Home/BlogSUMMARY
The proper way of looking for causal relationships between time series data (e.g. between atmospheric CO2 and temperature) is discussed. While statistical analysis alone is unlikely to provide “proof” of causation, use of the ‘master equation’ is shown to avoid common pitfalls. Correlation analysis of natural and anthropogenic forcings with year-on-year changes in Mauna Loa CO2 suggest a role for increasing global temperature at least partially explaining observed changes in CO2, but purely statistical analysis cannot tie down the magnitude. One statistically-based model using anthropogenic and natural forcings suggests ~15% of the rise in CO2 being due to natural factors, with an excellent match between model and observations for the COVID-19 related downturn in global economic activity in 2020.
Introduction
The record of atmospheric CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa, Hawaii since 1959 is the longest continuous record we have of actual (not inferred) atmospheric CO2 concentrations. I’ve visited the laboratory where the measurements are taken and received a tour of the facility and explanation of their procedures.
The geographic location is quite good for getting a yearly estimate of global CO2 concentrations because it is largely removed from local anthropogenic sources, and at a high enough altitude that substantial mixing during air mass transport has occurred, smoothing out sudden changes due to, say, transport downwind of the large emissions sources in China. The measurements are nearly continuous and procedures have been developed to exclude data which is considered to be influenced by local anthropogenic or volcanic processes.
Most researchers consider the steady rise in Mauna Loa CO2 since 1959 to be entirely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels. I won’t go into the evidence for an anthropogenic origin here (e.g. the decrease in atmospheric oxygen, and changes in atmospheric carbon isotopes over time). Instead, I will address evidence for some portion of the CO2 increase being natural in origin. I will be using empirical data analysis for this. The results will not be definitive; I’m mostly trying to show how difficult it is to determine cause-and-effect from the available statistical data analysis alone.
Inferring Causation from the “Master Equation”
Many processes in physics can be addressed with some form of the “master equation“, which is a simple differential equation with the time derivative of one (dependent) variable being related to some combination of other (independent) variables that are believed to cause changes in the dependent variable. This equation form is widely used to describe the time rate of change of many physical processes, such as is done in weather forecast models and climate models.
In the case of the Mauna Loa CO2 data, Fig. 1 shows the difference between the raw data (Fig. 1a) and the more physically-relevant year-to-year changes in CO2 (Fig. 1b).
Fig. 1. Mauna Loa CO2 data, 1959-2021, show as (a) yearly average values, and (b) year-on year changes in those values (dCO2/dt).
If one believes that year-to-year changes in atmospheric CO2 are only due to anthropogenic inputs, then we can write:
dCO2/dt ~ Anthro(t),
which simply means that the year-to-year changes in CO2 (dCO2/dt, Fig. 1b) are a function of (due to) yearly anthropogenic emissions over time (Anthro(t)). In this case, year-on-year changes in Mauna Loa CO2 should be highly correlated with yearly estimates of anthropogenic emissions. The actual relationship, however, is clearly not that simple, as seen in Fig. 2, where the anthropogenic emissions curve is much smoother than the Mauna Loa data.
Fig. 2. Mauna Loa year-on-year observed changes in CO2 versus estimate of global anthropogenic emissions.
Therefore, there are clearly natural processes at work in addition to the anthropogenic source. Also note those natural fluctuations are much bigger than the ~6% reduction in emissions between 2019 and 2020 due to the COVID-19 economic slowdown, a point that was emphasized in a recent study that claimed satellite CO2 observations combined with a global model of CO2 transports was able to identify the small reduction in CO2 emissions.
So, if you think there are also natural causes of year-to-year changes in CO2, you could write,
dCO2/dt ~ Anthro(t) + Natural(t),
which would approximate what carbon cycle modelers use, since it is known that El Nino and La Nina (as well as other natural modes of climate variability) also impact yearly changes in CO2 concentrations.
Or, if you think year-on-year changes are due to only sea surface temperature, you can write,
dCO2/dt ~ SST(i),
and you can then correlate year-on-year changes in CO2 to a dataset of yearly average SST.
Or, if you think causation is in the opposite direction, with changes in CO2 causing year-on-year changes in SST, you can write,
dSST/dt ~ CO2(t),
in which case you can correlate the year-on-year changes in SST with CO2 concentrations.
In addition to the master equation having a basis in physical processes, it avoids the problem of linear trends in two datasets being mistakenly attributed to a cause-and-effect relationship. Any time series of data that has just a linear trend is perfectly correlated with every other time series having just a linear trend, and yet that perfect correlation tells us nothing about causation.
But when we use the time derivative of the data, it is only the fluctuations from a linear trend that are correlated with another variable, giving some hope of inferring causation. If you question that statement, imagine that Mauna Loa CO2 has been rising at exactly 2 ppm per year, every year (instead of the variations seen in Fig. 1b). This would produce a linear trend, with no deviations from that trend. But in that case the year-on-year changes are all 2 ppm/year, and since there is no variation in those data, they cannot be correlated with anything, because there is no variance to be explained. Thus, using the master equation we avoid inferring cause-and-effect from linear trends in datasets.
Now, this data manipulation doesn’t guarantee we can infer causation, because with a limited set of data (63 years in the case of Mauna Loa CO2 data), you can expect to get some non-zero correlation even when no causal relationship exists. Using the ‘master equation’ just puts us a step closer to inferring causation.
Correlation of dCO2/dt with Various Potential Forcings
Lag correlations of the dCO2/dt data in Fig. 1b with estimates of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and with a variety of natural climate indicies, are shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Lag correlations of Mauna Loa dCO2/dt with various other datasets: Global anthropogenic emissions, tropical sea surface temperature (ERSST), global average surface temperature (HadCRUT4), the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO), the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD), the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), Mauna Loa atmospheric transmission (mostly major volcanoes),the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).
The first thing we notice is that the highest correlation is achieved with the surface temperature datasets, (tropical SST or global land+ocean HadCRUT4). This suggests at least some role for increasing surface temperatures causing increasing CO2, especially since if I turn the causation around (correlate dSST/dt with CO2), I get a very low correlation, 0.05.
Next we see that the yearly estimates of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions is also highly correlated with dCO2/dt. You might wonder, if the IPCC is correct and all of the CO2 increase has been due to anthropogenic emissions, why doesn’t it have the highest correlation? The answer could be as simple as noise in the data, especially considering the emissions estimates from China (the largest emitter) are quite uncertain.
The role of major volcanic eruptions in the Mauna Loa CO2 record is of considerable interest. When the atmospheric transmission of sunlight is reduced from a major volcanic eruption (El Chichon in 1983, and especially Pinatubo in 1991), the effect on atmospheric CO2 is to reduce the rate of rise. This is believed to be the result of scattered, diffuse sky radiation penetrating deeper into vegetation canopies and causing enhanced photosynthesis and thus a reduction in atmospheric CO2.
Regression Models of Mauna Loa CO2
At this point we can choose whatever forcing terms in Fig. 3 we want, and do a linear regression against dCO2/dt to get a statistical model of the Mauna Loa CO2 record.
For example, if I use only the anthropogenic term, the regression model is:
dCO2/dt = 0.491*Anthro(t) + 0.181,
with 57.8% explained variance.
Let’s look at what those regression terms mean. On average, the yearly increase in Mauna Loa CO2 equals 49.1% of total global emissions (in ppm/yr) plus a regression constant of 0.181 ppm/yr. If the model was perfect (only global anthropogenic emissions cause the CO2 rise, and we know those yearly emissions exactly, and Mauna Loa CO2 is a perfect estimate of global CO2), the regression constant of 0.181 would be 0.00. Instead, the anthro emissions estimates do not perfectly capture the rise in atmospheric CO2, and so a 0.181 ppm/yr “fudge factor” is in effect included each year by the regression to account for the imperfections in the model. It isn’t known how much of the model ‘imperfection’ is due to missing source terms (e.g. El Nino and La Nina or SST) versus noise in the data.
By using additional terms in the regression, we can get a better fit to the Mauna Loa data. For example, I chose a regression model that includes four terms, instead of one: Anthro, MEI, IOD, and Mauna Loa atmospheric transmission. In that case I can improve the regression model explained variance from 57.8% to 82.3%. The result is shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Yearly Mauna Loa CO2 observations versus a 4-term regression model based upon anthropogenic and natural forcing terms.
In this case, the only substantial deviations of the model from observations is due to the El Chichon and Pinatubo volcanoes, since the Pinatubo event caused a much larger reduction in atmospheric CO2 than did El Chichon, despite the volcanoes producing very similar reductions in solar transmission measurements at Mauna Loa.
In this case, the role of anthropogenic emissions is reduced by 15% from the anthro-only regression model. This suggests (but does not prove) a limited role for natural factors contributing to increasing CO2 concentrations.
The model match to observations during the COVID-19 year of 2020 is very close, with only a 0.02 ppm difference between model and observations, compared to the 0.24 ppm estimated reduction in total anthropogenic emissions from 2019 to 2020.
Conclusions
The Mauna Loa CO2 data need to be converted to year-to-year changes before being empirically compared to other variables to ferret out possible causal mechanisms. This in effect uses the ‘master equation’ (a time differential equation) which is the basis of many physically-based treatments of physical systems. It, in effect, removes the linear trend in the dependent variable from the correlation analysis, and trends by themselves have no utility in determining cause-versus-effect from purely statistical analyses.
When the CO2 data are analyzed in this way, the greatest correlations are found with global (or tropical) surface temperature changes and estimated yearly anthropogenic emissions. Curiously, reversing the direction of causation between surface temperature and CO2 (yearly changes in SST [dSST/dt] being caused by increasing CO2) yields a very low correlation.
Using a regression model that has one anthropogenic source term and three natural forcing terms, a high level of agreement between model and observations is found, including during the COVID-19 year of 2020 when global CO2 emissions were reduced by about 6%.
I didn’t see ocean temperature as a causative factor. Henry’s Law pretty much dictates atmospheric CO2. Warm the oceans and you degas CO2. The oceans exchange many x man’s production of CO2 on an annual basis, and a small change in Ocean degasing can easily overwhelm anything man produces. Has anyone bothered to measure the change in atmospheric CO2 due to the warming of the oceans?
This is good. I’ve wondered what is causing the change in surface temperature. Is it Solar activity or some cycle, or what?
Also, the nice thing about the surface temperature correlation is that inflow and outflow should independently linearly correlate with inflow and outflow.
I said that wrong. Surface temperature should independently correlate with inflow and outflow.
hallo
From what I’ve read, Henry’s Law combined with an average ocean mixed layer temperature increase of 1 deg. C, would lead to an equilibrium increase in atmospheric CO2 of only around 10 ppm, not the 100 ppm that has been observed.
Dr. Spencer, how about working backwards on this one.
1) How much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere over the last 60 years?
2) What is the volume of the Epipelagic Zone of the Ocean (Top 200 meters)(Layer that is impacted by incoming visible radiation)
3) Temperature change required of the Epipelagic Zone to release the CO2 listed in #1 above.
4) How much has the Epipelagic Zone temperature increased over the past 60 years.
I’m showing that ocean temperatures have increased by about 0.76 C since 1959 when the CO2 measurements started.
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/19418.jpeg
Ocean temperatures and CO2 also look pretty highly correlated over that time period, both showing a relatively constant and smooth increase.
The calculation I suggested should be relatively simple.
https://youtu.be/eM56JYel1aM
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/inchi?ID=C124389&Mask=10#Solubility
Helllo
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-20) 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.
.
>>>>>>>>>>
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-30) 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/
One must add in the complication that it isnt just 1 degree of mixed layer temp, but for example the warm Gulf Stream being able to absorb (by Henrys law) much more CO2 as it moves North and cools by by 25C before sinking into the abyss with its high CO2 load, which must appear somewhere about a millennium later.integrated over all the worldwide ocean currents.
Maybe the relationship of Henry’s Law to ocean CO2 exchange is not so well understood? The amount of exchange depends on surface area. Waves with whitecap foam and droplet sprays add huge unknowns.
After all, human lungs are said to have the surface area of a tennis court. Foamy waves have similar morphology.
What is the air/water interface area of the World’s shorelines? https://youtu.be/vPhg6sc1Mk4
Why wouldn’t this order-of-magnitude for O2 apply to CO2? Perhaps 10 ppm is really 100 ppm.
“We demonstrate that two-thirds of the annual oxygen uptake occurs over only 40 days in winter and is associated with a bubble-mediated component of airsea gas transfer linked to episodic high winds, strong cooling and deep convective mixing. By neglecting the bubble-mediated flux component, global models may underestimate oxygen and atmospheric potential oxygen uptake in regions of convective deep-water formation by up to an order of magnitude. ” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-020-0532-2
It’s a transport problem, not a static pool. There is a continuous flow into and out of the surface system. Any imbalance leads to a trend.
The rate of change still shows the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 tracking temperature anomaly.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/derivative/plot/uah6/scale:0.18/offset:0.171
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1249706
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-32) 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/
Bit late to this – you would expect some (how much?) CO2 to be involved in primary production by phytoplankton. So the release of CO2 from just Henry’s Law and atmospheric levels is too simplistic. I guess the carbon cycle modellers try and factor that in.
One of the problems with this analysis might be that SST could be a very poor proxy for ocean temperatures because it comes from a tiny thin skin of top ocean and would be significantly biased hot on still clear sky days.
CO2isLife says:
..”Warm the oceans and you degas CO2.”
___________________________________
Thats not what Henry`s Law says.
It may happen, but not necessarily.
It depends on partial pressure in atmosphere, and in ocean.
Actually oceans still absorb CO2 and dont yet degas.
Glaciation cycles are estimated to be about a 5-10C variation in average global temperature.
That drives about a 100 ppmv change in atmospheric CO2 level that takes thousands of years.
But weve measured a 100 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 level since 1958:
For global warming to cause such a large increase in CO2 level would obviously require MORE than than the 5-10C global temperature change (Earth has when going from glacial maximum to peak interglacial warmth.
Has the Earth warmed by more than 5-10C since 1958?
Of course not.
much more CO2 in the atmosphere than there should be based on Henrys Law and the current average temperature of the ocean surface.
The extra CO2 is the result of centuries of accumulation of man made CO2 emissions.
The temperature dependence of Henrys Law decreases effective CO2 solubility in water by about 3% per 1C of surface water warming
A 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 partial pressure increases effective CO2 solubility in water by 50%.
Which one has the greater effect, +50% or -3%?
Ocean temperature (and salinity) is stable (at about 4C) below the thermocline. There is not enough dissolved CO2 above the main (80% of delta T) thermocline for Henrys Law, and about delta +1C at the surface, to explain the Keeling CO2 Curve. The oceans average about 4000 meters depth. That entire column is CO2 saturated. Only about 750/4000, or the top 20%, is subject to any Henrys law argument.
Much CO2 is exchanged between the different reservoirs, but that doesnt influence the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Richard,
In line with the premise or question raised by the top post, how much, if any, additional CO2 other than from fossil fuel emissions could be contributing to the increase in atmospheric CO2?
Humans burning fossil fuels put much more CO2 into the troposphere than the measured increase of CO2. Therefore nature must be absorbing a large portion of the added man made CO2. Why would it matter to guess all the details of natural sources adding and deleting CO2 if the net number is strongly negative?
You have a point. But.
The claim that humans are responsible for all of the increase in CO2 is useful to the AGW propagandists for scaring the shyt out of people. Combine that with CO2 causes all the global warming and, wait for it…
…you are paying twice as much for gas.
Yes, all facts are not equally true. If one turns out to be supportive of AGW, we need to do our best to make i
..do our best to discredit it.
Humans adding 50% more CO2 to the troposphere should impede Earth’s ability to cool itself. Amount unknown. That does not mean all, or even most, of the last +1 degree C. warming was caused by CO2. … But even if all that warming WAS cause by CO2, it has been good news for the past 47 years, and it makes no sense to want to stop the trend.
CO2 is greening the planet which can then feed more people.
Global Warming since 1975 most affecting higher colder latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, mainly during the xix coldest months of the years, and mainly at night. Why would anyone consider that to be bad news? We love our milder winters with less snow here in Michigan.
“Climate change” is UNRELATED to past ACTUAL changes of the climate.
To smarmy leftists, “Climate change” means PREDICTIONS of rapid, dangerous global warming, at a rate 2x to 3x faster than ACTUAL global warming in the cherry-picked 1975 to 2020 period.
I say “cherry picked” because CO2 emissions did not begin in 1975. By 1975 there were already about 25 years of significant CO2 emissions with no global warming at all,
In fact. there had been significant global cooling from 1940 to 1975, reported by NCAR, before the government bureaucrat science fraud “adjusted” it away.
RG still not admitting he mistook F for C.
The sources of CO2 are easily identified. The OCO-2 satellite data shows the CO2 in the atmosphere. NASA don’t publish a global, 12 month view of this, but it has been calculated from the data and published (search for OCO-2 global map from Eric Swenson). The major sources of CO2 are the rain forests, the North Atlantic and the tundra of Canada and Russia. This last one is usually missed and isn’t part of the IPCC carbon cycle. Humans are less than 4% due to the equilibrium the atmosphere must be in based on a 4 year residence time.
Thanks Dr. Spencer. You (with very few others) always provide clear explanations.
Mauna Loa has come up a lot for me recently. I found this article (with a lot of others) about a mont ago https://www.climateclock.no/2022/01/17/the-mauna-loa-co2-signature/
Is Harald Yndestad totally off the wall proposing a long-cycle tidal effect on atmospheric CO2?
The period of record it too short to talk seriously about lunar periodicities in the data. There will be all kinds of spurious correlations you could find with other data on such short time scales. The only possible connection I could think of is the lunar tidal forcing of deep-ocean mixing over bottom topography, and even that I don’t see how there would be a cause and effect relationship to atmospheric CO2.
Dr. Spencer, as a degreed mathematician who has completed detailed analyses of the Mauna Loa record, I can assure you CO2 growth rates follow temperature and ENSO variations and do not follow human emissions at all. I would love the opportunity to show you the correct way to analyze the data.
The Mauna Loa record just recorded the 1st drop in CO2 levels for the month of March ever since records began in 1958. One factor which has contributed to this is ENSO temperatures are well below the 1950-2022 average, while NINO 1+2 is has entered a positive rate of change. The latter indicates a slowdown in the upwelling of CO2 rich cold water from deep ocean currents.
I have uploaded a quick look at some of the data here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1so2f899SVmQavkHuiz8YNYT69TRfYOZy/view?usp=sharing
You are on the right track. The key point here is that it is a transport process. Static calculations of oceanic outgassing do not apply.
The correlation of CO2 rate of change with temperature anomaly is astounding.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/derivative/plot/uah6/scale:0.18/offset:0.171
The current CO2 level represents the cumulative sum of all increases and decreases from the past. This tells you the best model to use for analysis is an autoregressive model. Dr. Spencer is correct to look at the growth rate of CO2, that is simply the first difference of CO2 levels. However, that does not make the time series stationary. It is really necessary to difference the data a second time. This of course is the change in the rate of change. Acceleration, in other words.
However, to get a fully realized analysis you really need to get down to monthly averages as the interannual variation has a decided seasonality.
Another point here is if you difference the major temperature series such as that from NASA GISS over the time frame of the Mauna Loa record you will find the first difference is sufficient to render them stationary. But it takes a 2nd differencing to make CO2 levels stationary.
This tells you the major temperature series and CO2 levels are not cointegrated. Which means they do not follow each other. As such, anyone purporting to show temperature follows CO2 is showing a spurious relationship.
Climate science appears to be decades out of date when it comes to data science.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1249706
The purported relationship is between these two:
https://tinyurl.com/yzmj6tax
T and Logarithm of Co2, and other GHG.
By the way, the UAH time series is also best modeled using an autoregressive model. Using a simple linear regression against time as a model does not do an adequate job as a quick examination of the residuals shows there isn’t a linear relationship there. The residuals are autocorrelated and they are not normally distributed.
The plot at the link below shows changes in temperature are negatively correlated to anomalies from the prior month. This means the time series is mean reverting. In other words, it has a tendency to decrease when above average and increase when below average. It can be adequately described as a stationary AR(1) process. The negative coefficient indicates this and it is statistically significant.
It gives the appearance of a trend, but the average increase is statistically equal to zero. It should be viewed as a series of events which result in temporary deviations from the long term average. Large volcanic eruptions which eject aerosols into the stratosphere cause stratospheric warming and cooling in the lower troposphere. El Nino events result in warming while La Nina events result in cooling.
However, the expected value for Delta T, that is how much the temperature anomaly will increase or decrease next month remains zero.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OVB0RN5KJOslekHCUsrhytRBM_QSINLG/view?usp=sharing
Nate has to take the log of underivatized CO2 data and use three scale factors to obfuscate an almost perfect fingerprint correlation showing the experimentally observed temperature influence on CO2.
He has no experimental data to support the hypothetical AGW meme his bogus graph suggests. Another failed attempt to challenge anyone who dares oppose his religion.
Bart,
Please explain, “Static calculations of oceanic outgassing do not apply.”
Chic – It means the oceans are not a static, shallow pond which rapidly equilibrates with the atmosphere according to Henry’s Law. CO2 laden waters take centuries to downwell to the depths and reemerge to release their ancient cargo.
The flows upward and downward never stop. Any temperature induced imbalance therefore produces a sustained increase or decrease which shows up as an integrated quantity. This is why it is the rate of change of CO2 that tracks temperature anomaly.
“Any temperature induced imbalance therefore produces a sustained increase or decrease which shows up as an integrated quantity.”
Except it is yet another speculation that has no data to support it. No identified mechanism. No quantitative prediction that it makes. It is not a real theory, just a hand-wave.
And the only data available for a previous period of temperature change is from the MWP to the LIA, supposedly a 0.5 C drop, shows a sustained 7 ppm drop in CO2.
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif
Not consistent with the changes over the last century.
“Not consistent with the changes over the last century.”
That’s because in your mind only FF emissions contribute to the 100+ ppm increase in CO2 since the LIA. But if temperature only ever contributes 10 ppm/C to the change in a steady increase in CO2 from other sources not in play before the LIA, the data is reasonably consistent. 7 ppm/0.5 C = 14 ppm/C.
“But if temperature only ever contributes 10 ppm/C to the change in a steady increase in CO2 from other sources not in play before the LIA, the data is reasonably consistent. 7 ppm/0.5 C = 14 ppm/C.”
Yep. I agree. Bart cannot explain the CO2 rise of last century with T change.
Thank you blogger for sharing, I love your blog and learned a lot from it.https://www.driends.com/
… ” as a degreed mathematician who has completed detailed analyses of the Mauna Loa record, I can assure you CO2 growth rates follow temperature and ENSO variations and do not follow human emissions at all”
You have identified yourself as a degreed mathematician who is clueless about the basics of climate science.
Humans are emitting over 30 gigatons of CO2 into the air every year ( data from fossil fuel usage data )
CO2 levels in the air are increasing by only around 20 gigatons per year. ( data from Mauna Loa CO2 measurements )
Where are those missing 10+ gigatons of CO2 going?
There is only one possible explanation: nature is absorbing that CO2 out of the air. Nature is taking more CO2 OUT of the air than it is putting INTO the air.
I looked at your analysis and saw that CO2 dropped significantly after Pinatubo. Why?
I’m curious because we’ve been having remarkably orange sunsets here in the Southern hemisphere, with a red afterglow up to one hour after official sunset. I can only think this is due to sulphate aerosol in the stratosphere from the Tongan eruption early this year.
Is there an interaction between sulphate and CO2 in the stratosphere? Or some other mechanism?
Is that same mechanism now at play and responsible for the March drop in CO2?
I would interpret this result differently.
The mass balance argument, that the annual anthropogenic emissions are larger than the net atmospheric change indicates that the rise is anthropogenic. That is, the orange line in figure 2 is above the blue line (excepting 1973) which is to say that the natural sinks and emissions are a net sink.
What Dr Spencer has shown here is that the net natural flux is more variable than anthropogenic emissions and that the natural flux is well correlated with ocean surface temperatures and similar metrics.
What hasn’t been shown, again with the exception of 1973, is that nature is anything but a net absorber of CO2 over the past 50 years.
I don’t think that result is surprising to anyone who pays attention to such things, nor does it contradict any mainstream thesis.
I agree. The only real question is what is happening to the excess, and whether there is some human induced method such as tree planing that could affect that relationship? Approximately half of the anthropogenic CO2 is accounted for in the atmosphere by calculation so that is rather convincing.
That should read tree “planting”. Some say there is evidence that a significant amount of greening of the earth is taking place already.
Nice work.
“Curiously, reversing the direction of causation between surface temperature and CO2 (yearly changes in SST [dSST/dt] being caused by increasing CO2) yields a very low correlation.”
Would a small, short term, variation in CO2, even be theoretically predicted to cause a noticeable change in SST?
Seems unlikely given the slow response of the ocean (high heat capacity), and the small fractional change in GHE forcing.
>
No, especially if CO2 follows temperature.
Commenting should follow reading the post, tho.
I did read the post. Maybe you should?
Why are you citing suggesting an if-by-whiskey that is clearly contradicted by the post, then?
Willard, please stop trolling.
What evidence do you have that 21st century CO2 is following temperature?
Surely if you were correct the Mauna Low curve should have flattened during the sceptics’ proposed 1998-2011 and 2016-2022 pauses
If you look at the history on long times scales it is a many decades lag.
Also, Salby presents it in his lectures. Seasonally, it is 90 degrees out of phase. The integral of sine is cosine shifted almost 90 degrees out of phase.
Which brings us back to the same old problems.
1) You claim that CO2 follows many decades behind temperature, indeed I’ve seen sceptics claiming an 800 year lag. Why are we not seeing CO2 reducing due to the lagged effect of the LIA?
2) If CO2 is not causing the rise in temperature, what is causing it? The sceptics arm wave about natural variation, cycles or the recovery from the LIA. Nobody has described a proper cause and effect relationship between the current warming and any natural variable. Nothing which can be described mathematically and modelled. You’ve been at this since the 1970s. The sceptics should have something paradigm changing by now.
So you’re debating there hasn’t been a lag effect with temperature and CO2?
Ent, remember that you are anti-science. As such, you oppose reality, truth and honesty. You favor nonsense.
You’re a braindead cult idiot operating as an anonymous troll.
“So youre debating there hasnt been a lag effect with temperature and CO2? ”
I’m saying that times have changed.
We have moved from a natural glacial cycle in which CO2 lags temperature to an artificial situation in which temperature lags CO2.
Ent, there you go again. Making stuff up to fit your false beliefs. That’s how you came up with your nonsense about passenger jets flying backwards!
That ain’t science.
The laws of physics have to change to make AGW work.
“The laws of physics have to change to make AGW work. ”
The current CO2 AGW paradigm works well for most of those in the trade. . Anything specific you unhappy with?
We already discussed the runaway positive feedback problem. Feedbacks follow logistic curves, not exponential ones.
The laws of Climateball would have to change to make troglodytes work.
“If you look at the history on long times scales it is a many decades lag.”
The lag is very tiny for response to ENSO. Why should be many decades long for anything else?
Nate
I once calculated expected temperatures against time since 1880 using the CO2 forcing equation and plotted them onto a printout of the GISS global temperature anomaly graph.
The observed graph lagged the expected one by 20 years. I interpreted this delay in warming to the time needed for the deep ocean heat sink to reach equilibrium.
ENSO is a mixed layer phenomenon, not involving the deep ocean.Perhaps this is why it takes much less time for the effect to show.
The current CO2 AGW paradigm works well for most of those in the cult.
I fixed it for you, Ent.
Stephen
CO2 AGW does not violate Henry’s Law, the Clausius-Clapyron relationship, the lapse rate, radiative physics, quantum physics, 1LOT, 2LOT or any other laws of physics.
Those who would have you believe in such violations are misleading you.
Wrong again, Ent. You can NOT boil water with ice cubes, nor can you heat Earth with CO2. And passenger jets don’t fly backwards.
You have no respect for science, reality, truth, or honesty.
You’re a braindead cult idiot, operating as an anonymous troll.
Not the ice cubes again, Pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
In this house, we obey the Laws of thermodynamics, and please stop trolling.
Worthless Willard, did you find a link you can’t understand?
I’ll explain it to you, if you’ll agree to not comment here on this blog for 90 days.
Maxwell’s demon strikes again.
Clint is going to have to reinvent the Carnot cycle to explain how heat pumps work.
Eman, no one’s misleading me. I studied quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, physics, calculus, chemistry, etc. I made A’s in all those subjects. I can think for myself.
Stephen
“Eman, no ones misleading me. I studied quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, physics, calculus, chemistry, etc. I made As in all those subjects. I can think for myself. ”
We can all think for ourselves. The amazing thing is how scientists can start from the same data and come to such wildly divergent end points.
I come into the climate arena from biology.
Once biology was flower collecting and anatomy.
Nowadays it is the application of quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, physics, calculus, chemistry, etc to living organisms and their environments.It makes us very good at integrating processes from different fields into complex interacting systems such as climate.
As a result I watch increasing CO2, decreasing OLR, increasing back radiation, spread in the 15 micrometres band, cooling stratosphere, increasing water vapour, increasing ocean heat content,decreasing ice extent, changing rainfall patterns, shifting Hadley cell boundaries, changes in Rossby waves, decreasing oxygen content, decreasing atmospheric 13C, decreasing ocean PH and all the other variables we study.
I can understand how they interact to produce equilibrium states and how changes such as increasing CO2 can push the climate system towards a new equilibrium.
That’s what I miss in your posts. You are unhappy about various aspects of AGW, but, like many sceptics, you don’t seem to have an integrated world view of your own.
Ent, the valid observations you mentioned are the result of a warming climate due to natural variability. You don’t believe that, but beliefs ain’t science, and you ain’t no scientist.
You do NOT “understand how they interact to produce equilibrium states and how changes such as increasing CO2 can push the climate system towards a new equilibrium.” Again. that’s your beliefs.
You can’t separate your cult beliefs from reality. That’s why you claim passenger jets fly backwards. You’re willing to pervert reality to fit your cult beliefs.
You’re a braindead cult idiot operating as an anonymous troll.
You’re a funny man, Eman. You claim people like Murry Salby, Ed Berry, Hermann Harde,et. al. are misleading me. Murry Salby, the author of “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate” is misleading me. Why would he do that? Salby was a great guy and all his research was sound on fluorocarbons but as soon as his research into AGW didn’t support the mantra he suddenly became a kook. Ed Berry, author of several dozen papers on atmospheric physics was a great guy but as soon as his research didn’t support the mantra, he’s a kook. Get the theme here? Who’s being led astray?
” Get the theme here? ”
Yes. They all moved from their normal research into dubious debunking of climate science, prompted by support channelled through front organisations such as the Heartland Institute.
When they moved from doing science for its own sake to doing science to support an agenda they lost their credibility.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
How does the equatorial Pacific respond?
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202204.gif
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_90day_45ns.gif
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
And the equatorial Atlantic.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/satlssta.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/eatlssta.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_eatl_1.png
What’s going on with the temperature in North America?
https://i.ibb.co/X2vn88Y/gfs-T2m-us-37.png
And in Europe?
Forecast for April 18, 2022.
And how does Arctic ice respond to CO2?
https://i.ibb.co/yfZvd9t/N-daily-extent-hires.png
Dr Spencer
Do you consider the 15% natural contribution to increasing CO2 to be independent of human activity, such as volcanic activity?
Do you think it could be positive feedbacks such as the contribution from thawing and decaying permafrost?
Do you have any other sources in mind?
“This suggests at least some role for increasing surface temperatures causing increasing CO2, especially since if I turn the causation around (correlate dSST/dt with CO2), I get a very low correlation, 0.05.”
That is surprising – I’d be interested to know how the numbers are calculated. The formula for correlation coefficient, as given by Wiki, is
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2022/03/correl.png
There is no directionality; it doesn’t matter whether you call one or the other variable x.
I see that the second correlation is between different variables, with SST being differentiated rather than CO2. Since SST is a lot noisier than CO2, you’d expect lower correlation regardless. But there is no real rationale for CO2 ppm being correlated with dSST/dt.
Thanks for the explanation.
Roy, you said,”I wont go into the evidence for an anthropogenic origin here (e.g. the decrease in atmospheric oxygen, and changes in atmospheric carbon isotopes over time).”
I think that the increasing production of CO2 and CH4 in the Arctic would go a long ways in explaining a decrease in oxygen as the microbes in the ground increasingly oxidize the long-buried organic material, and methane oxidizes in the atmosphere.
Also, I’d put a lot more stock in the carbon isotope argument if a more rigorous analysis were to be done incorporating the isotopic fractionation as CO2 passes into and out of the oceans. What happened to all the CO2 that was entrained in the glaciers when they melted off 11,000 years ago?
Soils are living ecosystems, packed full of biodigesters such as microbes, fungi, and lichens. Soils have evolved along with wildlife at the surface, and so any disruption to plant and animal species has a direct impact on soil organics. Dry grasses and leaf matter at the surface will never biodegrade without the help of the ecosystem mammals, birds, amphibians, insects, microbes, fungi, lichens, and bacteria. Instead, dry matter organics collect and oxidize on the surface by slow chemical breakdown. This, as opposed to the rapid biological breakdown of biodigesters. The carbon cycle disrupted. No amount of vegetation will sink carbon if does not property biodegrade. The faster the nutrient cycling, the deeper and richer the soils become. Stable soil organics from rapid biological excretion once reached depths of several feet in northern mid-latitudes. This process has slowed to a crawl.
What does the CO2 level near the surface tell us? It is mainly marine algae at the surface of the oceans that absorb CO2 and produce oxygen. Above the surface of the cold oceans (currently in the north) CO2 levels are high.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/04/09/1500Z/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/patterson
Problems I see with every climate model:
1) To model something, you need a data set to model. There isn’t a viable global temperature dataset that is useful for modeling. Just look at all the different variations in temperature based upon location.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/
2) CO2 is a constant at any moment in time, evenly blanketing the earth. Because CO2 is a constant, it can’t cause regional differentials. An exogenous factor must be the cause. Has anyone bother to models these factors?
3) CO2 increases at a relatively constant rate, yet temperature is highly volatile, and inconsistent based upon region. Clearly exogenous factors are responsible for the sizable residual. Has someone bothered to model these exogenous factors?
4) The quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule are constant and don’t vari based upon location or source of origin. Natural and Anthropogenic CO2 have the exact same physical properties.
5) There is a data set for Antarctica. It shows no warming with an increase in CO2 by 25 to 30%. Can anyone explain why a 25 to 30% increase in CO2 didn’t cause warming at that location? Antarctica is a natural control for all the exogenous variables that are causing the residual for other locations. That is basis modeling 101, yet I haven’t seen anyone approaching this problem from that angle. Simple use natural controls to isolate the impact of one factor on another. That is exactly how ever other scientific experiment is run. Why does Climate Science ignore the scientific method and widely accepted scientific practices?
” There is a data set for Antarctica. It shows no warming with an increase in CO2 by 25 to 30%. Can anyone explain why a 25 to 30% increase in CO2 didnt cause warming at that location? ”
You have been explained that years ago, and still ignore it.
That is DENIAL 101.
Like Northeast Siberia during the winter, Antarctica is all the year long so cold that CO2 shows there its inverse behavior. It cools Antarctica.
You still deny that, since years. You are such an anti-scientific person.
“Like Northeast Siberia during the winter, Antarctica is all the year long so cold that CO2 shows there its inverse behavior. It cools Antarctica.”
I asked for a credible explanation, not nonsense. The quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule do not differ based upon location. If that is actually your honest answer, it is a complete joke.
But CO2 emits based on temperature, so not a complete joke, that would be your understanding of the science.
bob, please stop trolling.
Chartmaster,
No one listens to you here, so you might as well go play your guitar, no one will listen to that either.
#2
bob, please stop trolling.
> The quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule do not differ based upon location.
No, but lapse rates do:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0031-y
” I asked for a credible explanation, not nonsense. The quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule do not differ based upon location. ”
I forgot to look at your laughable reaction.
I repeat: it is NOT simply a matter of quantum mechanics.
The effect of CO2 depends on the surface temperature below it.
You are either incompetent, or stubborn, or dishonest, or all three in one.
And, btw:
” There is a data set for Antarctica. It shows no warming… ”
That is more than denial, CO2. It is a lie.
Because even UAH shows for Antarctica a positive trend of 0.1 C / decade for the land part.
“Because even UAH shows for Antarctica a positive trend of 0.1 C / decade for the land part.”
That is pure nonsense. There is absolutely no material credible uptrend in this data set. None.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-south-pole.jpeg
Sure there is. It’s the red line, which is Antarctica. Quite clearly temperatures are generally cooler in the first half of the record than the latter half.
Here’s a simple linear regression of the Antarctic temperature, same data used in the chart above.
https://i.imgur.com/VQUwFHv.png
The p-statistic is 0.02, the trend is greater than the uncertainty. Looks like a statistically significant result.
That doesn’t make sense Blinny. Anarctica would be one of the only places where the surface is sometimes cooler than tropospheric CO2.
Of course, it ain’t going to warm it very much.
If you were competent enough to compare ABSOLUTE tropospheric and surface temperatures, you wouldn’t write such a statement.
In Verkhoyansk, Oymyakon and a few other places in Northeastern Siberia, surface temperatures are, during the winter, a lot colder than the lower troposphere 4 km above.
And so it is in the Antarctic. Look at Vostok’s surface temperature.
Exceptional drop in CO2 in March 2022.
https://woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-co2/derivative/from:2018
Isn’t the influence of El Nio and la Nia evident?
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/from:2015
Climate Science is nothing more than Eugenics 2.0:
Gates outlined plans to use vaccines to reduce the rate of global population growth and lower carbon emissions.
https://youtu.be/oWxsEAmh85Q
Strong temperature drop across the western US.
https://i.ibb.co/m61PVcF/gfs-T2m-us-13.png
Book: The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science
Book: Human Caused Global Warming, the Biggest Deception in History
https://www.technocracy.news/dr-tim-ball-on-climate-lies-wrapped-in-deception-smothered-with-delusion/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
You? A climatologist? For sure!
But… in the same sense as ‘astrologist’ wrt ‘Astronomer’.
” In a May, 2006 interview with the Ottawa Citizens editorial staff, Tim Ball said:
” CFCs were never a problem. […] its only because the sun is changing. ”
Cela nous dit tout, n’est-ce pas?
Time flies:
https://www.desmog.com/tim-ball/
Willard,
The MikeM you refer to would be the fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat Michel Mann, would it?
Are you too embarrassed to use Michael Mann’s full name?
Have you located the mythical Insulation Effect Theory yet? What about the Greenhouse Theory?
Moron.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
I prefer “MikeM” because I try not to promote contrarian talking points.
Have you found your Isolation Effect Theory yet?
Best,
Willard,
You’re an idiot then, making cryptic references to something you prefer to keep obscure, for no reason at all. Sounds like trolling to me.
Why not just admit that trying to appeal to the authority of an admitted faker and fraud, and demonstrated scofflaw and deadbeat is just a little bit silly. The bumbling buffoon eventually ran away from his lawsuit, just like a petulant coward would. All bluff and bluster – until he is required to provide facts to support his mad assertions.
What Isolation Effect Theory are you muttering about?
Embarrassed about the non-existent Insulation Effect Theory and Greenhouse Theory, are you?
Got any more pointless diversions?
Moron.
Too Much Play and No Work Makes Mike a Dull Sock Puppet:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/santer-takes-on-pruitt-the-global-warming-pause-and-the-devolution-of-climate-science/#comment-248938
Vintage 2017.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I see only one who permanently trolls here: Swenson.
Willard: you say ‘Ball was a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. The University of Winnipeg never had an office of Climatology. His degree was in historical geography and not climatology.’
My immediate thought was – ‘Which degree? A first degree or a higher degree – perhaps masters or doctorate?’
A first degree doesn’t necessarily evidence a later change in direction. My first degree for example was in Human Biology,a broad course of study which awakened an interest in physiological biochemistry and molecular biology, the latter becoming the area of research for my PhD, taking in aspects of virology and bacteriology.
I took a look at Tim Ball’s website – it states:
‘With a doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England, Dr. Balls comprehensive background in the field includes a strong focus on the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.’
> you say
I did not, Carbon. It’s called a quote.
If you want to know more about the lawsuit that Timbits dropped on the matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Ball
Our most Canadian Sky Dragon Crank has a better track record behind contrarian megaphones than in the court. Or the Climateball field, for that matter.
Willard: Given your comments, I suppose that it would be of interest to have sight of Tim Ball’s claimed doctorate in climatology from the University of London. However, I have to confess that I have no interest in the lawsuits that fly around – life’s to short to follow the minutia of who claimed what; I have more enjoyable ways to spend my time!
Your miss, Carbon.
I’ll try to look into Timbits’ Dr. Phil.
No, not that Dr. Phil.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If the Atlantic hurricane season becomes more severe during La Nia, will it be man-made?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_ssta_v3.1_pacific_current.png
But ren!
We all know that man-made is out, don’t we?
:- )
ren
You asked
” Whats going on with the temperature in North America?
https://i.ibb.co/X2vn88Y/gfs-T2m-us-37.png
And in Europe?
Forecast for April 18, 2022 ”
Something like this?
https://www.wetterzentrale.de/maps/GFSP30EU18_210_2.png
What do you think?
The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere is still active.
https://i.ibb.co/dDwVJ8x/gfs-z100-nh-f00.png
More air waves from the north will reach central Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/hKC7160/Screenshot-1.png
The 800lb Gorillas in the Climate Science Living Room:
Assumptions: CO2 evenly blankets the globe with an equal concentration in a cross-sectional data set, and increases evenly across the globe in any time series. In other words, the impact of CO2 on warming is a constant in a cross-sectional data set, and shows a log decay in a time series.
If we can all agree on those undeniable facts, then here are the problems I see for modeling the climate using the existing data sets. The source of the data is found here:
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/
1) Unless someone can explain why a 25 to 30% increase in CO2 didn’t cause any warming in Antarctica, then you will never be able to create a credible model that uses CO2 as the causative factor. Antarctica proves it isn’t.
2) Every region of the earth has identical CO2 yet totally different temperature trends.
3) CO2 can’t cause the PDO and other oscillations, and those oscillations existed long before the industrial age.
4) Note how the upper layers of the atmosphere don’t show warming. Why? CO2 is constant but H2O isn’t.
5) Why is the Equitorial region more stable? Same CO2 more constant H2O.
6) How can you combine all those different trending data sets and claim you can create one that represents the globe, and then try to tie its change to CO2, which is basically a constant. HOw are they weighted in the data set? Are they equally weighted? If yes, why? If they have weights assigned to the ability to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperature then all you need is Antactica.
7) The residuals show serial correlation. That can’t be due to CO2.
8) There is no annual rate of increase for temperature, yet there is for CO2. This is clear evidence that small changes in the orbit around the sun causes variation, not CO2.
9) Lower strat, what happened in 1995? Did the industrial age end? Did CO2 stop increasing? Clearly something other than CO2 is causing huge changes to the temperature.
Describing the two step-changes in temperature as huge is a little dramatic, isn’t it?
I was referring to the Lower Strat and the dramatic change in trend and behavior. Care to explain what changed in CO2 in 1995 to cause such a change in temperature?
Sunspot number: 13
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 12.26×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +7.3% High
48-hr change: +0.7%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
It seems it might go spotless
25 seems like 24
Sunspot number: 24
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 12.25×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +7.4% High
48-hr change: -0.0%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
{It didn’t go spotless, yet}
Sunspot number: 37
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 12.13×1010 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +7.3% High
If like 24, will rebound a lot in week or so.
Sunspot number: 79
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 12.74×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +7.2% High
So, I was wondering when neutron counts would lower in this
solar max.
But finally, I decided to look for long terms record of it:
Cosmic Rays are Nearing a Space Age Maximum
October 3, 2019 / Dr.Tony Phillips
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2019/10/03/cosmic-rays-are-nearing-a-space-age-maximum/
So eyeballing it, about 1/2 time is below 3%
“Researchers at the Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory have been monitoring cosmic rays since 1964.”
So, search 1964:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/space-age-record-cosmic-rays-broken-beginning-2020-jamal-shrair
From 1964 the average is significant different, quite bit is below -5% and about 1/2 below 0 and guess about 20% 3% or higher.
So, guess looking for 0 [or less] and they won’t be much of it in Solar Max 25. 7% or more is simply bad, and 3 to 5% not as bad.
And what you call “safe” or good is in 6 months not peaking for much time above 0.
If apply my make up rule:
1966 thru 1972 was all safe. 1979 thru 1986, safe.
1989 thru 1993, safe. 2000 thru 2006, safe
Then, not safe, but in terms not as bad, 2011 to 2016.
Bad since, and all can look for, is not as bad.
A paper on it, older: First published: 06 September 2013
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgra.50544
Highlights:
“With our correction, all stations considered display new highs at the recent solar minimum, approximately 3% above the previous record high. These increases are shown to be consistent with spacecraft observations.”
…
“From records of 15 neutron monitors, we conclude that neutron count rates on Earth’s surface reached a new Space Age record in 2009. To reach a consistent picture of the neutron monitor records, we found it necessary to detrend individual neutron monitor rates for long-term changes in instrument response amounting to typically 2% over the period 1964 to 2009. Although 2% may seem small in absolute terms, it is significant in terms of neutron monitor count rates, some of which vary by almost 30% over the course of the solar modulation cycle. Currently, we do not understand the source of the long-term changes in instrument response.”
I was wondering whether is was instruments- I know doing a lot more of it in last decades or so. But probably as good as global air temperature:)
Through most of the instrument record, the inverted Oulu neutron count used to track the F10.7 flux* closely. There was a regime change in 2006 and now the Oulu neutron count is consistently higher relative to 10.7 flux. The recent data suggests that the gap is widening, which means more neutrons are reaching the lower atmosphere where they can initiate cloud droplet formation, which in turn will reflect more sunlight and cool the planet. More neutrons would be in response to a weaker interplanetary magnetic field, so what is that showing?”
https://saltbushclub.com/2022/02/03/solar-update/
hmm.
March 22 2022
“1. Introduction
The flux of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) outside the heliosphere is generally assumed to be constant at the time scales shorter than a hundred thousand years. At the same time, the flux measured near/at Earth varies at different time scales, reflecting the process of the heliospheric modulation of GCRs. ”
cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Kold_vert_2022.pdf
From: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/
From: https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/group.html
Hmm. You can assume it’s constant, but it isn’t, but no one can figure it out, so, one can assume long time frame being constant.
Or it’s practical to do so. Anyways:
“Soon after establishing the NM network, it was found that the GCR intensity lags behind the solar variability (Forbush, 1958; Dorman and Dorman, 1967; Mavromichalaki and Petropoulos, 1984) and that the lag varies from one cycle to another (Nagashima and Morishita, 1979). A detailed study of the lag between GCR and SSN for four solar cycles (1953 1995) was first performed by Usoskin et al. (1998) and updated for five cycles (1951 2000) by Usoskin et al. (2001), using the standard cross-correlation and a sophisticated 2D cycle-projection analysis. It was shown that the time lag varies significantly, depicting a 22-year pattern (Hale et al., 1919) so that it is longer (10 20 months) for nega-
tive (A−) and shorter (several months or even formally negative) for positive (A+) polarity cycles.”
The delay makes sense.
But paper goes on and on.
I am going to assume, more work needs to done, regarding this delay.
didn’t post, make short:
cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Kold_vert_2022.pdf
Sunspot number: 101
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 23 Apr 2022
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.8% High
48-hr change: -1.4%
{it seems it is getting somewhere}
The temperature of the Peruvian Current is falling again. La Nina will not cease.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Only 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere can be man made. The IPCC Corbon Cycle shows that only 4% of the CO2 put into the atmosphere is for human sources. 800Gt of carbon are in the atmosphere and 200Gt are removed every year. Residence time is therefore 4 years. The equivalence principle dictates that CO2 is in proportion to the contributions, so only 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from humans, or about 18ppm. The Bern Model was made up to try and make CO2 stay in the atmosphere for 300 years, but that defies the defintion of Residence Time for an atmospheric gas. See Dr Ed Berry’s proof and supporting evidence using C13/C14 decay curves.
“Residence time is therefore 4 years.”
This is not in agreement with observations. The measured residence time of carbon in gthe atmosphere tracked with the C14 from atmospheric nuclear bomb tests, is at least 16 y.
In addition, the ‘residence time’ is simply the time for individual C atoms to be replaced by others. It is not equal to the time for an increased CO2 concentration to decay.
Nate, you have no data or models to back up what you wrote. You only regurgitate the propaganda you read from your AGW collaborators.
If your version of residence time is correct, what yearly total emissions would you predict actually occur? That is, FF plus everything else?
This is a good demo of the denier two-step.
1. Require no real data to support the contrarian view. Dont have it? Just invent it!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1242135
2. Constantly demand data from others, even if youve seen it many times. Then pretend it doesnt matter!
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp057a/ndp057a.html
Berry himself produced the 16 y e-time fit to the Bomb curve.
But Salby tried to fudge it.
https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/dissembling-with-graphs-murry-salby-edition/
Nate wrote, “This is not in agreement with observations” referring to Guy’s statement that atmospheric CO2 residence time is 4 years.
Then I asked “If your version of residence time is correct, what yearly total emissions would you predict actually occur? That is, FF plus everything else?”
Obviously I am referring to 12CO2, but Nate obfuscates by throwing up 28 year old data telling us what 14CO2 and 13CO2 concentrations were back then and which support data published many times indicating a 16 year residence time for 14CO2.
So, Nate, I repeat. What is the residence time of 12CO2, if not 4 years, and please quote the yearly emissions and absorp.tion rate required to support your analysis based on the observations of CO2 being in the low 400 ppm currently?
Are you arguing that a 5% mass increase of a co2 molecule causes a 4 x reduction in uptake?
Where is data or evidence that the residence time of C14 should be 4x larger than C12? What is the physics behind that?
Yet another flimsy excuse.
Why is the increase in C14 in the ocean near surface staying flat for decades? You are ignoring the Revelle factor again.
“So, Nate, I repeat. What is the residence time of 12CO2, if not 4 years, and please quote the yearly emissions”
This question is premised on the oversimplified 1 box carbon cycle that Berry first proposed. Now modified to include several boxes.
Get with the program. The atmosphere, land and ocean mixed layer are comparable in size reservoirs. The exchange and mixing between these is fast, could well be 4 years.
But the bottleneck is from these three to the deep ocean, due to the Revelle Factor.
This has been a known property of the carbon cycle for 60 y.
“Are you arguing that a 5% mass increase of a co2 molecule causes a 4 x reduction in uptake?”
No. Stop obfuscating and get with the program.
“Where is data or evidence that the residence time of C14 should be 4x larger than C12? What is the physics behind that?”
I cannot say for sure yet. You can weigh in anytime on that.
“Why is the increase in C14 in the ocean near surface staying flat for decades?”
I wasn’t aware that increases stay flat. Restate the question or provide support for your claim.
“This question is premised….”
Wrong. Don’t presume to know where my question comes from. Every competent scientist should know that 280/80 and 410/85 indicates a CO2 retention time (e-time, turnover time, etc.) of 3.5 to 4.8 years, which 4 years could well be between. Glad to see you are finally coming around to appreciate reality.
Until we see your data and model, the Revelle factor is just another way to obfuscate.
“Wrong. Dont presume to know where my question comes from. Every competent scientist should know that 280/80 and 410/85 indicates a CO2 retention time (e-time, turnover time, etc.) of 3.5 to 4.8 years, which 4 years could well be between. Glad to see you are finally coming around to appreciate reality.”
OK I won’t presume. Then explain what model you are using to arrive at this e-time?
“Until we see your data and model, the Revelle factor is just another way to obfuscate.”
Not my data or model. The data and model has been around and been tested for 60 y since Revelle figured it out, and followers confirmed it.
This paper was the first to satisfactorily explain why the fraction of emissions retained in the atmosphere is high.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/bolin.1958.carbon_uptake.pdf
And they were able to accurately predict the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the next 60 y.
Is that another coincidence?
“Then explain what model you are using to arrive at this e-time?”
The model comes from delC/dt = ksCs -kaCa which I explained in my comment to Dr. Spencer. The spreadsheet version is Cn = In + (1 – kaC(n-1)) where In is the sum of all CO2 sources. At equilibrium Cn = C(n-1) and 1/ka years = Cn/In. If it looks like Dr. Berry’s model, it’s because he derived it from the same master equation calculus used by Bolin-Eriksson.
Notice that it is the same formula as Bolin-Eriksson’s for atmosphere to mixed-layer exchange. Their estimate for ka is 5 years. Pretty darn close to mine, Drs. Berry and Salby, and many others. I decided not to challenge your undocumented assertion that “they were able to accurately predict the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the next 60 y.” I’ll leave that for you to substantiate. Nevertheless, it doesn’t refute my contention of additional CO2 sources supplementing FF emissions.
Furthermore, including a modification based on the Revelle factor will complement my model by justifying a time dependency on the ka term.
“Notice that it is the same formula as Bolin-Erikssons for atmosphere to mixed-layer exchange. Their estimate for ka is 5 years. Pretty darn close to mine, Drs. Berry and Salby, and many others. ”
Yes, more or less.
And that is what I said.
“The atmosphere, land and ocean mixed layer are comparable in size reservoirs. The exchange and mixing between these is fast, could well be 4 years.”
So sounds like we agree on that.
But not this: “Nevertheless, it doesnt refute my contention of additional CO2 sources supplementing FF emissions.”
Because:
“But the bottleneck is from these three to the deep ocean, due to the Revelle Factor.”
Which is what is addressed in the paper. And the main reason why they were able to correctly predict the subsequent rise.
And remember this effect has had 60 y to be tested.
Read and tell me what theyve done wrong.
“Read and tell me what theyve done wrong.”
Reading is not necessary, because I don’t have any reason to suspect their math is wrong. What you need to do is to apply their equations and see if the data refute my hypothesis that non-fossil fuel emissions have not remained constant since the pre-industrial age.
“Reading is not necessary, because I dont have any reason to suspect their math is wrong.”
Oh. Then what of this?
“Until we see your data and model, the Revelle factor is just another way to obfuscate.”
Are you now accepting that Revelle factor matters? That there is a bottleneck?
Or if not, you need point out the flaws in the paper. Good luck.
I already explained why I don’t need to find flaws in the paper. It only encourages me to strengthen my model by compensating for the amount of non-fossil fuel emissions due to a Revelle factor. I’m already doing that.
OTOH, you have to run the numbers using the Bolin-Eriksson formulas and actual data to prove my hypothesis wrong.
“OTOH, you have to run the numbers using the Bolin-Eriksson formulas and actual data to prove my hypothesis wrong.”
Weve had this carbon cycle paradigm for 60 y. Lots of obsetvations and refinements since.
You want to overturn the paradigm. To do so you need to show there is a problem with it. You need to show new data that doesnt fit it. Show why your model fits the data (actual data) better.
“You want to overturn the paradigm.”
The truth is you don’t want the paradigm overturned. I just want the 60-year paradigm verified. Remind me where you provided evidence (actual data) that is was.
You dont seem to understand how science works. You made extraordinary claims that the standard carbon cycle understanding is wrong. You have to back up with SOMETHING. Some new data or evidence. And it should be extraordinary to merit anyones attention.
You havent. So noone need waste their time proving it wrong. Anymore then they should waste time proving Flat Earthers are wrong.
Actually Nate it is you that doesn’t understand how science works.
You actually think that how science works is some political pooh-bah cherry picking what scientists they want to believe, reversing the burden of proof of the scientific method and redefining it as a political fiat that will remain true until disproven. They even have a name for that type of politics. . . .Post Normal Science. Normal science it certainly is not so it is aptly named.
Nate babbles on about stuff he remembers hardly anything about or doesn’t want to remember.
So he goes as usual into full obfuscation mode babbling like an 80 year old with Alzheimer’s disease.
What Nate doesn’t want is an answer to this question as it will expose the IPCC summary work for the fraud that it is.
But 4 years is definitely within the range.
Bill is trolling me?
No Nate I am not trolling you. I am just pointing out that you won’t honestly explain what you know because you would prefer to not admit to what you know as that would clear up a lot of climate science obfuscation. thats just a fact, not a troll.
Bill,
Nate is obsessed with challenging anything that contradicts his AGW beliefs. By itself, there is no harm in that. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and a religion.
The problem is the way he seasons his arguments with false premises, misrepresentations, strawmen, and appeals to authority. That is why I call him the King of Obfuscation.
King of Obfuscation is right on the mark.
Nate is well aware of the rapid decay of C14 in the atmosphere but he won’t own up to it because it definitely shines a light on the ‘doom and gloom’ the IPCC summary political report attempts to focus on using highly uncertain speculation.
So while he wants to be a epigone to his daddy he has to cover up the ridiculous assumptions of his daddy at the same time. . . .thus the obfuscation.
Indeed the mean decay rate is actually somewhat understated because other factors can play into modifying it as the uptake of CO2 can be accelerated by the greening of the planet and thus degreening the planet could decelerate the decay rate. But most estimates of the actual CO2 mean decay rate vary between 4 and 10 years. . . .both numbers Nate does not want to discuss since the IPCC summary cherry pegs it around 100 years.
“with false premises, misrepresentations, strawmen, and appeals to authority”
Can’t win on the facts? Just toss generic ad-hom grenades.
Troll Handbook: Chapter 4.
I’m commenting not to win, but to learn. Thanks anyway.
Guy
Wrong mental model. You can’t consider the atmosphere in isolation. CO2 circulates freely between three reservoirs; biomass, atmosphere and ocean surface layer(I’ve ignored the deep ocean for simplicity).
The ocean surface layer contains about 670 gigatons, the atmosphere 720Gt and the biosphere 2000Gt giving a total circulating carbon of 3390Gt.
500Gt of that has been added by human activity, 14% of the total.
Human CO2 has been added to the atmosphere and about 25% has transferred to each of the other reservoirs.
That leaves 250Gt out of 720Gt in the atmosphere, 35%.
125Gt out of 670Gt in the ocean, 18%.
125Gt out of 2000Gt in the biosphere, 6%
13C?
The biosphere carbon is mostly 12C.
The human addition to atmosphere and ocean is 375Gt out of 1390Gt or 27%.
You should see a similar decrease in 13C. It dropped from -6.5 o/oo to -8 o/oo, a decrease of 1.5/6.5 = 23%.
Entropic Man,
Anything can be suggested by ignoring everything of greatest importance.
Almost all the CO2 circulating in the climate cycle is in the deep ocean, but you say,
“Ive ignored the deep ocean for simplicity”.
Then you say,
“500Gt of that has been added by human activity, 14% of the total.”
Well, no.
You have not included the content of the deep ocean in your “total”. In other words, you have not included the contents of by far the largest “reservoir”, and you have ignored the transfer rates between the ocean surface layer and the deep ocean.
Your resulting percentages provide a demonstration of your preconceptions and your prejudices, but they indicate nothing else.
Richard
Richard,
Eman’s math is obfuscation math. The only thing important to Eman is advancing the agenda. The agenda is that man is doing terrible things to the climate through his use of fossil fuels and must be stopped. He and his sycophants are the Masterminds who must be obeyed. The reason Eman wants to ignore “deep ocean” is that IPCC stuck a bunch of human carbon there with no explanation trying to make their obfuscation math work.
Stephen
Ad argumentum, not ad hominem,please.
Show me calculations, show me data, show me that I’m wrong.
If you choose to insult me instead I can only infer that you can’t falsify my science.
Eman,
I’ve asked you numerous times to explain where the “deep ocean” carbon came from in the IPCC’s human carbon cycle. No response from you. Their carbon cycle doesn’t work. It is obfuscation math, like you.
I’ve asked you numerous times to explain where Berry’s third paper is wrong. You threw a bunch of crap at it but no math or science. No serious mental challenge. You went over to Berry’s board and all you gave him were ad hominem attacks. You’re a hypocrite.
He was nice to you. He could have insulted your idiocy. He finally blocked you because all you did was insult him and you offered nothing scientific. You appeared a kook. He will spend time with someone who actually understands science.
And there you go insulting me again. Still no falsification.
Falsification of what? I’m not spending any time on your gibberish math. There’s nothing concrete to falsify. Berry tried to help you, and you insulted him. You’re all over the place. We show you, Chic shows you, and you keep repeating the propaganda. Go back to the bogs where you might have some competency.
“We show you, Chic shows you, ”
You’re not giving me what I need. I need data. I need your formulae. I need enough information to independently follow your reasoning.
You won’t convince me by quoting existing sceptic memes. You will convince me by providing a paradigm that I can show myself is a better paradigm than the one I’m using.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
I left out the deep ocean because of the slow turnover time across the thermocline.
Turnover between the ocean and the atmosphere is 90Gt/yr in each direction.
Turnover between the surface layer and the deep ocean is less than 10Gt/year. Over the century in question this can be ignored for a back of the envelope calculation.
preconceptions and prejudices
If I were defending a thesis I could and would document every number and every process. Since this is just a bit of fun on a chatsite we’re matching my preconceptions and prejudices against Guys and yours.
Perhaps you could try my challenge.
“I watch increasing CO2, decreasing OLR, increasing back radiation, spread in the 15 micrometres band, cooling stratosphere, increasing water vapour, increasing ocean heat content,decreasing ice extent, changing rainfall patterns, shifting Hadley cell boundaries, changes in Rossby waves, decreasing oxygen content, decreasing atmospheric 13C, decreasing ocean PH, biome boundaries moving to higher latitudes and altitudes, and all the other variables we study.”
Put forward a coherent, consistent and consilient alternative hypothesis to CO2 AGW which includes and explains all the above.
All of that can be explained by natural temperature variation.
“All of that can be explained by natural temperature variation. ”
Be much more specific.
What is forcing the variations?
How big are the energy imbalances involved?
How big a temperature change do you expect for a given change in energy?
Can you link changes in surface temperatures to changes such as solar input, albedo or energy budgets?
Physics, please, not armwaving.
Ent, you’re such a hoot!
Where’s the physics behind your nonsense that passenger jets fly backwards?
I want a pony, Pup.
Give it to me.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Entropic Man,
You say to me,
“If I were defending a thesis I could and would document every number and every process. Since this is just a bit of fun on a chatsite were matching my preconceptions and prejudices against Guys and yours.”
HOW DARE YOU! Apologise!
1.
You presented a thesis and I explained that your thesis was plain wrong.
2.
I stated the truth that the errors of your thesis demonstrate your preconceptions and prejudices.
3.
I wrote nothing which could be interpreted to be preconceptions and prejudices (except for possible motivation of a prejudice against deliberate stupidity).
4.
This thread is about possible anthropogenic contribution to recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration: it is NOT about AGW, but you demand,
“Put forward a coherent, consistent and consilient alternative hypothesis to CO2 AGW which includes and explains all the above.”
Your off-topic demand is so trivial that I will answer.
The AGW hypothesis explains nothing because recent rise in global temperature is similar to the rises to the Minoan Warm Period, to the Roman Warm Period, and to the medieval Warm Period. Parsimony dictates that whatever caused the previous warm periods is causing the Present Warm Period.
If the AGW hypothesis is true then you need to explain
(a) the cause or causes of all the previous warm periods
and, importantly,
(b) why those cause or causes are not responsible for the Present Warm Period.
I await your apology.
Richard
You don’t get an apology.
You did not demonstrate that I was wrong. You mentioned what, in the context of my reply to Guy, was a minor ingredient in the CO2 exchange. To show that I was wrong you would have to repeat the calculation including the deep ocean and show that the rate of exchange with the deep ocean has enough to significantly change my calculation. You did not.
Put forward a coherent, consistent and consilient alternative hypothesis to CO2 AGW which includes and explains all the above.
Your off-topic demand is so trivial that I will answer. ”
These threads cover a lot of ground around the specific topic. As I do with Steven I will infer that your refusal to provide an alternative hypothesis is because you cannot.
“The AGW hypothesis explains nothing because recent rise in global temperature is similar to the rises to the Minoan Warm Period, to the Roman Warm Period, and to the medieval Warm Period.”
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
Certainly doesn’t look it. I can’t find the Minoan or Roman Warm periods at all and the Mediaeval Warm Period shows as a flattening in a 5000 year cooling trend.
If the same thing that caused the MiWP, the RWP and the MWP was causing the present warming we would be seeing a flat or cooling trend. Instead we are warming rapidly and passed them some time ago.
“Parsimony dictates that whatever caused the previous warm periods is causing the Present Warm Period.”
You may have noticed that the previous periods you mentioned took place in low-tech agrarian societies with a global population below 1 billion.
The Present warm period takes place as 8 billion people operate a global industrial civilization. They are not comparable.
Explainations?
The Holocene Optimum ended 5000 years ago as we moved off the Milankovich sweet spot and we began cooling towards the next glacial period. The Industrial Revolution tipped us into rapid warming as we began significant albedo changes and the release of GHGs into the atmosphere.
Entorpic Man,
I DID explain that your thesis is plain wrong when I pointed out you have omitted the contents of by far the largest CO2 reservoir in your calculations of percentages of total CO2 in reservoirs.
You attempt to excuse your outrageous mistake by claiming,
“Turnover between the surface layer and the deep ocean is less than 10Gt/year.”
Really?!! “Less than 10Gt/year” globally?!! You know that HOW?
On the basis of that error, ignorance and assertion, and from behind your coward’s shield of anonymity, you accuse me of being as biased as you and of not providing serious information to readers of this thread because you say you don’t provide serious information! You really are a piece of work.
I still await your apology.
Richard
Richard
> Parsimony dictates that whatever caused the previous warm periods is causing the Present Warm Period.
Parsimony is not an explanation, RC.
Neither is arm waving with whatever caused.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> Almost all the CO2 circulating in the climate cycle is in the deep ocean
Citation needed, RC.
Richard’s actually right that the deep ocean contains 38,400 Gt, about 90% of the total circulating carbon. Unfortunately that is for a very limited value of “circulating”.
What Mr Courtney does not take into account is that the atmosphere exchanges about 90Gt with the ocean surface layer and 125Gt with the biosphere, but exchange between the ocean surface layer and the deep ocean is only 10Gt. Over the decade-century timescales under discussion this is too small to be significant. In the short term the deep ocean is effectively isolated from the rest of the climate system.
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle#
> Unfortunately that is for a very limited value of “circulating”.
You should have let RC fall into that trap, EM.
Easier to let your Climateball opponent give you the point himself.
“Easier to let your Climateball opponent give you the point himself. ”
You overestimate him.
Me and RC already met at Judy’s, EM.
Now that he knows I’m here, he might not be back for a while.
Willard the Inscrutable idiot wrote –
“Me and RC already met at Judys, EM.
Now that he knows Im here, he might not be back for a while.”
Enough said.
Words of wisdom, Mike.
Words of wisdom.
I remember him from Tallbloke’s.
Willard, Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
To All,
The ridiculous Entropic Man says about me to the other anonymous troll,
“I remember him from Tallblokes.”
Those who want to read Entropic Man’s whingeing at my repeatedly wiping the floor with him at “Tallbloke’s” can do it here.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/richard-courtney-empirical-assessment-of-the-warming-effect-of-co2/
Enjoy the laughs.
Richard
Entropic Man,
Repeating an untrue assertion does not make it true.
I wrote to you,
“I DID explain that your thesis is plain wrong when I pointed out you have omitted the contents of by far the largest CO2 reservoir in your calculations of percentages of total CO2 in reservoirs.
You attempt to excuse your outrageous mistake by claiming,
Turnover between the surface layer and the deep ocean is less than 10Gt/year.
Really?!! Less than 10Gt/year globally?!! You know that HOW?
YOU DID NOT ANSWER THAT. Instead, your next post in the thread says,
“What Mr Courtney does not take into account is that the atmosphere exchanges about 90Gt with the ocean surface layer and 125Gt with the biosphere, but exchange between the ocean surface layer and the deep ocean is only 10Gt.”
I DID TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT BY ASKING HOW YOU – OR ANYBODY ELSE – COULD POSSIBLY KNOW WHAT YOU ASSERT.
So, that is a second apology I await from you for your disgraceful behaviour in this thread.
Richard
PS !0 Gt is a nice round number. Why did you choose it?
Glad you intend to stay, RC.
The names Willard, BTW, so get your insults right.
Oh, and you dont get to ask for evidence while at the same time pretending you refuted anything.
Be seeing you.
Troll posting as Willard,
Above I have repeatedly refuted the nonsense posted by the troll posting as Entropic Man. Indeed, my pointing out that his excuse for his egregious error is based on his assertion of a datum which he cannot justify because nobody knows – and nobody knows how – to discover. So yes, I do get to ask for evidence when a pair of trolls operate in concert to poison the thread with disinformation.
Richard
ADDENDUM
Troll posting as Willard,
I did not suggest I would not stay, you did.
So that is another falsehood from you (the total is rising)
Richard
Old coal industry representative posting as an asshat,
10 GT is smol compared to 215 GT, and in context insignificant.
Please, do continue your lawyerly mode.
Willard, please stop trolling.
A lot of food for plants, to be food for cows, to feed people.
That’d be sugar, Pup:
https://climateball.net/but-life/#plant-food
You were over 4 hours late, worthless Willard.
We need some better troll stalkers.
No U, dear Pup.
Reality. Cult. Ice cubes. Airplanes. You need better material.
There’s nothing better than reality, worthless Willard.
Try it sometimes, Pup.
Witless Willard, desperate to be thought of as wise and powerful, attempts to appear intelligent.
Maybe he’s hoping that no one will notice that he can’t produce the Greenhouse Theory which he claims to possess.
What a fool – confuses cultist faith with science.
He believes that the statistics of past weather (climate) somehow controls future weather.
What an idiot – refuses to accept reality.
He and his dwindling pack of true believers are good for a laugh, at least.
I would know. You wouldn’t.
You’re the most ignorant one on this blog. Even Norman knows you’re at the bottom.
Sock puppets who contribute NOTHING are the bottom feeders here, Pup.
Sorry.
Here’s your chance:
https://www.thisworldthesedays.com/the-refutation-of-the-greenhouse-effect.html
Willard, please stop trolling.
On the broader topic of CO2 growth, following from a discussion on the CO2 impact of Covid related economic slowdowns, I generated the graphics below that may be of interest to the community.
These are generated from weekly CO2 observations, differenced from the previous year. This nominally removes the annual signal and gives a year-over-year atmospheric growth with weekly resolution.
Mauna Loa observatory data: co2GrowthRateMlo.png
Mauna Loa, Samoa, and South Pole observatory data: co2GrowthRateSpoSmoMlo.png
How do you determine scaled CO2 emissions?
CO2 emissions are annual data from
icos-cp.eu manually scaled to overlay the data at approximately the same level as the annual growth rate.
Specifically, it’s “fossil emissions excluding carbonation” on the “Global Carbon Budget” tab of the spreadsheet linked above divided by 4 so the units for the vertical axis for that curve would be 4 GtC/yr.
The scaling would give the fraction remaining in the atmosphere ~ 50% and it appears to be constant.
That will be just a coincidence according to the deniers.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1242973
What does coincidence mean anyway?
coincidence
/kōˈinsədəns/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.
Typical flippant response for the King of Obfuscation.
50% is a coincidence of what? IOW, what significance is 50% in terms of data resulting from the physically reasonable processes involving atmospheric CO2 ingress and egress?
Ooops?!
Sounds a bit like UAH’s LT anomaly series…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2022_v6.jpg
How can that be?
Are you serious or facetious?
Nice, Mark.
Can u go back to 1959?
Mauna Loa weekly data only goes back to 1974, but here’s a similar view with the monthly data going back to 1960. As expected anthropogenic emission and atmospheric growth rates track closely if averaged over a couple decades (the Lowess curve).
co2MonthlyGrowthRateMlo.png
“The measurements are nearly continuous and procedures have been developed to exclude data which is considered to be influenced by local anthropogenic or volcanic processes.”
Ahhhh!! The hallmark of climate science is the development of procedures to exclude data.
Massive eruptions at Kilauea for four months in 2018, but nary a spike in the record. Is that natural event “excluded” from the Mauna Loa data set?
Every single day humans release a Mt Pinatubo eruption’s worth of CO2.
https://climateball.net/but-abc#volcanoes
Kilauea eruptions were not massive on any volcanic scale.
Very off-topic, sorry:
https://youtu.be/xbbAJwnJmiM
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. April 9th says: “The proper way of looking for causal relationships between time series data (e.g. between atmospheric CO2 and temperature) is discussed.”
Please see Heather Graven’s NOVEMBER 2016 article for a more in-depth treatment of the subject. Here is Figure 1 of that article which presents a less filtered version of your own Figures 1 & 2.
It all falls on its face if no correlation can be found between atmospheric CO2 and warming. The only evidence claimed by the mother of all alarmists, the IPCC, is that 19th century scientists inferred that.
Differences between the Moon’s near and far sides linked to colossal ancient impact
https://phys.org/news/2022-04-differences-moon-sides-linked-colossal.html
linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“Now, researchers have a new explanation for the two-faced Moonone that relates to a giant impact billions of years ago near the Moon’s south pole.”
“The nearside is home to a compositional anomaly known as the Procellarum KREEP terrane (PKT)a concentration of potassium (K), rare earth elements (REE), phosphorus (P), along with heat-producing elements like thorium. KREEP seems to be concentrated in and around Oceanus Procellarum, the largest of the nearside volcanic plains, but is sparse elsewhere on the Moon.”
Looking at the rest of the peaks and valleys throughout the derivative, I’d argue that the current ‘dip’ attributed to COVID is but a coincidence. Else, the rest of the more significant peaks and valleys would require similar correlations and there are none (unless you cherry pick)
A good point by Richard S. Courtney (upthread) needs to be emphasized:
The AGW hypothesis explains nothing because recent rise in global temperature is similar to the rises to the Minoan Warm Period, to the Roman Warm Period, and to the medieval Warm Period. Parsimony dictates that whatever caused the previous warm periods is causing the Present Warm Period.
AGW hypothesis explains nothing about the Holocene interglacial period, nor any of past glaciation or interglacial periods.
The AGW hypothesis has no author. It has fathers and maybe a mother- it’s a cargo cult.
Why would you expect it to? The glacial cycle is driven by orbital changes.
Glacial cycles are related to orbital changes- or no one argues there is no correlation.
There is also correlation with CO2 levels, but that correlation would suggest low CO2 levels cause massive warming. Or the highest CO2 are followed by global cooling.
I don’t think high CO2 levels cause cooling, rather I think a doubling of CO2 level cause some increase in global surface air temperature or has unmeasurable amount of global warming.
And I also don’t think CO2 causes cooling in the Antarctica.
Or Roy seems to think CO2 can cause cooling, and I don’t.
So, I think polar sea ice adds insulation in regards to ocean temperature. Though polar sea ice, prevents ocean from warming land areas, and thereby it lower global average air temperature.
And the average temperature of ocean [which is about 3.5 C] control global climate.
And I have a prediction related to this, the ocean temperature was about 4 C, about 8000 years ago.
And statement of fact, the ocean average temperature was about 4 C or warmer in past peak interglacial periods.
Also snow has warming effect.
And if Mars was covered by 100 meter of snow, Mars would be warmer.
Question, if entire surface of Mars was covered with 100 meter depth of snow {bright white snow, btw], what would Mars average surface temperature, be?
{I would guess some might imagine, it “should be” much colder}
And the other climate question I ask, what would Venus surface air temperature be, if Venus was at 1 AU distance [Earth distance] from the Sun?
I am not interested in global climate, I am only only interested in can any theories of global climate, predict other planet’s temperatures.
> snow has warming effect
Aren’t you supposed to be Sky Dragon Crank curious, gb?
“Arent you supposed to be Sky Dragon Crank curious, gb?”
Is that related to cities in the skies of Venus?
I think cities in the sky would be better on Venus than sky cities on
Earth. But I think L-1 of Venus is more exciting.
No, go.
It is related to denying GHGs the physical properties you just implied for ice.
“It is related to denying GHGs the physical properties you just implied for ice.”
The ice would be related to what is called polar amplification.
Over 70% of Earth surface is ocean and being most of the surface, the ocean surface temperature controls global surface air temperature.
The average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C.
17 C and 15 C are a cold temperature and average global land surface air temperature is about 10 C.
It said that for last 34 million years, Earth has been in icehouse global climate which is having a cold ocean. The average temperature of ocean is about 3.5 C. An ocean with average temperature of 5 C is a cold ocean and in last couple million years the ocean has been colder than 5 C.
The significance of cold ocean is related to polar amplification.
Or the cold ocean has little to do with the tropical ocean area.
One could say 1/2 of world is not effected much by the temperature of our cold ocean, but the surface ocean temperature of the other half the world is “controlled” by average temperature of the entire ocean.
In past times of Earth, it’s had what is called a greenhouse global climate which has less cold ocean- like say, an average of 10 C.
But issue is how silly the “greenhouse effect theory” is.
It’s appears to me to be wrong and useless.
It’s about the atmosphere, and Earth climate is about the ocean.
I am curious what the cargo cultist do with idea that more 90% of global warming is the warming of the entire ocean. Ie:
“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://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-heat/
Or this “lost heat” going into the ocean or the dog ate my homework.
The part “top few meters of the ocean store as much heat as Earth’s entire atmosphere”
And entire ocean having thousand times more heat than the atmosphere- 1 C increase of average ocean = heat of 1000 C of atmosphere.
Is there unimaginable terror of a ocean which is 5 C?
It’s my opinion that if the average temperature of the ocean was 4 C, there a good chance the Sahara desert would become mostly grassland. 5 C ocean is roughly impossible, but it seems in would cause large increase of global water vapor, but we would still be in an icehouse global climate. Or 34 million year ago, the ocean was warmer than 5 C.
Polar amplification might be harder to achieve without the properties you deny for GHGs.
What makes ice so special, besides what Vanilla said?
— Willard says:
April 13, 2022 at 10:46 AM
Polar amplification might be harder to achieve without the properties you deny for GHGs.–
It seems you think lukewarmer = deny
wiki:
lukewarmer (plural lukewarmers)
One who believes that climate change is due to human activity but who does not think it is a serious problem.
But one say I gone from 2-3 C per doubling, to a lot less.
But my concern is short term. What will happen within 100 years.
Or difference with me and other lukewarmers is they may not impose a time limit, like I do. But I always been thinking of it in terms of century or less. So my personal opinion has lowered.
Also:
https://achemistinlangley.net/2015/05/06/on-a-broader-definition-of-a-lukewarmer/
But anyhow, my view is everyone has become a lukewarmer.
And I am interested in views of anyone who isn’t- can’t find anyone.
Of course another aspect, is doubt we will double CO2.
And not because of anything governments have doing- I think governments are in best light, ineffective at lower CO2 levels, would argue they cause more CO2 emission rather then any reduction.
The opposition to nuclear power- is easy case for this argument.
The opposition to fracking and natural gas use, another.
But host of things government has done which cause higher CO2 emission and absolutely “nothing” to actually reduce it.
But there are far worst things which government have done, other than increase CO2 emissions.
Three things, gb –
First, it’s luckwarmer:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2015/02/luckwarmers.html
Second, there are many things one can deny besides GHGs:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/
Third, you don’t get to be a luckwarmer writing that kind of things:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1242141
— Willard says:
April 13, 2022 at 2:35 PM
Three things, gb
First, its luckwarmer:–
Well, not too long ago, Earth had the lowest level of CO2 ever measured and very cold temperatures, then sea level raised more than 100 meters, global temperature increased a lot, and Sahara Desert became mostly grassland.
One could say, it was lucky-
or the stars were aligned.
In the long run, the universe got lucky.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint R
Where those warm periods global or regional? If regional ocean current changes could be responsible.
https://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3266
A lot of the proxy data wildly conflicts, so its hard to be certain, but the data where it correlates (sediments and tree rings NH SH and ice cores Greenland and Antarctic) seems to point to global periods of warming.
Norman,
If “regional ocean current changes” move heat such as to change regional temperatures then they induce change to global temperature. I explain how and why as follows.
Heat is radiated in proportion to the fourth power of the absolute temperature (T^4) of the radiating surface. Temperatures vary around the planet (e.g. with latitude).
The Earth is heated by the Sun and loses that heat back to space by radiation. Any difference in the Earth’s receipt and loss of heat (i.e. the Earth’s radiative balance) causes global temperature to change until radiative balance is reestablished.
So, if regional ocean currents move heat to change spatial temperature distributions then that causes the Earth to have a radiative balance which induces global temperature change until radiative balance is restored.
NEVER FORGET THE POWER OF A FOURTH POWER RULE.
Richard
PS Please don’t mention this to Entropic Man: it risks giving him apoplexy because he is convinced there is no mechanism for natural global temperature change. However, several people (including Richard Lindzen and me) have independently calculated that regional ocean current variations do provide global temperature variations of the observed magnitudes.
ERRATUM
Obviously, I intended to write,
“So, if regional ocean currents move heat to change spatial temperature distributions then that causes the Earth to have a radiative imbalance which induces global temperature change until radiative balance is restored.”
Sorry for the serious typo. (substituting ‘balance’ for ‘imbalance’ is as bad as omitting ‘not’)
Richard
A biggest mistake was to write so little words to say absolutely nothing, RC.
Am I the only one wondering if Willard is making a living doing just that, saying absolutely nothing?
Oh, Chic.
What is there to respond to RCs silly reminder about the SB law?
I assure you that climate scientists know about that one!
Do try to not be ridiculous.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Lots of mechanisms for natural temperature change. Over the last 600 million years they’ve pushed the global average temperature as high as 28C and as low as 8C.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File%3AAll_palaeotemps.svg
What I doubt is that any natural mechanism is causing the 1.1C warming since 1880.
Right on, Pup:
During the earlier warm periods the climate happened to a few hundred million agrarian farmers.
Now an industrial civilization of 8 billion people is happening to the climate.
Ent, don’t forget to wear your tin-foil hat when hiding under your bed.
I thought you were supposed to get new material, Pup.
It must have been something you ate.
You could try to get what I already ate, Pup.
It would improve your output.
Willard,
It seems that the only “output” you have provided here was emitted from your rear.
Richard
You wish, asshat.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Syun Akasofu, a pioneer famed for his pioneering studies of the solar wind, claimed the IPCC erred by not including warming from the Little Ice Age into its anthropogenic claims.
If the planet did cool 1C to 2C during the 400+ years of the LIA from 1300 – 1850, the cooling oceans would have absorbed more CO2. If CO2 has risen as much as claimed in the atmosphere due to a 1C warming over 170 years, why would the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere not increase with the re-warming from the LIA?
I think the IPCC claimed an atmospheric concentration of 270 ppm in the pre-Industrial era. That was smack-dab in the middle of the 2nd cooling period of the LIA. Therefore, the base they are using would have been a naturally-induced minimum caused by global cooling due to the LIA.
On top of that, the 270 ppm base itself was based on ice core proxies from Antarctic ice. Jaworowski claimed there are several errors induced during the process of extracting the ice cores.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
“re-warming from the LIA? ”
But why did it cool and why is it rewarming? Without a mechanism and proper numbers for the energy imbalance your case is very weak.
entropic…you missed the idiotic mistake I made, posting a link to an equally idiotic alarmist on Jaworowski.
Why it cooled and why it is re-warming since LIA is not the point. There is enough proxy data and written records to prove it did, and globally.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
When I look at the data I see a 5000 year natural cooling trend followed by a rapid artificial warming trend.
I don’t see a Minoan Warm Period, a Roman Warm Period of a Little Ice Age. I suppose the flat spot around 1000AD might be the Mediaeval Warm Period.
My explaination? We slipped off the Milankovich cycle sweet spot 5000 years ago and started slow cooling towards the next glacial period. Then the Industrial Revolution triggered rapid warming.
Without a mechanism? Are you serious? I thought you are a biologist? Name me anything in nature that doesn’t vary.
If we can’t explain how nature varies climate and temperature, we must accept your explanation, no matter how preposterous?
Since you seem to have an explanation for everything, why don’t you explain why we’re here?
Why we’re here?
Personally my answer would be “Why not?
I support the Weak Anthropic Principle, that the universe has properties that happen to allow us to exist.
Most of the eejits here believe in the Strong Anthropic Principle that the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster or some other supernatural being created a universe designed for humanity.
https://journalofcosmology.com/anthropic100.html
I think Troglodyte is asking why we’re at Roy’s, EM.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“I think Troglodyte is asking why were at Roys, EM.”
Still delusional, and convinced someone is interested in your bizarre fantasies.
You still can’t actually name one person who cares what you “think”, can you?
Or one person that cares whether you call me Mike Flynn or Santa Claus.
In the meantime –
carry on.
I can name you, Mike.
Embrace it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Entropic Man,
Please try to be consistent in your presentation of illogical arguments.
On April 12 at 1.57 AM you posted,
“re-warming from the LIA?
But why did it cool and why is it rewarming? Without a mechanism and proper numbers for the energy imbalance your case is very weak.”
That is worse than illogical. It is daft because the fact of the LIA is documented around the world and no “mechanism” nor “energy imbalance” data are required to provide “a case” for it having happened: crop yields alone provide “a case”. Similarly, I do not need to know a “mechanism” nor have “energy imbalance” data to know with absolute certainty that it was warmer here today than yesterday because going outside yesterday needed a coat but shirt sleeves were all that was required today.
Then, on April !2 at 3.50 AM you posted,
“When I look at the data I see a 5000 year natural cooling trend followed by a rapid artificial warming trend.
I dont see a Minoan Warm Period, a Roman Warm Period of a Little Ice Age. I suppose the flat spot around 1000AD might be the Mediaeval Warm Period.”
That, too, is illogical because you have chosen to ignore all the data which does indicate e.g. the Mediaeval Warm Period (even Michael Mann’s data shows it).
So both your arguments are illogical but I write to point out that they are inconsistent.
(1) At 1.57 AM you argued there was no Little Ice Age (LIA) because there was “no mechanism” for it
and
(2) only 2 hours later you claimed the data you chose to look at indicates there was no LIA
If there was no LIA then there would not be a “mechanism”, but if there were an LIA then ignorance of a “mechanism” should be a spur to research.
So, which is it?
(a) History and archaeology both indicate the LIA was a global phenomenon so the “mechanism” of the LIA warrants research
or
(b) History and archaeology are both wrong in their indications of the LIA so your mention of a “mechanism” was meaningless twaddle.
And in attempt to stop you replying with more meaningless twaddle, I add that the lack of a “mechanism” could have been used to bolster your silly claim that the LIA did not exist but you provided it as your primary argument.
Richard
He’s a retired school teacher who sits at home in Wales, advancing his utopian agenda. The only thing that matters is the agenda.
Hello, Richard.
Glad to clarify my position. I don’t think there was a Little Ice Age, just a continuation of the 5000 year cooling trend you can see below.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
There are people here who do believe in a LIA. Are you a believer? If so, I invite you to tell me what evidence you have that the LIA is a separate event, what mechanism caused it and why it ended.
Personally I don’t believe that you can supply scientific evidence for its existence and cannot provide a testable explanation for your delusion.
Stephen
I include you in this. Pretend to be a scientist and give me a numerical analysis showing the existence of the LIA and explaining the mechanisms involved.
When did the LIA start and end?
Has it still not ended?
Why did its ‘recovery’ accelerate in the late 20th century?
Why is the temperature much higher now than before the LIA?
It has no identified mechanism. It is not testable or falsifiable.
It is not a theory, it is a catch-all excuse.
