UAH Global Temperature Update for June 2022: +0.06 deg. C

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

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2022 was +0.06 deg. C, down (again) from the May, 2022 value of +0.17 deg. C.

Tropical Coolness

The tropical (20N-20S) anomaly for June was -0.36 deg. C, which is the coolest monthly anomaly in over 10 years, the coolest June in 22 years, and the 9th coolest June in the 44 year satellite record.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 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 18 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST 
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.50 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.13 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.30 -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 0.23 0.19
2022 06 0.06 0.07 0.04 -0.36 0.46 0.33 0.11

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for June, 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


3,022 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for June 2022: +0.06 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. MrZ says:

    Fantastic,
    The total greenhouse effect is getting lower by the month and it continues.
    More than 72 months now. Interesting to see how this evolves.
    Roy is it easy for you to check over the Pacific Ocean, N20-S20? To me it looks like the longest La Nia in the record.

    • Bindidon says:

      Hi MrZ, nice to see you’re still alive.

      ” To me it looks like the longest La Nia in the record. ”

      Not quite, look at a superposition of all La Ninas as recorded by the MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index):

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view

      In about ten days, we’ll see the newest MEI value in

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

      • MrZ says:

        Hi Bindidon,
        Somebody convinced me to get a job again so time is more scarce.
        I have checked the earths energy balance with figures from ERA and the total greenhouse effect is actually decreasing In the Pacific Ocean pretty dramatically. So much that it is even clearly visible even on global level. Nothing comes close during the 1979 till now period. This La Nia is special. (I think)

        • Bindidon says:

          Thanks for the reply.

          I would enjoy some links to ERA graphics and data for a closer look at what you see.

          Seems interesting.

        • Brooklyn says:

          sad

          • Anglia says:

            Dollars incomes sincere process to parent and earn on-line. start now developing each day over $500 simply performing from home. Last month my incomes from this are $16205 and i gave this process entirely hours from my entire day. only manner to earn (~ed93~) extra economic advantage on-line and it doesnt goals any pretty unique experience. ~tg1 circulate to this net web website online right now and

            observe info to set off began
            out proper now>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfpay24.blogspot.com

    • Bindidon says:

      Didn’t you process UAH’s 2.5 degree grid data some years ago?

      Should be easy for you to generate anomalies or absolute data for that region…

    • RLH says:

      You should also check ESN ONI

      https://www.webberweather.com/ensemble-oceanic-nino-index.html

      that goes back to 1870.

  2. Petwap says:

    Let the madness begin! 🙂

    • MaryRadford says:

      Start now earning every week more than $7,000 to 8,000 by doing very simple and easy home based job online. (sin1.) Last month i have made $32,735 by doing this online job just in my part time for only 2 hrs. a day ggh using my laptop. This job is just awesome and easy to do in part time. Everybody can now get this and start earning more dollars online just by follow:-
      .
      instructions here:☛☛☛ https://brilliantfuture40.pages.dev

  3. William Fleming says:

    Typo, second line: may.

  4. Kenneth Helland says:

    Roy applies a linear fit to the UAH temperature history. This seems entirely reasonable. However, I wonder if an additional approach might be of interest. It appears to me that there are now 4 distinct steps in the temperature. They are roughly:

    Temp Years Duration

    – 0.29 1979 1986 7

    – 0.21 1987 1997 10

    0 1997 2015 18

    + 0.24 2015 2022 7

    These numbers are only meant to be suggestive. The most recent might well continue for some time. As I recall, the 18 year period generated some ideas about the end to global warming. Warming does continue however.

    There are significant oscillations in the temperature during each step, but the peaks and troughs appear consistent with no substantial increase in the mean temperature during each step. At the end of each step, the temperature does a distinct jump to a higher mean value over a fairly short time interval, just a few years.

    Elsewhere Roy shows that the CO2 readings do have significant fluctuations as well. I had thought the CO2 data were smooth. It would be interesting to see the same 13 month average done on the CO2 time series. Not sure what it might mean though, the time series is at a single point. The variations in Roys presentation suggests to me that there are likely significant spatial variations as well. Are there other CO2 data that give a more global picture?

    All this make me wonder if natural forces might dominate human contributions. Why dont the human contributions show up during the long steps in temperature. Could there be something
    in all this that would contribute to the big question of sensitivity that Roy has tried hard to address? Do the variations in CO2 show any strong correlations to the fluctuations in temperature?

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “It appears to me that there are now 4 distinct steps …”

      I would caution you that it is easy to spot ‘patterns’ that are nothing more than random chance. For example, in any data with a general upward trend but large variations, there could appear to be a ‘step change’ after any large upswing, even though that upswing is a perfectly normal, random part of the data.

      Yes, there might be true ‘step-changes’ but I would be highly suspicious without either a strong theoretical basis or a strong statistical basis. And I see neither of those here.

      • Bindidon says:

        Yes indeed, eye-balling is always a bit misleading, and gives sometimes odd numbers.

        The best is still to have a closer look at the real data.

        Linear estimates in C / decade:

        – Dec 1978 – Dec 1986: -0.19 +- 0.06
        – Jan 1987 – Dec 1997: +0.01 +- 0.05
        – Jan 1998 – Dec 2014: -0.04 +- 0.03
        – Jan 2015 – Jun 2022: -0.07 +- 0.08

        And of course: many people looking at such numbers think that the estimate for the full period:

        – Dec 1978 – Jun 2022: +0.13 +- 0.01

        does not reflects reality, and is a faked number.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “And of course: many people looking at such numbers think that the estimate for the full period:

          Dec 1978 Jun 2022: +0.13 +- 0.01

          does not reflects reality, and is a faked number.”

          And of course, many people are not good at analyzing data!

          First, this estimate of 0.13 is obtained using the EXACT SAME METHOD (linear regression) as you used to obtain your individual slopes. So to claim this number (0.13) is ‘fake’ would mean that all your other numbers are equally ‘fake’.

          Second, you are leaving out one key factor. The correct description would be:

          Dec 1978 Dec 1986: -0.19 +- 0.06
          ** + 0.21 step jump from 1986 to 1987
          Jan 1987 Dec 1997: +0.01 +- 0.05
          ** + 0.22 step jump from 1997 to 1998
          Jan 1998 Dec 2014: -0.04 +- 0.03
          ** + 0.29 step jump from 2014 to 2015
          Jan 2015 Jun 2022: -0.07 +- 0.08

          Your analysis looks at 4 periods, but unfortunately leaves out a net increase of +0.72 C as we go from one period to the next. When you cherrypick to try to force the data to show periods of relative stability, you are, in turn, forced to acknowledge BIG jumps between those periods,

          Basically, either we have
          ** An overall slope of +0.13 per decade for the data as a whole, resulting in a net gain of ~ 0.6 C
          ** Slopes between -0.19 and +0.01 for individual periods, plus big steps between periods, again resulting in a net gain of about 0.6 C over the whole data set.

          • Dixon says:

            What has always struck me about climate data is a) how noisy it is in raw form and b) how semi-sinusoidal cycles seem to permeate every averaging trend.

            I’ve been looking at these graphs for over 30 years now and you cannot escape the fact that natural variability is the most noticeable thing about them, along with a very small warming trend.

            I would be convinced AGW was a problem if the warming trend clearly broke out of the natural variabilty, but so far it really hasn’t. So if there is a human influence in warming, it’s not that big.

            None of the purported consequences of human warming seem anything like as problematic as those from Carrington-type events, war, disease, Tsunamis, floods, earthquakes and volcanos, so I really don’t understand the need for a huge field of ‘science’ that tries to discern the human influence in the cycles. If there are cycles over 7 and 30 and 100,000 years, it seems inevitable that there will be other, as yet unknown ones that mean such exercises to understand wiggles are futile.

            Adapt! Extreme weather and other natural disasters will always be with us, we are a pretty smart species when faced with a serious defined problem – I’d rather a science devoted to learning how we avoid shooting each other than spend more time trying to understand highly averaged wiggles.

          • RLH says:

            “this estimate of 0.13 is obtained using the EXACT SAME METHOD (linear regression)”

            OLS shows that even if the maximums are rising at a lower rate than the minimums, the middle (and the averages) will rise much faster than the maximums.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            RLH, it is completely possible that “the maximums are rising at a lower rate than the minimums” in a data set and yet have the average FALLING.

            Granted, this is not the sort of data set that one would expect for climate data, but it shows the dangers of focusing on the extremes only and ignoring the middle data. Extremes are interesting data, but, by themselves, tell us very little.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Dixon, I agree with much of what you say. AGW is only one of many potentially catastrophic events that might occur. And there is perhaps too much emphasis on this one topic at the exclusion of others.

            I would address two topics.
            1) Climate change is only partly about the ‘wiggles’. It is more about trends underlying the wiggles. There will be always be weeks or years that are hotter or colder or rainier or drier than usual. But if those ‘wiggles’ are on top of a base line that is 1C or 2C or 5C warmer than now, that would have significant global impacts.

            2) Climate change is impacting the southwestern US. A prolonged drought has lowered lakes to historically low levels, and a few more years could mean not enough water for millions of people and millions of acres of farmland. Independent of whether that change is natural or related to humans, understanding that sort of climate change is important even within a decade.

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts, you seem to be waffling away from your cult beliefs that CO2 can heat the planet.

            That’s good.

            Keep those waffles coming.

          • lewis guignard says:

            Dixon,

            Without getting far into the weeds, the reason there are so many people, a large field of science in your terms, is that people have found a way to get paid.
            This is true of most social occupations.
            Approximately 16% of the population is involved in farming and manufacturing. The rest of us are providing some type of service which, in a nutshell, are reasons to get the manufacturers and farmers to trade with us for their products.

            Unfortunately government distorts that reality a great deal, so more is probably spent on climate science because the government makes it easy to make a living doing so.

            Happy 4th

          • RLH says:

            “Extremes are interesting data, but, by themselves, tell us very little”

            Extremes are what AGW pushes down our throat all the time. But when someone points out that they are not increasing at the Tropics, suddenly they are not that important at all.

          • RLH says:

            “It is more about trends underlying the wiggles”

            But in the Tropics (at least in the Pacific) the maximums have not increased since 1878. Apparently.

          • Will says:

            A net increase of +0.72C would indicate that you are hallucinating patterns or some other damn thing that doesn’t exist in reality, but is likely an artifact of the statistical sleight of hand you apply to the data.

      • Will says:

        I agree with the step side of things. It isn’t an illusion, nor is it random. After all, they are based on something real, temperature measurements. Why does one need a theoretical or statistical basis to confirm that which has been observed? Feel free to give it a try but the steps are there, even if at the end of the day no significance can be attached to them.

    • RLH says:

      Linear fits (OLS etc.) are always suspect IMHO.

      Not only are they subject to potential ‘cherry picking’ of start/end dates (possibly inadvertently) but also they take no account of how the maximums and minimums change over that time. That may also be relevant.

      • Anglia says:

        Dollars incomes sincere process to parent and earn on-line. start now developing each day over $500 simply performing from home. Last month my incomes from this are $16205 and i gave this process entirely hours from my entire day. only manner to earn (~ed94~) extra economic advantage on-line and it doesnt goals any pretty unique experience. ~tg1 circulate to this net web website online right now and

        observe info to set off began
        out proper now>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfpay24.blogspot.com

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Kenneth Helland,

      The twelve-month average of CO2 removes seasonal cycling and shows a smooth slightly exponentially increasing CO2 trend. You may be interested to see the annual change in the average CO2 plotted along with the UAH data.

      https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/uah6/scale:0.15/offset:0.17

      This shows that the magnitude of the annual CO2 change is determined to a large extent by the global temperature. In warm years, the increase in CO2 will usually be greater than the increase in cooler years. So, yes, variations in CO2 show a strong correlation to fluctuations in global tropospheric temperature.

      • Bindidon says:

        Thus if I well understand how you proceed, one just needs to scale and offset a times series to get it fitting another time series, and oh wonder: the theory is perfect.

        Oh Noes…

        • RLH says:

          Another ‘ad hom’ attack. Well done Blinny.

          • Persona Nonrando says:

            ‘Ad hom’? No. Misplaced sarcasm? Maybe. Using 50 years of weather data to infer climate trends over a 226 million year galactic cycle with a system “wobble” having a 100 pc amplitude and 70 My period? Absurd.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            PN,

            Maybe you didn’t understand the 50-year plot. It was not meant to show a climate trend over any long period, because the UAH data only goes back that far. Using another temperature data set, you could only go back another 20 years, because that’s how far back the CO2 data goes.

            Fact is, the effect of temperature on CO2 is pretty well understood by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of climate.

          • RLH says:

            “the effect of temperature on CO2 is pretty well understood by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of climate”

            The ‘effect’ is proposed but not proven.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            RLH,

            Do you have doubts that the effect is real? If so, what other mechanisms are responsible for the fingerprint-like correlation between temperature and annual CO2 change?

          • RLH says:

            How about the warming created the rise in CO2?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            How about it? Are you answering my question with a question? That’s not an answer. Make an argument or stop wasting blog space.

          • RLH says:

            It has been proposed on here and elsewhere that rising temperatures have caused the rise in CO2. Can you refute that?

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          Bindidon,

          The scaling simply allows one to see that, although not an exact factor, there is a general or “average” effect of temperature on the yearly CO2 increases. There is nothing magic about it. The offset makes the effect more evident than if one just describes it in words. A pic is worth a 1000 words. You are welcome to present an opposing view.

          The effect is largely based on the greater ocean outgassing that occurs with higher temperatures.

        • Bindidon says:

          Chic Bowdrie

          Sorry, but explaining such a complex matter as the ‘chicken-egg’ problem for temperature and CO2 with such a trivial WFT graph: that is imho way too trivial.

          And no: I can’t and won’t oppose anything to your guess.

          If you can live with that guess: fine for you… I never could.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          Nate rears his ugly King of Obfuscation head again by obscuring THE physical reality that temperature drives the short-term fluctuation in the ANNUAL change in CO2.

          The CO2 annual cycle is driven globally by monthly average temperatures. Averaging the temperatures does not remove bias, but rather only obscures the physical reality.

          Now let’s see how the King obfuscates further by actually writing out a scientific response rather than a drive-by meaningless assertion. Is he going to argue that temperature does not drive short-term changes in annual CO2?

        • Nate says:

          Where is my obfuscation?

          Here are three of the ways you obfuscated.

          1. the use of a 12mo filter in one data set but not the other.

          2. CO2 is out-gassed from the surface, not the troposphere. Yet the comparison of CO2 growth rate with tropospheric temperature, rather than surface temperature is shown.

          3. Use a shorter time period that has quasi linear trend in CO2 growth that appears to match trend in temperature.

          Without these 3 deceptions, as I showed, the long term trend in CO2 growth rate clearly does not match the long-term trend in global temperature.

          Chic should know that his apparent correlation between Global T and CO2 growth rate is not evidence of causation.

          It is well known that short term variations in both Global T and CO2 growth rate are driven by a 3rd variable, ENSO, which does not account for the long term trends in either.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            1. I addressed that already. You get an F for failing to counter with an opposing argument.

            2. Good point. Here’s the plot with SST anomalies.

            https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/scale:0.3/offset:0.08/from:1958

            3. The shorter trend is not the basis of my argument that the magnitude of the temperature anomaly determines the annual CO2 growth as all the temperature data exhibit the same fingerprint evidence. It is not a “quasi-linear” trend in CO2 roughly matching the temperature trend. The CO2 growth is tracking temperature like a GPS.

            Seriously, do you doubt global temperature drives annual CO2 change or are just maintaining your King of Obfuscation reputation?

          • Nate says:

            “1. I addressed that already. You get an F for failing to counter with an opposing argument.”

            Tee hee hee. You declared a weird speculation to be a ‘physical reality’.

            “The CO2 annual cycle is driven globally by monthly average temperatures. Averaging the temperatures does not remove bias, but rather only obscures the physical reality.”

            MONTHLY variation in one variable drives ANNUAL variation in another variable is implausible, but convenient, speculation.

            If you want to show two variables are correlated across various time scales, you need to treat them the SAME.

            By LP filtering only one series you are reducing the fast variations in that series but not the other, making it appear that fast variations match with the same scale factor as slow variations, which is not the case.

            Pure obfuscation.

            “2. Good point. Heres the plot with SST anomalies.

            https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/scale:0.3/offset:0.08/from:1958

            Again pure obfuscation/deception here. Your scale factor is too small to produce a match between short-term variations. Correct scale factor reveals the poor match to long term trend.

            https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/scale:0.55/offset:0.14/from:1958

            Correct for biased filtering the match is to long term gets horrible.

            https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/scale:0.65/offset:0.13/from:1958/mean:12

            “3. The shorter trend is not the basis of my argument that the magnitude of the temperature anomaly determines the annual CO2 growth as all the temperature data exhibit the same fingerprint evidence. It is not a quasi-linear trend in CO2 roughly matching the temperature trend. The CO2 growth is tracking temperature like a GPS.”

            Pure obfuscation. The longer term data shows a sharp deviation at the beginning, not seen in shorter data set.

            “Seriously, do you doubt global temperature drives annual CO2 change or are just maintaining your King of Obfuscation reputation?”

            Yes, when the trends dont fit, you must quit….pretending they do.

            As I noted, but you ignored, it is well understood that a 3rd variable, ENSO, drives short-term variations in both variables.

            In the ocean, El Nino causes LESS CO2 outgassing, but the response of tropical Land is to produce MORE CO2 outgassing. This latter effect is larger and dominates the Global response.

            https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aam5776

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            1. “If you want to show two variables are correlated across various time scales, you need to treat them the SAME.”

            Only someone who hasn’t thought this through or is just obfuscating would write that. The CO2 measurements are taken at only one point on the surface. Temperature is averaged over the whole planet. However, my statement about “averaging the temperatures” should have been “averaging global average temperatures….” So, I’ll be generous and raise your grade to a D.

            2. You aren’t seeing the forest For the Trees. Different scale factors will be different depending on what temperature series is used. The point is not to compare the trends, but to note how closely the monthly changes track. I don’t know how many more ways to write it. BTW, the UAH series makes a good surrogate for SST:

            https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset:0.3/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1958

            To your third plot comparing 12-month averages, as explained in point 1, averaging temperature averages only smooths the data as is clear from Dr. Spencer’s main graph above.

            3. “The longer term data shows a sharp deviation at the beginning, not seen in shorter data set.”

            Again, as explained in point 2, it’s not about matching trends. It’s the tracking evident when the two data series are superimposed, [expletive deleted].

            So, your whole argument is that a temperature-driven ENSO factor drives temperature and its subsequent effect on CO2 annual growth. Good grief, Charlie Brown. Way to make penetrating insight into the intuitively obvious obscure.

          • Nate says:

            “So, your whole argument is that a temperature-driven ENSO factor drives temperature and its subsequent effect on CO2 annual growth. Good grief”

            Standard Chic, works overtime to miss the point.

            ENSO has a specific regional pattern of effects on weather. Its effect on global T is not what causes CO2 variation.

            ENSO explains only fast variation in CO2. If you are also trying to explain long term variation, I call BS on that.

          • Nate says:

            And as you can see in the paper, and application of Henrys law, this

            “The effect is largely based on the greater ocean outgassing that occurs with higher temperatures.”

            turns out not to be supported by the facts.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Call BS all you want. You have not made a rebuttal worth its salt to my argument. “ENSO has a specific regional pattern of effects on weather” and, therefore, is only one of many contributions to global temperature. Even if it was the sole determinant of global temperature, it is still temperature which determines outgassing and affects other non-fossil fuel emissions. Not real complicated.

            Your long term, fast variation nonsense is obfuscation. My point is that temperature drives the magnitude of the annual growth. The warmer the year, the larger the increase. You can name it ENSO, average it over 12 months, call it too short, too long, slow variation, fast variation, obfuscate up the wazoo, and it won’t change that physical reality.

            “And as you can see in the paper….”

            No, I don’t see anything in the paper that refutes my claim. But I omitted the additional effect of temperature on CO2 coming from the geosphere.

            The paper hypothesizes basically what I described, “Typically, the tropical Pacific Ocean is a source of CO2 to the atmosphere due to equatorial upwelling that brings CO2-rich water from the interior ocean to the surface. During El Nio, this equatorial upwelling is suppressed in the eastern and the central Pacific Ocean, reducing the supply of CO2 to the surface. If CO2 fluxes were to remain constant elsewhere, this reduction in ocean-to-atmosphere CO2 fluxes should contribute to a slowdown in the growth of atmospheric CO2.”

            The paper reports the results from a few months in 2015 which essentially support my point. Colder temperatures reduce outgassing:

            “The net impact of the 20152016 El Nio event on the global carbon cycle is an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which would likely be larger if it were not for the reduction in outgassing from the ocean.

            IIRC, with one recent exception, every month shows an increase in CO2. The average annual increase is generally larger during warm years. If you want to refute that, please show the data from that pay-walled paper. Otherwise, you are just practicing your patented obfuscation.

          • Nate says:

            “Call BS all you want. You have not made a rebuttal worth its salt to my argument.”

            Sure, No rebuttal, no evidence, facts, no logic ever matters. Because those are the ground rules of your game.

            “The paper reports the results from a few months in 2015 which essentially support my point. Colder temperatures reduce outgassing”

            Wrong. The paper says the opposite. As usual you are clueless.

            “Your long term, fast variation nonsense is obfuscation. My point is that temperature drives the magnitude of the annual growth. The warmer the year, the larger the increase.”

            This is you being a simpleton. Unable to grasp anything too complicated. Assuming your hypothesis is a fact.

            Short term variation and long term trends do not behave the same, do not need to behave the same, do not need to even have the same mechanism.

            If you assume that they do or they must behave the same, must have the same mechanism, then you are making unfounded assumptions.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Typical Nate. No data, no models, unsubstantiated assertions. What else can be expected from the King of Obfuscation.

          • Nate says:

            Standard Chic,

            When I show facts, data, a paper, models, substantiate my claims with graphs, he ignores all and falsely states:

            “Typical Nate. No data, no models, unsubstantiated assertions.”

            This clarifies for all what game Chic is playing: The bullshit game.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate has learned ownership-inversion-deflection tactics from Willard to add to his bag of obfuscation tricks.

            Other than a paper covering one year period of one El Nino, Nate has presented no data, no models, and distorts the facts with graphs from WoodForTrees. The paper he cites distorts the facts as well. Notably,

            “By analyzing trends in the time series of atmospheric CO2, we see clear evidence of an initial decrease in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the tropical Pacific Ocean, specifically during the early stages of the El Nio event (March through July 2015).”

            and

            “During the later stages of the El Nio (August 2015 and later), the OCO-2 observations register a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We attribute this increase to the response from the terrestrial component of the carbon cyclea combination of reduction in biospheric uptake of CO2 over pan-tropical regions and an enhancement in biomass burning emissions over Southeast Asia and Indonesia.”

            Nate has not provided any data to support these allegations. Maybe it’s because he has examined the UAH data showing the March to July referenced period was relatively cold for the previous year. Then during the later period when temperatures skyrocketed, the paper’s authors “attribute this increase to the response from the terrestrial component of the carbon cycle….”

            Nate, please explain (preferably with data and graphs) how the authors can tell that the CO2 increase was due to the terrestrial component and not to ocean outgassing or some combination of both. Then explain how you can still deny warmer years do not produce larger increases in CO2 growth.

          • Chic Bowdrie" says:

            “The paper says the opposite.”

            I was wrong about that on my initial read. I presumed they were describing La Nina conditions following the 2015 El Nino. Here is what threw me off:

            “Typically, the tropical Pacific Ocean is a source of CO2 to the atmosphere due to equatorial upwelling that brings CO2-rich water from the interior ocean to the surface. During El Nino, this equatorial upwelling is suppressed in the eastern and the central Pacific Ocean, reducing the supply of CO2 to the surface.”

            Why would El Nino suppress upwelling when upwelling is the source of CO2-rich seawater?

          • Nate says:

            “Nate, please explain”

            Nope. Not interested in yet more pointless Chic busywork, where in the end, you will just move the goal posts.

            This is also a standard part of the Chic bullshit game.

            You never have to support your claims with data. You just assert that they are true and demand others find data to disprove them.

            You tried to claim that CO2 variation is driven by T variation and ocean out-gassing.

            You havent made that case. You havent show data or evidence that short-term variation of CO2 is caused by T-driven ocean-out-gassing. You havent made the case that long-term rise in CO2 is caused by the same mechanism as the short-term.

            I made the point Henry’s Law is not consistent with the rate of change of CO2 being caused by ocean warming and outgassing.

            I made the point with graphs and a paper that SHORT-TERM CO2 variation is driven by ENSO.

            I made the point that ENSO produces a pattern of weather that causes CO2 variation, and show a paper that explains this, and shows DATA for ocean CO2 fluxes.

            As you have emphasized dozens of times, correlation is not causation.

            Yet all you offer is a correlation between short-term T variation and CO2-rate of change, and the weakest kind of correlation between long term T rise and CO2-rate-of-change rise.

            It is the weakest because it is simply two things rising.

            -I made the point that the short-term and long term have different scaling factors.

            -Filtering the short-term variation in only ONE variable, to force them to have a similar scale factor is CHEATING. I’ve discussed this at length with Bart.

            -I showed that long-term rise has different shapes for the two variables.

            -ENSO does not have a long-term rise consistent with CO2 rise.

            For anyone not deeply biased, this shows a different mechanism is at work for short and long term.

            Perhaps you don’t agree.

            But to claim I have no data, analysis, or evidence is a LIE.

          • Nate says:

            “Why would El Nino suppress upwelling when upwelling is the source of CO2-rich seawater?”

            Why wouldnt it?

            Thats what El Nino does. Suppressing the cold upwelling is what allows the Eastern Pacific to warm during El Nino.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I’m happy to end the discussion after correcting your lies and, if possible, learn how you think the Chatterjee paper refutes warmer years produce greater CO2 increases.

            Lie #1: “You never have to support your claims with data.”

            The original WoodForTrees plot showed my main point that warmer years produce greater CO2 increases. Do I need to provide the raw data for you?

            Lie #2: “You tried to claim that CO2 variation is driven by T variation and ocean out-gassing.”

            I did claim CO2 annual growth is driven by temperature and showed the data to prove it.

            More of your obfuscations: My point was not that short-term variation of CO2 is caused by T-driven ocean-out-gassing, but by global temperature which does enhance outgassing among other contributions to CO2 growth. I wasn’t making a case that long-term rise in CO2 is caused by the same mechanism as the short-term. That is your obsession and history with Bart.

            “I made the point Henrys Law is not consistent with the rate of change of CO2 being caused by ocean warming and outgassing.”

            No, you didn’t. Where? Invoking Henry’s Law Doesn’t make a coherent point.

            “I made the point with graphs and a paper that SHORT-TERM CO2 variation is driven by ENSO.”

            So what? One paper about one year that is arguably wrong does not refute my point that CO2 is driven by temperature; after all, ENSO “is a recurring climate pattern involving changes in the temperature of waters in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.”

            “I … show[ed] a paper that explains this, and shows DATA for ocean CO2 fluxes.”

            You showed none of that paper’s data and refuse to explain my rebuttal to the paper’s unproven allegations. Are you claiming you read the full paper and saw the data? If so, why not explain the ambiguity I pointed out?

            “[Correlation between long term T rise and CO2-rate-of-change rise] is the weakest because it is simply two things rising.”

            I’m not emphasizing a weak correlation between two trends. The annual values of temperature and CO2 increase are highly correlated, not weakly correlated as they would be if your ENSO-driven hypothesis ruled. Picture rising sinusoidal trends that are out of phase.

            Your four sentences ending with “ENSO does not have a long-term rise consistent with CO2 rise” may show “a different mechanism is at work for short and long term,” but you are not explaining how or why. Which is why I don’t agree; why I claim you have no data, analysis, or evidence; and why I am perplexed by your opposition to the obvious fact that warmer years produce larger CO2 increases. None of your graphs refute that, nor do they show how Bart and I are cheating. You are hung up on the short-term, long-term question for another day.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I forgot to point out that you have been doing the goal post moving. My singular goal has always been to show how warmer years produce larger annual CO2 growth. Promise made, promise kept.

          • Nate says:

            “The annual values of temperature and CO2 increase are highly correlated, not weakly correlated as they would be if your ENSO-driven hypothesis ruled. ”

            No sequitur. Explain that.

            “No, you didnt. Where? Invoking Henrys Law Doesnt make a coherent point.”

            It seems you don’t do the required back-of-the-envelope calculations before declaring ‘truths’.

            We’ve discussed it several times. Henry’s law produces ~ 20-30 ppm rise in CO2 for 1 C increase in T. Not nearly enough to explain the long term rise. And the short-term rise has a higher scale factor, as I showed, thus it is a larger rate-of-change with Temp. So Henry cannot help you.

          • Nate says:

            “The original WoodForTrees plot showed my main point that warmer years produce greater CO2 increases. Do I need to provide the raw data for you?”

            Produce? That implies causation. You have not made the case for causation.

            ENSO causes global T variation. We know because there is both a strong correlation AND the mechanism is well understood.

            The evidence in many papers (I showed one, you can look for the others) indicates that the cause of short term CO2 variation is NOT global T, it is the ENSO specific weather pattern.

            You should know very well that La Nina causes things like lots of extra rain and flooding in Indonesia and Australia. And El Nino causes drought and wildfires in the same region, and elsewhere.

            Those kinds of specific but strong regional effects apparently have a greater effect on CO2 than a uniform but tiny global T change would have.

          • Nate says:

            Your four sentences ending with ‘ENSO does not have a long-term rise consistent with CO2 rise’ may show ‘a different mechanism is at work for short and long term,’ but you are not explaining how or why.”

            How or why?

            Bart showed many times the first graph that you showed. It has a single scale factor producing an apparent impressive match between both short term and long term variation in T and CO2-rate-of-change. He thought this was proof of the same mechanism at work and that T-change must be the cause of long term CO2 rise.

            It seemed to me you were trying to make the same argument. Are you?

            The filter matters, because it suppresses short term variation but has no effect on long term variation. Thus it artificially suppresses the scale factor for short term but not long term, and makes them appear to be the same (when UAH data is used).

            I showed the same graph with surface data, because CO2 outgasses from the surface, and with the same filter on both data sets. This seems to me, to be the only unbiased way to analyze the correlation.

            And it clearly showed that one scale factor produces a match to short term variation, but long term variation is a non-match, both for slope, and shape.

            The main point is that no one disputes the short-term correlation between global T and CO2. And it is (pretty well) understood how ENSO drives it.

            But that doesnt demonstrate that long-term CO2 rise has the same cause.

            Obviously there can be more then one cause of CO2 variation. And there is an obvious alternate cause of long term CO2 rise, that has both correlation and a clear causal mechanism demonstrated.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate, you are over thinking this. Or do you simply love to argue so much and can’t admit someone else might have a valid point you could agree with? Is it your full-time job to obfuscate the comments of anyone who opposes AGW hype? I have suspected for a long time you are paid to troll.

            “No sequitur. Explain [ENSO-driven correlation weakness].”

            I prepared a graph ( https://postimg.cc/XX8Bwx0c ) illustrating why two trends with exactly the same slope are less correlated than two other trends differing by a factor of two. What matters is how closely the short-term changes track, not how close the long-term trends are. Show me a similar ENSO-driven correlation that counters my “warmer years produce larger CO2 increases” meme.

            “Weve discussed [long term delta CO2/T] several times.”

            Yes, and I agreed that the temperature factor is not enough to account for ALL of the long term rise in CO2. Don’t be stuck on short-term, long-term obsession.

            “You have not made the case for causation.”

            I made the case that warmer years result in larger CO2 emissions. One can lead a horse to water….

            “ENSO causes global T variation. We know because there is both a strong correlation AND the mechanism is well understood. The evidence in many papers (I showed one, you can look for the others) indicates that the cause of short term CO2 variation is NOT global T, it is the ENSO specific weather pattern.”

            For the nth time, ENSO affects global temperatures. But the global temperatures drive CO2 increases year after year for the duration of the whole available time series, not just ENSO years. Your paper based on one year’s data implied the opposite, as you stated earlier; IOW, ENSO suppresses CO2 outgassing despite blatant evidence to the contrary shown in the long-term data. Why do you repeat the same garbage without providing any data to support it? If you think that “strong regional effects” have greater influence, then show the data. Otherwise, it’s your same ol King of Obfuscation rigamarole.

            “It seemed to me you were trying to make the same [long-term Bart] argument. Are you?”

            No. As I explained above and in the past with spreadsheet models, other factors contribute to the long-term rise.

            “This seems to me, to be the only unbiased way to analyze the correlation.”

            I have learned that you only consider your own interpretations as unbiased. I consider it obfuscation.

            “The main point is that no one disputes the short-term correlation between global T and CO2.”

            Is that a typo or are you finally agreeing with my original point? https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1326998

            “And it is (pretty well) understood how ENSO drives it.”

            But you failed over and over to show any supporting data or coherently explain anything about that.

            “And there is an obvious alternate cause of long term CO2 rise, that has both correlation and a clear causal mechanism demonstrated.”

            Oh good, then just show the data indicating more CO2 will increase global temperature by any measurable amount. You know, something without twenty-year hiatuses and periods of increasing temperatures when humans were generating little CO2.

          • Nate says:

            Me “that the cause of short term CO2 variation is NOT global T, it is the ENSO specific weather pattern.

            You: “For the nth time, ENSO affects global temperatures. But the global temperatures drive CO2 increases year after year for the duration of the whole available time series, not just ENSO years.”

            Oh? Wishful thinking. Point me examples of that. ENSO, La Nina or El Nino, is active in most years. It is the dominant source of variation.

            Pinatubo, also caused change, but a different amount.

            And mechanism is not Henry’s law.

          • Nate says:

            “And it is (pretty well) understood how ENSO drives it.

            “But you failed over and over to show any supporting data or coherently explain anything about that.”

            I failed? Puleeez. Not my job. I showed you a paper. You want me to read it to you?

            There are other papers. You unable to Google?

            I don’t really care whether you believe it or not. You dismiss every paper I show you, while not bothering to read them.

            And there is an obvious alternate cause of long term CO2 rise, that has both correlation and a clear causal mechanism demonstrated.

            “Oh good, then just show the data indicating more CO2 will increase global temperature by any measurable amount. You know, something without twenty-year hiatuses and periods of increasing temperatures when humans were generating little CO2.”

            Different topic. You keep building the same strawman that CO2 must be the ONLY source of T variation, else the theory must be wrong.

            And of course the hockey sticks for T and CO2, but that is just a correlation. See how that works?

          • Nate says:

            “Your paper based on one years data implied the opposite, as you stated earlier; IOW, ENSO suppresses CO2 outgassing despite blatant evidence to the contrary shown in the long-term data. Why do you repeat the same garbage without providing any data to support it?”

            I dont know why I bother showing you papers when you can’t understand them.

            Again, you can’t seem to deal with complexity.

            ” ENSO suppresses CO2 outgassing”

            The paper is discussing El Nino. El Nino suppresses outgassing. That is a fact, because El Nino suppresses upwelling in the Eastern Pacific of CO2 rich water, as it explained.

            Thus in the Early part of an El Nino rise they MEASURED suppressed CO2 release over the Pacific ocean.

            But in the later part of the El Nino, after its effects were felt around the world, they MEASURED atm CO2 rising, as we would expect.

            This is not garbage. It is just the way it works.

          • Nate says:

            “I prepared a graph ( https://postimg.cc/XX8Bwx0c ) illustrating why two trends with exactly the same slope are less correlated than two other trends differing by a factor of two. What matters is how closely the short-term changes track, not how close the long-term trends are. ”

            I agree, common trends are a very WEAK type of correlation. But Bart thought it was significant for showing that T drives the long term CO2 rise.

            If you don’t think it implies anything about long-term trends then I agree.

            Then I dont really understand your overall point here. As I noted, short term correlation between T and CO2 rate-of-change is well known and not disputed.

            So what does that do for you?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “Point me examples of [global temperatures driving CO2 increases year after year for the duration of the whole available time series, not just ENSO years]. ENSO, La Nina or El Nino, is active in most years.”

            The global temperature effect is active in ALL years whether they are ENSO affected or not. Look at this plot where I adjusted the scale and offset so that the two major El Nino years 1998 and 2015 are scaled the same. https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/uah6/scale:0.28/offset:0.15

            Now look at the Mt Pinatubo (1991), Mt. St. Helens (1980), and El Chicon (1982) years which were unaffected by an El Nino. The CO2 change still tracks with the temperatures. Examples shown.

            “I showed you a paper.”

            One year, one paper which you failed again to explain. It is not my job to do the work you need to do to make your case and refute mine. Talk about OID, ownership-inversion-deflection. Boy do you have it bad. I’m having a good laugh right now typing this.

            “I dont really care whether you believe it or not.”

            More OID, except I don’t ask you to ‘believe’ data I have not shown you. If you have a problem with my arguments, then either refute them or bug off. I don’t care. I made my point over and over, you failed to refute, so take it or leave it.

            “Different topic.”

            Yes, my mistake. But you are the one who tried to change the subject.

            “See how that works?”

            No, my powers are numerable, but I don’t read minds.

            “El Nino suppresses outgassing.”

            I did get that from the paper. Yet as I keep noting, that phrase is contradicted by the global data, and you previously avoided explaining why. Locally there may be a suppression of outgassing due to suppressed upwelling. But you failed to report any data from the paper that would support your/their case. I will give you a C on finally explaining something, at least.

            “Then I dont really understand your overall point here. As I noted, short term correlation between T and CO2 rate-of-change is well known and not disputed.”

            More OID. That was my point from the get-go in my response to KH that you originally challenged as King of Obfuscation. I reiterated the same point in a later reply to PN: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327347

            Now after dozens of comments, you claim you don’t understand the point I’ve been making all along. I don’t expect you to acknowledge how disingenuous that looks but, for the record, at least we finally agree.

          • Nate says:

            Ok, then you are not trying to use this graph, as Bart did to support the claim that T drives long the long term CO2 rise. Good.

            I believe this started when you showed the Bart graph with the splendid match to short and long term variation.

            Then I posted what, IMO, is an unbiased version of the graph.

            Then YOU went into your standard rant, and revealed that you DO think your correlation is indeed proof of causation.

            “Nate rears his ugly King of Obfuscation head again by obscuring THE physical reality that temperature drives the short-term fluctuation in the ANNUAL change in CO2.”

            But my graph does not ‘obscure’ any physical reality. The short term correlation is still present. The long term one you claim not to care about.

            Re: does T variation rather than ENSO drive CO2 variation?

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1958/offset:0.5/mean:48/detrend:1.08/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/mean:48/scale:2.1/detrend:0.29

            This shows surface temp and CO2-derivative filtered with a 48 mo filter to remove ENSO effects.

            Also both series are detrended.

            Does the result look correlated to you?

            Not to me.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “I believe this started when you showed the Bart graph with the splendid match to short and long term variation.”

            Yes, I responded to a series of questions asked by Kenneth Helland (July 1, 2022 at 10:36 AM) ending with, “Do the variations in CO2 show any strong correlations to the fluctuations in temperature?”

            You jumped to the conclusion I was making the broader claim that temperature accounts for all CO2 growth.

            “Then I posted what, IMO, is an unbiased version of the graph.”

            Yes, you posted your opinion which is equally biased, if not worse, because it obfuscated the valid point I was making with my graph, which you have now agreed to.

            “Then YOU went into your standard rant, and revealed that you DO think your correlation is indeed proof of causation.”

            The history of my patient rebuttal to your revisionist obfuscations is clearly available to anyone reading the thread. Again, you agree that “short-term correlation between T and CO2 rate-of-change is well known and not disputed.” The only difference is you are obsessed with objecting to a long-term effect, despite the fact that the short-term correlation occurs throughout the full 50- or 60-year period depending on which of at least three temperature data series being compared with the annual CO2 growth. Apparently, you cannot appreciate that the long-term trend correlations are conflated by other factors, such as, 1) contributions to CO2 growth besides temperature, and 2) the temperature trends do not have the same slopes over the full time periods.

            “But my graph does not ‘obscure’ any physical reality.”

            You objected to averaging CO2 change without averaging temperature. That obscures the physical reality that CO2 is measured at only one global point and must be averaged to have a level playing field when compared to global temperatures which are already averaged. That is the closest one can come to physical reality. However, it is true that my point about temperature drives CO2 change is not obscured, only unnecessarily challenged. I regret not letting it go at the time. However, my presentation on this topic is getting better honed and for that, I’m grateful.

            “Re: does T variation rather than ENSO drive CO2 variation? This [WoodForTrees graph] shows surface temp and CO2-derivative filtered with a 48 mo filter to remove ENSO effects.”

            I don’t see the point of removing ENSO effects. The ENSO contribution is vital in making temperature as accurate as possible. You can argue that ENSO is a major influence on global temperature, but that doesn’t take anything away from my original point. Knock yourself out.

          • Nate says:

            “You objected to averaging CO2 change without averaging temperature. That obscures the physical reality that CO2 is measured at only one global point and must be averaged to have a level playing field when compared to global temperatures which are already averaged. That is the closest one can come to physical reality. However, it is true that my point about temperature drives CO2 change is not obscured, only unnecessarily challenged.”

            Uhh..i dont think that makes any sense.

            It is useful to average CO2 over 12 months to remove the seasonal cycle and local variations and produce a smooth derivative. It’s best to compare them over periods long enough that CO2 has had a chance to mix. But this does mean that faster variations are suppressed.

            Global T is not ‘already averaged’ over time, only space. It still contains its monthly temporal variations.

            CO2 levels at Mauna Loa are in a sense ‘already averaged’ over time and space because the trade winds have brought CO2 from all over the world emitted in the prior months.

            It makes no sense to think the worldwide monthly variations in T are fully present in the Mauna Loa CO2 changes.

            In any case, IMO, it is best to filter out the monthly variation equally in both series.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “Uhh..i dont think that makes any sense.”

            Maybe explaining it to you a third time’s the charm. You acknowledge your understanding of the importance of averaging the CO2 because of its cycle and it being only measured locally. You claim it is biased not to average the temperature over 12 months as well. I argue against that for the reason that the UAH monthly anomaly is already averaged over the whole planet. There is no physical reason to do any further annual averaging because it only removes valid information. There is nothing to be gained by averaging the temperatures as it changes nothing. It does not remove any bias.

            “But this does mean that faster variations are suppressed.”

            Nor have I claimed any such thing regarding averaging 12 months of CO2 data. I am only arguing that there is no need to also average the 12 temperature months. One can do that to see if there is any better fit or to make the graph look cleaner, but that comes at cost of introducing some bias. You can see that yourself by introducing a lag of a few months to maximize the correlation. That is due to the fact that temperature drives the resulting CO2 response.

            “Global T is not ‘already averaged’ over time, only space. It still contains its monthly temporal variations.”

            That’s wrong. You need to open your mind and start thinking out of the box. The satellites circle the globe 24/7 all month long. We only see the one data point that summarizes the month long average temperature. It is that temperature that affected the CO2 over the whole globe during that month. There is no reason to average out a whole year’s worth of temperature to determine the effect of each month. Use the maximum pixels per MB of data for maximum picture clarity.

            “CO2 levels at Mauna Loa are in a sense ‘already averaged’ over time and space because the trade winds have brought CO2 from all over the world emitted in the prior months.”

            You only have to look at the yearly cycling to realize that is false. You already agreed with the validity of the 12-month averaging for CO2. If you want to eliminate the 12-month average on CO2, go ahead and try it. It’s not a pretty sight.

            You have obfuscated enough on this topic without any concrete rebuttal to my assertion that warmer temperatures produce larger annual CO2 increases. In fact, you essentially agree with that. Let it go.

          • Nate says:

            “u claim it is biased not to average the temperature over 12 months as well. I argue against that for the reason that the UAH monthly anomaly is already averaged over the whole planet.”

            Nope. Time and space are different variables. You cannot equate them!

            The CO2 instantaneous changes at Mauna Loa are due to a mixing of earlier emissions from all over the world that have travelled over varying times to Hawaii. Time is intrinsically smeared out in the CO2 signal.

            So if any quantity already contains temporal averaging it is the CO2 data, not the T data, which is only averaged over space.

            When we then further average the CO2 data over 12 mo, without also averaging the T data over 12 mo, we are adding a BIAS to the analysis.

            “There is no physical reason to do any further annual averaging because it only removes valid information.”

            Assertion without logic or evidence. Classic Chic.

            “There is nothing to be gained by averaging the temperatures as it changes nothing. It does not remove any bias.”

            If it changes nothing, then why do you say it removes valid information!

            Of course it changes something.

            Again, a 12 mo average suppresses faster variation. Thats what a LP filter means! If you do that to one data set but not the other that introduces a BIAS.

            It is obviously hopeless to make you understand any science with subtlety or complexity.

          • Nate says:

            “I dont see the point of removing ENSO effects. The ENSO contribution is vital in making temperature as accurate as possible. You can argue that ENSO is a major influence on global temperature, but that doesnt take anything away from my original point. ”

            You claimed, without evidence, that non-ENSO T variation CAUSES CO2 variation.

            You claimed, without evidence that ocean-warming and outgassing is responsible.

            I removed ENSO and the result is that slower, non-ENSO T variation is not correlated to CO2 variation.

            That is one point.

            You still have dealt with the Henry’s Law problem with your claims about ocean warming and out-gassing.

            That is another point.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            All of your comments are either lies, false accusations, distortions of my points, classic obfuscations seasoned with a bit of OID and unsubstantiated assertions.

            “Time and space are different variables. You cannot equate them!” I never wrote that. Distortion, OID.

            “Time is intrinsically smeared out in the CO2 signal.” Unsubstantiated and arguably unsubstantiatable.

            “You claimed, without evidence, that non-ENSO T variation CAUSES CO2 variation.” An OID lie. I argued ENSO is a major contributor to global temperature.

            “You claimed, without evidence that ocean-warming and outgassing is responsible.” Distortion, because I only claimed largely responsible and that is not germane to my “warmer T makes annual CO2 growth larger” meme.

            “I removed ENSO and the result is that slower, non-ENSO T variation is not correlated to CO2 variation.” Irrelevant obfuscation, because I never claimed ENSO is not involved in the temperature effect on CO2.

            “You still have dealt with the Henrys Law problem with your claims about ocean warming and out-gassing.” A false accusation, if not blatant lie.

            You do realize that King of Obfuscation is not a term of endearment, right? You earned it with flying colors.

          • Nate says:

            So many times you label obvious facts a LIE here. Do you think calling something a lie allows you to ‘win’ the argument. Shameless.

            “Time and space are different variables. You cannot equate them!’ I never wrote that. Distortion, OID.”

            Your statement is clearly saying that a spatial average is ‘already’ doing what a time average would do!

            “u claim it is biased not to average the temperature over 12 months as well. I argue against that for the reason that the UAH monthly anomaly is already averaged over the whole planet.”

            “‘Time is intrinsically smeared out in the CO2 signal.’ Unsubstantiated and arguably unsubstantiatable.”

            This simple truth is clearly explained: “The CO2 instantaneous changes at Mauna Loa are due to a mixing of earlier emissions from all over the world that have travelled over varying times to Hawaii.”

            YOU fail to get it and cannot rebut it.

            “‘You claimed, without evidence, that non-ENSO T variation CAUSES CO2 variation.’ An OID lie.”

            Here’s you claiming just that:

            “the global temperatures drive CO2 increases year after year for the duration of the whole available time series, NOT JUST ENSO YEARS”

            So, not a lie after all!

            “I removed ENSO and the result is that slower, non-ENSO T variation is not correlated to CO2 variation. Irrelevant obfuscation, because I never claimed ENSO is not involved in the temperature effect on CO2.”

            See above where you DID claim non-ENSO T variation is driving CO2 changes!

            “You still have dealt with the Henrys Law problem with your claims about ocean warming and out-gassing.” A false accusation, if not blatant lie.”

            Not at all. Here is you claiming ocean outgassing:

            “The effect is largely based on the greater ocean outgassing that occurs with higher temperatures.”

            Here is me pointing out that Henry’s Law does not agree.

            “Weve discussed it several times. Henrys law produces ~ 20-30 ppm rise in CO2 for 1 C increase in T. Not nearly enough to explain the long term rise. And the short-term rise has a higher scale factor, as I showed, thus it is a larger rate-of-change with Temp. So Henry cannot help you.”

            Here is you not addressing the issue: ” ”

            Not false. Not a lie.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “So many times you label obvious facts a LIE here. Do you think calling something a lie allows you to ‘win’ the argument.”

            First, your lies and false accusations are documented in the history of this thread. Second, the thread shouldn’t be about winning an argument, but acknowledging the validity of a scientific argument that warmer years produce larger CO2 increases. You already agreed with that. Why is that so hard for you to let it go? Are you suffering from ALDS? Argument Loss Derangement Syndrome.

            “Your statement is clearly saying that a spatial average is ‘already’ doing what a time average would do!”

            You are falsely accusing me by distorting my words, therefore lying, and doubling down on stupid. CO2 is not universally mixed in the same way as a temperature average is obtained. You are falsely accusing me of equating time and space, whereas I am making the distinction between them. To equate them, one would have to be measuring CO2 over the whole globe as temperature is. You can see from CarbonTracker that CO2 is not as well-mixed as you believe.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV6FDO_Pl5M

            “YOU fail to get it and cannot rebut [CO2 instantaneous changes at Mauna Loa are due to a mixing of earlier emissions].”

            That is classic OID. You never showed any data supporting your unfounded assertion. Now you are accusing me of failing to rebut it????

            “Heres you claiming just that:”

            And then you proceed to distort my statement to make it seem that ONLY the ENSO years cause CO2 variation. I clearly stated, “The global temperature effect is active in ALL years whether they are ENSO affected or not.” Your propensity to obfuscate knows no bounds.

            “See above where you DID claim non-ENSO T variation is driving CO2 changes!”

            This is another example of ownership inversion deflection and classic obfuscation. Although I never claimed “ENSO is not involved in the temperature effect on CO2,” that statement is not contradicted by “non-ENSO T variation is [solely] driving CO2 changes,” which you falsely implied I claimed. You are simply too stubborn to admit that ENSO affects temperature which drives CO2 whether ENSO is active or not.

            My answer to, “And as you can see in the paper, and application of Henrys law, this, ‘The effect is largely based on the greater ocean outgassing that occurs with higher temperatures,’ turns out not to be supported by the facts,” was this, “No, I dont see anything in the paper that refutes my claim. But I omitted the additional effect of temperature on CO2 coming from the geosphere.”

            “Here is you not addressing the issue: [silence]”

            Here is me addressing the issue, “Yes, and I agreed that the temperature factor is not enough to account for ALL of the long term rise in CO2.”

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1329398

            So, your Henry’s Law obsession is just a blatant lie, or you are suffering from short term memory loss, ALDS, OID, an attempt to compensate for a small penis, or some combination of all. You need psychological help.

          • Nate says:

            You seem to have oppositional defiance disorder, where you have to argue with whatever I post regardless of its truth.

            You have pointing out a correlation between Global T and CO2 measured in Hawaii.

            That means T in Russia and resultant CO2 outgassing in Russia do end up affecting CO2 in measured in Hawaii. To do that it must mix and travel to Hawaii. It doesnt do that instantaneously.

            You can clearly see that propagation time between the hemispheres here. The South Pole responds later to the NH rise from emissions and fall from leafing out of Norther forrests.

            So your denial that there is a smearing of the times that the distant emissions reach Hawaii is quite baffling.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “You seem to have oppositional defiance disorder, where you have to argue with whatever I post regardless of its truth.”

            You indict yourself. My comments are fact based and focused on the meme that temperature affects CO2, a meme which you agreed with. Meanwhile, I am simply asking you to prove your assertions with data and a coherent argument. You accuse me of what you are doing. You are lying and distorting my arguments.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “That means T in Russia and resultant CO2 outgassing in Russia do end up affecting CO2 in measured in Hawaii. To do that it must mix and travel to Hawaii. It doesn’t do that instantaneously.”

            I never claimed otherwise. And because of the regional and seasonal differences, it makes sense to average CO2 over the whole year. I show you the CarbonTracker evidence of the reason why and you ownership-inversion deflect by showing a link making the same point.

            “The South Pole responds later . . . .”

            The SH and NH are contraposed. If you want to make the case one leads the other, you are welcome to do that. It won’t change my argument which you already agree with. Geesh.

            “So your denial that there is a smearing of the times that the distant emissions reach Hawaii is quite baffling.”

            “Smearing of the times” is not a scientific phrase I am familiar with. Your comment is unintelligible, a false accusation, and just plain more obfuscation. What’s baffling is why you don’t let it go and stop making a fool of yourself.

            Let me give you some advice: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1330781

          • Nate says:

            That means T in Russia and resultant CO2 outgassing in Russia do end up affecting CO2 in measured in Hawaii. To do that it must mix and travel to Hawaii. It doesnt do that instantaneously.

            “I never claimed otherwise.”

            Oh? Then it is still baffling that you fail to understand this:

            “‘CO2 levels at Mauna Loa are in a sense already averaged over time and space because the trade winds have brought CO2 from all over the world emitted in the prior months.’

            You only have to look at the yearly cycling to realize that is false.”

            or this:

            “So your denial that there is a smearing of the times that the distant emissions reach Hawaii is quite baffling.”

            “Time is intrinsically smeared out in the CO2 signal.”

            “Smearing of the times” is not a scientific phrase I am familiar with.

            Ok so, you don’t know what SMEARING means? Pulleez.

            ‘Smearing of times’ you can’t figure out what that means?

            Either you are extremely clueless, or you have a severe case of ODD.

            Likely both.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Your last post shows you are at the end of your rope. Cut your losses and let go.

            My bet is your ALDS affliction will force you to continue ad nauseam.

          • Nate says:

            “See above where you DID claim non-ENSO T variation is driving CO2 changes!’

            “This is another example of ownership inversion deflection and classic obfuscation. Although I never claimed ‘ENSO is not involved in the temperature effect on CO2,’ that statement is not contradicted by ‘non-ENSO T variation is [solely] driving CO2 changes, which you falsely implied I claimed.”

            Nope, I never did.

            We had already agreed that ENSO years are correlated to T and CO2.

            You and I were then specifically addressing the non-ENSO T variation, which you brought up.

            There was NO statement from me, or implication from me, that you claimed ‘non-ENSO T variation is soley driving CO2 variation’

            Your cluelessness and ODD at it again.

          • Nate says:

            FYI here is ocean T and LP filtered CO2 variation. Both detrended.

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/scale:1.8/mean:48/detrend:0.25/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1958/mean:12/offset:0.5/mean:48/detrend:0.8

            The lack of correlation is more pronounced for these medium time-scale variations.

            FYI, my wife agrees that ‘smear’ was not a clear word to use in that context to mean ‘spread out’.

            So I’ll give you that one.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “Nope, I never did [falsely imply you claimed non-ENSO T variation is [solely] driving CO2 changes.”

            “There was NO statement from me, or implication from me, that you claimed ‘non-ENSO T variation is soley driving CO2 variation'”

            Nate, you quoted yourself in the first sentence of your 7:56 AM comment doing exactly that. I added the “solely” to highlight what I thought you were implying, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were just doing your usual obfuscation.

            Here is where you made the original false claim: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1330432

            Your debate tactic of accusing me of doing exactly what you are doing is getting old. Find a counseling group and admit “I’m Nate, and I have ALDS and ODD.”

            “The lack of correlation is more pronounced for these medium time-scale variations.”

            No one should be surprised by that. Why would you think spreading out or smearing would improve any correlation? It seems your objective is to disprove my claim that temperature drives CO2 change. You failed. Let it go.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Here is ocean T and LP filtered CO2 variation both detrended without spreading out the time series.

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/scale:1.8/mean:12/detrend:0.25/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1958/mean:12/offset:0.4/mean:12/detrend:0.8

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Just one more thing. I forgot to thank you for the CO2 Pumphandle video. It makes a great addition to my climate change talks combating AGW fanaticism.

          • Nate says:

            ” I added the ‘solely’ to highlight what I thought you were implying”

            Yep. Reading minds is not your strong suit.

            “The lack of correlation is more pronounced for these medium time-scale variations.”

            “No one should be surprised by that. Why would you think spreading out or smearing would improve any correlation?”

            You obviously have little understanding of what a low pass filter does. It has nothing to do with ‘spreading out’ anything.

            It simply removes faster variation, leaving behind slower variation, and shows that this medium and longer scale variation is NOT correlated to CO2 variation.

            ‘No one should be surprised by that’. Well Im suprised you would say that given that this plot contradicts your repeated claims that T drives CO2 variation.

          • Nate says:

            “Here is ocean T and LP filtered CO2 variation both detrended without spreading out the time series.”

            Filtering is not ‘spreading out’.

            Your plot serves no purpose because I have never argued with the fact that fast variations in these two series are correlated.

            ENSO is correlated to T and CO2. Thus you have three things correlated.

            The main issue is, for umpteenth time, that correlation is not causation!

            Something that Skeptic Chic always emphasized.

            The other issue is that NOT ALL T variation is well correlated to CO2.

            As I showed, the medium scale and longer scale variation are not correlated.

            Given your “claim that temperature drives CO2 change.” Do you have an explanation for this?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “[a low pass filter] has nothing to do with spreading out anything. It simply removes faster variation, leaving behind slower variation, and shows that this medium and longer scale variation is NOT correlated to CO2 variation.”

            That is the biggest most concentrated pile of BS in this whole thread. Manipulating data to worsen a correlation is gross obfuscation.

            “this plot contradicts your repeated claims that T drives CO2 variation.”

            No, it only shows you are full of BS.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “Given your ‘claim that temperature drives CO2 change.’ Do you have an explanation for this?”

            Yes. Nothing you argued refutes my claim. Although the correlation is not proof, it is pretty hard to prove otherwise as you have elegantly shown.

            “The other issue is that NOT ALL T variation is well correlated to CO2. As I showed, the medium scale and longer scale variation are not correlated.”

            You showed BS only proving you can obfuscate better than the devil himself. Your spreading-out manipulation distortions attempt to invalidate a short-term correlation that applies over the whole measurement period fails.

          • Nate says:

            “That is the biggest most concentrated pile of BS in this whole thread. Manipulating data to worsen a correlation is gross obfuscation.”

            What you call ‘manipulating’ is standard data analysis to investigate time-dependent properties of data.

            I note that your ‘manipulation’ by applying an LP filter to one data set but not the other was somehow OK. So you are quite a hypocrite here.

            “Your spreading-out manipulation distortions attempt to invalidate a short-term correlation”

            Filtering is not spreading out, dimwit. It doesnt IN ANY WAY attempt to invalidate the obvious short term correlation. It is simply isolating the medium and long time-scale variations.

            Confirming that you seem to have no clue about what filtering does. It has a legitimate purpose in science, but you are, of course, quite ignorant of all that, and thoroughly confused.

            Oh well.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “What you call ‘manipulating’ is standard data analysis to investigate time-dependent properties of data.”

            Asserting that your King of Obfuscation method is standard data analysis does not make it so.

            “I note that your ‘manipulation’ by applying an LP filter to one data set but not the other was somehow OK. So you are quite a hypocrite here.”

            As stated numerous times now, my claim was temperature drives annual CO2 change. I explained why temperature does not need to be averaged. I explained why CO2 growth has to be averaged to remove CO2 seasonal and regional variability. You can see for yourself what would happen if you removed either or both of the average or the LP filter, which is massive degradation of any correlation.

            You on the otherhand, in an attempt to inexplicably argue against that which you agreed with several times, try to smother any temperature-driving-CO2 correlation by averaging not just once on both series, but a second time with a four-year smoothing and also detrend to boot. Even with all that obfuscation, a trace of the temperature influence remains. This is argument loss derangement syndrome taken to an extreme.

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/scale:1.8/mean:48/detrend:0.25/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1958/offset:0.4/mean:48/detrend:0.8hat

            “Filtering is simply isolating the medium and long time-scale variations.”

            Admittedly, obfuscation by filtering is not my forte. I’m just a retired lab rat. In the lab, filtration works in two ways. One is to remove the product from the reaction media. The other is to filter out the dregs from the liquor. I filtered the noise to see the signal. You did the opposite. Your whole contribution to this thread has been a failed attempt to eliminate the well-known temperature effect on annual CO2 growth by showing no medium- and long-term correlations.

            On your way back to the drawing board, stop by the psychology department and get a reality check and treatment for your ALDS.

          • Nate says:

            Heres the problem. You are not really familiar with filtering, what it does and does not do, what its purpose is..

            But you still declare it obfuscation, and dismiss filtered data as inappropriately manipulated.

            It isnt.

            This is the problem.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Your ALDS is the problem. Seek help.

          • Nate says:

            ” I explained why temperature does not need to be averaged.”

            You insisted that global T is ‘already averaged’ over 12 months based on pure speculation that spatial converts to temporal, and a lack of understanding of how filtering works.

            I explained why if you want to compare variation on multiple time scales in two series, you cannot suppress variations unequally in the two series.

            Your speculations are deemed by you to be valid explanations.

            My explanations based on actual knowledge and experience of filtering are deemed invalid and obfuscation.

            And your objections to this has no clear purpose, other than to be ODD.

            “I explained why CO2 growth has to be averaged to remove CO2 seasonal and regional variability.”

            And I concurred that is essential. Just do it equally to BOTH.

            “You can see for yourself what would happen if you removed either or both of the average or the LP filter, which is massive degradation of any correlation.”

            “You on the otherhand, in an attempt to inexplicably argue against that which you agreed with several times, try to smother any temperature-driving-CO2 correlation by averaging not just once on both series, but a second time with a four-year smoothing and also detrend to boot. Even with all that obfuscation, a trace of the temperature influence remains. This is argument loss derangement syndrome taken to an extreme.”

            I ALREADY had showed 12 mo filtering results leaving fast correlations intact. Then I showed 48 mo filtering to remove ENSO driven effects.

            I have consistently stated that there is correlation between fast variations. For you to suggest I am arguing against that is mistaken.

            I think it is informative to isolate variation on different time scales, to see whether fast variations and medium variations behave differently. That was the point.

            But you cover eyes, plug ears, dont want to know about any facts that may interfere with your simple, chosen narrative.

          • Nate says:

            “and also detrend to boot”

            Yes indeed. Detrending also has a purpose. It helps to isolate variations that are on top of whatever trend there is.

            You understand this and have made the same point:

            “I prepared a graph ( https://postimg.cc/XX8Bwx0c ) illustrating why two trends with exactly the same slope are less correlated than two other trends differing by a factor of two. What matters is how closely the short-term changes track, not how close the long-term trends are.”

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “My explanations based on actual knowledge and experience of filtering are deemed invalid and obfuscation.”

            Your explanations prove your knowledge and experience are only good for enhancing your King of Obfuscation resume. You are confiscating my arguments as if you made them first and abridging them to try to make it look like my point is wrong. You failed. With only one exception, the only charts you post support my arguments, not refute them.

            The exception is where you try to use a 4-year “time-smearing” to make short term temperature influence on CO2 go away. That only fools those unfamiliar with your tricks or not paying close attention.

            You accused me of “pure speculation that spatial converts to temporal, and a lack of understanding of how filtering works.”

            That is hypocritical prevarication. First, I never insisted “global T is ‘already averaged’ over 12 months.” That’s you lying. Global temperature is measured globally, and the average is posted EACH MONTH by Dr. S as I wrote several times now. You have never made a case for that being “speculation that spatial converts to temporal.” Conveniently, for you obfuscators, what is not shown can’t be rebutted. Finally, your examples demonstrate you are the one abusing how filtration works by “smearing” rather than clarifying.

            “I explained why if you want to compare variation on multiple time scales in two series, you cannot suppress variations unequally in the two series.”

            That is just your warped opinion. I violate no scientific principle or statistical law. “Suppress” denigrates what is being done by averaging the seasonal and regional CO2 measurement variability. I meticulously explained that and why it isn’t necessary for temperature. You know this, yet stupefyingly object.

            “Just do it equally to BOTH.”

            You did, and I did. All it shows is smearing reduces correlation.

            “I have consistently stated that there is correlation between fast variations. For you to suggest I am arguing against that is mistaken.”

            Yet you are vehemently trying to obscure the fact that those short-term correlations extend throughout the full time series. You used smearing to try to obscure that fact.

            “I think it is informative to isolate variation on different time scales, to see whether fast variations and medium variations behave differently. That was the point.”

            A point which you have utterly failed to make because you are blinded by ALDS and too busy arguing against the simple proposition that temperature drives annual CO2 change, a narrative you have supported several times now. Ironically, you accuse me of not wanting “to know about any facts that may interfere with [this] simple, chosen narrative.”

            How long will it take you to realize I won’t stop pointing out your obfuscations? My case is made, and my responses will be briefer to avoid wasting any more time with you.

          • Nate says:

            “I never insisted ‘global T is ‘already averaged; over 12 months.’ Thats you lying.”

            FALSE

            Me:

            “Global T is not ‘already averaged’ over time, only space. It still contains its monthly temporal variations.”

            This is an obvious fact.

            You:

            “Thats wrong. You need to open your mind and start thinking out of the box.”

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “FALSE” — prove it, liar. Putting a semi-colon in only makes your prevarication worse.

            “This is an obvious fact” that you repeatedly assert without evidence.

          • Nate says:

            ‘This is an obvious fact’ that you repeatedly assert without evidence.”

            I need to show you evidence that UAH monthly data is an average of global T over a month, not a year?

            ODD.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            OID.

        • Nate says:

          “The exception is where you try to use a 4-year ‘time-smearing’ to make short term temperature influence on CO2 go away. That only fools those unfamiliar with your tricks or not paying close attention.”

          You seem utterly determined to remain ignorant on this subject matter.

          If you choose to believe standard data analysis is a ‘trick’, then a rational discussion with you is just not possible.

  5. JMurphy says:

    And since March, the global anomalies have been higher than last year.

  6. MrZ says:

    True,
    It normally takes a few days to get the gridded version though.

  7. MrZ says:

    This is in Swedish but I think youll understand the graphs anyway.
    https://cfys.nu/graphs/Avtagande%20v%C3%A4xthuseffet.pdf

    • Bindidon says:

      Thanks, no problem using Google Transl.

    • RLH says:

      Someone else has noticed that the most recent temperature trend is downwards since 2016.

    • Bindidon says:

      MrZ

      I just had a first look at your document, and will have a closer look at it today evening.

      But… I see in the pdf file this typical UAH time series picture

      https://i.postimg.cc/nhfkNwjh/Screenshot-2022-07-02-at-10-09-24-Avtagande-pdf.png

      with the usual falling red bar for the post-2016 trend.

      My first question is: who wonders about a falling UAH trend, when its starting year is that with the highest value in all 42 years?

      My second question: did you ever compute the annual anomaly averages for UAH, and put them into your SQL data base?

      There you could search for all years y0 preceded by years y1, y2, y3, y4, y5 whose values are all greater than that of y0.

      Result:

      1985
      1992
      2000
      2008

      Ooops?! 2021 isn’t even at the end of the list!

      That’s due to the bad boy 2018… he he.

      *
      Now let us look at all these periods (including 2021) for which the trend is negative (thus, 2000 isn’t in the list):

      https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1980/to:1986/trend/plot/uah6/from:1987/to:1993/trend/plot/uah6/from:2003/to:2009/trend/plot/uah6/from:2016/to:2022/trend

      (to:1986 is the same as to:1985.99)

      and look behind ‘Raw data’ at WFT’s computed trends for all them, in C /year:

      1980 – 1986: -0.0495981
      1987 – 1993: -0.0413602
      2003 – 2009: -0.0370889
      2016 – 2022: -0.0221208

      *
      I don’t dispute at all that the actual situation looks as if we were in front of a cooling period.

      But is it not necessary to look at previous similar situations, before stating that the current one is unusual, let alone that it would be unprecedented?

      • RLH says:

        “when its starting year is that with the highest value in all 42 years?”

        But not the highest point since 1878.

      • Bindidon says:

        Once more, a useless, diverting, confusing, distorting reply instead of a useful, constructive arguing.

        Someone has not noticed that we are discussing the UAH period:

        https://i.postimg.cc/nhfkNwjh/Screenshot-2022-07-02-at-10-09-24-Avtagande-pdf.png

        *
        Do you want me to collect all 5 year periods since 1870 showing a trend way way lower than 2016-now, which you do consider most relevant?

        *
        By the way, Linsley Hood, it’s amusing to see you

        – discrediting OLS trends everywhere and all the time,
        but
        – silently approving the OLS trend for 2016-now:

        ” Someone else has noticed that the most recent temperature trend is downwards since 2016. ”

        Fits your egomaniac narrative.

        • RLH says:

          I was just setting the El Nino of 2016 in context. Some might think it was ‘unprecedented’ otherwise.

      • MrZ says:

        Bindidon,

        My comments are about the total greenhouse effect. Very few I have talked to appreciates that it is actually decreasing. Same applies to the CMIP5/6 models.

        It is a bit unfortunate that 2016 was so exceptionally high on all parameters. Hard to avoid that fact when examining current events.

        What I do is that put a trend length (72 months in the PFD example) and then swipe the trend along the line. There is nothing even close to similar along the whole line. In fact for the N20-S20 band we have never had a negative tilt for any 72 month period.

        I think this La Nina is exceptional both in length and amplitude. Lets see how the rest of the year develops.

  8. Alvar Nyrn says:

    This is the development you could expect even before the peak of 2020 if you analyze natural movements.
    A tool that is not normally used in climate contexts is technical analysis of input wave movements. I personally consider this to be the only tool that can correctly interpret the climate movements in detail because it analyzes nature’s movements in both short and long perspectives, and they have worked exactly in different steps since I started the month before the turnaround in 2020 started.

    I suggest that UAH take into account the moving 30-year moving average, 360 months, which in my opinion best reflects the current climate situation and the development of climate movements according to the scientific climate definition of 30 years. And this mean value shows that we are now turning down climate change globally as well as regionally (Chapter 21)

    According to my interpretation, the critical level is at -1,0C (-0.94C), where any establishment below that would show a dramatically increased probability that a new smaller or larger ice age is on the way. This is due to the spread of the waves in time and range during previous periods, and a possible establishment below that would show that the decline is not of a temporary nature.

    Preliminarily, all measurement data I have seen from different parts of the world show the same thing, that is, a very accurate climate cycle since the 19th century is now completed, as well as a smaller one between 1984-2016 according to UAH data, which contributes to a strongly negative forecast for the future developments (Chapter 18).

    The text is in Swedish but I think you understand the main features with the help of the pictures or with, for example, a google translation

    The latest chapter is in the link below where links to other chapters can be found.

    Sincerely, Alvar Nyrn, Analyst, Sweden

    https://alvarnyren.wixsite.com/aidtrade/post/mina-klimatmodeller-25

    • Bindidon says:

      Alvar Nyrn

      You should present your stuff at WUWT, they will love you.

      And I’m sure Heartland and GWPF will strike a juicy consulting deal with you soon.

      • RLH says:

        How to ‘ad hom’ attack without any supporting science. Well done Blinny.

        Sorted out what CTRMs are and how you calculate the 3 periods needed yet? You could always consult what Vaughan Pratt said.

      • Bindidon says:

        Ad hom? Here, by me?

        Did I name Mr Nyrn a ‘boasting idiot’, like you do?

        And what concerns your ridiculous ‘Sorted out’s… I get a bigger laugh each time a newer one appears.

        *
        What about YOU showing us exactly, i.e. with a link to the original source what Vaughan Pratt said, Linsley Hood?

        I know what e.g. Greg Goodman said (and by the way I could see that you were not even able to exactly replicate his Excel method in your CTRM example for UAH).

        • RLH says:

          “Ad hom? Here, by me?”

          Yup. Your whole post was an ‘ad hom’ attack. No science in it at all.

          For the particular use of 12, 10 and 8 months as the CTRM filter parameters see

          https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/#comment-420928http://vaughanpratt.wordpress.com/

          “The blue one, 8 10 12, looks pretty good in general.”

          For the actual calculation factors see

          https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/#comment-420568

          “if you use the optimal values for an F3 filter, namely 1.2067 then 1.5478”

        • Bindidon says:

          ” Yup. Your whole post was an ad hom attack. No science in it at all. ”

          Oh oh oh… If one had to make a list of all your 1000% scienceless dog poos, or of your REAL ad hom attacks, Linsley Hood, that would take long a time.

          Of the nearly 1,600 (!!!!) ‘comment’s you posted on last month’s UAH report, about 10% contain somethng useful.

          *
          I know of that Goodman guest post, Linsley Hood. I read it many times.

          I thought you would be able to give us a link to papers made by Vaughan Pratt at StanU.

          This would be more helpful than pictures like

          http://clim.stanford.edu/F3filters1-5.jpg

          wouldn’t it?

          • RLH says:

            Way to support an ‘ad hom’ attack now you are called on it.

          • RLH says:

            “This would be more helpful than pictures like”

            the ones published by Vaughn Pratt. Idiot.

            You can see quite clearly where the 12, 10, 8 months CTRM came from in that discussion and where the 1.2067 and then 1.5478 came from also. Which is what you asked.

        • E. Swanson says:

          RLH is still promoting his CTRM filters. Thanks for the reference, which will take me some time to digest.

          I note that RLH apparently wants to ignore some problems with the CTRM filters. Consider this comment by Greg Goodman

          If you have say, a lunar influence of 27.55d period and average every 30d period you will remove most of it (which may be an unintentional mistake) but some fraction will remain. Sometimes it will be from the low end, later from the high end. Wnen you work it out you will have created a false cycle of 674days = 1.85 years.
          1/[(1/27.55 1/30 )/2] = 674

          This is what is called an alias.

          Not to forget that the monthly data represents periods of 30 or 31 days with one month being either 28 or 29. Months are man made divisions of the data and have no natural equivalent in the physics. Most calendar months have one Full Moon, while there will be one month with 2 (365.25/27.55 = 13.25). Think about that when you look at the latest monthly results above.

          • RLH says:

            “Not to forget that the monthly data represents periods of 30 or 31 days with one month being either 28 or 29”

            Which is why my presentations of monthly CTRMs use DayOfTheYear for positioning.

            Greg’s comments should be treated with caution mas he got the factors for the CTRM wrong and was corrected by VP.

          • RLH says:

            And DaysInTheYear for the overall width of a year.

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH, I think you missed my point. The monthly data, especially that of UAH, necessarily includes aliasing which is the result of the varying sampling period resulting from the use of calendar months. There is no daily data from the UAH processing, which starts by “binning” the data from individual scans into grid boxes for each month. Thus, I suggest that there’s no way to consider the effects of the lunar tidal cycle in these data, which likely appear as noise in the monthly time series.

            Other external influences, such as the Sun Spot cycle, the lunar precession cycle and the Hale Solar magnetic reversal cycle, which are non-integer periods, will also confound things when the annual cycle is removed as anomalies.

            When you’ve reached the point of plotting your CTRM data, these issues are out of sight.

          • RLH says:

            “The monthly data, especially that of UAH, necessarily includes aliasing which is the result of the varying sampling period resulting from the use of calendar months”

            So sampling at an irregular interval aliases things that occur at regular periods?

          • RLH says:

            The “lunar tidal cycle” is but one factor in what causes ‘tides’, in both the ocean and the atmosphere. Atmospheric pressure, ocean basins, wind fetch and the orientation between the Sun and the Moon causes much larger effects overall.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Given that sampling at an regular intervals aliases things that occur at regular periods close to the sample period, (think Nyquist-Shannon) what would you expect when those sample periods are now irregular?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Swanson, please stop trolling.

  9. gbaikie says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 348.3 km/sec
    density: 14.86 protons/cm3
    Updated 01 Jul 2022
    Sunspot number: 40
    Spotless Days
    Current Stretch: 0 days
    2022 total: 1 day (<1%)

    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 13.20×10^10 W Neutral
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: +3.6% Elevated
    48-hr change: +0.3%
    https://www.spaceweather.com/
    "FARSIDE SOLAR ACTIVITY: The Earthside of the sun is quiet. The farside is not. Yesterday, an explosion from a hidden sunspot hurled a partial halo CME into space:
    The storm cloud will not hit Earth; it is traveling almost directly away from us. The active sunspot should turn to face Earth about 10 days from now when it completes its farside transit."

    One could say, we got earlier, start of Max as compared to 24 cycle,
    but seems less than 24 cycle double peak.
    I wonder about all activity on farside- it seems most planets our on our near side of sun. Perhaps if if happen to on farside during 25 cycle. then 25 would look more like 24??

    • Eben says:

      Whats the point of posting one day snap really ? Activity goes up and down like a Jo-Jo all the time. The May spot average shot up to 96 but then June spot average dropped to only 70 but the chart is not out yet.
      So far he correct superposed charts show 25 is very closely following 24

      • gbaikie says:

        I want record of it- unless there somewhere else it’s available on day to day basis??
        Also want to see I could predict the Oulu Neutron Counts percentage.
        Mainly because it related to GCR effect related to going to Mars {and radiation amount of crew getting in ISS]
        Solar wind
        speed: 304.2 km/sec
        density: 34.82 protons/cm3
        –THE BREEZE FROM A PASSING CME: A CME passed close to Earth on July 1st. It did not directly strike our planet’s magnetic field. Instead, it made itself known by “snowplowing” dense plasma in our direction.–
        https://www.spaceweather.com/
        Updated 02 Jul 2022
        Sunspot number: 57
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 13.02×10^10 W Neutral
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: +3.9% Elevated
        48-hr change: +0.6%

        It appears the higher density of solar wind or snowplowing” is not effecting the thermosphere {much or yet}.

        • Eben says:

          I hate to break it out to you , but nobody is going to Mars

          • gbaikie says:

            Before 2029 it seems unlikely any crew will go to Mars.
            And unlikely any crew go to Moon before 2026, though perhaps
            possible people will fly around the Moon before 2025.

            And before Sept 2022 is over, we should get a test launch of SLS and
            Starship. And before end of 2022, could get more tests and first operational launch of Starship and perhaps followed with about 10 Starships launches in 2023, though it depends upon test launch results, which could delayed this by a year.

          • Eben says:

            Nobody

          • gbaikie says:

            –Eben says:
            July 4, 2022 at 1:58 PM

            Nobody–

            Will Starship complete it’s test launch?

            Will SLS complete it’s test launch?

            Will second richest man is world ever make his
            New Glenn rocket?

            Will chinese launch rockets from the ocean?
            No wait:
            China just launched a rocket with 5 satellites to orbit from a platform at sea

            By Tariq Malik published April 30, 2022

            It was the second launch in 2 days for China.

            I mean:
            China is building a new ship for sea launches to space

            By Andrew Jones published November 14, 2021

            It should be ready for ocean rocket launches in 2022

            Oh, here it is:
            China looks to launch liquid propellant rockets from the seas
            by Andrew Jones June 30, 2022
            https://spacenews.com/china-looks-to-launch-liquid-propellant-rockets-from-the-seas/

  10. gbaikie says:

    Liberal World Order [LWO].
    I thought it was LOW, Liberal Order World.
    Cause I am always mixing things up.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTbdOuv245M

    • gbaikie says:

      Humans are monsters.
      I say this because Jordan Peterson ad, where said, people
      should be monsters and learn to control. And then I skipped the
      ad.
      But Humans are obviously the most dangerous predator on Earth.
      And wonder if space aliens are terrified. As seems a lot things to
      worried about regarding humans.
      And as was saying, some astronomers think humans blind to our universe. So, put them together, terrifying predator which is blind.
      No, blind is not good. Roaming blind vicious predators is scary.

      Space is hard place to hide in or hard for humans to hide from humans
      who can’t detect [or see thru 96% of the universe]. Or human apparently don’t know about the universe. Or can’t know whether it’s easy or hard to hide in space. But based upon what we know, it’s hard to hide in space.
      I tend to think this advantage, easy to detect criminal activity and easy to defend against a war enemy.
      Right now we can’t detect space rocks, but at some point we detect everything the size of baseball- at 2 AU distance away. In similar way we detect space debris in LEO.
      Or telescopes in space will become cheap- far cheaper than telescopes on Earth. Star travel is a bit crazy when you consider how much better and cheaper telescopes will become.
      And then humans might discover how to see most of universe.
      You might not want to live on Mars, but do want to know what is out there?
      {You are predator, of course you do.}

      • Chris says:

        > [I] wonder if space aliens are terrified

        Any space aliens who are technologically advanced enough to know about humans, have enough technology to rout us completely, should they be able to get to us. Not that they’d necessarily do that.

        But they’re not afraid.

        Amused? Perhaps.
        Bored? Possibly.

        And if they have any empathy, distressed that we are on the path to self-destruction.

        • gbaikie says:

          Any alien starship in Sol system could easily cause a space rock to impact Earth, ie cause the Comet of Death. Though any other alien starship could more easily prevent it.
          Any starship traveling lightyears is costly merely in of just the cost of energy involved.
          But as said telescope could be really cheap.
          If you can get to point of having 1 million population on Mars, people on Mars to make and launch very cheap space telescopes.
          But even currently we could launch somewhat cheap space telescopes from Earth, if there was enough interest in it. Or we have interested in spy satellite, the Hubble telescope came from our interest in spy satellites. So as interested as we are about military space which is critical to US national security. Though military space is cheap compare the other costs of national security. Or it’s not a lot interest, I am talking about, though it is something in which has had many decades with continuous interest, unlike say, the Apollo Program. Though private interest could much more a critical national security issue can do. If were as interest as compared to say, Baseball or as in drinking soda.
          Also the chance of Space aliens only finding our charming planet, oppose other space aliens, first seems unlikely.
          So if found one space alien civilization, there probably be more interest in finding more of them.
          So imagined terrified space aliens might have closer threats to them, but that doesn’t lessen it.

      • Willard says:

        Aliens killed themselves, presumably after having read Roy’s comment section. For more on the idea:

        https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a35049501/alien-life-milky-way-dead-civilizations/

  11. TallDave says:

    it’s cold, throw a few more high-ECS models on the fire

    at this rate we’ll be lucky if we can emit enough CO2 to stave off the coming reglaciation

    • Bindidon says:

      You really mean ” its cold… ” ?

      Look at the UAH yearly anomaly averages since 2000:

      2000 -0.157
      2001 -0.023
      2002 +0.080
      2003 +0.050
      2004 -0.054
      2005 +0.063
      2006 -0.024
      2007 +0.023
      2008 -0.238
      2009 -0.042
      2010 +0.193
      2011 -0.119
      2012 -0.085
      2013 -0.002
      2014 +0.043
      2015 +0.135
      2016 +0.388
      2017 +0.264
      2018 +0.087
      2019 +0.303
      2020 +0.357
      2021 +0.134

      Under ‘getting cold’ I understand something different :- )

      • RLH says:

        Heading downwards since 2016 though.

      • Eben says:

        in 2018 I predicted cooling from then on, which was the time all alarmists cranks were screaming the global warming is accelerating and the tipping point and the rest of it, I got 4 years of correct prediction out of it so far.
        Bindidong can’t predict absolutely anything but always see something different than reality.

        • Mark B says:

          Climate alarmist Dana Nuccitelli from 6 January 2017: No warming since 2016

          • RLH says:

            Does the data show that there has been any warming since 2016? No.
            So do we instead suggest that it will just continue getting ‘worse’ regardless of the data? Yes.

            Alternatively we could just suggest that ‘rational people’ are always right and continue on with the story as we ‘know it’ regardless. Concentrate on ‘ad hom’ attacks instead of actually arguing the physics (and the data).

            Does the data show that El Nino’s, for instance, have gotten any warmer/higher than 1878 as a maximum value but instead concentrate of how the ‘average’ (i.e. the OLS trend) has increased over time instead. Thus playing into the hands of those who claim that things are happening ‘more frequently’ and thus the averages are rising without noticing that the peaks have not changed.

          • Eben says:

            Speak for yourself , what did you predict back then ?
            Besides, that Nuccitelli article is 5 years old, did he predict how long that pause was gonna be ? the pause is now almost 8 years

          • Willard says:

            But Da Paws is more than five years old:

            https://climateball.net/but-da-paws/

            It spring eternal.

          • RLH says:

            Climateball is Willard’s fascination.

          • Nate says:

            “Does the data show that there has been any warming since 2016? No.”

            Accounting for the expected effects of ENSO. Yes.

            In fact, compared to previous 45 y, accelerated warming.

            http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/ElNino-LaNina/

            See graph entitled ’12-month mean temperature detrended for 1970-2015′.

    • PhilJ says:

      Adding co2 in place of o2 will increase the emisivity of the atmosphere thus increasing the rate at which ot cools

  12. gbaikie says:

    Oh dear. Well if you think atmosphere important for global climate is way I would say it.
    And I think it could related to my question, what Venus temperature at 1 AU. but here it is:
    –Earth’s and Venus average temperature at 1 bar using the Charged Atmosphere and Faraday’s Constant
    by John Politis
    First published June 28, 2022
    The average temperature of Earth and Venus at 1 BAR can be calculated straight from the energy required to raise the potential of 1 electron through 1 volt. We simply sum up all the electrons in a MOLE of AIR on Earth and multiply it by the energy required to charge up
    each electron in a mole of air to 1 electron volt.–
    http://milesmathis.com/farad.pdf
    Linked from
    http://tinyurl.com/ufmy3z6m

  13. gbaikie says:

    Got a tropical storm Bonnie:
    https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

    And looks like the potential storm near Boca Chica, Texas, didn’t materialize.

  14. goldminor says:

    This has been the strangest start to a new year that I haver taken note of. My dwarf fruit trees bloomed in January. Then over the next 3 months temps went warm/cold 4 times. That dropped all of the fruit off of the trees. All fruit trees in the area whether wild or tended have done the same. I live 100 miles inland from the Pacific.

    It is not surprising to see this months update as the mountain area here has been cooler this year than in any other year since 2011 when I moved into the mountains. There have been many record lows occurring across Europe as well. This winter should be a cold one, and likely will come early.

  15. wazz says:

    What happened to the global map for May ??

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      confirmed…it’s missing.

    • RLH says:

      Specifically, the url of https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/ still shows April, not May.

    • barry says:

      I takes a few days to update everything. As of this post, neither the latitudinal nor nor the regional data have been updated online. They still only show May.

      Same as every month. Won’t be long now.

      • RLH says:

        May is month 5, not month 6. We are now in month 7. It should have been updated to May from April some weeks ago. In a few days (up to 6) it should be updated to June.

    • Bindidon says:

      wazz

      Mark B has an exceptionally good software for graphics. He could do that job without even batting an eyelid.

      Meanwhile: should you, unlike some, not be desperately opinionated about how ‘wrong’ a simple grid output is (because it looks like a Mercator projection, vade retro Satana[s]), so please look at this until UAH or Mark B generate a perfect Mollweide output:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WCE43YrpxC6v3CYBck5rrjw0k7CKJ8ia/view

      • RLH says:

        Mercator projections (and their rectangular equivalents) are well know to overemphasize the Poles at the expense of the Equator so do not rely on them for equal area based science.

        Notice Blinny will never publish the Tissot’s indicatrix, or ellipse of distortion, for his ‘projection’.

  16. Eben says:

    Superdeveloping triple dipper La Nia rains anchovies from the sky

    https://youtu.be/NEB4Oejs0D8

  17. angech says:

    People often confuse the La Nia, El Nio obvious cycles with the total amount of warming or cooling occurring over the fluctuations.
    In truth we had almost 3 years of warming with and around the last El Nio and we have had 2 insipid weak and small weak La Ninas with a quite warm period in between.

    We actually need a big true La Nia to give a truer picture of the average earth temperature because we are looking at it from inside a recently 30 years of mild warming.

    La Nia does not cause the global temperature to drop, The global temperature drop is what causes a La Nia.
    Good to see the Pacific so cold as shows the current heat from the sun, plus any extra cloud albedo effects means the earth this month at least has been in a cooling phase.

    Where will it go?
    None of us have the tools to tell.

    • RLH says:

      “We actually need a big true La Ni{n}a to give a truer picture of the average earth temperature because we are looking at it from inside a recently 30 years of mild warming”

      That is what the models incorrectly show as well. A continuous ramp of more and more El Nino’s. In actual fact the data shows that La Nina’s are becoming more and more frequent in the last 25 years, contrary to what the climate models show.

    • Nate says:

      “La Nia does not cause the global temperature to drop, The global temperature drop is what causes a La Nia.”

      Strange claim. Evidence?

      • RLH says:

        Well the El Nino’s peak temperatures have not changed since 1878.

      • angech says:

        Nate
        La Nina does not cause the global temperature to drop, The global temperature drop is what causes a La Nia

        Due to the earth rotation and the presence of continents crossing the equator the ocean equatorial water on the western side of equatorial continents tends to have cooler water temperatures than those equatorial waters further west of the continent.
        If the global temperature rises it is reflected in warmer equatorial oceans.
        If the global temperature falls it is reflected in cooler equatorial oceans.
        Ocean temperatures rise for only two reasons normally
        More input from the sun, less albedo from clouds.
        Hence when the oceans are hotter there can be less clouds in the air as the hotter air can hold more moisture without clouding up.

        When the world is warmer it encourages El Nio conditions in the ocean. Less clouds and higher temps in the east.
        When the world cools down more clouds form and and the east become cooler relative to the west causing a La Nia.
        On top of this pattern there exists a seasonal temperature shift for the hemispheres and an overall recurring orbital distance temperature shift which is why La Ninas, the earth and equatorial waters getting cooler, is more likely to occur in the months from November to April.

        It could theoretically be possible to have La Nia conditions with a warm equatorial ocean if the pressure differences Darwin and Honolulu reverse, but as the great Yogi Bera said

        in theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

        That is why the temperature appears to fall during a La Nia, because it actually does, causing the La Nia.

        • Nate says:

          Causality says NOPE on that hypothesis.

          Global Temps FOLLOW ENSO with a 4-5 month delay.

          • RLH says:

            I thought we had agreed that global temps better followed AMO rather than ENSO.

          • barry says:

            Not on a monthly or interannual basis – the people who first observed it and those who maintain the indices describe it only as a decadal fluctuation.

            There is still debate over whether it leads or lags global temperature.

          • Nate says:

            Well known that Global Temps follow ENSO. Much of the short term variation is caused
            by ENSO.

            Weve discussed it dozens of times, RLH.

          • RLH says:

            Nate: So how do you explain this image?

            https://imgur.com/gallery/jtDg4ir

          • Nate says:

            Why are you talking about AMO?

            NOT the subject of this thread, which is whether global T leads ENSO or ENSO leads global T.

            Start a new thread on whatever squirrel you’ve seen, RLH.

          • RLH says:

            “Why are you talking about AMO?”

            Because that image shows the global temperatures follow quite well the AMO, not the ESNO.

          • Nate says:

            “Because that image shows the global temperatures follow quite well the AMO, not the ESNO.”

            a. You are ignoring that the dominant variation in both series is ENSO driven.

            b. AMO is off-topic.

          • Richard M says:

            Global temps follow both the AMO/PDO and ENSO. It’s just on differing timescales. ENSO shows a more immediate response while the AMO and PDO are longer term.

          • RLH says:

            “AMO is off-topic”

            So one particular natural cycle is off topic but others are not.

          • Nate says:

            RLH you remind me of that fake joke we told other kids.

            It goes like this:

            Three bears are in a tub taking a bath.

            The first bear says to the third bear, ‘Pass the soap.’

            The third bear says: ‘No soap, radio.’

            Everyone in on the trick would pretend to laugh, to trick other kids into laughing at the ‘joke’.

            The problem, RLH, is that ‘No soap, radio.’ is the kind of answer you give regularly.

        • angech says:

          Nate says:July 2, 2022 at 12:25 PM
          Causality says NOPE on that hypothesis.
          Global Temps FOLLOW ENSO with a 4-5 month delay.

          Really?

          Unfolding the relation between global temperature and ENSO
          A. A. Tsonis, J. B. Elsner, A. G. Hunt, T. H. Jagger
          First published: 03 May 2005
          An analysis of global temperature and ENSO data indicates that their relationship is more complicated than currently thought. Indeed, it appears that there are two complimenting aspects to this relation. The first (and known) aspect expresses the fact that global temperature increases after an El Nino event and a La Nina event follows an El Nino event. Thus, El Nino forces global temperature.

          Yet these same authors say what I just said

          “The most important result is that positive temperature fluctuations tend to trigger an El Nino and negative fluctuations tend to trigger a La Nina”

          Chicken and eggs, Nate.
          Except mine is an explanation and yours is an observation without thought.

          Look at it this way.
          If “Global Temps [*tend to] follow ENSO with a 4-5 month delay.”
          Then we do not need a GHG theory, We do not need a sun or albedo.
          We do not need thermometers.
          We can just predict from today’s ENSO what the global temp is in 5 months.
          Then we could use the ENSO in 7 more months to predict the Global temp at the end of the year, and so on ad infinitum.
          We both know that predictions of ENSO are notoriously poor with a spaghetti graph of over 2.2 C currently for the next 5 months

          “Global Temps [*tend to] follow ENSO with a 4-5 month delay.”

          But ENSO changes of El Nino and La Nina are always accompanied by the appropriate changes in global temperature first.

          The authors make a common mistake of confusing occurrence with causation without a mechanism that can exist in their argument, but does in mine.

          • Nate says:

            “If ‘Global Temps [*tend to] follow ENSO with a 4-5 month delay.’
            Then we do not need a GHG theory, We do not need a sun or albedo.
            We do not need thermometers.
            We can just predict from todays ENSO what the global temp is in 5 months.”

            Uhhh…you draw very bizarre conclusions, Ang.

            ENSO causes short term variation. GHG theory explains long term GW.

            Different things.

            Just as weather, seasonal change and climate change are different things on different time-scales.

          • Nate says:

            See 4th figure here.

            http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/ElNino-LaNina/

            They note that Global T lags Nino 3.4 by 5 months.

            With a 5 month shift of Nino 3.4 to the right, the correlation between them is the highest, and reaches 60 %.

          • RLH says:

            You do know that 1950 is a low point in the temperature record don’t you?

          • Nate says:

            Who cares?

            Yet another ‘look a squirrel’ from our resident ‘look a squirrel’ expert.

          • RLH says:

            What effect do you think a low point will have on OLS, etc. that include that period?

          • Nate says:

            It has zero relevance to the the point I was making, which is that ENSO leads global T by 5 months and explains 60% of its variation. ENSO is a significant driver of global T, and the reverse is not plausible.

            Did you miss that? Do you have a RELEVANT response?

    • Nate says:

      “In actual fact the data shows that La Ninas are becoming more and more frequent in the last 25 years, contrary to what the climate models show.”

      Nah.

      https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/enso-and-climate-change-what-does-new-ipcc-report-say

      “There is no climate model consensus on a change in ENSO-related sea surface temperature over the next century in any of the greenhouse gas emission scenarios used in the report. But regardless of any changes in ENSO sea surface temperatures, in intermediate to very high GHG scenarios, it is very likely that rainfall variability over the east-central tropical Pacific will increase significantly (4). Basically, we may expect El Nio to be wetter in this region and La Nia may be drier.”

      • RLH says:

        ONI/ENSO changes its reference base every 5 years so that is a very poor choice of temperatures for comparison i.e. minimum, maximum and averages.

        Now compare it to something that uses an unchanged (i.e. not detrended) base such as NOAA/HadISST c.f.

        https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-6.jpeg

        • barry says:

          1. Nate just quoted the IPCC on ENSO projections, and so your reply misses the point, as its only about observations.

          2. That there is no consensus on future changes in ENSO patterns in a warming world (ie more or less la Ninas/el Ninos) was confirmed by ENSOblog. In fact, they quoted IPCC on this in reply to a query on this point.

          3. HadISST NINO3.4 data shows a clear rising trend in la Nina troughs since 1990, whereas ONI doesn’t have this feature. Last April was the 2nd lowest in the ONI record, but only 6th lowest in HadISST. HadISST data for this region won’t give you recent record la Ninas like ONI does, because HadISST data includes any long term changes, including generally warmer temperatures in the recent past.

          If you are comparing relative strength of ENSO events, ONI is a sound choice, and it’s also the choice for l’Heureux and co when they assess that there is very nearly statistical significance regarding a trend in more al Ninas.

          • RLH says:

            So the IPCC says ‘we do not know’.

            The ENS ONI and L’Heureux’s own paper says that the 1878 El Nino was the same magnitude as the one in 2016.

          • barry says:

            “So the IPCC says ‘we do not know’.”

            The IPCC says there is no consensus. As in, that is literally what they say. Regarding how ENSO might change in a warming world. I mean, you’ve read the quotes. Has it taken 2 weeks for you process these direct quotes you’ve been given?

            “The ENS ONI and LHeureuxs own paper says that the 1878 El Nino was the same magnitude as the one in 2016.”

            Let me know how many times I’ve got to agree with that before you stop bleeping it to me like a robot. We’re up to 5 or 6 “yep”s. Can I hope you’ll finally take that on board on the 11th or 12th try? Or is it a time thing and we’ve got another week or so till it finally filters through?

          • RLH says:

            “The IPCC says there is no consensus”

            Which is the same as ‘The IPCC does not know’.

          • barry says:

            Politics, my friend. You are doing commentary, not news.

            The IPCC assesses the state of knowledge, it doesn’t do original research. So when you say, “The IPCC doesn’t know…” what you’re actually saying is the IPCC has assessed that there isn’t a scientific consensus on the topic.

            “So the IPCC says ‘we do not know’.”

            Yes. But more accurately,

            The IPCC says there is no agreement on what we know

            For this particular topic.

          • RLH says:

            So we are free to observe that the facts (and papers) show that the world is not getting hotter in the extremes. Not the AGW claim as normally stated is it?

          • barry says:

            “So we are free to observe that the facts (and papers) show that the world is not getting hotter in the extremes. Not the AGW claim as normally stated is it?”

            You are entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

            The “AGW claim” is that the global average temperature will increase in the long term.

            That is it.

            The IPCC assesses, based on broad reviews of the scientific literature, that warmer extremes will increase in most areas of the globe under global warming regardless of cause.

            That makes rather obvious statistical sense as well. If the world warms on average, all that requires as evidence is that there are, say, more record-breaking hot events than cold.

            That is what we see with record-breaking land surface temperatures over time.

            https://www.mherrera.org/records.htm
            https://www.mherrera.org/records1.htm
            https://www.mherrera.org/records2.htm

            Those files are of annual record-breaking temperatures all over the world from 2002 to 2022. The lists are extensive, and are checked with the national meteorological services of 150 countries.

            In 2002 there are 270 recorded record-breaking temperatures in various towns and cities around the world.

            In 2021 there are 458.

            I’ve gone through all the years up to 2017, I think, but not the last few years.

            Every year from 2002 to 2017 has more record-breaking hot temps than cold.

            You feel like checking the rest? It’s a copy paste into a word processor and doing a search on “max” and “min”. I’m willing to bet that the years following also have more max than min record-breaking temperatures.

            This granular metric is actually a pretty good proxy to corroborate a warming world.

          • RLH says:

            “The ‘AGW claim’ is that the global average temperature will increase in the long term”

            And you are saying that this does not mean the maximums will increase at all. That is what the data actually shows is happening.

            How does that occur?

            Please remember that the 1950’s are the low point in the record in the Pacific so averages, OLS,, etc. including that period will show an increase in them since then.

          • RLH says:

            “I’m willing to bet that the years following also have more max than min record-breaking temperatures”

            Ah. So now we resort to the frequency rather than the extremes to show that overall temperatures are rising.

            Except that papers show that the early to middle of the 20th century had a lull in the ENSO activity compared to that a century or so ago. Claiming that the recent frequency has increased compared to 1950, say, does not mean what you think it does.

            Of course that also means that OLS and averages are rising recently but the maximums are not.

          • barry says:

            “And you are saying that this does not mean the maximums will increase at all.”

            I can barely understand what you mean here. It’s a wonderfully impenetrable double negative.

            And you tell me what I’m thinking rather than ask a question.

            The data I provided, in the post you’ve just quoted, corroborates that maximums are increasing. Or you could just look at the global min and max over the long term and see that there is a general increase of each, regardless of dataset, surface or satellite. I chose the dataset I did because your word was “extremes.”

            “So we are free to observe that the facts (and papers) show that the world is not getting hotter in the extremes.”

            I listen to you.

            It’s like you’re in a deep well, and all you can hear from others is the snatch of a word here and there, and from these disjointed echoes you construct an alternate reality.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            barry, please stop trolling.

      • RLH says:

        P.S. Models are well known to be incorrect.

      • RLH says:

        “said {Michelle} LHeureux. Her own analysis shows that La Nina-like conditions are occurring more often in the last 40 years. Other new studies are showing similar patterns.”

      • Nate says:

        RLH is still wrong on his claim of

        “contrary to what the climate models show.”

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate quotes: ”very likely that rainfall variability over the east-central tropical Pacific will increase significantly (4). Basically, we may expect El Nio to be wetter in this region and La Nia may be drier.”

        Sheesh! Just how more wet can up to 35,000 feet of Eastern Tropical Pacific waters get? LMAO!

    • Bindidon says:

      Some numbers might help to avoid eye-balling and its resulting, counter-productive polemic.

      Here is an evaluation of the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI)

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/12F2SO09XyelVRnCSeHF5bUKuDdd1IoNV/view

      since 1979 resp. since 1997.

      1. 1979-now

      … FULL NINA NINO

      AVG -0.03 -1.02 +1.26
      MED -0.10 -1.00 +0.98
      MIN -2.43 -2.43 +0.50
      MAX +2.89 -0.08 +2.89
      SUM -15 -178 +165 NINO/NINA: 93%

      2. 1997-now

      … FULL NINA NINO

      AVG -0.22 -1.05 +1.28
      MED -0.34 -1.06 +0.97
      MIN -2.43 -2.43 +0.51
      MAX +2.55 -0.08 +2.55
      SUM -68 -140 +76 NINO/NINA: 54%

      FULL means the entire record, NINA resp. NINO mean values = +0.5.

      When you compare these periods, you think that a radical change is happening: from a El Nino / La Nina ratio of 93% since 1979, you move down to a ratio of 54%!

      Woooaah.

      But this is the same wrong kind of thinking as when saying that the trend for UAH since 2016 is unusually negative, while ignoring or dissimulating that since 1979, three UAH periods of the same length have shown even lower trends.

      Thus, to get an idea of how relevant this MEI difference between 1979-now and 1997-now really is, you have to perform a full analysis of MEI’s historical data since 1871:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AeK8oGGqzX27K60aYAn4JWDho-8lhwMl/view

      3. 1871-now

      FULL NINA NINO

      AVG -0.09 -1.07 +1.15
      No medians here, was lazy
      MIN -2.56 -2.56 +0.5
      MAX +2.89 -0.08 +2.89
      SUM -160 -696 +543 NINO/NINA: 78%

      and you must look at all similar time windows since beginning.

      *
      By the way, maybe angech explains us what he means with ‘2 insipid weak and small weak La Ninas’:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view

      2010-2012 and 1998-2000 were no that bad, after all; and the current edition, though somewhat less strong until now, looks quite good too, when you look at a sort of all 2dip+ La Nina edition sums since 1871:

      1892: -54.67
      1908: -52.22
      1973: -48.71
      1954: -40.45
      1915: -38.97
      1998: -37.66
      1873: -36.82
      2010: -32.99
      2020: -28.45

      1970: -25.29
      2007: -24.58
      1949: -24.45

      • RLH says:

        “Here is an evaluation of the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI)”

        What is the use of looking at data that has the reference period for it changed so frequently?

        Try looking at

        https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-6.jpeg

        which has no such problems. It also shows that 1878 is the ‘same’ as 2016.

        • Bindidon says:

          Here too, Linsley Hood, you show the level of your ignorance.

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327394

          And the MEI is way more complex than the simple NINO3+4 and ONI evaluations, as it is based on much more data, and on a much greater window (30N-30S; 100E-70W), containing NINO1+2 as well.

          Thus, for MEI V2, the ENSO events in 1878, 1982, 1998 and 2016 of course look quite different from what you usually see.

          • RLH says:

            Check the paper by Michelle et al. for the approximate strength of the 1878 El Nino to that of the on in 2016. You could also just check the Nino 3.4 data which shows the same thing.

            I understand that ESNO is quite complicated but I also understand that it uses a moving reference period which makes it useless for long term observations (other than locally along it).

            That the year 1878 was an exceptional year has been supported by other papers too.

          • RLH says:

            ….that ENSO is quite complicated….

          • Bindidon says:

            Now I really begin to understand that you are no only opinionated, Linsley Hood.

            You are also stubborn, if not even dumb, and absolutely unable to properly read documents in order to obtain appropriate information.

            MEI is an ENSO index like ONI, but IS NOT BASED ON THE SAME RULES as ONI.

            Will you get that one day?

            And people like you, whose latest ‘Perch’ job was a 1000 % failure a decade ago, think they can name me a boasting idiot.

          • RLH says:

            Does it have a fixed or a moving reference period?

          • RLH says:

            Does it also show that the El Nino of 1878 was approximately the same as 2016?

          • RLH says:

            Check the paper by Michelle et al. for the approximate strength of the 1878 El Nino to that of the one in 2016. You could also just check the Nino 3.4 data which shows the same thing.

            That the year 1878 was an exceptional year has been supported by other papers too.

  18. angech says:

    Cooling down quicker than a Cassidy Hutchinson confession

  19. Nate says:

    “I would be convinced AGW was a problem if the warming trend clearly broke out of the natural variabilty”

    So if you look at T on the Earth’s surface, where we live, that breakout is very apparent.

    https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12

    The difference is that the UAH lower troposphere is more sensitive to El Nino peaks and La Nina troughs, than the T at the surface, and also has a lower trend than at the surface.

    • RLH says:

      So why have the peak El Nino’s temperatures (for instance) not changed since 1878?

    • Nate says:

      Different topic. Nice try though.

      • RLH says:

        Maximums are just as important as minimums and averages though.

      • Nate says:

        Address the issue I posted on or dont bother responding, RLH.

        Thats how debate works.

        • RLH says:

          How can you address minimums without also addressing maximums and averages? Very one sided approach that is.

        • barry says:

          Even this reply still doesn’t respond at all to what Nate said.

          I don’t know why you repeat your narrow interests in reply to other topics, but you can expect people to stop replying to you when you chip and while ignoring what they’ve said.

          • RLH says:

            If the maximum sea surface temperatures have not changed that much in the central Pacific in over 130 years, how does AGW account for that fact?

            Cue the ‘AGW is true the world over for averages’ replies, just not at the Equator for the extremes.

          • Mark B says:

            <RLH says: If the maximum sea surface temperatures have not changed that much in the central Pacific in over 130 years . . .

            If we just look at the maximum and minimum extremes, the global picture is hard reconcile without statistical variation on top of a broad and global warming trend.

            hadSurfaceMaxMinDateGrid.png

          • barry says:

            “If the maximum sea surface temperatures have not changed that much in the central Pacific in over 130 years, how does AGW account for that fact?”

            Because the Earth’s surface is not a featureless billiard ball.

            In a generally warming world there’d be no reason to expect that everywhere would warm at the same rate. There may even be a few places where it has cooled. Such as these for the past 50 years or so.

            https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004900/a004964/GISS2021F-Rolling1peryear-RollingAverageperyear.2021_print.jpg

            If weather patterns change with climate change (and that is something you WOULD expect, even if you couldn’t predict exactly how) then with the sheer variety of weather patterns you might anticipate that some places could cool if the hydrological flow is altered. What if the prevailing wind for some place changes over time from the equator to the pole?

            You see in the anomaly map above that just a few places have cooled relative to the 1951 to 1980 average. There is a time lapse of that anomaly map so you can see exactly how non-uniform weather patterns are over the Earth.

            https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4787

          • RLH says:

            “In a generally warming world there’d be no reason to expect that everywhere would warm at the same rate”.

            But the AWG claim is the world is getting generally hotter. How can the maximums not show that ‘fact’?

          • RLH says:

            ….But the AGW claim is….

          • RLH says:

            “If we just look at the maximum and minimum extremes”

            So you are saying that the range has not changed that much but the averages within them have?

            Have you looked at what this paper said about ENSO for instance over the last century? Why that might effect any OLS over the same period?

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327742

          • barry says:

            Neither of these three replies below mine respond to what I said.

            You are completely dislocated from the conversation. You are the drunken uncle at the Christmas party, rambling incessantly about whatever is knocking around his brain rather than taking an interest in anything anyone else might say.

            If you were responding to what I said, even in disagreement, I wouldn’t be calling you out on it. It really is about you, not me. Someone has to slap your cheek and say, “wake up!”

          • RLH says:

            Someone needs to slap your cheeks are say facts are not to be ignored.

          • barry says:

            But you keep ignoring the IPCC’s view on the future of ENSO behaviour in a warming world. Apparently you can’t deal with it, because it interferes with your take on the AP article.

          • barry says:

            Now why would I say that to you?

            In order to reflect your own behaviour back to you.

            My comment was a change of subject. It was also saying that you are hiding from facts.

            So I ignored what you said, changed the subject and typed some quasi-accusatory provocational stuff.

            Annoying, isn’t it?

            Yes, this is exactly how you operate MOST of the time.

            And I’m not kidding – the majority of your posts do exactly what I’ve done above.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            barry, please stop trolling.

    • RLH says:

      “the T at the surface, and also has a lower trend than at the surface”

      Temps are the surface as measured by Nino 3.4 have not increased at the maximums since 1878. So I’m not sure that UAH is lower than that.

      • barry says:

        NINO3.4 region is not as proxy for global temperature. It’s less than 1% of the Earth’s surface.

        There is a small region in the North Atlantic that has actually cooled over the last 50 years, but if you thought that reflected the global average you would be sorely mistaken.

        • RLH says:

          Who said it was?

          The Nino 3.4 area shows that the maximum temperatures at the sea surface have not risen since 1878.

        • barry says:

          The topic is global temperatures, per the post you quoted when you replied to it.

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327213

          One day you should try taking an interest in what others say, Richard.

          • barry says:

            In threads on different topics you continually interrupt with your own obsessions. Today you have replied to me on three of these threads solely with a link to a post you made that has nothing to do with any of the topics.

            You don’t even describe what the link is regarding. Just click! and suddenly you’re reading something unrelated to the ongoing conversation.

            This is essentially what spam is. You’re spamming the threads here with your latest obsessions.

            That could be forgivable if you ALSO took an interest in the points brought up here, engaging directly and cogently with them while retaining the context (reason) for the discussion ongoing. Especially discussions that you joined and didn’t initiate.

            Everyone else here can do that.

          • RLH says:

            How is a post about a paper published over a decade ago not relevant to global temperatures and ESNO?

          • barry says:

            Because the topic is not ENSO. The mention it got was to describe differences in global temp data sets (ie, satellite-derived lower tropospheric data is more sensitive to ENSO events than surface data).

            None of what you have posted speaks to any of that.

            It’s like you arguing with your mother which of you should make the birthday cake, and I contribute to the conversation by describing the politics of making wedding cakes for same-sex weddings.

            Cakes is the common thread, but I’d be completely missing the point.

            This is what you consistently do.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            barry, please stop trolling.

  20. Stephen Richards says:

    The last 4 el nios each established a new higher global temperature plateau.

    Are the latest two La Nia establishing a new lower plateau.

    • RLH says:

      Time will tell.

    • barry says:

      “Are the latest two La Nia establishing a new lower plateau.”

      They’ve established higher plateaus if anything when looking at global temps, but la Ninas themselves may have become more frequent recently.

      • RLH says:

        Global temps are not the same as Tropical temps.

      • barry says:

        Global temps was the metric in the remark I was replying to, that started this thread.

        “The last 4 el nios each established a new higher global temperature plateau….”

        You should one day try tasking an interest in what other people say, Richard. Eventually you will learn to follow a conversation.

  21. angech says:

    Tropical Coolness

    The tropical (20N-20S) anomaly for June was -0.36 deg. C, which is the coolest monthly anomaly in over 10 years, the coolest June in 22 years, and the 9th coolest June in the 44 year satellite record.

    Anomalies come in many sizes
    June anomalies are amongst the smallest.
    Over a 44 year record where the anomal is not that large on average any drop that would be reasonable in another month becomes quite large.

    The 9th coolest in 44 years is great, wait til we see how the land thermometers get adjusted to cope

    • Bindidon says:

      angech

      ” June anomalies are amongst the smallest. ”

      1989 6 -0.65
      1985 6 -0.64
      1984 6 -0.52
      1999 6 -0.46
      2008 6 -0.45
      1981 6 -0.39
      1979 6 -0.37
      2000 6 -0.37
      2022 6 -0.36
      1986 6 -0.35

      This has few to do with June.
      Much more with the Tropics.

      If you do the same job for the Globe, you obtain this:

      1985 6 -0.48
      1989 6 -0.41
      1979 6 -0.39
      1982 6 -0.38
      1984 6 -0.35
      1992 6 -0.34
      1983 6 -0.32
      1986 6 -0.32
      1981 6 -0.31
      2008 6 -0.31

      and 2022 appears at position 33.

      But looking at this shows best how UAH’s Tropics look like:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SkuYuG8sCSmZjGw3_97nEEa9xfI07zd6/view

      The slope of the filter output at the end tells us a lot: its downward trend is lower than anywhere else in the 43 years.

      Now I understand why commenter MrZ thinks this La Nina is the strongest since UAH’s begin: he identifies the UAH temperature record with ENSO and vice-versa.

      This is not correct: you just need to compare UAH’s record in 1982 with ENSO in the same year to understand.

      • RLH says:

        Here is UAH Tropics with a 12 month CTRM instead. If you need references for CTRM see Vaughan Pratt elsewhere on this page.

        https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah-tropics.jpeg

        And yes, it does show that tropical temperatures have been going downwards since 2016.

      • MrZ says:

        Bindidon,
        Certainly not. See my comment above
        UAH is the earliest set to report and the low figure for the tropics triggered me.
        I have yet to validate with data from ERA. Pretty sure the trend continues though.

      • angech says:

        Roy Spencer
        Tropical Coolness
        The tropical (20N-20S) anomaly for June was -0.36 deg. C, which is the coolest monthly anomaly in over 10 years, the coolest June in 22 years, and the 9th coolest June in the 44 year satellite record.

        angech June anomalies are amongst the smallest.

        Bindidon says:July 2, 2022 at 4:04 PM
        2022 6 -0.36
        ” Much more with the Tropics.This has little to do with June.”

        Bindidon, apart from generally being pleasant and putting a lot of work into digging up facts could you also look at the comments before engaging.
        1. the 2022 6 -0.36 anomaly you put up is definitely connected to June, 100%. It is true it is also in the Tropics but not “much more”

        2 My comment. June anomalies are amongst the smallest. is pertinent and relevant to both The tropical (20N-20S) anomaly and the Global surface temperature anomaly in the month of June.

        Which you have totally sidetracked.
        If you look at Nick Stokes and Hansen charts you will see that the anomalies in the month of June global have the smallest upward deviation of any month.
        One can infer [might be wrong but doubtful] that equatorial temperatures which play the largest part in Global temperature would be similarly subdued.
        That is all.

        3. Since the total range is much smaller any reasonable sized anomaly variation will have a much bigger impact on position at this time of the year.

        4. You can confirm the difference in position of the global June UAH temperature +0.06C, 2022 appears at position 33.
        the June tropical (20N-20S) anomaly is much lower.

        Whatever way you choose to look at it
        – the 9th coolest June in the 44 year satellite record.
        – the coolest monthly anomaly in over 10 years,
        – the coolest June in 22 years

        It is impressive, even if temporary, yes?
        Thank you for showing the 10 lowest and how far back in time they were. Nate, silly boy, says there is a 5 month lag.
        You would agree with him and Roy?
        If only there were, where would it be in 5 months time?

  22. Rob Mitchell says:

    As the tropics goes, so goes the climate. I’ve also have been thinking about the Arctic. It has been almost 10 years since the Arctic sea ice extent record minimum of 3,387,000 km^2. It seems to me that when the Arctic ice melts down, this allows for more heat to escape the Arctic Ocean during the early Fall than during times of abundant ice coverage. This should cause a net cooling effect of the ocean. The sun has already crossed the ecliptic south of the equator in September, so I don’t think there is any sun to heat up the Arctic Ocean like the alarmists claim. So, the Arctic Ocean gets colder, allowing for the Arctic ice to start expanding again. I think it is a pretty good bet the 2022 Arctic sea ice extent minimum will be higher than 3,387,000 km^2. That will be a full decade. I think the Arctic ice will start expanding again. What do y’all think?

    • RLH says:

      30N to 30S is half of the planet’s surface. Some call that the tropics too.

    • Bindidon says:

      Rob Mitchell

      Here are the current charts for Arctic…

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view

      … and Antarctic

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view

      Do you see where 2012 was in these charts? Look at the indigo line…

      If I were you, I would wait a bit, two or three weeks.

      Then we’ll know if 2022 behaves like 2021… or not.

      Concerning the Antarctic, 2022 is way below 2021.

      *
      This is, in my personal opinion, not good for us all.

      • Clint R says:

        Bindidon, your “personal opinion” is worth about as much as your belief in astrology.

        • Bindidon says:

          Exactly, Clint R, exactly!

        • Eben says:

          His Bizarro World forecasting is even better , I haven’t yet seen anything he predicted that didn’t go to the exact opposite.

          • Bindidon says:

            Edog

            Feel free to keep barking, you remind me of Lollo, the little french bulldog on the property next to ours.

            And keep forever in mind, Edog: like me, you never predicted anything.

            Like me, you did all the time no more than replicating other people’s predictions.

            As someone uses to say: ‘ Get over it! ‘

          • RLH says:

            Choosing the ‘correct’ people to ‘predict’ things ahead of time is a difficult thing to do.

          • Eben says:

            Isn’t it fun watching this scumbag trying to weasel out of his epic climate failing, that’s the clown part coming through.
            As a pilot I have to know things about weather , I Imagine if Bindidong was a pilot, based on his weather skilz he would fly straight into the first tornado that appears withing his range.

          • Eben says:

            RLH says:
            July 2, 2022 at 6:03 PM

            Choosing the correct people to predict things ahead of time is a difficult thing to do.

            In his case , it just perfectly proves that all he does is reposting rows of numbers and a bunch of links but doesn’t understand any meaning of it at all

    • gbaikie says:

      “Water has the highest heat capacity of all common Earth materials; therefore, water on Earth acts as a thermal buffer, resisting temperature change as it gains or loses heat energy.”

      “The heat energy input required to change water from a solid at 0 C to a liquid at 0 C is the latent heat of fusion and is 80 calories per gram of ice. Waters latent heat of fusion is the highest of all common materials. Because of this, heat is released when ice forms and is absorbed during melting, which tends to buffer air temperatures as land and sea ice form and melt seasonally.”
      https://www.britannica.com/science/seawater/Thermal-properties

      –Water can evaporate at temperatures below the boiling point, and ice can evaporate into a gas without first melting, in a process called sublimation. —

      So, if had land which could cool to -20 C, but land is covered by seawater, than the seawater will resist temperature change of the cold air which otherwise would be there if it was land.

      Or it takes a lot energy for human to make ice and a lot energy for human to get freshwater from sea water.
      One could freeze seawater to make freshwater ice, but it cost less energy to evaporate sea water to make freshwater. Though there is various other ways to separate the salt from seawater other than freezing or evaporating seawater.

      In terms of climate the arctic cooled waters fall and travels all over the world, and the cold water which falls is replaced by warm water [from all over the world].
      And once polar ice gets thick enough, the thicker ice insulates the arctic ocean water from warming air above it. And the frozen arctic ocean can air temperature below -30 C.
      Having a larger area polar sea ice would thereby lower the amount cold cold falling and cooling the rest of ocean.

      Therefore I think glaciation periods with large amount polar sea ice can warm the ocean. And the start of interglacial is where Earth’s warmer cause arctic ocean to be ice free. Which trigger by sunlight starting to higher angle and warming the ocean surface temperatures close to polar region. And warmed surface waters evaporate more and cause more rainfall [and a lot rain can melt a lot ice}.

  23. SAMURAI says:

    Oh, my,,,, June global temp anomaly at 0.06C

    According to CMIP6.0 average computer model projections, the global temp anomaly should already be at 1.35C, which is about 5 standard deviations devoid from reality

    Oops

    The double-dip La Nina cycle is about over, and a weak El Nino cycle will start next year followed by a likely strong La Nina in 2024, which we havent had since 2010

    THE PDO is already in its 30-year cool cycle, and the AMO will likely start its 30-year cool cycle around 2024~25, which will cause 30 years of falling global temperatures as occurred from 1880~1915, and from 1945~1979.

    The hilarious CAGW scam will soon be laughed at after world Leftist-hack governments have wasted $10s of trillions on this stupid hoax.

    • Eben says:

      You forgot one important thing – The Grand Solar Minimum , of-course the climate sheisters keep claiming the Sun doesn’t do anything ,
      They are in for a surprise

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “Oh, my,,,, June global temp anomaly at 0.06C

        According to CMIP6.0 average computer model projections, the global temp anomaly should already be at 1.35C”

        You are comparing apples and oranges, Part I.
        CMIP anomaly is based on 1890-1900 base-line.
        UAH anomaly is based on 1991-2020 base-line.
        The Difference between 1.35 and 0.06 is explained in large part by the change in baseline

        You are comparing apples and oranges, Part II.
        CMIP6.0 takes observed changes from 1880 – 2019, which HAVE shown an increase of around 1.35C. The Models typically use this data to tune the models, and any predictions will be for the FUTURE.

        These are ‘rookie mistakes’.

        SOURCE: https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained/
        http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Comparison2017.png

        • gbaikie says:

          “CMIP6.0 takes observed changes from 1880 2019, which HAVE shown an increase of around 1.35C.”

          Politicians are worried about increase in pre-industrial temperature.
          And 1880 is not pre-industrial.

          From pre-industrial to 2019 about what has increase been?

        • Eben says:

          According to the original climate shysters predictions the temperature today should be at least 1.1C higher than they are, the actual CO2 emissions turned out to be even higher than the scenario “A”

          • Eben says:

            Cyber monkeys ate my picture again

            https://i.postimg.cc/qvhx01YV/35654-7.png

          • Willard says:

            The Climateball gods also ate your scientific source:

            > One of the first projections of future warming came from John Sawyer at the UKs Met Office in 1973. In a paper published in Nature in 1973, he hypothesised that the world would warm 0.6C between 1969 and 2000, and that atmospheric CO2 would increase by 25%. Sawyer argued for a climate sensitivity how much long-term warming will occur per doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels of 2.4C, which is not too far off the best estimate of 3C used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today.

            https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/

            Also, you forget climate sensitivity. A CO2 estimate does not get you very far without it. Jim worked with sensitivities ranging from 1.4 up to 5.6C in 1981, and to 4.2C in 1988.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

        • Clint R says:

          Folkerts, you believe fluxes simply add. In fact, your beliefs mean that ice cubes can boil water.

          That is a “rookie mistake”.

          There are others….

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Folkerts, you believe fluxes simply add. In fact, your beliefs mean that ice cubes can boil water.”

            You simply can’t leave this strawman alone can you?

            My “belief” is that irradiances (fluxes arriving at a surface from different sources) add. Like two light bulbs make my desk brighter than one light bulb.

            This “belief” does not mean that ices cubes can boil water.

            Now you can move on to something else.

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts, I’m glad to see you’re waffling away from your own nonsense. But, you have stated that two 315W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K. That is nonsense.

            Your nonsense would mean that 4 individual 315 W/m^2 fluxes could heat a surface beyond the boiling point of water.

            You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. But, you fool children like barry and Norman.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            You are confused. Fluxes are not temperatures. No matter how many fluxes you try to add in your imagination, the fact is that the temperature of the object you are trying to heat cannot exceed that of the hottest flux emitter you have.

            Brightness is not temperature. Dimwits who talk about heat sources producing so many watts per square meter and similar silliness, and trying to fool people into believing that this nonsense is related to temperature, are just exposing their ignorance.

            You can’t add fluxes meaningfully, any more than you can add temperatures. That is why climate clowns bang on about energy balances and similar nonsense. If want to deny that the Earth has cooled, and continues to do so (albeit very, very, slowly), be my guest. Fools like Sagan, Hansen, etc., apparently believed that the Earth was created cold, and heated to its present temperature (molten core and all!), by radiation from the Sun!

            Otherwise, they would not carry on with spurious calculations relating surface temperature to the Sun’s input. All about as stupid as putting a bowl of hot water in sunlight, and expressing astonishment that it was not 255K or so, as their mad calculations said.

            What a pack of fools!

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Folkerts, Im glad to see youre waffling away from your own nonsense. ”
            Clint, I am glad you are starting to actually understand what I have been saying, rather than your mistaken strawman interpretation.

            “But, you have stated that two 315W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K. That is nonsense.”
            Draw a 0.1 m x 0.1 m square. Shine 3.15 W of energy uniformly onto that square from a light lightbulb, ie a flux of 3.15W/0.01 m^2 = 315 W/m^2. Then shine 3.15 W of energy uniformly onto that square from a second lightbulb, ie a second 315 W/m^2 flux. Together these two fluxes would provide 6.3 W into 0.01 m^2, ie a net flux of 630 W/m^2, ie enough to heat our surface to 325 K.

            “Your nonsense would mean that 4 individual 315 W/m^2 fluxes could heat a surface beyond the boiling point of water.”
            Add two more lightbulbs shining on the same square. That’s 1,260 W/m^2. Which is indeed enough to heat the surface above 100 C. It would be nonsense to say that 1,260 W/m^2 would only warm the surface to 0 C!

            I suspect that you are thinking about a flux of 315 W/m^2 being EMITTED from a surface (eg ice at 0 C). But a flux of 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING at a surface does not need to come from a 0C surface. I completely agree that the 315 w/m^2 FROM ice at 0 C (ie its ‘radiant exitance’) can never raise a surface above 0 C. But irradiances (flux arriving at a surface from external sources) can and do add.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Fluxes are not temperatures.”
            You seem to be confused, since I never said fluxes were temperatures. Can you find any place where I said such a thing? Please provide quotes, not strawmen.

            “No matter how many fluxes you try to add in your imagination, the fact is that the temperature of the object you are trying to heat cannot exceed that of the hottest flux emitter you have.”
            You seem to be confused, since you are stating here exactly what I also conclude. Can you find any place where I disagreed with such a think? Please provide quotes, not strawmen.

            “Brightness is not temperature. ”
            Again. this is trivially true. Can you find any place where I said such a thing? Please provide quotes, not strawmen.

            “Dimwits who talk about heat sources producing so many watts per square meter and similar silliness, and trying to fool people into believing that this nonsense is related to temperature… ”
            So do you think the watts per square meter is NOT related to temperature? That the sun and a piece of ice produce the same watts per square meter of EM radiation from their surfaces? Or

            “Fools like Sagan, Hansen, etc., apparently believed that the Earth was created cold, and heated to its present temperature (molten core and all!), by radiation from the Sun!”
            Again, a strawman you keep repeating. Can you find any place where any said (or even implied!) such a thing? Please provide quotes, not strawmen.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong Folkerts. You keep trying to pervert reality, while denying you’re perverting reality. Why not just come out of your closet and admit you believe ice can boil water? Several of your cult have admitted that.

            The fact is, fluxes arriving at a surface do NOT simply add. Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes do not result in a temperature of 325K. Four 315 W/m^2 fluxes do NOT result in a temperature above boiling point of water. You’re perverting physics, again.

            An ice cube emitting 315 W/m^2 may only result in a flux of 250 W/m^2, at some distant surface. But, in your perverted physics, 10 such ice cubes would result in a flux of 2500 W/m^2! That would result in a temperature of 458K (185C, 365F).

            You could bake a cake with a few more ice cubes!

            You’re an idiot.

          • Swenson says:

            Folkerts,

            You wrote –

            “So do you think the watts per square meter is NOT related to temperature? That the sun and a piece of ice produce the same watts per square meter of EM radiation from their surfaces?”

            Your attempt at a gotcha is a miserable failure. It doesn’t matter what you or I think, does it?

            The facts are that a piece of ice, and the sun, can have identical measured radiation received by a surface receiving radiation from them.. In some cases, for example at night, a radiometer will record precisely no radiation flux from the sun, but much more from an adjacent block of ice.

            So no, Folkerts, only idiots and climatologists are stupid enough to think that watts per square meter has any particular relationship to the temperature of a real body emitting radiation, or a real body accepting radiation.

            You, obviously, are one such idiot, and good luck to you. I hope reality never rears its ugly head and interferes with your fantasy – I feel sorry for anybody who has to face the consequences of their folly, but I have no sympathy whatsoever.

          • Willard says:

            I know someone who believes that fluxes are temperatures.

            He refuses to admit is 2 times 2 equals 4 tho.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Tim Folkerts is clearly correct regarding the addition of fluxes. HERE’s an demonstration of his comment about light bulbs.

            Let the flames begin…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, Swanson, please stop trolling.

        • RLH says:

          The CMIP6 models are well known to be running ‘hot’.

          • barry says:

            You miss the point AGAIN.

            “CMIP6.0 takes observed changes from 1880 2019, which HAVE shown an increase of around 1.35C”

          • RLH says:

            As I said, CMIP6 models are well known to be running hot.

          • RLH says:

            “CMIP6.0 takes observed changes from 1880 2019, which HAVE shown an increase of around 1.35C”

            But not in the Nino 3.4 area where the maximums have not increased at all.

          • barry says:

            Still missing the point.

          • RLH says:

            Still ignoring the facts.

        • barry says:

          Tim,

          “CMIP6.0 takes observed changes from 1880 2019, which HAVE shown an increase of around 1.35C”

          Can you corroborate this? I’m of the understanding that (most usually) the models are not trained with temperature observations.

          https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/

  24. gbaikie says:

    Thermodynamics of the climate system

    To understand Earths climate, think of it as a giant, planetary-scale heat engine that drives the circulation of the oceans and atmosphere.
    https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.5038
    Which link to from this article:

    Thermodynamics of the Climate System
    Charles Rotter

    From Physics Today HT/Leif Svalgaard
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/02/thermodynamics-of-the-climate-system/

    It seems important if you want to have general idea of global climate.
    It mentions the ocean, but my point of view is ocean is roughly everything. Other than that,

    “Another characteristic of Earths climateindeed, any planetary climateis that it evolves irreversibly. Imagine watching a 10-second video of a field with a leafy tree on a sunny day. Would you notice if that video had been shown in reverse? Maybe not. Now imagine watching a 10-second clip of the same field and tree during a windy rainstorm.”
    Well Earth climate is about timescales of thousands of year. Rather 10 second clip, how about 1000 year movie clip. Yes irreversibly is valid but there is cycles of them.
    And we appear to in strange situation where over long term, is increase output but over 33 million year {which somewhat long time frame] Earth is getting colder.
    But I like it, generally.

    • gbaikie says:

      is increase output..
      is increase of output of sun..

      Anyhow to provide an answer to this, is that, global climate is related to changes in geological arrangement of Earth [plate tectonic which is changing planet earth- over long periods, Planet Earth transforms into other worlds with different global climates].

      We are in ice house global climate which might get even colder if you merely base this on looking at the long tread.
      Though I think it fairly easy for humans to change this trend.

  25. Work AT Home says:

    Im getting 80 US dollars/hr to complete easy work on home computer.^pw110^I not ever realized like it is even achievable however one of my confidant cfd buddy made $27,000 only within four weeks just completing this easy opportunity and also she has influenced me to avail.^pw110^updated info on visiting following website.

    >>>> https://brightfuture241.blogspot.com/

  26. Anglia says:

    Dollars incomes sincere process to parent and earn on-line. start now developing each day over $500 simply performing from home. Last month my incomes from this are $16205 and i gave this process entirely hours from my entire day. only manner to earn (~ed95~) extra economic advantage on-line and it doesnt goals any pretty unique experience. ~tg1 circulate to this net web website online right now and

    observe info to set off began
    out proper now>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfpay24.blogspot.com

  27. Gordon Robertson says:

    mark b…”Climate alarmist Dana Nuccitelli from 6 January 2017: No warming since 2016″

    ***

    Your bitterness against science has so pervaded your mind that you can’t even be funny.

    I can’t help thinking of Nuccitelli’s name as Nutticelli because his entire article is plain nutty. My reasoning based on quotes from his article…

    1)”So it is with Stage 1 climate denial and the myth that the Earth isnt warming. Its so persistent that its related to the 5th, 9th, and 49th-most popular myths in the Skeptical Science database. Climate deniers have been peddling the myth no warming since [insert date] for over a decade”.

    ***

    Nuccitelli hangs out at skepticalscience, an idiotic blog run by a cartoonist posing as a solar scientist. The site is full of nonsense passed off as science. I doubt if Nuccitelli could find one skeptic who denies there has been warming since 1850. The argument is over what caused it. Following a 400+ years mini ice age, the Little Ice Age, a reasonable person might expect a natural re-warming to take place.

    2)”When you combine these up-and-down cycles with a long-term human-caused global warming trend and various other noisy influences, you get a bumpy temperature rise that allows for cherry picking of periods without warming:”

    ***

    There is no scientific proof that humans are causing any warming. Even the IPCC cannot point to solid science that proves their case, Instead, they rely on comments made by 19th century scientists who inferred that CO2 can warm the atmosphere but without proving it.

    The basis of IPCC opinion is that it has warmed since 1850 and CO2 has increased in the atmosphere, therefore CO2 must have caused the warming. Unfortunately, in science, correlation is not causation.

    3)”Thats what it looks like with artificial data. Using real global surface temperature data from NASA, I created a popular graphic (the Escalator)…”

    ***

    Humour from Nuccitelli. The NASA GISS climate record is the most fudged record in use. When James Hansen ran the show, they were caught quietly changing the warmest year on record in the US from 1934 to 1998. When Steve McIntyre of climateaudit caught them, they changed it back.

    More on NASA chicanery to come.

    4)”As The Escalator shows, were currently in a particularly hot period. 2014 was the hottest year on record, until 2015 broke that record, which we just broke again in 2016″.

    ***

    2014 was claimed by NOAA and GISS to be the hottest years ever. They did not indicate they had based there claims on probabilities of 48% and 38% respectively. That is chicanery, and from two of the most recognized temperature series producers out there. The truth is that NOAA and GISS are cheaters, hence Nuccatelli is backing cheaters, revealing he is a liar and a cheater as well.

    5)”The 1998 El Nio gave birth to the no significant warming in 18 years myth, which until recently was a favorite argument of deniers like Ted Cruz”.

    ***

    The so-called myth was announced by the IPCC in 2013 following the AR5 review of 2012. If Nuccitelli thinks it is a myth, hence a lie, he is calling the IPCC liars.

    6)”The 1998 El Nio gave birth to the no significant warming in 18 years myth, which until recently was a favorite argument of deniers like Ted Cruz”.

    ***

    Again, it was the IPCC who announced the ‘no significant warming’ mea culpa but offered error margins revealing no significant warming. Their error bars could have indicated either an insignificant cooling or an insignificant warming.

    More lies from Nuccitelli.

    7)”there was about 0.25C global surface warming between 1998 and 2016″

    ***

    The IPCC disagrees and the UAH temperature series show no such warming. Again, Nuccitelli lies. I claim he is lying because he provides no scientific proof while contradicting two authorities who supply proof.

    8)”In 2015, Stephen Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskes, and colleagues published a paper documenting what they termed seepage of this climate denial myth into the scientific community”.

    ***

    Now Nuccitelli sinks even deeper than his skepticalscience reference by quoting Naomi Oreskes. This is the woman who claimed that consensus is a valid form of science. She is not even a scientist but a professor of the history of science. Seems Nuccitelli is not too fussy about his sources.

    9)”the scientific community adapted the use of inaccurate phrases like hiatus and pause to describe what was simply a short-term slowdown in global surface warming.

    ***

    Once again, it was the IPCC who introduced the term ‘hiatus’ to describe the flat trend from 1998 – 2012. The so-called hiatus continued till 2015, some 18 years. Term like hiatus and pause were alarmist concessions to what they believed was a temporary break in a theorized anthropogenic warming trend. However, an 18 years flat trend would indicate something else is going on.

    10)”were likely to see a resurgence of zombie climate myths in the coming years. To stop them, we have to make it socially unacceptable to resurrect long-debunked climate myths. We have to demand that our leaders accept that facts matter, and hold them accountable for disseminating myths and misinformation”.

    ***

    Translation: Alarmist propaganda has made no difference to real science therefore the alarmists need to step up the propaganda.

    It is Nuccatelli and his alarmist buddies who need to get a reality check. I doubt if they will ever understand the scientific method well enough for it to make a difference to their biased minds.

    11)”Fortunately, the scientific community is stepping up to stand up for science, evidence, and facts”.

    ***

    Who is this scientific community? We can only guess they are the misinformed alarmist who are legends in their own minds, believing themselves to be the scientific community.

  28. Gordon Robertson says:

    gb…”To understand Earths climate, think of it as a giant, planetary-scale heat engine that drives the circulation of the oceans and atmosphere”.

    ***

    I have problems with the info at your link. In a nutshell, they are seriously confused about entropy and the 2nd law. Furthermore, they are basing it on the propaganda from Raymond Pierrehumbert, a confused climate alarmist.

    They offer this statement…”although the second law was developed for matter using the techniques of classical thermodynamics by Sadi Carnot, Rudolf Clausius, and others in the middle of the 19th century, a full account of the entropy of radiation had to wait for Max Plancks theory of heat radiation.16 According to Planck, the entropy carried by a beam of radiation is dependent on its frequency spectrum, angular distribution, and polarization. A given amount of radiant energy carries the greatest amount of entropy when it is low frequency, isotropic, and unpolarized”.

    1)Carnot had nothing to do with the 2nd law, in fact, Clausius produced the 2nd law to address a mistake made by Carnot which suggested there were no heat losses in a heat engine. Clausius addressed that issue hence the 2nd law. Then Clausius invented entropy as a mathematical expression of the 2nd law.

    2)Planck proved nothing related to radiation and the 2nd law. Planck’s work addressed radiation at one temperature and did not address radiation related to heat transfer. Planck knew nothing about heat transfer via radiation because he believed like others in his day that heat moved through an ether as heat rays.

    Furthermore, entropy has nothing to do with the frequency, angle of incidence, or the polarization of a beam of radiation, whatever beam means. In fact, entropy is about heat transfer and is in no way associated with radiation. Heat cannot be transferred by radiation, any heat loss or heat gain is local.

    Don’t go away, there’s more pseudo-science to come from the authors.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      “Earth scrambles a focused beam of solar radiation into a diffuse beam made of reflected solar radiation and terrestrial radiation at much lower frequency. As such, the radiative interactions, including absor.p.tion, emission, and reflection, are irreversible on Earth and contribute to the planets entropy production. A simple analysis of that production allows one to quickly reject the notionsometimes seen in contemporary discussions of global warming that the greenhouse effect is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics (see the article by Raymond Pierrehumbert, Physics Today, January 2011, page 33).

      ***

      Pierrehumbert is largely behind the pseudo-science produced by alarmists. He has single-handedly turned physics into a farce. His inference that entropy can be applied to radiation in such a manner as to overturn the 2nd law is sheer stupidity, the product of a mind that fails to grasp basic thermodynamics.

      The definition of the 2nd law produced by Clausius in words should be the basis of the 2nd law, not a seriously misunderstood definition of entropy. I would venture, if you asked the average scientist to explain entropy, he/she could not produce a definition.

      Clausius first defined the 2nd law roughly as…”heat can never, by its own means be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. He later stated that heat transfer via radiation must obey the 2nd law. That should be the law applied to the atmosphere where heat is claimed to be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface.

      Clausius then defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat transferred during a process at temperature, T. The equation he produced was dS = dq/T.

      I repeat, Clausius invented and defined the concep.t of entropy, not Pierrehumbert.

      The sum, or integral is S = integral dq/T. S is entropy and is a sum of tiny heat transfer, not a driving force. Since T is a constant, by definition it can be pulled outside the integral sign and the equation becomes….

      S = T.integral dq

      It then becomes obvious that entropy is the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat which Clausius defined.

      Planck cannot be claimed as an authority on heat transfer via radiation since he was steeped in the incorrect belief that heat was somehow transferred through the atmosphere as heat rays. So did Clausius, Stefan, and Boltzmann. Pierrehumbert obviously thinks that is still the case since he is applying entropy to radiation where it has no business being applied.

      Talking about an increase or decrease of entropy without reference to heat is ingenuous. The author talks about irreversible processes without explaining what is meant. Clausius was clear on the matter. He claimed that entropy is zero in reversible process and positive in irreversible processes.

      What has any of that to do with radiation. Nothing!!! Alarmists are seriously confused as to the difference between radiation and heat and that’s how they come up with silly notions that override the 2nd law.

      • gbaikie says:

        — Gordon Robertson says:
        July 2, 2022 at 7:34 PM

        Earth scrambles a focused beam of solar radiation into a diffuse beam made of reflected solar radiation and terrestrial radiation at much lower frequency.” —

        Well, I wouldn’t say sunlight a “focused beam of solar radiation”.
        Or there is difference between direct sunlight and indirect sunlight.
        Hmm, can’t find a good definition. So, I will describe it.
        For sunlight to reach Earth, it has to be sunlight which going directly at Earth. Or the sun radiates in all direction and sunlight which reaches Earth {after going 149.6 million km] is close all being parallel.
        Or one can focus sunlight. It’s a light which is “focus-able” and if focused, sunlight can melt bricks. And/or sunlight can collected with mirrors and have mirrors pointed at same spot, and the collected sunlight can melt brick.
        Sunlight which is about 1360 watts per square meter at 1 AU can not be artificial made by human. It’s “hard” because it light at the temperature of the sun. So that is hard to make. And you also got the near parallel nature of it. One could manage it, but it’s not done.
        And Sunlight would have fingerprint, getting back it being close to impossible exactly mimic it.
        And indirect sunlight is scatter/diffused sunlight- which would not be “focus-able”.

        • gbaikie says:

          Though space rocks can make a light similar, they can be hotter than than sun and can appear bigger [if you are close enough to it}.
          Or some Russian got sunburned from their bright impactor. And don’t look directly at them.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          gb…”Earth scrambles a focused beam of solar radiation into a diffuse beam made of reflected solar radiation and terrestrial radiation at much lower frequency…”

          ***

          This statement is wrong to begin with, there’s no need to explain it. By scrambling, they mean scattering, but not all solar radiation is scattered. Only about 1/3rd is scattered. Also, it’s the atmosphere doing that.

          The surface does not scramble anything, it either absorbs or reflects. Terrestrial radiation is not a product of solar energy it is a product of atoms and molecules in the surface.

          Besides, no solar energy is focused in a beam. That would mean the light focused on an object. This is not a problem of focus it’s a problem of mass intercepting a fiied of energy.

          • gbaikie says:

            –This statement is wrong to begin with, theres no need to explain it. By scrambling, they mean scattering, but not all solar radiation is scattered. —
            So, scrambling is wrong and scattering is wrong.
            There is no shortage of wrong.
            It’s seem science is finding what is somewhat correct. And words [language] which mostly “wrong”. And terms are invented which can be said to be wrong, but by using word scrambled it could be better than saying scattered.
            Let’s look at concept of Ideal thermal conductive blackbody.
            First it’s a model. Or it’s wrong.
            Ideal is sort of saying, let’s ignore entropy.
            Or there a lot wrong with entropy and no one really understands it, and there various theories about it. Various theories about it, gives another clue, it’s wrong, though possible one of theories goes in to general correct direction- we will figure it out later.

            Personally I like to focus on what is correct.
            We are in an ice house climate.
            We in an ice house climate because our ocean average temperature is cold.
            And for reference, let’s say we count anything colder than 10 C as cold.
            So, our ocean is guess at, to be about 3.5 C and that might correct + or – .1 C.
            What I am fairly certain about is a difference of .2 C in the ocean average temperature makes big difference in global climate.
            And we are going to get difference of .2 C in ocean average temperature in less than 100 years.
            Also I am fairly certain humans have lived [and living in very stupid state in terms of creature, and didn’t have any thing like science at this these times] in world where ocean was .5 C warmer than present average ocean temperature. And when Earth climate was warmer with say ocean average of about 4 C, Earth was in ice house climate- and it still was a cold world. And before Humans learned to use fire, the world probably did not have an Ocean with average ocean of 5 C or warmer. And 5 C ocean is also cold. And Polar Bear was living when the ocean got as warm as about 5 C.
            Polar bears are generally killed by human hunting, and there too many of them {unless you living no where near where they live in wild}.
            Consider how stupid and uneducated and immoral humans appear to be, one could perhaps argue human were less stupid 100,000 years ago.

          • gbaikie says:

            And we are going to get difference of .2 C in ocean average temperature in less than 100 years.

            And we are NOT going to get difference of .2 C in ocean average temperature in less than 100 years.

            Now the best thing to do, would be to get rid of teacher unions, or
            give the poor the right to choose their education.
            There are far too people who have not been educated despite having served time in educational institutions. And they aren’t even being correctly brainwashed.
            And speaking of brainwashing amount of Ads we abused by
            are annoying [and could be causing more damage than the war in Ukraine]. And war in Ukraine might end at some point in time.

            But all that is far too much to hope for.

            And it seems more realistic to hope we might explore the Moon within 5 years.

            It’s possible lunar exploration, could lead to at least different ads, and more education could be happening [despite having the Teacher Unions with constant evil efforts of not educating students]

    • Willard says:

      Come on, Gordo:

      > Carnot’s analysis is physically equivalent to the second law of thermodynamics, and remains valid today.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

      Think.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      Sorry you are so wrong, but the second law of thermodynamics was first formulated by Carnot, with the maximum efficiency of a steam engine.

      And can be expressed as n = 1 – Tc/Th

      He beat Clausius by a couple decades.

      You refuse to understand the Clausius statement anyway, so it’s all a waste of entropy.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Willard, bobdroege, please stop trolling.

  29. angech says:

    Gordon Robertson says:
    July 2, 2022 at 7:34 PM
    ” Planck cannot be claimed as an authority on heat transfer via radiation since he was steeped in the incorrect belief that heat was somehow transferred through the atmosphere as heat rays. So did Clausius, Stefan, and Boltzmann”

    A bit harsh.
    These are the people who gave us physics.
    The sun heats the earth.
    By radiation mainly.
    I would be happy to refer to EMR as a heat ray.
    Heat being energy and EMR being energy.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      angech…”A bit harsh.
      These are the people who gave us physics.
      The sun heats the earth.
      By radiation mainly.
      I would be happy to refer to EMR as a heat ray.
      Heat being energy and EMR being energy”.

      ***

      Science can be harsh at times.

      You need to distinguish between heat as energy and electromagnetic energy. EM is comprised of an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field. Heat is not a property of EM therefore EM carries no heat.

      Heat, on the other hand, is the energy associated with atoms and their motion, both internally and externally. Since atoms don’t exist in a vacuum, heat cannot be transferred through a vacuum. Much of space between the Earth and the Sun is such a vacuum.

      You might say that EM carries a blueprint for heat that instructs electrons in a receiving medium whether or not to jump to a higher orbital energy level. However, the heat is created by the electrons moving to a higher kinetic energy level due to the intensity and frequency of the EM. Ergo, EM transfers no heat from the Sun through space.

      I have argued that it is incorrect to give EM the parameters of w/m^2 since that is a reference to heat that is non-existent in EM till it is absorbed by a mass. The watt itself is an adaptation of the horsepower, hence is a measure of mechanical energy. The true measure of heat is the calorie, however, since heat and work have an equivalence, we have gotten into the habit of using the mechanical equivalence of heat, the watt.

      Planck et al, had no idea of that process, and I am not blaming him for not knowing. It was not till 1913 that Bohr gained the insight that related electrons to EM. Planck pointed out, that had he known about electrons when he was working out his equation relating EM frequencies to intensities, it would have made his life a lot easier.

      You and Planck are obviously free to call EM a heat ray if you like. Planck had an excuse, he knew nothing about the relationship between electrons in atoms and EM. If you feel like researching the subject, it’s all there on the Net for you.

  30. RLH says:

    https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joc.2336

    “The new MEI.ext confirms that ENSO activity went through a lull in the early-to mid-20th century, but was just about as prevalent one century ago as in recent decades”
    14 April 2011

    So any OLS or averages that include the mid-20th century will actually be inaccurate by definition. Whereas the peaks will show no change since 1870 as they do.

    And this has been known for more than a decade!

    • RLH says:

      “So far, none of the behaviour of recent ENSO events appears unprecedented, including duration, onset timing, and spacing in the last few decades compared to a full century before then.”

  31. Stephen Paul Anderson says:

    Great encapsulation of Disney’s war on boys.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDHYqAlpVK8

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      stephen… in the video, the guy keeps associating the ‘woke’ generation with the Left. This has nothing to do with the political spectrum, it’s a special kind of insanity that has struck through self-centred idiots who can’t tell the difference between reality and fiction.

      I never really liked Disney anyway. Mickey Mouse was a little too faggy for me with that high voice but Goofey was OK. I preferred Warner Brothers with the real cartoons like B. Bunny, D. Duck, F. Leghorn, E. Fudd, etc.

      Even at that, I am sorry to see Disney taken over by a wacko lesbian, feminist.

      I don’t care what colour an actor might be as long as he/she has talent and fits the part. So, often these days, many actors can’t act, and the token coloured actors they try to force on us are pathetic actors.

      In the words of Pink Floyd…leave them kids alone.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Gordo,
        The woke movement emanates from the left. I really don’t see how you can argue that. The LGBTQ+ has taken over Disney. They ain’t on the right. You need to watch more of Mr. Reagan, he’s an actor in Hollywood. Very insightful.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          We likely have very different ideas of what constitutes Left. Many people in the States associate Left, or socialism, with Communist Russia or China. I think Russia, under the Bolsheviks and China under Mao stole the name socialist to give an aura of legitimacy to their regimes. Karl Marx would have nothing to do with socialism.

          Canada is a socialism, as is the UK, Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, New Zealand and Australia. I think Germany and France are likely socialisms as well although they have changed the name to social democracy. They have proved that socialism does work under a democracy and does not interfere with capitalism.

          I can tell you one thing, if you visited Canada, you could not tell a socialist from anyone else. That’s because Canada operates on a strong central government and no one knows that means socialism. You would not notice it here because it’s not in your face. Furthermore, capitalism is encouraged and they get tax breaks in businesses.

          US athletes playing for Canadian teams notice it when it comes to paying taxes but they also benefit when it comes to using the health plans. They would also notice there is no difference in freedoms between Canada and the States other than the ease in buying and carrying firearms.

          When I hear people comparing the woke, political-correctness with that Left, I wonder what they are talking about. In the US people like AOC and Sanders have warped ideas about what socialism means.

          Also, there is a mistaken notion that socialists support the nonsense that goes on today about climate change, covid, etc. That too is a silly idea promoted by the naive like AOC and Sanders.

          Do you know any socialists? I have known several in my life and they were also successful entrepreneurs. There is nothing about socialism that prevents a person owning a business and making as much money as the market will bear. I know one who is a muti-millionaire and offers no apologies for it, nor should he.

          Modern democratic socialists differ from their capitalist counterparts only in the amount of central government they will tolerate.

          When I was younger, I regarded myself as a socialist but these days, I stay away from labels. I can understand the position of both sides and the extremes of either side are abhorrent to me.

          There are just as many right-wing politically-correct as there are left-wing. As I said, it has nothing to do with politics, it’s about mental retardation.

          • gbaikie says:

            “We likely have very different ideas of what constitutes Left. Many people in the States associate Left, or socialism, with Communist Russia or China.”
            Yes, left as totalitarian.
            Many US presidents were totalitarian is sense they like having the power to change things like they get whenever nation is at war.
            Because we at war and threaten, we can put Japanese Americans in concentration camps.
            Or violate rights because of X, ie a pandemic.
            Because of global warming, we can tax more.
            Globalism is totalitarian.
            And of course stealing elections is totalitarianism.
            Your Prime Minister, loves totalitarian countries like China,
            and has acted as a totalitarian.
            Often lefties imagine monopolies as free markets, which is exactly what they aren’t. Monopolies are about the relationship with government. A union relationship to a government can make it monopoly. SpaceX is not monopoly though it’s biggest rocket company in terms how launches it does. And it’s involved government. Boeing is monopoly though if want to say it has corporate welfare- either or both apply. Tesla though it did get subsidies {one might say would not exist without them] is also not monopoly.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            gb…”Your Prime Minister, loves totalitarian countries like China, and has acted as a totalitarian”.

            ***

            I agree, but Trudeau is not liked by most Canadians. His popular vote in the last election was 32%. The Conservatives polled 34% of the vote and find themselves in opposition.

            The sad part, is that a party with socialist roots, the NDP, holds the balance of power, with 18% of the popular vote. . They are no longer socialists but an amalgam of politically-correct nut jobs. Here again, by socialist, I do not mean totalitarian but a democratic social democracy.

            The forerunners of the NDP, the CCF, had close association with unions, hence with civil disobedience. The modern NDP has taken steps to distance themselves from unions, as eco- weenies, university professors, and other cranks have invaded the party. The CCF and early NDP would have backed the trucker protest in Ottawa but this one sided with the totalitarian approach. Cowards.

            Canada is not a totalitarian country, we are still freer than most to express our opinions without fear of arrest. Trudeau cannot act unilaterally, although he often expresses unilateral opinions. His party also offers unilateral platforms like climate change idiocy but I can see Canadians rejecting them when push comes to shove.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          stephen…I was thinking more about my last reply to you regarding the Left. These days, I take a person as that person comes. Don’t care if the person is a right-winger or left-winger, if I get along with the person, I get along with the person, case-closed.

          I don’t think we should judge a person by his/her political stripes. We should look at the person’s actions. I have known people from both ends of the political spectrum and what mattered to me was them being there for me when push came to shove.

          I grew up in poverty and I rate those days as some of the happiest of my life. I don’t understand to this day why anyone would be mean enough to wish that on any child, however, that’s the way it is in this world. There is nothing I can do to change it. I can only hope that one day, humans will gain the awareness to see their own meanness, and in that awareness, change their ways.

          Holding ideological, political views either way changes nothing. All it accomplished is blocking our abilities to be aware of the human condition and to block our natural compassion. A healthy, aware person has no need of political views.

          • martha says:

            The oldest socialist trick in the book, “it is not socialist if we say so”. Same applies to all Marxism and, in identical fashion, to the Nazis (yep, also socialists). Deny all crimes until you cannot. Then claim they do no matter or some else is to blame or has done worse.

            Meanwhile, Marxism in any of its forms is directly responsible for the ideological extermination of more than 100 million human beings.

            And counting.

            It is a tragedy beyond comprehension.

          • barry says:

            “The oldest socialist trick in the book, ‘it is not socialist if we say so’.

            I’ve never heard of such a thing. This sounds a lot like an American hard-right conservative’s take on the Democratic party correctly identifying itself, and many of its policies, as not socialist.

            But you’re welcome to clarify what you mean, martha.

            “Meanwhile, Marxism in any of its forms…”

            This lends credence to what I just said. Marxism is a specific polity that doesn’t apply to very many actual polities.

            “…is directly responsible for the ideological extermination of more than 100 million human beings”

            Totalitarianism is responsible for the ACTUAL extermination of more than 100 million human beings. “ideological extermination” isn’t a thing. ‘Killed by ideology…’ maybe.

  32. Dan W says:

    Nicest month of June weather in the 20 years I’ve lived in Maryland. Unusually mild. If this is climate change I want more of it

  33. gbaikie says:

    –A SUDDEN INCREASE IN NOCTILUCENT CLOUDS: Something unexpected just happened in the mesosphere. As June came to an end, NASA’s AIM spacecraft detected a sharp increase in the frequency of noctilucent clouds (NLCs), the most in 15 years:–
    https://www.spaceweather.com/

    Anyone have ideas about why there is this spike increase.
    Or if it were to become higher trend, rather than spike, what it mean?

    Btw, no tropical storms for 48 hours:

    https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

  34. Gordon Robertson says:

    ken…”You should pay 5 cents per word to your favorite charity”.

    ***

    Different strokes for different folks.

    Here’s some more nickels for charity.

    I thought it might have been Sly Stone who came up with that saying but apparently it was Cassius Clay, aka Muhammed Ali, who apparently said, ‘I got different strokes for different folks’.

    Sly Stone…

    Sometimes I’m right and I can be wrong
    My own beliefs are in my song
    The butcher, the banker, the drummer and then
    Makes no difference what group I’m in

    I am everyday people, yeah, yeah

    There is a blue one who can’t accep.t
    The green one for living with
    A fat one tryin’ to be a skinny one
    Different strokes for different folks
    And so on and so on and scooby-dooby-dooby
    We got to live together

    Poor quality but a decent compilation of Sly stuff. Listen @ 5:40 to see how much we have deteriorated with racial intolerance. Back then, the races got along much better.

    https://tinyurl.com/6aykfr4v

  35. Gordon Robertson says:

    this is more a test than anything…host complains that it is a duplicate..

    tim f…”Together these two fluxes would provide 6.3 W into 0.01 m^2, ie a net flux of 630 W/m^2, ie enough to heat our surface to 325 K”.

    ***

    Tim…you are confusing the addition of fluxes with the absor.p.tion of individual fluxes by a mass. Fluxes of EM will not add in space. Any additional heating of a surface due to two fluxes incident upon the surface is a property of the mass, not the addition of fluxes.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      A temperature increase depends on the surface material. It also depends on the temperature of the surface with respect to the temperature of the sources emitting the fluxes.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        As Clint has pointed out over and over, if the sources of the fluxes is ice and the surface is at 20C, there will be no warming at all, no matter how many ice sources you provide.

        • RLH says:

          But if the surface is at -20C? or -200C?

          • RLH says:

            And the area around it is otherwise at −270.4245C.

          • Clint R says:

            RLH still doesn’t understand the “ice cubes boiling water” issue. That’s nothing new as he doesn’t understand any of the science.

            The issue is NOT about something hot warming something cold. That happens all the time. The issue is about something cold warming something to a much higher temperature than itself. Specifically, cult idiots have claimed that two different fluxes of 315 W/m^2 each, arriving at the same surface, can warm the surface to 325 K. That is, of course, complete nonsense.

            If two such 315 W/m^2 fluxes could warm to 325K, then four such fluxes could warm to 386K, 113C, 235F. That’s equivalent to saying ice cubes can boil water.

            The cult tries to pervert science, to support their cult beliefs. And RLH ignorantly helps them by confusing the issue.

          • RLH says:

            Clint R still not understanding that the ‘boiling point of water’ is pressure dependent.

          • RLH says:

            Clint R also not understanding that something that is surrounded by a higher temperature point than that of outer space will mean that an object at its center will cool at a slower rate than if it was in outer space itself.

          • Clint R says:

            RLH still doesn’t understand the “ice cubes boiling water” issue. That’s nothing new as he doesn’t understand any of the science.

            The cult tries to pervert science, to support their cult beliefs. And RLH ignorantly helps them by confusing the issue.

          • RLH says:

            Clint R still not understanding that the boiling point of water is pressure dependent. If you place the water in a vacuum, it will instantly boil with no external temperature input.

          • Clint R says:

            You still don’t get it, RLH. The issue is NOT whether or not water will boil. Everyone knows water will boil. Everyone knows water will boil at lower temperatures as the pressure is decreased. That is NOT the issue.

            You don’t understand any of this, and your ignorance only confuses the issue for others. You serve the purpose of the cult — perverting and confusing the science. People like you are considered “useful idiots”.

            (I won’t respond anymore, since RLH won’t get it. Responsible adults now have enough information to get to the correct conclusions. That’s my only goal. RLH will be trolling here all day, every day.)

          • RLH says:

            Clint R still not understanding that something that is surrounded by a higher temperature point than that of outer space will mean that an object at its center will cool at a slower rate than if it was in outer space itself.

          • gbaikie says:

            –RLH says:
            July 4, 2022 at 7:34 AM

            Clint R still not understanding that something that is surrounded by a higher temperature point than that of outer space will mean that an object at its center will cool at a slower rate than if it was in outer space itself.–

            I think Clint understands we are on molten rock and not in space.

            I would like to get into space- where it’s warmer.

            I would note our atmospheric greenhouse allows an air temperature of
            -50 C, if you are on land. But one doesn’t get an air temperature of -50 C if you are on a liquid ocean surface.
            But if you are on frozen liquid ocean, you could get air temperature of -50 C.

            With our ocean if it was warm enough, one would not get a frozen surface of the ocean.
            But our ocean has average temperature of about 3.5 C – which is quite cold. And with cold ocean, vast region of it does freeze in the winter.
            To put numbers to it:
            “Antarctic sea ice extends to about 7 million square miles in winter, versus 6 million square miles in the Arctic”
            So, totals 13 million during winter. North America continent is about
            9.5 million sq miles. So it’s fair large area. And if ocean gets colder it would get larger. And most people seem to think that if ocean was about 5 C, there would be close to zero square miles of polar sea ice in winter.

            I think most of our time during the Late Cenozoic Ice Age which has been ongoing for 33.9 million year has had ocean warm enough that it doesn’t freeze in winter. But in last couple million years the ocean has cooled and we have had a lot frozen polar sea ice, not only in winter, but in summer also.
            But during warmest periods of interglacial periods we have ice free polar sea ice in the summer. In our Holocene interglacial period, it didn’t get a warm as past interglacial period and during warmest thousands of years in past interglacial period, we could have had ice free polar sea ice in the winter.
            The warmest period in all interglacial periods is when Sahara Desert is green. Which wiki calls: African humid period.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period

            Anyhow, some thought we would get ice free arctic polar sea ice in the summer- it was suppose to have already have happen. And it’s now predicted to happen within next 50 years. {Which seems quite unlikely to me].
            And no one is predicting we get warm enough for the Sahara desert to green [by any significant amount].
            to happen within next 50 years

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Clint says “The issue is NOT about something hot warming something cold. That happens all the time. ”
            Yes. We both agree that hot things can warm cold things. That is a start!

            “The issue is about something cold warming something to a much higher temperature than itself.”
            But here is the thing. No one is making that claim.

            “claimed that two different fluxes of 315 W/m^2 each, arriving at the same surface, can warm the surface to 325 K.”
            And here is the point you keep missing. A “flux of 315 W/m^2 arriving” at a surface does not have to come from a flux of 315 W/m^2 emitted from a surface. The flux could have come the hot, hot sun but due to geometry and the inverse square law, the flux could have dropped to 315 W/m^2. Or it could have come from a IR heating panel at 1000K. or from boiling water at 373 K> *ANY* of these can provide the flux of 315 w/m^2 you describe in your sentence above.

            “Thats equivalent to saying ice cubes can boil water.”
            Only if you also believe that the flux LEAVING the sun is the same as the flux ARRIVING at the earth.

            Fluxes LEAVING Surface A do not need to be equal to fluxes ARRIVING at surface B.

          • gbaikie says:

            Anyhow how warm the ocean is, matters in terms of global climate and
            we don’t have greenhouse effect theory which includes the ocean effect upon global climate. We don’t even have one, just for the atmosphere.
            But everyone knows we are in an ice house global climate and last 2.5 million years has coldest. And human evolved within coldest period- it’s taught in elementary school.
            And ice house global climates have a cold ocean, and cold ocean causes lower global CO2 levels.
            Or for 33.9 million years, Earth CO2 levels have been low- and 400 ppm of CO2 is a low level of CO2.
            Some predict CO2 levels could rise above 1000 ppm. And 1000 ppm probably is no longer a low level of CO2.
            During the most recent and coldest time period on Earth when there was large ice sheets on continents, such as North America, CO2 level reached dangerously low level of around 180 ppm.
            And we do not know [though could guess] of any other time with such low CO2 levels. And this also was coldest in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age. And we don’t know if or when we could return to such a climate state.
            But people are optimistic and some imagine we have ice free polar sea ice some time in the future.
            And it seems some think this could happen in less than 50 years.
            And I am wondering if some people think it could happen in less than
            10 years? Or say, less than 20 years. Or 5 years?

            I sort of have list of questions, other questions is what would Venus temperature be, if it was at Earth distance from the Sun.
            What would Earth average temperature be, if it completely covered with oceans.
            What would Earth average temperature was at Venus distance from the Sun.
            What Earth average temperature be, if it had 2 atm atmosphere rather than it’s 1 atm atmosphere. Or what Earth atmosphere was .6 atm rather than 1 atm.
            And what regard as most important question, what would Mars temperature be if completely covered by bright white H20 snow?
            I think it would be nice if Mars settlements were surrounded by
            snow. Or like Christmas time.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “Timyou are confusing the addition of fluxes with the absor.p.tion of individual fluxes by a mass. ”
      No, I really am not.

      “Fluxes of EM will not add in space. ”
      This makes little sense. Fluxes are defined at specific surfaces — how many watts of EM energy pass through a given surface (not how much flux ‘exists in space’). Of course, surfaces exist ‘in space’. If I have a surface ‘in space’ and send two different sets of EM energy through it (eg from two lasers or two lightbulb or two pieces of ice) the energies add and the fluxes add.

      “Any additional heating of a surface due to two fluxes incident upon the surface is a property of the mass, not the addition of fluxes.”
      No, heating is DEFINITELY affected by the amount of incoming energy (incoming flux).

      “A temperature increase depends on the surface material. ”
      Certainly. For simplicity we have assumed the surface is a blackbody, but that could be adjusted. We have also for simplicity assumed the surface material only loses heat via radiation, but that also could be changed. But you don’t get to introduce new variables in the middle of a problem and then pretend you have some new insight.

      “As Clint has pointed out over and over, if the sources of the fluxes is ice and the surface is at 20C, there will be no warming at all, no matter how many ice sources you provide.”
      And as I have pointed out over and over, I agree. I knew that 30 years ago.

      ******************************************

      The key issue that many seem to miss is that there are two different, important surfaces under consideration. The EMITTING surface and RECEIVING surface. When ice at 273 K is the EMITTING surface, then 315 W/m^2 of flux (radiant exitance) leaves the surface.

      But when some other surface is RECEIVING 315 W/m^2 of flux (irradiance), it does not need to be coming from ice! it could be coming from ice @ 273 K forming a dome that completely covers the ‘view’ above the receiving surface (ie the 2pi steradians above the surface). Or it could coming from half the view (pi steradians) at 273 * 2^(1/4) = 325 K. Or from 1/16th at 273*2. Or from 1/10,000 at 273 * 10.

      Until people distinguish “emitting” from “receiving” and “radiant exitance” from “irradiance”, they will continue to make ‘rookie mistakes’. It you are not clearly thinking about this in your head as you type, you are not clearly understanding the issues involved.

      • Clint R says:

        Wrong Folkerts. You are the one trying to confuse the issue with an “emitting surface”. I’m ONLY talking about the “receiving surface”. Quit trying to pervert the situation.

        The fact is, fluxes arriving at a surface do NOT simply add. Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes do not result in a temperature of 325K. Four 315 W/m^2 fluxes do NOT result in a temperature above boiling point of water. You’re perverting physics, again.

        An ice cube emitting 315 W/m^2 may only result in a flux of 250 W/m^2, at some distant surface. But, in your perverted physics, 10 such ice cubes would result in a flux of 2500 W/m^2! That would result in a temperature of 458K (185C, 365F).

        You could bake a cake with a few more ice cubes!

        You’re an idiot.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          And … you STILL don’t recognize the important of geometry and the inverse square law.

          A distant ice cube EMITTING 315 W/m^2 does not result in a flux of 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING at some distant surface.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “But, in your perverted physics, 10 such ice cubes would result in a flux of 2500 W/m^2! ”

            No! That is not at ALL what I (or any one claims). We all recognize how solid angles work and how to do surface integrals to sum fluxes from different directions. And it sure as heck isn’t the way your strawman works!

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts attempts another perversion: “A distant ice cube EMITTING 315 W/m^2 does not result in a flux of 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING at some distant surface.”

            Correct Folkerts, that’s why I used 250W/m^2. You’re such an idiot.

            Folkerts, your claim was two 325 W/m^2 fluxes would add to 630 W/m^2. That’s your bogus physics. You can’t spin your way out of your own nonsense. You have to admit you were wrong and you don’t understand radiative physics or thermodynamics.

            But, you won’t do that. That’s why you’re a braindead cult idiot.

          • Clint R says:

            Oops, another typo!

            “…your claim was two 325 W/m^2 fluxes…”

            should be

            “…your claim was two 315 W/m^2 fluxes…”

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Correct Folkerts, thats why I used 250W/m^2. Youre such an idiot.”

            Well, you are making a small step toward understanding. You are acknowledging the difference between emitted flux (315W/m^2 here) and received flux (250 W/m^2).

            Imagine an entire dome of ice (or flat walls and ceiling – in doesn’t matter). It doesn’t matter how big the dome is. That dome will provide 315 W/m^2 to a surface under the dome.

            So to provide 250 W/m^2m from ice, you would need to have 250/315 = 79% of the dome covered with ice.

            But here is the thing that everyone else seems to understand. You can’t cover 2*78% = 158% of the dome with ice and get 500 W/m^2. You can’t cover 10*78% = 780% of the dome with ice and get 2500 W/m^2. The best you can do is cover 100% of the dome with ice and get 315 W/m^2. After than you are simply covering ice with more ice, which provides no more flux FROM the dome and no more flux TO the surface.

            Only in your imagination do people add fluxes the way you suppose.

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts, all that blah-blah isn’t necessary.

            Do you agree that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface can NOT raise the surface to 325K?

            ONLY a “yes” or “no” is needed.

            (I bet Folkerts can not answer.)

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            and from a different tack …
            “Correct Folkerts, thats why I used 250W/m^2. Youre such an idiot.”

            So you acknowledge that an EMITTING source at 315 W/m^2 could provide 250 W/m^2 to a RECEIVING surface. Perfect.

            Or an EMITTING source at 315 W/m^2 could provide 100 W/2^2. Or 6 W/m^2. The RECEIVING surface could be receiving between 0 – 315 W/m^2′ ie any value LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO the emitting source.

            Conversely, to provide 315 W/m^2 to a RECEIVING surface, you need a EMITTING surface at any value GREATER THAN OR EQUAL. So a surface RECEIVING 315 W/m^2 *could* be receiving it from a surface emitting 315 W/m^2. Or a surface emitting 400 W/m^2 or 1000 W/m^2, or 64,000,000 W/^2.

            So we could take a surface emitting 1000 W/m^2 (at 364 K) and have it PROVIDE a flux 315 W/m^2 TO a surface. And in this case, we could take a second surface emitting 1000 W/m^2 and have it PROVIDE a flux 315 W/m^2 TO a surface. Lo and behold, we have two fluxes of 315 W/m^2 that add to 630 W/m^2, which can heat a surface to 325 K.

            And there is no problem because the emitting surface was 364 K, ie warmer than the resulting temperature.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Do you agree that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface can NOT raise the surface to 325K?”

            No, I disagree.

            Since you specifically say “two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving” at a surface, then you are describing irradiance. The two fluxes might be from two surfaces at 325 K, or two surfaces at 1000 K, or two surfaces at 5700 K (eg sunlight). And any fool knows that fluxes from surfaces at 325 K or 1000 K or 5700 K can indeed warm the surface to 325 K with no violation of physics.

            [If you INSTEAD mean “two 315 W/m^2 fluxes leaving from two different surfaces” (for example, from two ice cubes), then yes, those fluxes cannot warm another surface to 325 K.]

          • Clint R says:

            Okay Folkerts, since you like to weasel out, I’ll give you one more chance. Making the changes you claim are necessary. (Changes not really necessary, since this has been discussed endlessly. Folkerts is only looking for loopholes.)

            “Do you agree that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes, from separate sources, arriving the same surface can NOT raise the surface to 325K?

            “Yes” or “no”.

            (Again, I bet Folkerts can’t answer. Just as last time, he will attempt to “blah-blah” his way out of it.)

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            I gotta laugh. Clint says both:
            “Making the changes you claim are necessary.”
            “he will attempt to ‘blah-blah’ ”

            The ‘necessary changes’ are clearly explained, but reading more than 3 or three lines is apparently too strenuous.

            Okay Clint, since you can’t state a clear question, I’ll give you the answer(s) one more time (simplified for easier understanding).

            Which of these do you mean?
            A) 315 W/m^2 as measured ARRIVING at the surface being warmed
            B) 315 W/m^2 as measured LEAVING the surface(s) doing the warming

            The answer to A is “No” (they CAN raise the temp to 325K)
            The answer to B is “Yes” (they CANNONT raise the temp to 325K)

          • Clint R says:

            My question contained, “…arriving the same surface…”, and Folkerts still doesn’t know if I’m talking about “arriving” or “leaving”!

            Yeah, he’s an idiot.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Yeah, hes an idiot.”

            … but I am the one who got the answer right, so, yeah, I think need to re-assess who is an ‘idiot’.

            Two fluxes — for example from two light bulbs or sun beams — of 315 W/m^2 both arriving at a surface can warm the surface to 325 K.

          • Clint R says:

            No, that’s wrong Folkerts. Not only are you an idiot but you don’t understand radiative physics or thermodynamics.

            As usual, you won’t understand this, so this is just for others. You can go play with your toys now.

            A 315 W/m^2 flux arriving a surface will result in a temperature, once steady state is reached. In a perfect scenario (surface perfectly insulated except where it absorbs the 315 W/m^2 flux, vacuum, etc.), 315 W/m^2 would also be emitted (ε = 1), resulting in a temperature of 273 K (-0.1C, 31.8F), basically the temperature of an ice cube. So a second 315 W/m^2 flux would be unable to increase that temperature. (Just as two ice cubes can’t make something hotter than the ice.) The second flux only has the potential to warm to 273K, and the surface is already at 273K, so no heat transfer occurs.

            Radiative physics is not always intuitive, so consider conduction. A brick has a temperature of 273K. If a second 273K brick is placed in contact, does the temperature rise to twice 273K? Of course not. The temperature remains at 273K, no matter how many 273K bricks are added. Radiative flux, like temperatures, don’t simply add.

            Believing fluxes simply add is one of several false beliefs in the AGW nonsense, so it’s worth spending time on.

          • Willard says:

            > So a second

            By that logic, Pup, the first one would not have done anything.

            Revise and resubmit.

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry Willard but my 3:43 PM comment was meant for responsible adults, not immature trolls. Obviously, it’s WAY over your head.

            I think youtube has children cartoons you might enjoy.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “A 315 W/m^2 flux arriving a surface will result in a temperature, once steady state is reached. ”
            OK. Let’s for the sake of argument say again that we have 10 cm x 10 cm area receiving a power of 3.15W from a lightbulb. That is “a 315 W/m^2 flux arriving at the surface”.

            “In a perfect scenario (surface perfectly insulated except where it absorbs the 315 W/m^2 flux, vacuum, etc.), 315 W/m^2 would also be emitted (ε = 1), resulting in a temperature of 273 K ”
            Sure.

            “So a second 315 W/m^2 flux would be unable to increase that temperature.”
            Why? If we turn on a second lightbulb, you are saying that lightbulb would be unable to increase the temperature of the surface.

            “Radiative physics is not always intuitive, so consider conduction.”
            Arguing from an analogy is always a weak starting point. In this case your analogy is weak and DETRACTS from intuition about radiation. Stick to radiation.

            Will a second light bulb (or sun beam or laser beam) providing 3.15 W to a 0.01 m^2 have no impact? My intuition tells me the surface will get warmer. And radiative physics concurs.

            Here is a challenge. Take three identical rocks: one is in the shade, one in the sun, and one in the sun with a few mirrors shining extra flux at the rock. I am sure your intuition accurately tells you which is hottest. Yet your conclusion above is the second flux “would be unable to increase that temperature”!

          • Willard says:

            I know your comment was not a memo for yourself, Pup.

            So why do you keep parroting the same inconsistency over and over again?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Tim Folkerts, Cult Leader grammie and Flynnson can’t figure it out. The light bulb thing is so easy to demonstrate.
            Too bad they never learn.

            So, I did the demonstration myself.

          • Clint R says:

            Oh good, Willard and Son have teamed up with Folkerts trying to pervert science again.

            Willard Jr has been playing with lightbulbs, not understanding ANYTHING about the issue. The issue involves “cold” warming “hot”. Willard Jr has successfully warmed “cold” with “hot”, exactly opposite of what he needs to do to prove his nonsense.

            Maybe he will actually try to boil water with ice cubes, as he believes can be done.

            We have no shortage of idiots here.

          • Willard says:

            Pup cannot work out a second time what he worked out a first time.

            Quite wonderful, when you think about it.

            So ou course he has no real response to Tim.

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts, do you enjoy being an idiot?

            I stated in my question that the fluxes are “arriving the same surface”. But you couldn’t understand if I was talking about “arriving” or “leaving”!

            That makes you an idiot.

            Your nonsense about two 315 W/m^2 fluxes adding to 630 W/m^2 means you don’t know ANYTHING about radiative physics. If fluxes really added like that, it would be possible to boil water with ice cubes. You can’t even understand how stupid that is.

            That makes you an idiot.

            Now, you are so desperate you’re throwing nonsense on top of nonsense. You’re trying to change the scenario because you got caught. You’re using mirrors and lasers trying to cover up for your ignorance.

            That makes you an idiot.

            What kind of person wants to be an idiot? Who are you? I believe it was your syncophant Norman that claimed you have a PhD in physics. Is that true? You don’t have the knowledge of someone with ANY kind of physics degree. You constantly get things wrong. Not just “wrong”, but extremely wrong! Have you stolen someone else’s identity?

          • Willard says:

            You should have been able to answer that question a while ago, Pup.

            Professors are not that hard to find.

            Almost as easy as to add fluxes.

            Cheers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

  36. gbaikie says:

    https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression

    It’s plotted June- averaged sunspots 70.5

    Solar wind
    speed: 375.8 km/sec
    density: 24.31 protons/cm3
    Updated 04 Jul 2022
    Sunspot number: 42

    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 13.24×10^10 W Neutral
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: +4.2% Elevated
    –GEOMAGNETIC STORM WATCH: NOAA forecasters say there is a chance of minor G1-class geomagnetic storm on July 6th when a stream of solar wind is expected to hit Earth’s magnetic field.–

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 340.3 km/sec
      density: 19.23 protons/cm3
      Updated 05 Jul 2022
      Sunspot number: 92
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 13.22×10^10 W Neutral
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: +5.1% High
      48-hr change: +1.0%

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 308.7 km/sec
        density: 12.00 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 07 Jul 22
        Sunspot number: 98
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 13.18×10^10 W Neutral
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: +6.1% High
        48-hr change: +1.0%
        {Thermosphere is not energized and GRC is
        high- or conditions generally associated with
        a Solar Min.
        But there is large sunspot turning toward us which
        could hit Earth with large solar storms.}

  37. gbaikie says:

    Interesting
    Shrinking GH Effect Closer to Reality
    Posted byZoe PhinJuly 3, 2022Posted inAstrophysics, Climate Science, Code
    “In a previous article, I attempted to figure out a more accurate surface temperature for an imaginary Earth with no atmosphere compared to the standard approach of completely neglecting surface emissivity”

    https://phzoe.com/2022/07/03/shrinking-gh-effect-closer-to-reality/

    “Nope. The correct answer is -4.3C !”

    • gbaikie says:

      Willis Eschenbach links to this:
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/earths-baseline-black-body-model-a-damn-hard-problem/

      Which is depressing, in the context of such as my question what Venus temperature be at Earth distance.

      So, I thought of another question. Leave Earth’s atmosphere alone, and change something else.
      Or for example it’s though when North and South America joined it changed the global climate.
      So, if enlarged Panama Canal by factor of 100, what happen?

      And is there any other relatively small thing, which would have larger effect? How about enlarging the Bering Straits by factor of 10?
      Or something else.

    • barry says:

      I’m sure the insights of a graduate of economics on the global energy budget is fascinating to some. I notice her posts are politically angled. Just to read the list of titles (she posts about Ivermectin, too!) gives that away.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      barry, please stop trolling.

  38. Planet is not a uniformly heated body.
    Planet is a solar irradiated from one side spherical object.

    The irradiated side is not uniformly irradiated.
    The planets opposite side is in total darkness.

    Thus, a planet is not a blackbody!
    ..

    Earth absorbs 28% less solar energy than Moon (Albedo Earth a =0,306; Albedo Moon a =0,11).

    And yet

    The measured Earths average surface temperature Tearth=288K. The measured Moons average surface temperature Tmoon=220K.

    Mars orbits sun at R = 1,524 AU.

    (1/R) = (1/1,524) = 1/2,32 Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth has

    So the solar flux at Mars orbit is 2,32 times weaker than on Moon too.

    And yet

    The measured Mars average surface temperature Tmars=210K.

    Which is close to the measured Moons average surface temperature Tmoon=220K.

    Mars’ Albedo a =0,250; Moon’s Albedo a =0,11.

    It can be shown, that for the same Albedo Mars and Moon would have the same average surface temperature.
    ..

    Let’s see now:

    Tmoon =220K

    Tearth =288K (for Earth having 28% less than Moon solar energy “absorbed”)

    Tmars =210K (for Mars having 2,32 times less than Moon solar energy “absorbed”)

    These obvious discrepancies can be explained only by the Earth’s and by the Mars’ much faster than Moon’s rotational spins.

    These obvious discrepancies can be explained only by the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  39. Stig Petersson says:

    Us it possible to get data for a specific place. I would like data from chosen places on the same latitude and different locations, like Bjurklubb in sweden (measuring site), Alaska at the sea, South. Am at same latitude (-sign)?

    • Bindidon says:

      Stig Petersson

      If you consider all GHCN daily stations located within the same small 64N latitude band as your Bjoerklubb, you see nearly 240 stations.

      96 in Alaska, 30 in Canada, 1 in Greenland, 4 in Iceland, 6 in Norway, 42 in Sweden, 29 in Finland, 29 in Russia.

  40. Stig Petersson says:

    Latitude 65 deg North; Bjorklubb is right spelling

    • Stig Petersson says:

      The o with 2 dots disappear . Bjuroeklubb

    • Bindidon says:

      The following Swedish GHCN daily stations are in your near (id, lat,long, alt, name):

      SWE00136969 64.3900 21.3100 105.0 HOKMARKSBERGET_V
      SWE00137023 64.7200 21.1500 5.0 URSVIKEN
      SWE00140306 64.3600 21.3200 21.0 LOVANGER
      SWE00140366 64.6200 21.0700 48.0 SKELLEFTEA_FLYGPLATS
      SWE00140420 64.9100 21.2300 10.0 FURUOGRUND

      but only SKELLEFTEA_FLYGPLATS has sufficiently recent data.

      At the same latitude you find

      IC000004030 64.1269 -21.9025 52.0 REYKJAVIK
      ICM00004130 64.1330 -21.9000 53.0 REYKJAVIK
      USC00508044 64.7425 -155.4842 121.9 AK RUBY WEST

      I can download and post the recent daily temps, e.g. for SKELLEFTEA_FLYGPLATS and REYKJAVIK if you are interested.

      *
      Or do you rather mean the monthly anomalies for UAH’s lower troposphere grid cells above Bjuröklubb, Reykjavik and Ruby?

      Not clear to me…

      *
      P.S. UTF-8 characters aren’t displayed on this blog.
      You may use what

      https://mothereff.in/html-entities

      makes out of them to let them appear here.

      Please avoid ‘d’ immediately followed by ‘c’ in your comments; they are not published.

        • Bindidon says:

          I’ll answer your morbidly egomaniacal stalking stuff when it suits me, and certainly not because you think I have to.

          Who are you after all, Linsley Hood? An opinionated old man who behaves on this blog like a 15 year old college boy.

          • RLH says:

            So Blinny, still think that you know more than Vaughan Pratt?

          • Bindidon says:

            As the opinionated and permanently lying stalker Linsley Hood perfectly knows, I never and never claimed

            to know more than StanU Emeritus Vaughan Pratt, whom I respect for his amazing proof of the failure of R.G. Woods 1909 experiment;

            to do anything better than the USCRN team.

            You, Linsley Hood, spread those lies.

            Unfortunately, there is no moderation on this blog forbidding you to stalk others and to lie.

            What a pity!

          • RLH says:

            So why do you object to my using CTRMs following his suggestions of 12, 10 and 8 months for a 12 month CTRM?

          • RLH says:

            So Blinny does not have any answer to that question, simply thinks he knows best.

      • Stig Petersson says:

        Sorry I misinformed you, Bjuroklubb is 67 latitude, 19.35 longitude
        AK RUBY WEST would be perfect if it is at that latitude and then southest point in south america; I think 67 S latitude is too far ; first point on land northbound from that

        • Stig Petersson says:

          Bjuroklubb has the longest temp record . from 1995-12-14

        • Stig Petersson says:

          The Bjuroklubb station has the longest temp record . from 1995-12-14

          • RLH says:

            According to
            https://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds370.1/docs/Worldwide_Station_List.html

            NUMBER = STATION NUMBER
            CALL = STATION CALL LETTERS IF ASSIGNED
            NAME = NAME OF LOCATION (& INDICATES PREVIOUSLY UNDER DIFFERENT NUMBER)
            COUNTRY/STATE = 2-CHARACTER COUNTRY ABBREVIATION, FOR U.S.–
            2-CHARACTER STATE ABBREVIATION
            (SEE ‘COUNTRY-LIST.TXT’ FILE)
            LAT = LATITUDE
            LON = LONGITUDE
            ELEV = ELEVATION IN METERS

            NUMBER CALL NAME + COUNTRY/STATE LAT LON ELEV (METERS)
            022960 BJUROKLUBB (LGT-H) SN 6429N 02135E 0036

        • Bindidon says:

          Stig Petersson

          67 lat, 19 lon? Sure sure?

          I see your corner in Google Maps at 64.47, 21.59.

          https://tinyurl.com/4ma76zsf

          Or are there two Bjuroklubbs in Sweden?

          AK RUBY WEST’s record ends in 2000, AK RUBY 44 ESE has only data since 2014.

          In the near you have

          USC00503212 64.7408 -156.8756 46.3 AK GALENA

          with data from 1996 till now.

          At the opposite latitude of -64, you have these stations:

          YM00089055 -64.2330 -56.7170 198.0 BASE MARAMBIO
          AYM00089061 -64.7660 -64.0830 8.0 PALMER STATION
          AYM00089269 -64.7830 -64.0670 8.0 BONAPARTE POINT

          Base Marambio has data from 1971 till now, Palmer from 1976. Bonaparte ended 2014.

          I’ll download data for Skelleftea, Galena and Marambio this evening, and post a chart about them later.

      • Stig Petersson says:

        Maybe I could take REYKAVIK as well although that station has a different location in terms of weather; Gulf Stream etc…

        • Stig Petersson says:

          NUMBER CALL NAME + COUNTRY/STATE LAT LON ELEV (METERS)
          022960 BJUROKLUBB (LGT-H) SN 6429N 02135E 0036
          That is the station yes

        • Bindidon says:

          All the stations you selected differ in terms of weather. Alaska doesn’t have much in common with Sweden, let alone do these two with Antarctica.

          And so will their absolute temperatures certainly differ.

          But it might be interesting to generate in addition anomalies with respect to a common reference period (e.g. 2001-2020), and look a the anomaly differences instead.

          • RLH says:

            So Blinny, still think that you know more than Vaughan Pratt?

          • Bindidon says:

            As the opinionated and permanently lying stalker Linsley Hood perfectly knows, I never and never claimed

            – to know more than StanU Emeritus Vaughan Pratt, whom I respect for his amazing proof of the failure of R.G. Wood’s 1909 experiment;

            – to do anything better than the USCRN team.

            You, Linsley Hood, spread those lies.

            Unfortunately, there is no moderation on this blog forbidding you to stalk others and to lie.

            What a pity!

          • RLH says:

            So why do you object to my using CTRMs following his suggestions?

          • RLH says:

            So Blinny does not have any answer to that question, simply thinks he knows best.

          • Stig Petersson says:

            Thank you. Sorry I was not so exact from the beginning – I’m new here. I just have an idea on how a year differs at the same latitude and then compare them with respect to their situation. If I just had Alaskas south part I could compare how that warm stream south of Alaska affects a year in Alaska compared with the Gulf Stream I have nearest.

  41. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    1,094 K!? The Green Plate Effect’s debunked.

    • Willard says:

      Graham, in this house we abide by the laws of thermo.

      Please stop trolling.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      “As I wrote back then, it seems strange that splitting the plates has to induce a temperature difference”

      No more extreme example of this than the Sun Shell scenario. Place a thin, perfectly-conducting blackbody shell around the Sun, with a 1mm vacuum gap between the Sun and the shell, and Team GPE argues that the Sun would increase in temperature by 1,094 K, emitting twice as much (in W/m^2) as it did previously. The shell itself they would have reaching the same temperature as the Sun was originally, i.e: 5,778 K. Shrink that vacuum gap down to nothing, so that the shell touches the Sun, and once again they have the shell reaching the same temperature as the Sun, but now there is no increase in temperature of the Sun. Expand the vacuum gap to 1mm again, up pops the temperature of the Sun by 1,094 K. The Sun, heating itself up with its own back-radiated energy! An obvious 2LoT violation…

      • E. Swanson says:

        Cult Leader grammie pup lost the debate last month, but refuses to admit it by repeating his absurd comments about some mental model of a Sun Plate. Making empty assertions proves nothing, and in any case, his Sun shell model has no relation to the BP-GP model, therefore is irrelevant.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          The Sun shell scenario, which won me the debate last month, has everything in common with the GPE. The central premise, that all back-radiation from the shell (GP) warms the Sun (BP), is identical. The math for the Sun shell case is the same as in the 3-plate GPE scenario.

          • Willard says:

            “Some people have been repeating the same flawed arguments over and over, for literally years, thinking that they will somehow evolve into valid arguments.

            They haven’t.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            In the 3-plate GPE scenario, a central Blue Plate (BP) has a 400 W electrical input, and on its own equilibrates at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2. Green Plates (GPs) are added one either side of the central BP. According to Team GPE, the BP rises in temperature to 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2 (note that the emissions have doubled), whilst the two GPs equilibrate at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2.

            Push all three plates together, so they are touching, and Team GPE are happy to state that the plate temperatures are 244 K…244 K…244 K. Separate them by even 1 mm, however, and they argue that the BP temperature shoots up by 46 K, so that the temperatures are 244 K…290 K…244 K. The similarities between that and the Sun shell scenario I just described should be obvious.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Cult Leader grammie pup, your delusions continue. In reality, there is no 3 plate situation which applies to the GPE. The BP always has at least half it’s surface exposed to deep space.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It’s just a logical extension of the original GPE thought experiment that pretty much every regular commenter here discussed a few years ago, Swanson. You have to defend that 244 K…290 K…244 K solution just as you have to defend your 6,872 K…5,778 K solution to the Sun shell problem. Sorry, but that is what your religion requires you to believe. There is no point trying to wriggle out of it.

          • Willard says:

            “”So, emissions from the GP cannot increase the temperature of the BP. That would violate 2LoT.”

            This weirdly assumes that a heat source cannot be a source of heating! This erroneously asserted 2LOT violation has been repeatedly debunked by many here, including Bill.”

          • E. Swanson says:

            Cult Leader grammie pup, I don’t “have to defend” any of your mental model scenarios, that’s your responsibility.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Swanson cannot even bring himself to accept the solutions follow from his own belief system. Team GPE has always defended the 244 K…290 K…244 K solution to the 3-plate scenario, and the 6,872 K…5,778 K solution to the Sun shell problem follows directly from that. Are you saying you agree with me that your own Team’s answers are wrong?

          • Willard says:

            Well, actually, the central premise is

            > At equilibrium an equal amount of energy has to be going in as coming out.

            http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html

            Same premise as the energy balance model problem, which Graham misspecified.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Are you saying you agree with me that your own Team’s answers are wrong, Swanson?

          • Willard says:

            > the key question here is there any insulation at all getting to the photosphere or is it all just part of the inverse square distance law whereby insulation is negligible and can be disregarded.

            Not really, Bill.

            The key question is why you, Graham, and Pup cannot refute Eli’s thought experiment directly.

            There are lots of theories about that. Mine is that, when faced with the 240 W-m2 hard limit, Sky Dragon Cranks have little else than baiting and trolling.

            Please desist.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Swanson!? Hello!?

      • gbaikie says:

        Small partial sun shell, say, 1 million km in diameter.
        Mercury perihelion: 0.3075 AU and 14,446 watts
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Published_tables
        Shell in different orbit but same distance and same sunlight.
        AU = 149597870700 meter times .3075 = 46001345240.25 meter or
        46,001,345.24 km from sun is shell A
        45,001,345 km from sun is shell B
        Nay I don’t to figure it say Shell B on other side
        at Mercury Aphelion: 0.4667 AU or
        AU = 149597870700 meter times 0.4667 = 69817326255.69 meter or
        69,817,326 km getting 6,272 watts per square meter.
        69,817,326 – 45,001,345 = 23,815,981 Km

        So Shells about 1/2 distance between Venus and Earth when they align and are closest. And Venus is 12,104 km in diameter.
        So viewing from shell A to B they look about 200 times bigger than Venus as seem from Earth. And between A and B they look about 400 times bigger than Venus. Or probably look bigger than Sun from Earth or from Mercury. So at mid point one could be shaded from the sunlight but one can see the outer 1 million diameter shell which in the sunlight and looks bigger than the Sun.
        The shell closest to sun could be transparent, and one wouldn’t in shade. But blocks the sunlight, and heats up. Then you no longer getting direct sunlight and you would not get any significant energy from it. And likewise it better to reflect sunlight from shell further shell back midpoint.
        One magnify that sunlight, and make focal point very hot- as hot as sun itself or simply reflect it back, and it will like added 1/2 of the 23,815,981 Km distant or /2 = 11907990.5
        Or 69,817,326 + 11,907,990.5 = 81,725,316.5 km distance from the Sun.

      • bobdroege says:

        DREMPTY,

        There are a couple problems with your Sun Shell scenario.

        First, the Sun does not have a clearly defined surface, at least not at a 1 mm level.

        Second, the surface of the Sun is not where the heat is being produced. There are two layers below the surface, one where the heat is transferred by conduction and another where the heat is transferred by radiation.

        Sorry but science is not your field.

        Not to mention having something that would be solid at 5778 K.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Hilariously, bob finds pedantic issues with matters that are irrelevant (it’s an abstract thought experiment, nobody is saying you could actually build a shell around the Sun), but has no problem with this:

          Sun touching shell: 5,778 K…5,778 K
          Sun separated from shell: 6,872 K…5,778 K

          Just as he has no problem with this:

          Plates together: 244 K…244 K…244 K
          Plates separated: 244 K…290 K…244 K

          • bobdroege says:

            Your reading comprehension is rather lacking, ClintR, because I do have a problem with the Sun Shell solution provided by DREMPTY.

            The problem doesn’t specify where the heat source for the Sun is, and I told you that it wasn’t the surface as 5778 K.

            It’s the core temperature of 15.7 million K that should be used to solve the Sun Shell problem.

            Your 244…244…244 solution fails because with the plates at the same temperature there is no heat transfer.

            Me thinks you have another think coming.

            How is that minor in physics going?

          • bobdroege says:

            Sorry DREMPTY, I thought I was responding to Clint R, but then you don’t have a minor in physics either, now do you?

            You still have the wrong solution to both the Sun Shell problem and the Green Plate problem.

            But you did give yourself a participation trophy, so you got that going for you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            What is your answer to the Sun shell problem then, bob? Mine is that adding a perfectly-conducting blackbody shell around it will make no difference to the temperature of the Sun.

            Team GPE has never had a problem with the plates, when pushed together (so, physically touching) being 244 K…244 K…244 K before. Sure your reading comprehension is not rather lacking?

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            My answer is that your answer is wrong and you do not take into account where the heat source for the Sun is, and you don’t have any calculations to support your answer.

            And I don’t know the dimensions of the convective and radiant layers of the Sun, which would be necessary to solve the problem.

            And by the way, the morons at Principia found an increase in temperature for the green plate effect, so your answer for that is wrong.

            And back radiation from CO2 has been observed in other experiments.

            So you have those two facts working against you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “My answer is that your answer is wrong and you do not take into account where the heat source for the Sun is, and you don’t have any calculations to support your answer.

            And I don’t know the dimensions of the convective and radiant layers of the Sun, which would be necessary to solve the problem.”

            OK, so bob cannot provide an answer for the Sun shell problem, so we will stick with this:

            Sun touching shell: 5,778 K…5,778 K
            Sun separated from shell: 6,872 K…5,778 K

            as being Team GPE’s official answer to it, since it is based on the back-radiation from the shell warming the Sun until it emits twice as much (in W/m^2) as it did previously, which agrees with the 3-plate scenario math as well as the “Steel Greenhouse”. So that is what you have to defend, bob. The Sun heating itself up with its own back-radiated energy.

            “And by the way, the morons at Principia found an increase in temperature for the green plate effect, so your answer for that is wrong.”

            False.

            https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/

            https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/

            “And back radiation from CO2 has been observed in other experiments.”

            Sure, but did it warm anything?

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY

            “Sure, but did it warm anything?”

            Yes it warms something, but heats no, because heat and warm are defined differently.

            Yes, back radiation warms the Earth’s surface, but there is no heat transfer, because that is in the other direction.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            “OK, so bob cannot provide an answer for the Sun shell problem, so we will stick with this:

            Sun touching shell: 5,778 K5,778 K
            Sun separated from shell: 6,872 K5,778 K”

            That’s wrong and I told you why, yet you stick to it.

            It’s not the right answer, team green plate defenders or not.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Great doublespeak, bob.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            bobdroege says:

            And I dont know the dimensions of the convective and radiant layers of the Sun, which would be necessary to solve the problem.

            And by the way, the morons at Principia found an increase in temperature for the green plate effect, so your answer for that is wrong.

            And back radiation from CO2 has been observed in other experiments.
            ———————-

            Thats a lot to unload. To my knowledge backradiation has never been detected much less observed. Standard IR detectors must be cooled below the temperature of the target to detect a photon. Electronic detectors do it with an electronic mirror technology that measures photons being lost to colder targets.

            All we have as an understanding of this is the fact that an object at a steady temperature can slow the cooling of a heated object. That by definition is what is known as insulation.

            And yes we can observe insulation at work in convective environments filled with gases. And we have observed insulation at work in space that depends upon layers of reflective materials.

            And of course we could observe shells as described by DREMT in experiments in outer space in carefully designed and documented experiments that properly controls or accounts for losses of energy due to fields of view less than 1.0.

            But despite asking many people who believe they know the answer to this I have yet to get a single one to provide any evidence of experiments they claim to be knowledgeable of.

            Suggesting you would have the answer if you knew about the convective and radiative layers of the sun is like you actually picked up on part of the problem but haven’t become aware yet of what other things you are ignorant of. I make that assumption as I have requested evidence of the experiments you claim to be knowlegeable of and have not yet received a response. Nate isn’t even trying anymore to satisfy that, he acknowledges the only evidence he is aware of is logic and math based upon cold emissions he believes he sees flying around his head.

          • Willard says:

            And so Graham and Bill soldier on, wriggling, deflecting, outright lying, falsely accusing, demanding the impossible, throwing absolutely everything at the wall in the hope that something will stick all because he realizes yet another person sees through their nonsense.

            Well done, Bob!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “That’s wrong and I told you why, yet you stick to it.”

            Indeed, bob…unless and until you have a better answer, you are stuck with that one, I’m afraid. Besides, whatever answer you eventually came out with, you would still have to have the back-radiation from the shell warming the Sun, because that is what your religion dictates. So you would look just as ridiculous as you do already, with or without the 1,094 K.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard also has of yet explained why he thinks DREMT is wrong. I suppose he thinks he sees cold emissions flying around his head like Nate.

          • Nate says:

            “Nate isnt even trying anymore to satisfy that, he acknowledges the only evidence he is aware of is logic and math based upon cold emissions he believes he sees flying around his head.”

            Uhh,, Bill you lost the argument by failing at simple logic and arithmetic.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Perhaps you misunderstood Nate. That is exactly what I was talking about was you extrapolating with math and logic from something you only imagine in your head and have no evidence for.

          • Willard says:

            When you speak of extrapolating with math and logic from something you only imagine in your head and have no evidence for, Bill, you’re talking about Graham’s thought experiment, right?

            Right?!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Its equal opportunity around here Willard.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            What causes something such as window glass to assume a ‘tweener’ temperature is dependent upon the rating of the insulation. Conduction and convection rules the roost in accordance with the insulation values in the atmosphere. An airgap provides a u-value = .5 and as such the window glass temperature floats half between the target and the source when in the atmosphere. This may or may not assume the plate is perfectly conductive and it largely doesnt matter for window glass as you will see below.
            So taking this known technology to space which seems more reasonable than speculated beyond SB to the point where you are speculating about the temperature a plate will assume, why not actually calculate the temperatures of the plates using the science of insulation?
            So if our space GP is warmed by an infinite plate at 244k and we give that plate a uvalue of .5 (since we no longer have the uvalue .5 airgap) the window warms through and through and the temperature floats midway between the source and the target just as it does in the atmosphere.
            So what happens when we change that uvalue? Well thick plate common glass has a uvalue of about .9997 meaning that to get the glass to cool to a halfway temperature in the absence of an atmosphere and airgaps. The glass would need to be about 11 meters thick.
            So when the glass gets over 11 meters thick a temperature gradient begins to form because the heat travels through the glass slower than radiation. This insulation unit then floats half way between the target and the source.
            And when the glass is less than = to or or = to the .5 insulated glass.
            So in in the presence of an infinite dimensioned solar plate that is warmed to 244k the pane of plate glass representing the BP would be 242.8k instead of 244k. But by the rules of insulation and an infinite solar plate warming the solar plate cannot warm as insulation cannot warm anything above equilibrium.
            Add a second GP of glass and your plates would be solar=244k, BP=243.4K, and GP=242.2K.
            The logic here is objects that obstruct radiation have insulating qualities. This is a point that has been argued endlessly by advocates of AGW. Of course they just make up the temperatures of objects that intervene without any physics support for that temperature. This is why nobody can talk in detail about the alleged greenhouse effect because it simply doesnt add up using any known physics. So here are some known physics applied to outer space. Like I said before all it would take would be a simple experiment to confirm or deny the math above. But at least there is some math above as opposed to assumptions about the temperatures of the various plates.

            Anyone is invited to check my math and formulas on this as I am doing it with an online conduction calculator and my memory of how insulation works, but its been almost 20 years since I worked on such a project.

          • Willard says:

            Please leave that kind of rant to Gordo, Bill.

            You are supposed to be an auditor. Start with the 240 W-m2 figure you agreed on earlier. Follow the energy like you follow the money. Unless you were involved into rubber stamping Ponzi schemes, it should lead you where Sky Dragon Cranks refuse to go.

            Oh, and equal opportunity means you ask Graham for the same receipts you ask everyone else. White knighting him should not distract you from your Climateball vocation.

          • Nate says:

            Bill, I don’t see any advantage for you to keep doubling down on your failure to understand simple accounting.

            As an auditor, or just an average adult, you should be able to understand that a bank account that is continually paying out $200 per second, and not receiving any new funds, will be, over time, drained of its value.

            If you require a ‘measurement’ of the value in the account to prove this obvious mathematical truth, then there is something wrong with your brain.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “But by the rules of insulation and an infinite solar plate warming the solar plate cannot warm as insulation cannot warm anything above equilibrium.”

            The shell cannot warm the Sun…as anyone rational should agree. That puts paid to the Green Plate Effect.

          • Clint R says:

            These cult idiots act like they understand the science, but they don’t have a clue. Here’s a simple question for bob, Nate and Willard:

            The blue plate receives 400 W/m^2 from one side, in empty space. The green plate is gone. Instead of an emissivity of 1, the blue plate has an emissivity of 0.5. What is its temperature at steady state?

            (Watch the whining and maneuvering. That’s why this is so much fun.)

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter in his latest long rant wrote:

            So here are some known physics applied to outer space.

            His mental model ignores the facts of the GPE.

            1 – There’s no infinite “Sun Plate” radiating toward the BP, only the Sun, which delivers radiant energy to the BP at a nearly constant rate in watts per m^2. The temperature of the BP is the result of calculations based on well known S-B radiation math.

            2 – There’s no atmosphere, only a vacuum between the BP and the GP, therefore, there’s no conduction or convection between the two. As a result, picking a “U value” based on window technology is a meaningless diversion.

            Hunter continues to be an embarrassment to the engineering profession.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ah, Swanson has returned. He still has a question to answer:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1328643

          • Clint R says:

            Same question to you, Swanson. I’m saying you don’t have a clue about the relevant physics. Prove me wrong.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1329838

          • Nate says:

            “The shell cannot warm the Sunas anyone rational should agree.”

            When are people going to learn that expressing incredulity of a result is not an actual argument against it.

            Most people have no experience with shells built around the sun and thus, rationally, cannot rule out that it could warm the sun.

          • Willard says:

            I see that Graham has no answer to the fact that “a bank account that is continually paying out $200 per second, and not receiving any new funds, will be, over time, drained of its value.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …because:
            a) I do not respond to Nate.
            b) That was not directed at me, it was directed at Bill.
            c) It is a misrepresentation of my arguments.
            d) This thread is about the Sun shell scenario, and how it debunks the Green Plate Effect.

          • Ball4 says:

            This thread does not debunk the 1LOT which is required to debunk the GPE. DREMT is thus wrong, the GPE has never been debunked.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The GPE purports to uphold 1LoT above all else…trouble is, it violates 2 LoT in the process. No clearer example of that than the Sun shell scenario…the Sun warming itself up with its own back-radiated energy!

          • Ball4 says:

            “…it violates 2 LoT in the process.”

            No. dS is always positive in all the plates during the GPE process, no violation of 2LOT.

            The sun shell warms the sun just like a camper’s emergency aluminum blanket performs so DREMT is wrong about that one too.

          • Willard says:

            Graham still has no answer to the fact that a bank account that is continually paying out $200 per second, and not receiving any new funds, will be, over time, drained of its value.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Aluminium is reflective, moron. The Sun shell is not.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            His mental model ignores the facts of the GPE.

            1 Theres no infinite Sun Plate radiating toward the BP, only the Sun, which delivers radiant energy to the BP at a nearly constant rate in watts per m^2. The temperature of the BP is the result of calculations based on well known S-B radiation math.
            ==========================
            Well known S-B radiation math? Where is the experiment that established the 3rd grader radiation model Swanson?

            And the purpose of the ‘sun plate’ example was to build an outer space plate model with no radiation missing the plates. The effect of FV<1 is merely a calculation based on the inverse square distance law. So the purpose of the infinite sun plate would be to look at a planetary surface at equilibrium with its energy source facing an atmosphere without making mathematical errors in the computations. Obviously you don't understand that issue as you did not control for it in your experiment and not controlling for it gave you the results that you falsely interpreted as a greenhouse effect.

            —————–
            —————–
            —————–
            —————–

            E. Swanson says:
            2 Theres no atmosphere, only a vacuum between the BP and the GP, therefore, theres no conduction or convection between the two. As a result, picking a U value based on window technology is a meaningless diversion.
            ————————

            Obviously you completely miscomprehended what I wrote Swanson. I did not pick a u value based upon Window Technology. Window technology use the u-value of .5 for an air gap. It requires a u-value of .5 to take a 400w/m2 radiation feed and cause a pane of glass to warm to 244k.

            What I used was well established physics based upon the conductivity coefficients of common glass for the plates.

            I used an online calculator available to engineers to calculate the insulation provided by 1/4" plate glass. If that plate were insulated such that its u-value was .5 then it should slow incoming radiation to 200w/m2 acting as an insulator. So if you want to criticize this engineering based insulation model you should go through the calculations yourself to see if you come up with the same results. I already admitted I didn't fully review all the estimated figures such as the 11 meters of glass thickeness I just estimated it based on a straight up ratio.

            The claim here is a radiation field of FV=1 will not warm a 'conductive' surface in relationship to what it should be in space which is defined as one that passes energy equal to or faster than radiation. thus the glass does create a minor temperature difference as passing the energy requires a small temperature delta.

            So feel free to describe how you believe insulation works rather than just swallowing the 3rd grader radiation model like a cod on an anchovy.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Aluminium is reflective, moron. The Sun shell is not.”

            Doesn’t matter DREMT. Every thing is reflective. A black camper’s aluminum emergency blanket would perform for the camper too, shiny is better. Any added opaque sun shell warms the exterior of the sun above its current surface T of about 5700K.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The Sun cannot warm itself up with its own back-radiated energy, Ball4.

          • Ball4 says:

            No DREMT, you are wrong again.

            Sun surface could warm a couple dozen million degrees F above about 5700K after being enclosed in an opaque metal shell.

            Just like my furnace exterior surface warms on a cold winter night after I build a house to code around it.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Bill, I dont see any advantage for you to keep doubling down on your failure to understand simple accounting.
            ——————

            What are we talking here Nate: Real accounting or 3rd grader accounting?

            3rd grade accountants will simply assume $200 is being returned to the vault. It is dependent upon the actual details of the transaction. Maybe its only a promissory note from a deadbeat borrower?

            Before accounting for income of $200 one has to first verify the cash is very highly likely to be received. In the case of getting 200w/m2 back from an object you must have some established physics to create the flow of energy back into your vault.

            Physics isn’t my game but I have some experience dealing with it. I am not going to let you get away with just assuming the intervening plate is going to obstruct the passage of heat and then play the role of an 8 year old doing accounting.

            Give me the scientific basis for your conclusions. I gave you one using an established heat transport calculator. Can you do anything but complain about it?

            But before you give it a lot of thought. Think of how much cooling your model would provide to a double or triple walled blackbody spaceship. Is NASA ripping all of us off by pouring huge piles of money into reflective insulation systems?

            You have been searching for why Dr. Woods greenhouses don’t perform and why Seim et all couldn’t find a greenhouse effect in their model. Show us the physics Nate!

          • Willard says:

            Science can be fun:

            The core is the only part of the sun that produces an appreciable amount of heat through fusion. In fact, 99% of the energy produced by the sun takes place within 24% of the sun’s radius. By 30% of the radius, fusion has stopped almost entirely. The rest of the sun is heated by the energy that is transferred from the core through the successive layers, eventually reaching the solar photosphere and escaping into space as sunlight or the kinetic energy of particles.

            https://phys.org/news/2015-12-sun-energy.html

            Layers upon layers of energy, not unlike Graham’s trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            😂

            False analogy after false analogy. At least Ball4 is prepared to “go full retard” in order to defend his religion. Whereas both Swanson and bobdroege tried to pretend the Sun shell scenario did not represent their views, Ball4 embraces it completely. It’s reductio ad absurdum, and the Team is fully prepared to defend the absurd!

            “Sun surface could warm a couple dozen million degrees F above about 5700K”

            Brilliant.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Ball4 says:

            ‘Just like my furnace exterior surface warms on a cold winter night after I build a house to code around it.’

            Yep Ball4 agrees with me. Its dependent upon insulation.

          • Ball4 says:

            Thank you DREMT, I’m happy with the win, your brilliant comment is quite a compliment for my ordinary use of physics.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You’re welcome, Ball4. You win “most stupid comment of the year”. The Sun, warming itself up with its own back-radiated energy, by “a couple dozen million degrees F”. Thanks for the chuckles.

          • Willard says:

            Funny that Graham mentions analogies:

            https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/16/how-to-reason-by-analogy/

            Can he get anything right?

            Even his trolling sucks.

            Yet he soldiers on.

          • Clint R says:

            It’s now been over 4 hours and not one of the cult idiots has been able to answer the simple physics question:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1329838

            They troll incessantly, but are completely unfamiliar with the science.

            That’s why this is so much fun.

          • e. Swanson says:

            Hunter, Your calculations are bogus.

            Using a heat transfer calculator returned the following results.

            Input:

            Area = 1 m^2
            T1 = 244 K
            2 = 3K = Deep space
            hci = 2000 (small convective film resistance)
            s1 = 0.006 = 6 mm or 1/4″
            k1 = 1.1 = Glass?
            s2 = s3 = 0
            hco = 2000 (small convective film resistance)

            Gives the results:
            Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/(m^2*K)): 155
            Heat transfer (W/m^2): 37338

            That heat transfer rate is one hell of a lot larger than the 400 w/m^2 specified in the GPE model.

          • Willard says:

            Pup still has no answer to the question as to why a trading account that loses out $200 per second would not, over time, blow out.

            Perhaps he could posit an omnipotent central bank with an infinite money printing plate? That would refute double accounting!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard says:

            ‘The rest of the sun is heated by the energy that is transferred from the core through the successive layers, eventually reaching the solar photosphere and escaping into space as sunlight or the kinetic energy of particles.’

            But the key question here is there any insulation at all getting to the photosphere or is it all just part of the inverse square distance law whereby insulation is negligible and can be disregarded.

            Keep in mind to warm the photosphere you need a source of radiation greater than the temperature of the surface of the sun. Its not a case of the sun being a non-insulated body whereby the temperature will float between the deep space behind it and the object receiving its radiation.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            e. Swanson says:

            Hunter, Your calculations are bogus.

            ———————-
            Nope!

            I am looking at the transfer of heat through glass. Based upon U-value. If uvalue=.5 you get insulation equivalent to a confined airgap and a centering of the temperature of the window unit between the source and the sink.

            My claim is that if that u-value goes lower than .5 you still have a centering but the insulation results in a temp delta between the inside and outside of the unit. . . .commonly called a temperature gradient. And thus a single pane of glass in the atmosphere centers with a zero temperature gradient and thus is considered to be non-insulating.

            But if you increase the u-value below .5 you are in ‘conductive’ material territory. At u=.5 conductivity and resistance balances out.

            At u=.6 there no longer is that balance and heat conducts through the glass as fast as it is received. at .5 its emitting 200w/m2 to the sink and resisting more than 200w/m2 into the glass from the source.

            So as we know the tendency of a cooler object is to warm to equilibrium in the presence of warm object despite alleged resistance to that warming. (with the exception of a point source heat as noted by DREMT) where heat can actually be lost in 2 directions. that applies to the BP with a point source heater. But with a sunplate heater there is no heat lost toward the warmer source. (the earth’s surface is a sunplate heater equivalent)

            So the glass warms despite backradiation. It may warm slower based upon instead the slight additional resistance to heat transfer through the glass so at half the temp you still have 200w/m2 coming into the GP and the resistance is gradually warming the glass to equilibrium in the same way a blanket warms and the ultimate warmth will be dependent upon the uvalue of the glass.

            So if the BP is 244k in the presence of a sunplate emitting 200w/m2, the BP will be 243.4k, and the GP will be 242.2K.

            The parameters I was using come from:
            https://thermtest.com/thermal-resources/conduction-calculator
            Average properies of glass = 1.046w/m*K
            thickness= .00635 meters
            area= 1m2
            hotside temperature = -29c (sunplate)
            coldside temperature = -30.2c (BP)
            result heat transfer through the glass = ~197w/m2

            If I switch to saran wrap at .0005inch thickness the temperature difference nearly completely disappears.

            So in conclusion this is how I see it would work. I am not evangelizing this but instead note it is consistent with experiments of a bit more than 1 degree warming with glass vs saranwrap while explaining results obtained by Dr. Woods and Dr. Seim.

            Now the challenge for you is not to rollover screaming discontent with the findings. If you find a math error fine. If you suspect a logic error address it with facts.

            And if you want to make a case for your point of view explain why with physics the plate you offer up should be half the temperature of the radiant force upon it. That is the key to your viewpoint and I have not heard of anybody actually defending how it occurs beyond perhaps stealing it from Window technology. . . .the sorry truth is there are no properties of the glass that changes because of its IR absorbing properties. It can be IR transparent or not.

            The glass only takes on the temperature half way in the atmosphere because of convective cooling ontop of radiant cooling doubling its cooling rate. Or if the glass starts out cooler it warms because of double the warming rate from convection.

            So fine if you find something wrong bring up in a very specific way rather than a lot of frantic arm waving.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Ball4 says:

            ” ”Dremt says: Aluminium is reflective, moron. The Sun shell is not.”

            Doesnt matter DREMT. Every thing is reflective.

            ——————-
            Ball4 everything is not reflective!

            The big difference is reflection occurs before the surface warms and emissions only occur after the surface warms.

          • Willard says:

            > the key question here is there any insulation at all getting to the photosphere or is it all just part of the inverse square distance law whereby insulation is negligible and can be disregarded.

            Not really, Bill.

            The key question is why you, Graham, and Pup cannot refute Elis thought experiment directly.

            There are lots of theories about that. Mine is that, when faced with the 240 W-m2 hard limit, Sky Dragon Cranks have little else than baiting and trolling.

            Please desist.

          • Clint R says:

            Willard, your cult’s plate nonsense if refuted by the simple fact that it decreases entropy with no additional energy.

            You won’t understand any of that, because you’re an immature troll with no knowledge of science.

          • Willard says:

            Were that the case, Pup, there would be no need for Graham’s silly thought experiment.

            So Bill armwaves to insulation, and you to entropy.

            Time to beef up your argument!

          • Clint R says:

            Nope, that’s the case silly Willy. You don’t understand any of this.

            If you did, you could answer the simple physics question:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1329838

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard says:

            Were that the case, Pup, there would be no need for Grahams silly thought experiment.

            So Bill armwaves to insulation, and you to entropy.

            Time to beef up your argument!
            ———————–

            Actually Willard its time for you to actually have an argument about how the greenhouse effect works and come in here and lay out the physics that warms things to certain temperatures and not others.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter wrote:

            I am looking at the transfer of heat through glass. Based upon U-value.

            You appear to be attempting to model the heat transfer as conduction thru glass with convection on each surface. That has nothing to do with the GPE, which is radiant energy transfer between the two plates separated by a vacuum. And, there is no Sun Plate emitting 200 w/m^2.

            You wrote:

            …explain why with physics the plate you offer up should be half the temperature of the radiant force upon it.

            The glass only takes on the temperature half way in the atmosphere because of convective cooling ontop of radiant cooling doubling its cooling rate.

            There is no “radiant force”. There is no convection. There is no atmosphere. You mumbling confusion proves that you have no clue about the physics involved.

          • Ball4 says:

            Bill 5:30 pm unphysically comments: “everything is not reflective!”

            If an opaque object is not reflective Bill, that object would be a black body. Since there are no blackbodies in nature, everything considered for a natural sun shell is reflective.

          • Ball4 says:

            Bill 9:59 pm, if you really want experiments with data on how the actual earthen greenhouse effect works, just put the word experiment into this blog’s search engine.

          • Ball4 says:

            No that’s wrong Clint R 6:53 pm, dS is positive for all the plates in the GPE process so entropy increases for each of them.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Ball4 says:

            ”If an opaque object is not reflective Bill, that object would be a black body. Since there are no blackbodies in nature, everything considered for a natural sun shell is reflective.”
            ——————

            Well maybe you should first direct your comment at mainstream climate science who builds their entire theory on blackbody radiation.

            I see nothing wrong with that as it is a thought experiment designed to set aside small effects that make the experiment more difficult to comprehend. DREMT simply chose a blackbody shell you can get close enough to a blackbody with soot black used by the 19th century scientists to build their theories with.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            I did make a small mistake in the model.

            the plates will warm to 244k in a 200w/m2 FV=1 radiation field.
            Thats because thats the only way to eliminate the imbalance introduced by the insulative resistance of any shell intervening in the path of the radiation. (i.e. no shell can be a perfect conductor)

            So once again DREMT is ahead of me on this.

          • Willard says:

            > its time for you to actually have an argument about how the greenhouse effect works

            Not really, Bill. But since you insist:

            ipcc.ch

            Most welcome!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            LOL! Everybody knows the IPCC has never described the physics behind the GHE.

            Bonehead!

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter wrote:

            I did make a small mistake in the model.

            Yes, you did indeed make a “mistake” in your model. There is no Sun Shield as in grammie pups delusional three plate model, which assumes that the Sun Plate emits 200 w/m^2 at 244 K. Those numbers are calculated based on an S-B black body theory, the temperature being determined by the rate of energy emission.

            But, your “model” does not use S-B heat transfer for the other plates, as you appear to agree with grammie’s repeated unproven assertions that the temperature of all three plates will be 244 K. All your blovation seems intentionally designed to ignore the “back radiation” which the S-B theory (and engineering experience) requires. Either that or you are seriously ignorant of basic science.

          • Willard says:

            What s the name of WG I, Bill?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “as in grammie pups delusional three plate model…”

            How is it delusional, Swanson? Pretty much everybody here discussed it, and Team GPE (your Team, Swanson) argued that the plate temperatures were as follows:

            Plates pushed together (touching): 244 K…244 K…244 K
            Plates separated: 244 K…290 K…244 K

            Why don’t you explain how the act of separating the plates causes the middle plate to rise in temperature by 46 K whilst there is no change in energy in or out?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Cult Leader grammie pup’s three plate model simply does not work if the energy is supplied by a “Sun plate” radiating 200 w/m^2, which requires a temperature of 244 K.

            If he wants to discuss a three plate model using 1 m^2 plates supplied by 400 watts to the middle plate, he should provide a physics based explanation for what happens when those three plates are separated and the conduction pathway from the middle plate to the two other external plates is removed. So far, all we have seen are empty assertions and BS.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Swanson, stop wriggling. Your own Team has a very long and rich history of defending this:

            Plates pressed together (touching): 244 K…244 K…244 K
            Plates separated: 244 K…290 K…244 K

            Why don’t you explain how the act of separating the plates causes the middle plate to rise in temperature by 46 K whilst there is no change in energy in or out?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            ”There is no Sun Shield as in grammie pups delusional three plate model, which assumes that the Sun Plate emits 200 w/m^2 at 244 K. Those numbers are calculated based on an S-B black body theory, the temperature being determined by the rate of energy emission.

            But, your model does not use S-B heat transfer for the other plates, as you appear to agree with grammies repeated unproven assertions that the temperature of all three plates will be 244 K. All your blovation seems intentionally designed to ignore the back radiation which the S-B theory (and engineering experience) requires. Either that or you are seriously ignorant of basic science.”

            You need to be more explicit with which numbers in my model you disagree with. You started off in that direction and now have diverted to a generic complaint with no specifics.

            First of all you are incorrect about DREMT’s models. He had two models. One was the sunplate model and the other was a point source model. I went with the point source model shining 200w/m2 into the BP and 200w/m2 to space (ignoring the space the point source takes up in the sky which would if used would send more into the BP and less into space).

            I allowed that allowing for resistance on the BP side more energy would be shifted to the point source side due to the resistance on the BP side. When you have the sun plate the energy to the energy side is zero due to the resistance of the sun plate side.

            My model allows for backradiation that doesn’t result in any loss of energy. Instead it merely slows the input. Due to the 3w/m2 conductive resistance within the BP backradiation does not equal the 200w/m2 until equilibrium is achieved.

            So you are incorrect on the statment that I am not using SB emissions. Because I am. You need to go back to where you started with the conduction calculator to see the 3watts/m2.

            Your comment back then that conduction was 10’s of thousands of watts is obviously wrong because its limited to the 200w/m2 from the source.

            So I used a spectral calculator to determine what temperature would produce the 197w/m2 and it turns out to be 1.2k less than the equilibrium temperature.

            So the temperature of the glass will lag by 1.2k due to that conductive resistance until equilibrium is achieved, providing the energy window to actually warm the object not halfway but all the way. Of course it doesn’t do that in the atmosphere because convection moves a lot more energy than 3watts/m2 thus accounting for the idea that the temperature will float halfway between the source and the sink which is then extrapolated to radiation in space.

            Saranwrap would have a much smaller deficiency in energy passing through available to warm the saran wrap. But it also takes less energy to warm the saran wrap so the time to equilibrium may not be affected.

            And finally Swanson if all that was needed in a space ship was blackbody multi-layered insulation of 2 layers there would be no need for fancy and expensive insulation so don’t tell me anything different has been determined by space science.

            And since you didn’t respond to my criticism of your vacuum model I will repeat it. The difference you obtained between the BP and GP was due to the GP not having the BP fill its entire field of view so like the point source model energy is going to be lost in that direction and energy coming in will be less. You can control for that using the inverse square distance law but you didn’t do that and thus fooled yourself.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The GPE is debunked. Has been for five years.

          • Willard says:

            So you say, Kiddo.

            So you say.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Correctly.

          • Ball4 says:

            No DREMT 3:01 pm, that’s wrong since dS is positive for all plates in the GPE process.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4 gets triggered again.

          • Willard says:

            Two equations.

            Three quantities.

            Sixty-nine months.

            Almost six years.

            What does Graham have to show for himself?

            An emphasis as to why Bill’s pet squirrel is worthless crap.

            An indomitable truth seeker we got there.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop commenting in the wrong place.

          • Willard says:

            Everything that everyone needs to understand Graham’s playbook is here:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331782

            Says stuff about Joe. Gets caught. Shifts gears. Floods his engine. And here is where he went for his “But Vaughan” deflection:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331294

            Says stuff about Vaughan. Gets caught. Shifts gears. Etc.

            For 69 months he has been rinsing and repeating the same lines at Roy’s, the same tricks, the same misbehavin’.

            And then he has the nerves to talk about hypocrisy!

            Never fear, our Truth Obsesser will soldier on.

            Oh, and the first of Eli’s diagrams suffices to show the silliness of Joe’s Team:

            https://imgur.com/a/0feBbmy

            They refuse to accept that.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, Willard, please stop commenting in the wrong place.

          • Nate says:

            “Actually it would be nice if anyone could come up with a sound argument, with a valid science reason, why the sun would warm in this thought experiment.”

            As Joanne Public suggested, with a shell, the sun’s heat is trapped, and it builds up until the warmer sun emits enough to restore the original output.

            And Bill, you agreed that a light-bulb surrounded by black metal shell would heat up!

            But that was before DREMT and the cult brain-washed you.

            Actually, it would be nice, Bill, if you fixed the accounting fraud that you left dangling…

            As YOU correctly explained the situation with the BP and GP, both at 244 K:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1330354

            “There is a transaction here. BP spends $200 here that goes to GP and GP gives $200 back in exchange. They each then spend $200 into space, with zero return, from the $400 that came from the sun.”

            For the 47th time, you have the GP paying $200/mo to space and receiving zero, zilch, nothing from the BP!

            It’s value must go down. But YOU insist its value is constant.

            Analogously, the GP Temperature must drop. But you guys insist it stays at a constant T.

            This is impossible.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Looks like nobody can respond in the right place.

        • Nate says:

          “Before accounting for income of $200 one has to first verify the cash is very highly likely to be received. In the case of getting 200w/m2 back from an object you must have some established physics to create the flow of energy back into your vault.”

          Bill YOU defined the paramaters of the transaction between the BP and the GP both at steady 244 K.

          And transaction as YOU defined it, CORRECTLY, gave no net energy transfer rate from the BP to the GP. Zero.

          But it required the GP to continually emit 200 J/s to space. This creates an impossible situation that the GP is continually losing energy and should be cooling, but you insist it is not!

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1330354

          Now you are dreaming up increasingly absurd excuses to create confusion about this clear situation.

          • Nate says:

            Sorry only ignorant trolls would believe a black body can act like a mirror.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1323656

            or fails to understand that the SB emission means ‘losing energy’

            or believe VF make emissions vanish into thin air

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1324024

            or fails to understand that the 1LOT applies to all objects, even the GP.

            It is never a reassuring that someone offers multiple contradictory justifications for their bogus claims,

            none of which agree with standard physics or common sense.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            So, for those who cannot be bothered to click on links, here is what was said:

            1) https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB

            The temperature of the GP is set and maintained by emissions from the BP. So, emissions from the GP can not increase the temperature of the BP, as that would violate 2LoT. However, those emissions have to go somewhere. In this diagram by JD Huff.man, emissions from the GP are shown as being reflected from the BP (that is the green arrow shown leaving the BP) back to the GP. So here we see that there is no error in accounting, no violation of 1LoT. The only side of the GP which energy can truly be “lost” from is the side of the GP facing space.

            2) The GP receives 200 W/m^2 from the BP. Due to the view factors between the BP and the GP, the GP can only “lose energy” on the side of the GP facing space. It can’t “lose energy” on the side of the GP facing the BP, because on that side the GP is gaining all of its energy from the BP, along every conceivable vector. So the equilibrium temperature of the GP must be one in which it is losing 200 W/m^2 from the side of the GP facing space. That’s at 244 K, the same temperature as the BP.

            The BP simply warmed the GP to the same temperature as the BP, because it is an idealized scenario in which there are no losses of radiation past the edges of the plates. Both BP and GP emit radiation from both sides.

            3) …whereas with the 400 W/m^2 received by the BP from the point source Sun…on the side of the BP facing the point source, energy can be lost to space in the entire hemisphere of directions facing the Sun other than the one direction directly perpendicular to the plate, where energy from the BP would hit the Sun. So the BP can "lose energy" to space on the side of the BP facing the Sun, and it can "lose energy" to the GP on the side of the BP facing the GP, which it must do to set and maintain the GPs temperature. So, unlike the GP, it has two "losing sides". The GP on the other hand, has only one, the side facing space.

            So, you "split by two" for the 400 W/m^2 received by the BP from the point source Sun, and the BPs equilibrium temperature is thus 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2. You don’t "split by two" for the GP, as it has only one "losing side". So the GPs equilibrium temperature is also 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2…and that’s that. That is the afore-mentioned "view factor" alternative solution to the GPE.

            Or, if you find that too confusing, you have JD Huff.man’s "additional reflected green arrow" alternative solution. There’s actually quite a lot more crossover between the two alternative solutions than I realized before. Either way, 244 K…244 K is the correct solution to the original GPE.

            Now, regardless of whether or not you agree with either of those two alternative solutions, the fact is, E-Lie’s solution to the GPE is debunked, and has been for many years. The Sun Shell example alone should make that clear. 1,094 K!? The GPE’s debunked.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Here we find Cult Leader grammie pup’s basic batch of empty assertions, without any shred of proof. No physics, just more of the same BS spam for fun (and profit??).

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …as opposed to Team GPE’s basic batch of empty assertions, without any shred of proof. No physics from them, just more of the same BS spam for fun (and profit??).

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            ”Here we find Cult Leader grammie pups basic batch of empty assertions, without any shred of proof. No physics, just more of the same BS spam for fun (and profit??).”

            The evidence is right in front of you Swanson. Things warm to equilibrium, not just half way.

            The air just above the ground is at equilibrium as it is interchanged at will with surface temperatures by our diligent climate scientists. (even though it is never the same during the day and night for other reasons like differential rates of cooling).

            At TOA its at a mean SB equilibrium with the emissivity parameter in place.

            At the mean surface equilibrium is in place with a much higher emissivity parameter.

            the difference between the surface and TOA is not fully understood beyond it being a summation of unknown emissivity factors and insulation.

            the correct answer is not the one that loads absolutely everything onto the shoulders of CO2. Any thinking man should be well aware of that.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Actually what loading it all on CO2 is in reality is ”Sadaam Hussein has WMDs and plans to use them” on steroids. Or Dr. Fauci saying ”masks don’t work”. Its all to serve hidden agendas.

          • Willard says:

            Conspiracy ideation is your best side, Bill.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Conspiracy? Where do you get that crazy idea from. Its just a case of folks personally inspecting which side of the bread they have has butter on it. A ‘conspiracy’ of silence? Well there are penalties for speaking up. Typically it creates a Michael Franceze style sit down by the folks whose butter might get limited to discuss what to do about it. Thats kind of a conspiracy. . . . just maybe not a vast left/right wing conspiracy. . . .it just vast because of the sheer amount of bread with butter on it thats being bandied about.

          • E. Swanson says:

            As expected, Cult Leader grammie pup repeats his unscientific assertion that the GP only emits from one side, ignoring the fact that the BP, which is otherwise identical, emits from both sides. Grammie offers no physical reason for this disparity, but instead resurrects Huffingboy’s graphic with it’s “magic green arrows”, again without any physics to support it. Same old crappy stupidity, over and over again.

            Eli’s GPE theoretical model is based on the S-B emission/absorp_tion of a perfect black body surface. The same math works for engineering problems involving real surfaces when the emissivity is taken into account. The science is well documented in text books on thermal radiation heat transfer, though I doubt that grammie has bothered to study the subject. I’m not going to spoon feed grammie pup with references, since he obviously isn’t interested.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No Swanson, I did not say the GP emits from one side. Why are you lying? Anybody can read what I actually said.

            I am not here to defend the correct, 244 K…244 K solution to the GPE problem. I am here to remind people that your solution to the GPE was debunked five years ago. Now, stop wriggling away from what I challenged you with twice already, and start explaining yourself. As I said, your own Team has a very long and rich history of defending this:

            Plates pressed together (touching): 244 K…244 K…244 K
            Plates separated: 244 K…290 K…244 K

            Why don’t you explain how the act of separating the plates causes the middle plate to rise in temperature by 46 K whilst there is no change in energy in or out?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Swanson continues to rely on strawmen and eli’s declarations when he now knows why his own experiment is invalid, has no clue why eli’s declarations could be true, and is now running full speed from the energy transfer models that informs Postma’s, Dremt’s, and my arguments he is running from them because he can find anything wrong with them so he is resorting to a startup strawman manufacturing enterprise.

            sad but so true that swanson lacks the balls to even question authority and is cotent to be the man’s propagandist.

          • Willard says:

            > Conspiracy?

            Not exactly, Bill. Conspiracy ideation:

            Actually what loading it all on CO2 is in reality is “Sadaam Hussein has WMDs and plans to use them” on steroids. Or Dr. Fauci saying “masks don’t work”. Its all to serve hidden agendas.

            At least own your schtick. It’s the best one you got. At least it’s not worse than your inability to calculate a simple energy balance equation.

          • Willard says:

            Oh, and Graham, please stop trolling:

            [GRAHAM] So you are saying that pressed together, the plates are at 244 K290 K244 K? Interesting.

            [BOB] With the plates pressed together its 244, 244, 244 same as just one blue plate. Again dumbass, with the plates apart you need the center blue plate at a higher temperature than the green plate in order to drive the heat transfer.

            Source: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-363810

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard says:
            ”With the plates pressed together its 244, 244, 244 same as just one blue plate. Again dumbass, with the plates apart you need the center blue plate at a higher temperature than the green plate in order to drive the heat transfer.”

            I have little doubt that can be accomplished with nothing more than the hotair emanating from Bob’s and Willard’s spiel. . . .no need to warm anything else.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That’s right, Willard, as I said, Team GPE has always defended the idea that:

            Plates together: 244 K…244 K…244 K
            Plates separated: 244 K…290 K…244 K

            Thank you for providing proof of that. Saves me the bother. Now, Swanson…please explain how the act of separating the plates causes the middle plate to rise in temperature by 46 K whilst there is no change in energy in or out?

          • Willard says:

            > Willard says: “With the plates

            Wrong, Bill.

            Try again, this time read properly.

          • Willard says:

            Once again you’re missing the point, Graham:

            HUMOTY DREMPTY,

            You are not understanding how I arrived at the position of contradicting myself, and why I did that. It was to prove that the 244, 244, 244 position is false. Now in science we can never prove something is true, but we can prove something is false.

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

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-365476

            Please stop wriggling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bob lost an argument a few years ago. So what? He loses a lot of arguments.

            Plates together: 244 K…244 K…244 K
            Plates separated: 244 K…290 K…244 K

            with no change in energy in and out, is in clear violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Sorry you don’t understand that. Others will.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard says:

            > Willard says: With the plates

            Wrong, Bill.

            Try again, this time read properly.

            ———————–

            Good move Wiilard! Ya probably can’t put too much distance between yourself and Bob’s poition on that!

          • Willard says:

            You still do not get it, Graham.

            You have been trolling Roy’s since before you took this silly pseudo, e.g.:

            J Halp-less says:
            April 7, 2018 at 4:47 PM
            Bate: plates pressed together, same temperature, yes or no?

            Thats in the thought experiment, not real life.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/uah-global-temperature-updated-for-march-2018-0-24-deg-c/#comment-296733

            We are 2022.

            For your own good, please stop trolling.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Cult leader grammie wrote:

            Now, Swansonplease explain how the act of separating the plates causes the middle plate to rise in temperature by 46 K whilst there is no change in energy in or out?

            I already did. Separating your 3 plates removes the conduction pathway between the middle and 2 outer plates. That leaves only the radiation mode for the necessary heat transfer to deep space. The S-B theory, which you use to calculate the temperature of the single BP, supplies the calculations to determine the BP after the three are split. Your acceptance of S-B for the single BP temperature makes it mandatory that you also use the same math to analyze both situations. Yet, you continue to fail to understand this basic physics.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            ”I already did. Separating your 3 plates removes the conduction pathway between the middle and 2 outer plates. That leaves only the radiation mode for the necessary heat transfer to deep space.”
            —————————–

            Swanson outlines his thought experiment theory that if you take your lukewarm coffee in a ceramic mug and put it in a vacuum thermos you will enjoy coffee at its optimum hot temperture!
            Coffee in the ceramic mug equals.
            ROTFLMAO!
            No need for a microwave! Just pour your lukewarm coffee into a vacuum thermos and viola! steaming hot 80c coffee!!!

            ———-
            ———-
            ———-
            ———-

            Swanson says:
            ”The S-B theory, which you use to calculate the temperature of the single BP, supplies the calculations to determine the BP after the three are split. Your acceptance of S-B for the single BP temperature makes it mandatory that you also use the same math to analyze both situations. Yet, you continue to fail to understand this basic physics.”

            ——————–

            Here Swanson tries to belittle anybody criticizing his new invention!

          • Willard says:

            [BILL] Here Swanson tries to belittle anybody criticizing his new invention!

            [ALSO BILL] ROTFLMAO!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Isn’t it funny, Bill? They defend the indefensible, then try to ridicule you for criticizing them in the first place! Sorry Swanson, when was the last time you separated three objects to notice the middle object spontaneously increasing in temperature!? It doesn’t happen…because, as I already said, what is proposed violates the laws of thermodynamics. Such violations cannot occur in real life.

          • Nate says:

            Some people believe if their posts are not believed because they havent been read. Thus they keep repeating these posts in vain hope that people will eventually be enlightened.

            The problem is the ideas in the posts. They are illogical, contradictory, and full of misinformation.

            The reality is their posts have been read multiple times and debunked multiple times.

            No amount of repetition is going to change that. Posters need to read and understand the debunking and think hard how to sensibly answer them.

            And if they have no sensible answers, then they should move on to another topic that is actually worthy of debate.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate has wisely noted that his best course of action is to criticize people talking about what they are teaching our children in school and just move along because there is nothing to see here.

            LMAO! One would think he would instead explain the basis of what he believes but he has concluded that its better to not talk about it.

            Loser!

          • Willard says:

            Do we have *any* evidence that Chic understands Bills comments or that 240Wm-2 is a hard limit?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Do we have ‘any’ evidence that Willard understands Bills comments and under what circumstances 240Wm-2 is a hard limit?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter tosses out a scenario about hot coffee in a mug in which he again demonstrates that he has no clue about the problem being discussed. His straw man analogy completely misses the basic fact that the coffee (aka, the BP) is being supplied with energy from an external source at a constant rate? Can he not comprehend that moving the “coffee” from the ceramic mug into the Dewar bottle is analogous to moving from the single BP emitting to space to the three plate case?

            The result in both situations would be that the coffee and the BP will warm to some higher temperature.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            ”Hunter tosses out a scenario about hot coffee in a mug in which he again demonstrates that he has no clue about the problem being discussed. His straw man analogy completely misses the basic fact that the coffee (aka, the BP) is being supplied with energy from an external source at a constant rate?”

            Trying to comprehend what you are getting at here Swanson. So you are saying radiation from another source is different than radiation from ‘the source’?

            So your argument is if you put the vacuum thermos inside of another vacuum thermos the whole enchilada is going to heat up?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter, it’s your scenario, not mine, do you REALLY not understand it? Hint: The three plate scenario is the same as the Steel Greenhouse, i.e., a shell around the heated body.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Hint: the passive shell can not warm the Sun.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            Hunter, its your scenario, not mine, do you REALLY not understand it? Hint: The three plate scenario is the same as the Steel Greenhouse, i.e., a shell around the heated body.

            ————————–
            Its not my scenario, the warming plate in the middle is your scenario. My scenario is 3 plates at 244k which corresponds to the 200w/m2 traveling through the non-insulating plates.

            I am just trying to be a good citizen here and trying to figure out what I am doing wrong. I said I put my freshly brewed coffee in a vacuum bottle almost everyday so I can sip it over a longer period of time. My vacuum bottles insulating characteristics are provided for by a lack of air in between the layers of the bottle and the fact the bottle is made out of highly polished stainless steel. But if I forget after the coffee brews to put it in the bottle immediately which I sometimes do the coffee becomes lukewarm rather quickly.

            So is my mistake using stainless steel? Should I be using lamp black steel?

            After all we all want to save energy and currently I am using my microwave to reheat it before putting it in the vacuum bottle.

            What am I doing wrong? Do I have the wrong kind of radiation?

          • Willard says:

            Your mistake, Bill, is to have taken the wrong side of a bet that Graham has been losing since at least 2007:

            The debate over whether or not the plates come to the same temperature (244 K), or whether the blue plate comes to a higher temperature at the expense of the green plate temperature being lower, is purely academic. Its a moot point, since both results refute the rGHE. As Postma pointed out immediately:

            https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31009

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276403

            You should never have whiteknighted Joe’s biggest white knight.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Blah blah blah obsessed with Graham blah blah blah

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter wrote:

            My scenario is 3 plates at 244k which corresponds to the 200w/m2 traveling through the non-insulating plates.

            No, troll, for many months, the discussion has been about three plates with the center one being supplied with energy at a fixed rate from an external source.

            With you version, the ceramic cup acts as a BP with the hot coffee providing the energy. For your Thermos, the inner shell becomes the BP, with energy supplied by the hot coffee while the outer shell represents both out facing plates. The difference is that the coffee doesn’t just cool, but is continually heated from an external source, which you refuse to consider. Of course, with your distorted version, the coffee cools, as one would expect, but that’s not the scenario grannie pups has been flogging for years now.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You said it yourself, Swanson…the 3-plate scenario is like the “Steel Greenhouse”…i.e like the Sun shell example. The passive shell can not raise the temperature of the Sun. End of story, for the rational.

          • Willard says:

            Graham is NOT obsessed. Not obsessed at all:

            GW says:
            October 14, 2017 at 1:58 PM

            OK, Ball4. Im sure youre right. Or maybe wrong. No, definitely right. Though possibly wrong. Or right.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268429

            Vintage 2017-10.

            Not obsessed at all.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            E. Swanson says:
            The difference is that the coffee doesnt just cool, but is continually heated from an external source, which you refuse to consider. Of course, with your distorted version, the coffee cools, as one would expect, but thats not the scenario grannie pups has been flogging for years now.
            —————–
            just cool? you mean backradiation only works if the outgoing radiation is held steady. Show me how that works out mathematically. Hot coffee can sustain a flow of radiation for many hours and you are saying that if it is cooling say from 400w/m2 to 390w/m2 over many hours backradiation doesn’t work as advertised?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I am obsessed with spreading the truth, Willard. To as many people as possible. You are obsessed with me. That is the difference.

          • Willard says:

            Graham is obsessed to spread a truth that circumvents a hard limit to which he often pays lip service.

            Perhaps our sock puppet could comment on Joe’s policy:

            barry says:
            December 22, 2017 at 9:31 PM

            I was not convinced by any of those arguments. I was polite. I got banned under the peculiar pretext that I need to post under my real name, a double standard that does not apply to those with nom-de-plumes throughout that thread (like AfroPhysics) that agree with Postma.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277342

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Other people’s intolerance is not my responsibility, but Postma’s lack of patience with those who are ineducable is fairly understandable. I myself am a lot more patient. I even tolerate Willard, to an extent.

          • Willard says:

            Graham cannot bring himself to criticize Joe.

            After all, his policy would spell doom on his own sock puppetry.

            And so he is spreading the “truth” by repeating the same silly lines over and over again in the middle of endless comment threads nobody reads, not even half the commenters themselves, for more than five years now.

            He soldiers on.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "Will Nate take his own advice?"

            He’s the biggest hypocrite on this blog, Chic. Probably not!

          • Willard says:

            > Sorry but science is not your field.

            Quite right, Bob. Graham is more of an artist,

            He is trying to perfect the art of trolling.

            One day he will get to it.

            Perhaps another five years?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            So sez the most worthless POS troller on the entire forum.

          • Nate says:

            “The problem is the ideas in the posts. They are illogical, contradictory, and full of misinformation.”

            Applies well to Chic’s posts.

            He’s also adopted the DREMT troll tactics. When people rebut his claims and point out obvious flaws and contradictions…just declare them liars!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “…the biggest hypocrite on this blog”.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter wrote:

            just cool? you mean backradiation only works if the outgoing radiation is held steady.

            NO, The point is that the temperature of your hot coffee will continue to cool until it’s temperature is that of the surroundings. The “back radiation” while inside your insulated mug will slow the rate of cooling and increase the time required to cool to reach ambient temperature. But, as always, the problem is that the BP is receiving energy from an external source, which your straw man mugs of hot coffee are not.

            Of course, you could add a heating source, which would keep the coffee hot. I tried that last night, but my heating source was too large and the “coffee” (actually, water) in the insulated mug boiled. I’m re-running it at a reduced heating rate in an effort to avoid boiling. More later.

          • Willard says:

            Five freaking years, almost six years in fact.

            Graham soldiers on. Quick question:

            > But equally, as Postma points out, the side facing the sun also has to reach a temperature where its emitting 400 W/m2 to be in equilibrium with the flux from the sun:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268262

            Big if Joe truly contends that.

          • Willard says:

            Forgot my question:

            Why would Joe insist that fluxes reach equilibrium – hasn’t he learned anything from Graham’s trolling?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            NO, The point is that the temperature of your hot coffee will continue to cool until its temperature is that of the surroundings. The back radiation while inside your insulated mug will slow the rate of cooling and increase the time required to cool to reach ambient temperature. But, as always, the problem is that the BP is receiving energy from an external source, which your straw man mugs of hot coffee are not.
            ——————-

            Swanson you are confused. The BP is the outershell of this thermos. My thermos holds a quart of hot coffee that will last all day if I don’t drink it first. I put it in at about 80c.

            So it is emitting ~900w/m2 but for easy math sake lets heat it up to 1000w/m2.

            the BP warms almost instantly though it it is a very small amount of warming as because the reflective surfaces reducing out radiation and reflecting a lot more back. Let say the BP inside surface is 95% reflective. that means backradiation plus reflectivity is 97.5% of the 1000 watts going out, 975 watts reflecting back at the coffee. Losses through the coffee container is only 25w/m2.

            When is the coffee supposed to start warming. According to your math the coffee should heat to something close to emit 1,975 watts.

            When does the backradiation in this model start warming the coffee?

            It doesn’t matter if I put a submersible beverage resistance heater that emits a 1000w/m2 off its surface into the cup. That resistance heat is determined by voltage and resistance through the element not the temperature of the water its submerged in.

          • Willard says:

            > The BP is the outershell of this thermos.

            Then your analogy already breaks down, Bill. No need to agonize over analogies. Justify this claim:

            An object cant lose thermal energy in the direction from which it has and is gaining thermal energy.

            And win.

            Alternatively, wait for Graham to return, then lolz

            You were also I correct earlier – I am here to slay trolls. This is what ninjas do.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter continues to display his confusion about his own straw man, writing:

            I put it in at about 80c…So it is emitting ~900w/m2 but for easy math sake lets heat it up to 1000w/m2.

            You later specify a surface emissivity of 0.05, which would result in an emission rate of only 44 w/m^2 from the inner shell of your Thermos. And, the back radiation is going to be less than that emitted from the inner cylinder, since the outer cylinder also looses thermal energy, including that via convection to the outside, thus your coffee can only cool, though at a slow rate.

            Of course, a resistance heater adds energy as a function of voltage and resistance. Adding a 7 watt heater to my experimental setup resulted in a stable temperature of 87 C in my 20 oz insulated travel mug and 40 C for the glass jar I used to represent your coffee mug. The ambient temperature in the room is 23 C.

            Once again, the “back radiation” only increases the temperature of the BP when there’s an external source of energy. Without that energy supply, the BP and your Thermos will eventually cool to the ambient temperature.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Back-radiation is not insulation.

          • Willard says:

            Two equations.

            Three quantities.

            Sixty-nine months.

            Almost six years.

            What does Graham have to show for himself?

            An emphasis as to why Bill’s pet squirrel is worthless crap.

            An indomitable truth seeker we got there.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No GPE. As Vaughan Pratt agrees, the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Swanson says:

            Of course, a resistance heater adds energy as a function of voltage and resistance. Adding a 7 watt heater to my experimental setup resulted in a stable temperature of 87 C in my 20 oz insulated travel mug and 40 C for the glass jar I used to represent your coffee mug. The ambient temperature in the room is 23 C.

            —————————–

            thats just mumbo jumbo Swanson. All you are saying is the r-value of your insulated mug works out to about 4 to 5, but the issue we are discussing is whether a conductive blackbody surface provides any insulation value at all or if all the insulation value is in airgaps. Your response suggests that you continue to confound airgap insulation with the non-insulation of empty space.

          • Willard says:

            And so Graham mispresents Vaughan again:

            [Graham] 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.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1318203

            Vintage 2012-06.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “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.””

            – Vaughan Pratt

          • Willard says:

            June 14, 2022 at 3:20 PM
            Heres how we make an argument using a quote, Kiddo.

            First, the quote:

            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.”

            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.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1316624

            Eli’s thought experiment, which was not meant to account for the greenhouse effect, still stands.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The GPE never stood in the first place.

            As Vaughan Pratt agrees, the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.

          • Willard says:

            Graham soldiers on:

            An evergreen of denial is that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter. That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so according to the Agendaists, the Greenhouse Effect, with greenhouse gases playing the role of the colder object, is rubbish. They neglect the fact that heating and cooling are dynamic processes and thermodynamics is not.

            http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html

            Sixty-nine months and he still cannot get through Eli’s first sentence.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            As Vaughan Pratt agrees, the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.

          • Willard says:

            Graham still misrepresents the point of Eli’s thought experiment:

            Most importantly the post was to show the placing a colder body near a warmer body can make the warmer body hotter when it is being heated by another source.

            http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?showComment=1507512793864#c5581049783543694900

            Vaughan is not a Sky Dragon Crank like Graham.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Pratt believes there is a GHE. I never said otherwise. What he clearly stated is that the back-radiation version of the GHE is debunked. Showing that it is accepted, even by a member of the GHE Defense Team, both that there is more than one version of the GHE (thus helping me win one previous argument) and that the back-radiation version of the GHE has had its day (thus helping me win the current argument). Two birds with one stone.

          • Willard says:

            “Nobody is arguing that back-radiation doesn’t exist.”

            – Graham

          • Willard says:

            “I don’t have any problem accepting that back-radiation exists, its the idea that it “warms” or “insulates” things that I disagree with.

            – Graham, again

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Correct. The debate was about whether it warms/insulates. Pratt agrees that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.

          • Willard says:

            “Downward longwave radiation is heat emitted back to Earth from the atmosphere and can change depending on the composition of the air”

            https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5134797

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sloppy writing. DLR is not heat.

          • Willard says:

            Graham does not always deny that downward longwave radiation exists, but when he does he denies that it radiates:

            “The longwave radiation components can be estimated by four different methods, i.e., (1) direct measurements by pyrgeometers in meteorological stations, which is the most accurate method; (2) simple physical or empirical models which are the most popular
            and use mainly temperature and relative humidity and follow the StefanBoltzmann equation with recalibration of the coefficients under local conditions; (3) radiative transfer models which are data demanding and use meteorological observations from different layers of the atmosphere; and (4) through satellite observations where their accuracy needs to be improved.”

            – Stelios Pashiardis & Soteris A. Kalogirou

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Graham does not always deny that downward longwave radiation exists, but when he does he denies that it radiates”

            Willard lapses into incoherence, as he tends to when losing another argument.

          • Willard says:

            Graham soldiers on and reenters The Game:

            “If Kiehl and Trenberth’s figure of 324 W/m2 of average back radiation from the sky to the surface is to be believed, then the corresponding temperature of the source of that radiation is sqrt(sqrt(324/5.67))*100 = 275 K = 2 C. That’s not out of line with my measurements of the sky’s temperature using an infrared thermometer, which have ranged from 12 C to −39 C.

            – Vaughan Pratt

            He might have to wonder what an infrared thermometer is meant to measure.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard seems to be profoundly confused about what my position is, despite having quoted me on it. Weird.

          • Willard says:

            Graham soldiers on:

            “Thermal radiation is a common synonym for infrared radiation emitted by objects at temperatures often encountered on Earth. Thermal radiation refers not only to the radiation itself, but also the process by which the surface of an object radiates its thermal energy in the form of black body radiation. Infrared or red radiation from a common household radiator or electric heater is an example of thermal radiation, as is the heat emitted by an operating incandescent light bulb. Thermal radiation is generated when energy from the movement of charged particles within atoms is converted to electromagnetic radiation.”

            – Thy Wiki

            How long will it take him to find out the length of infrared radiations?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard’s MO:

            Quote something. Make some vague insinuation. Never make it clear what point is being made. Repeat until you get no response.

          • Willard says:

            Graham soldiers on, clinging to everything he holds dear for playing The Game, however contradictory, as if what he said only mattered the instant he says it:

            “Once in the Earth’s atmosphere, clouds and the surface absorb the solar energy. The ground heats up and re-emits energy as longwave radiation in the form of infrared rays. Earth emits longwave radiation because Earth is cooler than the sun and has less energy available to give off.”

            – North Caroline Climate Office

          • Willard says:

            C’mon, Graham.

            Play something. I already have my move ready.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter wrote another strange reply:

            …the issue we are discussing is whether a conductive blackbody surface provides any insulation value at all or if all the insulation value is in airgaps.

            What is a “conductive blackbody surface”? Glass is good emitter, but glass is an electrical insulator. It does conduct thermal energy between two surfaces, but that’s not an issue. A proper Thermos ™ insulated flask or travel mug would have little air between the two surfaces and a highly reflective coating.

            Hunter apparently continues discussing insulating windows:

            Your response suggests that you continue to confound airgap insulation with the non-insulation of empty space.

            No, I’m not. We are discussing the GPE and thermal radiation heat transfer in a vacuum, i.e. outer space. There’s no “airgap” in a vacuum, thus no convection and no conduction.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            Hunter wrote another strange reply:

            the issue we are discussing is whether a conductive blackbody surface provides any insulation value at all or if all the insulation value is in airgaps.

            What is a conductive blackbody surface? Glass is good emitter, but glass is an electrical insulator. It does conduct thermal energy between two surfaces, but thats not an issue. A proper Thermos insulated flask or travel mug would have little air between the two surfaces and a highly reflective coating.

            Hunter apparently continues discussing insulating windows:

            Your response suggests that you continue to confound airgap insulation with the non-insulation of empty space.

            No, Im not. We are discussing the GPE and thermal radiation heat transfer in a vacuum, i.e. outer space. Theres no airgap in a vacuum, thus no convection and no conduction.
            ———————–

            Swanson we aren’t talking about electricity but conductivity. Glass is a good emitter and an excellent conductor of heat.
            You should not become confused.

            And being a good conductor means it is not an insulator. glass has very low resistance to heat transfer.

            Also a vacuum has no resistance.

            To slow an electromagnetic flow of light you need to insulate (provide a resistance) or reflect it.

            Yes thats right in space there is no convection and no conduction but you expect the GP to be the same temperature. Doesn’t that seem strange to you?

            How was that supposed to prove your point?

            A BP at equilibrium with a 200w/m2 source will not warm to more than that with the concept of bakradiation.

            You were on the right track of doing it mathematically with the conduction calculator but apparently you saw the handwriting on the wall that science was going to take you to Postma’s results.

            And so you ran away from it. And resumed your science by declaration approach.

          • Nate says:

            It is really sad that Bill originally had a decent understanding of what was going on with the GPE.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1315052

            “Clarification for DREMT. 262K is all you can warm the blue plate with a single vacuum gap created by the green plate (assuming its a blackbody plate). 290K is the limit you can warm the BP with an infinite number of greenplates creating vacuum gaps.”

            But then he let DREMT pollute his mind with absolute nonsense.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “He’s the biggest hypocrite on this blog…”

          • Nate says:

            Evidence?

            Troll handbook: when you keep losing on the facts, try to make it all about the messengers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            See what I mean?

          • Willard says:

            > Some people offer no science or a shred of evidence to back up their assertions that radiation from the inner side of a metal shell surrounding a planet simply goes away, or does not exist, or has no effect. They cannot explain why this is supposed to happen. They just declare that it does.

            Nate has of course the right of it. Notice how Graham ignored my earlier request to support when Joe made the assertion. And the most beautiful part is how Chic never asks that Sky Dragon cranks that kind of question.

            There is a word for that kind of behaviour. I have it on the tip of my tongue.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The explanation you seek is called: “2LoT”.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter is fixated on his window analogy, trying to explain his Thermos bottle straw man using a building model. To be sure, glass conducts thermal energy (U ~ 1.0 W/K*M^2) but it is an insulator compared to a metal like steel (U ~ 43), aluminum (U ~ 235) or copper (U~401). Compared with other building materials, like wood (U ~ 0.11), fiberglass (U ~ 0.048) or Styrofoam (U ~ 0.024), it is a conductor.

            Hunter wrote:

            Also a vacuum has no resistance. To slow an electromagnetic flow of light you need to insulate (provide a resistance) or reflect it.

            Trouble is, Hunter can’t think outside the envelope. He appears unaware of the well known science and engineering regarding thermal radiation heat transfer. Using a model requiring “insulation”, based on conduction, can not be applied directly to calculate the energy transfer between bodies in a vacuum where conduction is simply not possible.

          • Willard says:

            Graham soldiers on:

            > only one side can truly lose energy in the sense that I made clear in the comment.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1319348

            His Humpty Dumpty defense should be obvious to anyone, including Chic.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I don’t need to defend a thing. Those defending the Green Plate Effect need to defend the idea that a perfectly-conducting blackbody shell, placed around the Sun with a tiny vacuum gap between the Sun and the shell, causes the Sun to get warmer…but if actually touching the Sun, has no effect. Good luck with that.

          • Willard says:

            While Graham soldiers on Nate has the right of it:

            > [Graham] cannot get the original ELi problem right, nor the steel greenhouse problem right, nor Bills list above right, because he claims that that there is no SB emission from the inner sides of plates or shells. Therefore he gets different answers from Bill. He has no plausible explanation for this.

            And so Bill goes on his usual Gish gallop for his own amusement and to distract from the fact that he cannot deny the exchange between the Sun and the plate. As an auditor, that would be really weird if he did.

            But then that kicks him out of Team Joe.

            Almost six years and Sky Dragon cranks cannot keep their story straight.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            See, Willard cannot defend the Sun shell scenario. All he can do is repeat others misrepresentations of my arguments. I have never claimed there is no emission from the inside of shells or plates.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:
            To be sure, glass conducts thermal energy (U ~ 1.0 W/K*M^2) but it is an insulator compared to a metal like steel (U ~ 43).
            ———–
            Yes Swanson we calculated the electromagnetic attenuation of the glass previously at 3 watts/m2. That 3 watts would be warming the glass. That doesn’t help a case when you are looking for 100w/m2 attenuation which is what you get in the atmosphere over an isolated dual glazed gap of common air.

            —————————-
            —————————
            Hunter wrote:

            Also a vacuum has no resistance. To slow an electromagnetic flow of light you need to insulate (provide a resistance) or reflect it.

            Trouble is, Hunter cant think outside the envelope. He appears unaware of the well known science and engineering regarding thermal radiation heat transfer. Using a model requiring insulation, based on conduction, can not be applied directly to calculate the energy transfer between bodies in a vacuum where conduction is simply not possible.
            —————-
            You seem to have locked yourself in a box. We know the energy transfer over the vacuum gap. For a 244k plate it is 200w/m2 for an infinite plate. As the plate gets smaller the inverse square law enters into the equation.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT 8:25 am remains wrong as previously properly explained many times since a perfectly-conducting blackbody shell, placed around the Sun with a tiny vacuum gap between the Sun and the shell, does cause the Sun to get warmer because the shell is WAY warmer than space that the shell replaced…but if actually touching the Sun, then has different warming effect because conduction is now enabled.

          • Willard says:

            See? Graham artfully dodges the fact that even Bill is breaking ranks with Team Joe! All this to revise of what it means to warm. Because he does not disagree with thermodynamics, does he?

            No, he does not. It just so happens that the world of physics is wrong. They misinterpret or misapply the two laws. Only Team Joe is right.

            That leaves how many people on the right side of history! Twenty? No, not you, Bill. You are on the same side as Nate on this one.

            The truest Truth Obsesser Sky Dragon cranks will ever have.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “That leaves how many people on the right side of history! Twenty?”

            Vaughan Pratt being one of them, accepting as he does that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.

            Sorry, Ball4, it is more correct to think of space as having no temperature, and being the absence of surroundings, than it is to think of it as being extremely cold surroundings.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Just for fun I calculated the expected results of your demo #7 using guesstimates for parameters estimated from from your photographs.

            So from these estimates I calculated what the temperature of the green plate should be behind the blue plate.

            So the parameters I used were:

            2, plates each 4″ square.
            plates spaced 1″
            Temperature of illuminated blue plate: 117C
            Temperature of illuminated green plate: 75C

            Expected temperature for greenplate per calculator. 75C

            thats scary close with an initial rough eyeball estimate. Obviously nothing is a blackbody but you should note that the GP is more than 50% of the temperature you estimate it should be. (its ~63%)

            Now maybe you have some better documentation for the sizes of the plates and their spacing. You can work them out as a view factor here. https://thermal.mayahtt.com/tmwiz/radiate/pa-sqpl/pa-sqpl.htm

          • Ball4 says:

            Wrong yet again DREMT 9:31 am as properly explained previously, space has a brightness temperature of just about 3K while the shell with vacuum gap has a brightness temperature above 5700K at equilibrium. The sun will warm.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I repeat my previous comment, Ball4, which refutes your response.

          • Ball4 says:

            Nope. The sun will warm.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Thanks for going full retard, Ball4.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Ball4 says:
            space has a brightness temperature of just about 3K while the shell with vacuum gap has a brightness temperature above 5700K at equilibrium. The sun will warm.

            —————————
            Ball4 full on attacks the inverse square law.

          • Ball4 says:

            No attack on that physics, Bill, the vacuum gap sun surface to shell per DREMT is “tiny”.

          • Willard says:

            > Vaughan Pratt being one of them

            See? Graham equivocates on what characterizes Team Joe and deflects from the specific point he is facing:

            Vaughan does not dispute the Greenhouse effect. Team Joe does.

            Vaughan might not agree that there is ZERO energy loss from the plate on its sun-ward side.

            Even Bill disagrees with the last point.

            That’s how low Team Joe will go.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            willard i didn’t say there was zero loss. i said or meant to say there was zero loss from the solar constant because the inverse square law accounts for that loss via its field of view calculation,

          • Willard says:

            Of course you did not, Bill.

            But Joe did.

            So that puts you out of Team Joe.

            Welcome aboard!

          • Ball4 says:

            Vaughan Pratt: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect.”

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter wrote:

            …we calculated the electromagnetic attenuation of the glass previously at 3 watts/m2.

            What exactly is “electromagnetic attenuation”?

            Hunter wrote:

            We know the energy transfer over the vacuum gap. For a 244k plate it is 200w/m2 for an infinite plate.

            No, we calculate that the emission from an infinite plate at 244K will be 200 W/M^2. That’s not the temperature result for the 2 plate scenario where one assumes an input from an external source at 200 W/M^2, since it does not include the back radiation from the second plate. You got it all backwards, since the plate temperature is not the independent variable, it’s the rate at which energy is supplied.

            Regarding my Green Plate Demo, you wrote:

            …you should note that the GP is more than 50% of the temperature you estimate it should be. (its ~63%)

            I have no idea what you are referring to, since I did not include an estimate of the expected temperature for the GP.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Vaughan might not agree that there is ZERO energy loss from the plate on its sun-ward side.”

            Postma says nothing of the sort. Willard has confused himself yet again.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard says:

            Vaughan might not agree that there is ZERO energy loss from the plate on its sun-ward side.

            Even Bill disagrees with the last point.

            Thats how low Team Joe will go.

            —————————
            It would be zero loss from the solar constant Willard.
            Lots of loss from the brightness temperature.

            You need a reference to which value Joe was referring to when he said zero loss or your argument goes nowhere by virtue of lacking any foundation.

          • Willard says:

            > [Joe] says nothing of the sort

            See for yourself, Graham:

            Postma continues:

            “After setting up the 400 W/m^2 and the first plate, the example then immediately divorced from reality by not using the actual, correct heat flow equation that would exist between a heat source and a plate the other side of the plate isnt a factor, i.e. the equilibrium condition is NOT that the input gets split by two.

            But still, what about the thermal energy being conducted into the plate? Does this reduce the equilibrium temperature of the plate since that energy then gets emitted on the other side?

            […]

            Now, their splitting and multiplying energy by two will immediately make them have a conniption and claim that energy is not being conserved with this result (of 400 W/m^2 for the plate). The reason why they are wrong about that is because no energy is *LOST* by the plate on its sun-ward facing side.

            […]

            Energy is conserved because then the 400 W/m^2 from the source eventually finds its way through to the other side of the plate (whether thick or thin) and is emitted there.

            People with PhDs are good at confusing themselves.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268262

            That only means one thing:

            Graham and Joe have PhDs.

            Three cheers for Graham’s sixth year of trolling Roy’s!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That must have been a very early comment from Postma. Since he later went on to say that the BP equilibrates at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2. Not 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2. What he’s saying there would only apply if the view factors between the heat source and the BP were equal to 1.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            What exactly is electromagnetic attenuation?
            ——————
            THERMAL RESISTIVITY

            —————–
            —————–
            —————–
            —————–

            E. Swanson says:

            Thats not the temperature result for the 2 plate scenario.

            Regarding my Green Plate Demo, you wrote:

            you should note that the GP is more than 50% of the temperature you estimate it should be. (its ~63%)

            I have no idea what you are referring to, since I did not include an estimate of the expected temperature for the GP.
            ——————–
            results of your experiment.

            BP 117C
            GP 75C
            Viewfactor: .632

            117C=390k= 1312w/m2 * .632 = 829w/m2= 348k = 75C
            Loss due to view factor = 481w/m2

          • Willard says:

            Please beware your wishes, Graham. You know I like to pay diligence to that kind of things. For now let’s work with that:

            > only one side can truly “lose energy” in the sense that I made clear in the comment.

            This is Bailey part of the Motte-and-Bailey.

            This part is not enough to overthrow the Greenhouse Theory. It is not enough to get different numbers than Eli’s or everyone else’s. It cannot bypass 240Wm-2 as the Hard Limit.

            Semantic arguments can only give you different meanings, you know.

            Nothing else.

            Six years, and still unable to realize that semantic arguments are silly.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard flirts with incoherence again.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Yep! Spinning and Not spinning at the same time!

          • Willard says:

            Graham and Bill soldier on:

            [GRAHAM] Joe says nothing of the sort.

            [ALSO GRAHAM] That must have been a very early comment from Joe.

            [ALSO GRAHAM] Bill, that is not even my comment. It is a quote from Joe, and it does not exist on its own like that. It is part of a longer comment, and cannot be fully understood on its own, as a single sentence. There is an entire paragraph of explanation that goes along with it, as well as other commentary that gives it the necessary context.

            Source: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1316987

            Graham will just say anything to defend Team Joe.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            All you should need to understand it is here:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1330416

            You will not be intelligent/open-minded enough to follow 2) and 3), so just focus on 1), Willard. Note the very last paragraph in the whole comment, as well. Very important. Come back when you have something worthwhile to contribute.

          • Ball4 says:

            The GPE has never been debunked, DREMT, as pointed out for DREMT numerous times since dS is positive for all plates in the GPE process thus the GPE satisfies 2LOT. DREMT’s linked treatise is simply wrong.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nothing worthwhile from Ball4 to respond to.

          • Ball4 says:

            Thanks for my win again, DREMT. I’m happy to see DREMT capitulate to the correct use of the 2LOT.

          • Willard says:

            Everything that everyone needs to understand Grahams playbook is here:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331782

            Says stuff about Joe. Gets caught. Shifts gears. Floods his engine. And here is where he went for his But Vaughan deflection:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331294

            Says stuff about Vaughan. Gets caught. Shifts gears. Etc.

            For 69 months he has been rinsing and repeating the same lines at Roys, the same tricks, the same misbehavin.

            And then he has the nerves to talk about hypocrisy!

            Never fear, our Truth Obsesser will soldier on.

            Oh, and the first of Elis diagrams suffices to show the silliness of Joes Team:

            https://imgur.com/a/0feBbmy

            They refuse to accept that.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nothing worthwhile from Willard to respond to.

          • Willard says:

            Thanks for the win, Graham.

            So, when will you come up with a fourth talking point?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "Oh, and the first of Elis diagrams suffices to show the silliness of Joes Team:

            They refuse to accept that."

            Postma agrees with the first of Eli’s diagrams, idiot. As I said, he agrees that the BP equilibrates at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2. The correct solution to the GPE has both plates at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2. Eli’s solution has the BP at 262 K, and the GP at 220 K. Once you’re up to speed with the absolute basics, please return when you have something worthwhile to contribute.

          • Ball4 says:

            The incorrect solution to the GPE has both plates at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2 in violation of 2LOT since dS is obviously not positive in the process.

            Eli’s solution is correct and has stood the test of time as 1LOT and 2LOT are correctly implemented since dS is positive in the GPE process.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Team GPE believes, and has previously defended, the following:

            Plates pressed together: 244 K…244 K
            Plates separated: 262 K…220 K

            That clearly shows a warmer object gaining temperature at the expense of a cooler object. A violation of 2LoT.

          • Willard says:

            I guess I could concede that Joe agrees with what he thinks Eli says, Graham. Which is more than you would sometimes concede:

            Either the Sun should be a point source and the plates subtend a small angular area of the Sun’s sky so that the blue plate gets uniform flux, in which case you get the 200 W/m^2 solution, or the Sun is treated as another infinite plane parallel plate in which case you get the 400 W/m^2 solution.

            https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31333

            I suppose you recall that response, for it was directed to you, GW. We both know to what “W” refers in “GW” and it’s not “warming.” And I suppose you recall that Eli reminded both of you that “the statement of the problem was that there was a uniform 400 W/m2 irradiation of one side of the blue plate.”

            You say Joe agrees. Eli says he quibbles. Anyone who read that thread and who sees you argue would bet on quibbling.

            Your only way right now is to go for equations. You always lose these kinds of word games. Not enough integrity. No attention to detail.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Postma and Eli agree up to the point of adding the BP, so long as the Sun is treated as being a point source. From that point on (i.e. adding the GP), they disagree. Pretty majorly disagree. Not quibbling.

          • Ball4 says:

            “A violation of 2LoT.”

            No that’s clearly wrong DREMT 4:08 pm. dS is positive in your described process, so in accord with 2LOT.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I once again repeat my previous comment, which refutes your response, Ball4.

          • Willard says:

            I just showed a few things you keep ignoring, Graham. First, that I have read Joe. Second, that he disputes Eli’s overall setup. Third, that I know where your Sun Shell Games comes from. Fourth, that you should stick to the “GW” pseudonym – after all, it’s based on your real name.

            That you always keep denying what is materially supported will always be a mystery to me. Be that as it may, this exchange was rather elegant:

            [GRAHAM] Is what happened as described in this comment true? I dont recall any comments posted here with the text they quote, or any responses from you:

            [JOE] I deleted his comment GW. They simply refuse to use a heat flow equation at all or the concept of thermal equilibrium. Look how proud they are of it! Lol

            [GRAHAM] So…he just chucks in another term for the green plate. One term for the blue plate and two for the green.

            Here was the comment:

            I made the mistake of going over to Joe’s site!

            I posted a correction to his equation as follows;

            “We now introduce the green plate, which can be approximated as infinite plane parallel with the blue plate, and for this geometry the heat flow equation between the blue and green plate is simply

            Q = sigma * (Tb^4 Tg^4)

            The green plate 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 green plate has a constant temperature of

            0 = Tb^4 Tg^4

            Tb = Tg”

            This is flawed because you have omitted the heat flow from the back of the green plate.

            The heat balance for the green plate is :

            Q = sigma * (Tb^4 Tg^4) Tg^4

            Thus the temperature stops rising when Q=0

            Tb^4 = 2Tg^4
            Tb = 1.19*Tg

            Your solution would only be correct if the surroundings were at Tg, but the problem as posed is that the surroundings are “space” so Ts is 3K. Even so an additional term of +Tg^4 would have to be added to the blue plate balance in that case.

            He seized on the obvious typo in the Q equation (missing pair of brackets, I should have put the extra term inside them). The Tb:Tg equation is correct though. He proceeded to swear and abuse me. When I tried to post the correction to the first equation it appears that I am banned from the site, no loss!

            http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/why-green-plate-effect-has-had-effect.html?showComment=1508609597267#c1535061095351652034

            A pity the exchange does not exist anymore. Eli liked it.

            Your comment does not make it apparent that you’re following at all, Graham.

            Try equations. Show us how to apply Joe’s favorite one.

          • Willard says:

            A pity that “A pity the exchange” and what follows has been nested into the blockquotes.

            A pity that Graham cannot conceive that by his logic:

            [The Green Plate, or GP] can’t “lose energy on the side of the GP facing the BP [i.e. the Blue Plate], because on that side the GP is gaining all of its energy from the BP, along every conceivable vector.

            the same should also apply to the blue plate, unless he can argue that the blue plate does not gain all its energy from the green plate “along every conceivable vector,” whatever he might wish to mean by that.

            A pity that Graham does not understand the usability problem of using acronyms.

          • Willard says:

            > unless he can argue that the blue plate does not gain all its energy from the green plate along every conceivable vector, whatever he might wish to mean by that.

            Erm. I mean that the blue plate does not gain all its energy from the Sun, of course.

            Graham wastes a lot of energy to suggest that unless he pees next to a wall he never gets splashed unless he pees at right angle.

            And so, once again, Team Joe sucks at geometry.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The BP does not gain its energy from the GP. It gains its energy from the Sun. Along only one vector, one that is directly perpendicular to the plate. From every other conceivable direction on that Sun-facing side, the BP is not receiving any energy.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT is wrong again. The BP does not gain its energy from the GP only on the sun side. The BP does gain energy from the GP as Eli shows since the BP is a black body absorbing all incident radiation from the GP.

          • Willard says:

            > The BP does not gain its energy from the GP. It gains its energy from the Sun.

            Well, duh. Looks like Graham responded to the first comment before reading the second. Happens.

            So the relationship between the blue plate and the green plate is the same as the relationship between the Sun and the blue plate. That means two things: Graham does not follow Eli’s thought experiment when he throws his “But View Factors!” monkey wrench; that same monkey wrench should be thrown at the Sun, which is something Joe spotted.

            Graham could try to dispute that. I would then need to quote what I already quoted. He would then claim not understanding why I quote what I quote. And so on and so forth.

            So let’s recap. The Sun is a “point source” and this is why view factors don’t matter, and *infinite* plates somehow have angles of projections or receptions between themselves.

            You can’t make this up.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Like I said, Willard (and Ball4). 2) and 3) will be beyond you. Try focussing on 1).

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1330416

          • Willard says:

            Like I said, Graham, you are once again stuck with a bad geometrical intuition –

            On the one hand, the Sun is a point. From that irrelevant assumption you infer that the angle between its rays and an *infinite* plate is perpendicular.

            (I know where you get that idea, but the Earth isn’t infinite.)

            On the other hand, the radiations between two infinite plates perpendicular to each other cannot be perpendicular.

            How the hell are you still clinging to that joke after almost six years?

            So as I said, you think it is impossible for you to pee against the wall of a pub and splash on yourself. It can go in all directions except yours.

            You can consider the three objects as points or as all infinite plates that it would not change a damn thing from a purely abstract viewpoint of the laws of thermo.

            And then Joe will lulz about the spectrum!

            You have no idea how ridiculous you are, Graham.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “So the relationship between the blue plate and the green plate is the same as the relationship between the Sun and the blue plate”

            Totally wrong.

            “On the one hand, the Sun is a point. From that irrelevant assumption you infer that the angle between its rays and an *infinite* plate is perpendicular.”

            No. The plate is receiving energy from the Sun along a vector perpendicular to the plate. Along any other direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions on the Sun-facing side of the plate, the plate is not receiving energy from the Sun. That should be obvious, since the Sun is a point.

            “On the other hand, the radiations between two infinite plates perpendicular to each other cannot be perpendicular.”

            The plates are parallel to each other, not perpendicular to each other. Yes, the GP receives radiation from the BP along a vector perpendicular to the plate…but it is also receiving energy from the BP along every conceivable direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions on the BP-facing side of the plate. This is because the plates are treated as being infinite in relation to each other.

            “So as I said, you think it is impossible for you to pee against the wall of a pub and splash on yourself. It can go in all directions except yours.”

            No, that bears no relation to anything that is being said.

          • Willard says:

            > Totally wrong

            Powerful argument you got there, Graham “Sun Shell” W!

            If the Sun is the source of energy for the Blue Plate (BP), if the BP is the only source of energy for the Green Plate (GP), if and the same laws apply generally, then the same consequence will obtain between the Sun and the BP and between the GP and the BP. Eli abstracted away all geometrical consideration. You just can’t invoke them and claim you refuted his Gedankenexperiment!

            None of this matters for the laws of thermo anyway, since they apply to any kind of radiative transfer and, well, have already been formulated as equations that stand on their own. Five years is not long enough for you to open a damn book on radiative transfer. I mean, have you considered opening the one Eli suggested? It is still online.

            Find it and report.

            Not that this really matters for the real greenhouse effect, since the GP is actually between the Sun and the BP. And as Tim suggested almost six years ago, as long as we have a heat source, an absorber of energy from the heat source, a the thermal shield, and a heat sink, we should be good to go.

            But don’t forget the most important lesson, Graham – if you pee on a wall and it splashes on you, don’t cry “But View Factors!”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            There is the debunking of Eli’s GPE, and there is the alternative (correct) solution to the GPE. You are conflating the two things. I respond to you with explanations of the alternative solution purely because it might be helpful to other readers. I know that you have no interest in learning, or honest debate, so none of it’s for you, personally. But, whether or not the alternative (correct) solution to the GPE is understood and agreed with, Eli’s version is still debunked.

          • Willard says:

            > Yes, the GP receives radiation from the BP along a vector perpendicular to the plate…but it is also receiving energy from the BP along every conceivable direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions on the BP-facing side of the plate.

            The GP is a plate. That’s in the name. Green Plate. It has no hemisphere.

            Yes, the GP receives radiation from its source coming from all direction…and that changes nothing to what happens on the output side of the equation. You could argue that the GP, like the BP, could emit through “every conceivable direction” that it would not change a thing, as long as you preserve directionality, otherwise you could create perpetual machines.

            Either energy balances or it does not. All you need is to balance a damn input with a damn output. It is really not that hard.

            Are you not tired of these verbal defenses that go in every conceivable direction?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “The GP is a plate. That’s in the name. Green Plate. It has no hemisphere.”

            Hemisphere of directions, Willard. Think of arrows emanating from the flat plate pointing in every conceivable direction. I am not suggesting that the GP has a hemisphere. You cannot understand even the simplest concepts, so there is no chance of you getting 2) and 3). Just give it up.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Try focusing on 1).”

            Sure. DREMT 5:41 pm, 1) is wrong since for total reflection dS is zero violating 2LOT so the rest of the linked comment is impossible in nature and wrong.

            Eli has it correct because for his solution dS is positive in the process complying with 2LOT.

          • Willard says:

            > Hemisphere of directions

            So now Eli’s plate exist in a spherical space, Graham? Just great. Try PI rad or 180 degrees.

            Again, none of that matters. For the purpose of balancing energy, the two plates emit and receive energy in the same manner. That their source differ changes nothing.

            One does not simply pee on a wall in all conceivable direction and expect not to get splashed.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, Willard, I am not saying the plates exist in a spherical space. I am sorry for your failure to understand something simple.

            View factors do matter, in radiative heat transfer. The VF between the Sun and the BP, and the BP and the GP, are completely different.

          • Ball4 says:

            Eli’s view factor is whatever VF is required for “just a plate in space with sunlight shining on it. Maybe 400 W/m^2”.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sorry Ball4, but you said: “Sun surface could warm a couple dozen million degrees F above about 5700K”

            I’m afraid that disqualifies you from being taken seriously.

          • Ball4 says:

            The heater for our sun’s surface runs at around a couple dozen million degrees F so figure it out DREMT. DREMT is an expert in sophistry entertainment who hasn’t ever been taken seriously in physics.

          • Willard says:

            I’m not failing to understand you and you know that, Graham. What you might ignore is that I’m merely reciprocating. Check how I worded my first comment. Reread the one to which I reply.

            That’s all.

            Now, there is an important logical point you might fail to understand (note again the wording that echoes yours) –

            Eli’s thought experiment abstracts away view factors. If you insist in having them, you are not refuting his thought experiment. You are simply justifying your refusal to entertain it.

            And no, view factors do not matter here. It is really hard to exclude a direction when an object O emits radiation in all of them. Hence why you really protect your shoes when you pee on a wall. Or at least you should.

            At best you *could* argue that the blue plate receives less than what Eli suggests with his toy example. But even then it’s more than nothing. So he still wins, albeit a bit more subtly.

            So once again, bad logic, and bad geometry.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You are not listening, Willard:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331937

            You never do.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter, This thread is getting too long. See my reply below.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, this thread is far too long. I think I’m done up here, other than to PST any further responses from the usual trolls.

          • Willard says:

            > There is the debunking of Eli’s GPE, and there is the alternative (correct) solution to the GPE.

            You always refuse to enter into Eli’s thought experiment on its own terms, Graham. So you are the one who is not listening. It’s like you think you can win an improv by always saying no. Life does not work like that. Science does not work like that. Heck, argumentation does not work like that.

            Besides, consider how you always end up philosophizing when you’re losing a point. While it can indeed console, philosophy is about understanding. And the understanding that matters here is how you can waste six years repeating the same thing while convincing yourself that the whole world is wrong about basic stuff.

            Why do you think I’m here? Certainly not to contemplate the depth of your knowledge of physics. Sky Dragon cranks have none.

            So what remains? A very compact playbook, with all kinds of little tricks like the Motte-and-Bailey. Your performance over the sumer made me realize that this technique has dialogical merit. It allows you to sidestep when things get rough, and to reenter provocations when things get boring in your day.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “I’m not failing to understand you and you know that, Graham.”

            I know no such thing. You certainly appear to fail to understand extremely basic concepts.

            “Eli’s thought experiment abstracts away view factors. If you insist in having them, you are not refuting his thought experiment. You are simply justifying your refusal to entertain it.”

            It doesn’t “abstract away view factors”, and the refutation of his thought experiment does not depend on the alternative solution in any case. The GPE was debunked five years ago. It was debunked again upthread, by Clint R, in a single sentence. It is debunked by the 3-plate scenario. It is debunked by the Sun shell example. It is debunked by experiment.

            “And no, view factors do not matter here.”

            They matter in all of radiative heat transfer.

            “It is really hard to exclude a direction when an object O emits radiation in all of them.”

            Nobody is trying to “exclude a direction”.

            “At best you *could* argue that the blue plate receives less than what Eli suggests with his toy example. But even then it’s more than nothing. So he still wins, albeit a bit more subtly.”

            You have no idea what you’re talking about.

            “So once again, bad logic, and bad geometry.”

            False accusation.

            “You always refuse to enter into Eli’s thought experiment on its own terms, Graham.”

            False accusation.

            “So you are the one who is not listening. It’s like you think you can win an improv by always saying no. Life does not work like that. Science does not work like that. Heck, argumentation does not work like that. Besides, consider how you always end up philosophizing when you’re losing a point….”

            …said Willard, philosophizing now that he’s losing the point (again).

            “While it can indeed console, philosophy is about understanding. And the understanding that matters here is how you can waste six years repeating the same thing while convincing yourself that the whole world is wrong about basic stuff.”

            One of your own gurus recently conceded that the back-radiation account of the GHE was debunked. The understanding that matters is why a few stubborn idiots on a blog refuse to move with the times and accept that this is the case.

            “Why do you think I’m here? Certainly not to contemplate the depth of your knowledge of physics. Sky Dragon cranks have none.”

            I think you’re here to troll.

            “So what remains? A very compact playbook, with all kinds of little tricks like the Motte-and-Bailey. Your performance over the sumer made me realize that this technique has dialogical merit. It allows you to sidestep when things get rough, and to reenter provocations when things get boring in your day.”

            More false accusations. Willard, please stop trolling.

          • Ball4 says:

            Wrong yet again DREMT: “One of your own gurus recently conceded that the back-radiation account of the GHE was debunked. The understanding that matters is why a few stubborn idiots on a blog refuse to move with the times and accept that this is the case.”

            … because that is NOT the case as Vaughan Pratt writes: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect.”

          • Willard says:

            > I think you are

            Whatever you might think of me is irrelevant here, Graham.

            *You* are the troll. *I* slay trolls.

            More verbal defense will not change anything about a mere accounting exercise, And here is the algebraic point you keep ignoring. As soon as there is more than zero radiation hitting back that blue plate, you lose. Hard for the energy not to radiate back to an infinite plate, at least in part. Not only your appeal to view factors was irrelevant, illogical and geometrically void, it fails a basic algebra smell test.

            The only reasons why this trolling of yours has been going on for more than six years is that very few really cares to understand what you try to convey.

            Tough luck.

            Please stop trolling, and learn to read equations.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331303

            Willard: you have no idea what you are talking about. Please stop trolling.

            Ball4 and Willard: Sociopaths, begone.

          • Ball4 says:

            1) obviously fails the 2LOT in nature, DREMT. The rest is accordingly wrong.

            Laughing at DREMT’s amusing failures to debunk the GPE has been great entertainment over the years.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sociopath, begone.

          • Willard says:

            Sixty-nine months of trolling and Graham still complains about being misunderstood.

            The least pro-social commenter after Pup and Mike has the nerve to mention sociopathy.

            Please seek help.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            Sociopath, begone.

          • Willard says:

            How pro-social of you, Graham.

            Image a Pong game between B and G with infinite paddles. According to your logic B, after serving to G, will never be able to reach the return from G.

            Once again, you have no geometry intuition.

            The third time out of your three pet topics, right?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #3

            Sociopath, begone.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT has no worthwhile defense again, so I’m happy with the wins.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #4

            Sociopath, begone.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            “bob lost an argument a few years ago. So what? He loses a lot of arguments.

            Plates together: 244 K244 K244 K
            Plates separated: 244 K290 K244 K

            with no change in energy in and out, is in clear violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Sorry you dont understand that. Others will.”

            No way did I lose this argument.

            When you separate the plates there is a change in energy in and out, because you fucking moron, you can’t have heat transfer without a temperature difference.

            Again, your premise that there is no change in energy in and out is false, so the rest of your argument is bogus, you fucking moron.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            In the 3-plate scenario, plates pressed together at 244 K…244 K…244 K, there is 400 W input to the system and 400 W output. With plates separated, at 244 K…290 K…244 K, there is 400 W input to the system, and 400 W output. The BP increased in temperature by 46 K with no change in energy in or out! Sorry for your loss.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT can’t even count plates accurately. No loss since conductive energy transfer (full plate) has a different formulation than radiative energy transfer (separated plate) resulting in different answers at equilibrium. DREMT’s solution is incorrect by the way as I pointed out long ago.

            Study Eli’s 2017 work for correct radiative energy transfer formulas and return.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #5

            Sociopath, begone.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY you fucking moron,

            ” there is 400 W input to the system, and 400 W output.”

            Not without a temperature difference between the plates, you fucking moron.

            There has to be a temperature difference between the green and blue plates in order to have heat flow, it’s in the fucking equation you fucking moron.

            I see you brought out your fucking diagram that has one plate with a total of 600 Watts output and the other one with 400 watts output but both are at the same temperature.

            Another diagram from a fucking moron.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Ball4 says:

            No loss since conductive energy transfer (full plate) has a different formulation than radiative energy transfer (separated plate) resulting in different answers at equilibrium.
            ————————-
            One would not expect that to occur unless one adds a resistor/insulator/conductor. A vacuum represents none of those.

            What is strange though is if you establish that equilibrium as per the Eli point of view and you add a resistor/insulator/conductor the result doesn’t change.

          • Nate says:

            “The passive shell can not raise the temperature of the Sun. End of story, for the rational.”

            It continues to be perplexing that people KEEP on using this failed logic. They erroneously believe that their own personal incredulity about an outcome is:

            a. a valid argument against the outcome.

            It isn’t.

            b. universally what a rational person would think.

            It isn’t

            I asked a random person on the street the question.

            “Madam: What is your opinion? If we built a massive metal black shell around the sun, what do you think the sun would do? Get hotter or stay the same temperature?”

            Joanne Public: “Gee, that’s incredible. Can that really be done? Whose paying for this? My taxes?”

            Me: “No ma’am. It’s not really possible or likely to ever happen. It is just a hypothetical. Do you have an opinion about the result?”

            “I have no idea. If we trap the sun’s heat with a shell, it seems like it could build up and get hotter. But I would ask the scientists.”

            So there we have it. The incredulity about the incredible result of this incredible experiment, is not universal.

            It would be nice if anyone could come up with a sound argument, with a valid science reason, why the sun couldnt warm in this thought experiment.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, bob, there is 400 W in and 400 W out even without a temperature difference. Those GPs do not stop emitting 200 W each out to space just because there is no temperature difference.

          • Ball4 says:

            Bill wrongly writes: “… unless one adds a resistor/insulator/conductor. A vacuum represents none of those.”

            Bill can learn from Thermos.com: VACUUM INSULATED Stainless Steel Construction

            https://thermos.com/products/stainless-king-beverage-bottle-2-0-l

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #6

            Sociopath, begone.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY you fucking moron,

            “Yes, bob, there is 400 W in and 400 W out even without a temperature difference. Those GPs do not stop emitting 200 W each out to space just because there is no temperature difference.”

            Actually they do stop emitting 200 W each out to space, because they are only getting 200 W from the Blue plate, and they are emitting 200 W from each side now that they are separated, so they start cooling, until the Blue plate heats up, because it is only getting 400 W from the heater, and now less than 200 W from each of the green plates, so it eventually heats up, so that the blue plate can provide the necessary 400 watts to each green plate so that the green plate can emit 200 from each side.

            Separated, the green plates emit 200 W from each side, so they need 400 W input from the Blue plate, so the Blue plate must increase in temperature to provide that 400 W.

            You can’t get this because you are a fucking moron, or an evil green house effect denier.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            If you wave your arms any harder, you are going to take off! Sorry bob, it is an idealized scenario with no losses past the edges of the plates, so when they are separated the GPs have no reason to emit less. All that has changed is that conductive transfer has switched to radiative. I know and fully understand all the reasons you get so confused and scrunch yourself up into a little ball of rage as you lash out like a child against the adult who is setting you straight, since I understand the GPE now better than you ever could, even if you studied it constantly, every day, for the rest of your life. There is nothing you need to explain.

            The 3-plate scenario, it has been agreed by Swanson, is just like the “Steel Greenhouse”. In other words, it is just like the Sun shell scenario. An obvious 2LoT violation, basically. The Sun cannot heat itself up with its own back-radiated energy, as I’m sure Vaughan Pratt would agree. That’s that.

          • Ball4 says:

            “I’m sure Vaughan Pratt would agree.”

            Wrong DREMT, Vaughan Pratt doesn’t agree writing: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …and what did he also write, sociopath? Stay out of my comments.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            It would be nice if anyone could come up with a sound argument, with a valid science reason, why the sun couldnt warm in this thought experiment.

            —————–

            Actually it would be nice if anyone could come up with a sound argument, with a valid science reason, why the sun would warm in this thought experiment.

            After all who is trying to establish a science standard and teaching it to children? Being skeptical is nothing more than rejecting unnecessary delegation of authority. A crime worthy of vitriol, rejection, cancellation in the minds of the moronic lemmings inhabiting this forum.

            but regardless how about the fact that radiation doesn’t just happen spontaneously. It is inseparably connected to temperature. 1LOT does not allow for spontaneous increases in temperature without a cause.

            Yet such a concept resides central to backradiation theory behind concepts of irresistable pressures of a flow of radiation, completely ignoring that such a flow has a very small pressure. Lord Kelvin wanted to look at it hydrodynamically and modern scientists fully bought in on particle physics want to attribute it to radiation.

            Of course we are met with complete stonewalling in the offering of evidence. We are regaled with 3rd grader flat radiation models that most scientists have rejected. And yet it is still found in corners and crevices of our institutions of learning. In this forum we have a sizable population of that special species of lemming who avows total homage and fidelity to Orwell’s Animal Farm.

            that isn’t a complete scientific falsification of a thought experiment but if it isn’t a rejection of the animal farm we are all in trouble and diversity is dead.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            GAWD you are a fucking moron.

            “so when they are separated the GPs have no reason to emit less.”

            They emit more when separated, you fucking moron.

            When separated, they emit from both sides, not just the side to space.

            It’s a simple problem, if you have to spend your entire life studying it and you still can’t get the right answer, is evidence that you are indeed a fucking moron.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Actually it would be nice if anyone could come up with a sound argument, with a valid science reason, why the sun would warm in this thought experiment.”

            The sun’s surface thermodynamic energy internal heater runs at couple dozen million degrees F.

            The sun shell as DREMT imagined is an infrared trapping material, thus increasing the sun’s internal thermodynamic energy with IR energy that otherwise would have been in deep space without the shell.

            Based on experiments Dr. Pratt conducted, he concluded: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            We were talking about total input and output from the system, bob. 400 W in, and 400 W out. If you do not think the GPs emit less than 400 W to space (less than 200 W each) after separation, then you do not have any way for energy to accumulate within the system and raise the temperature of the BP. That is what I meant by emitting less. Never mind. You are in one of your moods. No point talking to you.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Ball4 says:
            ”Based on experiments Dr. Pratt conducted, he concluded: ”Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect.” ”

            ————————–
            First requirement in understanding is reading comprehension.

            ‘can’ does not mean ‘will’. What Pratt is saying it is dependent upon some specific set on unequilibriated conditions and the insulating value of the trapping material.

            the 3rd grader radiation insulating model is a farce as it starts with equilibrium conditions.

            Thus all that occurs with the addition of materials is period of time to bring those materials to the same equilibrium.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            GAWD you are a fucking moron.

            ——————————
            The Lemming pig roars!

          • bobdroege says:

            Drempty,

            Take your participation trophy and go fuck yourself.

          • bobdroege says:

            Bill,

            “The Lemming pig roars!”

            It looks like you left your brain at home again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            One last thing

            “If you do not think the GPs emit less than 400 W to space (less than 200 W each) after separation, then you do not have any way for energy to accumulate within the system and raise the temperature of the BP.”

            Lets break that down.

            First, I think the GPs emit less than 400 W to space after separation, because they receive 200 W each and emit 400 W each, initially upon separation, so they cool, and then emit less.

            Second, I do have a way for the energy to accumulate within the system.

            I’ll leave that as homework for you to figure out my position on how the energy accumulates.

            It does, and that will lead you to the correct answer, but then sometime the pig refuses to eat the truffle it finds.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The GPE is debunked, bob. Thanks anyway. You can leave now you have thoroughly disgraced yourself again.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            bobdroege says:

            It looks like you left your brain at home again.
            ——————

            How would you know? Lemmings don’t have brains.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Thus all that occurs with the addition of materials is period of time to bring those materials to the same equilibrium.”

            Sure Bill, the infrared trapping material of the shell would cool if it starts out warmer than the higher eventual equilibrium sun surface temperature with sun shell’s “very significant warming effect” per Pratt due the system having much higher thermodynamic internal energy at equilibrium.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            “The GPE is debunked, bob. Thanks anyway. You can leave now you have thoroughly disgraced yourself again.”

            Not hardly, I have observed the original green plate effect in my fucking kitchen.

            I am fucking staying, just to show you where you get the science wrong.

            Though it wouls be easier to show where you get it right.

            Here let me show you.

            There that’s done.

            So don’t bother calling me out on any threads unless you want another thorough ass whuppin.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Bob is yet another guy in a long line of other guys who has only ever observed it inside the atmosphere and is just guessing and extrapolating the indentical results he saw in his kitchen to outerspace where heat loss by convection doesn’t exist.

          • bobdroege says:

            Bill,

            You are full of shit as usual.

            But maybe I forgot to tell you that my experiment prevented any convection, and limited conduction between the plates.

            That doesn’t matter anyway, the addition of the green plate caused a temperature increase.

            It doesn’t matter if the heat transfer is convection, radiation, or conduction.

            The addition of the plate causes a temperature increase, which the green plate deniers say violated the second law of thermo.

          • Willard says:

            Lemmings do not have brains, Bill?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, Willard, please stop trolling.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard says:

            Lemmings do not have brains, Bill?
            —————————————

            Well OK Willard. Maybe something in the range of a parrot?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            But on the other hand parrots aren’t ignorant racists. they are species agnostic about who they parrot. . . .lemmings though seem to be like anchovies running amok in a single ethnic pack.

          • bobdroege says:

            Bill,

            It looks like you believe in some myths about the behavior of lemmings.

            Good to know.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            bobdroege says:
            It looks like you believe in some myths about the behavior of lemmings.

            Good to know.

            ——————————

            I will bow to you this Bob. Since it takes one to know one, obviously you are the expert.

  42. Entropic man says:

    Testing.

  43. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    North Atlantic surface temperature.
    https://i.ibb.co/cC7Xhxr/cdas-sflux-sst-atl-1.png

  44. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    SST Outlook: NCEP CFS.v2 Forecast (PDF corrected) Issued: 27 June 2022
    https://i.ibb.co/myc3Xm2/Screenshot-2.png

  45. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    What the Sun says.
    https://i.ibb.co/RvWb7ss/Dipall.gif

  46. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Ice in the Beaufort Sea and Canadian Archipelago.
    https://i.ibb.co/qp2qrd0/masie-all-r01-4km.png
    https://i.ibb.co/DWpv078/masie-all-r09-4km.png

  47. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Why is the solar wind still so weak? The last major speed jumps can be seen in 2019.
    https://i.ibb.co/pXH3qhX/plot-image.png

  48. Entropic man says:

    Stephen Anderson

    Remember that we discussed Ed Berry’s model and one of the big problems was the lack of a mechanism for moving large amounts of CO2 from the deep ocean to the surface.

    The paleontologists have a possible mechanism based on evidence that the ocean is usually anoxic, a Canfield Ocean.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canfield_ocean

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228628185_Oceanic_Euxinia_in_Earth_History_Causes_and_Consequences

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event

    The basic principle is that when the poles are cold, as has been the case since the current Ice Age got under way, the thermohaline circulation is driven by cold oxygenated water sinking at high latitudes and oxygenating the deep ocean.

    When the poles warm the water sinks further South and the new water replaces the cold oxygenated water with warm anoxic water, displacing the oxygen and CO2 rich water.

    The ocean becomes anoxic and dominated by anaerobic sulphur and methane bacteria.

    If the turnover is beginning due to global warming it would explain the rapid release of CO2 described by Berry.

    But you won’t like it.

    The modern consequences are described in “Undera Green Sky” by Peter Ward. (Hat tip to Tim Folkerts).

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Under-Green-Sky-Potentially-Greenhou-ebook/dp/B0015WAOQM/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2Z9L9TJG8YE2C&keywords=Under+a+green+sky&qid=1656964180&s=digital-text&sprefix=under+a+green+sky%2Cdigital-text%2C233&sr=1-1

    • stephen p anderson says:

      The 100ppm natural rise from 1750 to now could hardly be described as a rapid rise. I think we know very little about CO2 history.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        stephen…for one, there is no proof that the CO2 levels in 1750 were 270 ppmv. All they have are ice-core proxies which are vulnerable to misinterpretation. Jaworowski pointed out that the IPCC cherry-picked the 270 ppmv figure from an assortment of cores taken within a considerable distance of each other. One of the samples read close to 2000 ppmv.

        For another, studies collated by Beck have shown variable levels of CO2, some exceeding 400 ppmv between 1850 and 1940.

        For another, 1750 was in the middle of phase 2 of the Little Ice Age when global temps had dropped 1C to 2C below normal. An ocean that much colder would have absorbed a lot of CO2 over the 400+ years of the LIA.

      • Willard says:

        > The 100ppm […] rise from 1750 to now could hardly be described as a rapid rise.

        Geological time scale is a bit slower than that:

        Welcome to the Pliocene. That was the Earth about three to five million years ago, very different to the Earth we inhabit now. But in at least one respect it was rather similar. This is the last time that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels were as high as they are today.

        https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/7/graphic-carbon-dioxide-hits-new-high/

      • Entropic man says:

        “The 100ppm natural rise from 1750 to now could hardly be described as a rapid rise.”

        Look at a typical(?) past CO2 release, the PETM 56 million years ago.

        The current CO2 release is at least five times faster than in the PETM and possibly as high as 27 times.

        We are artificially releasing CO2 at a faster rate than anything in the geological record.

        https://skepticalscience.com/co2-rising-ten-times-faster-than-petm-extinction.html

        • RLH says:

          Is CO2 causing the rise in average temperatures or is the rise in average temperatures causing the rise in CO2?

          • Entropic man says:

            Both.

            You see in the Milankovich cycles that as orbital cycles raise and lower temperature, CO2 concentration follow them up and down. This is because CO2 sinks such as oceans, peat bogs and permafrost are temperature sensitive, releasing CO2 to the atmosphere as temperature rises and taking up CO2 when temperatures fall.

            If you do the maths, the direct effect of the orbital cycles varies temperature by 1.2C and the feedback due to changing CO2 and ice albedo is another is another 3.8C. This the 5C difference between a glacial period and an interglacial.

            Temperature is causing CO2 change.

            Looking at extinction events such as the PETM, they begin with a pulse of CO2 from volcanic activity or an ocean overturn, followed by an increase in temperature. Weathering then slowly removes CO2 and temperatures drop back.

            Snowball Earth events tend to coincide with mountain building as continents merge. Weathering reduces CO2 which reduces temperature. Increasing ice albedo then locks into 2 million years of glaciation which stops the weathering. Finally increasing volcanic CO2 increases the temperature enough to melt the ice.

            Modern day fossil fuel burning is increasing CO2 faster than anything we’ve seen in the geological record and temperatures are following CO2 upwards.

            Extinctions, Snowball Earths and AGW are all examples of changing CO2 causing a change in average temperatures.

          • Clint R says:

            Ent, that’s some great sci-fi. It’s amazing how well it fits your cult beliefs, huh?

            You left out things like passenger jets flying backwards and ice boiling water.

            Maybe on your next monologue….

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Is there any evidence whatsoever that an increase in CO2 will increase global temperatures any further?

            Speculation about what happened 56 million years ago is not evidence.

          • Willard says:

            Is there any evidence you will one day realize that to ask for evidence about the future goes against what we understand about time, Chic?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

  49. gbaikie says:

    Floating cities: the future or a washed-up idea?
    Published: June 2, 2019 4.08pm EDT
    ….
    The technology and types of floating city structures

    –No floating settlements have ever been created on the high seas. Current offshore engineering is concerned with how cities can locate infrastructure, such as airports, nuclear power stations, bridges, oil storage facilities and stadiums, in shallow coastal environments rather than in deep international waters.

    Two main types of very large floating structures (VLFS) technology can be used to carry the weight of a floating settlement.

    The first, pontoon structures, are flat slabs suitable for floating in sheltered waters close to shore.

    The second, semi-submersible structures (such as oil rigs), comprise platforms that are elevated on columns off the water surface. These can be located in deep waters. Potentially, oil rigs could be repurposed for such floating cities in international waters.–
    ….
    A viable project?

    “Technology is not a barrier to floating cities in international waters. Advances in technology enable us to create structures for habitation in deep sea waters. These schemes have never really taken off because of political and commercial barriers.

    While this time round proponents are packaging floating cities in a more politically viable concept as a life raft for climate refugees, commercial barriers remain. Apart from the UN, few organisation have the economic and political influence or reason to deliver a satellite floating city in the ocean. ”

    I would say, just political barriers.

    My premise is based upon Mars settlement and/or humans becoming space faring civilization.
    Or it the simplest terms, launch cost from Earth lowering significantly.
    Launch costs have lowered over decades and will lower in coming decades, if for no other reason than the exist reason, the global satellite market. And to some extent, national security interests.
    The satellite market lowers costs for lots of things, and has lowered national security interest costs. And in terms of weather forecasting, has saved millions of lives. But one could in terms global news, not as successful as some might have hoped in terms news organizations, though twitter and such things, sort of works. I would say, still evolving. Every nation wants their own satellites, and will probably become, “everyone” wants their own satellites.
    Anyhow the use of our Moon and Mars {and Venus orbit] will depend upon exploration of Lunar polar regions and then exploration of Mars.

    I would say Musk needs to launch from the ocean and/or use the Moon
    in order to to towns on Mars.

    • Ken says:

      Consider that you could find space for the entire world population in the state of Texas.

      You don’t have a business case for building floating cities or cities on Mars.

      • gbaikie says:

        –Consider that you could find space for the entire world population in the state of Texas.–
        And…

        –You dont have a business case for building floating cities or cities on Mars.–

        Musk says he wants to build a city on Mars, and says his business case for it, will be related to creating his starlink satellite network.
        It appears to me that with his +2000 starlink satellites in orbit, it is still more or less, in beta testing stage and he has less than 1 million subscribers.
        [I might become subscriber at some point.]
        But he wants to make it better, and thinks he has to use his Starship to launch bigger and better [and more] Starlink satellites per launch.
        But he is launching more Starlink with the falcon-9, two more launch within a week from now:
        July 7 Falcon 9 Starlink 4-21
        July 8 Falcon 9 Starlink 3-1
        https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
        And they usually do 52 per launch, so if they work, 104 more of them.
        The other falcon 9 launch:
        NET July 11 Falcon 9 SpaceX CRS 25
        Has been delayed until no sooner than July 14, apparently, and related the reuse issues of Dragon capsule.
        SpaceX was first company to reuse capsules, and now it’s a standard thing though only allowed to reuse them 5 times- but that might change.

        • gbaikie says:

          I thought I would check:
          “Over 750,000 people worldwide have placed orders for Starlink’s satellite internet, but most are still waiting for service. SpaceX’s Starlink has created a portable version of its service to provide satellite internet for RVs. May 25, 2022”

          Oh, I hate being on a waiting list. But 400,000 are on reported on May 25, 2022. So, I guess it’s not very long wait. If it’s only month wait, not too much problem, but it is a problem I was not counting on.

      • gbaikie says:

        Re: “You dont have a business case for building floating cities”

        I was wondering if I should make a business case, but not for “floating cities”. I have more interested floating towns or suburbs and particularly in making surfing areas. Of course one aspect in terms of business case is any liability connected to making a waves which can be surfed. If nature is causing waves, it’s different than constructing something that make surfing waves. Or you can’t sue nature for whatever foolish behavior a surfer happens to do.
        Or one thing is surfers don’t like breakwaters. So I thought it would better to put surfing in front of floating breakwater.
        So make bigger and better surfing waves and better access to them and safer to surf. Though any big surfing wave is not safe, but crashing into rocks could be eliminated.
        Anyhow, in terms of business case, prohibiting surfing, is a safer move than promoting/encouraging surfing.

        • Entropic man says:

          The nearest things to floating cities are the big cruise liners. You could live aboard as a passenger all year for $80,000.

          https://boatinggeeks.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-live-on-a-cruise-ship/#:

          Crew are employed to live aboard, but without access to most of the facilities it can’t be much fun.

          The rich might like to live aboard a floating city, but I can’t see much enthusiasm among the workers.

          • Willard says:

            Our in-house futurologist is talking about seasteading, EM.

            He is willing to go to Mars to protect himself against the evil gubment, so a Madmax offshore platform is not that far fetched for him.

          • gbaikie says:

            Nope.
            It’s about cheap breakwater. Floating breakwater.
            And make places to surf. And be on a beach. And scuba.
            And fish. Fish parks.
            And related to methane Hydrate mining.
            And other use of ocean, space ports which include suborbital
            travel to places on Earth. Fast travel and less energy needed
            to do it.

          • Willard says:

            Not floating cities but floating towns.

            OK.

          • gbaikie says:

            The Ocean is a desert, which can be used for more things then
            cargo ocean transport. {and hunter gather type fishing}
            Ocean transport is good way to move cargo- better than rail, but not better than pipelines.
            One could also have pipelines near ocean surface, and “pipelines”
            can also transport people. And without needing to dig tunnels in the ground.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Willard says:
            July 5, 2022 at 11:38 AM

            Not floating cities but floating towns.

            OK.–
            Yes, lots of small towns.

            Floating cities are more of a Venus thing.
            And could get latter get submerged cities in the Ocean-
            people living at different pressure.
            So some people might live at 100 atm- a city of
            people could live at 100 atm.

          • gbaikie says:

            small towns can have high population density:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density#Incorporated_places_with_a_density_of_over_10,000_people_per_square_mile

            And getting high population density is significant aspect in terms low energy per capita and better living in general.

      • barry says:

        “You dont have a business case for…”

        If that was the only metric for undertaking ventures we would be living in a much less advanced technological world and still be fighting wars with the neighbours in the name of God.

  50. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim f..[” Fluxes are defined at specific surfaces how many watts of EM energy pass through a given surface (not how much flux exists in space). Of course, surfaces exist in space. If I have a surface in space and send two different sets of EM energy through it (eg from two lasers or two lightbulb or two pieces of ice) the energies add and the fluxes add”.

    ***

    EM normally doesn’t pass through surfaces. Maybe glass as in windows but it doesn’t penetrate solid surface mere than a few atom widths.

    If you consider a magnetic field, which is a flux, it used to be measured as the number of lines of flux per unit area. If you could squeeze more lines in that area, the magnetic flux intensity increased, but the lines did not add. It’s the same at a surface.

    We have created a convoluted scenario by regarding EM as individual photons, then regarding the photons as flux fields. Personally, I don’t buy into that theory, I regard EM as a wavefront. How the emission from electrons as quanta fit into that amalgam is a mystery. The quanta has a frequency based on individual electron frequencies and how that all merges into a wavefront of EM is a mystery. The notion of a photon as a particle of EM, with momentum and no mass, is a fantasy of Einstein’s.

    I don’t think the emissions from stars, that produce white light, a mixture of various other light frequencies, is a flux field. It’s called that but I think the reference to flux is wrong. I say that because the EM wave is made up of both an electric and magnetic field with definite frequencies. However, I don’t see how the different EM frequencies could be added.

    *****************************

    [GR]Any additional heating of a surface due to two fluxes incident upon the surface is a property of the mass, not the addition of fluxes.

    [Tim]No, heating is DEFINITELY affected by the amount of incoming energy (incoming flux).

    ***

    Heating is dependent first on whether the electrons in a mass will absorb the EM. According to Bohr’s theory, that’s dependent on the frequency and intensity of the EM. If it is not right, meeting E = hf, it is ignored, and that is the case with any EM from a cooler body.

    The amount of heat converted from EM depends on whether the electrons will absorb it and what state the electrons are in at the time regarding the mass temperature.

    Blackbody theory was invented well before electrons were discovered in the 1890s and before Bohr’s revolutionary quantum theory in 1913. Therefore, blackbody theory has led scientists astray as to the real action between EM and electrons in the atoms of a mass.

    Scientists have tended to base absorp-tion and emission on a totally theoretical blackbody rather than on the actual electrons in the atoms of masses. That’s why we get all the nonsense about EM transferring heat in both directions between hot and cold masses.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “EM normally doesnt pass through surfaces. ”
      In this context, a “surface” does not need to be a solid object. In this context, you mathematically define a surface, like a 1 m radius sphere around a light bulb or a flat 1mx1m square at the top of the atmosphere.

      “Heating is dependent first on whether the electrons in a mass will absorb the EM. ”
      And again, in this context energy is passing through the surface. EM energy on one side becomes thermal energy on the other side. It can only do that by passing from the one side to the other.

      “Scientists have tended to base absorp-tion and emission on a totally theoretical blackbody … ”
      No, they really don’t. A theoretical blackbody is only a starting point, like a frictionless surface or no air resistance for projectiles.

      “Thats why we get all the nonsense about EM transferring heat in both directions between hot and cold masses.”
      No, “heat” in the modern sense is the net transfer. EM does transfer ENERGY ‘both directions’ but ‘heat is always from hot to cold’ and entropy always increases. exactly as the 2nd Law requires.

      • D'ug Cott'n says:

        You are so brainwashed by climatology junk science. The word “net” is not in the Second Law. Any combination of systems MUST BE INTERACTING. My peer-reviewed paper on radiation may help you. https://ssrn.com/author=2627605. See Wikipedia: “Laws of Thermodynamics”

    • bobdroege says:

      Well there is glass.

      And then there is gamma radiation, and bubbleheads being required to memorize the tenth thickness of various materials to determine how much shielding is required to keep one safe.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Bob, it is certainly true that many sorts of EM penetrate many sorts of solids. But that is not really the issue.

        Flux does not need to be defined for a solid surface to begin with. Anyone who has taken an engineering physics class probably saw Gauss’ Law and integrated E-fields over various surfaces (abstract, mathematical surfaces). It is perfectly legit to simply define a surface anywhere in space.

  51. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…[GR]”As Clint has pointed out over and over, if the sources of the fluxes is ice and the surface is at 20C, there will be no warming at all, no matter how many ice sources you provide”.

    “RLH says:July 4, 2022 at 3:56 AM

    But if the surface is at -20C? or -200C?”

    ***

    Richard…that’s not my argument, it is: heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body via radiation.

    *********************

    [RLH]”…something that is surrounded by a higher temperature point than that of outer space will mean that an object at its center will cool at a slower rate than if it was in outer space itself”.

    ***

    I think you are talking about Newton’s Law of Cooling. The rate of heat dissipation between a body and its environment is proportional to the temperature difference between them.

    Doesn’t really apply to what Clint and I are talking about, that radiation from ice cannot heat a body with a higher temperature. Also, remember that our conversations are about the Earth at terrestrial temperatures.

    One of the points supporting AGW is that heat can be transferred from GHGs in a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface that produced the EM to heat the GHGs. That contradicts the 2nd law and represents perpetual motion since the back-radiation is claimed to raise the temperature of the source.

    • RLH says:

      “Richardthats not my argument, it is: heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body via radiation”

      So if I surround a body with ice at -10C, 10 meters away, in a vacuum will it cool faster or slower than if it is simply in outer space (assumed -270C) or not? And why?

      • Clint R says:

        That has NOTHING to do with the issue, RLH. You don’t understand any of this.

        You’re a braindead troll with NOTHING to offer. Mark B captures your immaturity here:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1326887

        That’s about 50 comments per day! Seek help.

      • gbaikie says:

        In space things can cool lower than -10 C or surrounding with something -10 C will keep things inside it at -10 C.

        Say had a large thermal mass which was ideally thermal conductive and -10 C
        {which is also practically only way to have something at =10 C }
        Then something a lot warmer than -10 C should cool around the same rate, until it was close to being -10 C, and then it stays at -10 C
        if surrounding ideal conductive mass is -10 C.

        Or a human body does not cool from radiate heat loss, it cools by evaporation and convection. Spacesuits are too warm, because both are prevented. Spacesuits use evaporative cooling system [they lose water to space] to keep crew cool enough. Or radiant cooling doesn’t work- or does work very easily- something more massive could work. Hotter thing work better- A refrigerator [using lot energy and massive] could work without the lost of water to space.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          We must emit IR. Didn’t you watch Predator?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            stephen….I have been thinking of ways to escape the detection of an IR scanner. Looked through a few sites and they make the same mistake of confusing IR with heat. For example, some claim a woolen blanket will block IR, which is false. IR will go through a blanket like a hot knife through butter.

            I gave an example of the heart rate monitor I use while walking. It consists of a transmitter attached to a strap around my chest and it transmits to a receiver in a watch on my wrist where the heart rate appears. That transmission frequency is about 5.1 Khz for the Polar devices and up to 2 Ghz for Bluetooth devices, yet both go easily through multiple layers of clothing including heavy winter jackets.

            So, how would you hide out from an IR scanner? Some have suggested carrying a large pane of glass. Of course, you’d need suction devices attached to the inner side of the glass so your warm fingers would not appear around the edges.

            It’s an interesting problem. Even if you used a metallic thermal blanket, your body heat would increase and likely warm the air around the blanket.

          • gbaikie says:

            And in space, it would a sharper image.

            But keeping a house warm is about reducing convectional heat loss and sealing gaps or cracks. Radiant heat loss is not a significant factor.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “That transmission frequency is about 5.1 Khz for the Polar devices and up to 2 Ghz for Bluetooth devices, yet both go easily through multiple layers of clothing including heavy winter jackets.”

            Except IR starts around 300 GHz, so none of that is IR!

            ” IR will go through a blanket like a hot knife through butter.

            Not even close! Here is an actual set of images showing a blanket literally blocking IR!
            https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/wiwAAOSw~mxfzue8/s-l640.jpg

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I thought of that a while back and I don’t have an answer that can be proved. With a vacuum container in a terrestrial atmosphere, it is usually surrounded by warm air, therefore heat from outside somehow affects the walls of the container and its contents.

        Here’s an interesting article on that. It claims the environment in space is very different than a terrestrial atmosphere, even inside a vacuum chamber.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/12/23/water-in-space-does-it-freeze-or-boil/

        Apparently astronauts in space can urinate then expel the water. When that is done, the water first boils due to a tremendous and instantaneous reduction in pressure, then freezes.

  52. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Daily Mean Temperatures in the Arctic 1958 – 2022

    Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2022.png

    • Entropic man says:

      Looks a fairly normal modern year.

      Winter temperatures about 4C higher than the long term average.

      Summer temperatures just above 0C as usual.

      That won’t change until the Arctic is ice free in Summer. At present the surface ice acts as a heat sink. Any available heat goes into melting ice rather than increasing temperature.

      • RLH says:

        The considerable difference between latent and sensible heat releases is shown quite clearly.

        • Entropic man says:

          Indeed. Global warming shows in the Arctic as increased temperature in Winter and decreased ice extent in Summer. We won’t see increased Summer temperatures until most of the ice is gone.

          Just as your Mint Julep stays ice cold until all the ice has melted.

        • Entropic man says:

          Indeed. The North Pole was in open ocean during the Eocene with free circulation of warm water across the Pole from the Pacific side.

          The paleontologists think that the last Ice Age began when the Asian plate folded around the Arctic and reached Alaska. When the Bering Strait closed the free circulation of warm water cut off and the Arctic froze.

          Without artificial interference the Arctic would be expected to stay frozen until the Bering Strait reopens. If we push temperature to the Eocene anomaly +5C, which would take about 300 years at the current UAH rate, the Arctic will melt anyway.

    • Bindidon says:

      This is not the Arctic.

      This is a tiny part of it: that above 80N.

      The Arctic starts with 60N for many time series, among them… UAH.

      You can’t compare the two, let alone could you meaningfully exchange them in a discussion.

      *
      I recently posted the difference between various UAH latitude bands:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g5XCRc1tLMH08r_elOGQNdzkUBnkK7R_/view

      Feel free to compare the blue and red plots generated by the Savitzky-Golay filter.

      Linear estimates in C / decade, original data:

      – 60N-82.5N: 0.25 +- 0.02
      – 60N-70N: 0.21 +- 0.02
      – 70N-80N: 0.28 +- 0.03
      – 80N-82.5N: 0.06 +- 0.01

      … and for the S-G output:

      – 60N-82.5N: 0.24 +- 0.01
      – 60N-70N: 0.20 +- 0.01
      – 70N-80N: 0.27 +- 0.01
      – 80N-82.5N: 0.06 +- 0.01

      I’d wonder a lot if it would be so terribly different at the surface.

      • RLH says:

        There is quite a difference in the energy needed at the surface to change water into ice and vice versa.

        For instance HadISST shows the surface T at a constant -1.8C where sea water is present when surrounded by sea ice.

        • Entropic man says:

          You are melting freshwater ice and freezing salt water.

          The salt water freezes at –1.2C and you have to separate out the salts, probably extra latent heat.

          • RLH says:

            The freezing of sea ice produces a lot of very cold brine which flows to the bottom of the oceans.

      • RLH says:

        P.S. Blinny: Got an answer yet as to if CTRMs following the recommendations from VP are a viable HQLP filter?

        • Bindidon says:

          Care to stop stalking me by inserting your egocentric bullshit everywhere, and trying to meaningfully contribute to discussions instead of permanently disturbing them?

          How is it possible that a person born in 1948 permanently behaves like an over-opinionated, 15 year old school boy?

          • RLH says:

            So answer the question then.

          • Bindidon says:

            Care to stop stalking me by inserting your egocentric bullshit everywhere, and trying to meaningfully contribute to discussions instead of permanently disturbing them?

            How is it possible that a person born in 1948 permanently behaves like an over-opinionated, 15 year old school boy?

          • RLH says:

            So why not answer the question then?

      • Entropic man says:

        Yes, we’re discussing the graph Ireneusz put up, which is from 80N; all sea ice and fairly simple physics.

        Take a bigger area and the interaction between ice, open water and land makes it more complicated.

        • Bindidon says:

          Entropic man

          ” … and the interaction between ice, open water and land makes it more complicated. ”

          Yes of course; but it moves closer to reality.

  53. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    What kind of winter in Australia?
    https://i.ibb.co/3Yq3SSn/gfs-nh-sat6-t2min-1-day.png

  54. Bindidon says:

    Stig Petersson

    You were asking upthread for a comparison of temperatures in (or near Bjoerklubb) with some other places at the same latitude of 64 degree (North and South).

    I finally found some stations with sufficient data for the last 50 years
    – Pitea / Sweden
    – Reykjavik / Iceland
    – Nome Muni AP /Alaska

    and

    – Base Marambio / Antarctic

    Here is the comparison using absolute temperatures

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VFmm34PlgXkGzNCT162ONOtkrR5S91JF/view

    and here is that for anomalies wrt 1981-2010

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CzqU-eT_Q_C_gtNgbRYww1qwcHpJEpwY/view

    Linear estimates in C per decade for 1971-2022:

    – Pitea: 0.27 +- 0.01
    – Reykjavik: 0.37 +- 0.01
    – Nome: 0.36 +- 0.01
    – Marambio: 0.27 +- 0.02

    *
    Source

    GHCN daily (raw data)

    https://tinyurl.com/yrd92bbd