50-Year U.S. Summer Temperature Trends: ALL 36 Climate Models Are Too Warm

October 20th, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I’ll get right to the results, which are pretty straightforward.

As seen in the accompanying plot, 50-year (1973-2022) summer (June/July/August) temperature trends for the contiguous 48 U.S. states from 36 CMIP-6 climate model experiments average nearly twice the warming rate as observed by the NOAA climate division dataset.

The 36 models are those catalogued at the KNMI Climate Explorer website, using Tas (surface air temperature), one member per model, for the ssp245 radiative forcing scenario. (The website says there are 40 models, but I found that four of the models have double entries). The surface temperature observations come from NOAA/NCEI.

The official NOAA observations produce a 50-year summer temperature trend of +0.26 C/decade for the U.S., while the model trends range from +0.28 to +0.71 C/decade.

As a check on the observations, I took the 18 UTC daily measurements from 497 ASOS and AWOS stations in the Global Hourly Integrated Surface Database (mostly independent from the official homogenized NOAA data) and computed similar trends for each station separately. I then took the median of all reported trends from within each of the 48 states, and did a 48-state area-weighted temperature trend from those 48 median values, after which I also got +0.26 C/decade. (Note that this could be an overestimate if increasing urban heat island effects have spuriously influenced trends over the last 50 years, and I have not made any adjustment for that).

The importance of this finding should be obvious: Given that U.S. energy policy depends upon the predictions from these models, their tendency to produce too much warming (and likely also warming-associated climate change) should be factored into energy policy planning. I doubt that it is, given the climate change exaggerations routinely promoted by environment groups, anti-oil advocates, the media, politicians, and most government agencies.


879 Responses to “50-Year U.S. Summer Temperature Trends: ALL 36 Climate Models Are Too Warm”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. m d mill says:

    Extraordinary results.
    The models are almost worthless.

    • Captain Climate says:

      Almost? Theyre completely worthless. They dont model physical processes. They spit out whatever the modeler has assumed.

      • Bindidon says:

        Are you able to do more than to simply, trivially discredit and denigrate all what doesn’t fit your narrative?

        What about presenting a scientifically valuable alternative to all these bad models, Captain?

        • Swenson says:

          Binny,

          Guessing?

        • Ken says:

          “What about presenting a scientifically valuable alternative to all these bad models, Captain?”

          Firstly you have to accept the models are statistically proven to be wrong.

          Until you are prepared to accept the global warming hypothesis is false there is no point in trying to present a scientifically valuable alternative.

          Roy Spencer and many others have, over many years, regularly produced actual observations that show the models are profoundly wrong. Our society does not appear to be listening.

          • barry says:

            “Until you are prepared to accept the global warming hypothesis is false there is no point in trying to present a scientifically valuable alternative.”

            Oh please – you don’t need anyone to do anything to provide a valuable alternative. You’re just waffling to win.

          • Joy Liana says:

            Nice One..!!

          • Joy Liana says:

            My friends make between 80 and 100 per hour on the internet… has been unemployed for 8 months, [US-05] but last month her income was 20,000 because she only worked 5 hours a day on her laptop.
            .
            SEE THIS LINK:>>>> https://topcitypaypebo904.pages.dev

        • Sigmund Hanslien says:

          Roy,
          Maybe you have been unlucky with your selection of area or time span? I checked NOAAs summer temperature for Europe 1975-2022 and got 0.53 deg.C/decade – more than 5 degrees/century! Seems to be a good reason to be worried. Has the US heat escaped overseas?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…I think Lord Monckton’s reply to you about blubbing, fit perfectly. Hencforth, you are Blubberer.

          • Gloria says:

            Consistently made over $26,000 in extra income from home with the benefit of smooth playback and sticky online interest. |x130 I actually made $18,636 with this perfect home income. Everyone can now without a doubt

            make extra money online by using. >>>> https://smartfuture12.pages.dev

        • Antonio says:

          If the models don’t work, do not use them as predictors and policy input until you fix them and they work. And don’t shout wolf before you have your act together.

          I understand there was a russian model that almost worked. If you want to toy with something, use what works rather than what doesn’t.

          I do not think there is hardly anything more helpful than demolishing a process that invests in the order of trillions across the planet, cripples economies and empoverishes people to reach targets that are pointless in achieving climate control and based in false prophets predictions.

        • Dan Brown says:

          Why are you ignoring the fact that all the climate models are wrong and biased in warming?
          Do you not consider that this proves there is an inherent bias in the data and modelling toward warming and that the “consensus” is therefore a manufacture consensus built around censorship and controlled narrative?

          “We own the science” as stated by the UN’s Mellisa Fleming at the WEF “Sustainable Development” forum, something that was written large as global centralised policy in UN agenda 21 back in 1993 and which has borne rotten fruits such as “Net zero” and deindustrialisation of the West while China responsible for 2/3 of global population remained exempt by the same globalist organisations telling the world will end because Co2.
          Do you think it wise to create the human misery and global economic crises of today based on data we know to be wrong?

          What other global crises befell us recently where every model exaggerated the problem to “worse than worse case” scenarios and where there was consensus that demanded we “follow the science”
          Is it coincidence that every policy driven by this fake consensus and data facilitates a massive power grab and wealth transfer to the very people and institutions who control them?

          Are we seeing the worlds most rich and powerful people having their wealth and opulent lifestyles with gigantic carbon footprints curtailed or are we seeing their wealth and power increase while the people suffer and are forced to take the burden?
          Did Bezos build a private rocket to go into space with enormous carbon footprint just so he could come back to Earth and tell the plebs they must eat insects, and be enslaved by poverty at Cop26, to save the planet because he is a true philanthropist?
          Did he build his new $100M+ estate on a coast he says will be under water because he is a true believer or is it possible these global elite are laughing in your face?

          Earth has given life and provided the atmosphere to do so for over 550M years that we know of.
          In all that time Co2 levels have been higher than now for more than 85% of that time.
          They have been up to 20 times higher than now for tens of millions of years and life flourished with no runaway warming, how is that possible, did the laws of physics change?
          We have had glaciation and ice ages with Co2 more than triple what it is now yet current low levels are putting us beyond the point of no return? How is this scientific?

          Everything is based upon cherrypicked and manipulated contemporary data that represents less than 0.0000001% of Earth’s life giving climate data and worse than worse case scenario modelling and of course 24/7 fear propaganda. Not basis to fundamentally destroy modern civilisation and replace it with a totalitarian centralised technocracy run by a super wealthy transhumanist sociopathic elite who hate humanity is it?

          Why is there so much authoritarianism, Orwellian memory-holing, propaganda and theatre surrounding the premise of anthropogenic global warming if the science is settled.
          And when has science ever been settled even on the most fundamental scientific theories, much less been bought and paid for by their own admission?
          Why can it not be questioned and put under public scrutiny if we truly live in democracies?
          Why was it exactly the same for the Covid pandemic where we were told the vaccines were 100% safe and effective, that lockdowns would be effective, that masks mandates work, that furlough would not destroy the economy and every authoritarian diktat based upon worse than worse case modelling?
          Where all counterarguments were censored and people ridiculed, vilified and persecuted merely for going against the narrative

          Those that followed the money and agenda rather than the totalitarian false narrative dressed as science predicted all aspects of policy outcome while the TV talking heads rolled out as “experts” were proved not only wrong but to contradict themselves in the typically globalist tyrannical manner of “do as we say and not as we do.”
          Yet still I see people wearing masks in their cars just waiting for the day they can demand the same of others and become relevant once more.
          Still people get the boosters and still people believe the vaccine prevents transmission despite this being proved to be fraudulent disinformation put out by the powers that be and media industrial complex.
          And God forbid you should ask why there is absolutely no investigation into why we are having record high (non Covid) excess deaths month after month much less that people should be held accountable for any crimes against humanity!

          Here in the UK we have the rich kid eco-fascists, all from wealthy families and often with establishment connections demanding net zero which is already official policy.
          Yet the UK is responsible for less than 1% of global Co2 emissions and manmade Co2 emissions are no more than 3% of atmospheric Co2.
          Given Co2 is a trace gas and makes up just 0,04%of atmosphere then that calculation is that Britain hitting net zero will reduce atmospheric Co2 by 0.00001% over several decades.
          That is 1 part ten million!
          Given we know Co2 is vital to life on Earth and that we know more Co2 encourages growth of flora (and crops) then why are we treating it as the greatest toxin on Earth, that even a reduction of one part in ten million, is worth ensuring the mass suffering and death of millions and destruction Western civilisation for?

          • Brad Patton says:

            A nice summary to add to my stock pile of things to refute climate hoax types with.
            It is the left that pushes this thing.
            Most people do not have enough basic science skills to look at things themselves.
            Apparently is is going to take the pain of rolling black outs and poverty from a crushed economy to get people to wake up.
            And of course when in 50 years nothing bad has happened that should do it too.
            I’ve stopped watching MSM completely there are lots of indendent you tube sites like Redacted and others that give you honest information on Ukraine and everything else. No one else does.

          • Lettie Spence says:

            Its sufficient t0 serenely supplant my old empl0yments pay, particularly c0nsidering I just w0rk around 10-13 h0urs every week fr0m h0me. I was stunned h0w simple it was after I attempted it duplicate underneath webᵛ.._____salarybaar1.pages.dev

          • L S M says:

            Bravo!

            Absolutely!

        • Tony says:

          There is no onus on a skeptic to present alternatives to hypotheses.

          The onus is 100% upon he who presents an hypothesis, upon failure of real world observations to confirm the predictions of his hypothesis, to come up with an alternative (ie, a new hypothesis) if he so chooses.

          The skeptic is free — morally or otherwise — to restrict all of his activities pointing out flaws to hypotheses, if he so chooses. Without the skeptic, science doesn’t advance.

        • MNESTHEUS says:

          Ihttps://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/10/keeping-up-with-orwells-proprietor-of.html

        • Mac says:

          The Blue Bar on the far left… Actual Measurements.

        • MSpring says:

          Well, if 36 different math models can’t accurately predict the future, perhaps there is NO math model method that accurately predicts future weather/climate. On the other hand, historic study of weather cycles, seems to somehow predict weather based on what i (hopefully correctly) recall as an 85% correct prediction by the Old farmers almanac people. Perhaps less math modeling and more actual study of what’s going on?

    • Bindidon says:

      WOOOOAAAH!

    • juiya says:

      I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to Haa start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
      .
      EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> http://Www.Topnet8.com

  2. steve-o says:

    It’s mostly fear of the worst case that drives policy. Our representatives are humans too. Many times they’re normal, every day dudes.

    • Gloria says:

      Consistently made over $26,000 in extra income from home with the benefit of smooth playback and sticky online interest. |x140 I actually made $18,636 with this perfect home income. Everyone can now without a doubt

      make extra money online by using. >>>> https://smartfuture12.pages.dev

  3. dk_ says:

    Interesting. I followed the link back to the piece on UHI. If I understand it properly and that result is predictive, even the NOAA observation data here are showing near double the corrected temperature rise.

    • Lettie Spence says:

      Its sufficient t0 serenely supplant my old empl0yments pay, particularly c0nsidering I just w0rk around 10-13 h0urs every week fr0m h0me. I was stunned h0w simple it was after I attempted it duplicate underneath webᵛ.._____ https://salarybaar1.pages.dev

  4. billy bob says:

    I believe the previous 50 years ran a trend of -0.2 C/decade. Not adjusted for UHI. May have been the reason in 1971 that Dr. Murray Mitchell from NOAA was predicting Europe to be covered by glaciers by 2000. Fortunately it did not come to fruition.

    Though, it will be interesting to see if in another 50 years if we will be predicting another ice age.

    • gbaikie says:

      It seems if you can say Europe covered with cities, one could say Europe is covered with glaciers. And in last million years has always been covered with glaciers.
      But in terms of details, glaciers stopped advancing and began retreating around 1850 AD.
      And it seems we are not going to return to the extent of glaciers in Europe before 1850 AD- in any soon.

      But we certainly are in an ice age, just not in the coldest times of this Ice Age. But in coldest, Europe was not completely covered with glaciers, and Antarctica is also not completely covered in glaciers.

      But in 33.9 million year Ice Age, last couple million years has been the coldest.
      Or for first 30 million years of it, Europe had a lot less glaciers then it does, now.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        We don’t have a global warming problem. We can feed people during warm. We have a global cooling problem.

        • gbaikie says:

          I think we have a stuck on Earth problem.
          Also stuck on the land on Earth problem.

          But a much bigger problem has always been government.

          The only solution seems to be, to constantly whack a
          government with stick as often as possible as hard as
          possible.

          • Swenson says:

            gb,

            The only problem is that if you get rid of one lot of beauty contest winners, people just run another beauty contest.

            The fresh winners always believe that they are so beautiful that nobody will say an unkind word about them.

            Oh well, life goes on.

          • gbaikie says:

            No government has been beautiful, but if were, you would still whack it with a stick.
            Unlike any human being, a government is guilty until it proves it is innocent.
            They are never innocent.
            Whack, whack, and whack them harder.

          • Gloria says:

            Consistently made over $26,000 in extra income from home with the benefit of smooth playback and sticky online interest. |x130 I actually made $18,636 with this perfect home income. Everyone can now without a doubt

            make extra money online by using. >>>> https://smartfuture12.pages.dev

    • Bellman says:

      billy bob,

      “May have been the reason in 1971 that Dr. Murray Mitchell from NOAA was predicting Europe to be covered by glaciers by 2000.”

      Did he?

      This paper from 1971

      http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Aerosols.pdf

      concludes that

      “… long-term increases of particulate pollution of the atmosphere by man may serve to augment, rather than oppose, other warming effects of human activities, such as the increasing carbon dioxide content and direct thermal pollution of the atmosphere.”

      • billy bob says:

        Bellman,

        Did he?

        Yes, and he further concludes that “we are unable to draw categorical conclusions as to whether the predominant effect of real-world aerosols is to warm or cool the atmosphere .. We therefore maintain that, apart from arid regions and tropospheric aerosol near the surface is highly likely to be one of warming rather than cooling.”

        • Lettie Spence says:

          Its sufficient t0 serenely supplant my old empl0yments pay, particularly c0nsidering I just w0rk around 10-13 h0urs every week fr0m h0me. I was stunned h0w simple it was after I attempted it duplicate underneath webᵛ.._____ https://salarybaar1.pages.dev

  5. steven martin says:

    I went to the temp observations source to replicate the .26 C/decade for “observations”. I got .38 C/decade before I realized I was using the year-round observed temperature trends instead of the June/July/August trends. This trend is still low compared to most of the models, but within the range of the models.

    1.) Have I missed something other than the summer vs year-round distinction?

    2.) If not, why limit the observations to June/July/August only?

    • Roy W Spencer says:

      Steven:

      Remember, the NOAA results at that website are in deg F, so the anomalies and trends need to be divided by 1.8

      -Roy

      • steven martin says:

        Thank you for your response, but yes I did convert to Celsius.

        Also note that .38/.26 = 1.46, not 1.8, so failure to convert is not the problem or discrepancy.

      • Sigmund Hanslien says:

        Roy,
        Maybe you have been unlucky with your selection of area or time span? I checked NOAAs summer temperature for Europe 1975-2022 and got 0.53 deg.C/decade more than 5 degrees/century! Seems to be a good reason to be worried. Has the US heat escaped overseas?

    • Ansgar John Brenninkmeijer says:

      Good question.

  6. Sean says:

    Dr. Spencer, your UAH data has a global warming rate of 0.13C per decade with temperatures over water at 0.11C and temperatures over land a 0.18C. You mentioned the possibility of the urban heat island effect affecting the measured NOAA rate but I was wondering if you can derive a warming rate for the contiguous 48 states using UAH satellite data?

    • Roy W Spencer says:

      Sean:

      That’s in our monthly files I post every month. For 1979 through last month the USA48 trend was +0.18 C/decade.

      https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

      -Roy

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      I was curious, so I double-checked the calculations. I get the same results for NOAA (1973-2022)
      0.33 C/decade WINTER (DJF)
      0.19 C/decade SPRING (MAM)
      0.26 C/decade SUMMER (JJA)
      0.29 C/decade FALL (SON)

      And then I did the UAH trend, which for US is 0.18C/decade (1979-2022). That breaks down to
      0.18 C/decade WINTER (DJF)
      0.18 C/decade SPRING (MAM)
      0.13 C/decade SUMMER (JJA)
      0.22 C/decade FALL (SON)

      I find it interesting that (assuming my calculations are right):
      1) The UAH results are significantly below NOAA
      2) The warming by season follows a very different pattern.

      I can understand that UAH uses a different technique, so the trends might be a bit different, but I would still expect the seasonal trends to be similar. For example, NOAA has the smallest trend in spring, but UAH has the smallest trend in summer.

      • Bellman says:

        Maybe one reason the UAH data shows slower warming rates is because temperatures in the upper atmosphere are contaminated by the ocean temperatures compared to observations made on the ground.

  7. Entropic man says:

    Why did you choose the the ssp245 radiative forcing scenario?

  8. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Dr. Roy Spencer, do the models predict similar increases in winter temperatures, especially in the southern US?

  9. Nate says:

    Interesting. Obviously some models are better than others.

    To check for uniqueness of US in summer, I checked all NH Land, year round, and found the average of all models gives ~ 0.4 C/decade,

    while the NOAA data gives 0.33 C/decade.

    https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/nhem/land/12/8/1880-2022?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1973&endtrendyear=2022

    This suggests that excluding the warmest models would give a decent agreement.

    • Brent Auvermann says:

      Nate: “This suggests that excluding the warmest models would give a decent agreement.”

      Is that not obvious, indeed BY DEFINITION? Excluding the warmest reduces the average? 😂

    • RLH says:

      “excluding the warmest models”

      What, all 35 (of 36)?

      • Swenson says:

        RLH,

        I think you may have missed one.

        • RLH says:

          I think that removing the top 35 (of 36) warmest models improves the accuracy of what is claimed.

          • Ken says:

            “I think that removing the top 35 (of 36) warmest models improves the accuracy of what is claimed.”

            Isn’t that the definition of ‘cherry picking’?

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            You are correct, of course.

            I was suggesting that removing all of the incorrect models would be better than leaving only one, as even that one is obviously not fit for service.

            About as effective as replacing a bucket with no bottom with a bucket with a large hole in the bottom, if you see my point.

            I assume the point of the models is to predict the future better than a 12 year old child. They don’t.

          • RLH says:

            “Isn’t that the definition of ‘cherry picking’?”

            No.

    • Tim S says:

      A more accurate description is that some models are very much worse than others. All of them are wrong. Why do they get published if they are wrong? It almost seems like it is a contest to see who can make the worst model so it will raise the average, and then people can make statements such as yours.

  10. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    We are seeing a sharp drop in the temperature of the Peruvian Current.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_samer_1.png

  11. Bindidon says:

    What’s the point of checking the accuracy of CMIP models by comparing them to temperatures measured in a small, tiny piece of the world like the US?

    2% of Earth’s surface, 6% of its land surface!

    It would be more correct and above all more sensible to do the same work for all stations worldwide, right?

    Then maybe we would see slightly different results…

  12. An Inquirer says:

    Thank you for the research and thank you for sharing it. Two comments. First, in my memory, summers are more mild than used to be 60 years ago — highs are not as high. Also winters are more mild — lows are not as low. And it is not just my memory; our farm has temperature records going back over 100 years. Also I have verified that these records match the records of weather stations in towns within 60 miles of our farm. (I am only looking at the daily highs for summer and daily lows for winter.)

    Second, I suspect that what you have for NOAA is their adjusted temperatures and not their observed temperatures. I fully understand why people want to adjust the observed temperatures, but the NOAA adjustment process does bear up under scrutiny. The adjusted temperatures do not match known meteorological events over time — the adjustment process gives too high of an adjusted process.

    • Adam says:

      You should post these.

    • Bindidon says:

      ” The adjusted temperatures do not match known meteorological events over time – the adjustment process gives too high of an adjusted process. ”

      Any real source confirming your claim?

      • An Inquirer says:

        Around 1922 was extremely warm according to observed temperatures. According to adjusted temperatures, it featured the coldest temperatures in the past 120 years; yet it was the years of greatest glacier retreat.
        The Great Lakes states had record ice coverage in 2014 and 2015, and the observed temperatures in Great Lake states were well below temperatures; however, adjusted temperatures were warmer than years that had lower ice coverage.
        Much of the adjustment is due to what is called TOBS which says that thermometer readers in the 1930s did not know that they might be reading yesterday’s higher temperature rather than today’s cooler temperature. Not many readers were around to refute that argument, but the only surviving reader I know around to comment on the issue declared that they adjusted the sliding arrow in the morning to avoid the problem. Also, analysis of the readers who read the highs in the morning (i.e. yesterday’s high) had the same trends as those who read temperatures in the afternoon.
        Farmers in the Upper Midwest in the 1950s planted corn that matured in 120 days. Today they use corn that matures in 95 days.
        Recorded temperatures reflect that the 1930s were the highest, but adjusted temperatures give that honor to the present. Yet, in the 1930s, over a thousand lakes dried up in the heat, and farmers farmed the lake bottoms. Today those lakes are teeming with fish with abundant water recreation taking place.
        Just a few examples of “known meteorological events that are inconsistent with the adjustment results.”

        • Bindidon says:

          Thank you for the reply.

          I’m preparing a reply to the reply; it’s a lot of work in real data inspection, going down to single CONUS grid cells.

          In a similar context, you can see my reply to Mike Maguire below:

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/50-year-u-s-summer-temperature-trends-all-36-climate-models-are-too-warm/#comment-1385700

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Hard work, dissecting the past, isn’t it?

            At least you believe you can predict the future by dissecting the past, otherwise you wouldn’t waste you time, would you?

            When do the seas start boiling, Bunny?

          • Bindidon says:

            Flynnson

            ” When do the seas start boiling, Bunny? ”

            Dumb question (as is anything you write here).

            Dumb questions need dumb replies.

            What about “When you put your head in” ?

        • Bindidon says:

          An Inquirer

          ” Just a few examples of ‘known meteorological events that are inconsistent with the adjustment results’. ”

          Part 1
          *
          Let’s start with a monthly anomaly comparison of NOAA’s Climate at a Glance adjusted stuff for CONUS, with the raw GHCN daily data:

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hlR-wrajXqW390A-2TE5BIgx45ARMU7l/view

          No doubt: NOAA shows more warming than GHCN daily’s raw data.

          Dumb Skeptics would say: “Thy made the past cooler to get the present warmer and predict a future even hotter.”

          Hmmmh. How simple!

          The question however is, as always: what is this due to?

          The difference will partly be due to NOAA’s famous Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm, but partly to my very raw evaluation of GHCN daily.

          *
          Now again this endless discussion about the 1930’s:

          ” Recorded temperatures reflect that the 1930s were the highest, but adjusted temperatures give that honor to the present. ”

          Here is what GHCN daily’s absolute monthly data shows, on top of a descending sort:

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

          and here is NOAA’s:

          1936 07 90.84 (F)
          1934 07 90.55
          2012 07 89.96
          1901 07 89.96
          2006 07 89.58
          1980 07 89.53
          1931 07 89.53
          1954 07 89.29
          1930 07 89.13
          2011 07 88.90

          The only difference between the two is that NOAA’s top10 shows months in the 2000’s, whereas GHCN daily doesn’t.

          But… the 1930’s are present in both NOAA’s and GHCN daily’s monthly series, in the same order.

          To be continued…

  13. Norman says:

    I do not see any change in the current policies. Not so much because of warming. The Climate Change issue links every single bad weather event to man induced global warming. I do not find anyone demanding solid proof of the claims. The claim is made (Ian for instance) no evidence provided to clearly show a link. Just possible links like warmer air can hold more water or slightly warmer oceans have a potential to increase hurricane strength. I would hope more rigor and demands of proof are demanded from the science minded but apart from a handful like Roy Spencer or Cliff Mass the loud voice drowns out any demand for evidence.

    Linking Climate Change to every severe weather event has the mass public in an emotional state as opposed to a rational thought process. The general public is terrified and demands immediate action regardless of the long term consequences of such action (like rolling blackouts, very high energy prices, inflation etc). Rational minds need to prevail but where are they?

    • Gloria says:

      Consistently made over $26,000 in extra income from home with the benefit of smooth playback and sticky online interest. |x140 I actually made $18,636 with this perfect home income. Everyone can now without a doubt

      make extra money online by using. >>>> https://smartfuture12.pages.dev

  14. E. Schaffer says:

    “Using a general circulation model, Minnis estimates that cirrus clouds from contrails increased the temperatures of the lower atmosphere by anywhere from 0.36 to 0.54F per decade.”

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/4435/aircraft-contrails

    Well, that is 0.2-0.3C per decade of course and it is referring to the US. Given 0.26C in the data, that is a pretty good match. I mean if we ignore CO2 should add anything to it 😉

    • barry says:

      Uh… your reference there is saying an enhanced greenhouse effect from contrail-caused clouds caused the warming.

      I suppose the disclaimer at the top of that webpage escaped your attention. Scientific nuance is a pest to sarcasm.

  15. Swenson says:

    It seems that all 36 climate models are worthless, if corresponding with reality is the criterion.

    But it’s worse than we thought – even the supposed observed rate of warming shows that the seas will start boiling in around 3500 years, if the trend continues. The most extreme warming model tells us that at a warming rate of 0.7 C/decade, 7 C per century, the seas will start to boil in only 1000 years.

    Pardon me while I snigger derisively. The heating predictions are not only ridiculous, but physically impossible, considering that nobody seems to be able to provide any mechanism for such heating, which doesnt involve the same inputs which have resulted in four and a half billion years or so of cooling.

    Thinking is obviously not a requirement for membership of the SkyDragon cult.

    “Climate science” obviously depends on the practitioner expecting that everyone else suspends their disbelief indefinitely.

  16. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Does La Nina work in the southern hemisphere? Yes, it works.
    https://i.ibb.co/6XcPDZX/PME24-aus.png

  17. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    In the coming days, a wave of Arctic air will fall over the western US and the Rocky Mountains.
    https://i.ibb.co/jwBXVVW/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f048.png

  18. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Has solar activity declined again? Yes, it has decreased.
    https://i.ibb.co/N6nzSt6/EISNcurrent.png
    https://i.ibb.co/j6L96Ty/TCI-Daily-NO-Power-Percentiles.png

    • Bindidon says:

      Sometimes I think that Ireneusz Palmowski

      – only shows recent data
      and
      – only when it shows something associated with… cooling.

      Here is the SSN plot of SILSO’s data for the last 365 days:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AKS68eDY_uLEnRoztFNRpEPmL9dNVWFL/view

      The linear estimate for the period shows an increase of about 50 +- 6 spots per year: this is not a situation where it would be appropriate to speak of a decrease in solar activity.

      But… we see also that the top peak flares have remained nearly constant over the year.

      *
      And last not least: I added extra for the babbling Edog aka Eben a third order polynomial, in the hope he might get convinced that these polynomials are cubic fits along sets of points, and not a ‘megahyperbolic’ exaggeration invented by bloody alarmists.

      The polynomial shows that behind the linear estimate, there is between October 2021 and October 2022 also a deceleration in the activity’s increase.

      If a third-order polynomial looks “megahyperbolic,” that’s because of the data it was applied to, and not because of some kind of alarmism.

  19. Jeff Id says:

    The solution is obvious. Get new thermometers.

  20. Bellman says:

    What are the confidence intervals of these trends, both the NOAA data and the models?

    • Entropic man says:

      IIRC the 95% confidence limits for NOAA global annual temperatures is about +/-0.1C, and for the rate of change /-0.2C.

      That puts the NOAA rate of change in the range between 0.06C/decade and 0.46C/decade.

      If the confidence limits for the model rates are infinitesimal that puts half the model rates within 2SD of the NOAA rate of change and therefore not significantly different.

      If the 95% confidence limits for CMIP6 rates exceed +/- 0.24C, then none of the model runs differ significantly from NOAA.

      All we need now is the 95% confidence limits for the CMIP6 rates. Any offers?

  21. Eben says:

    The simple fact how the spread of the models creates almost straight rising line is pretty much a prove it is a scam ,
    they are all made to order

  22. aaron says:

    Rural areas are affected by urbanization more than urban areas. Urban heat island is a misnomer and doesnt account for this.

  23. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    There will be heavier snowfall in the Rocky Mountains today. The ski season will soon begin.

  24. Tim S says:

    I could not post anything yesterday, but spam posts still appear.

  25. Mike Maguire says:

    RADIATIVE FORCING BY CO2 OBSERVED AT TOP OF ATMOSPHERE FROM 2002-2019

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf

    “The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report predicted 0.5080.102 Wm−2RF resulting from this CO2 increase, 42% more forcing than actually observed. The lack of quantitative long-term global OLR studies may be permitting inaccu-racies to persist in general circulation model forecasts of the effects of rising CO2 or other greenhouse gasses.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Almost half of the all time hottest temperatures in the 50 US states were set in the 1930s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_temperature_extremes

    https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/76030/#76059

    • Bindidon says:

      Mike Maguire

      ” Almost half of the all time hottest temperatures in the 50 US states were set in the 1930s. ”

      This is ‘plain correct’, as is easy to show with a sort of the monthly average of absolute TMAX CONUS temperatures, computed out of the GHCN daily station data:

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

      You don’t even see one single year of the 2000’s in that list.

      *
      But this ‘It is the Sun, Stupid!’ attitude doesn’t help much, because it is restricted to

      – the US, what after all is no more than about 2% of the Globe;
      – and, above all, the day temperatures during the summer months.

      Did anyone really ever claim that this little CO2 guy would be responsible for an increase of absolute summer day temperatures in CONUS?

      If you know a valuable source for that ridiculous claim: I’m interested!

      *
      Instead of looking at absolute temperatures, it is better to have a look at anomalies – i.e. departures from monthly averages over a reference period.

      This shows different things, because removing seasonalities (or, as Roy Spencer says, ‘the annual cycle’), gives all months the same power, instead of simply showing the summer months warmest and the winter months coldest.

      And here’s how a sort over monthly TMAX anomaly data for CONUS looks like:

      1910 3 4.36 (C) wrt monthly means for 1981-2010
      1954 2 3.56
      2012 3 3.43
      2006 1 3.36
      2021 12 3.34
      1939 12 3.25
      1930 2 3.02
      1999 11 2.88
      2017 2 2.82
      1963 10 2.80

      Ooops?! Instead of ten warm July months with five of them in the 1930’s, you suddenly see lots of colder months in and around the winter, and… four of them in the 2000’s, or five when including 1999.

      *
      But we’re only halfway there: we shouldn’t just look at the TMAX anomalies, but also their TMIN counterparts.

      Here is a sort of the monthly TMIN anomalies for CONUS:

      2015 12 3.66 (C) wrt monthly means for 1981-2010
      2021 12 3.28
      2012 3 3.07
      2006 1 2.95
      2017 2 2.83
      2020 1 2.44
      2014 12 2.44
      2020 3 2.40
      1957 2 2.37
      1990 1 2.29

      Hmmmh.

      **

      No: I don’t claim that CO2 is responsible for this increase of night temperatures during the winters.

      I lack any scientific training to support such a claim.

      I just wanted to show that it is not very helpful to exclusively concentrate on maximal summer day temperatures when a data analysis shows they possibly aren’t the major aspect.

      *
      Source: NOAA’s GHCN daily data set (worldwide over 40,000 temperature measuring stations, about half of them in the US)

      https://tinyurl.com/yrd92bbd

      (You’ll have to use a tool like FileZilla or wget to look inside.)

      Nota bene: grid cell averaging is performed prior to building monthly averages.

      • Swenson says:

        Bunny,

        So which incorrect model do you believe?

        They are all programmed by “experts”, based on the same “GHE physics”. How is it that all of them are wrong, with most being wronged than the least wrong?

        You wrote – “Instead of looking at absolute temperatures, it is better to have a look at anomalies “. Are the modellers taking notice of your opinions?

        You really dont have anything worthwhile to add, do you?

        You can’t predict the future any better than I can, you fool. You have no idea of the complexities of the dynamics of nature, let alone appreciate the absurdity of donkeys who believe that temperatures are related to the intensity of radiation received (or emitted) without extremely well defined additional conditions.

        For example, 300W/m2 of sunlight can be concentrated to light a forest fire which can devastate a large area.

        Concentrating 300W/m2 from ice will not even suffice to raise the temperature of a microgram of liquid water.

        Keep at it, and you may yet rise to the level of idiot.

  26. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    When the thermosphere warms, it expands, literally increasing the radius of Earths atmosphere. This expansion increases aerodynamic drag on satellites in low-Earth orbit, which can bring them down prematurely. When the thermosphere cools, it shrinks; satellites get a reprieve.

    Mlynczak and colleagues recently introduced the Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI)a number expressed in Watts that tells how much heat nitrogen oxide (NO) molecules in the thermosphere are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, TCI is high (Hot); during Solar Minimum, it is low (Cold).
    https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2022/03/23/what-is-tci/
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 16.45×1010 W Neutral
    Max: 49.4×1010 W Hot (10/1957)
    Min: 2.05×1010 W Cold (02/2009)
    Updated 21 Oct 2022
    https://spaceweather.com/

  27. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    It will be a real energy meltdown in Europe when the frost catches in late October.
    https://i.ibb.co/MCbVsdr/hgt300.webp

  28. gbaikie says:

    Land surfaces are hot and cold. Ocean surface varies little in a 24 period- unlike land surfaces.
    And average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and average land surface temperature is about 10 C.
    Since ocean surface is about 70% and land is about 30% this means the global average surface temperature is about 15 C.
    The warmer ocean water rises to the surface, the colder surface water falls to the ocean depths and average ocean temperature is about 3.5 C.
    This average ocean temperature of about 3.5 C controls global average surface temperature.
    More than 90% of all global warming warms the ocean- as would more than 90% of all global cooling would cool the ocean.

    More than 90% of any warming of effect from any greenhouse gases warms our cold ocean.

    Or in terms future predicted of global temperature, it all about how warm or cold the ocean will get.

    Can anyone say what is the missing element which would allow you to predict global warming or cooling?

    I gave you almost all the clues. What is missing?

  29. Refutation of False Science says:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) originally told the world in the 1980’s that carbon dioxide and methane act like a blanket in the atmosphere supposedly “trapping heat” and somehow thus warming the surface of the planet. Several years later they found there was no evidence supporting this explanation and, instead, they started to talk about radiation that went downwards towards the surface. This radiation was mostly from water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane. Even though it came from cold regions of the atmosphere it was assumed to be able to raise the temperature of the warmer surface. But Professor Claes Johnson proved early this century that this type of radiation cannot warm the surface. Instead it undergoes resonant (or “pseudo”) scattering without raising the temperature at all. I wrote about Professor Johnson’s research in my peer-reviewed scientific paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” which was acclaimed and published on several websites.

    However, there was still an unanswered question: Why is the global mean temperature of Earth’s surface warmer than direct solar radiation could make it? The reason is primarily to do with the height of the atmosphere rather than any radiation from carbon dioxide, methane or water vapor. The surface of Venus is far hotter mainly because its atmosphere is far thicker (meaning higher) than ours. The lowest region in the planet’s atmosphere is called the troposphere and there is a fairly uniform rate of cooling with increasing altitude. Back in the 1870’s a physicist Josef Loschmidt explained that this temperature gradient is actually formed by gravity acting on individual molecules: the temperature depends on the speed of these molecules (between collisions) and that speed can be affected by gravity. We can now confirm that Loschmidt was right and we see this effect in every planetary troposphere, though there are reasons why it does not occur in higher regions because the density is insufficient in the stratosphere and above. This phenomenon enables us to now understand why the surface temperature is what it is, and I wrote about this in my scientific paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” in 2013. The heat process involved now enables us to understand how the observed temperatures in planets and satellite moons are kept at observed levels with the required energy input.