.
Entropic Man,
In attempt to deflect attention from your inconsistency, you demand of me,
“There are people here who do believe in a LIA. Are you a believer? If so, I invite you to tell me what evidence you have that the LIA is a separate event, what mechanism caused it and why it ended.”
My religion is none of your business and is not relevant to this thread.
You proclaim your belief in anthropogenic (i.e. human caused) global warming (AGW) so that religion is pertinent here.
I do not “believe” in the LIA, I accept the evidence from history, geology, and archaeology that the LIA happened around the world.
So, instead of pretending I am a heretic to your beliefs, perhaps you would explain to readers why you asserted a ridiculous value for CO2 exchange between deep ocean and ocean surface layer. I have repeatedly asked you (above) why you provided that assertion in this thread as an attempt to excuse your egregious error which I pointed out.
Richard
— Nate says:
April 12, 2022 at 3:23 PM
When did the LIA start and end?
Has it still not ended? —
I think it ended.
People, long dead, used to agree it ended in round number of
1850 AD
But we try something different and say it was when the average global surface air was about 14.5 C.
Though we don’t really know what is, now.
But we say presently, it’s about 15 C. But we been saying this for many decades.
And lately often talk about 1.5 C above prior industrial period [which is also vague. Some have said LIA was cold as 13.5 C, but they don’t give an exact date, but imagine it’s prior to industrial period.
Some say the kick off of LIA was a large volcanic eruption, which is actually given precise time of about 1257 AD.
And it seems 1257 AD would count as prior to industrial period.
Certainly.
I calculated that human emissions made up 27% of the CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean mixed layer. This would dilute the 13C by about the same amount. The observed dilution is 23%, in reasonable agreement
If the human emissions had spread widely into the deep ocean would be spreading into a reservoir ten times as large. The dilution of 13C would be ten times less, about 2%.
The observed dilution of 13C,23%, is much closer to the 27% expected if human emissions are not mixing into the deep ocean than to the 2% expected If complete mixing occurred.
Thus I can infer that only a small proportion of human emissions are mixing into the deep pcean.
> If there was no LIA then there would not be a “mechanism”, but if there were an LIA then ignorance of a “mechanism” should be a spur to research.
The most beautiful if-by-whisky I have ever seen. Yet it takes a second to find:
https://instaar.colorado.edu/research/projects/cause-and-onset-of-little-ice-age/
Let’s hope modulz NEVER FORGET ABOUT THE FOURTH POWER LAW!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson, thank you for calling me an “idiotic alarmist”… Maybe idiotic, but certainly not an alarmist…
All the objections of Jaworowski against the measurements of CO2 in ice cores of 1992 were already rejected by the work of Etheridge ea. in 1996 on three ice cores at Law Dome.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD03410
Jaworowski didn’t do any work on CO2 in ice cores, only work on radio isotopes in ice, which behave completely different.
Further he made several fundamental mistakes, e.g. by looking at the column of the ice age instead of the average gas age in the findings of Neftel to accuse Neftel of cheating to connect the CO2 levels in the ice core with the Mauna Loa data.
When I did confront him with that error in personal correspondence, he reacted that there are frequent melt layer in the ice, so that there is no difference between ice age and gas age.
That was clear nonsense, as Neftel detected one (!) melt layer at 70 m depth and corrected the gas age accordingly.
Even so, Jaworowski repeated his false claims in the early 2000’s.
Completely untrustworthy…
Gordon,
“…why would the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere not increase with the re-warming from the LIA?”
It is a good question. One explanation might be that the absorbing process from atmosphere to ocean is much slower than the reverse out-gassing process. Therefore, given sufficient time at the coldest LIA temperatures, CO2 levels may have dropped below the ice core 270-280 ppm level.
There is a good rationale for this given here: https://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/01/carbon-cycle-effect-of-temperature.html
For once you found something interesting, Chic. But then your hypothesis that works upside down. The slowlier heat transfers, the longer it stays where it is. Which means you might have found the refutation to Gordos idea.
A simpler hypothesis is that temperatures do not significantly drive CO2.
I hate engaging in another of your pissing contests, but the Hashemi link is about absorbing and emitting CO2 from sea water, not heat transfers.
Help yourself to refuting the data, papers, and presentations that show temperature drives CO2. And don’t forget the statistics invoked by writing temperatures do not “significantly” drive CO2.
Sorry, Chic. I thought you were answering Gordo’s (mostly rhetorical) question:
“why would the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere not increase with the re-warming from the LIA”
My mistake.
As far as Kevan’s work is concerned, you should take a look at his comments at Tony’s.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The influence of temperature on CO2 levels in equilibrium with seawater, change with 12-16 ppmv/K per Henry’s law, that is all.
The drop of 7 ppmv between MWP and LIA are clearly visible in the high resolution DSS ice core of Mauna Loa. Thus if the MWP was at least as warm as the current period, only 7 ppmv of the increase is natural. Or according to the change in solubility at maximum 13 ppmv for 0.8 K warming. The rest is man-made…
“There is the potential for this storm to bring record snowfall for the month of April to cities such as Bismarck and Grand Forks, North Dakota. A record-setting, late-season snowstorm in 1966 unloaded up to 2 feet of snow to these areas, and similar totals are expected from this week’s storm, making it likely this will rank as “one of the worst storms in recent history,” AccuWeather Senior Meteorologist Adam Douty said.”
https://i.ibb.co/Yby28JC/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f036.png
Winter temperatures in the western and northern US.
A major snowstorm in North Dakota and Montana.
https://i.ibb.co/h7R8Hhq/Screenshot-1.png
Very interesting read, but it looks at CO2 variance with various factors. I do not come at this from a pure physics perspective but from 25 years of continued analysis of the records and the increasing divergence between global temperature reality and IPCC near-mono CO2 factor models.
This work does not, however, attempt links between multiple factors and the Holy Grail of temperatures/ECS. While recognising no single factor can hope to explain the temperature swings we see (as much as 0.5C from year to year in the UAH and other records) they cannot be linked to a single CO2 variable, as that has been largely constant or slowly increasing over the 40+ years of UAH-supported records.
However, there is a remarkable match between the global average temperatute swings over the period 2005 to the present between temperatures and PDO (of which ENSO is a higher frequency sub-set). So after finding this, I went to google and find many interesting papers that attempt to match temperature excursions with multri-variant impacts, including the solar and PDO/AMO variations. They are interesting reading, especailly as we enter a 20+ year cycle where solar activity (cycles 25 and 26) are expected to decline and some suggest PDO will be entering a quieter phase. Of course, some may question cuase vs. effect (or the chicken/egg debate for we amateur physicists!)
Are these trends at least partially the cuase of the now 7 year statistical pause/decline in global tempertures? Sadly, my advancing years may mean Ill never find out!
I think we’ll find out soon enough. The troposphere in winter in high latitudes only reaches to about 6 km. Therefore, changes in the stratosphere due to a decrease in solar activity will affect winter temperatures in high and mid latitudes very quickly.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
len…”there is a remarkable match between the global average temperatute swings over the period 2005 to the present between temperatures and PDO (of which ENSO is a higher frequency sub-set)”.
***
Look up Tsonis et al for the study they did analyzing ocean oscillations over a century. The conclusion, at least by Tsonis, was global warming occurred when the oscillations were in phase and cooling when they were out of phase.
The PDO was not officially discovered till the 1990s. I doubt if much has been learned about its long-term effects as of yet.
Tsonis questioned whether we should be spending so much time and effort studying anthropogenic causes while ignoring those natural causes.
Older news:
Woolly Mammoths’ Taste For Flowers May Have Been Their Undoing
February 6, 2014
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/02/05/272094425/woolly-mammoths-taste-for-flowers-may-have-been-their-undoing
[I was wondering what they ate. I agree it wasn’t grass.
In terms of extinction, I tend to think, they grew big, lack
predators and became stupid- kind of like humans. Humans could killed
them, but given enough time, any kind change could wiped them out.]
entropic…” http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
When I look at the data I see a 5000 year natural cooling trend followed by a rapid artificial warming trend.
I dont see a Minoan Warm Period, a Roman Warm Period of a Little Ice Age. I suppose the flat spot around 1000AD might be the Mediaeval Warm Period”.
***
For cripes sake, the LIA and MWP are noted right on the graph THAT YOU SUPPLIED.
You can see the graph nose dive from the MWP at 0C down to -4.0 C at the peak of the LIA. Then some idiot has drawn a purple line over the data. The idiots have also compared proxy data with modern instrumental data then spliced the modern data onto the proxy data.
Only an idiotic alarmist would dream of doing anything that stupid while expanding the temperature scale to exaggerate warming as if it means something.
” For cripes sake, the LIA and MWP are noted right on the graph THAT YOU SUPPLIED.”
The graph labels where some people think the MWP and LIA were. Labels on a graph are not proof of their existence, especially when the graph itself provides very little supporting evidence.
I can’t find anything to support your claim that the LIA went down to -4C.
The only approach to -4C is during the last glacial period 22,000 years ago.
Dr. Spencer,
Your regression model clearly indicates there is more to increasing CO2 than from fossil fuel emissions. However, only the volcanic and fossil fuel contributions are direct estimates of CO2 emissions. I consider EMI and IOD indirect contributions based on temperature influencing oceans outgassing CO2. Back in March 2020, I modified your earlier model correlating FF emissions with Mauna Loa data by including a hypothetical growth in non-FF emissions using a single, and constant, rate coefficient for the absorp.tion of atmospheric CO2 into the ocean and land sinks. I have modified that model further by including a physically-derived temperature out-gassing effect and one more factor for the remainder of all possible sources of atmospheric CO2.
Prior to the industrial age, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was assumed to be relatively constant at around 280 ppm. The master equation for that situation would be delC/dt = ks*Cs – ka*Ca, meaning the change in CO2 equals the rate of emission from CO2 sinks minus the absorp.tion of CO2 from the atmosphere. Global warming shifts the equilibrium toward increasing CO2, meaning ks has to be a function of temperature. Also, the equation had to be modified to account for additional CO2 sources caused by industrialization.
I used a temperature factor derived from first principles by Kevin Hashemi (http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/). The factor increments (either adds or subtracts) the previous year’s total CO2 by 2.8% per degree change in temperature. The other factor contributing to atmospheric CO2 comes in part from the growth in population, because the decomposition and burning of past vegetation probably increases exponential as well. The magnitude of that concentration was simply the best fit to the Mauna Loa data. Although the fit is not perfect, only the remainder factor was manipulated to get a best fit. I can improve it by adding data for some remaining known but unaccounted for CO2 contributions, such as volcanic emissions, as they become available. It is also likely that the absorp.tion coefficient is not constant and could be a function of time, which would also allow improvement to the fit.
The spreadsheet algorithm is Cn = Fn + Tn + Pn – kaC(n-1) where Fn, Tn, and Pn are the fossil fuel, temperature, and population etc. contributions. The data is plotted here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2z8umpnymz1l5r9/FF%2BTemp%2BPop%20grow%20CO2.png?dl=0
Chic,
I know your post was to Dr. Spencer, but what are EMI and IOD?
Should be MEI, the ENSO index. IOD is one of the regression factors Dr. S is using, Indian Ocean Dipole.
I was late posting and he doesn’t usually response this late after posting. I’m happy for constructive comments from anyone.
The algorithm should be Cn = Fn + Tn + Pn (1 kaC(n-1)) with ka around 0.28. Pn in 1850 starts at 80 ppm/year and increases to 112 in 2021 or 20 to 23.5 times current FF emissions.
entropic…[GR]re-warming from the LIA?
But why did it cool and why is it rewarming? Without a mechanism and proper numbers for the energy imbalance your case is very weak”.
***
It seems obvious solar input varied during the period of the LIA. Some have claimed there was volcanic activity involved at certain times.
You seem to be happy with the major ice ages, what caused those?
It’s possible that the fusion reactions in the Sun are not constant and vary over a period, maybe regularly or irregularly. It might have been the case that our entire solar system was flying through a huge collection of dust, or gas, that blocked solar energy.
Who knows? All we know is proxy data and written records record that something cooled the planet between 1300 and 1850 AD. There is proof in the way glaciers expanded, sometimes enormously.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100706151525/http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/text/extlittleice.htm
akasofu…”Therefore, it may be inferred that the CO2 contribution was about +0.1C during the last century”.
That’s near what I calculated using the Ideal Gas Law.
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/guest-post-the-continuing-recovery-from-the-little-ice-age-by-syun-ichi-akasofu/
christos from Wikipedia article…”From 1859 onwards, he [Tyndall] showed that the effect was due to a very small proportion of the atmosphere, with the main gases having no effect, and was largely due to water vapor, though small percentages of hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide had a significant effect.
***
In 1909, R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2, offered his opinion that CO2 could not cause such warming. He offered that the main gases mentioned in the quote above like nitrogen and oxygen could cause the warming by absorbing heat from the surface, which rises, but cannot dissipate the heat due to their inability to radiate it away.
Of course, the heat will dissipate naturally as the gases rise to a level where they thin out as the pressure drops. As the pressure drops, the temperature will drop naturally as well. Also, the rising gases can spread laterally by convection and mingle with cooler air aloft.
btw…Tyndall thought warming would be a good thing. The year 1859 was near the end of the Little Ice Age and temperatures would still be a lot cooler. He would likely have thought the warming we have received to date would be ideal.
Gordo,
The sociopaths at Wikipedia have edited the Tyndall content for the last several years, hoping everyone has forgotten what was written before. Tyndall had written that CO2 and other trace gases had little effect.
Editable internet content isn’t worth squat.
As a rule Wikipedia requires source referencing and keeps a comprehensive record of all previous versions and edits. Is there a particular revision that illustrates your assertions (Tyndall though “warming would be a good thing” (edited out by sociopaths) and “CO2 and other trace gases had little effect”)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tyndall&action=history
Mark B,
Horse poop. They control what references are allowed for source material. Do they allow any of Ed Berry’s, Murry Salby’s, or Hermann Harde’s papers for source material? No need to answer.
In fairness, Ed himself disallows people to source his paper.
One needs to pay for his paywall!
Willard, please stop trolling.
stephen p anderson
Again I appeal to you to return to your scientific mind and get away from the nefarious lies of the right-wing conspiracy theorists who you believe (without any evidence, they just make claims and gullible right-wing people believe everything they say).
I looked up what Tyndall actually wrote on the topic and your right-wing liars fed you crap. They lie all the time to gain power over the mind. Reject this and return to you science mind. Demand evidence, proof, facts.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hxdhu8&view=1up&seq=42
Start at page 33 of John Tyndall book “On Radiation”.
Gordon Robertson loves to lie and deceive. Are you going to follow this course as well? I hope not. Gordon is no a science minded person. He is a conspiracy theorist. These types do not need evidence at all. They just believe any conspiracy regardless of content.
Good find, Norman.
Note that Gordo pretends to be a leftist. Think Old Left. The conservative kind. A bit like teh Courtney.
Norman,
This is what used to be quoted in Wiki. I used to use it all the time. I’ll look at your link over the next few days, but again, Tyndall wrote a lot on the subject. I’ll see what he says in this lecture. Tyndall still isn’t the be-all to end-all. Propagandists like to use Tyndall like they use Marx. Tyndall was a smart man, but he got a lot of stuff wrong. Have you read much of the “crazy” shit he used to say?
norman…you are a serious comedian. That particular work of Tyndall is nonsense. He says ‘probably’ a ten foot column of air could absorb 10 to 15% of the heat radiated from the surface.
Tyndall is guessing. His original work in the lab was good but this is him hypothesizing about a system (the atmosphere) he clearly does not understand. In his day, there was no understanding of EM emissions and what drove them.
norman…”Gordon Robertson loves to lie and deceive”.
***
Of the two of us, who has studied engineering at university? Who has followed a career in a field based in physics?
Not you.
C’mon, Gordo.
Twas many, many years ago. A few courses. Mostly for electric stuff.
I bet you worked as an electrician. Which is fine, really.
If you want to go with credentials, I’ve been trained to read. You obviously haven’t.
Gordon Robertson
I am not convinced you studied any actual engineering but even if you did, all that information is lost to you now as you only subscribe to conspiracy theories and accept them as fact with no evidence.
On Tyndall. I pulled up the information not to convince you about the GHE, it was to demonstrate that the claim Tyndall said trace gases had no effect was false.
Scientists now have large amounts of data (actual measured values that you choose not to accept) that demonstrates the GHE.
You say you took engineering but you can’t understand the Inverse Square Law. You think Earth surface IR emission reduces considerably in just a few feet because you can move your hand away from a oven burner. This is not the thoughts of someone who studied college physics. It is someone who really does not know much science and pretends.
Gravity of Earth also follows the Inverse Square Law like IR emission. Does gravity force go away in a couple feet above the surface? If you jump do you just keep moving upward because gravity has gone weak in a few feet. No Gordon you never studied physics. You get all your science knowledge from Conspiracy blogs.
“Tyndall had written that CO2 and other trace gases had little effect.”
Fake made up ‘facts’ are not worth squat, Stephen.
Show us the quote, from a legit source.
>Show us the quote from a legit source.
So, where would that be? Propagandists dominate the internet. You have nothing else to do.
So youre a Flat Earther: all the Earth pics are fake.
Admit it, its just made up.
You’re showing your colors with the old “Flat Earther” schtick.
strong words from the “leftists are Nazis” guy
Willard, please stop trolling.
Maars on Mars
Maar
“A maar is a broad, low-relief volcanic crater caused by a phreatomagmatic eruption (an explosion which occurs when groundwater comes into contact with hot lava or magma). A maar characteristically fills with water to form a relatively shallow crater lake which may also be called a maar. The name comes from a Moselle Franconian dialect word used for the circular lakes of the Daun area of Germany.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maar
I was wondering what youngest craters on Mars, were.
Didn’t see answers, but people looking for Maars on Mars.
How many Maars are on Mars?
Couldn’t get any idea.
“Late last year, researchers at NASA used a machine-learning algorithm to discover fresh Martian craters for the first time. The AI discovered dozens of them hiding in image data from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and revealed a promising new way to study planets throughout our solar system. From a science perspective, thats exciting because its increasing our knowledge of those features, says Kiri Wagstaff, a computer scientist at NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory and one of the leaders of the research team. The data was there all the time, its just that we hadnt seen it ourselves.
https://www.wired.com/story/nasa-is-training-an-ai-to-detect-fresh-craters-on-mars/
Still want to know about fresh craters, but also about maars on Mars.
Since Mars is pretty dead volcanologically speaking, one could imagine there not many Maars on Mars.
But if found some, it could give some clues about mining water on Mars.
Maars on Mars would indicate Mars’ ground water.
We don’t know if or the amount of Mars ground water.
But might not immediately indicate the depth of any ground
water.
I think there could be a lot Mars ground water, but unlike Earth, it could be at great depths. Mars has no plate tectonic activity and our active volcanic activity/plate tectonic keeps ground near surface [though some imagine lots of water also be at great depths on Earth].
Or Mars has thick crust as compared to Earth’s thin crust- at in theory.
In terms Mars water minning, ground water as shallow as 1000 meters or less would be relevant. And also what kind of water. But quantity more significant than quality of water.
High SOI will drive typhoons in the western Pacific.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
“An “ice-free” Arctic Ocean, sometimes referred to as a “Blue Ocean Event”, is often defined as “having less than 1 million square kilometers of sea ice”, because it is very difficult to melt the thick ice around the Canadian Arctic Archipelago”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline
So, ice-free means 1 million or less square km of polar sea ice and lowest recorded in modern times is: 2012 AD 3.39 million square km.
So, I was going to ask when we going to get ice-free arctic polar sea ice, but now going to change it to when are we get to 1 million square km or less of polar sea ice.
Again with Wiki:
“The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (2021) stated that Arctic sea ice area will likely drop below 1 million km2 in at least some Septembers before 2050.”
And:
Many scientists have attempted to estimate when the Arctic will be “ice-free”, among them Peter Wadhams who in 2014 predicted that by 2020 “summer sea ice [will] disappear,” Wadhams and several others have noted that climate model predictions have been overly conservative regarding sea ice decline.”
Does anyone now think the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report is overly conservative?
And now, I am wondering about this “very difficult to melt the thick ice around the Canadian Arctic Archipelago”.
How old is it?
Without looking {though I have no idea whether anyone bothered to determine how old it is} how old do you imagine that ice is?
My impatience may ruin the question:
“Abstract
The bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) is a planktivore of the baleen group of whales adapted to live in the loose edges of the north polar sea ice. Its annual migrations roughly track the advance and retreat of the floe edge.
…
Using this criterion, postglacial time is divided into four intervals: (1) 10.5-8.5 ka B.P. – A large bowhead population extended in the summer all the way to retreating glacier margins and ultimately from the Beaufort Sea to Baffin Bay; meltwater-driven outflows probably cleared the inter-island channels of sea ice; this interval terminated when the present interglacial circulation pattern was established; (2) 8.5-5 ka B.P. – Bowheads were excluded from most of the archipelago because the channels failed to clear of sea ice; summer sea-ice conditions for most of this time were more severe than during historical times; (3) 5-3 ka B.P. – Bowheads reoccupied the central channels of the Arctic Islands, and their range extended beyond historical limits; and (4) 3-0 ka B.P. – Sea ice excluded whales from the central channels, as it does today.
…
A reconciliation of the two data sets may indicate the following general summer climatic conditions: 10-8 ka B.P. – warm summers with maximum postglacial warmth; 8-5 ka B.P. – cool, dry summers; 5-3 ka B.P. – cool, wet summers; 3-0 ka B.P. – cold, dry summers.”
https://jmss.org/index.php/arctic/article/view/64255
It goes on and on:
But at least they warn you:
“The extreme difficulties of navigating the ice-plagued waters of this remote area and the harsh polar climate have inhibited study of its marine cryosphere. Scientific knowledge is superficial and incomplete.”
And: “However, it may vary appreciably with change in climate. Paleoclimatic data suggest that ice (and marine mammals) moved more freely through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago at some times during the Holocene than at present.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2001JC001102
[If I were to make it short, it seems the amount freshwater doesn’t make it easier. If I was interested, I might read most of it]
Something else:
“Though much attention has been focused in recent years on the melting of ice from Greenland and Antarctica, nearly half of the ice volume currently being lost to the ocean is actually coming from other mountain glaciers and ice caps. Ice loss from a group of islands in northern Canada accounts for much of that volume.
In a study published in April 2011 in the journal Nature, a team of researchers led by Alex Gardner of the University of Michigan found that land ice in both the northern and southern Canadian Arctic Archipelago has declined sharply. The maps above show ice loss from surface melting for the northern portion of the archipelago from 20042006 (left) and 20072009 (right). Blue indicates ice gain, and red indicates ice loss.
In the six years studied, the Canadian Arctic Archipelago lost an average of approximately 61 gigatons of ice per year. ”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/50726/ice-loss-in-the-canadian-arctic-archipelago
We have discovered the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states: Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
The discovery has explained the origin of the formerly observed the planets’ average surface temperatures comparison discrepancies.
Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon and because Earths surface is covered with water.
What we do in our research is to compare the satellite measured planetary temperatures. We call it “The Planets’ Surface Temperatures Comparison Method“.
A faster rotating planet accumulates much more solar energy, than a slower rotating one.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
As usual, you obfuscate by not acknowledging the at least 20:1 non-fossil fuel emissions competing for absorp.tion by the sinks. My estimate gives FF emissions at most 8% of the rise.
Unless you want to continue to claim that only half of FF emissions remain after all of the non-fossil fuel emissions are absorbed.
So you accuse Roy of obfuscation now?
Show us evidence (not invented data) that that the net annual non-fossil emissions are 20 x FF emissions.
My misplaced comment due to the absorp.tion posting issue was directed at you, not Dr. Spencer who was “trying to show how difficult it is to determine cause-and-effect from the available statistical data analysis alone.” His analysis used a regression model which does not include physical process components such as emission and absorp.tion rate constants. Even so his analysis shows “the role of anthropogenic emissions is reduced by 15% from the anthro-only regression model.” That is, 35%, not the simplistic 50% from your man-behind-the-curtain brainwashing.
By including physical absorp.tion rate constant and a physically meaningful contribution due to the effect of temperature, My physically meaningful model shows that fossil fuels and out-gassing CO2 sources contribute less than 10% to the total CO2 emissions. Until you or someone else has a better analysis proving me wrong, I rest my case.
Are you Ed Berry?
He had a model which pumped large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere from the deep ocean into the atmosphere against the concentration gradient by an unspecified mechanism and at zero energy cost. Not even LOT compliant!
Your model sounds equally plausible. Have you published it?
Thanks for the compliment. I doubt I will ever publish my model because it is too similar to the others who have published along the same line of thinking which is that FF emissions are sinked as a fraction of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Since the “natural” emissions (I like to say non-FF emissions) are twenty times more than FF emissions, only a small fraction of the atmosphere retains the FF emissions.
What might be unique and publishable is data indicating non-fossil fuels are increasing due to population growth. Stay tuned.
“My physically meaningful model shows that fossil fuels and out-gassing CO2 sources contribute less than 10% to the total CO2 emissions”
A ‘model’ that presumes the existence of a massive undetected net flow of natural co2 into the atmosphere from an unidentified source by an unidentified mechanism is not physically meaningful.
It does not ‘show’ anything, other than how to delude oneself.
My model shows that fossil fuel emissions alone cannot explain Mauna Loa data using IPCC acknowledged non-FF emissions and an absorp.tion rate based on pre-industrial atmospheric CO2. Either there are additional sources of CO2 or absorp.tion rate(s) have changed considerably.
You are welcome to provide and alternative model with an alternative explanation. Otherwise you are just a useless sniping troll.
You’re the one with the alternative model, Chic:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/carbontracker/
Scientists are past spreadsheets.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The key word, as Nate mentions is “net”.
95% of GROSS CO2 emissions come from respiration by the biosphere. Since the same amount of CO2 is absorbed by photosynthesis the NET emission is zero.
This is the difference between human emissions and natural emissions. Natural emissions are removed from the atmosphere as fast as they are emitted. Human emissions accumulate.
Horse poop. That violates the principle of equivalence. Do you understand the equivalence principle? Absorp.tion is a function of atmospheric concentration. Atmospheric concentration increases until it reaches a new balance level. But if fossil fuel emissions are only 5% of total emissions, it appears Chic is being conservative with his 8% figure.
It’s simple. Do you understand the ideal gas law, PV=nRT?
n=PV/RT, so, n is proportional to pressure. As the partial pressure of CO2 increases, the number of collisions increases, collisions with sinks increases.
Exactly. Apparently, there a few armchair quarterbacks here that never never took physical chemistry.
That might not age well, Chic.
Please explain the relevance of the Ideal Gas Law to photosynthesis and respiration.
Like Chic Bowdrie you are armchair guarterbacking with no knowledge of biology, or of the biosphere role in the carbon cycle.
Willard, Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
> Absorp.tion is a function of atmospheric concentration.
And what kind of function would that be?
There are many, more than Ed might be able to conceive.
Willard, please stop trolling.
E man,
Maybe you live in a rest home and cannot appreciate how much plowing, trimming, mowing, burning, and other non-fossil fuel sources that contribute to the roughly 95%. No matter. Fact is you have not kept tabs on photosynthesis or out-gassing and therefore you are not in a position to challenge my hypothesis that population growth contributing less than one percent more CO2 each year explains perfectly the 2.5 ppm average yearly CO2 increase.
What you wrote would be relevant if you knew for a fact that natural emissions have not increased one iota since human flourishing began.
> What you wrote would be relevant if you knew for a fact that natural emissions have not increased one iota since human flourishing began.
That argument would have some scientific validity if appealing to ignorance had any currency.
Chic Bowdrie
All the processes you describe return CO2 to the atmosphere by respiration of decomposers. The plant material decomposing was built by photosynthesis using CO2 removed from the atmosphere earlier in the year.
Over a year the biosphere takes up 125Gt of carbon by photosynthesis and releases 125Gt by respiration. They cancel out, so the net contribution of the biosphere to increasing CO2 is normally zero.
Indeed the biosphere is currently acting to slow the increase in atmospheric CO2 by taking up 25% of human emissions.
Please research carbon cycles. At present you are armchair quarterbacking with no knowledge of biology or carbon cycles.
All that is well and good, EM, but have you considered unicorn farts?
Like tree lobsters, I bet you cannot prove they do not exist.
Until then, you established NOTHING.
My granddaughter has a large collection of unicorns.
I’ll test their output and let you know.
The chemical reactions for photosynthesis and respiration are balanced. But do you have any data to support your claim that they “cancel out” on a global yearly basis?
Please keep me updated, EM.
Did you notice how Chic requests for hard evidence in one comment while in the next gestures toward the infinity he does not know?
Usually these postures fall under different roles. As you may well know, Climateball is a balancing act.
Chic Bowdrie
“The chemical reactions for photosynthesis and respiration are balanced. But do you have any data to support your claim that they cancel out on a global yearly basis? ”
Yes.
Look at the Keeling Curve.
https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu
The curve shows two patterns.
There is a long term trend, an increase in concentration of about 2ppm/year Which is new CO2 entering the system.
There is also an annual cycle. You see a minimum in October. The concentration then increases by 10ppm to a peak in March and then decreases again.
The cycle follows the Northern Hemisphere growing season.
This is because the majority of Earth’s biomass is on land in the Northern Hemisphere.
From March to October there is globally more photosynthesis than respiration and there is a net decrease in CO2 of 10 ppm. From October to March there is more respiration than photosynthesis and a net increase in CO2 concentration of 10 ppm.
Since the cycle returns to its original value each year any contribution to increasing CO2 will be small.
Both sceptics and NASA agree that the planet is greening, ie that the amount of biomass is increasing and the biosphere is a net absorber of CO2 from the atmosphere. Do the numbers and the biosphere is absorbing the equivalent of 1 ppm/year.
My model does the numbers. I don’t see any data or models from you.
“Since the cycle returns to its original value each year any contribution to increasing CO2 will be small.”
You are simply describing reality. There is a net increase each year which you and others can claim is totally from fossil fuel emissions. But is an empty assertion unless you can prove no increase in contributions from non-FF emissions.
My model indicates there is a problem explaining the Mauna Loa data without a revision in your all anthro AGW position.
Chic Bowdrie
Let’s go through the options.
Where is the extra CO2 coming from?
It’s not the biosphere, which is a net absorber of of 1ppm equivalent CO2.
It’s not the ocean mixed layer. In accordance with Henry’s Henry’s Law the increasing partial pressure gradient is causing the ocean to take up CO2 from the atmosphere faster than increasing temperature is reducing its solubility. That’s a net uptake of 1ppm equivalent.
It’s not the deep ocean either. Ocean pH is decreasing. As a chemist you’ll note that the bicarbonate/carbonate equilibrium is moving towards bicarbonate as dissolved CO2 increases and pH drops.
It’s not volcanoes. Total volcanic emissions are about 0.04ppm equivalent/year.
Silicate weathering and sedimentation are net absorbers of CO2 and absorb about 0.4ppm equivalent.
We know from business records that fossil fuel use and cement production are releasing 4ppm/year equivalent into the atmosphere.
All of the above data is in the literature of you care to check; measured, calculated, peer reviewed, published and replicated.
In summary, 4ppm equivalent enters the atmosphere from human activity each year. 1ppm equivalent is absorbed from the atmosphere by the biosphere and another 1ppm by the ocean mixed layer. That gives a net increase of 2ppm/year.
I’m interested. How does your model make 4ppm equivalent of human CO2 emissions vanish while creating 4ppm emissions from nowhere?
“Its not the biosphere, which is a net absorber of of 1ppm equivalent CO2.”
Without a model or some justification, that assertion is meaningless.
“All of the above data is in the literature of you care to check; measured, calculated, peer reviewed, published and replicated.”
Another meaningless assertion. What data have you seen that refutes my hypothesis?
“How does your model make 4ppm equivalent of human CO2 emissions vanish while creating 4ppm emissions from nowhere?”
You are obviously not paying attention. I am proposing an incremental increase in non-FF emissions in addition to the known FF emissions where using a physical-chemically relevant absorp.tion rate allows an excellent fit to the Mauna Loa data. I published the spreadsheet formula on this post. Make sure you understand it before making any more nonsensical replies.
Chic Bowdrie
I predate spreadsheets. You’ll have to use words.
Are you describing positive feedbacks?
This is the carbon cycle I’m familiar with, in this case compiled from the literature by NASA.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.jpeg#mw-jump-to-license
What evidence do you have that it is wrong?
Willard
I collected unicorn farts from the room where my granddaughter was playing with her unicorns.
They show the same absorb.tion spectrum as the GHG methane and would therefore be expected to influence the climate. One caveat; I cannot guarantee that the farts came from the unicorns and not the wee girl.
> I cannot guarantee that the farts came from the unicorns and not the wee girl.
Therefore it’s meaningless.
Look at the silly monkey!
The master equation says the change in variable with respect to time equals the sum of the inputs and outputs to the variable, in this case CO2 in the atmosphere. My spreadsheet equation accumulates CO2 in air from an arbitrary time 0 (1850) and assumes the initial CO2 to be 280 ppm. Each new/next line of the spreadsheet adds the published FF emission, a temperature contribution, and an additional factor totaling about 80+ ppm emissions for that year to the previous year’s total and then subtracts a fraction of the previous year’s total to get the new total CO2 in air for that new year. This is a commonly used numerical integration technique that simulates the integration of the theoretical master equation. The fraction removed is based on the 80ppm/280ppm approximate fraction that has to be added and removed each year for the CO2 to have remained constant prior to the industrial revolution.
An engineer would have to explain if this has anything to do with feedbacks. I think not. The FF emissions are just what they are. My temperature factor just adds or subtracts a fraction of the new CO2 based on the magnitude of that year’s temperature change. The final input was a multiplier proportional to the population each year that made the best fit to the Mauna Loa data. I could have improved the fit by tweaking the multiplier to change with time. The fact that I didn’t have to do that is what surprised me and struck me as novel. That is, the growth in CO2 is largely proportional to population growth over a 170 year span.
There is nothing wrong with your carbon cycle cartoon other than being outdated and disagreeing somewhat with the IPCC version. You have 121 + 92 GtC exchanging between air and sinks annually and only 5.5 GtC/year FF emissions. The IPCC figures are more like 160 total exchange and 10 GtC FF emissions, IIRC.
Chic uses something simple like Conservation of Mass as the basis for his model. Eman and his sycophants use obfuscation, chaos, and red herrings as the basis for their model. As Einstein said, if you can’t explain it to a six-year-old, you don’t understand it yourself. Eman, you can’t explain it to a six-year-old.
Here’s my model of Chic’s model, Troglodyte:
https://xkcd.com/793/
The only difference is that neither you nor Chic are physicists.
“There is nothing wrong with your carbon cycle cartoon other than being outdated and disagreeing somewhat with the IPCC version.”
Different dates. As you say, the NASA diagram is about 20 years old. The AR6 version is from about 2020. Together they show the effect of 20 years warming and 20 years of accelerating CO2 emissions on the carbon cycle.
Willard, Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
As Roy correctly noted above, the outgassing from the ocean due to T rise would be limited to about 10 ppm.
This confirmed by ice core data showing 7 ppm drop from MWP to LIA.
I suppose Chip will have to argue that he is obfuscating.
So that leaves what source/mechanism to get the massive new input of natural carbon required?
This is sheer fantasy. No data. No evidence. No physics.
But yet they have BELIEF in the cause. Apparently thats good enough.
Unlike you, Dr. Spencer uses data and models to push back the frontiers of CO2 science. My attribution calculation might need to be revised, but I have used data and realistic physics leading to evidence, albeit inconclusive, that CO2 growth comes from more than fossil fuels.
No it is not good enough and, unlike you and your AGW belief, I’m working on falsifying a hypothesis.
> I’m working on falsifying a hypothesis.
Evidence that you’re working would already be great, Chic.
Nate says:
As Roy correctly noted above, the outgassing from the ocean due to T rise would be limited to about 10 ppm.
This confirmed by ice core data showing 7 ppm drop from MWP to LIA.
———————————
Didn’t Al Gore and Michael Mann say there was no global temperature change between the LIA and MWP Nate? What are you saying it is now?
And how do you know that ground truths Roy’s comment? After all he didn’t say where he read that.
Glad you ask that leading question, Bill:
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/24/climate-epochs-that-werent/
The Serengeti strategy is harder when one can find tons of sources that corroborate our contrarians’ favorite scapegoats.
Willard says:
Glad you ask that leading question, Bill:
The Serengeti strategy is harder when one can find tons of sources that corroborate our contrarians favorite scapegoats.
——————————-
You are hilarious Willard. I said there was no evidence that Nate’s source wasn’t also Roy’s source. . . .Therefore, it is primary violation of the rules of science to suggest that Nate’s source corroborates Roy and his source.
I know they make exceptions for climate science on this stuff where one scientist extrapolates as a suggestion the potential of a physical relationship and the second scientist then does a study on the premise the first source’s suggestion was corroborated science.
In fact that probably comprises over 97% of climate science papers I would estimate.
Your question started with “Didn’t Al Gore and Michael Mann,” Bill.
You really seem to have a problem following your own train of thoughts.
Willard seemed appropriate to start out with Al Gore and Michael Mann since folks here are still bringing up Pratt and the models still estimate 3C warming don’t you think? The spinners on this blog simply can’t learn! Good thing you aren’t a spinner Willard.
Your squirrels are usually more elegant than that, Bill.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has determined the size of the largest icy comet nucleus ever seen by astronomers. The estimated diameter is approximately 80 miles across, making it larger than the state of Rhode Island. ”
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Hubble_confirms_largest_comet_nucleus_ever_seen_999.html
Linked from: https://www.spacedaily.com/
[80 miles = 128.7 km in diameter
+100 km diameter impactor is world changing]
“The behemoth comet, C/2014 UN271 (Bernardinelli-Bernstein) is barreling this way at 22,000 miles per hour from the edge of the solar system. But not to worry. It will never get closer than 1 billion miles away from the Sun, which is slightly farther than the distance of the planet Saturn. And that won’t be until the year 2031.” 22,000 mph = 9.8 km/sec
” The comet has been falling toward the Sun for well over 1 million years. It is coming from the hypothesized nesting ground of trillions of comets, called the Oort Cloud. The diffuse cloud is thought to have an inner edge at 2,000 to 5,000 times the distance between the Sun and the Earth. Its outer edge might extend at least a quarter of the way out to the distance of the nearest stars to our Sun, the Alpha Centauri system.
The Oort Cloud’s comets didn’t actually form so far from the Sun; instead, they were tossed out of the solar system billions of years ago by a gravitational “pinball game” among the massive outer planets, when the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn were still evolving. The far-flung comets only travel back toward the Sun and planets if their distant orbits are disturbed by the gravitational tug of a passing star – like shaking apples out of a tree.”
Any know “star” passing by us within last million years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs#Distant_future_and_past_encounters
Gliese 710 closest approach to our Sun: 0.166 lightyears and about
1.286 million years ago.
It takes well over 1 million years for a comet to travel into the inner system from the Oort cloud and Gliese 710 passed through the Oort cloud 1.3 million years ago.
I trust our development of comet deflection technology is well under way.
We have nuclear bombs, we just need to deploy them quick enough. At far enough distance, a slight change in velocity of it’s trajectory would cause a miss.
We are practicing this with DART:
“5 months ago
NASAs Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART), the worlds first full-scale mission to test technology for defending Earth against potential asteroid or comet hazards, launched Wednesday at 1:21 a.m. EST on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Space Launch Complex 4 East at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. Just one part of NASAs larger planetary ”
https://www.nasa.gov/planetarydefense/dart/dart-news
btw, DART is not using any kind of explosive, all one needs is mass and difference of velocity [nukes would just work better- or need launch less mass to slightly move a vast amount of mass].
The problem is having enough distance and knowing the exact trajectory of object- so what mostly needed is more and better telescopes, which we doing, also.
We getting large telescope which will be able to do this, and even James Webb could be of use.
Huge snowstorm in North Dakota.
https://www.kfyrtv.com/weather/cams/?fbclid=IwAR30q5zue0DyKsDw3xIaXbNKtiPCjpVPnMkhDIRcmpKpgMy2bAbsIs9w3Y4
https://i.ibb.co/Pj5fzqW/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
Bitter cold to persist in wake of massive blizzard in north-central US.
https://cms.accuweather.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/RFThursAm12Apr.jpg?w=632
Now Roy has updated the latest full data
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1243296
norman…”I looked up what Tyndall actually wrote on the topic and your right-wing liars fed you crap. They lie all the time to gain power over the mind. Reject this and return to you science mind. Demand evidence, proof, facts.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hxdhu8&view=1up&seq=42
Start at page 33 of John Tyndall book On Radiation”.
***
Look at page 19 where he claims heat-waves flow through a luminescent aether. And, a few pages earlier where he claims IR from the Sun is more intense than any other part of the visible spectrum. Never seen solar IR cause a sunburn on human skin.
I enjoy reading what Tyndall did re his experiment on CO2, and on the electrically-heated platinum wire, which is the basis of Stefan’s S-B equation, but we need to face it that his understanding of the atmosphere was very limited.
It is this limited understanding that is the basis of modern AWG theory. No one has proved scientifically at any time that CO2 is warming the atmosphere.
“No one has proved scientifically at any time that CO2 is warming the atmosphere. ”
Actually they have. Unfortunately the proof is beyond your limited understanding.
Ent, Sun heats Earth’s surface and then Earth’s surface heats the atmosphere. So, CO2 is NOT the source — It’s the Sun, stupid.
But why is surface temperature increasing while the Sun is cooling?
Because passenger jets don’t fly backwards.
Aren’t you supposed to work on your explanation for Tim, Pup?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
What Tyndall said about solar flux was correct than (based upon actual evidence, something that you do not like, you only want absurd theories from conspiracy theorists…you think Gary Novak, is a credible information source…he is not!) as it is now.
Here:
https://www.fondriest.com/environmental-measurements/parameters/weather/photosynthetically-active-radiation/#:~:text=The%20three%20relevant%20bands%2C%20or,of%20the%20total%20solar%20radiation.
Infrared comprises 49.4% of Solar flux while visible makes up 42.3%.
Maybe you should ask Gary Novak about this issue, I am sure he will tell you something that you will believe.
norman…”Infrared comprises 49.4% of Solar flux while visible makes up 42.3%”.
***
I was aware of the amount of IR vs visible and that’s not what I was talking about. I was talking about the INTENSITY of each, which Tyndall was referencing.
EM intensities from UV and above are far more intense than anything emitted below red in the spectrum. Tyndall was claiming the hidden IR radiation was more intense than the visible, which is wrong.
The relationship between intensity and frequency can be expressed as E = hf. However, that led to the ultraviolet catastrophe which Planck got around by fudging the response curve to peak in the region of yellow/green light frequencies.
Planck reasoned there would be less of the more intense frequencies than those at frequencies below yellow/green frequencies and he built an exponential function into his equation to force a drop off in the solar spectrum after the Y/G peak.
That solved the E = hf conundrum but it is misleading in that it gives the impression that UV frequencies are not as intense as visible light frequencies at the Y/G peak.
Anyone knows that UV and beyond is far more intense than IR and below, in the solar spectrum. As I said, no one ever got their skin burned by solar IR. UV is generated by much higher energy sources than IR.
Mining lunar water:
https://theconversation.com/mining-the-moons-water-will-require-a-massive-infrastructure-investment-but-should-we-117883
An interesting article, but wrong:
“So, what is being proposed is to mine a precious and finite resource and burn it, just like we have been doing with petroleum and natural gas on Earth. ”
…
“Let us not keep repeating the same unsustainable mistakes we have made on Earth we have a chance to get it right as we spread into the solar system.”
The moon probably has very small amount to water [compared to Earth or Mars] you should use it all [if you can].
The moon is not like Earth. Earth is limited energy, space has unlimited energy.
In simple terms, the Moon might have say 1 billion tonnes of water.
Or 1 trillion kg of water. If lunar sells at $10 per kg- 10 trillion dollar {gross] of water.
Lunar water is like oil or natural gas, it’s a small part of the economy. If you could sell 10 trillion dollars of lunar water, you need a lunar market. If sell the water at $100 per kg, it doesn’t make a larger lunar market simply because, it totals 100 trillion dollars, instead the lunar market will be smaller if water cost $100 rather than $10 per kg.
Space has many Earth oceans of water. You use every bit of lunar water and end up with trillions of tons of water on the Moon.
The true value of lunar water is that it a way start a market for water in space.
But first one needs the moon to have mineable water. If Moon doesn’t have mineable water, there are other ways to start market for water in space.
For the moon to be a “superpower” it needs get stuff off the Moon without using rocket fuel- you want to get to the point using lunar mass drivers and thereby lower lunar launch cost to far less than $1 per kg of payload. Or the energy used to launch is electrical power and it’s quite possible that electrical power on the Moon could become less than electrical power on Earth.
Solar power on Earth doesn’t work, but lunar solar can cheaper than using coal power on Earth. But to get to this point, you need a market [large market] for electrical power on the Moon.
If lunar water is mineable, then this make electrical market on the Moon- or you converting lunar water into chemical energy [rocket fuel].
So if cost of lunar electricity can brought down to cost of electrical power on earth within shortest period of time- this mean Space power satellite for the Earth’s surface. And also mean SPS for Mars- if the Martians don’t already have them.
NASA job, is to explore the Moon and then Mars. And if there mineable water on either or both, Mars or Moon. It lower launch cost on the Moon and/or Mars.
NASA’s obsessive has been to lower Earth launch cost, it do it, by exploring the Moon and Mars. If can lower Mars or Moon launch cost, you lower Earth, Moon, and Mars launch costs. And then NASA can explore solar system and the universe.
A very interesting article. I’ve always wondered that if carbon dioxide really is a “well-mixed” gas that seasonal variations due to plant growth should make their way to a relatively remote island in the Pacific. It isn’t like Hawaii itself is prone to large seasonal variations, so it must come from elsewhere.
Furthermore, it is difficult to believe that the rate of change of photosynthesis goes negative in late spring, just to remain fairly steady until the autumn.
I think it far more likely that the major influence on the CO2 fluctuation is the fact that about only about 1/3 of the land surface of the earth is in the Southern Hemisphere, including Antarctica, and so the out-gassing surface is greater, and that there would be a time lag before Mauna Loa would be able to notice.
Mike
I wrote this for Chic Bowdrie upthread.
It helps answer your guestion.
Entropic man says:
April 14, 2022 at 12:08 PM
Chic Bowdrie
The chemical reactions for photosynthesis and respiration are balanced. But do you have any data to support your claim that they cancel out on a global yearly basis?
Yes.
Look at the Keeling Curve.
https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu
The curve shows two patterns.
There is a long term trend, an increase in concentration of about 2ppm/year Which is new CO2 entering the system.
There is also an annual cycle. You see a minimum in October. The concentration then increases by 10ppm to a peak in March and then decreases again.
The cycle follows the Northern Hemisphere growing season.
This is because the majority of Earths biomass is on land in the Northern Hemisphere.
From March to October there is globally more photosynthesis than respiration and there is a net decrease in CO2 of 10 ppm. From October to March there is more respiration than photosynthesis and a net increase in CO2 concentration of 10 ppm.
Since the cycle returns to its original value each year any contribution to increasing CO2 will be small.
Both sceptics and NASA agree that the planet is greening, ie that the amount of biomass is increasing and the biosphere is a net absorber of CO2 from the atmosphere. Do the numbers and the biosphere is absorbing the equivalent of 1 ppm/year.
Hi Entropic man,
Thanks for the reply.
I’ve had the Keeling curve bookmarked for a good long time, and the correlation of annual cycle with the growing season in the Northern Hemisphere is familiar to me and, of course, is noticeable. It is certainly a major cause.
What has always jumped out at me is just how straight the line segments from high to low and back again are. I really need to crunch numbers and stop relying on my eye.
I do think that out-gassing is underestimated in general, particularly in analysis of ice cores, etc., because of what it implies for cause and effect of warming in general…the third rail if you will.
Mike,
This was my response to E man upthread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1244377
He has no numbers that will definitively indicate how much CO2 remaining in the atmosphere each year is from fossil fuel emissions or new emissions exceeding previous years. His hands must be very sore.
And these were the numbers I gave you.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.jpeg#mw-jump-to-license
But where’s the evidence for all the things we know nothing about, EM?
Chic
I think you’ve fallen into the same trap as Ed Berry. You’ve created a model which tells you what you want to hear, rather than what you need to know.
And I think you have no idea what you are talking about. Let me know when the coin drops.
Oh, good, you’ve figured Entropic out.
C’mon, Gordo.
Do you have any evidence that you know what EM’s talking about?
Eman,
So, why can’t a plant photosynthesize a fossil fuel CO2 molecule? Why do commercial greenhouses concentrate CO2 with fossil fuel CO2 molecules?
stephen p anderson says:
April 15, 2022 at 6:28 AM
Eman,
“So, why cant a plant photosynthesize a fossil fuel CO2 molecule? Why do commercial greenhouses concentrate CO2 with fossil fuel CO2 molecules? ”
Plants can photosynthesis fossil fuel derived CO2.
Once released into the atmosphere all CO2 molecules behave in the same way.
Commercial greenhouses use CO2 produced as a byproduct of the Haber process.
If you remember methane is reacted with oxygen to produce hydrogen and CO2. The CO2 is separated out by cooling until it condenses and the hydrogen is reacted with nitrogen to produce ammonia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
Willard says:
April 14, 2022 at 8:02 PM
Cmon, Gordo.
“Do you have any evidence that you know what EMs talking about? ”
No. He’s just armchair grandstanding like Chic and Stephen.
It’s even ironic. Since biology is the application of other sciences to living organisms I perforce had to learn physical chemistry.
These armchair grandstanders never had to learn biology, and it shows.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1241741
“I perforce had to learn physical chemistry.”
Seems you haven’t learned much. I cannot take you seriously anymore.
You shouldnt take me seriously. I’m here for the entertainment.
Where else could I watch Gordon Robertson and Stephen Anderson so laughably misusing the Ideal Gas Law?
Where else can I watch a man with so little understanding of the carbon cycle trying to model it?
However, take my science seriously. Everything I write is backed up by the literature.
Eman,
You’re such an expert on everything, amazing. How many commercial greenhouses have you been in? It’s a real simple process. You sure like quoting Keeling Curve which isn’t an explanation for anything. So now that you understand that plants can photosynthesize CO2 molecules of any source and that absorp.tion is described by the IGL and Henry’s Law of partial pressures, your statement that photosynthesis and respiration are balanced is meaningless?
Stephen
Do you realise how absurd you sound?
Ent claims that everything he writes “is backed up by the literature.”
That’s FALSE. He’s the one that religiously writes that passenger jets fly backwards.
He’s such a phony.
And if he REALLY understood photosynthesis, he would know the process can NOT be explained by evolution.
Ah, the good ol’ days:
[CHIC] Another approach is to test the cornerstone assumption that additional CO2 will have any further effect on the global average temperature. I have not found sufficient support for the latter.
[AT] Then you’re not looking hard enough.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/02/15/the-greenhouse-effect-an-illustration/#comment-72901
Willard, please stop trolling.
Let’s demonstrate the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon on the:
Earth’s /Moon’s example
Earth is on average warmer 68C than Moon.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths sidereal rotation spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
Earth is on average warmer than Moon not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin.
Earth also has a five (5) times higher average surface specific heat (for Earth cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean; and for Moon cp.moon = 0,19cal/gr*oC its soil is a dry regolith).
Earth is warmer than Moon not because of Earth’s very thin atmosphere trace greenhouse gasses content. Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moons surface.
Earth(N*cp) /Moon(N*cp) = (29,53/1)*(1/0,19) = 155,42
–
If Moon had Earth’s albedo (a=0,306), Moon’s mean surface temperature would have been 210K.
As we know, Earth’s mean surface temperature is 288K. Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moons surface.
–
Let’s compare the Earth’s and Moon’s (for equal average Albedo) the mean surface temperatures:
Tmean.earth /Tmean.moon = 288K /210K = 1,3714
and the Earth’s and Moon’s (N*cp) products sixteenth root:
[ Earth(N*cp) /Moon(N*cp) ]^1/16 = (155,42)^1/16 = 1,3709
–
The results (1,3714) and (1,3709) are almost identical!
It is a demonstration of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:
–
Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
–
The 4th root powers twice
The 4th root powers twice is an observed the Rotational Warming (N*cp) in sixteenth root power phenomenon when planet mean surface temperatures comparison ratios with the coefficients is compared.
Please also visit the page Earth/Mars 288K/210K
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445868922
–
The entire thread there is devoted to the planets mean surface temperatures comparison. And every time for the compared planets the (N*cp) in sixteenth root is necessarily present.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Snow totals top 40 inches as April blizzard blasts northern US
Hundreds of miles of roads were shut down, ranchers and their animals faced brutal conditions — and will see more tough weather ahead. Meanwhile, snowdrifts in some spots were estimated to be higher than 10 feet in some places.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/winter-weather/april-blizzard-hits-north-dakota-and-montana/1172294?utm_campaign=AccuWeather&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3e_wN2szqj3I2YiqiUZQUET43KmscviiMkxls7w98Cd3EM8dWlrWrJ2b0
Meh! You’re not from these parts are you?
Songs have been written about this… https://youtu.be/-0OLOvP8zpY
maguff tries to divert from the message of super cold weather in an allegedly warming climate, wherever the climate in question may be.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/us-climate-summary-january-2022
Read harder.
Gordon Robertson at 6:06 PM
Weather is the totality of atmospheric conditions at any particular place and time – the instantaneous state of the atmosphere and especially those elements of it which directly affect living things.
The elements of the weather are such things as temperature, atmospheric pressure, humidity, cloudiness, precipitation, sunshine, wind, visibility, considered separately.
Spells of weather are recognized by the continuance of some type, or repetitive sequence, of weather over several days or weeks at a time. It is convenient to distinguish short spells (or “runs of weather”) lasting just a few days and long spells lasting several weeks (apart from trivial interruptions of not more than three days).
This concludes today’s public service announcement!
Willard, Tyson, please stop trolling.
Snow and frost will bring severe conditions to the northern US. Snowfall continues in North Dakota and will move over the Great Lakes overnight.
https://i.ibb.co/7kgbP0h/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f036.png
They started out predicting a mild ice cover on the Great Lakes in January and had to revise it quickly in February. Wonder what it looks like now? Should be melting by now but I guess this cold was predicted by global warming theory. [Sarc /off]
What is the weather station doing here without a scantily clad bleached blonde shaking her booty at me?
entropic …”[GR]..No one has proved scientifically at any time that CO2 is warming the atmosphere.
[ENT]Actually they have. Unfortunately the proof is beyond your limited understanding.
***
Try me!!! If you have scientific evidence that is not hearsay, based on the opinions of 19th century scientists, correlation based on laboratory experiments, the propaganda of the IPCC, or directly verifiable in the atmosphere, let’s hear it.
I am looking for scientific evidence, based on the scientific method, that can be independently verified.
You live in Vancouver?
You would probably benefit from seeing the evidence for yourself.
May I suggest that you contact the Physics Department at the University of British Columbia.
https://phas.ubc.ca
https://phas.ubc.ca/contact-us
They do physics demonstrations. Ask them to set up a gas cell and show you the IF absorb.tion and reemission of different concentrations of CO2.
entropic…”But why is surface temperature increasing while the Sun is cooling?”
***
It’s re-warming from the Little Ice Age, when something apparently affected solar output from the Sun or solar input to the Earth.
“something”
Can you be more specific.
The changes in Earth’s orbit were already cooling us towards the next glacial cycle at -0.1C/millennium.
Your hypothesis would predict that something accelerated the cooling for six centuries and then recovered to the original -0.1C/millennium cooling rate.
Instead we are warming at 0.2C/decade. That is an enormous overshoot on the “recovery from the LIA” one would expect.
norman…”On Tyndall. I pulled up the information not to convince you about the GHE, it was to demonstrate that the claim Tyndall said trace gases had no effect was false”.
***
Tyndall did not prove they had an effect, he said they probably had a 10 to 15% effect. I have never claimed they have zero effect, but using the Ideal Gas Law, I estimated an effect at about 0.04C warming per 1C warming from other sources.
In climate models, the warming effect of CO2 is rated at 9 – 25%. All they have done is take Tyndall’s guess and expand it based on the amount of WV in the air. Neither have supplied scientific proof that CO2 has any such capability in the atmosphere.
“The average global temperature during the period known as the Last Glacial Maximum from roughly 23,000 to 19,000 years ago was about 46 degrees Fahrenheit (7.8 degrees Celsius), some 13 degrees Fahrenheit (7 Celsius) colder than 2019, the researchers said.”
…
What is interesting is that Alaska was not entirely covered with ice, Tierney said. There was an ice-free corridor that allowed humans to travel across the Bering Strait, into Alaska. Central Alaska was actually not that much colder than today, so for Ice Age humans it might have been a relatively nice place to settle.”
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/last-ice-age-global-temperature-scientist-predict/
Central Alaska was nice place to live in these coldest 4000 years.
It seems that Central Alaska is fairly dry these days, I wonder if it
was wetter during those 4000 years.
“Last Saturday, at a workshop organized by the Foundation Questions Institute, Nobel laureate physicist Gerard ‘t Hooft gave a few informal remarks on the deep nature of reality. Searching for an analogy to the symmetries of basic physics, he asked the attendees to imagine what would happen to our solar system if you suddenly swapped Earth and Mars. He went on to discuss his ideas for explaining quantum mechanics, but I couldn’t get my mind off his question. What would happen?”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-would-happen-if-earth-and-mars-switched-places/
“Obviously, Martians would be delighted with the new arrangement. A fairly modest increase in Mars’s temperature would melt the polar caps and liberate gases from the soil, flipping the Martian climate into a new, cozier state nearly as warm as Earth.
…
Earthlings would get the short end of the deal. Sunlight would be half as intense and the planet would freeze over. On the plus side, we’d instantly be half as many years old.”
Well, I would think Mars would be hellish.
But it seems greenhouse effect theory would say it’s average temperature would be -18 C.
It seems one could have a constant global dust storm.
But it seems one get rid of dust and the CO2 if added enough ocean.
With land a noon sun would heat it to 120 C.
Due to lack pressure the ocean would boil at low temperature. But the boiling ocean would create air pressure of water vapor.
It seems only way it works is if add 1 or 2 psi of oxygen, but that many trillions of tonnes of oxygen.
Otherwise, Mars is better where it is.
James Webb telescope’s coldest instrument reaches operating temperature:
NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope will see the first galaxies to form after the Big Bang, but to do that, its instruments first need to get cold – really cold. On April 7, Webb’s Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) – a joint development by NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) – reached its final operating temperature.
Along with Webb’s three other instruments, MIRI initially cooled off in the shade of Webb’s tennis-court-size sunshield, dropping to about 90 Kelvin. But dropping to 6.4 Kelvin required an electrically powered cryocooler.
The low temperature is necessary because all four of Webb’s instruments detect infrared light wavelengths slightly longer than those that human eyes can see. Distant galaxies and planets outside our solar system all emit infrared light. But so do other warm objects, including Webb’s own electronics and optics hardware. Cooling down the four instruments’ detectors and the surrounding hardware suppresses those infrared emissions. MIRI detects longer infrared wavelengths than the other three instruments, which means it needs to be even colder.
The JWST perversion of science begins: “NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope will see the first galaxies to form after the Big Bang…”
That’s belief. It ain’t science.
Tim is still waiting for the demonstration you promised, Pup.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Eman,
Aren’t you going to argue with TMG about the Big Bang? Wouldn’t it imply a Creator?
“Arent you going to argue with TMG about the Big Bang? Wouldnt it imply a Creator? ”
Not necessarily. There are at least three other possibilities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology#:
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/baby-universes-black-holes-dark-matter/#:
https://www.nature.com/articles/246396a0#:
None of those preclude a cause.
Occams Razor requiresthat I eliminate all possible natural explanations for the Big Bang before considering supernatural ones.
REAL science precludes any possibility of Big Bang.
Sorry, that should be:
REAL science precludes any possibility of a “natural” Big Bang.
Entropic man says:
Occams Razor requiresthat I eliminate all possible natural explanations for the Big Bang before considering supernatural ones.
————————
Occam’s Razor doesn’t qualify in this field. Since we have no clue about how the matter or energy contained in the universe was originally created. . . .the answer is supernatural until it can be explained. Thus your approach is to keep thinking inside of the box when in fact the answer is outside of the box.
So good luck with your search.
“It takes 10 years and 22 ppm for CO2 to amass just 0.2 W/m in total surface energy flux. In contrast, short-wave cloud radiative forcing fluctuations vary in amplitude by 300 W/m within hours.”
https://notrickszone.com/2022/04/14/2-more-new-studies-reaffirm-the-co2-drives-climate-change-paradigm-has-a-magnitude-problem/
I’ve been saying that for years. A single cloudy day or El Nino can wipe out 10s if not 100s of years of energy back radiation of CO2. CO2 is simply an insignificant variable when it comes to the climate. Its input shows a log decay. Focusing on CO2 is like a nutritionist claiming the number of glasses of water a person drinks is responsible for the weightloss after the person eats 3 meals a day at McDonalds. CO2 backradiation is a rate, a very low rate of energy application. Simply calculate the amount of energy released by an El Nino and then calculate out how long 0.9 W/M^2 is required to replace the lost energy. CO2 is a minimal joke. The example I give is a giant tipping bucket at a water park. CO2 is like filling it with a garden hose when there are giant fire hoses representing the sun and clouds that are also filling it. El Nino’s are the tipping of the bucket, releasing energy so there will never be catastrophic warming, but the Sun and Cloud firehoses refill the bucket, not the CO2 gardenhose.
Once again RK relies on tools who don’t do the reading to promote his crap:
Srsly.
> RK
I mean KR, for Kenneth Richard.
Willard, please stop trolling.
co2…quote from another source…”It takes 10 years and 22 ppm for CO2 to amass just 0.2 W/m in total surface energy flux. In contrast, short-wave cloud radiative forcing fluctuations vary in amplitude by 300 W/m within hours.
***
Neither one of those EM sources will warm the surface if the temperature of the source is colder than the surface.
I hope no one seriously thinks that radiation from clouds are going to warm you on a cloudy day.
There appears to be some confusion as to what the frequency response is for low (high) pass and notch filters.
Low pass includes the gaussian ones I use, S-G and LOWESS. They all exhibit what would best be described as a sigmoid function frequency output (strictly the inverse of it for low pass).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function
Notch filters are those with a normal frequency distribution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution#/media/File:Normal_Distribution_PDF.svg
These are often to be found in wavelet analysis or anything else to do with pure sinewave decompositions.
At the limit (infinity or greater than the length of data available) then low pass approaches a linear OLS trend, but nothing in nature is a straight line or approaches infinity. This also tends to lead to ‘cherry picking’ of the start/end dates which is why it is depreciated for quasi-sinusoidal data.
“the inverse of it for low pass”
If frequency is as is normally shown with low frequencies to the left and high frequencies to the right.
rlh…”There appears to be some confusion as to what the frequency response is for low (high) pass and notch filters”.
***
From an electronics perspective, there are two basic types of filters, bandpass and band-reject.
Band refers to a range of frequencies, that when applied to a sinusoidal waveform, cover a certain range of frequencies of that sine wave signal. For example, the range of audio signals is defined as 20 hz to 20,000 hz. A band may be defined as 1000 hz(1Khz) to 5Khz.
If I wanted a bandpass filter, I would design it with a centre frequency at maybe 3Khz, and it would pass frequencies from 1 Khz to 5 Khz while rejecting the rest of the audio spectrum.
Of course, no electronic filter is perfect so the edges of the bandpass are defined as being 3 db below the peak at 3 Khz. The 3 dB is a reduction in power of 1/2 or a roll-off of power.
A high pass filter would be set up to pass frequencies beyond say 5 Khz and reject those below that figure. A low pass filter would pass frequencies below maybe 200Hz while rejecting those above 200 HZ. In practical application, one does not want to completely reject frequencies above or below a certain frequency but to attenuate them to various degrees.
A notch filter is used to reject frequencies around a specific frequency. If I applied a notch filter at 1 Khz, it would reject all frequencies around 1 Khz while passing all frequencies in a certain range around 1 Khz. There is no such thing as a filter that will notch 1 Khz only.
A notch filter is used as part of a parametric equalizer, which can be adjusted to a certain frequency where a notch is applied based on its amplitude of attenuation. If I had several tracks of music recorded and I needed to create space for a vocal, I would tune the parametric to the range where the voice was expected and reduce the amplitude of other signals to make room for the voice. I don’t want to eliminate those frequencies but attenuate them slightly.
That’s a notch in the frequency spectrum. It would not be a sharp notch since it must allow for a range of notes fundamentals from the vocalist while allowing the underlying instruments to be heard.
Frequency response as applied to a filter describes the width of the band affected but its not actually a frequency response but a frequency attenuation. The response in ‘frequency response’ refers to the amount of amplification by an amplifier. It refers to how much an amplifier amplifies each cycle in the audio spectrum.
Most filters can only attenuate, like a sophisticated tone control. There are filters that can amplify as well. As I described earlier, the filter does not attenuate with a flat response over a range of frequencies, its attenuation ‘rolls off’ from a centre frequency at so many dB per octave.
An octave is a doubling of frequency. The note A above middle-C on a piano is at 440 hz. The note an octave higher would be another A at 880 hz. If you have a roll-off at 3 dB/octave, it means, for a filter set at 880 hz, it would be half the power at 440 Hz and at 1760 hz.
Of course, some filters allow the roll-off to be adjusted to say 6 dB/octave or greater to steepen the attenuation.
Nothing is perfect in the real world of filters, however, since they introduce phase distortion. If they are used in statistics, I would suspect similar distortions.
rlh…”This also tends to lead to cherry picking of the start/end dates which is why it is depreciated for quasi-sinusoidal data”.
***
This is why I am suspicious of any data that is blindly number-crunched using purely statistical analysis without a good understanding of what the data means physically.
For example, a person number-crunching the UAH data from 1979 – present would completely miss the flat trend from 1998 – 2015. Or the developing flat trend from 2016 onward.
“there are two basic types of filters, bandpass and band-reject”
In the digital domain they are the same thing. You can turn one into the other by subtracting just it from the original signal.
Both together are the original signal. Subtract the bandpass and you get the stop band and vice versa. No losses as this is digital.
Low pass is not the same as bandpass. One is a sigmoid function, the other is not.
I explained in my novella that a bandpass requires attenuated frequencies on either side. A low pass has attenuated frequencies above it and a high pass has rejected frequencies below it.
The only difference between bandpass and band-reject is that one passes a band of frequencies and the other rejects them.
In an AM radio receiver, an FM radio receiver, or a TV receiver, there is a row of filters called an intermediate frequency bandpass filter. When a range of signals is received at an antenna, they are beat with a local oscillator between one of the incoming signals to produce a lower intermediate frequency.
For an FM radio, the IF is 10.7 Mhz (455 Khz for AM), for example. It is desirable to remove all signal associated with the IF within a certain bandwidth so the signal is passed through a series (about 2) of bandpass filters set to a certain bandwidth. If you view the signal on an oscilloscope, it looks similar to a bell curve, centred at 10.7 Mhz for an FM receiver.
If we wanted to reject the 10.7 Mhz signal, we would use a filter to reject it in a bell-shaped curve while passing all other frequencies around it.
That would not be the same as a low pass or high pass unless the band you were rejecting or passing was the entire band below or above the centre frequency.
That is essentially the only difference between low pass, high pass, and bandpass in electronics. The bandpass passes frequencies either side of a centre frequency whereas the low pass and high pass pass frequencies below or above a centre frequency only. A band-reject would not pass frequencies at a centre frequency but all frequencies around it.
In logic terms you could say a band-reject is NOT bandpass. No pun intended.
A low/high pass has a sigmoid distribution. A bandpass has a normal distribution. See above.
The bandpass distribution may be narrow or wide at 3db/6db/12db/etc. per octave.
That does not alter its overall shape, only its spread.
In the digital domain you can either filter for something or reject for something. It is only maths.
Hence
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah-1.jpeg
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah-residuals.jpeg
where the residuals are the whole signal minus the 7 year S-G.
The Global Elite looks at Eman, Chihuahua, Norman, Nate, and the rest of the sycophants and thinks, “Useful Idiots.”
Everybody else looks at Chic, Clint and Stephen and just thinks “Idiot”.
Or perhaps “armchair quarterbacks”.
Ent, my definition of an “idiot” is someone that rejects, or denies, reality.
Apparently your definition is someone that disagrees with your opinions.
As your world is only about your cult opinions, that makes you a “cult idiot”.
And since you’re unable to learn, that makes you a “braindead cult idiot”.
Thanks for the opportunity to clear that up, again.
Pup,
My definition of a coward is someone who offers a challenge but runs away.
Quit trolling, present your demonstration to Tim.
Worthless Willard, as usual you have no clue what you’re talking about.
Grow up and get a job!
Tim is still waiting, Pup.
What are you afraid of?
The problem with useful idiots is they’re dangerous. The Nazis were populated with useful idiots. Same with the Marxists.
Quite right, Troglodyte.
The Tea Party Caucus still has many seats.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The Industrial Revolution lowered CO2 emission.
A significant aspect of Industrial Revolution was to increase energy efficiency.
And major factor which increased CO2 emission is poor governing.
Governments are wasteful and inefficient.
Governments have not lowered CO2 emission.
Governments create poverty and have not done anything lower poverty.
Government say they do things, and they don’t.
If one wanted to lower CO2 emission, one would make more nuclear reactors, government made less nuclear reactors.
Governments governing of nuclear reactors has been a train wreck.
Politicians are mostly idiots managed by “special interests” and don’t represent the people they govern.
The UN is cesspool of corruption.
NASA is train wreck, but compared other governmental bodies, it’s shining city on the hill.
The most massive thing governments screw up is education- public education has not worked, and has never worked, and it’s not getting better. Children are sent to prison and are brainwashed, badly. Trillions of dollars are thrown away in system that prevents education.
> public education has not worked, and has never worked
Well, actually:
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/review-decade-ten-trends-global-education
Chihuahua links a very objective organization, NOT! Surprise, surprise.
Critical thinking not included with Willy.
Guy whose guru is teh Dilbert haz strong words.
“Guy whose guru is teh Dilbert haz strong words.”
Scott’s amusing like Jon Steward used to be.
Scott thinks global warming is serious problem.
Thinks some new invention could suck out the CO2 in atmosphere.
He doesn’t know that we living in a icehouse climate
> Scott thinks global warming is serious problem.
Sure, Jan:
https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/29/14112056/dilbert-scott-adams-climate-change-challenge-models-carbon-dioxide
“Climate Science Challenge. Find a scientist — just one — who says the climate prediction models are credible”
They are not credible.
But they aren’t predictions, either, they are projections, according the IPCC which is issuing them.
If there is a credible one, which one is it?
But first you should perhaps inform the IPCC, which one is credible-
because they need to know.
No one can predict the future of global climate, except me:
We are cold, and will remain cold for more than 100 years.
[How long do you want me to predict?]
But I can’t predict the weather.
Instead I will look at weather forecasts.
And when people think about global climate, they think it’s about the summation of weather.
[And predicting weather for more than 1 week is not very credible.]
But Earth’s global climate is actually an icehouse global climate.
As everyone, knows, and no one argues, that we are not in an Ice Age. It was taught in elementary school.
Scott in general is very skeptical of any and all models of anything, as is anyone, who is vaguely familiar with any models of anything.
But apparently Scott thinks there are meant to be predictions [because foolish reporters say they are].
Anyhow, Tony Heller did not convince Scott Adams.
And Tony Heller hasn’t convince me, either.
But Tony Heller could guess what Venus temperature was at Earth distance, I would very much like to listen to his opinion.
Rope-a-doping won’t help you here, gb.
Keep that for your science-fiction threads.
Troglodyte’s solution to reduce global poverty and improve lives –
LESS TAXES
Less taxes rather than more taxes, would obviously be better.
But school choice particularly for lower income families, would
be better, than lower taxes.
So you say, gb, so you say.
The Chihuahua believes in government. He’s a gubment man.
Troglodyte believes in Sierra Leone, but he won’t live there.
That must be uncomfortable?
There might be too much gubmint over there, Troglodyte.
How about Antarctica?
“The Chihuahua believes in government. Hes a gubment man.”
Hmm, that’s interesting.
Can you imagine being a gubment man and having Trump the Destructor, being the US president?
Never considered it before.
I guess, I tend to think of gubment men as being conservative.
Sort why, I don’t support Republicans- having this insane idea that
one shouldn’t “improve government”.
So, don’t understand, that US has been working towards being a republic, so Republican need to improve the so called republic. Not freeze the ugly monster into impossible status quo.
Or why think it would good if we could live on Mars- improve government- not just on Mars, but also governments on Earth.
I am happy on Earth, but other people want to get off this rock.
Though South Korea government gets a passing grade in terms of nuclear power
Gordon Robertson
Since you are prone to believing lies like those coming from the mouth of vile Putin (a serial killer with an army backing him up so he can ruthlessly kill innocent people).
You accept his garbage about protecting Russians and being pinched in by NATO.
Read this and wake up. Putin is a liar and evil. He is the NAZI among them not Ukraine.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/invasion-of-poland-fall-1939#:~:text=Invasion%20and%20Partition%20of%20Poland,to%20encircle%20and%20dismember%20Germany.
Vile lying Putin is pulling a page straight from the NAZI’s to justify his evil invasion of Ukraine and you swallow his lies and deceptions. You can’t see him as a vile and evil human that needs to be contained.
You will believe the liars and conmen the rest of your life. I do not know why you find lies and deception so admirable.
Go Ukraine!!
Norman, since you have so much time to rant against vile liying, did you ever find your “textbook” verification that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface will heat it to 325K?
Remember, you ALWAYS support your claims.
Clint R (Bot)
The return of the program. Nothing new, just the same old routine over and over. I have already addressed this, your program does not understand logical thought so it ignores what is posted. Yet the routine resurfaces to repeat again and again.
Clint R programmer, please add some new routines to your programmed Bot.
Actually Norman, you only believe you’ve “addressed” it. But that’s not reality.
If you really had a source, you would be anxiously presenting it. But, you don’t have anything credible verifying fluxes simply add. You can’t support what you claim. You just make things up.
You know, Pup, every time you suggest that flux is a non-additive measure you make me smile. The more you keep a straight face, the funnier it gets.
It’s as if you were the Buster Keaton of the Dragon Cranks.
You’re late again, worthless Willard.
We need some better stalkers.
norman…”Vile lying Putin is pulling a page straight from the NAZIs to justify his evil invasion of Ukraine…”
***
Normie, you suffer from terminal naivete. Are you not aware that western Ukraine supplied divisions to the Nazis, like the Waffen-SS Galicia?. They committed war crimes right along with the Nazis, culminating in the mass slaughter of 40,000+ Jews at Babi Yar, a ravine outside Kiev.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar
There are factions, like the Svoboda Party, in the Ukraine parliament, who are supportive of those Ukrainian collaborators, like Stepan Bandera, wanted at Nuremberg for war crimes. The leader of Svoboda, Oleh Tyagnibok, applauded Ukrainians who fought against the Jews and ‘other scum’ in WW II.
Shake your head, Norman, this guy is talking about the Allies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleh_Tyahnybok
Any Ukrainians fighting against he Nazis fought alongside the Russians, who were our allies. Without them we would likely never have won the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_collaboration_with_Nazi_Germany
Clue in, for cripes sake.
C’mon, Gordo.
You clue in –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_military_parade_in_Brest-Litovsk
What does your link have to do with anything I posted about Ukrainian collaborators who fought with the Nazis and who are regarded by some modern Ukrainian idiots as heroes?
Hope you’re not a Holocaust denier. I posted a link to Babi Yar where over 40,000 Jews were systematically murdered outside Kyiv. Ukrainian Nazi sympathizers joined in the massacre and those are the creeps the Ukrainian fascist elements today are honouring as war heroes.
There are politicians sitting in the Ukrainian parliament today as members of the Svoboda Party who have denounced the Jews that were murdered, with reference to those fighting on their behalf as scum.
Get your head out of the sand. This can be corroborated easily on the Net by reliable sources.
C’mon, Gordo –
Even you can see that my link establishes that Russia collaborated with Nazis too. Even you could have made the connection.
Now, my turn. How is your “But Nazis” canard relevant to the discussion, except for you to regurgitate Russian propaganda?
Here, have another cookie:
https://imgur.com/JklAmAX
At least they’re not raping men, right?
Gordon Robertson
Yes there was much evil done by the NAZIS, none of this justifies Putin’s evil ruthless tactics. As the Lithuanian President stated, Putin’s crimes are even worse than the NAZIs of which you are against. If you find NAZI evil than at least see Putin is doing the same with innocent Ukrainians. He is destroying whole cities with endless bombing. Putin is just evil and needs to be stopped. I do not understand how you can support his horrible human. There is zero justification for what he is doing.
I am not talking about justifying anything. Any time innocent people get killed it’s evil. But why are you so focused on Putin’s evil and ignoring the blatant evil of the Ukrainian government in suppressing a revolt by Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine who identify with Russians?
The Ukraine is not innocent, there are some seriously evil SOB’s running amok in the country.
Is it OK with you that a democratically-elected pro-Russian president was ousted in a coup just because he’s pro-Russian? Is it OK that the European parliament, NATO, and the US government under Obama participated in encouraging the coup that ousted the president?
My main interest is in preventing a nuclear holocaust. The way we are approaching this through arming the Ukraine is leading straight into that scenario. Putin has now warned us twice, are we that seriously stupid, all for the sake of political bs?
Gordon Robertson
If the sick minded power hungry Putin can use Nuclear War threat to put the rest of the world in fear as he destroys cities and kills civilians at will, why is he going to stop with Ukraine? What would stop him from Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden?
Did Hitler stop with Poland? No he went on into France and then even Russia. Power hungry people stop when they want if his threats work then what will stop him.
I think you fall for his lies way too much. There was a small group of alleged NAZI group of militia fighters.
Norman, your obsession with Nazis is interesting.
Do you understand that Nazis were a cult? Do you see any similarities between Nazis and the cult idiots here? Notice the hatred, aversion to reality, and willingness to censor truth, displayed by all cults. People that are braindead can’t learn from history.
Gordo’s the one who keeps talking about Nazis, Pup.
You promised Tim an explanation, BTW.
Worthless Willard, it took you 45 minutes to respond. You even fail at stalking. And, you STILL don’t know what’s going on.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1245811
Your incompetence goes well with your immaturity and ignorance.
Oh, Pup.
I *do* know what’s going on –
You hide between a silly Sphynx act.
Willard, please stop trolling.
maguff…”NASAs James Webb Space Telescope will see the first galaxies to form after the Big Bang, but to do that, its instruments first need to get cold really cold”.
***
Sadly, this statement indicates how badly science has degenerated into pseudo-science.
What makes these idiots think they are looking at the epicentre of a fictitious Big Bang?
The light collected at the Webb telescope receiver is there right now. It does not represent a source in the past, it represents electromagnetic energy in the here and now.
There is no ‘back then’. The universe as a whole is here and now, existing in the same physical space we experience here on Earth. There is no separate dimension to this physical space, or related to it, called time.
I am not denying that a star that emitted light millions of years ago, and has now blown up as a supernova, and no longer exists as a star, was not there. I am claiming that the light we receive from that star, or ex-star, is arriving here right now, and in no way represents the distant past.
That raises the question as to exactly what it is we are seeing out there. Posters on here have argued that fluxes add. If that’s the case, why do we see all those stars as point sources and not a mish-mosh of added fluxes?
We know that light from a star is emitted isotropically, therefore it emits back they way as well as sideways. There are all sorts of dust clouds and hydrogen clouds in interstellar space, so why are we not seeing light from stars reflecting off those clouds, that are perpendicular to our line of sight to the stars?
We should not be seeing a narrow beam of light from a specific star since that light from the source onward should have spread out as a sphere. One answer is that our eyes, and the eyes of a telescope use lenses. The waves from the original star are actually spherical but our eyes sample a tiny portion of the sphere and our lenses bend the light into a point source.
We see our own Sun in this manner, since it emits only in spherical EM waves. The lens in our eyes sample the spherical waveform and turn it into a smaller source. Even solar input at TOA is measured in watts/unit area, the area being the section of a sphere.
It seems then that all stars are emitting in spherical EM waves yet none of the waves interfere with each other. More evidence that such fluxes from incandescent-like sources do not add.
“That raises the question as to exactly what it is we are seeing out there. Posters on here have argued that fluxes add. If thats the case, why do we see all those stars as point sources and not a mish-mosh of added fluxes?”
The starlight is “direct sunlight” and they far apart?
Like I claimed, the light from any star spreads out in spherical waves. The lens in our eyes intercept a tiny portion of the sphere and focuses it on our retinas as a point source.
We are obviously not seeing the star as a point source since many of them are far bigger than our Sun. We are seeing only a tiny portion of the spherical wave of light they give off at a huge diameter.
The fact that we can see many, many stars suggests the fluxes making up the wavefronts do not interfere, therefore they don’t add.
If you could see all the spheres from all the stars, there would be a myriad of intersecting spheres. Not only that, each sphere would be made up of bazillions of concentric spheres getting smaller and smaller as they got closer to the star.
“Like I claimed, the light from any star spreads out in spherical waves. The lens in our eyes intercept a tiny portion of the sphere and focuses it on our retinas as a point source.”
Yes. But you seem say it, as if the eyes are seeing it wrong [or something}.
Or, the stars are points of light.
And these points of light can be magnified and such magnified stars [if magnified enough] can similar to our sunlight [or hotter, if stars is as hot or hotter than our sun]. Or our sun if magnified enough, can melt brick [because sun’s temperature is way hotter than the temperature to melt brick].
Your eyes will only let in a part of the sun’s light, and eye’s pupil will shrink because the sunlight is very bright {btw, don’t look at sun}, but stars are not bright/intense like sun- pupil will or should not shrink {much}. And eyes are roughly seeing the correct size of stars, sun, or the moon.
There are illusions of their sizes, ie the moon looks bigger near the horizon, and etc. And Moon is bigger or smaller because it’s nearer or further from you [not an illusion].
Melting bricks with sunlight, goggle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrfcjSuwRTM
gbaikie…”But you seem say it, as if the eyes are seeing it wrong [or something}”.
***
Not questioning as much as trying to see it the way we actually see it. The whole point of my post was that light from a star does not represent the past. It can only represent the present.
With regard to the light from a star, if a person has been blind from birth and he/sh receives some kind of modern treatment so they can see, I have read reports that many of them feel totally disoriented and horrified at times by what they see. From birth, our eyes learn to deal with depth perception so we can place objects at a distance in our binocular vision field.
Biologist Rupert Sheldrake explained it something like the following. Light from a distant sources reaches our eyes, where it is immediately inverted upside down and right to left through the lens and appears at 2-D retina as that image. Then the image is converted to a biolectric signal where it reaches the brain for processing. The brain creates an imagine of what is seen and somehow that imagine is projected back out to where it is, in the field of vision.
Sheldrake is not claiming a real image is projected and he admits no one knows. The image would need to be virtual or related to some kind of energy we have not yet encountered. The theme of the article from which this is taken is ‘The Sense of Being Stared At’. How can we sense someone is staring at us? Seems to be some kind of energy projected by the person staring and we seem to have the ability to detect that energy.
Anyway, light from an image strikes the retina, which is actually a curved 2-D surface. There is no means by which the retina can create a 3-D image. Even if it could, the brain gets info from a 2-D surface, so how does it turn it into 3-D and add depth perception?
This is chapter 2 from Sheldrake’s book….
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.694.611&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Getting back to the stars. We can’t really position a star via depth perception. Although something like the Little Dipper appears like a dipper, the stars forming Ursa Minor are huge distances apart and of very different brightnesses. Therefore the naked eye creates an asterism that appears to be a dipper.
Even with a telescope it’s hard to detect distances because a very bright star can appear closer than one that is half the magnitude and a lot closer. So, what is it we are actually seeing. That’s my question.
If stars generate light isotropically (in all directions over a sphere) why do we see them as a point source? On the other hand, Jupiter, which is a lot bigger than Earth, appears as a point source to the naked eye and can be mistaken for a star. That is, when the Sun is shining on it at an angle where we can see it. Even then, the light shining off Jupiter spreads out isotropically.
When the isotropic sphere contacts us, our lenses take in only a fraction of the isotropic EM field and convert it to a point source because it’s all the light it can manage at that distance. If the same eye looks through a powerful telescope, the lens on the scope can amplify the isotropic portion to a larger disk.
“With regard to the light from a star, if a person has been blind from birth and he/sh receives some kind of modern treatment so they can see, I have read reports that many of them feel totally disoriented and horrified at times by what they see. From birth, our eyes learn to deal with depth perception so we can place objects at a distance in our binocular vision field. ”
Sure but I don’t think one needs some kind of disability- people actually see things differently.
I tend to think there is an objective reality, but people can see it differently. Or I don’t believe we are in simulation- that there is not objective reality or the “apparent objective reality” is a kind of fiction.
People have different points of view, and people can change their points of view, but seems doubtful anyone can have same point of view as someone else. People are different.
Scott Adams likes to talk of the two movies, but I would guess he imagines there is more than two. But maybe not because he says the simulation has “finite resources” which could allow just two or finite number of movies. I believe in “infinite resources” or God.
Scotts again, discuss the two movie thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=627b9NzRKOM
Anyhow, I would like to “see”/”understand” the cargo cult point of view- or anyone’s religious view.
Ie, what is Venus temperature at Earth distance from the Sun?
gbaikie…”I tend to think there is an objective reality, but people can see it differently”.
***
I agree. When the image on the retina is analyzed by the brain/mind, it can add information that is not there. That’s the basis of the ‘observer and the observed’ idea. The observer modifies the observed so what he/she is seeing is what he/she wants to see, not what is there.
I am not implying the star is not real. Picture the star as the core of an onion, but instead of a few layers surrounding it, there are an infinite number of waves of electromagnetic energy surrounding it, all of them continually moving outwardly.
Somewhere way out from the core, light years away, one of the concentric waves of energy is sampled by our eyes. Just one wavelet would do very little, we need a stream of them to produce the required frequency to produce colour or to produce the intensity required. As we stare at an object or a star, millions of wavelets strike our eyes in sequence.
There will be many other wavelets from other stars intercepted by our eyes at the same time. The lenses in our eyes will move the samples to various parts of the retina by inverting them and moving them laterally as well. So, the tiny samples of light from each wavelet will be located as point sources at different parts of our retina.
The point is, we are not seeing the actual star, we are seeing only the light that stimulates the retina in our eyes many light years away. Somehow, our minds create an image and has the ability to convert a 2-D image on the retina to a 3-D image with great depth.
When the Webb telescope gathers light from stars, it lacks the ability to change that reality. However, NASA minds look at the data and distort it by claiming it represents the past. They turn fact into fiction. They not only claim the light gathered is from the past but from a fictitious Big Bang.
All the education in the world cannot fix that illusion/bias, the only way around it is by becoming aware it is there and why it is there. Jiddu Krishnamurti spent a lifetime going into the reasons and his information has influenced scientists, like David Bohm, and celebrities who have been willing to listen.
With regard to he point sources, they are illusions. The distance over which the light travels renders them as point sources to the mind. It does that by sampling a tiny portion of the EM field of the star, after it has expanded over many light years, which is focused on the retina as a point of light.
