The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2022 was +0.17 deg. C, down from the April, 2022 value of +0.26 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 17 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.50 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.31 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.12 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.30 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.63 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
2021 08 0.17 0.26 0.08 0.07 0.32 0.83 -0.02
2021 09 0.25 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.37
2021 10 0.37 0.46 0.27 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.06
2021 11 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.50 -0.43 -0.29
2021 12 0.21 0.27 0.15 0.03 1.63 0.01 -0.06
2022 01 0.03 0.06 0.00 -0.24 -0.13 0.68 0.09
2022 02 -0.00 0.01 -0.02 -0.24 -0.05 -0.31 -0.50
2022 03 0.15 0.27 0.02 -0.08 0.22 0.74 0.02
2022 04 0.26 0.35 0.18 -0.04 -0.26 0.45 0.60
2022 05 0.17 0.24 0.10 0.01 0.59 0.22 0.19
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for May, 2022 should be available within the next several days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Ever since barry’s meltdown started, he’s been on a mission to revive old nonsense. He’s trying to somehow save both the “plates” issue and the “Moon” issue. He’s joined on the plates issue by Willard Jr (aka E. Swanson), and on the Moon issue by RLH, which means he gets no help….
DREMT has handily debunked their nonsense, again. Here, he destroys the plates, in one short paragraph:
“barry, this has all been discussed many times before. It was agreed by both sides of the argument that with the plates pushed together, they would both be 244 K. The plates are assumed to be perfect conductors, you see. Those on your side of the argument think that when separated, by even a millimeter, the BP increases in temperature to 262 K, and the GP decreases in temperature to 220 K. So, this is clearly the warm object gaining temperature at the expense of the cooler object. Which you agreed is impossible.”
Yes indeed, that is impossible. But, that’s what the cult must believe. It’s like their belief that ice can boil water, which barry tries to deny, as he fervently clings to that belief.
They don’t understand any of this, and they can’t learn.
I told you I could boil water with ice, you never listen, you don’t understand that experiment trumps all your hypotheses.
You know when you separate the plates, they are no longer perfect conductors, so you have to recalculate the temperatures.
You know, do the hard work with the proper equations.
How’s that physics minor going?
barry agreed that a warm object could not gain temperature at the expense of a cooler object. When I pointed out that was exactly what happens in the Green Plate Effect, he just sort of wriggled his way out of it. That’s all you people do.
There was a long, largely pointless back and forth about the subject last month, eventually resulting in barry bringing up the radiative heat transfer equation. When I pointed out that even the radiative heat transfer equation and view factors debunk the GPE, he just sort of wriggled his way out of it, once again.
I would continue to try and get through to barry, but what’s the point? He doesn’t listen, can’t learn, and only wants to preserve his current beliefs.
Besides twisting the details he offers, Kiddo omits a few interesting one, e.g.
1. How he tried to put the idea that heat cannot be transferred into space to play a silly you-and-him fight game.
2. How he tried to overcome his misunderstanding of the Green Plate experiment with a riddle involving we box the Sun.
3. That he presents the Scale Factor with a decimal after 1, as if there were values beyond 1.
4. That his whole stance is refuted by a simple K12 entry on space radiation.
Sky Dragon Cranks have little else.
1) When someone from Team GPE agrees with me on something, and then another member of Team GPE disagrees with me on the same topic, that means they disagree with the original Team GPE member as well as me. Of course I am going to point that out.
2) I have no misunderstanding of the Green Plate Effect. Thanks for mentioning the Sun Shell, though, it directly relates to the GPE. If you were able to surround the Sun with a thin shell made of some highly conductive material, with a tiny vacuum gap between the Sun and the shell, according to the GPE "logic", the shell would only warm until it was emitting out to space half the amount of energy, in W/m^2, that the Sun was originally emitting to space. The shell has two sides, an inside, and an outside, you see.
Whereas, in reality, the Sun would just warm the shell until it was emitting to space almost the same amount of energy (in W/m^2) as the Sun was emitting to space originally. There would be slightly less energy emitted (in W/m^2) because the surface area of the shell is larger than the surface area of the Sun.
3) I was just following Swanson’s lead on that. Funny how you didn’t mention any problem with it to him. Probably because it’s just unbelievable pedantry, which you wouldn’t bother someone on your own "side" with.
4) Nonsense. There’s much more to the anti-GPE position than just that which relates to "space radiation". You just don’t understand any of it, so you clutch at straws.
1.1 There is no Team GPE, but physicists.
1.2 There is no real Team Sky Dragon, it is a handful of cranks.
2.1 Kiddo still misunderstands Eli’s thought experiment.
2.2 It is so easy to understand even I do.
2.3 He has no excuse.
2.4 His deflection is overly silly.
3.1 Kiddo misses the point of the “1.0” point.
3.2 Whereas ES often corrects himself and stays humble, Kiddo talks as if he was our in-house physicist.
3.3 At best he could be our DJ.
4.1 Here is where Kiddo is once again wrong:
https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-how-does-heat-travel-through-space-if-space-is-a-vacuum-111889
4.2 Whereof Kiddo cannot speak, thereof he must be silent.
4.3 But he won’t, for he must continue to troll.
4.4 Loss aversion is too strong for him.
4.5 He is on his last mile.
4.6 Let us thread lightly.
Nothing of any substance, from Willard. As per usual.
Once again proven wrong, Kiddo soldiers on.
“Proven wrong”
☺️
🐉
Willard, please stop trolling.
“barry agreed that a warm object could not gain temperature at the expense of a cooler object.”
Yes, that is the Lord Kelvin statement of the Second Law.
“When I pointed out that was exactly what happens in the Green Plate Effect, he just sort of wriggled his way out of it. Thats all you people do.”
Actually, you did no such thing.
The warmer object gains temperature at the expense of the heat source, typically the Sun.
The green plate inhibits the heat loss of the blue plate.
The green plate effect is real, confirmed by experimentation on my stove, where I can also cause water to boil with ice.
Plates together, 244 K…244 K. Plates separated, 262 K…220 K.
That is a warm object gaining temperature at the expense of a cooler object.
GPE debunked.
No, that’s insulation causing a warm object to become warmer when heated by a heat source.
Nothing debunked yet.
Still waiting.
A perfectly-conducting blackbody plate is as far from being an insulator as it is physically possible for an object to be.
Plates together, 244 K…244 K. Plates separated 262 K…220 K.
That is a warm object gaining temperature at the expense of a cooler object.
GPE debunked.
“Plates together, 244 K244 K. Plates separated 262 K220 K.”
Since that is what actually happens, how does that debunk the GPE?
“A perfectly-conducting blackbody plate is as far from being an insulator as it is physically possible for an object to be”
Ah, so the heat shield on your exhaust manifold does not insulate your tennis shoes from the heat of the exhaust.
You have some explaining to do, if you expect anyone to consider that bovine excrement.
I didn’t realize the heat shield on my exhaust manifold was a perfectly-conducting blackbody plate.
Plates together, 244 K…244 K. Plates separated 262 K…220 K.
That is a warm object gaining temperature at the expense of a cooler object.
GPE debunked.
“I didnt realize the heat shield on my exhaust manifold was a perfectly-conducting blackbody plate.”
Perfect, no, but pretty high emissivity.
Still keeps your sneakers from melting, by radiating some of the energy back to the exhaust manifold, just like the green plate effect does.
A combination of high thermal resistance and high emissivity…
The GPE is a cooling effect now?
Plates together, 244 K…244 K. Plates separated 262 K…220 K.
That is a warm object gaining temperature at the expense of a cooler object.
GPE debunked.
DREMT
Your logic is flawed so you form an incorrect conclusion. You assume incorrectly that the Green plate is giving more of its energy to the blue plate and cooling and ending warming the blue plate at its own expense. Not so.
You can use some logic to see the flaw in your thought formation. If the two plates together reach 244 K you can also introduce insulation between the two. The effect is to make the blue plate increase in temperature since it is receiving continuous external energy and the loss to the green plate has been reduced by insulation. Now the green plate also cools because it has less incoming energy from the blue plate yet continues to radiate fully from the opposite side. Now the insulation between them caused the blue plate to increase in temperature and the green plate to decrease. Now for some reason you formed an incorrect conclusion that this means the green plate is losing energy to the blue plate.
You can’t reason through the whole concept. The blue plate has a continuous supply of energy entering into it. It will have no fixed steady state temperature. It all depends upon its conditions. If it is highly insulated it will be warmer than if it has no insulation. I think you need to stop a minute and think. You are very wrong in your thoughts and until you think things through you will not be able to correct your errors.
“If the two plates together reach 244 K you can also introduce insulation between the two.”
Yes, you could introduce insulation between the two, Norman. However, that’s not what happens. All that happens is that the plates are separated.
Plates together, 244 K…244 K. Plates separated, 262 K…220 K.
That is a warm object gaining temperature at the expense of a cooler object.
GPE debunked.
Now Norman is trying to pervert his cult’s bogus “plates”.
He’s way behind: his bogus “real 255 K surface”, his false belief that two 315 /m^2 fluxes can raise a surface to 325K, and his incompetence of orbital motion — the list goes on and on.
He’s got a lot to pervert.
When you separate the plates you are adding insulation between the two plates.
You know how a thermos bottle works?
A vacuum ain’t “insulation” to radiative flux, braindead bob.
You don’t understand any of this.
You should have a word with Kiddo, Pup –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1307917
He’s breaking ranks!
Please do not let your trolling turn into another silly semantic argument!
Willard is confused again.
“A vacuum ain’t “insulation” to radiative flux…”
I agree completely.
That 👏 is 👏 not 👏 to 👏 say 👏 that 👏 objects 👏 without 👏 a heat 👏 source, 👏 in 👏 deep 👏 space, 👏 do 👏 not 👏 cool.
So much double negatives it almost means something.
Clint R
The mindless insulting bot to get some knee-jerk reactions strikes again with more stupid information. The endless amount of stupid posts from this bot is amazing.
You can’t understand you remove the heat transfer mechanism of conduction when you separate plates in a vacuum. That is too hard for you to understand.
Yes radiant energy transfers in a vacuum but when you separate the two plates you double the surface area so the green plate has twice the emitting surface but only one receiving surface. When in contact it only had the one radiant surface loss, not it has two sides. Not that your bot brain can understand any of this.
Keep up the insults it is what you are programmed to do. Science and rational thought are not in your program. The people who designed you have you stupid, arrogant, rude and insulting. They had no desire to add intelligence or logic to your program. Sorry bot, you can only do what you do, nothing more is possible.
Norman moves away from his “insulation” argument and instead tries to suggest that the mysterious warming of the BP has something to do with radiative losses from the GP. They cannot keep their stories straight.
Plates together, 244 K…244 K. Plates separated 262 K…220 K.
That is a warm object gaining temperature at the expense of a cooler object.
GPE debunked.
Kiddo soldiers on by playing The Game again.
Sorry Norman, but that’s not how it works.
The plates are separated by such a small distance that all of the blue plate emission is absorbed by the green plate, i.e., there are no losses from BP’s one side. So the green plate still receives what it had been receiving when fully in contact with the blue plate. Green plate’s emission back to the blue plate becomes trapped in a “standing wave” because the blue plate is the same/higher temperature.
You don’t understand radiative physics.
Believing that the slight physical separation would cause such extremes in temperature means that you do NOT understand entropy. Before separation, the plates have a specific entropy. After separation, with no energy increase, the system would have the same entropy. But, your false “solution” has created a 42K temperature difference! You have reduced entropy with no energy increase. You’ve violated 2LoT!
You don’t understand thermodynamics.
You don’t understand any of this, and you can’t learn. You’re a braindead cult idiot. It’s frustrating for you, so you have to insult, falsely accuse, and make things up.
Speaking of making things up, where’s your technical reference source that Earth has a “real 255 K surface”? Where’s your source that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325 K?
Willard chimes in with another worthless contribution, as he feels compelled to.
Everyone loves an another-worthless-contribution-er.
…as he feels compelled to.
Thank you for your concerns, Kiddo.
he feels compelled to.
Clint R
I understand the real physics. I am hoping one day you might at least try to understand it.
When the green plate is moved it now has doubled its emitting surface. Previously when joined it had only one emitting surface (away from the blue plate) like wise the blue plate only had one emitting surface toward the energy source.
When you move the plates a tiny distance in a vacuum the conduction heat transfer is done, no longer applies.
The green plate doubled its emission surface but is still receiving the same input energy from the blue plate so it will cool. No violation of any known physics laws. I do not know if you understand the emitting area has doubled. If you can grasp that reality the rest will be possible for you to understand.
So the green plate cools as it emits twice the energy as it had previously when the plates were together.
The blue plate increases in temperature because it had been losing energy through conduction to the green plate, that has stopped and now the energy it is losing from its emission surface on the side facing the green plate is decreased because as it emits to the green plate it at the same time gains return energy from the green plate and its temperature rises as it is now losing less heat then it did when it conducted the heat to the green plate. Not so hard to understand. Open your mind, think about it and you will understand what physics has been saying. Keep a closed mind and insult intelligent people, the choice is yours.
Norman says:
The blue plate increases in temperature because it had been losing energy through conduction to the green plate, that has stopped and now the energy it is losing from its emission surface on the side facing the green plate is decreased because as it emits to the green plate it at the same time gains return energy from the green plate and its temperature rises as it is now losing less heat then it did when it conducted the heat to the green plate. Not so hard to understand. Open your mind, think about it and you will understand what physics has been saying. Keep a closed mind and insult intelligent people, the choice is yours.
————————–
I don’t object to what you are saying but where is your proof that the blue plate got warmer than the source? the 290K? The description I read in the Eli experiment is that it started out at 244k and warmed to 262K in a radiation field that can produce 290k. Seems like you are spinning your wheels at a high RPM in the mud and just digging yourself in deeper.
Do you think that Nate is your friend and he should have pointed that out to you?
Bill Hunter
Thanks for the reply but I am not sure of your point. I did not say the blue plate would exceed the temperature of the source. What wheels am I spinning into the mud?
I hope you can elaborate and indicate what you perceive I got wrong. Thanks.
Here’s where you went wrong, Norman:
Plates together, 244 K…244 K. Plates separated 262 K…220 K.
That is a warm object gaining temperature at the expense of a cooler object.
GPE debunked.
Thanks DREMT: when one is trying to keep an eye on the ball its hard to also keep an eye on all 3 shells.
Yep two big clues: the blue plate is not more than the equilibrium temperature and 3rd plate didn’t get colder. Killing two birds with one stone! Gotta love it! I guess green plate experiments are an acquired taste! Thought experiments can be like dreams where the impossible happens.
Clint R,
Since we are having so much fun, how about you try an experiment at home?
So we can compare conduction heat transfer to radiant heat transfer.
Using an electric stove, see how long you can hold your hand down on the heating element, and compare it to how long you can hold your hand one centimeter above the burner.
That’s why this is so much fun.
You guys haven’t a lick of common sense.
DREMT
No you did not debunk anything. You still don’t understand, you need to read and think about what is going on.
The blue plate is not getting hotter at the expense of the green plate.
The Blue plate is conducting energy to the green plate. When separated even by a small amount in vacuum conditions that conduction transfer is halted. So you have eliminated on heat transfer process completely. The only way to lose energy for the blue plate is via radiant means. The green plate has doubled its emission surface so it is still receiving the same quantity of energy from the blue plate as it did with conduction (now radiant energy) so it will cool as it is losing energy twice as fast as before. But on the side facing the blue plate it is returning some energy to the blue plate via radiant energy. The blue plate will now lose less heat than it did by conduction and warm up with the continuous input energy.
I really am stunned you can’t seem to follow simple logic. I still don’t know what Bill Hunter complaint is about.
Yes Bob thats a great demonstration of why the greenhouse gas effect doesn’t work. Radiation sends it out at the speed of light and it still goes through glass and air molecules a lot faster than fat through a goose.
The reduction in radiation you see in plates is due to the creation of dead air spaces. Open holes in them to let the air freely mix and you lose the insulation value of them even if the gas in the air is a opaque to IR.
Here is proof of that. https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
There is nothing you have said that I do not understand, Norman…I just disagree with you. Clint R already elaborated on the reasons you are wrong, and you had nothing to say except to repeat yourself. I expect you will repeat yourself again. The Green Plate Effect is debunked…has been for years. Frankly I am bored of talking about it.
You’re welcome, Bill.
DREMT
No you do not understand what I wrote at all. You have debunked nothing. You should try to think.
Your false approach is just to keep persisting with wrong notions (like your total ignorance on the Moon rotation). Here you show a similar pattern of ignorance. You act like you understand what I wrote but you really don’t then you make a false claim and declare a false notion of victory. You are still wrong and such declarations are most meaningless.
OK, Norman.
Bill,
Yes, if you change the experiment you get different results.
Man are you a clever boy.
Still no refutation of the greenhouse effect nor the green plate effect.
The GPE’s debunked.
“Plates together, 244 K244 K. Plates separated, 262 K220 K.
That is a warm object gaining temperature at the expense of a cooler object.
GPE debunked.’
Again its the thoroughly moronic argument by incredulity.
I’m incredulous that anyone in their right mind would think metal plates separated by a vacuum gap would be just as good at transferring heat as metal plates in contact!
Apparently they recall burning themselves by NOT touching the hot pan as children.
Im also incredulous that anyone in their right mind would argue that objects in the shade get just as hot as objects in direct sun.
Im mainly incredulous that anyone would think they can solve a heat transfer problem without using any real science.
#2
The GPE’s debunked.
Bill gets it. DREMT still doesnt. Oh well.
#3
The GPE’s debunked.
DREMT says:
”Plates together, 244K and 244K. Plates separated, 262K and 220K.”
Nate says:
Im also incredulous that anyone in their right mind would argue that objects in the shade get just as hot as objects in direct sun.
Im mainly incredulous that anyone would think they can solve a heat transfer problem without using any real science.
———————–
Nate did you even bother to read what DREMT actually said.
The blue plate moves up to 262k and the greenplate drops to 220K. You are agreeing with DREMT and you are so confused you don’t know you are.
The reason is the dead air space between the two. That dead air space, in this case a vacuum, creates an insulation because it restricts diffusion and convection. So the blue plate loses less energy and the green plate is getting less energy. . . .it is in the shade of the blue plate that has a steady stream of watts coming in the back of the plate with a VF=1.0.
You are agreeing with us in every respect yet you are saying:
”Im mainly incredulous that anyone would think they can solve a heat transfer problem without using any real science.”
Near perfect insulation say U=.001 (R=1000) would be required to force the blue plate to 290K so that you could not detect any loss of heat with a common thermometer.
The Engineering toolbox radiation transfer chart figures are for radiation directed at surfaces that have no loss of heat.
The engineer then needs to calculate the heat loss through his walls to find out the rate of heat loss through the wall and respond to that by installing a heater of sufficient size that will both obtain the correct temperature and supply the heat loss.
This is super basic stuff and doesn’t even require a college education to get right. There are many thousands of heating and air guys without degrees or college educations that know how to install a properly sized heating or air conditioning system.
“Nate did you even bother to read what DREMT actually said.
The blue plate moves up to 262k and the greenplate drops to 220K. You are agreeing with DREMT and you are so confused you dont know you are.”
Bill, you are the one who is extremely confused about what DREMT thinks. That is not it.
But, again, thanks for agreeing with the sane people that the BLUE plate warms and the GREEN plate cools.
No, Bill…I think you may have got a little confused with what I was saying.
Plates together, 244 K…244 K. Plates separated, 262 K…220 K.
That is a warm object gaining temperature at the expense of a cooler object. That can’t happen.
GPE debunked.
The correct solution is:
Plates together, 244 K…244 K. Plates separated, 244 K…244 K.
"That dead air space, in this case a vacuum, creates an insulation because it restricts diffusion and convection"
The GPE thought experiment is conducted entirely in a vacuum, Bill. So there is no convection to be restricted.
“Plates together, 244 K…244 K.”
… is only one plate. The sun warms the plate to equilibrium with deep space, as the plate warms it radiates until the radiated energy matches the energy being absorbed from the sun.
“Plates separated, 262 K…220 K.”
… is two plates. The sun warms the BP to 262K at equilibrium using 1LOT. Introduction of the second plate raised the equilibrium temperature of the first plate by 18 K and thus increases the entropy of the universe as that plate radiates to deep space. The GPE. As supported by experiment.
DREMT hasn’t been able to correctly understand this simple 1LOT example for 4.5 years now. And counting.
No, Ball4, I understand it completely. Always have. The way E-Lie and the gang see the GPE is painfully simple and straightforward to understand. I just disagree with them, and have explained why at extraordinary length.
Sure, DREMT is free to just disagree with experiment, 1LOT, and 2LOT and incorrectly explain why repeatedly especially on a climate sophistry blog. This behavior generates much humor & supported this blog until it went free of advertising.
Cult Leader grammie pup continues to display his ignorance of the GPE:
Try thinking of of the situation this way. Start by using 1.0m^2 plates. The BP receives 400 watts from the Sun. Without the GP in position, it radiates 200 watts from each side, or 200 w/m^2, so it’s S-B temperature would be 244 K. Add the GP and now the 200 watts from one side of the BP is intercepted by the GP and the GP starts to radiate from 2 sides at 100 w/m^2.
The GP’s S-B temperature can never be 244 K, since it hasn’t enough energy input to do so. grammie pup has never presented an explanation using physics that would prove the GP’s temperature would rise to 244 K, endlessly repeating the same BS as if that would make it so.
Swanson, again, there’s nothing you need to explain. I understand completely why you think of it the way you do. You could just scroll up to Clint R’s 8:57 AM comment if you wanted to understand a bit more about why you’re wrong. Or read through the comments under last month’s temperature update. I certainly can’t be bothered to go through it all again.
The GPE’s debunked.
… only if the 1LOT, 2LOT, and related experiment are debunked.
The “plates” nonsense is completely debunked, but you can’t explain physics to idiots.
The green plate can’t warm the blue plate. It’s the same violation of physics as ice cubes boiling water, or photons from “cold” can warm “hot”, or CO2 heating Earth’s surface.
The cult idiots that keep this nonsense going can’t find anything to support it outside of their cult teachings. For example, where’s the credible source that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K?
There is none….
None? Wrong Clint. There are 1LOT, 2LOT, and related experiment in support. That’s all that is needed.
Clint R and DREMT sure are humorous in comments though.
I love it when The Team starts to pile on…
…one thing you can be sure of, Ball4 is going to say the words, "1LoT", "2LoT" and "experiment" over and over and over and over and over again in all his responses.
Funnily enough, in a previous argument, Ball4 said that the 244 K…290 K…244 K solution to the 3-plate version of the GPE problem (the solution that E-Lie’s "logic" supports) was a violation of 1LoT! Whoops…
“The way E-Lie and the gang see the GPE is painfully simple and straightforward to understand. I just disagree with them”
If it is simple and DREMT did understand, then he would understand that Elis solution agrees with 1LOT, 2LOT, and SB law, ie standard physics.
And he would understand that his prefered solution does not satisfy these laws.
So if he disagrees still, then he doesnt understand standard physics.
Or he thinks standard physics is wrong, in which case he lacks evidence.
Or he is just here to troll.
Most likely all 3.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
No, BillI think you may have got a little confused with what I was saying.
————————–
Apparently so. I was still in the atmosphere. As I said I lean toward your viewpoint based upon two reasons. 1) a vacuum is more of an insulator than common air. (so is argon) and it is all about containing heat loss to achieve equilibrium of surfaces.
In fact the more I ponder it the more I have difficulty not realizing that all the plates would stablize at the same temperature in the absence of an atmosphere that provides another avenue for heat loss.
GPEs though represent some heat loss as all flat spaces have 6 sides representing some heat loss. But the global shell space doesn’t. But the fact is until they flie such an experiment into space there will always be doubt.
I have a strong aversion to extrapolation and tread cautiously in new territory realizing how I might be affected by my own biases.
It should be incredibly easy to refute the heat transfer equations. When the 2compartment box experiment was presented to them they had a very hard time accepting the result and what did they first jump to as a reason? It was leakage! Says something right there.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
Yes, Bill…they certainly don’t like that Seim & Olsen experiment!
Nate says:
”If it is simple and DREMT did understand, then he would understand that Elis solution agrees with 1LOT, 2LOT, and SB law, ie standard physics.”
———————–
No it doesn’t! He is using the engineering toolbox version of the SB equations. That toolbox version of that only considers radiation from the warmer surface (one SB equation) less radiation from a cooler surface. The analysis is limited to 2 radiating surfaces.
That works great when insulation is materially sufficient to prevent heat loss (like through the core of the earth) and the equilibrium temperature of the earths surface is correctly calculated (asterisk see side bar).
Sidebar: It would be correct except for the mistreatment of albedo if you used blackbody SB equations. Insert SB’s emissivity variable (the inverse of albedo) and you will get an equilibrium different from 255k. It will be 278.5k. But thats an aside.)End sidebar.
There is no SB equation in the toolbox rendition that corresponds to the radiation being emitted from the backside of the thin conductive cooler plate. That has to be accounted for by the engineer building this stuff and the result? DREMT and Postma are correct.
Do you believe that flow on the backside has no effect? Or That it is magically created? That it is generated by something completely apart from the flow of heat from the warmer plate? Its not accounted for in the toolbox rendition of the SB laws. Which is simply the difference between the radiation per SB between just 2 surfaces. Heat is still being lost through the thin conductive plates like fat through a goose!
Of course it would be absurd that such a flow magically was created. If you understand the SB equations used to determine the net energy flow then you know it is absurd to ignore the heat loss from the backside of the cooler plate.
This is why Postma is right he understands the correct application of the SB laws through well established heat transfer equations.
Perhaps if you actually dove down into the equations and logic you would be able to free yourself from the clutches of political science lies.
Cult Leader grammie pup, your post June 4 at 8:57 AM is a gross misstatement of physics. The two plates don’t have the same internal energy as they radiate energy away at different rates which must be equal to the amount received, once equilibrium temperatures are achieved.
There’s no way that the GP could radiate 200w/m^2 on two sides when it starts receiving 200 watts on one side. You have no explanation for the extra 200 watts which must enter the GP for it to radiate at 244 K.
Your ignorance is profound, as your arrogance.
DREMT 10:02 am didn’t understand or DREMT would point out not simply assert where Ball4 actually wrote a violation of 1LOT supported by Eli’s logic.
—–
Bill 11:36 am, a Postma name used to comment around here but stopped when more astute commenters totally ruined that Postma name’s atm. science credibility.
Clint R, I think Swanson is talking to you. Hard to say, because he calls us both by the same name, even though we’re two completely different people.
Yes DREMT, poor E. Swanson (aka Willard, Jr.) is very confused. It’s the result of being braindead.
He can’t understand any of this.
“In fact the more I ponder it the more I have difficulty not realizing that all the plates would stablize at the same temperature in the absence of an atmosphere that provides another avenue for heat loss.”
OMG. Bill didnt get the memo about what the party-line was going to be, and was forced to think for himself, and came up with a sane, logical, correct answer.
Now, sadly he needs to turn off his brain to adopt the insane, illogical, party position on this issue.
“No it doesnt! He is using the engineering toolbox version of the SB equations.”
Well now that we know that Bill is not thinking for himself any longer, and is just parroting the cult’s propaganda, his posts can be safely ignored!
grammie pups has no reply. He can’t explain why the GP would settle at 244 K, so talks to himself and falls back to one of his usual attacks on the questioner.
Clint R and I are two different people. I have no idea why you seem to believe we are the same person, but it’s very funny. The correct solution (244 K…244 K) has been explained so many times on this blog that it’s beyond a joke now for you to act like you haven’t heard it.
The GPE’s debunked.
… only if the 1LOT, 2LOT, and related experiment on which the GPE is based are debunked.
That Kiddo and Pup might not have the same opinion on how to deal with The Equation does not mean much.
Who cares what motivates their trolling. Or if it is coherent. Trolling is trolling. That is all they have.
I see everybody waving hands and nobody doing any calculations explicitly using the guidance of sb equations.
Think of it another way we are going to take a massive blackbody like the size of the sun and warm it to 290k so it is emitting 400w/m2. Then you build thirty layers of concentric IR blocking globes around it. with a 10mm vacuum space between the layers.
Assume this sun is a solid and has the specific heat capacity and mass of water.
What will be the surface temperature of this massive body be in say a century say rounded to the nearest 10th of a kelvin?
Simple problem all the info you need is on the internet and you should be able to compute this in say 10 minutes after getting the dimensions of the sun.
Well, Bill, assuming by “IR blocking globes” you mean “thin (let’s say 10mm), perfectly-conducting blackbody shells” (to make it as similar as possible to the original GPE thought experiment), then view factors between the first shell and the Sun, will be 1. So thinking about what would happen between the Sun and the first shell, the radiative heat transfer equation, with VF=1, reduces to:
Q = sigma * (Tsun^4 – Tshell^4)
The shell stops rising in temperature when Q = 0, i.e. when the heat flow to it goes to zero which is thermal equilibrium. Therefore when Q = 0 the shell has a constant temperature of:
0 = Tsun^4 – Tshell^4
Tsun = Tshell
So the Sun will warm the first shell to the same temperature as the Sun, according to the radiative heat transfer equation, so that’s 290 K; meaning it emits 400 W/m^2 to the next shell. VF=1 between the first shell and the second shell, so the calculations repeat. As you might have guessed, this means the overall surface temperature of this massive body (Sun plus the 30 layers), in say a century when rounded to the nearest 10th of a kelvin, would be 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2 to space.
Now, you could argue that since the layers (shells) get ever so slightly larger in surface area as we progress from the Sun to the 30th layer, that because the 30th layer will be emitting to space the same amount of power as the Sun, but over a slightly larger surface area, the amount of W/m^2 the 30th layer will emit to space will be a little less than 400 W/m^2. Indeed, each progressive layer should emit slightly less W/m^2 than the layer before it…but considering the scale involved the adjustment necessary would be tiny, even with 30 layers. There is only 10mm between them, after all, and we are talking about a body the size of the Sun. So I would say the final answer would still round up to 400 W/m^2.
I see Bill asking for a sammich.
Clint R,
“A vacuum aint insulation to radiative flux, braindead bob.
You dont understand any of this.”
Did I say it was?
It is insulation with respect to conduction.
Do continue to be a clown for all to see.
Cult Leader grammis pup (and Hunter) wants to build IR blocking globes around the Sun (that is, spherical shells somewhat larger than the size of the Sun) which would emit 400 w/m^2. He forgets that the 400 w/m^2 represents the intensity arriving at the radial distance to the Earth. The spherical shell(s) would thus need to have a radius equal to the Sun-Earth distance for this scheme to work. The intensity emitted at the Sun is considerably larger than 400 w/m/^2.
"The intensity emitted at the Sun is considerably larger than 400 w/m/^2."
Obviously, Swanson, but Bill wasn’t talking about our Sun. He specified:
"Think of it another way we are going to take a massive blackbody like the size of the sun and warm it to 290k so it is emitting 400w/m2."
So it’s just a massive blackbody sphere the size of our Sun, but unlike our Sun it is at 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2.
The sun only provides a meager 341w/m2 to the planet system. By all stretches is as hot as a pure radiation/conduction based system can warm anything. Thats the 2LOT. How can the sun apply more? It can get hotter and emit more then more will arrive here.
And no a vacuum isn’t insulating. Its a ‘vacuum gap’ that is insulating so that the resistance defined by the SB law can have an effect.
> The [S]un only provides a meager 341w/m2 to the planet system.
There’s something missing in your accounting, Bill.
“Its a vacuum gap that is insulating so that the resistance defined by the SB law can have an effect.”
Bill ur gonna get in trouble with the cult, if you keep departing from their messaging on this!
They don’t believe opening up a vacuum gap change anything, nor insulates.
“Yes, you could introduce insulation between the two, Norman. However, thats not what happens. All that happens is that the plates are separated.”
“The plates are separated by such a small distance that all of the blue plate emission is absorbed by the green plate, i.e., there are no losses from BPs one side. So the green plate still receives what it had been receiving when fully in contact with the blue plate.”
“Plates together, 244 K244 K. Plates separated, 244 K244 K.”
I wonder why nobody from Team GPE answered Bill’s question on the Sun-sized blackbody sphere at 290 K with the thirty blackbody shells surrounding it, all spaced 10mm apart? Is it perhaps because according to E-Lie’s “logic”, the passive shells would have warmed the heat source sphere to such an absurd degree above 290 K that nobody would take them seriously?
Awww…. no one is taking the bait and following the Clown Team down another rabbit hole of insanity.
Maybe we’re learning.
“warmed the heat source sphere to such an absurd degree above 290 K that nobody would take them seriously”
No matter how melodramatic his incredulity gets, it is still not an argument.
There is still no science in it.
FYI Bill, Willis answers all your concerns.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
Even with only one shell around it, according to Team GPE’s “logic”, the sphere would have warmed to 345 K, emitting 800 W/m^2! So that is 55 K of warming just with the one shell, let alone thirty!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
” This form of reasoning is fallacious because one’s inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality”
So maybe if they repeat the astonishment a dozen more times. Thatll do it.
Funny how I have to do their own work for them…as well as solving the problem correctly at 4:13 AM yesterday. Why is no Team GPE member giving an answer for what the temperature of the sphere would be with 30 shells around it, according to their logic? I can’t be expected to do everything…
Willis explained the simple and correct physics solution to Bill’s problem.
If people refuse to learn correct physics, and insist on using fake physics, it should be no surprise that they keep on getting wrong answers.
OK, I’ll do everything…around 684 K, I make it. Emitting 12,400 W/m^2. That’s how warm the sphere would be if it had 30 passive blackbody layers around it, according to E-Lie’s "logic". Of course, I could be wrong on that. Please correct me if I am.
If nature is incredible once, it can be incredible 30 times!
…but get this…whilst the internal sphere gets warmer and warmer as you add more shells…the outermost shell always ends up at 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2 to space. So with 30 shells, the sphere is at 684 K, emitting 12,400 W/m^2. The 1st shell is emitting 12,000 W/m^2, the 2nd shell 11,600 W/m^2, the 3rd shell 11,200 W/m^2, and so on all the way down to the 30th shell emitting 400 W/m^2 to space. All that energy to warm all those shells coming from…somewhere.
There is a never ending supply of heat from the 400 W/m2 heat source.
And there seems to be a never ending supply of incredulity about whatever nature does indeed do.
Can light quanta be blocked by resistance
Nate says:
There is a never ending supply of heat from the 400 W/m2 heat source.
And there seems to be a never ending supply of incredulity about whatever nature does indeed do.
————————-
Well now that the insulation model and the GPE exposed as a fraud. As usual it turns to the sun continuing to heat a 290w/m2 surface with a 400w/m2 radiation field.
But before we demand you go to all the trouble to build a model to demonstrate this fact explain why SB based heat transfer laws specify a ‘zero’ heat transfer for a 290k object in a 400w/m2 radiation field?
What that implies is all of the history of the use of SB equations is wrong and that radiation can’t be stopped by anything, including backradiation resistance? It would cut through any insulation like a hot knife through butter. And in fact isn’t that the result you are looking for?
If SB equations are junk why do you think you can use them for energy going through the insulated vacuum gaps between the shells but you can’t use them for the radiation from the sun as energy passes through that vacuum gap?
What did you think of Willis explanation Bill?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
Are you going to think for yourself and apply reason and logic? Like here:
“Its a vacuum gap that is insulating so that the resistance defined by the SB law can have an effect.”
Or are you going to adopt the contradictory nonsensical position that the TEAM wants you to have?
Are you going to set aside reason and sanity to take one for the TEAM?
“If SB equations are junk why do you think you can use them for energy going through the insulated vacuum gaps between the shells but you cant use them for the radiation from the sun as energy passes through that vacuum gap?”
There is nothing wrong with SB law. Where did I say that?
The law is applied correctly in the GPE, and in the steel greenhouse problem.
What is insane is DREMTs claim that the radiation emitted from the inside of a steel sphere simply VANISHES.
Just as he claims the radiation emitted from the GP toward the BP simply VANISHES.
He simply acts as though these emissions do not exist!
Where did they go?
Nate:
1) Its electromagnetism. It doesn’t necessarily flow. Like the 12volt battery in your car it stays stored in the battery until the resistance is removed by opening a switch.
2) Who says its not going anywhere? Trenberth’s system budget balances to the 341w/m2 input with 102 watts/m2 reflected and 239w/m2 emitted to space. Of course there are inbalances, reflection rates can change. Clouds can change. Precipitation can change and bring less frequent or more frequent snows.
Bill, about my "Sun Shell" example that I mentioned further up-thread, I only really got into the half of it. As I said:
"If you were able to surround the Sun with a thin shell made of some highly conductive material, with a tiny vacuum gap between the Sun and the shell, according to the GPE "logic", the shell would only warm until it was emitting out to space half the amount of energy, in W/m^2, that the Sun was originally emitting to space. The shell has two sides, an inside, and an outside, you see.
Whereas, in reality, the Sun would just warm the shell until it was emitting to space almost the same amount of energy (in W/m^2) as the Sun was emitting to space originally. There would be slightly less energy emitted (in W/m^2) because the surface area of the shell is larger than the surface area of the Sun."
I neglected to mention the most ridiculous part…that according to Team GPE, the back-radiation from the shell would warm the Sun! Even though the energy to warm the shell came from the Sun originally, Team GPE believes that the Sun could, in effect, warm itself up with its own energy. With only one blackbody shell they think the Sun would warm to 6,872 K, emitting twice as much energy (in W/m^2) as it did previously, at 5,778 K. So that’s a 1,094 K temperature increase, with just one shell added. They would then have the shell itself at 5,778 K, emitting the same amount of energy to space as the Sun did previously.
To be clear, it’s nothing to do with "vacuum gap insulation". That’s just a ruse they have come up with to try to throw people off the scent. Things like your "sphere and 30 shells" example, and my "Sun Shell" example, make it clear that it’s simply about back-radiation directly warming the source. Physically impossible.
“1) Its electromagnetism. It doesnt necessarily flow. Like the 12volt battery in your car it stays stored in the battery until the resistance is removed by opening a switch.”
Weird. And nothing to radiation, SB law or whats being discussed.
“2) Who says its not going anywhere? Trenberths system budget balances to the 341w/m2 input with 102 watts/m2 reflected and 239w/m2 emitted to space. ”
So here you switch to a completely different problem, again nothing to do with whats being discussed.
IOW we see complete evasion of the quite simple question/issues.
Again, the inner surfaces of GP and steel sphere should be emitting radiation according to the SB law.
Why arent they? Where did they go? Is SB law only valid for outer surfaces?
These emissions have disappeared, in DREMTs view, by some unexplained magic.
Is this an insanity you want to support, Bill?
“I neglected to mention the most ridiculous partthat according to Team GPE, the back-radiation from the shell would warm the Sun!”
It seems, lacking any real science or sensible logic, argument by incredulity is the best they can offer. Here taken to new extremes.