    The inevitable conclusion is that the world has been seriously misled by what is incorrect physics used by climatologists. For those with a knowledge of physics, they use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law incorrectly when they add to the solar flux about double that flux supposedly coming from the atmosphere. Then they use this total in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to “explain” the average temperature of the planet’s surface. But this law is only applicable for a single source of radiation and that source must be effectively hotter (after any attenuation due to distance) than the target. It is not correct to add flux from another source, especially from a colder source. In reality they end up having to assume molecules somehow “know” they must send more radiation downwards than upwards. Furthermore, their energy diagrams (such as that on the NASA website) show more energy supposedly escaping from the lowest level of the atmosphere into the surface than the Sun provides at the top of the atmosphere.. An atmosphere cannot create energy like this! Note this quote from a physicist:

    Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what we were hearing from the IPCC and the media was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of this climate science without first checking it.

    Klaus-Eckert Puls, German Meteorologist, Physicist

    • Swenson says:

      You wrote –

      “Why is the global mean temperature of Earths surface warmer than direct solar radiation could make it?”

      Simple answer – the Earth started off molten, and most of it is still hot enough to emit visible light! The surface has cooled to its present temperature.

      A cooling hot potato follows the same physical laws – the surface can be warm, but the interior is still much hotter.

      No need for fanciful notions such as the GHE, gravitothermal effect, or delusional “heat creep”.

      Good enough?

      • Refutation of False Science says:

        Brilliant! Your magical Earth knows beneath its surface that it must release 55,000 times as much energy as it actually does on average in order to warm its sunlit side while its dark side keeps cooling. Wow, you are a super god indeed to create such a wonder: it even knows to release less at the poles than at the Equator and more where it’s summer than where it’s winter. Temperatures in your Solar System have nothing to do with the amount of radiation from the Sun I take it. /sarc

        Center for the Refutation of False Science

        • Swenson says:

          Indeed it does, obviously. Just as it knows that hot things cool. Unlike yourself.

          Maybe you have less brains than a baked potato which knows how to be hotter on the inside than the outside as it cools.

          Or indeed, far less brains than the lizard on a rock which knows it is warmer in the Sun than in the shade, but has the brain to stay away from molten magma oozing from beneath the crust from time to time.

          Maybe the rock upon which the lizard sits knows how hot to get when exposed to the Sun which has a surface temperature around 5600 K or so. How hot does a rock get under those conditions?

          I suppose you are delusional enough to think you can provide an answer by calculating the effects of the GHE, the gravitothermal effect, and heat creep. Pardon me while I laugh at your attempts to divert your silliness to discussions of Uranus, or something equally irrelevant.

          Carry on.

  30. Retired Physicist says:

    ROY!

    You keep scoring own goals with your Lukewarm false beliefs, because greenhouse gases can do nothing but cool the earth, as we see water vapor does in this study:

    http://www.climate-change-theory.com/images

    My correct physics explains why this is so.

    In six years the CSIRO has never been able to produce a counter study and nor can you. It would take less than two days to do a repeat study following the methodology in my 2013 paper linked at
    http://climate-change-theory.com

    DJC

    • Swenson says:

      Beliefs have nothing to do with facts.

      Heat creep is a product of your imagination.

      Why not let people believe what they choose to believe?

      Do you really think that telling people what to believe will change a single fact?

      If you do, an example or two would be appreciated. Bear in mind that you cannot prove the non-existence of the Pastafarian deity, the Flying Spaghetti Monster – or heat creep, for that matter.

  31. Retired Physicist says:

    Both my study and experiments by others support the correct physics in my 2013 paper.

    For a gas to cool it must lose thermal energy. In force fields like gravity and centrifugal force things are not what you expect. That is why nobody knew how a vortex cooling tube worked until I explained it in 2014 as being due to radial heat transfer from the colder (and cooling) central regions to the warmer (and warming) outer regions of the cylinder, down which was passing air in a helical path, thus creating centrifugal force.

    In this experiment they cooled gas molecules down to about 1K, so obviously the thermal energy coming out of such molecules was not going to cooler molecules as there weren’t any: it was going into potential energy due to the force field.
    https://scitechdaily.com/new-method-uses-centrifugal-force-decelerate-particles-creates-new-research-opportunities/

    In the same way exactly there can be heat from the cooler mid-troposphere to the warmer surface by molecular collision due to gravity acting on molecules, but never by back radiation because there are no molecules involved along the way. So that’s where the missing energy comes from, and we don’t need back radiation to supply such and it never could anyway.

    You know where to read the correct physics at
    http://climate-change-theory.com

    • Swenson says:

      RP,

      Yes, for anything to cool, it must lose more energy than it receives. Gases are no exception.

      For example, the Earth has cooled because it has emitted more energy than was supplied by internal sources (radiogenic heat etc) and external sources (the Sun, meteoric impact, etc.)

      Pretty simple.

      You don’t believe it, but you can’t disprove it, either. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it? Can’t disprove that, either, can you? Would you like me to offer $1,000,000 if you can disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster using either correct or incorrect physics (I decide which is which, of course)?

      Pretty silly, isn’t it? About as silly as disproving imaginary things like the GHE or heat creep.

      Oh well. Life goes on.

  32. Retired Physicist says:

    ROY !

    The “Greenhouse” effect has been proven to be a complete and utter fiction, as is “radiative forcing.” The proof is in the writings of Prof Claes Johnson early this century and my peer-reviewed 2012 paper on radiation at http://climate-change-theory.com which Prof. Johnson wholeheartedly endorsed, as did the three scientists named therein as reviewers.

    Climatology “science” is based on nothing but fictitious, fiddled physics and it’s time that you, Dr Roy Spencer, woke up this fact and stop endorsing the conjecture that your “greenhouse” gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane etc.) warm us even just a little when, in fact, they cool the surface, water vapor by a few degrees, but carbon dioxide by less than 0.1 degree. The proof that water vapor cools is in my 2013 paper in both the correct physics therein and the study in the Appendix summarised in this bar chart:
    http://climate-change-theory.com/images.

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      This is what I get from Dr. Spencer. He believes mankind is responsible for at least 51% of the warming since 1750 but his belief isn’t necessarily based upon science. But, he also uses Climate Science models to show that there isn’t a crisis even using their own data. He publishes temperature data that is independent of the other data and appears to have no problem being an OUTLIER, which many who post here like to point out. He lets people post anything they want. The only time I have seen him try to ban people is if they are repeatedly disrespectful to him. He’s not going to join anyone else’s bandwagon at this point. He believes in his satellite data.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        RP,
        I think your work is very interesting. The problem is that it has been 40 years since I have had college physics so when I read your papers, I’m stopping almost every paragraph to review a concept. I haven’t found anything in your papers that seems wrong and is in accordance with what I learned in physics classes. For instance, it is pretty intuitive except to climate zealots that a cooler atmosphere can’t warm a warmer surface. But somehow they (people like Tim Folkert) believe radiative heat transfer doesn’t have to obey the laws of thermodynamics.

        • Nate says:

          “But somehow they (people like Tim Folkert) believe radiative heat transfer doesnt have to obey the laws of thermodynamics”

          Or it could be that since “it has been 40 years since I have had college physics”, your judgement of what would violate thermodynamics is a bit shaky.

          And Tim Folkerts, who BTW has a PhD in physics, has judged correctly that there is no contradiction of the laws of thermodynamics.

          Maybe?

          Just something to consider, Stephen.

        • Willard says:

          You forgot to include Roy, Troglodyte:

          The apparent violation of the 2nd Law seems to be traced to the fact that all bodies emit IR radiationincluding cooler bodies toward warmer bodies. But the NET flow of thermal radiation is still from the warmer body to the cooler body.

          https://tinyurl.com/Ten-crank-arguments

          Vintage 2014. Time flies.

          No need to enable a sock puppet.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “For instance, it is pretty intuitive except to climate zealots that a cooler atmosphere cant warm a warmer surface. ”

          So how would you explain why you wear a coat on a cold day? The “warmer surface” (your skin) gets even warmer due to the presence of a “cooler object”? The coat is always cooler than your skin, yet your skin warms up when you add the cooler coat. If you cut off one sleeve from your coat, the skin on that arm will be cooler than the other arm.

          It is pretty intuitive to everyone that the coat raises the temperature of your skin.

  33. Entropic man says:

    Retired Scientist

    Heat creep requires a force field.

    Vortex tubes do not have a force field.

    Vortex tubes do not show heat creep.

  34. Jeff Id says:

    The ensemble average is nearly 2x land tend.

  35. barry says:

    So climate models are running twice as hot as actual temperature trends for the US. And therefore we can all relax, right? It’s only 2.6C per century, not twice as much as that!

    A global change of 5C over 6000 years removed a 3-kilometre think sheet of ice that covered North America from Canada to Missouri.

    5C global warming in 6000 years vs 2.5C per century for the US.

    And we should keep merrily burning fossil fuels, Roy?

    You know that the enhanced greenhouse effect is real, so you must have a powerful need to downplay the issue not to recognise the risk in these numbers.

    • Jeff Id says:

      Only 50% is attributable to humans per the IPCC and satellite trends are much lower.

      doh!!

      Sea level rise has not changed.
      Hurricanes- no change
      Tornadoes, drought, rain — no change.

      doh!!

      The sky is falling!!!! Cut off energy, cause we’re so smart.

    • Clint R says:

      Wrong barry. You do NOT “know that the enhanced greenhouse effect is real…” You BELIEVE it is real. Beliefs ain’t science.

      To believe in the GHE, you must also believe nonsense like:

      * Earth can be meaningfully compared to an imaginary sphere.
      * Sun does not supply enough energy to maintain Earth’s average temperature.
      * Ice cubes can boil water.
      * Everything governments say is absolute truth.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Sun does not supply enough energy to maintain Earths average temperature.

        That’s pretty amazing the more you think about it. Life has existed and thrived on this planet under such precarious circumstances. This is the same as saying that CO2 has caused all the warming, which causes more CO2, which is like a positive feedback loop that will destroy the planet, although CO2 has been many times higher and we’re still here.

        • Entropic man says:

          Over the last 700 million years the average solar insolation has increased, while global temperatures have remained in the same narrow range between 9C and 25C.

          Something is cancelling the warming you would expect from a brighter Sun.

          Over the same period the CO2 concentration decreased from 1000ppm+ to 280ppm.

          Using conventional physics you can calculate the warming effect of increased solar insolation and the cooling effect of decreasing CO2.

          They are equal and opposite, with the decrease in CO2 cancelling out the warming effect of the increased sunlight.

          Someone who believed in the greenhouse effect might even suspect that the CO2 greenhouse effect is acting as a negative feedback controlling long term temperature.

          https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            I believe in the Clint R model. God has his finger on the thermostat.

          • Willard says:

            Is there any ABC model you do not fall for, Trglodyte?

          • Entropic man says:

            Then there’s no point discussing this further on a science website. You need a religious site.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            If there is anything you should understand, it is religion.

          • Entropic man says:

            “If there is anything you should understand, it is religion. ”

            You’d be surprised.

            To an evolutionary biologist the human tendency to believe in gods has a selective advantage. For much of our existence we lived in competing clans.

            Clans with religion did better than clans without, so religion became bred into most of us.

            Why the advantage? The shaman told the people that the chief was appointed by the gods, which cut down on arguments, and that they would go to paradise if they were good subjects, especially if they died fighting for the tribe. That made them more willing to obey and more willing to fight.

            What of disbelievers? They were killed or exiled. Burning at the stake for heresy was a favourite. After a few generations everyone was a believer, or smart enough to pretend.

            I’m sure this sounds familiar. Judaism, Christianity and Islam still have the old basic structure.

            Interestingly, you don’t need gods for this to work. Belief in gods is sufficient to gain the advantage. They don’t actually need to exist and probably do not.

      • Nate says:

        “Thats pretty amazing the more you think about it. Life has existed and thrived on this planet under such precarious circumstances. This is the same as saying that CO2 has caused all the warming, which causes more CO2, which is like a positive feedback loop that will destroy the planet, although CO2 has been many times higher and were still here.”

        Pretty amazing strawmen compilation there.

        Nobody is saying CO2 caused ALL the warming.
        Nobody is saying there is a runaway GHE.
        Nobody is saying that planet will be destroyed.
        CO2 has not been many times higher while humans were around.

        In any case, paleolithic hunter gatherers would have barely noticed as ice retreated and sea-level gradually rose over centuries.

        Civilizations HAVE vanished as a result of past (regional) climate change, eg the Maya due to drought.

        The modern world was built during a (globally) stable climate.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          Nobody is saying CO2 caused ALL the warming.
          >Really? They’re not only saying this but that it is unprecedented.

          Nobody is saying there is a runaway GHE.
          >If you believe CO2 has caused the unprecedent you are.

          Nobody is saying that planet will be destroyed.
          CO2 has not been many times higher while humans were around.
          >Humans evolved from the life that was around. Don’t you know that?

          In any case, paleolithic hunter gatherers would have barely noticed as ice retreated and sea-level gradually rose over centuries.
          >So you claim humans weren’t around then go on to say it wouldn’t have mattered anyway.

          Civilizations HAVE vanished as a result of past (regional) climate change, eg the Maya due to drought.
          >So you’ve solved the Maya extinction puzzle. Is there a Nobel prize for that?

          The modern world was built during a (globally) stable climate.
          > You admit we don’t have a global warming problem but a global cooling problem.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            P.S.-The Mayan civilizations vanished but the Mayans didn’t vanish, Strawman.

          • Willard says:

            You have your Markdown backassward, Troglodyte:

            https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/basics

            > This is a quote.

            This is not a quote.

            This is a **strong** word.

            This is an *emphasized* word.

            And so on and so forth.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            >Chihuahua thinks he’s the blog police.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            >Chihuahua, stay in your lane. Sky Dragon Cranks and Sock Puppets.

          • Willard says:

            Your comments are already confused, Troglodyte.

            If your quote fests invert quote markers, nobody will read them.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            >Why don’t you explain how the Maya civilization vanished due to drought?

          • Nate says:

            “Nobody is saying CO2 caused ALL the warming.”

            The context was the cause of the present Earth T. Nobody is saying that CO2 did ALL of it without the sun.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Chic describes you perfectly.

          • Nate says:

            “sea-level gradually rose over centuries.
            >So you claim humans werent around then go on to say it wouldnt have mattered anyway.”

            2 different things. Do you read?

            Humans were not around when co2 was many times higher. FACT.

            Humans were around and were nomadic hunter gatherers when sea level rose gradually over millenia. FACT.

            There were no coastal mega-cities, and agricultural belts vulnerable to sea level rise back then. FACT.

            If you want us to return to being a tiny population of hunter-gatherers, and slow down the warming rate by a factor of ten, then sure, climate change might be less of a problem.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Humans were not around when co2 was many times higher. FACT.

            >Can you read? Neither did I.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            There were no coastal mega-cities, and agricultural belts vulnerable to sea level rise back then. FACT.

            The city of Ur is farther from the coast than it was when it was a thriving metropolis. How’d that happen?

          • Nate says:

            “agricultural belts vulnerable to sea level rise”

            It should have said “agricultural belts vulnerable to climate change”

          • Nate says:

            ‘agricultural belts vulnerable to sea level rise’

            Should have said ‘agricultural belts vulnerable to climate change’

          • Nate says:

            Ur Founded: c. 3800 BC.

            Sea level rise from deglaciation was long ended.

          • Entropic man says:

            “The city of Ur is farther from the coast than it was when it was a thriving metropolis. Howd that happen? ”

            Geology. The nearest coastline to the site of Ur is the Euphrates delta at Basra. Sediment from the river has extended the delta considerably in the 6000 years since the city was founded. Nothing to do with sea level.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Geology. The nearest coastline to the site of Ur is the Euphrates delta at Basra. Sediment from the river has extended the delta considerably in the 6000 years since the city was founded. Nothing to do with sea level.

            Yeah, if you say so.

          • Willard says:

            Try this, Troglodyte:

            > Geology. The nearest coastline to the site of Ur is the Euphrates delta at Basra. Sediment from the river has extended the delta considerably in the 6000 years since the city was founded. Nothing to do with sea level.

            Now we see that you quoted something.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Chihuahua,

            Your assertions don’t make any sense. Ur was a coastal city. That means it was at the sea; docks, boats, etc. 6000 years of sediment formation would not elevate Ur.

          • Willard says:

            > Your assertions

            What assertions, Troglodyte?

            I simply told you to use Markdown.

            See “> Your assertions”?

            That’s a quote.

            Like email.

            Simples, even for you.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            More deflection from the Chihuahua. Was that you throwing soup on the Van Gogh?

          • Willard says:

            For the same reason you cannot stop punching hippies, Troglodyte.

            The painting was protected by glass, and it spent a few years in a shack, so get your artistic facts straight.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Nate says:

          ”Nobody is saying CO2 caused ALL the warming.
          Nobody is saying there is a runaway GHE.
          Nobody is saying that planet will be destroyed.”
          ———————–
          Well then we can agree that Al Gore and most of the democrat party is a Nobody!

          ———-
          ————
          Nate says:
          ”In any case, paleolithic hunter gatherers would have barely noticed as ice retreated and sea-level gradually rose over centuries.”
          —————
          We agree again! Paleolithic hunter gathers didn’t have satellite imagery, without which we wouldn’t notice it either.
          ———-
          ————
          Nate says:
          ”Civilizations HAVE vanished as a result of past (regional) climate change, eg the Maya due to drought.”
          —————————
          Wow yet another agreement! Likely the same for the small civilizations of the southwestern US over the same period. This is associated with a cooling climate in the US southwest.

          ———-
          ————

          Nate says:

          ”The modern world was built during a (globally) stable climate.”
          ———————-
          Amazing we agree again. . . .AKA the ”Industrial Revolution”
          Of course Climate Change is constant and naturally sometimes more radical.

      • barry says:

        “Wrong barry. You do NOT “know that the enhanced greenhouse effect is real” You BELIEVE it is real.”

        Roy knows it’s real, and that’s who I was talking to.

        You’re welcome to your belief, even to push it as if you haven’t already done so here hundreds of times. But I’m more interested in what Roy, an atmospheric physicist, has to say.

        • Clint R says:

          Wrong again barry.

          If you believe Spencer is fully onboard with the GHE nonsense, then why do you claim he is “downplaying” it?

        • barry says:

          He’s fully on board with the physics of the enhanced GHE.

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/10/gimme-three-steps-toward-the-renewable-energy-door/

          I’m sure Roy would have no trouble comprehending my point, which is another reason it would be more interesting to hear from him than you. Your blather is incidental to what’s being said, as usual.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong again, barry.

            Dr. Spencer is NOT fully onboard with the GHE nonsense. He calls himself a “lukewarmer”. He accepts the consensus opinion because his background is not in physics. But he chooses to refute it based on his area of expertise. He knows there is something wrong with all the GHE models, as indicated by this current post.

            He sets a good example of practicing the “scientific method”. You could learn from his example.

          • Willard says:

            Roy is more than on board, sock puppet:

            [M]y blog is no longer going to provide them a platform for their unsupported pseudo-scientific claims – they can post their cult science on their own blog.

            https://tinyurl.com/roy-bannished-dragon-cranks

            These claims include that greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect.

          • Swenson says:

            Weird Wee Willy,

            Still trolling, I see.

            Do you think Dr Spencer should take any particular notice of your comments?

            Why is that?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            I was not replying to Roy.

            Thanks.

          • Swenson says:

            Wimpy Wee Willy,

            I see. When you wrote “Roy is more than on board, sock puppet: . . . “, you were just making a pointless and irrelevant comment, were you?

            Maybe you were referring to Roy Rogers, or Siegfried and Roy?

            Oh well, as long as you weren’t expecting Dr Spencer to take any notice of your comments, you probably won’t be disappointed.

            Carry on, idiot.

          • Willard says:

            I doubt you are speaking to the heroes or the scapegoats you mention, Mike.

            So I am sure that you can realize that speaking of Roy is not the same thing as speaking to Roy.

            Ask Fernando if my prepositions are correct this time.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Damn Chihuahua, you had to go back a ways to find that thread. Recently, Dr. Spencer has stated he believes that man is responsible for more than 50% of the warming, but his belief is not based on science. One thing he does is he uses Climate Science’s own model against them.

          • Willard says:

            That’s where you’re wrong, Troglodyte.

            I didn’t have to.

            It was my pleasure to oblige.

            You’re most welcome.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

    • Willard says:

      Thank, Jeff.

      I will fulfill my side of the deal later on.

    • Nate says:

      Jeff, ‘blog science’ is the best you can offer?

      • Willard says:

        Well, actually, no:

        https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/24/8/2010jcli3656.1.xml

        Blogs are great. To complain about blog science on a science blog lacks consistency.

      • Nate says:

        Blogs should not be the primary source for the science.

        • Willard says:

          If you read Jeff’s post, you’ll see his sources, e.g.:

          https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-mean-sea-level-time-series-and-associated-uncertainty-based-on-tide-gauge-data_fig5_306149061

          This leads you to this researcher:

          https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Goneri-Le-Cozannet

          Jeff’s point is less controversial than he would like:

          Global mean sea level increased by 0.20 [0.15 to 0.25] m between 1901 and 2018. The average rate of sea level rise was 1.3 [0.6 to 2.1] mm yr1 between 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 [0.8 to 2.9] mm yr1 between 1971 and 2006, and further increasing to 3.7 [3.2 to 4.2] mm yr1 between 2006 and 2018 (high confidence). Human influence was very likely the main driver of these increases since at least 1971.

          https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/SR15_Chapter_1_HR.pdf

          The acceleration is there, but hard to eyeball. If you look at the GSFC and the NOAA graphs, you should see how Jeff’s line hides it.

          Oh, and this might also be useful:

          Global mean sea level has risen faster since 1900 than over any preceding century in at least the last 3000 years (high
          confidence). The global ocean has warmed faster over the past century than since the end of the last deglacial transition
          (around 11,000 years ago) (medium confidence). A long-term increase in surface open ocean pH occurred over the past
          50 million years (high confidence). However, surface open ocean pH as low as recent decades is unusual in the last
          2 million years (medium confidence).

          Everything else is good ol’ Audit Mode.

          You got to admit that this is better quality Climateball than having to deal with Lulzy, Slimy, and Bully.

          • Swenson says:

            Willard,

            You do realise that 0.1 mm is not much more that the thickness of a pubic hair, so claiming to be able to measure a constantly changing sea surface to this accuracy is quite delusional, don’t you?

            I suppose the usual crop of idiots will claim they can even carry out these measurements from satellites – happily ignoring reality as they go.

            You nitwits will never learn, will you?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Your incredulity is duly noted.

          • Jeff Id says:

            Willard,

            My point is not controversial at all, which is what makes this fun BTW.

            I once pointed out that half of the temperature trend in the US surface trend was comprised of corrections. This shocks people, which I did on purpose. The corrections are for things like Tmax, Tave and other necessary things that make perfect scientific sense but surprises people when they hear it.

            My contention is that there is ZERO acceleration BTW. ZERO.

            If you need to look at the statistical certainty of the trend to figure it out, you can, but the line is so straight it is not worth your time.

            Until any curvature crosses any form of statistical analysis, it is simply noise in the data. Scientifically, it does not exist beyond a curiosity.

          • Nate says:

            https://research.csiro.au/slrwavescoast/sea-level/

            Nope. Tide data trend increases during overlap period, which your graph excludes.

          • Nate says:

            “Until any curvature crosses any form of statistical analysis, it is simply noise in the data.”

            Jeff, by looking at small number of local tide gauges, you are amplifying the local noise, which is helpful to hiding the change in global trend.

          • Jeff Id says:

            Nate,

            You can check the paper I linked. There are many, many dozens of straight lines to choose from.

          • Nate says:

            Then why not look at the average, with a proper sampling of the globe?

            Then you see local noise is reduced, and acceleration is revealed.

            But if your goal is to hide this fact, then by all means keep doing it your way.

          • Willard says:

            > My contention

            You sure like to contend, Jeff. One day you might even be a contender again. For that you would have to do more than dance around in the streets while pretending you are in a ring.

            You can do it. I believe in you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • Nate says:

        The title makes clear its going to be ‘blog science’. And it doesn’t disappoint.

        • Nate says:

          Looking at a handful of local tide gauges, that have lots of noise, and various trends, as high as 4 mm/y, to see whether the global trend, with initially ~ 1 mm/y trend, is increasing, is blog ‘science’.

          IOW bad.

          Local trends may be dominated by local effects like GIA, which swamp the global addition to this.

          • Jeff Id says:

            It’s the only measured record we have Nate.

            And it is a fantastically straight line.

            No sign of AGW.

          • Nate says:

            False. You evade the issues raised.

          • Jeff Id says:

            Certainly not evading anything I’m aware of.

          • Nate says:

            These.

            “Looking at a handful of local tide gauges, that have lots of noise, and various trends, as high as 4 mm/y, to see whether the global trend, with initially ~ 1 mm/y trend, is increasing, is blog science.

            IOW bad.

            Local trends may be dominated by local effects like GIA, which swamp the global addition to this.”

            Why not look at the properly done average instead?

    • Bindidon says:

      Jeff Id

      I just needed a few minutes of reading your sea level thread to understand that

      – you never performed any complete evaluation of the PSMSL tide gauge data, let alone one including the SONEL GPS data base needed to accurately compute the vertical land movements around gauges (glacial isostatic rebound, subsidence);

      – hence, you restrict your ‘analysis’ to a few single station data charts;

      – you are simply manipulating us with a chart combining discontinuous tide gauge data segments, ending just before the sat era, with the sat data.

      Here is a chart

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_s5eKMqX-SlQIx28pTgbF2lTAcPgvIz5/view

      showing many evaluations made by

      – the team around Dangendorf (2016)
      – the team around Frederikse (2020)
      – Grant Foster (2019)
      – NOAA (2020)
      – myself (last edition: 2021)

      to be compared with the sat data (till 2021).

      You can clearly see that the plots have few in common with your what you show.

      *
      If you had ever done such a (tedious) job, you would have computed the tide gauge trends for lots of periods, including of course the sat period starting in 1993.

      Here is a chart comparing the successive tide gauge data trends, from 1900-2015 till 1995-2015:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e_fuJ5FZDbf1Uv3m3YbwLfM35qq9oQre/view

      NOAA is here clearly the outlier.

      The different average tide gauge trends for the sat era begin in 1993 till 2015 (greatest common part of all evaluations), in mm/year:

      – Dangendorf: 2.8 +- 0.1
      – Frederikse: 3.1 +- 0.2
      – Foster: 2.9 +- 0.2
      – NOAA: 3.3 +- 0.1
      – Bindidon: 2.9 +- 0.2

      – Sat altimetry (NOAA): 2.7 +- 0.1

      *
      Finally, here is a list of all the single PSMSL tide gauge trends (here per decade!) for the period 1993-2018, including VLM corrections:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uLxJBLcWtzNsYuVvss7aeRmkzwSB-i_o/view

      whose combination give exactly the average trend of 2.9 mm/year.

      Only those gauges were included which have associated GPS data.

      **
      Your sea level thread is full of superficial, misleading, misinterpreting and erroneous trash.

  36. Aaron S says:

    Since Alaska is excluded for “US” data then analysis would be missing most of the warming in the US. A detail but for me to be unbiased either need to clarify “contiguous 48 U.S. states” in the title (could say lower 48 for simplicity) or include Alaska in analysis.

    I am a big supporter for matching title to actual article and analysis. Important for me in this click bait world.

    • Willard says:

      Good point.

      Online sellers usually speak of CONUS.

      A bane to Canucks.

    • Bindidon says:

      Aaron S

      ” I am a big supporter for matching title to actual article and analysis. ”

      100% agreed.

      But to

      ” … then analysis would be missing most of the warming in the US. ”

      I can’t agree.

      Because AK starts at 60N, and hence the temperatures measured in AK are stronger cosine weighted than those measured in CONUS between 25 N and 50 N when building the monthly averages out of the latitude band averages.

      Here are TMAX and TMIN charts comparing CONUS with CONUS+AK, generated out of GHCN daily data:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GRcSujcxtDPO5foux7OKQZY8puABH_KU/view

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JX21nxmHBj5l_D-WaHi80n8SFVLtpXH-/view

      • Swenson says:

        Bunny,

        Still dissecting the past to predict the future?

        When will the seas start to boil, do you think?

        Keep dissecting.

        • Bindidon says:

          Not until you put your amazingly stupid head in it, Flynnson.

          Keep blathering strong, and don’t forget to put your wonderful smelling dog poop everywhere, because we all can’t afford to miss it!

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Still dissecting the past to predict the future?

            When will the seas start to boil, do you think?

            Keep dissecting.

          • Bindidon says:

            Not until you put your amazingly stupid head in it, Flynnson.

            Keep blathering strong, and dont forget to put your wonderful smelling dog poop everywhere, because we all cant afford to miss it!

      • AaronS says:

        I was using this paper for the data set. It’s from 2016 so perhaps out of date!

        Let me see if there is a better analysis you provide. Always happy to be made aware of new updates, which is why I still like to comment. Thanks.

        https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Spatial-heterogeneity-in-climate-change-regimes-across-terrestrial-North-America_fig4_320453850/amp

      • AaronS says:

        After looking at graphs and aware that without the text it is somewhat hard to follow the data, but in general the plus AK version (blue line) is significantly warmer in both graphs. Help me out because it seems we agree. Is it the “most of warming” that is the issue?

        I have had this issue with Tony Heller analysis before, so I’d like to make sure I understand your point.

      • Bindidon says:

        Aaron S

        ” … but in general the plus AK version (blue line) is significantly warmer in both graphs. ”

        *
        I really don’t understand how you come up, by just eye-balling, to such a surprising result :- )

        For me, the two charts show very similar CONUS resp. CONUS+AK plots.

        *
        The best is thus to post the linear estimates computed by the spreadsheet calc, in C / decade.

        1. TMAX

        – CONUS

        1895-2022: 0.02 +- 0.007
        1979-2022: 0.15 +- 0.03

        – CONUS+AK

        1895-2022: 0.03 +- 0.005
        1979-2022: 0.15 +- 0.02

        2. TMIN

        – CONUS

        1895-2022: 0.08 +- 0.007
        1979-2022: 0.26 +- 0.03

        – CONUS+AK

        1895-2022: 0.09 +- 0.005
        1979-2022: 0.26 +- 0.02

        *
        I hope you won’t take a trend difference of 0.01 C over a 120+ year period as an indication of ‘significantly warmer’.

  37. Willard says:

    As promised, here is the list of extreme events covered in the IPCC’s deliverables. Their website refuses to give me their full reports. Perhaps it’s my own connection. In any case, here is a good paragraph:

    With every additional increment of global warming, changes in extremes continue to become larger. For example, every additional 0.5C of global warming causes clearly discernible increases in the intensity and frequency of hot extremes, including heatwaves (very likely), and heavy precipitation (high confidence), as well as agricultural and ecological droughts in some regions (high confidence). Discernible changes in intensity and frequency of meteorological droughts, with more regions showing increases than decreases, are seen in some regions for every additional 0.5C of global warming (medium confidence). Increases in frequency and intensity of hydrological droughts become larger with increasing global warming in some regions (medium confidence). There will be an increasing occurrence of some extreme events unprecedented in the observational record with additional global warming, even at 1.5C of global warming. Projected percentage changes in frequency are larger for rarer events (high confidence).

    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf

    So we got:

    – hot extremes
    – heatwaves
    – heavy precipitation
    – agricultural droughts
    – ecological droughts
    – meteorological droughts
    – hydrological droughts

    It should also be noted that extreme events can compound, so it’s just not a simple question of accounting for each them. And other aspects can influence the impact of each of them. For those who’d like to know more on that, search for the latest satellite photos over Pakistan.

    • Swenson says:

      Funny Wee Willy,

      Wonderful stuff, that CO2.

      Droughts, floods, heat waves, cold snaps, famine, pestilence, haemorrhoids – the list goes on.

      The idiots now have four types of drought! Even Wikipedia states “A drought is defined as drier than normal conditions.”, but unfortunately for Wikipedia and the climate crackpots, the atmosphere behaves chaotically. This means that “normal” is constantly changing – an example of a strange attractor.

      You are a gullible little donkey, arent you? I thought by now you would have realised that appealing to the authority of a pack of fools makes you look as stupid as them.

      Maybe you could try appealing to the authority of Dr Spencer, who has just pointed out that not one of the 36 CMIP-6 models agrees with the “observations” (cough, cough) of NOAA, who still apparently believe that melting sea ice causes sea level rise! At least NOAA can’t bring itself to falsify temperature records severely enough to agree with the computer model “experiments”!

      Off you go now, try and convince someone that the seas will start boiling in a few thousand years – according to “trends”. Good luck with finding people that stupid!

      • Willard says:

        Thank you for your contribution, Mike Flynn.

      • Clint R says:

        Since the cult is making up different types of droughts, here’s one they might like — a “lack-of-snow” drought.

        Greenland is seeing more and more snow, so there is a “lack-of-snow” drought.

        http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20221023.png

        • Willard says:

          Ice sheet collapse is a different kind of extreme event, sock puppet.

          I could tell you what the IPCC says about this kind of extreme events.

          You just have to ask nicely.

          • Swenson says:

            Willard,

            Ice sheet collapse?

            Are SkyDragons so stupid that they think that an ice sheet can “collapse”?

            An ice sheet cannot “collapse”, you idiot.

            Somebody as stupid as you probably believes that slow cooling is really heating. Merely redefining definitions to suit your delusional thinking won’t change a single physical fact.

            As Shakespeare wrote –

            “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
            By any other name would smell as sweet.”

            Still no GHE, no gravitothermal effect, no heat creep.

            The Earth’s interior has not become isothermal yer, which shows it has not finished cooling.

          • Willard says:

            I said you have to ask nicely, Mike Flynn.

            Whenever you’re ready.

          • Swenson says:

            Who cares if one delusional SkyDragon says they could repeat the nonsensical ramblings of another group of bumbling SkyDragons?

            Not me. I don’t know about Mike Flynn. Does he care?

          • Willard says:

            You do not need to ask Mike Flynn, Mike.

            You only need to ask yourself.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  38. 목돈넷 says:

    ❤️신뢰 100% 원터치 문자입니다❤️

    3사테스트 제공
    중복번호삭제/URL 삽입
    높은발송성공률로 도와드리겠습니다.
    주식, 재테크, 투자, 증권 문의 주세요’
    발송량제한 없습니다.
    신뢰 하나로 버티고있는 업체입니다.
    실패건 자동 환불
    블랙리스트 번호 관리하고 있습니다.

    💌원터치 문자💌
    💌원터치 문자💌
    💌원터치 문자💌
    https://mokdon.net/

  39. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Here you can see how ozone distribution affects weather in North America. You can see the free flow of air from Siberia to the west North America. You can already open the ski season in the Rocky Mountains.
    https://i.ibb.co/ysCdrPx/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
    https://i.ibb.co/4VkJpRQ/gfs-t30-nh-f00.png

    • Gloria says:

      Consistently made over $26,000 in extra income from home with the benefit of smooth playback and sticky online interest.. |x150 I actually made $18,636 with this perfect home income. Everyone can now without a doubt

      make extra money online by using. >>>> https://smartfuture12.pages.dev

  40. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    This slight level of warming is very favorable for vegetation in the US. The drought in the west is caused by La Nina, as is the extremely strong monsoon in southern Asia.

  41. DMT says:

    Good to see everybody finally agreeing that the US is warming.

    Let us assume that the OBSERVED trend is +0.26 degC per decade. That represents +2.6 degC between 2000 and 2100 ASSUMING THE TREND DOES NOT INCREASE.

    However, the trend is in the process of accelerating (as the models suggest will happen), meaning that an increase of about +4 degC by the end of the century is quite possible!

    i.e. You can FORGET ABOUT THE MODELS and focus on what is really happening outside according to the OBSERVATIONS.

  42. Jeff Id says:

    If a temperature event happened once per century and you measured 100 independent weather regions, how often would you measure a once per century event?

    • bobdroege says:

      On average, once a year.

      Thrice in one week may make one think something is going on.

      Especially if one was in your back yard.

      Though to be fair, I am referring to rainfall events, not temperature.

  43. Jeff Id says:

    BTW, the sea level not-rising problem is a much bigger issue than it may appear on the surface. Global climate models predict a certain number of watts of forcing per unit area. Oceans cover 70% of the planet.

    Their refusal to have curvature in the sea level plot, with all of this new CO2 forcing should leave everyone very concerned with the true magnitude of warming. It almost disproves the entire mess by itself.

    • Entropic man says:

      https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_AVISO_GIA_Adjust_SerieReference.png

      The rate of increase has increased from 3.3mm/year to 3.5mm/year now.

      It has increased by 20mm in the last 5 years, 4mm/year.

      We have acceleration.

      • Entropic man says:

        The Colorado data shows a quadratic fit characteristic of acceleration, an average rate of 3.3 +/- 0.4mm/year and an acceleration of 0.098 +/- 0.025mm/year.

        https://sealevel.colorado.edu/index.php/data/2021rel2

      • Jeff Id says:

        You have merged satellite data which shows a little curvature but I’ve seen nothing showing it is outside of noise.

        If you look back to my original link I mention this with a graph showing the crudeness of the ‘merging’.

        But if it makes you happy, you can enjoy your acceleration.

        • Willard says:

          You can always give the numbers for each series you find and not merge anything, Jeff.

          Not sure it will make you happy, but then happiness makes for lousy auditors.

          • Jeff Id says:

            Not sure what you mean. I really don’t care what the data shows, it’s still nowhere close to projected models. I simply don’t see any acceleration and I do see the same old games being played by the “scientists”

          • Willard says:

            The best way not to merge data is not to merge data, Jeff. Multiply the trends and the graphs!

            Think of all the opportunities it offers. The more time series you work with, the more posts you can write showing that AGW is a hoax. The more you can also intimate that this is why teh Donald should have won.

            You can out-Goddard teh Goddard, of that I am quite certain.

          • Jeff Id says:

            AGW is NOT a hoax.

            AGW is very real but apparently small.

          • Willard says:

            I stand corrected.

            But wait – if AGW is not a hoax, how can it not show in your graphs?

          • Swenson says:

            Willard,

            What do you mean by AGW?

            Do you deny that standing next to a man-made heat source will result in warming?

            Or are you trying to insinuate that CO2 is a heat source?

            Surely you coukdn’t be that stupid!

            Or could you?

            [laughing]

          • Willard says:

            I think Jeff is referring to Anthropogenic Global Warming, Mike Flynn, but my question would remain the same if the expression remains uninterpreted.

            Hope this helps.

          • Swenson says:

            Willard,

            What do you mean by AGW?

            Do you deny that standing next to a man-made heat source will result in warming?

            Or are you trying to insinuate that CO2 is a heat source?

            Surely you coukdnt be that stupid!

            Or could you?

            [laughing]

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, please stop spamming.

          • Swenson says:

            Willard,

            What do you mean by AGW?

            Do you deny that standing next to a man-made heat source will result in warming?

            Or are you trying to insinuate that CO2 is a heat source?

            Surely you coukdnt be that stupid!

            Or could you?

            [laughing]

          • Willard says:

            You’re spamming, Mike.

          • Swenson says:

            And you’re trying to avoid looking like the idiot you are. Boo hoo.

            What do you mean by AGW?

            Do you deny that standing next to a man-made heat source will result in warming?

            Or are you trying to insinuate that CO2 is a heat source?

            Surely you coukdnt be that stupid!

            Or could you?

            [laughing]

          • Nate says:

            “I really dont care what the data shows, its still nowhere close to projected models. I simply dont see any acceleration and I do see the same old games being played by the ‘scientists'”

            The games they play are called called measurement, analysis, and yes statistics.

            That’s how science is done, and there is no requirement that data analysis be so simple that anyone can do it just by ‘looking’.

        • Nate says:

          Jeff ran away earlier when his claims were falsified. He had no answers.

  44. Michael in Dublin says:

    If significant heating and cooling took place millennia ago before people could have had any impact whatsoever, how can we discredit these influences as possibly reocurring today and far overshadowing any increased CO2 by humans?

    • Mark B says:

      One can hypothesize anything they want. However, a coherent theory has to have some utility in explaining historic observations and suggest lines of investigation which may turn out to support (or not) the hypothesis.

      The problem of those that favor a “mostly natural warming” hypothesis to explain recent warming is the lack of a credible mechanism for such warming. The orbital cycles that are understood to be the root of glacial cycles are trending towards cooler on multi-millenial time scales, solar irradiance is stable or trending down in recent decades, and internal variability has the problem of no obvious heat reservoir supplying energy to the atmosphere as the oceans are warming as well.

      • Clint R says:

        The problem of those that favor a “mostly natural warming” hypothesis to explain recent warming is the lack of a credible mechanism for such warming.

        There’s no problem with that hypothesis. We have plenty of evidence that ocean oscillations can significantly affect global climate. The important thing is the “natural variability” hypothesis does not violate the laws of physics, like the CO2 nonsense does.

        With the nearly worldwide Argo float system, we should have conclusive evidence in 40-60 years, maybe even the ability to predict long term trends and trend changes. Some people believe this last warming trend may have already peaked. It that’s true, we should see evidence within 5-10 years.

        • Willard says:

          Wow.

          Remove the jab about CO2 being nonsense and there is a real contrarian under that sock puppet!

          • Clint R says:

            Yes worthless willard, I guess reality is like a jab in your eye with a sharp stick.

            No, I won’t be responding. Find a babysitter.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            The same mechanisms that caused all the other warmings and coolings throughout the eons.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Oh, wait, we have to accept your shitty theory because science has a limited understanding of the Universe.

          • Willard says:

            Troglodyte, Pup, please stop trolling.

          • Swenson says:

            Wow. Willard believes that CO2 in the atmosphere can heat a planet!

            What a delusional SkyDragon!

          • Willard says:

            Roy believes that too, Mike Flynn.

            In fact he kicked out those who deny the greenhouse effect a long while ago:

            https://tinyurl.com/roy-bannished-dragon-cranks

            By chance you don’t really deny it. You simply pretend you do.

          • Swenson says:

            Wow. Willard believes that CO2 in the atmosphere can heat a planet!

            What a delusional SkyDragon!

            Good on you for telling “Roy” (is that Roy Rogers or Siegfried and Roy?) what he believes, and what he did.

            Peoples’ beliefs are just beliefs, and have no impact at all on physical fact.

            You might have as little effect on fact by telling Mike Flynn what he knows and thinks!

            You really are an idiot, you know. Your attempts to influence facts by appearing stupid enough to believe that anybody values your opinion are simply bizarre.

            Off you go now, Willard. Dream up some more witless attempts at making people take notice of your delusional thinking. Good luck!

            [chuckling]

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            willard…”Roy believes that too, Mike Flynn”.

            ***

            As I recall, Roy claimed CO2 ‘should’ warm the atmosphere but not enough to cause catastrophic climate change. The UAH data supports him over the past 40+ years.

          • Willard says:

            C’mon, Gordo.

            Roy is not a crank:

            I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming. Ive said this for many years.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/01/no-roy-spencer-is-not-a-climate-denier/

            You are.

          • Swenson says:

            Whacky Wee Willy,

            You quote someone named Roy as saying “I believe . . . “.

            Many people believe many different things.

            Why do you believe that one belief is superior to another belief?

            What’s wrong with science – you know, observation and experiment?

            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.”

            On the other hand, you have “belief”. Believe away.

            [chortling]

          • Willard says:

            Roy is the owner of this website, Mike Flynn.

            He asked you to start your own blog.

            You returned under a sock puppet.

            Cheers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          clint…I don’t trust an ocean buoy that immerses itself then surfaces every so often to record atmospheric temperatures amid seaspray and waves.

          • Clint R says:

            They’re designed to record water temperatures at varying depths, not atmospheric temperatures.

          • Swenson says:

            Gordon,

            And of course, “floats” float – with the currents at varying depths. Pretty pointless for establishing a thermal profile above a fixed point.

            Radiosonde suffer from the same difficulty, of course, and can travel up to 200 km away from the release point, going this way and that way as they ascend.

            So what’s the point of it all? Taking random measurements of temperature within a chaotic fluid would seem a bit useless in a practical sense, but who knows? The measurements may prove to be useful one day, for some purpose.

          • Clint R says:

            Must remove asterisk from link before using.

            https://argo.ucsd.ed*u/how-do-floats-work/

    • bobdroege says:

      Gee, I don’t know, maybe by measuring them.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      michael…”If significant heating and cooling took place millennia ago…”

      ***

      Hasn’t been that long ago. The little ice age ended less than 200 years ago and lasted 400+ years. It was preceded by the Medieval Warm Period, circa 1000 AD, which is hypothesized to have been as warm or warmer than today.

      It has been claimed the Vikings were happily farming on Greenland during the MWP till the cold of the LIA circa 1300 AD drove them to seek warmer climes.

      Ironically, the first IPCC reveiw report in 1990 freely acknowledged the MWP and the LIA. These days they don’t mention the MWP and write of the LIA s a local event.

      Perhaps someone could explain how it cooled only in Europe to the extent that the Mer de Glace glacier extended down a valley, wiping out farms and villages en route. Glaciers the world over expanded dramatically.

  45. Mark B says:

    It would be interesting to see this comparison done globally.

    A while back I created this plot of gridded temperature trends 1950-2022 for the Had series. Over that period at least, CONUS seems to have warmed more slowly than much of the Northern Hemisphere land mass which makes one wonder if looking at CONUS only isn’t a bit of a cherry-pick.

    https://southstcafe.neocities.org/climate/hadSurfaceGriddedTrend1950-2022.png

  46. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Does the consensus in climate science always work? Certainly not in the case of the ozone hole over Antarctica.
    https://i.ibb.co/f1GL0Qd/ozone-hole-plot.png

  47. Bindidon says:

    Jeff Id wrote above:

    ” You have been tricked as I warned in my post you might be if you werent careful.

    They pasted satellite data onto tide gauge data, in Mannian/Jones hide-the-decline fashion.

    FAKE graph. ”

    How is it possible to behave so arrogant, ignorant and dishonest?

    *
    I posted a graph

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_s5eKMqX-SlQIx28pTgbF2lTAcPgvIz5/view

    comparing different evaluations (including my own little ‘Bin’ layman’s work) of a common source, the PSMSL tide gauge data set:

    https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip

    corrected with the help of SONEL’s vertical land movement data:

    https://www.sonel.org/-Vertical-land-movements-

    *
    All he presents us is one of the dumbest sea level charts I have ever seen:

    https://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/image-3.png

    *
    When this arrogant guy says about my post: ‘FAKE graph.’, does it mean he claims that either

    – both the PSMSL and SONEL data sets contain data manipulated ‘in Mannian/Jones hide-the-decline fashion’ ?

    or that

    – all teams and persons having evaluated that data, little layman Bindidon included, intentionally manipulated their evaluation ‘in Mannian/Jones hide-the-decline fashion’ ?

    *
    I would have understood Jeff Id’s opinion if he had replied using valuable technical arguments, like e.g. a qualified sea level evaluation.

    But when I look at such a dumb, simple-minded, trashy chart he is naive or brazen enough to post, I see that

    – his understanding of sea level data processing perfectly matches the ball-on-a-string level of lunar spin deniers,

    and that

    – he is not able to scientifically contradict, but merely keeps on the simple level of the contrarian polemicist.

  48. Bindidon says:

    Feel free to compare Jeff Id’s trash chart

    https://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/image-3.png

    with a chart I created in Libre Office out of downloaded data

    – Dangendorf’s tide gauge evaluation
    – NOAA’s satellite altimetry

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nsa7ByOgWKtwkh05FrdP970ZS3_LeK2Q/view

    and to draw your own conclusions.

    ” They pasted satellite data onto tide gauge data, in Mannian/Jones hide-the-decline fashion. ”

    Yeah.

    • Swenson says:

      If anybody believes that global sea levels can be be measured to within 0.1 mm (4 thousandths of an inch) from a satellite hundreds of kilometers from the surface, which only repeats its track every 10 days or so, then they are definitely living in a SkyDragon fantasy world.

      Brightly coloured graphs from NASA, NOAA, or any other SkyDragon influenced organisation are just propoganda aimed at the simple-minded or gullible.

      A triumph of faith over fact.

      Still no GHE, gravitothermal effect, or heat creep.

    • Bindidon says:

      Flynnson

      You are so ignorant of everything that you even can’t manage to grasp the difference between averages of measurements and their trends over a given period of time.

      Keep blathering strong, and dont forget to put your wonderful smelling dog poop everywhere, because we all cant afford to miss it!

      • Swenson says:

        If anybody believes that global sea levels can be be measured to within 0.1 mm (4 thousandths of an inch) from a satellite hundreds of kilometers from the surface, which only repeats its track every 10 days or so, then they are definitely living in a SkyDragon fantasy world.

        Brightly coloured graphs from NASA, NOAA, or any other SkyDragon influenced organisation are just propoganda aimed at the simple-minded or gullible.

        A triumph of faith over fact.

        Still no GHE, gravitothermal effect, or heat creep.

        • Bindidon says:

          Flynnson

          You are so ignorant of everything that you even cant manage to grasp the difference between averages of measurements and their trends over a given period of time.

          Keep blathering strong, and dont forget to put your wonderful smelling dog poop everywhere, because we all cant afford to miss it!

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Maybe you are so ignorant that you don’t understand that the averages of measurements and the trends of those averages over time are two completely different things.

            In any case, pretending that global sea level can be measured to an “average” of 0.1 mm (four thousandths of an inch), is the province of dimwitted SkyDragons trying to impress the gullible.

            Your “trends” are completely meaningless. Even you are not stupid enough to believe that a “trend” of say, 0.5 C per decade, is meaningful. At that rate, 5 C per century, the seas will be boiled away in a few thousand years!

            Go on, stomp about in your jack boots, waving your riding crop. Carry on about blah, blah, blah, sweet smelling dog poop, and all the rest of your desperate silliness – trying to avoid facing reality.

            Don’t blame me for being a gullible nitwit – it’s all your own doing.

            Carry on.

          • Bindidon says:

            Flynnson

            You are so ignorant of everything that you even cant manage to grasp the difference between averages of measurements and their trends over a given period of time.

            Keep blathering strong, and dont forget to put your wonderful smelling dog poop everywhere, because we all cant afford to miss it!

    • jeff Id says:

      “Feel free to compare Jeff Ids trash chart”

      It’s the NOAA douche. Feel free to compare.

  49. Gordon Robertson says:

    jeff id…”AGW is NOT a hoax”.

    ***

    Maybe not a hoax, but it is a hypothesis with no scientific evidence to prove it. All the IPCC can offer is along these lines…

    1)19th century scientists said it was true.

    2)It has warmed since 1850 and CO2 began increasing about a century before, therefore CO2 is causing the warming.

    The IPCC completely ignores solid evidence of the Little Ice Age, which ended circa 1850. Syun Akasofu, an eminent geophysicist, claims the IPCC erred by not including re-warming from the LIA in their claims for global warming.

    • Entropic man says:

      “Syun Akasofu, an eminent geophysicist, claims the IPCC erred by not including re-warming from the LIA in their claims for global warming. ”

      If the warming of 1.1C since 1880 is due to recovery from the LIA it would require a forcing of at least 4W/m^2.

      What does Akasofu say caused the 4W/m^2 cooling forcing which caused the LIA and then the 4W/m^2 warming forcing which ended the LIA? His opinion is not worth much without proper numbers and a mechanism.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        He hasn’t figured out you guys don’t mind shitty unrealistic mechanisms.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ent…”What does Akasofu say caused the 4W/m^2 cooling forcing which caused the LIA and then the 4W/m^2 warming forcing which ended the LIA? His opinion is not worth much without proper numbers and a mechanism”.

        ***

        Akasofu is a renowned geophysicist who did pioneer work on the solar wind. I’d say he knows a thing or too about the LIA.

        He doesn’t have to know what caused the LIA, there is plenty of information available to indicate it occurred, and globally.

        Some of the most glaring evidence comes from glaciers that were documented as expanding enormously during the LIA. The Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps expanded so much it wiped out long established farms and villages in a valley.

        Can you explain how one glacier could expand like that in Europe with no other glaciers expanding elsewhere in the world? I mean, where would the cold weather come from that affected Europe only?

        We know from explorers between 1600 and 1850, trying to find the NW Passage, that the Passage was choked with ice, even during summer. There were famines in North America reported with unusually cold weather reaching what is now Florida and Texas.

        When they eventually got through the NW Passage in the 1800s, they still could not sail through all the way. One ship approached from the Alaska end and another along the Lancaster Sound from the east. The captain and crew of the vessel from Alaska had to use dogsleds to get far enough to the East to be picked up.

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

        It took Amundsen several years to complete the Passage.

        CO2 warming cannot explain the melting of ice during summer in the Arctic. Only a re-warming from the LIA can explain it.

        • Willard says:

          > I mean, where would the cold weather come from that affected Europe only?

          Current understanding is that it is more of a North Atlantic thing, Gordo:

          Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth’s orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population (such as from the Black Death and the epidemics emerging in the Americas upon European contact.

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

          If you not read anything, you will keep droning the same things for another ten years.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  50. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Due to the opacity of the atmosphere, only 2.5% of incoming solar radiation reaches the surface of Venus. The Earths surface receives much more, about 50%, so solar insolation on Earth has a greater effect on the surface temperature than on Venus and temperature differences between summer and winter can be very large. However, due to gravity, the particles of the dense troposphere retain some of the solar energy (due to collisions of particles that transfer energy to each other).
    Thanks to Earths thin troposphere, the temperature near the planets surface cannot be similarly high as on Venus.

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      IP,
      Don’t be talking about conductive and convective heat transfer around here. Not allowed.

    • Norman says:

      Ireneusz Palmowski

      The question would be how do those particle collisions stop the surface of Venus from emitting 16,000 or so W/m^2 into space?

      Without something blocking the IR (CO2 and clouds) Venus would be a very bright IR object in the sky.

      Thick atmosphere alone will not prevent IR emitted from surface from going to space.

      You need to explain what is stopping the IR from going straight to space and rapidly cooling the surface.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        The dense atmosphere is not transparent to infrared radiation as evidenced by the temperature near the surface of Venus and cannot be heated by solar radiation from the surface of Venus because it is too weak, just as it is on Earth.

        • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

          Greenhouse gases in the lower troposphere lower surface temperatures because they release more heat into space than other air molecules.

          • Norman says:

            Ireneusz Palmowski

            Yet GHG do not release more energy than the surface would directly release to space. GhG release energy to space but they also return energy to the surface. How would returning energy lower surface temperatures more than if there were no GHG?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”Due to the opacity of the atmosphere, only 2.5% of incoming solar radiation reaches the surface of Venus”.

      ***

      Yet, the surface temperature of Venus is about 450C. Can’t be the Sun warming the surface, or the atmosphere.

      This is a Swenson planet, it’s still cooling.

  51. Bindidon says:

    For the Ignoramus, a few lines out of IPCC’s AR5

    The Suns Influence on the Earths Climate

    A number of studies since AR4 have addressed the possible influences of long-term fluctuations of solar irradiance on past climates,
    particularly related to the relative warmth of the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) and the relative coolness in the Little Ice Age (LIA).

    There is medium confidence that both external solar and volcanic forcing, and internal variability, contributed substantially to the spatial patterns of surface temperature changes between the MCA and the LIA, but very low confidence in quantitative estimates of their
    relative contributions (Sections 5.3.5.3 and 5.5.1).

    The combined influence of volcanism, solar forcing and a small drop in greenhouse gases (GHGs) likely contributed to Northern Hemisphere cooling during the LIA (Section 10.7.2). Solar radiative forcing (RF) from the Maunder Minimum (1745) to the satellite era (average of 19762006) has been estimated to be +0.08 to +0.18 W m2 (low confidence, Section 8.4.1.2).

    This may have contributed to early 20th century warming (low confidence, Section 10.3.1).

    • Swenson says:

      Bunny,

      Appealing to the authority of a pack of fools who don’t even acknowledge that there is no experimental support for their delusional GHE, makes you appear stupid.

      Do these idiots not accept that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, notwithstanding the supposed GHE existing during that time?

      I suppose you think that temperatures are measured in W/m2, as well.

      Not terribly bright, are you?

      • Bindidon says:

        Flynnson

        Keep blathering strong, and dont forget to put your wonderful smelling dog poop everywhere, because we all cant afford to miss it!

    • Clint R says:

      Bindidon, if you follow the IPCC nonsense, you must have noticed the drift back to reality. Their models aren’t working, and they realize it. They realize it, but they still try to pervert the reality. They state truthfully that: “…solar and volcanic forcing, and internal variability, contributed substantially to the spatial patterns of surface temperature changes…”. But they attempt to modify that with “…but very low confidence in quantitative estimates of their relative contributions.”

      IOW, it happened but we don’t want to talk about it. They attempt to reduce the impact of reality with word salad. They fool many.

      THAT is “climate science”.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Wow, AR actually acknowledges the Sun has an influence on the climate. But they don’t know how much.

        • Entropic man says:

          Stephen p Anderson

          If you do the calculations, the 11 year solar cycle should change global temperatures by +/- 0.15C.

          In practice the confidence limits of the global annual average temperatures and the smearing effect of lag mean that the effect of solar variation is lost in the noise.

          A permanent minimum like the Maunder Minimum would be expected to produce a similar 0.15C cooling.

          If the LIA existed as a global phenomenon and did not cool by more than 0.15C, then the Sun might have caused it.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Ok, the Sun has 0.3C influence on the climate. Thank you, Eman.

          • Entropic man says:

            My pleasure.

            However the strongest recent solar cycles were in the 1970s. We have passed the Modern Maximum which means that the recent effect of changes in the Sun is to decrease the rate of warming.

          • Mark B says:

            Entropic man says: If you do the calculations, the 11 year solar cycle should change global temperatures by +/- 0.15C.

            In practice the confidence limits of the global annual average temperatures and the smearing effect of lag mean that the effect of solar variation is lost in the noise.

            The solar cycle is observable in the temperature record. Solar irradiance was one of the exogenous factors in Foster Rahmstorf 2011 where they detected the signal and calculated a lag by means of multiple regression analysis.

            See figure 2 here.

          • Entropic man says:

            Mark B

            Thanks for the data.

            Clint R

            Keep up.

            We are not discussing whether sunlight makes the Earth warmer during the day and it’s lack makes the Earth cooler at night.

            We are discussing the effect of the 11 year solar cycle and the Maunder minimum on global temperature.

          • Clint R says:

            Ent, nice attempt to evade the question.

            The question was in response to your irresponsible comment: …those who claim “It’s the Sun, stupid!” are mistaken.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/50-year-u-s-summer-temperature-trends-all-36-climate-models-are-too-warm/#comment-1387029

            Obviously YOU don’t believe Sun heats our planet. Your cult claims Sun can’t do it. Your cult goes to the effort of reducing solar to about 170 W/m^2, then claiming that’s not enough power to support Earth’s 288K average surface temperature. So, you believe your cult.

            Your cult doesn’t have a clue. It’s the sun, stupid!

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            The Sun is the source for the energy the Earth receives. However the temperature is determined also by how much energy the surface loses. GHG cut the radiant heat loss considerably. I have linked you to measured values of solar input. The 170 is based on measured values. Your arrogant declarations cannot bend the reality regardless that you can’t accept the truth. You enjoy your own deluded thinking to allow real measured values to alter your incorrect thinking.

          • Swenson says:

            At night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s remaining internal heat.

            That’s why the surface has managed to cool over the past four and a half billion years or so.

            You see? No need for W/m2, confidence levels, temperatures averaged to ridiculous hundredths of a degree, or SkyDragon CO2 AGW consensus.

            Just acceptance of reality.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, you must be feeling better. I knew you were ill when you acted like an adult.

            Now that you’re back to yourself, you’re also back to arguing with yourself:

            1) “The Sun is the source for the energy the Earth receives.”

            2) “I have linked you to measured values of solar input. The 170 is based on measured values.”

            1) is reality, with Earth at 288K, 59°F

            2) is GHE nonsense, with Earth at 234K, -39°F

            That’s why this is so much fun.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            I will ignore your taunts and insults.

            Does the air inside a car in the Summer Sun reach a higher temperature than the air outside the car?

            Both have the same amount of energy but one gets much hotter, why is this? Is it a clear violation of the 2nd Law?

            I will leave it there and see if you respond or what you respond with. I can continue later.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, in the real world it would depend on whether the windows were up or down.

            But, in your imaginary world, where Sun only provides 170 W/m^2 to the surface, it wouldn’t matter if the windows were up or down, would it?

            170 W/m^2 would correspond to a S/B temperature of -39°F. So your belief that that’s all Sun can do makes you a braindead cult idiot. That’s NOT name-calling. That’s reality.

            At least you’ve got company….

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”Both have the same amount of energy but one gets much hotter, why is this? Is it a clear violation of the 2nd Law? ”

            ***

            I think this was answered before. The 2nd law does not apply here, it’s about the direct of heat transfers. The car with windows closed on a hot summer’s day is about real greenhouse theory. SW solar heats the car interior, which heats molecules of air, and they cannot escape. No convection. So, the car interior warms.

            Without convection, the surface would be unlivable for humans. Lindzen claimed surface temperatures would reach 70C with no convection.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            NOT an “imaginary” world but the one you live on. You do not seem to grasp that the planet rotates and solar energy only reaches a portion of the surface for a limited time. You find the total solar energy a one square meter surface receives from the Sun in a 24 hour cycle and you average that out to a continuous input.

            Once again for you (this is real global average) it is NOT imaginary or made up. It is the average amount of solar energy that reaches the surface.

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335224175/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/World-solar-potential.png

            You can choose to ignore reality. I have also linked you to SURFRED data that shows this. There is not much more one can offer to someone who is in deep denial and will only accept things they believe, evidence does not seem to matter to you.

            Without the GHE the surface would be quite cold.
            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/

          • Norman says:

            The point with the hot car is that you can achieve much higher temperatures by removing heat loss mechanisms even with the same energy input.

            GHG reduce the amount of heat the surface loses by radiant energy so with the same solar input the temperature of the surface reaches a higher temperature.

            GHE is NOT violating 2nd Law.

            The amount of energy returned to the surface is less than what is emitted. Without solar input the surface only cools but the GHE reduces the radiant heat loss as any reduction of a heat loss mechanism of a heated object and the object will reach a higher temperature. Insulation increases the temperature of a heated object by reducing the rate of heat loss.

            You can see a car get really hot in the sun with windows rolled but you can’t seem to understand GHE is the similar function. Same input energy but reduced outflow so temperature increases.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, the closed car in summer sun is a REAL greenhouse. Solar in, but all infrared stays, as glass is opaque to infrared. A REAL greenhouse works that way, but Earth is NOT a greenhouse. Radiative gases emit energy to space. There are holes in the “windows”.

            You do not get to reduce solar to a level that supports your cult nonsense. Solar is about 960 W/m^2, after albedo. THAT is what you MUST use for solar. Your SURFRAD graphs reveal that.
            Your closed car reveals that. You could NOT raise the temperature of the closed car with only 170 W/m^2.

            So your new “gotcha” blows up in your face, again. How many does that make? If you weren’t braindead, that should mean something to you.

            And again, “braindead” is NOT an insult — it’s reality.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            The reality of solar energy reaching the surface is that 960 value you give is only for a very short time a few hours. The rest is much lower with some atzero. Your claim is not a valid view of solar input to the surface. The 170 is much closer to reality and does match measured values. You have to take in the whole 25 hour cycle to be valid.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong again, Norman.

            Your problem, besides being a braindead cult idiot, is that you’ve never had any education in things like advanced physics, thermodynamics, and heat transfer. Your only knowledge of the subjects is through the “climate science” cult, or wiki. You’ve been indoctrinated, but not educated. This issue has been discussed numerous times, but it’s all way over your head.

            If you integrate the 960 w/m^2 over a hemisphere, you get 480 W/m^2, which corresponds to S/B temperature of 303K, 86°F. That temperature does NOT instantly disappear as Earth rotates. There is a thing call “heat capacity”. As Earth rotates, and the dark side cools, it does NOT lose all its thermal energy. Sun continues to heat Earth until an equilibrium is reached. If Earth only received 170 W/m^2, it S/B maximum temperature would be 234K, -39°F.

            You simply don’t understand ANY of this. You can’t even understand a simple ball-on-a-string.

          • Willard says:

            You forgot one hemisphere, sock puppet.

            Please stop trolling.

          • Clint R says:

            Well Pup, you showed up just in time to help Norman, and to prove you’re not a worthless troll.

            What is the temperature of Norman’s closed car after being irradiated by continuous 170 W/m^2? Please show all work.

            You don’t want to always be a worthless troll, do you Pup?

          • Nate says:

            Clint fails again at rotisserie cooking. He must think he can grill a steak without flipping it.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            Maybe you do not know this but the average temperature on the Moon’s Equator is 206 K which is -89 F. This means the Moon is receiving just 102 W/m^2.

            https://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            You are not correct YOU: “Your only knowledge of the subjects is through the climate science cult, or wiki.”

            Once I entered this debate I have studied the issue but not wiki. Textbook science. I started to read textbooks on the subject, they offer some free online. With so many opinions I chose to educate myself with textbook science. I will accept this as factual until an experiment or observational evidence can prove the textbook wrong. So far none of your declarations have been able to demonstrate textbook physics as incorrect.

            Here:
            https://ahtt.mit.edu/

            This is the one I have chosen to read and study. Perhaps give it a try.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            Simple measured real world values will clearly demonstrate your thermal inertia (heat capacity) will not change the reality the Sun does not provide the energy needed to maintain the Earth’s surface temperature without the GHE.

            Roy Spencer already did calculation with heat capacity of Earth Surface materials and it is not enough to keep the Earth warm during the night, maybe read his work here;

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/

            But for the Real World measured evidence you dispute.

            On the next post as I do not know how many links one post will support.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6359cbf811527.png

            This is a graph of measured value of solar energy in the Summer in the Nevada desert on a cloud-free day.

            The amount of energy not reflected peaks at 800 W/m^2. The peak downward solar energy is 1100 W/m^2 but a lot of this is reflected and will not add energy to the surface.

            So in this graph you can find how much total solar energy a one square meter of surface will receive.

            The graph is a parabola with a peak of 800 W/m^2 (joules/second)…

            The total energy will be the area under a parabola 2/3(Peak)(Base).

            The Base is 14 hours which need to be in seconds to get the correct joules received by a one square meter surface. There are 50,400 seconds in 14 hours. The total joules a one square meter of desert surface receives from the Sun in 24 hours would be 2/3(800)(50,400) = 26,880,000 joules of energy.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            Do you accept the calculation of energy to desert surface? If not let me know what you think it should be based upon the real world measured values for solar energy.

            If you do accept this as factual then you can go to calculate the next level.

            https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6359cf2db684b.png

            This is the same location as the previous plot same day.

            This is the amount of radiant energy (measured) that is emitted by the surface.

            The peak emission is around 625 W/m^2 and the low is around 425 W/m^2. The average is somewhere between 500 and 525 so if you use the low value of 500 W/m^2, then in a 24 hour cycle the surface will lose (500 joules/second)/86,400 seconds (in 24 hour) = 43,200,000 joules lost in 24 hours.

            So your “heat capacity” of argument does not explain how a surface can emit 43,200,000 joules of energy while it only receives 26,880,000 joules of energy from the Sun in this 24 hour cycle. It is emitting far more energy than it receives from the Sun even in hot summer months.

            The solution is the GHE.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            With GHE as the solution:

            https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6359d1f0ced8f.png

            With the GHE that is the radiant energy loss is the amount the surface emits minus what is gains from the atmosphere which is around -160 W/m^2 in this case.

            So with GHE working the amount of energy the surface loses in 24 hours is the amount it emits minus the amount it gains from DWIR.

            (-165)(86,400) = -14,256,000 joules of energy. This is less than the amount gained from solar energy in the 24 hour cycle. The surface has an excess of energy that is removed by other heat transfer mechanisms. Some evaporation (not much in a desert) and convection.

            You do accept the reality of DWIR but you do not believe it will be absorbed but all real physics says it will be if the emissivity of the surface for IR is high (which it is) Sand has an emissivity of 0.95 so it will absorb nearly all the IR that reaches it.

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140196304000898#:~:text=The%20average%20emissivity%20at%2035,(Tstat%3D6.15).

            I believe Claes Johnson is the one who came up with the untested opinion that a hot object cannot absorb IR from a colder one. His opinion is NOT science. It is based upon no experiment or observation. It is his opinion on the issue. The problem with his opinion is it goes against all established, experimentally verified physics. He will need to do more than declare his opinion. He will need to supply experimental evidence to overturn the established physics. You can choose to believe him correct but I would challenge you to provide any evidence to support his opinion of his.

          • Clint R says:

            Wow Norman! Is your spamming session over?

            The reason for all the spam is you don’t want to learn. You just want to throw stuff against the wall, hoping something will stick. Your cult’s meltdown is making you this desperate.

            Just look at the desperation here:

            * Pup makes a false claim
            * Troll Nate makes a false claim
            * Norman deflects using Moon
            * Norman claims he’s educated, but can’t answer very simple problems
            * Norman links to Spencer’s post that he didnt understand
            * Norman links to SURFRAD that proves him wrong, but he can’t understand it
            * As usual, Norman’s searching the Internet for anything to “throw against the wall”.
            * Norman keeps making up stuff, and claiming it’s from “experimentally verified physics”, but you NEVER provide anything that fits. Your “proofs” sometimes don’t even match the issue. And you STILL haven’t provided any valid technical reference that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface will result in a temperature of 325K.

            That’s the track record just from today! Your cult idiots are trying to help you because they know you’re in trouble. Your whole cult is in trouble. Reality always wins.

            All of this nonsense started with your question about a closed car.

            So, what is the temperature of your closed car if it’s been receiving 170 W/m^2 all day? You claim you’ve studied “on-line”. Show your stuff.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            It has not been pleasant attempting to reason with you. In your extended post I can see you are the braindead cult idiot. Trying to reason with you is a waste, calling you what you are, an idiot does not help either.

            So since I can’t stand you or your stupid posts we can do each other a favor. When I see one of your idiot posts I will not respond. When you see one of my rational scientifically supported posts that you can’t understand then you make the conscious choice not to comment on anything I post. I think it would be the best. I doubt you would be able to accept this, you enjoy provoking people too much. But I will not comment on your ignorant posts if you choose to leave me be. There is nothing of remote science value in anything you post. So what is it to be? I ignore you, and you ignore me. Works for me.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, quit all the blah-blah spam and just provide “rational scientifically supported” technical reference that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface can heat it to 325K.

            Then, you can answer your own problem about the temperature of a closed car in your 170W/m^2 “sunlight” all day.

          • Nate says:

            Clintionary

            False claim-

            A glaring flaw in a Clint post that is pointed out by others.
            With no valid answer, he declares it a ‘false claim’.

            A tried and true troll maneuver.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          What a dire situation for the Earth. The Sun only supplies 170W/m^2. If it wasn’t for the GHE all life on this planet would not exist. Who designed this? GHE are these unstable gases that fluctuate all over the place. How have we lasted this long? I’ve got a bone to pick with the creator.

          • Nate says:

            “Ive got a bone to pick with the creator.”

            Yeah, and what about the Duck-billed Platypus? Who ordered that?
            What about pandemics?

    • Bindidon says:

      ” However the strongest recent solar cycles were in the 1970s. ”

      Not quite, Entropic man:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NzQA6Pp6vdqOhn32fCjXwW5nvIt3totK/view

      The Modern Maximum was during SC19, in 1957.

      At the beginning of the the 1970’s SSN experienced a much weaker SC20, then followed by again stronger SC21 and SC22.

      • Entropic man says:

        Thank you,Bindidon.

        Your longer baseline does emphasise that those who claim “Its the Sun, stupid!” are mistaken.

        • Clint R says:

          Ent, why are days warmer than nights?

          • Bindidon says:

            ” … why are days warmer than nights? ”

            This is the wrong question.

            The correct question is:

            Why do nights become in CONUS since longer time less cold, while days do not get much warmer?

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sVA3c7j94Cr12tNcfzSQwdNX8gIV9hjq/view

            The graph shows how many USHCN stations in the GHCN daily data set, all active during the period 1895-2020, measured their highest TMAX / lowest TMIN / highest TMIN temperature in which year.

            Compare the red line with the blue/green lines.

            Why do recently blue (lowest minima) decrease and green (highest minima) increase but red (maxima) keeps nearly constant?

            *
            Why does the graph for the Globe

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/18lbRjGp4rkACp6EgJ2LF1YmVYATkMGcM/view

            not look like that for CONUS?

          • Clint R says:

            No Bin, it’s the RIGHT question.

            You have to pervert if to protect your cult. When the sun sets, temperatures drop. They continue to drop until Sun rises. If Sun did not rise, temperatures would continue to drop WAY below freezing. CO2 does NOT heat the planet, Sun does.

            You “climate science” cult has it wrong, just like your ancient astrologers got Moon wrong. But, you can’t accept reality so you can’t learn.

            That’s why this is so much fun.

          • Bindidon says:

            I was 100% sure that Clint R wouldn’t understand a tiny bit of my question and would reply with his usual cult and astrology nonsense.

            I didn’t even mention CO2!

            So are the Pseudoskeptics.

            Hello Mr Pavlov…

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong again, Bin.

            You were hoping you could cover up another huge hole in your cult’s CO2 nonsense.

            But, you got caught.

            What will you try next?

          • Swenson says:

            Bindidon,

            You asked “Why do nights become in CONUS since longer time less cold, while days do not get much warmer?”.

            I am assuming you were trying to pose a gotcha, but if you are really interested in advancing your knowledge, I’ll tell you. Were you seriously seeking an answer, or just trying to make somebody look stupid?

          • Bindidon says:

            Flynnson

            Keep blathering strong, and don’t forget to put your wonderful smelling dog poop everywhere, because we all can’t afford to miss it!

          • Swenson says:

            Bindidon,

            You asked Why do nights become in CONUS since longer time less cold, while days do not get much warmer?.

            I am assuming you were trying to pose a gotcha, but if you are really interested in advancing your knowledge, Ill tell you. Were you seriously seeking an answer, or just trying to make somebody look stupid?

            You’re looking pretty stupid now, aren’t you?

          • Willard says:

            Why are cloudy nights warmer that cloudless nights, sock puppets?

            Please stop trolling.

          • Bindidon says:

            Flynnson

            Keep blathering strong, and don’t forget to put your wonderful smelling dog poops everywhere, because we all can’t afford to miss it!

          • Swenson says:

            Willard,

            You wrote –

            “Why are cloudy nights warmer that cloudless nights, sock puppets?”

            You really don’t know?

            You are more pig ignorant than I thought. No wonder you admire “climate scientists”!

          • Willard says:

            Are you telling me that you do know and that your cooling Earth theory can explain why, Mike Flynn?

          • Swenson says:

            Willard,

            You wrote

            Why are cloudy nights warmer that cloudless nights, sock puppets?

            You really dont know?

            You are more pig ignorant than I thought. No wonder you admire climate scientists!

          • Willard says:

            What are you braying about, Mike?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  52. Billyjack says:

    Just more confirmation that in the Church of Warming the computer models are the oracles that cannot be questioned.

    • Entropic man says:

      Billyjack

      Keep questioning.

      But try to listen to the data rather than the propagandists who tell you what they want you to hear.

      • Clint R says:

        Indeed Billyjack, keep questioning.

        When the “climate science” cult tells you Sun provides less power to Earth than an ice cube, QUESTION IT!

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        Saying something like “try to listen to the data . . . ” might be a bit silly. You probably mean “look at the data”, but even that is pretty silly if the “data” consists of meaningless things like W/m2, being added, subtracted, and generally misused.

        You see, someone might be gulled into believing that W/m2 had some relationship to temperature, and that this somehow implied that CO2 had magical warming powers.

        On the other hand, if somebody accepted that the Earth was created with a molten surface, and the surface is not molten now, then the temperature data shows that the Earth has cooled, which would make the ridiculous claims of CO2 “warming” look silly, and attempts to portray W/m2 as meaningful, even sillier.

        People are free to accept propaganda as fact, as all SkyDragon CO2 AGW cultists do.

        Accepting objective reality, and the scientific method of seeking knowledge is probably a good start to understanding.

        You are free to believe any demented nonsense you wish.

  53. Eben says:

    When airplane designs models follow the the fizzix the same way as climate models

    https://youtu.be/0h_cqTCT5g0

  54. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”There is medium confidence that both external solar and volcanic forcing, and internal variability, contributed substantially to the spatial patterns of surface temperature changes between the MCA and the LIA…”

    ***

    Who gives a hoot about the corrupt IPCC and their confidences? Science is not about confidence in a theory.

    The IPCC are the same load of idiots who deemed the LIA a cooling local to Europe only. There is evidence, both anecdotal and proxy-based, that the LIA was a world-wide phenomenon.

    • gbaikie says:

      –There is evidence, both anecdotal and proxy-based, that the LIA was a world-wide phenomenon.–

      It is interesting that proof is required.
      Very interesting.

      It’s dead simple, is there global warming or isn’t there.
      If it warmed, it follows that earlier it was cooler.

      No evidence is needed.

      But what such people need evidence, are simple facts.

      15 C is cold.
      14 C is colder.

      Also homework:
      1] Find out the average yearly temperature of where you live.
      2] Don’t heat our home, if you think that is too warm.

      Living is in the land of hottest place in the world, I warmed house, last nite because it was a few degree below global average temperature.
      Actually inside my house wasn’t that cold, it was 67 F [19 C] and I wanted it to be 70 F [and set it, so, not get colder].

      • Clint R says:

        GREAT idea, gbaikie. Warmists should not heat their home in winter. There’s no need to use any extra heat. Their back-radiation will keep them nice and toasty.

        (More energy for us realists!)

        • gbaikie says:

          I am “distressed” that people don’t know their religion.
          Actually if they want to belong to something which gives them
          name tag and they don’t want to know anything about it, that’s
          ok.
          It’s mindless opposition to not wanting to know anything about it which bothersome.

          Global warming is about having a more uniform global temperature.
          If you live in desert, it not a very uniform temperature- sometimes
          it’s hot and sometimes it’s cold.
          If live in Canada, it’s not going to get very warm, unless it’s during the few months of summer- or you travel.
          In US there are a wide variety of places with different average temperature- you can pick what you like.
          Europe is warmed by the Ocean- otherwise it would be very cold [like
          Canada]. If Europe wants to be colder, we can turn off the Gulf Stream at a fairly low cost.
          The Gulf stream gives a uniform temperature- it doesn’t make it hotter.

          • barry says:

            “Global warming is about having a more uniform global temperature.”

            Hilariously wrong.

            What follows in your post is likewise silly.

          • gbaikie says:

            Barry, there are no warming times in Earth history where Earth didn’t have a more uniform global temperature.

  55. Gordon Robertson says:

    jeff id…”YOU have presented YOUR own graph with unspecified methods”.

    ***

    Ser gut, you’re onto Binny’s MO. He’s had the cheek to compare NOAA and UAH graphs as being equal using unspecified data.

  56. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Still no warming in the southern hemisphere and the tropics. It’s getting colder in North America.
    https://i.ibb.co/pbHrJMf/gfs-world-ced2-t2anom-1-day.png
    https://i.ibb.co/x89KBjM/gfs-T2m-us-1.png

  57. Bindidon says:

    I read without surprise in a Jeff Id post:

    ” YOU have presented YOUR own graph with unspecified methods. ”

    No I didn’t present only MY own graph.

    I presented it together with the results of four other evaluations of the PSMSL data which anybody can download:

    https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip

    and which contains all files necessary for the evaluation in packed form.

    After having unzipped the stuff, you can access the data (tide gauge list, monthly absolute data for each gauge).

    *
    Unspecified methods?

    What’s that for a nonsense?

    Does genius Jeff Id not know how the work is done?

    For each tide gauge in the list (or in a subset of it, e.g. CONUS east coast, or Northern Europe…) having VLM correction data, do

    – construction of a monthly climatology (baseline) wrt a reference period, e.g. 1981-2010, 1991-2020 or 1993-2013, depending on your needs;

    – on success, generation of anomalies wrt that period with the gauge’s absolute data, the baseline and the VLM correction, together with a calculation of a linear estimate of the gauge for a specified period;

    – distribution of the monthly anomalies within a monthly grid, by using the gauge’s coordinates;

    – for each month:

    — for each of the grid’s latitude bands, averaging of the cells into a latitudinal vector;

    — latitude weighting of the vector, giving the average anomaly for the whole month;

    – output of the monthly anomaly averages.

    { Nota bene: this anomaly generation scheme is nearly identical to what is done for e.g. weather stations, hence uses nearly the same software. }

    *
    Of course: this is the minimal work to be done; teams like Dangendorf’s or Frederikse’s integrated incredibly much more data analysis in their evaluations (e.g. ENSO data) and evaluated different ocean basins prior to the final anomaly generation.

    Neither Grant Foster lat alone I myself did such work; I was therefore surprised that our data was so near to that of the others:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_s5eKMqX-SlQIx28pTgbF2lTAcPgvIz5/view

    Grant Foster’s evaluation is much better than mine: his knowledge in the field of anomaly generation using OLS techniques for the merging of single gauges into their synthesis is amazing.

    *
    Methinks that genius Jeff Id never did such work at any time.

    • Eben says:

      Post your hyperbolic 10.7 radio chart for him , that will show him you chart making skilz

      • Bindidon says:

        Oh, the babbling Edog with his classical dog poop again.

        My God, how interesting.

        • Swenson says:

          Bunny,

          Can’t you do any better than making childish attempts at being offensive?

          The fact that you find classical dog poop interesting, without providing any context, might indicate that you don’t have anything of value to support your silly notion that you can predict the future by “dissecting the past”.

          Obviously, you don’t want to accept the reality that neither the GHE, nor the graviothermal effect, nor heat creep, has any experimental support whatsoever.

          Keep drawing those pretty multicoloured graphs. Someone even more witless than you might be impressed.

          By the way, have you figured out why evening minima are rising faster than daytime maxima, as you pointed out? Or is thinking far too difficult for someone seemingly obsessed with classical dog poop?

          • Bindidon says:

            Flynnson

            Keep blathering strong, and don’t forget to put your wonderful smelling dog poops everywhere, because we all can’t afford to miss them!

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Still obsessing about wonderful smelling dog poop, are you?

            As opposed to ordinary dog poop, I suppose.

            Are you a dog poop expert?

          • Bindidon says:

            ” By the way, have you figured out why evening minima are rising faster than daytime maxima… ”

            This shows once more your ability to distort and misrepresent everything such that it fits your perverted, egomaniac narrative.

            There are no ‘evening minima’ in the charts, Flynnson.

            The green plots represent for each year the number of days for which stations reported their highest minimum temperature of the day.

            As you might have noticed, minimum temperatures mostly happen during the night.

            Thus, the green plots record how the warmest nights behaved over time since 1895.

            Your attempts to put things in my mouth I’d never say

            ” Obviously, you dont want to accept the reality that neither the GHE, nor the graviothermal effect, nor heat creep, has any experimental support whatsoever. ”

            become more and more ridiculous.

            *
            By the way:

            ” Keep drawing those pretty multicoloured graphs. ”

            is, once more, a typical ‘Mike Flynn’ expression.

            You can’t hide the past just by using another pseudonym, Flynnson.

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            I wrote –

            “By the way, have you figured out why evening minima are rising faster than daytime maxima?”

            Oh well, If you don’t accept what I said, you can no doubt provide a colourful graphic which indicates otherwise.

            But you can’t can you?

            All you can do is whine about dog poop.

            Very scientific – not!

          • Bindidon says:

            I repeat, for the stubborn Ignoramus Flynnson aka Mike Flynn

            ” There are no evening minima in the charts, Flynnson.

            The green plots represent for each year the number of days for which stations reported their highest minimum temperature of the day.

            As you might have noticed, minimum temperatures mostly happen during the night.

            Thus, the green plots record how the warmest nights behaved over time since 1895. ”

            Stop blathering, Flynnson, start thinking (in the case you still have enough active brain material to do so).

  58. Gloria says:

    Consistently made over $26,000 in extra income from home with the benefit of smooth playback and sticky online interest. |x150 I actually made $18,636 with this perfect home income… Everyone can now without a doubt

    make extra money online by using. >>>> https://smartfuture12.pages.dev

  59. Gordon Robertson says:

    This is part of a post from Roy’s last article which is more pertinent to this one. It’s from Craig Bohren, an atmospheric physicist.

    “My biases: The pronouncements of climate modelers, who dont do experiments, dont make observations, dont even confect theories, but rather [in my opinion] play computer games using huge programs containing dozens of separate components the details of which they may be largely ignorant, dont move me. I am much more impressed by direct evidence: retreating glaciers, longer growing seasons, the migration of species, rising sea level, etc.

    I have lived long enough to have seen many doomsday scenarios painted by people who profited by doing so, but which never came to pass. This has made me a skeptic.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Of equal interest from Bohren, but off topic…

      Skeptics about global warming are often painted as hirelings of the oil and automotive industries. Such claims irritate me. I have never earned a nickel as a consequence of my skepticism. Indeed, I have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by it. First, you have to understand how a large research university operates. The professors are expected to obtain research grants, and in the atmospheric sciences these grants come mostly from government agencies.

      In the atmospheric sciences it is difficult to get grants unless you can somehow tie your work to global warming, that is to say, to scare science. Because of my reputation, I immodestly believe that I could have jumped onto the global warming bandwagon. But I refused to do so because I would have found this repugnant.

      A scientist with integrity, like Roy and John Christy of UAH. Few, and far between.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      Like you I lived through doomsday scenarios, peak oil, etc.

      I think you being a skeptic is fine. My complaint with you is your anti-science mentality. I do not see how that one formed. You believe anything that goes against established physics including accepting the ludicrous opinions of Gary Novak and reject all established physics. You reject Einstein theory even though many lines of experimental evidence have proven it true (which is why it is accepted at this time). Not sure how your mind functions. It seems to be repelled by the concept of established and runs to any and all ideas that are not established and accepts them blindly as factual even when zero evidence supports them.

      • Swenson says:

        Norman,

        You wrote –

        “My complaint with you is your anti-science mentality.”

        Complaints, particularly strange ones like yours, just make the complainer look like a fact-free whinges. What is “anti-science” mentality?

        Is it, perhaps, the mentality of CO2 AGW fantasists, who deny reality? For example, the reality that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, or the reality that no-one has ever managed to show that CO2 has any power to make a thermometer warmer?

        So complain away – look like a whining SkyDragon. They are so simple that they believe in “climate science”! Climate is just the average of historical weather events, you donkey! No science there at all.

        Carry on.

        • Clint R says:

          Norman defines “anti-science” mentality with his:

          * Sun only provides 170 W/m^2 to Earth.
          * Ice cubes can boil water (He doesn’t admit to this, but he believes in the math.}
          * The sky is hotter than Sun

          There’s more, but that’s enough for the purposes here.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            The Sun does provide an AVERAGE of 170 W/m^2 to the surface. You are in denial of observational and measured facts. Making declarations is NOT science. You might think it means something and you can convince a couple idiots on blogs of your unsupported opinions. Reality does not care, truth will prevail against your ignorance and a handful of idiots that think your ideas are correct (very few people believe you).

            Again with the 170. How many times do I need to post this for you? Or is your anti-science so strong that reality can’t penetrate your deluded opinions.

            Here:
            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Indra-Overland/publication/335224175/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/World-solar-potential.png

            YOU: “* Ice cubes can boil water (He doesnt admit to this, but he believes in the math.}” I have to call you an complete idiot for peddling this asinine bullshit. I have gone in long discussions on this one. I will just let it go. You can be an idiot about it if that triggers your fancy.

            This is an other idiot point. YOU: “* The sky is hotter than Sun” No that is NOT what I am saying. Quit the trolling and grow up! The Sun is much hotter than the sky. The amount of energy the surface receives from the Sun is less than from the sky. This is primarily because the Sun does not shine in any one spot 24 hours. You are a foolish person.

            I think you want to provoke people. It seems your only goal here. I think you intentionally say stupid provoking things to get some knee-jerk reaction. This is foolish and childish behavior. I think I should just ignore these posts. I can call you an idiot but that is what you like.

            If I ignore the intentionally provoking comments it won’t help, you will just wait till I post to someone else and jump in. I guess as long as Roy Spencer tolerates a provoking troll like you, I will have to put up with your immature behavior. In your previous names you went after Roy directly then he banned you. This time around you just like to irritate other posters making sure to avoid Roy so you can continue your childish behavior to your own amusement.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, the reason you spam so much is you have NOTHING.

            You can’t answer the simple problem you presented: What is the inside temperature of a closed car after a full day in YOUR sunlight of 170 W/m^2?

            You can’t provide a valid technical reference that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface will heat it to 325K.

            You have NOTHING, so you have to spam all day.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            To be honest I really do not like you. Maybe we should just leave well alone. You post to the people who still tolerate you and ignore me.

            It is obvious to me you are not at all interested in science or truth. You are a belligerent troll who intentionally attempts to provoke a childish response. You have gotten emotional reactions from me enough. I need to quit reacting to your posts. You did this as g/e/r/a/n then as J/D/H/u/f/f/m/a/n and now as Clint R. Same immature childish behavior with some sick pleasure in getting some knee-jerk emotional reaction.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, you’re trying to blame others for your own deficiencies. You are against truth, reality, and science. You’re only here to fake it. You make things up, insult, and falsely accuse others. You belong to a false religion and you’re looking for false idols.

            You can’t answer the simple problem you presented: What is the inside temperature of a closed car after a full day in YOUR sunlight of 170 W/m^2?

            You can’t provide a valid technical reference that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface will heat it to 325K. You can’t support your claims.

            You’re a complete phony, and you only have yourself to blame.

            Now, spam away. That’s all you’ve got.

        • Norman says:

          Swneson

          You continue to post your mantra over and over (loop paralysis) “For example, the reality that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. Yet you have never proven this point or given any evidence to support it and you think repeating the same information thousands of times is science. Why?

          Swenson, as stupid as I believe Clint R to be, you are a few levels below him. At least he accepts the Sun warms the surface of the Earth so as long as the Sun shines the surface does not continue cooling for 4.5 billion years.

          The solid surface is thought to have formed a few hundred million years after the molten state and then it quit cooling being warmed by the Sun for the last 4 billion years.

          You maybe quit having to be so braindead dumb. Anyone who can make Clint R seem somewhat thoughtful is a real sorry person.

          Maybe when you show some evidence that the Earth surface has cooled for 4.5 billion years someone might consider the contents of your posts.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman is obsessed with me.

            That’s good. Maybe it will keep him away from false idols. He needs to be around reality as much as he can.

          • Willard says:

            You’re not Mike Flynn, Pup, and France is Bacon.

            Please stop trolling.

          • Swenson says:

            Dimwitted Norman,

            You even wrote –

            “The solid surface is thought to have formed a few hundred million years after the molten state and then it quit cooling being warmed by the Sun for the last 4 billion years.”

            The surface now is no longer molten. It is at a lower temperature. This is called cooling.

            If you don’t accept that the majority of the interior is still hot enough to glow, fair enough, but you are rejecting reality.

            At present, the surface is losing energy at a rate of about 44 TW. That is also called cooling – more energy out than in.

            Even SkyDragons admit that the Sun alone cannot heat the surface to more than 255 K!

            And yet, it is hotter than that. Obviously, still cooling – unless you are stupid enough to believe that the GHE could not stop the Earth’s surface magically cooling to 255 K, and then allowing it to heat up to its present temperature – by more magic, of course!

            Believe as you wish, dummy. You can’t even describe the thing you claim to believe in – the GHE.

            Try harder.

          • Swenson says:

            Weird Wee Willy,

            “Youre not Mike Flynn, Pup, and France is Bacon.”

            Talking in tongues, are you Willard?

            What about trying to clearly state what you think think the GHE is?

            Give us all a good laugh!

          • Norman says:

            Swenson

            You make more declarations with no support. Where is your evidence the surface is cooling and at what rate?

            The surface had liquid water on it for billions of years. If it was cooling even at the rate of 1 F every million years that would mean the water would all be frozen.

            You just babble about like a know-nothing. When you produce data then waste my time with your endless nonsens.

            The Sun warms the surface it maintains it at livable temperatures. It has not cooled or warmed significantly in billions of years. It might go up or down a few C but shows no long term cooling.

          • Swenson says:

            Norman,

            OK, if you want to believe the interior of the planet is not so hot that it is actually glowing, go for it!

            You are free to believe that the universe was created a femtosecond ago, if you wish.

            I don’t.

          • Norman says:

            Swenson

            You are not even rational. Hard to communicate with an irrational poster. I am NOT talking about the Earth core! I am talking only about the surface that is primarily solar heated and has remained in the liveable zone of temperature for billions of years. Surface temp has gone up and down over the eons but only a few degrees C. The surface has NOT continued to cool for billions of years. Please refrain from posting until you are able to produce rational thought!

          • Clint R says:

            “I am talking only about the surface that is primarily solar heated…”

            Norman, YOUR solar heating is only based on 170 W/m^2. That is an S/B temperature way below freezing — 234K, -39°C, -39°F.

            See how confused you are?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            France is Bacon:

            https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/france-is-bacon

            Try not to be too dumb.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…the quotes I offered above are from Craig Bohren, an atmospheric physicist who also has a masters degree in nuclear physics. All I added, wrt Bohren, was…

        “A scientist with integrity, like Roy and John Christy of UAH. Few, and far between”.

  60. Gordon Robertson says:

    norman…”I believe Claes Johnson is the one who came up with the untested opinion that a hot object cannot absorb IR from a colder one”.

    ***

    That was just common sense, backed by quantum theory. Anyone with any sense knows heat cannot be transferred, by its own means, from a colder object to a hotter object.

    Johnson’s real contribution is way beyond anything you’ll ever understand. He took Planck’s theory, based on statistical inference and quantum theory and reproduced it using Newtonian physics. He proved there is nothing special about quantum theory that cannot be reproduced using Newtonian mechanics.

    In the end, we will likely discover that physics at the quantum level is wrong and that Newtonian physics has been right all along. I say that because Bohr went out on a limb when he limited electrons to discrete quantum levels. No one has ever proved it even though as Feynman claimed, it works but no one knows why.

    I don’t think we should accept any theories in physics till we at least discover what energy is.

    Johnson knows all about blackbody theory and the 2nd law, you should try reading him sometime with an open mind.

    • Swenson says:

      Gordon,

      You wrote – “I say that because Bohr went out on a limb when he limited electrons to discrete quantum levels.”

      Bohr was talking about excitation, I believe, which is not inconsistent with quantum electrodynamics, as espoused by Feynman.

      Generally, when a photon interacts with an electron, the momentum of the photon, (which has no resting mass), may be totally or partially absorbed by the electron.

      An example would be “heat” causing the momentum of individual atoms (and as a consequence, molecules), in a gas to increase, eventually perceived as an increase in the temperature of the gas.

      Electrons do not “shift” “from one “orbit” to another, without photons having a sufficient quantum of energy, momentum, whatever you want to call it, to cause this “shift”. It all sounds a bit weird, I suppose, but Nature is that way.

      If the weirdness is supported by experiment, I accept it. Others may form their own view, of course.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      He is not as intelligent as you believe him to be. He is a crackpot. and really does not know at all what he is talking about.

      Heat will not transfer but energy will. The hotter the cold object is that a hotter object radiates to the less heat the object will radiate. This is experimentally verified reality that is applied.

      Claes Johnson is a crackpot idea that is NOT supported by anything but his inflated ego. He has no experiment to verify or prove any of his declarations. He is like Gary Novak, just makes up stuff and has followers who blindly give him praise even though he has done nothing praiseworthy except lead a couple people, like you, down the wrong road.

      The reality is Claes Johnson will not show quantum level physics wrong, the reality is someday you will see how wrong his opinions are, they are just opinions since he has zero experimental evidence to support anything. He plays with math that is his skill. He is not an experimental scientist.

      • Swenson says:

        Norman,

        You wrote-

        “The hotter the cold object is that a hotter object radiates to the less heat the object will radiate..

        Not according to real scientists –

        “Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.”

        Nothing about cold objects, as far as I can see.

        Keep dreaming.

        • Norman says:

          Swenson

          Maybe you need to get out of your turtle shell.

          Read more:

          Here

          https://engineeringlibrary.org/reference/radiant-heat-transfer-doe-handbook

          Take time to read it and it will provide the answer of how a cold object determines the heat flow from a hot object to it. Learn something and quit posting your nonsense.

          • Swenson says:

            Norman,

            You wrote-

            The hotter the cold object is that a hotter object radiates to the less heat the object will radiate..

            Not according to real scientists

            Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

            Nothing about cold objects, as far as I can see.

            Keep dreaming.

        • Norman says:

          Swenson

          So rather than read what is in the link you think it more intelligent to repeat an scientifically invalid point? Strange person you are.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, your link is pathetically unscientific. Maybe that’s why you’re so enamored with it.

            The link confuses “heat” with “energy”: All bodies above absolute zero temperature radiate some heat.

            Then, they try to subtract radiative fluxes!

            That’s the kind of nonsense that leads people to believe ice cubes can boil water. You should learn to stay away from such garbage websites.

          • Swenson says:

            Norman,

            You wrote-

            “The hotter the cold object is that a hotter object radiates to the less heat the object will radiate. . . ”

            Not according to real scientists –

            “Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.”

            Nothing about cold objects, as far as I can see.

            Keep dreaming, but rejecting reality won’t change it.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Quoting the SB law might not help you support the caricature of the Second Law from Sky Dragon cranks.

            Just a thought.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • Bindidon says:

        Let’s help the Ignoramus above with serious information, because he doesn’t understand at all what Norman wrote (or did very well but intentionally distorted the discussion).

        ” The hotter the cold object is that a hotter object radiates to the less heat the object will radiate. ”

        Very well, according to the real scientist Rudolf Clausius.

        He wrote in 1887:

        THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
        THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
        FIRST VOLUME


        SECTION XII.
        The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect

        1. Subject of the investigation.

        What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.

        *
        Of course, the one or the other stubborn denialist certainly will have no problem in inventing some pseudo-argument against even Clausius knowledge!

        • Clint R says:

          It gets really confusing for people that don’t understand thermodynamics. Then, you they have to also deal with translations of the common vernacular from about a century and a half ago.

          That’s why I always try to keep it simple.

          Instead of wasting time over the various confusing definitions of “heat”, just keep it simple. A “hot” object can “raise the temperature” of a colder object, but a “cold” object can NOT “raise the temperature” of a hotter object.

          Just using “raise the temperature” in place of “heat”, makes it all easier to understand.

          • Clint R says:

            And to clarify further, Swenson is correct, Norman is incorrect.

            An object emits based on its molecular structure and temperature, NOT its surroundings.

          • Bindidon says:

            Thus, Clausius did not understand anything of what he was writing about.

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            You wrote –

            “Thus, Clausius did not understand anything of what he was writing about.”

            No, you don’t understand Clausius, nor much else. For example, you probably don’t understand –

            “Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.”

            Nothing about other bodies or Clausius.

            Maybe you should stick to dissecting the past to predict the future, and leave physics to others.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “a “cold” object can NOT “raise the temperature” of a hotter object.”

            So how would your ‘simple’ proposal deal with the following scenario? On a cold winter day, my hands (warm objects) are not as warm as I wish. On the cold ground I see a single mitten (a cold object). A few minutes after putting on the one mitten, the one hand is warmer. The only difference between the hands is the addition of a cold object (which always remains colder than the skin).

            I suspect if you asked a bunch of random people what ‘raised the temperature’ of the hand …
            a) the most common answer would simply be “the mitten”.
            b) a few would say something like ‘the circulating blood raised the temperature of the hand; the mitten just reduced the heat loss’.
            c) none would say ‘the mitten can NOT raise the temperature; the warm blood, and warm blood alone, raised the temperature.’

            So what does Clint say? a, b, or c? (Or something else that requires a long, subtle discourse?)

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Swenson says: “Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

            Nothing about other bodies or Clausius.”

            Yes. The power EMITTED FROM a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Independent of the surroundings.

            However there is also power ABSORBED BY the surface. Which necessarily involves other bodies. Some bodies might be warmer than the surface; some might be cooler. All are emitting their own radiation based on their own temperature; some of which reaches and is absorbed by the surface.

            The net heat flow is a function of both the temperature of a surface and the temperature of all the surroundings objects.

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts, your “mitten” nonsense is just another example of how little you understand about physics.

            The heat flow is from your hand to the mitten to the atmosphere. At no time is there heat flow from the mitten to your hand. Putting on a mitten is NOT an example of “cold” warming “hot”. It’s an example of your incompetence.

            What will you try next?

          • Nate says:

            “Putting on an ‘GHG filled atmosphere’ is NOT an example of ‘cold’ warming ‘hot’.”

            Yet, like the cold hand, the Earth surface got warmer.

            Your own logic works here.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “At no time is there heat flow from the mitten to your hand. ”

            Yes! Just like at no time is there heat flow from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface.

            Yet the impact of the cooler mitten results in a warmer hand. Just like the impact of the cooler atmosphere results in a warmer surface. Both reduce the heat outward flow by replacing VERY cold surroundings (cold winter air; cold outer space) with SLIGHTLY cold surroundings (cool mitten; cool air). Cool objects have an impact on warmer objects. The IR radiation from the atmosphere is PART of the energy input to the surface, and it part of the equation for finding the surface temperature.

            That, in a nutshell, is the Greenhouse Effect.

          • Willard says:

            It always ends up being about the meaning of the word “warming,” isn’t it?

          • Nate says:

            The regulars here have surely seen these simple concepts explained dozens of times by now. And have surely seen references to the laws of physics that support these concepts… for years.

            It would seem to require either superhuman effort or supreme stupidity to STILL not grasp these really simple ideas by now.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, Tim, everyone understands that you guys think of the GHE as radiative planetary insulation.

          • Nate says:

            And the supreme effort to evade understanding never ceases…

          • Nate says:

            ” you guys think of the GHE as radiative planetary insulation.”

            When a material does everything that insulation does, when it meets the definition of insulation, then yes indeed it is acting as insulation.

            People who object to this straightforward application of heat transfer principles, need to show actual reasons for their objection, beyond just feelings and beliefs.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …Tim, everyone understands that you guys think of the GHE as radiative planetary insulation.

          • Nate says:

            Im not Tim. And you still don’t offer any science to counter the atmospheric insulation effect of GHG.

            Where is the argument then? It seems there is not any.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …everyone understands that you guys think of the GHE as radiative planetary insulation.

        • Bindidon says:

          I repeat for the Pseudoskeptic de service

          ” Of course, the one or the other stubborn denialist certainly will have no problem in inventing some pseudo-argument against even Clausius knowledge! ”

          And it happened exactly as expected!

          • Clint R says:

            Thanks for the ineffective flak, Bin. I always appreciate the confirmation that I’m over the target.

            Have you found a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, yet?

            There’s one out there, you know. Do you need a hint?

          • Bindidon says:

            Oh My God.

            I’m afraid I’ve actually found a workable model of orbital motion, but… with axial rotation instead.

            I’m sorry for being so obviously, stubbornly uncooperative.

          • Clint R says:

            Yeah, that’s what Earth does. You’re looking for “…without axial rotation”.

            Keep looking. It’s out there.

            (Hint: What’s the German word for “string”?)

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well….”

          ***

          That statement was made later in the book and aimed specifically at radiation. In the day of Clausius, it was believed that heat moved between bodies via radiation as heat rays. Therefore his statement about a double heat-exchange is wrong.

          Chapter XII…p.298 (310 of 390)

          “When two bodies are placed in a medium permeable to heat rays, they communicate heat to each other via radiation”.

          Then he quote Kircheoff on blackbody theory…

          “Kircheoff has extended the foregoing principle, by laying down that perfectly black bodies at equal temperature send out not only the same quantity of heat but also the same quantity of each class of ray”.

          Wrong!!! Blackbody theory is based on a faulty principle. Heat cannot move between bodies by radiation. Heat is always lost at the radiating body, and recreated in the target body. Neither heat is related to the other physically.

          We now know, thanks to Neils Bohr, circa 1913, how radiation works wrt to an apparent heat transfer. Neither Planck, Stefan, Boltzmann, nor Einstein, were privy to this information, and their assessment of heat transfer by radiation were all wrong as well.

          EM emitted from any body is emitted by electrons in atoms. It is also absorbed by electrons in atoms.

          THERE IS NO OTHER PARTICLE IN MATTER, OTHER THAN THE ELECTRON, CAN EMIT OR ABSORB EM RADIATION FROM AN AGGREGATION OF ATOMS.

          Talking about molecules emitting EM from some magical interface does not cut it. At the atomic level, electrons bond atoms into molecules and are responsible for all absorp-tion and emission of EM from said molecule.

          If you read further, Clausius stipulates that radiation must obey the 2nd law. It’s sad that no scientists of his time understood the real relationship between EM radiation and heat, otherwise, Clausius did a stellar job inventing the 2nd law, entropy, and giving the 1st law it U, for internal energy.

          Clausius was a brilliant scientist and I feel badly that he lacked the knowledge produced by Bohr, 30+ years after his book was written.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            page 78 (92 0f 390)

            A passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body cannot take place without compensation.

            ***

            This is a restatement of his earlier definition of the 2nd law. In the original, he said that heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body. When he wrote that he followed it by a paragraph explaining what he meant by ‘by its own means’. He explained that phrase as a requirement for some kind of compensation if heat was to be transferred from cold to hot.

            I recently posted an explanation of an air conditioner, which does just that. The compensation requires external power, a compressor, a special gas that can be easily compressed, two types of radiators, and an expansion valve. One would hardly expect to find such compensation in the atmosphere.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            It would help if you read the works of Clausius objectively rather than cherry picking certain phrases. If you really understood what he was trying to say, you might even understand heat and its relation to work.

            Everything to need is in that book, with the exception of his statement about heat flowing through space as heat rays.

          • Bindidon says:

            Robertson

            Your competence concerning the work Rudolf Clausius is exactly equal to your competence concerning the processing of climate data: ZERO.

            You can write thousand lines of your usual contrarian trash: it will be ignored.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…you are too stupid to understand the brilliant work of a fellow German so I’ll take your insult as non sequitur argument.

            You don’t even understand Meier, who talked about libration, which you mistook for rotation.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            What EMR does with an electron is that, if the energy in correct, will move an electron to a higher orbital and it will gain potential energy and lose kinetic energy. It will be farther away from the proton nucleus and there will energy in the charge separation. It is the separation of charges that EMR does be it electron and proton or two dipoles.

            I know you are not able to understand molecular science no matter how many times people explain it to you.

            If you have a positive charge (macro) and a negative charge connected by a spring and you stretch the spring (add energy like EMR does to a molecule, it increases the charge separation and causes a higher vibrational state for the molecule) then let go the plus and minus charge will move closer and further apart, oscillate, and in so doing will produce an electromagnetic effect based upon the frequency of the oscillation.

            In molecules the positive end and the negative end oscillate at a certain frequency. In the ground state oscillation no EMR is emitted. When IR is in the area of the charged molecule it causes the vibration to a higher state and is absorbed or converted from one form (EMR) into another increased molecular vibrations.

            It is very well established science even to the point of calculating the frequency of different molecules. A whole field of science uses molecular vibrations to determine what a material is made of.

            You need to read up on it and try to understand it. So far you see unable to “get it” but keep researching. Maybe some article will explain it in a way your mind can understand.

            This is the actual science.
            https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/virttxtjml/spectrpy/infrared/infrared.htm

            Read from the link: “Photon energies associated with this part of the infrared (from 1 to 15 kcal/mole) are not large enough to excite electrons, but may induce vibrational excitation of covalently bonded atoms and groups.”

            The electrons do not transition when a molecule absorbs IR. The molecular vibration increases. Read more and learn. If this one does not do it for you keep reading. There is a wealth of information out their on exactly what molecular vibrations are. At this time you do not understand them. Strong suggestion is research the topic.

            https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Spectroscopy/Vibrational_Spectroscopy/Infrared_Spectroscopy/Infrared_Spectroscopy#:~:text=Molecular%20vibrational%20frequencies%20lie%20in,is%20measured%20at%20each%20frequency.

            Note the animations of molecular vibrations. The mass part of atoms composing the molecule (the nucleus) moves with respect to each other. Oscillating closer and farther away and having charged poles this produces an EMR wave that can leave the molecule when the molecule goes from a higher vibrational state to a lower one. No electron transitions in this case.

          • Bindidon says:

            ” binny… you are too stupid to understand the brilliant work of a fellow German so Ill take your insult as non sequitur argument. ”

            Perfect.

            Robertson knows everything better than Clausius, Kirchhoff, Planck, Einstein…

            *
            ” You dont even understand Meier, who talked about libration, which you mistook for rotation. ”

            Perfect too!

            Simply because it confirms what I wrote at the end of many comments correcting Robertson’s egomaniac trash, namely that when he doesn’t reply them, you can then be sure that he will one day silently restart his trash from scratch, quite as if no one did ever correct him.

            Though it makes no sense at all, as he will endlessly ignore it again and again, I repeat for the umpteenth time that Mayer’s work written in 1750 was entitled

            ” Treatise about Moon’s rotation about its axis ”

            and that it had nothing at all to do with libration.

            Mayers treatise contains the word ‘Libration’ ONLY ONCE:

            https://books.google.de/books?jtp=52&id=EJqRdI1nLI4C&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Libration&f=false

            Original text in 1750 German:
            ” Endlich kam Dominicus Cassini auf die rechte Spur. Es fiel ihm ein, diese Erscheinung, die man bis dahin die Libration des Monds nennte, durch die Umwälzung des Monds um seine Axe zu erklären; … ”

            Translation:

            Finally Dominicus Cassini got on the right track. It occurred to him to explain this phenomenon, which until then had been called the libration of the Moon, by the revolution of the Moon about its axis; …

            *
            And Mayer did very well compute Moon’s rotation period, as well as the inclination of Moon’s rotation axis with respect to both the Ecliptic and Moon’s orbit around Earth; both with an incredible precision, given his primitive observational tools.

            No one can change that, and all those poor Pseudo-skeptics babbling about ‘astrology’ last of all.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            By the way, the nucleus can emit and absorb radiation.

            “THERE IS NO OTHER PARTICLE IN MATTER, OTHER THAN THE ELECTRON, CAN EMIT OR ABSORB EM RADIATION FROM AN AGGREGATION OF ATOMS.”

            So dispense with the all caps, especially when you don’t know what you are talking about.

        • Nate says:

          “It gets really confusing for people that dont understand thermodynamics?

          Yep, that is apparent in many of your posts. You need to actually find a good Thermo book, or online lecture notes.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            Do you agree with this –

            “Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.”

            Notice that no reference is made to surface properties, nor to the radiation emitted being affected by other bodies.

            If you wish to challenge the SB law, you might need to invent some new SkyDragon physics.

            Good luck.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…if your post is aimed at me, I have the book written by the scientist who invented the 2nd law and stated it in words. He also stated the definition of entropy and added the U term to the 1st law.

            He define U in a different manner than it is defined today. Many modernists are content with the word energy for internal energy. Clausius defined U as internal heat + internal work, which it is. That means U is two different types of energy, the work related to the vibration of atoms and the heat which controls the amount of vibration. You won’t see that in modern texts because they are far too stupid to understand the simplicity in it.

            If you want to go on some modern wannabees words written in modern text, go for it. It does not undo, in any way, the original works of Clausius, and his very clear statements regarding the 2nd law.

            Unfortunately, as I have written, in the day of Clausius, radiation and its relation to heat was not understood. The same does not apply to heat and the 2nd law, or to entropy. Both still apply as written despite the attempts to redefine them and heat, based on thought experiments.

          • Nate says:

            “Do you agree with this

            ‘Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.'”

            Yep.

            “Notice that no reference is made to surface properties, nor to the radiation emitted being affected by other bodies.”

            Yep

            Now do you agree with the radiative heat transfer law?

            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/bodrad.html

            Notice that the heat loss from a body is proportional to the difference in the fourth power of Thot (the body) and Tcold (the surroundings.

          • Nate says:

            “You wont see that in modern texts because they are far too stupid to understand the simplicity in it.”

            Not sure what point you are trying to make, Gordon, but I think its safe to say that Modern Thermodynamics texts are not stupid.

            Your belief that they must be stupid is telling us that you havent read them and wouldnt understand them in any case, and are just ranting.

          • Nate says:

            Notice how we have answers for Swenson. But when he is asked a similarly straightforward question, he has no answers, and heads for the hills.

            Why? What is he afraid of? Is he afraid that honestly answering such questions will expose his erroneous thinking?

      • D'ug Cott'n says:

        Johnson has been PROVED correct.

        For a very detailed explanation read this peer-reviewed paper:

        https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2883465

        Just like Josef Loschmidt, Johnson was ahead of his time and one of the most brilliant scientists of all time.

        I’m not interested in assertive statements without proof or citation.

  61. Bindidon says:

    SC25, SILSO’s Sun Spot Number

    Here, still sidewaysing strong…

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yu9G_SqfDMF3upJnOh_EmW6RLjHeuA5a/view

    … and here, ‘hyperbolically’ reaching for the stars :- )

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/11OkUpeJ4K1Dn-_nPrfrZDTapzBTqhGCv/view

    It’s the same data of course, but a third order polynomial fit doesn’t tell you the same as does a simple running mean.

    • RLH says:

      “a simple running mean”

      has considerable distortions. Or do you not agree with Vaughan Pratt on this?

      • Bindidon says:

        ” Or do you not agree with Vaughan Pratt on this? ”

        You are still dodging and trying to manipulate the blog about me allegedly disagreeing with Pratt, though it is clear I don’t.

        *
        And YOU, Linsley Hood, keep stalking and stalking me on that, but were not able to show us even one single example of these ‘distortions’.

        Conversely, I recall to have posted here several months ago an example of a time series (probably UAH or MEI) for which the raw data, a simple self-made running mean, the Savitzky-Golay smoothing and the CTRM show the same linear estimate: zero dot zero distortion.

        *
        Keep away with your boring, opinionated stuff, and try to prove your allegations with real examples, instead of disturbing me – and above all the discussions I’m involved in – with your endless urging in putting yourself in front of everything.

  62. Swenson says:

    Earlier, Norman acknowledged that the Earth’s surface was no longer molten – that it has cooled, notwithstanding any nonsensical GHE, nor anything else.

    Norman then claims that after cooling to below current temperatures (in spite of the GHE, of course), it has then magically warmed and cooled due to the GHE!

    Marvellous thing, the GHE. Allows a molten surface to cool to below present temperatures, and then causes the surface temperature to bob up and down like a yo-yo!

    SkyDragon physics at its finest.

    Norman also employs SkyDragon physics which allows a body with a glowing interior, to cool without the surface changing temperature. Even worse, he claims the surface temperature can go up and down, while subjected to a constant external heat source! Magical indeed.

    No wonder that nobody can even describe this amazing GHE, much less devise an experiment to demonstrate its magical effects – both heating and cooling.

    About as real as the gravitothermal effect, or heat creep.

    • Norman says:

      Swenson

      More irrational pointless posting from you. What gives? Why do you think you need to post this complete illogical nonsense.

      I did not claim the Earth surface warms and cools because of GHE, there are many reasons for surface temperature variation. The Sun itself varies, albedo can change, tilt of the Earth cycles which seem to affect surface temperature, GHG can change surface temperature.

      Yes the Earth’s surface temperature has “bobbed up and down” over eons. Not sure what weed you smoke but it is really bad for your brain. Do us all a favor and quit the wacky tobacco before posting.

      https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/homo/images/Pleistocene_temp_change_graph.gif

      You can also look at Roy’s monthly global temperature graphs. Even in your stoned reality you should see clearly that the global temperature goes up and down and for multiple reasons. A large volcano can cause some cooling, an El Nino can cause some warming.

      And yes, a really hot core can cool even with a constant surface temperature as long as the core is hotter than the surface. Like I said when you make such irrational and illogical points the solution would be quit getting high and posting on blogs. You are not one of those that gets more intelligent high, only you think you are. Put down the weed and sober up and then reread your posts and you might no believe how stupid they sound to a rational mind.

      • Swenson says:

        Norman,

        You wrote –

        “I did not claim the Earth surface warms and cools because of GHE, there are many reasons for surface temperature variation. The Sun itself varies, albedo can change, tilt of the Earth cycles which seem to affect surface temperature, GHG can change surface temperature.”

        Well, at least you now acknowledge that the GHE has no effect on surface temperatures, although maybe you will now claim that you didn’t really mean to write what you wrote.

        Just saying that “GHG can change surface temperatures.” is just SkyDragon nothingness.

        Change up or down? When? Where? Why? How much?

        You can’t say, can you? That’s because you are starting to realise that the GHE nonsense doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

        For a start, tell us what the minimum surface dropped to, after cooling from the molten state? At present, recorded minimum surface temperature is around -90 C. If you are claiming that the surface was less than this in the past (and it had to be, if you claim subsequent warming and cooling occurred), then what circumstances caused this occurrence?

        Feel free to repeat the nonsensical fantasies of Carl Sagan, who convinced himself that ice exposed to full tropical sunlight would not melt! One idiot appealing to the authority of another idiot.

        Or maybe you could repeat the calculations of Lord Kelvin, who calculated the age of the Earth to be 40 million years at most. Lord Kelvin was a brilliant physicist (after whom the Kelvin was named), but he was wrong, and his calculations, although mathematically correct, were based on incorrect assumptions. Just like Sagan and others.

        You can find out for yourself why Kelvin, Sagan, and others fell into the trap that they did.

        So, what temperature did the surface fall to, and why did neither the GHE nor GHGs manage to prevent it?

        No answer? Colour me unsurprised – you are an ignorant nitwit.

        • Norman says:

          Swenson

          I guess you did not take my advice. Looks like your really inhaled the smoke on the latest post. You post like a stoner.

          Not much sense in anything more just rambling nonsense strung together.

          It really does not matter how I respond to you. You are so high that you would not rationally attempt to understand it.

          • Swenson says:

            Norman,

            You wrote

            I did not claim the Earth surface warms and cools because of GHE, there are many reasons for surface temperature variation. The Sun itself varies, albedo can change, tilt of the Earth cycles which seem to affect surface temperature, GHG can change surface temperature.

            Well, at least you now acknowledge that the GHE has no effect on surface temperatures, although maybe you will now claim that you didnt really mean to write what you wrote.

            Just saying that GHG can change surface temperatures. is just SkyDragon nothingness.

            Change up or down? When? Where? Why? How much?

            You cant say, can you? Thats because you are starting to realise that the GHE nonsense doesnt stand up to scrutiny.

            For a start, tell us what the minimum surface dropped to, after cooling from the molten state? At present, recorded minimum surface temperature is around -90 C. If you are claiming that the surface was less than this in the past (and it had to be, if you claim subsequent warming and cooling occurred), then what circumstances caused this occurrence?

            Feel free to repeat the nonsensical fantasies of Carl Sagan, who convinced himself that ice exposed to full tropical sunlight would not melt! One idiot appealing to the authority of another idiot.

            Or maybe you could repeat the calculations of Lord Kelvin, who calculated the age of the Earth to be 40 million years at most. Lord Kelvin was a brilliant physicist (after whom the Kelvin was named), but he was wrong, and his calculations, although mathematically correct, were based on incorrect assumptions. Just like Sagan and others.

            You can find out for yourself why Kelvin, Sagan, and others fell into the trap that they did.

            So, what temperature did the surface fall to, and why did neither the GHE nor GHGs manage to prevent it?

            No answer?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            You spammed again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  63. Gordon Robertson says:

    swenson…”Electrons do not shift from one orbit to another, without photons having a sufficient quantum of energy, momentum, whatever you want to call it, to cause this shift. It all sounds a bit weird, I suppose, but Nature is that way.

    If the weirdness is supported by experiment, I accept it. Others may form their own view, of course”.

    ***

    That’s right, according to Bohr. The frequency of the absorbed quantum must match the angular frequency of the electron. Then it gains KE and jumps up a level, or more.

    In hydrogen, the absorp-tion bands and emission bands are found at discrete frequency/wavelengths depending on how many energy levels were jumped either way. The theory makes sense in that regard but does it work that way in actuality?

    It is a bit too weird. If I recall correctly, in electrodynamics, it was predicted that an electron would lose momentum and be drawn into the nucleus. However, the Moon and other planetary bodies don’t lose momentum if they have the correct momentum for their orbit.

    It’s not only EM that can cause a transition, heat can do it as well. When a mas is heated, electrons jump en masse to higher energy levels. If you apply too much heat at too high a temperature, the electrons will jump right out of orbit and the mass will break down.

    I don’t pretend to be an expert on this, I am barely scratching the surface. It does not interest me to pursue the mathematical description, a la Schrodinger. I have done the math in engineering related to eigenvalues, which related quantum theory is about. The energy levels supposedly occupied by electrons are eigenvalues generated by the solution to a differential equation describing the wave function of an electron orbiting a nucleus at a certain radius.

    I am not interested because I really don’t think that’s really going on. I don’t think electrons conveniently reside at discrete quantum levels from the nucleus and transition with no time element involved. That is a bit too weird.

    Feynman noted that the theory works but that no one knows why.

  64. Clint R says:

    I was helping poor Bindidon with his German upthread, and it reminded me of some recent rumors.

    Germany has been shutting down both coal-fired and nuclear power plants in a effort to “go green” (commit suicide). But Russia has cut off the gas supply. So now, in a panic, German is re-starting both coal-fired and nuclear plants.

    Problem is, they have also been closing coal mines. So to get more coal, they are going after the shallow lignite, which can be quickly strip-mined. But, the area is covered in wind turbines, which are not supplying significant energy. So the wind turbines are coming down so the coal can be mined!

    Probably just a rumor….

    https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Germany-Is-Dismantling-A-Wind-Farm-To-Make-Way-For-A-Coal-Mine.html

    • Swenson says:

      Clint,

      No problem. From Penn U –

      “In Europe, some blades are simply burned as fuel in power plants. This is not ideal as the blades have low energy content, . . . ”

      Probably even lower than the lignite currently being used to produce electricity.

      It could be worse, I suppose. The Drax power plant in the UK cuts down old growth forests in Canada, turns the trees into small pieces of wood, ships them to the UK, and burns them to produce “green electricity”. It shows the wondrous magical powers of a six billion pound subsidy – burning subsidised old forest wood is good, burning unsubsidised plantation wood is evil.

      I must admit, if the light comes on when I want it to, at a price I can afford, I’ll leave the ethical hand-wringing to the experts in such matters.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        The sentences that follow read:

        “One promising alternative is recycling the blades for use as a raw material in cement manufacturing. In December 2020, General Electric Renewable Energy signed an agreement with Veolia to recycle blades removed from its onshore turbines in the U.S. using such a process.”

        https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-insights/wind-turbine-blades-options-at-end-of-life

        You probly just forgot.

        • Swenson says:

          Willard,

          I see you are not disagreeing with anything I quoted.

          Waste your time with pointless attempts at trolling, and demonstrating your mutilation of the English language. Are you trying to look clever by acting stupidly?

          At least, everybody can see that even you can find what I quoted, without me having to provide a link. Others might also want to read the reference in full, and form their own views.

          You don’t seem to have views of your own. Lacking moral fibre, perhaps?

          Carry on pointlessly trolling.

          [chuckle]

          • Willard says:

            What are you braying about, Mike?

          • Swenson says:

            Willard,

            I see you are not disagreeing with anything I quoted.

            Waste your time with pointless attempts at trolling, and demonstrating your mutilation of the English language. Are you trying to look clever by acting stupidly?

            At least, everybody can see that even you can find what I quoted, without me having to provide a link. Others might also want to read the reference in full, and form their own views.

            You dont seem to have views of your own. Lacking moral fibre, perhaps?

            Carry on pointlessly trolling.

            [chuckle]

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            I see you are spamming again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  65. Gordon Robertson says:

    A further note.

    Another reason it all appears to be too weird is that quantum theory as proposed by Planck, where he introduced his mysterious ‘h’ value, has never been proved by experiment. How can it be proved if no one can peer into matter to see what’s going on?

    It was known before Bohr’s 1913 hypothesis that hydrogen emitted and absorbed at known discrete frequencies, and that has been verified over and over by experiment. The explanation was left till Bohr offered his hypothesis.

    Therefore Planck’s ‘theory’ has been verified but no one knows what was verified because no one has ever seen atoms work at the atomic level. The proof is all indirect and subject to being disproved.

    To complicate matters, Bohr’s theory applies only to hydrogen, with one proton in the nucleus and one electron orbiting it. That means the electron has a known radius from the nucleus in it’s unexcited ground state. No one has ever measured that distance directly, it is a ‘known’, but unproved.

    Matter gets far more complex as more electrons are added with more protons in the nucleus along with neutrons to form other elements. Helium has two protons and two electrons, so scientists decided the orbit occupied by the electron in hydrogen could accommodate one more electron, but that’s it, no more electrons in that orbital level.

    For the elements lithium through neon, a new orbital is added that can take 8 electrons. Then a new orbital is added for sodium and beyond which can take 18 electrons. At the end of the periodic table columns, the elements are all inert, meaning their orbital shells are full and the tendency for them to react with other elements is absent.

    The orbitals with 8 and 18 electrons are broken in sub-shells (sub-orbitals). When all 18 electron positions are filled, a new orbital is created, and so on.

    How all these electrons are supposed to orbit in 3D orbits with different radii for each orbit is beyond me.

    But wait. Each one of these new orbital levels has its own ground state and the electrons in those orbitals can move to higher orbital levels when they absorb a quantum or some heat.

    To account for that, 4 new properties were added to each orbital, one of them being electron spin. Since that value only has a + or – value it is not a reference to an electron spinning on an axis but is merely a value to bring the extra electrons in elements beyond hydrogen into step with Bohr’s simpler theory.

    It’s all a bit too weird but it works in fields like chemistry where scientists are trying to understand molecular shapes and why they differ based on their construction from atoms bonded together by electrons.

    The whole theory could be wrong but one hopes a good part of it is right. It does explain clearly why heat can never be transferred from cold to hot by its own means. I suspect that one day we will discover that something entirely different is going on.

    One thing I do know, from experience, is that something real and physical represents an electron. While living abroad in the past, I stupidly picked up a hot relay with my thumb over the hot contacts, with 240 volts across them. It burned a two neat little black hols in my skin but there was no streak of black along my skin as one might expect. It seems the electrons went in one black hole, through a sub-layer, and back out through another.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      I have a video for you to watch.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8DQSM-b2cc

      This lady explains quite well what your problem is with established science and why that is a long term problem. Hope you check it out. May be useful to you. She is quite an intellect.

    • Swenson says:

      Gordon,

      You wrote –

      “How all these electrons are supposed to orbit in 3D orbits with different radii for each orbit is beyond me.”

      Nobody really knows, but extremely precise experiments indicate that electrons are weird. Even something as “large” as an electron behaves differently if you “look” at it while it’s doing its thing in a double slit experiment.

      From Hitachi Research –

      “Whenever electrons are observed, they are always detected as individual particles. When accumulated, however, interference fringes are formed. Please recall that at any one instant there was at most one electron in the microscope. We have reached a conclusion which is far from what our common sense tells us.”

      Throw your common sense out the window, accept reality, and let someone else worry about things like the fermion sign problem! Leave me out of it, it’s beyond me!

    • Bindidon says:

      ” Another reason it all appears to be too weird is that quantum theory as proposed by Planck, where he introduced his mysterious h value, has never been proved by experiment. How can it be proved if no one can peer into matter to see whats going on? ”

      Typical pseudo-scientific, contrarian blah blah posted by a guy who always appeals to what he personally considers be a valuable authority, but at the same time rejects everything what doesn’t fit his egomaniac narrative as ‘appeal to authority’.

      What a perverse mixture of schizophrenia and paranoia.

      *
      Here is one of the most important experimental fields proving quantum theory, the entanglement of quanta:

      https://scitechdaily.com/first-experimental-proof-that-quantum-entanglement-is-real/

      The very first of these experiments was proposed and executed by Caltech alumnus John Clauser (BS 64) in 1969 and 1972, respectively.

      His findings are based on Bells theorem, devised by CERN theorist John Bell.

      *
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

      *
      Robertson never believes anything that he dislikes. Thus he’ll never learn it.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        quantum entanglement is sci-fi.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        The guy who wrote the Caltech article is a poser and a liar. He said…

        “When scientists, including Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrdinger, first discovered the phenomenon of entanglement in the 1930s, they were perplexed. Disturbingly, entanglement required two separated particles to remain connected without being in direct contact. In fact, Einstein famously called entanglement spooky action at a distance, because the particles seemed to be communicating faster than the speed of light”.

        ***

        Neither Einstein nor Schrodinger wanted anything to do with entanglement theory. Einstein thought it was bs, and according to the article, so did Feynman. Schrodinger retired rather than get caught up in such sci-fi.

  66. Truth will prevail says:

    Wake up world!

    You are being fooled by the false claims about so-called radiative forcing which all boil down to saying the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not violated by the imagined heat transfer from cold to hot by radiation from water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane etc into the warmer surface. That law is violated because it only applies either to a single process (eg one-way passage of radiation) or a set of interacting thermodynamic systems. Look it up yourselves in Wikipedia under Laws of Thermodynamics. Nothing interacts with such radiation.

  67. Norman says:

    Truth will prevail

    As far as I have seen not one scientist is saying heat can transfer from cold to hot (at least not without work required, refrigeration).

    I think the false skeptics present GHE in this manner but the scientists do not. Some people on blogs may believe this and make such claims, that is not what is going on.

    Look at the Global energy budget graphs. The energy from the cold atmosphere is less than the emitted energy.

    This might help you understand. If you have two equal containers connected by pipe and isolated by a valve between them. In one you have air at pressure of 100 psi and in the other you have no pressure. You open the valve and air will rapidly flow to the other until the pressure equalizes between the two tank.

    As the secondary tank fills with air it gains pressure that pushes back on the first tank and slows down the air flow. The atmosphere acts like a radiant barrier slowing down the heat loss. It is not a violation of 2nd Law in any way.

    A more accurate analogy would be the first tank has a continuous supply of air from an external source. As it loses air it has it replaced.

    Now to make the analogy more fitting the two tanks are in a vacuum. The receiving tank has a small outlet to the vacuum so it will constantly lose air through the outlet as it is receiving air from the first container. The outlet to vacuum is small enough were the receiving container can build up some pressure.

    Now take two states. Have two equal pipes on the first tank. One going to the secondary tank the other straight to vacuum. If you open the valve to the vacuum the incoming air supply is too low and the pressure drops to 50 psi as the most the incoming air can build with the vacuum valve open. Closing the vacuum valve and going to the secondary the secondary builds enough back pressure so the incoming air supply will build the air pressure above 100 psi to a new level that matches how much air is leaving the secondary container.

    I am hoping I did not make the example to confusing but consider it in such a process. It might help or maybe it won’t.

    • Truth will prevail says:

      The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

       Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

    • Clint R says:

      Norman, your keyboard appears to have diarrhea, again.

      Maybe try some kerosene and a match….

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      norman…”The atmosphere acts like a radiant barrier slowing down the heat loss. It is not a violation of 2nd Law in any way”.

      ***

      That’s not the violation, Norman, it’s the other AGW theory that’s the problem, that radiation from GHGs in a colder atmosphere can transfer heat to a warmer surface that warmed them.

      Your theory from above is just as bad. You claimed ‘the atmosphere’ acts like a radiant barrier that slows down heat loss. However, the so-called barrier involves a trace gas, CO2 that makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Even with water vapour, over the entire atmosphere, the combo is only 0.31% of the total gas content.

      Newton’s law of cooling addresses this issue. It claims that the rate of heat dissipation of a surface is dependent on the difference in temperature between the surface and its environment.

      If the temperature of the atmosphere exceeded the temperature of the surface, heat dissipation from the surface would stop. Heat would then be transferred from the atmosphere to the surface. But…it would involved all gases in the atmosphere, which are 99% nitrogen and oxygen, and the main heat transfer would be via conduction.

      Why should it be any different with the atmosphere when the surface is warmer than the atmosphere? For Newton’s law to apply, the entire atmosphere must be considered, and that means the 99% of N2/O2 would govern the temperature. Also, radiation would have little to do with it since most surface heat would be conducted directly to the atmosphere.

      R. W. Wood addressed this problem as well. Noting that surface IR rapidly loses intensity due to the inverse square law, he doubted that surface radiation would have much effect beyond a few feet.

  68. Truth will prevail says:

    As in Wikipedia Talk page for Second Law of Thermodynamics where anyone may respond including yourself Norman if you think you can prove wrong anything in this comment on that page in Wikipedia:

    == Understanding the Second Law and the Clausius Statement ==

    The statement of the Second Law is correctly quoted in the article “Laws of Thermodynamics” as: “The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.” That is all that needs to be said, but one must understand that entropy is also affected by changes in any form of internal energy, not just kinetic energy which relates to temperature. For example, when ice melts, water vapor condenses, a ball rolls down a plank, fire burns, chemical or nuclear reactions take place – all are examples of the Second Law operating and increasing entropy. However when the above statement is followed by “A common corollary of the statement is that heat does not spontaneously pass from a colder body to a warmer body” we are restricting the process to one in which the only form of internal energy to change is kinetic energy. This is not what Clausius said: he just referred to some other change occuring, and that change does not have to be work (ie energy) being applied or added. Furthermore, the process does not have to be restricted to an isolated system provided that, if there are other thermodynamic systems changing then these have to be interacting ones if we are to consider the total sum of entropy and how that changes. For example, radiation from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface is a single one-way process without any other interacting thermodynamic systems, so it must obey the Second Law and thus cannot cause heat from cold to hot unless there are other changes.

    The key thing to understand is that the progress towards maximum entropy (sometimes called “Maximum Entropy Production” or MEP) involves unbalanced energy potentials reducing down to zero. For example, in a force field like gravity or centrifugal force (as in a vortex cooling tube) there can be a non-zero temperature gradient parallel to the direction of the force, eg radially in a vortex tube where the helical motion of gas moving down the tube creates colder gas in the central regions and hotter gas in the outer regions, ie a radial temperature gradient. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics operating. A similar gradient also develops in regard to density in the troposphere, and this also is a result of the Second Law because potential energy is involved. In the absence of other changes that Clausius talked about, let us consider a column of air in the troposphere and assume no phase change or reactions are taking place. This narrows us down to considering just the mean molecular kinetic energy (KE) and the mean molecular gravitational potential energy (PE) and, for there to be no unbalanced energy potentials at maximum entropy (ie thermodynamic equilibrium) then the sum (PE+KE) must be a constant at all altitudes, and so, since PE increases with altitude then KE must decrease, creating the temperature gradient we see in every planetary troposphere. Note that thermodynamic equilibrium does not always necessitate isothermal conditions, ie thermal equilibrium throughout. Both the density gradient and the temperature gradient are the one and the same state of thermodynamic equilibrium. The pressure gradient is a result thereof, not the cause because pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density by the Ideal Gas Law. This law does not imply, for example, that high pressure will maintain high temperatures. One final note: the state of thermodynamic equilibrium may never be reached in the troposphere, but the Second Law is still operating and creating a tendency for the system to move towards maximum entropy.

  69. Norman says:

    Gordon Robertson

    Do you think this person is lying?

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/american-fighter-ukraine-describes-pure-135157732.html

    I am sad the Republicans are losing interest to help Ukraine. If this evil force of nature is not stopped and put back in it cage where will it stop?

    Putin is a twisted sick mind that lies deceives and dishonors himself continuously. Why you support this monster only you know.

    Russia also has forces killing their own if they try to retreat. Old evil Stalin tactics. Nothing has changed in Russia, they are frozen in time and Putin is as evil and nasty as Stalin. What a sick human he is.

    • Clint R says:

      Norman, your knowledge of history is as confused as your knowledge of science.

      The Republicans are not the reason Putin invaded Ukraine. The effeminate Barack was in office when Putin invaded Crimea. Putin invaded no one when Trump was in office. When another effeminate Democrat took office, Putin invaded Ukraine.

      The question your cult should be asking is, “Which country is next?”

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        clint…”The question your cult should be asking is, Which country is next?”

        ***

        A serious problem developed when the former USSR broke up between 1985 and 1990. Countries like the Ukraine, dealing with weak Russian leadership, arbitrarily drew borders that cut off native Russians and trapped them in the Ukraine.

        The same occurred in Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Guess who will be next, unless they stop oppressing native Russians in their countries?

        I mean, would the US behave any differently if US citizens were trapped in Canada, and we were suppressing them? We in the West knew about the problems in eastern Ukraine and we ignored them. We assured Putin NATO would not expand beyond Germany and we lied. When we tried to get the Ukraine into NATO, Putin said nyet.

        I am not a naive supporter of Putin but I must give him some credit. He said he was trying to establish independent states in eastern Ukraine in which he was asked for help. He did nothing for 8 years during which time the Ukrainian government in Kyiv continued to send hooligans into the eastern states to suppress rebels. He tried to tell the world the hooligans were Nazi-based and we failed to listen. He was right.

        Finally, he said, enough is enough, and he sent his armies in to deal with them and to consolidate the states of pro-Russian Ukrainians. Naturally, we received utter propaganda, that the attack was unprovoked. BS. It had been provoked for 8 years, starting in 2014, when armed Ukrainian militants ousted a democratically-elected pro-Russian president.

        I don’t think Trump could have done anything since Russia has nuclear weapons. At least Trump had Putin’s ear and could have held dialogs with him, unlike the cretins we have dealing with him now.

        • theRealplastic says:

          Yes, GORDON. Putin (the dictator) loved Trump. Funny how that works. You are such an apologist bootlicking contrarian. Give your head a shake and maybe go for a walk, get some air.

        • Nate says:

          The national sovereignty of Ukraine was guaranteed by Russia in a 1990s treaty to give up their nukes. And yet now they are invaded, bombed, and threatened with nukes.

          Whatever Gordon argued about what Russia’s motives were before, is proven wrong, because they have now ANNEXED a vast swath of Ukrainian territory into mother Russia, and held sham elections, and not just in the East.

    • Truth will indeed Prevail says:

      And, Norman, when the surface temperature at some location is rising in calm conditions in the morning under thick cloud cover in winter (this implying there must be a net input of thermal energy) where is the required energy coming?

      You need to read about “Stimulated emission” in Wikipedia because you haven’t the vaguest idea as to how radiation works and when it does or does not have some or all of its electromagnetic energy converted to kinetic energy in a target, thus causing gas molecules to experience an increase in velocity.

      Instead, many photons merely cause excited electrons in the atoms of those molecules to drop back through one or more quantum energy states. (Do you even know what I’m talking about?) Thus an identical photon is emitted and the effect is just like scattering and, energy-wise, like reflection in that no thermal energy whatsoever goes into a warmer target due to radiation from a cooler source. Absolutely every photon leads to the emission of an identical photon with none of its energy speeding up whole molecules.

      • Swenson says:

        TwiP,

        You wrote –

        “Absolutely every photon leads to the emission of an identical photon with none of its energy speeding up whole molecules.”

        No it doesn’t. Absolutely not.

        If it did, matter at absolute zero would absorb a photon, emit an identical one, and never warm up. Which is silly, because matter at absolute zero actually warms up – no matter what photons it absorbs.

        Dream on.

        • Truth must Prevail says:

          I suggest you quote me in context thank you very much. I was clearly talking about radiation from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface. In inter-stellar Space everything with relatively small mass cools down to about 2.73K.

          (Large bodies will be hotter in their cores, due to their own gravity, but 2.73K at their surface.)

          So any radiation from a body at that temperature will obviously warm anything that is colder. Likewise anything that is warmer will warm things at 2.73K. So an equilibrium state has developed over billions of years.

          It’s not a good idea to assume I’m wrong on matters relating to planetary core and surface temperatures or radiation or the Second Law, and it’s even less advisable to express your assumptions publically and have to be corrected like this. But you never learn because you are unteachable.

          • Swenson says:

            Dug,

            I quoted you exactly.

            Wriggling and squirming after you have been caught out exposing your ignorance, just makes you appear delusional.

            If you say “I was clearly talking about radiation from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface. “, you just compound your error.

            I don’t need to assume you are wrong – if you say something that if factually incorrect, no assumption is needed. Don’t blame me because you are ignorant or delusional.

            Next thing you’ll be saying that gravity makes things hotter – water at a depth of 10 km, for instance! Or does water behave differently to rock or gas, when subject to gravity?

            No GHE, no gravitothermal effect, no heat creep. Just imaginary concepts, unsupported by experiment.

      • Norman says:

        Dug

        I should have known this was just one more of your many different posting identities. You just don’t give up with your unverified made up science. Pushing garbage does not make it science.

        You do know there is an isothermal level in the atmosphere above the circulating troposphere about 10 km before it warms as you go up from UV being absorbed by Ozone.

        Claes Johnson physics is just one man’s opinion and it is proven to be wrong by a long history of science. When you are able to understand real science then your posts might have value. Now you are just a crackpot pushing a dumb theory that one one believes.