We are not seeing the star itself, we are seeing a sample of light from it at a great distance. The star we are seeing as a point source may have exploded 100s of years ago and is no longer there but the light it gave off is still expanding isotropically through space. We are not seeing the actual star, we are seeing a tiny portion of its isotropic spherical expansion wave.
Those waves are stacked one behind the other and ill always be coming at us as long as the initial light given off is still moving through space.
Gordon Robertson at 5:38 PM
Just say no to drugs, man!
“The light collected at the Webb telescope receiver is there right now. It does not represent a source in the past, it represents electromagnetic energy in the here and now”
When ago did that light emanate from? Given that the speed of light is a know number.
You’d need to know the star and the distance. For the Sun, it was about 8 minutes ago.
For the ones that the telescope is looking at it is many, many millennia.
China will 1/2 it’s population by 2070
Is China Screwed?
https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=51172
Or has China almost reached lefty heaven?
It’s possible China 1/2 it’s population by 2050.
If that is true, I am wrong about China reaching peak coal,
Instead they reached peak people more than a decade ago and with
the less people in future, they should have endless amounts of coal.
But above in it’s video it’s claimed the economic collapse due huge amount debt will be worse.
And:
“I think Zeihan overstates the case a bit, and probably immanizes the timeline of crisis more than warranted, but the demographic and economic challenges China faces are very real.
Also keep in mind that no one in 1988 expected the Soviet Union to collapse as quickly as it did, either
Minimizes?
Anyhow, China coal at $314 per US ton:
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal
And I don’t trust any news about China- but how much they pay for Coal, I do have fair amount of confidence in.
They would have to stop same sex relationships at the same time.
entropic…”They [UBC…Vancouver} do physics demonstrations. Ask them to set up a gas cell and show you the IF absorb.tion and reemission of different concentrations of CO2.
***
I have never questioned the fact that CO2 can absorb IR. I fully accept Tyndall’s excellent demonstration, circa 1850.
I am questioning the proof that such an absorp.tion of surface IR by CO2 in the atmosphere is anywhere near enough to cause a significant warming of the atmosphere. As I have tried to point out, the Ideal Gas Law reveals only a warming proportional to the mass percent of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is about 0.04C per 1C warming.
In climate models they use a warming factor of 9% to 25%. I want to know how they derived such a warming factor and I want to see the proof for it.
An expert on CO2 and its properties, R.W.Wood, question this circa 1909. AGW theory is based on greenhouse warming theory and he questioned that CO2 in a real greenhouse could warm it via trapped radiation. He set out to prove that real greenhouses warm due to a lack of convection and it has nothing to do with radiation. He extended that to the atmosphere, claiming it was not possible for CO2 in the atmosphere to warm it.
The prevailing theory held that IR trapped by glass somehow caused the greenhouse to warm. It’s kind of absurd in a way, where is the mechanism by which IR can cause an amplification of heat? It would mean CO2 emitting IR, the IR being blocked by the glass, CO2 reabsorbing the blocked IR and amplifying it in the process. Such heat amplification is perpetual motion.
It makes far more sense that all air molecules are involved in the warming since heat is a property of mass, not IR. If the Earth had no convection, according to Lindzen, the surface would heat to 72C. Same in a greenhouse with no convection. However, a greenhouse has other means of dissipating heat via conduction through the glass and infrastructure, therefore it doesn’t reach 72C. It could easily reach into the 50C+ range with all doors and windows closed.
The truth is that the GHE and AGW, based on a real greenhouse, are bad theories based on wrong-headed physics.
BTW…when Lindzen claimed a surface temperature of 72C with no convection, that meant with full radiation. So, if heated air did not rise, and there were no winds, solar energy would warm the surface to 72C despite radiation.
C’mon, Gordo –
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/grantham-institute/public/publications/evidence–submission-papers/Critique-of-Lindzen%27s-lecture.pdf
Does that refute what Gordo just said?
Read Gordo’s comment again, Troglodyte.
Then again.
It should not be hard to see the problem.
This is not a quote from Lindzen, it’s a quote from some wanker alarmist.
C’mon, Gordo –
“The objective of this note is to produce a short critique of some of the major scientific arguments in the talk given by Richard Lindzen (RSL) in the House of Commons Committee Rooms”
You can be a jerk all you want, but don’t be an idiot.
Let’s dumb this down for you Willard. If you removed all CO2 and all water vapour from a greenhouse, would it still warm?
C’mon, Gordo –
Which part of “There has been a large increase of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases due to emissions resulting from human activity over the past 150 years” you do not get?
I have explained it thoroughly for you. There is not a shred of evidence that a trace gas in the atmosphere can lead to catastrophic warming and climate change.
When glaciers expand enormously over the Little Ice Age then begin melting after it, my science tells me that’s a very good natural explanation. Don’t need eco-weenie alarmists making up pseudo-science.
C’mon, Gordo –
Which part of “It’s kind of absurd in a way, where is the mechanism by which IR can cause an amplification of heat?” you do not get?
Dick does not deny the greenhouse effect. You do.
Quit squirming and think.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Global warming means a more uniform global temperature.
One could have very hot daytime air temperature, in glaciation period
[with low levels of CO2].
I should add, if average temperature of all the oceans is warmer then about 3.5 C, one have a more uniform global temperature, but it would have a higher uniform average temperature.
But this difference is bigger in an icehouse global climate.
A ocean temperature going from 3.5 C to 4 C, a 1/2 C degree difference, is bigger change compared to ocean at 5 C, going to 6 C.
Or a 6 C to 10 C is small difference.
10 C ocean is not an icehouse global climate, and it might not be warm enough to be a greenhouse global climate.
Or it seems like a complicated question of what average temperature of the Earth ocean would have to be, but it could be 10 C ocean.
willard…”Even you can see that my link establishes that Russia collaborated with Nazis too”.
***
In the beginning, that’s true. However, it did not take long for them to switch sides when they saw Hitler’s real intention. As I said, without them we’d have had it a lot worse by far.
I am in no way defending Stalin or the USSR. I have no communist sympathies, either for the former USSR or in modern China. I don’t know anything about Putin, only what the western media has printed. I now know a lot about the dark-side of the Ukraine and it has me worried. I don’t like to see any factions who sympathize with Nazis running around creating havoc in a country especially when their actions could lead to a nuclear war.
It’s the fascist SOBs who have created the problem with Russia and I’m all for letting Putin deal with them since our side wont. I think it’s despicable that countries, even Canada, are turning a blind eye to neo-Nazis.
Just found out there are cemeteries in Canada with headstones honouring WW II Nazis. Even some Jewish faction in Canada are willing to overlook it but I’m not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Volodymyr_Ukrainian_Cemetery
The strong temperature drop of the Peruvian Current promises to strengthen La Nia.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
More blue than red.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_relative_global_1.png
I understand that you are afraid of nuclear war, however Ukraine had its borders guaranteed by Russia, UK and US if it gave up its nuclear weapons. Those borders were breached in 2014 and I’m afraid you’ll find more Nazis in Canada and the US than in Ukraine. There are also in Poland, Hungary, USA etc. You will find the most Nazis now in Russia.
In previous years, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians worked in the Polish economy, which is why now Poles are so eager to help Ukrainian families.
> In the beginning, that’s true. However
Exactly, Gordo. Same for Svoboda, who has one seat in the Verkhovna Rada, and it’s not even held by Oleh Tyahnybok. They received less than votes than Maxime Bernier did, which is quite a feat.
Have more Russian fascists fans –
https://theconversation.com/putins-fascists-the-russian-states-long-history-of-cultivating-homegrown-neo-nazis-178535
Read, then think.
nice one, w
willard…” Same for Svoboda, who has one seat in the Verkhovna Rada, and its not even held by Oleh Tyahnybok. They received less than votes than Maxime Bernier did, which is quite a feat”.
***
So, you are claiming Ukrainians who believe in democracy held a coup to oust a democratically-elected president in 2014. What kind of bleeding democracy is that?
And what peaceful Ukrainian runs around with the guns that were used during the coup?
Willard, you are terminally naive.
C’mon, Gordo.
You can’t even get your number of Svoboda seats right.
It’s one.
There are lots of Ukrainians in Canada. Find a few. Tell them about your conspiracy theory. Meanwhile, please mind your mouth breathing.
Robertson is one of the dumbest ignoramuses on this blog.
All what he writes here is absolute trash, regardless what he writes about.
He has, like some others, no idea of what is Fascism, where Neonazis live, etc etc.
There are more Fascists and Neonazis between Southern Chile and Northern Canada than anywhere else on Earth: Germany, France, Hungaria and Italy of course included.
Simply because after WW II, a huge number of them silently left Europe under the protection of the Catholic Church in Rome, and moved toward the American continent.
binny…”There are more Fascists and Neonazis between Southern Chile and Northern Canada than anywhere else on Earth: Germany, France, Hungaria and Italy of course included”.
***
Binny is in terminal denial. The Nazi leaders ran to save their skins but they left behind a load of Nazi sympathizers whose descendants are alive and well in Europe. You are so dumb you don’t get it they exist today in modern Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism#Germany_and_Austria,_1945%E2%80%931950s
Gordo, you absolute twat:
As you can see, Vlad invented nothing.
Binny is not even talking about that, BTW.
Stalin and the Nazis had similar mentalities. Why does that surprise you so much?
I was talking about the similarity between Stalin’s playbook and Putin’s, Gordo.
Why do you keep deflecting?
Gordon Robertson 4/15/22 at 5:38 PM says:
“[…]
The light collected at the Webb telescope receiver is there right now. It does not represent a source in the past, it represents electromagnetic energy in the here and now.
There is no ‘back then’.[…]”
Must you be wrong about everything, all the time?
where do you dig up that nonsense? What are pulses?
Light is measured as a frequency with a wavelength. The relationship is …
lambda(wavelength) = L = c/f = speed of light/frequency
c = 300 x 10^6 m/s
Therefore the distance between wavefronts is dependent on the frequency of the light emitted. If a star appears white, then it includes all of the frequencies in the visible light spectrum.
Which one do you want? The middle of the visible spectrum could be taken as 0.6 um wavelength = 0.6 x 10^-6 metres. That means each successive wave front emitted is 0.6 x 10^-6 metres apart.
“What are pulses?”
The start of a wave packet emitted 1, 2 and 5 seconds apart. Idiot.
Gatekeepers Very Afraid That Elon Musk Will Remove the Gates From Twitter
–“I am frightened by the impact on society and politics if Elon Musk acquires Twitter,” wrote Max Boot, columnist for The (Jeff Bezosowned) Washington Post, on Twitter. —
https://reason.com/2022/04/14/gatekeepers-very-afraid-that-elon-musk-will-remove-the-gates-from-twitter/
Can’t recall anything Max Boot said, that was worth recalling.
I think Max is a man, and he sounds like a pussy.
Though he could self identify as a whining baby.
I would prefer Musk not buy twitter.
If he buys it, and improves it a lot, I still won’t “go on twitter”.
But he seems to likes twitter, so whatever.
I think he is just shaking the box, and actually running twitter seems like it would be quite tedious.
Hmm, he has eight children, maybe his children want him to do- that makes sense, and therefore, he should buy.
I forget he has children- and they don’t like Tik Talk?
Too old or too smart??
Or China is just too much of a disaster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3UK-BrhiNM&t=29s
from:
https://notthebee.com/article/libs-of-tiktok-has-been-suspended-from-twitter-again
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
These “reporters” don’t understand their corporate jobs.
Which is to be shit, and attracting the most flies that buys what they advertise.
And also, brainwash themselves, so they don’t too depressed in small world they live.
The Russians are destroying the flourishing cities in Ukraine in recent years because feudal Russia envied its neighbor for such a rapid increase in the standard of living for the average citizen.
Do the Russians not simply dream of reestablishing their good old CCCP?
Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, then the whole Ukraine… what will be next?
The Baltic states?
Why would they want to destroy Maruipol? They would be punishing the Ukrainians who support them. The idea that the Russians are attacking cities like Maruipol as an attack on the Ukraine in general is western media propaganda.
They are attacking Maruipol because that’s where the neo-Nazi Azov battalion is located.
When the Allies landed at Normandy in WW II, they flattened Caen, killing thousands of innocent French civilians. They flattened the city because German panzer divisions had taken over the city.
The hope is, obviously, that the civilians have evacuated the city. However, in Maruipol, the neo-Nazis SOBs were preventing the citizens from leaving, at gunpoint. They were essentially using the citizens as hostages. One western news outlet actually pointed that out.
> Why would they want to destroy Maruipol?
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.rferl.org/a/mariupol-ruins-drone-ukraine/31766973.html
It’s Mariupol.
And yeah, it’s more or less destroyed already.
You’re a despicable man.
willard…”And yeah, its more or less destroyed already.
Youre a despicable man”.
***
I consider the source of such insults, a blithering idiot who cannot string two sentences together coherently and who relies on cherry picking wiki articles to present an opinion.
> I consider the source of such insults
C’mon, Gordo.
That is an ad hominem.
You know that thing you whine about every other day?
Yeah, that thing.
Besides, Gordo –
Do you realize that right effing now you’re denying that Mariupol, which you can’t spell correctly, has been bombed down in ruins because that scenario does not cohere with your interpretation of your favorite dictator’s intentions?
Have more photos of the devastation:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/mariupol-mayor-says-city-90-percent-destroyed-following-siege-of-over-a-month/
Russians are starving to death those who are still in the city.
Next you’ll try to pretend that a battalion of a few thousand men did that?
I know that weirdos like are doubting if birds exist these days, but at least they’re confabulating on stuff that has little importance in the grand scheme of things.
ren…”I understand that you are afraid of nuclear war, however Ukraine had its borders guaranteed by Russia, UK and US if it gave up its nuclear weapons. Those borders were breached in 2014 and Im afraid youll find more Nazis in Canada and the US than in Ukraine. There are also in Poland, Hungary, USA etc. You will find the most Nazis now in Russia”.
***
The Ukraine created it’s own problems in 2014 when it allowed a coup that ousted a democratically elected president. He was pro-Russian and when he was ousted, pro-Russians in eastern Ukraine rebelled, leading to a civil war. Why did the Ukrainian army and police not stop the coup? Is it not obvious, they were sympathetic to the coup?
People don’t do that in real democracies like Canada and the US.
The rebels want independence, it has nothing to do with Russia stealing land from the Ukraine.
When you say there are more Nazis in Canada and the US than the Ukraine, you are misguided. There are neo-Nazis in the US and Canada but none of them have any political influence. They cannot operate openly or they would be thrown in jail. They are forbidden to carry arms due to our strict gun-control rules.
In the Ukraine, there is a neo-Nazi political party called the Svoboda Party. The leader of the party, Oleh Tyagnibok once applauded Ukrainian factions in WWII who fought Jews and ‘other scum’. Sorry Ren, but other scum to those neo-Nazis included people from Poland and Russia, as well as the Allies.
There is a neo-Nazi faction called Right-Sector and the Ukrainian army has several divisions like the Azov battalion who have openly Nazi/fascist sympathies. Some of them wear the Swastika on their helmets and other use the SS insignia of the Nazi-SS.
The leader of the Azov battalion, Andriiy Biletsky was an openly-fascist Ukrainian politician who sat in the Ukrainian parliament for 5 years. That would never be allowed to happen in Canada or the US.
That’s how effectively the Ukraine has hidden their Nazi past and their current Nazi sympathizers. You live next door to the Ukraine and you don’t understand what has been going on there.
Not all Ukrainians were Nazi sympathizers, only those in the western provinces like Galacia. Ukrainians in the eastern Ukraine fought with the Russians. That division is still there today and that is why this war is going on. It’s between Ukrainians with Russian sympathies and Ukrainians heavily influenced by fascist factions.
Although Zelensky is Jewish, I am sure he has been threatened by the fascists. The previous president, Poroshenko, was threatened by them, so much so, that he was forced to pass a law honouring Ukrainian war criminals, like Stepan Bandera, as heroes. The SS Galacia, a Nazi SS division, are now regarded as heroes
You seem to be unaware of your own past in Poland. These fascist SOBs, who fought with the Nazis, hated Poles. They committed atrocities against Poles, as well as Jews and Russians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia
Gordo keeps writing the same walls of words all over again. Let’s pick apart his “But 2014” silliness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
He ignores Yanukovytch’s abuse of power, and disregards police brutality, violation of human rights, and repressive anti-protest laws.
Gordo’s just a coward boot licker like so many other history forgot.
ren…”In previous years, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians worked in the Polish economy, which is why now Poles are so eager to help Ukrainian families”.
***
I have never claimed all Ukrainians have fascist sympathies or are White Supremists. However, it only takes a minority to influence governments into taking stupid and drastic action, as in the Ukraine.
The Maidan protest of 2014 began peacefully with no violence. It began as a protest over the President not wanting to join the EU. He claimed the Russians had offered a far better deal. Then the fascist element joined in with their weapons and it turned ugly, ending with a coup.
That does not happen in a democracy unless non-democratic influences are at work. Democratic people have no interest in over-throwing a democratically-elected governments.
> That does not happen in a democracy unless non-democratic influences are at work.
Exactly:
https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-tea-party
[GORDO] Democratic people have no interest in over-throwing a democratically-elected governments
[ALSO GORDO] They would have to stop same sex relationships at the same time.
What an effing prick.
Finally got that one did you? Melted down.
You are so flustered by it you can’t offer a decent come back.
That authoritarian homophobes are prick is a well know fact, Gordo.
Suck it up.
Willard,
You wrote –
“That authoritarian homophobes are prick is a well know fact, Gordo.
Suck it up.”
That your English expression is odd, is a well known fact.
Are homosexual authoritarians somehow better than non-homosexual ones? That sounds a bit discriminatory. Are you anti-heterosexual perhaps? Maybe mixing “prick” and “suck it ” was an unfortunate Freudian slip.
Tut, tut, Willard. You might give people the wrong impression.
Carry on.
Still here, Mike?
No, silly sock puppet. It was not.
willard…I regard you as one of most stupid, misinformed person who has ever posted on this blog since Binny. You fail to understand that armed rioters overthrew a democratically-elected government.
Just how far do you think such rioters would get in the US or Canada?
You’re a frigging idiot.
If you read your wiki article more closely you will see that the Ukraine was regarded as one of the most corrupt countries in Europe, long before Yanukovich came to power.
The Ukraine has apparently never been a democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine
Try to deny this, Gordo:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/u61mpt/ukrainian_soldiers_resist_russian_ultimatum_to/
> the Ukraine
C’mon, Gordo.
Your melt down is delicious –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Russia
Think.
A meltdown is when someone loses it emotionally and raves on. Everything I said about you is the truth, based on observation. You have been trolling Roy’s blog for a long time now and others have pointed out the same to you.
It gets tiresome trying to respond to an idiot troll when you know it will only return with the same old, same old. I reply to you only for the benefit of a third party who may be reading. You are so stupid, I have come to the conclusion that no third party reader could take you seriously.
Your arguments are nothing more than black to someone’s white. There is never logic in them that has been well thought out, your replies are nothing more than a quick lookup on Google for anything that is remotely opposed to what has been said.
Your ‘rat’ nym is appropriate.
Alright, Gordo.
Let’s take stocks of the crap you spouted in the span of the Hurricanes vs Avs game –
Your rant about what happens in 2014 flies on the face that Ukraine’s president tried to go against the decision of the parliament.
You deny that Mariupol has been completely destroyed by the man you’re boot licking for who knows what reason underneath that thick skull of yours.
You divert Binny’s point that Nazis fled Europe by pointing out a Wiki entry where we see black and white that Stalin employed the very playbook Vlad uses.
You became the most disgusting apologist I have ever seen. ZZ bots need to bow to you. If they had to build a Sauron module into the brain of an Orc, they’d have to copy-paste your comments.
May God have mercy on your soul.
maguff…”Just say no to drugs, man!”
***
The idiot maguff, you loses every debate he has with me, now tries to link me to drugs. He even uses a loser like Keith Richards as his authority figure.
I could be strung out on drugs and still think more clearly than maguff.
I would like to see this wanker stoned on Orange Sunshine to reveal to him just how fragile is pitiful ego really is.
Typo…’you loses’ is obviously ‘who loses’.
C’mon, Gordo.
We need to choose what kind of world we will live to Keith Richards.
Have some respect.
Typo – “we will live” is obviously “we will leave.”
GR, my comment seems to have struck a nerve, it hit a vein! I hope it causes you to seek help.
Oooooh!
TYSON MCGUFFIN exalts that he has struck a nerve, hit a vein!
Unfortunately, nobody with any sense cares what an anonymous. powerless, impotent and pretentious moron believes.
Why should they?
TYSON MCGUFFIN, like the rest of the climate crackpots, resorts to sneering idiocy because reality denies the GHE which he worships.
He can’t even describe this GHE in non-religious terms! Bad luck for TM and his dwindling band of like minded zealots. Appealing to the authority of Christian religious leaders shows the real nature of the GHE cult beliefs.
Religion and faith – not science.
Swenson 4/17/22 at 5:00 PM
Yes, your 95 word reply to my comment lets me know that you don’t care.
Nope. It just revealed to me how juvenile and stupid are the arguments you present.
What the hell. Why not. Let’s try to put that “But Nazis” line to rest once and for all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism
That soldiers everyone around the world share affinities with machist and violent ideologies should not surprise anyone. The connection that Gordo tries to draw is, in a word, spurious.
There is not one single conspiracy theory he won’t fall for. I guess it fills a void.
Still, this one matters, and it’s worth not ignoring.
Let’s review again, warming from CO2
“CO2 has increased from its pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million (ppm) to around 408 ppm today. Without actions to reduce emissions concentrations are likely to reach 560 ppm double pre-industrial levels around the year 2060.”
[I think it’s more 500 ppm by 2060 AD]
And 280 + 280 = 560 and 280 + 140 = 420 ppm
And first part [+180 ppm does more than second 180 ppm added in terms of immediate effects, though not case long terms effect, as in:
“There are three main measures of climate sensitivity that scientists use. The first is equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). The Earths climate takes time to adjust to changes in CO2 concentration. For example, the extra heat trapped by a doubling of CO2 will take decades to disperse down through the deep ocean. ECS is the amount of warming that will occur once all these processes have reached equilibrium.”
Or the ECS effects haven’t time to kick in. And:
“The second is transient climate response (TCR). This is the amount of warming that might occur at the time when CO2 doubles, having increased gradually by 1% each year. TCR more closely matches the way the CO2 concentration has changed in the past. It differs from ECS because the distribution of heat between the atmosphere and oceans will not yet have reached equilibrium.”
So, I would most [90%} of TCR has shown up in present air measurement
So my TCR is .1 to .5 C for doubling CO2, and that means what already shown up is .05 to .25 C and by +2060 AD will get other half of .05 to .25 C of TCR.
This says:
“..fifth assessment report, completed in 2014, gave a likely ECS range of 1.5C to 4.5C of warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but a likely TCR of only 1C to 2.5C.”
I am saying 1/10th of fifth assessment report for TCR.
But the fifth assessment report would saying we have already got
.5 to 1.25 C of warming from the TCR.
And it seems to me, if we actually got .5 to 1.25 C of warming from CO2, we could have measured that much.
Instead, IPCC says they highly confident that rising CO2 has at least warmed by .2 C.
Or IPCC is highly confident, I am correct with the range of .05 to .25 C, as .25 C is more than .2 C.
Now, as I have said endlessly, warming the entire ocean would have large effect, but takes a long time to warm the ocean. And I would count warming of top 2 meter of ocean as “weather”- and I don’t think we have measured this, anyhow. Above says:
“For example, the extra heat trapped by a doubling of CO2 will take decades to disperse down through the deep ocean.”
I agree decades- though also, more than century, or even centuries.
And then got the third thing:
“A third way of looking at climate sensitivity, Earth system sensitivity (ESS), includes very long-term Earth system feedbacks, such as changes in ice sheets or changes in the distribution of vegetative cover.”
I think greening desert could add about 1 C, and will not happen soon, unless we green the deserts. And I think most important desert to green, would be the Sahara Desert. And could take about 50 years to do this.
[Looking at chart: 1990 AD: about 356 to 2019 AD: 416 or 30 years at 2 ppm per year totals +60 ppm and 40 years = 80 ppm and 416 + 80 = 496 ppm . And about 500 ppm by +2060]
But in terms world ending within 10 years, or stopping .3 C in next 10 years. I don’t see how CO2 levels are adding this much. Or we are at .13 C per decade and could decline rather add to the .13 C per decade.
And of course, Govt action has going in the wrong direction to lower CO2 levels {And think they increase CO2 with bad policies} Or Govt might focus of natural gas and/or nuclear power, but this takes time to do. And I have not seen anything serious in regard by any govt.
It seems if you want to do anything within 10 years, we should explore the Moon- but this likewise has low amount govt actions- or even, certain degree of neglect.
forgot links:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity
and generally:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
The problem with all these “climate sensitivities” is they are based on the false belief that CO2 warms the planet. So they are invalid guesses based on false beliefs.
That ain’t science.
Clint, we live in a cold world, and we are heading towards a glaciation period.
“That aint science.”
Well, you shouldn’t expect a government “to do science”.
And “things are just the way they are” is not related to science.
I am not sure what your point “about it” is, my guess is you think, it’s the sun, stupid, and the molten rock, called Earth is cooling.
I think the effect of CO2 levels are small- but this doesn’t seem to differ from what is mostly currently claimed about CO2 effects.
CO2 is said to be a weak greenhouse gas.
I think an important question is what causes cooling and a good starting point related to this, is what caused the cooling related to the Little Ice Age- which seems to have begun somewhere around 1250 AD and regarded as to ended in 1850 AD.
It seems that some time before 1250 AD, Greenland had warmer conditions.
And that northern hemisphere has become warmer, mostly after 1850 AD. And most people live in Northern Hemisphere and we have more data and records in terms centuries of time, in regards to the northern hemisphere. And in terms of tropical region, the seasons, mostly are related the rainy and less rainy seasons.
“In the last millions years Earth’s climate has alternated between ice ages lasting about 100,000 years and interglacial periods of 10,000 to 15,000 years. The new results from the NEEM ice core drilling project in northwest Greenland, led by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen show that the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today during the last interglacial period, the Eemian period, 130,000 to 115,000 thousand years ago.
“Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123133612.htm
So, 4 to 8 meters higher than today. Greenland ice sheet “a few hundred meters” lower. And would tend to think it flowed faster, or less dry/cold glacial ice/snow. Ie: Could snow more and flow more.
And evaporate more. But roughly not really changed, much.
But as said above, the Canadian islands could have had a lot less glacial ice. Could prove this wrong, if that glacial ice was old.
And maybe there are ice cores, but maybe not. Can’t recall any mention of it.
Also, after this, we had the biggest and baddest continental ice sheet- which we are still rebounding from.
So, Greenland 8 C colder and Antarctica 10 C colder.
Why?
gbaikie…”And that northern hemisphere has become warmer, mostly after 1850 AD”.
***
As you pointed out, the Little Ice Age ended circa 1850. Makes sense that the planet should begin re-warming, right?? Not according to the IPCC, who claimed the re-warming was caused by CO2.
gbaikie…”The Earths climate takes time to adjust to changes in CO2 concentration. For example, the extra heat trapped by a doubling of CO2 will take decades to disperse down through the deep ocean”.
***
How does CO2 trap heat? Heat is the kinetic energy associated with atoms, so how do atoms/molecules trap atoms?
The glass in a greenhouse can trap atoms, and the greenhouse gets hotter as a result. CO2 cannot trap heat. In fact, the IR it can absorb was created at the surface where the heat associated with it was lost. Beyond the surface, radiation cannot represent heat.
This is the conservation of energy principle in practice. Heat energy in the atoms of the surface is converted to electromagnetic energy and EM is not heat.
The entire AGW theory is fraught with such inconsistencies.
Well, if CO2 traps heat, it seems it would only do it for short period of time. Minutes at most if not matter of seconds.
Now compared to kinetic energy of velocity of air molecules, I would tend put the time at hours- or maybe more.
Or I would say for CO2 to trap heat, in a significant way it might have something to with some connection with kinetic energy of velocity of 10 tons of air per square meter.
But it seems obvious to me that the ocean can trap heat for thousands of years. And even the cold ocean of 3.5 C, holds vast amount of heat.
It seems people will say the ocean is warmer than the Land, due to the ocean surface [which they don’t mean skin surface] holds more heat.
But it’s commonly said that 2.5 meters of ocean surface holds as much heat as entire atmosphere.
I would turn that around a bit, and say ocean surface doubles amount of heat as compared to a land surface. Though I know water vapor can hold a lot heat [latent heat].
But I would go the numbers that entire ocean has about 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere, and the entire ocean temperature is actually the global surface temperature and global climate is very long durational issue.
And it’s commonly said, to measure global temperature it meeds a minimal of 30 year period of time.
Or rather than it’s the sun, stupid, I would say it’s the ocean, stupid.
Militarily the Russian attempts to flatten Mariupol made little sense if they wanted to capture the city easily.
They have forgotten the Stalingred lesson, that a ruined city is much easier to defend.
It’s all about getting access to Crimea by land.
But why make your invasion harder than necessary? One Ukranian soldier said that the Russians were fighting as it they were in WW2.
Vulgar display of power, mostly.
Since Mariupol will become a highway, the ZZ is saving money on demolition.
The neo-Nazi Azov battalion is based in Mariupol, basically because they are zealots and one of the only battalions in the Ukrainian army willing to do house to house fighting. They are reported to be holding civilians hostage in the city.
When the Russians tried to evacuate people from Mariupol, the western media claimed they were taking them to camps and for forced labour. That’s Ukrainian propaganda straight from Zelensky, the actor.
With regard to WWII, how else would you attack a city held by the enemy? The Allies flattened Caen, in Normandy, because it was held by German panzer divisions.
Ask yourself this. The civilians in Mariupol are on the side of the Russians, yet the Russians are fighting Ukrainian forces in the city. Makes no sense. You have swallowed western media propaganda.
C’mon, Gordo.
Not again –
https://youtu.be/hgGHnxU4VIE
Just wait till you realize what the ZZ did to Kharkiv today.
Kharkiv is right next to the Russian border and is part of the area being defended from the Russians by Ukrainian neo-Nazi battalions. As long as they continue to be in that area, the Russians will attack.
The Ukrainian government in Kyiv could have fixed the problem a long time ago were they democratic. Unfortunately they are under the influence of neo-Nazis and not inclined to making democratic decisions.
C’mon, Gordo –
You keep repeating the same crap over and over again. Crap you don’t even check. Crap that is mostly ZZ propaganda.
Your beloved ZZ’s are known to plant cluster bombs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kharkiv_(2022)
Again Gordon, you think the presence of a neo-Nazi group in a country is justification to invade, bomb, and destroy that country?
Shouldnt we have done that when neo-Nazis gathered in Charlottesville?
Azov 400 km away from Kharkiv, Nate.
Gordo can’t even read a map.
Gordon Robertson 4/16/22 at 9:40 PM Says:
“The idiot maguff, you loses every debate he has with me, now tries to link me to drugs. He even uses a loser like Keith Richards as his authority figure.”
GR, I apologize for assuming that your cognitive deficits are manifestation of damage to your brain’s frontal lobe from substance abuse.
I should simply take it at face value; you just don’t know the first principles of science or its language.
“The light collected at the Webb telescope receiver is there right now. It does not represent a source in the past, it represents electromagnetic energy in the here and now https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1246465.”
Ecce signum.
maguff…[GR]”The light collected at the Webb telescope receiver is there right now. It does not represent a source in the past, it represents electromagnetic energy in the here and now”
***
What is it about your brain that cannot take this in? How do you think receptors in the eye collect light? Hopefully, you don’t think the receptors are seeing something billions and billions of miles away.
We can see only the light that reaches receptors in the retina. When light is cut off in a totally dark room, we can see nothing.
The light reaching us from stars is the light right there which excites rods and cones in our retinas. A telescope like Webb operates in a similar manner with the exception it requires receptors to collect the light and convert it to digital data for transmission to Earth. Those receptors are receiving stellar EM in real-time, not at some time in the past.
On Easter 2022:
Tyson, you knowledge of the Bible appears to be about as lame as your knowledge of science.
“And what is more Christian than to be good stewards of the planet and love our global neighbor as ourselves?”
Becoming spacefaring?
And/or going to heaven?
One of the biggest climate change is related to the Sahara desert, becoming mostly grassland, and then becoming mostly a dry desert.
“We will be at the front of the line demanding action…”
What does demanding action mean in regards to the Sahara desert?
It seems to me, most people might imagine demanding action, is something along the lines of telling government to do something.
If not that, what is it?
And…demanding fools to be more foolish, seems a bit crazy.
But what is message: more grassland, or less grassland?
As it’s changed in both directions.
And of Christ, it’s what you do [wasn’t about making Roman leadership do the right thing].
So, what is the temperature of Venus if at Earth distance from the Sun?
“Failing to care about climate change is a failure to love.”
Derp.
Just reading a book on Mao and the Stalinist system he was forced to use as a model. The quotation above, wherever it originated, is typical of Stalinist propaganda.
Pretty soon, of the eco-weenies have their way, Gulags will be opened for the great-unwashed.
maguff…”If Christians truly believe weve been given responsibility dominion over every living thing on this planet, as it says at the very beginning of Genesis, then we wont only objectively care about climate change. We will be at the front of the line demanding action because its our God-given responsibility to do so”.
***
One message of Jesus was that of helping the poor. Climate change orthodoxy will make the poor poorer, all based on a theory based in political-correctness.
We would be far better focusing on fixing the housing crisis so the less fortunate can afford a shelter.
I don’t think CO2 emission is much of problem.
I don’t solar panels and wind power is good way
to provide national electrical energy needs. Though in some situations they can work- particularly in remote locations far from
an electrical grid. But in terms of lower CO2 emission and
providing electrical energy to nation, it seems solar and wind
don’t work.
I think we will eventually get ocean settlement and I think this
could happen soon rather later.
So an ocean settlement is isolated from a grid, but I don’t think
wind or solar power would good solution for electrical needs of
ocean settlements.
One thing I could regard wind power on the ocean being somewhat
useful is they might establish ‘by accident” being able to own ocean
property. I would rather such property rights not happen by accident or I regard it as continuation of stupid political leadership and it would be better to do it, not as series of accidents. I prefer, something one could call reasonable planning. Or something I would call, governance.
But if you unreasonably have unwarrented hope that solar and/or wind might become a reasonable way to get national electrical needs, it seems you should try to more fully understand your unreasonable hobby.
But the danger of doing this, is you probably find out, they don’t work.
The Jews Who Didnt Leave Egypt
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-jews-who-didnt-leave-egypt
linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“…the text should be understood to be saying that only one-fifth of the Jewish people chose to leave Egypt.”
[Hmm, I tend to think only 1/1000th of Earth population [or less] will go to Mars. Though I am not necessarily saying it’s related the Jewish exodus.
But what could related, is, I tend to think, the religious are more likely to go to Mars and/or if religious, they might have higher chance of being successful.Though, also it’s not very analogous, or it could be the 40 years in desert as being global “reality show”- and it seems to me, any reality shows tend to be, train wrecks.
Though these people might start out “non-religious” and become religious, quickly.]
China’s ‘space dream’: A Long March to the Moon and beyond
“The return to Earth of three astronauts on Saturday after six months at China’s new space station marks a landmark step in the country’s space ambitions…”
I was wondering how to “save China” and what could China do in space.
I haven’t given it much thought, but it seems any country or entity could do a big wow, with an artificial gravity station.
As said before, Musk should do one. And could do it really quickly and cheaply. Do it within month and not cost much.
But such idea is more of demo/test thing- something one should do before doing the real thing.
But a “real thing” might not be put in LEO. But if going to put in LEO, I would put in a zero inclination orbit. And China can’t do that- and only one who could do that is Europe.
Europe’s spaceport latitude is “5 degrees 3 minutes north” or it’s closer to zero inclination one would getial with equator launch.
But should test how to do a artificial gravity station, this doesn’t matter what inclination it’s in.
Hmm, it seems a problem with China is there are not good with politics- and they don’t appear to want to be good at politics.
I have some sympathy with the sentiment- but it’s not very practical.
One could say it’s hard, to represent such a psychopathic regime in a good light, but one could probably find someone up to the challenge.
In the best light, the China government are old men, who don’t want anyone on their lawn- someone talented probably could probably manage to sell that.
https://phys.org/news/2022-04-china-space-moon.html
gbaikie…”I was wondering how to save China …”
***
Just reading a book on the life of Mao. It’s interesting that he understood the impossibility of rushing toward the Stalinist model of communism and planned the initial phases as a democratic socialism. He was smart. Rather than try to force those onside who disagreed with Stalinist communism, he planned to ease them into it.
I disagree strongly with that approach knowing what I know about Stalin today. At the time, Mao would only have the good side of Stalin available to him, if there was a good side at all. Stalin mistrusted everyone, including his own mother, I am sure.
I think we tend to regard Mao as an omnipotent leader who was always the leader. Not so, he had to struggle with others for years to finally be recognized as leader of the Chinese communist party. His interest was never communism per se but regaining control over China’s destiny.
He was hamstrung due to a lack of funding and arms. Those were supplied by Stalin and of course, it all came with a price tag. He had to implement Stalin’s vision of communism. That was not his decision alone, he was part of decision-making process whose members disagreed strongly with each other at times.
An advisor to Roosevelt who was there as an observer, compared Mao’s forces hiding out in northern China as more of a social democracy than the communists they expected. Later, in WW II, the US began funneling funds to Mao, aimed at fighting the Japanese, much to the horror of Stalin.
We have to be aware of the problems of establishing a democracy in a country which has never had one. Sun Yat Sen tried it in China circa 1915 and it failed dramatically because the Chinese did not trust such a system, never having encountered one.
When asked about the purges associated with him, Mao calmly replied, “What else could I do”? He was referring to the colossal task of trying to deal with warlords, robbers, murderers, etc, who were operating openly in China as well as millions of peasants who had no intention of cooperating with the implementation of a communist order.
That does not excuse him but it does bring into focus the immense problem of moving toward a democracy in a country like China. Those problems should not affect the modern Chinese communist party but watching the serious problems encountered in the Ukraine as they try to move toward a democracy, one can see the immense problems with China trying to move toward democracy.
It would likely be chaos given the entrenchment of a Chinese oligarch system already established. Over the first 20 years of the Ukrainian pseudo-democracy, the Ukraine was regarded as the most corrupt country in Europe.
Our western democracies all developed gradually and we were able to eventually establish some kind of order. Without that order in place, oligarchs tend to appear and with them every form of corruption imaginable. Look at Russia. We could have helped them in 1992 but for whatever stupid reason we abandoned them to their own fate.
For cripes sake, Putin wanted to join NATO and we rejected him.
That’s not to say we don’t have corruption in western democracies but they are generally governed by the law if they get too far out of line. When the law is part of the corruption, as in the Ukraine, you are doomed.
> as in the Ukraine
C’mon, Gordo.
We already know Vlad’s playbook:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
You don’t know anything because you never learning anything.
Try a simple task. Say “Ukraine.” Not “the Ukraine.” Ukraine.
Gordo,
What’s going to be your excuse if Putin uses a tactical nuke?
Oops.
rlh…”What are pulses?
The start of a wave packet emitted 1, 2 and 5 seconds apart. Idiot”.
***
To bring you up to speed and in the process reveal how you throw out insults without understanding the context, I must point out the origin of the pulses nonsense.
I wrote in a post that the light we receive from stars is not out where the star appears to be but at the retina of the eye receiving it. That means the light both at the eye and at the Webb telescope is being received in real-time, in the here and now, not at some fictitious time in the past.
The real idiot, maguff, replied with a link to an article talking about pulses, which had nothing to do with the EM waves emitted by stars. The pulses suggested a distance between waves of EM in the order of kilometres.
That revealed maguff as a serious idiot and you as an even bigger idiot for defending him. The actual distance between EM wave fronts is measured in a fraction of a micron. Anyone with first year physics could have figured that out.
“That means the light both at the eye and at the Webb telescope is being received in real-time, in the here and now, not at some fictitious time in the past”
We always see things in the past. You admitted that we see the Sun some minutes in the past. The stars/glaziest that the JWT sees are that which was emitted many millennia in the past.
testos
willard the rat…”You divert Binnys point that Nazis fled Europe by pointing out a Wiki entry where we see black and white that Stalin employed the very playbook Vlad uses”.
***
And we, the Allies, used the same tactics in France and Italy. We flattened cities that were harbouring the German army. We bombed German and Japanese cities into oblivion to scare them into surrendering.
War is a seriously ugly affair. I do not condone the killing of innocent civilians but I am also pragmatic about war. If you don’t follow what works you stand a good chance of losing. Civilians are always the losers.
If the Allies had not flattened Caen, we’d still be there on the beaches of Normandy. It’s ugly, seriously ugly, beyond human understanding, but in war, it is a necessity.
I don’t care about Putin’s motives, I know no more about them than you. However, you are blaming him, after he showed immense patience for 8 years while the Ukrainians fought a civil war on his border, instigated largely by Ukrainian nationalists, who have fascist sympathies.
You mentioned neo-Nazi pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine. Have no doubt about it, if Putin takes over in those areas, the neo-Nazis on either side will disappear. The pro-Russian neo-Nazis you mentioned were outlawed in Russia in 1998.
If Putin wanted the Ukraine, he would have attacked 8 years ago after they ousted a democratically-elected pro-Russian president. Instead, he held talks with Obama, of all people, and actually felt encouraged about the way the talks were going.
Dumb move. He should have known that the Obama admin had no intention of honouring any agreement via word of mouth. Obama couldn’t even support his own forces in Iraq or Afghanistan. He did everything to help out the terrorists, going so far as to declare terrorist killing in the name of religion to be OK.
C’mon, Gordo.
Here is you:
[GORDO] I don’t care about Putin’s motives
Here is also you:
[ALSO GORDO] If Putin wanted the Ukraine
And you still write “the Ukraine” like a brainless Tankie:
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18233844
Think.
> I do not condone the killing of innocent civilians but
Everyone can see the ZZ bombing Mariupol. The ZZ themselves say they’re bombing Mariupol. What does Gordo the Pragmatist do? He refuses to believe it because of how he interprets Vlad’s mind states. And of course he’ll pretend not to care about Vlad’s mind states!
Here’s what’s coming in Ukraine if Vlad gets his way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia
You are doing nothing more than ranting and raving, a typical troll. I know better than to feed trolls but I also want third party viewers to see what a troll you are.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re the ZZ troll here.
> if Putin takes over in those areas, the neo-Nazis on either side will disappear
Gordo is a True Believer:
https://thesoufancenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/TSC-Special-Report_Ukraine_April-2022.pdf
Willard,
Sure you haven’t been sucked in by a disinformation campaign?
Or maybe US and UK intelligence are so incompetent that that cannot find any useful evidence of the organisation. Surely, the CIA could easily get rid of the swines, if they exist. Maybe those cunning Russkies are too clever for the Western bumblers.
Why don’t you send the Wagner group an email, or ring their head office and give them a severe dressing down?
You really are a gullible wee chappie, aren’t you?
Believe in ghosts and goblins as well, do you?
Still here, Mike?
Private armies (PMCs = private military companies) or mercenaries are available in many country, including the US and the UK. There is no control over how they behave or where their political sympathies may lie.
In the Ukraine, the Azov battalion was created and sponsored by a Ukrainian politician, Andriiy Biletsky, a known white supremist with neo-Nazi sympathies.
The US Congress washed their hands of them when they found out they were neo-Nazis. Apparently they are OK with you.
Much of the US forces’ support is now provided by private companies who specialize in ripping off the US taxpayer.
C’mon, Gordo.
Vlad gave Dmitry Utkin a medal:
https://khpg.org/en/1519420282
Do you think you’ll get one by licking his boots?
why the Russians have surrounded Mariupol.
https://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151
The trapped SOBs are now crying to the Pope to intervene.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/u6nzk4/eastern_part_of_ukraine_is_extremely_resourcerich/
You really suck at geography.
After launch pad test failure in 2016 [which resulted loss rocket and
satellite payload, SpaceX falcon rocket has successfully launched
119 rockets, 116 falcon-9 and 3 falcon heavy:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1266914/spacex-number-of-launches-by-type/
And it seems SpaceX on track to launch a rocket per week or about 50 rockets per year, though Musk wants to do 60 and wants launch Starship in terms of test launch which is unlikely to successful in reuse the first stage, nor much hope of safely landing the second stage which is planned to land/crash into the ocean near Hawaii.
And in 2020 launched 26, and in 2021 launched 34 per year, with 10 falcons launched so far in 2022.
What found interesting or a bit surprising is number reused or “used Falcon 9” of this total 119 rocket which were used.
Or another way to say it, very few new Falcon 9 rockets are being launched.
Anyways having 50 falcon 9 launches in year, is not something I expected, nor is already having 34 launches in a year, imaginable only say, 5 years ago. I thought 20 per year would be impressive or hard to manage.
But the Starship kind of hides what Falcon 9 has done, or obsession is the Starship- huge rocket and planned to be fully reusable.
Of course with Falcon 9, every one of the launches has new second stage- or SpaceX making a lot of new Falcon 9 second stage rockets.
Blade-Runners: Wind Industry Illegally Dumping Discarded Turbine Blades Across America
https://stopthesethings.com/2022/01/27/blade-runners-wind-industry-illegally-dumping-discarded-turbine-blades-across-america/
I wonder what Europeans doing about it.
Would ocean wind farms just dump it in the ocean.
Don’t know if that a good or bad idea.
This is a classic Whataboutism.
How does that compare in magnitude to the pollution produced by coal on land, water and in the air?
There is no comparison. CO2 isn’t pollution. The only pollution coming out of your mouth is your words.
Perhaps you prefer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining
That’s none of my business or yours. It is for the people of Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio to make those decisions. If they’re good with it, then so am I. It is none of the Deep State’s business either.
Funny you didn’t reply to gb’s “I wonder what Europeans doing about it” the same way, Troglodyte.
I wonder why.
Because it’s none of my business what the Europeans are doing about it?
Coal air/water pollution crosses private land boundaries, and state borders, BTW.
Ship wrecks can considered underwater parks.
I don’t know enough about waste from wind mills,
could they be used for underwater parks?
Dragging wind mill waste to ocean could be unnecessary,
but with wind mills in ocean, it seems it would happen,
a question is should it happen and how should be done.
They actually sink old ships for that reason.
In its highest form, the meaning of dominion includes a sense of service to one’s fellow creatures and even a compulsion to protect those who cannot protect themselves. It also includes responsible governance and stewardship, which is defined as an individual’s responsibility to manage his life and property with proper regard to the rights of others.
Just as most of us wouldn’t commit the small sin of throwing garbage into our neighbor’s yard, we can reconsider participating in or supporting activities that release waste into the air or water or ground or somewhere “away.” Realizing that those actions have an impact on a neighboring country or fellow creature strengthens our desire to act wisely.
It naturally follows that instead of ignoring careless or illegal acts in our own area or beyond, it’s more beneficial for everyone (including us) to recognize that all people can exercise intelligent caring for the world.
If we identify ourselves as God’s sons and daughters, having dominion over ourselves and our environment, we will be led to decisions that are supportive of our surroundings.
Are you trying to say we, in our Western Democracies, aren’t acting responsibly in the exercise of Dominion over the earth? As opposed to countries that don’t have a high enough living standard due to lack of access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels so as to be able to afford to give a damn about the environment?
I’m saying don’t shit where you eat.
maguff…”If we identify ourselves as Gods sons and daughters, having dominion over ourselves and our environment, we will be led to decisions that are supportive of our surroundings”.
***
You are mixing a religious belief system with science. Newton pulled it off quite well but when it came to science, he did not use the Bible as a source.
Your argument above does not address the scientific theory that we humans are causing catastrophic warming and climate change. It also doesn’t address what Ken is talking about, where other nations are presumed to have the same ability for dominion. Neither does it address the problem that much of the world does not believe in the Bible.
I agree with you about nations dumping crap in the oceans but as far as dumping CO2 in the atmosphere, thus far, the atmosphere can easily handled it. We have to face the fact that we are dependent on fossil fuels and until we develop something to replace it, we are stuck.
TM,
To which invisible God do you refer?
Does God speak to you on a regular basis, or do you just believe what others say God has told them?
Have you any objection to me believing in a different God or Gods, or even no Gods at all?
Or do you believe that your belief in a minority God gives you dominion over others?
Playing the religious high moral ground card may not produce the outcome which you desire.
Keep it up, but dont be disappointed if the majority ignore you.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1247854
So now you care?
Make up your mind!
Gordon Robertson 4/17/22 at 5:59 PM
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1247905
Says:
What is it about your brain that cannot take this in? How do you think receptors in the eye collect light? Hopefully, you dont think the receptors are seeing something billions and billions of miles away.
We can see only the light that reaches receptors in the retina. When light is cut off in a totally dark room, we can see nothing.
The light reaching us from stars is the light right there which excites rods and cones in our retinas. A telescope like Webb operates in a similar manner with the exception it requires receptors to collect the light and convert it to digital data for transmission to Earth. Those receptors are receiving stellar EM in real-time, not at some time in the past.
GR, your comments reveal more than your default knee-jerk contrarianism; you just don’t know first principles of the science involved.
First, considering that it takes light time to get to us, traveling at its set speed limit, it follows that we can only see the light of the stars that has had enough time to get to us since the beginning of time.
Second, Doppler shift is a property of any sort of wave motion, and light is a wave (except for when it’s a particle). It is the same process that causes the sound of a train whistle to become higher pitched by squashing the wave when it’s coming toward you, and to become lower pitched by stretching the wave when it’s moving away from you.
A Doppler shift also affects light, but instead of a pitch change, squashing and stretching light waves changes the color of light we see. More stretched-out light waves are redder and more squashed light waves are bluer.
Third, the universe has been expanding for the 13.8 billion years of its existence. This expansion stretches the light waves traveling across it and the further light travels in the universe, the more it gets redshifted.
Fourth, the universe has expanded so much that the visible light from the most distant stars has been stretched beyond visible red light into infrared and microwaves.
Fifth, these waves are invisible to our feeble human eyes.
Ask yourself this: would the night sky would still be dark if what I said above didn’t hold?
maguff…why don’t you try addressing the problem rather than trying to explain science I learned in first year and in my astronomy classs? I stated that light we see from stars must be at our retinas, otherwise we would not be able to see it. Can you not just say, “OK, I got it”, rather than offering an obfuscated theory of the Big Bang?
I’ll respond to your points.
“First, considering that it takes light time to get to us, traveling at its set speed limit, it follows that we can only see the light of the stars that has had enough time to get to us since the beginning of time”.
***
The beginning of time??? Where’s your proof there was a beginning? I am not trying to be mean, I am trying to get you to think beyond the propaganda in which we are all immersed. Do you really believe that malarkey about a Big Bang marking the beginning of time?
Try to look at this as if time does not exist, which it doesn’t What do you see? How would you explain the universe without time?
Start with something simple. What were you doing an hour ago, a day ago, or a year ago? What has changed physically with regard to time? Can you not see there is no time factor involved?
*******************
“Second, Doppler shift is a property of any sort of wave motion…”
***
I am fully conversant with Doppler shifting. A body moving toward us or away from us, stretches/shrinks the wavelength. With sound it changes the audio frequency so we hear a tone changing in frequency. With the light, a known spectrum like that emitted from hydrogen, shifts toward the red or blue end of the spectrum. All stars have hydrogen spectra.
However, astronomers and theorists, in a state of utter boredom, have tried to give more meaning to light frequency shifting in the universe. They have tried to imply it means motion from a centre. Problem is, no one has any idea how large the universe is, or where the centre may be.
***********************
“Third, the universe has been expanding for the 13.8 billion years of its existence. This expansion stretches the light waves traveling across it and the further light travels in the universe, the more it gets redshifted”.
***
Two points…
1)Some stars are showing a blue shift. Don’t forget, we are located to a spiral arm of a galaxy, which could easily explain red/blue shifts.
2)There is not a shred of evidence that the universe has been expanding from an epicentre. Furthermore, there is not a shred of evidence as posited by the BB theory that matter can be produced out of nothingness.
**********************************
“Fourth, the universe has expanded so much that the visible light from the most distant stars has been stretched beyond visible red light into infrared and microwaves”.
***
Seriously, is that the best theory they can come up with? Where are these observation being performed? From Earth, right? Where is Earth placed in the universe? How large is the universe? Where is the centre from which this expansion is taking place?
Have you read the entire theory? One part suggests the Universe collapsed on itself, reaching a density where it simply disappeared. Then magically, it reappeared in a Big Bang. These idiots prophecy another BB when the expansions slows enough that a mysterious gravity will start it contracting back to nothingness.
Seriously, why do you believe this nonsense? Why should all the mass in the universe collapse into a dense mass that disappears? No one has ever seen that happen in physics and no one has seen mass appear out of nothing.
This is E = mc^2 gone bad. Einstein claimed that energy, E, could be converted to mass, and I suppose it works backwards. Where is the proof?
*************************
“Fifth, these waves are invisible to our feeble human eyes.
Ask yourself this: would the night sky would still be dark if what I said above didnt hold”?
***
They are invisible until they strike the retina. That’s because the various frequencies of EM stmulate the retina in different ways. Even then only EM frequencies between IR and UV can stimulate the retina.
That’s my point, none of the light from a star can be seen until a wavefront from the star is sampled by the lens and focused on the retina. We can see no light between the retina and the star. What we are seeing is light AFTER it has traveled light years from the star.
If you examine the light hitting the retina at any instant, then you observe the light waves back to the source at the same instant, they are all in the here and now. Time has nothing to do with it, we are looking only at an immense space existing in the same instant.
GR, I’ve said all I’m going to say about this. It’s pointless discussing science with you.
To the original post. Basically the ocean degassing and lags between global temperature and ECS explain this discretion nicely.
Is this dragon slaying? Who is really on the other end of this debate?
I should read the comments and see if this ruffled any feathers of rational birds.
Found a video describing Chihuahua, Eman, Nate, Blinny, B4, TM, Droege, et.al.
https://tinyurl.com/ybk33ay8
Here’s Troglodyte:
https://media.giphy.com/media/dIV7HapCtAzHE6N3j1/giphy-downsized-large.gif
Not me. He doesn’t have a sidearm.
Good point.
Re: saving China:
China Censors Its Own National Anthem amid Growing Unrest with Coronavirus Lockdowns
https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2022/04/18/china-censors-its-own-national-anthem-amid-growing-unrest-with-coronavirus-lockdowns/
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“Sina Weibo, the heavily censored Chinese alternative to banned Twitter, appears to have banned a hashtag that quotes the Chinese national anthem to criticize coronavirus lockdowns. It also appears to have blocked searches for the lyrics to the anthem.”
test
“Shanghai residents are increasingly terrified of testing positive, even if they have no symptoms, and getting hauled off to one of the citys hundred or so grim quarantine centers, where they experience poor living conditions, minimal food, no privacy, lights that are never turned off and crowded environments peppered with visibly sick people that give them an excellent chance of contracting a more serious case of the highly contagious omicron variant of Chinese coronavirus.”
I was going to ask whether anyone was hauled off outside of China.
But then remembered nursing homes- so we had millions of people stuck in such places, and relatives being denied the right to visit them.
And imagine many people were terrified about being moved into a nursing home. Or should have been, if they lived in New York, with the NY governer being an “award winning” governor.
Who knew so many would oppose the tanning of the testicles?
OMG, this woman wrote an entire thread on why you cant tan your testicles:
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/04/18/genius-troll-tucker-carlson-has-lefties-and-never-trumpers-caterwauling-about-testicle-tanning-and-lol-we-cant-even-make-this-up/
rlh…”We always see things in the past. You admitted that we see the Sun some minutes in the past. The stars/glaziest that the JWT sees are that which was emitted many millennia in the past”.
***
The human eye always sees in the present, only the human mind sees a past, as stored images in memory. If we want to talk about the past, we must retrieve information stored in memory or go to a history book, which is a set of stored memories.
The Sun is not in the past. Just because we don’t get light from it till 8 minutes after it is emitted, does not place the Sun in the past. It’s the same with stars, no matter what the distance.
Everything in the universe is doing whatever it does, right now. One of the those stars may be in the process of exploding into a supernova…right now. We won’t see the explosion at Earth for many light years. When it is seen, it will not be in the past, we will see a cloud of gases and debris typical of a supernova explosion in the state it is in several light years later…right now.
Even though there is a delay of 8 minutes between light leaving the Sun and the time we receive it on our skin, and hopefully not directly in our eyes, the physical reality is that the Sun is located 93 million miles away in physical space. There is no physical time difference involved.
The past can only ever exist within the human mind. Same with the future. There is no other state in the universe than the here and now.
GR,
In the immortal words of Kung Fu Panda – The past is history, the futures a mystery. There is only now, and it is a gift. Thats why it is called the present.
Well stated, and good pun.
“The human eye always sees in the present”
Except that you admitted that we see what happened on the Sun some minutes ago. Idiot.
Getting back on topic, I was just watching a program on TV called Fatal Forecasts. They were talking about Arctic air which is now more scientifically called the Polar Vortex. The claims being made about it by alarmist scientists is astounding.
Arctic air has descended on us here in Vancouver, Canada for years and years. It’s cold air moving south from the Arctic regions. It’s weather. Because the year 2014 had a particularly severe intrusion of Arctic air, going as far south as Florida and California, followed by another in 2021, alarmists are now claiming the cause is climate change. They claim it can be fixed by reducing carbon emissions.
I wrote to one of the scientists interviewed, a Dr. Judah Cohen, who currently works out of MIT, and asked why none of them talk about the cause of Arctic air. None of them mention that it is caused by the tilt of the Earth and its position in Earth orbit that produces little or no sunlight in the Arctic winter.
None of them pointed out the obvious. When the Arctic no longer has solar input, cooler air from the stratosphere descends into the Arctic, and sometimes as far south as Florida. The stratosphere is at its thinnest near the poles, between 4 and 12 km altitude. For comparison, Mt. Everest peaks a bit above 8 km.
Thanks to ren for this initial information on the stratosphere.
Another scientist in the program claimed the greenhouse effect of a real greenhouse is produced by infrared radiation being trapped in the greenhouse. He did not explain how trapped infrared can warm the air in the greenhouse. That theory is, in fact, a myth.
The air in a real greenhouse, made up 99% of nitrogen and oxygen, is warmed directly by the soil and infrastructure heated by SW solar energy. That heated air rises but the molecules of O2/N2 are trapped by the glass. This could very easily be verified by removing all CO2 and water vapour from a greenhouse and see if it still warms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRb-egOaWg4
Right now Russia making their major move. Who knows what going to happen, other lots soldiers on both sides will be killed within a week of time.
And above clip has russia clip where some women want the kind of censorship that China has {and she doesn’t like Youtube}.
In past clips, it seems Russia news fully support this war against Ukraine. But since women wants censorship- maybe Russia people aren’t so keen on it as the media wants.
gb…why the Russians are flattening Mariupol….
I’m sure they learned it from WW II and what the German army did to them or what the Allies did to French cities like Caen during the Normandy invasion.
https://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151
ps. and I’m sure, even though NATO is complaining, they are furiously taking notes as to what works and what doesn’t.
I recall the Argentinian war over the Falklands. The US military was lending the UK weapons, like the Gatling-type machine gun used to deal with Exocet missiles. I am sure the Yanks were thrilled to see the technology work so well.
I don’t recall any protest by the media when the UK nuclear sub sank the Argentinians General Belgrano warship with 323 lives lost. That was over a damned island in the South Atlantic.
The irony here is that France helped the Brits as well but they also sold the Argentinians Exocet missiles, which wiped out several UK ships. They learned the hard way that warships made of aluminum actually burned.
As far as I am aware, no NATO weapons [or food, medicine, or blankets] have gone to Mariupol.
It’s possible this is being done, but that is not being reported by anyone.
Most of Russian army as predicted in the video above and the heavy loses expected on both side is not going be near Mariupol
The Russians already have Mariupol surrounded.
The world has Russia surrounded.
Not sure why Gordon is rooting for mass murdering dictator..
willard…”The Ukraine is incorrect both grammatically and politically, says Oksana Kyzyma of the Embassy of Ukraine in London”.
***
Yeah, right…like I’m going to listen to some daft Ukrainian trying to teach me English.
In Scotland, we have a soccer team called Glasgow Celtic. I pronounce it Seltic while the politically-correct call it Keltic. In English, a ‘c’ followed by an ‘e’ makes the c soft as in ‘s’, not ‘k’.
In Latin, the plural of virus is virii. Since I don’t speak Latin, I say viruses.
If you don’t like it, sue me. Or, I’ll send you a quarter so you can call someone who cares.
> I’m going to listen to some daft Ukrainian
C’mon, Gordo.
You don’t listen to anyone.
In fact, if you listened to yourself, you would cry in shame.
Read harder:
https://theconversation.com/its-ukraine-not-the-ukraine-heres-why-178748
Keep on playing stupid. Your act is ZZ boot lickin’ good!
Are ye deef laddie? I said I don’t care.
It’s ***THE*** Ukraine.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://theconversation.com/its-ukraine-not-the-ukraine-heres-why-178748
If you don’t care, why should I?
French…l’Ukraine.
C’mon, Gordo.
La France. Le Canada. L’Ukraine.
France. Canada. Ukraine.
Ze Gordo in both languages tho.
“Its ***THE*** Ukraine”
Not GR knows better than the natives. Idiot.
Eureka, Gordo is Putin!
rlh…beginning to wonder about your mental stability and comprehension. I just explained that I speak English (with a slight Scottish accent). In English, it’s ‘the Ukraine’.
You see, many Europeans have trouble with the word ‘the’, especially Ukrainians. If you asked a Ukrainian to say, ‘The quick brown fox jumped over the sleeping dog’, he would first ask ‘Why fox jump over dog”?
Ukrainians do not understand the word ‘the’.
In Canada, if you are from Regina, on the prairies, you say, “I am from the prairies”. You don’t say, “I am from prairies”. If you do, they will think you are a Ukrainian from Winnipeg.
stephen…ah, you’re onto me.
Teh Gordo might not care for this:
https://www.newsweek.com/der-spiegel-russia-ukraine-troops-bucha-wagner-putin-1695974?piano_t=1
Were any of them there? The media makes money from these guesses.
Are you saying there were no atrocities committed in Ukraine?
RLH,
I don’t believe you can’t comprehend what Gordon Robertson wrote.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Gr is normally wrong. Are you claiming he isn’t here?
rlh…I’m not claiming anything, I just want proof of who did what.
There are idiots fighting on both sides of the Ukrainian civil war. They tend to shoot and ask questions later. For all we know, the atrocities could be reprisals from within the Ukraine.
> Im not claiming anything,
C’mon, Gordo.
> Were any of them there?
The Gordo Just Asks Questions.
Next he’s gonna ask for Hitler’s orders.
Will he continue to deny that the Bucha Massacre happened?
Let’s help him out:
https://www.bbc.com/news/60981238
willard…”Will he continue to deny that the Bucha Massacre happened?”
***
I will continue to ask for proof of who did it. It’s an MO of Nazi/fascist types to murder their own and blame it on others.
Of course, Willard rushes to the first authority figure, wearing his knee pads, to enable him to kiss butt.
Ze Gordo should stay thirsty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia#Russian_Federation_(1991%E2%80%93present)
Changes In Vegetation Shaped Global Temperatures Over Last 10,000 Years
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/18/changes-in-vegetation-shaped-global-temperatures-over-last-10000-years/
“Thompson had long been troubled by a problem with models of Earths atmospheric temperatures since the last ice age. Too many of these simulations showed temperatures warming consistently over time.
But climate proxy records tell a different story. Many of those sources indicate a marked peak in global temperatures that occurred between 6,000 and 9,000 years ago.”
…
Expanded vegetation during the Holocene warmed the globe by as much as 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit, Thompson said.”
Its Bart!
“the rate of change still shows…”
Nah, still doesnt with the relevant T.
https://tinyurl.com/2p8r9rzc
Who do you think you are fooling?
The rate of CO2 change still tracks with temperature even with Had-crut data. The greater trend is irrelevant.
https://tinyurl.com/2p956xm3
Too dumb. No more time for you.
“the greater trend is irrelevant”
Explain that to Bart. He thinks it is. And he works hard to make the data behave as he desires.
It’s hard to tell if you are obfuscating or misunderstanding, big time. Bart makes an obvious connection between the rate of CO2 change being in step with temperature change. You convolute a similar plot with a different temp data set to make it look like the correspondence no longer applies. But it is still there. The fact that Had-crut has a greater slope than UAH does not detract from correspondence despite you attempt to make it look like that.
But that’s what you do. Your the King of Obfuscation.
You are butting in not understanding, it seems, what Bart’s argument is.
His argument has always been (he has been here many times) that both the short term variation of CO2 and the long term trend in CO2 are explained by T. And the same scale factor is supposed to fit both.
The short term variation is well known to be correlated to ENSO, and has been shown to be due to specific pattern of warming and drying that El Nino creates in the tropics. It leads to reduced productivity of the tropical rainforest and reduced CO2 uptake.
And the opposite during La Nina, greater rainforest productivity, greater CO2 uptake.
The short term correlation, does not demonstrate ENSO or Temperature can explain the long term CO2 trend.
The long term trend in CO2 derivative and Temperature are simply two things rising.
“The short term variation is well known to be correlated to ENSO”
and is larger than the effects of CO2.
When possible, I will butt in whenever you obfuscate. However, in this case, I agree that ENSO and temperature correlation with the change in CO2 does not prove that either or both explains all the rise in CO2 alone. ENSO and temperature are highly correlated for obvious reasons.
You are implying that Bart thinks that only temperature affects CO2 growth. Only Bart can confirm that and, if he agrees, he would need
additional evidence to prove it, IMO.
Clearly temperature/ENSO contributes to the yearly rise in CO2. The data and my physically-based model indicate the increase in CO2 is from FF emissions and other sources as well. My view is that you think that most, if not all, of any additional source is due to a Revelle factor. You claim this without having presented any data in evidence, only unverified assertions. I am working to evaluate the magnitude of your alleged push-back from any Revelle effect. I invite you to do likewise. Otherwise, you are the no data, no model, King of Obfuscation we have come to expect.
“My view is that you think that most, if not all, of any additional source is due to a Revelle factor. ”
Then your view of what I think, not surprisingly, would be wrong.
The Revelle Factor is unrelated to additional sources.
As explained several times, it explains the ocean bottleneck for CO2. Why CO2 added from an external source (like FF) is retained in the atmosphere, ocean surface, and biosphere, for a long time.
You could read about it if you want to learn.
I think that T rise will cause additional ocean outgassing and increase in CO2 of ~ 10 or 15 ppm.
That leaves ~ 120 ppm to be explained. I think most of it is from FF.
You have never explained how the Revelle factor creates a bottleneck with data. You always quote some reference which doesn’t explain it with data either. You are good at quoting dogma without data and referring to unverified models. My model shows that CO2 would return to steady state in less than 20 years with no increase in emissions.
What you fail to learn is that the Mauna Loa data cannot be explained without an additional emission source or a decreasing absorp.tion rate.
If you rearrange the formula for CO2 growth, deltaCO2 = FF + Inputs – Outputs or D = F + I – O, and substitute O = 20 * F you get I = 19 * F + D. Plug in values of F = 4, 4.5, 5 and D = 2, 2.25, 2.5 and notice that I, the non-FF input, increases from 78 to 97.5. With a spreadsheet, you can observe the same thing with the actual known annual values of FF and deltaCO2. D/F = 0.5, the relatively constant airborne fraction.
With the additional inputs and a constant absorp.tion rate, the spreadsheet model indicates that removing all FF inputs decreases CO2 by only 16 ppm.
“You have never explained how the Revelle factor creates a bottleneck with data. You always quote some reference which doesnt explain it with data either.”
Ive explained it several times. The paper explains it well. The paper makes a falsifiable prediction, based on this theory, for the next 60 y. It passed.
We have data showing that both the atmosphere, biosphere, and ocean surface have elevated carbon levels, while the deep ocean does not, as predicted.
We have isotope evidence. We have the basic chemistry operating in the ocean, and data measuring the Revelle Factor all over the world.
You could read about it. But if you don’t want to learn and understand, then I cant make you.
Many others have found this model or similar can explain Earth’s carbon cycle.
“What you fail to learn is that the Mauna Loa data cannot be explained without an additional emission source or a decreasing absorp.tion rate.”
It WAS explained by the Bolin and Erickson paper. If you didnt bother to read it, why are you making this claim?
“If you rearrange the formula for CO2 growth, deltaCO2 = FF + Inputs Outputs or D = F + I O, and substitute O = 20 * F you get I = 19 * F + D.”
Why would I put O = 20 * F? Evidence for that?
“Plug in values of F = 4, 4.5, 5 and D = 2, 2.25, 2.5 and notice that I, the non-FF input, increases from 78 to 97.5.”
Sure based on the unproven presumption that O = 20*F.
Again. Your factor of 20, I think, comes from the annual exchanges of of carbon between the non-deep-ocean reservoirs.
The BE paper, and recent papers, do not dispute that there are large annual exchanges of C between these.
The issue is that that C is not removed to the deep ocean because of the bottleneck. It continues to be a NET addition to these reservoirs, which results in ~ 40-50% remaining in the atmosphere for a long time.
“The paper explains it well. The paper makes a falsifiable prediction, based on this theory, for the next 60 y. It passed.”
Indulge me. What paper are you talking about? Bolin/Erickson? What data shows “it passed?”
“We have data showing that both the atmosphere, biosphere, and ocean surface have elevated carbon levels, while the deep ocean does not, as predicted.”
We only have MY data in MY model. You have no data, only allegations that somebody else does, and you seem reluctant to justify your claims with a verified model.
“Your factor of 20, I think, comes from the annual exchanges of carbon between the non-deep-ocean reservoirs.”
No, unless by “non-deep-ocean reservoirs” you mean land and surface oceans, then yes. Sorry I didn’t explain that above. The non-FF fluxes are about 200 GtC/year or 100 ppm CO2, which is 20 times the current FF input.
Despite your bottleneck claims, the airborne fraction is decreasing while emissions rise. The sinks don’t seem to have a supply chain problem.
“No, unless by ‘non-deep-ocean reservoirs’ you mean land and surface oceans, then yes. ”
OK so we agree that 20 x exchanges are with the other surface reservoirs, not with the deep ocean.
Then you should understand that the 20x is irrelevant for removal of C to the deep ocean.
The 20x is simply exchanging it between reservoirs of comparable size. Thus added CO2 from FF is quickly divided between those reservoirs–and thus the atmospheric portion settles at 40% or whatever it is, for a long time, until it is all removed to the deep ocean.
“Indulge me. What paper are you talking about? Bolin/Erickson? What data shows ‘it passed?'”
Yes, BE.
It predicted the rise over the next decades with a guess about what emissions would be. It says:
“The most likely value for na at that time (y 2000) seems to be 25%, it may possibly be larger but probably not exceed 40%”
This is the percent rise since 1880. Assuming 280 ppm in 1880, we expect 280*1.25 = 350 ppm in 2000.
Mauna Loa shows 369 ppm in 2000. Well within the error range of BE.
Obviously the parameters are all known better now.
“Then you should understand that the 20x is irrelevant for removal of C to the deep ocean.”
I somewhat agree. Maybe you need to understand that the deep ocean is irrelevant to whether or not additional sources contribute to the added atmospheric CO2. Either the absorp.tion rates are slowing or the inputs are increasing or both. The simple Inputs = deltaCO2 – FF + Outputs [20 times FF] calculations from actual data should convince you that at least the inputs are increasing.
“…thus the atmospheric portion settles at 40% or whatever it is, for a long time, until it is all removed to the deep ocean.”
The airborne fraction is not settling. If anything, it is decreasing instead of a predicted increase. What makes you think that absorbed CO2 is not being removed to the deep ocean in accord with normal transfer rates? If you do, then what are you waiting for? Show the data.
The Bolin-Erickson model does not distinguish FF emissions from the growth in natural emissions. The fact that the predicted increase is in the predicted range does not in any way support your contention that all the rise in CO2 is human caused.
” Maybe you need to understand that the deep ocean is irrelevant to whether or not additional sources contribute to the added atmospheric CO2.”
How so? Their is no NEED for large additional sources if the output to the deep ocean is small.
“Either the absorp.tion rates are slowing or the inputs are increasing or both.”
The BE idea is that 60 y ago, the rates were low, and still are low today.
“The simple Inputs = deltaCO2 FF + Outputs [20 times FF] calculations from actual data should convince you that at least the inputs are increasing.”
No, Not at all. The input is an ADDITION to the three surface reservoirs. While the Outputs [20 times FF] are simply circulating among the three surface reservoirs, and not removing any of it. Again, removal from these surface reservoirs must be to the deep ocean. There is nowhere else for it to go.
“The airborne fraction is not settling. If anything, it is decreasing instead of a predicted increase.”
Data??
“What makes you think that absorbed CO2 is not being removed to the deep ocean in accord with normal transfer rates?”
What is your definition of ‘normal transfer rates” ? Is it the rate one would get if we ignore ocean chemistry?
Normal transfer rates are the ones we should expect for the real ocean with its real chemistry.
What is your evidence/data showing that ocean is behaving differently?
There is data in BE and after BE on bomb C14 penetration into deep ocean. It is LOW.
Lots of measurements of Revelle factor have been made.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GB003407
Measurements of the surface ocean show its increase in C tracking the atmosphere.
https://www.co2.earth/images/figures/noaa/co2_atmosphereseawater_noaa_2014-1217_with_text_696w.jpg
“The Bolin-Erickson model does not distinguish FF emissions from the growth in natural emissions. The fact that the predicted increase is in the predicted range does not in any way support your contention that all the rise in CO2 is human caused.”
Sure if their predicted FF emissions never happened and instead were replaced by an equal amount of natural emissions? C’mon.
I for one am not arguing a NEED for large additional sources, only those that are needed to make physical sense out of the data. The large ratio of natural to FF emissions is well known by everyone not trying to obfuscate. In any case, the deep ocean is large and therefore a small increase in its concentration compensates for whatever large increase in atmospheric CO2 you imagine. If you don’t agree, all you have to do is present the data to prove your point.
The BE rate for residence time was five years, same as today, which is consistent with my model and the relatively constant airborne fraction.
“There is nowhere else for [the FF input] to go.”
Get real. FF emissions increase CO2 incrementally in all the reservoirs including the deep ocean according to normal transfer rates all described in the Bolin-Erickson paper. You would know this if you actually applied data to their equations. No need to ignore ocean chemistry. No need for evidence the oceans behave differently. LOW C14 penetration into the deep ocean is relative to what? Is “low” normal or less than normal? Your claims are meaningless until you apply data proving your case.
My data for the airborne fraction is in this spreadsheet calculated from 10 year averages of CO2 and FF data: https://tinyurl.com/3628ty2j
There you go again with the Revelle factor without showing any evidence that is has any effect on the rates of CO2 absorp.tion. The paper claims “The net result will be a less efficient absorp.tion of CO2 from the atmosphere” without providing any evidence of that.
“Sure if their predicted FF emissions never happened and instead were replaced by an equal amount of natural emissions? C’mon.”
Typical obfuscation, Nate. Actually worse. More like C’mon-man-Joe-Biden dumb.
As you can see from the last column in my spreadsheet, the amount of additional natural input each year is one to two ppm, only a fraction of the FF input. But that is enough to justify my claim that FF emissions are not 100% of the rise. And because the sinks take out FF emissions equally well, FF emissions represent no more than 5% of atmospheric CO2.
It’s really not all that hard. CO2 is transported to the deep oceans in the polar regions, and upwells again many centuries later in the equatorial latitudes. What is coming up can’t be stopped. What goes down is, however, throttled by temperature.
So, if temperature rises, downflow is constricted, and accumulation at the surface occurs. This is all consistent with the data, and the proportionality observed in both the short and long term between the rate of change of CO2 and the temperature anomaly.
Nate thinks that if he rescales the data so that it no longer matches, that is proof that it doesn’t match. It’s like saying “F = ma isn’t true because if I plot them together, and multiply F by 2, they no longer match.” It’s real galaxy brain thinking. A person with such silly thoughts is not worth engaging at least until he finishes high school.
“Get real. FF emissions increase CO2 incrementally in all the reservoirs including the deep ocean according to normal transfer rates all described in the Bolin-Erickson paper. You would know this if you actually applied data to their equations.”
Not sure why you say that if you actually read the paper.
Becoming clearer that you havent.
“I for one am not arguing a NEED for large additional sources”
Yes, yes you are. Regardless of the need.
“only those that are needed to make physical sense out of the data.”
To make physical sense of the carbon cycle you need to account for the ocean chemistry and physics that actually constrains the real Earth system. The BE paper explains it. But you choose to ignore this reality.
As they say I can only lead the horse to water.
“The large ratio of natural to FF emissions is well known by everyone not trying to obfuscate.”
It is endless obfuscation on your part to pretend that this ratio is relevant to removing added CO2 when it clearly cannot be.
We seem to agree earlier that it is relevant to moving CO2 around among the surface reservoirs, but then you seem to stop following where this logically leads.
Lets break it down. Lets approximate the Land, Atmosphere and ocean Mixed Layer as equal reservoirs.
We add 3 units of CO2 to the atmosphere from burning FF. The 3 units get shared quickly (in ~ 4 y) with the Land and ML.
Then the end result is an increase in 1 unit of CO2 in the atmosphere, and ML and Land. It stays there for a long time, UNTIL it can get removed to the deep ocean. This is the effect of the Revelle factor. It is explain in BE paper, and many other places.
So it should be clear that the 4 y, has nothing to do with the time to remove the remaining 1 unit of added CO2 from the atmosphere.
This is the current (basic) understanding of Earth’s carbon cycle, and its been tested over the last 60 y. This is simply the way the Earth behaves. You need new data and evidence and logic to show otherwise.
If you want to do science, it has to be based on following the facts that we have, logically, to where they lead, not to where youd prefer them to go.
“Nate thinks that if he rescales the data so that it no longer matches, that is proof that it doesnt match. Its like saying ‘F = ma isnt true because if I plot them together, and multiply F by 2, they no longer match.'”
I scaled the data exactly as you did, Bart, in order to obtain the best match to the variations in the two data sets.
But it does not match BOTH the short term variation and the long term trend (in amplitude or shape).
Oh well.
Is totally misrepresenting what I did your best argument, Bart?
Sad.
“CO2 is transported to the deep oceans in the polar regions, and upwells again many centuries later in the equatorial latitudes. What is coming up cant be stopped. What goes down is, however, throttled by temperature.”
Is there any quantitative data showing ‘throttling by temperature’. Is there any evidence this effect has the trend and a magnitude large enough to explain the CO2 rise?
There is a difference between hand-waving speculation and an actual theory, Bart.
An actual theory needs to be quantitative. An actual theory needs to be falsifiable. It needs to be tested and validated against the data.
We have none of those.
In addition, your model makes no sense.
With increased CO2 content in atm and ocean, MORE is being transported to the deep oceans in the downwelling water.
It also seems to violate conservation of mass with downwelling slowed, but upwelling not.
Nate,
You and Bart are welcome to continue here or respond at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1257202
Apropo of the original post:
US spending on science, space, and technology correlates with Suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation with 99.79% r^2. https://www.datasciencecentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2808309778.png
Total revenue generated by arcades correlates with Computer science doctorates awarded in the US with 98.51% r^2. https://www.datasciencecentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2808310210.png
An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician are all staying at a hotel for a convention.
The engineer wakes up in the middle of the night and smells smoke. He opens the door of his room and sees a small fire in the hall. He gets the ice bucket from his room, fills it to the top with water from the sink, takes it out into the hall, and throws it on the fire. The fire is out, and he goes back to bed.
An hour later, the physicist wakes up and smells smoke. He opens the door of his room and sees a small fire. He goes back into his room to get some instruments to take some readings from the fire. He goes back into his room and uses the 6 ounce water glass in the bathroom to measure out a precise amount of water so he can fill the ice bucket with just enough to put out the fire. He goes back into the hallway, douses the flames with water, and goes back to bed.
An hour later the mathematician wakes up and smells smoke. He opens the door of his room and sees a small fire. He stands there, thinking. And thinking. And thinking. Looking at the fire and thinking. Staring off into space and thinking. Finally, his eyes light up and he exclaims “Yes! A solution exists!” and he goes back to bed.
Were they a class A, B, C, or D fires?
Reminds me of a fire demonstration we had with a major communications company. We were warned how to deal with burning vinyl insulation since it is toxic to breath. After the demo, our supy gathered us together and told us to forget what we had just been told, if there is a fire, to get our butts out the door asap and let the fire department deal with it.
Looks like they all failed to put out the fire, long term.
While it snows around here:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-202203
And global temperatures have been going down for the last 7 (or so) years according to the data.
“or so”
Which part do you dispute?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015/trend
So what?
So you are an idiot.
No U.
> Which part do you dispute?
The part where you imply it’s relevant.
Willard says the truth is not relevant.
W
Give it time, each year will make it more relevant. Before you know it, the world will be saying what kind of insanity were we engaged in?
W: So when do you expect T to revert to ascendance?
Begging the question while reversing the burden of proof.
Well played, Richard!
Avoiding the answer Willard?
I missed where you answered that one, Richard.
Does it mean you’re transferring your cowardice?
Willard: So you are going to answer when the downtrend in global T is going to reverse?
As long as it makes you behave like a monkey caught in a monkey trap, dummy, you bet I won’t.
Keep squiggling while being caught in a quicksand.
10 year mean just keeps breaking records
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:120/from:1970
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2016/trend
or
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015/trend
2022 – 2016 = 6
2022 – 2015 = 7
447 / 12 = 37.25
So what? Idiot.
37.25 > 7
So what?
Richard says the truth is not relevant.
Willard says that he is an idiot.
No, dummy.
That would be U.
Nate: Figured out any statistical relevance or support for mean or standard deviation on daily or yearly temperatures?
Still hanging to that one, Richard?
You left BG here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1245411
Willard: Figured out any statistical relevance or support for mean or standard deviation on daily or yearly temperatures?
Found that a difference in diurnal skew in different places makes any significant difference to the long term US temp trend yet, Richard?
Studied any statistics Willard?
We already discussed geometry, logic, and computer science, Richard. And you did not come on top. In fact, I already kicked your ass on medians too:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-700485
Almost a year already. Time flies.
Willard say that using the wrong statistics is ok provided the answers happen to be ‘not that different’.
Willard thinks that he knows best even though he can’t show any statistical textbooks to prove it so.
Thank you for probing my mind, Richard.
We already covered that silly talking point of yours. Many times. Here’s one moment I rather like:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-710943
So find a statistical source that says that mean is better than a median on a skewed, bimodal data series. You can’t because there aren’t any.
So find a statistical source that says that a standard deviation has any true meaning on a skewed, bimodal data series. You cant because there arent any.
> mean is better
The negation of “median is always better” isn’t “mean is better,” dummy.
Both mean and median are considered bad statistics on skewed, bimodal data. Mean worse than median.
So you keep saying, Richard.
A pity you can’t support it.
I have supported my case many times. You, however, are never able to find a statistical source that is so easy for you to find or so you claim.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1250297
Not really, Richard.
Here’s how we support a claim:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-708698
Medians are weightless.
If you want to weigh stuff, you need something else.
It’s simple, really.
Are you suggesting we should weight temperatures?
Do you even agree that T is a continuous, skewed, bimodal distribution?
No, dummy.
I’m saying that the size of the outliers sometimes matters.
Why the hell do you think luckwarmers harp so much about median, in some case without really having thought things through like you?
“Im saying that the size of the outliers sometimes matters”
Outliers such as min and max of bimodal distributions which, being limits, are the definition of outliers.
You don’t do finance, dummy, and it shows.
Continuous is more than 2 observations per orbit. Idiot.
2.5 degree grid is more than 2 observations also.
It’s as if you don’t realize I’m reading the comments, Richard:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1245278
When does repeating an untruth becomes a lie, BTW?
When does not being able to find any statistical source become disingenuous?
“Thats the reason UAH has chosen their Version 6 scheme to fill the grids ”
But RSS produces better results using the same instruments because…
> When does not being able to find any statistical source
Almost one year ago, Richard:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-707314
Citation needed which you don’t seem to be able to supply for means, medians and standard deviations on bimodal data sources.
Here’s a citation that shows even Tim can have strong words regarding your presuppositions, Richard:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-710940
No wonder you keep rope-a-doping.
Tim failed to provide a citation for means, medians and standard deviations on skewed, bimodal data sources. There aren’t any.
“In a perfectly symmetrical distribution, the mean and the median are the same”
“Notice that the mean is less than the median, and they are both less than the mode. The mean and the median both reflect the skewing, but the mean reflects it more so”
“In symmetrical, unimodal datasets, the mean is the most accurate measure of central tendency. For asymmetrical (skewed), unimodal datasets, the median is likely to be more accurate. For bimodal distributions, the only measure that can capture central tendency accurately is the mode”
“Two peaks could also indicate your data is sinusoidal. If you suspect your data might be following a wave-like pattern, create a scatter plot or a run sequence plot to double-check for sinusoidal patterns.”
“If the histogram indicates a symmetric, bimodal distribution, the recommended next steps are to:
1. Do a run sequence plot or a scatter plot to check for sinusoidality.
2. Do a lag plot to check for sinusoidality. If the lag plot is elliptical, then the data are sinusoidal.
3. If the data are sinusoidal, then a spectral plot is used to graphically estimate the underlying sinusoidal frequency.”
Willard’s ‘rope-a-dope’ is to claim that there is nothing to see here, move along please.
Keep running from the fact that UAH uses the same “wrong” statistics as the surface temperature anomaly products, RLH. One day you may yet escape it.
I’m more of a hitter than a dancer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-708619
The performances of boxers is rarely measured using medians, and yet they are very skewed. Same for Climateball, for I would not say that yours is under the median. I’d say it’s below average.
Brandon: Find me any statistical textbook that says that mean is better than median on skewed, bimodal data.
Willard: You keep bringing in anecdotal evidence but no real statistical sources.
> Find me any statistical textbook that says that mean is better than median on skewed, bimodal data.
Your trump card is getting old, RLH. Textbooks shouldn’t have to explain that you don’t do statistics on the data you want. You shouldn’t have to read a whole book on logic to figure out your double-standard on this point, but here we are.
Don’t forget that “find me any statistical textbook that says that mean is better than median” rests on a strawman based on a failure to apply the square of opposition properly, BG.
Brandon, Willard: Statistics (and their textbooks) about bimodal data are thin on the ground and what examples there are say that mean is a bad choice, especially on skewed data.
All sources agree that standard deviation has no real meaning on bimodal data.
Range is what they decide is best.
Also using OLS on sinusoidal data is a bad choice too as choosing a low or high end point will distort the outcome.
> Statistics (and their textbooks)
Tell me about them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewness
We should burn textbooks. They’re scams.
Now find me anything on skewed, bimodal data.
“Most commonly, though, the rule fails in discrete distributions where the areas to the left and right of the median are not equal”
Are you saying that T is discrete rather than continuous?
> So find me
Ain’t you’re monkey, Richard. But you might like:
“For bimodal distributions, the only measure that can capture central tendency accurately is the mode.”
Which mode would that be Willard, low or high? And why?
The Mode above all else is Edna, Richard.
I thought you held that the median was better than the mean in all cases except normal distributions.
I prefer pie a la median to pie a la mode. Sometimes I enjoy 2pi a la median.
So let’s address these observations on median that Willard brought up one by one.
“It can fail in multimodal distributions””
T is bimodal not multimodal.
“distributions where one tail is long but the other is heavy.”
Bimodal is heavy at both ends, not long in either.
“Most commonly, though, the rule fails in discrete distributions where the areas to the left and right of the median are not equal.”
T is not a discrete variable.
So, yet again, Willard brings up things that are not relevant in an attempt to appear cleaver. He is not. He is just an idiot.
“the median was better than the mean in all cases except normal distributions”
Except symmetrical distributions where they are the same. Regardless if those distributions are themselves normal or bimodal. Get the facts right at least.
> T is bimodal not multimodal.
Sometimes Richard is as dumb as teh Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodal_distribution
“In statistics, a bimodal distribution is a probability distribution with two different modes, which may also be referred to as a bimodal distribution.”
True
Bimodal is not Multimodal.
Also true.
Examples below of BIMODAL (i.e. 2 peaks) distributions in daily temperature.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04223_darrington_21-nne_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/92826_everglades-city_5-ne_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53927_stillwater_5-wnw_profile.jpg
Under Galtung’s classification these count as U
“U: bimodal peaks at both ends”
Look at the name of the page, dummy.
Also add
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne_profile.jpg
Also add:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodal_distribution
With added emphasis. Just for you, dummy.
Only Willard would define 2 the same as 3 or more. No average (mean or median) daily temperature has 3 (or more) peaks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodal_distribution#/media/File:Bimodal-bivariate-small.png
Fig 3 has 4 modes, not 2.
Richard reads “a multimodal distribution is a probability distribution with two or more modes,” but still insists that a bimodal distribution is not multimodal.
Ambiguity between Unimodal (singular) and Multimodal (more than 1) to include Bimodal (only 2) does not help with the fact that none of them support the use of mean over median as the better choice of summary statistic.
In fact no statistics source (textbook or otherwise) claims any different.
Willard, as usual, just plays the idiot.
Fig 3 has 4 modes, not 2.
Thus makes it multimodal but not bimodal.
It’s hard to draw “two or more,” Richard. But if you can’t grok what “two or more” means, prepare to be mesmerized:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodal_distribution#Summary_statistics
So not only you refuse to accept what multimodal means, but you don’t even seem to realize it’s your own damn squirrel.
I would never use Multimodal to describe Bimodal as the later is more precise meaning only 2 not 3 or more.
In any case, Unimodal, Bimodal and Multimodal do not accept that the mean is more accurate than the median. You have not been able to find any statistical source that says otherwise.
Like your claim that the middle of the range of a set has any statistical relevance to the mean of the same set along with a url that shows otherwise.
“Bimodal distributions are a commonly used example of how summary statistics such as the mean, median, and standard deviation can be deceptive when used on an arbitrary distribution”
So on that basis none of them are relevant.
So Richard disagrees with his own source.
That’s just great.
Bimodal is so little addressed in statistics that it is no surprise to me that what there is very confused. Sometimes it says this, sometimes something else.
No-where does it say than mean is preferred over median anywhere. That is definite.
Keep rope-a-doping, dummy.
The question is absent AGW, what would T be doing?
The ENSO record gives us a pretty good idea.
Fourth figure shows side comparison of Nino 3.4 and Global T.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/
Pretty clear that Nino 3.4 has been decreasing more steeply than Global T since 2015.
So when do you expect that T will start to increase? Previously you claimed April I think. Still think so?
T has already been increasing in the surface data as you can see with GISS.
Are you trying to distract from the fact that global T is tracking higher than expected from ENSO?
“On February 25, 2022, Antarctic sea ice reached its annual minimum extent. At 1.92 million square kilometers (741,000 square miles), it was the lowest on record, but the low value was likely due to natural variability rather than a long-term declining trend”
“Long story short: Climate change has a discernible influence on Arctic sea ice, but it has a complicated, messy influence on Antarctic sea ice. (Meanwhile, the Antarctic Ice Sheet is losing mass.)”
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah-south-pole.jpeg
According to polar expert, Duncan Wingham, it is far too cold in Antarctica for glaciers to melt. If it’s that cold on the continent it won’t be any warmer over the ocean.
Climate change is a lot of nonsense in the context it is being applied. There is no climate change in Antarctica or the Arctic.
According to GR Antarctic ice cannot melt at all. Idiot.
“More so than the Arctic, Antarctic sea ice extents are extremely variable. In the past decade there have been record and near-record high extents, as well as record and near-record lows. The overall trend is nearly flat.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent
“Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year. This is only a modest contribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 millimeters per year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade.”
Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets
Andrew Shepherd
University of Leeds
Duncan Wingham
University College London
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6442922_Recent_Sea-Level_Contributions_of_the_Antarctic_and_Greenland_Ice_Sheets
Here in Beautiful BC, Canada, we are experiencing record low temperatures for this time of year.
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/these-b-c-communities-just-set-cold-weather-records-for-3-days-in-a-row-1.5864692
Note that the photo is dated Dec 2021 but the article is dated April 17, 2022.
Also note that the Environment Canada meteorologist explains this cold ssnp using weather references but EC claimed flooding last November and a heat dome last June were definitely signs of climate change.
It’s all La Nina folks, natural variability.
nate…”Not sure why Gordon is rooting for mass murdering dictator”.
***
I’m not, I thought both Stalin and Hitler fit that description and I am glad they are both gone. I want to see your proof that description applies to Putin.
I know you can’t help yourself Nate, as an alarmist, you are tied to authority figures, so you feel compelled to believe all the fake news produced these days. I have no such compulsion, I look for scientific evidence, a rarity these days.
I have criticized Putin in the past for supporting the dictator in Syria but we in the West have been guilty of the same thing.
All in all, I just want to see a nuclear war prevented and I’d much prefer to have Putin on our side against the Chinese, if it comes down to that. He offered to join NATO way back and the paranoid leaders of NATO turned him down.
ps. just occurred to me you are asking a specific question re Mariupol and wondering why I am supporting the Russians surrounding it.
The theme in all my posts has been neo-Nazi battalions employed openly by the Ukrainian government. Mariupol is being held by the neo-Nazi Azov battalion and the Russians have them surrounded in an industrial complex. Azov was sent in there to suppress the rebel faction of Russian-speaking Ukrainians in Mariupol.
There are also Ukrainian Marines trapped in there and the Russians have offered free passage out to anyone who lays down their arms. They know full well that the Azov won’t surrender because they hate Russians. If I am analyzing this correctly, they will allow the Marines out and exterminate the Nazi rats left in there who refuse to come out.
Unfortunately, Azov will likely shoot any Marines who try to leave. They have already shot civilians trying to leave Mariupol.
Gordon Robertson
I would have you apply your own standards to this post. Above you said: “I know you cant help yourself Nate, as an alarmist, you are tied to authority figures, so you feel compelled to believe all the fake news produced these days. I have no such compulsion, I look for scientific evidence, a rarity these days.”
So what evidence you you have to support this claim: “They know full well that the Azov wont surrender because they hate Russians. If I am analyzing this correctly, they will allow the Marines out and exterminate the Nazi rats left in there who refuse to come out.
Unfortunately, Azov will likely shoot any Marines who try to leave. They have already shot civilians trying to leave Mariupol.”
You reject claims about Russian atrocities in Ukraine (even multiple witness accounts) even with video footage of bodies but you somehow have this complete and accurate information on Azov. Who have you talked with that personally knows anything about Azov, what they feel, what they are capable of doing and to whom. You call established media “fake news” yet you have an abundance of information you put out so what are your scientific sources?
You sound more like someone who is reading straight Putin lies and believing them without any question at all. Do you know what Putin is doing to people in his own country?
Please supply some sources or don’t peddle allegations as if they were fact. Maybe you watch RT or Sputnik and blindly accept all this.
I view similar material on Rense. Can be total made up stuff, they have no sources. Anyway I am asking that you provide proof of your Azov claims. I will believe Western media any day over the lies of KGB Putin. He is a skilled expert liar. I don’t blame you if you get conned by him as you are already conned by the awful Lanka and many other false manipulators like the goofy Claes Johnson or even goofier Gary Novak.
norman…”They know full well that the Azov wont surrender because they hate Russians. If I am analyzing this correctly, they will allow the Marines out and exterminate the Nazi rats left in there who refuse to come out.”
***
Here is a quote from the leader of the Azov battalion, Andriy Biletsky…
“…he said in 2010 that the Ukrainian nation’s mission is to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade against Semite-led Untermenschen””
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Biletsky
The Azov battalion wears Nazi insignia on their helmets, like the swastika and the double lightning bolts of the SS.
Look it up, it’s all there from reliable sources. The US Congress recognized their Nazi affiliation and withdrew support for them.
There always seems to be seriously naive people like you and Ken around. Pre WW II, Canadian journalist, Matthew Halton, tried to warn the world about Hitler and the Nazis and he was charged with misinformation. The Canadian PM at the time, Mackenzie King, went to visit Hitler and came away claiming he was a decent guy.
People with Biletsky’s views have been operating in the Ukraine since 1929 as the OUN…Ukrainian nationalists. One of their leaders, Stepan Bandera joined the Nazis as an Abwehr spy. He was wanted for war crimes at Nuremberg yet recently, the Ukrainian government passed a law to honour scumbags like Bandera as Ukrainian heroes.
Wake up Norman, unless you want to see a mushroom cloud appear near you soon.
“Wake up Norman, unless you want to see a mushroom cloud appear near you soon”
One created by Russia.
C’mon, Gordo –
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2017/01/20/enemy-of-the-state-or-its-founding-element
> I want to see your proof that description applies to Putin.
Of course teh Gordo does.
Has he ever found Adolf’s orders?
For context:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/One_single_proof
Don’t be ridiculous. There is an abundance of evidence of what Hitler and his hooligans did. I want to see evidence that Putin has engaged in such atrocities. And I mean irrefutable evidence like that available to support the Holocaust.
Thus far, all I have seen is claims from the war in Georgia and from a seriously biased western media on the Ukraine. No facts that can be corroborated, justs allegations.
I would also like to know why you are supporting those in the Ukraine today who are descendants of Hitler’s brutality and who support it. Recently, Oleh Tyagnibok, of the Ukrainian Svoboda Party, applauded Ukrainians who had supported Hitler against Jews and ‘other scum’ as he put it. The other scum was obviously the Allies, especially the Russians.
> There is an abundance of evidence of what Hitler and his hooligans did
C’mon, Gordo. We’re talking about orders. Do you have them?
As for what your ZZ gang did:
https://twitter.com/GicAriana/status/1510257553393041410
Keep sealioning.
I have all time in the world. Yes, time. Yes, the world.
willard…”According to reports, Russian forces killed all males aged 18-60 in the city of Bucha, northwest of Kyiv”.
***
That’s it? An idiot reporting on Twitter?
Was he there, was his source there?
There is damning evidence that 40,000+ Jews were methodically slaughtered north of Kyiv at Babi Yar assisted by Ukrainians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar
Look up the Oliver Stone video Ukraine On Fire and watch the coverage of the poor souls who died there.
You need a serious reality check, just like your buddy Ken with his outright denial of neo-Nazis.
C’mon, Gordo.
Reports from British intelligence. Not the British Intelligence. British Intelligence. Also:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/04/04/russias-bucha-facts-versus-the-evidence/
Oliver Stone would have to time travel to be of any relevance. Which is possible in your own mind, as you don’t believe in the arrow of time.
Yeah, the arrow of time. This time you’d be right.
Think.
“I want to see your proof that description applies to Putin”
Ukraine.
Gordon,
Yes there could be neo-Nazi types in Ukraine. And?
Clearly, based on democracy and the freely elected Jewish president, they are not in charge of Ukraine or running the government or even highly influential.
Neo-Nazis are present in every western country including the US and Canada. Remember they came to Charolottesville and chanted ‘Jews will not replace us’.
In these countries, we generally have free speech. They are allowed to be there and speak their minds. They don’t get bombed for it.
Their presence in Ukraine in no way justifies Putin’s actions. Invasion of a sovereign nation. Turning cities into rubble. Indiscriminant bombing and mass killing of civilians. Atrocities by the Russian army that get them medals from Putin.
The neo-Nazi thing is a flimsy excuse. The real intent is obvious from Putin’s own words. He considers Ukraine to not be a real sovereign nation.
“Ukraine never had a tradition of genuine statehood.”
“From the very first steps they began to build their statehood on the denial of everything that unites us. They tried to distort the consciousness, the historical memory of millions of people, entire generations living in Ukraine.”
He considers Ukraine to be part of the Russian empire. He doesnt think Ukrainians should be free to choose their own path.
He wants it back.
“He wants it back”
He never had it.
— Gordon Robertson says:
April 19, 2022 at 6:07 PM
nateNot sure why Gordon is rooting for mass murdering dictator.
***
Im not, I thought both Stalin and Hitler fit that description and I am glad they are both gone. I want to see your proof that description applies to Putin.–
Hmm.
Hmm.
Well, it appears that Putin is not a smart as he seems to imagine he
is.
Or it’s easy to get help in this world, and Putin is failing in that
regard. Can we agree with this?
Can we agree the power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
I will give you, that as a fact that US intel and US State Dept is at best a clown show. As are any bureaucracy.
But Putin should know this, if is leader of a nation.
I imagine even Joe Biden knows this.
But the depths of stupidity of Russian Intel- is long standing issue, perhaps at far lower idiocy than US intel.
rlh…[GR]”The human eye always sees in the present
Except that you admitted that we see what happened on the Sun some minutes ago. Idiot””.
***
You claimed to have studied logic at university. Why are you having so much difficulty with this logic?
Future and past are properties of the human mind. They do not exist outside the human mind.
I said we see light from the Sun 8 minutes after it leaves the Sun because we cannot physically see objects till the light from them stimulates the retina.
Then I pointed out that the Sun is located physically, 93 million miles from the Earth. There is no time factor in that physical space. The entire physical space of the universe is here and now. There is no past anywhere in the Universe.
Note to Willard…it is ‘the’ universe.
When humans talk of the arrow of time, since the so-called beginning of time, they are referring to an illusion that exists only in the human mind. There is no physical dimension of time. As Jiddu Krishnamurti often states in his work, ‘Time is thought; thought is time’.
NASA is caught up in that illusion when it claims light collected by the Webb telescope gives evidence of the past, as if they are looking back into the past. They are also caught up in the illusion that the Moon rotates on a local axis.
You are just simply deluded in your existence as an intelligent imbecile.
> it is “the” universe
C’mon, Gordo.
It’s time. It’s the arrow of time. It’s space. It’s spacetime. It’s Wagner PMC Neonazis:
https://informnapalm.org/en/russian-neo-nazis-in-the-ranks-of-wagner-pmc/
Willard, you should consider following DREMT’s lead and start your own Youtube Channel. You’d quickly find out how many people just wait on the edge of their seats for yet another of your pointless posts.
Thank you for your input, Kennui.
A few points. They’re comments, not posts. They’re sometimes responses, and they always have a point. The current point is that Ze Gordo’s boot licking a dictator who whines about Nazis when he relies on mercenaries called the Wagner group, which was founded by a guy with Nazi tattoos all over him, and which contain members that are full-blown Neonazis.
Perhaps you prefer:
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/putin-decree-russian-billionaires-tycoons-foreign-stock-listings-ukraine-2022-4
If you don’t like my responses to Gordo, you can always tune on another channel. Or you can send money to Clowns Without Frontier. If you send enough money, I’m willing to cut Ze Gordo some slack.
No one cares what Gordo thinks about Nazis. Some people have difficulty with logic and Gordo is one of the challenged. However, he does try to make his point relevant even as he is challenged.
Unlike you, Dear Willard, who have nothing to offer to any of the discussions on this thread. I’ve not seen you make any relevant useful comment on any subject of discussion anywhere on the website.
I’m sure Jesus loves you even as I cannot fathom why.
> I’ve not seen you make any relevant useful comment on any subject of discussion anywhere on the website.
I actually did, Kennui. Many times.
Wanna bet?
ken…”Some people have difficulty with logic and Gordo is one of the challenged”.
***
Ken…only idiots reply with ad homs and insults when they are cornered. You are likely a Holocaust denier or one of those idiots who brushes it off as inconsequential, simply because you are uninformed.
I expect more from Canadians than the kind of mindless butt-kissing in which you engage. If you have a point to make, make it, and do it with proof.
I have clearly laid out my logic especially with regard to the Moon’s orbit. You have failed to reply with any scientific logic and that is being continued with your inability to absorb the proof I have offered re neo-Nazis in the Ukraine.
I take it very seriously and people like you trivialized it pre-WW II to the point where it was too late. Hitler had already taken Czechoslovakia and Poland before any of them woke up. Even then, there were upper crust types, includng the King, who still wanted to deal with him.
You’re a flake who lacks the guts to seek the truth.
> only idiots reply with ad homs and insults when they are cornered
C’mon, Gordo.
Should I remind you all the ad homs and insults you sent my way?
Think.
The best way to define freedom comes from the words of the last surviving prosecutor from the Nuremberg Trials. Hes currently 100 years old. He said that he asked the court to affirm the right of people to live their lives in peace and with human dignity regardless of race or creed.
I would add to that ‘regardless of vaccine status’.
We have a problem on the Freedom issue here in Canada. I’d suggest you focus on that instead of absurd phantasms of Nazis in the Ukraine. Ukraine does not have a reputation for denying people the right to live their lives in peace and with human dignity.
Nazism died with Hitler at the end of WWII. Get over it.
“I actually did, Kennui. Many times.”
Nope. Delusions that you are contributing don’t amount to actual contribution.
I asked for a bet, Kennui.
You lost.
No U.
R S T . V
willard…”Its time. Its the arrow of time. Its space. Its spacetime. Its Wagner PMC Neonazis:…”
***
Is there a point to your idiocy? You’re all talk, no proof. You lack the ability to discuss any of this but your ego is so big you think your comments mean something.
[GORDO] only idiots reply with ad homs and insults when they are cornered
[ALSO GORDO] Is there a point to your idiocy? Youre all talk, no proof. You lack the ability to discuss any of this but your ego is so big you think your comments mean something.
“Future and past are properties of the human mind”
Wrong. A photon started out on its journey in the past. It will arrive at its destination in the future. Fact.
Curiously from the point of view of the photon, travelling at the speed of light, no time passes during the journey.
Interestingly a sequence of events must have happened to that photon though.
So a photon travelling from a light, through a prism to a piece of paper must have experienced each of those events in a sequence that occurred one after the other. That sequence is not reversable or alterable.
A particle could jump thru the paper.
Or GCR, does when near speed of light- it doesn’t even need to be
very close speed of light. And can go thru a concrete wall.
Is a photon a particle or a wavefront?
Well, it’s electromagnetic and maybe some kind of particle.
All know is that GCR going thru people is only a problem if it
hits them. And trying to stop them “can” harm people more, than
not trying.
Not certain anyone knows much about light. But it’s not me.
All forms of EMR can be reflected, refracted or focused by the use of the appropriate distribution of connected metallic objects.
See optics or radio as required.
Yeah, good point.
X-rays are harder to do.
Not sure about gamma rays
EMR is EMR. Just needs the correct spacing to work.
Now that’s an interesting question? If you were riding a photon could you experience a sequence of events in zero time?
I suspect no. To experience an event you need to exchange energy/particles/information with your environment and a photon in flight does none of these.
If the light/photon was from a star and the distance between the prism and the paper was only a few cm, then would there be a difference between the timing of the events as described, as observed by the photon?
The direction of the photon is impacted by the prism.
If there is no arrow of time, then why do we perceive entropy increasing?
Gordon Robertson
I am an observer 10 billion miles from the Sun along a line perpendicular to the line between the Earth and the Sun.
I see a spacecraft in close orbit around the Sun flash a beacon.
I see a spacecraft orbiting Earth flash it’s own beacon as soon as it sees the first flash.
What time interval do I measure between seeing the first flash and seeing the second flash?
brandon…”Keep running from the fact that UAH uses the same wrong statistics as the surface temperature anomaly products…”
***
UAH does not need to use statistics to fudge data since they use real data. The surface data uses it liberally to fudge temperatures to appear warmer than it is. Not only that, they have cut back their reporting stations to less than 1500 so they can use statistical methods to fudge the data.
In 2014, NOAA reported it as the warmest year ever. The small print held a disclaimer…there was a 48% probability they were right. NASA GISS claimed the same, but they used a 38% probability.
At least Brandon admits the the statistics in common use are wrong.
Gordon Robertson
I gave you a link to NOAA surface data.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/search/index
In this they state clearly “he Integrated Surface Dataset (ISD) is composed of worldwide surface weather observations from over 35,000 stations, though the best spatial coverage is evident in North America, Europe, Australia, and parts of Asia. Parameters included are: air quality, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric temperature/dew point, atmospheric winds, clouds, precipitation, ocean waves, tides and more. ISD refers to the data contained within the digital database as well as the format in which the hourly, synoptic…”
Where are you getting the 1500 stations from? Is this some blog truth? The actual source makes the claim of 35,000. Need sources for you comments so others have a change to verify.
Norman
” Where are you getting the 1500 stations from? ”
Did you never read all the dumb stuff produced since years by Robertson concerning that?
https://web.archive.org/web/20100401000000*/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
This is a document published by NOAA around 2009, which was first stored on the Wayback Machine in March 2010.
At that time, the GHCN revision was V2.
Presumably due to the pressure to be more economical, NOAA gradually had to give up all weather stations that did not deliver their data remotely.
We read in the document:
” The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions.
This is what Robertson deliberately ignores.
He never processed any weather station data, neither out of GHCN V2/V3/V4, nor from GHCN daily, USHCN, USCRN, CLIMAT, METEOSTAT etc etc.
He knows nothing about all that.
*
It is apparent that he has a deep hatred of NOAA, probably due to the fact that he worked at one of NOAA’s many subcontractors a long time ago and was summarily fired from the company for lack of qualifications or for badmouthing NOAA.
Curiously, Robertson’s badmouthing suddenly disappears when John Christy presents data based on NOAA station data, like here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210112005636/https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Record-Temperatures-in-the-United-States.pdf
*
Robertson is a dumb contrarian ignoramus who misuses this blog to post wrong information about everything he picks up out of various contrarian blogs.
Spot the eejit who doesnt understand confidence limits.
Spot the eejit who thinks using the wrong statistics doesn’t matter.
Spot the man who thinks a bimodal distribution isn’t multimodal.
Spot Willard the idiot.
Is 2 the same as 3 or more?
Richard reads “a multimodal distribution is a probability distribution with two or more modes,” but still insists that a bimodal distribution is not multimodal.
Are 1, 2 and 3 or more different?
I guess Vladimir and Estragon have to retire. Let’s try Hamm and Clov:
[HAMM] Bimodal is not Multimodal.
[CLOV] Here is the page on multimodality.
[HAMM] As I said, bimodal is bimodal.
[CLOV] “A multimodal distribution is a probability distribution with two or more modes”
[HAMM] Is 2 the same as 3 or more?
Even Kennui would have to admit. This is ART.
So Willard, are 1, 2 and 3 or more different?
Next you’re gonna argue about the meaning of “only,” dummy:
“For bimodal distributions, the only measure that can capture central tendency accurately is the mode.”
If that is so, then tell us, oh guru, which of the 2 modes should we choose (and why).
Stay thirsty, dummy.
So you are unable to answer a question your yourself posed.
Probably because you don’t want to appear the idiot that you are.
Twas your own quote, dummy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1250297
Srsly, Richard. You should cut your losses right now.
To show that it was ridiculous and that you are too.
So says the guy who pretends that bimodal distributions aren’t multimodal.
I kid you not.
So says the guy who tries to confuse the difference between Unimodal, Bimodal and Multimodal (where there is a difference between Unimodal/Multimodal and Unimodal/Bimodal/Multimodal that he can’t get his head around). I kid you not.
He just gets hung up on the fact that he won’t admit that words can mean more than one thing depending on their context, but tries to confuse everybody regardless.
He is just an idiot.
Not only Richard can’t accept the correct terminology, but he still has to discover that sometimes two unimodal distributions are just that: two unimodal distributions.
There is a lot about skinheads rather than spinningness of the Moon lately, recently.
Not sure it’s an improvement. It might interesting to know which the Google employees, like better.
It seems to me, skinheads aren’t very interested in space.
But there has been some discussion about NASA, in regard to nazi involvement rocket development in terms US [and Russia}. One might call it the theft of such people. Or “nazis” or a ex-nazi was involved making the Saturn V rocket though I don’t think the Saturn V was canceled relate to such matters- or story about why and wherefores is somewhat interesting but not really about skinheads. Could briefly say, budget issues and not wanting to do much in terms of exploring the Moon. And fear of killing astronauts- related to PR.
The topic of fake lunar landing is another insane issue, but one can the Apollo lunar landing was a PR stunt, so some basis for such silly ideas to be “developed”. I find silliness of alien artifacts on the Mars, more amusing. And recently we had “square rock” with Chinese lunar rover.
There is moral question of whether we should eat space aliens.
And recently I was wondering about cannibalism, and the eating and drinking of Christ. Specifically, why does eating Christ “work”.
Or cannibalism is bad.
Months earlier, I was thinking wolves and cannibalism in terms of northern Europe.
But what largely in back of my mind is possibility of WWIII and whether having a weak President actually does have merits.
I normally don’t spend much time considering WWIII at any moment.
You should look up the ‘Eucharist’ for details about eating Christ.
At no time is flesh actually ever eaten or blood ever drunk; Eucharist is a symbolic rite.
Well, cannibalism has particular biological hazards- but it also has mental/spiritual “problems”. As does slavery.
{or least, it’s my opinion it’s moral issue.]
I agree. Cannibalism is shameful, immoral, and taints the soul. (even as some like the taste).
Spot the man who doesn’t understand confidence limits.
Spot the man who does not understand that errors in measurement are different to errors in point to volume assumptions.
Spot the man who does not understand that a bimodal distribution is multimodal.
Bimodal only describes 2 but, confusingly, Multimodal usually describes 3 or more but under Willard’s definition also includes 2 (thus making 2 either/or).
Most people would use 2 to describe bimodal and 3 or more to describe multimodal. Willard differs.
Richard reads “a multimodal distribution is a probability distribution with two or more modes,” but still insists that a bimodal distribution is not multimodal.
Willard fails to distinguish between Unimodal (1), Bimodal (2) and Multimodal (3 or more) which all claim that median is a better choice than mean for a summary statistic.
Sure you can use Multimodal to mean 2 or more but that just makes things ambiguous and doesn’t alter the statistics observation.
Richard still fails to support his claim that the median is better than the mean, which is obviously false in the case of multimodal distributions.
Worse, he still fails to realize that “multi” means more than one, not more than three.
Willard fails to distinguish between Unimodal (1), Bimodal (2) and Multimodal (3 or more) which all claim that median is a better choice than mean for a summary statistic.
Find me a statistical source that claims otherwise.
Richard still fails to realize that a mixture of two unimodal distributions with differing means is not necessarily bimodal.
> Find me a statistical source that claims otherwise.
“For bimodal distributions, the only measure that can capture central tendency accurately is the mode”
You’ll never guess where it’s from, dummy.
“For bimodal distributions, the only measure that can capture central tendency accurately is the mode”
So which of the 2 modes of the bimodal daily and yearly T should we choose and why?
“a mixture of two unimodal distributions with differing means is not necessarily bimodal”
But the daily and yearly T record IS bimodal. See above.
[HAMM] Bimodal is not Multimodal.
[CLOV] Here is the page on multimodality.
[HAMM] As I said, bimodal is bimodal.
[CLOV] “A multimodal distribution is a probability distribution with two or more modes”
[HAMM] Is 2 the same as 3 or more?
[CLOV] Hamm still fails to support his claim that the median is better than the mean, which is obviously false in the case of multimodal distributions.
[HAMM] Find me a statistical source that claims otherwise.
[CLOV] “For bimodal distributions, the only measure that can capture central tendency accurately is the mode”
[HAMM] So which of the 2 modes of the bimodal daily and yearly T should we choose and why?
So which of the 2 modes of the bimodal daily and yearly T should we choose and why?
Willard, as usual, will fail to answer the relevant question.
Res ipsa loquitur, dummy.
“the thing speaks for itself” but you are unable to answer it seems.
You’re too dumb to realize that your own trick questions are silly AF, dummy.
You are too dumb to realize you are an idiot.
Says the guy who still refuses to admit that two is more than one.
Elon Musk warns life on Mars will be dangerous, cramped, difficult, hard work
https://nypost.com/2022/04/19/elon-musk-warns-life-on-mars-will-be-dangerous-cramped-difficult-hard-work/
And: “you might not make it back.”
It’s not terrible sales pitch, but when time comes, it probably
will change.
[[And there could be cannibalism, would never sell well- not that anyone saying or thinking this.]]
But in terms policy, in beginning you probably should plan to stay on Mars for a fair amount to time, also but also seems you need a policy of anyone always having to right to immediately return to Earth.
Or going to Mars is not as bad as going to early America from Europe- it should a bit more civilized.
And I see this as continuation, NASA policy. Or I think NASA exploration should attempt to have crew stay on Mars for long time {+4 years} but also always have an abort mode. Or want people to want to be on Mars and not “have” the insanity/stress of being trapped- needing to leave, but can’t. Or it seems only certain “breed of human” could do this, but these people will have limits which can “occur” and one can’t possibly predict it- and for numerous possible situations.
Or the mental state is very important- not just for a person or few people but for “the sake of the team”. And if one can killed on Mars, one can also be maimed. Or one should want someone to maimed as compared being dead- maimed person should equal, the death or great risk to others.
Anyhow, it think possible the Moon can serve a training grounds for people going to Mars. And/Or lunar use, can quicken Mars settlements- but “could” depends what is explored and found on the Moon. Though it seems more certain to me, that Venus orbit would be critical to Mars settlements.
I don’t understand why anyone would want to leave earth and go to Mars to live instead.
Life on Mars would add meaning to the phrase describing life on earth as ‘Nasty Brutal Short’.
I’d be up for migration to another planet but it would have to be at least as survivable as Earth.
I wouldn’t want to migrate without medical regeneration of my body so as to go as if I were 20 years old again.
I sometimes wonder if the story of Noah’s Ark is a historical artifact of just such a migration to earth.
One could go to Mars to be rich.
But Musk seems to assume one can live on Mars- and that might be the case. But if you be healthy with Mars gravity and other things work out, it’s possible to live most of your life on Mars no where near a air lock, but living near air lock is roughly what you do anywhere other than Earth. And from Mars it’s much easier to get into space.
But Mars is not really the hub of solar system, nor is Earth. I think Venus orbit could be more popular, or I think it where trillions of humans might live.
Some say, God gave us the Moon so we could become spacefaring. The Moon and Mars seem to like beginning “points” rather, or where one can begin to be a spacefaring civilization- either or both Luna or Mars would starting point. And if people are living on Mars, it will make Earth a better planet.
I like Larry Niven’s stories. ‘Protector’ describes life as a Belter … people who live in the asteroid belt and prospect for monopoles.
The Belters describe places like Mars as ‘Gravity Holes’, not worth the time or the energy needed to land and take off.
I like Robert Heinlein’s books too. ‘Friday’ describes a space elevator. The Interstellar craft dock at the top of the Elevator which is connected to the earth at Nairobi (close to the equator) so they don’t have to land on earth. I think this is a better idea than trying to stage interstellar trips from places … gravity holes … like Mars or the Moon.
I don’t understand your rationale on how if people are living on Mars it will make Earth a better planet. Despite years of exploration there is nothing found on Mars that we don’t have on Earth; no reason to go there at all except for the engineering expertise that is being obtained.
You might make the case for the Asteroid Belt, but even that would depend on whether the mineral exploration can be made profitable.
Mars and Moon you don’t need rockets to leave- you can use Mass drivers. Gravity holes are useful.
Space Elevators are slow. But I would use one to drop water and get gravity energy [ie hydrodam].
One can use mass driver to get rocket assist with Earth.
Mass driver need lots volume [traffic to paid for the large infrastructure costs- unless want shorter one with very high gee [like a cannon].
Helps Earth because Earth is energy poor, space environment has unlimited energy. And general Knowledge is useful to Earthlings.
Mass Drivers strong enough to provide gravity hole escape don’t exist. Please stick to proven technologies.
There is no proven energy reserve on the Moon or on Mars. Going there doesn’t help with Earth’s energy issues.
Yeah, space has unlimited energy; its raining soup and we don’t have a bowl. Space is not Moon or Mars.
Space Elevator technology is more likely to work than mass driver even as it too remains unproven.
Yes, General Knowledge is always of value to Earthlings, else there is no point in going to space.
— Ken says:
April 20, 2022 at 10:24 PM
Mass Drivers strong enough to provide gravity hole escape dont exist. Please stick to proven technologies.–
Sorry, meant gravity well- not black holes.
“There is no proven energy reserve on the Moon or on Mars. Going there doesnt help with Earths energy issues.”
I mean space- vast open space, solar energy. And space is good place for nuclear energy- Moon, Mars, or open space.
One of many problems with solar energy is it uses up real estate on Earth.
But right now, one can’t build solar arrays on the Moon.
You need to have chemical rocket on lunar surface, or Lunar orbit, or both, to get to Moon, cheaper. And if you had rocket fuel on the Moon, it could take decades before you make Space power satellites on the Moon.
Or if Moon does not rocket fuel one make on the Moon. Don’t go to the Moon. IF there is there mineable lunar water, then the monetary capital to do this, would happen.
If there is mineable water on the Moon- the water and electrical power to make it will be very expensive. And would require decades before lunar electrical may be say, 10 times the price electrical power on get on Earth and lunar water say 100 times water price on Earth. Lunar water price will related to price of lunar electrical power, or lunar electrical power will get cheaper than Earth, before lunar water can mined on Moon cheaper or same as water on Earth.
But if you get to point where getting to Moon is same price as one get to ISS, one do a lot stuff on the Moon.
But let’s say there isn’t mineable water on the Moon, then I would say idea of building bases on the Moon and etc, should be delayed. Unless SpaceX has already make starships as cheap as Musk is planning on them being.
But making Starships {or any launch vehicle] has always been possible make cheap- if there is enough demand of rockets. Or Musk wildly low cost of launch, was what NASA said it’s space shuttle could be- the number given by NASA was $25 per kg to orbit {cheaper the what Musk says he can do] But space shuttle had “problems” or didn’t work as designed to be. Or Space Shuttle was NOT fully reuseable. Musk has already got, fully reuseable first stage- NASA didn’t get this far. And Musk Starship is designed to fully useable, and it’s possible, and not possible with NASA’s Space Shuttle.
The problem with Space Shuttle is it hit reality- plan didn’t work.
Anyways, I write endless boring pages about this. But NASA should explore the Lunar polar lunar regions and determine if what we think might true regarding the lunar surface, is reality on the ground.
NASA could do the quickly {and they aren’t- they could done it quickly decades ago, but didn’t. But after determining if there is mineable lunar water on the Moon or NOT, NASA should start with exploring Mars {and don’t waste more decades, not exploring Mars}.
Or by this point, say within 5 years, NASA will know if Starship works {Musk will flown it 100 times and he prove or not prove it works- if doesn’t work, Musk will fix it or something}.
And Starship is designed to land on Mars- NASA has not yet work out how to land more 1 ton on Mars surface, Starship does 100 tons.
Or NASA will have a very good way to explore Mars, at 1/10th the cost it was “planning on it costing”.
And briefly, what NASA needs to do with Mars is to prove what it was saying is true about Mars- which Mars is most like planet to Earth- it’s habitable.
I think it’s possible Mercury is more habitable then Mars- one reason is Mercury is as dead as the Moon is. Or alien microbial life on Mars, could make Mars not habitable by humans.
Or make it simple, the Moon is place which could develop an electrical market. Or Mars could be the place.
And btw, black holes are very useful, but don’t know of any near us.
Or I am not fan of interstellar travel. Hard, probably take centuries to do, if we wanted to do it. But if found black hole within a couple lightyears, a blackhole is very useful for interstellar travel.
And our Star, the sun, is lousy for interstellar travel. It’s a poor
gravity well to use. There billions of stars which are better gravity wells than our sun, but blackholes [or other objects] are better than any burning star.
But I tend to think that between our local stars, could better place to go than +4 light years away.
We know very little about region between our stars, James Webb telescope might be helpful, in this regard. But probably need much bigger telescopes than James Webb telescope.
And instead paying 10 billion, larger ones could cost 10 million dollars.
Also a lot old people die from falling- older people could like the safety of Mars. But it take a while to get to point [say, more decade after people start living there]- and orbit could better than Mars gravity.
Low gravity might shorten or end your life, but it “might” also extend your life. We don’t know.
And that we don’t know much, is why being spacefaring is important.
Scott solves biggest problem in the world:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFnFI7RcrNk
Or whatever.
PDO for Mar 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/pdo-1.jpeg
AMO for Mar 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/amo.jpeg
Willard:
“For bimodal distributions, the only measure that can capture central tendency accurately is the mode”
So which of the 2 modes of the bimodal daily and yearly T should we choose and why?
T’was your own quote, dummy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1250297
No answer then. Just choose one at random?
“3. If the data are sinusoidal, then a spectral plot is used to graphically estimate the underlying sinusoidal frequency.”
Wonder who does that?
min-max/2 isn’t even bimodal, dummy
No, it is the middle of a range and thus subject to outliers which is bad news in statistics.
Luckwarmers will say the darnedest things to minimize AGW.
W
Looks like what is needed is some arbitration. Might I suggest an intervention by the world famous WAPO reporter and doxtrix extraordinaire Taylor Lorenz. She might be seeking new career opportunities given the developments of the last few days.
Dear Pozzo,
She’s not my type, but you made me look:
https://twitter.com/search?q=TaylorLorenz%20fernandoleanme&src=typed_query
rlh…Willard is working you, he knows no more about stastistics than he does anything else, He’s a troll who rushes to Google to find a semblance of an answer so he can drag you out into a meaningless discussion.
Then again, you’re the kind of idiot who relishes that kind of thing.
Willard should know then that mean is not the statistic he is seeking.
Willard wouldn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground.
To put it a better way, Willard is still trying to figure out why there are only two modes in bimodal. If you tell him that, he’ll immediately seek evidence to prove you wrong.
C’mon, Gordo.
You really should read –
“Bimodal is not Multimodal.”
Guess who wrote that.
Richard is resisting a very simple point.
C’mon, Gordo –
https://www.thedailybeast.com/wagners-rusich-neo-nazi-attack-unit-hints-its-going-back-into-ukraine-undercover
RLH should refrain from feeding the troll.
Which one?
norman…I gave you a link to NOAA as well…
“Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Live in denial if you want. Binny has been in denial since I revealed this link to him.
There’s plenty more evidence here….
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/08/16/tony-heller-on-ushcn-data-diddle/
And throughout the entire site.
C’mon, Gordo –
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Ha ha haaah…
Robertson ‘revealing’ me (!!!) that web archive.
That is the very best.
Poor ignorant Robertson.
Binny descends into deeper denial. I wish he’d go to de real Nile and swim with the hippos.
C’mon, Gordo –
The experiment that cries out to be done is to calculate the global average anomaly history with and without the adjustments, to see what difference it makes. Ive done it, and the difference is small.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/23/im-designing-an-experiment-to-illustrate-how-homgenization-creates-a-false-climate-trend-suggestions-welcome/#comment-3461489
binny…”Curiously, Robertsons badmouthing suddenly disappears when John Christy presents data based on NOAA station data, like here:”
***
There is nothing at your like re John Christy that has anything to do with what we are talking about. Although GHCN Daily has over 100,000 stations listed, NOAA admitted they are using less than 1500 of them. Even if the head of NOAA told you that, you’d still disagree.
Furthermore, the majority of these stations are located in the US and Canada.
Gordon Robertson
If I asked you to design a network of stations to measure global average temperature what is the optimum number of stations?
How do you calculate that number?
Robertson is not only the dumbest guy on Earth, with the least technical experience, but also the most persistent liar.
” NOAA admitted they are using less than 1500 of them. ”
He will never go away from such primitive, dumb lies.
No wonder! He is a butt-kisser of all pseudoskeptic bloggers, for example of this ‘chiefio’ (E.M. Smith) who was so incredibly dumb that he thought a decade ago NOAA would have let all Arctic stations in Canada disappear.
And Robertson sucks such a nonsense… Plus bête tu meurs.
And the degree of his ignorance you see here:
” Furthermore, the majority of these stations are located in the US and Canada. ”
He never has seen any station list in his entire life!
*
I recall him claiming that GPS doesn’t need any relativity-based corrections! Imagine.
As Swenson nicknamed himself ‘Mike Flynn’ some years ago, he tried to explain Robertson he was wrong with that.
But Robertson replied a bit too harsh, Flynn had not enough balls between the legs to contradict him again, and gave woefully up.
Gordon Robertson
Your data source is from 2010. Is it possible they have added significant amounts of more stations?
Your claim; ” Even if the head of NOAA told you that, youd still disagree.”
Use this on your own arguemnt.
Here is the current information (not 2010):
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/land-based-station/integrated-surface-database#:~:text=There%20are%20currently%20more%20than,updated%20daily%20in%20the%20database.
They use more than 20,000 stations that give hourly data (one data point is temperature). In the link they have a list of all these hourly stations. There are 1000 pages listed. Look through them sometime.
So you may be correct that in 2010 that is what they used but does that mean they have not expanded over time as they are more able to automate stations around the world?
Also, if you are looking at a trend, one station can tell you (over time) if a variable is changing in a significant manner. You have high variability (Roy Spencer’s graphs) but you can see a long term trend for that one station. It may not give you enough to make a global conclusion but it would be enough for the surrounding area.
You make this claim the past does not exist only the current. If so why do you live in the past in all areas?
ken…”We have a problem on the Freedom issue here in Canada. Id suggest you focus on that instead of absurd phantasms of Nazis in the Ukraine. Ukraine does not have a reputation for denying people the right to live their lives in peace and with human dignity.
Nazism died with Hitler at the end of WWII. Get over it”.
***
We are getting lost in semantics.
Nazi = national socialist
From wiki…
“Nazism [aka national socialism aka Hitlerism] is a form of fascism, with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system. It incorporates fervent antisemitism, anti-communism, scientific racism, and the use of eugenics into its creed”.
I might add, ironically, anti-socilism. The Nazis threw real socialists in concentration camps as did Stalin.
So, what has been going on in the Ukraine since 1929 when the OUN (Ukrainian nationalists) was formed? Look OUN up, it’s based on the same kind of fascism. Had WW II not come along with Hitler, we would not be calling it Nazism today, but likely fascism.
I have never claimed all Ukrainians are fascist, or tried to estimate how many are fascist. I don’t sense that a majority of Ukrainians have fascist values, however, the number who do have those values is controlling Ukraine’s destiny. They are violent SOBs who get their way in the same manner as Hitler’s brown shirts (SA).
Since a law was passed in the Ukraine in 2015, making Ukrainian war criminals into heroes of the Ukraine, there have been large turnouts to celebrate war criminals like Stepan Bandera and the SS Galacia, a Nazi SS unit under control of the German Nazis.
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/06/robert-parry-when-us-house-saw-ukraines-neo-nazis/
Between its formation in the early 1990s and 2012, the Ukraine was rated the most corrupt country in Europe. I blame that in part on Stalinists from the former USSR trying to continue that way of life, with its inherent corruption. However, Russians suffered in the same manner.
When Yeltsin released countries like the Ukraine to form a democracy. the opportunists moved in and many became wealthy (oligarchs) while the average Russian and Ukrainian suffered. Elections were fixed and Ukrainian and Russian leaders were corrupt.
Finally, they had an election in 2010 that global observers could agree to and Viktor Yanukovych was declared president. He appears to be from the Donbas region in eastern Russia. When he was subsequently ousted in a coup two years later, people from the Donbas region objected and that lead to a civil war.
In 2014, when he was ousted, the Azov battalion was formed and their neo-Nazi views were not hidden. If you want to use semantics, then you can related Nazi to Hitler only and WW II. However, the term is associated with national socialism, fascism, and white supremacy. When I use the word Nazi, that’s what I mean.
You cannot separate the current meaning of the word from Nazi Germany. People who are neo-Nazi tend to identify with German Naziism, employing symbolism like the swastika and the double lighting bolt symbol used by the Nazi SS. Typically they hate Jews and other ethnic minorities.
If you think that is not related to the problems in the Ukraine today, you are seriously naive. Nazi factions in the Ukraine are on record as having worked with the Nazis in WW II and they make no bones about that affiliation. Oleh Tyagnibok, leader of the Svoboda Party in the Ukraine has applauded Ukrainians who fought against Jews and ‘other scum’ in WW II.
The meaning is clear. He is blaming the Allies as being lead by Jews since there was no Jews per se in recognized military group fighting the Ukrainians. Furthermore, many Ukrainians were on the side of the Russians. By ‘other scum’ he is referring to Russians, Poles, and the Allies in general.
The leader of the Azov battalion, Andriy Biletsky, which he formed in 2014 while sitting as a member of the Ukrainian parliament, has also made white supremist statements. In the field, the Azov battalion wears Nazi insignia on their helmets and on their flags.
These SOBs were behind the violence in the Maidan protests in 2014 that overthrew a democratically elected president.
Azov is now surrounded in Mariupol and I am guessing they will be eliminated. I am waiting to see if the Russians will leave after taking care of business.
> We are getting lost in semantics.
C’mon, Gordo.
You keep repeating the same crap over and over again.
1. Ukraine is not a fascist country.
2. The most corrupt country in Europe is Russia.
3. Anti-Euros are on your side of the conflict. They’re the puppets of the puppet state Vlad helped install, in which human right atrocities were committed since its birth. Just like every other single puppet regimes Vlad installed around Russia.
4. Vlad just gave a medal to those responsible for the Bucha Massacre, a massacre you still deny.
5. The Wagner Group is more than clandestine and illegal, it is a Nazi organization:
https://en.respublica.lt/signs-of-neo-nazi-ideology-amongst-russian-mercenaries
Think.
Gordo,
Hitler was a thug like all socialists. Look at Australia. Socialists.
“These SOBs were behind the violence in the Maidan protests in 2014 that overthrew a democratically elected president.”
If you believe Russian propaganda…
rlh…[GR]”Future and past are properties of the human mind
Wrong. A photon started out on its journey in the past. It will arrive at its destination in the future. Fact”.
***
What medium did it pass through en route?
This is what you are missing, the medium exists only as thought in the human mind.
How did the photon get into the past and how does it move into the future? The only way it could be in the past is if the human held a stopwatch and started it running when the photon was at a point, A. At that instant both are in the present.
Suppose another human with a stop watch observes the photon approaching and activates the stopwatch as it passes him in the here and now at point B. As he clicks the watch, the photon is in the here and now, not the past.
Suppose a third human watches the photon approach from a distance and activates the stopwatch as the photon gets to him. The photon is once again in the here and now at point C. The observers at points A and B are not seeing a photon moving from past to future, they see only a quantum of light moving physically from A to B to C.
However, if we want to keep tract of the motion, we can designate A the past, B the present, and C the future. We can do anything we want in our illusory minds.
Are you trying to tell me the humans at points A, B and C exist in the past, the present and the future? If so, I think you have been reading Ken’s favourite author Robert Heinlein and his sci-fi writings.
I am not trying to be a jerk but you really need to assess this problem through a choiceless awareness. That means you look at it without past conditioning. I asked you to do that with the Moon and you made no effort so I suspect you will do the same with this problem.
If a photon moves from A, to B, to C, at no time (excuse pun) is it moving through a dimension of time. It can only ever move through a physical space that is of the same physical dimension.
The human mind, however, has a capacity of memory. It can store point A as a memory and after a time lapse it can record the photon at point B. If the experiment is repeated, he now knows about point C since it is stored in memory as a future event. If it was not, he’d know nothing about the future.
“What medium did it pass through en route?”
There is no medium in space. It is empty of everything. Still passes photons through it though.
Photons have a speed. That means they take some time to cover a distance. Therefore they have a past (in both time and space) and a future (likewise).
Idiot.
Neutrinos how many are passing through us at any given time?
http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=1033
“So over the course of your lifetime, about a mole of neutrinos (almost a trillion trillions) will have coursed through your body.”
…
“That means that the sum total mass of all neutrinos that have passed through every single person who ever lived, over everyones total lifetime, is about 0.15 grams.”
Neutrinos how many are there?
http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=1031
How many flavors of neutrinos are there?
https://neutrinos.fnal.gov/mysteries/how-many-kinds/
“Scientists know about three neutrino flavors (the electron neutrino, muon neutrino, and tau neutrino) so far, which are related to the three charged lepton flavors (the electron, muon and tau). But there could be additional flavors of neutrinos…”
One doesn’t count what could be.
And what we don’t know about {I would guess}, probably more “significant” than what know about.
More said:
Theoretically, they are now many and constitute a a cosmic background radiation whose temperature is 1.9 degree Kelvin (-271.2 degree Celsius).
This neutrinos cosmic background radiation comes from the decoupling of the neutrinos, which, until universe became sufficiently cold, were appearing and disappearing, absorbed by protons or emitted by neutrons. At a given temperature of the universe, about 1 second after the Big-Bang, protons have only a weak probability to absorb a neutrino, which thus decouple.
Some hundreds of thousand of years later, photons will decouple the same way from charged particles like the electrons and will become the light cosmic background radiation at 2.73 degree Kelvin. ”
https://lappweb.in2p3.fr/neutrinos/anunivers.html
And:
https://socratic.org/questions/how-many-neutrinos-are-in-the-universe
“We can’t be sure for certain how many neutrinos there are in the Universe, but we can make an estimate.”
Well, one problem/issue with all this [but not the entire problem]
is Gordon Robertson doesn’t think space is expanding.
And roughly thinks an idea of spacetime is a fantasy.
I don’t know what age this universe is, as far Gordon is concerned.
I am not going to say how old the universe is, but I know roughly
how old it’s tentatively claimed to be.
And this is roughly the frame of reference, others have, whereas
who knows what starting point of discussion, Gorden is using.
Or obviously no one knows how old universe is. If Gordon Robertson
says does not know. So what, no one does. But we can say we have a rough outline of it {which one could say has been changing ove the decades and probably will changed as we get more evident [one way or the other].
“However, if we want to keep tract of the motion, we can designate A the past, B the present, and C the future. We can do anything we want in our illusory minds.”
I just watched the Boston Marathon. The first runners started at point A, humans were there and measured the start time. I was in the middle at point B, at a later time, saw them pass. When they finished at point C, it was still later, about 2 hours after they started, which was then, 2 hours in the PAST.
Nothing illusory about the time required for anything, even light, to travel some distance.
Probably pearls before swine, but you never know.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/04/20/the-greenhouse-effect-2/
“However, the surface receives less than 200 Wm2 from the Sun.”
When sun at zenith and clear skies, it’s 1120 watts per square meter.
“Hence, to be in energy balance, there must be an additional energy flux, with a magnitude of over 300 Wm2.”
Earth ocean average temperature is 3.5 C or about 277 K
If blackbody surface was in vacuum and surface was 227 K it emits
about 334 watts.
Of course ocean is not in vacuum but trying use cargo cult ways of conveying a dumb idea.
But 277 K would a factor in “energy balance”- a 1 C change in ocean temperature in terms heat or energy balance is a 1000 C change of air temperature. Or air temperature has little to do with Earth’s energy balance.
Or to cool earth, one has to cool the ocean, to warm earth you have to warm the ocean. In 1 of 1000, 1 is insignificant. Ocean is 1000 and atmosphere is 1.
But in terms surface air temperature [an insignificant factor of Earth energy budget] 70% of earth surface is covered by an ocean, which has average global surface temperature of 17 C.
The larger surface area of earth controls the global average surface temperature
So after all the deliberate misleading, no-one has been able to come up with any statistical source that demonstrates that the statistics in common use in climate, mean, standard deviation, OLS, etc. are supported by actual statistical sources. They are just the ones they use regardless.
All we have is ‘it doesn’t make that much of a difference’ even if we are wrong. Some science that is.
The facts are that the last 7 years have seen a decline in T whilst CO2 concentrations have risen.
Somehow the effects of natural factors can exceed the effects of CO2 in that time but they are also not as important at the same time.
“…no-one has been able to come up with any statistical source that demonstrates that the statistics in common use in climate, mean, standard deviation, OLS, etc. are supported by actual statistical sources.”
Hubris.
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR CLIMATE SCIENTISTS
TIMOTHY M. DELSOLE. George Mason University.
MICHAEL K. TIPPETT, Columbia University.
Cambridge University Press 2022.
I use that one for making fudge.
you don’t strike me as a reader; neither does RLH.
…from another source:
Statistical Analysis of Climate Series – Analyzing, Plotting, Modeling, and Predicting with R
Helmut Pruscha, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitt. Mnchen, Germany.
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013.
…and yet another source:
So give the actual urls/publications then.
No refutation of mean, median, etc. in all of those as far as I can see.
The various distributions are:
1: Symmetrical normal distribution (the majority of statistics).
2: Symmetrical Bimodal distribution (none that I am aware of in climate).
2: Skewed Bimodal distribution (yearly and daily T).
4: Skewed Bimodal distribution (yearly and daily T).
5: Other Multimodal distributions (none that I am aware of in climate).
What is normally (pun) considered the ‘best’ for statistical use.
1: Mean or median as they are the same.
2: Median.
3: Mean or median as they are the same.
4: Median or none depending on sources.
5: None.
It is interesting that mins are considered to be rising faster than maxes on both daily and yearly timescales but no consideration is taken on the fact that it cannot continue forever. Or the fact that ocean and land are diverging but, again, no limit is allowed for that.
Oops. Cut and paste error.
1: Symmetrical Normal distribution (the majority of statistics).
2: Skewed Normal distribution (a subset of the above).
3: Symmetrical Bimodal distribution (none that I am aware of in climate).
4: Skewed Bimodal distribution (yearly and daily T).
5: Other Multimodal distributions (none that I am aware of in climate).
1: Mean or median as they are the same.
2: Median.
3: Mean or median as they are the same.
4: Median.
5: None.
“So give the actual urls/publications then.”
Since you’re the “expert,” shouldn’t you already be familiar with these textbooks? Your education is your own responsibility.
If you’re not familiar with these textbooks, let alone their content, then your assertion that “…no-one has been able to come up with any statistical source that demonstrates that the statistics in common use in climate…” is hubris.
No?
As they all mistake the mean with the correct answer (it’s not it’s the median) in the first place what do you expect me to say?
Look at the times they just use mean, standard deviation, OLS (and r^2), etc. as though it was fact, not in fact incorrect.
Can you not find the urls/publications then? I can.
So quoting things that are incorrect doesn’t help you.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=This+book+covers+the+comprehensive+range+of+theory%2C+models%2C+and+algorithms+of+state-of-the-art+multivariate+time+series+analysis+which+have+been+widel
Find me how often median is quoted in that source.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bfm%3A978-3-319-67340-0%2F1.pdf
Answer: median occurs 0 times.
I’m sure this means something, Richard.
Here’s a quote FYEO:
I emphasize the bit that shows two things:
First, climate scientists know about AI.
Second, they don’t use it for measurements.
So Richard just can’t take the L like an honorable man, and just like a dishonorable man he’ll throw straw in the air.
Here’s a simple idea – show both the median and the mean.
That’s the only way to have a fairly good idea of the distribution anyway.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah_lt.jpg
AIs are often based on a sigmoid function somewhere in their feedback loop.
Low pass filters such as Gaussian, S-G or LOWESS are a sigmoid frequency function but no-where do I see that considered or implemented.
Perhaps logistic regression models won’t help measure temperatures.
Just a thought.
OLS is a bad choice for quasi-sinusoidal data, I am glad you agree with me.
Saying “AI” like it’s some magic word does not an argument make.
Knowing how AIs work helps to know what is relevant.
Indeed, Richard.
A pity you don’t.
No refutation of mean, median, etc. in all of those as far as I can see.
Well, you’ve been on this kick about absolute temperature for almost two years now and I wondered what it is you know that the rest of us don’t?
There’s a very good reason why it’s preferable to analyze temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures. The absolute temperature can vary sharply over short distances whereas anomalies, however, are constant over much longer distances. Your fixation with absolute temperature misses the forest for the tress.
tress= trees
I use anomalies where they are available and absolutes where they are not.
e.g. https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah_lt.jpg is based on anomalies.
Multivariate Time Series Analysis in Climate and Environmental Research
Zhihua Zhang, College of Global Change and Earth System Science. Beijing Normal University. Beijing, China.
Springer International Publishing AG 2018
I have that. Doesn’t mention median once.
So?
So why would it be relevant to the choice of mean or median?
You’re confusing your deflection with the point Tyson was addressing, dummy:
“no-one has been able to come up with any statistical source that demonstrates that the statistics in common use in climate, mean, standard deviation, OLS, etc. are supported by actual statistical sources.”
That you’re powered by pure hubris is harder and harder to hide, Richard.
And your glossing over the point that everybody just assumes that using the mean is correct without any statistical support for doing so.
There is no statistical support for doing so. Otherwise you would have found it by now.
You’re right, Richard. I tend to gloss over irrelevant points. Guilty as charged.
Have you found anyone trying to apply machine learning techniques to temperature data yet?
“A multimodal distribution is a probability distribution with more than one peak, or “mode.””
https://www.statisticshowto.com/multimodal-distribution/
Distinguish between Unimodal (1 peak), Bimodal (2 peaks) and Multimodal (3 or more peaks) rather than Unimodal (1 peak) and Multimodal (2 or more peaks) as the former is more accurate.
Willard can only count to 2. Most of us manage 3 quite well.
1: Symmetrical Normal distribution (the majority of statistics).
2: Skewed Normal distribution (a subset of the above).
3: Symmetrical Bimodal distribution (none that I am aware of in climate).
4: Skewed Bimodal distribution (yearly and daily T).
5: Other Multimodal distributions (none that I am aware of in climate).
1: Mean or median as they are the same.
2: Median.
3: Mean or median as they are the same.
4: Median.
5: None.
https://www.statology.org/multimodal-distribution/
Ws logic is failing about as bad as, well, CNN+.
Here, Pozzo:
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/547613/how-well-does-the-mean-describe-a-multimodal-probability-distribution
Even you could understand that. Like, weren’t you required to calculate average barrels of oil per day or something back when you were useful to society?
“So the mean always measures the mean”
Even though it is the wrong statistic to use on skewed data.
“mean, mode, standard deviation, kurtosis, a particular quantile, or whatever that quantity measures what it measures and not what it doesnt measure”
Mean, mode, standard deviation and kurtosis don’t really apply to Bimodal data.
Quantiles do as has been well acknowledged.
https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/9994
Willard is just desperate to find any reason to not use the median.
“the distribution is positively skewed. In contrast, the median is robust”
So Richard just cant take the L like an honorable man, and just like a dishonorable man hell throw straw in the air.
Heres a simple idea show both the median and the mean.
Thats the only way to have a fairly good idea of the distribution anyway.
Show me any statistical source that says that mean is preferred to median in the case of skewed, bimodal data.
In fact, for any distribution, using 4 quartiles is a very good way to do things.
> Show me
Being the Hall Monitor does not make you King of the website, Richard:
http://web.archive.org/web/20140727233057/http://voices.yahoo.com/statistics-101-which-measure-central-tendency-should-4185417.html
“The mode is sometimes also a good measure of central tendency.”
But not in the case of skewed, bimodal daily or yearly T.
“For the mode to be useful for continuous data, you may have to do quite a bit of rounding”
In this case to the nearest 100C.
Funny how our Hall Monitor’s claim has shrunk to “but bimodal distributions of T”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-700840
One day all his Climateball dominoes will fall.
Willard still harping on the Unimodal (1), Bimodal (2) and Multimodal (3 or more) is unclear,
Unimodal (1) and Multimodal (2 or more) is his preferred choice even though it is less specific and both say that median is preferred over mean in any case. Notice how he doesn’t provide any evidence to the contrary.
In the more detailed 1, 2, 3 or more, all say that median is preferred over mean.
We only need to deal with skewed versions of the above because that is all there is.
Richard can’t bring himself to acknowledge a simple brain fart.
What will it be when he’ll have to acknowledge that his whole stance on medians is a misconception based on a very rudimentary conception of statistics, e.g.:
https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/96706
If he can find insurers that work with medians, I could find him clients.
So yet again Willard claims expediency over accuracy.
So once again Richard misrepresents the concept of accuracy:
https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/96383
Textbooks tend to make dummies believe they know more than they actually do.
Any statistical source, including textbooks, if that will help you.
All you do is come up with things that are known to be irrelevant problems without once addressing skewed, bimodal distributions which is what we are looking at.
Find something on that, idiot.
Keep digging, Richard:
http://web.archive.org/web/20140727233057/http://voices.yahoo.com/statistics-101-which-measure-central-tendency-should-4185417.html
I’ll keep hammering a point you can’t dodge by misrepresentation.
Willard dredges up yet another source that is not relevant to skewed, bimodal daily and yearly T.
Richard can’t even visualize what the weights of a bunch of athletes from different sports would look like on a chart.
And the relevance of that is on daily and yearly T?
Keep shrinking your bailey, motte-and-bailey guy.
Willard waffles on without reason as always.
Richard is uninterested in what climate agencies have to say, among them climate data dot ca:
https://climatedata.ca/
“The facts are that the last 7 years have seen a decline in T whilst CO2 concentrations have risen. Somehow the effects of natural factors can exceed the effects of CO2 in that time”
Yep, and we all know very well, even you, the reason for this is ENSO, which you know very well is a short-term cyclic phenomena.
Why do you pretend that this is significant for long-term climate change?
Why do you and others claim that natural cycles are less important than CO2 but somehow also large enough to reverse its effects on global T in the short term. You can’t have it both ways.
Why do you ignore the different time-scales of the phenomena? You, the low-pass-filter king, of all people, should get that?
In terms of millennia then natural cycles win for sure.
“low-pass-filter king”
You mean you never use LOWESS?
RLH,
On the one hand, you push 15 y LP filtering as useful to get rid of hf noise to better see the underlying long term trends.
On the other hand you focus intently on hf noise << 15 y, pushing its significance.
It doesnt concern you that your concerns cancel each other?
> It doesnt concern you that your concerns cancel each other?
You forget that Richard has a very peculiar way to view what he calls “measurement error,” Nate.
https://www.climate.gov/media/14393
Monthly Nino 3.4 since Jul 2020.
We are now in uncharted territory.
Why do you say we are in uncharted territory?
Is it an unusually long La Nina?
See the climate.gov post above (and the three-bean salad post a month earlier).
https://www.climate.gov/media/14393
https://www.climate.gov/media/14287
https://imgur.com/a/wJPlC4V
for this months (April) data.
And what NOAA is suggesting will occur in the next few days (at least)
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Go outside and feel it. We have set record low temperatures all over BC recently for this time of year.
Ken
A propos ‘uncharted territory’…
Look at the chart I made out of all available La Nina data since 1900:
https://i.postimg.cc/R07QLyBF/MEI-superposed-La-Ninas.png
I think we all should wait a while before producing such alarmist statements.
Alternatively you could just look at those reports that climate.gov prepared, who know a lot more about things than Blinny will ever do.
He just thinks he knows more than them. As usual.
https://www.climate.gov/media/14393
https://www.climate.gov/media/14287
https://www.climate.gov/media/14287
with this months data added by me
https://imgur.com/a/wJPlC4V
This is what I used in my original post, not Blinny’s ramblings.
RLH is over-excited by insignificant noise.
Nate is uninterested in the basis of statistics.
Or the views of climate.gov.
thanks Roy, great analysis
the correlation to temperature is interesting, begs the counterfactual “what would CO2 levels be today given the same temperature trend but zero human emissions?” IPCC seems to think the answer is “roughly the same as in 1860”
“if the IPCC is correct and all of the CO2 increase has been due to anthropogenic emissions, why doesnt it have the highest correlation? The answer could be as simple as noise in the data, especially considering the emissions estimates from China (the largest emitter) are quite uncertain.”
indeed! or noise in the CO2 measurements, which according to some reviews of the technology may be closer to 1 ppm than the claimed .2
had hoped the detectability of a given falloff in emissions could at least help bound the effect of human emissions on CO2
sadly it seems that (as with energy balance) the errors are on par with the effects
so we really can’t rule out the IPCC’s “>100%” model
td..”The answer could be as simple as noise in the data…”
***
How do you get noise in temperature data? You either have two-a-day readings or you do not. Where would the signal representing noise come from?
Noise in an electrical signal is variations in the signal that comes from a separate source, like EMI interference, or line noise introduced by the high frequency elements in computer power supplies. The sparking between brushes and the rotor on an electrical motor can add such noise.
Where would such noise come from in temperature data?
It’s always a pleasure to see that
– when a Warmista speaks of an unprecedented high temperature, a bunch of Coolistas immediately replies unisono that it was warmer in the Minoan Maximum, Roman Maximum, and Medieval Maximum
but vice versa
– if la Nina lasts a little longer than usual, some Coolista suddenly says: ‘We are now in uncharted territory’.
*
Well, I have always admitted that last summer, due to JMA’s very optimistic ENSO forecast for end 2021 (which was then quickly retracted), I had underestimated how this La Nina would develop.
And though 2020 was way weaker than the 2010 edition, it is now nevertheless about to last longer.
*
But… let us compare the current edition with those of 1908, 1915, 1954, 1973, 1998 and 2010:
https://i.postimg.cc/R07QLyBF/MEI-superposed-La-Ninas.png
I’m not yet about to think that La Nina will stop soon! One mistake of the same kind is enough.
But to speak about an ‘uncharted territory’: that is really somewhat exaggerated, isn’t it?
You tell me how
https://www.climate.gov/media/14393
should be extended to cater for this months data.
Todays data
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
” You tell me how… ” ???
What’s that, elementary school teacher?
Am I your lackey here or what?
I have shown you how far from reality your assessment of an alleged “uncharted territory” really is:
https://i.postimg.cc/R07QLyBF/MEI-superposed-La-Ninas.png
If you want to question what my chart clearly says, do the work yourself, Hayes.
Uncharted for what https://www.climate.gov/media/14393 shows. But of course you know better than the ‘experts’ on climate.gov.
https://imgur.com/a/wJPlC4V
for this months (April) data.
https://www.climate.gov/media/14287 for the month before
Manifestly, you are unable to see that what you post did NOT CONTRADICT anything of what I wrote.
Nor did your ramblings. This months data is below all the plots in their graph. Hence ‘uncharted’.
https://imgur.com/a/wJPlC4V doesn’t exists somehow.
Binny’s chart clearly showed that the present La Nina activity is well within the historical variation.
https://i.postimg.cc/R07QLyBF/MEI-superposed-La-Ninas.png
So, you were wrong, RLH. Oh well.
But then you double down and insist that only YOUR graphs count.
Actually they are climate.gov graphs. Not mine.
“March 2022 was also tied for the coldest of the nine second-year La Nia events on record, for this time of year.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/april-2022-la-ni%C3%B1a-update-measuring
Your cherry pick.
Binnys shows the whole picture.
Youre still wrong. Oh well.
Climate.gov is wrong according to Nate.
Did they say “We are now in uncharted territory.”?
binny…”Whats that, elementary school teacher?
Am I your lackey here or what?”
***
Might as well be for all you contribute here.
C’mon, Gordo.
That’s the logic of an abuser.
Infinite energy of space [in terms of human are concerns- and maybe for all sentient creatures of this universe.
This will clarify, but “everyone knows” it but talk about it, anyhow.
What people may not agree with, is the humans in space environment can use, per capita, less energy. Or everyone seems to think if humans become spacefaring, human energy needs will also increase to infinity.
The sun is a very huge fusion reactor, and if get closer to sun, one use the fusion reactor more efficiently as compared to being at Earth distance from the sun.
But it might be impractical [and/or not as efficient] if using sunlight closer than say Mercury distance from the sun.
One could say that if we become a spacefaring civilization, we don’t need fusion nuclear powerplants – because we already have one and one could say, it in the perfect spot for a fusion reactor and runs without needing human maintenance.
And we spend billions of dollars per year trying to make fusion nuclear powerplant, and have been failing to do this for more than 1/2 century. And the claim is that if we make workable fusion nuclear powerplant, we would have infinite amount of electrical power.
So if and/or when we become spacefaring, we will not “need” to make a workable fusion nuclear reactor, but we probably will still want to have a portable fusion nuclear reactor- and if we were spacefaring could might be a lot easier to make one.
So, don’t need it, but probably will make it, so infinite energy times 2. But there other ways to make energy in space and don’t very complicate, there is chemical energy- oceans methane and gas gaints of hydrogen [and methane] and though not much in terms oxygen gas, vast amount oxygen in our solar system- more 40% of mass of moon surface is oxygen which is chemical bond with metals, but we want metals. Or human have used a tiny amount metals, as compared how many metals a spacefaring civilization may want. Our Moon is an iron mine which probably will exceed all iron production humans have ever mined. And Moon is not very good place to get iron- or lot iron which isn’t oxided- far more iron then ever mined, without needing to remove the oxygen. And human have had steel longer than humans make steel, as it fell from the sky. We have had magical/legendary “swords” talked about down thru the ages.
But we mine lunar iron, to get the oxygen, or by product of oxygen mining is metals. And iron ore with oxygen, is lowest energy cost to get oxygen from metals.
But there other ways to get energy in space. We use gravity to get energy from water on Earth. Space also has gravity and endless water. Space also has orbital energy available.
It is thought that everything human mine on Earth, fell from the Sky- not everyone agrees, some say only 50% or some other percentage.
Anyhow I wanted to talk about stuff people disagree about- as low income housing in space. People don’t disagree about that, but I would say low income partially because they need less energy.
And it seems the argument is that if we have a lot energy and it’s very cheap, people will want waste energy. Which I regard as dumb.
The Martian.
Mark Watney requires a large amount of energy to stay alive.
He uses the full output of a small Tokamak Reactor just to stay warm.
Living below the surface will require less energy and is safer.
Humanity Moves to Mars so it can live in a hole in the ground?
You can do that here. You’d need less energy than would be needed on Mars too.
I have said seems one should make a lake on Mars and live under it.
But it seems finding underground caves on Mars would be important.
“The bottom line is that the very best region for cave candidates on Mars seems to be part of the spectacular Tharsis bulge. A region containing the three enormous shield volcanoes, Arsia Mons, Pavonis Mons, and Ascraeus Mons (with Olympus Mons actually sitting off a little away from this region). Across this terrain a total of 1,029 good cave candidates have been identified (see the figure below). Including 349 potential lava tube skylights (openings into these structures) in 27 tubes that span a total length of some 1,250 kilometers.”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/the-1000-caves-of-mars/
But as article suggest we have not really explored Mars much, and these are guesses.
Same here:
https://www.usgs.gov/news/caves-mars
“CTX images show the Martian surface in visible (red) wavelengths at a scale of ~6 m/pixel, which is sufficient to identify sky-facing, shadowed cave entrance candidates as small as ~25 m across.”
…
“Because all of these cave candidates were identified by spacecraft approximately 400 km above the Martian surface, it is impossible to see how far any of them extend beneath the surface. Not knowing which instances are caves and which are merely alcoves with modest lateral extent, we are careful to express that these are candidate cave entrances.”
A small fusion reactor?
Some say they can do it:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/compact-fusion.html
https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-startup-plans-reactor-small-powerful-superconducting-magnets
I was wondering if or which billionaires was investing in fusion:
New Moonshot
10. 31. 18
by Kristin Houser
Elon Musks SpaceX changed the space game when it launched and landed the first reusable rocket. With that one achievement, it set us on a course to more affordable space travel.
Now a slew of Musks fellow tech billionaires are chasing a similar turning point in the energy industry, according to Bloomberg: the creation of the first commercially-viable nuclear fusion reactor.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/nuclear-fusion-research-billionaires
Fueled By Billionaire Dollars, Nuclear Fusion Enters A New Age
Christopher HelmanForbes Staff
Jan 2, 2022,04:00pm EST
Having raised more than $3 billion in 2021 from the likes of Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, fusion developers insist this zero-carbon energy source could be a reality within a decade.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2022/01/02/fueled-by-billionaire-dollars-nuclear-fusion-enters-a-new-age/?sh=68dd3c5a29f3
Within decade is what govt guys have been saying, though last time I think they said two decades
Fusion is a joke. ‘One more breakthrough needed’ has been the saw for over 50 years.
Let us know when there is a prospectus and is a dividend paid for 5 years. At which point I might be convinced to invest $20.
GB…”And we spend billions of dollars per year trying to make fusion nuclear powerplant”
***
In other words, no one has the slightest idea how stars were formed. The current theory is that dust clouds somehow condensed and ignited, but hydrogen, the main fuel in a star, is not dust and there simply is not enough of it in a locale to form the required density for a star.
Then there’s the other stupid theory that planets in the solar system were formed from rings around the Sun. No one can explain how the planets got their angular momentum or how they formed into spheres. And why they are made from everything but hydrogen, or why the inner 4 planets are solid and the next four are frozen gases.
Let’s face it, we have not the slightest idea how the universe was formed or if it was formed. It could be part of a master plan for all we know.
Our sun is quite big and has a lot pressure.
Earth is big but small compared to our star.
The bottom of ocean as a fair amount of pressure, as does miles under
ground.
Mars is big, but small compared to Earth, on Mars one might find more accessible higher pressure than on Earth.
Or our Moon is smaller than Mars, could also find and use higher pressure than Mars.
maguff…”Theres a very good reason why its preferable to analyze temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures. The absolute temperature can vary sharply over short distances whereas anomalies, however, are constant over much longer distances”.
***
That’s precisely why anomalies are used. They manipulate the absolute temperatures to give a false impression.
What the heck is wrong with absolute temperatures varying sharply? If that’s the way it is in weather, that’s the way it is.
Because anomalies are constant over much longer distances than absolute temperatures, fewer measuring stations are required to characterize the behavior of the temperature variable. Simple.
TM: Temperatures above the SBL are more linear. 2m temperatures are within the SBL and are therefore subject to wider variations.
Hence: There’s a very good reason why it’s preferable to analyze temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures. The absolute temperature can vary sharply over short distances whereas anomalies, however, are constant over much longer distances
willard…”What will it be when hell have to acknowledge that his whole stance on medians is a misconception based on a very rudimentary conception of statistics, e.g.:”
***
Anyone who has studied statistic formally knows that Richard is correct with his explanation of the median and the mean and why they should be applied correctly. It is you, with your amateur misunderstanding who does not get it.
As it stands, we take two temperatures a day and apply the mean. What if during 20 hours of the day the temperatures are in the 25C range and for the other 4 hours they are in the 15C range?
Example 1…. suppose we have the following temperatures over 24 hours…all in degrees C.
9, 9, 10, 10, 12, 13, 13, 13, 15, 15, 15, 16, 16, 16, 18, 22, 22, 22, 23, 23, 24, 24, 24, 25
mean = 16.75
median = 15.5
mode = 13
As it stands with high/low, the mean is (9 + 25)/2 = 17
Example 2….we have a different set skewed to one end…
9, 13, 13, 15, 15, 15, 16, 16, 16, 18, 20, 22, 22, 22, 22, 23, 23, 23, 24, 24, 24, 25, 25, 25
mean = 19.58
median = 22
mode = 22
But…the high/low mean is still 17.
That means (no pun) the surface record can be off by several degrees each day, as far as an average temperature is concerned.
It is very important in certain cases to apply the median rather than the mean. That’s especially true when NOAA et al are furiously rewriting the daily temperature record to suit the anthropogenic meme.
> It is very important in certain cases to apply the median rather than the mean.
C’mon, Gordo.
That’s not what Richard claims. He claims that using the median
is *always* better. Also, you have not shown that it makes much of a difference for temperatures *anomalies*. Finally, you wrote a lot of words just to mention “But NOAA.”
Don’t be ridiculous. No, that’s too hard for you. Try to be less ridiculous.
From what I recall initially, Richard was not claiming the median is always better. He applied it to a particular situation in which he claimed it was better.
With regard to anomalies, the deviation from the baseline is measured in degrees C. That means you have absolute temperatures that are being compared to an average over a range. So, what I claimed above should apply.
I realize it’s not quite that simple with monthly averages because those producing the anomalies include seasonal variations. All in all, I regard anomalies as fudged temperatures, although UAH uses real data whereas NOAA fudges its data.
C’mon, Gordo.
The only time Richard would consider using the mean is if it’s the same as the median. In every other cases, he contends that the median is superior. In what way, he hasn’t specified yet. Sometimes he speaks of accuracy, but this has nothing to do with accuracy. This is wrongheaded for many reasons, reasons I won’t repeat because you’re not listening anyway. Suffice to say that we have empirical results that shows it makes not much of a difference.
When you say that “you have absolute temperatures that are being compared to an average over a range,” you almost give me the point. What is being compared are indeed related to ranges. It’s called the midrange. So Richard is not even whining about the relevant concept.
Your “but NOAA” is duly noted, and dismissed as irrelevant.
“In every other cases, he contends that the median is superior”
So do all other statistical sources. Find me any that says different on skewed, bimodal data.
> Find me
I’ve provided enough sources to show that your understanding of statistics is, how shall I put it diplomatically, rudimentary, Richard. At one point you’ll need to get back to the fact that a set of mins and a set of maxes isn’t bimodal in the first place. The latest datasets ain’t the historical data.
Problems don’t disappear because you forget about them.
“I’ve provided enough sources to show that your understanding of statistics”
You have not. You have just shown examples that are not relevant to the question.
ALL statistical sources say that using the correct method is crucial. No-where have you shown that the mean is preferred over the median (and the corresponding quartiles) in its use in skewed, bimodal datasets.
You’ll be telling me next that quartiles such as Summer, Spring, Winter and Autumn do not provide any insights or that 0-30N, 30-90N, 0-30S, 30-90S are not a useful analysis.
ALL statistical sources say that methods don’t replace common sense.
Common sense dictates that meteorologists have a fairly good idea of what they’re doing.
Meteorologists are not statisticians. Everybody else does it is not an answer.
Of course it is, dummy. It shows you’re first and foremost posturing.
On the one hand we got Roy and thousands of meteorologists, some of whom you borrow their work, up to a point for you won’t accept that they find that median or mean makes little difference.
On the other we have a guy who can’t cite anything else than snippets from online resources dedicated to undergraduates, and who can’t bring himself to concede simple points such as 2 > 1.
Who are we going to believe?
“Everybody else does it is not an answer” “Of course it is”
Being part of the crowd is more important than being accurate.
Accuracy has little to do with being right, Richard.
At least get your fallacy fluff right.
“Accuracy has little to do with being right”
But everything to do with being correct.
Correctness isn’t accuracy, dummy.
And you’re still wrong, something that you yourself must admit for your “statistical sources” to have any relevance.
So tell me why you consider the mean a suitable summary statistic and why?
> So tell me
Richard keeps acting like he’s Roy’s King.
The peanut gallery might like:
https://climatedata.ca/variable/
So Willard is so scared to answer simple questions about his favored statistic that he just ducks and dives around it.
The question is that why is the mean used rather than the median when statistical sources say that skewed, bimodal data should be treated otherwise.
Willard will just come up with something not relevant or claim that going with the majority is the correct choice.
> The question is
So now Richard is the King of Questions. The first question was if Gordo knew anything about confidence limits:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1251052
To which Richard added own unrelated pet topic about “the wrong statistics” when he can’t even accept that 2 is more than 1.
Then things escalated quickly.
Here is Richard are, again asking for more.
What a wonderful Hall Monitor Roy haz.
Willard is just an idiot who wants to ignore actual data such as
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne_profile.jpg
[CLOV] The only time Hamm would consider using the mean is if it’s the same as the median.
[HAMM] So do all other statistical sources. Find me any that says different on skewed, bimodal data.
[CLOV] I’ve provided enough sources to show that your understanding of statistics is, how shall I put it diplomatically, rudimentary, Hamm.
[HAMM] You have not. You have just shown examples that are not relevant to the question. ALL statistical sources say that using the correct method is crucial.
[CLOV] ALL statistical sources say that methods dont replace common sense. Common sense dictates that meteorologists have a fairly good idea of what theyre doing.
[HAMM] Meteorologists are not statisticians. Everybody else does it is not an answer.
[CLOV] On the one hand we got Roy and thousands of meteorologists, and on the other we have a guy who cant cite anything else than snippets from online resources dedicated to undergraduates, and who can’t bring himself to concede simple points such as 2 > 1.
[HAMM] Being part of the crowd is more important than being accurate.
[CLOV] Accuracy has little to do with being right, Hamm.
[HAMM] But everything to do with being correct.
[CLOV] Correctness isnt accuracy, dummy. And you’re still wrong, something that you yourself must admit for your “statistical sources” to have any relevance.
[HAMM] So tell me why you consider the mean a suitable summary statistic and why?
[CLOV] Check climatedata dot ca.
[HAMM] You’re too scared to answer simple questions.
[CLOV] So now Richard is the King of Questions. The first question was if Gordo knew anything about confidence limits: […]
[HAMM] Clov is just an idiot who wants to ignore actual data such as […]
Willard is just an idiot.
“He claims that using the median is *always* better”
When using it to describe skewed, bimodal data.
“The only time Richard would consider using the mean is if its the same as the median.”
I follow the recommendation of statistical sources. Willard just waffles along as usual.
Richard gets caught being economical with the truth once again, and once again pontificates instead of owning his idiosyncratic stance.
Idiosyncratic is following what statistical sources say. According to Willard.
Notice how Richard still ignores how his porky has been called out.
Also notice his “statistical sources” weasel wording.
Willard ignores he is an idiot.
Richard believes that Peter Flom, Carlo Lazzaro, Jeromy Anglin, and this guy are idiots.
If Willard had any examples of the statistics to use on a skewed, bimodal dataset, he would have presented them by now.
If Richard had any leg to stand on, he’d drop the sealioning.
Here’s a case where his minimization would be lethal:
https://climatedata.ca/variable/
Can you tell us what problem you are trying to solve?
The simplest way to characterize a bimodal distribution is by first estimating the separate statistics for each of the two sub-populations of data.
See if this helps move you along.
The problem is quite simple, Tyson:
Richard is stuck with the fact that AGW increases extreme temperatures. By switching to medians, he’ll make them more luckwarm. Or at least he’ll try.
But before that he needs to save face.
“The simplest way to characterize a bimodal distribution is by first estimating the separate statistics for each of the two sub-populations of data”
So which sub-populations would they be? Given that it is the daily/yearly distribution of a continuous variable.
The bimodal in question is that that will always be found in quasi-sinusoidal data.
So Willard does not have any examples of the statistics to use on a skewed, bimodal dataset.
He just presents other irrelevant examples.
So Richard keeps doubling down, oblivious to the fact that mins and maxes can be in different sets. Let’s summarize the absurdity of the situation –
For perfectly symmetric and normal distributions, median, mean, and mode are, ceteris paribus, equivalent. A distribution can remain symmetric but have more than one mode, in which case median and mean are still equivalent, but with different modes. In every other cases the mean and the median *may* vary.
In Richard’s world, unless the mean is the median, the mean should never be used. It’s as if he never considers that sometimes it’s cool to know the “center of gravity” of a data set. All that matters to him is to find the perfect center of these points, without weighting any.
It’s that dumb, really.
So Willard does not have any examples of the statistics to use on a skewed, bimodal dataset.
He resorts to claiming that mins and maxes are in different sets. No middles exists. Does this mean that Summer and Winter are in different sets too? What happens to Spring and Fall then?
So Richard keeps sealioning after being spoonfed with so many examples, it’s as if he was a glutton for punishment. Let’s indulge him:
http://jse.amstat.org/v9n1/reschenhofer.html
Climateball needs better contrarians.
Willard ignores the fact that mean and middle have been shown to have a significant latitudinal relationship across the USCRN, North to South.
Is he saying that the median is not likewise?
There are even cases, such as he shows above, where there are no differences. That does not mean it holds for all of the cases though.
Now that he got served, Richard rope-a-dopes to another unrelated point. I suppose it’s just a flesh wound.
Seldom do we see a Hall Monitor turn into a Black Knight!
From Willard’s own source
“Figure 1a. Histogram of the Mean St. Louis Temperature in May (1845-1978).
And somehow he thinks that a selected 1/12th sub-set of the data is proof that mean and median are not different as shown by the USCRN.
Willard is so desperate he can’t even fully read his own sources.
> And somehow he thinks that a selected 1/12th sub-set of the data
Richard moves for no man:
http://jse.amstat.org/v9n1/reschenhofer.html
Tis but a scratch.
Fat tails exist in multimodal distributions too, RLH.
https://youtu.be/KqNHdY90StU?t=550
“Fat tails exist in multimodal distributions too”
But not in skewed, bimodal climate temperature data.
“Suppose we want to compare the mean St. Louis temperature in May, M, with that in September, S.”
So you construct a bimodal distribution out of 2 unimodal sub-sets and then try to claim it is somehow representative of the whole years temperature data for St Louis.
The article itself does not do that quite sensibly.
You are the reason that the phrase ‘lies, damned lies and statistics’ came about.
Cherry pick examples that have the right words in them, do not read what they actually claim, and then try to make people believe that they show you are correct.
You are just an idiot of the top order.
Brandon: Do you think that mins and maxes (and thus extremes) will always continue on at their relative different trends forever into the future?
RLH 4/22/22 at 4:13 PM
“So which sub-populations would they be? Given that it is the daily/yearly distribution of a continuous variable.”
You tell me. It’s your data!
TM: “”The simplest way to characterize a bimodal distribution is by first estimating the separate statistics for each of the two sub-populations of data”
So which sub-populations would they be?”
Choosing to not answer the question is a characteristic of ‘warmistas’.
There are no sub-populations of data, hence your suggestion is moot.
RLH at 5:26 AM
“There are no sub-populations of data,…”
So why bimodality?
Have you heard of a sinusoid and what happens if you sample it?
https://www.statisticshowto.com/what-is-a-bimodal-distribution/
“Two peaks could also indicate your data is sinusoidal”
> “Fat tails exist in multimodal distributions too” But not in skewed, bimodal
None shall pass!
Willard ignores the actual data and just continues on with his delusions.
Data such as
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne_profile.jpg
Richard does not even grok that “fat tail” means “asymmetric” and that yes indeed, multimodality does not imply symmetry.
He’s had worse!
RLH at 6:44 AM
“https://www.statisticshowto.com/what-is-a-bimodal-distribution/
‘Two peaks could also indicate your data is sinusoidal'”
Also from your link:
“By definition, a fat tail is a probability distribution which predicts movements of three or more standard deviations more frequently than a normal distribution”
As climate T data is neither a normal distribution nor does standard deviation carry any meaning on skewed, bimodal data does not come into Willard’s comprehension. At all.
“You’ve got two peaks of data, which usually indicates youve got two different groups”
But not in this case as it is a sinusoid that is being sampled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat-tailed_distribution
Come on, then!
RLH at 6:43 AM
“Have you heard of a sinusoid and what happens if you sample it?”
Have you heard of:
“either a normal distribution or an exponential distribution”
Willard falls at the first hurdle as climate T data distribution is neither normal nor exponential .
TM: The data and the R code are both offline (404 page errors).
Otherwise I would be able to do a histogram of it. It will show that it is bimodal as the graph clearly shows it is sinusoidal.
After requesting “examples of the statistics to use on a skewed, bimodal dataset” and getting served, Richard switches to “climate T data distribution.”
[THE BLACK KNIGHT] Chicken!!! Chicken!!!!!!!
> “either a normal distribution or an exponential distribution”
Let’s try again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat-tailed_distribution
How is a skewed, bimodal, data distribution
“a normal distribution or an exponential distribution”?
climate T data distribution IS a skewed, bimodal distribution.
> How is a skewed, bimodal, data distribution “a normal distribution or an exponential distribution”?
“Relative to,” dummy.
A fat-tailed distribution is a probability distribution that exhibits a large skewness or kurtosis.
Relative to that of either a normal distribution or an exponential distribution.
So no, a fat-tail distribution is not “a normal distribution or an exponential distribution.”
Tyson might have been onto something when he said you were not the reading type.
“A fat-tailed distribution is a probability distribution that exhibits a large skewness or kurtosis.
Relative to that of either a normal distribution or an exponential distribution.”
So how can a relatively small skewed, bimodal dataset be relative to something it isn’t, as it is not a normal distribution or an exponential distribution? At all.
Idiot.
P.S. I am not sure you can define it as having a kurtosis either as that is a statistical terms that only applies to normal distributions.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/kurtosis.html
“Kurtosis is a statistical measure used to describe the degree to which scores cluster in the tails or the peak of a frequency distribution. The peak is the tallest part of the distribution, and the tails are the ends of the distribution.
There are three types of kurtosis: mesokurtic, leptokurtic, and platykurtic.”
The curve above demonstrates none of those and the 2 tails/ends are the peaks. Asymmetrically.
> I am not sure you can define it as having a kurtosis either as that is a statistical terms that only applies to normal distributions.
You’re stumbling on first sentences of encyclopedic entries, dummy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurtosis
Fat tail. “Tailedness.” Should be easy to grasp.
Now, why would we need to measure the kurtosis of a distribution if the concept only applied to normal ones? That would literally make no sense! All you’d get is 3.
Please, Richard. Stop digging. Your Climateball career is in jeopardy right now. Nobody will ever take you srsly.
Willard knows better than the experts!
“Kurtosis is a statistical measure used to describe the degree to which scores cluster in the tails or the peak of a frequency distribution.”
“There are three types of kurtosis: mesokurtic, leptokurtic, and platykurtic”
https://www.simplypsychology.org/Kurtosis.gif
It is none of those.
Can Richard get any dumber:
https://brownmath.com/stat/shape.htm#Kurtosis
When we compare a distribution to a normal one and find that it has a different kurtosis, chances are that it’s not a normal distribution.
Therefore Richard’s claim that kurtosis “is a statistical terms [sic.] that only applies to normal distributions” is beyond ridiculous.
“”There are three types of kurtosis: mesokurtic, leptokurtic, and platykurtic”
https://www.simplypsychology.org/Kurtosis.gif
It is none of those.
Mind you, we could make it four and call it ‘the Willard’.
Let’s see if Richard can identify that one:
https://brownmath.com/stat/pic/shape_discrete.gif
Probly no kurtosis, right?
Is a discrete 1/0 a continuous variable like temperature? No.
Is Richard trying to wriggle out of his “kurtosis […] is a statistical terms that only applies to normal distributions” blunder?
Almost.
Is Willard trying to demonstrate that a rectangle/square is U shaped. Apparently.
Willard also want us to believe that
1. A normal distribution (Unimodal).
2. A U (or V shaped) distribution (Bimodal).
3. A W distribution (Multimodal).
are just 2 classifications.
Not a conclwsion that any adwlt (and most children) wowld consider a walid, satisfactory owtcome.
Your deflections are getting sillier and sillier, Richard.
I only wanted to prove that you have a very rudimentary knowledge of statistics. To that effect, my last demonstration was that you have no idea what kurtosis means, and why we use it.
Please don’t replace Kiddo.
“I only wanted to prove that you have a very rudimentary knowledge of statistics”
This from someone who does not have any statistical (or logical) support from anyone.
So is it 2 or 3 classification’s? Or are you just going to duck that like everything else.
I cited many data scientists and many statisticians to support my claims, dummy.
I even cited your own sources, which you did not even recognized as yours.
Thank you for this thread, Richard.
Do not pretend you are some kind of statistical guru ever again.
Willard stops pretending to be an idiot, and accepts that he is.
Extreme temperatures are located at the tails of the distribution. The median is virtually insensitive to extreme values, unlike the mean, so that won’t work.
The goal of a statistical analysis is primarily insight and understanding, not mindless calculations using statistical software packages.
You don’t have to eat a whole ox to know the meat is tough.
TM: So your middle of a range is more useful than an arithmetic mean or a median?
“The goal of a statistical analysis is primarily insight and understanding”
Are you saying that a median does not do that?
RLH 4/22/22 at 4:10 PM
I was replying to Willard 4/22/22 at 2:55 PM : “The problem is quite simple, Tyson…”
I ask you again: what problem are you trying to solve? Why this two year fixation with means vs medians vs modes?
If the base of your statistic is in error then claiming that things are accurate to 0.01C is quite simply wrong.
TM: So are you saying that the known differences between mean, median and middle are not that important?
RLH: So are you saying that you are not trying to solve any particular problem and, your two-year fixation with means vs medians vs modes is unimportant?
TM: No I am saying that the known differences between mean, median and middle are important. Especially when it is claimed that 0.1C is important.
TYSON MCGUFFIN says: I ask you again: what problem are you trying to solve? Why this two year fixation with means vs medians vs modes?
The common theme in climate skepticism is creating perceived problems with the broad conclusions of climate science so as to avoid addressing the social and moral implications following from those conclusions.
Solving perceived problems associated with AGW is precisely the opposite of the goal.
Mark B: Claiming the science ‘proves’ AGW doesn’t sit well with the fact that statistics do not support the case for mean over median.
So now SCIENCE does not know what Richard knows about medians.
Come on, you pansies!
Willard will say anything, even if it does not make sense.
[THE BLACK KNIGHT] Have at you!
Idiot.
No U
U are the idiot.
Richard’s *invincible*!!!!!!!
Willard’s an idiot.
“Extreme temperatures are located at the tails of the distribution”
which will distort the middle of the range correspondingly.
So you say, dummy.
So you say.
RLH at 10:06 AM
You miss the point which is:
Problem solved!
[THE BLACK KNIGHT] No it isn’t!
Now if I could just get at the data he used….
RLH at 11:14 AM
“Now if I could just get at the data he used…”
If you were one of my interns I would say: don’t make a career out of one project.
My father, the best engineer I ever knew, would say: life’s a bitch, and then you die.
Eyeballing it, not only is it quite short compared to other USCRN sites, but it also shows similar data which leads me to believe that the yearly histogram of it will be the same also.
All natural temperature sinusoids will create similar skewed, bimodal histograms.
E.g. 3 USCRN examples as yearly histograms
https://i.stack.imgur.com/uBnmt.png
https://i.imgur.com/Ut1Lv46.png
https://i.imgur.com/9CAVMzN.png
To put this in perspective, USCRN was started in 2000, last station was added in 2010 and currently has 114 stations that automatically collect temperature data at 5 min intervals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Climate_Reference_Network
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/monthly01/
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/daily01/
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/subhourly01/
Make that last station added in 2019. Sorry for the typo.
You’re all set then.
Problem solved!
P.s.: I’m glad I was able to help. Now, as the sun’s over the yardarm, I bid you adieu.
As your contribution did nothing other than add more to the data from the USCRN that was already posted, I thank you.
Example 1…. suppose we have the following temperatures over 24 hours…all in degrees C.
9, 9, 10, 10, 12, 13, 13, 13, 15, 15, 15, 16, 16, 16, 18, 22, 22, 22, 23, 23, 24, 24, 24, 25
mean = 16.75
median = 15.5
mode = 13
******************
Wouldn’t it be:
mean = 17.04
median = 16
mode = 13, 15, 16, 22, 24 (multimodal)
?
I used a calculator online. This time, it gave me a different set of numbers, verifying what you said about the mode.
mean = 17.1
median = 16
mode = 13, 15, 16, 22, 24
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/statistics/mean-median-mode.php
To verify, I added all the numbers and divided by 24 and got the same number they got for the mean.
Don’t forget the Middle
(9+25)/2=17
Mean 16.75
Median 15.5
Minimum 9
Maximum 25
From the url provided
nate…”I just watched the Boston Marathon. The first runners started at point A, humans were there and measured the start time. I was in the middle at point B, at a later time, saw them pass. When they finished at point C, it was still later, about 2 hours after they started, which was then, 2 hours in the PAST.”
***
So you’re trying to claim runners in the marathon run through a dimension of time??? That the only thing that changes from the starting gun to the finish line is time???
Are you incapable of understanding that the time represented by the timekeepers watch is a human fabrication and exists nowhere but in the minds of people with clocks?
No time changes in reality in a marathon. Runners change space and position but at no time do they run through a dimension of time. The entire race is performed in the here and now.
A sequence requires time to measure the separations between events. Those separation exists, regardless if there are clocks to put a human timeframe on them.
A physical sequence is driven by forces related to energy. Energy and force are natural phenomena unrelated to the human concept of time. In other words, time does not exist as a natural phenomenon, it is an invention of the human mind, and as such, can only exist in the human mind.
In one of his books, Max Planck pointed out several human inventions, like time, density, temperature, etc. They were all devised by humans to measure natural phenomena and based on natural phenomena, Time is based on the natural period of Earth’s rotation, density is based on the mass/unit volume of water, and temperature is based on the amount of heat required to raise the internal energy of water by a specific amount.
Claiming time exists is akin to claiming the universe is measured in kilometres. Humans defined the kilometre as a fraction of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole. Other than that, there is no natural phenomenon in the universe as a kilometre. In the same manner, there is no natural phenomenon called a second.
There is a natural phenomenon called acceleration which we can observe with the human eye. However, when we decided to measure it using our invention of time, we gave it units of m/s^2, both units being invented by humans.
A physical sequence is driven by the differences in time between events, discrete (time periods) or continuous (time).
Likewise mass, distance, etc. exists regardless of if the human discrete intervals of measurement are used or not.
It would be possible for an alien to come up with completely different measures based on root 3 instead of root 10 without changing the underlying equations (except as a simple scaling exercise).
rlh…”[GR]What medium did it pass through en route?
There is no medium in space. It is empty of everything. Still passes photons through it though.
Photons have a speed. That means they take some time to cover a distance. Therefore they have a past (in both time and space) and a future (likewise)”.
***
As Foghorn Leghorn would say, ‘You’re …ah say…you’re built too close to the ground, went right over your head’. Also, two nothin’s is nothin’, and two half-nothins is nothin’.
In order for there to be a past, present, and future, an object would have to pass through a medium called time. I am speaking, in reality…in actuality.
I would not leap to conclusions about space being empty. Dayton Miller claimed there is an aether and Einstein has admitted, if Miller is right, then he is wrong. Recently, it has been discovered that so-called empty space is teeming with neutrinos.
The only way an object can pass through such a dimension of time is in the human mind. In space, there is no beginning and no end. Any speed claimed for an object is based on the human mind since we defined beginning , end, and the means of measurement.
That means, the clock, is based on the rotational period of the Earth, with period being undefined. We measured an undefined period and calibrated it in seconds, by dividing the period into equal units. We called that time and used it to measure motion.
So, you have two contexts. In one context an object is moving through something we call space. In the other context, a human is observing the motion and adding time to it. What he adds is in his mind, and not related to the object.
“an object would have to pass through a medium called time”
Time, like space, does not have a medium to pass through. Idiot.
That’s not what he said.
His own words say different.
rlh…”an object would have to pass through a medium called time
Time, like space, does not have a medium to pass through. Idiot”.
***
You’re calling me an idiot yet you cannot grasp a very simple logic. You talk about a photon have a past, present, and future, yet you cannot identify the time measuring those illusory realms or the realms themselves.
Past, present, and future implies a dimension. I have argued the dimension exists as an illusion only in the human mind and you cannot supply proof that it doesn’t. That is idiocy. I am an implied idiot, according to you, but you are a proven idiot.
Time has no human measurements but still exists. Time periods have human measurements and also exists.
Both the above have a dimension, one continuous, one discrete.
Past, present, and future also exist, both in discrete and continuous fashions.
You are a proven idiot.
“Any time series of data that has just a linear trend is perfectly correlated with every other time series having just a linear trend, and yet that perfect correlation tells us nothing about causation.”
OLS is just a linear trend.
Every dictator wants free speech.
Dennis Prager finds such a statement foolish.
As I do, as anyone does.
But there is an explanation for this utter dumbness- and here it is, some think free speech means not having to pay for newspapers, or I imagine TV or any communication- I run across such a person before.
Anyway, the person was an European, and made me wonder how many other Europeans could be this stupid.
Upon further reflection, probably every country has some percentage of people who are this mistaken.
Dennis said, act happy and it will make you happy.
I didn’t need this advice, to be happy- I have always been fairly happy.
But I think it’s good advice [but actually, how do I actually know it is good advice]
But anyhow, just listening and Dennis said, also act religious and you will be religious.
I may or may not be religious, but come to understand one should not change anyone’s religion.
Or I like to argue, and I have “learned” make effort not argue about anyone’s religion. But always disliked someone pretending they had religion. Or according to Dennis, that is wrongheaded. And wondering if that is correct.
Hmm. Also whether I should act religious. I am religious as is everyone, but issue is should act religious?
I guess the simple answer is if makes me more happier, I should act religious. But it seems I am excessively happy, lately. So, I guess I won’t [or maybe I am acting religious already or something].
Well, Dennis also says he is commonly angry with God.
And I am not.
But I am somewhat doubtful about humans.
Oh, also I should mention something, which obvious, we living in the best of times and I imagine it’s likely humans will screw it, up.
But that doesn’t there is a shortage of human evil in this world, presently, that is a given, but whether evil is successful seems doubtful to me, but then again history is filled with such constant “successes”.
I can only imagine that I am excessively deluded with over optimism- about the future- only cure of it, would be moving to say, North Korea or something.
GB…”Dennis said, act happy and it will make you happy”.
^^^
You can’t ‘act’ happy, you are either happy or you’re not. However, the mind will respond with happiness to a simple gesture like smiling at yourself in the mirror.
Also, becoming aware of your mood and acknowledging it can go a long way to turning depression into happiness. Often, when we are unhappy, or depressed, we are focused on something that is often inconsequential and unsolvable. With anxiety, we tend to ruminate, and rumination over a period of time tires us out.
At one time when I was younger, I’d lay on the sofa and just think. Rumination is a word coined by Dr. Barbara Brown to describe a certain way of thinking akin to a cow (cows are ruminants) chewing its cud. The cow swallows its food, then regurgitates it and chews it again. Rumination, with reference to thought is recycling thought endlessly.
There is no purpose to this kind of repeated thought process because it solves nothing unless insight magically appears. Have no idea when I stopped doing it but I never lay about ruminating these days.
“There is no purpose to this kind of repeated thought process…”
It’s action, it’s not thinking.
The basics of it is that by not acting happy you effect other people.
Acting miserable around other people, is immoral.
“Happiness is moral obligation.”
So, treating other people well, is the trick.
You acting happy for other people.
You can try to like people that you spending time around. Only problem is one could have other people “trying to make you miserable”.
But most people don’t try to make you miserable. Even their constant complaining, stresses/wears people out.
But some people have really good reasons for being miserable.
But some people have very good reasons to miserable, and instead they are happy.
I have no good reasons to miserable. Some great people do have good reasons, but overcome it {mostly} and are happy.
Christian mistake is they don’t tend to take enough joy in their religion.
But Christian tend practice gratitude [Christ saved them, they say grace before meals, etc. Gratitude is a path.
Is there people which you appreciate, do know it? Maybe give something nice to people near you.
Dennis spent most life talking about it- he the expert on it, but he understands that one can have a medical condition- and the only solution is medical help. Last video had such a person. I can’t link to it [for some reason- to do with this site, even tiny didn’t work]
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Panic+over+Elon+Musk+%26+Free+Speech+on+Twitter&t=h_&ia=web
Top link
That worked.
Top link for me- maybe not for others.
–According to President Obama, there should be more government censorship of social media and internet search, to prevent the spread of toxic information, like climate skeptics and the opinions of people who dont trust Dr. Fauci. But expressing the opinion that Russia rigged the 2016 election is completely fine. —
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/22/president-obama-the-first-amendment-does-not-apply-to-facebook-and-twitter/
This why Obama is second worst US president- he could actually believe it, and/or he just willing to say such dumb things.
I could understand why he says Russia rigged election because he tried to rig the election and he imagines people are too stupid to know it and/or protecting his 8 year failure as US president continuing to lie.
Criminals lie, and they imagine they have the right to steal.
Additionally, the Dems have long glorious history of rigging elections and blaming others for doing what they do.
They also imagine people should be thankful for their willingness to be assholes- and, the One got grey hair doing the job- we obviously own him, so much.
{We do actually owe him, as Obama utterly destroyed the dem party machine and left in the wake, old mindless fossils- and leaving the old fossil, Joe Biden as the only dem choice. And Dem still lacks any real choices of pols. They used to have endless glut of “reasonable” choices- younger, and appearing good looking, and seeming intelligent and well meaning}.
Or dems used to have a problem of far too many politicians which they had beat off with stick [the problem of how best to rig their primaries used to be a daunting task.]
Now, it could argued that Hillary, was the one we should be thankful for the massive clear cutting operation- I am willing to give some credit to both of them.
But Obama was actually the leader of Dem party.
I would called it, a somewhat plausible storyline:
The End of Progressive Intellectual Life
How the foundation-NGO complex quashed innovative thinking and open debate, first on the American right and now on the center left
by Michael Lind
April 12, 2022
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-end-of-progressive-intellectual-life
“I have never liked the term public intellectual, but like its 19th-century predecessor, publicist, it describes a social type that plays a useful role in liberal democracies in which at least some government decision-making is influenced by open debate rather than secret discussions behind closed doors.”
…
It’s a simple story.
[I prefer even simpler one, the Left always eats it’s own.]
But this a storyline that one might like to read.
GB…”According to President Obama, there should be more government censorship of social media and internet search, to prevent the spread of toxic information, like climate skeptics and the opinions of people who dont trust Dr. Fauci”.
***
It was Obama’s government that helped start the civil war in the Ukraine which has lead to the current war. They supported the overthrow of a democratically-elected president through direct interference in Ukrainian affairs.
I doesn’t surprise me that he has some fascist tendencies. I know he started a secret agenda about climate change in the office of the president that was hidden from Congress. I advocated rooting out climate deniers, whatever that is.
It’s people like Obama who are the enemy, not the skeptics and those who oppose the status quo.
Free speech is like free enterprise, sounds good on paper but in practice it can lead to chaos.
The original knock I heard about free speech was someone yelling, “Fire!!!!”, in a crowded theatre. With regard to free enterprise, unfortunately there are seriously greedy people who become obsessive about wealth.
I think, other than the extremes, both have a valid basis, as long as you are not practicing your free speech to make someone else miserable by targeting him/her.
“Free speech is like free enterprise, sounds good on paper but in practice it can lead to chaos. ”
No, free enterprise requires rules. There is no enterprise without rules.
One can say free speech is foundational- can’t have free enterprise without it. Can’t have justice without free speech.
Justice has rules.
Free enterprise require justice [which has rules].
The complexity of free enterprise is mind boogling complex and
with such complexity one needs different rules.
Ie, renting a house. Selling donuts. Being doctor. A Lawyer.
Etc.
Now, one say selling donuts is free speech, and it is, but
it is still selling donuts, so any rules of selling donuts still apply.
Saying, “I have gun, give me your money”, is free speech, it’s also
robbery.
Something printed rarely harms people, but loud speaker could do
actual harm.
[Personally, I might favor restriction related to ads, and there are restriction on spam (which I don’t oppose).]
GB…”No, free enterprise requires rules. There is no enterprise without rules”.
***
Free enterprise is based on the principle of laissez-faire which means excluding government from the operation of the free market. If the government, who represents the people, has nothing to say in the operation of the free market, the average person is unprotected from the excesses of the free market.
We are seeing that right now, where oil companies can increase gas prices on a whim. Or you have companies like Pfizer who can lie through their teeth about their products, pay the fines, and charge more for their drugs.
You say there are rules, where are they?
laissez-faire: a policy or attitude of letting things take their own course, without interfering.
As said free enterprise requires rules. To exist, it makes rules.
Free enterprise is as very complex- without any input from governents, doctors made rules, for doctors to exist, as do donut sellers.
Let say we talk about baseball {and actually is related, btw].
Baseball makes rules or baseball can’t exist.
How do want a government doing anything about baseball.
Can’t you say government has a mostly a laissez-faire view in regards to baseball. But one can say government is involved with baseball [though one might say, it could be too involved with baseball. But it’s possible government could become too involved with the sport of baseball, one say more money involved with baseball, the more government might get involved- but does government involvement actually make baseball, better. Let’s government decide more people should play baseball, everyone needs to play baseball or something.
One might make baseball a bigger thing- lots of people might say baseball improve morals. But probably better for less government involvement, government has enough to do}.
“As long as you are not practicing your free speech to make someone else miserable by targeting him/her.”
Nope.
People too often need to have their foolishness exposed and that will often make them miserable.
Free Speech is therefore a pillar of democracy. Democracy cannot be healthy without Free Speech.
You don’t have the right to not be offended.
Some psychopaths like Trudeau appear immune.
Other Psychopaths, such as yourself, are mortally offended at the least slight.
If the speech is indeed injurious and unjust then there is recourse in the courts so long as the claim is actually not frivolous.
Falsely yelling fire in a crowded building is a very fringe exception.
ken…I am not disagreeing with you. I was referring more to bullies trying to make minorities feel inferior based on hate speech.
I am all for free speech, I was merely pointing out what can come from it.
I think NDP electoral signs are hate speech. So is their platform ‘tax the rich’.
Its a good thing for them that I am not the arbiter of what constitutes hate speech.
So why does anyone else get to decide? Free Speech is Free Speech; there is not any such thing as hate speech.
Thank you for this other topical and fruitful contribution, Kennui!
gb,
You wrote –
“Saying, “I have gun, give me your money”, is free speech, its also
robbery.”
Attempted robbery, I think. If I say in response “I have a bigger gun – give me your gun”, is that attempted robbery or self defense?
I support unfettered free speech. Why not? People choose to be offended, upset, insulted etc. That is their right. It is my right not to care what others think.
If others use words to threaten me with violence, I take such precautions as I think fit. So far, so good. I generally choose to obey the law of the land, whether I think the laws pertaining to what may or may not be said seem silly to me or not.
I do what I need to do to enjoy a quiet life of my choosing. Once again, so far, so good.
Enjoy your life. It’s not a rehearsal.
Calling ‘fire’ in a crowed theater is also free speech and against the law for good reasons.
RLH,
If there is a fire in a theatre, and I am inside, I would prefer that someone cries out “Fire!” early and loudly!
The alternative is for the observer to slink out, head to the pub for a drink, and join the crowd around the burning theatre, sympathising with the plight of the human torches inside.
I believe in unfettered free speech. I realise that audiences in theatres in general don’t read the instructions on what to do in case of fire, don’t acquaint themselves with things like routes to emergency exits and so on, but that’s the nature of the general public.
I accept that I may die because of the ignorance of others, or even my own stupidity.
Given that, what is wrong with unfettered free speech? You might feel offended by it?
Oh dear. Why should I care?
So yo reply that it is OK to call fire when a fire really exists. But do you support calling fire where there is none?
Unfettered free speech does not limit you to facts. The law does.
Kevin Sorbo on twitter:
“Took 14 months to go from “build up better” to
“there will be food shortages.”
https://instapundit.com/
I think there could only be food shortages in cities-
and NYC has already started, quite a while ago, to empty it.
maguff…”Because anomalies are constant over much longer distances than absolute temperatures, fewer measuring stations are required to characterize the behavior of the temperature variable. Simple”.
***
Now you are presenting alarmist philosophy and claiming it is correct. You are trying to claim that absolute temps are unreliable and fudged temperatures based on fewer stations are more accurate.
You forgot to mention why they need to fudge the temperatures…to give credibility to their false claim the planet is warming catastrophically.
Richard Nixon once said, “A lie is not always a lie”. That’s the kind of logic presented by climate alarmists.
Or Churchill…Truth is so precious she must always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. Whereas Churchill intended that for the ruse they used to hide the Normandy invasion, D-Day, the climate alarmists try to hide scientific truth with lies. They have to know they are lying, no one could surely be that scientifically stupid.
Climate alarmist/modeler, the late Steven Scneider is quoted as saying the following….
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 4548, October 1989”.)
It’s plain that he is claiming alarmists need to scare people and they have to find the right balance between being effective and being honest. The fact that he would even hint at lying is the incredible part, yet alarmists offer up justifications for his blatant statement.
GR, your opinion is duly noted.
I think I’ve figured out a way to debunk all this CO2 causes warming nonsense. It is claimed that CO2 increasing from 270 ppm to 410 ppm has caused warming of almost 1 degree C OF THE VAST OCEANS. The chart shows warming of over 1 degree C between 1910 and 2017. Water has the highest specific heat of all common molecules. CO2 is extremely cheap and easy to produce. If higher concentrations of CO2 can cause warming, why aren’t we warming homes and pools using CO2 insulation? Why aren’t CO2 cylinders exploding from the accumulation of heat? Atmospheric CO2 is 0.0004 or 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Bubble wrap of 0.4% CO2 could warm water by 10 Degree C if the linear relationship exists that they claim.
Basically, if anything they claim about CO2 is true, our energy problem is solved because all you would need to do is insulate things in CO2 to warm the surroundings. No engineer I know of has considered this a viable solution and they could make trillions.
Yep, you’ve cracked the case. Congrats!
” It is claimed that CO2 increasing from 270 ppm to 410 ppm has caused warming of almost 1 degree C OF THE VAST OCEANS. ”
Straw man alert!
Strawman? Please explain. Are you saying that CO2 isn’t causing the oceans to warm? If yes, you just debunked the AGW Theory. The oceans control the global temperature. What warms the oceans warms the globe. Of CO2 isn’t warming the oceans, then you have a real problem.
The way you phrased it implies that the entire 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of the ocean volume has increased by 1C, which is ridiculous.
In practice ocean surface temperatures have increased by 1C.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
That’s the Strawman? The Strawman is you defecting from the fact that CO2 is claimed to warm water which has the highest specific heat of all common molecules. Do you deny that CO2 is causing the warming of the oceans BY ANY MATERIAL AMOUNT, 1C or other? Yes, or No? BTW, why would an equal amount of energy radiated by CO2 cause different warnings due to location? Please explain that one.
Yeah, and CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, or why not use an even better greenhouse gas. Methane suppose to stronger, as water vapor, and
there are “super greenhouse gases”.
But it seems CO2 does have a “warming effect”.
Or I don’t think it has a “cooling effect”.
A problem is what is a warming effect.
A warming effect is a warmer ocean.
This something no one, argue against.
This is closest to the undisputed Truth.
But cargo cult is all about the atmosphere and
many imagine it’s mostly atmosphere of the tropics.
And warmer ocean has a near zero effect upon the tropics- other
than make tropical deserts, wetter.
[[ It doesn’t do this directly- or most of tropics is a warm ocean [80% of surface area].
All the tropical zone “should be” wet, but tropical ocean is heat engine of the world- it warms world with water vapor lifted to high elevation. Or dry tropical land is NOT a global heat engine.
Or if rest of world is wetter and warmer, tropical ocean water vapor gets to deserts in and near the tropics.]]
Anyways, if think about heating atmosphere, you tend to think of air getting hotter, but warming effect is roughly the opposite. Or air temperature become more uniform- less daytime hot air, and warmer night time air.
Another aspect is a H2O molecule has very high velocity, average velocity of air molecule is about 500 m/s, H20 is over 1000 m/s.
And a wetter tropical desert has a higher night time temperature.
GB…”Methane suppose to stronger, as water vapor, and
there are super greenhouse gases…”
***
There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, the term is a misnomer based on faulty theory. A better name would be IR-absorbing gases.
The faulty theory is based on the pseudo-science that IR energy trapped by glass in a real greenhouse can warm the air in the greenhouse. That became the basis of the atmospheric greenhouse theory with the presumption that trace gases like CO2 could trap IR in the same manner as glass in a greenhouse.
That’s not how it works. The only gases emitting IR in a greenhouse are CO2 and water vapour. If they emit IR and it is blocked by glass, what happens to it? How does it warm the air in the greenhouse? It would mean that CO2 and WV at the same temperature could both emit IR, and absorb it, while warming. Contradicts the 2nd law and represents perpetual motion.
Obviously the theory is stupid. What is even more stupid is the lack of glass in the atmosphere to trap the IR. As it stands, only about 5% of surface radiation is absorbed by CO2/WV. That’s not trapping because the CO2 immediately radiates it away.
A real greenhouse warms by lack of convection and that involves all air in the greenhouse, of which 99% is nitrogen and oxygen. As I pointed out before, we could remove all CO2/WV from a greenhouse and it would still warm to the same degree.
There is plenty of convection in the atmosphere, therefore it does not warm via any action from CO2 or WV.
— Gordon Robertson says:
April 23, 2022 at 6:40 PM
GBMethane suppose to stronger, as water vapor, and
there are super greenhouse gases
***
There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, the term is a misnomer based on faulty theory.–
Yeah, a faulty theory is a generous way of saying it.
But question remains what causes Earth become colder and warmer.
Or does Earth get warmer and colder, and if so, what causes it.
This could be said to related to the “discovery” that Earth has had “ice ages” and following from this, that Earth has had what is called glaciation and interglacial periods and we are in an Ice Age, and called this latest Ice Age, Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
And all Earth’s Ice Ages are called an icehouse global climate.
And an icehouse global climate have cold ocean and a “permanent” ice sheet in a polar region [or both polar regions].
We don’t define such ice sheets well, but an example of these permanent ice sheets is Greenland’s ice sheet and Antarctica ice sheet
Nor do we define what a cold ocean is. But would I guess and ocean average temperature which 6 to 8 C is still regarded as cold ocean. But in your time, last couple million year of this Late Cenozoic Ice Age which on going for about 34 million year, if our ocean had an average temperature of 6 C, we would be very warm.
One say we are falling toward another climate state which is called a Snowball global climate.
I would say, there is no such thing as an as Earth Snowball global climate.
And/or say a Earth snowball global state is poorly defined.
But it’s also acknowledged, there may not have ever been a snowball earth, but instead there has been a Slushball Earth.
I don’t think Earth had either Snowball or Slushball global climate
and it seems neither is defined well.
There couple reasons for this rejection, but I do accept the idea that Earth could have colder than it is right now.
My first objection is there doesn’t seems to be enough evident of a Snowball or Slushball Earth. And snowball as described is “polar sea ice” covering the tropical ocean area, and Slushball being polar sea ice being somewhere near the tropical zones, or near 20 degree latitude north and/or south.
A Slushball would seem to imply, permament sea ice near 20 degrees. Or one doesn’t have “seasons” when near 20 degrees or seasons are wetter and dry seasons- or not winter and summer.
And I would say there no evident of polar sea ice lower than 40 degrees in the winter. Or if ever Earth has polar sea ice lower than
40 degrees latitude in winter [and I guess during glaciation period]
then we call that a colder Earth, and one can call it, a Slushball Global climate.
I would say, the glacial and interglacial periods are still a mystery.
And I would say, mysteries have a strong effect upon humans.
Mysteries cause things like suppression of speech. They cause great passions and conflict.
We have many mysteries.
But I think in terms of “global warming” a significant mystery, is why is Venus so hot.
And it’s why I ask the question, what would Venus temperature be, if Venus was at Earth distance.
RE:
“And its why I ask the question, what would Venus temperature be, if Venus was at Earth distance.”
If replace Venus CO2 with Nitrogen, does nitrogen cause Venus to radiate more or less energy to space,
It radiates about 160 watts per square meter at it’s distance from
the sun- where it gets about twice as much sunlight as compared to Earth’s distance from the Sun. {Earth radiate about 240 watt}.
In terms of practical, one could change to CO2 into O2.
If 20% of Venus CO2 was converted into O2, would having 20% O2 make Venus emit more or less energy to space?
{said somewhere there is lack of gasous oxygen in solar system, but
turning CO2 into O2, is fairly easy to do- and so Venus has a lot potential O2.}
Just you wait till the Plebs figure out how to collect the solid hydrogen on the surface of Neptune and bring it home to Earth.
Hydrogen economy would be really bad for Greenhouse warming.
I rather doubt you’d find solid hydrogen on the surface of Neptune.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/hydrogen-d_1419.html
Down in the core, perhaps.
“Hydrogen economy would be really bad for Greenhouse warming.”
Why is that?
More heat 🙂
More heat : ).
So Ken can’t back up his his assertion?
The price of freedom?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61192975
The Price of Freedom is that the Tree of Liberty requires the blood of Patriots and Tyrants. The Right to Bear Arms is part of that equation.
Kent, so you’re a supporter of the bloodthirsty dictator Putin, aren’t you?
Freedom is defined as the right to live life in peace and human dignity regardless of race creed or vaccine status.
I like freedom.
I don’t give a tinker’s damn about Putin, Russia, or Ukraine as long as people in Canada are not allowed to live life in peace and with human dignity.
I’ll reply to this comment somewhat later.
“Freedom is defined as the right to live life in peace and human dignity regardless of race creed or vaccine status.”
Unless you are a woman who gets vaccinated with some dude’s sperm. Then no.
Then the government is in charge of your body.
Can you quantify that?
How many Americans need to shoot each other each year to stop American democracy collapsing?
One?
Ten?
Ten thousand?
Perhaps it should be measured by volume.
How much blood do you need to feed the Tree of Liberty each year?
5 litres?
50 litres?
50,000 litres?
4000 killed by firearms. That includes accidents, suicides, and homicides.
Over 400000 killed by abortion. That’s just homicides.
Homicides?
What about looking at REAL child death?
https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/topic-details/GHO/child-mortality-and-causes-of-death
These are REAL homicides, Clint R.
You are clearly talking about your own pseudoreligious ideology, and not about the reality experienced by millions.
*
And the best thing is that there are REALLY people who forbid abortion even in the case of rape or incest!
Do YOU belong to them, Clint R?
No Bindidon, you need to look up the definition of “homicide”.
Then, you need to stay on topic. The figures I gave were for US.
Nice try at distraction though….
” Nice try at distraction though… ”
I’m not sure to have been the one who tried to distract here.
But I was sure you wouldn’t want to understand what I wrote.
“No Bindidon, you need to look up the definition of ‘homicide’.
In Clint’s religion a human is created when sperm meets an egg. Not so in many other’s religious views.
Yet he thinks his religious views take precedence over the rights and liberties of women to control their own life and body.
So more children were killed by abortion than by guns.
Shooting children must be all right then.
That’s probably how an anonymous troll would spin it.
That’s how you spun it.
“4000 killed by firearms. That includes accidents, suicides, and homicides.”
Nope! Where from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
US 12.2 per 100,000 people.
Multiply 12.2 by 330 Million/100,000 and we get 40,000 deaths.
Free speech is all very well, but one should know when not to speak freely.
Very Irish of you.
I would say that you are a rude, ignorant gobshite who did a Computer Science degree many years ago and are deluded enough to think that it qualifies you to dismiss most modern physics.
But it would be impolite, so I won’t say it.
Sunspot number: 101
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.46×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.4% High
48-hr change: -1.9%
Highest thermosphere and
lowest Oulu Neutron Counts
Wondering when get into 5 to 3% range
for Oulu Neutron Counts
It’s my guess that 12 months of time on open space
between Earth and Mars with it most of time 95% of
time below 5% to 3%. So 6 month there and back.
Has radiation of about 24 months in Low Earth orbit.
“Most total time spent in space
Cosmonaut Gennady Padalka holds this record, with a little more than 878 days accrued over five spaceflights. That’s almost two and a half years (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days) spent zipping around the Earth at about 17,500 mph (28,164 kph).”
And it approaches maximum radiation for a crew’s career which
should be allowable, but one could add more shielding [water shielding] to reduce it.
Don’t forget to mention
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x9jsQs8XkGkj4wT9FtrWaiy-LzIPbT3s/view
So, for astronauts to have “a career” in regards to crew exploration of Mars, AND operating solar conditions we have got now.
The idea of longer stays on Mars [and getting lots radiation shielding while on Mars surface [which is pretty easy to do}. Seems to better for NASA astronauts.
The other factor which helps in terms radiation [and other factors] is faster travel time to Mars. I think it’s possible to get to Mars with chemical rockets in 3 month or less. It is claimed nuclear rockets can do this. Also Ion engines are claimed to be able to do this.
Both nuclear and ion engine would do this by doing an non hohmann transfers. So I saying using non hohmann with chemical rockets- use more chemical rocket fuel {or refueling rockets in Earth orbit- which btw, is “how” SpaceX is going to land the Starship with 100 tons payload on Mars surface. Or SpaceX is going to make refueling a rocket in orbit, very cheap- something apparently that NASA doesn’t get, yet.
And there another version of doing this, which refueling rockets in Venus orbit, from Venus one travel faster to Mars, using hohmann transfer, then one can get to Mars from Earth, using hohmann transfer trajectory.
NASA should wake up, if it wants to explore Mars.
Solar wind
speed: 420.6 km/sec
density: 1.13 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 112
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.73×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +6.0% High
48-hr change: +0.5%
If you could launch tomorrow, crew to Mars,
is it good time to launch in regards to GCR?
Assuming Mars arrival in 6 months.
{Of course it needs to launched when at proper
time of Earth to Mars trajectory- and since none going,
that I know of, it’s probably not. But just in terms future
solar activity}
I tend to guess, it isn’t.
Anyhow, looks better for getting rid of space debris in LEO.
hmm, other than using nukes, is any way to increase Thermosphere Climate Index, number {by a lot}.
“Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)” would be what I mean by a lot.
Solar wind
speed: 480.5 km/sec
density: 9.62 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 126
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.90×10^10 W Neutral
Getting there
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +6.9% High
48-hr change: +0.9%
I wonder if wind and/or sunspots could
increase [for a short period] neutron counts.
Meaning the GCR coming from the general direction of the sun.
bend them so it hits earth.
So give a day or 2 day, and Oulu Neutron Counts
drops a lot will be my prediction.
Solar wind
speed: 441.4 km/sec
density: 3.35 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 90
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.47×10^10 W Neutral
{highest lately}
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.9% High
48-hr change: -1.0%
Is not as “a lot” is thought it could be.
Inconclusive. But one off couldn’t been any case.
What the heck does the CD.C have to do with deaths by firearms? It’s the Center for Disease Control, is a gun death now a disease?
The CD.C are major bs artists when it comes to death statistics. Whereas it’s unaccep.table for any child to die in such a violent manner the CD.C are not providing any details.
Many children this side of the Pond die when some idiot leaves a loaded firearm lying around. Others die accidentally during drive-by shooting by criminals.
People in the UK make far too much out of this. As I said, it’s not accep.table, but many in the UK think we are shooting at each all day long, like the Ozarks and the McCoys, and that we intentionally shoot children.
How many children are beaten to death, both in the UK and elsewhere? How many are abused and neglected?
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
https://www.boltburdonkemp.co.uk/abuse-claims/child-abuse/what-is-it/child-abuse-facts-and-statistics/
“What is clear, however, is that incidences of childhood abuse are far too frequent in the UK there were more than 56,000 children on the child protection register, or subject to a child protection plan, as of March 2014”.
You can bet its even more with the Conservatives in power.
“There has been a 60% increase in child sexual abuse reported to the police in England and Wales in the past four years. But arrests for child abuse offences have fallen 9%
Over 23,000 sexual offences against children were recorded in the UK last year, of which over 5,500 were against children under 11
Neglect effects up to 1 in 10 children in the UK or more than one child on every street in the country
A very old rhetorical trick.
Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull out the mote out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote out of your brothers eye. – Matthew 7:35
You are trying to deflect attention.
Explain why your freedom to own a gun is more valuable than 4000 dead children.
Explain why your false religion is more important than 400,000 abortions annually.
I don’t have an opinion on abortion. That is up to the women concerned.
You are still dodging the issue. Why are guns so important to you that you accept 4000 gun deaths among children every year as the price of owning them?
You don’t have an opinion on 400,000 deaths, but you do on 4000?
You’re “logic” proves you braindead.
And again I ask you
– why YOUR not only false, but above all dishonest “religion” can be more important than millions of children around the world who have no access to fresh water let alone medical care;
– why, while vociferously opposing abortion across your country, you say NOTHING about what you very certainly know for a fact: that wives and daughters of wealthy conservative Americans can very well have abortions wherever and whenever they choose, just as wives and daughters of rich French men have half secretly done 50-60 years ago.
Never heard of the famous ‘aller-retour IVG Paris-Amsterdam’, Clint R?
You’re somewhat off topic, Bindidon, but many of the world’s problems can be traced back to dishonesty. We see that right here, with people denying the simple analogies of the ball-on-a-string, and a bicycle pedal. Some people just have to pervert reality.
Clint R
I don’t have an opinion on abortion because every case is different.
In some circumstances I would say yes, in other circumstances no.
I don’t have a false religion. I have up the collective delusion known as Christianity half a century ago.
Actually Ent, you have a tangled assortment of beliefs and opinions that largely run contrary to reality. That’s known as a “false religion”. And since many of your beliefs and opinions align with other idiots avoiding reality, you’re in a cult.
Troglodyte talking points isn’t reality, Pup.
Worthless Willard, you can’t save Ent any more than you could save Folkerts. That’s why you’re worthless.
But, keep beating your head against that wall.
That’s why this is so much fun.
EM does not need to be saved, Pup, for your definition of killing is clearly wrong.
Just like your definition of flux is.
ken…”I think NDP electoral signs are hate speech. So is their platform tax the rich”.
***
The NDP mantra used to be, ‘make the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes’. It was not simply ‘tax the rich’.
The left-wing Labour parties in the UK, Sweden, etc., got carried away, taxing the wealthy 80 – 90% of their incomes if they earned over a certain amount. I don’t subscribe to that. I do recall a businessman here in BC telling me at one point that if he paid taxes in a year there was something wrong. That was using legitimate write-offs and not cheating.
I had experience as a contractor and I became familiar with the many write-offs available to the business community. Of course, other taxpayers foot the bill for those write-offs. And let’s not forget the hand-outs to corporations on top of the write-offs. I think David Lewis hit the mark when he called them corporate welfare bums.
If corporations in the US and Canada paid their fair share of taxes, we could easily afford social programs. Mind you, it’s obvious with social programs like Medicare that people are taking advantage by rushing off to doctors for every imaginable ailment. We need to get that under control.
I think the best thing is for all of us to work together.
Corporations shouldn’t pay tax at all. The profit that goes to owners/shareholders should be taxed as income.
All that happens is corporations include the cost of doing business in with the price paid by consumers. Its the consumer that ultimately pays the taxes.
Its a ripoff by government.
rlh…”Past, present, and future also exist, both in discrete and continuous fashions.
You are a proven idiot”.
***
That would be Mr. Idiot, to the likes of you, preferably, Sir.
Where is this past and future which you insist exists? If you get a nasty bump on the head and you lose your memory, you also lose the past. I recall a guy coming into a place where I worked and leaving his car keys with a secretary, telling her where he had parked his car.
I am awaiting your proof that I am an idiot. Seems it applies to you since you are totally lost as to the distinction between the real physical world and the imaginary.
“I am awaiting your proof that I am an idiot”
The fact that you think that neither the future, the past or the present exists proves you are an idiot. No further evidence required.
You do not even recognize that there is a difference between time and time periods.
mark b…”The common theme in climate skepticism is creating perceived problems with the broad conclusions of climate science…”
***
You have it backwards. Skeptics are asking you to prove the AGW theory and none of you are able to do that. Rather, you claim your pseudoscience is climate science and the rest is unproved.
What you call climate science is the sci-fi of unvalidated climate model theory. You have no real science to back your theories.
“You have no real science to back your theories. ”
Do you?
Let’s see your physically valid theory which explains the 1C temperature rise in the last century and all the secondary changes which have accompanied it.
How big was the drop to the little ice age?
Not what I’m asking. I want your alternative theory to CO2AGW.
Something I can check independently by comparing calculated prediction to observation.
Along the way it has to explain secondary effects such as the energy imbalance, rising tropopause, cooling stratosphere, etc.
Well if we assume that the little ice age was a low point, then the difference prior to that point has to be natural variance. That is probably a large chunk (if not more) of your 1C/centaury rise since then.
It’s gone down by 0.5C from the Holocene Optimum 5000 years ago to the bottom of what you choose to call the LIA, 14.3C to 13.8C in the latter 1800s.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
It has since risen by 1.1C to 14.9C
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
“Natural variation” is just a cop-out unless you can explain it. It does not just does not just happen, it follows cause and effect.
Please explain how you distinguish between natural and artificial variation, describe the mechanisms involved and show your evidence for those mechanisms.
So you are saying that at least 0.5C of your 1.1C has been down to natural variation, i.e. not driven by CO2.
“Please explain how you distinguish between natural and artificial variation”
Please explain how you distinguish between CO2 and natural variation.
Over historical timescales thee natural variations are sunlight, orbital changes and volcanoes.
They are measurable. All are neutral or forcing slow cooling.
The human factors are land use, ozone, aerosols and CO2.
Land use, ozone, and aerosols are also neutral or cooling.
That leaves CO2. If CO2 is the cause you expect long term warming and secondary factors such as the energy imbalance, rising tropopause, changing OLR and back radiation spectra. All are observed and match theory.
Before you invoke unknown factors, remember that it you wish to blame climate change on leprechauns the onus is on you to show it.
Here endeth the CO2 mantra where nothing natural can cause what we see. In any degree.
All of those are NOT observed, Ent. You BELIEVE they are observed.
Beliefs ain’t science.
And, you carelessly overlooked a meaningful factor “Land use, ozone, and aerosols are also neutral or cooling.”
Which of those would have a cooling effect on Earth from about 1880 to 1980?
“Here endeth the CO2 mantra where nothing natural can cause what we see. ”
That’s exactly what the available evidence says about recent warming. The natural forcings are causing about 0.01C//decade cooling while CO2 is causing about 0.2C/decade warming.
If you have evidence that something else is causing the warming, let’s hear it.
You continually repeating a lie, no matter how many times you repeat it, doesn’t make it true.
“The natural forcings are causing about 0.01C/decade cooling while CO2 is causing about 0.2C/decade warming”
So your maths claims. Strange how we have more than 0.01C/decade in the last 7 years then.
Willard wants us to believe that
1. A normal distribution (Unimodal).
2. A U (or V shaped) distribution (Bimodal).
3. A W distribution (Multimodal).
are just 2 classifications, not 3.
Not a conclwsion that any adwlt (and most children) wowld consider a walid, satisfactory owtcome.
> 2 classifications
One classification, dummy.
Two categories.
Which selection from the classification or categories then? 1, 2 or 3?
Have you read the ML paper, Richard?
It’s an interesting one.
Willard’s right.
There are two classes of frequency distribution. Unimodal and multimodal.
I see no reason to distinguish bimodal from other multimodal distributions.
Incidentally I note that the ensemble of climate sensitivity studies has a unimodal distribution between limits of 2 and 12 with a mean around 3.0 and a mode of 7.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#/media/File%3AFrequency_distribution_of_climate_sensitivity%2C_based_on_model_simulations_(NASA).png
By your preference we should plan for 7C per doubling of CO2, not 3C
ET also wants us to believe that
1. A normal distribution (Unimodal).
2. A U (or V shaped) distribution (Bimodal).
3. A W distribution (Multimodal).
are just 2 classifications, not 3.
Not a conclwsion that any adwlt (and most children) wowld consider a walid, satisfactory owtcome.
P.S. Using ‘not unimodal’ to make it just 2 classifications does not really count.
We already went through that, dummy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodal_distribution
The Galtung classification is just that, a classification. And it has been modified for more generality. And you cannot even get it straight.
So yow really want people to conclwde there are just 2 classifications rather than 3?
You really are an idiot.
You go down the ‘not unimodal’ = multimodal superset.
There are three types of kurtosis: mesokurtic, leptokurtic, and platykurtic
https://www.simplypsychology.org/Kurtosis.gif
Richard, for the love of God or whatever you cherish in this world –
Read the damn classification.
The classification is for distributions.
The distributions are now classified by shapes.
There is a peak at the left, there is a peak on the right, or here is no peak.
Both J an L are unimodal distributions.
S or U subsume both multi and bimodal ones.
So there are six types: A, J, U, S, L, and F.
Shapes are not characterized by the number of modes anymore.
And please stop conflating an illustration of kurtosis with its formal definition!
This has nothing to do here!
You keep playing the Black Knight like Kiddo!
There are three types of kurtosis: mesokurtic, leptokurtic, and platykurtic
https://www.simplypsychology.org/Kurtosis.gif
All have peaks in the middle.
“Galtung’s classification
Galtung introduced a classification system (AJUS) for distributions:
A: unimodal distribution peak in the middle
J: unimodal peak at either end
U: bimodal peaks at both ends
S: bimodal or multimodal multiple peaks
This classification has since been modified slightly:
J: (modified) peak on right
L: unimodal peak on left
F: no peak (flat)
Under this classification bimodal distributions are classified as type S or U.”
The examples I have shown from the USCRN are clearly U.
To classify it also as S does not match with the data from the USCRN.
(Unless you use the linguistic trick of defining multimodal as not-unimodal)
NONE SHALL PASS
Willard shall be an idiot.
> All have peaks in the middle.
Richard just can’t buy a clue:
https://brownmath.com/stat/shape.htm#Kurtosis
I already cited that resource, but as Tyson suggests, Richard is not the reading type. Among other reasons why the central peak matters less than the tails is the Bernouilli distribution:
https://brownmath.com/stat/pic/shape_discrete.gif
That page also mentions a funny case of three different distributions with the same kurtosis.
Willard will be saying next that standard deviation is useful for bimodal data. Despite all sources I can find saying that it is not.
What kurtosis tells us, at most, is the concentration in the peaks, i.e. how sharp the U is, not that is not particularly different in the bimodal graphs I showed.
Skewness is much more significant.
If Willard believes that it is significantly different, then have at it and show the figures.
> will be saying next
The Black Knight ALWAYS TRIUMPHS! Have at you!!
Mark B 4/23/22 at 8:44 AM
The common theme in climate skepticism is creating perceived problems with the broad conclusions of climate science so as to avoid addressing the social and moral implications following from those conclusions.
Solving perceived problems associated with AGW is precisely the opposite of the goal.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1255632
Mark, you may be right if referring to true skeptics. The run of the mill deniers you see on this site though, are merely uninformed and uncurious about the science underpinning AGW and climate change. They are also misinformed by their predilection for blog/wiki knowledge rather than the grind of proper research.
What makes a true skeptic?
More nonsense from TM.
A “skeptic” is someone that thinks for himself. He is typically not a “joiner”. He largely avoids the cult mentality, preferring instead his own originality.
That’s why Skeptics are not organized. It’s like herding cats — they oppose organization. While Skeptics’ strength is lessened by their inability to organize, their ability to stay alive is greatly improved. Being independent thinkers, if one falters, it does not affect the others. That’s why they typically last longer than the cults they oppose. And that’s also why Skeptics make great scientists.
You’re confusing skepticism with your narcissism, Pup.
Please desist.
Stalker Willard confirms I’m right on target.
Pup’s confirmation bias strikes again!
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodal_distribution#/media/File%3ABimodal.png
is type S, not type U.
“Figure 1. A simple bimodal distribution, in this case a mixture of two normal distributions with the same variance but different means.”
USCRN temperature data is not a mixture of two normal distributions. therefore it is not type S.
Richard kinda forgot:
which is a bit brazen considering that what he calls a linguistic trick comes from thy Wiki and follows from formal definitions. But then that’s the best concession we can expect from our Hall Monitor. In return to this concedo, here would be a “non-linguistic” approach:
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/TechnicalNotes/NIST.TN.2152.pdf
Let’s hope our ML guru will appreciate that machines might not need to distinguish between bi and multimodal distributions!
I’ve said this before but it bears repeating.
Is July and January a full year then? Of course 2 months spaced 6 months apart are in themselves unimodal (with a skewed normal distribution for each one of them) and together a bimodal comprised of 2 individual parts, but that is not what we are talking about is it.
We are talking about a full years data. All 12 months of it. But TM will ignore that simple fact.
“If your data looks bimodal, this indicates that possibly there are two different systems of temperatures that are generating the two modes in the histograms”
Add the 12 months together as I did, so there is not just 2 months of the data, and there is not ‘a possibility’ as you claimed. Everybody recognizes that Winter and Summer are different. I already showed that latitudes are also different, but still all have, for 12 months, a U shaped distribution.
You must be desperate to make such stuff up and show why people do not trust statisticians.
> We are talking about a full years data
Well, achually, we’re talking about historical data.
And historical data have less data in them.
What shapes are the min-max tables?
Willard,
Do you think that imitating a retard will make people think you are not one?
You wrote –
“And historical data have less data in them. That would be the data that climate scientists use. would it – the sort that has less, or more, depending on the audience you wish to bamboozle.
If you must attempt trolling, you need to concentrate a bit harder.
Demonstrating that you are stupid and ignorant may not be the best way to achieve your aim.
Mike Flynn,
TL;DR.
Try again!
“Add the 12 months together as I did, so there is not just 2 months of the data, and there is not a possibility as you claimed.”
You don’t seem to understand the nature of the data then. The temperature time series consists of a secular trend, a seasonal variation, a cyclical fluctuation, and a residual effect. Each component needs to be characterized.
Of course, if you insist on the brute force approach, you could just fit a sinusoidal trend with auto-regressive component and, move on. But you won’t, I know, because you enjoy being stuck in the mud.
TYSON MCGUFFIN says: . . . you could just fit a sinusoidal trend with auto-regressive component and, move on. . .
The alleged issue comes from the cyclic behaviors in the diurnal and annual temperature signal. It occurred to me that one could remove much of this by computing the Fourier transform of a baseline period and remove the fundamental frequencies and the first few harmonics of these cycles. In essence this is computing an anomaly baseline via FFT techniques.
Subtracting this from the hourly samples of the raw temperature record produces an anomaly time series that is unimodal and from which one can directly calculate a trend.
Link below shows USCRN Yuma station as an example. Upper left is temperature record by hour of day on vertical axis and date, clearly showing daily and annual components. A histogram of this temperature record is in the lower left. The upper right has the fundamental, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd harmonics of daily and annual periods removed. Bottom right is histogram of the anomaly series. Calculated trend is pretty much the same as derived from other anomalization approaches.
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/uscrnYumaAnomalyByFFT.png
So which single classification for kurtosis would Willard put the bimodal climate data I showed in then? I put it in U (as in U shaped).
An AI/DL will put the data in U, for U shaped, regardless of what Willard thinks.
“he calls a linguistic trick comes from thy Wiki and follows from formal definitions”
Formal definitions require a choice. Which choice do you make? U or S?
Is it bimodal (2 peaks) or multimodal (more than 2)? We both agree that it is not unimodal (1 peak)
> Formal definitions require a choice.
2 > 1.
Retarded Wee Willy,
Can you come up with something better than a 5 year old can do, or do you think you are such a master troll that no one will notice?
Still here, Mike?
Woeful Wee Willy,
More irrelevant nonsense?
Please stop trolling.
If you wish, of course.
Oh, Mike.
You clown.
1 < 2
So what?
Some simple U shaped data histograms.
100 80 60 50 60 80 100
Skewness: 0.119993.
Kurtosis: -1.649151.
110 80 60 50 60 80 100
Skewness: 0.373502.
Kurtosis: -1.221322.
120 90 70 50 60 80 100
Skewness: 0.367277.
Kurtosis: -0.503413.
125 90 70 50 60 80 100
Skewness: 0.551069.
Kurtosis: -0.069132.
125 95 70 50 60 80 100
Skewness: 0.436464.
Kurtosis: -0.417593.
Tell me what the meaning or significance of the above is. They are almost random numbers AFAIK.
So what?
Let’s add to that
125 95 80 70 80 90 100
Skewness: 1.034187.
Kurtosis: 1.418453.
which means that the above Skewness and Kurtosis figures are not very useful on skewed, bimodal climate data.
Same question.
So now we get down to real data and figures, Willard ducks and dives as always.
Willard agrees that Skewness and Kurtosis figures are not very useful on skewed, bimodal climate data.
So now that Richard threatens to make a point, words fail him.
Another flesh wound.
Willard ducks and dives as always.
Willard also agrees that Skewness and Kurtosis figures (as above) are not very useful on skewed, bimodal climate data.
Richard cannot even recall he was the one who brought up kurtosis.
In fact he does not even seem to realize he is now refuting the point he made!
We do need better contrarians.
Very strong temperature drop of the Peruvian Current.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
Unusually high 30-day SOI.
https://i.ibb.co/f8ZCXjK/Screenshot-3.png
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/soi.jpeg
As you can see in April 2022 strongly up.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/monthly-graphs/
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
https://data.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscillationIndex/SOIGraph/2020.gif
To get the data on the same scale I used.
https://imgur.com/a/sPsxc80
Isn’t it funny to watch it going exactly opposite to Bindiclown’s La Nina gone by April prediction , It’s almost like some kind of comedy
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1140812
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/#region=NINO34&tabs=Pacific-Ocean
NOAA’s forecast includes an increase in solar wind power (an increase in wind power along the equator)?
We will see soon who is the more correct, NOAA or the BOM.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
You can look at the monthly SOI data, but the latest 30-day data best shows the upcoming ENSO forecasts.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif is a NOAA forecast (and data up to date).
“We will see soon who is the more correct, NOAA or the BOM.”
And the consequence of that for climate change would be…what?
That those who use the BOM (or NOAA) models to predict the future are less than accurate.
It would also demonstrate that natural factors are a larger influence on climate than was previously thought.
I mean, the uptake by the oceans of CO2 was recently shown to be out by as much as factor of 2!
“It would also demonstrate that natural factors are a larger influence on climate than was previously thought.”
You think we werent previously aware of ENSO variability and its contribution to global temperature?
That would be incorrect.
“That those who use the BOM (or NOAA) models to predict the future are less than accurate.”
You werent aware that ENSO predictions for 6 months from now are notoriously inaccurate?
Lots of others were aware.
I wonder what needs to change in Roys observations of El Nino/La Nina (aka ENSO) 21st century warming given the current 2 year (and now longer) La Nina.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/half-of-21st-century-warming-due-to-el-nino/
50% of the 21st century warming!
“You weren’t aware that ENSO predictions for 6 months from now are notoriously inaccurate?”
We are not talking about the future, but about the past, and not just about the tropics.
Deducting just the PDO or ENSO will not have the whole picture.
Deduct the PDO, ENSO, the AMO, the SOI and all other major known oscillations from the global temperature (using 1 consistent variable, say middle if you like, for that) and see what you are then left with. You may have to adjust both the sign on the indexes and their magnitudes to get the minimum error term.
It will still have some natural oscillations present, but that’s nature for you.
“Deduct the PDO, ENSO, the AMO, the SOI and all other major known oscillations from the global temperature (using 1 consistent variable, say middle if you like, for that) and see what you are then left with. ”
Yes. PDO, ENSO, and SOI are measuring overlapping things. ENSO and SOI are pretty much the same thing.
I have played with subtracting AMO and PDO appropriately scaled to match the variations present in T.
And the result is a fairly consistent accelerating trend from 1900 to the present. With almost the same total net warming of 1.2 C.
You can try it yourself.
So Nate ‘proves’ that removing all the natural cycles till leaves other, longer, things to be explained.
In the same way that all linear trends do not show causation, all longer term trends are not just related to/caused by CO2. Other, longer than 30 year, partial natural cycles could show the same thing.
P.S. Ocean basins and their subdivisions into PDO, AMO, SOI, ENSO, etc., are separate things. Otherwise, why have them?
RLH says: Ocean basins and their subdivisions into PDO, AMO, SOI, ENSO, etc., are separate things. Otherwise, why have them?
PDO and SOI are highly covariant so the effect of using one, the other, or both in a statistical estimation of their impact on global temperature are all about the same.
I’d posted the results of applying multiple regression code from Foster/Rahmstorf 2011 considering El Nino (MEIv2), Aerosol (AOD input to CMIP6), and Solar irradiance as regressors to get the following adjusted UAH to present:
UAH TLT adjusted annual smooth
UAH TLT adjusted monthly
This suggests UAH TLT anomaly values are presently depressed about 0.2 C by the ongoing La Nina.
“So Nate proves that removing all the natural cycles till leaves other, longer, things to be explained.”
Actually there is a very good explanation available. And it doesnt require inventing new cycles.
Its called AGW. Look it up, you may find it compelling.
So now you claim that the recent 7 years need to be adjusted to ‘go upwards’. Even though other climate sources say that the last 7 years are in decline.
SOI
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/soi.jpeg
PDO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/pdo-1.jpeg
RLH says: So now you claim that the recent 7 years need to be adjusted to go upwards. Even though other climate sources say that the last 7 years are in decline.
Again, I’ve cited the paper describing the processing, pointed to the source code that was run with current data, and described the result that strongly suggests the ongoing La Nina is responsible for depressing UAH temperatures about 0.2 C in recent months.
I do this because of personal interest in the topic and present the result for anyone who shares that interest in good faith. If that excludes you, that’s your choice.
“So now you claim that the recent 7 years need to be adjusted to go upwards. ”
Uhhh No.
What I showed earlier is that one can separate out the contribution of ENSO to global T using standard methods. Then remove that contribution to see what reamians.
Unless you want to deny that ENSO contributes to global T, I dont see what your problem with this is.
You are aware that positive SOI is La Nina and negative PDO, I hope?
Nate says:
What I showed earlier is that one can separate out the contribution of ENSO to global T using standard methods. Then remove that contribution to see what remains.
Graphic of UAH time series adjusted using regression coefficients and lags from Foster/Rahmstorf 2011 considering El Nino (MEIv2) and Aerosol Optical Density (AOD):
UahTltAdjMeiAod.png
Nice! Can u do for GISS or Had5?
Nate, here’s the picture for GISS. The surface datasets have smaller perturbations in response to El Nino and AOD than do the satellite TLT sets, so the coefficients are smaller.
gissTltAdjMeiAod.png
Nice. Thanks.
Snowstorm in the Dakotas and Nebraska.
https://i.ibb.co/ssCtg4T/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
It is getting cold in the middle of the north of the USA.
An ongoing discussion of the top post continues from here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1256663
Nate, It is telling that you want to restrict your argument to fake units and reservoir concentrations. I don’t blame you. Actually doing the hard work of proving there is a bottleneck between the surface layer and the deep ocean that affects CO2 uptake by the atmosphere is a daunting task.
I can play that game with real numbers because I have a spreadsheet model. 180 or so units of CO2 were circulating between the reservoirs prior to the introduction of FF emissions. Now an additional 10 units of FF and an unknown quantity of other emissions enter the atmosphere each year such that about 200 units are in circulation leaving only an additional 5 units remaining. How much other emissions have grown is difficult to pin down, because the Mauna Loa data can be fit with optional parameter values to make one’s case. However, there are constraints. Either natural emissions have increased or the sink rate has greatly decreased or some combination of both.
“If you want to do science….”
That’s a laugh. You avoid the relevant and current data like the China virus. All the new evidence needed is for you to understand the old evidence explained in the works of Salby, Harde, Berry, and the like. Or, you can simply create your own spreadsheet model demonstrating how they and I are wrong.
> I can play that game with real numbers because I have a spreadsheet model.
Shots fired!
Where is it, Chic?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f8i39w6t3gl35rn/220424.xlsx?dl=0
Have fun!
Thanks!
It’s a joke, right?
Willard,
Please stop trolling. You are causing far too much merriment with your antics.
Glad to hear you’re having fun, Mike.
Trolls like you need to have fun.
Enjoy!
Worried Wee Willy,
Your desire to cause merriment is duly noted. Youre doing OK, but giving up your day job thinking you can make people laugh intentionally as a comedian, might not be a good idea.
The reason you cant find a Greenhouse Theory, a Greenhouse Effect Theory, or the elusive Insulation Effect Theory is because none of them exist.
Carry on implying that they do. Some people are stupid enough to believe anything – that a GHE exists, for example.
Thank you for nurturing my desires, Mike.
It means a lot to me.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard,
And your witless follow-up is . . . ?
Mike Flynn,
Public spreadsheet or it does not exist.
Aw diddums!
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
‘Public spreadsheet or it does not exist.
You really need to learn the English language to be a successful troll on an English speaking blog.
What did you really mean to say?
Have you located your Greenhouse Theory yet?
Indeed I did, Mike Flynn.
It’s right next to your Insulation Effect Theory!
You just have to turn on your seat.
See?
It’s right there.
Willard Peabrain,
Not even a good try. You really need to accept that just repeatedly implying that an Insulation Effect Theory, a Greenhouse Theory, or a Greenhouse Effect Theory, actually exist will convince people that you have actually seen or possessed any of them.
Or you can keep refusing to accept reality, and hope that you will learn how to troll successfully.
You cant even get yourself banned, so you can rush off and whine loudly about being censored!
What a moron you are!
Not even a good try at what, Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
IPCC says Mother Nature treats FF CO2 and natural CO2 differently, defying the Principle of Equivalence.
> IPCC says Mother Nature treats FF CO2 and natural CO2 differently
A quote might be nice.
Willard,
I’m sure he doesn’t mind if you quote him. Be as nice as you like.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
I don’t think the IPCC is a “him.”
What do you think?
Cheers.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
No – wait.
Keep trolling (or attempting to). Nothing wrong with laughing at trolls and their delusional thinking that people value their opinion.
How are you going trying to find your Greenhouse Theory? Have you looked under Michael Manns No Nobel Prize, or behind Trenberths missing heat?
Mike Flynn,
I thought Richard was Roy’s Hall Monitor.
Would you like to replace him?
Best.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You think writing gibberish will get you recognition in the trolling Hall of Fame?
You arent that good, peabrain.
I suppose you are going to claim you have a copy and the Greenhouse Theory, and that people should believe you because . . .
I cant think of a single reason why anybody should believe you, and neither can you!
You need to lift your game, dummy. If you have the talent, of course.
Carry on.
Manufactured Frustration,
Everyone on the Internet knows what a Hall Monitor is.
Perhaps you should comment elsewhere than at Roy’s.
Oh, you can’t?
So sad, too bad.
Weepy Wee Willard,
Who cares what you think? You dont think you might be a little presumptuous, proclaiming that you know what everybody on the internet knows?
Good luck with convincing any rational person that you have such omniscient powers!
I comment where and when I wish. You are free to do likewise.
Off you go now, comment your heart out, if you wish.
Enjoy your afternoon, Mike.
All alone in the big playground, just like your childhood.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Straw man.
Im not sure how Chip got the idea that spreadsheets with invented data somehow prove anything about the carbon cycle. But the 60 y understanding of the Revelle Factor, published and verified in many papers can be dismissed, without a valid science rationale.
You keep invoking the widely-discussed Revelle factor without providing any evidence that it slows the rate of uptake into the natural sinks. You say it has been verified, but what does that actually mean? You need the data that shows it actually does slow the rate of uptake from an e-time of 3 years to 5 years.
> without providing any evidence that it slows the rate of uptake into the natural sinks
How about:
https://history.aip.org/climate/Revelle.htm
Wee Willy Wanker,
Studies are not evidence. Appeals to authority are not evidence. Computer modelling is not evidence. The blathering of people who cant even describe the GHE is, however, evidence of deranged minds who cant accept reality.
Mike, Mike,
Do you think that Roger Revelle came up with the realization that the average lifetime of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere before it is dissolved into the sea was of the order of 10 years by tweaking a spreadsheet, or by studying the question empirically?
Here’s the paper to get you going:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/tellusa.v9i1.9075
Always here to help!
Woeful Willard,
Realisations are not evidence, you fool.
Correlation is not causation, either.
Wheres your Greenhouse Theory? Still only exists in your imagination?
Pity. Just make syou look more delusional as time goes by.
Here, Mike:
Thank you for helping me get my point across.
Willard,
What are you babbling about? Correcting? Normalising?
No doubt that particular farrago of nonsense depends of innumerable assumptions, modelling, guesses and estimates.
You really are gullible fat idiot, arent you?
Next thing youll be claiming trees can be used to determine temperatures, or something equally preposterous!
Are they part of your non-existent Greenhouse Theory, or would that just be silly?
I really love when you play dumb, Mike.
Here’s how the paper continues:
Do you at least realize why I’m quoting this?
Nate,
Your objection to my invented data is simply another obfuscation on your part. If estimates of data were not allowed, there would be no models at all. My invented data is simply the additional CO2 emissions needed to fit the Mauna Loa data. They are based on reasonable estimates of values for the key parameters of the model. The IPCC AR5 published yearly flux estimates of about 94 ppm/year (200 GtC/year). Using a constant rate coefficient, one way to get a fit to the data was to use 0.23/year for the coefficient and allow additional inputs from 64 ppm in 1750 up to 94 ppm/year in 2010. Alternatively, I could fix the inputs at 94 ppm/year and allow the uptake rate coefficient to change from 0.33 to 0.23/year.
As I have said before, it is not unreasonable to imagine alternative sources than FF emissions. No one has evidence that they don’t exist. We agree that temperature accounts for an additional 10 ppm at least. Volcanoes, fires, under-counted land use change, and other factors related to population growth may well account for the rest.
I only recently discovered that my model simply duplicates the models Harde used in writing his 2019 paper. Harde gives a detailed explanation for the 3 to 5 year range, equivalent to the 0.33 to 0.2 range of uptake rates I use.
> Using a constant rate coefficient, one way to get a fit to the data was to use 0.23/year for the coefficient and allow additional inputs from 64 ppm in 1750 up to 94 ppm/year in 2010. Alternatively, I could fix the inputs at 94 ppm/year and allow the uptake rate coefficient to change from 0.33 to 0.23/year.
More generally, Chic, there’s an infinity of ways you can add quantity Q in one column and remove it from the other column to get the same number N at the end.
That should tell you something regarding the whole enterprise.
“You keep invoking the widely-discussed Revelle factor without providing any evidence that it slows the rate of uptake into the natural sinks. You say it has been verified, but what does that actually mean? You need the data that shows it actually does slow the rate of uptake from an e-time of 3 years to 5 years.”
If you don’t bother to look at the papers and evidence I show you, and can’t be bothered to check into it on your own, I can’t help you.
If you refuse to apply the facts that you have already agreed to, with a modest amount of logic, to the problem being discussed, I can’t help you.
You seem to feel that if you havent learned about or understood the evidence that has established a property of the Earth, then its safe to assume it does not exist!
Radiative heat transfer at the tropopause? Not happening.
Optical properties of CO2? Not valid in the atmosphere.
Ocean carbon chemistry? Irrelevant to the carbon cycle.
Then if you make a spreadsheet that assumes the non-existence of key Earth properties, what have you accomplished? Other then confirming your prior beliefs, for you.
“I cant help you.”
No help needed. You are doing a fine job of exposing your ignorance and maintaining your status as King of Obfuscation all by yourself now.
“Then if you make a spreadsheet that assumes the non-existence of key Earth properties, what have you accomplished?”
Obfuscation. You didn’t specify what “key Earth properties” you had in mind and the existence of natural emissions is not in question. What is on the table is how much of the increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel emissions. If you had any interest in learning, you would have worked out the inconsistencies in your AGW closed-minded religion for yourself.
You appeal to authority without data or models that prove me wrong and you have the nerve to claim I haven’t learned?
It would help if you were clear about what your model is actually modelling, Chic.
“You didnt specify what ‘key Earth properties’ you had in mind ”
Where have you been? The Revelle Factor and its bottleneck effect.
Asked and answered at least once here already. There is no bottleneck. You have been unable to demonstrate it.
“There is no bottleneck.”
Thank you for making my point.
If you personally havent been well educated about a phenomena, then it does not exist!
You qualify as a denier first class.
“I can play that game with real numbers because I have a spreadsheet model. 180 or so units of CO2 were circulating between the reservoirs prior to the introduction of FF emissions. Now an additional 10 units of FF and an unknown quantity of other emissions enter the atmosphere each year such that about 200 units are in circulation leaving only an additional 5 units remaining.”
Huh?
Is your model incorporating the bottleneck to the deep ocean? I cannot tell.
If not, then it is simply mathturbation that has nothing to with the Earth system.
“Is your model incorporating the bottleneck to the deep ocean?”
Is the model also including the take up of CO2 carried into the deeper ocean by plankton.
“The ocean captures twice as much carbon dioxide as previously thought”
https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/the-ocean-captures-twice-as-much-carbon-dioxide-as-previously-thought/
“The ‘biological pump’ in the worlds oceans, which plays a key part in the global carbon cycle, is capturing twice as much carbon as previously thought, scientists have said”
“Single-celled organisms, called phytoplankton, live on the oceans surface and use sunlight to make food and energy taking up CO2 and releasing oxygen in the process. When phytoplankton die, they are eaten by other marine creatures, like zooplankton.
And once these creatures die, they become biological debris, known as marine snow, that are rich in carbon and fall deeper into the ocean, a key process in the BCP.”
Thank you for bringing up the biological pump. My model does not account for that, but it only obviates any requirement to reduce the uptake rates. Bottom line, there is ample evidence to claim non-fossil fuel emissions have been increasing along with FF ones.
> there is ample evidence
Wait, Chic.
All I see is a model where you fit a curve.
Is that what you call evidence?
Willard,
Your trolling attempts are pathetic.
Wheres your Greenhouse Theory gone?
Mike, Mike,
Tell me –
Would you consider a model that adds natural flow as it reduces the “anthro” flow evidence of anything?
Swoon.
Willard,
Are you really, really, stupid, ignorant, or do you suffer from a mental impairment?
Just keep trying to troll. Even a moron like you might succeed eventually. The future is infinite – who knows what miracles might occur?
Someone might even decide to value your opinion!
And pigs might fly.
Have you downloaded Chic’s spreadsheet, Mike?
You should.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
Have you managed to find the missing Greenhouse Theory that you claim to have?
Keep trying diversions. Ill help keep you focussed, if you wish.
Carry on.
What are you doing in Chic’s thread if you have not looked at Chic’s “model,” Mike?
“Bottom line, there is ample evidence to claim non-fossil fuel emissions have been increasing along with FF ones.”
But the available evidence is that it is increasing by a much smaller amount.
That’s progress. Now we just need to agree on how much smaller and you have to be convinced there is no substantial bottleneck.
Hell will freeze over before you provide any evidence of it.
“Thats progress. Now we just need to agree on how much smaller and you have to be convinced there is no substantial bottleneck.”
Unless you can change ocean chemistry, the bottleneck will not disappear by some magical analysis.
I really don’t get you, Chic. This is a basic property carbon chemistry in the ocean, discovered 60 y ago and verified many times since.
To claim it doesnt exist is like claiming the thermohaline circulation doesnt exist. Or the stratosphere doesnt exist.
You can do that, but you need to have more than just a desire for it to go away.
“I really dont get you, Chic.”
Nate, I hate to admit it, but I tend to sweat the small stuff. I am a stickler for details. So I find it hard to let broad-brush assertions go without a challenge.
Also, obfuscation really annoys me.
The bottleneck issue may be a misunderstanding. I’m working on sorting it out.
Then you might like:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sabi2854/future.shtml
No, the constant uptake rate model does not include any bottleneck to the deep ocean. But why should it? That is what you need to prove. From Harde 2019,
“Equally inconsistent [with Nate’s] presumption that additional uptake of anthropogenic CO2…has, somehow, exceeded the storage capacity of oceans and other surface and sub-surface reservoirs, capacity which is orders of magnitude greater.”
The second version (“changing rate” sheet) of my model shows the other extreme where the natural input remains fixed since 1750 and the uptake rates are adjusted to fit the Mauna Loa data. A decreasing uptake rate would be the result if there was any substantial bottleneck either in the surface layer or from the surface layer to the deep ocean. But there is no reason to ASSUME a bottleneck. You need to prove it with data.
“No, the constant uptake rate model does not include any bottleneck to the deep ocean. But why should it? That is what you need to prove.”
So notice how he puts the onus on others to validate what loads of science has long ago established to be true properties of the ocean.
Ears plugged, eyes covered, la la la la, I can’t hear you! I havent seen it!
It doesnt exist!
“…science has long ago established to be true properties of the ocean.”
Another example of classic Nate obfuscation. Notice how he avoids explaining how any properties of the ocean are violated in my model illustrating the constraints involved in modeling known data with physically-sound parameters.
Too many double negatives for your own good, Chic.
What you call a model is just a series of two sums you adjust to fit a curve.
It really could model anything.
“Another example of classic Nate obfuscation. Notice how he avoids explaining how any properties of the ocean are violated in my model illustrating the constraints involved in modeling known data with physically-sound parameters.”
Nope, already did, several times! Where were you?
Your ‘model’ doesnt include the well known effects of the ocean carbon chemistry to produce a bottleneck.
Thus it is not ‘physically sound’.
Apparently you don’t understand the model. See my dumbed-down version I wrote out for Entropic Man who doesn’t do spreadsheets.
My spreadsheet has two separate sheets, one for a fixed uptake rate and another for a variable one. The later could explain a bottleneck if there is one. The more realistic constant uptake model includes a reasonable increase in non-FF emissions. Even the IPCC recognizes they have increased since pre-industrial times.
There is nothing to follow, Chic.
Your exercise would be called curve fitting if you had a model first. You skipped that part and went for the fit immediately. Kudos for saving time!
This is another of those times I’m going to break the “don’t feed the troll” rule.
Willard exposes his ignorance by falsely accusing me of not having a model first.
On an annual basis, the change in CO2 equals the sum of all emissions minus a fraction of the total CO2 in air (C) that year. In shorthand, with del S = del F + del N for the annual sum of fossil fuel (F) and natural (N) emissions, that becomes delC = del S – alpha * C. The spreadsheet allows numberical integration so that each additional line for year (n+1) allows calculation of C(n+1) = del S – (1 – alpha) * C(n-1). Plugging in del S = del F by assuming no additional emissions, you cannot get a reasonable fit to Mauna Loa data with realistic e-times. When you add del N to IPCC estimates of N = 20*F, then voila! Realistic e-times of 3.5 years.
Model first, fit second.
Oh, Chic.
There is nothing else behind your F and your N than a fit, and what you call a numerical integration is simply an addition in one column and a subtraction in the other.
What you call “numberical integration” is an addition and a subtraction, Chic.
“delC = del S alpha * C”
The reason that is incorrect is that it assumes that the concentration in surrounding reservoirs is 0. Then indeed, a fraction of C, the atmospheric concentration, will be emitted per year.
If the reservoirs around the atmosphere, have a concentration Cr, then the atmosphere will stop emitting to them when C = Cr.
So the equation needs to have alpha*(C-Cr) in it.
In fact, currently the C is already close to Cr in the ML and the land, so the emitted amount will be very small.
You are totally wrong that my equation is wrong, but not totally wrong about Cr. If del F = 0, then we just have del N = alpha * C and del C becomes zero at equilibrium. As long as the equilibria shifts right with added emissions there is no equilibrium.
If you had evidence that Cr was a brick wall (infinitely good bottleneck) instead of an equilibria with a near infinite sink on the uptake side, then your argument would be valid.
Just show your model and data. Otherwise you are just your bloviatingly obfuscating old self.
“If you had evidence that Cr was a brick wall (infinitely good bottleneck) instead of an equilibria with a near infinite sink on the uptake side, then your argument would be valid.”
So you want brick wall or infinite sink?
The reality is neither.
There is no bottleneck to the surface sinks which are quite finite. This is what your equation can describe.
There is a finite bottleneck to the large sink which gives much larger equilibration time.
“Just show your model and data”
The model is in BE paper that you havent bothered to read. That is ignorance by choice. I cannot help you with that.
“There is a finite bottleneck to the large sink which gives much larger equilibration time.”
If there is, you should be able to document it. Referring to a 60-year old model without testing it with current data is presumptive.
“If there is, you should be able to document it. ”
Ive shown you the discovery papers, and the evidence and accurate predictions in them. Ive shown you other data on Revelle Fators.
There are loads of data out there on ocean carbon fluxes. What is stopping you from looking it up?
Without having bothered to do so, or really read and understood whats been shown to you, youve decided this phenomena DOES NOT EXIST.
Based on what? A feeling? A desire? An ideology?
You have no evidence.
“There are loads of data out there on ocean carbon fluxes”
Some of which were out by 200%.
The key word is “some”. Which means a tiny portion of.
“From Harde 2019,”
I looked at the Hard paper. He makes clear that he disagrees with many other papers that model the carbon cycle.
At the end he notes that others have pointed out the flaw in his model is that it is overly simplistic.
They are quite right!
He says that other models include ocean chemistry and the Revelle factor and the bottleneck effect.
But he says it doesnt matter because his eqn 4 doesnt care about other reservoirs, only the atmosphere.
It is not explained very well why the other reservoirs can be ignored.
Clearly many others disagree with his argument.
Maybe you can explain to us, Chic.
If you read and followed his argument, on what basis do you challenge it? Just because others do? Lemmings do that.
“He says that other models include ocean chemistry and the Revelle factor and the bottleneck effect”
And models would probably have the same 3 to 5 year e-time for the atmosphere if they used proper physical principles like the Bolin/Erickson paper. The Bern model hopelessly fails. Ocean chemistry and bottlenecks apply to the mixed layer-deep ocean transfers.
“It is not explained very well why the other reservoirs can be ignored.”
I’ll try to help you with that. First of all, the atmosphere/sink rate constant is an effective rate constant average of all the possible surface interactions. It works, because the data dictates it. Input = Level/e-time. The biological pump removes carbon from the mixed layer that would otherwise shift the CO2 air/ocean equilibrium toward the air. In addition, there is no black and white division between the mixed layer and the deep. It’s a turbulent environment and there is no saturated layer. Fresh water enters continuously. Any bottleneck has to be demonstrated not assumed.
“Clearly many others disagree with his argument.”
That doesn’t make them right. Rather than appeal to authority, I think you should work on validating the other models and show how they prove Harde, and the others who agree with me, wrong.
I followed that silly argument, Chic:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/10/03/a-harde-response/
Scientists usually ignore such silliness, but I like silliness.
Try me.
“Clearly many others disagree with his argument.”
That doesnt make them wrong.
It doesnt make Harde right.
“Ocean chemistry and bottlenecks apply to the mixed layer-deep ocean transfers.”
Yes!
Then where does the FF carbon added to the surface reservoirs go? If it cannot find a place to go, then it builds up in the land, atm, and ML reservoirs.
It builds up in just the way that we observe it to be building up in all 3 of these reservoirs.
This is simply conservation of mass.
Harde falsely asserts that it doesnt matter.
You are arguing by assertion. You provide no evidence that a bottleneck makes any significant difference to CO2 flux in and out of the atmosphere. If you think it does, you need to put up some data.
You are now bloviating and obfuscating.
Clearly you dont understand conservation of mass
Clearly you are becoming increasingly obnoxious.
Let’s summarize. Obnoxious, bloviating, obfuscating, no data, no models, constantly appealing to authority, Nate.
Did I leave anything out?
I thought you and you did the reading, Chic:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3-4-2.html
Ok so Chip can’t understand the super simple logic of conservation of mass, and/or has no rebuttal for it.
What to do? Consult the troll-handbook.
It says blame the messenger, and toss ad-homs!
There is a mass of carbon piling up on the ocean floor.
At least Willard is warming up. You are just out in the peanut gallery bloviating now.
You are arguing by assertion. You provide no evidence that “there is no significant bottleneck”.
“There is a mass of carbon piling up on the ocean floor.”
How much? Got data?
Seems you are aware you that you need a Revelle factor work around.
I’m running out of adjectives to describe your perfidious behavior.
I never claimed evidence of no bottleneck. I’m working on it as I said. There is no need for a Revelle factor work around if it represents no bottleneck. You hypocritically ask me for data after failing to provide anything to back up your assertions? Incredible.
[chuckles, trying to hold back boisterous laughter]
“I never claimed evidence of no bottleneck.”
Tee hee hee!
“there is no significant bottleneck”
“Asked and answered at least once here already. There is no bottleneck.”
“the Mauna Loa data cannot be explained without an additional emission source or a decreasing absorp.tion rate.”
re Revelle factor, Roger Revelle claimed just before he died that people should not read to much into CO2 warming. Al Gore was a student of Revelle and when he heard that he went ballistic, inferring that Revelle must have been senile.
https://web.archive.org/web/20081204162745/http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/cosmos.html
“We can sum up our conclusions in a simple message: The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this tine”.
Obviously that should be time, not tine.
C’mon, Gordo:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/revelle-gore-singer-lindzen
Perhaps I should count the times you retell that old lie.
Perhaps you should stop fabricating lies. Singer and Revelle were good friends.
Gordo,
Justin Lancaster was Revelle’s student. Singer sent him a SLAPP. Justin was a young researcher, with a mortgage and a wife, so he caved in.
Justin corrected the record in the piece you obviously haven’t read. Fred did not contest it. Have more on the background story:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-note-about-roger-revelle-julian.html
Fred is a sleazy peddler, and you’re a tool.
Willard,
Please stop trolling. Well, attempting to, at least.
Mike, Mike,
Gordo mentioned his usual “But Revelle” Bingo square.
Can’t you keep to the topic at hand?
If you always say the same thing, people will skip reading.
Cheerios.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
Or not, as you wish.
Focus, Mike.
Weepy Willard,
You are not even a good troll. Issuing unenforceable commands just makes you look weak, powerless and ineffectual.
Keep it up.
You’re the troll, Mike.
But not only you’re a troll, but you’re a sock puppet.
Not only your a sock puppet, but you’re a Dragon Crank.
A Dragon Crank, Mike!
YOLO.
Sounds like “he said she said” to me.
I doubt Fred is a “she,” Chic.
Stop trolling Willard.
Produce your copy of the Greenhouse Theory.
My little sock puppet,
Youre the troll here.
Produce your Insulation Effect Theory, and Ill produce the Greenhouse Effect Theory.
Long live and prosper.
Willard Wanker,
Neither the Insulation Effect Theory nor the Greenhouse Effect Theory exist, you nitwit. Neve have, never will.
Keep trolling – hang on, Im supposed to say Willard, stop trolling, but Im laughing too much.
Carry on.
Too Much Play and No Work Makes Mike a Dull Sock Puppet:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/santer-takes-on-pruitt-the-global-warming-pause-and-the-devolution-of-climate-science/#comment-248938
Silly sock puppet.
Wayward Willy,
Quoting Mike Flynn who correctly says that insulation reduces the rate of heat loss is an indication that you accept reality to a slight degree.
Keep it up.
I suppose you think this will distract attention from the fact that you can produce neither of the two mythical theories you claim to possess – namely the non-existent “Greenhouse Theory or the equally non-existent Insulation Effect Theory.
Try more Mike Flynn quotes. Or Richard Feynman – there are collections of his quotes on the internet. I suppose you think that if you quote Richard Feynman, you will be accused of being Mike Flynn!
Only by reality denying retards like you.
Keep denying, Mike.
It gives you lovely cheeks!
Did Revelle deny the Revelle Factor was correct? No
Did Revelle deny that his Factor explained the ocean bottleneck for sinking atmospheric carbon? No.
Did Revelle deny that anthro carbon was causing the rise of atmospheric CO2? No.
So this is a red herring.
The Revelle Factor apparently only causes a bottleneck with FF CO2. Doesn’t seem to affect any other CO2.
Yet another strawman. Nobody has claimed that.
There is a difference between surface, shallow and deep oceans.
More on Revelle and Al Gore….
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817939326_283.pdf
More on Fred’s sleazy manoeuver:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-note-about-roger-revelle-julian.html
Willard,
Stop trolling.
Produce your copy of the Greenhouse Theory.
My little sock puppet,
You’re the troll here.
Produce your Insulation Effect Theory, and I’ll produce the Greenhouse Effect Theory.
Long live and prosper.
Witless Wee Willy,
Neither the Insulation Effect Theory nor the Greenhouse Effect Theory exist, you moron.
You dont even know the contents of your own fantasy too well. One minute its the Greenhouse Theory, then its the Greenhouse Effect Theory.
Considering you cant even describe the Greenhouse Effect, why would anybody think you possess either a Greenhouse Theory or a Greenhouse Effect Theory?
Carry on trolling. You might convince someone that an Insulation Effect Theory, a Greenhouse Theory, or a Greenhouse Effect Theory exists, possibly someone even more retarded and delusional than yourself.
Off you go now.
Mike, Mike,
You keep denying your own words:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/santer-takes-on-pruitt-the-global-warming-pause-and-the-devolution-of-climate-science/#comment-248938
Vintage 2017.
The topic is the Revelle Factor.
Focus.
If you don’t, I *will* use your silly jabs against the person you’re trying to defend right now.
Willard,
In a fit of overwhelming stupidity, you issued an underwhelming threat –
“If you dont, I *will* use your silly jabs against the person youre trying to defend right now.
Heres a couple of things to consider, pinhead –
I dont care what a powerless and impotent donkey like you threatens, and I dont care . . .
Oooooooh! Willard thinks I give a toss what he does, or what he doesnt. You can drop dead for all I care. It wouldnt affect me in the least.
You might impress me if you produced the non-existent Greenhouse Theory. I would be similarly impressed to see pigs flying overhead.
You dimwitted troll – do you think I care what some anonymous retard threatens – particularly when he is stupid enough to threaten someone else! Why should I care?
Carry on threatening.
You nitwit, Willard.
You wrote –
“Mike, Mike,
You keep denying your own words:
As in, insulation reduces the rate of heat loss (in simple terms) the insulated object still cools.
Presumably you are quoting Mike Flynn, so thanks for injecting some reality into your normally witless comments.
Yes, no matter how well insulated an object is, if it hotter than its environment, it continues to cool.
Why you continue to appeal to the authority of someone who shows you what an idiot you are is beyond me. If you think agreeing is denying, you would do well in the company of other morons who believe slow cooling is heating!
At least you have realised the pointlessness of calling me Mike Flynn Mike Flynn. Its just Mike, Mike now, is it? Is your fantasy fading a little?
In the meantime, maybe you could produce your copy of the mythical Greenhouse Theory.
willard uses one of the most alarmist, most propagandist site on the Net to comment on Roger Revelle.
The evidence is overwhelming that Revelle did not believe in catastrophic global warming and that Fred Singer was his friend. The idiot Gore tried to backstab Revelle when Roger admitted there was nothing to be concerned about re global warming. He tried to infer that Revelle was senile and that Singer took advantage by using him.
That was all heard in court and dismissed. Only a diehard alarmist like Eli Rabbett could fail to grasp that. And only a fool like you would fall for his crap.
C’mon, Gordo.
I cited Justin Lancaster. I can cite the Tobacco Papers if you prefer:
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/S._Fred_Singer
https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/the-ocean-captures-twice-as-much-carbon-dioxide-as-previously-thought/
The biological pump in the worlds oceans, which plays a key part in the global carbon cycle, is capturing twice as much carbon as previously thought, scientists have said
Looks like Revelle (and others) was out by a factor of 2.
“Combining their findings with data from previous studies of the BCP, the authors were able to estimate the rate at which carbon particles are sinking. They found that about twice as much carbon sinks into the ocean per year than previously estimated.”
Funny that the paper does not mention Revelle.
Just that twice as much carbon is being removed from the air as was previously being assumed.
So you have no idea what it means or even implies, dummy.
The paper is referring only to the ‘biological pump’ not the physical pump related to the Revell Factor. The headline is misleading.
Nate: Since when did the Revell factor apply to the deep oceans?
Wher’d you get that idea?
It appears that I was talking about the oceans as a whole (surface, shallow and deep) whereas you were only talking about surface phenomena.
Richard just discovered that ocean snow was unsettled, Nate.
Be patient with him.
Willard is always an idiot. Treat him gently.
“The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this tine”
‘at this time’, which was 30 y ago!
Couple things from:
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/
Europas Double Ridges: Implications for a Habitable Ocean
by Paul Gilster on April 22, 2022
“Im always interested in studies that cut across conventional boundaries, capturing new insights by applying data from what had appeared, at first glance, to be unrelated disciplines. Thus the news that the ice shell of Europa may turn out to be far more dynamic than we have previously considered is interesting in itself, given the implications for life in the Jovian moons ocean, but also compelling because it draws on a study that focused on Greenland and originally sought to measure climate change.”
Good News for a Gravitational Focus Mission
by Paul Gilster on April 19, 2022
…
“There are numerous reasons for getting a spacecraft to the distance needed to exploit the Suns gravitational lens where the mass of our star bends the light of objects behind it to produce a lens with extraordinary properties. The paper, titled Resolved Imaging of Exoplanets with the Solar Gravitational Lens, notes that at optical or near-optical wavelengths, the amplification of light is on the order of ~ 2 X 10^11, with equally impressive angular resolution. If we can reach this region beginning at 550 AU from the Sun, we can perform direct imaging of exoplanets.”
entropic…”The natural forcings are causing about 0.01C//decade cooling while CO2 is causing about 0.2C/decade warming.
If you have evidence that something else is causing the warming, lets hear it”.
***
Unscientific. You must first prove CO2 is causing your 0.2C/decade warming and that it’s not due to natural variability. Since 1998, at least, El Ninos have dominated the warming. Two of them in 1998 and 2016 have elevated the global average and that warming has not yet dissipated.
The study by Tsonis et al explained how ocean oscillation can cause both warming and cooling and we have no idea as yet, whether current temps will drops off. We should see a couple of decades of La Ninas, and if that occurs. Then it’s all natural variability, which makes far more sense than anthropogenic warming.
willard…”As in, insulation reduces the rate of heat loss (in simple terms) the insulated object still cools”.
***
What’s your problem, that’s the truth. If the object losing heat does not have the heat replaced, it will continue to cool, despite insulation.
You’re out of your league here, wonky willie. go back to your game of squares.
C’mon, Gordo.
Unscientific. You must first prove that insulation reduces the rate of heat loss and identify what causes the insulation.
Where’s your homework?
here you go Wonky…
https://www.jm.com/en/homeowner-insulation/homeowner-faq/what-r-value-do-i-need-/
“What is R-Value?
R stands for resistance to heat flow. The higher the R-Value, the greater the insulating power and resistance to heat flow”.
Get it Wonky? Insulation offers resistance to heat flow.
Not convinced?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-value_(insulation)
Where’s the theory behind that, Gordo?
Crumpled newspaper works, but fire proof fiberglass insulation works a lot better.
y tho
Cmon Willard,
Prove that insulation reduces the rate of heat loss?
You obviously havent accepted the definition of the verb to insulate.
That is because you are a retard.
No homework needed on that.
I thought you said the insulation effect did not exist, Mike.
Please make up your mind.
Cmon, Willard, dont be stupid.
Every rational person knows that what you think often bears no relation to fact – as in this case.
You are stupid enough not to know that there is no Insulation Effect Theory, nor a Greenhouse Theory, in spite of your bizarre claims to the contrary.
If you dont want to accept that insulation exists, and is defined on the basis of physical processes which occur, then you are definitely off with the fairies.
So – off you go, and play with your friends.
Still no explanation of how the insulation effect works, Mike?
So sad.
Cmon Willard,
Describe the insulation effect you keep babbling about.
If you cant find out how insulation works, list your efforts, admit your total and complete ignorance, grovel abjectly before me, and I will explain it to you.
You are not even good at trolling.
You are not only a fat slimy grub, you are also incompetent!
You claim you have a Greenhouse Theory, but are keeping it secret.
Do you really think any rational person believes you?
Carry on.
Mike,
Here it is:
April 11, 2022 at 12:07 PM.
You don’t recognize your own words?
Willard, please stop trolling.
More of Fred Singers work to keep wonky willard on his toes.
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Santer_critique_EnE_June2011_FINAL.pdf
Gordo has no shame, linking to a think tank connected to the tobacco industry.
More homework for wonky willie…this time on the NIPPC. No, that’s not a typo, it’s the Non-governmental edition.
https://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf
Gordo has no shame, linking to a think tank connected to the tobacco industry.
Moar of Gordo’s new guru:
https://www.desmog.com/s-fred-singer/
wonky willie knows no shame, linking to an alarmist site funded by a convicted criminal.
De Smog
Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Note GR the site is rated as High credibility.
Just for comparison, what are the ratings for the New York Times and Washington Post?
Carbon Collect Unveils Mechanicaltree In Partnership With Arizona State University
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/24/carbon-collect-unveils-mechanicaltree-in-partnership-with-arizona-state-university/
“Carbon Collect plans to scale the technology starting with a series of direct air capture carbon farms which will capture approximately 1,000 tons of CO2 per day, designs for which are being completed.”
Liquid CO2 is priced at about $160 per ton.
Or a bit more expensive than liquid air.
Scams like this should be illegal.
Many said the same about automobiles [and still saying it].
I don’t know the details.
I would say global CO2 levels are already too low.
But compared to wind mills, I might like it.
It should not kill endangered birds, like solar panels and wind mills
are doing in California. And unlike wind mills, people might actually
buy them.
I think greening Sahara desert and growing trees could better use of
some peoples money. I will unlikely feel the need to buy such machines {but there are endless machines which I don’t want to buy}.
When look at it, I thought it could be improve in some unknown ways,
so, it like any machine can get better. And such better and unknown machine, might be something I would like to have.
In the UK liquid CO2 is used for a variety of commercial and industrial purposes.
Its usual source is as a by product of the Haber process. This converts methane into ammonia which then becomes ammonium nitrate fertilizer.
At present most fertilizer production is shut down because the high price of methane makes it uneconomic. As a result the UK currently has a liquid CO2 shortage.
It would be useful to have an alternative source.
I’ve never had a need for liquid CO2, but I have paid up to $ 40/ton for gaseous CO2. For use in enhanced oil recovery, the US has long been captive to the few natural sources owned by the likes of EXXON, OXY, etc.. It will be welcome relief for the smaller companies to be able to source CO2 from CCUS projects.
CO2 comes out of the Haber process as liquid because it is extracted by cooling the reaction products until the CO2 liquefies. It’s also easier to transport in bulk as a a liquid.
For most uses you need the gas,but warming it as needed is not difficult.
rerun night…The Great Global Warming Swindle…
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6sa0yx
Oh goody, more denialist propoganda!
This is shorter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
..government has enough to do
If US government was less involved in “managing everyone’s life”-
would NASA be better. Could NASA actually explore the Moon and then Mars?
One could argue that the government should not be exploring space- and many space cadet, do argue this, btw.
–India’s second attempt at landing a spacecraft on the moon will likely be pushed to 2023, according to the head of the country’s space agency.
S. Somanath, chairman of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), told Indian news channel NewsX that the Chandrayaan 3 lunar lander is in the assembly phase but teams are still testing vital systems, meaning the launch, previously slated for August, could be delayed until next year.–
https://www.space.com/india-moon-lander-crewed-spaceflight-progress
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
Also linked by instapudit:
” Massive Study Finds We Need Better Therapies Than Antidepressants. Here’s Why
CLARE WATSON
23 APRIL 2022
Antidepressants are the mainstay for treating depression, but their use is clouded by questions about lasting efficacy. A new study now suggests antidepressants may not improve people’s quality of life in the long run, compared to depressed people who don’t take this type of medication.”
https://www.sciencealert.com/antidepressants-don-t-improve-quality-of-life-massive-study-finds
Antidepressants turned me from an intensely unhappy and suicidal man into a zombie. I’m not sure if was an improvement.
In the end cognitive behaviour therapy was a more effective treatment.
–According to Boris Johnson:
Overall, if you look at what we have done with renewables it has helped to reduce bills over the last few years and will continue to do so. Thats why one of the things I want to do is use this moment to really drive towards more offshore wind turbines.
Perhaps he should read what the Office for Budget Responsibility have to say. According to their annual Medium Term Forecasts, subsidies for renewable energy have cost the public 78 billion in the last ten years. This equates to about 3000 per household.
Nearly all of this has been added to energy bills, although a small part, the RHI scheme, is funded out of general taxation. As domestic users only consume about a third of total electricity generation, their bills reflect about a third of this cost. However, the public end up paying for the other two thirds one way or another, whether through higher prices and fares, higher taxation and lower public spending.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/24/renewable-subsidies-have-cost-78-billion-in-last-10-years/
So $1000 per year, and mostly to poorer people, who are getting poorer due to a criminal UK govt.
As you can see the influence on the planet mean surface temperature from the greenhouse gasses content depends on the greenhouse gases dimensionless partial density D * X/Y.
For Earth = 0,00681
For Titan = 0,05315
For Venus = 63,534
For Venus the D * X/Y is five (5) orders of magnitude higher than that of Earth.
And, for Venus, it is four (4) orders of magnitude higher than that on Titan.
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446364348
Gordon Robertson, Clint R
Why are you so libertarian about guns and so authoritarian about abortion?
It’s you that is inconsistent, Ent.
Guns don’t kill, it’s people that kill. Killing is killing.
That’s reality, so you won’t be able to understand.
Clint you are an idiot.
A gun is a force multiplier.
A disgruntled student might kill one person with a knife before he is stopped. An assault rifle allows him to keep killing until he runs out of ammunition or the police kill him.
The gun may only be a tool, but it is far too efficient a killing tool to be allowed into the hands of eejits.
entropic…”The gun may only be a tool, but it is far too efficient a killing tool to be allowed into the hands of eejits”.
***
So, we should only allow criminals to carry guns? The UK used to be relatively safe, to the point where the police did not carry guns. That’s changing rapidly. The problem is people, not guns.
If you create a society in which people are pushed to the point of rage and frustration, they react erratically. In all the years I have heard about gun violence I have yet to hear anyone questioning the cause of the violence or what can be done about it.
Galaxie500 comes out of the sewer with nothing but an insult, and Ent moves the goalposts to “force multiplier”. (One abortion kills one baby, 1000 abortions kill 1000 babies. Multiplication works.)
That means I’m exactly over the target.
And one gun can kill 23 people.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_shooting
God aborts 50% of babies during the first trimester.
Perhaps you should tell him to stop.
Just do abortion before first trimester- join the civilized
world.
One plan I’ve heard sounds fair.
Put 3 white marbles, and one black marble, in a hat. Choose one for the baby, one for the father, one for the mother, and one for the doctor. The one that gets the black marble has to die.
Give the baby an equal chance.
Also, don’t want free market on baby parts-
can’t sell baby parts.
Also, don’t want free enterprise on baby parts-
can’t sell baby parts.
There are likely over 200 million firearms in US households yet one idiot shoots a bunch of people and you want to ban all firearms. That’s the same logic used by climate alarmists.
It’s nearly double that, Gordon.
There are estimated to be over 400 million guns in the United States between police, the military, and American civilians. Over 393 Million (Over 98%) of those guns are in civilian hands, the equivalent of 120 firearms per 100 citizens. The average gun owning American has 5 firearms, while nearly 22% of gun owners only have a single firearm.
It’s like the bumper sticker says, “If guns were the problem, we would know….”
The problem is the “lie”. When people are raised on lies, they don’t have any knowledge of right and wrong. We see plenty of that here, with people claiming that ice cubes can boil water, and passenger jets fly backwards.
One gun can kill 23 people Entropic?
Interesting point, but one abortionist can kill 30 fetuses in a day.
https://www.thelily.com/abortion-care-is-a-calling-for-this-texas-doctor-now-he-faces-a-dilemma-risk-lawsuits-or-quit/
Raged shooters are typically stopped though.
With minimal restriction, abortions reduced the US black population by approximately 25%. Maybe even more as there is no good record keeping on this, but I have seen estimates range from 12M to 19M aborted fetus from black females since Roe v. Wade. I think there is a bigger societal issue that is being missed in this debate.
Abortion is a medical procedure, just like amputation. Both need some regulation so not to be abused. There are no laws on the books in the US that I am aware of that prevent the use of abortion to save a women’s life.
Every coitus kills millions of babies.
I have never commented on abortion and I don’t consider myself libertarian.
I have become totally aware in my life that the law cannot be guaranteed, when you need a cop there is seldom one anywhere near. Criminals know that and they can be brazen about kicking in someone’s door to rob them.
I am not advocating a Wild West scenario where people carry guns out of necessity. There are parts of the US and Canada where that may be necessary and in some sates it is legal to carry a firearm openly, although not in Canada.
So far in Vancouver, Canada one is relatively safe. Even so, in Canada, criminals commit what is known as a home invasions, where several thugs break into a home and terrorize their victims to rob them. They have the guns, albeit illegal guns, but we are not allowed to have a gun to protect ourselves.
Pretty soon, car jacking could become the norm. What is being done to combat such crimes against people and property? The politicians want to take away everyone’s firearms.
As long as it’s not happening to them or in their neighbourhoods, they don’t give a hoot if it is happening to others. Nor apparently do you.
ps. now the muggers can wear masks without anyone questioning them.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. 4/9/2022
“Explaining Mauna Loa CO2 Increases with Anthropogenic and Natural Influences”
https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/the-ocean-captures-twice-as-much-carbon-dioxide-as-previously-thought/
“The biological pump in the worlds oceans, which plays a key part in the global carbon cycle, is capturing twice as much carbon as previously thought, scientists have said”
Only a factor of 2 wrong!
“Combining their findings with data from previous studies of the BCP, the authors were able to estimate the rate at which carbon particles are sinking. They found that about twice as much carbon sinks into the ocean per year than previously estimated.”
And what does that imply regarding Chic’s model, Richard?
That all the current models we have for the global carbon cycle need revising?
What’s science, Richard?
Do you know about science Willard?
Last time I checked science was a self-correcting process, Richard. In your case, it os a slow process. What is the Martin Curve, again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_curve
“a self-correcting process”
In this case a 200% correction.
How is the Martin Curve related to the Revelle Factor?
Well it looks like “Dynamics of particulate organic carbon flux in a global ocean model (2013)” was only out by 200%, come 2020.
But that is nothing between friends, it will still mean that the science is settled, correct?
Well it looks like you do not know the connection between the Martin Curve and the Revelle Factor.
Why hide your extensive knowledge from us then? I am sure you will put it much better than me (and you want be able to pick minute faults with how I might word it).
What precise relationship were you thinking about and how is it affect by the 200% ‘error’?
..and you wont be able..
Two more questions you may not be able to respond, Richard –
Do you think we settle scientific questions with models?
If models are say 5% more uncertain because the Martin Curve needs to be adjusted, do you think it gives us more or less time to keep below 2C?
“Do you think we settle scientific questions with models?”
Do you think that unrealistic models, that don’t show what actually happened, should be discarded?
“If models are say 5% more uncertain because the Martin Curve needs to be adjusted, do you think it gives us more or less time to keep below 2C?”
Why choose 5% when one part of them has been acknowledged already to be at least 200%? 2C from when? LIA or now?
You know that the settled science does not rely on the models, Richard, no?
You know that uncertainty is no luckwarm friend, right?
The settled science has been shown to be wrong, in this case around 200% wrong. Do you take that int account?
You know that uncertainty is no warmista friend either?
Why am I not surprised that you do not know to what the expression settled science refers, dummy?
Oh, come on Willard,
What science is ever settled? Certainly not so-called climate science – an oxymoron if there ever was one!
Use your peabrain, if you can.
As Albert Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. Peabrains such as you get everything backwards.
Thats because you are stupid as well as ignorant.
Wait, Mike –
You too don’t know to which science the “science is settled” refers?
Don’t tell me you’re as dumb as Richard!
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote “Wait, Mike
You too dont know to which science the science is settled refers?
Dont tell me youre as dumb as Richard!
All right, I wont. There is no point in telling you anything, you are too dumb to understand science. Next thing you will be claiming you have a Greenhouse Theory, or an Insulation Effect Theory, or some other similarly non-existent nonsense.
You arent even much good as a troll. You cant even disrupt a discussion on a blog, let alone annoy anybody.
Keep trying.
Willard doesn’t recognize that no science is truly settled. Every part of it is under constant examination and experimentation. Except AGW which is ‘fact’.
Richard cannot bring himself to burn one of the most ridiculous straw man made up by contrarians. Nobody believes that science is definitive. Climate science is settled in the sense that the basic ideas are understood well enough not to doubt them:
https://climateball.wordpress.com/but-science/
The claim might be over optimistic, as it neglects old reactionaries with too much time on their hands.
“Climate science is settled in the sense that the basic ideas are understood well enough not to doubt them”
The basic ideas and their ratios are not challengeable according to Willard.
Why do you think scientists know that the basic ideas are rock solid, dummy?
Certainly not by catering to contrarians and their silly talking points.
You do not seem to realize that the scientific world is a rough one to be in. One gets challenged all the time.
Willard says:
Why do you think scientists know that the basic ideas are rock solid, dummy?
———————–
Anybody should know that Willard. The ideas are rock solid in the view of scientists whose paychecks are funded by the huge amount of public largesse assigned to them which grew exponentially back in the 80’s and 90’s. Today a little widespread honest acknowledgement of the uncertainty exposed by observation would create a recession in the industry.
Oh, Bill. You really have no idea.
Scientists would *kill* to refute AGW. First, because it would save the world as we know it. It would not prevent from the energy revolution you fear from moving on, but still. It would be great. Second, they would get an intellectual legacy. Something you might never thought of.
Ask Pat Micheals how he feels about the millions he made sitting on his hands and looking like he is intelligent or something. He makes more than any scientist would in a decade. You know this. Are you not supposed to be an auditor or something?
Willard says:
Oh, Bill. You really have no idea.
Scientists would *kill* to refute AGW. First, because it would save the world as we know it. It would not prevent from the energy revolution you fear from moving on, but still. It would be great.
————————-
Perhaps but since the mountain is so high few rise to the challenge. This attitude would be far more common for scientists not currently employed writing papers to make the case for AGW. Those on the ”AGW Team” have the same espirit d’corps any accepted team member has.
———–
———–
———–
———–
Willard says:
Second, they would get an intellectual legacy. Something you might never thought of.
—————————
Certainly prospects of fame can affect espirit d’corps. But one needs to sort of stumble on to complete plan before turning on the guy that writes the checks. I mean they call it ”wage slavery” recognizing how much risk and effort goes into making a break. I am not criticizing intentions here Willard. This is just human nature. It is not at all uncommon for bad science to become a big political issue. History is replete with it complete with huge corps of workers who are compensated to pursue the mission with gusto.
My long career has provided me with a very close look at this phenomena.
———–
———–
———–
Willard says:
Ask Pat Micheals how he feels about the millions he made sitting on his hands and looking like he is intelligent or something. He makes more than any scientist would in a decade. You know this. Are you not supposed to be an auditor or something?
—————-
—————-
—————-
—————-
Millions? Did you get that from a reliable source? And no I have no idea how much money Pat Michaels has or what he makes. But one never knows after all he dresses a lot like Warren Buffet.
Do you believe in the IRS, Bill?
The IRS? Isn’t that for those from the USA?
Is Willard copping to having criminal friends in the IRS?
Is Bill having moral concerns after having promoted stolen correspondence for so many years?
Dr Spencer’s calculation apparently puts it at 49.1% for the period under consideration, but yes, the averaged net increase in atmospheric CO2 is “about half” of anthropogenic emissions. That is to say, natural processes are net absorbers of CO2.
For example, if I use only the anthropogenic term, the regression model is:
d_CO2/dt = 0.491*Anthro(t) + 0.181
Mark,
You wrote, “Dr Spencer’s calculation apparently puts it at 49.1% for the period under consideration….”
By it, you mean the 55% of the cumulative amount of fossil fuel emissions not absorbed according to Tyson’s link? Both the 55% and 49.1% figures are based on assumptions that natural emissions have been and remain constant during the pre-industrial period.
The issue Dr. Spencer is raising is whether any other factors contribute to the rise in CO2. By including other factors he shows that the FF contribution is at least 15% less.
Look at it the other way round. Positive feedbacks are contributing an extra 15% on top of human emissions.
The two most studied are the permafrost positive feedback and the clathrate positive feedback.
Both are temperature sensitive.
As warming thaws permafrost it decays and releases both extra CO2 and extra methane.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14338/
Similarly for clathrates.
http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/methane_clathrates.html
EM,
So nature returns CO2 to the atmosphere.
Gee, nature is tricky. Removes carbon in the form of CO2 from the atmosphere, sequesters it in the form of other carbon compounds in plants and rocks etc., and later puts it back in the form of CO2!
Good luck with bending nature to your will. Are you also one of these idiots waving a placard which reads Stop Climate Change, or something similarly inane?
If the carbon cycle is neutral, Mike, why is it that its concentration keeps climbing?
TYSON MCGUFFIN,
Each year non-fossil fuel emissions amount to about twenty times that of fossil fuel emissions. It is naive to believe that only 45% of the total cumulative FF emissions since the beginning of the industrial era have been absorbed, because that requires believing that all the natural emissions absorb first while the FF emissions wait their turn.
This fallacy is explained in detail from a download here:
https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=161&doi=10.11648/j.earth.20190803.13
“It is naive to believe that only 45% of the total cumulative FF emissions since the beginning of the industrial era have been absorbed, because that requires believing that all the natural emissions absorb first while the FF emissions wait their turn. ”
I don’t see why.
Imagine I have a beaker of water containing 90ml of water.
I add 10ml of water.
I then remove 5ml of water.
It is absurd to suggest that all the water molecules I remove were part of the original 90ml and none of the molecules I removed were part of the 10ml I added.
Simple analogy.
I have 900 blue beads in a jar.
I add 100 red beads and mix. The jar now contains 1000 beads, 900 blue and 100 red beads randomly distributed.
I now remove 50 beads. The most likely outcome is that I remove 50*900/1000 = 45 blue beads and 50*100/1000 =5 red beads.
How let’s try it for the atmosphere. At the beginning of the year it contains 730Gt of carbon as CO2. During the year 10Gt is added from human activities and 5Gt is absor*bed into the other reservoirs. At the end of the year the atmosphere contains 735Gt.
You can’t tell the origin of each CO2 molecule absor*bed, but you can approximately calculate the quantity.
5*730/740 = 4.93Gt of carbon which was in the atmosphere at the start of the year and 5-4.93 =0.07Gt which came from fossil fuel emissions.
Your model only has three problems, two of which are preculiar to you. One, you don’t understand physical chemistry, especially first order reaction kinetics which would enable you to apply the appropriate calculus. Second, you can’t use a spreadsheet to allow you to do numerical integration. You are in good company with the third problem. Many people do not appreciate that each increment of FF emissions is accompanied by twenty times more emissions from natural sources which are depleted in FF emission content.
“Many people do not appreciate that each increment of FF emissions is accompanied by twenty times more emissions from natural sources which are depleted in FF emission content. ”
You don’t appreciate that natural emissions to the atmosphere are balanced by natural absor*btion.
The oceans emit 88Gt to the atmosphere and absor*bs 90Gt.
The land emits 119Gt to the atmosphere and absor*bs 120Gt.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/wg1/the-carbon-cycle-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
Net natural emissions from the land and ocean reservoirs are -3Gt/year.
That is not twenty times fossil fuel emissions. It is -three tenths of fossil fuel emissions.
I suspect there is a flaw in your model. You keep talking about natural emissions to the atmosphere, but you haven’t mentioned natural absor*nation once.
And yet with all this ‘extra’ CO2 global temperatures keep falling.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah_lt.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah_mt.jpg
Recently that is.
Do you believe your bead analogy is correct and Harde’s math is wrong? The rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere is a first-order linear differential equation. Each term can be solved independently. Second, your analogy isn’t close to describing what’s happening. You continue to want to categorize fossil fuel CO2 so that it accumulates in the atmosphere and natural CO2 is somehow “in balance.” That model doesn’t fit the math.
How many times does repeating a lie make it true?
stephen…”Do you believe your bead analogy is correct…”
***
Alarmists like their red-herring arguments. If you mention that a trace gas like CO2 could not warm the atmosphere they will return with a fishy argument about how much 0.04% of ink in water can block light.
Alarmists fail to grasp the importance of contexts. A trace amount of a gas mixed in another gas has nothing to do with ink atoms circulating in water. One context reference heat and it properties while the other references EM and its properties.
To an alarmist, it’s all lumped in as a generic energy which magically has the same properties no matter the energy involved.
“One context reference heat and it properties while the other references EM and its properties”
An IR radiation (which is EM) transfers heat between bodies in the vacuum of space.
Entropic Man,
You wrote –
“I dont see why.
You dont see because you refuse to look.
Climate crackpots invariably resort to stupid and irrelevant analogies because they lack sufficient understanding of physics.
The Earth has managed to cool from its initial molten state, in spite of your red and blue beads, beakers of water, overcoats, “back-radiation, settled science, and all the other nonsense used to promote a GHE which nobody can actually describe!
Try using physics. You might be surprised that there are some people who understand science.
How hard can it be, using scientific terms and concepts when trying to explain the physical laws which govern the universe? No red or blue beads needed.
chic…”It is naive to believe that only 45% of the total cumulative FF emissions since the beginning of the industrial era have been absorbed…”
***
Let’s not forget the Industrial Revolution was in the middle of phase 2 of the Little Ice Age. By that time, after 300+ years of cooling oceans, the oceans would have absorbed a decent amount of CO2 from the atmosphere.
The first question needing to be answered is why a CO2 measuring station is on an active volcano spewing CO2.
Come on, Gordo.
Humans produce a few Pinatubo every day.
If you cannot think, count.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I wonder what needs to change in Roy’s observations of El Nino/La Nina 21st century warming given the curent 2 year (and now longer) La Nina.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/half-of-21st-century-warming-due-to-el-nino/
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/april-2022-la-ni%C3%B1a-update-measuring
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
This is not surprising when you track the slow increase in solar wind strength over the 25th solar cycle. A stronger solar wind drives the Antarctic jet stream and the Southern Oscillation. The polar vortex to the south will be strong.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif?fbclid=IwAR0-p5NaHehLO_hA2awRa9fSwPerpHt3CoxbFO9a60ifAZo59JCinVpem8c
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_ALL_SH_2022.png?fbclid=IwAR3UpUGKypDuDaabpLsREfGy_ccvP2kKmcZrvNNtGnrYpm0CwltGspX72j8
I am fairly sure that orbital differences over the year amount to more than the erratic solar wind changes from the solar cycle, but I’m sure you have data that shows otherwise.
solar wind almost nothing at moment:
Solar wind
speed: 420.6 km/sec
density: 1.13 protons/cm3
But low levels probably means it will surge, shortly.
As I said, erratic.
There are several active sunspots in the northern solar hemisphere that produce M-class flares. Low activity in the southern hemisphere, indicating a lack of synchronization of southern and northern magnetic field activity.
https://i.ibb.co/prGhRwW/SDO-HMIIF-1024.jpg
I am fairly sure that orbital differences over the year amount to more than the erratic solar wind changes from the solar cycle or sun spots.
If you can find an approx. 11 year solar cycle in the global T data, please show it.
In November, the temperature of the Peruvian Current will drop as cold water from melting sea ice in the Pacific arrives.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202204.gif
That may be true during La Nina but it obviously not true during El Nino.
La Nia has implications for slower melting of sea ice in the north.
https://i.ibb.co/0JcFGYw/r00-Northern-Hemisphere-ts-4km.png
La Nina MAY have..
Could this be cumulative? Could La Nina cause colder temps which cause a cooler Southern Ocean, which causes another and stronger La Nina?
Roy’s POV has mellowed considerably over the years. I recall articles he wrote in which he broke down the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and revealed how C13, used as proof of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, could actually a measure of natural emissions.
Here, for example….
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-much-of-atmospheric-co2-increase-is-natural/
“…we should at least consider the possibility that the long-term warming trend (whatever its cause) is contributing to the increase in atmospheric CO2”.
It makes far more sense that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is related to ocean intake and out-gassing related to the Little Ice Age. If glacier advanced and retreated immensely due to the LIA, why would colder oceans not scavenge CO2 from the atmosphere?
According to the IPCC, glaciers like the Mer de Glace in France were always at a certain extent and that only increasing CO2 has caused them to melt. There is reliable proof that the Mer de Glace expanded enormously during the LIA and is now shrinking due to re-warming.
A greenhouse effect theory.
A normal window pane blocks all IR light, but this not
the reason a greenhouse is warm and remains warmer at night.
What keeps greenhouse warm at night is lack convectional heat loss
and thermal mass of the greenhouse.
The larger the thermal mass of greenhouse the slower in heats up,
and the slower it cool down at night. Adding barrels of water to a greenhouse will slow the cooling of a greenhouse at night.
The Earth atmosphere is large and has 10 tons of air per square meter- and has a lot of thermal mass.
The Earth is 70% covered by ocean water, 2.5 meter depth ocean surface water has same thermal mass as the atmosphere.
A dry land surface is little thermal mass in terms it’s interaction with the atmosphere. And characteristic of land surface is they heat up quickly and can cool down quickly [if atmosphere is not warm].
For instance is sun is near zenith and clear skies a dry land surface can heat up to about 60 C and if air is quite warm, it heat up to 70 C. When you have warmer air, the land has less convection loss to atmosphere. But also wind increases convectional heat loss- ie, if air is about 20 C and one has wind, the land may not warm up to about 60 C. And sun is lower in the horizon it can’t the level ground surface to 60 C. But if ground is wet, it absorbs more energy and has powerful cooling effect of evaporation- unlikely when sun is zenith to heat damp ground to above 40 C.
Oceans are wet, and rarely warm as much as 35 C. And oceans are transparent and rather heat the surface, about 1/2 sunlight warms the top 1 meter of ocean water, and large portion of sunlight heats the top 2 1/2 meter of ocean water when sun is near zenith. When sun lower above horizon the low angle of sunlight warms shallower depth of the ocean surface.
Or Earth has greenhouse effect because a greenhouse at night stays warmer when it has higher thermal mass.
And in terms of global temperature it largely to with average temperature of the entire volume of the ocean, which currently has average temperature of 3.5 C.
And because Earth ocean have low average temperature of about 3.5 C, Earth is in a global climate, called an icehouse global climate.
Or we are in an Ice Age which is called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
willard…”Do you think we settle scientific questions with models?”
***
It can be done if the model can be validated. The problem we have currently in fields like climate science is the models cannot be validated. That does not stop the IPCC and alarmists from referencing inaccurate models as fact.
In electronics, I can design an electronic circuit using a modeling program like PSpice. If I then build a real circuit with real components and test it against the model, I can verify the model’s accuracy. Then, I can claim it is validated for a particular circuit with particular components. I cannot claim it is validated for other circuits unless I validate them independently.
Once a model has been validated, you can use it with a certain confidence that whatever you design will be in the ballpark for accuracy. No one can do that with climate models since none of them have been validated.
We just lost two years out of our lives with covid prediction being made by unvalidated models, which have proved egregiously wrong since the year 2000. Then the Canadian government claims, based on the bad data, that it represents ‘the science’ and everything else is misinformation.
Come on, Gordon.
Remember the saying – all models are wrong?
AGW does not rests on GCMs.
Think.
Come on, Willard.
Remember the saying – all models are wrong?
Think.
Richard,
You realize that this is a straw man made up by contrarians, right?
Whacky Willard,
You do realise you claimed all models are wrong, right?
Mike,
Indeed I did.
Tell me more about your insulation model.
Willard,
You babble again. What insulation model is that?
Furthermore, why should I tell you anything at all? You are obviously too retarded to understand reality.
You are so delusional you believe you have a Greenhouse Theory! Have you a rainbow coloured unicorn to go with it?
You are a nutter.
Not your insultation theory, Mike.
The theory of insulation.
“AGW does not rests on GCMs”
So why are GCMs always used to support AGW then?
Mike Flynn,
Do you recall the second part of that saying?
Ta.
Cmon Willard,
If there was a second part to the saying, you would have said it, surely.
Or are you just trying to weasel out of being hoist on your own petard?
What is the second part, and why wont you say it?
Mike, Mike,
Here it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
You’ll have to click to read it tho.
Must suck to be you.
Wily Wee Willy,
Oooooooh! Another link!
Nope. Cant be bothered. If you want to be mysterious and obscure, be my guest.
No wonder you have to play with yourself. Nobody else is interested in playing retard games.
“The first is that all models are wrong; some, though, are better than others and we can search for the better ones.”
But, in climate, we keep all the models, even those that have been shown to be incorrect, because…..
Where do you get that ‘factoid’?
IPCC.
Our Computer Science Master cannot distinguish a model from a model run, Nate.
Be kind to him.
If a model includes/allows model runs that are not representative of reality is that a ‘valid’ model? Most of other science would say not.
If Backgammon model runs do not represent the actual game state, we should ditch the AI that produces it.
Richard produces dumb arguments. We should ditch Richard.
If a Backgammon ‘model’ of a Backgammon game also includes Chess moves (which are not part of the reality of Backgammon) then people are entitled to conclude that it is simply wrong.
But Willard does not recognize reality so he thinks that is OK.
Getting hotter than it actually is not a move in a different state space, dummy.
It just means we rolled low compared to what it could have been.
If getting hotter would mean the planet exploded, you might have a point. But that is not the usual contrarian talking point.
“contain chess moves”
Just defamation.
In climate, we keep all the models even those with model runs that have been shown not to occur in reality, because..
> We keep all models
How low can Richard go:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.4608
In one year Richard will become has radicalized as Gordo.
So you do not consider that a faithful representation of what the IPCC has done. Quelle surprise.
With asshats such as you, dear Richard, my communication objectives are more modest.
This time I refuted your silly idea that modellers do not do model selection,
And next I can predict you will harp about how they suffer from selection bias.
It is impossible to win against contrarian asshats.
“I refuted your silly idea that modellers do not do model selection”
Show me where IPCC has removed models that do not conform to reality in their model runs.
You refuted nothing. As usual.
You and your silly challenges that only reveal you have no idea what you are talking about, Richard:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
That just says that some models have been added and some others also ‘improved’ by considering other factors, not that any have been removed because they and their runs were unrealistic.
W
I hear around the corridors that talent scouts from Columbia are searching for candidates to teach a seminar on median, mean and mode. After your exemplary instruction of same above, there might be inquiries about your availability Then again, it might have been about the efficacy of models.
Fernando,
You should stick to your Climateball name.
Willard,
You should stick to being a fat slimy grub.
Why would I want to become like you, Mike?
Willard,
I assume you really mean me, but correct me if you dont want me to reply. Anyway, to answer your question as to why would would want to be like me (or Mike Flynn, for that matter) –
because you look up to me, and admire my knowledge, wisdom, power and the respect I engender from my peers.
Not to mention my exceptional modesty and self-deprecating nature.
Alas, you cannot aspire to be as I am. You are too stupid, ignorant, delusional and retarded. Being a fat slimy grub also, doesnt help.
Maybe you could get a little self respect back by quoting Mike Flynn, again. You are one of the few people I know who appeals to the authority of people who point out exactly how stupid your fantasies are!
Carry on.
Thank you for more poetry, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
For those who surprisingly hope that the Globe is cooling, good news:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zduPq2XEOZgj6X3CLezp2OZvEPgVAhac/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vapu5ep4spJG6t-pRtlS6ZXtjOFpv0X9/view
Up to now, the 2022 edition of global sea ice extent still is ‘in best form’.
Thanks for the reliable information. The polar vortex in the south is strong. It will affect the faster ice growth.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_MEAN_ALL_SH_2022.png
Sorry ren
I was phishing a bit, and you were caught.
The 2022 sea ice extent in the North looks good, but in the South it is in fact desperately low, you just need to compare it with 2021 or with 2012.
As Flynnson would say: carry on!
You made me laugh a lot because the difference between March and April indicates rapid sea ice growth in the south.
https://i.ibb.co/w4jygB0/s-extn-hires.png
https://i.ibb.co/SrPbjrD/S-daily-extent-hires.png
Yes ren, as usual: you see only temperatures becoming lower and ice areas becoming greater, never the inverse.
You should compare 2022 with 2021, and start thinking:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
This graph tells the story of Antarctica since 1979. I don’t think it shows that much warming.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah-south-pole.jpeg
galaxie500…re reliability of desmog…
https://web.archive.org/web/20180202011735/http://leftexposed.org/2016/08/desmogblog/
This link may not show, I found Google redirecting it. Got to it via the Dogpile search engine…
https://redmaryland.com/2008/05/tom-pelton-cites-blog-funded-by-dirty-money/
Desmogblog is/was run by James Hoggan, who belonged to the David Suzuki organization, one of the Mothers of All Climate Alarmists.
The thing I could never stand about desmog blog was the way it went out of its way to track down legitimate climate scientists and tried to smear them via innuendo. They could find nothing legit to try disproving the skeptics, so they always went for the dirt.
Even realclimate, slimey as it could be, did not stoop to that level. Skepticalscience…yes…they are in the cesspool with desmog blog.
For defending them, that moves you into the cesspool.
GR you are wrong about pretty much everything all the time, a rare talent indeed.
Can Computer Models Predict Climate?
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2022/04/13/can-computer-models-predict-climate/
“It is well known that daytime winter temperatures on Earth can fall well below -4F (-20℃ ) in some places, even in mid-latitudes, despite warming worries. Sometimes the surface can even drop below -40F (-40℃ ), which is comparable to the surface of Mars. What is not so well known is that such cold winter days are colder than they would be with no atmosphere at all!
How can that be if the atmosphere is like a blanket, according to the standard greenhouse analogy? If the greenhouse analogy fails, what is climate?”
Just as our Black Knight reached a 52 weeks low, he cites Donna.
When will he behave like a true Hall Monitor?
Weary Wee Willard,
When will you start talking English?
Black Knight? Donna? Hall Monitor?
What is Mr Monitors part in this? Are you appealing to his authority this time?
Come on, Wee Willy – you can be a better troll than this.
Still playing dumb, Mike?
You know how to please me!
Do continue.
Wonky Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about now?
Still pretending you have a Greenhouse Theory that is so secret nobody is allowed to see it?
How well do you think your attempts at diversion are going? A pathetic fat slimy grub like yourself wont admit that you are looking more stupid and incompetent as time goes by, I know.
No matter, onlookers can decide for themselves whether your trolling efforts are up to scratch.
I believe not, and of course I would not presume to tell others how to think.
I leave that to morons like you. Good luck – youll need it, I suspect.
Who is Mike?
Come on, Gordo.
You cannot be that dumb.
If I respond to Mike by calling him Mike, who do you think Mike is?
Think.
If you could find the theory of how insulation works, that would be great.
Just because Willard runs out of argument and sense doesn’t mean he will give up.
He won’t admit that all statistical sources say that mean is not preferred over median for skewed, bimodal datasets. Even though it is true.
When Richard runs out of squirrels, he finds old ones.
For him they are new, in fairness.
Willard, however, never answers any question but only comes up with things he thinks are ‘funny’.
Richard rediscovers what climate modellers have been saying for decades, but since its a contrarian that says it, he likes it very much!
Contrarian, according to Willard, is someone who accepts what statisticians say.
A contrarian is someone who holds a contrary position, dummy.
And Christopher is no statistician. He is an applied mathematician.
You know what they say about economists? They are failed mathematicians. Applied mathematicians are just a bit better at FFT and eigenvectors. Which is a really good thing, for most problems can be solved with them. But Christopher is not even an applied mathematician in that sense.
Willard wont admit that all statistical sources say that mean is not preferred over median for skewed, bimodal datasets. Even though it is true.
Richard could have been our Hall Monitor.
He decided to become our Black Knight instead.
Willard could be sensible but instead he is an idiot.
Willard: Found anything yet on choosing mean over median on skewed data? Bimodal or not.
Guest post by Christopher Essex, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics and Physics, University of Western Ontario.
Everybody knows Christopher, dummy:
https://www.desmog.com/christopher-essex/
Is he also called Donna?
Who owns the blog you cited, dummy?
I was quoting the contributing author, not the host of the blog.
Only in French is quotation synonym to citation.
Read the work of Tim Palmer. You will find the same argument, minus the contrarian attitude.
Are you saying that the author was correct but you just didn’t like the place that he used?
No, dummy.
I’m saying that citation and quotation are two different things.
Well I was only interested in the content, i.e. the quote, and not where it was posted, i.e. the cite.
You still stumbled on that content because you consume contrarian crap.
And you still a using he authority of a contrarian to promote a trivial point, recognized since Lorenz:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1906691116
Reading more what modellers do instead of silly contrarians would make blunder less, Richard.
God I hate tablet autocorrect.
Willard is wrong as usual, it was a google search using climate and models 2022 found it for me.
So Richard is oblivious about how search engines work too!
What a wonderful Black Knight we have.
So Willard is just an idiot, who gets things wrong constantly.
According to Willard a web search for climate and models 2022 just gets me contrarian articles. (And, yes, I do read past the top page also)
No, dummy, that means if you consume contrarian crap teh goggle will give feed you with more contrarian crap.
Actually I get about an even bias in my feed. Just because all you get is Warmista crap in yours, don’t judge others by your situation.
Look what I got, Richard:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf
Funny you don’t have that result.
I have AR6 in all its versions. Why are you saying that I don’t?
Strange how AR6 claims things are getting worse and worse but, although CO2 has risen for the last 7 years, global temperatures have fallen during the same time. Yet all the bad effects have continued to rise, almost as though global T is not causing them.
> CO2 has risen for the last 7 years, global temperatures have fallen during the same time.
Cherry-picking negative trends since the last major el Nino is a trick which dates back to at least 1999, Richard. Fortunately there are a handful of other sources of natural internal and external variability which neatly explain other contrarian conundrums all the way back to the 19th century.
(I can’t seem to post the links the images which illustrate this.)
Try this:
GISTEMP: https://i.imgur.com/jqR6wDm.png
And this one:
KxjpRnQ.png
Brandon: Care to run a 15 year filter, S-G, Gaussian, LOWESS, over that ‘non-CO2’ ‘residual’?
[THE BLACK KNIGHT] Chicken!!! Chicken!!!!!!!
Willard: Idiot.
> Care to run a 15 year filter, S-G, Gaussian, LOWESS, over that non-CO2 residual?
Firstly, it’s a calculated value, not a residual, Richard.
Secondly, ur not srsly suggesting I apply even moar statistical rigor than you have with your silly appeal to 7 years out of 140, are you? No, of course you aren’t.
I am, however, willing to give you my data with the regression coefficients so that you can make your own sammich:
https://tinyurl.com/mrd58jbf
This time the plot shows the residual along with the calculated non-CO2 value for easy eyeballing.
The natural variability components of the non-CO2 series are total solar radiation (TSI), El Nino 3.4, Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO), length of day anomaly (LOD), and aerosol optical depth (AOD, mainly linked to major volcanic eruptions).
Have fun.
“Firstly, its a calculated value, not a residual”
That is what a residual is. One series minus the other.
Thanks for the data. It looks like the non-CO2 column/plot is a series with a strong 60-65 year cycle in it. I’ll get back to you on that.
First pass (using a 180 month running mean which is the first step towards a gaussian 15 year low pass filter) confirms my first impression. A strong 60-65 year cycle.
> That is what a residual is. One series minus the other.
Ok fine. The main point I wanted to be clear on is that the non-CO2 curve isn’t observations less CO2, it’s the model output less CO2.
> Thanks for the data. It looks like the non-CO2 column/plot is a series with a strong 60-65 year cycle in it.
You’re welcome. The 60-65 year cycle is not coincidental; a main motivation of this model is to explain that very thing and I specifically included two factors to do so: AMO and LOD. In fact you’ll notice that AMO and LOD correlate very well. It has been supposed in literature that LOD at least in part drives AMO with a 7-year lag giving the best fit. The mechanism is as yet unknown though there are a number of ideas. In any case it does such a good job explaining weird things like the very steep warming trend from 1910-1945 that it’s hard to ignore.
> Ill get back to you on that.
I look forward to it.
“The 60-65 year cycle is not coincidental”
You are saying that a 60-65 year cycle is to be expected in climate! That is the first time anyone has admitted that.
I need to export the data and then put it through a S-G low pass filter set at 15 years nd that will have to wait for me to get to my full computer.
> You are saying that a 60-65 year cycle is to be expected in climate!
Not exactly. I’m saying that a 60-65 cycle is evident in the instrumental record, and that wants an explanation. Whether it’s truly periodic and manifests prior to thermometers, I don’t know. I believe it’s been looked for in paleo data and not found, but you could try the 1,200-year AMO reconstruction by Wang et al 2017:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/reconstructions/wang2017/wang2017amv-amo.txt
I am further interested in your observations about LOD and AMO.
https://geoenergymath.com/2019/02/13/length-of-day/
seems to suggest that 18.6 years is the main period for that. I was unaware to any 60-65 year cycle.
The AMO has been considered co-incidence by some being just an artifact of volcanoes, etc. It is interesting to see you consider it to be a cycle. Was that the de-trended or original that you used and with what multiplication factor?
I would be interested in all your model factors are for your not-CO2 curve as well for that matter.
Paleo data I have found so far has to been able to agree one with another over any period AFAIK.
Thank you for the WNG paleo data which appears to extend the AMO back to 800. I will have to examine that further also.
WNG = Wang
Paleo data I have found so far has {not} been able…
Richard,
The blog is being fussy about comments so I’ll break my response into parts.
> It is interesting to see you consider it to be a cycle.
Cyclical-looking. Quasi-cyclical. With no clear evidence of what’s its driver. It may not hold up in the future, and past reconstructions are inconclusive so far as I know. Maybe you’ll find something.
> Was that the de-trended or original that you used and with what multiplication factor?
I use the index computed with HadSST 4.0.1.0, which *is* detrended SSTs right out of the box. The only two additional things I did to it was linear interpolation for missing values between 1860-1875, and set a baseline to the 1811-1910 average (which I do for for all the other data series as well).
> I would be interested in all your model factors are for your not-CO2 curve as well for that matter.
They’re all in the spreadsheet. The original values are shown (baselined as described above) and the regression coefficients are given, which tell you how much of each contributes to model outputs.
You’re welcome for the Wang AMO data, I just found it today myself. And I agree that paleo recons don’t agree with each other as much as I’d like but that’s just the nature of that game and we have no choice but to live with it.
“I agree that paleo recons dont agree with each other”
So if you add together things that don’t agree with one another what is the result?
“Cyclical-looking. Quasi-cyclical. With no clear evidence of whats its driver”
Natural variations is what I claim. I use low pass filters as you know which use a sigmoid function to separate things into low and high bands which means they are not biased towards any particular frequency. That is the problem, with pure DSP, Wavelets, etc. which are based on sine/cosine which assume, quite wrongly, that nature is like a tuned instrument. It is not.
So a low pass at 15 years is what I see as the best choice for things that are >30 or >60 or >120 years as the gaussian sigmoid is well separated from them so reproduces them and their mixtures quite well.
You could argue for another low pass at 45 years but finding high quality data that old is tricky at best.
> So if you add together things that dont agree with one another what is the result?
Better to answer your own rhetorical questions, Richard.
> Natural variations is what I claim.
With all the shade you cast on both proxy and instrumental data it’s difficult to see how you can have any confidence in that conclusion …
> You could argue for another low pass at 45 years but finding high quality data that old is tricky at best.
Given your above stated concerns, how does one go about determining low from high quality?
***
I’m still interested in your frequency analysis of the Wang dataset. While I’m waiting for that I’m going to plug it into my regression model and see what it does against various millennial-scale temperature recons. Until anon.
Richard,
As promised here are three northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions compared to selected climate forcings: CO2, TSI, ENSO, AMO, AOD and June insolation at 60N (orbital forcing) lagged 3,000 years.
These are not “true” multiple regressions. Instead I regressed all time series except CO2 and TSI against Mann 2009 over an interval each were individually in good agreement with the temperature curve, and then used those coefficients for each temperature reconstruction.
The CO2 curve is ln(CO2) * 4.3281, which implies a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees per doubling. The TSI coefficient is 0.2, which again implies a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees per doubling of CO2.
Finally, the magenta “prediction” is simply the sum of all the individually regressed forcings *which is not realistic*, but does give hints as to what might have caused some of those wiggles.
You’ll notice that Mann 2009 is in best agreement with orbital forcing prior to 1000 CE, and quite good agreement with the other forcings after that year. Rightly or wrongly, I am disposed to believe it is the best recon of the three. YMMV.
https://imgur.com/gallery/tpf6NRB
Willard: Found anything yet on choosing mean over median on skewed data? Bimodal or not.
The Black Knight ALWAYS TRIUMPHS! Have at you!!
Willard being an idiot as usual and not answering any valid question.
Soon skeptics will be able to use twitter again.
Meanwhile watch the twit-twats having a complete melt down.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/meltdown-glorious-democrats-thugs-fascists-react-elon-musk-purchase-twitter-predictable-fury/
Another crazy climate warrior suicided by cooking himself alive
https://realclimatescience.com/2022/04/boulder-resident-sets-himself-on-fire-after-taking-michael-mann-climate-course/
gbaikie…”Solar wind
speed: 420.6 km/sec
density: 1.13 protons/cm3″
***
Just as many electrons as protons, not to mention alpha particles. It’s not a friendly wind either, were it not for the Earth’s magnetosphere it would likely broil us here on Earth.
Syun Akasofu, a pioneer in solar wind studies revealed that the interaction of the electrical particles in the solar wind produces huge voltages when interacting with the magnetosphere. These voltages induce electrical currents in the atmosphere, the surface, and the oceans.
How about that as a source of weather fluctuations?
We seem to be the only planet in the vicinity with life, and atmosphere, oceans and a magnetosphere. Coincidence???
Intelligent design anyone???
other solar flare and GCR [and high velocity dust particles or bigger hitting the Moon] the Moon is fine.
Other than low gravity and lack of much water, moon could nice place to live. But humans require a lot of water, India uses about 1 trillion tonnes per year {and has been before it become less poor].
Don’t know if Earth needs a magnetosphere, our magnetosphere limits our use of LEO. Or Venus and Mars lacks it, and their LEO can be used fully. With high amount raditation shielding, say have brick houses the above 500 km of Earth’s low orbit can be used.
But the magnetosphere of Jupiter is a pretty big problem, in terms exploring Jupiter’s moons.
In short term, Moon and Mars should have enough water for small human population, but it seem to have billions [or trillions] of people in space we need a lot of water. Europa has a lot, but got deal with the very high and very lethal radiation from Jupiter magnetosphere.
But water is good shielding for this radiation. Or under 10 meter of the surface ice of Europa, the radiation might be low enough.
But I would say we sort of stuck with having our magnetosphere, and seems me in equatorial orbit we go bit higher in orbit. But we don’t know much about that- probably +100 km higher, might be +300 km higher.
But if we didn’t have magnetosphere, we would have compass, and might not have even learned about how to make electricity.
Magnet force was- and still is, a bit of mystery. As is gravity.
gbaikie…”Dont know if Earth needs a magnetosphere…”
***
It diverts the solar wind/plasma around the Earth. Otherwise we’d be bombarded with electrons and protons.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/230756/when-solar-wind-hits-earths-magnetosphere/
section 3.6.3 discusses possible effects on climate of solar wind….
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/geosciences/geosciences-11-00286/article_deploy/geosciences-11-00286-v2.pdf?version=1626055493
I don’t think much difference being in 1 atm pressure on Venus and at 1 atm of pressure on Earth.
Solar flares are problem in space environment a severe flare can kill an shielded person. There could difference between effect of solar flare Venus vs Earth at 1 atm. But solar wind isn’t a problem even with very little sheilding.
But 10 tons per square meter of anything including mostly CO2 gas, would provide a lot shielding against a solar flare.
Now Earth magnetosphere does block GCR, but main thing is GCR come from all directions, so mass of Earth blocks most of it. And at Venus, being closer to Sun should block some GCR. Which is more Earth’s magnetosphere or Venus closer to Sun- not sure. But 10 tons of atmosphere blocks a lot of GCR. If at high elevation like Denver you get bit effect from GCR as compare to sea level. And with airplanes get significantly more.
hmm, tried get specific information- and didn’t find anything particularly useful. So as I dimly recall, GRC are mostly fast protons [near speed of light] and our Sun can also produce “medium speed protons” though some said Sun can do near speed of light- but I don’t think it’s common or very near. Solar wind is generally around 500 km/sec [no where near speed of light]. So wild guess with our sun’s solar storm one get say 5000 to 10,000 km/sec. I guess there more of them or “pack of them” vs say, one GRC proton at a time [though quite rare, GRC could be atom of say, iron going very close to speed of light].
How close:
“The Oh-My-God particle was an ultra-high-energy cosmic ray detected on 15 October 1991 by the Fly’s Eye camera in Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, U.S. It is the highest-energy cosmic ray ever observed.This particle’s energy was unexpected and called into question theories of that era about the origin and propagation of cosmic rays.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle
So, not that fast.
Or Oh-My-God was freak- or some question it.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/OhMyGodParticle/
“equivalent, in the words of Utah physicist Pierre Sokolsky, to a brick falling on your toe. The particle’s energy is equivalent to an American baseball travelling fifty-five miles an hour.”
Anyhow, I will note one has been make sick or died from such any space radiation.
Whereas it is common for crew get sick from microgravity or some kind of infection, getting bone loss, and etc. But it’s seems there is a certainly [or repeated often] that one could possibly be killed in short time period from lethal dose from a big enough solar storm event.
And GCR radiation is generally about long term risk of cancer. Though not sure there proof/evident that space travel has ever caused cancer.
Stop the press, here is something:
“Now, most cosmic ray particles are low energy, up to 10^10 eV and arise locally from solar flares. Another more energetic class, up to 10^15 eV, are thought originate from elsewhere in the galaxy. Its difficult to determine their exact source as the magnetic fields of the galaxy and the solar system alter their trajectories so that they end up having a uniform distribution in the sky as though they come from everywhere.
But in reality, these galactic cosmic rays probably come from supernovae quite possibly in a delayed release process as particles bounce back and forth in the persisting magnetic field of a supernova remnant, before being catapulted out into the wider galaxy.
And then there are extragalactic cosmic rays, which are of the Oh-My-God variety, with energy levels exceeding 10^15 eV, even rarely exceeding 10^20 eV which are more formally titled ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. These particles travel very close to the speed of light and must have had a heck of kick to attain such speeds.”
https://phys.org/news/2011-06-oh-my-god-particles.html
Neither the Electric Universe not Intelligent design are real you know.
So, no simulation or gods. Or space alien involvement.
Is any life in the universe other than on planet Earth?
Got a number of billions of planets relatively near us?
I don’t know where our Sol system began to form.
I think or imagine we came from closer to galactic hub,
is this possible or likely?
We have not finished determining how many solar systems came within
1 lightyear distance of Sol in last 3 billion years.
Can’t say we really started this, yet and James Webb telescope might useful in this regard.
Humans have a great desire to be the center of everything and make ‘God’ in their own image, or so it seems.
But, scientifically, we are at the center of universe.
Right?
Though also, every and any creature in this would probably appear to to be at the center of the Universe.
Or until such time as we/they observe something different.
Then we will have a right and left side to the universe.
Which should the beginning of fun.
[according to my calculations- and I just started sooner.}
If you had said observationally rather than scientifically you would be correct.
Other than observational, what is science?
Verification. Otherwise anything is possibly correct.
Well, we seems to be getting a James Webb telescope which could work, at verification.
I tend to think telescope could more important work, but we will wait few months, I have already waited for about a decade.
Entropic man,
Above you wrote, “I suspect there is a flaw in your model. You keep talking about natural emissions to the atmosphere, but you haven’t mentioned natural absor*nation once.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1258968”
Now I see you have a fourth problem. I’ll try and dumb it down even farther.
Back before your ancestors burned coal to keep warm, the natural flux ebb and flow maintained an allegedly more or less constant CO2 concentration in the air. How the amounts were determined at that time is not clear, but IPCC AR6 reported them 10 to 20% less than now. So if you had a way of keeping an inventory, you would want to allow for some increase in the natural emissions since those preindustrial numbers. You can’t just cancel them to get them “off the books” so to speak.
During a given time period, we usually use at least one year to account for seasonal changes, the natural emissions enter the atmosphere along with the FF emissions and they get all mixed up. At the same time, possibly on opposing sides of the planet, those CO2 molecules are absorbed into the sinks. The sinks don’t know if the CO2 molecules came from fossil fuels or something else and they don’t make the FF emissions wait in line.
Now the tricky part is how to account for how much of the FF emissions get removed and how much remains. The first rule is to make sure that the amount absorbed is proportional to the total amount of CO2 in the air. That’s the first-order principle and it explains why you can’t just make up some arbitrary amount that you want to withdraw. Nature obeys physical laws like gravity and stuff. If you had a computer program or a spreadsheet, these next steps would be much easier.
Take out a ledger and designate columns for year, FF input, natural input, amount removed this year, and the new net. Use a starting CO2 of 367 ppm in 1998 and a sink rate constant of 0.273. The natural input can be somewhat arbitrary, but I recommend starting with your AR3 figures multiplied by 0.493 to convert to ppm and 3 ppm for the FF input at that time. Enter into the appropriate columns on line 1. Multiply the starting CO2 ppm amount (previous year amount on subsequent lines) by 0.273 and enter in the amount removed column on line 1. To get the new net, add FF + natural – amount removed + starting CO2 value (previous year value on subsequent lines). Do this for 20 years to get to 2018.
Try to match your new net column with the actual Mauna Loa data. Use pencil and plenty of erasers. Have fun!
“The first rule is to make sure that the amount absorbed is proportional to the total amount of CO2 in the air.”
Are you sure bout dat?
The amount absorbed is dependent on at least two things, so no, it’s not first order.
What two things?
Thank you, this is fun.I’ll ignore the spread sheet and do this algeraically.
I’ll use AR3 as you are so we can compare results.Since emissions have about doubled since 1998 my result will automatically be an underestimate. When I get home this evening I’ll try it with the AR6 figures.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/wg1/the-carbon-cycle-and atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
Emissions to atmosphere:-
Autotroph respiration 60
Heterotroph respiration 55
Combustion 4
Ocean 88
Fossil fuels and cement 5.4
Land use 1.7
Total emissions 214.1Gt
Absor*bed from atmosphere:-
Photosynthesis 120
Ocean 90
Land use 1.7
Total absor*bed 211.9
Net increase in atmospheric carbon
214.1-211.7 = 2.4Gt/year.
That is an increase of 1.2ppm/year.
Over the 24 years since 1998 that would be 28.8ppm to give a current value of 367+28.8 = 395.8ppm.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Simplified-diagram-of-the-global-carbon-cycle-Numbers-denote-reservoir-mass-also_fig1_311760100
Using recent figures total emissions are 207.1 and absor*btion 203.3 giving a net gain of 3.8Gt/year or 1.9ppm.
At 1.9ppm/year that would be 45.6 ppm over 24 years and the present concentration would be 413ppm.
Since the observed rate of increase is 2.16ppm/year at present there is 0.26ppm or 0.52gt/year unaccounted for.
That is 6.6% of fossil fuel emissions, a bit under half of Roy’s calculated figure.
The 7.8 fossil fuel emissions have an uncertainty of +/- 0.6 which would cover it. My own guess is that we’re not fully accounting for permafrost decay.
Berry showed you that Carbon Cycle Model is incorrect.
Ed does not model the problem very clearly.
There is no need to tag every molecule to know that what comes in excess of the natural carbon cycle is human-made.
Sillier still is the fact that natural forcings are negative these days, which means you will get more unicorns to posit if you crank that argument.
It is as if contrarians spent their days typing without thinking things through.
He simplified the model. Remember what Einstein said about explaining to a six-year-old. Ed’s model is precisely correct. It’s essentially the same model that Chic and anyone else who understands carbon flow uses.
Both versions suffer from the same argument problem, Troglodyte.
There is no need to tag all the money to know when you made profit.
As far as simplifications are concerned, my vote would go to Chic spreadsheet.
“…natural forcings are negative these days.”
Did you mean CO2 fluxes? If so, I would appreciate a reference for that. I noticed that AR6 estimates are slightly down from AR3, but I certainly don’t want to be caught not thinking things through.
I thought you checked all this, Chic.
Where have you looked?
EM, you are in over your head. Have you even looked at papers written on this subject?
When you take one year, for example estimates for AR3 or AR5, there will be error associated with your average CO2/year rise. Likewise, error is associated with the observed rate of increase. How many years did you include in that average?
The amounts you claim that are unaccounted for are within the uncertainty range of zero. What do you think you have accounted for? Certainly not a possible year to year accumulation of non-fossil fuel emissions that Dr. Spencer has exposed in his regression model.
Your algebra model is worse than a regression model for divining other sources of natural emissions. I suggest abandoning guess models and start learning the applicable physical science.
Dikran says hi, Chic:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/04/20/the-greenhouse-effect-2/#comment-206628
Annual and averaged atmospheric CO2 growth rates:
Mauna Loa Growth Rate
Now match that with
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah_lt.jpg
i.e. CO2 concentrations in Hawaii with global temperature.
or if you prefer just the Tropics.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah-tropics.jpeg
Stephen
We’ve been over this. Barry’s model is poor physical chemistry and even poorer thermodynamics.
That is a flat out lie. Entropic man has zero knowledge of P Chem and claims he is only here to have fun.
The joke is him.
Chic has a spreadsheet model with one addition and one subtraction, so he’s Very Big on chemistry.
And Willard is only here to obfuscate and troll.
Have you looked into the spreadsheet, Bill?
From everybody’s experience in this forum; the only thing that one can be ascertained of is you haven’t.
Wanna bet, Bill?
Berry’s pumps CO2 from the deep ocean to the atmosphere against the partial pressure gradient.
As a physical chemist perhaps you can explain the mechanism.
What are you gibbering about? Berry used IPCC’s own data. How many times must a lie be repeated before it is true?
Is that your explanation of the absence of human carbon in surface ocean? You are a dimwit.
“only here to have fun. ”
Debating science is fun.
The only thing better than sitting in a seminar room watching two scientists going at each other is being one of them.
Ent, before you start imagining you are anywhere near a scientist, you need to go back an correct your history here.
Passenger jets don’t fly backwards.
News to you, but “science” is based on “reality”, not making stuff up.
Our flux fabulator is returning to his stand up routine.
Yes worthless Willard, you return to your nonsense.
But your funniest comments are when you attempt science. Like when you confused radiative flux with an elective field.
THAT was funny.
The confusion was all yours, Pup.
You said fluxes don’t add. I showed you fluxes that did. That should be the end of the story, at least for those who know how quantifiers work.
So much fun!
Responding within 4 minutes is great for a stalker, Willard.
And having no clue about science is typical for a braindead cult idiot.
I guess that makes you a braindead cult idiot great at stalking.
Very similar to the other keyboard kiddies, huh?
Pup,
Let me simplify my refutation just for you:
[P] Mammals don’t fly.
[W] Bats fly.
Is it simpler now?
Correct, worthless Willard. You know NOTHING about science. And, you can’t learn.
The point was about LOGIC, Pup.
That bats can fly is a FACT.
That bats are mammals is another (kind of) FACT.
No wonder you can’t fulfill your promises!
No worthless Willard, the point was that you have no grasp of science. As I stated: But your funniest comments are when you attempt science. Like when you confused radiative flux with an elective field.
Keep doubling down on your trolling, silly sock puppet.
We both know you have no definition of non-additive flux to offer.
Willard, please stop trolling.
>Weve been over this. Barrys model is poor physical chemistry and even poorer thermodynamics.
Berry of Caltech, Dartmouth, University of Nevada, Ph.D. in Atmospheric Physics, writer of over 100 papers on Atmospheric Physics? It would be impossible for him to produce poor physical chemistry and thermodynamics model.
Ed’s thesis was on numerical models of rain formation, Troglodyte.
Yet he did.
Willard, Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
When there is a La Nia, warmer water from the western equatorial Pacific is transported to the South Pacific, which is clearly evident in the March ice fall.
In April, a stratospheric polar vortex takes over the Southern Ocean, which is now strong and influencing the rapid growth of ice around Antarctica.
https://i.ibb.co/w4jygB0/s-extn-hires.png
https://i.ibb.co/SrPbjrD/S-daily-extent-hires.png
And… where are the two graphs for all previous years since 2012?
When will you stop manipulating your readers by showing only the very recent data?
–Every day you read how the climate crisis is real, and rapidly getting worse. Humans burning fossil fuels to support out-of-control consumerism have brought the earth to the brink of disaster. Droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, and plagues of every sort are proliferating. Of course, you are feeling all the natural human reactions: fear, dread, not to mention overwhelming guilt at your own role in causing the crisis through the grave sin of enjoying your life. In short, you have entered the state known to the experts as climate anxiety.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/26/comedy-gold-how-to-cope-with-your-climate-anxiety/
Do you or do have friends/family members have climate anxiety?
I have cousin which seem a bit concerned. And probably lots brain washed kids could quite worried.
As said I am slightly uneased about WWIII though more concerned about even worse inflation, then we are having, which is Jimmy Carter levels, and Jimmy Carter was… saner… then the gang we got.
As general thing wasn’t too worried about global nuclear war, but a little bit more, lately. But I was never worried over population, or losing the Ozone, a host of other make up fears.Though when about five, I remember dreaming about nuclear war, and woke up I still dreaming, but it childish, “the radiation” is hunting me and see it in imagination [but I know it delusion, but it like watching scary movie. It got into head from silly trashy B movie TV show. My delusion was more cartoonist than the the TV show. But I think I more worried about my sanity then anything else.
And woke next day, woke up and not a problem- other not forgetting it. Though a bit worried I might have some dream which continue after waking up. Never happenned. But was more worried at the time that would get more something like this happenning, again.
But it essentially was something all people were scaried about and I knew nothing about it. So, it seems I can understand what some children might going thru. And I guess I tended to avoid watching B movies as general practice.
And it seems we got a lot B movies pretending to be reality going on. And it seems to me, the russians probably have it worse, than western world has it- which is concern in regards to WWIII.
The Russians have always had it, bad.
I have wondered how long it would take for Russians to recover, and seems our craziness, may making it worse for the Russians. So, a revision is it will take longer, and maybe they never will.
Of course all people at all times have been bat shit crazy with brief periods of seemingly worse crazy. But it seems Russian were badly damaged and over centuries also more crazy than normal- I think it’s mostly due to the cold.
If Russian still owned Alaska, Russia would have a higher average temperature. It would have warm ports.
What Russia has wanted for centuries.
Buying Alaska, was called “Seward’s Folly:
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/sewards-folly
Or US press called it that. And it was smarter press back then, or not quite as much a news which is only from the insane asylum.
If if bleeds it leads, was not accepted as much, back then.
And U.S. Secretary of States sometimes did the right thing.
And were educated.
The crazy Brits have been chasing spice, and they don’t use spice.
They would have been wise, if they chased ice.
What would world look like if UK owned Iceland and Greenland?
And they united with all of America. The Brits could specialized in dealing with crazy European. The US has generally tried to Brits “help out” with european problem {which has always included Russia}.
Brit have a similar crazy as all Europeans- or they good at it.
Instead the Brits got on wrong side of the American civil war.
Starting tomorrow, Putin closes the tap on the Yamal gas pipeline in Poland.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Yamal-europe.png/800px-Yamal-europe.png
The contract was only supposed to run until Dec anyway.
ren…sorry to hear that.
Osman et al. 2021: a flawed Nature paleoclimate paper?
By Nic Lewis
https://judithcurry.com/2022/04/25/osman-et-al-2021-a-flawed-nature-paleoclimate-paper/
willard…”Climate science is settled in the sense that the basic ideas are understood well enough not to doubt them:”
***
Absolute rubbish. John Christy of UAH has a degree in climate science and he does not think the science is settled. He thinks the atmosphere is far too complex to nail it down with theories. Roy Spencer, with a degree in meteorology does not think the science is settled. Although he thinks CO2 plays a part he does not think the effect will be catastrophic.
Only climate alarmists preach the mantra that the science is settled. Another mantra is that 95% of scientists agree that humans are causing the atmosphere to warm.
There is not one scientist who can effectively explain a causal relationship between CO2 and global warming.
“There is not one scientist who can effectively explain a causal relationship between CO2 and global warming. ”
And not one sceptic who can show a viable alternative.
I already have…rewarming from the Little Ice Age and natural variability. We simply have not been around long enough to witness the latter.
Those are opinions, not science.
Where is the evidence? What are the mechanisms? Where are your calculations? What testable predictions does your hypothesis make?
ent…you’re being obtuse. You are in denial about the Little Ice Age which has been corroborated globally using proxy studies and written evidence.
There is also recorded evidence of the Mer de Glace glacier in France expanding down a valley and wiping out villages and farms, all during the LIA. Was that coincidental?
Glaciers don’t expand like that from natural variability. There were famines in the Scottish Highlands and what is now the southern United States due to inordinate cold weather during the LIA. The Arctic Ocean was blocked with ice even during summer. Ships trying to sail through there in summer between 1600 and 1850 could not get through.
Ice skating was invented in the Netherlands during the LIA and the Thames River froze over near London.
There is similar evidence in South America, New Zealand, and China.
Come on, Gordo.
Not coincidental.
Local.
Fixed that one for you.
Gordo,
Isn’t it rich that Eman is chastising you for your opinions? He has no clue what the difference is.
stephen…I just ignore eman, he’s Irish and full of blarney. His ancestors began polluting the atmosphere centuries ago by burning peat, and you know how combustible peat can be. Holy smoke, Batman.
Ent is just another anonymous troll willing to pervert reality and science to foster his cult beliefs.
Come on, Gordo.
For all his demerit, John believes in AGW.
You, OTOH, are a repetitive Dragon Crank.
Come on, Wee Willy,
You just make up nonsense like Dragon Crank, hoping people will think you are not just a slimy fat grub of the trolling variety.
Fat chance. Your innate stupidity and ignorance shines brightly through – no bushel to hide your light under, is there?
Capitalising your nonsense wont make it any more acceptable to rational people.
Do You Understand This?
[derisive snorts]
Which part of “For all his demerit, John believes in AGW” you do not get, Mike?
Willard,
What part of For all his demerit, John believes in AGW do you believe is comprehensible?
Who is John? What is all his demerit? What is AGW, and why is it a belief rather than a fact? Who is Mike?
Are you a retarded dimwit trying to appear clever, or are you just delusional?
Questions, questions.
Mike,
John is the guy Gordo mentioned in his comment.
So that means you forgot to read the exchange in which you butt once again.
You are welcome,
Willard, please stop trolling.
Currently reading a book about an elderly woman who road a horse from Minot, Maine to California circa 1954 (Ride of Her Life – Letts). Her route took her south and west to Kentucky and I was surprised to read how cold it was that far south in winter. She encountered snow and sub-zero temperatures in January.
Looked it up and sure enough, Kentucky gets cold in winter. I had thought, maybe it was hot down there in the 1930s, cooled off in the 1950s, and got hot again recently. So much for theory. Then I focused on the heat waves of the 1930s versus heat waves in recent times.
Came across an interesting historical temperature guide for Kentucky and it reveals something of interest for record temperatures in July. It appears many records were set in 2012, which was not a particularly hot year compared to 1998 and 2016. Many other records occurred in the 1930s.
I get the feeling that most claims of current record temperatures are more propaganda than anything. I realize temperatures vary wildly by location but it seems many records get set during heat waves, when a dome of hot air gets parked over an area. That seems more related to global weather conditions than local climate change.
https://www.plantmaps.com/en/us/climate/extremes/f/kentucky-record-high-low-temperatures
I got to comparing temperatures between Louisville, Kentucky and Huntsville, Alabama, where UAH is located. Then I added San Francisco, which is close to the same latitude as Louisville, with Huntsville being close to 300 miles south of Louisville.
Huntsville is a lot warmer than both in summer. That could be explained by Huntsville being closer to the Gulf of Mexico and Frisco being on the Pacific Ocean. In winter, Frisco sits between Huntsville, which is a bit warmer and Louisville which is a bit cooler and suffers sub-zero temperatures in winter.
There is a marked variation in climates between these three cities on the same continent yet we are focused on climates changing due to a trace gas in the atmosphere.
Makes no sense when natural variability explains it well enough.
You can compare temperatures using a box on this page.
https://weatherspark.com/compare/y/14628~557~15227/Comparison-of-the-Average-Weather-in-Huntsville-San-Francisco-and-Louisville
Misread the graph, Huntsville and Louisville are about the same in summer.
[As was mentioning above]
Life on Earth started about 3.8 billion years ago.
And people argue,.. but:
Where was Earth 3.8 billion years ago?
Or where was the sun 3.8 billion years ago.
{and Venus and Mars [which might of had life billions
of years ago].}
Of course we might have been around the same region [or same galactic orbit] of our galaxy billions of years ago. But there also another question related to where, was there other solar systems near our Sol
system 3.8 billion of years ago?
Related to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs#Distant_future_and_past_encounters
entropic…”Ill use AR3….”
***
I think it was AR3 (TAR) in which the IPCC stated…’future climate states cannot be predicted’.
Gordon,
Do you or any of the social rejects on this thread know what a climate state is and why it can not be predicted.
It doesn’t mean that the prediction that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will result in an increase in global average temperature can’t be made.
Hint: those words don’t mean what you think they mean.
It DOES mean that the prediction that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will NOT result in an increase in global average temperature can be made.
For someone to believe CO2 can warm Earth, they must ALSO believe that ice cubes can boil water. The two false beliefs are tied together.
No they are not, you are perverting science.
Possibly due to a lack of understanding how radiation interacts with matter.
CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and the temperature at the surface of the Earth is increasing, confirming the prediction.
And by the way, do you know what a climate state is?
Just asking for a friend.
He has 47 quatloos on no!
I am taking the under.
Where is your evidence that an increase in CO2 will raise the average global temperature?
The Keeling curve and the monthly graph posted on this website.
Our present climate state is icehouse climate or another term for it is Ice Age, as we are in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
The term icehouse global climate {state} is defined in way to explain why Earth is in an Ice Age.
It says, Earth has cold ocean and it has an ice sheet at one or both polar regions.
Another state of Earth is called a greenhouse global climate. It has
a much warmer ocean. And may or may not ice sheets and glaciers.
Earth could be between these two state. Or Earth could not be in an ice house or a greenhouse global climate state. And it’s claimed there could be snowball global climate state [which colder than a ice house global climate, it’s about global ocean sea ice, or Slushball which has the tropical ocean with open ice free waters.
Anyways, if the ocean warms, the Ocean will release more CO2- or ocean is vast reservoir of CO2. Or greenhouse global climate has higher ocean temperature and tend to have fairly high CO2 levels. Though there are other CO2 sinks other our cold ocean.
Or our global ocean average surface temperature is about 17 C and the tropical ocean average surface temperature is about 26 C.
In proposed snowball/slushball global climate {state], a slushball could have tropical ocean surface temperature of about 10 C. Or 16 C colder than present]. But you question of whether count ocean as liquid or do count the sea ice as “ocean”. The sea ice cover ocean would have very cold average temperature. But where to measure it, under the ice or air temperature 5 feet high in white box on top of sea ice. I seems it pick water temperature under ice, it will have higher average temperature.
The white box measurement could be far colder average of -18 C.
Also I think snow has warming effect, so depending how measure it could be just below 0 C.
But I don’t think slushball global climate is something Earth has ever had as global climate state.
Braindead bob can NOT understand the difference between “correlation” and “causation”.
If he burned his hand on a hot burner, he might believe his burn caused the burner to get hot!
Clint R doesn’t fail to disappoint.
“Braindead bob can NOT understand the difference between correlation and causation.”
I could go into the causation part, but you don’t understand physics, and I have already been there done that and I don’t chew my cabbage twice.
Correct bob, you don’t understand physics and you reject reality.
Right Clint R,
And you think all the CO2 in the atmosphere is at the same temperature, hence the heat something with ice statements.
At least my heart isn’t beating my brains out like yours.
And it’s because you don’t understand the physics that you have to resort to false accusations.
You’re boringly predictable, bob.
Clint R,
Nope, it’s a response to your boring, ever repetitive accusation that we think that ice can heat something warmer than the ice.
It’s your misguided efforts to assert that there is no greenhouse effect.
Which just goes to show that you are the one who doesn’t understand the science.
Boring and predictable makes good science, not the frauds you try to perpetrate.
Braindead bob, this is why we know you’re braindead. You don’t even know your own cult’s nonsense.
Your cult member Folkerts has shown the math as to how you’re to believe ice cubes can boil water. Your cult member Norman claims Folkerts is correct. Your cult member Ball4 has repeatedly claimed ice cubes can boil water.
Do you want to be excommunicated? You better get with the program and learn your cult’s nonsense. It’d look really bad if you’re too braindead to be a braindead cult idiot….
And since you mentioned perpetrating fraud, did you ever figure out that bicycle pedals ROTATE? You were trying to deny that reality. I didn’t have time to help you then, as I was busy teaching Folkerts how to spell “pedal”.
Your cult is sooooo uneducated.
This is Eman’s day to throw as many lies as possible at the board and see if they stick.
I hate to pile on, but I can’t help to after the garbage he wrote today. He admits a weakness in the science, plays armchair scientist for fun, challenges published scientists in the areas he knows nothing about, and then imagines himself debating science in a seminar.
Dream on, Entropic man.
I’m right, though. Your model and Berry’s are dubious science which fails to predict reality, as any testable hypothesis should.
None of you sceptics can produce a testable alternative hypothesis to AGW. Nor can you answer my arguments scientifically, so you resort to insults and ad hominem attacks.
Coming back to my earlier point. How does Berry’s model move CO2 from the deep ocean to the atmosphere against the partial pressure gradient without work being done?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/snzyqqhm4wgmhyw/hold%20on.png?dl=0
If it’s bullshit why can’t you falsify it?
Kark Popper would be RIGL.
He even foresaw you two armchair quarterbacks.
“No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1245375
Eman wrote, “I perforce had to learn physical chemistry” and “You shouldn’t take me seriously. I’m here for the entertainment.”
In case you haven’t figured it out by now, I stopped taking you seriously. You are only good for comic relief from serious scientific discussion.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1241741
It is disappointing. I had hoped that you would justify your impossible ideas about diffusion by reference to Claudiu
s, Gibbs free energy, Fick’s laws and the Boltzmann equation.
Instead you give me a frog drinking Jack Daniels.
zzzzzzzzzzz
Ah,poor diddums. Climate change denial must be so exhausting.
The IPCC’s model moves CO2 from the Deep Ocean to the Surface Ocean, to the Atmosphere.
That’s Free Speech right there!
That’s right. The problem is the data. The oceans are vast and deep. Is anybody collecting enough data to support the assertions these AGW cultists make? And their response to the people like Ed Berry trying to make sense of things is ad hominem attacks.
“And their response to the people like Ed Berry trying to make sense of things is ad hominem attacks.”
Say it aint so! Who would do that?
Oh wait:
Chip: “Lets summarize. Obnoxious, bloviating, obfuscating, no data, no models, constantly appealing to authority, Nate.”
For Berry all I did was have the audacity to question why he didnt include the Revelle factor in his model. He had no answers, got frustrated, and banned me.
OK, I apologize for obnoxious part, which is only my personal unscientific opinion. But hey, you made the case for the rest in evidence on this post. I am not ad homineming behind your back.
Kudos on getting banned. Were you being obnoxious?
> I am not ad homineming behind your back.
OBFUSCATION!
Willard: Idiot.
That’s the alarmist MO. It doesn’t matter if their version of the science is right, it’s the principle that counts. They belief they are doing the right thing by lying to everyone.
Earlier, someone wrote “And not one sceptic who can show a viable alternative. – presumably relating to the fact that thermometers respond to heat, as in more heat = higher temperatures.
Given that the Earth was initially molten, and it is not now, strongly indicates that the Earth has cooled. The fact that thermometers also show that the surface is not hot enough to melt, supports this initial speculation.
There are some nutters of the climatological variety who claim that the surface should actually be colder than it is, which is somewhat of a contradiction in terms. The temperature of anything at all is what it is.
The nutters appear not to accept the laws of physics, or reality in general.
None of them can accept that the laws of thermodynamics apply even to them. Cold things do not spontaneously transfer their energy to hotter things. The atmosphere quite obviously does not provide additional heat to the surface – nighttime provides evidence to the contrary. The surface cools, energy is lost by radiation to deep space, never to be seen again. What goes up, does not necessarily come down.
The Moon loses energy faster, and cools more quickly. No atmosphere.
The Earth loses energy slower, and cools more slowly. Atmosphere.
In both cases – temperature reduces. No heating. Fact.
The nutters seem to be unaware that anthropogenic CO2 production results from a heat producing chemical reaction. The more CO2 (and H2O) produced by burning fossil fuels, the more heat. This effect should be noticed in an increase of nighttime minima (not obscured by the influence of sunlight), in regions of increasing fossil fuel use over time.
For example, the UK pre and post Industrial Revolution, and Japan under similar conditions, because the dates of their respective Industrial Revolutions are disparate.
No need for a GHE. Just basic physics and chemistry. To any nutter who demands quantification, I would respond Thats a bit rich! You cant even describe your supposed GHE, or quantify anything at all! Go away.
The climate, being the average of weather, changes. Always has, always will. Mans impact is not quantifiable, as the fluid dynamics of the a atmosphere involve chaos, and hence unpredictable.
> The more CO2 (and H2O) produced by burning fossil fuels, the more heat.
Big if true.
Willard,
Fact. Oxidising carbon to CO2, or hydrogen to H2O by combustion of hydrocarbons is exothermic, that is, heat producing.
Not so big, just fact.
Fascinating, Mike. For one moment I thought you were holding the same theory as everyone.
Is this fact connected to the other fact you mention, viz that the Moon cools faster because it has no atmosphere?
Willard,
Admit you dont know, convince me of your sincere efforts to inform yourself, cry loudly three times while prostrating yourself before me I am not worthy, and I will tell you.
Otherwise, I will just assume you are being a fat, slimy, little time-wasting troll.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Oh, by the way, what is the theory to which you refer?
Would it be another non-existent fantasy theory you claim to have (but wont let anybody else see?
Moron.
Mike,
You can spit all you want, it will not explain why the atmosphere makes a difference. And if you are talking about a scientific phenomenon, there must be a scientific explanation behind it.
Einstein has not said prove you really want an explanation before I give it to you, and Feynman has not continued with until then I will continue to spit.
“Einstein has not said prove you really want an explanation before I give it to you, and Feynman has not continued with until then I will continue to spit.”
Einstein and Feynman would say there are various theories.
For instance, there is theory called Giant-impact hypothesis.
Wiki:
“The giant-impact hypothesis, sometimes called the Big Splash, or the Theia Impact, suggests that the Moon formed from the ejecta of a collision between the proto-Earth and a Mars-sized planet, approximately 4.5 billion years ago, in the Hadean eon (about 20 to 100 million years after the Solar System coalesced)”
It’s also called the Big Whack.
They might say the big Whack is the most plausible theory and might be useful. But they also it’s new theory and we see how predictive [useful] the theory is.
I think Swenson might say one can’t ignore that Earth is large molten
rock and he might agree it’s also a nuclear reactor.
I think the geothermal heat generated by Earth should not ignore and Earth heat and volcanic heat and heat from larger impactors [the rain smaller material from the space environment can not ignored in terms Earth global climate.
I would say that earth’s geothermal heat is one of many reasons why Earth was not and can not, become a Snowball Earth.
But both Einstein and Feynman would want to know the name of author of any theory, and look at the paper, and wouldn’t accept the nonsense of fathers and mothers and/or a committee claim.
And would regard the idea there is only one theory, as being a religion.
> both Einstein and Feynman would want to know the name of author of any theory
Both actually said the opposite, gb. The former said that “all of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking.” The second that “the female mind is capable of understanding analytic geometry.”
But you’re right. Take Richard earlier. Because he got the idea that modulz were stoopid from a contrarian in an essay published on a contrarian site, he thought it was genius. Since everybody knows that and many papers have been published on the question in the lichurchur itself, the only reason why it becomes a talking point is the provenance.
Or take me. As soon as I see your diatribes, I swipe right. Unless you respond to me, in which case I notice the usual crap. Which is fine with me, as long as you don’t interfere. And now you do, with your usual But Religion:
https://climateball.net/but-religion
Take care.
Anything that does not support Willard and the Warmistas he follows is by his definition crap.
Weepy Willard,
You really don’t understand why the atmosphere reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface by around 35%?
I suppose your inability to accept reality may have something to do with. Or maybe you are so stupid and incompetent that you cannot understand the basic physics involved.
So go away, read up “Effective Trolling for Dummies”, practice, try to keep your hands out of your trousers and your head out of your ass, and give the onlookers the usual reasons for having a good laugh at your expense.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Thank you for asking:
“You really don’t understand why the atmosphere reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface by around 35%?”
Do you have any idea how stupid is that question for a stance on which you invested ten years of your life?
Imagine if every time you asked about the greenhouse effect that question was smacked back at your face!
You’re a pearl.
Generally a significant problem of any religion is what the believers do with it.
And typical “mistake” of believers is blaming their failure on the non believers {which always have nothing to do with their failure}.
So problem is users of theory make wrong predictions- thereby make theory, at least, look wrong.
And then you have the “unwoke” or plebs of religion being crazy which also reflects badly on the religion.
They lit themselves on fire. They wail at the sky. Think the Ice Age Earth could become like Venus.
Or it just looks bad. And looks bad if you can’t even explain your wacky religion. And brainwashing kids with your utter nonsense.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
Do you have any idea how stupid is that question for a stance on which you invested ten years of your life?
Do you have any idea that writing incomprehensible gibberish is not making you look intelligent?
The atmosphere prevents about 30% of solar radiation from reaching the surface. You can of course measure the relevant amount yourself if you are keen. Professor John Tyndall made an estimate based on his experimental observations over 150 years ago, so you wont need any advanced equipment. You will, however, need a brain, and some basic physical knowlwedge.
I guess that lets you out.
NASA, using the most modern technology, comes up with a figure much the same as Tyndalls.
If you dont want to accept reality, you dont have to. You can carry on doing completely pointless things like calling me Mike Flynn. As you say, you dont have a reason, and you dont need one! I agree. You can waste as much of your time as you like.
Carry on.
Mike, Mike,
You really do not have to play dumb.
I already told you – you’re a natural.
The point is simple, really.
Let’s apply it:
You really don’t understand that the Greenhouse Effect exists?
Admit you don’t know.
Convince me of your sincere efforts to inform yourself.
See?
Simples.
Wonky Willard,
You wrote –
“You really dont understand that the Greenhouse Effect exists?”
Until you produce a description, there is nothing to understand, and this I understand perfectly.
Your fantasy based assertions are pointless – just as pointless as claiming I am Mike Flynn. You admit you have no reason for your actions, but just obey the dictates of your compulsive obsessive disorder.
As long as you cause no harm, and provide a rich source of amusement for others who choose to laugh at your antics, your mental afflictions should not be a cause for concern for anyone in your immediate vicinity.
Mike,
Thank you again for this other gem –
“Until you produce a description, there is nothing to understand, and this I understand perfectly.”
Where’s your description of the insulation effect?
Willard, please stop trolling.
yes…heat is released, but that heat does not warm the atmosphere, other than very locally. AGW theory claims the released CO2 and WV collect infrared radiation from the ground and somehow warm the atmosphere.
No one has explained/proved how that works. CO2 and WV are trace gases and CO2 only absorbs about 5% of surface radiation. How does CO2 convert that absorbed IR to heat and transfer it to the rest of the atmosphere in order to warm it?
“How does CO2 convert that absorbed IR to heat and transfer it to the rest of the atmosphere in order to warm it?”
Well, Venus has mostly a CO2 atmosphere- something like 94 atmosphere with about 90 of CO2.
What CO2 does is get warmed at higher elevation. And gravity causes warmed higher elevation air to become warmer at lower elevation.
And you don’t need the warmed air being above the lower air, it can be adjacent to a deep basin of air.
On Earth with most atmosphere being nitrogen, nitrogen gas can warm the surface air temperature in deep basin, like when Mediterranean sea dried up. That event is called, Messinian salinity crisis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
“As winds blew across the “Mediterranean Sink”, they would heat or cool adiabatically with altitude. In the empty Mediterranean Basin, the summertime temperatures would probably have been extremely high. Using the dry adiabatic lapse rate of around 10 C (18 F) per kilometer, the maximum possible temperature of an area 4 km (2.5 mi) below sea level would be about 40 C (72 F) warmer than it would be at sea level. Under this extreme assumption, maxima would be near 80 C (176 F) at the lowest points of the dry abyssal plain, permitting no permanent life but extremophiles.”
Venus also has wind- very high speed wind. Wiki:
“The linear wind speeds at this level are about 100 10 m/s at lower than 50 latitude. They are retrograde in the sense that they blow in the direction of the retrograde rotation of the planet. The winds quickly decrease towards the higher latitudes, eventually reaching zero at the poles. Such strong cloud-top winds cause a phenomenon known as the super-rotation of the atmosphere.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
But it doesn’t really doesn’t need wind, warmed air will rise.
And as they say, what goes up, comes down.
So Venus is warmed at high elevation.
And Earth is mostly warmed at sea level.
The relatively small region of Mediterranean Basin would not had muh effect upon averaged global air temperature, in fact this occurred in “glaciation period”.
[But it happened 5.33 million years ago, and Earth has become much colder in last 5 million years. Or it’s glaciation period would be warmer than our last glaciation period without include the small effect of dried up Mediterranean Sea with surface air temperature [in deeper parts] being about 80 C. Or about 35 C warmer than highest recorded air temperature on Earth which was 300 miles from where I live, and btw, is also below sea level:
“The current official highest registered air temperature on Earth is 56.7 C (134.1 F), recorded on 10 July 1913 at Furnace Creek Ranch, in Death Valley in the United States.”
[Death Valley’s Badwater Basin is the point of lowest elevation in North America, at 282 feet (86 m) below sea level.]
But it’s both hotter and colder than where I live. Or both traps heat and denser cold air.
And lately it’s still pretty cold at night, but just warm enough for my lemon tree, not to die. Oh I thought killed it [I left out by mistake, but lived, barely. It looked really dead.
Looking for terminator line on Venus.
[My opinion it will be a great draw for the tourists of Venus]
“The strangely cold region lies about 78 miles (125 kilometers) above the planet’s surface, and appears to host temperatures around minus 283 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 175 degrees Celsius). It’s sandwiched between warmer layers on both sides.
“It is special, as we do not see a similar temperature profile along the terminator in the atmospheres of Earth or Mars, which have different chemical compositions and temperature conditions,” Svedhem said.”
“Since the temperature at some heights dips below the freezing temperature of carbon dioxide, we suspect that carbon dioxide ice might form there,” said Arnaud Mahieux of the Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy, who is lead author of the paper reporting the results in the Journal of Geophysical Research.”
https://www.space.com/17850-venus-atmosphere-cold-layer.html
So, has clouds for the tourists, also. I think people will go for it’s sound. But, sounds and sights.
Hmm can’t find any mention of falling sky of Venus with search engines. Weird.
Oh, didn’t say how Venus CO2 96.5% and it’s N2 3.5% warmed in the higher elevation of Venus.
Well it’s widely thought that Venus clouds warm the air of the atmosphere.
20,000 years ago at Last Glacial Maximum wasn’t so bad.
It would be like me moving to Idaho.
“Below we have a special graphic, that shows the Spring temperature impact of a La Nina phase for the United States. We can see that the cold north/warm south pattern extends into the Spring season.”
https://www.severe-weather.eu/long-range-2/la-nina-update-cooling-warm-cold-season-forecast-fa/?fbclid=IwAR0h8tZqh-xJZh0h86PpWXBO2Oyf8_ysZqF8D3Z-RrMOdwwyfrUgUGMO-g8
So the projection warm dry summer with higher than normal forest fires all attributable to La Nina.
The press will be carping about carbon dioxide emissions and spewing climate change claptrap.
That’s what NOAA claimed as an explanation for the heat dome that parked itself over Vancouver last June/July. They claimed it was produced by La Nina.
Rabbit holes
“According to online carbon calculator Website Carbon, the average website produces 1.76g of CO2 for every page view; so a site with 100,000 page views per month emits 2,112kg of CO2 every year. The more complex a website is, the more energy it requires to load and the greater its climate impact. ”
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/internet-carbon-footprint
“[UPDATE. Dec. 2013. The summary of 2013 of WUWT has just been released and the number of pageviews of WUWT has dropped. In 2012 WUWT had 36 million page views, in 2013 only 35 million. Not a large drop, but a good beginning.”
https://influencewatch.fireside.fm/213
So, about 60,000 tons.
But above continues:
The website for Elon and Kimbal Musks foundation comprised of seven lines of text on a white background is among the cleanest on the web, producing only 0.39kg of CO2 per year.)
And so, looked:
https://influencewatch.fireside.fm/213
It seems to a few conservative who are aware Musk isn’t and worried about billionaires in general.
I am not worried about billionaires.
But kind of worth listening to. I bookmarked it
Oh, drats, double posted: https://influencewatch.fireside.fm/213
It was suppose to be another link. And I failed to bookmark it {cause it was dumb] so, we will call it, “lost”.
Why would anyone take the Vaccine: https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/p/fiction-disguised-as-science-to-promote?s=r
A vet specializing in cancer has strong words:
https://ovc.uoguelph.ca/pathobiology/people/faculty/Byram-W-Bridle
Because the vaccine works.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/monitoring-reports-of-the-effectiveness-of-covid-19-vaccination
In Canada, there has been over 50 millions tests administered and only 3.5% have tested positive. How does one possibly test the effectiveness of a vaccine when so few people test positive? These idiots are taking credit for the effectiveness of the human immune system.
C’mon, Gordo.
One of the reasons your Canucks have no made the playoffs is COVID-related:
https://www.nhl.com/news/vancouver-eliminated-will-not-make-stanley-cup-playoffs/c-333480594
174K deaths from Covid in the UK alone says you are wrong.
Out of 22.1M cases.
174K deaths is a fudged number. Even at that, it’s over two year. Taking the UK population at 68 million, your 174K is about 0.25%. Hardly a pandemic.
For the province of BC, Canada, with a population of about 5 million, there are about 3000 recorded deaths. That’s about 0.06%. Are you trying to tell me BC is a whole lot healthier than the UK, or is the UK fudging the number of deaths?
I claim the UK government has been lying big-time about the number of covid deaths. If they were not lying, why the sudden about-face on restriction when Boris Hitler’s leadership became threatened? His party members, including him, were caught celebrating without masks and he had no explanation for the double-standard.
It’s obvious the Tory government knew covid was harmless and had no way of admitting their egregious error without seriously losing face.
I’m glad I was immunized naturallymuch better vaccine.
ken…”Being with unvaccinated people increases COVID-19 risk for those who are vaccinated: modelling study”
***
The origin of this nonsense was a single doctor in Germany, Christian Drosten. He observed a woman from Wuhan and concluded she had no symptoms but had passed the virus on to others. An absolutely absurd conclusion since he had no means of detecting that. The WHO picked up on it and passed it on to the gullible. Turns out this woman had been taking antivirals, not a medication one would expect for someone who was not already infected.
The truth is in the data. Since early January 2022, in my home province of BC, the fully vaccinated account for 70% of hospitalizations. Once again, data overrules an unvalidated model.
People using unvalidated models to support such claims should be jailed for criminal negligence.
Further truth comes from Dr. Robert Malone, an expert on the mRNA vaccine used. He claims it will not kill a virus. Although a vaccinated person is theoretically protected (a lie), that person can still infect others.
Thirdly, since the mask and vaccine passport mandate was lifted in early April, there has been no uptick in hospitalizations or deaths.
C’mon, Gordo.
Byram’s claim to fame was this:
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-canada-technology-gun-politics-religion-a7dd90823ca346534f1087ba0b1071b1
A guy to your own liking!
C’mon Willard,
There once was this fellow who had a bizarre fringe theory about energy being in little packets called quanta. He even thought that describing reality required firm predictions followed by direct observations.
He wrote his theory down so it could be disproved by experiment.
So far, it hasn’t.
His name was Einstein.
There once was a fool who claimed he had a Greenhouse Theory. He didn’t.
His name was Willard.
Mike Flynn,
For once you wrote a good comment!
More than that, for once you have a good idea:
“He wrote his theory down so it could be disproved by experiment.”
Have you written your insulation effect theory yet?
Thanks.
Whacky Wee Willard,
You claim you have a non-existent Insulation Effect Theory, but you want me to write it down for you?
Are you quite mad?
Keep on trying to weasel out of the fact that you claim to possess both a non-existent ‟Insulation Effect Theory, and an equally non-existent Greenhouse Theory.
You have rather painted yourself into a corner, haven’t you?
There is no such thing as an Insulation Effect Theory, is there?
Best put your hand back into your trousers, and see what other nonsense you can dredge out. Maybe you could try to create a game that nobody plays. Heres a suggestion – you could call it ClimateBall! No, I suppose that would be too stupid even for you, and you are exceptionally dim.
Carry on, then.
> You claim you have a non-existent Insulation Effect Theory
You’re not very good at this, Mike.
I claim you said this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/santer-takes-on-pruitt-the-global-warming-pause-and-the-devolution-of-climate-science/#comment-248938
You also said this more recently:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1261419
So let me ask again:
Have you written your insulation effect theory yet?
Swenson,
That was really funny.
Awww, Chic.
You’re too sweet.
Chic,
I do my best. Willard is the perfect object of derision.
At the moment, he is trying to create non-existent theories for me to explain. He implies he is far too stupid to understand the definition of insulation, assuming that others will think he is actually intelligent.
In reality, Willard really is too stupid to accept reality, and it shows.
He keeps quoting Mike Flynn, who points out that insulation reduces heat loss (by definition), and then demands that I come up with an “Insulation EffectTheory” which exists only in Willard’s tortured fantasies! I can’t speak for Mike Flynn, but I would be extremely surprised if he has ever referred to an “Insulation Effect Theory”. I’m pretty sure I haven’t.
Maybe Willard is just more confused than usual.
> I can’t speak for Mike Flynn, but
Keep denying, Mike:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/houston-area-flooding-seen-from-space/#comment-260878
Very funny!
So how does insulation work, again?
willard…you ask, how does insulation work? We have told you numerous times, it slows down the rate of heat dissipation by conduction. An insulated body that is cooling, but which does not have the heat replaced, will continue to cool despite the insulation. Insulation will not increase the heat content in the object it is insulating..
So, if you’re out for a bit wearing a well-insulated outfit, and you don’t eat for a few days, your body will get colder and colder and colder. If you’re not wearing the insulated material, you’ll cool a lot faster.
The only way you would not lose heat is if your body is in an environment where the temperature is greater than body temperature. If you didn’t eat, you’d die anyway.
Weary Willard,
As usual, you quoted Mike Flynn setting out some facts.
Then you wrote –
“So how does insulation work, again?”
As I said, admit your complete ignorance, and your inability to understand basic physics principles, prostrate yourself before me wailing “I am not worthy!” three times, and I’ll tell you I can’t be bothered trying to explain things to the mental retards who are too lazy to even try to find things out for themselves.
Why should I waste my time doing anything for a reality denying incompetent fool like you?
If you don’t accept that insulation exists, good for you! I’d listen to Mike Flynn if I were you – he has even given some real examples.
Mike, you clown.
The fact that insulation exists does not explain how it does.
Keep squirming, and thank you for my new official response next time you demand that someone somewhere explains the greenhouse effect to you.
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“The fact that insulation exists does not explain how it does.”
Well, go and find out, if you really want to increase your knowledge. You are obviously too lazy and incompetent to do so, so I have explained that after making you grovel, I will just deny your demands and laugh in your face.
As to the Greenhouse Effect, it is non-existent. You can’t even describe it. You are obviously confused – what mental aberration leads you to think I would ask you to explain any physical phenomenon (let alone a completely non-existent one)?
You may of course respond in any fashion you like to anything you wish. If you can find someone to applaud you, I can guarantee they are suffering from a mental defect of one sort or another.
Off you go now – plunge your hand deep into your trousers, and seek solace as best you can. Best not to think about ways of being a more effective troll, at the same time, though.
Don’t do yourself an injury by trying to think too hard.
Mike, Mike,
You look like the German judoka in that old Asterix movie –
https://youtu.be/zLpFO0FQfys
How you’re playing yourself is quite delightful.
Do continue!
Whickering Wee Willy,
How are you going with trying to find a copy of your Greenhouse Theory?
Not too well, I would guess. That is why you are trying the diversion of linking to irrelevancies. Old Asterix movies? Of course, I havent clicked on your link, so you could be lying for all I know.
You are, indeed, endlessly diverting.
Carry on.
Amazing Flynnson,
Suppose someone said to you –
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
Would you agree?
Willard,
Would you?
Stupid troll. Learn some physics – you obviously have no idea about the subject.
If you believe that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes it hotter, you probably agree with Ball4 that ice can be used to boil water – and then cool it!
How are you going producing the Greenhouse Theory which you claim you have?
No answer required, of course. It was a rhetorical question, because no Greenhouse Theory exists!
Dimwit.
Mike Flynn,
Macarena Fan,
You say –
“Learn some physics.”
Another good suggestion!
I will add it to my series of automatic responses to your silly request about the greenhouse effect.
Many thanks!
Silly Willard,
You wrote –
“I will add it to my series of automatic responses to your silly request about the greenhouse effect.”
You can add anything to anything else in any manner you wish. For example, you can add the flux from ice to the flux from sunshine, producing a completely pointless number.
Or how about adding a couple of temperatures?
As to the greenhouse effect, you are obviously confused if you believe such a thing exists! It doesn’t, and you suffer from a severe mental defect if you believe that I would ask you to explain anything – particularly if it is non-existent!
Are you suffering from delusions of grandeur, as well as obsessive compulsive disorder? You keep insisting that I am Mike Flynn, for no reason at all, apart from your uncontrollable compulsion. Keep it up, and don’t be surprised if you find people laughing at your witless and often incomprehensible utterances.
Carry on with using my words as “automatic responses”. They will certainly make more sense than your usual nonsense.
Thank you for allowing me to save time by responding to you with your own words, Mike.
It means a lot to me.
“The only way you would not lose heat is if your body is in an environment where the temperature is greater than body temperature. If you didnt eat, youd die anyway.”
If stop a human body from having evaporational heat, the body will
over heat. Wrapping yourself in saran wrap is dangerous. Or coating the skin to prevent evaporation in room temperature air is dangerous.
Human body mostly regulates it’s temperature by evaporational heat, it’s why one stay in sauna at 80 C, and Europeans do 100 C [for short periods]
15 C air is dangerous for humans and used to torture them.
Who was talking about spike proteins? That’s sci-fi from theorists who have never physically isolated covid and who are using computer models to guess what proteins might be in the spikes.
No one has seen a spike since electron microscopes only amplify an extremely thin slice of an alleged virus (about 100 billions of a metre). I say alleged because it’s very difficult to tell a virus from viral particles. There’s very little chance a spike would show up on such a thin slice and even if something looked like a spike, they couldn’t tell the difference between that and debris.
I am talking about the bs. that asymptomatic, unvaccinated people can infect vaccinated people, and pose a danger to them. That nonsense came from Drosten. He designed the first RNA-PCR test for covid based on a theory that was refuted long ago, the viral load theory. He also admitted he did not isolate the covid virus.
After a bit of research it suddenly became obvious that Drosten has become infamous, perhaps even a fraud.
https://www.covid19reader.com/did-faulty-science-lead-to-lockdowns-examining-the-drosten-paper/
https://www.mizzima.com/article/lawyers-expose-alleged-covid-19-fraud-and-vaccine-danger
“But, as over 20 scientists have revealed to the committee, the PCR Test invented in haste in January 2020 by German virologist Professor Doctor Christian Drosten has no ability to detect an infection, and produces a high percentage of false positives. This claim that the test is not fit for purpose in looking for viruses is also backed up by the late Dr Kary Mullis, who helped invent it”.
This should read that Kary Mullis invented the PCR ‘method’ thereby helped invent the covid test. Mullis was adamant that PCR could not be used to amplify a virus or indicate an infection.
> Who was talking about spike proteins?
The guy Kennui just promoted, Gordo.
C’mon.
Joe Biden is most divisive US president, ever.
Scott Adams say it’s not Joe’s fault but it’s the media
causing it.
I wonder if Scott is correct. Or in different world of not
having media causes so much divisiveness [if bleeds it leads and/or getting clicks] would Joe Biden be less divisive.
Well, I start with premise that there is illusion divisiveness vs
“real” divisiveness.
And ask when was media less divisive AND less divisive on “important matters”.
Hard to quantify. BUT:
It seems Joe Biden caused the problem with Afghanistan. It seems he is problem with US border. And he caused US inflation. He failed to help Congress pass anything good. He has put us on the closest brink of WWIII in long time, and he caused it. Unlike Cuban Missile Crisis, which one blame our weak President at the time, but Joe did more to cause it, then merely being a weak President.
Oh, also Joe, is constantly and obviously lying about just about anything and everything [for not even a “good” reason- a seemingly purposeless activity}.
And he selected his vice president.
Anything I am missing?
It’s such long list, it seems likely I am missing stuff.
Oh, here is Scott:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71V-_IQ5VGI
{who barely mentions Joe Biden in the video, and spends some time on Miss Turd.}
Or I think Obama got a few things right, and one them was what he said about Joe Biden {his Vice President- in case you didn’t know}.
gb…”Scott Adams say its not Joes fault but its the media
causing it”.
***
That’s a switch, and a crock. The media was totally on his side against Trump and they are still covering up for Hunter Biden’s actions as well as the alleged sexual assault against Biden years ago.
Well that’s accepted by most sane people.
Even a crazy [MSNBC or CNN??} say if Musk controlled twitter, he could control US election.
And obviously there are people controlling twitter before Musk bought it. Or even the dumbest and craziest accept it {unknowingly}.
It lovely watching the left’s heads explode- and they even manage to say the truth [their brain is fighting them- and their brain wins}
the right is having fun:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/04/mid-week-in-pictures-muskageddon-edition.php
…”If Sacks had wanted to use a different metaphor, he might have said that Musk had captured a key footholda defensible initial position from which to build up forces in an effort to gradually expand the territories in which its possible to dissent from the party line on issues like COVID-19 or U.S. policy in Ukraine where discourse has been most tightly regulated. Because, with this latest move, Musk and a merry band of fellow billionaires that includes Sacks and the venture capitalist Marc Andreesen seem to be coalescing into an American counterelite committed to breaking the monopoly on public discourse held by our current ruling class.
On the other side of the skirmish line we have the forces of the bipartisan political establishment under the command of General Barack Obama. The members of this faction are easy to identify because they have been engaged in an unhinged freakout for weeks.”
…
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/elon-vs-obama
Hmm, don’t know much about Tablet. I am not normally such news junkie- generally lacking the time for it. But in terms of a commander in chief, Obama sucks.
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
{And generally, I wouldn’t bet against Mars fanatics}
I got to find something else to do.
It’s OK to have control of Twitter to control US elections as long as they’re the ones controlling.
JFY, Troglodyte:
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-like-free-speech-so-much-ive-decided-to-buy-it
https://babylonbee.com/news/elon-musk-accomplishes-more-for-free-speech-in-one-afternoon-than-republicans-have-in-decades
[Watch out, it’s satire. As in funny, ha, ha…]
“WORLDAccording to sources, an eccentric immigrant entrepreneur from South Africa just accomplished more for free speech than Republicans have in decades of controlling the government, wielding Federal power, and spending trillions of dollars.”
..
“Man, why didn’t I think of doing something like that?” said the Republican Senator. “If you vote for me, I’ll form a committee after the election season to explore the reasons we didn’t think of that!”
You dimwit Brits still don’t understand, Free Speech isn’t free.
stephen…”Its OK to have control of Twitter to control US elections as long as theyre the ones controlling”.
***
That’s right. The politically-correct are trying to change the rules in our democracy by suppressing not only free speech but any speech content that does not validate their view of democracy.
I still think the last US election was rigged. The Democrats used the covid problem to get the rules changed to allow for a large number of mail-in votes and they could not be properly corroborated. In other words, they stuffed the ballot boxes using computer technology that was never properly monitored.
In some of the ensuing runoffs, people were being recruited from other states to sign up for voting.
Oh, it’s been said Miss Turd had relationship with Johnny Depp and Elon Musk.
That is very strange if true.
And if true, look how much Miss Turd did to Johnny and Elon going thru it, is seemingly, unscathed.
It seems evidence that Johnny has some responsibly, as far as making women so batshit crazy [in bad way, I mean].
Or the other possibility is that Elon can walk thru fire.
Or he is not the Iron Man, he is the Terminator.
“It seems Joe Biden caused..” then you list things that occurred during his time in office.
As if he personally caused Russia to invade Ukraine. As if he personally caused the world-wide supply chain disruptions, and resulting inflation. As if he caused people to want to cross the border.
By your logic:
Trump caused the Covid Pandemic, the resulting hit to the economy and 22 million job losses.
Nate, please stop obfuscating.
Chip, please stop adding nothing to a discussion.
gbaikie…[GR]…”How does CO2 convert that absorbed IR to heat and transfer it to the rest of the atmosphere in order to warm it?
{GB}Well, Venus has mostly a CO2 atmosphere- something like 94 atmosphere with about 90 of CO2.
***
The GHE and AGW are modeled on the Venusian atmosphere. However, a space probe revealed surface temperatures on Venus of about 475C and that threw the greenhouse warming eefect out the window. Witha surface tmperatyre that high and much lower temperatures in atmosphere, heat could not possibly be transferred from atmosphere to surface.
It’s the same in Earth, the atmosphere is generally cooler than the surface. The 2nd law tells us heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body, by its own means, to a hotter body.
So, the alarmists moved the goalposts, claiming CO2 in the atmosphere slowed the rate of surface heat loss. That theory is wrong too. The only thing that will slow the rate of surface heat loss is the atmospheric temperature adjacent to the surface.
In general, that temperature is the same as the surface temperature therefore no heat can be lost. However, air warmed at the surface rises and is replace by cooler air from aloft. That cooler air can warm via a heat transfer, it rises, and the cycle continues.
Heat loss via radiation at the surface is constant and the rate cannot be changed unless there is a significant temperature differential between surface temperature and atmospheric temperature. That has nothing to do with CO2.
> So, the alarmists moved the goalposts, claiming CO2 in the atmosphere slowed the rate of surface heat loss.
I found one, Gordo:
What are we going to do about that warmunist scoundrel?
Weary Wee Willy,
I cant see any reference to CO2 in your appeal to authority.
Are you confusing your fantasy with reality again?
What is a warmunist scoundrel? Another strange pointless expression?
Accept reality, dummy.
Mike,
I think it is safe to say that CO2 is part of the atmosphere.
Do you agree?
Woeful Willard,
Why should I respond to a pathetic attempt at a gotcha from someone so delusional they call me Mike?
In any case, I think it is safe to say that nobody cares what you think it is safe to say.
Maybe you need to look up the composition of the atmosphere from a reputable source if you are not sure whether CO2 is part of the atmosphere.
What a completely witless comment. You should stick to using my words as “automatic responses”.
Mike, Mike,
I call you Mike because you are Mike Flynn, and everybody ought to know that CO2 is part of the atmosphere. I must admit that sometimes I am not sure you do, but the question was rhetorical. So it was not exactly a gotcha.
As for why you respond to me, that is not my problem, but something you have to discuss with your master, silly sock puppet.
Now, if the atmosphere allows to Earth from cooling faster than if the Earth had none, there must be something in the atmosphere that makes the Earth keeps its warmth.
What is it?
You spent ten years on this blog and you still have no idea?
That is hard to believe!
Convince me you are as ignorant as you pretend to be, Mike!
–Its the same in Earth, the atmosphere is generally cooler than the surface. The 2nd law tells us heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body, by its own means, to a hotter body.–
I don’t have the quote handy, but it something like unless under certain circumstances {which most people associate with how refrigerator or heat pump works}.
I would say an atmosphere in gravity field is “a certain circumstance”.
Or the kinetic energy of gas is the speed that molecules travel and mass of a parcel of air [or number molecule within some volume, like cubic cm or cubic meter].
Or KE = 1/2 mass times velocity squared.
And when go to higher elevation the air density reduces but not velocity of molecules. So the energy of air or temperature of air
has less energy because there less mass within cubic cm [or cubic meter].
So lower air isn’t going faster or made faster, instead it has more molecules in given volumes which makes it have more kinetic energy or a higher air temperature.
The surface such ocean surface or land surface must warmer than air above it, to warm the air above it. And more difference of temperature increases amount of heat to the air above the ocean or land surface.
Though with evaporation one transfer heat faster.
So land surface without much heat transferred by evaporation can have wide difference between ground temperature and the air temperature whereas wet surfaces don’t have this difference.
And ocean surface at 20 C has air above it at 20 C. And dry land surface can difference of more 30 K
gbaikie…”I dont have the quote handy, but it something like unless under certain circumstances …”
***
I think you may be referring to the sci-fi produced by alarmists to get around the 2nd law. They claim heat can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface and the 2nd law is not contradicted because a mysterious net balance of energy is positive.
They don’t specify what is meant by a net balance of energy. That is one of their obfuscations that slides by the unwary who are unable to question what it means. There is, in fact, no such thing as a net balance of energy.
Alarmists like to use the word energy in lieu of the actual energy they are referencing. When we talk about energy being transferred cold to hot we are talking about thermal energy. That should be obvious since hot and cold infer heat. Instead, alarmists include electromagnetic energy lumped with heat as their mysterious energy which is a huge error wrt the 2nd law.
The 2nd law is about heat only and not a generic energy. If there is a balance of energy it has to be a summation of heat quantities. However, alarmists are under the mistaken impression that EM can flow both ways between objects of different temperatures, which contradicts the basic laws of quantum theory as developed by Bohr and Schrodinger.
With all energies being transferred by there own means there is only one direction of transfer, from a level of high energy potential to a level of low energy potential. Water can only flow downhill, by its own means. A mass can only fall from a higher level of potential energy to a lower level, by its own means. Heat can only be transferred by its own means from a level of high potential energy (hotter) to a level of lower potential energy (cooler).
With EM, there is no direction of transfer because it involves two separate conversions of energy. If heat (aka kinetic energy of atoms) is converted to EM at a higher level of potential (hotter) and the EM flows to a mass at a lower potential level (cooler) then the EM will be absorbed and converted to heat in the cooler body. No heat is exchanged between bodies through space.
If EM from a cooler body, representing a lower potential energy, flows to a hotter body, at a higher level of potential, the EM will be ignored.
Gordon,
You ought to get a first year college chemistry textbook, it might dispel some of the bullshit you post.
“They claim heat can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface”
Nope, the claim is energy can be transferred from cold to hot, you know the difference between heat and energy right, I don’t think so.
“When we talk about energy being transferred cold to hot we are talking about thermal energy.”
Nope, here we talk about in energy in the microwave radiation emitted by CO2 molecules.
“However, alarmists are under the mistaken impression that EM can flow both ways between objects of different temperatures, which contradicts the basic laws of quantum theory as developed by Bohr and Schrodinger.”
The flows of EM from hot and cold objects has nothing to do with quantum theory, which you have no clue about anyway.
“With all energies being transferred by there own means there is only one direction of transfer, from a level of high energy potential to a level of low energy potential.”
Looks like you are the one getting your different kinds of energy mixed up here. Clue: Potential energy is that energy due to the position of something in a gravitational well.
“No heat is exchanged between bodies through space.”
How does the Sun heat the Earth then?
bob d checks in to the blog in his usual dementedstate
“…the claim is energy can be transferred from cold to hot, you know the difference between heat and energy right, I dont think so”.
***
Don’t be daft, heat IS energy…thermal energy. When you talk about transferring energy from hot to cold you are talking about heat since no other form of energy can be transferred hot to cold.
************************
[GR]When we talk about energy being transferred cold to hot we are talking about thermal energy.
Nope, here we talk about in energy in the microwave radiation emitted by CO2 molecules.
***
Have you gone completely berserk? How did we get on to microwave energy, which CO2 does not emit? And what does CO2 have to do with heat transfer from hot to cold?
**************************
“The flows of EM from hot and cold objects has nothing to do with quantum theory, which you have no clue about anyway”.
***
Seriously daft. It is all about electron transition, the basis of quantum theory. Do you think quantum theory is about some invisible phenomena? It is based on the interaction between the nucleus and the electrons in an atom. Bohr discovered the quantum relationship between electron orbitals and EM after being reminded by a colleague about the absorp-tion/emission spectra of hydrogen, which is caused by electron transitions of the sole electron in hydrogen.
Even though hydrogen has only one electron, that electron can reside in different energy orbitals above it’s non-excited state called the ground state. If it absorbs EM of a certain and very specific frequency, the electron will jump to a certain energy orbital, which has a specific kinetic energy and frequency. If the electron is in that energy level and drops to ground state, it emits EM of a specific intensity and frequency.
Quantum theory is about electrons and their transitions. However, a sci-fi form of quantum theory, like entanglement theory, is claiming an electron in one location changing state can influence an electron at some distance to change state. Bunch of nonsense but its adherents apparently enjoy sci-fi.
It was when Bohr entered that sci-fi realm, dragging quantum theory into fiction, that Einstein and Schrodinger abandoned ship. Both were OK with Bohr’s basic theory with real particles like electrons, but they balked at the extension into areas that Einstein called ‘action at a distance’, aka entanglement theory.
For someone who claims his field is chemistry you certainly lack the fundamentals of quantum theory. It is taught in first year chemistry classes for cripes sake. Organic chemistry and the shape of molecules is all about quantum theory.
******************************
“Potential energy is that energy due to the position of something in a gravitational well”.
Beggar off with that modern nonsense. The ‘potential’ in potential energy means that energy has a potential to do work. A weight of 10 pounds has more potential energy at 100 feet altitude than 1 foot altitude. To raise that 1 lb weight from the surface to to 100 feet requires the equivalent kinetic energy the weight would have at 100 feet in its potential form, therefore kinetic and potential energy are related.
Water flowing over a 100 foot cliff has more potential to do work than water flowing over a rock in a babbling brook.
*********************
[GR]No heat is exchanged between bodies through space.
How does the Sun heat the Earth then?
***
Heat in the Sun is not related to heat in the Earth. Each has it’s own amount of heat. However, heat in the Sun is converted to electromagnetic energy, which has no heat.
EM can never have heat, it is a transverse wave of electric energy and magnetic energy with a certain frequency. Heat is not a property of EM. If that wave contacts a cooler mass, it can be absorbed and converted to heat that involves electron transitions. The Earth is heated by converting EM to heat, an entirely local process.
No heat moves through space, since that would require a transfer of heat via mass.
Gordon,
“It is taught in first year chemistry classes for cripes sake.”
No, it’s a third year Chemistry course with pre-requisites: 3 courses in Physics, 3 semesters of Calculus and Differential equations, and a year of general chemistry for chem majors.
I bet a quatloo you haven’t met those prerequisites.
Sorry I said microwave when I meant infrared, but the point is CO2 emits radiation that is capable of transferring energy.
The Bohr model of the hydrogen atom is not the quantum theory that applies to the greenhouse effect and the catching and releasing of radiation by CO2 and water vapor and the other greenhouse gases.
“The potential in potential energy means that energy has a potential to do work.”
Use the equation for potential energy
U=mgh
Heat is a form of energy and can be transformed from one kind to another. Heat can be turned into electromagnetic energy and electronic energy can be turned into heat.
That’s how the Sun heats the Earth.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
I guess this is it:
“Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat is transferred from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, the refrigeration system.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
So term was actually “external agent” therefore gravity would be the “external agent”
And gravity is weak force and accordingly it needs a fair amount distance to have much effect over molecules traveling faster than a bullet. Which is about 10 C over 1000 meter which is altered by condensing and evaporating H20 in the air, ie wet lapse rate [or very dry or somewhat dry}.
Or it’s said by many is average lapse on Earth is about 6.5 C per 1000 meter in within the troposphere. Venus is somewhere around 8 C per 1000 meter- Venus has very little H20, BUT it has acid clouds which do condense and evaporate- it rains acid within the Venus atmosphere- though the rain doesn’t come vaguely close to the very hot rocky Venus surface.
And some say the acid clouds are a “greenhouse gas” [obviously because they are crazy, but one could say they mean the clouds have some kind of warming effect- and perhaps simply they don’t want get into any of the details of how exactly it warms the atmosphere].
Or if the only thing which can warm an atmosphere is a greenhouse gases, ergo, it is a greenhouse gas.
gbaikie…”So term was actually external agent therefore gravity would be the external agent.
***
Not the way it works. A refrigerator or an air conditioner works by changing the ratio of pressure, volume and temperature of a gas. Both need external power to drive a compressor to affect the P,V and T.
Basically, air is withdrawn from a cold room into a low pressure gas and compressed to a high pressure, high temperature, low volume liquid state. In that state, the liquid is run through a radiator exposed to warmer air. As the liquid cycles through the radiator, heat is vented to the warmer region because the liquid temperature is hotter, due to compression, than the warmer air.
When the liquid exits the radiator, it is at high pressure, low volume, low temperature. Then it is passed through an expansion device, an atomizer, that converts the liquid to a spray. From there it becomes a low pressure, high volume, low temperature gas. and it expands as it passes through another radiator exposed to the air in the cold room. The low pressure gas absorbs heat from the cold room and the cycle repeats.
This has nothing to do with heat being transferred by its natural means from cold to hot. It’s about the change of states of a gas to a liquid, something that cannot occur naturally.
There is no such mechanism in the atmosphere and gravity cannot replace the mechanism of the refrigerator/air conditioner. In fact, gravity has nothing to do with it.
Heat cannot be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface.
Gordo, you sure are ignorant for an engineer. Refrigerators and HVAC systems use a condensable gas in a closed cycle. You wrote “air” but the pressure required to use that would be quite high, so other gases are used, notably FREON, propane or ammonia. I understand that some newer systems can also employ CO2. Be that as it may, there’s also the requirement for an external agent, such as electricity to run the pumps and fans.
It should also be obvious that solar energy combined with gravity provides the power to operate the vertical convection cycle. Gravity causes the densest air to settle at the surface, and hydrostatic forcing lifts the warmer, wetter lower density air mass upward. At the tropopause, the air in the rising column is cooled and becomes part of the surrounding sinking air, completing the circulation loop. In meteorology, this cycle appears as the Hadley Cell.
Have you figured out yet what cools that rising air as it reaches the tropopause?
Well, Gordo is sort of making me explain it.
So, I will start with I don’t accept the theory of Karl Zeller and Ned Nikolov. Which I forgot it’s called.
I would say it’s “interesting” or something worth debating, though
not a particular fan of their tactics/behavior and can understand
why some folks don’t like them- and banned them.
So he will not accepted a dried up Mediterranean sea would have higher surface air temperature.
I have not looked into it much, but I assume there is evidence of it being quite hot.
But since I mentioned solar ponds many times, I could see that it’s possible such high temperature could be caused by this. Or the evidence is wrong.
There other evidence but I thought the dried sea was pretty good.
So, rather than assume the evidence is reliable, I going turn it into
a question. If the Mediterranean sea were to be dried up, now, would
air temperature at bottom of it’s basin be much warmer than warmest every recorded air temperature?
Or about same as Sahara desert or maybe be cooler?
One thing that maybe many people can agree with, is the surface air
temperature at bottom of a dried up Mediterranean sea should be more uniform. Or the basin would have large mass of air.
[And if cool enough maybe humans use wings to fly]
I will add that most people assume this is true:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
Which as chart:
sea level: 59 F
-5000 feet: 76.84 F
But just because it’s assumed, it doesn’t make true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63QBeDdk4ww
Is apparently video regarding Karl Zeller and Ned Nikolov
I didn’t listen to it, but where copy and pasted their names.
And I yet to get enough coffee, and need more.
Got more coffee, and making more.
I am also on new computer, and lost bookmarks of
broken computer. So building more bookmarks- which
I have done before, 1/2 dozen times, before.
It’s little annoying, but those bookmarks were rather a clutter,
and my new hard drive doesn’t spin. It’s nice not have that
spinning noise. Also move off windows operating system. Which always
wanting to do, but this new system I am newbie- I didn’t much about windows, and know less about whatever this called.
We Have Even More Evidence Life’s Building Blocks Came to Earth From Space
CONOR FEEHLY
27 APRIL 2022
–We still don’t know just how the first life emerged on Earth. One suggestion is that the building blocks arrived here from space; now, a new study of several carbon-rich meteorites has added weight to this idea.–
https://www.sciencealert.com/we-have-even-more-evidence-life-s-building-blocks-arrived-on-earth-from-space
Where is home?
I am bored with climate stuff. Trapped in an ice age and we have global warming religion {which seems to be dying}.
As said, do we need to go into space?
No.
Can we become spacefaring? I don’t know.
But I would like to know, why not?
All I wanted to know. Why not?
But the idea of going to Mars as end point is really weird idea.
Most people don’t even consider it, but some Mars fans seemed to think this way. I think Mars or Moon as a step. And I might like Mercury, better. Mercury is closest planet to Earth- but it got vector change as the problem. I never though about it before, but that is what one could use nuclear rockets for.
I am not fan of nuclear rockets.
Mercury is closest in terms of hohmann transfers- 105 days with simple hohmann [but you got that hideous vector change to do].
So, getting Mercury distance is fast with hohmann and planet Mercury at wrong inclination. And problems with space rocks near us, is also they are in wrong inclinations.
Or the nearest stuff is all in wrong inclination. Kind of weird, actually.
Of course Moon doesn’t have any inclination problem- and it is closest.
I would say might not need anything but the Moon.
But I would say, NASA needs the Moon and Mars.
The NASA bureaucracy need Mars, but it should go to Moon first.
So, that interesting. We paying NASA and it’s not exploring. And politically hard to get rid of NASA. As NASA has high public opinion rating compared anything else the US govt does. And pols are not suicidal, enough.
If we somehow got rid of NASA, then we don’t have go to Mars.
Only the suicidal left would try to kill it- and they always said they wanted to- but they are of course liars.
But of course SpaceX Starship was made for Mars. Though don’t know if it will work, and NASA paying for a Starship to the Moon.
On April 29th, FAA says it’s is going to bring it’s tablets down from the mountain. But has delayed twice, already, and are creatures of habit.
Being wildly optimistic, I give it 50% that FAA will allow the starship test launch to happen, fairly soon. And give a bit better odds, Starship with attain orbit and land successful in the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii.
Oh, what happening that spacecraft going Mercury”
“BepiColombos main science mission will begin in early 2026. It is making use of nine planetary flybys in total: one at Earth, two at Venus, and six at Mercury, together with the spacecrafts solar electric propulsion system, to help steer into Mercury orbit. Its next Mercury flyby will take place 23 June 2022.”
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/BepiColombo/BepiColombo_s_first_views_of_Mercury
Why? All these orbits? Nudging it into right inclination for planet Mercury. So 23 June it is close again.
And maybe FAA will approve the launch before, then
“For the second time in less than three weeks, SpaceX has delivered an astronaut crew to the International Space Station (ISS).
The Dragon capsule flying SpaceX’s Crew-4 mission for NASA docked with the orbiting lab today (April 27) around 7:37 p.m. EDT (2337 GMT), just under 16 hours after lifting off atop a Falcon 9 rocket the quickest-ever crewed Dragon trip to the station. ”
https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-4-astronaut-mission-arrives-space-station
Right now SpaceX is only spacecraft which go to ISS.
NASA wants Soyuz to go, but Russia has it’s war
Next month Boeing going to try again for demo non crew launch.
But NASA yet to able to get Russia to line up their flight and
guy running it has threaten wreck ISS. So SpaceX only willing able
at this point in time. And two in less than 3 weeks.
And on schedule for about 1 Falcon per week 50 or 60 per year [which is insane].
Earlier, the strangely delusional Willard wrote –
“Wheres your description of the insulation effect?”
Willard invents strange terms for fragments of his fantasy, and then demands others describe them. Willard is trying to divert attention away from the fact he can’t even describe the supposed but non-existent Greenhouse Effect, which he claims is explained by a similarly non-existent Greenhouse Theory.
Willard claims to have a copy of the Greenhouse Theory of course, but refuses to let anyone look at it. His stated excuse is apparently that Mike Flynn is “lousy”.
What a deluded moron he is.
Admit you do not know how insulation works, Mike.
Convince me of your sincere efforts to inform yourself.
Cry loudly three times while prostrating yourself before me
I am not worthy,
I am not worthy,
I am not worthy,
And in my magnificent magnanimity
I will humbly tell you.
Both water and air are good insulation.
If you prevent water from convecting heat, you got a solar pond.
A solar works by having salt gradient. Solar ponds don’t work if you stir the water. If mix the water of solar pond the hot 80 C water in bottom pond can to surface and lose their heat by evaporation and convection. Or too much wind wrecks a solar pond that can hold hot water at the bottom of solar pond.
And fiberglass insulation works by holding pockets of still air with the fiberglass. Compressing the fluffy fiberglass, makes it not perform as well as insulation and wet insulation doesn’t work as well.
There are natural solar ponds:
“A solar pond is a large water body to save solar energy in heat stores represented by the bottom side of the pond, which is then accessible to use for feasible purpose. Solar ponds utilize to collect heat from solar radiation and the amount of radiant energy would be exploited later. It can work continuously during the whole year. A salinity gradient solar pond (SGSP) artlessly employs a sizable area of salt water as a way to save, gather and keep the thermal energy from the landing sun beams. It comprises from three dissimilar layers, upper convective zone (surface zone), lower convective zone (store zone), and between them intermediate zone (gradient zone) as shown in Figure 1.”
…
–4.1 Historical background of solar pond
The phenomenon was discovered the natural solar by Kalecsinsky [25]. Kalecsinsky explained the Medve Lake in Transylvania in Hungary (4244′N, 2845′E). This lake indicated temperatures escalating up to reach 70 C on the depth of 132 cm at the summer ending, and minimum temperature denoted at 26 C at the beginning of spring [2526]. At Washington State, a lake in Oroville, another indicating for temperatures at 50 C in the middle of summer on a depth of 2 m was told by [27]. Despite the outside face being coated by the ice, on Lake Vanda in the Antarctic noticed that the bottommost temperature at the deep 66.45 m was (plus 25 C) while the ambiance was (minus 20 C) [2832].–
https://www.rees-journal.org/articles/rees/full_html/2020/01/rees190009/rees190009.html
Thanks for the paper, gb!
Woeful Wee Willy,
I know how insulation works.
Why would I need to ask a numbskull like you to teach me anything?
There is a saying that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
I accept flattery – even from morons like you. I see you still can’t prevent yourself from calling me Mike, for no reason at all.
Keep at it, Willard.
I’m flattered you imitate me too, Mike.
Keep on trying to weasel out of the fact that you have yet to explain how insulation works.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Why should I explain how insulation works to a moron like you? Can’t you work it out for yourself?
Insulation actually exists, unlike the mythical GHE.
Do your own research. Maybe you will stumble across the Greenhouse Theory which claim was stolen from you by Men in Black, no doubt in the employ of Big Oil, or maybe Mike Flynn.
You are such a transparent idiot, Willard. Obfuscation, diversion, incomprehensibility- and the rest.
Carry on.
[laughs at numbskull]
The reason why you ought to explain how insulation works is very simple, silly sock puppet.
You owe it to your master, the one who owns the hand that is making you exist as a silly sock puppet.
But you can carry on arguing by assertion with the same silly lines you never thought through for so many years. That will convince everyone that you know what you are talking about!
Willard, please stop trolling.
“I never claimed evidence of no bottleneck.”
BS!
“there is no significant bottleneck”
“Asked and answered at least once here already. There is no bottleneck.”
“the Mauna Loa data cannot be explained without an additional emission source or a decreasing absorp.tion rate.”
Nate, the context is that you never provided evidence of a bottleneck. You asserted it without data to back it up. You only appeal to authorities which to my knowledge, have not shown the magnitude of any bottleneck. I’m happy, anxious actually, to be informed otherwise.
If there is no decreased uptake rate (bottleneck), then additional emissions are need to explain the Mauna Loa data.
OBFUSCATION!
Idiot.
Explain this, Black Knight:
[CHIC] I never claimed evidence of no bottleneck.
[ALSO CHIC] There is no bottleneck.
Explain this idiot. Why are you an idiot?
OBFUSCATION!
Willard: Idiot.
Chic Bowdrie, Stephen Anderson
“The IPCCs model moves CO2 from the Deep Ocean to the Surface Ocean, to the Atmosphere. ”
“If there is no decreased uptake rate (bottleneck), then additional emissions are need to explain the Mauna Loa data. ”
I agree with you both, probably to our mutual surprise.
There is novement in both directions. 101Gt from the deep ocean upwards and 103Gt from the surface layer downwards.
That is a net flow of 2Gt from the surface layer downwards.
Similar to the net 2Gt which the ocean surface absorbs from the atmosphere, which suggests that there is no bottleneck and the deep ocean is still a net absorber of CO2.
https://climateilluminated.com/CO2_facts/carbon_cycle_IPCC_revs.html
I’m inclined to the view that temperature induced emissions by the permafrost melt positive feedback are entering the atmosphere in addition to human emissions.
Eman,
The only real direct real-time CO2 data we have is the Mauna Loa data. All the rest is speculation. We also know that plants grew before the Industrial Revolution.
Stephen
Mauna Loa is not the only source of atmospheric CO2 data.
There are 30+ stations in the WMO’s Global Atmosphere Watch programme.
https://community.wmo.int/activity-areas/gaw/structure-gaw
There’s also pre-Mauna Loa data from ice cores such as Law Dome.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Law-Dome-ice-core-and-firn-air-records-AD-1800-to-Present-top-CO-2-middle-CH_fig1_240490870
More recently there is NASA’s Obiting Carbon Observatory-2 which is mapping atmospheric CO2 in real time and should help to pinpoint any new CO2 sources.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco2/index.html
Welcome back to reality and scientific investigation. Permafrost contribution is reasonable. Accounting for all contributions is difficult because the data and model parameters could be fluid.
Pretty much what Stephen wrote, except we have numbers for FF and land use, too, although not as accurate as for Mauna Loa.
” Welcome back to reality and scientific investigation.”
I never left.
There’s been on going concern about CO2 positive feedbacks and the possibility that even if we reduce human emissions, CO2 concentration will continue to increase due to CO2 release from the inert carbon reservoirs such as permafrost, submerged peat and clathrates.
https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/01/28/2802646.htm#:
That Revelle Factor is their catch-all red herring. The solution to Berry’s (and Chic’s) linear differential equation is independent of Revelle or any other factor.
The first-order differential equation is
dL/dT= Input-Output
No Revelle Factor or any other bottleneck in the equation.
Unfortunately dL/dT= Input-Output greatly oversimplifies the process.
There are multiple inputs and multiple outputs which have to be considered separately.
Note also that dL/dT itself is increasing over time.
“dL/dT= Input-Output
No Revelle Factor or any other bottleneck in the equation.”
Sure it is. Its in Output.
Entropic man,
Actually Stephen is correct at a fairly basic level. (delta level)/(delta time) = sum of inputs minus sum of outputs. It is basically an expression of conservation of mass. When inputs exceed outputs then dL/dT increases over time, sure.
Should we go back to not taking you seriously?
dL/dT = Input-Output.
While the gap between input and output are constant dL/dT is constant and the Mauna Low Keeling curve would be a straight line.
In practice the slope of the Keeling Curve is steepening over time. Thus dL/dT is increasing.
https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu
Why? The conventional view is that
1) human emissions are increasing.
2) temperature rise is causing increasing amounts of CO2 releasefrom the Inert Carbon sink.
You really should do yourself a favor and learn how to use a spreadsheet.
Inputs – Outputs make the Keeling curve and the gap has been increasing accordingly.
“Inputs Outputs make the Keeling curve and the gap has been increasing accordingly.”
Sure. And if both are invented data then what have you shown?
As Revelle and Suess, then Bolin and Ericson, then many others showed, if the inputs are only from KNOWN sources, and the outputs are determined by the known properties of the sinks, such as sizes of the reservoirs, ocean chemistry, Henry’s law constants, then the Keeling curve can be explained–without having to invent new sources.
What would Occam say is more likely to be correct?
a. A model that requires data to be made-up, from an unknown source, and properties to be changed/ignored, in order to work.
b. A model that works using only known data and known properties.
“Nate, the context is that you never provided evidence of a bottleneck.”
The bottleneck exists or it doesnt.
It is weird that you think it has anything to do with me.
“Im happy, anxious actually, to be informed otherwise.”
But not anxious enough to go out and find the facts yourself.
It is a property of the oceans. The evidence for it is given in Bolin and Ericson, and many other papers.
Most people doing science modeling, if they are informed of a fact that means their model may be flawed, they would want to go out look into this fact before wasting any more time on a model destined to fail.
“The bottleneck exists or it doesnt.”
Are you making a religion out of it now? Or we can call it the bottleneck effect. Do you believe in Teh Bottleneck or just the bottleneck effect?
“But not anxious enough to go out and find the facts yourself.”
You are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. I am having difficulty finding any bottleneck evidence. Meanwhile you continue pontificating, probably because you cannot find any bottleneck evidence yourself.
“The key word is ‘some’.”
> Are you making a religion out of it now?
Bivalence is not exactly religion, Chic.
“Are you making a religion out of it now?”
“You are scraping the bottom of the barrel now.”
Not sure why Chip thinks vacuous arguments like these are arguments at all.
That should be a clue that he has no real, fact-based arguments left.
“I am having difficulty finding any bottleneck evidence.”
My suggestion is read the BE paper and try to understand it, including the evidence in it. Then find papers citing it if needed.
Then explain why their mechanism (ocean chemistry) is wrong. That would be difficult, given that in 60 years, no experts have been able to explain it away.
Bolin and Ericson have equations describing the effect of the ocean chemistry to produce the Revelle Factor.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/bolin.1958.carbon_uptake.pdf
They then summarize its implications, after their eqn 9, on p. 133, which might be a good place for you to start.
“This tells us that 1 percent change in the total CO2 concentration in the sea requires a 12.5 percent change in the atmospheric CO2 to maintain equilibrium. If we consider only the ‘mixed layer’ of the oceans, i.e. the surface layer which contains about as much CO2 as the atmosphere, less than 10% of excess fossil CO2 in the atmosphere should have been taken up by the mixed layer. It is therefore obvious that the mixed layer acts as a bottleneck in the transport of fossil CO2 into the deep sea.”
The Moon only [not Mars- and not NASA]
It’s roughly the L-5 world:
–The L5 Society was founded in 1975 by Carolyn Meinel and Keith Henson to promote the space colony ideas of Gerard K. O’Neill.[1]
In 1987, the L5 Society merged with the National Space Institute to form the National Space Society.–
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society
One thing to say about it, is not all countries have NASA.
So, it could be pathway of India and/or Africa.
I think China is only interested in space in terms military issue
and PR. China is about “keeping” China the center of the world.
And space roughly is moving “power” off world. Or having something like L-5 colony would effect global political power.
Anyhow a l-5 colony is make from the Moon. Mainly about lowering lunar launch cost to very, very, low cost.
How is it done and what does it costs.
Well, roughly it’s what NASA has always wanted to do.
It’s the “if, only we had the money, we would do….”
The magnitude of money could around what Germany spent on wind
and solar energy- trillions of dollars.
And would cost less for Africa or India to try to do what Germany
did with wind and solar energy. Which btw it’s didn’t work for Germany.
So that would be the giant bureaucracy type approach, and one say
that never works regarding anything. But you say that Germany didn’t have giant bureaucracy, but rather talking “vision” of NASA approach is just 10 times or more NASA budget. But NASA recent approach of basically not cost plus contracting {Ie SpaceX and etc, and not Boeing and etc {ie SLS} is recent big change in NASA. And talking “history” or the decades of way NASA wanted to do this- and was blocked by Congress and America in general- the US media was hostile to NASA “expensive plans of lunar bases”- and whatever.
Now, it could cost US government or any government, “no money” and instead what talking is investment dollars- investment dollars which in theory “make money”.
And amount investment dollars on PC and internet, is what? Some huge dollar amount, but made money.
There is a “cost” related doing the Information Age, but figuring it out is about the world of “would of or could of variety”. The simple term for it, is related to opportunity costs. But most people like having computer and the internet.
Big fan, but I could think of much better direction to take [which doesn’t involve space}.
Anyhow, if want to talk of opportunity cost, you are kind of required to say, what else should “we do”?
For example with Africa, they have lots of issues they could, but seems making the Sahara desert green is pretty important. One could do that also with investment dollar rather some big government project. Or Sahara turning to grassland is solely a political problem. But if Africa can solve the Sahara Desert issue, such talent, will make them spacefaring. Or which is easier to start with
is important question. It seems might easier for Africa to do the Moon, first. And they can walk and chew gum at the same time.
But a conventional approach is end conflict make a more United Africa. But China is using space as PR, as is US, and is all countries, and what PR is about is uniting the country- we doing something together, we are great, etc.
The argument for Mars, first.
Is Mars is cheaper path.
It’s kind of crazy, but there is some logic/reason to it.
And one could simply point to SpaceX starship, and say, I told you so.
Maybe, but it hasn’t flown yet.
And we will see if tomorrow, the 29th, the FAA allows it to be tested.
FAA delays environmental review of SpaceXs Starship launches from Texas for a fourth time
“The Federal Aviation Administration for a fourth time delayed its environmental review of SpaceXs Starship rocket program in Texas.
The FAA now expects to release the assessment May 31.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/29/faa-delays-environmental-decision-on-spacexs-starship-launches-to-may.html
As said, I am way too optimistic.
Notice how they wait for the last second to say anything.
For accurate prediction, they will give heads up [even though they shouldn’t] a couple weeks before their self imposed deadline.
Next time, they play this sick game, I will give it, 1% chance
and I still will be way too optimistic.
Biden administration {if makes it to end of term, which is increasingly become doubtful] will not get to the Moon. And NASA will be further away from this goal, then they were when Biden came into office.
The left is destroying NASA, like they promised to do.
NASA is done.
Which is good.
Willard the nitwit wrote –
“Now, if the atmosphere allows to Earth from cooling faster than if the Earth had none, there must be something in the atmosphere that makes the Earth keeps its warmth.
What is it?”
I invite onlookers to carefully read Willard’s statement.
If they can figure out what Willard is actually asking, they will be doing better than I.
Willard seems to be posing another stupid gotcha, based on his ignorance of physics, but his incomprehensible first sentence has got me beat!
Willard appears to lapse into incomprehensibility when faced with a reality he attempts to reject.
swenson…”Willard the nitwit wrote ”
***
Nitwit suggests Willard may have some wit. How about nit-twit?
If you don’t accept that insulation exists, good for you, silly sock puppet. Your master, Mike Flynn, believes it does. He can’t describe it, but he still believes in it.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”The Earth loses energy slower, and cools more slowly. Atmosphere”.
***
Where’s the proof that has anything to do with a trace gas like CO2? The atmosphere, which is 99%+ nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, absorbs heat directly from the surface via conduction. That heated air rises and because N2, O2, and Ar cannot radiate the heat away, and there is very poor conduction between air molecules, the heat is retained for lengthy periods of time.
There’s your greenhouse effect right there. In a real greenhouse, the glass contains the heat. In the atmosphere the majority gases retain the heat.
In a real greenhouse, it remains hot as long as the Sun is shining. At night, the greenhouse cools naturally via conduction through the glass and soil. In the atmosphere, the major gases rise till their pressure drops and the heat is dissipated naturally (Ideal Gas Law).
Simple. No need for a GHE or AWG theory.
No one has addressed the issue of how much the atmosphere is heated by incoming solar. With such a broad bandwidth of EM frequencies, N2. O2 and Ar are bounds to absorb some heat from SW solar. At night, there is nothing to stop them re-radiating at higher frequencies.
Alarmists are only looking for evidence of IR radiation from CO2/WV. Has anyone bothered to check to see if N2/O2 are radiating at higher frequencies? I know N2 absorbs strongly in the extreme UV region, meaning it must warm up from the region in the SW solar spectrum.
Apparently oxygen and ozone absorb in the UV region as well. So we have gases making up 99% of the atmosphere that absorb the most intense solar radiation yet we are claiming a trace gas is responsible for any warming.
I think not.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Alarmists are only looking for evidence of IR radiation from CO2/WV. Has anyone bothered to check to see if N2/O2 are radiating at higher frequencies?”
The Sun emits some UV but in the lower energy portion.
For N2 or O2 to be significant UV emitters the temperature of the atmosphere would have to range from 10,000 to 1,000,000 K. I can assure you that the atmosphere is not at this temperture.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astronomy/chapter/the-electromagnetic-spectrum/
You need to remember science is also about rational and logical thought to go with observations.
norman…”The Sun emits some UV but in the lower energy portion”.
***
All UV is high intensity energy since it is generated by high energy sources. UV will burn your skin and we need ozone and oxygen to filter it out to a good extent. Even nitrogen help filter extreme UV. Visible light won’t burn your skin and IR won’t affect it at all. At least, not the IR radiate by the Sun.
You have to be careful when analyzing Planck’s curve, it is not a measure of intensity versus wavelength/frequency. It is more a probability distribution of intensities.
Planck included an exponential factor in the equation for the curve because he felt the more intense frequencies were less likely to occur. That does not man they are weaker with increasing frequency it means they are less likely to occur.
Before Planck’s discovery, the equation for EM emission from atoms was E = hf. That makes it appear as if intensity will increase toward infinity as frequency increases, leading to what became known as the ultraviolet catastrophe.
Obviously there are limits to what any atom can emit but the more intense emitter from UV onward, into x-rays and gamma rays, emit far more intense rays than emitters below that range of frequencies.
Radiation from x-rays and gamma rays are so powerful they will pass right through a human body whereas UV just affects the skin.
Norman bloviates: “You need to remember science is also about rational and logical thought to go with observations.”
Norman, where was your “rational and logical thought” when you claimed Earth has a “real 255K surface”?
Where was your “rational and logical thought” when you agreed with Folkerts’ nonsense that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K?
Need I go on?
You’re such a phony.
One square cm at 2730 K located 1 m above a surface will provide a flux of (about) 315 W/m^2 to the surface below it.
Two such squares will provide 2 fluxes of 315 W/m^2, for a total of 315 + 315 = 630 W/m^2.
Yep — those two fluxes add!
WRONG Folkerts. You’ve got so many things wrong, it’s hard to know where to start.
One square cm at 2730 K would be emitting 3,150,000 W’m^2 (emissivity = 1.0). Two such squares would still be emitting 3,150,000 W/m^2. 10 such squares would STILL be emitting 3,150,000 W/m^2.
Fluxes don’t add at the emitting surface, and they don’t add at the absorbing surface.
You have no idea how confused you are.
Clint R
You are confused by your own ignorance. Fluxes can add at a receiving surface. They do not have to it, it depends upon the arrangement and view factor.
I think you are displaying quite a bit of illogical thought when you falsely believe that fluxes can’t add. They can and do. Why you believe this nonsense and keep peddling it forever on this blog only you know.
Tim Folkerts is quite a bit more intelligent than you are also he has rational logical thought. You can’t follow his ideas because you are irrational and make up stuff to suit your own mind.
Nothing new with you. Proceed on with some more nonsense and illogical thinking, it is what you do.
As usual, Clint completely misunderstands.
CLINT: “One square cm at 2730 K would be emitting 3,150,000 W’m^2”
Yep that is exactly where I was starting from. That is where I got 2730 K. 10x hotter = 10,000x stronger flux than ice, but from 1/10,000 of a m^2.
Nothing is ‘wrong’ there.
CLINT: “Two such squares would still be emitting 3,150,000 W/m^2.”
Yep. Again not contradicting anything I said.
Nothing is ‘wrong’ there, either.
CLINT: “Fluxes dont add at the emitting surface”
Yep. As I have said numerous times. Radiosities don’t add.
Nothing is ‘wrong’ there, either.
CLINT: “and they dont add at the absorbing surface.”
And finally we get to the crux. This ‘correction’ is so obviously wrong. Irradiances do add. Turn on two light bulbs at 2730 K and the surface gets brighter. Turn on two heat lamps and surfaces nearby get warmer. Send twice as many photons at a surface and twice as many photons get absorbed. That is “physics”. That is what every textbook on
So … CLINT was wrong on all counts. Either wrong in what he projected on to me, or wrong about the physics.
Folkerts and Norman, all you have to do is produce the technical support that two incoming 315 W/m^2 fluxes can add to 630 W/m^2 and then heat a surface to 325K?
Then you wouldn’t need to make up stuff.
“all you have to do is produce the technical support … ”
https://www.google.com/search?q=thermal+radiation+textbook
That was easy. There is literally an entire sub-branch of physics devoted to thermal radiation. Take your pick.
And if you can’t find time to read or understand, that is on you, not me.
You’re a joke, Folkerts — linking to the entire Internet because you’ve got NOTHING!
Even your lackey sidekick Norman sometimes tries to find a link, even though he can’t understand it. You can bet he’s been searching for weeks. But, it’s all in vain. No real science supports your nonsense.
You can’t even explain your own example above, where you’ve got a flux of 3,150,000 W/m^2 reduced to 315 W/m^2 in one meter! Even braindead Norman is not that incompetent. Maybe you should be worshiping him, instead….
You both are documented phonies.
No — linking to physics texts because YOU have nothing! Physics is a rich, interwoven field. Any one of 100’s of sources would put you right, but you refuse to even open one (and all the while you insist that *others* need to learn some physics!).
“You cant even explain your own example above, where youve got a flux of 3,150,000 W/m^2 reduced to 315 W/m^2 in one meter!”
That would be self-evident if you understood even a bit of relevant physics.
3,150,000 W/m^2 emitted from 0.0001 m^2 is 315 W total. When that 315 W hits the 1 m^2 below, that is 315 W/m^2. The amount varies a bit from center to edge (pull out one of those texts and read up on view factors if you want an exact answer), but 315 W/m^2 would be about right at the center.
You’re a joke, Folkerts — All you’ve got is your endless blah-blah.
So a surface at 2730K (2457C, 4454F) cannot melt ice at 1 meter distance?
Yet two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K!
You’re a joke. Keep the nonsense coming, please.
“Turn on two light bulbs at 2730 K and the surface gets brighter.”
Yep. Clint can even try the experiment himself at home.
Then there is the fact that at football games they have all those lights.
Why, if only one would do just as well?
Or in a theatre where the performer can be lit up brighter by multiple spotlights, instead of just one.
Its very hard to understand how Clint, or anyone can deny the obvious fact that light from multiple sources shining on the same surface, adds, and produces a brighter light–greater flux.
Nate, you must have missed the discussion about multiple sources. But, you wouldn’t have understood it anyway.
Folkerts gave the erroneous example that two 315W/m^2 fluxes would add to 630 W/m^2 to then raise a surface to 325K. That’s bogus. Fluxes do not simply add. That’s the issue. Everything else is distraction, obfuscation, disruption, confusion, or rabbit trails.
Folkerts and Norman can’t support that nonsense. And, you can’t either. You’re just here trolling.
“So a surface at 2730K (2457C, 4454F) cannot melt ice at 1 meter distance?”
If you are such an expert, then show us the calculations! Derive the correct temperature for a 1cm x 1cm square 1 m above a flat surface.
Or demonstrate to everyone once again that you have no clue how to actually calculate any of this.
You got at least one thing right, Pup –
Adding another as bright as you would not illuminate this problem.
You are too dim.
But have you noticed how Tim minded his units?
Folkerts asks: “If you are such an expert, then show us the calculations!”
I’d be happy to, Folkerts. If you agree to not comment here for 90 days.
But based on your inability to keep your word, you do the 90 days first, then I’ll teach you how to do the calculation.
“Fluxes do not simply add. Thats the issue. Everything else is distraction, obfuscation, disruption, confusion, or rabbit trails.”
Yes that is what you have been saying.
But then you can account for everybody’s experience that it does.
Given our experience of light sources adding in various everyday examples, spotlights, football lighting, turning on multiple lights brightens all exposed surfaces, its very hard to understand how you can deny that light from multiple sources shining on the same surface, adds, and produces a brighter lightgreater flux.
Nate, you must have missed the discussion about multiple sources. But, you wouldn’t have understood it anyway.
Folkerts gave the erroneous example that two 315W/m^2 fluxes would add to 630 W/m^2 to then raise a surface to 325K. That’s bogus. Fluxes do not simply add. That’s the issue. Everything else is distraction, obfuscation, disruption, confusion, or rabbit trails.
Folkerts and Norman can’t support that nonsense. And, you cant either. You’re just here trolling, as usual.
“Folkerts gave the erroneous example that two 315W/m^2 fluxes would add to 630 W/m^2 to then raise a surface to 325K.”
Certainly possible. A spotlight shines 315 W/m^2 on a stage surface. A second spotlight shines 315 W/m^2 on the very same spot.
The result would indeed be 630 W/m^2 hitting that spot on the stage. The spot will be brighter and warmer. If performer was there, they will be sweating. This agrees with things everyone has observed.
There are no facts or logic available to deny this.
And AGAIN, try an experiment. Turn on a desk lamp pointing at desk. Turn on a second desk lamp, pointing at the same desk. The desk will be brighter. Yes or No?
“Thats bogus. Fluxes do not simply add. Thats the issue.”
You havent made that case to anyone with common sense and basic real world experience.
Nate, you must have missed the discussion about multiple sources. But, you wouldn’t have understood it anyway.
Folkerts gave the erroneous example that two 315W/m^2 fluxes would add to 630 W/m^2 to then raise a surface to 325K. That’s bogus. Fluxes do not simply add. That’s the issue. Everything else is distraction, obfuscation, disruption, confusion, or rabbit trails.
Believing Folkerts means that two ice cubes could raise the temperature to 125F! It means that 4 ice cubes could then boil water. You don’t understand any of this, you just want to believe it.
Folkerts and Norman can’t support that nonsense. And, you cant either. Where’s your verified technical reference to support your nonsense? You have NOTHING. You’re just here trolling, as usual.
You are just repeating empty, unsupportable assertions, that don’t make any sense.
You don’t seem to be even trying to making sound, logical arguments that agree with common sense.
You don’t seem to be even trying to make arguments that would convince neutral observers.
That strongly suggests that you are just here to troll and seek negative attention.
All wrong, troll Nate.
I’ve learned it does no good to waste time with you braindead cult idiots. You have NOTHING, and you can’t learn.
Good idea, Pup.
Please do not touch the furniture on your way out.
C’mon, Gordo.
On the one hand, you say –
[GORDO] There’s your greenhouse effect right there. In a real greenhouse, the glass contains the heat. In the atmosphere the majority gases retain the heat.
On the other, you say –
[ALSO GORDO] Simple. No need for a GHE or AWG theory.
How would you call the “majority gases” that retain the heat like in a real greenhouse the glass contains the heat, again?
That’s the way it is. In a real greenhouse, the molecules of air are trapped by the glass. Since heat is the kinetic energy of those molecules, the glass traps the heat. The atmosphere cannot do that.
In the atmosphere the kinetic energy of the molecules of air is also the heat. They cannot radiate the heat away, except for a trace amount of the gases, therefore the heat is retained. Eventually, the heat will dissipate at higher altitudes as the air pressure diminishes.
Greenhouse effect in a real greenhouse refers to the trapping of air molecules by glass. It has been used to describe the atmosphere but that is a misnomer since there is no greenhouse effect in the atmosphere as in a greenhouse. When I say, ‘there’s your greenhouse effect’ I am using the term as a misnomer.
Let’s call it the warming effect even though it is transitory. The temperature of the atmosphere has a negative temperature gradient and gets progressively colder with altitude in the troposphere.
> Let’s call it the warming effect
C’mon, Gordo.
I asked you to name the “majority gases” that creates this “warming effect,” not to name this warming effect.
We already have a name for that effect:
http://blog.ametsoc.org/news/goodbye-greenhouse-gases-hello-tyndall-gases/
In fact, it’s also the name of the gases!
C’mon Willard,
In the absence of sunlight, the surface cools.
And vice versa. Is this your GHE, or does the GHE not work during nighttime hours – or when it’s cold, rainy . . . ?
As to Tyndall gases, I believe this was a proposal to get around the silliness of “greenhouse gases”. It was never adopted, for obvious reasons.
You idiot, there are no “warming gases” making the surface hotter!
You are a delusional idiot. There is no Greenhouse Effect Theory. There is no Greenhouse Theory. There is no Insulation Effect Theory, either.
You talk like someone who never had to put put hot coffee in a thermos before the Sun rises, Mike. This line of your is as silly as the one about entropy, for you answered it yourself. You would not need to posit that the atmosphere is what distinguishes the climates of the Earth and the Moon.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordo, the self proclaimed engineer, continues to claim that:
Gordo refuses to provide a physical explanation for his “dissipation” process. Given that the atmosphere’s temperature increases with altitude above the tropopause, he can not claim either convection or conduction, so all that’s left is thermal IR radiation from the greenhouse gases.
So, Gordo, no more BS, where’s the beef?
Gordon,
“Thats the way it is. In a real greenhouse, the molecules of air are trapped by the glass. Since heat is the kinetic energy of those molecules, the glass traps the heat. The atmosphere cannot do that.”
It’s the gravity of the Earth that traps the atmosphere, which traps the heat, same as the glass in a greenhouse.
Wrong again Moose-lips.
The mystical gravity of glass. Who new?
Chic,
You are a winner!
Of the moron of the day award.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Gordo… “Heat in the Sun is not related to heat in the Earth.”
C’mon.
I explained it in detail, having problems with comprehension?
C’mon, Gordo.
You said that in the atmosphere the majority gases retain the heat. Either that heat comes from the Earth, or it comes from elsewhere. And we know that it gets warmer during day than during night.
Besides, ever got a sunburn?
Willard,
Ever get a sudden attack of intelligence?
I didn’t think so.
Mike Flynn,
How are you going with trying to find a copy of your Insulation Theory?
Not too well, I would guess.
Weary Wee Willy,
Why do you keep babbling about non-existent things like your fantasy “Insulation Effect Theory” – which you now apparently called “Insulation Theory”?
I certainly have never claimed that either existed, and you can’t even describe either, because they don’t exist! Feel free to look up the definition of insulation, if you don’t believe me.
You make this nonsense up to try to avoid the fact that the can’t describe the Greenhouse Effect, and certainly can’t produce either the Greenhouse Effect Theory, nor the Greenhouse Theory which you claimed existed.
What a dimwitted moron you are.
Carry on being diverting.
> I certainly have never claimed
You are free to claim or not to claim whatever you please, silly sock puppet. You are so free in fact that nobody cares about your claims. Including your master.
Some, but not me, might appreciate that when you say something like
you can back it up with less simple terms. You are free to try “Basic physics! Basic physics!” once again. In return, I am free to remind you of what Einstein said about repeating the same things and expecting a different result.
Enjoy your afternoon.
Silly Willy,
Make a perfectly simple and factual statement more complicated than it needs to be?
Are you insane? Maybe you are incapable of accepting the definition of insulation, but anyone of normal intelligence can manage.
Maybe you don’t accept Einstein’s statement “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.” You demand that a simple factual statement be made “less simple”!
What a guy you are!
By your silly logic, Mike, Einstein should not have tried to explain why time and space are or rather is relative. And if kids ask you why the sky is blue, do not forget to refuse any explanation by telling them how pristine and pure is the fact that the sky is blue!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Obviously the heat came from the surface since I explained elsewhere that the air molecules gather it from the surface via conduction. Even if some is absorbed from solar radiation, does it matter where the heat came from? The air is warmed and retains it for a while because it cannot radiate it away. There is simply not enough CO2 or WV to do that.
I got a sunburn so bad one day my skin began to form little blisters. I had my arm hanging out the window as I drove through the Canadian prairies. That was caused by solar UV being absorbed by atoms/molecules in my skin and converted to heat.
A foot away from my skin there was no heat produced by the same EM. The air was warm but that was caused by the Sun heating the ground and the ground heating the air.
> Even if some is absorbed from solar radiation, does it matter where the heat came from?
C’mon, Gordo.
If “some” (some what, you don’t tell) is absorbed from solar radiation, then you can’t say that the heat in the Sun is not related to heat in the Earth!
Well, you can, of course. That’d be incoherent, but then that is your strongest point!
C’mon Willard,
You may have noticed that the temperature drops at night. The energy emitted by the surface flees, never to be seen again. Gee, where do the photons go, I wonder? Only joking, I know exactly where they go – but I’m not going to tell a donkey like you. You would only argue, even though you admit you know nothing.
Just basic physics – well beyond your understanding.
Keep rejecting reality, if you wish.
You might just as well claim that the mythical GHE is responsible for the Earth cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so. Or reject four and a half billion years or reality.
Peabrain.
Mike Flynn,
Chanting “Basic physics! Basic physics!” while waving your arms does not a scientific explanation replace. To each their own. If that suits you, suit yourself.
Still you said something that intrigues me –
“You might just as well claim that the mythical GHE is responsible for the Earth cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so.”
That would be weird for a theory that explains global warming, don’t you think?
Ta.
Whickering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“That would be weird for a theory that explains global warming, dont you think?”
You really are off with the fairies, aren’t you?
Four and a half billion years of cooling is global warming to an idiot like you, is it? That would explain why you claim there is a non-existent “theory”, I suppose.
Oh well, others can decide for themselves.
There is entropy on the Moon too, Mike. But the Moon has a very thin atmosphere. Almost as thin as the clothes of the Emperor you imitate when you appeal to entropy to explain climate change.
Gordon,
Sunburn is not caused by heat.
It’s caused by UV light breaking chemical bonds in the molecules of your skin.
Willard, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Word of the day…coronaphobia.
https://www.covid19reader.com/coronaphobia-or-coronavirus-which-is-more-infectious/
A good paper on all modern science even though it is primarily aimed at covid and HIV. It applies equally to the misinformation and propaganda being spread by governments and institutions about global warming/climate change.
https://www.covid19reader.com/kary-mullis-nobel-laureate-and-science-skeptic/
“When the National Institutes of Health makes an announcement through one its many spokespeople, who checks out the credibility of that statement?
***
Since Musk took over Twitter, the US government has set up a bureau to investigate ‘misinformation’. We really are moving closer to Naziism every day. Remember, Naziism began its life almost democratically. As the Nazis got more of their own way, they became emboldened to simply take over. I think we are a good way along that path.
With you strongly supporting Putin, I would agree.
” We really are moving closer to Nazism every day. ”
Typical comment of an ignoramus who forgets where he lives, and how incredibly privileged he lives in comparison with real Nazis, for example the Russian Nomenklatura.
Robertson the dumbie reminds me a French dumbie who recently wrote in the French newspaper ‘Le Figaro’ (+- moderate right wing) that under president Macron, he would feel like in a dictatorship.
The French dumbie was of course speaking about COVID19, vaccine passports, mask wearing, etc etc, and not about anything of really dictatorial nature.
A French person with a brain below the skull answered him that the simple fact that he could write that in a French newspaper was the proof he would NOT live in a dictatorship, and strongly recommended him to move to e.g. Russia, China, North Korea, to stay there on a broad avenue and to cry: ‘We are here in a dictatorship!’.
In Russia, you currently even don’t need to cry that.
It is nowadays fully sufficient to publicly claim that Russia has invaded Ukraine, and that Putin’s ‘special operation’ in fact is a war against mostly civilian persons in Ukraine.
That can cost you up to 15 years in a place we wouldn’t even dare to call “prison”.
*
Robertson not only has no brain below the skull: he is moreover a coward who permanently misuses the freedom provided in democracies to say all what he is would never be allowed to say anywhere else, let alone would he have balls enough to do that.
He is also too clueless to know that in the Nazi era it was enough not to respond to a block guard’s “Heil Hitler” salute to be later caught by the GESTAPO and taken to one of their notorious torture dungeons.
To compare today’s Canada to the Nazis is a cowardly and outrageous insult.
Biden’s handlers created the Ministry of Truth probably because they see the dominoes are lining up. Twitter squelched the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 election, likely causing Trump to lose. Now that the evidence of corruption, if not criminality, is public, calls for Biden’s impeachment will grow. Election fraud is Democrats only hope to survive a tsunami in November.
Blinny,
The only ignoramus is you. But, you’re not really an ignoramus, are you? You’re a propagandist. You know who is most like the Nazis. You and your ilk, the Democrats.
As usual, brainless stuff from a person claiming that bloodthirsty dictators in South America (especially in Chile and Argentina) were ‘Leftist’s, though they let kill ten thousands of Leftists (here without quotation marks) – with the help of German Nazis who managed to silently leave Germany after 1945 toward Southern and, yes: Northern America as well.
After 1945, there were many many more ex-Nazis on the American continent than in the whole Europe.
Your primitive trial to discredit American Democrats as ‘Nazis’ is exactly the same behavior as that shown today by ultra right wing Neo-Nazis all around the world.
Beware of them, Anderson. Neo-Nazis hate cowards like you…
Blinny,
So, how is a dictator for small, limited government? Didn’t Nazis also kill other Nazis? Wasn’t Rohm a Nazi? How is that possible? Please explain?
> how is a dictator for small, limited government?
A simple recipe.
First, say you are for “small, limited” gubmints.
Second, normalize coercion in the workplace:
https://pitchforkeconomics.com/episode/coercion-in-the-workplace-with-elizabeth-anderson/
There is no third step.
People like you always excel at deliberately perverting discussions with completely stupid comparisons.
For one Nazi killed by Nazis you will find hundreds of thousands of people against the Nazi regime.
You are a sly, perverted person.
Yes, I’m a sly, perverted, coward, Heh Binny? I’m also retired military and spent my career protecting your sorry leftist ass from those leftists to your East. Coward? Perverted? You murdered millions of unarmed old men, women, and children. And, the rest of you stood there and watched and claimed, what Blinny? Ignorance! Coward? We kicked your sorry leftist asses, twice! You chicken Kraut.
Here it is Blinny. Nazis American Model. The author is a little sly. He attempts to put the blame on “America.” But, read the book, Blinny. It is obvious it is not the American Model, but the Democrat Model, Jim Crow.
https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-American-Model-United-States/dp/0691172420/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1487701774&sr=8-1&keywords=hitler%27s+american+model
Anderson
You can write your dumbass stuff as long as you want.
All you reach is to ridicule and discredit yourself.
And I repeat: beware of these Neo-Nazis you admire. They don’t like cowards like you.
spa,
You mentioned chicken Kraut. Is that like chicken Kiev, but with sauerkraut?
Or is it with a sour Kraut? Maybe blinny is really a blini at heart, but prefers Kraut to Russki.
Oh well, enough silly food puns.
It’s funny how things change, though. The Germans exterminated about 24,000,000 inhabitants of the USSR in WWII, and now are furiously side-stepping attempts by the USA to impose sanctions on Russian gas imports!
The USA killed Germans – now they love them.
The USA loved the Russians while they killed Germans – now they hate them.
The Germans killed Russians – now they love them (unless they want to freeze in the dark), but they have to hate them at the request of the USA.
During the Holocaust, about 25 percent of Jewish deaths occurred in Ukraine, where the SS Galician division was mostly made up of Ukrainians.
Now everybody except the swinish Russkis has to love Ukrainians, and give them everything they want, while we go without.
No doubt, it will all change tomorrow, or maybe the day after that . . .
Quick question, Mike –
Why did you forget to mention the Holomodor, in which the ancestors of the ZZs killed millions of Ukrainians?
China to scrap tariffs on coal imports in rare move to ensure energy supply
“China will scrap tariffs on coal imports from May 1 to March 31, 2023, the Ministry of Finance announced on Thursday, marking a rare move to ensure energy security amid growing uncertainties in global coal supply due to geopolitical volatility and other factors.
The move is aimed at enhancing the energy supply and promote high-quality economic development, the ministry said. Different types of coal products ranging from anthracite to coking coal, which is normally subject to tariff rates between 3 percent and 6 percent, will be excluded from duties during the stated period.”
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202204/1260596.shtml
China coal at about $326 per US ton and has flat for more than a week. US does have high inflation.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal
But at this point appears China is maybe at Peak Coal
China at the peak of coal? Nonsense.
The party leadership decided last November to open not less than 150 (one hundred fifty) new coal mines.
You should rather view this coal tariff scrapping as a reaction to Russia’s unilateral war conflict, to be interpreted as
” All things remaining equal, we won’t start importing your gas. “
You mean start importing more gas from Russia.
In 2020, Russia exported 17.2 bcm of LNG to Europe, and China imported 94 bcm (including 6.9 bcm from Russia), of which almost 40 bcm were spot purchases (as opposed to sales under term contracts). These numbers suggest China has the capacity to absorb more Russian LNG.Mar 25, 2022
Mar 16, 2022 Russia was China’s third largest supplier of natural gas, after Australia and Turkmenistan, delivering 16.6 billion cubic meters (bcm) (pipeline .
Russia, China agree 30-year gas deal via new … – Reuters
https://www.reuters.com world asia-pacific exclusive…
Feb 4, 2022 Feb 4 (Reuters) – Russia has agreed a 30-year contract to supply gas to China via a new pipeline and will settle the new gas sales in euros, …
Data shows China’s imports of Russian LNG steady in March …
https://www.reuters.com world china data-shows-chi…
Apr 20, 2022 SINGAPORE, April 20 (Reuters) – China imported 321,380 tonnes of liquefied natural gas from Russia in March, steady from the same month last …
I know that, gbaikie… but it doesn’t change my impression.
You mean about Peak Coal?
Well China has have a Peak Coal, and question is when.
But I would say Peak Coal does involve technology and does depend
on efficiency. And mostly has do with price of coal, but price depends upon future supply.
So, better technology or better efficiency will delay Peak Coal.
Anyhow, a near certainty is China govt won’t inform you if they are at peak coal.
And another aspect of Peak Coal is you can’t more more of it, in order to lower costs of making it. You could say that is key aspect.
Or economy of scale stops working. Though you see how relates to technology improvement.
Or France hit peak coal- though would guess they still mining coal somewhere unless it’s outlawed. Though France probably subsidizing it, so instead outlaw, they could simply stop throw money at it.
Anyhow given time and change of technology, France might be able to mine a lot coal in the future. But that wouldn’t France didn’t reach Peak coal. And Since China has mining for long time, China has reached peak Coal a number of time, and know China had one point reached peak Gold.
Old China gold mines are now being mined.
“..aspect of Peak Coal is you cant more more of it, in order to lower costs..” should have been
aspect of Peak Coal is you cant MINE more of it, in order to lower costs”
But forgot another aspect, exploration.
No country has had enough exploration- if China does better/more
exploration of coal, they probably could find a lot more.
But problem with all government including even US government is
the lack of encouragement or the discouragement of exploration.
England found a lot coal- and I would guess they probably not mining it at the moment.
If China found coal they would probably mine it.
India is currently facing a prolonged heatwave, with temperatures exceeding 42C in numerous cities across the country. This comes just weeks after India recorded its hottest March since the country’s meteorological department began its records over 120 years ago. This image, produced using data from the Copernicus Sentinel-3 mission, shows the land surface temperature across most of the nation. https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2022/04/Heatwave_across_India
Read the start of Kim Stanley Robinson’s novel “The Ministry of the Future”.
It describes the effect of an extreme heat wave on an Indian town. Just the problem the Indian government is concerned about.
I’ll add it to my reading list; I’m finishing up Peter Ward’s “Under A Green Sky.”
Delhi sees hottest April in 12 years; mercury hovers near 46 degree Celsius in many parts
Delhi is already in the midst of the third heat wave spell of this summer.
“Delhi has recorded the hottest April in the past 12 years, going by data from the India Meteorological Department (IMD).
The average maximum temperature in April this year was 40.2 degrees Celsius, the highest since 2010 when the average for the month stood at 40.4 degrees Celsius. In the past 72 years, from 1951, the average maximum temperature in April has crossed 40 degrees only twice in 2010 and now in 2022. The average in April last year was 37.3 degrees, while it was an even lower figure of 35.3 degrees in 2020, at the Safdarjung weather observatory, which provides representative data for the city.”
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-heatwave-hottest-april-weather-imd-7894013/
Summer getaways begin early, clog hills
Pilgrim cities of Haridwar and Rishikesh, and the hill stations of Mussoorie and Nainital are packed with tourists, said authorities in Uttarakhand.
Searing heat in the north Indian plains is driving tens of thousands of tourists to the hill stations of Uttarakhand, causing traffic snarls on arterial roads and raising concerns that the fragile ecosystem of the mountainous regions will be harmed.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/summer-getaways-begin-early-clog-hills-101651261468405.html
“Elon Musk wants to “save” Twitter. In an astounding ‘philanthropic’ gesture, Elon Musk has offered to buy the popular social media platform for $44 billion. And, after initially rebuffing him, Twitter has agreed to be sold. In case you’ve missed the details of how the maverick entrepreneur and absolute free speech advocate left the tech world in shock, here’s what has happened in the last few weeks:
https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/elon-musk-twitter-absolute-free-speech-1943071-2022-04-28
46 C = 114.8 F
Didn’t Canada get warmer last year
Last year was pretty cool around here, but might have got near 46 C
I know it has been warmer, and it was really hot.
40 C = 104 F
Oh I used to have bookmarked, but I should able to find it, again:
Delhi:
https://tinyurl.com/bdecza2s
I wanted the nighttime temperature
83 and highest forecasted for week is 86 F [30 C]
So daytime highs are typical summer for me but maybe warmer nights but it seems like pretty low Humidity [for India] so maybe, not.
Should keep in mind, India is about 10 C warmer than California {yearly average} I where live, Or 14 C warmer than US, If comparing a Nation to a Nation.
And imagine having the Sun closer to Zenith makes intensity of sunlight more of noticeable feature of India.
gb…”Delhi is already in the midst of the third heat wave spell of this summer”.
***
It’s La Nina. It has a property of stalling heat domes over areas around the globe. According to NOAA, it stalled a heat dome over the Pacific NW last summer. Of course, all the alarmist jumped up in unison and claimed it proof of climate change.
maguff…”India is currently facing a prolonged heatwave…”
***
It’s a product of La Nina, which can stall heat domes over areas in summer and cause excess rainfall in other parts in winter while producing droughts elsewhere.
ENSO systems have profound effects on global weather patterns and ENSO is a relatively small system compared to the major oscillations like the AMO and PDO. Combined, according to Tsonis et al, the global oscillations control global warming/cooling over the short term and long term.
> It’s a product of La Nina
C’mon, Gordo –
Explain to us the meaning of La Nina.
La Nina means the girl.
You, on the other hand, are a blusa de chicas grandes.
C’mon, Gordo –
“La Nina” means “the girl.”
La Nina is a is “an oceanic and atmospheric phenomenon that is the colder counterpart of El Nino.”
Colder counterpart.
So you’re saying that India has a heatwave because of the colder counterpart of El Nino.
Care to try again?
Willard:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2317372-severe-indian-heatwave-will-bake-a-billion-people-and-damage-crops/
“R Krishnan at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology says the unexpectedly prolonged La Nia may also be contributing.”
Others seem to think the 3 year La Nina is not helping.
Willard says: So youre saying that India has a heatwave because of the colder counterpart of El Nino.
The typical La Nina pattern is cold equatorial Pacific (by definition) / warm Indian Ocean (by the circulation patterns driving it) SST.
The net is globally cooler but warmer in SE Asia.
Thanks, Mark.
Amazing how contrarians will talk daily about stuff they seldom research. Heck, sometimes they won’t even read the newsies they promote:
I bet Richard hasn’t noticed the bit about how AGW threatens wheat yield in India, and that the current heat wave, mixed with the ZZ invasion, does not bode well.
I’ll bet that Willard did not notice what was said about the precise effects of La Nina on other areas of the globe.
I’ll bet Richard forgot to read the whole paragraph a tiny part of which he quoted:
That’s why he can act as if his quote was relevant to the question I asked.
Willard even includes the words I quoted
“R Krishnan at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology says the unexpectedly prolonged La Nia may also be contributing.”
Yet somehow claims that La Nina is not important.
Willard also overlooked
“The typical La Nina pattern is cold equatorial Pacific (by definition) / warm Indian Ocean (by the circulation patterns driving it) SST.
The net is globally cooler but warmer in SE Asia.”
Richard just cannot bring himself to say to what La Nina is said to be contributing.
Just as he cannot bring himself to recognize that I responded to Mark already.
Richard is INVINCIBLE!!!!
Willard is an idiot.
Local weather ALWAYS plays a part in local conditions.
The very strange Willard’s complete comment, earlier –
“There is entropy on the Moon too, Mike. But the Moon has a very thin atmosphere. Almost as thin as the clothes of the Emperor you imitate when you appeal to entropy to explain climate change.”
Considering I’m not Mike, entropy was not mentioned at all, I appealed to nothing, climate is the statistics of past weather, and as such, changes continuously, so no appeal to entropy was made or needed, Willard is in pure desperate trolling mode.
Maybe he imagines himself to be a mass debater, but in reality he seems no more than a masturbator!
What a moron he is!
> Considering I’m not Mike
Keep denying, silly sock puppet:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/new-santer-et-al-paper-on-satellites-vs-models-even-cherry-picking-ends-with-model-failure/#comment-228310
Perhaps you don’t know, but it’s possible to refer to entropy without using the word “entropy.”
willard…”Perhaps you dont know, but its possible to refer to entropy without using the word entropy.”
***
Go on, Willard, explain to us the meaning of entropy.
C’mon Gordo –
Entropy is where EM comes from.
Duh.
“Entropy is where EM comes from”.
***
Entropy isn’t thing or a source of energy.
Try again.
Willard,
You are not terribly bright. You say it is possible to refer to entropy without using the word entropy.
It is obviously beyond your ability, when you respond –
“Entropy is where EM comes from.”
Not a particularly convincing example of your ability to refer to the word entropy without using the word entropy.
By the way, your statement is wrong. I know you will use the excuse that it’s a figure of speech, or a definition that is not circular, or some other pathetic attempt to deny your complete and utter lack of knowledge.
Are you really sure that electro-magnetism comes from entropy, or do you really not have a clue?
Over to you, dummy.
Mike, Mike,
It was a joke based on the name of a commenter you know.
Learn some physics.
Willard the Wanker,
First, what mental affliction forces you to provide an ironic question from Mike Flynn which makes you look stupid, and second, relating to your last sentence –
No it isnt. As you just clearly demonstrated, you fool.
Why would you want to refer to anything without saying what it was? Maybe you are going to claim that the Greenhouse Theory you claim to have really refers to some other Theory which you claim not to have!
Too obscure for me. Maybe other climate crackpots can make sense out of your nonsense.
Carry on.
> Why would you want to refer to anything without saying what it was?
Here are a few answers to silly question, silly sock puppet –
To express myself using a figure of speech.
To produce a definition that is not circular.
To refer to something without having to recall its specific name.
Keep asking silly questions, silly sock puppet!
Wacky Willard,
Nah. First, I asked you what mental affliction you suffered from.
Obviously one that prevents you from providing the nature of the mental affliction from which you suffer.
As to the rest of your pointless excuses, only a nitwit would think he could convince anyone that trying to talk about entropy, for example, without using the word entropy, is in any way clever. Unless, of course, you haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about, but are trying to pretend that you do.
Trying to present your moronic trolling contortions as evidence of your intellectual acuity does not seem particularly convincing. Obviously, your mental affliction convinces you are otherwise than stupid, ignorant, incompetent, powerless, and a general object of derision.
Carry on.
Silly sock puppet,
I see you don’t dispute not being Mike Flynn anymore.
Is it because it is hard to deny the evidence I presented?
So sad, too bad.
Wobbly Willard,
You wrote –
“I see you dont dispute not being Mike Flynn anymore.”
Why would I dispute not being Mike Flynn?
I know I’m not Mike Flynn. You seem to expect me to dispute that fact, and claim that I am!
Are you deranged, or do you not realise what you write?
Carry on being an incompetent moron.
Of course you are Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet.
You should have tried to change your voice.
Oh, right. You did! And you failed.
Remember?
What a moron he is!
I’d say a lot more off than he is on.
C’mon, Gordo –
What caught your tongue?
As Madonna once said, express yourself.
Madonna’s form of expression was kissing Britney Spears on the lips, onstage. She was an old cow picking on a naive young woman.
Of course, you probably liked Jimmy Kimmel’s way of expressing himself when he kissed a man on the lips onstage. Disgusted me but I image it thrilled you.
C’mon, Gordo.
Madonna kissed Britney in 2003.
Express Yourself was out in 1989.
So there was still a Berlin wall back then.
https://www.datavedas.com/measures-of-shape/
“Bi-Modal and Multi-modal Distributions
A Typical normal distribution only has one peak. There can be a distribution which has more than one mode and in such scenarios, the distribution can be Bi-Modal (if there are two peaks) and Multimodal (if there are more than 2 peaks). Such peaks may indicate different groups that might be present in the data or it may also mean that the data is Sinusoidal (shape in the form of a wave)”
But Willard thinks that Bimodal and Multimodal are the same thing.
Have to post in parts, too much math for the WordPress censor.
rlh…”it may also mean that the data is Sinusoidal (shape in the form of a wave)…”
***
For sake of interest with no criticism intended, a sinusoidal waveform has a very specific shape of the form:
y = A sin(theta) + (fi)
y = instantaneous amplitude
A = peak amplitude
theta = angle of rotating phasor with x-axis
fi = angle of phase difference
If theta is expressed in radians it can be plotted along the x-axis while the y-axis is the instantaneous amplitude.
In the electrical industry, the rotating phasor tends to indicate a radial line on the armature of a generator. Generators output sinusoidal waveforms. If you look at the armature end on and superimpose an x-y plane, you can plot the shadow projected by the tip of the radial line onto the x-axis as the line (phasor) rotates. If you then view the x-axis from above, and give it a time component to stretch it out along the time domain, you get a perfect sine wave.
This obviously applies to all simple harmonic motion.
In statistics, is the word sinusoid used to indicate a sinusoid-like waveform? I ask because, in the past, I have picked out waveforms on Roy’s UAH graph which had sine-like shapes or cosine-like waveshapes but were not true sinusoids. I averaged them anyway, claiming zero average amplitude over the full wave, which confounded the alarmists.
An example is the sine wave shape from 2016 onward which give 1.5 sinewave-like waves.
Go figure. When I post both posts above as one post, WordPress indicates an internal error.
C’mon, Gordo.
There’s an internal error in everything you poast.
What’s a poast? Is it like the blackened toast you spread around the blog?
C’mon, Gordo –
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poast
Don’t be like Mike Flynn!
I normally say quasi-sinusoidal to overcome just that point. The quote did not include that distinction. Of course T is not a pure sinusoid.
Sinusoid or quasi-sinusoid will both produce a U shaped, bimodal distribution, skewed at that.
entropic…”Read the start of Kim Stanley Robinsons novel The Ministry of the Future.
It describes the effect of an extreme heat wave on an Indian town. Just the problem the Indian government is concerned about”.
***
Let me get this straight. You are referencing a novel, a work of fiction, as reference for the effect of a heat wave?
We have plenty of real evidence: The 1930s heat waves in North America that are still records; a recent heat wave in the Pacific NW of North America; any tropical area in the world.
ps. I don’t read fiction. Got tired of references to ‘a steaming hot cup of coffee’. Can a cup of coffee not simply be hot, and who would drink a cup of cold coffee? It seems every fiction writer and some non-fiction writers feel impelled to use hackneyed expressions.
An experienced writer would claim the character simply had a cup of coffee. The reader can then add his/her preference: black, not too hot, with milk or cream, or sugar (yuck). No one could drink a cup of coffee that was steaming hot, he/she would have to very carefully sip it after blowing on it. How gauche. Mind you, you could always dip a cookie in it and sup on the softened cookie. Possible yuck.
binny…” We really are moving closer to Nazism every day.
Typical comment of an ignoramus who forgets where he lives, and how incredibly privileged he lives in comparison with real Nazis…”
***
I am aware of your German heritage and I am sensitive to your feelings on the subject of Nazism. However, we must always be aware of history and how the Nazi movement began pretty quietly and was supported by most Germans. I don’t blame the German people for grasping at the words of a master manipulator, the nation was in dire straights and Hitler was offering them a way out.
Many Germans were opposed but they had no voice, unless they wanted to take a one-way trip to a concentration camp. Many Germans opposed quietly, and I applaud their courage. To get caught was instant death.
When National Socialism (aka Nazism) began in Germany circa 1933 it would have been difficult to predict where it was going. Most western governments had no issues with it and those who tried to predict the future, like Canadian journalist Matthew Halton, were marginalized.
The Canadian Prime Minister, Mackenzie King, visited Hitler and came away impressed. Hitler was so impressed with the way King fawned over him that he extended the interview. Two British kings supported the Nazis and many in the UK parliament supported them. Churchill was one of the few who saw clearly what was coming.
Having read this history extensively, I feel alarmed when I see politicians in a democracy following the same recipe. Here in Canada, our Prime Minster broke out a war-measures act that had never been used in it current form, to control an unarmed trucker protest who were no threat. Now he is proposing an investigation that may curtail freedom of speech. This guy, meantime, called Fidel Castro a family friend and has praised the Chinese system of government. To me, he is saying that is the model for a government he’d like to see in Canada.
I am saying, to hell with this. It needs to be stopped now. The same in the US where they have introduced a department to monitor disinformation. That is plain Nazi in its intent.
Certainly, the Nazis went on to be brutal SOBs but in the beginning it began by interfering with freedom of speech, burning books, etc. We are not far from the right now in North America. Censoring scientists is akin to burning books and that is exactly what we are doing.
The Nazis did have their Brown Shirt thugs intimidating people and that was going on in the Ukraine recently. There are armed groups of neo-Nazis operating in the Ukraine right now. During WWII, their ancestors were involved with war crimes against Jews, Poles, and Russians. Many of the atrocities being blamed on the Russians were likely committed by internal factions as reprisals.
The one positive sign I see is the German Chancellor. He is opposed to arming the Ukrainians, an intelligent move that most of NATO are missing. Of course, Trump was right about NATO, they are a load of freeloaders living off the backs of the US taxpayer and military.
The European parliament helped start the current war by interfering in Ukrainian politics. They, along with the US foreign affairs spokespeople, like Victoria Nuland, encouraged a coup that overthrew a democratically-elected president in the Ukraine.
His crime…he was pro-Russian. Well, excuuuuuuuse me. He is from eastern Ukraine where most people are pro Russian. In fact the popular vote in the Ukraine is split equally between eastern and western Ukraine, between pro-Russian and pro-West. When he was ousted, his supporters in eastern Ukraine got pee-off and wanted to separate. The past 8 years has seen a civil was fought over that desire and the Russians have supported them.
> His crimehe was pro-Russian.
C’mon, Gordo. We’ve been there already:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
The democratic election of Yanukovych was monitored by global interests and deemed fair. Nothing you have revealed above justifies violently overthrowing a duly elected president.
The Ukraine is not now and has never been a democracy. The current president, Zelensky, has dismissed the opposition and censored the media. Meantime, any ruling president has a gun held at his head re decisions on dealing with Russia. The gun is held by fervent Ukrainian nationalists with neo-Nazi affiliations.
I am hoping the Russians will put an end to this nonsense, root-out the neo-Nazis, then leave when order is re-imposed. If they do not, I will re-evaluate my views.
The only way we can survive in this nuclear age is to communicate and compromise. We in the West, paranoid about the Stalin era, have never given the Russians a chance. We have lied to them about NATO expansion and tried to screw them on other matters.
I am under no delusion that Putin is a nice guy. In fact, I know very little about him. All I know is that the West is ganging up on Russia and driving them toward China. That is a seriously dumb move implemented by seriously dumb people. We had a chance to get them onside and blew it over paranoia and misguided emotions.
Believe it or not, the average Russian admired people in the West and Putin did nothing to discourage those feelings. We fail to grasp that when the USSR broke up circa 1985, they faced a tremendous uphill battle toward democracy. We did nothing to help, we were only interested in exploiting Russian resources.
As it stood, a few people became tremendously wealthy while the average Russian struggled. Putin was appointed by Yeltsin and he had a daunting task ahead of him. There were riots in Georgia and Chechnya, while the average Russian was sucking.
It ‘seems’, for the most part, that he has juggled the problems fairly well. On the one side he’s had the army and the oligarchs waiting an opportunity to dummy him. On the other side he had to satisfy the average Russian even though he has essentially taken over as a dictator.
That’s a hard one to call. How do you allow fair elections during the unstable period of establishing a democracy, when no one has a feeling what to do, and any elected idiot can take power and screw the country? The Ukraine is a perfect example of that.
> Nothing you have revealed above justifies violently overthrowing a duly elected president.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re just not listening –
You salivate when you see democratic processes, but you fail to notice that there was a vote.
You’re the one not listening. Once again, Yanukovych was a democratically-elected president forced to run for his life by armed Ukrainian protestors, some of whom who have been identified as neo-Nazis.
Do you not see something wrong with that scenario in a so-called democracy? Don’t you get it that Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine became seriously annoyed with that action, leading to a civil war.
If you had any brains you would not have enough to blow your hat off.
Do you support Putin’s war in Ukraine?
But he was elected is not an excuse to police brutality, torture, killing, and autocratic disregard for the parliamentary process, Gordo.
If you shoot people, they *will* react.
You are a fool.
binny…”Anderson…And I repeat: beware of these Neo-Nazis you admire. They dont like cowards like you”.
***
I don’t imagine Stephen, being trained in the US military, is a whole lot worried about them. You seem to know a lot about their MO, on the other hand.
GR,
Binny seems to have a lot of knowledge about what Neo-Nazis think. Maybe he believes they share similar thoughts, admiration for highly polished jack-boots and riding crops, and the same desires to inflict agonising pain on people who disagree with them.
Who knows?
I think Ken has the same problem. When I mention neo-Nazi he goes into a fit of denial, claiming I am making it up. Ken thinks there have bean no Nazis since WW II even though there is evidence all over the Net about them.
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/canada-nazi-monuments-antisemitism/
Heck, there are cemeteries in Canada with headstones honouring Nazis. There’s a good photo at link above of Himmler shaking hands with a Ukrainian Nazi as he reviews the Ukrainian SS Galacia division. These SOBS are being honoured in the Ukraine, by law, as Ukrainian heroes today, they hold torch light parades to honour them.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/torchlight-parade-kyiv-honors-nazi-linked-nationalist-68020843
C’mon, Gordo –
https://en.respublica.lt/signs-of-neo-nazi-ideology-amongst-russian-mercenaries
rlh…”With you strongly supporting Putin, I would agree”.
***
I have never claimed to be a supporter of Putin. Like anyone else, I am nothing more than an observer. The difference is that I like to explain what I am observing rather than leaping to emotionally-based conclusions.
Truth is, I know essentially nothing about Putin. When the word came down that Russian was planning to invade the Ukraine I was nonplussed. When they did attack, and I saw what was happening, I fell for the Western media’s account and got peed off at Putin.
It was not till I became more objective and began researching the reasons behind the invasion, that I began to understand it. That does not suggest I condoned it, how does one ever condone or justify the death of innocent civilians?
My approach is to minimize the damage and get this thing stopped. Instead, western powers are fanning the flames by encouraging the hopelessly out-classed, out-armed Ukraine to fight back.
What I had not realized was that a similar killing of innocent civilians had being on within the Ukraine before the invasion and that a civil war had been underway for 8 years.
Why was the Western media not reporting such atrocities or what was causing the civil war? All I ever heard was that the Ukrainian government was sending in the military to deal with rebels in the east and that Russia was supporting the rebels. I had no idea that the rebels had a legitimate beef in that a democratically-elected president representing them has been ousted in an illegal coup by armed nationalists with neo-Nazi beliefs.
The Ukrainian army stationed the Azov battalion in Mariupol right in the middle of the civil war. The Azov are known neo-Nazis who wear Nazi symbols on their helmets and on the their flags. Why would anyone with any sense or compassion put a battalion of soldiers with a diabolical hatred of Russians in the middle of pro-Russian people? Is it not obvious the aim was to induce terror?
My investigation began when a buddy sent me a link to a video produced by Oliver Stone called Ukraine on Fire. I don’t simply watch a video and thing it must be the truth, I research what is said, What I saw in the opening third of the video about Ukraine’s dark past with neo-Nazi fanatics astounded me. It was hard to believe, so I hit the Net.
Everything claimed in the video could be easily corroborated and it’s part of history. Ukrainian factions who were ultra-right-wing extremists joined the Nazis, embracing them as having freed the Ukraine. What astounded me was that modern ultra-nationalist facts exist in the Ukraine today and they influenced a pro-Western president Victor Yushchenko, to declare Ukrainian war criminals like Stepan Bandera as Ukrainian heroes.
The Russians have been claiming that all along and no one has been listening. During his tenure as President, Obama claimed the Russian claims as propaganda. Obama lied, this is all easily verifiable on the Net.
We have been lied to all through the Russian campaign. I don’t support what Putin is doing but it’s happening and the truth behind it is being suppressed by the Western media.
We in the West had 8 years to prevent this war, instead we pushed Western propaganda about the situation in the Ukraine. We’re to blame, we knew it was coming but we buried our heads in the sand hoping it would go away, or turn out differently.
No that it’s happening we are trying to save face by telling the biggest lies imaginable.
C’mon, Gordo –
Don’t you recall when the Germans were “oppressed” in Sunderlands:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8tFv-PnSCI&t=46s
Think.
Damn autocorrect –
Sudetenland.
–It was not till I became more objective and began researching the reasons behind the invasion, that I began to understand it. That does not suggest I condoned it, how does one ever condone or justify the death of innocent civilians?
My approach is to minimize the damage and get this thing stopped. Instead, western powers are fanning the flames by encouraging the hopelessly out-classed, out-armed Ukraine to fight back.–
As I recall Trump gave them anti-tank weapons.
And apparently Obama sent blankets.
Lately I heard it said that the US military {and NATO??} gave military training to Ukraine. Some Ukrainian look better trained than most Russian forces- but there some amount of Russian forces which apparently are well trained.
“What I had not realized was that a similar killing of innocent civilians had being on within the Ukraine before the invasion and that a civil war had been underway for 8 years.”
I knew Russia invaded [and were repelled- and was ongoing fighting with Russian backed fighters [and undoubtedly Russian military involvement, being regarded as given]. This was early and late in the Obama presidency as I recall. Didn’t hear about it in the news- as far as new news- but it was known to be ongoing and unresolved- hence thing about Trump arming them. Or were armed [given tank weapons] because they was fighting and fighting could potentially get worst.
And for long time Russia make known they want to restore to Soviet glory, I recall even taking back Alaska was mentioned as “kind of joke”- but also not joke, but rather over the top wishful idea.
–Why was the Western media not reporting such atrocities or what was causing the civil war? All I ever heard was that the Ukrainian government was sending in the military to deal with rebels in the east and that Russia was supporting the rebels. I had no idea that the rebels had a legitimate beef in that a democratically-elected president representing them has been ousted in an illegal coup by armed nationalists with neo-Nazi beliefs.–
All I heard was Russia invading Ukraine with some given unreasonble pretext, which no thought was “real”. When Russia got involved Syria, there would been Syrian on Russia’s side. And when Russia Invaded Afghanistan there must had been some large number of Afghans on the Russia side. But that true about any war that ever happen. When US invades Canada they will some Canadians on US side. And rest of the Canadians will call them traitors. That war, but that not legal justification for war.
But as I mentioned, a number of times, there isn’t any news from the corporate news.
Little to speak of during Obama, or Trump, or Biden. And with Trump it started with FBI phony investigation {non stop news about it}, then two phony impeachments and then endlessly China virus nonsense and lies. World news was not much before and then become basically nothing. And it pick up bit with Biden “withdrawal” from Afghanistan- a spat very little news Afganistan- which became a war no one had any reason to continue to go on for no apparent good reason. Some might say something similar about being in Germany and South Korea and etc- though these could regarded as important “regions”.
Apparently the US does not have much more weapons- that could it could give Ukraine [not that I think this accurate] gave them about 1/3 of weapons that will give them, US is left with 2/3rd.
{which does not seem like much}
Or need to make more.
And apparently Trump spent a lot money making weapons- so it seems we would have had less to give, without such spending.
Would be my guess.
“I have never claimed to be a supporter of Putin”
You posts seem to indicate otherwise. Tell me, do you support Russia’s invasion and war in Ukraine?
Or do you still beat our wife?
I think Gordon thinks Russia was provoked to invade Ukraine.
And he thinks all of us are fanboys of Ukraine {a shithole of a country}, and is trying to provide two sides to the story.
And of course Russia might start WWIII.
Or actually any party could do something which could misunderstood by the idiot Putin, and then, Putin starts WWIII.
But reality is Obama the idiot got us, here. And Biden [who is being controlled by the old Obama team] got us back into it.
Or Putin the lefty and Obama the lefty are fighting- Obama lost and is losing. And everyone is dancing with a potential WWIII.
Anyhow Ukraine is buffer state. No country should be buffer state.
Buffer states are play grounds of foreign Intel agencies.
Russia agreed to not attack Ukraine. Russia other countries agreeing to anything is roughly a worthless piece of paper.
And we should assume that Ukrainians don’t want to be anyone’s buffer state. Diplomats imagine buffer states are required. And despite all evidence to contrary, they think they “work”. If up to them, our world would filled with buffer states. And they are so deluded, they probably see the world as filled with buffer states.
Or NASA constantly fails, but US State Dept is far more of clown show- and State Dept is basically Intel agencies are housed. But so are the corporate news, though news is more of bar than housing, but news is also a whorehouse for intel. The News business are always in need of money- they are not profitable. News are hobbyhorses of the rich and Intel or State News [which we are suppose imagine are independent- which can only be very funny joke to intel agencies].
When are the news going bring cats to entertainment to their audience. Because cats are more intelligent and interesting then most reporters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TrPqB8EeEc
Scott appears to have much higher opinion of the news.
He reminds.
How many public people are on drugs.
Obviously News people are on drugs. I would guess news people who just drink coffee are the best news people.
[I have not had enough coffee yet, today.}
But Intel people are obviously on drugs. It’s the job you want if are a drug user, and it’s job which would probably encourage drug use. Some intel might just use coffee.
Now, is coffee actually as good for you [healthwise] as it is reported- well, you got to account for the source of information.
I like chocolate, better. And it’s also a drug.
But I buy in to idea, that coffee is good for health, but probably not for everyone. But if was in fact unhealthly, I would still drink it.
Obviously Biden takes drugs, and obviously Putin is taking drugs- and this not limited to coffee.
And long thought one best things to do, is to end the war against drugs.
I thought maybe Trump could done this, but he failed, though he was rather distracted. And apparently Trump was only one not taking drugs.
Or we might need leadership which is not taking drugs, to end this decade long war against drugs.
But children should not take drugs, and war on drugs has cause more children to take drugs- certainly hasn’t reduced the problem.
An interesting question is, if children observe adults taking drugs, does it later cause children to take drugs.
I don’t know, can see it go both ways. But when they become adults, they should be allowed to make this choice.
Anyways human history is thousands of years of various kinds of drug use.
So, I would like Putin removed. As I might Biden removed.
But during war that Russia having with Ukraine, it seems
like bad time for Putin to leave office.
Scott mentions idea making Russia lose their grip on Crimea- Ukrainian forces doing it.
That seems like a way to increase our chance of having WWIII.
Or anything which seems like obvious way to get Putin out of
office, will be known by Putin, before he can loss his office.
And Putin out of office is a dead Putin. And Putin out of office
could easily be seem as a threat to Russia national security.
Imagine US losing a small island territory which could have been caused by Russia- and US not able to do anything about it.
Or US doesn’t have to much national interest in it. Crimea is
about as important to keeping as Moscow for Russia.
And Putin is crazy and no matter the evidence- if they were to lose
Crimea, the US [and the whole World] is responsible for it.
Or nuking everyone is on the table, the question is who first to nuke. Or question is who can Russian nuke the mostly easily and have a “win” Or the mad doctrine. coin flip as to which course to take.
But Russia would need a quick victory whatever option is taken.
It could be anything, including nuking Crimea.
Nuking Crimea would the most animal type instinct- and Putin is an animal.
And any nuclear attack, is something to be avoided.
Or bad allow Crimea to be taken, worse to take away from Putin or any Russia leader. It’s taking a bone from a dog chewing on it.
Anyhow, Scott mentions US asteroid mining with Putin. Good idea.
[Musk seems to effecting how Scott thinks.}
“Russia was provoked to invade Ukraine”
So you believe Russia’s playbook?
Walk softly but have a big stick, is not
what I would call provocative.
But word salads and weakness is provocative.
But Russia of course was already at war Ukraine.
It interesting that we get body counts Russian soldiers-
which crazy high, but don’t have clue what Russian losses
have been from beginning of Russia military action.
I remember the 200 dead, we reported to have killed in Syria.
But others have also been busy killing Russian soldiers.
Maybe during Trump, Russia was resting/recovering, but imagine other than 200 Trump killed there was far deaths during Trump’s presidency.
And a lot more during Obama 8 year term. And also before Obama.
Anyhow during Joe Biden, Ukrainians have killed like 3 times more
Russian soldiers then US lost in Iraq and Afganistan- which were long quite wars, vs the last couple of months.
Of course Russia been destroying a lot buildings. Which what Russia does do a lot, everywhere. They look like soviet style buildings.
And the reason I guess is to lessen losses of Russian troops.
I guess I am poke around get some estimate of Russian losses.
But it seems the biggest loss, is people simply traveling away from Russia. And I think it’s possible more Chinese are going move into Russia, partially, for a better life.
Nothing yet. But getting this:
“NATO estimates that up to 40,000 Russian troops have been killed, injured, captured or gone missing during the first month of the Kremlins war, an alliance official confirmed to NBC News.
Of those, between 7,000 and 15,000 Russian troops have died, according to the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.”
And we now 2 months into it. What coming could be more than last couple month.
But it seems to me, Russia could have lost more in all warfare we have not watching every day for last 3 months.
Just put that here, while try get some kind answer to my question.
US lost around 2000 [don’t know european losses] in Afganistan, and more than 4000 in Iraq. And over that long time, probably a fair number elsewhere and in accidents- there some notable ship accidents and whatever.
Casualties in the Russo-Ukrainian War included six deaths during the 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and thousands of deaths of civilians and military forces during the war in Donbas (2014present) and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022present).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
there seems lack of information.
But I think Russia basically uses slave labor for soldiers.
Or what we see is a lot untrained Russia solders, and a few train russia soldiers that appear to be “normal soldiers”.
And reported they take civilian out war zone and process them and
have them be soldiers. Which seems like utterly crazy idea.
So, Russian could be using civilian prisoners, any russian on the street, protestors, and countries they invade.
Or what counting as russian soldier death, are people force to fight in war. They could be getting money, as part of it. Some could be paid a lot [comparatively, doing normal jobs in Russian].
This could seem crazy, but this is normal or even better in “moral sense”, than what Soviets did.
What else would they do with murderers and rapists. Putting prison
would make no sense to the Russian mind. And Neo-Nazis are their best soliders.
Remember a rule, Lefties always project what they doing, on to other people. They think it’s brilliant AND they can’t help themselves from doing it. And it’s a mental condition. And it’s created mental condition.
I thought Elon portrayed himself as a Lefty, gb.
> But reality is Obama
The gas disputes started early in the 2000s, and before that the relations between Ukraine and the ZZs never was rosy.
But don’t let the arrow of time get in front of a good story!
“I fell for the Western medias account and got peed off at Putin.”
The point is that we have a free press, and in Russia they do not.
I don’t think all of hundreds of western media outlets showing images of blown up apartment buildings, hospitals and theaters, bodies strewn in the streets, and mass graves, are faking these.
Do you, Gordon?
Pick which ever non-government-sponsored media outlets you want to get the real facts on the ground.
But I would suggest excluding any govt-sponsored outlets, so that means all of the ones from Russia.
“I have never claimed to be a supporter of Putin.”
Perhaps not in so many words but you are certainly a sympathizer.
“Truth is, I know essentially nothing about Putin.”
Truth is you essentially know nothing about Ukraine or Russia, which essentially summarizes the entire blegh that you wrote. Perhaps you should shut up about things you know nothing about so we don’t have to view your constant written diarrhea.
I’ve mentioned this before but you’re not listening.
There is this Norse saying: Its best to hold your tongue and be thought a fool than to loose it and remove all doubt.
ken…”ruth is you essentially know nothing about Ukraine or Russia, which essentially summarizes the entire blegh that you wrote. Perhaps you should shut up about things you know nothing about so we dont have to view your constant written diarrhea”.
***
Perhaps you should try not being such an idiot. You comment on things I write without giving the slightest bit of evidence to back your assertions. All you offer are hot air opinions. I supplied links for you to check out, and hopefully to comment on, but not a peep out of you other than ad homs and insults.
We are both concerned about our Canadian government and the direction it is taking. How can anyone do anything constructive when two Canadians can’t even talk to one another. And I am not the one blocking the dialog.
Take your own advice and keep your mouth shut about things you don’t understand. I understand a lot now about the Ukraine but you have your hands over your ears and your head buried in the ground. Are you Ukrainian, perhaps?
Or maybe you have an affinity for Nazis?
Robertson
You are here the one who doesn’t understand anything.
For the trivial reason that you never learn anything.
You are a boaster writing here about everything – based on nothing else than what you pick up out of contrarian sources or simply, arrogantly guess.
You don#t understand anything about Ukraine, Robertson. Your insisting on Nazis in Ukraine is the best proof for that.
There are many many more (Neo-) Nazis in Canada and Russia than in Ukraine and in Europe all together.
You have no idea of how Ukraine looks like since the Russians started their stoopid military aggression over this land, like they did in Afghanistan, in Chechnya, in Georgia, in Syria, in Krim etc.
You are a typical butt-kisser of monsters like Putin, and a shame for this blog.
And by the way: I’m quite sure that like me, commenter Ken has zero dot zero affinity for Nazis.
” There are many many more (Neo-) Nazis in Canada and Russia than in Ukraine and in Europe all together. ”
Should have read “… in the US, Canada and Russia… “
You’re such a useful idiot. The Nazis are Antifa, which is the militant wing of the Democrat Party. They are the blackshirts, akin to the Brownshirts of the SA and the blackshirts of the SS. The KKK was the militant wing of the Democrat Party but they can’t claim the Republicans are racists and use the KKK. Antifa tried coming to our small town which is fairly close proximity to Nashville. I guess they didn’t like the town square or some of the statues there. Or maybe they didn’t like what Blackburn was saying. Anyway, their advanced scout was on his cell phone parked in the square and two busses were on the way. We met the two buses as they exited the interstate but that was as far as they got. Within 30 minutes they were heading back to wherever they came from. They were very organized. We were more organized.
Exactly, Troglodyte.
Heather Heyer was a known fascist:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/james-alex-fields-found-guilty-killing-heather-heyer-during-violent-n945186
Anderson
” The Nazis are Antifa, which is the militant wing of the Democrat Party. ”
If there is a Fascist and Nazi lover here, then that’s you.
You show exactly the same antidemocratic behavior as all Fascists in Europe since 1933, and all post-WW II-Fascists all around the world – but especially in South and North America.
Simply because this continent was their first choice for fleeing Germany, liberated from Nazi atrocities by the Allies.
People like you perfectly remind me the bloodthirsty Argentinian military commander Alfredo Astiz, surnamed ‘El Ángel Rubio de la Muerte’, who tortured hundreds of left wing people in the ESMA in Buenos Aires, a Marine school where some 5,000 political prisoners were interrogated, tortured and murdered between 1976 and 1983.
You very certainly venerate such people. No doubt!
And if USA’s democracy suddenly became destroyed by people like Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Joseph Goebbels, you would enjoy that, because you are inhabited by a deep hatred of anything what has to do with democracy.
You, Anderson, would love these new Nazis, because you would immediately understand that, just as in Germany back then, these new Nazis would, behind their pseudo-socialist blah blah, provide your American industry with free labor that it would wear out to death.
This, Anderson, is exactly what people like you are dreaming of.
Chihuahua,
Have you ever read anything about Jason Kessler or Richard Spencer? Or listened to their interviews? Those “White Supremacists” aren’t conservatives. You keep bringing Charlotte up and it’s your one-trick-pony. But the premise of your one-trick-pony is wrong. You can’t even get that right.
Blinny,
I don’t advocate locking up those who disagree with me. You do!
Blinny,
And, by the way, the USA isn’t a democracy. It is a Republic. Or, what’s left of it.
FYEO, Troglodyte –
https://thebaffler.com/latest/were-a-republic-not-a-democracy-burmila
binny…”You have no idea of how Ukraine looks like since the Russians started their stoopid military aggression over this land, like they did in Afghanistan, in Chechnya, in Georgia, in Syria, in Krim etc.
You are a typical butt-kisser of monsters like Putin, and a shame for this blog”.
***
Your problem is that you simply cannot read and comprehend English. I have laid out my reasoning on the Ukraine while offering links to articles that corroborate what I am saying. I have cited Professor John Mearsheimer, an expert on US foreign policy. I have cited award-winning journalist, Robert Parry. I have held my nose and offered links to articles on Wikipedia.
Wiki can be corroborated elsewhere. Their claim that the Azov battalion, currently located in Mariupol and surrounded by the Russians, is a neo-Nazi battalion who wear Nazi-like insignia on their helmets and flags can be corroborated by the US Congress recognizing them as neo-Nazis. The US Congress knows a neo-Nazi when it sees one but apparently you and Ken are in complete denial that such an animal exists today.
I included a link to torch-light parades held by 1000s of Ukrainians who worship Nazi war criminals as heroes, like Stepan Bandera and SS Galcia. A lot of these sympathizers are armed militia trained by NATO. I even included a link with a photo of Himmler shaking hands with Ukrainian soldiers from SS Galacia. They joined the Nazis to enable them to persecute Jews, Poles, and Russians. What kind of animals do that?
I provided several links as evidence that a democratically-elected president was ousted in a coup. Do you not understand that coups don’t happen in established democracies, that they happen only in banana republics? That’s right, the Ukraine is behaving like a banana republic. The Ukraine has only been independent for 20 years and has never had a fully-functioning democracy free of corruption.
That does not excuse the emotionally-crippled who have lined up to blindly support such a banana republic while excoriating the Big Bad Bear trying to straighten it out, despite the howlings from actors like Zelensky, who is running around like a scared rabbit putting the Ukraine in massive debt buying modern armaments from wherever he can get them. You surely don’t think countries are donating these weapons, do you?
This 5’7″ idiot thinks he’s John Wayne at the Alamo. He is so stupid that he is now calling on the world to ban nuclear weapons in Russia. Duh!!! Does he not think Russia may have something to say about that?
Your problem is that you simply cannot write comprehensively in English.
The fault is yours; not the readers.
On October 9, 2009, a two-ton rocket smashed into the moon traveling at 9,000 kilometers per hour. As it exploded in a shower of dust and heated the impact surface to hundreds of degrees, the jet-black crater into which it plummeted, called Cabeus, briefly filled with light for the first time in billions of years.
The crash was no accident. NASA’s Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) mission aimed to see what would be kicked up from the lunar shadows by the impact. A spacecraft trailing the rocket flew through the dust plume to sample it, while NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter observed from afar. The results of the experiment were astonishing: Scientists detected 155 kilograms of water vapor mixed into the dust plume. They had, for the first time, found water on the moon.
About 25 years ago, spacecraft had began to detect signatures of hydrogen around the moon’s poles, hinting that water might be trapped there as ice. LCROSS proved this theory. Scientists now think there’s not just a bit of water ice on the moon; there are 6 trillion kilograms of it. Most of this ice resides in peculiar features at the moon’s poles called permanently shadowed regions (PSRs). These are craters like Cabeus into which the sun can’t reach, because of the geometry of the moon’s orbit.
Next year, robotic vehicles will enter the bewildering icy depths of PSRs for the first time, revealing what the interiors of these shadowed craters look like. By the decade’s end, NASA plans to send humans to explore in person.
Speculation about PSRs dates back to 1952, when the American chemist Harold Urey first hypothesized their existence on the moon. Then in 1961, the geophysicist Kenneth Watson of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory theorized that ice could persist inside PSRs.
Houston-based Intuitive Machines will be the first to explore a PSR. Their Nova-C lander will touch down on a ridge near Shackleton crater, a possible target for subsequent human exploration. The lander will then deploy a suitcase-size vehicle called the Micro-Nova Hopper. The Hopper will use thrusters to jump across the lunar surface, up to hundreds of meters at a time; in three hops, it will reach the edge of the 100-meter-wide Marston crater, which contains a PSR. Then the Hopper will fire itself above Marston and descend into the pitch-black depths.
If ice is accessible on or near the surface in PSRs, NASA hopes that astronauts could use it as either drinking water or fuel.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28289-6
Fairly amount cargo cult spewing, but:
“Using observational data, statistical analyses and model calculations, a team led by Professor Latif has therefore examined changes in the current system over the past one hundred years in greater detail. The results have now been published in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change. According to the researchers, part of the North Atlantic is cooling a striking contrast to the majority of ocean regions. All evaluations indicate that since the beginning of the 20th century, natural fluctuations have been the primary reason for this cooling. Nonetheless, the studies indicate that the AMOC has started to slow down in recent decades.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/30/new-study-part-of-north-atlantic-is-coolingnatural-fluctuations-have-been-primary-reason/
Cooling of north Atlantic is what will be related possible future cooling.
But I don’t think it will be quick and not a lot.
But more sea ice is long term warming effect or good news if worried about a glaciation period jumping out, and saying, boo.
But as they say, it’s not dramatic at the moment. And is like drip, drip sort of thing.
El Nino stuff is more exciting.
gb…”El Nino stuff is more exciting”.
***
Depends on which part of the world you are in and how EN affects you. Ironically, the major EN peaks in 1998 and 2016 did not affect us here in the Vancouver area nearly as much as the heat dome and the flooding produced by La Nina.
–Officials said the meteor was spotted about 54 miles above the Mississippi River near the town of Alcorn.
NASA scientists said the bolide was a 90-pound asteroid chunk 1 foot in diameter.
The object, which was said to be over 10 times brighter than the full moon at its peak, ultimately fell apart over the swamps of Louisiana.–
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2022/04/29/meteor-boldie-fireball-mississippi-louisiana-arkansas/8621651239724/
I am going call it space junk.
Solar activity picking up, with more orbital drag.
Solar wind
speed: 481.0 km/sec
density: 6.06 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 90
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.55×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.7% High
48-hr change: -1.2%
nate…”The point is that we have a free press, and in Russia they do not”.
***
That humourous Nate, you seem to equate free press with honest press. In other words, they can lie through their teeth and they are free to do so.
There was a day when rags like the National Enquirer in the US, and News of the World in the UK were outliers. Now the rest of the media is quickly moving toward that kind of trash reporting.
***************************
“I dont think all of hundreds of western media outlets showing images of blown up apartment buildings, hospitals and theaters, bodies strewn in the streets, and mass graves, are faking these”.
***
I am in no denial about the photos I see of carnage in the Ukraine. War is seriously ugly. The media seem to be presenting the flattening of a city like Mariupol as something common only to the Russians. We, the Allies, did exactly the same to cities all over Europe if they were harbouring German soldiers. We killed 15,000 – 20,000 French civilians near the Normandy landings.
Thus far, about 6000 Ukrainian civilians have died and we are comparing it to the Holocaust. The 15,000 – 20,000 French civilians were killed in a far smaller area whereas the 6000 represent a far greater area. I simply don’t accept the Russians are intent on genocide, especially against the pro-Russians they are defending. If that’s the case, then the Allies in WW II must be charged with the same crime, since we killed thousands of innocent civilians who were on our side and whom we were trying to free.
Mariupol was being held by the Azov battalion, who are proven neo-Nazis. The Russians have indicated all along that’s who they want. There is not a word of that in the mainstream media, they are presenting the story as if the Russians have flattened it for something to do on an Sunday stroll.
Mariupol is a largely pro-Russian city. When the Russians took civilians out of the city and into camps in Russia, the western media played the camps up as concentration camps where the people were being taken for forced labour.
As for mass graves, I want to see objective evidence as to what that is all about. The inference is that Russians are arbitrarily murdering Ukrainian civilians and dumping them in mass graves. Proof please? That’s all I am asking.
It has been revealed recently that many civilians were killed by fleshettes, tiny pieces of metal like shrapnel blown from a bomb. Those bombs are not illegal and US military used them in Vietnam. Such deaths may be abominable but they are not the war crimes claimed. It’s called collateral damage in some war scenes, unless it can be proved to be intentional.
What is abominable is comparing such deaths to the horrendous mass graves found in WW II where innocent civilians were lined up and shot. There is a mass grave outside Kyiv where 40,000 Jews were systematically executed by the Nazis, at Babi Yar, aided by Ukrainian police.
***************************
“Pick which ever non-government-sponsored media outlets you want to get the real facts on the ground”.
***
We are not getting real facts, we are getting photos with biased opinions. We are being spoon-fed pap.
There are many factors involved. The two sides engaged in the Ukrainian civil war since 2014 have committed atrocities against each other. There is a good possibility that many of the claimed atrocities have been done by internal Ukrainian factions. Those factions have not simply stepped aside, they are fully engaged in this war.
In Odessa, pro-Russian protestors fled into a building to escape counter protestors, backed by 300 members of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, who were called in to help. The building was set on fire and most of the protestors burned to death.
To this day, there have been no legal decisions forthcoming as to what happened. How the heck do you expect to get an objective opinion on what has being going on in the Russian invasion?
I am asking for objectivity, is that suddenly a crime?
ps..the other day, a Pentagon spokesperson, John Kirby, lost his composure and broke down emotionally while talking about the Ukraine.
A Pentagon spokesperson!!!!!!!!!!!
If the Pentagon cannot keep their emotions out of this, we are doomed to a nuclear war. Can you imagine Eisenhower, as head of the Allied army, braking down and sobbing over the carnage caused by Allied forces in Europe?
This is what we are witnessing, a hysterical reaction to things many people don’t understand. Our Deputy Prime Minister here in Canada is emotionally-biased because she is from Ukrainian roots. She joined protestors singing a Ukrainian nationalist song failing to realize the song has its derivation with the Ukrainian Nazi war criminals from WWII and before. When confronted about the gaffe, she claimed it was propaganda.
> Mariupol was being held by the Azov battalion, who are proven neo-Nazis. The Russians have indicated all along thats who they want.
C’mon, Gordo. Next you’re gonna argue that Muricans invaded Irak just because they wanted the WMDs.
Here’s a map of 40 settlements that the ZZs pillaged:
https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1509738284448382981
Notice how far most of them are from Mariupol.
Think.
“nateThe point is that we have a free press, and in Russia they do not=”
***
That humourous Nate, you seem to equate free press with honest press. In other words, they can lie through their teeth and they are free to do so.”
There are hundreds non-government-controlled media outlets covering Ukraine. Take your pick. Find one you trust to tell you the truth.
If you think a not-free-press that presents exclusively what a government wants you to hear (ie propaganda) is somehow BETTER than a free-press, then you are completely off your rocker, Gordon.
rlh…”I have never claimed to be a supporter of Putin
You posts seem to indicate otherwise. Tell me, do you support Russias invasion and war in Ukraine?”
***
I am not supporting either side, I just want to see it stopped before it leads to nuclear war. However, as along as the Russians contain the war to the eastern provinces and don’t try to take over the Ukraine in the long term, then all I can do is observe and hope for the best.
I am tired of hearing the emotionally-based cheerleading for the Ukraine of western countries. I am sick of the ‘poor Ukraine’ meme as if they were innocent and were attacked by a bully. And I am sickened by our interference in Ukrainian politics that lad to the current war.
As I have tried to point out, the Ukraine is not so innocent. Perhaps the majority of Ukrainians are innocent and just want to get on with their lives, as most Russians likely do. There are Ukrainian nationalists, however, who want to get rid of Jews, Russians, and whoever they deem non-Ukrainian. They are armed and act out openly, posing a threat to democratic rule. We could have dealt with that long before the Russians decided to take care of it.
Heck, here in Canada a peaceful, innocent truckers’ protest was met by a war measures act. Meantime, in the Ukraine, 1000nds march in torch light parades to honour Ukrainian war criminals and no one utters a word.
There are thousands of them and some are formed into armed militia with the full consent of the Ukrainian government. I have no idea what the average Ukrainian thinks of the nationalists, but the nationalists are largely responsible for the overthrow in 2014 of a democratically-elected president.
The Russians were dragged into this by the 2014 coup and by lies we told them about NATO expansion. The pro-Russian factions in the eastern provinces sued for independence following the coup and asked Russia to support them.
This makes sense to me, far more sense than the pap we are being fed about Putin as the evil monster. I can fully accept that Russian thought-processes are a lot different than ours in the West, especially having suffered through 70 years of Stalin’s evil regime.
I think we should give them some leeway as they too try to transition into a democracy with its inherent tendency toward corruption. Putin is former KGB and he could easily have reimposed the Stalin-era excesses. Gorbachev complimented him on that, claiming he was a good person.
I have no idea if he’s a good person or not. I do know he has a nuclear arsenal that could obliterate much of the western world and I would like to see communication kept open with him. The way we are reacting hysterically, with sanctions, innuendo, and name calling is not what I expect from established democracies who are supposed to be objective. We are pushing him into a corner while we defend a country with a dubious, dark past that is still operating through descendants of people from that past.
If we are going to criticize Putin, and he no doubt deserves it like other leaders, then we need to take off the blinders and see exactly why Putin has invaded the Ukraine.
I failed to get your gotcha. I thought maybe you were serious about what I think. You are obviously setting me up to commit myself to supporting the Russian invasion so you can pull one of your superiority acts.
Once again, you are appealing to authority. You have no interest in fact, only in what your authority figures think.
“as along as the Russians contain the war to the eastern provinces and dont try to take over the Ukraine in the long term”
So it’s OK to invade parts of another country unless you intend to do it ‘long term’. Strange logic you have.
And the Russian troll factory is in full swing.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/01/troll-factory-spreading-russian-pro-war-lies-online-says-uk
You are just helping towards its goals.
“The Russians were dragged into this…”
Just as the Nazis were ‘dragged into’ invading Czechoslovakia and Poland, because of so-called ‘atrocities’ against German speaking peoples happening in those countries.
You have fallen for the oldest, flimsiest excuse in the book used to justify naked aggression and mass murder.
Way to go, Gordon.
Nate,
Just curious, but US involvement in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (and all the rest) – what were the flimsy excuses for wasting lives and money?
Imposing the US form of “government” on people who demonstrated they didn’t want it?
The US seems to be reduced to stealing the property of any foreigners silly enough to incur the ire of the US. I wouldnt be surprised if the US just decides not to pay what it owes to foreigners. What, twenty trillion or so? The problem is that you only get away with it once or twice. After that, not only will people not lend you money, they will even ask for payment for goods up front – in gold.
I bought a Kitchen-Aid product the other day. “Proudly American since 1919”. Made in China.
Go figure – US capitalism at its finest?
swenson…”Imposing the US form of government on people who demonstrated they didnt want it?”
***
Good point, but it’s not just the US pushing it. Read Professor John Mearsheimer on this, he has it nailed down and presents it without bs. He explains that we in the West are trying to push our concept of liberal democracy globally and that our foreign policies are messing us up.
Problem is, most people don’t understand democracy, and I don’t think we pay it much more than lip service in the West. We get people lining up to come to Canada but once here, many want to carry on their old ways, like Sharia law. Young East Indian women have been murdered here by their own families for daring to contradict the parents and their old ideas.
Ironically, in China, Mao initially tried to install a social democracy because he felt jumping all the way to Stalinist communism would be too severe. A major weakness of Mao was that he trusted Stalin and had no idea what Stalin was really like. When Khrushchev denounced Stalin for the evil SOB he was, Mao objected, unable to accept what he was being told.
As a young man, Mao was influenced by Sun Yat Sen, who tried to implement democracy in China circa 1915. No one trusted it, having no idea what it was about.
That’s what we are seeing right now with Russia and the Ukraine. When Yeltsin, the drunk, dismantled the USSR as a country, setting the Ukraine free, the country became a shambles. Some became extremely wealthy and most, in both countries, struggled to get by.
Some idiots in the Ukraine today think the Ukraine was freed by nationalist heroes fighting with the Nazis in WW 11. That’s how stupid they are.
There is no way any country can form a democracy without having some sense of what is involved. We in the West did nothing to help either country to adjust, partly because we are corrupt as well.
ps. you can find Mearsheimer videos on youtube.
“The US seems to be reduced to stealing the property of any foreigners silly enough to incur the ire of the US.”
Yep isnt US policy, but would be if Trump had his way. He advocating ‘taking the oil’ in Iraq and Syria, you may recall.
Cuz, ya know, we needed it to pay for our invasion of their countries.
But, in any case, not sure how your Whataboutism makes everything Russia is doing ok?
nate…The Russians were dragged into this
Just as the Nazis were dragged into invading Czechoslovakia and Poland, because of so-called atrocities against German speaking peoples happening in those countries”.
***
The Russians were drawn into this in 2014 and did nothing til 2022. That’s 8 years. They tried to work with Obama to fix the problem in the Ukraine and Putin expressed encouragement with the way the talks were going. He should have known Obama was a bs-artist, and probably did. When advised of neo-Nazi factions in the Ukraine, he claimed it was Russian propaganda.
I have not fallen for any trick, the facts are there for anyone who has the intelligence and comprehension to understand what is lying in plain sight.
Hitler was stewing about the German army’s loss in WW 1 for 15 years, part of it spent in prison by his own government. It took him at least 15 years to put it together and get elected, then to take over as chancellor.
His foray into Czechoslovakia had been planned for a long time. He even announced his intention of reclaiming part of Czechoslovakia and everyone in the West seemed fine with that. The Czechs did not oppose him nor did anyone else.
No, no one dragged the Nazis into the war, they aided and abetted them all the way. Only a few like Churchill understood what was going on.
Check your history Nate, you’re just a parrot who regurgitates propaganda.
“No, no one dragged the Nazis into the war”
Very good. Now apply that lesson to the current situation.
No one but you and Russian State Media are trying to claim that the problem of few neo Nazis in another country needed to be fixed by Russia.
And one but you and Russian State media is claiming that bombing and destroying cities in Ukraine, and killing 10s of thousands would be a good solution to this problem.
Canadian military force in Ukraine sneaks thru Russia enemy lines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzVSJRfDaFo
{mentioned near end of 16 min video}
And another Russian General killed [not related Canadian military force] and there is big fire in Russia near Japan. There has also been a lot fires set within Russia, generally near Moscow over last week or so. Mentioned in earlier videos by this guy.
Also UN/red cross has a lot buses which plan on take people who in the big bomb proof port complex. Last remaining Ukraine forces in Mariupol
But they have been trying to do for more than week- so who knows.
But Russia forces in terms most of force has left this area, and it was wondered whether Russia was going drop a bunch big bombs on it- but it sort of bomb proof, so I guess really big bombs.
I saw a US spokesman tearing up about the horror in Ukraine.
Hopefully, he will never see pictures like that of “Napalm Girl” in the undeclared Vietnam “police action”.
“For a decade, the worlds most powerful air force dropped every explosive and incendiary known to man, along with a hefty dose of dioxin-based herbicide, on (mostly) South Vietnamese targets. On the ground, armed troops ranging from greenhorn Marines just doing their jobs to throat-slitting commandos in the Studies and Observations Group that killed an estimated 2 million indigenous people.”
Completely avoidable and completely pointless. Very few US years shed for a terrified naked 9 year old girl, suffering from approximately 50% burns from napalm – specifically designed to inflict maximum pain and suffering.
As to Ukraine, one wonders how the Welsh would respond to English laws once again banning the use of the Welsh language in public, or the Irish to English laws going back to the 14th century, banning the use of the Irish language – oh, and “To extinguish their sinister traditions and customs . . . “.
Maybe some Ukrainians are proud of their traditions and customs, which differ from those of Ukrainians in other geographical areas. Who knows?
Must be nice to only know war from pictures and media reports.
War is hell! https://youtu.be/bxUE8PIF9as
A movie.
A movie depicting a bureaucracy giving an idiot, a
gun.
A talkative guy, talking to the idiot shooting people
Another guy representing the important summary of damage to
general public from all this governmental action-
which resulted from bureaucratic incompetence.
And the people as extras of film, not having much of clue of
what the hell is going on.
As representing the America public.
Are you alright bud? Did you fall and hit your head?
Willard
“wErE a rEPuBLiC nOt A dEMoCRacY”
Actually both the USA and Russia are Right Authoritarian Oligarchies.
And before anyone says anything, both Democrats and Republicans are Right, it’s just that the Republicans are further Right than the Democrats.
Exactly.
Inventorying my ammo this morning. Love my Second Amendment.
“Excuse me, the voices in my head are telling me to go home and polish my guns”
You don’t have a 2nd Amendment. Maybe you can polish your sword or your chain mail?
Your cops have tanks, Troglodyte.
I hope you carry good caliber rounds.
Per capita the UK has a lot fewer guns and a lot fewer murders. I wonder if there is a cause and effect relationship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkJ9Q7TKrBE
Affordable speech vs Free Speech.
I don’t know if like affordable speech or kind of stuck
in my ways about Free Speech.
As everyday thing, one does practice affordable speech.
Affordable speech is what everyone does from the beginning
of time. And a dog does affordable speech.
Free Speech is mainly about education.
Free Speech is let’s not get too stupid.
Free speech is let’s go some where.
It’s not individual it’s about a society-
society with individuals and society protecting
it’s members, and believing in all individuals-
that they have potential at least- criminals add
something, but it does not mean one doesn’t punish
criminals. A person lacking any sense, doing something
unknowing or by accident, affects such consequences.
Free speech is rooted religion particularly the Christian
or more correctly, Judeo-Christian tradition which is not
isolated in regards to all great religions.
Or religion, generally. But Judeo-Christian is more specific,
and is regarded as universal.
It’s about as lefty as it gets, but conservative in sense, one
supports institutions, clubs, churches, think tanks, or social
groups, whatever. Ie, want to keep baseball, but also one does not have to be involved with baseball, at all. Or some groups can seem to be pointless, or even seem a bit annoying to most people.
It’s rooted in Judeo-Christian, existence created and directed by God. Or to err, is human.
Anyhow then Scott has question, what if Joe Biden takes down Putin- how does change the election?
Putin is like Saddam Hussein [with nuclear weapons}.
If you ignore the nukes, Russia could be regarded as weaker than Iraq. And since we aren’t going to conquer Russia, without considering the nukes, easier, than US expelling Iraq from Kuwait.
But I think the point has always been, Russia has nukes.
And we didn’t want Iraq to have nukes- hardly any country wanted Iraq to have nukes.
But aspect of Ukraine does involve nukes, Ukraine had them, and agreed to not have them, partly because Russia agreed to not attack Ukraine, US others said prevent a nuclear power from invading Ukraine.
In terms rights of having nuclear weapons, one could say Russia committed a high crime as a Nuclear State.
It seems all nation of world should be concerned about any Nuclear State, committing a high crime related to being a Nuclear State.
But Obama failed to do anything about it. But we could decide do something about it, now.
But it seems the US lacks such global leadership. And it seems we find some other global leadership.
I was under the impression, India had some kind of leadership- where is it?
Over at:
https://instapundit.com
…
–A 1922 law passed in response to violent political agitators such as the Nazis permitted Weimar authorities to censor press criticism of the government and advocacy of violence. This was followed by a number of emergency decrees expanding the power to censor newspapers. The Weimar Republic not only shut down hundreds of Nazi newspapers in a two-year period, they shut down 99 in Prussia alone but they accelerated that crackdown on speech as the Nazis ascended to power. Hitler himself was banned from speaking in several German states from 1925 until 1927.
Far from being an impediment to the spread of National Socialist ideology, Hitler and the Nazis used the attempts to suppress their speech as public relations coups. The party waved the ban like a bloody shirt to claim they were being targeted for exposing the international conspiracy to suppress true Germans.–
…
Sort of like war on Drugs.
It’s though pols want Hitler, again. They were quite fond of him, at the time. And the pols want organized crime supported by selling dangerous drugs.
Anyhow scott’s show called:
Episode 1730 Scott Adams: The Golden Age Is Upon Us, Trump Was Right Per Chomsky. Wow. What A Show
Does anyone doubt Chomsky is lefty. But as Scotts says he is 92, and he might not care if Left has gone so far Left that they made him a Conservative.
“Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkha); from ὀλίγος (olgos) ‘few’, and ἄρχω (arkho) ‘to rule or to command’)[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people may or may not be distinguished by one or several characteristics, such as nobility, fame, wealth, education, or corporate, religious, political, or military control. ”
Who are the few and they, the nobility, fame, wealth, education, or corporate, religious, political, or military control.
One could say US has nobility, in a sense, but in term a few do count as nobility like say past US presidents. Or is nobility like movie stars or celebrity?
I can’t think of Oligarchy in terms of education, but I’ll try, head teacher unions? Or can unions be seen like families, so just biggest teacher unions?
These people are very poorly educated, how university professors or something. How about, Chomsky?
Religious seems weak also, unless you are more inclusive of religion as “the woke” or something like that.
We got military pundits, but those are sort of like yapping puppies.
We got Elon Musk the Space Lord, who reach into Ukraine to get them starlinks. Or a sign of important major oligarch is there “global reach”. So, we limit the few oligarch people as though that have global reach and global fame.
But one can have oligarchy which are covert and unknown by most people- so that could get back to teacher unions or something.
But, if we stick to just the famous ones, we got Elon Musk.
And we could pick Obama.
Who greater or fit can in, as top few famous ones.
Gbaikie, Gordon Robertson
It costs millions to run for Congress and billions to run for President. Much of that is spent using the media to tell people what to think.
Thus politicians are either wealthy or beholden to the wealthy for campaign contributions.
The American oligarchy is rule by the wealthy.
Democracy is an illusion. Despite all the smoke and mirrors and the hate speech here, the Democrats and Republicans have similar attitudes and similar policies designed to keep the wealthy wealthy and the rest of the population docile. From the oligarchy’s point of view it makes very little difference whether the elephant or the donkey is in charge.
entropic…”Actually both the USA and Russia are Right Authoritarian Oligarchies”.
***
Where do you get this nonsense? The US has a democratic system where politicians are voted into office. At least, that was true until the Democrats learned how to electronically stuff ballot boxes in the last election. Hopefully, now that everyone is on to them and how incompetent that are, that won’t happen again.
It is true that powerful forces can lobby politicians to influence them, and that the wealthy and powerful have an inordinate influence, but US citizens have the right to fight that at the polls.
The US is no different than any other country. There is a broad spectrum of public opinion and some people are better informed than others. No different than the UK where seriously misinformed people repeatedly vote in Tory governments. Mind you, a large part of the problem there is that the opposition have been infiltrated by special interest groups that turn voters off.
Who knows what goes on in Russia.
He just throws crap out there to see what sticks.
Got George Soros freeing murderers, so sole leader of an Assassin guild.
And he does lot of other things, other than shorting national currencies.
But I would not count him among the few.
Nor owner of CNN, Washington Post, or others.
No one thinks Bill Gates gets close to the few, right?
But one might think of it as per state. Or got 50 times a few.
But the claim is an oligarchy of US.
Far recent news it dem senator, I forget, oh, yeah: Joe Manchin.
But also it seems the idea it’s not flash in pan, like Musk or Manchin.
So need need old families or just old people.
I would not count Pelosi though she is old. Old and pretty confused
woman.
I think the plan was to have a lot oligarchies, rather than just a few. I mean even Russia has them, and no where without them, except maybe North Korea.
Or to avoid them, the plan could only be keep the people starving or something.
So, really quite silly, but we ask who biggest a baddest ones,
I just going say Elon Musk as my vote, see if anyone can give better example.
But Musk is not one guy, he is front man for many others. And has many fans. You should expect that if building the biggest rocket, ever, and going to Mars.
> Who knows what goes on in Russia.
Of course you don’t, Gordo.
Start here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ug8ku7/russian_orcs_killed_a_mother_and_tied_her_child/
Any proof of that, Willard?
Why don’t you mention the incident in Odessa where pro Ukrainian protestors, accompanied by 300 members of the Azov battalion, forced pro-Russian protestors into a building and set it on fire, burning most of the occupants to death.
Atrocities have been carried out by both sides, even before the Russians invaded, and Amnesty International has evidence of that.
You won’t win the “what about” slug fest, ridiculous Gordo –
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/03/russia-ukraine-invasion-of-ukraine-is-an-act-of-aggression-and-human-rights-catastrophe/
And why does Russia need to solve this problem inside another sovereign nation?
Drug cartels are an ongoing problem in parts of Mexico.
So maybe the US needs to fix this problem, by invading Mexico, lobbing missiles and bombs at Mexico City and other cities, turning them into rubble, and killing 10s of thousands of Mexican civilians.
Make sense to you?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mPqRirDphuc
Anyways has far as this month, I going to guess, .25 C
This says lower than that.
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2022-04-30.gif
So does this
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah_lt.jpg
Ok, so then what is May UAH going to be?
I mean April
It is Bank Holiday (at least in the UK) but the weekend everywhere so I expect a few days.
I would expect below 0.0C but….
nice graph.
swenson….”Maybe some Ukrainians are proud of their traditions and customs, which differ from those of Ukrainians in other geographical areas. Who knows?”
***
I am cognizant of the off-topic nature of these discussions but I regard them as symptomatic of the overall political-correctness that is suppressing scientists who speak out on matters like catastrophic global warming/climate change. There is a sickness pervading our democratic nations in which idiots try to force their views on others and now discussions are taking place about suppressing free speech.
The Ukraine-Russian war is typical of this kind of suppression of free speech. We get nothing from western leaders but propaganda and rhetoric about the situation in the Ukraine.
It’s amazing how many people just don’t want to know. You are one of the informed who get it that the Ukrainian government has been trying to suppress the Russian language in the Ukraine. Not only that, the more extreme hate anything Russian in their own country.
Here in Canada, both French and English are regarded as official languages. If any politician dared to talk about suppressing French in western Canada where less than 1000 people speak it, he’d be jailed.
The truth about the Ukraine is being censored in a major way. When Yushchenko, a pro-West president, was voted out in 2010, his parting gift to the Ukraine was a law declaring WW II Ukrainian war criminals as heroes of the Ukraine. They were regarded as heroes for fighting with the Nazis who were regarded as liberators.
Yushchenko failed to establish reforms or a democratic government during his tenure. The question is, when has the Ukraine ever been a democracy? Recently, Zelensky has promised reforms and failed to deliver. The civil war has continued under his tenure yet we continue to support the Ukraine who were recently declared the most corrupt country in Europe.
The incoming president after Yushchenko, Yanukovich, must have repealed the law because after he was ousted in a coup, the next long-term president, Poroshenko, re-instated the law, despite howls of protest from the European parliament.
Why are we not questioning this in the West? We need to ask the Ukraine, what they are playing at. Why are they allowing war criminals to be honoured as heroes and why do they allow torch light parades in which thousands of Ukrainians are honouring these creeps?
Why do they allow openly neo-Nazi battalions in their army and why are the leaders of fascist interests, who are white supremists, like Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the Svoboda Party, and Andriy Biletsky leader of the Azov battalion, allowed to sit in their parliament?
My guess is those Ukrainian who may want a real democracy are being intimidated by a minority, well-armed militia of fascists. We in the West are ignoring that simple fact in our zeal to torment the Russians while we gradually try to enclose them in a net of NATO nations.
I am not defending the Russians, I am trying to understand the truth behind the conflict. It’s seriously dangerous business, baiting a nation with enough nuclear power to wipe us all out. We are lead by idiots.
A commander in the Ukrainian army, Dmitri Yarosh, led the Right-Sektor nationalist movement, a fascist organization. The Russians placed him on the Interpol wanted list and it was ignored. Some of these factions have openly declared allegiance to Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist who worked with the Nazis and helped exterminate Jews, Poles, and Russians.
The there’s Andriy Parubiy, chairman of the Ukrainian parliament who led the anti-government protests in 2014 that led to the coup that ran off a democratically-elected president.
The point is, the Russians have tried the diplomatic route and been ignored. So, they took matters into their own hands. As crude and cruel as that may be, they have gotten the attention of the West. Why did it have to come to that? Why are we lead by such stupid idiots that they could not work things out in a more amicable manner?
One look at how the West bungled the covid issue, or how they are mindlessly forcing us to adopt catastrophic warming propaganda, should answer that question.
> I am cognizant of the off-topic nature of these discussions but
C’mon, Gordo.
You just keep repeating conspirational crap whatever topic you pick:
https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine
Your literary extravagances are as vulgar as the Vlad’s display of power.
try replying to my post, Willard, rather than providing red-herring arguments. There’s nothing new in what you have posted.
Besides, I was replying to Swenson.
C’mon, Gordo.
I responded to that comment many times already. That you keep repeating your crap won’t make me do the same. Besides, I might be very well be one of the few who reads your rants.
That the ZZs have no qualms transgressing the Law of War is common knowledge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_war_crimes
You can’t both-sides your way out of such atrocities:
https://euromaidanpress.com/2020/12/15/i-survived-the-basement-prisons-of-the-luhansk-peoples-republic-here-is-what-i-saw-part-1/
Think.
“I am not defending the Russians”
Just supporting everything they do.
“kind of suppression of free speech”
Glad you are concerned about this serious issue. Putin just shut down the last independent media operations in Russia.
gbaikie…”We got Elon Musk the Space Lord…”
***
Couldn’t believe my eyes last night. Out for a walk and looked up at the night sky, only to see a long string of lights going across the sky like a freight train. Went from west to east then disappeared suddenly.
Turned out to be Musk’s SpaceX satellites. He is launching them to fly one behind the other to broad.cast Internet to all points on Earth and when the Sun strikes them, shining from the west, they light up like a train of lights.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2020/04/21/what-are-those-strange-moving-lights-in-the-night-sky-elon-musks-starlink-satellites-explained/
As article says:
“Each time the satellites are launched, on the companys own reusable Falcon 9 rockets, they are placed into orbit about 290 kilometers above the surface of Earth.
The satellites then use their onboard ion engines to raise their altitude up to their operational orbits of between 340 and 550 kilometers. This can take several months to do.
During these months, the satellites can appear very visible in the night sky when they fly over your location because of their reflective surfaces.”
Ion engine very efficient but also very low thrust. Or don’t take much of rocket fuel, but with far less thrust than a sneeze- months of near constant thrust. And each satellite has:
“Single solar array is ~3.1m x 10.9m or 34m2. A 60 satellite launch therefor is 2,027m2 compared to the 2,500m2 on the space station.”
They launching 52 per rocket launch, but you might not have seen 52 them in a line.
Anyways there are mostly a solar panel, with ion engine. Similar to Solar power satellites but they sending internet signal rather than a signal for a power generation purpose, with over 2000 up there we all get more power than dozens of ISS. Will get to up number of satellite which is hundreds or more of Space stations.
Or right they getting more solar energy for electrical power than total of every other thing in space.
Musk wanted to launch hundreds at time with the Starship, but that being delayed by FAA.
I would estimate there were at least 20 in a line. Remarkable sight. The neat part was the way the lights disappeared, as if into a cloud, when they got far enough east and away from the Sun that had already set in the West for a couple of hours.
This assumes that CO2 can accumulate. It doesn’t. It is in balance with the sinks and sources. Human emissions are a source, but only about 4% of all emissions. The sinks remove about 25% of the CO2 every year (800Gt in the atmosphere and 200Gt) removed. Therefore, residence time is 4 years, not the 300 years the IPCC claim. This means that only 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere can come from our emissions, or about 18ppm. See the proof done by Dr Ed Berry.
Something just occurred to me, As we burn it, we also use up CO2 already in the air. Not much, but we are running it through what ever burns the fuel. Unfortunately, we are burning oxygen as well.
Correct. The oxygen in the CO2 released by fossil fuel burning comes mostly from the atmosphere. As we release 4ppm/year equivalent in CO2 we remove 4ppm equivalent of oxygen.
This is measurable, but since the atmosphere contains 210,000ppm oxygen suffocation is not an immediate problem.
https://weather.com/science/nature/news/earth-atmosphere-losing-oxygen
“This assumes that CO2 can accumulate. ”
It is accumulating.
Your figures are correct but incomplete.
The 800Gt of carbon in the atmosphere is half the total circulating carbon. There is also 400Gt in the surface layer of the ocean and 400Gt on land, mostly as biomass. Total circulating carbon is 1600Yt? and if circulates freely between the three parts of the circulating carbon sink.
Thus you correctly say that 200Gt enters the atmosphere naturally from ocean and land each year, but you forget that 200 Gt alsoleaves naturally. Overall the three parts remain in balance and roughly constant. The 800 Gt in the atmosphere and the 1600Gt total mass of circulating carbon remains the same.
That’s where the 4 year residence time comes from. On average a CO2 molecule spends 800/200 = 4 years in the atmosphere before moving to the land or ocean.
Human emissions are carbon removed from long term storage as fossil fuels. That 10Gt/year is carbon added to the circulating carbon. If the total in 2020 was 1600Gt it becomes 1610Gt in 2021.
The 10Gt/year distributes pro-data between the three parts. The atmosphere has half the circulating carbon so half of the extra carbon,5Gt, stays there. The other parts each have 1/4 of the total and take up 1/4 of the extra carbon, 2.5Gt each.
Thus we release the equivalent of 4ppm/year into the atmosphere. 2ppm stays there and 2ppm moves elsewhere.
300 years is a different measure. Carbon is permanently removed from circulation into sediments at about 0.03Gt/year.
300 years is a rough measure is the time it takes for extra Carbon atom released as fossil fuel emissions to be permanently removed from circulation.
The key point is that our emissions will redistribute between land, idea and atmosphere within a few years. Waiting for natural processes to remove the extra CO2 we are adding will take centuries.
This is a cartoon, not science. Berry and Bowdrie’s model is science.
Entropic man,
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? You have been exposed as a quack by Richard Courtney above and at Tallblokes and Ed Berry himself at his blog.
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-co2-temp/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/#comment-98074
You regurgitate the nonsense that only 25% of land CO2 and 25% of ocean CO2 circulate between them and the atmosphere. The surface ocean alone contains more carbon than the atmosphere. Do you seriously think that only the 200 GtC fluxes participate in the circulation?
No one should be taking you seriously. Try satisfying your thirst for fun by reading Andy Capp or whatever cartoons you can get in Britain.
You are oversimplifying.
https://projects.noc.ac.uk/greenhouse_gas_science/sites/greenhouse_gas_science/files/images/ccycle.jpg
You’ll see that the atmosphere contains about 830Gt, all circulating and available for exchange.
The surface ocean contains about 900Gt. The land contains 2000-3000Gt in soil and vegetation.
Not all of that is circulating. A tree might lock up carbon in its wood for 300 years, a peat bog for 5000 years. A blue whale carcass might take decades to release all its stored carbon.
The amounts of CO2 actually available for short term exchange, the circulating carbon, are much closer to the figures I gave, about 400Gt for each of the land and surface ocean reservoirs. Judging from the actual amounts exchanged, more accurate figures for the actual circulating carbon might be 120/200*800=480Gt for the land and 80/200*800 = 320Gt for the ocean.
The rest is either in various forms of storage or otherwise inaccessible.
Your own figures are rather thin on the ground. What do the Bowdrie and Berry models give for the size of each of the circulating carbon reservoirs and the exchanges between them?I
It would be interesting to compare your figures with mine and analyse the differences.
To summarise my version.
Atmosphere contains 830Gt, all available for exchange.
Ocean contains 900Gt of which 320 Gt are available for exchange.
Land contains 2000-3000Gt of which 480Gt are available for exchange.
Land and atmosphere exchange 120Gt in each direction.
Ocean and atmosphere exchange 80Gt in each direction.
I note that using my figures the residence for all three reservoirs is four years.
I wonder if this is significant?
Do whatever processes control exchange tend to bring the three reservoirs to an equilibrium with equal residence times?
Wake up! You are dreaming.
On second thought, go back to sleep and stop wasting comment space.
“I note that using my figures the residence for all three reservoirs is four years. I wonder if this is significant?”
“Ocean contains 900Gt of which 320 Gt are available for exchange.”
I wonder if you are serious. If so, please explain why you think the ocean contains ‘only’ 900 GtC of which ‘only’ 320 GtC are available for exchange.
Guy,
Loot further up the thread at Chic’s extrapolation of Berry’s model. Hard to argue with.
Fifty years after his Apollo 16 mission to the moon, retired NASA astronaut Charlie Duke says he’s ready for the U.S. to get back to lunar exploration.
Part of that effort, Duke said Friday, will come in the form of the Artemis program, which includes NASA’s upcoming flight to the moon using its new Space Launch System rocket. The first of the huge rockets is supposed to blast off without a crew later this year, with crewed flights planned subsequently.
Duke, 86, is one of four surviving moonwalkers from the Apollo program, taking Apollo 16 to the lunar surface in 1972. He has been making the rounds to mark the 50th anniversary of his voyage. The late John Young was first out of the lander and walked on the moon with Duke. Ken Mattingly orbited the moon in the command module, nicknamed “Casper.”
Asked about his continuing contributions to U.S. space programs, which includes consulting with a company trying to win a contract for a new lunar rover, Duke said he will keep going as long as he’s able.
“I flunked retirement,” Duke said, with a laugh. “As long as the Lord is willing and gives me the ability physically to do it, I want to challenge America and challenge the kids to aim high. … Everybody’s not going to listen, but maybe one or two will.”
It takes a man to build a skyscraper, it takes a genius to make it fly.
https://youtu.be/ViNcBQ8cDA0
Post counts for posters averaging greater than one post per day:
AprilPostsB.png
Total Posts: 2245
Willard : 481
RLH : 384
Gordon Robertson : 221
gbaikie : 198
Entropic man : 122
Nate : 120
Swenson : 95
Chic Bowdrie : 92
stephen p anderson : 87
Clint R : 66
TYSON MCGUFFIN : 56
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team : 52
Ireneusz Palmowski : 40
Bindidon : 40
Ken : 32
Chihuahua is the top troll? No way!
Responding to Richard, Mike Flynn, and Gordo tends to do that, Troglodyte. I still have to work on my ratio. Now that Richard has become a Black Knight, the 3:1 objective becomes easier.
Let us hope the ZZs will cave in so that Gordo moves to more innocuous rants.
Replying to Willard idiocies makes up for at least 50% of my posts.
You and Willard talk to each other more than I talk to my wife.
Perhaps you should get a room an consummate this love/hate relationship properly.
At least I provide stuff other than just arguments with Willard.
” Let us hope the ZZs will cave in… ”
No hope. You just need to read Lavrov’s newest rants against Ukraine (I translated from a German newspaper)
MOSCOW – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov justified Russian President Vladimir Putin's call to "denazify" Ukraine, arguing that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's Jewish ancestry played no part.
“And even if Zelenskyj is a Jew? The fact does not negate the Nazi elements in Ukraine. I believe that Hitler also had Jewish blood,” Lavrov said in an interview on Italian television on Sunday evening (May 1). "Some of the worst anti-Semites are Jews," Lavrov said.
War in Ukraine: Zelenskyy gives criminal instructions to "Nazi soldiers".
According to The Times of Israel, Lavrov said Zelenskyy could promote peace between the two countries if he stopped giving criminal orders to his "Nazi soldiers". He further claimed that there were publications "confirming that Americans, and Canadians in particular, played a leading role in the preparation of ultra-radical, openly neo-Nazi sub-detachments for Ukraine."
binny…”According to The Times of Israel, Lavrov said Zelenskyy could promote peace between the two countries if he stopped giving criminal orders to his “Nazi soldiers””.
***
I don’t listen to Russian propaganda any more than I do Western propaganda. However, there is a semblance of truth in what the Russian is saying.
Right now, the Russians have a steel factory in the Mariupol surrounded. Hiding in there is the neo-Nazi Azov battalion and civilians. The Russians are currently allowing the UN to extract the civilians but it took weeks of negotiations.
Why??? Because the idiot Zelensky is playing hardball when he has nothing with which to barter. He is scared of the neo-Nazis (Azov) and trying to protect them because he knows full well what will happen to him if he does not. The Russians want the Azov so badly they are not going to let them out of the steel plant.
Zelensky has done absolutely nothing in his two years as president to stop the civil war. The president before him was threatened by the fascist nationalists not to deal with the Russians or do anything pro-Russian.
The Russian foreign minister seems to know a lot more about this than you do, even though he has coloured it a bit.
> I dont listen to Russian propaganda any more than I do Western propaganda, however
Come on, Gordo.
You still are harping about Mariupol without any regard to anything else than ZZ propaganda.
Here is what is in Mariupol on your side:
https://thesoufancenter.org/intelbrief-2022-february-24/
Think.
Nate lives in a fantasy. He wrote –
“But, in any case, not sure how your Whataboutism makes everything Russia is doing ok?”
Dimwit. Nate puts words into my mouth, and then whinges about them.
Typical climate crackpot – rejects reality, and tries to present his fantasy as fact.
Oh ok. Then you had no point at all for your whataboutism.
nate…”And why does Russia need to solve this problem inside another sovereign nation?”
***
The Ukraine was formed by the USSR circa 1918. For 70-odd years it existed as a state in the USSR. It has been a sovereign nation for less than 20 years, most of it spent in corruption. The Ukraine was rated the most corrupt country in Europe.
Before that region of Europe became the Ukraine, there were different factions vying for control. Under the Russians, a natural order formed with one faction in western Ukraine and another in eastern Ukraine.
When the USSR broke up and the Ukraine got its freedom, it was instantly divided between Russian speaking, pro Russians in the east and Ukrainian-speaking pro Ukraine in the west. That same west, during WWII, had factions supporting the Nazis while factions in the east supported Russia.
Claiming that Russia is attacking a democratic, sovereign state is plain bs. There is a strong identity between the eastern Ukrainians and the Russians and they asked Russia to help them because they were under attack from fellow Ukrainians representing the western part of the country.
It was a civil war in the Ukraine that led to the Russians attacking because the Ukrainian government had done nothing about fascist forces operating in the Ukraine.
rlh claims I support the Russians, which is bs. I want to see two thing happen:
1)get this mess straightened out once and for all so the Ukrainians have a real chance at democracy.
2)prevent a nuclear war.
The Ukrainians don’t have a hope of forming a democracy unless fascist forces inside the country are brought under control. The fascist forces have armed militias that are out of control. They started the civil war in 2014 by causing a coup that ran off a democratically-elected president.
If the Russians can fix that, and leave, more the power to them. If they hang around and set up a dictatorship, then I am totally opposed to them.
We in the West should have sorted out the neo-Nazi SOBs a long time ago but we applauded them instead.
“Claiming that Russia is attacking a democratic, sovereign state is plain bs.”
Gordon, this is a lie. 28 years ago Russia, US, UK, signed a Treaty guarateeing Ukranian sovereignty in exchange for their nukes.
“Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.
Confirm the following:
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
Sounds like for you, Gordon, such treaties can be torn up, cuz, ya know, fascists.
Why does Russia need to fix this ‘problem’ of the existence of far-right groups in Ukraine, a problem that every European country and US and Canada has?
And how does destroying Ukrainian cities and killing 10s of thousands solve this ‘problem’?
Thanks Nate, I’m sad to react all the time to such a dumb ass who permanently lies about everything.
About 1 % of the Ukrainians voted for ultra right wing representatives in the last democratic election (that is way less than in Germany, and way way less than in Hungary, to name only two examples).
The last democratic election in Russia was at least two decades ago…
And… how many people in the US voted for people like Taylor Greene?
Gordo, you tool –
Ukraine. Not the Ukraine.
And Kyiv existed before Moskva did:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine
Think.
เกมสล็อต ค่าย Pg วันนี้จะมาแนะนำเกมสล็อตยอดฮิตทั้งหมด 7 เกมที่กำลังได้รับความนิยมเป็นอย่างมาก ด้วย ภาพ เนื้อหาของเกม และที่สำคัญแตกง่ายมากๆ อีกด้วย กับ สล็อต 2022
Try to play for free PGslot159. No credit and many other promotions. Deposit withdraw quickly. Easy to play. Pay for real. สล็อตpg ทดลอง
speak for you.
comprare patente di Guida
Lottosod เว็บไซต์ที่ให้บริการโดยตรง หวยออนไลน์ที่ดีที่สุด เว็บหวยออนไลน์อันดับ 1 เล่นจริง จ่ายจริง ใหม่ล่าสุด 2022 เป็นอีกหนึ่งเว็บไซต์ที่มีความน่าเชื่อถือมากๆ มาพร้อมกับการให้บริการที่มั่นใจได้ว่าปลอดภัย 100% ระบบของเราเน้นให้บริการในระบบออโต้ที่มีความทันสมัย สามารถที่จะเข้ามาร่วมสนุกได้ง่ายๆตลอด 24 ชั่วโมง ไม่เพียงแต่เว็บไซต์ของเราจะให้บริการหวยออนไลน์แต่เพียงอย่างเดียวเท่านั้น แต่เว็บไซต์ของเรายังมาพร้อมกับความสนุกสนานหรือเกมอื่น ซึ่งเป็นเกมออนไลน์มีให้คุณได้ร่วมสนุกแบบครบครัน ไม่ว่าจะเป็นเกมคาสิโนออนไลน์ การแทงบอลออนไลน์ รวมไปถึงเกมสล็อตต่างๆ