Some people never learn.
Change the sun to a planet, as Willis does, if it will make you feel better, but the physics is correct either way.
Nate take it up with Eli!
I was using eli’s equations which are well established. Show where the math or equations are wrong don’t lie and claim I made it up!
Just a reminder, Bill, that I have never argued the inner surfaces of the Green Plate or the Shell don’t emit radiation. They do. So hopefully that will put a stop to any shameless and wildly dishonest misrepresentation that might be going on from obsessive, pathetic, stalking failures who have devoted their entire lives to following me about wherever I post, even though they know I no longer respond to them.
“Nate take it up with Eli!
I was using elis equations which are well established. Show where the math or equations are wrong dont lie and claim I made it up!”
Then we get the coup de gras evasion. Being completely confused about everything!
I fully agree with Eli. If you do also, then you agree with me and disagree with DREMT.
Eli and I and Willis think the SB law applies to all surfaces. And we believe 1LOT is valid.
DREMT does not.
“So hopefully that will put a stop to any shameless and wildly dishonest misrepresentation that might be going on…”
…then again, maybe it won’t! Some people just can’t help themselves.
What does the SB law say? It says a BB surface emits energy. Emitting energy is LOSING energy.
DREMT clearly states this cannot happen on the side of the GP facing the BP:
“That is, the [GP] cannot lose energy in the entire hemisphere of potential emission facing the [BP]”
“The Green Plate can only lose energy on the side facing space, unlike the Blue Plate”
And this lost emission has vanished in his math. It is not simply cancelled by the BP flux, because that continues to be counted
No physics can explain this, only magic.
DREMT there is a concept of vacuum gap insulation.
Bottom line is take an air gap in window technology that requires two solid static plates of glass to block diffusion and convection.
Without the glass air molecules would transfer energy through collisions by diffusion and both diffusion transports molecules of air that are at ground level in the same manner it transports the heavier molecule of CO2 to a uniform distribution within the atmosphere. Its more effective doing with the lighter molecules than the heavier ones like CO2.
Plus when diffusion is too weak to do the job you get mass movement of air upward in the form of convection.
Finally all this movement of molecules allows for collisions that transfer energy between airborne molecules at a far higher rate than radiation can do it.
So this whole enchilada involves a transport of heat from the surface to TOA without even considering radiation. Trenberth’s budget has more radiation 40w being transported than do thermals. 17w. This is almost certainly wrong. At any rate the 333 watts in his budget in excess of what the sky temperature would dictate. Roy has said it is less. But this warmist crowd does not want it to be so that convection/diffusion raises more heat than radiation as that would create either no greenhouse effect or it would create a huge buffer to override even more transport of heat by radiation all the while they are claiming its going to result in less transport in claiming more unrestricted layers will reduce radiation even further.
But thats an aside..
A vacuum gap represents insulation because all a vacuum gap does is remove an avenue for heat to migrate though the gap by diffusion and collision. So it has to be more insulating than air gaps between solid static sheets of glass but heat does go through these vacuum gaps via radiation.
NASA makes some really expensive insulation for space craft. They do so by coating thin polymer? sheet of plastic with gold deposited on the sheets to make a stable (gold is really stable against corrosion) that provide high reflective values that reduce outgoing heat via radiation across the vacuum gaps.ed. So both the movement of molecules and radiation is reduced in a bubble where the air has been evacuated.
Some people still just can’t help themselves…
Now, onto Bill’s comment:
"A vacuum gap represents insulation because all a vacuum gap does is remove an avenue for heat to migrate though the gap by diffusion and collision"
Sure, but in the GPE thought experiment there is no air present whatsoever, anyway. The conditions specified are that it takes place entirely in a vacuum. So those avenues for heat transfer (conduction to the air molecules/convection) never existed. There’s not really a "vacuum gap", because that implies that elsewhere there isn’t a vacuum! There’s simply a gap between the plates, or between the sphere and the shell. All energy transfer is taking place by radiation, throughout, not just in the gap between the plates, or between the sphere and the shell.
Bill, you just need to ask yourself if you’re willing to swallow the idea of the Sun being heated by 1,094 K, essentially by its own energy! I’d consider that a fairly basic sanity check that something is not right with E-Lie’s logic/physics (his math is fine, but math being fine in and of itself does not mean that the physics it represents is correct).
“A vacuum gap represents insulation because all a vacuum gap does is remove an avenue for heat to migrate though the gap by diffusion and collision. So it has to be more insulating than air gaps between solid static sheets of glass but heat does go through these vacuum gaps via radiation.”
Ok.
And how would a vacuum gap compare to the same gap filled with a good conductor like copper?
“Bill, you just need to ask yourself if youre willing to swallow”
Hee hee.
IOW don’t pay attention to the fact that my logic and physics is all wrong, pay attention to my incredulity of what correct physics does.
And did I mention that I’m very very incredulous!
Which is not an argument, or evidence of truth, at all.
"I’d consider that a fairly basic sanity check that something is not right with E-Lie’s logic/physics"
…but there’s a lot more to it than that, as we’ve already been through and discussed…particularly last month. The GPE’s debunked. Has been for years.
Argument by assertion, is not an argument, or evidence of truth, at all.
The GPE’s debunked. Has been for years.
That all said. There has never ever been a demonstration of a radiation only greenhouse effect.
SB laws provides zero heat transfer between two objects of the same temperature.
So whats going on? Its about power and nothing else.
All the empires from Alexander to the American Hegemony and the Mongols to the German Nazis have been about nothing else other than power.
The leaders become rock stars and countless fan boys and brown nosers quickly sign up.
Is a radiation only greenhouse effect plausible? Yep, we don’t know enough about energy to eliminate the possibility. Advocates have already abandoned the effort to demonstrate it in a physical model.
And they just awarded a Nobel Prize to a guy that really did nothing more than enivision a lapse rate based process and then allocated the number he wanted up over the the entire lapse rate. Heck I was doing stuff like that in complex amortizations of financial instruments shortly after my apprenticeship. When you know your starting point and the desired end point. . . .LMAO!
The problem is we don’t let private enterprise to get away with such stuff in figuring what their year end income amounted to. We make they adjust to observations. And it doesn’t matter how much they whine about this and that about the observations. Judith Curry is astounded they haven’t done that with the models. Thats only because Judith has a positive view of the human nature of the people she works with and really isn’t aware that there is no group in the world that is better than the next group. They are all subject to bias, they are all subject to being fan boys, they are all subject to wanting to advance in their careers.
Nate says:
Argument by assertion, is not an argument, or evidence of truth, at all.
——————————————
Nate you just described the only case for a radiation-based only greenhouse effect.
So far the only thing ever seen are experiments that failed to produce a greenhouse effect and are handwaved away by alleging the experiments were flawed. The GPE, for example, has clearly been debunked as a demonstration of the greenhouse effect because it wasn’t a demonstration of that at all. Every one of them.
You would have us believe that if we had a large pot of water with the water at 17C in a chilly 17c room and we dropped a 12″ sphere filled with water that was surrounded with 30 layers of glass separated by 1mm vacuum gaps into the pot the water in the sphere would begin to boil and the sphere would explode/rupture. What did DREMT calculate the results at? 12,000 watts and something north of 400c!
Come to think of it that would be a great movie plot! The Invasion of the Space Eggs.
Norman says:
DREMT
No you do not understand what I wrote at all. You have debunked nothing. You should try to think.
Your false approach is just to keep persisting with wrong notions (like your total ignorance on the Moon rotation).
————————
Hmmmm, what does DREMT have on the moon?
1. The convention of kinematics to recognize what a rotation on an external axis is.
2. A particle by particle calculation of angular momentum for a body rotating on an external axis.
3. A logical source for the how all rotations on external axes have at a minimum all the particles moving in concentric rotations.
What do you have.
1. Astronomy says without proof nor logic that the moon rotates on its own axis.
2. non-recognition by astronomy that objects can rotate on external axes.
I think that by definition makes you a fanboy that would deny any and all science so you can properly appear to be a member of an elite club.
My take on it all.
1. Astronomy doesn’t do anything that would be dependent upon not having the moon rotate on its own axis versus rotating on an external axis.
2. Due to the complexities of putting an object in orbit and time constraints they treat orbiting separately from the natural processes that inevitably bring an orbiting object into a tidal locked state.
3. No self respecting astronomer would strive to prove that the moon rotates on its own axis as it is irrelevant to everything astronomers do. Such push back only arises from fan clubs that analyze, dissect, and support everything their heroes do.
There you go!
“Nate you just described the only case for a radiation-based only greenhouse effect.
So far the only thing ever seen are experiments that failed to produce a greenhouse effect”
Well the GPE and the Steel Greenhouse were never claimed to be complete GHE theories, so it is a strawman to suggest that they ever were.
They are exactly what they are claimed to be, simple, clear demonstrations of radiative insulation, and the effect of back-radiation.
They are intended only to debunk the sky dragoneer claims that radiative insulation and back-radiation do not work. And they do that.
It seems like you agree with the analyses of Willis, and Eli, that these parallel black plates or concenetric shells, DO in fact insulate. And you disagree with the sky dragoneers, Postma/DREMT?
But you are reluctant to commit.
“SB laws provides zero heat transfer between two objects of the same temperature.”
Exactly. There must be a T gradient to get heat flow in these problems. And there must be heat flow out of plates/shells since there is heat flow into them.
To simply assert that there is no T gradient is total nonsense.
“So whats going on? Its about power and nothing else.
All the empires from Alexander to the American Hegemony”
Mixing politics into your melange argument again?!
This is simply an unhelpful distraction, Bill, when discussing a pure science issue.
“You would have us believe that if we had a large pot of water with the water at 17C in a chilly 17c room and we dropped a 12″ sphere filled with water that was surrounded with 30 layers of glass separated by 1mm vacuum gaps into the pot the water in the sphere would begin to boil and the sphere would explode/rupture. What did DREMT calculate the results at? 12,000 watts and something north of 400c!
Come to think of it that would be a great movie plot! The Invasion of the Space Eggs.”
Yes, Bill, glass has quite high emissivity. Some reflectivity, therefore according to Team GPE it should be an even better radiative insulator than a blackbody shell. Basically, every single substance in the Universe is an excellent radiative insulator according to Team GPE…but glass is a reasonable choice. Maybe just put less shells around the sphere so that it doesn’t explode/rupture, and only boils the water. That way you could incorporate some sort of valve to let the steam out, and to add more water in to replace it, then the steam could power a turbine and voila! We can generate electricity, using the magical powers of back-radiation heating!
“You would have us believe that if we had a large pot of water with the water at 17C in a chilly 17c room and we dropped a 12″ sphere filled with water that was surrounded with 30”
Is there a heat source involved? No? Then its a different problem and has a different answer!
A similar problem would be an old bare 60 W light bulb. Turn it on. Let it equilibrate. Now surround it with a black metal enclosure. Does it heat up more?
Does the enclosure heat up? Of course it does.
Now surround it with a second black metal enclosure. Does the light bulb heat up more? Does it melt?
Probably.
Does the first enclosure heat up more than it was? Does the second enclosure heat up? Of course they do.
Of course there is nothing incredible about this, if you understand that adding insulation to a heat source causes it to heat up!
And Bill, already has explained that a vacuum gap between layers is indeed insulation.
Nate says:
Well the GPE and the Steel Greenhouse were never claimed to be complete GHE theories, so it is a strawman to suggest that they ever were.
They are exactly what they are claimed to be, simple, clear demonstrations of radiative insulation, and the effect of back-radiation.
===================================
FOLKS LOOK HERE! Nate just admitted the GPE does not at all establish the Greenhouse Theory!!!!!
He even claims that its a strawman to suggest anybody ever did that!
And to close the deal Nate claims sky dragon slayers were claiming air gaps can’t insulate!
Talking about the pot calling the kettle black. . . .sheesh!
Nate you are nothing but a walking and talking contradiction, contradicting yourself at a pace of one per post.
Lets see what did Nate say about how the insulation of the GPE theory would allow the surface to warm.
”Thanks Bill for your agreement that the BP warms in the presence of the GP. It warms closer to but not all the way to the T of the sun, or whatever heat source. ”
Here nate claims that insulation of 14 air gaps (a u value of .000061) would warm the surface of the earth to 5,778K if it didn’t melt first.
There’s even less consistency to their claims…when the green plate is only on one side of the blue, it’s “adding green plates will warm the blue plate closer and closer to a maximum temperature set by the heat source”. When there are green plates either side of a heat source blue plate, or shells around a heat source sphere, however, it’s “adding green plates/shells will warm the blue plate/sphere above the maximum temperature”, e.g. adding one shell around the Sun supposedly causes the Sun to warm by 1,094 K, until it’s emitting twice as much energy (in W/m^2) as it did previously! Quite impressive for one vacuum gap…
Of course, one minute it’s the “Green Plate Effect” and next minute it’s the “Vacuum Gap Effect”…they can never decide if it’s supposedly the Green Plate that warms the BP, via back-radiation, or whether it’s the presence of a “vacuum gap” that insulates the BP.
They also want to do away with the concept of thermal equilibrium, altogether. Have a heat source sphere in space at a certain temperature and add a passive shell around the heat source. With view factors = 1 between the sphere and the shell, according to the radiative heat transfer equation heat flow goes to zero when the sphere warms the shell to the same temperature as the sphere. That is thermal equilibrium. At this point, heat is no longer flowing from the sphere to the shell, and because the shell has warmed, it radiates energy to space based on its temperature and emissivity. So there is no heat flow between the sphere and the shell, and no heat flow from the shell to space.
They want you to believe that there “must be a temperature gradient to drive heat through the system” and so they argue the sphere must perpetually remain at a higher temperature than the shell! Which is total nonsense. At thermal equilibrium there is no heat flow, and there doesn’t need to be…the sphere has already heated the shell, and the shell is simply radiating energy to space because it’s matter above 0 K. Whereas, it’s like they think that unless there is a permanent temperature gradient constantly driving heat into the shell from the sphere, the shell would just…stop radiating, for some reason!
“Here nate claims that insulation of 14 air gaps (a u value of .000061) would warm the surface of the earth to 5,778K if it didnt melt first”
Nope, a light bulb.
You admit that plates with gaps DO insulate. DREMT is proven wrong about that.
That argument is over.
Now you know very well that insulating a heat source, like the light bulb, will make it heat up. So it makes little sense to express incredulity about that.
So Im not sure what you are on about now.
“FOLKS LOOK HERE! Nate just admitted the GPE does not at all establish the Greenhouse Theory!!!!!”
Bill you can use as many !! as you want. It wont change that fact that this is just YOUR endless confusion about what the GPE argument was about.
No one, not Eli, not me, claimed the GPE, was supposed to be the GHE.
To misrepresent that it was is another big strawman, just a sad attempt to troll.
Whatever Nate. Saying clearly you are not here supporting the Greenhouse gas forcing model probably is news to many. But I still have a problem with your claim that the GHG insulalation model will warm the world to the same T as the sun. 5,778k
So you agree that layers of metal separated by vacuum are insulators.
You don’t dispute that the light bulb warms when insulated by such layered enclosures, just as your sun-model would.
So you have to make up things that I NEVER said, to dispute.
“Saying clearly you are not here supporting the Greenhouse gas forcing model probably is news to many.”
Thats one.
“But I still have a problem with your claim that the GHG insulalation model will warm the world to the same T as the sun. 5,778k”
Thats two and three.
Look its obvious that you are still trying to please your friends on the Moron TEAM, while having debunked their claims.
You can tell when they start to get desperate, Bill. They will start to mention things like light bulbs, even though the main “heat source” for a light bulb, the filament, can be at temperatures in excess of 2700 K. So, according to the GPE logic, surrounding the bulb with a blackbody shell should cause a significant increase in temperature of the filament, which of course does not occur in reality. You have to always be careful with the nonsense they try to pull…
Nate says:
”You admit that plates with gaps DO insulate. DREMT is proven wrong about that.”
The issue behind light bulbs is governed by the square distance law and it would take an infinite number of glass bulb shells each separated by a vacuum to double the temperature of the inside glass bulb of say a 60watt light bulb from its ~93c temperature to 160C. The 160c should then correspond to the filament temperature modified by the square distance law which for a light bulb is typically around 2500c. There is no forcing on the lightbulb filament. That isn’t exact, though they evacuate most of the air from the inside of the bulb to avoid interation with oxygen.
The forcing concept of AGW has always been the most controversial issue, but there is a lot of censorship and coersion on all employees and businesses that want to stay out the political limelight
Yes obviously there is a greenhouse effect. But until you properly describe it in mathematical blueprints you cannot do the math to calculate how it varies. Thats why you need to understand the natural world and natural climate variation before you can understand anthropogenic climate variation. Quite simply the GPE was invented to sell a fraud. Perhaps you championed it to not do that. . . .but that seems to be a long reach considering why you are even here. So I am calling liar, big fib, on that one. It seems either you were in on the fraud or you were a victim of it. No inbetweens, no excuses that you are here to sell the truth about insulation. Nobody is going to buy that fib.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
When there are green plates either side of a heat source blue plate
———————-
Green plates around a blue plate will insulate the blue plate from both sides. If blue plate has a heat source it will reduce heat losses. If it doesn’t and there is a heat source it reduce the warming rate of the blue plate.
This completely explains Dr. RW Woods experiment outcome and explains why you have never seen any experiment, other than an imaginary thought experiment emerging from mainstream climate science on this. RW Woods was a man far ahead of his time obviously.
The above explains why the IR opaque greenhouse warmed more slowly and it explains why it didn’t warm more.
So now we have all the morons in here that for years have pooh pooh Dr Woods suddenly claim they weren’t here at all for that but were here to teach people about insulation.
“it would take an infinite number of glass bulb shells each separated by a vacuum to double the temperature of the inside glass bulb of say a 60watt light bulb from its ~93c temperature to 160C.”
Confidently making up ‘facts’ again?
At least you get the principles that a heat source, insulated, will heat up. And that plates with vacuum gaps are insulators.
Then there is DREMT who magically converts his incredulity into ‘truth’.
“So, according to the GPE logic, surrounding the bulb with a blackbody shell should cause a significant increase in temperature of the filament, which of course does not occur in reality.”
“They want you to believe that there ‘must be a temperature gradient to drive heat through the system'”
Who is they? Its those darn meddling physicists with their ‘laws of physics’ and their ‘thousands of experiments’. Meddling with my beliefs.
“At thermal equilibrium there is no heat flow, and there doesnt need to bethe sphere has already heated the shell, and the shell is simply radiating energy to space because its matter above 0 K.”
He has had 5 years to learn this one physics principle, and solve one basic homework problem, and he just can’t do it.
And he’s even had the solution manual!
“Whereas, its like they think that unless there is a permanent temperature gradient constantly driving heat into the shell from the sphere, the shell would juststop radiating, for some reason!”
Again, extreme incredulity about what heat actually does in the real world, is erroneously believed to be an argument!
This is very sad and persistent inability to grasp the concept of Conservation of Energy.
If they get really, really desperate, Bill, they might even double down on nonsense like claiming surrounding the bulb with a blackbody shell would increase the temperature of the actual filament itself! Or saying that unless there is a permanent temperature gradient constantly driving heat from a heat source sphere to a shell in space, the shell would just magically stop radiating! Who knows what they are going to come out with next…
Nate says:
June 12, 2022 at 4:22 AM
it would take an infinite number of glass bulb shells each separated by a vacuum to double the temperature of the inside glass bulb of say a 60watt light bulb from its ~93c temperature to 160C.
Confidently making up facts again?
At least you get the principles that a heat source, insulated, will heat up. And that plates with vacuum gaps are insulators.
————————————-
Nate the filament doesn’t heat up! What heats up from additional insulation is the glass enclosure of the filament.
The glass enclosure of the filament sits half way between the ambient temperature and the radiation field cast by the filament. To calculate the radiation field you use the inverse square distance law.
Since manufacturers of bulbs make them in different shapes and sizes and use a variety of filament sizes (for extended life bulbs for example) there is no one size fits all calculation for a light bulb. But you can roughly calculate it from information contained on the internet as to typical sizes. I used 1/100th of an inch for the filament diameter, 2 1/2inch diameter glass shell, and 93c for the temperature of the glass shell of a typical 60watt bulb and 2500c. Apply the insulation factor to double the temperature of the shell. Doubling 93c produces 160c. So this should be the temperature equivalent of the filament radiation field when it reaches a spherical globe surrounding it.
So then apply the square distance law to find the temperature of the filament. Don’t expect it to be perfect as the globe of a bulb isn’t perfectly spherical and a thread of a filament not perfectly corresponding to the shape of the shell. But it gets you well into the ballpark.
No! Please understand completely Nate! Insulation cannot warm up the source. You claim one minute to understand this and the next minute you are claiming insulation warms the filament of a light bulb. Obviously you don’t get it yet! Insulation cannot warm up the source because it has no source of additional forcing to make it hotter than the source.
Its amazing how these tinfoil hat folks cling to the forcing model of insulation. The implications of that is backradiation from earth warms the sun. They don’t understand physics.
Nate is still shifting between the two propaganda models offered up by the folks profiting from this venture. One minute he suggests that the sun can continue to warm a surface to 5778k and he wants to ignore the equilibrium value established by view factors and the inverse square distance law.
Then when somebody calls him on that he shifts to the insulation forcing model that both RW Woods and Seim/Olsen blew a Mack Truck sized hole in using real science.
But that isn’t even necessary as the laws of science already prohibit such a ‘forcing model’ as pointed out by Physicists G&Tand not responded to by the proponents with a viable with a forcing model.
How much evidence does one need to rip a tinfoil hat off a fanboy?
Hunter, The RW Wood experiment showed that most of the warming in a greenhouse was the result of suppressing the convection with the surroundings. There were many aspects of that experiment which preclude a determination of the effects of back radiation to the inner plate. For one, the outer covers must be able to warm above ambient, which can’t happen while convection is operating, both inside and outside the box.
The Seim/Olsen paper also has several problems which have been pointed out numerous times. That said, remember that they did conclude:
They claim that the observed “backscatter” (Figure 9) should have produced greater warming, while ignoring the fact that their setup included small fans to promote convection. Also, the fact that the CO2 showed more IR reduction outside than the increase in IR to the rear plate could have been the result of the CO2 absorbing IR from the room, which would have warmed things when only air was used.
Given the other problems with their experiments, I think they don’t prove their conclusion:
The back wall thermocouple is not the heated plate, which would be the location analogous to the Earth’s surface. They intentionally control the temperature of the rear plate for most of their setups, so any such warming can not be determined.
“Nate the filament doesnt heat up!”
In your opinion. Not based on any actual knowledge.
“What heats up from additional insulation is the glass enclosure of the filament.”
I agree it heats up. Let the glass be your ‘sun’ then. It heats up when surrounded by insulation.
That makes the point that a heat source, surrounded by an insulating enclosure will heat up! Surround that enclosure by another enclosure and the first enclosure will heat up, and the glass will heat up further. On and on.
The logic here is unavoidable.
That anyone would be think this too incredible, is trying hard to remain ignorant of heat transfer.
And their incredulity of a thing that actually happens is a very poor argument!
“The implications of that is backradiation from earth warms the sun. They don’t understand physics.“
There have been various people on here that have indeed argued just that – that back-radiation from Earth warms the Sun a little bit! You only have to look at the reaction to the “Sun Shell” example to see that there is absolutely no limit to what they are prepared to claim.
E. Swanson says:
June 12, 2022 at 9:01 AM
Hunter, The RW Wood experiment showed that most of the warming in a greenhouse was the result of suppressing the convection with the surroundings. There were many aspects of that experiment which preclude a determination of the effects of back radiation to the inner plate. For one, the outer covers must be able to warm above ambient, which cant happen while convection is operating, both inside and outside the box.
The Seim/Olsen paper also has several problems which have been pointed out numerous times. That said, remember that they did conclude:
————————————————–
You misunderstand the experiment results.
The results merely show there are no exceptions to the S&B Law, the 1LOT, AND 2LOT caused by an electromagnetic process.
All these experiments do is replicate the experiments that led to those laws. As you well know if you could show otherwise you would overturn those laws. It has been a long time since I have seen a real scientist argue that the 3rd grader radiation model is an explanation of the greenhouse effect. . . .for good reason.
The fanboys in here though bring it up almost daily.
Nate has already acknowledged that the GPE doesn’t in any way prove the greenhouse effect and the only thing it is designed to do is educate people that air gaps and vacuum gaps have insulating qualities. Seim/Olson and RW Wood experiments also shows that insulation doesn’t warm anything about equilibrium in accordance with known laws of radiation and that IR filtering is not a special case.
Nate says:
DREMT:”They want you to believe that there ‘must be a temperature gradient to drive heat through the system’ ”
Who is they? Its those darn meddling physicists with their laws of physics and their thousands of experiments. Meddling with my beliefs.
————————
‘they’ would be you and the other fanboys in here. And near as I can tell none of you have come up with a relevant experiment yet.
===========================
Nate says:
DREMT:”At thermal equilibrium there is no heat flow, and there doesnt need to bethe sphere has already heated the shell, and the shell is simply radiating energy to space because its matter above 0 K.”
He has had 5 years to learn this one physics principle, and solveN one basic homework problem, and he just cant do it.
—————–
When are you going to learn that one physics principle Nate?
You posted in the last week your opinion that the sun would warm the earth’s temperature above its equilibrium value with the sun.
I presumed you believed that because of the insulation such that any insulation allows a surface to exceed its equilibrium value and then you repeated the same thing with light bulbs.
I think we all agree now, except DREMT and toadies, that the GPE results in a warmer BP.
And as Bill noted, the warmest it can get is 290 K with many plates. because, at most it can radiate 400 W/m^2 to space, the amount it receives.
But the GPE, and the steel greenhouse are not the same. And they will have different answers. The steel greenhouse planet cannot radiate out its back side like the BP, so its T is not limited to 290K.
Similarly the Earths surface cannot radiate out its back side to space like the BP. It can only lose heat thru the atmosphere to space. Thus it doesnt have a T limit like the BP does.
Look at Venus. It has a very strong GHE and is warmed to 475 C. Much warmer than Earth or Mercury.
“As you well know if you could show otherwise you would overturn those laws. It has been a long time since I have seen a real scientist argue that the 3rd grader radiation model is an explanation of the greenhouse effect. . . .for good reason.
The fanboys in here though bring it up almost daily.”
Yes, we saw that Vaughan Pratt recently criticized the back-radiation model on here, even saying the Wikipedia article on the GHE needed changing. Not sure why the regulars here can’t let it go.
I see that Kiddo has yet to get Pup’s memo regarding thy Wiki page.
☺️
Not sure why the regulars here can’t let it go.
Nate says:
”Nate the filament doesnt heat up!”
In your opinion. Not based on any actual knowledge.
———————–
Yes based on actual knowledge. There is no temperature gradient in the filament. It is heated evenly by the resistance of the wire a resistance that is determined by the area of its crosssection vs the amperage flowing and the resistance of the wire.
No temperature gradient and then no warming from insulating the wire. The blue plate in the blue plate experiment is an example of a temperature gradient.
The equilibrium of the blueplate is a floating equilibrium determined by the difference in temperature of the source and the target. Insert a second plate and you divide that difference by 3 instead of 2. Insert a third and it is now 4 that you divide by. If the target is the same temperature as the source then you are dividing those numbers into zero.
A plate of glass or a plate has a temperture gradient across it but it is inconsequential because glass and plates are conductive. Put an asbestos plate up there and it will develop a temperature gradient across the thickness of the asbestos because asbestos is an insulator.
“es based on actual knowledge. There is no temperature gradient in the filament. It is heated evenly by the resistance of the wire a resistance that is determined by the area of its crosssection vs the amperage flowing and the resistance of the wire.”
What matters is that the environment of the filament, where it needs to dissipate its heat, has gotten warmer, thus the filament must get warmer. Not very much, I do agree.
But this is getting into the weeds and is besides the point, that the bulb, as whole, heats up when more insulation surrounds it. We agree on this.
What we agree on is the shell will warm to the same temperature as the surface as modified by the inverse square distance law. You cannot heat the shell of the light bulb to 2500c no matter how much insulation you pack around it unless you get an exothermic chemical reaction and the insulation combusts.
“What we agree on is the shell will warm to the same temperature as the surface as modified by the inverse square distance law. You cannot heat the shell of the light bulb to 2500c no matter how much insulation you pack around it unless you get an exothermic chemical reaction and the insulation combusts.”
In the Steel Greenhouse, the radius of the shells are very close to the radius of the planet to keep it simple.
I agree that if the radius of the shell is much larger than the radius of the planet, you will get a smaller amount of warming.
But you will still get warming, and that is the main point here.
> Not sure why the regulars here can’t let it go.
Allow me to help:
(P1) If Kiddo’s interpretation of Vaughan’s argument is correct, Vaughan would be a Sky Dragon Crank.
(P2) Vaughan is not a Sky Dragon Crank.
What should we conclude?
🤔
You could conclude that it is possible to still believe in a Greenhouse Effect whilst not believing in the Green Plate Effect. After all, some members of Team GPE have been arguing that the latter was never meant to be a demonstration of the former.
People can believe whatever they want, I guess.
With the GPE both theoretically and experimentally debunked, there is not a lot of choice left for you guys, anyway.
… except to know DREMT is wrong about the GPE since the 1LOT has not been both theoretically and experimentally debunked
Oh yes, Ball4 and 1LoT. How could I forget?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345722
> it is possible to still believe in a Greenhouse Effect whilst not believing in the Green Plate Effect.
It is also possible to believe that the Green Plate Effect does not offer a good account of the Greenhouse Effect while still believing in both.
This might explain Vaughan’s specific wording.
Most likely he would defend the GPE if questioned. The Team stick together, after all. I mean, he would strictly-speaking then be contradicting what he said about the back-radiation account of the GHE, but when have they ever been consistent?
[KIDDO] The Team stick together, after all.
[ALSO KIDDO] I have explained it my way, Pup explains it his [… Pup] is a separate human being from me with his own ideas.
You do realize there’s no contradiction there, right? Clint R and I are obviously not in Team GPE, which is the Team I was referring to.
Some people here continue to maintain that testable, fact-based knowledge about the world is somehow opinion-based.
That what heat transfer does in the real world is just a matter of opinion.
Its more or less ‘your team believes 11 > 9, but my team happens to not believe it’.
Its because they don’t have to make anything work in the real world.
Whereas those of us who do have to, realize that belief that facts are wrong won’t actually make them wrong.
Team GPE’s their name – false accusations, misrepresentations and insults is their game.
> there’s no contradiction
There is at least one, Kiddo. Your “explanation” does not cohere with Pup’s. In fact they are mutually exclusive.
But more important is the double standard. You wash your hands over what Pup holds even if it does not cohere with your view. Yet you harp about how people view the relationship between Eli’s thought experiment and greenhouse theory when both are independent.
You should reread what Vaughan said. It does not imply what you make it imply.
Vaughan Pratt said:
"“[Quoting Bill Hunter] Seems a lot of university websites and textbooks need correcting.”
Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.” Wikipedia editor William M. Connolley continues to believe in the back radiation theory, though his source for this (a 2003 book on the earth’s biosphere) says nothing more than what’s in the IPCC’s definition in AR5, namely that when CO2 traps heat it reradiates it both up and down. Connolley overlooks that even more heat is radiated up from below as temperature rises.
While I have a number of textbooks on modern climate I don’t have any that support Wikipedia on its back radiation theory."
Nate says:
”Some people here continue to maintain that testable, fact-based knowledge about the world is somehow opinion-based.”
Nate also said:
”What matters is that the environment of the filament, where it needs to dissipate its heat, has gotten warmer, thus the filament must get warmer. Not very much, I do agree.”
Nate claims that insulation which is always colder than the filament is going to make the filament hotter. Unfortunately that an opinion in conflict with the opinion of the lawmaker Clausius.
Kiddo still has not got the memo left by Pup about thy Wiki.
So, let me get this straight – a lot of textbooks would need correcting, but Vaughan found none?
I simply quoted Vaughan Pratt. I did nothing else, I said nothing else. Yet for some reason Willard chose to respond with some nonsense about Clint R, and textbooks!? Who knows what goes on in his head, he certainly never makes himself clear.
Here is Stefan-Boltzmann explained in a way that cuts through inculcation and attaches a personal interest in the outcome.
DREMT and Bill are just as rich. DREMT gives Bill $2 and Bill gives $2 back in response. DREMT and Bill are still just as rich.
Bill and Nate are just as rich. Bill gives Nate $2 and Nate gives $2 back in response. Nate and Bill are still just as rich.
Stefan Boltzmann calls that equilibrium.
Now Nate gives Swanson $2 and Swanson being half as rich as Nate only gives $1 back since both are socialists they are happy that they are both richer.
> I simply quoted
Kiddo does not always quote, but when he does it’s to simply quote.
And nothing else.
He’s not trying to convey or suggest anything.
He has no point to make.
No argument.
It’s just a quote, after all.
Wouldn’t that correspond to The Game?
Some might argue that it is.
The quote says it all. You’ve got nothing in response except to scrabble around desperately.
Here’s how we make an argument using a quote, Kiddo.
First, the quote:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-671002
Second, the argument:
You are overlooking a paragraph that Vaughan warned not to forget.
See?
Arguing is simple.
"You could conclude that it is possible to still believe in a Greenhouse Effect whilst not believing in the Green Plate Effect."
Thank you for further proving my point. As I said, Pratt agrees that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked…and what is an example of the back-radiation account of the GHE? The Green Plate Effect. Naturally he still believes in the GHE, though. Some version or other of it.
(Of course, most likely if you asked him if the GPE was correct or not, he would try to squirm around some way of claiming that it was, whilst still maintaining the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked – you know what these people are like).
> Thank you for further proving my point
Except that this is not your point, Kiddo.
Also, *how* we prove a point matters. Pointing to an experiment is one thing. Declaring a refutation by armwaving around a fairly basic equation is quite another.
Have some empirical evidence about backradiation:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
DLR stands for Downward Longwave Radiation, the correct term.
Therefore, instead of proving what you call your point, I am proving *mine*: one can reject Eli’s thought experiment as a valid explanation of the greenhouse effect while accepting both Eli’s thought experiment and the greenhouse effect.
Since nobody is arguing that back-radiation doesn’t exist, you don’t have a point.
I thought you said the quote spoke for itself, Kiddo:
“Wikipedia editor William M. Connolley continues to believe in the back radiation theory”
Perhaps you need to read more closely what Vaughan said which, to repeat, does not invalidate Eli’s Green Plate thought experiment.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1315036
Still waiting for Nate to show that ‘they’ includes a scientist with an experiment proving that ‘they’ isn’t just the fanboy squad.
Who said that what Pratt said invalidates the GPE? Certainly not me. The GPE has been debunked both theoretically and experimentally. Pratt just acknowledges that fact, which is unusual for a GHE Defense Team member. Which is why it is noteworthy. Your quote makes it even clearer than mine did that he acknowledges the back-radiation version of the GHE is debunked, so thanks again for your support in making my point.
I did not say you said anything, Kiddo. In fact that is the main problem I underline. You are mostly dogwhistling.
What Vaughan said does not imply what you make it imply.
And I am *showing* how your pea and thimble game works. S&O did not disprove the greenhouse effect. They did not refute the Green Plate effect. Nor did they refute backradiation.
All Vaughan said was that backradiation is not a good model of the greenhouse effect.
Do you really think that a blue plate and a green plate was meant to explain the complexities of the greenhouse effect like lapse rate?
Eli presented the simplest argument he could think of to explain something simple.
And you still cannot get it!
“I hope people aren’t overlooking my paragraph “Any laboratory experiment that ignores lapse rate cannot debunk the greenhouse effect. What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.””
“Back radiation account of the greenhouse effect” = Green Plate Effect. Pratt agrees the GPE is debunked. Thank you for your assistance in proving my point.
Kiddo cannot let go of The Game. He has to repeat the quote I myself quoted in support of what I said. He fails a basic logic implication:
Suppose that A does not explain B. That does not imply that A is false. That does not imply that B is false. All it implies is that A and B are not connected.
Nobody believes that backradiation alone can explain the greenhouse effect, including our Stoatness and Eli. The only disagreement is about how to evaluate an idealized model of the greenhouse effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model
Also, Kiddo still did not get the memo Pup left him. Thy Wiki page on the greenhouse effect changed a bit since the last time he read it. Sad.
Since there is no need for me to defend arguments I am not making, your last comment requires no rebuttal. Thanks again for your support. You are dismissed with derision by a better man.
Since Vaughan neither denies the greenhouse effect nor the implications of a basic equation Kiddo still fails to master after all these years, the simplest and surest inference to make is that Kiddo misinterprets Vaughan. As I said in my first comment. Which means the green plate, the greenhouse effect, and backradiation all are still standing.
When will he read thy Wiki entry as Pup intimated he should?
You are dismissed with derision by a better man.
I know you are, Kiddo, but what am I?
Here is what Pup might have wanted to warn you about:
> The idealized greenhouse model is a simplification. In reality, the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface is largely opaque to thermal radiation and most heat loss from the surface is by convection. However radiative energy losses become increasingly important higher in the atmosphere, largely because of the decreasing concentration of water vapor, an important greenhouse gas. Rather than the surface itself, it is more realistic to think of the greenhouse effect as applying to a layer in the mid-troposphere, which is effectively coupled to the surface by a lapse rate. A simple picture also assumes a steady state, but in the real world, the diurnal cycle, as well as the seasonal cycle and weather disturbances, complicate matters. Solar heating applies only during daytime. During the night, the atmosphere cools somewhat, but not greatly, because its emissivity is low. Diurnal temperature changes decrease with height in the atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
If you want to play The Game, you really need to learn how to read.
Looks like somebody took Vaughan Pratt’s advice, and edited the Wikipedia page on the GHE now that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked (an example of the back-radiation account of the GHE is the Green Plate Effect).
Looks like Kiddo lost just every single point he put forward in this exchange.
Will he try to save his honour by playing The Game?
Tune in tomorrow!
Pointing out that the GHE Wikipedia article has actually been changed only strengthens the case that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. So thanks again for your assistance. You have been very helpful in making my point for me.
Willard says:
And I am *showing* how your pea and thimble game works. S&O did not disprove the greenhouse effect. They did not refute the Green Plate effect. Nor did they refute backradiation.
———————
Willard science can’t prove something doesn’t exist. Thats why the burden of proof is to prove backradiation exists.
When you don’t have proof it exists and you can’t prove it doesn’t exist. . . .what you have is a religion. . . .One might call it faith if only one person believes it otherwise if its being proslytized or inherited by birth or ceremony it is indeed a religion.
Personally, I don’t have any problem accepting that back-radiation exists, it’s the idea that it “warms” or “insulates” things that I disagree with. Hence why I don’t think there is any need to “refute back-radiation” itself. Since Vaughan Pratt has agreed that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked, and people like Vaughan Pratt do people like Willard’s thinking for them, I would expect people like Willard to have accepted that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked…but for some reason, they just can’t let it go.
