Home/Blog(Note: I apologize for not posting much in the last several months, as I have been dealing with family health issues. Hopefully, things will gradually be returning to normal soon. I also want to thank those who have stepped up and contributed to keeping this website going since Google has demonetized it…thank you!)
As I continue to see all of the crazy proclamations of how human-caused climate change is disrupting lives around the world (e.g., the Feb. 28 release of the IPCC report from Working Group 2, [Pielke Jr. analysis here]), I can’t help but return to the main reason why human causation for recent warming has not been convincingly established. I have discussed this before, but it is worth repeating.
As a preface, I will admit, given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I still provisionally side with the view that warming has been mostly human-caused (and this says nothing about whether the level of human-caused warming is in any way alarming).
But here’s why human causation is mostly a statement of faith…
ALL temperature change in any system is due to an imbalance between the rates of energy gain and energy lost. In the case of the climate system, it is believed the Earth each year absorbs a global average of about 240 Watts per sq. meter of solar energy, and emits about the same amount of infrared energy back to outer space.
If we are to believe the last ~15 years of Argo float measurements of the ocean (to 2000 m depth), there has been a slight warming equivalent to an imbalance of 1 Watt per sq. meter, suggesting a very slight imbalance in those energy flows.
One watt per sq. meter.
That tiny imbalance can be compared to the 5 to 10 Watt per sq. meter uncertainty in the ~240 Watt per sq. meter average flows in and out of the climate system. We do not know those flows that accurately. Our satellite measurement systems do not have that level of absolute accuracy.
Global energy balance diagrams you have seen have the numbers massaged based upon the assumption all of the imbalance is due to humans.
I repeat: NONE of the natural, global-average energy flows in the climate system are known to better than about 5-10 Watts per sq. meter…compared to the ocean warming-based imbalance of 1 Watt per sq. meter.
What this means is that recent warming could be mostly natural…and we would never know it.
But, climate scientists simply assume that the climate system has been in perfect, long-term harmonious balance, if not for humans. This is a pervasive, quasi-religious assumption of the Earth science community for as long as I can remember.
But this position is largely an anthropocentric statement of faith.
That doesn’t make it wrong. It’s just…uncertain.
Unfortunately, that uncertainty is never conveyed to the public or to policymakers.
I think the media play a big part. Most of the journalists talking about “the Science” and “the scientists” have no clue about any scientific principles. It has become very popular to blame any kind of unusual weather on human caused climate change.
“But the Press” is indeed connected:
https://climateball.net/but-the-press/
Not sure how it’s connected to “But Science,” however:
https://climateball.net/but-science/
Pointers would be appreciated.
But: but Willard
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-50) 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/
The so called ournalists rarely write or talk about science.
They are not really journalists when they just repeat government press releases, like trained parrots and, censor opposing data, opinions and the sorry track record of climate predictions in the past 40+ years.
Hack writers (“journalists”) do quote scientists, especially government bureaucata scientists, but just because someone has a science degree does not mean everything they do and say is science.
Arbitrary attribution of bad weather on climate change is not science.
Always wrong wild guess predictions of a coming climate crisis is not science.
Presenting data that have been arbitrarily “adjusted” is not science.
For one example:
The global cooling from 1940 to 1975, originally reported in 1974 as close to -0.5 degrees C., has since been “adjusted” away to no global cooling at all. That arbitrary “adjustment” was obviously done to better support the rising CO2 always causes global warming narrative. Arbitrary “adjustments” for political reasons are not science.
Well said.
Still wrong:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
Willard the Dullard is wrong as usual — completely detached from reality.
The biggest “adjustment”, by far, was deleting the global cooling from 1940 to 1975, reported in 1975 as almost -0.5 degrees C. That eliminated an inconvenient period when more CPO2 did not cause global warming.
Most other “adjustments” are too cool the past, increasing the reporting warming rate. In the US the 1930s were “cooled” so that 1998 became the hottest year on record.
The biggest “adjustments” of all are the wild guessed numbers, conveniently called “infilling” which had to account for a majority of surface grid temperatures prior to 1900. Because there were so few land weather stations outside of the US, Europe and eastern Australia. The ocean coverage was even worse, with haphazard measurements everywhere, and few measurements outside of Northern hemisphere shipping lanes.
There is still too much infilling, far more than needed for uAH compilations for the area over both poles.
The bottom line is only a fool would trust surface temperature compilations. An intelligent person may trust UAH compilations, mainly because the people in charge have a reputation for trying to be accurate and honest. They do not start with a prediction of climate doom and then fit the data to support their prediction. which is exactly what smarmy government bureaucrat “scientists” do/ Thy even program their computers to make scary climate predictions. Which is exactly what they are paid to do by governments.
AS usual, WILLARD THE DULLARD has no idea what he is talking about, or how the world works!
Make everyone ( $26,000 __ $38,000 ) A Month Online Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work With No Prior q Experience Or Skills Required. ppq Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site
Open this link.. https://workstore01.blogspot.com/
Here are lots of charts showing the difference between raw temperature data and what is “sold” to the public !
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2022/03/raw-temperature-data-versus-adjusted.html
Nice fabrications, RG.
Rare to see GIF artists among cranks!
It is stupid to try to get ‘science’ from denialist blogs with an agenda that isnt science.
Nobody is peer reviewing it. Nobody is checking it for accuracy or completeness.
Junk science.
“The biggest adjustment, by far, was deleting the global cooling from 1940 to 1975, reported in 1975 as almost -0.5 degrees C.”
Richard, when one day you provide a source for this claim, we will discover that the data was meagre, barely covering the NH, and not a global representation at all.
There were no global temperature data sets until the 1980s.
So you’re already wrong with the claim of ‘global’. But you never provide a source for this (Tony Heller is my best bet), no doubt aware that it would quickly be debunked.
“Here are lots of charts showing the difference between raw temperature data”
The US has a strong time of observation bias, which has to be corrected for. Anthony Watts discovered he had to do it when he published his paper on US temps (Fall et al 2011).
Anthony Watts knows the correction is needed, but more ignorant skeptics don’t.
@Willard
Aren’t you bored of trotting out the same old catastrophic predictions for the last 40 years?
I have lost count of the number of predicted ‘imminent’ disasters over the years, which have all failed to materialise. Meanwhile, crop production continues to rise and extreme poverty fall.
Sea’s haven’t engulfed cities and ‘extreme’ weather is no worse now that it ever was.
We live in a unique time in Earth’s history. The world has never been as cold, with coincidentally as low levels of atmospheric CO2, without being in a full blown ice age. But warming is a bad thing.
All this is evidence of a cult, a belief system operated by soothsayers that simply ignores its own litany of historic failure in favour of the next catastrophe.
You’re begging an interesting question, HotScot, but my comment was more about “But Adjustment” than “But CAGW” and “But Predictions”:
https://climateball.net/but-predictions/
Nice try, tho.
Thanks
Complements are so rare online that I first wonder if they are satire. I should have mentioned I live in Michigan and love global warming. Want it to continue. So I may be biased.
I also don’t make climate predictions and don’t listen to climate predictions. Well, I did make one climate prediction back in 1997, and it proved to be the most accurate climate prediction in the history of climate predictions. I deserved a Nobel Prize, or at least a Nobel Prize participation trophy. Without further ado:
1997: Bingham Farms, Michigan:
“The Climate will get warmer,
unless it gets colder”
Now if I can only learn to type without so many typos, I will die a happy man.
I have a climate science and energy blog where I share the best articles, by various authors, that I find online every day. My blog has had over 294,000 page views. Hopefully the articles have convinced some people the “coming climate crisis” is nothing more than a fig newton of over active leftist imaginations!
Of course I strongly prefer the UAH temperature compilation — Mr. Spencer and Mr. Christy are climate scientist heroes in my book — they are the check and balance for the surface temperature measurements, arbitrary “adjustments” and impossible to verify infilling.
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
My compliment was intended. We share similar if not the exact same views.
@Willard
Your link is summed up beautifully by a single example, thank you:
“Ehrlich. Climate predictions bring to mind unenlightened futurists as Ehrlich—
☞ Not sure how your analogy works exactly. The possibility to be wrong is the hallmark of the empirical sciences.”
Empirical science cannot possibly be wrong 100% of the time without discrediting science as a whole, which climate science has undoubtedly achieved.
As for Zeke – Produce enough climate models and one of them is, eventually, bound to be right.
Like enough monkeys with typewriter’s eventually reproducing the entire works of Shakespeare.
“That arbitrary ‘adjustment’ was obviously done… ”
More conspiracy theories presented as facts, courtesy RG.
There is no other logical reason for the nearly -0.6 degree C. peak to trough decline of the global average temperature originally reported by NCAR in 1975 for the years from approximately 1940 to 1974, that has been “disappeared”.
Having significant global cooling while CO2 was increasing did not fit the preferred CO2 causes warming narrative. The original excuse to explain that — air pollution aerosols, was so stupid that it fell apart faster than a cheap suitcase. I will explain why if you are interested.
So the next step was to make that global cooling disappear. And the smarmy government bureaucrat “scientists gradually did that.
I realize I should not use the words “logical” and “reason” when talking to you, but you can always look them up. In a prior comment here, I posted a link to lots of charts showing how “adjustments” to raw data consistently cause a steeper warming curve, miraculously change cooling into warming, or make an inconvenient cooling disappear.
Because I assume you have never taken a science course, I want you to know adjusted data are no longer data — they are personal opinions of what the would have been if measured correctly in the first place. And infilled wild guesses are not data to begin with.
I tried to explain this simply, knowing your “needs”, so even a 10 year old child could understand it. So go out to a playground and find a 10 year old child to explain it to you.
“There is no other logical reason for the nearly -0.6 degree C. peak to trough decline of the global average temperature originally reported by NCAR in 1975 for the years from approximately 1940 to 1974, that has been ‘disappeared’.
Our resident conspiracy theorist is reading the denialist blogosphere again.
As far as I can tell the NCAR -0.6 degrees was in degrees F, not C, and was only for the Northern Hemisphere. Its ‘disappearance’ has been highly exaggerated.
In any case, does he think our understanding of the global temperature record reached a peak of perfection in the mid 70s?
Along with men’s fashion? And our discovery of the healthiest diet?
Rock and roll? And muscle cars? Well, actually, those yes.
Nasty Nate, you are wrong again !
The NCAR temperature was in Centigrade degrees.
YOU ARE WRONG.
And NCAR reported global temperatures after 1920
YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN
Prior to 1920, the NCAR temperature was called “Northern Hemisphere Only”: because it was. That fact is lied about today.
There is a chart verifying what I have just claimed, among the many charts at the link below, which I had in a prior comment, that you conveniently ignored:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2022/03/raw-temperature-data-versus-adjusted.html
Our resident doofus — Nasty Nate — was wrong again.
His mental deficiencies are worse than we thought, to borrow a phrase from climate “scientists”. And his mother wears
army boots. Next time I write a comment, hire a ten year old child to explain it to you.
Oh. Then what Im seeing in this graph published in Newsweek, from NCAR, with degrees F, is wrong?
https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326
Stop getting ‘science’ from the denialist blogosphere.
And, btw, in YOUR source, in the 7th graph, we see the NCAR drop is 0.35 C, (not 0.6 C) in the Northern Hemisphere only!
0.6 F in C is 5/9*0.6 = 0.33 C.
Sorry RG. You got it wrong. Oh well.
And as you can clearly see, the current version of GISS still has a comparable drop in the NH from 1940-1970.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
Click on Hemisphere graphs.
https://i0.wp.com/andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NH_SH_Figure-3_featured.png?w=1200&ssl=1
You mean like the above?
The dingbat and chronic liar Nasty Nate proves what we have always known about horrible leftists like him:
They will lie to make their point and double down on the lies , never admitting a mistake, ever,
Anyone who takes the comments of Nast Nate seriously must have their heads examined. Hopefully, nothing will be found, just like the interior of Nasy Naye’s head.
In 1975 NCAR reported a peak to trough temperature decline of almost -0.6 degrees C. within the 1940 to 1975 period
That is a fact, no matter how many times horse’s ass Nasty Nate claims I am lying.
The current global average temperature compilations claim that large decline in the average temperature never happened.
Again, that is a fact, no natter how many times horse’s ass Nasty Nate claims I am lying.
Such a large “adjustment” is evidence of science fraud.
Having a large temperature decline as CO2 levels were rising, did not support the CO2 causes global warming narrative.
Once, again that is a fact — there is no other logical explanation for such a large “adjustment”.
And there is no other logical explanation for Nasty Nate to repeatedly lie and claim my comments are false.
I don’t come here to post false comments, like Nasty Nate, but I do strike back when my integrity, developed over my 68 years of life, is challenged by a climate alarmist buffoon trained parrot who lies to support his beloved fears — the imaginary coming global warming disaster — imagined since 1957, that never shows up.
Nasty Nate is so mentally challenged that after claiming NCAR never reported global cooling in the 1940 to 1975 period, trying to rewrite history for his far left agenda,he falsely claimed the chart was in F. degrees when it was clearly labelled as C. degrees.
Then he claimed the numbers were Northern Hemisphere only, not global, when the chart clearly showed Northern Hemisphere Only applied ONLY to numbers in the early 1880s (dotted line on chart) and earlier.
Anyone familiar with climate science (not Nasty Nate, of course) would have known that Northern Hemisphere Only was never applied to averages in the 20th century — certainly not in the 1940 to 1975 period. But Nasty Nate did not know that. Or much else about climate science.
It is very easy to catch Nasty Nate lying to discredit an accurate comments, but he will never change his false claims.
Because truth is NOT a leftist value.
Apparently RG thinks quoting numbers and units correctly is Leftist!
He looked at the plot in F and saw 0.6 degree drop, and thought it was centigrade.
But it wasnt!
The very first chart on his own blog clearly shows a drop of 0.34C. Does anybody out there see 0.6C drop after 1940?
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2022/03/see-how-nasa-giss-disappeared-almost-06.html
What can RG do? Admit he made a simple numerical error??
No! Never! Double down, triple down, quintuple down.
Insult the messenger more loudly!
Keep denying an obvious numerical fact and lob more ad-hom grenades, that’ll distract everybody!
https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326
A link I provided in a prior comment showed the NCAR numbers on a chart. It clearly showed the peak to trough global cooling was almost -0.6 degrees C., and “Northern Hemisphere only” applied only to data presented before the early 1890s.
Global average temperature numbers for after 1940 were never described as Northern Hemisphere only, by anyone in climate science, not that you would know anything about climate science.
You are nasty, Nate, and a proven liar. Or just clueless, with Newsweek magazine as your climate change “bible”
However, you may have been confused because there were so many other charts on the link I previously provided to my climate science blog, which has had over 297,000 visits.
Based on your climate misinformation, you have never visited.
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
So, knowing your obvious feeble mental abilities, slipping by the day, I will provide another link, with fewer charts to confuse you. I should say confuse you even more — we already know you are chronically confused about the subject of climate science.
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2022/03/see-how-nasa-giss-disappeared-almost-06.html
By having only subject at that link, with the same chart, from four different sources (chart from Newsweek was presented in F. degrees, showing almost -1.1 degrees F. global cooling, unlike the other three charts in showing almost 0.6 degrees C.
Perhaps you read the Newsweek chart incorrectly?
I know the use of two different temperature scales can be confusing, especially for someone with your “special needs”CA
With the new link showing only the same NACR chart, from four different sources, hopefully you will not get so confused, leading to your usual incoherent and insulting word salad of climate lies.
I would NEVER insult you! heh heh
That chart at the link above is so simple that a 12 year old child would understand it. So, go out and find a 12 year-old child to explain it to you.
You were previously provided a link to many charts showing the difference between raw temperature numbers and very different numbers presented to the general public. Sometimes the adjusted numbers are significantly re-adjusted, as in the 1970 to 1975 period.
You deliberately ignored the link, and lied repeatedly in your bloviating reply comments, as usual.
Spouting climate misinformation and lying are your only obvious skills, although perhaps you have other skills, such as the ability to do tricks with a yo-yo.
Lying is your primary skill, other than being a trained parrot of climate alarmism.
Use of Newsweek as a source of climate science is hilarious.
Newsweek is infamous for publishing the coming global cooling scaremongering in 1975, with no context.
Newsweek made mo mention that a large majority of scientists were predicting global warming in their science papers, not global cooling, and often predicting a global warming crisis in the future.
To make Newsweek look like a fool, Mother Nature began a global warming trend that year — 1975 — which continued through 2020, and may still be in progress.
“By having only subject at that link, with the same chart, from four different sources (chart from Newsweek was presented in F. degrees, showing almost -1.1 degrees F. global cooling, unlike the other three charts in showing almost 0.6 degrees C.”
There is something seriously wrong with your eyes RG. Or your ability to do a simple arithmetic!
None of the charts you are now showing have 0.6 C cooling from 1940- 1970.
The first three clearly show an identical chart with a drop from 0.47 C to 0.13 C from 1942 to 1970.
A drop of 0.34 C!
The Newsweek article is also shown and it has a 0.6 numerical drop, but it is clearly labeled as degrees Fahrenheit!
Nasty Nate still does not get that I have been repeatedly talking about the the change from the peak to the trough temperature within the 1940 to 1975 time period.
NOT from 1940 to 1975.
The peak was actually in the early 1940s.
It is simpler to describe the period as 1940 to 1975,
rather than to list the specific month of the peak, and specific month of the trough, of the GLOBAL average temperature, in C. degrees, within that 1940 to 1975 period.
It is very obvious what I was talking about from just a quick glance at the simple chart.
You, however, chose to ignore the obvious, preferring to be a nitpicker. When I say “th obvious”, I mean obvious to a normal human being, which may not apply to a person like yourself with “special needs”.
You have dug a hole of misinformation and it is getting deeper and deeper, as you babble on, trying to defend your ineptitude. And your mother wears Army boots.
” the change from the peak to the trough temperature within the 1940 to 1975 time period.”
Sorry I see no such change of 0.6 C in any of your plots. You are still blind and confused, RG.
Ask a neutral party to take a look.
No matter how many childish ad-hom grenades you lob at me, it won’t change the fact that the peak and trough between 1940 and 1970 are separated by 0.34 C!
“The first three clearly show an identical chart with a drop from 0.47 C to 0.13 C from 1942 to 1970.”
And you can clearly see by my quote above that I was aware of the peak being in the early 1940s.
Lets face it, RG. You looked at the plot in F and saw 0.6 degree drop, and thought it was centigrade.
Now you cannot possibly admit the error was YOURS. Hence you need to double down, triple down, on and on.
Especially after loudly calling me everything but a child molester.
Greene
You are an incompetent, impolite and lying person.
Here is, for the sake of completeness, a comment posted by ‘Mouse’:
” Case in point:. Richard Greene, Nate was actually correct. In your link to elonion, the post with only three charts, the first two charts were indeed labeled as ‘Degrees Centigrade’, however in the Newsweek chart it was clearly labeled ‘Degrees Fahrenheit’ and the Newsweek chart is indeed the one showing the .6 degree drop while the two in Centigrade only show a .3 drop. Details matter, and either you weren’t paying attention to the details of the charts you posted or you chose to ignore them. “
@Bindidon says
So it’s only half a lie then?
Whereas lying about a 0.6C drop in temperatures is unacceptable, lying about 0.3C is just fine.
Whether by C or F it’s still a lie.
It is however, consistent with all the ridiculous fantasies and lies about disappearing Arctic se ice by 2013, 2016, or whatever the latest wild prediction is.
All these failed predictions fall into the collective memory hole of climate alarmists as they move, cult like, onto the next claim of disaster.
Just where are those sea level rises that were going to engulf cities, consistently predicted over decades.
I find some of the climate predictions to be rather interesting. For example, cooling of the upper atmosphere that leads to more frequent and more intense thunder storms may actually have a net cooling effect on the earth overall, or it could be a very minor effect. It seems like an open question, but it is one that will not be presented by the media that are looking to sensationalize the news. My concern is that predictions which are scientifically “possible” are presented as if they are certain to happen. My biggest complaint is the very tired line that climate change is already happening. Of course it is. The question is how to separate natural variation from human induced effects, and the dumb news anchors do not seem to understand that problem.
I was concerned about one item in your very intelligent comment.
You find climate predictions to be interesting. Predictions are interesting to most people. But this was the first thing you mentioned/
I prefer to ignore all predictions — for every subject — they are too often wrong.
Every prediction of environmental doom since the 1960s, for example, was wrong
Every prediction of climate doom since the 1960s was wrong.
Almost every shorter term climate prediction was wrong.
I believe progress in learning climate science starts with ignoring predictions, other than noting how inaccurate they have always been.
Always remember that real science requires data.
Predictions are for the future.
There are no data for the future.
Therefore predictions are just speculation.
Consistently correct predictions might be good science, or just lucky guessing. Whether they are science or lucky guessing would be a good subject for debate.
But we have never had consistently accurate climate predictions.
We have only had consistently inaccurate climate predictions, and wrong climate predictions are never science.
They are climate astrology.
When someone says, “Follow the science!”, what they are really saying is, “Follow only the scientists that I follow!”. With all of the politicized, and therefore controversial, issues of the day (for example climate change, covid mitigation, fat in our diet, carbs in our diet, salt in out diet, cholesterol in our blood, etc.) there are well credentialed scientists to be found on all sides of these issues. The question becomes, “Who do I trust?”.
Scientific work, and the studies that get published are funded by someone. All people and organizations have agendas. I’m not saying that all of science is corrupt but the profit motive must be factored in when considering what ‘experts’ you decide to trust. Scientists are people that want to advance their careers and organizations just as corporations want to further their own interests. You have to research and ask “Who is making this claim?”, “What is their agenda?” and, “Who funded this and what is their agenda?” Otherwise you are more likely be led around with incomplete, sometimes false, often biased information. This is the “follow the money” method.
Look no further than the pandemic and how everyone is claiming to follow the science. Yet look at the all the conflicting data and opinions. Who’s correct? Likely it’s the entity with noting to sell, no profit motive.
“Is someone gaining political power and/or control over our lives by advocating this?”, is another question that anyone not willing to be blindly manipulated should ask. However, even this question is just a less condensed form of “follow the money”. Opportunists are waiting for the gullible and uniformed every step of the way. Buyer beware!
Follow the science means follow the leftist government bureaucrats with science degrees who are paid to predict a coming climate crisis.
That’s all “climate change” means to leftists — predictions of a global warming crisis at some point in the future. Those prediction began in late 1950s science papers. They became very public in the 1980s, and hysterical a few years ago.
Predictions are not reality
Always wrong climate predictions are not science
Predictions can not be based on data — there are no data for the future.
They are based on unproven theories and speculation, with a 65 year track record of 100% wrong climate predictions.
Actually 100% wrong predictions of ALL environmental catastrophes, from climate to peak oil.
“Climate change is a house of cards, supported by the appeal to authority logical fallacy, and the natural leftist inclination to worship government “experts” (who are only experts in their own minds).
Actually, peak oil probably did happen for conventionally extracted crude oil. Fracking changed the game and made it possible to obtain shale oil without strip mining. That is why fracking has such strong opposition from the green folks.
Peak oil meant peak oil production.
Type of production not specified.
Has not happened.
The green dreamers would like peak oil to happen by making investments unprofitable or too risky. They are doing a good (bad) job of that. Fossil fuel (including coal) capital investments have significantly declined in the past 8 years.
But so many products are derived from petroleum, and economic growth in Asia, Africa and South American will increase oil demand … suggest peak oil production won’t happen in our lifetimes.
I did some research, and you are correct. Shale is considered tight oil, so the only real question was how to get it, not whether it existed. Fracking simply made it possible to obtain it more easily without doing environmental damage caused by other methods such as strip mining. The only current environmental concern is how to dispose of the used drilling mud, and that is mostly a matter of spending the money to do it safely.
Huhhh…??
Fracking for gas has been opposed because it has sometimes resulted in polluted drinking water and land.
That is completely false and again shows the ignorance with the subject matter. Like all of the “woke again” flock that worships the government all they have is the gospel they have been preached by government clergy.
And I suppose you’d like to explain why wind and solar power are so environmentally friendly.
Oh wait! They’re not! Solar and wind both require rare earth mining. Cadmium runoff? Graphene pollution? It turns out that only a small percent of these power plants require the bulldozing of massive stretches of forests as well.
Suppose you’re right (though I suspect you got this idea from the propaganda film Promised Land). Suppose that these companies never take ANY precautions, and suppose they aren’t able to clean up any messes. What do you think will happen to the economies of small towns that have no industry? What about the farmers that get foreclosed on because they were told that fracking is evil, and said no to money because they heard horror stories? Yeah. Year after year of subsidies, until the government paycheck runs out. Farmers get terrible deals for their work. Meanwhile, what the fracking industry offers is a major boost in independence. Should the technology be made safer? Yes. Is it as bad as is sold by the left? No.
Texas has oil and natural gas, but quite a bit of farms and ranches. The land does in fact bounce back provided the people involved in harvesting the natural gas are scrupulous. Meanwhile fracking is blamed for everything from water pollution to earthquakes. But these environment types won’t offer any real solutions. What? Coal? Coal blots out the sun. Oil? You wanna get caught in another fight with the Middle East? Nuclear? Chernobyl ring any bells? Solar and wind look clean until you know that they have sketchy upfront manufacturing pollution, and sketchy runoff pollution.
I forgot to mention the March 7
R. Hayes comment was excellent.
The only problem was those unusual symbols that slipped into the text — at least that ;s what I see on my old computer.
After a week of investigation, I have determined that they are secret alien commands from another planet. heh heh
Or maybe something else. I could be wrong.
What causes them to show up?
I’ve noticed that servers also significantly change comments while they are bring posted. My own comments, for example, when typed, are brilliant post-PhD level comments.
Then I submit the comment, and read it.
I am shocked to discover it has been completely revised into the rantings and ravings of a deranged child. And I can’t go back to edit what showed up. Perhaps also caused by those aliens?
Richard Greene
1997 Participation Trophy Winner
Rodney Dangerfield Comedy Academy
Make everyone ( $26,000 __ $38,000 ) A Month Online Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work With No Prior q Experience Or Skills Required. ppq Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site
Open this link.. https://workstore01.blogspot.com/
Sofia
Is that $26,000 to $38,00 a month net, after deducting taxes, legal expenses, and your sending for hooker clothing?
Or your gross earnings?
And I would think some prior experience would be useful.
Sofia
Is that $26,000 to $38,00 a month net, after deducting taxes, legal expenses, and your sending for hooker clothing?
Or your gross earnings?
Hi
I found the NASA atmospheric transmission data in Appendices E&F of NASA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM # 103957, where it has been hidden since 1991.
It shows that no energy leaving the earth is in the 14to16 micron band, which is the only area where CO2 has effect.
Thus all the models are built on a false assumption and must be junked.
Also the war on coal and oil is shown to be without basis.
So, what is the real cause of global warming/climate change, if significant?
Bobhisey PhD
Uhh… there is something wrong with your ‘hidden’ source, then.
Can you show it to us?
Of course, “no energy leaving the earth is in the 14to16 micron band” because NASA therein reports from computer analysis on a 45-degree zenith angle the atm. transmittance is zero in that band thus the terrestrial IR band of interest radiance is all absorbed in the standard midtropical humid atm. looking up from the surface.
This is very close to true along a vertical (zenith) path there also.
Whew, Robert, the models don’t have to be junked after all.
Roy, I have been trying to send you an email for months. I am getting a permanent error each time.
Dr. Spencer,
I love you doc, but why do you throw these fascist imbeciles a bone like this that they will run with and vilify you with in the same breath. In a moment of weakness, years ago, you called these climate religionists Nazis and I suppose your colleagues had their shorts bunched up over that, but you were right and this junk “science” has become nothing more than a cult and a religion.
The only thing now is to see how much damage these clowns-of-science will be willing to do for their religion, their grant whoring and their hubris. I fear we are in for a rough ride which I probably will not live to see.
Good luck!
Roy,
There are some things that we do know – from ice cores, we know that the earth’s climate has altered abruptly in a matter of decades – two dozen times in the last 100,00 years. The idea that the earth’s climate is in a “long-term harmonious balance” is plain nuts.
I agree – and Ice Cores are a smoothed average of temperature, so true changes in temp are even more dramatic than ice core data would suggest.
Thanks Roy – great post and all the best for a speedy resolution of your health issues.
On a personal note, I left climate related science because I couldn’t see how we would ever get global agreement to drastic reductions in fossil fuel use. Even then I was a luke warmer, and that was the late 1990s.
Since then I am more convinced than ever that we as a species should have spent a lot more time thinking about governance and the rule of law at a global level, and far less on modelling global climate. We need resilience to global disasters of whatever cause and better mechanisms to work together on common agreed purposes (belief if you will!). If we can’t do that, we’re doomed to conflict and understanding climate and environmentalism becomes utterly irrelevant in the fight for survival.
Dixon,
I disagree with you completely and whole heartedly about global governance.
The best government is local. The farther you get from local the more authoritarian and abusive of the people government becomes.
Examples abound. If you need some, look at how the SWAMP treats those who disagree, better yet, Trudeau of the peaceful truckers.
Lewis, you may have misunderstood me. I didn’t specify a quantum – just more time on global governance, and a lot less time on modelling.
I actually agree that local government is vital too. I’m not sure that it’s the best – not least because in a crisis small and local has to link to bigger just to survive – that’s the basis of human civilizations since dot. I don’t subscribe to the no-government economic view of the world, it creates too much inequality, and inequality all too easily results in terror.
My point was not just aimed at Russia-Ukraine – those eyeing the colonisation of space will need some kind of justice system. There are also many examples of global earthly problems that need global cooperation, law and governance and in which local government by itself can have no relevance at all (fish stocks being one). I don’t care how those global systems work, but work they must, and be seen to work by all rational people, or we will end up being held to ransom by the nutters who will always have a ready supply of ruthless thugs ready to do their bidding and inflict misery and suffering on the unfortunate. That world works too, but having lived in countries where it’s practiced, it’s far less pleasant than western style democracy, which is still far from perfect.
But as for limiting over-government, I’m with you – government all so quickly can become lazy and self-serving – which is why it needs good governance.
Dixon,
At least you ended on a good note. However,
“I don’t care how those global systems work, but work they must, and be seen to work by all rational people, or we will end up being held to ransom by the nutters….”
We somewhat/largely already are. We need to care enough to promote freedom in our conversations and especially at the ballot box.
Get a copy of James L Payne’s “The Big Government We Love to Hate.”
“We should have spent a lot more time thinking about governance and the rule of law at a global level, and far less on modelling global climate.”
The two things are hardly mutually exclusive!
And done by different people.
To cease doing the science would be foolish.
Nate parades out of his favorite strawmen. . . .again!
Forgetting about climate modeling is hardly a call to cease doing science.
Modeling actually isn’t science. Modeling may selectively utilize science but in and of itself it as much real science as an entertaining film is real life. Modeling is half art, half science.
Climate modeling has as its most infamous ancestor. . . .Soviet Five Year Plans which did nothing but lead to disaster due to the corruption it fed.
Any expert modeler will tell you that models should not be believed too much until validated.
Here we have an entire cadre of corrupted officials and scientists who will lie to us about the validity of climate modeling. Almost all of whom currently have their current jobs dependent upon believing them. World wide expenditures on this nonsense is in the realm of three trillion of dollars. That buys a lot of lies.
If models make wrong predictions, they are not science.
Every climate model makes wrong predictions.
They are programmed to predict what the governments funding the model wants predicted — rapid dangerous global warming.
That’s what was predicted before there were models, and that’s what will be predicted if all the models are scrapped.
Wrong predictions are not science.
Sure, so if Hurricane models were poor at predicting the paths in the 1970s you would have said the models in the 1970s were ‘not science’
Then today, we have hurricane models based on the same principles predicting hurricane paths much better and are quite useful, so these you would call ‘science’?
Hmmm, interesting. How did we get from the 70s models to today’s? The models evolved and computers got better.
Short-sighted people like you would have defunded that ‘not science’ effort long ago.
Nate says:
Sure, so if Hurricane models were poor at predicting the paths in the 1970s you would have said the models in the 1970s were not science
Then today, we have hurricane models based on the same principles predicting hurricane paths much better and are quite useful, so these you would call science?
Hmmm, interesting. How did we get from the 70s models to todays? The models evolved and computers got better.
Short-sighted people like you would have defunded that not science effort long ago.
—————————
Its a poor analogy. You are effectively claiming it was work on the models that improved the prediction success rate. Where is your evidence. I would suggest it instead arose from greatly improved observation of weather phenomena combined with progress in both the affordability and computing power of the machines that run models.
I have a long history of working with large models with multiple variables. The early models of the early 80’s I worked with are fundamentally the same as the ones I work with today. What has improved is the quality of data being put into the models that has made them more successful. And in fact the same problem we had with those early models are identical to the problems with current climate models. . . .namely identifying the difference between natural and anthropogenic variable changes. If today we could not do any of that our models would continue to provide information of very limited value.
Dr. Syun Akasofu strongly pointed out this shortcoming well over a decade ago (2009). The sea level study provided by Bindidon has the same problem that is acknowledged by the author.
If you have wild uncontrolled naturally occurring influences in phenomena you are studying for which you have no explanation for why it still is a factor of variation on any scale it poses the risk of failure for the entire modeling enterprise. Sure you can still pump piles of money into the modeling exercise but the results are like when an offroad racing vehicle bogs down in the mud or sand. . . .pushing on the accelerator merely bogs you down more, digs you deeper into the problem. Instead you need to get out and figure out what you need to do to increase traction.
the modeling enterprise is very much over funded. Its stealing money from approaches that have greater promise to solving the problem, if it is a problem.
that is especially true of climate models because of politics. Dr. Curry complains that after 43 years of pouring money into modeling. . . .no change has resulted.
That certainly does not mean that eventually models will be useful, they certainly will but pouring money into modeling isn’t moving the needle. And it wasn’t pouring money into hurricane models that moved the needle either.
“Its a poor analogy. You are effectively claiming it was work on the models that improved the prediction success rate. Where is your evidence. I would suggest it instead arose from greatly improved observation of weather phenomena combined with progress in both the affordability and computing power of the machines that run models.”
So developing the very effective hurricane models that we now have required no science?
Nate says:
So developing the very effective hurricane models that we now have required no science?
———————————
Stop being such a blockhead! I clearly said modeling is not science. Modeling is but a tool of the scientific enterprise that makes data processing more efficient. But people that don’t understand that tend to also use a computer like an inflatable doll of the other sex for sex that can be delivered more efficiently, like very cheap, doesn’t hardly bitch, and with very extremely little drama.
Looks like Nate is confusing two different things climate modeling vs hurricane path modeling one can be greatly infected with political biased belief and the other is more about better data and computing.
Thats correct. The hurricane success is primarily in the 2 week forecast window that is about the limit of validated weather/climate modeling. And even then the paths of hurricanes can vary by hundreds of miles because beyond a couple of days the chaotic nature of weather/climate is relentlessly unpredictable.
To me its not clear climate models can predict anything. They quite simply are not accurately predicting climate events like ENSO, haven’t even gotten it together enough to even recognize multi-decadal events that is heavily documented in the sciences of oceanography and we remain without the models that have any hope of solving climate questions until the models become full fledged hydrosphere models that begins to parse out course of the life of CO2 and water in our climate system.
Of course there is a reason for that and it doesn’t have anything to do with modeling skills or computing power.
“I clearly said modeling is not science.”
OK no science required then? No physics equations needed, no fluid dynamics, heat transfer calculations needed? No observational inputs. No testing theory against observation.
None of that qualifies as science in your view?
“Modeling is but a tool of the scientific enterprise that makes data processing more efficient.”
If youd said computers and algorithms are tools that make data processing more efficient, I could agree with that. Is that what you meant?
Modeling is not that. Modeling is figuring out what equations to use and what data to use, then programming them into the computer. Then testing against observations and making subsequent adjustments to the model.
That is science.
Nate says:
”I clearly said modeling is not science.”
OK no science required then? No physics equations needed, no fluid dynamics, heat transfer calculations needed? No observational inputs. No testing theory against observation.
None of that qualifies as science in your view?
—————————–
Obviously if you develop a model the equations of science are input into the model. But that isn’t a scientific enterprise its a computing enterprise. Pure science is about investigation and the only thing on your list that corresponds to investigation is ”testing theory against observation”.
But climate modeling doesn’t qualify as doing that. Now for 42 years climate modeling has shown a deviation from observation and nobody in the modeling world appears ready to recognize it. This is Dr. Curry’s primary complaint.
And of course we know the refusal to recognize it is politically motivated. Thus the entire enterprise has nothing whatsoever to do with science. And I am not blaming the modelers for this. The modelers have their marching orders.
“. But that isnt a scientific enterprise its a computing enterprise. ”
You impressively combine ignorance and arrogance.
LOL! Nate acknowledges defeat by saying absolutely nothing in defense of the notion that computer modeling is science.
Go troll someone who still takes you seriously. Bill. Maybe try your dog.
LOL! Nate acknowledges defeat by saying absolutely nothing in defense of the notion that computer modeling is science. #2
“Nate acknowledges defeat”
Yep. I acknowledge that I can’t fix your stupidity.
Go troll in traffic.
bill hunter says:
LOL! Nate triple downs on acknowledging defeat by saying absolutely nothing in defense of the notion that computer modeling is science.
What a waste. A whole bunch of self styled experts who can do nothing nor say anything beyond parroting political slogans.
They are mutually exclusive when both are funded from a limited budget supplied by taxpayers.
The climate debate has shown how acutely horrible a world run by scientists would be. Of course, any climate modeller is welcome to run for office…but strangely few seem keen to be held accountable for their decisions.
It always amuses me how often climate scientists stray into the realms of politics yet decry those outside climate science who make proclamations about climate. At least lawyers will listen to people who represent themselves!
And anyway – isn’t the science settled? Stupid to waste more money on a solved problem.
To get back on topic, for those who advocate ruinous abandon of fossil fuels in favour of unreliables, why is the temp this month so low? Surely natural variability cannot overcome the all-powerful CO2?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1196993
What the public really needs to understand is that private enterprise is heavily regulated and held to account for their actions that affect the public both for actual damages and for misrepresentation.
Academia and government have legal protections against liability and accountability for either. Its even becoming questionable as to whether we should even allow them to teach our kids.
And I say that while realizing there are a lot of good people involved in academia and government as well. Its more a matter of settling for ‘sort of good’ vs demanding excellence. Nate is just a proponent for ‘what is good for me’ so his opinions are about as irrelevant as they can be.
From ice cores we have a proxy for the past climate in Antarctica and Greenland.
All climate reconstructions are local approximations, not accurate real time measurements.
It is only an assumption that a local proxy represents a global average climate.
And the margin of error is only an approximation.
There is no reason to assume a local proxy in Antarctica provides an accurate global average for our planet.
In fact, looking at the past 50 years, the temperature records for Antarctica DO NOT REPRESENT the global average temperature — they show no warming, in spite of the fact that our planet has warmed in the past 50 years.
If the temperature in Antarctica in the past 50 years does not correlate with the global average temperature, how can anyone say the ice core proxy-derived temperatures for Antarctica correlate with the global average temperature in the past?
From ice cores we have a very rough estimate of the past temperature in Antarctica.
All climate reconstructions / proxies are local.
It is only an assumption that estimates from a local proxy would correlate with an accurate real time global average measurement, and not a very good assumption.
“from ice cores, we know that the earths climate has altered abruptly in a matter of decades”
From a global perspective, or from one ice core, representing local temperatures (ie, Greenland)?
I’ve seen a similar claim before, and it was from one ice core in Greenland, and not matched by cores in Antarctica.
Would it be too much trouble to get some specifics?
More than 7 billion humans generating heat as hard as they can, producing and using energy.
Why is anyone surprised that thermometers react to increased heat?
That’s what thermometers are designed to do.
Of course, burning hydrocarbons produces at a minimum, CO2 and H2O. If the concentration of these matches (more or less) the increases in temperature – there you go!
No, not there you go. There you go isn’t science.
spa,
Observation – thermometer shows temperature increase.
Observation – burning hydrocarbons creates high temperature heat.
Observation – work of all types is eventually converted to heat of various temperatures.
Observation – population has increased markedly over the last century.
Observation – per capita energy consumption has increased markedly over the last century.
Speculation – thermometers are reacting to increased heat from energy production and use.
Experimental support – thermometers are designed to respond to temperature. Energy production and use creates additional heat at temperatures above the natural environment, particularly noticeable in the absence of sunlight.
On the other hand, you believe thermometers show increased temperatures because . . . ?
Swen.
That’s one way to look at things.
spa,
What’s another way that fits with the laws of physics?
And doesn’t involve magic at one step or other, of course.
You’ll need to tell me what law you’re talking about. Laws of Thermodynamics? Laws of Gravity? How about Conservation of Mass and Energy? How does your Carbon Cycle conform to Conservation of Mass?
spa,
You wrote –
“Youll need to tell me what law youre talking about. Laws of Thermodynamics? Laws of Gravity? How about Conservation of Mass and Energy? How does your Carbon Cycle conform to Conservation of Mass?
I said laws of physics – plural. All of them. Which ones do you you think contradict what I wrote? None? That would be right, I suppose.
What do mean by How does your Carbon Cycle conform to Conservation of Mass?
I havent mentioned a Carbon Cycle, so I dont understand your question. If you think anything I wrote contravenes any laws of physics, including the conservation laws, you are wrong. You cant do it, so why try to intimate that you can?
OK, I’ll make it a little simpler for you.
>Thermometer shows temperature increase.
>Burning hydrocarbons creates high temperatures.
>Work of all types is eventually converted to heat of all types.
So, what Law of Physics are you indicating and how does it show, There You Go!?
spa,
I responded to your silly gotcha before, when I wrote “I said laws of physics plural. All of them. Which ones do you you think contradict what I wrote? None? That would be right, I suppose.
If you really dont know the laws of physics (nobody knows all of them, fairly obviously), then why do you value my opinion so highly that you feel compelled to ask me for a list?
Hopefully, you do not dispute that thermometers are designed to respond to heat, or that energy production and use generates heat?
Once again, what laws of physics do you believe are being broken – or are you agreeing with what I wrote, but dont like, so you are just trying on a moronic diversion? Your attempt to ascribe a Carbon Cycle to me didnt work, did it? What next – claim that back radiation” can magically transfer energy from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface, raising the temperature of the surface without the atmosphere changing its temperature one bit!
A miracle! The magical free energy generator – brought to you by the GHE!
Oh, so you agree that a colder object cannot spontaneously transfer energy to a warmer, then? It looks like the laws of thermodynamics and the conservation laws remain unbroken.
Luckily, you probably agree that the GHE concept is nonsensical. If you dont, you might like to provide the accepted definition of the Greenhouse Effect, so we examine the reproducible experimental support it claims to have.
Only joking – the GHE doesnt exist.
Carry on.
“Observation.., observation.. observation.., etc”
Swenson bizarrely thinks useful science is done by declaring and wildly waving hands around.
No numbers, measuring or calculating required to test his assertions!
Nate says:
”Observation.., observation.. observation.., etc”
No numbers, measuring or calculating required to test his assertions!
———————–
Nate gives accurate description of how ‘climate risk’ is estimated except that even observation isn’t used.
“Swenson bizarrely thinks useful science is done by declaring and wildly waving hands around”.
That’s EXACTLY how modern climate science is done — always wrong wild guesses of the future climate.
Accompanied by declaring a coming crisis with 105% confidence (95% is for losers) … and wildly waving hands around.
But you forgot the 2022 climate chant:
“It’s worse than worse than we thought”
(“Worse then we thought” was the 2021 chant)
“That’s EXACTLY how modern climate science is done — always wrong wild guesses of the future climate.”
Really? You think they just declare things without showing any numbers, math, or calculations, as Swenson just demonstrated?
Guessing does not generally get you a science publication.
Come on Nate thats what they get paid for. . . .matching numbers and mathematics to the rant.
You provided us a prime example of estimating error bars for sealevel rise at 1,320 times the accuracy of the measuring system.
Its not a matter of using the wrong math, its a matter of having enough artistic skills to realize your data isn’t representative of the what you wish to portray.
Determinations about suitability of data entails more art than science and most desk bound academics are artless.
Then you have the more artfully trained scientists like Lonnie Thompson who was knowledgeable enough to know when to stop making artless predictions on the demise of Qori Kalis.
“You provided us a prime example of estimating error bars for sealevel rise at 1,320 times the accuracy of the measuring system.”
I explained the concept it at a 5th grade level to you, Bill. Obviously that was aiming too high.
Nate says:
I explained the concept it at a 5th grade level to you, Bill. Obviously that was aiming too high.
——————————–
Now you are just lying.
But thanks to Bindidon the debate is over.
All you need to do is read the conclusions and you will find that the scientists have 1) low confidence in the results due to accuracy issues of the instruments and 2) they were able to achieve anything toward one of the goals of separating natural sea level rise from anthropogenic causes.
But what does Nate do? What he always does! He parades it out as settled science. Morons get it better than Nate does.
“Its not a matter of using the wrong math,”
Yep its a matter of it not agreeing with Bill’s feelings about what the answer should be. Thus, as usual, the math must be rejected.
“But thanks to Bindidon the debate is over.”
Yep, his source is absolutely clear that Bill is full of sh*t.
“Over 19932017, we have found a GMSL trend of 3.350.4 mm yr−1 within a 90 % confidence level (CL) and a GMSL acceleration of 0.120.07 mm yr−2 (90 % CL). This is IN AGREEMENT (within error bars) with previous studies. The full GMSL error variancecovariance matrix is freely available online”
Nate this is the second occurrence of your most recent specific claim in this comment section. I responded to this here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1200753
“All you need to do is read the conclusions and you will find that the scientists have 1) low confidence in the results due to accuracy issues of the instruments and 2) they were able to achieve anything toward one of the goals of separating natural sea level rise from anthropogenic causes.”
And BTW I see NOTHING in the paper’s conclusions that resembles #1 or #2.
Yet more very strange fantasy from Bill.
As long as you don’t want to see it Nate, I think you will continue not seeing it.
Perfect opportunity for you to have provided a quote to back up your claims.
But no, you didnt. You cannot.
Thus, your claims are completely fictional, made-up, imagined.
Readers take note.
Nate its basically the entire conclusion. But perhaps the most telling comment is:
”Here we only considered the uncertainty in the GMSL due to the satellite altimeter instrument. In a future study, it would be interesting to consider the partitioning of the GMSL into the forced response to anthropogenic forcing and the natural response to natural forcing and to the internal variability. Estimating the natural GMSL variability (e.g. using models) and considering it to be an additional residual time-correlated error would allow us to calculate the GMSL trend and acceleration representing the long-term evolution of GMSL in relation to anthropogenic climate change.”
If the scientists feel they aren’t touching on the topic of anthropogenic climate change. . . .what is the purpose of the study? Obviously, since they are not, one cannot project anything from the study.
“Estimating the natural GMSL variability (e.g. using models)”
Oh you guys would love that! Not.
In any case, nothing whatsover to do with the error in the measurement or the validity of the measurements.
“1) low confidence in the results due to accuracy issues of the instruments”
Nothing whatsoever in there about that
“2) they were able to achieve anything toward one of the goals of separating natural sea level rise from anthropogenic causes.”
Is it their goal in this paper?
“The objective of this paper is to estimate the error variancecovariance matrix of the GMSL (on a 10 d basis) from satellite altimetry measurements. This error variancecovariance matrix provides a comprehensive description of the uncertainties in the GMSL to users. It covers all timescales that are included in the 25-year long satellite altimetry record: from 10 d (the time resolution of the GMSL time series) to multidecadal timescales. It also enables us to estimate the uncertainty in any metric derived from GMSL measurements such as trend, acceleration or other moments of higher order in a consistent way.”
No.
Nate says:
In any case, nothing whatsover to do with the error in the measurement or the validity of the measurements.
—————————
I doubt you have any modeling experience. Increased accuracy of measurement is probably the number one factor in identifying the source of variance. With perfect accuracy one could actually detect acceleration and deceleration of sea level rise concert with changes in individual variables. Without that you are left with efforts to smooth out variations which results in essentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
=============
=============
=============
=============
Nate says:
”2) they were able to achieve anything toward one of the goals of separating natural sea level rise from anthropogenic causes.”
Is it their goal in this paper?
———————-
Yes very much one of the purposes of their work.
”Estimating a realistic uncertainty in the GMSL record is of crucial importance for climate studies, such as assessing precisely the current rate and acceleration of sea level, analysing the closure of the sea-level budget, understanding the causes of sea-level rise, detecting and attributing the response of sea level to anthropogenic activity, or calculating the Earth’s energy imbalance.”
As a result in the conclusion they indicated a lack of precision toward a precise rate and acceleration; and specifically pointed out the need for more precision to begin to separate natural from anthropogenic change.
It might have helped with energy imbalance and some evidence other efforts to close the sea-level budget are not out of range. But what good does that serve if the problem isn’t largely or completely due to anthropogenic perturbation? Certainly it does fit in with typical academic curiosities like the sex life of a bumblebee.
“As a result in the conclusion they indicated a lack of precision toward a precise rate and acceleration; and specifically pointed out the need for more precision to begin to separate natural from anthropogenic change.”
Nope. Not at all! Quote that, liar.
Nate says:
”Estimating the natural GMSL variability (e.g. using models)”
Oh you guys would love that! Not.
—————————–
wrong! Quite to the contrary, I would love it if they could find some good modelers that could develop models and get their ability to predict validated.
============
============
============
============
Nate says:
In any case, nothing whatsover to do with the error in the measurement or the validity of the measurements.
———————
Hmmm are you just stupid and can’t understand what I was saying when I said there was no error in their work and that all I was questioning was the usefulness of what they did?
That comment was in the context of my criticism of your use of the a single graph that arose out of the study to refute Swenson and Denny.
Perhaps if that straightens out your understanding perhaps you could defend the graphic in that context. Maybe?
If the data in the study was perfect despite your denial that would improve anything. . . .one in fact would be able to detect the change in sealevel as the sun crossed the continents every day, among much other stuff.
Observations indicate Human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to natural energy flows.
No discernable signal in the noise.
Quite discernable.
A 1% change in global average temperature would be bad.
2% would be catastrophic.
We should try and stop before the first.
Your mileage will vary.
b,
A 500% increase in your mental acuity would be a start.
I suppose that would still leave you in the 50% of the population who are below average intelligence, by definition.
Maybe you could respond with some more obscenities to demonstrate how clever you are?
Human influences on the climate in cities, where lots of humans live, significantly affects their local climate.
All the cement, asphalt, brick buildings, heat escaping from buildings and automobiles, lack of trees, etc. cause significant warming compared with surrounding rural areas.
The climate im areas where there is lots of food production is very important too.
But the climate measured at the ocean surfaces mainly affects only those people on the decks of cruise ships !
There are many causes of climate change, both natural and man made. No one knows the percentage of change caused by any one of them. One might speculate that the warming since 1975 was faster than expected from natural causes alone, but that’s just a reasonable speculation. not a proven fact. It is expected that more greenhouse gases will reduce Earth’s ability to cool itself by some amount. The amount is unknown.
You could assume a worst case — all warming since 1975 was caused ONLY by CO2, and extrapolate that trend. That worst case guess leads me to the conclusion that another 47 years of similar warming would be just as harmless as the past 47 years of warming since 1975 — and that’s a WORST CASE ESTIMATE.
Observation – burning hydrocarbons creates high temperature heat.
…
Speculation – thermometers are reacting to increased heat from energy production and use.
Why not do some calculations, rather than speculations?
Quick and dirty using numbers I know/can find easily …
* the total annual US petroleum use is about 300 “Quads” or about 30 x 1e18 J = 3e19 J
* There are 3e7 sec per year, so that is 3e19/3e7 = 1e12 W
* The surface area of the US is about 1e7 km^2 or 1e13 m^2.
* So petroleum is about 0.1 W/m^2.
Small, but not completely negligible. But that is the US only. The US has a high per capita energy use, so the world average is presumably much smaller. maybe 0.03 W/m^2. And 2/3 of the world is water, so that pushes the average down to the order of 0.01 W/m^2 of heating from the burning of petroleum (which I just confirmed as 0.014 W/m^2 using total petroleum and total surface area). We might triple that if we add in natural gas and coal, so back up to 0.03 W/m^2.
This could easily be off by a factor of 2 or even 5. But even 0.15 W/m^2 from the direct heat of fossil fuels would be ‘noise’ in the overall signal.
The unsubstantiated ‘speculation’ is disproven. Fossil fuels do not produce nearly enough heat to be directly warming the earth.
That fact might help explain why UAH shows a 50% greater warming rate over land, where people live, than over the oceans, where fish live.
Dr Roy, Now that the ban on travel due to the COVID pandemic is pretty much over, has there been any calculations done as to the net benefit or not of the reduction in CO2 emissions for that period?
The last I looked at it, the decrease in emissions was similar to natural fluctuations in Atmospheric CO2. So there wasn’t a noticeable decrease in the rate of CO2 rise.
They are mutually exclusive when both are funded from a limited budget supplied by taxpayers.
The climate debate has shown how acutely horrible a world run by scientists would be. Of course, any climate modeller is welcome to run for office…but strangely few seem keen to be held accountable for their decisions.
It always amuses me how often climate scientists stray into the realms of politics yet decry those outside climate science who make proclamations about climate. At least lawyers will listen to people who represent themselves!
And anyway – isn’t the science settled? Stupid to waste more money on a solved problem.
To get back on topic, for those who advocate ruinous abandon of fossil fuels in favour of unreliables, why is the temp this month so low? Surely natural variability cannot overcome the all-powerful CO2?
Science + politics = politics
Kind of like how a positive X negative = negative
Joe Biden + Kamala Harris = a nothingburger
Michael Mann + James Hansen = a nothingburger
Willard the Dullard + Nasty Nate = Two Big Whoppers
Sorry for that duplicate post, can the mods delete it?
I wanted to ask Dr Spencer if there was any cloudiness data that suggested the Covid interlude in global aviation may have had an impact on cloudiness.
Pulleez..
Science is a tiny fraction of the budget. Climate modeling is a tiny fraction of that.
This is science that actually impacts policy.
And you are saying: ‘I dont need to know’.
“This is science that actually impacts policy.”
Yes, negatively, in many of our views.
Yep, thus the need to deny the science.
Nate,
You are a moron. You cant name a single person who denies science, can you?
Assertions unsupported by reproducible experiment are just speculation – fantasy if you prefer.
Nothing to deny, you idiot.
That’s easy. Swenson denies science constantly while tossing pointless ad-homs.
Nate says:
”Yep, thus the need to deny the science.”
———————————
LMAO! In the science and modeling I have been involved with the consistency of the deviation of the models from actual climate performance would cause us to get laughed off the stage.
You come off as such a total Dolt (capitalized) it seems you actually believe the nonsense you spout.
Models are not science at all until they have been validated. Climate modeling today seems to be an endless exercise in dogma rather than a genuine effort to actually model climate change. That viewpoint has been expressed by many eminent climate scientists and you are so stupid you actually believe they are deniers as well.
As I pointed out above many eminent climate scientists believe the climate modeling effort has been a complete failure and should be abandoned.
Politics has interfered into this process making it a near useless enterprise. Discontinuance would seem to be the wise alternative.
I am not completely in agreement with that. Ever the optimist and with extensive investigatory modeling experience (with an almost naive belief that politics can efficiently be defeated) I would recommend the following.
Assign the process to oversight by the civil service and mandate a renewal program that weeds out the non-performing teams with prejudice toward the sponsoring institutions (attack the politics).
Modeling budgeting should reward performance of correctly predicting both the direction and magnitude of climate change.
Then compromise with a 50% budget cut after washing out 70 to 80% of the non-performers. Use the extra budget to award grants to a variety of institutions based upon careful review by the civil service of proposals cutting into new territory to repair the almost universal non-performance seen to date. Civil service employees are no doubt the most suited for this duty as the current system is wholly nepotistic in that the institutions that currently control the budgets are fully compromised by the politics.
If you have researchers who will tell the “system” anything it wants to hear to get more research funding then that is a system that is designed to fail. Social Security is designed to fail. Your typically social security worker isn’t going to deny claims. Handing out checks ensures their own security. That’s a system designed to fail.
Its been destined to fail for the last 85 years? Any day now.
Obviously Nate is pleased with regressive taxation policies. It won’t fail because the design saves the elite class a lot of money. Perhaps though SPA considers that a failure in and of itself.
There was a significant decline in the burning of gasoline and jet fuel for a few months in 2020. That no effect was seen in global CO2 measurements suggests burning gasoline and jet fuel may have a smaller effect on CO2 levels than many people claim.
Another case of waving hands around without a single calculation, number, or notion of how big the effect should have been compared to natural variation. And coming to an erroneous ‘conclusion’ as a result.
That aint science.
Says the King of Obfuscation who makes a habit of aint sciencing.
Chic wants me to stop responding to his posts:
“Then why dont you just ignore me? I wont mind or miss you one bit.”
I said:
“This from the guy that follows me around tossing ad-hom grenades after most of my posts? That’s rich!”
Good example here.
Nate,
I’ll make you a deal. If you stop following everybody else around making obfuscationary and misleading posts, I won’t have to keep pointing them out.
Nasty Nate, the Blog Bloviator in Chief
“we are to believe the last ~15 years of Argo float measurements of the ocean (to 2000 m depth), there has been a slight warming equivalent to an imbalance of 1 Watt per sq. meter, suggesting a very slight imbalance in those energy flows.
One watt per sq. meter.
That tiny imbalance can be compared to the 5 to 10 Watt per sq. meter uncertainty in the ~240 Watt per sq. meter average flows in and out of the climate system. We do not know those flows that accurately. Our satellite measurement systems do not have that level of absolute accuracy.”
The CERES may not have that level of absolute accuracy. But its stability over time is good enough to track CHANGES in the imbalance to less than 0.5 W/m2 over a couple of decades
loeb et. al. in grl 10/2021.
And put it together with Argo, can’t we determine that there is no consistent 5-10 W offset to the imbalance?
Still not sure what the issue is here.
NATE: You are missing my point. Yes, the Argo float data (if believed) tells us how much imbalance there has been. My point is that since we don’t know the natural energy flows to anywhere near that level of accuracy, warming could be (say), half natural and half human-caused. If that was the case, the climate sensitivity is automatically reduced by one-half. -Roy
We’ve been over this time and time again. Loeb 2021 may confirm the alleged imbalance, but it does not indicate that human produced IR gases are responsible due to too many other contributing factors. Maybe humans are contributing some to the natural factors. So what. Do you want to wipe out humankind to solve a non-problem?
Despite Dr. Spencer’s “no evidence to the contrary,” there is no DEFINITIVE evidence of any AGW.
“but it does not indicate that human produced IR gases are responsible due to too many other contributing factors. ”
I don’t think you bothered to read it. It was able to discern the contribution of GHG, as well as others.
First off, in Fig 1, you can clearly see that the TOA energy imbalance and the ocean measured imbalance tracked each other closely, within 0.5 W/m^2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/66fc7cde-9556-48e4-b224-1d827f4e9805/grl62546-fig-0001-m.png
The ‘other contributing factors’ are playing a role. Mostly ENSO and Ice-Albedo feedback. In this period there was a shift from a La Nina dominated period 2008-2012 to an El Nino dominated period 2015-2020.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/982cfcbf-43f4-49dd-be20-2ab9758e2b95/grl62546-fig-0002-m.png
The paper is able to measure the CHANGES in energy flows from various contributors: Clouds, water vapor temperature, albedo, GHG, to better than 0.35 W/m^2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/5655c3cb-e0d2-4f20-aadd-b26cb466ae36/grl62546-fig-0003-m.png
So when Dr. Roy says “I repeat: NONE of the natural, global-average energy flows in the climate system are known to better than about 5-10 Watts per sq. meter”
This is highly misleading. The most important thing to know is how much these flows are changing. And we do know how much each of the flows are CHANGING to better than 0.5 W/m^2.
And we can even get a handle on what is causing them to change.
“Following the shift in the sign of the PDO index in 2014, the Nio3.4 index peaked during the winter of 2015/2016, reflecting a major El Nio event (Figure 4b). SSTs started to rise in 2012 and have remained above average through 2020 (Figure 4c). Variations in SST closely track both the PDO and Nio3.4 indices, with correlation coefficients 0.80 and 0.72, respectively. In the positive phase of the PDO, SST increases are pronounced over the eastern Pacific Ocean, which causes a decrease in low cloud amount and an increase in ASR along the eastern Pacific Ocean (Loeb, Thorsen, et al., 2018). After 2014, the ASR trend shows a factor of 4 increase over that prior to 2014. An increase in thermal infrared emission to space slightly offsets the increase in ASR, so that the trend in net flux after 2014 is reduced to 2.5 times that prior to 2014.”
Nate claims: “First off, in Fig 1, you can clearly see that the TOA energy imbalance and the ocean measured imbalance tracked each other closely, within 0.5 W/m^2.”
Nate, did you find another link you can’t understand?
That Fig. 1 is complete nonsense. How was TOA measured? Are they subtracting fluxes? Can you count the number of violations of physics?
Just look at graphs ain’t science. You need to understand what’s happening.
” How was TOA measured? ”
Maybe read the paper. First time for everything.
“Can you count the number of violations of physics?”
Yes. Zero.
It is rather revealing when Clint declares that a measurement is ‘complete nonsense’, then informs us he doesnt know how they did the measurement!
Couldn’t support your nonsense, as usual.
Nate,
The main problem you have is what you criticize me for, not being skeptical enough of your own biases. How did Loeb 2021 measure the effects of “other?” Even if I agreed with you that humans are responsible for some portion of all the contributions to global warming, how do you differentiate the fossil fuel contributions from the natural causes? That is the subject of this post.
Next you seem to be asserting that no matter how inaccurate your measurement is, if you subtract those measurements to calculate a change, then suddenly you get an accurate value. That is not good science. Seems unlikely you have done much. Errors propagate.
The reason I accuse you of obfuscation is clearly demonstrated in that last part. What does ENSO, etc. have to do with human caused IR gases? Or for that matter, distinguishing between the contributions to global warming?
First off, Loeb and his team are highly respected on this topic, CERES measurements, as Im sure Roy will agree. The results are amazing.
The main point of my post is that paper shows that Roy’s emphasis that on the large uncertainty 5-10 W/m^2 in the energy flows is misleading, because it is the changes that are of interest, and these are measured with high precession.
“Next you seem to be asserting that no matter how inaccurate your measurement is, if you subtract those measurements to calculate a change, then suddenly you get an accurate value. That is not good science. Seems unlikely you have done much. Errors propagate.”
Yes the measurement of change can be very accurate, and precise.
As I said to Bill elsewhere, my clock is inaccurate, its running 5 minutes ahead of the true time. But it can accurately resolve the time between events to 1 second resolution.
“What does ENSO, etc. have to do with human caused IR gases? Or for that matter, distinguishing between the contributions to global warming?”
Because you and others complain that ASR is the dominant change during this period. It is, during this period. So, the story goes, how can GHG be important?
And that is explained in the paper as due to the natural variation of ENSO and PDO during this period. And GHG are still increasing and contributing.
During other periods the ENSO/PDO and resultant ASR will not have the same pattern. This cannot explain the last 50 y of GW.
Obfuscation: the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
In your original thread opening, you challenged Dr. Spencer’s point that the imbalance cannot definitively be attributed to human causes. You countered with a measurement accuracy red herring. Even if the accuracy difference is as you say, it doesn’t make the human contribution to the imbalance clear. That’s obfuscation #1.
Then you make the arguably incorrect statement implying that “stability over time” will reduce the error of measurement changes and you cite Loeb et alia 2021 as evidence. They wrote, “Satellite incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are presently not at the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small [0.5 W/m2] difference in an absolute sense.” That’s obfuscation #2.
This was my opening response to you, “Loeb 2021 may confirm the alleged imbalance, but it does not indicate that human produced IR gases are responsible due to too many other contributing factors.” To which you respond with statements about imbalance, ‘other contributing factors,’ CHANGES in energy flows calculated by an algorythm and somehow conclude that makes Dr. Spencer’s claim wrong. Where was the rebuttal to my statement about the attribution of AGW? That’s obfuscation #3.
The respectability of Leob is an appeal to authority. That’s obfuscation #4.
“The main point of my post is that paper shows that Roys emphasis that on the large uncertainty 5-10 W/m^2 in the energy flows is misleading, because it is the changes that are of interest, and these are measured with high precision.”
You are confusing the energy flows attributed to clouds, water vapor, albedo, temperature, etc. with the satellite measurements. Regardless of the measurements’ precision, they don’t differentiate the contributing flows to the accuracy you claim. That’s obfuscation #5.
“Yes the measurement of change can be very accurate, and precise.” The clock analogy is the extreme case of absolute accuracy, hardly proof that differences reduce error. Error propagates. That’s obfuscation #6.
“During other periods the ENSO/PDO and resultant ASR will not have the same pattern. This cannot explain the last 50 y of GW.”
That explanation is even less understandable than Loeb et al. Are you saying ASR results from ENSO/PDO? That’s obFuscation #7.
“You countered with a measurement accuracy red herring.”
Not a red herring at all.
“Then you make the arguably incorrect statement implying that ‘stability over time’ will reduce the error of measurement changes and you cite Loeb et alia 2021 as evidence. They wrote, ‘Satellite incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are presently not at the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small [0.5 W/m2] difference in an absolute sense.’
Exactly, in ‘absolute sense’. IOW NOT relevant to measurement of change. Roy agreed with this!
As I simply explained with the clock.
Any 5th grader could have understood this. Are you dumber than a 5th grader?
Let’s face it. No matter how simple, straightforward, logical my arguments, you are locked and loaded to fire off a rejection of it and label it ‘obfuscation’.
There is no way to rationally debate with someone like you.
So go troll in traffic somewhere.
“You are confusing the energy flows attributed to clouds, water vapor, albedo, temperature, etc. with the satellite measurements. Regardless of the measurements precision, they dont differentiate the contributing flows to the accuracy you claim. Thats obfuscation #5.”
FALSE.
When Loeb et. al report the trend in energy flows due to say, clouds, those are coming from the CERES EBAF Ed4.1 satellite cloud radiation observations, and other satellite measurements. And they state their error bar on the flux trends, for clouds +- 0.18 W/m^2/dec.
And they note:
“To determine cloud contributions, the approach of Soden et al. (2008) is used:……is the anomaly in cloud radiative effect (CRE) from EBAF Ed4.1 observations…we estimate the trend uncertainty in CRE due to instrument drift to be <0.085 W m−2 decade−1, which is a factor of 5 smaller than the trend uncertainty associated with CRE internal variability."
"That is not good science. Seems unlikely you have done much. Errors propagate."
Yes, and you need to know how the errors propagate, and Loeb et al 2021 certainly do.
This is not just me saying these things.
When Loeb et. al report the trend in energy flows due to say, clouds, they report error bar on the flux trends, for clouds +- 0.18 W/m^2/dec.
You seem to be suggesting that given the absolute inaccuracy of the overall flux, then this small error is not possible.
You are seemingly suggesting, without evidence, that they don't know how errors propagate!
Big talk, but you don't know any such thing.
“As I simply explained with the clock. ”
Nate and 5th graders have not learned enough and done enough science to know that errors propagate. Only clocks are close to 100% accurate. Normal instruments have an accuracy variability which propagates when used in math operations.
“And they state their error bar on the flux trends, for clouds +- 0.18 W/m^2/dec.”
Can you explain how that cloud variability is better than “the [0.4 W/m2/dec] trend uncertainty associated with CRE internal variability?”
“You seem to be suggesting that given the absolute inaccuracy of the overall flux, then this small error is not possible. You are seemingly suggesting, without evidence, that they don’t know how errors propagate!”
I can see how you would credit those words to me given your propensity to obfuscate. I suggest neither of those. I do suggest that the errors reported may be whatever their statistical analysis from their algorithm comes out as (GIGO) and that they don’t reflect a rigorous error propagation analysis. IOW, I can do an experiment and report the standard deviations, the standard error, the error of the estimate, etc. None of that reveals what my true variability could be if I included all possible error propagation from my experiment.
For what it is worth, I think that their cloud attribution is probably realistic. But I am not familiar with partial radiative perturbation enough to know how well the process can separate the contributions of factors as different as albedo and an IR absorbing gas. Is it similar to principle component analysis? If CO2 was omitted would the results be significantly different?
One final point. As elegant as the Loeb 2021 analysis is, the individual contributions to the CERES data do not necessarily translate proportionally into temperature changes. More to the point, the impact of human influence can only be divined from the results.
“Nate and 5th graders have not learned enough and done enough science to know that errors propagate.”
AGAIN, a 5th graders watch is off by 5 minutes from the true time. They certainly know enough to use their watch to accurately measure the time elapsed between a start and finish of the 1 mile race. They know their timing of this race will not be 5 minutes off!
Why don’t you? That 5 minute ‘absolute accuracy’ of the watch matters NOT A BIT to measurement of the time difference between events. The 5 minutes DOES NOT PROPAGATE.
“Normal instruments have an accuracy variability which propagates when used in math operations.”
What is accuracy variabilty?
Like the watch, the CERES satellite may have level of ‘absolute accuracy’ > 1 W/m^2 in its measurement of total flux. But its stability over time is good enough to track CHANGES in flux to less than 0.5 W/m2 over a couple of decades.
Thus, their quoted error bars on trends are quite possible, contrary to your uninformed assertions that “they dont reflect a rigorous error propagation analysis.”
“Can you explain how that cloud variability is better than ‘the [0.4 W/m2/dec] trend uncertainty associated with CRE internal variability?’
No. Other than the fact that the calculation involves more than just the CRE (eq 3) and perhaps the other stuff partly cancels CRE. Maybe look at the cited reference.
” But I am not familiar with partial radiative perturbation enough to know how well the process can separate the contributions of factors as different as albedo and an IR absorbing gas. ”
Nor am I. But there is track record of papers on this. You could go read them.
Or not, and make the reasonable assumption that these guys probably know what they are doing.
“What is accuracy variability? ”
If you weren’t so interested in obfuscation and could just concentrate on good science, an explanation wouldn’t be necessary. A satellite is not a clock. A good clock is 100% accurate if it does not lose or gain any time with respect to a standard. A clock doesn’t have precision variability, because it doesn’t measure anything over and over. If you set it 5 minutes slow or fast, it will remain precisely inaccurate by 5 minutes. The degree to which it is set slow or fast or drifts with time is accuracy variability.
Somewhere I read that CERES satellites were accurate to about 1 W/m2, IIRC. In addition to that inherent built-in inaccuracy, there will be a certain variability due to the precision variability. In other words, unlike a clock, a satellite measures radiation values with respect to both time and space. Traversing the same path under the exact same conditions would indicate the degree of precision, if that were even possible. All I read from the Loeb 2021 paper is that the satellites are “stable,” but the details of drift and precision are not provided. Perhaps you will be motivated to track down the details of radiation measurement standards, drift in space, and combined error propagated from accuracy drift and measurement precision. Absent that, no, “their quoted error bars on trends” do not “reflect a rigorous error propagation analysis.
“…make the reasonable assumption that these guys probably know what they are doing.”
That’s lame. As I previously wrote, it is impressive work designating attributions from presumably all possible contributions to energy flows to and from the Earth. Questions still remain as to whether the errors reflect the true magnitude of the trend errors and whether their attributions are correct.
Above all, the paper’s conclusions fail to show that anthropogenic radiative forcing by WMGG leads to an imbalance between how much solar radiant energy is absorbed by Earth and how much thermal infrared radiation is emitted to space, as claimed in its introduction. They don’t even venture a guess.
To paraphrase Dr. Spencer, “What this means is that recent warming could be mostly natural. Climate scientists simply assume that the climate system has been in perfect, long-term harmonious balance, if not for humans, and this position is largely an anthropocentric statement of faith.”
“All I read from the Loeb 2021 paper is that the satellites are “stable,” but the details of drift and precision are not provided. …”
Those details are provided in earlier CERES instrumental calibration papers by Loeb et. al. that Chic has yet to read. Warning: the details are “daunting” to use one of their own words but will teach Chic that Loeb 2021 95% significance level is “rigorous”.
“…that Chic has yet to read.”
And break my string of ignoring your requests I look for evidence to back up your assertions? Not a chance.
Explain “rigorous.”
Not looking for detail evidence will not improve Chic’s credibility.
Hint: the noted detail papers may even be in the references of the paper Chic was spoon fed by Nate & the ref.s in those papers may be important in improving Chic’s credibility. .
I’m not concerned about my credibility. Why should I? Unlike you, I’m not regularly making unfounded assertions. I’m too busy challenging yours and Nate’s.
… with unfounded Chic assertions. Unfortunately for Chic, mine are supported by experimental evidence Dr. Spencer developed. I can already observe Chic is not concerned with Chic’s credibility.
I asserted down thread that you were wrong about Dr. Spencer showing that CO2 could warm like clouds. Are you claiming that is an unfounded assertion? Do you want to continue to obfuscate?
No obfuscation from me Chic, I rely on the experimental evidence from Dr. Spencer and other published measurements with data showing 95% significance levels not assertions. You could too.
Chic,
“Perhaps you will be motivated to track down the details of radiation measurement standards, drift in space, and combined error propagated from accuracy drift and measurement precision.”
Given that YOU have a strong motivation to raise doubts about the evidence, YOU will be motivated to track down the details. Not my job or desire.
I don’t have a-priori doubts, as you do, about this paper’s results because this group has strong track record of excellence. Roy and Kristian feel the same way.
Same if I go to a renowned doctor at the Mayo clinic for cancer-treatment. I don’t need to check all her stated facts and figures. Though I might get a second expert opinion.
“Somewhere I read that CERES satellites were accurate to about 1 W/m2, IIRC. In addition to that inherent built-in inaccuracy, there will be a certain variability due to the precision variability.”
Good. They are not the same. The ‘absolute accuracy’ will not propagate into a measurement of CHANGE, as you had claimed. That is the point of the clock example.
BTW ‘precision variability’ is another non-science term.
“Above all, the papers conclusions fail to show that anthropogenic radiative forcing by WMGG leads to an imbalance between how much solar radiant energy is absorbed by Earth and how much thermal infrared radiation is emitted to space, as claimed in its introduction.”
It is a strawman to assign to this one paper the job of proving AGW to you.
There has been 5 or 6 decades of evidence built up prior to this paper. And this paper is looking back only to 2005.
Again, no one, certainly not I, doubts that natural variability is present in the temperature record.
And over a short period of time, like this study, natural can be the larger contributor to variability.
Thus it is well understood that ENSO played a big role in the temperature flatness from 2005-2013, and the subsequent rapid rise from 2013-2020.
So it should be no surprise that ENSO-driven natural variability should appear in the energy flows during this period.
But, again, over a long period of 50 y, ENSO is oscillatory cannot explain the 50 y warming trend.
Roy is a scientist and skeptic. When even he expresses the opinion that likely most of the warming is anthro, he is basing that on his knowledge of all the evidence (certainly not his faith). And he is basing it on the lack of evidence for an alternative mechanism.
Nate wrote, “[Accuracy and precision] are not the same.”
That’s obfuscation #8 in this thread. I never said they were and I tried to explain to you the difference between them and how both are involved in error propagation. This is from Wikipedia:
“Accuracy and precision are two measures of observational error. Accuracy is how close or far off a given set of measurements (observations or readings) are to their true value, while precision is how close or dispersed the measurements are to each other.
In other words, precision is a description of random errors, a measure of statistical variability. Accuracy has two definitions:
1. More commonly, it is a description of only systematic errors, a measure of statistical bias of a given measure of central tendency; low accuracy causes a difference between a result and a true value; ISO calls this trueness.
2. Alternatively, ISO defines accuracy as describing a combination of both types of observational error (random and systematic), so high accuracy requires both high precision and high trueness.”
Caveat: Wikipedia states,”This article may be too technical for Nate to understand.”
“BTW ‘precision variability’ is another non-science term.”
Precision is…a measure of statistical variability. I don’t know how more scientific it can be. Obfuscation #9.
“It is a strawman to assign to this one paper the job of proving AGW to you.”
That’s obfuscation #10. I did not expect or request a proof of AGW from this paper despite your attempt to do so. I wrote, “Loeb 2021 may confirm the alleged [energy flux] imbalance, but it does not indicate that human produced IR gases are responsible due to too many other contributing factors.” This was in response to you missing Dr. Spencer’s point that the degree of AGW cannot be known to the level of accuracy implied by measurements of ocean heat content and my view that Loeb 2021 does not prove otherwise.
The rest of your last comment seems rather benign. Who said that ENSO is responsible for explaining 50 years of warming? Obfuscation #11. The point is that CO2 or human influence can only be claimed to explain it. But not DEFINITIVELY. The best you have is a gross correlation.
“Thats obfuscation #10. I did not expect or request a proof of AGW from this paper despite your attempt to do so. I wrote”
Then why are you complaining that the paper doesnt do just that?
?Loeb 2021 may confirm the alleged [energy flux] imbalance, but it does not indicate that human produced IR gases are responsible due to too many other contributing factors.”
Again complaining about what the paper was not ever intended to do.
“This was in response to you missing Dr. Spencers point that the degree of AGW cannot be known to the level of accuracy implied by measurements of ocean heat content and my view that Loeb 2021 does not prove otherwise.”
As usual the original point for bringing up a paper is long lost in the morass of the discussion.
The original point for bringing it up was ONLY to address Roy’s statements like
“I repeat: NONE of the natural, global-average energy flows in the climate system are known to better than about 5-10 Watts per sq. meter”
The paper, I believe, shows that this statement is at least MISLEADING.
The paper is clearly showing that we can measure the CHANGES in these energy flows to much better than 5-10 W/m^2! And the changes are what we need to know when dealing with Climate CHANGE.
“Caveat: Wikipedia states,’This article may be too technical for Nate to understand.’
FYI, I teach this subject to students. I regularly use it in my work. I don’t need Wikipedia to explain it to me.
Ive tried to explain to you about ‘absolute uncertainty’ not propagating into a measurement of CHANGE. The clock was an example of that. Loeb’s own statements confirm this. And finally the small error bars on his measurements of trend he reported, that you seemingly accepted, confirm this.
So not sure why we still need to argue about this?
I think this part of Loeb explains it well:
“As noted in detail in Loeb, Doelling, et al. (2018), EEI is a small (∼0.15%) residual of much larger radiative fluxes that are on the order of 340 W m−2. Satellite incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are presently not at the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small difference in an ABSOLUTE SENSE. However, satellite EEI are highly precise as the instruments are very stable. We thus adjust the satellite EEI to the in situ value by applying an OFFSET to the satellite EEI such that its mean value over the 15-year period considered in this study is consistent with the mean in situ value. Use of this offset to anchor the satellite EEI to the in situ EEI does NOT AFFECT THE TRENDS of either time series nor the correlation between them.”
“Then why are you complaining that the paper doesnt do just that?”
I am not complaining. Obfuscation #12. I object to you arguing trends reduce variability. You tried to get Dr. Spencer to agree that the trend reduces the 5 to 10 W/m2 energy flow variability down to 0.5 W/m2.
“Again complaining about what the paper was not ever intended to do.”
I am not complaining about that either. Obfuscation #13. The paper only suggests that anthropogenic radiative forcing by WMGG are partially responsible for any EEI. I’m only concerned with opposing your claim that the paper does show human influence. I understand why you think that it does and I disagree. If we agree on that disagreement, then we are done here unless you want to defend this:
“The paper is clearly showing that we can measure the CHANGES in these energy flows to much better than 5-10 W/m^2!”
We can do this in a new thread and it should be enlightening, at least for me anyway.
“Ive tried to explain to you about ‘absolute uncertainty’ not propagating into a measurement of CHANGE.”
This is your first mention of absolute uncertainty (obfuscation #13) and it is simply another name for measurement error. Absolute uncertainty does indeed propagate when measuring a change (obfuscation #14). If your first measurement is low by the maximum error and the second was high by the same error, the difference is off by twice the maximum error.
“Loeb’s own statements confirm this.”
Where? (obfuscation #15)
“And finally the small error bars on his measurements of trend he reported, that you seemingly accepted, confirm this.”
How? (obfuscation #16)
Your last comment at 8:28 AM is worth pursuing in the context of 0.5 W/m2 variability versus 5 to 10 W/m2. How applying an “offset to the satellite EEI” justifies your variability argument is another matter. I’ll have to give some thought to the appropriateness of offsetting towards correlating the trends. I took that for granted previously.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1203118
I started that new thread to discuss the satellite error question at the heart of the original post.
“(obfuscation #15)”
It is interesting that many of these things that you have labelled obfuscations are things that you eventually understood (or claimed to) or agreed with.
So clearly they are things that were not obfuscation at all, just things that YOU had not (yet) understood.
Quite lame!
“This is your first mention of absolute uncertainty (obfuscation #13) and it is simply another name for measurement error. Absolute uncertainty does indeed propagate when measuring a change (obfuscation #14). If your first measurement is low by the maximum error and the second was high by the same error, the difference is off by twice the maximum error.’
Correction the term we we using is ‘absolute accuracy’
Loebs own statements confirm this.
Where? (obfuscation #15)
The statement above. DID you not read it?”
he says “level of accuracy required to resolve such a small difference in an ABSOLUTE SENSE”
IOW ‘absolute accuracy’
“So clearly they are things that were not obfuscation at all, just things that YOU had not (yet) understood.”
Unbelievable. Obfuscation #15 had to do with you writing this, “Ive tried to explain to you about ‘absolute uncertainty’ not propagating into a measurement of CHANGE. The clock was an example of that. Loeb’s own statements confirm this.” That’s obfuscation of yours #17, which I tried to clear up after obfuscation #14 and will be happy to revisit in the new thread. But, leave your clocks behind. They have nothing to do with measurement error.
Loeb never mentions ‘absolute accuracy.’ Obfuscation #18.
Absolute accuracy is the closeness of an estimated, measured, or computed value to a standard, accepted, or true value of a particular quantity. I didn’t see any reference in Loeb to a standard. Now I am not sure who to assign obfuscation #19 to, you or Loeb.
“Loeb never mentions absolute accuracy. Obfuscation #18.”
Loeb”the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small difference in an ABSOLUTE SENSE.”
Chic is a clueless troll #18
There is no standard energy flow to determine the accuracy uncertainty. So you get obfuscation #19.
“Loeb never mentions absolute accuracy.”
“There is no standard energy flow…”
I guess he did mention it then.
Chic tries to move the goalposts.
Clueless troll #19
“I dont think you bothered to read it. It was able to discern the contribution of GHG, as well as others.”
If that’s what was claimed, there is no reason to read the paper. Because it is baloney.
That’s where we recognize a True Scientist!
Yep he is a gem.
“given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I still provisionally side with the view that warming has been mostly human-caused”
This statement must be based your knowledge of the available evidence.
That “given the lack of evidence” statement is so anti-science that the fact it came from a person with a science degree is s
The “lack of evidence” and “I provisionally side with the view” are anti-science, whether they come from a Ph.D. scientist, or from a bathroom attendant.
That statement represents everything wrong with modern climate science.
It is extremely disappointing that it was made by a person who has a science degree and works in the field of science.
On the other hand that statement is contradicted by the rest of the article, which is also puzzling.
Your pontifications on science are not science, RG.
Your comments are a waste of bandwidth,
Willard the Dullard.
I have a page just for you, RG, and the main message is this one:
https://climateball.net/but-science/
Search for “inference to the best explanation” on the Internet to see how wrong you are.
“On the other hand that statement is contradicted by the rest of the article, which is also puzzling.”
I agree with that part.
What he is leaving out is the fact that he is familiar with lots of other evidence in favor of AGW.
All science theories are provisional. Never proven. A better theory can always come along and replace it. As has happened with Newtons law of gravity.
When he says ‘given the lack of evidence to the contrary’ he is correct that there is little evidence for any alternative mechanism at this time.
The thing about temperature data sets like UAH is that it will be decades or more likely centuries before it tells us anything. Right now, it is a good data set. Hopefully, the data set will keep its integrity a century from now.
Baloney
UAH tells us the global average temperature varies.
UAH tells us the surface temperature compilations, with much more infilling, seem to be biased to show more warming.
UAH is a check and balance for surface measurements, adjustments and infilling — they’d probably show even faster warming if UAH did not exist to “keep them in line”.
The huge difference in the UAH derived warming rate over the oceans, compared with the warming rate over the land, tells us something important too — I’m not sure what, but someone else may know.
Except that the two main analyses of the lower troposphere data disagree on the trend, by A LOT. RSS is > or ~ trend of the surface measurements.
Therefore they are not a reliable check and balance for surface measurements”
And UAH doesnt “tells us the surface temperature compilations, with much more infilling, seem to be biased to show more warming.”
Several years ago a paper on global sea level rise said the acceleration in the rate was
0.0042+-0.0092mm/yr
My point is not to say it was correct or incorrect, but rather the level of uncertainty in some cases is very large. A layman’s interpretation might be that they are just guessing. Some authors have been open about the lack of certainty and said “our best guess is….”.
Many of the top neuro scientists have willingly admitted they have so much more to learn. For some reason it appears that in climate science no one wants to say the obvious, there is a lot to learn and a lot they still don’t know.
“
Denny,
Someone was obviously joking. 0.0042 mm I just measured the thickness of a piece of paper – about 0.1 mm.
0.004 mm? I can repeatably measure to about 0.01 mm, with a handheld micrometer.
Someone is dreaming. Measuring global sea level remotely with an accuracy of one twenty-fifth of the thickness of a sheet of printer paper?
I just dont believe it.
That’s assuming you know the difference between acceleration and thickness.
I’m assuming you don’t.
b,
You can assume whatever you wish.
I assume you are a moron of the climate crackpot variety.
Carry on.
Swenson,
Some people might be able to measure things to the thickness of a human hair or even finer.
You are just incredulous.
Not joking. But I have thought to myself after reading a lot of these papers youve got to be kidding.
Much of the SLR area is beyond believability. There are so many estimates that are all over the map, depending on their tidal gauges used and methodology, etc.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JC009900
I just look back at all the failed predictions such as the one made by EPA in 1983 that SLR would be 10 feet in several decades. How did that turnout?
I dont believe any of the catastrophic predictions. Primarily because many studies show insignificant acceleration.
This was intended for here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1198557
When rich folks like the Obama’s stop buying oceanfront mansions near sea level, and start selling them, that would be a better indicator than tide gauges! Obama promised to stop the rise of the seas, and bought two mansions near sea level after he retired. That man was always thinking of himself
“A layman’s interpretation might be that they are just guessing.”
There is less and less respect for expertise these days. Layman, who havent bothered to learn how science is done, think that if they dont know or understand something then science must not know it either.
Pathetic..
Nate,
Here’s a little quote from Richard Feynman –
“When someone says “science teaches such and such”, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it.”
I agree. Am I as clever as Feynman, or was he as clever as me? [LOL]
He also said that “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”, which, in the absence of experimental support for expert opinion, I also agree with.
Carry on playing the “science” card. Don’t expect any sorrow or sympathy from me if you discover that Nature has about much regard for the opinions of a moron like you, as I do.
Carry on.
Currently the acceleration is
.098 +- 0.025 mm/y^2.
Error is well below the measurement.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Yep works out to about half the average rate of sealevel rise over the past 20,000 years of approximately 6mm/yr
Yes we should expect it to slow as peak natural warming occurs and we should expect that since in during the LIA sea level actually decreased that there should be increases currently. And we should expect that since climate varies naturally the rate will not always be the same.
Ice was observed to decline a great deal in the first half of the 20th Century after which it recovered.
Its rather silly to fret over short term changes in sea level. Heck even Obama spent millions on seaside homes after gaining his new found wealth. He obviously isn’t worried.
Nate says:
Currently the acceleration is
.098 +- 0.025 mm/y^2.
Error is well below the measurement.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
———————-
Of course that is a really odd graphic Nate. Measurements are based upon the following:
Satellite Program – – – – Accuracy – – – – Service Window
Topex – – – – – – – – – – 3.3 cm – – – – 1992-2005
Jason-1 – – – – – – – – – 2.5 cm – – – – 2001-2013
Jason-2 – – – – – – – – – 2.5 cm – – – – 2008-2019
Jason-3 – – – – – – – – – 3.3 cm – – – – 2016-
Perhaps you can explain to us cretins why the error margin is 1,320 times more precise than the devices doing the measuring?
hunter
You are here, one more time, boasting with superficial numbers.
This time, concerning the accuracy of satellite-borne sea level measurements, without having a bit of a clue of how to correctly interpret them.
What about moving to a technically deeper level, and reading for example:
Uncertainty in satellite estimates of global mean sea-level changes, trend and acceleration
Michaël Ablain, Benoît Meyssignac, Lionel Zawadzki, Rémi Jugier, Aurélien Ribes, Giorgio Spada, Jerôme Benveniste, Anny Cazenave, and Nicolas Picot (2019)
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/11/1189/2019/
*
Will you discredit that paper as well, as you did for Steven Wepster’s perfectly understandable decription of how Tobias Mayer computed the position of the lunar spin axis wrt the Ecliptic – because you weren’t able to understand anything of what Wepster wrote?
Bindidon, I understand thoroughly that both are what could be considered. . . .academic exercises.
It is a well known fact that for any object rotating on an external axis one can compute academically a spin axis of the object. Nothing untoward about dissembling a real motion into accurate conceptual motions by simply changing frames of reference.
What the debate here has been about isn’t that fact. It is a debate regarding the actual axis of rotation which is always associated with both an angular momentum and a physical cause for that momentum to exist.
Spinners such as yourself simply fail completely to even understand what the debate is about and thus we are bogged down with a lot of conceptual mapping exercises. At least Willard as far as I know was the first to characterize it as a mapping exercise. . . .but he still seems to not understand what the argument is that arises from physical reality as opposed to the conceptual tools we use to breakdown reality into manageable bits and pieces.
I have build an entire career out of understanding that distinction. It started in an industry where conceptually dissembling more often than not leads to the wrong answer and failure. And that is true even in the face of the multitude of cases of their being industries where the tools lead to correct answers. It is all a matter of correctly identifying if the object you are planning on hitting with a hammer is actually a nail or if that object is instead a stud.
As to my comments on the sea level data. You are being ridiculous!
My response was to Nate who was complaining about the uncertainty expressed by Denny and First one should look at the objective and understand the issues there.
You offered a study on the uncertainty. Did you even read it Bindidon? Why not look at the conclusions?
The study does nothing but reinforce Denny and Swenson and discredit Nate for offering up a single graph as evidence of a lack of uncertainty.
hunter
” It is a well known fact that for any object rotating on an external axis one can compute academically a spin axis of the object. ”
No: one cannot.
And no: what Mayer did was by no means an “academic exercise”.
You discredit Mayer’s work without being able to technically, let alone scientifically contradict it.
*
Thus:
(1) You are not only an absolute ignorant, but also a fundamental denier of facts.
*
(2) Of course I read the article, and as with the lunar spin, you confirm (1).
Were you not a simple bank employee?
And you want to discuss such points here?
Bindidon says:
” It is a well known fact that for any object rotating on an external axis one can compute academically a spin axis of the object. ”
No: one cannot.
———————————
LOL! Bindidon you probably ought to do your homework before making such unsupportable conclusions.
Check out Madhavi’s Section 6 of the introductory course on The Dynamics of Rigid Bodies entitled ‘Instantaneous Center’.
Bindidon says:
March 5, 2022 at 2:02 PM
hunter
It is a well known fact that for any object rotating on an external axis one can compute academically a spin axis of the object.
No: one cannot.
——————————-
Bindidon you should do a little homework before making such unsupportable claims.
Check out Madhavi’s section 6 on Instantaneous Center.
”If the directions of velocity of two
points on a rigid body are known, the instantaneous centre can be located.”
The Spinners around here have been endlessly arguing for a frame of reference that doesn’t include the orbit and therefore the ‘instantaneous center’ will instantaneously appear to be the spin axis. If you include the orbit and the gravity that produces the rotation will instantaneously be able to identify the COM of the earth as the fixed axis of the moon. And if you widen the study to include dynamics you will find the dynamics to confirm that is the real fixed axis.
———-
———-
———-
———-
Bindidon says:
And no: what Mayer did was by no means an academic exercise.
You discredit Mayers work without being able to technically, let alone scientifically contradict it.
*
Thus:
(1) You are not only an absolute ignorant, but also a fundamental denier of facts.
*
(2) Of course I read the article, and as with the lunar spin, you confirm (1).
————————
Is that all they taught you in school Bindidon. No education at all on how to use your own brain? All that theoreticians do are academic exercises.
———-
———-
———-
———-
Bindidon says:
Were you not a simple bank employee?
———————–
Never worked at a bank in my life Bindidon. Where did you get that idea?
You really can’t read a room, Binny, can you?
One simply cannot have a rational debate with Bill. Here he makes hash out of rate of rise and acceleration in that.
Utterly hopeless.
Thanks Nate for acknowledging you don’t have clue one as to how one can create an error margin 1,320 times less than the accuracy of the device doing the measuring.
“create an error margin 1,320 times less than the accuracy of the”
There is no such 1320 times less factor.
You are mixing up different quantities with different units.
As I said, it is hopeless with you.
The error on the measurement of TREND is 0.4 mm/year
Your quoted accuracy (where is it from?) is 2.5 cm.
So that is a ratio of 60x. Nowhere near 1320x.
As far has how can they know the trend to better than 0.4 mm/y with accuracy of 2.5 cm?
Hint: Trend is a measure of CHANGES in sea level over a period of time. A long time.
The uncertainty in that has more to do with the RESOLUTION of the measurement and less to do with the accuracy of it.
My clock is inaccurate. It is reading 5 minutes ahead of the true time.
But it can resolve CHANGES in time of 1 second.
Nate perhaps you should read Bindidon’s reference to the uncertainty of satellite sealevel measurements. Obviously you have no understanding of what that graphic you presented represents and does not represent.
Attempted rational discussion with Bill fails, again..
Obviously because Nate can’t read.
I don’t think Bill comprehends what he reads.
Bindidon’s reference clearly sez
“Over 19932017, we have found a GMSL trend of 3.35+-0.4 mm yr−1 within a 90 % confidence level (CL) and a GMSL acceleration of 0.12+-0.07 mm yr−2 (90 % CL). This is in agreement (within error bars) with previous studies. The full GMSL error variancecovariance matrix is freely available online:”
Nate says:
”Over 19932017, we have found a GMSL trend of 3.35+-0.4 mm yr−1 within a 90 % confidence level (CL) and a GMSL acceleration of 0.12+-0.07 mm yr−2 (90 % CL). This is in agreement (within error bars) with previous studies. The full GMSL error variancecovariance matrix is freely available online:”
LMAO!!
this is a perfect example of why Nate is such a dolt.
I said I was perfectly aware of the math used to create the above statement. What seems to be totally lacking in your science education is why somebody would attempt to estimate the acceleration of warming to an error level 1,320 times the accuracy of the actual instrument providing the raw data.
And of course that question just flew over your head because you actually believe that that question was scientifically answered by the study.
But to be doltish enough to believe that one has to completely ignore the majority of the conclusion of the study and focus on one sentence in the conclusion that does nothing to answer the overall objectives of the study, the specifics of which were only discussed as caveats to the results found.
But the sites biggest Dolt on this site ignores all that and offers the math as a response to Denny and Swenson.
Obviously you don’t have the scientific experience to understand when mathematics should be used to and when it shouldn’t. The math is next to irrelevant within the goals and objectives of the study.
We can conclude from the study that sea level is rising. . . .as it has been for some 20,000 years. Some 120 meters it has risen. that’s about 6mm per year. But we know that hasn’t been anywhere near a constant rate as it has actually gone down a few times during that 20,000 years. The actual range of sea level rise on a year by year basis is unknown. And yes I do believe in recent decades sea level has been rising at an accelerated pace because in 1980 temperatures again began to accelerate. But that is a normal occurrence over the entire sea level record.
So why did the authors do this study? They got paid to do it. Assumptions about sea level rise have been dependent upon data that the validity of which could not be confirmed (assumptions about continental uplift being applied to sea levels not rising fast enough to fit with some assumptions being made on heat content increases in the ocean that are beyond our ability to measure). But there is no specific conclusions arising from the study that actually aids in closing the sea level budget.
We have a satellite that had promise of narrowing that deficit. But the study did not accomplish that goal and and no explicit statement was made that asserted such a claim. The reasons why are provided in the conclusion.
They did include information about the mathematical variability of satellite measures (which is what you posted). But they provided unresolved caveats by commenting on the overall accuracy of those measurements, how they had no way to assess those uncertainties, and did not include any conclusions on anthropogenic vs natural causes.
So what the study accomplishes in fact, is essentially something that wasn’t in contention, namely that currently sea level continues to rise and is likely to even be accelerating. But a thinking person would realize that it was likely to be accelerating in early 20th century, slowing in the mid 20th century, and accelerating again in the late 20th century into the 21st century. That perhaps may be a pattern repeated perhaps a few hundred times in the last 20 millennia.
So how in the world, in the face of the author’s comments, can you offer up that graph as a response to Denny and Swenson? The only conclusion I can draw is you are a total science dolt in the mold of that cartoonist over on SS.
If you actually believe you disputed anything perhaps you could make a specific claim on that rather than being just another incarnation of a cluster bomber.
Bill’s claims about the errors on satellite GMSL trend measurements are proven to be nonsense… by his own source.
What to do?
Express his feelings again in another gish gallop, that the measurement to that level of uncertainty doesnt make sense….to Bill, because the math, for some reason, is just not good enough. Only a dolt would use math without taking into account Bill’s feelings…. or something. Who knows?
It is all rather disturbing. Then change the subject to another line of nonsense.
I will not be participating.
Nate says:
Bill’s claims about the errors on satellite GMSL trend measurements are proven to be nonsense… by his own source.
———————-
thats a completely vacuous claim Nate. And it is actually a lie! I made no claims of errors in the measurements. I only pointed to the fact about the reliability of the measurements. You are supposed to provide the argument why reliability of the measurements doesn’t matter. You haven’t done that.
You have offered no argument to support your case. I would think you would notice that shortcoming. But perhaps you think you are a God and you don’t need to support your case.
============
============
============
============
Nate says:
What to do?
Express his feelings again in another gish gallop, that the measurement to that level of uncertainty doesnt make sense….to Bill, because the math, for some reason, is just not good enough. Only a dolt would use math without taking into account Bill’s feelings…. or something. Who knows?
It is all rather disturbing. Then change the subject to another line of nonsense.
I will not be participating.
————————-
So your argument is limited to a claim that the reliability of the numbers in a statistical database is irrelevant to what someone can assert as a fact after computing the trend and acceleration of the trend found in the data?
i.e. Do you actually believe that the statement ”. . . .with a level of confidence equal to 90%” is identical to saying that that it is 90% certain the analysis is representative of the real world and one can ignore the unreliability of the data?
A simple yes or no will best suffice. Trying to beat around the bush won’t suffice.
Nate says:
The uncertainty in that has more to do with the RESOLUTION of the measurement and less to do with the accuracy of it.
My clock is inaccurate. It is reading 5 minutes ahead of the true time.
But it can resolve CHANGES in time of 1 second.
—————————
thats gibberish. the satellite altimetry inaccuracy cannot in any way be compared to a watch that you can match up to the world clock.
Total adjustments to ocean topography from the satellite raw data can exceed 2.5 meters. ”The sum of all these corrections can make a difference on the order of 2.5 meters in the measured ocean topography. That can be resolved down to an estimated 3.3 centimeters.”
A fast watch typically stays fast if it wasn’t fast because of incorrect calibration. In the case of the ocean altimetry the required corrections such as the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere slowing down the echo has to be estimated as part of several variables.
So if you want to make a case that the instruments have better than 3.3 centimeter resolution – as you are in fact admitting here is necessary – you need to provide a source that a finer resolution is in fact known.
Fact is that the error margin of .025mm in the acceleration estimate could be compared to not 25mm accuracy which would be a 1,320 times improvement for which you have provided no evidence of being resolvable. Whereas the project itself reports it started with raw data off by up to approximately 2.5 meters (25,000 millimeters) and resolved that down to 33mm.
I am accepting the claim of the scientists 758 times improvement in resolution why holding some degree of skepticism about it (i.e. if I were to audit it I would have to delve much deeper)
I will leave it to you to produce evidence of a .025 resolution (an improvement of one million times the accuracy of the raw data).
As I see it you are confounding statistical ”confidence level” with resolved accuracy. All that CL tells you is . . . .if the data is perfect resolution and perfectly representative, then the confidence level is 90% the resolved error bars are perfectly correct. One must add on the lack of instrument resolution. As I said you seem to be as misinformed as that cartoonist over at SS.
“Fact is that the error margin of .025mm in the acceleration estimate could be compared to not 25mm accuracy which would be a 1,320 times improvement”
It is not my job to assuage your feelings of discomfort with the stated error in a paper. Particularly when you are making hash of the math, and cannot clearly state what your issue actually is, and
I have already explained that you are mixing up quantities with different units.
The 0.025 has units of mm/year^2. The 25 has units of mm.
You cannot take ratios of quantities with different units and expect these to make sense.
The time interval is 30 y. Just consider that (30y)^2 = 900 y^2
If YOU still think they have it got it wrong then YOU need to investigate and show how. Your uninformed feelings are not sufficient.
Nate says:
I have already explained that you are mixing up quantities with different units.
The 0.025 has units of mm/year^2. The 25 has units of mm.
You cannot take ratios of quantities with different units and expect these to make sense.
The time interval is 30 y. Just consider that (30y)^2 = 900 y^2
If YOU still think they have it got it wrong then YOU need to investigate and show how. Your uninformed feelings are not sufficient.
Oops keyboard acting up!
Nate if you don’t know how to calculate the uncertainty of the acceleration there is no way you can begin to understand what uncertainty might be missing.
So if you can’t recall how to calculate a rate of acceleration from a data set you need to brush up on that.
Once you get it then we can have a conversation about what is missing and that conversation will become apparent to you.
And for the record I am not saying the calculation that was done was in error. So stop asking me to prove the guy wrong. I am only looking at uncertainty that isn’t part of the statistical calculation and you won’t accept that until you are comfortable with exactly what is in the calculation.
“Nate if you don’t know how to calculate the uncertainty of the acceleration there is no way you can begin to understand what”
Please show us how to do it properly Bill!
Bill, lets face it. You were sure there was a problem with it, but were just being ignorant.
I explain why. But you never learn. Just toss insults.
Bye.
sorry nate if you have no background in statistics, this forum is hardly the place to give you one.
Ha!
Borrowing that trick from Clint! No one believes him either.
Nate to be more clear. . . .by background in statistics I mean not just University courses in statistics but also real world out of school experience in statistics. Thats where you learn when the use of statistics in appropriate. The most popular meme on that was the headlines, ‘Dewey Won!’
As I have repeatedly pointed out. . . .your sea level statisticians didn’t make any mathematical errors. Neither did the Dewey Won statisticians. The question instead resolves around to the question as to whether the use of statistics based upon available datasets provides anything of value in solving the issues at hand. It is truly a case of garbage in, garbage out. And that remains true no matter how you redesign your models, increase the granularity, or anything at all to do with the modeling enterprise. Garbage in will always result in garbage out.
Without a full fledged background in the use of statistics there is little hope of convincing a noob in possession of nothing but an academic background.
And by course of study in that. . . .there are many books. Following the work of Steve McIntyre and understanding what he is doing is viewing statistics from the standpoint of its own usefulness as a solution to the enterprise. McIntyre isn’t even a skeptic. He is merely an expert at real world statistics. He doesn’t solve the problem, he merely highlights that changing the model changes the results but doesn’t increase or decrease certainty in the process.
I see little hope of educating an ideologue such as yourself without going through extensive effort. Instead you fancy yourself as an educator who in reality is merely serving to misinform the public. A little knowledge can be the most dangerous condition of all.
” University courses in statistics but also real world out of school experience in statistics.”
Oh ok.
Then why are you finding a ratio of things with different units? And not realizing why that matters…a lot!
To begin with Nate its not different units it is different factors of the same units.
The 0.025 has units of mm/year^2. The 25 has units of mm.
Not the same, unless one is on acid.
Are you?
Nate you can be such a moron. the study derives statistically mm/y2 from a data set of mm.
Why not issue this complaint to the author of the study?
I have no complaints with the study. I do have complaints with your endless idiocy.
It seems pretty idiotic to me for you to complain about the author fuking up and mixing different units. I for sure wasn’t talking about anything the author didn’t do.
Nate said: ”I have already explained that you are mixing up quantities with different units.
The 0.025 has units of mm/year^2. The 25 has units of mm.
You cannot take ratios of quantities with different units and expect these to make sense.”
—————————
LOL! Nate I am not the one that calculated .025mm/year^2 from a data set of ocean sealevel rise in millimeters. The author you offered up as some kind of alleged meaningful response to Swenson and Denny is the guy that did that.
I am not disputing what the author did at all. Seems you are the only one claiming what he did was mixup different units.
The only thing I am disputing is the meaningfulness of what he did. In statistical analysis the ‘art’ is in selecting a representative population. If you lack the art you end up with ‘Dewey Wins’ and a terrible embarrassment!
What the author did was take a way too short period of sealevel rise during a 20000 year period of sealevel rise that on average almost doubles that of the short period, using a measurement platform with errors of unknown causes that create an estimated 33millimeters of error.
Is the author an idiot? Nope! He got paid to do it. Some ignoramus politician or political scientist ordered the study.
What you have is something totally unremarkable as far as conveying information is concerned with unidentified sources of error that is 1,320 times larger than the millimeters per year.
The only thing we can deduce from this is 1) sea level is rising as the total sealevel rise over the 28 years of the study ~100mm is about 3 times the estimated error of the measuring device and that in those 3 error intervals there is a slight indication of acceleration.
But we should expect sealevel to be rising because its warming and we had a major El Nino cycle recently so it should also be slightly accelerating.
So the question is what is the value of this study that our politicians wasted money on? It doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know. And why did you parade this out in response to Swenson and Denny?
“I am not disputing what the author did at all.”
Oh, Ok. Then there has been no point to your endless rants.
“Seems you are the only one claiming what he did was mixup different units.”
Nope, never did that, liar-troll.
Have the last word. Im sure it will be illuminating.
.
Nate says:
I am not disputing what the author did at all.
Oh, Ok. Then there has been no point to your endless rants.
Seems you are the only one claiming what he did was mixup different units.
Nope, never did that, liar-troll.
Have the last word. Im sure it will be illuminating.
——————————–
Yes indeed its illuminating!!!!
You said:
”I have already explained that you are mixing up quantities with different units.
The 0.025 has units of mm/year^2. The 25 has units of mm.
You cannot take ratios of quantities with different units and expect these to make sense..”
Are you in denial that the authors calculated the mm/year^2 from a database of units of mm?
And you are objecting to my objections about the relevance of the author’s doing that and your response is one unit cannot be compared to another??????? Yet its calculated from the other????
Obviously you did that and your only real response is to call me a liar-troll.
More on the topic:
And by the way I made no ”ratios” anywhere. What we are talking about is certainty. You maintain you can take any database of minute by minute measurements with extreme variations, smooth it to 10 day averages then run a statistical study on that smoothed data and proclaim a higher level of certainty because you smoothed the data and removed the variability to a mean variability of 33mm for which you are totally lacking in being able to characterize!!
You can do that if your measurements are accurate and the variability is due to the local piling up of water over a period of time. But you have to continue to wear the uncertainty when you don’t know if your measurements are correct to 33 millimeters.
In this case, the only thing going on is a rather feeble attempt to close sealevel rise budgets that rely upon pure guesses of continental rebound that get used to adjust heat content estimates of the ocean. When you get to the 3.3mm per year you can then claim the budget is closed and the basis for adjusting instrument temperature records has been better established. It isn’t science though, its political gamemanship.
More important I am not saying its wrong. I am merely pointing out that the process of estimating total certainty is being manipulated on a case by case basis. Detecting it requires independent expertise which obviously you don’t possess. Your response here of of claiming uncertainty cannot be detected across different units when in fact certainty is being estimated across that gap. . . .by the author that you are trying to incompetently support. Its laughable that you fancy yourself an expert. ROTFLMAO!
How bout you read the papers of this team at UC before delaring they have done it wrong.
Nate,
How about you learn how to accept physical reality, and stop being such a gullible moron?
I suppose you might be stupid enough to believe in a GHE which you can’t even describe!
Nate says:
How bout you read the papers of this team at UC before delaring they have done it wrong.
———————-
Nate I didn’t say what they did was wrong.
Its just mathematics without any art. You know like practicing for the day they actually have devices of sufficient accuracy. Sort like how they drill you in the military when there is no war.
Gee they probably can even match it up to other sources of sealevel rise. . . .like when they fudge tidal gauge data with guestimates of continental uplift.
After all they are spending OP money. And the OP have no choice but to pay them. So why not waste OP money for propaganda purposes? Oh thats right, its a drill!
The truly amazing part is how many dolts they can find to spread it around believing it amounts to something.
Swenson’s inability to comprehend science or use basic math is getting him increasingly agitated. His rate-of-insults is accelerating.
Nate I don’t agree with everything Swenson says but on the points you replied to he is dead correct.
Nate I don’t agree with everything Swenson says. But on the point he is making above he is absolutely correct and no amount of your ad hominems against him even begins to address that issue.
Swenson
“Someone is dreaming. Measuring global sea level remotely with an accuracy of one twenty-fifth of the thickness of a sheet of printer paper?”
–
You are confusing accuracy of actual measurements with averages of large numbers.
A 1 mm difference in measurements summed up over millions of repeated measurements has an average value which is real for that calculation but the range of error will always bi in the mm range.
–
It is an easy but unfair comparison.
Which you know.
angech,
Yes. I suppose I should have pointed out that “climate scientists” use the “miracle of averaging” to pretend that deceptive practices represent reality and good scientific practice.
About as stupid as averaging temperatures in Stevenson screens taken with thermometers probably accurate within plus or minus 0.5 C. Additionally, according to the WMO, “For routine meteorological observations there is no advantage in using thermometers with a very short time constant or lag coefficient, since the temperature of the air continually fluctuates up to one or two degrees within a few seconds.”
Averaging might make you feel good, but doesn’t really achieve much.
As far as sea level goes, there is not even a universally accepted definition for the geoid, so measuring it is completely pointless – if you can convince yourself you are measuring it.
Additionally, given the erratic nature of tidal movement (varying from zero per day – amphidromic points – to more than four per day, and varying up to 10 m difference between high and low tides, measuring global sea levels is nonsensical. By the way, tide time predictions are not as accurate as many people believe, so adjustments to actual measurements may be no more than guesses.
To sum up, my view is that averaging nonsense gives you more scientific looking nonsense – that’s about all.
Maybe I’m a bit cynical?
“averaging might make you feel good, but doesnt really achieve much.”
Science deniers say the darndest things!
Saya the King of Obfuscation.
Nate,
If you can’t name at least one person who denies that science exists, then you are a lying moron.
Science denier? Is that like a climate denier? I bet you can’t name one person who denies that climate exists either.
That would make you a doubly lying moron, wouldn’t you agree?
To sum up, my view is that averaging nonsense gives you more scientific looking nonsense thats about all.
Maybe Im a bit cynical?
–
Maybe a bit tired or disillusioned?
Data has to be collected. Averaging is just a very useful tool.
The interpretations are the problem.
–
Many myths keep floating on or growing when their hulls have obvious large holes blown in them.
–
The flaw in Climate Change due to human fossil fuel use increasing global warming is simple.
When it cools enough the adherents will all evaporate.
Anti scientific but a fact.
–
If it keeps warming there is no way to convince people that the theory is wrong, especially when it appears to be right.
–
Now that is cynicism.
angech,
You wrote –
“If it keeps warming there is no way to convince people that the theory is wrong, especially when it appears to be right.
This would the theory of what, precisely?
Claiming that you know about a theory which you have to keep hidden from view because nobody can understand it (or for some equally stupid reason), just makes you look like a moron trying to make fact out of fiction.
ha ha ha
You think the accuracy of temperature measurements matters!
Not when the people who make and compile the measurements, adjustments and infilling have no integrity.
They have no problem deleting all the global cooling measured from 1940 to 1975, almost -0.5 degrees C. cooling has been reported in 1975.
They have no problem cooling the 1930s, so that 1998 was the hottest year in the US temperature records.
In fact, there are NO DATA in surface temperature compilations.
No raw data.
Only “adjusted” data (no longer data — just a personal opinion of what the data would have been if measured correctly in the first place)
And homogenized “adjusted” data (to obscure the “adjustments”, and
Wild guessed data (infilling), which can never be verified.
Meaning the global average temperature compilations are whatever government bureaucrats tell you they are, and there is no way for you to verify if they are correct, or to determine an honest likely margin of error.
Fortunately, that shoddy global temperature numbers are not very important.
Temperature history has no relationship to predictions of FUTURE global warming.
Future global warming predictions are NOT extrapolations of past global warming trends — if they were, historical temperature data would be very important.
,
In reality temperature predictions are for 2x to 3x faster warming than in the fastest warming period in the era of burning fossil fuels since 1880 — the 1975 through 2020 period.
The temperature predictions have no correlation with temperature history.
Nor are the predictions based on data — there are no data for the future climate.
They are just climate astrology, done by people with a horrible track record for long term temperature predictions.
So even if historical temperature numbers were perfectly accurate, we’d still get scary climate predictions unrelated to this historical climate numbers.
Shorter RG –
http://climateball.net/but-data
One day he will find all the bingo squares!
Will try to raise 2 issues here as it should be a quieter thread and the topic raised suits them.
–
The first is the TOA and energy imbalance.
I have addressed this at Climate etc with little helpful response.
–
The TOA and energy balance are two different concepts that cannot gel.
People move from a TOA to a totally different idea of energy storage in the ocean and atmosphere due to forcings.
Unfortunately the science is broke so they pretend that you can have both.
–
I admit that the concept of an energy imbalance looks as if it exists.
The temperature in the atmosphere goes up with an increase in GHG forcing.
The molecules seem to move around faster ( note they do move faster to our perception)
The TOA goes further out which implies an increase in energy in the system.
–
Yet physics imposes one seemingly immutable law.
Entropy.
The energy going into an open system without energy production of its own must come straight back out again or go through it.-
–
This is trivially easy to prove.
Apply a steady constant known pathway of energy to a small enough object that receives that energy and note that it reaches a set immutable emission of energy equal exactly to that coming in hence has a temperature corresponding to that emission wavelength.
This can only happen if the energy in is equaling the energy out all the time.
–
There is no storage of energy.
The object will always be at exactly that temperature and emit exactly the right amount of radiation for ever under those circumstances. No rise of temperature of half a degree, or fall for that matter.
When the source is turned off the temperature starts falling the moment the last emmisions hit the object.
There is no steady state while the setup posed stored energy leaks out at the same temperature and then drops down.
–
Physics runs the same way forwards and back in time.
There cannot be a storage bump one way but not the other.
–
Yet there is apparently an increase in energy in the components of the irradiated system .
If the components have more energy and the outgoing energy is constant is there not energy retained, stored, demonstrable in the system?
–
This is the quandary that physics puts us in.
Physics of energy dictate that there is no extra energy in the system
Physics of mass say hold on , yes there is, I can see it.
–
This is an Einstein v Newton problem with the same solution.
Time space warping.
The earth and sun pursue straight lines through time space.
In our reference frame one appears to orbit the other.
It is real in one context but not the other and vice versa.
–
In the universe energy travels in it is all straight lines with no stopping .
Energy going into the earth must come out at the same rate it goes in .
So a TOA is seen by us where although the energy all comes out at the same time,
Its pathway is of different lengths due to its interactions and warping by mass,
But the time is also altered in the opposite direction , longer pathway shorter time.
–
In the universe mass sits in the presence of energy leads to a warping of time and position as well leading to mass appearing to move in relation to other masses.
This is the universe our sense and instruments work in.
–
Ok, its a pretty big ask and imaginative on my part, but this is the only way I can reconcile two totally contradictory and obviously contradictory facts.
–
I would like to opine a definition of TOA.
TOA is an energy measurement of the amount of energy received by a circle the diameter of the earth at 1 solar unit ( midpoint of the earth from the sun) transcribed to the surface of a sphere around the earth.
This is an unsatisfactory definition as it misses some of the energy that misses the earth but is absorbed by the atmosphere.
It is the one commonly used.
–
By definition TOA is where the incoming and outgoing radiation exactly balance.
Even though the wavelength frequencies in and out do not.
More SW in More IR out.
But exactly the same amount of energy.
–
If the sun gets hotter or colder, if clouds get in the way (albedo) then the TOA changes as the energy that would hit the earth changes.
–
Note that changing the GHG does not change the TOA technically .
The planet surface is warmer due to back radiation.
But since the light hitting the surface is unchanged the energy going out is the same and the TOA does not move.
–
Thanks for this opportunity.
“The TOA and energy balance are two different concepts that cannot gel.”
Not that I am interested in global climate.
We living in Ice Age. And any Ice Age is called an icehouse global
climate.
And the state of the icehouse global climate is solely about the average temperature of the oceans on Earth.
Or NASA is correct when they say:
“Covering more than 70% of Earth’s surface, our global ocean has a very high heat capacity. It has absorbed 90% of the warming that has occurred in recent decades due to increasing greenhouse gases, and the top few meters of the ocean store as much heat as Earth’s entire atmosphere.”
https://tinyurl.com/yc273wem
Now Top of the Atmosphere {TOA} is mostly about energy from the sun entering Earth atmosphere.
And I wouldn’t refer to TOA as where energy is leaving Earth. It goes thru TOA, obviously.
TOA is vague term. 100 or 200 km above earth surface could be called TOA. One even talking about from L-1 [1.5 million km from Earth surface- where “AL Gore’s satellite” is]
I think I am going to start saying, that we have now, recovered from the Little Ice Age. Instead of saying we are recovering from the LIA.
But I not what we are going be entering into after this recovery.
We might be in transition which leads to leveling and then cooling, or more warming, or leveling and more warming.
I am not sure what caused the Little Ice Age. I would imagine if you interested in Global climate, that might be something to find an answer, to.
Angech,
That’s a lot of conjecture. Do you have any real evidence (data) of the following:
“The temperature in the atmosphere goes up with an increase in GHG forcing.”
“The planet surface is warmer due to back radiation.”
“The temperature in the atmosphere goes up with an increase in GHG forcing.”
Hmm. The cult believes GHG forcing is whatever increases water vapor
as water vapor is main greenhouse gas.
But as everyone knows warming of the ocean causes a higher global air temperature.
Or our cold ocean is why we have a low air temperature.
Or the only reason we in icehouse climate is because our ocean is cold, it’s average temperature is about 3.5 C.
The cult thinks the presence of CO2 trace gas causes more water vapor.
But they are clueless of where this increase of water vapor is.
Most might imagine it’s in the tropics, which is of course silly.
And though evidence is staring them in the face, they don’t know what warmer world looks like.
This unknown scares them.
Note that changing the GHG does not change the TOA technically .
The planet surface is warmer due to back radiation.
But since the light hitting the surface is unchanged the energy going out is the same and the TOA does not move.
Is this true?
People say a hotter surface moves the TOA out but what they really mean is that the amount of energy getting in is changing for it to be hotter.
Back radiation is not more energy coming in.
“But since the light hitting the surface is unchanged the energy going out is the same … ”
That can not be true.
The solar energy is not constant but is close.
A change in cloyds could change the solar energy reaching the surface, but I don’t know of any meaningful change assuming such a change can be measured.
We know our planet is always warming or cooling.
If the incoming energy is nearly constant, then there must be changes in the outgoing energy to cause those warming and cooling trends.
If there is global warming, it is because there has been a decline in outgoing energy.
A change in greenhouse gases, such as water vapor and CO2, would be the first suspects.
The only alternative would be some factor that is gradually increasing the amount of incoming solar energy.
You better not go back in history because you would have to change most of the borders in Europe. That’s just silly. The Russians of Kharkiv want to live in a democratic state. They fight for Ukraine and die together with Ukrainians. This is a war of attrition. Is this the 21st century?
What has the climate fraud led to? To Western Europe’s total dependence on Russian gas. Why do the Germans need so much gas if they have such an attitude towards fossil fuels? How many more gas pipes do they need?
“climate fraud”
No. Anti-nuke stupidity.
If you shut down coal plants and nuclear plants, and oppose fracking, then you will have to use more natural gas for electricity. Especially at night and during low wind conditions. What other choice is there?
if Germany did not buy natural gas from Russia, they’d have to buy the same amount from somewhere else. i think of Germany as the canary in the coal mine for green energy. Although, based on the harm they have done to their electric grid so far, that’s insulting to canaries. So lets say Germany is the energy dingbat in the coal mine !
Suddenly, gas was “clean energy” in Europe. What is produced by burning gas?
Can’t coal also be “clean” if the right filters are used to catch sulphur oxides and dust?
IP,
Yup.
From an old US adertising campaign –
“Says Phoebe Snow
about to go
upon a trip to Buffalo
“My gown stays white
from morn till night
Upon the Road of Anthracite””
Pretty clean.
Here is indicator of the dystopia that is coming like a freight train. Environment Canada is putting together a plan to reach 40% cut in fossil fuels by 2030 under the auspices of Net Zero Policy.
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/net-zero-emissions-2050.html
Roy,
You played “but religion” and a variation on “but trace gas” in one post:
https://climateball.net/but-religion/
https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas/
Well played!
Earth scientists have long believed that the present is the key to the past and vice versa. Since Vail and Mitchum released their seminal paper in 1977 this has included an expectation of virtually continuous global climate change, albeit at varying rates, throughout geologic time. Eighteenth century geologists studying the rock record recognized the cyclic nature of transitions between erosion and deposition; stasis and deformation. Later refinements of the geologic timescale clearly reflect decreasing uncertainty in understanding the rock record. Quite the opposite philosophy of that suggested in this post.
Tom,
You wrote –
. . . an expectation of virtually continuous global climate change, albeit at varying rates, throughout geologic time.
Since climate is the statistics of weather, and weather is constantly changing, I assume Vail and Mitchum were funded by some government or other, to say what any reasonably intelligent child could have told them – without charge!
If your philosophy doesnt accord with fact, it wont do you much good, will it?
Before Vail and Mitchum’s paper a reasonably intelligent child had no reason to think the climate in Siberia would change the same way the climate was changing in South America.
{Dr Spencer, hoping a quick return to good health for all your family. And thanks for being a Champion for Science.}
“But, climate scientists simply assume that the climate system has been in perfect, long-term harmonious balance, if not for humans. This is a pervasive, quasi-religious assumption of the Earth science community for as long as I can remember.”
And it has now grown into a cult that openly seeks to shut down real science, as you have seen. Here, on this blog, the cult has even claimed that ice cubes can boil water. They have an equation for such nonsense. And believers vehemently reject anything even close to reality.
We live in interesting times.
I was wondering about other people’s opinion on how much warming is needed to cause the Sahara desert become mostly grassland, again?
Though rather than give some number of degrees in Celsius, one could give some number for amount of increase in global water vapor.
Or could describe in other ways, like, if we have polar sea ice which was completely ice free in the summer, how much greening effect of Sahara desert would there be?
One reason I ask questions is that due to my impatience it encourages me to look.
So, far:
“The green Sahara is an example of extreme environmental change, which highlights the regions extraordinary sensitivity and the need to better understand its hydroclimatic variability. Current explanations for the greening of the Sahara point to the Earths orbital changes during the Early Holocene, leading to increased boreal summer (JJA) insolation, which drove the intensification and northward expansion of the JJA monsoon over northern Africa (15, 18), aided by strong positive feedbacks from the land surface (1922). Reproducing the green Sahara has posed a lasting challenge for climate modelers. ”
https://tinyurl.com/3rzcaw2e
“Despite intense human land use, the Sahel has been re-greening in recent decades as precipitation has recovered from the dry period of the 1970s and 1980s. Whether vegetation expands further into the Sahel and Sahara depends in part on the complex interplay among vegetation, climate, and environmental changes.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332220301007
Chic Bowdrie says.
Angech,
Thats a lot of conjecture. Do you have any real evidence (data) of the following:
The temperature in the atmosphere goes up with an increase in GHG forcing.
The planet surface is warmer due to back radiation.
–
The evidence is everywhere you look, Chris, but if you do not want to accept it you will force yourself not to see it.
The problem with trying to refute CO2 as a cause of surface and atmospheric warming
( note this is different to planetary warming)
is that it is scientifically wrong and mendacious to do so by saying –
GHG do not cause a temperature rise
Back radiation does not occur
Or if back radiation does occur it has no effect.
–
If you wish to discuss temperature, (science), CO2, (science) and radiation, (science) you are using concepts which are agreed on and you cannot mark arbitrary demands to alter them
–
When the science leads to fundamental conflicts the you could argue the science instead.
–
Your comments indicate strongly a mindset trained to ignore back radiation and GHG forcing.
How could anyone offer you real evidence when you believe there is none?
I did not make the terms up.
Roy Spencer has written an eloquent discourse on back radiation and why it is real you could find if you bothered.
But it might as well be hieroglyphics or Braille if you refuse to think or see.
–
angech,
You wrote –
“it is scientifically wrong and mendacious to do so by saying
GHG do not cause a temperature rise
Back radiation does not occur
Or if back radiation does occur it has no effect.
Well, nobody has ever demonstrated that increasing the amount of a gas of any sort between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
In fact, as Professor John Tyndall demonstrated by meticulous reproducible experimentation more than 150 years ago, exactly the opposite occurs. And of course, this explains why around 35% of solar radiation never gets to the surface, why the maximum terrestrial temperature is about 40 K less than the airless Moon, and the reverse for minimum temperatures, why temperature extremes are less, and a raft of other easily observable phenomena.
If you wish to deny reality and experiment, by all means do so.
However, as Richard Feynman said – “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
Unless you can come up with experiment to support your fantasy, youre wrong.
Swenson
“Unless you can come up with experiment to support your fantasy, youre wrong. ”
Something like this?
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1184283-observational-determination-surface-radiative-forcing-co2-from
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Ent, this nonsense is just another example that you don’t understand any of this.
These old “papers” are claiming that infrared from the atmosphere is “radiative forcing”. They believe that, so their beliefs become fact, to them. That ain’t science.
Here again, they ignore reality. CO2 15μ photons can NOT heat a surface at 288K. It ain’t going to happen. That’s like boiling water with ice cubes. It ain’t going to happen.
Eman post links to 8th-grade science projects all the time. Must be some of his old students.
EM,
No. A reproducible scientific experiment, not a bundle of unsupported assertions, based on wishful thinking and straight out lies.
For example (from one link) –
“These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, . . . ”
There is no “greenhouse theory” arising from an indescribable “greenhouse effect”.
Nor has the effect of unquantified “emissions” on weather ever been documented. Climate, of course, is just the statistics of weather, so your authors are even more delusional than you!
Climate crackpots preaching to other climate crackpots.
This mob of dills wouldnt be qualified to sweep the floor for a real scientist – Professor John Tyndall, for example.
Try again if you want to waste your time and look like an idiot again,
“Well, nobody has ever demonstrated that increasing the amount of a gas of any sort between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!”
Absolutely brilliant. Bravo.
Brilliantly dumb strawman. I guess there is no reason to wear a coat on a sunny but cold winter day, eh CO2L!
Totally ignores the fact that the increasing amount of gas is also between the warm Earth surface and extreme cold of space.
Then he cites Tyndall of all people!
The very one who showed why some gases act as an insulator between the Earth’s surface and the dead cold of space, while being transparent to the warming rays of sunlight.
angech, you seem to be confusing “back-radiation” with “GHG forcing”. Back-radiation is nothing more than the infrared from the atmosphere directed back to the surface. It’s real and it can be measured. “GHG forcing” is NOT real. It can’t be measured.
GHG Forcing is the fudge factor entered into the models to produce the desired answer. It is like Einstein’s Cosmological Constant. When “scientists” think they know more than the data, they twist things to prove they are right.
Completely false. CO2 is represented in the models as the physics of spectroscopy. There is no value given to the compound, except what it does to radiation in the atmosphere per the HITRAN database of spectral analysis, an EMPIRICAL database.
Angech,
Conjecture 2, Data 0. You lose.
Any data to back up that ruling, Chic?
Weepy Wee Willy,
Any data to dispute it, dummy?
Have you ever needed any data for your disputations, Mike?
No data is needed to dispute when there are violations of the Laws of physics, Dud.
Are you suggesting that Chic’s criteria is a dud, Pup?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Are you suggesting that anyone should take notice of your opinion, moron?
Dud, if you can’t properly understand my comments, just remember: Willard is an uneducated worthless troll.
Try to memorize that. If you can’t memorize, you can tattoo it on your forehead.
Your if is wrong, Pup.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Angtech,
What Chic is asking is he wants you to provide evidence that greenhouse gases cause the planet to warm by approximately 33C. Dr. Spencer, nor anyone else, has shown any evidence that it happens. (Or, by any amount of C for that matter.)
Planet Earth is not warmed by 33 C.
Earth average temperature of it’s ocean is about 3.5 C.
Is Planet Earth atmosphere warmed by 33 C by greenhouse gases.
The greenhouse gases are small portion of Earth atmosphere, without
most of Earth atmosphere, Earth average would have a lower average temperature.
Earth’s average surface temperature is about 17 C over ocean and 10 C over land.
Earth ocean warms Europe land temperature by about 10 C.
And average temperature of Earth ocean is about 3.5 C and it’s this average temperature which controls Earth’s global icehouse climate.
More than 90% of “global warming” warms this average ocean temperature of 3.5 C {by a very small amount}.
One must answer whether such warming of ocean is important or insignificant. If you falsely assume it’s insignificant, then you are dismissing more than 90% of all “global warming”.
The religious problem with allowing that warming the 3.5 C ocean is significant is that it very long term effect. Or doesn’t support the “end of the world story” of your religion.
Or in terms of immediate issues there are far more important matters to address. And war against CO2, interferes with solving other important matters. Or it’s immoral.
When the ocean has been warmer than 3.5 C, we are still in an icehouse global climate, but it been a much warmer average global air temperature than 15 C, and the Sahara desert was mostly grasslands.
Having Sahara deserts being grasslands, actually helps solve many of worlds problems.
And having Sahara desert being mostly grassland, would result in lowering CO2 levels.
The problem with your emphasis on the cold bulk of the ocean is that it doesnt prevent the surface from being warm.
After all, even in the tropics, where the surface is 30 C, the ocean bottom is still near 0 C.
So we can certainly have a warmer Earth, with a warmer near-surface ocean, without the deep ocean bottom warming much at all.
The cold ocean has little effect on the tropical ocean. As very warm ocean of say 18 C has little effect on the tropical ocean.
Because the tropical ocean has large slabs of warm water, but the rest of the ocean is different matter.
Land area quickly warms up, and it also quickly cools down, but if have a higher global surface air temperature, land night temperature is higher [doesn’t cool down as much at night or winter].
The global surface air temperature is controlled by 70% of the ocean surface. The global average ocean temperature is about 17 C and global average land temperature is about 10 C, giving the global average of about 15 C. Or ocean surface has doesn’t heat up much during the daytime, but also doesn’t cool down much at night.
What is most significant about warmer cold ocean is one get less polar sea ice. And thick polar ice is similar to a land surface, it can quickly cool during the night, and polar sea ice one have the surface air temperature at say -40 C, whereas liquid surface maintains the air above it above 0 C.
One can be easily said is if average ocean temperature was say 6 C, then you never get polar sea ice, but ocean of 6 C is still in an icehouse global climate. 6 C ocean is still a cold ocean. And land can still get cold enough to snow- you could get even more snow, as very cold dry air, doesn’t snow much.
But 6 C ocean within 1000 or million years is not going to happen, and we looking ocean which has warmed to 4 C, or has been .5 C warmer within our interglacial period. And warmest times in last couple million years has been interglacial peak temperature with ocean of 4 C.
A 4 C ocean will result in ice free polar sea ice in the summer, which means less polar sea ice in the winter. Germany or Canada is a lot warmer in the winter.
Thanks to the pattern change developing a powerful high-pressure system over northern Europe, an early March Arctic cold blast with temperatures around -15 C is forecast to spread into eastern Europe in the coming days. The favorable flipped pattern delivers extremely cold weather and snow also farther west into central and southern Europe next week. This is due to the Polar Vortex southern lobe turning towards Russia and Europe after being parked over the United States and Canada for most of the Winter Season 2021/22.
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/polar-vortex-2022-arctic-extreme-cold-snow-russia-ukraine-eastern-europe-mk/?fbclid=IwAR1pBgr9aFFeAj6NYWzn27vh0XIfcUVNnhEM52dAWGoxdsVQnaNdGEN0OlE
A sneak peak at snow totals into mid-March show that influx of snow for many areas.
https://andysweather.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/nbm-conus-west-total_snow_10to1-7086400.png
https://unofficialnetworks.com/2022/03/02/march-snowf-forecast-ski/?fbclid=IwAR1Vx2LulEcaEqKHvkf1BM3TeQ-76Ti3j3ZtAAxnpdL0E8OKdV68ClLouck
There is no “energy imbalance”. Earth’s energy in/out is continually balancing. The idea that there is an “imbalance” comes from the AGW nonsense. It ain’t science.
It gets worse. They don’t even know how to calculate an energy balance. They attempt to balance flux. But, flux doesn’t balance. They simply don’t know what they’re doing. It’s called “climate science”.
The energy balance is a bunch of hand waving and assumptions. How can they do energy balance when their mass balance is ridiculous?
spa,
The Earth seems to have cooled from a much hotter state.
The interior radiogenic resources are severely depleted after four and a half billion years or so, all the resultant heat arising from matter being converted to energy having fled to space.
The Sun is unable to provide enough energy to maintain the Earth’s present temperature, which geophysicists generally estimate to be falling at between one and four millionths of a Kelvin per annum.
Slow cooling is not heating. No GHE. No magical CO2 heating.
Just a ragtag bunch of self appointed “climate experts” attempting to present fiction as fact.
Swenson says:
“The Earth seems to have cooled from a much hotter state.”
–
“The Sun seems to have heated up from a much cooler state”
–
Provided one accepts a space dust to planets and stars theory.
–
angech,
I didn’t write “The Sun seems to have heated up from a much cooler state, did I?
Why do you need to make stuff up?
Reality not enough for you?
By the way, space dust to planets and stars is not even a theory. At best, it’s a hypothesis. Speculation. If you have a speculation that better fits present day observed reality, feel free to trot it out, and defend it.
I don’t think you can, without needlessly complicating things, or invoking magic.
Baloney.
there is always an “energy imbalance”
That is a description of a planet that is always warming or cooling — not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
“There is no ‘energy imbalance’. Earths energy in/out is continually balancing. The idea that there is an ‘imbalance’ comes from the AGW nonsense. It aint science.”
If Earth’s energy was never imbalanced, it wouldn’t change temperature.
You’ve just literally denied global climate change even occurs, ever.
Thus, you would be correctly labelled a climate change denier.
For Man to be responsible for Climate Change since the beginning of the Industrial Age requires ignoring all the catastrophic climate change that preceded it. Claiming that we are experiencing a statistically significant difference in Climate requires an ignorance of climate history of biblical proportions.
You are confusing long term natural climate changes with short term man made climate changes. The two exist at the same time.
There is no such thing as “man made climate change”, RG.
You just swallow the AGW nonsense without understanding the relevant physics.
That makes you a braindead cult idiot.
No offense.
Cities built by humans are much warmer than surrounding areas
Strike one for you
Man made air pollution blocks some sunlight
Strike 2 for you
Man made CO2 emissions reduce Earth’s ability to cool itself by some amount
Strike 3 for you
Three strikes and you are out.
Conclusion:
You are an anti-science dingbat Clint R.
RG, and you differentiate the two how? The only way I know to demonstrate that would be to prove that the variability of the temperature during the industrial age differs from the previous 10,000 years of the Holocene by a statistically significant amount. That is an easily testable hypothesis using any Ice Core Data Set. I’ve done it, and if anything, the Industrial age has LOWERED the variability of temperature, and we are well below numerous peaks in the data set earlier in the Holocene.
Why don’t you do that experiment and publish the results? Remember this is a science. Simply apply the scientific method to the data that is widely available.
You are stating personal “conclusions” that can not be proven.
(1)
Ice core proxies are local approximations, not accurate real time global average measurements.
(2)
The fact that there are many variables affecting the climate, and it is impossible to specify exactly what CO2 does, does not prove man made causes of climate change do not exist
(3) Your claim about lower variability of the climate in the “industrial age” has to be based on the rough estimates from local climate proxies, not accurate real time temperature measurements combines into a global average. Reasonably accurate real time measurements and global averages have existed only since 1979 (UAH) Industrial age temperatures and CO2 levels are only rough estimates from proxies. There were very land based few weather station before 1900 and sea surface measurements were even worse.
(4) Climate estimates for the past 10,000 years are based on local proxies. Combining local proxies in an attempt to create a global average tends to smooth variations. The resulting smoothed variations tend to be so small that it is impossible to prove any average temperatures (estimates) in the past 10,000 years were warmer than the global average temperatures in the past ten years.
For example it can be assumed that the Holocene Climate Optimum, from 5000 to 9000 years ago, was slightly warmer than the past 10 years, but that is an assumption, not a fact.
Similarly, climate proxies and anecdotes suggest there have been colder and warmer centuries in the past few thousand years. And people greatly preferred warmer climates.
But proxies and anecdotes do not provide an accurate real time global average temperature to compare with the real time global average temperatures in the past 10 years (from UAH)
Conclusions:
Climate always varies
People prefer warmer centuries over colder centuries
CO2 is the staff of most life on our planet, not pollution
The climate in 100 years is unknown (even in one year)
The future climate will be warmer, unless it gets colder.
Everything predicted about the future climate is speculation with no data — there are no data for the future — and there ia 50 year track record of inaccurate climate predictions.
The measured temperature in any 50 year period can not be used to predict the measured temperature in the next 50 year period.
For example, the global cooling from 1940 to 1975 (later “adjusted” away) did not predict the global warming from 1975 through 2020.
And the global warming from 1910 to 1940, assuming the measurements are accurate, did not predict the global cooling from 1940 to 1975, as originally reported in 1975.
It is impossible to predict the future climate, but also difficult to “predict” the past climate, because the numbers keep changing !
Little Amelia from Kiev livens up people’s time in one of Kiev’s air-raid shelters with her singing
https://youtu.be/g2BHRt9jSXY
This isn’t facebook, ren.
Russian frost in a few days in Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/sJbV6wt/Screenshot-2.png
ren
Bookmarked!
Our forecast for the coldest night between 06.03.22 and 19.03.22:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?daytime=night&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20220310&iid=euro&pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram
Russian frost you said?
Hmmmmh.
You can comfort yourself, but you’ll be cold at night. Do you see SSW in the lower stratosphere? That will do it.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/100mb9065.png
The fact that CO2’s ability to warm was saturated long ago should be enough to convince anyone that the warming is natural. It simply cannot be due to CO2.
http://www.john-daly.com//artifact.htm
There have been a couple of claimed refutations of this saturation science, but they don’t respond directly to this article by Dr. Heinz Hug. The reason is he actually refutes the refutations in this article.
I have no idea why Dr. Spencer believes that CO2 causes any warming at all.
Richard M
I have seen that paper before. He is discussing how far IR emitted from surface at 15 microns can travel before it is absorbed. A few meters. In his thought process he concludes, since it is already at saturation is cannot do anything.
The flaw in his reasoning is he is limiting his thought process to just one aspect of the situation. The increase in warming comes because the increase in CO2 increases the emission height for the CO2 band emission to space. It emits at a cooler part of the atmosphere (because of lapse rate). As you add more CO2 the CO2 to space emission height continues to increase. The solar heating of the surface will result in the surface needing to reach a higher temperature to get the same amount of heat to leave the Earth.
An analogous situation is to just keep increasing the layers of insulation around a house. If it is super cold outside the more layers of insulation, the less heat that ends up leaving the heated home.
I do not object to Heinz Hug’s math. I am sure his calculations are good. His conclusions are what I would reconsider on your part.
Norman, your nonsense is creative, but it ain’t science.
You are claiming an increase in CO2 increases its emission height. But CO2 does not know where it is, idiot.
Your next perversion of reality, please….
If it is nonsense, then it is not creative, just wrong.
Norman, the ERL, aka emission height, is a fixed constant for well mixed gases. It is based on density changes as one moves through the atmosphere. Doubling CO2 will double the energy loss at every altitude. Hence, there is no change in the emission temperature. However, since more energy involved, there has to be a cooling effect.
To understand how this really works imagine the atmosphere is many concentric layers where energy is absorbed and radiated randomly based on the number of CO2 molecules within a layer.
At any lower layer you are radiating upward more energy than there are CO2 molecules in the next layer above to absorb. This energy is immediately lost to space because the same process applies to all layers as you go up.
Doubling CO2 increases the number of molecules at every layer proportionally. The difference between layers will be proportional to the change in density.
I realize this is not intuitive at first. Took me years to catch on.
Richard M
The doubling of CO2 would double the energy lost per layer not not to space. In your hypothesis you need to consider that, at a given temperature, the CO2 radiates away energy in both directions…Up and Down so while the layer is losing twice the energy the upward emission is only half of this and from middle layers it does not reach space. The emission to space only takes place when the layer above is so thin that it no longer absorbs the upwelling longwave radiation.
The MODTRAN model shows how increased CO2 lowers the outward emission of IR at the same surface temperature. The surface would have to warm to reach the same level of outward emission.
You can put in the numbers in the mode. Change the atmosphere to Standard and go from 400 PPM CO2 to 800 and look at the change to the Outward emission with the same 288 K surface temp.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
The real atmosphere has clouds, which close an IR window considerably but I use no clouds to see just the effect of CO2. It is a difference of minus 2.98 W/m^2. More CO2 lowers the emission to space and the surface will heat until the radiant loss is the same.
Real world dynamics with clouds make the situation extremely complex which some have pointed out that it is not clear cut. There is no simplistic answer for how much warming there will be. Mostly speculation and guesswork.
Norman, if you look at the atmosphere as a set of concentric layers it helps to understand that the layers above will NOT absorb any extra radiation from below. Look at two adjacent layers.
The layer above radiates X amount of energy downward and all of it can be absorbed since there are more CO2 molecules. The lower layer radiates X+Y amount of upward energy due to having the extra CO2 molecules.
The higher layer can only absorb X amount of that energy based on its number of CO2 molecules. The extra Y energy has nowhere to go. It’s kind of like musical chairs where the higher layer has fewer chairs. Only a subset of the people looking for chairs will find them.
Note that the higher layer was completely saturated by the X energy radiated to it from the lower layer. It has no capability to absorb energy from any other layer further below. Think of musical chairs again. The chairs keep getting removed as you go up. The higher layer can’t provide a seat for all the people moving up from the previous layer let alone anyone who didn’t make it there.
Richard M
Maybe this example will help you understand my point.
1
2
4
8
16
Say that each layer of air has 1/2 the CO2 of the layer below it.
Okay so the lowest level will radiate an equivalent of 8 units up and down. So the next layer up will receive all the 8 units and then warm and emit its own 4 units each way. The layer above this will receive all 4 and radiate 2 both ways. This process continues until there is not enough CO2 above to radiate anything back and all goes to space.
When you do the UP and DOWN of your concentric circles you will see the lower layer radiates only X+Y/2 since the amount of radiation goes both ways.
In the real atmosphere it is cooling as you go up so each layer is radiating less and less IR. IR emission from CO2 is based upon the temperature of the level and its emissivity.
If you want an analogy that helps, consider insulating a heated object. The first insulation you put around the object will be powerful R32. You find it needs more so you put another layer of R20. It is not as effective as R32 but it does decrease the amount of heat leaving the heated object and its temperature rises. You continue to provide new layers of less effective insulation but each one has an effect. So adding more CO2 will increase the emission layer which will take place at a colder temperature and even with more CO2 the lower temperature (because the addition is linear but the radiant loss is to the 4th power so a change in temperature has more effect).
Norman, that’s some really creative keyboarding, but it ain’t science. Unfortunately, you don’t understand any of this.
You’re confusing CO2 with insulation. The non IR radiative gases serve as insulation, but CO2 is constantly emitting energy to space.
You don’t understand any of this, and you refuse learning. You haven’t learned one thing in the last two years. You’re braindead.
Clint R
I do understand it quite well.
Watch this video. It might help you out. If you are a bot it won’t help. If human, it might.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFL5NoM9GVE
If you are human it explains both your stupid posts and your arrogance.
There is nothing anyone can do to inform you or correct all your errors. The best solution would be for you to read more physics textbooks. Since you won’t do this I guess you will continue to post stupid unsupported ideas that you think are brilliant and you will think everyone else are idiots.
Clint R
Yes CO2 continuously emits to space but at a lot lower rate than the Earth’s surface would if there were NO GHG present. O2 and N2 don’t insulate since the next layer above is space and heat does not conduct or convect through space. So it is not insulating the surface from space. You might think it does but that thinking is flawed.
With no GHG the Surface would emit average of 390 W/m^2 directly to space (until it cooled the the lower temperatures that solar input could sustain). With GHG the energy leaving the Earth averages 240 W/m^2. Much lower so I am stunned at your stupid post. I can’t help you with your ignorance. I have already linked you to dozens of measured values. You ignore evidence so it is a hopeless task to debate in any rational way.
Basically you are a cult minded idiot who hates science and evidence based reality in favor of your own created reality based upon your own opinions on how you think Nature should work. You have no desire to understand or learn how it actually works.
Wrong again, braindead Norman.
The insulation occurs between layers of insulating gases, and Earth’s surface. You forgot about the lapse rate. You don’t understand any of this.
You make a lot of false accusations, but you forget you couldn’t solve the simple physics problems, and you know NOTHING about thermodynamics. You make big claims, but you can never back them up. Trolling is more important to you than learning. That’s why you haven’t learned anything in the two years I’ve been here.
Where’s that “real 255K surface”. How’s that experiment to boil water with ice cubes going? How did the “hammer/hand” experiment work out? Do you understand that a bicycle pedal rotates on an axle? See what a braindead cult idiot you are? (And I didn’t even mention all the links you find but can’t understand.)
Clint R
I can’t do anything about your ignorance, denial of evidence, your anti-scientific mentality. Those issues cannot be fixed. You are too stupid and arrogant (as the YouTube video points out) to alter your path.
However I will not accept your lies and dishonesty. That goes too far. A boastful ignorant person like you is one thing. The lies are another.
YOUR BLATANT LIE: “You make big claims, but you can never back them up.”
I back up all my claims with supporting evidence. You don’t accept the evidence but you lie when you claim I do not back up my claims.
Be an ignorant fool, that is your choice. But do you also have to be a dishonest liar? Why?
Norman, all your false accusations about me are more examples that you “make big claims, but you can never back them up.”
Where’s your bogus “real 255K surface”? That’s another big claim you can’t back up.
You need to display some honesty before you start calling other people “liars”.
Clint R
I think I need a barf bag to continue with you.
You are a sickening blatant liar. Dishonest as one can get.
I have said over and over that I said there is a real RADIATING surface. Ball4 brought up the confusing term you attribute to me. I have corrected you enough that now you are just lying.
It seems you are not a human as you possess no memory.
I can explain it again here so you can lie some more or put out some garbage you are programmed to do. More likely you are a bot than human or you would correct your lies.
The longwave emission from the Earth to space averages around 240 W/m^2. I have linked you various articles that discuss this, how the data was obtained etc. I can’t help your program can’t process the data. That flaw is with your programming group.
With this amount of radiant energy the Brightness temperature (if the Earth were a blackbody) would be 255 K.
The radiant surface of Earth (the boundary from which the radiation leaves the Earth and travels in space) is emitting 240 W/m^2 with a brightness temperature of 255 K.
Trying the same nonsense over and over, hoping for different results, is insanity, Norman.
I can understand that you want to change the term, but you’re stuck with it. So where is this “real 255K surface”? If you claim it’s somewhere in the atmosphere, what is its altitude?
You’re in over your head. You bit off more than you can chew. You swallowed Ball4’s crap, you’re stuck with it, and you’re trying to blame me.
That makes you a braindead cult idiot.
Norman, you claimed
“the lowest level will radiate an equivalent of 8 units up and down. So the next layer up will receive all the 8 units and then warm and emit its own 4 units each way. The layer above this will receive all 4 and radiate 2 both ways. This process continues until there is not enough CO2 above to radiate anything back and all goes to space.”
How can “the layer above” absorb all the units from the lower layer (8) as well as units from the layer above it (2)? Doesn’t add up.
I think all you did was lower the amount of lost radiation at each level (2 units instead of 4). The basic idea I laid out is the same.
Your insulation analogy also fails. The insulation layers are not set by a fixed size as it is with the atmosphere. When you add CO2 you aren’t adding another layer. The energy loss at each layer is a function of the changing density. That doesn’t change. You get 100% loss at the same altitude.
Clint R the bot,
No I am not stuck with a term Ball4 claimed and you attribute to me. I have always claimed a radiant surface and I have gone into detail to explain the term.
Does the Sun have a surface? I have given you this as an example as well as multiple images of Earth’s outgoing longwave radiant energy.
There is NO specific altitude where the IR emanates from. Some comes from the TOA, other comes from the actual Earth’s surface and some from clouds and water vapor. All kinds of different altitudes but the boundary layer is fixed. It is the point from which no more longwave radiant energy is being emitted by the Earth.
NOTE to Clint R bot programmers. Your bot is malfunctioning. Can you recall and tweak out the flaws. Shows no signs of awareness, just repeats old points over and over. This bot will not pass the Turning Test.
Norman, here’s the reality — Earth does NOT have a “real 255K surface”.
Ball4 claimed it did, and you fell for his nonsense. Now, you’ve realized you got tricked, so you’re trying to weasel out. And you’re trying to blame me!
Your cult beliefs made you look like an incompetent boob, again.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“what is its altitude?”
What is the surface of a fog bank? What is the altitude of a clouds surface?
I doubt Norman will come back. When his lack of education is exposed, he typically runs.
But something in the atmosphere with a “real” surface would have an altitude. With clouds, there is even an instrument to measure the altitude. It’s called a “ceilometer”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceilometer
Earth does NOT have a “real 255K surface”.
Planet Earth does have a “real 255K surface” since it has been instrumentally measured!
Norman,
In your example which I corrected you have 8 units emitted by the lower layer and 6 units absorbed by the next layer up. This results in a loss of 2 units or 25% of the available energy.
Now consider what happens with 2xCO2. You now have 16 units emitted by the lower layer and 12 units absorbed by the next layer up. This is a loss of 4 units which is again 25% of the available energy.
This is why the emission height does not change. The percent of energy loss is independent of the amount of energy. The loss rate is proportional to the change in density.
“This is why the emission height does not change.”
Richard M, you are incorrect, the emission height in an atm. does change with atm. optical depth.
The radiation emitted to space from Earth will mostly originate at some level above the surface. To make it simpler than Norman’s writing, most of the outgoing radiation to space comes from an emission level that is in the neighborhood of 1 optical thickness unit below planetary TOA.
Norman is explaining why that optical thickness varies to, in a roundabout way, show you are incorrect. The effective emission level height changes as the optical thickness of an atm changes. For more detail on that, crack open a meteorological text book and learn about the Chapman layer.
Physically, that emission height corresponds to a trade-off between high density (which gives high emissivity) and little overlying atmosphere to permit that height’s emitted radiation to escape to deep space.
No Balls,
At exactly what height(s) does radiation emitted to space from Earth mostly originate at and where are those measurements reported?
The exact height radiation emitted to space from Earth mostly originates is in the neighborhood of a level 1 optical thickness unit below the top of the earthen atmosphere as reported by measurements in the literature Chic has yet to read.
That optical thickness varies with the total mass path of absorbers, nonuniform absorber specific density, and pressure broadening among others. Thus the emission height does change.
Pitifully pointless platitudes. You won’t provide the sources of your alleged measurements, because you know they won’t provide the evidence of specific heights and temperatures.
Don’t your arms get tired with all that hand waving?
My arms get tired mostly from carrying around thick text books. As I advised Richard M, Chic should check out a reliable meteorological text book and learn about the Chapman layer. I am not a library nor librarian.
Ball4, I’ve heard it all before. Sorry, unless you have some new information, the claim you are repeating is false.
I showed exactly why it is false above. Energy is lost continually as you rise through the atmosphere and at a fixed rate based on the change in density. There is no magic layer of emission.
This is likely why Miskolczi got the result he published more than a decade ago.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
All I’ve done is shown the reasons behind those results. So, let’s hear your refutation of the math/physics I laid out.
Ferenc M. Miskolczi: “Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.”
This has not happened in the time after this paper or perhaps Richard M can point out where. There was simply no need to do so as more measurements accumulated after this paper demonstrate.
And FMM: “The present paper has restricted its attention to the empirical observational testing of the quasi-all-sky model, and has avoided theoretical analysis. These empirical results could well be challenged by a comparable empirical method.”
Sure, Richard M, you are relying on the FMM ~2009 quasi-all-sky model, sparse data in FMM, & avoiding theoretical analysis.
Those FMM empirical results have been challenged by the longer term real all sky empirical data of CERES instruments now that was not available to FMM at the time of this paper to check his assumptions. The FMM paper has thus been successfully challenged by better empirical methods showing the results of added ppm IR active gas, changes in clouds, albedo et. al. changing atm. optical thickness thus effective emission level.
Richard,
You are arguing with someone who believes a theoretical concept like average emission height can be measured. You are arguing with a fool.
Chapman layer altitude neighborhood is actually measured Chic. At each frequency in the IR band of interest in the view of the instrument. The measurements are not hard to find for an informed commenter.
Ball4,
Stop playing the fool.
https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Chapman_layer
“The idealized height distribution of ionization as a function of height produced solely by absorp.tion of solar radiation.”
Note the word absorp_tion Chic. More ppm CO2 et. al. IR active gas the more solar absorp_tion and the layer neighborhood height is raised with increased optical depth. You should also reference a decent meteorlogical text book for even more details on the atm. effective emission level.
Foolish No Balls is now eligible for Queen of Obfuscation expecting to find a measured difference in some imaginary emission heights in textbooks. Where, from one edition to the next!?
Norman, you wrote,
“The increase in warming comes because the increase in CO2 increases the emission height for the CO2 band emission to space. It emits at a cooler part of the atmosphere (because of lapse rate).”
Why do you continue to regurgitate the same unproven assertions with no substantive evidence to back it up? Where are these emission height and cooler parts of the atmosphere ever measured?
Chic Bowdrir
Maybe look at this. I only read the abstract as I already accept this issue. Since you need more evidence I am sure if you read through this article you will have what you request.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf
“Global measurements under nighttime, clear-sky conditions reveal
0.3600.026 Wm−2 of CO2-induced longwave radiative forcing, or 755% of model predictions”
Another way of saying that the models are 35-25% inaccurate.
RLH
Yes it is as Roy Spencer points out, the models run hot. They need to evaluate and find out why the models are running hot and work to make them more in line with real measurements.
Chic Bowdrie was asking for measured evidence and this article should provide it.
Norman,
You only have to read the following from the abstract to know there will be no measurements of emission height and cooler parts of the atmosphere in that paper.
“The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) multi-model ensemble average predicts 0.477 Wm−2 clear-sky longwave effective radiative forcing from this increase.”
Just because the modeling predicts a temperature increase and coincidentally a temperature increase occurs, that doesn’t indicate what caused the increase. The confounding variables have to be ruled out.
I feel compelled to argue against the dogma because we need to use fossil fuels here in the US and not buy them from Russia.
Why are you compelled to defend the dogma which may be wasting a lot of resources solving a non-problem?
Chic Bowdrie
They have a modeled amount and then they give the measured amount.
I am not defending dogma. I am looking at it with a scientific lens. Not a political one. I am looking for evidence either way.
The problem is all your evidence is circumstantial. Did you read the paper yet? What was measured? Was a temperature measured in response to a change in CO2? Was there any consideration for conduction, convection, wind, thermalization?
Continually explaining what you think is happening without any scientific data to back it up is not following the science. It is promoting a political agenda based on AGW dogma. That in itself is not terrible. Denying it is.
Chic, added ppm CO2 produces additional downward radiation same as added cirrus clouds produces additional downward radiation in our atm.
A surface temperature change was measured in response to a change in cirrus clouds by Dr. Spencer overnight in the presence of natural conduction, convection, wind and thermalization.
Maybe you can repeat the experiment on a clear night and release some CO2 above the apparatus to prove your assertion.
Sure, same answer, Chic. 1LOT will still work with whatever icy source provided the additional downward absorbed nighttime radiation even refrigerator ice cubes would work if they equal the radiation from the icy cirrus as Dr. Spencer already explained for you.
I’m serious. CO2 is not clouds or ice cubes. They don’t thermalize or convect.
What you claim must be proven or you are just making idle assertions. You are a just an empty suit.
Dr. Spencer experimentally proved what I claim, Chic. I have no pressing need to replicate his experiments as I can read them for myself. You should too. You can even replicate them if needed as enough of the details are provided.
Dr. Spencer did not prove CO2 warms anything or behaves like clouds. Are you trying to displace Nate as King of Obfuscation?
Norman, I read the paper and was disappointed they didn’t cover all the OLR frequencies. That could have verified/falsified my analysis previously. All they did is look at the wings and, as expected, see a reduction in OLR. Tells us nothing.
“Dr. Spencer did not prove CO2 warms anything or behaves like clouds.”
Actually Dr. Spencer did so experimentally on our real atm. and also theoretically with simple analysis. There is no obfuscation needed. Chic just hasn’t read and understood Dr. Spencer’s past postings on the subject.
Chic, Why are you obsessed with ’emission height’ as definite height that can be observed?
Yet another strawman in the never ending quest to find ‘the one easy trick’ that proves climate science has it all wrong.
There has never been single height from which all IR to space is emitted. It has always been an average.
Why does it need to be observed, what matters is that its predicted optical effect on the IR emission from Earth has been observed from space?
Youve seen the papers.
Nate,
If it can’t be observed and measured, it is imaginary. Obfuscation #1 on this thread.
You have referred to Kristian’s explanation of the GHE hypothesis as a cartoon. Note its emphasis on emission height and the expected change due to CO2 rise.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1190758
Where do you and your Queen of Obfuscation, Ball4, show any change in emission height measured?
“If it cant be observed and measured, it is imaginary. Obfuscation #1 on this thread.”
If I measure the IR spectra transmitted thru a material, I can infer what molecules are in there, and how many.
Standard technique.
DO you think they are imaginary?
How is that relevant to measuring differences in emission heights due to increases in IR absorbing gases? Obfuscation #2 on this thread.
An effective radiation level (ERL) is a concept describing an emission height where 50% of the radiation to space comes from below that level and 50% comes from above. It’s an entirely conceptual height, IOW, imaginary.
Here is what you said elsewhere
“The reverse kinetics, emissions exceeding collisions, only occurs in the upper atmosphere where the air density is sufficiently thin”
At what level? Has this level been observed? Then it must be just imaginary….
You ought to be able understand, then, that when in the upper atmosphere the CO2 density thins enough it is no longer opaque, and it emits to space. Basic optics. And that if CO2 density increases, the level at which this occurs must rise. Basic physics.
Neither phenomena is imaginary.
“At what level?”
The ratio of collisions to emissions continues dropping from greater than 1 at the surface to approaching zero at the TOA. So there is no specific level. Anyone trying to observe a specific level or height is imagining things.
OTOH, people write on drroyspencer.com a lot about ERL and how it is increasing to colder levels without ever identifying a contour or a measured change in it. I think we both understand the concept, but the imaginary claim stands until the measurement change has been documented.
That’s your obfuscation #3 on this thread.
“The ratio of collisions to emissions continues dropping from greater than 1 at the surface to approaching zero at the TOA. So there is no specific level.”
And has this so-called drop you describe been directly measured? Where is the data? How do you know this is happening? If you can’t produce a direct observation of it, then it is imaginary.
Just obfuscation.
“I think we both understand the concept,”
But Im Chic, so Im going build a strawman that this average level that radiation is emitted from the atmosphere needs to be directly observed. If not, then GHE aint happening and is imaginary.
Obfuscation #4.
Go pound sand. I’m bored and done with you.
Until your next obfuscation….
To have your foolishness continually exposed surely must be frustrating…
“You have referred to Kristians explanation of the GHE hypothesis as a cartoon. Note its emphasis on emission height and the expected change due to CO2 rise.”
Exactly, to try to pretend that a cartoon version of the theory is ‘the GHE theory’ and than rejecting ‘the GHE theory’ by showing that the cartoon model is not observable, is a standard tactic by the strawman specialists here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1206161
Richard M
Please try to obtain a translation of this paper in English:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jacques-Treiner/publication/275205925_L'effet_de_serre_atmospherique_plus_subtil_qu'on_ne_le_croit/links/555642e008aeaaff3bf5f055/Leffet-de-serre-atmospherique-plus-subtil-quon-ne-le-croit.pdf
French is my native tongue, but I’m too lazy to do the job; the main problem is the PDF format, which is riddled with newlines, making it extremely difficult for Google’s translators to work.
And then try to digest and understand what Dufresne and Treiner explained in 2011.
Lots of work.
From what I can tell by the abstract the paper simply repeats the real climate arguments which are faulty.
Quite right, RM.
A pity the fact is false:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
Willard, I read the real climate rebuttal long ago and it convinced me at the time. Too bad, because it is wrong. There are two parts to the rebuttal. Part one is wrong, Part two is mostly right.
I explained it in my response to Norman.
We end up with a cooling process (part one corrected) and a warming process (part two). So +1 -1 = zero.
Adding clouds would not work if CO2 was saturated, RM.
You cannot do double accounting like that and claim having refuted rock solid stuff.
Willard, you are not understanding what saturation means in this context. It means all the 15 micron surface radiation is absorbed and already warming the atmosphere at 10 m. It says nothing about clouds absorbing IR higher in the atmosphere.
RM, you do not get it – if you go for the saturated argument, you need to go saturated all the way.
Otherwise you’re just special pleading.
Willard, you still don’t understand what is meant by saturation. I guess learning a new concept is beyond you. So be it. I have heard ignorance is bliss.
@ Richard M.
Re “I guess learning a new concept is beyond you. So be it. I have heard ignorance is bliss.”
And I guess YOU still have not learned the falsehood of the “ignorance is bliss’ concept apparently. lol
Ignorance of the reality of lies and deceptions (=most mainstream news and establishment decrees) is bliss because exposing yourself to that is self-propagandization.
Ignorance of truths (especially if theyre upsetting) is not, or only temporarily or rarely, bliss because it is ultimately self-defeating.
The FALSE mantra of “ignorance is bliss”, promoted in the latter sense, is a product of a fake sick culture that has indoctrinated its “dumbed down” (therefore TRULY ignorant, therefore easy to control) people with many such manipulative slogans. You can find the proof that ignorance is never bliss (only superficial fake bliss), and how you get to buy into this lie (and other self-defeating lies), in the article The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room The Holocaustal Covid-19 Coronavirus Madness: A Sociological Perspective & Historical Assessment Of The Covid Phenomenon … https://www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html
“Blissful” believers in “ignorance is bliss” — blissfully stupid people — are nearly always self-destructive indifferent immoral ignoramuses and/or members of herd stupidity… speaking of which, with the letters of “omicron” an alleged Covid variant you can spell “moronic”
And further speaking of stupid herd people not getting the glaringly obvious truth/ie not getting the constant onslaught of BIG lies of the official authorities……
“2 weeks to flatten the curve has turned into…3 shots to feed your family!” — Unknown
If ‘ignorance is bliss’ there should be more happy people. — Unknown
Hmmm,
“Willard, you are not understanding what saturation means in this context. It means all the 15 micron surface radiation is absorbed and already warming the atmosphere at 10 m. It says nothing about clouds absorbing IR higher in the atmosphere.”
If all the IR is absorved by 10 meters, how is there any left to get absoved higher in the atmosphere?
Just asking for Swenson and Clint R, and no they are not friends.
bobdroege, there are two parts to the IR question. The first part has to do with absorbing surface radiation in the atmosphere. That is what is saturated. That is what causes warming
The second part relates to how the IR eventually gets to space from the atmosphere. That is what happens (usually) higher in the atmosphere.
It is interesting that both of these processes are accomplished by the same GHGs.
Funny thing is that 10 meter layer that is saturated, is also emitting IR, bot up and down, so it takes the next layer to saturate, and then that layer emits both up and down, and so on and so forth.
So each layer is radiating downward causing warming of the lower layers, which debunks the saturation argument.
See Venus, rising first and shining best.
bobdroege, I believe your response to my saturation claim is pretty much how the entire climate science community views the radiation flow. So, I’m not at all surprised.
The problem is … the view violates Kirchhoff’s Law. This was covered in Miskolczi 2010. Unfortunately, the paper is very complex and covers many issues and this extremely important observation kind of got lost in the forest.
The net of your comment was
“So each layer is radiating downward causing warming of the lower layers, which debunks the saturation argument.”
Sorry, while that is true for specific photons is it not true for the NET radiation flow. There is no net radiation flow downward as that would violate Kirchhoff’s Law.
This is easier to understand when you accept that every virtual layer of the atmosphere is in Radiation Exchange Equilibrium with it’s adjacent layers. This is directly due to Kirchhoff’s Law. It is as solid as the 2nd law of thermodynamics and Miskolczi showed the NOAA data adhered to this requirement.
This means any higher layer, which could be sending X units of radiation downward, has all of that radiation absorbed by the next layer (this is a statistical statement). Since the higher layer is not sending down any radiation that cannot be absorbed by the next lower layer and the is zero net energy transfer between layers, the overall downward energy flux is zero.
Again this is not just because of Miskolczi’s analysis of the NOAA data which did show this, it is theoretically demanded by Kirchhoff’s Law.
Dr. Roy wrote about this back in 2010 and unfortunately did not understand this correctly. He did understand this essentially negates the greenhouse effect. On that, he was right.
“The second part relates to how the IR eventually gets to space from the atmosphere. That is what happens (usually) higher in the atmosphere.”
Yep and what happens at TOA doesnt stay at TOA. Because we have a lapse rate, it effects T all the way down. If the top layer warms, the layer below it will be warmer, and layer below that will be warmer, etc.
Sorry Nate, but your claim violates Kirchhoff’s Law. From Miskolczi 2010:
“It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange equilibrium [REE] between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as meaning that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of transport that may be occurring.”
If you look at Figure 4 you see 60 years of NOAA data confirm the atmosphere can be viewed as multiple layers each in REE with the adjacent layer.
It is also obvious just thinking about it. The upper layer is colder and less dense so when it radiates X units of radiation, the next lower layer can absorb it completely. Even though the lower layer radiates X+Y radiation upward, only X can be absorbed due to Kirchhoff’s Law. Hence, the exchange between layers is always equal.
So what does REE mean to your claim about downward radiation affecting the surface? Well, we know
1) all downward radiation from a higher layer to a lower layer can be completely absorbed due to the higher density and temperature of the lower layer.
2) there is no net radiation flux between layers due to REE.
That is 0+0 = 0 downward radiation between any two layers. Add up all the layers and you still get exactly 0.0. This is demanded by Kirchhoff’s Law.
It appears Nate thinks physical laws are just an inconvenience.
“the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B”
Richard M, what of the radiation emitted by A that is NOT absorbed by B? Kirchhoff’s law does not require such & does not mean what you imply in your 1) and 2). For example, at 11 micron the atm. has about 0.60 transmissivity unlike near zero transmissivity at your 15 micron looking up from the humid tropical surface.
On a global avg. basis, the L&O surface emits at Tse ~ 288K and the planetary TOA emits at Te ~255K so the 33K earthen GHE is well established by instrumentation backed up by 1LOT theory.
Ball4 asks:
“what of the radiation emitted by A that is NOT absorbed by B?”
It means it doesn’t participate in radiation exchange. This is key to understanding why REE is important. You need to look at the radiation that is not absorbed separately from the radiation which is absorbed. You then learn two things about it.
1) the upward radiation goes to space and
2) there is no net downward radiation.
As for water vapor, that is another subject. All I am dealing with here is CO2. Only well mixed gases will observe REE. And, since that is the claimed cause of the enhanced greenhouse effect, that is precisely the ONLY thing that matters.
Nate,
“…layer below that will be warmer, etc.”
This is a meaningless descrip.tion of the lapse rate. There is no downward net radiation unless there is an inversion somewhere.
Ball4,
“what of the radiation emitted by A that is NOT absorbed by B?”
Richard’s point, based on temperature and density considerations, is that there is no radiation from A not absorbed by B. Unless you have data to the contrary, you are just making stuff up again like your imaginary “33K earthen GHE.”
“The upper layer is colder and less dense so when it radiates X units of radiation, the next lower layer can absorb it completely. Even though the lower layer radiates X+Y radiation upward, only X can be absorbed due to Kirchhoff’s Law.”
Kirchoff is a requirement on the fractional amount emitted and abs*orbed being the same. The total amounts will not be the same for layers at different temperature and emissivity.
There is no downward net radiation unless there is an inversion somewhere”
Nor did I say there was. But the T will inrease below. The net emitted upward is reduced with warmer layers above
“But the T will inrease below. The net emitted upward is reduced with warmer layers above.”
No way can you provide any data to back up your assertions based only on dogma. Warmer layers emit more period. That doesn’t mean a reduction anywhere. Energy goes where it wants, and that is always from hot to cold and from the atmosphere the net is usually up. The atmosphere is not static. It conducts, convects, emits, absorbs, and is blown around. CO2 and others are only along for the ride. Get used to it.
Nate says “The total amounts will not be the same for layers at different temperature and emissivity.”
Nobody is saying they are the same. The fact you get colder and less dense air as you rise is exactly why you don’t get any net downward IR. No net downward IR and no enhanced greenhouse effect.
While the atmosphere is constantly dealing with turbulence which will temporarily overcome REE, it always returns to the structure where REE is present due to the density differences at different altitudes.
REE is like a frame on a building. It stabilizes the atmosphere. It is all based on the changing density as one moves up through the atmosphere.
Richard M 12:58pm: “It means it doesn’t participate in radiation exchange.”
… which then makes your statement “1) all downward radiation from a higher layer to a lower layer can be completely absorbed” wrong thus your argument fails.
Your 2) is just a definition of radiative equilibrium.
—–
Chic: “Unless you have data to the contrary, you are just making stuff up again like your imaginary “33K earthen GHE.””
The TOA GHE component Te data is continually 24/7 collected by relevant & multiple satellite radiometer instrument, Chic, and the surface GHE component Tse data is daily collected by thermometer fields (GHCN) to find from data over many multi-annual periods:
Earthen Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K earthen GHE, rounded
Much sparser measured data indicates similarly:
Martian Tse – Te = 215K – 210K = 5K martian GHE, rounded
You keep reporting those theoretical numbers which represent mythical surfaces. You cannot report data from any of the instruments that actually collected the data from any real surfaces.
Who are you defending and why? Do you like paying higher prices for everything and supporting war around the world?
“No net downward IR and no enhanced greenhouse effect.”
No need for net downward IR. It is a sky dragon myth that the GHE requires that.
The GHE is simply reducing the net upward heat transfer.
Ball4: Remember, we are only talking CO2 here. CO2 is well mixed which means higher density, lower layers will contain more CO2.
Clouds and water vapor can cause a greenhouse effect, but since nothing is changing to affect them, the climate stays the same.
Chic 9:22 am: “You cannot report data from any of the instruments that actually collected the data from any real surfaces.”
Just use google string: CERES data
Find the instruments that actually collected the data from real surfaces:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/
—-
Richard M 11:17 am: I do remember that. Then lower layers will contain added well mixed ppm CO2 as time goes on resulting in more radiation upwards and downwards from each layer in REE. This process is continually measured now with the radiometer data collected showing surface warming from added ppm CO2. This is data that Miskolczi did not have back in 2010.
In addition, on global basis water vapor and clouds are known to have changed in the CERES & ARGO era increasing each of their surface warming effects during the CERES data collection period with 95% confidence. This era includes measured negligible solar illumination decadal change since about 2000 also with 95% confidence.
In the words of Nate, the King of Obfuscation, don’t play dumb.
CERES data is measured in W/m2. All your interpretation of temperature is just that, interpretation. There is no 288K surface and there is no 255K surface. They are constructs. Stop being childish.
The GHE component surfaces are not constructs, conceptual, or subjective Chic, the surfaces are known. The GHE data is measured not just theoretical since the thermometer and radiometer results do agree with 1LOT theory.
Queen or Court Jester. I can’t make up my mind.
Richard M
Though I’m really not at all a specialist in that corner, the first I would feel wrong in all these CO2 saturation ideas is that
– Earth’s LW radiation intensity is such that no saturation could ever take place, since there are at best about 4 % of water vapor in the Tropics
– CO2’s activity begins where WV’s ends, namely where the latter becomes absent because it has fully precipitated, i.e. above the tropopause.
Just little layman’s saying…
Bindidon, the saturation argument only applies to radiation in the CO2 frequency range (around 15 microns). All of the surface radiation is already absorbed very low in the atmosphere.
What ends up happening is additional concentrations of CO2 create warming up to this saturation level. At that point two complementary processes come into play. One warms and one cools. This keeps the effect of CO2 constant.
As such, more CO2 can no longer produce warming. I believe this starts around 200 ppm, maybe lower.
“…more CO2 can no longer produce warming.”
Although as Richard M writes, it is tempting to think that increasing carbon dioxide can only eventually saturate all lines (above Richard’s 200ppm CO2) with no other effect, resulting in an upper limit on infrared radiation from the atmosphere at 200ppm, this assumes incorrectly that the atm. temperature profile does not change.
When the near surface atm. doesn’t emit radiation to space at Richard M’s choice of 15micron but continues to absorb solar radiation, the near surface atm. temperature rises and no equilibrium is possible until the emission spectrum shifts to regions for which the emissivity to space is not zero.
“…the near surface atm. temperature rises…”
That is only speculation on your part. The near surface absorp.tion of IR by CO2 is thermalized and convected upward. That’s the cooling effect Richard mentioned.
“…and no equilibrium is possible until the emission spectrum shifts to regions for which the emissivity to space is not zero.”
What equilibrium? The net radiation is upward all the way through the atmosphere. Only where there is an inversion can any net radiation be downward. Duh!
Ball4, the near surface (I assume you mean the boundary layer) does not absorb solar energy. It is transparent to SW radiation. It all goes to the surface where it then radiates partially in the LW bands CO2 recognizes (15 microns) and energizes the CO2 in the first 10 meters.
CO2 in the boundary layer does continually get energized and radiates upward. Increases in CO2 will increase that upward radiation slightly. However, since CO2 adheres to REE, there cannot be any NET downward radiation caused by CO2 increases.
“No way can you provide any data to back up your assertions based only on dogma.”
If for you basic thermodynamics is ‘dogma’, no amount of data can fix that.
“Warmer layers emit more period. That doesn’t mean a reduction anywhere.”
Shows your supreme ignorance of heat transfer.
Add a layer of insulation on top, you reduce heat flow from bottom to top. Until the T at bottom and throughout rises and restores original heat flow.
“Energy goes where it wants, and that is always from hot to cold and from the atmosphere the net is usually up.”
As I said. You cant read.
“The atmosphere is not static. It conducts, convects, emits, absorbs, and is blown around.”
Obfuscation.
“CO2 and others are only along for the ride. Get used to it.”
This is not science. Its ideology.
“Add a layer of insulation on top, you reduce heat flow from bottom to top. Until the T at bottom and throughout rises and restores original heat flow.”
You keep repeating this dogma without evidence and completely ignoring the ensemble of processes that obviates any reduction in heat transfer. CO2 cools by thermalization and facilitating convective heat transfer bypassing any blanket-type insulation. The atmosphere is gaseous not solid. Learn it.
“This is not science. Its ideology.”
Look who’s talking. It’s dogma only, no data, Nate, the King of Obfuscation.
“You keep repeating this dogma without evidence and completely ignoring the ensemble of processes that obviates any reduction in heat transfer.”
Labelling basic physics principles ‘dogma’ is simply a tactic to allow you to dismiss it.
If we look inside fiberglass insulation, heat is being transferred by convection, conduction and radiation. But I don’t need to pay attention to these details of the heat transfer to understand the basic principle that it is insulating, and the general rules that apply to insulators.
One of those is if I add another layer of insulation on top, the total insulation R factor increases.
And what does that mean? That means that given a fixed temperature difference, the total heat flow will be reduced.
Or to recover the original heat flow (which is what Earth must do) the T difference must increase.
Richard M: “Ball4, the near surface (I assume you mean the boundary layer) does not absorb solar energy.”
That is true on Earth at night but not during the earthen day at 1bar in the humid tropics.
“there cannot be any NET downward radiation caused by CO2 increases.”
Net of what?
Nate,
Here you go on another trip obfuscating “basic physics principles” implying heat travels downward by longwave IR. Where is your data to back up your claims?
The fiberglass analogy is nonsense. There is no fiberglass or any other solid insulation in the atmosphere. You don’t pay attention to any details of heat transfer or you wouldn’t be quoting from the AGW dogma all the time. I don’t know of any atmospheric process that “adds another layer of insulation on top.” That is your cartoon caricature of what your phony concept of what you think the atmosphere does.
Stop polluting this blog with your tiresome rhetorical propaganda.
Ball4, it does not matter if humid air absorbs solar energy. It always has. That is not changing. The only thing that matters is whether CO2 generates more NET downward energy flow. It doesn’t.
“implying heat travels downward by longwave IR.”
For the 3rd time, I never said any such thing. You are confusing sky dragon myths with my posts.
“Where is your data to back up your claims?”
This is the go-to demand, when Chic is unfamiliar with standard physics.
“The fiberglass analogy is nonsense. There is no fiberglass or any other solid insulation in the atmosphere.”
Ok now youre just playing dumb.
“I dont know of any atmospheric process that ‘adds another layer of insulation on top. That is your cartoon caricature of what your phony concept of what you think the atmosphere does.
I see. So if you dont know something then neither does science. So it can be dismissed!
Cartoons and analogies from your team are fine. Not from mine. The famous Chic double standard!
So the top layer of the trposphere emits radiation more or less directly to space unimpeded. Yes?
Now add more CO2.
As Tyndall showed 150 y ago, when he added CO2 to a chamber filled with air, the radiative heat from a heat source transferred through that space was reduced, because CO2 abs*orbs some of it.
Yes/No?
Reduced heat transfer = increased insulation factor.
Exactly what is happening in the top layer of the troposphere.
“The only thing that matters is whether CO2 generates more NET downward energy flow. It doesn’t.”
Net of what?
Oops:
“The only thing that matters is whether CO2 generates more NET downward energy flow. It doesn’t.”
Net of what?
Basic thermodynamics and standard physics and climate science are not synonymous. You make a mockery of physical science by continuing to support the AGW dogma without supplying the data that supports what you are hyping. OK, I apologize for putting the heat-travels-downward words in your mouth. But don’t accuse me for not understanding physics when all you spew is unverified hypotheses, failed models, and no data to back up your so-called standard physics. Until you have something substantial, my go-to demand is totally appropriate. If you want to stop being labelled King of Obfuscation, put up or shut up.
“I see. So if you dont know something then neither does science.”
I don’t play dumb like you are now, because I want to be taken seriously. Therefore, I will acknowledge making a dumb statement using the turn of phrase “I don’t know of any atmospheric process” instead of simply requesting you to explain an atmospheric process that adds another layer of insulation on top. Convection is not adding insulation on top of insulation. More CO2 is not adding a layer of insulation. Each day has all night to free itself of whatever energy it received that day.
Your team can use whatever cartoons and analogies you want. Just be prepared to back them up. You have yet to explain why Kristian’s version of “your side’s AGW hypothesis” is incorrect.
Yes/No. CO2 absorbs and emits. I have described the process many times for you. All the radiation capable of being absorbed is absorbed and thermalized into the bulk air which rises. When the time comes at higher altitudes, radiation from the rising air goes to space. For 35 years in the satellite era, as Ball4 likes to say, the process has been observed. No quantifiable radiation is being reduced that can be discriminately identified as due to CO2.
Reduced heat transfer does not equal increased insulation factor. You have no data to document that. Think hare and the tortoise.
Actually, reduced heat transfer does equal increased insulation factor in fiberglass. But the atmosphere is not made of fiberglass.
“No quantifiable radiation is being reduced that can be discriminately identified as due to CO2.”
Uhhh… we have the spectra you know.
So you are denying IR optics going all the way back to Tyndall?
If you believe Tyndall and all subsequent work on IR, you cannot deny that increased CO2 in a layer anywhere, but especially at TOA, will reduce radiative heat transfer.
“Actually, reduced heat transfer does equal increased insulation factor in fiberglass.”
Good. Now, simply realize that Insulation R factors are assigned to many materials, even air spaces. And certainly part of that factor includes radiation.
“Uhhh we have the spectra you know.”
You don’t have any spectra that translates into a measured change in OLR, let alone a temperature change. To do that, you would need to simulate a controlled experiment providing enough of a change in CO2 and all the atmospheric variables normally in play. If it was easy, a school teacher could do it. Or someone not spending all his spare time obfuscating on Dr. Spencer’s blog.
I find it hard to refrain from calling you anything more insulting than King of Obfuscation which is all I’ve come to expect from you now. Unless you acknowledge that air can mix and move unlike solid materials, you indict yourself as a either a con or a fool. Thermalization and convection make the atmosphere do what surfaces can’t.
Unless you can provide empirical data to back up your claim, you are just a tiresome big mouth empty suit.
“You dont have any spectra that translates into a measured change in OLR, let alone a temperature change. To do that, you would need to simulate a controlled experiment providing enough of a change in CO2 and all the atmospheric variables normally in play.”
Ugggh
You’ve seen the papers several times in which spectra in CO2 bands are measured from space, or from the surface, and show an increase consistent with CO2 rise.
It seems that you just dont understand or refuse to understand the implications of the data.
“I find it hard to refrain from calling you anything more insulting than King of Obfuscation”
Sure, when you have no answers, no facts on your side, and no interest in trying to understand your opponent’s argument, what’s left?
Insults.
“Unless you acknowledge that air can mix and move unlike solid materials, you indict yourself as a either a con or a fool. Thermalization and convection make the atmosphere do what surfaces cant.”
As I noted, and you ignored, air layers have an R factor. They can insulate.
We all know that convection plays a role in moving heat upward in the atmosphere. As does radiation.
What we are talking about here is radiant heat transfer to space at the TOA where convection is not significant.
And I notice you have not addressed Tyndall’s work at all. Did Tyndall, and all who came after after him, get it wrong when they found that increased CO2 in an air layer REDUCES the radiative transfer of heat across this layer?
Or are you lacking the ability to apply this simple principle to a layer of air at the TOA?
And BTW, you dont have to believe me. Modtran calculates the radiative flux through the atmosphere using standard optics.
It is not a cartoon model.
You can try it yourself to see that increasing CO2 decreases the total upward flux above the atmosphere, as expected.
http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot
select the full spectral range 0.4 – 20 microns. Hit Run.
See the Flux Totals at bottom. Pay attention to
Upward Diffuse (100 km) This is the OLR in W/cm^2. Multiply by 10,000 to get W/m^2.
Then try again with a different amount of CO2.
Nate says,
“So the top layer of the troposphere emits radiation more or less directly to space unimpeded. Yes?”
The correct statement is the Troposphere emits radiation more less directly to space unimpeded from all layers. Starts right at the boundary layer.
“Now you add more CO2?”
The Troposphere still emits radiation to space from all layers unimpeded and at the same proportion it did before adding more CO2.
The average emission height is unchanged by the quantity of CO2.
You either accept physics or you don’t. This is key to what Miskolczi 2010 shows.
Richard,
“The correct statement is the Troposphere emits radiation more less directly to space unimpeded from all layers. Starts right at the boundary layer.”
“The Troposphere still emits radiation to space from all layers unimpeded and at the same proportion it did before adding more CO2.”
Uhhh…No.
So you are denying Tyndall and standard IR optics?
“The average emission height is unchanged by the quantity of CO2.”
So you declare. But based on what physics?
Then Modtran does it wrong? How?
“You’ve seen the papers….”
That is broken-record obfuscation. Of course the spectra show CO2 increases, because it has. But they don’t show the movement of the energy throughout the thousands of days in between where the OLR continues to increase, not decrease. That is what you don’t get. You either lie about the truth or are too stupid to understand its implications. Lying or stupid, which is it?
“…air layers have an R factor. They can insulate.”
What is the R factor of the air between the surface and the TOA? How does the R factor change as a function of altitude and time of day? Where has an R factor ever been used in any AGW or GHE theoretical derivations?
“What we are talking about here is radiant heat transfer to space at the TOA where convection is not significant.”
That’s what YOU talk about, because it obfuscates thermalization and convection processes that bring energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere where reverse thermalization and more CO2 will do all the cooling that needs to be done on a daily basis.
You keep bringing up Tyndall as if he carried out experiments on layers of air convecting up through the atmosphere. That strawman red-herring drivel is incessantly pedantic.
Modtran doesn’t calculate the change in OLR over a 24 hour period. Can’t you see that your references to spectra, Tyndall, and Modtran are simply repetitions of the same cartoon-type expressions of the AGW/GHE hypothesis that has never been verified with actual data? The atmosphere is not static. It moves. Your argument that more CO2 causes warming has to include evaporation, conduction, convection, and wind along with radiation. Otherwise any ad homs or insults directed to you are warranted.
Nate says:
“Uhhh…No.
So you are denying Tyndall and standard IR optics?
“The average emission height is unchanged by the quantity of CO2.”
So you declare. But based on what physics?”
Tyndall did not radiate energy through a changing gravitational field. Of course his results will differ. The reason is REE as shown clearly by Miskolczi 2010.
When any layer of the atmosphere emits IR upward only a subset (X) of that radiation can be absorbed by the next layer up due to temperature/density differences. This layer will use 100% of its ability of absorb IR just to handle a subset (X) of IR from the lower layer. Statistically, it can’t absorb IR from any other lower layers. Therefore, the extra IR (Y) emitted from the lower layer down and not absorbed in the next higher layer cannot be absorbed by any other higher layer either. It goes to space.
Of course, the higher layer here doesn’t know whether the IR came from the next lower layer or from other layers below, so occasionally it will replace one photon from the subset(X) with one of those lower layer photons. This changes the distribution of energy a little bit. Instead to a geometric series we end up with a fixed emission rate from every layer of the atmosphere.
This fixed amount of radiation is based on CO2 concentration but stays at a fixed percentage of the CO2 concentration. Thus, the average emission height never changes.
Richard M: “This is key to what Miskolczi 2010 shows…This fixed amount of radiation is based on CO2 concentration but stays at a fixed percentage of the CO2 concentration. Thus, the average emission height never changes.”
No. That is not what Miskolczi 2010 shows. Obviously, Richard M does not understand what Miskolczi 2010 does show.
“emission height” not found in the paper.
“troposphere” not found in the paper.
Miskolczi 2010:
“Calculations here show that an equivalent amount of increase (in optical thickness) can be caused by 2.77 per cent increase in H2O”
“CO2 doubling would virtually, with no feedback, increase the optical thickness by 0.0246.”
Miskolczi 2010 concludes: 1) there was both an empirical change in “NOAA NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis data” AND a theoretical change “based on a slightly modified version of HARTCODE” in atm. optical properties in the 61 years of the NOAA reanalysis data though they are not of the same amounts:
“The results show that the theoretical CO2-induced virtual increase in true greenhouse gas optical thickness greatly exceeds the actual empirically measured change over the 61-year (reanalysis) dataset.”
Richard M should note the word “reanalysis” in NOAA dataset was the “empirical” source.
Miskolczi 2010 finally concludes 2): “These empirical results could well be challenged by a comparable empirical method.”
Richard M should now realize in 2022 there is a better “comparable empirical method” with more and better (not reanalysis) measured data updating and, in part, refuting the Miskolczi 2010 paper now using calibrated satellite data showing the surface warming effect of decadal trends in changes in each of CO2, water vapor, clouds, aerosols, surface albedo, temperature, and sunlight.
Chic 8:38 am: “Your argument that more CO2 causes warming has to include evaporation, conduction, convection, and wind along with radiation.”
The calibrated satellite data does include all of those naturally occurring processes (and more, e.g. sea ice amount change) to report the surface warming effects of decadal trends of changes in each of ppm CO2, water vapor, clouds, aerosols, surface albedo, temperature, and sunlight.
Ball4, this is the part of the Miskolczi 2010 paper I was referring to;
“The concept of radiative exchange was the discovery of Prevost [17]. It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange equilibrium between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as meaning that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of transport that may be occurring.”
“Figure 3. The law of radiative exchange equilibrium. The ED = SU A relationship holds because the contribution of a layer to the downward emittance is equal to the absorbed surface upward radiation in the same layer”
My description is just another way of looking at what REE demands. Water vapor does not come into play here.
Richard M – You don’t yet understand how the entire LBLRTM (line by line radiative transfer method) is used in the paper. See Clough et. al. 1995 and previous papers.
Miskolczi in that passage is just informing you each thin layer during LBLTRM is in REE meaning that thin layer is at the same temperature through its thickness considering only radiative input and output.
That’s the way the radiative transfer method works since it balances each thin layer iteratively at different temperatures per layer up through the atm. until a hydrostatic atm. is achieved. See Clough et. al. 1995.
Since WMG CO2 affects radiation in each layer differently at each total pressure level, the program uses that info. to balance the whole column T profile. Radiosondes have shown the method works well (0.1K off from measurements at each altitude) when column balance is achieved & how cloud effects change the T profile radically from clear sky.
Richard M has a lot to learn about this field of physics but seems interested enough to do the work.
Oops missed some tags but RM et. al. should understand anyway.
Ball4: “Miskolczi in that passage is just informing you each thin layer during LBLTRM is in REE meaning that thin layer is at the same temperature”
While that may be true, that is NOT what was stated in the passage I quoted. The statement is referring to the EXCHANGE of energy between two layers. It is two separate layers which exist in REE.
It is what goes on as radiation flows between layers that is important. Miskolczi’s statement is what leads to what I stated previously and the implications of my statements.
“Thats what YOU talk about, because it obfuscates thermalization and convection processes that bring energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere”
No, What happens at the TOA was what the recent discussion was all about. The ability of the top layer of air to transfer heat to space is reduced with the addition of CO2 is what we were discussing. I claimed that this is equivalent to adding a layer of insulation on top.
You disputed this. Did you forget all about that?
“where CO2 will do all the cooling that needs to be done on a daily basis.”
Huh? WTF does this mean?
“You keep bringing up Tyndall as if he carried out experiments on layers of air convecting up through the atmosphere. That strawman red-herring drivel is incessantly pedantic.”
Not a red herring at all. No I made it absolutely clear I was talking about the layer of air at the TOA and its ability to transfer heat by radiation to space. It is extremely relevant to that discussion.
You seem unable or unwilling to follow the discussion.
“Modtran doesnt calculate the change in OLR over a 24 hour period.”
Why do you bring time into it? That makes no sense.
So you do not have any scientific rebuttal to what Modtran finds.
“Cant you see that your references to spectra, Tyndall, and Modtran are simply repetitions of the same cartoon-type expressions of the AGW/GHE hypothesis that has never been verified with actual data?”
Again you return to an ideological argument, while I am trying to keep this about science.
“The atmosphere is not static. It moves. Your argument that more CO2 causes warming has to include evaporation, conduction, convection, and wind along with radiation.”
I have already explained this quite clearly. You don’t bother to read.
‘We all know that convection plays a role in moving heat upward in the atmosphere. As does radiation.
What we are talking about here is radiant heat transfer to space at the TOA where convection is NOT SIGNIFICANT.’
You seem stuck in an ideological rut/ You need to let go of that in order to follow a logical discussion of the science.
Richard, read it again:: “A relationship holds because the contribution of a layer to the downward emittance is equal to the absorbed surface upward radiation in the same layer“
“https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268182965_Rebuttal_of_Miskolczi’s_alternative_greenhouse_theory”
Miskolczi rebuttal. There is a pdf.
You should read Richard. Tell us what you think.
You really can’t just read only contrarian papers and assume they must be correct.
Nate once again makes the claim that Kirchhoff’s Law of radiation is invalid –
“What happens at the TOA was what the recent discussion was all about. The ability of the top layer of air to transfer heat to space is reduced with the addition of CO2 is what we were discussing. I claimed that this is equivalent to adding a layer of insulation on top.”
Sorry, but as Miskolczi found out, and you could also understand if you put your mind to it, the atmospheric CO2 based radiation of energy to space is a fixed process defined by the structure of the atmosphere. More CO2 will end up causing more energy to radiate to space at all altitudes.
Nate, I’ve read the rebuttal. It is based on water vapor and has nothing to do with CO2. That’s why I keep telling people to ignore that part of the paper.
The small section on REE and Figure 3 is all you need to know to realize how CO2 operates. This is what DEMANDS that energy be radiated at all layers of the atmosphere proportional to the overall CO2 concentration. More CO2, more radiation to space. It isn’t optional unless Kirchhoff’s law isn’t an actual law.
This also forces a fixed emission height for all well mixed GHGs.
This science is indisputable. It’s difficult at first but anyone can understand it. The big problem is tossing away your previous misconceptions.
Richard writes: “The small section on REE and Figure 3 is all you need to know to realize how CO2 operates.”
and I’ve already shown Richard M how Miskolczi 2010 shows CO2 operates:
“CO2 doubling would virtually, with no feedback, increase the optical thickness by 0.0246.”
which means Miskolczi 2010 proves there is NOT “a fixed emission height for all well mixed GHGs.” as Richard M incorrectly claims about the Miskolczi 2010 paper.
Ball4 obviously made no attempt to understand the sections of the paper I referenced. I’ve been trying to keep this simple. That’s why I have kept the discussion to the atmosphere above the boundary layer only. What Miskolczi is doing with the following quote:
“CO2 doubling would virtually, with no feedback, increase the optical thickness by 0.0246.”
is looking up from the surface. This brings into play the downward radiation from CO2 in the boundary layer. All of the increase in optical thickness occurs in the boundary layer (and then some). You could figure this out for yourself if you took the time to see what I have already shown you for the atmosphere only is valid.
This also means all of my previous claims are true. Emission height is fixed and CO2 radiation cools.
Once you do understand it, then we can address the boundary layer. I’ll give you a hint …. thermal equilibrium.
“Nate once again makes the claim that Kirchhoff’s Law of radiation is invalid –”
Nope, never did. If you think I did, then I dont think you understand the law.
But pls do show me where I did that.
“This science is indisputable. It’s difficult at first but anyone can understand it. The big problem is tossing away your previous misconceptions.”
Its highly disputable. What you guys tend to do is read one recent contrarian paper, and assume it must be right, while, as you admit, not fully understanding it.
And all the thousands of previous atmospheric physics papers would need to be wrong? The ones used to build weather models that actually work?
C’mon.
And you still ignore Modtran, which was developed for the Air Force, is trusted and used by many scientists including skeptics.
Richard M: “All of the increase in optical thickness occurs in the boundary layer..”
No Richard. That is not in the Miskolczi 2010 paper, this is what is in there: “fundamental infrared atmospheric radiative flux components are calculated: at the top boundary, the outgoing long wave radiation, the surface transmitted radiation, and the upward atmospheric emittance; at the bottom boundary, the downward atmospheric emittance.”
The boundary layer (Richard M defined 10m AGL) is not even discernable in Fig. 3 or Fig 4 shown in kilometers! It is the layers above that 10m shown contributing to “CO2 doubling would virtually, with no feedback, increase the optical thickness by 0.0246.” thus emission height is NOT fixed in Miskolczi 2010.
In Fig. 6 there is no abrupt change at 10m proving Richard M is wrong: “Contribution density function to the upward emittance. The significant part of EU comes from the lower 25 km altitude range.” not the lower 10m.
Richard M’s previous claims based on the 1st 10m are shown in the Miskolczi 2010 paper to be untrue.
Nate and Ball4, it appears, will continue to deny science.
“Its highly disputable. What you guys tend to do is read one recent contrarian paper, and assume it must be right, while, as you admit, not fully understanding it.”
Just the opposite. I was looking at the boundary layer and discovered that no warming could occur there. It was then obvious that the warming had to occur above the BL. So, I independently determined what Miskolczi also found 15 years before. It was in looking for some more information I discovered the Miskolczi paper which I had ignored previously due to Dr. Spencer’s statements. I figured it was a good reference.
That’s why I keep telling you to ignore the other details of the paper. Unfortunately, neither Nate nor Ball4 are interested in understanding science.
I will add them my list of child abusers.
Richard M: “So, I independently determined what Miskolczi also found 15 years before.”
No.
Richard M claims: “This also forces a fixed emission height for all well mixed GHGs.”
Miskolczi 2010: “CO2 doubling would virtually, with no feedback, increase the optical thickness by 0.0246.”
Ball4, please tell is again what this quote you provided means:
“A relationship holds because the contribution of a layer to the downward emittance is equal to the absorbed surface upward radiation in the same layer“
You highlighted “same layer”.
I’ll help out a little as it refers to this “relationship”.
“It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange equilibrium between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as meaning that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of transport that may be occurring.”
If you still think it is referring to a single layer then all I can do is LOL.
It is simply pointing out that a single layer’s attributes are the reason for the relationship. The definition is still about two layers.
Anyone else think it is funny Ball4 is now quoting from the paper as if it were gospel. As I have said many times, I am only referring to the one small part of the paper that deals with REE.
In addition, the quote you keep repeating comes from data that is only an approximation of theoretical values.
“At these sensitivity runs the 61 year NOAA average atmospheric
profile, (NAV) was used.”
Did you not know that?
I read that, see my 9:12am…and… “It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange”
Two layers needed.
“contribution of a layer”
One layer.
Keeping closer track of the actual number of layers being discussed in Miskolczi 2010 will help Richard M understand the paper better.
Ball4 says “two layers”
Yup, just like I told you. All he is saying is the controlling attributes come from one layer, not that there is only one layer involved.
Yes, I can see you are still trying to ignore your blunder but I will ignore it and go on.
The result is the amount of energy transferred from A to B and from B to A is identical. No net energy flows in either direction. Since these are any two layers in the atmosphere, any net energy flow would have to come from outside this exchange. The only energy flow outside the exchange is the extra energy radiated from a lower layer to a higher layer that couldn’t be absorbed.
Do the math. There is no NET downward energy flow. The only downward energy is that taking place as part of the exchange and by definition of the exchange it was met with an equal amount of energy moving upward. Thus, no net downward flow.
There is upward energy flow that is not absorbed. It occurs at every layer when that layer is the lower of the two layers being looked at. The sum of all those losses is the total amount of energy lost to space.
So, what are the key findings here:
1) There is no net downward radiation flow whatsoever.
2) Radiation loss (upward) occurs at every layer.
With no net downward radiation flow there can be no enhanced greenhouse effect created by the atmosphere. However, there is still another kind of flow from the lowest layer to the surface. Since it is known the surface and lowest layer (aka the boundary layer) are in thermal equilibrium, there is also no net flow between them either.
I suspect this is where all the radiation models compute downward radiation. It’s occurring but is canceled out by a reverse flow due to thermal equilibrium. That energy isn’t seen by these models. It could be due to any energy flow mechanism.
With loss of energy at every layer, the emission height becomes static. There was never mention of the concentration of CO2 in this scenario. We get the same flow independent of the CO2 concentration. It’s works similar to the adiabatic lapse rate. There’s a constant loss at all altitudes as you rise through the Troposphere and again in the Mesosphere. Doubling CO2 levels might increase the overall loss, but it occurs proportionally all the way through the atmosphere.
Richard M 10:20 pm: “The result is the amount of energy transferred from A to B and from B to A is identical.”
Miskolczi 2010: “It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange equilibrium between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as meaning that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way…”
Richard M incorrectly turns the paper’s language “rate of flow” into “amount”.
Richard also wrongly drops the term “radiative”. If Richard did mean “radiative” energy in his sentence above, then Richard incorrectly means the two atm. layers are black bodies when Miskolczi 2010 is not treating the two layers as such.
Richard M uses his own wording changing the paper into something it is not thus the rest of Richard’s 10:20 pm comment falls apart accordingly.
Richard: “There is no NET downward energy flow.”
Interestingly, Richard M has not as yet answered my repeated question: net of what?
Richard and Chic,
This is the GHE flyer produced for the Trump administration, by Will Happer, prominent climate skeptic, Princeton physicist and atmospheric optics expert.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210111225611/https://www.ceres-science.com/files/Flyers/Radiation%20Transfer.pdf
As you can see, he is explaining clearly the GHE, why it does increase when CO2 increases, and why it causes a minimum 3W/m^2 reduction of OLR (forcing) with a doubling of CO2.
Apparently you guys think even he gets it all wrong. Maybe you can explain why he’s wrong.
Ball4 appears to have finally realized what I’ve been saying is 100% correct and now is attempting obfuscation:
“Richard M incorrectly turns the papers language rate of flow into amount.”
The amount of energy is always determined by the rate of flow and always in the context of time. The two uses are identical.
“Richard also wrongly drops the term radiative. If Richard did mean radiative energy in his sentence above, then Richard incorrectly means the two atm. layers are black bodies when Miskolczi 2010 is not treating the two layers as such.”
The entire context of this discussion is radiative energy from gases. After all, we are discussing CO2 and Kirchhoff’s Law of radiation. As such it never has had anything to do with blackbodies.
“Richard M uses his own wording changing the paper into something it is not thus the rest of Richards 10:20 pm comment falls apart accordingly.”
Nonsense
“Richard: There is no NET downward energy flow.
Interestingly, Richard M has not as yet answered my repeated question: net of what?”
I am referring to NET radiative energy flows due to CO2 (as you should know from the Miskolczi 2010 quotes I have used).
Also, I added another comment
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1224440
that discusses the implications of taking this thought experiment to the actual flows in the atmosphere.
Nate says:
“As you can see, he is explaining clearly the GHE, why it does increase when CO2 increases, and why it causes a minimum 3W/m^2 reduction of OLR (forcing) with a doubling of CO2.”
You could also have referred to the H/W 2018 paper that does the same. They are computing measurements of changes in DWIR. They are not dealing with NET energy flows. This is what the Layering thought experiment allows us to see clearly.
What layering does is demonstrate that entire downward energy flow is equivalent to the downward flow from the bottom layer of the thought experiment (boundary layer). That flow is countered with an equivalent upward energy flow to maintain thermal equilibrium of the surface and boundary layer.
We know the downward flow won’t cause warming because the net flow upward increases at an even faster rate as CO2 increases. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action.
“Apparently you guys think even he gets it all wrong. Maybe you can explain why hes wrong.”
Yes, he gets it wrong. He is missing the effects of thermal equilibrium in the boundary layer and the increase in the upward flow of energy.
What is really being measured in a radiation model examination? It is the flow of energy from the higher layers to the lower layers that isn’t getting absorbed exactly in those layers. REE is a statistical statement.
Some % of radiation will always bypass the layer where it could have been absorbed. However, the same thing is happening with the upward flows. The Y value I stated earlier, the energy which avoids being absorbed going up from a lower layer to a higher layer, is actually an understatement due to the exact same reasons.
The layer model simplifies the view by ignoring the self canceling flows both upward and downward. In the case of the downward flows that turns out to be ALL the energy right down to the boundary layer.
Richard M 9:54 am: “The amount of energy is always determined by the rate of flow and always in the context of time.”
Richard M again leaves out Miskolczi 2010 is discussing radiative energy of real atm. layers so the amount of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is NOT equal since B is a translucent layer.
Of course, as written in Miskolczi 2010: “It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange equilibrium between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as meaning that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way” which descends from Kirchhoff’s law.
Translucent layer B does NOT absorb the total amount of energy radiated from A as Richard M incorrectly writes so the rest of Richard’s 9:54 am and 8:28 am comments fall apart accordingly.
—-
Richard writes: “I am referring to NET radiative energy flows due to CO2..”
Yet again, net of what?
Ball4 attempts yet another obfuscation:
“Translucent layer B does NOT absorb the total amount of energy radiated from A as Richard M incorrectly writes so the rest of Richard’s 9:54 am and 8:28 am comments fall apart accordingly.”
You are now confusing the layering thought experiment with a non-layered atmosphere. I explained this in my last comment to Nate. The above quote refers to the thought experiment.
In reality B does not absorb to its full potential the energy radiated from A as you stated. In addition, A does not absorb to its full potential all the energy radiated from B, as you left out for some reason.
You get an equal addition to the net downward energy flow and the net upward energy flow. They cancel out.
If you don’t understand what “net energy flow” means you should never have commented.
Indeed, layer A does not absorb all the energy radiated from B since layer A absorbs, reflects & transmits photons as does layer B but not in the same amount as layer B since layer A pressure and temperature is different than layer B, which I left out for brevity as it stands to good reason.
“You get an equal addition to the net downward energy flow..”
Yet again: net of what? Apparently Richard M doesn’t seem to know.
“They are computing measurements of changes in DWIR. They are not dealing with NET energy flows.”
Nor do they need to, Richard!
It is strawman and a sky dragon slayer myth that the GHE requires a NET downward energy flow.
There is always an energy input from the sun. Thus if something causes a small reduction in the energy output (or increase in input), the result is warming. And it occurs throughout the atmosphere and at the surface and mostly in the ocean.
We can see evidence of this in the latest CERES paper, Loeb et al 2021, which showed when the TOA energy imbalance grew over the last 15 y, the ocean heat content grew at an increasing and matching rate.
Nate seems to think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is optional. I got quite a chuckle.
“It is strawman and a sky dragon slayer myth that the GHE requires a NET downward energy flow.”
Wrong, the slayer problem is they claim no radiation can flow from a colder to a hotter item. The 2nd law refers to net energy flow. So, you are the one now making anti-science claims. You just said the net flow of energy isn’t important. LOL.
“Thus if something causes a small reduction in the energy output (or increase in input), the result is warming.”
YES, YES, YES … that’s right. What happens to CO2 based energy flow (from increases in CO2) is an increase in “energy output”.
“When the near surface atm. doesn’t emit radiation to space at Richard M’s choice of 15micron”
But it does, this is what the layering thought experiment makes abundantly clear. Both upward and downward radiation increase. however the upward component increases by a larger amount.
PS. the CERES data clearly shows the increase in energy came from cloud thinning. It had nothing to do with CO2. The solar energy warmed the oceans and the atmosphere. Dubal/Vahrenholt paper was much better than Loeb et al.
Ball4 doubles down on his last attempt at obfuscation:
“layer A does not absorb all the energy radiated from B since layer A absorbs, reflects & transmits photons as does layer B but not in the same amount as layer B since layer A pressure and temperature is different than layer B, which I left out for brevity as it stands to good reason.”
It is true the two layers are not identical. The lower layer, due to being denser and warmer, has a greater ability to “absorbs, reflects & transmits photons” than does the higher layer. As a result, it will interfere with the downward flow to a greater degree than the upper layer will interfere with the upward flow.
What this means is the layering approach understates the upward flow and overstates the downward flow. Glad you brought it up.
“Yet again: net of what? Apparently Richard M doesnt seem to know.”
I’ve answered this question multiple times. Apparently, Ball4 doesn’t know what “energy flow” means. I guess I could specify it in greater detail (flow of kinetically energized, CO2 emitted ~15 micron photons), but I think most people understand my terminology just fine.
“Yes, he gets it wrong. He is missing the effects of thermal equilibrium in the boundary layer and the increase in the upward flow of energy.”
No I doubt very much that he has missed any such thing. You havent made the case, sorry Richard.
“. The 2nd law refers to net energy flow. So, you are the one now making anti-science claims.”
Never said anything about 2LOT.
“You just said the net flow of energy isn’t important. LOL.”
You misunderstood. I am saying there is no need for a net downward LW radiation to have a GHE. There only needs to be a reduction in NET upwards LW.
I am saying warming happens when there is a NET downward total of SW + LW.
Nate says:
“I am saying there is no need for a net downward LW radiation to have a GHE. There only needs to be a reduction in NET upwards LW.”
There is no decrease in “NET upwards LW” associated with CO2. What we see is the amount radiated by every layer as you go up gets smaller and smaller due to its reduced temperature/density. At the same time, the amount of energy lost to space gets larger and larger. The total energy remains constant all the way to the TOA.
“At the same time, the amount of energy lost to space gets larger and larger.”
No not at all, Richard. Why on Earth would it do that?
Just take the top layer. The more CO2, the more is abs*orbed. Then less passes through. As Tyndall found 150 y ago.
Tyndall would think it totally nonsensical that anyone would imagine MORE IR passing through a through a space when it is filled with more abs*orbing gases.
Nate says:
“Why on Earth would it do that?”
The amount headed to space continually increases because of REE. You obviously have made no attempt to understand it. As long as you refuse to educate yourself, you will remain ignorant. Here’s the quick view.
Look at two layers of the atmosphere.
The higher layer can absorb X amount of energy based on its temperature/density. The lower layer is radiating X+Y amount of energy upward because its temperature/density is greater. The Y amount of energy has no place to go. This same situation exists at all higher/lower layer pairs above it. The energy is lost to space.
The layers could have been 0 (boundary layer) and 1 or any layers above. Energy is lost to space everywhere in the atmosphere.
It’s a lot like musical chairs where every upward layer is a new round with one more chair removed. In any round there’s not enough chairs for everyone in that round let alone those who lost out in previous rounds.
“Just take the top layer. The more CO2, the more is abs*orbed”
More CO2 also exists at all layers below. The top layer uses 100% of its ability to absorb energy just to handle what is coming up from the layer immediately below. All the energy lost from layers below it still has no place to go.
“The higher layer can absorb X amount of energy based on its temperature/density.”
X is not the maximum amount of IR band energy the higher layer can absorb on Earth. At some pressure it becomes opaque to IR & absorbs ALL of the IR band energy from below – as does Venus 90bar atm. near the surface but not Earth at any pressure layer including 1bar.
When the higher layer absorbs part of the Y from lower atm., the higher layer internal thermodynamic energy rises and its spectrum shifts to regions from where it can emit.
You have a lot to learn about the details Richard. Spectroscopy is the science of details.
Richard M,
You are arguing with the King and Queen of Obfuscation. They will write whatever they have to to dismiss anything you write explaining any problem with AGW dogma. They will make up stuff like a “measured Earth 255K surface” or “an added layer of insulation” without providing any concrete data supporting it. They are not interested in any scientific resolution of the issues but will accuse you of not following the “science.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1225404
Nate asks:
“what renowned Princeton physicist/skeptic Will Happer has done wrong when he shows that physics requires a reduction in OLR with increasing CO2 . And what Modtran is doing wrong when it calculates exactly that.”
It depends on what OLR you are referring to. The blackbody radiation from the surface around 15 microns is almost completely absorbed within 10 meters. This occurs at less than 100 ppm. Yeah, I’d say that is a “reduction”. The wings are also reduced with added CO2.
What I am referring to is what happens next. If you look at outgoing OLR at 1 km you will see lots of new 15 micron OLR in MODTRAN. This is energy removed from the atmosphere via kinetic collisions of CO2 with other molecules and radiated in all directions. Now follow the upward IR as you rise. You will find it stays the same. No reduction.
If you look at downward IR you find it increases as you move to lower elevations due to lower elevations emitting more of this kind of IR as the temperature/density increases. Dr. Happer appears to be misinterpreting this IR as some kind of flux. We know better because of REE.
If you look back at Dr. Happer’s experience, it was mainly with LASERs. I’m sure he understands radiation at the quantum level very well. However, he has no real experience in atmosphere physics. Guess whose degree was in atmospheric physics? You guessed it, Miskolczi.
Note that what we are discussing here debunks the entire view of the greenhouse effect. If surface energy isn’t absorbed low in the atmosphere, there’s no capability for it to be absorbed higher up due to REE.
The actual warming of the atmosphere and formation of the lapse rate is driven by gases, specially CO2, creating upward radiation and supplying different amounts of energy to different altitudes based on their density.
The reason the surface is 33 C warmer than the S-B value is because of its density. It has nothing to do with downwelling IR. The boundary layer acts like a heater radiating energy outward to provide the warmth.
“That is true but not really a problem. Think of radiation as a background process moving heat away from the surface at a fairly constant rate. When it can’t handle the load, convection kicks in to pick up the slack. They are both needed.
Radiation also maintains the atmosphere’s temperature framework (lapse rate). Convection drives the movement of moisture upward through the atmosphere. They work together. The framework provided by radiation sets the lapse rate which then leads to condensation as convective flows bring up water vapor to higher altitudes.”
Well said. But after that you go off the rails.
“The reason the surface is 33 C warmer than the S-B value is because of its density. It has nothing to do with downwelling IR.”
The near surface atm. is not warmer than the S-B value since S-B is used to determine the global equilibrium surface temperature ~288K from 1LOT.
Also, no, Richard 9:05 am:
Remove the radiatively dominant IR active gases, leaving O2&N2 for reduced atm. opacity, the surface density will be essentially unchanged at 1bar initially but less downwelling terrestrial IR from less atm. emissivity looking up – that will drop the global mean surface energy balance to a lower Tse approaching 255K close to Te when thermodynamic internal energy equilibrium is again established with the sun. Albedo remains same as present albedo from more sea ice and less higher&lower cloud formation in the now cooler surface air.
Richard, again, you are arguing hypothetically with the King and Queen of Obfuscation. You will never come to any point of agreement with either discussing energy flows and SB temperatures on fictitious planets.
Chic Bowdrie says:
“you are arguing hypothetically with the King and Queen of Obfuscation.”
I came to the same conclusion. Always denying facts and bringing up irrelevancies. I already quit responding to its nonsense.
So you cannot refute Happer or the Schwarzschild equation, or the results that Modtran produces. Yet it makes no difference.
You guys are making it crystal clear that facts just don’t matter to you.
Asked and answered.
I think we are done responding to fools.
Nate claims:
“So you cannot refute Happer or the Schwarzschild equation, or the results that Modtran produces. Yet it makes no difference.”
The results Modtran produces are fine. All easily explained. Happer and others are simply finding the changes in density as you move down through the atmosphere.
Miskolczi actually uses a version of the Schwarzschild equation to make his computations.
Anything else?
Anyone else think it’s funny Ball4 is now quoting from the paper as if it were gospel. As I’ve said many times, I’m only referring to the one small part of the paper that deals with REE.
In addition, the quote you keep repeating comes from data that is only an approximation of theoretical values.
“At these sensitivity runs the 61 year NOAA average atmospheric
profile, (NAV) was used.”
You didn’t know that?
As I mentioned previously, there is some downward radiation from the lowest layer to the surface. It’s probably time to mention there is also downward radiation from every layer of the atmosphere to the surface. This breakdown of the atmosphere into layers is essentially a thought experiment to help us understand the overall flows.
In our thought experiment the layer approach forces all the downward radiation into the bottom layer. This allows us to understand the overall net flow of energy is upward. It also allows us to realize the downward flow from the bottom layer can’t produce any warming.
The issue now is does the real flow of the atmosphere lead to any changes in our results? The answer is no. Essentially, what happens is any energy put into this downward flow bucket is also leading to additional energy moving into the upward flow bucket. This is due to REE and is required by Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation.
The downward energy flow is what is computed in radiation models. The latest value from the IPCC is around 3.7 W/m2. However, it is not real as our thought experiment has shown. It is
1) countered by an increase in the upward flow of energy and
2) part of the thermal equilibrium process right at the surface.
No warming is possible from this energy.
Sure Richard, Will Happer, Modtran, Meteorology, weather models and every atmospheric physics paper going back decades has gotten the GHE all wrong, because none of them understand Kirchhoff’s law and radiative heat transfer…but you do, and this one paper sez stuff.
OK, whatever you say.
Nate complains because I’m basing my view on hard physics (Kirchhoff’s Law) and solid math. He prefers opinions.
It’s easy to understand why people get this wrong. The standard view of opacity doesn’t apply. I assume Modtran would provide the right answer if people would use it correctly.
The problem is none of them are considering upward flow changes. Most assume the upward flow is constant and defined by the surface blackbody view. They only look at the downward flow. Since downward radiation increases with CO2 concentration, they end up with the wrong answer.
BTW, this isn’t the GHE. It’s called the “enhanced GHE”. The mechanism is entirely different.
“hard physics (Kirchhoffs Law) and solid math.’
Tee hee hee.
All the previous work on this subject uses solid math and unlike you, applies Kirchhoffs law correctly.
“Most assume the upward flow is constant and defined by the surface blackbody view. They only look at the downward flow. ”
False, they consider changes in both upward and downward fluxes.
Nate claims:
“All the previous work on this subject uses solid math and unlike you, applies Kirchhoffs law correctly.”
They may do math correctly but they don’t understand what it is telling them. I think I figured out why so many people have been fooled. Look at what a program outputs layer by layer as you go down. Start at 20 km and assume no IR coming down from that point.
We see from REE that the 20 – 19 flow will produce X amount of energy. Since layer 19 is warmer and denser it absorbs all of X, but what does it radiate down to layer 18? It will radiate based on its own temperature/density which will be X + Z (some additional energy due to its increased temperature/density).
What this looks like is an increased downward flow. Of course, the same thing occurs at every layer which gives the appearance of a downward flux of energy growing larger. But, we know better.
In all cases the energy from the previous layer was absorbed and a new, larger amount of new energy emitted. This occurs all the way to the surface. This is simply REE as expected.
Is it any surprise people think there’s a warming signal?
Now look at the opposite flow.
You start at the boundary layer 0. It radiates X energy upward to layer 1. Layer 1 absorbs some subset based on its lower temperature/density, call it X1. This means some energy is not absorbed, call it Y1. We know X = X1+Y1.
So what would a program show? It would show X1+Y1 is moving upwards. Well, that’s exactly the same as X so it sees no increase in upward radiation. The same value would appear at every layer. You always have X amount of energy moving up. What you don’t know is some of that energy is already destined to go to space.
The output of this program would be completely deceiving. A person needs to look closer. If they look at the very top layer they will still see X amount of energy flowing upward. That is, all the original energy is lost to space. There can’t be any downward flux as that would violate conservation of energy.
Now you know why people get fooled. Programs like MODTRAN are working correctly. What people aren’t doing is factoring in the changing temperature/density. When you do that, you clearly see REE exists and no additional energy is flowing down. All they are seeing is the increasing energy generated by warmer/denser layers.
I completely expect Nate to see the error in his thinking as the logic I provided here is irrefutable. 😉
Richard M,
The problem I have with Mickolczi is similar to my problem with Happer’s analysis. Any analysis that relies on MODTRAN/HITRAN or the like ignores the major mechanism for energy transport within the atmosphere, convection. Downward radiative flow will occur in some instances due to temperature inversions. Otherwise the flow is net upward but not always in radiative exchange equilibrium. Perturbations to the later must occur when the surface is heated by the sun. Unless I totally misunderstand, REE can only occur when the lapse rate is constant and energy radiated to space exactly matches that radiated from the surface.
Richard M’s logic is easily refuted just by looking at earthen IR band atm. transmissivity measurements since on Earth thermodynamic internal energy emission occurs primarily though “atmospheric windows” ~2-20 micron of high transmissivity (0.1 to ~1) at Earth’s 1bar surface pressure. Clouds primarily scatter radiation at solar wavelengths, but are strongly absorbing in the IR bands – high clouds contribute to surface warming & low clouds surface shading for daytime cooling.
On Venus at surface 90 bar, there are no true atmospheric windows at IR wavelengths > 3 micron as at that pressure CO2 and other absorbing (grey opacity) gases (SO2, H2O, CO) largely preclude emission from the surface of Venus throughout the infrared.
Optical thickness of the atmosphere cannot be constant. At best, Miskolczi should claim optical thickness varies within a certain range around a constant value averaged over the whole planet.
Caveat, I did not read Miskolczi 2010. I got sidetracked on reading comments at Climate Etc.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/08/miskolczi-discussion-thread/
Queen Ball,
Your nonsense refutes nothing. It’s what trolls do: Gish gallop.
“Unless I totally misunderstand, REE can only occur when the lapse rate is constant and energy radiated to space exactly matches that radiated from the surface.”
REE is the radiative equilibrium in a single atm. layer at a T where “the downward emittance is equal to the absorbed surface upward radiation”. This how the LBLTRM works (in Miskolczi 2010 High-resolution Atmospheric Radiative Transfer Code, HARTCODE) to solve for T profiles with lapse rate non-constant & TOA radiation balanced with surface radiation for charts in the paper.
A more detailed approach used e.g. at JPL includes all physical processes that include transport of heat and volatiles throughout the atmospheric column, radiative heating and cooling rates, vertical convective heat and volatile transport, diffusive heat transport (surface/upper atmosphere), latent heat transport/cloud processes to arrive at T profile consistent with radiosonde data.
Chic, ask questions, read the sources, and learn about the physics of the measured earthen Te 255K and the measurements refuting Richard M. It will take some work and time invested on your part.
“Miskolczi should claim optical thickness varies within a certain range around a constant value averaged over the whole planet.”
Miskolczi 2010: “The measured optical thicknesses tau A, in the Earth’s atmosphere lie mostly in the range 1 to 3.”
What is the altitude of the measured earthen Te 255K and when was is ever measured?
Chic Bowdrie says:
“Any analysis that relies on MODTRAN/HITRAN or the like ignores the major mechanism for energy transport within the atmosphere, convection.”
That is true but not really a problem. Think of radiation as a background process moving heat away from the surface at a fairly constant rate. When it can’t handle the load, convection kicks in to pick up the slack. They are both needed.
Radiation also maintains the atmosphere’s temperature framework (lapse rate). Convection drives the movement of moisture upward through the atmosphere. They work together. The framework provided by radiation sets the lapse rate which then leads to condensation as convective flows bring up water vapor to higher altitudes.
Of course we need to understand both processes. Unfortunately, we don’t yet understand the radiative portion.
For example, the world still thinks the greenhouse effect warms as a top down process to add 33 C to the surface temperature. Once you understand REE, this view is clearly wrong. The atmosphere is warmed from the bottom up.
Richard,
I see convection a bit more involved than what you describe unless by “can’t handle the load” you mean, it kicks in as soon as the surface begins to warm. But even when the surface isn’t warming, evaporation will cause convection.
Also, I think the lapse rate is gravitationally established, and only perturbed by radiation which initiates more convection restoring the “normal” lapse rate.
I think we are more or less on the same page, but I don’t have the conviction you do regarding REE and I try to avoid ambiguous statements like “atmosphere is warmed from the bottom up.”
Chic Bowdrie says:
“I think the lapse rate is gravitationally established, and only perturbed by radiation which initiates more convection restoring the “normal” lapse rate.”
The lapse rate is constantly being reset by radiative gases (aka GHGs). When a gas absorbs energy it almost always shares that energy with surrounding molecules. The gas also radiates away energy based on its temperature.
Since the number of molecules of a gas is determine by it altitude, this explains the amount of energy coming in. If the temperature is not the same as the altitude’s input energy, more/less energy gets radiated away bringing the temperature right back to the correct, lapse rate determined level.
Since the density and number of gas molecules is a result of gravity, the temperature also becomes a result of gravity.
Convection actually tends to throw off the temperature temporarily but the gases then work to reestablish the correct temperature.
“What is the altitude of the measured earthen Te 255K and when was (it) ever measured?”
Very good Chic 8:16 am
The global Te 255K measurement started with the very first relevant satellite high resolution radiometers (NIMBUS 60s,70s) observing at the orbital height of the instrument package, anyone with the pre-req.s & with a modicum of google-fu, can find papers from that early era using that radiometer data to arrive at the earthen global Te of ~255K, rounded (maybe 254K in some iirc).
Those early devices have been replaced with modern instruments. CERES radiometer data is now being measured continuously from a constellation of satellites called the A-Train. Since sunlight and albedo have not varied much since NIMBUS the equilibrium with annualized outgoing radiation (OLR) hasn’t changed enough & modern papers still use the downloaded data to report earthen Te ~255K, rounded.
Richard M 8:17 am: “For example, the world still thinks the greenhouse effect warms as a top down process to add 33 C to the surface temperature.”
No, Richard – that would preclude any surface convection.
The field of meteorology knows about convection in the troposphere atm. being warmed from the surface and accounts for global convection and downdrafts.
The field also observes the lower stratosphere is where the fluid becomes warmed from above thus convection reduces to nil (passenger jets like nil convection so fly in that region) and the fluid becomes isothermal (no lapse, standard atm.). This should inform you the troposphere lapse occurs due to convection enabled (mixing of layers) therein.
Richard,
I think we are still on the same page, but I am not sure which paragraph when you write,
“Since the number of molecules of a gas is determine by it altitude, this explains the amount of energy coming in.”
Also, I cringed when you referred to correct temperature.
Chic Bowdrie says:
“I cringed when you referred to correct temperature.”
By that I mean the temperature determined by the heat capacity of the air at that altitude.
Richard explains to Chic why his appeal to convection is a red herring, but the same srgument by me is called obfuscation.
Meanwhile, Happer is a fool and an obfuscator. Got it. Modtran and Schwarzschild and everybody since Tyndall have done it wrong and shouldnt be believed.
But you guys are certain that you get it all right, and yet dont have Dunning Kruger disorder.
Nate can’t explain why Miskolczi was wrong. The claimed refutation by Rob van Dorland and Piers M. Forster are total nonsense. REE is essentially tied to the lapse rate. They go hand in hand. Yet, denial is all Nate has.
Modtran gets the right answer if you ask it the right question. Just look at the upward flux. It is the same at 2 km as it is at 99 km. How can that be if the GHE turns energy around? That alone invalidates the GHE due to conservation of energy.
“Modtran gets the right answer if you ask it the right question.”
It shows the upward flux at 100 Km decreases by ~ 2.5 W/m^2 when CO2 is doubled and all else is held constant, including clouds, water vapor, surface temperature.
How, Richard, can you say it is getting the right answer when it totally disagrees with your claims?
It is not even considering the feedback effect of water vapor which are know to produce additional reduction in OLR.
“How, Richard, can you say it is getting the right answer when it totally disagrees with your claims?”
Yea, Richard, and when are you going to stop beating your wife?
Never mind me, the King of Obfuscation behind the curtain. I’m going to keep on misdirecting the conversation with AGW dogma hoping nobody catches on to my slight of hand.
“King of Obfuscation behind the curtain. Im going to keep on misdirecting the conversation”
Sounds like we’ve discovered the real obfuscatician here!
Meanwhile you defend contrarians without regard for their rationality.
CO2 does not ’cause warming’ like the sun does.
It inhibits Earth’s ability to cool itself,
specially the first 100ppm, along with water vapor.
Wrong again, RG.
Earth cools itself just fine.
If the planet is getting warmer, then earth is not cooling itself just fine. That is a dingbat statement in your comment, Clint R..
RG, how do you know Earth is getting warmer? Do you understand the difference between “beliefs” and reality?
What is Earth’s temperature supposed to be?
This is a response to Clint R’s second (10″28am) dingbat comment.
We know Earth’s surface is warming from UAH measurements since 1979. If you don’t trust those measurements, why waste your time here? That is reality. It is very obvious hre in Michigan where the winters arr not as cold as in the 1970s and there is far less snow.
The question of a normal climate is an unrelated suvbject.
There is no normal climate on a planet not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
My personal opinion is the current climate is the best climate for humans, animals and plants since the cold 1690s during the Maunder Minimum low solar energy period. We are living in an intergalacial period — that’s good news. We are living in a mild warming trend during that interglacial period — that’s more good news. But that reality is not how climate alarmists think.
They think the climate was perfect on June 6, 1850 at 3:06pm, and any change from that perfection, either up or down, is a climate “emergency” !
You don’t know what Earth’s temperature is supposed to be, RG. So you don’t know if the recent 40 year slight warming is within normal variation or not.
The only thing we know with certainty is CO2 can NOT raise surface temperatures.
Richard,
Some commenters, like me, enjoy getting into the weeds and others remain focused on the big picture. Choose your battles wisely….
That’s the hypothesis, isn’t it? 4% of the atmosphere causes all the warming due to back radiation. Now find evidence.
Water vapor varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4%. Therefore, on average, only about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapor .
Is that where you got your 4%?.
The greenhouse gases do not “warm” anything, unlike the sun.
The impede cooling. They form a partial barrier between earth’s surface and the infinite heat sink of space. They keep the planet’s surface roughly 60 degrees F. warmer at night, preventing all outdoor plants from freezing.
I was summing all greenhouse gases, approximately 3.5-4%. It ain’t much. The atmosphere helps the surface cool through conduction and convection. It doesn’t impede anything.
RG,
The Earth seems to have cooled itself pretty well for four and a half billion years or so, every winter, every night, when it is cloudy, where it is cold, covered by water, vegetation, roofs . . .
If you want to deny reality, I suggest you become a climate crackpot, and run about claiming that a GHE exists, while you wave a placard saying “Stop Climate Change!”
Wearing a white coat, and claiming to be a “climate scientist” might help.
Off you go now.
Your (lack of) logic is backwards, and shocking.
Greenhouse gases have kept the temperature high enough so that all outdoor plants do not freeze every night.
You could save typing time, Swenson, by simply posting a photograph of yourself wearing a T-shirt that says:
“I’m as dumb as a rock”
RG,
As Tyndall pointed out, without an atmosphere, the temperatures on the Earth would approach those of the Moon.
Freezing cold at night (which you point out), and over boiling point during the day (which you refuse to acknowledge).
You seem to be of the opinion that I am “as dumb as a rock”. Good for you!
What form of mental defect leads you to think that I would value your opinion? Or that of anyone who agrees with you?
Maybe you have a higher opinion of your own importance than I do.
I hereby apologize for comparing
Swenson’s brain with a rock.
That was a tremendous insult to rocks,
and I regret writing it.
How much CO2 (or any GHG) absorbs is irrelevant. Equally “back radiation” is irrelevant. What matters it the emission temperature, which decreases with altitude. So if you add GHGs, the emission altitude will gradually increase, and that is where the warming comes from.
The relevant question is how all this works out under real conditions, including overlaps between GHGs and clouds, also allowing for surface emissivity and so on. There is a lot to learn if you do this correctly..
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/a-total-synthesis-the-ecs-estimate
E. Schaffer, where do you learn this nonsense? If the emission altitude increases, that mean more emission to space, as less layers prevent it.
Not only do you not understand the relevant physics, buy you have no ability to think for yourself.
Clint R
You have it backwards. A higher emission altitude is a colder emission altitude which means less emission to space.
Less emission to space means less emission back to the surface, braindead Ent.
Clint R
Incorrect. You are not considering the lapse rate. The DWIR from the atmosphere reaching the surface comes from very low and warm layers. IR emitted by layers miles high does not make it back to the surface.
If the atmosphere was isothermal then it would not matter how much more CO2 was added after saturation since it would emit the same at TOA as it does at the surface. However that is not the real case on Earth. Atmosphere has a lapse rate and it gets much cooler as you move up (until Stratosphere).
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ugo-Tricoli/publication/281470767/figure/fig2/AS:614388029485061@1523492929332/Temperature-profile-of-the-standard-Earth-atmosphere-with-respect-to-altitude-Adapted.png
The IR emitted from CO2 makes it to space in the edge of the Troposphere with temps around 220 K emitting much less IR to space than CO2 near the surface which emits insignificant amounts to space but all toward the surface. It IR emitted by near surface CO2 is absorbed by CO2 in layers above and does not make it to space. All this is based upon actual measurements which I have linked to you more than once. If you are anti-science and a cult-minded idiot who cannot look at evidence (which is the scientific way) that is your problem. You don’t have to be an idiot your whole life, maybe consider evidence over your opinions.
Norman, as usual, you don’t understand any of this.
In the situation Ent describes, the lapse rate is not a factor, as the layer’s temperature is already established. Ent claims that means less emission to space, from that layer. I pointed out that would also mean less emission back to the surface. You pointed that you don’t understand any of it.
But, thanks for another link you can’t understand. If you understood the link, you would realize that there THREE layers that are at 255K. And TOA is about 195K. There is no “real 255K surface”. But, you can’t understand any of this.
@Clint
You sound like a true American! Not just you have no clue what you are talking about, you also insult everyone over it 😉
Schaffer, did you get caught trying to promote nonsense?
E. Schaffer
” What matters it the emission temperature, which decreases with altitude. So if you add GHGs, the emission altitude will gradually increase… ”
Exactly, because remission to space at lower and lower temperatures decreases the energy radiated out, and…
” … that is where the warming comes from. ”
Thanks for the accurate comment, and just don’t let ignoramuses like Clint R, Swenson, Robertson and a few others irritate you, let alone impress you.
Some of them, incredible, still are ranting against this stoopid idea of ‘backradiation’, one of the worst explanations I ever have heard of.
Bindidon, you wrote,
“Exactly, because remission to space at lower and lower temperatures decreases the energy radiated out, and”
There is no actual data that re-emission occurs at a lower temperature or that OLR is decreasing. The GHE dogma is tiresome. What matters is some good data that shows how an increase in CO2 actually shows a measured increase in global temperature.
Notably the IPCC has changed its definition of the GHE and got rid of “back radiation” with AR5.
AR4: Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect
AR5: These substances emit infra-red radiation in all directions, but, everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers because of the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere and the consequent weakening of emission
Although long overdue, this correction is totally embarrassing. I mean the “settled science” has only just learned how the GHE works. Manabe received a nobel prize for what is the equivalent to a perpetuum mobile. And even Roy Spencer still believes in “back radiation”..
PS. please do not say “re-emission”. It is emission, period.
“…the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers because of the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere and the consequent weakening of emission.”
Has settled science ever measured a net global weakening of emission due to a decline of temperature with altitude that led to a drop in outgoing longwave radiation or a commensurate increase in global temperatures?
Seems so..
https://greenhousedefect.com/fileadmin/_processed_/a/c/csm_curve_s_0fe159de69.gif
The problems however are in the fine print..
https://greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/deception-with-emission-spectra-part-1
Because you went to the trouble of providing some sort of answer, I read the post and found no measurements of the emissions, temperatures, or altitudes that were shown to be associated with a decrease in OLR or global warming. We have some transitory global warming, but OLR is simultaneously increasing. The data doesn’t seem to follow the hypothesis.
“The fact that CO2s ability to warm was saturated long ago should be enough to convince anyone that the warming is natural.”
It’s not saturated, despite a 25 year old blog post telling you otherwise.
Heh, haven’t been linked to the J Daly website in years. Brought a chuckle. Pages of bad science remain intact!
The paper agrees with others.
“Global mean sea level change since 1900 is found to be 1.77 mm/yr +- 0.38 mm/yr”
Their rate since 1993 is much higher and completely agrees with satellite altimetry data
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/5bbe0d1d-7eee-4ed9-aaca-ad49b59b572a/jgrc20911-fig-0008-m.png
which currently averages 3.3 +- 0.4 mm/year.
That clearly shows a recent increasing rate relative to the last century.
They find the acceleration rate over that WHOLE century is low and stat insignificant.
The acceleration rate from the UC satellite era data 1993-present is statistically significant.
0.098 +- 0.025 mm/y^2.
Hoarding toilet paper again, huh Nate?
Complete nonsense.
A one mm sea level change can not be measured from a satellite.
Ok then. Science will file your ‘expert’ opinion where it belongs.
https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1381197292728942595?lang=en
Tamino has been looking at tide gauge sea level rise acceleration along the US East coast.
He is reporting rates of 10mm/year, three times the global average.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2022/02/23/sea-level-denial/
Ent, 17 eastern States are now completely underwater.
And passenger jets are flying backwards as ice cubes are boiling water.
(You won’t get the subtle reminder that you are a braindead cult idiot. Glad to help.)
EM,
I can’t see where he has factored in the US Geological Service measurements of land subsidence in those areas.
I hope he would not be so stupid as to be using data from tide gauges attached to land which is moving up and down (more down at present, in many places).
The “global average” is nonsensical garbage promoted by morons at the IPCC who don’t know what they are talking about. Of course, any moron who believes that the chaotic ocean surface can be measured more accurately from space than the fixed land surface is free to do so.
Maybe “climate scientists” have amazing super powers and magical abilities, so they don’t need to concern themselves with reality like the rest of us.
Entropic man says:
Tamino has been looking at tide gauge sea level rise acceleration along the US East coast.
He is reporting rates of 10mm/year, three times the global average.
Swenson says:
I cant see where he has factored in the US Geological Service measurements of land subsidence in those areas.
I hope he would not be so stupid as to be using data from tide gauges attached to land which is moving up and down.
–
Tamino only uses data and dates that suit his particular argument at the time.
He is not stupid but he is very motivated to prove global warming hence all his conclusions are not what they seem to be.
EM quoting Tamino is quite amusing.
Hey look the sea level rise is accelerating at 10 mm a year!
Is the same as saying I can get you 3% interest daily compounded in my Ponzi scheme!
Belief in either is absolute as the promise is so desirable.
The premise, that such rates could exist in the world , is of course if it is too good to be true it is not true.
Have a go EM.
EM quoting Tamino is quite amusing.
Hey look the sea level rise is accelerating at 10 mm a year!
The premise, that such rates could exist in the world , is of course if it is too good to be true it is not true.
–
If you look closely he might have confused sea level rise with tidal level near neap tide.
That would do it.
If you don’t true Tamino try other sources.
https://www.vims.edu/bayinfo/bay_slrc/index.php
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html
Whether you like it or not, and whatever the combination of subsidence and rising sea level the tide gauges on the US East Coast are showing high tides rising by 10mm/year or 2 inches every five years. Should the state governments ignore the problem, as North Carolina tried to do, or Should they respond?
Should the Navy ignore the problem or do something about the more frequent flooding at their Norfolk, Virginia yards.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rising-seas-threaten-norfolk-naval-shipyard-raising-fears-catastrophic-damage-n937396
All gauges show both rises and falls, some in quite close proximity.
“I can’t see where he has factored in the US Geological Service measurements of land subsidence in those areas.”
The people he’s criticising didn’t factor it in either. He’s comparing apples to apples. Their claim is wrong. There has been acceleration in the data that they’ve used (PSMSL), despite them announcing there isn’t.
Tamino went further in his next post and DID factor in vertical land movement.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2022/02/25/sea-level-rise-30-year-forecasts-from-noaa/
How much of the *apparent* acceleration is due to changes in the rates of glacial isostatic adjustment as well as ground water evacuation cavity compression? Analyses of coastal apparent mean sea level must include land mass dynamics to be meaningful; otherwise, the measurements only convey half the story.
For example, if heavily populated coastal areas pump up an increasing amount of ground water, the coast compresses faster under its own load, and that may give an inaccurate impression of an accelerated sea level rise when actually the coast may be “sinking” faster on its own.
Additionally, if the coast’s glacial isostatic adjustment is accelerating because of changes in crust elasticity, then that also may give an inaccurate impression if an accelerating sea level rise when actually the coast may be “sinking” faster on its own.
This is assessed, and the forecasts made by NOAA were different for different parts of the US coast. Because of local subsidence and other changes in the locale.
GIA isn’t included in the figures for acceleration. The critics just used local tide gauge measurements.
Why is is so hard to say “we don’t know”.
We don’t know what percentage of the warming since the late 1880s was man made.
The correct answer is “we do not know”.
There is no need for faith, or unproven beliefs, in science.
We finally have decent measurements with UAH
We have haphazard surface measurements before UAH, which say there was little warming in the 99 years of the era of CO2 emissions, from 1880 to 1979.
And UAH says we’ve had faster warming in the 42+ years 1979 to early 2022.
While we don’t know what percentage of past warming was man made, we can make a simple assumption — just assume ALL the warming since 1880 was man made.
Then consider if that warming since 1880 was dangerous (it was not — harmed no one)
And consider if the pattern of warming was good news or bad news (mainly affected colder higher latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, mainly in the six coldest months of the year, and mainly at night) — that warming pattern was good news for a lot of people.
Based on observations, past warming was mild, harmless and benefited people in the NH higher latitudes.
Even if we cherry pick the 43 years since 1979, with the fastest rate of warming — we can consider the effects of another 43 years of similar warming — that would also be harmless.
Conclusion:
There is no climate emergency.
Past predictions of warming 2x to 3x faster than observations have been wrong since the 1970s — there is no logical reason the believe today’s predictions are more accurate.
Always wrong predictions of the future climate are not science
They are data-free climate astrology. I say “data free” because there are no data for the future — the predictions are just based on unproven theories and speculation, that has just given us a 50+ year track record of wrong climate predictions.
“Climate change” is always wrong wild guess climate predictions, not climate reality.
I have faith too — Faith that the climate predictions will continue being wrong, as they always have been.
Let me get this straight, RG – you do not know, therefore there is no emergency?
The answer is more than 100%, btw:
https://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2015/01/more-than-all.html
Willard the Dullard
The future climate can not be predicted
But we have over 140 years of experience with adding CO2 to the atmosphere. There is no evidence that CO2 enrichment so far has been harmful. Therefore, we have no evidence a continuation of the past warming trend will be harmful.
Given that the growth of the CO2 emissions in the next 47 years will be similar to the growth of CO2 emissions in the past 47 years, there is no logical reason to assume a different global average temperature output in the future.
Expecting a different result from future CO2 emissions than the actual result from past CO2 emissions (using the worst case assumption that ALL warming is caused by CO2) would meet the definition of insanity. A subject in which you are an authority, Willard the Dullard.
“But what if, in the absence (or relative near-absence ) of human interference, the climate would be cooling? After all, it’s agreed that the world has been cooling since the “Holocene optimum” – this is a point that is commonly wielded by the inactivist camps after all.”
But it’s only been a slight amount over 1000 years [on average].
If it was 100 years rather than 1000 years, it’s 10 times more of thing.
“If you extrapolate the background trend (ignoring the hockey stick blade at the end) you will see that from first principles, a slow cooling is a reasonable expectation for the natural trend. This would mean that the anthropogenic contribution is not sharing in the warming with natural factors, but actually pulling against a (relatively small) natural cooling, probably orbitally forced. Thus if one had to express anthropogenic warming as a percentage of total warming, the total fraction would be over 100%. ”
So, yeah!
For anthropogenic warming?
Is there some reason we want average surface global air temperature to be 13 C, or colder than anyone imagines the Little Ice Age was.
Only advantage is a lot more glacial ice- is more of freshwater reservoir, one might use it {though we aren’t currently using them- and so might just solely be regarded as more dangerous}.
Oh good:
“WHY THIS MATTERS
There’s a sequence of dilutions; from what scientists perceive to what scientists are willing to say publicly; from what scientists say to what the IPCC process will approve; from what the IPCC process approves to what the general public and the policy sector understand. And so, there’s a secondary story buried under the bizarre Senate votes this week that interests me more than the bizarre dance of politics.”
Nope, that didn’t help.
“Does she really not understand that residual after 110% is accounted for is negative? The more I look at these exchanges (and looking back on Twitter streams is an amazingly awkward task, by the way – please fix this Twitter) the more convinced I am that she thinks that if one piece is 110% of the total then WE DON’T KNOW HOW MANY PER CENT THE TOTAL IS!
You know, I think that is really what she meant.”
Well as I said, Judith Curry is mostly worried about weather.
Which is something valid to worry about.
But we don’t seem to getting much progress in predicting the weather.
What are you doing here, gb?
Try this:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/i-also-dont-get-judiths-logic/
So long ago
Contrarian talking points are old.
Maybe this, is what is triggering an old memory
https://judithcurry.com/2022/03/02/ukraine-climate-nexus/
“Tom Pyle sums it up with this statement:
“The west is seeing the results of years of getting energy policy advice from Swedish teenagers, former bar tenders and washed up socialists. We need grown ups running energy policy.”
“But Greta” is another Bingo square, gb:
https://climateball.net/but-scapegoat/
Please keep in your lane.
> The future climate can not be predicted
That’s another Climateball move, RG:
https://climateball.net/but-predictions/
No need to predict anything to know the size of the A in AGW.
Do you think I would not notice you moving the goalposts, and how do you feel about being 100% liquid these days?
Whickering Wee Willy,
What are you blabbering about, laddie?
What fresh nonsense is this –
“No need to predict anything to know the size of the A in AGW”
Your predilection for self-abuse has obviously scrambled your wits. Do you find yourself ejaculating “Oh! Oh! Oh!” with greater regularity?
Get your hand off your willy, Willy. Accept reality – no GHE, no climate emergency due to CO2, and the fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann definitely did not win a Nobel Prize!
Get with the program, sport. Reality is all around you.
Carry on.
No one knows the size of the A in AGW, therefore no one knows the effect of humans on the climate in the past, or in the future. Lots of guessing — no certainty.
I invested in out of favor TUR two weeks ago – a Turkey stock ETF. Should be very profitable in a year. You should consider TUR, and invest your life savings of $67.95
What you try to ignore is constrained well enough:
http://climatechangenationalforum.org/your-logic-escapes-me-by-john-nielsen-gammon/
Keep appeals to ignorance to your financial newsletters.
Reply to Willard the Dullard’s pitiful appeal to authority logical fallacy in his 10:23 am cut and paste comment:
The IPCC assumes global warming is man made and dangerous, then predicts future global warming will be man made and dangerous.
This circular reasoning logic fallacy has been in every IPCC report since 1988.
In 1995, the IPCC arbitrarily declared that all natural causes of climate change were “noise” — too small to matter. No proof, of course — just “because we say so” science.
That’s quite a conclusion after 4.5 billion years of 100% natural climate changes !
But it is a perfect conclusion for dingbats like you — arbitrarily dismiss all natural causes of climate change and the result is that all climate change has to be man made it’s like a magic trick !
But that’s not real science — the IPCC was formed to blame climate change on humans so eliminated all other causes arbitrarily. That is politics, not science, and you love it.
My personal list of climate change variables, few of which are even considered by your beloved IPCC political organization:
The following variables are known to influence Earth’s climate:
1) Earth’s orbital and orientation variations
2) Changes in ocean circulation,
ENSO and others
3) Solar Irradiance and activity
4) Volcanic aerosol emissions
5) Greenhouse gas emissions
6) Land use changes
(cities growing, crop irrigation, etc.)
7) Changes in clouds and water vapor
8) Variations of a complex, non-linear system
9) Unknown causes of climate change
The variables above are not all independent.
RG goes for a full-blown gallop of “But Anything But CO2”:
https://climateball.net/but-abc/
He still fails to dodge a very simple point:
“Over the past 60 years, natural forcings (sun, volcanoes) have also had a cooling effect.”
Earlier, I pointed out that claims of measuring global sea level to one twenty fifth of the thickness of a sheet of paper I had just measured were unbelievable.
I also pointed out I can repeatedly measure to 0.01 mm. Quite easy, using a micrometer.
bobdroege, moron-at-large, responded –
“Swenson,
Some people might be able to measure things to the thickness of a human hair or even finer.
You are just incredulous.”
Not only is bobdroege a moron, he suffers from a mental defect which renders him unable to comprehend fairly simple English. He might well be a climate crackpot, for all I know. He fits the profile.
Have you managed to find the greenhouse effect yet?
You might have to pull your head out of its current location and wipe your eyes.
b,
There is no greenhouse effect. You are a moron, if you are trying to convince people that your fantasy supersedes reality.
Carry on,
Putting more CO2 in our atmosphere makes the average temperature of the surface more hotter more better, as has been scientifically measured and this message is approved by the council of card carrying Hansenites.
b,
You wrote –
“Putting more CO2 in our atmosphere makes the average temperature of the surface more hotter more better, . . . ”
Well, it doesn’t actually. The atmosphere prevents about 35% of the Suns energy reaching the surface, and 0% from leaving (that is why temperatures drop at nigh)t.
Reducing the amount of energy from the Sun reaching the surface results in lower temperatures, moron, not higher ones.
Learn some physics If you have time. You might sound a little more rational if you do.
Carry on.
Swenson,
I said on average meaning over a period longer than a day.
Or did you miss where I said that.
The Sun’s energy warms the atmosphere and that energy also warms the surface.
That, of course, has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, which you don’t seem to understand, which means that you don’t understand physics. So try and stay on topic.
Sorry, go back to school, and try and learn something this time.
Man made does not mean due to CO2. I am pretty there is a much stronger man-made forcing than CO2. Just consider this:
“For a 1% change in absolute cirrus coverage with τ = 0.33, the GCM yielded surface temperature changes (DTs ) of 0.438 and 0.588C over the globe and Northern Hemisphere, respectively.”
“This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975”
These are from Minnis et al 2004, from the NASA research center. What Minnis argued was a tiny little increase in cirrus cover (CC) over the US (and some other regions), was enough to explain all the warming there. If this was due to contrails, that would explain it.
On the other side he found no upward trend in CC over Europe, rather it was even declining. Accordingly contrails could not explain global warming.
But here is the beautiful part. The drastic reduction in air traffic 2020 has given us much better data on how contrails contribute to CC. And indeed they massively expand it, which combined with the climate sensitivity named above, can easily explain ALL the global warming since 1970.
What do you suggest, that we bury the planes, leave fossil fuel in the ground and use solar powered trains and ocean liners?
Why should we? Contrails are not a lasting issue. And even if they should pose a perceived problem, aircraft could fly at lower altitudes, sharply reducing contrail formation.
It’s those pesky perceived problems we shouldn’t be worrying about.
What is the delta 18O isotope value change of the last 40 years (1980 to 2020)? Notice you never see it presented so curious what data you are basing this statement on?
More than 800,000 refugees from Ukraine have already reached Poland, the vast majority of them women and children, including the elderly. One million refugees will soon be surpassed. Men who can fight are returning to Ukraine, including many who have long lived in other countries. Ukraine has about 40 million citizens. Russia is unable to control all of Ukraine. No one greets the invaders with flowers except on their graves.
The willingness of both the Polish government and, above all, the Polish population to take in so many refugees is admirable and is a slap in the face to all people (especially these dumb alt-rights) who, for example in Germany, in France or in the UK, stay indifferent, unfriendly or even aggressive towards refugees, though being so often themselves grand-children of refugees.
Last but not least, Poland is showing the dictators Putin and Lukashenko (and the nomenklaturas who cowardly crowd around them) how miserable, pathetic and cruel they all are.
Serdecznie dziękujemy ludności polskiej!
The dumb alt-right don’t matter.
The issue, is the US should control the southern border, or otherwise the criminal Cartel will continue to control our southern border.
Or whole issue is about legal vs illegal migration not about numbers of people who come to US.
The US is unpopulated, and we need a growing population.
In terms migration, internally, recently people have fleeing Blue States, like California where I live.
Or such other states are, obviously, in a real sense, encouraging migration of people with the freedom to move somewhere, else.
So, is better for Ukrainian people to come to US, legally, or arrive in Mexico and pay money to a criminal cartel to enter the US, illegally.
It seems obvious that something the US Congress should manage so it’s legal, rather inaction that helps monetize various criminal organizations which make Mexico a more lawless State {no one should imagine it helps Latin America}. Of course, the War of Drugs, is also an issue.
You can see that the sudden warming in the stratosphere has moved from the middle stratosphere to the tropopause. See how low the temperature is in the lower stratosphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/100mb9065.png?fbclid=IwAR2sAmADTIJ08aA5CnQaKtaMW7T3qvKDAMK08_uqGBKQZSziTVi77zPJHRE
This is what the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere looks like now. It is quite strong, although it is divided. It will continue to affect weather in the northern hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/tsfXxwh/Screenshot-2.png
I’m not sure that’s a meaningful question.
18O ratios are usually calculated for ice cores and it takes about 100 years to go from snowfall to firn to dense ice.
You also get variations depending on the ocean unwind.
So, are you asking for the ratio in the ocean , the evaporated water, the snowfall or the firn? Greenland or Antarctica ?
Simply go to Spectralcalc and do this experiment.
Set the Gas Cell to a VMR of 0.00041 or 410ppm.
Set the Gas Cell Length to 100cm
Set the Lower Wave# to 620 and Upper Wave# to 720 (15 micron range)
When you calculate it, you discover that 100% of outgoing LWIR is absorbed, or “Saturated” at 15 microns.
You can only absorb 100% of outgoing LWIR, so CO2 at 100 cm above the surface does that.
Now, increase the CO2 to 0.00082 or 2x 410ppm. Change the length of the Gas Cell to 50cm. You will see that 100% is absorbed, or is “saturated”
Increasing CO2 doesn’t absorb more than 100% of outgoing LWIR, that is impossible, what it does is lower the saturation level. That doesn’t increase warming, it simply lowers the level where saturation occurs. Does saturation at 100 vs 50 cm really matter? I doubt it.
Sure.
But Modtran shows for the atmosphere, the upward radiance, at 100 Km,
for 250-5000 cm^-1,
for Mid latitude summer,
for 260 ppm CO2 is 264.957 W/m^2
and
for 560 ppm CO2 is 262.321 W/m^2
a difference of 2.636 W/m^2
for doubling CO2, while nothing else changes.
http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot
Climate action? Net zero in the UK? How long will this drivel and waste of resources go on for?
The Central England Temperature record gives temperature readings from the year 1659.
To entertain myself, I had a look at the averages for the summer months (June, July, and August).
No year in the entire record has ever reached an average of 18C for these months, and values between equal to or greater than 17C are seen infrequently. Here are the greater than or equal to 17C values , with the year.
1781 17.0
1826 17.6
1846 17.1
1911 17.0
1933 17.0
1947 17.0
1976 17.8
1983 17.1
1995 17.4
2003 17.3
2006 17.2
2018 17.3
Annual averages of more than 10C are however more common. Clearly there are reasons as to why this is so – changes in weather patterns or methodology perhaps.
Given that the CO2 level pre-1750 was 280ppm (so we’re told) and it’s now 410ppm, and given the fractional temperature variations seen in for example the UAH satellite record, it’s surely time we moved on from the ‘hockey stick’ for example and started to look at climate more broadly. There’s still dispute over the ‘hockey stick’ – a controversial paper from 1999 – frankly, in 2022 who cares? Since the IPCC was formed in 1988, we have 34 years of climate data from around the world. Where are the detailed and truthful analyses of climate that sould be the subject of research? The endless wrangling over fractional temperature changes seems interminable. If the world’s climates truly are changing adversely, let’s have some other measured data for different regions – for example rainfall, sunshine, and vegetation.
As a long time resident in the UK (now age 73) I fail to see any changes of concern whatsoever in our climate. Net zero is in my view a farce being inflicted on UK residents by unquestioning politicians, few of whom have a scientific background. Consequently they lack the confidence and courage to challenge their advisors and also the climate scientists who claim that we really must do something to regulate the planet’s temperature.
Maybe we live in different UKs.
I grew up in the fens in the 1950s and 60s. Each year some landowners flooded their fields in Autumn. Several times each winter the fields froze and we could skate. Each year there would be the UK speed skating championship. To get safe ice you needed four nights of -4C frost with cold days between.
Gradually opportunities to skate decreased and you might get the odd year with no skating. Then it became unusual to get an opportunity to skate at all.
The last speed skating competition in the fens was held in 1999.
There is still a Fen Skating Association. They count themselves lucky if they skate outdoors once a year and the UK speed skating championship is now held in Holland.
Entropic man: indeed we do live in different parts of the UK – I live in the Nottingham area.
The variability of weather conditions in different regions of the UK can be seen in the excellent graphs linked below from the Met Office. They show temperature, rainfall, and sunshine for the UK as a whole, and also England, Wales, and Scotland separately. These records go back over a hundred years, and are supplied for every month of the year.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series
The Met Office time series graphs use the HADUK-Grid data which are land based automatic monitoring stations that may be skewed by UHIE localized warming. I did not find any indication that HADUK-Grid data are adjusted for UHI variability due to population and industrial increases. Additionally, the UK weather and climate are highly affected by polar jet stream variability, short-term and long-term respectively.
Carbon500
From Entropic man I read
” Several times each winter the fields froze and we could skate. Each year there would be the UK speed skating championship. To get safe ice you needed four nights of -4C frost with cold days between.
Gradually opportunities to skate decreased and you might get the odd year with no skating. Then it became unusual to get an opportunity to skate at all. ”
As I live in Germany, hence neither in your UK nor in Entropic man’s, I can’t compete with any anecdotal data.
1. But… raw, entertainment-free data: this I can produce.
You brought us above a nice list of CET years with on average about 17 C summer temperature.
Fine. Looks, at a first glance, as would in England summer temperature remains pretty good the same over centuries.
But… hmmh.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yC0btjeQ-q_65Vm-xFy6TWvv73abAUWQ/view
Did you notice that the intervals between the years you collected are nicely decreasing over time?
Did you possibly forget some you would like to add a posteriori into the list?
If you did not forget any: do you understand that you are doing some nice cherry-picking?
Would not, if CET was so stable as you seemingly wish to indicate, the intervals keep nearly equal over time?
*
2. As do many, you concentrated your search for data on summer months.
I love summer months.
But… hmmmh.
Did Entropic man not speak about skating opportunities disappearing over time – at least in his UK?
What about doing a job similar as above, but now for winter months, Carbon500?
None of that says that there is not a longer natural sequency to both warm and cold.
Both long term well known ocean series are cyclic, PDO, and AMO. Why should global temperatures not be the same?
Bindidon: rest assured that yes, of course I noticed that the intervals between the years I cited are decreasing over time – but the point remains that the maximum temperatures have never exceeded those values. The question is – why? And yes, the intervals have decreased – and again, one asks – why? Is this of any significance? Does it matter?
I chose to present the figures for the summer months simply these are the hottest months – I wasn’t after all writing an exhaustive analysis, merely posting an observation of interest.
You ask: ‘do you understand that you are doing some nice cherry-picking?’
The term ‘cherry picking’ is popular in the world of climate posting on websites – and meaningless. Why should someone who presents observations of interest which contradict others, or have not been noted before, be accused of ‘cherry picking’?
I note that you have no reason to quibble with the figures I presented. On that we’re agreed – excellent!
Your comment about doing a similar analysis of the winter months is of course a good idea – but since you’ve suggested this, why don’t you do it and present your results? I would be very interested to see what you come up with.
Bindidon and Entropic man – further to my earlier replies, and
regarding winter temperatures – an issue raised by you both:
I’m going to cite comments made by meteorologist William James Burrows in his book ‘Climate Change’ (Cambridge University Press, 2001). On p186 he states that ‘An additional insight into the variance of winter temperatures in England may be found by looking at the distribution of daily figures in the CET record, which have been produced by the UK Meteorological Office for the period 1772 to the present.’
He compares the graphical distribution of values for the 50 years 1772-1821 with those for 1946-95, noting that ‘for both periods the distribution is distinctly skewed towards higher temperatures with a long tail of low temperatures – but although the latter period was nearly 1.4C warmer than the earlier one, the range of extremes is virtually unchanged.’
‘There are substantially more cold days in the first period and more mild days in the latter.’ He goes on to discuss weather patterns , then finishes by saying that ‘this analysis suggests that the changes affecting winter temperatures in the British Isles are a matter of a shift in weather patterns rather than a significant warming or cooling of the northern hemisphere.’
“The variability of weather conditions in different regions of the UK can be seen ”
So that is just the UK, now extrapolate to the whole Earth.
Thus, I don’t understand why you try to draw conclusions about Global Warming from just the summer months of Central England Temperature?
Nate: You ask – ‘that is just the UK, now extrapolate to the whole Earth.’
That’s exactly what I’m asking for, and the point I’m making!
I said:’If the worlds climates truly are changing adversely, lets have some other measured data for different regions for example rainfall, sunshine, and vegetation.’
Notice that I said ‘adversely’
I’ve made my points and supplied data to back them up – please re-read my comments and answers to previous observations by others.
I’m not inclined to try and find out what records exist for other countries – the time investment would be considerable, but there is in my view a real need for detailed historical studies to be made, and for those to be summarised and easily accessed.
–Richard Greene says:
March 6, 2022 at 11:43 AM
…
The following variables are known to influence Earth’s climate:
1) Earth’s orbital and orientation variations
2) Changes in ocean circulation,
ENSO and others
3) Solar Irradiance and activity
4) Volcanic aerosol emissions
5) Greenhouse gas emissions
6) Land use changes
(cities growing, crop irrigation, etc.)
7) Changes in clouds and water vapor
8) Variations of a complex, non-linear system
9) Unknown causes of climate change
The variables above are not all independent–
I say there is just one variable related to our global icehouse climate.
The average temperature of our ocean. Which is somewhere around
3.5 C
It seems recently, or in last 1 to 2 million years, Earth ocean only warms to about 4 C.
And earlier in our 34 million year Ice Age, ocean temperature warmed up to as much as 5 C.
Or global climate has been different within the last couple million years, it’s been a colder part of the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
A question I have is did the average ocean of our ocean become as cold as 3 C or perhaps did cool to 2.5 C or cooler in the last 2 million years. Though I suppose, it’s not very important question.
More important question is 3.5 C average ocean temperature, much different than temperature of our ocean during long duration of time which is not an interglacial period. Or how close in terms of ocean average temperature, are we from leaving the Holocene interglacial period.
So in Little Ice Age, the ocean average temperature was .1 C cooler, and may have been .2 C cooler.
What happens if average temperature of ocean is .3 C or .4 cooler than our about 3.5 C ocean?
It does not seem this could happen in less than 100 years, but could happen in couple hundred years, and so, this can seen as somewhat relevant.
And as said/asked for quite awhile, what caused the Little Ice Age?
Or one could say, that if we are like the medieval warm period {as some claim} then what followed it, was the Little Ice Age and we have been cooling for 5000 years.
But anyhow, we should explore the Moon as soon as possible.
http://climatechangenationalforum.org/your-logic-escapes-me-by-john-nielsen-gammon/
The natural forcing are all neutral or slightly negative. The only forcings producing warming are land use and increasing CO2 and the rate of warming is what you would expect from them.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
“The natural forcing are all neutral or slightly negative”
They are adjusted to be neutral or slightly negative. The inherent uncertainty that Roy mentions means that the reality is not that well know.
“They are adjusted to be neutral or slightly negative. ”
Conspiracy theories again? If you think that scientific data is being fiddled there is no point discussing the data since you will refuse to believe anything it might tell you.
No fact. The methodology used to compute the ‘natural forcing’ is done by subtracting the other forcing’s from the known outcomes tom produce the results. That is what is normally called a circular argument.
The fact is that Roy points out the uncertainty that exists is not taken into account, in either natural or the other forcing’s.
> No fact
Should be easy to establish then.
Show it.
Whining Wee Willy,
If you don’t believe him, produce some facts to show he’s wrong. That’s the way science works, moron.
As Einstein said –
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
You can’t even find one experiment to support the ridiculous notion that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter, can you?
Moron. You might as well just keep playing with yourself, and ejaculating “Oh! Oh! Oh!” At regular intervals. It won’t turn fiction into fact, but it should put a smile on your dial.
Nothing wrong with that!
Carry on.
> If you don’t believe him, produce some facts to show he’s wrong.
That’s not how it works, Mike.
Yes, the claimant is the person who must prove their claim.
Otherwise there is a unicorn living in the centre of the moon until you can prove that this is false.
>The natural forcing are all neutral or slightly negative. The only forcings producing warming are land use and increasing CO2 and the rate of warming is what you would expect from them.
So now you’re quoting Bloomberg?
And the scientists that Bloomberg are quoting.
EM,
“The only forcings producing warming are land use and increasing CO2….”
ASR and OLR are both increasing and the former is greater than the latter. How do land use and CO2 combine to do that?
What about my pony, Chic?
I want my pony!
Whacko Wee Willy,
Want in one hand. Pee in the other.
See which fills up first.
Do you really imagine anyone cares what you want?
Tell that to Chic, Mike.
I can’t believe EM is referencing Land Use when he realizes that IPCC’s carbon cycle model is abysmal. Oh, wait, he’s shown little scruples.
“NONE of the natural, global-average energy flows in the climate system are known to better than about 5-10 Watts per sq. meter”
But those who wish to see warming (or cooling) will claim that their mathematics proves otherwise.
The last 7 years supports that observation. It shows cooling but longer timeseries shows warming. Which is correct? The most recent or not?
https://imgur.com/a/be8rloi
Could you put confidence limits on that graph?
Woodfortrees.org doesn’t do confidence limits I’m afraid.
You could insert them if you know them from other sources.
However it is remarkable that ALL of the sources show a similar decline over the last 7 years so it is more likely than not that the decline is real.
All the sources show a decline from the 2016 peak to the current La Nina. Since they are all measuring the same planet it is not surprising that they all show similar cooling. Is it real, rather just random variation? Probably real.
Is the cooling a statistically significant reversal of the long term warming trend? I would say no.
The 95% confidence limits for most of the global annual temperature datasets are +/-0.1C.
A statistically significant difference between the ends of a temperature linear regression would be when the 95% confidence limits of the two ends do not overlap ( they are 4 standard deviations apart). For your graph that would require the difference to be greater than 0.2C.
None of the datasets on your graph come anywhere near significance over 7 years. Even Had*CRUT only showed a decrease of 0.1C in seven years.
This is not a surprise. The current long term trend for UAH is 0.13C/decade. So you would not expect to see a significant trend with less than 15 years of data. For GISS with its 0.18C/decade you would need at least 12 years.
“But those who wish to see warming (or cooling) will claim that their mathematics proves otherwise. ”
Perhaps you are yourself guilty of the sin you describe. Can you look yourself in the mirror and say with complete honesty that you are not trying to believe that a short term decline due to La Nina is actually the end of a 140 year warming trend?
“Is the cooling a statistically significant reversal of the long term warming trend? I would say no.”
All things have to start somewhere. Would you suggest that this month/year will be warmer or colder than the next?
Well given that the La Nina could well extend until the Autumn, I think that for the next month at least temperatures will be lower than 0.00.
“Even Had*CRUT only showed a decrease of 0.1C in seven years”
“The current long term trend for UAH is 0.13C/decade”
So only 0.03c to go and 3 years in which to do it? That we could see in next month alone. Then any extra would be a decline in the last decade.
Given the estimates from Roy above, it will take a more than a few decades to be certain.
Do I have to keep pointing out that OLS trends statistically only apply to the data/date range they cover and are no guide to future or past beyond those dates?
You cannot create confidence limits of sampling of a sine wave (other than peak to peak). All you do is acknowledge the ‘noise’ around its path.
“All things have to start somewhere.”
RLH is insistent that long-term OLS fits cannot predict the future. Most of us agree.
But here he is trying to predict the future with short-term noise.
We can always count on RLH for inconsistency.
On the contrary, I am showing that uncertainty means that ALL predictions should have large error margins associated with them. Other people will insist that warmer is the only conclusion. I show that colder is an equivalent and valid alternative.
It is interesting how engineers and statisticians use different terms or procedures for the same things.
Confidence limits = noise
LOWESS = S-G low pass filter
OLS = infinite low pass filter
“But here he is trying to predict the future”
Will next month be warmer or colder than last month for instance? Want to use OLS or low pass filters to suggest a solution?
Paul Clark, WFT’s conceptor, has clearly stated and explained that linear estimates over such short periods are of no use.
They are statistically insignificant, because the standard error in such cases mostly is higher than the trend itself.
*
You may move to Dr Cowtan’s trend computer (the most accurate trend estimator, including correction for autocorrelation, a problem which matters even most for short periods):
UAH6.0 LT:
Trend: -0.005 ±0.677 °C/decade (2σ)
RSS4.0 L+O:
Trend: 0.027 ±0.722 °C/decade (2σ)
Had-CRUT4:
Trend: -0.145 ±0.488 °C/decade (2σ)
GISTEMP:Trend:
-0.039 ±0.563 °C/decade (2σ)
BEST:
Trend: -0.025 ±0.477 °C/decade (2σ)
*
Incompetent boasters regularly rant against Cowtan’s tool, but would never be able to scientifically contradict its results.
*
Nick Stokes has also such as guy, named Trend Viewer:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html
A bit more complex to manage.
Binny,
The problem is that at 0.5 C per decade, the seas will have boiled dry in a few thousand years.
Then, all the H2O, the “most important GHG” will be in the atmosphere. Presumably, forcings, feedbacks, amplifications, and runaway GHE will continue until the Earth melts!
Complete nonsense. Do you actually engage your brain before hammering away on the keyboard, or are you truly delusional?
Maybe you could explain why you think that the trend will magically halt, if you agree that is not likely that the seas will boil dry due to the GHE?
Or you could just avoid the issue entirely, I suppose.
‘Maybe you could explain why you think that the trend will magically halt’
Here is why I think the trend will not only halt but reverse:
https://fcpp.org/2022/02/11/increasing-cold-extremes-worldwide-is-global-cooling-on-the-way/
So what you are saying is that the range could be
UAH6.0 LT:
Trend: 0.672 C/decade to -0.682 C/decade
etc.
therefore anything is possible in that range according to you. Would you say next month will be warmer than this one or not? And the month after?
The problem is the short term ‘noise’, which you don’t seem to take into account.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah-residuals.jpeg
(and that is against a 7 year low pass, against a OLS trend the noise is even greater)
EM,
Confidence limits? That would be the sign of a confidence trickster, I suppose.
Gavin Schmidt seems 100% confident he is a “climate scientist”, but of course he isn’t.
Michael Mann was 100% confident he won a Nobel Prize, but of course he didn’t.
You might be 100% confident that a Greenhouse Theory exists, but of course it doesn’t.
Confidence is no substitute for reality.
“It shows cooling but longer timeseries shows warming. Which is correct? The most recent or not?”
Correct? In teems of what? The question lacks meaning.
angech
I read your reaction upthread, towards Entropic man, concerning his reference to Tamino’s sea level computations.
You may have a big laugh at Tamino and Entropic man, but that won’t help you because your guesses hardly could be correct.
*
I quote you:
” Tamino only uses data and dates that suit his particular argument at the time. He is not stupid but he is very motivated to prove global warming hence all his conclusions are not what they seem to be.
Hey look the sea level rise is accelerating at 10 mm a year!
The premise, that such rates could exist in the world , is of course if it is too good to be true it is not true.
Have a go EM. ”
Wow wow wow, angech. Did you ever process sea level data? I’m not sure.
*
Here are for example people who did hard work in that domain: Dangendorf and his colleagues, who integrated data provided by
– the PSMSL group (tide gauges)
– SONEL and the University of La Rochelle (GPS)
together with a deep ocean current and wind analysis, especially in the ENSO region.
Here is a short version of their results:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-ilhh3ov20tfb03P5ZKDHTzZuJ9rD4P8/view
{ What I sincerely regret is the title of the paper, which while indeed getting to the heart of what the paper shows, is very unfortunate. Sounds like alarmism, even to me. }
*
And here is a comparison of Dangendorf & alii’s worldwide sea level data with two averages of the PSMSL data (one by Tamino, one by myself) which – of course – both take also account of vertical land movements at many of the tide gauges, by using SONEL’s GPS data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R8ECotMocUHDJX8UWOMIpBizobV293-g/view
*
1. Maybe you compare the blue line (Bindidon) and the green line (Foster aka Tamino) with the black one (Dangendorf) ?
Do you see how close Tamino’s quick shot (which cost him incredibly little time) is to Dangendorf & alii’s long, hard work, and looks much better elaborated than mine?
And you want to discredit Tamino’s data processing? On the base of what, angech?
2. Do you see the difference between the blue and the red plot, the latter showing data without vertical land movement correction (subsidence, glacial isostatic rebound)?
*
Now let us come back to the US East coast Entropic man was talking about:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oCpmxFlbNflhma_iZ8TStAsJVs_pz1HL/view
As you can clearly see, the East coast is under heavy subsidence, i.e. it shows sinking coastal regions: the red plot is below the blue one, and not above it like in the Globe’s chart.
You can’t see this in NOAA’s sea level trend chart:
https://tinyurl.com/tfxwdnf8 (grrr… d c!)
because it shows only raw levels, without VLM correction, what gives a wrong impression.
*
Let’s now look at the data for the PSMSL US East coast evaluation.
Most people say: the tide gauge trends in the satellite era are a statistical articfact, they were all much lower before.
Aha. Here is a list of consecutive 10-year distant trends:
1900(-2021): 2.38 (mm/yr)
1910: 2.76
1920: 2.72
1930: 2.65
1940: 2.52
1950: 2.64
1960: 2.80
1970: 2.86
1980: 3.63
1990: 4.01
2000: 6.11
*
What does a team in a greater insurance company, responsible for calculations of insurance premium increases for the next 10 or 20 years, when looking at such data?
Do you think they say:
“Oh… no problem, subsidence-dominated region. Move along.”
or do you think they will use some prediction tool helping them in doing the work?
The rawest, simplest prediction tool would be a quadratic fit which, when applied for 1993-2050, gives exactly… 10 mm/yr.
Apos for a mistake:
Read
2000: 5.94
2010: 6.11
The digits behind the decimal point are of no interest; they are generated automatically.
The problems with tide measurements is that basin characteristics dominate land readings and satellite measurements need to accurately take account of orbital paths and wave heights and both need to account for air pressure. Then we have wind fetch which is quite non-linear depending on time and the uncertainty that exists in any one measurement is quite large.
Assuming that you can average these out by taking many samples assumes that any such ‘noise’ is normally distributed without any proof of such.
As a sailor it is well known that tides are only an approximation of what actually happens but when using that same data in climate it seems that same caution is not maintained.
Large sample sizes and the law of large numbers significantly reduce the error.
Binny,
You wrote –
“The rawest, simplest prediction tool would be a quadratic fit which, when applied for 1993-2050, gives exactly 10 mm/yr.”
Yup. Similar to a naive persistence forecast done by a 12 year old with a straightedge and a pencil.
Insurance companies can’t see into the future. Several dozen, including big names in the business, have gone bankrupt in the US in the last thirty years.
I don’t think that using Tamino’s methods (or yours) would have made much difference, but we’ll never know, will we?
As usual: dumb, stubborn, redundant, egocentric trash, written by an ignoramus who is only able to discredit what others do.
Signal in the nause but not the right signal.
Binny,
When you have a spare moment, maybe you could say what you really think?
[chortle]
Why are you so endlessly pushing to answer nonsense everywhere all the time? How about at least sparing me that?
Binny,
You wrote –
“Why are you so endlessly pushing to answer nonsense everywhere all the time? How about at least sparing me that?”
I do as I wish. If you don’t like it, bad luck for you.
Why do you waste your time whining, when you know I don’t care what you think?
Accept reality – no amount of GHE belief will turn fantasy into fact.
Flynnson, I’m not whining at all.
Who would ever whine because of your utter nonsense?
Binny,
You’re learning to accept reality.
That’s a start. You realise that there is no point whining about what you cannot change.
Keep it up.
Make everyone ( $26,000 __ $38,000 ) A Month Online Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work With No Prior q Experience Or Skills Required. ppq Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site
Open this link.. https://workstore01.blogspot.com/
Ken
” Here is why I think the trend will not only halt but reverse… ”
Feel free to gullibly believe in those who predict grand cooling ahead.
No problem for me, especially when I look at the link you posted!
*
Such people – and there are a lot of, especially on this blog –
– always use shortest possible periods when they want to show cooling, e.g. the recent temperatures (suddenly, the statistical insignificance of the trends no longer play a role, n’est-ce pas)
” Based on the latest satellite data (Figure 1) the global mean temperature variation for January 2022 is a mere +0.03C above the 40-year average. A close analysis suggests that the earth’s climate may be cooling not warming. Observational evidence over many areas of the world definitely points to a cooling climate. ”
BUT CONVERSELY
– always use long term trends whenever these show cooling, e.g. a strange chart of Rutgers snow cover, the trend of which however is not dominated by increasing cooling, but by heavy La Nina phases (look at 2010/11):
https://tinyurl.com/2p8c7wcv
Moreover, the guys you show the ‘results’ of either are incompetent, or pernicious manipulators.
Here is the official Rutgers snow cover data for the NH since 1967:
https://tinyurl.com/2p8np823
Looks a bit different, huh?
Yeah, and that is due to the fact that your ‘source’ manifestly lists the yearly maxima only.
This is plain wrong: snow cover is, like sea ice extent, a phenomenon to be observed and processed throughout the year, and not only during the winter!
Imagine you would do that for the UAH temperature record…
*
If you build – as everybody of course should do – the yearly snow cover averages, you obtain this (I start with 1972, the first year with all weeks present):
https://tinyurl.com/2p8fbpay
As you can see, things now become quite different, because the snow cover increase during the winters is clearly counterbalanced by snow cover loss during the rest of the year.
If you now look at Rutgers snow cover weekly with superposed years, you obtain a similar view:
https://tinyurl.com/2p96j78c
*
And then these photos… Oh Noes.
The thing is, Ken, that when somebody shows warming in the Arctic, s/he gets automatically answered: “That happened decades ago as well”.
But when it comes to cooling, the cooling suddenly becomes relevant, if not ‘unprecedented’.
As said, Ken: think what you want, I don’t care.
Because I look at data – regardless whether it shows warming or cooling or neither, and not at the hand waving of politically interested people.
Warmistas are bad for us, but Coolistas are even worse.
Care to predict if Mar 2022 will be warmer or colder than Feb 2022?
Does it matter?
Even neglecting autocorrealation the difference between this month and next month will tell us very little about the long term trend.
It goes to showing if your warming beliefs are correct. The longer this cooling trend continues the further away from an OLS rising trend it is.
This is the same argument that festooned the net after the 1998 el Nino. Start your analysis from a huge warm anomaly and hey presto! You’ve got cooling.
Based on physics the Earth’s surface will warm in the long term. That’s a prediction I will confidently make. I’ll even bet you on it, RLH.
I’ll bet you that the average of the 10 years after 2016 will be warmer than the 10 years before 2016.
Does $100 seem reasonable? We’re 5 years away from collecting.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Such people and there are a lot of, especially on this blog
always use shortest possible periods when they want to show cooling, e.g. the recent temperatures (suddenly, the statistical insignificance of the trends no longer play a role, n’est-ce pas)”
Try the longest possible period – four and a half billion years, from the molten Earth surface to now.
No heating – cooling. I suppose you want to cherry pick a shorter period, do you?
[laughing]
Since Bindidon, as usual, has already brought up the moon issue, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1197868
I presumably won’t now be attacked for starting a new thread on the subject. Actually, a slightly different (but related) subject – a ball on a string.
Now, some “Spinners” (e.g. Bindidon, Norman, RLH, Craig T) acknowledge that a ball on a string is not rotating about an axis passing through the body of the ball itself. Rather, it is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball, in the center of revolution. But, there are still many “Spinners” who seem to believe that the ball rotates on an axis going through the body of the ball itself. They present the fact that the ball rotates on its own axis after release as evidence that the ball must be rotating on its own axis before release.
I guess this is an opportunity, for the first time in the history of the debate, for “Spinner” to argue against “Spinner”. Why are the “Spinners” who argue that the ball is rotating on its own axis (the “Hard Spinners”) wrong? “Soft Spinners”, it is time to have your say. Discuss.
DREMT, did you notice we have a new “simple analogy”? One of the spinners provided us with the “bicycle pedal” analogy, not realizing it debunked his beliefs. The pedal rotates on an axle as it orbits the hub. A bicycle pedal is a simple analogy to “orbital motion WITH axial rotation”, or the MOTR — one side always faces a point in space.
The bicycle pedal is a better analogy than the ball-on-a-string. Because if the bearings are locked so the pedal cannot rotate, it becomes a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, like Moon, with one side always facing the inside of its orbit. The pedal can model both the MOTR and the MOTL, depending on if it can rotate on its axis.
Yes, I noticed with some amusement that the “Hard Spinners” apparently believe something which is physically unable to rotate on its own axis (the locked pedal) is nevertheless rotating on its own axis, but when you grant that same object the ability to rotate on its own axis (by unlocking the pedal) they suddenly believe it is not rotating on its own axis! As usual their logic is completely opposed to physical reality.
What I was particularly interested in was the old argument that because a ball on a string rotates on its own axis after release, it must be rotating on its own axis before release. What would you say is the ultimate argument to roast that old chestnut?
If a part of a surface detaches from that surface does it rotate about itself in its new life?
It is my thread and I am asking the questions (coherent ones, unlike yours). You are here to either answer my questions, or begone.
That was succinct and relevant. If Mt. Everest was detached and floated off on its own, would it rotate afterwards on its axis or not.
You should be answering that question. After all, you believe the same as I do, that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, rather it is rotating about the Earth’s axis. So, either answer your own question, or get the hell off my thread.
“Discuss.”
Mt. Everest is just a BIG ball on string. So, yes, Mt. Everest rotates once on its own axis as observed from outside of its orbit of Earth center like Clint R pointed out several posts ago.
😂
DREMTY: Yes Mt. Everest would rotate on its own axis if it became detached from the Earth even though it was rotating about Earth’s axis up until that point.
…and why is that, RLH?
Consider GRs argument about concentric circles and the radial velocity associated with each one.
As the radius gets larger, the radial velocity around the center increases too.
Therefore the radial velocity at the top of the mountain is grater that that at the bottom, relative to the center.
This differential will be preserved when the mountain leaves the Earth thus causing the mountain to rotate about its center point.
So, in other words, you agree with Tesla’s argument from a couple of comments below this one…1:36 PM. Fair enough.
I observe that a part of the Earth’s surface will rotate about its own center after leaving the Earth, even though it was rotating about the Earth’s center before that point.
Very good, RLH.
If a part of a surface detaches from that surface does it rotate about itself in its new life?
Willard, please stop trolling.
The rotating after release is due to the physical attachment of the string. Gravity does not provide that physical attachment. So if gravity were suddenly turned off, Moon would go off in a straight line, not rotating.
The moon flying off in a straight line, not rotating, if gravity were switched off, is certainly my understanding. With the ball on a string, specifically – what is it about the physical attachment of the string that causes it to rotate after release?
Tesla argued that because the ball is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis, before release, the tangential velocities of the parts of the ball thrown off would be different, and that’s why it rotates on its own axis after release (when moving in a straight line). That makes sense to me, but then it becomes confusing as to why this does not apply with the moon if gravity were suddenly switched off.
The physical attachment of the string means angular momentum is in play. Moon has no angular momentum, because there is no physical attachment. Any physical attachment conveys angular momentum, as represented by the tension in the string.
And here I was thinking that the tension in the string was representative of Gravity.
We know, RLH. You have never understood any of this.
The Pole Dance Experiment would have made you realize how wrong Moon Dragon cranks are a long time ago, Pup.
Begone, wretch.
“Moon has no angular momentum”
So what do you consider the momentum caused by the Moon orbiting the Earth to be?
Moon has linear momentum, but no angular momentum.
… as viewed “from inside of it orbit” as Clint wrote earlier. Earthshine incident on only one lunar face is the reality. Reality always wins.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“it is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball, in the center of revolution”
It is orbiting about a barycenter which is internal to the 2 bodies that make it up.
I am talking about a ball on a string. You have previously agreed that a ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the center of the ball itself. So, as a “Soft Spinner”, you now get to argue against the “Hard Spinners”. The “Hard Spinners” have argued that since the ball rotates on its own axis after release, as it flies off at a tangent, it must be rotating on its own axis before release. How do you counter that argument, RLH?
“I am talking about a ball on a string”
Which has no relevance to a barycenter or orbits.
“You have previously agreed that a ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the center of the ball itself.”
I did. But I showed that the barycenter is the thing that both ‘ends’ orbit around, not the center of either ‘end’ itself.
“How do you counter that argument?”
That you are an idiot who does not understand orbital mechanics.
“I did”.
Right, so you are a “Soft Spinner”. As a “Soft Spinner”, you now get to argue against the “Hard Spinners”. The “Hard Spinners” have argued that since the ball rotates on its own axis after release, as it flies off at a tangent, it must be rotating on its own axis before release. How do you counter that argument, RLH?
We are just talking about a ball on a string. Forget the moon, for a moment.
I am an engineer and a scientist. You are neither. You are an idiot.
“We are just talking about a ball on a string”
Which has no relevance to either orbits or barycenter’s, just to itself.
You are an obnoxious, abusive troll, yes, we all understand that.
I was asking you to defend your belief that a ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the body of the ball itself. Those that believe it is doing so argue that because it rotates on its own axis after release, it must be rotating on its own axis before release. Please explain why you disagree with them.
“I was asking you to defend your belief that a ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the body of the ball itself”
Of course it is not. A ball on a string does not stand on its own though. You are not prepared to admit that a ball on a string is not anything to do with orbits or barycenter’s.
So now RLH is “an engineer and a scientist”!
He gets the humor award of the day.
RLH doesn’t have a clue about physics or reality.
If a part of a surface detaches from that surface does it rotate about itself in its new life? Yes. But it was previously rotating about a center which is far from itself. How can that be?
Clint R is an idiot who does not understand about anything, although he claims that he does.
RLH, you’re so braindead you can’t even understand the ball-on-a-string.
And “barycenter” has no relevance to axial rotation.
You’re an insane troll.
RLH, either answer my question or get out of my thread. Stop evading.
“‘barycenter’ has no relevance to axial rotation”
Of course not. But axial rotation has nothing to do with orbits either. They are 2 separate things.
Orbits are important for the meaning of barycenter’s, as Newton and others have shown.
DREMT: I answered your question. Do you think that if Mt. Everest (which is part of Earth’s surface) was to leave the Earth it would rotate about its center or not as you have long stated that it rotates about the center of the Earth?
No, you have not answered my question. No, I will not be answering any of your questions. Either answer my question or get off my thread. Here it is, again:
The “Hard Spinners” have argued that since the ball rotates on its own axis after release, as it flies off at a tangent, it must be rotating on its own axis before release. How do you counter that argument, RLH?
As I said, a portion of the Earth’s surface, if detached on its own, will also rotate on its own axis even though it was rotating about the Earth’s axis whilst it was still part of it.
Idiot.
How does that in any way counter their argument, moron?
An argument from our Moon Dragon cranks would indeed be a good idea.
Begone, wretch.
<3
#2
Begone, wretch.
Are we back to counting again?
Idiot.
Answer my 5:42 PM question or get the hell off my thread.
> Three years into a discussion and the basic understanding of an axis of rotation is still a mystery to people commenting on this topic.
You go first, Flop:
https://sites.millersville.edu/rumble/Math.355/Book/Chapter%201.pdf
Willard, please stop trolling.
A hammer is a ball on a string rotating around the thrower.
When the ball is released it continues to rotate as seen at the end of this video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wvDoVZ0PosY
If the ball on a string is a valid model of lunar motion the Moon would also rotate after gravitational release from the Earth and the non-spinners are mistaken.
Ent, thanks for providing more evidence that you’re braindead.
The ball-on-a-string is ONLY a simple analogy of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It was NEVER meant to be a “valid model of lunar motion”.
Again thanks for this additional evidence of your inability to learn, combined with your incompetence.
Entropic Man, you are forgetting (once again) that you have already agreed that Mt. Everest is rotating about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own axis. Thus you should already agree that the ball on a string is similarly not rotating on its own axis. Meaning that you should also agree that the hammer is rotating around the thrower, and not on its own axis, before release.
Please explain why the video shows the ball rotating on its own axis after release.
We were already discussing this before you so rudely interrupted:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1200819
Three years into a discussion and the basic understanding of an axis of rotation is still a mystery to people commenting on this topic.
I have provided simple easy to follow models and yet the concept is still elusive.
Here we go anyway
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wqv9ncthzi
The figure contains
RED Bar
Circle
Orange bar within the circle
While the orange bar and the red bar maintain a 90 degree angle, the circular object is NOT rotating about the axis designated by the purple dot in the middle of circle
You can cause the circular object to rotate in line 1 by setting the value to non-zero
Rotating clockwise
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/qc9eenqipb
Rotating counter-clockwise
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/l8oj4loy3t
In this case, the red bar is translating up and down and the circle is rotating on an internal axis
> Three years into a discussion and the basic understanding of an axis of rotation is still a mystery to people commenting on this topic.
You go first, Flop:
https://sites.millersville.edu/rumble/Math.355/Book/Chapter%201.pdf
Now,
We add a second axis of rotation at (0,0)
In this case since both of the circles maintain a perpendicular angle between the red and the orange bar, neither of rotating on an internal axis
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/xkazy2ov9c
This is what they would look like if they rotate counterclockwise at one rotation per orbit
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hd0z6vqked
One clockwise rotation per orbit
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bt4so8fwft
It is obvious the circle is rotating on an internal axis because the angle does not remain perpendicular
Lastly,
People get confused when you move the axis of rotation. In this example, the axis of rotation has been moved from (0,0) to (10,0)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wqozwmhscy
But if I reduce the distance of the center of the circle from the axis of rotation, the behavior changes
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hsv5msrnfv
I have reduced the distance to 2 from 10 https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hsv5msrnfv
I have reduced it to 1 https://www.desmos.com/calculator/vh3wzamemh
If I change the length to zero. All I have done is take an external axis of rotation and moved it to the center of the object. It now becomes an internal axis but there is no orbital motion. Just 1 axis that has moved.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/0nogipp5cf
If I stop the orbital motion, all objects stop because the circle at (10,0) has its previously orbital axis moved to the center of the object.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/gihbf7c0jo
The moon has one axis of rotation, external to its location at the barycenter and it orbits that location as it moves
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/6otmvswppo
The challenge with modeling the moon is also a problem of scale.
At the relative size of the moons orbit to its radius, it would look like this:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/w81d8dzvsv
If we zoomed in to see the path, it would look like the translating circle from the 1st example
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fvr6b9foin
Simpler:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXD97l7ZT0w&t=1309s
I told you more than once that I have nothing to do with your spinner/nonspinner discussion.
Both groups discuss about the same, useless things – MOTL/MOTR, ball-on-a-string, MGR, coins, curviliear translations, bicycle pedal etc etc etc.
I discuss only about people who managed to keep a scientific approach.
The fact that the nonspinners discredit this approach, with sometimes woeful trolling about ‘astrology’ and the like, won’t change anything here, as they all are absolutely unable to scientifically contradict the approach.
Please keep me definitely off that blind-alley.
Bindidon, here’s the reality for you:
1) You don’t know anything about physics or orbital motion.
2) You are fascinated with centuries old “papers” that you don’t understand. You find such references on the web and you believe that give you knowledge. You’re so scientifically immature you don’t realize you’re fooling yourself.
3) You reject reality. You refuse to consider the simple analogies that debunk your cult beliefs. You’re anti-science.
4) Your head is in a blind-alley.
> the moon issue
The Moon.
There is no issue.
Willard, you are not welcome to comment on one of my threads until you can demonstrate that you understand the absolute basics of your own side’s position, let alone mine. Begone, wretch.
I’m fine, Kiddo.
Thanks.
Begone, wretch.
Once again, here’s where Kiddo’s wrong:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2022-0-00-deg-c/
#2
Begone, wretch.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1195200
#3
Begone, wretch.
Are you trying counting again? Idiot.
No, moron. The numbers are there simply because you cannot repost an identical comment in the same sub-thread. Why do you always have to butt into everything?
Are you trying counting again? Idiot.
Now try posting the same thing again.
Now try posting the same thing again.
Yes, Willard. You can repost an identical comment to one somebody else has written. What I meant was, you cannot repost an identical comment to one you have written yourself. You cannot write one comment, then write the same exact comment again. It will not let you post it the second time.
“The numbers are there simply because you cannot repost an identical comment in the same sub-thread.”
Which is for good reason!
#4
Begone, wretch.
> the only way that the [M]oon can be considered to be rotating on its own axis is if [orbit without spin] is as per the MOTR.
False. If we look at the Moon without a valid physics module, like Moon Dragon Cranks do, then of course we could interpret orbit without spin as per the MOTL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
For those who are new here, “MOTR” and “MOTL” refer to the GIF on tidal locking so yeah, Kiddo insists in using the GIF representing tidal locking to prove that tidal locking is not possible.
If there is only thing that Kiddo should take out of his three years trolling Roy’s, it’s that “Moon” takes a capital M when it designates our moon. The Moon. Our moon. Not that complex.
And for the Nth time, reference frames matter when we want to build numerical models. That’s how we measure motion in physics. Which goes on to show that Moon Dragon Cranks are more into metaphysics than anything.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/
All wrong, Willard.
1) The only way the moon can be considered to be rotating on its own axis is if “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. If you interpret “orbit without spin” as being like the MOTL, you are a “Non-Spinner”.
2) I agree with the physics behind the tidal locking mechanism, so I am not trying to “prove that tidal locking is not possible”.
3) I am not arguing that reference frames don’t matter, aren’t useful, or aren’t necessary. I have instead argued that the moon issue transcends reference frames; by which I specifically mean, it goes beyond the conclusion that some people come to, which is that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt the accelerated frame.
There is no absolute moon motion DREMT as you’ve been told countless times so DREMT remains wrong about the moon issue transcends reference frames.
As Clint R repeatedly points out, reality always wins and location of moon rotation on its own axis observation transcends DREMT’s comments.
Ball4, the only way the moon can be rotating on its own axis is if “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. You do not get to say it rotates on its own axis “as observed from…” or “wrt…”
It can only be rotating on its own axis if “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. I know you can’t understand, I know you never will, and it no longer bothers me. I am happy to have the privilege of understanding something you are incapable of grasping.
All motion is relative DREMT, so you do get to say it rotates on its own axis “as observed from…” or “wrt…” as pointed out a few posts ago by even Clint R.
In reality, there is no absolute moon motion, DREMT, but keep up the comedy act since it is so entertaining to read.
Earthshine incident on only one moon face, sunshine incident on all moon faces is the reality. And like Clint R writes, reality always wins.
I am happy to have the privilege of understanding something you are incapable of grasping.
I’m happy to understand DREMT is wrong about lunar motion with DREMT providing such continuously humorous entertainment.
Earthshine incident on only one moon face, sunshine incident on all moon faces is the reality. And like Clint R writes, reality always wins.
#2
I am happy to have the privilege of understanding something you are incapable of grasping.
> by which I specifically mean
Kiddo’s little game in a nutshell.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Are you trying counting again? Idiot.
Ken
Additionally, here is a chart showing all Rutgers snow cover – weekly data – for 1972 till now:
https://tinyurl.com/497fdsd9
No tricks… raw data as is.
But such graphs show also how meaningful it is to generate anomalies with annual cycle removal – like does… Roy Spencer, doesn’t he?
Like this you mean?
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=2
No, something near to this:
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=2
I just chose a link on the same page (which shows anomalies as you asked).
“Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Anomalies
1967-2022 February”
1967-2022 February
” … which shows anomalies as you asked”
NO.
Such single-month or single-season (DJF, MAM, JJA, SON) departures are of no interest for me, unless I need them.
Thus again:
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=2
They are just summaries of the continuous data you show. Nothing more, nothing less.
No, they aren’t summaries. Not at all.
They are seasonal subsets, which have nothing in common with what I’m interested in.
Summaries are additions. Are you saying that adding together days in a month is not addition?
Sure there are different summaries for each month, but then a lot of them are in the Summer when little to no snow falls.
I like those graphs. They show there is not a significant change in snow cover. They really put paid to the climate change claptrap.
” They show there is not a significant change in snow cover. ”
That is exactly the reason why I contradicted the ugly source you posted.
The NH snow cover is incredibly stable, keeps indifferent of cooling / warming.
Why do you expect global warming to decrease snowfall? I expect warmer oceans to increase snowfall.
You need cold to make snow, not warming.
You need cold ground below 0C for snow to land on. Below that threshold it doesn’t matter how cold it is.
The amount of snow depends on the amount of water vapour, which depends on the temperature of the water it evaporated from.
With sea surface temperatures increasing the amount of water vapour carried onshore will increase and the mass of snowfall will increase.
The recent Noreasters in the US illustrate the principle.
The counter argument is that land temperatures are increasing and therefore land conditions cold enough for snow are becoming rarer. Noreasters will dump their water vapour as rain instead of snow.
You can make a rational argument either way. We’ll probably have to watch and see which way the trend goes.
You need cold ground with a maximum daily temperature of around 0c for the snow to persist. Above that it melts.
Water evaporates from Artic(and Antarctic) Oceans which are typically about -2C in Winter (this is sea water remember).
“recent Noreasters in the US” prove that you need cold for the WV to fall as snow.
” They really put paid to the climate change claptrap. ”
Certainly not: I don’t recall a decrease in snow cover ever being blamed on warming.
What is more controversial is what is responsible for the snow mass increase.
In layman’s terms, it’s likely that an increase in snow mass combined with no increase in snow cover means that the snow is getting wetter on average.
And wetter snow is most certainly not due to more cooling, but rather an increase in warm water vapor coming over cold regions, as has been the case in Austria and Germany in recent years, for example.
March temperatures in North America will remain below average due to SSW.
https://i.ibb.co/n81KWHN/gfs-T2m-us-1.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/100mb9065.png
If the weak La Niña persists over the next year due to weak solar winds, it could be the tipping point for a winter temperature drop in the Northern Hemisphere.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202203.gif
–But, climate scientists simply assume that the climate system has been in perfect, long-term harmonious balance, if not for humans. This is a pervasive, quasi-religious assumption of the Earth science community for as long as I can remember.
But this position is largely an anthropocentric statement of faith.
That doesn’t make it wrong. It’s just…uncertain.
Unfortunately, that uncertainty is never conveyed to the public or to policymakers.–
Hmm.
Well there is lot of vagueness. And lots of let’s do something stupid.
And any government is a hopeless mess at doing anything and
there appears to frantic need of government of distracting attention from their constant endless failure.
We are in an Ice Age.
And everyone knows it.
They may not be aware of how cold of Ice Age we are in.
But, how is warmer bad if lot of people are dying from the cold.
No group of people in the past, thought warmer was bad.
The big difference is the people worried about warming are now all living in houses which are warmed.
[None of set the their air temperature as cold as 15 C.]
But I imagine once the fad is over, the next fad could be even
worse.
People aren’t educated, and they being constantly brainwashed by
idiots.
but 15C is an average, an average between day and night and between winter and summer. Given that the typical diurnal temperature range at the sealevel is around 10K, the 15C temperature corresponds to the +20/+10 day/night temperatures, which is practically quite comfortable, though maybe be abit too cold but just a tiny bit. though, most people would probably prefer the 25C/15C type climate.
Earth is cold.
Earth evolved a polar bear.
Earth evolved a human- which isn’t helping.
Human is a tropical creature, which crazy enough to live
where it’s too cold for it.
But point is Earth is definitely not too hot or has no chance in
hell of getting too hot.
As I said, the problem is having too stupid of people working at NASA who failed to understand Venus.
We don’t have a global warming problem. We have a global cooling problem. We can live and feed everyone in warm. Many will die when the Holocene ends. How many can the planet feed during the next glacial?
Modern civilization and all history as we know it came during the Holocene. We don’t know much about anything before the Holocene.
“That doesnt make it wrong. Its justuncertain.”
I would it’s uncertain will enter glaciation within 100 years.
{though one might say we entered a glaciation period 5000 years ago. So, I mean something bad, like the Little Ice Age.}
Is any bad effect from adding .5 C to global average temperature?
Definitely, not.
Of course we already know a little ice age has lots of bad stuff.
Make everyone ( $26,000 __ $38,000 ) A Month Online Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work With No Prior q Experience Or Skills Required. ppq Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site
Open this link.. https://workstore01.blogspot.com/
I come back to this distorting info about snow cover, posted by Ken:
https://i0.wp.com/fcpp.org/wp-content/uploads/Chart-2.png?resize=781%2C469&ssl=1
This graph is sheer manipulation. It shows only a tiny part of what Rutgers Snow Lab publishes:
https://i.postimg.cc/PJXDbrc4/Rutgers-Snow-Cover-NH-weekly-1972-2022.png
As you can see: no increase of the NH snow cover to be seen.
A few trends, in Mkm² / decade:
– 1972 – 2022: -0.17 ± 0.23
– 2000 – 2022: -0.10 ± 0.80
– 2010 – 2022: -0.25 ± 1.98
But we see also that looking at linear estimates of absolute data does not give very meaningful results when the data is subject to strong seasonal dependencies. The standard error of the trends for more recent periods is here much too high.
*
As Roy Spencer so often explained, it is then more meaningful to use, out of exactly the same data, departures from a mean instead, e.g. WMO’s most recent recommendation (1991-2020):
https://i.postimg.cc/jS82J4QL/Rutgers-Snow-Cover-NH-weekly-anoms-1972-2022.png
This gives the following trends, in Mkm² / decade:
– 1972 – 2022: -0.17 ± 0.03
– 2000 – 2022: -0.13 ± 0.08
– 2010 – 2022: -0.35 ± 0.20
*
Thus, what has been written about Rutgers’ snow cover in
https://fcpp.org/2022/02/11/increasing-cold-extremes-worldwide-is-global-cooling-on-the-way/
Increasing Cold Extremes Worldwide: Is Global Cooling on the way?
Madhav Khandekar, Ray Garnett – February 11, 2022
is simply BS.
There are very certainly many places and sources which we can use to demonstrate some cooling.
But snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and its processing by Rutgers Snow Lab do not belong to them.
I think the Coolistas will be happy for a while when looking at how solar cycle SC 25 compares to SC 24 these days:
https://i.postimg.cc/SNtWHxrP/Solar-flux-F10-monthly-SC25-vs-SC24.png
The doubts about SC 25 being able to soon climb around SC 24 are slowly, surely increasing, aren’t they?
Ha ha haaah.
Are you predicting something or just talking out of your Arsch again
Eben again not only below the belt, but now right in the near of feces… Great.
S’il y en a un ici qui utilise son cul pour parler, Eben, c’est vous, et personne d’autre.
Once again, we see that not one of the cult idiots could solve a simple physics problem. Here’s the problem again:
***********
A rectangular box has ends with areas of 1 m^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?
***********
Here’s the solution:
At equilibrium, box is absorbing 1000 W and emitting 1000 W. It’s total area is 10 m^2, so it is emitting 100 W/m^2. The S/B equation then gives a temperature of 205K.
Now, here’s the reason this simple problem is important:
The box absorbs 1000 W/m^2, but it is only emitting 100 W/m^2. The box is in equilibrium. It is NOT increasing in temperature, even though it absorbs 10 times what it emits. Flux in/out of a system need not “balance”. This is basic physics. Flux does NOT “balance”. Yet in the AGW nonsense, they attempt to balance flux. They don’t know what they’re doing.
“…. The S/B equation then gives a temperature of 205K.”
I agree with everything up to that part.
“Yet in the AGW nonsense, they attempt to balance flux.”
No. ‘They’ do exactly what you do — balance *POWER* rather than *FLUX*.
** You correctly balance
power in = 1000 W/m^2 x 1 m^2 = 1000 W
power out = 100 W/m^2 x 10 m^2 = 1000 W.
** They correctly balance
power in = 960 W/m^2 x 1.28e14 m^2 = 1.22e17 W
power out = 240 W/m^2 x 5.1e14 m^2 = 1.22e17 W
If your approach is valid, then so is ‘theirs’.
[If you disagree with any specific thing I said, please quote me and tell me what you think is the corrected version.]
It’s interesting you didn’t attempt a solution to the problem, huh Folkerts?
But let’s organize your distortions of reality:
Distortion 1 — “They do exactly what you do”
Distortion 2 — “They correctly balance”
Do you stand by your distortions, Folkerts? Or do you want to start weaseling out of you own words now, before I bring in some reality? Once I slap down your nonsense, I’m not going to play your usual game where you keep twisting and distorting. We know you have no interest in science or reality. Make sure you will stand by those distortions. You won’t get a second chance.
“even though it absorbs 10 times what it emits.”
Wrong, no second chance Clint.
Clint doesn’t know what Clint is writing about since Clint still can’t correctly count flux areas like in Clint’s incorrect ice cube examples.
The box absorbs 1000 W/m^2/one end, but it is only emitting 2ends * 1m^2 each *100 W/m^2/end plus 4 sides *2m^2 each *100W/m^2/side.
Canceling flux terms correctly 1000W absorbed on one end =200W on ends emitted+800W on sides emitted = 1000W total emitted at equilibrium so Clint’s box flux does balance all per one second i.e. unit time when the side areas are correctly counted energy is conserved.
Sometimes Clint also counts rotations incorrectly & sometimes not, the reader has to carefully read & correct Clint R comments many times.
Folkerts got caught distorting reality, so here comes B4, to continue distorting. (B4 is the one that can’t find his “real 255K surface”, but to make up for it, he claims ice cubes can boil water.)
Neither solved the problem before I gave the solution. But B4 copied the solution and tried to act like it was his!
They have to distort simple examples like this. Their cult is built on perverting physics.
This really is basic physics; so is the measured real 255K earthen surface. Flux does “balance” when Clint R uses basic arithmetic to count sides correctly & find ice cubes can boil water. I know that’s all a mystery to Clint R.
“It’s interesting you didn’t attempt a solution to the problem, huh Folkerts?”
Huh? “The problem” was “2) What is the emitted flux?” I provided a simple solution for your example — one that agrees exactly with you. So Asked and Answered.
And, yes, I stand by my words.
* No one compares fluxes (in this case 1000W/m^2 vs 100 W/m^2; or 960W/m^2 vs 240W/m^2) to see if they balance.
* Everyone compares total power (in this case 1000 W vs 1000 W; or 1.22e17 W vs 1.22e17 W) to see if they balance.
They compare fluxes, Folkerts. You got caught perverting reality again.
From your own cult headquarters, NASA (bold my emphasis):
Earth’s climate is largely determined by the planet’s energy budget, i.e., the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation. It is measured by satellites and shown in W/m2. The imbalance (or rate of global heating; shown in figure as the “net absorbed” amount) grew from +0.6 W/m2 (2009 est.[1]) to above +1.0 W/m2 in 2019[2].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget
I gave you a chance to correct your distortions, but you can’t. You’re a braindead cult idiot.
As I explained, I won’t waste any more time with your distortions and perversions.
“They compare fluxes, Folkerts.”
As usual, you think too narrowly, Clint. You need to move past the “concrete operational” stage to the “formal operational” stage.
“the planet’s energy budget …”
Energy. That is the goal. How does the total energy in compare to total energy out?
“i.e. balance of incoming and outgoing radiation”
I.e a balance of the total energy radiated in vs total energy radiated out. So they are STILL talking about ENERGY.
“It [radiation] is measured by satellites and shown in W/m2.”
This is the subtle part that went over your head. Everyone else sees the connection that you can’t seem to grasp.
(Energy) = (flux) * (area) * (time)
[suitably integrated over the planet and over some time like a year]
or
(Energy in) = (flux in) * (area) * (time)
(Energy out) = (flux out) * (area) * (time)
Here’s the thing. Both are integrated over the same area (the earth’s surface). Both are integrated over the same time (say one year). That means the ENERGY balance in DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the FLUX balance.
* If you tell me the FLUX balance for a year (say “+0.6 W/m^2) I can immediately tell you the ENERGY balance for a year (ie +9e21 J)
* If you tell me the ENERGY balance for a year (say “-6e21 J”) I can immediately tell you the FLUX balance for a year (ie -0.4 W/m^2).
Flux is just a handy, intuitive number to quote. “Showing” a flux imbalance in W/m^2 is not a “distortion” (except perhaps for people who have no sense of proportions or averages or integrals).
Tim,
How has the Earth managed to cool from the molten state, without “energy out” exceeding “energy in”?
Would you mind explaining this process?
All that keyboarding and you still can’t pervert reality, Folkerts. You’re as pathetic as Norman.
Folkerts: No one compares fluxes … to see if they balance.
Reality: Earth’s climate is largely determined by the planet’s energy budget, i.e., the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation. It is measured by satellites and shown in W/m2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget
Reality always wins.
Maybe this analogy will help.
Person A: Which graduated cylinder contains more volume of water?
Person B: The one on the left, because the water is higher.
Person A: I didn’t ask about height, I asked about volume.
Person B: But volume is directly proportional to height.
Person A: Stop talking about height!
Water volume difference is directly proportional to height difference. Similarly, energy imbalance is directly proportional to flux imbalance. (Where average flux is defined as the total radiation per second divided by the total area.)
Perhaps you are confused by the implied “average” in the statement you quoted. The “+0.6 W/m2” in your quote is clearly the *average* flux. No one could think that meant a difference of +0.6 W/m2 everywhere all the time.
Tim,
How has the Earth managed to cool from the molten state, without energy out exceeding energy in?
Would you mind explaining this process?
Mike Flynn,
You mind explaining why you now hide under a sock puppet?
Now, here’s the reason this simple problem is important:
The box absorbs 1000 W/m^2, but it is only emitting 100 W/m^2. The box is in equilibrium. It is NOT increasing in temperature, even though it absorbs 10 times what it emits. Flux in/out of a system need not “balance”. This is basic physics. Flux does NOT “balance”. Yet in the AGW nonsense, they attempt to balance flux. They don’t know what they’re doing.
“How has the Earth managed to cool from the molten state, without energy out exceeding energy in?”
That’s easy! Energy out HAS exceeded energy in — many times. Everyone knows and acknowledges that. I can’t figure out your obsession with this straw man.
* For the first multi-million years, energy out exceeded energy in.
* At the start of each glacial period, energy out exceeded energy in.
* At the end of each glacial period, energy in exceeded energy out.
This balance changes based on current conditions. Right now we happen to be in a period (spanning several decades) when energy in exceeds energy out.
“…even though it absorbs 10 times what it emits. “
Suppose a tank gets 10 gal/min from one pipe, and leaks 1 gal per minute from each of 10 pipes. By your logic, it “absorbs 10 times what it emits” because 10 gal/min is 10x as large as 1 gal/min. No, the only logical, intuitive interpretation for the “amount the tank absorbs” is the total water flow = 10 gal/min. Just like “amount the tank emits” is also 10 gal/min.
Just like the only logical, intuitive interpretation is that your box absorbs exactly as much (10 W) as it emits (10 W).
“Flux in/out of a system need not “balance””
And still no one has said it must!
“they attempt to balance flux.”
No, it is always a weighted *average* flux over an object = (Total power) / (total area of the object)
For your box
(Ave Flux In) = (1000+0+0+0+0+0)/(1+2+2+2+2+1) = 100 W/m^2
(Ave Flux Out) = (100+200+200+200+200+100/(1+2+2+2+2+1) = 100 W/m^2
They are equal and hence temperature is constant.
For the earth we would need integrate, but the general idea is the same. The average in and the average out are both (approximately) 240 W/m^2, and the temperature is (approximately) constant.
Funny, Clint R can’t count even count box sides correctly since Clint’s box is emitting 100 W/m^2 from half of ONE side. Your box has 10 emitting areas with 1m^2 area each Clint. Your box fluxes are actually in balance! Clint R avoids dealing with reality even though Clint knows reality always wins.
Clint remains the top laughing stock of this blog.
Folkerts and B4 are back attempting to pervert reality, again.
Of course, they must pervert reality to protect their cult. Truth, honesty, science, and reality are NOTHING to the cult. Let me demonstrate:
Folkerts, TRUE or FALSE?
The rectangular box is emitting 100 W/m^2.
… from one half of one side and each end.
True.
Count the sides correctly Clint R and your fluxes balance in and out.
“The rectangular box is emitting 100 W/m^2.”
Of course that it true. As I have already stated.
Your turn.
True or false. The rectangular box is both absorbing and emitting an AVERAGE of 100 W/m^2 over the entire 10 m^2.
False. You should not “average” flux absorbed over surface area that is not receiving said flux. The box absorbs over only 1 m^2. Thus it absorbs 1000 W/m^2, even “on average”. The difference between the box example and the Earth is that the Earth rotates, so that it receives sunlight over its entire surface area over time. For this reason “they” consider the “averaging” to be justified.
But, is it? Discuss.
The correct answer is “True”, with no perversions, distortions, or distractions.
They were forced to give the correct answer, but they continue with their efforts to pervert reality. They are confusing “flux” with “energy”, either from ignorance or dishonesty. Once you take area into account, you are talking energy.
1000 W/m^2 is flux. 1000 Watts is power. 1000 Watts = 1000 Joules/sec. 1000 Joules/sec in one second is 1000 Joules. 1000 Joules is energy.
The AGW nonsense, in the bogus “Energy balance”, balances flux, NOT energy. Which takes us back where we started:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1200915
The answer to my question is “True”.
The answer to Tim’s question is “False”. The box is NOT absorbing an average of 100 W/m^2. It is absorbing 1000 W/m^2 at only one end. If you want to “average”, you must convert to energy by taking into account the area. So you could say the box is absorbing 100 Joules/sec, averaged over its surface area. But, it is NOT absorbing 100 W/m^2.
So now Clint admits the box fluxes do balance in and out. Clint R changes from “Flux does NOT “balance”” admitting Clint’s original error in counting areas. Very entertaining.
No wonder Norman is so infatuated with you, B4. You misrepresent my words so well. It’s like you were born to be a pervert.
No misrepresentation Clint since you admit by writing: “So you could say the box is absorbing 100 Joules/sec, averaged over its surface area. But, it is NOT absorbing 100 W/m^2.” Your box is NOT absorbing 100 W/m^2 as you write, in reality it is absorbing 1000 W/m^2 flux in and that is = 100*10 flux out as you now admit.
Remember: reality always wins.
“But, is it? Discuss.”
Still not answered what happens if 500W/m^2 (1000W/m^2 / 2) is shone at each ‘pole’.
On a sphere that is.
Clint R
If you are unhappy with flux, why not do the calculation with quantities? Do it in Joules.
entropic…”If you are unhappy with flux, why not do the calculation with quantities? Do it in Joules”.
***
Joules and w/m^2 are measures of mechanical energy, that is, work. They are all derivatives of horsepower. One has to be careful when applying them to EM fluxes since EM can do no work and it carries no heat.
It is only when EM is converted in a mass to heat that w/m^2 or joules can be applied. In free space, EM can only be measures as a flux, wherein a cross-sectional area, so many flux lines per unit area are a factor.
However you define it “capacity for doing work” is flowing down to Earths’s surface from the Sun, doing work and then slightly less than came in is escaping back to space.
Increasing temperatures indicate that a proportion of this “capacity for doing work” is accumulating on Earth.
You are unhappy describing this flow and accumulation using fluxes and Joules. What units do use when describing this process?
This applies if ideally conductive.
Nothing is ideally conductive.
But could be something similar if cube has transparent and reflective elements. Using diamonds and stuff.
Though it is fairly small, so might not need it to be that complicated, so maybe just quartz over silver would work- to be “close enough”.
Quartz over silver is quite cold in full sunlight, BUT it’s a shining silver surface [or it’s for insulation], and need blackbody surface to absorb the 1000 watts {to be simple}. So, yeah, I go back to, it would probably would be fairly complicated. A strange machine {which seems pointless- unless trying to cloak in space {which is hard}.
Roy…thanks you for putting up with us!!!
An outsider arriving here may think he/she has arrived at a strange place but having been here a few years, I think you have the best, most open-minded blog on the Net.
Hope you and your family are well.
Yup. Idiots who think that Newton’s 3 Laws don’t apply to gravity must be frustrating.
Ball4 still believes in magic. Earlier, he wrote –
“This really is basic physics; so is the measured real 255K earthen surface. Flux does “balance” when Clint R uses basic arithmetic to count sides correctly & find ice cubes can boil water.”
I still haven’t seen anybody to use ice cubes to boil water. Or even using ice as an insulator to keep liquid water above its freezing point.
This is the stuff of dreams – and “climate scientists”.
As to fluxual nonsense, it is easy to concentrate the IR from ice to achieve any desired number of W/m2. 1 000, 1 000 000, it won’t make any difference. Likewise, given enough ice, you can generate as much power as you wish. For example, given 1 m2 of ice emitting 300 W/m2, after 1 hour, 300 W/hours of power have been emitted. Useless power, of course, if you want to power a heat engine where the heat sink is above freezing.
According to ignorant morons like Ball4, 1200 W, from 4 m2 of ice, can be used to boil water. Should be no trouble at all to run a 1 hp (746 W) steam engine!
Climate science physics at its finest. Reject reality, and put fantasy in its place.
To Ball4 via Swenson’s comment.
Using the term flux to represent EM in the atmosphere is ingenuous. It presumes the photon theory but EM in the atmosphere is measured as a wavelength or a frequency, therefore it has to be a wave. Waves don’t have a flux.
Each single wavelength portion of an EM field varies in amplitude around a centre point as the wave moves through space. If you want to slice that field so you are looking at it from a right angle, you might argue that each point is varying in the field instantaneously, but that is not a flux field as much as Newton’s ‘fluxion’, which means an instantaneous rate of change at a point in a field.
The idea of flux better represents a magnetic field, where a field density can be measured between magnetic poles or even between the north pole of a magnet and the south pole. Then again, we are dealing with just a magnetic field whereas with EM we have an added electric field perpendicular to the plane of the magnetic field.
When we talk about ice emitting an IR flux we don’t have the slightest idea what is going on. It emits something but the form of that something is still a mystery. We know from experience what it means to sense the emission from a 1500 watt oven ring or a hairdryer, and claiming that ice causes the equivalent sensation of about 1/5th of that radiation is serious bunk.
Gordon & Mike…err Swenson, consider a glass of tap water with some dry ice in it in your room temperature kitchen making some artificial fog (don’t breathe that!). Quickly replace the dry ice with regular ice cubes. The artificial fog stops and the mixture warms. You have raised the temperature of the water mixture with added ice cubes! This is not a miracle.
Gordon, in photon language, the ice cubes & water emit photons of light at all frequencies measuring brightness 32F in your room temperature IR thermometer display. In wave language, the ice cubes & water emit waves of light at all frequencies measuring brightness 32F in your room temperature IR thermometer display.
No difference. That is no miracle either.
Ball4,
You moron. Try it – in reality.
If the water temperature falls below freezing, it becomes ice. If it doesn’t, adding ice to liquid water (which of course cannot be below 0 C) will not make it warmer.
You are such a moron that you are convinced you can boil water with ice cubes, but you refuse to accept the reality that you cannot achieve this miracle.
Carry on being a moron. You could try being so dimwitted as to claim your imaginary water and ice mixture is precisely 0 C. Then you could try claiming that adding ice would make the water hotter, but all you would get is sniggers at your stupidity.
Give up dummy – you have snookered yourself well and truly.
Nope Swenson, you are wrong, in reality I made the water mixture warmer by adding the warmer ice cubes and removing the cooler dry ice. Similar to removing the cold of space and replacing that space with the warmer than space atm.
Try harder to actually deal with reality Mike…err Swenson, I know it hurts Swenson but there it is.
Ball4,
No, you moron, you didn’t.
If you reduce the temperature of the water mixture below freezing – it freezes! No longer liquid water.
As long as it remains liquid, you can’t make it hotter by adding ice, you idiot!
You don’t think, do you?
Maybe you should try actually carrying out some of your imaginary “experiments”. You will soon discover how reality doesn’t care what your fantasy contains.
Moron.