Canadian Summer Urban Heat Island Effects: Some Results in Alberta

November 19th, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Summary

Comparison of rural with urban temperature monitoring sites across Canada during the summers of 1978-2022 shows the expected average nighttime warm bias in urban areas, with a weaker daytime effect. When applied to the Landsat imagery-based diagnoses of increased urbanization over time, 20% of the temperature trends in a small region encompassing Calgary and Edmonton are found to be due to increasing urbanization. Calgary leads the list of Canadian cities with increased urbanization, with an estimated 50% of the nighttime warming trends across 10 Canadian mostly-metro areas attributable to increased urbanization, and 20% of the daytime warming trends.

Introduction

This is part of my continuing investigation of the degree to which land-based temperature datasets are producing warming trends exaggerated by increasing urbanization (the urban heat island effect, UHI). Current “homogenization” techniques for thermometer data adjustment do not explicitly attempt to correct urban trends to match rural trends, although I would expect that they do perform this function if most of the stations are rural. Instead, they amount to statistical “consensus-building” exercises where the majority wins. So, if most of the stations are affected by increasing UHI effects, to varying degrees, these are not forced to match the rural stations. Instead, the reverse occurs. For example, in the U.S. the Watts et al. analysis of station data showed that the U.S. homogenized dataset (USHCN) produced temperature trends as large as those produced by the stations with the worst siting in terms of spurious heat sources. They further found that use of only well-sited thermometer locations leads to substantial reductions in temperature trends compared to the widely used homogenized dataset.

I consider homogenization to be a black-box approach that does not address the spurious warming in thermometer records resulting from widespread urbanization over time. My approach has been different: Document the absolute temperature differences between station pairs and relate that to some independent measure of urbanization difference. The Landsat-based global dataset of “built-up” areas (which I will loosely refer as measures of urbanization) offers the opportunity to correct for urbanization in thermometer data extending back to the 1970s (when the Landsat series of satellite started).

My main region of focus to start has been the southeast U.S., partly because my co-researcher, John Christy, is the Alabama state climatologist, and I am partly funded through that office. But I am also examining other regions. So far, I’ve done some preliminary analysis for the UK, France, Australia, China, and Canada. Here I will show some initial results for Canada.

The first step is to quantify, from closely-spaced stations, the difference in monthly-average temperatures between more-urban and more-rural sites. The temperature dataset I am using is the Global Hourly Integrated Surface Database (ISD), archived on a continuing basis at NOAA/NCEI. The data are dominated by operational hourly (or 3-hourly) observations made to support aviation at airports around the world. They are mostly (but not entirely) independent of the maximum and minimum (Tmax and Tmin) measurements that make up other widely-used and homogenized global temperature datasets. The advantages of the ISD dataset is the hourly time resolution, allowing more thorough investigation of day vs. night effects, and better instrumentation and maintenance for aviation safety support. A disadvantage is that there are not as many stations in the dataset compared to the Tmax/Tmin datasets.

As I discussed in my last post on the subject, a critical component to my method is the relatively recent high-resolution (1 km) global dataset of urbanization derived from the Landsat satellites since 1975 as part of the EU’s Global Human Settlement (GHS) project. This allows me to compare neighboring stations to quantify how much urban warmth is associated with differences in urbanization as diagnosed from Landsat imagery of “built-up” structures.

Urban vs. Rural Summertime Temperatures in Canada

Canada is a mostly-rural country, with widely scattered temperature monitoring stations. Most of the population (where most of the thermometers are) is clustered along the coasts and especially along the U.S. border. There are relatively few airports compared to the size of the country which limits how many rural-vs-urban match-ups I can make.

For 150 km maximum space between station pairs, as well as a few other tests for inclusion (e.g. less than 300 m elevation difference between stations), Fig. 1 shows the differences in average temperature and area-average Landsat-based urbanization values for (a) 09 UTC (late night) and (b) 21 UTC (afternoon). These times were chosen to approximate the times of minimum and maximum temperatures (Tmin and Tmax) which make up other global temperature datasets, so I can do a comparison to them.

Fig. 1 Comparison of closely-spaced Canadian station differences in temperature versus Landsat-based urbanization estimates for (a) nighttime and (b) daytime. Data included are monthly average temperatures for June, July, and August for the years 1988-1992, 1998-2002, and 2012-2016, which correspond to the Landsat dataset years of 1990, 2000, and 2014. There were not sufficient thermometer data in the ISD archive to use with the 1975 Landsat urbanization estimates. The area-averaging Zone 3 is ~21×21 km in size, centered on each station.

As other studies have documented, the UHI effect on temperature is larger at night, when solar energy absorbed into the ground by pavement (which has high thermal conductivity compared to soil or vegetation) is released into the air and is trapped over the city by the stability of the nocturnal boundary layer and weaker winds compared to daytime. For this limited set of Canadian station pairs the UHI warm bias is 0.21 deg. C per 10% urbanization during the day, and 0.35 deg. C per 10 % at night.

Next, if we apply these relationships to the monthly temperature and urbanization data at ~70 individual stations scattered across Canada, we get some idea of how much increasing urbanization has affected temperature trends. (NOTE: the relationships in Fig. 1 only apply in an average sense, and so it is not known how well they apply to the individual stations in the tables below.)

Across approximately 70 Canadian stations, the 10 stations with the largest diagnosed spurious warming trends (1978-2022) are listed below. Note that the raw trends have considerable variability, some of which is likely not weather- or climate-related (changes in instrumentation, siting, etc.). Table 1 has the nighttime results, which Table 2 is for daytime.

TABLE 1: Most Urbanized Nighttime Temperature Trends (1978-2022)

LocationRaw Temp. Trend De-urbanized TrendUrban Trend Component
Calgary Intl. Arpt.+0.33 C/decade+0.16 C/decade+0.17 C/decade
Ottawa Intl. Arpt.+0.07 C/decade-0.08 C/decade+0.14 C/decade
Windsor+0.20 C/decade+0.08 C/decade+0.11 C/decade
Montreal/Trudeau Intl.+0.47 C/decade+0.36 C/decade+0.10 C/decade
Edmonton Intl. Arpt.+0.10 C/decade 0.00 C/decade+0.10 C/decade
Saskatoon Intl. Arpt.+0.03 C/decade-0.04 C/decade+0.07 C/decade
Abbotsford+0.48 C/decade+0.41 C/decade+0.07 C/decade
Regina Intl.-0.11 C/decade-0.17 C/decade+0.06 C/decade
Grande Prairie+0.07 C/decade+0.02 C/decade+0.05 C/decade
St. Johns Intl. Arpt.+0.31 C/decade+0.27 C/decade+0.04 C/decade
10-STN AVERAGE+0.19 C/decade+0.10 C/decade+0.09 C/decade

Calgary, Ottawa, Windsor, Montreal, and Edmonton are the five station locations with the greatest rate of increased urbanization since the 1970s as measured by Landsat, and therefore the greatest rate of spurious warming since 1978 (the earliest for which I have complete hourly temperature data). Averaged across the 10 highest-growth locations, 48% of the average warming trend is estimated to be due to urbanization alone.

Table 2 shows the corresponding results for summer afternoon temperatures, which from Fig. 1 we know have weaker UHI effects than nighttime temperatures.

TABLE 2: Most Urbanized Afternoon Temperature Trends (1978-2022)

LocationRaw Temp. Trend De-urbanized TrendUrban Trend Component
Calgary Intl. Arpt.+0.26 C/decade+0.16 C/decade+0.11 C/decade
Ottawa Intl. Arpt.+0.27 C/decade+0.19 C/decade+0.09 C/decade
Windsor+0.27 C/decade+0.20 C/decade+0.07 C/decade
Montreal/Trudeau Intl.+0.35 C/decade+0.28 C/decade+0.06 C/decade
Edmonton Intl. Arpt.+0.42 C/decade 0.36 C/decade+0.06 C/decade
Saskatoon Intl. Arpt.+0.18 C/decade+0.13 C/decade+0.04 C/decade
Abbotsford+0.45 C/decade+0.40 C/decade+0.04 C/decade
Regina Intl.+0.08 C/decade+0.04 C/decade+0.04 C/decade
Grande Prairie+0.19 C/decade+0.16 C/decade+0.03 C/decade
St. Johns Intl. Arpt.+0.31 C/decade+0.28 C/decade+0.03 C/decade
10-STN AVERAGE+0.28 C/decade+0.22 C/decade+0.06 C/decade

For the top 10 most increasingly urbanized stations in Table 2, the average reduction in the observed afternoon warming trends is 20%, compared to 48% for the nighttime trends.

Comparison to the CRUTem5 Data in SE Alberta

How do the results in Table 1 affect widely-reported warming trends averaged across Canada? Given that Canada is mostly rural with only sparse measurements, that would be difficult to determine from the available data. But there is no question that the public’s consciousness regarding climate change issues is heavily influenced by conditions where they live, and most people live in urbanized areas.

As a single sanity test of the use of these mostly airport-based measurements of temperature for climate monitoring, I examined the region of southeast Alberta bounded by the latitude/longitudes of 50-55N and 110-115W, which includes Calgary and Edmonton. The comparison area is determined by the IPCC-sanctioned CRUTem5 temperature dataset, which reports average data on a 5 deg. latitude/longitude grid.

There are 4 stations in my dataset in this region, and averaging the 4 stations’ raw temperature data produces a trend (Fig. 2) essentially identical to that produced by the CRUTem5 dataset, which has extensive homogenization methods and (presumably) many more stations (which are often limited in their periods of record, and so must be pieced together). This high level of agreement is at least partly fortuitous.

Fig. 2. Monthly average summer (June-July-August) temperatures, 1978-2022, for southeast Alberta, from the IPCC CRUTem5 dataset (green), raw temperatures from 4 stations (red) and de-urbanized 4-station average temperatures (blue). A temperature offset is applied to the CRUTem5 anomalies so the trend lines intersect in 1978.

Applying the urbanization corrections from Fig. 1 (large for Calgary and Edmonton, tiny for Cold Lake and Red Deer) lead to an average reduction of 20% in the area-average temperature trend. This supports my claim that homogenization procedures applied to global Tmax/Tmin datasets have not adjusted urban trends to rural trends, but instead represent a “voting” adjustment where a dataset dominated by stations with increasing urbanization will mostly retain the trend characteristics of the UHI-contaminated locations.

Conclusions

Canadian cities show a substantial urban heat island effect in the summer, especially at night, and Landsat-based estimates of increased urbanization suggest that this has caused a spurious warming component of reported temperature trends, at least for locations experiencing increased urbanization. A limited comparison in Alberta suggests there remains an urban warming bias in the CRUTem5 dataset, consistent with my previous postings on the subject and work done by others.

The issue is important because rational energy policy should be based upon reality, not perception. To the extent that global warming estimates are exaggerated, so will be energy policy decisions. As it is, there is evidence (e.g. here) that the climate models used to guide policy produce more warming than observed, especially in the summer when excess heat is of concern. If that observed warming is even less than being reported, then the climate models become increasingly irrelevant to energy policy decisions.


1,336 Responses to “Canadian Summer Urban Heat Island Effects: Some Results in Alberta”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Another wave of heavy snowfall over the Great Lakes has begun.
    https://i.ibb.co/s9fSYgc/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-19-185235.png

  2. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere has split into two centers, so the attack of Arctic air in the US will not end soon.
    https://i.ibb.co/9Zd862Y/gfs-z100-nh-f00.png

  3. Ken Gregory says:

    Excellent work Roy!
    You wrote “Fig. 1 shows the differences in average temperature and area-average Landsat-based urbanization values for (a) 06 UTC (late night)…”. But Fig. 1 shows a) 09 UTC.

    Ken: Thanks, I’ll fix it. -Roy

  4. dk_ says:

    Very good work.
    Several people have pointed out that the overhyped summer heat waves have actually had less effect than winter cold. It seems to me that cold temperature extremes could also be of interest. With the current data set, can a winter time UHI effect be detected? Are winter lows also affected by urbanization and industrialization? Does reduction of sunlight exposure, from shading, have an effect vs. the emission of thermal mass?

  5. Bindidon says:

    Dr Spencer

    Thanks once more for the good work.

    Similarly as in your head post dated November 2nd, 2022

    I’m again a bit wondering about this reference to UTC time.

    When we process hourly weather station data, we often have, on each data record, only the UTC time, which we have to convert into the LST (Local Standard Time) by
    – using a time zone specifier in the station’s metadata, e.g. America/Chicago or Europe/Helsinki
    and
    – converting it into a time offset giving the correct LST anywhere.

    Do I misunderstand something here?

    Thanks in advance for explaining!

    Bindidon:
    I’m not sure what you are asking. For decades the globally-coordinated measurements of weather have been on set schedule at specific Greenwich (aka UTC, aka Zulu) times. This means the measurements are made essentially simultaneously, around the world. So, yes, for some purposes you need to convert these to local times which are coordinated (roughly) to where the sun is in the sky. -Roy

    • Bindidon says:

      Conversely, I’m not sure to understand how your reply relates to my question.

      Maybe something real helps?

      Here is for example the metadata part of a hourly record of the USCRN weather station AK_KENAI_29_ENE:

      26563 20100830 2000 20100830 1100 2.404 -150.45 60.72

      Bold: UTC time; italic: LST time.

      If you use UTC data, your software will think it’s 8 PM, though in fact the measurement time was 11 AM.

      That was the reason for me to wonder.

      J.-P.

      • J.-P.:
        My software doesn’t “think” anything about the time, because I create the software. If the data gives you 2 times, one absolute and one relative, it’s up to you as a user to know the difference.
        -Roy

        • Bindidon says:

          I pretty good understand, but… in the USCRN, both times (UTC and LST) are absolute values.

        • Bindidon says:

          I think our misunderstanding is based on the fact that you probably use a data set software layer which automatically transforms 09:00 UTC into the LST according to the latitude.

          In Meteostat, you have to do that job by your own, using the international timezone database. Bah.

          • I don’t use a dataset software layer. I write my own Fortran code, and read the data files. Part of that is understanding what time code is used in the data files. When I said “absolute” time I meant universal time (UTC), which is the same everywhere (12 UTC is 12 UTC everywhere in the world). Local time zones are relative (roughly) to where the sun is in longitude relative to that location.

          • Bindidon says:

            I understand what you mean.

            I don’t use such layers either.

            This reference to UTC very probably irritates only those who develop software processing hourly temperature data sets, because they can’t use UTC and have to convert UTC data into local time: UTC 09:00 is even not the same thing in Alaska as in Florida.

            What in UTC is for me ‘universal’ is rather the other way round.

            When we want to look at a rocket launch starting from Cape Canaveral or at a MPCV landing in the Pacific, we are worldwide happy to obtain the UTC times because we only need the offset between UTC and our local time.

    • Tim S says:

      In the old days, airports made hourly observations that typically are made at 45 minutes past the hour for the next hour’s report which is reference to “Zulu” time. I believe that much of this is now automated at the larger airports, but nonetheless reported to pilots on a dedicated frequency as “Zulu” time. I just listened to my local airport (telephone access) reporting the weather at 2153 Zulu. On another subject, they stated “5G notice in effect”.

  6. As always, most excellent and fascinating work, Dr. Roy.

    w.

  7. Tim S says:

    This is really good work to increase the accuracy of the long term temperature trends, but it does nothing to enlighten the problem with records. There is not an asterisk to denote an UHI record.

    • AaronS says:

      This is an interesting line of exploring the GHS data as a way to estimate the UHI effect. Fun to watch the research evolve and hopefully get published.

      3 things I am thinking about as I follow.

      1. I am curious what is the difference between the UAH global satellite and CRUTem5 over the last 40 years with data overlap? As I recall it’s only a few tenths of a degree celcius per decade but I have not followed the updates to the thermometer based data sets to see if the difference is greater now (after Had Crut 4 I gave up tracking the “updates”). The difference would provide a back of the envelope what the max value for the sum of this UHI error could be. An interesting graph would be the different thermometer data set versions vs UAH through time.

      2. As I recall an impactful evidence for CO2 forcing the modern warming trend is the pattern of night time warming was consistent with a GHG, and I was really interested to read the UHI also occurs at night. I didn’t realize that. If true then this counter point would be impactful. So I am getting the significance of understanding this more as I learn.

      3. If the modern warming trend is not exclusively GHG then one wonders the role that the unexpectedly strong solar cycle 25 continues to play in recent warming trends and if it muddies the water for climate models.

  8. Brian Manning says:

    Hi,

    I have been following on weather.gov the “3 day history” (Norwood Airport MA) vs “past weather” (Boston MA Area) links.
    Norwood is 23 miles from Boston and is a smaller town.
    I have noticed that the high/low temperatures are similar except that the low in Norwood is often 10 degrees lower. For example on 11/19 low is 22 Norwood and 31 Boston. Highs were 45 and 44.

    I checked with NOAA and they felt that Norwood being further inland would tend to be colder but it does not happen every day.

    Not much of a sample but seems odd. I thought there may be an error in temperature recording.

    Thanks, Brian

    • Clint R says:

      That much difference (9 degrees in 23 miles) seems extreme, especially if it occurs regularly.

      Just more evidence of a strong urban bias?

    • What you are seeing is likely an urban effect *IF* the airflow is not onshore. Then all bets are off. But if the wind is calm, or from the SW through NW, then it doesn’t matter how close the Boston thermometer is to the ocean.

    • Bindidon says:

      Brian Manning

      Due to Roy Spencer’s excellent head posts concerning UHI, I’m currently busy with this stuff.

      This Boston corner is interesting due to Boston’s near to the ocean.

      I found your Norwood

      https://www.google.com/maps/place/42%C2%B011'26.9%22N+71%C2%B010'25.0%22W/@42.1908,-71.4537514,91869m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d42.1908!4d-71.1736?hl=en

      in the GHCN daily surface station data set; it has data only since 1998, but it’s enough to compare it to Boston.

      *
      Here is a chart comparing Norwood to Boston using absolute temperatures:

      https://i.postimg.cc/528bjjsV/GHCND-UHI-Boston-vs-Norwood-absol.png

      You see already that eye-balling alone tells us that Norwood warms quicker than Boston. No wonder when you look at Google Maps.

      Linear estimates for absolute data in C / decade for 1998-2022:

      Boston: 0.73 +- 0.75
      Norwood: 1.15 +- 0.75

      Trends over absolute data over short periods mostly are nonsense, and it shows here again.

      *
      Switching to anomalies wrt the mean of 2001-2020 gives this:

      https://i.postimg.cc/yNcFxhZT/GHCND-UHI-Boston-vs-Norwood-anoms.png

      Linear estimates for anomaly data in C / decade for 1998-2022:

      Boston: 0.45 +- 0.14
      Norwood: 0.87 +- 0.15

      Sounds better, a bit more trustworthy, and confirms the eye-balling again.

      Thus, this Boston/Norwood pair is not quite the right thing to perform a UHI comparison a la Spencer :- )

      *
      One detail caught my eye: the harsh peak in 2015 tells us that it must have been quite cold at your place (9 C below the 2001-2020 mean in February).

      A look at the daily output tells how cold it was:

      USW00054704 52-43 2015 2 21 -29.3 (C)
      USW00054704 52-43 2015 2 14 -28.2
      USW00054704 52-43 2015 2 24 -27.1

      • Bindidon says:

        ” One detail caught my eye: the harsh peak in 2015 tells us that it must have been quite cold at your place (9 C below the 2001-2020 mean in February). ”

        Should read ” the harsh drop “

      • Nate says:

        My area.

        The Boston Logan airport is right on the ocean. It is well known that temperatures there are moderated by the ocean, as compared to inland temps.

        Generally not as extreme in winter or summer.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Yes it is dependent upon wind direction. The urban effect, IMO, is primarily a result of verticality of structures and landscaping. Landscape architects are very aware of the affect of natural obstructions to wind currents and energy consumption. A lack of obstructions can drive up energy costs by 10% in winter and 15% in summer as found by a Canadian study. (notice the difference in temperatures that is consistent with Roy’s findings difference between night and day)

          The affect of buildings and trees have significant effects up to 30 times the height of the barrier. Thus a suburban row of single story houses in even the least dense tracts will affect wind and temperature the length of a football field downwind. Which should give some pause to the kind of thinking that urban must mean multi-story solid pavement locations.

          tinyurl.com/2u4mrxsa

          tinyurl.com/46ha542y

  9. Nate says:

    “How do the results in Table 1 affect widely-reported warming trends averaged across Canada? Given that Canada is mostly rural with only sparse measurements, that would be difficult to determine from the available data.”

    I don’t see why estimating that would be difficult, just a ratio of rural dominated grid cells to urban dominated.

    Since as you noted, Canada is mostly rural, I suspect the UHI effect on Canada’s overall warming trend is going to be negligible.

    And the globe is mostly rural.

    • RLH says:

      “the globe is mostly rural”

      True. Now the question is ‘are the stations used in calculating global temperatures also rural’ in general.

      This goes for past, present and future.

    • Nate says:

      Probably not, long long ago. And?

      • RLH says:

        Well as UHI occurs in both time and space, time ago matters too.

      • Nate says:

        I don’t see how UHI long ago would cause the increase in Global T from the past to be higher…

        • RLH says:

          1. Does UHI exist?
          2. Is the world more urban now than in the past?
          3. Do the majority of the stations used in Global T measurements fall into the more urban/UHI category, with more now than in the past?

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            I know I shouldn’t do this, but –

            1. Yes
            2. Yes
            3. Yes (but the question is a little unclear)

            I would be surprised if anybody can produce data to show that I’m wrong, but you never know.

          • RLH says:

            “Urban areas are heavily overrepresented in the siting of temperature stations: less than 1% of the globe is urban but 27% of the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly (GHCN-M) stations are located in cities with a population greater than 50,000”

          • Nate says:

            Source?

          • Swenson says:

            Peabrain Nate,

            You wrote –

            “Source?”

            Are you really so stupid that you think a silly one-word makes you look intelligent?

            If a rational person disagreed with the source presented, they would produce some facts to support their disagreement.

            Of course, SkyDragons like you believe that fantasy is superior to fact, and that writing pointless one-word comments will impress passing strangers with your awesome intellect.

            Keep believing.

            [laughs at peabrained SkyDragon]

          • RLH says:

            “Source?”

            The paper.

          • Nate says:

            Swenson inexplicably has a melt-down over my simple queries of others.

            Maybe he needs to get back on those anti-psychotic meds..

          • RLH says:

            The simple query of others can be satisfied by actually reading the paper you referenced. Didn’t you do that or are you just forgetful?

          • Nate says:

            Some people (even you on occasion, RLH) provide quotes that are from denialist blogs rather than the scientific literature, and would rather not reveal that fact.

            If you provide a quote, you should tell us where it came from, rather than making people guess. That seems to be the norm here, and is hardly unreasonable.

          • RLH says:

            You asked if I had read the paper. I said I had. You obviously hadn’t otherwise you would have recognized that quote from it. Either that or you have a very selectively bad memory.

          • Swenson says:

            Not-so-nimble Nate,

            You wrote –

            “If you provide a quote, you should tell us where it came from, rather than making people guess. That seems to be the norm here, and is hardly unreasonable.”

            C’mon Nate, you demonstrated earlier that you have the ability to use the internet to find a paper from a quote, read it, and provide quotes from it – which didn’t actually help you at all, did they?

            Oh well, at least you have shown that not all SkyDragons are completely lazy and incompetent.

            Your incessant demands for “citations” and “sources” might lessen, now that you have shown that, even for you, a direct quote is enough.

          • Nate says:

            Really? This is what you want to argue about?

          • RLH says:

            “This is what you want to argue about?”

            That you don’t even read/remember papers you quote? Sure.

          • Nate says:

            Desperate for childish point scoring, are we?

          • RLH says:

            You were the one providing the paper that you did not remember/read.

    • Bindidon says:

      Nate

      ” And the globe is mostly rural. ”

      The best proof for your claim would be to download the GHSL – Global Human Settlement Layer used by Roy Spencer

      https://ghsl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/download.php

      and to overlay it with e.g. the ~ 40,000 GHCN daily weather stations worldwide

      https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/

      That might help in confirming the claim – or not…

      Not one of my priorities.

  10. Bindidon says:

    Aaron S

    You wrote upthread (November 19, 2022 at 11:29 PM):

    ” An interesting graph would be the different thermometer data set versions vs UAH through time. ”

    *
    Though I don’t know what you expect of such a comparison (LT is NOT the surface, it’s at about 4 km about it), here it is.

    Three major series – CRUTEM, NOAA and GISS – should be enough.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O9wPyY1vrBG7fIPgQugwbCy96mfq8int/view

    *
    1. Best is to start with a comparison of the smoothings for CRUTEM (blue) and NOAA (yellow).

    You see how near the two series are, despite being the result of the processing, in very different ways, of temperature data from partly different surface station sets.

    2. GISS land is a bit above the two at begin, but ends very near to them. It shoud thus show a somewhat lower trend.

    3. Now consider the red line (UAH).

    It looks always the same when compared to most other series: it starts with higher anomalies, and ends with lower ones. The switch in the smoothings is during 2003.

    As long as this disparity is alive, you won’t be able to appropriately compare UAH with any professional surface data processing: UAH, in its current revision 6.0, will always show trends lower than the others, other LT series like NOAA STAR or RSS included.

    *
    The linear estimates for the series tell it clearly (°C / decade):

    – NOAA: 0.30 ± 0.01
    – CRUTEM: 0.28 ± 0.01
    – GISS: 0.25 ± 0.01
    – UAH: 0.18 ± 0.01

    UAH’s previous revision 5.6 (stopped in 2017) would have shown much higher trends, and a shape more similar to surface data.

    • Clint R says:

      One of the reasons UAH is more accurate is that there are no urban areas in the lower atmosphere.

      • barry says:

        There are other satellite datasets than UAH, and they have slightly different results. One can also choose all rural on the ground to see if there is much difference with and without rural stations. These comparisons have been done on the large scale, but for some reason ‘skeptics’ seem to want to do it in highly localised areas. Obviously, they wouldn’t be picking the areas where the UHI would be emphasised…

    • Bindidon says:

      Ah! The ball-on-a-string specialist again…

      Clint R has never heard of the huge amount of uncertainties existing between remote microwave sounding and the LT data presented by the UAH team.

      They might bypass the uncertainties in surface temperature processing by a lot.

      What about reading some papers about that?

      Ah yes, they are all junk stuff.

      • Clint R says:

        Denying/distorting reality is “junk stuff”, Bin. That’s what you do. Especially when you deny/distort the simple ball-on-a-string.

  11. DMacKenzie says:

    My home weather station is 10 miles NNE of the Calgary airport in a rural environment and is fairly consistently 2 or 3 degrees C lower than the official Environment Canada airport reading. This over nearly 2 decades with 3 different home weather stations. Elevation difference about 10 meters. Also Calgary airport used to be outside the city and has since been surrounded by buildings and streets, and its weather station has 3 times as many runways and taxiways nearby as it did in the 70s and an order of magnitude more air traffic.

    • That’s good input. I didn’t look into the details there, I just used the urbanization dataset, and it said Calgary had the most growth around the airport in the last 40 years of any other metro airport location.

    • Bindidon says:

      DMacKenzie

      Could you upload a picture of your home weather station?

      I have something like this at home as well, and it often shows 2-3 C under reports from nearby weather stations.

      Reason: Our device is not sufficiently protected against … cold wind compared to weather station instruments.

      • Swenson says:

        Bindidon,

        Being exposed to a cold wind makes no difference. Thermometers are not like people, and don’t sweat. They don’t care whether the air is wet or dry. A sling hygrometer won’t tell you anything of value, unless you saturate its little sock with water.

        Aircraft use OAT – outside air temperature, SAT – static air temperature (different to OAT), TAT – total air temperature (again, different to OAT and SAT, and a few others, RAT, for example.

        Humans are pretty awful thermometers – witness “feels like” temperatures. Very hot and humid? “Feels like” it’s hotter. Cold and windy? “Feels like” it’s colder?

        Measuring near ground air temperatures is pretty inaccurate – and pretty useless to boot. After thermometers became widely available, scientists couldn’t help themselves, and started measuring temperatures. About as useful as widely distributed rain gauges – interesting for some, tells you what has already happened, tells you nothing about the future, but gives you something to talk about with your neighbour – whose gauge generally disagrees with yours.

        Of course, you could always plot isohyets in glorious colour on a map, and use them to predict the future, if you feel you are becoming bored reading the comments on this blog.

        Go on, talk about dog poop, flatulence, arrogance and ignorance, if you like. I’ve given you a cure for boredom, so don’t whine about being bored.

      • Clint R says:

        Bindidon, could you upload a picture of your home weather station?

        As Swenson points out, just because you don’t know how to accurately measure temperature is no reason to accuse others of the same.

      • Bindidon says:

        Oh, finally the lovely Flynnson stalker is here again.

        ” Being exposed to a cold wind makes no difference. ”

        I can’t recall such a dumb, reckless nonsense, light years away from reality experienced by people who regularly compare their thermometer readings with data from stations in the near.

        *
        #3 or so:

        Ha ha ha haaah

        • Swenson says:

          Bunny,

          Reject reality all you like.

          Reality doesn’t care.

          Maybe you could provide some facts to support ” . . . a dumb, reckless nonsense, light years away from reality experienced by people who regularly compare their thermometer readings with data from stations in the near.”, but. I doubt it.

          You seem to be saying that an object in steady motion has a different temperature to a stationary object initially at the same temperature. Well, yes it might, if frictional effects occur – but the temperature rises, not falls.

          As I said, you may believe that you are measuring one thing, but actually measuring another.

          Do you still believe temperature differences are due to varying wind speed? If so, have you taken wind speed at the location and time of your “temperature measurements”, which you “dissect” so assiduously, into account, and “adjusted” all your data accordingly?

          Of course not. You just complain about others, without knowing what you are talking about.

          Carry on – give everyone a laugh at your bizarre notions of “reality”.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      dmac…”Calgary airport used to be outside the city and has since been surrounded by buildings and streets, and its weather station has 3 times as many runways and taxiways nearby as it did in the 70s and an order of magnitude more air traffic”.

      ***

      I remember when the airport was about as far north of Calgary as you could go. Pretty soon it will be house to house all the way to Red Deer.

      It will be the same for Edmonton. The international airport is south of the city and likely now surrounded by homes and buildings.

  12. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The surface temperature of the North Pacific and Atlantic is falling rapidly. La Nina unchanged.
    https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_sst-trend-7d_v3.1_global_current.png

  13. E. Schaffer says:

    I just checked the UHI record for seasonal patterns. What I found is, that in the NH the first half of the years warms faster than the 2nd, and in the SH it is the opposite.

    In other words, on both hemispheres, the spring time warming trend dominates. Any ideas why that is?

  14. Bart Thompson says:

    Hello Dr. Spencer,
    Nice methodology – I really like it.

    I have a question, let me set it up.

    You mention 50% of nighttime and 20% of daytime warming could be attributed to urbanization, of course limited to these areas. Yet certainly this is a small percentage on a global basis.

    Question is – how might you estimate the influence on your global warming linear trend over the past several decades? Wound it reduce the trend by 0.01 C / decade or more, for example.

    Regards and thank you,
    Bart Thompson

  15. Swenson says:

    As an aside, the type of temperature sensing device can have a noticeable effect on the supposed “air” temperature.

    Even different sizes and effective albedos of Stevenson screens result in different temperature readings – especially max and min.

    I do not know whether there is a difference in the current instrumentation used in urban vs rural areas, and whether this might cloud the issue.

    Basic physical considerations would suggest that urban UHI (or continental UHI, which has been quantified in at least one study) would result in higher nighttime minima. This seems to be the case, even allowing for multiple confounding factors.

    As in the past, rather than rejecting the GHE totally, scientists might gradually intimate that the impact of GHE is “less than we thought”, and that other factors will be found to dilute its supposed effect. Eventually, the GHE will fade from view, and previous true believers will be able to save face by indicating they were “lukewarmers” at best, and have only just become aware of new “data”.

    As it has been in the past – phlogiston, caloric, the luminiferous ether, “nature abhors a vacuum”, and so on. I can’t predict the future, but. I wouldn’t be surprised if my speculation proves to be correct.

    It doesn’t matter anyway – que sera, sera.

  16. Bindidon says:

    Roy Spencer

    I just checked with a wget the file

    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.2022_6.0

    and the data is available again.

    Merci beaucoup.

    Obtaining LT data with LT = 1.538*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS
    is a bit tedious at grid level :- )

  17. Lance says:

    Hi Roy,
    I operate the climate station in Okotoks, just south of Calgary, with data recorded since 1990, for Environment Canada. Currently away from my computer where I have lots of stats.

    Generally, you see a big difference in the spring and fall with our first/last frost warnings. Calgary rarely sees frost like outside of the city.

    Okotoks too, has seen considerably growth (3000 people in late 80s, to about 30K), and I believe I see a UHI working in my town too

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      lance…Calgary can be pretty wild at times. I was driving in from Regina one day and the whole sky above the city was turning. Being a west-coaster, it freaked me. I was thinking a major tornado was about to descend.

      On another day, west of the Glenmore Trail (a major N-S artery for Calgary, for those not familiar with the city) and it was about -5C on one side of the trail and above zero on the other. My first experience of a chinook. You could see a ridge of cloud almost following the trail N to S.

  18. Gordon Robertson says:

    Roy…”There are relatively few airports compared to the size of the country which limits how many rural-vs-urban match-ups I can make”.

    ***

    Not just that Roy, the body dealing with the data, Environment Canada, has been renamed to Environment and Climate Change Canada. What does that tell you about their objectivity?

    In the past, I made a post in which I claimed the temperature in Regina, Canada had been -50C on one occasion (in the 1980s) and that Winnipeg was colder at -55C. I remember that specifically because I am a west-coaster from the banana-belt of Canada where temperatures in winter seldom drop below 0C.

    It was a big deal to me and I would not have made it up to impress anyone. Imagine my chagrin when I looked up the record lows for Winnipeg to see it listed at Environment Canada as -38C?

    Minot, North Dakota, is on a triangle formed by Regina, Winnipeg, and Minot. It’s nearly 2 degrees latitude lower than both cities, and about 400 km SE on the Regina-Minot leg. Minot had a record low of -60F in 1936. That’s about -51C. What are the chances that Minot could have a record low of -51C and Regina and Winnipeg only dropped to -38C?

    https://www.weather.gov/bis/climate_EXT

    Ironically, at the link, they claim Minot recorded its lowest and highest temperature that year, the high being 121 F (49.4C).

    Go figure!!!

    • Swenson says:

      Gordon,

      Couldn’t help but notice this –

      “Please note that the record temperature, precipitation, and snowfall data is preliminary
      and has not undergone final quality control by the National Climatic Data Center.”

      I wonder if this is to cover any “final quality control” in the future, which makes the past colder, resulting in increased “global warming”.

      Sensible organisations should ensure that record temperatures are really record temperatures before publicizing them, otherwise people are going to laugh at the repeated claims of record temperature which are subsequently “quality controlled” into “non-record” temperatures.

      About as silly as Gavin Schmidt claiming 2014 as “The hottest year ever!”, and then admitting there was only a 38% likelihood of this being true. In other words, he was more likely to be ignorant or knowingly fraudulent than not.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        That’s a good one. It’s like the IPCC having 2500 reviewers then releasing the Summary for Policymakers before their report, written by 50 politically-appointed lead authors, then amending the main report from the 2500 to fit the Summary.

        Of course, any of the 2500 can complain but their complaints fall on deaf ears.

        It’s ridiculous to have thermometer readings that are not final.

        • barry says:

          Fairy tales, Gordon.

          All IPCC authors are nominated by governments and then selected by the IPCC based on expertise first and then inclusivity, to ensure global representation of scientists. It not just the SPM authors, and they are not appointed by politicians, so this distinction you make is false/ignorant.

          The writing of each section, including the SPM, is overseen by scientists, with government reps and NGOs inputting on the SPM. Except in very rare cases where a scientific point may be sounder in the SPM than in the longer chapters, most vetting from SPM to Chapter is about formatting and making the text coherent between both.

          • Swenson says:

            Bumbling Barry,

            You wrote –

            “All IPCC authors are nominated by governments and then selected by the IPCC based on expertise first and then inclusivity, to ensure global representation of scientists. It not just the SPM authors, and they are not appointed by politicians, so this distinction you make is false/ignorant.”

            Governments do not nominate anybody – people do. Who constitutes the IPCC you mention? What gives the IPCC power to “select” anybody at all? What has “inclusivity” to do with anything?

            You make it sound like this “IPCC” believes it can reject “authors”, and override governments! Sounds like a cult to me.

            You really have a vivid imagination, don’t you?

            Governments around the world are getting sick of funding the IPCC, which continually demands more funding, whilst whining about how terrible governments are, for not enough notice of IPCC silliness predicting the end of civilisation as we know it!

            Fewer and fewer world leaders can even be bothered turning up to listen to the IPCC telling them how to spend their citizens’ money.

            Accept reality. The IPCC is a meaningless and pointless organisation, which has provided no benefit to anyone except itself. How much are you willing to contribute to the IPCC SkyDragon cult? Nothing?

            Colour me unsurprised.

          • barry says:

            Nothing substantive to add, Swenson?

            That was rhetorical. Of course you haven’t.

  19. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”(LT is NOT the surface, its at about 4 km about it), here it is”.

    ***

    4 km is not even half way up Mt. Everest. Are you claiming halfway up Everest is not the surface?

    If the sat AMSU is scanning halfway up Everest, it is scanning the air halfway up Everest. Since the relationship between air temperature halfway up the mountain and the expected air temperature at sea level is well-known, what’s the problem?

    Anyway, AMSU channel 5 can scan right to the surface if required. It’s a moot point if its receiving frequency is centred at 4 km. It has the bandwidth to receive O2 emission frequencies far lower than 4 km.

    If Roy is still around, maybe he could correct that assumption if its wrong.

    • Bindidon says:

      Robertson

      You don’t have half a bit of a clue of all what you talk about.

      Try to find out on the blog the place where I recently gave you a hint on Roy Spencer’s explanation (dated 2015) about the fact that while global LT averages based on microwave sensing are possible, this is not the case at grid level.

      Moreover, Roy Spencer explained years ago about the uselessness of microwave sensing reaching down to near surface because this creates huge bias.

      This is the reason why the UAH team has decided long time ago to compensate LT’s surface contamination with a bit of LS.

      And since 2015, the team has moreover decided to replace LT evaluation by microwave sensing by a function computing, for each grid cell, a combination of the three layers above:

      LT = 1.538*MT 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS

      I tried to demonstrate that to you with a chart comparing, for a single grid cell for 1979-2021

      – a time series generated out of LT grid data
      to
      – a time series generated out of the combination above

      and the plots were nearly identical.

      But you do not understand such things.

      How could you ever, when you show the inability to finally understand even simplest things like anomaly comparison?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny the blubberer…”I recently gave you a hint on Roy Spencers explanation (dated 2015) about the fact that while global LT averages based on microwave sensing are possible, this is not the case at grid level”.

        ***

        If you are passing out hints you might first have a clue how the electronics works in an AMSU unit. In the article by Roy he specifically mentioned that they use the satellite technology to gather data.

        With the release of version 6 they began combining channels 5, 7 and 9 data to get better grid coverage. Where do you think the data comes from? Duh!!! The data is retrieved from satellite telemetry.

  20. Gordon Robertson says:

    I replied to a post upthread by Swenson re Stevenson screens and the possibility they are skewing data. Couldn’t find much on Google so I went to Yandex search engine where links suddenly appear that are obviously being censored on Google.

    This one is by Jo Nova in Australia. I have blogged briefly on Jo’s site and she is a good sort. Her beef here re Stevenson screens is their usage in Australia re BOM yet BOM refused to accept data earlier than 1908.

    https://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/the-mysterious-bom-disinterest-in-hot-historic-australian-stevenson-screen-temperatures/

  21. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Is it already winter in the southern US?
    https://i.ibb.co/SnF6H7G/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-21-102216.png

  22. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    More snow in the Great Lakes region.
    https://i.ibb.co/GHRbYFS/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-21-103932.png

  23. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The temperature in the Nino 4 region shows how durable La Nina is.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png

  24. Brent says:

    Dr. Spencer, you wrote, “(pavement, ]which has high thermal conductivity compared to soil or vegetation.” Isn’t the effect you’re describing traceable to their differential _heat capacities_ instead?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      brent…is heat capacity not synonymous with thermal conductivity? The ability to absorb heat is related to the ability of a substance to conduct heat.

      Since good heat conductors are also good electrical conductors, it suggests heat capacity is related to the electron configuration in the atoms making up the substance.

    • Swenson says:

      Brent,

      I disagree somewhat with Dr Spencer, but for different reasons.

      Thermal conductivity may be irrelevant – silver is exceptionally conductive, but a highly polished silver teapot will keep your tea hotter than one made of pottery which will be far less conductive.

      Colour may be unimportant – the study, called “Why Do Bedouins Wear Black Robes in Hot Deserts?”, was published in the journal Nature in 1980. It turns out they do it to keep cool – reproducible experiments using thermometers rather than “everybody knows”, backs up the research. Colour is not the only consideration that dictates heating or cooling.

      Thermal capacity may not be relevant – or it may be – depending on the situation. For example, greenhouse commonly use water as a thermal reservoir (sometimes rocks or concrete), to elevate nighttime minima, but a city is not a greenhouse.

      People often overlook the fact that a good absorber is also a good emitter – what heats fast, cools fast.

      And of course, the brightly polished silver teapot, and the asphalt, concrete or rock upon which it sits, are all precisely the same temperature just before sunrise.

      The UHI is, unsurprisingly, due to additional heat – if generated during the night. And of course, it is. Everything from electricity use, people keeping warm (or cool using A/C), motor vehicles (ICE or BEV), and so on.

      Thermometers react to heat, and energy travels in “straight” lines. Air is quite transparent to most forms of radiation, and has low thermal mass. Hence, using thermometers in an attempt to measure “air temperature”, is pretty meaningless.

      At least, Dr Spencer is emphasizing that the UHI exists, and is due to human activities.

      I might get a fair amount of flack, but I believe I can defend my position with both theory and observed fact. Time will tell.

  25. Joe says:

    Dr. Spencer,
    Thank you for the work you do pointing these things out.
    Now if only this research could get through to the higher-ups in the mainstream climate science community.

  26. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Concrete has a high heat capacity and, of course, radiates strongly. However, in summer it is determined by the length of the day, so summer night temperatures remain high, at least for most of the night.
    In winter, with less sunlight angle, concrete cools quickly.