“it’s the idea that it “warms” or “insulates” things that I disagree with”
Then DREMT disagrees with basic physics which is not unusual. See Dr. Spencer’s experiments where “the idea that it “warms” or “insulates” things” is shown to happen in nature & proves DREMT is wrong to disagree.
…but, for some reason, they just can’t let it go.
Even after being shown that he misrepresented Vaughan, Kiddo soldiers on with The Game.
Perhaps one day Bill realize that there exists many impossibility results in science.
Willard falsely accused me of a lot but demonstrated nothing. Pratt said what he said, and what he said was that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. There is no way to misrepresent that.
Kiddo still fails to even acknowledge a simple logical inference:
Would his interpretation of what Vaughan said was true, Vaughan would be a Sky Dragon Crank. Yet he is not.
I understand hat modus rollers is hard for a third of the population, but Kiddo has had all the time in the world to come around it.
Modus rollers has a nice ring to it, so the autocorrect is not that wrong.
Still, it is modus tollens.
No, because he still believes in the Greenhouse Effect. Just not the back-radiation account of the GHE. This really isn’t that hard to understand.
Willard says:
Perhaps one day Bill realize that there exists many impossibility results in science.
—————————–
That is actually an astute observation provided you understand:
1) impossible results are common in the practice of science.
(Even public accountants, or are heavily accountable for blowing it, blow it every once in a while.)
2) That imagining impossible results is the provenance of religion not science.
3) that becoming science is a result of proving that which is believed to be impossible is possible.
DREMT,
“I dont have any problem accepting that back-radiation exists, its the idea that it warms or insulates things that I disagree with.”
I think this is a semantic argument that will never be settled, at least with the AGW believers.
You rebuffed my previous interpretation of back conduction. Perhaps back diffusion would have been a better analogy. It is generally known that not all molecules diffuse down a concentration gradient, because some do so in a random walk sense. Fick’s Law is always obeyed, however, because the majority of the molecules proceed downstream.
Everyone should agree that back diffusion exists but it never increases the upstream concentration. If that occurs, it must come from extraneous concentration sources, e.g. osmosis.
Everyone should agree that back conduction exists, but it doesn’t transfer heat in the warmer direction.
The same logic applies to back radiation. It exists, but it doesn’t transfer heat from cold to hot. This discussion is much ado about the definitions of warming and insulation.
Bill, Bill,
There is nothing astute in my observation. It is the most mundane fact. Anyone who studied he history of science or even thought about it for five minutes could have come up with it.
You are merely equivocating on the notion of proof once again. Since Dragon Cranks have little else than silly semantic games, I can understand you cling to them. Still, they are of no use unless all you care about is The Game.
Do you really want to be like Kiddo?
I think it’s a fairly straightforward discussion, Chic. There are those who believe that the Sun could increase its own temperature by 1,094 K using its own recycled energy, and there are those who understand that’s impossible.
> This discussion is much ado about the definitions of warming and insulation.
Let’s not forget heating, Chic, and more importantly blankets.
Also, let’s not forget that Sky Dragons Cranks have little else.
Kiddo has had all the time to show where physicists all over the world missed for decades how they created something more grandiose than a perpetual machine. But he cannot read a simple equation.
All this genial knowledge hidden on a blog. A pity.
"But he cannot read a simple equation."
Another false accusation. I have demonstrated more understanding of Eli’s math and logic than most other commenters here. When JD Huff.man first introduced the "3-plate scenario", Norman initially wrongly calculated that the blue plate would rise in temperature to 345 K. All the other regulars here lapped this up, without correcting him. I was the one who had to actually set everybody straight by correctly calculating (well, "correctly" at least according to Eli’s math and logic) that Eli’s solution would be 244 K…290 K…244 K.
I again demonstrated my understanding further up-thread by providing what Eli’s answer to Bill’s 30-shell scenario would be, as well as calculating how much Eli would have the Sun increasing in temperature by with the "Sun Shell" example.
You, on the other hand, Willard, have demonstrated absolutely zero understanding of any of the issues raised.
Kiddo the Master Explainer:
[TIM] Gordo, let’s skip the semantics (“photons flying both ways” vs “thermal IR” vs heat vs “EM radiation”) for a moment and see if we can agree on numbers. After all, that is the ultimate goal – to be able to calculate how the universe works. *Then follows some basic equations.*
[KIDDO] Tim, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344562
Willard, please stop trolling.
Keep claiming you can boil water with ice, braindead bob. You idiots believe such nonsense makes you appear smart? You probably even fool other idiots like Willard and Norman.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R,
You know you can’t prove that I can’t cause water to boil using ice.
Sorry charlie, experimental evidence trumps your bovine excrement.
The rest of your cult believes you, braindead bob.
They won’t all admit it, but they believe ice can boil water. They HAVE to, to believe CO2 can heat the planet.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Believe has nothing to do with it.
Experimental evidence rules Clint R drools.
keep believing in your cult nonsense, bob.
That’s why you’re braindead.
Observations Clint R, not beliefs.
You know that’s the way science is done.
You don’t get to make up bovine excrement in science.
Sorry braindead bob, but your “observations” ain’t nothing more than your delusions.
Kinda like your false beliefs that passenger jets fly backwards.
You don’t understand any of this.
Whoopie tie aye yay,
Get along little Droege.
Gordon,
You are disrespecting our host with a comment like that.
Try some light reading.
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Physics-Dummies-Steven-Holzner/dp/1118460820/ref=asc_df_1118460820/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312090128349&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=5570970933550129142&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9022811&hvtargid=pla-459731889516&psc=1
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Clint needs some attention it seems. Why else pack a post with a bunch of lies intended to needle? Well here you go, buddy, and that’s it for today.
Glad barry is varying from his usual long, rambling nonsense comments, to one where he wisely avoids any discussion of the science he can’t understand.
Variety is good.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Planets’ mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.
( N*cp ) ^1/16
or
[ (N*cp)∕ ⁴ ] ∕ ⁴
This 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.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon can be expressed now also QUANTITATIVELY . And it happens so to be a very POWERFUL the planet surface warming factor.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“This discovery has explained”
Then publish it! Tell the scientific community about this important discovery!
So, you make a lake on Mars which has the diameter of football field,
with 1 meter frozen water on top. And then add 1/2 meter of transparent frozen CO2 to top of lake.
And the water under the frozen surface is 10 meters or more in depth.
It seems most of sunlight is absorbed by 1.5 meter of ice, and most of visible sunlight passes thru the ice into liquid water of the lake.
How warm is the frozen CO2 at the top of lake at noon and midnight?
It seems the frozen surface of CO2 absorbs less sunlight than typical Mars rocky surface which can get warmer than 20 C.
As .5 meter of CO2 only absorbs a fraction of sunlight and most of it
is shortwave IR AND CO2 would have evaporational cooling. And at midnite the frozen CO2 could colder than rocky surface because it have evaporational cooling.
So in general radiates less energy from sunlight from it’s surface, but the lake absorbs more sunlight than the rocky surface, can.
https://imgur.com/gallery/8AC3rda
3 month evolution of La Nina according to the ESNO blog at NOAA, climate.gov.
Later this month we will get this months picture.
Looks superdeveloping
Wait until later this month and we will see.
swannie…”Gordo still can not explain what happens to the thermal IR radiant energy from the GP which hits the BP, so he falls back on more empty assertions without proof”.
***
IR is not thermal energy, it is electromagnetic energy.
With regard to what happens to IR that cannot be absorbed, it’s a moot point. No one understands atomic theory precisely at the atomic level, quantum theory being largely hypothesis and math. As Feynman once lamented, quantum theory works but we have no idea why.
Bohr hypothesized the behavior of electrons in atoms based on the spectral lines of hydrogen. Each line has a specific frequency and he hypothesized that electrons must live at discrete quantum levels in order to explain that. His relationship E = hf relates the energy levels at which an electron can exist, E, with the angular frequency of the electron in the higher orbital energy level.
Both E and f are related by proportion through Planck’s constant. If an electron drops from energy level E2 to energy level E1, it emits a quantum of energy, E2 – E1, with frequency f. That’s why I don’t believe in photons because a photon is defined as a particle of EM with momentum but no mass, an idiotic proposition as far as momentum is concerned.
I think a better way to look at the problem is IR (EM) as a wave. When the wave encounters mass, the entire wave front strikes the mass and any electrons on the mass that are affected by the wave will jump to a higher energy level. With the reverse situation, emission, quanta of energy from individual atoms somehow aggregate to form a wavefront.
It’s the same as EM used in communications. It radiates isotropically from an antenna and it will strike all sorts of objects along the way. If it strikes another antenna of the right dimensions (the correct fraction of its wavelength), it will be absorbed. For any other object, it simply bounces off and carries on its merry way.
No one knows how it interacts exactly. As for IR from your GP, it simply bounces off the BP and carries on. Or maybe it sneaks between the surface atoms on the BP and wiggles around a bit.
I know, under the right conditions, EM causes electrons in metal to move, producing cyclical Eddy currents. I have not studies the whys and where-to-fores, it was handed to us as a fact and demonstrated in motor braking systems. Also, with Faraday cages.
Gordo wrote:
You are again suggesting that the IR radiation from the GP is not absorbed by the BP, without any substantive reason. For solid materials, the emissivity may be close to that of a black body, but never equal to 100% in the real world. The energy not absorbed may be reflected, or “scattered”. Glass is a good electrical insulator and a good emitter of IR radiation, but visible radiation passes thru, so your discussion of metals doesn’t apply. Polished metals reflect IR but add a thin coat of paint can produce a good IR emitter. A different coating on metal can produce a “selective absorber” which reflects IR but also absorbs SW from the Sun.
Your previous explanation was that the radiation from the BP was “blocked” or “cutoff” and was thus not absorbed by the GP. But, this can not explain the fact that the GP warms when moved next to the BP and also that the BP also warms as well.
https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/#comment-28851
🐉
Willard, please stop trolling.
E. Swanson says:
Gordo wrote:
”IR is not thermal energy, it is electromagnetic energy.
With regard to what happens to IR that cannot be absorbed, its a moot point.”
You are again suggesting that the IR radiation from the GP is not absorbed by the BP, without any substantive reason.
———————–
Swanson in any insulating system the flow of energy and thus heat is from the heat source to the cold source. It is simply obfuscating to try to break down the photon theory when it hasn’t been established as a particle theory vs a potential across a medium and have it obfuscate what is really happening. What is really happening that heat is arriving at the blue plate from the heat source, not from the green plate.
E. Swanson says:
”With regard to what happens to IR that cannot be absorbed, its a moot point.
You are again suggesting that the IR radiation from the GP is not absorbed by the BP, without any substantive reason.”
—————————————
Swanson are you aware of what a moot point is?
If you only get $1 for every $2 you give is the same thing as only giving $1.
In neither case do you get richer.
E. Swanson says:
Gordo wrote:
IR is not thermal energy, it is electromagnetic energy.
With regard to what happens to IR that cannot be absorbed, its a moot point.
You are again suggesting that the IR radiation from the GP is not absorbed by the BP, without any substantive reason.
—————————
Swanson you are only making a moot point. Photons are a quasi-particle, meaning they can both display particle like behavior and wave behavior. You are cherry picking one over the other. I already showed that insulation theory is consistent with both theories. You just cherry pick a particle theory to insist that the surface absorb that energy to force the surface to exceed its equilibrium.
I am of the notion that either the accounting is wrong (the heat is trapped in the atmosphere and is expressed as heat there floating in value to emit 239w/m2 to counterbalance the 239w/m2 coming in. This is essentially the Dr. Lindzen theory and you are not qualified to contest it. You can be skeptical of it though.
But Lindzen’s theory is also a particle theory and we still have wave theories to consider where waves are deflected when encountering a strong enough resistance.
Hunter, In the GP thought experiment (and my GP demo), there is no atmosphere, it’s not the same as the Greenhouse Effect. Energy can’t be “trapped” in the vacuum between the plates. But, both plates radiate based on their respective temperatures and the energy flowing thru the system. Each plate emits radiant energy according to it’s temperature and the emission is the same on each side. Thus, there’s some energy from the GP being emitted toward the BP.
What happens to that radiant energy if the BP doesn’t absorb it? You clowns never provide a physics based answer that question.
E. Swanson says:
What happens to that radiant energy if the BP doesnt absorb it? You
clowns never provide a physics based answer that question.
———————————-
Thats a unique thing about Clausius and energy Swanson. Here are the facts:
1) a non-insulated plate will a non-insulated plate will be 290k if it has a 400w/m2 radiation source at FV=1 on just both sides of the plate.
2) a well insulated plate with a 400w/m2 source at FV=1 on one side of the plate will be approaching a maximum of 290k on one side of the insulation and approaching 0k on the other side of the insulation. That insulation can be conventional or a sufficient number of spaced plates to qualify as being well insulated. (this is well established in window technology)
3) a well insulated plate with a 400w/m2 source at FV=1 on both sides of the plate will be 290k no matter how many spaced layers of insulation is provided.
We know in all those cases that cooling is unnecessary. You put cooling anywhere in those systems and you won’t even get to 290k.
The so called back radiation simply ensures a temperature gradient through the plate/gap style of insulation if its not lit on both sides.
Clausius did not specify that equilibrium required the plate to cool. True equilibrium cannot be achieved via lighting one side of insulation, you can just get so close to equilibrium you can’t measure what is creeping out the other side.
all these testable facts testify to the nature of energy and it wave qualities.
Everybody focuses on photons and runs off the track. Energy can be captured in a box. A vacuum thermos does a pretty good job without the coffee getting hotter it just stays hot longer.
You cannot provide enough insulation eliminate all heat loss as insulation is rated by R-value with R-13 equalling 13times less heat loss than a single insulating panel (in the atmosphere). I expect it will equal R-2 in space in relationship to R-1 of just radiation flying through space unimpeded. In the atmosphere R-1 is one panel as it takes out half of radiation and half of convection. The second panel halves both again and earns an R-2.
But there is a way to completely bottle up energy. And that is with a field of energy such that the potential of one overrides the other and when equal and all around the object (considering FV and inverse square distance, maintains a perfect equilibrium. No cooling at all occurring. But 3rd grader insulation model believer believe that if losses are not 100% then the stuff has to heat up and possibly go nuclear.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Gordo says in reply to Swanson:
“IR is not thermal energy”
What Swanson said:
“thermal IR radiant energy”
Unable to explain what happens to the IR from a cooler body when it reaches a warmer one, Gordon says it bounces off, or “maybe it sneaks between the surface atoms on the BP and wiggles around a bit,” or “No one understands.”
But we can bypass all this conjecture with a single clear reference from a formal physics text.
2 years and still waiting for that reference stating that EM radiation from cooler bodies cannot be absorbed by warmer.
And this is not some complicated proposition. This supposed universal law should be as easy to cite as heat must flow hot to cold.
But the problem, as ever, is that Gordon and others think that radiation is heat when it comes to radiative transfer. Even though they correctly protest radiation is NOT heat at other times.
barry, repeatedly asking that lame question merely demonstrates how incompetent you are. You know NOTHING about this issue.
It’s like you’re asking for a reference that a rock on the ground can’t fall up. There is no need for such a reference for someone that understands gravity.
You’re a braindead cult idiot that believes ice can boil water, but you don’t know enough about the science to know that.
You’ve as braindead as Norman, and you’re in full meltdown.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Claim unsubstantiated for 2 years despite repeated requests. Rejected.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/newton-principia/#Boo3Pri
You can’t substantiate your claim in 20 years, braindead barry. Not even in 200 years. Your claim is bogus.
Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes impacting on a surface can NOT raise the surface to 325 K. You’ve been misled. You don’t know enough about the relevant physics to understand. You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
Barry, your problem lies with your incessant appeal to authority. You won’t find textbooks discussing what happens to EM that is not absorbed by atoms. Everything these days is presented in the form of probability of finding an electron in a specific space. Textbooks shun anything related to actual, physical reality, they seem satisfied with obfuscation by the way of math.
You will find references to the intensity of EM required in order that it be absorbed but I am not going to spend my time trying to satisfy your demands. It it interests you, do what I do…research it.
I have spent a long time studying electron theory aimed at their action in conductors, semiconductors, capacitors, inductors and resistors. I have formed an intuitive idea of how they operate, although no one knows for sure.
I’ve done my work, put in the time. How about doing some yourself? I would be tickled if you could prove me wrong.
Nobody is going to find a textbook saying warm objects can’t absorb radiation from colder.
Because it’s not true.
We can find any number of textbooks from current university courses, all the way back to the father of the 2nd Law himself saying the opposite, as referenced here numerous times.
So we’ve got some guys on a blog saying Clauisus is wrong, MIT is wrong, and any physics text I bring here is wrong, based on stuff they say that they can’t substantiate with any physics textbook.
You’d have to be a bleeding idiot to go along with these guys.
You and your cronies have deluded yourselves with more and more detailed fantasies about physics, all because you don’t like AGW.
And you don’t see how weak your position is with zero corroboration for 2 years, against numerous experts in physics that have been quoted and linked here.
How do you fool yourself into thinking you’re right and the rest of the world is wrong?
barry, you can abuse your keyboard all you want, but until you can support your nonsense, you’ve got NOTHING.
Where’s your technical reference that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can warm a surface to 325 K?
I already provided you a physics text from university lecture notes saying fluxes arriving at a surface are summed. You saw it. I’ve done the same for any number of rebuttals to the nutso ‘physics’ you guys keep pulling out of your butts. Dozens of formal references.
Where is a formal reference for any of the assertions you’ve made? After 2 years?
Nowhere.
Not even one.
Because there is none.
Wrong barry. You didn’t understand the “formal reference” you provided. If you want to understand it, and can behave like an adult, provide it again and I will take the time to explain.
Here are 2 references, both describing radiative exchange between diffuse greybody surfaces:
“The net average radiative flux from the surface, denoted q, will simply be the difference between the flux leaving the surface and the flux arriving at the surface…
…radiosity will consist of emission from the surface plus the reflected part of the irradiance. On the other hand, irradiance will depend explicitly on the incoming radiation field at the surface, which, in turn, will depend on the outgoing radiation fields from all the other surface which can ‘view’ surface 1.”
https://www.eng.auburn.edu/~dmckwski/mech7210/radexchange.pdf
Thermopedia puts it even more succinctly, describing the same multi-surfaced enclosure with surfaces at different temps.
“the incident flux (irradiance) on surface k can be found. It is the sum of the radiation leaving each other surface j in the enclosure that is incident on surface k.”
https://www.thermopedia.com/content/70/
Now you can explain why these documents do NOT mean that radiation arriving at a surface from different sources should be summed.
And if you’re suddenly going to agree that of course they are summed, but that this is not the only consideration, don’t waste your breath on that wriggle. We already know that. But your contention was that they could not possibly be summed.
I await your explanation.
But more than that, I await your formal references establishing that radiation from an object can’t be absorbed by a warmer object. (Remember, ‘heat’ and radiation are not the same thing).
barry, your job was to provide responsible verification that “fluxes arriving at a surface are summed” (your words), or “two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can warm a surface to 325 K” (my words).
What you provided was “simply be the difference between the flux leaving the surface and the flux arriving at the surface”. You’re just throwing stuff at the wall, hoping something will stick.
Im not going to get in a keyboard contest with you. What you need to show is why you are so confused about this. What source, other than from cult idiots, leads you to believe fluxes arriving a surface simply add?
“What you provided was ‘simply be the difference between the flux leaving the surface and the flux arriving at the surface’.”
Did your eyes slide by this?
“The incident flux (irradiance) on surface k can be found. It is the sum of the radiation leaving each other surface j in the enclosure that is incident on surface k.”
Fluxes incident on a surface are summed. There in black and white. As you said, my “job was to provide responsible verification that ‘fluxes arriving at a surface are summed’.”
Before you move the goalposts, would you like to acknowledge that this is exactly what I’ve done?
barry, two little boys are 1 meter tall each. You can simply add their heights and get 2 meters. But that is NOT the same as one boy that is 2 meters tall.
You don’t understand any of this.
Your mission is to provide a technical reference source that two “boys” add to a “2 meter boy”, that is, two arriving fluxes can increase the temperature above the greater of the two fluxes.
You can’t do that because fluxes don’t simply add. Your cult has misled you, and you’ve swallowed it all, gladly. You don’t know enough physics to understand your cult’s nonsense would result in ice cubes boiling water. Instead of realizing that, you called me a “lying dog”. You can’t stand reality.
Did your eyes slide by this?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1308051
And this?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1308792
I’m not moving the goalposts, barry. You’re avoiding reality. You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
“barry, two little boys are 1 meter tall each. You can simply add their heights and get 2 meters. But that is NOT the same as one boy that is 2 meters tall.”
Barry gave Clint exactly the evidence he asked for.
So he takes his go-to evasion tactic, the faulty analogy, to new heights of idiocy.
Troll Nate, you will always support your cult members, as you will always reject reality.
Thats what cults do, and youre doing a great job….
Predictably (as in I called it right before you did it) you shifted the goalposts instead of acknowledging that the references I provided confirm that you sum fluxes arriving at a surface when determining radiative exchange.
You shift whenever a clear rebuttal comes through. You just cant be trusted to be honest in these conversations, making up stories about what I think about ice cubes and so on.
Look at the math in the documents for heat at surface k.
The radiative energy balance on surface k indicates that the net heat flux at the surface (the energy added to surface k) is the difference between the outgoing and incident radiation as:
q” = Jk – Gk
Where q is the net heat flux, J is the radiation leaving k, and G is the incident radiation that is not reflected.
net heat flux = outgoing flux – incident flux
G represents the sum of irradiance from all sources incident on k.
The more sources incident on k, the greater the value of G, and thus the warmer the surface.
So if you have a single source J(a) that yields irradiance G(a) of 100 W/m2 on the surface of k, and then another flux from J(b) that yields irradiance G(b) 200 W/m2, these get summed. You don’t discard the cooler source from the equation. Surface k does not suddenly become reflective to the first flux just because a higher value flux is added.
If you can see a different conclusion from the math in either document, please point it out with specificity, not rhetoric.
https://www.thermopedia.com/content/70/
https://www.eng.auburn.edu/~dmckwski/mech7210/radexchange.pdf (p. 13: G is replaced with H in the equations)
Sorry barry, but you’re still locked on to your cult beliefs. You don’t understand ANY of the related physics so you search the Internet for things you hope confirm your beliefs. But, you can’t understand what you find.
If fluxes added the way you believe they do, then you could boil water with ice cubes. You’re so braindead you don’t even know you believe that.
That’s why this is so much fun.
By now, no one here is fooled by Clint’s empty insults any longer.
It is obvious to all that has no real science to offer.
Nate, where’s your technical source that verifies two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325 K?
You don’t have one. You’re just trolling, as usual.
Barry’s source, this proves you dont know what you are talking about.
“Finally, the incident flux (irradiance) on surface k can be found. It is the sum of the radiation leaving each other surface j in the enclosure that is incident on surface k. The fraction of the total radiant energy (radiosity) leaving surface j that arrives at surface k is, by definition, the configuration (shape) factor Fj-k, so the energy reaching surface k from j is JjAjFj-k. The total energy reaching k from all surfaces is then”
See eqn 3.
Troll Nate, Equation 3 is nothing more than the arithmetic sum. It has NOTHING to do with raising temperature. Temperature isn’t even mentioned.
Like barry, you don’t understand any of this. You’re trying to get a 2-meter tall boy by adding heights of two 1-meter boys.
Thanks for being such a good example of a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
It’s right there in the math, Clint.
And it’s in the math of dozens of physics articles I’ve looked at in recent weeks.
Either radiative exchange expressed as the the difference between 2 surface’s temperatures to the 4th power…
Q = σ A (T₂⁴-T₁⁴)
Or as the expression purely of radiosity and radiance as expressed above.
qₖ = Jₖ-Gₖ
You see these equations everywhere in papers, physics texts, and articles on radiative exchange.
You just need to accept that radiation is not heat (that is BASIC), and that just because there is a two-way transfer of radiation, does not mean that heat, in the classic sense, flows from cold to hot.
Here are more texts with those equations and derivations of them, eg, with and without view factors:
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/black_body_radiation.htm
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/bodyphysics/chapter/space-blankets/
Here is a university physics text with a test and solution:
Calculating the Net Heat Transfer of a Person
What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C and a surface area of 1.50/m². The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place.
We can solve this by using the equation for the rate of radiative heat transfer.
Solution
Insert the temperature values T₂=295K and T₁=306K, so that
Q/t = σεA (T₂⁴-T₁⁴)
https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-2/pages/1-6-mechanisms-of-heat-transfer
The solution for this using the area of the person’s skin, its emissivity of 0.97 and the difference between the absolute temps of the walls of the room and the person (to the fourth power), and the S/B constant, yields…
-99W
This is the NET exchange of radiation. It is negative because the person is losing heat to the cooler surrounds.
Look! Radiative exchange results in heat flowing from hot to cold! No laws broken just because the radiation is exchanged between both hot and cold.
If you remove T₂ from the equation, you will get the WRONG result.
And if the temperature of the walls is different, then the rate of radiative heat loss will be different. That is what these equations show you.
If the walls are of higher temperature, the radiative loss of the person will be less.
It’s right there in the math!
All the links above corroborate the NET transfer of radiation via the math.
I know you can’t accept this, but you are disagreeing with Roy, with Clausius, with universities all over the world, with engineering departments, with every physics text on radiative transfer I can find. I’ve now linked at least a dozen university courses and online engineering toolkits here backing up what Tim, Nate (Clausius and Roy) and me are saying
And in the face of all this you have not offered
One.
Single.
Physics text.
To corroborate what you are saying.
You keep talking about “cults.”
There’s nothing more culty to me than a small group of people on the internet who deny reams of expert evidence countering their views who can supply not on reputable source to back up their own.
Radiation is not heat. 2-way radiative exchange always results in heat flowing from hot to cold, as long as the radiation from the warmer body is greater than the radiation from the cooler body.
Which is exactly what all the radiative transfer equations show.
You just don’t understand it, I guess.
“Troll Nate, Equation 3 is nothing more than the arithmetic sum. It has NOTHING to do with raising temperature. Temperature isnt even mentioned.”
So you admit that your oft repeated claim that fluxes hitting a surface don’t sum is completely FALSE?
Well thats a step forward.
“You cant do that because fluxes dont simply add. ”
Case in point.
Now, you move the goal posts.
barry and Nate seem to be competing for who is the most braindead cult idiot.
I’m glad I don’t have to be the judge….
And here’s some more reality barry and Nate can attempt to distort/deny/pervert:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312486
May the best braindead cult idiot win.
Gordon,
“You will find references to the intensity of EM required in order that it be absorbed but I am not going to spend my time trying to satisfy your demands. It it interests you, do what I doresearch it.”
You are seriously confused.
Try to learn what intensity means with respect to EM.
It’s the wavelength, or energy, or frequency of EM that determines whether it will be ab.sorbed or not.
Not the intensity.
Please provide your source, cause I can’t find it.
ENSO forecast updates:
“The ENSO Outlook remains at LA NIÑA.
While some La Niña indicators such as tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures and equatorial cloudiness near the Date Line have remained similar in strength over the past fortnight, waters below the surface of the tropical Pacific have continued their gradual warming away from La Niña levels.
Most models show a return to neutral El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) during winter. However, even if La Niña eases, the forecast sea surface temperature pattern in the tropical Pacific still favours average to above average winter rainfall for eastern Australia.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
“The subsurface warm water volume observed in the western equatorial Pacific is expected to migrate eastward and slightly increase SSTs in the eastern parts in boreal summer. JMA's seasonal ensemble prediction System predicts that the NINO.3 SST slightly increases in boreal summer, then persists to be close to -0.5°C until boreal autumn. In conclusion, the La Niña conditions are likely to continue (70%) until early boreal summer, then it is equally likely (50%) that the La Niña conditions continue or ENSO-neutral conditions present until boreal autumn.”
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
“Though La Niña is favored to continue, the odds for La Niña decrease into the late Northern Hemisphere summer (58% chance in August-October 2022) before slightly increasing through the Northern Hemisphere fall and early winter 2022 (61% chance).”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Predictions will firm up shortly, as we’re passing the (NH) ‘spring barrier’ that makes forecasts more uncertain prior.
Finding links you don’t understand won’t give you any credibility, barry. That’s the same trick used by Bindidon and Norman.
Your cult is running out of tricks.
Doesn’t matter Barry, we have established natural variability is controlling warming/cooling.
Since the 2016 extreme EN, we’ve had a 5 year flat trend. That was preceded by an 18 year flat trend. Of the 24 years since 1998, most of it has represented a flat trend.
Bin&Barry copy/paste forecasting services , no brains required
And what else do YOU do, Ebaby?
Just laughing , Ha Ha Ha ,
Bindiclowns forecasting comedy is on
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1169482
Again Ebaby, if you are not too dense, look at the two NOAA forecasts and compare them by superposing.
https://i.postimg.cc/dVfs0sCJ/nino34-Mon030422.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/pLww7p85/nino34-Mon020622.gif
But maybe you are really too dense, and even don’t understand what I’m showing…
And the forecasts for Nino 1+2 at 10 day intervals?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd1/nino12Mon.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd2/nino12Mon.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino12Mon.gif
What do you think will happen in the next 10 or 20 days?
You’re welcome, Eben.
The ankle biters are in full force tonight.
Barry must have hit a nerve!
You do know that BOM defines La Nina as being -0.8C surface temperatures whereas the rest of the world defines it as being -0.5C?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
30 May 2022
“Though La Nia is favored to continue, the odds for La Nia decrease into the late Northern Hemisphere summer (58% chance in August-October 2022) before slightly increasing through the Northern Hemisphere fall and early winter 2022 (61% chance)”
“Though La Nina is favored to continue, the odds for La Nina decrease into the late Northern Hemisphere summer (58% chance in August-October 2022) before slightly increasing through the Northern Hemisphere fall and early winter 2022 (61% chance)”
3 month evolution of La Nina according to the ESNO blog at NOAA, climate.gov
https://imgur.com/gallery/8AC3rda
Sub-Surface Temperature Departures in the Equatorial Pacific
https://imgur.com/a/co4uEGc
CPC/IRI Probabilistic ENSO Outlook
Updated: 12 May 2022
https://imgur.com/a/GOIBUth
“Though La Nina is favored to continue, the odds for La Nina decrease into the late Northern Hemisphere summer (58% chance in August-October 2022) before slightly increasing through the Northern Hemisphere fall and early winter 2022 (61% chance)”
FINALLY you recognise that there is only a 60% chance of your prediction eventuating.
Only a 60% chance is better odds that most gambling tables offer.,
Still outside the IPCC range for likeliness.
We will see later this year, won’t we.
“Would have been likely” isn’t defined in the IPCC glossary.
Later this year is defined for evreybody.
“We will see later if it was likely” would not make any sense.
Neither would be to feel vindicated if it happens.
Just like investing, science is a numbers game.
We will see later this year if it was actually likely that La Nina would continue into this winter.
Oh, Richard.
Willard, please stop trolling.
RLH,
“You do know that BOM defines La Nina as being -0.8C surface temperatures…”
Yep. I mentioned that ages ago, and several times. BoM also factor in the SOI in their forecasts.
“…whereas the rest of the world defines it as being -0.5C?”
JMA uses the NINO3 region, instead of NINO O3.4 like NOAA and BoM.
MEI use 5 variables for the NSO index, and there is no SST threshold in their analysis.
I think you know a little of what NOAA does, and fuck all about “the rest of the world.”
But you must turn an update into a pissing contest, so off you go, Galahad.
There is actually a good reason for the BOM using a +0.8 threshold (perhaps you’ve mentioned in before).
Very weak La Ninas actually have a drying effect in southeast Australia. It is not until it reaches about -0.8 that things start getting wet. RLH fails to realize that the BOM is reporting for Australians, not the world.
If these people actually looked at all the data instead of just the ONI they would see that most events that just scrape 0.5 don’t get in lockstep with the SOI.
“RLH fails to realize that the BOM is reporting for Australians, not the world.”
But you use it to describe world events.
I said only that their target group is Australians, not that it is not applicable globally. My only intention was to explain the 0.8.
But you used it to describe world events anyway.
What world events did he describe re the BoM metric?
The criteria for ENSO events is different for every forecasting group internationally, as far as I’m aware. There is certainly no agreed upon standard. And each region tailors their criteria to local interests. These reports aren’t designed for keyboard climate junkies, they are for farmers and other stakeholders that have a vested interest.
So when you look at ENSO FAQs from various countries, those countries will describe local impacts. For Australia, flood and drought, mainly, for the US, drought, tornadoes and Atlantic hurricanes are the main interest.
I have to assume you are American, RLH, and have that typically insular US habit of thinking that your country’s systems, methods etc are or should be the universal standard.
I didn’t know that was the reasoning for the 0.8 threshold, Antonin. do you have a link to that information handy?
I can’t recall where I saw it – it was a few years ago. But I’m pretty sure it was someone from the BOM explaining it.
“Average of international model outlooks for IOD Issued 24 May 2022
October IOD index: −1.5 C”
And what do you suppose that means, Richard?
That was the BOM looking ‘outwards’.
Current SOI
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/soi.jpeg
barry…”If the EM is from a cooler body, the electrons in the hotter boy cannot absorb the EM due to the basic laws of quantum theory. The EM lacks the intensity and frequency to affect electrons which are already at a higher energy state.
and
Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower potential energy to an area of high potential energy.
This is just plain wrong”.
***
You make an assertion but cannot back it up with scientific reasoning. My first claim above comes directly from Bohr’s theory.
My second claim is grossly apparent to any objective observer. You claim my references to potential energy come from electronics theory, not surprising since electronics theory is based on quantum theory.
However, consider a 100 kg bolder at the edge of a 100 metre cliff. It has a potential energy of mgh. If it is levered off the cliff and falls straight down, it has a balance at each height of potential energy to kinetic energy. Just before it touches the ground, its KE is max and it PE is minimum.
Once it comes to rest, its PE is mgh less than it was at the top of the cliff. It is not possible for the boulder to be raised onto the cliff without external work being done on it. That’s one example of energy transfer being impossible from a lower state of potential energy to a higher state, by its own means.
Another example is water. It cannot flow from a state of lower potential energy to a state of higher potential energy. In the electrical/electronics field, voltage is the potential difference between two points in a circuit. If the voltage is taken, open-circuit, across a battery, it represents the work done per coulomb of charge to raise those charges to a higher potential energy level at the negative electrode.
Once again, those charges can only flow from the higher potential level to the lower potential level.
With radiation, it’s the same thing. When energy is added to a mass, the electrons in the mass jump to higher energy levels. That is represented by an increase in heat, making the body hotter. Meantime, the electrons in a cooler body are at lower energy levels. If that body radiates EM, the EM has an intensity, E, and a frequency, f, based on the energy levels of the cooler body.
Those energy levels are potential energy levels. With PE in an atom, an infinite distance from the nucleus is rated as zero PE. Toward the nucleus energy levels become more negative till the lowest state, or ground state is reached at the most negative value.
Each energy level has a kinetic energy associated with it. Unlike a boulder falling off a cliff, each level is quantized and the KE is based on the mass and velocity of the electron in each level as KE = 1/2mv^2. The frequency in E = hf is also based on the electron velocity per energy level, which changes level to level.
If an electron absorbs a quantum of energy, it gains that energy and moves to a higher energy level. The gained energy is KE, therefore electrons have higher KE s at higher enrrgy levels.
“You make an assertion but cannot back it up with scientific reasoning.”
I’ve backed it up with physics texts many times, and reasoning many times.
All objects emit at a broad range of frequencies, not just one frequency. Absorbing bodies absorb at the frequencies that their surface optical properties, or molecular structure, is able to absorb.
The temperature of a body has almost nothing to do with how much radiation it absorbs, transmits or reflects.
That’s why a mirror will reflect the sun, even though it as much colder. Its colder temperature doesn’t make it absorb – its surface optical properties make it reflect sunlight.
A heated window will admit the light of a cool LED light, even though the radiation from the LED comes from a colder surface than the window.
We know that reflection is not temperature dependent. We know that transmission is not temperature dependent.
But as soon as we talk about ab.sorp.tion, people turn into idiots because anti-AGW makes them idiots.
Ab.sorp.tion is not temperature dependent either.
A CO2 molecule absorbs at a peak of around 15um regardless of the source or the temperature of the ambient air in which the CO2 molecule sits.
A CO@ molecule will absorb at a peak of 15um whether the source is a -10C or 10C. All that is different is that the PEAK intensity from either source is at slightly different wavelengths. There is still plenty of 15um wavelength given off by any surface in the range of earth temperatures.
You tried to argue that atoms determine ab.sorp.tion, and that molecules don’t. I showed you a physics text explaining how this is not the case, and linked a spectroscopy database showing different ab.sorp.tion profiles for 2 different molecules that contained the same variety of atoms and no others.
If only atoms were responsible for ab.sorp.tion then these should not have been different.
You’ve been provided empirical spectroscopy to disprove your nonsense, physics texts to confirm that radiation is absorbed both ways, and ‘reasoning’ to unlace the bone-headed wrongness you and your ilk suffer from all because you don’t like AGW, and you need to make shit up to pad your rejection.
In all this time, you have provided zero. references.
Nada. Zilch. Nothing.
You have written reams of screed without an ounce of substantiation, while I and others have provided plenty.
Your claims remain unsupported despite 2 years of repeated requests.
Because you cannot possibly back up what you’re saying with any formal physics text.
Rejected.
barry is abusing his keyboard, again.
He throws out so much nonsense that no one has time to debunk it all. Plus, he mixes correct with incorrect, to add to the confusion. I only have time to respond to two of his errors:
barry claims: “The temperature of a body has almost nothing to do with how much radiation it absorbs, transmits or reflects.”
Absorp.tion and emission are both governed by the type of surface (molecules involved) AND the surface’s temperature. An iron bar does not emit visible light, but put it in a campfire for a few minutes and you can see it in the dark — same object, different temperature.
Next, barry confuses emission from LEDs with natural emission. An LED emission does NOT obey Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
And barry is still unable to provide a competent source for his claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325 K. He fully believes that, not realizing if it were true then ice could boil water.
He can’t understand any of this, and he can’t learn.
Why so many words just to troll, Pup? Eli reduced the problem to a very simple equation. We can see why Kiddo will fail to solve it, but you? If you need, you could do like Chic and build a spreadsheet. Like this:
https://i.postimg.cc/SsqjbqzF/calculations-Insulation-via-Green-Plate.jpg
Carry on.
Yes worthless Willard, that’s Troll Trick #142 — “Provide a link to something you don’t understand”.
We’ve seen them all before.
You should have clicked on the link before walling yourself in your usual retort, Pup.
What will it be when you will lose your trolling around a simple algebraic problem humans solved more than 150 years ago?
If only Sky Dragon Cranks had a Master Argument
Troll Trick #37 — “Distract with incoherent rambling”.
Here’s incoherent rambling, Pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1308701
Here’s what’s not incoherent:
Willard, please stop trolling.
“An iron bar does not emit visible light, but put it in a campfire for a few minutes and you can see it in the dark same object, different temperature.”
You are talking about emission, not ab.sorp.tion, idiot.
Ab.sorp.tion does not depend on the temperature of the receiving surface.
I’ve provided quit enough references.
Provide one formal reference that backs your assertion here.
Just one reputable source will do.
If you don’t, then we know exactly what your opinion is worth.
barry, for a surface at equilibrium temperature, absorp.tion equals emission.
You don’t understand any of this.
Roy Spencer:
“…the rate at which a layer of the atmosphere absorbs IR is relatively independent of its temperature; but the rate at which it loses IR is very dependent on temperature.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/how-the-climate-system-works-for-dummies/
Now you have to tell us that Roy Spencer is wrong.
This will be fun.
Clintionary.com
“You dont understand any of this.”
– I (Clint) don’t understand any of this. Typically followed by no explanation whatsoever.
barry, gas molecules are not the same as a solid surface.
You need to study more “for dummies” stuff, before you can advance.
Differentiating between solids and gases on this are you, eh Clint?
Let’s set aside that you are wrong and just follow your logic through.
By making that distinction you infer that the temperature of a solid surface is very important for ab.sorp.tion, but the temperature of a gas is not.
So the ab.sorp.tion of a layer of atmosphere is not dependent on its temperature. Thus warmer layers of atmosphere can absorb the radiation from cooler layers.
Did you really mean to infer that warmer layers of the atmosphere absorb IR radiation from cooler layers, or would you like to rescind that comment?
If you don’t rescind it, then GHE works. If you do, then you are saying Dr Roy Spencer doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
I mean you already believe he doesn’t know what he’s talking about regarding atmospheric physics, as he believes the GHE and the enhanced GHE works.
Guess you forgot that Roy is wrong this time?
Looking forward to a clear explanation without any squirming waffle.
barry, so you don’t get any more confused, gas molecules are not the same as a solid surface.
“…the rate at which a layer of the atmosphere absorbs IR is relatively independent of its temperature.”
And you’re saying Roy’s view is correct, because “gas molecules are not the same as a solid surface.”
That’s very interesting. Are you absolutely sure you don’t want to disagree with Roy about atmospheric absorbance being independent of the temperature of the absorbing layer?
Because that means that there is no bar to warmer layers of atmosphere absorbing radiation admitted from cooler layers above.
I mean, Roy believes that “back radiation” occurs, but I am surprised that you would agree.
Are you sure you don’t want to clarify?
barry, you’re all over the place. You can’t seem to land on one spot because it’s wrong, so you keep flitting to the next spot. Stay with one issue. When it gets shot down, learn!
Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface can NOT raise the temperature to 325 K. Do you understand that yet?
LED emits light when it absorbs energy and goes from zero to one state.
Same with Iron Bar. It absorbs energy and when it gets from zero state to one state it emits energy.
The only difference is that it takes longer for iron to get from zero state to one state.
Barry is right; The temperature of a body has almost nothing to do with how much radiation it absorbs, transmits or reflects.
Thanks for verifying your ignorance of the relevant physics, Ken.
Troll Trick #37 “Distract with incoherent rambling”.
I’ll be sure to let you know when I think you have anything relevant to say.
To presume that you know anything about relevance would go against almost every single comment of yours, Kennui.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The temperature of a body has nothing to do with how much it absorbs or emits? Wrong.
Powerful argument.
Consider the case of your basic CO2 molecule.
At zero state it absorbs energy 15um meter.
As it goes from zero state to one state it expands as per gas law rising in elevation, transferring energy to O2 and N2 via collision and as per gas law reduces temperature.
Clearly the temperature of a body has nothing to do with how much it absorbs or emits.
Clearly you don’t understand radiative physics or thermodynamics.
We’ve already learned you know NOTHING about orbital motion either.
“But as soon as we talk about ab.sorp.tion, people turn into idiots because anti-AGW makes them idiots.”
Yep, that explains it.
barry, please stop trolling.
–LUXURY BELIEFS: Michael Barone on Politics as the Leisure of the Theory Class.
Politics has increasingly become, for many Americans, the leisure of the theory class. Thats a phrase from the early 20th century sociologist Thorstein Veblen, which I turned on its head in a recent column. He was condemning the showy consumerism of the contemporary rich for having no economically practical purpose. I, on the other hand, was describing the political preoccupations of contemporary people, mainly high-education liberals but also low-education populists, as having no practically achievable goals.–
https://instapundit.com/
–Read the whole thing.
Posted at 9:14 pm by Ed Driscoll
So, Theory Class reminded me, of this place.
But I read whole thing, and when did Americans have practical achievable goals?
Or Michael Barone seems to suggest something “recently” has changed in American politics.
It seems to me the only practical achievable goals were only made by constitutional amendments. And something makes me think, Mr Barone would regard such a political process as a mad idea.
Or Mr Barone is pundit and seems to think his punditry is to somehow useful to reach practical achievable goals.
It hasn’t been, and won’t be, but I find it interesting sometimes, but not practical, in terms of politically.
“Or Michael Barone seems to suggest something recently has changed in American politics. ”
I think I can can date this quite closely.
It was the day in 2009, soon after the Presidential election , that the Republicans told Nancy Pelosi that they would oppose all legislation put forward by the Obama administration.
Before 2009 the two parties tacitly agreed to pass routine legislation, though they fought over contentious matters.
Since then, even this tacit relationship has broken down and both sides are locked into absolute non-cooperation.
Nancy Pelosi was first politician in history which “needed” this explained to her from her opposition party politicians?
It seems this is quite unlikely.
[[But it’s almost plausible, that it might have been needed to be explained to the Junior Senator, Obama, who just became the US President.
Who was, btw, later, was called by the worst US president, Jimmy Carter, as the worst president. And Obama has said some things regarding his vice President, Joe Biden, which should have been, perhaps, heeded in regards to Joe’s performance as Vice President.
And it seems that Joe can’t recommend his Vice President- though, also, Joe is well known to say, almost anything.]]
“Nancy Pelosi was first politician in history which needed this explained to her from her opposition party politicians?”
It’s probably the first time it happened.
Before then there was enough cooperation to allow the federal government to function. Since then, nothing.
Benjamin Franklin designed the United States to have a dysfunctional federal government, but this is bad even by his standards.
Well, it’s possible other US president had different approaches.
Hmm:
Youngest Presidents:
1. Theodore Roosevelt 42 322
2. John F. Kennedy 43 236
3. Bill Clinton 46 154
4. Ulysses S. Grant 46 236
5. Barack Obama 47 169
6. Grover Cleveland 47 351
7. Franklin Pierce 48 101
8. James Garfield 49 105
Well, not the youngest, but others might of had more experience.
Grant had experience as US general but some were disappointed in Grant as president.
I don’t many are happy with Joe Biden and he had endless amounts of experience.
I don’t know much about it, other that Congress ignored Obama’s NASA budgets.
Clint R says:
June 3, 2022 at 6:20 PM
A vacuum aint insulation to radiative flux, braindead bob.
You dont understand any of this.”
But my vacuum flask does a lovely job of keeping my tea warm. Isn’t that insulation?
Ent, your vacuum flask doesn’t make your tea hotter than when you put it in.
You don’t understand any of this.
It would if there was an immersion heater in my thermos, to make it more like the blue green plate experiment.
Seems you have a problem looking at the big picture and just focus on the fine details and ignore the rest.
braindead bob brings in an external energy source to help his nonsense.
That’s why it’s all nonsense. And the fact that he can’t understand it is why this is so much fun.
Clint R
Instead of endless babbling can you point out why bringing in an external source to warm tea in a vacuum flask makes it warmer is nonsense. I really don’t follow your logic or thought process. Can you explain or will you just ignore?
Norman, you’re a complete phony, remember?
You can’t support your own nonsense and you don’t understand physics or thermodynamics. You make things up, get caught, and then resort to insults and false accusations.
But, I’m enjoying your meltdown.
Clint R
Just as you are wrong about science and physics, you are also wrong about your incorrect opinions of me.
The strange thing is you describe you actions completely and accurately and then you paste your own flaws on to me.
Exactly you describe your own ignorance. YOU: “You cant support your own nonsense and you dont understand physics or thermodynamics. You make things up, get caught, and then resort to insults and false accusations.”
This is what you do on a regular basis. You can’t understand anything about any physics. You make things up such as “fluxes don’t add” or the valid radiant heat transfer equation is “bogus”
Then of course you insult in almost every post of yours “braindead cult member”.
You do all this and yet you can’t see it. That is because you are a bot and have not been programmed to examine yourself. You are reflecting things others have said about you and in your program you repeat it back at them. Odd program you are. Not much good for anything. There are far superior bots out there.
Clint R,
We were discussing the Green Plate Effect, which has an external energy source.
Why can’t you keep on the topic?
All of that keyboard abuse Norman, yet you still can’t support your made-up physics. You can’t find your bogus “real 255 K surface”, and you can’t find any source that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes will heat a surface to 325 K.
You’ve got NOTHING, and you’re a complete phony. But your meltdown is fun to follow.
Clint R
Sorry bot I did indeed support your endlessly repeating points. You state them, I explain them very thoroughly. You can’t understand the supporting points and go on later to repeat the points, over and over.
That is why I perceive you are a bot and not human. Your behavior displays the properties of a program that continues to loop through the same routine.
I wasted much time explaining the points to you but your program is not able to assimilate actual information so it repeats the same thing over and over.
It’s not your opinions or beliefs that matter, Norman.
You can’t find your bogus “real 255 K surface”, and you can’t find any source that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes will heat a surface to 325 K.
Until you do, you’ve got NOTHING.
entropic…”But my vacuum flask does a lovely job of keeping my tea warm. Isnt that insulation?”
***
The tea would be toasty at first coffee break, a bit cooler at lunch, luke warm by afternoon coffee, and likely cold by the same night.
That’s with a silver lining inside the flask, presumably to prevent radiation, and a decent vacuum between flask walls. Unfortunately, the flask has to be mounted on something and allow conduction at top of flask.
Another normal year for Lake Mead.(sarc/off)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61669233
And this is different from normal La Nina years how?
If decade-old murder victims are being uncovered for the first time, then it can’t be like “normal” La Ninas now can it. Unless you believe the last La Nina was decades ago.
It is the one of the rare double dip La Nina, does that matter?
Remind me.
When were the last three double dip La Ninas and what was the minimum level of Lake Mead for each of them?
Which of those La Ninas reduced the lake level below the current 1498 feet.
Ask climate.gov
https://imgur.com/gallery/8AC3rda
Entropic man
” … and what was the minimum level of Lake Mead for each of them?
Which of those La Ninas reduced the lake level below the current 1498 feet. ”
I notice that although your comment has been answered, your question in fact has not been.
How many double dip La Nina has there been since the lake was opened?
Antonin Qwerty
Here is a chart allowing to compare all stronger La Nina events since 1900, using the MEI data (Multivariate ENSO Index):
https://i.postimg.cc/Jzr88YzK/MEI-superposed-La-Ninas.png
The last La Nina really deserving its name was 2010-2012:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
The MEI data shows that the last month in a double dip was indeed unprecedented (i.e. below all others for that stage in the cycle).
La Nina has become more frequent in the last 25 years.
People like you always select that period perfectly fitting their narrative.
Thus,
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12F2SO09XyelVRnCSeHF5bUKuDdd1IoNV/view
is much more relevant than
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OHWgzgJgpPucSyVxd9ttbMDOD-aBziI6/view
Only recent data count for you, doesn’t it?
Like in
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
and of course discarding the fact that the same happened FOUR times in only 43 years.
List of all years with a yearly UAH LT anomaly lower than those in the five years before:
1985
1992
2000
2008
Oh! The supermegacool 2021 isn’t even in the list!
Why?
And another proof of your very selective view: suddenly, MEI values are of interest only in case of double dips, aren’t they?
2010 7 :-2.43
2010 8 :-2.40
2010 9 :-2.28
2010 10 :-2.18
2010 11 :-2.04
2010 12 :-1.91
2011 1 :-1.83
1988 8 :-1.79
2011 3 :-1.79
1988 7 :-1.77
1988 9 :-1.77
1998 8 :-1.74
2011 4 :-1.74
2011 2 :-1.63
1988 11 :-1.61
2022 4 :-1.60
Au royaume des aveugles, le borgne est roi, dit-on en France.
Oh Noes! I forgot to add the historical MEI data…
1893 7 :-2.56
1893 8 :-2.52
2010 7 :-2.43
1893 9 :-2.43
2010 8 :-2.40
1893 6 :-2.36
2010 9 :-2.28
1975 10 :-2.27
1975 11 :-2.19
1974 2 :-2.19
2010 10 :-2.18
1916 9 :-2.17
1893 10 :-2.17
1916 8 :-2.10
1974 3 :-2.09
1955 11 :-2.08
1975 9 :-2.06
2010 11 :-2.04
1974 1 :-2.02
1910 7 :-2.01
1910 6 :-1.99
1971 4 :-1.98
1955 12 :-1.97
1875 7 :-1.96
1955 10 :-1.96
1893 5 :-1.94
1917 1 :-1.92
1910 5 :-1.91
2010 12 :-1.91
1975 12 :-1.91
1916 12 :-1.90
1955 6 :-1.89
1876 5 :-1.88
1971 3 :-1.87
1876 6 :-1.85
1893 11 :-1.83
2011 1 :-1.83
1910 4 :-1.81
1875 6 :-1.81
1974 4 :-1.80
1950 8 :-1.80
1988 8 :-1.79
2011 3 :-1.79
1916 10 :-1.77
1988 7 :-1.77
1988 9 :-1.77
1973 12 :-1.77
1917 2 :-1.76
1971 5 :-1.76
1976 1 :-1.76
1956 1 :-1.76
1909 9 :-1.75
1955 7 :-1.75
1892 10 :-1.75
1917 5 :-1.75
1975 8 :-1.74
1973 10 :-1.74
1998 8 :-1.74
2011 4 :-1.74
1890 2 :-1.73
1917 6 :-1.71
1876 4 :-1.69
1892 11 :-1.68
1916 11 :-1.68
1909 8 :-1.67
1973 9 :-1.66
1910 8 :-1.65
1955 9 :-1.65
1894 4 :-1.65
2011 2 :-1.63
1976 2 :-1.63
1893 2 :-1.63
1910 3 :-1.62
1892 9 :-1.62
1956 2 :-1.61
1910 10 :-1.61
1988 11 :-1.61
1917 3 :-1.61
1909 10 :-1.60
2022 4 :-1.60
Feel free to search for other ‘unprecedented’ years in La Nina double dips!
Since I’m not sure you’ll be able to do the job, I give you the best example:
1973 10 :-1.74
1973 12 :-1.77
1973 9 :-1.66
1974 1 :-2.02
1974 2 :-2.19
1974 3 :-2.09
1974 4 :-1.80
1975 10 :-2.27
1975 11 :-2.19
1975 12 :-1.91
1975 8 :-1.74
1975 9 :-2.06
1976 1 :-1.76
1976 2 :-1.63
Got it, Linsley-Hood?
Blinny spews data to fill up the screen but does not prove anything as usual.
La Nina has become more frequent in the last 25 years. Fact.
Didn’t your article say that the ‘trend’ was almost statistically significant?
Which means that greater frequency of la Ninas is not yet established as being beyond chance.
You have no rigour, Richard.
Judge for yourself.
https://arachnoid.com/NaturalResources/charts/Lake%20Mead.png
The current daily figure is 1049 feet.
Last time it was this low the lake was being filled for the first time.
Note the 1050 foot level which triggers reductions in water supply and power generation. As a water source Lake Mead is spent.
The BBC report is misleading, it suggests that the lake is low due to a severe drought this year, a reader would assume that ordinarily the lake is full, it omits the fact the lake has been struggling to supply and the level dropping steadily for 20+ years. Most of the water is used by agricultural irrigation which has increased significantly, draining the reservoir. This has been coming for a while, regardless of rainfall. The BBC has exploited it to make a trendy “climate change is going to kill us all” story.
Thanks for pointing out the problem when climate change meets population growth.
https://red.msudenver.edu/2022/water-wars-come-to-colorado/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_dispute
Since you have been unable to amicably share the Colorado river for more than a century I doubt you’ll sort yourselves out now.
A reservoir drops because water is extracted faster than it is replenished.
The graph indicates that the Western US has been doing this to Lake Mead for 20 years.
The lake has now reached the level which triggers Stage III water conservation measures for the first time since the Hoover Dam was built.
If it’s not climate change, then it must be bad management. Don’t you Yanks ever think ahead?
Only when planning an insurrection.
Does that happen frequently in the USA?
They tried one in January 2021 but it didn’t work.
And the time before that?
In January 2021, the Republicans forgot to bring guns.
If shooting actually started in January 2021 then the insurrectionists would have lost.
“If shooting actually started in January 2021 then the insurrectionists would have lost.”
So, the Republicans were thinking ahead and decided not to bring their guns to the insurrection?
Republicans {and all Americans} believe it is their right to bear arms, because, such arms would allow citizens to do an insurrection, but they thought they could have lost if they brought their guns to an insurrection?
Or perhaps Republicans didn’t know that an insurrection could possibly happen, and were smart enough not to bring any of their guns, and because they didn’t bring guns, that helped them to get closer to something which was essentially, an insurrection, and so therefore, won, rather not getting so far, if they made the mistake of bringing some guns.
So, they win by having hundreds detained without trial, will be famous for doing the only insurrection which could have won- and it could only be done without using any guns.
{Sounds like a Hollywood movie}
The lake is a managed resource, so the lake level is determined by some function of inflow and outflow. It is the case that inflow over the past two decades is significantly below the historic average, regardless of how the outflow is managed.
In that sense, the BBC is correct in citing the long and ongoing drought as a major contributing factor.
Upper Colorado River Basin Hydrology
“It is the case that inflow over the past two decades is significantly below the historic average”
Is that anything to do with La Nina becoming more frequent in the last 25 years?
And what causes La Ninas to become more frequent?
Well La Nina causes cold water in the central Pacific.
P.S. Well the models say that they shouldn’t (become more frequent that is).
Entropic man
I notice that although your comment has been answered, your question in fact has not been.
Natural cycles.
As long as it is not ours, let them fight. Some light reading:
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/us-thirsts-for-canadian-water
Canadian water for the Canadians!
The sense of entitlement by the American author, the veiled accusations that Canadians waste water. Ten there is the insinuation that their reluctance is emotional and not rational. Finally the veiled threats that the US will steal water anyway
Enough to make every Canadian intransigent in opposition to water exports.
As a Canadian, I am not interested in shipping water to states like Nevada and California when all they’ll use it for is bigger swimming pools and car washes.
When I took a year of geology, we studied the impact of damming rivers. A dam changes the profiles of rivers downstream. In the case of Lake Mead, the Hoover Dam, which created Mead, has opened the Colorado River to water loss through massive evapouration. That water should eventually condense and fall as rain elsewhere, but where?
Some are spouting climate change but no one can explain how a recovery warming of about 1C since 1850 could possibly affect climates on such a large scale.
> no one can explain
Start here, Gordo:
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
Notice how you’re wrong by at least 50%.
Willard, you don’t seem to understand. I regard anything from the IPCC as fiction, propaganda, and lies. That’s especially true for the Summary, written by 50 politically-appointed lead authors whose political opinions override the review work done by 2500 reviewers. The IPCC are corrupt from the ground up.
The IPCC are a load of cheating scumbags. Their garbage is blamed on left-wingers, but the IPCC was actually formed based on the urgings of uber-right winger Margaret Thatcher, a former Tory UK Prime Minister. Old Iron-Pants Thatcher was scheming to outlaw coal unionists by creating the image that coal was dirty fuel and should be abandoned.
Thatcher did not give a hoot about the environment, her presentation to the UN was political. Of course, the pathetic UN had been looking for that kind of cause since the ’60s and stuck to it like doo doo to a blanket. Thatcher had her protege, John Houghton appointed as co-chair and he introduced climate modeling to the IPCC as their means of bs-ing the world about warming and climate change based on unvalidated models.
You have linked me to a work of fiction, poor fiction at that. Dickens would have regarded IPCC propaganda as codswallop.
C’mon, Gordo.
It is you who does not seem to understand.
You said that one can explain.
That is obviously false.
Think.
Alternatively, try to disagree without being a disagreeable ignoramus.
Lake Mead is supposed to be a reservoir, presumably, in part, for drinking water. Why then, are they dumping treated sewage in the lake, allowing communities to be built around the reservoir, and allowing power boats to run on the lake?
That would never be permitted in a reservoir around Vancouver, Canada, but we are more fortunate than most with mountains to create natural reservoirs. We have water rationing in summer so there is nothing to spare for export in the Vancouver area, with a typical rain-forest climate.
It’s ironic the US wants to ‘share’ water after slapping lumber tariffs on Canadian wood and ignoring a decision by a NAFTA tribunal that it was illegal to do so.
“Las Vegas Lakefront Homes
Water lovers take refuge in their dream homes found in Hendersons Lake Las Vegas, Desert Shores, and The Lakes. Custom designed neighborhoods around Lake Mead in Boulder City include: Lake Mead View Estates, Lake Terrace, Marina Highlands, and Vista del Lago.
Boulder City Homes Overlooking Lake Mead
Boulder City boasts some of the most scenic waterfront homes in the area. Beautiful custom homes pepper the hills overlooking the sparkling waters of Lake Mead and feature incredible mountain views and majestic sunsets. The area right on the lake is owned by the Bureau of Land Management, which means no Boulder City real estate exists directly on the lake. However, no homes are without fabulous views.
https://www.lasvegashomesbyleslie.com/las-vegas-lake-front-communities.php
***
“However, not all water that enters Lake Mead is free from human influences; certain parts of the local watershed tend to harbor more contaminants. Las Vegas Wash, for instance, carries more than 175 million gallons of treated wastewater into Lake Mead each day, as well as storm-water runoff from the valley. Las Vegas Bay, where this water enters the lake, is carefully monitored to make sure that water treatment programs are meeting state and federal standards and reducing contaminants to safe levels”.
https://www.nps.gov/lake/learn/contaminants.htm
“Boating on Lake Mead and Lake Mohave is one of the more popular activities here. With more than 290 square miles of waterway to navigate, boaters can enjoy the thrill of open water or relax in a private cove”.
https://www.nps.gov/lake/planyourvisit/boating.htm
The IPCC does actually tell some truths but then ignores the truth in their conclusions.
The IPCC’s conclusions are couched in probability estimates, so I’m not sure exactly what truths you are invoking, Troglodyte.
However, you did not respond to the proper comment.
stephen…”The IPCC does actually tell some truths but then ignores the truth in their conclusions”.
***
I can think of only 3 examples of them telling the truth:
1)They admitted in the first review circa 1990 that the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period existed. Then they threw out both when they anointed the hockey stick as the truth. A few years later they had to hustle to get rid of the hockey stick when NAS and a statistics expert rubbished the hockey stick. The IPCC immediately re-instated the LIA and MWP in their amended version.
2)They claimed in TAR that future climate states cannot be predicted. Then they undid the claim by using unvalidated climate models to predict future climate states. They got away with the lies till expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, advised them unvalidated models cannot predict. Rather than cut the propaganda, the IPCC changed the word predict to project.
3)In 2013, they admitted there had been no warming over the 15 year period form 1998 – 2012. They called it a hiatus, however, or a pause. The flat trend continued till 2015 then a major EN drove global temps to record levels. After the smoke cleared, we are now in another 6 year flat trend.
C’mon, Gordo.
Your first point is silly. For starters, the Lamb graph was a cartoon. Second, here’s what the report looked like back in the days:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_wg_I_spm.pdf
Third, science changes.
Revise and resubmit.
Gordon,
“Then they undid the claim by using unvalidated climate models to predict future climate states.”
Do you have an example of where the IPCC predicted future climate states?
Willard, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Superdeveloping La Nina effect
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10884663/Miami-hit-major-flooding-12-INCHES-rain-falls-Tropical-Storm-Alex-hits.html
But isn’t that all down to Global Warming?
Probably.
But La Nina….
Ebaby
Tell the same stuff at WUWT, and you might experience some very nice contradiction
No matter how you dumb it down even to kindergarten level
Stuck on stupid Bindidong will simply never get it
https://youtu.be/M6D4qZYJuQg
All you are able to show is your endless sequence of anonymous youtubes.
THAT, Ebaby, is kindergarten level. YOUR level.
“TROPICAL CYCLONE ONE FL FLOODING LA NINA & WHY THIS 2022 HURRICANE SEASON WILL BE A STRONG ONE”
Where is heat escaping from the subsurface Pacific Ocean?
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202206.gif
Will La Nia come to an end?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
To add to that
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
Yes it will, Eventually the cold will leak out into outer space
But cooling the lower atmosphere until it does.
Yeah ren…
ALL La Ninas and El Ninos come to an end.
The 1908 and the 1973 La Nina both took longer a time to do, but…
“ALL La Ninas and El Ninos come to an end” eventually.
Are you really stupid enough to think that THIS La Nina will behave different than ALL those reported since centuries, just because you would like it happens?
Are you stupid enough to realize that double dip La Nina are quite rare and this is one of them.
The PSMSL station Virginia Key (since 1994), reports (VLM corrected) about 6 mm/year for 1994-now.
Doesn’t look so terrible at a first glance, of course, when we plot the stuff:
https://tinyurl.com/38tfacnw
But…. better would be to ask the people really living there, wouldn’t it?
“an increase in air pressure of 1 hPa (one millibar) lowers the water level by 1 cm” (10mm or 0.4 inches) and vice versa.
Typical blah blah of a person who never had anything real to do with sea levels, and shows off with a little statement.
I propose you to
– (1) download the PSMSL data:
https://tinyurl.com/5cny8jwp
– (2) download the SONEL data for vertical land movement correction:
https://tinyurl.com/mr7b7w96
– (3) process all that data
and
– (4) to search for worldwide air pressure data available over a sea level measurement period like that since 1979, for which there shoud exist enough data.
And when you will have done that job, Linsley-Hood, come back to us with your results, and THEN… we can discuss further.
I was just setting your 6mm in context. The simple facts are that tidal ranges and normal pressure differences swamp your observation.
RLH: I always follow the data. And X is always true.
Me: Here is some data which proves that X is not always true.
RLH: Data shmata. Are you claiming that Y is not true?
Me: You said nothing about Y. I just proved that X is not always true.
RLH: One example? You’re kidding me.
Me: One example is all I need to prove that X is not ALWAYS true. But hey, here’s two more examples.
RLH: Are you claiming that Y is not true?
Me: What’s your fascination with Y. Your claim was that X is always true.
RLH: If Y is true then X is always true.
Me: Given that I’ve show you three examples from the data to show that X is not always true then there must be something wrong with your ‘logic’, mustn’t there.
RLH: Data shmata. By the way, here’s some data to prove that Y always causes X.
Me: No, that is only one month. Here is an example from YOUR data to show that X is not always true.
RLH: Data shmata, Are you trying to claim that Y is not true?
And so it goes on. Ad infinitum. Not sure whether I should put it down to his agenda or to his sucking on car exhaust pipes 40 years ago.
And I forgot to mention that his ultimate goal was to prove the CONVERSE of X. He never was able to address that. Apparently he believes that as all dogs are animals, then all animals must be dogs.
The problem, I think, lies a little deeper: in the fact namely that Linsley-Hood NEVER admits to being wrong.
You see that best in his endless stalking against me concerning my allegedly wrong processing of NOAA’s USCRN data.
His most recent post:
RLH says:
June 2, 2022 at 7:32 PM
Did you delete the graph where you boasted about how your data was more accurate than USCRNs daily data on a single station?
*
Of course I never ‘boasted about how [my] data was more accurate than USCRNs daily data!
I just tried to explain him last year that averaging USCRN’s hourly data into days does not give a terrible difference compared to their own daily data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WjAdT5r_6R7Pu9xEmxBChZpg7N8YkML3/view
Minimum difference: -0.06 C
Maximum difference: +0.07 C
Average difference: 0.00 C
Median difference: 0.00 C
*
But the major point was that he never was able to understand that the difference between
– my averaging of USCRN hourly data into days
and
– USCRN’s official daily data
is of no interest because I don’t use daily data as he does: I average hourly data directly into months.
*
And thus… I therefore still await his fair competition with my monthly comparison of (Tmin+Tmax)/2, median and average for all 138 active USCRN stations since 2002:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BhgrAn-eVrX9JZUhr_y4ceVWAKsXtqml/view
It’s probably even deeper than that. He’s getting on in life and time is running out for his desperate attempt to leave his mark on the world. Any admission to being wrong sets him back and increases the risk that the grim reaper will catch him before reaching his unreachable goal. That’s my impression anyway.
AQ: Do you accept that the NOAA absolute data shows that Nino 2+1 is first in time and coldest, Nino 3 is next, Nino 3.4 next and Nino 4 is last and warmest?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1308784
Notice how you had to revert to absolute temperatures instead of anomalies?
Notice how despite that, 1.2 is rising at the start of the year while 3.4 falls?
We were talking about CHANGES in temperatures, not temperatures themselves. That is, we were talking about the TRANSITION into La Nina. If you look at all the absolute temperatures you would find 1.2 colder than 3.4 in a majority of months, including in El Ninos.
Good attempt though – no one can beat you for slyness.
“Notice how you had to revert to absolute temperatures instead of anomalies?”
Notice how anomalies are based on absolutes.
“Notice how despite that, 1.2 is rising at the start of the year while 3.4 falls?”
Notice that 1+2 is mostly colder than 3.4 (uses averages over the year if you like).
https://i.imgur.com/2Wwddjf.png
Anomalies are not useful without the normals that make then up. They are only part of the picture.
“We were talking about CHANGES in temperatures”
Does https://i.imgur.com/2Wwddjf.png not show changes?
You will find nowhere where I have said that there is not a general decreasing temperature gradient east to west across the equatorial tropics.
The ONLY claim I have made is that the first COOLING (ie. decrease in temperature, in case you don’t understand that word), does not always occur in 1.2. Your data illustrates that nicely, so thanks again for that.
When do you think you will address the original issue here, ie. the converse? How often do sudden drops in ENSO 1.2 lead to La Ninas?
Just thought I’d make a second post here, just to mimic your rabidness, even if only partially.
“You will find nowhere where I have said that there is not a general decreasing temperature gradient east to west across the equatorial tropics.”
Except that you claimed that the various Nino areas did not follow that pattern.
I said that nowhere. But of course just like last time you will post some quote which you will deliberately misinterpret.
You said quite clearly that Nino 1+2 did not feed into Nino 3 and thence into Nino 3.4 and on into Nino 4 which is an East to West pattern following the prevailing winds.
https://imgur.com/gallery/Cja7hdM
https://imgur.com/gallery/JDp9Wuy
AQ: Do you accept that the NOAA absolute data shows that Nino 2+1 is first in time and coldest, Nino 3 is next, Nino 3.4 next and Nino 4 is last and warmest?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1308784
AQ: Do you accept that the NOAA absolute data shows that Nino 2+1 is first in time and coldest, Nino 3 is next, Nino 3.4 next and Nino 4 is last and warmest?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1308784
barry…”All objects emit at a broad range of frequencies, not just one frequency. Absorbing bodies absorb at the frequencies that their surface optical properties, or molecular structure, is able to absorb.
The temperature of a body has almost nothing to do with how much radiation it absorbs, transmits or reflects”.
***
I tried to explain this based on textbook theory and it is out there for anyone interested. An ‘object’ is undefined. I gave an example of a certain type of quartz which contains silicon, lithium, aluminum, sodium, calcium, manganese, and magnesium. Each one of these elements have electrons that can emit EM at different discrete frequencies and overall, that spectrum of all the elements could be regarded as a broad range of frequencies. Therefore, a chunk of this kind of quartz would radiate EM at about a dozen discrete frequencies.
The thing to get is that all EM absorp-tion and emission is based on the electrons surrounding atoms. Bohr’s model is based on that as is Schrodinger’s wave equation, which formalized Bohr’s model.
A rebuttal to your point about temperature can be easily observed by turning on an electric stove and observing the ring colour. As it gets hotter, the ring begins to have an orange hue and at full temperature it glows red. That is proof that temperature and emission frequency are closely related.
I did not say absorp-tion is temperature dependent, I only said that EM from cooler sources could not be absorbed by hotter bodies. However, the frequency at which a body absorbs will shift as it gets hotter.
With regard to a mirror, it is the backing on the mirror glass that reflects light. It is so highly reflective it reflects most light. Silver is a common backing material because it is the most reflective element. Silver also as a spectrum, mainly in the green-blue region of the visible spectrum.
Temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of atoms in a gas. However, a thermometer is calibrated to measure, in degrees, the number of calories of heat required to raise 1 cc of water by one degree. By definition, 1cc of water weighs 1 gram, therefore it takes 100 calories of heat to raise the water temperature of 100 grams of water from 0C at sea level to 100C. A thermometer is merely designed to reflect those conditions.
For those of you who insist on using mechanical unit, multiply by 4.18 to get the number of joules. Please keep in mind the joule is not the standard measure of heat, no matter what some modernists claim.
We can relate the theory of temperature based on the kinetic theory of gases to temperature in all forms of matter simply by understanding it is a human invention geared to measure kinetic energy in mass. However, kinetic energy has no meaning in itself, it only indicates that energy is in motion. We have another name for energy in motion as related to atoms, we call it thermal energy, or heat.
Clausius pointed out that internal energy is comprised of both heat and work. Vibrating atoms are producing work while heat is required to maintain the vibrations. Therefore, if we look more closely at the actions of electrons in a solid, in orbit about a nucleus, and consider their kinetic energies, we can better visualize the relationship between the electron kinetic energies, en mass, and the temperature of a body.
It is known that electrons absorbing energy jump to higher energy levels where their kinetic energy is higher. Although it’s not kosher to consider the temperature of a single electron, if the heat is applied to a mass, or the mass absorbs EM from a hotter source, all electrons affected will jump to higher levels of kinetic energy, which translates to a higher temperature.
It should be noted as well that EM will not penetrate a solid mass anymore than skin depth, whatever that depth may be.
barry…”But as soon as we talk about ab.sorp.tion, people turn into idiots because anti-AGW makes them idiots”.
***
The problem is, Barry, your propensity to create straw man arguments. I have never tried to relate absorp-tion to temperature per se, all I have done is relate the EM emissions from electrons in a cooler body to the ability of electrons at higher temperatures to absorb the EM from the cooler body. It jut so happens that electrons in a hotter body are at a higher level of kinetic energy, hence hotter.
Remember, EM is not related to temperature but it has an electromagnetic field that can affect the electric field in an electron. If the EM intensity and frequency matches the electron frequency it can excite the electron to a higher energy level, which is a higher KE level and that is related to heat.
You have offered a generalization to support your rebuttal, like CO2 absorbing only at 15 um. The wavelength at which CO2 absorbs is immaterial. If you have CO2 at 0C in a container of halite, that can allow IR through it, and you have another container of CO2 in a halite container next to it, the cooler CO2 cannot warm the hotter CO2 simply because the EM it emits cannot be absorbed by the hotter CO2.
The opposite is not true, EM from the hotter CO2 will warm the cooler CO2 in the other container.
Gordon,
“It jut so happens that electrons in a hotter body are at a higher level of kinetic energy, hence hotter.”
Actually, they are not.
You don’t understand this, probably never will.
You are confusing kinetic energy, which doesn’t apply to molecular orbital energy levels or atomic energy levels, with the energy levels in molecules and atoms.
“A rebuttal to your point about temperature can be easily observed by turning on an electric stove and observing the ring colour. As it gets hotter, the ring begins to have an orange hue and at full temperature it glows red. That is proof that temperature and emission frequency are closely related.”
Yes, emission and temperature are very closely related, but that is not the case for the temperature of the object absorbing radiation.
I have provided numerous references substantiating my point.
This is what you must do to prove that what you are saying is not bullshit.
“I only said that EM from cooler sources could not be absorbed by hotter bodies.”
I have asked for just one reference from you and other people who believe this nonsense. 2 years later and none have ben provided.
You say:
“I tried to explain this based on textbook theory and it is out there for anyone interested.”
If it is “out there”, as you say, then provide it. If you read it in a textbook, look it up online and link it here. Or search for one that corroborates.
But surely you know by now that you will never find any corroboration for what you are claiming in any physics textbook.
“However, the frequency at which a body absorbs will shift as it gets hotter.”
You think that a body can only absorb EM radiation at a single frequency?
Perhaps this is why you fail to understand.
A body emits EM radiation at a broad range of frequencies. So does an absorbing body. What frequencies are best absorbed has nothing to do with the temperature of the receiving body, but with its optical properties.
I’m going to quote another reference – the host of this blog:
“…the rate at which a layer of the atmosphere absorbs IR is relatively independent of its temperature; but the rate at which it loses IR is very dependent on temperature.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/how-the-climate-system-works-for-dummies/
You’ve rejected Clausius, MIT, and other universities whose physics lecture notes I have provided corroborating that warmer bodies absorb EM radiation from cooler bodies, and that ab.sorp.tion is almost entirely independent of the temperature of the receiving body.
Now I quote Roy Spencer, an atmospheric physicist. I guess you’re going to have to tell everyone that Roy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
And you really think that these experts are all wrong, and we should believe Gordon Robertson who has been waffling on for 2 years without once providing a reputable reference for his extraordinary claims.
How are you going to prove that your remarks are not bullshit?
barry…”This is what you must do to prove that what you are saying is not bullshit”.
***
I don’t have to prove anything, the theory is out there for anyone willing to search. It’s up to you to prove me wrong.
No, Gordon.
I have provided references for everything I say. You have said that these are ‘wrong’ and then told me what you think is right. When challenged to corroborate what you are saying you expect me to go looking on your behalf for something I don’t believe exists?
Arrogance personified.
I am not going to waste a minute looking for something to prove what you are saying when I think it can’t be found. If you can’t produce a reference – 2 years on now – then you’ll have to accept the judgement that your views are unsupported, regardless of your own confidence in them.
That’s how it goes in the world of reason. And reasonableness. Claimants furnish their own substantiation. If you don’t know how to do an internet search then no one should have any confidence in your views.
barry…”Youve rejected Clausius, MIT, and other universities whose physics lecture notes I have provided corroborating that warmer bodies absorb EM radiation from cooler bodies, and that ab.sorp.tion is almost entirely independent of the temperature of the receiving body.
Now I quote Roy Spencer, an atmospheric physicist. I guess youre going to have to tell everyone that Roy doesnt know what hes talking about”.
***
I have said several times that out of respect I will not bring Roy into this. Roy had a good interchange on the subject with Philip Latour, who specializes in chemical engineering related to thermodynamics. From what I saw of that discussion, they agreed to disagree.
Clausius has not commented on this at all. I explained clearly that his comments on EM were based on the anachronistic belief that heat moved through space as heat rays. In the day of Clausius, electrons had not yet been discovered and it took nearly another 20 years for the relationship between electrons and EM to be hypothesized.
You cannot claim Clausius agreed that heat could be transferred cold to hot because he was talking about heat rays, not EM as we now understand it.
Even at that, Clausius still maintained that radiation had to obey the 2nd law. The meaning is clear, it cannot obey the 2nd law if heat is allowed to be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot. The creator of the BP/GP thought experiment, Eli Rabbett, is thoroughly confused about that point.
Re MIT. There are climate scientists like Kerry Emanuel at MIT who push alarmist theory. I know the book from which you quoted was a mechanical engineering textbook and it bothers me that engineers can be so obtuse. Not once do they supply an example of heat being transferred both ways. Any examples provided involve conduction and/or convection, where heat is being transferred in the correct direction.
Then again, in my branch of electrical engineering they still teach that electric current flows from positive to negative. They know it doesn’t and explain it as a convention. That makes no sense, to teach a convention established circa 1925 that is a lie. I talked to an electrical engineering prof and he told me not to worry about, that it doesn’t matter in calculation which way it flows as long as the signs are properly.
I’ll tell you where it does matter. When engineers put out drawings in industry, they must all be based on current flow from -ve to +ve. That’s the industry standard in the field and all electricians are taught -ve to +ve. This silliness could lead to serious mistakes.
barry…”You tried to argue that atoms determine ab.sorp.tion, and that molecules dont. I showed you a physics text explaining how this is not the case, and linked a spectroscopy database showing different ab.sorp.tion profiles for 2 different molecules that contained the same variety of atoms and no others.
If only atoms were responsible for ab.sorp.tion then these should not have been different”.
***
You simply don’t get it that the word molecule is only a definition for two or more atoms bonded by electrons. A molecule, as an aggregation of atoms, can have no properties different than the atoms themselves bring to the mix. The constituent atoms can dictate the shape of the molecule, it’s atomic weight, obviously, it particular charge, etc., but nothing is added that can deal with EM separate from the electrons already making up the atoms.
Forget the word molecule, see it as what it is, two or more atoms bonded by electrons.CO2…
O=====C=====O
The dashed line indicate double electron bonds between the oxygen and the carbon atoms. There is nothing else there, the term CO2 molecule tells us only there are one carbon and two oxygen atoms joined by electron bonds.
Of course, when you combine atoms, they have different properties than the individual atoms. That is produced in part by the differing electrostatic forces brought to bear when two or more atoms are in proximity. However, anything related to EM emission/absorp-tion is still a property of the bonding electrons since they are the only particles that can emit or absorb EM.
Naturally, when combined, the spectra will be different because the bonding electrons behave differently in bonds than in their normal outer shell electron orbitals. However, there is nothing in a molecule other than what the individual atoms bring to the table.
With the CO2 molecule, the O atoms at the ends of the bonds repel each other equally, producing a linear bond. It’s not clear to me why dipoles like CO2 can absorb infrared but it’s said that dipoles can vibrate more easily. The vibration is a direct result of the electron bonds.
“Naturally, when combined, the spectra will be different because the bonding electrons behave differently in bonds than in their normal outer shell electron orbitals.”
Obviously you’ve forgotten that you said molecules have no “magical” properties that cause them to absorb EM radiation at different frequencies.
That was a long-winded way of saying different molecules absorb at different frequencies. Finally!
“Its not clear to me why dipoles like CO2 can absorb infrared but its said that dipoles can vibrate more easily. The vibration is a direct result of the electron bonds.”
You’re getting it. The atoms vibrate at different rates depending on their molecular configuration. Diatomic molecules have a single pattern, moving closer and further away. Triatomic molecules can vibrate in a variety of patterns and have a broader spectrum available to emit/absorb at intensity as a result.
The patterns of movement determine the wavelengths at which the molecules absorb most efficiently. CO2, as we know, absorbs most efficiently at 15um. This doesn’t change depending on the temperature of the layer of air in which the molecule resides, nor the temperature of the body that emits to it. Solar radiation at 15 um is virtually non-existent (extremely low intensity), which is why it is said CO2 and other GHGs are transparent to solar radiation (there is a tiny amount of ab.sorp.tion), but opaque to upwelling IR, and IR emitted from the atmosphere.
Every object on the planet emits radiation with a broad spectrum that well encompasses the 15um band.
Dipoles are separated plus and minus charges. The oscillation of these charges is what radiates EM waves.
CO2 has dipoles because C and O atoms attract electrons differently.
Identical atoms in O2 and N2 have identical attraction of electrons, no dipoles, and little radiation.
Not quite. There are three main modes of vibration that a CO2 molecule can undergo. For symmetric vibration there is no separation of charge. Asymmetric vibration and bending vibration do result in a separation of charge. Conversely, a separation of charge can cause these vibrations.
Wich is why the symmetric vibrations do not radiate.
“For CO2 (linear molecule) there are 4 vibrational modes corresponding to symmetric stretch, antisymmetric stretch and two bends. The symmetric stretch does not change the dipole moment so it is not IR active.”
“A molecule, as an aggregation of atoms, can have no properties different than the atoms themselves bring to the mix. ”
This is spectacularly wrong!
There are 1000’s of molecules made simply of carbon and hydrogen. These molecules each have there own energy levels related to their own absorp.tion and emission spectra. And these energy levels are NOT simply combinations of the energy levels of C and H atoms.
Similarly, quartz does NOT radiate at ‘about a dozen distinct frequencies’. When atoms form into crystal structures, the ‘distinct frequencies’ broaden in to ‘bands’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_band_structure
Gordon,
“It should be noted as well that EM will not penetrate a solid mass anymore than skin depth, whatever that depth may be.”
You might want to dig out the 8th studio album by Pink Floyd.
And study the cover while listening to the girl having an orgasm.
If that don’t work, try and try again, with various dosages of hallucinogenic drugs, eventually you will get there.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Can you spell ‘atmospheric river’? Lookout Washington.
Set it to 250 hpa to see jet stream.
https://earth.nullschool.net/
Click on the location then copy-paste the link, e.g.:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-92.04,25.52,313/loc=-76.741,38.025
Even better:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-92.04,25.52,313/loc=-76.741,38.025
I wonder where the current sub-solar points are.
https://imgur.com/a/zxGRi0M
A difference focus for me on that animation – a great illustration for RLH, who insists that winds ONLY blow east to west along the equator, especially near the South American coast. Of course he won’t reply until the winds are actually blowing east to west and say “look, I told you”.
AQ: Do you accept that the NOAA absolute data shows that Nino 2+1 is first in time and coldest, Nino 3 is next, Nino 3.4 next and Nino 4 is last and warmest?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1308784
I never said that winds only blow east to west along the equator, but that the predominant winds blow east to west along the equator. That is what wind atlases show.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1309793
–The discovery of phosphine (PH3), an almost unambiguous biosignature on Earth, in the clouds of Venus in 2021 increased interest in reinvestigating the planets clouds for life, a scientific goal that had been on hiatus since the last atmospheric entry and lander vehicle mission, Vega-2 in 1984. While the recent primary target for life discovery has been Mars, whether extinct, or extant in the subsurface, it has taken nearly half a century since the Viking landers to once again look directly for Martian life with the Perseverance rover.
However, if the PH3 discovery is real (and it is supported by a reanalysis of the Pioneer Venus probe data), then maybe we have been looking at the wrong planet. The temperate zone in the Venusian clouds is the nearest habitable zone to Earth.
…–
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2022/06/03/venus-life-finder-scooping-big-science/
–But why launch a private mission, rather than leave it to a well-funded, national one?–
…
–Cutting through the slow progress of the national missions, the privately funded Venus Life Finder mission aims to start the search directly. The mission to look for life is focused on small instruments and a low-cost launcher. Not just one but a series of missions is planned, each increasing in capability. The first is intended to launch in 2023, and if the three anticipated missions are successful, Venus Life Finder would scoop the big science missions in being the first to detect life in Venus should it exist.—
Be careful with your logic.
Phosphine is produced by microbes and by non-biological processes.
You cannot say “I see phosphine, therefore there must be microbes.”
https://curiosmos.com/research-reveals-origin-of-phosphine-on-venus-10-things-you-should-know/
It is conceivable that extremophiles could survive in Venus’ upper atmosphere. Unfortunately living in sulphuric acid droplets at 70C is harsh even for them. I wouldn’t bet short odds on it.
–Be careful with your logic.
Phosphine is produced by microbes and by non-biological processes.–
I am quoting someone.
Or it’s not my logic. My logic is, if it’s habitable can live there.
Or I would logically ask, is there a better bio-signature than Phosphine.
And if there is alien life, on Venus, then we should avoid living there, until such time as we find out more about this alien life.
If there is alien life on Venus or Mars, we should not bring the alien life to Earth. It might be safe to bring it to the Moon.
Or I am not a fan of a lunar base, unless the purpose of the base in to study alien life. Or lunar base could be safe place to study alien life.
Now, governments start global pandemics and governments are generally very evil and kill millions of people for no good reason. But if government studies alien life, then it should be done on the Moon.
If people want to get infected with alien life, they can do that, but they don’t have the right to infect other people with this alien life.
There is no chance of La Nia ending during the current winter in the Southern Hemisphere . Moreover, this winter in the Southern Hemisphere, temperatures will remain below the multi-year average.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced2_t2anom_1-day.png
3.4 has risen from -1 to -0.64 in three weeks. Not saying it won’t stay below -0.5, but you cannot honestly say no chance.
Would you give a more precise definition than “multi-year”. Do you mean the 20th century average?
And if you have to give another graph in response, please make it one with predictive value, not a daily snapshot.
The anomalies here are based on a 1979-2000 reference climatology derived from the NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR). This 22-year baseline is used instead of the more common 1981-2010 climate normal because 1979-2000 represents conditions prior to significant Arctic warming and sea-ice loss. A comparison of different climate baselines against the historical temperature record is shown here.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/images/GISS_land+ocean_1880-2014.png
https://climatereanalyzer.org/
And then there’s Dr Spencer – the only one to use 1991-2020.
I wonder what his motivation for that choice might be?
Do you think on the South Pacific will be warmer next month?
https://i.ibb.co/j5KLTnZ/gfs-nh-sat7-t2anom-1-day.png
The stratospheric polar vortex in the south is developing perfectly.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-70.27,-76.37,354
I have no idea what will happen next month. Nor do you. What happens happens.
Everything is totally random and unpredictable according to AQ.
“the only one to use 1991-2020. I wonder what his motivation for that choice might be?”
Keeping up to date? The rest will change sometime in all probability. They are mostly on different ranges so inter series comparison is actually quite difficult.
In fact, if things were to be kept logical, then the normals would be constructed over the whole record period and the small changes that happen each year would just be accepted. To use any shorter fixed period just makes the inevitable distortions that any one period brings even more into focus.
Roy’s new period is not a constant offset for each month for instance, but varies just slightly month by month.
RLH
Every prediction comes with a probability distribution.. The problem is when people misinterpret a 60% probability as a 100% certainty. You can tell they do this when they say something WILL happen, without qualifying. Have you been guilty of that by any chance?
Will probably happen as the odds are greater than 50%.
Got an answer for NOAA absolute data yet?
Antonin Qwerty
I see in the spreadsheet containing JMA’s monthly data that the near-zero mean has moved in between from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020 as well.
Bindidon
Interesting – but I still have to wonder why. Expanding the baseline period to 40 years makes sense, shifting it doesn’t.
1991-2020 is not 40 years.
” Expanding the baseline period to 40 years makes sense, shifting it doesnt. ”
As you can see if you look at the post just below yours, some elementary school teachers are so pushy to teach their classroom that they can’t even finish reading a whole paragraph… OMG.
*
Now to your 40 years.
1. I generated some months ago a UAH 6.0 LT anomaly time series out of their absolute data with 1981-2020 as reference period, and there was no really significant difference to 1991-2020.
2. The 30-year reference periods are WHO recommendations, as are their regular shifts, which help to incorporate more recent data into the most recent reference periods.
Some stick to it, some don’t: the latter mostly because their old periods are the ones with their most varied dates, so GISS, BEST or Hadley.
Why RSS sticks to the good old 1979-1998 period (which was also used by UAH until about 2012) is not clear.
Blinnt denigrates with every post he makes. Normally that would be called an ‘ad hom’ attack.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1309690
Antonin Qwerty
” 3.4 has risen from -1 to -0.64 in three weeks. ”
Which ENSO source are you referring to? I’m wondering about this increase.
Here is the raw 3.4 ERSST5 input for ONI
2021 6 27.45 27.73 -0.28
2021 7 26.90 27.29 -0.39
2021 8 26.32 26.86 -0.53
2021 9 26.16 26.72 -0.55
2021 10 25.78 26.72 -0.94
2021 11 25.76 26.70 -0.94
2021 12 25.54 26.60 -1.06
2022 1 25.60 26.55 -0.95
2022 2 25.87 26.76 -0.90
2022 3 26.32 27.29 -0.98
2022 4 26.71 27.83 -1.12
2022 5 26.79 27.94 -1.15
and here the 3 month running average
MJJ 2021 -0.46
JJA 2021 -0.54
JAS 2021 -0.66
ASO 2021 -0.86
SON 2021 -1.02
OND 2021 -1.20
NDJ 2021 -1.23
DJF 2022 -1.20
JFM 2022 -1.17
FMA 2022 -1.17
MAM 2022 -1.20
Source
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/
I was going by the Tropicaltidbits site that so many reference here. I know I shouldn’t use that as a source, but it’s so convenient.
But the NOAA weekly ENSO data has ENSO 3.4 rising from -1.2 in the week centred May 4, rising to -1.0 in the week centred May 25, and if the TTB site is correct at least in relative terms, I would be expecting a further rise when the next week’s data comes out in the next day or so.
CFSv2 has had the following on it (captured recently)
https://imgur.com/gallery/N2ErqXP
and
https://imgur.com/gallery/N2ErqXP
Find the current data at
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/CFSv2_body.html
The NCEI OLv2.1 data will update in about 6 days or so when the initial conditions are only of this month.
I understand what you mean.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1309690
Have you noticed how RLH is chasing me around, desperate for attention.
I guess he has no one at home.
It looks like AQ has no answer to factual data that proves what he said was incorrect.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1309706
Richard spews data to fill up the screen but does not prove anything as usual.
So Willard thinks that actual data is not that important.
Looks like Richard has no answer to factual claims that prove he does not quite tell the whole picture.
So Willard thinks that actual data showing that Nino 1+2 leads Nino 3, then Nino 3.4 and then Nino 4 is not proof of what I said was true that the actual progression was from East to West.
https://imgur.com/a/m1BKlv4
https://imgur.com/gallery/JDp9Wuy
https://imgur.com/gallery/Cja7hdM
Richard continues to spew data to fill up the screen as if it proved anything.
“So Willard thinks that actual data is not that important.”
If the data was important to YOU, you would have accepted that in 1998 ENSO 3.4 cooled before ENSO 1.2.
Instead, you had to redefine “cooling” as “being cool”.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1310113
The data proves you wrong. You can see quite clearly that 1+2 leads 3, leads, 3.4, leads 4.
“in 1998 ENSO 3.4 cooled before ENSO 1.2”
During the ‘spring barrier’ period. The rest of the time (the majority) the opposite was in effect.
RLH,
Defining the ENSO state, whether La Nina, Neutral, or El Nino has always been determined from T anomalies of the Nino regions.
Why then do you keep showing absolute T, whose variations are not dominated by ENSO, but by seasonal change?
Because anomalies are determined from absolutes by removing the seasonal variation.
You can just as easily use absolutes to show who comes first in the sequence as my reporting of the absolute data from NOAA shows.
https://imgur.com/gallery/QMrprci
https://imgur.com/gallery/Cja7hdM
https://imgur.com/gallery/JDp9Wuy
From that data which movement do you think is the first in time to occur?
Or you could just post the normals for each area and thus show the same thing.
P.S. Anomalies do not show temperature differences between each area and these are all based around the Equator.
RLH says: So Willard thinks that actual data showing that Nino 1+2 leads Nino 3, then Nino 3.4 and then Nino 4 is not proof of what I said was true that the actual progression was from East to West.
I may not be clear on what point you’re trying to make, but it sounds like your contention is that Nino 1+2 is a leading indicator of El Nino evolution.
Assuming this is the case, I think also by looking at absolute temperatures rather than anomalies may be misleading because the Nino 1+2 is not centered on the equator and has, by far, the largest seasonal component with a normal peak in March.
Looking at anomalies, Nino 1+2 is low, as would be expected under La Nina conditions, but it’s been static for the last couple months. Evidence of a continuing La Nina, perhaps, but not clearly evident of a deepening La Nina if that’s what you’re trying to imply.
For what it’s worth, it’s been argued by some (Trenberth iirc) that Nino 4 is a better indicator for the La Nina phase and it’s been flat a couple months longer than Nino 1+2.
Good catch Mark, 1-2 extends way South. Its warm season peaks first.
Nothing to do with ENSO.
“that Nino 1+2 is a leading indicator of El Nino evolution”
I did not claim that. I said that cold water in Nino 1+2 feeds into Nino 3, then into Nino 3.4 and then into Nino 4. Do you dispute that?
“Nothing to do with ENSO”
Why do people not read?
“The data proves you wrong. You can see quite clearly that 1+2 leads 3, leads, 3.4, leads 4.”
Nope. Anomalies are the proper measures of ENSO. You were misled by not looking at anomalies.
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planets solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…..Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury…325,83 K…340 K
Earth…..287,74 K…288 K
Moon……223,35 Κ…220 Κ
Mars……213,21 K…210 K
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earths mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
AQ: So you did not say the the Nino areas did not follow the pattern of predominantly cold in the East to Warm in the West and that the progression over them is East to West.
As https://imgur.com/a/Cja7hdM shows.
Do you accept that as fact now?
Here is the last few years
https://imgur.com/a/JDp9Wuy
We,ve been here before.
Over a full cycle cycles are temperature neutral. You cannot use short term cycles to explain the observed long term warming .trend.
For example ENSO is an irregular oscillation with a period of approximately ten years. It cannot explain 140 years of warming.
The only cycle that might be relevant is the 100,000 year glacial/interglacial cycle. That is causing about 0.001C/decade cooling and has been overriden by AGW.
Richard Whybray, you make stuff up really well. You’ll fit in nicely here.
Welcome!
“For example ENSO is an irregular oscillation with a period of approximately ten years”
But over the last 25 years there have been more La Nina than El Nino.
Problem is the 2 major ENs have been major and raised the global average. I don’t know if it was an LN following the 1998 EN that offset the EN warming partially. I wonder if we’ll experience an LN as extreme as the 1998 and 2016 ENs?
The real question is if multiple LN can exceed the occasional EN.
“But over the last 25 years there have been more La Nina than El Nino.”
Yes, and that should provide a cooling influence to global temperatures.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2023/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2023/trend
0.115 C/decade (+/- 0.111)
1997 to current, which is 25.4 years.
But maybe we need to put it into a larger context.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2023/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:1997/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2023/trend
0.086 C/decade (+/- 0.172)
1979 to 1997
So many conclusions you could draw, if you needed a conclusion.
We been in ice house climate for about 34 million years, and the last 2.5 million years have been the coldest time within 34 million years.
Within the 2.5 million years, polar bears have evolved and humans have evolved to be able to live in colder regions of Earth in this time period- Humans migrated from tropical forests in Africa, into grasslands of Africa, then into temperate and even arctic zones, all over Earth. The use of fire, home building, and clothing were the human technologies which allow this happen.
For last 5000 years we have returning to conditions associated with glacial conditions, in Little Ice Age, global glacial growth was recorded, and in 20th century most of this glacial advance has retreated.
And over next 500 years, we should continue towards conditions associated with glaciation periods, but this not mean huge continental ice sheets will forming within such short time, but condition similar to Little Ice Age would occurring, again.
Some think our 5000 years of cooling could somehow be reversed, but there doesn’t to be any evident which supports this.
I will ask question, will global warming trend of .013 C per year continue for the next year?
Or we have a .13 C per decade of warming over the last 30 year period. We had a .14 C per decade, which has reduce to .13 per decade because the has warming last several years.
Will another year be continuation of what happened recently or will get up tick which returns to .14 C per decade. Or will we drop to .12 per decade, within the next year.
Or .13 C continue to be the case for next year. Or does it increase or decrease.
I think it drop to .12 C increase per decade within the next year.
And within 10 years drop to .01 C increase.
And I think China in 10 years will still have enough coal to mine 4 billion tons per year. And China will not get to 5 billion tonnes of coal mined per year. And due to technology or other changes, may only mine as much as 3 billion tons of coal per year by 2032.
Of course with unknown large discovery of coal which China can use, this may be wrong.
And after 10 years, the discussion will be about the global shortage of CO2 in our atmosphere.
And what to do about it.
Or rising CO2 levels has increased crop yields, and unless there some other easy way to increase crop yields, the history in increasing crop yield, stopping, will regarded a major problem.
Due to natural cycle will current at a peak, and will drop again because cycle, so it’s natural rebound which doesn’t happen, which will be the observable issue. Or we should continue have more CO2 than we did a end of 20th century, but will be lack of expected upward tread in next upward cycle, which will start some worrying/alarm.
We don’t have a global warming problem. We have a global cooling problem. The temperature region plus or minus 10 degrees latitude of the equator will be called Columbiana where most will live. There will be huge snow-capped mountain ranges and large greenhouses constructed for agriculture. The world’s population will probably shrink by 75 percent.
“We dont have a global warming problem. We have a global cooling problem”
Over the last few years that is obviously not true. The real question is when (and if) the current rising trend reaches its limits.
“The real question is when (and if) the current rising trend reaches its limits.”
I would say if ocean was 5 C, it would not reaching it’s limits, yet.
“I will ask question, will global warming trend of .013 C per year continue for the next year?”
In 12 months the trend from 1979 will almost certainly be the same as that value, or, outside chance, it will change by 0.001.
Feel free to save this post to show me in 12 months.
richard w…”It cannot explain 140 years of warming”.
***
It has never been scientifically proved that CO2 is causing the warming. We emerged from a 400+ year Little Ice Age in 1850 where major cooling had been locked into the land and oceans as glaciers and Arctic/Antarctic ice. It takes a long time to melt that ice and warm the oceans. The ice is replaced every year in the northern and southern hemisphere winters so overall melting takes a long time.
Syun Akasofu, a geophysicist, has claimed the IPCC erred by not taking that re-warming into account. He thinks the planet should re-warm at a rate of 0.5C/century.
If you read the current IPCC review propaganda, they dismiss the Little Ice Age in a footnote even though many scientific papers have been published proving the existence and effect of the LIA.
Especially when historically CO2 lags temperature in both short and long time scales.
Except when CO2 leads temperature.
When was that?
https://imgur.com/a/N4EptIS
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-the-rise-and-fall-of-co2-levels-influenced-the-ice-ages/
That would be now.
You may notice an interesting thing, and that is, red immediately appears in the graphics of summer season temperature anomalies in regions of stationary highs. It is different when it is cloudy. In my opinion, in the period of low solar activity more long-wave UV radiation can reach the Earth, which heats up the surface of the continents more.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2022.png
For comparison here is what happened last 2 years
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2021.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2020.png
Temperatures in the upper stratosphere above the equator are falling, which means lower ozone production.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2018.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2019.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2018.png
Lower ozone production means less protection against the UV.
After an apparent increase since mid-May, solar wind speeds are again declining. No active sunspots or coronal holes.
https://i.ibb.co/0JznfHc/plot-image.png
Let’s look at the current temperature anomalies of the Peruvian Current. Is it getting colder?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_samer_1.png
Good point, Ren. Looks pretty blue to me.
Hasn’t changed that much in the last 7 days.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_samer_1.png
We have first tropical storm called Alex which heading out into the Atlantic:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
When will we get most of hurricane during this season? Sooner or more later in the season?
“For the 2022 hurricane season, NOAA is forecasting a likely range of 14 to 21 named storms (winds of 39 mph or higher), of which 6 to 10 could become hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher), including 3 to 6 major hurricanes (category 3, 4 or 5; with winds of 111 mph or higher). NOAA provides these ranges with a 70% confidence”
Not curiously at all, those people who are very quick in posting here a link to an article of Clive Best because it fits to their egomaniac narrative:
April global temperature drops to 0.77C
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=10273
never and never would post a link to the author’s previous article:
Nights warm faster than days
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=10264
because it manifestly is not at all their interest to make it visible.
When do you expect that trend to stop?
“RLH says:
May 10, 2022 at 10:45 AM”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1277663
Looks like your memory is not quite correct,
Linsley-Hood
Correct, I was wrong. My bad!
As opposed to you, I always admit my mistakes.
*
But what you write:
” That cannot continue on indefinitely of course, else nighttime would be warmer than daytime and Winter warmer than Summer. ”
is typical for your urging to discredit an article on the basis of a simple-minded, completely irrelevant, redundant comment.
What Clive Best wrote I see since years when comparing Tmin and Tmax in GHCN daily station data, and also when seeing that winter month anomalies increase mostly faster than those calculated for summer months.
*
The two aspects are of course the reason why so many dumb US people claim that ‘NOAA and GISS made our warm 1930’s disappear’.
Completely wrong, as can be shown by posting a CONUS absolute temperature chart, or – as was done by John Christy (and I) – by generating a histogram of the years in which 100+ year old stations had their warmest days.
“That cannot continue on indefinitely of course”
You disagree with that observation?
“never and never would post a link to the authors previous article:
….
because it manifestly is not at all their interest to make it visible”
You going to take that back?
Looks like you did.
Since 1979, 48 % of the indices of the Multivariate ENSO index were above 0, and conversely 52 % below 0.
Exactly the same ratio exists among the indices below -0.5 (La Nina treshold) resp. above +0.5 (El Nino treshold).
For MEI’s historical period (1871-now), the ratio is 55 % below the La Nina treshold, and 45 % above the El Nino treshold.
The real question is if multiple LN can exceed the occasional EN. This includes stuff that sits inside of the +-0.5C threshold.
Stochastic data.
The multivariate ENSO index bounces around 0 but not in a way which can be predicted more than a few months ahead. The current double dip La Nina illustrates this.
If ENSO were a cycle we would not see so much random variation.
All is random. There are no natural cycles at all. Sure. Yet everything balances around 0. Why is that?
Thermodynamics.
Plot the multivariate ENSO index as a frequency distribution and 0 is the mean. That represents the condition in which the energy balance in the Pacific matches the planet as a whole.
In El Nino conditions the Pacific ocean is absorbing a smaller amount of energy than the planetary average.
La Nina occurs when the Pacific ocean is absorbing more energy than the planetary average.
“0 is the mean”
Only if you make it so by taking an appropriate time period over ENSO in order to make it so. Note that this will not be a whole number of years.
P.S. Should you be using the mean or the median?
Use the mean.
La Nina global means tend to be 0.3C low and El Ninos about 0.2C high.Median would be about0.05C.
“Use the mean”
Your statistical justification for that is?
“La Nina global means tend to be 0.3C low and El Ninos about 0.2C high. Median would be about 0.05C.”
Only if there are 50% of both in the sample period and the distribution is symmetrical.
Moved the thread on molecules down here to keep my replies to Barry, Nate, Anton, and Tim together. There is a theme running through each reply that indicates a misunderstanding of basic atomic theory.
I do not pretend to be an authority on the subject, not even well informed. However, I have spent much of my life studying and applying electrical/electronics theory and it all begins with the study of atomic structure. Furthermore, I studied organic chemistry as part of a chemistry course I was required to take in first year, pre-engineering.
I have forgotten more than I currently know and I’m still light years ahead of Barry, Nate, Anton, and Tim. I am not basing that on ego, I am basing it on what they reveal re their understanding of molecules/atoms, bonding, and charges, and the complete absence of electrons in their analysis.
For example….
[Barry]”Obviously youve forgotten that you said molecules have no magical properties that cause them to absorb EM radiation at different frequencies.
That was a long-winded way of saying different molecules absorb at different frequencies”.
***
I had just finished a detailed explanation revealing a molecule is just a name for an aggregation of atoms bonded by electrons. No Barry, different molecules don’t absorb anything their constituent atom’s electrons absorb everything. Quantum theory is based on the interaction of electrons with proton charges in the nucleus and also with the various energy levels the electrons can take. Absorp-tion/emission is all about electron transitions.
It’s more complicated. Electron bonding involves only electrons in the outer energy level shells. It’s still not clear, more than 100 years after Bohr’s model was presented, exactly how electron bonding between atoms takes place. That’s because no one can locate the electrons at an instant to determine the action. Therefore, quantum theory is based on probability clouds representing the probability of locating electrons at any point around a nucleus.
However, the theory uses references like covalent bonding and ionic bonding. The notion of metallic bonding has come into vogue more recently but it addresses electron clouds which, to me, is nonsense. Electrons cannot exist as clouds in a copper conductor, only in the minds of theorists.
If we consider a covalent bond, the theory claims electrons are shared between atoms. The idea is to fill the outer shells of atoms with electrons, called valence electrons, making the atom stable. With the atoms we are considering, like oxygen and carbon, the number of electrons required to fill the outer shell is 8.
With CO2, combining 2 oxygen atoms with 1 carbon atom fulfills that requirement as the sharing completes both valence shells of the atoms. However, no one shows how this sharing takes place, and with more atoms per molecule, the concept becomes far more complex.
The sharing is often shown as electron orbitals surrounding both or multiple atoms in a molecule with more than two atoms. In that case, it complicates electron transitions dramatically, and that explains variations in properties between molecules with different atomic arrangements.
It has nothing to do with mysterious properties in molecules. No, Barry, my explanation is not long-winded, it explains what goes on in molecules. Personally, whenever I see anyone using the term molecule and making claims of EM emissions, without addressing the electrons in the constituent atoms, I regard that person as having no understanding of the subject.
Gordon Robertson
So now you are claiming to know more about Chemistry than Linus Pauling. Amazing degree of arrogance! You can’t link to anything that supports your absurd ideas.
You are really dense Gordon. You did not take any college level Organic Chemistry. You just lie about that to try and make yourself look smarter.
Well you fail, flunk big F. You don’t have any idea what you are talking about. Just making up fluff based upon some random items you have read about.
The science of IR spectroscopy in identifying compounds is quite well established all based upon molecular vibrations. The Chemists know quite a bit about how it works. You know nothing. You just lie and deceive with intent over and over.
Why do you need to do this? How does being so totally dishonest (like claiming you actually took Chemistry classes) make you feel good about yourself? Or are you so adept at lying that you no longer recognize what you are doing?
The really stupid thing about your molecular misunderstanding is that you can’t explain why oxygen and nitrogen do not emit IR but CO2 and H2O do. If it was all electrons in the bonds then N2 and O2 would emit equally with the others. They both have electrons that could get excited, certainly some band of IR would fit the correct energy bands. No you know nothing of physics or chemistry. Make up more nonsense and then keep lying about what you don’t know. You are getting to be as stupid as Clint R. I did not think that was possible.
AQ…”There are three main modes of vibration that a CO2 molecule can undergo. For symmetric vibration there is no separation of charge. Asymmetric vibration and bending vibration do result in a separation of charge. Conversely, a separation of charge can cause these vibrations”.
***
See my reply to Nate below, which I had intended to be in this thread. It has nothing to do with a separation of charge, it’s about electronegativity, a propensity of certain atoms to attract electrons more due to having more protons in their nucleus. The O atom at the ends of a linear CO2 molecule have a higher electronegativity than the C atom, therefore electrons in the bonds tend to favour the O end, making those ends of both bonds more negative and creating two dipoles.
The modes of vibration mean the vibrations can occur in three directions, There is no ‘conversely’ about it. It is electrostatic forces between the negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons in the nucleus that cause vibration. In other words, vibration does not cause charges, the charges are properties of electrons and protons.
You guys need to get it’s all about the negative and positive charges of the electrons and protons that create the properties of various molecules, as well as electron transitions within each atom. Just because electrons are involved with other atoms in a molecule does not mean they stop absorbing and emitting EM or being influenced by heat.
These charges are fixed hence not cumulative. However, the charge on the electrons can vary if they absorb EM or heat.
nate…sorry…my reply to you was meant to be in this thread. Please find it in next thread down.
“different molecules dont absorb anything their constituent atoms electrons absorb everything. “
No. As a simple example, molecules can absorb/emit by changes in their overall rotation. That is a PHYSICAL MOTION of the molecule. Those energies are independent of the levels of the electrons in their orbits. Same for vibrational modes for the molecules.
“I do not pretend to be an authority …
Its still not clear …
which, to me, is nonsense …
no one shows how this sharing takes place …
mysterious properties in molecules …
Scientists DO understand this — well enough to make remarkable predictions about the structure and behavior of molecules and solids. Accept that you are not an authority and don’t lecture based on your decades-old sophomore science classes.
tim…”There are 1000s of molecules made simply of carbon and hydrogen. These molecules each have there own energy levels related to their own absorp.tion and emission spectra. And these energy levels are NOT simply combinations of the energy levels of C and H atoms.
Similarly, quartz does NOT radiate at about a dozen distinct frequencies. When atoms form into crystal structures, the distinct frequencies broaden in to bands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_band_structure
***
Tim…Atoms don’t have an energy level per se, the electrons in them have potential energy levels, If a molecule emits or absorbs EM, the emission/absorp-tion spectra are those of the individual atom’s electrons.
The example you provided at your link has nothing to do with the spectral lines to which I referred. The article is about bond energies related to the junctions in a semiconductor. Semiconductor silicon is doped with impurity atoms to create slabs of silicon that have an excess of electrons (n-type) or a dearth of electrons )p-type). When those slabs are fused together to form a PN junction, the electrons in the faces being fused interact with each other.
One result is that electron charges on either slab repel each other producing a potential hill. That hill is the in-built bias in semiconductor junctions, typically 0.7 volts for silicon slabs. That his has to be overcome before current will flow. That’s why a silicon diode in a circuit has a 0.7 volt drop across it. Same with base-emitter junctions in BJT transistors.
It states in the article…”Band theory derives these bands and band gaps by examining the allowed quantum mechanical wave functions for an electron in a large, periodic lattice of atoms or molecules”.
That’s not what we are talking about here, it’s a single electron transition between energy levels. The article goes on to state…
“The electrons of a single, isolated atom occupy atomic orbitals each of which has a discrete energy level. When two or more atoms join together to form a molecule, their atomic orbitals overlap and hybridize.[1][2]
Similarly, if a large number N of identical atoms come together to form a solid, such as a crystal lattice, the atoms’ atomic orbitals overlap with the nearby orbitals.[1] Each discrete energy level splits into N levels, each with a different energy”.
then….”This formation of bands is mostly a feature of the outermost electrons (valence electrons) in the atom, which are the ones involved in chemical bonding and electrical conductivity. The inner electron orbitals do not overlap to a significant degree, so their bands are very narrow”.
I mentioned all that in my reply to Barry. When bonds are formed, the orbitals energy levels behave differently, hence properties in a molecule that are due to combined properties of atoms in the valence bands.
That is confirmed here for lapis quartz, where each atom emits a very narrow line.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-representative-emission-spectrum-of-lapis-quartz-along-with-the-relevant-atomic_fig5_311423481
Good try, but that paper it about “Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS)”
“A high-power laser pulse is used as an energy source to cause ablation of atoms from the sample surface and formation of a short-lived, high-temperature plasma. “
So the laser is blasting atoms out of the sample, ionizing the individual atoms, and looking at the spectral of ionized atoms. This is NOT the spectrum of the neutral atoms in solid quartz.
So, ‘the example you provided at your link has nothing to do with the spectral lines to which you referred’.
**********************************
“The article is about bond energies related to the junctions in a semiconductor … ” and in conductors and in insulators. Band structure relates to all of these. It relates the work function for photovoltaic.
And since you seem to have missed it “Band theory has been successfully used to explain many physical properties of solids, such as electrical resistivity and optical absorp.tion”
Yes, that article that (until now) you were happy to quote from, states that the actual current topic — optical absorp.tion and esmission — is an area where band theory excels!
[Nate]…”Dipoles are separated plus and minus charges. The oscillation of these charges is what radiates EM waves”.
***
They are not plus and minus charges in a dipole, they are negative and less negative charges at work. I realize that is a technicality and we use it freely in an electronic circuit. I just want to emphasize there are no true positive charges as would be found with the protons in a nucleus.
It’s about electronegativity which is basically the ability of atoms to attract electrons to them. If you look at a periodic table with Pauling electronegativity values, in the 2nd row in the rightmost columns, you have B, C, N, O, F (boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and fluorine) with corresponding electronegativity values above them of 2.05, 2.55, 3.04, 3.44, and 3.98. Fluorine at 3.98 is the most electronegative.
It’s a point of interest to me that the atoms composing air are grouped together in the periodic table. Methane and argon are outliers but for water, hydrogen is not far off, 4 element positions below. It is claimed that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the solar system.
If you look at carbon, C, with 2.55 and oxygen with 3.44, it means that oxygen has an electronegativity 3.44 – 2.55 = 0.89 stronger than carbon. That’s because O has more protons in the nucleus, therefore tends to attract electrons more to it than carbon.
Therefore in the CO2 molecule as…
O=====C=====O
the dipole on each side of the C atom is more negative toward the O atom. Oxygen attracts the electrons in the bond closer to it, making that end of the bond more negative. Both dipoles have opposite polarity hence they tend to cancel dipole moments which would act as a torque about the C atom.
Because the forces attracting the electrons to the protons is electrostatic, it is always oscillation (vibrating). Therefore, even though the dipoles moments cancel there is still a slight vibrations of the dipole bonds about the C atom. Also, there is a vibration along both dipole bonds that can be symmetrical or asymmetrical.
There’s you vibration and it’s all due to electrostatic forces between electrons and protons. What would cause that vibration to increase? An unbalance of charge would do that if the electrons in the bonds absorbed EM or heat. However, it is the electrons absorbing the EM or heat.
There is no reason why a difference in negativity should generate EM. That would mean a battery would generate EM and it does not.
La Nina on Its Last Leg?
https://youtu.be/E_a8RV4dPco?t=1428
Probably a little early to say that yet, given what happened last year.
But thanks for presenting yet another example for the sake of RLH of CHANGES in anomalistic temperature coming in from the west.
(Capitals for RLH’s sake, not yours.)
Just because you made a false conclusion by using anomalies (without considering the normals, i.e. just half of the data) rather than the absolutes does not mean you can’t see the CHANGES in temperatures in the actual data.
https://imgur.com/a/m1BKlv4
https://imgur.com/gallery/Cja7hdM
https://imgur.com/gallery/JDp9Wuy
1+2 leads 3, leads 3.4. leads 4 in both time and temperature from East to West as I claimed. Fact.
Add to that
https://imgur.com/a/QMrprci
which is the first 10 years of NOAA data for ENSO areas.
RLH
I see your strategy is to post the same nonsense everywhere, relying on the knowledge that a reasonable person would not waste time responding to every post. When you cease presenting as a rabid 7 year old troll then perhaps the conversation can continue. Do you think you have that within you? I suspect not.
Just because you made a false conclusion by using anomalies (without considering the normals, i.e. just half of the data) rather than the absolutes does not mean you cant see the CHANGES in temperatures in the actual data.
https://imgur.com/a/m1BKlv4
https://imgur.com/gallery/Cja7hdM
https://imgur.com/gallery/JDp9Wuy
1+2 leads 3, leads 3.4. leads 4 in both time and temperature from East to West as I claimed. Fact.
The video says otherwise. Take a hike hickster.
The data clearly shows you are wrong. But who needs facts to support their beliefs?
“Take a hike hickster”
And so you resort to name calling. Just like Blinny and Willard do. ‘Ad hom’ much do you?
And you … “idiot”.
Linsley-Hood
– You name anybody ‘idiot’ on this blog who disagrees with what you claim (often enough without any proof).
– You seem to have forgotten that you named me an ‘arrogant twat’ last year.
. When I name Robertson “Putin’s boot licker and cock sucker”, then it’s due to his disgusting denial of the Russian invasion against Ukraine and his disgusting claims about an alleged ‘denazification’ of Ukraine, though everybody knows thast there are many more Neo-Nazis in Russia than in the entire Europe.
– Robertson had no problem to name Andrew Motte (Newton’s worldwide known translator) a ‘cheating SOB’.
*
And by the way: why do you refer to ‘Blinny and Willard’ only?
What about Clint R and Swenson, both permanently naming others ‘braindead cult idiot’ or ‘moron’ etc?
As usual, Linsley-Hood, you are blind on the right eye.
Stop whining.
Where is Swenson BTW?
“And you ‘idiot'”
I call those idiots who don’t take into account the actual data. Do you feel you want that epithet applied to you also?
Are you ever going to publish the normals you rely on to produce the anomalies for ENSO or are you going to persist in the view that a small portion of the year during the ‘spring barrier’ period is useful for whole year observations?
“You seem to have forgotten that you named me an ‘arrogant twat’ last year”
If the caps fits….
While we are at name calling I call Bindidong the worst piece of scum to hit this board since David Appel
I vote for AQ.
So the speaker gets do decide “if the cap fits”.
OK by me, IDIOT.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1310113
“So the speaker gets do decide ‘if the cap fits'”
Usually that phrase lets the listener decide..
So if I listen to you calling me an idiot, I get to decide if the cap fits?
Of are you just deliberately using a different interpretation of “the speaker”?
“So if I listen to you calling me an idiot, I get to decide if the cap fits?”
Yup.
“if the cap fits, wear it”
BRITISH
used as a way of suggesting that someone should accept a generalized remark or criticism as applying to themselves.
[RICHARD] “Ad hom” much do you?
[ALSO RICHARD] I call those idiots who don’t take into account the actual data
Richard should add “special pleader” to his CV.
Willard should add ‘idiot’ to his CV.
Norman, you old, sea dog…I get too much of a laugh out of your attemp-ted character assassination to take it seriously. My g/f is much better at it than you. She gets annoyed when I laugh with glee as she assails me with insults.
I said nothing against Pauling, all I mentioned was his electronegativity values. I regard Linus as a genius who many foolish, so-called experts tried in vain to denigrate.
You claim expert in IR spectroscopy know a lot. Where do you think I got my information?
Nitrogen does emit IR, I posted a link to the nitrogen spectrum showing it. Oxygen definitely emits radiation in the microwave range which is just below the IR band. O2 is also associated with IR absor-p-tion in airglow, a glowing effect besides the aurora. Same with nitrogen in the aurora.
I simply don’t trust climate alarmist scientists, they are willing to ignore significant activity in the IR regions by N2 and O2.
I claimed not to understand why GHGs absorb IR and other atoms don’t. I accep-t Tyndall’s word for that since his experiment seemed sound but I question the reasons. Alarmist took shots at me for admitting that truth, rather than explain it. It appears they can’t.
Here’s one explanation offered. I am not going to supply every link I visit.
“When the frequency of a specific vibration is equal to the frequency of the IR radiation directed on the molecule, it absorbs radiation”.
This makes no sense, far too general. Vibrations have no properties that allow absor-p-tion of IR. A vibration has no mass, it’s simply a descrip-tion of the state of one or more atoms in this case.
Neither is there anything in the polar bonds of CO2 that can absorb IR.
Essentially, no one seems to know. I’ll keep researching when I have time.
Do you understand that an asymmetric or bending vibration of a CO2 molecule causes an oscillating charge separation? Do you understand what a charge separation is? Do you know what can cause an oscillating charge separation this leading to a physical vibration?
Hint: It’s not caused by the earth’s shadow.
aq…”Do you understand that an asymmetric or bending vibration of a CO2 molecule causes an oscillating charge separation?”
***
No, I don’t. My expertise is in electronics and the electrical field and I have never heard of a charge separation in the manner in which you present it.
Coulomb’s Law, which is an equivalent law for the force between charges to Newton’s law about the force between masses is….F = kQ1Q2/r^2. It tells us there is a force of attraction or repulsion between charges depending on their sign.
You don’t seem to understand that vibrations are caused by this Coulomb force and not the other way around. That is, vibrations don’t affect charges.
In the case of CO2, which is easier to visualize, the oxygen atoms at the ends of the bonds between the 2 Os and the carbon atom, are more electronegative than the carbon atom. The O atoms have more protons and have a greater Coulomb force on the shared electrons, therefore the shared electrons tend to accumulate more on the O side than the C side.
That sets up two dipoles, one on each side of the C atom with the dipoles more negative on the O sides. The linear bonds can expand and contract symmetrically or asymmetrically. The cause of that must be related to the shared electrons gaining and losing energy.
The dipoles may also try to rotate around the C atom, but the repelling Coulomb forces between O atoms prevents them going far beyond the linear axis.
Gordon Robertson
Try reading through this material.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Spectroscopy/Vibrational_Spectroscopy/Infrared_Spectroscopy/Infrared_Spectroscopy#:~:text=Molecular%20vibrational%20frequencies%20lie%20in,is%20measured%20at%20each%20frequency.
–May is usually the month with the highest carbon dioxide levels each year.
In May 2022, the threshold of 420 parts per million (ppm) a unit of measurement used to quantify pollution in the atmosphere was crossed.
In May 2021, the rate was 419 ppm, and in 2020, 417 ppm.–
https://www.sciencealert.com/co2-levels-are-now-comparable-to-what-they-were-4-million-years-ago-says-noaa
from: https://instapundit.com/
So by June it level off and fall about 1/2 year and then rise until May 2023, and in theory it should be higher than 420 ppm. But will it be and by how much?
It seems to me it could stall and add only 1 ppm or less.
Keep in mind, when suppose future average rise of 2.5 ppm which I counted as the most possible for average rise, or +25 ppm in a 10 ten period, some insisted to had to be much higher rate of increase.
At moment I consider 2 ppm average rise as most possible, and I think it’s likely it will less than 1 ppm average rise or +10 ppm in the 10 years, and quite possible it will reach 0 increase per year.
And none this change will be related to governmental efforts- as I said all government actions have done, is cause more CO2 emission, not less.
There are few reasons for this. But let’s go back the article:
“The level now is comparable to what it was between 4.1 and 4.5 million years ago, when CO2 levels were near or above 400 ppm, the agency said in a statement.
At that time, sea levels were between 5 and 25 meters higher than now, high enough to submerge many of today’s major cities. Large forests also occupied parts of the Arctic, according to studies.”
4 million years ago our 34 million year ice age had cooled as much as would in the last 2.5 C million years.
Or it’s only in last 2.5 million that Greenland had a permanent ice sheet, or during interglacial periods most it would melted and during glaciation period it could become ice sheet as it is now.
Or 4 million years ago, every interglacial period melt the ice sheet in Greenland.
So during our peak Holocene period, ice sheets in North America melted causing over 100 meter rise in sea level.
4 million years old there were no ice sheets in North America during Glaciation periods, but there was ice sheet in Greenland, which melted during the peak of interglacial which instead +100 meter rise, was a 5 to 25 meter rise in sea levels.
And average ocean temperature was around 5 C. Unlike recent peak interglacial which had peak ocean average temperature of around 4 C.
If we didn’t have ocean of 3.5 C but it was 5 C, we would have much higher global water vapor, and the Sahara Desert would be grassland and forests.
So, reason we have low CO2 levels in because we are in ice house climate [as called an Ice Age] which has the case for 34 million years. Or a cold ocean absorbs CO2. Our ocean is the coldest in been during these 34 Million year, and why are CO2 in future will drop.
CO2 concentrations generally rise by more in El Nino years and less in La Nina years.
Average rises in year to May, starting 2000:
La Nina: +1.8
Neutral: +2.3
El Nina: +2.6
The last 2 years have been +1.82 and +1.86, so pretty much normal for a La Nina year.
Does that not prove that CO2 is not the cause of El Nino/La Nina the later of which have been more prevalent over the last 25 years?
No one has claimed it is the cause. Burn that straw man.
So natural cycles are not effected by the rise in CO2. Interesting.
I believe we were talking about only one “cycle”. But not sure what you find interesting about it. The baseline for this “cycle” has risen. It is an unchanging cycle about a rising baseline.
“I believe we were talking about only one ‘cycle'”
One of the natural cycles. Are you claiming that others ARE effected?
The word is AFFECTED/ Learn some English.
Now we are into spelling are we.
There is a difference between a spelling mistake and not knowing the correct word.
Let me guess – you also don’t know the correct usage of imply vs infer.
You take no account of autocorrect even though you use computers.
Oh right – because you started with ‘a’ and it suggested ‘e’.
And no – I’ve never used autocorrect. Why would I?
Fat fingers on a phone will produce many offerings.
And yes, I do know the difference in meaning between affect and effect.
So it’s fat fingers now, not autocorrect.
If you knew the difference you would not have made the SAME mistake TWICE in consecutive posts, LIAR.
RLH,
Wasn’t that you who gave me crap one time for using affects when it was effects? Or was that Droege? The English language is f*ked up.
“If you knew the difference you would not have made the SAME mistake TWICE in consecutive posts, LIAR”
I am guilty of posting without re-reading precisely what I have written and I have said that in the past. I rely all too often on squiggly red underlines to point out my mistakes. When pointed out my errors in the precise wording of posts, I have always corrected them.
Calling me a liar based on the posts just shows your prejudices and stupidity.
“Wasn’t that you who gave me crap one time for using affects when it was effects”
Not by calling you a liar (if it was me).
Calling you are liar just shows how carefully I read your posts.
“So it’s fat fingers now, not autocorrect”
A combination of them and looking more for squiggly red underlines is my fault.
BTW – if you actually knew how to spell you would be screaming with excitement at a typo I have made. You wouldn’t be able to restrain yourself.
“Calling you are liar” just shows your prejudices.
“if you actually knew how to spell”
I claim too much reliance on computers, having been using them for so long.
I’m sure I’ve been using them for just as long. Why do I not rely on autocorrect?
Because I don’t like others to do my thinking for me.
“Im sure I’ve been using them for just as long”
I was born in 1948 and my first use of computers was before the PC was invented.
And of course they came with autocorrect.
Autocorrect came about after the Internet arrived. My first web site predated Google.
Which doesn’t answer the question of why you rely on an aid for the uneducated while I don’t.
AQ calls himself educated when he doesn’t know that abnormalities rely on normals (and yet is afraid to publish those same normals for some reason).
Anomalies, Richard.
Anomalies.
Here’s how to calculate them in five easy step:
https://scied.ucar.edu/image/measure-global-average-temperature-five-easy-steps
Most welcome.
Step 1: Measure some absolute temperatures….
Anomalies. Thanks for the correction.
“Step 1: Measure some absolute”
Phrase not found.
Step 1: Measure {absolute} temperatures above the land and ocean in THOUSANDS of places around the world.
Step 2: Subtract the {absolute} temperature that you measure at each location from the usual {normal} temperature on that day.
….
Idiot.
“Anomaly and Abnormality are in fact synonyms as they both refer to ‘something that is not normal'”
Anomaly designates an absence of regularity, dummy.
No need to follow any normal distribution for that.
Nomos means law.
“So natural cycles are not effected by the rise in CO2. Interesting.”
A mathematical look, using tools like FFT, at the natural cycles would reveal if CO2, which is not cyclical, actually has any artifact in the data.
“using tools like FFT”
You do realize that things like FFT (and Wavelets) are in fact ‘tuned’ sine wave filters whereas HQLP (High Quality Low Pass) filters are not.
What are the reasons are given for this?
The latest weekly NOAA ENSO anomalies show just how far Tropicaltidbits is out for ENSO 1.2:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst9120.for
But of course people who need the TTB value will swear by that site, without being able to state the source of its data, probably believing they have launched their own buoys.
Daily CDAS data as reported at
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Yes, thanks for affirming the discrepancy. TTB sure is unreliable.
“TTB sure is unreliable”
Tell that to levicowan@tropicaltidbits.com. I am sure he will respond appropriately.
He no longer responds to emails.
So are you saying that his presentation of CDAS data is wrong?
So are you saying that NOAA’s presentation of its data is wrong?
But wasn’t it you who said that TTB was inaccurate? Or is it CDAs which it reports that is inaccurate?
“Climate Data Assimilation System NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis (CDAS)”
CFSv2 is a model too, even though it comes from NOAA.
“seasonal climate anomalies from the NCEP coupled forecast system model version 2 (CFSv2)”
I thought you said only one was a model.
“And one of them reports data, the other reports a re-analysis”
BTW – CDAS stands for “Crowdsourcing Data Analytics System”. It is not “data”.
Wrong.
Climate Data Assimilation System
NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis (CDAS) is run in real time.
But don’t let thinks get in the way of your prejudices.
….But dont let things get in the way of your prejudices…..
There is no mention of NCEP/NCAR on the TTB website.
But yes – I got the wrong CDAS.
Please link me to this data so we can compare to the graph.
“There is no mention of NCEP/NCAR on the TTB website”
CDAS is mentioned in the title.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
“Crowdsourcing Data Analytics System”
https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0143
“Some complex problems, such as image tagging and natural language processing, are very challenging for computers, where even state-of-the-art technology is yet able to provide satisfactory accuracy. Therefore, rather than relying solely on developing new and better algorithms to handle such tasks, we look to the crowdsourcing solution — employing human participation — to make good the shortfall in current technology”
Nothing about climate.
“Crowdsourcing Data Analytics System” “climate” in Google returns
“It looks like there aren’t many great matches for your search”
Still waiting for that link to the past week’s NCEP/NCAR data for ENSO 1.2.
Were you incapable of reading the middle sentence of my post from 5:56 am?
Do you need a translation?
“Please link me to this data so we can compare to the graph”
You have any good reason (other than prejudice) to think that the presentation is wrong?
“Were you incapable of reading the middle sentence of my post from 5:56 am?
Do you need a translation?”
No. I know you were wrong and admitted it.
“Still waiting for that link to the past weeks NCEP/NCAR data for ENSO 1.2”
Looks like there is no simple url for that data. You need to do your own work/calculations on the daily NCEP/NCAR data restricted to the ENSO 1+2 area.
I say again, do you have a belief that the presentation is wrong or is it just your own prejudices that are showing?
Do you have a belief that the presentation is right or is it just your own prejudices that are showing?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1310113
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1310168
So you now think that CDAS is in error.
So you now think that NOAA is in error? I guess their ENSO model must be wrong too then.
CDAS is daily. NOAA is weekly/monthly. Takes a time for one to catch up the other.
Oh really. So the NOAA weekly figure of -0.6 for May 29 to June 4 isn’t really an average of May 29 to June 4. Interesting. Do you have any more idiotic insights to share?
Today is June 6th. Your point was?
Tell me how many date in the given interval were around -0.6 on TTB.
No – tell me how many days in that interval on that site were warmer than -1.5.
Are you saying that CDAS on the various dates was wrong?
Are you saying that NOAA averaged over those various dates was wrong?
So you are saying that the 2 models of CDAS and NOAA produced differing results.
Sorted out the absolute NOAA data yet?
Indeed. And one of them reports data, the other reports a re-analysis. Care to guess which is which?
> NOAA averaged
Please, Antonin. Do *not* mention averages to Richard too often. He has very strong opinions about them.
Am I allowed to say he has below average intelligence?
“And one of them reports data, the other reports a re-analysis”
Are you saying that re-analysis (which are based on models) does not well predict actual outcomes?
“Do *not* mention averages to Richard too often”
Are those averages based on mean or median and why?
Sorted out the absolute NOAA data yet?
> Am I allowed to say he has below average intelligence?
That would be *mean* of you, Antonin!
Wink wink.
AQ and Willard are soul brothers.
👊
Idiot.
Is Antonin westward or eastward from me, Richard?
Does dumb have an west or east?
Dearest Richard,
No U
Dumb does contain a U. Idiot.
But not *idiot*, dummy.
Still using U I see, idiot.
A series of Atlantic lows will pass over Western Europe in the coming days, ending with the remnants of Tropical Storm Alex.
Weather patterns tend to flow Westwards over Europe. That is what the prevailing wind patterns show.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004100/a004171/jetstream_uk_1080.mp4
Surface weather patterns tend to flow Westwards over Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_Global_Circulation_-_en.svg
Your map shows WESTERLIES, which flow FROM the west, hence EASTWARDS, meaning TO the east.
You really need to learn some basic English.
That’s why the word Westerlies appears in the diagram.
“WESTERLIES, which flow FROM the west, hence EASTWARDS, meaning TO the east”
The arrows say otherwise. WESTERLIES, flow TO the west
https://cdn.britannica.com/00/102500-050-2A2E7E20/circulation-patterns-Earth-surface-diagram.jpg?w=690&h=388&c=crop
…The arrows say otherwise….
Are you for real. The arrows point TO THE RIGHT.
Do you really not know where east is on a map.
….Surface weather patterns tend to flow to the West over Europe…..
RIGHT IS EAST YOU EFFING MORON.
HOW EFFING IMBECILIC ARE YOU?
My mistake. To the West instead of Westwards. As the diagrams clearly show.
Sorted out the absolute NOAA data yet?
FROM the west. The weather is coming FROM the west.
“WESTWARDS” MEANS “TO THE WEST”.
Do you also have an issue with “from” and “to”?
….My mistake. From the East to the West instead of Westwards. As the diagrams clearly show…..
Sorted out the absolute NOAA data yet?
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/westward
“westwards towards the west”
JESUS EFFING CHRIST.
FROM THE WEST TO THE EAST.
LEFT TO RIGHT.
You must be the dumbest FK I’ve ever come across.
AQ: Sorted out the absolute NOAA data yet?
You have no shame do you. No self-pride. How could someone get so confused over the simplest of geographical concepts and not be at least mildly embarrassed?
“FROM THE WEST TO THE EAST.
LEFT TO RIGHT.”
Here I was thinking that East was to the left and West was to the right. Not.
Western Europe is to the right of the Atlantic but to the left of the rest of Europe.
Winds blow towards the West, predominantly, in Western Europe. i.e. from off the Atlantic.
AQ: Sill not sorted out the absolute NOAA data yet?
Towards the WEST COAST.
NOT towards the west.
…Winds blow towards the East, predominantly, in Western Europe. i.e. from off the Atlantic…..
AQ: Sill not sorted out the absolute NOAA data yet have you?
Right and left for directions of West/East depends on if you are looking North or South at the time.
Being a sailor, I tend to think in degrees rather than compass directions to overcome just that problem.
FINALLY.
And no, the absolute data is not relevant. It is seasonal.
The onset of La Nina and El Nina is not determined by seasonal cooling.
But hey, ENSO 3.4 warmed in April and again in May in absolute terms. Are you happy to call that a movement out of La Nina? Or is that different?
Sailor my ass.
“And no, the absolute data is not relevant”
And yet you compose normals from just that source which you then subtract from the same absolute data to get the anomalies.
And that absolute data clearly shows that Nino1+2 precedes Nino 3, then Nino 3.4 and then Nino 4 in both time and temperature.
https://imgur.com/gallery/Cja7hdM
https://imgur.com/gallery/JDp9Wuy
https://imgur.com/gallery/QMrprci
“Sailor my ass”
Not so much nowadays but I do hold a few pieces of papers (and a few trophies) in just that discipline.
AQ: Care to publish the normals that you use for Nino1+2, Nino3, Nino3.4 and Nino4?
“But hey, ENSO 3.4 warmed in April and again in May in absolute terms”
As the data clearly shows https://imgur.com/gallery/JDp9Wuy.
Was that before or after Nino 1+2 during the whole year?
RLH, In the science of meteorology, the term “Westerly” means “FROM THE WEST”. Live with it.
“Westerly means ‘FROM THE WEST'”
I know. You could have said ‘from 270 degrees’ too.
How would I know. All I see for 1.2 is the seasonal cycle.
As the data clearly shows https://imgur.com/gallery/JDp9Wuy.
Was that change in 3.4 before or after Nino 1+2 in time during the whole year?
Could it be, for instance, that Nino 1+2 has already started downwards this month but that Nino3, 3.4 and 4 will only follow that trend later on this year?
P.S. “All I see for 1.2 is the seasonal cycle”
All ENSO areas have seasonal cycles, that is what normals show.
I’m a sailor. We had some Brits onboard one time, and they asked for their Rum ration. We told them, sorry, but we were a real fighting force.
The SBS (Special Boat Service), the Marine equivalent of the SAS, are well respected the world over.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/royal-marines/special-boat-service/special-boat-service
You guys handled Argentina by yourselves. I will give you that.
Sure. All on our own.
The weak La Nina will continue until the easterly wind along the equatorial Pacific strengthens, that is, until the solar wind strength increases. If solar activity increases strongly, then the ENSO cycle will close. Until that happens, a weak La Nina will continue.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202206.gif
Solar wind has no effect on ENSO.
Absolute data for Nino areas do not report ENSO (according to you).
Index Nino 1.2 is falling again.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
According to AQ that is not important (or accurate).
According to you, West on a north-up map of the earth’s surface is to the right.
And here I was thinking Gordon was the biggest idiot for thinking the moon’s phases are caused by the earth’s shadow.
That baton has passed to you.
Anyway, I’ve spent far too long this month trying to educate clueless morons. See you next month.
As I said, I normally use degrees.
Still not going to say if data from NOAA data shows that Nino 1+2 moves first in the series are you. Coward.
https://imgur.com/gallery/QMrprci
https://imgur.com/gallery/Cja7hdM
https://imgur.com/gallery/JDp9Wuy
Central Europe may experience heavy precipitation in the coming days. It is necessary to remain vigilant.
15% of voters have seen 2000mules.
14% of them have seen that it is a fraud.
No, about 30% didn’t find it compelling but 70% did, including Democrats.
“A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 77% of those Likely U.S. voters who have seen 2000 Mules say the movie strengthened their conviction that there was systematic and widespread election fraud in the 2020 election. Only 19% of those who have seen the documentary say their belief in election fraud was weakened”
You have heard about self selection bias I hope.
“After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver’s model”
“The Rasmussen polls are often viewed as outliers due to their favorable Donald Trump approval ratings”
https://xkcd.com/2618/
“Selection bias is the bias introduced by the selection of individuals, groups, or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby failing to ensure that the sample obtained is representative of the population intended to be analyzed”
I think they’re polling the people who’ve seen the movie. Most Americans know (especially Democrats) that fraud happened in Maricopa, Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukie, and Fulton County. And, that it was enough to steal the election. If the next election goes this way our Republic is over. It might take a decade or two but it will be done.
“Maricopa”
You mean the place with the months long Cyber Ninja ‘audit’ that promised to find the election ‘fraud’, but found a great big zilch?
“I think theyre polling the people whove seen the movie”
I know.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/09/trump-january-6-hearings-capitol-attack
“In a cinematic display meant to grip a weary public, the panel weaved footage of the violence together with live testimony and videotaped depositions from some of Trump’s closest allies and family members.
These included the former attorney general, William Barr, Donald Trumps daughter and White House adviser, Ivanka Trump, his son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, and a longtime aide and spokesman, Jason Miller”
“The committee showed a clip of Barr saying he ‘repeatedly’ told Trump in no uncertain terms that he had lost the election and the claims of it being stolen because of widespread voting fraud were bullshit.
In another interview, Ivanka Trump said she ‘accepted’ Barrs determination that the presidential election had been fair”
willard…”Heres how to calculate them in five easy step:
https://scied.ucar.edu/image/measure-global-average-temperature-five-easy-steps
***
A lesson from UCAR on how to fudge temperatures to show warming.
They claim there are thousands of temperatures taken globally and daily, which is misleading, since NOAA, the provider of data for most surface users, uses less than 1500 stations globally for the solid surface.
Then they advise us to take the garnered temps and subtract each one from the ‘normal’ temperature on that day. Serious pseudo-science. The temperature on any one day could vary markedly.
Bur here’s the real fudging…divide the planet into 2596 grid cells and ‘calculate’ the average temperature anomaly for that day.
They make all this sound scientific whereas it is nothing more than cheating. They even remark ‘Look at that, it’s warmer than usual’.
These cheaters need to spend some time in jail to refine their chicanery.
The Earth’s total surface area is about 510 million km^2. Divided by 2596 and you get 196,000 km^2 and change for each grid square. That’s a square area of 443 km per side with one thermometer measuring the temperature of the area.
To demonstrate the absurdity of this, it’s like using 1 thermometer to measure the temperature of the UK. Alarmists would likely place it in Plymouth on the south coast of England where it is warmest in the UK.
Here’s how the fudging is done in actuality.
“Although we know that traits like temperature vary continuously across the face of the Earth, calculating such properties for the entire globe is beyond the reach of even the fastest supercomputers. Instead, the models typically use an algorithm that might be expressed as “calculate the temperature at a point, then move 100 km west and calculate temperature again; then move another 100 km west and repeat; once you’ve gone all the way around the globe, move 100 km north and repeat the process; and so on”. In effect, the model places “virtual weather stations” at 100 km intervals and reports the calculated properties at each of the “weather stations”. The “virtual weather stations” are located at the corners of the grid cells. So, for a model with 100 km resolution, we only know the predicted temperature (wind speed, etc.) at 100 km intervals. We can interpolate values in between “weather stations”, but the reliability of such interpolations is limited”.
https://eo.ucar.edu/staff/rrussell/climate/modeling/climate_model_resolution.html
“Alarmists would likely place it in Plymouth on the south coast of England where it is warmest in the UK”
They would never do that as it is a Maritime environment. Better at Oxford which is a long way from the sea. : )
Richard…I have punted on the river Cam but don’t recall if I got to Oxford or not.
Very different cities.
Cambridge used to be a market town with a university in the middle. Now it’s surrounded by Silicon Fen.
Oxford is an industrial city with a university in the middle.
Climatewise Cambridge is warmer and drier.
I lived in Cambridge In my youth. In Cambridge, as you know, punters stand on the platform in the stern and use a pole to push the punt forwards. In Oxford they do it wrong, they stand in the bow and push the punt backwards.
In Oxford we would say that Cambridge do it wrong.
P.S. Cambridge is not in the CET.
Come on, Gordo.
Why would anyone care about the drunken rants of a mythomaniac?
Think.
Willard, please stop trolling.
bindumbass…” When I name Robertson Putins boot licker and **** *******,
***
Knock off the foul language, you ignorant Kraut. We want to keep this blog going and idiots like you are compromising that opportunity, while compromising Roy’s integrity.
Have you no damned sense at all?
Robertson
You are on this blog the disgusting person par excellence, and merit all insults you obtain.
You are the person who is compromising every day the integrity of this blog and of his owner, through your permanent lies.
Yes, Bindidong the worst piece of scum to hit this board since David Appel
Bindidon is one of the contributors to this site.
Your characterization of him as scum is not called for. There certainly are worse regular posters on this site who contribute nothing at all including yourself.
Ken
Thank you.
[GORDO] Knock off the foul language
[ALSO GORDO] you ignorant Kraut.
In the same sentence, no less.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I actually have obtained $19700 merely a month just working parttime at home. Just when I lost my previous post, I was so disturbed and eventually I’ve searched this yeh simple online job & in this way I am capable to get thousand USD from my home. Anyone can certainly get this chance and may collect more dollars on-line by going following internet-web site….
>>> https://brightfuture241.blogspot.com/
RLH,
Why have you suddenly eschewed the CFSv2 ENSO forecasts you have promoted exclusively since you joined this site, in favour of CPC/IRI?
Could it be because for the first time in your time here CPC/IRI has finally projected a cooler forecast than CFS?
CPC/IRI probabilistic forecast:
“Though La Niña is favored to continue, the odds for La Niña decrease into the late Northern Hemisphere summer (58% chance in August-October 2022) before slightly increasing through the Northern Hemisphere fall and early winter 2022 (61% chance).”
That’s the one you’ve quoted most recently. And CFSv2?
“The CFS.v2 ensemble mean (black dashed line) indicates a transition to ENSO neutral during the Northern Hemisphere summer, with borderline La Niña conditions favored during the fall and winter.”
Hahahahahahaa!
Dude. Can you be more obvious?
“Why have you suddenly eschewed the CFSv2 ENSO forecasts”
I haven’t.
You may not have noticed that CFSv2 updates monthly.
I have.
https://imgur.com/gallery/N2ErqXP
https://imgur.com/gallery/vP8B4Ma
CDAs updates daily.
So does
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
Yes, I would be trying to change the subject, too.
So you think the large (and deep) blue areas near the Equator are not going to translate into the actual numbers differing. What are you, an idiot?
No, an idiot doesn’t know how to stay on topic.
Irrelevant to my point, and yes I did.
Daily data never shows up in monthly accumulations of course.
Yes you have. You haven’t posted the latest CFSv2 update, instead, and I think for the first time, posted CPC/IRI forecast without posting CFS.
Come on Richard, you switched groups simply because IRI gave a lower forecast. You may not even have ben aware that you did it, but you might remember that you’ve never favoured them, and almost never (until now) copied their forecast to this board.
It’s bleeding obvious, mate. You jumped ship when the forecast was at last a cooler one than CFS.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/CFSv2_body.html
and for 3.4
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Notice that it only updates the solid line portion monthly in arrears.
Of course
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
does not show large blue areas near the Equator. How do you think that is going to represent in the figures?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_global_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_relative_global_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_90day_large.gif
CFSv2 forecast update just for you:
“The CFS.v2 ensemble mean (black dashed line) indicates a transition to ENSO neutral during the Northern Hemisphere summer, with borderline La Nina conditions favored during the fall and winter.”
Is this still your favourite forecast group, or have you changed your mind about that?
tim f…”As a simple example, molecules can absorb/emit by changes in their overall rotation. That is a PHYSICAL MOTION of the molecule. Those energies are independent of the levels of the electrons in their orbits. Same for vibrational modes for the molecules”.
***
Tim…how does a physical motion produce EM? If I throw a stone through the air, does it emit EM? If I wave a stick in the air, does it emit EM. If a bicycle wheel rotates, or a jack-hammer vibrates, does either emit EM?
What is it in a molecule that absorbs/emits EM? There is only one particle known to do that in atoms, the electron. Theoretically, a proton, being a charged particle, should emit an electromagnetic field. However, protons cannot move through conductors or change energy levels in an atom.
Something has to be emitting the EM in your molecule but claiming it is the molecule itself does not explain the EM absorp-tion or emission. You need to look deeper in the molecule. What do you see? There are only atoms bonded by electrons.
Is the EM coming from the nucleus or the electrons? Bohr said it was the electrons and that has become the basis of quantum theory.
But there’s more. Electrons are particles with mass that carry an electric charge, forming an electric field around them and producing a magnetic field when the electrons moves. Do you have to go any deeper to see where EM comes from?
Gordon Roberstson
You know what EMR is. It is oscillating electric and magnetic fields that move through space. A proton will emit EMR if it is accelerated. The moving charge in a molecule takes place because of uneven charge distribution. The vibration produces the EMR because there is a oscillating charge. The vibrational part of the molecule can absorb the energy of the EMR as well.
The vibrational part of the molecule can emit EMR energy as well.
“Timhow does a physical motion produce EM? ”
You REALLY need to go back to study basic E&M! EM radiation is created by accelerating charges. Positive charges. Negative charges. It doesn’t matter.
“Electrons are particles with mass that carry an electric charge, forming an electric field around them and producing a magnetic field when the electrons moves. ”
Replace “electrons” with “protons” and it is just as true! And guess what? When a molecule vibrates, the protons move and produce E & M fields.
How does a group of molecules (atoms) have a incremental range of temperatures measurable remotely?
Not sure what you man, but UAH measure ‘brightness’ temperature of O2 molecules to derive their temp data set we most often refer to here.
“Microwave temperature sounders like AMSU measure the very low levels of thermal microwave radiation emitted by molecular oxygen in the 50 to 60 GHz oxygen ab.sorp.tion complex. This is somewhat analogous to infrared temperature sounders (for instance, the Atmospheric InfraRed Sounder, AIRS, also on Aqua) which measure thermal emission by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
…At these microwave frequencies, the intensity of thermally-emitted radiation measured by the instrument is directly proportional to the temperature of the oxygen molecules. The instrument actually measures a voltage, which is digitized by the radiometer and recorded as a certain number of digital counts.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/
As Roy has now updated his full monthly data
Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah.jpeg
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah-tropics.jpeg
Northern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah-northern-hemi-1.jpeg
Northern Ex Tropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah-northern-ex.jpeg
Northern Polar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah-north-pole.jpeg
Southern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah-southern-hemi.jpeg
Southern ExTropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah-southern-ex.jpeg
Southern Polar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah-south-pole.jpeg
Lower Troposphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah_lt.jpg
Middle Troposphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah_mt.jpg
Tropopause
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah_tp.jpg
Lower Stratosphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah_ls.jpg
Trends
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah-1.jpeg
Residuals
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah-residuals.jpeg
Month on Month
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
RLH
Thanks for the graphs. Useful information.
NP
RLH
This is just an eyeball reaction. NH, SH and SH POLAR were about what I expected. But NH POLAR is a bit of a surprise in that the so called Polar Amplification seems to be absent.
Do you have any insights or am I reading more into it than is what is there?
Also, the Lower Stratosphere was interesting. I dont think I have seen a similar graph.
Thanks
To see polar amplification one would look that the long term rate of change in the various regions. Below I’ve listed a decadal trend estimate for each region described in UAH. Note that “Land.x” and “Ocean.x” are sub-regions for the region immediately above, so “Land.1” is the land portion of NH, and so forth.
The “NoPol” region is warming at about twice the global average rate per UAH (0.25 C/decade vs 0.13 C/decade global).
Globe : 0.13
Land : 0.18
Ocean : 0.12
NH : 0.16
Land.1 : 0.19
Ocean.1 : 0.14
SH : 0.11
Land.2 : 0.16
Ocean.2 : 0.10
Trpcs : 0.12
Land.3 : 0.16
Ocean.3 : 0.11
NoExt : 0.19
Land.4 : 0.21
Ocean.4 : 0.17
SoExt : 0.10
Land.5 : 0.14
Ocean.5 : 0.09
NoPol : 0.25
Land.6 : 0.23
Ocean.6 : 0.27
SoPol : 0.01
Land.7 : 0.09
Ocean.7 : -0.02
USA48 : 0.18
USA49 : 0.18
AUST : 0.18
“Globe : 0.13
Land : 0.18
Ocean : 0.12”
etc.
How long do you expect that differing trend to continue between Land and Ocean?
“NoPol : 0.25
Land.6 : 0.23
Ocean.6 : 0.27
SoPol : 0.01
Land.7 : 0.09
Ocean.7 : -0.02”
Likewise the same question for the 2 Poles.
RLH, The UAH LT global land vs. ocean difference is the result of the large thermal capacity of the upper ocean. For the NoPol data, the land fraction is further to the south than the ocean fraction, which is mostly the high latitude Arctic Ocean. As I’ve tried to point out previously, sea-ice has a higher emissivity than open ocean, so the decline in Arctic sea-ice and increase in melt ponding for the remaining ice would appear as a cooling trend in the MSU/AMSU data.
The SoPol data is contaminated by the high elevations over the Antarctic continent and the effects of the Ozone hole
“The UAH LT global land vs. ocean difference is the result of the large thermal capacity of the upper ocean”
So you are saying that the difference recorded will never change in the future. So noted.
RLH, As long as humanity continues to spew greenhouse gasses into the air, warming the Earth, I would expect the global ocean temperature trend to lag the land surface temperature trend. Of course, there are many other man made changes which could impact those trends, time will tell.
ES: There could also be some natural cycles that will also have some effects.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1305597
I post these every month. They are just simple plots of all of Roys data.
NH (and SH) Polar is what it is.
I might add a 7 years low pass to those graphs to get more insight.
Denny
Maybe this below interests you – a superposition of UAH6.0’s LT and LS anomalies for the Globe:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OO6HpUOvk_N_tC2fUt8wzDDvMzhYM8C_/view
… and this is how the two layers look like when using absolute temperatures instead:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16GaarHUs7npnzyN5-wtJ7z0qODSKplVq/view
Well there’s a surprise. Absolute temperatures drop as we move further away from the surface. As though that was not know previously!
You could always compare anomalies/absolutes by subtracting the mean (or better still median) of all of the samples over the whole period to make to disparities much less and still retain the information content.
This would allow you not to include the erroneous monthly data spread that comes from only using an inevitably biased 30 samples (typically) for each month in the year to construct the ‘normals’.
” Absolute temperatures drop as we move further away from the surface. As though that was not know previously! ”
Typical egomaniac and superfluous comment from Superclimatologist Linsley-Hood.
The reason for posting the absolute data was solely to show Denny how inaccurate absolute data can be when the goal is to compare them, and how good anomalies are, due to their departure behavior, and also to the removal of the annual cycle.
You name everybody an idiot, Linsley-Hood. How far are you from being an idiot?
“The reason for posting the absolute data was solely to show Denny how inaccurate absolute data”
So anomalies which are based on just the same absolute data are ‘accurate’ but the absolute data itself is not.
Why do you publish only half of the data? Anomalies require that the normals are published also.
” This would allow you not to include the erroneous monthly data spread that comes from only using an inevitably biased 30 samples (typically) for each month in the year to construct the normals. ”
The problem with you, Linsley-Hood, is that you NEVER implemented the construction of any anomaly-based time series.
NOAA uses different reference periods. One of them is 1901-2000.
The difference between using that period and e.g. 1951-1980 or 1991-2020 is nearly negligible, despite the different amount of data available.
I made such a test years ago using GHCN V3 absolute data.
*
Start working instead of trying to teach, Linsley-Hood.
I can compare normals from any pair of data sources you wish. Name the period and the source (different of course).
It will inevitably show a month by month figure difference, not a single offset. Have you got the UAH 2 latest reference periods?
P.S. 1991-2020 is the current WMO recommendation.
“nearly negligible”
is what you boasted about for monthly USCRN data. You said your calculations were more accurate than USCRNs ones.
Denny
Having read your comment again, I’m wondering about what you write:
” But NH POLAR is a bit of a surprise in that the so called Polar Amplification seems to be absent. ”
Until now, I had understood the the (North) Polar Amplification is measured by the difference in trend between the Polar regions and the Globe.
– UAH Globe: 0.13 C / decade
– UAH North Pole: 0.25 (1.9)
From Remote Sensing Systems, much higher anomalies, but similar amplification factor.
– RSS Globe: 0.21 C / decade
– RSS North Pole: 0.47 (2.2)
What exactly did you mean?
RSS is based on a different ‘normals’ period so the anomalies cannot be compared directly to UAH.
Again, you play the dominant, all-time-better-knowing elementary school teacher, but fail through trying to explain what you yourself manifestly don’t take into account.
The different reference periods (1991-2020 versus 1979-1998) are here of no interest, Linsley-Hood.
1. We don’t speak about anomalies but about trends which are independent of the reference period chosen for anomaly construction.
UAH’s trends are for all regions and zones the same for 1981-2010, 1991-2020 and 1979-1998. Explained ad nauseam by Roy Spencer since evah.
2. Of interest was solely the amplification factor which keeps independent of the reference periods for the very same reason.
“The different reference periods (1991-2020 versus 1979-1998) are here of no interest”
They are if you compare anomalies from each source.
Interesting that you consider the 2 reference periods are simply separated by a common offset. In fact there are differences month to month.
“We dont speak about anomalies but about trends”
I’ll make the same observation as before. Do you expect that trend to continue into the far future. In both the Land/Ocean series and the North Polar/South Polar series. If not when will it end?
I post these every month. They are just simple plots of all of Roy’s data.
NH (and SH) Polar is what it is.
I might add a 7 years low pass to those graphs to get more insight.
In the recent past I have been stalked several times by the climate and statistics genius Linsley-Hood.
One of these stalking tracks was the repeated claim that running means aka moving averages were inappropriate tools for time series smoothing.
Here is a prose of him concerning that:
” Running means yet again. No accuracy needed, just something that can be done simply with Excel it seems. No need to take notice of what has been said by Vaughan Pratt about how all this should be done (even with Excel) or what others have done with S-G and LOWESS. Outside of Blinnys expertise so dont bother with it. ”
Yeah. This blog’s most ‘subtle’ {/sarc} polemicist at work…
*
Here is a graph showing the North Pole region anomalies of UAH 6.0 LT and the difference between a running mean and the Savitzky-Golay filter output:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KcyiUniwJMPogwnL_pagEPuN-us2DDDQ/view
Look at the tremendous inaccuracy of the running mean!
Incredible. How could I use crap like that? {/sarc}
I tested the stuff with other time windows; same result.
*
Another example, a comparison of NCEP SST anomalies for the ENSO regions Nino1+2 and Nino3+4 that I always forgot to do:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t0osgiXxHM5Q2PkLhqNQY7P8A3TRJ8ML/view
The differences are here somewhat more visible, agreed.
But unless you base your discourse on ideology, it’s hard to say which filter is nearer to the ‘truth’.
*
I anticipate that Linsley-Hood will try, as he did so often with his horrible ‘Are you saying that…’ or ‘So you recon that…’, to intentionally misrepresent what I wrote here.
*
I never claimed anywhere that filters based on finite impulse response, like are simple moving averages, would be the best tool for extracting the essence of time series.
But even if complex filters a la CTRM or Savitzy-Golay are in fine the better solution, this is very certainly not a reason to denigrate other people’s work by polemically discrediting the tools they use.
Basta ya!
“running means aka moving averages were inappropriate tools for time series smoothing”
What I actually said was that running means are a poor choice of Low Pass filters as they include a load of distortions due to the beating a square wave sampling methodology with the time series data. This is well acknowledged, except by Blinny it seems.
I use HQLP filters to try and introduce low distortion into the data. This includes the use of Gaussian CTRM and/or Savitzy-Golay LP filters.
And I was right in anticipating, as it shows.
So Bliny prefers added distortions instead of low distortion data. Quelle surprise.
And Linsley-Hood stays on discrediting and denigrating, like do all liars.
You perfectly know that what you write here is an utter lie.
Me rewording what you said is a lie? I think not.
Running means introduce errors as Vaughn Pratt said.
I mean, what does a small difference in numbers really matter? Even if they all add up (may be they cancel) as we go. First we have means rather than medians. Then we have different reference periods where things differ each month. Then we an have inaccurate filtering methodology. What’s that uncertainty? We know that to 0.001C because we have multiple samples. But if we put it all together it will come out correct in the end. Must do, wont it.
https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/27/two-more-degrees-by-2100/
We will have to see if the predictions of more La Nina than El Nino will have any effect on the global temperatures.
Obviously the models are not correct but how badly off are they?
Vaughan, Richard. Vaughan:
[RICHARD] Running means introduce errors as Vaughn said.
[VAUGHAN] I suggest estimating an average, suitably weighted, over the 75 years 2063-2137.
What Vaughn actually said was
“Instead of taking the goal to be estimating climate for 2100, perhaps plus or minus a few years, I suggest estimating an average, suitably weighted, over the 75 years 2063-2137”
No doubt when we get to 2137 it would be good thinking to take his advice looking back at 2100.
Vaughan Pratt said:-
1.2067 then 1.5478
12 / 1.2067 = 9.94447667191514 = ~10
12 / 1.5478 = 7.752939656286342 = ~8
So 12, 10, 8 as the yearly CTRM values
What is a weighted moving average, Richard?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Big 5 Natural Causes of Climate Change part 5: Clouds the Moderators of Warming and Extreme Heat
Jim Steele
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiQ6bLiWNmw
Transcript
https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2022/06/big-5-natural-causes-of-climate-change.html
Having been busy these days with NCEP’s ENSO SST data, I thought it would make sense to compare NCEP’s Nino3+4 and Nino1+2 data with UAH’s LT grid data for the grid cells exactly above these regions (5S-5N — 170W-120W resp. 0S-10S — 90W-80W):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f0qJxzwaBpDxQ8Z5RPAj5A3Z3GtXq7MW/view
What an amazing correlation!
*
The comparison of NCEP with UAH for Nino1+2 however shows less correlation, maybe due to the very small Nino1+2 region:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kZDJDMTTJfU8AotUweXYhtkABd0RZuML/view
Care to publish the normals on which those anomalies are based?
Care to publish the normals on which those anomalies are based?
On dirait que Linsley-Hood est tellement dominé par son propre complexe de supériorité qu'il n'a même plus le temps de lire les graphiques avec l'attention qui s'impose…
Buvez un bon coup de rouge, allez vous coucher et laissez-moi donc en paix, Linsley-Hood.
Vous êtes incroyablement ennuyeux.
I hate this blog scanner.
Should read
On dirait que Linsley-Hood est tellement dominé par son propre complexe de supériorité qu'il n'a même plus le temps de lire les graphiques avec l'attention qui s'impose…
Buvez un bon coup de rouge, allez vous coucher et laissez-moi donc en paix, Linsley-Hood.
Vous êtes incroyablement ennuyeux.
For those who don’t speak French.
“Looks like Linsley-Hood is so overpowered. by his own superiority complex; that he doesn’t even have time to read the charts with due attention…
Drink a good shot of red, go to bed, and leave me alone, Linsley-Hood.
You are incredibly boring.”
So you don’t think that having all of the data is useful in a scientific context.
” So you dont think that having all of the data is useful in a scientific context. ”
What about reading the charts again, Linsley-Hood, instead of endlessly insinuating?
What about looking at what I posted about alternative methods for reducing the spread without introducing the monthly errors that choosing any particular reference period does?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1311227
Publish the normals on which those anomalies are based.
Doesn’t matter what language you speak, it’s all crap.
Blinny hides behind a ‘nom-de-plume’. He does have the courage to publish his real name.
R H L hath spoken!
What’s Eboy’s name, again?
What’s yours?
I use a nom-de-plume by request to avoid embarrassing my children. They don’t want it known that their old dad argues with climate change denialists.
I just report the data with HQLP filters added.
Gordo and Troglodyte make fools of themselves daily under their alleged birth names.
R L H lies in an intriguing in-between.
I have long posted under my real name, in fact ever since the Internet came around.
That you post under your name from time to time may not imply everybody knows you. Take Antonin, for instance. He did not stumble upon it before you started your spamming campaign against him.
Why do you keep stretching the bounds of justified disingenuousness, Richard?
Why do you think that I post under my initials rather than my full name? Could there be a reason for that?
[RLH] B hides behind a “nom-de-plume”. He does [not] have the courage to publish his real name.
[ALSO RLH] Why do you think that I post under my initials rather than my full name? Could there be a reason for that?
My initials are directly linked to my full name. Can you find where?
[RLH] B hides behind a nom-de-plume. He does [not] have the courage to publish his real name.
[ALSO RLH] Why do you think that I post under my initials rather than my full name? Could there be a reason for that?
[AND THEN RLH] My initials are directly linked to my full name. Can you find where?
“Can you find where?”
Well can you?
Why do you think I keep calling you “Richard,” Richard, and why would you expect readers to be ninjas?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Superdeveloping La Nina progress has been updated
https://i.postimg.cc/htXWCXq7/mei-lifecycle-current.png
Not unprecedented at all. Even though this month is below all the other at this month in the cycle. Who need records?
For those who prefer their urls on the net rather than just images.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/mei_lifecycle_current.png
MEI v2 starts in 1979.
Before that year, there were lots of El Ninos and La Ninas.
And there was also MEI v1, with historical data going back to 1871:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.ext/
Then, the current situation looks like this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
But… that was the past, which for some doesn’t exist anymore, unless they suddenly need it back again.
*
But as I’ve admitted many times, the current La Nina is more enduring than I thought at the same time last year: it has now 24 months of activity.
I’m not thrilled at all!
Still hoping for La Nina going away ???
You can take some tips from these guys
https://youtu.be/aMTLs4qfJtI
There soon will be statistically significant more La Nina than El Nino over the last 25 years. According to climate.gov.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
Of course the monthly curve, whilst a record for this time in the cycle, is not unprecedented.
Now that’s the truth.
Not big on irony are you? How can a record not be unprecedented?
Oh dear, I thought you’d grown up.
I love irony. I’m not big on sensationalizing.
At least 5 of the double-dip la Ninas has a record-breaking, unprecedented month.
Five!
When you read some ‘warmist’ here saying that a certain month is the warmest in the record – let’s say it was the warmest September ever since 1979….
Do you go wow?
Or, please be honest, what do you actually think?
How can a record not be unprecedented?
I thought you might answer my question. Oh well, nicely dodged.
Today marks the longest amount of time I have been alive.
Is my age unprecedented?
It actually is for me. But the meaning of the word ‘unprecedented’ is traduced here.
Or more analogously…
I have never been so cold as the past week. This was unprecedented for me.
But other people have been even colder than me.
Calling this unprecedented, just because it happened to this particular human being is silly. Like trying to create excitement over something that has actually happened before with even greater intensity, but not at the same time (day, month, season).
You can call the recent low in la Nina unprecedented for the particular time of year, but the descriptor is just sensationalism, as with the above. Other double dip la Ninas have been colder at other times. Why being the coldest in May this year, but not the coldest at other times, nor the longest la Nina double dip, nor the coldest on average… is sensational, I’m not sure.
I also don’t find ‘warmest September ever’ particularly impressive, and you saw me very recently telling someone who advanced a similar idea (on the ‘warmist’ side) that one month’s datum tells you next to nothing. You are pushing the same kind of hype in a different direction.
And apparently now pretending that it’s simply a technical term. Pfffft.
May 2022 was the warmest May in the temperature record that occurred during any double-dip la Nina.
By George, this is unprecedented!
Climate.gov does not agree with you.
https://imgur.com/gallery/8AC3rda
Where do they contradict that May 2022 was the warmest ever May in a double-dip la Nina?
I don’t see anything about that in your link, nor the word “unprecedented” in relation to the double-dip la Nina.
I had another look. You’re not gunna believe this.
In 2022
January was the warmest ever January in a double-dip la Nina
February was the warmest ever February in a double-dip la Nina
March was the warmest ever March in a double-dip la Nina
April was the warmest ever April in a double-dip la Nina
May was the warmest ever May in a double-dip la Nina
Unprecedented 5 times in a row!!!!
But there’s more.
That’s 3 tri-month averages the warmest ever in a double dip la Nina all in the same 5 months!!
Unprecedented, by jingo.
And I’m pretty sure the climate.gov website aint disagreeing with me.
If we get some more unprecedented lows in la Nina for the time of year, we can double-team these stats and get some really intense unprecedentds going, yeah? High five!
La Nina explains superdeveloping La Nina is the most intense at this time of the year since 1950 and the effect of it
https://youtu.be/5vWwxOaXNUg
Bindicast La Nina gone by April LOL ,
Did you save some ha ha has for this ??? I did.
Did he say which year? : )
tim f…”Replace electrons with protons and it is just as true! And guess what? When a molecule vibrates, the protons move and produce E & M fields”.
***
Now you are being an idiot by claiming I need to return to school while you spew out such nonsense.
You are trying to claim that protons in the nucleus of an atom can produce EM just as easily as electrons. Silly Bohr, silly Schrodinger, and all those who contributed to quantum theory for not noticing Tim’s theory. Both Bohr and Schrodinger based quantum theory on the properties of electrons, they only used the nucleus for base measurement to the first electron orbital (Bohr radius), and for mass measurements.
Why do you think it is, in all of quantum theory related to atoms, that only electron transitions are credited with emitting and absorbing EM?
At least you have progressed, Tim, you are now looking inside the molecule rather than positing innuendo about magical locations in a molecule that can absorb and emit EM.
Daily Sun: 07 Jun 22
Solar wind
speed: 302.5 km/sec
density: 8.47 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 45
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +3.9% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.8%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
“QUIET SUN: Following months of almost uninterrupted solar activity, the sun is taking a break. Today there are only a handful of small sunspots, and not one of them poses a threat for strong flares.”
–THE VENUS CLOUD DISCONTINUITY: A towering wall of acid clouds is racing through the atmosphere of Venus. Luigi Morrone photographed it from Agerola, Italy, on June 4th:
“It’s called the Venus Cloud Discontinuity,” says Morrone, who is part of an international network of amateur astronomers who have been tracking the massive structure. “I used a 14-inch Celestron telescope to record the discontinuity twice in 20 minutes.”
The Venus Cloud Discontinuity is a relatively new discovery, photographed by Japan’s Venus orbiter Akatsuki in 2016 and first spotted by JAXA scientist Javier Peralta. The massive structure cuts vertically across Venus’s equator, stretching almost 5000 miles from end to end, and circles the planet faster than 200 mph, making one lap every ~5 Earth days.
Researchers following up on the discovery soon stumbled onto another surprise. Older photographs of Venus showed it, too. “[The Cloud Discontinuity] is a recurrent phenomenon that has gone unnoticed since at least the year 1983,” —
That posted, other posts didn’t. And continue regarding, VENUS CLOUD DISCONTINUITY.
“Researchers still aren’t sure what the Cloud Discontinuity is. “This atmospheric disruption is a new meteorological phenomenon, unseen on other planets. Because of this it is difficult to provide a confident physical interpretation,” says Peralta. Numerical simulations suggest that it might be some kind of exotic nonlinear Kelvin wave; the jury’s still out.
Whatever it is, the structure might help solve a longstanding mystery: Why does Venus’s atmosphere rotate so much faster than the planet itself? The hot, deadly air on Venus spins nearly 60 times faster than its surface, an effect known as “super-rotation.” Venus’s Cloud Discontinuity could be assisting the spin-up by transporting angular momentum from the deep atmosphere to the cloudtops. “
Solar wind
speed: 314.1 km/sec
density: 6.86 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 23
Updated 08 Jun 2022
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.48×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +4.5% Elevated
The Cloud Discontinuity: It seems one will in most intense sunlight where sun is closer to zenith {angle sun higher 45 degrees above horizon [or less 45 degree away from zenith].
If air was not moving, it make bubble or donut. But since it’s moving, air enter at -45 degree, reaches 0, and leaves at + 45 degrees longitude.
And have regions near polar regions getting very little sunlight and air cooling and falling [and replaced warmed higher air from “tropics”].
And Venus terminator line is supposed to falling upper air which might make a large sound.
Anyhow it seems one has many things making lines/waves/walls. And assume the Sun gravity gradient would create tides.
Daily Sun: 08 Jun 22
Solar wind
speed: 305.8 km/sec
density: 9.40 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 0
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 1 day
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.51×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.0% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.2%
{bad time to go to Mars}
[and Atmosphere has not increased drag much in this Solar Max,
so space debris has been removed much}
Also:
“BLANK SUN: Today the sun is blank–no sunspots. This is a remarkable development more than 2 years after the start of surging Solar Cycle 25. The situation won’t last long, though. NASA’s STEREO-A spacecraft is monitoring a likely sunspot group approaching from behind the sun’s northeastern limb.”
https://www.spaceweather.com/
A new sunspot is growing at the circled location.
[[And the other sunspot coming to near side, have not arrived,
yet, from the farside of sun]]
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2022 total: 1 day (<1%)
Solar wind
speed: 288.7 km/sec
density: 14.31 protons/cm3
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.36×1010 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.5% High
48-hr change: +1.6%
[getting worse to go to Mars}
"A STRANGE NEW SUNSPOT: A new sunspot is emerging in the sun's southern hemisphere–and it's a little strange. For one thing, it is circular. For another, its magnetic field is tilted 90 degrees away from normal sunspots. This one merits watching."
https://www.spaceweather.com/
[the sun is strange and I would guess is going to get even weirder, but I sure the sun is doing just fine, we just don't understand it.
We don't understand many things. We need to explore space, to have any chance of knowing anything.]
Daily Sun: 11 Jun 22
Solar wind
speed: 347.5 km/sec
density: 12.16 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 33
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.12×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +6.5% High
48-hr change: +1.5%
Solar min type conditions, very bad time to go to
Mars- unless you have a lot radiation shielding.
And if got starship that can carry 100 passengers and you are bringing 3 crew to Mars, one could have a lot radiation shielding.
Other than water, liquid Hydrogen is good shielding.
And if bring say 20 tons of LH2, one make a lot water if combined
with CO2 of Mars atmosphere to make Liquid Methane.
But of course one going to send crew to Mars anytime soon, but in future when could send crew GCR could be much higher – higher than we ever seen.
Anyways, what we are probably seeing is double peak, but could be weaker than cycle 24.
norman…”You know what EMR is. It is oscillating electric and magnetic fields that move through space. A proton will emit EMR if it is accelerated. The moving charge in a molecule takes place because of uneven charge distribution. The vibration produces the EMR because there is a oscillating charge. The vibrational part of the molecule can absorb the energy of the EMR as well”.
***
I don’t use the acronym EMR since in my field, EM suffices, You know immediately that EM is radiation and I find it redundant to add the R.
I mentioned in a recent post that protons as positive charges should emit EM as well, however, everything we do in the electronics/electrical field is based on electrons, not protons.
An atom or molecule moving through space is surrounded by the negative charges of electrons, but that won’t generate an electromagnetic field with a frequency since linear motion is not a vibratory motion. It might produce a stationary EM filed, like around a magnet, but it won’t have a frequency associated.
Within the atom, it’s a different matter. Electrons are moving in orbits at incredible speeds. However, it’s not till the electron drops down to a lower orbit that it emits a quantum of EM equal to the potential difference between orbital energy levels and the angular frequency of the electron at the higher orbital.
The frequency imparted to emitted EM is based on the number of times the electron orbits the higher energy level per second. When it does make the jump downward, the frequency emitted is totally discrete, measurable at one frequency or wavelength.
It makes no sense to claim the same for protons since they don’t change energy levels in a nucleus.
The uneven charge distribution to which you refer is caused by electronegativity. The more protons an atom has the more it can attract electrons to it. In the CO2 molecule, there are two oxygen atoms at either end of bonds to a carbon atom. The O-atom is more electronegative therefore electrons it shares with carbon tend to be found closer to the oxygen atom, making the bond polarized with its negative end at the O-atoms. The C-atoms side is not positive, it is less negative, meaning it is positive only wrt the O-atom electron charge.
Here again, that won’t generate EM because the electrons in the covalent bonds are orbiting both atoms and a static accumulation of charge won’t generate EM. EM emission occurs only at one discrete frequency related to electrons dropping from one particular orbital energy level to another.
Gordon,
Niels Bohr would like to contradict you.
You said:
“The constituent atoms can dictate the shape of the molecule, its atomic weight, obviously, it particular charge, etc., but nothing is added that can deal with EM separate from the electrons already making up the atoms.”
Bohr said:
“furthermore, hydrogen atoms at ordinary conditions combine into molecules, i.e., into system in which the electrons have frequencies different from those in the atoms”
On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules Niels Bohr, 1913 (p. 15)
As we keep telling you, it is the structure of molecules that determine the frequencies at which the electrons operate, and which determines the spectra at which radiation is absorbed.
The section that quote comes from, by the way, is titled “Ab.sorp.tion of Radiation.”
You need to re-read what you think you’ve learned.
barry…”Bohr said:
furthermore, hydrogen atoms at ordinary conditions combine into molecules, i.e., into system in which the electrons have frequencies different from those in the atoms”
***
Glad you are reading Bohr but you are cherry-picking him. The two atoms making up the hydrogen atoms in the hydrogen molecule are still two proton nucleii and two electrons. Naturally, the bonding will involve different orbitals hence difference frequencies.
Here’s info on the straight hydrogen atom with one obvious error, they claim the Bohr model was replaced by quantum theory, Bohr uses quantum theory as the basis of his model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series
There are a lot of snobs in the quantum field who tend to follow sci-fi versions of quantum theory. Bohr became guilty of that later in his career and alienated Einstein and Schrodinger.
When you combine two hydrogen atoms you can have several isotopes like deuterium and tritium. Deuterium differs from singular hydrogen since it has a neutron in its nucleus making it heavier. Apparently that affects it emission spectra but very little.
“In this projects, we calculated three of the visible wavelengths in the hydrogen spectrum to be 656.478 nm, 486.542 nm, and 434.415 nm. For deuterium we calculated that these wavelengths shift to 656.296 nm, 486.409 nm, and 434.295 nm respectively due to the additional mass in the neutron in the nucleus.
http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~jmil/physics/legacy/student_projects/2001/fiacco.shtml
No matter how you look at it, there are only two charged particles in any atoms, protons and neutrons, and they account for all vibration and rotation. The electrons deal with the EM.
GR: How can a hydrogen atom or molecule have a range of incremental temperatures that can be measured remotely via EM(R)? Surely it can only show discrete temperatures according to you?
The electrons will follow any fibrational movement in the protons.
Hydrogen atoms should only have one proton. H2 molecule should have two. Electrons have a charge that counteracts the proton’s positive charge.
You guys are funny the way you quote Wiki all the time. EMR occurs when a photon is emitted from a molecule due to a change in energy state. These energy states are quantized. Photons are emitted when it goes from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. Absorp.tion of photons or kinetic energy elevates atoms or molecules to a higher energy state. The absorbing energy must match the change in quantized energy levels.
“EMR occurs when a photon is emitted from a molecule due to a change in energy state”
EMR is also produced when electric charges move.
“Electrons have a charge that counteracts the protons positive charge”
What is the mass ratio between electrons and protons?
Protons have a lot more mass of course. They are essentially hydrogen ions. Protons have an atomic mass of 1 whereas electrons are 10 to the minus twenty-something, going from memory. Smaller than Avogadro’s number.
So if protons vibrate they will move the electrons around, not so much in the other direction.
>EMR is produced when electric charges move.
In order to emit a photon, energy has to change from a higher state to a lower state. Energy has to be conserved. Even with an X-ray machine energy has to be conserved. Those are high energy state (high frequency) electrons created from applied voltage.
“In order to emit a photon, energy has to change from a higher state to a lower state”
So all that guff about moving charges producing changing electromagnetic fields are wrong, or are those fields carried by something other than EM?
Sorry, I meant inverse of Avogadro’s number-10^0/10^23.
No, not guff. Charges moving through a magnetic field would be like a car skidding on asphalt. The magnetic field would act as resistance to the charge, changing its energy state. A photon could be emitted but energy/mass must be conserved.
Also, if a proton or electron flips, like in NMR, this is a change in the energy state.
Charges moving even without a background magnetic field produce EM.
Give me an example.
I mean for instance if you had a proton stream. They’re produced at high energy and immediately start decelerating so I can see where the change in energy produces a photon. Charged particles in a zero-gravity field, and vacuum, have no interactions produce no EM.
Charged radioactive decay daughters produce gamma rays but they are at a higher unstable state and go to a lower state, emitting a photon. Again, energy is conserved.
“Give me an example”
Electrostatic charges.
“Glad you are reading Bohr”
But you aren’t Gordon.
He explains that when the atoms form molecules, this changes the frequencies of the atoms:
“furthermore, hydrogen atoms at ordinary conditions combine into molecules, i.e., into systems in which the electrons have frequencies different from those in the atoms”
This accords perfectly with the link I gave you describing how molecules of different structure absorb differently, and the empirical database of spectra for different atoms and molecules, where different molecules comprised of the same variety of atoms have different spectral lines.
There is no object in the universe that has a single spectral line.
There is no object in the universe that emits and absorbs at one frequency or that has a single energy state. every object, molecule and atom has a broad range of wavelengths at which it emits, and energy states it can attain.
That is why warmer objects can absorb radiation from colder ones – cold objects emit at frequencies and energies which overlap with those of warmer ones.
Bohr offers you some advice:
“Experiments on the phenomena of X-rays suggest that… the emission and ab.sorp.tion of radiation cannot be treated by the help of the ordinary electrodynamics…
…the theory of the stationary states possibly may afford a simple basis of representing a number of experimental facts which cannot be explained by help of the ordinary electrodynamics, and that assumptions used do not seem to be inconsistent with experiments on phenomena for which a satisfactory explanation has been given by the classical dynamics and the wave theory of light.”
I gather from phrases and concepts you’ve used here that you are conversant with the physics of electricity. The same rules do not apply equally to EM radiation, though some generalities do. You cannot analogise radiative ab.sorp.tion with electronics, nor mistake one for the other.
In the same way that one cannot mistake heat transfer per classical thermodynamics with radiative transfer per statistical mechanics.
All that keyboard extravaganza just to attempt to cover his perversion of physics. barry keeps trying to boil water with ice cubes — “That is why warmer objects can absorb radiation from colder ones…”
Warmer objects can ALSO reflect photons. There is NO natural mechanism that requires an object to absorb photons. Photons get reflected all the time. That’s why we see things. Our eyes are detecting reflected photons. For photons to be absorbed, a surface has to have a compatible molecular structure and a compatible temperature, with the arriving photons.
barry doesn’t understand the relevant physics. He didn’t even realize his beliefs meant that ice cubes could boil water. He probably still doesn’t understand that because he’s braindead.
Actually it is you, Clint R, that doesn’t understand the physics.
Barry, who clearly has a better understanding of quantum physics, is correct.
You are wrong, wrong, wrong.
I’m not wrong, troll Ken. I just go with reality, which is counter to your cult beliefs. As I recall, you even supported the nonsense that ice cubes can boil water!
There’s NO evidence you understand any of this.
But keep trolling in support of your fellow cult idiots. They need all the help they can get….
Clint R
Complete bullshit!
There is nothing in physics that has IR reflecting off a surface off a surface based on temperature of the surface. You just make up stupid things and call them reality. You suffer God Complex. You think your mind creates reality. Show us where there is an equation that has reflectivity of IR based on surface temp. If you can’t provide this then kindly shut-up!
Hi Norman.
If I provide you with a source, will you agree to not comment here for 90 days?
(You need a break from your meltdown anyway. You’re frothing at the mouth.)
Clint R
You will never provide proof. Evidence is not in yor agenda of misleading the ignorant. No you are not capable of proving any of your false points. It does not prevent you from intentional deceit.
Once again we see your aversion to learning, Norman.
Likely that’s why you’re always angry and frustrated.
“barry keeps trying to boil water with ice cubes”
Liar. Dirty liar, actually, as it’s been repeated so often.
If you don’t like the label, please quote me “trying to boil water with ice cubes.”
I’ll state (once more *1) that I completely disagree this is possible to do with the radiative flux emitted by ice cubes. And I’ll save this comment to demonstrate that you have been told (again *2), and also to refer to when we see below that you either:
a) don’t quote me
b) fail to respond
Thus demonstrating your lie.
barry, you don’t understand any of this and you don’t even understand that you don’t understand. Let me try to explain, again.
* You believe that fluxes add.
* An ice cube emits 315 W/m^2
* You believe two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface add to 630 W/m^2.
* If that surface has emissivity = 1, and is perfectly insulated on the back, it will be emitting 630 W/m^2 at equilibrium, you believe
* That means the surface is at 325 K, due to the two 315 W/m^2 irradiances
It follows then that three 315 W/m^2 fluxes would result in 945 W/m^2 and then, 359 K. And 4 315 W/m^2 fluxes would result in 1260 W/m^2, 386 K.
386 K = 113C = 235F, is plenty enough to boil water.
You believe ice can boil water, but you’re too braindead to realize it. And your lame insults confirm your devotion to your cult.
That’s why this is so much fun.
barry, Clint R hasn’t ever been able to understand ice cubes emit diffuse radiation into a hemisphere of directions from their surfaces. That type of radiation cannot be focused onto one surface in such a short distance.
Dr. Spencer proved Clint’s 6:45 am comment wrong using experiments years ago but Clint persists in writing humorously wrong physics comments creating “so much fun” as Clint writes.
Braindead4, are you now denying all of your previous comments where you stated ice can boil water?
No humorous Clint 8:27 am, Dr. Spencer’s experiments showed how to boil water with added ice cubes.
Dr. Spencer must be a great scientist.
Thank you, Clint. you did not quote me saying the radiative flux from ice cubes could boil water. So you are indeed a liar.
“You believe that fluxes add.”
Inasmuch as I trust physics texts saying so over your unsubstantiated announcements to the contrary? Certainly.
“An ice cube emits 315 W/m^2”
No. An ice cube emits 306 W/m2, because it is not a blackbody. Ice has emissivity of 0.97, not 1. But let’s keep to the same ol’ wrong numbers for convenience.
“You believe two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface add to 630 W/m^2.”
Yep. But that flux arriving at the same surface could not be emitted by 2 ice cubes, because view F < 1. You are, as always, completely neglecting view factor with yer daft ice cubes thing.
"If that surface has emissivity = 1, and is perfectly insulated on the back, it will be emitting 630 W/m^2 at equilibrium, you believe"
Nope. You have not factored in the rest of the environment F < 1.
"That means the surface is at 325 K, due to the two 315 W/m^2 irradiances"
Nope. You have not factored in the rest of the environment. Two ice cubes or 3 ice cubes or 100 ice cubes won't irradiate a surface to 315 W/m2. The only way this could happen is if the entire hemisphere of view was one big dome of ice, and the resulting irradiance on the surface could then be only 315 W/m2 (or more properly, 306 W/m2), maximum.
For just one ice cube to irradiate a surface at 315 W/m2, the view factor has to be unity. And if you're thinking that subdividing that unitary dome of ice into a dome of ice cubes will present a confounding issue for summing, then you will have neglected to account for the subdivision of the area component as well.
View factors, Clint. Learn about them.
View factors is why two fluxes yielding 315 W/m2 to a surface must come from sources each with a radiosity (emission + reflection) greater than 315 W/m2.
This is why 2 lightbulbs can provide 2 independent fluxes that can be summed higher than 315 W/m2, but 2 ice cubes can't. The temperature of ice is obviously capped. The temperature of the lightbulbs will be whatever they need to be to provide 315 W/m2 each to the surface, depending on view factor.
Sorry barry, but I didn’t read it all. It seems you are trying to deny your own nonsense, while still clinging to it.
You can waste more time on your keyboard than Norman.
And, that’s saying a lot….
“View factors, Clint. Learn about them.”
Oh, the irony.
” You believe that fluxes add.”
Actually Barry’s legitimate source showed that, and Clint acknowledged it.
“* An ice cube emits 315 W/m^2”
OK
“You believe two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface add to 630 W/m^2.”
Again, the source showed just that, and Clint acknowledged it.
Clint has no source that disputes this.
Oh well, facts don’t matter to this loser.
Yeah DREMT, I missed that part about “view factors”. It’s just more evidence barry doesn’t understand any of this. He reads something on wiki, and believes he understands it!
View factors have NOTHING to do with my comment. I’m clearly talking about the flux arriving at the surface.
And barry keeps making a big deal about the exact flux an ice cube emits. That’s just another distraction. If the arriving flux is not enough, he’s allowed to add more ice. Because, in his perverted cult, flux simply adds. So if one ice cube only brings 300 W/m^2 to the surface, a second ice cube would bring the total to 600 W/m^2, in his perverted “thinking”. I’ve always said they can use all the ice they want. They STILL can’t boil water with only ice.
Must be frustrating for barry to be constantly undermined in his arguments by Ball4 and bobdroege, who are both happy to brazenly state that ice cubes can boil water, and believe it is proven by experiment. Of course, bob’s experiment involves blocking convective cooling using an ice lid, so it has absolutely nothing to do with radiative heat transfer and thus proves absolutely nothing of any relevance to the discussion…and God only knows what experiment of Dr Spencer’s Ball4 is talking about, because he never says…but still, must be frustrating for the barryster.
DREMPTY,
Yes, once in a while a blind pig finds an acorn.
You are correct that my claim to be able to boil water using an ice lid is irrelevant.
That’s because Clint R’s claim that the greenhouse effect is like trying to boil water with ice is also irrelevant.
It stems from a misunderstanding of the Wien displacement law and the inference that CO2 in the atmosphere acts like a blackbody.
Both of which are straw man arguments against the greenhouse effect theory and have no merit.
DREMT 7:05 am, surely even you can type the word “experiment” into this blog’s search engine.
Yes, Ball4, I did that the last time you mentioned it. Which of the many results are you referring to as the particular experiment in which Dr Spencer "showed how to boil water with added ice cubes"?
All hits that have the word “experiment” in the post title.
Braindead bob gets it all WRONG, again.
Believing that CO2 can heat the surface is like believing ice cubes can boil water. The false beliefs come from the false beliefs that fluxes simply add. In the case of CO2, the false belief is flux from CO2 in the atmosphere adds to solar to raise Earth’s temperature. But, we know from radiative physics and thermodynamics, that fluxes do NOT simply add.
The braindead cult idiots can’t understand this. That’s why it’s so much fun.
“We” meaning DREMT and Clint wrongly know from using incorrect radiative physics and incorrect thermodynamics; proven once the experiments reported on this blog are properly understood.
OK, I looked at “all hits that have the word “experiment” in the post title”, and in none of them did Dr Spencer show “how to boil water with added ice cubes". Ball4 is lying again. He does that a lot.
Yes, I believe that is Troll Trick #26 — “Claim a link or source says something it doesn’t say”.
Ball4 is infamous for using that trick a lot. He used it extensively with his “real 255 K nonsense”. Norman has learned to use it also.
Sure, those wrong answers are expected from DREMT and Clint R who both repeatedly incorrectly claim the 1LOT has been debunked.
All “experiment” hits on Dr. Spencer’s posts mean: “Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still”
An ice cube is an added cool object compared to warmer object such as water about to boil on surface at 1bar in Alabama summer. Dr. Spencer experimentally shows how to boil water adding ice cubes thus the 1LOT has NOT been debunked as DREMT and Clint R repeatedly claim.
Clint R.
“But, we know from radiative physics and thermodynamics, that fluxes do NOT simply add.”
Maybe you could find a source that supports that thought, or maybe you could admit that they do add, but like vectors.
And that the Trenberth diagram does add them that way.
Nah, you are not man enough to do that.
You are hiding behind your real 255 degree surface.
So, according to Ball4, unless you agree that an experiment by Dr Spencer involving convection proves that ice cubes can boil water, you are claiming that 1LoT has been debunked!? I’m not sure, it’s hard to make sense of what he’s saying. It’s like he’s drunk, most of the time.
“Must be frustrating for barry to be constantly undermined in his arguments by Ball4 and bobdroege”
Is that’s what’s happening?
Well I thought that they were referring to but not explaining how they reckon ice could be used to boil water, probably through an apparatus where the ice is used to reduce convection from a heated area. Igloos do that. I haven’t paid much attention to that conversation, and it happened way before this thread.
I’m pretty sure they would agree that it is impossible for the radiative flux of any number of ice cubes to boil water, as I’ve been saying. Maybe someone could ask them?
Sure, barry, you can try getting a straight answer out of Ball4 if you like.
barry, refer to Dr. Spencer’s past posts titled: “Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still” to learn how added ice cubes can increase the temperature of surface water several inches deep overnight in summertime Alabama both theoretically and practically.
Ball4 undermines barry again.
Dr. Spencers testing completely undermines the often physically wrong “so much fun” Clint R.
Ball4 keeps undermining barry.
We have the by NASA the satellite measured mean temperatures at 1 bar level for gaseous planets.
Gaseous Planets Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune at1bar level mean temperatures T1bar 165 K, 134 K, 72 K comparison.
Gaseous planets Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune average at 1bar level (satellite measured) temperatures T1bar relate (everything else equals) as their rotational spins’ (N) sixteenth root.
It happens the same exactly way as the rocky inner planets Mercury, Moon and Mars average surface temperatures, and also as the Earth with Europa average surface temperatures.
It is a demonstration of the Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Please visit my site at page “JupiterSaturn165/134” where I have demonstrated the temperatures comparisons.
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445559910
“The internal heat generation of Jupiter is about 6 Watts per square meter. The amount of sun energy that falls onto Jupiter is about 10 watts per square meter. So unlike the case on Earth Jupiter’s output due to internal processes (contraction) is about half as large as the input due to sunlight falling on its clouds.”
https://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=65
Agree or disagree?
Thank you, gbaikie, for you respond.
Yes, I disagree with the concept Jupiter or the other gaseous planets having any significant (comparable with the incident solar flux) the inner source energy output.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ok. I don’t have any specific opinion about the amount internal heat generated which is in turn emitted to space from Jupiter, but do you disagree with number of about 5 watts per square meter and that Earth number is about .01 watts per square meter or compared to Earth the difference being Jupiter emits about 500 times more per square meter.
Yes, I disagree.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06107-2#:
IIRC Jupiter is a net emitter of radiation. The extra energy is thought to come from two main processes.
1) Radioactive decay.
2) The planet is shrinking slowly, converting gravitational potential energy into heat. A similar process was once suggested to explain global warming on Earth, but the maths didn’t work out.
A basic energy budget for Jupiter looks like this.
Input:-
Solar irradiance 50W/m^2
Insolation at TOA 50/4= 12.5W/m^2
Albedo 0.5.
Absorbed at top of atmosphere 12.5*0.5= 6.25W/m^2
Output:-
Brightness temperature 109K
Radiant emission 7.6W/m^2
https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
The planet absorbs 6.25W/m^2 and emits 7.6W/m^2. That is a net emission of 1.35W/m^2. Jupiter is emitting more energy than it receives.
Your “energy budget” is as flawed for Jupiter as is the one for Earth, Ent.
“Brightness temperature 109K”.
Planets are not blackbodies…
But let’s, for discussion sake, let’s calculate the Jupiter’s planet blackbody effective temperature (the brightness temperature):
Te = [(1-a)S /4σ]∕ ⁴
let’s substitute a =0,503
S = 50 W/^2
Te = [(1-0,503)50(W/m^2) /4*5,67*10⁻⁸(W/m2K⁴)] ∕ ⁴ =
Te = (0,497*50 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸) ∕ ⁴ =
Te = (109.569.901) ∕ ⁴ = 102,3 K
So we have Jupiter’s brightness temperature Te =102,3 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth’s a gray body. Just as is CO2. And, everything else that isn’t black.
While there are no known perfect blackbodies, our sun is a close approximate. Its radiation profile is very close to that of a blackbody at the same temperature.
The Sun emits radiation over the entire spectrum. Black bodies don’t.
By definition blackbodies emit perfectly at the designated temperature. Every object in the known universe at a given temperature emits less perfectly than a blackbody at the same temperature.
That is why emissivity is expressed as the fraction of a blackbody in the math. The sun’s emissivity is approx 0.99. A blackbody is 1.
https://open.library.okstate.edu/rainorshine/chapter/11-2-radiation-basics/
Thus, a blackbody would emit in as broad a spectrum as the sun, if not slightly broader, and would have no defect in the radiation spectrum, whereas the sun does.
https://cseligman.com/text/sun/blackbody.htm
That doesn’t really make sense to me. A black body at around 288K emits mostly infrared. To emit other wavelengths the body’s temperature has to change. The Sun, at over 5000K, emits the entire spectrum. This isn’t due to blackbody emission but fusion, magnetic fields, gravity, loss of mass and energy, and all the other crap going on inside. It isn’t blackbody emission.
Stephen, that’s in part incorrect, a 288K ideal blackbody with emissivity 1.0 conforming to Planck’s law emits non-zero radiation at every frequency according to that law’s function. No hedging here, every means every.
You are correct though that our sun emits over the entire spectrum but is not emitting blackbody radiation because it is not enclosed in an opaque cavity.
I agree with that, and it is intuitively sensical since you’d expect a black body to absorb all radiation and re-emit, and it would have to be in thermal equilibrium. The predominant radiation would depend on temperature. This phenomenon has nothing to do with Earth.
You understand that a blackbody can be any temperature, and that a blackbody object at the same size and temperature of the sun would emit light just as brightly as the sun? Like a blackbody at the same temperature, the sun’s peak emission band of wavelengths is in the spectrum of light visible to our eyes.
I would think Jupiter having stuff fall into it causes more than heat as compared planet’s shrinking. But when a space rock impacting creating far energy than nuclear bombs, such intense energies would cause an immediate expansion in upper atmosphere {would not much effect entire planet] and one would get a slow shrinkage of atmosphere [adding heat] from this.
Wiki:
“For these reasons Jupiter has the highest frequency of impacts of any planet in the Solar System, justifying its reputation as the “sweeper” or “cosmic vacuum cleaner” of the Solar System. 2018 studies estimate that between 10 and 65 impacts per year of meteoroids with a diameter of between 5 and 20 meters (16 and 66 ft) can occur on the planet. For larger objects capable of leaving a visible scar on the planet’s cloud cover for weeks, that study gives an impact frequency of one every 212 years. Even larger objects would strike Jupiter every 630 years. 2009 studies suggest an impact frequency of once every 50350 years for an object of between 0.5 and 1 km (0.31 and 0.62 mi) in diameter; hits from smaller objects would occur more frequently. Another study, from 1997, estimated comets 0.3 km (0.19 mi) in diameter collide with Jupiter once in approximately 500 years and those 1.6 km (0.99 mi) in diameter do so once in every 6,000 years.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_events_on_Jupiter
Earth gets about 10 small impactor per year [small being 1 to 10 meter diameter- and not 5 to 20 meter like Jupiter. If Earth was hit like Jupiter, it would be a problem.
Plus any space rock hitting Jupiter would have more than twice the average velocity as most space rocks hitting Earth.
Just a 5 meter diameter rock going Jupiter’s impact velocity would be quite exciting if hit Earth- comets can hit earth at such velocities, but it’s rare, unless looking at meteor showers which are stuff from comets [though tend to much smaller than 5 meter in diameter].
I can’t recall having ever said anything against the use of good filters:
https://i.postimg.cc/PJnd8QTy/Arctic-sea-ice-anoms-daily-2020.png
… and it shows.
Yet you prefer (13 month) running means.
Filter 1: Savitzky-Golay
Filter 2: simple running mean
Notice how the S-G is ‘closer’ to the center of the actual data. It is not as though S-G is not used with good reason in many other disciplines. No-one else uses simple running means.
Ask Vaughn Pratt which is better. Perhaps he will say CTRM.
Linsley-Hood
You are not only an incompetent boaster: you are a bad loser as well.
You don’t seem to have understood, despite your apparent age, that the more we try to save face, the less successful we are at doing so.
*
As I told many times, I use running means ONLY to help people in building an abstraction of the raw time series which keep like the tree hiding the forest, especially when unnecessary using dot plots like you do.
*
And it should be evident to anybody – you of course included – that for this purpose it doesn’t matter whether I use the spreadsheet calc’s running mean or any low pass filter, because the difference is absolutely too small.
But you are a bad loser, Linsley-Hood, and will never admit that IN THAT USE CONTEXT, the tiny difference between the two doesn’t matter at all.
Your only goal here is to appear as the all-time-better-knowing, major poster.
For people like e.g. Robertson, you most certainly are, even if you keep calling him an idiot.
Ask Vaughn Pratt which is better. Perhaps he will say CTRM.
You don’t care about accuracy. That is clear in everything you write.
“using dot plots like you do”
You understand vey little do you. Dot plots as you call them are the actual data. Your little lines you draw between those points do not represent any real measurements, they are just an illusion just like the rest of your thinking.
“tiny difference”
Like mean v median, gaussian v bimodal data, skewed v symmetrical, accurate filters, inevitable rounding errors if you use already rounded figures as the basic for any further calculation, different reference periods, different methodology, different instruments, measurements above and inside the SBL, etc.
They all just merge together and produce answers that are ‘accurate enough’ for you.
….You understand very little do you….
Nice cartoon in last week’s New Scientist comparing the effectiveness of two messages encouraging you to stop using fossil fuels.
Less successful :-
Stop using fossil fuels; they harm the planet.
More successful :-
Stop using fossil fuels; they are very expensive.
Meanwhile, out in the real world:
And your future estimations are based on scenario 1 or scenario 2?
What part of “out in the real world” do you not understand?
Hint:
So scenario 1 then.
Entropic man
It also looks like “green energy” harms the planet.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/08/is-it-ethical-to-purchase-an-ev-lithium-battery-powered-vehicle/
If you measure it by environmental damage all energy use harms the planet.
The best way to minimise environmental damage is to minimise your energy use.
What we really need is comparative data.
For example,to compare the total environmental damage of building and driving comparable petrol and electric cars 100,000 miles.
La Nina explains superdeveloping La Nina is the most intense at this time of the year since 1950 and the effect of it
https://youtu.be/5vWwxOaXNUg
Bindicast La Nina gone by April LOL ,
Did you save some ha ha has for this ??? I did.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1140812
Linsley-Hood
You wrote above, cowardly as usual:
” Like mean v median, gaussian v bimodal data, skewed v symmetrical … ”
” … inevitable rounding errors if you use already rounded figures as the basic for any further calculation … ”
And the eternal lies continue, don’t they?
*
I repeat: stop lying, and start proving that your claims play any role in my computations.
Neither were you able until now
– to prove that the middle aka (Tmin+Tmax/2) would be worse than the median when compared to the true 24h average – the median is always farer from the true average than the middle, in both USCRN and Meteostat evaluations
nor were you able
– to show that the hourly data is skewed – it is not at all
let alone were you able
– to accurately prove on this blog that using rounded hourly data averaged into grid cells and then months would give inaccurate results.
I have shown you the spatiotemporal problems using the median (wrt latitude as well as wrt seasons) and you were unable to disprove that.
*
When will you finally give us all (not only me), using computation instead of guessing, the proof of your nonsensical, insidious claims?
How is it possible to be so dishonest, Linsley-Hood?
Who will believe you on this blog?
Apart from the La Nina Ebaby, Robertson (because he loves people denigrating what I do), and a few others keeping in the background?
The mean is not considered a robust statistic. The median is.
“Robust statistics is statistics with good performance for data drawn from a wide range of probability distributions, especially for distributions that are not normal”
“The mean is not a robust measure of central tendency”
“The median is a robust measure of central tendency”
“when outliers are present, the standard deviation cannot be recommended as an estimate of scale”
“Robust statistics …. work well in a wide variety of probability distributions, particularly non-normal distributions”
“The standard deviation is similar to the mean because its calculations include all values in the data set. A single outlier can drastically affect this statistic. Therefore, it is not robust.
The range is the difference between the highest and lowest value in the dataset {alternatively you could consider the middle}. If you have a single unusually high or low value, it can greatly impact the range {and the middle}. Its also not robust.
The interquartile range (IQR) is the middle half of your dataset. It is similar to the median in that you can replace many values without altering the IQR. It has a breakdown point of 25%. Consequently, of these three measures, the interquartile range is the most robust statistic”
rlk…”The mean is not considered a robust statistic.”
***
Binny can be mean, does that mean he’s a statistic?
Look up why having a robust statistic is consider a good thing.
Still not published the normals that your abnormalities rely on. In any of your series.
“to show that the hourly data is skewed it is not at all”
Liar.
Various USCRN stations in histogram form of their average hourly daily profiles
https://imgur.com/a/UW6VnCx
https://imgur.com/a/62XLL5S
https://imgur.com/a/hMQbQuw
https://imgur.com/a/Sc0mK5L
This post disappeared on me earlier in its correct place so I don’t know if it will be duplicated. If so, sorry about that.
rlh…”GR: How can a hydrogen atom or molecule have a range of incremental temperatures that can be measured remotely via EM(R)? Surely it can only show discrete temperatures according to you?”
***
Richard, I don’t pretend to understand this stuff at a deep level. I do know there is no way to give the temperature of an individual atom, or electron. I want to be clear that when I talk about heat or temperature related to a single atom, I am talking in a purely hypothetical sense. I am using it simply to illustrate how electrons moving to higher energy states, which are higher levels of kinetic energy, when taken en mass, should relate to the heat level, hence the temperature of a mass.
As far as measuring temperatures via EM remotely, the frequency generated at each transition is specific. The lower frequency in the Balmer series in hydrogen is about 656 nm, which is found in the lower visible spectrum in the reds. That frequency is related to the kinetic energy level from which the electron jumped to a lower level.
Then again, you’d expect to see Balmer lines in the spectrum of a star, or other hot object containing hydrogen. Not something you’d expect to see in our atmosphere.
Based on that info, one ‘should’ be able to infer the temperature of a body where the energy originated.
**************************
“The electrons will follow any fibrational movement in the protons”.
***
I presume that should be vibrational. I once had a Scottish physics teacher who pronounced a ‘v’ as an ‘f’.
I don’t know why protons should vibrate in the nucleus. Schrodinger’s wave equation does not allow for such vibration, as far as I know. It is based, in part, on the distance from the nucleus to the first orbital energy level, the Bohr radius, but I have seen nothing indicating that radius varies.
According to Bohr’s model, the electrons must stay in discrete, quantum orbits and that kind of rules out the orbits varying with proton vibrations.
“I do know there is no way to give the temperature of an individual atom, or electron.”
The body that they are part of can have a temperature which varies in a linear fashion.
You could measure the atom’s kinetic energy, mv^2/2.
For a single electron, why not electron volts?
Gordon,
You must have missed that day in class when they covered the Schrodinger’s equation, or actually the whole semester.
If you say this, and you did
“Schrodingers wave equation does not allow for such vibration, as far as I know.”
Certainly you might peruse this wiki article,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation
The Schrodinger equation is useful when dealing with things that do vibrate, it most certainly does not disallow such vibrations.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
It does not seem that Earth has warmed much in last 20 years- or warmed much in the 21 century. Or in terms of progress, it seems to have stalled.
It seems it would useful to have witches which could predict the weather.
Maybe witches were burned because they predicted the weather, wrong.
The news story was they caused cold and bad weather.
I tend to think one should follow the money, and witches were about predicting the future, because people do pay money to know the future.
Witches were burned as a remedy for black plague
I’m surprised that it wasn’t considered as a remedy for COVID. The needed levels of ignorance and popular delusion certainly were there.
Has Earth warmed in the 21st century?
Let’s check the indicators:
Global lower tropospheric temperature linear trends:
UAH v6 – 0.143 C/decade (+/- 0.130)
RSS v4 – 0.206 C/decade (+/- 0.135)
Global near-surface linear temperature trends:
METO v4 – 0.145 C/decade (+/- 0.088)
GISS v4 – 0.212 C/decade (+/- 0.098)
BERKLEY – 0.213 C/decade (+/- 0.083)
Worth mentioning that Berkeley has completely different methods and a far larger data set than Met Office, GISS, NOAA.
Global Sea level [data]
3.6 mm/yr (+/- 0.5)
……
It was getting onerous gathering data sets and verifying, but suffice to say…
Global ocean heat content 0-700 meters and 0-2000 meters up
Annual global sea ice down
Global glaciers down
These are just some of thee indicators that all verify the earth has warmed during the 21st century.
Please note that a lot of natural cycles have been rising/falling since 1980 or so. They all appear to have reached their maximum/minimum recently.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/sam.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/soi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/pdo.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/amo.jpeg
This may well explain the recent rise in global temperatures. The future will tell.
I like Carl Otto Weiss explanation. Climate is due to natural cycles. When several natural cycles are rising there is a rise in global temperatures. When they fall there is global cooling.
Weiss warns that if his analysis of cycles is correct from now to 2070 we should be observing cooling, and significant cooling of 2 -3C.
It should start getting obvious by 2030.
If that is true the preparations we as a society are making regarding warming projections are all about getting ready for the wrong crisis.
Climate is mostly due to natural cycles.
“Cycles may well explain the recent rise in global temperatures.”
If ‘cycles’ are putting heat into the lower troposphere, where is this heat coming from?
Is it coming from the oceans? That would seem to be your answer, as the cycles you tend to show us are oceanic.
Where is the heat coming from?
The heat comes from the sun. There is a solar cycle that causes changes in solar irradiance and electro-magnetic coupling.
The ocean cycles are about how energy from the sun is stored transferred and emitted from the earth.
“The heat comes from the sun.”
The source of all heat on earth (bar a miniscule leakage from the core) is the sun. The lack of correlation between solar cycles and global temps makes the sun an unlikely candidate for a significant forcing to global temps.
But I’m asking RLH which cycles have given heat to the lower troposphere.
Because the next step is to see if the data matches what he conjectures.
Global OHC
https://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_global_en.html
Sampled at what interval horizontally and vertically and with an uncertainty from that?
RLH says: Sampled at what interval horizontally and vertically and with an uncertainty from that?
Their error analysis is referenced at the bottom of the linked page in the off chance that you’re asking a good faith question.
So you should have no problems with answering those questions.
Nor should you.
So much for good faith.
Well an Argo float has an average horizontal resolution of ~4.69 km on a 10 day cycle.
Vague.
Lets see you combine them in some sensible way to account for the global T record.
Are you saying that the combination has not changed for the positive since 1980?
Here are cycles combined in some sensible way to account for global temperature record: https://schillerinstitute.com/media/carl-otto-weiss-le-changement-climatique-est-du-a-des-cycles-naturels/
An example of using long period cycles against OLS trends to try and predict the future.
Anything not in video form?
Try comparing
https://imgur.com/a/Nh6x5Ao
https://imgur.com/a/LNV8BwZ
The underlying paper is here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1f40/518ec1619da3becae93c13f29b8253f515a7.pdf
Ken says: The underlying paper is here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1f40/518ec1619da3becae93c13f29b8253f515a7.pdf
I don’t think so.
The punchline graphic in the video comes from figure 3 here:
https://notrickszone.com/2015/02/02/german-analysis-current-warm-period-is-no-anthropogenic-product-major-natural-cycles-show-no-signs-of-warming/
Wherein a 230 and 65 year cycle are fitted to the Had series ending in 2005 beyond which the fit seems to diverge from what happened in the last 17 years.
In your link, Weiss etal fit a different set of cycles to their own rather dubious 2000 year paleo reconstruction using a completely different set of cycles. This one ends in the year 2000 after which the realized temperature diverges from their cyclic fit.
So the issues here include at least the following:
1) Mutually inconsistent cycle periods in the two analyses
2) A 230 year cycle “detected” in a 165 series which is not what some might call “statistically robust”.
3) Apparent divergence from the hypothesized cyclic behavior since the end of the analysis period.
My problem is that the 230 and 65 year cycles are not going to be pure sinusoids. That is they are not simple sine waves. It would have been better if they were considered to be around 230 and 65 years periods instead.
For instance there have been other who suggest that 70 or even 75 years is a better fit than 65 and even then not on a precise sinusoid at that.
Why is it that GISS and Had5 show a linear rise since 1990 but UAH does not?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/giss.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/had5.jpeg
For instance, compare the peak in 1998 (the El Nino) on all of the graphs.
GISS and Had both recon there was no El Nino in 1998
https://imgur.com/a/O2IBVld
https://imgur.com/a/oTG9bSm
https://imgur.com/a/uwj0jeR
UAH since 1990?
A statistically significant warming trend.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1990/trend/plot/uah6/from:1990/every/trend/offset:0.1/plot/uah6/from:1990/offset:-0.1/every/trend
Compared to GISS and Had
https://imgur.com/a/O2IBVld
I meant that some years (1998 for instance) both GISS and Had differ quite considerably from UAH.
Yes. As atmospheric measure UAH greatly exaggerates the temperature changes due to ENSO. One reason for Tthe large standard deviation of UAH annual means.
Are you saying that ENSO is not an important driver of global temperatures?
Strange how they all agree in 2018 and 2020.
Oops, Typo
https://imgur.com/a/O2IBVld
2016 and 2020
RLH needs to be reminded that the UAH data is not surface data. The temperature at the tropopause is relatively constant, according to UAH, so the LT at a lower pressure height could be expected to show a lesser trend line than the surface data. Also, the LT is mostly the MT data, which has well known contamination from the stratosphere. Of course, you continue to ignore the results from other groups that have analyzed the MSU/AMSU data, results which show greater warming than UAH.
As usual, your plots are deliberately confusing, for example, using a different period on the X axis comparing the surface data with UAH. For a proper comparison, you should use the same time period for the surface data as that for UAH, Dec 1978 thru May 2022. Doing so would change your filtered data results.
ES: You need to be reminded that I have long acknowledge that looking at things from inside the SBL and outside it can produce different values for the same thing.
https://imgur.com/a/O2IBVld makes the current data the same for all the series and shows the same time periods.
4 series, 2 surface, 2 satellite aligned to ‘today’
https://imgur.com/a/Nh6x5Ao
ENSO pattern since 1992
https://imgur.com/a/LNV8BwZ
Notice how 1998 and 2016 are shown in each graph.
And 2010
I see that RLH continues his annoying habit of posting multiple replies instead of thinking before hitting the send button. Your posted graphs don’t include an analysis using your smoothing functions, limiting the data input to 1978 thru 2022.
Tell us, why does the RSS TTS data begin in 1986. Is there a problem with the earlier data, perhaps? If so, how does UAH complete their corresponding TP series, which was well known to exhibit lots of missing data in the early MSU years.
https://imgur.com/a/Nh6x5Ao
Are you looking at the same image I am?
That data is from woodfortrees and covers what they show from 1980 to 2022.
ES: Current RSS for May 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/rss.jpeg
ES: Note the differences between RSS and UAH for 1998, 2010 and 2016 when compared to
https://imgur.com/a/LNV8BwZ
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/rss.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah_lt.jpg
I see that RLH continues his annoying habit of posting multiple replies instead of thinking before hitting the send button.
You still haven’t shown a comparison of the sat data with the surface data starting with 1978, then applying your filters. Your other plots of surface data include data points before 1978, so these points are included in the filtered result.
Throwing up two graphs showing UAH and RSS data with different base periods doesn’t prove anything except that you don’t have a clue why they appear to be different.
I see that ES does not actually look at the graphs, just posts what he thinks are in them.
https://imgur.com/a/Nh6x5Ao
RLH, You still havent shown a comparison of the sat data with the surface data starting with 1978, then applying your filters. Those wood-for-trees overlays aren’t the same as your usual posts of filtered graphs. Of course, you continue to ignore the known reasons that UAH LT and RSS TLT differ, simply taking the UAH data as absolute truth in order to ignore the greater warming found by the other groups that have analyzed the identical data.
barry
There is not much debate about warming in 20th Century. At the margin maybe a few tenths are being debated but overall warming is accepted. The debate is about the proportionality between AGW and natural variability. That makes sense because we are coming out of the Little Ice Age. Sea level rise began early 19th Century. We have been in the AMO warm period recently. Current warming is a short term oscillation on a long term gradual warming due to background of recovering from LIA.
There shouldnt be debate about the LIA and AMO. So we are left with allocation of the amount of warming since 1850-1900. I dont know and in spite of the proclamation by IPCC and cultists in climate science, neither does anyone else. Here are the uncertainties for me.
1. Small fraction of global coverage for SST and land T in base period. SH land coverage pre 1900 about 10-15%. Very skimpy in situ direct measurements of the oceans for SST.
2. Land use changes. Destruction of wetlands and deforestation probably had some impact.
3. Amount of warming from Urban Heat Island effect. Who knows. Whatever estimates themselves have large uncertainties.
4. Uncertainties in adjustments of temperatures. Maybe they are valid. But there have been so many investigations in specific areas that should raise questions about their validity.
5. Looking at the tidal gauges graphs with little acceleration just cant be reconciled with the satellite data of an acceleration. It is inconsistent. There are many papers that find no significant acceleration in global SLR.
6. Beginning T pre 1900. No one knows. Many people think they know. It is unknowable. Within a few tenths of C ok. Beyond that is a guess.
I accept warming. I accept some AGW. I accept some natural variability. Beyond that it is all speculation even by the most knowledgeable climate scientists.
I accept warming. I accept some AGW. I accept some natural variability”
Agreed.
I’d add that the warming, be it natural variation, AGW, or both, is insignificant.
Denny appears to have a scientific approach. That’s good.
Whatever the reason for the warming, we know from REAL science that CO2 can’t cause it.
denny…”Uncertainties in adjustments of temperatures. Maybe they are valid. But there have been so many investigations in specific areas that should raise questions about their validity”.
***
We can be more specific about that. In the Climategate email scandal, an IPCC Coordinating Lead Author, Kevin Trenberth, lamented that the warming had stopped and that it was a travesty that no one knew why. When the emails were made public, he quickly back-pedaled, eventually claiming the missing heat was being stored in the ocean.
A few years later, the IPCC released AR5, confirming Trenberth’s observation by stating there had been no warming over the 15 years from 1998 – 2012. Almost immediately, NOAA, who had shown the same flat trend, retroactively rewrote the SST to produce a trend during that period.
In 2014, NOAA and NASA GISS declared 2014 the warmest year ever based on a probability of 48% and 38% respectively. Such Vegas-style odds is not science, its basis has to be in climate alarm propaganda.
During the Climategate scandal, Michael Mann was front and centre. When he was not ranting about interfering in peer review, he was being applauded by another IPCC Coordinating Lead Author, Phil Jones of Had-crut, who bragged he had used the same trick devised by Mann to hide declining temperatures. Jones also bragged that he and Kevin would see to it that certain skeptic papers did not reach the IPCC review stage.
When this came out, Mann and Gavin Schmidt were partners running realclimate, and Schmidt defended Mann to the hilt. Now Schmidt is head of NASA GISS. Both of them were editors on the Journal of Climate.
Back to Trenberth. He was involved with forcing a journal editor to resign because the editor had published a paper by a skeptic. Don’t recall who wrote the paper, it was either Roy or John Christy from UAH. Again, Trenberth, and his partner, Jones, of Had-crut, have been poobahs on IPCC reviews, selecting lead authors and deciding which papers should reach the review stage.
Then there was Thomas Karl, then head of NOAA. He knew about the controversy in Mann’s hockey stick re the hiding of declining temperatures and said nothing.
There is no doubt that NOAA, GISS, Had-crut and others have been openly involved with fudging the surface temperature series.
Hahahaha. You’ve memorised every hatchet job on this subject. Well done.
> I accept warming. I accept some AGW. I accept some natural variability.
Aye aye:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140329053516/http://climatechangenationalforum.org/your-logic-escapes-me-by-john-nielsen-gammon/
If you assume that there are no natural cycles longer than 60 years.
The easterly circulation along the equator in the Pacific will strengthen in mid-June as the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere in the southern hemisphere strengthens. As the solar cycle develops, the stratospheric polar vortex may be strong during winter in the southern hemisphere.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/06/13/1900Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-128.16,-10.00,281
Currently no spots in the northern solar hemisphere, weak spots in the southern.
https://i.ibb.co/LgD4HZZ/AR-CH-20220608.png
I wouldn’t wonder much if Gosselin’s TricksZone published these days at WUWT their much appreciated ‘Woooah! TEN cm snowfall in June in the Alps!’.
Happened really last night, but… at about 2,500 m of course, what is not unusual at all.
Conversely, I would wonder very much if the very same TricksZone published that since May, Southern parts of Portugal and Spain experience absolutely unusual warmth.
So are they, these tricky Coolistas.
Tiniest signs of cold mean ‘Care! The Globe is cooling!’; bigger signs of warm mean ‘All natural, don’t care; it was warmer in the Holocene’ or so.
https://xkcd.com/1321/
Bindidong is now complaining about imaginary posts on WUWT that do not exist , that he only constructs them in his own fantasy,
What else are the voices in your head telling you ???
Is it Warmistas or Coolistatas that are saying that we have had more La Nina than El Nino in the last 25 years?
Sorted out if the hourly USCRN data is a skewed, bimodal distribution yet or not?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312144
Linsley-Hood
Before I answer to your bunch of usual non-sequitur replies to my last comment, I have a simple question about your
” Still not published the normals that your abnormalities rely on. In any of your series. ”
{ I prefer to ignore your Robertson-like discrediting of what I do when using such stupid wording like ‘abnormalities’, which do not at all elevate the level of your communication. }
But let us come back to your ‘normals’.
When discussing time series, we usually speak on this blog about ‘reference periods’ and the ‘climatologies’ (or ‘baselines’) calculated out of them, which in turn are used to construct the anomalies as departures from the local means of the time series’ units within the reference periods.
UAH’s reference period and their climatologies for the four observed atmospheric layers, for example are well known to me.
What exactly do you understand with ‘normals’?
For example: where does the UAH team publish these ‘normals’ for the Lower Troposphere?
“‘reference periods’ and the ‘climatologies’ (or ‘baselines’) calculated out of them” aka normals.
“UAH’s reference period and their climatologies for the four observed atmospheric layers, for example are well known to me”
So you have them then? (at least for the current reference period). Why not publish them?
You STILL didnt answer my question. I repeat it.
For example: where does the UAH team publish these normals for the Lower Troposphere?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312604
You said you had already done it. For this reference period and the last.
You didn’t answer my question. I repeat it.
” For example: where does the UAH team publish these normals for the Lower Troposphere? ”
Where can I then finally see exactly what you mean?
Because if the ‘normals’ you expect me to publish within each graph were the same as their climatology, I then would ask you why YOU don’t publish these ‘normals’ in each of your UAH graphs.
Well you published the Feb absolute data for a range of years at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2022-0-00-deg-c/#comment-1195816
so presume ably you will not have problems with the whole year reference periods instead (both current and past).
….so presumably….
Sorted out if the hourly USCRN data is a skewed, bimodal distribution yet or not?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312144
You STILL didnt answer my question. I repeat it.
For example: where does the UAH team publish these normals for the Lower Troposphere?
You have admitted that you have. Why not publish them yourself?
No reply to
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312590
Linsley-Hood
Will you now finally answer my question
” Where does the UAH team publish these normals for the Lower Troposphere? ”
I still do not know what you exactly mean with your ‘normals’.
*
Where do I see these ‘normals’ you miss in my charts when I look at e.g.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah-1.jpeg
You have the climatology for the various reference periods. You have admitted it. Why not publish that data?
What is the reason for me to publish things in my charts which you omit to publish in yours?
Because you have wrongly said things like hourly temperatures, although based on a sinusoidal pattern, are not a skewed, bimodal histogram and making your post your own data shows that you are wrong a lot more that you are correct.
You keep dodging as I see.
Where do I see these normals you miss in my charts when I look at e.g.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah-1.jpeg
I have asked Roy for a url for you.
The UAH TLT absolute gridded temperatures are here.
To my knowledge they don’t publish a gridded anomaly baseline, but it can be computed from that file. Graphically it looks something like this, but beyond showing gross seasonal changes, it isn’t a very informative graphic.
MB: As a global time series it will be a sinusoidal pattern.
“it can be computed from that file”
which Blinny has already said he has done. For some strange reason he won’t publish it.
Here is the 2016 normals from Roy
https://imgur.com/a/R7WssHc
as found at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
Also includes
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-v6-LT-thru-feb-2016-with-anncyc-1.jpg
Which as a histogram turns into
https://imgur.com/a/UukZJUB
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-783207
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312730
A very strong low below Iceland will close the path of warm air from the Atlantic to the Arctic.
You do understand how low pressure systems in the Northern Hemisphere work don’t you?
https://imgur.com/a/lopBPAH
Linsley-Hood
” Sorted out if the hourly USCRN data is a skewed, bimodal distribution yet or not? ”
You can name me a liar as long as you want.
No one on this blog – except those few who enjoy you denigrating what I do – believes that the USCRN hourly data is skewed:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFosZhWOev-Xv4DyHx0j5C3XSOffWizw/view
Any REALLY educated statistician (what you are NOT AT ALL) would tell you how skewed data REALLY looks like:
https://miro.medium.com/max/1262/1*mr47HGudLMqtzGXRyK1yrg.png
*
And by the way: I still await your technical contradiction (made of course by doing the very same job) concerning my USCRN monthly time series comparing
– (Tmin+Tmax)/2 aka middle
– median
– full 24h average
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BhgrAn-eVrX9JZUhr_y4ceVWAKsXtqml/view
*
If you would be able to do the very same job: should you then not obtain, when comparing the monthly absolute differences
– |full 24h average minus median|
and
– |full 24h average minus (Tmin+Tmax)/2 aka middle|
something like
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ic44M37QzUhAtf6nxBYXzEAytASur7Z1/view
Maybe you explain us why a monthly histogram of these absolute differences (i.e., distances) looks like
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pO9Lpi9xxxNkHRBQkhqkiTUvffV7KCqn/view
*
But… maybe you prefer not to do the same job, and to keep denigrating what I do instead?
Liar.
Various USCRN stations in histogram form of their average hourly daily profiles
https://imgur.com/a/UW6VnCx
https://imgur.com/a/62XLL5S
https://imgur.com/a/hMQbQuw
https://imgur.com/a/Sc0mK5L
RLH says: Various USCRN stations in histogram form of their average hourly daily profiles
https://imgur.com/a/UW6VnCx
Can you explain how these chart were generated?
My understanding is
1) For each day in the station record, take the arithmetic average for the day.
2) For each day of the year, take the arithmetic average for each day above across all years for the station. e.g. [Jan_1 = average(Jan_1_2022, Jan_1_2021, …, Jan_1_2005), Jan_2 . . .]
3) Plot histogram of these daily average temperatures.
1). Take the average for each hour of the day over the whole year from a particular station.
2) Plot those data as a histogram.
” Take the average for each hour of the day over the whole year from a particular station. ”
You seem to still not have understood that I did exactly the same, but not for a single year – for all years…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pXoGG8rKukT3tAia0ok9R2OrzvD6P7Hv/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ktkIhpWH_L0-ubXEdSf2YTpPYjKOLpVt/view
So did I.
I’ll reword it for you
1). Take the average for each hour of the day over the whole year and the whole period reported from a particular station
P.S. You do understand there is a difference between a bar chart and a histogram don’t you?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFosZhWOev-Xv4DyHx0j5C3XSOffWizw/view
Now do a histogram of those plots. A Histogram is the only way to show a distribution,. A time series does not.
Are you kidding us here, Linsley-Hood?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFosZhWOev-Xv4DyHx0j5C3XSOffWizw/view
are histograms made out of three time series for the common period (that of AK_Kenai_29_ENE, 2010-2021) – in plot form – for
– Kenai
– Everglades
– all stations.
*
The histograms for the average of the 138 active USCRN stations for the period 2002-2021:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MZlIa_a-SKRxA72v1UOB7HrNpEr9EGqO/view
This is the average of all days having full 24 hours of hourly data.
Similarly, the horizontal lines are the averages of all values computed for
– (Tmin+Tmax)/2 aka middle
– median
– full 24h average
Here is the histogram in bar chart for:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cZR95joG5IakNDAnJMe1vDuMk8RAPucI/view
*
And you want to continue claiming that this is ‘skewed’ data?
Then, sorry: the liar here is Linsley-Hood.
Blinny not knowing the difference between a time series and a histogram.
For instance a histogram would tell you how many 10C occurred in each day.
“Here is the histogram in bar chart”
A bar chart of a sinusoid is not a histogram. One shows a time series, the other a distribution.
“A histogram is a graphical representation that organizes a group of data points into user-specified ranges. Similar in appearance to a bar graph, the histogram condenses a data series into an easily interpreted visual by taking many data points and grouping them into logical ranges or bins”
“Histograms are used to show distributions of variables while bar charts are used to compare variables”
https://miro.medium.com/max/1262/1*mr47HGudLMqtzGXRyK1yrg.png
Oh look, a histogram! All sinusoidal time series will produce a bimodal histogram. A sine wave will be symmetrical. A temperature series one will be skewed.
“No one on this blog except those few who enjoy you denigrating what I do believes that the USCRN hourly data is skewed”
Only those who do not believe their eyes.
https://imgur.com/a/UW6VnCx
https://imgur.com/a/62XLL5S
https://imgur.com/a/hMQbQuw
https://imgur.com/a/Sc0mK5L
Any REALLY educated statistician (what you are NOT AT ALL) would tell you how skewed data REALLY looks like:
https://miro.medium.com/max/1262/1*mr47HGudLMqtzGXRyK1yrg.png
By using a histogram.
For the last time: this is the USCRN histogram in plot form for all stations since Jan 2002:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MZlIa_a-SKRxA72v1UOB7HrNpEr9EGqO/view
No statistician on Earth will accept that a histogram shows skewed data when the data’s median differs from the true average by no more than laughable 3 %.
This is your manipulative interpretation, Linsley-Hood
Wrong, it is a time series not a histogram.
For instance, how many buckets are in the graph and what ranges does each bucket cover?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312690
Bucket = bins for this discussion.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312689
My conclusion for this endless discussion about median vs. (Tmin+Tmax)/2 vs. full 24h average, initiated last year by Linsley-Hood aka RLH himself, is that he never will be able to technically contradict my job, and will continue to stalk me ad nauseam, and to discredit what I did without being able to prove it wrong.
I have enough of this insidious, disingenuous manipulation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312684
Sorry, Linsley-Hood: you can continue your manipulation as long as you want.
Do the job like I did, and present all results like I presented mine.
Basta ya.
Blinny still not knowing the difference between a time series and a histogram.
And Linsley-Hood still not having enough balls to enter a fair contest proving my USCRN results wrong.
What cowardice…
Blinny still not knowing the difference between a time series and a histogram. What an idiot.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312689
Blinny: Sorted out the differences between time series and histogram plots yet?
Or should that be bar graphs and histograms.
Your words:
” Take the average for each hour of the day over the whole year from a particular station. ”
You seem to still not have understood that I did exactly the same, but not for a single year for all years…
Here is the stuff restricted to AK_Kenai_29_ENE:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pXoGG8rKukT3tAia0ok9R2OrzvD6P7Hv/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ktkIhpWH_L0-ubXEdSf2YTpPYjKOLpVt/view
Will you get it one day, Linsley-Hood?
As did I. But I presented that as a histogram which you still seem to have a problem with, thinking that it is just a bar graph.
Line plot
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pXoGG8rKukT3tAia0ok9R2OrzvD6P7Hv/view
Bar graph
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ktkIhpWH_L0-ubXEdSf2YTpPYjKOLpVt/view
2 plots of the same thing.
Now do a histogram. You do know what that is don’t you?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312690
You do understand the difference between a bar chart and a histogram don’t you?
” A histogram is an approximate representation of the distribution of numerical data. The term was first introduced by Karl Pearson.
To construct a histogram, the first step is to “bin” (or “bucket”) the range of values – that is, divide the entire range of values into a series of intervals [HERE: THE 24 HOURS OF THE DAY] – and then count how many values [HERE: THE TEMPERATURES MEASURED DAY AFTER DAY FOR THE DIFFERENT HOURS] fall into each interval.
The bins are usually specified as consecutive, non-overlapping intervals of a variable. The bins (intervals) must be adjacent and are often (but not required to be) of equal size. ”
Will you now stop your dumb, ignorant stalking?
So will you actually plot things as a histogram rather than a bar
graph?
https://www.excel-easy.com/examples/histogram.html
Now plot your time series as a histogram.
Or I suppose you could ask Willard instead.
For an individual station that is. Mixing together all 138 together just adds a Latitude smear.
“THE TEMPERATURES MEASURED DAY AFTER DAY FOR THE DIFFERENT HOURS”
Actually the temperatures across the whole day divided into the separate buckets. You really don’t understand any of this do you?
As here as example for Everglades with buckets as labeled from 19.5 to 28.5 at 1 degree intervals. Thus the first bucket counts the number of temperatures in the day that fall between 18 and 19.
https://imgur.com/gallery/zjtZRNy
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
Notice how one rounds up but the other down?
But you are too arrogant to read things closely or understand any of it.