UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2022: +0.36 deg. C

August 2nd, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2022 was +0.36 deg. C, up from the June, 2022 value of +0.06 deg. C.

 

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 19 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
2022 07 0.36 0.37 0.35 0.13 0.70 0.55 0.65

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


1,964 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2022: +0.36 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Nate says:

    Although we had the long-lasting double-dip La Nina, this year thru July is up 0.07 from the same period last year.

    • Harves says:

      Up 0.07 on last year!!! Aaaaahhh, were all going to diiiiiiieeee!!

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Any chance you could resort to a reasoned argument instead on nonsense?

        • Sarah says:

          I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
          Reading this article:>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/

    • Nate says:

      “were all going to diiiiiiieeee”

      No, but the dream that an extended La Nina period portends a great reversal of the long term warming trend seems to be in doubt.

      • RLH says:

        Individual months are well know to be variable around the ‘average’. Wait until the long term plays out. Unless you believe that somehow ENSO + a few months is not representative of global T.

        • Jimbo says:

          I’ve been reading this line on here for over a decade now… How’s that longer-term trend going? Or do you just prefer to keep stating how it WILL trend down ad nauseum…

      • Nate says:

        a period of 7 months is not an ‘individual month’.

        • RLH says:

          https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-tropics-1.jpeg

          shows what UAH has measured since 1979.

          From above we see:-

          Year Month Tropics
          2022 01 -0.24
          2022 02 -0.24
          2022 03 -0.08
          2022 04 -0.04
          2022 05 0.01
          2022 06 -0.36
          2022 07 0.13

        • Bill Hunter says:

          7 months is weather. 17 years is climate. we will know if we entered a cooling climate period today in August 2039.

          • Nate says:

            Alright, see you back here then! Take care.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Why? Seems to me the intelligent thing would be to stop talking about weather like it was climate. Seems that somebody needs to hang around to remind you of that.

          • Craig T says:

            We could look back to 2005 and see what the trend has been. It shows 0.2C per decade warming despite 2005 starting in El Nino conditions and the last two years being la Nina.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Yes Craig goes to show a lot of natural climate variation from multiple factors that can cause climate to change. Most impressive example in recent earth history is the Younger Dryas event where temperatures suddenly rose 10+-4C in 50 years. Many others exist also of temp changes from 4C to 10C where the effects have been seen on civilizations such as the Star Carr events.

            These are frequent in terms of the history of the Quaternary.

            In fact the larger examples of these events can be spaced it seems as little as 800 to 1000 years apart and is obvious in ice core proxy variation and the records of Star Carr and Greenland and temperature proxies of various types.

            Our current warming spell appears to be about 320 years long. Starting at the beginning of the 18th century warming rapidly for many decades then reverting to a hidden warming for nearly a 100 years as the warming climate slowly overcame feedback effects of continuing glaciation from the centuries of cooling prior to that.

            It shouldn’t be surprising that surface temperatures could remain flat due to a competition between ocean uptake of heat and increasing albedo. At least that is pretty mainstream thought.
            Increasing albedo continued to decelerate until the mid 19th century when it then began to decrease. The expected result would be surface temperatures to begin to rise again.

            If that is part of a thousand year cycle we are only 30% into it. Evidence is mixed as to whether warming occurs faster than cooling but if there is no difference we may still have 200 years of warming in the cards. So its hard to expect cooling anytime soon.

            What drives most predictions is a multi-decadal variation most prominently seen in the mid-20th century, modest warming followed by modest cooling. since this pattern is only around a very modest half degree it is hard to actually expect it as a regular occurrence. . . .but who knows?

          • Craig T says:

            “Yes Craig goes to show a lot of natural climate variation from multiple factors that can cause climate to change.”

            I hadn’t started looking at the factors yet – just pointing out that we could talk about climate and not write the changes off as weather.

          • Nate says:

            “Our current warming spell appears to be about 320 years long. Starting at the beginning of the 18th century warming rapidly for many decades then reverting to a hidden warming for nearly a 100 years as the warming climate slowly overcame feedback effects of continuing glaciation from the centuries of cooling prior to that.”

            As usual, Bill just makes up nonsense and declares it as if it is a fact.

            We have learned not to take him seriously.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Craig T says:

            ”Yes Craig goes to show a lot of natural climate variation from multiple factors that can cause climate to change.”
            I hadnt started looking at the factors yet just pointing out that we could talk about climate and not write the changes off as weather.

            —————————–
            No problem with that. We are apparently on the same page of what constitutes climate even if it is rather poorly defined. Using 17 years at least is widely accepted as per Ben Santer and his contention that it is at least a multi-decadal phenomena.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:
            As usual, Bill just makes up nonsense and declares it as if it is a fact.

            We have learned not to take him seriously.
            ——————
            As usual Nate you lack any kind of an argument at all.

            320 years of warming is perfectly consistent with instrument records and the effects of changing albedo is widely accepted in the science community and can be seen today in Arctic warming vs Antarctic warming.

          • Nate says:

            ” then reverting to a hidden warming for nearly a 100 years ”

            DO SHOW us a source for this ‘fact’ Bill.

            If not, then admit that it is just invented and declared as if it is a fact.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            We see the opposite effect occuring in the Arctic currently.

            Check here Nate. NASA says: ”The ice-albedo feedback is a very strong positive feedback.”
            https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/

            See Nate if you pay attention you can learn something new every day! Isn’t that cool!

          • Nate says:

            As noted, you show no source to back up your made up nonsense ‘then reverting to a hidden warming for nearly a 100 years.”

            Your posts can be safely ignored.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            yep Nate says move along folks there is nothing to see here.

            I guess thats so if you are a moron. But we had for almost 100 years flat temperatures and advancing ice sheets.

            the ice sheets were still advancing coming out of the LIA. That is well documented on every glacier measured during that period. People were trying and failing to sail through the Northwest Passage on the basis of ‘intel’ gathered that it was there.

            So temperatures were flat and albedo was increasing – according to albedo theories held by science that must mean there was a large imbalance and there was a ‘missing’ cooling.

            Same deal as today where ice sheets are decreasing and they think there is a ‘missing warming’ so they used models to calculate an imbalance.

            Nate you have to learn to not go by what people say but by what they do. Like Newton. Him saying the moon rotates on its axis doesn’t amount to a science-based investigation of the matter. In science you have to be consistent. . . .what you say and what you want to do science on doesn’t.

          • Nate says:

            Still more nonsense, and, shockingly, still no source for it.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            I guess you don’t know how to click on a link Nate.

            Here I will post it again. Ask your daddy how to open it.

            https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/

          • Nate says:

            Nope.

            you show no source to back up your made up nonsense then reverting to a hidden warming for nearly a 100 years.”

            Now go play in traffic.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Geez Nate could you add 2+2 if you hadn’t had your daddy do it for you and you memorized the answer?

          • Nate says:

            “The ice-albedo feedback is a very strong positive feedback.”

            Yep. If there is warming, the ice-albedo effect enhances it. It cannot produce a ‘hidden warming’

            Your claim makes no sense. No one other than YOU have asserted such nonsense.

            Thanks again for playing, Bill. Goobye.

          • Craig T says:

            “Like Newton. Him saying the moon rotates on its axis doesn’t amount to a science-based investigation of the matter.”

            It took seven days for the Moon to rotate back into the conversation.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”The ice-albedo feedback is a very strong positive feedback.”

            Yep. If there is warming, the ice-albedo effect enhances it. It cannot produce a hidden warming
            ——————————

            Geez you don’t understand this at all! The ice albedo effect results in a warming influence via radiation when ice is shrinking.

            Therefore when its expanding it creates a cooling influence. An effect as fundamental in physics as there is. When things go up they also come down!

            And you really don’t understand that??? Freaking amazing! You really need somebody to verify that for you?? ROTFLMAO!!!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Craig T says:

            It took seven days for the Moon to rotate back into the conversation.
            ————————
            Seven days? Not hardly!

          • Nate says:

            “Therefore when its expanding it creates a cooling influence. An effect as fundamental in physics as there is. When things go up they also come down!”

            As YOU claimed, “Starting at the beginning of the 18th century warming rapidly for many decades”

            Warming produces RECEDING arctic sea ice. That produces a positive albedo feedback, and further warming.

            You offer no rationale for the ice to start expanding again, and creating ‘a cooling influence’ many decades after the warming started.

            Logic fails you, again.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Warming produces RECEDING arctic sea ice. That produces a positive albedo feedback, and further warming.

            You offer no rationale for the ice to start expanding again, and creating a cooling influence many decades after the warming started.

            Logic fails you, again.
            ————————
            Yes warming eventually melts ice. . . .but first the feedback from the cooling has to run its course. You know like in ‘feedback’ comes ‘after’? I guess you didn’t know that.

            Should be obvious that if positive feedback to cooling is observed and no warming is occurring. . . .that the warming and cooling feedback are cancelling each other out. Obviously you don’t have an alternative explanation.

          • Nate says:

            “Should be obvious ”

            It isnt obvious to me how you can get warming for several decades, then pause for 100 y, then get sustained, faster warming, with this vague model.

            Come back when you have worked that out.

            The alternative is that the first warming is natural recovery from the Maunder minimum of solar activity.

            The second warming is AGW.

            There is a nice theory for this and lots of confirming evidence.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”It isnt obvious to me how you can get warming for several decades, then pause for 100 y, then get sustained, faster warming, with this vague model.”
            ———————————-
            Why not? After the glaciation stopped increasing it reversed direction. Why wouldn’t that create sustained positive warming feedback?
            —————–
            —————–
            —————–
            Nate says:
            ”Come back when you have worked that out.”
            ———————
            I suppose I could follow science precedence and just pick a factor to multiply the warming by. . . .like ‘3x’ as a substitute for a quantified blueprint of how it actually works.

            —————–
            —————–
            —————–
            Nate says:
            ”The alternative is that the first warming is natural recovery from the Maunder minimum of solar activity.

            The second warming is AGW.

            There is a nice theory for this and lots of confirming evidence.”
            ——————————–
            Beyond the fact that there is fossil fuel emissions and the use of a 3rd grader radiation model which has been debunked many times over the years. . . .what evidence are you referring to?

            And of course it doesn’t have to be black or white. There can be multiple causes for warming.

          • Nate says:

            “Why not?”

            Sorry, Bill, your model cannot, logically, explain the 3 phases.

          • Nate says:


            the use of a 3rd grader radiation model
            which has been debunked many times”

            As I noted to Vaughan Pratt:

            Well, if you are saying that the real GHE must include lapse rate, I agree. As does climate science. And in fact the true GHE theory does incorporate it. The notion that it is purely radiative is over-simplified, a CARTOON version that ignorant skeptics think, if debunked, then climate science is debunked. Not so.

            It seems you are putting yourself squarely in the ignorant skeptics category.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:
            ”Sorry, Bill, your model cannot, logically, explain the 3 phases.”

            ———————-
            thats incorrect! 3 phases is only the most simplistic example. real world examples probably have a lot more phases due to many other feedbacks and internal variations.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ” Bill:”the use of a 3rd grader radiation model
            which has been debunked many times”

            As I noted to Vaughan Pratt:

            Well, if you are saying that the real GHE must include lapse rate, I agree. As does climate science. And in fact the true GHE theory does incorporate it. The notion that it is purely radiative is over-simplified, a CARTOON version that ignorant skeptics think, if debunked, then climate science is debunked. Not so.
            ———————-
            Oh its debunked alright! What is debunked?

            1) The 3rd grader radiation model! A model that doesn’t include all ‘necessary’ variables is simply WRONG!

            2) It debunks Climate Science in their claim that the the physics behind the GHE is settled. They acknowledge that the 3rd grader model doesn’t work unless there is a lapse rate. But at no point do they explain exactly exactly where warming occurs and what physical process explains its occurrence. They claim a modification of the lapse rate (hot spot) but they don’t explain the physics of it nor can they point to a changing lapse rate. the only way I am aware of how to change the lapse rate is put more water vapor in the atmosphere, then it changes to the moist lapse rate and things at the surface tend to get warmer. then they revert to the 3rd grader radiation model to get cold CO2 to warm water and evaporate more.
            —————
            —————
            —————-

            Nate says:
            ”It seems you are putting yourself squarely in the ignorant skeptics category.”
            ——————–
            Thats really hilarious! Sort of the pot calling the kettle black. But in this case its the pot that can’t see through the propaganda. Lindzen scoffs at the lapse rate argument. Pretty hilarious when your debate opponent retreats behind a skirt.

          • Nate says:

            “1) The 3rd grader radiation model! A model that doesnt include all ‘necessary’ variables is simply WRONG!”

            More BS from Bill. WTF is this model? Show us where ‘climate science’ uses this model.

            “They acknowledge that the 3rd grader model doesnt work unless there is a lapse rate. But at no point do they explain exactly exactly where warming occurs and what physical process explains its occurrence. ”

            Who is they, Bill? Show me a quote of ‘climate science’ ‘not explaining’ any of these things.

            We’ve discussed GHE models before. Your track is to misunderstand, misconstrue, or just make it up.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            More BS from Bill. WTF is this model? Show us where climate science uses this model.
            ———————-
            Nate continues his retreat from: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334057

            Its a near rout as he only occasionally posts a rear guard post and pretends he isn’t a major defender of the model as he madly scrambles for the ‘lapse rate’ heights where the model continues to be used in as low of a profile manner possible.
            ———————-
            ———————-
            ———————-
            ———————-
            ———————-
            ———————-
            Nate says:

            Who is they, Bill? Show me a quote of climate science not explaining any of these things.
            ———————-
            Didn’t M&W just get a Nobel Prize for doing the math? A.P. Smith must feel miffed that M&W would get it without doing the math.
            ———————-
            ———————-
            ———————-
            ———————-
            ———————-
            ———————-
            Nate says:

            Weve discussed GHE models before. Your track is to misunderstand, misconstrue, or just make it up.
            ——————-
            You mean I have mounted such a flank attack on your position above that you find yourself in retreat?

            Don’t feel bad Nate. Halpern also failed to relevantly respond to G&T. Arrhenius failed to respond to R.W Woods. You refuse to defend your ‘brick in the middle of the room model’ beyond waving your arms and trying to meekly claim it is irrelevant without going into any detail.

    • Truthteller says:

      Is there a way to donate? I click on the donate and get a message that the link is broken.

    • Qinghan says:

      I am very interested in knowing why and how La Nina and El Nino are formed, although I believe it is the result of huge amount of waste heat from human activities (about 80% of global energy consumption) that over 90% has been accumulated in oceans.

      Meanwhile, I still believe that waste heat caused the warming. According to thermodynamics, the temperature changes in air, land and oceans as well as the sea level rise are well correlated to this waste heat, while CO2 and air temperature anomalies doesn’t have any correlation. The details can be found here https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=118741.

  2. Antonin Qwerty says:

    Richard M 2 months ago after the update for May of +0.17:
    “The next two months will likely stay close to this value as the SSTs were fairly flat”

    Next two months:
    June +0.06
    July +0.36

    Neither was close.

    • G Courtney says:

      The average of 0.06 and 0.36 is 0.21.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Wow – “I made two mistakes but look – I can make the errors cancel out if I average them.”
        Can you see a prediction of the average in that comment?

        • WizGeek says:

          @Antonin-Q: It seems there is a friction over what “close to this value” means. If, for example, “close” means +/- 0.2 degrees, then Richard-M’s assertion would stand. Richard-M will need to be more specific about what “close to this value” means before his assertion can be deemed invalid.

    • PCman999 says:

      Less than a fifth of a degree change is not clise enough for you?

      Really the whole climate change emergency is just panic about background noise in the temperature data. 1, 2, or even 3 or 4 C change over a hundred years when the baseline is about 15C or more properly when dealing with heat, 288K – at worst 1 part in 73 variation. Yawn.

      • Nate says:

        ” at worst 1 part in 73 variation. Yawn.”

        A change similar to the change since 20,000 y ago, when a kilometer of ice covered NY city, is Yawn?

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Gads Nate! You are predicting a kilometer of ice on top of New York!!!! When is this going to occur?

        • Nate says:

          You can’t read, Bill.

          And once again are claiming BS that I never said!

          Now stop being a loser-troll.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:
            ”You cant read, Bill.

            And once again are claiming BS that I never said!

            Now stop being a loser-troll.”
            ——————
            IMHO, a loser troll would be somebody who tries to ridicule somebody who pointed out the absurdity of concern about a recent warming of .2 of a degree over the past 17 years by comparing it to the end of the ice age.

          • Nate says:

            A troll lies about and distorts what other people said in order to ridicule them.

            You did that here, Bill.

            Thus you are a troll, but not very good at it, since the lie and the distortion are plainly obvious for all to see, and the ridicule is neither clever nor funny.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Thus you are a troll, but not very good at it, since the lie and the distortion are plainly obvious for all to see, and the ridicule is neither clever nor funny.
            ——————–
            Which lie, which distortion?

            I just asked a question. You just recognized it as ridiculous but it led directly from your trolling as to how ridiculous it is respond to somebody suggesting .2c warming over a couple decades was insignificant by making a stupid and blatant attempt to try to make it look significant.

            I was just feeding you back your own garbage. . . .and you choked on it. Congratulations!

          • Nate says:

            Go troll your mom, Bill.

          • Nate says:

            “who pointed out the absurdity of concern about a recent warming of .2 of a degree over the past 17 years by comparing it to the end of the ice age.”

            Lets see what the poster actually said that I responded to:

            “1, 2, or even 3 or 4 C change over a hundred years when the baseline is about 15C or more properly when dealing with heat, 288K at worst 1 part in 73 variation. Yawn.”

            4 C IS INDEED comparable to the ~ 5 C global change since the ice age.

            So, again, YOU can’t read, distort and lie about what I said, and do it with 5th grade level ‘humor’.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            so in your mind Nate ”1, 2, or even 3 or 4 C” change was the estimated change brought by the last glacial? To my knowledge that is only one tenth to one fifth the temperature change was during the last glacial.

          • Nate says:

            ” To my knowledge”

            And therein lies your problem….as always.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            I suppose you are one of those nutcases that think New York is going to be buried under a kilometer of ice due to global warming too.

            Makes sense since all this panic about climate change involves . . . any climate change. Like everything else what it is about is Total Control!

          • Nate says:

            “I suppose you”

            And therein lies your other problem..as ever.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nater I am not the nutcase running around equating 1, 2, or even 3 or 4 C climate change to New York being under a kilometer of ice!

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1342586

  3. Clint R says:

    Interesting that there’s so much “agreement” between areas this month. For example look at

    NHEM 0.37
    SHEM 0.35

    and,

    USA48 0.70
    ARCTIC 0.55
    AUST 0.65

    Typically these areas can vary quite a bit from each other.

    Just a statistical oddity, I suppose….

  4. bdgwx says:

    We’re told that UAH lags ENSO by about 5 months. ONI was -0.94 and MEI was -0.97 in February. Yet here we are with July at +0.36 C or 0.14 C above the trendline. We are no where close to going below 0 C on the old 1981-2010 baseline or even the new 1991-2020 baseline. I am rooting for the rare triple dip La Nina though. I want to see just how low UAH can go.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      The 4 out of 7 models that predict another La Nina all seem to be predicting a weak borderline event. So I don’t think we will get very low anomalies/

    • Bill Hunter says:

      bdgwx says:
      I am rooting for the rare triple dip La Nina though. I want to see just how low UAH can go.
      ==========================

      Probably not very low this is a pretty weak La Nina cycle. there isn’t a lot of evidence that ENSO can have much longterm effect over a projected 30 month La Nina cycle. Icecore records suggest cooling occurs far more slowly than warming. https://energyeducation.ca/wiki/images/8/8f/Ice_ages2.gif

      Transition to glacial periods look like they take at least 5 times longer than the warming takes. Doesn’t look too much like orbital variation to me.

      • Sig says:

        The reasons for the rapid warming and slower cooling during glacials/interglacials are quite well understood. Links very well to orbital variations.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          So you are saying the planet changes its orbit by slowly moving away from the sun, then it quickly zips back in closer? I get that there is more than one kind of orbital change, but to have several interglacials all have a similar pattern to above seems rather interesting. Can you explain that or are you just going with your inculcated viewpoint.

  5. bdgwx says:

    Also, this is the 2nd warmest July in the UAH record. The first is 1998 of +0.38 C in which 1998/02 had an ONI and MEI of +1.93 and +2.43 respectively. We were only 0.02 C away despite 2022/02 having an ONI and MEI of -0.94 C and -0.97 C respectively. What will the next July look like when ENSO is strongly positive?

  6. Bellman says:

    A surprisingly warm July given the continuing negative ENSO conditions.

    This was the 2nd warmest July in the data set and only 0.02C cooler than the record set in 1998. Of the top 10, or even 15, warmest July’s, only one was before the 21st century.

    • Denny says:

      Looks like a repeat of the 1930s and continuing to come out of the Little Ice Age. In a few months we will return to flattish for a few decades.

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYY3u4uaUAAICNr?format=jpg&name=large

      • Bindidon says:

        Denny

        Your comparison is doubly flawed:

        – you compare the Globe (oceans included) with the US (2 % of it)
        – you compare anomalies with absolute data.

        The same flaw you obtain when comparing for CONUS descending sorts of

        – the absolute TMAX values

        1936 7 32.86
        1934 7 32.75
        1980 7 32.68
        1901 7 32.61
        1931 7 32.53
        1930 7 32.40
        1937 8 32.23
        1917 7 32.13
        1910 7 32.11
        1954 7 32.10

        to

        – the TMAX anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010

        1910 3 4.36
        1954 2 3.56
        2012 3 3.43
        2006 1 3.36
        2021 12 3.34
        1939 12 3.25
        1930 2 3.02
        1999 11 2.88
        2017 2 2.82

        This makes no sense, let alone at the Globe’s level.

  7. Aaron S says:

    La Nina is still going strong, and it is likely to persist through summer and perhaps into the winter. So with lag of 5months,the cool temperatures on L troposphere global temperature will likely persist until next year (2023). Obviously, there is always noise in the system on a month to month basis, but this is an interesting phase of luke warm temperatures.

    “The trade winds re-strengthened over the second half of June (2022), and remain stronger than average as we go to press. This will likely help to cool the surface, and may contribute to an upwelling Kelvin wave, a region of cooler-than-average subsurface water that moves west to east. Along with being a sign that La Nias amped-up Walker circulationthe atmospheric response to La Nias cooler sea surfaceis still present, the stronger trades are a source of confidence in the forecast for La Nia to continue through the summer.”

    Climate dot gov ENSO blog

  8. bdgwx says:

    Using the Monckton method…

    The pause period (0 C/decade or less) is at 94 months (7 years, 10 months).

    The doubled warming period (+0.26 C/decade or greater) is at 186 months (15 years, 6 months).

    The peak warming period (+0.33 C/decade) is at 140 months (11 years, 8 months).

    The positive warming period (0 C/decade or greater) is at 524 months (43 years, 8 months).

  9. Mark Shapiro says:

    Well Dr. Roy’s data confirms what is pretty obvious. July 2022 was brutally hot across the globe.

    Climate Change drove killer heat waves during the month and continues to do so this month. These heat waves are particularly dangerous for older adults and young children. I’ve posted a video on the dangers for seniors. Here’s the link.

    https://youtu.be/FpmMEn0pmmQ

    Climate Change also has been driving dangerous wildfire conditions, and I’ve posted a video on how the northern hemisphere has been affected. Here’s the link:

    https://youtu.be/laeiVoSAcdE

    Happy viewing, Dr. Mark

    • Captain Climate says:

      You’re a doctor of what precisely? There is no link between climate change and these heat waves, and if you assert it, you are a fraud.

      • Clint R says:

        If “Dr” Mark is not a fraud, he’s trying awfully hard to be one.

        He comments here monthly, and links to his alarmist videos. He knows NOTHING about climate, or the related physics. When asked to describe the GHE, he rambled in such a way that would make Norman proud, and ended with the fact that a hot vacuum tube can burn your hand is “proof” of the GHE!

        “You can do a simple experiment to understand this. Take an old-fashioned vacuum tube. Put a finger on the surface of the vacuum tube. Run a large enough current through the filament of the tube so that it just begins to glow red. You will be able to feel the temperature of the glass envelope increase. Since there is no air in the tube, it is only the photons emitted by the filament that warm the envelope.”

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          clint…quote from Dr. Mark…”You will be able to feel the temperature of the glass envelope increase. Since there is no air in the tube, it is only the photons emitted by the filament that warm the envelope.

          ***

          We both know Doc Mark’s analysis is way of here. Each element within a vacuum tube has to be brought out to the real world by metal pins. Each vacuum tube has metal pins on the bottom of it to apply voltages to the internal elements and to retrieve current from the anode. Also, to apply voltage to the heaters that glow red.

          All the heat produced exits the tube via the metal pins. Even though the tube is evacuated, the glass is well-sealed around the pins. Guess what??? Heat flows through metal pins as well as electrical current, ergo, the glass heats directly from the heat in the pins.

          I might add that the sockets into which the tubes are inserted can get mighty hot as well. I have seen bakelite tube bases burned out and ceramic bases get discoloured by the heat.

          On top of that, the heated filament in a vacuum tube, which produces most of the heat, is surrounded by a metal cylinder, the anode. IR cannot travel through metal, therefore any IR emitted by the filament will be absorbed by the anode cylinder

          Same with light bulbs. A 100 watt bulb uses 100 watts of electrical power and although the bulb is evacuated, heat from the tungsten filament flows down metal parts to the base and heats the glass.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “There is no link …”

        I will point out that, statistically speaking, your claim is AT LEAST as dubious as the other claim.

        There are two claims we could test.
        1) There IS a (statistically significant) link between climate change and the extreme heat waves.
        2) There IS NOT a (statistically significant) link between climate change and the extreme heat waves.

        Lack of a statistically significant link is not statistically significant evidence there is no link.

        (And the intuitive conclusion is that the increasing temperatures overall contribute to the high temperatures. It would take VERY strong evidence that temperatures have risen but that does NOT contribute to heat waves.)

        • Captain Climate says:

          The data does not show an increase in the frequency of heat waves in the first place, so the link doesnt exist by default, since (mild) warming is happening. When any of these alarmist can come up with a physical model for why Europe should get more heat waves because Siberia is 2C warmer on average or northernmost Quebec is slightly less freezing, I am willing to listen to it. Conflating weather and climate is not a good look.

          • Donald Dagenais says:

            Today, heat waves are more frequent, last longer, begin earlier in the season, extend later in the year, and are more intense.

            Basically, heat waves are just _more_ than they were in previous decades.

            The claim that there is no increase in frequency is just weird.

            For a quick visual of specifically US data, you can go to the EPA/Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves page

  10. Scott R says:

    This reading comes as a surprise with the tropics still cool and the arctic ice seeming very stable. Earth spin rate showing ice mass still building at the poles. This was not only the 2nd hottest reading for July, but also the 2nd hottest reading period going by the absolute earth temperature. Remember we are dealing with departures from each month’s average. The earth is actually the warmest in July despite it being in it’s aphelion. It could still be a massive energy discharge before continuing the drop from the 2016 highs. We’ve seen these pops before and they are not usually sustained. Still, challenging the 1998 record which happened during a record el nino during a la nina is a significant occurrence. Even folks on the warmist train should be wondering how the earth might have warmed so much month over month. I hope Dr Spencer double checked all of these numbers as it seems like all regions popped higher at nearly the same amounts… an unusual occurrence worthy of a double check.

  11. Ken says:

    -62C at Antarctic today.

    By all account the ice is melting dramatically but I doubt it.

    • Captain Climate says:

      Yes but although it’s -62C the ice identifies as 1C, so it’s melting.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      -62C over an entire area of 14 million square kilometres! How freakish!

    • Bindidon says:

      ” By all account the ice is melting dramatically but I doubt it. ”

      Please Ken, keep serious.

      While in the Arctic the ice doesn’t melt as much as usual, in the Antarctic the ice rebuilds less than usual.

      That’s all.

      The temperature measured by one or more weather stations at some given points is by no means an indicator for how ice melts or grows.

    • Nate says:

      Its the dead of winter in the coldest place on Earth. And the Antarctic has been in total darkness for a few months.

      And people are surprised that ice is frozen there??

      • Anglia says:

        Ive earned $17,370 merely 21 days simply working small tasks from a laptop.Immediately once cdx I lost my last career,t5 I was so perturbed but finally Ive found this best project and with this Im able to achieve thousands simply from home. Anyone certainly can avail this job & may earn more greenbacks on-line heading
        following page.. http://getpay244.blogspot.com

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I get your humour but we need to remind the unwary that climate alarmists have found a location on the Antarctic Peninsular, near the latitude of the tip of South America, where a slight warming has taken place. Objective scientists point out it is caused by ocean activity but alarmists continue to flock there with thermometers clutched in their cheating hands. They lack the courage to move onto the Antarctic mainland to do their measurements.

      We also need to remind them of the words of polar expert, Duncan Wingham…”It is far to cold for ice to melt in Antarctica”.

  12. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    It is likely that La Nina will strengthen by November, when water from melting sea ice in the south will feed the surface Humboldt Current.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2022&month=08

  13. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The jet stream pulls lows with precipitation from the Indian Ocean to Australia, which is why Australia’s average temperature overstates the global average.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…it is well-known that BOM is as much a climate alarmist cheater as NOAA and NASA GISS. They have obviously fudged Australian temps to make them look warmer.

  14. gbaikie says:

    I thought it would be cooler mostly due to lack of hurricanes.
    I have not followed or know much hurricanes, but I thought there should more of them, and it continue none are expected in next 48 hours:
    https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

    I am guessing if this continue thru Aug, it might be even more odd?

    Or I am expecting more to at least start to form in August.
    There was something earlier dust getting to Europe from Africa, does
    dust have anything to do it?

  15. Willard says:

    Happy 10th anniversary to Tonys pre-print, which Senior presented as a game changer:

    http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-10th-anniversary-of-still.html

    Perhaps he meant a changeup pitch.

    • bobdroege says:

      It’s obvious where he screwed the pooch, people like to live in warm places, that explains the UHI effect completely.

  16. Anglia says:

    good

  17. Anglia says:

    Ive earned $17,370 merely 21 days simply working small tasks from a laptop.Immediately once cdx I lost my last career, I was so perturbed but finally Ive found this best project and with this Im able to achieve thousands simply from home. Anyone certainly can avail this job & may earn more greenbacks on-line heading following page..

    • Anglia says:

      Ive earned $17,370 merely 21 days simply working small tasks from a laptop.Immediately once cdx I lost my last career,y6 I was so perturbed but finally Ive found this best project and with this Im able to achieve thousands simply from home. Anyone certainly can avail this job & may earn more greenbacks on-line heading
      following page.. http://getpay244.blogspot.com

  18. It’s a bit strange that the satellite temperature is up 0,3 degrees while the 2 meter temperature is the same as for June.

  19. martha says:

    Where is the hockey stick?

    Isn’t the end of times coming around in a decade or less?

    I mean, come on, there is PLENTY of data by now.

    • Bindidon says:

      The hockey stick is still there, but… still no end of times coming around in a decade or less. Sorry.

    • Eben says:

      Just saw an article about the Mann’s hockey stick being discarded and replaced with new reconstructions that restores the Medieval Warm Period and the little ice age, except I don’t remember where it was

    • barry says:

      Whoever wrote the article did a piss-poor job then.

      MBH99:

      “Our reconstruction thus supports the notion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in the millennium, while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age.”

      • Eben says:

        It doesn’t matter who wrote it , the charts were the latest from official government agencies, it’s your piss-poor reply linking to 28 years old page

      • barry says:

        “Mann’s hockey stick”

        is what I linked to. The one that supposedly didn’t include MWP and LIA according to whatever dross article you read.

        Completely unsurprised you didn’t even recognize the material your article criticizes. Par for the course for skeptics.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      martha…the original MBH98/99 hockey stick was discarded by the IPCC after a ruling by the National Academy of Science and an expert statistician, Wegmann, declared it seriously inaccurate.

      NAS told MBH that they could not base the 20th century reconstructions on pine tree bristlecone, as they had done. Without the 20th century they had no blade for the stick and a good portion of the handle was missing. NAS also told them they could not apply their proxy data after 1600 AD, mainly because one of the years before that relied on one tree for the entire annual reconstruction.

      The IPCC re-based the hockey stick in 1850 and added so many error bars it became known as the spaghetti graph. They also re-instated the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that had been omitted by MBH to make the shaft of the stick seem straight.

      What MBH was left with in the end was a portion of the hockey stick between 1600 and 1900 AD.

      Here’s one example of a spaghetti graph.

      https://climateaudit.org/2004/10/26/spaghetti-diagrams/

      An explanation by Steve McIntyre of climateaudit on the IPCC graph…

      https://climateaudit.org/2007/05/15/swindle-and-the-ipcc-tar-spaghetti-graph/

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ps. if you look at the 2nd link, you can see what’s really wrong with the hockey stick…

        https://climateaudit.org/2007/05/15/swindle-and-the-ipcc-tar-spaghetti-graph/

        MBH shows a slight negative trend from 1000 AD to 1850 AD, of about 2/10ths C. Similar proxy data reveals that the dip in global temps was 1C to 2C between about 1300 AD and 1850 AD, when the LIA ended. Furthermore, proxy data shows the Medieval warm period circa 1000 AD as being at least equivalent to today.

        There is better evidence for this mini-ice age than proxy data. Across the globe, glaciers increased in length and girth dramatically. The Mer de Glace in the Alps progressed down a valley, wiping out villages and farms that had been long established.

        There are written reports about the extent of the cold that produced crop failures in the Scottish highlands and in North America. Arctic explorers reported on how locked the channels f the Northwest Passage were with ice, during summer months.

        What is not clearly shown is that MBH, the dark blue line, ended around 1960. That’s when the proxy data temps were falling while real temps were rising. So, you see the fudged blue upturn then the red so-called Industrial average takes over.

        That was referred to as Mann’s trick in the climategate email scandal, meaning he hid declining proxy temperatures by splicing in real temperatures. Phil Jones of Had-crut bragged about using the same trick.

        This is apparently the IPCC version from TAR, the Third Assessment (review). The IPCC are claiming, with the red curve that during the LIA temps only dropped about 0.5C below average at best. That is a blatant lie according to many proxy studies, the red curve being based on them in the early days as well.

        The point is, what was the average they are using as a baseline? Global temps are shown to increase dramatically from 1850 onward and it is blamed on a trace gas, CO2. They are claiming, essentially, that the 400 year LIA was par for the course and that CO2 suddenly warmed the planet.

        Geophysicist, Syun Akasofu, has called them on that false claim. He pointed out that re-warming occurred naturally from the LIA and the IPCC did not acknowledge it. MBH completely ignored the LIA as well as warming from it.

        The truth is that Mann, who led MBH, had just received his degree and was totally incapable of understanding the statistical analysis involved. He was revealed as a nincompoop, first by McIntyre and McKitrick, then by NAS, and Wegmann, after complaints from M&M went unheeded by the IPCC. Finally, the US government interceded by appointing NAS and Wegmann to investigate.

      • Willard says:

        C’mon, Gordo.

        There’s so many things you got wrong.

        The NAS panel has nothing to do with the IPCC.

        Mike did not testify on the NAS panel.

        MBH starts in 1400.

        The IPCC did not “rebase” in 1850.

        Among the recons, MBH shows one of the biggest MWP.

        Please stop trying to soapbox about your weight.

    • Mark Wapples says:

      The hockey stick is still there.

      But looking at the data it appears that the blade has dropped down and we are seeing a levelling off in the temp rise.

      • Nate says:

        Can you show us what you are talking about?

        • Bill Hunter says:

          I would be interested in what Mark can bring forward. But what we have seen since 2000 is a doubling of the rate of increase in CO2 emissions over the 1990 to 2000 rate of increase from a 3.5gt per decade increase to 7gt per decade increase.

          So is there any evidence of an increase in the rate of warming from this? Seems to me it should have doubled if the mainstream compromised institutional view on this were correct. Can you show us that doubling Nate? I haven’t seen hide nor hair of it.

          Of course China alone provided almost 60% of that increase and China and India combined provided about 2/3rds of the total increase.

          Meanwhile the US reduced its emissions in the last 2 decades by 10%. China emissions passed the US in 2005 and is now more than twice that of the US. How much do we hear from the democrats about that? Nothing!

          IMHO, the way forward is to look at efficiency of emissions and to begin to reward efficiency to a material degree, rather than penalize inefficiency. US GDP efficiency is 129% that of China. So penalizing US GDP simply increases any problem from emissions rather than decreasing it. Is that a conspiracy?

          the US has followed a unilateral policy of penalizing the US poor people by raising the cost everything. Our homeless population is almost entirely attributable to the twin evils of regressive legislation and substance abuse with the regressive legislation strongly feeding the substance abuse problem.

          This is classic control philosophy. Treat the population like a mushroom farm by keeping it in the dark and feeding it shit.

  20. Neil says:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDYOC004.gif

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDYOC003.gif

    These are links to BOM Australia maps of global ocean temperatures to depth of 400m and 150m.

    If you look at the anomalies at the bottom is seems to me that a lot of the ocean heat has been pushed to the ocean surface and then evaporated into the atmosphere, over the last month.

    These maps were published August 1st

  21. gbaikie says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 532.5 km/sec
    density: 9.13 protons/cm3
    Daily Sun: 02 Aug 22
    Sunspot number: 32
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 12.82×10^10 W Neutral
    https://www.spaceweather.com/

    Not much of solar Max conditions.
    Still might get a spotless day, but
    I think it will pick and get use to
    150 and + sunspots fairly soon [few weeks] and:

    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: +2.3% Elevated
    48-hr change: +1.1%

    This kind what I thought it would do, if it
    gets to +5, then not what thought it would do,
    or still somewhat low {but historical high for Solar Max}
    So long as it’s +5 or more and lasting for weeks it’s not
    going add much to astronauts lifetime radiation limits and I think
    will get -3 or lower within few weeks and last a long time below
    0.
    They got july:
    https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
    Aug should jump up quite a bit

    • Eben says:

      The Sun activity is flat for the last 4 month, and almost dead right now, some think it could be already the first of the double peaks

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 401.5 km/sec
      density: 6.06 protons/cm3
      Daily Sun: 04 Aug 22
      Sunspot number: 52
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 12.86×10^10 W Neutral
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: +2.3% Elevated
      48-hr change: +0.1%
      “FARSIDE SUNSPOT: There is a sunspot on the farside of the sun so big it is changing the way the sun vibrates. ”
      https://www.spaceweather.com/

      Well probably not going to get a day or more of spotless.
      But seems we going to get something like a Solar Max.
      And sunspots numbers are going to go up.
      And Neutron Counts going to go down and we will get our thermosphere heating up.
      August could be exciting in many ways- and maybe, in some ways which are good.

      • gbaikie says:

        Made me look at Parker Solar probe.
        {It currently back out near Venus distance, but will back fairly near the sun, let’s see: September 6, 2022: Perihelion #13}
        Anyhow:
        Parker Solar Probe Mission Earns International Academy of Astronautics Laurels Team Award
        Posted on 07/28/2022 15:58:09
        http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/Show-Article.php?articleID=178
        ” …
        A mission six decades in the making, Parker Solar Probe was enabled by innovative technology and engineering elements, including a durable and lightweight thermal protection system, water-cooled solar panels, a robust autonomy system, large solid-state data recorders, and a state-of-the-art payload.

        Already demonstrating the durability of its robust design, Parker Solar Probe has made numerous discoveries, including the myriad of energetic kinks in the solar magnetic field called “switchbacks,” the dust-free zone near the Sun predicted nearly a century ago, energetic-particle events produced by the Sun even when it is quiet, and a circumsolar dust ring along the orbit of Venus. “

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 542.4 km/sec
        density: 10.29 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 08 Aug 22
        Sunspot number: 87
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 13.21×10^10 W Neutral
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: +2.8% Elevated
        48-hr change: -0.3%

        Getting sunspots in northern hemisphere
        It seems like normal Solar Max- not a lot spots
        nor that going to be spotless, it seems there will
        less, and could get more in northern as compared to
        southern hemisphere on our near side.
        And it seems it will take longer to get to +150 sunspots
        It seems any change in duration sunspot activity- fading
        in a week or lasting more than month is a metric not given or
        that I am not aware of.

        • gbaikie says:

          Solar wind
          speed: 585.8 km/sec
          density: 12.55 protons/cm3
          Daily Sun: 10 Aug 22
          Sunspot number: 58
          Thermosphere Climate Index
          today: 13.53×10^10 W Neutral
          Oulu Neutron Counts
          Percentages of the Space Age average:
          today: +0.9% Elevated
          48-hr change: -2.0%
          https://www.spaceweather.com/

          Neutron Counts going down, and
          think it will continue to go down
          and seems likely will increase, though
          see nothing rotating to near side. It
          seems to me the spots could grow and eventually,
          days, other spots rotate to near side.

          It seems there has been higher density of solar wind, and
          no real clue, it means anything, but generally it seems we are back to growing in terms of Solar Max conditions.

  22. barry says:

    RLH,

    With your affection for the UAH temperature record and fixation on the relative strength of the 1998 and 2018 super el Ninos, I’m interested how you explain this.

    The warmest 3 years in the UAH LT record are:

    2016: 0.39
    2020: 0.36
    1998: 0.35

    2020 was the beginning of the trip-dip la Nina.

    How do you explain 2020 being warmer than 1998?

    • barry says:

      *2016

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      What’s to explain Barry…a tiny fraction of a degree C???

      Why is it that the averages of 1998, 2016, and 2020 were essentially the same with no obvious trend in between? That’s 22 years with no significant trend.

      • barry says:

        The trend from 1998 to present compared to 1979 to present is also different by a fraction of a degree C per year (2 thousandths). But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

    • barry says:

      You haven’t been around for the conversation, Gordon. RLH has pretty fixed ideas about super el Ninos and how they stand out from the intervening years.

      I’m curious to see how he explains 2020 being warmer than 1998 when it is a la Nina year.

      • RLH says:

        I am curious to see how the El Nino of 1998, 2010, 2016 and 2020 are compared. Why is it that 1998 is so small comparted to the others on everything other than UAH?

      • RLH says:

        Year Month Tropics
        2022 01 -0.24
        2022 02 -0.24
        2022 03 -0.08
        2022 04 -0.04
        2022 05 0.01
        2022 06 -0.36
        2022 07 0.13

        • RLH says:

          Year Mo Tropics
          2010 1 0.49
          2010 2 0.72
          2010 3 0.66
          2010 4 0.57
          2010 5 0.68
          2010 6 0.30
          2010 7 0.13

          2016 1 0.77
          2016 2 0.88
          2016 3 1.01
          2016 4 0.84
          2016 5 0.59
          2016 6 0.24
          2016 7 0.30

          2020 1 0.52
          2020 2 0.63
          2020 3 0.53
          2020 4 0.35
          2020 5 0.53
          2020 6 0.31
          2020 7 0.28

          • RLH says:

            Year Mo Tropics
            1998 1 1.04
            1998 2 1.15
            1998 3 1.03
            1998 4 1.09
            1998 5 0.86
            1998 6 0.48
            1998 7 0.28

      • barry says:

        RLH,

        What would be your explanation for 2020 being warmer than 1998 in the UAH temp record, despite 1998 being a super el Nino and 2020 being a la Nina year?

        Any chance you might answer the question?

        • RLH says:

          Any chance that the above observation is about the tropics as determined by UAH. Your ‘warmer’ statement does NOT apply to that.

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/?replytocom=1342525#respond

        • barry says:

          RLH,

          What would be your explanation for 2020 being warmer than 1998 in the UAH global temp record, despite 1998 being a super el Nino and 2020 being a la Nina year?

          Any chance you might answer the question?

          • RLH says:

            Any chance you might remember you saying that EL Nino/La Nina only really affected things in the tropics?

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1342547

          • barry says:

            RLH,

            I don’t think you are capable of answering this question, because facing this fact undoes much of the commentary you’ve made on the subject of the relation between ENSO and global temperature.

            I’m going to ask again the question that I opened this subthread with, and that you’ve strenuously avoided answering.

            What would be your explanation for 2020 being warmer than 1998 in the UAH global temp record, despite 1998 being a super el Nino and 2020 being a la Nina year?

          • RLH says:

            The question is not as simple as you seem to think it is. The figures in the Tropics that I quoted show that they do indeed follow El Nino/La Nina. That is hardly surprising.

            It would appear that the adage that global T follows ENSO with a lag of say 5 months is not so reliable as it first seems.

            Still as everybody will point out, one months data does not mean that much. The longer term ‘averages’ (such as the 5 year S-G trace) show that it is likely that the general trend is not going upwards in the near future.

            The future will tell who’s opinion is closer to the truth. We shall see won’t we.

          • barry says:

            I’m talking about a whole year’s worth of global data for 1998, a super el Nino year, and for 2020, a year that had no super el Nino but instead had a la Nina. The ENSO signal is much stronger and clearer in the tropics, obviously, but I’m asking you about global data based on your remarks about ENSO effects on global temperature.

            5 month lag isn’t going to explain it. The weak el Nino of 2019 finished in May/June.

            Can you not conceive of an explanation why 2020 was warmer than 1998 in the UAH global temperature record?

            Any theories at all why the UAH global data would show this to be the case? I’m really curious to see if you can come up with a reasonable hypothesis.

  23. Gordon Robertson says:

    It’s summer in the NH and a few days of extreme temperatures seems to have skewed the global average by a whole 3/10ths C. I wanted to turn on my thermostat to test the effect but found the thermostat does not have gradations that low.

    It’s notable that the extreme temperatures were caused by the La Nina that also causes cooling in places. That makes sense, what does not make sense is that a trace gas is causing a myriad of climate issues.

    • Clint R says:

      “…what does not make sense is that a trace gas is causing a myriad of climate issues.”

      Exactly Gordon, CO2 can NOT warm the planet. What makes sense is that there are agendas being carried out.

  24. Bellman says:

    As this keeps being argued on another site, it would be quite useful if Dr Spencer could say if there are any estimated uncertainties for the monthly UAH anomalies.

    Before long, someone will be claiming that the UAH data has a monthly uncertainty of at least plus or minus 1.4C.

    • Entropic man says:

      IIRC it’s somewhere in the documentation. The 95% confidence limits of the monthly values are about +/- 0.1C.

      Thus this month’s anomaly figure is 0.36C +/- 0.1C.

      • Entropic man says:

        For comparison Had*CRUT4 has a published uncertainty of +/- 0.1C and GISTEMP +/- 0.06C.

      • bdgwx says:

        Christy et al. 2003 say it +/- 0.20 for 95% CI. The problem is that assessment is almost 20 years old and for a previous version. I did a type A evaluation with RSS and got +/- 0.16 C.

        • Bellman says:

          Yes, that’s the assessment I keep being told, and it seems reasonable. But it’s for an older version. This version was supposed to improve the accuracy, but there’s no uncertainty published along side the reported monthly values.

          Meanwhile some on WUWT keep pulling unrealistic uncertainty values out of the air. I know it’s nonsense, but it would be useful if there was some “official” analysis to counter these claims.

          • bdgwx says:

            Absolutely. Many of the other datasets provide this information some (like Berkeley Earth) provide an uncertainty for each month individually.

          • RLH says:

            Is that uncertainty about the actual measurements or the number compared to the real ‘average’ temperature of the atmosphere from TOA to the surface, all over the Earth?

  25. Chris says:

    It looks more and more like step changes occur in the temperature record. Is that an artifact of the measurement or is it a real thing. And if it is a real thing – what causes those step changes? If it is an artifact the temperature record is more or less useless for anything.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      What do you get when you superimpose natural variation over a rising trend?
      Type y=x+sin(x) into google to see the answer.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ant…”Type y=x+sin(x) into google to see the answer”.

        ***

        What’s even more fun is to use Newton’s method for finding the roots of y = x + sin(x) graphically. If you draw the straight line y = x and the curve y = sin(x), they will intercept in at least two points. We are interested in the points where they intersect.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_method

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “If you draw the straight line y = x and the curve y = sin(x), they will intercept in at least two points. ”

          1) sin(x) and x intersect each other at exactly 1 point: (0,0)
          2) We are interested here in the shape of the curve x + Sin(x) and how it seem to go up in steps. We are not interested in where the curves intercept (or ‘intersect’).

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          y=sinx intersects y=kx at only one point for k>=1.
          If k<1 then there are rises and falls, but the rises are larger than the falls.
          No need for Newtons method if all you care about is whether there are zero, one, or more than one solution. Just differentiate sinx = kx to get cosx=k, and it's easy to see how many turning points there are.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            I should say … for | k | >= 1

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Are you forgetting the intercept at 0?

            If my range is 0 < or = x < or = 2pi the line y = x should intercept y = sinx at two points. If I make the range -2pi < or = x < or = +2pi, I should get three intercepts.

            Make sense? It's been a while since I dealt with this stuff.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            x=0 is the only solution to x=sinx. y=x is a tangent to the sine curve at the origin, so it is not possible to intersect anywhere else. The only way you can get intersections elsewhere is if you measure angles in some unit larger than a radian.

          • RLH says:

            sinx=0 twice in every cycle.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Which has little to do with when sinx=x

        • Nate says:

          The Fourier Spectrum of detrended UAH.

          https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/detrend:0.585/fourier/magnitude/low-pass:20/to:100/high-pass:1

          It shows a strong peak at harmonic 12, which corresponds to around 12 major oscillations during the entire UAH record.

          The UAH record has a trend and noise which is correlated over typically 2.5 y, due to ENSO.

          Thus with respect to Monckton Pauses, it could be expected to have around 11.

          But its just a property of any data with a trend and correlated noise.

      • Cheis says:

        So what is x modelling – and what is sin(x) modelling. You have just answered a question with a question.

    • gbaikie says:

      They say that more the 90% of all global warming is warming our cold 3.5 C average temperature ocean. It’s warmed by about .05 C in last several decades.
      If it is, then if the ocean gradually cooled than it would step down, also.
      The heat of ocean is roughly 1000 times heat of atmosphere.
      .01 C of ocean would be 10 times the total heat of 1 C increase of the atmosphere.
      It takes a long time to warm the ocean by .5 C but .5 C increase in Ocean temperature has big effects when you have a cold ocean. It wouldn’t change global climate much if ocean wasn’t so cold.
      The warmest times of past interglacial periods had ocean of at least 4 C. But we have had ocean of 5 C or more, within last couple million years.
      Since our interglacial period has been cooling for over 5000 years, it seems unlikely we will get a 4 C ocean.

      Some think increased CO2 levels will delay this cooling, and if ocean got close to 4 C, it should delay for many thousands of years.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “Is that an artifact of the measurement or is it a real thing. ”

      Or Option 3 — people are excellent at imagining patterns that are not really there. For example, a steady upward trend overlaid with various oscillations or noise will often appear to “jump” up rapidly. But until we apply some sort of statistical test to distinguish “true” step changes vs “imagined” step changes, we are really just speculating.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim…”Or Option 3 people are excellent at imagining patterns that are not really there”.

        ***

        Case in point, the IPCC and other alarmists, like yourself.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Chris…I have asked the same question in the past. There is a known step change of about 0.2C circa 1977 that many scientists wanted to discard as an error. It turned out to be the first indication of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

      You can see another step change following the 1998 super El Nino. Before the EN, there was a rewarming trend then after it, global temps jumped about 0.2C above the baseline.

      Following the 2016 super EN, there was another step change.

      All told, if those steps changes are summed, we have most of the pre -Industrial warming accounted for. Throw in rewarming from the Little Ice Age and we have it all accounted for by natural variability.

    • bdgwx says:

      To help illustrate how natural variability creates the pause-up-pause-up pattern I developed a simple 4 component model and trained the model to minimize the root mean square error of the monthly UAH TLT values. The model is as follows.

      T = -0.35 + [1.7*log2(CO2)] + [0.12*ENSOlag5] + [0.16*AMOlag3] + [-5.0*VolcanicAOD]

      The RMSE is 0.128 C which is surprisingly low since Christy et al. 2003 claim the monthly uncertainty to be +/- 0.10 C (1-sigma).

      Anyway, notice how ENSO, AMO, and volcanism provide the bulk of the variability while CO2 provides the bulk of upward trend.

      https://i.imgur.com/SiRHXMp.png

  26. Gordon Robertson says:

    This post seemed to get lost so I am reposting down here rather than trying to find it.

    clint…quote from Dr. Mark…”You will be able to feel the temperature of the glass envelope increase. Since there is no air in the tube, it is only the photons emitted by the filament that warm the envelope.

    ***

    We both know Doc Mark’s analysis is way of here. Each element within a vacuum tube has to be brought out to the real world by metal pins. Each vacuum tube has metal pins on the bottom of it to apply voltages to the internal elements and to retrieve current from the anode. Also, to apply voltage to the heaters that glow red.

    All the heat produced exits the tube via the metal pins. Even though the tube is evacuated, the glass is well-sealed around the pins. Guess what??? Heat flows through metal pins as well as electrical current, ergo, the glass heats directly from the heat in the pins.

    I might add that the sockets into which the tubes are inserted can get mighty hot as well. I have seen bakelite tube bases burned out and ceramic bases get discoloured by the heat.

    On top of that, the heated filament in a vacuum tube, which produces most of the heat, is surrounded by a metal cylinder, the anode. IR cannot travel through metal, therefore any IR emitted by the filament will be absorbed by the anode cylinder

    Same with light bulbs. A 100 watt bulb uses 100 watts of electrical power and although the bulb is evacuated, heat from the tungsten filament flows down metal parts to the base and heats the glass.

    • Clint R says:

      The point was, “Dr.” Mark had no clue what the GHE involves. He didn’t even know his own cult science. He was totally onboard, without a clue how it is claimed to work.

      So his example of a hot vacuum tube burning your fingers meant he believes CO2 can do the same. Like most of the cult, he believes ALL infrared can heat a surface. They even believe they can boil water with ice cubes!

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      Easy to demonstrate you are clueless and just make up false and misleading information based on nothing but your invalid opinion.

      Look at reality (actual science, something you do not understand…you think science is based upon your version of reality and not experimental data).

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhwORsv0rWY

      The have a 60 Watt bulb. The hottest part is at the top where the energy from the filament is directly heating the glass. If your invalid version was correct you would observe the base as warmer and the top would be the coolest. Will science and real experiments prevail or will by close your mind to your own fabrications.

      You and Clint R belong to the same cult. Make up stuff and reject any science or experiments that do not agree with your cult mentality.

      Why does Clint R constantly use cult minded. He knows it well because everyone of his idiotic posts is a cult minded lunancy.

      Neither of you have ever studied real science and are clueless of how it works. Both of you just make up false ideas by the dozen. I have demonstrated both of you wrong many times but nothing changes with the two of you. You continue in mindless cult programs and continue to make up false physics.

      • Clint R says:

        That’s another great rant Norman, full of insults and false accusations.

        As much as I enjoy your meltdown, don’t forget to find a valid technical reference that two fluxes arriving at a surface will result in the surface emitting the sum of the fluxes.

        You’ve said you ALWAYS support your beliefs.

        • Ken says:

          See the water boiled with ice cubes.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ2tPVSoiH0&t=15s

          Begone Troll

          • Clint R says:

            I already knew you didn’t understand any of this Ken.

            But further confirmation doesn’t hurt.

            Thanks.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ken…you are making fools of the good people of Vancouver Island. The argument presented about ice boiling water has always been about IR from the ice raising the temperature of water or any other object above the temperature of ice.

            We are talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The experiment to which you linked has nothing to do with anything we have discussed re ice. It does not prove that ice can raise the temperature of water by supplying it with heat.

            The nimrod in the video is using smoke and mirrors to state his case incorrectly. He had already and stupidly put water in a glass bottle and put it on a stove, albeit in a pan. After supplying the water in the bottle with heat from a considerably hot heat source, he then claimed the ice was causing the water to boil.

            Utter nimrodery. Water will boil at a lower temperature if you lower the pressure in its environment. The ice is not causing it to boil by adding heat to the water, it is actually cooling the base of the bottle, producing a partial vacuum. At no time is heat transferred from the ice to the water.

          • Ken says:

            Gordon, water doesn’t boil because of heat; it boils because of vapor pressure. If you heat the water or cool the atmosphere above the water you change the vapor pressure equilibrium and water boils. No IR required.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Ken,
            Not sure what this discussion is all about – I can’t be bothered reading it.
            But I believe that would be called a false dichotomy.

          • Ken says:

            Antonin, its basic study of enthalpy.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            It’s still a false dichotomy.
            Just because vapour pressure plays a role does not mean that heat doesn’t.

            Pressing the accelerator in a car feeds more fuel to the engine which in turn causes the car to go faster. That doesn’t mean it is wrong to claim that pressing the accelerator causes the car to go faster, just because there is an intermediate process.

          • Ken says:

            Enthalpy is all about volume, pressure, and internal energy. Internal energy is usually about heat but it also is defined by the absence of energy. Ignoring volume and pressure is missing the point.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…if you understood science, you’d take your foot out of your mouth before leaping to conclusions.

        The red portion in each example as measured by the FLIR is not measuring glass temperature it is measuring the filament temperature in the case of the tungsten lamp on the left. You can clearly see there is no heat signature from the glass itself, the red region is around the filament.

        With the CFL in the middle, you have electrons bombarding mercury droplets as in a typical fluorescent lamp. Same thing.

        The FLIR is indicating the FREQUENCY in both cases, not the heat. A FLIR does not measure heat directly but frequencies in the IR band that come from a heat source.

        It’s obvious from the red colour in the CFL and in the tungsten lamp that it is indicating such frequencies but it is confused between the electrons running through a tungsten filament, producing heat, and electrons running through a gas.

        Anyone who has dealt with CFLs know they get a bit warm but you can hold one as either a CFL lamp or a 48″ tube whereas you could not do that with a tungsten lamp.

        With a CFL the ballast is in the base and with both the CFL and the 48″ tube the ballast gets quite hot. Obviously that heat is being transmitted to the glass, fooling the FLIR.

        Seriously, Norman, you should try to stop making such a fool of yourself.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          Most IR does not go through glass, it is almost completely absorbed. You can’t “see” the hot filament in Infrared bands.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfUzKcAcX0Q

          The IR cameras that use frequency measure the amplitude of a given frequency of IR and use that to determine the temperature of the object being measured.

          https://www.sentronic.com/data/product_datasheets/KnowHow_CalexPyro-EN.pdf

          In the previous video the glass at the top of the 60 watt bulb on left is hottest. It is not seeing the filament, that would be the glass temp. It is absorbing the IR from the filament and converting it into heat which is then measured by the IR camera.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, the situation you’re required to support, with valid technical reference, is ONE surface with TWO arriving equal fluxes which result in the surface emitting TWICE one of the fluxes. The example was 315 W/m^2 PLUS 315 W/m^2 arriving the surface, and at steady state, the surface is emitting 630 W/m^2. You have NOT provided anything close to that. You don’t understand ANY of this.

            The reason you need to be held to such nonsense is that it blows up your GHE nonsense. If your belief were valid, it would mean you could boil water with ice cubes.

            Now back to your evasions, insults, and false accusations. That’s all you’ve got.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R.

            Maybe check out E. Swanson test with two heat lamps and a surface.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, you STILL don’t get it. The situation you’re required to support, with valid technical reference, is ONE surface with TWO arriving equal fluxes which result in the surface emitting TWICE one of the fluxes.

            That’s your cult nonsense that would mean ice cubes can boil water.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            I get it, did you check out E Swanson link as requested?

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry Norman, you STILL don’t get it.

            The situation you’re required to support, with valid technical reference, is ONE surface with TWO arriving equal fluxes which result in the surface emitting TWICE one of the fluxes.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            I think E. Swanson experiment does a good job of showing you fluxes add at a surface and cause it to emit more IR. In his experiment with two fluxes the surface does not emit as much as both fluxes add which is probably do to other heat transfer processes increasing as the plate gets hotter (conduction and convection). It clearly shows that two fluxes are added to a surface which increases in temperature and rate of emission.

            If you want two identical fluxes do the test yourself with the same wattage bulbs. If you want to get it to match your conditions do it in a high vacuum so the energy lost by the heated plate is only via radiant heat transfer.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/updated-atmospheric-co2-concentration-forecast-through-2050-and-beyond/#comment-1338162

            This experiment demonstrates what you are wanting. Two fluxes add at a surface, the surface heats up and emits more energy.

            Also Roy Spencer clearly demonstrates a cold container top can add IR to a heated object and raise its temperature when compared to the lesser IR emission of ice. You have two cases just here showing you are wrong. I gave you an example earlier that you could not figure out so you bailed on it but it shows two fluxes adding. Not much more needed to demonstrate to you. If you want to be an arrogant ass and not learn then enjoy your cult. You have a few nutjobs on this blog who might follow your unfounded opinions. That is about it though

          • Clint R says:

            That’s just more of your distractions, Norman. You can’t support your nonsense so you’re throwing everything you can find against the wall, hoping something will stick.

            Swanson is as incompetent and dishonest as you, so he’s easily rejected as a “valid technical reference”. Like you, he has been unable to answer ANY of the simple physics problems. You both are frauds.

            And you don’t understand Spencer’s experiment. It didn’t “prove” what you believe it proved. You don’t understand ANY of this.

            The situation you’re required to support, with valid technical reference, is ONE surface with TWO arriving equal fluxes which result in the surface emitting TWICE one of the fluxes.

            Keep trying to fake it. That’s all you can do.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            Time to educate you. Telling people they do not understand things is quite meaningless. You say this many times with no explanation on any of it. Pretty easy to pretend you have a brain. Not real proof of one though. Let you explain what I got wrong about Roy Spencer’s experiment. You never do though you are all mouth and opinion. Your opinion is I do not understand Roy’s experiment (my understanding is what he himself claims it shows so I am not the only one lacking in “understanding”).

            Can you define “understanding” I don’t think you know what that word even means. You are a word generator. You throw out words that you don’t even know what they mean.

          • Clint R says:

            That’s right Norman, you don’t understand any of this. You’ve probably spent hours searching the internet to find something to support your nonsense. But, you can’t understand it ain’t there.

            You keep trying to distract, because you’ve got NOTHING. You can’t understand that makes you a fraud.

            The situation you’re required to support, with valid technical reference, is ONE surface with TWO arriving equal fluxes which result in the surface emitting TWICE one of the fluxes.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            Whatever you have to believe. It is okay.

          • Clint R says:

            Fair enough.

            I believe your lame response means you’ve figured out that you have NOTHING, and that you’ve realized you’re a complete fraud and phony.

      • Nate says:

        ” two fluxes arriving at a surface will result in the surface emitting the sum of the fluxes.”

        Tee hee hee.

        No longer is Clint erroneously asserting that fluxes don’t add.

        Or that fluxes arriving at a surface don’t add.

        Or that a surface receiving two fluxes won’t be warmer than a surface receiving one.

        The latest strawman that nobody ever claimed: ‘ the surface emitting the sum of the fluxes”.

        Sly moving of the goal posts!

        • Clint R says:

          Yeah Nate, Folkerts gave us another great example of your cult’s incompetence. His nonsense would mean that ice cubes could boil water!

          No wonder none of you idiots can ever address the basic physics. You don’t understand ANY of this.

        • Nate says:

          “His nonsense would mean that ice cubes could boil water”

          Oh how’s that? Does it also mean pigs can fly?

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Don’t pay any attention to Nate. He still effectively believes that putting a large inert brick in the middle of a room will cause the room to warm up.

          He tries to deny that claiming anonymous differences in boundary conditions but until he does the math and submits his greenhouse effect theory. . . .a brick in the middle of room is what it amounts to with his support of the 3rd grader radiation model that is foisted on the public.

        • Nate says:

          Bill, you are perpetually confused and trolling.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate you need to explain why you think a brick in the middle of 290k room will help warm the room.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            You need to explain why the brick in a room is a red herring, Bill.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Its not a red herring Brandon, its an exact analogy to the 3rd grader model description of the earth’s greenhouse effect foisted on the uninformed.

            Its a rock surrounded by an atmosphere with radiation as the only insulation.

          • Nate says:

            This has been repeatedly explained. But Bill refuses to read, learn, and mixes everything up.

            Rational discussion with him is utterly hopeless.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            bright boy put a link to where you ever explained anything.

  27. gbaikie says:

    Why not use the largest waterfall on Earth?
    I have not done the math, but it could equal to 100 nuclear powerplants? Or maybe a 1000?
    Though it not very close to anything other then Iceland, and Iceland has a lot “zero emission” power, already.
    But if Iceland doesn’t care about world, there other massive waterfall under the ocean in other parts of world.

    • Ken says:

      You should do the math. You’ll probably find out its not worth it.

      • gbaikie says:

        –Ocean Current Energy Technologies

        The United States and other countries are pursuing ocean current energy; however, marine current energy is at an early stage of development. Relative to wind, wave, and tidal resources, the energy resource potential for ocean current power is the least understood, and its technology is the least mature. There are no commercial grid-connected turbines currently operating, and only a small number of prototypes and demonstration units have been tested.–
        http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/zarubin2/
        Some things said:
        “Marine turbines are the most popular piece of technology being proposed. The blades of these turbines need to be about 20 meters, only one third the size of a wind generator to produce three times as much power.”
        “Current energy technologies, also called tidal or hydrokinetic technologies, convert the kinetic energy of moving water into electricity. Current energy technologies take advantage of the horizontal flow ocean currents to power a generator that converts mechanical power into electrical power. Current energy devices are often rotating machines similar to wind turbines with a rotor that spins in response to the speed of water currents with the rotational speed proportional to the velocity of the water. The rotor may have an open design comparable to a wind turbine or may be enclosed in a duct that channels the current and water flow. Current energy converters can be into four main types:”
        And:
        “To calculate the number of joules available for extraction by turbines in all the oceans of the entire world, lets speculate that the ocean ubiquitously is moving at a speed in a certain direction, equal to that of the Gulf Stream; about 2 meters per second. Therefore, each cubic meter of water has a kinetic energy 1/2 Mv2 = 2000 joules. This may be an extreme overestimate since most of the ocean moves much more slowly than the Gulf Stream”

        So you don’t want average flow, you want to pick location of fastest flow with Denmark Strait cataract or any the other deep ocean cataract.
        It’s similar to mining water on the Moon- it appears to lack enough exploration/information.
        Only thing I could find vaguely specific is:
        “The currents were so severe that 20 of the meters were
        never recovered. Those that were recovered had recorded currents of
        up to 1.4 meters per second, which is sizable compared with the rates
        from . 1 to .5 meter per second-at which surface currents usually flow. ”
        https://www2.whoi.edu/staff/jwhitehead/wp-content/uploads/sites/123/2017/12/1989_Whitehead_Giant_SciAmer.pdf
        [[ SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN February 1989
        This content downloaded from 128.128.30.61 on Tue, 05 Dec 2017
        19:33:45 UT]] Which I called ancient one.

        • Ken says:

          We’ve had these technologies proposed for Campbell River area. There are some massive tidal currents here.

          Someone did the math for a Bay of Fundy project. They found tides in Boston would be reduced by some 6 feet. The impact on eco system would be enormous.

          Another problem of harnessing tide is that you increase tidal friction. An increase in tidal friction would result in reducing the rotational energy of the earth itself. Its not renewable, there is no way to restore rotational energy to the earth. Tide power is therefore a very dangerous proposition that really will alter climate.

          So one or two plants scattered about the planet won’t make a difference. But, if you try to harness every potential scrap of current everywhere there most certainly will be an irreversible impact.

          Too, the engineering issues would be difficult to overcome. Corrosion is a big factor. So is running the underwater infrastructure such as power cables.

          You don’t have my permission to build a tide power plant anywhere.

          • RLH says:

            “You don’t have my permission to build a tide power plant anywhere”

            What makes you think your permission is needed?

          • gbaikie says:

            Campbell River is unusual in ocean currents, and I wouldn’t argue against trying to use that tidal energy. But tidal energy in general doesn’t seem like good idea.
            It seems largest waterfall in the world could work much better than what is available near Campbell River.
            But I don’t think governments can run any kind of business, so in same way I am against NASA mining lunar water, any kind of governmental project [related to business] will always fail.

          • Ken says:

            You cannot build anything without agreement of the population.

          • gbaikie says:

            Then you will not build anything.

            You need laws [which you could call as being established agreements]
            to build anything.

          • RLH says:

            “You cannot build anything without agreement of the population”

            You are not the population, just a very small part of it.

          • Ken says:

            I was at a meeting a few years ago where a number of such crackpot schemes were discussed. Wave pumps in the ocean and wave pumps on the beach. Davis wheel for the currents. The idea was touted as a tourist attraction at Tofino in Long Beach National Park. Yeah, people will gather from everywhere to watch a bunch of inefficient generators screw up the environment.

            The riparian zone is critical to all varieties of marine mammals and sea birds. The ocean is critical for migrating whales and fish of all kinds. Never mind the impact on tidal frictions; the concept of TANSTAAFL must be understood.

            So far no one has spoken in favor of the ideas except the proponents who clearly have no thoughts for the environment they will destroy.

            Its just like wind turbines; anyone who understands the impacts will be vigorously opposed to having one within 50 km of their home

          • Nate says:

            “An increase in tidal friction would result in reducing the rotational energy of the earth itself. Its not renewable, there is no way to restore rotational energy to the earth. Tide power is therefore a very dangerous proposition that really will alter climate.”

            Do the calculation of Earth’s rotational energy.

            Quite sure you will find that project is unlikely to produce a significant reduction in it for millions of years.

            Bigger concern is local ecological effects that you mentioned.

          • Nate says:

            Solar in the Sahara and high V power lines to Europe, seems like a better option.

          • gbaikie says:

            ==Nate says:
            August 4, 2022 at 6:30 AM

            Solar in the Sahara and high V power lines to Europe, seems like a better option.==
            How about power lines to Africa, it’s shorter distance.
            Sahara has various political problems, keeping power in Africa would help deal with these political problems.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      The largest waterfall in Iceland has only one quarter the flow rate of Niagara Falls.
      Niagara already supplies power, and it would rate only 13th in the world in comparison to the largest nuclear plants.
      So no, not 100 and certainly not 1000.

      • gbaikie says:

        How many power plants are there at Niagara Falls? There are a total of 5 power stations on the Niagara River. 2 of which are on the US side and 3 on the Canadian side.

        “How much of the water is being diverted for power generation?
        The simple answer is: most of it.

        At any given moment the water diverted upstream from the falls, to run the various power plants, is anywhere from 60 to 75%. Thats an average of 1,200,000 gallons (4,542,500 liters) of water per second with only 600,000 gal/sec (2,271,250 liters/sec) left to run over the Horseshoe Falls and a mere 150,000 gal/sec (567,811 liters/sec) for the American Falls. Although it may seem as though the Falls are being deprived of their natural flow, the water that remains to cover the falls is still an impressive sight. Many waterfall enthusiasts agree that reduced flow makes for waterfalls with more character.
        Robert Moses Power Plant [2,525 MW]
        Lewiston Pump Generating Plant
        [[“The Robert Moses and Lewiston plants, which together comprise the Niagara Power Project, have a combined net dependable capability of 2,675 MW, making it the largest generating facility in the state and one of the largest in the country.” – Lewiston is called pump storage and is less]
        Canada Niagara Falls Canada
        Sir Adam Beck #1-“The ten generators of Sir Adam Beck #1 Power Station produce 403,900 kilowatts of electricity. It’s old and state improved]
        Sir Adam Beck #2:
        Sir Adam Beck Power Station #2 was located just south of Beck Power Station #1 and would require three times the water the first station required. It consists of 16 generators, which are totally enclosed and water cooled. Each generator has non-continuous amortisseur windings and is equipped with directly connected exciters and with static voltage regulators. Each unit is running at 60 cycle is capable of producing 80,000 kVA for a total capacity of 130,000 kVA.

        Generators: Units 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 went into service in 1954.
        Generators: Units 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 went into service in 1955.
        Generators: Units 23 and 24 went into service in 1957.
        Generators: Units 25 and 26 went into service in 1958.
        -The sixteen generators are housed in a building almost twice as long as plant #1 and have a capacity of 1,223,600 kilowatts. ”

        Sir Adam Beck Pump Generating Station
        [doesn’t say, but it actually loses energy- but it managing peak power needs]. Anyhow, Niagara Falls is tiny compare to largest waterfall in the world.

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          Waterfalls in Africa are useless for supplying the rest of the planet. The longest transmission line on the planet is 2500 km, and the theoretical limit is 3500 km before there is no juice left. If you knock out three in Congo and one in Laos (also not central), there are only two with a larger flow rate than Niagara, both less than 50% greater, and one already hydroelectric.

        • Ken says:

          Its not the waterfall that provides the power; its the potential to capture head pressure via penstocks that is attractive.

          The Toba inlet has several run-of-river power projects. When they were built the main criticism is that they rob the environment of its water sources and there was a requirement for power lines cutting through otherwise pristine environment.

          So just because you have a waterfall doesn’t mean there is sufficient head pressure available to make it worth the cost.

          TANSTAAFL

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I don’t think a waterfall per se would make an ideal prime mover for a generator. Normally, a dam is built with chutes that can control the water flow that drives the generator. They can divert the chutes to shut the generator down for service or maintenance.

      Also, how would you build a generator plant under an active waterfall?

      • gbaikie says:

        “Also, how would you build a generator plant under an active waterfall?”

        There is an idea, how about catching Niagara Falls 5 feet under the waterline. You have your cake and eat it too.
        Now fish can’t go up that waterfall, but can survive going down it.

        “Yes, they do. But fish have more luck in surviving the plunge than humans. They are better built to survive the plunge because they live in water all the time and are much more pliable and lighter than humans. At the bottom of the falls is a cushion of air bubbles that softens their fall. The body of a fish is also more suitable to absorb a tremendous amount of pressure hence, less injury in the plunge.” And:
        “Niagara River expert, Wes Hill, estimates that 90 per cent of fish survive the drop over Niagara Falls. But a waterfall that cascades over rocks, such as Yosemite Falls, will be fatal to all but the smallest fish.”

        So now have to do it somehow without killing any fish.

        So, next question, are fish going down the largest waterfall on Earth?
        So, it’s a fall of 3500 meter or a change of 350 atm of pressure.
        Fish probably sense pressure, and could swim fast straight down pretty fast [and don’t do it]. So only marine animal riding it down 3500 meters, are those can not swim, well.
        How fast can fish descend in water column:
        “Because fish with an open swim bladder must gulp air, they are generally restricted to shallow water or surface waters. If a fish with an open swim bladder, herring or sturgeon for instance, were to stay neutrally buoyant below 33 feet, it would need to fill the gas bladder to above two atmospheres, which could not be accomplished through the pneumatic duct. At greater depths the swim bladders of these fish will collapse, resulting in the fish becoming negatively buoyant. This is probably why so many modern fish evolved to having a closed swim bladder.

        Fish with closed swim bladders are better suited to all water column and bottom water depths, but rapid ascent can still pose problems.”

        But it also seems going really deep quickly is also problem.
        “Of course, not all fish even have a swim bladder. Sharks, flounder, cobia, and mackerel, do not have a swim bladder and as a result, sink when they stop swimming. These fish can only maintain their position in the water column through active swimming”
        https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/charlotteco/2019/10/15/weightless-in-the-water/

        Anyways it seems fish have to be able to sense depth, and if they can swim, they will not allow a current take them deeper than they want to be. But I wonder if whales or other mammals would use it.
        How deep can a whale dive?
        “The deepest recorded dive was 2,992 metres, breaking the record for diving mammals. Experts have suggested that this dive was unusually deep for this species. A more normal depth would be 2,000 metres. Sperm whales also regularly dive 1,000 to 2,000 metres deep.”

        Maybe they do it just to break records.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “So, next question, are fish going down the largest waterfall on Earth?
        So, its a fall of 3500 meter or a change of 350 atm of pressure.”

        That only applies to confined water (like in a pipe or in an ocean). Falling water in a waterfall is ~ 1 Atm the whole way down,

        • RLH says:

          “That only applies to confined water (like in a pipe or in an ocean)”

          The largest waterfall on Earth IS in the ocean.

          • Ken says:

            How would you capture head pressure for an undersea waterfall?

          • Entropic man says:

            How would you capture head pressure for an undersea waterfall?

            You dont. You let gravity convert potential energy into kinetic energy and then harvest the latter using water turbine farms.

          • RLH says:

            The inertia of a moving body is present everywhere. It is like tidal flow only with this being a waterfall under water.

          • gbaikie says:

            “It is like tidal flow only with this being a waterfall under water.”

            Sort of, but sort of like low gravity also.
            Near Campbell River, BC the strait narrows and in narrow gap the current runs faster.
            But I think largest river is constant rather than varying with the tide. The River is like river fed by a lake. “Lake level” might vary.
            It seems if have flowing to pipe the flow will have more resistence.
            Or put a pole in stream, water ahead of pole, will start bending around it, and pipe stops that. Though possible you get more power by have water upstream changing direction. Likewise, one put funnel ahead of pipe and capture that flowing energy. And if water flowing faster than water outside pipe, it create slight vacuum.
            Terrian will create turbulence, and larger pipes less turbulence.

          • RLH says:

            Inertia increases with velocity. The underwater waterfall is as consistent as the river, indeed it is driven by gravity in the same way. The density differences between air and water and waters of different salinity/temperature are different true but the volumes are different too.

  28. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A renewed increase in SOI since the end of July.
    https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/

  29. rowjay says:

    Are there any comments on whether the regionally levelised LT temp value across the globe is due to heat release from the oceans, or heat retention from above the LT. As a resident of SE Australia, we have experienced a generally cold winter – all the surface heat seems to have escaped to the NH. The July Australian LT temp was a surprise. I have also been reading about the increasing water vapor in the Stratosphere and Mesosphere, and how recent numerous rocket launches appear to have added to it. Any thoughts?

  30. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    If La Nia remains weak, there will be no strong El Nio after solar maximum because too little heat will be accumulated under the surface of the western Pacific and the subsurface Kelvin wave will not reach the Nio 1.2 region.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202208.gif
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png

  31. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The Earth’s temperature is constant within certain limits due to the height of the troposphere, which in winter above the 60th parallel drops to an average of only about 6 km.
    https://i.ibb.co/stR8F47/gfs-world-ced2-t2anom-1-day.png
    https://i.ibb.co/tKTGc1L/time-pres-TEMP-MEAN-ALL-NH-2022.png

  32. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    If Earth were not a water planet and there were no water vapor in the air, temperatures on Earth would be almost as extreme as on planets without an atmosphere. This is very evident in the Sahara, and also during La Nina, when the tropical Pacific produces less water vapor. Heat waves in Europe are not unusual.

    • Bindidon says:

      ” Heat waves in Europe are not unusual. ”

      Could you please list them all?

      Or are you as usual just guessing?

      • Norman says:

        Bindidon

        Here is a list of some notable heat waves in Europe and elsewhere.

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

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          Interesting – 20 European heat waves in the last 40 years, 8 in the previous 80.

          • RLH says:

            But few, if any, match the one in 1878 which was world wide.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Really? What was the global anomaly for 1878?

          • RLH says:

            There are numerous papers around that say that 1878 world T was similar to 2016. The droughts that both caused are likely to be much bigger in 1878 as that killed millions of people. There are T series which also say that is not the truth.

            As the T series that say that also show that 1998 was much less important than 2016, with only UAH showing them to be similar, perhaps their accuracy for the past leaves something to be desired.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            (Not posting, so I am breaking up my comment into pieces)

            There was indeed a heat wave in 1878. It lasted 3 months, Feb-Apr 1878.
            And March 1878 was the warmest month in the HC record until beaten in Dec 1979.
            It was then beaten by 5 months in the 1980s, 42 months in the 1990s, 106 months in the first decade of the 2000s, and every month since March 2008.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            There has never been a single day when every location on the planet has been in heat wave. There are ALWAYS cold areas (a fact which adapt2030 takes advantage of as he cherry picks only the coldest places on the planet to create the illusion that the planet is cooling).

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            It is almost certainly true that many regions had very high temperatures in that 3-month window, probably comparable with and in some cases higher than in some areas today. But it would absolutely not have been general across the planet, and it didn’t last. The 1870s was the warmest decade from the 1850s to the 1910s, but was colder than every decade since.

          • Mark B says:

            RLH says: There are numerous papers around that say that 1878 world T was similar to 2016.

            I’m not aware of any credible source that says the world temperature anomaly in 1878 was similar to 2016.

            What you have shown are studies that say the 1878 El Nino Index (ONI or similar metrics) was similar to 2016, 1998, and 1982. While El Nino indices are correlated with inter annual global temperature variations, they are not global temperatures.

            You have shown also papers documenting widespread severe socioeconomic impacts from the 1878 El Nino event, but these impacts are broadly driven by drought. Drought is a function of precipitation deficiencies related to persistent deviations in circulation patterns and regional temperatures. They are not strictly indicators of temperature and certainly not indicators of global temperature.

          • Bindidon says:

            Linsley Hood

            Where are your valuable sources concerning this 1878 date?

            Btw, a date you yourself never mentioned before ‘discovering’ the NCEP data.

            ENSO indices and temperatures do by far not have the same source.

            In your endless trials to dispute any warming, you intentionally confound the SST within a minuscule area (700,000 km^2) with the global temperature record.

            *
            Global temperature anomalies wrt the mean of 1961-1990

            Had-CRUT4 Globe
            – 1878 02: 0.40
            – 2016 02: 1.11

            Had-CRUT5 Globe
            – 1878 02: 0.36
            – 2016 02: 1.22

            My evaluation of raw GHCN daily (43 stations in 1878, 8279 in 2016)
            – 1878 03: 1.73
            – 2016 03: 2.70

          • bdgwx says:

            RLH,

            Berkeley Earth shows 14.204 +/- 0.106 C for 1878.

            Berkeley Earth shows 15.158 +/- 0.033 C for 2016.

          • RLH says:

            https://www.insidescience.org/news/historys-greatest-el-nino-may-have-caused-severe-19th-century-famine

            “History’s Greatest El Nino May Have Caused Severe 19th Century Famine”

          • RLH says:

            So any explanation for the fact that 1998 is so small compared to 2016 in everything other than UAH?

          • RLH says:

            https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-008-9470-5

            “The 18771878 El Nio episode: associated impacts in South America”

          • RLH says:

            https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/12/15/causes-great-famine-drought/

            “Causes of the Great Famine, One of the Deadliest Environmental Disasters”

          • RLH says:

            https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10089000

            “Climate and the Global Famine of 187678”

          • RLH says:

            https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFMGC51F..04S/abstract

            “El-Nino Grande and the Great Famine (1876-78)”

          • RLH says:

            https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/joc.7535

            “there have been six Super El Nios (1877-1878, 1888-1889, 1972-1973, 1982-1983, 1997-1998, 2015-2016) that statistically rise above all other El Ninos since 1850”

          • Bindidon says:

            Linsley Hood

            1. Why didn’t you publish that before I had to ask?

            2. Did you consider what would have happened in 1998 and 2016, when the socioeconomic patterns of 1878 still would have hold, beginning with no UN i.e. here: no global programme against diseases and famine?

            3. I recommend to have a look at

            http://research.jisao.washington.edu/data/quinn/

            *
            4. ” So any explanation for the fact that 1998 is so small compared to 2016 in everything other than UAH? ”

            You are so excessively opinionated that you wouldn’t spend even half a second to ask the inverse.

            Like to all coolistas, anything other than UAH seems wrong to you.

            Perhaps, for once, you think outside the box, and compare

            https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1998/gridtemp199802e.png

            to

            https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2016/gridtemp201602e.png

          • RLH says:

            Blinny: Just compare

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/rss-3.jpeg

            and

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-global-1.jpeg

            for the differences globally between 1998 and 2016 by 2 different satellite series.

            As to 1878 look at Fig 3 in “The Ensemble Oceanic Nio Index”

            https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/joc.7535

            https://imgur.com/CauL1SE

            and consider what that means for 1870s to 2000s comparisons.

          • RLH says:

            Blinny: Also consider that John Christy published a paper that showed that RSS continued to use a known drifting satellite whereas UAH did not which led to RSS having 10 times the rate of change between approx 2000 and 2008 that UAH did.

            That means that RSS excessively cools 1998 compared to 2016 whereas UAH does not.

          • Mark B says:

            According to the RSS paper there is also a significant time of observation/diurnal drift problem with NOAA-15 during the period in question.

            The issues during that time period include at least the following:

            1) Temperature target drift issue with NOAA-14.

            2) Diural drift issue with NOAA-15

            3) Channel frequency change between MSU (NOAA-14) and AMSU (NOAA-15) instrumentation requiring cross calibration between the two instruments in light of 1 & 2 above.

            In light of this, it is not at all clear that UAH is decidedly more likely to be closer to the truth than is the RSS time series.

          • RLH says:

            “According to the RSS paper there is also a significant time of observation/diurnal drift problem with NOAA-15 during the period in question”

            According to the data the RSS paper is wrong. The data clearly shows that during the period 2000 to 2008 RSS changes are a rate that is some 10 times that of UAH.

            https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU

            You, and RSS, is claiming that UAH is wrong in this, not RSS. John Christy has a paper that says different.

            Why would the first ASMU satellite be uniquely wrong but all the MSU and the later AMSU ones be correct?

            After all, outside the 2000 to 2008 period both RSS and UAH agree quite well.

          • RLH says:

            ….the first AMSU satellite….

          • Mark B says:

            You, and RSS, is claiming that UAH is wrong in this, not RSS. John Christy has a paper that says different.

            No, the point is that subjective choices were made by both groups in the face of uncertainty. I can say with high confidence both are wrong. I can’t say with certainty which is closer to being right.

            Why would the first ASMU satellite be uniquely wrong but all the MSU and the later AMSU ones be correct?

            It’s not that the first AMSU is ‘wrong’, it’s that it is ‘different’ than the MSU, thus cross calibration is required to merge the two series. Subsequent AMSUs are all nominally the same sensor.

            After all, outside the 2000 to 2008 period both RSS and UAH agree quite well.

            RSS stopped using NOAA-14, the alleged source of the data series difference, after 2004. MetOp-A, the first AMSU satellite with thrusters to virtually eliminate the diurnal drift issue came online in mid-2007.

          • Bindidon says:

            Linsley Hood

            ” Blinny: Just compare

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/rss-3.jpeg

            and

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-global-1.jpeg

            *
            I have explained to you several times that this comparison is meaningless.

            No one can accurately compare the two series when you show them not only on different charts, but above all when the anomalies plotted are based on different reference periods.

            But.. you are so excessively opinionated that you aren’t even willing to accept it, and moreover, you still lack the courage to ask Roy Spencer’s meaning about this dispute (let alone Vaughan Pratt’s) as I proposed you to do.

            *
            Here is a correct comparison of UAH6.0 and RSS4.0 for the Globe, including
            – original anomalies,
            – 60 month original Savitzky-Golay and 60/50/39 month CTRM processing,
            and finally
            – the linear estimates for the three series:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sA-R00AZSucWYKd9M_MMT2uo473MH9as/view

            Though the resolution isn’t satisfying, we can see that for both UAH and RSS

            – the S-G series has a slightly lower trend than the original data, and that conversely

            – the CTRM series shows a slightly higher trend:

            UAH: S-G 0.129 / orig 0.133 / CTRM 0.139 C / decade
            RSS: S-G 0.201 / orig 0.212 / CTRM 0.226

            This clearly contradicts your claims that

            – OLS trends have no meaning (no: you didn’t just mean in case of predictions)
            – original data mostly shows a higher trend than that of its HQLP processing.

            *
            By using your tricky charts endlessly, you only convince those who share your coolista views, even though you call them idiots regarding the lunar spin.

            *
            By the way, I enjoy it when people like you feel the need to call me “Blinny” all the time, because that attitude reveals their own weakness.

            Weiter so, Linsley Hood! Weiter so!

          • barry says:

            RLH,

            “So any explanation for the fact that 1998 is so small compared to 2016 in everything other than UAH?”

            The global data is processed differently by each group. While the sign of the annual ups and downs are a near perfect match, the details to 2 decimal points vary between datasets. Hardly surprising.

          • barry says:

            “there have been six Super El Ninos (1877-1878, 1888-1889, 1972-1973, 1982-1983, 1997-1998, 2015-2016) that statistically rise above all other El Ninos since 1850”

            And the la Nina year of 2020 was warmer than the 1998 super el Nino year in the UAH global LT record. Because it’s not just ENSO that impacts global temperatures.

          • barry says:

            “You, and RSS, is claiming that UAH is wrong in this, not RSS. John Christy has a paper that says different.”

            John Christy is one of the main compilers of UAH data. Of course he believes UAH to be superior.

            “RSS continued to use a known drifting satellite whereas UAH did not”

            UAH use 6 years of NOAA14 data, from July 1995 to July 2001.

            I’m curious why you believe UAH use no data from NOAA14.

            Could it be because you rely on blog comments for your education rather than read the actual methods paper for the UAH dataset?

          • RLH says:

            “I can say with high confidence both are wrong. I cant say with certainty which is closer to being right”

            Other 3rd party data, such as reanalysis and balloons, agree with UAH during this period. See JCs paper.

          • RLH says:

            Blinny: It is not just the 2 series that support what I show. Other things like reanalysis and balloon datasets do so also.

          • RLH says:

            “UAH use 6 years of NOAA14 data, from July 1995 to July 2001”

            I know. However in 2001 UAH stopped using it altogether as the drift had got to beyond correction. RSS continued to use it as though it was perfect for the whole of its lifetime as if though there was no error to be seen.

            That is why the 2 series show such a difference.

          • RLH says:

            “Could it be because you rely on blog comments for your education rather than read the actual methods paper for the UAH dataset”

            Nope.

            Could it be that you rely on RSS as the source of your information?

          • RLH says:

            “the details to 2 decimal points vary between datasets”

            This is far more than a difference at 2 decimal places that just goes away by magic.

          • RLH says:

            ” the S-G series has a slightly lower trend than the original data, and that conversely

            the CTRM series shows a slightly higher trend”

            Blinny says that either Vaughan Pratt was wrong or S-G were. Neither is true of course. The fact that the CTRM output covers a smaller time period than a full S-G does not come to his mind at all.

          • Bindidon says:

            Exceptionally, trickster Linsley Hood made a giant point!

            I indeed forgot to calculate the 60 month S-G trends for UAH and RSS wrt the same period as for the 60/50/39 CTRMs.

            New, correct comparison:

            UAH: S-G 0.142 / orig 0.133 / CTRM 0.139 C / decade
            RSS: S-G 0.229 / orig 0.212 / CTRM 0.226

            This is still a pretty confirmation of

            – how near both S-G and CTRM keep in trend with regard to the original data, what confirms its OLS trend quality;

            – how correct my original S-G filter outputs are with regard to CTRM.

            Why both smoothing trends are a tiny bit higher than those of the original data: no se.

            *
            And by the way, I still ask why, in these college boy charts, the multipass S-G smoothing (proudly named ‘projection’, OMG) is shown only at the end of the 5-year low pass plot.

            Why is the left side of the multipass S-G smoothing absent in all your charts, trickster?

          • barry says:

            RLH

            “I know.”

            No you didn’t. This is not the first time you said that RSS uses NOAA14 data and UAH doesn’t. Now you’re pretending differently. Zero integrity.

            “RSS continued to use it as though it was perfect for the whole of its lifetime as if though there was no error to be seen.”

            And this is just as opposite to the truth as your first fantasy.

            And you continue to opine in this subject when you have still read NEITHER methods papers. That’s why you are spouting pure nonsense.

            “Could it be that you rely on RSS as the source of your information?”

            Nope, it’s YOUR preference to pick a team without questioning it.

            I’ve read several of the papers behind different versions of UAH and RSS, as well as commentary on them. For my own view, Mark puts it well:

            “the point is that subjective choices were made by both groups in the face of uncertainty. I can say with high confidence both are wrong. I can’t say with certainty which is closer to being right.”

            UAH say their product is closer to radiosondes, RSS, say the same. These comparisons are also problematic.

            You wouldn’t know that, of course, because your only source of information is the compilers of the dataset you prefer. That’s some red hot skepticism there, RLH.

          • Bindidon says:

            Here is a chart comparing

            – UAH 6.0 LT land
            – RSS 4.0 LT land
            – RATPAC B radiosonde data at 700 hPa (used among other balloon series by J. Christy):

            https://tinyurl.com/2p862j37

            We see indeed that RATPAC B fits better to UAH land than to RSS land, but the difference is by no means appropriate to view RSS as an outlier.

            Each team has his position, and it is strange to see people discrediting RSS just because they think they have enough understanding of the problems.

            *
            It is funny to see that the anomalies in RSS land plunge a lot more than those of UAH for the recent years.

            *
            Why ‘land’ ?

            70 % of the RATPAC sondes are on land, 30 % on islands. Thus, comparing RATPAC to any LT land+ocean is idiocy.

            *
            Why 700 hPa?

            The absolute temperature difference between UAH and the surface is about -24 K; with 6.5 K/km lapse rate, you obtain an altitude of 3.7 km, what corresponds to a pressure of 640 hPa.

            *

            Here too, Linsley Hood’s 2002-2008 comparison becomes a non-sequitur when all data is shown wrt the mean of one and the same reference period.

            Source

            https://tinyurl.com/5n8spk5c

          • bdgwx says:

            RLH,

            I think you need to be more skeptical. There is no way to know which satellite dataset is more correct at this point. The most skeptical approach here is to equally weight UAH and RSS. That gives us a warming trend of +0.17 C/decade.

            I also don’t know why balloon datasets are considered the gold standard. But if that’s the bar to meet then know that UAH diverges from those datasets more than RSS. RATPAC is +0.21 C/decade, RAOBCore is +0.19 C/decade, and RICH is +0.21 C/decade. Note that in the Christy et al. 2018 publication they compare UAH to IGRA. IGRA says their dataset should not be used for climatic research. Furthermore, the Christy et al approach is to literally “adjust the radiosonde to match the satellite” (their own words). I’m not saying the Christy et al. 2018 methodology is flawed. I’m just saying you should not form your position solely on it.

            I’ll leave you with the fact that their TLT weighting function LT = 1.538*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS has been suspected of being contaminated by the cooling stratosphere? Did you know that TLT is very sensitive to the weighting function? For example, LT = 1.25*MT + 0*TP – 0.25*LS yields a warming rate of +0.19 C/decade?

          • Bindidon says:

            In a comment upthread, I wrote:

            ” It is funny to see that the anomalies in RSS land plunge a lot more than those of UAH for the recent years. ”

            Sorry, this was wrong, I mistakenly used the wrong RSS land region.
            The chart is now corrected:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GmK5QAzhX_1MEPU5tkmywCxM1nigfGLw/view

            *
            Btw I’m wondering a bit about bdgwx’s statement:

            ” But if thats the bar to meet then know that UAH diverges from those datasets more than RSS. RATPAC is +0.21 C/decade, RAOBCore is +0.19 C/decade, and RICH is +0.21 C/decade. ”

            It’s difficult to agree!

            Trends for land-only series in C/decade:

            UAH: 0.18
            RSS: 0.26

            RATPAC at 700 hPa: 0.19.

            *
            Conversely, I fully agree with his statement concerning UAH having in the past adapted radiosonde data to satellite data.

            Who doesn’t believe this should read

            Christy, J. R., and W. B. Norris (2006), Satellite and VIZ-radiosonde intercomparisons for diagnosis on non-climatic influences, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 23, 11811194.

            Interesting, especially because this paper had a major influence on Leopold Haimberger (U Vienna, Austria) who designed RICH and RAOBCORE, ballooon series homogenizing methods which later on had also influence on… RATPAC.

          • E. Swanson says:

            When comparing the UAH, RSS and RATPAC B time series, one must be aware tht the RATPAC B data includes data from the Antarctic stations:
            AMUNDSEN SCOTT AY -90.00S
            BELLINGSHAUSEN AY -62.20S
            SYOWA AY -69.00S
            MOLODEZHNAYA AY -67.67S
            MAWSON AAS-BASE AY -67.60S
            MCMURDO AY -77.85S

            These data may also exhibit the same cooling trend found in the UAH data over the South Polar region, which explains some of the difference between UAH LT and RSS TLT where RSS excludes data poleward of 70S.

          • RLH says:

            “There is no way to know which satellite dataset is more correct at this point”

            True if only the satellite series were compared, but John Christy compared reanalysis and balloon data too over the period in question and he then came to the conclusion that those supported UAH.

          • RLH says:

            “Christy, J. R., and W. B. Norris (2006), Satellite and VIZ-radiosonde intercomparisons for diagnosis on non-climatic influences, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 23, 11811194”

            https://www.proquest.com/openview/e95b35239735543e242eab7353f2865b/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=33207

            for a link to the actual paper.

            And this is also relevant

            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005JD006881

            “Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements”
            16 March 2007

          • Bindidon says:

            ” True if only the satellite series were compared, but John Christy compared reanalysis and balloon data too over the period in question and he then came to the conclusion that those supported UAH. ”

            As expected, Linsley Hood deliberately ignores the fact that J. Christy has himself created the conditions ensuring best possible comparison of radiosonde data to satellite data.

            Moreover, it is known since longer time that reanalysis data is entirely based on models.

            As we all know, models are ALL WRONG – except the few which show… cooling.

          • RLH says:

            “my original S-G filter outputs are with regard to CTRM”

            Single pass S-G leaks too much high frequencies, as Mark B observed.

            5 pass, multi-pass removes much more high frequency as Nate Drake concluded.

          • RLH says:

            Balloon data is not based on models.

          • RLH says:

            “The tendency of climate models to overstate warming in the tropical troposphere has long been noted”

          • bdgwx says:

            RLH,

            I’ll remind you that Christy’s comparison is 1) not independent 2) used a radiosonde dataset that the maintainers warn not to use for climatic research, and 3) involved a procedure to adjust the radiosonde to match the satellite (Christy’s own words).

            Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying Christy’s method of comparison is necessarily flawed. I’m saying that you are basing your position on a single comparison that has questionable methodology at best even though there are other comparisons available that could have been incorporated into your analysis. I’m saying that you need to be more skeptical.

          • RLH says:

            “I’m saying that you are basing your position on a single comparison that has questionable methodology at best”

            Questionable only if you support RSSs point of view.

          • RLH says:

            I think it is important to note that both UAH and RSS broadly agree, one with the other, before 2000 and after 2008.

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH, wrote:

            …John Christy compared reanalysis and balloon data too over the period in question and he then came to the conclusion that those supported UAH.

            Your references above were for the earlier version of UAH products ~2006, which employed the same algorithm as RSS. Your conclusion has no merit wrt comparisons with the latest UAH v6.

          • bdgwx says:

            RLH said: “Questionable only if you support RSSs point of view.”

            I don’t support RSS’s point of view any more or less than UAH.

          • RLH says:

            E. Swanson: The comparison between UAH and RSS is using UAH v6 since the beginning of the data, just like RSS is using v4.0.

            Whatever has been done by them both is backdated to all the data they publish.

          • RLH says:

            “I don’t support RSS’s point of view any more or less than UAH”

            But you claim (as above) that Christy is not independent but contend that RSS is.

          • Bindidon says:

            Linsley Hood

            You are a thoroughly indoctrinated person, who gullibly believes in what he wants to believe.

            Neither Mark B nor bdgwx nor I myself do claim that RSS is better than UAH.

            YOU are the one who claims that UAH is better than RSS – despite lacking the technical skills and scientific knowledge enabling you to do so.

            Your position is solely based on stubborn, opinionated ideology.

          • barry says:

            RLH,

            You are saying that others base their analysis on a presumed superiority of the RSS dataset when every comment here says the opposite in reply to you. You have a binary view of this discussion where each side clings to their preferences. That view is quite mistaken WRT to the interlocutors replying to you.

            We have read the source material for both UAH and RSS, you have not. Swanson has had papers on these differences peer reviewed and published and is the most knowledgeable of all of us in this matter.

            You have confined your self education to believing whatever Roy Spencer and John Christy say in blog comments and from looking at graphs.

            And you think that this gives you a good overview.

            We can deal with the uncertainty inherent in these data and the provisionality of the different methodologies. We don’t need to pick a side. It is enough to understand that every dataset is an estimate, and all groups are doing their best with suboptimal data. We also know we are not experts in satellite retrieval and processing of O2 radiance data to infer atmospheric temperatures. We do not suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect, which you may wish to look up.

            Your one-sided reading of source material is standard confirmation bias. Surely you can understand that.

          • barry says:

            “But you claim (as above) that Christy is not independent”

            You seem to have mistaken a comment about methodology for a comment about personality. The point was that the construction of UAH data is guided by radiosonde data, whereas RSS methodology is independent of radiosonde data.

            So little wonder that UAH more closely resembles the radiosonde data that they chose to use, when that radiosonde data was incorporated into the construction of their atmospheric temperature data.

            Different radiosonde datasets are just as different from each other and even more uncertain than the satellite data owing to much sparser coverage. UAH and RSS have different opinions about the most appropriate comparisons.

            Here is RSS’ opinion:

            “In our paper, we compare our results to the four homogenized radiosonde datasets that are currently being updated and are available in gridded or individual station form (we have shown that it is important to sample the satellite data at radiosonde locations when doing these kinds of comparisons). In all the radiosonde datasets, the measurements have been “homogenized” in an attempt to remove the effects of changing radiosonde instrumentation, siting, and observing practices. The UAH researchers like to say that their data agree better with radiosondes. This depends on which radiosonde dataset is under consideration, and what one means by “agree better.” We did find one thing that the radiosondes datasets all agree on. During the main period of disagreement between RSS V4.0 and UAH V6.0 (i.e., 1998-2007), a comparison with homogenized radiosonde datasets shows generally better agreement with RSS V4.0 than UAH V6.0….

            …the difference trend between UAH and the various radiosonde datasets for 1998-2007… suggest that our changes to the AMSU data are supported by the radiosondes (RSS V3.3 also shows a large cooling signal relative to the radiosondes over the 1998-2007 period).”

            https://www.remss.com/blog/faq-about-v40-tlt-update/

            I want to be very clear that I am not saying RSS or UAH are superior. I’m saying that there is other useful information for you to consider.

          • bdgwx says:

            RLH said: “But you claim (as above) that Christy is not independent but contend that RSS is.”

            I did no such thing. I don’t think Mears is any more independent in support of RSS than Christy is for UAH.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…actually it is convection that keeps us cool, not WV. Without convection the surface could not rid itself of heat since radiation is a very poor means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures. That is apparent in homes, where R-rated insulation is used to prevent heat loss by conduction, with little thought given to heat loss by radiation.

      When heated air at the surface rises it is replaced by cooler air from above via convection. The presence of that cooler air next to the hotter surface allows heat transfer from the surface to the air. When it warms, it rises too and more cooler air takes it’s place.

      If air temperature next to the surface was constantly in thermal equilibrium, no heat would be transferred to the atmosphere and the surface temperature would rise despite radiation.

      • E. Swanson says:

        As usual, Gordo presents an incomplete description of atmospheric convection, when he writes:

        When heated air at the surface rises it is replaced by cooler air from above via convection.

        He fails to mention the reason that the upper air is cooler than that which is lifted from below. He can’t accept that the upper air is cooled because it radiates thermal IR radiation to deep space with only the greenhouse gasses as the source of that IR radiation. That would blow up his entire denialist narrative.

        • gbaikie says:

          Earth atmosphere is mostly warmed and cooler at the ocean surface.
          Though land surface mostly cools and ocean surface mostly warms.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        “renactually it is convection that keeps us cool, not WV.”
        Definitely convection because water vapor packets are definitely lighter than the surrounding dry air (molecular weight of H2O = 18, mass of O2 is 36 and N2 is 28).

      • Craig T says:

        “Without convection the surface could not rid itself of heat since radiation is a very poor means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures. That is apparent in homes, where R-rated insulation is used to prevent heat loss by conduction, with little thought given to heat loss by radiation.”

        Are you sure?

        “Radiant barriers reflect radiant heat rather than absorb it, which reduces the amount of heat in your home, further reducing cooling costs…. Insulation can only do so much to trap hot air. If your home is under constant assault from the hot sun, you need to divert the thermal energy before it has the opportunity to heat your living space.

        This is where radiant barriers help by reflecting the thermal energy toward the roof and outside walls and away from inside the home.

        Using a radiant barrier in conjunction with extra insulation gives maximum protection because they work together. However, suppose you live in a hot climate, and you have to choose between radiant barriers and extra insulation to help reduce cooling costs. In that case, a radiant barrier is probably the better choice.”

        https://hvacseer.com/r-value-of-radiant-barrier/

  33. Gordon Robertson says:

    antonin and tim f…[ant]”x=0 is the only solution to x=sinx. y=x is a tangent to the sine curve at the origin…”.

    [tim]”1) sin(x) and x intersect each other at exactly 1 point: (0,0)
    2) We are interested here in the shape of the curve x + Sin(x) and how it seem to go up in steps. We are not interested in where the curves intercept (or intersect)”.

    ***

    You guys are correct, of course. I got myself turned around thinking of sine waves from a perspective of electrical engineering machines and amplifiers rather than distance along the x-axis.

    Actually, Tim, I was interested in where they intercept since I was posing a problem using the Newton-Rhapson method. To get an intersection other than zero I’d need to use y = cosx.

    When I plot y = sinx roughly, at 45 degrees (pi/4) and 135 degrees (3pi/4) I get y = 0.707. At x = 90 degrees (1.57 along x-axis), y = 1. The line y = x has passed through (1,1) long before sinx reaches y = 1.

    WRT the current math, rust had so firmly set in that I had to inject WD40 into my ears to lubricate my brain. By the time the WD40 was gushing out my nose, my brain had finally turned on.

    Antonin introduced the multiplier y = kx for the straight line but did not use a multiplier with sinx as in y = ksinx.
    The multiplier in y = mx increases/decreases the slope of the line but with sinx, it increases/decreases the amplitude of the sine wave.

    In electrical engineering, we use the equation in the form

    y = Asin(t)

    where y is a function of time, not distance, and t is normally represented as wt (omega.t), which is the distance along the circumference of a circle, or the angular displacement of a radial line, called a phasor, from the x-axis.

    That’s why I got stymied. I am used to sine waves of various amplitudes and frequencies but y = sinx is restricted to an amplitude of 1 and a wavelength of 2pi. I should have seen that right away.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      As an aside, here is how the engineering derivation goes.

      In electrical engineering we generally use y = sin(t) and not y = sin(x). y becomes a function of time, not distance along the x-axis. With y as a function of time, the x-axis is now in seconds or fractions thereof.

      The derivation is simple. Consider a rotating radial line in a circle (a phasor). The length of the line is A, therefore the projection of the tip of the phasor on the y-axis is y = A sin(theta).

      The rotating phasor has a physical counterpart, like a rotor in a generator or a motor. However, it is also applied to the alternating motion of electrons in an amplifier and frequency of the alteration becomes important. Quantum theory as a wave equation is based on the same motion of an electron, albeit as an orbiting particle in a field.

      Basic trig. The phasor as hypotenuse is A and the sine of the angle theta between the phasor and the x-axis is opposite/hypotenuse. Since the opposite side of the angle is the y-projection and the hypotenuse is A we have sin theta = y/A.

      y = A.sin(theta)

      If that phasor is rotating at a rate of so many radians/second = w (omega) then the angular distance moved in t seconds is wt. Therefore…

      y = A.sin(wt)

      That equation is applied to the frequency response of an amplifier as well as to a rotating rotor. I recall working in EE classes with an extension of that equation as applied to an amplifier. Of course it included imaginary, reactive components like jXl and jXc.

      That too creates a sine wave along the x-axis which is now measured in seconds rather than distance or degrees/radians.

      Of course, in that context, y = x would make no sense, unless y was expressed as a function of time as well.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      y=6x+2sinx is the same as y=3x+sinx, but scaled by a factor of two.
      For a qualitative analysis you only need to know the ratio between the sine term and the x term. There is no need to scale both.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Scaling was not my point. When I first visualized the graph of y = sinx, I saw it mentally as rising more sharply than it does. I was used to sine waves that rose abruptly and it took a bit to get the rust out and see what y = sin x does not only not rise abruptly it has a limit in altitude of 1.

        For example, if you consider the normal North America residential house voltage it is normally rated at 120 volts RMS. However, that is the equivalent direct current voltage for an alternating voltage of that size, and it is 0.707 of the sine wave peak amplitude. If you want to know the peak amplitude of the sinusoidal waveform representing it, you must multiply the 120 volts by 1.414, or divide it by 0.707.

        That gives you 169.69 volts. That value is far different than the amplitude of 1 you get by taking the peak of y = sinx. The sine wave also rises more sharply than y = sinx, mainly because it is based on y = A sin wt. That’s where I made my mistake. I speculated that y = sinx rose more sharply than it does, therefor y = x should intercept it twice. Engineers should not speculate as such.

        Due to the rust, and other matters, I was not seeing that at first, although I had learned it well.

        When you scale y = 3x + sinx by a factor of two, that’s not what you suggested earlier in the analysis. You only scaled y = x by declaring it as y = kx. That makes it a different problem, if k = 2. It becomes y = 2x +sin x. The slope of the straight line will be doubled but sinx will have the same amplitude at y = 1.

        I don’t want to work this out right now, but I am curious as y how much you’d need to descale y = x to make it intercept y = sinx at (0,0) and another point on y = sinx.

        For example, if I wrote it as y = 1/2x + sinx, y would not = 1 till x = 2. Meantime y = sinx would have reached it’s peak at pi/2 when x = 3.14/2 = 1.57 approximately. Therefore y = 1/2x should intercept y = sinx at two points.

        Only someone who enjoys math could appreciate such trivia. There’s no particular meaning behind my interest.

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          I’ve already answered that question. sin x = kx has more than one solution when |k|<1

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            My point is, under which values of k does the line y = kx intercept the curve sinx in two places?

            I explained my mistake based on a bad assumption about the rise rate of a sine wave restricted by y = sinx. Can we work together on this? No particular reason.

            We know that k greater than or equal to 1 cannot intercept y = sinx more than once, at 0,0, but I demonstrated that y = 1/2x does intercept it in two places. I explained why.

            This is what math is really about. When you work extensively with a problem, you gain insight into the physical meaning of the equation. Working with this simple problem has cleared out some cobwebs (rust). I had never focused on the issues related to the restrictions of y = sinx since most of the work I had done were of the form y = A sin(wt).

            In y = A.sin(wt), the A replaces your k and allows the amplitude of the sine wave to vary. The wt allows the width of it to vary. With y = sinx, no variation is possible.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            I could have saved myself a lot of trouble had I applied math in the first place.

            I needed the slope of the tangent line at 0,0 for y = sinx.

            The slope of any line can be given as y – yo = m(x – xo). For a tangent line it becomes, y – yo = f'(x)(x – xo)

            Since xo,yo is 0,0 we can write the tangent line equation as …

            y = f'(x).x

            f'(x) for sinx is cosx

            So, y = cosx . x

            at 0,0, the tangent line is

            y = cos(0).x and since cos(0) = 1

            y = x is the equation of the tangent line at 0,0 on the curve y = sinx. You guys were right, that line does not intercept y = sinx more than once, at 0,0.

            Of course, the tangent line angle with the x-axis is 45 degrees at 0,0 but it will change at points above 0,0 and below (pi/2,1). Let’s check it at x = pi/4 = 0.785 along the x-axis.

            Remember, pi is a real number along the x-axis and it also represents 180 degrees, or pi radians. Although it is claimed formally that it cannot be represented by a fraction, I have seen 22/7 used in that capacity as an approximation.

            If you calculate pi/4 along the x-axis, you need to divide 3.14…. by 4. If you take sin x, however, you need to convert pi/4 to degrees or radians. That’s because the sine is a ratio of two sides of a triangle related to the angle of the triangle in question.

            I guess it would be easier to mark the x-axis in degrees or radians but I am working with the real number range as indicated by x. Or, using numbers like pi/2. pi/3, etc., which can be quickly converted to degrees/radians. I am just being clear that if real numbers are used for x that it must be kept in mind that when used in a sin or cos function, the argument must be the angle represented by the real number if the x-axis was laid out in degrees or radians.

            For y = sinx, y = sin 45 degrees = 0.707. So, at a point on y = sinx where x = 0.785, y = 0.707.

            y – yo = cosx (x – xo) where cos x now = cos 45 degrees = 0.707 as well.

            (y – 0.707) = 0.707(x – 0.785)

            (y – 0.707) = 0.707x – 0.555

            y = 0.707x + 0.707 – 0.555

            y = 0.707x + 0.152

            Can’t guarantee my math in my current state.

            So, the new tangent line has a slope of 0.707 and a y-intercept of 0.152

            That makes sense with what I claimed earlier. If y = x, the line cuts the origin at a 45 degree angle with a slope of 1. Therefore, a line through the origin with an angle > 45 degrees will slope higher toward the vertical and a line with a slope < 45 degrees will slope toward the horizontal.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Anyone wondering why I am going through all this? Anyone rolling his/her eyes? Ken??? RLH???

            What I jut proved, re tangent lines, is that the Moon cannot possibly rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth. I demonstrated clearly how a tangent line changes its angle wrt the x-axis on a sine waveform at each point on the waveform.

            It’s exactly the same with the Moon. Think of the tangent line as the side of the Moon always facing Earth. As the Moon orbits, the angle of that side changes wrt the stars but the side cannot rotate about the Moons local axis.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Is that what you believe you’ve proved?
            Take a pair of antipodal points on the moon of mass delta m, and calculate the kinetic energy of those points averaged over a cycle:
            Case 1: The moon always points toward the earth
            Case 2: The moon always has the same orientation relative to the background universe
            Report back with calculation on what you come up with.

          • RLH says:

            “As the Moon orbits, the angle of that side changes wrt the stars but the side cannot rotate about the Moons local axis”

            Now define the local center wrt the ‘fixed’ stars and the local surface wrt the ‘fixed’ stars and tell me the surface does not rotate wrt the center.

          • bobdroege says:

            So the tangent line is rotating but the Moon is not.

            Got it!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY

            Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner

            Welcome to the greenhouse effect defense team!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

  34. Tim Wells says:

    There has been weather modifying going off in the UK, especially when we had record heat. There is a massive difference between contrails and chemtrails.

  35. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Good advice for all you science deniers too…

    When [Alex] Jones attempted to tell the jury he was bankrupt Tuesday during his own testimony, he was admonished by Judge Maya Guerra Gamble for lying under oath.

    “You believe everything you say is true, but your beliefs do not make something true,” Gamble said. “That is that is what we’re doing here. Just because you claim to think something is true does not make it true. It does not protect you. It is not allowed. You’re under oath. That means things must actually be true when you say them.”

    https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/alex-jones-defamation-trial-sandy-hook-parents-1392074/

    • Clint R says:

      The AGW cult does more than deny science. They actively attempt to pervert science.

      So you need to specify both science-deniers and science-perverters.

    • E. Swanson says:

      TM, It was great to see that in a clip of Jones’ testimony (@ 2:16 min). HERE’s another discussion

      If only all the lying climate deniers would face a judge under oath.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      As Vaughan Pratt would happily testify, the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.

      • Willard says:

        Graham, please stop trolling.

      • Bindidon says:

        Pseudomod

        ” … the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. ”

        What a ridiculous blah blah.

        You should read Vaughan Pratt’s wording a bit more carefully:

        https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/

        and above all move down into the discussion around it.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          He recently stated the back-radiation version of the GHE was debunked. He said so here, at Dr Spencer’s blog. Get over it, Bindidon.

          • Bindidon says:

            Agreed, you (exceptionnally) made a good point.

          • bobdroege says:

            Yes he explained there is no heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface due to back radiation or down welling IR.

            The heat transfer is from the surface to the atmosphere.

            But as Pratt points out, the atmosphere cools the surface.

            But then more CO2

            “Just to clarify my own position, it is clear to me, based solely on the temperature and CO2 records to date, that if CO2 continues on its present course it will reach between 850 and 1000 ppmv by 2100, by which time temperatures worldwide will have increased some 2 C.”

            More CO2 means more DWIR which warms the surface even though there will still be no heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface.

            That’s all that he is saying, there is no heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Cult Leader Grammie pup, Pratt’s comment lauds S&O, but he fails to recognize the fact that their experiment did actually find “back radiation” when using the IR detector device. Other than that, the S&O experiment is grossly flawed on several levels, such as the fact that they used fans which would promote convection and thus reduce the impact of the heating of their temperature monitor mounted on the back wall and failed to describe how they maintained the temperature of their heating source.

            Furthermore, he claims that the lapse rate will remain constant, without proof. In addition, he ignores the possibility that given a fixed lapse rate, if the temperature at the tropopause increases or the level of the tropopause increases, that would propagate down to the surface as a warming trend.

            Sorry troll, Pratt’s comments do not “debunk” AGW.

          • bobdroege says:

            Yes, Pratt’s still an “alarmist”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Cult Leader Grammie pup”

            There is nobody here posting under that name. Please try again.

            “Pratt’s comment lauds S&O, but he fails to recognize the fact that their experiment did actually find “back radiation” when using the IR detector device.”

            Swanson, Pratt and Team Good are not questioning that back-radiation exists and can be measured. Please stop attacking the same straw man over and over again. It is not a question of whether or not back-radiation exists. It is a question of whether or not it can increase temperatures. Why does Team Evil always have to resort to misrepresentation?

            “Furthermore, he claims that the lapse rate will remain constant, without proof. In addition, he ignores the possibility that given a fixed lapse rate, if the temperature at the tropopause increases or the level of the tropopause increases, that would propagate down to the surface as a warming trend.”

            He still believes in the GHE, Swanson.

            “Sorry troll, Pratt’s comments do not “debunk” AGW”

            Never said they did. Try listening to what I am saying before you make a fool of yourself again.

          • barry says:

            I hadn’t paid any attention Vaughan Pratt’s view. Coming to it as a newbie I note that he agrees with the notion that more GHGs will cause more warming at the surface.

            If ‘skeptics’ here disagree with that, especially those skeptics here who propose that only demented, cultish minds can hold that point of view, it doesn’t seem reasonable that they would give Pratt any credence on anything.

            The only disagreement he appears to have is with the notion that the warming properties of the GHE is purely because of back radiation. To add to the comments above, here are a couple more quotes from him:

            “Where the back radiation argument for global warming breaks down is the assumption that the additional warmth is conveyed to the rest of the planet by radiation. Clearly some of it is, but some of it is equally clearly conveyed around the planet by convection, eventually reaching the surface in the form of warmer air which then heats the ground by conduction via contact with the bottom millimeter or so of the atmosphere.”

            https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98462

            “it seems to me that the question of which of conduction and radiation dominates surface warming (in the dT/dt sense) is intrinsically academic in two senses.

            1. It doesn’t really matter so long as the net effect of the increasing DLR and increasing temperature of air at the surface combine to warm the surface.”

            https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98925

            His OP at Judith Curry’s was an attempt to address how ‘skeptics’ think as opposed to what they say, and to try and give their position a credible argument, based on Pratt’s own ideas about ‘backradiation’.

            That doesn’t make Pratt’s reasoning correct, but it did make for an interesting discussion – for any whose interests rise above scoring points by pointing out differences of opinion from ‘the other side’.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, barry, this discussion is about what Pratt wrote on back-radiation on this blog a year ago, after the Seim & Olsen experiment came out. Not what he wrote eleven years ago at Curry’s blog. He thinks that there’s a GHE, but has stated that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. I just thought it was noteworthy that someone from Team GHE agrees with something we have been arguing here for years. He also wrote that the following proposition was incorrect:

            “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”

            That, along with the fact he was not disputing the results of the Seim & Olsen experiment, where back-radiation was recorded but the expected warming did not occur, leads to the conclusion that he is saying that back-radiation does not warm/insulate/increase temperatures. He agrees with us on back-radiation, in other words. Unlike us, he still thinks there is a GHE.

          • Nate says:

            “Seim & Olsen experiment, where back-radiation was recorded but the expected warming did not occur”

            Some arm-chair scientists are claiming more from the Seim Olsen experiment than the authors themselves are willing to claim.

            I asked Seim, in email, whether he had discovered something new here, he said NO. Seim admitted that he lost track of heat in his experiment. He cannot explain where the missing heat has gone.

            But he agreed that radiative heat transfer laws should be obeyed, and the first law of thermodynamics should be obeyed.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1316614

            IOW experiments are difficult. The apparent violation of long-established laws of physics in an experiment are, with high probability, simply erroneous.

          • Ball4 says:

            Dr. Pratt: “There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, he still believes in the GHE, as I have been at pains to point out.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Cult Leader grammie pup, the S&O paper presents deeply flawed results, as I mentioned above. Until you take the time to understand what they did and why they failed, your are just blowing smoke, as usual.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The point I am making is not even about S & O, Swanson. You people just read trigger words and react. You do not even read the whole comment correctly.

          • Willard says:

            NEWS FLASH – Area Troll Wonders Why People React to His Trolling

          • E. Swanson says:

            Cult Leader grammie pup, Here’s a quote from Pratt’s 2021 post:

            Hence in any slab of atmosphere, the bottom of the slab radiating heat upwards into the slab warms (increases in temperature) by the same number of degrees as the top of the slab radiating heat downwards.

            Pratt doesn’t understand how to model the thermodynamics of the air mass. Such slabs are treated as homogeneous parcels, the heat transfer being from the center of the parcel. In that case, the thermal IR is emitted both upward and downward directions and passes to the other slabs both below and on top. His mental model ignores the downward emission out of the slab toward lower layers and the surface, as well as the upward emission out of the slab toward the higher layers and deep space. This approach requires integrating the energy flow thru the entire atmosphere and would also include vertical convection.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sure Swanson, I agree – on the GHE, Pratt has no idea what he is talking about. The only thing I agree with him on, is that the back-radiation version of the GHE, is debunked. You’ll get there, Swanson.

        • Clint R says:

          The never-ending GHE debate:

          Warmist: Radiative gases warm the planet.

          Physicist: No, a cold sky can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer surface. That violates 2LoT.

          Warmist: Okay then, but the radiative gases keep Earth warmer than it would otherwise be.

          Physicist: No, that’s “insulation”. The NON-radiative gases act as insulation. The radiative gases emit energy to space, cooling the system.

          Warmist: The radiative gases also emit back to the surface, warming the planet.

          Physicist: No, a cold sky can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer surface. That violates 2LoT.

          Warmist: Okay then, but the radiative gases keep Earth warmer than it would otherwise be.

          Physicist: No, that’s “insulation”. The NON-radiative gases act as insulation. The radiative gases emit energy to space, cooling the system.

          (Continue, ad nauseum.)

          • Willard says:

            > Physicist

            Here’s what a real physicist says, Pup:

            Using a bad analogy will only lead to bad conclusions.

            It’s fascinating to watch you work laboriously to confuse the issue with a bad analogy. We are just trying to point you gently in the right direction. Can you point to any reference that says hot objects emit 7 energies, but cooler objects only emit 5?

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/updated-atmospheric-co2-concentration-forecast-through-2050-and-beyond/#comment-1339085

            You’re not NOTHING.

            You’re our most adorable Sky Dragon Crank!

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            Real Climate Scientist (not the phony make believe one that exist in the twisted mind of Clint R): The GHG in atmosphere lower the heat leaving the Earth’s surface allowing the Solar input to reach a higher surface steady state temperture.

            Real Physicist (Not the idiot Clint R imagines): Yes correct this uses the well established radiative heat transfer equation which determines that the amount of heat lost by a object is influenced by the temperature of the object surroundings.

            Clint R: But, but that violates the 2nd Law which I don’t understand but am an arrogant ass thinking I do and going on blogs belittling anyone who does not accept my cult version of reality.

            Physicist: No Clint R that does not violate the 2nd Law at all, it is your misunderstanding of the law that is the problem.

            Clint R: I know I am right, don’t challenge me you cult minded idiot. Fluxes don’t add, the Moon does not rotate on its axis, the radiative heat transfer law is bogus, a hot object can’t absorb energy from a colder one.

            Physicist: Calm down Clint R. Have you had any actual physics classes? Have you ever performed any experiments on your own?

            Clint R: I am right that is all that matters you are all a bunch of cult minded idiots. Only people who blindly believe all the opinions I make up are real thinkers. You scientists are all a bunch of idiots who pervert my twisted version of science (even though I never have proven any of it and avoid offering any evidence for all my stupid ideas).

          • Clint R says:

            Oh good, worthless willard and poor Norman have teamed up to produce some ineffective flak. Obviously I was over the target.

            And, what a team! It’s a “synergy of incompetence”.

            Norman, don’t forget to provide a credible reference to support your belief that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface can raise its temperature to 325K.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            I guess it is just sufficient to call you an idiot. It is unreal how stupid you are. You keep repeating the same stupid things over and over.

            Just a complete idiot. I try sometimes to reason with you. It is a wasted effort. You are either to stupid to communicate ideas or are a braindead BOT. I believe you are a BOT since it is hard for me to imagine a real human as stupid as you seem to be.

            Can you explain why you repeat the same things over and over?

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, you always forget to mention that you have NO meaningful background in the relevant physics. You can’t even solve the simple physics problems.

            When you finish with your mindless insults and false accusations, please provide a credible reference to support your belief that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface can raise its temperature to 325K.

          • Willard says:

            A REAL Physicist met that trivial challenge many times, Pup, e.g.:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333149

            You forgot to answer the question BG asked you:

            What is the wavelength of a level 4 photon?

          • RLH says:

            “What is the wavelength of a level 4 photon?”

            At what velocity is the receiver? (hint Doppler).

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Line broadening is the advanced class, Richard. These clowns are still arguing with first-year texts.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Brandon, please stop trolling.

          • Nate says:

            “Physicist: No, thats ‘insulation’. The NON-radiative gases act as insulation. The radiative gases emit energy to space, cooling the system.”

            That is something an imaginary physicist from an alternate universe said.

            Here is what an actual physicist, John Tyndall, the pioneer of IR radiative heat transfer, said:

            “when the heat is absorbed by the planet, it is so changed in quality that the rays emanating from the planet cannot get with the same freedom back into space. Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of solar heat; but checks its exit, and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”

          • Clint R says:

            “Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of solar heat; but checks its exit, and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”

            That process fits with the atmosphere being a conductive insulator. But, it fails with photons. Photon accumulation does NOT result in the type of heating needed to warm Earth’s surface. The simple analogy is bricks-in-a-box. A brick in the box is at 288K. The box is at 288K. Now, a second brick, also at 288K, is added to the box. The number of photons flying in the box has been increased, yet the temperature remains unchanged. This works for the next 100 288K bricks added to the box.

          • Ball4 says:

            Now, a second brick, also at 288K, is added to the box adding to the mass in the box. The number of photons flying in the box really has been increased.

            Added photons to Earth’s 288K atm. do not increase the mass of Earth’s atm., however the added photons do increase its thermodynamic internal energy.

            Think again Clint R.

          • Clint R says:

            Billions of 15μphotons can’t increase the frequency above the frequency of ONE 15μ photon, Ball4.

            I know you want to BELIEVE more photons mean higher temperature. But that would mean you could boil water with ice cubes. But, I know you want to believe that also….

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > I know you want to BELIEVE more photons mean higher temperature.

            Clint has just proven that an increase in solar irradiance won’t warm the planet.

            You just can’t make this up.

          • Ball4 says:

            Good point Brandon.

            Clint, billions of 15μ internal photons add up to more internal energy than one internal 15μ photon.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Thanks Ball4.

            After I posted I thought about it a little more. Increasing the irradiance of the sun implies an increase in temperature which as we know changes the distribution of photons toward higher frequencies. So it’s just possible that the number of photons per unit area stays the same while the average energy per photon increases.

            So far teh Goggle is only showing me answers to the question on Quora, Stack Exchange, etc., which I don’t trust. In any case this is one of those moments I live for in Climateball; a novel question presenting a research and learning opportunity … yay!

            In the meantime I can make the same point by moving the earth closer to the sun and keeping all else constant.

          • Clint R says:

            Increasing solar irradiance increases average higher frequencies, increasing temperature.

            Congratulations Brandon. You’ve finally arrived at “It’s the Sun, stupid”.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > Increasing solar irradiance increases average higher frequencies, increasing temperature.

            Mmm hmm, it also increases intensity in each frequency band, answering my own question as to whether or not the total number of photons increases.

            I suggested a better example below: move the earth closer to the sun. But you predictably dodged it.

            > Youve finally arrived at Its the Sun, stupid.

            One small problem, Clint: solar irradiance hasn’t increased since 1950. Temperature has.

            Ta.

          • Clint R says:

            Brandon, you’re the one that misrepresented my words.

            So, you get to live with your own perversion of reality.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          All Pratt demonstrates at your link is that he too misunderstands the 2nd law. We can forgive him, he is a computer programmer. Pratt states…

          “The problem with this argument is that the CO2 flux is bi-directional, and it is the net flux that matters”.

          No, Vaughn, flux has nothing to do with the 2nd law, it’s about heat. Since we are talking about heat transfer from a colder region to a warmer region BY ITS OWN MEANS this is covered by the 2nd law. The law states clearly, that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder region to a warmer region.

          IR fluxes from CO2 play no part in heat transfer unless the IR they contain is absorbed and converted to heat. Quantum theory based on electron transitions in atoms tell us it is not possible for the electrons in a warmer body to absorb IR from a colder source. The colder source IR lacks the intensity and frequency to excite electrons in the atoms of a warmer body to transition.

          Conversely, IR from a warmer body does have the frequency and intensity to excite electrons to transition in the atoms of a cooler body.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > The colder source IR lacks the intensity and frequency

            A 255 K body emits over virtually the same frequencies as a 288 K one, Gordon:

            https://imgur.com/gallery/kKHVJVl

            You ran away last time I showed you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ah, but that was eleven years ago, Gordon. Although he does still believe there’s a Greenhouse Effect, Vaughan Pratt now accepts that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. He said:

            “What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”

            and

            “Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””

            So the idea that back-radiation warms the surface is starting to be rejected by some members of Team Evil. Of course, they still find some other way to claim that CO2 is warming the planet, but it looks like some progress has finally been made.

          • Bindidon says:

            Pseudomod

            You still didn’t manage to read the comment section of Vaughan Pratt’s guest post at Climate Etc.

            Judith Curry has clearly explained that this name ‘back radiation’ is a non-sequitur, and that the really existing concept of ‘downwelling LWIR’ clearly exists and can be measured.

            And among the 3,000+ comments, you’ll see enough doubting about Pratt’s competence to discuss this difficult point.

            As usual, you are manipulating us.

          • Willard says:

            > BY ITS OWN MEANS

            C’mon, Gordo.

            Not that Dragon Crank crap again.

            Please.

          • Clint R says:

            Bindidon, the fact that “downwelling LWIR clearly exists and can be measured”, doesn’t mean much. Ice emits IR and the IR can be measured. That does NOT mean ice can boil water.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            brandon…”[GR]> The colder source IR lacks the intensity and frequency

            [BG]A 255 K body emits over virtually the same frequencies as a 288 K one, Gordon:”

            ***

            You too are missing the point of the 2nd law, it’s about heat. The radiation leaving a 255K body has a lower intensity and frequency than than radiation leaving a 288K body. Neither radiation is heat, it is electromagnetic energy defined as an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field. Neither an electric field nor a magnetic field carries heat.

            However, radiation of a higher intensity and frequency from a hotter body can be converted to heat in a cooler body. The opposite is not true. Radiation form a cooler body is ignored by a hotter body hence no heat is created in a warmer body by radiation from a cooler body.

            The 2nd law is about heat transfer, not radiation per se. No heat can be transferred physically by radiation through space or a vacuum. The heat gain in a cooler body is locally produced and the radiation converted to heat was created at a loss of heat in the radiating body.

            Heat transfer via radiation refers to the loss of heat in a hotter body when heat is converted to EM and the gain of heat in a cooler body when the radiation is converted back to heat. At no time does EM carry heat or move it from one body to another through space. It is strictly a phenomenon of energy that one form of energy can be converted to another, however, the conversion does not happen at random.

            EM is converted to heat in a mass when electrons in the atoms of the mass absorb it, become excited and move to a higher level of kinetic energy. That increase in KE is heat. Therefore it is electrons that produce the heat in a cooler body when they are excited by EM.

            That cannot work in the opposite direction because electrons in a hotter body are already at a higher kinetic energy level than the atoms in a cooler body that produced the EM. The EM from a cooler body cannot affect the electrons at their higher energy level.

            That satisfies the 2nd law, any other explanation does not.

          • gbaikie says:

            –So the idea that back-radiation warms the surface is starting to be rejected by some members of Team Evil.–

            It’s been rejected by most of them for quite a while. The only agreement is, it’s the end of world, fund us.

          • Willard says:

            > it’s about heat.

            We know, Gordo:

            We have already been through this, its about heat dissipation, not energy from cooler air warming an object dissipating heat.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285868

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “We can forgive him, he is a computer programmer.” … just like we can forgive you, Gordon, because you are an electrical engineer. We all have our strengths. While I am sure you are a fine electrical engineer, that does not make you an expert in physics or climate or math.

            For example, it is completely false that ‘Quantum theory based on electron transitions in atoms tell us it is not possible for the electrons in a warmer body to absorb IR from a colder source.”

            You will never find any text on “quantum theory” saying anything vaguely like that!

            Quantum theory does help us figure out what energies (frequencies, wavelengths) of photons can be absorbed by a material. But quantum theory doesn’t say that a 15 um photon from 400 K CO2 will be absorbed, but an identical 15 um photon from 200 K CO2 will not not absorbed. In fact, quantum theory tells us that identical photons must behave identically.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            It has been a long time since I’ve taken Quantum Mechanics and Spectroscopy classes, but that’s not how I remember it, Tim. Molecules receive energy in packets and multiples of the packets. A molecule at a higher energy state cannot receive energy from a molecule at a lower state.

          • Entropic man says:

            Stephen

            My quantum mechanics is even further than yours, but I recall that atoms and molecules have multiple energy states. They can absorb or emit photons of various energies which is why most elements show multiple absor*btion/emission lines in a stellar spectrum.

            They can absorb photons of whatever energy raises them to the next higher energy state.

            Nothing said about relative energy states of emitter and absorber. Just that the absorbed photon is sufficient to raise the absorber to the next level.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, Bindidon, I am not manipulating anyone. Nobody is denying that back-radiation exists and can be measured. What Vaughan Pratt recently stated is:

            “What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”

            and

            “Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””

            So what he is saying is, the back-radiation (which exists, nobody is denying that) does not warm the surface. Which is exactly the same thing that a few of us have been arguing for years on this blog. What I still don’t understand is, why Pratt is allowed to say that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked, whereas when the few of us that have been arguing the exact same thing on this blog for years say it, we get no end of grief.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            CO2 doesn’t absorb all emitted longwave radiation as long as it is higher or has enough energy. The bands are discreet.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            “Quantum theory based on electron transitions in atoms tell us it is not possible for the electrons in a warmer body to absorb IR from a colder source.”

            Except we are talking about electron transitions in molecules, the greenhouse effect if from poly-atomic molecules and the electron in those molecules.

            And what counts is the wavelength or frequency, temperature has almost nothing to do with it.

            Greenhouse effect is still alive and well.

            Though it’s enhancement seems to be responsible for some deaths lately.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Also, if the CO2 is already at a higher state, it isn’t going to absorb the photon. A 400K CO2 molecule will already be at a higher state. A 15u photo has 15u energy. A molecule wants to give up its energy, always seeking a lower energy state.

          • bobdroege says:

            Stephen,

            “A 400K CO2 molecule will already be at a higher state.”

            No, this is not correct.

            Even at 400K, most of the CO2 molecules will be in the ground state.

            I’ll try and find the equation for that.

            Anyway, a CO2 in an excited state will transfer that energy to other atoms or molecules in the atmosphere on the order of a billionth of a second, where it takes about 1 second for the CO2 to emit a photon.

            But then the CO2 molecule can also be excited through collisions, and this is actually why the back radiation model is a poor explanation of the greenhouse effect.

          • bobdroege says:

            Here is the equation,

            N2 = N1 e ^ -(E2-E1)/(Kb*T)

          • Willard says:

            > Nobody is denying

            Who died and made you King of the nobodies, Graham?

            In any event, you already know Nabil:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/why-havent-the-tropics-warmed-much-a-tantalizing-piece-of-evidence/#comment-393924

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Well, Vaughan Pratt is not denying that back-radiation exists, and nor is Clint R, Gordon, or myself. What we are all saying is that back-radiation does not warm. It’s just that apparently Vaughan Pratt is allowed to say it, the rest of us are not.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > A 400K CO2

            Individual molecules don’t have a temperature, Stephen:

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

            Temperature is a physical quantity that expresses how hot matter is, or as a measure of the average translational kinetic energy per atom or molecule in the system.

            The velocities of molecules in a gas at a given temperature follow the MaxwellBoltzmann distribution as a function of temperature:

            https://ibchem.com/root_img/boltz2.jpg

            As in the Planck distribution — which not coincidentally looks very similar — the curves for different temperatures overlap.

            The implication of all this is that a photon interacting with a single molecule can’t tell temperature of the entire receiving body from the kinetic energy of that molecule alone. Likewise, a photon doesn’t know the temperature of the emitting body, nor could it carry that information even if it did.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT 7:50 am wrongly writes: “It’s just that apparently Vaughan Pratt is allowed to say it, the rest of us are not.”

            Dr. Pratt never said “that back-radiation does not warm” so DREMT just makes that up from nowhere.

            Based on experiments Dr. Pratt really conducted, he actually said: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect.”

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            “What we are all saying is that back-radiation does not warm.”

            That’s still incorrect, if you mean by warm, being an increase in temperature.

            The correct statement is back-radiation does not transfer heat.

            So stop playing semantic games and use the correct technical terms.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bob’s comment does not merit a response. Ball4, Pratt said:

            “Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””

            There is no other inference that can be made from this besides “back-radiation does not warm”.

          • Willard says:

            Graham prudently refrains from responding to Bob.

            If he did he would have to acknowledge that he plays a silly semantic game.

            Pup holds that CO2 is cooling. Is he a spokesperson for that view too?

          • Ball4 says:

            So DREMT now admits Dr. Pratt has not said: “that back-radiation does not warm”, thx.

            Based on experiments Dr. Pratt really conducted, he actually said: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect” actually inferring increased back-radiation does warm the surface by Dr. Pratt writing a “TCR closer to 1.85 C/doubling” of CO2 ppm.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”

            and

            “Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT 10:24 am still admits Dr. Pratt has not said: “that back-radiation does not warm”, thx.

            Dr. Pratt: “What (a lab experiment that ignores the lapse rate) can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.” When the lapse rate is properly not experimentally or theoretically ignored as in nature, Dr. Pratt says: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect”.

            So of course the Wiki article needs correcting as Dr. Pratt says since the Wiki statement DREMT clips “ignores the lapse rate”. Interested DREMT should be Dr. Pratt’s hero and go correct Wiki on that subject.

          • bobdroege says:

            It looks like wikipedia no longer says its warming the surface.

            “Radiant heat going downwards further increases the surface temperature, adding to energy going up into the atmosphere.”

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

            no back radiation to be found.

            So we can put the straw baler away.

            But it will be hard, you know, with the kung-fu grip.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bob, the point of me quoting that particular quote is not about whether Wikipedia needs updating or not. The point is, Pratt is saying that this proposition:

            “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”

            is incorrect. Thus he is saying that the idea back-radiation warms/insulates/increases the temperature of the surface is incorrect.

          • Ball4 says:

            Wiki: “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”

            is incorrect since it ignores the lapse rate in the statement. Pratt is saying that the idea back-radiation warms/insulates/increases the temperature of the surface is incorrect when the lapse rate is ignored.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Look at them all. They’re going berserk just because one of their own happened to stray a little bit closer to reality than normal.

          • bobdroege says:

            OK,

            But he makes a better statement of the greenhouse effect with this statement.

            “The surface of the Earth is warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere because it receives energy from two sources: the Sun and the atmosphere.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The “Greenhouse Effect” is whatever you guys want it to be, which changes whenever you need it to.

          • bobdroege says:

            No it doesn’t DREMPTY.

            It’s always been the surface is warmer with greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than it would be without them.

            So you lose an argument and resort to lying.

            All in your bag of tricks.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            Here is your participation trophy.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

          • Willard says:

            [GRAHAM] The “Greenhouse Effect” is whatever you guys want it to be

            [THE IPCC] Greenhouse gases, clouds, and (to a small extent) aerosols absorb terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earths surface and elsewhere in the atmosphere. These substances emit infrared radiation in all directions, but, everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers because of the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere and the consequent weakening of emission.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nearly as vague as bob’s “definition”, Willard.

          • barry says:

            Reposting from above – comment is better placed here:

            I hadn’t paid any attention Vaughan Pratt’s view. Coming to it as a newbie I note that he agrees with the notion that more GHGs will cause more warming at the surface.

            If ‘skeptics’ here disagree with that, especially those skeptics here who propose that only demented, cultish minds can hold that point of view, it doesn’t seem reasonable that they would give Pratt any credence on anything.

            The only disagreement he appears to have is with the notion that the warming properties of the GHE is purely because of back radiation. To add to the comments above, here are a couple more quotes from him:

            “Where the back radiation argument for global warming breaks down is the assumption that the additional warmth is conveyed to the rest of the planet by radiation. Clearly some of it is, but some of it is equally clearly conveyed around the planet by convection, eventually reaching the surface in the form of warmer air which then heats the ground by conduction via contact with the bottom millimeter or so of the atmosphere.”

            https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98462

            “it seems to me that the question of which of conduction and radiation dominates surface warming (in the dT/dt sense) is intrinsically academic in two senses.

            1. It doesn’t really matter so long as the net effect of the increasing DLR and increasing temperature of air at the surface combine to warm the surface.”

            https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98925

            His OP at Judith Curry’s was an attempt to address how ‘skeptics’ think as opposed to what they say, and to try and give their position a credible argument, based on Pratt’s own ideas about ‘backradiation’.

            That doesn’t make Pratt’s reasoning correct, but it did make for an interesting discussion – for any whose interests rise above scoring points by pointing out differences of opinion from ‘the other side’.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, barry, this discussion is about what Pratt wrote on back-radiation on this blog a year ago, after the Seim & Olsen experiment came out. Not what he wrote eleven years ago at Curry’s blog. He thinks that there’s a GHE, but has stated that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. I just thought it was noteworthy that someone from Team GHE agrees with something we have been arguing here for years. He also wrote that the following proposition was incorrect:

            “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”

            That, along with the fact he was not disputing the results of the Seim & Olsen experiment, where back-radiation was recorded but the expected warming did not occur, leads to the conclusion that he is saying that back-radiation does not warm/insulate/increase temperatures. He agrees with us on back-radiation, in other words. Unlike us, he still thinks there is a GHE.

          • Ball4 says:

            Dr. Pratt: “There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, he still believes in the GHE, as I have been at pains to point out.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The point I am making is not even about S & O, Swanson. You people just read trigger words and react. You do not even read the whole comment correctly.

          • Willard says:

            Sometimes Graham complains that greenhouse theory is whatever its proponents what it to be. Other times he complains that it’s vague. His complaint about vagueness often follows comments to spoon-feed him.

            As if nobody would notice the goalposts moving.

          • barry says:

            “I just thought it was noteworthy that someone from Team GHE agrees with something we have been arguing here for years.”

            Pratt was trying to give comfort to skpetics by dissing back radiation as the only cause for surface warming.

            That’s why you pounced on his comments to that effect, and completely disregard his view that the enhanced GHE will cause more surface warming.

            Because understanding Pratt’s view of the GHE isn’t the point for you. The point is about scoring points.

            If it weren’t, you would be talking about Pratt’s actual view of the GHE. Which isn’t very helpful to your general position. So the optics is what you will pursue. Not the truth.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            barry, you are still talking about what VP said eleven years ago. Times change. People’s opinions change. VP said, more recently, that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. He said that the idea that back-radiation warms the surface, is incorrect. He basically said that everything we have been trying to tell you about back-radiation, is correct. You won’t listen to us. So try to listen to him, instead.

          • barry says:

            Pratt’s alternative view is ok. He’s not an expert in this area, so it’s not perturbing that he offers an alternative theory.

            “He basically said that everything we have been trying to tell you about back-radiation, is correct.”

            He doesn’t agree with the skeptic views that:

            a) back radiation doesn’t exists
            b) back radiation cannot be absorbed by the surface

            No skeptic I’ve ever seen explain away back-radiation does it the way he does, with the lapse rate argument. You certainly haven’t.

            When I describe the GHE I tend to do it like he does – that the atmosphere slows the escape of upwelling radiation, like insulation.

            As I’ve said many times, if a system or body receiving continuous radiative energy has its rate of radiative emission slowed, then that system/body must warm.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “He doesn’t agree with the skeptic views that:

            a) back radiation doesn’t exists
            b) back radiation cannot be absorbed by the surface”

            Well, barry, a) appears to be something of a recurring straw man, as far as I’m concerned. Although there do appear to be an odd few people out there who claim that back-radiation does not exist, it is not a view that I agree with or tend to take seriously. As far as I’m concerned, back-radiation exists, and every serious skeptic of the GHE agrees that it exists. As for b), Pratt said:

            “Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””

            He certainly seems to be saying that he thinks back-radiation does not warm the surface. So whether that means he is saying it is not absorbed by the surface, who knows? The important part seems to be that it does not warm the surface. I would agree with that.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT certainly remains wrong since, based on his own experiments, Dr. Pratt clearly writes for the surface: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect.”

            Also Dr. Pratt tells DREMT: “There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4 never listens.

          • barry says:

            “He certainly seems to be saying that he thinks back-radiation does not warm the surface.”

            If so, it’s not because he believes a warm surface can’t absorb radiation from a cool object, as his earlier comments make clear – unless he has fundamentally altered his view of radiative transfer since 2011, which I very much doubt.

            His apparent rejection of backradiation warming is not based on that thinking at any rate.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Maybe it is based on the result of the experiment he was discussing, where back-radiation was measured but the expected warming did not occur.

          • barry says:

            Yes, substance is a bit thin on the ground here. What paper is he talking about?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Seim & Olsen. Though he said of the paper that:

            “What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”

            So the results of that experiment were apparently no surprise to him, as that is what he thought “theory predicts”. Of course, that is also what we thought “theory predicts”, and had been arguing that for the last several years on this blog whilst receiving relentless false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults, for doing so. Also, the experiment itself received relentless OTT criticism, a whole post on WUWT “reviewing” it, and suddenly there were lots of armchair experts on experimental design and how terribly flawed it all was. At least WUWT allowed Seim & Olsen an article in response to defend themselves.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Seim & Olsen. Though he said of the paper that:

            “What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”

            So the results of that experiment were apparently no surprise to him, as that is what he thought “theory predicts”. Of course, that is also what we thought “theory predicts”, and had been arguing that for the last several years on this blog whilst receiving relentless false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults, for doing so. Also, the experiment itself received relentless OTT criticism, a whole post on WUWT “reviewing” it, and suddenly there were lots of armchair experts on experimental design and how terribly flawed it all was. At least WUWT allowed Seim & Olsen an article in response to defend themselves.

          • barry says:

            Found the paper, read it, checked out the authors.

            Yeah, I’m not terribly impressed either. It’s ‘interesting’ in the way I can cite a bunch of skeptic stuff that cross-contradicts other skeptic stuff. Oh look, one of your own said the opposite of another one.

            None of these people are experts in the matters they are discussing. No idea if the experiment in the paper was valid. Shrug.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Downplay it all you want, barry, but someone from Team GHE finally admitting that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked is a big deal. Especially since it is so regularly debated on this site, and has been for years.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            WH/SI: someone from Team GHE finally admitting that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked

            Also WH/SI: I wasnt aware that this meant I had to defend every word

            Priceless.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, Brandon.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The two situations aren’t really comparable, Brandy Guts.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT is still wrong.

            Dr. Pratt actually wrote: “What (a lab experiment that ignores the lapse rate) can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts (a lab experiment that ignores the lapse rate) should.”

            S&O paper ignores the lapse rate so Dr. Pratt correctly wrote: “There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Lapse rate! Lapse rate! Lapse rate! Troll.

          • barry says:

            “someone from Team GHE finally admitting that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked is a big deal.”

            Huh? Team which? Pratt is a computer scientist. And he didn’t ‘admit’ anything, as if he’s been hiding the truth. Nice rhetoric, DREMT.

            I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a moment there but it turns out you’re just stirring as usual. Should have realized when you didn’t spend a single sentence in all the subthreads talking about the reasoning behind his notion. No illumination or quest for understanding, just point-scoring as I said earlier.

            Want to hear more rhetoric?

            Vaughan Pratt doesn’t like backradiation. Oh noes. That changes everything!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            barry, Vaughan Pratt is just a “computer scientist” when you guys want him to be, but when he is repeating Woods experiment and finding flaws in it he is definitely “one of the guys you can trust”. Now you want to downplay the significance of him saying that this proposition is wrong:

            “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it”

            Yet others, like Swanson, are keen to point out:

            ““back radiation” between atmospheric layers down to the surface by the greenhouse gasses IS THE GHE.”

            You guys have been all over the place on this, throwing everything you can at the wall in the hope that something will stick. Some are in denial of what he said, some are desperately trying to spin it as if he really meant something else, most are taking all their frustrations out on me. When all else fails, I guess going “oh well, he’s only a computer scientist” is the best we’re going to get. God forbid you might actually think for a moment about whether we have been right all along.

          • Nate says:

            Again, the local reps of the Sky Dragon Slayer community cannot make a sound science-based argument.

            What to do? Seek out faux authority figures who are not representative of climate science, or physics, or meteorology, and mine their quotes, take them out of context, to find ‘faux’ agreement with the Sky Dragon Slayer meme.

            First of all, no one who thinks the Seim and Olsen paper is a good paper should be credited as authority on this subject.

            Second, as I noted to Pratt:

            “Well, if you are saying that the real GHE must include lapse rate, I agree. As does climate science. And in fact the true GHE theory does incorporate it. The notion that it is purely radiative is over-simplified, a CARTOON version that ignorant skeptics think, if debunked, then climate science is debunked. Not so.”

          • barry says:

            “Vaughan Pratt is just a ‘computer scientist’ when you guys want him to be, but when he is repeating Woods experiment and finding flaws in it he is definitely ‘one of the guys you can trust’.”

            I’d never heard of Pratt before this conversation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, barry. Odd that you got involved at all, then, really.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Typically, Maguff supplies a quotation from a law case aimed at discrediting skeptics yet he/she fails to explain scientifically why his/her claim is true.

      That is typical of the arrogance of climate alarmists. They set themselves up as demi-Gods with an omnipotence that gives them insight the rest of us lack. Yet, they cannot prove their insights as having any scientific value. They rely solely on the consensus of their peer alarmists.

      • Willard says:

        C’mon, Gordo.

        “Your beliefs do not make something true” is common knowledge.

        We learn it around at around 10:

        Developmental psychologist Jean Piaget first documented magical thinking in children and typically it should start to wane around the age of 10 years (give or take a couple of years either way). Children will start to question the feasibility of the mechanisms that lie behind the connections they make can a man really travel round the entire world in just one night? How can a politician influence the weather?

        https://theconversation.com/what-is-magical-thinking-and-do-we-grow-out-of-it-35384

        In your case, it’s give or take a few decades.

  36. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    La Nia is affecting weather around the world. A jetstream can be seen descending from the north over the eastern U.S., and its cold fronts are bringing flooding to the Appalachians. The jetstream then ripples over the Atlantic, bringing air from the south over Europe. As long as La Nia continues and solar winds are weak, this circulation will continue.
    https://i.ibb.co/Y8dnj4J/gfs-nh-sat1-t2anom-1-day.png
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png

  37. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Still low probability of tropical cyclones on the Great Barrier Reef. Apparent increase in SOI.
    More rainfall in Australia.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/ausf/mimictpw_ausf_latest.gif
    Why Fijis sea level is rising as SOI rises.
    “The northern and central sections of the reef have the highest levels of coral cover recorded in 36 years of monitoring by the Australian Institute of Marine Science.”
    https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/science/environment/2022/08/04/coral-great-barrier-reef/

  38. Entropic man says:

    On chemtrails.

    https://xkcd.com

  39. Gordon Robertson says:

    stephen….”Molecules receive energy in packets and multiples of the packets. A molecule at a higher energy state cannot receive energy from a molecule at a lower state”.

    ***

    That’s right, Stephen, energy in general cannot move from a lower state of potential, by its own means, to a state of higher potential. Water dos not flow uphill by its own means and boulders don’t jump onto cliff by their own means. External energy is required to move either against a potential gradient.

    I don’t like talking in terms of molecules, I think it obfuscates the action taking place. A molecule, as you know, is nothing more than a name for two or more atoms bonded by electrons, either by sharing electrons or through the charges created by electrons.

    When atoms form molecules, that does not prevent the electrons in the associated atoms from behaving normally re transitions. Even the bonding electrons can transition.

    The packets to which you refer, which I call quanta, are emitted and absorbed by electrons in atoms. There is nothing else in an ordinary atom can deal with them. The electron is a negatively charged particle with an electric field, and it produces a magnetic field when it moves. That’s true whether the electron is moving through a conductor or in an orbit.

    It’s no mystery the electron produces EM when it transitions downward in energy levels. Where else would EM come from? What other mechanism in an atom or a molecule can possibly produce an electric field with an associated magnetic field?

    That’s the basis of Bohr’s quantum theory, and even though it is only applicable to the hydrogen atom, modifications of his basic theory have allowed his theory to be applied to multi-electron/proton atoms. Schrodinger’s wave equation is based on an electron moving in a field.

    Quantum snobs will have us believe that Bohr’s model is dead, just as they want us to believe Newtonian physics is dead. I think what is really dead is their brains.

    • bobdroege says:

      Yes, Bohr would tell you his model is dead, and he did before he died.

      He did a lot of work on the upgraded model.

  40. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim…”Quantum theory does help us figure out what energies (frequencies, wavelengths) of photons can be absorbed by a material”.

    ***

    Tell that to Neils Bohr. It was the discrete nature of spectral lines in hydrogen that lead him to the insight required for his theory, and the proof. The discrete frequencies of hydrogen spectral lines were already known but no one could explain them.

    It was Bohr, based on good groundwork from Rutherford, who figured out a relationship between the discrete spectral line frequencies and electron transitions that produced the answer.

    Each of the emission spectral lines of hydrogen can be directly related to electron transitions between certain energy levels. It’s the same for discrete gaps in the absorp-tion spectrum when electrons excited by the absorp-tion of certain frequencies of EM transition between certain energy levels in an upward direction.

    The emission spectrum for hydrogen is the inverse of the absorp-tion spectrum. That is, to get an absorp-tion spectrum, polychromatic light is used as a spectrum and where gaps appear in the spectrum, those lines represent EM energy absorbed by the hydrogen.

    I am seeing many article written by people who are seriously confused as to the reality of atoms. One article I just read compared the internals of a molecule to particles attached by springs. Duh!!! Those particles are atoms and the springs are electrons that bond the atoms.

    Much is made of molecular vibration. Articles make it sound as if there really are little springs in molecules attached to tiny particles. Molecules vibrate due to a charge difference between atoms and atoms vibrate due to an electrostatic difference between protons in the nucleus and electrons orbiting the nucleus.

    The cause of vibration in CO2 and water are well known. It’s due to a difference in electronegativity between constituent atoms. Any time you have a difference in electrical potential with atoms you get vibration. What causes the difference in electronegativity??? Electrons!!!

    The thing to note is that the vibration involves the bonds. The bonds are formed by electrons or charges produced by electrons. Those bonding, or valence electrons, can also absorb EM and transition to higher energy levels. That cause vibration to increase.

    All vibration, and rotation in molecules can be related to electron transitions, or to changes in energy levels of the electrons due to absorbing EM or another energy like heat.

  41. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Heavy precipitation again in Kentucky as a cold front descends from the northwest. La Nina works.

  42. Bindidon says:

    To present WUWT ‘reports’ about sea levels couldn’t be more naive.

    WUWT is a blog 100% financed by the Heartland Institute and the GWPF, two institutions 100% busy with the denial of any CO2 effect, be it on temperature, sea level, glacier retreat etc etc.

    *
    PSMSL, the organism responsible for the worldwide management of tide gauges, has three gauges located on the Fiji island:

    1327; -18.135678; 178.422839; SUVA-A (1972-1997)
    1805; -17.604917; 177.438250; LAUTOKA (1992-2020)
    2356; -18.132500; 178.427500; SUVA-B (1997-2020)

    Only Lautoka has a GPS station sufficiently in the near, which reports s subsidence of 1 mm/yr.

    Raw sea level change trends at the gauges, in mm/yr
    – SUVA-A: 6
    – LAUTOKA: 4
    – SUVA-B: 8

    What are such differences between Lautoka and Suva due to?

    No se.

    Maybe the subsidence is much higher at the Suva location, maybe the sea level rise is higher in Fiji’s south due to stronger currents.

    Anyway, saying ‘No SLR, all subsidence, move along’ sounds a bit dumb compared to

    https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/climate-change-fiji-sealevels/

    I think it’s better to ask the people living there than to say they have no SLR problems.

    • RLH says:

      “The Suva tide-gauge record as appearing in the PSMSL database shows a misleading trend as, in fact, this record represents the combined measurements at three different locations”

        • RLH says:

          https://www.graphyonline.com/archives/IJEES/2017/IJEES-137/

          “Previously, the changes in sea level during the last 500 years were not covered by adequate research in the Fiji Islands. The present paper provides a detailed analyses documenting a +70 cm high level in the 16th and 17th centuries, a -50 cm low in the 18th century and a period of virtually stability in the 19th to early 21st centuries, the last period of which may be subdivided into an early 19th century +30 cm high, a long period of stability and a 10-20 cm fall in sea level in the last 60 years forcing corals to grew into microatolls under strictly stable sea level conditions. This means there are no traces of a present rise in sea level; on the contrary: full stability.

          The long-term trend is almost identical to the trends documented in the Indian Ocean in the Maldives, Goa and Bangladesh. This implies a eustatic origin of the changes recorded; not of glacial eustatic origin, however, but of rotational eustatic origin.

          The rotational eustatic changes in sea level are driven by the alternations of speeding-up during Grand Solar Minima (the Maunder and Dalton Solar Minima) forcing water towards the equator, and slowing-down during Grand Solar Maxima (in the 18th century, around 1930-1940 and at about 1970-2000)”

    • Clint R says:

      Bindidon, as Earth’s sea level has varied by hundreds of meters, what is the correct level supposed to be?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        How much has it varied while we have had coastal cities?

        • Clint R says:

          Good point, AQ. We know there were several cities underwater before all this silly obsession with CO2 even began.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            All due to dam and waterway construction, subsidence, past tsunamis and other shifts in land/ None due to a general sea level change.

          • Clint R says:

            Exactly. There are many reasons sea levels change.

            That’s probably why it happens all the time.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Except past sea level changes (since the advent of cities) have gone in both directions (you’ve focused only on one direction) and have approximately averaged out to zero. Now we have a systemic increase.

            The cities which were submerged by dam construction were planned, they were few, and they were small. You don’t seem to understand the much larger scale of the threat.

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry AQ, but you misunderstood. Sea levels have “varied”. That means both directions.

            And what threat do you see? The advance of perversion and idiocy is a real threat. But CO2 warming the planet is a cult belief, NOT based on science.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Gee – I wonder what the threat of rising sea levels in low lying areas could be. Stumps me. Please keep your questions simple.

          • Clint R says:

            AQ, sorry if I wasn’t clear. I was wanting you to define your perceived “threat”, in terms of how high sea levels were going to get in this current trend. We know sea levels vary by hundreds of meters, so is the “average” how we judge the threat?

            How far above, or below, the average are we now?

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            When you acknowledge that the sea level before the advent of cities is irrelevant to present day society I will be happy to answer.

          • Clint R says:

            Since we should be interested in science and reality, we need as much information as we can get to determine the range of natural sea level change.

            Otherwise, it looks like we’re just cherry-picking periods that fit some kind of anti-science cult agenda.

            We don’t want to do that, do we?

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Doctor: “You have been diagnosed with AIDS.”
            Clint (g!e!r!a!n): “Don’t tell me what I have today. That is cherry picking. My case of Ebola last year was much worse. By focussing solely on what I have today you are being unscientific”.

          • Clint R says:

            AQ, you’re panicked over sea level rise, but you don’t know what Earth’s sea level is “supposed” to be. It has changed dramatically over many thousands of years. It’s gone up, and it’s gone down. You can’t explain any of it.

            At least you have your false beliefs to comfort you….

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > Its gone up, and its gone down. You cant explain any of it.

            You’re a Bill O’Reilly fan, Clint? This explains so much!

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            “Supposed to” would imply a “god”, and we both know there is no such thing.
            I see you have a talent for using words and phrases like that which don’t apply. But hey, so do adolescents.

          • Clint R says:

            Ant, it’s no wonder you dad was a keyboard.

      • Ken says:

        I would posit that we are in an interglacial period. That the ‘normal’ is continents covered with ice and the sea levels dramatically lower; a 120 meters lower.

        It would be interesting to conduct archeological search for old coastal cities that got inundated at the start of the Holocene. Radar search at 120 meter depth might unearth some interesting stuff.

        • Bindidon says:

          Ken

          ” t would be interesting to conduct archeological search for old coastal cities that got inundated at the start of the Holocene. ”

          We aren’t talking about the sea levels as they were about 12 thousand years ago, a period in which the human world population

          – was about 2 (TWO) million individuals, and not 8 billion
          – lived without any infrastructure in coastal regions.

          No idea what you want to say here.

          • Ken says:

            The question was: Bindidon, as Earths sea level has varied by hundreds of meters, what is the correct level supposed to be?

            The geological history is that sea level is usually 120 meters lower than it is now.

          • Ken says:

            Given that sea levels are usually 120 meters lower and that continents are usually covered with a mile thick ice sheet then I guess we really are in the midst of a climate crisis.

            I hope the crisis goes on.

    • Bindidon says:

      I don’t wonder that people like Linsley Hood refer to things published by Nils-Axel Mörner.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner

      Mörner utterly denied recent sea level rise and even global warming.

      From the German Wiki which publishes a lot more about him we can read

      1. ” Among other things, he claimed, contrary to the current state of science, that there is currently no sea level rise and that sea level rise is the “biggest lie ever spread”.

      Mörner believed that there will be a cooling in the near future due to decreasing solar activity and the associated drop in sea level.

      He was a member of the advisory board of several climate denial groups, including the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and the European Institute for Climate & Energy (EIKE). ”

      EIKE has exactly the same goals as Heartland and GWPF, and EIKE’s blog is a German variant of WUWT.

      *

      2. ” In 2018 it became known that Mörner published several supposedly peer-reviewed papers in so-called pirated journals, which often only simulate a peer review.

      In 2017, together with OMICS International, an Indian pirate journal publisher that is being sued for fraudulent business practices, he organized an alleged climate conference that was mainly attended by climate deniers. ”

      *
      Thus, as one can see, everyone has his/her preferred sources.

      Mörner does NOT belong to mine.

      • Clint R says:

        Yeah Bin, you rely on centuries-old astrology for your sources.

        Each to his own….

      • RLH says:

        Are you saying that his observation of

        “The Suva tide-gauge record as appearing in the PSMSL database shows a misleading trend as, in fact, this record represents the combined measurements at three different locations”

        is wrong?

      • barry says:

        I delved into his stuff some time ago. It is rank with a lack of understanding, misconceptions and unprofessional commentary unbecoming research scholarship. I see no reason to give his work the credence required to re-investigate.

  43. Fred M. Cain says:

    What Id really LOVE to see here, is an explanation for the cause of the persistent, multi-year drought in the far West. Theyre saying its the worst drought in 1,200 years~! Although Im not sure it really is but even if it were the worst drought in 50 or 100 years, what is the cause?

    Headlines blame global warming and climate change and we seem to be reminded of this on a daily basis. But is that really true? Is climate change the direct cause of the drought or is it actually being caused by something else?

    The news media says that scientists say climate change is leading to higher summer temperatures and more aridification. Thats a good and very logical theory. But is that whats causing the drought? Furthermore, they usually do not mention just who the scientists actually are.

    It seems to me like a warmer world could lead to a longer summer monsoon season in Arizona, New Mexico and other parts of the Southwest. Last year and so far this year, the monsoon has been a wet one. But we cant just look at two years. Looking at a ten-year average, I am not seeing any data that supports either a longer, wetter monsoon or a shorter, drier monsoon.

    With a warming planet, I would expect the jet stream and its associated middle latitude, moisture-bearing storms to shift northward. That would lead to much drier conditions in California and perhaps even Oregon. That would be logical and make sense. But is that actually happening? Has the Jet permanently shifted substantially northward? I am not seeing that.

    What I am seeing is a puzzling, stubborn, blocking ridge of high pressure thats establishing itself along or just off the West Coast while the southern jet far out at sea dips well down into the tropics. I am skeptical that global warming would cause this but perhaps I am wrong.

    Any thought on this?

    It would be very interesting if Dr. Roy would post a blog article on the subject.

    Regards,
    Fred M. Cain,
    Topeka, IN

    • WizGeek says:

      Firstly, I digress so as to set the context. Progressing from forecasts to weather to neoclimate to archeoclimate to paleoclimate, the data move from high accuracy/granularity to low accuracy/granularity. Because atmospheric characteristics are so dissimilar at each end of the spectrum, the larger the span, more absurd the comparison between then and now. As an example, our atmosphere was at least five times denser ~100.Mya (when pterosaurs could fly) than it is today with a far higher CO2-to-O2 concentration as well. In other words, the further back in time a comparison goes, the more of an apples-to-oranges comparison it becomes unless those various differences are taken into account. But they mostly are not. What differences? A partial list is atmospheric density/composition, oceanic gyres/depth/salinity/volcanism, terrestrial flora/fauna/volcanism, and unknown solar metrics.

      Secondly, given the contextual diversity in the preceding paragraph (and the lack of its inclusion in climatology,) any cause-effect relationship regarding weather and neoclimate is extremely tenuous. Climate models are severely deficient in accounting for all contextual climate variables; they attempt to do so by adjusting coefficients, exponents, and “forcings” to get the graphs to fit in short spans, but they all fail miserably for extended spans because the equations are incomplete.

      Thirdly, our solar system is traversing around our galaxy at ~222 arc-miles/second, through its extremely varying intergalactic dust composition and density; thats almost 117 million arc-miles per year. Our solar system hasnt been in the same galactic locale in 220 million years!

      Lastly, to determine why theres a drought in a specific locale this year, looking back over a paltry 1,200 years, is irrational. In Florida, the popular phrase is, “If you dont like the weather, wait 20 minutes.” For our dear planet Earth, “If you dont like the weather, wait a year–itll be 100 million miles different.” In short: Why? Only the Shadow knows….

    • gbaikie says:

      — Fred M. Cain says:
      August 5, 2022 at 6:27 AM

      What Id really LOVE to see here, is an explanation for the cause of the persistent, multi-year drought in the far West. Theyre saying its the worst drought in 1,200 years~! Although Im not sure it really is but even if it were the worst drought in 50 or 100 years, what is the cause?–

      I think you can say, it was once an Ocean a long time, ever since, then it’s been pretty dry.
      I believe during colder period of Little Ice Age it had longer droughts.
      We are in an Ice Age, and in last couple million years it’s been colder and drier. But imagine even in warmer and wetter times of our Ice Age, it was still fairly dry.
      So, I would say global climate has little to do with it, instead I would say related to global weather patterns.
      An example of this is polar vortex changing pattern and of course we we in an La Nina [for a long time and probably last a while longer.
      But just normal weather may change it a bit.
      I am in high desert of southern California, had a little rain yesterday and could have more but we in drought. I think it’s more important of how your government is managing the problem. As it’s not unexpected.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Fred…the drought in the far west recently is due to the three year La Nina. It’s well known that La Ninas produce drought conditions in California and Texas while they produce excess rainfall further north along the same coast.

      In the Vancouver, Canada area, La Nina produced major flooding in November 2021 that was blamed on climate change. A few months before, it parked a heat dome over the entire Pacific Northwest that ranged from Oregon in the US to several hundred miles north of Vancouver.

      This too was blamed on climate change but the evidence proves that wrong. For example, on the southern-most part of the heat dome, it was 40C+ a few miles east of the ocean in Oregon, yet on the coast, at Astoria, they were unaffected by the heat. Temperatures were in the low 20s.

      There is no way so-called GHGs could do that. Nor could they arbitrarily raise temperatures 10C+ above average.

      La Nina is the only explanation. It messes with the jet stream and that creates strange weather conditions globally.

  44. Fred M. Cain says:

    I might also add here that although it’s the popular theory that higher temperatures are the root cause of the drought, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that it’s the other way around.

    Wouldn’t a drought lead to less temperature-moderating soil moisture and, therefore, higher temperatures and more severe heat waves?

    Just a guess.

  45. Go Fish says:

    For all you fools that believe “science” is your god and not that real science demonstrates there IS a living and true God. Jason Lisle is your worst enemy and can demonstrate why you bow at the wrong throne! Have at it: https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/?fbclid=IwAR3KvOAFF49bOdbAdoYnVMFH6i6-qUAfx_Fx9wDAcdKs7T1CUeEBRW9fqdY

    • bobdroege says:

      You are not going to catch any fish with your all you fools lure.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      “For all you fools…”

      So much hate in your heart is not very Christian of you. Not very Luke 6:27-36!

      • Go Fish says:

        So, you are saying the Word of God is a lie? What is a fool? Indeed, the biblical description of a person who denies the authority of God to rule one’s life! As such, the reference is CORRECT!

        God’s “lure” IS the Gospel. Rom. 10:14-17. The MEANS known as the Gospel either, brings you to a place of conviction of your sin and need for redemption; or confirms your utter rejection of the Word of God so that you REMAIN in your unbelief. Heb. 3: 12-19; John 3:36 (the wrath of God REMAINS upon you) and many other places.

        Like many who fail to do proper interpretation, they (fools) rip verses out of context and give the words meaning(s) NOT intended by the original writer. Why does Luke write? This helps to determine how, the vague reference you make to the Sermon on the Mount, is to be interpreted! Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-3 are a 2-volume set. Luke is demonstrating the Messiah who came to bring redemption and Acts is the resurrected Messiah who sends forth His disciples to proclaim the truth of His word SO THAT by their preaching folks will BELIEVE the Gospel message and be justified by faith, NO LONGER FOOLS but believers who follow the RESURRECTED Messiah!

        Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
        But FOOLS despise wisdom and instruction!

        Or Psalm 14: The FOOL has said in his heart,
        there is no God,
        They are corrupt,
        They have done abominable works,
        There is none who does good.

        Again, the 66 Books found in the English translation of the Bible are LIKE 66 chapters of one book! Their message points to the One who created them, was rejected by them, sent His Son to die for them and is continually being rejected by many, but some, a remnant, come to faith by the very Word of God. IT IS THE MEANS HE USES TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THE JUDGMENT THAT IS COMING. Indeed, this is love……………FLEE FROM THE WRATH TO COME. Whose wrath remains upon you UNTIL you repent and believe the Gospel! This is not hate! You are dead in (the first) Adam who disobeyed and are under the curse of sin and death because of his disobedience (mommy and daddy did NOT have to teach you to disobey, that came naturally) and anyone who believes is made alive by the 2nd Adam, Jesus, who obeyed the Law of God perfectly and whose righteous obedience is charged to the account of one who believes! In other words, salvation is obtained by Jesus who not only obeyed the Law of God but endured the just punishment we deserve. Indeed, He took upon Himself the wrath of God, we deserve, on the Cross of Calvary and took our place in judgment. That is, those who believe on HIM and them alone! Read Romans 5.

        If I walked by your house and it was on fire and DID NOT SCREAM, FIRE, FIRE, FIRE, that would be hate! Instead, I say fire and you fools, say he hates us! This is what happened to Jesus! Read Matt. 11 to see how he came to His own (ethnic) people, and to the towns near to where He grew up, and the towns where the disciples grew up, and they rejected Him. Then read His pronouncement of judgment upon them! See also The Gospel of John 6:41-70;8:48-59;12:37-50. Matt. 22:41-46: 26, the whole chapter and many more places.

        REPENT OR PERISH! There is NO middle ground!

      • Willard says:

        Luke-Act is the New Testament and Proverbs is one of the poetical books of the Old One, Fish.

        No wonder you cling to the old vengeful ways instead of embracing socialism like teh Jesus did.

    • Bindidon says:

      Go Fish

      You are the perfect representative of the typical US “Christian” (quotation marks needed) men and women.

      In your strange corner, you all only talk about hate, worst enemies, war, weapons, Second Amendment etc etc.

      You are the symbol of the Antichrist.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      The biblical science institute for oxymorons.

    • Craig T says:

      “Jason Lisle is your worst enemy and can demonstrate why you bow at the wrong throne!”

      Lisle believes that light travels instantaneously toward a viewer but away from the viewer it travels at one half the “scientific” speed of light. The logic is that the speed of light is usually measured by reflecting off of a mirror and returning to the source. This mental contortion is so that we can see light from stars billions of light years away in a universe only 6 thousand years old.

      If Go Fish really wants to argue the point I’ll go through why this is easy to disprove. While the logic is painful I have worse enemies than Lisle.

      • Go Fish says:

        You can prove nothing of the sort! Neither can Jason. But you can point to evidence, which then MUST BE INTERPRETED! Therein lies the issue!

        • Craig T says:

          Gordon, this is Go Fish. This is why I mentioned him and GPS.

          “Essentially, the GPS receiver measures the distance to each satellite by the amount of time it takes to receive a transmitted signal. With distance measurements from a few more satellites, the receiver can determine a user’s position and display it electronically to measure your running route, map a golf course, find a way home or adventure anywhere.”
          https://www.garmin.com/en-US/aboutgps/

          If light traveled instantaneously toward an observer then the signal from each GPS satellite would reach the receiver at the instant it was sent. There would be no way to calculate how far away any satellite was so the receiver’s position could not be found.

          I’ll agree that that is only evidence and not proof, but it’s only one of a long list of evidence against a convoluted hypothesis designed only to prop up the biblical age of the Earth.

      • Go Fish says:

        The point I want to argue you do NOT want to discuss. It is your eternal destiny! That is the point of all my posts: Where are you destined to go when you die? You do know death is coming, don’t you? You do believe you WILL die one day? That is what my concern is. Are you among the redeemed or does the wrath of God abide on you still?

        I stick my head in this echo chamber of AGW debate, at times, to shake it up a bit in an attempt to draw attention to one’s eternal destiny. It becomes evident very quickly who believes they remain on the throne of their life and who rejects the rule of God over their life. Psalm 24:1:- The earth is the LORD’s, and ALL its fullness,
        The world and THOSE who dwell therein!

        Whether you acknowledge it or not you are under the Theocratic RULE of the King of the universe! He holds your destiny in His hands!

        • RLH says:

          You God does not rule my destiny.

        • Nate says:

          “Where are you destined to go when you die?

          The number of religions just keeps growing, now about 4000, and all have different ideas about that.

          When you find out where you go, let us know!

          • Willard says:

            I like this answer:

            https://youtu.be/sZpZuIWu1tw

            In a way, Climateball is a preview of heaven.

          • Go fish says:

            Another fool who needs comprehension skills to boot.
            I have told you but you scoff at His Word! Not a religion, except by mans’ definition, but a relationship. A relationship, either, severed in the garden or restored at the Cross!

            The words and concepts I speak ARE found in the Word of God. It is His communication to us but you and others, will listen more closely to any opposition to it before you would ever earnestly evaluate its own claims!

            You think, as others on this forum, you believe you have the answers to AGW yet it is your interpretation of the data! There is an opposing view, hence this venue of never ending arguments with no solution or agreement in sight.

            I have observed this utter insanity for the better part of 4-5 years now. Same folks, insulting other folks, who disagree with their interpretation of the data and attack their character as a result. So, I ought to be welcomed with open arms! Some folks even have multiple names to badger and mock others. The moderator deals with children on this thread daily!

            All in the name of hysteria and a false reality that AGW will destroy us altogehter!

            How many genders are there?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”The number of religions just keeps growing, now about 4000, and all have different ideas about that.”

            ———————
            And the 4,000 doesn’t include them all. Nate’s Inert Brick in the room warming the room religion isn’t on the list.

    • RLH says:

      Why would a supporter of just one religion be more correct than any other?

      • Go Fish says:

        Simple, yet you miss the connection! Why? You are DEAD in your trespasses and sins, separated from God and destined to an eternal hell UNLESS you repent and believe the message of the Gospel!

        In other words, there IS such a thing as truth and its counterpart, ERROR! Simple logic but not logical!

        The LORD has blinded your eyes, like Pharoah and many others, and until that veil is removed, you will remain in darkness!

  46. Go Fish says:

    In order to do real science you must begin with a correct worldview:

    https://youtu.be/taKaFUNJ6Ec

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      I see you were providing a counter-example to the “correct world view”.

      • Go Fish says:

        Explain where death comes from in your counter example of origins! Explain where marriage originated! Explain the origin of the nation Israel? Explain why toddlers do not have to be taught to disobey and that comes naturally! You are the quintessential FOOL to which the Scripture refers!

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          (1) Death doesn’t “come from” anywhere. Everything must exhaust it’s supplies.
          (2) Marriage came from the same place as native tribal customs – the human mind.
          (3) Israel is a country that was unethically supported by the western powers over the rightful inhabitants.
          (4) If you think toddlers obey then you have no experience with toddlers.

          Why are you people such angry and unhappy SOBS?

          • Go fish says:

            LOL,your ignorance is sad indeed. The likes of which you will one day give an account to your Maker!

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            So I’m ignorant because I know that toddlers obey no one – interesting.

            It’s funny how you people get your validation by telling other they’re going to hell. Perhaps you should address your own personal issues first. I bet you’re “born again”.

          • bobdroege says:

            Go Fish,

            “(4) If you think toddlers obey then you have no experience with toddlers.”

            If you can’t get toddlers to obey you then you are a bad parent.

            Probably trying to get them to obey by following the Bible and beating them.

    • bobdroege says:

      Well your theist fails to explain it as well.

      Oh but you happily accept the Goddidit explanation.

      Must be nice.

  47. Brandon R. Gates says:

    For those interested in Vaughan Pratt’s views on back radiation, near as I can tell his guest post at Judy’s is the origin of his argument. Well down in the comments he offers some clarifications, which I quote in full:

    https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98571

    Vaughan Pratt | August 14, 2011 at 1:38 am |

    For there to be *no* back radiation, which is his claim,

    Just for the record, what I’m claiming is not that there is no back radiation but that the only sense in which back radiation warms the Earth is the same sense in which a block of ice next to you warms you. That point of view may work for some people, but there may be people for whom it doesn’t work because they regard the ice as cooling you.

    Committed climate skeptics may not care either way, but those trying to make sense of the subject without just taking it all on faith may have a hard time with the idea of ice as a warming agent. Why push that point of view on them when it isn’t necessary?

    IOW, since some will struggle with the concept of a cooler body reducing the energy loss of a warmer one, and because more complete explanations exist, it’s not necessary to give a back radiation explantion for the greenhouse effect, and may be preferable not to.

    Nothing about “debunking”; he’s simply stating a preference.

    Why anyone should feel obliged to be bound to his preference is not clear, and personally I don’t have trouble with the back radiation concept any more than I struggle to understand how a heavy coat keeps me warmer than I’d be without it.

    • Bindidon says:

      Brandon R. Gates

      Thank you, I had read exactly that comment yesterday evening (among many many others) but was too lazy to do that job.

    • Willard says:

      One thing is sure –

      Graham will soldier on.

      • Brandon R. Gates says:

        Job security is a Good Thing. 😉

        • Willard says:

          Just check GW’s latest wriggling, BG:

          [GRAHAM] It is a question of whether or not it can increase temperatures.

          [ALSO GRAHAM] There is no other inference that can be made from this besides “back-radiation does not warm”.

          Do you think he wears clothes? I think he does:

          https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q

          Who should we believe, the Graham who trolls or the Graham who wears clothes?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            In their full context, both those quotes make sense and there is no contradiction between them. Isolate them and you can pretend there’s a problem. Pure sophistry from Willard.

          • Willard says:

            Graham cannot bring himself to admit that his clothes keep him warm without increasing BY THEMSELVES the temperature of his musical body:

            https://imgur.com/a/5DMTE1Q

            70 of trollings and he is still stuck at the silly blankets.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            My clothes keep me warm, and that has absolutely nothing to do with back-radiation.

            Back-radiation does not warm.
            Back-radiation is not insulation.

            Have the last word.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            C’mon whoever you are, the 2nd Law applies to all forms of energy transfer.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Then how does cold clothing keep you warm and not violate 2LOT.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It’s called “insulation”, Brandon.

          • Clint R says:

            Brandon, to even pose such a stupid question means you don’t understand the physics involved.

            Clothing serves as “insulation”. Clothing is NOT heating your body. The heat transfer is from your body to your clothes to the atmosphere.

            You clearly don’t have a clue about any of this. Just like the other cult idiots. And, if you can’t learn, you’re a braindead cult idiot.

            Can you learn?

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > “insulation”

            Quotated in stereo no less. The sad fact is that both mechanisms retard heat loss, but your orthodoxy demands otherwise. Sad.

          • Willard says:

            Yes, BG. But consider:

            (G1) Backradiation exists.

            (G2) Backradiation does not warm.

            (G3) Backradiation does not work by insulation.

            Notice how Graham cannot bring himself to tell us how Team Joe believes backradiation works?

            70 months of that crap.

          • Clint R says:

            Brandon, it’s important that you try to learn.

            “Retarding heat loss” of an object is NOT the same as raising the temperature of the object. Raising temperature requires heat transfer, and there is NO heat transfer from cold clothes to your body.

            Now, try to absorb that before you make another comment. Remember, it’s important to learn.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Perhaps “but insulation” needs to be added to the bingo, W. In any case here’s how I’d classify this particular style of magical thinking:

            https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Escape_hatch

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > Raising temperature requires heat transfer, and there is NO heat transfer from cold clothes to your body.

            Repeat after me, Clint: the naked emperor is NOT freezing.

            lulz

          • Clint R says:

            Brando, it appears trolling is more important to you than learning. That’s pretty common in your cult. That’s why we have so many braindead cult idiots here.

          • Willard says:

            > Perhaps “but insulation” needs to be added to the bingo

            Here you go, BG:

            climateball.net/but-ABC#backradiation

          • Craig T says:

            “‘Retarding heat loss’ of an object is NOT the same as raising the temperature of the object. Raising temperature requires heat transfer, and there is NO heat transfer from cold clothes to your body.”

            The biggest problem with the analogy is that human bodies are heated internally while the Earth’s main energy source is external. Still, both clothing and the atmosphere reduces heat loss.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            How else would insulators work except by retarding heat loss, Clint. Go ahead, try to explain, without resorting to level 4 photons if you please.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Still, both clothing and the atmosphere reduces heat loss.”

            …but not via back-radiation, in either case. The non-radiative gases “hold on to the heat”, thus do the insulating, in the atmosphere.

          • Willard says:

            > The non-radiative gases

            Are you Stephen Wilde, Graham?

          • Clint R says:

            Craig T says: “Still, both clothing and the atmosphere reduces heat loss.”

            Yes, it’s the atmosphere, as in Oxygen and Nitrogen. The non-radiative gases act as insulation. That’s why we have the lapse rate. The lapse rate is nothing more than the temperature gradient through Earth’s “blanket”.

            Brandon says: “How else would insulators work except by retarding heat loss”

            That IS how insulation works, Brandon. But the heat transfer is from the body through the clothes to the atmosphere. Or in the case of Earth — from the surface to the atmosphere (oxygen and nitrogen), to then be radiated to space by radiative gases.

            This was explained earlier, but you can’t learn. Trolling is more important to you than learning.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Clint: Retarding heat loss of an object is NOT the same as raising the temperature of the object.

            Also Clint: [Retarding heat loss] IS how insulation works

            I couldn’t make this up.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            Again you fall foul.

            “but not via back-radiation, in either case. The non-radiative gases hold on to the heat, thus do the insulating, in the atmosphere.”

            Heat transfer takes three forms, conduction, convection, and radiation.

            Non-radiative gases only insulate by limiting conduction and convection.

            Radiative gases can insulate by limiting all three.

            Though you would have to consider that in the case of a pure radiative gas, it would thermalize by transferring the absorbed energy to another radiative gas molecule.

          • Clint R says:

            Thanks for quoting me exactly, Brandon. I didn’t expect you would understand.

            When you get into advanced trolling, you will be misrepresenting my words. That’s what trolls do.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Again you fall foul.”

            I’m happy I’m correct, bob.

          • Willard says:

            Graham needs attention again.

          • Craig T says:

            Clint: “The non-radiative gases act as insulation.”

            For gases to work as insulation they must be trapped in pockets that prevent convection. Atmospheric gases transport heat upward. And all gases are “radiative”, just at differing frequencies.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “For gases to work as insulation they must be trapped in pockets that prevent convection.”

            Not when thinking in terms of insulation on a planetary scale.

          • Clint R says:

            Craig T is tangled up in his own nonsense.

            Since we pointed out that the non-radiative gases act as insulation, he’s now claiming the atmosphere can’t insulate!

            And he now claims that ALL gases are radiative.

            Craig T just destroyed his own cult’s made-up nonsense. And, he did it all with more made-up nonsense.

            That’s why this is so much fun.

          • Willard says:

            > Not when thinking

            Now Graham is the Master Thinker now.

            Instead of special pleading, he could acknowledge a point even Stephen Wilde acknowledges.

            70 months like that.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            “Thats why we have the lapse rate.”

            Moron, please explain why the lapse rate is different depending on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

            Sorry, but you are too stupid to do that.

            NEXT!

          • Clint R says:

            braindead bob, water vapor increases the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere, consequently affecting the lapse rate.

            Thermodynamics is hard, huh?

          • bobdroege says:

            Sure Clint R,

            Unless you can provide a cite for that, it just your beliefs, and it’s not correct.

            So cite?

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > The non-radiative gases hold on to the heat, thus do the insulating, in the atmosphere.

            The additional heat wouldn’t be there had not the IR active species captured it to begin with, whoever-you-are.

          • Clint R says:

            Here’s a “cite”, bob.

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

            But, you won’t be able to understand it.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            “Heres a cite, bob.

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

            But, you wont be able to understand it.”

            No Clint R, that’s not a cite explaining how specific heat capacity affects the lapse rate.

            Try again.

          • Clint R says:

            As I stated bob, you can’t understand it.

            Thanks for the verification.

          • bobdroege says:

            CLint R,

            Your cite says nothing about the lapse rate.

            Also it has partial derivatives and integrals, are you sure you understand it?

          • Clint R says:

            No bob, the reason you can’t understand it is because you can’t put things together. The lapse rate is about the temperature gradient through the atmosphere. Adding water vapor to the atmosphere affects the temperatures due to specific heat capacity differences.

            You’re still at the macaroni and cheese level.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1344183

          • Willard says:

            You know NoTHinG about heat capacity, Pup. Here is something more at your level:

            https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2703/bulletin-may26.pdf

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            Repeating an incorrect assertation does not make it correct.

            Here try this correct explanation.

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/adiabatic-lapse-rate

            “The adiabatic lapse rate for a saturated parcel is expected to be different from that of an unsaturated parcel. If we lift a saturated parcel, it will expand and cool down, leading to vapour condensation. This condensation will release latent heat, which will partially offset the cooling. The adiabatic lapse rate for a saturated parcel is therefore lower than that for an unsaturated parcel.”

            And then there is this

            https://www.briangwilliams.us/climate-forecast-system/lapse-rate-and-the-greenhouse-effect.html

          • Clint R says:

            bob, your first link gets it mostly right.

            Your second link is mostly wrong.

            But, you don’t have any appreciation for right vs. wrong, do you?

          • Willard says:

            Please stop saying stuff, Pup.

            Have some more Rick Astley:

            https://www.ess.uci.edu/~yu/class/ess124/Lecture.6.stability.all.pdf

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            You are just making a claim.

            How about backing it up with evidence and arguments?

            Oh, wait, then you would be doing science and following the scientific method.

            Which you have no intention of doing, being just an internet troll.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            And another thing,

            You might try to explain why you say my first cite is mostly right when it is different from your explanation of the lapse rate.

            So which is right, your explanation or my first one?

            Is it specific heat or latent heat?

          • Clint R says:

            That’s right bob, you can’t understand any of this.

            It’s like the solution to the vector problem you couldn’t solve. You couldn’t even understand the solution!

            You’re so braindead you have to fake a job history:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1344978

          • Craig T says:

            Clint: “And he now claims that ALL gases are radiative.”

            Doesn’t all matter radiate electromagnetic energy? The question is what gases absorb the longwave radiation from the surface.

            Craig T: “For gases to work as insulation they must be trapped in pockets that prevent convection.”

            DREMT: “Not when thinking in terms of insulation on a planetary scale.”

            Loss of heat through Convection is most important at the planetary scale. That’s what the lapse rate is all about. Without it the only way heat could escape the surface is through radiant energy.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I am a bit of a fan of this comment, not written by me:

            “Another way to put the issue.

            The CO2 hysteria is founded on a false picture of heat flows within the climate system. There are 3 ways that heat (Infra-Red or IR radiation) passes from the surface to space.

            1) A small amount of the radiation leaves directly, because all gases in our air are transparent to IR of 10-14 microns (sometimes called the “atmospheric window.” This pathway moves at the speed of light, so no delay of cooling occurs.

            2) Some radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by IR active gases up to the tropopause. Calculations of the free mean path for CO2 show that energy passes from surface to tropopause in less than 5 milliseconds. This is almost speed of light, so delay is negligible.

            3) The bulk gases of the atmosphere, O2 and N2, are warmed by conduction and convection from the surface. They also gain energy by collisions with IR active gases, some of that IR coming from the surface, and some absorbed directly from the sun. Latent heat from water is also added to the bulk gases. O2 and N2 are slow to shed this heat, and indeed must pass it back to IR active gases at the top of the troposphere for radiation into space.

            In a parcel of air each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 other molecules, mostly O2 and N2. In the lower atmosphere, the air is dense and CO2 molecules energized by IR lose it to surrounding gases, slightly warming the entire parcel. Higher in the atmosphere, the air is thinner, and CO2 molecules can emit IR and lose energy relative to surrounding gases, who replace the energy lost.

            This third pathway has a significant delay of cooling, and is the reason for our mild surface temperature, averaging about 15C. Yes, earth’s atmosphere produces a buildup of heat at the surface. The bulk gases, O2 and N2, trap heat near the surface, while CO2 provides radiative cooling at the top of the atmosphere.“

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            “Its like the solution to the vector problem you couldnt solve. You couldnt even understand the solution!”

            Incorrect, actually I wouldn’t solve the problem because you wouldn’t tell me the units of the vectors, a necessary piece of information to solve the problem.

            You are too stupid to realize that.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY says

            “Yes, earths atmosphere produces a buildup of heat at the surface.”

            DREMPTY says the atmosphere heats the surface!

            DREMPTY believes in the Greenhouse Effect!

            The atmosphere heats the surface!

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Also amusing is that I doubt the author’s more complete explanation would be seriously challenged by any consensus atmospheric scientist. Indeed I wonder if he realizes that’s where he got his information to begin with!

            And for the record, the below link appears to be the source of whoever-s/he-is’s quote. It contains much of the usual contrarian fare, including the natural emissions are an order of magnitude larger than human’s meme.

            https://rclutz.com/2022/06/09/zero-carbon-false-pretenses/

          • Willard says:

            Nice find, BG. Here is the gist of the argument:

            > The full complexity of earths climate includes many processes, some poorly understood, but known to have effects orders of magnitude greater than the potential of CO2 warming.

            Basic appeal to ignorance and the usual armwaving around complexity.

            I wonder if Graham would agree to say that his clothes process heat.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Also amusing is that I doubt the author’s more complete explanation would be seriously challenged by any consensus atmospheric scientist.”

            Good, so we’re all in agreement that it is the non-GHGs that insulate.

          • Ball4 says:

            … in addition to the GHGs.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            “Good, so were all in agreement that it is the non-GHGs that insulate.”

            No agreement there, but it’s nice to be in agreement that there is a greenhouse effect.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            We’re not in agreement that there’s a GHE, bob.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > were all in agreement that it is the non-GHGs that insulate

            Clutz wrote, “The bulk gases, O2 and N2, trap heat near the surface”, whoever-you-are. I agree with that.

            Here’s where he and I part ways:

            It is wrong to claim that IR active gases somehow trap heat in the air when they immediately emit any energy absorbed, if not already lost colliding with another molecule.

            What is absor*ption if not “trapping”.

            It’s semantics all the way down.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > Were not in agreement that theres a GHE

            If only tacitly, Clutz acknowledged the GHE’s existence and did a fair job describing how it works.

            You’re going to need a different citation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Why do you keep saying "whoever-you-are"? Just call me DREMT, if you want a response.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            “Were not in agreement that theres a GHE, bob.”

            Your cite, which I assumed that you agree with, describes it nicely.

            So sorry for your loss.

            Not letting you back out of it.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No bob, it describes how the GHGs lead to only a negligible delay in energy getting out of the Earth system, whereas the third pathway (involving the non-GHGs) is what leads to the largest delay and thus is the actual cause of the insulation effect.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            you have to realize how your source say the non radiative gases trap heat.

            “They also gain energy by collisions with IR active gases, some of that IR coming from the surface, and some absorbed directly from the sun.”

            and

            “This third pathway has a significant delay of cooling, and is the reason for our mild surface temperature, averaging about 15C.”

            There it is, the greenhouse effect.

            Moral of the story, don’t post things you don’t understand.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Let’s review your citation, whoever-you-are:

            3) The bulk gases of the atmosphere, O2 and N2, are warmed by conduction and convection from the surface. They also gain energy by collisions with IR active gases, some of that IR coming from the surface, and some absor*bed directly from the sun. Latent heat from water is also added to the bulk gases. O2 and N2 are slow to shed this heat, and indeed must pass it back to IR active gases at the top of the troposphere for radiation into space.

            The emboldened bit is the starting point for the GHE.

            Clutz doesn’t quantify how much of the heating comes from the presence of GHGs, allowing him some wiggle room. But you have no such out since you deny *any* warming due to GHGs.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            … or what Bob wrote.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I’m happy that the comment I quoted challenges the GHE, rather than endorsing it. It’s you that needs to improve your reading comprehension, bob.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > the comment I quoted challenges the GHE

            It describes it pretty much perfectly, whoever-you-are. You’ve been suckered again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Then I’m glad you agree there’s no GHE, whoever-you-are. Well done on finally joining Team Good.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > Im glad you agree theres no GHE

            All I can do is laugh.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Well, whoever-you-are, if you think that a comment which describes how there is no GHE is a description of the GHE, then you must agree that there is no GHE. I’m not sure what to tell you.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Reading comprehension quiz: what are the similarities in the following two paragraphs?

            a) In a parcel of air each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 other molecules, mostly O2 and N2. In the lower atmosphere, the air is dense and CO2 molecules energized by IR lose it to surrounding gases, slightly warming the entire parcel.

            b) Some gases in the atmosphere can absorb Earths long-wave radiation and heat up the surrounding air by collisions with the neighboring molecules. The heated layer can then radiate energy back to Earths surface. This effect of trapping the outgoing long-wave radiation and warming up Earths atmosphere and surface is referred to as the Greenhouse effect and the gases that absorb long-wave radiation and create the greenhouse effect are called Greenhouse gases (GHGs).

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The comment I quoted, in its entirety, describes how the non-GHGs are the planetary insulators, not GHGs.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > The comment I quoted, in its entirety

            … but apparently failed to read and comprehend in its entirety.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I get it. You don’t.

          • Craig T says:

            DREMT: “They also gain energy by collisions with IR active gases, some of that IR coming from the surface, and some absorbed directly from the sun.”

            And I thought DREMT would never get around to accepting that. I picked a good month to check on the site.

            Now we can work on him believing that the atmosphere absorbs 70-85% of the upgoing IR we can make some real progress.

            https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It is exactly like Clint R said on August 4, 2022 at 3:06 PM. Round and round in circles it goes.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            “No bob, it describes how the GHGs lead to only a negligible delay in energy getting out of the Earth system,”

            The delay is more like a factor of 136.

            It takes the energy 136 times as long to leave.

            He can call that negligible, but it’s not.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            https://rclutz.com/tag/global-warming-theory/

            Clearly, the water vapour content of the troposphere is the major cause of the natural greenhouse effect, contributing up to two-thirds of the 33 oC warming.

            More like 50%, with 25% due to cloud and 20% due to CO2. Remaining 5% to methane, CFCs, ozone, etc. In any case this statement isn’t terribly controversial except to those who can’t (or won’t) read everything in their own citations. The rest of the quoted paper … is pretty controversial.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > The delay is more like a factor of 136.

            This part of the argument I’m hazy on, Bob; I don’t know the process being referenced or how the calculations are made.

            Where I’m on more solid footing is that about 40% of the energy going into the atmosphere at the surface is due to IR absor*ption, and virtually *all* of that energy (including the other 60% due to latent and sensible heat transfer) needs to be carried by aloft by *convection* to an altitude where GHGs can radiate it away to space.

            Nowhere close to the speed of light.

          • bobdroege says:

            Brandon,

            I used the average height of the Tropopause at 11,000 meters, the speed of light 300,000,000 meters per second to get the time it takes a photon to reach the tropopause.

            5 milliseconds divide by that gives 136.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The comment I quoted was left at a blog called “Digging in the Clay”. That’s how I came across it. It was written by R Clutz. I wasn’t aware that this meant I had to defend every word Clutz had ever written, or quoted, on his own blog. That seems a little stupid.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            There are errors in the post from digging in the clay.

            He’s handwaving, and I was pointing that out.

            It’s not defendable, so don’t bother.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I was actually responding to Brandon, bob.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Cult Leader grammie pup, Your quote did appear on Ron Clutz’s web site, dated 20 Nov 2015. It also appeared previously on Roy’s site, dated 2 May 2014, more than a year earlier, posted by “Ron C.”. He spent the intervening time to make the presentation look better and to include more denialist crap.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I’m not denying that the quote appears on Ron’s site, Swanson. I’m saying I did not discover it there, I read it as a comment he left on a different blog. Most importantly, I’m saying that agreeing with one comment does not mean that I have to endorse every single word he has written or quoted on his blog. So Brandon’s 7:18 PM comment is a bit silly.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Who said it: One of your own agrees with something weve been arguing for years.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …so Brandon’s 7:18 PM comment is a bit silly.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Perhaps it is a bit silly to expect contrarians to be consistent in both their own words and expectations of others, but hope springs eternal.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Perhaps you could explain what inconsistency you believe has occurred, Brandy Guts. Then I’ll set you straight, once again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No inconsistency then. Got it.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Clutz isn’t consistent with himself, for starters, WYA. In fact if you dig around a bit (you won’t have to dig much) you’ll find some Dragon Crank Approved ™ content.

            So it’s not really clear what the man actually believes, though I am leaning toward what he himself writes over what he passes on from others.

            But that’s not the main point you silly pratt.

            No more hints.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No inconsistency then. Thought not.

          • Willard says:

            I am a bit of a fan of this comment:

            > You say that pyrgeometers measure the temperature of the sky rather than radiation. Since the pyrgeometer is not in physical contact with the sky, precisely how does it measure the temperature? The answer, of course, is that the detector in the pyrgeometer emits and receives IR radiation and the instrument is configured to measure the difference between emitted and received radiation and the temperature of the detector.

            > The received radiation is, of course, back radiation. If the received radiation is less than the emitted radiation, the object being measured is colder than the temperature of the detector. The converse is also true. The construction of a pyrgeometer is basically the same as most hand held non-contact IR thermometers except a hand-held instrument has a lens and a restricted field of view. They also measure the emitted radiation of the object of interest (non-contact, remember). Buy one and aim it at the inside of your freezer and compare it to a liquid-in-glass or bimetallic coil thermometer in the freezer.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You are often a fan of off-topic diversions, though.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      All wrong, Brandon. That was eleven years ago now. These are Vaughan Pratt’s words, from comments left at this blog only a year ago:

      “What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”

      and

      “Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””

      Pratt believes there is a GHE but agrees with Team Good that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. We have been arguing that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked for the last several years, receiving relentless systematic abuse and constant misrepresentation for doing so. I think it is noteworthy that a member of Team Evil has finally accepted that back-radiation does not warm/insulate/increase temperatures. So I mentioned it, and will continue to do so whenever and wherever possible.

      • Bindidon says:

        Team Good versus Team Evil…

        Oh Noes. Religion is a plague, and it shows.

      • Willard says:

        > Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says

        That was more a long time ago, Graham.

        Vaughan’s opinion did not change from the one he expressed 11 years ago, whereas thy Wiki gets edited daily.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        What matters is that he’s now saying this is incorrect:

        “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”

        This being the concept that back-radiation warms/insulates/increases the temperature of the surface.

        If he thought that eleven years ago, he did not make it as clear as he did at this blog, one year ago.

        • Willard says:

          What matters is that Graham is that Graham is the captain of Team Joe, and that Joe denies the greenhouse effect.

          One does not simply revolutionize physics by playing word games around what it really means to warm or to transfer heat by its own accord.

        • gbaikie says:

          What warms Earth is the sun.
          Can Earth be warm without the sun?

          All you need to make Earth warm is to have a warm surface.
          If Earth’s ocean average temperature was 20 C, instead being 3.5 C, Earth could be traveling light years from any star, and be warm.

          The average temperature of Earth’s ocean determines, Earth global climate.
          We have a cold ocean and this is why we are in ice house global climate.
          Earth ocean average temperature in the past has been 10 C or warmer.
          A ocean which is 10 C, means Earth is in a greenhouse global climate.

          It seems having more CO2 in atmosphere could slightly make Earth’s atmosphere warmer. But if Earth ocean were 4 C rather than 3.5 C this has larger warming effect than any amount of CO2.

          The effect increasing CO2 levels to cause warming, must make the atmosphere have higher heat content.
          The ocean has 1000 times more heat content than the atmosphere.

          The tropical ocean has more heat content near it’s surface, let say in the top 100 meters of the ocean surface.
          If you are on a tropical island, and sun disappears, you will stay warmer for weeks of time, as compared any island at say 45 degree latitude.
          The reason Earth tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world is because it thick layer of warmer water.
          The heat engine runs 24 hour a day- it doesn’t turn off at night. If it didn’t run 24 hour a day, it wouldn’t be the Earth’s heat engine.
          Or tropical land is not part of Earth’s heat engine.
          Far below the tropical ocean surface is a very cold ocean, if were to throughly mix that vast amount of cold water with the 100 meters of warmer tropical water, you could stop the earth’s heat engine.
          And as long as you kept the tropical surface water cold by mixing it with “unlimited” cold water, you make Earth colder than it’s ever been. Though this mixing is actually warming the average temperature of the entire ocean, or you causing “global warming” despite everyone getting very cold.
          Or La Nina lowers air temperature, but tropical ocean is absorbing more energy from the sunlight and also part of this is warm water is being pushed to deeper ocean depths.

          It’s said more than 90% of all global warming is warming the average temperature of our ocean, it claimed it’s warmed the average ocean temperature of about 3.5 C to about 3.55 C.
          Or .05 C of warming is more than 90% of all global warming, they say.
          I would say is more 95% of all global warming.

          • Craig T says:

            “But if Earth ocean were 4 C rather than 3.5 C this has larger warming effect than any amount of CO2.”

            The specific heat capacity of water is higher than land or the atmosphere so more energy is needed to heat or cool the ocean.

            “I would say is more 95% of all global warming.”

            I would say that 100% of global warming is warming. There’s no evidence that the warming trend of the last 100 years is caused by changes in the mixing of deep ocean and surface water, so what’s the cause?

          • gbaikie says:

            “Theres no evidence that the warming trend of the last 100 years is caused by changes in the mixing of deep ocean and surface water, so whats the cause?”

            Little Ice Age period had an ocean which cooled by about .1 C and sea levels fell a bit. We have recovering from the colder period of little Ice Age. There has warming and events of century or longer for 5000 years and Little Ice Age was coldest dip in 5000 years. And there has been a slight cooling trend over last 5000 years.
            And Sahara became more like the present desert, about 5000 years ago.
            Before this Sahara desert was green and was green for about 8000 years- mostly grassland, and river and lakes and forests that have disappeared over the last 5000 years.

      • bobdroege says:

        It helps to listen to what Pratt actually said

        “With this in mind Id like to propose a strengthening of the skeptic argument that downward longwave radiation or DLR, popularly called back radiation, cannot be held responsible for warming the surface of the Earth.”

        He goes on further to explain why, I leave it to you to figure it out, but he does not “debunk” the back radiation warms the surface.

        Because it is with the solar radiation that the greenhouse effect works.

        Solar radiation plus the back radiation warms the earth’s surface.

        debunk that

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Yes, bob, it helps even more to listen to what Pratt actually said recently, on this blog, a year ago, not what he said eleven years ago on a different blog. Here is what he said:

          “What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”

          and

          “Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””

          • Willard says:

            Graham again shies away from providing the citation. One reason could be that he’s on his phone. Another is that if we can read Vaughan say:

            [H]ow could the IPCC account for the greenhouse effect if not with back radiation?

            Great question. The glossary at the back of WG1 of AR5 defines the greenhouse effect as follows.

            Greenhouse effect: The infrared radiative effect of all infrared-absorbing constituents in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases, clouds, and (to a small extent) aerosols absorb terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earths surface and elsewhere in the atmosphere. These substances emit infrared radiation in all directions, but, everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers because of the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere and the consequent weakening of emission.

            That is, with more CO2 Earth must radiate its heat to space from a higher altitude, which being cooler due to lapse rate radiates less strongly.

            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-669859

            Another reason is that Sky Dragon cranks deny the emphasized bit too!

            70 months of baits and switches.

            No wonder he keeps dodging Bob’s point.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Vaughan Pratt says:

            “What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”

            and

            “Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””

            If I had said either of those things, we’d have never heard the end of it. How does Vaughan Pratt get a free pass?

          • Willard says:

            In their full context, both those quotes make sense and there is no contradiction between them and the IPCC’s position. Isolate them and you can pretend Team Joe has a leg to stand on.

            Seventy months of pure trolling from Graham.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …whereas I get grief for simply pointing out what Pratt said! Amazing.

          • bobdroege says:

            That statement is no longer in the wikipedia article, let me call the Stoat and have that put back in.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Utterly irrelevant, bob, as already explained:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1344027

          • Willard says:

            > That statement is no longer in the wikipedia article

            Here’s what we can find:

            The idealized greenhouse model is a simplification. In reality, the atmosphere near the Earths surface is largely opaque to thermal radiation and most heat loss from the surface is by convection. However radiative energy losses become increasingly important higher in the atmosphere, largely because of the decreasing concentration of water vapor, an important greenhouse gas. Rather than the surface itself, it is more realistic to think of the greenhouse effect as applying to a layer in the mid-troposphere, which is effectively coupled to the surface by a lapse rate. A simple picture also assumes a steady state, but in the real world, the diurnal cycle, as well as the seasonal cycle and weather disturbances, complicate matters. Solar heating applies only during daytime. During the night, the atmosphere cools somewhat, but not greatly, because its emissivity is low. Diurnal temperature changes decrease with height in the atmosphere.

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

            Graham has been forcing an open door for seventy months.

            Forcing an open door isn’t the best way to revolutionize physics.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …so much grief just for pointing out what Pratt said.

          • Willard says:

            [GRAHAM] The non-radiative gases “hold on to the heat”, thus do the insulating, in the atmosphere.

            [THE IPCC] Greenhouse gases, clouds, and (to a small extent) aerosols absorb terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earths surface and elsewhere in the atmosphere. These substances emit infrared radiation in all directions, but, everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers because of the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere and the consequent weakening of emission.

          • bobdroege says:

            Yeah DREMPTY,

            You can’t have mac and cheese without macaroni and cheese.

          • bobdroege says:

            “whereas I get grief for simply pointing out what Pratt said! Amazing.”

            Because you are trying to take that statement and debunk the greenhouse effect.

            Remember we are the greenhouse effect defense team.

            We will take you down before you get the the moat.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Because you are trying to take that statement and debunk the greenhouse effect.”

            Absolutely wrong, as always, bob. All I am doing is pointing out that Pratt agrees the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. One of your own agrees with something we’ve been arguing for years. That’s all. He still believes in the GHE, don’t worry, bob.

          • Clint R says:

            Braindead bob, the GHE nonsense has been debunked for years. That’s the science. The cult lives on because of all the agendas.

            The fact that you STILL can’t state what the GHE is, without changing, should tell you something.

          • Willard says:

            All Graham is doing is trolling.

            He points out stuff. When it’s ignored, he points it again. And again. And when it’s not ignored, he whines that he’s only pointing out stuff.

            He should own his schtick, but he won’t.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard needs some attention again.

          • Willard says:

            Graham, please stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            If you wanted to have a civil conversation, you would not lead with the insults, so we are not going to have a civil conversation.

            So Fuck Off.

            “Braindead bob, the GHE nonsense has been debunked for years. Thats the science. The cult lives on because of all the agendas.

            The fact that you STILL cant state what the GHE is, without changing, should tell you something.”

            You have miserably failed in you lame ass attempts to debunk the greenhouse effect, by perverting science, misunderstanding the laws of thermodynamics and generally showing you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.

            Here’s the greenhouse effect, dumbed down to your level.

            The presence in the atmosphere of gases that absorb infrared radiation makes the surface of a planet warmer than it would be with out those gases present.

            The fact is, you are too stupid to get into the finer points of the phenomenon, so I’ll leave it at that.

          • Clint R says:

            Braindead bob announces his belief in the GHE: “The presence in the atmosphere of gases that absorb infrared radiation makes the surface of a planet warmer than it would be with out those gases present.”

            That’s a belief, bob. To be science, you need to provide the mechanism as to how the radiative gases can raise surface temperatures. Neither CO2 nor water vapor emit higher energy photos than they absorb from surface emissions. Translation: The molecules have no more energy than they absorb. Translation: Their emissions can ONLY warm something colder.

            Earth’s average 288K is WAY to hot to be “warmed” by 10-15μ photons.

            You’re just parroting your cult’s belief. You have no science.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > To be science, you need to provide the mechanism as to how the radiative gases can raise surface temperatures.

            Which has been done, Clint: it retards radiative energy loss from the system analogous to how a real greenhouse retards convective heat loss.

            That you don’t accept that explanation can’t be helped by anyone but yourself.

          • Ball4 says:

            Translation: Their emissions can ONLY warm something colder…like above the brightness temperature of deep space thus:

            Measured Tse Te = 288K 255K = 33K earthen GHE

          • Ball4 says:

            Measured Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K earthen GHE

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            Looks like we will have to stick with beliefs!

            “Thats a belief, bob. To be science, you need to provide the mechanism as to how the radiative gases can raise surface temperatures. Neither CO2 nor water vapor emit higher energy photos than they absorb from surface emissions. Translation: The molecules have no more energy than they absorb. Translation: Their emissions can ONLY warm something colder.”

            Because this is your bullshit belief and has nothing to do with science.

            Here’s the second law dumbed down for you.

            Heat transfer is from hot to cold, but that does not preclude cold warming hot as long as the heat transfer is from hot to cold.

            Your beliefs as you stated above are just your beliefs and actually are not scientific.

            You are just a fucking moron, try learning some science.

          • Clint R says:

            Brandon: “it retards radiative energy loss from the system analogous to how a real greenhouse retards convective heat loss.”

            Brandon, this has been explained to you several times. Your imaginative “retards radiative energy” does NOT result in warming the surface.

            Trolling is more important to you than learning. That makes you braindead. And, being braindead, you will be repeating the same nonsense, over and over, repeatedly.

            I can’t help braindead.

            At least you’re not alone….

          • Clint R says:

            Yes braindead bob, you need to change the laws of physics to support your cult beliefs.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Clint: Retarding heat loss of an object is NOT the same as raising the temperature of the object.

            Also Clint: [Retarding heat loss] IS how insulation works

            Now Clint: retards radiative energy [loss] does NOT result in warming

            Do you get dizzy chasing your own tail like this?

          • Clint R says:

            Thanks for quoting me correctly, Brandon. I’m not used to that….

            Your problem seems to be you believe 100 15μ photons are “hotter” than one 15μ photon. That’s the wrong thinking. All 101 photons have the same frequency, so they effectively have the same “temperature”. (Now don’t go off in idiot-land trying to avoid understanding by contesting photons being “hotter” and having a “temperature”. I’m just trying to get you to understand some basics so you won’t keep making such a fool of yourself.)

            Adding more photons with the same frequency just results in the same frequency. The frequency is NOT increased by adding photons with the same frequency.

            Now, let’s check your learning progress:

            Will adding a billion photons, with frequency F, to another billion photons also with frequency F, raise the frequency?

            (The correct answer is a simple YES or NO.)

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > The frequency is NOT increased by adding photons with the same frequency.

            No kidding, Clint. But any kid outside on sunny day with a magnifying glass can tell you what increasing the number of photons per unit area will do to a pile of dry leaves.

            Oh I’m sorry, did you grow up in a bubble?

          • Clint R says:

            A magnifying glass?

            What a great “red herring”, Brandon.

            Now, since you tried a “red herring”, I’ll let you explain WHY it’s a red herring.

            Go for it.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > A magnifying glass?

            Does it or does it not increase the number of photons per unit area, Clint? A simple yes or no will suffice.

            Or if that’s too much for you, move the earth closer to the sun and ponder why the inverse square law is a thing.

            Your choice.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            “so they effectively have the same temperature. (Now dont go off in idiot-land trying to avoid understanding by contesting photons being hotter and having a temperature. Im just trying to get you to understand some basics so you wont keep making such a fool of yourself.)”

            There you go Clint R, off into la la land.

            Moron, photons don’t have a temperature.

            Photons only have three things.

            1 thing is either wavelength, frequency, or energy, which reduce to one thing because if you know one, you know the other two.

            The other two things describe the direction of travel, two numbers being necessary to describe direction in spherical coordinates.

          • Clint R says:

            Brandon, you didn’t explain why your magnifying glass is a red herring.

            I’ll give you one more chance.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > Ill give you one more chance.

            Oh goody Clint, how generous.

            Remember microwave ovens? I’ll tell you how “cold” photons make your coffee hot: the magnetron packs more of them into the mug than were there before.

            You’re welcome!

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry Brandon, but you don’t fix one red herring with another red herring.

            I always like to give people several chances. I don’t want to leave any child behind. But, you’ve convinced me you want to be braindead. So next time, you can start off by explaining why your two red herrings are red herrings.

            Until then, enjoy chasing your tail in your bubble.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Clint: The number of photons flying in the box has been increased, yet the temperature remains unchanged.

            Me: [Gives four examples of cases when increasing number of incident photons increases temperature]

            Clint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUG9VzHoEoc&ab_channel=TH

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong-o Brand-o.

            You gave “four examples” of you NOT understanding any of this.

            Red herrings ain’t science.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Here’s what I understand: the planet isn’t an isolated isothermal system like your 288 K box of bricks, Clint.

            Thanks for playing.

          • Clint R says:

            Here’s what I understand: You have no interest in learning. You prefer trolling. That’s why you say juvenile things like, “Thanks for playing”.

            For some reason you believe being an uninformed adolescent makes you appear intelligent.

            You must get that from your cult hero, worthless willard. That’s how he performs.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Clint R

            Another example of a juvenile comment:
            “Ant, its no wonder you dad was a keyboard.”
            Does that mean you also enjoy trolling, or are you somehow exempt from that inference?

          • Clint R says:

            No, it means I recognize frauds when I see them.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            So choosing to use a pseudonym makes me a “fraud” does it?
            Kindly explain the “logic” behind that claim. In doing so, recall your previous moniker on this site.

          • Craig T says:

            Clint: “What a great ‘red herring’, Brandon.

            Now, since you tried a ‘red herring’, I’ll let you explain WHY it’s a red herring.”

            Since you declared something a red herring it’s up to you to explain WHY it’s a red herring.

          • Clint R says:

            No Qwerty, your pseudonym is not the problem.

            When you pervert reality while calling others “liars”, is when you need to be exposed.

          • Willard says:

            Low energy lulz is so unlike you, Pup.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            Willard, please stop trolling.

    • barry says:

      Re-posting (again) from above:

      —————————————————

      The only disagreement [Pratt] appears to have is with the notion that the warming properties of the GHE is purely because of back radiation. To add to the comments above, here are a couple more quotes from him:

      “Where the back radiation argument for global warming breaks down is the assumption that the additional warmth is conveyed to the rest of the planet by radiation. Clearly some of it is, but some of it is equally clearly conveyed around the planet by convection, eventually reaching the surface in the form of warmer air which then heats the ground by conduction via contact with the bottom millimeter or so of the atmosphere.”

      https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98462

      “it seems to me that the question of which of conduction and radiation dominates surface warming (in the dT/dt sense) is intrinsically academic in two senses.

      1. It doesn’t really matter so long as the net effect of the increasing DLR and increasing temperature of air at the surface combine to warm the surface.”

      https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98925

      His OP at Judith Curry’s was an attempt to address how ‘skeptics’ think as opposed to what they say, and to try and give their position a credible argument, based on Pratts own ideas about ‘backradiation’.

      That doesn’t make Pratts reasoning correct, but it did make for an interesting discussion for any whose interests rise above scoring points by pointing out differences of opinion from ‘the other side’.

      ————————————————

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        No, barry, this discussion is about what Pratt wrote on back-radiation on this blog a year ago, after the Seim & Olsen experiment came out. Not what he wrote eleven years ago at Curry’s blog. He thinks that there’s a GHE, but has stated that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. I just thought it was noteworthy that someone from Team GHE agrees with something we have been arguing here for years. He also wrote that the following proposition was incorrect:

        “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”

        That, along with the fact he was not disputing the results of the Seim & Olsen experiment, where back-radiation was recorded but the expected warming did not occur, leads to the conclusion that he is saying that back-radiation does not warm/insulate/increase temperatures. He agrees with us on back-radiation, in other words. Unlike us, he still thinks there is a GHE.

        • Ball4 says:

          Dr. Pratt wrote on this blog: “There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”

        • Willard says:

          BG discusses a post Vaughan wrote.

          GW dismisses what Vaughan says in that post to plug the quotes he used earlier as bait.

          Barry reformulates the point BG made.

          GW dismisses that point to plug the quotes he used earlier as bait.

          70 months of trolling like that.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Yes, Ball4, he still believes in the GHE, as I have been at pains to point out.

          Willard, Brandon was not the one who started this whole discussion. I did, further upthread. I could argue the following:

          DREMT brings up what VP said a year ago.

          Bindidon, Brandon and barry all recognize that what he said a year ago is troublesome for their belief system. So they try to make it about what he said eleven years ago, which is a bit more palatable for their beliefs.

          DREMT keeps trying to remind them of what he said more recently.

          The three Bs continue to try to make it about what he said eleven years ago.

          There has been years of them trolling like that.

          • Willard says:

            Graham keeps tilting at windmills.

            No scientist holds that backradiation is the correct scientific explanation of the greenhouse effect. It is just a simple way to explain a complex phenomenon which involves infinitesimals like lapse rates.

            Graham does not even deny backradiation.

            Perhaps he tries to find a father figure for his misconception. That is not hard to do. After all, Sky Dragon cranks are not all as dumb as Gordo.

            Or perhaps he is just trolling, like he did for 70 months.

            Could be both.

            Lots of theories.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT 7:31 am changes “fact” and is “at pains” to admit Dr. Pratt “still believes in the GHE” so Dr. Pratt really was disputing the results of the Seim & Olsen experiment thereby correcting DREMT’s 4:04 am comment, thx.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Trolls will be trolls.

          • Willard says:

            [BG] For those interested in Vaughan Pratt’s views on back radiation, near as I can tell his guest post at Judy’s is the origin of his argument:

            [VP] Just for the record, what I’m claiming is not that there is no back radiation but that the only sense in which back radiation warms the Earth is the same sense in which a block of ice next to you warms you. That point of view may work for some people, but there may be people for whom it doesn’t work because they regard the ice as cooling you.

            [GW] All wrong, BG. It’s all about what *I* want to talk about. Talk about me instead. ME ME ME.

          • Ball4 says:

            The sense in which back radiation warms the Earth is the same sense in which a block of water ice next to you warms you more than a block of dry ice next to you.

          • barry says:

            “Bindidon, Brandon and barry all recognize that what he said a year ago is troublesome for their belief system.”

            On the contrary, I admire Pratt’s efforts to try and make the ‘skeptic’ position less ridiculous. That kind of generosity is worth a round of applause.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            barry, Pratt agrees that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. Do you? Or do you still try to defend it with every comment that you make? Seems like you try to defend the back-radiation account of the GHE with every comment that you make. Sorry barry.

          • barry says:

            I think Pratt allows that backradiation that can add energy to the surface – the quotes provided say exactly that – but he has tailored an argument to help skeptics refine their objection to the matter in the spirit of inclusiveness.

            His remarks aren’t entirely congruent. As well as the quotes where he allows for backradiation warming, he also says what you say. So we are left with a quandary – if you look at everything he says without excluding whatever is unfavourable to your take.

            His actual take – his view that is not solely devoted to lending credence to the skeptic position – seems to be that any warming from backradiation is overwhelmed by convection/conduction and the diurnal cycle, and it is thus impossible to calculate any contribution from backradiation, regardless of whether it is happening or not, so why not give up trying to persuade skeptics of something they won’t ever accept and go with a formulation that will prevent an unnecessary conflict? For Pratt the GHE still occurs, but if you want to include skeptics then just don’t talk about backradiation.

            All the above is to try to give Pratt his due. I’m not sure why he is so important to you, but there’s nothing to recommend that his formula for the GHE is correct or any better than the standard definition.

            He doesn’t deal well with a pointed rebuttal to his analogy – a block of ice will keep you warmer than the cold of space. He fails to account for what the temperature of an Earth without an atmosphere would be. His analogy is weak. He takes a long time to finally address criticism of the analogy it down the comments, and his response doesn’t actually address the point.

            His construction is interesting – generous even. But not convincing. As he says himself several times, he would need to plug in actual numbers to test his theory, but he doesn’t bother. Perhaps because he’s not as interested in the actual truth of the matter as he is in building bridges.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Now that was a much more pleasant, reasonable response than your 10:40 AM trolling. Thanks.

            “His remarks aren’t entirely congruent. As well as the quotes where he allows for backradiation warming, he also says what you say. So we are left with a quandary – if you look at everything he says without excluding whatever is unfavourable to your take.”

            Well, a possible resolution to the quandary is that the quotes where he allows for back-radiation warming are from eleven years ago, whereas he said what I mentioned that he said only a year or so ago. It’s entirely possible that he has simply changed his mind over the course of those eleven years. The Seim & Olsen experiment seemed to prompt the change.

            “I’m not sure why he is so important to you”

            It all gets blown out of proportion. I say something, the usual trolls go crazy and won’t let it go for days on end. That’s just how it works whenever I comment. It’s not that he’s important to me, really. I was just making the simple point that someone from Team GHE is in apparent agreement with what we have argued for the last few years. Seems like a change in the narrative is brewing. Maybe out with the back-radiation, and in with something else, but who knows? The die-hards on here aren’t going to let go of their green and blue plates drama any time soon.

          • Willard says:

            Of course Graham misses two important details.

            Tyson was talking about Alex Jones when he responded by quoting Vaughan. It was the second time he quoted him in this thread. Since he did have much traction with his first bait, he had to try again. That he lost his three main baits, it is easy to understand why he would go for that quote. This is far from being the first thread in which he injects that quote.

            He has yet to acknowledge that he is tilting at windmills. The backradiation account of the greenhouse effect is a simplification. Baby steps.

            The second point is that there is no incompatibility between what Vaughan said 11 years ago and what he said last year. That will be a harder point to acknowledge, for the main Sky Dragon Crank bible rests on the idea that refuting a toy model will make greenhouse gases disappear.

            So here we are, the trollest troll of this site impersonating the moderator and telling people to stop trolling while trolling himself.

            Graham should write more songs on that.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Cult leader grammie pup wrote:

            I say something, the usual trolls go crazy and wont let it go for days on end. Thats just how it works whenever I comment.

            grammie can’t understand that he gets replies because he is wrong, then he is the one who incessantly replies when corrected. Remember his delusions about the non-rotating Moon, ignoring hundredsd of years of information to the contrary? And grammie is the most prolific posting troll on the blog.

            But, on topic again, grammie pup just claimed that “Pratt has no idea what he is talking about”, that after pointing to Pratt’s work as debunking the GHE.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Swanson, I don’t think that Pratt’s work debunks the GHE. You still have no idea what my argument is, do you?

          • E. Swanson says:

            grammie previously wrote:

            All I am doing is pointing out that Pratt agrees the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.

            Sorry, grammie pup, “back radiation” between atmospheric layers down to the surface by the greenhouse gasses IS THE GHE.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Well, Pratt argues that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked, but still argues that there’s a GHE. So I guess you and him fundamentally disagree. Certainly not my problem.

          • Ball4 says:

            Dr. Pratt correctly argues only when the lapse rate is ignored the GHE is incorrectly debunked.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Twisters will twist words. Nobody is surprised.

          • Willard says:

            Try not to be too hard on yourself, Graham.

            You can work out how backradiation and the greenhouse effect are connected.

            At least you could try.

            Only then will your seventy months of trolling will be worth something,

            I believe in you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            See what I mean?

          • barry says:

            “It all gets blown out of proportion. I say something, the usual trolls go crazy and won’t let it go for days on end. Thats just how it works whenever I comment.”

            I think this is the first time I’ve seen you post something like that, and I actually sympathise.

          • barry says:

            To be fair – you could let it go at any moment and the noise would taper off in a day or two, when people have all chimed in.

        • Willard says:

          Vaughan does not need to explain backradiation by anything else than the usual greenhouse theory, Graham.

          As team captain of Team Joe and someone who accepts that backradiation is a thing, you do.

          Best of luck!

  48. Brandon R. Gates says:

    Contrary to Vaughan Pratt’s claim that the back radiation description is not used by the IPCC:

    https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1.html

    The reason the Earths surface is this warm is the presence of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave radiation coming from the surface. This blanketing is known as the natural greenhouse effect. The most important greenhouse gases are water vapour and carbon dioxide. The two most abundant constituents of the atmosphere nitrogen and oxygen have no such effect. Clouds, on the other hand, do exert a blanketing effect similar to that of the greenhouse gases; however, this effect is offset by their reflectivity, such that on average, clouds tend to have a cooling effect on climate (although locally one can feel the warming effect: cloudy nights tend to remain warmer than clear nights because the clouds radiate longwave energy back down to the surface). Human activities intensify the blanketing effect through the release of greenhouse gases. For instance, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by about 35% in the industrial era, and this increase is known to be due to human activities, primarily the combustion of fossil fuels and removal of forests. Thus, humankind has dramatically altered the chemical composition of the global atmosphere with substantial implications for climate.

    • Brandon R. Gates says:

      Another one:

      https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html

      The Sun powers Earths climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earths atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is abs*orbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the abs*orbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is abs*orbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earths greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature at Earths surface would be below the freezing point of water. Thus, Earths natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible. However, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have greatly intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.

    • Clint R says:

      Brandon, if you understood the science you would be ashamed to use that IPCC nonsense for support. Every sentence is either wrong, misleading, or used to confuse.

  49. Bindidon says:

    A little addendum to the discussion about how radiosondes fit UAH’s LT time series.

    Some might guess radiosondes match only satellites in the LT or above.

    No.

    IGRA (and by extension: RATPAC) watches 13 different atmospheric layers, from the surface via e.g. 700 hPa up to 30 hPa.

    Here is a comparison of GISS land-only to RATPAC B’s surface layer data:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/14ZMSSAlNV_Lr97f1UJcNl66LJLjr88l_/view

    Trends 1979-2022 in C / decade
    – GISS: 0.25 +- 0.006
    – RAT surf: 0.27 +- 0.009

      • RLH says:

        Do you dispute UAHs comparison to Balloon data as published by JC and RS? If so, how?

        • Bindidon says:

          Why don’t you look upthread, trickster?

          All you need is there.

          Didn’t you understand what I wrote?

          ” A little addendum to the discussion about how radiosondes fit UAHs LT time series.

          Some might guess radiosondes match only satellites in the LT or above. ”

          You become opinionated to such an extent that in between, you are so busy with your own thoughts that you no longer take the time to read what others write.

        • RLH says:

          I am a trickster in your mind only as all I do is simply apply what Vaughan Pratt and Nate Drake claimed was the best way to use CTRMs and S-Gs.

        • barry says:

          “you are so busy with your own thoughts that you no longer take the time to read what others write.”

          Quite. Although ‘no longer’ is not right. This has always been the case.

          Slow down, RLH. Increase the ratio of understanding to posting. And for goodness sake read some of the published research papers – especially from work you criticise, so that you have a firmer foundation from which to mount that criticism.

          • RLH says:

            Barry: Do you agree with JC and RS about balloon to satellite comparisons or do you have a detailed rebuttal of them?

          • barry says:

            My ‘detailed rebuttal’ isn’t a patch on the broader knowledge on these issues from the experts.

            It’s totally up to you whether you want to broaden you education by reading more widely. Why should I try to guide you there if you have no interest in informing yourself?

  50. gbaikie says:

    The thermosphere can radiate at 1000 C, and this radiation is not warming anything, in or near the thermosphere or at earth surface.

    At 7 km elevation, the cold atmosphere has CO2 molecules radiating at this cold temperature. This radiation is likewise not warming anything at 7 km elevation, nor anything 7 km down on the surface of Earth.
    At warmer sea level, C02 molecules are radiating at warmer temperature, this radiation is not warming anything.
    If surface at sea level was cold sea ice, the air above the ice would be colder air, and CO2 would radiating at colder temperature, and it’s not warming anything. The air will warm or cool things mostly by convectional heat transfer. If warm air enters area it will warm ice, if colder air enters area, it cool sea ice by convectional heat transfer not by air radiating. Generally warmer air, will cause ice to evaporate more, and cold air slows evaporation and/or more ice forms on the ice, Or it’s evaporative/condensative convectional heat transfer.
    Nor is bright blue sky causing any radiant heat transfer, and blue sky is scattered shortwave light {it’s “hotter” than longwave and “hotter” than Thermosphere] though plants can absorb this scattered/indirect sunlight- or use this energy.

  51. Willard says:

    [TEAM SKY DRAGON CRANKS] They seem to forget that molecules of gas that are receiving solar energy vibrate, moving in ALL directions, by virtue of their kinetic energy which is why they are in gaseous form and not a solid.

    [IPCC GLOSSARY] Greenhouse effect: The infrared radiative effect of all infrared-absorbing constituents in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases, clouds, and (to a small extent) aerosols absorb terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earths surface and elsewhere in the atmosphere. These substances emit infrared radiation in all directions, but, everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers because of the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere and the consequent weakening of emission.

    • Bindidon says:

      To be honest, I perfectly understand this concept of backradiation but not at all the need for it.

      All we need is the fact that some gases in the atmosphere (H2O, CO2, N2O, CH4, CFCs etc) intercept upwelling IR and do not reemit it is the same original direction, what results in less IR directly emitted to space.

      This ‘backradiation’ reminds me the horrible ‘CO2 traps heat’.

      • Entropic man says:

        “All we need is the fact that some gases in the atmosphere (H2O, CO2, N2O, CH4, CFCs etc) intercept upwelling IR and do not reemit it is the same original direction, ”

        Right enough. A CO2 molecule reradiates in a random direction.

        You can show this in the laboratory. Shine a beam of 15 micrometre radiation into a spherical container of CO2 and the gas reradiates uniformly in all directions.

        Simplifying slightly, think of the atmosphere as a layer with the surface below and space above.

        15 micrometre IR radiates from the surface into the atmosphere as Stefan-Boltzmann thermal radiation. It is absorbed by CO2 molecules and reradiated in all directions.

        Photons(or at least their energy) pass between molecules in the atmosphere. There are two directions in which they can escape.

        If emitted at the top of the atmosphere photons have a 50% chance of being emitted upwards to space and are measured as outward longwave radiation.

        If emitted at the bottom of the atmosphere photons have a 50% chance of being reabs*orbed by the surface and are measured as back radiation.

        There are monitoring instruments in orbit measuring outward longwave radiation. There are also monitoring instruments measuring the downwelling longwave radiation (aka back radiation). It is a little difficult to disbelieve in a type of radiation which is being measured by instruments around the world.

        Regarding the effect of DWLR on surface temperature, the surface receives flux from three sources; sunlight, DWLR from GHGs, longwave radiation reflected downwards by clouds. The surface temperature reaches equilibrium when incoming radiation from these three sources matches the net loss from convection and radiation from the surface.

        If you increase GHG concentrations you reduce OLR and correspondingly increase DWLR. With more DWLR reaching the surface the equilibrium temperature increases.

        • Clint R says:

          As usual Ent, you were doing okay until you implied DWLR will increase surface temperature. Your cult believes that, and in order to believe it, they MUST also believe ice cubes can boil water. Because the bogus science is the same in both cases.

          We even have an example from your cult, with numbers: Two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface will heat it to 325K.

          If you believe that nonsense, then you must also believe 4 such fluxes would heat the surface to 386 K (113C, 235F).

          Pure cult nonsense.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            Again you need to review E. Swanson experiment with two lamps. The link is in his post.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/updated-atmospheric-co2-concentration-forecast-through-2050-and-beyond/#comment-1338162

            This experiment was not run in a vacuum and had background temperature.

            If you do some calculations you will find the two fluxes do add at the surface and increase the temperature of a plate painted black to maximize absorb the incoming radiant energy.

            The plate does not emit the sum of the two fluxes in this condition but would approach the value if run in a vacuum condition to remove the other heat transfer mechanisms.

            You are just wrong but too blind to realize it. You have the information. You just will not accept you can be wrong. You are but that will not change your point of view.

          • Clint R says:

            Again Norman, you have NO background in radiative physics or thermodynamics. I get tired to mentioning that.

            All you have are your cult beliefs and your keyboard. That’s it. You search for things you believe support your cult nonsense, but they never do, and you can’t understand why. Instead of trying to learn, you resort to insults and false accusations.

            You BELIEVE fluxes simply add, so you BELIEVE anything that seems to support that. If your beliefs were true, you could boil water with ice cubes. But that can’t happen, and you will never understand why. Radiative fluxes don’t simply add, like you believe they do.

            So be honest for a change and admit there is NO valid technical reference that verifies two fluxes arriving at a surface will result in the surface emitting the sum of the two fluxes.

            That won’t happen. You reject reality.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            I know much more about actual physics than you will ever know. I can read textbooks. You cannot. You can’t think logically.

            Again, E. Swanson experiment does show that two fluxes arriving at a surface add and the result is a surface that emits more energy. You ask for some explicit example but don’t have any logical inference to see that Swanson experiment satisfies your request. It does both, it demonstrates flues adding at a surface and it shows that the result will cause the surface to emit more energy and even up to the sum of both fluxes that arrive at the surface.

          • Clint R says:

            Now the insults and false accusations begin. You’re so predictable, Norman.

            Making stuff up on your keyboard is NOT reality. If you knew any of the basics you would have been able to answer the simple problems I presented. But, you couldn’t even attempt them. (And don’t pretend you didn’t see them. You see everyone of my comments. You’re a relentless stalker.)

            So be honest for a change and admit there is NO valid technical reference that verifies two fluxes arriving at a surface will result in the surface emitting the sum of the two fluxes.

            That won’t happen. You reject reality.

        • Swenson says:

          EM,

          And still, the surface temperature falls at night. Or when clouds occlude the sun, in the shade, in winter – and so on.

          As a matter of fact, the Earth’s surface seems to have cooled by thousands of degrees since it was molten – regardless of all your delusional nonsense.

          Just for fun, use all your pseudoscientific claptrap to explain why the highest surface temperatures on Earth are found where the so-called “greenhouse gases” are at their lowest – arid desert regions like the Lut Desert in Iran!

          Go away, you silly man. Maybe you could join the singularly dim likes of Bindidon, who seems to think that rigorous analysis of the past somehow reveals the future.

          You still can’t figure out why temperatures are measured in arbitrary degrees of hotness, can you? No Watts or meters to be found at all.

          Carry on.

          • Willard says:

            > As a matter of fact, the Earths surface seems to have cooled by thousands of degrees since it was molten

            The problem is not factuality, Mike Flynn.

            The problem is the unimportance of that fact.

            More on the idea:

            https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/08/01/fail-better/

            FAIL better next time.

            Cheers.

          • Swenson says:

            Willard, you idiot.

            There is no problem at all. The fact that you can’t make the fact that the Earth has cooled, showing complete disregard for the insane calculations of Sky Dragons (believers in the magical heating powers of CO2), go away, shows that the religious fanaticism of Sky Dragons is insufficient to overcome reality.

            I suppose you can’t actually explain why the hottest places on Earth are also those with the least amount of “greenhouse gases”?

            Or anything else based on reality, either!

            Do you have to take stupidity lessons from Ken Rice, or are you just naturally gifted in the stupidity area?

            Off you go – have a tantrum if you wish. See if I care.

          • Willard says:

            The fact that the internal temperature of the Earth is cooling down since the dawn of time Is of no importance whatsoever, Mike.

            Sorry,

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        entropic…”15 micrometre IR radiates from the surface into the atmosphere as Stefan-Boltzmann thermal radiation. It is absorbed by CO2 molecules and reradiated in all directions”.

        ***

        Can you explain how a trace gas at 0.04% can absorb any more than a tiny fraction of surface radiation? The actual amount it theoretically absorbs is about 5% of surface radiation.

        Although you specify 15 um, it’s actually a band of IR radiated from the surface. CO2 can only absorb at a specific frequency related to the carbon and oxygen line spectra.

        The entire AGW theory has no scientific merit.It’s obvious that nitrogen and oxygen control atmospheric temperature.

        A molecule of CO2, at 0.04%, has 2500 molecules of N2/O2 surrounding it. Exactly how does the surface IR reach the CO2 molecules?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      willard…the IPCC are the leaders of the sky dragon sect. You still can’t get it straight that you are in the sky dragon camp even though you try to incorrectly apply that metaphor to skeptics.

      IPCC…”…everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers …”

      ***

      This reveals the abject ignorance of the IPCC. They think the Earth’s average temperature is based on the absorp-tion and emission of trace gases. They know nothing about heat transfer because they use climate models that cannot be programmed effectively for conduction and convection.

      The IPCC are so stupid and so afraid of real science they exclude skeptics from their reviews.

      Modelling is not even conducive to radiation since models rely on Stefan-Boltzmann as well as differential equation that can do nothing more than produce extreme generalizations of the climate.

      Therefore the notion that Earth’s average temperature relies on trace gases is the highest form of witch-doctoring. Standing at the front of the line, awaiting his dose of kool-aid, is Willard the Sky Dragon groupie.

      • Willard says:

        C’mon, Gordo.

        You are a crank.

        A Sky Dragon crank.

        You believe in the Sky Dragon crap.

        Stop being a crank.

        • Swenson says:

          Wacky Wee Willard,

          You are still confused. No surprise there, I suppose.

          Sky Dragons are those nutters who are terrified of the imaginary world destroying heating properties of that most essential plant food, CO2, and its equally essential companion, H2O.

          There was even a book – “Slaying The Sky Dragon”, or somesuch.

          Maybe you have heard of it? Probably too hard for you to comprehend, I suppose.

          Such is life.

          • Willard says:

            Mike, Mike,

            There is no confusion.

            Sky Dragon cranks deny the greenhouse theory.

            Some of them wrote a book where they refer to that theory as a Sky Drsgon.

            So no, even by their own logic Sky Dragon does not refer to nutters.

            They also claim to be slayers.

            They slayed nothing, alas.

            They are just cranks.

            So Sky Dragon cranks it is.

            Cheers.

          • Swenson says:

            You idiot, Willard.

            There is no “greenhouse theory”, dummy.

            If there was, you would be able to say what it was.

            But you can’t of course.

            Away with you, Sky Dragon. Try another fairy tale.

          • Willard says:

            Indeed there is a greenhouse theory, Mike Flynn.

            Just as there is a trace to your years at Exxon.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > Exxon

            No sh!t.

      • barry says:

        “The IPCC are so stupid and so afraid of real science they exclude skeptics from their reviews.”

        Do you mean ‘skeptics’ like Roy Spencer, John Christy, Anthony Watts, Murray Salby, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Roger Pielke Junior & Senior, Bjorn Lomborg, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Fred Singer, Chris de Freitas, Richard Tol, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Robert C. Balling, Vincent Gray, Craig Idso, Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark, Chris Landsea, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, and Carl Wunsch?

        All these ‘skeptics’ have had their published works referenced in the IPCC and many have been contributing authors to the reports.

        Your head is full of fanciful stories, Gordon.

    • Bindidon says:

      This is of no interest to anyone who lacks the technical skills to judge the image you are showing.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        The galactic radiation graph is hard to understand? Maybe for you.
        https://i.ibb.co/fHf6pKG/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-08-06-064732.png

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          No title
          Percentage of WHAT?
          What is the significance of a ZERO reading?
          You don’t explain ANYTHING, but those on your side of the fence will slap you on the back and say “well done”, despite not understanding it themselves.

          • Bindidon says:

            ” … but those on your side of the fence will slap you on the back and say ‘well done’, despite not understanding it themselves. ”

            This is the best possible description of those I name the ‘Pseudoskeptic’s.

          • gbaikie says:

            “No title
            Percentage of WHAT?”

            It’s measurement GCR [galactic cosmic rays] which are near light speed particles [protons, mostly] which can come supernovas in the universe.
            The point is our solar activity effects the amount of GRC which are detected but they come everywhere and vary regardless of our sun’s effect.

            It possible for these high velocities particle to pass right thru human body without any effect. You could in basement and particle could travel thru atmosphere thru dirt and concrete and a person.
            But most of them would hit atmosphere and create cascade of secondary particles.
            Or we are living in a natural super colliders doing experiments in our sky and these particles could go faster and can be heavier particles than what your super colliders can do. But significant difference is one can control it with a constructed super collider.

            The percentage the variation with zero as baseline or zero is average
            over period of decades.
            Or it make a lot more sense if looking at the neutron count [a result of GCR collision] over longer time period {rather than 30 day splice of time]
            https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2019/12/13/the-ironic-behavior-of-cosmic-rays/

            And solar activity which effects GCR hitting Earth is a accumulated
            effect of solar activity over months of solar activity- or perhaps a year of time

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            I see you’ve been doing a bit of swotting in the last few hours.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      Today the SSN is as high as 69.

      Sunspot number: 69

      Updated 06 Aug 2022

  52. Gordon Robertson says:

    bob droege…”Except we are talking about electron transitions in molecules, the greenhouse effect if from poly-atomic molecules and the electron in those molecules.

    And what counts is the wavelength or frequency, temperature has almost nothing to do with it”.

    ***

    Bob…I have been trying to get through to you that a molecule is just a name. It describes an aggregation of two or more atoms bonded together by electron bonds.

    There is no such thing as an electron transition in a molecule, all transitions are related to the electrons of specific atoms. If the electrons are shared in an orbit related to both atoms, the bonding (valence) electrons can transition as well.

    You cannot talk about electrons wrt molecules.

    *********************************

    [Stephen]”Stephen,

    A 400K CO2 molecule will already be at a higher state.

    [Bob D]No, this is not correct.

    Even at 400K, most of the CO2 molecules will be in the ground state”.

    “Here is the equation,

    N2 = N1 e ^ -(E2-E1)/(Kb*T)”

    ***

    That is an equation from Boltzmann and I don’t see how it supports your point.

    http://www.aml.engineering.columbia.edu/ntm/level2/ch02/html/l2c02s03.html

    “All objects above absolute zero temperature have spontaneous emission. At thermal equilibrium, the number of atoms at different energy levels obeys the Boltzmann population distribution equation:

    N2= N1 exp[-(E2-E1)/kT]”

    For one, it applies at thermal equilibrium, and he seems to be quantifying the energy levels of atoms in different masses at the same temperature.

    The thing that sticks out wrt your claim about temperature, is that the equation you provide has a reference to temperature in the exponential function. It’s telling you the energy levels of atoms are related to temperature.

    I mean, what else would produce different energy levels besides EM absorp-tion? When electrons absorb EM, they are already at the temperature represented by the atoms.

    I question the equation because Boltzmann’s work was done before electrons were discovered. He died in 1906, only a few years after they were discovered. It would be another 7 years before Bohr presented the relationship between electrons and EM emission/absorp-tion.

    Much of the work Boltzmann did was statistical analysis. Although you have to give him credit for the work he did, he was never able to prove the 2nd law using statistical analysis. It seems his work applied to conditions of thermal equilibrium.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      “You cannot talk about electrons wrt molecules.”

      Yeah you can, stop acting like you know Chemistry.

      You Don’t.

      You are just trying to bullshit people.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      “I mean, what else would produce different energy levels besides EM absorp-tion?”

      Collisions with other atoms or molecules.

      Just shut the fuck up and forget it, you are too old to learn any Chemistry.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Egads!

      “N2 = N1 e ^ -(E2-E1)/(Kb*T)
      ***
      That is an equation from Boltzmann and I dont see how it supports your point.”

      Then you don’t understand thermodynamics enough to be in this discussion!

      (E2-E1) represents the transition from one state to another. In this case, that would correspond to the energy of a 15 um photon can can be absorbed or emitted by CO2 when the CO2 molecule vibrates. E = hf = hc/lambda = 1.33E-20 J. kb*T is related to average thermal energy. at 400 K, that is kbT = (1.38E-23)*(400K) = 5.5E-21 J

      The fraction of molecules in the upper state would then be
      N2/N1 = e ^ -(1.33e-20/5.5e-21) = e ^ (-2.4) = 0.09

      9% are in the upper level at 400 K.
      91% are in the ground state.

      “Its telling you the energy levels of atoms are related to temperature.”
      No. the difference in energy is fixed. E2 – E1 = 1.33E-20 J for vibrations of CO2. The equation is about how commonly such vibrations occur in CO2.

      “For one, it applies at thermal equilibrium …”
      Since we are talking about a group of atoms “at 400K” then by definition, that group is in thermal equilibrium at 400 K.

      “and he seems to be quantifying the energy levels of atoms in different masses at the same temperature.”
      No again. He is quantifying the NUMBER OF MOLECLES in different energy states of IDENTICAL gas molecules.

      “I mean, what else would produce different energy levels besides EM absorp-tion? ”
      ummm … collisions with other gas molecules! The collision exchange energy between particles in the gas. Basic kinetic theory!