  27. Nate says:

    http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf

    “Time series of the Earths average land temperature are estimated using the Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full data set and the rural subset; the difference of these is consistent with no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010”

    “The stations we identified as ‘very rural’ provide good spatial
    coverage of the land surface of the globe and an average based solely on these stations provides a reconstruction robust to urban heating.
    Our results are in line with previous results on global averages despite differences in methodology. Parker [30] concluded that the effect of urban heating on the global trends is minor, Had*CRU use a bias error of 0.05C per century, and NOAA estimate residual urban heating of 0.06C per century for the USA and GISS applies a correction to their data of 0.01C per century. All are small on the scale of global warming.”

    • Clint R says:

      The trouble with that Nate, is temps can be adjusted by how much urban data is included.

      You have to have a source with no hidden agenda.

    • phi says:

      Nate,

      “the difference of these is consistent with no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010”

      It’s a joke. There is a methodological problem linked to the use of short series. Indices are actually constructed on the basis of short term trends and long term information is lost. A quatification of short-range UHI effect here: https://www.zupimages.net/up/19/47/dyn5.png
      UHI effect at long distances is of the same order of magnitude. The UHI effect on continental temperature indices has been around 0.8C since 1950.

      • Bindidon says:

        1. What does the yearly difference between adjusted and unadjusted data in GHCN (hopefully V3 at least, n’est-ce pas) have to do with UHI?

        Please develop your thoughts, much interested…

        2. ” UHI effect at long distances is of the same order of magnitude. The UHI effect on continental temperature indices has been around 0.8C since 1950. ”

        Some valuable source for this claim?

      • Bindidon says:

        Oh and I overlooked this strange sentence:

        ” Indices are actually constructed on the basis of short term trends and long term information is lost. ”

        Once again, some valuable source for this claim?

        • Swenson says:

          Bunny,

          Are you disputing the claim? What support do you have for your disagreement?

          None?

          I thought so.

          • Bindidon says:

            Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!

            Do you have something to say?

            No?

            Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something…
            *
            I agree: sometimes you exceptionally manage to escape your aggressive, barking psychosis and write really interesting things, for example here:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1399111

            Thanks for posting.

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Are you disputing the claim? What support do you have for your disagreement?

            None?

            I thought so.

          • Bindidon says:

            #2

            Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!

            Do you have something to say?

            No?

            Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something…

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            phi wrote –

            “UHI effect at long distances is of the same order of magnitude. The UHI effect on continental temperature indices has been around 0.8C since 1950.”

            You then wrote –

            “Some valuable source for this claim?”, without indicating why you disagreed with his statement. Idiot SkyDragons love demanding an appeal to authority, so they can avoid actually providing facts.

            When I wrote –

            “Bunny,

            Are you disputing the claim? What support do you have for your disagreement?

            None?

            I thought so.”, you flapped off into nonsense about stalkers, and other strange diversions.

            Your silly attempt at trying to avoid either agreeing with a statement, or providing facts to support disagreement, is typical of a sour Kraut SkyDragon.

            Go on, find an excuse for not being able to even describe the mythical GHE, let alone provide one iota of experimental support for your deranged cultist worship.

            Off you go now, keep rejecting reality – other SkyDragons will support you, I’m sure.

      • Nate says:

        “UHI effect at long distances is of the same order of magnitude.”

        Nope. It is a short distance effect.

        “The UHI effect on continental temperature indices has been around 0.8C since 1950.”

        Evidence?

        • Swenson says:

          Nutty Nate,

          I don’t have to spoon-feed you, I suppose, but mainly for the benefit of others who might think you don’t suffer from a mental defect, you might care to read “From Urban to National Heat Island: the effect of anthropogenic heat output on climate change in high population industrial countries: National Heat Islands”

          But then again, there is no law saying you have to believe that thermometers respond to heat, is there?

          That way, you can believe that vastly increased heat output due to humans around the globe (call if AGW if you want), had no measurable effect on temperatures at all over the last century.

          Then try and convince others that you are not in denial of reality.

          Off you go, now. How hard can it be?

        • RLH says:

          “It is a short distance effect”

          Which grows over time.

          • Nate says:

            “I realize that caveats do not register with you”

            And sure enough, they didnt. Your paper is weak.

          • Swenson says:

            Nutty Nate,

            You wrote –

            “Your paper is weak.”

            It’s not mine, and why is it weak?

            Surely you don’t support making unsubstantiated assertions, do you?

            Are you still making the unsubstantiated assertion that you can describe a mythical GHE?

            How about making the unsubstantiated assertion that man-made heat is not responsible for thermometers indicating higher temperatures? You wouldn’t do that, would you?

            Only joking – an idiotic SkyDragon like you believes all sorts of impossible things. That’s because you are detached from reality.

            Come on, make some more unsubstantiated assertions for us all to laugh at.

            Dimwit.

          • Nate says:

            See just below.

          • Nate says:

            For the ‘catching the drift’ challenged:

            “Both countries are rather extreme cases”

            They are not representative of the world. Not relevant to either your country or mine, or most others.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            Just hang on there a second, pardner!

            You say a paper is “weak” because it’s factual? Really?

            I know idiots like you demand “sources” and “citations”, and then whine vociferously when they are presented, but . . .

            You wrote –

            “They are not representative of the world. Not relevant to either your country or mine, or most others.”

            Who said they were representative? They are “heat islands”. I suppose an idiot SkyDragon can provide a thermometer somewhere, and claim it is “representative of the world”, can they? Of course not, you fool.

            You idiot – you dance up and down about “unsubstantiated assertions”, but you provide an endless stream of them. I suppose others might claim you lie when the truth doesn’t suit you, but why ascribe stupidity and ignorance to malice?

            Do you deny that you haven’t been able to produce a useful description of the GHE? How about denying that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, showing that the mythical GHE was completely powerless?

            You could always deny that AGW was due to AGH (Anthropogenically Generated Heat), if you thought anyone was silly enough to agree!

            Deny reality as much as you like – reality doesn’t care, and nor does anyone who accepts reality.

            Here’s your chance to lash out in all directions with a plethora of unsubstantiated assertions.

            Go for it!

            [chuckles at fact-free SkyDragon hypocrite]

          • Nate says:

            “You say a paper is ‘weak’ because its factual?”
            “Who said they were representative? They are ‘heat islands’.”

            You seem to have a very hard time with the concept of RELEVANCE.

            The paper is factual, but not relevant to GLOBAL warming. IOW just another one of your red herrings.

            You are, after all, our resident red herring specialist.

            You don’t seem to be able to provide facts that actually matter to any of the issues discussed.

            How many times has it been explained to you that insulators, like the Earth’s GHE don’t PREVENT warm things from cooling!

            Yet you keep posting your centerpiece red herring:

            “How about denying that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, showing that the mythical GHE was completely powerless?”

            Why do you think this is any more relevant to the GHE than the current high price of milk?

            Are you that clueless? Or just insane?

        • Nate says:

          “in high population industrial countries: National Heat Islands”

          I realize that caveats do not register with you, but:

          From the paper:

          “Both countries are rather extreme cases, Japan having a mean annual energy consumption per unit area
          during 19652013 of 1114 toe km−2, the 8th highest in the world during 19652013, and the United Kingdom 870 toe km−2, the 13th highest”

          “Britain is better suited to this study, being cold enough
          to require indoor heating for about 6 months per year, and with 75% cloud cover [Kontoes & Stakenborg,
          1990], meaning that less surface-generated heat is lost by radiation.”

          Gee, I wonder what that last sentence means to someone like you who denies that the atmosphere modulates heat loss form the Earth’s surface!

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            You wrote –

            “Gee, I wonder what that last sentence means to someone like you who denies that the atmosphere modulates heat loss form the Earths surface!”

            Well, seeing that I never said such a thing (which is no doubt why you couldn’t quote me), your comment is as meaningless as usual.

            At least you located and read the paper. It wasn’t all that hard, was it? There is hope for you yet. Maybe you are not as lazy and incompetent as you pretend.

            Without an atmosphere, we would boil in direct sunlight, and become ice-blocks at night, more or less. The airless Moon has a temperature range of between 127 C and -173 C or so.

            I vote for an atmosphere – cooler during the day, less cold at night. You?

          • Nate says:

            Sorry, I forgot that words like ‘modulate’ are too advanced for you.

            Hint: If you don’t a word just look it up.

            Modulate: “exert a modifying or controlling influence on.”

            Yes, you have denied in many ways that the atmosphere modulates (reduces) the heat loss from the surface.

            You STILL have not explained how the Earth’s thermal IR emission is 390 W/m^2, and the Earth is abs*orbing 240 W/m^2 of solar flux, and yet the Earth isn’t rapidly cooling from this 150 W/m^2 NET loss.

            Hint: the atmosphere’s GHE can explain this.

            But if you have a sensible alternative explanation, please tell us.

            And don’t bother to claim these numbers are wrong unless you can offer sensible alternatives.

          • Swenson says:

            Nitwitted Nate,

            You wrote –

            “Yes, you have denied in many ways that the atmosphere modulates (reduces) the heat loss from the surface”

            Gee, another unsubstantiated claim! How about one of your “citations”, or maybe a “source” to back it up? A direct quote would be even better, but you can’t produce one, can you?

            Idiot.

            If your calculations don’t agree with fact – they’re wrong.

            The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, but you refuse to accept reality. You can create any ridiculous and imaginary figures you like, but even you are claiming that the Earth is losing more energy that it absorbs – and, according to you, it is either not cooling or even getting hotter!

            This would be an example of “Nate’s New Physics”, would it?

            You can’t even describe the GHE, you ninny, let alone justify it being the cause of a body experiencing net energy loss (even according to your fantasy figures), getting hotter!

            What a SkyDragon fantasist you are!

          • Nate says:

            “But if you have a sensible alternative explanation, please tell us.”

            Ok, then its clear you don’t.

            We understand, you’re here to troll. Facts and reality are beside the point.

          • Swenson says:

            Nitwitted Nate,

            You wrote

            Yes, you have denied in many ways that the atmosphere modulates (reduces) the heat loss from the surface

            Gee, another unsubstantiated claim! How about one of your citations, or maybe a source to back it up? A direct quote would be even better, but you cant produce one, can you?

            Idiot.

            If your calculations dont agree with fact theyre wrong.

            The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, but you refuse to accept reality. You can create any ridiculous and imaginary figures you like, but even you are claiming that the Earth is losing more energy that it absorbs and, according to you, it is either not cooling or even getting hotter!

            This would be an example of Nates New Physics, would it?

            You cant even describe the GHE, you ninny, let alone justify it being the cause of a body experiencing net energy loss (even according to your fantasy figures), getting hotter!

            What a SkyDragon fantasist you are!

          • Nate says:

            Straight from the Troll Handbook,

            Chapter 12. How to toss distraction grenades when you have no answers to simple questions.

            Chapter 13. Still have no answers? Just repeat Ch 12.

          • Swenson says:

            Nitwitted Nate,

            You wrote

            Yes, you have denied in many ways that the atmosphere modulates (reduces) the heat loss from the surface

            Gee, another unsubstantiated claim! How about one of your citations, or maybe a source to back it up? A direct quote would be even better, but you cant produce one, can you?

            Idiot.

            If your calculations dont agree with fact theyre wrong.

            The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, but you refuse to accept reality. You can create any ridiculous and imaginary figures you like, but even you are claiming that the Earth is losing more energy that it absorbs and, according to you, it is either not cooling or even getting hotter!

            This would be an example of Nates New Physics, would it?

            You cant even describe the GHE, you ninny, let alone justify it being the cause of a body experiencing net energy loss (even according to your fantasy figures), getting hotter!

            What a SkyDragon fantasist you are!

    • Tim S says:

      Don’t believe your lying eyes, your personal experience, or common sense. Just take the word of these known activists who have a clear pattern of political activity that far exceeds any scientific credibility. The UHI is a measured and documented effect. It is real. How can they say “climate change is real”, and then ignore established science?

    • Swenson says:

      Nate,

      Pity the authors had to publish their nonsense in a predatory journal, isn’t it?

      Either they knew that the journal was predatory, which means they intended to deceive, or they didn’t, which makes them stupid.

      BerkeleyEarth pretends to have something to do with University of California, Berkeley, presumably. Its impartiality and objectivity is summed up in the first sentence of its “Mission and Purpose” –

      “Global warming is the defining environmental challenge of our time.” How impartial is that, I ask you?

      Just another cloud of delusional SkyDragons, sponging off anybody silly enough to believe their propaganda.

      How much have you contributed to their non-profit (no taxes) Muller retirement fund?

      • Nate says:

        ” Just take the word of these known activists” You mean like Roy Spencer?

        • Swenson says:

          Nate,

          You wrote –

          “Just take the word of these known activists”.

          As I didn’t say such a thing, you have either placed your comment in the wrong place, or you are sloppy and incompetent.

          Maybe you could acknowledge your small error (if you accept that you made one of course).

          Up to you.

        • Tim S says:

          I assume you are quoting me. This is a real low point for any commenter on this site. GISS under Gavin Schmidt is posting very misleading if not actually fake science. They pretend to be neutral and objective — they are not. If you think Dr. Spencer has ever posted anything he doesn’t believe to true and correct, or has ever tried to disguise his true beliefs, then cite that example. Otherwise, shame on you for posting such a comment on his site where people are allowed to freely express their opinion without moderation except for that one guy who really deserves to moderated!

        • Nate says:

          What? You don’t believe Roy, in additions to doing science, is also a political activist? Then you havent read many of his posts.

          See eg the one about the White House Climate Propaganda flyers he produced.

          Hansen, who previously led GISS is NOW retired and is a political activist.

          Are you saying that all the surface data sets, BE, GISS, Had*crut, JAXA, etc, which find similar trends, are altered by people for political purposes? What about the Reanalysis data sets that produce similar trends?

          You are conflating science that produces results you don’t like with political activism.

          • Tim S says:

            Nate, nice try. Your strawman is dead on arrival. I stand by every word posted here. I never mentioned Hansen. You did. Schmidt is doing propaganda expressing his opinion as fact. Many others at NASA have complained about his work. My favorite GISS distortion was a graph showing lowered sun output (no longer available last time I looked). It showed a dramatic loss of sun output that seemed very severe alongside a rise in CO2 and Temperature. The implication was that CO2 is the only thing on earth that can possibly impact climate. The problem is that the sun output graph was chopped to make a very tight output range with a reduction of about 0.02% look very dramatic. Shameful!

          • Tim S says:

            I have a quick followup. I am a genuine skeptic which means that I am also skeptical of other skeptics. My motivation is curiosity and a desire for knowledge. Period. I do not see any effort in Dr. Spencer’s work to fake the data or deceive anyone. If I do, I will complain.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim S,

            Here’s a sample of Gavin Schmidt’s fantasy thinking –

            “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature”.

            Luckily, he is not a scientist – just a civil servant and incompetent mathematician (he once declared that a 38% likelihood meant that it was almost certain that 2014 was the “hottest year ever”).

            Gavin apparently refuses to accept that thermometers react to heat, or that temperatures are measured in degrees (of hotness). He is infatuated with forcings, feedbacks, averages, and radiative intensity measured in W/m2 (completely irrelevant to temperature, without much additional information).

            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.”

            The SkyDragons have no experimental support for their CO2 fixation. They can’t even describe the non-existent GHE!

            If I get new facts, I change my view. And yes, I have done so in the past. Life went on.

          • Nate says:

            All I am seeing here is unsubstantiated trolling of scientists who produce results that dont agree with your beliefs.

            Where is the beef?

          • Nate says:

            “He is infatuated with forcings, feedbacks, averages, and radiative intensity measured in W/m2 (completely irrelevant to temperature, without much additional information).”

            Yes he understands and uses science terms that are gibberish and uninteresting to Swenson.

            Which is fine. Not everyone can do science. Not everyone has an interest in learning about science.

            And if neither of those are the case, then one should perhaps not post at a science blog, and perhaps admit their posts on the subject are likely to be uninformed gibberish and uninteresting.

          • Swenson says:

            Peabrain Nate,

            You wrote –

            “Not everyone can do science. Not everyone has an interest in learning about science.”

            Well, that’s certainly informative – not! Another one of your hated “unsubstantiated assertions”, is it? Are you referring to particular people – or just being a fact-free gutless SkyDragon?

            You are probably dim enough to believe that climate is something else than the average of historical weather observations over an arbitrary period. Not much science there – averages can be calculated by an intelligent 12 year old.

            Maybe you are referring to the likes of Gavin Schmidt – incompetent mathematician, civil servant, self proclaimed “climate scientist”, or Michael Mann – fraud, faker, scofflaw, deadbeat, and self proclaimed “climate scientist”.

            These are dimwits who can’t even describe the GHE!

            Science? You are delusional.

            Richard Feynman agreed with me when he said “When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it”

            Off you go now – try to convert some of your fantasies to fact. Let me experience them – only joking, your fantasies cannot be experienced by anyone who doesn’t share them, can they?

      • Nate says:

        ” a predatory journal” Is it? How do you know?

        • Swenson says:

          Nitwit Nate,

          Don’t know how to use an internet search engine?

          You are obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed, but that’s fairly typical of SkyDragons, I suppose.

          For the benefit of others who may not realise the level of your incompetence, here’s a hint –

          “Court Rules in FTCs Favor Against Predatory Academic Publisher OMICS Group; Imposes $50.1 Million Judgment against Defendants That Made False Claims and Hid Publishing Fees

          In April 2019, the FTC announced that a federal district court judge ordered Srinubabu Gedela and his companies to pay more than $50.1 million to resolve FTC charges that they made deceptive claims about the nature of their conferences and publications, and hid steep publication fees. The court ruling resolved a 2016 Commission complaint alleging that Gedela and the companies falsely advertised online scientific and medical academic journals and international conferences, and deceptively claimed the journals provided authors with rigorous peer review and editorial boards comprised of prominent academics.”

          You, or anybody else, can look up the list of journals published by OMICS.

          Why do you bother asking stupid questions, when just a tiny effort on your part would provide the answer? Are you really lazy and incompetent, or do you just love being made to look like an idiotic SkyDragon?

          You don’t need to answer – that was a rhetorical question.

        • Nate says:

          OK, looks like you were correct. First time for everything!

          ” tiny effort on your part ”

          Not my job to check your unsubstantiated claims, which most of your posts are filled with.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            Your grudging (but valid) apology is welcomed and accepted. Thank you.

            You wrote “First time for everything!”. Is this an example of the sort of “unsubstantiated claim” which you complain about?

            You also wrote –

            “Not my job to check your unsubstantiated claims, which most of your posts are filled with.”

            You are free to check the facts I present – or ignore them, as you wish. Not my job to try to convince you that you are an arrogant, ignorant, idiot, who appears to be a hypocrite as well, making unsubstantiated and contradictory claims.

            For example you claim the comment that resulted in your apology was correct, and the “first time”. You then acknowledged that I was correct on previous occasions, when you wrote ” . . . unsubstantiated claims, which most of your posts . . . “.

            So, “first time”, or “not really the first time, but I’m an idiot, so . . .”?

            Which of your unsubstantiated claims is correct, or are they both just figments of your imagination?

            All very complicated, isn’t it? Others can make up their own minds. Of course, you may not be an ignorant, arrogant, hypocritical idiot. Correct me if my speculation is incorrect (provide facts to support your unsubstantiated claim that you are, indeed, an ignorant, arrogant, hypocritical, idiot, in spite of my admittedly speculative view that you may not be.

            Are you still denying that AGW is due to man-made heat?

          • Nate says:

            “which most of your posts are filled with.”

            Indeed I am accounting for the occasional spicing of the BS with the occasional fact.

            Sorry if you want your posts to be taken seriously.

            The boy who cried wolf also was desperate for validation, but like you, his lack of credibility was his own doing.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate hypocrite,

            You wrote –

            “Indeed I am accounting for the occasional spicing of the BS with the occasional fact.”

            Another obvious unsubstantiated assertion from the dimwit who claims he is violently opposed to unsubstantiated assertions. Ah well, SkyDragons are nothing if not inconsistent!

            How about providing an example of these “occasional facts”? Ones you consider relevant with regard to the “BS”, which you have also asserted – with no apparent substantiation, of course.

            You can run, but you cannot hide from reality.

            The reality is that you can’t even find a useful description of the GHE, can you? Something that might stand up to even cursory examination – unlike the nonsense which emanates from pretend “climate scientists” like the incompetent mathematician Gavin Schmidt, or the well-known fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann.

            Off you go now – make a few more unsubstantiated assertions. I need to fulfill my laughter quota. Only joking, idiot SkyDragons ensure a never-ending source of amusement for all rational readers.

  28. gbaikie says:

    Since Canada gets so little sunlight, maybe idling a car IS an UHI effect.

    The Russians used run hot pipes around in their cities, to increase the temperature, I wonder if they still do that.
    Russia has changed over the years- they got a lot more energy to waste.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Just reading about that. Apparently, in the hinterlands, in Siberia, they still use the heat pipes. The one mentioned was so worn it was leaking steam and hot water.

      The are places in Vancouver where they use steam heating. Don’t recall the purpose.

    • Swenson says:

      Gbaikie,

      There are about 4.5 billion motor vehicles on the Earth. There used to be none, zero, zilch.

      All of the power they generate or use is eventually dissipated as heat. All of it – gasoline, diesel, gas, electricity – it doesn’t matter.

      AGW writ large and wide.

      Only SkyDragon thermometers are immune to reacting to this additional man-made heat.

      Plus all the rest.

      • gbaikie says:

        This could be part of UHI effect- most this heat is in Urban areas but Urban area are tiny part of total land surface and really insignificant compared to ocean surface.
        It seems this effect would be largest during winter and in place which didn’t get much heating from sunlight.
        As I say, ocean warms, land cools.
        The ocean warms land. The oceans warm Europe a lot, but ocean also warms all land.
        In terms comparison such heating is small compared to energy the ocean gets from the sun.
        Or as I said, about 80% of total sunlight reaching Earth passes thru
        the top of ocean surface.
        In terms comparison you could with Europe compare to amount Europe is warmed by the ocean [and forget the sunlight] and focus the local areas in Europe which generating the most heat.
        And in other area of land area in the world which likewise don’t get much sunlight AND are less heating by the ocean as compared Europe- such as Canada where this heat generation would more effect vs the small warming caused by the ocean.

        But morons are measuring global temperature on land and urban areas.

        Or as I said, what controls global warming is the ocean surface covering 70% of the world and has average temperature of about 17 C as compared to global land areas which average around 10 C.

        But I also think global average temperature has increased or I think the cold 3.5 C average temperature has warmed by about .1 C [which a lot] and waste heat from human activity is not warming our cold ocean.

    • Entropic man says:

      Do the sums.

      Global warming is adding 10^22Joules/year.

      The total energy budget of our civilization is 10^20Joules/year.

      You can only blame 1% of the observed global heating on human heat production.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        Don’t be silly.

        During the night, the heat of the day disappears – totally.

        That’s why the Earth has managed to cool from the molten state – four and a half billion years or so of sunlight notwithstanding.

        Of course, the only additional heat at night is man-made. AGW is manmade heat – produced continuously around the globe.

        As Dr Spencer (and anybody not infected with SkyDragon madness) eventually comes to accept. It’s called reality. Even you realise that there is precisely no experimental support for the mad idea that CO2 somehow “amplifies” or “adds to” the energy from the Sun. In fact, increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer, reduces the amount of energy reaching the thermometer – resulting in cooling!

        Go away, do the sums. If your sums indicate that CO2 increases the amount of the Sun’s energy reaching thermometers, then your sums are wrong. Maybe you need to go back to school, and brush up your arithmetic.

      • Nate says:

        “During the night, the heat of the day disappears totally. Thats why the Earth has managed to cool from the molten state four and a half billion years or so of sunlight notwithstanding.”

        As usual, Flynnson’s theories are, for the 847th time, contradicted by the observed facts. Specifically that the Earth’s surface has been warming over the last 50 years, and has warmed many times in its history.

        Oh well..

        • Swenson says:

          Numbnuts Nate,

          You wrote –

          “As usual, Flynnsons theories are, for the 847th time, contradicted by the observed facts. Specifically that the Earths surface has been warming over the last 50 years, and has warmed many times in its history.”

          No theory, dummy. Just an observation, based on the assumption that the Earth was initially molten, which seems to be supported by present knowledge.

          The surface is not molten now. Observation – the surface has cooled.

          You claim that the Earth has warmed many times in its history. Indeed it does – every day after sunrise, with the coming of summer, when the Sun emerges after rain, and so on. If you are claiming that a planet with a molten interior, covered with very thin crust of congealed rock, magically heats and cools, then you will have to gather together an audience of SkyDragon cultists, if you wish to be applauded for your silliness.

          Some SkyDragon cultists seem to believe that the Earth magically cooled even further, to 255 K or so, which nobody actually managed to observe or measure, and then magically heated up by 33 K – to its present temperature.

          You are just confused. You don’t want to accept that manmade heat affects thermometers, but I assure you that it does. Insert a cold thermometer into your orifice of choice, and watch it respond! Your body is generating heat by burning carbohydrates, in essence. Man-made heat.

          In the meantime, the noise you hear is probably derisive sniggering, rather than a standing ovation!

          Carry on.

  29. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…”Time series of the Earths average land temperature are estimated using the Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full data set…”

    ***

    Is it completely lost on you that the only agreement with this claim comes from surface station data providers who are also uber-climate alarmists?

    All of the surface data sets are from climate alarmists and all are fudged using climate models using interpolation and homogenization techniques. They also go back in the time series and adjust (fudge) warmer temperatures downward to show a steadily rising trends to indicate global warming.

    In the Climategate email scandal, Phil Jones, then head of Had-Crut, bragged about using Mann’s cheating technique aimed at hiding declining temperatures.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      Gordon get ready for freezing temperatures in Vancouver. Watch the map for updates.
      https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f000.png

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ren…thanks for advice. It has been unusually cold around here at night due to the low temperatures and high amount of moisture in the air. We had fog the other night with temps around 0C.

        I have worked at night on the prairies (Edmonton area and further north) and even at -25C you can dress warmly enough to be reasonably comfortable, as long as you get warmed every so often.

        I worked a night shift at the international airport just south of Vancouver but right on the ocean. It was a bit above 0C but very damp. I could not get comfortably warm no matter how many layers of clothes I wore, including water-proof rain gear.

        A foreman, who talked to himself like Popeye, walked around in a T-shirt with his winter coat open. I asked him if he didn’t feel the cold. He looked at me for a couple of seconds thinking, then replied it felt cold only if he thought about it.

        I was watching a guy filling his fuel tanker to refuel the jet airliner. The dial seemed to be going pretty slowly, about 1 unit every 30 seconds or so, and I asked him how much fuel a jet required. He said about 30,000 litres.

        I told him at the rate his tanker was being filled he’d be there all night. Then he got it. He told me the dial was reading 1000 litres per meter movement, not 1 litre per movement as I had presumed. Even so, he was only filling at about 2000 litres per minute.

  30. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A wave of Arctic air is now reaching the Great Lakes and the northeast of the US.

  31. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Solar activity has not increased in the past 30 days.
    https://i.ibb.co/rvJxt8S/EISNcurrent.png
    http://www.solen.info/solar/images/cycles23_24.png

    • Eben says:

      My secret sources tell me it’s more like not increased past 7 month
      But,
      My clown source tells me it’s ramping up much faster than predictions

      • Bindidon says:

        There is only one clown here, babbling Edog, and that’s you.

        If you weren’t such a clown, you wouldn’t post your completely laughable Youtubes, and would prefer to contribute instead of discrediting.

        And you would know that who makes such charts

        https://i.postimg.cc/sDkyLtTh/Solar-flux-F10-SC25-and-its-7-last-months.png

        only needs to look at the running mean, or at a weaker and weaker becoming polynomial, to understand that the Sunny boy is moncktoning since quite a while.

        Keep the Globe cooling!

        • Swenson says:

          Bunny,

          You wrote –

          “Keep the Globe cooling!”

          No need. Nature does that. You don’t want to accept that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, and nobody can stop you thinking what you like.

          You can’t stop anybody thinking that you are a sour Kraut, either.

          See? It makes no difference to Nature, does it? The Earth just keeps cooling, losing energy at a rate of about 44 TW. Continuously.

          More graphs, please.

          Carry on.

        • Eben says:

          The biggest Dork under the Sun finally noticed it’s going sideways

          • Bindidon says:

            Babbling Edog, you are as usual dishonest.

            Look at all my solar comments mentioning ” still sidewaysing strong “.

          • Eben says:

            We are all well aware of the trail of your zshitpostings you left on this blog, both about La Ninas and the sun activity,

        • Bindidon says:

          Ah well ah well!

          Now Flynnson not only is stalking, he moreover shows the degree of his incompetence, just like the Moulin Rouge’s night ladies show off their beautiful legs.

          ” The Earth just keeps cooling, losing energy at a rate of about 44 TW. ”

          Energy and Watt. Superb.

          Next time please write either energy and TWh, or flow of heat and W; sounds better (and 47 even more). Watt is a unit of power, and not of energy.

          But agreeing to that, Flynnson, won’t change anything to your persistent, intentional distortion of the fact that these tiny 47 TWh coming from primordial formation heat and radioactive decay represent at best 0.03 % of Earth’s surface energy.

          *
          You daily remind me all these old German teachers retired from some elementary school. Same behavior…

          Carry on, you fake Sauerkraut.

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Here’s a definition of the Watt –

            ” . . .the SI unit of power, equivalent to one joule per second, . . . “.

            As I said, the Earth is losing energy (joules) at a rate of about 44 TW (44 terajoules per second).

            You wrote “Next time please write either energy and TWh, or flow of heat and W; sounds better (and 47 even more). Watt is a unit of power, and not of energy.”

            No. Why should I comply with your stupid request to write something that I know to be incorrect? I leave that to ignorant and arrogant SkyDragons.

            If a body is losing energy, it is cooling – slow cooling is not heating, no matter what ignorant and arrogant sour Krauts (sauerkrauts) want people to believe.

            Maybe you should stick to your areas of expertise – denying man-made warming, and blathering about dog poop, flatulence, arrogance, and ignorance.

            Carry on.

          • Bindidon says:

            Flynnson

            ” Heres a definition of the Watt

            . . .the SI unit of power, equivalent to one joule per second, …

            As I said, the Earth is losing energy (joules) at a rate of about 44 TW (44 terajoules per second). ”

            It seems that, like all these retired German teachers I met during over 40 years, you still didn’t understand what you yourself wrote!

            44 TW is POWER.
            44 TWh is ENERGY.

            The rate of energy has to be expressed with a time unit specifying how fast the energy is gained / lost, e.g.

            ‘ Our country’s ENERGY demand increases at a rate of 350 GWh per year. ”

            And from that you deduce how much installed POWER you need.

            Is that so difficult to grasp, Flynnson?

            Energy is power times time.

            That, Flynnson, is the reason why an electricity generation plant having an installed power of say 900 MW will, with a load factor of 0.75, produce over the year the quantity of energy:

            900 * 0.75 * 24 * 365 = ~5,900 GWh.

            *
            Thus I repeat:

            Next time please write either energy and TWh, or flow of heat and W; sounds better (and 47 even more). Watt is a unit of power, and not of energy.

            Got it, you self-important dimwit?

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Heres a definition of the Watt

            . . .the SI unit of power, equivalent to one joule per second, . . . .

            As I said, the Earth is losing energy (joules) at a rate of about 44 TW (44 terajoules per second).

            You wrote Next time please write either energy and TWh, or flow of heat and W; sounds better (and 47 even more). Watt is a unit of power, and not of energy.

            No. Why should I comply with your stupid request to write something that I know to be incorrect? I leave that to ignorant and arrogant SkyDragons.

            If a body is losing energy, it is cooling slow cooling is not heating, no matter what ignorant and arrogant sour Krauts (sauerkrauts) want people to believe.

            Maybe you should stick to your areas of expertise denying man-made warming, and blathering about dog poop, flatulence, arrogance, and ignorance.

            Carry on.

  32. Mark B says:

    Current homogenization techniques for thermometer data adjustment do not explicitly attempt to correct urban trends to match rural trends, . . .

    GISS includes an explicit urban adjustment. See section 4 of Hansen 2010.

    https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_ha00510u.pdf

    • Swenson says:

      From the introduction –

      “For the sake of users who require an absolute global mean temperature, we have estimated the 19511980 global mean surface air temperature as 14C with uncertainty several tenths of a degree Celsius. That value was obtained by using a global climate model [Hansen et al., 2007] to fill in temperatures at grid points without observations, but it is consistent with [. . .] based on observational data. ”

      Not a good start. To satisfy people who want facts, we’ll create facts to shut them up.

      Moving on to section 4, “This local warming must be eliminated to obtain a valid measure of global climate change.”

      Measure global climate change? Really? What has it changed from?

      Does nobody check this sort of nonsense before it goes to print? If the paper was peer reviewed, the peers of Hansen et. al. are demonstrably inept, ignorant, or both.

      One last quote from section 4 –

      “The standard GISS global temperature analysis now adjusts the long‐term trends of stations located in regions with night light brightness exceeding this limit to agree with the long‐term trend of nearby rural stations.”

      Getting rid of inconvenient facts, do you think? It’s a fairly breathtaking assumption that discarding data here and elsewhere, will improve the accuracy of your results.

      Hansen and his fellow SkyDragons don’t seem to want to accept anything that might contradict their belief that the Earth has decided that it cooled too far, and decided to heat up again! Or something equally absurd, involving the Sun and some nonsensical “greenhouse effect”.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “Not a good start. To satisfy people who want facts, well create facts to shut them up.”
        No. More like “To satisfy people who want results in a particular format, we present the results in that format (even if we don’t think that is the best way to do things.”

        “Measure global climate change? Really? What has it changed from?”
        From the data collected in the past. If the climate numbers are significantly different now than at some point in the past, then the climate has changed since that point. That ought to be self-explanatory.

        “Getting rid of inconvenient facts, do you think? ”
        No. They are actually ‘getting rid of’ facts that would conveniently (but incorrectly) SUPPORT global warming. By excluding extra warming in urban areas and instead relying on rural areas with LESS warming.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      mark….”GISS includes an explicit urban adjustment”.

      ***

      If I remember correctly, they were observing the light given of by cities/towns on a satellite photo and creating a factor for UHI based on what they presumed it should be. That’s along the lines of their 2014 prediction that 2014 ‘should be’ the warmest year ever, based on a 38% probability.

  33. Bindidon says:

    I was looking, in the GHCN daily station set, for weather stations good enough for a comparison of the Las Vegas station used by Roy Spencer

    USW00023169 36.0719 -115.1633 649.5 NV LAS VEGAS MCCARRAN AP

    to stations located far away from urban/suburban corners with high population and heat source density.

    I found some interesting ones, worth a comparison:

    1. USC00267369 35.4661 -114.9217 1079.0 NV SEARCHLIGHT HCN

    https://www.google.com/maps/place/35%C2%B027'58.0%22N+114%C2%B055'18.1%22W/@35.4661,-114.9238887,789m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x6f732c20eba957fe!8m2!3d35.4661!4d-114.9217?hl=en

    2. USC00268588 36.4303 -114.5139 609.6 NV VALLEY OF FIRE SP

    https://www.google.com/maps/place/36%C2%B025'49.1%22N+114%C2%B030'50.0%22W/@36.4303,-114.5160887,779m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xe3f1df9806d65656!8m2!3d36.4303!4d-114.5139?hl=en

    *
    The reason for showing these two station locations in Google Maps is that when looking at the SEARCHLIGHT station, nearly every WUWT commenter would rant on it and discredit it as highly UHI contaminated because it’s so near to houses and roads!

    Here are the temperature charts comparing SEARCHLIGHT to VALLEY OF FIRE SP.

    1. TMIN

    https://i.postimg.cc/qvG89rSW-/GHCND-UHI-Valley-of-Fire-vs-Searchlight-TMIN.png

    Linear estimates in C / decade

    – VALLEY OF FIRE: 0.44
    – SEARCHLIGHT: 0.39

    2. TMAX

    https://i.postimg.cc/43PR7YMw/GHCND-UHI-Valley-of-Fire-vs-Searchlight-TMAX.png

    Linear estimates in C / decade

    – VALLEY OF FIRE: 0.31
    – SEARCHLIGHT: 0.0

    *

    Frogs like to say in such situations: ” L’habit ne fait pas le moine ”

    I.e. ” The suit doesn’t make the man “, or ” You can’t judge a book by its cover “.

  34. Swenson says:

    Bunny,

    Do you have a point, or are you just being a sour Kraut because you lack self control?

    You do realise that 0.44 C per decade is 4.4 C per century, and 44 C per millennium, do you?

    Are you really claiming that surface temperatures at that location will increase by 100 C over the next 2500 years? Would that be due to the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere, or is your imagination running away with your common sense?

    You really are a gullible wee SkyDragon cultist, aren’t you? The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so. Good luck with convincing it to heat up to suit your wishful thinking.

    • Bindidon says:

      #3

      Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!

      Do you have something to say?

      No?

      Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something …

      Flynnson the ignorant and lazy dimwit has no idea about what others are doing, BUT he knows that it’s just worth being discredited.

      • Swenson says:

        Bunny,

        Has the cat got your tongue? Just in case you missed it –

        Do you have a point, or are you just being a sour Kraut because you lack self control?

        You do realise that 0.44 C per decade is 4.4 C per century, and 44 C per millennium, do you?

        Are you really claiming that surface temperatures at that location will increase by 100 C over the next 2500 years? Would that be due to the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere, or is your imagination running away with your common sense?

        You really are a gullible wee SkyDragon cultist, arent you? The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so. Good luck with convincing it to heat up to suit your wishful thinking.

        • Bindidon says:

          #4

          Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!

          Do you have something to say?

          No?

          Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something …

          *
          No problem in keeping as stubborn as you are, Flynnson!

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Swen,
            Blinny doesn’t believe in man-caused global warming. He just reports temperature.

          • Bindidon says:

            Anderson

            You are exactly as dumb and as much a distorting, misrepresenting and lying person as are Robertson, Flynnson and Clint R.

            Here are some diagrams for you that I hope you can still grasp with enough mental strength:

            NV Valley of Fire vs. La Vegas McCarran Airport

            Tmin

            https://i.postimg.cc/FzVTbnkW/GHCND-UHI-Valley-of-Fire-vs-Las-Vegas-TMIN.png

            Tmax

            https://i.postimg.cc/nr3PbPVs/GHCND-UHI-Valley-of-Fire-vs-Las-Vegas-TMAX.png

            Why, do you pickup Genius think, do the names of both ‘png’ files contain ‘UHI’ ?

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Blinny,

            You’re really good with the keyboard. Why don’t you use it to solve instead of regurgitating stuff?

          • Bindidon says:

            Anderson

            You are manifestly unable to do anything right (except driving your 6.0L pickup).

            Nothing is regurgitated here.

            Not only do I love generating anomaly time series from absolute weather station data – it’s my hobby, imho a better one than constantly denying things one doesn’t even understand).

            Creating such charts offers me a view of the UHI problem that complements Roy Spencer’s ‘Trend vs. Daily Cycle’ diagrams, which obviously cannot tell us when on the 1973-2022 timeline the temperatures of major cities and rural corners lying around them differ, and by how much.

            When comparing centers suspected of being UHI with their supposedly non-UHI environment, it is relevant to know where they differ, what a trend over the entire period of course cannot indicate.
            *
            Maybe some commenter has something more relevant to say than do ignorant people like you or Swenson, Robertson and some others.

            *
            What you all think – or do not think – about what I post on this blog doesn’t interest me at all.

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            You wrote –

            “When comparing centers suspected of being UHI with their supposedly non-UHI environment, it is relevant to know where they differ, what a trend over the entire period of course cannot indicate.”

            They differ in recorded temperatures. Thar’s why the call them Urban Heat Islands. Maybe you forgot that thermometers measure “degrees of hotness” – not W/m2, or other such SkyDragon fantasies.

            You also wrote –

            “What you all think or do not think about what I post on this blog doesnt interest me at all.”

            Good for you! I suppose that writing “Maybe some commenter has something more relevant to say than do ignorant people like you or Swenson, Robertson and some others.”, shows the depth of your disinterest in what anybody at all thinks, or does not think, about what you post.

            This begs the question – if you don’t care what anybody at all thinks about your posts, why do you bother posting?

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Blinny is not AGW. He is AWM…..Angry White Man. Has there ever been an angrier white man than Blinny?

          • Swenson says:

            stephen p. anderson,

            Oh well.

            How about AWF? Away With the Fairies?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            stephen….”Has there ever been an angrier white man than Blinny?”

            ***

            Can’t think of one. I picture him sitting in front of his computer, in his lederhosen and alpine hat, yelling ‘ach de leber’, and every once in while, yodeling out the windows.

          • Bindidon says:

            Anderson

            Don’t try to manipulate the discussion, it’s useless.

            You just can’t admit that you’ve failed completely in judging who I am and how I think, and switch down to an even dumber level of polemic.

            No wonder ignoramus Robertson with his big feet and pea brain comes around and encourages you. Feel free to be proud of it.

            I can only repeat:

            What people like you, Flynnson, Robertson and a few others think or do not think about what I post on this blog doesnt interest me at all.

          • Bindidon says:

            #5

            Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!

            Do you have something to say?

            No?

            Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something

            *
            No problem in keeping as stubborn as you are, Flynnson!

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            You wrote

            When comparing centers suspected of being UHI with their supposedly non-UHI environment, it is relevant to know where they differ, what a trend over the entire period of course cannot indicate.

            They differ in recorded temperatures. Thars why the call them Urban Heat Islands. Maybe you forgot that thermometers measure degrees of hotness not W/m2, or other such SkyDragon fantasies.

            You also wrote

            What you all think or do not think about what I post on this blog doesnt interest me at all.

            Good for you! I suppose that writing Maybe some commenter has something more relevant to say than do ignorant people like you or Swenson, Robertson and some others., shows the depth of your disinterest in what anybody at all thinks, or does not think, about what you post.

            This begs the question if you dont care what anybody at all thinks about your posts, why do you bother posting?

          • Nate says:

            “This begs the question if you dont care what anybody at all thinks about your posts, why do you bother posting?”

            Gee this would seem to be a good question for anyone, like Swenson for instance, who posts the same red-herring factoid 647 times.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate, you nong,

            You wrote –

            “Gee this would seem to be a good question for anyone, like Swenson for instance, who posts the same red-herring factoid 647 times.”

            More unsubstantiated handwaving assertions again? I thought you abhorred unsubstantiated assertions.

            You can’t support your assertion (some would call it a lie born of desperation) about “the same red-herring factoid 647 times”, because it’s a figment of your imagination isn’t it?

            Oh well, you could always try to explain what you really mean, but then you would just look like a lying SkyDragon cultist, wouldn’t you? Obscurity, obfuscation and avoidance are not your friends, Nate. Grow a backbone, present some facts, and let others draw their own conclusions. Demanding that people have to divine that cesspit of fantasy occupying your head, is unlikely to convince anybody to value your opinion over some other anonymous commenter.

            Have you found a useful description of the GHE yet? Any experimental support? Or just more unsubstantiated assertions that the GHE exists, and has developed miraculous planet heating powers after four and a half billion years or so of cooling?

            Or is reality just another red-herring factoid to a dimwitted SkyDragon cultist like you?

        • Bindidon says:

          Flynnson’s typical manipulation

          I wrote

          ” Maybe some commenter has something more relevant to say than do ignorant people like you or Swenson, Robertson and some others.

          What you all think or do not think about what I post on this blog doesnt interest me at all. ”

          And what does Flynnson make out of it?

          ” This begs the question if you dont care what anybody at all thinks about your posts, why do you bother posting? ”

          *
          I don’t care about what people like you, Anderson, Robertson and a few others think about what I post.

          You are only a little few here.

          I care about the others’ meaning. There are many.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            I can imagine Blinny looking like Schultz on Hogan’s Heroes: Achtung! Achtung! Except Blinny would be in an SS uniform and not Luftwaffe.

          • Nate says:

            Similarly, I can imagine a hooded Stephen Anderson participating in a lynching near a burning cross down South where he lives.

            See how well guilt by association works?

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            Unfortunately, you seem to think your imagination reflects reality.

            Stephen indicates his imagination is, well, not real. Sgt Schultz is an imaginary character in a fictional TV show. Im surprised you didn’t know that.

            As for you, you might imagine that Gavin Schmidt is a “climate scientist”, where fact indicates he is not.

            Or Michael Mann (faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat) might imagine he won a Nobel Prize! He didn’t, and imagining people would think he did because he printed up a Nobel Prize award, was merely imagination, not fact.

            I choose to imagine Bunny in his SS uniform, replete with Deaths-head insignia buffed to a high luster, riding crop and boots (similarly polished), attaching electrical leads to the genitals of anybody who disagrees with his bizarre notions. He probably has to stamp his little foot when somebody point out solar power does not produce electricity at night.

            Oh well, he can implement his back up plan, and infect his opponents with Covid19, hoping they die a slow, lingering death. Luckily, imagination is only imagination – must to the chagrin of some SkyDragons who have issued threats in the past, only to realise their power to inflict pain was only – imaginary!

            By the way, you do realise that lynchings actually occurred, do you? Neither opinions, imagination, or laws can prevent people from doing whatever they like. It’s called reality.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Nate,
            Your analogy doesn’t make any sense. I’ve never espoused lynching anyone. Also, I’m not a leftist. However, Blinny has espoused locking people up because of their views, yes, their views, on climate change.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swenson…”he can implement his back up plan, and infect his opponents with Covid19…”

            ***

            He’d have to find the virus first, something no one has been able to do to this point. The original paper on covid by Wuhan scientists revealed they had not physically isolated a virus but inferred it based on certain genetic sequences. Turns out those same genetic sequences are common in the human body.

            The test for covid, invented by German fraudster, Christian Drosten, was based on the same inference. That’s why people will still be testing positive 50 years from now unless people come to their senses and do a proper investigation. Drosten admitted he had not physically isolated covid.

            Obviously, something is causing people to get ill and even die. It may be a virus but no one to this day has physically isolated it.

            It was confirmed in a paper released recently that most people dying of covid these days are fully vaccinated. The so-called vaccine, actually genetic modification, is based on the same inference. It doesn’t work!!!

            https://www.sott.net/article/465146-UK-releases-report-confirming-the-fully-vaccinated-now-account-for-9-in-every-10-Covid-19-deaths-in-England?ysclid=laxln26ieo550829054

  35. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The polar vortex will remain broken up, resulting in very cold temperatures in Europe. This could be the coldest winter in many years.
    Planetary waves are already visible in the upper stratosphere, causing the polar vortex to ripple.
    https://i.ibb.co/Wt76Vsn/gfs-z100-nh-f312.png
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_OND_NH_2022.png

  36. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Australia’s eight-day rainfall forecast.
    https://i.ibb.co/VwrGbP0/pme1to8.png

  37. Swenson says:

    Completely off track, but seeing Dr Spencer apologise to Willis Eschenbach brought Willis’ nonsensical “Steel greenhouse” explanation of the non-existent GHE to mind.

    Here’s a bit of Willis silliness, if anyone wants to find the rest –

    “In order to maintain its thermal equilibrium, the whole system must still radiate 235 W/m2 out to space. To do this, the steel shell must warm until it is radiating at 235 watts per square metre. Of course, since a shell has an inside and an outside, it will also radiate 235 watts inward to the planet. The planet is now being heated by 235 W/m2 of energy from the interior, and 235 W/m2 from the shell. This will warm the planetary surface until it reaches a temperature of 470 watts per square metre. In vacuum conditions as described, this would be a perfect greenhouse, with no losses of any kind. Figure 1 shows how it works.”

    Willis is not the sharpest tool in the shed, and does not realise that a sphere with a larger radius must have a greater area. An inner sphere radiating, say, 235 W/m2 to a larger sphere, means that the larger sphere will receive something less per unit area – because it has a larger area, and cannot possibly radiate say, 235 w/m2, because it physically cannot receive that much radiation per unit area.

    Now, Willis compounds his confusion, by assuming his outer sphere is both a perfect insulator (reflecting all the energy it receives from an inner radiating sphere), and radiating the same impossible amount per m2 externally. No doubt due to the Eschenbach Energy Creation and Doubling Perpetual Motion Principle.

    Like SkyDragons generally, Willis doesn’t mention real temperature anywhere, so he cannot be accused of providing any data to support his fantasy. He wrote – ” This will warm the planetary surface until it reaches a temperature of 470 watts per square metre.” Well, no, Willis, temperature is not measured in “watts per square metre”.

    Willis presents all sorts of bizarre speculations as “explanations” either explicit or implied, regarding a GHE which can’t even be described.

    Just another SkyDragon, trying to defend the indefensible. AGW is due to anthropogenic heat. No more, no less.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      yet another disappearing post after being flagged as a duplicate…

      willis’ heat budget is an issue too. There is no balance between heat in and heat out in real time. Our system of oceans and atmosphere is highly dynamic and dispersed. We take in the same amount of solar radiation each day but difference amounts in different locations. What we radiate away is but a portion of the overall heat dissipated at the surface.

      Much of the heat dissipation is due to rising heated columns of air, where heat is directly dissipated to air at the surface. Since that air is 99% N2/O2, and neither of those elements can theoretically radiate it away, the heat must be dissipated by natural means as the air thins and loses pressure.

      Surely no one believes that trace gases making up 0.31% of the entire atmosphere can be responsible for absorbing that heat from the 99% and radiating it away to space.

      There is a far more complex and dynamic system at play. The fact that our atmosphere is being maintained at a theorized 33C above the alleged temperature of an Earth with no oceans or atmosphere, makes it abundantly clear that heat in does not equal heat out. Heat is being retained to maintain that 33C and we don’t know for how long it is retained.

      One thing is clear, there is no greenhouse action involved. Greenhouses warm by tapping actual heated molecules of air, using glass, and the theory that it is trapped IR heating the greenhouses is based on a confusion between heat and IR. Trapping IR does absolutely nothing to warm anything.

      • Swenson says:

        GR,

        You wrote –

        “The fact that our atmosphere is being maintained at a theorized 33C above the alleged temperature of an Earth with no oceans or atmosphere, . . .”

        Of course, the Earth does have an atmosphere. The atmosphereless Moon reaches 127 C, which shows that an atmosphere results in lower maxima, rather than higher. Cue SkyDragons bleating about “averages”!

        Maybe the GHE true believers think that the Earth cooled to 33 K below its present temperature (due to the GHE), and then decided it was a bit chilly (frozen oceans and all), so heated up by 33 K (once again, due to the GHE)!

        Tricky thing, this GHE. A genuine mystery. No wonder nobody can describe it!

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          swenson…I think Christos may have covered this but I don’t know. On Earth, we put thermometers in the atmosphere and call it surface temperature. On the Moon, with no atmosphere, the reference has to be the actual surface.

          If the Moon faces the Sun directly for 14 days on one face, the face is bound to get darned hot. When that face faces away from the Sun for 14 days, and faces cold space, it gets colder than it gets warm when facing the Sun. So, the average is minus something.

          I have no idea if the Earth’s atmosphere is 33C warmer because it is purely a hypothetical argument. It’s a calculation making use of S-B equations which were never designed for estimating terrestrial temperatures.

          It doesn’t negate your argument that the Earth has been cooling for a bazzillion years. It’s simply an argument between two hypotheticals.

          If someone claims there was a mile thick layer of ice over the Earth’s surface at one time, or that the Earth was 33C cooler at another time, my only response, which I got from my dear old Granny, is ‘hmmmm…if you say so’.

    • Nate says:

      “Now, Willis compounds his confusion, by assuming his outer sphere is both a perfect insulator (reflecting all the energy it receives from an inner radiating sphere), and radiating the same impossible amount per m2 externally. No doubt due to the Eschenbach Energy Creation and Doubling Perpetual Motion Principle.”

      Again Swenson reveals to us that he has no clue what an insulator does and does not do.

      FYI his shell’s radius is neglibly larger than that of the planet, so your concerns about energy creation are moot.

      • phi says:

        It is at least certain that an insulator does not do something: send a thermal flux towards an object hotter than itself.

        Why this stupid confusion between heat source and insulation is a constant in the discourse of climatologists?

        It would be very interesting to know that.

        • Swenson says:

          phi,

          Because they are delusional. They believe that a GHE (which they cannot describe in any useful way), allowed the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years or so, to something like 33 K below its present temperature (which nobody can actually measure), and then decided “Brrrr. It’s too cold – I’ll just warm it up a bit.”

          Climate is the average of historical weather records. Ask a SkyDragon what the “climate” of the planet is, and watch them scurry away like cockroaches.

          All good for a laugh.

      • Nate says:

        “It is at least certain that an insulator does not do something: send a thermal flux towards an object hotter than itself.”

        As always we need to repeatedly make clear what Clausius made clear 150 y ago, that the two-way or NET energy transfer must be from hot to cold, as the Second Law requires.

        In this example, the hot body is transferring a NET of 470-235 = 235 W/m^2 to the colder outer shell.

        • phi says:

          Nate,

          I specified heat flow. There is no heat flow from a cold body to a hot body.

          Irradiance is not heat flux. Why do climatologists and only climatologists need to introduce virtual energy flows from cold to hot?

          • Swenson says:

            phi,

            Because they are delusional?

            Only joking. They are just in denial of reality, and confused enough that they think temperatures are measured in W/m2, and can be added and subtracted meaningfully – Willy-nilly.

            Nate and his fellow nongs are convinced that if you concentrate the IR from ice to say 10,000 W/m2, this is surely enough to heat a teaspoon of water to boiling point! These SkyDragon cultists are a sore and sorry lot. They refuse to tell you what they believe, because they know they will quickly wind up looking like what they are – delusional SkyDragon cultists!

            No offense meant to ordinary deranged fanatical cultists, of course. SkyDragons are in a league of their own.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Let me correct that ….

            Swenson is convinced that Nate and his fellow nongs are convinced that if you concentrate the IR from ice to say 10,000 W/m2 …

            In reality, no one thinks you can focus flux from ice to 10,000 W/m^2.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            You wrote –

            “In reality, no one thinks you can focus flux from ice to 10,000 W/m^2.”

            Why not? Don’t you believe in the physics of optics?

            Take ice emitting IR at 300 W/m2. Use a lens with a magnification of 35x or so, and 10,000 W/m2 is easily obtainable. Can you get a temperature higher than the emitting object? Not at all – that’s a SkyDragon fantasy.

            People tend to get confused, because they are used to concentrating the IR from the Sun – which has a temperature of 5600 K or so. Even 300 W/m2 of sunlight is easily concentrated by a relatively low powered hand lens to start a fire, for example. With a larger lens (or mirror) you can certainly boil water, melt iron, fry birds in flight, and do all sorts of interesting things.

            It looks like your zinger turned into a clanger.

            Better luck next time.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Take ice emitting IR at 300 W/m2. Use a lens with a magnification of 35x or so, and 10,000 W/m2 is easily obtainable. ”

            No, you simply don’t understand optics (or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).

            Here is a simple experiment for you. Take your lens and focus the light from a fluorescent light (tube, compact, or any other shape you want). No matter how you focus, no matter how many bulbs you get, not matter how near of far the bulbs, you can’t make the image any brighter than the surface of the original fluorescent bulbs.

            The sun emits a flux about 64,000,000 W/m^2. By the time it reaches earth, the sun provides a flux of about 1300 W/m^2. No matter what lenses or mirrors you use, you simply cannot focus sunlight brighter than the original 64,000,000 W/m^2 flux.

            Ice emits about 300 W/m^2. A distant ice surface might provide a flux of 100 W/m^2. No matter what lenses or mirrors you use, you simply cannot focus ice light brighter than the original 300 W/m^2 flux.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            You wrote –

            “The sun emits a flux about 64,000,000 W/m^2. By the time it reaches earth, the sun provides a flux of about 1300 W/m^2. No matter what lenses or mirrors you use, you simply cannot focus sunlight brighter than the original 64,000,000 W/m^2 flux.”

            No, it doesn’t matter how many W/m2 from the Sun reaches the Earth’s surface (not 1300 W/m2, by the way. Between 0 and 1000, give or take).

            Just for laughs, people have started a fire using very much diluted rays from the Sun, focussed with a lens made from pond or lake ice. As well as intensity, you need temperature.

            Use a 30x handheld magnifier, you can start a fire, or burn the legs off ants, with sunlight of less than 300 W/m2 (under clear skies). You can’t, using 300 W/m2 from ice, boiling water, or iron far too hot to hold, but not emitting visible light! Or even under a cloud, no matter the surrounding air temperature.

            So no, Tim. Making unsupported vague statements about me not understanding optics or the 2nd law of thermodynamics won’t help you to dig yourself out of your hole.

            Still no AGW due to a mythical GHE. The laws of optics apply to light of all frequencies. Materials differ in their optical properties – for example, germanium is used for IR lenses, but is perfectly opaque to visible light. Wave guides are specified in terms of wavelength, as are certain lenses and parabolic reflectors.

            Professor John Tyndall realised that wavelengths make differences to optical calculations,
            as did Herschel before him, and adjusted for them in some of his experiments, using very practical means.

            But back to the Willis Steel Greenhouse nonsense, you agree that no matter how you add or concentrate sunlight, you can’t get anything hotter than the sun by using sunlight.

            However, you suspend belief when Willis claims that adding fluxes from a cold body (235 W/m2), and its reflection from a mirror – doubles its temperature!

            Others can of course make up their own minds. Facts are facts.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “you can start a fire … with sunlight of less than 300 W/m2 … You cant, using 300 W/m2 from ice”

            Yes. That was exactly my point. The 300 W/m^2 from ice is fundamentally different from the 300 W/m^2 from the sun. You can’t seem to grasp the full implications of that.

            The sunlight started as 64,000,000 W/m^2 and can in principle be focused up to 64,000,000 W/m^2, even if it has been reduced by distance to 300 W/m^2 when it arrives at a surface. Ice light started at 300 W/m^2 and can in principle be focused up to 300 W/m^2. The only way to get 300 W/m^2 of flux onto a surface from ice is for the ice to provide radiation from all directions. And if there is already radiation from all directions, there is no way for a lens or mirror to increase the radiation further.

            Try the experiment I suggested. I suspect you intuitively know you can’t focus fluorescent lights to start fires — even with an entire wall that provides 300 W/m^2 of light onto the floor. The floor wil never be brighter than the surface of a lightbulb. Or draw some ray diagrams and think about how you can’t focus radiation that is already coming from all directions.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Swenson says: “They are just in denial of reality, and confused enough that they think temperatures are measured in W/m2 …”

            and then he makes the same mistake when he states “a cold body (235 W/m2)”. 235 W/m^2 flowing from a surface is not equal to any particular “cold” temperature. For instance, if I put a sphere with a surface area of 1 m^2 in my living room and put a 235 W heater inside, the surface will be some amount above 293 K (20 C), not 254 K. If I put it in an oven at 200 C, it will be some amount above 473 K.

          • phi says:

            Tim,

            “The 300 W/m^2 from ice is fundamentally different from the 300 W/m^2 from the sun.”

            Exactly, excellent point. So why in the concept of radiative forcing, does 300 W/m2 from GHGs have exactly the same effect as 300 W/m2 from the sun???

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            You wrote –

            “235 W/m^2 flowing from a surface is not equal to any particular “cold” temperature. For instance, if I put a sphere with a surface area of 1 m^2 in my living room and put a 235 W heater inside, the surface will be some amount above 293 K (20 C), not 254 K. If I put it in an oven at 200 C, it will be some amount above 473 K.”

            Well, it is equal to -19 C, if it is being radiated by a black body – according to Messrs. Stefan and Boltzmann. Maybe your “black bodies” are the SkyDragon variety?

            Your “living room” obviously has any temperature you want it to have, and emits radiation – which you dont mention. Your 235 W heater has any temperature you like, and magically varies its emissivity to get the result you want. A 235 W/m2 black body may rise to the temperature of your living room. No higher – its colder to start with, dummy.

            I’m just helping you out by specifying your heater is one of your black bodies, putting out 235 W/m2, with as much area as you like – is one million square meters enough? 235 million Watts?

            As to your silly imaginary oven, your black body heater emitting 235 W/m2, is around -19C. If you imagine it will be heated to above the temperature of the oven (473 K), you are definitely off with the fairies.

            All this is just a SkyDragon diversion away from the fact that you can’t even describe the GHE, which in any case allowed the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years or so, isn’t it?

            Try pulling off another illusion, Tim. Hide a few high temperature electric heaters around an environment of unstated temperature, acting on bodies which change their physical characteristics at your whim, create a few new physical laws, and don’t commit yourself to anything that can be verified. Stick to fantasy – who can challenge the non-existent?

            What a deceptive SkyDragon cultist you are!

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “As to your silly imaginary oven, your black body heater emitting 235 W/m2, is around -19C.”

            You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the scenario. This is a heater — a panel with a built-in electric heating element the provides 235 W/m^2 ABOVE AND BEYOND any other heat or radiation.

            What you are talking about here is a COOLER, perhaps with circulating alcohol at -19 C that REMOVES heat from some part of the oven.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Phi askes “[why] does 300 W/m2 from GHGs have exactly the same effect as 300 W/m2 from the sun???”

            The two are different in the fact that one *could* be concentrated but the other can’t. The two are similar in the fact that both provide 300 J each second to a surface, which results in the same energy gain and the same final temperature (everything else being equal).

          • phi says:

            Tim,
            “The two are similar in the fact that both provide 300 J each second to a surface, which results in the same energy gain and the same final temperature (everything else being equal).”

            I fear that is not the case.

            1. If the 300 W/m2 from the GHGs cannot be concentrated, it is because they do not represent a thermal flux.

            2. The 300 W/m2 of GHG are not a heat flux but an irradiance whereas we can admit that the 300 W/m2 solar are a heat flux.

            3. The 300 W/m2 GHG reflect an insulating effect while the 300 W/m2 solar are heating.

            4. The 300 W/m2 irradiance is a consequence of system heating and not a cause.

            5. The effect of insulation is expressed in W/m3/K and not in W/m2.

            Radiative forcing is not a concept compatible with thermodynamics, it is just an invention of climatology and a consequence and illustration of pataphysics developed in Manabe and Strickler 1967.

          • phi says:

            Oops sorry, it’s Manabe and Wetherland 1967.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            1. The 300 W/m2 from the GHGs cannot be concentrated because it is already a diffuse flux and 300 W/m^2 is the full flux at the source. But it is still a ‘thermal flux’.

            I mean, if you went to the surface of the sun where the flux is ~ 64,000,000 W/m^2, would you claim this is not a ‘thermal flux’ because it can’t be concentrated higher than 64,000,000 W/m^2

            2 The 300 W/m2 from GHGs is both heat flux AND an irradiance.

            3. I am fine with your distinction between “insulating effect” and “heating effect”. But both are “warming effects” on the surface, which is all we really care about for the GHE. The surface is warmer with IR active gases in the atmosphere than without.

            5. There are many ways to quantify the effect of insulation. The simplest is “watts”. An uninsulated water heater requires 100 W to keep warm. An otherwise identical insulated water heater requires only 20 W to keep warm. The ‘effect’ of the insulation is 80 W reduction of power. Or if the water heaters both have a surface area of 2 m^2, the ‘effect’ is a reduction from 50 W/m^2 to 10 W/m^2.

            W/m^2 is a perfectly fine set of units to describe the effect of insulation.

          • phi says:

            Tim,

            1. Again, irradiance is not a flux, you can’t get work out of it. Only a heat flow can be concentrated (or diverged) within the limits of the temperatures in play to provide work.

            2. The characteristic of a heat flow is to be subject to the second principle and always goes from hot to cold. So, no, the 300 W/m2 GHG is absolutely not heat flow.

            3. Yes, GHGs have the effect of increasing the surface temperature but to know by how much you have to use thermodynamics and not pataphysics.

            5. No! We can deduce from a thermodynamic calculation the equivalent effect in W/m2 of an insulator at a given point, we can never express as input to the calculation the effect of an insulator in W/m2.

            An insulator does not have the same effect as heating on a thermodynamic system, in particular, the temperature fields are different. It was Manabe who introduced this confusion by removing thermodynamics from the calculation of the greenhouse effect.

          • Nate says:

            “Only a heat flow can be concentrated (or diverged) within”

            No, phi, as Tim mentioned, that has to do only with whether a source of radiation is diffuse (spread out) or not.

            For example, sunlight that is scattered in the atmosphere is diffuse radiation from the whole sky. It contributes to the warming of the surface. But it cannot be concentrated with a lens to burn paper the way direct sunlight can.

            Because all a lens can do is ENLARGE a source, which works for the direct sun which is a small disk source. A lens cannot enlarge the whole sky, which is already as large is can get.

            The downwelling IR is also a diffuse whole sky source, and thus it also cannot be concentrated with a lens.

          • Nate says:

            And I can also point out that my IR thermometer has a lens. It can focus the IR emitted by small sources, like a cloud in the sky.

        • phi says:

          ate,

          “Only a heat flow can be concentrated (or diverged)…to provide work.”

          Irradiance is not a flux, so you can’t do anything with it.

          If you place a plane mirror facing the sky under an object. This doubles the GHG irradiance towards the object.

          The fundamental problem is therefore not to be diffuse or not, it is to be or not to be a thermal flux.

          You can imagine irradiance as a virtual flow of energy, but you are no further ahead because the two opposing virtual flows represent a single thermodynamic phenomenon. These virtual flux are impossible to separate.

          This confusion between heat flux and virtual energy flow is a specialty of climatology where it has been operating since Manabe and Wetherland 1967.

          You can defend this greenhouse effect physics but you are defending a pataphysics.

          • Nate says:

            “If you place a plane mirror facing the sky under an object. This doubles the GHG irradiance towards the object.”

            Not quite, it will hit a different (back) surface, it is not concentrated on the same point on a surface.

            “The fundamental problem is therefore not to be diffuse or not”

            I clearly explained why a whole sky diffuse source cannot be enlarged by a lens and thus not concentrated. It is an optical fact that you have not rebutted.

            “it is to be or not to be a thermal flux.”

            Why? This is an unproven assertion.

            Thermal IR flux from downwelling sky radiation can be detected in various ways, such as IR cameras, spectrometers, or thermopiles in T sensors. If it is detectable, it is a real EM flux.

          • phi says:

            If my mirror doesn’t suit you, you can imagine a point at the bottom of a valley that only sees half the sky (pi sr). You can place mirrors around the object to get a point-sky angle of 2 pi sr. You have thus concentrated the diffuse effect of GHG. It’s the same principle for the sun’s rays, just the solid angle without a mirror is much lower.

            The fundamental difference therefore lies in the nature of what is concentrated. We can assume that it is a thermal flux for the sun. For GHGs, it is not flux but irradiance.

            “Thermal IR flux from downwelling sky radiation can be detected in various ways, such as IR cameras…”

            No, absolutely not!
            All of these devices pointed at a cold object detect a heat flow from the hot device to the cold object. These devices also measure their own temperature which allows them to calculate the irradiance of the object.

          • Nate says:

            “If my mirror doesnt suit you, you can imagine a point at the bottom of a valley that only sees half the sky (pi sr). You can place mirrors around the object to get a point-sky angle of 2 pi sr. You have thus concentrated the diffuse effect of GHG.”

            Sure if you block half the sky, you get less of its radiation. That will be equally true for the scattered sunlight.

            Again, scattered sunlight must be included in the energy budget of the surface to determine the surface T. Thus DW IR must be included as well.

            “All of these devices pointed at a cold object detect a heat flow from the hot device to the cold object. These devices also measure their own temperature which allows them to calculate the irradiance of the object.”

            Yes indeed. There is a NET flow of heat (as it is defined) from hot to cold.

            But that is still a measurement! They are still detecting photons emitted by that source.

            And if the detector surface was facing space @ 3 K, the detector surface will be very cold. But if it is facing the sky @ 240 K it will be much warmer. If the sky warms further, say 245 K, the detector surface will be warmer also.

            Yes?

            That warming of the sky from say 240 K to 245 K is called a forcing, because it results in a warmer Earth surface.

          • phi says:

            Yes, we can indeed establish a balance at the output of a thermodynamic calculation in this way.

            But, the irradiance of the sky at 240 K does not reflect an increase in heating but a decrease in the radiative cooling of the surface. Decreasing cooling and increasing heating do not have the same effect on a thermodynamic system. They can therefore in no way be confused with the notion of radiative forcing.

            Once again, this confusion dates back to Manabe and Wetherland 1967 who purely and simply removed thermodynamics from the calculation of the greenhouse effect and replaced it with an empirical method.

            Crafty and meaningless. We have no way of calculating the greenhouse effect and that is not about to change.

          • Nate says:

            Yes, a heater is not the same as insulation. But both produce warming.

            “Crafty and meaningless. We have no way of calculating the greenhouse effect and that is not about to change.”

            Not at all true. This is like we have no way of calculating the effect of insulation…

          • phi says:

            Nate,
            The problem encountered by Manabe is the calculation of the convective flux. Nobody knows how to do it and nobody imagines how it would be possible to do it. Manabe therefore took the calculation of the greenhouse effect out of thermodynamics to make a scullery soup. Again, it’s very simple, we don’t know how to calculate the greenhouse effect and the results of models are just arbitrary.

          • Nate says:

            “Manabe therefore took the calculation of the greenhouse effect out of thermodynamics to make a scullery soup.”

            “Again, its very simple, we dont know how to calculate the greenhouse effect and the results of models are just arbitrary.”

            In your opinion, but not demonstrated for anyone else.

            Their MW paper was the first to explain the actual lapse rate of the Earth. Manabe then built on this work to develop some of the first models that could produce Earth’s general circulation pattern.

            Obviously Manabe knew what he was doing.

          • phi says:

            Nate,

            It’s not just my opinion. Don’t fall into denial.

            All the papers on the subject are unequivocal.
            No physicist has claimed to make a thermodynamic calculation of the greenhouse effect.

            Manabe and Wetherland being unable to calculate the convective flux use an empirical gradient to solve the system: Free and forced convection, and mixing by the large-scale eddies, prevent the lapse rate from exceeding a critical lapse rate equal to 6.5C km-1.

            Ramanathan et Coakley 1978 : Since the temperature gradient is prescribed within the troposphere, (8) [qT(z) + qS(z) + qC(z) = const = 0] need not be solved. Instead, the equation for the radiative equilibrium condition, i.e., qT + qS = 0, is solved with the provisio that the lapse rate at any level within the atmosphere should be less than or equal to the critical lapse rate.

          • Nate says:

            “use an empirical gradient.”

            All numerical weather models use empirically derived quantities in addition to fundamental laws of physics. It is not a flaw, as you seem to suggest, because it does not prevent them from accurately predicting the weather.

            The first 1960s and 70s climate models contained lots of approximations. Otherwise they would not be solvable with then available computing power. Yet they gave valuable insights.

          • phi says:

            Nate,

            Meteorological models do not study the effect of a variation in the CO2 level, they can therefore perfectly use an empirical gradient.

            The convective flow is not calculable.
            Manabe comes out of thermodynamics to solve the problem.
            There is no thermodynamics in the calculation of the greenhouse effect. No more today than in 1967 and 1978.
            It is not at all a problem of approximation but that of the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
            The CO2 folder is empty.
            You can still have faith but please keep science out of your beliefs.

          • Nate says:

            “There is no thermodynamics in the calculation of the greenhouse effect.:

            Uhh of course there is, but there are ALSO empirical factors.

            “It is not at all a problem of approximation but that of the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse effect.”

            How’s that? What do you think they are getting wrong about the fundamental mechanism?

            And what is your evidence?

          • Nate says:

            “Meteorological models do not study the effect of a variation in the CO2 level, they can therefore perfectly use an empirical gradient.”

            Climate models are quite similar to weather models. Both must deal with huge variation in atmospheric properties, and must then evaluate their space-time evolution.

            You claim, without evidence, that only CO2 variation is problematic.

            That is not obvious.

          • phi says:

            Nate,

            No, there is no thermodynamics in the calculation of the greenhouse effect. You are only stating your belief without supporting it. I showed you by quotes that the convective flux was not calculated and that the thermal gradient was imposed. There is no thermodynamics, just cooking and radiative physics.

            Meteorological models do not run on the same time scale and do not seek to highlight the effect of variations in the CO2 level, the thermal gradient can therefore be parameterized empirically without any problem.

          • Nate says:

            What thermodynamics do you think is missing?

          • Nate says:

            Here is the paper. Look at the Appendix explaining their algorithm in detail.

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml?tab_body=pdf

            They are calculating the T of various layers of air using energy inputs, outputs, heat capacity, pressure, water vapor pressure, etc.

            This looks like Thermodynamics is being used!

            They do also use the critical lapse rate to decide if convection is occurring between the layers. Seems reasonable as an approximation.

          • Nate says:

            “Meteorological models do not run on the same time scale and do not seek to highlight the effect of variations in the CO2 level, the thermal gradient can therefore be parameterized empirically without any problem.”

            This is your assertion. But I see no logical argument or evidence here as to why CO2 variation causes problems, while parametrization otherwise is fine.

          • phi says:

            Nate,

            “What thermodynamics do you think is missing?”

            The thermal gradient is an unknown of the thermodynamic calculation not an input. If you impose a thermal gradient, it is no longer a thermodynamic calculation.

            “They do also use the critical lapse rate to decide if convection is occurring between the layers. Seems reasonable as an approximation.”

            The critical gradient is empirical. Why would that be a good approximation? This value is a priori the first affected by an addition of CO2.

            “This is your assertion. But I see no logical argument or evidence here as to why CO2 variation causes problems, while parametrization otherwise is fine.”

            Because the CO2 level obviously affects the thermal gradient. This is what Manabe explained in his 1964 paper:

            The observed tropospheric lapse rate of temprature is approximately 6,5C/km. The explanation for this fact is rather complicated. It is essencially the result of a balance between (a) the stabilizing effect of upward heat transport in moist and dry convection on both small and large scales and (b) the destbilizing effect of radiative transfer.

            This is the basis of atmospheric physics and of course it has never been disproved. Modifying the radiative structure of the atmosphere acts primarily on the thermal gradient.

          • Nate says:

            “The thermal gradient is an unknown of the thermodynamic calculation not an input. If you impose a thermal gradient”

            The thermal gradient NOT imposed. It is an output of the calculation. You apparently didnt look carefully at the paper. Look at the Appendix.

            By far the largest controller of the thermal gradient is moisture content. In the Earth’s atmosphere this varies considerably and the thermal gradient is a major variable found by weather models.

            You still have not made the case that ‘there is no thermodynamics in the calculation of the greenhouse effect’.

          • phi says:

            The gradient is adjusted according to the humidity level. The great innovation of Manabe which earned him the Nobel Prize is to consider it as independent of radiative exchanges.

            It is perfectly clear, there is no thermodynamic calculation of the greenhouse effect. That the gradient is adjusted empirically to the moisture content does not change this fact.

          • nate says:

            “It is perfectly clear, there is no thermodynamic calculation of the greenhouse effect. That the gradient is adjusted empirically to the moisture content does not change this fact.”

            The gradient is clearly CALCULATED using mainly thermodynamics. Look at the equations in the Appendix.

            Not sure where youve gotten this incorrect impression.

          • phi says:

            Nate,
            Appendix 1, step 4 and 5.
            You seek to defend something indefensible.
            You will exhaust yourself.

          • Nate says:

            Yes, I have already agreed that they use the a critical gradient (an approximation) to determine when convection is happening. How else would you want them to do it?

            Now look at Step 3, the temperature at each layer is calculated using THERMODYNAMICS. The gradient is obtained from these layer temperatures.

            It is not imposed.

            It seems you only see what you want to see, and ignore all else Phi.

          • phi says:

            Nate,

            The main effect of greenhouse gases is to act on the temperature gradient. Holding this gradient to be independent of radiative exchanges is not an approximation, it’s just rubbish.

            Step 3 is a purely radiative calculation. For almost all of the troposphere, it is reduced to an empirical gradient in steps 4 and 5.

            Really, you are wasting your time trying to defend such stupidity.

          • Nate says:

            “The main effect of greenhouse gases is to act on the temperature gradient.”

            Huh? How’s that?

            “Holding this gradient to be independent of radiative exchanges is not an approximation, its just rubbish.”

            WTF are you talking about? The radiative exchanges are explicitly included in the calculation.

            “Step 3 is a purely radiative calculation. For almost all of the troposphere, it is reduced to an empirical gradient in steps 4 and 5.””

            Wrong. If there is no convection then radiation is all there is! It is the resulting T gradient that determines if convection is happening, and in step 4 that is checked and included if necessary.

            This is how numerical calculations work, maybe you are not familiar.

            “Really, you are wasting your time trying to defend such stupidity.”

            Stupid why? Show us your alternative. What would you change?

          • Nate says:

            In any case this was the first paper to try to include convection, and it showed that the effect of increasing CO2 would be LESS WARMING as a result of convection.

            Of course, it was crude and 1D, but highly influential. Manabe later pioneered 3D GCMs.

          • phi says:

            Nate,

            GHGs cool the atmosphere, so they are the source of the thermal gradient: hot source at the surface and cold source at altitude. And since the atmosphere is only semi-opaque, GHGs continue to have a large effect on the gradient value over the full height of the column.

            “The radiative exchanges are explicitly included in the calculation.”
            But without effect on the thermal gradient of the troposphere Manabe 1967. The tropospheric gradient is purely empirical.

            Current models are still based on the same general principle and almost all tropospheric mass has an empirical gradient.

            There is no alternative. Calculating convection is impossible and will probably remain impossible forever.

            You don’t understand or are you just playing at not understanding?

          • Nate says:

            “There is no alternative. Calculating convection is impossible and will probably remain impossible forever.”

            Ok so the paper is ‘rubbish’ and ‘stupid’, but you offer no alternative way of doing things.

            Contrary to your original complaints, the paper does use Thermodynamics.

            The use of empirical understanding of convection, and other factors, apparently works well in weather models, so it remains unclear why you think this is a fatal flaw in climate models.

          • phi says:

            Nate,

            “Ok so the paper is rubbish and stupid, but you offer no alternative way of doing things.”
            Exactly.

            “Contrary to your original complaints, the paper does use Thermodynamics.”
            I wrote: there is no thermodynamics in the calculation of the greenhouse effect.
            A calculation that imposes an empirical thermal gradient is a calculation out of thermodynamics. Nate, you need to stop nitpicking, you’re on the way to bad faith.

            “The use of empirical understanding of convection, and other factors, apparently works well in weather models, so it remains unclear why you think this is a fatal flaw in climate models.”

            I have already explained to you why this argument is invalid.

            I believe I have covered the subject with you. I can’t force you to understand.

            Good evening.

          • Nate says:

            “I have already explained to you why this argument is invalid.”

            You declared it invalid, without any real logic or evidence.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        You wrote –

        “FYI his shells radius is neglibly larger than that of the planet, so your concerns about energy creation are moot.”

        No, close enough is not good enough. Willis stated as fact, a physical impossibility. Just as SkyDragons saying that a slowly cooling body is really getting hotter.

        Face it, Nate. You are just another gullible SkyDragon, trying to defend the indefensible.

        How are you going trying to find experimental support for the GHE that you can’t even describe?

        • Nate says:

          “No, close enough is not good enough.”

          Actually it is. Negligibly different in science is negligibly different.

          Negligible- another word that you seem to not know. Look it up.

        • Nate says:

          Let’s face it Flynnson, you cannot win this argument on the facts, you have no legitimate rebuttal for Tim or me. You say things that make no sense.

          You have no intention to do honest debate. So you just post ad-hom filled gibberish.

          Thats how we recognize trolling.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “Willis is not the sharpest tool in the shed, and does not realise that a sphere with a larger radius must have a greater area. ”
      He fully realizes this. But this is a SMALL correction. If the shell were, say 1 km above the surface, the area would be less than 0.1% larger. This would result in something like 234 W/m^2 being returned. This would change the results a tiny bit, but would not change the principles involved. (And the shell could be made arbitrarily close to the surface, resulting in 234.99 W/m^2 being returned).

      “Now, Willis compounds his confusion, by assuming his outer sphere is both a perfect insulator …”
      No, if anything he is assuming a perfect CONDUCTOR so the inside and outside are the same temperature.

      ” … (reflecting all the energy it receives from an inner radiating sphere)”
      No he is assuming a black body surface, ABSORBING all the energy it receives, and not REFLECTING any.

      “… and radiating the same impossible amount per m2 externally.”
      What do you find “impossible”? The inside and outsides are the same temperature (or very close) so the inside and outside must both emit the same (or very close) amount based on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

      “Well, no, Willis, temperature is not measured in ‘watts per square metre’.”
      OK, I agree that is a bit sloppy. Willis should have said “This will warm the planetary surface until it reaches a temperature WHERE IT WILL EMIT 470 watts per square metre.” But given his assumption of a blackbody surface, there is one and only one temperature that will emit 470 W/m^2, so there is really no confusion.

      • Swenson says:

        Tim,

        Don’t be stupid.

        As you point out, Willis’ “steel” sphere is both a perfect insulator (reflecting 100% of incident radiation), and a perfect conductor (emitting all incident radiation to space).

        The Willis Energy Doubling Perpetual Motion Principle?

        Now, you claim that the surface will magically warm, although it can’t – can it?

        No amount of trying to justify Willis’ silliness will avoid the fact that the Amazing Steel Greenhouse (not steel, not a greenhouse – but definitely Amazing) cannot be at a higher temperature than an inner sphere, and, in fact, must be at a lesser temperature. In the absence of the Willis Magical Energy Creation Principle, of course!

        SkyDragons claim temperatures are measured in W/m2, so they can add numbers like 235 and 235, come up with 470 which supposedly means a doubling of temperature!

        About as silly as putting a sphere of ice emitting 235 W/m2 inside a hollow sphere of ice emitting 235 W/m2, and expecting the inner sphere to magically start radiating 470 W/m2, and melt – due to the Willis Spontaneous Heat Generating Principle, or “back radiation”, or some other figment of SkyDragon imagination.

        There s certainly no confusion – Willis is ignorant or stupid, and you are too enmired in your SkyDragon fantasy to accept reality.

        No AGW due to GHE. Not even if you use a material which is simultaneously a perfect conductor and a perfect reflector – you still can’t make something warmer using the radiation from something colder. Don’t blame me – I didn’t write the laws of the universe.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “As you point out, Willis steel sphere is both a perfect insulator (reflecting 100% of incident radiation), and a perfect conductor (emitting all incident radiation to space).”

          I pointed out nothing of of the sort. I said that the surfaces ABSORB 100% of incident radiation (ie they are black bodies), not REFLECT incident radiation. Also, the ability to reflect and absorb is different from the ability to conduct or insulate thermal energy (black paper and white paper absorb quite differently, but insulate the same).

          Here is the thought experiment you need to understand. There are two spherical shells (thin, good thermal conductors) around two slightly smaller spheres (all with black body surfaces). Both have electrical heaters providing equal power (235 W for every m^2 of the outer shells). This will result in a temperature 254 K for the outer surface of the shell in both cases.

          But there is one difference. In one case, the heaters are attached to the outer shell. In the other case, they are attached to the inner sphere. From the outside, both look identical and both have the same temperature (254 K for the shell)

          But when the heater is attached to the sphere, there must be a heat flow of 235 W/m^2 from the sphere to the shell. This can only happen if the sphere is hotter than the shell. If both are 254 K, then no heat flows from the sphere to the shell. The sphere would necessarily have to warm up until 235 W/m^2 flowed from sphere to shell. The sphere must be hotter than the shell.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            You wrote –

            “I pointed out nothing of of the sort. I said that the surfaces ABSORB 100% of incident radiation (ie they are black bodies), not REFLECT incident radiation.”

            No, you wrote earlier –

            “If the shell were, say 1 km above the surface, the area would be less than 0.1% larger. This would result in something like 234 W/m^2 being returned.”, to try and justify Willis’ silly claim that a sphere will a larger surface area could “return” as much radiation as reached its surface.

            This phenomenon is called “reflection”, where an incident ray impinging upon a surface is “returned” nominally without attenuation. The angle of incidence is shown to be equal to the angle of reflection.

            If the surface absorbs 100% of incident radiation, it has to go somewhere. If it is 100% transmitted (to outer space, as Willis says), then the object is by definition 100% transparent. If it “returns” 100%, it is 100% reflective.

            I see you attempt to wriggle out of your nonsensical justifications by producing another so-called “thought experiment”, involving electric heaters of unknown characteristics, and impossible objects, suspended in an environment of unspecified temperature.

            Notwithstanding your fantasy scenario, I’ll play your silly game. The environment is at absolute zero. If you can have black bodies, I can have no spare hidden energy floating around.

            Your electric heaters will raise the temperatures of the black bodies to around -19 C. That is the maximum temperature of the heater, of course. You can’t have heaters which are capable of higher temperatures, that would be sneaky and deceptive. SkyDragon nonsense. You are silly enough to believe that heat can flow from a colder body to a warmer. Just saying ” . . . there must be a heat flow of 235 W/m^2 from the sphere to the shell.” is just stupid. About as stupid as claiming that exposing water to to a “flow” of 300 W/m2 (from ice) will make the water hotter. It won’t, no matter what demented mental gymnastics you attempt.

            Willis’ “steel greenhouse” is based on mathematical and physical ignorance. Your defence of his silliness is no doubt based on the same ignorance.

            Still no AGW as a result of any GHE insulation effect. Go on, try and define the GHE, if you don’t think that CO2 is just planetary insulation, as Raymond Pierrehumbert said.

            Off you go, try your hardest while I laugh at your SkyDragon fanaticism.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “This phenomenon is called “reflection”, where an incident ray impinging upon a surface is “returned” nominally without attenuation. …”

            No. Every wall in my office is emitting IR and absorbing IR. Since all are at (roughly) the same temperature, all the walls are emitting and absorbing the same amounts. The same amount returns from the surface as arrives at the surface.

            “Your electric heaters will raise the temperatures of the black bodies to around -19 C. That is the maximum temperature of the heater, of course.”
            Again, you are falling for the fallacy that flux (235 W/m^2) equates to a temperature (-19 C). The temperature of the electric heater will depend on the surroundings. If it is in a room that is already at -19 C, the heater will be -19 C before even turning it on (ie 0 W/m^2 of electric power). Once you turn it on, it will warm up.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            You wrote –

            “No. Every wall in my office is emitting IR and absorbing IR. Since all are at (roughly) the same temperature, all the walls are emitting and absorbing the same amounts. The same amount returns from the surface as arrives at the surface.”

            Well, no, “roughly” doesn’t apply. Colder bodies emit radiation, but it has precisely no effect on warmer bodies. For example, trying to use ice to make water hotter, or water at 99 C to boil water which is 99.5 C.

            You also wrote –

            “Again, you are falling for the fallacy that flux (235 W/m^2) equates to a temperature (-19 C). The temperature of the electric heater will depend on the surroundings. If it is in a room that is already at -19 C, the heater will be -19 C before even turning it on (ie 0 W/m^2 of electric power). Once you turn it on, it will warm up.”

            Not at all. You specified a black body, not me. A black body emitting 235 W/m2 is about -19 C. It doesn’t matter how much energy you have, you specified a radiative intensity, but now you think you can just change physical laws because you don’t like being caught out.

            You still haven’t managed to dispute the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, in spite of all your illusory nonsense trying to make inconvenient fact go away.

            Nothing stopped the Earth from cooling, and it continues to do so. Your fantasies cannot overcome the fact that you can’t even describe the GHE. Try as hard as you like, it won’t do you any good.

            Four and a half billion years or so of history is telling you that you are delusional.

            Others can decide for themselves. Accept reality, or accept Tim’s denial of reality.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Well, no, ‘roughly’ doesnt apply. “
            Roughly was only to acknowledge that some parts of the walls might be 19 C and other parts 21 C (and that this wouldn’t affect the conclusions). So, yes, ‘roughly’ does apply.

            “Colder bodies emit radiation, but it has precisely no effect on warmer bodies. “
            I guarantee that whether I stand in a warm room (30 C) or a cold room (-20 C), it has a considerable effect on my warm body. I will be colder and burn more calories in the cold room. The radiation from the walls has a definite effect on my warmer body.

            “You specified a black body, not me. A black body emitting 235 W/m2 is about -19 C. … “
            Actually, what I specified is (in part):
            “There are two spherical shells (thin, good thermal conductors) around two slightly smaller spheres (all with black body surfaces). Both have electrical heaters providing equal power (235 W for every m^2 of the outer shells). … But when the heater is attached to the sphere, there must be a heat flow of 235 W/m^2 from the sphere to the shell. ”
            There is an electrical power INPUT of 235 W/m^2 and there must be a power OUTPUT of 235 W/m^2 to the surroundings when the system stabilizes. A black body at -19 C has 0 W/m^2 power output to -19 C surroundings. It must be ~ 29 C to be losing 235 W/m^2 to the surroundings.

            Exactly in accordance with what I said and with what you misinterpreted.

      • Nate says:

        “As you point out, Willis ‘steel’ sphere is both a perfect insulator (reflecting 100% of incident radiation)”

        FYI, given that the shell is warming and emitting heat, 235 W/m^2, from its outer surface to space, why would anyone call this a perfect insulator?

        Once again, Swenson demonstrates for all to see, that he has no clue about radiative heat transfer, what an insulator does, etc.

        It continues to be baffling why he posts uninformed opinions on a science blog, when he lacks the most basic understanding of science and has no interest in learning it!

        • Swenson says:

          Peabrain Nate,

          An object cannot simultaneously be perfectly transparent (transmitting all incident radiation) and perfectly reflective (returning all incident radiation) at the same time. Just because you claim an object receiving a certain amount of energy is emitting twice that amount, doesn’t make it true.

          Not unless you have one of Willis’ Magical Energy Doubling Devices, of course.

          Notwithstanding Willis’ other manifestly incorrect statements (spheres of different radii having equal surface areas, for example), a body totally surrounded by a body at exactly the same temperature will not magically double its temperature.

          You are either simply ignorant, or possibly afflicted with a mental defect which prevents you accepting reality.

          Maybe someone values your opinion, but they seem conspicuous by their absence on this forum.

          • Nate says:

            Let’s be honest, Swenson, difficult as that may be for you.

            If you have little interest in learning science and little knowledge of it, it is very unlikely what you post about it will be accurate.

            But here you are expressing undue certainty about sciency things.

            “An object cannot simultaneously be perfectly transparent (transmitting all incident radiation) and perfectly reflective (returning all incident radiation) at the same time.”

            And sure enough, your comments are irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

            No one has claimed the shell is transparent or reflective. It was described as a black body, which is neither!

            “Just because you claim an object receiving a certain amount of energy is emitting twice that amount, doesnt make it true.”

            Nope, no one has claimed that either! You are misrepresenting the problem and what’s been said about it.

            Willis claims the shell is receiving 470 W/m^2 and emitting 235 W/m2 from both sides. That conserves energy.

            His solution satisfies the laws of physics: 1LOT (energy conserved), 2LOT (heat is flowing always from hot to cold), the SB law, and Kirchoffs Law (abso*rtivity = emissivity = 1)

            But given that you refuse to learn, there is no hope you will ever understand.

  38. Bindidon says:

    Roy Spencer

    ” An Apology to Willis Eschenbach ”

    November 24th, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

    What a nice reaction.

    However, you won’t have overlooked how ignorant and disrespectful two of your blog’s posters behaved upthread with regard to Willis Eschenbach’s views about GHE.

    Would they be courageous enough to post such trash at WUWT?

    I think no: they sense in advance that they would very likely be smashed by Willis – as usual, politely but firmly!

    J.-P.

    • Swenson says:

      Bunny,

      Willis’ “Steel Greenhouse” nonsense just demonstrates Willis’ ignorance of both physics and geometry.

      As to being “smashed” by Willis, that is about as fearsome a prospect as being “smashed” by you! Oh fear, oh horror!

      You obviously haven’t seen the reality of Willis’ antics when he is presented with reality which shows how ignorant he is.

      I’m not knocking Mr Eschenbach’s enthusiasm, or the effort he puts into his speculations, but they seem to be based on the assumption that some sort of planet heating process involving CO2, erroneously referred to as the “Greenhouse Effect” exists!

      He might just as well propose a “Steel Faeces” explanation to explain the elevated temperature of unicorn crap! If you must appeal to authority, appeal to authority – not another ignorant SkyDragon cultist.

      Feel free to have a tantrum if you wish. It won’t do you any good.

      • Bindidon says:

        What you think about Willis Eschenbach, Flynnson: that might at best interest on this blog a few people as ignorant and arrogant as you yourself are.

        What I said is, to be clear, that you and Robertson are cowards who lack the balls to discredit him at WUWT!

        • Swenson says:

          Binny,

          You wrote –

          “What I said is, to be clear, that you and Robertson are cowards who lack the balls to discredit him at WUWT!”

          Your febrile imaginings, based on nothing at all (at least in my case) are not worth the paper you haven’t written them on.

          Maybe you should check the facts before you come out with your specious nonsense.

          You don’t have the balls (or even the backbone) to accept reality, do you? You are just another hand-waving SkyDragon, who can’t even describe your stupid GHE!

          Keep on ranting about balls, cojones, dog poop, flatulence – and all the rest of your efforts to avoid facing reality. Reality will catch up with you, you know – you can’t run forever.

  39. Bindidon says:

    It’s pretty cold in Siberia!

    A look at current temperatures in Verkhoyansk

    https://www.google.com/maps/place/Verkhoyansk,+Sakha+Republic,+Russia,+678530/@67.5505919,133.3293019,11837m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x5b9579da63386d09:0x1dda69f74af67b40!8m2!3d67.5505925!4d133.3993398?hl=en

    tells us that nicely:

    https://i.postimg.cc/Wpqnq6JG/Verkhoyansk-251122.png

    *
    Hint to overzealous Coolistas: this is hardly an indication of global cooling, historically speaking.

    A look at Verkhoyansk’s history makes it clear by looking at earlier temperatures on Nov 25:

    RSM00024266 63-125 1916 11 27 -56.4
    RSM00024266 63-125 1929 11 25 -54.7
    RSM00024266 63-125 1932 11 26 -54.7
    RSM00024266 63-125 1929 11 26 -54.4
    RSM00024266 63-125 1989 11 23 -54.4
    RSM00024266 63-125 1932 11 25 -54.2
    RSM00024266 63-125 1929 11 23 -54.0
    RSM00024266 63-125 1902 11 27 -53.9
    RSM00024266 63-125 1929 11 24 -53.7
    RSM00024266 63-125 2019 11 26 -53.6

    As some use to say when it’s warmer somewhere: move along, it’s only weather.

    • Bindidon says:

      Temperatures in Celsius of course.

    • RLH says:

      “It’s pretty cold in Siberia!”

      It’s late autumn/winter.

    • Swenson says:

      Bunny,

      Cold in Siberia?

      Who’d have thought?

      Next astonishing news you might reveal is that it gets hot in Death Valley!

      Carry on.

      • Bindidon says:

        Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!

        Do you have something to say?

        No?

        Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something

        • Swenson says:

          Bunny,

          Cold in Siberia?

          Whod have thought?

          Next astonishing news you might reveal is that it gets hot in Death Valley!

          Carry on.

        • Nate says:

          This complaint from our resident red herring specialist?!

          Please please tell us for the 648th time about the irrelevant 4.5 billion years of cooling!

          • Swenson says:

            Numbskull Nate,

            Another unsupported assertion or two from you? 648th time? Irrelevant?

            Just because you dribble nonsense, facts don’t change.

            The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, whether you want to accept it or not. No warming due to any GHE. Well, not from the creation of the Earth to now. I assume that the laws of the universe aren’t going to change anytime soon.

            You?

            [laughing at idiot trying to troll]

          • Nate says:

            649 as predicted*

            * Of course 648 was a rough estimate. In any case it is an uncountably large number.

            “No warming due to any GHE. Well, not from the creation of the Earth to now.”

            False. in the last century the Earth has warmed, and predictably Swenson continues to deny this fact.

    • RLH says:

      “As some use to say when its warmer somewhere”

      The probability is that is it will be even colder in Jan/Feb next year.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” The probability is that is it will be even colder in Jan/Feb next year. ”

        1. And where will that happen?

        A valuable source for your astute, instructive claim, Linsley Hood?

        • Swenson says:

          Bunny,

          Your first question is about as pointless as asking an idiotic SkyDragon how long his silly “trend” will continue. Until the seas boil, perhaps?

          Your second is, of course, a troll’s attempt to start a battle of appeals to authority!

          Both questions from a delusional donkey who can’t even describe the GHE, and has said that dissecting the past enables experts to predict the future!

          Go back to your dog poop and flatulence, sour Kraut.

          Or carry on with your SkyDragon blathering – maybe some mentally afflicted dimwit values your opinions.

          • Bindidon says:

            Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!

            Do you have something to say?

            No?

            Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something …

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Your first question is about as pointless as asking an idiotic SkyDragon how long his silly trend will continue. Until the seas boil, perhaps?

            Your second is, of course, a trolls attempt to start a battle of appeals to authority!

            Both questions from a delusional donkey who cant even describe the GHE, and has said that dissecting the past enables experts to predict the future!

            Go back to your dog poop and flatulence, sour Kraut.

            Or carry on with your SkyDragon blathering maybe some mentally afflicted dimwit values your opinions.

        • RLH says:

          In Siberia! Obviously.

        • Bindidon says:

          ” In Siberia! Obviously. ”

          Not obvious at all. I had to learn that no one knows what you mean at a given moment, that depends on your current feeling.

          *
          ” Hint: See yearly climate for RSM00024266 ”

          Hint? Are you serious, Linsley Hood?

          From what, do you think, did I obtain the data for RSM00024266 I posted above?

          https://i.postimg.cc/hGWWsBPc/GHCND-Verkhoyansk-TMIN-vs-TMAX-1961-2022.png

          As you are a perfect Coolista, you probably will prefer the blue line, coz it shows very, very recent coooling, doesn’t it?

          I have no preference, and will accept your choice.

          *
          Hint (serious): Look in the chart at the two plots between 1993 and 2004, and compare that to the situation right now.

          *
          Ah, you wish CTRM instead of these bad, bad running means?

          So what!

          Download GHCN daily, do what I did years ago in order to process it, and put your CTRMs on top.

          • RLH says:

            The yearly climate data for RSM00024266 shows that, like most of the northern hemisphere, Jan/Feb are colder than late Nov. Quelle surprise.

  40. Eben says:

    Bindebil kept trying to mock my post about sun going sideways instead of ramping up as he was predicting
    Now he finally found out it’s true and tries to deny it like a piece of scum he is.
    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1400270

    Yes I have your posts saved
    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1352569

    • Bindidon says:

      Babbling Edog, I can only repeat that you are a totally dishonest person.

      1. ” Bindebil kept trying to mock my post about sun going sideways instead of ramping up as he was predicting … ”

      Completely stupid lie.

      If you don’t know what a 3rd order polynomial is and how it works, that’s your problem.

      Here is the SSN daily chart with the recent EISN, with running means:

      https://i.postimg.cc/dQz0d1x3/SSN-Silso-daily-SC24-vs-SC25.png

      And here is the same data, with the megahyperbolic, third order polynomial instead instead:

      https://i.postimg.cc/RZZ2Z1LH/SSN-Silso-daily-SC24-vs-SC25-3op.png

      All the time you keep discrediting instead of trying to understand.

      *
      2. ” Yes I have your posts saved ”

      Of course you do, but you post only links to those where I was wrong, and never those where I admitted having been wrong.

      Nobody knows why you engage in such miserable stalking, but all we know you’ll never stop doing.

    • Bindidon says:

      You stalk and disturb me all the time with your dumb claims? Then I do like you do.

      Here is a further output of the the megahyperbolic, third order polynomial:

      https://i.postimg.cc/dVkWSJRh/Bremen-Mg-II-ci-Sc24-vs-SC25.png

      Woooaah! Bindebil shows again solar ramping up ‘as he was predicting’, ha ha!

      Me, debil? May be rather you.

      *
      Maybe genius Eben starts searching for the reason why F10.7’s and MgII’s data result in ramping polynomials, but SSN doesn’t?

      That would be a little smarter than barking behind me and trying to bite my ankle all the time, right?

      Stop stalking, Eben, and start working.

        • Bindidon says:

          Eben

          You are a really dumb ankle biter.

          Write what you want, from now on I no longer will care about your bullshit.

          Feel free to name me clown, debil, what ever you want.

          • Swenson says:

            Binny,

            You wrote –

            “Write what you want, from now on I no longer will care about your bullshit.”

            Is that supposed to reduce Eben to a quivering, jelly-like, blubbering mess?

            Maybe he doesn’t care whether you care or not.laughs Have you any particular reason to believe anyone cares for your opinion, or do you just spout bullshit in all directions, hoping nobody will notice that you are just another fact-free, handwaving SkyDragon?

            Spout away, laddie, spout away.

            [laughing at self-important dimwit]

          • Bindidon says:

            Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!

            Do you have something to say?

            No?

            Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something….

          • Swenson says:

            Binny,

            You wrote

            Write what you want, from now on I no longer will care about your bullshit.

            Is that supposed to reduce Eben to a quivering, jelly-like, blubbering mess?

            Maybe he doesnt care whether you care or not.laughs Have you any particular reason to believe anyone cares for your opinion, or do you just spout bullshit in all directions, hoping nobody will notice that you are just another fact-free, handwaving SkyDragon?

            Spout away, laddie, spout away.

            [laughing at self-important dimwit]

          • Bindidon says:

            Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!

            Do you have something to say?

            No?

            Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something …

          • Swenson says:

            Binny,

            You wrote

            Write what you want, from now on I no longer will care about your bullshit.

            Is that supposed to reduce Eben to a quivering, jelly-like, blubbering mess?

            Maybe he doesnt care whether you care or not. Have you any particular reason to believe anyone cares for your opinion, or do you just spout bullshit in all directions, hoping nobody will notice that you are just another fact-free, handwaving SkyDragon?

            By the way, you must be slipping. You could have corrected my typo for me.

            Oh well, you don’t pay any attention, do you? Except to waste your time responding with meaningless gibberish.

            Keep it up.

            [laughing at self-important dimwit]

          • Bindidon says:

            Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!

            Do you have something to say?

            No?

            Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something…

          • Swenson says:

            Binny,

            You wrote

            Write what you want, from now on I no longer will care about your bullshit.

            Is that supposed to reduce Eben to a quivering, jelly-like, blubbering mess?

            Maybe he doesnt care whether you care or not. Have you any particular reason to believe anyone cares for your opinion, or do you just spout bullshit in all directions, hoping nobody will notice that you are just another fact-free, handwaving SkyDragon?

            By the way, you must be slipping. You could have corrected my typo for me.

            Oh well, you dont pay any attention, do you? Except to waste your time responding with meaningless gibberish.

            By the way, found a GHE description yet?

            Keep it up.

            [laughing at self-important dimwit]

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            By the way, before your sour Krautish stubbornness gets you into trouble, here’s a quote from wondrous Wikipedia –

            “Estimates of the total heat flow from Earth’s interior to surface span a range of 43 to 49 terawatts (TW) (a terawatt is 1012 watts).[13] One recent estimate is 47 TW, . . .”

            Notice the units – Watts – joules per second. On the other hand, Wikipedia also says –

            “The flow of heat from Earth’s interior to the surface is estimated at 472 terawatts (TW)[1] and comes from two main sources in roughly equal amounts: the radiogenic heat produced by the radioactive decay of isotopes in the mantle and crust, and the primordial heat left over from the formation of Earth.”

            A slightly different estimate (maybe different editors), but still not TWh. Without giving a time span, that would just be as silly as adding Watts per square meter, and expecting a temperature to magically appear!

            In any case, you wrote –

            “The rate of energy has to be expressed with a time unit specifying how fast the energy is gained / lost . . .”

            I believe I said that the Earth loses energy (in joules) at a rate of 44 TW or so. A Watt is a joule per second.

            You see? An amount in joules, and the rate at which it is being lost – per second.

            But no matter. Play with semantics and SkyDragon redefinitions to your heart’s content. You agree that the Earth is losing more energy than it is gaining, (heat if you prefer). It is cooling by definition. Four and a half billion years or so of history shows you are right.

            The influence of the sun? Irrelevant. As Fourier pointed out, during the night, the Earth loses all the heat of the day – plus a little of its internal heat (the interior being hotter than outer space).

            Fourier’s insight is also borne out by four and a half billion years or so of history.

            It seems you deny physics, history, and the evidence of your own eyes. Tut, tut. Are you surprised nobody appears to put a high value on your opinions?

            Stick to dissecting the past, and using it to predict the future. You’ll be be the target of less derisive laughter that way.

            Carry on.

          • Bindidon says:

            Manifestly, the retired elementary school teacher still did not manage to grasp the difference between energy and power, even despite replicating Wikipedia:

            ” The flow of heat from Earths interior to the surface is estimated at 47[.]2 terawatts (TW) … “.

            At least he updated his old ’44’ up to ’47’.

            A few lines later, he definitely proved not to understand:

            ” I believe I said that the Earth loses energy (in joules) at a rate of 44 TW or so. A Watt is a joule per second. ”

            *
            As I said, Flynnson:

            47 TW are power.
            47 TWh are energy.

            *
            And a bit later you see that he also still dir not learn what a rate really is, and how it has to be expressed.

            So what!

            *
            ‘Sour Krautish stubbornness’ ?

            Are you looking in a mirror, Flynsson?

            Despite being probably an Ozzie, there is in you much more of an old, stubborn German Sauerkraut than I could ever offer. You never would admit being wrong, even about tiniest thing.

            Das ist so typisch deutsch wie es nur sein kann.

            Pauvre Flyynson, qui croit vraiment qu’il est capable d’impressionner les gens avec ses commentaires aussi condescendants et présomtueux que superficiels…

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Maybe you need to learn to actually quote what I said, rather than what you wish I had said.

            You have inadvertently quoted Wikipedia – yes, Wikipedia disagrees with another Wikipedia quote. Don’t blame me.

            The Earth is continuously losing energy, at a rate of around 44 terajoules per second (otherwise expressed as 44 TW for brevity).

            Regardless of whether your strange Krautish SkyDragon brain wants to call this energy loss energy, power, or bananas, it demonstrates that the Earth is cooling. Slowly. Asymptotically even, for reasons which you will do your SkyDragon best to deny, I’m sure.

            Accept reality. No “heating” due to CO2, which even delusional cultists like Nate acknowledge is just planetary insulation, unable to stop the Earth from cooling, let alone heating it up!

  41. stephen p. anderson says:

    Been following the Moscow ID coed murder case. It is incredible how people from around the world are following the case. See people posting from dozens of countries on message boards. This case affects a lot of people. And, no gun is involved.

  42. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate….”As always we need to repeatedly make clear what Clausius made clear 150 y ago, that the two-way or NET energy transfer must be from hot to cold, as the Second Law requires”.

    ***

    Typical alarmist bastardization of the 2nd law. Clausius said no such thing wrt the 2nd law when he wrote it. Neither did her say anything about a net transfer.

    The words to which you refer were taken from comments Clausius made about heat transfer by radiation. However, he stipulated that heat transfer by radiation had to obey the 2nd law. His comment about a two-way heat transfer with radiation was based on a misunderstanding of heat flow through space, which all scientists of his era embraced.

    Clausius stated the 2nd law at the time he wrote it as roughly….’heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body’. No mention of net flow.

    I can appreciate the confusion in the minds of scientists like Clausius in the mid-1800s re radiation. They all thought heat flowed through space as heat rays. Even Planck talked about heat rays a lot later than Clausius. To this day, scientists mistakenly talk about the flow of infrared energy through space as thermal radiation, as if heat actually flows through space as IR.

    It was not till 1913 that Bohr revealed the truth, based on the electron, that was not discovered till 1897, well after the times of Clausius. Had Clausius known about electrons, he’d have clued in immediately. Without the knowledge of electrons he created the relationship of heat to internal energy and work.

    BTW, it was Clausius who coined the U in the 1st law, yet many scientists today fail to grasp the meaning wrt heat and work. They regard internal energy as some mysterious energy unrelated to heat and work.

    Therefore, it is eminently unfair to twist the words of Clausius to support alarmist propaganda.

    • Nate says:

      “To this day, scientists mistakenly talk about the flow of infrared energy through space as thermal radiation, as if heat actually flows through space as IR.”

      Gordon again corrects science’s mistakes. Science will file that information in the appropriate place.

  43. Gordon Robertson says:

    Roy…I see no reason why you should apologize to anyone. I regard you as a man of integrity and I regard you as someone who would not be involved in plagiarism, or condoning it.

    I don’t agree with everything you say with regard to anthropogenic warming but I have no doubt about your integrity. I think if we all agreed with each other the world would be a pretty boring place.

  44. Tim Folkerts says:

    Dr. Roy, I have a few questions about Figure 1. There are a couple things that don’t make sense.

    1) Why should there be negative values along the “2-Station Urbanization difference” axis? It would seem logical to always take the larger urbanization minus the smaller smaller. Is there some further criterion for putting one first (or perhaps just something arbitrary like alphabetical order)? A data point at (-2C, -40%) could also be equally well be plotted at (+2C, +40%).

    2) Why does urbanization difference change from (a) to (b). For example, during the late night, there are no urbanization differences near 10%, but during the afternoon there are! Urbanization can’t change between night and day!

    3) Why is the data in vertical bands? I can’t think of any physical reason that lots of stations should have differences of ~ 18% and ~ 38%, but none near 8% or 28%.

  45. Swenson says:

    Nutty Nate wrote earlier.

    “How many times has it been explained to you that insulators, like the Earths GHE dont PREVENT warm things from cooling!”

    Nate apparently believes that telling somebody something that they already know, make Nate a mental giant!

    Unfortunately, Nate has now defined the GHE as an insulator (which begs the question – why call it a GHE, when there’s a perfectly good word already in existence). Oh well, idiot SkyDragons love to avoid normal terms, and invent silly jargon – GHE, forcings, feedbacks, slow cooling is really warming, and so on.

    Even Nate is not stupid enough to claim that an insulated body, slowly cooling, will suddenly commence to increase its temperature. I could well be wrong – dimwitted SkyDragons studiously avoid reality if it doesn’t suit them.

    Now, Numbskull Nate has a GHE which doesn’t “. . . PREVENT warm things from cooling!”, but still can’t define a GHE which makes cold things hotter, because he would have to abandon his definition of GHE just being insulation. Just look around – it is very likely that you have a refrigerator, where insulation (or as the nitwitted Nate would have you believe, GHE), is used to keep the contents cold. Must be a different form of GHE, I suppose. The SkyDragon variety, which heats or cools at will! The collective SkyDragon will, of course, which would have inert insulation cooling and warming the planet at random, through the ages. Pardon me while I laugh at Nutty Nate’s unsubstantiated claims.

    Maybe you have another excellent insulating device – a vacuum flask. Maybe Nate thinks that the GHE in this flask senses the temperature of the contents, and slows heating if the contents are cold, and slows cooling if the contents are hot. Nope. Insulation is catholic in this regard. No magic, just impeding the flow of heat from hotter to colder.

    Given that the Earth is nominally hotter than outer space, the Earth is continuously losing energy, and has done so for four and a half billion years or so. As theory suggests, and history supports.

    At least Nate has now pinned himself down, claiming that GHE is really just a SkyDragon name for insulation. He may not have just pinned himself down, he may find he has skewered himself into the bargain.

    This might be Nate’s cue to start diverting to overcoats on corpses, making water boil using the energy from ice, or anything at all to stop people realising that no matter what cunning way you apply insulation, you can’t make a cold (and still cooling) body hotter at will.

    The Earth, for example.

    • Nate says:

      So let’s review my post:

      “You dont seem to be able to provide facts that actually matter to any of the issues discussed.

      How many times has it been explained to you that insulators, like the Earths GHE dont PREVENT warm things from cooling!

      Yet you keep posting your centerpiece red herring:

      ‘How about denying that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, showing that the mythical GHE was completely powerless?’

      Why do you think this is any more relevant to the GHE than the current high price of milk?

      Are you that clueless? Or just insane?”

      But he has no answer.

      So many troll evasion tactics on display here:

      -Not posting in the correct thread, so no one can see my prior post.

      -Throwing up chaff and distractors

      -Changing the subject

      -Moving the goal posts

      -Nonsensical complaints, ie

      “Nate has now defined the GHE as an insulator (which begs the question why call it a GHE, when theres a perfectly good word already in existence”

      I dunno, Why call 12 inch thick fiberglass insulation, ’12 inch thick fiberglass insulation’, when there’s a perfectly good word for it: ‘insulator’?

      So, again, for the dozenth time, the GHE, being an insulator between the WARM Earth’s surface and the COLD of space, cannot PREVENT the Earth from cooling. It can only SLOW its cooling.

      Thus when you complain

      ‘the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, showing that the mythical GHE was completely powerless?”

      you are saying something that is obviously true, but true of ANY insulator of the Earth.

      It is as pointless and as irrelevant to a debate about the existence of the GHE as the high price of milk.

      So again, WHY, specifically, do you keep posting this true but completely irrelevant fact?

      DO you not understand how debate and persuasion works?

      • Clint R says:

        Nate, if the GHE is about the insulation properties of the atmosphere, then CO2 works against it as CO2 emits IR to space. Oxygen and nitrogen do not emit IR to space.

      • Nate says:

        This is a sky-dragon slayer talking point, but a myth.

        Tyndall showed that a tube filled with CO2, which abs*orbs IR reduces the amount of radiative heat transfer between one end that is hot and another end that is cold, IOW it is acting as an insulator.

        And indeed, in the gas in the middle of the tube, CO2 is both abs*orbing and emitting IR. The emission from CO2 near the cold end of the tube is from COLD CO2 molecules, thus LOWER radiation is transferred to the cold end then is emitted from the hot end.

        This is how it works in the atmosphere, which is cold at the TOA where CO2 emitting to space.

        .

        • Swenson says:

          Nate,

          You wrote –

          “The emission from CO2 near the cold end of the tube is from COLD CO2 molecules, thus LOWER radiation is transferred to the cold end then is emitted from the hot end.”

          Don’t look more stupid than you are – unless you want to, of course.

          Lower radiation (whatever that is supposed to mean) is transferred to the hot end? I sincerely hope you are not trying to imply in some supremely obfuscatory way that heat travels from cold to hot, are you?

          No, Tyndall demonstrated that CO2 (all matter, actually) absorbs some radiation, thus reducing the amount transmitted. The end result is, as Tyndall demonstrated, that increasing the amount of CO2 and a heat source, reduced the amount of energy reaching a thermometer, and lowered its temperature as a result. Increased insulation reduces the transmission of heat.

          Heat travels from hot to cold. No heating, or heat “amplification” from GHGs or the GHE. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply fooling themself.

          You aren’t one of the delusional SkyDragon cultists, are you?

          You agree with me (and Raymond Pierrehumbertj that CO2 is just planetary insulation, and heats nothing. Certainly no AGW due to CO2 or the GHE, is there?

          • Nate says:

            “Lower radiation (whatever that is supposed to mean) is transferred to the hot end? ”

            No didnt say that. It seems you are you unable to read.

            So no rebuttal of anything. No answer for why you post red herrings. Just lame attempts to misrepresent what I clearly stated.

            Just trolling.

          • Swenson says:

            Nitwit Nate,

            “No didnt say that. It seems you are you unable to read.”

            Here’s what you wrote –

            “. . . thus LOWER radiation is transferred to the cold end then is emitted from the hot end.

            You really are confused as well as ignorant, aren’t you?

            Lower radiation is transferred to the cold end and then is emitted from the hot end? Really?

            How does this miracle of “lower radiation” (do you mean “colder” or something) being “transferred” to the cold end, but then “emitted” from the hot end, occur?

            You do realise the difference between “hot” and “cold” do you? All matter above absolute zero radiates energy, and “cold” does not have to be “transferred” anywhere to radiate energy.

            You are spouting confused nonsense.

        • Nate says:

          Nate sez “Tyndall showed that a tube filled with CO2, which abs*orbs IR reduces the amount of radiative heat transfer between one end that is hot and another end that is cold, IOW it is acting as an insulator.”

          Swenson says:

          “No, Tyndall demonstrated that CO2 (all matter, actually) absorbs some radiation, thus reducing the amount transmitted. The end result is, as Tyndall demonstrated, that increasing the amount of CO2 and a heat source, reduced the amount of energy reaching a thermometer, and lowered its temperature as a result. Increased insulation reduces the transmission of heat.”

          And he doesnt realize that these are saying (mostly) the same thing?

          NB, when Tyndall did the experiment with Nitrogen, it did not reduce the transmission of heat significantly, the way CO2 did, because it is not a good abs*orber of IR radiation.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            Yes, we agree that CO2 is an insulator, which allows the Earth to cool.

            If you want to call the “greenhouse effect” “insulation” which allows the Earth to cool, fine.

            If you want the engineering profession to abandon the use of the word “insulation”, and replace it with “greenhouse effect”, your debating skills and power of persuasion are likely to be insufficient to achieve your aim.

            What are you arguing about? You are agreeing that neither CO2 nor the GHE heat anything, but you seem reluctant to actually say so.

            Has the SkyDragon cult instilled a Pavlovian reflex which prevents you from agreeing that neither CO2 nor the GHE can heat anything? Is that why you can’t help yourself from hammering out incomprehensible nonsense like “The emission from CO2 near the cold end of the tube is from COLD CO2 molecules, thus LOWER radiation is transferred to the cold end then is emitted from the hot end.”?

            Just confirm what you have already agreed – the GHE is an insulator, and cannot make the Earth hotter. It can’t even stop it from cooling, can it?

            Or stick to your confused fantasy – neither confirm nor deny anything!

          • Nate says:

            “Yes, we agree that CO2 is an insulator, which allows the Earth to cool.”

            Great. Now you are closer to understanding the GHE.

            All you need now is to realize that the CO2 insulation is between the warm Earth’s surface and the Cold of space. And an insulator reduces heat flow between a warm place and a cold place.

            Do you agree?

            Now here’s where you will say that the CO2 insulation is also between the heat source (the sun) and the Earth’s surface, yes?

            And here’s where you will call it ‘magic’ insulation because we say that it does not insulate the surface from the solar heat source.

            But if you understand the basic science, there is no need for magic. The science is clear that CO2 abs*orbs in the far IR wavelengths, while sunlight is primarily in the visible and near IR.

            Do you deny this?

        • Clint R says:

          Sorry Nate, but you don’t understand any of this.

          Tyndall only proved that CO2 can absorb IR. That doesn’t mean it can heat Earth. Bananas absorb IR. Do you also believe bananas can heat the planet?

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Bad analogy, Clint. Bananas would have a much better chance of heating the planet than CO2.

          • Swenson says:

            Yes indeed, bananas create global warming.

            Bananas contain radioactive potassium, and when potassium-40 decays, a small amount of mass is converted to energy, in accordance with e=mc2.

            This energy is evidenced as heat when it reacts with other matter.

            Hence, global warming, but as ephemeral as the rather larger amounts of heat generated within the Earth, and slowing the overall rate of cooling.

            The consumption of these heat-producing fruits occurs at all hours of the day and night, and I would not be surprised if every continent (even including Antarctica) was subjected to BGW (banana global warming). For any SkyDragon who is crass enough to think I am joking, I’m not. Wikipedia even refers to “Banana equivalent dose (BED) is an informal unit of measurement of ionizing radiation exposure, . . . “, although some experts take exception to the use of such a measure.

            I suppose I shouldn’t alarm readers unduly, but CO2 also has a radioactive isotope, which of course can give you lethal dose of cancer, if it happens to decay in the right spot. No use fleeing to the hills, either. Cosmic radiation is far more intense, and the danger increases as you decrease the amount of atmosphere between you and outer space.

            Oh dear, oh dear. What to do? Stop breathing? Don’t eat bananas? Dig a hole and bury yourself?

            Might as well run around waving a placard saying “Stop Climate Change”. At least others can have a good laugh before they die – from radioactive bananas or fright from the thought of being roasted, toasted, boiled or fried within a few years!

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            How can you be so stupid?

            “I suppose I shouldnt alarm readers unduly, but CO2 also has a radioactive isotope, which of course can give you lethal dose of cancer, if it happens to decay in the right spot.”

            Molecules don’t have isotopes.

          • Swenson says:

            bob,

            Yeah, you got me there. My laughing at my own attempt at humour affected my typing. Is it OK with you if I say CO2 is radioactive? Like bananas are?

            Or are you trying to insinuate that CO2 cannot contain radioactive isotopes of either oxygen or carbon?

            It doesn’t really matter – still no AGW due to GHE, is there?

            Don’t eat too many bananas – the radioactivity might kill you.

          • Clint R says:

            Braindead bob claims: “Molecules don’t have isotopes.”

            Just so braindead bob does not confuse anyone — Molecules contain atoms and atoms may be an isotope. For example, CO2 contains one carbon atom. But that carbon atom could be C-14, which is a radioactive isotope.

          • Nate says:

            “Sorry Nate, but you dont understand any of this.

            Tyndall only proved that CO2 can absorb IR. That doesnt mean it can heat Earth. Bananas absorb IR. Do you also believe bananas can heat the planet?”

            As I explained, and you predictably ignored, Tyndall proved that CO2 can reduce heat flow between a hot object and a cold one, and thus act as an insulator. And even Swenson agrees!

            You offer no rebuttal to this.

            An insulator between the warm Earth’s surface and the cold of space reduces the heat flow between them. Given the solar input as a heat source for the surface, and the reduced heat flow to space, the surface must warm.

            This could not be simpler.

            Now rather than your usual generic ‘you don’t understand any of this’ how about you quote me and tell us what, specifically, you disagree with and why.

            Try honest debate for a change.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            So you do understand that atoms have isotopes, molecules do not.

            Thanks for the clarification, idiot.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            I recently gave you a description of the greenhouse effect, you didn’t respond, did you run off with your tail between your legs?

            And there are not enough bananas on the Earth to kill one person with their radioactivity.

          • Clint R says:

            No problem, bob. I’m always glad to correct your braindead trolling.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            You didn’t correct bumpkis.

            “atoms may be an isotope” says Clint R, trying to sound likes he knows something.

            Molecules still don’t have isotopes, molecules may contain isotopes, because all atoms are isotopes, but if you look at the chart of the nuclides, you will see no molecules.

          • Clint R says:

            bob, you shouldnt try to understand this stuff without an adult to help you.

            All atoms are isotopes, if you want to play games with definitions. So since a molecule contains atoms, it contains isotopes.

            I won’t respond to any more of your kiddie trolling.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            Try looking up the definition of the word “may” if you do not want to look like a moron.

            Great news, you are not going to respond to my posts.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Hey Bob,

            What are deuterium and tritium?

          • Swenson says:

            The slightly dim bobdroege wrote –

            “I recently gave you a description of the greenhouse effect, you didnt respond, did you run off with your tail between your legs?”

            Well, you didn’t, so no.

            Maybe you agree with your fellow SkyDragon Nate, saying that GHE is a euphemism for insulation? It doesn’t really matter, does it?

            After four and a half billion years or so of GHE combined with continuous sunlight, the Earth cooled. I suppose idiot SkyDragons like yourself will claim that heating is really just a euphemism for cooling?

            You really are an obfuscatory reality denying fool, aren’t you?

            Try harder. See if you can compose a worthwhile gotcha. How hard can it be – even for a dimwit like you?

          • bobdroege says:

            Stephen,

            “Hey Bob,

            What are deuterium and tritium?”

            Isotopes of hydrogen if you refer to the individual atoms.

            If you think Clint R was correct when he said “atoms may be an isotope”

            No matter what atoms compose carbon dioxide, they are all isotopes.

            There are no isotopes of carbon dioxide.

            Do you get my point, or do you want to be like Clint R.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            I did recently give you a description of the greenhouse effect.

            So you are lying.

            I don’t know what your problem is, maybe you don’t think there is a greenhouse in the Earth’s atmosphere.

            The Earth’s atmosphere does indeed restrict the cooling of the Earth, similar to a greenhouse, but different.

            And by the way, it wouldn’t take 4 1/2 billion years for the Earth to cool down to its current temperature from a molten state.

            So you are a bit addled in the head, cause it stopped cooling from that not so initial molten state, a long time ago.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Well, no, because hydrogen exists as a diatomic molecule. Deuterium or D2 or Tritium T2 are molecules and isotopes of H2.

          • Nate says:

            H is found in many molecules besides H2.

            H2O, CH4, C2H6, etc

          • bobdroege says:

            Stephen,

            “Well, no, because hydrogen exists as a diatomic molecule. Deuterium or D2 or Tritium T2 are molecules and isotopes of H2.”

            Right, hydrogen does not exist in ionic form.

            Go back and review your first year chemistry texts.

            Isotopes refer to atoms, not molecules.

            The submarine I was on screwed up one day, the torpedo men were practicing for firing torpedos by firing water slugs in port and they forgot we had one torpedo tube full of tritiated water for at sea disposal and they fired the wrong tube.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            What do you call D2O? or T2O? Hey, we never shot our torpedoes that I recall or slugs, but we did shoot those big pointy things out of the top.

          • bobdroege says:

            Stephen,

            D2O is called heavy water, T2O is called tritiated water, H2O-18 is called O-18 water.

            Any more questions?

        • Nate says:

          “And indeed, in the gas in the middle of the tube, CO2 is both abs*orbing and emitting IR. The emission from CO2 near the cold end of the tube is from COLD CO2 molecules, thus LOWER radiation is transferred to the cold end then is emitted from the hot end.”

          The meaning here should be clear to anyone with a 6th grade reading level and isnt intentionally ignorant.

          That obviously doesnt apply to you.

          For the point-grasping impaired, cold molecules emit less radiation than hot molecules.

          And thus we can explain what you already appear to agree with:

          “increasing the amount of CO2 and a heat source, reduced the amount of energy reaching a thermometer, and lowered its temperature as a result. Increased insulation reduces the transmission of heat.”

          So it appears you DO now understand that CO2 in the atmosphere does have the ability to act as an insulator between a warm Earth surface and the cold of space.

          Now wriggle out of it somehow.

          • Clint R says:

            Nate, non-radiative gases act as insulation. CO2 emits energy to space. Atmospheric radiative gases act as open windows in the insulation.

            Do open windows heat the house when outside temperatures are below freezing?

          • Nate says:

            “CO2 emits energy to space. Atmospheric radiative gases act as open windows in the insulation.”

            Tyndall proved you wrong 150 y ago. You dont even try to rebut anything Ive said, obviously you can’t.

            Here’s Swenson grasping it. Why dont you?

            “Yes, we agree that CO2 is an insulator”

          • Clint R says:

            Nothing Tyndall did proved the GHE, Nate. You’re just hoping.

            He proved that some gases can absorb IR. That’s all he proved. The rest is your imagination. He didn’t even attempt to use earthen sources. He used heat sources close to the boiling point of water.

            You don’t understand ANY of this.

          • Nate says:

            You dont present any logical argument or evidence. You just use your standard ‘argument by assertion’.

            Thus, there is nothing to be understood.

            Tyndall proved that CO2 added to a nitrogen-filled tube REDUCES heat transfer, ie INCREASES insulation.

            This proves your ridiculous unsubstantiated assertion that “Atmospheric radiative gases act as open windows in the insulation” is WRONG.

          • Clint R says:

            Nate, you’re unable to understand any logical argument or evidence. You just reject anything that is counter to your cult beliefs.

            Tyndall proved some gases absorb IR. That’s it. Many things absorb IR.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            As you agree, the GHE heats precisely nothing.

            Do you still believe that the GHE (insulation – your word) can raise the temperature of the Earth?

          • Nate says:

            “Do you still believe that the GHE (insulation your word)”

            And your word also, Swenson.

            “Do you still believe that the GHE (insulation your word) can raise the temperature of the Earth?”

            Yes, and unlike Clint, my rationale has been very clearly explained here:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1402017

            So you can quote any part of it and rebut if you are able.

            That is how honest debate happens.

          • Nate says:

            “Nate, youre unable to understand any logical argument or evidence”

            This is your usual empty rhetoric since you offer none.

            “Tyndall proved some gases absorb IR. Thats it. Many things absorb IR.”

            Yes he did, and he showed that absor*ption of IR leads to it REDUCING heat flow between a hot place to a cold place.

            Your claim that it does the OPPOSITE, INCREASES heat flow between a hot surface and a cold place, makes absolutely no sense.

            And lets be honest, that is why you offer no rationale. There is none.

          • Clint R says:

            Nate, you’ve completely lost it, again.

            You’re not making sense. You’re accusing me of things I didn’t say.

            Settle down, focus, and see if you can make at least one valid point.

  46. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A long period of significantly reduced UV radiation was followed by an increase, after which a decrease is again evident.
    https://i.ibb.co/6vhH9qt/mgii-composite-2.png
    This coincides with a decrease in the number of sunspots.
    https://i.ibb.co/hC4LtkL/EISNcurrent.png

  47. John says:

    The hourly data is all very interesting but don’t get hung up on it. The only two temperatures that matter much over each day are the minimum and the maximum. Typically both are logged at 9:00am local time (even if summer time is operating). The maximum temperature , by convention, is for the previous day and the minimum temperature for the current day.

    Mow maybe the term nighttime applies to the minimum, but it’s an inaccurate generalization if it does. On cloud free nights and days, the minimum temperature occurs around sunrise, when net cooling (more cooling than warming) gives way to net warming (more warming than cooling). This might be a few minutes after sunrise, so is that really a nighttime temperature?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      john…two temperature measurements a day provide a very rough average of daily temperature. It would be far better to take a temperature reading each hour, or better.

      With two a day readings you could be out by a degree C or more per day.

      • Clint R says:

        As John stated, “The only two temperatures that matter much over each day are the minimum and the maximum.” Determine the min/max for a 24-hr day and you’re done.

        The problem is they’ve never been able to reliably do that….

  48. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…”Tyndall showed that a tube filled with CO2, which abs*orbs IR reduces the amount of radiative heat transfer between one end that is hot and another end that is cold, IOW it is acting as an insulator.”

    ***

    Tyndall did not measure heat transfer in his experiment, only the amount of IR absorbed by CO2 in a tube. Even at that, he measured relative values since they had no means of measuring IR at the time. No one knew about IR, they thought heat flowed through space as heat rays. Apparently you and many others still believe that.

    You need to get it that heat in a source cannot be transferred through a gas-filled tube containing CO2 to a target on the other end of the tube. If the source is hotter than the target, then IR can be transferred through the tube but it is not heat and cannot transfer heat. If electrons in the atoms in the target are at a lower temperature, they can absorb the IR from a hotter source and the electrons can produce heat in the target.

    Under those conditions you cannot call CO2 an insulator because it blocks no heat.

    Furthermore, Tyndall used detectors to detect IR, not thermometers to measure heat. I presume he could have used a thermometer at the target to measure the ambient temperature without the flame at the other end of the telescope tube. Then he could have applied the flame to see if the IR would have warmed the target with straight air in the tube.

    If he got a significant heating from the IR in the target, he could then have slowly added CO2 to the tube to measure how much it reduced warming in the target. As I indicated before, in Tyndall’s day they believed heat flowed through air as heat rays.

    I don’t think this has been done by experiment and if it has, I am guessing the cooling effect was so insignificant as to be unmeasurable.

  49. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Gordon, the frost will reach Vancouver along with the high from the continent.
    https://i.ibb.co/GC49nzW/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f072.png

  50. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The temperature dropped quite sharply above the 60th parallel. Another strong planetary wave appears in the polar vortex belt, breaking up the polar vortex.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_OND_NH_2022.png
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_OND_NH_2022.png

  51. Ken says:

    Does Mauna Loa Volcano eruption count as Local Heat Island?

  52. Bindidon says:

    John

    ” Typically both are logged at 9:00am local time (even if summer time is operating).

    The maximum temperature , by convention, is for the previous day and the minimum temperature for the current day. ”

    I don’t understand what you exactly mean here.

    Processing last year the data of the (in the US still most pristine) USCRN station set data gave the following distribution for absolute temperature versus hour of the day:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zp4zDnMoyO3ZrQ1tXtngnV3F2t73sPkr/view

    Eye-balling is enough to see the differences between 9 AM and TMIN, resp. TMAX and 9 PM, but the numbers tell it better.

    9 AM minus TMIN resp. TMAX minus 9 PM (in C):

    AK Kenai: 1.4 — 2.4
    FL Everglades: 4.0 — 6.3
    US average: 1.7 — 4.4

    Whether or not this has any consequence for TMIN/TMAX based comparisons, that I don’t know.

    *
    I see no reason to think that stations sets far bigger than USCRN would handle TMIN/TMAX in a different way: comparing GHCN daily station data to USCRN shows it well.

    *
    Don’t trust people who tell you

    ” With two a day readings you could be out by a degree C or more per day. ”

    That’s wrong; anybody processing USCRN’s hourly station data to monthly averages can see that the difference between means aka (TMIN+TMAX)/2, medians and averages of hourly data is small:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b4RCt-RkYqO8bRqHXzyswglC5M1z9pOt/view

    Trend difference in C /decade between mean and average is for the period 2005-2021: 0.04, and 0.01 for 2012-2021, when all 135 continental USCRN stations deliver data (only 79 did in 2005).

  53. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Joe shows charts that point to what he says could be a spectacular outbreak of cold. Only now are the models showing what Joe had warned of weeks and months ago: northern hemisphere land masses getting gripped by sub-normal cold.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/28/ace-forecaster-bastardi-something-we-used-to-see-in-1970s-warns-of-spectacular-cold/

  54. Bindidon says:

    I had enough harsh winter months in my life (1956, 1963, 1979, 1986), and when I look at NOAA’s forecast for Europe

    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/euT2me3Mon.html

    I can only hope that NOAA will have had it right when I look back from next March.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Anyone who places his/her hopes on NOAA is delusional.

      • Swenson says:

        Gordon,

        NOAA do have some dimwits employed – “Global mean sea level has risen about 89 inches (2124 centimeters) since 1880” – NOAA.

        Well, at least NOAA haven’t claimed accuracy to the thickness of a human hair (a few thousandths of an inch), but haven’t explained their obvious assumptions that continental drift and vertical land movement did not exist before satellites started measuring it. They specifically don’t mention that isostasy and crustal movements affect relative sea levels more than all their other silly “reasons” combined.

        Some idea of NOAA’s fantasy view of physics can be seen where NOAA claims “This deep water moves south, between the continents, past the equator, and down to the ends of Africa and South America. The current travels around the edge of Antarctica, where the water cools and sinks again, as it does in the North Atlantic.”

        NOAA does not accept that the Earth is spherical, and water has no impetus to travel from the North Pole towards the South Pole, regardless of the no doubt fancy terrestrial globe model sitting on some NOAA administrator’s desk! Yes, water poured on that model globe will flow from north to south. Invert it, as it would physically be in the Southern Hemisphere (upside down, so to speak), and it will magically flow from the South Pole to the North Pole!

        At NOAA, science seems to be subordinated to PR and SkyDragon cultism. As Richard Feynman pointed out after NASA’s Challenger disaster – “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”

        Hopefully, no one will die as a result of NOAA pseudoscience and propaganda.

        • RLH says:

          “water has no impetus to travel from the North Pole towards the South Pole”

          Is cold water denser than warm water and vice versa?

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            Oh! A gotcha!

            Only joking.

            I’ll say again, water has no impetus to travel from the North Pole to the South Pole.

            The force of gravity acts towards the center of the Earth. Hence convection in the oceans. Denser water falls towards the center of the Earth – not the poles.

            You don’t need to thank me, I feel obliged to help the mentally afflicted.

            [laughing at deplorable standard of dim-witted gotcha]

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            Again, how can you be so stupid to post such drivel as this?

            “The force of gravity acts towards the center of the Earth.”

            You might want to google Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation and the experiments used to determine G the gravitational constant.

          • RLH says:

            “water has no impetus to travel from the North Pole towards the South Pole”

            Water does have an impetus to flow up and down vertically based on density which can also be based on temperature and salinity.

            Thermohaline circulation uses those facts and the bottom profiles to determine the pattern of ocean currents and movements below the surface.

            Do you dispute any of those facts?

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            Oh! The same stupid gotcha, with a bit of misdirection thrown in!

            As you quoted (that’s a change – thanks!), I wrote –

            ” . . . water has no impetus to travel from the North Pole towards the South Pole, . . . ”

            You ask if I “deny” something quite irrelevant. Here’s what you wrote, in case you forgot –

            “Water does have an impetus to flow up and down vertically based on density which can also be based on temperature and salinity.

            Thermohaline circulation uses those facts and the bottom profiles to determine the pattern of ocean currents and movements below the surface.

            Do you dispute any of those facts?”

            Water has no “impetus” to flow anywhere. As matter generally is, water is subject to the force of gravity, for example. It also obeys conservation laws – conservation of angular momentum, for example.

            Here’s Newton’s first law (courtesy of NASA) –

            “Newton’s first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.” Water qualifies as an object – the Pacific Ocean is orbiting the Earth’s COG, whilst whizzing through space subject to the gravitational effects of everything in the up universe!

            Don’t like a big object? Pick a smaller one, a volume that faithfully represents the “water” that you claim possesses some sort of innate “impetus”, if you like.

            Are you still backing NOAA’s nonsense about water traveling in some magical fashion from the North Pole to the South Pole?

            Don’t bother asking me what I “deny” or don’t “deny”. Facts dont care whether you deny them or not. How could I possibly deny a fact? SkyDragon cultists seem to believe that facts are created by consensus – AGW being due to some undefined GHE involving CO2, H2O, etc., and that this results in the weather changing. Really? The weather has always changed, but if you have some factual basis to show that weather only started to change due to man-made CO2 production, I may change my views.

            In the meantime, maybe you could address your future gotchas to something I said.

            Dimwitted SkyDragon.

          • Nate says:

            ” water traveling in some magical fashion”

            Flynntionary-

            Magic (magical, magically)-

            Basic science that is too advanced for Flynnson or any caveman to comprehend. It is labelled ‘magic’.

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            Oh! The same stupid gotcha, with a bit of misdirection thrown in!

            As you quoted (thats a change thanks!), I wrote

            . . . water has no impetus to travel from the North Pole towards the South Pole, . . .

            You ask if I deny something quite irrelevant. Heres what you wrote, in case you forgot

            Water does have an impetus to flow up and down vertically based on density which can also be based on temperature and salinity.

            Thermohaline circulation uses those facts and the bottom profiles to determine the pattern of ocean currents and movements below the surface.

            Do you dispute any of those facts?

            Water has no impetus to flow anywhere. As matter generally is, water is subject to the force of gravity, for example. It also obeys conservation laws conservation of angular momentum, for example.

            Heres Newtons first law (courtesy of NASA)

            Newtons first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. Water qualifies as an object the Pacific Ocean is orbiting the Earths COG, whilst whizzing through space subject to the gravitational effects of everything in the up universe!

            Dont like a big object? Pick a smaller one, a volume that faithfully represents the water that you claim possesses some sort of innate impetus, if you like.

            Are you still backing NOAAs nonsense about water traveling in some magical fashion from the North Pole to the South Pole?

            Dont bother asking me what I deny or dont deny. Facts dont care whether you deny them or not. How could I possibly deny a fact? SkyDragon cultists seem to believe that facts are created by consensus AGW being due to some undefined GHE involving CO2, H2O, etc., and that this results in the weather changing. Really? The weather has always changed, but if you have some factual basis to show that weather only started to change due to man-made CO2 production, I may change my views.

            In the meantime, maybe you could address your future gotchas to something I said.

            Dimwitted SkyDragon.

      • Nate says:

        “Global mean sea level has risen about 89 inches (2124 centimeters) since 1880′ NOAA.”

        The claim was 8 to 9 inches, 21 to 24 cm loser troll Swenson.

        https://twitter.com/noaaclimate/status/1212750857323855879

  55. Swenson says:

    Here’s a devout SkyDragon at work. Nate believes that the GHE is just another word for insulation, and admits that it has been unable to prevent the Earth from cooling, and agrees that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so. Now he writes –

    “And heres where you will call it magic insulation because we say that it does not insulate the surface from the solar heat source.

    But if you understand the basic science, there is no need for magic. The science is clear that CO2 abs*orbs in the far IR wavelengths, while sunlight is primarily in the visible and near IR.

    Do you deny this?”

    He says “we [SkyDragons] say that [insulation] does not insulate the surface from the solar heat source.” Well, insulation, by definition, impedes the flow of heat – from hot to cold. Hence, the maximum temperature on Earth is less than 100 C, compared to the airless Moon, with 127 C maxima. Additionally, NASA agrees with Tyndall’s observations over a century ago, that about 35% of the solar radiation doesn’t even get to the surface! Insulation between the Sun and the surface.

    So SkyDragon Nate is dreaming. He believes in a magic insulator, which somehow allows more energy in one direction than another, resulting in heating, while simultaneously agreeing that the application of this bizarre GHE for four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight resulted in the Earth cooling, not heating!

    Nate is an arrant fool – believing in some magical physics, where an object can simultaneously get hotter and colder, where temperatures are measured in W/m2, where insulation that allowed the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years, is now deciding to heat it up, and all the rest of the SkyDragon cult nonsense.

    Next thing he’ll be claiming that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, or that Michael Mann is not a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat, and won a Nobel Prize!

    Nate doesn’t need to deny reality – he doesnt know what it is!

    • Nate says:

      As usual, Swenson tries the troll evasion of posting far away from posts he is responding to. Or is he just incompetent?

      “Nate believes that the GHE is just another word for insulation, and admits that it has been unable to prevent the Earth from cooling, and agrees that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so.”

      A couple of points here.
      -Swenson admitted earlier that CO2 does act as an insulator. So why is he now pooh poohing this?
      -As he has been informed many times, insulators merely SLOW cooling of warm things. Thus his repeated statement that GHE did not prevent cooling is POINTLESS. Yet he soldiers on making this POINTLESS point again and again! Why?

      And my prediction “you will call it magic insulation” was amazingly accurate.

      “He believes in a magic insulator, which somehow allows more energy in one direction than another, resulting in heating”

      For those of us who are not cavemen like Swenson, basic science is not actually magic.

      “Additionally, NASA agrees with Tyndalls observations over a century ago, that about 35% of the solar radiation doesnt even get to the surface!”

      Ok, so I’ll let Tyndall explain it as he did so eloquently when he discovered this effect 150 y ago: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Radiation_(Rede_Lecture)

      “Imagine the superficial molecules of the earth trembling with the motion of heat, and imparting it to the surrounding ether; this motion would be carried rapidly away, and lost for ever to our planet, if the waves of ether had nothing but the air to contend with in their outward course. But the aqueous vapour takes up the motion of the ethereal waves, and becomes thereby heated, thus wrapping the earth like a warm garment, and protecting its surface from the deadly chill which it would otherwise sustain.”

      “It might however be urged that, inasmuch as we derive all our heat from the sun, the selfsame covering which protects the earth from chill must also shut out the solar radiation. This is partially true, but only partially; the sun’s rays are different in quality from the earth’s rays, and it does not at all follow that the substance which absorbs the one must necessarily absorb the other. Through a layer of water, for example, one tenth of an inch in thickness, the sun’s rays are transmitted with comparative freedom; but through a layer half this thickness, as Melloni has proved, no single ray from the warmed earth could pass. In like manner, the sun’s rays pass with comparative freedom through the aqueous vapour of the air: the absorbing power of this substance being mainly exerted upon the heat that endeavours to escape from the earth. In consequence of this differential action upon solar and terrestrial heat, the mean temperature of our planet is higher than is due to its distance from the sun.”

      • Nate says:

        Looks like Swenson has no sensible rebuttal of Tyndall here.

        Regardless of this thorough debunking of his narrative, I predict that Swenson will continue to claim that the GHE requires ‘magic insulators’.

        Because contradictory facts just don’t matter to trolls.

  56. Swenson says:

    Earlier, another delusional SkyDragon, Tim Folkerts, carried on with his attempts to “prove” that four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight and GHE, resulted in the Earth heating rather than cooling – or something. Tim gets rather confused, and doesn’t actually know what point he is trying to make, from time to time.

    Here’s a minor Timism, trying to play semantic games to avoid facing reality –

    “A black body at -19 C has 0 W/m^2 power output to -19 C surroundings. It must be ~ 29 C to be losing 235 W/m^2 to the surroundings.”

    I pointed out to Tim that according to normal physics – “The amount of radiation emitted at each wavelength depends only on the object’s temperature and not on any other property of the object, such as its chemical composition. This was described mathematically by German physicist Max Planck in 1900. Scientists usually refer to this as thermal radiation. ” – European Space Agency.

    Tim does not accept this, and instead thinks that this law applies to the difference between an object’s temperature, and that of its environment. He also rejects the concept that the chemical composition of an object does not affect the dependence of emitted radiation on temperature alone. Hence the SkyDragon nonsense about CO2 only being capable of emitting certain wavelengths, regardless of its temperature.

    All irrelevant anyway – the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, and none of Tim’s wishful thinking, or that of his fellow reality-denying SkyDragons will change history one iota.

    AGW is due to AGH (Anthropogenically Generated Heat). No need for complicated indefensible SkyDragon silliness of any type.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “I pointed out to Tim that according to normal physics “The amount of radiation emitted …” ”
      You don’t seem to grasp that according to ‘normal physics’ objects also ABSORB radiation. My comments all referred to the NET radiation. It’s not really that tough to understand unless you intentionally want to be obstinate.

      “Tim does not accept this, and instead thinks that this law applies to the difference between an objects temperature”
      No. I fully accept that the -19 C blackbody surface emits 235 W/m^2 based solely on the surface’s own temperature. Do you accept that it would equally absorb 235 W/m^2 from the -19 C surroundings?

      “He also rejects the concept that the chemical composition of an object does not affect the dependence of emitted radiation on temperature alone.”
      An odd double negative! I accept that the chemical composition does affect the radiation (ie that different surfaces have different emissivities). So, yes, I do indeed REJECT that the chemical composition does NOT affect the radiation.

      ” … carried on with his attempts to “prove” that four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight and GHE, resulted in the Earth heating rather than cooling”
      I have never made that specific claim.

      ************************

      You really need something other than strawmen!

      • Swenson says:

        Tim,

        You wrote –

        “I have never made that specific claim.[that the Earth has heated up due to the GHE]”

        Of course not, Tim. SkyDragon cultists never commit themselves to anything relevant that can be examined.

        I fully understand. You would look a little silly making such a stupid claim, contradicting four and a half billion years or so of history.

        You will look even sillier if you just imply that the GHE heats the Earth, so that you can deny ever specifically claiming something so ridiculous!

        So what are you banging on about while you are agreeing with me? Just attempting to be disagreeable and look foolish because you are a masochist and can’t control yourself?

        Oh well, to each his own, I suppose.

        Carry on.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “SkyDragon cultists never commit themselves to anything relevant that can be examined.”

          No. I commit myself to things that I actually say. I just don’t commit myself to your strawmen.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            As you said, “I have never made that specific claim [that the GHE made the Earth hotter].”

            You haven’t really made any specific claim about the Earth getting hotter, because you know it hasn’t, don’t you?

            Otherwise, I suppose you would make a specific claim that it had, so you coukd commit yourself to something that could be scrutinised.

            Oh well, as long as you are not claiming that CO2 is making the Earth hotter, I’m happy.

            We are agreed, so you can stop waving your silly fantasies all over the place. Not much point now, is there? The Earth has cooled for the last four and a half billion years or so, and continues to do so – as you agree. No claim, just fact.

            You aren’t making a specific claim to the contrary, are you? Of course not, gutless SkyDragons never allow themselves to be caught saying something specific.

            Off you go Tim, keep telling everybody that you are not guilty of making a specific claim that the GHE is responsible for AGW, and that nobody can force you to!

  57. Gordon Robertson says:

    Just suddenly caught on to a joke.

    Climate alarmists have been complaining about droughts in California yet 1/4 of California has a desert climate. The climate was a desert climate long before global warming was claimed to have begun circa 1850.

    There is a swath of desert climate from Oregon to the Mexican border, that extends into Arizona and New Mexico. Anyone who has watched a western on TV or in the movies is well-aware of that fact. Yet, climate alarmists are peddling the propaganda that California is having droughts related to climate change.

    https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/deserts/california_desert_conservation_area/index.html

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “Climate alarmists have been complaining about droughts in California yet 1/4 of California has a desert climate. ”

      “Drought” is not defined by how much precipitation falls, but by how much falls compared to typical conditions. A desert might have a drought if it gets 3″ of rain in a year instead of 10″. Some other area might have a drought if it gets 20″ of rain instead of 60″.

      Desserts can have droughts!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        You are being obtuse, Tim. A full 1/4 of California is desert, that’s the point. It is a desert climate because of a lack of rainfall, not because the climate has changed, as is being inferred.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “A full 1/4 of California is desert, thats the point.”

          No, that is not the point. Droughts are a SEPARATE issue from deserts. It’s true that a good chunk of CA is a desert. It could ALSO be true that those deserts are even drier than usual.

          Also, if you TRULY want to make a point about what “climate alarmists” are saying, then you ought to quote an example. Otherwise all you are doing is attacking an imagined strawman.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            And it might be also be true that Michael Mann is not really a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat, I suppose.

            SkyDragons love droughts. They can be absolutely anything you wish them to be. For example,
            according to the wondrous Wikipedia, drought “is defined as drier than normal conditions.”

            Well, that’s certainly useful, isn’t it? Not!

            Go on, Tim, tell me that “normal” is anything you feel like – don’t be specific, of course. What’s “normal”? Yesterday, last week/month/year/decade/century . . .?

            Or maybe you prefer some wish-washy SkyDragon explanation – “Because drought cannot be viewed solely as a physical phenomenon, it is usually defined both conceptually and operationally.” – from a paper titled “Climate change and California drought in the 21st century”, which had the above-mentioned faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann as lead author.

            Worth a read, if wry amusement is your goal.

            I know you aren’t prepared to specifically state that CO2 causes drought, and you won’t specifically state that it doesn’t either. How about a specific claim that you are not prepared to specifically claim that CO2 either does, or does not, cause drought?

            No? Didn’t think so.

            Pardon my laughter at SkyDragon wriggling, jiggling, and generally trying to avoid being pinned down on anything relating to the mythical GHE at all!

      • Swenson says:

        Tim,

        Indeed. You can’t even define a drought, much less the climate of California – or anywhere else, can you?

        No wonder SkyDragons can claim droughts, floods, heat waves, cold snaps, earthquakes and pretty well every malady affecting humankind can be blamed on people like myself – who point out that climate is the average of historical weather observations, and unpredictable any more usefully than I can do. Who can prove you wrong, if you never actually define vwhat you mean?

        Off you go, Tim. Investigate why four and a half billion years or so of a cooling Earth suddenly reversed course (it didn’t) and started heating said Earth.

        Only joking – you are simply delusional. You might as well try and perform another magic trick in your imagination – using Tim physics, impossible objects, and an infinite supply of imaginary heaters.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          I don’t need to define drought. The AMS already has. And conveniently, it agrees with me!

          “A period of abnormally dry weather sufficiently long enough to cause a serious hydrological imbalance.

          Drought is a relative term, therefore any discussion in terms of precipitation deficit must refer to the particular precipitation-related activity that is under discussion. For example, there may be a shortage of precipitation during the growing season resulting in crop damage (agricultural drought), or during the winter runoff and percolation season affecting water supplies (hydrological drought).”

          • Clint R says:

            Since Folkerts seeks to pervert reality, he always resorts to semantics and definitions to cover for his incompetence.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            You don’t agree with the fake, fraudster, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann’s view then?

            “Because drought cannot be viewed solely as a physical phenomenon, it is usually defined both conceptually and operationally.”

            Your AMS definition is just silly. Abnormally dry weather? According to who? Sufficiently long? Serious hydrological imbalance? How serious? Maybe the nitwit who wrote that is suffering from a serious mental imbalance, and employed by a government to write vague nonsense for gullible dills like you.

            You’ll notice that like you, he doesn’t specifically state anything at all! A masterpiece of CYA!

  58. Swenson says:

    Peabrain Nate now claims that the GHE (apparently now just another word for insulation) heats and cools the Earth simultaneously.

    He wrote, in response to my question “Do you still believe that the GHE (insulation your word) can raise the temperature of the Earth?” –

    “Yes, and unlike Clint, my rationale has been very clearly explained here: ” [provides irrelevant link, as per SkyDragon SOP]

    Nate the Nitwit may have forgotten that he has repeatedly belaboured the point that insulation does not prevent a body from cooling – in the case of the Earth, history of some four and a half billion years or so shows that he has discovered what any rational person already knows – nothing at all prevented a hot object like the Earth from cooling to its present temperature!

    Oh well, denying reality, the peabrain also claims that the Earth has heated, due to the same process which cooled it! Of course, he can’t actually say when or why this miracle occurred, or, if the Earth has heated up since said miracle, by how much, and what allowed the Earth to cool below its present supposedly warmed-up temperature prior to the miracle occurring!

    The idiot SkyDragon, Nate, has resorted to the “magic insulation” ploy – one which heats by allowing less energy to pass in one direction through an insulator. He can’t actually back up his fantasy with experimental support – because there is none! He is such an idiot that he cannot even explain why four and a half billion years or so of his nonsensical “rationale” for supposed CO2 heating, has actually resulted in the Earth’s surface cooling by several thousand Kelvins.

    Maybe he’ll claim he’s being persecuted – like some of the other delusional SkyDragons, PhDs and all!

    • Nate says:

      “Oh well, denying reality, the peabrain also claims that the Earth has heated, due to the same process which cooled it!”

      You just can’t win with honest debate, so here again you invent things I never said!

      I never said the GHE cooled the Earth, loser-troll.

      I said the Earth has warmed in the last century, and you keep denying this actually relevant fact, while repeating irrelevant facts hundreds of times.

      ” nothing at all prevented a hot object like the Earth from cooling to its present temperature!”

      Yes please tell us any other things not relevant to the current discussion, maybe your favorite movie, actor, actress, beer. Then repeat a few hundred times!

      • Swenson says:

        Peabrain Nate now claims that the GHE (apparently now just another word for insulation) heats and cools the Earth simultaneously.

        He wrote, in response to my question Do you still believe that the GHE (insulation your word) can raise the temperature of the Earth?

        Yes, and unlike Clint, my rationale has been very clearly explained here: [provides irrelevant link, as per SkyDragon SOP]

        Nate the Nitwit may have forgotten that he has repeatedly belaboured the point that insulation does not prevent a body from cooling in the case of the Earth, history of some four and a half billion years or so shows that he has discovered what any rational person already knows nothing at all prevented a hot object like the Earth from cooling to its present temperature!

        Oh well, denying reality, the peabrain also claims that the Earth has heated, due to the same process which cooled it! Of course, he cant actually say when or why this miracle occurred, or, if the Earth has heated up since said miracle, by how much, and what allowed the Earth to cool below its present supposedly warmed-up temperature prior to the miracle occurring!

        The idiot SkyDragon, Nate, has resorted to the magic insulation ploy one which heats by allowing less energy to pass in one direction through an insulator. He cant actually back up his fantasy with experimental support because there is none! He is such an idiot that he cannot even explain why four and a half billion years or so of his nonsensical rationale for supposed CO2 heating, has actually resulted in the Earths surface cooling by several thousand Kelvins.

        Maybe hell claim hes being persecuted like some of the other delusional SkyDragons, PhDs and all!

  59. Eben says:

    How about some science and fizzix for a change
    Zharkova on celestial mechanics changing the distance from the sun and total irradiance.
    The previous lecture on this was cut off due to time restraint

    https://youtu.be/LYOMKLDbeYE

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      Thanks!
      Valentina Zharkova: “in the next 30 years global warming will be the last thing we think about.”

  60. Swenson says:

    Oh dear, the idiot bobdroege is at it again.

    Full comment –

    “Swenson,

    I did recently give you a description of the greenhouse effect.

    So you are lying.

    I dont know what your problem is, maybe you dont think there is a greenhouse in the Earths atmosphere.

    The Earths atmosphere does indeed restrict the cooling of the Earth, similar to a greenhouse, but different.

    And by the way, it wouldnt take 4 1/2 billion years for the Earth to cool down to its current temperature from a molten state.

    So you are a bit addled in the head, cause it stopped cooling from that not so initial molten state, a long time ago.”

    Well.

    He can’t actually produce his description, as it only exists in his foetid imagination.

    bob believes I have a “problem” because I “don’t think there is a greenhouse in the Earth’s atmosphere”. Where else would one build a greenhouse? Underwater, perhaps? No problem to me.

    Similar to a greenhouse but different? OK bob, that clears it up, doesn’t it? Is your mythical explanation of the greenhouse effect also similar to an explanation, but different, perhaps?

    bob also claims it wouldn’t take four and a half billion years to cool down to its present temperature from the molten state – and yet it has, regardless of bob’s amazement that the Earth has cooled!

    bob seems convinced that the Earth stopped cooling a long time ago, and that its initial state was a “not so [] molten”. bob rewrites physics, and has convinced himself that the 99% glowing hot interior of the Earth is not losing heat through the now solid crust – cooling, in other words.

    bob is so delusional he doesn’t know the difference between fact and fantasy – just like any SkyDragon.

    • bobdroege says:

      Oh dear, Swenson exposes his delusions to the world.

      He claims I never provided a description of the greenhouse effect.

      I have done so, so Swenson keeps lying. Not a good habit.

      Further claims

      “bob also claims it wouldnt take four and a half billion years to cool down to its present temperature from the molten state and yet it has, regardless of bobs amazement that the Earth has cooled!”

      Yes, and it has warmed and cooled over various time frames since, have you ever heard of ice age cycles?

      You know the Earth has warmed since the last glaciation, you know sheets of ice as far south as the plains of Illinois?

      Maybe not, you are too stupid for school.

      You know moron, you tell if something is cooling or not by measuring its temperature and see if it is changing.

      Right now, the Earth’s surface on average is warming, see the monthly graph posted by our good Dr. Roy Spencer.

      • Clint R says:

        bob, everyone agrees that CO2 absorbs IR. The mistake your cult makes is then assuming CO2 can warm the surface — “…some of which reaches the surface causing the surface to be warmer.”

        That ain’t how it works.

        The 15μ photon from CO2 has less energy than the photon from the peak emission from ice. You’re trying to warm Earth with something “colder” than ice. This has been explained to your cult numerous times, but none are able to learn. You’ll respond with nonsense like “a CO2 laser can melt steel”. That only further indicates your ignorance of physics. A CO2 is an engineered device requiring external power. Nothing like that exists in nature.

        Now that your effort has been completely nullified, you can go into your usual juvenile profanity rant.

        • Clint R says:

          Should be: A CO2 laser is an engineered device requiring external power.

        • bobdroege says:

          Clint R,

          The part you don’t get is that the peak emission temperature has nothing to do with the absorbing of the 15u photon at the surface.

          You want a juvenile profanity rant?

          Here you go.

          You fucking moron, photons don’t have a fucking temperature, photons don’t carry the information related to the fucking temperature of their fucking source.

          A fucking CO2 laser emits the same photons that fucking exist in nature, and those photons don’t know they came from a powered fucking source, they just melt steel.

          You are too stupid for fucking school.

          Does that make your fucking skirt ride up?

          • Clint R says:

            Can I predict bob, or what?

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            It’s not a prediction if you get something you asked for.

          • Swenson says:

            Well done, bobdroege!

            You were so busy writing “fucking”, that you forgot to mention that LASER is an acronym for “light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation”, which converts electrical power into coherent light.

            Turn the power to the device off, and it “cuts” nothing.

            About as silly as claiming that the radiation naturally emitted by a body at around 0.02 K can boil water. After all, those wavelengths are emitted in microwave ovens, and you can boil water in a microwave oven!

            Maybe you should put more effort into learning physics, and less into hammering out meaningless profanities. Up to you of course. You might even learn that the Earth has not, as you claim, magically heated and cooled over the eons.

            Even if it had, you would be admitting that AGW due to the GHE is nonsensical, no humans at all being involved. You would be justified in calling anybody who believes in man-made CO2 having miraculous heating powers a “fucking moron”.

            Of course, SkyDragons are only tangentially connected to reality, so they might just ignore you.

            You don’t seem to be achieving much, do you?

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            You are having a field day misrepresenting what I have posted.

            “You might even learn that the Earth has not, as you claim, magically heated and cooled over the eons.”

            10,000 dollars cash to you if you can prove I ever claimed that.

          • Swenson says:

            blundering bob,

            You wrote –

            “10,000 dollars cash to you if you can prove I ever claimed that.”

            A million dollars cash to you if you can prove you never claimed that!

            I win.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            Do you know you can’t prove a negative, I’m afraid you lose.

          • Swenson says:

            bumbling bob,

            Of course. You can’t prove you are not a blundering buffoon, can you?

            I win again.

        • bobdroege says:

          Clint R,

          Go back to school and learn the difference between these two statements

          1) The mistake your cult makes is then assuming CO2 can warm the surface

          2)some of which reaches the surface causing the surface to be warmer.

          I didn’t say the CO2 can warm the surface, I said something different.

          Perhaps you could figure out the difference, but no, you are too stupid for school.

          • Clint R says:

            Braindead bob now backs away from his own words:

            “and the subsequent emission of radiation, some of which reaches the surface causing the surface to be warmer.”

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            Nope not backing away, I fully support that statement, but it means something other than warms the surface.

            A point your thimble sized brain can’t seem to fathom, because you are not too deep. r

          • Swenson says:

            Bumbling bobdroege –

            You didn’t really write –

            ” . . . and the subsequent emission of radiation, some of which reaches the surface causing the surface to be warmer.” did you? And then write –

            “Nope not backing away, I fully support that statement, but it means something other than warms the surface.

            Gee, bumbler – “causing the surface to be warmer” doesn’t mean “warms the surface.” It means something other than that, does it?

            It means you are totally confused, I guess.

            What about –

            “I didnt say the CO2 can warm the surface, I said something different.”?

            And of course you aren’t going to say what you said, are you? I don’t blame you – you wouldn’t want others to see that you are even more stupid and ignorant than you look at times.

            Time to hammer out some more foul language? Do you think that will make people appreciate how intelligent you are?

            Questions, questions, bumbling bob. Have you any cogent answers?

          • bobdroege says:

            Moron Swenson, can you fucking read?

            “And of course you arent going to say what you said, are you? I dont blame you you wouldnt want others to see that you are even more stupid and ignorant than you look at times.”

            I said it right there in my post.

            And you actually quoted me when I said it, doesn’t that make you look stupid.

            Got any comments on my post where I described the greenhouse effect for you?

            Didn’t think so.

            The scientific concepts are above your paygrade.

          • Swenson says:

            Buffoon bob,

            You wrote –

            “I said it right there in my post.

            And you actually quoted me when I said it, doesnt that make you look stupid.

            Got any comments on my post where I described the greenhouse effect for you?”

            More unsubstantiated claims? Who would value the utterings of a foul-mouthed buffoon like you?

            Keep the obfuscation and avoidance going – you can’t even figure out which GHE you are fantasising about. Was that the one which allowed the Earth to cool, the one that heated the Earth up, allowed it to cool, heated it up . . ., or the one that supposedly started a century or so ago?

            All very confusing.

            Maybe you should go back to fantasising about saving the earth with your mighty fleet of submarines. The reality wasn’t quite as kind to you, was it? I suppose that’s a bit of a low blow, but judging from your language, it’s the only sort you know.

            Carry on being a fool.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            You do understand that there are more things than the greenhouse effect that affect whether the average surface temperature of the Earth is increasing or decreasing, don’t you?

            Maybe not.

            A foul mouthed buffoon can describe something as well as an insulting scientifically ignorant person, you know.

            I respond to insults with vulgarity, or haven’t you the brains to figure that out?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bob…”I respond to insults with vulgarity, or havent you the brains to figure that out?”

            ***

            Bob, I swear with the best of them and I can utter a blue streak of profanities. I swear at myself, for cripes sake. I don’t on Roy’s site out of respect. Roy is a professional with religious beliefs and we are guests on his site.

            Can you try counting to 10 before posting with an extreme vulgarity in it? Countless times I have edited out an insult, never mind a major vulgarity.

            In real life, I have even stopped responding to insults with vulgarity unless the vulgarity is offered in lieu of a physical threat. If I detect a person is threatening me physically, then it’s another matter. The game is on and I not only like to play those games with a dolt, I am trained to do them well.

            We’re not on the streets here and there is no physical threat to you. So, you are defending your image, a total non-entity.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            I do believe you are a “but kissing” liar.

            Police your self.

            And it’s simple, if I get no insults, I give no profanity.

            It’s up to you and your team.

          • bobdroege says:

            Oh and this Gordon,

            “So, you are defending your image, a total non-entity.”

            No I am not, I am just wrestling with pigs.

          • Swenson says:

            blathering bob,

            You wrote –

            “And its simple, if I get no insults, I give no profanity.”

            Who cares if you choose to feel “insulted”?

            Not my problem if you cannot control your “feelings”. Feel free to keep on behaving like a bumbling SkyDragon, totally lacking in self control.

            Off you go, then. You can always choose to feel “offended”, if you find that feeling “insulted” only generates sniggers at your lack of backbone.

          • Swenson says:

            bumbling bob,

            You wrote –

            “No I am not, I am just wrestling with pigs.”

            That would be appropriate for a bumbling buffoon with your level of intelligence. Do you get sick of the pigs winning?

            Maybe you could consider wrestling a box of hair – might level the playing field for you.

            Let me know how you go.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            Your command of the English language is commendable.

            “Who cares if you choose to feel insulted?

            Not my problem if you cannot control your feelings. Feel free to keep on behaving like a bumbling SkyDragon, totally lacking in self control.

            Off you go, then. You can always choose to feel offended, if you find that feeling insulted only generates sniggers at your lack of backbone.”

            I didn’t say anything about my feelings.

            Did I say I felt offended.

            You will have to do better if you want be to feel offended or insulted.

            Not working so far.

  61. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The graphic shows that the low from the Atlantic reaches over Svalbard, almost to the pole. This means that the polar vortex is broken up. Real winter is approaching Poland. Europe get ready for the east wind.
    https://i.ibb.co/TMKsR41/pobrane.png

  62. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Another wave of Arctic air is moving toward the Great Lakes.
    https://i.ibb.co/DGMym2g/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-29-105403.png

  63. Swenson says:

    Earlier, Tim Folkerts implied that light emitted by ice could not be concentrated.

    He certainly wouldn’t like this, then “Two-Mirror Compact System for Ideal Concentration of Diffuse Light” – Journal of the Optical,Society of America.

    Tim will probably whine that he didn’t specifically state that radiation from ice could not be concentrated, but Tim is averse to specifically stating anything at all.

    Unfortunately, he has slipped up, and wrote –

    “3. I am fine with your distinction between “insulating effect” and “heating effect”. But both are “warming effects” on the surface, which is all we really care about for the GHE. The surface is warmer with IR active gases in the atmosphere than without.” – which is complete nonsense.

    NASA actually agrees with Professor John Tyndall’s estimate that about 30% of the Suns rays don’t reach the surface. Raymond Pierrehumbert calls CO2 “just planetary insulation”, and assigns its insulating ability to be equivalent to one seventh of an inch of polystyrene (no, I don’t know either – that’s climatologyspeak for something undefined).

    Tim states that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer increases its temperature!

    Quite apart from the ridiculousness of Tim’s fantasy, four and a half billion years of the Earth’s atmospheric insulation has resulted in the surface cooling, rather than heating.

    Cue Tim, rejecting reality, and claiming that the Earth really “should have warmed”, according to Tim’s bizarre “thought experiments”.

    Oh dear, he really is a silly SkyDragon sausage, isn’t he?

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      The second sentence of that paper reads “Ideal concentration is limited to the thermodynamic limit, which arises from the
      conservation of optical brightness”. If you understood that sentence, you would know that there are limits to the concentration of diffuse light. If you truly understood that sentence, you would know that the limit for a source like 300 W/m^2 from ice is also 300 W/m^2 for the concentrated light.

      • Clint R says:

        Folkerts, you forgot to mention your nonsense that two fluxes would simply add. As with your values here, 300 W/m^2 would simply add to another 300 W/m^2 to be 600 W/m^2.

        If you understood radiative physics and thermodynamics you would know how wrong that is.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          No, Clint. This is YOUR misunderstanding. [For the following, assume all the ice is close to 0 C and is emitting 300 W/m^2.]

          Two IRRADIANCES simply add. So a surface that receives a diffuse flux of 100 W/m^2 from some ice and also receives a separate diffuse flux of 100 W/m^2 from other ice does indeed receive a total of 100 + 100 = 200 W/m^2 onto that surface. The paper is discussing efficient ways to arrange mirrors to do exactly this.

          Two EMITTANCES do not add. 300 W/m^2 leaving one one ice surface and 300 W/m^2 leaving from a different ice surface cannot be added to produce 600 W/m^2 leaving from a single surface. (Nor can it be added to produce 600 W/m^2 arriving at another surface.)

          Both of these statements should be non-controversial and pretty trivial. Yet you and Swenson find two DIFFERENT ways to get it wrong.

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts, you ALWAYS try to twist the situation. EMITTANCES have NOTHING to do with your claim. You claimed that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING the same surface would result in 630 W/m^2, which would cause the surface to be at 325K.

            Your same “thinking” would lead to ice cubes boiling water.

            You can’t learn that is wrong, so you just keep twisting.

            (Found a job yet?)

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “You claimed that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING the same surface would result in 630 W/m^2, which would cause the surface to be at 325K.”
            Yes, that is exactly what I claim.

            “Your same ‘thinking’ would lead to ice cubes boiling water.”
            It’s not me that can’t learn, but you! That is not ‘the same thinking’ at all!

            Maybe this will start to clarify your understanding of the situation. Suppose we have a flat 1m x 1m sheet of ice emitting 315 W/m^2. Where could we place a flat 1m x 1m surface so that there is a 315 W/m^2 flux ARRIVING at the entire surface?

            Once you figure out that, you should be able to understand why there cannot be two separate 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING at the surface from ice.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            You wrote –

            “Maybe this will start to clarify your understanding of the situation. Suppose we have a flat 1m x 1m sheet of ice emitting 315 W/m^2. Where could we place a flat 1m x 1m surface so that there is a 315 W/m^2 flux ARRIVING at the entire surface?

            Suppose you place another similar imaginary piece of ice very close to your first imaginary piece of ice? After all, that’s precisely the sort of silliness Willis Eschenbach does with his imaginary “steel greenhouse”, and people like you and others of the “green plate/blue plate” persuasion just add “fluxes” to magically create energy where none actually exist!

            You are one of those delusional people who believes their fantasies reflect reality.

            I’ll stick with Feynman –

            “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.”

            Experiment – not imaginary nonsense.

            There is no AGW due to a GHE. You specifically stated that the insulating effect of the atmosphere makes the surface warmer. You are a delusional idiot. Reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer does not make it hotter, and no amount of imaginary scenarios will change reality one bit.

            Carry on demonstrating your delusional SkyDragon beliefs.

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts, as you back away from your own nonsense, remember that it was you that came up with two equal fluxes arriving at the same surface.

            Your incompetence fits well with your poor memory….

          • Nate says:

            “Once you figure out that, you should be able to understand why there cannot be two separate 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING at the surface from ice.”

            Well put. Very logical, very straightforward.

            And Clint has no answer for it.

            So he must again ignore it in order to continue making his erroneous claims that he can never ever back up with sound arguments.

          • Clint R says:

            Nate, your level of incompetence is mind-boggling. That’s probably why you don’t have a meaningful job and have the time to troll here all day.

            You and Folkerts don’t even have the ability to understand that more than one flux can be directed at a surface. You idiots continue to amaze me with your ignorance.

            That’s why this is so much fun.

          • Nate says:

            “You and Folkerts dont even have the ability to understand that more than one flux can be directed at a surface. ”

            You keep missing the point. On purpose? Why?

            He asked “Where could we place a flat 1m x 1m surface so that there is a 315 W/m^2 flux ARRIVING at the entire surface?”

            You did not answer.

            His point is that flux emitted from a sheet of ice falls off with distance from the surface. Only a large sheet of ice held very close to a surface will produce 315 W/m^2 at the surface.

            “Once you figure out that, you should be able to understand why there cannot be two separate 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING at the surface from ice.”

            Apparently not.

            The first large sheet of ice held close to the surface will BLOCK the view from that surface of any OTHER sheet of ice.

            That is what view factor (VF) is all about.

            You will never get two 315 W/m^2 fluxes from two sheets of ice striking the same surface.

            It aint possible.

          • Clint R says:

            Nate, Folkerts started this nonsense, you tagged along, so I have to finish it.

            Folkerts used the example of two fluxes arriving the same surface, and now he uses his own example to deny his own nonsense — blatant incompetence! Yet, you’re on your knees worshipping him! That’s why this is so much fun.

            Now, here’s the deal. Agree to not comment here for 90 days, and I will show you how more than one flux can arrive at a surface.

            Take the offer. Prove that you want to learn, rather than being an anonymous troll.

          • Nate says:

            “I will show you how more than one flux can arrive at a surface.”

            No one denied any such a thing, dimwit!

            What he showed is that TWO fluxes of 315 W/m^2 emitted by ice cannot arrive at the same point on a surface.

            There is no point to keep discussing ice if you cannot comprehend this basic geometrical fact.

          • Clint R says:

            Well Nate, that leaves you just another anonymous troll, uninterested in learning.

            Not a surprise….

          • Nate says:

            “uninterested in learning.”

            Empty rhetoric. What have you explained for anyone to learn? Nothing.

            We have clearly explained our reasoning. You have not. Everyone can can see that.

            What are you afraid of?

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Nate, when you have to make things up, and then have to deny your own inventions, that means you’ve got NOTHING.

            You haven’t learned that yet because you can’t learn. You’re braindead.

          • Nate says:

            What have I made up?

          • Nate says:

            Is this simple geometric fact made up?

            “The first large sheet of ice held close to the surface will BLOCK the view from that surface of any OTHER sheet of ice.”

            Do you deny it?
            .

          • Clint R says:

            That’s what you’ve made up, troll Nate. You’ve made up a whole new scenario to cover up for Folkerts’ bogus claim.

          • Swenson says:

            Clint,

            The donkeys don’t like the fact that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature. A glowing blob, with a very thin solidified crust floating on the glowing insides.

            According to the SkyDragon cultists, it “should have” warmed up (become even hotter), but of course it cooled instead.

            So sad, too bad.

            Ah well, the brilliant physicist Lord Kelvin went to his deathbed believing he had “proved” that the Earth could not possibly be more than 40 million years old.

            The SkyDragons seem convinced that the fake “climate scientist” Gavin Schmidt, and the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann are far smarter than Lord Kelvin, and couldn’t possibly be wrong, and have “proved” that the Earth hasn’t really cooled – it has heated!

            Denial of reality, or what?

          • Nate says:

            “Thats what youve made up, troll Nate. Youve made up a whole new scenario to cover up for Folkerts bogus claim.”

            You brought up ice. You keep bringing up the ice, saying things like two sheets of ice can’t boil water.

            We show you what two sheets of ice cannot do, and why that is a strawman, and suddenly you dont want to talk about ice!

            You keep losing on the facts, so you need to blame others as you try to do here.

          • Clint R says:

            You’re making up stuff again, Nate — “You keep bringing up the ice, saying things like two sheets of ice can’t boil water.”

            I NEVER said anything close to that troll Nate.

          • Nate says:

            “Nate ‘You keep bringing up the ice, saying things like two sheets of ice cant boil water.’

            I NEVER said anything close to that troll Nate.”

            You said this:

            “Folkerts, you ALWAYS try to twist the situation. EMITTANCES have NOTHING to do with your claim. You claimed that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING the same surface would result in 630 W/m^2, which would cause the surface to be at 325K.

            Your same ‘thinking’ would lead to ice cubes boiling water.”

            This is YOU clearly doubting that “two fluxes of 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING the same surface would result in 630 W/m^2”. IOW you are doubting that arriving fluxes can be summed.

            Your ‘evidence’ is that if arriving fluxes can be summed THEN the fluxes from ICE can be summed and used to boil water.

            But our point we have been making is that this so-called evidence against fluxes summing is a STRAWMAN.

            Since it is a geometrical fact that the flux from multiple pieces of ice will NEVER produce a sum of more than 315 W/m^2 arriving at a surface.

            This is the point that you keep trying to evade. Your complaints about what ice cannot do, are NOT EVIDENCE that fluxes cannot be summed.

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Nate, you’re going in circles.

            * Folkerts claimed fluxes could simply add.
            * I said he was perverting physics and asked for a valid reference for his claims. He provided NOTHING.
            * You now claim that the fluxes cannot be imposed simultaneously on a surface.
            * I offered to teach you how fluxes could be imposed simultaneously.
            * You refused my offer.
            * Now, you’re back claiming fluxes simply add!

            If you weren’t a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll, you might see that you’ve got NOTHING.

            Like the other trolls, I have to cut you off until you’ve got something close to reality.

            Happy braindead trolling.

          • Nate says:

            ” You now claim that the fluxes cannot be imposed simultaneously on a surface.”

            False. Quote me saying that.

            Fluxes from multiple distant sources like the sun or light bulbs, do not block out other such sources, and their fluxes arriving simultaneously at the same surface will be SUMMED.

            I was specifically talking about why view factors prevent the ARRIVING flux from ever summing to higher than the MAXIMUM EMITTED flux from ice, or any source.

            Thus 315 W/m^2 is the maximum flux emitted by ice, and the maxiumum flux that it can shine onto another surface. If it is shining the maximum onto a surface, then it is completely COVERING that surface, and will be completely blocking that surface from view of any other ice.

            Are you saying you do not understand this basic geometric limitation??

      • Swenson says:

        Tim Folkerts,

        “If you understood that sentence, you would know that there are limits to the concentration of diffuse light. If you truly understood that sentence, you would know that the limit for a source like 300 W/m^2 from ice is also 300 W/m^2 for the concentrated light”

        No, you idiot.

        You will notice that the paper doesn’t mention your stupid W/m2 for good reason – it’s irrelevant and nonsensical.

        The thermodynamic limit is the temperature of the source. Nothing to do with W/m2 (which you wouldnt know how to measure, anyway, because you lack knowledge of such things).

        You obviously understand little to nothing about optics. Light is light – from the longest radio waves, to the shortest gamma rays. The same physical laws apply – no special exemption for your SkyDragon fantasy scenarios.

        The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, to its present temperature, whether you think it should have done so or not.

        Nature seems to value your opinions not at all, just like some others, no doubt.

        • Nate says:

          “You obviously understand little to nothing about optics. Light is light”

          Tee hee hee..

          Hilarious how Swenson attempts to man-splain about light to a PhD physicist.

          • Bindidon says:

            A propos PhD…

            Did you ever watch at WUWT the incredible replies to the comments of the mathy physicist Dr Nick Stokes?

            It’s sometimes beyond the imaginable, especially when journalist Monckton, the Thrd Viscount of Brenchley, tried years ago to explain him what is feedback!

          • Swenson says:

            Numbskull Nate,

            Bizarre appeal to authority. I suppose you believe that everything that the fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann imagines is true, because he has a PhD!

            Maybe you could could confirm that you believe everything Tim Folkerts thinks is fact?

            No? I didnt think so. Just another cowardly SkyDragon cultist, who can’t even define the mythical GHE.

            Off you go now, nitwit. Feel free to ask anyone with a PhD to describe the GHE.

            Or ask the bumbling buffoon bobdroege – he claims he’s described it, or explained it, or imagined it somewhere, at some time, but the dog ate it, and then Big Oil deleted all his hard work from the internet – stealing his intellectual property. So sad.

            If you believe Tim Folkerts knows what he is talking about, you probably believe that bobdroege is a genius!

          • Nate says:

            “Bizarre appeal to authority.”

            Nope, not at all.

            Simply pointing out that you are mansplaining.

            “explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer” “often applied when a man takes a condescending tone in an explanation to anyone”

            You have demonstrated often that you are very ignorant of physics, confusing reflection, transparency, opaque, abso*rbtion, conductors and insulators.

            So it is quite hilarious to see you ‘explaining’ optics to Tim, who not only has a PhD in a physics, but also has demonstrated, quite often here, that when it comes to physics he knows what he is talking about.

          • Swenson says:

            Numbskull Nate,

            Bizarre appeal to authority. I suppose you believe that everything that the fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann imagines is true, because he has a PhD!

            Maybe you could could confirm that you believe everything Tim Folkerts thinks is fact?

            No? I didnt think so. Just another cowardly SkyDragon cultist, who cant even define the mythical GHE.

            Off you go now, nitwit. Feel free to ask anyone with a PhD to describe the GHE.

            Or ask the bumbling buffoon bobdroege he claims hes described it, or explained it, or imagined it somewhere, at some time, but the dog ate it, and then Big Oil deleted all his hard work from the internet stealing his intellectual property. So sad.

            If you believe Tim Folkerts knows what he is talking about, you probably believe that bobdroege is a genius!

          • Nate says:

            “Maybe you could could confirm that you believe everything Tim Folkerts thinks is fact?”

            Physics is my field. I can recognize correct physics.

            His is correct.

            Yours is not correct. In fact, its mostly made up nonsense.

            Yet you, an ignoramus when it comes to physics, and science in general, try to mansplain physics to a physicist.

            I think that is hilarious.

            But it is typical for you, our chief troll.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      The denser the atmospheric layer, the more it captures direct solar radiation. This can be perfectly seen on Venus. About 50% of solar radiation directly reaches the Earth’s surface , because the Earth’s troposphere is very thin. With the temperature difference, some of the surface radiation returns to the atmosphere (especially at night). The chemical composition of the troposphere is of little importance, the most important thing is the density, which corresponds to an atmospheric pressure of well over 100 hPa.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      The troposphere is actually formed by a mean vertical temperature gradient that appears only in a sufficiently dense atmosphere.
      https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      swenson…from Tim…”The surface is warmer with IR active gases in the atmosphere than without.

      [Swenson] “…which is complete nonsense”.

      ***

      It’s nonsense because no one has ever proved it. Based on reviewing hundreds of papers on the subject, the IPCC can still not offer scientific proof that trace gases in the atmosphere are causing warming.

      The IPCC goes to extremes, however, claiming it is unequivocal that humans are causing the warming. Unequivocal means ‘leaving no doubt’, yet the best the IPCC can offer for proof is…

      1)Scientists of the 19th century claimed its true.
      2)It has warmed since 1850, and humans have been emitting extra CO2 into the air since about 1750, therefore the extra CO2 is warming the atmosphere.

      Not a single mention that the Little Ice Age ended circa 1850 therefore the planet should start re-warming.

      In science, you can’t get any more stupid than offering a claim that anthropogenic warming theory is unequivocal when you base it on such pithy proof.

  64. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    This is what the polar vortex will look like in eight days.
    https://i.ibb.co/gMbCT2K/gfs-nh-vort3d-20221129-f192-rot000.png
    Another snowstorm begins over the Great Lakes.
    https://i.ibb.co/hBKpDrP/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-29-224743.png

  65. Bindidon says:

    Re.: Zharkova’s youtube communication

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

    *
    1. The first thing that struck me was that she brought back the changing distance between the Sun and the Earth, which had led to massive criticism and a retraction of her 2019 article:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3#article-comments

    I don’t have time to watch the entire video, so I don’t know if she repeated her 2019 claim ‘as is’ or suggested an alternative view that supports her claim.

    Thus: ” In dubio pro reo. ”

    Maybe some other posters took the time to verify.

    *
    2. What I’m definitely wondering about is what I saw on the video at 36:08.

    You see a chart with plots of different cycles’ increasing number of spotless days, with a text beneath:

    ” Cycle 25 (green line) shows a steeper growth of the number of spotless days than any other cycles including the ones during Dalton min (cycles 15 and 24) (blue line) ”

    *
    What about starting with a simple comparison of SC25 versus SC24?

    Processing the data contained in

    https://tinyurl.com/mr2kd8nv

    leads to the following result when comparing the two cycles from their respective begin (Dec 2008 resp. Dec 2019) till October 29 of the cycles’ respective 3rd year:

    – SLD accumulation for SC24: 325 in 1053 days
    – SLD accumulation for SC25: 256 in 1054 days (due to 2020, Feb 29)

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D4dfdqgDDrNRRyeSBPKx7CONPb1cV_sJ/view

    *
    As we can see, not only is SC25’s SLD accumulation lower than SC24’s, but it was lower from the beginning of the cycle.

    This means that in Zharkova’s chart, the blue line must contain, together with SC24’s SLDs, the SLDs of cycles showing less spotless days than SC24, by the way lowering the accumulation of the average… by a lot.

    Strange days…

    • Bindidon says:

      And I just discovered the very best in her chart:

      ” Months since 10th spotless day (SC25: Jun 2016) ”

      ?

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      Number of sunspot 25.
      https://i.ibb.co/ftf1M9D/SDO-HMIIF-1024.jpg

      • Bindidon says:

        Latest line in SILSO’s EISN indeed very low, sounds like ramping down:

        2022 11 30 2022.914 31 3.3 8 11

        Since Dec 2019, there were in SC25 271 days with less than 30 spots:

        – 106 in 2020
        – 149 in 2021
        – 14 in 2022 (11 of 12 months).

        SILSO’s daily SSN source as usual.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”The first thing that struck me was that she brought back the changing distance between the Sun and the Earth, which had led to massive criticism and a retraction of her 2019 article….

      ***

      She did not retract the article it was the idiots running the peer review process who did it. They have no business retracting anything, peer review means the article is reviewed by her PEERS, not by some jerk farming out a paper to an unknown who then decides whether the paper has validity.

      It’s not science to block a paper based on the opinion of a journal editor or a reviewer. All scientists should see the paper and the only purpose served by peer review should be to ensure a flat-Earther is not submitting papers claiming the Earth is flat.

      This sounds like a repeat of the Barry Marshall incident when he submitted a paper claiming duodenal ulcers are caused by h. pylori. The goofball editor did not even let his paper get to peer review, he decided by his own stupidity that the paper was no good. He went so far in his idiocy to claim it was one of the ten worst papers ever submitted.

      In the case of Zharkova’s paper, scientists should have been able to argue the facts she presented.

      Unlike you, I did watch the entire video and her arguments are compelling. She is not stating opinion she is stating fact based on intricate analysis. It appears we are well on our way to another solar grand minimum along the lines of the Maunder and Dalton minimums. She claims it will occur between 2020 and 2050 and we can expect cooling of about 1C globally.

      I think she’s right about a varying distance between Sun and Earth although I don’t agree with her description of varying barycentres. A barycentre is a mathematical point between two masses where the COG is found. However, the claim that the Earth and Moon rotate around that COG is bs.

      I think the same applies to the Sun and the pull on it from the planets and other space debris. The forces applied by the planets is far too weak to move the Sun but the force of solar gravity is enough to divert the planets from their linear velocity paths.

      • RLH says:

        “However, the claim that the Earth and Moon rotate around that COG is bs.”

        So you believe that Newton was wrong about gravity then.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”Cycle 25 (green line) shows a steeper growth of the number of spotless days than any other cycles including the ones during Dalton min (cycles 15 and 24) (blue line) ”

      ***

      As I recall, she had already established that the number of spotless days increased as the cycle progressed. However, there were times when they remained the same between successive cycles. So, it would not be strange if the number between cycles 25 and 26 were similar. She was comparing 26 to the Dalton minimum because those were the years when the Little Ice Age was at maximum coldness.

      She seems to be claiming that the rate at which the spots decreased were greater than in the Dalton minimum. I wonder if the rate in cycle 25 is also greater.

    • Bindidon says:

      Robertson

      You are once more the arrogant and ignorant guy who lies about everything.

      Zharkova very well retracted the paper because she HAD TO DO IT IN ORDER TO TRY TO PRESERVE HER SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY AND CREDIBILITY.

      I only posted the retraction communicated by the web site responsible for watching such events.

      If you had a bit of brain, you would look for all people having scientifically criticized Zharkova, instead of posting your usual nonsense.

      You are a poor guy who spends his days in filling this science blog with contrarian, unscientific bullshit.

      ” I think shes right about a varying distance between Sun and Earth although I dont agree with her description of varying barycentres. ”

      You, thinking? You are always guessing, Robertson.

      To think is something quite different.

      *

      ” She seems to be claiming that the rate at which the spots decreased were greater than in the Dalton minimum. ”

      Manifestly, you are so interested in posting your egomaniac stuff that you did not understand what I wrote:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D4dfdqgDDrNRRyeSBPKx7CONPb1cV_sJ/view

      *
      As we can see, not only is SC25s SLD accumulation lower than SC24s, but it was lower from the beginning of the cycle.

      This means that in Zharkova’s chart, the blue line must contain, together with SC24’s SLDs [spotless days], the SLDs of cycles showing less spotless days than SC24, by the way lowering the accumulation of the average… by a lot. ”

      Is that too difficult to grasp?

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        Binddon you are ridiculous judging Zarkova. Leave it to the nuacovians at her level.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        You are ridiculous judging Zarkov. Leave it to scientists at her level.

      • Bindidon says:

        ren

        If you had read my comment a bit more carefully, you wouldn’t have had any reason to think I judge her.

        *
        But I don’t like scientists who tell in a Youtube video that SC25 has already over 800 sunspots: this is impossible.

        And it is moreover not quite kosher: what she silently posts as ‘SC25’ in fact is the so-called ‘peak-to-peak’ spotless count, and is usually named ‘SC24/25’, which indeed has 848 spotless days.

        But of these 848, 592 belong to SC24 which has 914 in the sum!

        • Swenson says:

          Bunny,

          “But I dont like scientists who tell in a Youtube video that SC25 has already over 800 sunspots: this is impossible.”

          And you think anybody is concerned about your “likes” and “dislikes” because . . .?

  66. Swenson says:

    Bumbling bobdroege seems to have thrown his fellow SkyDragons under the bus. He wrote, after acknowledging that the Earth no longer has a molten surface, (meaning it has cooled) –

    “Yes, and it has warmed and cooled over various time frames since, have you ever heard of ice age cycles?

    You know the Earth has warmed since the last glaciation, you know sheets of ice as far south as the plains of Illinois?”

    Which begs at least a couple of questions. What caused this alleged heating? Not any GHE involving mankind, obviously. The Earth had to cool before bumbling bob could warm it up again! The GHE didn’t seem to be working too well as the Earth cooled.

    Well, bumbling bob may claim it really was the GHE (he claims to have explained it previously, but no record exists of this alleged explanation), in which case it obviously had nothing to do with mankind – a bit early, no industrial mankind about. Or he could claim warming was due to “natural causes”, of unspecified nature. Of course, SkyDragons like bumbling bob claim that these “natural causes” stopped working at about the same time that the man-made GHE which cooled the Earth, suddenly decided to heat the Earth again!

    Maybe there are two GHEs? The one that cools, and the one that heats. Or three – another man-made one which has only operated over the last century or so. The others were worn out fighting, and went to have a rest!

    Another question for bumbling bob would be – did the glowing hot core also heat up and cool down along with the surface, or did different physical laws apply at the time?

    bobdroege is obviously ignorant, as well as being mentally defective.

    The Earth continues to cool – losing energy at a rate of about 44 Terajoules per second. The sour Kraut doesn’t believe a Watt is a joule per second, so I won’t say 44 TW. This time. By the way, four and a half billion years or so of sunlight didn’t stop the Earth cooling then, and it doesn’t now.

    No global warming due to CO2. Just some hotter thermometers responding to man-made heat.

  67. Gordon Robertson says:

    I plan to write to the Canadian government asking why we are currently experiencing the coldest November since the 1970s. They have hysterically subscribed to the IPCC global warming meme and moved beyond it into declaring the climate has officially changed to a catastrophic mode.

    I want to know why temperatures are a lot colder than expected, considering pundits predicted the North Pole would be free of ice by now.

    I expect one of two replies…

    1)a null response (aka no reply).

    2)Some alarmist twinkie to reply, pointing out that anthropogenic warming theory predicted it. How that is possible, I don’t know, but it’s what I expect.

  68. Swenson says:

    More from bumbling bob –

    “Swenson,

    Again, how can you be so stupid to post such drivel as this?

    The force of gravity acts towards the center of the Earth.

    You might want to google Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation and the experiments used to determine G the gravitational constant.”

    OK, bumbling bob is playing silly semantic games. I should have realised that bob thinks that the oceans are stuck to the Earth by SkyDragon magic glue.

    Here’s Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation –

    “Newton’s law of universal gravitation is usually stated as that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.”

    If bumbling bob believes that this makes ocean water flow from the North Pole towards the South Pole, good for him! NOAA says it, bob the bumbler believes it.

    So no, I am not particularly interested in doing anything that bumbling bob suggests. Why dance to the discordant jangling of an idiot like bumbling bob?

    Would you?

    • bobdroege says:

      Swenson,

      Go ahead and continue your silly internet games and win silly prizes.

      You might look back at what I posted and didn’t post to see what I have said about the flow of seawater.

      So then you can stop looking like a moron.

      • Swenson says:

        bob the buffoon continues on his bumbling way.

        Adopting the finest SkyDragon cult tactics, the buffoon dons his cloak of obscurity and obfuscation.

        Buffoon bob has decided he doesn’t know which GHE he understands least (the one that cooled the Earth, the one that heated and then cooled the Earth, or the one that didn’t exist until a century or so ago, and which heats the Earth, except when it has paused, or is cooling.

        So bumbling bob tries to get me to look at things he didn’t say, and doesn’t have, thinking that makes him look intelligent. My opinion is that bob is a bumbling buffoon, who keeps putting his foot in his mouth, and then shooting himself in the foot!

        Bob seems to be following the dimwitted example of not “specifically claiming anything at all”, adopted by the imaginative fantasist, Tim Folkerts. A cunning ploy – who could possibly disprove anything that doesn’t exist?

        For example, bumbling bob says he has explained the GHE to me on many occasions. Unfortunately, he thinks he can transmit information by means of mental telepathy. Sorry, bob, the fellow who took your money for teaching you mental telepathy saw you coming. Don’t blame me, now that you can’t find a copy of your explanation anywhere except in your imagination.

        A sample of bob’s clever repartee –

        “Go ahead and continue your silly internet games and win silly prizes.”

        Oh well, at least bumbling bob acknowledges that I am a winner. Can’t really complain about that, can I?

        • bobdroege says:

          Anyone can plainly see that I posted a description of the greenhouse effect for Swenson’s amusement.

          Radiatively active gases in the atmosphere makes the surface thermometers read moar hotter moar better.

          • Clint R says:

            Anyone can plainly see that you’re “science” is as deficient as is your spelling.

            All because you’re so braindead, bob.

          • Clint R says:

            …your “science”…

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            It wasn’t for your amusement.

            Now, where did you study science?

            I’d like to rule those out in case my daughter changes her mind and decides to study science.

          • Swenson says:

            bumbling bob wrote –

            Anybody can plainly see that you still haven’t transferred your imaginary description of the GHE (whether it be the GHE that cools, the GHE that heats, or the GHE which does both, either, or neither at the SkyDragon cultists’ demand.

            Lest I be accused of talking in riddles, I refer to the Earth cooling from the molten state, then the bizarre assertion the the GHE has subsequently warmed and cooled the Earth many times since its initial cooling, and finally warmed (or paused, or cooled) the Earth dice to man-made CO2, H2O, and all the rest of the imaginary “greenhouse gases”.

            Bleating bumbling bob, the buffoon, simply repeats his claim that he has a description of the indescribable GHE, no doubt stored away with Trenberth’s missing heat, Gavin Schmidts climate science degree, or Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize!

            Poor old bob. Firmly convinced reducing the amount of sunlight reaching a thermometer, makes it “moar hotter moar better.” The bumbler thinks that using infantile mutilation of the English language will show people how wonderfully intelligent he is!

            It does.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            It wasn’t to make people think I am intelligent, it was to make fun of your repeated demands for a description of the greenhouse effect, which has been provided over and over.

            You are funny, and not the ha ha kind.

            Not too bright are you?

          • Swenson says:

            bumbling bob,

            Go on then – a million dollars cash if you can prove you have provided me with a description of the greenhouse effect.

            Unsubstantiated claims by blundering buffoons are not proof.

            [laughing at dimwitted SkyDragon]

          • Swenson says:

            bumbling bob,

            Others might be interested to see why you didn’t post your nonsense verbatim, and took refuge in a link – hoping that nobody would see your “description of the greenhouse effect”.

            Here it is –

            “The mechanism of this effect being the absorbtion of radiation from the surface, increasing the time it takes to reach space, and the subsequent emission of radiation, some of which reaches the surface causing the surface to be warmer.”

            No, you dummy. Slowing the rate of cooling is not heating, you idiot. Cooling is cooling.

            As in “The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.”

            Just stringing words together is no “description” of some fantasy that you cannot even describe! You even called it a “mechanism”. You are as stupid as the donkeys at NASA who call what they can’t even describe a “process”! A “process” or “mechanism” which allows the Earth to cool is your mythical GHE?

            My million dollars has no prospect of winding up in the pocket of a bumbling buffoon such as yourself.

            The Earth has cooled, fool. Accept reality.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            Except right now the Earth’s surface is warming due to the 170,000 TW it receives from the Sun, and you claim its shedding only 43 TW.

            See Roy’s monthly graph.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            “Others might be interested to see why you didnt post your nonsense verbatim, and took refuge in a link”

            It was a link to what I posted in a response to you.

            Where is my million?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      swenson…”Newtons law of universal gravitation is usually stated as that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force….”.

      ***

      Just an aside, not an attempt to argue your point. No one knows to this day where that force comes from. If you take two particles, one charged +ve and one charged -ve, the force between them can be expressed as:

      F = k.q1.q2/d^2

      However, q1 and q2 are electrostatic charges. Most inert bodies have a neutral charge therefore it cannot be proved that electrostatic charges are involved.

      So, what’s happening?

      I have already dismissed from my mind that the F in

      F = G m1m2/r^2

      is related to space-time, as so many seem to believe these days. I think there is a real force involved, but what causes it?

      Maybe if Einstein had spent more time with that question he wouldn’t have arrived at such nonsense as space-time.

      • RLH says:

        And your alternative is?

        • Swenson says:

          To gravity?

          You are joking, aren’t you?

          Or is this some form of cunning SkyDragon gotcha?

          Too subtle for me.

          • RLH says:

            GR was saying that Eistein got it wrong. I was asking what his alternative was.

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            That sounds like another stupid gotcha to me.

            Einstein got a few things wrong, his belief in the impossibility of quantum entanglement being one, his creation of the “cosmological constant” being another. He later described his use of a mythical “cosmological constant” as his “biggest blunder”. Biggest, not the only one.

            Alternative to Einstein’s disbelief in “spooky action at a distance”? It exists? Alternative to his belief in the “cosmological constant”? Disbelief?

            I agree with Feynman, who 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.”

            The alternative to belief in a GHE is obviously disbelief. I don’t believe in phlogiston, caloric theory, or unicorns, either. SkyDragon GHE cultists seem to want people to believe as they do, for no particular reason – supported by fact or experiment, that is.

            GR and I disagree about things, from time to time. Who cares? He is not the boss of me, nor I the boss of him. At least he doesn’t pose stupid and pointless gotchas, presumably trying to make others look stupid for no good reason at all.

            However, you are free to do as you wish, with possibly millions or billions applauding your actions. Who knows?

            Carry on.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swenson…”I dont believe in phlogiston, caloric theory, or unicorns…”

            ***

            You don’t believe in unicorns??? There’s one living in a field nearby. Of course, it could be a prank along the lines of the Monty Python skit where the villagers tied a carrot to a woman’s face as a nose and tried her as a witch.

            The reasoning offered by the crusader, played, I think, by Terry Jones, far surpassed anything climate alarmists can offer.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          rlh…as Swenson pointed out, Newton’s theory of gravitational force stands till someone proves it wrong. That is, there is a force acting between different masses. There was no reason offered to scrap Newton and blindly accept the theories of Einstein based purely on thought experiments.

          Einstein tried to reduce it to a general mathematical relationship based on no evidence of forces acting. I am not claiming Einstein was not aware that real, physical forces are involved and that he was trying to generalize a universal relationship based purely on kinematics. I don’t know that nor does anyone else I have read.

          The only evidence put forward to support Einstein’s theory of space-time is the alleged bending of light by the Sun due to space-time whatevers. It’s not at all clear in Einstein’s work how space-time acts to affect anything. I claim neither space nor time can affect anything because neither exist outside human definitions.

          Think about it, space means there is nothing there. We define empty space using human defined parameters like volume. So, we take empty space and draw an imaginary volume in it and declare it as a space. If I create walls in empty space and move into it, I call it my personal living space. How does that space in combination with another non-entity, time, cause bodies to be attracted to each other.

          I say alleged because I think people supporting that theory miss the obvious. The Sun is a ball of plasma surrounded by strong electric and magnetic fields. Since light is an electromagnetic field, the forces in the Sun should bend it. Therefore it is not gravity bending the light, as claimed, but electrostatic forces in a turbulent plasma gas.

          I did not appreciate the Sun’s electro-magnetic and pure magnetic forces till I read a recent article posted here from Zharkova (was it Maguff who posted it???). Sun spots act like magnets in pairs and they interact with larger electromagnetic fields in the plasma.

  69. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Winter in the northern hemisphere will begin according to the calendar on the first of December.
    https://i.ibb.co/h8yKrf2/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-30-085533.png

  70. Gordon Robertson says:

    Have you watched the Zharkova movie in which she claims the summer equinox has been as late as July 5th and the solstice as late as December 15th?

    • Bindidon says:

      You are such a gullible Zharkova follower…

      Solstice 2021: Tuesday Dec 21 16:58 MET
      Summer equinox 2022: Tuesday June 21 11:13 MET

      • Eben says:

        Typical of Bindiclown , he is diverting from cycle 25 going very weak, opposite to his own predictions, by trying nitpicking on little irrelevant things.
        He always picks the worst most wrong to follow, now Scott McIntosh , we will have fun with this.
        Next sideways data point tomorrow, see how he fits it on his polyidiotic red line chart

      • Bindidon says:

        Thanks babbling Edog for misrepresenting me once more.

        The rest of my comment generated an ‘internal server error’; here is a link to the full comment:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ePVgvJt7y6pmh0GsFs4xbKWe4yw4qB3Z/view

        • Eben says:

          Nobody is misrepresenting you you dumbass, you are the one typing in here your stupid nonsense over and over

          • Bindidon says:

            ” Nobody is misrepresenting you you dumbass… ”

            Thans for the insult.

            Of course you are misrepresenting me, babbling Edog, and you perfectly know that.

            *
            ” … you are the one typing in here your stupid nonsense over and over ”

            This is the very best! You couldn’t even provide us with a technically appropriate contradiction to anything I wrote here.

            You are only able to endlessly replicate your dumb Youtube stuff, and to discredit and denigrate those who don’t think like you.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”You are such a gullible Zharkova follower”

        ***

        So, you have a woman with a degree in astrophysics who has analyzed solar cycles to the point she sees a similarity between the current cycles and what took place during the Dalton and Maunder minima and you write he off as unbelievable.

        I don’t believe anything but when a scientists presents a good argument, I am open to it. I am not accepting her proofs in a gullible manner, I don’t know if they are right. However, current signs are beginning to point in that direction.

        Zharkova claims the solar minimum will occur between 2020 and 2050 and from what I have experienced around my part of the world, the signs are there. This is the coldest winter season we’ve experienced in some time and winter still 3 weeks away.

        What concerns me is the bs we can expect from the climate alarmist crowd if she is right. They will find a way to take credit for it or explain it as being predicted by AGW theory. And the sheeple will carry on believing the bs.

        Of course, if it gets as cold as it did during the LIA, there will be a hue and cry from the masses who are freezing in the dark.

  71. Nate says:

    OK i’ll make one valid point, then you try.

    Your claims

    “Nate, non-radiative gases act as insulation.” and

    “Atmospheric radiative gases act as open windows in the insulation.”

    is contradicted by the direct observations by Tyndall, which was the REDUCTION by CO2 as compared to Nitrogen, of radiant heat flow between a warm emitting surface and a cold detector of radiant heat,

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Radiation_(Rede_Lecture)

    and by satellite observations of the IR emitted by Earth to space.

    https://www.fossilhunters.xyz/origin-of-life-3/the-infrared-spectrum-of-the-earth.html

    This shows that atmospheric abs*orbing gases CLOSE WINDOWS on the radiant heat emitted to space.

    Which is the opposite of what is you claimed should happen.

    Oh well.

    • Clint R says:

      Nate, who knows what point you’re struggling to make with all that rambling?

      Which atmosphere emits more to space, an atmosphere with only non-radiative gases or an atmosphere with radiative gases?

      It’s just that simple.

      • Bindidon says:

        Ah again the ball-on-a-string-ist at work!

        Who still thinks that radiative gases emit to space all IR they absorb from Earth, where in fact half of the absorbed IR goes back down and never reaches space.

        An atmosphere with only non-radiative gases is a far better emitter to space than one consisting of only non-radiative gases because these don’t absorb IR in any significant order (N2: 1,000,000 times less than H2O and CO2; O2 1,000 times less – atmospheric abundance taken into account).

        Yes: It’s just that simple. But not for ball-on-a-string-ists.

        • Clint R says:

          Bindidon, thanks for another example of your incompetence.

          Non-radiative gases do not radiate.

          Got a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” yet?

          Or, do you still have NOTHING?

          • Bindidon says:

            ” Non-radiative gases do not radiate. ”

            Ah the ball-on-a-string-ist still is at work!

            No one tells they do, Clint R.

            What I tell you is that no IR is intercepted by non-radiative gases, and hence the whole IR emitted by Earth reaches outer space.

            That’s all.

            *
            ” Got a model of orbital motion without axial rotation yet? ”

            I wish you much fun with your childish trials to deny the lunar spin, and also with your inability to control your excessive urges to denigrate so many astronomers just because you don’t have the least clue of what they did.

          • Clint R says:

            Fun to see you deny your own words, Bin.

            And since you don’t have a viable replacement for the ball-on-a-string, it will stand. Which means your moon rotation nonsense is down the toilet.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            “Got a model of orbital motion without axial rotation yet?”

            Asked and answered counselor.

            Again, it’s the Hubble Space Telescope when aligned to observe a specific object.

          • Clint R says:

            “…when aligned to observe a specific object.”

            Yes braindead bob, Hubble uses its “Pointing Control System” to align itself. A non-rotating body would always have the same side facing the inside of its orbit, like Moon. That wouldn’t allow a telescope to be focused on a distant object very long. Hubble has the ability to torque itself.

            You don’t understand any of this. But, it’s funny to see you bring up things that prove you wrong, continually.

          • bobdroege says:

            One thing I do know, if Clint R says I am wrong, that’s a great indication that I am right.

          • Clint R says:

            Braindead bob gets caught with his mouth full of crap and he just takes off on another tangent.

            That’s why he’s braindead. He can’t learn.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            Like I said, the Moon rotates.

            Now since it orbits both the Sun and the Earth, which one does it keep its face oriented to?

            FYI, that’s a rhetorical question.

            “A non-rotating body would always have the same side facing the inside of its orbit, like Moon.”

            Got it, a non rotating body rotates.

            Is the round Earth flat also?

          • Clint R says:

            Braindead bob gets caught with his mouth full of crap and he just takes off on another tangent.

            That’s why he’s braindead. He can’t learn.

            Next will be more of his juvenile profanity, I suppose.

            He just can’t learn.

          • bobdroege says:

            Look who’s using profanity.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Bindidon says:
          ”Who still thinks that radiative gases emit to space all IR they absorb from Earth, where in fact half of the absorbed IR goes back down and never reaches space.”

          Going back down implies a cold surface warming a warmer surface. Do you think it works the same for the surface molecules as the ground warms to depth that they create hotter molecules under the surface layer by first warming them and then sending half of everything that comes back up from the lower layers back down to the lower layers? Sheesh. . . .its amazing how you guys cherry pick your extrapolations!

          • Bindidon says:

            Hunter

            ” Going back down implies a cold surface warming a warmer surface. ”

            You are fixated to your own discourse to such an extent that you manifestly aren’t able to read things in a correct manner.

            Where the heck am I telling about that dumb stuff above in my comment?

            I’m telling about photons absorbed and reemitted by IR-sensitive gases, and about NOTHING else.

            I have NOTHING in mind with this boring backradiation story: I’m telling about the fact that absorbed photons are randomly reemitted in all directions, and hence half of them don’t reach outer space.

            What happens with those reaching Earth’s surface doesn’t interest me in this moment.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            One would think these guys know that the transfer rate from surface to surface is dependent upon temperature and it is only 50% of what is absorbed if the upper surface is at half the energy of the lower layer.

            Its amazing how fast these guys bite on a physical principle spewed by those with political agendas and imagined by many as an explanation for surface temperatures that has such a ‘fleeting’ existence in the entire scheme of things. . . .magic gas!

            A magic gas that when it condenses or freezes and becomes a liquid or solid it completely takes on a heating role ignored for all other phases. They lean heavily on its transparency to certain frequencies of light like it were one way glass and capable of energetic accumulation, with no other contributor, beyond the initial energy absorbed.

            Its all wacko BS and yes geniuses are as capable of anybody of seeing a UFO that simply isn’t there. Going to school doesn’t fix that. Going to school and learning physics rules out stuff like this but it actually only rules out something well south of .000000000001% of what people vividly imagine.

            As Richard Feynman points out you need an experiment for each thing imagined for it to be considered to be science.

            And how many successful experiments do we have for the mainstream greenhouse effect? Zero! As Richard Lindzen postulates while fully recognizing that some gases absorb light: The variation we see is potentially explainable by other factors.

            My opinion is it is obvious that CO2 has some variable impacts in relationship to its transparency but that once absorbed that variation is saturated and properly sequestered against further surface effects. I would love to see an experiment that refutes that then I can change my mind. Without that experiment I will not accept the accumulation of power desires to those who promote it. Don’t buy into the phony altruism, demand evidence.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Bindidon says:
            ”I have NOTHING in mind with this boring backradiation story: Im telling about the fact that absorbed photons are randomly reemitted in all directions, and hence half of them dont reach outer space.

            What happens with those reaching Earths surface doesnt interest me in this moment.”

            Then one has to wonder about your one-sided criticisms of those disputing the greenhouse theory as there is absolutely nobody in this forum that I am aware of is not aware of what you are aware of.

            But hey that fits into my response above perfectly. Its about power and politics. Apparently for you too.

          • Bindidon says:

            Hunter

            It’s quite typical for people like you that you are fixated on CO2, and don’t even mention H2O, which is by far the main IR absorber/emitter in the atmosphere.

            And you speak about some ‘agenda’ ? So what!

            You belong to the people whose agenda is to endlessly repeat:

            ” No warming, hence no CO2 effect. ”

            The ‘My cheap gallon’ gang.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            I should be more precise. The Photon Theory is just that, the properties of which is consistent with known thermodynamic principles of cooling of an object being at the rate of the object that receives the energy.

            If and only if the object receiving the energy then passes it directly to space does the photon theory suggest half go back to the surface. That is an issue with the photon theory that stimulates the imagination about what becomes of these returned photons. Myself it is just a mirror problem. The sun only shines half the time thus it doesn’t mean snit.

            So even Einstein died not fully understanding photons and little has progressed since because of the dominance of mathematicians rather than experimenters in learning more about energy transference. But it does take extraordinary vision and genius to design experiments whereas mathematical extrapolation of what is already known is exceedingly easy but that doesn’t make its output correct.

      • Nate says:

        “Which atmosphere emits more to space, an atmosphere with only non-radiative gases or an atmosphere with radiative gases?

        Its just that simple.”

        No, your ‘argument’ is simple but wrong because it is ignoring the abs*orbing capabilities of these gases.

        And the observations clearly show that the atmosphere with CO2 emits LESS radiation to space. There is a ‘hole’ in the emission spectrum to space at the CO2 and H2O absorp*tion wavelengths.

        https://www.fossilhunters.xyz/origin-of-life-3/the-infrared-spectrum-of-the-earth.html

        So, as Feynman emphasized, your simple hypothesis doesnt agree with experiment. It is WRONG.

        Oh well!

        • Clint R says:

          You can’t answer the simple question, huh Nate?

          “Which atmosphere emits more to space, an atmosphere with only non-radiative gases or an atmosphere with radiative gases?”

          Again, that simple question destroys all your endless rambling, false accusations, and perversions of reality.

          “Keep it simple, stupid.”

        • phi says:

          No.

          An atmosphere without GHG is not active in the IR and therefore emits nothing into space whatever its temperature.
          The more GHGs are added, the greater the opacity, the less the surface emits into space and the more the atmosphere takes over.
          This is nothing but the greenhouse effect compatible with thermodynamics.

          It is not the a b s o r p t i o n of greenhouse gases that plays a role in the greenhouse effect but the emission. The atmosphere is very efficiently heated by convection.

          • Swenson says:

            phi,

            You wrote –

            “An atmosphere without GHG is not active in the IR and therefore emits nothing into space whatever its temperature.”

            I hope you don’t mind a minor correction –

            “All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.” – Wikipedia.

            Including oxygen and nitrogen.

            It doesn’t really matter, I suppose. During the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.

            Hence four and a half billion years or so of global cooling.

          • phi says:

            swenson,
            Yes, you are right, I stuck to the outline of the mechanism.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            So the Earth warms during the day?

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Nate says:

          No, your argument is simple but wrong because it is ignoring the abs*orbing capabilities of these gases.

          And the observations clearly show that the atmosphere with CO2 emits LESS radiation to space. There is a hole in the emission spectrum to space at the CO2 and H2O absorp*tion wavelengths.

          So, as Feynman emphasized, your simple hypothesis doesnt agree with experiment. It is WRONG.
          ===========
          That isn’t an experiment for the warming of the surface Nate.

          You left the connection to the surface as pure science fiction as it seems does mainstream science. Jules Verne had theories too. Some later were proven, many others not. . . .but at least he didn’t claim to say they would be, making acknowledged science fiction at least honest.

          When some scientist figures out how to prove it then he can be both honest and famous. . . .few tread there.

        • Nate says:

          The observations answered the question for me, dimwit.

          “And the observations clearly show that the atmosphere with CO2 emits LESS radiation to space. There is a hole in the emission spectrum to space at the CO2 and H2O absorp*tion wavelengths.”

          It is not SIMPLE at all to explain these observations if it is emitting MORE to space. That observed emissions to space have chunks REMOVED from them at in the GHG bands, as compared to the surface emissions,

          Without GHG, the surface will emit direct to space, and that would be a lot more, 390 W/m^2 from a 288 K surface.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            Temperatures are not measured in W/m2, nor is irradiance directly related to temperature in general.

            The fact is that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, whether you want to accept it or not, and continues to cool, losing energy at an estimated rate of 44 TW.

            Whether your GHE fantasy insists that the Earth “should be” cooling faster or slower is irrelevant. Nature doesn’t value your opinion, and you would be hard put to name any of the more than seven billion people on the face of the planet who do.

            Carry on dreaming.

          • Nate says:

            Insane person Swenson keeps telling us the same red herring 649 times. Each time it has no relevance to the discussion.

            Please consider telling us about a different red herring for a change! Your favorite beer? The engine hp of your car?

            “Temperatures are not measured in W/m2”

            No, not a good red herring, since W/m2 are actually relevant to the science being discussed. But of no interest to you.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            Temperatures are not measured in W/m2, nor is irradiance directly related to temperature in general.

            The fact is that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, whether you want to accept it or not, and continues to cool, losing energy at an estimated rate of 44 TW.

            Whether your GHE fantasy insists that the Earth should be cooling faster or slower is irrelevant. Nature doesnt value your opinion, and you would be hard put to name any of the more than seven billion people on the face of the planet who do.

            Carry on dreaming.

          • Nate says:

            Swenson just keeps on confirming that he lacks the ability to make rational choices.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            The observations answered the question for me, dimwit.

            ”And the observations clearly show that the atmosphere with CO2 emits LESS radiation to space. There is a hole in the emission spectrum to space at the CO2 and H2O absorp*tion wavelengths.”

            It is not SIMPLE at all to explain these observations if it is emitting MORE to space. That observed emissions to space have chunks REMOVED from them at in the GHG bands, as compared to the surface emissions.
            ——————-
            Nate is here utilizing extrapolations via logic rather than science to establish the greenhouse effect in his own head. Namely really being a dimwit!

            He thinks that because CO2 high in the atmosphere emits less, thus the surface must be warmer.

            Seems a lot of people fall into that logic trap. Its not unreasonable but it certainly and completely lacks any basis in science.

            So what is the alternative to this? Simple! The two major alleged greenhouse effects come from water and CO2 and atmosphere. Nate uses one of the two because it emits less than water so it must be ultimately responsible.

            But water emits over a far higher range of frequencies than does CO2. CO2 emissions from space can only be seen of the last and highest layer of CO2 in the atmosphere as it absorbs the radiation of lower layers of the CO2 bands of radiation.

            Of course when energy is absorbed by CO2 it disperses that energy by more means than radiation. In fact collisions have a far higher productivity in removing energy from CO2 than radiation. Also water is also about 50 times more common in the atmosphere than CO2 and thus intercepts the vast majority of energy from CO2 emissions and collisions and then reemits them on different radiation bands. So these lower bands are at a higher rate of energy transfer than the total energy absorbed by earth from the sun in the same bands.

            As one wise man once said: energy in the atmosphere is energy on its way to space. Thats true because there are no net radiant emissions or transference of energy by collisions from a colder layer to a warmer layer. And of course Nate will agree to this when pressed as he isn’t totally devoid of a physics education.

            But like the dimwit he proves him to be he just hand waves that self acknowledged inconvenient fact away and goes on believing that cold CO2 way up in the atmosphere is warming the surface entirely on the basis that it is colder than the surface.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Nate says:
          December 1, 2022 at 8:06 AM
          ”Which atmosphere emits more to space, an atmosphere with only non-radiative gases or an atmosphere with radiative gases?

          Its just that simple.”

          So, as Feynman emphasized, your simple hypothesis doesnt agree with experiment. It is WRONG.

          Oh well!
          ——————–
          Nate answers the question incorrectly.

          gases receive radiation in relationship to how cold they are and emit radiation in relationship to how warm they are. And of course absorbing radiation warms the gas.

          What experiment establishes the greenhouse effect Nate? Source please.

          Your previous idiotic comments have revealed that you attribute some kind of elemental difference between gases and elements in other chemical phases such that gases emit from two surfaces and other elemental surfaces only emit from one surface. Where was that science determined Nate? If gases emit 50% downward why doesn’t a surface of rock molecules also emit downward? Answer for simpletons: They do but when the surface below them becomes as warm as the emitting surface no more net emissions dude! (See first paragraph)

  72. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Frigid air, strong winds to have Midwest and Northeast shivering as December arrives.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I was out last night shoveling some of it. About 4 inches south of Vancouver and about 10 inches at higher altitudes.

      It was melting pretty fast south of Vancouver near the ocean. Normally, when we get that much snow there is a ‘winter wonderland’ effect which is nice. Snow everywhere, hanging on trees and everything. Last night, the sky had blue patches and the air felt warm.

  73. Swenson says:

    Earlier, Bindidon wrote –

    “I have NOTHING in mind with this boring backradiation story: Im telling about the fact that absorbed photons are randomly reemitted in all directions, and hence half of them dont reach outer space.

    What happens with those reaching Earths surface doesnt interest me in this moment.”

    He has realised that “back radiation” is “boring” – Binnyspeak for “nonsense”.

    He has also realised that the radiation from a colder body cannot heat a hotter one!

    It doesn’t “interest” him any more. Thar’s because it’s nonsense.

    Poor Binny – all that time spent “dissecting” the past, to no avail.

    He might well think that the GHE is now “boring”, and doesn’t “interest” him any more. My care factor remains pegged at zero. Others may be wildly interested in Binny’s boredom and disinterest – or maybe not.

    • Eben says:

      boring, and doesnt interest him any more – is a code speak for
      “I’m completely clueless and don’t understand any of it”

  74. Swenson says:

    Earlier, bumbling bobdroege admitted that the mythical GHE has no discernible effect –

    “Swenson,

    You do understand that there are more things than the greenhouse effect that affect whether the average surface temperature of the Earth is increasing or decreasing, dont you?

    Maybe not.

    A foul mouthed buffoon can describe something as well as an insulting scientifically ignorant person, you know.

    I respond to insults with vulgarity, or havent you the brains to figure that out?.”

    I wonder if bob the blunderer has included his newfound knowledge in the “description” or the “explanation” of the mythical GHE, which bumbling bob claims to have concocted.

    Now, bob admits that the GHE does not stop the Earth from cooling, but may (or may not) have some influence on the Earth warming! All very mysterious and unclear, but I see the first inklings that reality may be piercing bob’s veil of fantasy.

    bob still hasn’t managed to control his emotions, poor darling. He chooses to feel insulted – what a dimwit. This is his excuse for uncontrollable vulgarity – he feels insulted!

    As if I care what bumbling bob chooses to feel.

    [laughing at bumbling buffoon]

    • bobdroege says:

      Swenson,

      “Earlier, bumbling bobdroege admitted that the mythical GHE has no discernible effect ”

      Did I really?

      You have a poor grasp of the English language if you think I said anything like that.

      And what’s the matter, can’t find the reply button, or your lady’s trigger?

      • Swenson says:

        bumbling bob,

        Here’s what you wrote –

        “You do understand that there are more things than the greenhouse effect that affect whether the average surface temperature of the Earth is increasing or decreasing, dont you”

        Well, that’s about as informative as any piece of SkyDragon nonsense, isn’t it?

        Your mindreading abilities are about as defective as your telepathic information transferring abilities, or your knowledge of physics.

        Notwithstanding your attempt to say nothing at all, maybe you could mention the “more things than the greenhouse effect” which affect whether the Earth cools or heats, but I doubt it.

        The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, and the GHE didn’t stop the cooling. The Earth is still cooling, losing energy at the rate of 44 TW or so, and the GHE is unable to stop the cooling.

        You are an obfuscatory dimwit, in denial of reality.

        Carry on being vague – you might think you are saving face.

        • bobdroege says:

          Swenson,

          “he Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, and the GHE didnt stop the cooling. The Earth is still cooling, losing energy at the rate of 44 TW or so, and the GHE is unable to stop the cooling.”

          Not true, the greenhouse effect is causing the Earth’s temperature to go up.

          Sorry chap, the Earth is warming, see the next update from Roy.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            So, do you think all this Global Warming will prevent the next Ice Age?

          • bobdroege says:

            Stephen,

            No, because we are currently in an Ice Age.

            But it will postpone the next glaciation, which hasn’t happened with CO2 over 400 ppm.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            That’s a good thing, right? We can feed people during warm.

        • Swenson says:

          blundering bob,

          “Not true, the greenhouse effect is causing the Earths temperature to go up.”

          This would be the same mythical greenhouse effect that couldnt stop the Earth from cooling for four and a half billion years or so, would it? Or another greenhouse effect causing the Earth to lose energy at the rate of 44 TW or so?

          Others can decide for themselves whether your unsubstantiated “not true” fantasy is to be preferred to fact.

          You may not have noticed, but Dr Spencer’s current posting is about the effect of man-made heat, and its effect on thermometers. So your “Sorry chap, the Earth is warming, see the next update from Roy.”, doesn’t carry much weight, does it?

          By the way, I offered you a substantial amount of cash if you could prove that you provided me with a description of the GHE. So far, all I hear is the sound of crickets.

          Does that mean you are a lying fantasist, or just an ignorant bumbling buffoon?

          You don’t really know, do you?

          Oh well.

          • bobdroege says:

            Yes, but the Earth receives about 173,000 TW from the Sun, Swenson, which number is moar bigger?

          • Swenson says:

            Bumbling bob,

            Over the past four and a half billion years or so, how many TW has the Earth received from the Sun?

            Only joking – don’t bother working it out.

            It’s irrelevant, isn’t it? The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, whether you think it should have or not. The brilliant Baron Fourier pointed out that during the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day – plus a little bit of its internal heat.

            You can’t even use decent English to present your stupid gotcha.

            You wrote –

            ” . . .which number is moar bigger?” – were you talking about your IQ or your shoe size, bob?

            Carry on with your infantile buffoonery.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            Are you sure you want to cite Fourier?

            “In the 1820s, Fourier calculated that an object the size of the Earth, and at its distance from the Sun, should be considerably colder than the planet actually is if warmed by only the effects of incoming solar radiation. He examined various possible sources of the additional observed heat in articles published in 1824[14] and 1827.[15] While he ultimately suggested that interstellar radiation might be responsible for a large portion of the additional warmth, Fourier’s consideration of the possibility that the Earth’s atmosphere might act as an insulator of some kind is widely recognized as the first proposal of what is now known as the greenhouse effect,[16] although Fourier never called it that.[17][18]

          • Clint R says:

            Braindead bob, you got something right — “…the Earth receives about 173,000 TW from the Sun…”

            You’re learning that “It’s the Sun, stupid”.

          • Swenson says:

            Braindead bob,

            You wrote –

            “Are you sure you want to cite Fourier?” Why not? As you point out, just because some idiot is confused about insulation (implying that insulation amplifies energy transmission rather than attenuating it), that’s nothing to do with any “greenhouse effect”, is it?

            Why do you ask such idiotic questions, Bob?

            If I wasn’t sure I wanted to “cite” Fourier, I wouldn’t do it.

            You may “cite” anyone you wish. I’m sure that some will claim the world was created at absolute zero, and has warmed up since, due to the Sun, and there may be some who claim that the Sun was created at absolute zero, and has warmed up since due to something or other.

            Professor John Tyndall proposed that the Sun’s heat came about as a result of celestial bodies continually crashing into it. You may agree with Tyndall if you wish. I don’t. I don’t agree with everything Fourier said, either.

            Here’s a little of what Fourier wrote, and with which I agree, for your information – “Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself. All the terrestrial effects of solar heat are modified by the interposition of the atmosphere and the presence of water. The great motions of these fluids render the distribution more uniform.”

            Four and a half billion years or so of history show the first sentence to be correct – the Earth has cooled.

            Comparison with temperatures on the airless Moon show the rest of Fourier’s thoughts to be correct. The temperature range on the Earth is far less than the Moon.

            Keep trying, bumbling bob. You”ll get something right by accident if you just keep on hammering out random nonsense.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            Looks to me that now that you are actually quoting Fourier, he said something different from what you have been spouting about the Earth losing all the heat it receives during the day at night.

            Apparently he didn’t say that.

            Well done!

  75. Gordon Robertson says:

    Here we go again with the Internal Server error…posting part by part…

    bill hunter…”So even Einstein died not fully understanding photons…

    ***

    Well said. Before his death, Einstein made a statement that some people thought they knew whether EM took the form of a wave or photons, but they were wrong.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      No one knows to this day whether the photon exists as defined, a particle with momentum but no mass. I prefer the word quantum, or quanta, because it is vague and could be a unit of EM that has the frequency a photon particle cannot have.

      It seems obvious to me that an electron in motion has a moving charge that represents an electric field. For reasons unknown, that moving electric field automatically generates an orthogonal magnetic field. That defines an EM wave, an electric field moving with an orthogonal magnetic field.

      According to Bohr, that EM quantum is only generated by an electron as it transitions to a lower orbital energy level. The electron’s frequency, which is it orbital angular frequency, modulates the emitted EM field. I don’t think anyone knows if this EM field is generated isotropically from the electron, or as a linear transmission.

      There is simply no way to observe it, even with instruments. All anyone can do is observe mass electron transmissions as a field oscillating at the frequency of the electrons that transitioned between the same energy levels. How the field is formed by individual quanta is a mystery.

      What I’m talking about here is still a theory. No one has ever observed an electron in action or one orbiting a nucleus. The reality could be far different than anything we have imagined.

      Having said that, Bohr’s theory offers a very good explanation for the emission and absorp-tion spectra of hydrogen. And if one follows through on the basic theory, it explains why radiation from colder masses cannot be absorbed by hotter masses. In other words, it confirms the 2nd law as written by Clausius.

      Unfortunately, Bohr’s simplistic explanation only applies to hydrogen. When elements with more electrons were observed, it became much more complex. That’s when the mathematicians and theorists like Heisenberg, Born, and Dirac got in on the act, creating wild scenarios to explain multiple electron elements.

      Much of atomic physics was derived in the early 20th century and unfortunately we have not moved significantly beyond those theories. Same with relativity theory and the inane notion of time dilation.

      We need to move on but we are hampered by traditionalists entrenched in paradigms. Anthropogenic warming theory is based on such unproved paradigms.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        thats the issue. As science has progressed it has become ever more far reaching. Non-experts like Nate fail to comprehend the morass that exists on the cusp of scientific knowledge. And Nate is far from being alone. The morass itself doesn’t include non-experts but is made up of the experts. Having intelligence and getting an education doesn’t do much to limit the imagination. . . .add in a huge public pocketbook. . . .and bunch of ordinary citizens to disperse the money. . . . Well writing grants and I have done a few is a lot like Madison Avenue. Extol your virtues, make your weaknesses your strengths, and promise the moon.

      • Nate says:

        Bill is my stalker apparently.

        And again offers up a pointless melange of ad-homs, politics, his deep insecurity about his own lack of expertise in these topics, and NO SCIENCE.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          claiming expertise is different than a CV. ask any employer. Have you ever had one?

        • Nate says:

          Bill you tout your own CV and useful expertise in auditing, but refuse to acknowledge that others, such as scientists, have solid CVs and valuable yet different expertise than you, in their chosen fields.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            One doesn’t ‘claim’ expertise. One simply hands over their CV with the pertinent contact information to verify. Works the same for any claim. If you want to make a claim about rotation you provide a source with verifiable support in it. Non-spinners have done that numerous times you just keep going on about ellipses and librations without any support.

            Likewise on this subthread perhaps you can come up with something that explains exactly what a photon is and where it goes. But of course you won’t do that because you would rather just spew shiit out of your arse.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      have no idea what caused the Internal Server error. I cleaned up part of the quote and got part 1 posted. When I tried the rest of the post I got the same error. Removed reference to part 2 and it posted.

    • Nate says:

      “According to Bohr” actually Bohrs model was wrong. Even he agreed it needed to be replaced with a better model.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        Presumably you think this affects the fact that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.

        It doesn’t. Were you trying to make some sort of point about the mythical GHE, or just trolling?

      • Nate says:

        I see, Swenson is doing some sort of long term Dadaist performance art piece.

        • Swenson says:

          Nincompoop Nate,

          You wrote –

          “I see, Swenson is doing some sort of long term Dadaist performance art piece.”

          And this refers to the mythical GHE how, precisely?

          Are you attempting idiocy through obscurity? If so, you may be succeeding.

        • Nate says:

          ” think this affects the fact that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.”

          And this is relevant to the existence of a GHE, how exactly?

          Or the topic of this thread, quantum theory, how exactly?

          Swenson will have no answers, because his posts are ultimately Dadaist but lacking a point.

          For the ignorant:

          “Developed in reaction to World War I, the Dada movement consisted of artists who rejected the LOGIC, REASON, and aestheticism of modern capitalist society, instead expressing NONSENSE, IRRATIONALITY, and anti-bourgeois protest in their works”

          But unlike Swenson, Dadaists were trying to make a point with their art.

  76. Swenson says:

    Bumbling bobdroege at his inadvertent best, earlier –

    “Swenson,

    It wasnt to make people think I am intelligent, . . .”.

    bob succeeds in his endeavour to make people think that he is unintelligent.

    Well done, bumbler.

  77. Eben says:

    Sun activity is tanking, in a few days it might stop shining all together

    https://i.postimg.cc/gjcjk3yb/and-x-clas.jpg

  78. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Let’s look at the distribution of ozone in the stratosphere. You can see that most of the ozone has concentrated over eastern Siberia and has moved partially over Canada. Since ozone is heavier than the surrounding air and there is a temperature difference, there are waves in this region that block the usual polar vortex pattern, which should be more circular. With strong blocking, the polar vortex is broken up.
    https://i.ibb.co/pzQSFkr/gfs-toz-nh-f00.png

  79. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    La Nina is very stable.
    For now, we have a clear trend. Wait for the end of the solar cycle.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
    https://i.ibb.co/H776RR0/IDYOC007-202211.gif
    https://i.ibb.co/rs3zKzp/nino3-4.png

  80. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A strong drop in temperatures over the Great Lakes. Temperature in degrees Celsius.
    https://i.ibb.co/RYRJv28/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-01-125303.png

    • Bindidon says:

      You still did not understand what I wrote at that time because you always only look at the most possible recent past.

      Looking 6 months back is for you already ‘dissecting the past’.

      SC25 is currently in a very low phase indeed. And?
      That was the case for lots of strong cycles before, and will be so in the future.

      And your endless stalking against me doesn’t change anything to the fact that SC25 has, for the same period since their respective begin, less spotless days than its predecessor SC24.

      No wonder that people like you ‘eat’ Zharkova’s ‘information’, who tells us on Youtube that SC25 counts in between no less than over 800 spotless days!

      Wow.

  81. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Severe winter attack in Montana and North Dakota.
    https://i.ibb.co/xzQ15Jn/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-02-100037.png

  82. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Observing the current circulation in the north, it is already apparent that the polar vortex will be split into two vortices, around which the air will now circulate.
    https://i.ibb.co/94Nfnt9/gfs-z100-nh-f120-1.png

  83. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    “A computational analysis of data about the Suns structure and dynamics from two NASA spacecraft has revealed the strength of these torsional oscillations driven by the magnetic fields in the deep interior of the Sun are continuing to decline. This indicates that the current sunspot cycle may be weaker than the previous one, and the long-term trend of declining magnetic fields of the Sun is likely to continue. Such changes in the Suns interior may have impacts on space weather and the Earths atmosphere and climate.”
    http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/01/secrets-of-sunspots-and-solar-magnetic-fields-investigated-in-nasa-supercomputing-simulations/

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Let’s hope they don’t go away altogether.

      Who is to say the Sun has always been stable as it has been in our time. There may have been times in the past where it flared up or diminished to the point life on Earth was extinguished.

  84. Swenson says:

    Nate the numbskull has difficulty with arithmetic of the 6 year old variety.

    Nate wrote –

    “649 as predicted*

    * Of course 648 was a rough estimate. In any case it is an uncountably large number.”

    Nate claims he has counted 648 occurrences of something I wrote. When. I ask him to back up his unsubstantiated claim, Nate the nitwit employs the SkyDragon excuse for being caught out fabricating – “Of course 648 was a rough estimate”. Of course it was, Nate, of course it was!

    No matter, for Nate the arithmetically-challenged nincompoop, either 648 or 649 is “an uncountable large number”.

    Of course it is Nate, if you don’t know how to count, using hundreds, tens, and units!

    With any luck, you can find a small child who can help you to count to 1000. With any luck.

    Do you feel lucky, Nate?

    • Nate says:

      You claim 649 is not correct. Then you know how many times it was? How many then?

      • Swenson says:

        Nitwit Nate –

        You wrote –

        “You claim 649 is not correct.” Really?

        Do you really believe what you hammer out, or are you in the grip of uncontrollable SkyDragon urges, addicted to making unsubstantiated claims?

        Do you prefer being the butt for jokes, or an object of derision?

        [laughing at clueless idiot]

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Nate must suffer from OCD, to have the interest to count how many times you said something. Of course, alarmists in general seem to have obssesive-compulsive disorders as well as other more psychotic forms of delusion.

  85. Bindidon says:

    Good mental food

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/01/secrets-of-sunspots-and-solar-magnetic-fields-investigated-in-nasa-supercomputing-simulations/

    for all these Coolistas who strangely hope that a Grand Solar Minimum is ahead (because nothing could be worse than that).

    Only a few comments, all as usual rather stoopid, except of course Javier’s, who knows a lot about solar stuff – unlike most WUWT posters.

    • Entropic man says:

      Bindidon

      I went away for a week and the number of posts by the denierati dropped.I suspect that if we Warmistas went away for a while the remaining denierati would run out of steam very quickly.

      This happened at Bishop Hill, where the same few right-wingers now just discuss politics.

      • Clint R says:

        I’m glad you have finally identified yourself as a “Warmista”, Ent. That’s reality. When you try to claim any interest in science is when Realists have to step in to deny your perversions. Like when I had to deny your claim that passenger jets fly backwards. You were perverting reality.

        You pervert science, we deny your perversions. So yeah, if you all left we wouldn’t have that much to deny.

    • Eben says:

      Bindiwrong never fails to latch himself on the worst predictor
      Mucho fun for the future

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      From ATheoK at your WUWT link…


      1) Simulations are not reality!
      2) NASA cant simulate Earths atmosphere. Yet they pretend their tuned models work for the much more massive sun!?
      4) NASA is incapable of measuring the suns interior flows, magnetic, hydraulic, atomic circulations and flows. So they invent proxies.
      5) More NASA pretending they are investigating outer space, worlds and suns A very expensive fantasy factory”.

      ***

      Nothing stupid about those remarks.

  86. Entropic man says:

    Returning to the Moon rotation debate.

    https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1597915084504039424

    This is a video of the Milky Way using a gyroscope stabilised camera. The camera remains in the same orientation while the Earth rotates.

    Do the same on the Moon and the camera remains in the same orientation while the Moon rotates.

    • Clint R says:

      The “pointing control system” would keep the camera aimed at a distant object while Moon revolves. Moon revolves (orbits), it does NOT rotate (spin).

      You STILL don’t understand any of this, Ent. And, you can’t learn. You’re braindead. You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint R,

        Let me dumb this down to your level Clint R

        A spinning object does not maintain its orientation on a fixed object.

        A non spinning object maintains its orientation on a fixed object.

        This has nothing to do with revolving.

        • Clint R says:

          Well, that’s certainly dumb, bob.

          It’s so dumb it’s like you are braindead, huh?

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            Yes it may be dumb, but it is correct.

            You are wrong as usual, that’s how I know I am right.

          • Clint R says:

            You believe “dumb” is correct only because you’re braindead, bob.

            But I have to break this off because you’ll be trolling me all day, since you have nothing to do in your dead-end job

            Happy braindead trolling.

          • bobdroege says:

            Yeah they keep me on the payroll to keep me from working for someone else.

          • Swenson says:

            Braindead bob,

            You wrote –

            “Yeah they keep me on the payroll to keep me from working for someone else.”

            They obviously think it’s a small price to pay, for the general good of the rest of the population. Very charitable of them.

            Do they employ others like you?

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            Yes they do, why do you need a job with a 6 figure salary?

            You probably fail to qualify though.

            You would need a scientific background.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Entropic man says:

      ”Do the same on the Moon and the camera remains in the same orientation while the Moon rotates.”

      EM makes a dramatic logical errors.

      1. The moon rotates. It rotates on the COM of the earth!!!

      2. The gyroscope doesn’t point at the Milky Way because the moon rotates. It points to the Milky way because of the forces generated by the rotation within the gyroscope.

      What his proves is that the only reason the earth isn’t seen to rotate like the moon (around the sun) is because of the forces presented by its ”independent” spin on its own axis like the gyroscope. . . .other wise the earths axis would be perpendicular to the sun with only the smallest of variation (precession) due to the gravitational pull of other objects in the universe.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Entropic Man proves he still doesn’t understand the absolute basics. He won’t learn, and will just disappear as he always does, only to come back in a few days time to repeat the same mistakes.

      Once again (for the 10,000th time), the idea is that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the "moon on the left". "Axial rotation" is then separate from that motion.

      The only way that the moon could possibly be rotating on its own axis is if "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the "moon on the right".

      That transcends all considerations of "gyroscope stabilised cameras", and reference frames generally. The "Spinners" need "orbital motion without axial rotation" to be like the "moon on the right". That’s it. That’s what they have to prove. Nothing else. Everything else that they can possibly bring up misses the mark.

      They have one thing to prove. Can they do it?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        This GIF shows what I mean by “moon on the left” and “moon on the right”:

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

        In case anyone was unsure.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          If you look at the Moon on the right it’s moving like a car on a Ferris wheel. That would mean it has an axle on it somewhere so it can remain upright.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Exactly, Gordon…and if the axle was fixed so that the car was physically unable to rotate on its own axis, it would move like the “moon on the left”.

            In a rational world, that would be the end of it.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Yep the ferris wheel with the car remaining upright has two separate motions going on. . . .one influenced by the machinery of the ferris wheel and another motion influenced by gravity.

            Spinners want to claim zero torque from gravity for the moon’s second motion for the moon on the right.

            They base this on what they learned in school about ‘perfect’ spheres. The problem is the very concept of ‘perfection’ is purely conceptual and simply is non-existent probably anywhere in the universe. The ferris wheel design shows the only way the moon on the right can exist in the real world.

            Tim makes the error of buying into his conceptual education that treats ‘perfect’ objects that don’t exist in the universe and erroneously states ”The earths gravity exerts no torque”. Since that statement only applies to ‘perfect’ spheres it doesn’t apply in the real world.

            The fact is that the car on the ferris wheel can only look like the moon on the right precisely because gravity is exerting torque on the car. The same conditions would be necessary for the moon on the right and the torque would have to come from perpendicular to the distant star he was observing from and not the earth around which the moon is rotating.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “They have one thing to prove. Can they do it?”

        First, science never ‘proves’ anything. It simple comes up with useful, self-consistent, simple descriptions of the universes.

        Putting aside the poor word choice, this challenge applies equally to both ‘sides’. Which description is more useful for explain the motions of real moons? Can you ‘prove’ that your model is better?

        Since real moons have elliptical orbits, one obvious test is “what does the model predict for a ‘non-rotating’ moon in an elliptical orbit?” Can the model accurately predict observed librations?

        For the ‘non-spinners’, is the prediction that …
        * one point faces directly toward the earth?
        * one point faces directly forward along the orbit?
        * one point faces directly toward the center of the ellipse?
        * other???

        If the model fall apart for an elliptical orbit, then it is not a viable model.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Sorry you didn’t like the word choice, Tim, but the challenge is all on you. Demonstrate that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion like the "moon on the right" (instead of making the exact same point about libration that you’ve made seven hundred times before…do something interesting for a change).

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          tim…”Since real moons have elliptical orbits, one obvious test is what does the model predict for a non-rotating moon in an elliptical orbit? Can the model accurately predict observed librations?”

          ***

          Not sure what model you mean. I have already demonstrated the effect in an elliptical orbit that explains longitudinal libration.

          Briefly, a radial line is defined on a circle for a line extending from the centre of the circle to a point on the circumference. On an ellipse, a radial line wrt an orbiting body is defined by a circle with an arc of its circumference congruent with an arc on the ellipse. The circle radius defines a radial line to the curve at that point.

          With an elliptical orbit, there are two points, at either end of the major axis, where the radial line points to the centre of a body at the principal focal point. At all other points on the ellipse, the radial line from the body on the curve points away from the centre of the same body. If that body is Earth, then it is located at the principal focal point and the Moon is located somewhere on the ellipse.

          In the case of the Moon, the radial line from the Moon’s near face can point up to 5 degrees away from Earth’s centre. That allows us to see a little more around the edge of the Moon longitudinally at certain points the Moon occupies on the orbital path. That view is libration.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            That is a clever idea, Gordon. And it is pretty close to correct. But it is not correct. That is not how actual moons are observed to move.

            As a specific example, your model would have the moon change orientation 90 degrees as it moves from either end of the semi-major axis to either end of the semi-minor axis. (ie the same point would be pointing straight in toward the center of the ellipse at all four of these locations). But this is wrong. Only at apogee and perigee are the same points straight inward.

            No matter how clever the theory, if it doesn’t match reality, it must be rejected.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Here’s how to verify it.

            When the Moon is adjacent to the semi-major axis, draw lines from both focal point to the Moon and bisect the angle. The bisector is the radial line, therefore it points straight down the semi-major axis.

            The angle formed between the radial line and a line centre to centre between the Moon and the Earth at the principal focal point should be around 5 degrees. That should also be how much you can see around the edge of the Moon.

            The fact that the angle is so small tells us the orbit is nearly circular.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            You wrote –

            “That is not how actual moons are observed to move.”

            And then later –

            “No matter how clever the theory, if it doesnt match reality, it must be rejected.”

            Orbits of all celestial bodies appear to be chaotic. Impossible to accurately model, and unpredictable, in theory. All we really have are assumptions of the “I predict the Sun will rise tomorrow” variety – what happened in the past will hopefully happen in the future!

            Your endless gotchas based on your fantasies, are pointless. For example you ask –

            “Since real moons have elliptical orbits, one obvious test is what does the model predict for a non-rotating moon in an elliptical orbit? Can the model accurately predict observed librations?”

            Nobody has a model which accurately represents all known observations of the Moon, so demanding that unless anyone who disagrees with you can produce such a model, you must be correct, is about as silly as GHE supporters demanding that opponents “disprove” some undefined speculation.

            As far as I know, the Moon physically wobbles and nods. It also has its greatest mass facing the COG of the Earth, and speeds up and slows down in line with Kepler’s 2nd. Law.

            However, it seems that to an observer on the Moon, the Earth remains more or less fixed in place – it does not rise and fall – showing that the Moon does not rotate about its axis with respect to the Earth.

            From NASA – “In summary, while it generally remains in the same location, the Earth does not remain perfectly stationary in the lunar sky from every point on the Moon, but moves in a rather complicated way depending on your location on the lunar sphere!”

            Does it really matter? Is it relevant to the GHE or AGW, or are you just trying to create your own GHE authority, albeit in a peculiar and roundabout way?

            At least you haven’t involved any hidden heaters, or impossible objects, trying to prove the Moon makes the Sun hotter because the Moon is colder!

        • Clint R says:

          Folkerts, as DREMT explained (for the 10,000th time), the model is about “orbital motion without axial rotation”. One side of the orbiting body always faces the inside of its orbit. This has to be repeatedly explained to you because you’re braindead.

          We’ve got a viable model, but you cult idiots don’t. We’ve got reality, you’ve got NOTHING.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “One side of the orbiting body always faces the inside of its orbit.”

            But PRECISELY how does it face? I gave you three options (plus an option to invent your own, which Gordon did). The fact that you can’t even pick an option and support it says all we need to know.

            Gordon at least tried.

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts, your distractions bring NO value to the issue. You have no credibility, as you have a history of trying to pervert reality.

            Want to start working on building some credibility for yourself? Present a viable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Without that, you’ve got NOTHING.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Present a viable model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’.

            That is what I just did (and what scientists have done for centuries). You are the one distracting my refusing to clearly state YOUR model.

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts, you’re trying to taunt me into using the “L” word. If that is not your goal, then clearly state your model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.

            Otherwise, you’ve got NOTHING.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            You are at it again –

            “But PRECISELY how does it face? I gave you three options (plus an option to invent your own, which Gordon did). The fact that you cant even pick an option and support it says all we need to know.”

            It faces precisely where it is observed to face, at any given instant in time.

            Asking stupid questions, giving “options”, and generally setting yourself up as an “authority”, is likely to demonstrate to others precisely how much your opinion should be valued.

            Go on, demonstrate your vast knowledge, and provide an authoritative answer. Otherwise, you just show you are another stupid troll, trying to make someone look stupid, to satisfy your perverse SkyDragon beliefs.

            How hard can it be? Or are you not quite as knowledgeable as you imply?

            Dimwit.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim…” I gave you three options (plus an option to invent your own, which Gordon did)”.

            ***

            I was not presenting a model, Tim, I was presenting the actual dynamics of the lunar orbit. I demonstrated exactly how it faces the interior of the orbit at all times and which way it has to face.

            I also demonstrated how the direction of a radial line from the Moon’s near face determines libration. You did not demonstrate how I was wrong, you simply told me I am wrong.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            This is what Google says when I google “orbital motion without axial rotation”

            “The Moon rotates once on its axis every time it completes one orbit. As you can see, the Moon seems to rock back and forth on its axis. This is because the …

            So you model says the Moon rotates, thanks for playing.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yeah, you just need to google "orbital motion" or "revolution", bob. If you find "rotation about an external axis" mentioned, that settles the issue in the "Non-Spinners" favour.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            So if I google “orbital motion” and get no mention of “rotation around an external axis” that settles it in my favor?

            This is what I get

            “Orbital motion occurs whenever an object is moving forward and at the same time is pulled by gravity toward another object.”

            No mention of rotation around an external axis.

            And if I google revolution all I get is a boogie woogie

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGLGzRXY5Bw

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I’m sure you can look a little further than that, bob.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            How do you know how far I went down the google rabbit hole.

            Still didn’t find anything that remotely comes close to supporting your case.

            But you knew that.

            You knew it all along.

            You know you have it all wrong.

            You are just a troll.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Well, I found this:

            https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287

            “Revolution

            It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY

            Your google fuu is amazing.

            There is also this, the caption below the Moon on the left, Moon on the right.

            “Comparison between the Moon on the left, rotating tidally locked (correct), and with the Moon on the right, without rotation (incorrect).

            So without rotation for the Moon is incorrect.

            The caption correctly identifies which Moon is rotating.

            Why do you insist that your caption is wrong?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I found an issue-settler. That’s that.

          • Willard says:

            And so Gaslighting Graham found the same content farm he always cites.

            I suppose he could say he found it if he searched his notes.

          • Nate says:

            “I found an issue-settler. Thats that.”

            Sure, as long as you keep up the pretense that nobody else has posted contradictory facts, or that these facts can be ignored.

            The many inconvenient definitions of Orbit posted.
            The observations of a tilted lunar axis posted.
            The observable constant spin rate and non-constant orbital rate.

            That’s how we recognize trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Haven’t cited it for a long time, but yes, it still exists…and it’s an issue-settler.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Tim Folkerts says:

          Putting aside the poor word choice, this challenge applies equally to both sides. Which description is more useful for explain the motions of real moons? Can you prove that your model is better?

          Since real moons have elliptical orbits, one obvious test is what does the model predict for a non-rotating moon in an elliptical orbit? Can the model accurately predict observed librations?

          For the non-spinners, is the prediction that
          * one point faces directly toward the earth?
          * one point faces directly forward along the orbit?
          * one point faces directly toward the center of the ellipse?
          * other???

          If the model fall apart for an elliptical orbit, then it is not a viable model.
          ————————
          All you are doing here is denying any rotation on anything other than the central axis of an object that is absolutely rigid. Since no such absolutely rigid object exists in the universe (it would require a universe of a single object) you have effectively ruled absolutely everything out as being a true rotation as the stretching of the object would create a visual variation in your view of axis. DREMT properly characterized you as cherry picking your choice of what you want to call a rotation. The problem is that it leaves the rotation of the moon around the earth as an incomplete rotation. However if you choose the axis as the center of the earth the orbit the motion is now a complete rotation for which an angular momentum can be calculated.

          So your argument simply rules out any rotation around an external axis.

          So your favoritism is subjective rather objective. You find dividing up the moon’s motion into two motions more convenient. But in trying to make that the real rotation of the moon you are ignoring 99.9992% of the moon’s angular momentum around the earth in favor of .0008% of it.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bill h…”DREMT properly characterized you as cherry picking your choice of what you want to call a rotation”.

            ***

            You are describing the human condition. We observe natural phenomena and confuse what we see with the conditioned mental image upon which we evaluate evidence.

            Rotation is independent of the human observer. You cannot start or stop rotation by observing an object from different frames of reference. Of course, reference frames are a product of the human mind. One must observe rotation without reference to the content of the human mind.

            If one simply observes a body, with no attempt to analyze what is seen, it is obvious whether the body is rotating about its own axis, or not.

            This is where spinners fall short. They are looking at a body and seeing rotation about a local axis where none exists. In other words, they are adding mental images of what they think is happening without observing what is really happening.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Bill says: “you have effectively ruled absolutely everything out …”
            Not at all. All options have limitations. And all your objects apply to both models.

            “You find dividing up the moons motion into two motions more convenient. ”
            Not more convenient — more accurate! Treating orbital angular momentum and rotational angular momentum separately accurately predicts libration. All of the other choices listed above (including Gordon’s addition) 1) don’t predict libration correctly and 2) don’t conserve angular momentum.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “You cannot start or stop rotation by observing an object from different frames of reference. ”

            Correct. Unlike linear motion (which is relative), rotation is absolute. You can say with certainly if an object is rotating by measuring it in any inertial reference frame. You don’t have to wonder if the earth is station and the universe is rotating around the earth every day. The earth IS rotating once every 23:56 hr

            And the moon IS rotating, in any inertial reference frame. Only by CHANGING to a rotating frame can you observe no rotation for the moon.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Tim Folkerts says:

            ”Treating orbital angular momentum and rotational angular momentum separately accurately predicts libration.”

            Thats makes no sense. Cassini’s finding that an elliptical orbit has the same angular momentum throughout the orbit invalidates your argument. That means despite having a given angular momentum of an object orbiting another object one cannot predict the libration an observer will see. So your statement above is in error.

            You will need to come up with a logical argument that actually means something. Finally, the 99.9992% of the total angular momentum of the moon orbiting the earth does not comprise a rotation and only rotations have angular momentum.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “And the moon IS rotating, in any inertial reference frame.”

            No, Tim. The only way the moon can possibly be rotating on its own axis is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the right”. You ought to be intelligent enough to understand, why that consideration (whether “orbital motion without axial rotation” is like the MOTL or the MOTR) transcends reference frames.

            The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.

            Try something more interesting, Tim. Please explain exactly why it is thought that the moon’s so-called “axis of rotation” always points towards the same distant star. Not just something vague like, “oh, it’s been observed to” or anything like that. Please explain exactly what observations and reasoning has been made that has led astronomers to that conclusion. That would be something new…

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Please explain exactly why it is thought that the moons so-called axis of rotation always points towards the same distant star. Not just something vague like, oh, its been observed to or anything like that.”

            Well, it HAS been observed to do that, which is always the strongest scientific argument. Theoretically, the axis of rotation always points the same direction (and the rotation proceeds at the same rate) due to conservation of angular momentum. The earth’s gravity exerts no torque, so angular momentum must remain the same. Conservation of orbital angular momentum leads to elliptical orbits and equal-area-in-equal-time. Conservation of rotational angular momentum leads to constant rotation rate and constant rotation direction.

            Of course, all this is known to any physics major.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Bill says: “Thats makes no sense. Cassinis finding that an elliptical orbit has the same angular momentum throughout the orbit invalidates your argument. ”

            You misunderstood what I meant. Yes, orbital angular momentum is constant and yes that leads to kepler’s laws. Rotational angular momentum is ALSO constant, which leads to constant rotation about the axis. But the equal-area-in-equal-time result means that the moon travels in its ORBIT with varying angular velocities around the earth, but rotate about its AXIS with a constant rate. The miss-match between the two is the source of libration.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            DREMT claims :”The only way the moon can possibly be rotating on its own axis is if ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is motion like the ‘moon on the right’. ”

            Put a Foucault Pendulum at the ‘north pole’ of the moon. IF the pendulum changes orientation, the moon is rotating about the axis through the axis of the pendulum. This transcends the entire moon argument.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            You wrote –

            “Put a Foucault Pendulum at the north pole of the moon.”

            Off you go then, Tim.

            Once you have done it, report back. Or you can just keep telling people to do what you cannot do yourself.

            In the meantime –

            “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.” – Feynman.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Well, it HAS been observed to do that, which is always the strongest scientific argument.”

            Has it, though? As I asked, please explain exactly what observations and reasoning (not the theory you explained, which I already knew) led astronomers to the conclusion that the moon’s so-called axis of rotation points in the same direction throughout the orbit. You have not done so, and until you do, your declarations that it has been observed to do so are dismissed.

            As is the Foucault pendulum argument, which was answered by Tesla some time ago. All that would prove is that the moon rotates about some axis, as he put it.

          • Nate says:

            “Has it, though? :

            The observations by Astronomy of what the Moon’s axial tilt is, and where the axis points on the celestial sphere, is well documented, and found in all astronomical tables.

            Unless people here have found alternative observations, they have to go with what Astronomy has consistently reported for a long time.

            And I would point out that people here have been accepting all other observed properties of the Moon and its orbit.

            So to reject a subset of these observables that don’t agree with your pet theory is, well, cheating.

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Nate, observations are of Moon’s orbital motion. There is NO lunar rotation involved. Cult idiots “observe” a ball-on-a-string and claim it is rotating about its axis.

            Go figure….

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “As I asked, please explain exactly what observations and reasoning …”

            You are claiming that generations of scientists are wrong, and yet here you admit you haven’t the foggiest idea what data exists or how the theories work. That is not a promising start to overturning well-established understanding.

            It is YOUR job to show exactly what observations and reasoning contradict every scientist in the world.

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts, in other words, you’ve got NOTHING.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Exactly, Clint R. Tim just farts out some rhetoric instead of providing the requested information, which he obviously doesn’t have.

            Probably because it doesn’t exist.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Tim Folkerts says:

            You misunderstood what I meant. Yes, orbital angular momentum is constant and yes that leads to keplers laws. Rotational angular momentum is ALSO constant, which leads to constant rotation about the axis. But the equal-area-in-equal-time result means that the moon travels in its ORBIT with varying angular velocities around the earth, but rotate about its AXIS with a constant rate. The miss-match between the two is the source of libration.
            ——————
            When angular momentum remains constant it is a rotation by definition Tim.

            Thus the moon’s motion around the earth is by definition a rotation.

            Thus if it is a rotation it is as the moon on the left. One cannot physically break it apart without physically breaking it apart. If you do you remove 99.9992% of the angular momentum and what happens to the conservation of angular momentum then?

            This doesn’t happen with the spinning LP that breaks apart because the angular momentum is retained in every particle.

            So your argument does amount to denial that the angular momentum ascribed by science to the moon’s orbit exists.

            And the logical extension of that conclusion of yours (and others while failing to address the issue), contrary to science, is that there is no rotation on an external axis.

            You just admitted to that. When you conceptually break up the moons angular momentum into two concepts you can have the spin angular momentum (not rotational angular momentum as that is the angular momentum of the moon all 100% of it) but you can’t have the orbital angular momentum because there you will have a moon with zero angular momentum because you took all the moons mass away to conserve it in spin angular momentum. The mass of the moon cannot be in two different places at the same time.

            Nate already wants to consider it linear momentum but remains hopelessly confused on the topic and can’t produce any sources.

            Tim says:
            ”DREMT claims :”The only way the moon can possibly be rotating on its own axis is if ‘orbital motion without axial rotation is motion like the moon on the right’.”

            Put a Foucault Pendulum at the ‘north pole’ of the moon. IF the pendulum changes orientation, the moon is rotating about the axis through the axis of the pendulum. This transcends the entire moon argument.”

            Of course it will Tim because the moon is rotating on an external axis!!!!!!!! When you guys realize that the moon on the left is the correct one and is a rotation you will understand why the pendulum acts as it does. It is the ONLY case consistent with the sum of all your arguments.

          • Nate says:

            “It is YOUR job to show exactly what observations and reasoning contradict every scientist in the world.”

            It is really quite ridiculous, Tim.

            The loonies demand others do their homework to prove WRONG any astronomical observations that don’t fit THEIR beliefs.

            They are aware of no alternative observations that fit their hypothesis. And they are happy to accept all that Astronomy reports about the Moon, EXCEPT those details that disagree with their pet theory. Then they demand explanations from us which they will in any case dismiss out of hand.

            IOW they are happy to cherry pick from available facts as needed to confirm their beliefs, and dismiss any that don’t.

            Lets be honest, non-spinners, what you are doing here is the antithesis of science.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim…”orbital angular momentum is constant and yes that leads to keplers laws. Rotational angular momentum is ALSO constant, which leads to constant rotation about the axis. But the equal-area-in-equal-time result means that the moon travels in its ORBIT with varying angular velocities around the earth, but rotate about its AXIS with a constant rate. The miss-match between the two is the source of libration”.

            ***

            If angular momentum is constant it means angular velocity is constant. Therefore the Moon cannot move with varying angular velocity.

            Angular momentum applies mainly to rigid bodies rotating about and attached to an axle, or axis. The mass and velocity of such a body must be confined to move along a certain path and the Moon is not. However, for whatever reason, physicists have defined a pseudo-momentum for such conditions, just as the Coriolis force is a defined quantity that has no physical existence. A body like the Moon has no angular momentum other than by definition. In other words, it acts as if it has angular momentum but it has none.

            The truth is, Tim, the Moon has only a constant linear momentum. You are confusing velocity, a vector, with speed, a scalar quantity.

            Kepler’s law dealing with equal distance in equal time is about speed. Kepler was not a physicist, he was a mathematician who used the observations of Tycho Brahe to work out his math. He said nothing about angular momentum. If Cassini did, it means he misunderstood angular momentum.

            The reason a line from the Moon to the Earth carves out equal areas in equal times is about the relationship between the Moon’s linear momentum and a variation in Earth’s gravitational force. That’s why the orbit is elliptical and why libration exists.

            If the Moon’s linear momentum was balanced with gravitational force, the orbit would be circular. Obviously, the Moon’s linear momentum has slightly more effect than the gravitational force. Therefore, at certain parts of the orbit, it drags the orbit into a ellipse. The Moon is not following an elliptical path it is creating one.

            As I explained to you yesterday, libration is an orbital effect created by the near face pointing in different directions away from Earth’s centre. Since the Moon’s linear momentum creates the elliptical shape of the orbit it is also the cause of libration.

            Also, as I told you, if you take the radial line from the Moon’s near face at any point on the orbital path and use it with a line drawn between the Moon’s centre and Earth’s centre, you can form a right triangle with a small angle of about 5 degrees. If the centre-centre line represents Earth’s gravitational force then the right-triangle represents the components acting on the Moon. That force varies over the orbital path allowing Moon’s linear momentum to extend the orbit into an ellipse because it has slightly more effect than gravity.

          • Nate says:

            “If angular momentum is constant it means angular velocity is constant. Therefore the Moon cannot move with varying angular velocity.”

            Wrong Gordon, just as the ice skater spins faster up when she brings her arms and legs into her core, a planet in an elliptical orbit speeds up when it gets closer to the center. Both velocity and angular velocity SLOW when the planet moves further out from the center.

            That is the WHOLE point of Keplers Equal Area in Equal Time Law. And that arises from constant angular momentum.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Folkerts, in other words, youve got NOTHING.”

            No. Exactly the opposite. You all have nothing. You look at a picture; you talk about strings. You ignore 400 years of science as if it doesn’t exist. If you had anything you could point to actual errors in science books. You could point to data that shows how the moon actually moves.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Had a look and couldn’t find anything, huh, Tim?

            No, I couldn’t either…

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Bill states: “When angular momentum remains constant it is a rotation by definition Tim.”

            No! Rotation — by definition — is motion in a circle about some defined axis. Rotation does not have to be at constant speed (ie does not have to be at constant angular momentum). The moon does not “rotate” around the earth because it is an elliptical path.

            “Of course it will Tim because the moon is rotating on an external axis!!!!!!!! … It is the ONLY case consistent with the sum of all your arguments.”
            No, this isn’t the only description consistent with my arguments.

            Imagine a merry-go-round with a horse on a frictionless post. Everything is at rest — the MGR is not rotating; the horse is not rotating. Then start the MGR spinning. The horse will start to ORBIT the center (move in a circular path), but the horse will NOT start to rotate (the nose will keep pointing the same direction). Only an ADDITIONAL torque on the horse will start it rotating around the post (ie rotating about its axis). And once the torque is removed, the horse will continue spinning about its own axis. Indeed, if you then stop the rotation of the MGR, the horse will continue to rotate on its post. The two motions are distinct!

            You might not agree that this is the BEST description, but you should at least be able to see this is CONSISTENT with everything I (and scientists for 400 years) have claimed.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            DREMT admits: “No, I couldnt either”

            You have no idea where to find data. And yet you are 110% sure that all the scientists for the past 400 years are wrong. All with zero data to support any claims. (And with no theory, either!)

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tim, that’s just more empty rhetoric. Provide the information, or admit that you can’t. Pretty straightforward.

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts, you’re just another braindead cult idiot posing as an out-of-work college gadfly. You have NOTHING to contribute, except your made-up physics and false accusations.

            If you’re serious about wanting to see the science that refutes the lunar rotation nonsense, and verifies that Moon does NOT rotate, are you willing to stop commenting here for 90 days?

            You’re not really serious, are you?

          • Nate says:

            “Had a look and couldnt find anything, huh, Tim?”

            Loser trolls demand others validate their nutty ideas.

            Heres a hint. Look at the movies of lunar libration. You can see that the N. pole tilts in different directions as the Moon moves through its orbit. See lower left diagram depicting the axis.

            https://moon.nasa.gov/system/video_items/120_phases_2022_fancy_1080p30.mp4

            This is the view from Earth, astronomers work out the view from the stars by accounting for the motion of the Earth. They find that an axial tilt of 6.7 degrees.

            Go read about how they do that. If you doubt that they have done it correctly show us your evidence!

            Otherwise accept that they likely know what they are doing.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nothing from anybody that I haven’t already seen before, so far.

          • Nate says:

            Evidence seen, is evidence denied.

            Making it clear that its not really about the facts at all, is it.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Still nothing.

            People are going to have to try much, much harder if they want to settle this argument.

            What I need to see are the exact observations and reasoning that have led astronomers to believe that the moon’s so-called "axis of rotation" remains tilted always in the same direction throughout the orbit…because at the moment it looks like it’s just an assumption based on the theory Tim explained:

            "Theoretically, the axis of rotation always points the same direction (and the rotation proceeds at the same rate) due to conservation of angular momentum."

            We have the observations from the Earth of the libration in latitude. So, here, we see a little bit more of parts of the moon throughout the orbit primarily because of the fact that the moon’s orbital plane is tilted relative to the ecliptic. OK, so what? How do we get from that to thinking that the moon’s so-called axis of rotation points in the same direction throughout the orbit? Seems like a non-sequitur…

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Tim Folkerts says:

            ”No! Rotation by definition is motion in a circle about some defined axis. Rotation does not have to be at constant speed (ie does not have to be at constant angular momentum). The moon does not rotate around the earth because it is an elliptical path.”

            Your argument blows before it even gets the door open. Angular momentum is dependent upon only two things: Rotational velocity and rotational inertia. To have either you must have a rotation.

            Tim Folkerts says:

            ”No, this isnt the only description consistent with my arguments.

            Imagine a merry-go-round with a horse on a frictionless post.”
            ——————

            There you go again being a slave of the concepts of your education. There is no such thing as a horse on a frictionless post and your argument only works if there is such a thing.

            Tim Folkerts says:

            ”You might not agree that this is the BEST description, but you should at least be able to see this is CONSISTENT with everything I (and scientists for 400 years) have claimed.”
            ————————
            Actually no scientist ever made a claim of the existence of a frictionless post. All you did was confound concepts taught to you by scientists for ways to ‘approach’ problems as physical reality and you and others not fully comprehending your education made extrapolations beyond science.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Bill claims: “Angular momentum is dependent upon only two things: Rotational velocity and rotational inertia.”

            Yet again — no. The more general statement for angular momentum is the cross product L = r x p. Objects moving in straight lines have angular momentum.

            This definition can be used to derive the specific equation L = I(omega). Integrate r x dp for all the parts of a sphere and you get the angular momentum of a sphere.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”It is YOUR job to show exactly what observations and reasoning contradict every scientist in the world.”

            It is really quite ridiculous, Tim.

            The loonies demand others do their homework to prove WRONG any astronomical observations that dont fit THEIR beliefs.
            ———————-
            What is ridiculous is Tim claims a contradiction of every scientist in the world that is false and since they have no other argument Nate jumps in and effectively claims it it is ridiculous to contradict a falsehood.

            Thats why the biggest argument for the moon’s rotation, CO2 global mean warming, and all the other fad falsehoods you guys ascribe to has as its central argument is that science is a popularity contest.

          • Nate says:

            “What I need to see are the exact observations and reasoning that have led astronomers to believe that the moons so-called ‘axis of rotation’ remains tilted always in the same direction throughout the orbit”

            Not enough of a need, apparently, to bother investigating yourself. Oh well!

            You demand others to do the work you supposedly want, but when others provide evidence, you always dismiss it out of hand. Thats how your game is played.

            You’ve made it clear that finding out the facts and the truth are not the priority for you.

            The point here is score imaginary points. And you get these imaginary points by irritating and humiliating others, as you try to do here to the infinitely tolerant Tim,

            “Tim just farts out some rhetoric instead of providing the requested information, which he obviously doesnt have.”
            “Provide the information, or admit that you cant.”

            That’s otherwise known as trolling. That is the goal here.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "Thats why the biggest argument for the moon’s rotation, CO2 global mean warming, and all the other fad falsehoods you guys ascribe to has as its central argument is that science is a popularity contest."

            Yes, it’s the old argumentum ad populum fallacy. As Clint R would say, they’ve got nothing.

            Speaking of Clint R, Tim should really take him up on his offer.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “There is no such thing as a horse on a frictionless post and your argument only works if there is such a thing.”
            And once again, no.

            The ‘frictionless post’ is simply an idealization to make one point clearer. Like ignoring air friction when calculating the path of a projective. The existence of air resistance doesn’t invalidate Newton;s Laws, and neither does friction from the bearings.

            Any real post would have some frictional torque of course, but that in no way invalids anything i said. (And we could always add a small motor that provides a balancing counter-torque). the base gets to its full rotational rate quickly. The horse gets to its full rotational rate over a much longer time frame. Two motions.

            PS. the ‘frictionless’ ideal is probably much better than you imagine. Gravity provides a strong inward pull, but basically no ‘frictional torque’ on the moon.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Tim you make the same physics error with the frictionless post as you do with the claim that the earth’s gravity doesn’t exert any torque on the moon (because it is a sphere).

            Indeed if the post had no friction there would be no rotation of the horse. Like wise if there was no torque on the moon from the earth there would be no rotation. At least none if no other force and momentum were present. But neither condition is physically possible without the presence of another force or momentum (such as an existing spin).

            then since about half the moon’s the solar system are tidally locked you are arguing effectively that its just a coincidence they happen to rotate at exactly the same rate as the orbit. . . .which of course would be an absurd possibility.

            Your argument was there was no torque exerted on the moon by the earth and that is clearly wrong. So you flipped to frictionless posts (posts that do not exert any torque on the horse). If either of those conditions were possible you could have horses on merry-go-rounds and moons that didn’t rotate without extraordinary engineering and providing a completely different force/momentum to eliminate the resulting rotation from such torque.

          • Nate says:

            “As Clint R would say, theyve got nothing.”

            Indeed that is the go to answer when the TEAM has no answers.

            When your TEAM has agreed that its not about the facts anymore, and any facts and logic can be dismissed without a valid reason, then indeed that leaves your opponents with nothing, except to stop feeding the trolls..

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Nate, you’ve got plenty of nonsense. It’s “reality” and “science” where you’ve got NOTHING.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            “The only way the moon can possibly be rotating on its own axis is if orbital motion without axial rotation is motion like the moon on the right. ”

            That’s what the caption says idn’t gvnor?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, bob…wrongly.

          • Willard says:

            [TIM] I got the observations of generations of astronomers, from Babylonians to today.

            [PUP] So you got nothing.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            We all have those same observations. Just different ways of interpreting them.

            For instance, we all observe the libration in latitude…but only some of us jump to the conclusion that this proves the moon has an "axis of rotation" which remains oriented in a fixed direction throughout the orbit. Others wait until the reasoning behind this apparent non-sequitur is explained in full.

            After all, the reason for the libration in latitude is primarily that the moon’s orbital plane is tilted from the ecliptic. How the "Spinners" get from a) to b) is left as an exercise for the reader, instead of being explained…

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Indeed we have seen how this evolved. It started with a diagram like the moon on the left and just a moon with an apparent axis conveniently drawn at the axis of ‘apparent’ motion of the moon while excluding the moon’s motion around the earth. Indeed if you don blinders you can fool yourself in a whole variety of ways. Like fooling horses whose natural instincts and basic survival depend upon being nimble and to weave when being pursued.

          • Willard says:

            Actually, Bill, it did not start with Gaslighting Graham’s favorite GIF he keeps misrepresenting for a 76th month:

            The world’s oldest analog computer and one of the most remarkable scientific objects of antiquity ever found, the mechanical model of the solar system is thought to date to between the third and first centuries B.C. Now fractured into 82 known fragments, there is surviving evidence of 30 bronze gears. However, researchers believe this highly sophisticated device originally included at least 69 intricately engineered meshing gears that enabled the ancient Greeks to track the phases of the moon and the positions of the planets, and even to predict the timing of lunar eclipses decades in advance.

            https://phys.org/news/2022-03-ancient-civilizations-cosmos.html

            Imagine all the ingenuity you would add to improving your life he you were not so keen on expressing online your fear of death and taxes.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Hopefully Gaslighting Little Willy was paying attention to bob’s 10:40 AM comment. It might help him out next time he gets all "confused" about what the "Spinners" think the GIF shows.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Indeed if the post had no friction there would be no rotation of the horse. ”
            Excellent! If the nose started out facing north and had no rotation about its own axis, the nose would indeed keep pointing north. Even after the platform starts to rotate, the horse remains non-rotating about its axis, always facing north.

            “Like wise if there was no torque on the moon from the earth there would be no rotation. ”
            Well actually the formation of the moon imparted it with a relatively fast rotation about its own axis. No torque from the earth needed. (and it has slowed considerably since then).

            “then since about half the moons the solar system are tidally locked you are arguing effectively that its just a coincidence …”
            Yes, tidal locking is a thing. I was ignoring at this level of discussion because it doesn’t really matter. Tidal locking is a very small torque that can be effectively ignored over the course of 1 or 10 or 1000 orbits.

            “Your argument was there was no torque exerted on the moon by the earth and that is clearly wrong.”
            No. The ultimate argument is that ‘non-rotating’ means with respect to some ‘fixed’ frame. If a moon (or rock or satellite) starts with no rotation about its own axis relative to the stars (analogous to the non-rotating MGR horse), then the moon (or rock or satellite) will continue with no rotation about its own axis relative to the stars.

            ‘Non-rotating on its own axis’ does NOT mean “with respect to the ground when the platform is stationary, but with respect to the platform when the platform is spinning.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Tim Folkerts says:

            Indeed if the post had no friction there would be no rotation of the horse.
            Excellent! If the nose started out facing north and had no rotation about its own axis, the nose would indeed keep pointing north. Even after the platform starts to rotate, the horse remains non-rotating about its axis, always facing north.
            ————————-
            We agree some physics is necessary to create a rotation.

            Tim Folkerts says:

            Like wise if there was no torque on the moon from the earth there would be no rotation.
            Well actually the formation of the moon imparted it with a relatively fast rotation about its own axis. No torque from the earth needed. (and it has slowed considerably since then).
            ———————-
            Well here you are just guessing Tim. Do you teach your students to guess also? Forget the physics and research and just guess?

            Fact is the physics of the rotation on an external axis is capable of ending an independent spin, it is also capable of starting it up and it is even capable of first ending an independent spin in the wrong direction and they get it rotating in the right direction.

            Tim says:

            Yes, tidal locking is a thing. I was ignoring at this level of discussion because it doesnt really matter. Tidal locking is a very small torque that can be effectively ignored over the course of 1 or 10 or 1000 orbits.
            —————–
            So you actually agree with the non-spinner position and have just been ignoring to be a good member of your pack?

            Tim says:

            Your argument was there was no torque exerted on the moon by the earth and that is clearly wrong.
            No. The ultimate argument is that non-rotating means with respect to some fixed frame. If a moon (or rock or satellite) starts with no rotation about its own axis relative to the stars (analogous to the non-rotating MGR horse), then the moon (or rock or satellite) will continue with no rotation about its own axis relative to the stars.
            ————
            No? you mean you were lying when you said: ”The earths gravity exerts no torque, so angular momentum must remain the same.” Obviously if no torque was being exerted the original independent spin on the moon prior to orbital capture would not have ended and there would be no rotation on an external axis. the moon on the right is not rotating but its an impossible situation for a moon because torque will be present.

            Tim says:

            ”Non-rotating on its own axis does NOT mean with respect to the ground when the platform is stationary, but with respect to the platform when the platform is spinning.”
            ——————
            Sounds like gobbledygook.

          • Nate says:

            “We all have those same observations. Just different ways of interpreting them.”

            For instance, we all observe the libration in latitudebut only some of us jump to the conclusion that this proves the moon has an ‘axis of rotation’ which remains oriented in a fixed direction throughout the orbit. ”

            Gee, wouldnt it be great if people did OFFER a different, logical way of explaining libration, instead of just declaring that Astronomers must have gotten it wrong all this time!

            But non one has.

            That’s how we recognize bullshit.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            “If youre serious about wanting to see the science that refutes the lunar rotation nonsense, and verifies that Moon does NOT rotate, are you willing to stop commenting here for 90 days?”

            I’ll take that bet Clint R.

            If you fail, you should stop commenting for 90 days, but I’ll not require the quid pro quo.

            You are going to fail.

            Because you can not verify that something that is rotating, does not rotate.

            There’s another reason, I am smarter than you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            How exciting! bob agrees to take Clint R up on his offer. Of course, you’re replying a bit late, bob, so Clint might not notice your comment.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            I didn’t realize Clint R offer has an expiration date.

            He still can not prove the Moon isn’t rotating and neither can you.

            You can inform him of my agreement to his challenge.

            I’ll expect his usual lousy science that is easily refuted.

            Is he going to do his ball on a string trick?

            We all remember that astronaut’s demonstration that the ball on a string is rotating on its axis.

            You will need something better.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "I didn’t realize Clint R offer has an expiration date."

            I never said, nor implied, that it did, bob. You will need to go and find him, maybe a bit further down-thread, though.

          • Willard says:

            > Sounds like gobbledygook.

            To you, Bill, almost everything does.

            How about: “Only by CHANGING to a rotating frame can you observe no rotation for the moon.”

            Does that sound like gobbledygook to you?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • bobdroege says:

        DR EMPTY,

        “They have one thing to prove. Can they do it?”

        Too easy, it’s oriented on one particular point, so its not rotating, which means it has no axial rotation, which means it is an example of orbital motion without axial rotation.

        Are we done yet?

        I guess not, because you have not provided an acceptable definition of axial rotation.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          No, we’re not done, bob, because over on the other article you admitted that to move like the "moon on the right", the camera we were discussing had to be rotated on its own axis. Whoops!

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            As I have already explained to you, the camera is not orbiting, because it is being held by a person who is rotating, so the camera is rotating, to take a still picture it must counter rotate.

            Nothing at all to do with the Moon on the right, which doesn’t exist, whoops yourself.

            I have already explained it correctly to you, now all you have to do is figure out that you are WRONG!

            And the reason we are not done yet, is that you REFUSE to PROVIDE a DEFINITION of AXIAL ROTATION.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Silly bob. All terms have been defined about five thousand times before. "Axial rotation" just means "rotation about an axis that is internal to the object in question", and it must be kept separate from "orbital motion" alone (which means "orbital motion without axial rotation", just in case there was any doubt).

            Of course the camera is orbiting the person. It’s held out from them at arm’s length whilst they are spinning on the spot. So, they are rotating, the camera is rotating about them, i.e. rotating about an external axis (the center of their body is the axis about which the camera is rotating). So that is rotation about an external axis (the axis is external to the camera), or "revolution". You then have to rotate the camera on its own internal axis in order to get motion like the "moon on the right".

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            “”Axial rotation” just means “rotation about an axis that is internal to the object in question”,”

            Finally

            Yes that is what the Moon is doing, we know that because it is observed that any point on the surface of the Moon traces a circle about the axis of rotation.

            It’s an observation, go to your closest Observatory and ask an Astronomer to explain it to you.

            Are you near Oxford?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bob d…”Yes that is what the Moon is doing, we know that because it is observed that any point on the surface of the Moon traces a circle about the axis of rotation”.

            ***

            That would mean that at some point the far side would need to be facing the Earth. Lunar rotation implies a 360 degree rotation, like the Earth. Each day, the Earth shows all sides to the Sun. Even if you slowed Earth’s rotation down to one rotation per year, it would need to show all sides to the Sun.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Finally”

            Like I haven’t defined “axial rotation” a dozen times for you before, already!

            I repeat what I said about the camera…

            …and no, obviously the moon is not observed to rotate on its own axis.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            When the Moon is full, the near face points to the Sun, two weeks later, when the Moon is new, the near face points away from the Sun, in order for that to happen the Moon must rotate 180 degrees every two weeks.

            And I’ll remind Gordon that pointing to the Earth from the Moon is not a constant direction, it is always changing.

            Obvious.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "When the Moon is full, the near face points to the Sun, two weeks later, when the Moon is new, the near face points away from the Sun…"

            …because the moon exhibits "orbital motion without axial rotation" about the Earth.

          • Willard says:

            Gaslighting Graham is not exactly near Oxford, Bob.

            Though to be fair by American standards any place on Great Britain is next to the other.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Gaslighting Little Willy claims to know where I live…should I be concerned?

          • Willard says:

            There’s nothing like incompetent flak from Gaslighting Graham to make my day.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Some might say that Gaslighting Little Willy’s constant references to where I live, occasional postings of personal information about me, and always using what he believes to be my real name might constitute abuse of the sort that normally gets people banned…

          • Bill Hunter says:

            bobdroege says:

            When the Moon is full, the near face points to the Sun, two weeks later, when the Moon is new, the near face points away from the Sun, in order for that to happen the Moon must rotate 180 degrees every two weeks.
            ——————————
            bob still lacks sufficient grey matter to comprehend that is exactly what every object does when ‘rotating’ around an external axis.

          • Willard says:

            Moon Dragon cranks still fail to get that the Moon spin is about physics, not geometry.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy has no understanding of either physics or geometry, and always ignores the hundreds upon thousands of times the "Spinners" have tried (and failed) to settle the issue through geometry.

          • Willard says:

            “Meet me in the middle,” says the Moon Dragon Crank.

            Team Science takes a step towards him.

            The Moon Dragon Crank takes a step back.

            “Meet me in the middle,” repeats the Moon Dragon Crank.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Gaslighting Little Willy does his "false accusations" thing…

          • bobdroege says:

            Bill,

            One counter example should do.

            “bob still lacks sufficient grey matter to comprehend that is exactly what every object does when rotating around an external axis.”

            But before I do that, I’ll remind you that the Moon is not rotating around an external axis because its orbit is an ellipse.

            Now for the counter example:

            The Earth.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That’s because the Earth is rotating about an external axis as well as rotating on its own internal axis, bob.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            So is the Moon,

            The caption is correct, you are not.

            You can not redefine a positive amount of axial rotation to be zero axial rotation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, bob, the moon moves like "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".

            You just need to learn about rotation. You can do it, I know you can.

          • Nate says:

            “You just need to learn about rotation” from the teeny tiny cult of Lunatics.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …bob, the moon moves like "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".

            You just need to learn about rotation. You can do it, I know you can.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            bob’s unemployed so he is in here fishing for a job. Hopefully he finds somebody willing to hire him so he can lay his argument out for scrutiny.

          • bobdroege says:

            Bob’s employed.

            Bob has a sweet gig, bob sits at home drawing a salary until he gets called to go some where and count some anti-matter.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Plenty of time for you to learn about rotation, then.

          • Willard says:

            Moon Dragon cranks still fail to get that the Moon spin is about physics, not geometry.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …of time for you to learn about rotation, then.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ent…different motions.

      Your Twitter example of the camera on a gyroscope mounted on a rotating planet, reveals the rotation of the planet as it should be seen. Our eyes as human observers would see the sky moving while we remained still. That’s due to the illusions created by our minds. The gyro sees it as it is.

      Place the gyroscope with camera on the driver’s side of a car moving CCW around a track. Starting halfway down the straightaway with the cam pointed at centre-track and start to move CCW. If the cam initially points west, it will try to keep pointing west right around the track.

      As I see it, for one straightaway it will point away from the car and for the other straightaway it will point toward the car. On the ends of the track, where the car turns around the curve, the cam should show the view field to the west as standing still.

      That’s what you see with the gyro-cam set up on the Moon. It would be pointed at the Moon for half its orbit.

    • Bindidon says:

      Entropic man

      It’s hard to imagine people denying such evidence as shown e.g. in the paper:

      A STUDY OF MOON LANDING SITES AND RELATED TIMES OF RESIDENCE
      by Laurence W. Enderson, Jr. (1965)

      https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/nasa_tn_d_2795.pdf

      but they clearly exist!

      And best of all, none of them would ever be able to scientifically contradict what the author has written.

      Some even don’t read the paper, so they don’t understand its content and so they can’t do anything but distort, misrepresent, discredit and denigrate.

      It was merely an ‘academic exercise’.

      Pseudoskepticism at its best.

      • Clint R says:

        Bin, did you find another source you can’t understand?

        Yup.

        No wonder you can’t produce a viable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. You spend all your time finding things you can’t understand. That’s why you remain braindead.

      • Clint R says:

        Bindidon found a link he can’t understand so he assumed no one could understand it. It doesn’t apply IN ANY WAY to the fact that Moon does not spin on its axis. But, the link contained this interesting tidbit:

        “It is assumed that the lunar equator and the earth-moon plane are coincident (they actually differ by approximately 6.70) and the moon is in a circular orbit about the earth at its mean distance (384,560 km).”

        The cult always tries to denigrate the ball-on-a-string model because the motion is circular, rather then elliptical. But Bindidon’s source, that he can’t understand, allows for Moon’s orbit to be a circle.

        That’s why this is so much fun.

        • Bindidon says:

          1. ” It doesnt apply IN ANY WAY to the fact that Moon does not spin on its axis. ”

          Clint R still eliminates when reading documents everything what doesn’t fit his opinionated narrative.

          We read on page 17:

          If a delay or wait period in orbit is allowed, the effect on the landing sites is a westward precession of the sites relative to the lunar orbit .

          This precession takes place at a rate of 13.2O° for each day delay in orbit and is due to the rotation of the moon on its polar axis.

          I don’t think the author would have assumed that the Moon doesn’t spin.

          *
          2. ” But Bindidons source, that he cant understand, allows for Moons orbit to be a circle. ”

          Here again, the genial Clint R carefully omits the relevant part.

          Other variations in the possible landing sites on the lunar surface exist as a result of the assumptions made in this paper that the lunar equator is always in the earth-moon plane and the moon is in a circular orbit about the earth.

          However, throughout a lunar month the inclination of the lunar equator to the earth-moon plane varies from 0.0 to ± 6.7° in latitude.

          Also the elliptic orbit (eccentricity of 0.0549) of the moon about the earth causes a variation in the mean longitude of the moon of approximately ± 8.0°.

          *
          Unlike you, I very well understood the paper and have seen that the author unfortunately worked with a geocentric model, instead of using a selenocentric one, what led him to partly erroneous conclusions which were corrected by other people later on.

          Do you see what I mean?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”This precession takes place at a rate of 13.2O for each day delay in orbit and is due to the rotation of the moon on its polar axis”.

            ***

            They are dead wrong. There is no rotation about the polar axis. In fact, there is no pole.

            This is not opinion, we have exhaustively proved the Moon cannot possibly rotate on its local axis. You, on the other hand, have failed to prove our calculations and proofs are wrong. All you have offered is an appeal to authority without any proof you understand the claims of your authority figure.

            If you are happy combing the Net for quotations to support your case, that is one thing. You should at least try to counter the arguments we present based on an understanding of physics. Thus far, all you spinners have offered is an obfuscated definition of rotation that fails to meet the physical reality.

            For example, a car driving around a track could not progress along the track in a normal fashion if it began rotating about its COG. An airliner flying in the sky around the Equator would crash if it rotated 360 degrees per orbit.

          • Bindidon says:

            Robertson Ignoramus is here again

            ” They are dead wrong. There is no rotation about the polar axis. In fact, there is no pole.

            This is not opinion, we have exhaustively proved the Moon cannot possibly rotate on its local axis. ”

            *
            What you have to deliver is the scientific proof that the work performed by e.g. Mayer, Lagrange and Laplace (there are about hundred others) was wrong.

            Your problem: you are not even able to do the simplest task imaginable: to correctly compare anomalies published by NOAA and UAH.

          • Clint R says:

            Bin, there’s no need for you to keep confirming your ignorance of orbital motion. We know you don’t know anything about this.

            1) 13.2 * 27.3 = 360.36°. That a full orbit, Bin. Moon is orbiting, but NOT rotating.

            2) Yes, Moon has an elliptical orbit offset from Earth’s orbit. That has NOTHING to do with axial rotation.

            You get to try again.

            (Make it even funnier next time. You don’t want to bore us like bob and Nate do, do you?)

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            You wrote –

            “What you have to deliver is the scientific proof that the work performed by e.g. Mayer, Lagrange and Laplace (there are about hundred others) was wrong.”

            Well, he doesnt have to “deliver” anything. Why should he? Facts are facts – and not dependent on whether people accept them or not.

            You “deliver” a constant stream of irrelevant appeals to authority about subjects which have nothing to with AGW or the mythical GHE. You have previously implied that you no further interest in the GHE. Fine, but in that case why are you hammering out stuff about opinions on something which you can’t actually define, again?

            Define rotation, define revolution, define orbit – precisely, allowing precise and reproducible measurement, without overlap of meaning under any circumstances – no SkyDragon “exception proves the rule”, or “I really meant something else” if somebody points out that you are talking about something which you can’t substantiate.

            What you have to deliver is some proof that you know what you are banging on about, and why anyone should care.

            Carry on.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”What you have to deliver is the scientific proof that the work performed by e.g. Mayer, Lagrange and Laplace (there are about hundred others) was wrong”.

            ***

            None of them are physicists, they have arbitrarily applied math to a physical problem none of them understood.

        • Bindidon says:

          Helloooo, you blathering stalker!

          Do you have something to say?

          No?

          Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something.

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Maybe you can’t read English too well.

            You wrote

            What you have to deliver is the scientific proof that the work performed by e.g. Mayer, Lagrange and Laplace (there are about hundred others) was wrong.

            Well, he doesnt have to deliver anything. Why should he? Facts are facts and not dependent on whether people accept them or not.

            You deliver a constant stream of irrelevant appeals to authority about subjects which have nothing to with AGW or the mythical GHE. You have previously implied that you no further interest in the GHE. Fine, but in that case why are you hammering out stuff about opinions on something which you cant actually define, again?

            Define rotation, define revolution, define orbit precisely, allowing precise and reproducible measurement, without overlap of meaning under any circumstances no SkyDragon exception proves the rule, or I really meant something else if somebody points out that you are talking about something which you cant substantiate.

            What you have to deliver is some proof that you know what you are banging on about, and why anyone should care.

            Carry on.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        You are confusing certain matters in the article related to orbital motion and rotation.

        At the top of page 6 it states this:

        “Since the lunar orbit is fixed in space and the moon rotates at an angular rate of approximately 13.9 degrees per day, there exists a relative motion between a given point on the lunar surface and points on the established lunar orbit”.

        They do not mention a rotation about the local axis, what they call rotation is a re-orientation of the near face at 13.2 degrees per day (actually 13.176 degrees/day). That would give a full 360 degree re-orientation over the 27.322 day sidereal orbital period.

        Note: ‘the lunar orbit is fixed in space’. That means it is oriented using a gyro, making its motion independent of lunar motion. Therefore, as the Moon’s near face is re-orienting in space at 13.2 degrees per day, adjustments have to be made to keep the orbiter telemetry synchronized to the changing direction of the near face as the Moon orbits.

        When they refer to the Moon rotating, they mean the near face is rotating wrt to the Earth’s surface and wrt the orbiter itself.

        • If Moon were rotating about its “axis” there would be day-night cycle of 365 days on the Moon.

          https://www.cristos-vournas.com

          • Bindidon says:

            Vournas

            Butt-kissing Robertson again?

            Why do you then write nearly everywhere on this blog that Earth rotates ~29 times faster than the Moon?

            It seems that you have kinda double personality, doesn’t it?

          • Clint R says:

            If everyone would use the words “revolve” and “rotate” correctly, there would be less confusion.

            “Revolve” is what Earth does as it orbits around Sun. “Rotate” is what Earth does a it spins on its axis.

            Moon revolves, but does NOT rotate.

          • Bindidon says:

            Genius Clint R

            You should try to convince Vournas.

            Your chance to succeed is equal to zero.

            Read carefully

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1392285

            ” Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon and because Earths surface is covered with water. ”

            and try to tell Vournas he means with ‘rotates’ the same as ‘orbits’.

          • If car moves faster than camel, it doesn’t mean car walks faster than camel… Bindidon!
            Because you perfectly know cars do not walk, Bindidon.

            https://www.cristos-vournas.com

          • Clint R says:

            Bindidon is quick to find a splinter in someone else, but he ignores the log through his own head.

          • Bindidon says:

            Clint R

            Will you finally ask Vournas

            ” Christos, does the Moon rotate ~29 times slower around its polar axis than does the Earth? ”

            or do you prefer not to ask?

          • Bindidon says:

            Vournas

            ” If car moves faster than camel, it doesnt mean car walks faster than camel… Bindidon!

            Because you perfectly know cars do not walk, Bindidon. ”

            You are very good in dodging too! Your ambiguous sentence can be interpreted in any way you like.

            Why don’t you speak the same unequivocal language as your equations?

          • Clint R says:

            Bindidon, CV is comparing Moon’s synodic period (29.53 days) to Earth’s day. You can’t understand any of this.

          • Earth and Moon are orbiting the common barycenter. So, if Earth were not rotating around Earth’s axis, Earth’s diurnal cycle would also have been 29,53 actual Earth days – just like Moon’s diurnal cycle is.

            https://www.cristos-vournas.com

          • Bindidon says:

            ” Earth and Moon are orbiting the common barycenter. ”

            Now, Vournas, you become simply ridiculous.

            Earth’s and Moon’s barycenter is inside Earth, distant from Earth’s center by ~ 4,600 km, i.e. roughly 1.2 % of the Earth-Moon distance.

            This is, for the discussion here, absolutely insignificant. The barycenter plays a relevant role for a better understanding of Moon’s and Earth’s exact orbiting trajectories.

            *
            And when I look at:

            ” Bindidon, CV is comparing Moons synodic period (29.53 days) to Earths day. You cant understand any of this. ”

            I ask me how you can be willing to support such nonsense.

            You discredit yourself.

            But keep speaking two different languages, Vournas, and support the ball-on-a-string!

          • Bindidon:

            “But keep speaking two different languages, Vournas, and support the ball-on-a-string!”

            Thank you, Bindidon.

            Shall we now discuss the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?

            https://www.cristos-vournas.com

          • Bindidon says:

            Sorry, I lack any interest to this stuff.

            And anyway, you know my position about your ‘little extra’ since quite a while.

            Expect no change unless you post it in an open corner so people who know a lot more about it than me can show you what they’re missing in your “theory”.

          • Bindidon:

            “Expect no change unless you post it in an open corner so people who know a lot more about it than me can show you what theyre missing in your theory.”

            Thank you, Bindidon.
            I am working on it (post it in an open corner).

            But till it is posted in an open corner (you know how long it takes, so many procedures…), till it is posted, please, what it is you are missing in my theory?

            https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Willard says:

      Meanwhile, let’s appreciate the Moon photobombing the Earth:

      https://youtu.be/_7pZAuHwz0E

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      "He won’t learn, and will just disappear as he always does, only to come back in a few days time to repeat the same mistakes."

      …and he did exactly as I predicted.

  87. Gordon Robertson says:

    Here’s the latest in environmental lunacy. It began in 1991 so this is likely the recycling of a bad idea.

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

    The idea suggests we humans should stop reproducing and die out to save the planet. I fully support eco-alarmists and climate alarmists on this noble endeavor, although I won’t be joining them.

    This is more evidence of the cult-mentality driving climate alarm. For some quaint reason, the alarmists think that we humans dying off will be applauded by Mother Nature and that inorganic matter will celebrate the event.

    You have to be a bit twisted to embrace such thinking.

  88. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Severe winter attack in the Midwest. After snowstorms passed over the Dakotas, nighttime temperatures in North Dakota will drop below -20 C.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…to put things in perspective, when I lived on the Canadian prairies for a year, in Regina, many years ago, late November was the time temperatures were expected to hit -35C. So, -20C in the North Dakota, which is right below Regina, is normal for this time of year.

      It’s difficult to describe the difference between -20C and -35C, it has to be experienced. My friend told me of a time when oil cans for engine oil had to be punctured to get them open. There was a spout that would puncture the can and allow the oil to pour out through the spout.

      At -20C, the oil would flow out, even though it was thick from the cold. However, at -35C, the oil was so thick that you could turn the can upside down and no oil would pour out of the can.

    • Bindidon says:

      ren

      To put things in perspective:

      USW00094084 55-31 2014 12 1 -32.9
      USC00323196 55-30 2006 12 3 -31.1
      USW00094014 55-30 2006 12 3 -31.1
      USW00014919 54-32 2014 12 1 -31.0
      USC00320626 55-32 2014 12 1 -30.6
      USC00320941 55-31 2006 12 3 -30.6
      USC00326025 55-31 2014 12 2 -30.6
      USC00328276 55-31 2006 12 3 -30.6
      USC00328737 55-30 2006 12 3 -30.6
      USC00328792 55-31 2014 12 1 -30.6

      All weather stations in… North Dakota, like

      USW00094084 48.9675 -102.1703 561.4 ND NORTHGATE 5 ESE
      USC00323196 48.9081 -103.8056 716.3 ND FORTUNA 1 W

      etc etc

      Not so much UHI, as it seems.

  89. Eben says:

    Predictions shmedictions, which prediction line will the sun follow ?
    The answer – none of them

    https://i.postimg.cc/g2pgG5kB/cycle25.png

  90. Swenson says:

    Eben,

    I was getting all hot and bothered wondering which prediction was right.

    I sought assistance from weather.gov, and was reassured as follows –

    “So how much does the solar output affect Earth’s climate? There is debate within the scientific community how much solar activity can, or does affect Earth’s climate.”

    That’s a relief. Even scientists aren’t sure if solar activity can, or does, affect climate.

    It looks like I can sleep soundly again – no imminent climate crisis due to the actions of Sol.

    Or maybe . . .

  91. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Thompson Pass is officially closed for the season!
    https://i.ibb.co/0hPN0Db/316833870-510342067795569-6864797141767484451-n.jpg

  92. Ken says:

    UAH temperature anomaly. 0.18 down from 0.32.

    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      November Temperatures (preliminary)
      Global composite temp.: +0.17 C (+0.31F) above the seasonal average
      Northern Hemisphere: +0.21 C (+0.36 F) above seasonal average
      Southern Hemisphere: +0.12 C (+0.22 F) above seasonal average
      Tropics: -0.16 C (-0.29F) below seasonal average

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Thanks, Ken. Sure has been colder than normal in our neck of the woods.

    • Eben says: