Home/Blog
Hurricane Ian approaches SW Florida on 28 September 2022.
With Hurricane Ian (now a tropical storm) exiting the east coast of Florida, there is no shortage of news reports tying this storm to climate change. Even if those claims actually include data to support their case, those data are usually for cherry-picked regions and time periods. If global warming is causing a change in tropical cyclone activity, it should show up in global statistics.
The latest peer-reviewed study (March 2022, here) of the accumulated wind energy in tropical cyclones since 1990 (when we started have sufficient global data) showed a decrease in hurricane activity. There was an increase in Atlantic activity, but this was matched by an even larger decrease in Pacific activity, due to a shift from El Nino to La Nina conditions during that time.
So, yes, there is climate change involved in the uptick in Atlantic activity in recent decades. But it’s natural.
Looking at just the numbers of global hurricanes since 1980, we see no obvious trends.
Global hurricane activity counts by year during 1980-2021.
Even if we did see an increase, the improvements in global satellite monitoring would be responsible for some of that. It is impossible to talk about meaningful global statistics (especially trends) before the 1980s due to a lack of satellite data. Ships of opportunity are insufficient for trend calculations, especially since ships try to avoid storms, not sample them.
A document-based study of hurricanes impacting the Lesser Antilles since the late 1600s found a downward trend (not statistically significant) in hurricane activity during 1690-2007.
In my 2017 Kindle book Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed on Global Warming, I looked at major hurricane landfalls in Florida, which showed no trends. With Hurricane Ian and Michael (2018) added to the dataset, there is still no statistically significant trends in either intensity or frequency of landfalling major hurricanes in Florida.
Major hurricane landfalls in Florida over the last 120 years.
Of course hurricane damages have increased dramatically during the same period, but this is due to the explosive growth in coastal infrastructure there. Miami had only 444 residents in 1896, and now the metro area has over 6,000,000 population. As seen in the following plot, Florida population has increased by a factor of over 40 since 1900.
Yearly population of Florida, 1900 through 2021.
Given that hurricanes will always be with us, what is the best defense against them? Wealth. Hurricane Ian came ashore with 150 mph sustained winds, but warnings from modern instrumentation and forecast tools led to mass evacuations. At this writing, only 5 deaths have been reported (I’m sure that will rise). Modern building codes help reduce wind damage. I watched storm chaser Reed Timmer live reporting from the eyewall of Hurricane Ian as it made landfall, and I didn’t see any roofs coming off the houses (but I’m sure there were some that did). Damage from storm surge flooding, however, will be extensive and costly.
Looks like a good correlation between N.Atlantic hurricanes+named stormes and the sea surface temperature. Also the strength of the hurricanes seems to increase (from Stormfax). I guess the ones hitting Florida are too few to be statistically significant.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1e23vlI2LGHg7aIUXIJxBsdy7Aw1uI1q94uRGKjdp9fg/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks, sounds more relevant than Mr Spencer’s eval.
I am currently raising an additional $33,000 or several months from home by doing very sincere and simple online sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home. ~Sd50?~ I am currently interacting briefly during this interest and making a lot of money online using the usable useful resource of , using balancing within
the given stats system http://ritchwork24.blogspot.com
Classic acceptance of the government propaganda in the Church of Warming.
Sigmund Hanslien
I think Roy Spencer discussed what your graph shows. There was not good coverage before 1980 so many storms could have been missed
Storms ok. But not hurricanes.
“I guess the ones hitting Florida are too few to be statistically significant.”
This is a very valid point. There is no reason to focus on land-falling in one state, unless your trying to obtain poor statistics with data that just so happens to fit your narrative.
The impression one gets is that cat 4 and 5 has become a more regular occurrence.
And the numbers back that up for the Atlantic. Number of cat4-5 per 20 y period
21-40 3
41-60 2
61-80 4
81-01 5
01-20 11
2021-22 4 so far
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_intense_tropical_cyclones
illustrating that selecting only land-falling storms on one US state is misleading.
@Nate, so is your straw man argument misleading. Reliable storm imaging satellites started about 1970 which is the first half of your 20-year selection, so pre-1970 completeness is suspect. As well, focusing only on Atlantic storms is misleading.
From the mostly Left-leaning source Wikipedia:
“There is currently no consensus on how climate change will affect the overall frequency of tropical cyclones. A majority of climate models show a decreased frequency in future projections. For instance, a 2020 paper comparing nine high-resolution climate models found robust decreases in frequency in the Southern Indian Ocean and the Southern Hemisphere more generally, while finding mixed signals for Northern Hemisphere tropical cyclones. Observations have shown little change in the overall frequency of tropical cyclones worldwide, with increased frequency in the North Atlantic and central Pacific, and significant decreases in the southern Indian Ocean and western North Pacific. There has been a poleward expansion of the latitude at which the maximum intensity of tropical cyclones occurs, which may be associated with climate change. In the North Pacific, there may also have been an eastward expansion. Between 1949 and 2016, there was a slowdown in tropical cyclone translation speeds. It is unclear still to what extent this can be attributed to climate change: climate models do not all show this feature.”
Atlantic storms are where the T change is most significant.
I agree that going back too far is problematic. But it appears that after ~ 1950, aircraft observations were made. Do you really think any major hurricanes went unnoticed in the 1960s?
“Prior to the development of satellites during the 1960s, forecasters relied on reconnaissance aircraft to pinpoint storms at sea. Since the first intentional flight into a hurricane by Joseph B. Duckworth and Lt. Ralph OHair in late July 1943, aircraft have been flying into hurricanes and collecting valuable data. After this demonstration, aircraft reconnaissance into hurricanes in the Atlantic Basin and typhoons in the Northwest Pacific Basin was begun on an annual basis.”
http://hurricanescience.org/science/observation/aircraftrecon/
“There is currently no consensus on how climate change will affect the overall frequency of tropical cyclones.”
My post was about intensity increases only.
Nate – you use Wikipedia for **science**???
Really??
Spurious correlation. It is well known the number of named storms has increased in part significantly due to better technology.
This is true mainly after 1980. Comparison with hurricanes show similar trend. And I guess we have had the technology to record these for quite a while.
And, the SST stats? Buckets? Intake ports? How much are these data massaged to get the desired answer?
NOAA:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
“We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in: frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes.”
No “compelling evidence for…century-scale increase” because the data are unreliable before 1960. Post 1960, however, the conclusion is:
In summary, Figures 3 and 4 show increases in U.S. landfalling hurricanes, basin-wide hurricane counts, and the proportion of basin-wide hurricanes that reached category 3 intensity since the early 1970s or 80s.
Since the 1960 certainly, no major hurricanes would have gone undetected.
“If global warming is causing a change in tropical cyclone activity, it should show up in global statistics.”
It does. A count increase of nearly 4.0% per decade. See https://doi.org/10.1177/0036850420922773
4% per decade isn’t significant given there aren’t enough storms to derive meaningful statistics within +/- 10%
Not true. Category hurricane count is practically exact.
“Even if we did see an increase, the improvements in global satellite monitoring.”
Dr. Spencer:
The count trend of major hurricanes shown on your chart are increasing. This has nothing to do with improvement in satallite detection. Since 1980, as you mentioned, reliable detection began, and major hurricane detection has been reliable. The increasing tren
The mind sees what it wants to see.
enjoyed your response and info. You must work for NASA or some university or government agency.. Impressive. Nice spark to the conversation.
“If global warming is causing a change in tropical cyclone activity, it should show up in global statistics.”
Climate change can and does lead to different results in different areas. It is conceivable that a statistically significant decline in the Pacific and a statistically significant rise in the Atlantic are BOTH true and due to climate change.
One would have to show that warming should cause increases in both areas before this is a valid conclusion.
“So, yes, there is climate change involved in the uptick in Atlantic activity in recent decades. But its natural.”
As they say, ‘lack of evidence is not evidence of lack’. There is nothing in this data to indicate whether the observed change is natural or man-made.
Again — either or both of these claims MIGHT be correct, but there simply does not seem to be any strong evidence for either in this data.
Tim… yeah, ya see the problem with that is that global warming was supposed to lead to more El Ninos, which would lead to more Pacific hurricanes. The opposite has happened in recent decades. That’s the trouble will attributing every change to Global Warming. Something increased? It’s global warming. Oh, it decreased instead? That’s global warming, too. See the logical problem with that?
“global warming was supposed to lead to more El Ninos, which would lead to more Pacific hurricanes.”
Thanks, that is the info would strengthen the claim. And I 100% agree that attributing everything to “global warming” is bad science.
However …
I will note that a quick google search for “tropical cyclone frequency global warming” actually returns many scientific papers over the past few decades predicting a DECREASE in cyclones (especially in the Pacific).
“In this report, we present the results from our recent experiments using 20 km-mesh and 60 km-mesh atmospheric general circulation models with prescribed sea surface temperatures (SST). The results of the experiments consistently show a reduction in the global tropical cyclone frequency due to global warming. ”
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/5_0_164/_article/-char/ja/
“With the increase of the global SST and surface moisture, it is anticipated that more TCs would develop. However, many climate models simulate a global decreasing trend of TC frequency [Sugi et al., 2002; McDonald et al., 2005; Hasegawa and Emori, 2005; Yoshimura et al., 2006; Oouchi et al., 2006; Bengtsson et al., 2007]. ”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL045124
“Many such models project a decrease in frequency with warming, but some project an increase. ”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021EF002275
“The results of experiments show that a significant reduction in the frequency of tropical cyclones is possible in response to the greenhouse gas-induced global warming. The most significant decrease is indicated over the North Pacific. On the other hand, a considerable increase in tropical cyclone frequency is indicated for the North Atlantic. ”
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jmsj/80/2/80_2_249/_article/-char/ja/
“However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 211% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 634%. ”
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo779%22%22
*********************
It would seem that climatologists don’t have a strong consensus about tropical cyclones, but that a DECREASE in frequency seems to be the more common conclusion.
So the recent 2010 papers are your examples? Hindsight in science is 2020. No pun intended.
If only contrarians would RTFR from time to time:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf
Cherrypicking hurricanes is for Climateball patzers.
Willard,
No doubt Michael Mann had 100% confidence that he won a Nobel Prize. He didn’t.
No doubt Gavin Schmidt was 100% confident when he said that a 38% probability means more likely than not. He was wrong. “More likely than not” is greater than 50%.
And so on.
You really are a gullible little SkyDragon worshipper, aren’t you?
You must have overlooked the IPCC saying that it is impossible to predict future climate states. Maybe they are stupid enough to believe that they can predict weather hundreds of years in advance!
Who knows?
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Who knows?”
Certainly not you.
What do you know, except how to troll Roy’s for a decade?
Foolish buffoon.
Well, gee, Willard.
Nobody knows. Certainly not me, as you say.
And certainly not you or any SkyDragon fanatic. Nor politicians or financial advisors, or hedge fund managers or central bank heads, or journalists, amongst everybody else.
I suppose you are stupid enough to believe that climate crackpots of the IPCC variety can predict the future – even when the IPCC itself says that it is not possible to predict future climate states!
Carry on being delusional.
You know, Mike, if you define knowledge as something nobody holds, then it is hard to know why anybody should care about it.
Then the name of the game turns to the next best thing, like educated guesses.
If you never educamate yourself and keep spamming, I guess that educated guesses are not for you!
Frivolous buffoon.
Willard,
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynman.
You and your fellow SkyDragons don’t even have a theory!
What’s your best guess for a process which resulted in the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, then suddenly changed, and started heating the planet, instead?
Keep in mind the IPCC statement that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
Also keep in mind that you will need to come up with something that hasn’t been around for four and a half billion years or so. Have you just decided that guessing anything will just make you look stupid?
You’re looking pretty stupid at the moment. It won’t get much worse, will it?
[chuckle]
Not the Dick quote and But Chaos again, Mike.
I explained them to you so many times already.
Please get new material.
Willard,
It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong. Richard Feynman.
You and your fellow SkyDragons dont even have a theory!
Whats your best guess for a process which resulted in the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, then suddenly changed, and started heating the planet, instead?
Keep in mind the IPCC statement that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
Also keep in mind that you will need to come up with something that hasnt been around for four and a half billion years or so. Have you just decided that guessing anything will just make you look stupid?
Youre looking pretty stupid at the moment. It wont get much worse, will it?
I suppose it coukd!
[chuckle]
Mike Flynn,
When you copy-paste from your iPad there are characters that disappear.
Never do the same.
Love.
Willard,
It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong. Richard Feynman.
You and your fellow SkyDragons dont even have a theory!
Whats your best guess for a process which resulted in the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, then suddenly changed, and started heating the planet, instead?
Keep in mind the IPCC statement that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
Also keep in mind that you will need to come up with something that hasnt been around for four and a half billion years or so. Have you just decided that guessing anything will just make you look stupid?
Youre looking pretty stupid at the moment. It wont get much worse, will it?
Or maybe it will.
[chuckle]
Mike Flynn,
Fantastic buffoon.
Willard,
It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong. Richard Feynman.
You and your fellow SkyDragons dont even have a theory!
Whats your best guess for a process which resulted in the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, then suddenly changed, and started heating the planet, instead?
Keep in mind the IPCC statement that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
Also keep in mind that you will need to come up with something that hasnt been around for four and a half billion years or so. Have you just decided that guessing anything will just make you look stupid?
Youre looking pretty stupid at the moment. It wont get much worse, will it?
Maybe you could avoid answering, and just post something nonsensical.
[chuckle]
Yes, Mike. That’s your Dick move.
We all know about it.
Willard,
It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong. Richard Feynman.
You and your fellow SkyDragons dont even have a theory!
Whats your best guess for a process which resulted in the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, then suddenly changed, and started heating the planet, instead?
Keep in mind the IPCC statement that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
Also keep in mind that you will need to come up with something that hasnt been around for four and a half billion years or so. Have you just decided that guessing anything will just make you look stupid?
Youre looking pretty stupid at the moment. It wont get much worse, will it?
[chuckle]
Same Dick move, Mike.
Find back your other one.
“you will need to come up with something that hasnt been around for four and a half billion years or so”
Mike continues to fail at insulation and still thinks blankets should keep corpses warm indefinitely. You’ll never fool the CSI guys that way!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
MORE hurricanes is not necessarily been predicted, But STRONGER hurricanes have been predicted.
As reported for Ian, it had a rapid intensification to a strong Cat 4 because of the extra warmth of water at depth. This has been happening more often.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08471-z
SST in the gulf and mid Atlantic have had warming. All else being equal, this will result in stronger storms.
That’s right – hurricane frequency increasing is not the consensus view. An increase in intensity is the general view. Currently, I don’t believe that the slight increase in intensity is statistically significant.
Small sample size.
Fewer hurricanes mean more intense hurricanes, when they occur. Fewer hurricanes mean water surfaces can get warmer. Then when a hurricane does form, it has more thermal energy.
“Fewer hurricanes mean more intense hurricanes”
Nice hypothesis. The data is available to test it. Does it work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane_season#:~:text=The%20Atlantic%20hurricane%20season%20is,tropical%20storms%2C%20or%20tropical%20depressions.
“Fewer hurricanes mean water surfaces can get warmer. Then when a hurricane does form, it has more thermal energy.”
Facile. Storm fronts are driven by temperature gradients, not absolute temperature.
Special pleading.
“Facile. Storm fronts are driven by temperature gradients, not absolute temperature.”
Argument by ignorance. It is very well known that hurricanes will not be sustained unless water T are above a threshold around 26 C. Strength increases is nonlinear with water T from there.
The relevant T gradient is from the surface to the tropopause above the eye.
…in the current atmospheric regime. Another facile answer.
Texas sharpshooter’s fallacy.
Fallacy fallacy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Seems like you did not read the paper properly before drawing your conclusions: “So, yes, there is climate change involved in the uptick in Atlantic activity in recent decades. But its natural.”
Most climate models predict a decrease in storm activity, according to the paper:
“While not significant for 19902021, a decrease in global named storm activity is generally expected by most climate models with continued anthropogenic climate change (Knutson et al., 2020).”
And warming waters lead to stronger hurricanes:
“The overall increasing trend in Category 45 hurricanes accompanied by a decreasing trend in all hurricanes indicates a shift toward more intense global hurricane activity and a higher Category 45 percentage”.
These observations are consistent with anthropogenic climate change as predicted by most models. However, over only thirty years one cannot expect the trends to be statistically significant. Therefore, your conclusion “But its natural” has no support in the paper.
Climate is just the average of weather, Sigmund.
Climate models are just nonsensical jargon – SkyDragon cultists trying to sound scientific.
So tell me, Siggy – how has anybody calculated the effects of mankind on the weather? Has it got better? Worse? I suppose you are stupid enough to believe that people like The fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann, or the self appointed “climate scientist” Gavin Schmidt, actually know what they are talking about!
Just like you, none of them can actually describe this GHE which was completely unable to prevent the Earth from cooling for four and a half billion years or so.
Inconvenient fact, and you are free to reject reality if you like.
I trust ExxonMobil more than I trust your competency. Their prognosis from 1982 just missed the bull’s-eye.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BZgmJ0y7pgV50qaK1vcSIlRSHL3XggptpvVLmnVTF1k/edit?usp=sharing
Ian was a cat. 2 hurricane when it made landfall and weaker after that.
NOT the 4th strongest in Florida history…..not even close to top 10!
NOT the 22nd strongest in US history……….maybe the 50th at best?
This is indisputable proof from the surface observations:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89131/#89321
Either you or Spencer is wrong. Spencer writes: “Hurricane Ian came ashore with 150 mph sustained winds…” – i.e. Cat 4 hurricane.
I go by the official intensity stated by NHC. I know that those estimates are rarely, if ever, matched by actual anemometer measurements on the ground. But they are based upon observational data of a few different kinds from the Hurricane Hunter aircraft, and provide a stable baseline for comparison over the years.
I totally respect that baseline and the NHC standards for determining wind speeds and you, Dr. Spencer.
The NHC does an awesome job, has saved many thousands of lives and we couldn’t do our jobs so well without them.
They are underappreciated.
However, people live on the ground where the anemometers are and almost everybody (outside of a few people like us in this business), when they read that Ian had 150 mph sustained winds at landfall, assumes that Ian had 150 mph sustained winds……..as they know winds.
Not some unique, NHC way of calculating wind that over inflates winds as they know them.
Many hours after the hurricane came ashore, the NHC was obviously still using their over inflation method because actual surface measurements were 30 mph less.
In the past, I’ve totally understood this happening and most of the reasons for it from watching and analyzing many hundreds of hurricanes the last 42 years.
However, I commented for the first time in 42 years about this metric because THIS TIME was different. The magnitude of the difference was MUCH greater than anything I’ve observed.
Not my imagination because I didn’t post anything until ALL the data supported it and I could not find data to contradict it, as hard as I tried.
Anybody got something else for me to look at?
I flew into Hurricane Gloria with the NHC meteorologists on one of their hurricane hunters in September 1985, so I’ve had an especially strong kinship with them and am NOT bashing them as much as pointing something out here.
That people, especially people in the media will sensationalize and abuse/misrepresent a NHC metric like this because they take it at face value.
In the long run, it’s counterproductive.
People in the path of this hurricane for instance, were told that it was 150 mph at landfall and still at XXX mph for couple hours after landfall.
They much less damage that a wind like that would cause and think, “heck if a 150 mph hurricane only did this…… I’ll just ride out the next one like this instead of leaving my job/house for a couple of days to stay at a hotel, spending tons of money”.
Being in the business for 4 decades, 11 years as chief meteorologist for WEHT(warning people with live cut ins to tell them to take cover for severe weather)…. people DO think that way.
It’s the Boy that cried Wolf syndrome.
However, it’s good to OVER warn people to get them to act, just in case. Tornado warnings almost never result in people’s homes being damaged but all they need to see, is footage from a few violent tornadoes and it’s a good motivator.
However, after the event, it’s extremely counterproductive to claim wind amounts were MUCH greater than what they were.
Wind estimates after tornadoes will always be consistent with the damage ON THE GROUND…….not a NWS metric using their doppler radar that can’t see the lowest levels because of the curvature of the earth.
After the comprehensive assessment from damage and tornado experts, we will hear that the winds of the tornado were 200 mph, not because the doppler radar said it. Because it ripped apart a couple blocks of houses with 200 mph winds on the ground.
So I’m talking REAL wind at the surface, not a NHC method for calculating wind so they can use it over the vast oceans, that don’t have surface weather instruments, then continue to use it to be consistent…….even after we have land based observations.
The disparity between the NHC metric for estimating wind and REAL winds on the ground was just so ridiculously large this time that its harmful to the science and to the future of alert/warning effectiveness.
I am currently raising an additional $33,000 or several months from home by doing very sincere and simple online sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home. ~Sd560~ I am currently interacting briefly during this interest and making a lot of money online using the usable useful resource of , using balancing within the given stats system http://ritchwork24.blogspot.com
Thanks for the insight Mike.
NOAA2 and AF301 observed 137 kts at the surface via SFMR prior to landfall and AF307 observed 121 kts at the surface via SFMR during landfall. It was definitely a category 4. And since KTBW was observing 175 kts at flight level between the recon missions and using the 15 kts or so flight level reduction observed by NOAA2, AF301, and AF307 that implies 160 kts at the surface at the peak. And although I think the odds are low we cannot eliminate the possibility that NHC will retroactively upgrade Ian to a category 5.
“NOT the 4th strongest in Florida history..not even close to top 10!”
I dunno Mike the damage looked pretty severe, especially from the storm surge, with whole neighborhoods near the coast wiped away, and huge jumbles of boats piled up.
Well what they say about Ian was how slow it was and the amount of rain it dropped.
Maybe global warming cause hurricanes to move slower.
gbaikie,
This is my favorite site to get the most comprehensive very recent rain amounts(past 72 hours).
Ian dumped over a foot of rain in a band from just south of Tampa to northeast of Orlanda. A few spots got 20 inches.
https://www.iweathernet.com/total-rainfall-map-24-hours-to-72-hours
At 1 deg. C warmer, the atmosphere can hold 7% more moisture, so that will pile on additional rain to high end events like this.
Not 70% more.
Not cause them.
But all things being equal, potential for 7% higher rain amounts.
Then, we should never forget the Golden Rule of Climate/weather extremes.
This comes from Cliff Mass:
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-golden-rule-of-climate-extremes.html
The Golden Rule
Considering the substantial confusion in the media about this critical issue, let me provide the GOLDEN RULE OF CLIMATE EXTREMES. Here it is:
The more extreme a climate or weather record is, the greater the contribution of natural variability.
Or to put it a different way, the larger or more unusual an extreme, the higher proportion of the extreme is due to natural variability.
I have read Mass’ Golden Rule thread you posted a link to.
It is amazingly superficial.
Do you really appeal to such an ‘authority’ ?
Are you serious?
“Are you serious?”
Why wouldn’t I be Bindidon?
Here, let me help you to understand exactly how serious I am and why you should be too.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89333/
CNN and others have been calling Hurricane Ian a 1 in 1,000 year weather event from the rain.
Suddenly, 1 in 1,000 year (rain) events are happening very frequently, thanks to the new terminology of the fake climate crisis’s narrative this year designed to defy authentic meteorology/climate history. It’s done in order to convince people that none of this extreme weather was happening before climate change.
Actually, it was happening almost as frequently in many cases before climate change and anybody that takes a bit of time to fact check, looking at historical weather records…….just like Dr. Spencer did here with hurricane data, can clearly see that.
Ian was absolutely a deadly hurricane and this was devastating flooding. We should feel compassion and try to provide assistance to those that have been harmed/are in need right now.
However, the blatant exaggerating of every extreme weather event and blaming it on a climate crisis is using these events to promote junk science and political agenda which is an independent objective from helping these people.
I would be cool with describing this event as 1 in 100 year flooding in Florida and some of the other places this Summer that had major flooding.
We just need to stop the way over the top, intentional abuse of communicating weather and climate using wild, creative embellishment.
You’d go with 1 in 100 year rain? Is that a gut feeling, or what analysis did you do?
And what analysis did you do to determine that this wasn’t a 1 in 1000 year rain event for those parts of Florida?
Barry, how about we start with the fact that no one was here 1000 years agoI know, ancient cave paintings right? If you think that any amount of proxy data you use matches todays technology for recording these events you are just nuts.
Until you’ve read the method paper behind the announcement you’re punching blindly.
No one here 1000 years ago? There were about 400 million people on Earth. You realize that the Roman Empire occupied much of the Northern Hemisphere 1000 years before that?
Notwithstanding the contribution of Hadley cells, is not the temperature difference between the poles and the equator the primary driver of weather?
Downwelling* cold air from the former replaces upwelling warm air in the latter.
Centripetal force from our rotating planet acting on the resulting flow initiates weather systems.
Observations indicate neither atmospheric pressure nor rotational velocity have altered significantly during the Modern Warm Period.
Observations, however, confirm that Tpole has increased significantly more than Tequator.
Potential energy (Tequator-Tpole) has therefore reduced.
Is it any surprise that one consequence is less cyclonic activity?
Mr. Gras Albert,
I don’t know much about weather but, what you point out is how engine potential energy is measured. What is the temperature of the motor and what is the temperature of its environment and take the difference.
For hurricanes the T difference that matters is ocean minus top of troposphere, where the heat of the ocean is transported.
Then you have water vapor input is the fuel flow rate .(how much the gas pedal is depressed). It can increase nonlinearly with ocean T.
“Youd go with 1 in 100 year rain? Is that a gut feeling, or what analysis did you do?
And what analysis did you do to determine that this wasnt a 1 in 1000 year rain event for those parts of Florida?”
Barry,
I guess you failed to look at my analysis at this link provided earlier. Here it is again for you.
I never use gut feelings and always base statements, entirely on empirical data.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89333/
I’m not going to copy/paste the entire thing here because it’s too excessive for Dr. Spencer’s site.
After you review the data at that link, please tell me what you think.
Thanks
Barry,
To help you out even more, I went in and underlined the key points at my forum that make a 1 in a 100 year event more reasonable(and a case for less than that could be made) and copied it below.
Keep in mind that some definitions of a 1 in a 1,000 years event will include an event like this because its misleading, to say the least.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89333/
“Last I checked, 2014 was 8 years ago and 1950 was 72 years ago and 38.7 inches of rain is double the top amount from Ian.
One would think that a 1 in 1,000 year rain event for 24 hours would do better than just 50% of the state record for 24 hours.”
Mike,
From your “analysis”:
> 1 in 1,000 year rain events = Any extremely heavy rain event with excessive flooding and they are ALL caused by climate change because people don’t have weather records to check in order for them to be held accountable for abusing weather/climate statements.
I am not sure this count as one of your “base statements, entirely on empirical data.”
Unless you meant “based”?
Thanks Willard,
I think that you know this already but just in case you really don’t that statement was describing a current mindset and sudden change in terminology for heavy rain events that started this Summer.
However, the data to support that was also there too with several examples. Since you must not have recognized it, I’ll give it to you again with some assistance this time.
In addition to the data from Florida’s previous heavy rain events in my lifetime…….and I’m not 1,000 years old(-: please see this……again:
4th time this Summer for a 1 in 1,000 year rain event
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/88256/
Review that please and see the many pages of data to base my statement on and tell me what you think.
You’re most welcome, Mike.
Since you must be new here, here’s the kind of things I notice:
[MM, TO ROY] I totally respect that baseline and the NHC standards for determining wind speeds and you, Dr. Spencer.
[MM, TO THE AUDIENCE] So I’m talking REAL wind at the surface, not a NHC method for calculating wind so they can use it over the vast oceans, that dont have surface weather instruments, then continue to use it to be consistent… even after we have land based observations.
So just in case you do not get where I’m going with this, kind Sir, please rest assured that I think you’re full of it.
Best regards.
Mike Maguire, if you are new to this site, welcome.
But, there’s some things you need to understand here. This site is infested with about a dozen trolls. The hate science and reality.
So if you are attacked unfairly, just consider it evidence you stand for truth. Keep commenting here. The more science you present, the less sleep the troll idiots get.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“So just in case you do not get where Im going with this, kind Sir, please rest assured that I think youre full of it.
Best regards.”
And you can rest assured that is extremely unlikely (a 1 in 1000 year event?) that you can actually name someone who values what you “think” (I realise that I use the term “think” loosely, in your case).
No more likely that you can name anyone who can describe a non-miraculous mechanism which cooled the planet for four and a half billion years or so, and then commenced to warm it!
You not only a donkey, you are a pretentious one at that! “Kind Sir”, “Best regards”?
You are definitely full of it.
Carry on.
Once again, Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn is the answer.
Formidable Buffoon.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote
So just in case you do not get where Im going with this, kind Sir, please rest assured that I think youre full of it.
Best regards.
And you can rest assured that is extremely unlikely (a 1 in 1000 year event?) that you can actually name someone who values what you think (I realise that I use the term think loosely, in your case).
No more likely that you can name anyone who can describe a non-miraculous mechanism which cooled the planet for four and a half billion years or so, and then commenced to warm it!
You not only a donkey, you are a pretentious one at that! Kind Sir, Best regards?
You are definitely more than full of it.
Carry on.
Yes, Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn.
Final answer.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote
“So just in case you do not get where Im going with this, kind Sir, please rest assured that I think youre full of it.
Best regards.”
And you can rest assured that is extremely unlikely (a 1 in 1000 year event?) that you can actually name someone who values what you think (I realise that I use the term think loosely, in your case).
No more likely that you can name anyone who can describe a non-miraculous mechanism which cooled the planet for four and a half billion years or so, and then commenced to warm it!
You not only a donkey, you are a pretentious one at that! “Kind Sir”, “Best regards”?
You are definitely more than full of it, Wee Willy.
Carry on.
I can name one person again, Mike Flynn –
Mike Flynn.
What do I win?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote
So just in case you do not get where Im going with this, kind Sir, please rest assured that I think youre full of it.
Best regards.
And you can rest assured that is extremely unlikely (a 1 in 1000 year event?) that you can actually name someone who values what you think (I realise that I use the term think loosely, in your case).
No more likely that you can name anyone who can describe a non-miraculous mechanism which cooled the planet for four and a half billion years or so, and then commenced to warm it!
You not only a donkey, you are a pretentious one at that! Kind Sir, Best regards?
You are definitely more than full of it, Wee Willy.
Carry on – or not.
Say that again, Mike?
I was dozing off.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote
“So just in case you do not get where Im going with this, kind Sir, please rest assured that I think youre full of it.
Best regards.”
And you can rest assured that is extremely unlikely (a 1 in 1000 year event?) that you can actually name someone who values what you think (I realise that I use the term think loosely, in your case).
No more likely that you can name anyone who can describe a non-miraculous mechanism which cooled the planet for four and a half billion years or so, and then commenced to warm it!
You not only a donkey, you are a pretentious one at that! Kind Sir, Best regards?
You are definitely more than full of it, Wee Willy.
Carry on or not.
What did you just say, Mike?
I dare you to repeat that to my face!
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote
So just in case you do not get where Im going with this, kind Sir, please rest assured that I think youre full of it.
Best regards.
And you can rest assured that is extremely unlikely (a 1 in 1000 year event?) that you can actually name someone who values what you think (I realise that I use the term think loosely, in your case).
No more likely that you can name anyone who can describe a non-miraculous mechanism which cooled the planet for four and a half billion years or so, and then commenced to warm it!
You not only a donkey, you are a pretentious one at that! Kind Sir, Best regards?
You are definitely more than full of it, Wee Willy.
Carry on or not, as you wish.
Spam me some more, Mike.
“This site is infested with about a dozen trolls. They hate science and reality.”
Thanks much Clint and especially for the warm welcome.
Yes, I could tell that when my empirical data and science was attacked using nothing but words.
Also, I use the tools available at MarketForum to generate the articles, which include wonderful graphics being shared in the articles that I generously shared here.
As moderator of MarketForum, I’ve encountered quite a few trolls.
Almost all of them are gone today because I blew up their DISinformation with fact checking/authentic science and don’t allow personal attacks…….so they lose their incentive and eventually go away or get banned.
https://www.marketforum.com/about/
I’ve been reading Dr.Spencer’s site for years and post his monthly temperature updates on my forum.
Waiting for September to be released any minute!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/88600/
So CNN said the 1 in 1000 year rainfall occurred in Placid and Lake Wales.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/29/weather/hurricane-ian-1000-year-rainfall-climate
You covered Yankeetown in your article.
Did you not do the analysis for the locations specified in the CNN article? Otherwise your analysis doesn’t contradict CNN’s article.
By the way, the estimates weren’t done by CNN. Analysis was done by Stony Brook University and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, if you want to know the source.
By the way, your website is unavailable outside the US.
barry, if your country is censoring the Internet, that might be a reason you’re so uneducated.
barry…ever hear of the Tor browser?
I’ve already referenced the content of Mike’s article Gordon.
“You covered Yankeetown in your article.”
Thanks anyway for the help.
By the way, your website is unavailable outside the US.
barry,
That’s not true. You must be doing something wrong, are in a unique location, caught us when we are getting attacked to take us offline(this happens frequently and the tech dept is hard to work with/I’m not paying $100/hour for them to service something that I make $0 on) or you are making that up.
Guess which one that I think is most likely based on reading your posts?
Mike, 2 days in a row I couldn’t access your site without using a VPN set to the US. Today I can access it without a VPN.
Mike, did you want to respond to my point? The title of the article you referenced was: “Hurricane Ian’s rainfall was a 1-in-1,000 year event for the hardest-hit parts of Florida.”
This referred to Placida and Lake Wales, specifically named in the article.
But you didn’t analyse the rainfall in those areas, so you haven’t yet contradicted the article.
One of the known effects of increased greenhouse gases is a cooling of the upper atmosphere. What effect does this have on Hurricane intensity? Slow moving hurricanes do more damage. What is the effect of a cooler upper atmosphere on the movement and rate of movement of the these storms?
Interesting question worthy of a technically – scientifically qualified answer.
A cooler upper troposphere increases vertical windshear. This disrupts convection and reduces the chance that a storm will develop into a hurricane. This reduces the number of hurricanes.
At the same time the ocean reaches the critical value of 26C earlier and stays warm later. This gives more days in which a hurricane might form and increases the potential number of hurricanes.
The two changes cancel out, so forecasters do not an increase in the number of hurricanes each year. In that respect Dr Spencer is pushing on an open door.
The longer warm season is accompanied by an increase in peak sea temperatures. This pumps more energy into hurricanes and increases their intensity.
This in a warming world we would expect the same number of hurricanes, but their average intensity is expected to increase.
” … but their average intensity is expected to increase. ”
When I look at Hanslien’s link
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1e23vlI2LGHg7aIUXIJxBsdy7Aw1uI1q94uRGKjdp9fg/edit#slide=id.p
I see an increase in the number of events and a correlation of that number with increasing SST.
Do you have a hand a similar chart sustaining your claim concerning this average intensity?
First pass.
https://www.neefusa.org/nature/water/increased-hurricane-intensity
I’m travelling and will try to do better later.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy#:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/61843574
tim s…”One of the known effects of increased greenhouse gases is a cooling of the upper atmosphere”.
***
If GHGs can’t warm the lower atmosphere why should they cool the upper atmosphere.
All things are impossible in your warped philosophy.
It’s called weather.
Climate is the average of past weather events – it controls exactly nothing. It’s derived numbers.
As to the fixation on the mythical GHE, hopefully this not the same GHE which has resulted in the Earth cooling over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Four and a half billion years of heat “trapping’, “accumulation”, and “magnification” has resulted in the surface temperature dropping from its initial molten state, liquid water appearing on the surface, and so on to now.
No warming due to the “GHE” apparent, just ongoing predictions of doom, from its SkyDragon supporters.
If these deniers of reality could just indicate when the GHE started heating the planet, and explain why the GHE suddenly changed its operation from cooling to heating, that would be nice. Otherwise, it just sounds like religious fanatics crying “Believe, and ye shall be saved. Disbelieve, and ye shall suffer the fiery agony of Hell for all eternity.”
I’m a disbeliever. I reject the SkyDragon religion. So far, so good. Others may believe as they wish, and no doubt expect me to pay to support their religion. And pay, and pay . . .
A pox on the lot of them!
Amazing ignorance!
Amazing was one of his previous socks, and you have seen nothing yet.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2020-0-48-deg-c/#comment-454158
True. Amazed, not Amazing.
Tho Mike Flynn is indeed and amazing buffoon!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Sigmund,
A year from now you won’t give a rat’s ass about Climate Change.
No, this is science and will not change a year from now. You must be getting mixed up with the election lies that you so strongly asserted a couple of years ago…which generally evaporated.
Its called weather.
Climate is the average of past weather events it controls exactly nothing. Its derived numbers.
As to the fixation on the mythical GHE, hopefully this not the same GHE which has resulted in the Earth cooling over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Four and a half billion years of heat trapping, accumulation, and magnification has resulted in the surface temperature dropping from its initial molten state, liquid water appearing on the surface, and so on to now.
No warming due to the GHE apparent, just ongoing predictions of doom, from its SkyDragon supporters.
If these deniers of reality could just indicate when the GHE started heating the planet, and explain why the GHE suddenly changed its operation from cooling to heating, that would be nice. Otherwise, it just sounds like religious fanatics crying Believe, and ye shall be saved. Disbelieve, and ye shall suffer the fiery agony of Hell for all eternity.
Im a disbeliever. I reject the SkyDragon religion. So far, so good. Others may believe as they wish, and no doubt expect me to pay to support their religion. And pay, and pay . . .
A pox on the whole lot of them!
It has been a while you have mentioned entropy, Mike.
So, Climate as Weather Stats, Entropy Refutes Global Warming, Modulz are Stoopid, and your favorite Dick Move.
Anything else?
Its called weather.
Climate is the average of past weather events it controls exactly nothing. Its derived numbers.
As to the fixation on the mythical GHE, hopefully this not the same GHE which has resulted in the Earth cooling over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Four and a half billion years of heat trapping, accumulation, and magnification has resulted in the surface temperature dropping from its initial molten state, liquid water appearing on the surface, and so on to now.
No warming due to the GHE apparent, just ongoing predictions of doom, from its SkyDragon supporters.
If these deniers of reality could just indicate when the GHE started heating the planet, and explain why the GHE suddenly changed its operation from cooling to heating, that would be nice. Otherwise, it just sounds like religious fanatics crying Believe, and ye shall be saved. Disbelieve, and ye shall suffer the fiery agony of Hell for all eternity.
Im a disbeliever. I reject the SkyDragon religion. So far, so good. Others may believe as they wish, and no doubt expect me to pay to support their religion. And pay, and pay . . .
A pox on the whole lot of them!
By the way, I don’t believe that I have mentioned entropy in relation to the mythical GHE, so others might decide that you are just a lying SkyDragon cultist.
The reason why the Earth is cooling down has a name, Mike.
I’ll let you find it.
Its called weather.
Climate is the average of past weather events it controls exactly nothing. Its derived numbers.
As to the fixation on the mythical GHE, hopefully this not the same GHE which has resulted in the Earth cooling over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Four and a half billion years of heat trapping, accumulation, and magnification has resulted in the surface temperature dropping from its initial molten state, liquid water appearing on the surface, and so on to now.
No warming due to the GHE apparent, just ongoing predictions of doom, from its SkyDragon supporters.
If these deniers of reality could just indicate when the GHE started heating the planet, and explain why the GHE suddenly changed its operation from cooling to heating, that would be nice. Otherwise, it just sounds like religious fanatics crying Believe, and ye shall be saved. Disbelieve, and ye shall suffer the fiery agony of Hell for all eternity.
Im a disbeliever. I reject the SkyDragon religion. So far, so good. Others may believe as they wish, and no doubt expect me to pay to support their religion. And pay, and pay . . .
A pox on the whole lot of them!
By the way, I dont believe that I have mentioned entropy in relation to the mythical GHE, so others might decide that you are just a lying, stupid, SkyDragon cultist.
Weather isn’t why the Earth has been cooling down since its beginning, Mike.
Try again, this time with more feeling.
Its called weather.
Climate is the average of past weather events it controls exactly nothing. Its derived numbers.
As to the fixation on the mythical GHE, hopefully this not the same GHE which has resulted in the Earth cooling over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Four and a half billion years of heat trapping, accumulation, and magnification has resulted in the surface temperature dropping from its initial molten state, liquid water appearing on the surface, and so on to now.
No warming due to the GHE apparent, just ongoing predictions of doom, from its SkyDragon supporters.
If these deniers of reality could just indicate when the GHE started heating the planet, and explain why the GHE suddenly changed its operation from cooling to heating, that would be nice. Otherwise, it just sounds like religious fanatics crying Believe, and ye shall be saved. Disbelieve, and ye shall suffer the fiery agony of Hell for all eternity.
Im a disbeliever. I reject the SkyDragon religion. So far, so good. Others may believe as they wish, and no doubt expect me to pay to support their religion. And pay, and pay . . .
A pox on the whole lot of them!
By the way, I dont believe that I have mentioned entropy in relation to the mythical GHE, so others might decide that you are just a lying, stupid, SkyDragon cultist fool!
Entropy is not weather, Mike.
Try to state true facts.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I am currently raising an additional $33,000 or several months from home by doing very sincere and simple online sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home. ~Sd570~ I am currently interacting briefly during this interest and making a lot of money online using the usable useful resource of , using balancing within the given stats system… http://ritchwork24.blogspot.com
Hurricanes are one of the many ways Earth cools itself. Ian came across Cuba, and the eastern Gulf. Those waters have not produced any hurricanes this season, so were warm. The waters were so warm they finally built a big one. Had one or two smaller hurricanes moved across those waters earlier, there would not have been enough thermal energy to produce a Cat 5.
Someday, if we ever learn, we might be able to spark a small hurricane over warmer waters, reducing the chances for a more dangerous one later.
If….
Email exchange with Kerry Emanuel.
hurricanes
Very interesting. Thank you.
Aaron
From: Kerry Emanuel [redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 12:06 PM
[redacted]
Subject: Re: Hurricanes
Dear Mr. [redacted]: Yes, the slight correlation remains, but we now
believe that much of the changes that took place (both positive and
negative) during the period of reasonable good records after 1950 was owing
to sulfur emissions rather than greenhouse gases. Spefically, increasing
sulfate aerosols from around 1950 to about 1980, by reducing sunlight,
cooled the tropical Atlantic and caused a decrease in hurricane activity;
thereafter, decreasing sulfate aerosols as a result of clean air
legislation, increased sunlight, ocean temperature, and hurricanes. Of
course, there is a good deal of natural variability on top of that.
Yours, Kerry Emanuel
Kerry A. Emanuel Professor of Atmospheric Science
[redacted]
Web: Caution-https://emanuel.mit.edu
On 8/13/2018 10:27 PM, Aaron [redacted] wrote:
Dr. Emanuel,
I remember from your Econtalk interview that there was a slight
correlation of increasing Atlantic hurricane strength with global average
temperatures up to the mid or late 2000s. I was wondering if that
relationship has held up.
Thanks for any help you can provide,
Aaron
aaron…”Email exchange with Kerry Emanuel”.
***
So, why did you contact an alarmist like Emanuel and not Richard Lindzen?
Maybe because his e-mail is readily accessible?
“In 2012, Emanuel served as keynote speaker for a conference for Republican voters concerned about climate change. Following the conference, the blog Climate Depot posted Emanuel’s email address. After the conference and the exposure of Emanuel’s email address on blogs, Emanuel received a large volume of emails “laced with menacing language, expletives, and personal threats of violence,” according to editor James West of Mother Jones.”
Tells a lot about some people!
And maybe because Emanuel is a hurricane specialist and Richard Lindzen isn’t.
“Spefically, increasing
sulfate aerosols from around 1950 to about 1980, by reducing sunlight,
cooled the tropical Atlantic and caused a decrease in hurricane activity;
thereafter, decreasing sulfate aerosols as a result of clean air
legislation, increased sunlight, ocean temperature, and hurricanes”
FYI, he is saying the low T portion of the AMO in the mid-late 20th century is caused primarily by anthro pollution, rather than being natural.
Of course he well understands that the AMO has average global warming trend removed. He certainly would agree then that AGW (CO2) and the rising AMO caused the warming N. Atlantic after 1990.
Kerry Emanuel put out too much info, huh Nate. Had you worried.
Nice attempt to save your cult, but it won’t work.
Reality always wins.
Is he correct? Then the recent part of AMO is not natural. Oh well..
Nate,
You wrote –
“He certainly would agree then that AGW (CO2) and the rising AMO caused the warming N. Atlantic after 1990.”
Well, he would be as delusional as you, wouldn’t he?
Neither CO2 nor “the rising AMO” stopped the Earth from cooling for four and a half billion years or so, did it?
Have you considered appealing to fact, rather than obviously wrong authority?
Your factoid is of no relevance whatsoever to global warming, Mike.
Be relevant.
“Neither CO2 nor ‘the rising AMO’ stopped the Earth from cooling for four and a half billion years or so, did it?”
Are you suggesting that an insulating atmosphere SHOULD HAVE stopped the Earth from cooling over 4.5 Billion years?
Why o why, Mike? R U that dumb?
Knowing that insulating blankets don’t prevent corpses from cooling? Or don’t you know that?
649 posts and nobody was convinced by this irrelevancy.
Oh well, go for 650 and use the insanity defense!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Hurricane Michael made landfall officially as a 140-knot Cat-5 storm, not 135 knots indicated by the graph. Although “operationally” the National Hurricane Center said the peak was only 135 knots, it was determined afterwards that this should be upgraded to 140 because SFMR data was missing where and when the highest readings were expected, and other data supported existence of surface sustained wind at least 140 knots.
Earlier, the dimwitted Sigmund Hanslien, unable to provide any reason why the Earth suddenly started to heat up (after cooling for four and a half billion years or so), exhibited the usual blinding intellectual vacuity of the SkyDragon cultist, by rejecting reality thus –
“Amazing ignorance!”
Can’t quite bring himself to what the “amazing ignorance” happens to be, but he appeals to his own authority, anyway.
Hard cheese, Siggy my boy, the Earth did cool for four and a half billion years or, in spite of any stupid so-called GHE.
If you were not a devout SkyDragon cultist, you might be able to accept reality, but obviously you can’t.
Keep dreaming.
You just confirmed the proverb; “dumb people think theyre the smartest people in the world.”
Sigmund,
You can’t explain why the GHE didn’t prevent the Earth from cooling for four and a half billion years or so, can you?
What do you reckon, Siggy? Magic?
You can’t claim that CO2, the atmosphere, or anything else causes warming, you donkey, because they have been around for billions of years. Result – cooling, not heating.
I don’t have to be the smartest person on the world to be smarter than you, do I?
Go on, surprise me – tell me all about the GHE which cooled the world for four and a half billion years or so, and then started heating it!
Donkey.
I leave that to ExxonMobil to explain. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BZgmJ0y7pgV50qaK1vcSIlRSHL3XggptpvVLmnVTF1k/edit?usp=sharing
Corporations will say/do anything to sell their products — think “prostitutes”.
Just look what “WOKE” Nike does to sell sports clothing.
Wow – what a stupid comment! In 1982 not many customers worried about the climate impact of Exxon’s products.
I never said corporations were always smart. Maybe that’s why you misunderstood my comment.
Do you have any science, or are you just here to troll?
I’m the only one showing science of us – from Exxon Research. Since they disagree with you, you are accusing Exxon of telling their customers that using their products will do harm to the climate! Wow!
Sorry Sigmund, but that ain’t science:
“The carbon dloxlde content of tbe atmosphere ls of concern since it can affect global cllmate. Carbon dioxlde and other trace gases contalned ln the atmosphere such as water vapor, ozone methane, carbon monoxlde, oxldes of nltrogen, etc. absorb part of the lnfrared rays re-radlated by the earth. Thls lncrease in absorbed energy warms the atmosphere inducing warBmlng at the earth’s surface. Thls phenomenon 1s referred to as the “greenhouse effect”.
The terrestrial 15 μ photon can NOT warm Earth’s 288K surface.
And making up stuff just means you’re a troll:
“…you are accusing Exxon of telling their customers that using their products will do harm to the climate!”
“Corporations will say/do anything to sell their products” are your words. And Exxon says GHG from their products will harm the climate. You do not realize your lack of logical reasoning?
As I said; dumb people think they’re the smartest people in the world.
Sigmund,
You cant explain why the GHE didnt prevent the Earth from cooling for four and a half billion years or so, can you?
What do you reckon, Siggy? Magic?
You cant claim that CO2, the atmosphere, or anything else causes warming, you donkey, because they have been around for billions of years. Result cooling, not heating.
I dont have to be the smartest person on the world to be smarter than you, do I?
Go on, surprise me tell me all about the GHE which cooled the world for four and a half billion years or so, and then started heating it!
Dimwit.
Well, your assertion is fundamentally flawed; Earth’s surface has not been cooling for 4.5 billion years. The interior has. So why should I explain an erroneous statement?
After bad-mouthing NOAA, they come out against the meme that climate change is producing more severe storms. The idiot, Don Lemon, on CNN, tried to bait a NOAA rep into admitting climate change was behind Ian, and the NOAA rep stuck to his guns, claiming a lack of evidence to claim that.
There you have it, NOAA agrees with Roy. The least they could do after he and John Christy made NOAA sat data famous.
swenson…”Its called weather.
Climate is the average of past weather events it controls exactly nothing. Its derived numbers”.
***
Yeah, it’s amazing, all this pseudo-scientific propaganda about a statistic that can do nothing.
Climate change becomes a change in a number. But, hey, climate zealots must add to the atmosphere with their hot air.
GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29379-1
Wee Willy,
What pack of idiots would waste somebody else’s money publishing something that says “Here we show that human-induced climate change . . . “?
A pack of SkyDragon idiots who worship a GHE which apparently didn’t exist for four and a half billion years or so, while the Earth cooled, that’s who!
Oh yes, and how do they show the effect of human activities on weather (and its average, climate? By running “simulations”, based on the non-existent GHE. These dimwits actually appeal to the authority of the IPCC, but absolutely refuse to acknowledge that the IPCC itself stated that the atmosphere is a chaotic system.
Just more nonsense from people who should know better.
At least they have a good supply of gullible donkeys like you to applaud their silliness.
I know you have direct access to reality, Mike Flynn.
Everybody else relies on models.
So, Dick move, climate is weather statistics, and a Dick move. Anything else?
Wee Willy,
What pack of idiots would waste somebody elses money publishing something that says Here we show that human-induced climate change . . . ?
A pack of SkyDragon idiots who worship a GHE which apparently didnt exist for four and a half billion years or so, while the Earth cooled, thats who!
Oh yes, and how do they show the effect of human activities on weather (and its average, climate? By running simulations, based on the non-existent GHE. These dimwits actually appeal to the authority of the IPCC, but absolutely refuse to acknowledge that the IPCC itself stated that the atmosphere is a chaotic system.
Just more nonsense from people who should know better.
At least they have a good supply of gullible donkeys like you to applaud their silliness.
Carry on.
So Mike –
Gimme a Sammich, Climate as Weather Stats, Entropy Refutes Global Warming, Modulz are Stoopid, But Chaos, and your favorite Dick Move.
Anything else?
Wee Willy,
What pack of idiots would waste somebody elses money publishing something that says Here we show that human-induced climate change . . . ?
A pack of SkyDragon idiots who worship a GHE which apparently didnt exist for four and a half billion years or so, while the Earth cooled, thats who!
Oh yes, and how do they show the effect of human activities on weather (and its average, climate? By running simulations, based on the non-existent GHE. These dimwits actually appeal to the authority of the IPCC, but absolutely refuse to acknowledge that the IPCC itself stated that the atmosphere is a chaotic system.
Just more nonsense from people who should know better.
At least they have a good supply of gullible donkeys like you to applaud their silliness.
Carry on with your diversionary stupidity.
I have the weird feeling that I have heard that before, Mike, but where?
Wee Willy,
What pack of idiots would waste somebody elses money publishing something that says Here we show that human-induced climate change . . . ?
A pack of SkyDragon idiots who worship a GHE which apparently didnt exist for four and a half billion years or so, while the Earth cooled, thats who!
Oh yes, and how do they show the effect of human activities on weather (and its average, climate? By running simulations, based on the non-existent GHE. These dimwits actually appeal to the authority of the IPCC, but absolutely refuse to acknowledge that the IPCC itself stated that the atmosphere is a chaotic system.
Just more nonsense from people who should know better.
At least they have a good supply of gullible donkeys like you to applaud their silliness.
Carry on with your diversionary stupidity – maybe other SkyDragons will enjoy it.
Wait, Mike –
Are you saying you’re enjoying it?
Wee Willy,
What pack of idiots would waste somebody elses money publishing something that says Here we show that human-induced climate change . . . ?
A pack of SkyDragon idiots who worship a GHE which apparently didnt exist for four and a half billion years or so, while the Earth cooled, thats who!
Oh yes, and how do they show the effect of human activities on weather (and its average, climate? By running simulations, based on the non-existent GHE. These dimwits actually appeal to the authority of the IPCC, but absolutely refuse to acknowledge that the IPCC itself stated that the atmosphere is a chaotic system.
Just more nonsense from people who should know better.
At least they have a good supply of gullible donkeys like you to applaud their silliness.
Carry on with your diversionary stupidity maybe other SkyDragons like you will enjoy it.
Glad to hear you are enjoying it, Mike.
Parrot again, you will have a cracker.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Comparison of Ian-2022 to Irma-2017
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89366/
Recommended reading for all … over 6,000 Abstract views so far:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2884148
How many citations?
Not peer-reviewed.
They pooh-poohed Einstein’s paper until one brave physicist spoke up, Max Planck. Peer review doesn’t mean diddly. Is it true or is it not true?
stephen p. anderson
I have read the Dug’s theory and it is quite bad and illogical. It will not be an Einstein moment. It has many flaws which have been pointed out to “Retired Scientist” multiple times.
The vase majority of crackpot theories are just that, no good.
Einstein Theory only became established when observational evidence supported it.
Here is one glaring stupid point with the Dug’s idea. In the Stratosphere you have a hotter area higher up than a colder one. Heat creep would not allow this.
His theory has zero experimental evidence, is illogical, goes against observed evidence. Ignored that the majority of solar energy gets to the surface, where it is converts which makes heat creep illogical. Also above the circulation of the troposphere is an isothermal layer that is around 10 km thick. These observations make this a crackpot idea similar to the garbage Christos keeps posting. These crackpots do not change their course even when people point out how illogical their ideas are.
Norman, your mention of “crackpot theories” reminded me that you haven’t produced any valid technical reference to verify your claim that two fluxes can simply add at a surface so the surface then emits that sum.
You probably just forgot….
Clint R
You have been given two valid experimental cases that it does indeed happen. One by Roy Spencer the other by E. Swanson. You also have the well established heat transfer equation that covers this. I linked you to an engineering problem with 3 different fluxes and they all were added at the surface of interest. I wasted enough time on your stupidity, illogical thought and outright denial.
You are clearly a cult minded idiot that is not really interested in any evidence. So why do you keep going on about this? This would be a classic example of trolling.
All wrong Norman, and you know it. That’s why you can’t comment without making your usual insults and false accusations.
If you really believe you have a “valid technical reference” that verifies Folkerts’ nonsense, provide it. I don’t have the time or interest in debunking a barrage of your nonsense. Just pick your very best evidence, and I will show you why it is wrong.
Put up or shut up.
Norman,
And still, after four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight, with an atmosphere richer in supposed “greenhouse gases” than now, the Earth has cooled by thousands of degrees.
I know you have no explanation, which is why you spout the diversionary nonsense you do.
Accept reality, laddie.
There are at least three very simple explanations as to why the Earth has cooled by thousands of degrees, Mike Flynn.
Sigmund found one on his first try.
Which means you don’t even try.
Norman,
I think he’s pretty spot on about radiation from what I’ve read so far. It’s what I used to be taught in physics and quantum mechanics.
Norman,
Have you read the Claes Johnson paper? Where is he wrong?
Have you ever read SoD’s, Troglodyte?
Have a bite:
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/back-radiation/#comment-13832
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Just change “heat creep” to “CO2”, and Ent and barry will instantly swallow it. As will all the “peer review” from the controlled “science”.
It’s the same nonsense.
Recommended reading for Dug –
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-Roy
Weepy Willard,
Dr Spencer not dancing to your tune? How sad. Maybe he doesn’t value your opinion as highly as you might wish.
Your social engineering skills are as defective as your knowledge of physics.
Have you managed to figure out how four and a half billion years or so of supposed “heat trapping”, “accumulation”, and “forcings” managed to result in cooling? No?
Maybe you should keep trying to manipulate Dr Spencer into complying with your desires.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Here you are.
QED.
Thank you.
Weepy Willard,
Dr Spencer not dancing to your tune? How sad. Maybe he doesnt value your opinion as highly as you might wish.
Your social engineering skills are as defective as your knowledge of physics or most other things.
Have you managed to figure out how four and a half billion years or so of supposed heat trapping, accumulation, and forcings managed to result in cooling? No?
Maybe you should keep trying to manipulate Dr Spencer into complying with your desires.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Res ipsa loquitur.
Cheers.
Weepy Willard,
Dr Spencer not dancing to your tune? How sad. Maybe he doesn’t value your opinion as highly as you might wish.
Your social engineering skills are as defective as your knowledge of physics or most other things.
Have you managed to figure out how four and a half billion years or so of supposed heat trapping, accumulation, and forcings managed to result in cooling? No?
Maybe you should keep trying to manipulate Dr Spencer into complying with your desires.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Please repeat your comment once more.
Weepy Willard,
Dr Spencer not dancing to your tune? How sad. Maybe he doesnt value your opinion as highly as you might wish.
Your social engineering skills are as defective as your knowledge of physics or most other things.
Have you managed to figure out how four and a half billion years or so of supposed heat trapping, accumulation, and forcings managed to result in cooling? No?
Maybe you should keep trying to manipulate Dr Spencer into complying with your desires.
Carry on.
You don’t need to thank me (or Mike Flynn).
You’re Mike Flynn, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The pattern of the stratospheric polar vortex in the upper stratosphere also foreshadows the influx of Arctic air into Canada directly from eastern Siberia.
https://i.ibb.co/wp3ycVz/gfs-z10-nh-f00.png
A weakening magnetic field over North America, with low solar cycles (strong increase in galactic radiation) promises harsh winters in North America in future years (regardless of La Nia).
https://i.ibb.co/1Kvcyqp/polar-n-dz.jpg
Sorry.
https://i.ibb.co/vjkPs5h/solar-cycle-progression.png
As Bindiding the solar specialist sez – Way ahead of the red line
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1366175
This hurricane Ian is a harbinger of the coming economic hurricane. The economic hurricane will hit the whole world. There will be no place to hide.
Meanwhile, the ozone hole has been growing at the end of winter in the Southern Hemisphere for the past three years.
https://i.ibb.co/y4BrPgy/ozone-hole-plot.png
There is no end in sight for La Nia.
https://i.ibb.co/41kJXKG/IDYOC007-202209.gif
Florida would be amazing 100 years ago.
Dr S, you still rock. Everyday.
FYEO, Jeff:
https://youtu.be/MrBs3hdEUxY
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Rare enough to be worth a mention: a really interesting article at WUWT
What Is Milankovitch Theory, What Is It Not, And What Can We Learn from It?
John A. Parmentola
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/01/what-is-milankovitch-theory-what-is-it-not-and-what-can-we-learn-from-it/
“In his original papers [1], Milutin Milankovitch proposed that the obliquity was a dominant factor in ice age occurrences because it affects the insolation at northern latitudes where ice and snow can accumulate on the earths comparatively large landmass of the northern hemisphere. Snow and ice accumulation can affect the earths albedo and hence its heat engine.”
Climatologists have been rather obsessed with ice on land, it’s the ice on the ocean which is more significant.
But Climatologist are obsessed with ice free summer polar sea ice- some even think it’s end of world.
And they imagine a ice free summer polar sea ice is close or tipping point to a ice free winter polar sea ice.
In relatively cool Holocene interglacial period, it seems to me we had thousand of years of ice free summer sea ice, but I don’t think had any ice free winter polar sea ice.
Though ice free winter sea ice could have happen in recent past interglacial period. And would guess longer than 2 million years ago during interglacial periods, it always happened
I would guess that since always have summer ice free sea ice, in southern pole, is relate to the terror that the Antarctica will soon melt.
Anyhow as say, it’s about the ocean. Ocean warms and land cools.
We in Ice house global climate because we have a cold ocean.
And a cold ocean doesn’t have to be as cold as average ocean temperature as cold as 3.5 C.
Or 5 C ocean is a cold ocean as is a 6 C average temperature ocean.
15 C ocean is not called a cold ocean, but 15 C and 15 C ocean is
not really warm- 15 air and 15 C water will kill humans, 10 C just kills them quicker. Of course we have clothes and we could keep them fairly dry. And we have fun spending hours going skiing is colder conditions with frozen snow and air temperatures as cold as 5 C.
But we spend hours in sauna warmer than 60 C and find it enjoyable.
Whereas 50 C air temperatures are not fun. As we know, highest air temperature in the shade was “in 1913, reached a temperature of 134 degrees Fahrenheit, or 56.7 degrees Celsius,”
In sunlight it’s hotter, the dry ground would be near 70 C, asphalt melts, and you sweating a lot. Without water you could die. But in Sauna you have a cool drink, and you can easily walk out the door.
Of course the Finns like go into 100 C sauna for fairly short period of time, and if they have snowbank accessible, leap into it.
Human bodies are like the ocean, they take awhile to warm up or cool down. But oceans are bigger and it requires, centuries.
Ooooh The Drama
https://youtu.be/omWFTfKjBcI
A great example, Eben.
And the finish added additional humor!
Moar Funnies
https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/hurricane-ian/?id=90445860
Willard,
What’s so funny about 52 deaths?
Are you just trying to get yourself banned again?
It probably won’t work, you know.
There’s nothing funny about 52 deaths, Mike Flynn.
What would be funny is how Eboy uses that calamity for his silly But CAGW were we not desensitized from it.
Willard.
Oh, I see. When you wrote –
“Moar Funnies
Floridas death toll has climbed to at least 52, according to information from local officials.”,
you really meant something else, did you?
Is “Moar Funnies” some juvenile SkyDragon code?
Maybe you could explain what you really meant to say, when you portrayed 52 deaths as “Moar Funnies”.
You really are an idiot, you know.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Oh, I see.”
No, I don’t think you do.
Try again.
Willard.
Oh, I see. When you wrote
Moar Funnies
Floridas death toll has climbed to at least 52, according to information from local officials.,
you really meant something else, did you?
Is Moar Funnies some juvenile SkyDragon code?
Maybe you could explain what you really meant to say, when you portrayed 52 deaths as Moar Funnies.
You really are an idiot, you know.
Carry on.
Are you trying to replace Graham, Mike?
Willard.
Oh, I see. When you wrote
Moar Funnies
Floridas death toll has climbed to at least 52, according to information from local officials.,
you really meant something else, did you?
Is Moar Funnies some juvenile SkyDragon code?
Maybe you could explain what you really meant to say, when you portrayed 52 deaths as Moar Funnies.
You really are an idiot, you know.
Who is Graham? Another fantasy figure?
Carry on.
Really, Mike.
Are you trying to replace Graham?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The point is, you have an idiot on Eben’s video, playing it up for CNN cameras as if he is fighting a major wind. Major stupidity, typical of CNN who are trying to sell the propaganda that such a hurricane is due to climate change.
Cmon, Gordo.
50 DEATHS.
Think.
C’mon Willy.
50 DEATHS.
Think.
Only joking, you’re an SkyDragon cultist – no thinking required.
C’mon Mike.
It’s now 79 DEATHS:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/multiple-deaths-reported-hurricane-ian-slams-florida/story?id=90693636
Fabulist buffoon.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
willard…”The 2020 North Atlantic hurricane season was one of the most active on record…”
***
Why are you raving about 2020 or is that a typo?
I know your comprehension is lacking while reading but that’s no excuse for missing Roy’s point that in the 2022 season, hurricane activity in the Pacific is below average.
Cmon, Gordo.
Are 50 deaths below average?
W
Two of the counties hardest hit, Lee and Charlotte, have had population increases over the last 70 years of 3,000% and nearly 5,000% . If the same hurricane had made landfall in the same location back then the population and development would have been significantly lower, and thus the damage and deaths would have been significantly lower.
Making historical comparisons for areas that have been among the fastest growing areas in the US, is a little bizarre, to say the least.
Brush up on your history, W. You do realize that hurricanes occurred before Cher joined up with Sonny.
You can normalize 50 deaths all you want, Fernando, you might not succeed in normalizing Eboy’s crass behavior.
Oh, and you might also forget that Junior’s normalization efforts usually go the opposite way as the one you’re actually trying to portray. Building codes improved. Florida men and women invested in infrastructures.
Let’s simply the problem. Here’s a string of numbers:
1900
1919
1926
1928
1935
1938
1944
1954
1954
1955
1957
1960
1969
1972
1979
1983
1988
1989
1992
1994
1995
1998
1999
2000
2001
2001
2003
2004
2004
2004
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
2008
Ask Mike Maguire what this would imply if it represented market depth.
W
You are working on counting up to 100. Making progress, but you missed a few.
No need to count to 100 yet, Fernando:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/after-hurricane-ian-no-trend-in-florida-landfalls-global-activity-trending-down/#comment-1373511
The numbers you are trying to minimize come from this page:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history/
Maybe Chihuahua should stick to his Sky Cranks.
You’re my favorite Sky Dragon Crank, Troglodyte:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf
Wonky Wee Willy,
The IPCC correctly stated that prediction of future climate states is not possible.
Failed insurance companies found out that thinking that the future is predictable can lead to financial ruin.
Governments do no better – Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, recessions, depressions, etc., etc.
You’re an idiot who doesn’t even believe the authorities he appeals to!
So Mike,
Gimme a Sammich, Climate is Weather, Entropy Refutes Global Warming, Modulz are Stoopid, Chaos is Unpredictable, and your favorite Dick Move.
Anything else?
Wonky Wee Willy,
The IPCC correctly stated that prediction of future climate states is not possible.
Failed insurance companies found out that thinking that the future is predictable can lead to financial ruin.
Governments do no better Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, recessions, depressions, etc., etc.
Youre an idiot who doesnt even believe the authorities he appeals to!
Try burbling some nonsense. Avoid trying to explain why the SkyDragon GHE cooled the planet for four and a half billion years or so. Alternatively, scuttle away like Gavin Schmidt avoiding facing fact.
Off you go now, start burbling.
So Mike,
Gimme a Sammich, Climate is Weather, Entropy Refutes Global Warming, Modulz are Stoopid, Chaos is Unpredictable, and your favorite Dick Move.
Anything else, intellectually famished buffoon?
Wonky Wee Willy, burbling away –
The IPCC correctly stated that prediction of future climate states is not possible.
Failed insurance companies found out that thinking that the future is predictable can lead to financial ruin.
Governments do no better Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, recessions, depressions, etc., etc.
Youre an idiot who doesnt even believe the authorities he appeals to!
Try burbling some nonsense. Avoid trying to explain why the SkyDragon GHE cooled the planet for four and a half billion years or so. Alternatively, scuttle away like Gavin Schmidt avoiding facing fact.
Off you go now, keep burbling..
So you got nothing else than Gimme a Sammich, Climate is Weather, Entropy Refutes Global Warming, Modulz are Stoopid, Chaos is Unpredictable, and your favorite Dick Move, Mike.
Please get new material, feverish buffoon.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
It’s impossible to pull apart what is real and political propoganda with Climate Change. Hurricanes are a beautiful case study. In the variable sources one can see all sorts of different narratives, but the best data is hardly the focus of the conversation. Good hurricane data shows a decrease, ARGO shows less ocean warming than pre agro, satellite temperatures don’t match models in satellite era. It’s just clear data is the answer. The candle in the dark.
I think a Canadian politician put it best for the alarmists, she said it does not matter if the science is right, we are doing the right thing (ie, imposing carbon taxes, etc.).
The meaning is clear, to heck with science, we believe we are right and we are going to push for our beliefs. Problems is, the IPCC, which is supposed to be apolitical, is returning a peer review consensus that supports the beliefs, not the science.
Things are so messed up these days that belief and consensus are now regarded as ‘the science’.
” … satellite temperatures dont match models in satellite era. ”
Sure you aren’t confusing ‘satellite’ with ‘UAH’?
I’m only aware of two satellite data sets. UAH is one of them.
I fail to see your point.
Yea. UAH, R s s, even Had Cr u t are all basically aligned in last 40 years. Not a meaningful difference statistically. Actually both satellite providers discuss the issues with the models to hot for L troposphere.
I am presently raising another $33,000 or many months from home by doing terribly honest and easy on-line sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home.~te60″~ im currently interacting in short throughout this interest and creating plenty of cash online victimization the usable helpful resource of by using the balance at intervals
the given stats system http://doingwork12.blogspot.com
We ended up to the following remarkable results:
–
Comparison of results the planet’s Te calculated by the Incomplete Equation (the Planet Effective Temperature Te):
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
with the planet’s mean surface temperature Tmean calculated by the Planet’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature New Equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K) (1)
–
and the planet’s Tsat.mean measured by satellites:
–
To be honest with you, at the beginning, I got by surprise myself with these results. You see, I was searching for a mathematical approach
–
We have collected the results now:
–
Planet….Te.incompl….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…..325,83 K….340 K
Earth…..255 K…….287,74 K….288 K
Moon…….270,4 K…..223,35 Κ….220 Κ
Mars…….209,91 K….213,21 K….210 K
–
the calculated with Planet’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation and the measured by satellites are almost the same, very much alike.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Looks like Mike Maguire prematurely rated Ian a Cat 2, now that we have seen its level of devastation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/after-hurricane-ian-no-trend-in-florida-landfalls-global-activity-trending-down/#comment-1372163
Remember that long ago the hurricane categories were determined mainly by damage assessment.
Nate,
If actual empirical data and accurate measurements matter, then this might interest you:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89366/
Along the same lines, with Ian’s rains being called a 1 in 1,000 year event:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89333/
I updated those threads/posts this morning to add new and/or better information and will continue to update with any new/better data. You got any for me?
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89333/#89373
Thanks in advance
Here’s some data for you, Mike:
https://movies.yahoo.com/florida-senators-request-more-federal-181521091.html
Willard,
Links to movie sites, now?
Are you sure that this diversion will help obscure the inconvenient truth that you can’t explain why four and a half billion years or so of the GHE resulted in the surface cooling by some thousands of Kelvins?
It won’t. Ducking, bobbing, and weaving in the finest SkyDragon cultist tradition won’t help people believe in the non-existent heating powers of the GHE, you know.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Teh Yahoo is not a movie site.
Your mental acrobatics are quite cinematographic, however.
Frail buffoon.
Willard,
What the heck is “Teh Yahoo”?
You are claiming that a site named “movies.yahoo . . . ” has nothing to do with movies?
OK. Must be operated by a SkyDragon, I suppose, where cooling is heating, good is bad, and “movies” means something else entirely.
In the meantime, how are you getting on with your explanation of the GHE cooling the planet for four and a half billion years or so, then suddenly reversing course, and heating said planet?
You can’t of course. That’s why you babble about “Teh Yahoo”, and similar inanities.
Keep it up. Willard. You are obviously a fine example of a SkyDragon acolyte.
Mike Flynn,
Teh Yahoo is not a movie site.
Your mental gymnastics are quite cinematographic, however.
Frail buffoon.
Willard,
What the heck is Teh Yahoo?
You are claiming that a site named movies.yahoo . . . has nothing to do with movies?
OK. Must be operated by a SkyDragon, I suppose, where cooling is heating, good is bad, and movies means something else entirely.
In the meantime, how are you getting on with your explanation of the GHE cooling the planet for four and a half billion years or so, then suddenly reversing course, and heating said planet?
You cant of course. Thats why you babble about Teh Yahoo, and similar inanities.
Keep it up. Willard. You are obviously a fine example of a SkyDragon acolyte. Idiotic, but pretentious.
Mike Flynn,
Teh Yahoo is not a movie site.
Your mental agonization is quite cinematographic, however.
Flavorless buffoon.
Willard,
What the heck is Teh Yahoo?
You are claiming that a site named movies.yahoo . . . has nothing to do with movies?
OK. Must be operated by a SkyDragon, I suppose, where cooling is heating, good is bad, and movies means something else entirely.
In the meantime, how are you getting on with your explanation of the GHE cooling the planet for four and a half billion years or so, then suddenly reversing course, and heating said planet?
You cant of course. Thats why you babble about Teh Yahoo, and similar inanities.
Keep it up. Willard. You are obviously a fine example of a SkyDragon acolyte. Idiotic, but pretentious. Are you stupid as well?
Still playing dumb, Mike?
Your assertion is fundamentally flawed.
Earths surface has not been cooling for 4.5 billion years.
The interior has.
And Keith Richards too.
Willard,
What the heck is Teh Yahoo?
You are claiming that a site named movies.yahoo . . . has nothing to do with movies?
OK. Must be operated by a SkyDragon, I suppose, where cooling is heating, good is bad, and movies means something else entirely.
In the meantime, how are you getting on with your explanation of the GHE cooling the planet for four and a half billion years or so, then suddenly reversing course, and heating said planet?
You cant of course. Thats why you babble about Teh Yahoo, and similar inanities.
Keep it up. Willard. You are obviously a fine example of a SkyDragon acolyte. Idiotic, but pretentious. Are you stupid as well?
You don’t need to answer.
Still playing dumb, Mike?
Willard,
What the heck is Teh Yahoo?
You are claiming that a site named movies.yahoo . . . has nothing to do with movies?
OK. Must be operated by a SkyDragon, I suppose, where cooling is heating, good is bad, and movies means something else entirely.
In the meantime, how are you getting on with your explanation of the GHE cooling the planet for four and a half billion years or so, then suddenly reversing course, and heating said planet?
You cant of course. Thats why you babble about Teh Yahoo, and similar inanities.
Keep it up. Willard. You are obviously a fine example of a SkyDragon acolyte. Idiotic, but pretentious. Are you stupid as well?
You dont need to answer, that was a rhetorical question.
Are you srsly suggesting that you do not know Yahoo, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Mike,
NOAA2 reported 137 kts via SFMR and 124 kts via dropsonde with 150 kts at flight level and 162 kts at the level of highest winds.
AF301 reported 137 kts via SFMR and 131 kts via dropsonde with 142 kts at flight level and 168 kts at the level of highest winds.
AF307 reported 121 kts via SFMR and 126 kts via dropsonde with 131 kts at flight level and 159 kts at the level of highest winds.
There was a 6 hour gap between NOAA2/AF301 and AF307. In that time the KTBW radar observed an increase in the winds at beam height (about 3000 m) of 170 kts with some bins even exceeding 190 kts implying that Ian had actually strengthened after its intensity was set to 135 kts by the NHC.
HWRF analyzed it to be 140 kts.
HMON analyzed it to be 140 kts.
HAFS analyzed it to be 150 kts.
None of the data is consistent with Ian only being a category 2. In fact, the data suggests Ian may have actually intensified to category 5 albeit briefly.
You keep repeating that stuff bdgwx,
You want us to believe that almost 70 ground based anemometers, including in the path of the highest winds of Ian, accurate instruments that receive calibration checks and are used 24 hours/day, 365 days a year were somehow all wrong by a very wide margin?
In many cases by 30-50 mph.
All 100% of them were wrong and not one was right.
I know that you’ve already decided and it makes no difference but that’s the data that you’re completely disregarding.
I get the usual disparity because of the NHC’s method to calculate winds which carries over from the data sparse, vast ocean to land but THIS time it was double any hurricane that I followed closely……….and I just showed it with the data.
Truth is, if you want accurate winds on the ground, the instruments on the ground will provide that best and NOT what you are trying to substitute for that and have convinced yourself of.
You asked for facts and you got served, MM.
Why are you moving the goalposts?
In any event, your incredulity is duly noted.
Which ground station was at 26.3N, 82.8W at 16:02Z when KTBW observed 186 kts at 9500 ft?
Which ground station was at 25.9N, 83.1W at 10:13Z when NOAA2 observed 137 kts at the surface?
Which ground station was at 26.0N, 83.0W at 10:29Z when AF301 observed 137 kts at the surface?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Mike M. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/after-hurricane-ian-no-trend-in-florida-landfalls-global-activity-trending-down/#comment-1373948
It is well known that near the ground wind speed increases with altitude. It is standard to measure wind speed with airplanes.
Not only is it the standard. It is the best way to do it. Aircraft can maneuver to intercept the band of highest winds in the eyewall purposefully. That’s not something ground based stations can do.
What I a lot of people don’t understand is that the wind speeds are actually higher below flight level and maximize between 500 and 1000 m AGL and then slow down below the level of maximum wind due to friction with the ground.
For Ian the surface winds were about 0.8 of the winds at the level of maximum speed and about 0.9 of the winds at flight level. That’s pretty typical of tropical cyclones. There was nothing unique about Ian in this regard.
BTW…Nolan et al. 2014 showed that even for a hypothetical array of hardened 4225 buoys tracking the movement of a tropical cyclone the array will still underestimate the maximum wind by around 10 kts. And that’s out over the open water. Ground based stations have the added disadvantage of observing friction slowed winds and often being taken out of service due to the winds they’re trying to measured like was the case for the ASOS station KPGD.
Storm surge was very high. Is that not a measure of strength?
A bit upthread, ren (aka Ireneusz Palmowski) told us strange things:
” A weakening magnetic field over North America, with low solar cycles (strong increase in galactic radiation) promises harsh winters in North America in future years ”
*
Why is that strange? Simply because as we can see right here:
https://i.ibb.co/vjkPs5h/solar-cycle-progression.png
we experience lower and lower solar cycles since quite a while – especially compared to the Modern Maximum during SC19. SSN is continuously falling since its top value in 1957.
Thus we should in theory have harsh winters since quite a while as well, shouldn’t we?
*
Now let us collect, out of the raw GHCN daily station record, temperature minima for the winter months (Dec / Jan / Feb) measured by thousands of stations in North America (US + Canada) and on the European continent (from the North Atlantic coasts till the Ural).
And let us compare, for the winters 1895/96 till 2020/21, the absolute minima averages with the yearly Sun Spot Number series.
Because temperatures and SSN have very different value ranges, the best is to convert all values in the series to their percentage wrt the series’ maxima:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GRMyvJ-uhtF6zP_Y5DQIerhCmiltQFJJ/view
There is a weak correlation of North America’s and Europe’s temperatures with the SSN from SC14 till SC21; but after that, the correlation vanishes completely.
Yes: the winters in North America are cold. But between now and the end of the 1970’s, the difference is great:
1979: -10.51
1978: -9.16
1977: -9.11
1982: -9.06
1936: -9.05
1918: -8.78
1985: -8.65
1899: -8.50
1904: -8.43
1989: -8.31
At the other end:
2016: -4.07
1953: -4.39
1932: -4.57
1921: -4.68
1998: -4.84
2017: -4.86
2012: -4.88
1931: -4.93
1909: -4.97
2020: -5.02
*
The Sun is our energy supply. But is it really the major climate driver, as claim the ‘Its the Sun, Stupid!’ people?
But But But solar cycles have been declining ,
I already explained this at least twice , but here we go again
” But But But solar cycles have been declining ,
I already explained this at least twice , but here we go again ”
Babbling Edog, are you REALLY too dumb to understand that I have shown exactly the same in this chart?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GRMyvJ-uhtF6zP_Y5DQIerhCmiltQFJJ/view
I repeat what I wrote, in the hope you read it BEFORE you write your usual nonsense again:
” There is a weak correlation of North Americas and Europes temperatures with the SSN from SC14 till SC21; but after that, the correlation vanishes completely. ”
This means, babbling Edog, that the winter night temperatures went up in North America (and in Europe) despite the more and more declining solar cycles SC22, SC23, SC24.
Thus, ren’s statement
” A weakening magnetic field over North America, with low solar cycles (strong increase in galactic radiation) promises harsh winters in North America in future years… ”
doesn’t make much sense, does it?
Did you get it now?
And this I posted just two weeks ago , straight From google answers
Scientists say the Sun may be going through a long period of decreased activity known as the Modern Grand Solar Minimum from 2020 to 2053.
This period has started in the Sun in 2020 and will last until 2053. During this modern grand minimum, one would expect to see a reduction of the average terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0C, especially, during the periods of solar minima between the cycles 2526 and 2627, e.g. in the decade 20312043.
Jesus, again this dumb stuff! Why don’t you show your source, babbling Edog?
I personally don’t need it. I just need to see in your post:
” This period has started in the Sun in 2020 and will last until 2053. ”
and I already know you refer to Zharkova’s prediction, which is exactly as absolutely unproven as are other ones saying the inverse.
*
Why are you so fixated on Zharkova’s stuff, babbling Edog?
Aren’t there no other valuable predictions?
Are you opinionated to such an extent that you would deliberately ignore other voices saying the contrary, for example:
Deciphering Solar Magnetic Activity: The (Solar) Hale Cycle Terminator of 2021
Mc Intosh & alii (2022)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.10577.pdf
Oh oh oh! Some more of these bad people ‘dissecting the past’, hu?
You are dumb as a rock, you don’t know what “Google’s answers” is
Babbling Edog: as usual, you don’t answer like an adult.
A ten-year-old child would easily exceed your level because s/he would have read the article and commented intelligently.
Instead, you remain yourself “dumb as a rock” and fail to shed more than dog poo.
This is why you can’t reason with stupid, you give him an answer – he doesn’t understand any of it anyway and round and round it goes.
What if I told you Zharkova is my mom
Why aren’t you including cycle 24 in regard to Modern Grand Solar Minimum?
I would say global climate is slow to change, but in terms definition
of words, why isn’t it part of Modern Grand Solar Minimum?
They work on weekends??
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Sept: 96.3 sunspots
F10.7cm Radio Flux:
134.7
Oh I see:
“in the next 500 years there are two modern grand solar minima approaching in the Sun: the modern one in the 21st century (2020-2053) and the second one in the 24th century (23702415).”
https://solargsm.com/grand-solar-cycle-and-minimum/
I don’t why she says it, but I see where you are getting it.
They just tend to count 25 26 27 as the GSM cycles, assuming they turn out lower than 24
–They just tend to count 25 26 27 as the GSM cycles, assuming they turn out lower than 24–
Well I tend to think 25 will be “different” than 24, if I accept
Zharkova prediction.
And so far, it does seem to be different.
But I have not been paying much attention to the sun- as compared to
my recent attention to it. Though I can’t say I been paying much attention it, even recently.
Anyways, other than different, I roughly would say they will be about the same “level”.
I might say, 25 could be more bumpy. So we had 1 spotless day, and it seems we could have more. And that is part of what mean by bumpy. And if Zharkova is correct, it could there will be confusion about when 25, ends and/or when 26 starts.
Or it might be that we will all agree, when it ends and begins, because something happens which allows this- but it seems possible it will not go smoothly in terms of agreeing.
So, another aspect of bumpy. And it seems 25 might be quite violent,
and if have very violent bursts of activity, it may not count as “lower”.
Scientists say? Which ones? Is there general agreement?
I think not. Not hardly.
“This period has started in the Sun in 2020 and will last until 2053. During this modern grand minimum, one would expect to see a reduction of the average terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0C, especially, during the periods of solar minima between the cycles 2526 and 2627, e.g. in the decade 20312043.”
OMG 1.0 C?! Good luck with that!
It would be unfortunate to return to average temperature of the 20th century. But not going to happen within 50 years.
But likely to happen before 24th century.
Though it seems a lot of other things will happen in next 50 years which will be far more important than 1 degree of cooling or warming.
Grand Solar Minimum Update:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/01/death-toll-continues-to-grow-in-hurricane-ians-wake-heavy-floods-predicted-from-florida-to-southern-mid-atlantic.html
Willard
I’m afraid it won’t be long before someone tells you things like that 125 people have died in Indonesia due to the police’s harsh response to football fans gone mad.
But we certainly won’t hear about the fact that Republicans in Florida, who deeply despise the Democrat-led administration in Washington, will still plead for billions in aid.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The deadliest hurricane in the US was the Galveston Hurricane of 1900.
The hurricane left between 6,000 and 12,000 fatalities in the United States; the number most cited in official reports is 8,000. Most of these deaths occurred in and near Galveston, Texas, after the storm surge inundated the coastline and the island city with 8 to 12 ft (2.4 to 3.7 m) of water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane
” The hurricane left between 6,000 and 12,000 fatalities in the United States; the number most cited in official reports is 8,000. ”
This was very certainly an absolutely extreme event.
But… You might be thinking about what would happen today if, in this region hit hardest by hurricanes, there were still as many poor and vulnerable people at risk as they were in 1900.
To be honest Clint R: I sincerely hope you didn’t just post this information to say: ‘Ian wasn’t due to global warming, let alone to CO2’.
The difference is in storm prediction where people have enough time to evacuate. There are relatively few people who willingly put themselves at risk by staying in place. Probably the only warning Galveston had was the darkening clouds on the horizon.
I bring a little reality to the discussion, and Bindidon goes bonkers.
The cult hates reality.
That’s why this is so much fun.
12K is nothing, Pup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bangladesh_tropical_cyclones
Willard,
Is there a point to your second-hand, quite irrelevant news report?
Would you like to post the total number of people killed in motor vehicle accidents?
No?
Why not?
Irrelevant donkey.
Mike Flynn,
Yes, there is a point behind the fact I cited.
And that point is relevant to whom I mentioned in my comment.
You don’t see that?
Your loss, farsical buffoon.
Willard,
Is there a point to your second-hand, quite irrelevant news report?
Would you like to post the total number of people killed in motor vehicle accidents?
No?
Why not?
Irrelevant and obscure comments won’t obscure the fact that you can’t explain why the GHE should suddenly start heating a planet which has cooled for four and a half billion years or so.
Try if you wish, donkey.
I’m good, Mike Flynn.
Furious Buffoon.
Willard,
Is there a point to your second-hand, quite irrelevant news report?
Would you like to post the total number of people killed in motor vehicle accidents?
No?
Why not?
Irrelevant and obscure comments wont obscure the fact that you cant explain why the GHE should suddenly start heating a planet which has cooled for four and a half billion years or so.
Try if you wish, donkey, but you are doomed to failure.
Yes, Mike, there is a point behind the fact I cited.
And that point is relevant to whom I mentioned in my comment.
You dont see that?
Your loss, farsical buffoon.
Willard,
Is there a point to your second-hand, quite irrelevant news report?
Would you like to post the total number of people killed in motor vehicle accidents?
No?
Why not?
Irrelevant and obscure comments wont obscure the fact that you cant explain why the GHE should suddenly start heating a planet which has cooled for four and a half billion years or so.
Try if you wish, donkey, but you are doomed to failure.
Writing “Yes, Mike, there is a point behind the fact I cited. And that point is relevant to whom I mentioned in my comment.” is completely pointless. Just another example of a witless SkyDragon cultist trying to make others think he is clever.
Might work – nobody ever went broke under-estimating the intelligence of the American people (or somesuch).
Mike Flynn,
Yes, Mike, there is a point behind the fact I cited.
And that point is relevant to whom I mentioned in my comment.
You don’t see that?
Your loss, fanciful buffoon.
Willard,
Is there a point to your second-hand, quite irrelevant news report?
Would you like to post the total number of people killed in motor vehicle accidents?
No?
Why not?
Irrelevant and obscure comments wont obscure the fact that you cant explain why the GHE should suddenly start heating a planet which has cooled for four and a half billion years or so.
Try if you wish, donkey, but you are doomed to failure.
Writing Yes, Mike, there is a point behind the fact I cited. And that point is relevant to whom I mentioned in my comment. is completely pointless. Just another example of a witless SkyDragon cultist trying to make others think he is clever.
Might work nobody ever went broke under-estimating the intelligence of the American people (or somesuch).
Keep appealing to your own authority. You might be the only one who believes you.
Mike Flynn,
Yes, Mike, there is a point behind the fact I cited. And that point is relevant to whom I mentioned in my comment. You dont see that?
Your loss, frenzy buffoon.
Also, your assertion is fundamentally flawed. Earths surface has not been cooling for 4.5 billion years. The interior has.
Cheers.
Willard,
Appealing to your own authority shows what idiocy SkyDragons are capable of.
Look between your feet, donkey, and try to convince others that the surface has not cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Go a bit further, and try and convince a rational person that the GHE has made the surface even hotter!
Go away, deranged SkyDragon. Back to your fantasy, Wee Willy.
[chortle]
Mike Flynn,
The Earth’s surface has not been cooling for 4.5 billion years.
So your assertion is fundamentally flawed.
Cheers.
Willard,
If you want to claim the surface is still molten, be my guest.
Maybe other SkyDragon will agree. Rational people wont.
The surface has cooled, you idiot, and no SkyDragon GHE stopped the cooling.
No I don’t, Mike.
Cheers.
Willard,
You wrote –
“No I dont”.
What is it that you “dont”?
You dont know what you are talking about?
You dont accept that the surface has cooled?
You dont acknowledge that your SkyDragon GHE was unable to prevent the Earth form cooling?
You dont have a clue do you?
Still playing dumb, Mike?
Read your comment again, you will see to what I am responding.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Tim, see my reply above. An increase in count of 4% per decade is observed. https://doi.org/10.1177/0036850420922773
My theoretical work, which is pending publication, is in agreement.
4% per decade isnt significant given there arent enough storms to derive meaningful statistics within +/- 10%
The theory shows a clear statically significant trend, in agreement with observations. Back in the 80’s the total number of observed events were about 69 annually. Nowadays, it is nearly 80.
Nabil Swedan,
30 years out of the last four and a half billion doesn’t seem to be all that impressive.
Even less impressive if you are only looking at 5% of the planets land surface.
In your paper you state –
“Given that the climate is changing, the energy and frequency of tropical cyclones may be changing as well.”
Well, duh! Climate is the average of past weather. Tropical cyclones are weather. The atmosphere behaves chaotically, therefore weather (and hence climate) is unpredictable. Saying weather events “may be changing” is just wasting words.
You also say –
“The term “tropical cyclones” denotes typhoons and hurricanes.” And, in the Southern Hemisphere, tropical cyclones, as well as extra-tropical cyclones, I suppose.
But no matter. You paper is nonsensical. If you paid to have it published, you’ve been had, as they say.
“But no matter. You paper is nonsensical. If you paid to have it published, youve been had, as they say.”
Swenson:
I can tell from your comments that you have not finished reading the paper and jumped to silly conclusions. It is observed data, Sir, that speaks. Do you understand what that means? It is an absolute truth.
Nabil Swedan,
There is not much point in continuing reading a paper by someone who doesn’t seem to know what they are talking about.
You wrote what you wrote. If you really meant to write something else, then that is what you could have done.
You don’t have a “theory”, as I understand the term.
You have recorded some weather observations, averaged them, and believe that you have discovered some previously undiscovered meaning hidden away, by the look of things.
Rubbish. The facts of weather observations are historical curiosities, predicting nothing any better than a 12 year old child could do. If you disagree, you might provide some factual support.
As Feynman said – “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
You don’t even have a theory.
Swenson:
You are false again. I was pleased to pay for publishing the paper so that decent readers do not have to pay for it. I assure you that worthless readers like you were not on my mind.
Nabil Swedan,
How many “decent readers” offered to pay you to read your nonsense?
None?
Your charitable efforts may have gone to waste. No problem, you are free to waste your money as you see fit.
Clever people, like “climate scientists”, get someone else to pay them to have their nonsense published. You need to be more clever.
> 30 years out of the last four and a half billion doesnt seem to be all that impressive.
It’s even less impressive if we consider that there are about 10^25 planets that orbit stars, and 10^26 to 10^30 starless planets in our currently observable universe, Mike.
Witless Willard,
Do you have a relevant point to make, or are you just trying to avoid providing your explanation of why the supposed GHE suddenly reversed its operation, and started heating a planet which it had cooled for four and a half billion years or so?
Maybe you could ask the IPCC?
By the way, how is your strange infatuation with Mike progressing? Your unrequited demonstrations of love might explain your aberrant behaviour. Maybe you need to take yourself in hand!
Oh! Oh! Oh! – did it make you feel better?
[laughing]
Mike Flynn,
Do you have a relevant point to make, or are you just trying to avoid providing your explanation of why you keep mentioning four and a half billion years when everybody knows that it’s utterly irrelevant?
Witless Willard,
Do you have a relevant point to make, or are you just trying to avoid providing your explanation of why the supposed GHE suddenly reversed its operation, and started heating a planet which it had cooled for four and a half billion years or so?
Maybe you could ask the IPCC?
By the way, how is your strange infatuation with Mike progressing? Your unrequited demonstrations of love might explain your aberrant behaviour. Maybe you need to take yourself in hand!
Oh! Oh! Oh! did it make you feel better?
[laughing loudly]
Mike Flynn,
As Sigmund said earlier –
“Well, your assertion is fundamentally flawed; Earth’s surface has not been cooling for 4.5 billion years. The interior has. So why should I explain an erroneous statement?”
Fruitless buffoon.
Witless Willard,
Do you have a relevant point to make, or are you just trying to avoid providing your explanation of why the supposed GHE suddenly reversed its operation, and started heating a planet which it had cooled for four and a half billion years or so?
Maybe you could ask the IPCC?
By the way, how is your strange infatuation with Mike progressing? Your unrequited demonstrations of love might explain your aberrant behaviour. Maybe you need to take yourself in hand!
Oh! Oh! Oh! did it make you feel better?
As to Sigmund, if he believes the surface hasn’t cooled from its initial molten state, he is obviously deranged, as are you for appealing to his authority!
[laughing loudly]
Mike Flynn,
As Sigmund said earlier
“Well, your assertion is fundamentally flawed; Earth’s surface has not been cooling for 4.5 billion years. The interior has. So why should I explain an erroneous statement?”
Funny buffoon.
Witless Willard,
Do you have a relevant point to make, or are you just trying to avoid providing your explanation of why the supposed GHE suddenly reversed its operation, and started heating a planet which it had cooled for four and a half billion years or so?
Maybe you could ask the IPCC?
By the way, how is your strange infatuation with Mike progressing? Your unrequited demonstrations of love might explain your aberrant behaviour. Maybe you need to take yourself in hand!
Oh! Oh! Oh! did it make you feel better?
As to Sigmund, if he believes the surface hasnt cooled from its initial molten state, he is obviously deranged, as are you for appealing to his authority! Look between your feet, if you believe the surface is still molten.
[laughing loudly]
More word salad, Mike Flynn?
Your assertion is fundamentally flawed.
Earths surface has not been cooling for 4.5 billion years.
The interior has.
There is no need to explain anything.
Willard,
The surface isn’t molten anymore. The temperature has dropped.
To a SkyDragon, that is AGW caused by the GHE.
To any rational person, a fall in temperature is known as cooling.
You may believe as you desire. Reality is obviously beyond your grasp.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
The Earth’s surface has not been cooling for 4.5 billion years.
The interior has.
So your assertion is fundamentally flawed.
Willard,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
The Earths surface has not been cooling for 4.5 billion years.
The interior has.
So your assertion is fundamentally flawed.”
Only in your fantasy, donkey boy, only in your SkyDragon fantasy.
Look between your feet – tell someone that you are standing on molten rock. See the surprised look on their face. Don’t be surprised if nice men in white coats turn up to have a word with you.
Your assertion is fundamentally flawed, Mike Flynn.
You are not.
Witless Willard,
Do you have a relevant point to make, or are you just trying to avoid providing your explanation of why the supposed GHE suddenly reversed its operation, and started heating a planet which it had cooled for four and a half billion years or so?
Maybe you could ask the IPCC?
By the way, how is your strange infatuation with Mike progressing? Your unrequited demonstrations of love might explain your aberrant behaviour. Maybe you need to take yourself in hand!
Oh! Oh! Oh! did it make you feel better?
As to Sigmund, if he believes the surface hasnt cooled from its initial molten state, he is obviously deranged, as are you for appealing to his authority! Look between your feet, if you believe the surface is still molten. No?
[laughing loudly]
You are Mike Flynn, Mike.
Why do you keep denying it?
Witless Willard,
Do you have a relevant point to make, or are you just trying to avoid providing your explanation of why the supposed GHE suddenly reversed its operation, and started heating a planet which it had cooled for four and a half billion years or so?
Maybe you could ask the IPCC?
By the way, how is your strange infatuation with Mike progressing? Your unrequited demonstrations of love might explain your aberrant behaviour. Maybe you need to take yourself in hand!
Oh! Oh! Oh! did it make you feel better?
As to Sigmund, if he believes the surface hasnt cooled from its initial molten state, he is obviously deranged, as are you for appealing to his authority! Look between your feet, if you believe the surface is still molten. No?
[laughing more loudly]
Another copypasta, Mike Flynn?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Dr. Spencer, see my reply above. An increase in count of 4% per decade is observed. https://doi.org/10.1177/0036850420922773
My theoretical work, which is pending publication, is in agreement.
I am presently raising another $33,000 or many months from home by doing terribly honest and easy on-line sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home.~te80″~ im currently interacting in short throughout this interest and creating plenty of cash online victimization the usable helpful resource of by using the balance at intervals
the given stats system http://doingwork12.blogspot.com
Sorry, category tropical cyclones’ count is practically exact since 1980.
Pardon me, category tropical cyclones’ count is practically exact since 1980.
For those that want close to 100 discussions on every element of climate change based on authentic science and empirical data.
Also discussed are the impacts from (and on) politics, crony capitalism, energy markets and much more:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/
For those who want to minimize Ian:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/multiple-deaths-reported-hurricane-ian-slams-florida/story?id=90693636
Since the governor is a Dem, it’s probly fake news.
Wee Willy Wanker,
What does “minimizing Ian” mean, and who is supposedly doing it?
Is the practice illegal, and if not, why do you care?
You wouldn’t be trying to influence anybody’s right to free speech would you, you slimy little troll?
Ah, questions, questions, but no answer from Willard the SkyDragon believer.
Why should anyone be surprised?
Mike Flynn, Sky Dragon Crank extraordinaire –
Why do you think that playing dumb will get your room service?
“Ian” refers to Ian, and “minimizing” refers to the act of minimizing.
Cheers.
Wee Willy Wanker,
What does minimizing Ian mean, and who is supposedly doing it?
Is the practice illegal, and if not, why do you care?
You wouldnt be trying to influence anybodys right to free speech would you, you slimy little troll?
Ah, questions, questions, but no answer from Willard the SkyDragon believer.
Why should anyone be surprised?
How are you getting on trying to explain why the stupid SkyDragon GHE started to heat the planet – after cooling it for four and a half billion years or so?
Not too well, I suppose.
Mike Flynn, Fabulous Buffoon
“Ian” is a proper name, “minimizing is a verb, and words have meanings.
Why do you think that playing dumb will get your room service?
Wee Willy Wanker,
What does minimizing Ian mean, and who is supposedly doing it?
Is the practice illegal, and if not, why do you care?
You wouldnt be trying to influence anybodys right to free speech would you, you slimy little troll?
Ah, questions, questions, but no answer from Willard the SkyDragon believer.
Why should anyone be surprised?
How are you getting on trying to explain why the stupid SkyDragon GHE started to heat the planet after cooling it for four and a half billion years or so?
Not too well, I suppose.
Playing your “silly semantic games” probably won’t win you the respect you imagine you deserve. Keep talking nonsense, like SkyDragons do.
Mike Flynn,
Why do you think that playing dumb will get your room service?
Wee Willy Wanker, more word salad?
What does minimizing Ian mean, and who is supposedly doing it?
Is the practice illegal, and if not, why do you care?
You wouldnt be trying to influence anybodys right to free speech would you, you slimy little troll?
Ah, questions, questions, but no answer from Willard the SkyDragon believer.
Why should anyone be surprised?
How are you getting on trying to explain why the stupid SkyDragon GHE started to heat the planet after cooling it for four and a half billion years or so?
Not too well, I suppose.
Playing your silly semantic games probably wont win you the respect you imagine you deserve. Keep talking nonsense, like SkyDragons do.
Mike Flynn,
Which part of –
“Mike Flynn,
Why do you think that playing dumb will get your room service?”
you do not get?
Wee Willy Wanker, more avoidance?
What does minimizing Ian mean, and who is supposedly doing it?
Is the practice illegal, and if not, why do you care?
You wouldnt be trying to influence anybodys right to free speech would you, you slimy little troll?
Ah, questions, questions, but no answer from Willard the SkyDragon believer.
Why should anyone be surprised?
How are you getting on trying to explain why the stupid SkyDragon GHE started to heat the planet after cooling it for four and a half billion years or so?
Not too well, I suppose.
Keep talking nonsense, like SkyDragons do.
Mike Flynn,
Which part of
“Mike Flynn,
Which part of
“Mike Flynn,
Why do you think that playing dumb will get your room service?”
you do not get?”
do you not get?
Wee Willy Wanker, more avoidance?
What does minimizing Ian mean, and who is supposedly doing it?
Is the practice illegal, and if not, why do you care?
You wouldnt be trying to influence anybodys right to free speech would you, you slimy little troll?
Ah, questions, questions, but no answer from Willard the SkyDragon believer.
Why should anyone be surprised?
How are you getting on trying to explain why the stupid SkyDragon GHE started to heat the planet after cooling it for four and a half billion years or so?
Not too well, I suppose.
Keep spouting nonsense, like SkyDragons do.
Mike Flynn,
Which part of
“Mike Flynn,
Which part of
“”Mike Flynn,
Which part of
“”Mike Flynn,
Why do you think that playing dumb will get your room service?”
you do not get?””
do you not get?”
you do not get?
Wee Willy Wanker, more avoidance?
What does minimizing Ian mean, and who is supposedly doing it?
Is the practice illegal, and if not, why do you care?
You wouldnt be trying to influence anybodys right to free speech would you, you slimy little troll?
Ah, questions, questions, but no answer from Willard the SkyDragon believer.
Why should anyone be surprised?
How are you getting on trying to explain why the stupid SkyDragon GHE started to heat the planet after cooling it for four and a half billion years or so?
Not too well, I suppose.
Keep spouting nonsense, like SkyDragons do. You might even choose to direct your dribbling to Mike Flynn, if you want to appear completely mad.
Still playing dumb, Mike?
Wee Willy Wanker, more avoidance?
What does minimizing Ian mean, and who is supposedly doing it?
Is the practice illegal, and if not, why do you care?
You wouldnt be trying to influence anybodys right to free speech would you, you slimy little troll?
Ah, questions, questions, but no answer from Willard the SkyDragon believer.
Why should anyone be surprised?
How are you getting on trying to explain why the stupid SkyDragon GHE started to heat the planet after cooling it for four and a half billion years or so?
Not too well, I suppose.
Keep spouting nonsense, like SkyDragons do. You might even choose to direct your dribbling to Mike, if you want to appear completely mad.
Play dumb once more, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Again playing dumb, Mike?
Wee Willy Wanker, more avoidance?
What does minimizing Ian mean, and who is supposedly doing it?
Is the practice illegal, and if not, why do you care?
You wouldnt be trying to influence anybodys right to free speech would you, you slimy little troll?
Ah, questions, questions, but no answer from Willard the SkyDragon believer.
Why should anyone be surprised?
How are you getting on trying to explain why the stupid SkyDragon GHE started to heat the planet after cooling it for four and a half billion years or so?
Not too well, I suppose.
Keep spouting nonsense, like SkyDragons do. You might even choose to direct your dribbling to Mike, if you want to appear completely mad.
Do whatever you must to avoid acknowledging reality. It wont help, you know.
What do words mean, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Wee Willy Wanker,
What does minimizing Ian mean, and who is supposedly doing it?
Is the practice illegal, and if not, why do you care?
You wouldnt be trying to influence anybodys right to free speech would you, you slimy little troll?
Ah, questions, questions, but no answer from Willard the SkyDragon believer.
Why should anyone be surprised?
How are you getting on trying to explain why the stupid SkyDragon GHE started to heat the planet after cooling it for four and a half billion years or so?
Not too well, I suppose.
Playing your silly semantic games probably wont win you the respect you imagine you deserve. Keep talking nonsense, like SkyDragons do.
Maybe you could blather about nonsense like “room service”.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
I suppose.
Yes, you so.
A lot.
That is all you so.
Over and over again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The green energy movement is a sham. Its not about science, its about politics. The green energy movement is a scam. Its not about saving the environment; its about destroying capitalism, and you need to know that. ~ Jordan Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LofjYFK1kI
The Son of Lobster, The Demonologist in Chief, and Western Man – Transcendent Tableware
https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/peterson-murray-pageau-transcendent-tableware
Everybody needs a miracle. Sky Dragon Cranks need two.
Willard,
You can’t explain the stupid SkyDragon GHE cooling the Earth for four and a half billion years or so, can you?
No miracle for you. No clue either – you don’t seem to have one.
Keep avoiding reality. Maybe it will go away.
Mike Flynn,
As Sigmund said earlier
“Well, your assertion is fundamentally flawed; Earths surface has not been cooling for 4.5 billion years. The interior has. So why should I explain an erroneous statement?”
Finest buffoon.
Weird Wee Willy,
Appealing to the authority of a dimwit like Sigmund, who refuses to accept the surface of the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, makes you look even more detached from reality than the SkyDragon fantasist, Sigmund.
Your silly SkyDragon GHE quite obviously was unable to prevent the surface from cooling for four and a half billion years or so, so the chances of sudden heating appears remote to any rational person.
Your assertion is fundamentally flawed, Mike.
It is a fact that the Earth’s surface has not been cooling for 4.5 billion years.
Only the interior has.
Your factoid is both incorrect and irrelevant.
Just as is your spamming.
Willard,
Appealing to your own authority shows what idiocy SkyDragons are capable of.
Look between your feet, donkey, and try to convince others that the surface has not cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Go a bit further, and try and convince a rational person that the GHE has made the surface even hotter!
Go away, deranged SkyDragon. Back to your fantasy, Willard.
[chortle]
Your spamming is fundamentally flawed, Mike.
It is a fact that your factoid is both incorrect and irrelevant.
It only makes sense in the windmills of your mind.
Cheers.
Willard,
Appealing to your own authority shows what idiocy SkyDragons are capable of.
Look between your feet, donkey, and try to convince others that the surface has not cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Go a bit further, and try and convince a rational person that the GHE has made the surface even hotter!
Go away, deranged SkyDragon. Back to your fantasy, Willard.
[loud chortling]
Spamming fundamentally flawed, Mike, stop.
Factoid both incorrect and irrelevant, stop.
Windmills of your mind, stop.
Cheers, stop.
Willard,
Appealing to your own authority shows what idiocy SkyDragons are capable of.
Look between your feet, donkey, and try to convince others that the surface has not cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Go a bit further, and try and convince a rational person that the GHE has made the surface even hotter!
Go away, deranged SkyDragon. Back to your fantasy, Willard. Is the surface still molten, there?
[loud chortling]
Appealing to your own authority is all you do, Mike.
Except for one of your two Dick moves.
Willard,
Appealing to your own authority shows what idiocy SkyDragons are capable of.
Look between your feet, donkey, and try to convince others that the surface has not cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Go a bit further, and try and convince a rational person that the GHE has made the surface even hotter!
Go away, deranged SkyDragon. Back to your fantasy, Willard. Is the surface still molten, there?
Accept reality if you dare.
[loud chortling]
Come on, Mike.
First you whine that I appeal to the authority of Sigmund.
Now you are whining that I am appealing to my own authority.
Willard,
Appealing to your own authority shows what idiocy SkyDragons are capable of.
Look between your feet, donkey, and try to convince others that the surface has not cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Go a bit further, and try and convince a rational person that the GHE has made the surface even hotter!
Go away, deranged SkyDragon. Back to your fantasy, Willard. Is the surface still molten, there?
Accept reality if you dare, donkey!
[loud chortling]
More copypasta, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Ian’s death toll up to 79/Extreme Storm Surge
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89399/
You guys that keep denying the accurately measured wind speeds from 70 different anemometers and claiming the high death toll proves all those instruments were wrong………need a lesson on storm surge.
Then you can apply it to the authentic facts and meteorology of Ian.
If you want to blame most of the storm surge on man made climate change, that’s fine with me but at least be able to intelligently understand what it is that you are supposed to be blaming climate change for!
Make that 85, MM:
https://news.yahoo.com/hurricane-ravaged-florida-carolinas-face-051010522.html
Come on, Willard, some of the 85 must be covid related.
C’mon, Gordo.
Make that 87:
https://news.sky.com/story/hurricane-ian-81-killed-and-many-unaccounted-for-after-one-of-strongest-costliest-storms-in-us-history-12709413
Willard,
More copied news reports?
To what end?
Do you know that climate is the average of weather events – like tropical storm data, for example?
Yes, Mike.
More reports:
https://youtu.be/6O9ycL1iyO0
Cheers.
Willard,
More copied news reports?
To what end?
Do you know that climate is the average of weather events like tropical storm data, for example?
What the heck does “Yes . . . ” mean?
Yes what? More copied news reports?
Or have you accepted that climate is just the average of historical weather events?
As a dedicated SkyDragon, you might be redefining “Yes” to mean anything at all!
Not very clever, dummy.
Yes, Mike:
https://www.wpbf.com/article/ian-hurricane-florida-update/41494484#
More news.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
mike…”at least be able to intelligently understand what it is that you are supposed to be blaming climate change for!”
***
First, the alarmists have to explain what climate change means. In real science it means the climate of a certain local has changed over 30 years. That change could be drought, precipitations, etc., but it applies to one of thousands of climate locales around the globe.
To alarmists it’s just a term created via propaganda to scare people by infering the world has a climate and it is changing due to anthropogenic causes. No proof.
> by infering the world has a climate
I dare them to infer that the world has a climate!
Willard,
Youre being even more stupid than usual.
Not really, Mike.
Willard,
OK then, Ill accept that you are exhibiting your usual standard of stupidity, if that suits you better.
No Mike,
It does not.
Willard,
Hard lines for you, then.
Don’t be a girly-man. Take a spoonful of cement and harden up.
So the storm surge was cat 2 level in your view?
Anemometers? Wind speed is determined by planes.
Nate,
“An anemometer is a device that measures wind speed and direction. It is a common weather station instrument.”
You don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to.
Not many aeroplanes fly a couple of meters above the surface in winds exceeding 200 mph, unless they are fantasy aeroplanes crewed by imaginary climate scientists.
The higher than normal water temperatures, caused by global warming, caused the high winds, which caused the high storm surge.
To doubt everything, or, to believe everything, are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection
Henri Poincare
Good one Nabil!
Neither political party has a franchise on the truth.
If you believe one party all the time………………….you will believe in lies some of the time.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77011/#77012
mike…”If you believe one party all the time.you will believe in lies some of the time”.
***
Best not to have beliefs at all, they serve no useful purpose.
> they serve no useful purpose
Is that a belief, Gordo?
Always thought you could not tell the difference, Willard.
Knowledge is a kind of belief, Gordo.
C’mon.
Willard,
You wrote –
“Knowledge is a kind of belief, Gordo.”
Appealing to your own SkyDragon authority again?
Cmon Willard, your words might not mean what you think they do.
Wouldnt you agree?
No, Mike.
Plato.
Wonky Wee Willard,
Plato?
Thats someoness name, isnt it?
Maybe you mean something else?
Hopefully, you are not claiming that Plato said “Knowledge is a kind of belief”. Maybe you misunderstood what Plato actually said, or you have rewritten his words to suit your own form of SkyDragon madness.
I suspect that you are just making stuff up as you go along.
Carry on.
Yes, Mike. Plato.
Have you ever read the Theaetetus?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
eben…”During this modern grand minimum, one would expect to see a reduction of the average terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0C…”
***
We know climate alarmists will take credit for the cooling, claiming it is due to reduced CO2 emissions. That’s why we need to stop the insanity now about anthropogenic warming propaganda.
Over 3,200 have watched it. Why not YOU?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BEN3iJzlrI
Because you are wrong.
To ROY SPENCER and all readers …
Over 1,300 have read this here. Why not YOU?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324664270_Comprehensive_Refutation_of_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis
The same paper has been downloaded nearly 1,500 times at
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2884148
with over 6,000 reading the abstract.
In six years NOBODY in the world has proved my physics wrong.
Nor can YOU!
The important bit is no one has been able to test check or replicate your physics either.
To Dr ROY SPENCER and all readers …
Over 1,300 have read this here. Why not YOU?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324664270_Comprehensive_Refutation_of_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis
In six years NOBODY in the world has proved my physics wrong.
Nor can YOU!
RS,
Unfortunately, when you write nonsense like this –
“So what we are saying here is that solar radiation maintains the existing temperatures in all planets even that in the core.”
– you can’t blame people for thinking “Well no, it doesn’t, otherwise neither the Earth nor the Moon would have cooled from their initial molten state.”
There is no GHE, nor is there any “heat creep”.
Just plain old physical laws as they are currently understood. And, at present, quantum electrodynamics is sufficient to explain every process in the universe – with the exception of gravity and nuclear processes.
You can choose to reject reality, and you will discover reality doesn’t care.
Then Sir Swenson, prove my 2013 paper false for AU $10,000 reward. Do it right here. You simply do NOT understand entropy. That’s your problem. Yes, I’m throwing down the gauntlet. Let’s battle it out here as I show silent readers your lack of understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, my speciality in extensive post-graduate research.
So, we’ll start with the definition:
“The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.”
We will not use the simplified expression for entropy which has no terms for forms of internal energy other than kinetic energy because obviously molecular gravitational potential energy varies with altitude. The simplified expression for entropy only applies in a horizontal plane and with no phase change or chemical or nuclear reaction.
Are you in agreement so far?
If not, why not?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
RS,
You wrote –
“We will not use the simplified expression for entropy which has no terms for forms of internal energy other than kinetic energy because obviously molecular gravitational potential energy varies with altitude. The simplified expression for entropy only applies in a horizontal plane and with no phase change or chemical or nuclear reaction.”
Redefining the definition of entropy, are you? I suppose you are trying to imply Loschmidt’s “gravitothermal effect”, which is as non-existent as the GHE, or “heat creep”.
So no, I don’t agree with your nonsense. Your fantasy is not fact.
As I mentioned before, the Moon has cooled to its present temperature, in spite of having no atmosphere. Objects hotter than their environment manage to cool quite well in a vacuum, which may have escaped your notice – for example the glowing filament in an incandescent lamp of the vacuum variety, cools rapidly when power is turned off.
Your fantasies won’t hurt anyone, unlike the lunatic GHE fantasies of otherwise rational PhDs.
Carry on.
To all readers …
Over 1,320 have read this here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324664270_Comprehensive_Refutation_of_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis
And over seven billion haven’t, I suppose.
Before you embarrass yourself even more in the eyes of silent readers who have read some of my seven papers on Researchgate, go back to my reply above at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/after-hurricane-ian-no-trend-in-florida-landfalls-global-activity-trending-down/#comment-1373896
Do you post on Researchgate, or are you not qualified as a scientist?
RS,
Why would facts embarrass me? You provided the figures, and I chose to believe you were being truthful.
The views of either silent or loud readers are unlikely to affect facts one way or the other. I leave seeking the approbation of others to such as you.
As to postings and qualifications, feel free to try and convince me that I owe you answers.
I don’t, but waste as much of your time as you like.
In the meantime, you might try to convince the seven billion people who are presently ignoring you, why they should not believe that the Earth has cooled from a much hotter state.
Only joking. An impossible task, I know.
RS
Just want to point out that the energy budget diagram that you show in the video proposes two streams of energy to the surface, each is about 340 w/m2. It is like having two suns. The diagram thus creates energy, which violates the laws of nature.
The process I was first to discover and explain from the laws of physics ONLY happens in a force field in directions that are not orthogonal to that field. This is because the process occurs if and only if there is a difference in potential energy relating to that force field. If you think entropy is only related to heat and temperature you are sadly mistaken and have not read about developments in our understanding of entropy in the 1980’s.
Until you understand what is in my 2013 paper you will have no valid explanation for the temperature in the core of the Moon, or those in the surfaces of Venus and Earth etc etc etc.
RS,
You wrote –
“Until you understand what is in my 2013 paper you will have no valid explanation for the temperature in the core of the Moon, or those in the surfaces of Venus and Earth etc etc etc.”
Really?
If Venus, Earth, the Moon, etc., were created as molten blobs, and cooled to their present temperatures, that would make all your “heat creep” fantasy unnecessary, wouldn’t it?
The “molten blob” speculation seems reasonable to me. You can’t prove the physics of cooling wrong, can you?
Fantasy is not fact.
A location of the equator of the Venus surface cools by about 5 degrees in four months on the dark side from 737K to 732K according to measurements. How much could it cool in a billion years at that rate where no solar radiation is involved to warm it back up?
And before you answer, (are you Rod Swenson*) look up how much solar radiation reaches the top of the Venus atmosphere. Don’t take my word for it being about 2,600 w/m^2.
Then use a Stefan-Boltzmann calculator to work out how much radiation would have to reach the surface to warm it from 732K to 737K. Again, don’t take my word for the fact that the atmosphere would have to mysteriously amplified the flux to at least about 16,500 w/m^2.
Assertive statements such as in all your comments above will be ignored.
* “Stimulated by Darwin’s year, the authors reviewed literature pertaining to biological thermodynamics. They found Rod Swenson’s articles with his concept of the Law of Maximum Production of Entropy that may conduct to the possible establishment of the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics.”
The quote about Rod Swenson came from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290019947_Darwin_and_the_development_of_another_Thermodynamics_Law
For silent readers, Researchgate ensures that contributors are appropriately qualified.
By the way, I have (in my extensive research) studied much of the writings of Rod Swenson and I don’t disagree at all with his concept of maximum entropy production (MEP) and how it happens by the fastest possible route. If you are Rod Swenson then it’s ironic because my paper is about MEP and you don’t realise that my paper is an extension of that understanding of the Second Law. Are you he?
You wrote “Are you he?”.
Once again, why should I answer? What can you do to me if I don’t? What difference will it make?
Just get on with talking relevant physics. Good night from here in NSW.
RS,
You wrote –
“Just get on with talking relevant physics.”
And if I don’t? What will you do – have a tantrum, and hold your breath until you turn blue?
Go your hardest, and see if I care.
Swenson:
Why do you make comments then if you never care. Let me guess. You are retired and your wife asks you to give her a break. And so you come here. Is not so?
Nabil,
Give me a single reason why I should answer, if you feel like it.
Can’t think of one? That figures.
You may guess all you want. Are your guesses supposed to be of value to me?
I’ll let you guess.
If all the planets just happened by the most amazing coincidence to cool at the base of their tropospheres to just the right temperature such that the calculated temperature gradient led to the temperature falling to just the right level at the radiating altitude so as to magically equate with what we can calculate the solar radiation could achieve, then congratulations to your clever imaginary planets for having surfaces (or bases of their nominal tropospheres, such as Uranus) somehow “knowing” how far away is the Sun and how high is their troposphere.
You really don’t think about what you have been brainwashed to believe, now do you? That’s why your comments have not a word of physics.
That’s also why politicians (rarely qualified in physics) have been so easily conned into believing in the biggest scam the world has ever seen.
Even ROY SPENCER has been fooled into thinking planetary surface temperatures such as that of Venus are determined primarily by radiation when in fact radiation to the Venus surface plays no role at all in determining its temperature.
RS,
What are you blathering about? No atmosphere is necessary for cooling. The Moon is an example which springs to mind.
I am referring to real planets, which have cooled to their present temperatures. No imaginary “heat creep” or GHE necessary.
You are deluded, but who cares? Not me, nor at least seven billion other people, apparently.
Planetary temperatures are what they are. No more, no less. No different to any other body which has cooled from a higher temperature. If you want to believe that planets were created at absolute zero, and heated to their present temperatures by the Sun, don’t blame me if people think you are nuts. I can understand why they might.
How would greenhouse gases imply that planets were created at absolute zero, Mike?
Willard,
You really are an idiot. You wrote –
“How would greenhouse gases imply that planets were created at absolute zero, Mike?”
I don’t know. You tell me.
What a stupid gotcha!
GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/01/weather/hurricane-ian-south-carolina-florida-aftermath-saturday/index.html
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I am presently raising another $33,000 or many months from home by doing terribly honest and easy on-line sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home.~te90″~ im currently interacting in short throughout this interest and creating plenty of cash online victimization the usable helpful resource of by using the balance at intervals
the given stats system http://doingwork12.blogspot.com
That’s correct, Willard.
In case you’re still missing the reason why……..it was from the storm surge!
Ian’s death toll/Extreme Storm Surge/Contribution from Climate Change
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89399/
In addition, there was a dynamic called “compound flooding” explained here:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89399/#89404
In addition, I provided the total contribution of climate change to this hurricane, based on the 1 deg. C of warming over the past 100 years, here for you:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89399/#89413
I’ll be following up this week on that thread with some analysis and physics of the dynamics of storm surges. For ME to learn and share the learning which is why my forum exists.
What’s correct, MM?
You forgot to answer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/after-hurricane-ian-no-trend-in-florida-landfalls-global-activity-trending-down/#comment-1373774
Next time, keep the chin up.
Willard,
Not only did I answer that with crystal clarity numerous times and used reliable surface data which trumps non surface data by several orders of magnitude because the metric is a measurement for people on the surface(not for birds in the air) but you seem to be entirely missing my objective here.
I’m not doing this for me, I’m doing it to help you.
Seriously!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77011/#86827
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77011/#79540
I don’t see any response under that comment, MM:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/after-hurricane-ian-no-trend-in-florida-landfalls-global-activity-trending-down/#comment-1373774
Your peddling is duly noted.
Meanwhile, looks like you’re getting short squeezed:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/03/us/hurricane-ian-florida-recovery-monday/index.html
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Witless Willard,
Reduced to copying and pasting news items now, are you?
Typical SkyDragon avoidance tactic, when faced with reality.
By the way, have you figured out the GHE mechanism which resulted in the Earth’s surface cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so?
Maybe you could copy and paste a relevant news item?
Dimwit.
Google: strong hurricanes trending down
Paper about 50 year downward trend in strong hurricanes
Downward trends in the frequency of intense Atlantic hurricanes during the past five decades
(Geophysical Research Letters, 23, 1697-1700,1996)
Christopher W. Landsea 1 and Neville Nicholls
Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne, Victoria Australia
William M. Gray
Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Lixion A. Avila
National Hurricane Center, Miami, Florida, USA
Abstract
There is concern that the enhanced greenhouse effect may be affecting extreme weather events such as tropical cyclones. The North Atlantic basin offers a reliable, long-term record of tropical cyclone activity, though it may not be representative of tropical cyclones throughout the rest of the tropics. The most recent years of 1991 through 1994 have experienced the quietest tropical cyclone activity on record in terms of frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, and intense hurricanes. This was followed by the 1995 hurricane season, one of the busiest in the past 50 years. Despite 1995’s activity, a long-term (five decade) downward trend continues to be evident primarily in the frequency of intense hurricanes. In addition, the mean maximum intensity (i.e., averaged over all cyclones in a season) has decreased, while the maximum intensity attained by the strongest hurricane each year has not shown a significant change.
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/downward/
Worth a read, too:
Historical Changes in Atlantic Hurricane and Tropical Storms
Gabriel A. Vecchi and Thomas R. Knutson
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/