        • Willard says:

          > Claes Johnson physics is just one mans opinion and it is proven to be wrong by a long history of science.

          That or a pyrgeometer:

          Vaughan has pointed out above, a IR thermometer held in one’s hand at 300 K can clearly absorb IR light from the atmosphere. So this observation is a clear-cut violation of Johnsons theory.

          https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98775

          • Swenson says:

            Wonky Wee Willy,

            That would be this pyrgeometer, would it –

            “A pyrgeometer is a device that measures near-surface infra-red radiation spectrum in the wavelength spectrum approximately from 4.5 μm to 100 μm.”

            You do realise, do you, that all matter above absolute zero continuously emits IR?

            Possibly not, judging from your bizarre comment. Maybe you believe that something you call the GHE (but can’t actually describe, of course) has miraculous powers – causing the Earth to cool, get hotter, cool, get hotter . . .

            Are you truly that retarded, or are you just pretending?

            Tee hee!

          • Willard says:

            Still braying, Mike?

            Go on.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      norman…there’s no point talking to you about the Ukraine till you open your mind and try to understand what is really going on there. Since 1929, Ukrainian nationalists have been trying to implement a system of white supremacy and fascism in the Ukraine. During WW II. one of their leaders, Stepan Bandera, worked with the Nazis to help exterminate Jews, Poles, and Russians. He was wanted at Nuremberg but escaped till the Russians put an end to him in 1959.

      There is pure evil operating in the Ukraine and it was there long before the Russians invaded. In 2014, armed nationalists, who still worship Bandera, ousted a democratically elected president in a coup, while the army and police stood by and did nothing. Worse still, the West stood by and enabled them.

      Until you get that there is no point talking about the Russians. Some Ukrainians are just as bad, or worse.

      Ask yourself this. Zelensky is a Jew. In 2016, a law was passed in the Ukraine to honour Bandera and other nationalists who fought with the Nazis, as Ukrainian heroes. The European Parliament refused to recognize the law. Those SOBS murdered Jews during WW II yet Zelensky has taken no action to rescind the law.

      Why??? It’s obvious he is afraid of the nationalists who have threatened any Ukrainian who supports anything they don’t condone.

      That’s the real problem in the Ukraine today …nationalists. Until they are neutralized, the Ukraine will never be a democracy.

  70. Zoey Jilian says:

    Pretty cool post! This is extremely useful information.
    http://www.roofingsurreybc.com

  71. You Dr ROY SPENCER must about face says:

    YOU, DR ROY SPENCER

    have a huge responsibility to help save the world from the enormous detrimental effects on the economy of all countries and the lives that are being lost due to this biggest scam in the history of the world, as the late Dr Tim Ball called it.

    You could have some influence if you dropped your stupid Lukewarm beliefs that are just scoring own goals.

    What I say in regard to the physics is correct.

    Even though you may be red faced if you about-face, you carry a heavy weight on your shoulders and, if you dont stop talking as if radiative forcing is a reality and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is to be ignored (in its role as it forms the gravitationally-induced tropospheric temperature gradient) and broken (with your false claim that back radiation warms us) then you are participating in promulgating that biggest hoax of all that is wasting trillions, causing poverty and, yes, killing people.

    Sleep well if you can because your action is nothing short of a crime against humanity. All you need to do is watch a 15 minute video and read the correct physics you know where. Im available (even by phone if you wish) to help you understand the physics.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      Stay in your lane! Only the oil companies can save the world, as they have before. Your whining and bitching are not needed. Just sit back and enjoy it.

      To wit:

      Chevron supports the Paris Agreement and is committed to addressing climate change while continuing to deliver energy that supports society.

      ExxonMobil is committed to providing affordable energy to support human progress while advancing effective solutions to address climate change. Our climate change risk management strategy consists of four components:
      1) Reducing emissions in its operations through avoidance and improving energy efficiencies.
      2) Providing products to help customers reduce their emissions.
      3) Developing and deploying scalable technologies to help decarbonize highest-emitting sectors.
      4) Proactively engaging on climate-related policy

      The Shell Group’s position on climate change has been a matter of public record for decades. We agree that action is needed now on climate change, we fully support the need for society to transition to a lower-carbon future and we’re committed to playing our part by addressing our own emissions and helping customers to reduce theirs. With this target, we will contribute to a net-zero world, where society stops adding to the total amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. This supports the more ambitious goal to tackle climate change laid out in the Paris Agreement: to limit the rise in average global temperature to 1.5C.

      The API (American Petroleum Institute) and its members commit to delivering solutions that reduce the risks of climate change while meeting society’s growing energy needs. We support global action that drives greenhouse gas emissions reductions and economic development.

  72. Prove me wrong and I will not post here says:

    I THROW DOWN THE GAUNTLET TO ROY SPENCER

    I will stop posting here Roy if …

    (1) You can produce a study showing that the main greenhouse gas water vapor at average concentrations warms the surface by most of 33 degrees (as claimed by climatologists) and consequently, should do much more warming where its concentration is 2 to 3 times the average. To prove you’re right please follow the methodology in my such study in the Appendix of my 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” which is at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605.

    (2) You can write a top post purporting to refute the actual content of that paper and allow me to respond to comments on that thread in which I will successfully refute your attempt using established physics.

    I am challenging Judith Curry and her friends likewise so you may wish to team up against me.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      See section on Water Vapor Feedback in Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans by Judith A. Curry and Peter J. Webster. ACADEMIC PRESS, 1999.

      Goodbye.

      • Physicist says:

        That begs the question. I am not interested in “feedback” (ie radiation measurements) because I have proved back radiation does not cause heat from the cold surface into the warmer surface.

        I suggest you read my papers and comments before writing off topic to me again – “off topic” in the sense that your response is totally irrelevant to my challenge and to my study of 30 years of real-world temperature and precipitation data in 15 randomly selected locations on three continents, that study showing wetter regions were cooler than drier ones.

        The CSIRO in Australia has produced no counter study ever since I challenged them more than six years ago.

        I am now planning a multi-billion dollar class action against the CSIRO by major companies whom I will represent in court probably late next year.

        As far as I can ascertain there is no such study anywhere, even though it is an obvious one to carry out to ascertain the effect of water vapor. No doubt some climatologist has done one, but they would not publish it as it is against the agenda of Morris Strong …

        ROY SPENCER and all should read …

        https://judithcurry.com/2022/10/22/an-interview-with-top-climate-scientist-bjorn-stevens/#comment-981623

        • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

          Physicist at 3:10 PM

          “I am not interested in ‘feedback’…”

          Water vapor is a positive feedback as any Vapor pressure of water vs Temperature dataset will tell you. Water vapor in the air is controlled by the hydrologic cycle.

          You as an expert witness in “a multi-billion dollar class action” suit is laughable!

          • Scientist says:

            As for vapor pressure being higher at higher temperatures, when the temperature of a liquid is raised, the added energy in the liquid gives the molecules more energy and they have greater ability to escape the liquid phase and go into the gaseous phase.

            My study results are summarised lower left of this page:

            http://climate-change-theory.com/images

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “water vapor … should do much more warming where its concentration is 2 to 3 times the average. ”

      No. For a variety of pretty obvious reasons.
      1) there is ‘diminishing returns’ at higher concentrations. Doubling the concentration of a GHG produces only a relatively small amount of warming.
      2) High concentrations of water vapor implies more clouds, which is a cooling effect.
      3) High concentrations of water vapor in implies more moisture in the soil, which implies more evaporation and transpiration, which cools the surface.

      So humid regions may well be COOLER that drier regions, even though water is indeed a potent GHG and does have a warming effect due the the GHE. The other, cooling effects of water in a region could partially offset (or even outdo) the warm GHE.

      • Prove me wrong and I will not post here says:

        Water vapor has 25 to 100 times the concentration of CO2. You can’t prove with correct physics that it does most of the 33 degrees of warming claimed by climatologists when you admit it cools and I have proved gravity can do more than that when it redistributes thermal energy to create the temperature gradient as a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics process of maximum entropy production. But if water vapor cools then you have to admit radiation from GH gases is not warming the surface.

        You see, Tim Folkerts, you really put your foot in it agreeing that water vapor cools and you demonstrated your lack of knowledge as to what the IPCC claims.

        You are way out of your depth Tim Folkerts.

        You would be foolish to try to challenge me ever again as you have no correct understanding of entropy and thermodynamics in general. Nor has Roy, so you’re in good company. Keep making calls to “authority” as you love to do, believing only those with PhD’s apparently.

        Since water vapor has negative feedback that fact refutes the IPCC “science” which says it amplifies the claimed effect of CO2 with positive feedback.

        But thanks for confirming climatology “science” is based on nothing but fictitious, fiddled physics and is promoted according to the agenda of the late Maurice Strong (good riddance) to destroy capitalism. On that topic read “Peter” at:
        https://judithcurry.com/2022/10/22/an-interview-with-top-climate-scientist-bjorn-stevens/#comment-981623 and my reply.

        You continue to prove you are unteachable. You still haven’t learned from “BigWaveDave” and myself and others that gravity forms the tropospheric non-zero temperature gradient which is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium towards which the troposphere will tend in calm conditions at night.

        This explains why the rate of surface cooling slows considerably at night being held back by the temperature of the adjacent regions of the atmosphere and not by back radiation which only affects the rate of radiative cooling of a true blackbody in Space where there is no non-radiative cooling that accelerates to compensate and negate any slowing of radiative cooling.

        Here is BigWaveDave’s advice to you over 10 years ago, and you still haven’t learned!
        http://www.whyitsnotco2.com/BigWaveDave-comment.jpg

        You have no explanation for the warming of a location on the Venus surface by 5 degrees over the course of 4 months on the sunlit side.

        You cannot explain why the base of the Uranus troposphere is hotter than Earth’s surface without any convincing evidence that Uranus is cooling. Again, I can explain it: nobody else has.

        The results of my study on water vapor are depicted in the bar chart on this page:
        http://climate-change-theory.com/images. Then go to the home page where silent readers can read pages in nine languages.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          Yap,yap,yap,yap,yap…….

        • Prove me wrong and I will not post here says:

          And, Tim Folkerts, silent readers who read BigWaveDave’s comment linked above will note your worship of only those with PhD’s. You have no idea as to the intensity of study in Physics at Distinction Level at the University of Sydney, but the fact that we had to sit five three hour exams in Physics in the space of two weeks may give you some idea.

          In total I have spent four years full time and five years part time at universities doing science and economics degrees plus business administration, as well as another five years part time doing certificate courses in nutrition, natural medicine and theology, gaining 15 High Distinctions in various subjects, topping such more than once and, for overall results, gaining First Class Honors four times. That does not even take into account private postgraduate study in atmospheric and subterrestrial physics and climatology ever since 2010. I made a world-first discovery as a result of this study.

          My reasons for not doing a PhD in physics (which I could have easily completed) were because I could make more than the Prime Minister developing advanced software for medical and (mostly) dental practices, which I still update now when I’m nearly 77 years of age.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            ” … will note your worship of only those with PhDs.”

            No. I *respect* those with *intelligence*. An advanced degree is just one very good indicator or both intelligence AND knowledge in a particular field.

            My advice is to go back to the University of Sydney. Tell them you graduated with distinction. Ask the professors to critique your ideas. I suspect they will be respectful but will easily spot a variety of problems. Submit your ‘world-first discovery’ to a real physics journal with real peer review.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            Respect is all well and good, but facts have no regard for either intelligence or qualifications.

            You probably don’t agree, but as Richard 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.”

            And the GHE is not even a theory – it is just an article of faith, promoted by believers in magic.

            Are you really deluded enough to believe that the GHE allowed the Earth to cool down, then heat it up, then cool it down, and then . . .?

            Now you see why nobody can actually describe the GHE, except to say it is obviously responsible for weather, floods, droughts, heatwaves, cold snaps, mass extinctions, scrofula and halitosis (only joking about the last two, in case you thought I was being serious).

            Go on, appeal to the authority of a few PhDs – Id avoid appeals to the fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann PhD, or Gavin Schmidt PhD (undistinguished mathematician, civil servant, and time waster), as people might just snigger at your choices.

            Actually, you can’t locate a single authority who can even describe the GHE, can you, let alone propose a testable hypothesis explaining it, can you?

            That’s because the GHE is nothing more than mass delusion.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “You probably dont agree …”
            I whole-heartedly agree with that quote. I also agree with another of his quotes:
            “Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry.”

            Picking one fact (like ‘the earth is cooler than 4 billion years ago’) is insufficient. It’s like cutting the threads and studying only one cm of the thread.

            You MUST look at how the facts interweave. Studying the surface temperature to understand WHY the surface has cooled since 4 billion years ago will necessarily requiring understanding why the earth was hot to begin with; how IR radiation works and how the sun shines. And what sort of ice ages the earth has been through. And why the surface is WARMER than 50 years ago; warmer than 20,000 years ago. Ocean currents and continental drift and changes in earth’s orbit. Myriad other topics connect to the one little snippet of knowledge you choose to take entirely out of its context.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        RP,
        Please keep peddling. It is a great discussion. Ed Berry has falsified the IPCC’s carbon cycle model. He’s mathematically shown that most of the CO2 rise since 1750 is due to nature.

        • Willard says:

          Troglodyte cheerleads for a spammer banned by Roy:

          https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy

          Who would have thunk?

          • Swenson says:

            Oh dear, Silly Willy,

            Are you implying that Dr Spencer really, really, needs to take notice of your continual hints that he should ban people with different views?

            That sounds like the tactics of SkyDragons who can’t even describe the GHE which they worship!

            Tut, tut, Willard. You just aren’t having a lot of luck, are you?

            [derisive snorting]

          • Willard says:

            What are you braying about, Mike?

          • Swenson says:

            Oh dear, Silly Willy,

            Are you implying that Dr Spencer really, really, needs to take notice of your continual hints that he should ban people with different views?

            That sounds like the tactics of SkyDragons who cant even describe the GHE which they worship!

            Tut, tut, Willard. You just arent having a lot of luck, are you?

            [derisive snorting]

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            You do not get it, right?

            Right?

            No, you do not.

            Keep guessing!

          • Swenson says:

            Oh dear, Silly Willy,

            Are you implying that Dr Spencer really, really, needs to take notice of your continual hints that he should ban people with different views?

            That sounds like the tactics of SkyDragons who cant even describe the GHE which they worship!

            Tut, tut, Willard. You just arent having a lot of luck, are you?

            [more derisive snorting]

          • Willard says:

            Spamming, Mike?

            Tsk tsk.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

        • Entropic man says:

          Bullshit.

          His hypothesis requires net movement of CO2 out of the deep ocean against the concentration gradient with no work done.

          Mate and I pointed that this was not LOT compliant and were thrown off the site when he could not answer.

  73. Bindidon says:

    Still cooling in the lower stratosphere (LS) within 30S-60S

    UAH6.0 2.5 degree grid for LS

    – August 2022

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n6rXv2cSP0mRCE2nJ4DHeflLVmvF0jmD/view

    – September 2022

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cr2RYXTwO4nGOFCT-oWxecqU5JG8Opr-/view

    In the Tropopause (TP) layer below, things look a bit similar but much weaker.

  74. Prove me wrong and I will not post here says:

    The official explanation of the GH effect is that on this page at the CSIRO:
    https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Why

    There you can read: Without any greenhouse gases, the Earths average surface temperature would be much lower, about -18C rather than todays average of about 14C.

    There is absolutely no physics presented, but official Energy Budget diagrams give us a clue that they consider back radiation from their GH gases causes heat from the cold troposphere to the warmer surface.

    If that warming at night on the dark side were to perhaps just 5C then lets say water vapor on its own at average concentrations just over 1% is doing, say, 20 degrees of warming on the dark side. So, on its own it is supposedly what slows the rate of cooling and somehow, in the absence of carbon dioxide, methane etc, it is implied that water vapor maintains a temperature averaging at least 2C on the dark side without any help from the Sun and supposedly no other energy input.

    So it is violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the region from which it radiates is colder than the surface below.

    But even if it could do this, as it would have to if climatologists (and Judith) were right, then this water vapour, at night, is on its own raising the temperature gradient supposedly from nil (in isotropic conditions that are assumed incorrectly to be the equilibrium state without GH gases) to a positive value. But everyone knows water vapor reduces that gradient, aka lapse rate. So climatology science is wrong. QED

  75. Gordon Robertson says:

    norman…”What EMR does with an electron is that, if the energy in correct, will move an electron to a higher orbital and it will gain potential energy and lose kinetic energy”.

    ***
    What does an electron give up when it transitions from a higher orbit to a lower orbit? Energy!!!

    What kind of energy? The electron is moving along an orbital path and has mass, therefore the energy is kinetic energy.

    If it loses KE, that means it must have had more kinetic energy at a higher orbit than a lower orbital.

    If the electron moves to a higher energy level it certainly increases its potential energy. If it moves to a lower energy it must give up energy. The lowest energy state is the ground state any if it receives energy as EM or heat, it moves to a higher energy level, ergo a high potential energy level.

    Figure it out, Normie.

    You cannot compare the relationship of KE to PE in an atom since the transitions involves no time element. Bohr had to postulate the change in energy states as E = E2 – E1 = hf. There is nothing between E2 and E1, the transition is instantaneous by definition.

    If you had a boulder on top of a cliff it would have maximum PE with KE = 0. If you pushed the boulder off the cliff, it would have a varying ratio of PE to KE all the way down till at ground level KE would be max and PE would be 0.

    Doesn’t work that way with electrons in an atom. The electrons starts out with a KE at the higher PE energy level based on the angular orbital velocity of the electron and its mass. If it transitions to a lower PE level, it must give up KE. It can’t give up mass but it can give up velocity, hence frequency.

    I realize this sounds a bit nutty, but the energy it gives up is converted to electromagnetic energy. When it slows down in the transition, it loses velocity, hence KE.

    Quantum theory deviates somewhat from the Newtonian physical world to the quantum physical world. No one knows why, nor do they know if the theory is correct. We might have the right math and the wrong physical reality.

    • Swenson says:

      Gordon,

      When an electron emits a photon, it loses energy.

      All matter above absolute zero continuously emits photons.

      No transitions between orbitals involved or necessary.

      An example of matter absorbing photons would be a gas absorbing IR radiation (which all gases do, to the consternation of SkyDragons, who believe that only certain gases can be heated or allowed to cool!).

      The gas heats – which merely demonstrates that some or all of the momentum possessed by the photons has been transferred to the atoms (and hence to molecules), resulting in increased average velocities – which of course is a measure of the increased temperature.

      And vice versa if the gas is allowed to cool.

      Just to complicate things, electrons (just a name for something that is really weird), don’t actually zip around a nucleus in little circles, or ellipses, or something. Whatever they are – wave, particle, relativistic field distortion (if you want), or something else, it doesn’t really matter.

      As long as whatever picture you prefer agrees with experiment, it’s fine – it might not be right, but it will do until something better comes along.

      So if you want nice round orbitals, I suppose as long as they are infinitely variable between whatever bounds you set, why not?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swenson…”When an electron emits a photon, it loses energy.
        All matter above absolute zero continuously emits photons.
        No transitions between orbitals involved or necessary”.

        ***

        Then where does the EM come from? An electron has an electric field and when it move, it generates a magnetic field.

        When the electron transitions to a lower energy level, it emits a quantum of electromagnetic energy.

        Coincidence????

        When an electron absorbs a quantum of EM, with the correct frequency, it transitions to a higher level. That’s why cooler objects cannot transfer heat to hotter object, the cooler objcts lack electrons that can emit the correct frequency EM.

        That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. ☺ ☺ ☺

        ***********************

        “Whatever they (electrons) are wave, particle, relativistic field distortion (if you want), or something else, it doesnt really matter”.

        ***

        I agree with you in principle but I have experienced intimate interactions with the little beggars. When you get 110 volts across your chest, and you think, I’d better let go, you know there is something of substance going through your body. If the voltage is significantly higher, like 277 or 347 volts, you can’t let go, you die. If it is 600 volts, it burns parts off your body.

        Electrons break things up and burn them. They can be nasty little beggars and perhaps that’s why I am skeptical about them being waves or relativistic field distortions.

        The scientists who dreamed up the Big Bang, where matter appears out of nothing, can have their theories.

        • bobdroege says:

          Here’s a problem for you Gordon.

          An electron produces an electric field.
          A moving electron produces a magnetic field.
          An accelerating electron produces an electromagnetic wave.

          Therefore an electron orbiting a nucleus produces an electromagnetic wave.

          But this last statement is not true, atoms and molecules are stable and do not continuously emit light.

          So electrons do not orbit the nucleus.

  76. Gordon Robertson says:

    dug…if you were a serious scientist you would not come on this blog and act like an idiot. That’s why you were banned.

    When you directly challenge Roy on his own blog, you are being an idiot. When you talk down to people, using your own site as a reference, you are being an idiot.

    That’s why no one takes you seriously. You are accomplishing exactly the opposite of what you seem to want to accomplish. If you care about science, try talking like a scientist, with the requisite humility.

    I don’t claim to be a scientist, I just try to counter dumb alarmist rhetoric.

    • D'ug Cott'n says:

      Gordon, do you want me to correct some details in your comments or not? The photons from the cooler source do in fact all resonate in a hotter source all of them being able to find a matching quantum energy jump because their Planck function is fully contained under the Planck function of the warmer target. So all that area under the small Planck function represents that radiation which is pseudo scattered, that being all the radiation from the cooler source.

      We know that engineers successfully calculate heat from a hotter source to a cooler target using the difference in the Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, that being represented by the area between the Planck functions. This agrees with what I explained in my peer-reviewed 2012 paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”

      So Gordon, it is only that radiation from the upper section of the warmer source that is represented by the area between the Planck functions which is not able to resonate and so does not raise any electron to a higher state. How could it? Instead the energy in such photons goes through a rather complex process which ultimately increases the velocity of the whole molecule and thus raises temperature.

      You need to remember that the mass of all the atoms that make up the molecule is orders of magnitude greater than that of an electron. Only the translational kinetic energy of the whole molecule affects temperature as you could have read in the Wikipedia article on “Kinetic Theory of Gases” to which I have referred many times.

      Remember – what I have explained here is supported by evidence in the calculations by engineers over about a century or so.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        “Gordon, do you want me to correct some details in your comments or not?”

        ***

        This is what I’m talking about. You are an arrogant, obnoxious SOB and you expect people to interact civilly with you.

        Go away, gain some awareness, hence intelligence, then come back. Maybe I’ll talk to you then.

        Meantime, you have nothing to teach me since your understanding of science is severely limited.

        • Scientist says:

          Your error Gordon is in assuming the extra kinetic energy in newly-excited electrons increases the temperature on a macro scale.

          Electrons move in orbits and have far, far less mass than whole molecules comprising two or more atoms each with far more mass in their cores than that of their electrons.

          What you seem to think, Gordon, would be like kids on a merry-go-round on the deck of a cruise liner being assumed to accelerate the whole ship if they went round and around faster still.

          I don’t believe you have studied what I said or you would have recognized the differences between your conjecture and the correct explanation of Prof Claes Johnson and myself first published over ten years ago.

  77. Gordon Robertson says:

    maguff…re your claims about oil companies supporting Green garbage.

    During WW II, Standard Oil was caught selling oil to the Nazis. When caught, their excuse was that free enterprise must prevail above all.

    The oil companies are friends to no one. They are simply hedging their bets in case fossil fuel becomes obsolete. They are all scumbags who would sell oil to the enemy if they could get away with it.

  78. Gordon Robertson says:

    norman…”Claes Johnson physics is just one mans opinion and it is proven to be wrong by a long history of science”.

    ***

    Name one area in science where he has been proved wrong. Please supply the proof.

  79. Gordon Robertson says:

    swenson…”Nobody really knows, but extremely precise experiments indicate that electrons are weird. Even something as large as an electron behaves differently if you look at it while its doing its thing in a double slit experiment”.

    ***

    My understanding is the electron phenomenon is noted in a ‘single’ slit experiment. However, I am sure there is a better explanation for the subsequent diffraction patterns created by a stream of electrons running through the slit.

    There seems to be a lot of confusion about this on a Google search. When I read about diffraction patterns first, it was before the electron diffraction pattern came to my consciousness. That experiment was a double slit but it involved electromagnetic energy, not electrons. I think this issue has become seriously confused.

    David Bohm, a physicist I respect, suggested a quantum interaction between the electrons and the slit. He did not reach the conclusion that electrons behave like a wave, based on the resultant diffraction patterns.

    Electrons are charged particles that create a magnetic field around them when they move. Hmmmm…electric field and magnetic field, where have I heard about that before? The electrons in the atoms making up the walls of the slit should have similar properties re creating electric and magnetic fields. Get my drift?

    If you run a beam of electrons in a cathode ray tube, which is evacuated, you can change the direction of the beam by using plates charged positive or negative, through which the beam runs. If you have a target screen, like a glass plate coated with phosphors, you can created very intricate patterns on the plate by sweeping the electrons across it vertically and horizontally. Think colour TV or computer screen.

    There is no reason why the diffraction patterns could not have been made by a similar interaction between the charged electrons and charged electrons in the single slit walls.

    If an electron beam is fed through a very narrow slit, the walls of the slit are charged particles from the electrons and protons making up the walls. Perhaps the slit seems narrow to us, but to the electrons the walls will be like the walls of the Grand Canyon to a mosquito flying through.

    I just don’t think the single slit experiment was well thought out, at least, the conclusions reached. AFAIAC, an electron is still a particle with no wave properties.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Thinking more on the subject. Consider an electron microscope. An electron beam is generated in much the same manner as in a cathode ray tube. It is aimed at a sample that must be no thicker than about 100 nanometers otherwise the electrons cannot penetrate it. When the beam contacts the material it actually starts to destroy it since the electrons break up atoms on the target. Therefore samples are often coated with material to minimize the destruction.

      If you bombard the same sample with so-called photons, nothing much will happen since EM can only penetrate a few atoms width into the material. Electrons will go straight through the sample to a target screen behind the sample. The idea is to caste a black and white set of shadows onto the target.

      When the electron was discovered in the 1890s, it took till 1913 before Bohr clued into the relationship between electrons and EM. Meantime, a lot of theoreticians got into the act like Dirac and Heisenberg. They created a virtual reality based purely on theory. Much of quantum theory today, which is based really on the interaction of electrons with the nucleus of an atom, are based on those theories. The theories have gone way too far into the sci-fi realm.

      My personal view, after having worked in the field of electronics and the electrical field for decades, is that no one has a clue what is going on physically. Furthermore, the electron and the photon have been confused, much as radiation is confused with heat.

      I have seen scientists referring to the electrons in an electron microscope as having a frequency. They think the scope works with electron frequencies interacting with the frequencies in matter. Obvious rubbish. Electrons don’t have frequencies, they are not waves.

      If they produce a diffraction pattern after passing through a slit, I don’t doubt that. What I doubt is the claim the electrons act like waves. We need to do more research.

      In the electron microscope, the electron beam is essentially a direct current. The electrons are accelerated by a very high positive voltage. No change in direction of the current that is required for a wave with a frequency. The electrons act like shotgun pellets bombarding a surface and they go right through.

      I know I sound arrogant and I don’t really care. I have a very low tolerance level for bs. passed off as science. Maybe that’s why I enjoy your posts so much.

    • Swenson says:

      Gordon,

      Even electrons have how demonstrated wave-particle duality – both and neither at once. So yes, double slit – quantum weirdness writ large (and small).

      The Hitachi write up includes a short video record of the experimental results. It’s about four years old, as far as I know, so there are probably more recent experiments around.

      Can’t be explained using classical mechanics. Waves don’t work. Particles don’t work..

      Pity.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Do you have a link to the Hitachi experiment?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swenson…thanks for link.

            First, a disclaimer. I regard this as a discussion between people who agree on the ridiculousness of the GHE and AGW. Therefore, I don’t want to push this into a head-butt situation. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on electrons.

            In the article, they conclude with this statement: “We have reached a conclusion which is far from what our common sense tells us”. That says to me they have the wrong conclusion and need to search further.

            Also, they fail to specify the exact mechanism in use. They don’t specify if the fine filament wire is charged or not.

            Earlier in the article they claimed to be firing electrons one at a time, a proposition I regard as impossible. The only way I know to isolate electrons is to literally boil them off the surface of a tungsten filament heated to 3000C. Then they form an electron cloud around the filament. However, drawing them off one at a time is not possible.

            In the article they admit the electrons are particles yet they refer to the clouds as waves. In acoustics, we know molecules in the air can form pressure waves but we know the molecules are still particles. I can see electrons possibly forming waves in a similar manner but they are still particles.

            There are electric and magnetic fields around moving electrons. So, you have a charged particle emitting an electric and magnetic field…and EM field. They modified their photon detector to detect electrons and I think they made an error of mistaking EM fields produced by the electrons with the electrons themselves.

            My guess is the diffraction patterns are produced by the EM fields surrounding moving electrons.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            An after-thought. I was wondering where, in nature, we would encounter a cloud of electrons. Then it dawned on me…the solar wind, which is comprised of free electrons and protons.

            When the solar wind encounters the Earth’s magnetosphere, it diverts the wind and at the same time interacts with it. This produces voltages that produce currents through the atmosphere, the oceans, and the surface.

            In the experiment, are the electron clouds immune from the Earth’s magnetic field? If a compass needle is not, I don’t see why the electron clouds would not interact with the magnetic field, producing EM fields. From there, anything is possible re diffraction patterns.

            I wonder if shielding the experiment from the effect of magnetic fields would make a difference.

        • D'ug Cott'n says:

          Gordon – I’ve spent a lot of time writing detailed explanations including trying to help you regarding some errors in your comments. So please spend appropriate time reading my comment just written at
          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/50-year-u-s-summer-temperature-trends-all-36-climate-models-are-too-warm/#comment-1388987

          In the past, and even today, you keep repeating errors that I have corrected weeks ago in trying to help you.

          • Scientist says:

            And Gordon

            I knew Prof Tim Ball having met with him a couple of times when he came to Australia. You should join over 120,000 who have viewed this video – one of several he made:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1VJtER2IUE

            Upon his death a month or so back I communicated with his wife and vowed to continue his fight against what he called in his books (on Amazon) “the biggest scam in history.”

            I recognize that many people have the potential to overthrow this scam, but so many of these are too arrogant or ignorant of physics to look into what are obvious errors in climatology.

            So I make a point of trying to get such people to sit back and think and read what I have explained.

            I have met Michael Mann and handed him hard copy of my papers.

            Likewise I have met Brian Cox and given him such.

            I am also well known by Senator Malcolm Roberts whom I’ve met several times including an hour or so in his office in Parliament House Canberra.

            I do all this only for altruistic reasons because millions are suffering financial stress and poverty, even death because of government actions based on the scam. I will spend thousands of my own money arranging this class action I’ve mentioned.

          • Scientist says:

            (continued)

            Now, clearly Roy Spencer and Judith Curry and some she knows could have a significant influence worldwide if they looked into what is the only correct relevant physics in my seven papers and realized it refutes their science and their papers.

            Then they would have to act humbly like this physicist, but they could leave a legacy of having changed the world for the better:

            “Ten years ago I simply repeated what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media tell us is sheer nonsense: it is not based on any scientific facts or measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”

            Klaus-Eckert Puls, German Meteorologist, Physicist

    • Bindidon says:

      ” I have a very low tolerance level for bs. passed off as science. ”

      Me too, and that’s why (not only) I find your ignorant, arrogant and absolutely unscientific blabla so unbearable.

      You, Robertson, know next to nothing – regardless the field considered – and write completely redundant, smug ‘comments’ mostly based on what you discover on contrarian blogs, and spend here much endless time in distorting, misrepresenting, discrediting, denigrating, and lying.

      • Eben says:

        Pretty funny from a scientist wannabee

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”You, Robertson, know next to nothing regardless the field considered and write completely redundant, smug comments mostly based on what you discover on contrarian blogs, and spend here much endless time in distorting, misrepresenting, discrediting, denigrating, and lying”.

        ***

        What’s your point??? Any intelligent comments on the science I offer?

        • Bindidon says:

          ” What’s your point??? Any intelligent comments on the science I offer? ”

          The point is, Robertson, that you never offer any science.

          All you are able to offer is

          – pasting out of contrarian blogs
          and
          – your egomaniac, discrediting nonsense concerning real science.

  80. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    In five days, there will be an even stronger winter stratospheric onslaught in western North America.

  81. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Temperatures in inland Alaska are now dropping below -20 degrees C.

    • Bindidon says:

      I’m sure ren will love this sequence below:

      USR0000AHOM 59-11 2006 10 3 -45.4
      USC00502019 61-13 1975 10 31 -44.4
      USR0000ABEV 62-13 1996 10 25 -44.4
      USR0000ABEV 62-13 1996 10 26 -43.3
      USC00501492 63-12 2008 10 26 -42.2
      USC00502019 61-13 1975 10 30 -42.2
      USR0000ABEV 62-13 1996 10 27 -42.2
      USR0000ANEW 62-12 1996 10 26 -42.2
      USR0000ABEV 62-13 1996 10 24 -41.7
      USC00504964 62-9 1975 10 30 -41.1

      For example:

      USR0000AHOM 59.7458 -151.2083 217.9 AK HOMER ALASKA
      USR0000ABEV 66.2667 -146.5167 147.2 AK BEAVER (WBQ) ALASKA

      etc etc

      -20 C end of October in Alaska? Pfff…

  82. gbaikie says:

    –As seen in the accompanying plot, 50-year (1973-2022) summer (June/July/August) temperature trends for the contiguous 48 U.S. states from 36 CMIP-6 climate model experiments average nearly twice the warming rate as observed by the NOAA climate division dataset.–

    The yearly average is about 12 C, but I don’t know what average is
    for June/July/August.
    It seems to me, if focus on few months, it seems one could get factors affecting the temperature as compared yearly temperatures.
    Or Roy mentioned UHI effects which seem to me would have more effect upon average temperature in the summertime.

    With global average temperature, the higher average ocean surface controls global average surface temperature. And Europe is warmer due
    to the Gulf stream. But such factor are less significant in just the summer months.

  83. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    La Nia will strengthen in November as Pacific sea ice begins to melt.
    Ozone hole still very large.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png

  84. Bindidon says:

    Hypercooling in Europe

    Switzerland is experiencing the warmest October since 1864. It was around 3 degrees warmer than the average for the past 30 years.

    Maximum values of 25 degrees C were exceeded on several days in this autumn month. In the mountains, the zero-degree limit often climbed to 3,500 to 4,000 meters.

    The result is snow-free Alps up to an altitude of over 3,000 meters. It is therefore not surprising that even the highest Alpine passes are still open to traffic.

    (German weather service)

    • Swenson says:

      Bunny,

      So it was warmer in 1864, was it?

      Do you think that the GHE was responsible for the cooler conditions up until this month?

      Maybe you can draw a multicoloured graph to explain how the GHE makes things cooler, then hotter, then cooler . . .

      How hard can it be?

      Dunderhead.

      • Bindidon says:

        Keep blathering strong, Flynnson parrot, and don’t forget to put your wonderful smelling dog poops everywhere, because we all can’t afford to miss them!

  85. Scientist says:

    WHY PROF CLAES JOHNSON WAS RIGHT

    The way in which Nature ensures that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is absolutely NEVER violated in regard to every one-way passage of radiation (which MUST obey the Law because there are never any interacting processes) is explained in the comment above which of course nobody here can refute, but neither has anyone correctly refuted the similar explanation that Prof Claes Johnson and I were talking and writing about over ten years ago …
    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/50-year-u-s-summer-temperature-trends-all-36-climate-models-are-too-warm/#comment-1388987

    The process of stimulated emission explained above is now explained even in Wikipedia and that is what Johnson was writing about on this issue as to what happens to photons striking a target whether hotter or colder than the source of the radiation.

    SO THOSE WHO THINK JOHNSON WAS WRONG CAN RE-WRITE THIS WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE:

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

  86. Scientist says:

    Gordon’s error is explained above in a new comment and in my previous one which he does not appear to have read past the first sentence. It’s such a shame that someone with his general knowledge refuses to take the extra step and learn about, and understand what is at the cutting edge of modern science in the brilliant writings of Prof Claes Johnson, now recognised even in the Wikipedia article on stimulated emission that also is in agreement with my own 2012 paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”

    As the title should suggest, Johnson and I have explained in detail how every one-way passage of radiation does indeed obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics which I doubt anyone here could recite from memory, let alone really understand what it is saying. The Wikipedia article “Laws of Thermodynamics” gets the first sentence right, and that is all that needs to be said.

  87. Scientist says:

    When ice melts that is the Second Law of Thermodynamics operating.

    When vapor condenses that is the Second Law of Thermodynamics operating.

    When fire burns that is the Second Law of Thermodynamics operating.

    When a ball rolls down a plank that is the Second Law of Thermodynamics operating.

    When gravity restores the density gradient in the troposphere in calm conditions that is the Second Law of Thermodynamics operating.

    When gravity restores the temperature gradient in the troposphere in calm conditions that is the Second Law of Thermodynamics operating.

    • Scientist says:

      When back radiation is pseudo scattered when it strikes the warm surface so that no heat transfer takes place that is the Second Law of Thermodynamics operating.

      And that is why the discussion in the top post relating to the imaginary process invented by climatologists, promoted vigorously by Pierre Humbert, author of the Gold Standard text book in climatology and given the title RADIATIVE FORCING to sound impressive, just simply doesnt need to happen, doesnt do so and never will.

      Over 1,500 have downloaded it: why not you?

      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2884148

  88. Swenson says:

    Dug,

    You wrote –

    “When gravity restores the temperature gradient in the troposphere in calm conditions that is the Second Law of Thermodynamics operating.” Nonsense.

    Gravity doesn’t “restore” temperature. You might not have noticed that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not contain any preference to gravity, and Newton’s Universal Law of Gravity does not mention temperature.

    You just make this stuff up as you go along. Of course gravity acts on all matter (even non-matter like EMR, as it turns out), but even a 10 km column of water is colder at the base than the surface – gravity seems irrelevant, doesn’t it?

    The temperature gradient of the atmosphere is simply that an atmospheric column is hotter at one end than the other. As Clausius stated, heat can only go from hot to cold without external work, and there are no “gravity machines” capable of doing work. So a stationary column of air, being hotter at one end than the other will have a temperature gradient along it. Unfortunately, a stationary column of air is a fiction, and cannot exist in reality.

    Even allowing for reality, an atmosphere which is say, 300 K at its base, and a nominal 4 K at its top, will encompass that range of temperatures – from hottest to coldest! Of course, the universe interferes, and makes a mockery of our concept of temperature.

    In the thermosphere, “temperatures” may reach over 2000 K, but you wouldnt have enough heat to boil water for a cup of tea. Are you claiming gravity makes the top of the atmosphere hotter than the base, just like the oceans?

    Your heat creep might need a bit of revision.

  89. Scientist says:

    Are you claiming gravity makes the top of the atmosphere hotter than the base, just like the oceans?

    Nope.

    Read http://climate-change-theory.com for my response.

    As Clausius stated, heat can only go from hot to cold without external work

    No he didn’t say a word about “external work.”

    “His formulation of the second law, which was published in German in 1854, is known as the Clausius statement:

    Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.[38]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Clausius_statement

    • Swenson says:

      Dug,

      OK, make heat go from colder to hotter, without some process involving external work.

      Then the colder, losing energy to the hotter, would become even colder. The hot, absorbing extra energy would become even hotter, until the cold went to absolute zero, and the hotter went to an indeterminate hotter maximum, and stayed there forever. Can’t cool down, can it, because you claim it has to absorb energy from colder bodies!

      You idiot, no wonder you can’t provide experimental support for your delusion.

      Try another tack.

      • Scientist says:

        Yep, That’s exactly what happens in a vortex cooling tube – radial heat creep enabled by centrifugal force with heat transfer from the colder and cooling central regions to the warmer and warming outer regions of the cylinder down through which air (or some gas) passes at about a million RPM creating centrifugal force so great that the temperature gradient can be 100 degrees in a few millimetres.

        Numerous experiments with such tubes have been carried out but nobody really knew how they worked. I was the first in the world to correctly explain how it was due to heat creep in what I wrote in Wikipedia talk in 2014. It’s still there at
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vortex_tube#how_it_works
        so that will serve as the rest of this comment.

        Your case is dismissed for lack of evidence relating to the “Radiative Forcing” conjecture, in contrast to the overwhelming evidence for heat creep.

        So creep out of the Court.

  90. Scientist says:

    Don’t you even know that gravity forms the density gradient in the troposphere? I don’t care if you call the process “work” or a “change” – it happens because it is a natural thermodynamic process in which, as with every such process, ENTROPY is INCREASING* during the restoration after, for example, a windy storm.

    Get back when you think you can apply climatology’s fictitious, fiddled physics to explain what happens on the planet Uranus to make the base of its troposphere hotter than Earth’s mean surface temperature. After all, real physics is Universal.

    Then read what does happen:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS

    * The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.

    And my writings explain why heat creep can’t happen above the troposphere because of the low density and the slow process being overridden by new energy absorbed from the insolation.

    • Swenson says:

      Dug,

      And reality explains why heat creep is nonsense.

      No GHE, no gravitothermal effect, no heat creep.

      And climate science is more oxymoronic than social a science, political science, domestic science – or military intelligence!

  91. Swenson says:

    Earlier, Tim Folkerts apparently took exception to me pointing out that the Earth had cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so. Molten then, not molten now.

    Tim wrote –

    “You MUST look at how the facts interweave. Studying the surface temperature to understand WHY the surface has cooled since 4 billion years ago will necessarily requiring understanding why the earth was hot to begin with; how IR radiation works and how the sun shines. And what sort of ice ages the earth has been through. And why the surface is WARMER than 50 years ago; warmer than 20,000 years ago. Ocean currents and continental drift and changes in earths orbit. Myriad other topics connect to the one little snippet of knowledge you choose to take entirely out of its context.”

    A typical delusional SkyDragon attempt to muddy the waters. Avoid accepting reality, and try to change the subject – as fast and as far away as possible!

    C’mon Tim, the Earth cooled – apparently the GHE didn’t work for a few billion years. And now you expect people to believe that a non-working GHE suddenly leapt into action – heating, cooling, heating cooling – a miracle!

    You idiot, you can’t even describe the GHE you worship!

    Is it supposed to make the planet hotter or colder? Or does it do it alternately, in line with mystical astrological principles?

    Go on, tell us the surface doesn’t cool at night, showing that more energy in total is leaving the surface than it is receiving. Maybe you believe the SkyDragon idiocy that slow cooling results in increased temperatures! Must be something to do with ocean currents and continental drift and changes in earth’s orbit, do you think?

    Carry on dreaming Tim – share the SkyDragon dream, and keep rejecting reality.

    • Scientist says:

      Why is the RATE of surface cooling, especially after midnight, far slower than that in the afternoon of a hot day in summer? Around dawn the rate slows to a halt and warming starts, sometimes well before any Solar Radiation actually shines on some particular region of the surface which might, for example, be in the shadow of a mountain while the Sun has risen and may be warming some clouds above. But the tropospheric temperature gradient of about 6 to 7 K/Km still remains in tact. So where does that part of the surface get the energy to warm before the solar radiation impinges on it?

      I repeat: If virtually no solar radiation strikes that region in perhaps the first two hours after sunrise where is the energy coming from that is causing the surface temperature to rise? Why does it rise when the amount of solar radiation isn’t much more than nil, just as it was at night when the surface cooled? Why on Earth does it not keep cooling for the first two hours? Why on Venus does the same thing happen all the time because the solar radiation to its surface is less than 20w/m^2? Answer below.*

      Why do people think Earth was originally far hotter in its core? The matter which formed it presumably came from the Big Bang billions of years earlier. There is a lot of interstellar Space in which such matter would have cooled down to about 2.73K which is the current temperature of interstellar Space. That Space is huge compared with the radius of planets orbiting their star, for example, Neptune is about 29 AU from the Sun but the triple star system Alpha Centauri is about 272,000 AU away. What could keep small masses of matter (spending about 0.01% of their time somewhere near a star) much hotter than 3K in the billions of years between the Big Bang and the formation of our Solar System when gravity pulled together such matter to form planets which the Sun then warmed? But how did solar energy make the cores as hot as we know them to be? Answer below.*

      * Sections 3 to 11 at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “Tim Folkerts apparently took exception to me pointing out that the Earth had cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.”

      No, I take exception to the suggestion that the cooling was monotonic. The general cooling trend at the surface has been interrupted by periods of warming. You even recognize this when you acknowledge the surface cools at night … and warms during the next day. The exact “heating, cooling, heating cooling” cycle that you seem to deride as a “miracle”.

      During some 24 hr periods at some locations, the warming exceeds the cooling. As Roy’s data at the top shows, during some months and decades for the whole earth, warming exceeds cooling. During millennia when the earth comes out of glacial periods, warming exceeds cooling.

      Whatever the cause, the evidence is clear that the earth DOES warm over various time scales and spatial scales.

      • gbaikie says:

        The most significant aspect of Earth’s global temperature is it’s been cooling for last few million years. It been the coldest time in our 33.9 million year Ice Age.
        Recently the Holocene has been much cooler than past interglacial periods. And the moment we have cooling for last 5000 years or peak temperature of our cold interglacial period was about 8000 years ago.

        The make our current global average temperature of 15 C, cold relative to most of our ice age including period which aren’t the warmer interglacial periods.

        Or 15 C is a cold global average temperature.
        You shouldn’t set your thermostat at 15 C [59 F] unless the house is vacant- so as to avoid any damage caused by a house getting to freezing temperatures.

  92. Scientist says:

    Given that the Big Bang occurred several billion years before the matter in the Earth’s so-called molten mass came together with the help of its own gravity, and given that the average temperature of matter in inter-stellar Space is about 2.73K then such matter entering into the gravitational field of our Sun would inevitably have been warmed by the Sun from such temperatures. Where else would it have acquired the required thermal energy?

    As I have said since 2013, you all need to study the explanation of the heat creep process in order to understand how the core of the Moon, for example, has been warmed by Solar energy such that it is over 1,000 degrees hotter than the hottest place on its surface and it is maintained at that temperature even when the dark side is about -150C, even -250C in one place.

    That is heat creep which keeps the Moon that hot in its core.

    Measurements for Uranus show no convincing evidence of any cooling of that planet when Voyager II passed by.

    All planets, including Uranus, Venus and Earth warm on their sunlit sides which proves solar energy is doing the warming for it would be too much of a coincidence that any other process would synchronize with when the Sun was overhead or it was Summer or Winter.

    But until you understand the process of maximum entropy production (as I explained it in 2013) none of you will believe that thermal energy can flow up the thermal profiles both above and below any solid surface.

    But you have no other explanation for the warming on the sunlit side, as is obvious for Venus for example, because it is not due to either solar radiation to the surface or atmospheric radiation from less-hot regions in the troposphere.

    The explanation has been online on several websites for nearly ten years and in my book since 2014.

    The second paper linked at http://climate-change-theory.com has the correct physics which none of you as yet understands, not even Roy, because you haven’t read it.

  93. Scientist says:

    The distance between stars is (literally) astronomical compared with the radius of our solar system. If one AU (Astronomical unit) is the distance of Earth from the Sun (~ 93 million miles) then Saturn is 9.5 AU from the Sun. Neptune is about 29 AU so that’s perhaps typical of the order of magnitude of the radius of some other such systems around other stars. In contrast, the Alpha Centauri triple star system is about 272,000 AU away. That leaves a lot of time for matter drifting after the big bang to be a long way from any star and to cool off quite easily in a few billion years right down to just above absolute zero.

    By whatever process the small bits of matter came together to form planets in our Solar System, the only source of new energy to warm them back up from less than 3K was the energy radiated by the Sun.

    Once you understand the heat creep process and how it operates even below the surface, through the crust and mantle, then down to the core, temperatures getting hotter along the way in accord with what we can confirm by calculations from the theory of heat creep* – YES, once you read the explanation, you have a good chance of realizing that data throughout the Solar System confirms the hypothesis. After all, there really is no other way. Heat creep is not hard to understand when you read the explanation carefully.

    Has any SILENT READER who has read the explanation of heat creep and understood how that explanation is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics able to post here a refutation pinpointing at what point in my explanation they think I made a mistake? Be the first in the world to let me know of any such relevant attempt.

    • Swenson says:

      Dug,

      You wrote –

      “By whatever process the small bits of matter came together to form planets in our Solar System, the only source of new energy to warm them back up from less than 3K was the energy radiated by the Sun.”

      Unfortunately, according to your cosmology, the Sun would have been cold too, I suppose. Or did the creator use different physics at different times?

      Be that as it may, if you would be so kind as to give details of at least one reproducible experiment that shows that a large rock exposed to sunlight will experience progressive heating from the centre outwards, until the inside is molten, I will promptly change my view.

      Or maybe not even molten, as long as the core heats up to be considerably hotter than any part of the surface. Merely hallucinating about other planets does not count.

      And don’t forget, you can’t prove that the Earth was not originally molten, and has since cooled, can you? No GHE, no gravitothermal effect, no heat creep. No need. Just a hot blob of rock, loaded with radiogenic isotopes, cooling for four and a half billion years or so.

      • Scientist says:

        Scientists know how stars (like our Sun) generate energy from matter in accord with E=mc^2. Stars are very different to planets and moons. In case you haven’t noticed they radiate in the visible range the stuff we call light. The Earth doesn’t.

        • Swenson says:

          Dug,

          In case you haven’t noticed, the interior of the Earth is still hot enough to radiate light in the visible range. Up to white heat. About 99% of the Earth’s volume is hot enough to glow.

          By the way, to a physicist “light” covers all wavelengths – from a limit of zero all the way to approaching infinity.

          You may not realise that Lord Kelvin was also unaware of radiogenic heat production within the Earth. This led to him severely underestimating the age of the Earth. He was so sure of his own importance, however, that he stated “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement.”. Oh, and such gems as “X-rays will prove to be a hoax.”, and “Radio has no future.”

          Brilliant scientists are only human, and sometimes refuse to accept that they can be ignorant (as Kelvin was about radiogenic heat), and just wrong, as Loschmidt was about the gravitothermal effect.

          No problem with the Earth being created in a molten state – there are many hypotheses floating around. No problems with four and a half billion years or so of cooling, either.

          If you want to believe in something you cannot support experimentally, good for you! People believe in gods, politicians, financial advisers, climate experts, and various types of fortune sellers and other itinerant vagabonds. Reality just keeps on keeping on, and nature keeps being absurd.

          Carry on.

          • Scientist says:

            I have explained core temperatures in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.” Perhaps you didn’t notice the word “Core” but of course you didn’t read it anyway.

            Note the word “darkness” … hardly likely that the Earth in verse 1 was very hot. But you know better than God, no doubt.

            “1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

            In case you don’t recognize the quote it is Genesis 1:1, the first verse in the Christian Bible which is God’s Word to us. You will not do well to mock God or effectively call Him a liar.

      • Scientist says:

        If your “large rock” were about the size of the Earth or Venus then I have provided the correct physics to explain how that happens. Answer below.*

        * Sections 3 to 11 at
        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures

        • Swenson says:

          Dug,

          I see. So heat creep cannot actually be demonstrated by reproducible experiment. It only works with objects so big that they can’t be used.

          Go on – provide the minimum size of an object which can be used to demonstrate the mythical heat creep. How hard can it be?

          You’re delusional.

          • Swenson says:

            Dug,

            You don’t seem to even bother reading Graeff’s inept experiments.

            The distance between his “thermocouple” sensors he states as 170 mm.

            No wonder his results were meaningless.

            And you expect people to believe that an effect measurable at 170 mm ceases to measurable at larger distances – until you reach the size of a planet?

            Tough ask, Dug. No wonder people think you’re delusional.

          • Scientist says:

            You obviously don’t understand entropy Swenson. If you did it would be obvious to you that Loschmidt was right, as I have proved he was because the gradient is the direct result of the Second Law process of maximum entropy production. Call Loschmidt wrong and you may as well toss out the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

            ENTROPY IS INCREASING AS THE TEMPERATURE GRADIENT FORMS OR REPAIRS ITSELF.

            “The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

             Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

            My response is continued in my 2013 paper at http://climate-change-theory.com

    • Scientist says:

      I only asked that people who have read the paper respond here, thanks. This will be my last few minutes of my time that will be wasted on you – mainly to help silent readers not be bluffed by your greenhouse garbage for the gullible.

      The final paragraph reads:

      “Has any SILENT READER who has read the explanation of heat creep and understood how that explanation is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics able to post here a refutation pinpointing at what point in my explanation they think I made a mistake?”

      There is ample evidence of experiments demonstrating heat creep, and the study in the Appendix is repeatable because the methodology is explained and the data included in the paper. That cooling by water vapor relates to the fact that heat creep would otherwise have made the surface hotter still.

      There were over 850 experiments showing the temperature gradient being formed by heat creep in sealed and well insulated vertical cylinders in lab conditions, the details being in my papers. And there have been hundreds of experiments with vortex cooling tubes which only work because radial heat creep is happening. Data throughout the Solar System indicates the probability of it not happening is at least billions to one against.

      I am not interested in reading about your imaginary thought experiments or cogitations devoid of any reference to any law of physics or any published material written by people who have no pecuniary interest in maintaining the “biggest scam in history” as it was called by Prof Tim Ball whom I have met with twice before his recent death and who’s wife communicated with me and I assured her I would carry on his work. You could always watch his videos on Youtube or read his books.

      • Entropic man says:

        “And there have been hundreds of experiments with vortex cooling tubes which only work because radial heat creep is happening. ”

        That turns out not to be the case. Your papers say that heat creep only takes place in a force field, but there are no force fields in vortex tubes.

        As you know, centrifugal force is a fictional force, an illusion generated by the deflection of moving gases by the tube.

        • Scientist says:

          WIKIPEDIA DESCRIBES HEAT CREEP IN A VORTEX TUBE

          There is an extremely strong centrifugal force in a vortex tube because the air in the tube moves in a helical motion down the tube sometimes as fast as a million RPM. Next time get your facts from my papers and websites before taking up my time so as to prevent your confusing silent readers.

          I will not tolerate the promulgation of false science especially by those who attempt to refute my extensive post-graduate research without even reading the papers let alone spending three minutes at http://climate-change-theory.com.

          You could at least have looked up “vortex tube” in Wikipedia before you tried to treat me as an idiot, thanks.

          Wikipedia reads quite correctly: “The vortex tube, also known as the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube, is a mechanical device that separates a compressed gas into hot and cold streams. The gas emerging from the hot end can reach temperatures of 200 C (390 F), and the gas emerging from the cold end can reach −50 C (−60 F).[1] It has no moving parts and is considered an environmentally friendly technology because it can work solely on compressed air and does not use Freon. [2] Pressurised gas is injected tangentially into a swirl chamber and accelerated to a high rate of rotation. Due to the conical nozzle at the end of the tube, only the outer shell of the compressed gas is allowed to escape at that end. The remainder of the gas is forced to return in an inner vortex of reduced diameter within the outer vortex. At up to 1,000,000 RPM, this air stream revolves toward the hot end where some escapes through the control valve. The remaining air, still spinning, is forced back through the center of this outer vortex. The inner stream gives off kinetic energy in the form of heat to the outer stream and exits the vortex tube as cold air.”

          ——————

          Now, note carefully the words “The inner stream gives off kinetic energy in the form of heat to the outer stream” which is describing heat creep from the cold inner stream to the hot outer stream.

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

          An apology would be in order.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “The inner stream gives off kinetic energy in the form of heat to the outer stream which is describing heat creep from the cold inner stream to the hot outer stream.”

            The key word here is “stream”. Any system with movement (whether of heat or of mass) is by definition NOT in thermodynamic equilibrium. A vortex tube is NOT support for your hypothesis.

          • Entropic man says:

            Actually the exchange of kinetic energy and heating in vortex tubes is described by Euler’s turbine equation, as described in your Wikipedia link.

            Conventional physics and conventional thermodynamics with no need to invoke heat creep.

            Perhaps Tyson or Willard might help me write up the rebuttal for publication and we could share the 10,000 dollars.

          • Willard says:

            Add Tim and I’m in.

        • Scientist says:

          Maybe Entropic you should tell the scientists who did this experiment that centrifugal force is a fiction. If it were then astronauts would not float in a space station.

          Using centrifugal force (very much like in the vortex tube) they cooled gas molecules down to about 1K which is about -272C.

          https://scitechdaily.com/new-method-uses-centrifugal-force-decelerate-particles-creates-new-research-opportunities/

          Heading in large type:

          “New Method Uses Centrifugal Force to Decelerate Particles, Creates New Research Opportunities”

          Caption under photo:

          “Deceleration in the centrifuge: Molecules lose speed drastically when they are guided against the centrifugal force to the center of a rotating disk. Electrodes guide the particles to the center of the centrifuge. …”

          Let me know when you have edited Wikipedia and published a refutation of this experiment.

      • Swenson says:

        Dug,

        You wrote –

        “There were over 850 experiments showing the temperature gradient being formed by heat creep in sealed and well insulated vertical cylinders in lab conditions, the details being in my papers.”

        You’re imagining things again. The contents of your imagination are not reality.

        The attempts by others to confirm the mythical gravitothermal effect (which would result in an infinite supply of electricity as a result of the action of the temperature differential), resulted in failure.

        Keep flogging your horse. It’s dead, in case you haven’t noticed.

        • Scientist says:

          Here we will discuss an article on the most viewed climate blog wattsupwiththat.com which is operated by Anthony Watts.

          Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates (January 24, 2012)

          Robert Brown cites an author who correctly claims that the temperature gradient exists as the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. He then twists the discussion to thermal equilibrium (which is different) and he claims internal conductivity is ignored. It is not. It is the very mechanism whereby the gradient evolves.

          He then postulates a wire connecting the top and bottom of the cylinder under consideration. He ignores the fact that the wire will also develop a temperature gradient. He also ignores the fact that the new combined system will now develop a new temperature gradient based on the weighted mean specific heat of the gases and solids involved, including the walls of the container. As we saw on the Home page, there can be convective heat transfers up a temperature gradient, as would happen on one side of the combined system, whether it be two cylinders with different gases connected thermally at each end, or a single cylinder with a wire.

          So, even though there may be cyclic movement of thermal energy, it would lead to a state of hydrostatic equilibrium in which the temperature at each point remained constant. No work could be done by the system without extracting at least the energy required to do such work, and thus cooling the whole system whilst maintaining the temperature gradients.

          Home
          Evidence
          Hky Schtick
          PSI Slayer errors
          WUWT errors
          15 min VIDEO
          NEW SITE

          Robert Brown shows a complete misunderstanding of thermodynamic equilibrium, which he does not even name correctly, and he fails to understand that there will always be a propensity towards establishing a temperature gradient in a gravitational field. ​You should note this final comment on that thread written by a “BigWaveDave” and pointing out how the gravito-thermal effect has been “forgotten” by many PhD’s. It is not a matter for acceptable disagreement. Also see the comment below that was posted on wattsupwiththat.

          Now people will tell you that Maxwell made a similar suggestion in a weak attempt to refute Josef Loschmidt’s gravito-thermal effect. But Maxwell did not have centrifuges in those days to settle the issue, whereas we do, and the easiest centrifuge to use for this purpose is the Ranque Hilsch vortex tube illustrated at the foot of the ‘Evidence’ page. As air spirals down the tube in a helical motion it experiences a huge centrifugal force acting along each radius of the cylinder. As expected, this force field, like gravity, forms a temperature gradient along each such radius, enabling separation of the air into streams that are hotter than the original air on the outside and colder along the center of the tube. See this article on LinkedIn.

          • Swenson says:

            Dug, you donkey,

            Turn off the power to the vortex tube, and the effect vanishes. Are you really stupid, or just deranged?

            No GHE, no gravothermal effect, no heat creep.

            Keep flogging that moribund equine.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “He ignores the fact that the wire will also develop a temperature gradient. ”

            The problem here is that different gases (and different wires) have different lapse rates. This leads to a simple argument by contraction.

            Suppose that a temperature gradient IS the situation for thermodynamic equilibrium. Several columns of different gases are in thermodynamic equilibrium at their bases (same pressure, same temperature). 1 km higher, a column with air is 9.8 C cooler due to the lapse rate (ie ‘heat creep’). Others might be 5 C or 20 C cooler because they have a different specific heats. Now take the coolest column of air and the warmest column of air and put them in contact at the tops. Heat will flow from the warmer to the cooler, contradicting the hypothesis that they are in thermodynamic equilibrium.

          • Entropic man says:

            ” As air spirals down the tube in a helical motion it experiences a huge centrifugal force acting along each radius of the cylinder. As expected, this force field, like gravity, ”

            Centrifugal force is not a force field. It is just inertia. It is the reaction to acceleration predicted by Newton’s Third Law.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “By whatever process the small bits of matter came together to form planets in our Solar System, the only source of new energy to warm them back up from less than 3K was the energy radiated by the Sun.”

      You have forgotten about gravity! A collapsing cloud of gas will compress and warm up (ideal gas law!). Dust and rock pulled in by the gravity of the sun and planets will acquire huge speeds, delivering energy to the accreting planets.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim…”Dust and rock pulled in by the gravity of the sun and planets will acquire huge speeds, delivering energy to the accreting planets”.

        ***

        No one can explain how the accreted mass achieves the velocity and momentum required to get it into orbit. Earth’s orbital speed is over 100,000 kph. How does the accreted mass get up to such a speed?

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “No one can explain … ”
          Try taking a 1st year university physics class and a 1st year university astronomy class. This is easily explained.

          “Earths orbital speed is over 100,000 kph. How does the accreted mass get up to such a speed?”
          Gravity. Calculate the speed of an object far from the sun (out side the solar system) falling to the location of the earth. You should get a number significantly above the value you quoted above. There is PLENTY of gravitational energy to get objects up to orbital speeds.

      • Scientst says:

        No Tim. Compressing molecules together (increasing the density and thus the pressure) does not make the molecules move faster – how could it?

        The reason collapsing stars like Jupiter can radiate more energy out than they receive (without actually warming) is because potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, just like when that apple fell from Newton’s tree.

      • Scientist says:

        And Tim you display a very wrong concept of the Ideal Gas Law which can best be understood as …

        PRESSURE IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE PRODUCT OF TEMPERATURE AND DENSITY.

        Now sit down and THINK about that! Compress a gas in a cylinder by slowly moving a piston half way down the cylinder and obviously you double the density. But you also double the pressure with the temperature staying constant because you have not been able to increase the speed of the molecules (about 1,700 Km/hour) with your slow moving piston. That is in accord with the IGL now isn’t it?

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          Ed Berry used the Ideal Gas Law as the basis for his theory that outflow (absorp.tion) is proportional to the atmospheric concentration or level, which makes sense. As the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 increases, n increases, and the number of collisions increases, and more collisions with sinks. All good physics is based on common sense.

        • Nate says:

          “All good physics is based on common sense.”

          And math, logic, and lots of experiments.

          Sometimes COMMON sense lacking math, logic, and experiments, turns out to be wrong.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “But you also double the pressure with the temperature staying constant “

          Do you honestly think the gas in a piston stays the same temperature when it gets compressed? The whole operation of a diesel engine is based on gas warming as it gets compressed. If you compress the gas slowly enough, it will only get a little warm. But that is merely because heat flows out to the cooler surroundings (tank, room, etc).

          When the ‘surroundings’ are other gas molecules that have ALSO been compressed, then they are just as warm and they can’t carry off the excess heat. The only option is to radiate that heat out into the universe. For a collapsing cloud of gas, the warming from gravitational compression far exceeds the ability of thermal radiation to cool the gas. This is something any astronomy student learns about in their first year.

          Here’s your homework. Consider a uniform cloud of H2 gas with the mass of the sun and the radius of the solar system (say 40 AU). Calculate the change in gravitational energy if it collapses to the radius of the sun. Use mc Delta(T) to relate this to a temperature change.

  94. Scientist says:

    Over 1,480 reads (by scientists) of “Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis” at Researchgate

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324664270_Comprehensive_Refutation_of_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis/stats

    with a further 1,500 downloads and over 6,100 reads of the Abstract at
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2884148

    and more at LinkedIn.

    Perhaps it is time for you to read it too.

  95. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    It is important to distinguish the temperature of the air near the surface from that of the surface itself. This is very well demonstrated by the surface temperature of the oceans. The surface heats up directly from incoming solar radiation, as does the atmosphere. The surface can absorb all the radiation that reaches it, while the troposphere retains some of the solar radiation. If the troposphere were thick enough we would be baked, just like asphalt, which melts with direct solar radiation.
    https://i.ibb.co/ZhPZHRM/gfs-world-ced2-sstanom-1-day.png
    https://i.ibb.co/XVCtcRS/gfs-world-ced2-t2anom-1-day.png
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2022.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”If the troposphere were thick enough we would be baked, just like asphalt, which melts with direct solar radiation”.

      ***

      Also, if heated air did not rise, we’d be baked just as badly. Convection is critical to our survival.

  96. Scientist says:

    IP

    You say “The surface heats up directly from incoming solar radiation, as does the atmosphere. The surface can absorb all the radiation that reaches it” but your statement is not correct.

    The solar radiation on average that penetrates the surface without being reflected by it is too weak on its own to explain the observed global mean surface temperature, and even far weaker on Venus.

    Also, the only target that would absorb all the radiation from a warmer source would be a target at 0K, that is about -273.15C.
    See the NASA energy diagram and notes below it at
    http://climate-change-theory.com.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      I’m not talking about global temperature, but the temperature of concrete in full sunlight.

      • Clint R says:

        Dug believes Sun only supplies 170 W/m^2 to Earth’s surface. An ice cube emits 315 W/m^2. Dug agrees with the climate science cult that Sun is colder than ice.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Clint, you STILL don’t grasp the difference between flux EMITTED and flux RECEIVED. Even after claiming to know about flux, you still equate what the sun supplies to what the ice emits. Apples and oranges!

          An ice cube emits about 315 W/m^2 because it is about 273 K.
          The sun emits about 64,000,000 W/m^2 because it is about 5800 K.

          Yep! The sun is way hotter than ice and — as expected — emits way more thermal radiation than ice.

          There is the (almost) entirely separate issue of how much radiation a given surface would supplied with. Depending distance and angle, a surface could be supplied with anywhere from 64,000,000 W/m^2 down to 0 W/m^2 from the sun. But the sun is still 5800 K, whether a surface is supplied with 1370 W/m^2 or 960 W/m^2 or 240 W/m^2 or 170 W/m^2 or 0 W/m^2.

    • Swenson says:

      Dug,

      Stand in the tropical sun at midday. You will quickly realise why Noel Coward sang “Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun”.

      And it gets even hotter on the Moon, with lower gravity and no atmosphere! Did all the Earth’s heat creep off to the Moon, do you think?

      You’re delusional – off with the fairies.

  97. Clint R says:

    Opps!

    Greenland SMB just broke out of its historical range. Let the desperate denial begin….

  98. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    How the 25th solar cycle is unfolding.
    You can see that sunspots appeared fairly evenly in the southern and northern hemispheres until mid-2022. Now you can see a decrease in the number of sunspots in the southern hemisphere, an increase in the northern hemisphere, hence the number of sunspots remains relatively constant.
    https://i.ibb.co/JQb3Qtr/cycle24.png

    • Eben says:

      I see another sidestep data point coming

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        It was a very long period of very low solar wind, from 2017 to 2022.
        https://i.ibb.co/5rc46kt/onlinequery.gif
        https://i.ibb.co/t8JTvp8/monitor.gif

        • Eben says:

          Just wait when the solar activity drops below zero and the solar wind reverses direction

          according to Bindiclown’s charts

          https://i.postimg.cc/L5j16xyG/solar-negativum.png

          • Bindidon says:

            And the babbling Edog stalker gets dumber and dumber and dumber…

            How is it possible to post such an 8-year-child trash on Roy Spencer’s blog?

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Maybe you should demand that Dr Spencer appoints you Chief Censor, instead continuously whining about other commenters.

            How does that seem?

            You could impress anybody who claims that the GHE doesn’t exist, by describing it, if you wanted to – setting out where it may be observed, measured and documented, for a start.

            Or just keep up your petulant complaining.

          • Bindidon says:

            Keep blathering strong, Flynnson parrot, and don’t forget to put your wonderful smelling dog poops everywhere, because we all can’t afford to miss them!

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Maybe you should demand that Dr Spencer appoints you Chief Censor, instead continuously whining about other commenters.

            How does that seem?

            You could impress anybody who claims that the GHE doesnt exist, by describing it, if you wanted to setting out where it may be observed, measured and documented, for a start.

            Or just keep up your petulant complaining.

            [chortle]

          • Bindidon says:

            Keep blathering strong, arrogant Flynnson parrot, and don’t forget to put your wonderful smelling dog poops everywhere, because we all can’t afford to miss them!

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Maybe you should demand that Dr Spencer appoints you Chief Censor, instead continuously whining about other commenters.

            How does that seem?

            You could impress anybody who claims that the GHE doesnt exist, by describing it, if you wanted to setting out where it may be observed, measured and documented, for a start.

            Or just keep up your petulant complaining.

            [chortle]

  99. gbaikie says:

    Scott is roughly correct about global climate at around 58 min point:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtZoSmRIWcE

    What he most correct about is prediction about the warming effects, effect, being inaccurate.

    To give my example, how warming is needed to cause the Sahara Desert, to green?

    So we know that all warmer global temperatures have the Sahara desert transforming into grassland [and lakes, rivers and forests].
    But there could a lot factor involved other than merely a warmer global temperature.
    One could say with enough global warming, it’s a certainty, but what is the minimum amount in our current climatic situation, would be what is questionable.
    Is 1 C enough or do we need 3 C added to global average temperature for example.

  100. Bindidon says:

    No doubt: this year 2022, Greenland experienced highest snowfall since quite a while, and the melt season was shortest since quite a while as well.

    But when we look at Greenland’s SMB history

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eRgctwzkm3qLMotARudK_ihrtUAGNrEv/view

    we obtain an idea about how much uninterrupted mix of snowfall increase and melting decrease will be necessary during the next years in order to restore the recent SMB maximum which occurred at the beginning of the 1980’s.

    *
    For us in Europe, a drastic increase of the SMB back to such earlier values would have positive consequences, as it would mean a cooling of Greenland, hence a decrease of coastal calving, hence a decrease of salt-free water masses in the Northwest Atlantic.

    *
    Source

    Programme for Monitoring of the Greenland Ice Sheet (PROMICE)
    (Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland GEUS)

    https://dataverse.geus.dk/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.22008/FK2/OHI23Z

    • Swenson says:

      Bunny,

      Good boy. Keep dissecting the weather. Keep your mind off electrocuting deniers, or infecting them with deadly diseases.

      Have you spoken to Dr Spencer about being appointed Censor-in-Chief yet?

      [laughing]

      • Bindidon says:

        Keep blathering strong, Flynnson parrot, and dont forget to put your wonderful smelling dog poops everywhere, because we cant afford to miss them!

        • Swenson says:

          Bunny,

          Good boy. Keep dissecting the weather. Keep your mind off electrocuting deniers, or infecting them with deadly diseases.

          Have you spoken to Dr Spencer about being appointed Censor-in-Chief yet?

          [laughing]

          • Bindidon says:

            Keep blathering strong, Flynnson parrot, and do not forget to put your wonderful smelling, arrogant dog poops everywhere, because we can not afford to miss them!

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Good boy. Keep dissecting the weather. Keep your mind off electrocuting deniers, or infecting them with deadly diseases.

            Have you spoken to Dr Spencer about being appointed Censor-in-Chief yet?

            [laughing]

          • Bindidon says:

            ” Have you spoken to Dr Spencer about being appointed Censor-in-Chief yet? ”

            That, dog poop supplier, would make sense only in case of people like you becoming censored.

  101. Wikipedia describes Heat Creep process says:

    The Wikipedia article on “Vortex tube” reads “The inner stream gives off kinetic energy in the form of heat to the outer stream” this being the process I described in 2013 involving heat from cold to hot which also happens in the troposphere thus obviating any need to (incorrectly) attribute the extra energy to back radiation. Thus the carbon dioxide scam is refuted once and for all. QED

    • Swenson says:

      Dug,

      Now try and run a vortex tube using gravity. Doesn’t work, does it?

      No heat creep.

      • Scientst says:

        Try considering a longer distance like the 350Km high troposphere of Uranus where heat creep makes the base about 320K – hotter than Earth’s surface despite being many times further from the Sun and there being no convincing evidence from TOA measurements that the planet is cooling.

        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS

      • Physicst says:

        The temperature gradient is calculated by equating PE gained and KE lost, so (as in my 2013 paper) ..

        M.g.dH = – M.Cp.dt

        So, Temperature gradient: dt/dh = -g/Cp

        On Earth that is about -9.8 degrees per Km (the so-called dry adiabatic lapse rate) because g is about 9.8 and the specific heat of air is 1.01, but it is reduced in magnitude by about 30% by water vapor, as is well known by meteorologists. The same formula works for Uranus as I have checked.

        Graff was able to detect the difference in cylinders in over 850 experiments you can read about at

        https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/lucy-skywalker-graeffs-experiments-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

        • Scientst says:

          For a vortex tube we replace g (for gravity) with the calculated centrifugal force, and then the same formula applies and gives correct quantification of the temperature difference in a vortex tube. My calculations were in Wikipedia talk back in 2014.

          The heat creep process is happening whenever these temperature gradients are forming (or being repaired such as on a calm night or possibly after a storm) as the author of the Wikipedia article on “Vortex Tube” explained when he wrote The inner stream gives off kinetic energy in the form of heat to the outer stream – that is, heat transfer from (very) cold to (very) hot. QED

          I am not going to answer questions that are covered in my 2013 paper. I only answered this because my research into vortex tubes was done after that paper was published.

        • Tim S says:

          People should give you more credit. Not only are you an amazing troll, but you are also a comedian. Not a very good one, but a comedian no less.

    • Entropic man says:

      From your Wikpedia source, explaining the operation of the vortex tube, explaining the effect using conventional physics with no need for heat creep.

      “Fundamental approach: the physics

      This approach is based on first-principles physics alone and is not limited to vortex tubes only, but applies to moving gas in general. It shows that temperature separation in a moving gas is due only to enthalpy conservation in a moving frame of reference.

      The thermal process in the vortex tube can be estimated in the following way:

      The adiabatic expansion of the incoming gas, which cools the gas and turns its heat content into the kinetic energy of rotation. The total enthalpy, which is the sum of the enthalpy and the kinetic energy, is conserved.
      The peripheric rotating gas flow moves towards the hot outlet. Here the heat recuperation effect takes place between the quickly rotating peripheric flow and the opposite slowly rotating axial flow. Here the heat transfers from axial flow to the peripheric one.
      The kinetic energy of rotation turns into the heat by the means of the viscous dissipation. The temperature of the gas rises. As the total enthalpy has been increased during the heat recuperation process, this temperature is higher than the incoming gas.
      Some of the hot gas leaves the hot outlet, carrying away the excess heat.
      The rest of the gas turns towards the cold outlet. As it passes its way to the cold outlet, its heat energy is transferred to the peripheric flow. Although the temperature at the axis and at the periphery is about the same everywhere, the rotation is slower at the axis, so the total enthalpy is lower as well.
      The low total enthalpy cooled gas from the axial flow leaves the cold outlet.
      The main physical phenomenon of the vortex tube is the temperature separation between the cold vortex core and the warm vortex periphery. The “vortex tube effect” is fully explained with the work equation of Euler,[3] also known as Euler’s turbine equation, which can be written in its most general vectorial form as:[4]

      {\displaystyle T-{\frac {{\vec {v}}\cdot {\vec {\omega }}\times {\vec {r}}}{c_{p}}}={\mbox{const}}}T-{\frac {{\vec v}\cdot {\vec \omega }\times {\vec r}}{c_{p}}}={\mbox{const}},
      where {\displaystyle T}T is the total, or stagnation temperature of the rotating gas at radial position {\displaystyle {\vec {r}}}{\vec {r}}, the absolute gas velocity as observed from the stationary frame of reference is denoted with {\displaystyle {\vec {v}}}{\vec {v}}; the angular velocity of the system is {\displaystyle {\vec {\omega }}}{\vec \omega } and {\displaystyle c_{p}} c_p is the isobaric heat capacity of the gas. This equation was published in 2012; it explains the fundamental operating principle of vortex tubes (Here’s a video with animated demonstration of how this works[5]). The search for this explanation began in 1933 when the vortex tube was discovered and continued for more than 80 years.

      The above equation is valid for an adiabatic turbine passage; it clearly shows that while gas moving towards the center is getting colder, the peripheral gas in the passage is “getting faster”. Therefore, vortex cooling is due to angular propulsion. The more the gas cools by reaching the center, the more rotational energy it delivers to the vortex and thus the vortex rotates even faster. This explanation stems directly from the law of energy conservation. Compressed gas at room temperature is expanded in order to gain speed through a nozzle; it then climbs the centrifugal barrier of rotation during which energy is also lost. The lost energy is delivered to the vortex, which speeds its rotation. In a vortex tube, the cylindrical surrounding wall confines the flow at periphery and thus forces conversion of kinetic into internal energy, which produces hot air at the hot exit.

      Therefore, the vortex tube is a rotorless turboexpander.[6] It consists of a rotorless radial inflow turbine (cold end, center) and a rotorless centrifugal compressor (hot end, periphery). The work output of the turbine is converted into heat by the compressor at the hot end.”

      The equation itself was corrupted by Roy’s weird website, but can be read in the original here.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube

  102. Swenson says:

    Poor old Bindidon!

    Turns to water when asked to describe the GHE.

    No wonder he wants to exterminate anyone who points him in the direction of reality.

    He may have realised that “dissecting the past” won’t help him to predict the future.

    He is now reduced to pointing out that weather is variable. Gee, that’s right! Climate is the average of past weather. By definition, some of that past weather was above whatever average you pick, some was below.

    I cannot see into the future, but I have no good reason not to assume that the weather will continue to be both variable and largely unpredictable. Bindidon is free to think otherwise. Time will tell.

    • Bindidon says:

      Keep blathering strong, arrogant Flynnson parrot, and dont forget to put your wonderful smelling dog poops everywhere, because we all cant afford to miss them!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      swenson…”Poor old Bindidon!

      Turns to water when asked to describe the GHE”.

      ***

      With the Moon, he can turn to astrologers like Cassini as an authority figure. With the GHE, he has no one. Even the IPCC can only offer lame justifications, like…

      1)19th century scientists said it is so.

      2)Humans began raising the level of CO2 in the atmosphere during the Industrial Era, it started warming circa 1850, therefore CO2 is warming the atmosphere.

      No mention that the planet was 1C to 2C lower due to the Little Ice Age during the IE, that glaciers had already expanded enormously because of it, and that colder oceans had sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere.

      Binny has a Teutonic need for authority figures, even though he seems more comfortable speaking French. Go figure.

  103. Scientist says:

    What a naive suggestion!!!!! You really do exhibit a complete lack of understanding of the Kinetic Theory of Gases which was used successfully by Einstein – and of course you don’t have a clue what my paper explains, and nor do you even understand my explanations above. Are you still in High School by any chance? I’ve had over 55 years’ experience in physics. What have you had? You certainly haven’t understood the real world much. Good bye.

    • Swenson says:

      Dug,

      It might help if you let people know to whom you are talking, and what you are talking about.

      Just a suggestion.

      55 years experience? You got it wrong for the first year, and then repeated your mistakes for 54 more years, is that it?

      Still no experimental support for the GHE, heat creep or the gravitothermal effect.

      By the way, you might have noticed that Graeff (the gravitothermal fanatic) even labeled one of his setups “Gravity Machine”. Did you buy one, or are you not that silly?

      Yes, I am having a bit of a laugh at your expense. Why not?

      • Scientst says:

        Heat creep happens (due to gravity) in the Venus atmosphere warming a location on the equator from 732K to 737K over the course of four months on the sunlit side. You cannot explain this warming in any other way.

        Uranus is not cooling off, yet heat creep maintains the base of its 350Km high nominal troposphere at about 320K. You cannot explain this warming in any other way.

        Heat creep also happens (due to centrifugal force) in a vortex cooling tube or it would not do what it does. You cannot explain the radial temperature gradient in any other correct way.

        Yes, Graeff was hopeless in regard to his understanding of the physics and he got all mixed up about whether or not degrees of freedom should be in his calculations, which they should not be. But his 850 experiments were superb examples of meticulous attention to detail and the cylinders exhibited definite cooler temperatures at the top, and even when they were inverted 180 degrees gravity re-established the temperature gradient, cool at the top.

        I don’t care what you laugh at or think of me – that’s water off a duck’s back. But I am annoyed at your misleading silent readers without a word of physics relating to, let alone refuting the correct physics in my papers. Josef Loschmidt was a brilliant physicist and was 100% correct about the gravito-thermal effect which is seen in every planetary troposphere.

        I have the last laugh at you for thinking you are more brilliant than Loschmidt, or even than Robert Brown.

        Silent readers could go to my third climate website, then click the link to my second website and then click the ‘WUWT Errors’ link to read about the pathetic attempt by Robert Brown trying to prove Loschmidt wrong.

        http://climate-change-theory.com

        • Swenson says:

          Dug,

          You don’t have the faintest idea what Graeff’s amateurish experiments showed, have you?

          No wonder that nobody has ever been able to support Graeff’s wishful thinking.

          Anybody can look for themselves, and make up their own mind – they don’t have to take any notice of me! Loschmidt was brilliant, but wrong about the gravitothermal effect, just as Lord Kelvin was wrong about the age of the Earth, caloric theory, and the luminiferous aether.

          Maybe you believe that all physicists are never wrong – I don’t.

          There is no gravitothermal effect – else the water at 10 km would be hotter than the surface, and it’s not. There is no GHE – else the Earth’s surface would have higher maximum temperatures than the Moon – and it doesn’t. No heat creep – else you could demonstrate it by experiment – and you can’t.

          Carry on fooling yourself – you are the easiest one to fool, as Feynman said.

          • Scientist says:

            There is a reason for temperatures in the ocean only exhibiting the Loschmidt temperature gradient in waters North of Norway in calm winter conditions without currents which elsewhere overpower the formation of the gradient, just like storms do in the troposphere.

            But whereas there will be calm conditions in the troposphere sometimes, in contrast ocean currents move continually in most parts of the world.

            You could have learned this from my paper.

            You think you’re smart, but you haven’t a clue about the Second Law of Thermodynamics’ process of maximum entropy production which leads to the Loschmidt temperature gradient forming even down to the core.

            Your pet conjecture about Loschmidt being wrong is so sadly mistaken that you score own goals because its existence refutes the greenhouse garbage for the gullible. That’s why the alarmists try to prove Loschmidt wrong but in their attempts they display ignorance of thermodynamics, just as you do. You implicitly support them when you go around saying Loschmidt was wrong. He was one of the most brilliant physicists ever, as all his other works also indicate, but he was ahead of his time like Einstein.

            You might as well dismiss the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or at least re-write it yourself and convince the world you’re right. You’ll only need your usual barrage of assertive statements such as in the comment above.

        • Entropic man says:

          Scientist

          Euler’s turbine equation explains vortex tube operation with no need for extra variables such as heat creep.

          You still haven’t shown that centrifugal force is a true force and not a fictional force.

          Everyone else regards centrifugal force as inertia, the reaction to the deflection of the gas flow by the tube walls in accordance with Newton’s Third Law of Motion. No force fields involved.

          You define heat creep as movement of heat driven by a force field. No force field in vortex tubes so, by your rules, no possibility of heat creep.

          • Scientist says:

            No Entropic it doesn’t. My response to you is already in the Talk pages for the Vortex Tube.

          • Entropic man says:

            Insufficient. You gave me a press release for another application of Euler’s turbine law to cool a gas. No force field, no possibility of heat creep.

            You keep talking about centrifugal force as a true force. True force fields are like magnetic fields, electric fields and gravity. They can all apply action at a distance. Centrifugal force is not a force field. It is an inertial response to the deflection of a moving object.

            Again, if your hypothetical heat creep only takes place in a true force field centrifugal force does not qualify.

            Graeff’s apparatus was described at tallbloke’s about ten years ago. I commented on his poor experimental design then and have seen no reason to change my view since.

        • Entropic man says:

          I remember Graeff’s original experiment. The temperature gradient he reported had less to do with the “gravitothermal effect” and more to do with the massive copper heat sink at the bottom of his apparatus.

          The heat sink kept the bottom of the apparatus warmer than the top. The result was a temperature gradient with the bottom of the apparatus warmer than the top, which he misinterpreted as a gravitothermal effect.

          No new physics, just poor experimental design.

          He’s probably made a similar error with his gravity machine. I would get a dollar that a careful analysis would that show some of the the energy used to maintain the temperature of the heat bath is being used by the Peltier junctions to produce electricity by the thermoelectric effect. No gravitothermal effect required.

          • Scientst says:

            Again you are wrong because that criticism of his experiments was a made-up rumour by someone who never went to see his apparatus. The alarmists do this all the time, just like they claim Loschmidt was wrong with false physics because they don’t understand entropy. Nor do you, which is why you probably think him wrong also.

            THE PROOF FROM THE LAWS OF PHYSICS THAT LOSCHMIDT WAS RIGHT IS OF COURSE IN MY 2013 PAPER AND THE REWARD OF AU $10,000 STILL STANDS.

          • Entropic man says:

            To control for other variables an apparatus designed to detect gravitothermal gradients should be

            1) Vertically symmetrical, identical at top and bottom.

            2) capable of inversion, so that you can demonstrate that any observed temperature gradient is due to gravity and and not the apparatus.

            Do you have links to any experiments which met these criteria? Graeff’s certainly did not.

  104. Swenson says:

    Tim Folkerts wrote –

    “Whatever the cause, the evidence is clear that the earth DOES warm over various time scales and spatial scales.”

    Complete nonsense, of course. Tim is confused, as usual, and thinks that the coming of day shows that “the Earth” has warmed. Likewise, when Tim experiences summer.

    He does not seem to realise that his Timocentric view of “the Earth” is not supported by reality.

    Even worse (or better, depending on your point of view), Tim asserts that the Earth warms over various time scales – and presumably cools between the warming, otherwise nobody could perceive the warming episodes.

    But alas, apart from the only evidence of periodic “warming” of “the Earth” being found in the imaginations of SkyDragons, the mechanism is obviously a closely guarded secret – as it cools, warms, cools, warms . . .”the Earth”, in accordance with Tim’s whims. Very Timocentric, but quite laughable to any rational person.

    SkyDragon cultists are reluctantly being forced to face reality – and they obviously don’t like it one little bit. Poor darlings – they’ll get over it one day.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “But alas, apart from the only evidence of periodic “warming” of the Earth being found in the imaginations of SkyDragons … “

      Do you deny the existence of ice ages and interglacial periods? Do you deny the warming shown in Dr Roy’s data? That is not ‘imaginary’ — that is reality.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim…”Do you deny the existence of ice ages and interglacial periods? Do you deny the warming shown in Dr Roys data? That is not imaginary that is reality”.

        ***

        I don’t deny the existence of ice ages and interglacial periods but neither do I accept the theories. There is simply not enough evidence to convince me, not that they happened, but the extent to which they happened. I think claims of ice piled up a mile high is a load of hooey.

        WRT to Roy’s graph, it does show a trend of about 0.14C/decade but the interpretation of what that means in the overall claim of 1C warming since 1850 is not clear. The graph shows over 20 years of flat trend in a range of 40+ years. Also, the graph began in the negative anomaly region.

        The first set of data appeared only two years after the Great Pacific Climate Shift, eventually recognized as the PDO. In 1977, an unexplained global warming of 0.2C appeared and many scientists wanted to scrap it as an error. I have noted on Roy’s graph another shift circa 2002 following the 1998 EN and another following the 2016 EN.

        It appears these two super EN’s warmed the planet and all the warming did not disappear following them. Such sudden warmings within a year could not possibly be explained by CO2.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Gordon says: “I dont deny the existence of ice ages and interglacial periods ”
          I am glad you agree that Swenson is wrong. That was really my only point in that post. The earth can and does warm as a whole over some time-frames. The earth can and does have radiation imbalances more than 0.1 W/m^2 over some time frames.

          Once Swenson agrees with the obvious data, THEN there can be a discussion about causes.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            Science is not about agreement, consensus, or debate.

            You are just being silly, when you write nonsense like “The earth can and does warm as a whole over some time-frames.”

            It has cooled, and continues to do so.

            It is the imagination of dimwits like Carl Sagan, James Hansen and yourself that the planet can warm (ie increase its internal energy) spontaneously. Just about as silly as expecting the surface of a red hot cannonball to alternately warm and cool when left in the Sun – while the interior remains red hot.

            You obviously believe that the GHE has both magical heating and cooling powers – without any experimental support at all. You can’t even describe the GHE, can you? That’s alright, because not even the most fanatical SkyDragon cultist can.

            Keep in being delusional – it obviously satisfies you.

          • Nate says:

            “It has cooled, and continues to do so.”

            “the evidence is clear that the earth DOES warm over various time scales and spatial scales.

            What to do when faced with facts contradicting your favorite meme?

            Just deny them, or ignore them.

            That’s the tried and true Swenson method of ‘debate’.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Just about as silly as expecting the surface of a red hot cannonball to alternately warm and cool when left in the Sun while the interior remains red hot.”

            To make that analogy work:
            1) the surface must be approximately room temperature, not ‘red hot’.
            2) the cannon ball must be alternately placed in the sun and removed from the sun, not ‘left in the Sun’.
            And with the proper analogy, suddenly it is not silly at all. Objects warm up and cool down all the time when the external conditions (like presence/absence of sunlight) changes. If they are well insulated, the center can remain quite warm while the surface is quite cool.

            Here is a similar, better, actual example. I have a very well insulated coffee mug. I can put hot coffee in the mug in the morning and it is still comfortably warm in the afternoon. This also means the exterior of the mug stays cool to the touch.

            We could invent rough, plausible numbers like:
            70 C = Tc = coffee
            25 C = Tm = Surface of mug
            20 C = Tr = room temperature
            1 W = Pc = heat loss rate from coffee to the mug
            1 W = Pm = heat loss rate from mug to surroundings
            Because Pc = Pm, the surface of the mug remains at a steady temperature of 25 C.
            (the exact numbers don’t matter, but these are at least plausible)

            Here’s the thing. If I took the mug to a warmer room @ 30 C, surface would be cooler than the surroundings and heat would flow (at least for a while) from this room to the mug! Pm would be negative! The net change in thermal energy of hte coffee and mug would be positive.

            I will note a couple things:
            1) the coffee itself does not get hotter not gain thermal energy — that would indeed violate the 2LoT. It is only the steel surface of the mug that gets warmer.
            2) Soon the surface would warm up to the 30 C of the room and Pm=0 W. The surface would continue warming because Pc continues, and soon the surface would be about 5 C above the new room temperature so that once again Pm = Pc = 1W.

  105. Gordon Robertson says:

    A word on the kinetic theory of gases.

    As the phrase claims, it is a theory, meaning no one really knows how it works because no one has ever witnessed molecules in a gas first hand. Furthermore, much of it is based on statistical theory, which makes dicey assumptions.

    We also have the kinetic theory of matter, because no one has ever seen how atoms interact in matter.

    Then we have laws, which are pretty well indisputable. Ohm’s Law…E = IR. For an ideal gas…PV = nRT. It holds up for most gases if the proper R-value is applied.

    We have the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which was stated verbally by Clausius…heat can never be transferred by its own means from a cold body to a hotter body. There is no need to use a reference to entropy in the 2nd law, Clausius stated the definition of entropy after he stated the 2nd law in words.

    The 2nd law is not a theory, it is a law!!! It is indisputable, no matter what tricks are applied to get around it. It’s as valid as Newton’s 3 laws of motion.

    A few idiots have tried to claim that Einstein’s THEORY of relativity have replaced Newtons laws of motion. How can a theory replace a law??? The problem is that we lack the instrumentation to measure at the atomic level, so some people rush off to an alternate theory that makes no sense.

    Same with the kinetic theory of gases. It is a theory that no one can prove because they cannot see how molecules interact with the walls of a container and with each other.

    However, the pressure on the walls can be measure but not from an individual atom/molecules. Volume can be measured as can temperature, and the number of molecules can be estimated using Avogadro’s number.

    That gives us a law…the Ideal Gas Law…PV = nRT.

    We need to distinguish between laws and theories. Laws tend not to be universal in that they don’t apply everywhere, every time. I am willing to bet that if we ever find instruments that will measure at the atomic level that Newton’s Law will apply and we can scrap relativity theory. As Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock claimed, it’s not even a theory, it’s a collection of thought experiments.

    There is no real reason we should presume the micro and macro worlds don’t have the same laws.

    • Gordon:
      “There is no real reason we should presume the micro and macro worlds dont have the same laws.”

      Agreed!

      • Entropic man says:

        Disagree.

        The behaviour of the macro world is described by relativity. The behaviour of the microbworld is described by quantum theory.

        They are not compatible.

    • Scientist says:

      You don’t even quote the Clausius statement correctly – few do. You listen too much to climatologists and their twisted physics.

      The Second Law is far more general than the Clausius corollary which, for non-radiative heat transfers, only always applies in a horizontal plane (ie same altitude) or in interstellar Space devoid of gravity.

      Even Wikipedia gets it right:

      “The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.”

      “His formulation of the second law, which was published in German in 1854, is known as the Clausius statement:

      Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.[38]

      The reference is to “change” and not to “work being done.”

      The stages in physics are …

      (1) Hypothesis

      (2) Theory

      (3) Law

      “The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

       Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “It is indisputable …”
      You just left the realm of science and entered the realm of religion. Science is never ‘proven’ or ‘finalized’ or ‘indisputable’. New data and better theories on any topic might arise tomorrow.

      “How can a theory replace a law?”
      I don’t think you understand these words as they are commonly used in science. Typically, “law” refers to empirical observations about things that happen, while “theory” is about *why* things happen. Theories are typically considered MORE powerful than Laws, not the other way around

      * It is a law that the sun comes up in the east each day.
      * It is a theory that this is caused by the rotation of the earth.

      * Newton’s *Laws* describe how objects around us move.
      * Einstein’s *Theory* of relativity explains (among other things) why objects disobey Newton’s Laws at very high speeds.

      [Also, titles like “Theory” or “Law” or “Principle” or “Effect” or are just human conventions, a consensus among scientist. Often names are kept because of historical precedence, not because the word exactly describes the situation.]

  106. What factor is NOT part of the effective temperature formula that so dramatically affects the actual temperature of the moon?

    Why is the actual mean temperature of the moon so much lower than the effective temperature? NASA lists the effective temperature of the moon at 270.6 Kelvin. The mean temperature of the moon at the equator is 220 Kelvin.

    With no atmospheric effects, why is the surface temperature so much lower than the effective temperature predicts? What factor is NOT part of the effective temperature formula that so dramatically affects the actual temperature of the moon?

    I’ll tell you what it is:

    It is the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor. For smooth surface Moon Φ= 0,47.
    Let’s calculate:

    Te.correct.moon = [ Φ (1-a) So /4σ ]∕ ⁴
    Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (1-0,11) 1.362 W/m^2 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
    Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (0,89) 1.362 W/m^2 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =

    Te.correct.moon =
    [ 2.510.168.871,25 ]∕ ⁴ =

    Te.correct.moon = 223,83 Κ

    This simple example clearly demonstrates the CORRECTNESS of the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor. For smooth surface planets, like Moon, Φ= 0,47.

    Conclusion:

    From now on, for every smooth surface planet and moon, we should take in consideration instead of the planet blackbody effective temperature Te , the corrected VALUES of the planet blackbody effective temperature – the Te.corrected.

    Table of results for Te and Te.corrected compared to Tsat and to Rotations/day for smooth surface planets and moons with Φ=0,47

    Planet……Te…..Te.corr…Tsat…Rot/day
    Mercury….440K…..364K….340K…0,00568
    Moon…….270K…..224K….220K…0,0339
    Earth……255K…..210K….288K….1
    Mars…….210K…..174K….210K…0,9747
    Europa……95,2K….78,8K..102K…0,2816
    Ganymede…107,1K….88,6K..110K…0,1398

    Notice:

    The number 0,47 for smooth surface in a parallel fluid flow is taken from the well measured and long ago known Drag Coefficient Data, where Cd =0,47 is for sphere. It is the portion of incident on sphere energy which should be resisted by sphere to remain in balance.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      christos…”From now on, for every smooth surface planet and moon, we should take in consideration instead of the planet blackbody effective temperature Te , the corrected VALUES of the planet blackbody effective temperature the Te.corrected”.

      ***

      You are correct. The S-B formula…J = e.sigma.T^4…was created for temperatures in a range from about 500C to 1500C. The equation does not apply for temperatures outside that range without a correction factor. Otherwise you get ice radiating with 325 w/m^2.

      If you consider the function y = x^4, it is an exponential function that is far from being linear. However, in the case of S-B, the exponent 4 was derived from the change in colours of an electrically-heated filament wire as it began glowing red around 500C and proceeded through the colours to white around 1500C. Someone converted the colours to equivalent frequencies and Stefan used the derived frequencies of EM to arrive at the T^4 relationships between radiation intensity and temperature.

      There is no reason to presume that T^4 value is valid outside that range. It’s not as if the T^4 function was created through a specified range based on observed temperatures from 0K up.

      In general, radiation from a surface is not considered significant at low temperatures. Until recently, no one bothered with radiation loss in a house, any insulation of R-rated or mineral wool, to reduce heat loss due to conduction.

      An expert on gases, R.W. Wood, stated circa 1909 that he doubted that surface radiation was effective more than a few feet above the Earth’s surface.

  107. Bindidon says:

    I get always a big laugh when I read the Ignoramus’ dumb stuff about the Moon:

    ” With the Moon, he can turn to astrologers like Cassini as an authority figure. ”

    Did Newton as well, as he explained in 1676 to the German astronomer Mercator (Nikolas Kaufmann).

    *
    Newton’s Principia ( 3rd edition in 1726, just before he died)

    Book III, Prop. XVII, Theor. XV:

    Quoniam enim Luna circà axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circà Tellurem periodum suam absolvit

    Translation:

    For the Moon uniformly revolves around its axis in the same time as it completes its period around the Earth

    No one can ignore, distort or erase what Newton wrote.

    Fortunately for us all, even a dumbass like Robertson can’t.

    • Swenson says:

      Bunny,

      As viewed from the fixed stars, from whence every side of the Moon can be seen as it orbits the Earth – unless the view is blocked by the Earth, of course.

      Not from the POV of the Earth – part of the Moon always faces away from the Earth.

      Does any of it matter? Have any facts changed at all?

      Maybe you care. Then again, maybe you don’t, and are just trying to avoid facing the reality that there is no GHE, no gravitothermal effect, and no heat creep.

      In any case, press on with your dissection of the past.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swenson…”Not from the POV of the Earth part of the Moon always faces away from the Earth”.

        ***

        That’s the part that escapes Binny, and other spinners.

        If you are standing in the middle of a track, watching a car do laps, you only see one side of the car. You might catch a flash of rear end or front end, but it’s always the same side pointing inwardly.

        If you are in the stands watching the same car, you see every side of the car as it laps. Yet, the car is not rotation about its COG, otherwise it would do a 360, where the tail end rotates about the COG till the driver is facing backwards down the track at 180, then continues rotating till he is looking forward again.

        Spinners imply cannot fathom the difference between a real rotation about an axis/COG and a change in orientation due to the mode of motion. Then again, spinners are for the most part climate alarmists who cannot tell the difference between a real greenhouse effect and a fake greenhouse effect.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…re Newton…”For the Moon uniformly revolves around its axis in the same time as it completes its period around the Earth…”

      ***

      Revolves is equivalent to orbits, hence the Moon is revolving around its axis, the Earth.

      Newton is also quoted as claiming the Moon moves with a linear velocity via curvilinear motion. He knew the Moon’s orbital motion is curvilinear so he had to know it moved in linear increments, keeping the same side pointed at the Earth.

      The father of calculus would not make so stupid a mistake, after referring to the lunar motion as curvilinear, as to infer it also rotated on a local axis. Calculus is based on the principle that a body moving along a curve moves along instantaneous tangential paths. The 1st derivative of the equation of a curve, a basis of calculus, defines the slope of the instantaneous tangent line at any point of a curve.

      Knowing that the Moon always kept the same side pointed inward, Newton would surely not make such an egregious error as to claim the Moon is rotating on a local axis once per orbit. He obviously meant it is re-orienting, through 360 degrees, once per orbit. Revolution in this case has to mean re-orientation.

      • Bindidon says:

        Robertson

        ” Newton is also quoted as claiming the Moon moves with a linear velocity via curvilinear motion. ”

        By whom was he quoted, except yourself, you Ignoramus?

        ” He knew the Moon’s orbital motion is curvilinear so he had to know it moved in linear increments, keeping the same side pointed at the Earth. ”

        What is horrible with people like you is not so much that you are an absolute idiot, but rather that you think people like Newton are as much an idiot as you are!

        This is beyond the imaginable.

  108. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    In three days, a wave will fall from the stratosphere over the western US, bringing dry Arctic air with lots of stratospheric ozone. As you can see in the graphic, the height of the troposphere on the west coast will drop below 6 km, that is, as over the pole. Exceptionally low temperatures can be expected for this time of year.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      It is very apparent that the influence of the polar vortex prevails in winter over the influence of La Nina on the circulation of air masses.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…when you say western US, that usually means the real west, on the west coast. The rest of the US and Canada are fake-west, or mid-west…whatever.

      Here in Vancouver, Canada, on the real west coast, we normally don’t get Arctic air. Maybe a few times per winter but usually temps are above zero.

      Do you see the Arctic air to which you refer creeping over toward Vancouver? Our forecasts for the next 7 days see us dropping to lows of 4C or so even though the 14 day forecast says there will be lows at 0C or below by November 10th.

      Also, La Nina is being predicted as 75% certain this winter in some circles.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        Vancouver has a peculiar climate, as the remnants of Pacific cyclones reach there in winter. When the low is in the Gulf of Alaska, it draws warmer air from the Pacific to Vancouver.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ren…Vancouver is typical for a west coast city in either Europe or North America. Both Vancouver and Seattle, Washington are on inland seas and they don’t freeze. All such cities are warmed by ocean current from the Tropical regions and even air flowing from tropical regions.

          However, if Arctic air descends, it can drop as low as -18C but very seldom. Even then, the inland waters and rivers don’t freeze over.

          This is proof that heat is stored in the oceans and the atmosphere. Most of Arctic Ocean freezes over in winter with up to ten feet of ice. The north Atlantic and Pacific don’t freeze and I think that has to do with warmer water from the Tropics keeping the water above -2C, where salt water freezes.

  109. Bindidon says:

    Flynnson

    ” As viewed from the fixed stars, from whence every side of the Moon can be seen as it orbits the Earth unless the view is blocked by the Earth, of course.

    Not from the POV of the Earth part of the Moon always faces away from the Earth. ”

    *
    Only ignorant idiots talk about ‘viewed from the fixed stars’.

    This expression makes no sense; you have been told that long time ago, but like Robertson and Clint R, you always come back with your same primitive, unscientific idiocies.

    Astronomers never speak that way. Like Newton, they all say ‘with regard to the fixed stars‘ instead, what indeed makes sense.

    The motion of celestial bodies would of course NOT differ if we ever would be able to look at them ‘from the fixed stars’, what we evidently are not, because this motion does not depend of the point it is observed from! What a childish nonsense.

    What we can observe correctly when we look at these bodies ‘with regard to the fixed stars’, Flynnson, is the speed of their motion.

    We can cite Newton here as well:

    Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56′, Mars horis 24. 39′. Venus horis 23. circiter, Terra horis 23. 56′, Sol diebus 25 1/2, et Luna diebus 27 7 hor. 43′.

    Translation:

    Jupiter certainly revolves with respect to the fixed points in 9.56 hours, Mars in 24.39 hours. Venus in about 23 hours, the Earth in 23.56 hours, the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the Moon in 27 days, 7 hours 43′.

    And in addition:

    ” Maculae in corpore Solis ad eundem situm in discus Solis redeunt diebus 27 1/2 circiter, respectu Terrae; ideóque respectu fixarum Sol revolvitur diebus 25 1/2 circiter. ”

    Translation:

    The spots on the Sun’s body return to the same position on the Sun’s disk in about 27 1/2 days, with respect to the Earth; and with respect to the fixed points the Sun revolves about 25 1/2 days.

    *
    Under ‘fixed points’ everybody having some knowledge understands the ‘distant stars’, whose position does not change compared to the celestial bodies in the Solar System.

    Right? Or do you want to destillate your arrogant, pseudo-skeptic dog poops about that too?

    *
    Even the dumbest person understands here that the lunar spin deniers intentionally distort Newton’s words, by insinuating that by ‘with respect to the fixed stars’, he could well mean motions, where in fact he only means motion periods.

    *
    And even the dumbest person understands here as well that when Newton mentions ‘revolves’ with regard to Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth and the Sun, giving values corresponding to their respective rotation period, he will certainly not mean, with the value 27 days, 7 hours 43′ in the same sentence, Moon’s orbiting period.

    *
    And for people having – unlike all Moon spin deniers – a healthy brain, the fact that we see Moon showing us the same part of its surface all the time IS exactly the proof that it must spin.

    *
    Poor Flynnson dumbass, who has all the day nothing better to do than to distort, misrepresent, discredit, denigrate.

    In any case, press on with your arrogant dog poops!

    • Clint R says:

      Bindidon’s meltdown is delightful. His mask is gone, and his immaturity is glaring. He’s almost sunk to Norman’s level! He’s trapped in his “dog poops”.

      The Moon issue is easily settled with a ball-on-a-string, as it’s swung in a circle. It models “orbital motion without axial rotation”. One side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit, while the leading side always faces in the direction of motion. So the fact that Moon always keeps one side facing the center of its orbit tells us it is NOT rotating about its axis.

      It’s really quite simple.

      • Bindidon says: