Entropic man says:

          What is the origin of God. If he exists he must have been created. And who created His creator?

          • Clint R says:

            Ent, stuff like this is too over your head. You have no concept of reality. You believe passenger jets fly backwards.

            When you have some respect for truth, we can help you move to higher ground.

      • gbaikie says:

        –The simple (or nave) fool opens his mind to any passing thought. He lacks discernment. He has an over-simplified view of life. He is ignorant of cause and effect. Proverbs 22:3.–

        That is me.

    • gbaikie says:

      On topic of religion.
      All religions are failing.
      A religion should seek, heaven.
      Space = heaven.
      I know of no churches specifically involved with
      space exploration.

  50. gbaikie says:

    According to belief {rather than facts}.
    Venus was once like Earth, but then it had runway effect:

    “Scientists know something on Venus triggered truly catastrophic levels of climate change, causing surface temperatures to shoot up hundreds of degrees. But they don’t know exactly what.”
    https://tinyurl.com/5n7wr5mj
    {this is not suppose to be fiction}
    And:
    “However, Venus once likely had an Earth-like climate. According to recent climate modelling, for much of its history Venus had surface temperatures similar to present day Earth. It likely also had oceans, rain, perhaps snow, maybe continents and plate tectonics, and even more speculatively, perhaps even surface life.

    Less than one billion years ago, the climate dramatically changed due to a runaway greenhouse effect. It can be speculated that an intensive period of volcanism pumped enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to cause this great climate change event that evaporated the oceans and caused the end of the water cycle.”
    https://theconversation.com/venus-was-once-more-earth-like-but-climate-change-made-it-uninhabitable-150445
    [Again not supposed to be fiction]

    “Was Venus once covered in a liquid water ocean? A new study suggests it was not, which could diminish hope that eons ago, warm and wet conditions allowed life to arise on the planet.

    Today, Venus’ climate is far from temperate. The planet is completely shielded by clouds and has a hell-like surface; a runaway greenhouse gas effect makes for lead-melting temperatures of more than 700 degrees Fahrenheit (370 degrees Celsius).

    But some scientists argue that the requirements for life could have existed on Venus earlier in the solar system’s history. Venus is roughly the same size and mass as Earth and even had plate tectonics. The sun was also dimmer during that epoch, so Venus, despite being closer to the sun than Earth is, was in the habitable zone, or the region where a rocky planet could have liquid water on its surface. ”
    https://www.space.com/venus-not-so-earthlike-after-all.html
    {again not suppose to be fiction, and arguing is science}

    • Swenson says:

      “However, Venus once likely had an Earth-like climate. According to recent climate modelling, for much of its history Venus had surface temperatures similar to present day Earth. It likely also had oceans, rain, perhaps snow, maybe continents and plate tectonics, and even more speculatively, perhaps even surface life.”

      I sincerely hope there is something better than climate modelling behind this speculation – or fairy tale, take your pick.

      Does anybody seriously believe that CO2 levels can stop plate movements in their tracks?

      Carl Sagan and his acolytes might have been part time members of the Society of Morons. Runaway Greenhouse Effect? Delusional thinking running full tilt, more likely.

    • gbaikie says:

      But story is there was runaway effect. What is this runaway effect?

      Now it seems there is old fashion notion of volcanoes, and in modern world we know impactors are a much stronger effect, than volcanoes.
      And it used to thought, before Apollo program, that the lunar surface was cratered due volcanic activity.

      Why does this old story continue in modern age with ideas volcanoes
      being the cause of Venus doom?

      Currently there is a chance that 100 km diameter space rock could hit Earth, and then get a Venus, really fast.

      And now, we seem to aware that there planets which are hot Jupiter’s- gas giants close to a star.
      So, why couldn’t Venus simply form as Venus- and/or have more methane and/or helium/hydrogen than it currently has.

      Plus Venus doesn’t rotate like Earth does.
      Would Earth be like Earth if it didn’t have 24 hour day?
      Of course Venus also lacks a Moon.
      And it seems possible that without Moon, Earth would not have plate tectonics.
      Now these myths of Venus began long before, we knew we had plate tectonic.
      And it seems without plate tectonic, Earth, would not be like Earth.

      • Ken says:

        Venus has no moon to skim away air at the top of the atmosphere.

        If there is air continuously added due to geologic activity such as volcanoes, eventually the pressure will cause higher temperatures.

        The whole temperature situation on Venus is due to pressure.

        I think there will not ever be any habitable planet found unless there is a moon-earth system like ours.

        • gbaikie says:

          Well, my opinion has Venus has a runaway effect and one could reverse this runaway effect {quite easily} and then one has planet lacking water and long day.
          Though not very keen about living on planets.

          Mars likewise could have been habitable at some time in last few billion years. It two small moons, but one wouldn’t count them as
          a Moon like our Moon. And apparently they going crash into Mars.

          • Ken says:

            The problem with the concept of runaway effect is the same as on earth. There is only a limited amount of energy at any given time for the CO2 to absorb and emit. Beyond a certain point (about 400 ppm earth) it really doesn’t matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.

            I’ve always understood the searing calm on Venus is due to pressure from a very thick atmosphere.

          • Swenson says:

            K,

            Don’t think so. Pressure does not create heat, in and of itself. Compressed, heated, gas does what everything else does – cools down, if the environment is cooler.

            For example, a SCUBA tank at 200 bar will be precisely the same temperature as an empty tank of 1 bar, after it cools down to ambient. Try and pick an empty tank by temperature, if you don’t believe me.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Ken says:
            March 2, 2022 at 11:56 PM
            The problem with the concept of runaway effect is the same as on earth–
            The difference is that Earth average ocean surface temperature determines global average surface air temperature.

            And Venus surface is the clouds 50 km high, and little sunlight reaches the rocky Venus surface.
            And if air temperature is warmed to 70 C at 50 km elevation, air temperature 50 km lower is much warmer than 70 C.
            And at 50 km elevation Venus air mass [“and it’s surface”} rotates every 4 to 5 days. If Venus was colder this air would rotate slower.
            If Venus got 1/2 as much sunlight or same sunlight as Earth, it’s 50 km elevation would colder than 70 C, causes most of Venus atmosphere mass to colder and causes the heated surface to a lower elevation- or it’s a runaway effect.

            Earth surface is at sea level. If Earth was at Venus distance, Earth surface is still at sea level. Or Earth is covered with water clouds which highly reflective and Earth atmosphere is just 1 atm.
            Earth would not have runway effect even at Venus distance from the Sun.
            And currently Earth has cold ocean, and would require thousands years to become a greenhouse global climate with a warm ocean.
            Or no doubt that Earth would leave it’s icehouse climate, eventually at Venus distance, but going vaguely similar to Venus is.
            There two ways to make Venus have run away cooling. Less sunlight- solar shade at Venus L-2. Or dump a lot of water onto Venus, making it’s clouds more reflective and not longer acid clouds. But the immediate result of adding water, is acid heat up if water is added to it. So, need add enough water to dilute acid until weaker than battery acid. It heats up from water added, and then cools down.

          • angech says:

            Friction is heat created by pressure

          • Ken says:

            Pressure does not create heat

            I would suggest picking up a handful of snow and squeezing it.

          • RLH says:

            “Pressure does not create heat”

            Pressure by itself does not produce heat. An increase in pressure does produce heat. As you compress a quantity of gas, for instance, by pushing a piston into a cylinder, you cause every molecule that bounces into the piston wall to bounce back a little faster. As you push the piston, you do work; this work is translated into more kinetic energy for those gas molecules, which means more heat. If you stop pushing, the increase in heat will stop (and unless the walls of the cylinder are perfectly insulated, the excess heat will ultimately dissipate through the cylinder walls to the environment.)

          • RLH says:

            “As you squeeze the snow into a more compact space, it melts from a solid into a liquid. When you release it, the liquid freezes, fusing the loosely connected snowflakes in your hand into a larger solid ball.”

          • bobdroege says:

            Perhaps you should google heat of compression.

          • Entropic man says:

            Ken

            Your snowball is close to the point on the graph at 101kpa and 0C. It is solid, but not by much. When you increase the pressure you keep the snowball at 0C but move the snowball vertically up the graph. It crosses the line from solid to liquid and starts to melt.

            When you release the pressure it crosses back across the line and the water you temporarily melted solidifies again. No temperature change .

            You did not change the temperature of the snowball, you used pressure to reduce its melting point.

            https://i.stack.imgur.com/FG6XP.jpg

          • Swenson says:

            Ken,

            You wrote –

            “Pressure does not create heat

            I would suggest picking up a handful of snow and squeezing it.”

            I would suggest you pile a heap of ice blocks on top of your snow, until a similar pressure is attained.

            I suggest you are a moron.

            While you are thinking up a snappy response, you might think about an explanation for why the temperature under 10 km of sea water (around 1000 bar pressure) is around 1 – 4 C.

            By the way, rock at that depth is around 250 C or so, so the water is about 250 C colder than it “should be”. But it’s not, and I have explained why. You don’t have to accept reality, of course.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gbaikie…”Scientists know something on Venus triggered truly catastrophic levels of climate change…”

      ***

      No, they don’t. Idiots like Carl Sagan thought that and his disciple, James Hansen, took that nonsense to NASA GISS modelling. However, a space probe showed surface temperatures of 500C plus and that blew a huge hole in the greenhouse theory.

      It’s far more likely, as Swnson claims about Earth, that the planet was molten to some degree and the atmosphere was generated by that molten state. Or it had a whole lot of volcanic activity.

    • PhilJ says:

      No way has there ever been liquid water on Mars’ surface to cool it.. Any speculation in along that line is pure fantasy.

      Venus’ current atmosphere can be explained because it never cooled enough for water to precipitate and cool the surface..

      Thus its crust remained thin with much greater outgassing than has occurred on Earth.

      Indeed there’s evidence of widespread overturning of the surface as little as 500 million years ago:

      https://phys.org/news/2010-03-venus-extreme-makeover-plate-tectonics.html

  51. Joe says:

    “UAH Global Temperature Update for February, 2022: 0.00 deg. C”
    30+ years of global warming has brought Earth’s temperature to exactly the 30-year average.

    • RLH says:

      Based on the newer more recent reference period. Grow up.

    • Bindidon says:

      Joe

      The 30-year average you seem to have in mind is ALWAYS zero.

      Because it is… the time series’ baseline.

      • RLH says:

        This Feb is not in the baseline period. Idiot.

        • Bindidon says:

          Before you call others ‘idiots’, first try to understand what they wrote, instead of spewing irrelevant, insulting nonsense like do Robertson, Clint R and Flynnson here day after day.

          According to web info, you were born in 1948; you behave here more and more like a permanently self-overestimating teenager.

          *
          By the way, I suddenly saw today your endlessly repeated insinuations discrediting what I do:

          ” Figured out why using already rounded data is considered a very bad idea yet? ”

          resp.

          ” Bindidon is just a scientific idiot who thinks that already rounded data does not effect calculations later performed with it. ”

          *
          Did you forget?

          I am still awaiting correct technical evidence from you – in the form of monthly time series made the same way I did – to confirm your arrogant, untrue and untenable claims.

          Do you remember?

          I averaged min/max mean, median and true 24h average of USCRN hourly data into monthly absolute values, out of which I then generated anomalies wrt the mean of 2016-2020:

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfJM5XjD6Rm7THgMXMJw05xelfKERO0x/view

          *
          You never were able until now to prove here on this blog that doing the same job out of USCRN’s subhourly data would result in a difference visible anywhere above 0.01 C, i.e. with a precision ten times higher than that offered by USCRN itself.

          *
          When will you finally have enough courage to present this proof on the blog, Richard Blay Linsley-Hood?

          Stop insinuating, start contradicting.

          • RLH says:

            You used already rounded data for hourly figures to make daily figures which will never be as accurate as the same data created from sub-hourly to daily by USCRN themselves. Then claimed that the differences were their fault, not yours. Idiot.

            You also denied that statistics textbooks which say that there are many ways to create averages (mean, median and mode) with specific reasons to choose each one for different cases are correct.

            You have failed to say which you believe is the correct method for quasi-sinusoidal data and why.

            And no, Tmean, (Tmin+Tmax)/2, is not the same as a mean which has a very specific mathematical derivation. Tmiddle would be a better name to prevent confusion.

            And yes, congratulations, you posted my full name. Care to say why I use initials instead? I have posted that very information on my blog if you go look.

          • Clint R says:

            Bindidon mentions me in almost every comment now. His meltdown is intensifying.

            He was confused about “force” and “torque”. When I mentioned it, he “found a link that he couldn’t understand”.

            That’s why this is so much fun.

          • Bindidon says:

            RLH

            1. ” And yes, congratulations, you posted my full name. Care to say why I use initials instead? ”

            I never and never did publish any private information about anybody on any blog, unless it was made public before.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2022-0-00-deg-c/#comment-1193587

            If you lack self-control to such an extent that you aren’t even able to hide personal information when posting, don’t cry like a little baby when someone (of course ironically) uses what you post.

            *
            2. As I expected, you continue to lie and lie and lie, like a little child.

            2.1 ” You used already rounded data for hourly figures to make daily figures which will never be as accurate as the same data created from sub-hourly to daily by USCRN themselves. ”

            Utterly wrong.

            I only made a graph for you, showing the differences between

            – USCRN’s rounded hourly data I averaged to rounded daily data
            and
            – USCRN’s daily data.

            The intention was to show you that the differences between (1) and (2) were due to rounding values between +0.06 and and -0.07 C (!!!), what let them increase up to +0.1 resp. -0.1 C.

            You manifestly did never understand that.

            I myself never did use such rounded daily data. As I wrote above, min-max mean, median and true 24h average out of USCRN’s hourly data are directly averaged into monthly values.

            *
            2.2 ” Then claimed that the differences were their fault, not yours. Idiot. ”

            This is one more disgusting lie of yours. You have insinuated that.

            Never would I claim such a nonsense.

            *
            2.3 ” You also denied that statistics textbooks which say that there are many ways to create averages (mean, median and mode) with specific reasons to choose each one for different cases are correct. ”

            This is one more disgusting lie of yours. You have insinuated that.

            Never would I claim such a nonsense.

            The contrary is the fact: you mentioned these statistics books but were never able to post even a single link to such a source.

            *
            2.4 ” You have failed to say which you believe is the correct method for quasi-sinusoidal data and why. ”

            Again a lie of yours.

            The graph I posted (and a fortiori the time series it was generated out) show that the differences for 138 stations and 20 years are so tiny that the difference is nearly imperceptible.

            ***
            Thus: you still owe me

            – a proof that using USCRN’s subhourly data would produce any relevant modification in the generated time series

            and

            – a list of text books confirming your original claim made last year on this blog that

            – min-max means (i.e. TMIN+TMAX)/2, oh noes) are inadequate for temperature time series
            – their improper use would be the source of a big part of the warming evaluated for the last century
            – only medians would be a correct averaging method.

            *
            But one more time: we all know here that you will never give us this proof, and will continue to stalk me with your ridiculous insinuations.

            *
            From now on, I won’t reply to any of your stalking comments.

          • RLH says:

            I have never hidden my name (unlike you) as I have always posted using it. I use my initials because it is a family tradition (see JLH for instance).

            I neither lie nor cheat.

            My analysis of your postings are accurate as anyone can see for themselves.

            It was YOU who posted that your method of calculating daily numbers from already rounded hourly data was the correct way to do things. Not me. You even claimed at the time that your methods were more accurate than USCRN!.

            You indeed demonstrate to others all the time that you’re an idiot in this matter (and possibly other things as well).

      • Joe says:

        @Bindidon

        “The 30-year average you seem to have in mind is ALWAYS zero.
        Because it is… the time series’ baseline.”

        Okay… so what does that have to do with me pointing out that Feb.’s temp. anomaly was 0.00 C?
        I think you misread or misinterpreted my point..
        Which is, that despite 30+ years of global warming, Earth’s temp. is at the 30-year average.

  52. Bindidon says:

    Departures from a mean are pretty good to look at what changes, and to compare data whose absolute values are very different, e.g. surface vs. lower troposphere, or lower troposphere vs. lower stratosphere.

    But they are not always an ersatz for the absolute values they were originating from.

    Here are, for UAH 6.0 LT, some superposed years and reference periods in absolute form:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e6spe4iilIePxhss03x3F7_ThbNWz5J2/view

    We can see that

    – 2021 was not at all a warm year, and that 2022 doesn’t start in that direction either

    but also that

    – both are way above 2011 and 2012, the years of the most recent stronger La Nina:

    https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png

  53. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A strong wave of Arctic air will sweep across the US Southwest in three days.
    https://i.ibb.co/8K6Nv2V/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f072.png

  54. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    There will be even more snow mass in the Northern Hemisphere, both in North America and Europe.
    http://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe_tracker.jpg

    • RLH says:

      But everybody says that the data shows things are getting warmer.

      • WizGeek says:

        “Is this the right room for an argument?”
        “I told you once.”

        “I’ve had enough of this!”
        “No you haven’t.”
        “Oh shut up!”
        —“Argument”, Monty Python’s Flying Circus

        “RLH” –> Decrufter

      • Entropic man says:

        Colder does not necessarily mean snowier.

        Snow requires air to take water vapour from warm water and carry it over cold land.

        You see snow in the UK especially when Easterly winds bring cold air in from the continent and then fronts from the Atlantic bring in water which falls as snow onto the cold ground.

        You find a similar effect called lake snow when water vapour picked up from the Great Lakes gets dumped downwind and the Noreasters bring water evaporated from the Atlantic onto the US East coast.

        It may be counterintuitive, but global warming might well cause warmer oceans, greater evaporation and more snow.

    • Bindidon says:

      ren

      It seems that you still believe that an increase of snow mass automatically means an increase of snow.

      Normally, an increase of snow means also an increase of snow cover.

      Looking at

      https://tinyurl.com/2p96j78c

      lets me say: cu in 4 weeks.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”It seems that you still believe that an increase of snow mass automatically means an increase of snow”.

        ***

        Duh!!! What else would it mean, an increase in feathers?

  55. Bindidon says:

    For those who think, guess, claim that a February anomaly moving down to 0.0 C might be a precursor of cooling times, here is the top 10 of an ascending sort of all February anomalies since 1979:

    1985: -0.64 (C)
    1986: -0.53
    1993: -0.44
    1979: -0.43
    1989: -0.43
    1982: -0.41
    1984: -0.39
    1992: -0.39
    2012: -0.39
    1990: -0.36

    February 2022 is at position 29 of 44.

    *
    But there are also these specialists who claim that anomalies are only used (by NASA, NOAA Berkeley Earth, the Hadley Centre etc) to “make the past cooler in order to get the present warmer”.

    Yeah.

    Here are the absolute February temperatures derived out of UAH’s 2.5 degree grid data (anomalies and climatology):

    1985: 262.635 (K)
    1986: 262.740
    1993: 262.831
    1979: 262.837
    1989: 262.838
    1982: 262.863
    1992: 262.877
    1984: 262.882
    2012: 262.885
    1990: 262.906

    *
    As we can see, the way down to the bottommost anomaly in 1985 is… a little bit long.

    • RLH says:

      Unless these trend change in the near future then next month will be at least as cold as last month.

      https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-1.jpeg

      (This is Jan 2022 data, Feb will have to wait a few days).

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”February 2022 is at position 29 of 44…”

      ***

      Keeping this in context, according to alarmists, we should be experiencing catastrophic heat by now. This bs has been going on since 1988, when James Hansen of GISS claimed it to be true. Mind you, by 1998, he had recanted much of his rhetoric, claiming his model had made a mistake. Not him, the programmer, the computer itself.

      As Hansen went on national TV in 1988, he had the heat conditioners shut off in the studio on a hot summer’s night, to emphasize his propaganda. Al Gore was applauding him from off camera.

      Since nothing catastrophic, nor anywhere near it has occurred since, modern alarmists are now boldly claiming that normal weather events like flooding and heat waves are caused by climate change.

      It’s all bs. The temperature series you are using are all fudged.

      • Clint R says:

        They use their perverted physics to justify their cult beliefs:

        1) Ice cubes can NOT boil water.
        2) Adding brinks to a box with the same temperature will NOT raise the temperature of the box.
        3) An “energy balance” does NOT use flux, as flux does NOT balance.

        “Climate physics” is as bad as astrology physics. It ain’t science.

        • RLH says:

          You wouldn’t know science if it bit you on the ass.

        • Clint R says:

          That should be “bricks”, not “brinks”.

          Also, remembered one more:
          4) Dividing flux does NOT work. A rotating object receiving 960 W/m^2 from one side will reach a higher temperature than if it received 240 W/m^2 from 4 sides.

        • Clint R says:

          One more:

          1) Ice cubes can NOT boil water.
          2) Adding bricks to a box with the same temperature will NOT raise the temperature of the box.
          3) An “energy balance” does NOT use flux, as flux does NOT balance.
          4) Dividing flux does NOT work. A rotating object receiving 960 W/m^2 from one side will reach a higher temperature than if it received 240 W/m^2 from 4 sides.
          5) Comparing an imaginary sphere to Earth is NOT science.

          When you put all of their perversions of physics together with all of the worthless trolls attempting to pervert reality, it’s quite a lot of fun.

          • RLH says:

            There are 6 sides to a cube.

          • Swenson says:

            Gee, that is indeed profound.

            To a moron, of course.

          • RLH says:

            Tell me, what happens if the flux is divided in 2 and flows from the ‘top’ and the ‘bottom’. What happens then?

          • Clint R says:

            RLH, let’s see if you can solve this simple physics problem. Maybe if you have something to do it will keep you from trolling so much….

            A rectangular box has ends with areas of 1m^2 each. The box has 4 sides, each with 2 m^2 area. All surfaces have emissivity = 1.0.

            One end of the box absorbs 1000 W/m^2 continuously. There is no other absorp.tion.

            Once the box is at equilibrium:

            1) What is temperature of box?
            2) What is the emitted flux?

          • RLH says:

            You were the one who came up with the rotation and flux question. I asked what would happen if I divided the flux into 2 portions and fed it from the poles instead of the sides.

          • Nate says:

            “A rectangular box has ends with areas of 1m^2 each. The box has 4 sides, each with 2 m^2 area. All surfaces have emissivity = 1.0.

            One end of the box absorbs 1000 W/m^2 continuously. There is no other absorp.tion.”

            Another weird, il-posed question from Clint.

            What are the T surrounding the box?

          • Clint R says:

            RLH and Nate can’t solve the simple problem. They don’t understand any of this. They just “believe” they do.

            Reality vaporizes their beliefs.

            That’s why this is so much fun.

      • Bindidon says:

        Robertson is dumb and incompetent to such a level that he writes ABOUT UAH DATA:

        ” It’s all bs. The temperature series you are using are all fudged. “

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…the meltdown continues. You cannot even read and decipher English.

          • Bindidon says:

            And now you manage to deny what you yourself wrote:

            ” It’s all bs. The temperature series you are using are all fudged. “

            *
            I repeat: you didn’t see that I was talking about UAH data and thought I would refer to NOAA or the like.

            You are not only a dumb denier: you are also a liar who tries to dissimulate the own absolute incompetence.

  56. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    If the solar wind continues to be as weak as it is now (with a few spikes), the chances of an El Nino occurring in 2023 are slim. The “pause” could be very long.

  57. gbaikie says:

    So, I have been thinking about ocean temperature.
    And I think I don’t know any compelling evidence that Earth’s ocean’s temperature has ever been 2 C.

    Which suggests to me, that since I know of no snowball Earth, a snowball Earth might be an ocean with average temperature of 2 C or colder.
    And previously, I thought snowball Earth could be 1 C or colder ocean.
    As mentioned above, a snowball Earth would be instable. Or Snowball would have a lot of insulation in the form of “polar sea ice”.

    But something looking like a snowball Earth would be in the habitable zone. And if ocean were 1 C, the same applies, it’s in the habitable zone, as would an ocean of 0 C. Or there is no runaway effect.
    Now, snowball Earth doesn’t support a lot of life. And greenhouse global climate would support more like, but greenhouse global climate is not as stable as Snowball Earth.

    And obviously this related to space travel- which is something I am actually interested in.

    • gbaikie says:

      “a snowball Earth would be instable”
      a snowball Earth would not be instable.

      • Entropic man says:

        If you accept the rock weathering feedback a snowball Earth event looks like this.

        1) Mountain building increases removal of CO2 by increasing weathering.

        2) Reduced CO2 leads to cooling and extensive glaciation.

        3) Ice albedo amplifies cooling and glaciation covers most of land surface. Weathering stops and global temperature stabilises around 5C.

        4) Volcanoes release CO2. Eventually, after ~ 2 million years, CO2 increases enough to start temperatures increasing and ice cover decreasing.

        If you don’t accept the rock weathering feedback I’ve no idea how you think snowball Earths come and go.

        • gbaikie says:

          “If you accept the rock weathering feedback a snowball Earth event looks like this.”

          I don’t accept rock weathering is why we are in icehouse climate, and nor would it have anything to do any snowball Earth which have been imagined to have occurred in the distant past.

          It has been proven that this theory doesn’t stand up.

          Though I wouldn’t say there is agreement on exactly why we have such a cold ocean.
          And it’s not clear to me why the last 2 million years has been the coldest.

          And not clear to me, what caused the Little Ice Age, exactly.
          There some ideas, but none them include rock weathering that I am aware of.
          It could be somehow relate certain type of rocks or different geological processes in general {or so, I mean unknown factors related to “rocks” somehow.}

          • gbaikie says:

            **And not clear to me, what caused the Little Ice Age, exactly.**

            Though it said Greenland was quite warm prior to the Little Ice Age,
            and this could have something to do with it.
            But to me, it still it seems it’s not understood, yet.

    • gbaikie says:

      **greenhouse global climate would support more like**
      greenhouse global climate would support more life

      Anyhow, what is better and Venus like or snowball planet in terms
      of a starship.
      It seems a snowball planet could be smaller.

  58. Mark Shapiro says:

    I have just posted another YouTube video, and I’d really like to hear what Dr. Roy’s brigade has to say about it.

    Arctic Warming – Climate Change on Steroids

    https://youtu.be/o3GMea2dtmI

    Dr. Mark

    • Clint R says:

      Mark, it was too boring and repetitive to make it through the whole mess. Basically your knowledge of climate is as bad as you knowledge of physics.

      
If your “inverted lapse rate” reduces heat loss from Arctic, then it’s a NEGATIVE feedback. And your alarm about the Arctic is NOTHING more than YOUR alarm — “Climate Change on Steroids”. You don’t know what the Arctic temperatures are “supposed” to be. You just like being alarmed, for some reason.

    • RLH says:

      Mark: What do you have to say about this analysis of land temperature data which shows that Artic warming is mainly concentrated in the NH Winter where a lot of your feedbacks are minimal?

      “Distribution of decaled trends by Latitude from Berkley Earth”

      https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      mark…you video is sheer propaganda. You talk about 4 positive feedback effects and not one of them is positive feedback. You even claim feedback #1 is as a maybe.

      Positive feedback requires an amplifier it cannot amplify on its own. With an amplifier, a signal input to the amplifier is amplified and a portion of the output signal is fed back to the input ‘in-phase’ with the input signal. That adds to the input signal each iteration and the output signal becomes exponentially larger.

      Gavin Schmidt at NASA GISS made the same mistake as you. He thought positive feedback by itself could amplify. All the models are programmed with this nonsense therefore they are showing a warming effect that is far too high.

      At the following link is the UAH February 2022 global contour map for that month. Note the amount of cooling in the Arctic.

      https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

      Go back to the summer of 2021 and we see something similar but with the cooling in a different place.

      https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/AUGUST2021/202108_Map.png

      Go back a year to February 2021 and we see much the same, warming/cooling in different areas.

      https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/February/202102_Map.png

      The truth is obvious, Mark, the claimed warming in the Arctic is only in small areas (hot spots) that move around month to month.

      I am not trying to speak for Roy but I recall him saying those moving hot spots are related to ocean currents in the North Atlantic. There are two major current flows in the Arctic Ocean, the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift. Even in mid-winter, those currents move ice into the North Atlantic.

      As far as Arctic ice thinning, you forgot to mention ‘in the one month of summer’. During the rest of the year, especially in mid-winter, there is 10 feet of ice covering most of the Arctic Ocean.

      Of course, we have no idea what the PDO is doing in the portion of the North Pacific that abuts the AO. And we must remember that the so-called warming to which you refer is a fraction of a degree C added to temperatures that are well below 0C most of the Arctic year. At timss, it’s between -50C and -60C up there. Do you really call that warming?

      Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo thinks only of electrical circuits. Positive feedback only requires a physical process which results in a further temperature increase resulting from some initial temperature increase, such as that from snow and sea-ice albedo. Reduced snow or sea-ice results in less surface reflection, thus more warming. Reduced sea-ice results in more sunlight reaching the Arctic Ocean and more surface melt ponds causes faster ice melt.

        Gordo, how many times must one explain these simple facts to you?

  59. RLH says:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/03/attributing-global-warming-to-humans/

    “There is no evidence, other than models, that human CO2 emissions drive climate change and abundant evidence that the Sun, coupled with natural climate cycles, drives most, if not all, of recent climate changes, as described in Connolly, et al., 2021.”

    Connolly, et al., 2021.
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      The alarmists have been after co-author Willie Soon for so long I cannot remember. Willie is a good guy and he has interfered dramatically with the alarmist lies.

      • RLH says:

        Refute or accept the paper, not the man, is my response.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          A good point. However, Willie Soon had been kicked so much as a skeptic I thought I’d put in a good word for him.

          • RLH says:

            Roy, who helps creates the UAH temperature series and this page, has been attacked in the same way.

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH, With all due respect to Roy and John, their products, particularly the LT we all know and watch, are not actual data, but the result of processing the MSU/AMSU brightness temperature measurements. The processing is based on theoretical modeling and they have never supplied a description of the method used to arrive at their LT equation. Why is that? Do you always accept “data” when you don’t know where it came from or how it was processed?

          • RLH says:

            Except that their methods and code have long been available, not least of which on here. You deny this has happened but you are incorrect.

            True, other groups also use MSU/AMSU data with slightly different conclusions, but all satellite measurements broadly agree each with the other and with other data sources, such as balloon data, as well.

            Data are measurements, not models, and RSS, for instance, uses models in some of their analysis AFAIK. Others use interpolation between point, ground based, measurements which has its own problems when compared to bulk area measurements throughout the vertical atmosphere.

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah_ls.jpg

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah_tp.jpg

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah_mt.jpg

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah_lt.jpg

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH, Please show us how they derive this equation:

            LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS

          • RLH says:

            See https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Version-61.pdf or ask Roy for further details if that is not clear enough.

            “The LT computation is a linear combination of MSU2,3,4 or AMSU5,7,9 (aka MT,TP, LS):

            LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS”

            and below it

            Fig 7 which shows the above in graphical layout and…

            “Fig. 7. MSU/AMSU weighting functions which define the sensitivity of the various channels to temperature at different altitudes. Also shown is the vertical profile of the average trends from two radiosonde datasets during 1979-2014, and the weighting function-sampled trends that would result from hypothetical satellite measurements of those radiosonde trends.

            Specifically, we see from Fig. 7 that application of the old and new LT weighting functions to the radiosonde trend profiles (average of the RAOBCORE and RATPAC trend profiles, 1979-2014) leads to almost identical trends (+0.11 C/decade) between the new and old LT. These trends are a good match to our new satellite-based LT trend, +0.114 C/decade.

            The new LT weighting function is less sensitive to direct thermal emission by the land surface (17% for the new LT versus 27% for the old LT), and we calculate that a portion (0.01 C/decade) of the reduction in the global LT trend is due to less sensitivity to the enhanced warming of global average land areas. The same effect does not occur over the ocean because all of these channels’ microwave frequencies are not directly sensitive to changes in SST since ocean microwave emissivity decreases with increasing SST in such a way that the two effects cancel. This effect likely also causes a slight enhancement of the land-vs-ocean trend differences. Thus, over ocean the satellite measures a true
            atmosphere-only temperature trend, but over land it is mostly atmospheric with a small (17%, on average) direct influence from the surface. One might argue that a resulting advantage of the new LT is lesser sensitivity to long-term changes in land surface microwave emissivity, which are largely unknown.
            The rest of the reduction in the LT trend between Versions 6.0 and 5.6 (-0.016 C/decade) is believed to be partly due to a more robust method of LT calculation, and the new diurnal drift
            adjustment procedure, described later. It is well within our previously stated estimated error bars on the global temperature trend (+/- 0.040 C/decade).”

          • RLH says:

            It is worth noticing, from Fig 7, the very small difference between the dotted and solid black lines which is the trend deviation between LT and Roab balloon data as the figure notes.

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH, Your reply says nothing about the method used to arrive at the weights in the LT equation. They also don’t say what assumptions are made when calculating the MT, TP and LS weighting curves shown in Figure 7. You sure aren’t much of a skeptic, swallowing Roy and John’s BS without bothering to chew on it.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”RLH, With all due respect to Roy and John, their products, particularly the LT we all know and watch, are not actual data, but the result of processing the MSU/AMSU brightness temperature measurements”.

            ***

            Not so. The AMSU units measure direct microwave radiation from oxygen molecules. There is no brightness temperature involved nor is there any unvalidated, theoretical modeling. Rather, the AMSU inputs break the data point frequencies into channels with each channel centred on a specific microwave frequency.

            The altitude from which the microwave radiation came is well known due to the lapse rate, since the frequency is proportional to the oxygen temperature.

            I imagine there are algorithms and averaging performed but no more than the with surface station data. The advantage of the AMSU unit is the humungous amount of data points it can average over 95% of the Earth’s surface.

            And yes, channel 5 can measure down to the surface even if the channel is centred at 4 kilometres altitude. That channel can receive data from altitudes right to the surface.

          • RLH says:

            E Swanson: Look at the diagram and figure out the weighting for yourself then. Do let use know what your equation is and support it with comparable readings (such as balloons).

            You can claim that Roy’s & John’s calculations are wrong if you like but in that case what are you doing on here?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo, who claims to be an electrical engineer, still doesn’t understand the MSU/AMSU instruments. They measure passive microwave intensity at specific channel frequencies. That intensity is said to be proportional to the temperature and a scale is created by comparing that reading with the emissions from deep space at one end of the scan with from that from a precisely measured heated target at the other end of the scan.

            That’s somewhat like the temperature scale for common Celsius scale thermometers which use the freezing point and boiling points of pure water as end points of a scale. For the AMSU instruments, there is a calibration curve determined from testing before launch and then applied instead of linear interpolation between the two end points.

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH, We know that you like to play with graphs, but where do these weighting curves come from? Also, where’s the actual data used to prepare those graphs?

            I’ve played with the graphs which RSS provides for their products and came up with weights close to the UAH version 6, but there’s no way to know whether the UAH curves are the same. It’s likely that they are not, given the UAH v6 scheme of using the individual scan swath and applying a polynomial fit isn’t what RSS does (See your reference, Figure 8).

            Moreover, as I’ve pointed out before, the RSS curves are based on the lapse rate model called the U.S. Standard Atmosphere. I’ve repeatedly questioned whether it’s valid for UAH to use this single model (which approximates mid-latitude temperate conditions) to calculate weighting curves, given the extremes of global temperatures, especially at high latitudes in winter or in the tropics where the tropopause is at a higher altitude than the temperate average.

            You ask why I’m here and I suppose it has something to do with a deep sense of the need to counter untruthful commentary about Climate Change. Sort of like replying to the repeated posts by the local lunatic cult fanatics, as you also do.

          • RLH says:

            It took me a few seconds to find

            https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Advanced-Microwave-Sounding-Unit-AMSU-A-weighting-functions-for-channels-3-to-15-for_fig1_234091711

            which shows the same general layout for the AMSU.

            Are you actually claiming that UAH have got those graphs wrong? Is that all you got?

            You might as well claim that 1 + 1 != 2 (or 10b).

            I am still waiting for your weighting function with suitable logic and proof. Until you have that you have nothing. Saying that RSS has something different does not mean much if you cannot provide an alternative for UAH that creates different outcomes.

            As to the data, would you care to summarize the 2.5 degree grid into the ones such as Global, Tropics, etc. that UAH provides with any different outcomes to what UAH gives?

            You are as bad as GR, with your attempts to smear what you do not understand.

          • Nate says:

            Miniscule differences in noise. Who cares? Why are you fitting it?

          • RLH says:

            Why is RSS the outlier between UAH, GISS and itself over the last 7 years?

          • RLH says:

            So you suggest then that for the last 7 years the various series are in step with minimal disagreement?

          • Nate says:

            How is a signal that is smack in the middle of the other signals and their noise an ‘outlier’?

            Very strange.

          • RLH says:

            “Big picture”

            Last 7 Years.

          • RLH says:

            “How is a signal that is smack in the middle of the other signals and their noise an ‘outlier’?

            Very strange.”

            You might wish to check the graph. RSS is the Blue line. Need your eyesight checking?

          • RLH says:

            P.S. That graph also shows that all the series agree that the trend has been downwards for the last SEVEN (7) years.

          • RLH says:

            If you add other temperature series, they agree too.

            https://imgur.com/a/be8rloi

          • Nate says:

            RLH,

            Here’s the real picture: data plus OLS.

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015/offset:-0.695/trend/plot/uah6/from:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:2015/offset:-0.453/trend/plot/uah6/from:2015

            Here they are in the big picture.

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015/offset:-0.695/trend/plot/uah6/from:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:2015/offset:-0.453/trend/plot/rss/offset:-.453

            Not sure why you are excited about these obviously miniscule, insignificant, slope differences between them in the last 7 years.

            Your abuse of OLS and Super-Zoom-In here is highly misleading.

            To what end?

          • Nate says:

            “P.S. That graph also shows that all the series agree that the trend has been downwards for the last SEVEN (7) years.”

            Various recent 7 y OLS trends

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2003/to:2009/trend/plot/uah6/from:2007/to:2013/trend/plot/uah6/from:2011/to:2017/trend/plot/uah6/from:2015/trend

            Did these have predictive value?

          • barry says:

            The last 7 years…

            Starts with a powerful el Nino that ran 2015 to 2016, ending with a fairly strong, persistent la Nina

            Hardly surprising you get a negative slope from those choices.

    • RLH says:

      “In the sea level field, there are still many papers that simply average tide gauge station data (tide gauges which each measure relative sea level at a single location) and then paste the satellite sea level measurements of eustatic sea level to the tide gauge observational series of local relative sea level (a very apples, oranges and bananas fruit salad mistake) or the latest methodological madness of hybrid sea level reconstructions (which commit all of the above errors combined).”

  60. Eben says:

    Bidetdon trying to act as the smart one , then he and his sidekick Nate get his idiotic forecast exactly backwards

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1172011

    Nino34 now back at -1

    https://i.postimg.cc/9QqhhGJS/nino34.png

    • Bindidon says:

      As usual, Eben stays way below the belt.

      If he would use his brain instead, he would ask him self how much worth a forecast can be, when it even has to be corrected backwards (what JMA had to do as well last year):

      27.01.22

      https://tinyurl.com/4sr7x2rd

      04.03.22

      https://tinyurl.com/2z3t9jrc

      Look at the backward correction!

      *
      Look at JMA’s current forecast:

      https://tinyurl.com/bddrdayx

      How can they forecast in between 20 % El Nino so suddenly (OK, they work on Nino3, which is ‘warmer’ than Nino3+4, but…) ?

      Thus, it should not wonder anyone that my interest in these ENSO forecasts moves down to zero.

      The uncertainties from month to month are simply too high.
      *
      Btw: Eben can continue his insults as he wants: he won’t change anything with that, let alone would that increase his credibility.

  61. Gordon Robertson says:

    entropic…”What is the origin of God. If he exists he must have been created. And who created His creator?”

    ***

    Before reaching for such questions and answers you must first leave the domain of time. It’s remarkably easy to do yet I venture that most people have yet to experience it and understand what it means.

    We are all programmed with a linear dimension of time. Our minds think along that line with past to one side of it and future to the other. For me, for some reason, past tends to extend from the left side of my heat to the left and future from the right side to the right.

    Then again, I can switch that up by viewing future straight ahead. Needless to say, those are all illusions. There is no physical past and no physical future.

    I don’t pretend to understand religion although I was steeped in it as a child. However, if one is to imagine a heaven and God, one must move out of that dimension of time and allow the mental space restricted by it to expand as the ‘here and now’. It can be done, and rather easily.

    As one moves from the time domain into the here and now domain there is a vast change. One can no longer rely on conditioned thought nor can one think randomly. The minute inappropriate thought begin, one is kicked out of the here and now domain and one can only re-enter by allowing most thought to quieten.

    I have reached a state where I can move into a peaceful, tranquil space where there are definite blue and green colours with a defined landscape. Illusion? Nonetheless, when time-domain thought intercedes, the colours and imagery break up.

    I think that’s kind of neat, there is a mental space to which we can move where all the bs thought we carry, including images of ‘me’ and others, are not allowed.

    Obviously, when we die, our bodies decompose or they are immediately turned to ash via cremation. So, what is left to go to Heaven and if we get there, what might on expect? Obviously, Heaven is not a domain to which the human mind is welcome.

    I have mixed feelings on the subject. Part of my logical self tells me Heaven cannot exist yet logic is not allowed in the domain of awareness we call the here and now. To become truly aware one must let go of logic, intellectualism, etc. It’s a place related to quietness and immense space.

    Mind you, the more I behold the wonders of life and the universe, the more I am leaning toward the Creator explanation. Evolution is a crass belief system that cannot begin to explain the wonders I have just mentioned.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      typo…”past tends to extend from the left side of my heat…”

      heat should be head.

      How do we know there are no spaces or dimensions besides the one we inhabit? There could be one parallel to us in which its inhabitants can sense us but we cannot sense them. Or maybe neither can sense the other.

      Fancy??? Our minds are seriously restricted as it is and making rash claims of what can and cannot be is just more of the restriction.

    • RLH says:

      You need to separate the difference between time and time intervals.

      Time exists and is real. Time intervals are a human convention and have an accuracy associated with them that needs to be addressed.

      • gbaikie says:

        One could guess, that time is the state of this universe.
        And since we don’t want to explore space, we are never going figure that out.

        • RLH says:

          Time is a one way arrow, only forwards.

          “The increase of disorder or entropy is what distinguishes the past from the future, giving a direction to time.” Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

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

          • gbaikie says:

            Some disagree. You have argue with them. I am not interested and
            will not make their argument.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            rlh…”Time is a one way arrow, only forwards.

            The increase of disorder or entropy is what distinguishes the past from the future, giving a direction to time. Stephen Hawking…”

            ***

            Shows how idiotic Hawking could be. There is no time arrow, time is an imaginary concept created from tracking the position of the Sun in the sky. If you start counting at noon, when the Sun is mid-sky, and you measure the period after one rotation of the Earth, you have one day. Arbitrarily dividing that period into hours, minutes, and second, gives you time.

            You don’t need a clock to measure that period, you could use a rotating disk synchronized to the Earth’s rotation, then divide the disk in even segments of hours, minutes, and seconds. Of course if you did that, then you’d have a clock.

            Entropy is not a measure of disorder. Clausius defined it as the sum of infinitesimal changes of HEAT at a temperature T.

            Entropy = integral (dQ/T)

            Clausius did mention that in a reversible process there is a tendency toward disorder. If heat is not involved in the disorder, or measurable, at temperature, T, it is not entropy.

            I don’t see anything useful that Hawking ever contributed to science. At least Einstein contributed the photoelectric effect.

          • RLH says:

            So you disagree with entropy then. You are indeed an idiot.

          • bobdroege says:

            It is probably an exercise assigned in a higher level thermodynamics class than I have taken, but

            It can be shown that the classical thermodynamic Entropy is equivalent to the statistical thermodynamic Entropy.

            It is like there are several equivalent statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

            So Gordon, again you are wrong, you say

            “Entropy is not a measure of disorder.”

            Sorry dude, but that is the current definition of entropy.

            From the wiki on Ludwig Boltzmann.

            “In 1877 he provided the current definition of entropy, {\displaystyle S=k_{\rm {B}}\ln \Omega \!}S=k_{{{\rm {B}}}}\ln \Omega \!, interpreted as a measure of statistical disorder of a system.[2] Max Planck named the constant kB the Boltzmann constant.[3]

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          gbaikie…”One could guess, that time is the state of this universe”.

          ***

          Or, one might observe that the universe is space filled with mass and it is all happening right now. No need for time.

          We depend on the speed of light while making our observations of the universe. We see a distant star and reason that it takes so much time for that light to get here from the star. Then some leap to the conclusion that the star represents the past.

          There have been instances where stars have exploded in a supernova yet we are not aware of it till the light reaches us. A light year is the distance light travels in a year. The nearest star to Earth is Alpha Centauri, which is 4.37 light years from Earth.

          At 5.88 trillion miles per year, that star is 25.7 trillion miles from Earth. That’s all you have, stars emitting EM and interstellar space filled with that EM and other things like hydrogen. It’s all happening right now.

          If we think that represents the past then we are being seriously arrogant in that we are placing Earth as the present. Some are so arrogant as to place Earth as the centre of the universe.

          • RLH says:

            “one might observe that the universe is space filled with mass and it is all happening right now. No need for time”

            Except that the velocity of light means that our observations are always in the past and velocity is measured as distance in a given time period.

            Unless you wish to claim the light is here instantly then you are an idiot indeed.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Gordon Robertson says:
            March 5, 2022 at 4:23 PM
            gbaikieOne could guess, that time is the state of this universe.

            ***

            Or, one might observe that the universe is space filled with mass and it is all happening right now. No need for time.–

            The universe appears to filled empty space and a lack of light.

            “We depend on the speed of light while making our observations of the universe. We see a distant star and reason that it takes so much time for that light to get here from the star. Then some leap to the conclusion that the star represents the past.”

            Yes, I would leap this conclusion.

            “There have been instances where stars have exploded in a supernova yet we are not aware of it till the light reaches us. A light year is the distance light travels in a year. The nearest star to Earth is Alpha Centauri, which is 4.37 light years from Earth.

            At 5.88 trillion miles per year, that star is 25.7 trillion miles from Earth. Thats all you have, stars emitting EM and interstellar space filled with that EM and other things like hydrogen. Its all happening right now.

            If we think that represents the past then we are being seriously arrogant in that we are placing Earth as the present. Some are so arrogant as to place Earth as the centre of the universe.”

            Well, I would say the only reason I am here is because it’s the center of the Universe.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        rlh…”Time exists and is real”.

        ***

        Where is it and where would I go to measure it?

        • RLH says:

          Entropy defines time. Humans define time intervals. You can observe the first and measure the second (pun).

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            rlh…”Entropy defines time. Humans define time intervals. You can observe the first and measure the second (pun)”.

            ***

            No one can measure time, we can only generate it. There is nothing there to measure. You have a master’s degree and you claim to have been steeped in logic. Where is that logic now?

            Show me what it is we are measuring other than the period of Earth’s rotation.

            Entropy is a measure of heat transfer.

            Entropy = S = integral dQ/T

            Since T is a constant as defined by Clausius, this can be written…

            S = 1/T (integral)dQ

            Entropy was never intended to be a real equation since it has only two values, 0 or +ve. Clausius explained that he invented entropy as a concept to be equivalent to energy and it was invented as a mathematical statement of the 2nd law.

            Entropy has nothing to do with time or disorder, disorder being an unrelated byproduct of an irreversible reaction that gives off heat. Modernists have mistaken the original intent of entropy as related to heat.

            I mean, how does one measure disorder other than through an irreversible reaction that gives of heat?

          • RLH says:

            “No one can measure time, we can only generate it”

            Time intervals are defined by man. A second is such a measure. With varying accuracy depending on need. Idiot.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        rlh…”You need to separate the difference between time and time intervals”.

        ***

        You missed my point about the here and now and awareness. There is a good discussion between the physicist David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti on time that I have found on the Net. I recall a statement by Bohm in which he pointed out that humans invented time.

        What is a time interval other than a sub-division of the concept of time representing changes in events? Why does there have to be a time interval if we are not trying to measure anything? If I see a car move from A to B why do I need time if I am not trying to measure how fast it got from A to B.

        Awareness is essentially taking in the event without trying to evaluate it based on conditioned thought. Have you never done that, observe without trying to evaluate, explain, or compare?

        Time is so embedded into our minds that we cannot separate it from the illusion we regard as an external dimension of time. At least, we can’t until we experience the here and now awareness in which it becomes obvious that time no longer exists.

        We need our invention of time to run our lives but there was a time when people simply lived their lives based on the availability of sunlight. To reach our current state, we had to invent a clock and synchronize it to a central clock in Greenwich, UK. We based that clock on exactly the same thing as the ancients, the position of the Sun in the sky.

        That’s the only time there is and it is tied to the rotation of the Earth. In fact, the hours, minutes and seconds of time have an analog in rotational distance.

        Notions developed by Einstein and Hawking, that time is a fourth dimension are just that, notions developed through thought-experiments. Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock claimed that Einstein’s theory on relativity is not even a theory, rather a collection of uncorroborated thought experiments.

        • RLH says:

          There is no such thing as 4 equal dimensions, as time is a one way thing and the other 3 aren’t.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            rlh…”There is no such thing as 4 equal dimensions, as time is a one way thing and the other 3 arent”.

            ***

            Then explain Einstein’s space-time fantasy. That describes a 4-D concept in which space-time can warp.

            You are imprisoned by your own conditioned thoughts, Richard, but you have the key to get out. Quieten the thoughts and see what is there.

            Quieten the thoughts right down then try to visualize what time is. For example, using the time of Jesus as a baseline and us at 2022, what has transpired time-wise in between? What has actually changed?

            When Einstein was confronted with his theories on time it was suggested to him that we could travel back in time, He responded that he did not say that.

            However, consider the possibility of time travel. What medium would we move through to enable that? If time is an arrow representing time flow, there must be a medium. There is none.

          • coturnix says:

            they are equal in the sense that they are treated as such mathematically, and have the same dimensions. But they come with the different signs in the math and the differential equations and hence give very different behavior.

          • RLH says:

            Note I said EQUAL dimensions.

    • Go Fish says:

      It seems to me, Entropic man asked that question out of wrong motives. Thus, no reply was given. His motive was logic seems to say what he asked so he concludes that which exists must be and is seen with your eyes. Or that since other “things,” such as matter, exist then the CREATOR has an origin and was created. How myopic indeed and illogical a statement, on its face! Yet, you seem unable to see this fact.

      The answers are quite evident and clear in Scripture and I won’t bore you with copying and pasting it since most have preconceived ideas about reality and deny its existence. How ironic though, that “science” and those “trained,” in some respects by its belief system, are saying there are more than 2 genders. Or that gender identity is somehow fluid. In fact, the push from academia and Doctors (trained by academia) on this front is about as logical as a plane landing on my face. When life begins, is also another issue whereby the “science” is denied accommodating sinful desires and all accountabilities. Choices are made before conception occurs! The same could be said about a great many other contemporary issues. Thus, the pursuit of “science” is really the exaltation of man seeking to usurp the place of Almighty God! Or of certain men who think they rule over other men by the authority of men! So keep kowtowing to men!

      It amazes me (and at the same time proves the truth of the Bible) that you folks will debate the subject of AGW to the nth degree but reject the very historical validity of Canonical books within the Bible. History (and specific persons and evidence directly connected to it throughout the ages) and Archeology greatly attest to their composition and date with significant evidence. Only those with a bone to pick and who are NOT true believers but REMAIN separated from God; under the curse of sin and death seek to disprove and deny the evidence thus believing they are relinquished of any accountability when they stand before Him at judgment, since they “believe” that last statement is a myth.

      I have posted on this blog since 2019, but not very much, and view the UAH Global temp every month. I usually glance at the comments and laugh at the same persons making the same arguments about the same non-issue of AGW (non-issue because from my perspective and from a worldview of billions of years [most fools on this blog] has occurred naturally for aeons) and they often do so with some measure of hatred of the opponent. To be certain this IS an issue of POLICY making, but NOT because it is a REAL issue but because it is a PERCEIVED issue! Reality is clear for those with eyes to see.

      FACTS about the TRUE & Living God:

      Self exists, that is, NOT created. He is the Alpha and Omega and exists outside of time. He has no beginning and no end! HE ALWAYS IS!

      Omniscient, He knows the end from the beginning and has ordained whatever happens, like it or believe it or not. There is NOTHING that He does not know!

      Omnipotent, ALL powerful. He created by His spoken word, that means what HE said HAPPENED and WILL happen. He created ex nihilo, out of nothing!

      Immutable, He is unchanging, He does NOT change, nor can HE do so.

      Holy, He is Holy and without sin and or evil, and dwells in unapproachable light. Imagine if the earth was closer to the sun, what would happen insofar as we surmise?

      Sovereign and Providential. He provides, in a general way for all His creation, and actively sustains it. That is, what you consume to survive and HE RULES the whole Universe! He is hands on not off. Deism is a lie.

      These are some of the attributes He has revealed about Himself.

      A.W. Pink’s work: The Attributes of God can be found online at Chapel Library free of charge for anyone interested.

      Now, if you WANT to know Him, there is accurate information in written form (Bible) to evaluate His claims, but most are like the Psalmist said in Psalm 14:1.

      • RLH says:

        Still with the assertion that the Bible is the only text out there. There are many texts, some with similar stories in them, some with different.

        The Bible doesn’t even mention Gobekli Tepe even though it predates it by many millennia.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

      • Bindidon says:

        Go Fish

        Compared to you, even the most determined Marxist-Leninists are harmless orphans.

        One can literally feel that you share the same urge to convince others – against their will if necessary.

        *
        Before being Go Fish, you were Go Aries.
        And before that, yo were Go Taurus.
        You will soon become Go Aquarius.

        • Go Fish says:

          Deflection and insult is all you have. You have been done before.

          The heavens DECLARE the glory of God,
          and the firmament shows His handiwork.

          Psalm 19:1

          I told you in 2019 I was not going away. It seems I pop my head in just enough to make yours explode.

        • Bindidon says:

          I did not insult you, Go Fish.

          I simply described your behaviour.

          *
          How about preaching somewhere else?

          After all, we don’t just come into your church unasked and preach there.

          • Clint R says:

            Bindidon’s cult doesn’t tolerate other religions.

          • Go Fish says:

            You need comprehension skills. I am not talking about myself at all. I reference the KING of the Universe! Therefore, you insult Him not me. It is not my CONGREGATION it is HIS CONGREGATION of which I am a infinitesimal part.
            Again, I call you to heed His command: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. Matt 3:17 carrying the idea of Luke 9:35 HEAR HIM!

            My behavior is the same as yours. I AM a free man and no other man has legitimate authority over me, except where they are ordained to punish evil and reward good since Gov’t is ordained by God. Once they depart from their ordained purpose they become illegitimate and I obey God rather than men! Tyrants, force other men into submission unless you choose to fight. In that case you have 2 choices. Kowtow or fight/resist.

            All war, it seems to me, has been fought over these points. There are men who believe there is a Sovereign God and there are men who believe THEY ARE god and oppress other men.

            RLH seems to refer to the myth of chance in modern science and cosmology as noted by the late R.C. Sproul in his book by that title. Or found in the book by Dr. Henry Morris, Evolution and the Modern Christian. DNA evidence is irrefutable.

          • RLH says:

            You are a religious nut who relies on a book constructed mostly in the middle ages to provide you a set of truths.

            You are wrong.

          • Go Fish says:

            Am I, RLH? I am wrong? You have utterly FAILED to demonstrate this in any reasonable fashion, and have presented no evidence. It is your opinion that I am wrong. But it may, in fact, be that you are wrong concerning everything I have stated!

            https://vidmax.com/video/211366-still-don-t-think-klaus-schwab-is-the-devil-listen-to-his-man-advisor-dr-yuval-noah-harari-talk-about-hacking-all-humans

            The push to usurp the place of Almighty God surrounds you.

          • barry says:

            My brother contributes to a facebook page ostensibly defending the notion of a flat Earth. The regulars are well-versed in the arguments and and enjoy leading along people who turn up to set them straight.

            The style is similar to Go Fish’s, but, thankfully, much more funny.

          • Go Fish says:

            Barry, did mommy or daddy have to teach you to disobey or did that come naturally? Of course, you will have no recollection of this as you deflect from the reality of all of my observations and evidence. Yet not one of you has been able to answer one question I have posed. Not even an attempt has been made. Scoff and scorn is your MO. Yet these are questions asked throughout human history.

            For example, please explain where death comes from? How did it begin in the scheme of origins? What is the origin of physics and how did it come into being? In other words, what governs physics? Nothing? It governs itself? To attempt an answer means you will have to think more deeply and critically than you are used to on a subject you despise! Namely, the Queen of the Sciences, Theology! The scope and parameters for answers is very narrow as there are not many palatable options.

            Issues of climate seem to be one of your greatest concerns. Have at it; but the cost is great and time is a-wastin.

          • barry says:

            Don’t imagine for a second that your bible bashing is interesting to me. The great questions of our species are not illuminated by theological dogma, and being lectured by boorish prosyletisers does nothing to advance your cause.

            Bye bye.

          • Go Fish says:

            Barry, the bible basher; Go Fish, the bible elucidator.

            Thank you for your man exalting unscientific scientific dogma in which all parties agree that AGW will bring catastrophe and destruction to mankind. An apocalypse of gargantuan proportions, since we have a model demonstrating that’s what will happen! Now go worship your physics and sensory perceptions! In other words, self- exaltation since before you could say no!

  62. gbaikie says:

    –Ken says:
    March 2, 2022 at 11:56 PM
    The problem with the concept of runaway effect is the same as on earth.–

    What is meant by runaway effect?
    If runaway effect means Earth could be 800,000 K as some idiot says,
    then there are “many problems” with this.

    But if imagine adding a lot mass to Earth, and it become a star and one call that a runaway effect, yet even this has limits. And surface of our sun is less than 800,000 K. And Earth does have a temperature which exceed 800,000 K if you talk about lightning.
    But idiot was saying global air temperature of 15 C could become 800,000 K.

    What meant is surface air temperature of Venus could cool down until it colder than Earth’s surface air temperature, due to runaway effect, which roughly means one factor reducing, which results in this factor reducing even “more”. But such cooling runaway effect does stop. I don’t think it could became a cold as our Moon {though some might choose to say the Moon as being hotter than Earth. But I would say the Moon is mostly very cold though when sun is near zenith is does reach a surface temperature of over 120 C.

    But anyhow topic is runaway effects which do reach some limit AND also if Earth doesn’t have runaway effect, neither does Venus is an inference of what Ken says.
    In regards to last thing, does Earth have runaway warming and/or cooling.
    I would say the going from coldest time period of a glaciation period to the warmest peak of interglacial period, looks like a runaway effect.
    And this has been mystery/paradox of whole topic Earth global climate.
    I think I have resolved this paradox.
    And basically it is that insulation of polar sea ice is removed.
    But I would say, the real average temperature of Earth is ocean temperature of 3.5 C- and rather than increasing during this apparent “runaway effect” it’s not.
    Instead, it’s just the global average surface air temperature which is increasing by a huge amount.
    Or the stored heat of the ocean is 1000 times the heat of our atmosphere, and there would a lost of this stored ocean heat rather than a gain.
    But with Venus, and runaway effect I am taking about, loses a large amount of heat from Venus atmosphere AND the high heat of it’s rocky surface.

    Or as said before, this misunderstanding of Venus is whole reason we have this crazy cargo cult.
    Earth is not the same as Venus.

    • gbaikie says:

      But also, we can make Earth have “runaway effect” and get out of this icehouse global climate.
      Or we can warm the entire ocean- though it takes a very long time.
      And it might good idea, in order to avoid the next glaciation period- which most people could call a very bad thing.

      I don’t think it’s much of problem, if we become a spacefaring civilization. But it’s hard to sell the advantage of having 1 mile of glaciation ice over North America- unless one has large majority of people who like skiing.

  63. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…”Gordo thinks only of electrical circuits. Positive feedback only requires a physical process which results in a further temperature increase resulting from some initial temperature increase, such as that from snow and sea-ice albedo”.

    ***

    Turn the power off on the electrical circuit and see what difference positive feedback makes. There is no positive feedback in the atmosphere, only negative feedback. Roy once mentioned that positive feedback in the atmosphere is a not-so-negative negative feedback.

    There can be no heat gain (amplification) in the atmosphere. All you have is solar input and there is no way to amplify it.

    • RLH says:

      Non-one ever said that. What they said was that reducing the heat outflow meant that temperatures were higher than they would be if that reduction was not present.

      • gbaikie says:

        how much?

        And whatever the number, 15 C is a cold temperature.
        One must face that we are in an Ice Age.

        How warm does it have to get to cause the Sahara Desert to become mostly grassland? 16, 17, or 18 C??
        Is a .5 C or 15.5 C average global surface air temperature some kind of problem?
        More people die from the cold as compared to being warmer that 15 C.
        One have be crazy to set our room temperature to 15 C.

        • Bindidon says:

          The last period during which the Sahara Desert has been mainly grassland was within the Holocene climatic optimum, about 6000 years ago.

          If I recall correctly, the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef has been estimated to be about 1 C warmer at that time.

          • gbaikie says:

            Was the sea level over the Great barrier reef, higher or lower than it is now?

          • Swenson says:

            Binny,

            The GBR is over 2000 kms long, spanning 14 degrees of latitude. What part of the Reef are you talking about?

            Do you believe that all the water has cooled by 1 C in the last 6000 years?

            Seems a bit odd, unless you have some physical reason to back you up.

          • Bindidon says:

            gbaikie

            Sorry I thought it would be clear, I add a bit {plus an extra for the Flynnson genius}.

            ” … the average tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef has been estimated to be about 1 C warmer at that time than it is now. ”

            Of course: we all can’t know exactly the Barrier’s exact extent 6000 years ago.

            But even the dumbest ignoramus should be able to accept that the average of all proxies found these days over it might be a valuable estimate.

            Some, however, love to confuse, and distort, misrepresent, discredit, denigrate everything that doesn’t not fit their egomaniac narrative…

            *
            Btw, Flynnson…

            {sarc} Are you still not convinced that putting CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter than evah? {/sarc}

            No? Oh.

          • gbaikie says:

            Bindidon

            The reason I asked was for various reasons but it seemed to me give the temperature they must have also known the depth the proxy was at the time.
            And as general matter, I am uncertain what sea levels were, at this time.

            Also I am under the impression that tropical ocean roughly stays at the same temperature, and interested if that is correct or not.

          • gbaikie says:

            Well, decided to look:
            “About 6,000 years ago, sea level peaked at two meters above today’s level.”
            https://tinyurl.com/y5xrmu7c

            “Holocene Sea Level curve showing the most recent period of rise and warming. Some of these data suggest that sea levels approached modern around 6,000 years ago, but may have actually exceeded modern sea levels in some regions (i.e., Malacca), but, on average, sea levels have been relatively slow to rise and have been fairly stable for at least the last few thousand years.”
            https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1506

            “Tectonically, the Australian continent is relatively stable and, as such, it provides a good platform for studying Late Pleistocene and Holocene sea-level change. The observations indicate that present sea-level was reached at about 6000 years ago and that since then level has remained constant to within a few metres.”
            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/092181819090060P

          • gbaikie says:

            8000 years ago:
            “Then between 18,000 and 8,000 years ago, global climate warmed, leading to rapid melting of the ice sheets, and seeing sea levels in the Australian region rising from 125m below to 2m above modern sea levels.”

            “Much of this inundation occurred over a 4,000-year period (between 14,600 and 10,600 years ago) initiated by what is called Meltwater Pulse 1A, a period of substantial ice sheet collapse releasing millions of cubic litres of water back into the oceans.”
            https://tinyurl.com/yrjnfpyv
            [Million of cubic litres is 1/1000th cubic Km they probably meant millions of cubic km??]
            “During this period, sea levels rose by 58m, equivalent to 14.5mm per year. On the ground, this would have seen movement of the seas edge at a pace of about 20-24m per year.”

            Got do math:
            Area of ocean: 510,082,000 sq. km. 70.9% = 361 times .058 =
            20.938 million cubic km. So, somewhere in millions of cubic km.

            “What was the sea level 8000 years ago?
            Three rapid increases in rise rates (“pulses”) are noted here so that the majority of the 100 meters of sea level rise occurred from 14,000 to approximately 8,000 years ago, or 90 meters in roughly 6,000 years.”

            Sea level rise severed the connections to Tasmania and New Guinea for the final time, reaching a peak about 1-2 metres above modern levels some 8,000 years ago, thereafter stabilising slowly to pre-twentieth century levels.
            https://sciences.adelaide.edu.au/news/list/2019/04/27/australias-epic-story-a-tale-of-amazing-people-amazing-creatures-rising-seas

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        rlh…”Non-one ever said that. What they said was that reducing the heat outflow meant that temperatures were higher than they would be if that reduction was not present”.

        ***

        I have no problem with your statement but it does not represent positive feedback. You are describing different degrees of negative feedback.

        Here’s the mathematical equation for related feedback. By related, feedback that can contribute to amplifying a signal. There is a +ve feedback in servo mechanisms but that is a different concept. There is no amplification required, the control is via the sign of a signal only.

        G = A/(1-AB)

        G = overall gain
        A = amplified gain
        B = feedback signal.

        For G to keep increasing, as required by positive feedback, the term (1-AB) in the denominator must get smaller. That can only happen if the sign of the feedback is positive. If it is negative, the sign in front of AB must change to positive, therefore the denominator becomes 1 + AB, in which case G gets smaller.

        Without an amplifier, it makes no sense to talk about positive feedback. To make any signal increase, some kind of amplifier is required.

        There are exceptions in nature due to natural resonance. Many bodies have a natural resonance and feeding that resonance with a sympathetic frequency can increase the amplitude of the resonant signal. There is nothing remotely like that in the atmosphere. What we are dealing with are alarmists who simply don’t understand positive feedback.

        Example… the destruction of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, or an acoustic guitar.

        • RLH says:

          “I have no problem with your statement but it does not represent positive feedback.”

          I made no claim as to if the reduction was a feedback. I just observed that you tried to mislead everybody.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Gordo has his engineering world view, with his attempt to limit the definition of “feedback” to that of an amplifier with wires and resistors. He can not comprehend that the Climate System includes more than the atmosphere, such as the sea-ice cycle, or that the water vapor in the air is determined by the temperature. Sad.

  64. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…”So you disagree with entropy then. You are indeed an idiot”.

    ***

    I disagree with your interpretation of entropy. I don’t disagree with Clausius, who invented the concept of entropy and who defined it.

    Only an idiot like you would disagree with the scientist who defined entropy.

    As usual, you are butt-kissing Hawking as an authority figure while you are unable to understand what entropy truly means. It is a summation of heat during a heat transfer. It just so happens that it is +ve for irreversible processes and gives an indication of the degree of disorder.

    Clausius mentioned that in his explanation of entropy but others, like Hawking, obviously did not bother to read Clausius on the matter and merely regurgitated what they had been told by people who failed to understand the true meaning of entropy.

    Entropy = S = integral dQ/T

    No reference to disorder, only heat.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        rlh…”Entropy is more than about heat”

        ***

        Sorry, you’ll have to come up with your own word for what you’re talking about. Clausius defined the word and the concept and it is about heat. Others have confused the meaning and employed the word incorrectly.

        If you think about it, disorder related to irreversible processes has a different meaning than what Clausius intended for entropy. There is no means of measuring such disorder but there is a relative means of measuring the heat given off by such processes.

        Reference to that heat loss can be claimed as entropy but it is not related to the disorder as a measurable quantity. Using entropy in the context, as a measure of disorder, is incorrect.

        Same with the 1st law, in which Clausius defined the U = internal energy. The 1st law is only about heat and work yet people refer to it as a generic law to cover all conservation of energy.

        Clausius was specific that U = internal heat + internal work, yet the phrase internal energy is used today as a mysterious energy other than heat. People like ball4 are preaching that heat does not even exist.

        I think we need to go back and reconsider catch phrases like conservation of energy. We still have no idea what energy is yet we insist it must be conserved. Same with the famous equation e = mc^2. It means nothing since e = EM cannot be converted to mass, or vice-versa.

        Some claim it was confirmed by the explosive force of atomic bombs but there is no conversion of energy to mass, or mass to energy in an atomic bomb. The explosive force is one part of the atomic bomb, the other energy released being heat and light.

        The overall energy released in an atomic bomb is due to the literal splitting of atoms that produces a chain-reaction, splitting other atoms. An atom like uranium can be split in half when it is bombarded by neutrons and the energy released is the cumulative energy that bound the atoms together. Energy is relased but not converted to mass as is implied in e = mc^2.

        Modern science has far too much bs attached to it and we need to stop pseudo-scientists from creating and spreading propaganda. We cannot stop them in a democratic society, but we can speak out about the bs they spread.

        Not talking about you in this context.

  65. Bindidon says:

    Who is more interested in valuable information than in the useless, egocentric blah blah of the blog’s most boring ignoramus is invited to read:

    History of entropy

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

    No, thinking about thermodynamics and entropy did by no means begin with Rudolf Clausius; Lazare Carnot and his son Sadi thought above it long before him.

    Réflexions sur la puissance motrice du feu et sur les machines propres à développer cette puissance

    Sadi Carnot, 1824

  66. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    The head of world’s largest EV company, now says we need more oil and gas

    @elonmusk – the man whose Tesla and Tesla Solar have basically devoted their existence to competing with gas-guzzling cars, oil, and coal, and which briefly reached a market cap of $1 trillion and delivered nearly 1 million EVs last year – is now publicly in favor of increasing oil and gas production.

    He tweeted late Friday:

    Hate to say it, but we need to increase oil & gas output immediately.
    Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures.

    He added in a follow-up tweet nine minutes later:

    Obviously, this would negatively affect Tesla, but sustainable energy solutions simply cannot react instantaneously to make up for Russian oil & gas exports. (@elonmusk) March 5, 2022

    He’s likely referring to the world’s notable dependence on Russian pipelines.

  67. Eben says:

    SC 25 updated, tracking 24 with 62 spots Feb average

    https://i.postimg.cc/QM5W1wbb/solar-cycle-comparison.jpg

  68. Gordon Robertson says:

    testy

  69. Gordon Robertson says:

    Elon for president!!!

  70. Gordon Robertson says:

    bs. Wiki is full of horsebleep.

    Clausius created the word entropy and he explained how he developed the name. He also defined entropy. Wiki does note that although you seem to have missed it when you skimmed the article.

    Wiki suggests the 2nd law was formed after Clausius defined entropy which is wrong. In his first book on both subjects he went through a lengthy development of the 2nd law then he briefly defined entropy and how he named it. Later, he put the math to it.

    Sadi Carnot had nothing to do with it. In fact, Clausius developed the 2nd law in response to an error by Carnot. Why the heck would you credit a Frenchman over a good German scientist? If Clausius lived today, he’d be censored.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Wiki failed to point out that Boltzmann’s statistical inter.pretation of entropy failed to explain the 2nd law. Any modern explanation of entropy based on Boltzmann is in error and Boltzmann’s claim of disorder in an imaginary collection of states is a load of hooey.

      It’s clear that many modern scientists prefer to live in a fictitious universe created in their minds as thought experiments. Space-time, the Big Bang theory, black hole theory, blackbody theory, evolution theory, and the statistical inter.pretation of entropy being a few examples.

      And now we have fictitious viruses with tests and vaccines based on the fiction. Not claiming the viruses are not real, just that no one has managed to physically isolate them. Ergo, they don’t have the actual genome of the viruses just a sci-fi creation created in a computer model. Viruses today are defined via thought experiment and consensus.

      And, not to forget AWG and the GHE. And that the Moon rotates on it axis while keeping one side pointed to the Earth, a clear indication of curvilinear translation without local rotation.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      these two posts addressed to Binny. Posted them in response to his post but ended up down here.

      • Bindidon says:

        As you were explained often enough, you refer to Wikipedia each time it fits your stubborn narrative, and denigrate it ad nauseam whenever it doesn’t.

        All you write is too dumb, too egocentric, too ignorant to be worth any answer (except this one, of course).

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Typical Binny response, ad homs and insults and a failure to address the rebuttal. I take this as an admission you are in error.

  71. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…”Gordo has his engineering world view, with his attempt to limit the definition of feedback to that of an amplifier with wires and resistors”.

    ***

    How would you explain a positive feedback that can increase heat without an amplifier of some kind?

    There is a simple explanation for my claim.

    G = A/(1 – AB) is the general equation for feedback in physics. A = amplification factor and B = the feedback multiplier.

    Negative feedback requires no amplification and that is reflected in the equation. If the term AB is negative, the term 1 – AB is > 1. Therefore, G, the overall gain is always < 1, meaning no amplification.

    It is only when the feedback is positive that 1 – AB 1.

    It is not possible to have a gain in an existing quantity of energy like heat without an amplifier. Certainly, you can add heat externally, like solar energy, to increase the heat content, but if you have a certain quantity of heat in the atmosphere, without replenishment, all it can do is dissipate.

    Claims that positive feedback in the atmosphere can intrinsically increase the heat content is false. No one using the term positive feedback can explain what it is. Gavin Schmidt, of NASA GISS fumbled an opportunity to explain it and got the math wrong. Yet he is programming computer models with positive feedback as an intrinsic component.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Gordo, wrote:

      It is not possible to have a gain in an existing quantity of energy like heat without an amplifier.

      You are amazingly stupid about amplifiers. They are electrically powered devices which produce an output power in proportion to an input signal. Feedback changes that output power, as your equation demonstrates. The climate system (which is more than the atmosphere component) constantly receives energy from the Sun and emits IR radiation to deep space, the various processes within the system result in the surface temperatures we experience.

      He continue:

      …you can add heat externally, like solar energy, to increase the heat content, but if you have a certain quantity of heat in the atmosphere, without replenishment, all it can do is dissipate.

      Really, Gordo, do you think the climate system is (or even could be) isolated from the Sun’s energy input? Must you continue to use the word “dissipate” to downplay the effects of the IR emissions to space, which are a major component of the whole system? The main effects of greenhouse gasses is what you label “dissipation”, a fact which you either fail to comprehend or chose to intentionally ignore in order to spread disinformation.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swannie…”You are amazingly stupid about amplifiers. They are electrically powered devices which produce an output power in proportion to an input signal. Feedback changes that output power, as your equation demonstrates”.

        ***

        Swannie, in his bottomless arrogance, is now telling an electrical engineer how an amplifier works.

        We don’t talk power with an amplifier unless we are outputting to a load. Even then, we use the collector current of the output device as a parameter not the power. If we know the load impedance, then we can calculate or measure power.

        The BJT transistor, which is an amplifier, is rated in one way by the amplification factor which is roughly the output current divided by the input current, not as you claim, the output power divided by an input signal. Only someone grossly ignorant about an electronic amplifier would make such a stupid statement.

        With amplifiers, the feedback is generally negative. It is used to broaden the bandwidth of the amplifier by flattening the higher middle frequencies and allowing the lower and higher frequencies to be amplified more.

        Positive feedback is only used in an amplifier to produce oscillation. Even there, it is tightly controlled to prevent a runaway effect. The principle is simple. An LC circuit can be used as a tank but when it oscillates naturally, the oscillation dies off exponentially. By giving the tank a controlled shot of positive feedback once per cycle, the oscillation in the tank is maintained.

        You cannot sustain any kind of natural signal without that kind of positive feedback and there is simply nothing in the atmosphere that can supply that shot of energy since there is no heat amplifier with which it can work.

        This reply from you is an all-time low. Now tell me how heat can be amplified via positive feedback in the atmosphere. I won’t hold my breath, you are still confused about the 2nd law.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Gordo, I was simply attempting to point out that your world view is limited to electrical circuits. Your reply proves that. An electrical amplifier is a process which controls the flow of electricity supplied by an external source of energy. Your mathematical equation is a model of that process.

          And then you again displayed your ignorance, writing:

          Now tell me how heat can be amplified via positive feedback in the atmosphere. I won’t hold my breath, you are still confused about the 2nd law.

          The processes in the climate system follow different mathematical relationships. I gave you an example of one which can result in positive feedback, the snow/sea-ice albedo feedback. An increase in local temperature causes a reduction in albedo, thus further warming the surface and the air above. Another example is the long term NH migration of various types of vegetation toward the north and to higher elevations, such as trees replacing the Arctic tundra. As the trees stand above the winter snow, the result is to reduce the local albedo, also warming the surface air.

          And, the warming from adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the concentration of water vapor, another greehouse gas, trapping more “heat” within the system.

          You can exhale now.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”the warming from adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the concentration of water vapor, another greehouse gas, trapping more heat within the system”.

            ***

            Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Don’t know who said that or if it’s universally true.

            Even in an electronic amplifier, amplification is more smoke and mirrors than anything. When an input signal to a transistor amplifier is claimed to be amplified, it is only because the input of the transistor can control a much larger current delivered by a power supply. Ergo, energy is not being amplified.

            How does one amplify heat. or trap it? Heat is defined as the kinetic energy of atoms. If you have a square metre of atmospheric gas with bazillions of molecules of air, the only way to increase the heat content is by adding more heat externally and causing the bazillions of molecules to become more agitated.

            The Sun can do that. If you have the square metre of gas inside a container and solar energy strikes the container surface, heat will be transferred to the gas, raising its temperature.

            The positive feedback theory suggests there is some kind of energy being added to the gas. What is this mechanism that heats the gas?

            You claim that heat can be trapped in the atmosphere. How?
            How does a gas trap a gas, which means atoms trapping atoms? We can understand that concept in a greenhouse since the glass can trap the heated molecules of air. There is no such mechanism in the atmosphere, prompting Joe Postma to comment that we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.

            I am still breathlessly awaiting an explanation of how the mysterious positive feedback heats gas to amplify heat.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo wrote:

            The positive feedback theory suggests there is some kind of energy being added to the gas. What is this mechanism that heats the gas?

            All the energy comes from the Sun. With the snow-ice albedo feedback, warming reduces the rate of energy leaving the system via reflection. That energy then goes to heat the surface and thence the atmosphere, so the temperature increases. Are you so seriously deluded that you can’t understand that?.

            You also write:

            You claim that heat can be trapped in the atmosphere. How?

            I don’t recall commenting that “heat can be trapped” in the atmosphere, only that the temperature will increase as the result of changes in the flow thru the climate system. Adding thermal energy to the atmosphere by reducing reflection will necessitate an increase in temperature in order to increase the rate of energy loss to deep space, just as increasing the insulation for your house will increase the temperature of the molecules inside for the same power supplied.

            You wrote:

            How does a gas trap a gas, which means atoms trapping atoms?

            I have no idea what you are referring to.

          • PhilJ says:

            “And, the warming from adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the concentration of water vapor, another greehouse gas, trapping more heat within the system.”

            Ludicrous. Replacing O2 with co2 and h20 INCREASES the emissivity of the atmosphere and thus the rate at which any given parcel of air cools…

            Ciao!

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          swannie…”With the snow-ice albedo feedback, warming reduces the rate of energy leaving the system via reflection. That energy then goes to heat the surface and thence the atmosphere, so the temperature increases. Are you so seriously deluded that you cant understand that?”.

          ***

          What you are describing is not even feedback, never mind positive feedback. The Sun heats the snow-ice and you claim a feedback. What is the snow-ice feeding back to?

          What you are describing is simply a reduction in incoming solar because some of it is reflected. That will cause cooling, not the heating you claim. If you think that is feedback you are using the word literally and not in a scientific sense. The snow-ice is feeding back to space if you take the word literally but that is not what is meant by a feedback system.

          Duh!!!

          Warming reduces the rate of energy leaving the system????

          Double duh!!!

          Know what, Swannie? You are about as confused about this jargon as you are about the 2nd law. The only thing that can reduce the rate of energy leaving the surface is a temperature differential between the surface and the atmosphere.

          And, can we stop hiding behind the generic word energy and call it what it is…heat?

          Not to fret, all the alarmists use the same jargon and none of them have any idea what feedback means, never mind positive feedback.

          re trapping heat, you said, “…trapping more heat within the system”. Where is this system? And how does it trap heat?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ps. in a negative feedback system there can only be losses. A signal is sent back to a source from an out put to diminish the input signal. The same feedback can be used with an amplifier to reduce certain frequencies in the amplifier bandwidth.

            Positive feedback is used to enhance an output signal. It is impossible to enhance an output signal without the use of an amplifier.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo, You insist on defining “feedback” as requiring an electrical amplifier process, which is not necessary. As I pointed out, the snow/sea-ice albedo process within the climate system (as in: within the air/ocean/land system), acts to reduce the reflected sunlight as warming occurs. That’s because as the seasonal coverage area is reduced, the result would be higher temperatures. Your reply distorts that process, ignoring the effect of warming temperatures. If you can’t even understand that, you better give it up.

            Yes, I wrote:

            …trapping more heat within the system

            Notice the quote marks, which you left out. I was referring to your definition of “heat”, as in “heat content” or temperature. As the atmosphere warms, from any cause, it’s heat content increases.

            Not to mention again that you still haven’t explained what happens to the energy lofted higher into the atmosphere via convection. You only claim that the air is cooled via “dissipation” without describing the physics of “dissipation”. Atmospheric physics tells us that the only way for that energy to leave the Earth is via thermal IR radiation from greenhouse gases. Learn some physics.

  72. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…”I made no claim as to if the reduction was a feedback. I just observed that you tried to mislead everybody”.

    ***

    In your unbounded arrogance, you failed to explain how I mislead everyone. I claimed there is no such thing as positive feedback in the atmosphere and I proved my point using the definition of feedback based on the equation for it. You failed to address any of that.

    It’s obvious that you have an issue with me personally. You seem to have issues with me as an undergraduate understanding more about physics than you, with a master’s degree.

    Rather childish but not uncommon with someone on an ego-trip because he has a higher degree.

    • bobdroege says:

      So Gordon, when will you get your college degree?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I have several of them Bob, they come in boxes of cereal. Can I send you a few?

        • bobdroege says:

          Then why did you refer to yourself as an undergraduate?

          I guess your English is as good as your science and math.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Bob d…

            1)Graduate usually means a degree beyond the bachelor degree. I was never a graduate student.

            2)Why is this so important to you? There are good reasons for what I have done in my life and I don’t want to spend my time online discussing or explaining them. I took the road less traveled.

            I participate on Roy’s blog to discuss science, especially related to climate science. I don’t care if someone has a grade 6 education, if that person speaks the truth about science and someone with a Ph.D misrepresents the truth, that does not make the grade sixer automatically wrong.

            Conversely, there is no reason why anyone who applies himself/herself judicially to a personal study program outside university cannot become as proficient, or more proficient, in certain areas of a discipline. I fully understand the benefit of following a formal line of study at university but it seems to be the opinion of many people that university is the only way to learn a subject.

            There is a major downfall to a university curriculum in that a student is forced to accept the dogma presented by that university. I think it’s fair to say that most people graduating with a bachelor’s don’t know their butts from a hole in the ground and that is because they have never been encouraged to think for themselves.

            Thinking for oneself is an acquired trait. Some people acquire it while others are happy to plod on appealing to authority and not rocking the boat.

            3)I hate appeals to authority. I use that device in a way when I claim Clausius said this, or Newton said that. However, I do not stand on the appeal itself, rather I try to explain the science as I understand it.

            Someone else can take my reference to Clausius and test my interpretation. Thus far, those who have done that have cherry-picked words from Clausius that misconstrue his meaning. Others have bypassed him altogether and invented nonsense about net energies balancing, hence bypassing the 2nd law.

          • bobdroege says:

            I ask that seriously because you don’t understand the second law, as taught in various university programs in Chemistry and Physics fields.

            And you have been passing yourself off as an engineer, but you lack the knowledge that one would have gained if they did the work, took the classes, suffered the tests etc.

            Quantum Mechanics has gone way past the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom.

            Chemistry is not for everyone, and trying to learn it by thinking for yourself just won’t cut it.

            In a modern chemistry curriculum, you learn by doing the experiments and studying the results.

            So you don’t come up with the answer that the Moon’s phases are caused by the Earth’s shadow.

            You know you said that at least twice.

            So get your degree and then you can criticize a college curriculum.

            Till then, stop making shit up.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bob d…you’re nothing but an ornery old man. You have not the slightest clue what the 2nd law means because you can’t think for yourself. The average person on the street could tell you that heat can only flow from hot to cold and that is essentially the 2nd law.

            As far as my engineering prowess, you shoot off your mouth a lot but you have never…not once…given a satisfactory scientific rebuttal to anything I have claimed. You make it up as you go along because you lack the scientific basis to create a scientific argument, even in chemistry.

            And no, quantum mechanics nor quantum theory has changed much from the Bohr model. In fact, in chemistry undergrad classes they still teach it, albeit with modifications that have been added to allow for multiple electron/proton atoms. Organic chemistry theory is presented based on electron bonds yet you are too stupid to understand that atoms are bonded by electrons (covalent) and electron charges (ionic) to form molecules.

            You are even too stupid to understand what the shadows on the Moon mean. The same face always points to Earth, therefore the Sun shines on that face at different angles. That can only happen with curvilinear translation without local rotation.

            I’ll keep presenting science based on the scientific method. You can behave like a crotchety old man who never understood the basics of chemistry or physics. I’ll bet you think The Ph. in Ph. D is a reference to acidity level.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bob d…”I ask that seriously because you don’t understand the second law, as taught in various university programs in Chemistry and Physics fields”.

            ***

            Has it not occurred to you that what is being taught is wrong?

            In electrical engineering courses we were taught that electrical current flows positive to negative, which is a lie. That’s a convention developed around 1025 and it has never been corrected.

            Students are taught today that time can dilate based solely on a thought experiment by Einstein. Th scientist who invented the atomic clock disagrees, claiming Einstein’s relativity is nothing more than uncorroborated thought experiments yet not many scientists today are willing to acknowledge that. To disagree with Einstein is verboten, his legend carries on based on appeal to authority alone.

            It has gotten so bad that gravitational force is being denied and replaced with Einstein’s space-time theory. That’s pretty well how Einstein screwed up re time, he based his thought experiments on kinematics which don’t involve force bit is based on velocities and accelerations alone.

            Anyone who ignores force and mass while applying kinematics blindly is an idiot. When force an mass are re-instated, it becomes totally obvious that time can have no effect on anything, let alone dilate.

            Sorry, Bob, the truth is that many modern scientists are nothing more than arrogant, egocentric idiots. Big Bang, black holes, evolution theory, blackbody theory being practiced as a physical reality, S-B being applied to terrestrial temperatures, catastrophic AGW based on a 150 year old theory, etc. Much of modern science is nothing more than sci-fi.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            “Has it not occurred to you that what is being taught is wrong?”

            No, because I was not taught that way.

            I was taught through experimentation and observation.

            If you want electricity to flow with the electrons, you can join the Navy, they teach it that way.

            It’s just a convention.

            As for Einstein, check this out.

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

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            “The average person on the street could tell you that heat can only flow from hot to cold and that is essentially the 2nd law.”

            Yeah, because heat is defined that way, but that does not preclude energy flow from cold to hot at the same time as there is energy flow from hot to cold. The greenhouse effect does not violate the second law.

            And you need to stay in your lane.

            “Organic chemistry theory is presented based on electron bonds yet you are too stupid to understand that atoms are bonded by electrons (covalent) and electron charges (ionic) to form molecules.”

            Where have I said anything that contradicts the idea that covalent bonds form molecules?

            You know salt and other ionic crystals do not from molecules, right, or did you not take that chemistry class, usually a prereq for organic chemistry?

            “That can only happen with curvilinear translation without local rotation.”

            You keep getting confused on this one, curvilinear translation does not allow changes in orientation, which the Moon does change orientation as it revolves around the Earth. So an acceptable description of the Moons orbit is curvilinear translation plus rotation.

            That’s enough for now

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            What I find very interesting is what you attribute to scientists…
            “the truth is that many modern scientists are nothing more than arrogant, egocentric idiots.”

            That aggressive statement sounds just like you. You are arrogant, egocentric and clearly an idiot on all things science.

            You further show you are and arrogant stupid poster with the next line.

            YOUR shining stupidity: “Big Bang, black holes, evolution theory, blackbody theory being practiced as a physical reality, S-B being applied to terrestrial temperatures, catastrophic AGW based on a 150 year old theory, etc. Much of modern science is nothing more than sci-fi.”

            Most those theories have very strong supporting evidence. They are not like your idiotic made up ideas and crackpot ideas from a few lunatics. You embrace all stupid crackpots and elevate them to high status (like the evil Lanka and Duesberg both evil demented humans).

            You reject all evidence of the theories you reject. I have tried to educate you. I guess I have to be a conspiracy loon with a two-bit idea to get you to believe it.

            The truth, Gordon is you lie all the time. You never have taken an advanced physics class of any kind or you would not come up with endless stupid and incorrect ideas.

    • RLH says:

      GR: You are just a self aggrandizing idiot.

  73. Go Fish says:

    RLH, Beendonebefore, gbaikie, bobroege and any other fools on this blog, did your mommies and daddies have to teach you how to disobey or did that come naturally? The answer is clear and is incontrovertible empirical evidence. By nature, you are a son of Adam, and or, a daughter of Eve, since you go the way of a son or daughter of disobedience. You are unable to avoid what you do by nature since you are a descendant of the first created family!

    No ape was your precursor! Imagine the amount of “belief” it takes to believe such nonsense by so called rational logical beings!

    I may go away for a while so you think by ignoring me that will make me cease and desist. But I will be back.

    • bobdroege says:

      Thump Thump Thump, put your bible in your back pocket so the door doesn’t hurt so much when it hits you.

      CUL8ER

    • gbaikie says:

      “did your mommies and daddies have to teach you how to disobey or did that come naturally?”

      I believe I was provoked.
      [And you could call that, teaching.]

      Also, it seems children commonly go thru a phase [maybe lasting days or longer] where they are overly fond of the word, no.

      Let’s see, Google:
      “Somewhere around age two, many toddlers discover the awesome power behind one very short word: no! And oh boy, do they love to use it!”

      I think they do, indeed, love it very much.

      Though of course, they can have a maniacal appearance.

    • WizGeek says:

      “Go Fish” added to the DeCrufter. For taking the bait and adding to the background noise, the following are on notice: bobdroege and gbaikie, plus (for being snide, snipey, rude, and condescending as well,) “E. Swanson” and “Gordon Robertson”.

      https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hclipzie2ycrpoo/AADQpHxvvrOMbtYmsRvJ4z6ua?dl=0

  74. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…”You wrote:
    How does a gas trap a gas, which means atoms trapping atoms?
    I have no idea what you are referring to”.

    ***

    You talked about heat being trapped. Heat is a property of mass, in particular, atoms and molecules. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.

    To trap heat, you have to trap the atoms, like the glass does in a greenhouse. There is no way to trap heat in the atmosphere.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swannie…I see some fancy goalpost moving going on here and I’m not falling for it. You suggested heat can be trapped and now you are waffling.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Gordo, the molecules in the atmosphere are “trapped” to the Earth by gravity. As the temperature increases, the “heat content” of those molecules is increased, which, in some sense, represents in increase in the internal energy within the system. You are arguing semantics, while continuing to ignore your failures in physics.

          As you have pointed out, vertical convection moves thermal energy from the surface and lower atmosphere to the upper layers. So, you must tell us, what is the physical mechanism which “dissipates” that energy from the atmosphere to deep space?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”the molecules in the atmosphere are “trapped” to the Earth by gravity. As the temperature increases, the “heat content” of those molecules is increased, which, in some sense, represents in increase in the internal energy within the system”.

            ***

            I don’t think ‘trapped’ is the right word here because there is a pressure gradient. Naturally, air is more dense near the surface meaning there are more molecules of air per unit volume. If the heat was trapped then heated air could not rise.

            That is not what is meant when alarmists claim heat is trapped by CO2 or WV. They are inferring that CO2 and WV act like the glass in a greenhouse. It’s a bad metaphor.

            The air near the surface is 99% nitrogen and oxygen and neither can absorb terrestrial IR or emit it. Therefore the lower atmosphere is warmed by conduction from the surface. That heated air rises, more so in the Tropics than the North Pole, but as it rises, N2/O2 cannot radiate the heat away through radiative dissipation.

            The theory that all that heat is transferred to a trace amount of CO2 and WV then radiated to space strikes me as being seriously dumb. As the heated air rises, it thins naturally, and by thinning it dissipates the heat naturally. While the N2/O2 retain the heat, that is the cause of the alleged greenhouse effect.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo repeats his usual idiot physics:

            The theory that all that heat is transferred to a trace amount of CO2 and WV then radiated to space strikes me as being seriously dumb. As the heated air rises, it thins naturally, and by thinning it dissipates the heat naturally.

            Yes, the warmer air, heated by convection and radiation from the surface, rises in the atmosphere. That process is the result of lifting as surrounding cooler air pushes it upwards, just as water “lifts” a boat because the boat is less dense that the water it displaces. You continue to fail to understand that the upper air was once near the surface and was previously lifted to higher levels, where it cools by emitting IR thermal radiation to deep space. Those emissions are the “dissipation” to which you refer. If there were no energy lost to deep space, the upper air would not be cooled and there would no longer be any convection.

            Learn some physics.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie raves on like the pretentious, self-righteous, alarmist he is.

            Swannie, it is your AGW theory that claims only CO2 and WV can radiate to space since nitrogen and oxygen cannot radiate. Now you seem to be intimating that N2/O2 can radiate to space.

            Which is it, Swannie? If N2/O2 can radiate as well as CO2/WV then it can radiate from the surface up. There goes your AGW and GHE theories.

            Personally, I think any gas subjected to the coldness of space will dissipate its heat via radiation. It is the alarmist eco-weenies who preach they can’t. Even so, as gases reduce in density as they rise, they will also cool naturally.

          • E. Swanson says:

            So, Gordo, where did I claim that N2 or O2 to be strong emitters? True, O2 emits in the microwave range, which is the source of the radiant energy measured by the MSU/AMSU instruments. The largest source of outgoing IR from the atmosphere are due to the known greenhouse gases.

            So, when are you going to let us in on your big secret? What’s the physics behind your “dissipation” by the atmosphere? Of course, as the pressure of a gas is reduced it will cool, but the surrounding gas is already cooled and that process does not move energy out of teh atmosphere toward to deep space. If you can’t present a credible alternative process to greenhouse gas emissions, you are stuck with the accepted physics.

  75. Gordon Robertson says:

    bob d…re direction of electrical current flow. So, you were taught that current flows positive to negative, and like a big, blithering ninny, you accepted that without a challenge.

    1)Consider a diode vacuum tube. It has an electrically-heated filament that boils off electrons into a vacuum and they form an electron cloud around the filament. Some diodes have a separate cathode, which is a thin metal cylinder around the filament, which collects the electrons in the cloud, but some use the filament as cathode. That’s the model I am using.

    The diode also has an anode, another thin metal cylinder sitting around the filament, all inside an evacuated glass or metal container. If a high positive potential (typically 400+ volts)is applied to the anode, it draws the electrons to it forming an electron current through the vacuum to the anode.

    If a load resistor is applied to the anode (plate) through a plate resistor, from the +ve terminal of the power supply, there is a voltage drop across the plate resistor FROM NEGATIVE TO POSITIVE. At the cathode end, current enters the cathode from the -ve power supply lead.

    All moving-coil voltmeters are designed to measure current flowing from their -ve terminal (black lead) to their +ve terminal (red lead). It’s the only way the needle will deflect due to the requirements of the current flowing through the magnet coil attached to the needle.

    There are no +ve charges flowing the other way. The only positive charges are the protons in the nucleus and they are bound in place. All that can move are the electrons in the valence bands of the atoms making up the conductor.

    If current flows positive to negative, as you and the other idiots claim, what is flowing from the diode’s positive anode to the negative cathode? Nothing!!! Nada!!!

    2)Consider a similar setup on a cathode ray tube used on an oscilloscope or an old B&W or colour picture tube. Electrons are boiled off a filament as in the diode tube and drawn toward a very high positive potential that can reach +40,000 volts on a colour tube.

    As the electrons are accelerated toward the anode, which is a metallic shield built into the frontal sides of the picture tube, they are focused into a beam by metal cylinders with negative charges on them. The beam is swept vertically and horizontally by plates in an oscilloscope CRT or coils in a TV picture tube.

    According to your dumb theory, still taught in EE schools at universities, there is something else flowing from the +40,000 volt anode in a colour TV to the filament which is spitting out electrons. No one knows what the heck that something might be, that can flow through a vacuum, but they are satisfied to sit their smugly in their sci-fi world screwing everyone over while ignoring the fact that everyone taught electronics outside of university learns that current flows -ve to +ve.

    I can see now why you are so damned stupid when it comes to the 2nd law.

    ********************
    “because heat is defined that way, but that does not preclude energy flow from cold to hot at the same time as there is energy flow from hot to cold. The greenhouse effect does not violate the second law”.

    **

    Like the ‘ijits’ who teach there is a mysterious ‘something’ flowing from positive to negative in an electrical circuit, you are now claiming there is an equally mysterious ‘something’ flowing in the opposite direction from the thermal energy described in the 2nd law.

    Name the mysterious energy!!!

    What damned energy is flowing cold to hot at the same time thermal energy is flowing hot to cold?

    Get a grip, man.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      I was trying to explain that I was taught both way a with regards to voltage and electron flow, it’s just a convention that voltage was discovered before electrons.

      It’s no big deal.

      Now this

      “What damned energy is flowing cold to hot at the same time thermal energy is flowing hot to cold?”

      We are on a site discussing the greenhouse effect, lets leave whether or not it exists for now.

      Two blackbodies near each other, both radiate light from one to the other, the medium of that energy exchange being light or photons, either way.

      You do get that light can transfer energy?

      That’s the energy flowing both ways.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bob d…”Two blackbodies near each other, both radiate light from one to the other, the medium of that energy exchange being light or photons, either way”.

        ***

        Blackbodies are hypothetical and nothing in the theory treats two bodies of different temperature radiating to each other. When Kircheoff put forward his blackbody theory, it was to deal with BBs in thermal equilibrium. He offered that theory before Clausius had developed the 2nd law and his concept of entropy.

        Theoretical blackbodies are approached by bodies as hot as the Sun. Suggesting that the boiling electrons in the Sun will absorb EM from colder objects is sheer bs.

        Same with Tyndall’s electrically-heated platinum filament at temperatures between 575C and 1200C. There is no way that filament is going to absorb EM from bodies at temperatures below 575C.

        Blackbody theory was formulated before the electron was discovered and before Bohr discovered the relationship between the electron and EM radiation/absorp-tion. The theory should be scrapped and not used to warp the minds of unwitting university students.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Gordo wrote:

          …Tyndall’s electrically-heated platinum filament at temperatures between 575C and 1200C. There is no way that filament is going to absorb EM from bodies at temperatures below 575C.

          Here’s a slightly different version of the green plate experiment. Place that platinum filament inside an enclosure with a high vacuum and apply enough power to achieve some high temperature, say, 900C. Now, surround the filament with a tube such that it is in the middle, again using the same enclosure with a high vacuum. Apply the same power to the filament and tell us what the temperature of the filament turns out to be.

          You can do it, you are an electrical engineer, right?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            It’s an interesting problem but it may already be covered in an electronic vacuum tube. The tungsten filament is heated by a small a/c current and glows a reddish colour. The filament is located in an evacuated glass tube, hence the name vacuum tube.

            A tungsten filament has an operating temperature of about 2500C. Of course, it’s not possible to isolate the filament from the outside world so that heat is largely dissipated through the mounting posts and subsequent conduction to the chassis and the glass. I have seen glass get so hot it bubbles.

            I realize your problem is highly theoretical but I don’t see what you’re getting at. Enclosing the filament in a second evacuated tube should make no difference if it is able to pass IR freely. If it can’t the glass will likely heat through its mounting posts and having such a body temperature close to the filament will affect its ability to dissipate heat. Therefore, the filament temperature should rise a bit.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo cranks out another red herring instead of a reasoned reply using physics. Where did I suggest the use of an electronic vacuum tube? I wrote “enclosure with a high vacuum”, which might be something like the bell jar I used in my Green Plate Demo. Nor did I suggest increasing the filament temperature to 2500C, which would radiate at the low end of the visible spectrum.

            Of course, one could use a simple diode vacuum tube with a tubular anode by breaking the glass envelope and placing it within a separate enclosure with high vacuum. Operate it first to achieve some set temperature of the cathode and then remove the anode and repeat to compare the cathode’s temperature without the anode.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”Where did I suggest the use of an electronic vacuum tube? I wrote enclosure with a high vacuum,”

            ***

            You did not suggest using a vacuum tube, it was me who suggested it had similarities to your evacuated chamber.

            Anyway, you were trying to set me up for a gotcha and I am still wondering what pseudo-scientific point you are trying to make.

            Your Green Plate fiasco only proved that a heated body whose radiation is cut down due to a plate being raised in front of it will heat up. You claimed the heating was due to heat being transferred from a cooler plate to a hotter plate, a direct contravention of the 2nd law.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo is still stuck on his 19th century definition of the 2nd Law, continuing to ignore more than a century of scientific and engineering progress since.

            Clausius (1850) wrote:

            It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body.

            My experimental demonstration of the Green Plate Effect does not violate the 2nd Law, since the process involved is not a heat engine. The net transfer from the heated plate thru the green plate to the surrounding environment is from hot to cold.

            There’s no “new” energy source, only that input to the blue plate. Adding an IR radiation shield to a heat engine would provide more useful output, just like adding insulation to a boiler and the pipes of a steam power plant would result in greater output, thus increasing the conversion efficiency of the system.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”Clausius (1850) wrote:

            It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”.

            ***

            Swannie…you missed the main definition of the 2nd law by Clausius who stated clearly that heat can NEVER be transferred BY ITS ON MEANS from a colder body to a hotter body.

            That definition stands today despite the attempts of modernists to talk around it by introducing such pseudo-scientific terms as ‘balance of energies’.

            The problem with your Green Plate experiment is that you took it on with a biased view generated by Eli Rabbett who is seriously confused about the 2nd law. Gerlich and Tscheuschner schooled him on the second law, explaining that any balance of energy applied to the 2nd law must be a balance of thermal energies, or heat. Rabbett (Josh Halpern) still clings to the notion that EM can flow from cold to hot and increase the temperature of a hotter body.

            That’s one basis of the AGW argument, that heat can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a hotter surface to raise the temperature of the surface beyond the temperature it is heated by the Sun. You started out with a faulty premise and tried to proof it. Why you abandoned the 2nd law is beyond me.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo, You continue to misinterpret Clausius. Here’s a quote from the G&T paper, page 75:

            Second law of thermodynamics:
            – Heat cannot move itself from a cooler body into a warmer one.
            – A heat transfer from a cooler body into a warmer one cannot happen without compensation.

            A Fctitious heat engine which works in this way is called a perpetuum mobile of the second kind.

            and:

            Figure 31: Any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high
            temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist

            Please notice that the quotes applies to heat engines, not to insulation or radiation shields.

            In the caption to Figure 32, G&T then simply assert that the Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd Law. The rest of their paper ignores radiation heat transfer of gasses, and wandering around in the weeds with no further proof. It’s all BS, if you ask me.

            We are 150 years past Clausius and much has been learned. Your argument would also apply to insulation. We now know that adding insulation can cause an externally powered body to exhibit a higher temperature and that IR radiation shields will also produce the same effect. Are you denying that increasing insulation can warm an externally powered object?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”We now know that adding insulation can cause an externally powered body to exhibit a higher temperature and that IR radiation shields will also produce the same effect. Are you denying that increasing insulation can warm an externally powered object?”

            ***

            Insulation has nothing to do with the 2nd law which addresses the direction of heat transfer, including heat transfer via radiation. Clausius did stipulate conditions in the 2nd law when he used the phrase ‘by its own means’. He was saying essentially that energy does not naturally move from a region of higher potential energy to a region of lower potential energy by its own means.

            Insulation can only slow the rate of heat transfer, not its direction. Your claim that applying insulation can cause an externally powered body to exhibit a higher temperature is misleading. A higher temperature than what? Insulation will not add heat to a system that it does not have already.

            If you stick a thermometer in the heated body and allow it to reach a certain temperature while the heated body is dissipating heat through all possible means available to it, then you apply insulation, the temperature on the thermometer should rise. That’s because the insulation lowers the body’s rate of heat dissipation to a cooler environment hence the temperature rises.

            You are claiming, in essence, that the cooler insulation is transferring heat from a colder body to a warmer body, which is wrong.

            IR shields produce the same effect. They lower the rate of heat dissipation via radiation, which other R-rated insulations cannot do. They affect only conduction and convection.

            The notion that radiative heat transfer occurs in both directions between bodies of different temperature is simply wrong. There is no heat transferred physically by radiation. Heat in a hotter body is converted to EM and that heat is lost. If that EM reaches a cooler body, it can be absorbed and converted back to heat, which raises the temperature of the cooler body. However, that process cannot work in reverse, where EM from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer body, raising its temperature.

            The 150 years between the 2nd law stated by Clausius and now has nothing to do with anything. The laws of Newton still hold at a macro level nearly 400 years later, and to a certain extent at the atomic level. A contemporary of Clausius, Kircheoff, stated laws applying to electrical circuits that still hold.

            The only thing that has changed re the 2nd law is a total misunderstanding of the law by certain modern scientists.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo delivers another rant from his canned delisions about physics, writing:

            If that EM reaches a cooler body, it can be absorbed and converted back to heat, which raises the temperature of the cooler body. However, that process cannot work in reverse, where EM from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer body, raising its temperature.

            Gordo continues to ignore reality, as always. Of course, there’s lots of evidence that the IR Radiation from the cooler body is absorbed by the warmer one and the result is the warmer body’s temperature increases. Gordo still hasn’t told us what happens to that IR radiation if it is NOT absorbed, other than to wave his hands and jump up and down in a tantrum, saying over and over, “It violates the 2nd Law”.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…continued at end of posts. Getting to hard to find the beginning of this one.

  76. Gordon Robertson says:

    bob d…”curvilinear translation does not allow changes in orientation, which the Moon does change orientation as it revolves around the Earth. So an acceptable description of the Moons orbit is curvilinear translation plus rotation”.

    ***

    I have already gone into that in detail. If you have a body moving in a straight line, that is rectilinear translation. If the body begins to deviate into a curved line, it becomes curvilinear translation.

    I described an airliner flying at 35,000 feet with constant velocity. It is flying around the Equator and it’s bottom side always faces the Earth. If it was flying above a flat surface, parallel to that surface, we’d have no problem describing its motion as rectilinear translation.

    What’s so different when it follows the curvature of the Earth, and its motion becomes curvilinear translation? It’s still not rotating about an axis and it is keeping the same face pointed to the Earth. Yet, the orientation of that face changes through 360 degrees wrt the stars as the plane orbits the Equator.

    As long as the airliner maintains a constant velocity and there are no updrafts or downdrafts, the lift on its airfoils will maintain the same altitude. The pilot does not have to adjust for anything, the airliner will simply follow the curvature of the Earth because there is an equilibrium between the airliner’s lift and the force of gravity.

    The Moon doesn’t have to worry about lift. Gravity is not strong enough to accelerate it toward Earth, it simply holds it at the same altitude. The Moon’s linear momentum does the rest, just as the airliner’s linear momentum keeps it in orbit.

    Basic engineering, Bob.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      It is curvilinear translation only if it keeps its orientation in the same direction.

      The Moon doesn’t do that, it changes its orientation as it revolves around the Earth.

      “Gravity is not strong enough to accelerate it toward Earth, it simply holds it at the same altitude. ”

      No simply wrong, the Moon doesn’t orbit at a constant altitude.

      The altitude changes from 360 thousand kilometers to 405 thousand kilometers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bob d…”It is curvilinear translation only if it keeps its orientation in the same direction”.

        ***

        Not so. amigo. Even Newton commented that the Moon’s instantaneous motion is rectilinear and that ‘something’ changes that motion to curvilinear.

        I don’t want to get right into this again but suffice it to say that a body exhibiting rectilinear motion has all parts of the body moving in parallel. There is a velocity requirement that I not pertinent at the moment.

        If I have a body moving along a rail in a straight line and I can move the rail so it bends slowly into a curve, what has changed? Nothing. All parts are still moving in parallel at any one instant.

        If one side of the body is always pointed to the left it will always point left with rectilinear translation. If I bend the track into a circle or ellipse, so that the direction left is pointing inwardly, the same side will always point in. That side will also change orientation just like the Moon.

        With regard to the Moon’s altitude, I went into why it changes in in an ellipse in detail. There are only two points on an elliptical orbit where gravity acts directly on the near face. That’s at either end of the major axis. In between, only a component of gravity is operating and that very slightly reduces gravitational force on the Moon. With gravity reduced, the Moon’s linear momentum has a greater effect and elongates the orbit.

        The Moon cannot change its linear momentum/velocity without a force being applied in the tangential direction. It does change speed, however, since it’s momentum ratio to gravity changes slightly. That means it covers a greater distance at the same linear velocity during certain parts of the orbit.

        • bobdroege says:

          Gordon,

          “There are only two points on an elliptical orbit where gravity acts directly on the near face.”

          So you can turn gravity on and off?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            I said act ‘directly’, not off. I meant, in a straight line.

          • bobdroege says:

            Still incorrect as gravity always acts directly between any two bodies.

            “The Moon cannot change its linear momentum/velocity without a force being applied in the tangential direction. ”

            The Moon will change its linear momentum with any gravitational force applied to it, which is constantly happening, resulting in the Moon constantly accelerating.

            Ask any engineer.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bob d…”Still incorrect as gravity always acts directly between any two bodies”.

            ***

            Ask any engineer…well OK, here a response from an engineer. I have donned my red engineering jacket from university with the words…Engineers – UBC…emblazoned on the back.

            Tut, tut, Bob. We learned in first year engineering that a body rolling or sliding down a ramp under the influence of gravity has only a component of gravity acting on it and the component depends on the sin/cos of the angle, depending on whether you reference it to horizontal or vertical.

            A body sliding down an incline with a 45 degree angle, neglecting resistance for now, has a gravitational acceleration component of sin 45 degrees = 0.707 (9.8m/s^2) = 6.93 m/s^2 acting on it.

            Same with the Moon. We are interested only in the radial force acting on the near face of the Moon. We know no other gravitational component can slow the linear momentum of the Moon and we are interested on the force acting on the near face, that diverts the Moon into an elliptical orbit.

            The action of gravity on the Moon’s near face varies between each end of the elliptical major axis. It’s not much but it is enough to allow the Moon’s considerable momentum to elongate the orbital path.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            Put the stolen jacket back where you found it.

            So with you ramps and slides, does gravity act on the body the whole time or not?

            Remember you said this

            “There are only two points on an elliptical orbit where gravity acts directly on the near face.”

            The Earth’s gravity acts on the Moon 100% of the time, and causes a force on the Moon which accelerates the Moon, changing its velocity constantly.

            And that force is not tangential to the Moon’s motion, it is at right angles to that tangent.

            You got that?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            BTW, Bob, you did not specify your work in chemistry. Was it sweeping the lab floor or washing petri dishes?

            Gravity acts vertically on a mass on a ramp but the ramp prevents it causing a full acceleration of the mass at 9.8 m/s^2. It can only act on the mass with a fraction of the acceleration and that depends on the angle of the ramp.

            You should know this stuff, it’s very basic physics.

            Since the Moon has only linear velocity it is always instantaneously moving along a line tangential to the orbital curve. Therefore, the near face, which always points to the Earth at the principal focal point, along a radial line perpendicular to the tangent line.

            Remember, the Moon is constantly trying to break free and it is the varying action of gravity that creates the elliptical orbital path with the Moon’s constant linear velocity.

            Gravity has no component in the direction of the Moon’s velocity to change it.

            Gravity has enough strength to hold the Moon, Since it acts always on the near face its ‘hold’ depends on the angle a radial line from the Moon’s centre through the near face makes with the Earth’s centre at the principle focal point.

            The Moon is always trying to fly in a straight line and the action of gravity is to re-direct the direction of a velocity vector representing the Moon’s instantaneous linear velocity.

            The orbital path shape depends on the ratio between the gravitational component and the lunar momentum. The angle of the radial line from the Moon’s centre through the near face varies slightly as the ratio changes. The variation also produces libration.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gorson,

            “BTW, Bob, you did not specify your work in chemistry. Was it sweeping the lab floor or washing petri dishes?”

            Oh but I did Gordon.

            I used to make batches of antimatter, five each day.

            But now I am involve with the configuration and validation of equipment used to test drugs and make sure they have the right amount of antimatter as well as impurities less than the specified amounts.

            Now lets address everything you know squat about

            “Since the Moon has only linear velocity it is always instantaneously moving along a line tangential to the orbital curve. ”

            Nope, you need to add both angular momentum due to its orbit, and angular momentum due to is constantly changing orientation.

            “Remember, the Moon is constantly trying to break free and it is the varying action of gravity that creates the elliptical orbital path with the Moons constant linear velocity.”

            Nope, the Moon’s linear velocity is not constant, it varies in accordance with Kepler’s laws.

            “Gravity has no component in the direction of the Moons velocity to change it.”

            So what, it doesn’t have to have a component in the direction of the Moon’s velocity, a component at 90 degrees to the Moon’s velocity is enough to change it.

            “The Moon is always trying to fly in a straight line and the action of gravity is to re-direct the direction of a velocity vector representing the Moons instantaneous linear velocity.”

            Redirecting the straight line velocity of the Moon is what Engineer’s would call accleration.

            Do you want to be an engineer?

            Sorry Charlie, it’s too late.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            get along little droege….Bob, best you stick to your delusions about antimatter, your understanding of the Moon’s orbital mechanics is absent.

            “Nope, you need to add both angular momentum due to its orbit, and angular momentum due to is constantly changing orientation”.

            ***

            If that’s what you think, you should try to get Newton’s Principia amended. Newton claimed the Moon moved with rectilinear motion. In order to give it an angular momentum, a force would be required that acted in a circular fashion to give it that momentum. That would mean attaching it to the Earth via a rigid mass to hold it in a circular motion, then it could never move along an elliptical path, unless the connecting rod was not so rigid.

            There is no way to move the Moon in an angular direction and keep it on that path. It is always moving straight and gravity serves only to keep it relatively at the same altitude.

            ****************

            “the Moons linear velocity is not constant, it varies in accordance with Keplers laws”.

            ***

            Which law? Kepler knew nothing about the mechanics of orbital motion, it was Newton who worked them out. All Kepler did was synthesize the data gathered by Tycho Brahe and mathematically calculate certain relationships.

            Not one of Kepler’s laws address the motion of the Moon. All h said was :

            1)The planets orbit the Sun in elliptical orbits.

            2)an imaginary line joining the the planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas in equal times. That addresses the relative speed of the planet, not its local linear velocity, which must remain constant. Velicity and speed are not necessarily the same thing.

            3)the speed of a planet increases with the radius of its orbit. Still nothing. Does not address the instantaneous linear velocity of the Moon or any planet.

            The linear velocity of the Moon is always constant since there is not force to change its velocity/momentum.

            ******************

            “So what, it doesnt have to have a component in the direction of the Moons velocity, a component at 90 degrees to the Moons velocity is enough to change it”.

            ***

            Just plain dumb, Bob. How does a component of force acting at 90 degrees change the tangential velocity?

            *****************

            “Redirecting the straight line velocity of the Moon is what Engineers would call accleration”.

            ***

            I have seen that claimed and I have already explained why it is wrong. A vector quantity’s direct is specified by a unit vector with scalar quantity = 1. It is the scalar multiplier attached to a vector that multiplies the 1 to give a value to the vector. Changing the direction of the unit vector without changing the scalar is not acceleration.

            When you multiply change velocity vectors to produce acceleration, you take the scalar quantities and apply those to a matrix. Using matrix math, or vector algebra, you can change the resultant quantities of vectors. If those scalars remain constant, there can be no change in velocity and no change in acceleration.

            The change in the orbit is a change in speed and that is related to the angular velocity of the imaginary line between Earth and Moon that Kepler talked about. The speed change has nothing to do with the Moon’s linear velocity. The change in speed is related to a change in ratio between gravitational force and the Moon’s linear momentum. It is slight changes in the gravitational force component affecting the near face that gives the lunar momentum more effect in determining the shape of the orbit.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            Start here

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

            And you got Kepler’s third law wrong

            “The square of a planet’s orbital period is proportional to the cube of the length of the semi-major axis of its orbit.”

            is different from the bullshit you posted

            “3)the speed of a planet increases with the radius of its orbit. Still nothing.”

            Actually, the speed of a planet decreases with the radius of its orbit, here is some data:

            Pluto 4.743 km/sec average orbital speed
            Mercury 47.36 km/sec average orbital speed

            Now which has the larger radius of it orbit, Pluto or Mercury.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bob d…”Pluto 4.743 km/sec average orbital speed…”

            ***

            Orbital speed is not tangential velocity. If you look at Kepler II again, it talks about an imaginary line between the Sun and a planet sweeping out equal areas in equal times. The speed is the angular velocity of that radial line and I told you why it varies.

            But I ask you first, why would the angular speed of that line vary? The planet is not following a predetermined path, it is creating the path based on the ratio of its momentum to the Sun’s gravitational force, which varies slightly.

            You are failing to grasp the example I gave of the effect of gravity on a mass sliding down an incline. Although gravity still acts on the mass in a vertical direction, the acceleration of the mass is not vertical. It is constrained by the angle of the incline. Therefore only a component of gravity affects the acceleration.

            With the Moon, gravity is acting only on the near face, since that is the side always facing the Earth, hence the side affected by gravity the most. With a circular orbit, gravity would always act perpendicular to the face but in the case of the Moon, whose momentum is a bit too much for gravity to handle, the momentum stretches the orbit into a slight ellipse.

            As it does that, gravity no longer acts directly on the near face, as with the mass on the incline, and only a component of gravity acts. That allows the lunar momentum to have a greater effect determining the shape of the orbit. The angle is very small therefore the component of gravity acting almost full strength. The ‘almost’ aspect allows lunar momentum to have a greater effect.

            You spinners are making a mountain out of a molehill. This is simple stuff to visualize and you are obfuscating it beyond recognition.

            You cannot look at this problem as a pre=determined orbital path that the Moon must follow. It’s a dynamic problem where the orbit is created on the fly. The orbit is a balance between Earth’s gravity and the constant, linear lunar momentum. The momentum cannot vary but gravity can, and does.

            And no, it’s not a matter of turning gravity on and off. It’s always on and always near full strength. At either end of the major axis, the line of sight between Earth and the Moon is straight on. In between, gravity acts on the near-face at various angles and that affects the strength, albeit slightly.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            Great,

            “The orbit is a balance between Earths gravity and the constant, linear lunar momentum.”

            Momentum is the vector quantity of mass times the vector velocity.

            The Moon’s velocity does vary with the changes in orbital speed and the direction of the velocity vector.

            So the Moon’s momentum is not constant.

            Get a grip man

  77. Gordon Robertson says:

    Something that escaped me completely that I should have noticed. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation has a proportionality between EM radiation and temperature of T^4.

    If we plot the first few elements of y = x^4 we get this…

    x =0…1…2…3…4…5….100…1000

    y = x^4 =

    0…1…16…81…256…625…10,000…1,000,000,000 (billion)

    If we take the x values as temperatures in C, starting at 0c, we can see zero radiation at 0C. Somehow, Stefan used a proportionality constant that fudges those temperatures so radiation at 0C is significant.

    The constant is 5.67 x 10^-8 W/m^2.K4

    The Stefan equation is EM = sigma.T^4

    If you graph the values above for x = y^4, it is apparent that the graph swing sharply from a near-vertical line through 0. By using fancy numbers and absolute temperatures, Stefan has managed to make it appear as if ice has a significant EM emission of around 330 W/m^2.

    It is explained well at the following link and the author shows how S-B has been faked for lower temperatures.

    http://nov79.com/gbwm/sbc.html

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Want to be clear that I fully understand it is not appropriate to apply 0C to the S-B equation. I am only trying to equate 0 degrees to EM output. Obviously, there should be none at at 0K = -273C.

      My point is that the EM proportionality at 0C = 273^4 = 5.5 million…5.5 x 10^6 plus. Given a solar temperature of 5,778K, the proportionality becomes 1.11 x 10^15.

      This suggests a proportional relationship over most of the S-B range. It gives ice a relationship with heat it does not have.

      I have already pointed out that it is inappropriate to rate EM in w/m^2. Watts is a measure of mechanical energy and is only equivalent to heat, not EM. EM can certainly be converted to heat, hence the w/m^2 designation, but ice cannot possibly produce 330 w/m^2 in anything warmer, or colder.

      There is something inherently wrong with applying S-B at terrestrial temperatures and the AGW theory depends on it.

      • bobdroege says:

        Gordon,

        Watts is joules per second.

        the energy in light is E = hv or Planck’s constant time the frequency of the light.

        Planck’s constant is 6.6 * 10^-34 Joules per Hertz

        So the amount of light hitting an object every second can be measured and the units are watts.

        I can’t believe you didn’t learn that in your engineering courses.

        Or in the physics prerequisites.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bob d…”Watts is joules per second.”

          ***

          The watt was originally derived from the horsepower and named in honour of James Watt, whose work led to the horsepower. One HP = 746 watts. The conversion to joules/second was done after the fact by Europeans.

          The horsepower is defined as the power required to move 33,000 pounds by 1 foot in 1 minute. The joule uses newtons in place of pounds and metres in place of feet.

          How many pounds or newtons can EM move per unit time?

          They taught us well, Bob.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo must have been asleep during the electric power class. Take 5 PV solar panels rated at more than 300 watts each operating in full sunlight and you could run a 2 hp electric motor.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            Here is quote that you might find interesting.

            “If we crunch the numbers for an average hurricane (1.5 cm/day of rain, circle radius of 665 km), we get a gigantic amount of energy: 6.0 x 10^14 Watts or 5.2 x 10^19 Joules/day! This is equivalent to about 200 times the total electrical generating capacity on the planet!”

            That’s the power of sunlight, and can be measured in watts or joules per time.

            Your stupid skillz are ringing the bell.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie and bob d…you guys are masters at missing the point. I asked how many pounds or newtons can EM move per unit time. I am trying to say there is no work or heat associated with EM. By itself, in space, it can do not heating and no work. Therefore, it is inappropriate to rate EM in w/m^2.

            EM can have an effect only when it is absorbed by electrons in a mass. When excited, the electrons do the work and produce the heat. One can calculate the potential effect a certain intensity of EM will have on a mass but declaring EM as already having that kinetic effect is wrong.

            All of the EM in the universe produces no heat and does no work as long as it is raw EM. Therefore applying a w/m^2 tag to it is plain silly.

            My point? If EM is rated in w/m^2, it can be, and is, confused with heat. Some people get the idea that heat is being transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures by EM radiation. It’s not. People also get the notion that heat is being transferred physically by radiation form one body to another.

            Not so. The real situation is that heat is lost in the hotter body as it radiates, and a separate, local heat is produced in the cooler body when it absorbs the EM from the hotter body. Heat dissipation and gain is local and the net difference is mistakenly referred to as a heat transfer.

            It is not possible for heat to be transferred through space by radiation. Heat requires mass to transfer and the molecules in air are too far apart for it to be transferred significantly via conduction. It can be transferred via convection, of course, but that would not work between the Sun and Earth.

            This confusion about EM and heat has lead to bad theories like AGW and confusion about the 2nd law. Heat can only be transferred hot to cold, by its own means, and EM has nothing to do with the 2nd law. A balance of energy involving EM is totally meaningless.

            So, with Swannies solar panel, and Bob’s hurricane, the watts are referring to electrical and mechanical energy and not EM. In other words, w/m^2 is being applied correctly.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ps. a perfect example that illustrates my point is referring to EM (IR) radiation as thermal radiation. The term ‘thermal radiation’ is an oxymoron. It suggests heat is being radiated through space, a misconception engendered by scientists in the 19th century who believed that to be the case.

            Heat cannot flow through space and it can never become radiation.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            What is the power source that powers hurricanes?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bob d …”What is the power source that powers hurricanes?”

            ***

            Is this a gotcha? It’s the Sun. It supplies the heat in the tropical oceans, via conversion from absorbed EM, and that heat drives the hurricane.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            Yeah, it’s a gotcha

            “Heat cannot flow through space and it can never become radiation.”

            I think you contradicted yourself.

            I can happen when you don’t have a clue.

            Hint: get a clue.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      Really unreal that you use a certifiable crackpot Gary Novak as a source of information. He is one wacko. He just makes up ideas and posts them. Does he have any evidence of any of his stupid ideas (and I do mean stupid)? If you follow people who just make up stuff it explains a lot about the nature of your posts.

      If you want to test the Stefan-Boltzmann Law relation at room temperature you can do it. You won’t believe any scientists who have done it so I suggest you do it yourself.

      Here is the equation for radiative cooling. You can use it to observe how fast an object cools by radiant means. If Stefan-Boltzmann is way wrong as Gary Novak claims (with NO valid evidence) the equation will not work. If it is close than you and Novak are both wrong. You would be proven wrong but you will never do an experiment and you will continue to post very stupid crackpot ideas. You seem drawn to these idiots.

      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/cootime.html

  78. Gordon Robertson says:

    Norman…I don’t understand why you have to lead off with an abuse-laden ad hominem attack for every statement with which you disagree. You obviously disagree with Novak’s claim but you supply no counter-argument, suggesting that you don’t understand what he is saying.

    1)I supplied my own argument based on a T^4 relationship as in y = x^4. I laid out the first few values of x and the y equivalent and showed how the curve escalated rapidly from a curve that followed the x-axis to one that rapidly turned near-vertical.

    I did use values up to x = 1000, but you could use larger values. The y-value increases rapidly in a vertically logarithmic fashion therefore you need to implement some kind of logarithmic scale on the x and y-axes. You can do that roughly for yourself and plot x,y values on an x-y plane to see how rapidly the curve changes in the terrestrial region.

    That’s all Novak has done. He has compared, in a graph, the position on the graph of the Sun, at about 5800C to temperatures in the terrestrial domain, and found the latter to be completely out of place. For example, ice is claimed, based on S-B’s T^4 relationship to emit radiation equivalent to 330 W/m^2.

    That’s insane. They are claiming ice can heat an area 1 m^2 the equivalent of 3 x 100 watt light bulb filaments.

    We have to be very careful when it comes to comparing the wattage of a 100 watt bulb to the intensity of radiation it gives off. The 100 watts refers to the number of watts the bulb’s tungsten filament draws from the power supply. It has nothing to do with the intensity of radiation the lamp gives off, which is essentially peanuts.

    You can get a sense of what 100 watts signifies wrt the skin. Touch the glass and it burns you. Hold your hand an inch away, where the main effect is radiation, and it does not and you can barely feel it. You can touch ice and it does not burn you, in fact, it can destroy your skin through its coldness.

    I think Stefan erred when he included w/m^2 in his proportionality constant, giving radiated EM an equivalent temperature to heat. I think he believed, as many scientists of his time believed, that heat could flow through air as heat rays, hence the inclusion of watts where they do not belong.

    Certainly, EM can be converted to heat in a mass, but it is not correct to claim that a tungsten filament drawing 100 watts of power can transfer heat to another body via radiation that will heat that body to a heat-equivalent of 100 watts/m^2. Yet, that’s what S-B implies.

    In fact, the S-B equations are seriously messed up. In the beginning, Stefan produced the equation E = sigma T^4. That equation evolved into E = e.sigma.A.T^4. The proportionality constant is 5.67 x 10^-8 W/m2K4. That constant cannot work with Stefan’s original equation relating E = radiation intensity to T = temperature of radiating body.

    It’s obvious the constant has too many terms for the original. The m^2 in the constant obviously comes from A = area. Stefan said nothing about area in the original equation. The e = emissivity, was not included either. It just so happened his model for S-B was an good conductor heated to temperatures in a range from 575C to 1200C.

    Why should sand on the surface, ice in the Arctic, or water in the oceans radiate in the same way, at an equivalent radiation intensity? It’s insanity to presume they would.

    1) the equation at your link is not supported by S-B, it is a perversion of S-B based on a bad assumption. The equation…

    E = e.sigma.A(T^4hot – T^4cold) can be written…

    E = ehot.sigma.Ahot.T^4hot – ecold.sigma.Acold.T^4cold

    It makes no sense as written at the link because e and A are not defined separately for both bodies. Furthermore, the physical context in which such a relationship could occur is not defined. And, it is not revealed how two bodies of different temperature radiating in the proximity of each other can control the rate of heat dissipation of the hotter body. What controls the rate of heat dissipation of the cooler body?

    This suggests two separate bodies at different temperatures near each other with different emissivities. The original Stefan equation does not allow for different emissivities and it requires bodies of the same surface area.

    That is highly unlikely in practice. Normally, Thot would be a heated body like Tyndall’s heated platinum filament wire, and Tcold would represent the surrounding air. We know the temperature difference controls the rate of heat dissipation but that is not what S-B was intended to measure.

  79. Gordon Robertson says:

    toast

  80. Gordon Robertson says:

    He equated the two as E2 – E1 = hf where E2 was a higher energy level and E1 a lower energy level. He proved it by predicting the emission and absor-p-tion spectral lines for hydrogen.

    That’s the key, Swannie. In order for electrons to jump to a higher energy level, in order to absorb a quantum of EM, the frequency and the intensity, E, must be right to match the higher energy level frequency and kinetic energy level. That’s not possible when the EM is from a cooler body.

    Even if the energy is high enough, it is not absorbed, as is evidenced by the hydrogen atom only absorbing energy at different frequencies.

    It doesn’t matter what happens to energy that is not absorbed, it has nothing to do with anything.

  81. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…”theres lots of evidence that the IR Radiation from the cooler body is absorbed by the warmer one and the result is the warmer bodys temperature increases”.

    ***

    I came across a book that covers the early years from about 1890 onward when the atomic theory was developed. It’s hard to take in that a little over a hundred years ago they were still debating whether the atom existed or not. Even though J.J. Thompson had discovered the electron in 1897 the neutron was not discovered till around 1930.

    • Eben says:

      Here we go again , adding up fluxes from cold things together to increase the temperature of the warmer things, Just brilliant fizzix

  82. Gordon Robertson says:

    this post is really messed up. There is an error in this section I can’t track down.

    ***

    Rutherford, from New Zealand was a pioneer in this field and Bohr became one of his students around 1912. Rutherford had worked out a lot of the basics but he still could not explain the interactions of electrons and the nucleus, which they knew was positive but not much more. They were thinking along the lines of the rings of Saturn.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Bohr had a breakthrough insight based on the quantum theory of Planck but he still could not relate the electrons to the nucleus. By sheer fluke, he encountered a scientist who understood spec.t.r.al lines produced by hydrogen, and received a tut.o.r.ial on what they were about.

      Finally he pieced it together, noting that hydrogen only emitted and absorbed at distinct wavelengths/frequencies. The light when on, Bohr saw the relationship between distinct quantum energy levels for electrons and how they had to change energy levels when absorbing quanta of EM and emitting them.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        He equated the two as E2 – E1 = hf where E2 was a higher energy level and E1 a lower energy level. He proved it by predicting the emission and absor-p-tion spectral lines for hydrogen.

        That’s the key, Swannie. In order for electrons to jump to a higher energy level, in order to absorb a quantum of EM, the frequency and the intensity, E, must be right to match the higher energy level frequency and kinetic energy level. That’s not possible when the EM is from a cooler body.

        Even if the energy is high enough, it is not absorbed, as is evidenced by the hydrogen atom only absorbing energy at different frequencies.

        It doesn’t matter what happens to energy that is not absorbed, it has nothing to do with anything.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Gordo, Your latest rant appears to focus on the emissions of gasses, which occur at discrete wavelengths. Of course, the IR radiation from a black body at other wavelengths which is not absorbed will pass thru the gas. Also, the wavelengths for thermal IR are now known to be the result of various molecular vibrations, not atomic level transitions, as has been pointed out to you numerous times.

          But, that doesn’t apply for solid surfaces, where the emissions exhibit continuous curves of emissions vs. wavelength, in general. The green plate emissions intercepted by the blue plate also cover a range of wavelengths and are absorbed. There is no transmission thru the blue plate as there might be with a gas. There is no mysterious “dissipation” of the energy represented by those emissions, they are not “ignored”, they end up warming the blue plate.

  83. Gordon Robertson says:

    the error was either in s.p.e.c.t.r.a.l or t.u.t.o.r.ial

  84. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A powerful high over Europe is pulling frigid air from Russia to the west. Frosts will occur during the night. The further east we go, the stronger the frost.
    https://i.ibb.co/Z8DyDws/mimictpw-europe-latest.gif

  85. Brian D says:

    Looks like tropical warming in the lower stratosphere for Feb., especially the SH side. Possible Hunga Tonga helped that out. Look forward to the coming months to see if that continues.

  86. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Cold air masses from the north are reaching the western US again.
    https://i.ibb.co/fF3XLWp/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f024.png

    • Galaxie500 says:

      You seem to have missed this Ren

      The warmest temperature ever recorded in a permanent weather station of the Antarctic Plateau in 66 operational years has been reached during an unprecedented heatwave in the Concordia-Dome C research station on March 18th, 2022. A powerful inflow of warm winds from Australia brought temperatures over East Antarctica up to 47 degrees C or 85 degrees Fahrenheit, above average. This unusual and unprecedented warmth is smashing temperature records in the coldest location on the planet.

      • Ann Inquirer says:

        Yes, there was a “heat wave.” Still the temperature was -12 degrees Celsius.
        Also, not really unprecedented despite the (misleading) news articles. Temperatures in 1939-1941 were 0 degrees Celsius.

  87. Eben says:

    La Nina – Shmanina
    Contrary to Bindiclown numerous predictions it will not be gone by April

    https://youtu.be/jEQeE2zW8dI

  88. Lily Randall says:

    Im making $88/h to complete some internet services on the internet . Ive not ever imagined like it could even JHGv achievable but my greatest pal was getting $27,000 just within four weeks completing this leading task & she has satisfied me to try

    HERE ___________ http://webwork242.blogspot.com/

  89. Leah Alexander says:

    I am making 70 to 60 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i’m Working four hour Dailly and make forty dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to glad my circle of relatives..How ?? I’m making this so u can do it Easily

    HERE…… http://webwork242.blogspot.com/

  90. Mark B says:

    Thread post counts to April 2, 10:20 PM EDT
    RLH : 196
    Gordon Robertson : 84
    Bindidon : 55
    Nate : 38
    Ireneusz Palmowski : 33
    Swenson : 31
    gbaikie : 28
    bobdroege : 24
    E. Swanson : 22
    Go Fish : 20
    Ken : 19
    Chic Bowdrie : 16
    Clint R : 16
    barry : 16
    Entropic man : 15

Leave a Reply