The Warming that Happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas

November 10th, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Now that I’m back to researching the surface air temperature record and the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, I decided to revisit the temperatures in Las Vegas, Nevada. It’s been over 8 years since I posted about Las Vegas being the poster child for the UHI effect and I showed some warming trend calculations from the hourly temperature data at McCarren International Airport (now Harry Reid International Airport… not kidding) which suggested that much of the warming there has been from the urban heat island, not global climate change.

And this is the trouble with monitoring global climate trends — most of the land data are gathered where people build things… increasingly so. In June of last year, The Guardian, predictably, conflated the urban heat island effect with climate change when it stated,

“Driven by the climate crisis and intensified by the city’s expansive growth, Vegas is already cooking — and it is going to get worse.”

Many people don’t really make a distinction between the two. It is reasonable to ask the question, how much has the region around Las Vegas warmed in the last several decades, compared to in the city itself? The trouble is that there are few hourly temperature measurement locations with data extending back at least 50 years in the region that are rural in nature. The area is, after all, a desert, and people don’t usually choose to live in such locations.

I computed 50-year trends for Las Vegas and for a rural Nevada station, Winnemucca from 24-hourly data, which allows us to see how the trends change with time of day. I did this for the warmest half of the year, April through September. The following plot shows a remarkable feature… the strong warming in Las Vegas has been entirely at night. Winnemucca shows the background climate signal, with fairly uniform (and weak) warming trends throughout the day. But the impervious surfaces in Vegas — buildings, concrete, asphalt — absorb more sunlight during the day than the surrounding desert, and then at night release that heat into the air.

Part of the reason this happens is the albedo of the city is lower than that of the surrounding desert (thanks to Anthony Watts for reminding me of this). But at least as important is that fact that concrete has a thermal conductivity 9 times as large as sand does, so when it is heated by the sun, much more energy is stored down into the pavement. Sand would have gotten exceedingly hot, but just at the surface, and the extra energy would radiate away (infrared) as well as drive stronger atmospheric (dry) convection which would carry that heat away during the daytime.

Why would such a thing not show up during the day just as well? Because turbulent mixing driven by a strong super-adiabatic lapse rate near the surface spreads the heat up through the atmosphere and cooler air comes down to replace it, cooling the city during the day. But then at night, a temperature inversion forms, and the lowest levels of the atmosphere no longer exchange energy convectively with higher altitudes. In effect, the strong nighttime inversion that naturally occurs in the desert has weakened over the city as the pavement releases the extra energy it has stored during the day.

The actual background climate warming in the last 50 years in Las Vegas (whatever its cause), based upon the above plot, looks to be around 0.25 deg. C/decade. This is also part of the reason why it is important to monitor global temperature trends with satellite measurements of the deep troposphere — it provides a more robust measurement that is not as influenced by surface effects, such as the Urban Heat Island, and avoids conflation of Las Vegas heat with the “climate crisis”.


514 Responses to “The Warming that Happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. E. Schaffer says:

    I have a slightly different take on the UHI effect, though that might be challenged in the case of Vegas. Yes, concrete stores heat (and cold) better than soil or sand, meaning less temperature spread.

    The warming itself however is likely related to a lack of water. Naturally precipitated water wettens the soil and provides evaporation chill for a while. In cities the water goes into the drain. I would assume the UHI effect is smaller in place like Vegas, with a naturally dry environment, than in wetter locations.

    ** Yes, my analysis is for Las Vegas, as a desert location. Most UHI cases around the world are primarily due to replacing native vegetation. -Roy

    • DMackenzie says:

      Sorry, wrong Roy, Infrared radiation from the ground skywards is proportional to a view factor times [Tground^4-Tsky^4]. And the view factor of the cold sky is muchly reduced by ever taller buildings blocking the view of the sky from a square meter of ground.This has much more effect than an albedo change of .25 for desert sand to .18 for green meadows and shrubs.

      • Swenson says:

        D,

        At night, ground temperatures drop, showing that the ground is losing energy faster than it is gaining it.

        If the ground is surrounded by ever taller buildings, then more of the radiation is lost to the buildings (which are warmer than outer space). This energy still is still eventually lost to outer space, but will proceed more slowly, given that the thermal capacity of said buildings is greater than the atmosphere.

        However, all you get is a higher nighttime minimum, with no effect on the daytime max. Starting off the day with something warm makes no difference to its maximum temperature.

        Your “Sorry, wrong Roy, . . .” might just indicate your ignorance of reality.

        Are you ignorant enough to believe in the mythical GHE?

        • DMackenzie says:

          Dr. Roy, whom I have great respect for, said UHI was mostly albedo change and I said it was most blocking of the view of cold sky by tall warm buildings. I thought this might create some intelligent commentary regarding the difference between downtown and suburban conditions where Dr. Roy is correct.
          And yes, I believe in the GHE because at 288C ground level radiates 390 watts upward while incoming solar averages 240. QED.

          • Swenson says:

            DM,

            Your “belief” is odd, considering that the Earth has managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so, notwithstanding vast amounts of internal radiogenic heat, combined with four and a half billion years of continuous sunshine.

            I suppose you “believe” that a body radiating more energy than it receives is actually getting hotter? You claim that 390 out, and 240 in, shows heating?

            Maybe you meant to write something else, or you are quite mad.

            In any case, hopefully you are not one of the SkyDragon idiots who “believe” that the Earth cooled to 255 K, (GHE notwithstanding), and then magically heated itself to 288 K!

            Carry on “believing” whatever you like. Nature doesn’t seem to care.

          • Ken says:

            Swenson is one of the resident trolls who will call you ‘mad’ if you state anything beyond his ability to understand. Don’t take it personal.

          • Swenson says:

            Ken,

            Here’s what DM wrote –

            “And yes, I believe in the GHE because at 288C ground level radiates 390 watts upward while incoming solar averages 240. QED.”

            Go on, tell me that you agree that a body radiating 390 watts upwards and receiving 240, is heating due to a GHE!

            If you do, are you quite mad, or suffering from some other form of severe mental impairment?

            You are not mad enough to believe you can describe the GHE, I trust. Give it a try, if you want to be laughed at.

            Others can make up there own minds whether you are just ignorant, delusional, or just suffering from some form of madness. Don’t blame me if people don’t leap to your defense.

          • Nate says:

            “I suppose you believe that a body radiating more energy than it receives is actually getting hotter? You claim that 390 out, and 240 in, shows heating?”

            No, but Flynnson seems unbothered by a surface with 390 out and 240 solar in, and isn’t cooling.

            Maybe he can explain this glaring discrepancy?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate expresses the only argument for the GHE. A lack of his ability to see other possibilities. Nate simply believes that 240w/m2 is capable of warming a surface to 390w/m2 and wants somebody else to give an explanation rather than providing one for his own position.

            So Nate concludes in his abject ignorance of an explanation that his non-explanation is infinitely better than any other non-explanation.

          • Nate says:

            Bill is welcome to explain the discrepancy also!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Well the simplest is that the ‘expected’ global mean Stevenson screen and/or surface temperature* based upon zero greenhouse gases is based upon an untrue condition of 1.0 emissivity. How much error is introduced there is unknown.

          • Nate says:

            Again, Bill comments long after a discussion is over. Hoping I won’t notice??

            “is based upon an untrue condition of 1.0 emissivity. How much error is introduced there is unknown.”

            Not at all. The emissivity of the Earth is very high. For example the ocean”

            “The best up to date measurements of ocean emissivity in the 8-14 μm range are 0.98 0.99. The 8-14 μm range is well-known because of the intense focus on sea surface temperature measurements from satellite.”

            https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/27/emissivity-of-the-ocean/

            Let’s be conservative and use a lowball figure of 0.9 for the Earth.

            You will have emission of 0.9*390 = 341 W/m^2, and there REMAINS a huge discrepancy with the abs*orbed solar of 240 W/m^2.

            If you guys could simply accept the well established fact that there is a greenhouse effect, then the discrepancy goes away.

  2. Well done Roy.

    I plan on making more driving transects with my calibrated theremometer like I did in 2008. This will absolutely verify what you are getting from the ASOS airport data, whic is just one point.

  3. Nate says:

    When you quote the NOAA trend, is it obvious that that data point is included in the US or global trend calculation?

    • Nate says:

      For example here is what GISS uses for Las Vegas.

      They claim it is adjusted and homogenized to account for urban effects.

      https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00264429&ds=14&dt=1

      • Sean says:

        I would also be curious if water restrictions may have moved the needle a bit in Las Vegas. 25 years ago, you could plant a lawn which you’d need to water most of the year. About 15-20 years ago, they started paying people to remove their lawns and do hardscape or desert landscaping. Even though there has been a lot of growth in Vegas (>25% between 2008 and 2022), the water usage between 2008 and 2019 fell about 10% so I would expect the amount of water used for outdoor watering probably fell at least 30%. Could this land use change have affected temperatures as well?

      • RLH says:

        Is that ‘mean’ a true average of the hourly figures or is it (max+min)/2?

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Don’t trust the GISS adjusted.

        • Swenson says:

          spa,

          What? Don’t you trust figures adjusted by GISS? is it because its director (Gavin Schmidt – supposedly a mathematician)) doesn’t realise that a 38% probability is less than a favourable result obtained from a coin toss – not a virtual certainty that 2014 was “the hottest year ever”.

          Schmidt, and his crowd of knuckle-draggers figured that adjusting past temperatures downwards made present temperatures seem warmer – or something.

          Maybe your mistrust in GISS is justified.

        • Nate says:

          Unbiased people can see that the GISS data don’t include the UHI effect for Las Vegas that this article is worried about.

          So the concerns in the article are not relevant to GISS.

          GISS is one of a dozen or so analyses of T data that find quite similar results.

          • Tim S says:

            Nate, you are making a non-science argument that seems more like a political argument. Science is not about voting or going with the “consensus” — especially when so many questions exist. Skeptical science directed at the consensus should be met with a science response. To say “We Voted” is not enough.

          • Nate says:

            That makes absolutely no sense Tim.

            Whether UHI corrupted data is or is not included in data used for science is what I discussed.

            How is that a ‘non science argument?

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            Succinctly, climate is the average of weather. No science there, a competent 12 year old can calculate averages with pencil and paper.

            Maybe you believe the posturings of the self appointed “climate scientists”, who claim their “science” is just as useful as social science or political science. They might be right, actually – all of them pale into insignificance compared to the “domestic science” taught to young women – along with “home economics”, which seemed to produce more useful results than the “economics” followed by various governments.

            Here are a couple of supposed “climate scientists” – Gavin Schmidt PhD, incompetent mathematician, who believed a 38% probability meant “almost certain”. Michael Mann PhD, geologist and geophysicist, also noted fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat.

            No wonder they claim to be “climate scientists”! Hopefully, they can calculate averages as well as a 12 year old “domestic science” student.

            What do you think?

          • Nate says:

            I think you offer the same boring red-herrings that we’ve seen from you for years. No original thought.

          • Swenson says:

            Succinctly, climate is the average of weather. No science there, a competent 12 year old can calculate averages with pencil and paper.

            Maybe you believe the posturings of the self appointed climate scientists, who claim their science is just as useful as social science or political science. They might be right, actually all of them pale into insignificance compared to the domestic science taught to young women along with home economics, which seemed to produce more useful results than the economics followed by various governments.

            Here are a couple of supposed climate scientists Gavin Schmidt PhD, incompetent mathematician, who believed a 38% probability meant almost certain. Michael Mann PhD, geologist and geophysicist, also noted fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat.

            No wonder they claim to be climate scientists! Hopefully, they can calculate averages as well as a 12 year old domestic science student.

            What do you think?

          • Nate says:

            I think repeating oneself for no apparent reason is a sign of insanity.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”GISS is one of a dozen or so analyses of T data that find quite similar results.”

            Nate puzzles over how similar results keep occurring from different folks using virtually the same data. LOL!

  4. Tim S says:

    This is anecdotal, but back around 1985 I flew into that airport in a friends private plane. We landed out in the desert. That airport has now grown with more runways and it certainly is not out in the desert anymore.

  5. CAD says:

    There remain very few areas globally where natural land surface properties have not been disrupted. Particularly in the northern hemisphere.

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-over-the-long-term

    If not directly by urbanization, or grazing/cropland, the effective eradication of predator-prey relations has disrupted food chains from top to bottom, right down to the microfauna biodigesters in soils.

    The curves of ecosystem change resemble pretty closely those of climate change.

    An ecosystem consists of all the organisms and the physical environment with which they interact. These biotic and abiotic components are linked together through nutrient cycles and energy flows. Mess with one piece of the ecosystem, and it cascades to everything else, including climate.

    • CAD says:

      This does not prescribe any sort of moral argument, it just is what it is. If we don’t comprehend that our very existence will impact upon our environments we are indeed quite deluded. We can leave the rest to the philosophers to make sense of it all.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      CAD says:

      ”There remain very few areas globally where natural land surface properties have not been disrupted. Particularly in the northern hemisphere.”

      Climate changes over long periods of time. Put recent warming has been regionally partial to the northern hemisphere to a significant degree. Since we have no other explanation for that regionality the difference between the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere favors exactly what you say. . . .more development in the northern hemisphere compared to the southern hemisphere. If so one would have to add a dose of UHI to the southern hemisphere as well as it certainly has undergone a significant amount of development.

    • Clint R says:

      Exactly CAD, unnecessary change in not always beneficial.

      • Nate says:

        “Since we have no other explanation for that regionality”

        Bill speaks only for himself here.

        • Swenson says:

          Nate,

          Ooooooh! Did you get that information from God, or did you make it up all by yourself?

          Keep the SkyDragon silliness coming.

        • Nate says:

          Weird non-sequitur…

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            You wrote –

            “Bill speaks only for himself here.”

            I responded –

            “Nate,

            Ooooooh! Did you get that information from God, or did you make it up all by yourself?

            Keep the SkyDragon silliness coming.”

            Non- sequitur?

            I think not, but others are free to come to their own conclusions. Only SkyDragons, the supremely ignorant, stupid, or the mentally afflicted, are likely to accept your unsupported God-like assertions as fact.

            By the way, what role did your mythical GHE play in the cooling of the Earth over the last four and a half billion years or so? No cherry picking at all – the longest period available. Then till now!

            Feel free to claim that the Earth was created as a solid cold blob, and has since been heated by the Sun. Do you believe that the Sun was originally a solid cold blob as well, or did the GHE make it hotter through the miracle of assorted GHGs?

            Oh well, keep looking like an idiotic SkyDragon. You can blame me, if you wish, but I don’t think anyone cares.

          • Nate says:

            A repeated non-sequitur is still a non-sequitur.

            Looking for attention? Try your mom.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            You wrote

            “Bill speaks only for himself here.”

            I responded

            “Nate,

            Ooooooh! Did you get that information from God, or did you make it up all by yourself?

            Keep the SkyDragon silliness coming.”

            Non- sequitur?

            By the way, how are you getting on trying to find a useful description of the GHE? Not well?

            Colour me unsurprised.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Nate pretends to have an explanation as usual. But when you press him he never ever produces.

          • Nate says:

            Again posting long after a discussion is over, hoping Nate isnt paying attention, and posting nothing substantive.

            New habit?

            Satisfying?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Indeed after a long pause you still hadn’t posted anything substantive Nate. I wasn’t introducing anything new and you didn’t even address the point when you found it later. So what difference does it make?

          • Nate says:

            Your pointless ad homs don’t need to be addressed.

            My original point was simply that you and others here have a tendency to take your own lack of knowledge and extrapolate it to assume it is science’s lack of knowledge.

            When you make a post like “Since we have no other explanation for that regionality” which is simply false, that is misleading.

            It is worth calling that out, IMO.

            There are KNOWN reasons why ‘recent warming has been regionally partial to the northern hemisphere to a significant degree.’

            The NH has most of the land mass, which warms faster, and open ocean with sea ice at the Pole, which is susceptible to melting and production of Arctic amplification of the warming. It has a current that brings tropical warming to the Arctic ocean.

            The SH is mostly ocean, and it has a polar land mass, which is an ice-box, less susceptible to melting and less able to produce Antarctic amplification of the warming.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”My original point was simply that you and others here have a tendency to take your own lack of knowledge and extrapolate it to assume it is sciences lack of knowledge.”

            There is no question about that Nate.

            Scientists are no different than you or I. We all have opinions and largely those opinions are uneducated.

            To distinguish between fact and opinions one must rely upon ‘published’ evidence. Evidence that can be demonstrated via replication. If it can’t be replicated its mere speculation and educated people can have differences of opinion.

            In all of the areas you comment such as moons, cold stuff warming hotter stuff, claimed insulation values, feedbacks, etc. you never have any of the evidence that qualifies as evidence. Instead it is based upon opinions.

            That is so wrong at every level. First you cherry pick your scientists. Scientists in fact do not all agree on any of the stuff you bark about. That doesn’t stop you from spouting off and claiming that you have evidence and the matter is settled. In no way shape or form is that true.

            ————-
            ————-

            Nate says:

            ”There are KNOWN reasons why recent warming has been regionally partial to the northern hemisphere to a significant degree.’

            Incorrect Nate! There are opinions on why it is true. While one can point to the arctic as being warmer it can’t be said that a warmer arctic is responsible for a general rise in global mean temperature readings. It is a simple fact that if the arctic is cooling faster it might be actually doing the opposite and cooling faster certainly isn’t responsible for warming anything.

          • Nate says:

            “Scientists are no different than you or I. We all have opinions and largely those opinions are uneducated.”

            Proof that the Idiocracy is here.

            In their scientific area of expertise, they know a hell of a lot more than you or I!

            “To distinguish between fact and opinions one must rely upon ‘published’ evidence.”

            Good point.

            But why don’t you try that BEFORE blurting out uninformed opinions like

            “we have no other explanation”???

          • Nate says:

            “While one can point to the arctic as being warmer it cant be said that a warmer arctic is responsible for a general rise in global mean temperature readings. ”

            And…nobody has said that.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”But why dont you try that BEFORE blurting out uninformed opinions like
            ”we have no other explanation”???”

            That would be the difference between an explanation that is not inconsistent with science and one that is established in science Nate!

            The former is an opnion NOT established in science and thus is NOT science.

          • bill hunter says:

            thats your problem as you consider the utterance of scientists that is consistent with your political loyalties to be science. myself i am educated and trained to verify the evidentiary basis of all such utterances prior to believing they are founded in science versus simply not inconsistent with science. the difference is the difference between fiction (science fiction, e.g. Jules Verne) and non-fiction. Often thats a blurry line.

    • Nate says:

      “The curves of ecosystem change resemble pretty closely those of climate change.

      An ecosystem consists of all the organisms and the physical environment with which they interact. These biotic and abiotic components are linked together through nutrient cycles and energy flows. Mess with one piece of the ecosystem, and it cascades to everything else, including climate.”

      Has anyone shown that these changes all, or mostly, produce warming? And by how much?

      Science is required to be specific and quantitative. Hand waving generalizations are not useful.

      • CAD says:

        @Nate

        Contemporary reductionist climate science exhibits glaring failures of omission.

        Public scientists and their GCM experiments having reduced the system to trace gas concentration, vs skeptics who seek to deny broad scale human influences upon climates.

        While the UHI is evident with our thermometers by the higher magnitude of temperature change compared to rural lands, it is false to presume that rural areas are free from direct human influence.

        One should note that once the land is cleared, drained, and ecosystems radically altered, the rate of climate impact will assuredly slow. The 20th century represents a period of rapid ecosystem change.

        Such factors receive very little interest in the research community, but at some point I suspect the science will catch up to reality.

        Vast changes to vegetation and soils impacts energy budgets and large scale circulations
        https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-14861-4_4

        Computing direct perturbations to evapotranspiration and surface radiation budgets
        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311340976_The_role_of_water_and_vegetation_in_the_distribution_of_solar_energy_and_local_climate_a_review

        Massive disruptions to the continental water cycle impacts land-ocean temperature contrasts and large scale atmospheric dynamics
        https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.12880

        Soil carbon loss reduces soil moisture
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/eint/26/1/EI-D-22-0003.1.xml

        • Nate says:

          CAD, ok I’ll have a look at those.

          “Such factors receive very little interest in the research community”

          Actually land-use changes and their impact on carbon emission and climate are an important research topic. For example the deforestation during the 18th and 19th century is relevant for the possible growth of atm CO2 during that period.

          • CAD says:

            @Nate said

            “the deforestation during the 18th and 19th century is relevant for the possible growth of atm CO2 during that period.”

            This is precisely the reductionist mindset that is limiting development of climate science. There is much more to the system than CO2 and other trace gases. The more relevant factors, not yet investigated, are the energetics of the water cycle, including biotic influences on cloud condensation and evapotranspiration from the surface. GCMs do not incorporate these highly complex processes.

            One particular exception is NorESM2-LM which incorporates basics of human perturbation to cloud nucleation. Incorporating the basics of this reduces ECS from NorESM1 at 2.8K to 2.54K in NorESM2-LM. However, this only barely scratches the surface of human influences. Furthermore, I take particular issue with the whole concept of ECS altogether. It limits the scope of climate science, forcing us to look through the lens of CO2 doubling above all.
            https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/9591/2020/

          • Swenson says:

            CAD,

            Presumably, the paper to which you linked is computer generated, with 29 people contributing to the cost of having this nonsense published.

            Here’s the first sentence from the conclusion –

            “Effective radiative forcing is the driving process behind long-term changes in global-mean surface temperature. As ERF is now preferred to RF, climate models are the best tools we have to determine the heating impacts of various species on the Earth atmosphere system.”

            Or you could use a thermometer, if measuring degrees of hotness is your aim.

            A paper written by SkyDragon idiots, for consumption by other idiots, the exceptionally gullible, or the mentally afflicted.

          • CAD says:

            @Swenson

            this is the drivel we have to work with, unfortunately. You must communicate in their preferred vernacular to convey information, else it’s like banging your head against a brick wall.

          • CAD says:

            Personally I find ECS to be a damagingly constrictive conceptual framework, and quite boring. But it is, today, the breadth of whatever it means to be a climate scientist, for better or worse. I think for the worse. A shameful reduction of a fascinating field. But it is what it is. It becomes necessary to relay information in relation to the putative ECS, for this is how climates are conceptualized.

          • Nate says:

            “The more relevant factors, not yet investigated”

            CAD, here you are expressing certainty about these factors being more relevant, yet uninvestigated.

            This would seem to be a contradiction.

          • CAD says:

            @Nate says “contradiction”

            One does not advance understanding by an academic reduction of climates to a global average temperature anomaly, reduced further-still to factors of well mixed greenhouse gases and aerosol.

            It is old knowledge to know that clearing and draining our landscapes will impact upon our environments rather directly. Somehow this has been forgotten. The cumulative impact by now in 2022 is rather large. A vast transformation of ample latent heat dissipation and cloud, to tangible heat and cloudless skies.

            Nothing about such matters ever seems to emerge from the professional climate communicators. They offer a grossly negligent perspective of environments, with net-damaging consequences for the credibility of their science and for society at large.

            The system reduced to the factors they think they know, with glaring blind-spots and ignorance of obvious factors long-since forgotten.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:
            ””The more relevant factors, not yet investigated”

            CAD, here you are expressing certainty about these factors being more relevant, yet uninvestigated.

            This would seem to be a contradiction.”
            —————————-

            It is only a contradiction if you are misinformed about which element in the atmosphere provides the greatest greenhouse effect. Water,in fact and widely acknowledged in scientific circles is responsible for a super majority of radiant effects in the atmosphere for both incoming and outgoing in different proportions. Water is also the most variable element in the atmosphere in both quantity and phases.

            Studying how that might work in concert with medium length periods of climate change much less long term ones is ignored due to the misguided and selfish agendas of those promoting the reductionist mindset that CAD speaks of and of which you have become a mere tool of that self interest of those who influence you. Such a tool that you actually made the post I am discussing here.

        • Nate says:

          CAD, I think these are valuable studies, that add to our knowledge of anthropogenic climate change, and extreme weather, especially regionally.

          I don’t see anything indicating they are ALTERNATIVE explanations of the GLOBAL warming that we are experiencing.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        You wrote –

        “Science is required to be specific and quantitative.”

        Very true. The fact that you can’t even describe the GHE shows that you are just a hand-waver, doesn’t it?

        Maybe you could explain why the GHE was responsible for four and a half billion years or so of the Earth cooling?

        For extra laughs, tell me that the GHE not only cools the Earth, but randomly heats it it up from time to time, before it returns to cooling mode!

        Idiot.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          Nate says Mother Nature needs a mastermind like himself to control stuff.

        • Nate says:

          Flynnson appears frustrated that I keep pointing out the flaws in his logic.

          “The fact that you cant even describe the GHE shows that you are just a hand-waver, doesnt it?”

          It has been explained to you here countless times by me and others, and you seem unable to comprehend or retain this information, nor do you seem the least bit interested in seeking out any of the countless sources on this topic that are freely available to you.

          What seems to be the problem?

          And thus you will keep misrepresenting it in cartoonish red herring forms:

          “Maybe you could explain why the GHE was responsible for four and a half billion years or so of the Earth cooling?”

          This is how we recognize loser-trolling.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            You wrote (regarding the mythical GHE) –

            “It has been explained to you here countless times by me and others, and you seem unable to comprehend or retain this information, . . . “.

            Unfortunately, those “countless times” have occurred in your imagination, which is why you can’t produce a single one! What you imply is nonsensical in any case, as you are claiming to have “explained” something which has never been described in any scientific sense.

            You haven’t managed to provide an answer to my question -“Maybe you could explain why the GHE was responsible for four and a half billion years or so of the Earth cooling?”, because the question is admittedly incapable of being answered – there is no GHE!

            Here’s your big opportunity (should you decide to take it), to demonstrate your support for science, and the scientific method.

            First step – describe where the GHE may be reliably observed, so that independent observers may measure and document same. If you can’t at least do that, you might just as well play with yourself (or Willard – he seems to be obsessed with masturbatory and homosexual innuendoes), for all the notice rational people are likely to accord you.

            Or you could just keep avoiding reality.

            The choice is yours, oh stupid and ignorant SkyDragon!

          • Willard says:

            Sky Dragon cranks like Mike Flynn say the darnedest things.

          • Swenson says:

            Awww, Weepy Wee Willy –

            “Sky Dragon cranks like Mike Flynn say the darnedest things.”

            Have you really fallen so low? Is this what you are reduced to?

            [heaps derision on ineffectual SkyDragon]

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Nate,

            Give us your arithmetic version of GHE.

          • Nate says:

            C’mon guys, I’d have a better chance of success at teaching Calculus to the cat.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            I agree. You would definitely have more success teaching calculus to a cat, than describing the mythical GHE.

            One task is completely impossible, by comparison with the other.

            Did you have to study really hard to achieve your present level of incompetence?

            [snigger]

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Yeah, you really displayed an astute grasp of Berry’s Model.

          • Nate says:

            Aim higher Stephen…

          • Swenson says:

            Nate has lapsed into full SkyDragon avoidance mode. Cryptic, yet strangely meaningless, three word sentences like “Aim higher Stephen”.

            What an incompetent idiot he is!

          • Willard says:

            Nate is simply suggesting that Troglodyte ought to aim higher than Ed’s crap, Mike. That is all.

            Hope that helps.

  6. Thomas says:

    Dr. Roy,

    Were you aware that NOAA recently changed the National Temperature Index that is based on the USCRN? The previous version showed nearly eight years of cooling up to the present. The new version shows eight years of warming. The website says they only updated to the new Climate Normals, from the 1981-2010 to the 1991-2020, but that should not change the trend. I’m waiting for them to respond to my email to explain what they did.

    Is there some reason you don’t use the unadulterated USCRN to show that the NOAA official record is running too hot due to UHI?

    https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/.

    • Nate says:

      The changes shown are very very small. Much smaller than the actual T variation over the period.

      All the data sets, even UAH, make small adjustments from time to time with new data coming in or improvements to the methods.

      • Thomas says:

        The charts at the website shows the difference between ClimeDiv and USCRN. It does not show the changes that I am talking about. When NOAA updated the USCRN, they turned a nearly-eight year cooling trend into an eight year warming trend. I only know this because I saved the old dataset.

        See this post at WUWT for more information.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/06/open-thread-40/#comment-3634450.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        You wrote –

        “All the data sets, even UAH, make small adjustments from time to time with new data coming in or improvements to the methods.”

        What new data is “coming in” from historical records? None at all?

        What do “improvements to the methods” achieve in relation to peering into the future? Nothing at all?

        It definitely appears that you are implying that the recorded temperature data is rubbish, so “everyone” corrects it, and all the previous “methods” are rubbish, also requiring correction – “improvements”!

        Maybe you could indicate how any of this improves any SkyDragon’s ability to see into the future. Presumably, that is the only reason for all the “adjustments” and “improvements”.

        Not a single historical fact has been changed by any of this garbage, and the prediction of future climate states is impossible.

        Carry on dreaming.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          They are using out-of-spec mercury in their thermometers. They need leftist masterminds to correct them.

    • Bindidon says:

      Thomas

      ” When NOAA updated the USCRN, they turned a nearly-eight year cooling trend into an eight year warming trend. I only know this because I saved the old dataset. ”

      And… why do we not see this ‘old data set’ ?

      When did you save it?

      *
      I downloaded the complete original USCRN hourly data last year in June

      https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/

      in order to compare different evaluations of hourly data:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b4RCt-RkYqO8bRqHXzyswglC5M1z9pOt/view

      (For technical reasons, the reference period is 2016-2020.)

      The average evaluation I compared today with NOAA’s monthly USCRN data (‘All months’):

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bLtj3SF4iGBrawcbrEmVMXo9FbtNbULB/view

      No idea why NOAA’s evaluation shows such high deviations.

      Fact is however that the linear estimates for Jan 2005-Jun 2021 are very near (C / decade).

      NOAA: 0.57 ± 0.30 for the time series, 0.53 ± 0.09 for the SG smoothing

      Bin: 0.51 ± 0.13 resp. 0.53 ± 0.05

      No ‘turn’ to be seen here!

      *
      Feel free to show us your older revision of NOAA’s USCRN data (hopefully the monthly variant).

      • Thomas says:

        This link should take you to a dropbox page that has a spreadsheet with the old and the new data.

        https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qcxgrlgb4p7olstfv80fl/USCRN-New-Data-vs.-Old.xlsx?dl=0&rlkey=yniqflzw6y3idjol3qdm5nwic

        The last time I downloaded the old dataset was in Sept. of 2022. I first downloaded it in May of 2019 and I have been updating it every few months ever since.

        I don’t know what NOAA did with the old data. It does not appear to be anywhere on their site.

        I’ll ask after they get back to me on why the update changed the trend.

        • Bindidon says:

          I downloaded your stuff and plotted it wrt to the 2016-2020 mean I use:

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YWgPSzoa2u8N2C4W9ZVQngxxbli0LghH/view

          The trend line for my data is dashed, so you can see the trend for NOAA’s new data behind it.

          Linear estimates in C / decade

          old data: 0.576 +- 0.300
          new data: 0.504 +- 0.331
          Bin data: 0.509 +- 0.128

          The old data probably was either made using different processing methods, or had to be updated due to a major error correction.

          *
          Time for a last glass of wine, UTC+1 here!

        • Bindidon says:

          Running means added.

          Still no turn to be seen here!

          • Thomas says:

            Bin,

            What concerns me is the change resulted in an 8.5 year cooling trend (May 2014 to Sept 2022) being changed to an 8.5 year warming trend.

            NOAA explained what they did to update the dataset. They updated it so the anomalies are calculated from the new Climate Normals (1991 to 2020). The previous dataset used the previous Normals (1981 to 2010).

            https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/background

            But the explanation makes no sense because such an update should not change the multi-year trend.

            You wrote.

            “I downloaded your stuff and plotted it wrt to the 2016-2020 mean.”

            For Jan. 2016 through Dec. 2020, I get a -2.8 C/decade trend. Cooling, not warming using the old NOAA dataset.

          • Bindidon says:

            Your problem seems to be that you lack the technical skill to accurately observe and process time series data.

            1. When two running mean plots (blue and red) are so close together, the probability that the series have such different linear estimates as you claim is ZERO.

            Even using HQLP instead of running means, or performing a multiple regression over the two series won’t change that.

            2. The linear estimates for the old resp. new revision for Jan 2016 till Dec 2020 are, in C/decade:

            – old: -2.82448457904973 +- 1.76120959589828

            – new: -2.85425951653237 +- 1.95257815808767

            3. From my evaluation:

            – Bin: -1.69367046401778 +- 0.561346481718064

            *
            Thus, in the sum, NOAA’s trends for 2016-2020 are even lower than mine, what was to be expected because the green running mean keeps higher than the others.

            No idea what you did wrong, but you did it.

          • Bindidon says:

            ” The previous version showed nearly eight years of cooling up to the present. The new version shows eight years of warming. ”

            *
            Last step: here are your old vs. new plots together with the Savitzky-Golay filter applied to them:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v44Wi1Zq2SORtTFTs6aIVicXTIwpTtsN/view

            Not only did the SG filter reduce the standard error by a lot, making the estimates more reliable; it shows also trends lower than those shown by the data itself:

            old: -3.22 +- 0.25
            new: -3.40 +- 0.29

            The trend of the new data is even a bit lower than that for the old revision.

            OK?

          • Thomas says:

            Bindidon,

            You’re not showing the trend of the last 8.5 years of the new and old data. As I did here.

            https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qcxgrlgb4p7olstfv80fl/USCRN-New-Data-vs.-Old.xlsx?dl=0&rlkey=yniqflzw6y3idjol3qdm5nwic

            You are missing the point that I’m making, even though I have stated it in clear language several times. It is true, as your charts show, that there is little difference in the trend of the dataset when viewed from beginning to end. But it is also true that the new dataset has a warming trend in the last 8.5 years, while the old dataset had a cooling trend.

            If you won’t take the time to read what I wrote, and to respond to that, there is little point in continuing this discussion.

            Several years ago I noticed that for a considerable period of time there was no warming trend in the USCRN data. At one point there was no warming trend for more than 11 years. I was interested to see how long that lack of warming would continue. So I visited the site every few months to update my chart. Then sometime in October of this year, I went to the site to get the most recent data and I noticed that all the anomalies were different and the recent past now showed warming.

            I contacted NOAA to ask what changes they had made. They said they had updated the anomalies to the new 30-year Climate Normals. But since the trends in the two data sets were different, they must have done more than that just updating to new Climate Normals because that should not change the long term trend. I explained this to NOAA, sent them copies of the charts showing different trends, and asked them to tell me how updating anomalies to new Normals could change the long-term trend. I have yet to receive an answer. But the scientist at NOAA did say he would look into it.

          • Bindidon says:

            Sorry Thomas, but… you were the one who wrote

            ” For Jan. 2016 through Dec. 2020, I get a -2.8 C/decade trend. Cooling, not warming using the old NOAA dataset. ”

            *
            1. Here is a chart showing the dropbox data (old & new) as is:

            https://tinyurl.com/3pj87nmv

            2. Here is the same data with the two plots displaced by their respective mean wrt 2005-2020:

            https://tinyurl.com/yckesvkk

            and now I understand better what you mean, though the old data shows no cooling for Jan 2014 till Sep 2022:

            old data: 0.394 +- 0.807

            BUT… the new data shows much more warming than the old one:

            new data: 1.021 +- 0.828 (!)

            Using the Savitzky-Golay smoothing gives nearly the same difference:

            old data: 0.056 +- 0.191
            new data: 0.570 +- 0.217

            *
            These trends are partly useless because the standard errors are bigger than the estimates: that is what often enough happens when having too high deviations from the mean and too short observation periods.

            *
            What remains it that for Jan 2005-Sep 2022, the trends keep similar:

            old data: 0.600 +- 0.072
            new data: 0.622 +- 0.079

            though being a lot higher than that for an evaluation of the active CRN stations in the (raw raw) GHCN daily data set:

            0.506 +- 0.040

            For Jan 2014 till Sep 2022, however, CRN stations in GHCN daily show

            -0.010 +- 0.089

            i.e. the GHCN daily data looks more like NOAA ‘old’ than like ‘NOAA new’.

            *
            So, in summary, I admit that your assertion is correct: I misinterpreted the period of time that is important to you.

            Apologies!

          • Thomas says:

            Thanks Bindidon.

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            At least you apologise where necessary. Not 100% sauerkraut, then.

            Maybe you need to sharpen your scalpel if your dissection of the past is shown to be a bit dodgy. If you can’t even dissect the past properly, it won’t help you to predict the future all that well.

            By the way, is the mistake you apologised for, the only one you have made? Or do you only apologise when somebody demonstrates to onlookers that your dissection talents are lacking?

            Off you go now, whine about dog poop, flatulence, or anything else that your SkyDragon delusion makes you write. Do you really believe that you can obscure the fact that looking at the past wont provide a description of the mythical GHE?

            [laughing at Bunny, who is obviously not the sharpest scalpel in the box]

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            By the way, you wrote –

            “Your problem seems to be that you lack the technical skill to accurately observe and process time series data.”

            Whose problem?

          • Bindidon says:

            Your problem, Flynnson, is that you are only able to ramble around with your completely stupid comments a la

            ” considering that the Earth has managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so … ”

            or

            ” Do you think that putting CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter? ”

            That, Flynnson, is all you are able to write an this blog.

            What you think about me is so incredibly irrelevant in comparison with Thomas’ fair reaction.

            Never heard about ‘Errare humanum est’, you Megaignoramus?

          • Bindidon says:

            And… a propos ‘sauerkraut’, Flynnson.

            All the stuff you’re rambling on about here in your ridiculous attempt to speak posh five o’clock tea English: that reminds me far more of the typical behavior of retired German schoolteachers than of any English person I know.

            So nobody here should be surprised if you didn’t actually have a lot more sauerkraut stuck in your brain than I’ve ever had.

            Carry on, Flynnson, carry on!

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Presumably, you still think that “dissecting the past” will explain why the mythical GHE was completely powerless to prevent the Earth cooling over the past four and a half billion years or so.

            Or maybe “dissecting the past” will provide a way to increase the temperature of a thermometer by reducing the amount of energy reaching it?

            Don’t be silly.

            There is no GHE, and no amount of your silliness will create one.

            By the way “sauerkraut” is just an admittedly inferior homophonic pun on “sour Kraut”, but I couldn’t help myself. Oh well, nobody’s perfect!

            Still believe in a GHE you can’t even describe? Tut, tut.

            Keep it up.

  7. Swenson says:

    UHI should result in less diurnal variation, due to increases in nighttime maxima.

    It seems that Dr Spencers analysis confirms this.

    Just basic physics at work.

    • Swenson says:

      Oh dear – I meant increases in nighttime minima, of course. My bad.

      Due to manmade heat being low grade waste heat by the time it reaches thermometers. During the day, it is swamped by insolation amount and temperature.

  8. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    What is the temperature in La Vegas right now? 42 or 50 degrees F?
    https://i.ibb.co/fr1LMDq/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-11-081042.png

  9. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    In a few days, almost all of North America will be in cold air masses from the north.
    https://i.ibb.co/WcVSDBZ/gfs-toz-NA-f120.png

  10. Nicola Scafetta says:

    Dear Roy,
    interesting research.

    You may look at my paper where a comparison between day and night temperature trends (after homogenization) is conducted to find possible surface temperature biases:

    Scafetta, N. Detection of non‐climatic biases in land surface temperature records by comparing climatic data and their model simulations. Clim Dyn 56, 29592982 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05626-x

    Indeed, by zooming my Figure 9A, you can notice that Las Vegas (the cities are the cyan dots) is within a large red zone that indicates a warming bias. Perhaps you may check what is happening the other red area in the US.

    • Swenson says:

      NS,

      In your paper, you state many things, including –

      “In fact, aerosols reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface and this makes a city cooler during the daytime. In such a situation, a city should be cooler also during nighttime as its warmth is mostly stored during the sunny hours.”

      Should be? Is this wishful thinking, or do you have data from specific cities? If you do, why say “should be”?

      The diurnal range decreases as the atmosphere blocks more insolation from reaching thermometers, and slows the rate at which the thermometers lose heat during the night. Arid deserts show the complete opposite of what you claim – clear skies increase the amount of energy reaching the surface, and allow that energy to flee to space at prodigious rate – resulting in cooler nighttime minima. Hence the prehistoric ability to produce ice in the hottest deserts. You confirm this by also writing – “UHI is generally most pronounced at nighttime than during daytime; that is, urbanization makes the minimum temperature (TMin) to warm more than the maximum one (TMax)”. Maybe you are claiming that urbanisation results in clearer skies (less aerosols) than rural areas, but you haven’t explicitly said so.

      Your paper “Detection of non‐climatic biases in land surface temperature records by comparing climatic data and their model simulations.” seems poorly titled. I assume you are really trying to say that actual recorded temperatures differ from those predicted by numerical weather predictions, and suggesting reasons for the discrepancy.

      You don’t seem to have a specific “conclusions” section, but if you are trying to say (albeit in a somewhat roundabout way) that “computer climate models” are complete rubbish, not to say a complete waste of time and money, I would agree.

      Nobody can predict the weather (and hence climate) better than a reasonably intelligent 12 year old, equipped with historical data – and a pencil (although with a talent for arithmetic, and a good memory, the pencil may not be necessary).

      A talented 12 year old would also pick up “spanning” being spelt “spaning”, and colours being described as “light” or “lite”, depending on the colour – and so on. Presumably, Springer don’t care about sloppiness after they have taken your money.

      Only having a bit of a laugh, of course. There is no GHE. Nobody has even managed to give a good description of the mythical beast, much less document and measure it.

  11. CO2isLife says:

    COVID shut down the global economy and the trend in atmospheric CO2 wasnt altered one iota. That message should be the very first statement made in any global warming discussion.

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      Ed Berry and Murray Salby keep saying this but it doesn’t fit the agenda.

    • Nate says:

      As a meme, sure. As a quantitative fact, no. As Roy showed recently.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Show us where the trend since 2020 demonstrated mathematically that all the CO2 rise is due to humans. Berry has shown mathematically that it isn’t.

      • Nate says:

        No he hasn’t Stephen. Too much natural short term variation mixed in, and too short a period of reduced emissions. Roy analyzed it.

        Basic stats required.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          Murray Salby explains it all here, Nate. He nails the contribution of anthropogenic CO2.

          https://usercontent.one/wp/www.klimarealistene.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Salby-Harde-C142CO2-2022-03-12.pdf?media=1666637745

        • Nate says:

          One of your articles references nails it:

          “Global high-precision atmospheric Δ14CO2 records covering the last two decades are presented, and evaluated in terms of changing (radio)carbon sources and sinks, using the coarse-grid carbon cycle model GRACE. Dedicated simulations of global trends and interhemispheric differences with respect to atmospheric CO2 as well as δ13CO2 and Δ14CO2, are shown to be in good agreement with the available observations (19402008). While until the 1990s the decreasing trend of Δ14CO2 was governed by equilibration of the atmospheric bomb 14C perturbation with the oceans and terrestrial biosphere, the largest perturbation today are emissions of 14C-free fossil fuel CO2. This source presently depletes global atmospheric Δ14CO2 by 1214 yr−1, which is partially compensated by 14CO2 release from the biosphere, industrial 14C emissions and natural 14C production. Fossil fuel emissions also drive the changing northsouth gradient, showing lower Δ14C in the northern hemisphere only since 2002. The fossil fuel-induced northsouth (and also tropospherestratosphere) Δ14CO2 gradient today also drives the tropospheric Δ14CO2 seasonality through variations of air mass exchange between these atmospheric compartments. Neither the observed temporal trend nor the Δ14CO2 northsouth gradient may constrain global fossil fuel CO2 emissions to better than 25%, due to large uncertainties in other components of the (radio)carbon cycle.”

    • Mark B says:

      I looked at this during “the shutdown”. The difficulty is that atmospheric CO2 levels vary for a variety of reasons so attribution is difficult.

      To wit, annual emissions and atmospheric growth over the last few years is as follows:
      Year Emit Atmo (GtC/yr)
      2011 9.41 3.57
      2012 9.55 5.12
      2013 9.64 5.20
      2014 9.71 4.33
      2015 9.70 6.27
      2016 9.70 6.03
      2017 9.85 4.55
      2018 10.05 5.03
      2019 10.12 5.44
      2020 9.62 4.99
      2021 10.13 5.23

      So while there was a drop of about 5% in both emissions and atmospheric growth in 2020, the annual growth is noisy enough that it isn’t statistically unusual.

      Graphically, the data looks like this:
      co2GrowthRateMloAndEmissions.png

      What we can say is that the anthropogenic emissions are larger than the atmospheric growth therefore the net natural contribution to atmospheric CO2 growth is less than zero.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Murray Salby proves that isn’t true.

      • Nate says:

        No he doesnt Stephen. He presents an extreme outlier point of view of the carbon cycle. It has been debunked many times, and few knowledgeable people find it convincing.

        Even most climate prominent skeptics, who are also scientists, think its garbage.

        Spencer, Curry, Lindzen, Happer, Dyson. None of them buy this crap.

        But you think Salby is right.

        Is it because you have special insight or knowledge beyond those people I named?

        Or is rather because it confirms your beliefs?
        That isnt a valid way to judge science.

        • Swenson says:

          Nate,

          “If it disagrees with experiment, its wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.” -Feynman.

          What experiments are you talking about?

          Or maybe you agree with the dimwitted Naomi Oreskes telling a judge her basis for being considered an expert witness “If you want me to tell you what my method is, it’s reading and thinking. We read. We read documents. And we think about them.”

          No surprise – nonsensical, even in a legal setting! Bad luck, Naomi – at least the judge didn’t laugh out loud when he dismissed your claims (along with another half-dozen or so “experts” called to defend Michael Mann.)

          Can’t find any experimental support? Not science then. Just people claiming to be “experts”.

        • Nate says:

          Still waiting for you to explain how 390 units of radiation out and 240 units of radiation in, a large NET energy output, DOESNT result in the Earth’s surface cooling, in fact rapidly cooling?

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/the-warming-that-happens-in-vegas-stays-in-vegas/#comment-1396059

          Simple question, simple answer. Why the evasion?

  12. Tim S says:

    In related news, various liberal news organizations are celebrating the announcement by President Biden that the US government will honor commitments made 10 years ago to provide climate reparations to underdeveloped countries. For those “unbiased” and open-minded people who follow the news, this is an acknowledgement of the real agenda of the UN IPCC. It comes after the UN Secretary General took time out of his busy schedule to scolded the world with the prediction that greenhouse emissions are expected to actually increase in the future. Meanwhile, China is setting a record every day in their ability to consume massive amounts of coal as they construct new coal-fired power plants. Statistics concerning the deaths of Chinese coal miners are not officially released.

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      The psychopath Biden and his leftist myrmidons are going to screw third-world countries. They’re not satisfied enslaving inner-city blacks. Want to enslave the world.

  13. Jerry Anderson says:

    I lived in Pahrump, NV, a rural community of 36,000, about 60 miles NW of Las Vegas, for 8 years.

    Our temperature was routinely about 5 degrees lower than that of Las Vegas.

    I suggest that the comparison of the temperature of Las Vegas and Pahrump would be a better illustration of the effect of heat island effect.

    Jerry Anderson

  14. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Dr Spencer,
    There is an Excel spreadsheet linked. It covers a UHI study I did a few years ago on 44 Australian BOM stations selected dominantly for the least signs of urban heating effects.
    I hope that some of your blog readers will seize upon this display of data, import it to their computers and advance scientific understandin by finding more conclusions from the data. However, I also realize that many blog readers are more interested in seeing their own words in print as a minor vanity exercise.
    Roy, should you wish to extend the method you describe here for part of the US to another country, Australia is a good candidate because of its sparse population of 26 million in an area similar to USA48.
    The probability of finding truly pristine weather stations is much higher, given the uncertainty of the size, shape, longevity etc of plumes blown from UHI cities to places designated rural.
    My study covers years 1972 to 2006 for reasons given in the text. It would be desirable to extend this to 2022 because, as your UAH results show for Australian LT temperatures, there has been a “cooling” trend for the last 10 years and 4 months. That will add a variable, since 1972-2006 was a warming cycle. A couple of stations I looked at briefly give rather different interpretations when extended to 2022, showing the cherry picking problem with start/end date choices.
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/uahnov.jpg
    I am happy to cooperate should you wish to take this further.
    Geoff S
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/pristine_44_2018.xls

  15. DMT says:

    Why are you obsessing about the magnitude of the UHI effect when the Earth is heating at such an alarming rate? This is really “frog in a beaker” behaviour.

    “7.8% of the Earth’s surface has had a record warm average temperature from January through October, including most of Western Europe and parts of China and Central Asia.
    Nowhere has had a record low 10-month average.”

    https://twitter.com/RARohde/status/1591515372490219521

    • Swenson says:

      DMT,

      You wrote –

      “Why are you obsessing about the magnitude of the UHI effect when the Earth is heating at such an alarming rate? This is really frog in a beaker behaviour.”

      The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so – quite a lot, actually.

      Nothing stopped it from cooling. What magical effect (which had no effect for four and a half billion years or so) do you think has started to heat the Earth?

      The fiery CO2 powered breath of the SkyDragon, perhaps?

      Only joking – I realise that your fantasy may contain more than one SkyDragon.

      Carry on.

    • Nate says:

      “The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so quite a lot, actually.

      Nothing stopped it from cooling”

      Swenson claimed yesterday to understand that ‘insulation doesn’t prevent cooling’.

      He seems to have already forgotten!

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        As I wrote –

        “The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so quite a lot, actually.

        Nothing stopped it from cooling”

        You aren’t disagreeing, I see.

        Do you agree with the noted self proclaimed Raymond Pierrehumbert who wrote “CO2 is just planetary insulation”? You seem to agree with him that the GHE can’t prevent cooling.

        What makes you think that the mythical GHE can heat a planet, when it can’t even prevent the planet from getting colder?

        You could always try describing the GHE, for a start. Only joking – easier for you to describe a unicorn, an acknowledged mythical creature.

        Keep on avoiding and obfuscating. Maybe others will rally to your belief in something so mysterious you can’t even describe it, or maybe they won’t. I’m sure nothing will prevent you continuing with your cultist SkyDragon beliefs.

      • Nate says:

        “CO2 is just planetary insulation’? You seem to agree with him that the GHE cant prevent cooling.”

        Indeed no insulation can, as you seemed to understand yesterday.

        Thus your repeated factoid about the Earth cooling for 4.5 B years tells us absolutely nothing about the existence of a GHE.

        Yet you keep trying to link these two things. Why?

        • Swenson says:

          Nate,

          The fact that the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years indicates that nothing stopped it, although you don’t seem to like obvious facts.

          Now, there are some SkyDragon idiots who believe that the GHE allowed the Earth to cool to some 255 K, and then, in some miraculous fashion, decided the Earth needed heating to 288 K!

          Idiocy, I know, but nobody can actually describe this GHE, nor explain its apparent cooling and heating properties. You certainly can’t, but you seem to believe that someone, somewhere, has. You just can’t lay your hands on a copy of this mysterious description because it got stolen by aliens, or the dog ate it, or some similar evasive reason.

          In spite of that, you stated that the GHE has nothing to do with CO2! As Raymond Pierrehumbert said (and you agreed), CO2 is just planetary insulation. And you agreed that insulation doesn’t prevent cooling. Even though you can’t describe it, you appear to think that the mythical GHE has planet warming properties, due to some form of climatological sympathetic magic.

          So give it a try, Nate. Convince others by describing the GHE. As you have stated, it is not just another name for an insulator, because no amount of insulation prevented the Earth from cooling for the past four and a half billion years or so, did it? Nothing to do with CO2 either, because as Raymond Pierrehumbert said “CO2 is just planetary insulation”.

          Maybe you could search the internet – surely someone has come up with a useful description of the GHE? Or maybe not.

          Good luck.

  16. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Central Europe must be ready for a sharp Russian frost from the end of this week. Winter in North America will not let up. The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will split into two centers in line with the distribution of the geomagnetic field in the north. One center will be over Canada, the other over Siberia.
    https://i.ibb.co/x5mxWQV/gfs-z100-nh-f240.png
    https://i.ibb.co/Jvk1rnM/fnor.gif

  17. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    North America needs large amounts of CO2 quickly.
    https://i.ibb.co/GQNXP4S/gfs-T2ma-us-1.png

  18. RLH says:

    The models are not quite correct in their patterns for the future it seems. At least in the Pacific.

    https://www.washington.edu/news/2022/10/03/study-suggests-la-nina-winters-could-keep-on-coming/

    • Swenson says:

      RLH,

      From your link –

      “If it turns out to be natural long-term cycles, maybe we can expect it to switch in the next five to 10 years, but if it is a long-term trend due to some processes that are not well represented in the climate models, then it would be longer.”

      Well, thats certainly helpful – not!

      Does somebody actually pay people to generate this sort of nonsense?

      Hopefully, you will agree that one lot of idiots acknowledging that neither they, nor their opposing idiots, can predict the future, is just a colossal waste of time, money, and effort!

      I suppose some other idiots believe that this is science.

      I don’t, but others are free to believe whatever they want.

      • RLH says:

        “The authors looked at temperatures at the surface of the ocean recorded by ship-based measurements and ocean buoys from 1979 to 2020. The Pacific Ocean off South America has actually cooled slightly, along with ocean regions farther south. Meanwhile, the western Pacific Ocean and nearby eastern Indian Ocean have warmed more than elsewhere. Neither phenomenon can be explained by the natural cycles simulated by climate models. This suggests that some process missing in current models could be responsible”

        • Swenson says:

          RLH,

          The models are wrong, but we don’t know why. Maybe it’s due to the models being wrong.

          Does that sum things up?

        • Bindidon says:

          I did VERY WELL read what was said, Linsley Hood.

          I read the entire article you as usual picked exactly out what YOU wanted to be said.

          • RLH says:

            I read it through completely as well. I only picked out those points for observation that drew the conclusion that the models were inaccurate.

        • Nate says:

          ” Neither phenomenon can be explained by the natural cycles simulated by climate models. This suggests that some process missing in current models could be responsible”

          And?

          Sounds like ordinary earth science in action.

          • RLH says:

            And that the models to date do not replicate things that well without including what they are missing currently.

  19. CO2isLife says:

    The Port of Theodosius has been discovered in Istambul. Curiosity Stream has a documentary on it. They have a Big Dig going on and they have a large train station being built. Why is this relevant to climate change? It is far inland and well above sea level, meaning that it was much warmer in the 3rd to 6th Century. The Big Dig
    Istanbuls city planners have a problem: too much history. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-big-dig

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      Ur is another problem for these sea level risers. It was a city on the coast. The dig site is far inland.

    • Entropic man says:

      That whole region is on a tectonic plate boundary. Such regions show considerable height variation due to earthquakes.

      You should eliminate that the land has risen before inferring sea level or temperature changes.

    • Entropic man says:

      ” It is far inland and well above sea level.”

      You did read the article?

      Yenikapi is on the current coast, where a proposed tunnel under the Bosphorus is planned to emerge.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Yeah, that’s it. It’s the tectonic plate. The same plate got Istanbul and Ur.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        Might be a bit of confusion here.

        “Although Ur was once a coastal city near the mouth of the Euphrates on the Persian Gulf, the coastline has shifted and the city is now well inland, on the south bank of the Euphrates, 16 kilometres from Nasiriyah in modern-day Iraq.”

        I think spa was referring to Ur.

        It doesn’t really matter. The crust is in constant motion, water is liquid, and constantly attempts to seek its lowest level in accordance with gravity.

        Climate remains the average of past weather events. Nature is chaotic – everything changes, whether we like it or not.

    • Nate says:

      ” meaning that it was much warmer in the 3rd to 6th Century. ”

      False.

      Global Mean Sea Level Rise has key words Global and Mean.

      Separate from that, land in many places is rising or falling by geologic processes.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Very astute scientific observation there, Nate. Explains everything.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        You do not seem to accept that the ocean basins also rise and fall, with obvious (maybe not to you) impacts on the notional sea level with respect to the continuously changing geoid.

        Marine fossils are found at present elevations in excess of 6,000 meters, and fossil remains in the form of oil are found at 5,000 meter depths.

        Sea levels with respect to land edges are continuously changing. People who associate “sea level rise” with changes in weather, are simply wasting oxygen. Claims of measuring continuously changing sea levels to ridiculous levels of accuracy – the thickness of a human hair, for example – are silly, and even sillier are the believe who believe such exercises in futility should be paid for by taxpayers!

        You are obviously one of the silly people who will believe anything that a SkyDragon says.

        How are you getting in with that description of the GHE? Have you looked under the sink?

        • Nate says:

          “You do not seem to accept that the ocean basins also rise and fall’

          Can’t win on the facts, Flynnson, so again making up things people never said?

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            Oh well, as long as you accept that the ocean basins change shape and volume, I apologise for assuming that you were so ignorant that you thought ocean levels would rise and fall because of “global warming” caused by a mythical GHE.

            Do you agree that average sea levels rise and fall unpredictably – being governed by a number of unpredictable factors?

            Maybe you could mention some of these unpredictable factors – just to show others you have some attachment to reality, and some knowledge of the impossibility of predicting future sea levels.

            Come on, Nate, show everyone that you know so much more than I! By the way, the contents of your SkyDragon fantasies are not actually facts.

            Idiot Nate – facts are not your strong point, are they?

          • Nate says:

            Now you switch it to

            “I apologise for assuming that you were so ignorant that you thought ocean levels would rise and fall”

            previously it was

            “You do not seem to accept that the ocean basins also rise and fall”

            Make up your mind what you want me to be saying that I havent been saying, Flynsnon.

            Or, just a thought, you could stop making up what I said, and instead you could quote me, and save us all a lot of time.

            Meanwhile you keep running away (or twisting away) from answering the simple question I posed,

            “Flynnson seems unbothered by a surface with (390 W/m^2) out and 240 (W/m^2) solar in, and ISN’T COOLING.

            Maybe he can explain this glaring discrepancy?”

            Its too bad that you can’t answer, because doing so honestly, may relieve you of many of your concerns about the GHE.

      • Nate says:

        “Explains everything.” It certainly debunks ‘it was much warmer in the 3rd to 6th Century.’

        Why is that difficult, Stephen?

        • Swenson says:

          Nitwit Nate,

          You wrote –

          “Global Mean Sea Level Rise has key words Global and Mean.”

          That’s certainly a masterpiece of meaningless profundity, isn’t it?

          The sort of thing a fact free delusional SkyDragon would say.

          Have you an endless supply of pointless word salad to dish up? Maybe you try to convince others that “slow cooling is really heating”. Or is that too stupid even for you?

          Really Nate! Accepting reality shouldn’t be that hard, even for a fanatical SkyDragon cultist, but I suppose it is.

          Carry on.

        • Nate says:

          Swenson has lots of silliness to blurt, but none of it answers the simple question I asked him,

          Explain how 390 units of radiation out and 240 units of radiation in, a large NET energy output, DOESNT result in the Earths surface cooling, in fact rapidly cooling?

          Why evade answering this simple question? Why is it so difficult for you?

    • Ken says:

      During the ice age mile thick ice covered continents. The ice pushed down on the land.

      At the start of the Holocene, the ice melted and flowed to the sea. The continents have been rebounding since.

      The lesser known factor is all that ice that was pushing down on the continents is now water pushing down on the ocean bottom. The change in the ocean bottom doesn’t happen overnight.

      So the fact of sea levels being higher than it is now doesn’t necessarily mean that it was warmer. Eustatics plays a role too.

      • Swenson says:

        Ken,

        From Oregon State U –

        “This is a map of the major oceanic spreading centers. This is sometimes considered to be one ~70,000 km-long volcano. Here, the plates are pulled apart by convection in the upper mantle, and lava intrudes to the surface to fill in the space. Or, the lava intrudes to the surface and pushes the plates apart. Or, more likely, it is a combination of these two processes.”

        Nobody has the faintest idea of the volume of lava oozing into the ocean basins from this 70,000 km volcano. And for every cubic kilometer of new rock, a cubic kilometer of displaced water has to go somewhere, raising the apparent sea level.

        Climatologists just ignore reality, if it raises inconvenient queries about their mad speculations.

        Continents do indeed rebound – as the US does, with the result that parts of the East coast are subsiding, as the more central parts rebound above the geoid.

        And of course, Antarctica has sunk because of the kilometers of ice which have built up over the past million years or more.

        Or you could believe that climatologists have sources of secret knowledge, and know far more than real scientists – they are just keeping their knowledge secret, so as not to alarm the ignorant masses.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ken…”During the ice age mile thick ice covered continents”.

        ***

        Do you have any proof of that?

        When I was studying engineering at UBC, I was talking to a counsellor who was also an engineering prof. He asked me out of curiosity why I had chosen electrical engineering after having been out of school for several years. He asked why I had not considered something far easier like geological engineering.

        That’s the point. Although there are good geologists, many are just wannabee physicist. They study geology because it is easy credits. I took courses in geology and astronomy, the latter as an elective. Both were dead easy compared to my math and physics classes.

        There is decent evidence that layers of sediments and/or igneous rock has been compressed, bent (synclines), or lifted. There is not a shred of evidence that ice piled up a mile high over the surface.

        • Ken says:

          No I don’t have proof. Interesting question; anything read immediately assumes the claim of 2 or 3 km is accurate.

          Here is interesting paper from 1901 Toronto describing geological deposits attributed to ice sheets. It shows the hypothesis of continental ice sheets is at least a 120 years old: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/30058781.pdf

        • Nate says:

          ” geological engineering.”

          What does that teach you? How to construct artificial volcanoes?

        • Nate says:

          “There is not a shred of evidence that ice piled up a mile high over the surface.”

          which shows that there is not a shred of evidence that Gordon recalls any of the geology he may have learned in college.

          • Ken says:

            In this case Gordon is right; there is no evidence. Its all hypothesis.

            Here is paper suggesting Laurentide ice sheet was thin: https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j30_1/j30_1_97-104.pdf

          • Nate says:

            The point is, Gordon doesnt know what the evidence is, but he claims there is none anyway. Standard for him.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/the-warming-that-happens-in-vegas-stays-in-vegas/#comment-1396659

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”The point is, Gordon doesnt know what the evidence is, but he claims there is none anyway”.

            ***

            The real point is Gordon studied a year of geology as part of engineering studies and little or no mention was made of ice sheets, certainly not ice sheets 4 km thick. Of course, different universities have different policies re what is taught in their courses. Obviously, the UBC geology department did not put much faith in the 4 km thickness theory.

            We did study a lot about glaciers. I remember being impressed by the fact that ice pressure in a glacier causes the base ice to change to a fluid plastic consistency, allowing the glacial ice to slide ‘downhill’ over the more pliant ice.

            That’s why I cannot imagine ice sheets flowing laterally without a significant gravitational pull on them. Since glaciers and ice sheets form from snowfall, which turns to neve, an altered form of snow caused by weathering and compaction in the snow flakes, then forms ice as it becomes stratified, it’s far more likely that ice builds vertically in an ice sheet. The idea of deposits of snowflakes forming to layers 4 km thick strikes me as quite silly.

            I mean, what is the source of the precipitation if everything is frozen solid?

            In Antarctica, glaciers flow downhill and form ice shelves around the ocean. The source of the ice sheets is still gravity since with no downhill motion, the ice would simply build vertically. No on has ever explained how ice can build to 4 km thickness.

          • Nate says:

            “No on has ever explained how ice can build to 4 km thickness.”

            No, Gordon, no one has ever explained it to YOU.

            But there is a way to learn about it. Go read up on it. Then come back and tell us what youve learned.

            A hint is that the basins of the Great Lakes that were carved out by the ice sheet, are well below sea-level.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Great_Lakes.svg/1920px-Great_Lakes.svg.png

            And the basins have rebounded since the weight of the ice sheet was removed.

          • Nate says:

            To get an idea how thick the ice sheets were, we could look at present day ones.

            Greenland Ice Sheet-

            “The average thickness is about 1.5 km (0.9 mi) and over 3 km (1.9 mi) at its thickest point.[1]”

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

            Antarctic-

            “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

            “with an average thickness of over 2 kilometres.”

          • bobdroege says:

            Ken,

            Do we really want to trust someone from Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries?

          • Ken says:

            “Do we really want to trust someone from Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries?”

            Genesis is truth even as it is so vague that its useless for making determinations on paleoclimatology.

            As to any other source having a corner on what actually happened in the past … I’ll listen to any argument that makes sense and reserve the right to change my views as more evidence comes to light.

      • Nate says:

        Flynntionary

        “Nobody has the faintest idea”

        -Swenson doesnt have the faintest idea about this subject.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          Hey, I’m just amazed you accept the idea of variation in nature like land rising and falling. And, that these things occur over thousands and millions of years.

        • Swenson says:

          Nitwit Nate,

          You could always provide the name of one person who has measure the amount of lava coming through the mid-ocean ridges, if you object to me saying that nobody has the faintest idea of that quantity.

          But of course you can’t.

          Just another dimwitted fanatical SkyDragon cultist – apparently believing that you have awesome mind reading powers. Mind you, the fact that you invent meaningless words like “Flynntionary”, might indicate that you are suffering from some sort of mental defect which prevents you from accepting reality.

          If you want to deny the validity of the conservation laws – say, the conservation of mass, by all means do so.

          Are you really dimwitted, or just pretending?

  20. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    High in the southeastern US. Temperature in degrees Celsius.
    https://i.ibb.co/vd14c2s/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-14-080342.png

  21. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The troposphere, thanks to its density, is not transparent to infrared radiation, and the denser the troposphere layer, the more solar energy it retains, of which, in the case of Earth, about 50% of solar radiation reaches the surface. The more water vapor in the air, the more solar energy the troposphere captures. Therefore, the reduction of water vapor in the air in summer increases the surface temperature, in winter the opposite, as Central Europe will soon find out (just as North America is currently finding out).
    During La Nina, the amount of water vapor decreases, and the temperature anomaly at two meters was negative all winter in the Southern Hemisphere.
    https://i.ibb.co/zb3yXqD/gfs-world-wt2-sstanom-d1.png

  22. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Will it be warmer in five days in North America?
    https://i.ibb.co/PjPCYP5/gfs-T2ma-us-21.png

    • Bindidon says:

      Didn’t you write

      ” In a few days, almost all of North America will be in cold air masses from the north.

      https://i.ibb.co/WcVSDBZ/gfs-toz-NA-f120.png ” ?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        what’s your point? The cold air mass hit us here in Vancouver, Canada. We had sub-zero temperatures for several days. There is apparently another one on the way.

    • Eben says:

      You just confused the hell out of Bindiclown

      • Bindidon says:

        #3

        There is exactly one clown here, babbling Edog, and thats you.

        • Swenson says:

          Bunny,

          Have you located your description of the GHE yet?

          Try looking under your vast pile of brightly coloured “dissections” of past weather measurements – it might be hiding there.

          Do you still support your earlier assertion that dissecting the past enables experts to predict the future?

          You really are a simple-minded SkyDragon cultist, aren’t you?

          Carry on,

          • Bindidon says:

            Dumb, dumber, dumbest.

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Talking to yourself in three mirrors at once won’t make anybody value your opinion more than they do already.

            Still can’t find your GHE description yet?

            Maybe you could inject some merriment into your search by muttering about dog poop, flatulence, and similarly uplifting topics. Come on, Bunny, you can do it if you try!

  23. Geoff Sherrington says:

    re is a supplementary view on UHI from 4 years ago. Geoff Shttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/20/the-science-of-the-urban-heat-island-effect-is-pathetic-and-misleading/

  24. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…”For example here is what GISS uses for Las Vegas.

    They claim it is adjusted and homogenized to account for urban effects”.

    ***

    This is the same GISS who declared 2014 the hottest year ever based on a probability of 38%. 2014 was nowhere near a record on the UAH graph. The same GISS who reversed 1998 and 1934 as the hottest year in the US record and were forced to put the dates back when Steve McIntyre of climateaudit caught them in the act.

    GISS are major fudgers of the surface data record and the fudging has been well-documented by Steve Goddard and chiefio. Only a complete twit would quote them as a reliable data source.

    Besides all that, the head of NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt, owns the uber-alarmist site real climate with his buddy Michael Mann. Mann, of course, was revealed in the Climategate email scandal as the author of ‘the trick’, a deceitful method of hiding declining temperatures. The head of Had-crut, at the time, Phil Jones, bragged about using it.

    Gavin Schmdit, head of GISS, defended Mann on the deceit, claiming the method was misunderstood. Mann was also caught in the scandal trying to put pressure on peer reviewers to stop admitting papers from skeptics. His buddy, Phil Jones, of Had-crut, who is partnered with Kevin Trenberth of UCAR as Coordinating Lead Authors on IPCC reviews, bragged that he and ‘Kevin’ would see to it that papers from skeptics did not reach the review stage.

    Yeah, you can really trust GISS and Had-crut to give you unbiased scientific information. [/sarc off].

  25. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”RLH, who is now even beginning to claim that USCRN, the most pristine weather station network in the US, is encroachec, even UHI suspect.”

    Suspect??? They are among the kings of data fudgers.

    https://bit.ly/3hJolLT

    Since 1990, NOAA and GISS have been tampering with data using various means. It’s recorded nicely on the chiefio site. This link will likely mean more to RLH than me.

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/hurst-dependence-persistence-and-a-fatal-flaw-in-climate-science/

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      From the first link above…

      “Another spectacular milestone is that the(y)?? now fabricate 30% of their monthly data. Almost one third of their reported monthly station data has no actual thermometer data from that station. This allows them to contaminate missing rural data, with UHI affected thermometers tens or hundreds of miles away.

      So, NOAA is using UHI warming from distant stations, usually 1200 miles away, to raise temperatures in intermediate or rural areas. They do that using climate models to interpolate and homogenize data which is essentially fudging.

      • Bindidon says:

        Oh again some BS from people like EM Smith aka ‘chiefio’, who Roberson views as one of his greatest authority figures, though chiefio was never even able to correctly, accurately process weather station data.

        Robertson is a coward who insulted me on a previous thread as ‘SOB’ because he lacks the balls between the legs to write what he means: ‘son of a bitch’.

        *
        Yes, Robertson is not only ignorant and incompetent and doesn’t even understand how to interpret basic things like temperature anomalies: he is also the dirtiest, most obnoxiously insulting poster on this blog.

        As a ‘son of a bitch’ he has even insulted Andrew Motte, the man who translated Isaac Newton’s Principia – all because he, Robertson, is not even able to read documents correctly.

        • Swenson says:

          Bunny,

          Well, that presented the description of the GHE, didnt it? Only joking, you can’t even describe the mythical GHE, can you?

          Have you any new facts to present, or just the same tired and ultimately pointless attempts to avoid facing reality?

          There is no GHE, and dissecting the past (as you put it) enables nobody, no matter how clever they imagine they are, to predict the future.

          But carry on regardless. It is entertaining to watch your efforts to try and divert attention from the fact that you are not only deluded, but inept and ineffectual into the bargain. How are your efforts to find a description of a GHE which allowed the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years or so to some unknown temperature, and then magically decided to make it hotter, going?

          Not too well? Pity.

          [chortling at witless SkyDragon]

          • Clint R says:

            Thanks for another chuckle, Swenson. It seems more and more people are seeing what a cantankerous fraud Bindidon really is. The more people that acknowledge what an idiot he is, the angrier he gets. It’s called a “meltdown”.

            That’s why this is so much fun.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Blinny is a Nazi at heart. He calls for the incarceration of Global Warming deniers, somewhat Goebbelesque.

          • Eben says:

            Besides being the worst creep on this board he is a Sauerkraut eating surrender monkey

          • Bindidon says:

            ” Blinny is a Nazi at heart. ”

            Yeah.

            US people naming others ‘Nazi’ are in most cases over and over convinced Fascists.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Blinny,

            If the shoe fits wear it or don’t say things that Goebbels would have said.

          • Bindidon says:

            And let me add that those naming a bloodthirsty dictator like Augusto Pinochet a ‘Leftist’ should be caught by the GESTAPO-like secret police of such ‘Leftist’s.

            They would very, very quickly learn to stop blathering like you do, Anderson.

          • Eben says:

            He wants to be a moderator here and demand that everybody posts with their real name and info, so he can report them – to the “authorities”

          • Nate says:

            “Blinny is a Nazi at heart. ”

            Sure, Stephen, and since you’re from the South, you are a KKK member at heart.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            Do you think you would get more respect by pasting a description of the GHE here?

            No?

            No surprise there!

          • Nate says:

            Swenson STILL fails to explain how he thinks the Earth surface has a NET radiative loss of 150 W/m^2, yet isnt cooling!

            In fact he won’t even touch the question! What is he afraid of?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny the blubberer…”[GR]he has even insulted Andrew Motte, the man who translated Isaac Newtons Principia all because he, Robertson, is not even able to read documents correctly.

          ***

          I have the background to understand what Newton said about the Moon, that it moves with a linear velocity on a curvilinear path. Since he understood that, and was the father of calculus, I presume he understood that a body moving with linear velocity on a curvilinear path, while keeping the same side pointed to the Earth, could not possibly be rotating on its axis at the same time.

          My problem with Motte’s translation was his ability to translate Old Latin which had been translated from Old English. I think something was lost in the translation and possibly embellished by Motte to suit his understanding of lunar motion, which is obviously wrong.

          There’s no way, with his understanding of motion, vis a vis calculus, that Newton could have been mistaken about the alleged lunar rotation. Motte’s translation leaves significant doubt regarding what Newton meant by revolving about an axis. I am sure Newton was referring to the Moon orbiting the Earth once per month, and not the Moon rotating on a local axis.

  26. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Full winter in November in the US. Temperature in degrees Celsius.
    https://i.ibb.co/b7YZJv3/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-15-083408.png

  27. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Will it be warmer in the US? No, it will be even colder.
    https://i.ibb.co/KGTpVFc/gfs-o3mr-150-NA-f072.png

  28. Ken says:

    No I dont have proof of continental ice sheets. Its an interesting question; anything read immediately assumes the claim of 2 or 3 km is accurate.

    Here is interesting paper from 1901 Toronto describing geological deposits attributed to ice sheets. It shows the hypothesis of continental ice sheets is at least a 120 years old: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/30058781.pdf

    Here is your mission (should you choose to accept it). Find the evidence or find the source of the hypothesis that Continental ice was 2 – 3km thick.

    • Ken says:

      The claim of crushed human remains that appear to have had their hands glued to the rocks in front of an advancing glacier are apparently false.

    • Swenson says:

      Ken,

      There is Antarctica, of course. Average ice covering is around 2 km.

      Fairly recent, geologically speaking, although estimates of the age of the really thick ice vary – a lot.

      Greenland’s ice sheet averages around 1.6 km thick, over about 80% of the land. Estimates of the age vary.

      Evidence for thick continental ice sheets is inconclusive, as far as I am aware. Some research says this, some research says that. A fairly recent example, challenging oxygen isotope distribution assumptions used for models –

      “Therefore, the origin of the long-debated missing ice problem was likely from the starting assumptions on where ice was distributed and the Earth rheology model, while achieving the far-field sea-level lowstand is a nonunique problem.”

      In other words “Our guess about the past is different from theirs.”

      I’m not worried. The closest ice to me is in the form of small blocks to add to drinks, and it melts far too fast when used. I’ll just have to drink faster! Only joking. Why ruin a perfectly fine drink by diluting it with ice, which promptly turns to water? If it needs ice to make it palatable, buy something nicer – or go without.

      Oh well.

  29. Clint R says:

    Oops. Is Greenland SMB slightly above its historical range?

    http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20221113.png

  30. Fred M. Cain says:

    Dr. Roy,

    Thanks so much for posting this. I have long suspected that UHI effects are a major driver of “climate change”. Your comparison of Vegas vs. Winnemucca shows that much of that “climate change” is actually local in nature.

    An even better example is Phoenix. Nights in Phoenix have grown disturbingly hotter since the 1970s. I had some correspondence with a “meteorologist” from Phoenix who was attempting to blame it all on global warming-induced climate change. I disagreed with her and tried to make my case. Needless to say, I didn’t hear from her again.

    It could well be that the cause of UHI’s have several contributing factors. The albedo effect and water not being allowed to soak into the soil were mentioned in this thread. I’ve also wondered about modern air conditioners. An A/C unit does not really cool the air at all, it just moves it from the inside of a building to the outside expelling the hot air as exhaust. In a large city like Phoenix, there could be literally thousands of acres under roof and air conditioned.

    When I was a kid, many people had evaporative coolers. Those actually do cool the air but and A/C does not.

    Regards,
    Fred M Cain

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      It’s all heat transfer. But, if you transfer the heat to where the thermometers are located it skews the data.

    • Bindidon says:

      Fred M. Cain

      Roy Spencer’s comparison of Vegas with Winnemucca on the base of a trend vs. day time distribution is well done, and his scientific explanation for the UHI effect is outstanding.

      Finally one learns UHI from the true experience of a meteorology professional, instead of being babbled on by politically motivated ‘specialists’ from both Warmista and Coolista camps.

      { The comparison isn’t quite fair: while Vegas is at an altitude of 650 m, Winnemucca is at 1,300. A commenter proposed Pahrump instead, it’s nearer to Vegas and located at the same altitude.

      I downloaded the data, a comparison with time series gave similar results but with less extreme differences at night. Winter vs. summer was interesting as well. }

      *
      UHI is a real problem.

      But if we continue to compare weather stations that way: why not to select all stations in Antarctica above 2,000 m or keep only those in deserts, and to proudly say: ‘No warming!’ ?

      In Irak, to name only one example, the warming currently experienced is everywhere, and not only in Baghdad and in the country’s other bigger cities.

      I suspect that all those who want to measure average temperatures by restricting such averages to thousands of Winnemuccas are in fact also those who want to claim ‘No warming, move along’ only because that helps them to claim ‘CO2 increase cannot be the cause of warming: there is none’.

      Why don’t they try to prove that without the help of temperature measurements?

      • Swenson says:

        Bunny,

        There have been innumerable experiments which demonstrate that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source (the Sun, for example), and an object (the Earth), results in the object becoming cooler, not hotter. Start with Tyndall, if you have the guts to accept experimental results!

        On the other hand, you cannot produce a single experiment to the contrary. You can’t even describe this supposed “GHE”.

        You seem to be extremely resistant to reality, and refuse to accept that thermometers react to heat. Given that the world population has risen by a factor of five over the last century or so, and per capita energy production and use conservatively at least ten times more, then waste heat is at least fifty times greater than it was a century ago.

        It is hardly surprising that thermometers react to this additional heat – which SkyDragons call “global warming”. Of it affects the “globe”, you donkey! It is a global phenomenon!

        Dr Spencer has merely pointed out one example.

        No CO2 or H2O causes this warming. SkyDragons like you refuse to accept that when hydrocarbons are burnt to produce heat (for power generation, for example), CO2 and H2O must inevitably ensue – as products of the exothermic reaction.

        People like yourself, being unaware of, or just rejecting reality, leap to the erroneous conclusion that CO2 and H2O produce warming, rather than the fossil fuel burning which created them! Go away, Bunny. Stick to your dissection of the past. If your scalpel loses its edge, you might resort to the writings of Nostradamus – both cryptic and useless – just like climatology’s output.

        • Bindidon says:

          Flynnson

          Thanks for your completely stoopid posts.

          What about telling your ignorant and arrogant bullshit to Roy Spencer in persona, instead of permanently boring me with it?

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Your choice to be bored. Don’t blame me.

            You don’t seem to be disagreeing with anything I said, just having a rant in your usual sauerkraut fashion.

            As to Dr Spencer, why should I take any notice of your stupid question? You aren’t going to take any notice of any answer I might give – and it’s none of your business, anyway.

            I do as I wish – and there is precisely nothing you can do about it, is there?

            You might be better off telling everyone why your wondrous GHE didn’t prevent the Earth from cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so.

            How hard can it be?

        • Nate says:

          “increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source (the Sun, for example), and an object (the Earth), results in the object becoming cooler, not hotter.”

          He knows this is a strawman. But posts it anyway.

          Thats how we recognize trolling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      fred…” Ive also wondered about modern air conditioners. An A/C unit does not really cool the air at all, it just moves it from the inside of a building to the outside expelling the hot air as exhaust”.

      ***

      A/C units actually do remove heat from the source. The heat is transferred from the source via conduction to a low pressure gas in an evapourator unit, like a small radiator. The low pressure gas is then converted to a high pressure, high temperature liquid by a compressor, then the liquid is forced through another radiator (condenser) exposed to outside air.

      In the condenser, heat is removed from the high pressure liquid to the outside air. Then the HP liquid goes through a valve that aeriates it into a vapour as it enters the low pressure evapourator and cools. The cooler low pressure gas can then absorb more heat from the source.

      This is not a contravention of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as stated by Clausius. He claimed…heat can never be transferred ‘BY ITS OWN MEANS’ from a colder body to a hotter body. Heat in an A/C unit is not transferred by its own means but using a mechanism of phase change in a gas driven by a compressor powered by external power.

      That is the only way heat can be transferred from a cooler body to a hotter body, using compensation, which means the use of external power and equipment. There is no means in the atmosphere to cause such a transfer from cold to hot.

  31. Bindidon says:

    Woooaah.

    The Globe is horribly cooling! Currently more sea ice in both the Arctic and the Antarctic, and Greenland’s surface mass balance for 2022 just went thru 2018, which was until now top since 2010:

    https://tinyurl.com/mtv6epuc

    But luckily, it will take another while until we reach the SMB top since 1840:

    1983 648 (Gt)
    1945 598
    1901 595
    1976 594
    1996 583
    1916 564
    1992 551
    1856 544
    1868 543
    1946 542

    2018 is at position 34, and 2022 might well land around 25.

    • Swenson says:

      Bunny,

      You really are a gullible wee SkyDragon, aren’t you?

      I suppose you actually believe that guesses, speculations, and “estimates” are fact.

      Is your “dissecting” in some way related to the GHE which you can’t even describe?

      This would be the GHE which allowed the world to cool to 255 K, and then reversed course, and decided that 288 K was much, much, better, would it?

      It would be a great help if you could describe this GHE, and then real scientists could scrutinise the claims, and propose some experiments to see if the description agrees with reality.

      Until then, don’t be surprised if you hear more laughter than rapturous applause.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I was just looking at a map of Antarctica. I had presumed the warming near the tip of the Antarctic peninsula was due to the extent to which the peninsula extended northward into the ocean, nearly to the tip of South America.

      However, other parts of Antarctica extend to nearly the Antarctic Circle as does the peninsula. So why are those parts of Antarctica not warming? It appears CO2 has the magical ability to seek out insignificant parts of a continent and warm them while ignoring most of the rest of the continent.

      It appears warming theory, especially catastrophic climate change theory, has a long way to go to reach the truth.

      https://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/an.htm

  32. Nate says:

    There is lots of geological evidence showing where the ice sheets were, from gouged bedrock, and transported boulders, the Great Lakes, moraines, etc.

    Exactly how thick it was, IDK how it is known. I assume models required.

    Journal of Creation ??

  33. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…” geological engineering.

    What does that teach you? How to construct artificial volcanoes?”

    ***

    Ask the oil companies who hire them to discover oil sources. Or the mineral companies who hire them to find mineral deposits.

  34. Gordon Robertson says:

    Climate alarmists on this blog have banded together in a spirit of pseudo-science to oppose rational science. They claim the Moon rotates about a local axis and that the atmosphere has its own greenhouse, apparently complete with glass, to trap heat.

    Comparing and constrasting, a grammatical technique taught in English 101, let’s examine the basis of both points. First, the alarmists cannot grasp the facts about rotation. They think it requires a reference frame and that bodies rotating in one frame cannot be rotating in another frame. They fail to grasp that reference frames are a product of the human mind and peculiar to human observers.

    Consider the Earth. It is rotating in space as it orbits the Sun. It passes through no reference frames and despite human observers looking at it from space, thinking it cannot possibly be rotating without a reference frame, the Earth carries on rotating about its axis anyway. In other words, rotation does not care what humans see or think, it carries on regardless.

    As the Earth rotates once per day through 365 days, it never keeps the same face pointed at the Sun. The Moon always keeps the same face pointed at the Earth.

    A greenhouse is a glass house. Modest people do not take showers in glass houses. Not only can SW solar energy pass straight through the glass, human eyes can see the reflection of the solar energy on one’s bare hide. Plants are exhibitionists, they don’t care.

    So, the solar energy passes through the glass and warms everything inside, probably the air inside as well to an extent. The heated surfaces conduct heat to the air and when air is warmed, it rises. Normally, cooler air from above would rush in to replace the rising air, but the glass prevents such convective currents.

    Not only does the glass in the glass house prevent convection, it stops real, physical molecules of air from escaping. The little blighters get seriously agitated when they are hot and that hotness spreads to other molecules, causing the air temperature to increase. The increasing temperature heats the infrastructure more and more hot air rises.

    Alarmists would have us believe that the hotness comes from infrared energy released from the infrastructure, soil, etc. The glass also blocks IR in that frequency range but how does it increase the temperatures of air molecules, 99% of which cannot absorb it? Even if the could, such a recycling of heat is perpetual motion. Not allowed.

    Alarmists claim there is a greenhouse in the sky. They are suffering from a delusion that molecules of CO2 and water vapour in the atmosphere can act like glass to block heated air molecules from rising. When asked to explain how that is possible, they waver, changing the subject and offering red-herring arguments, ad homs, and insults.

    In summary, climate alarmists suffer from a lack of awareness, tending to live in a fantasy world created by their own minds.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      Much as you like, you can not change reference frames in the middle of an argument with out compensating for that change.

      “As the Earth rotates once per day through 365 days, it never keeps the same face pointed at the Sun. The Moon always keeps the same face pointed at the Earth.”

      But, both the Earth and the Moon never keep the same face pointed at the Sun.

      Therefore they are both doing the same thing with respect to the Sun.

      And that would be rotating.

      Gordon, you just have to start thinking.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Gordo confuses the term “frame of reference” with “reference frame”, the latter being a coordinate system of some sort. An “inertial reference frame” is just a coordinate system which does not rotate wrt the stars and such are widely used to describe the rotational motions of extra terrestrial bodies.

      Gordo wrote:

      The Moon always keeps the same face pointed at the Earth.

      Of course, it’s easy to select a coordinate system fixed in the Moon for which it appears not to be rotating because the coordinate system itself is rotating wrt the stars. However, selecting a coordinate system with one axis pointing to the Earth does not result in the Moon ALWAYS keeping the same face pointing at the Earth. That situation is the cause of the librations seen by an Earthly observer and proves that the Moon rotates at a constant rate of once per orbit.
      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1396503

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Yeah, Gordon’s probably not going to see these posts. I could be wrong…

      Reference frames are not the answer, as I’ve explained countless times.

      There are two separate motions:

      1) “Orbital motion”.
      2) “Rotating on its own axis”.

      “Non-Spinners” think 1) is like the “moon on the left” in the below GIF. “Spinners” think 1) is like the “moon on the right”. 2) then has to be kept separate from 1).

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

      That’s all there is to it.

      a) MOTL can be described as “rotation about an external axis”.
      b) MOTR can be described as “translation in a circle”.

      “Spinners” need to find a source describing 1) as b). They have not done so. “Non-Spinners” have found a source describing 1) as a). Vague sources only defining 1) as a trajectory or path can be ignored, as they do not settle the issue.

      • bobdroege says:

        DR EMTPY

        “Spinners need to find a source describing 1) as b).”

        Yes we have, we have linked to it a number of times, the answer being that rotation about an external axis is defined as a revolution, not a translation.

        And they do settle the issue, that was settled almost 400 years ago in the days of Cassini and Newton.

        And reference frames do matter, your Moon is not rotating reference frame violates the speed of light in a vacuum speed limit for matter.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          "Yes we have, we have linked to it a number of times, the answer being that rotation about an external axis is defined as a revolution, not a translation."

          bob’s abject confusion is hilarious to witness. When bad people fail, it’s such a delight.

          • bobdroege says:

            Remember DR EMPTY,

            People are laughing at you.

            Because you are stupid.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bob, you just said:

            “…the answer being that rotation about an external axis is defined as a revolution, not a translation.”

            I agree…and that settles the issue in the “Non-Spinners” favour. Thank you.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            Wrong issue.

            The issue is the rotation of the Moon about an internal axis.

            Not whether the Moon is orbiting or revolving or translating.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …and that settles the issue in the “Non-Spinners” favour. Thank you.

          • bobdroege says:

            Not by a long shot you fucking moron.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …that settles the issue in the “Non-Spinners” favour. Thank you.

            (…https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1397647…)

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            Again, I’ll repeat.

            The issue is whether the Moon rotates on an internal axis, does it spin, or rotate.

            Not whether or not it revolves around the Earth.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, the issue is not whether or not the moon revolves around the Earth, I agree. All understand that the moon does revolve around the Earth. Nevertheless, the issue of whether or not the moon rotates on its own axis is settled by how we define "orbital motion", meaning whether "orbital motion" is like the "moon on the left", or the "moon on the right"…

            …and you agreed with the "Non-Spinners" by saying that "rotation about an external axis is defined as a revolution, not a translation". Thank you for conceding. That settles the issue in the "Non-Spinners" favour.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            Keep piling on with irrelevant arguments.

            “Nevertheless, the issue of whether or not the moon rotates on its own axis is settled by how we define “orbital motion”, meaning whether “orbital motion” is like the “moon on the left”, or the “moon on the right”

            No it’s not, both the Moon on the right and Moon on the left display orbital motion, but one is rotating and one is not.

            The one that is rotating is the one on the left.

            Case closed, you are dismissed.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "…both the Moon on the right and Moon on the left display orbital motion, but one is rotating and one is not."

            Indeed, and because "orbital motion" and "rotating on its own axis" are two separate motions, deciding which one (MOTL or MOTR) is also "rotating on its own axis" depends on which one (MOTL or MOTR) represents "orbital motion" in the first place. If the MOTL is "orbital motion", then the MOTR displays both "orbital motion" and "rotating on its own axis". If the MOTR is "orbital motion", then the MOTL displays both "orbital motion" and "rotating on its own axis"…

            …and you agreed with the "Non-Spinners" by saying that "rotation about an external axis is defined as a revolution, not a translation". Thank you for conceding. That settles the issue in the "Non-Spinners" favour.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            Did you post this by mistake?

            “If the MOTR is “orbital motion”, then the MOTL displays both “orbital motion” and “rotating on its own axis”

            You know the Moon on the right is moving in a path around the Earth, so yes it is orbital motion.

            So then the MOTL displays both orbital motion and rotating on its own axis.

            Known by Astronomers as synchronous rotation.

            What I have been saying all along.

            You finally got it right.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, I didn’t post it by mistake. Obviously, if the MOTR is “orbital motion”, then the MOTL displays both “orbital motion” and “rotating on its own axis”…but it’s a big "if". The whole argument comes down to whether "orbital motion" is like the MOTL or the MOTR. As I said…

            …and you agreed with the "Non-Spinners" by saying that "rotation about an external axis is defined as a revolution, not a translation". Thank you for conceding. That settles the issue in the "Non-Spinners" favour.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY

            “The whole argument comes down to whether “orbital motion” is like the MOTL or the MOTR. As I said”

            You said a lot of crap as usual.

            The answer is that both are orbital motion.

            Orbital motion has nothing to do with whether or not an object is rotating.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, bob. Only one of them is “orbital motion”. The other one displays “orbital motion” and “rotating about its own axis”. You fail to understand the simplest things. Try reading this again:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/the-warming-that-happens-in-vegas-stays-in-vegas/#comment-1397627

            …and you agreed with the "Non-Spinners" by saying that "rotation about an external axis is defined as a revolution, not a translation". Thank you for conceding. That settles the issue in the "Non-Spinners" favour.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            Both Moons are moving in a path around the Earth, so both exhibit orbital motion.

            One is spinning on its axis, the other one is not.

            You are behaving like a two year old, is it time for you to go to bed without your dinner?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, bob, only one of them exhibits “orbital motion” alone. The other exhibits “orbital motion” plus “rotating on its own axis”. To decide which one exhibits “orbital motion” plus “rotating on its own axis”, you first need to decide which one (MOTL or MOTR) is “orbital motion” alone. A five year old could understand what I mean, why can’t you?

            If the MOTL is “orbital motion” alone, then the MOTR is rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion.

            If the MOTR is “orbital motion” alone, then the MOTL is rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbital motion.

            All you are proving is that I am correct to say definitions of “orbital motion” that do not include orientation cannot resolve the issue, and so have to be ignored…

            …and you agreed with the "Non-Spinners" by saying that "rotation about an external axis is defined as a revolution, not a translation". Thank you for conceding. That settles the issue in the "Non-Spinners" favour.

          • Nate says:

            “All you are proving is that I am correct to say definitions of ‘orbital motion’ that do not include orientation cannot resolve the issue, and so have to be ignored”

            False. If the definitions do not include orientation, rate of rotation, or rotational axis, then there is absolutely no justification for ASSUMING a specific orientation, rotation rate, and rotational axis to any body in ‘orbital motion’.

            Yet that is exactly what you do. Why?

            Astronomy does not do this since known orbiting planets and moons have no VARIOUS orientations, rotation rates and rotational axes.

            These are all documented by Astronomy as INDEPENDENT parameters.

            Our Moon has a rotational axis tilted at 6.7 degrees to the normal of the orbital plane.

            To ASSUME that its rotational axis is the same as the normal to the orbital plane is obviously contradicted by the facts.

            So this is a DEAD HORSE.

          • Nate says:

            Arrrgh

            “have no VARIOUS” should be “have VARIOUS”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You see, bob, it’s quite simple.

            “Rotation about an external axis” is motion like the “moon on the left”.
            “Translation in a circle/ellipse” can be described as motion like the “moon on the right”.

            “Non-Spinners” have the aforementioned definition of “orbital motion” alone as being a “rotation about an external axis”, and that is where they get their orientation specified…because “rotation about an external axis” is motion like the “moon on the left”, in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit, throughout. All they need is to see the words “rotation about an external axis” and they have their orientation specified.

            “Spinners” need to find a definition of “orbital motion” where they get their orientation specified. They need it to mention “translation in a circle/ellipse” so that they know “orbital motion” alone means motion like the “moon on the right”, in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards some distant star, throughout. They cannot find such a definition, however.

            Definitions that just say an orbit is a path, or trajectory, do not specify anything about orientation, and thus cannot settle the issue. Such definitions can be ignored. They can be ignored because there is absolutely no justification for assuming a specific orientation, so you need your definition to actually specify it (which means include the words “rotation about an external axis”, for the “Non-Spinners”, or “translation in a circle/ellipse”, for the “Spinners”).

          • Nate says:

            “Definitions that just say an orbit is a path, or trajectory, do not specify anything about orientation, and thus cannot settle the issue.”

            If an object follows a path or a trajectory, does that in any way imply that it must do so in a particular way? No, I don’t see that specified.

            Is it saying that must do so by turning to always point the same face along the path? No I don’t see that specified.

            In fact, wee KNOW that objects orbiting can do so with almost any spin, along any axis, or hardly any spin at all.

            If Seth Curry launches a basketball to make a 3-pointer, the ball follows a trajectory, a path, usually a parabola.

            Does that imply that it must do so by turning to always point the ‘Wilson’ along the path?

            No, we know it doesnt do that. We can review the many tapes. It might spin forward, backward, sideways, or hardly at all.

            So we have a very good example here of a projectile obeying the laws of physics, which require it to follow a specific path, a specific trajectory, a parabola, but make NO requirement on its orientation or spin.

            The same is true for projectiles in orbit. They follow a specific path or trajectory through space, as required by the laws of physics, but are not required by any law of physics to have a specific orientation or spin while doing so.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …definitions that just say an orbit is a path, or trajectory, do not specify anything about orientation, and thus cannot settle the issue. Such definitions can be ignored. They can be ignored because there is absolutely no justification for assuming a specific orientation, so you need your definition to actually specify it (which means include the words “rotation about an external axis”, for the “Non-Spinners”, or “translation in a circle/ellipse”, for the “Spinners”).

          • Nate says:

            “there is absolutely no justification for assuming a specific orientation”

            True.

            “so you need your definition to actually specify it”

            Non sequitur. And contradicting the prior statement.

            Again, in the real world, astronomical tables specify the independent parameters, like rotation rate and axis of rotation, these ARE NOT specified by any definition of ORBIT.

            Some people here just cannot stop making up their own totally illogical ‘facts’.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …that just say an orbit is a path, or trajectory, do not specify anything about orientation, and thus cannot settle the issue. Such definitions can be ignored. They can be ignored because there is absolutely no justification for assuming a specific orientation, so you need your definition to actually specify it (which means include the words “rotation about an external axis”, for the “Non-Spinners”, or “translation in a circle/ellipse”, for the “Spinners”).

          • Nate says:

            “so you need your definition to actually specify it”

            Some people here feel that repeating an illogical lie will, somehow, turn it into a logical truth.

            But it actually doesn’t.

            And when that fails, they inevitably triple down on it.

            So please, go ahead.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …“Rotation about an external axis” is motion like the “moon on the left”.
            “Translation in a circle/ellipse” can be described as motion like the “moon on the right”.

            “Non-Spinners” have the aforementioned definition of “orbital motion” alone as being a “rotation about an external axis”, and that is where they get their orientation specified…because “rotation about an external axis” is motion like the “moon on the left”, in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit, throughout. All they need is to see the words “rotation about an external axis” and they have their orientation specified.

            “Spinners” need to find a definition of “orbital motion” where they get their orientation specified. They need it to mention “translation in a circle/ellipse” so that they know “orbital motion” alone means motion like the “moon on the right”, in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards some distant star, throughout. They cannot find such a definition, however.

            Definitions that just say an orbit is a path, or trajectory, do not specify anything about orientation, and thus cannot settle the issue. Such definitions can be ignored. They can be ignored because there is absolutely no justification for assuming a specific orientation, so you need your definition to actually specify it (which means include the words “rotation about an external axis”, for the “Non-Spinners”, or “translation in a circle/ellipse”, for the “Spinners”).

          • Nate says:

            Indeed Orbit is defined as a path or trajectory through space. And to orbit means to follow that path through space, ie move along that path through space. And indeed any ROTATION and ROTATIONAL AXIS must be defined as separate parameters.

            Just to emphasize this point, an orbiting body that has a rotation period that matches its orbital period is defined as having Synchronous Rotation.

            And we can easily find how this is defined:

            https://www.yourdictionary.com/synchronous-rotation

            “The rotation of an orbiting body on its axis in the same amount of time as it takes to complete a full orbit, with the result that the same face is always turned toward the body it is orbiting. Earth’s moon exhibits synchronous rotation.”

            or
            “Astronomy
            rotation of a satellite in which the period of rotation is equal to the period of orbit around its primary, leaving the same face always pointing toward the primary.
            The moon is in synchronous rotation about the earth”

            https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/synchronous-rotation

            So this makes it absolutely clear that the rotation rate of an orbiting body must be SPECIFIED, as here, for the SPECIFIC case of a body orbiting with SYNCHRONOUS ROTATION.

            Oh well.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, bob, one last time, really try to pay attention to what’s being said…

            …“Rotation about an external axis” is motion like the “moon on the left”. “Translation in a circle/ellipse” can be described as motion like the “moon on the right”.

            “Non-Spinners” have the aforementioned definition of “orbital motion” alone as being a “rotation about an external axis”, and that is where they get their orientation specified…because “rotation about an external axis” is motion like the “moon on the left”, in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit, throughout. All they need is to see the words “rotation about an external axis” and they have their orientation specified.

            “Spinners” need to find a definition of “orbital motion” where they get their orientation specified. They need it to mention “translation in a circle/ellipse” so that they know “orbital motion” alone means motion like the “moon on the right”, in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards some distant star, throughout. They cannot find such a definition, however.

            Definitions that just say an orbit is a path, or trajectory, do not specify anything about orientation, and thus cannot settle the issue. Such definitions can be ignored. They can be ignored because there is absolutely no justification for assuming a specific orientation, so you need your definition to actually specify it (which means include the words “rotation about an external axis”, for the “Non-Spinners”, or “translation in a circle/ellipse”, for the “Spinners”).

          • Nate says:

            “‘Spinners’ need to find a definition of ‘orbital motion’ where they get their orientation specified. ”

            One last time, non-spinners have no business telling ‘spinners’-i.e. astronomers, what they need, especially when they have never claimed to need any such thing!

            Since astronomical tables SPECIFY parameters like orientation, rate of rotation, and axial tilt of bodies, there is NO NEED for the definition of ORBIT to define these parameters, as non-spinners oddly seem to believe.

            It is the same as saying since Mars is in ORBIT around the sun, its MASS and COLOR are defined by its orbit.

            In reality Mars’ MASS, COLOR, ROTATION RATE, AXIAL TILT, ORIENTATION are all independent parameters, listed in tables.

            To argue that independently specified properties need to be defined by a definition of ORBIT, that doesnt in fact say any such thing, is simply made-up nonsense.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It’s weird, bob. If I asked any "Spinner" on here how an object that was orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis, remained oriented whilst it orbited, they would say the "moon on the right" (so long as they were being honest). Yet some "Spinners" seem to believe that their version of what "orbital motion" only is, does not involve orientation. They seem to think that definitions of "orbital motion" that don’t specify orientation…still somehow support them!

            That’s incorrect, I’m afraid, and always will be. Their version of "orbital motion" only is motion like the "moon on the right", and so they need a definition that supports them on that. They need a definition that specifies that "orbital motion" is a translation in a circle, or ellipse. They can’t find that, so they trick themselves into believing that somehow definitions just saying "an orbit is a path, or trajectory", support their position any more than they support the "Non-Spinners"! It’s like they have a complete mental block when it comes to logic, on this subject.

            I know I’m right, and always will be, on this. So I’ll repeat this last sentence, over and over again, as long as is necessary for it to be the last word.

          • Nate says:

            “I know Im right” is what every Flat Earther and cult member says.

          • Nate says:

            “Its weird, bob. If I asked any ‘Spinner’ on here how an object that was orbiting, but not rotating but not rotating on its own axis, remained oriented whilst it orbited, they would say the ‘moon on the right’.

            Its weird Bob, how people seem to need to SPECIFY the rotation rate of an orbiting object here, and dont seem to realize that they are doing that, and thus tacitly acknowledging that rotation rate is an independent parameter that needs to be specified!

            They doin’t seem to be able to step back and look at their arguments as a neutral person would and realize that what they are saying is unconvincing and makes no sense.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I know I’m right, and always will be, on this. So I’ll repeat this last sentence, over and over again, as long as is necessary for it to be the last word.

          • Nate says:

            An admission that, ultimately, his argument amounts to an ‘argument by assertion’.

            Repeat it as much as you like. That’s what Flat Earthers do.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …know I’m right, and always will be, on this. So I’ll repeat this last sentence, over and over again, as long as is necessary for it to be the last word.

      • Nate says:

        “Vague sources only defining 1) as a trajectory or path can be ignored, as they do not settle the issue.”

        Flat Earthers ALSO declare that facts that OBVIOUSLY contradict their beliefs can be ignored.

        They also have an inability to gauge when an argument has long been a dead horse, and keep on kicking it for years on end.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          …and you agreed with the "Non-Spinners" by saying that "rotation about an external axis is defined as a revolution, not a translation". Thank you for conceding. That settles the issue in the "Non-Spinners" favour.

        • Nate says:

          Flat Earthers also declare that they’re winning…

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          …you agreed with the "Non-Spinners" by saying that "rotation about an external axis is defined as a revolution, not a translation". Thank you for conceding. That settles the issue in the "Non-Spinners" favour.

        • Nate says:

          For anyone responding to Bob here, please note that he isnt posting in this thread.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          …agreed with the "Non-Spinners" by saying that "rotation about an external axis is defined as a revolution, not a translation". Thank you for conceding. That settles the issue in the "Non-Spinners" favour.

  35. Gordon Robertson says:

    Winnemucca???????????

    ****

    I was totin’ my pack along the dusty Winnemucca road
    When along came a semi with a high an’ canvas-covered load
    “If you’re goin’ to Winnemucca, Mack, with me you can ride”
    And so I climbed into the cab, and then I settled down inside
    He asked me if I’d seen a road with so much dust and sand
    And I said, “Listen, I’ve traveled every road in this here land”

    I’ve been everywhere, man
    I’ve been everywhere, man
    Crossed the deserts bare, man
    I’ve breathed the mountain air, man
    Of travel I’ve had my share, man
    I’ve been everywhere

    stolen Hank snow version…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jet7Ue743Do&ab_channel=LegacyRecordingsVEVO

    *****

    Original Australian version by Geoff Mack….

    I was humpin’ my bluey on the dusty Oodnadatta road,
    When along came a semi with a high and canvas-covered load.
    If you’re goin’ to Oodnadatta, mate, with me you can ride.
    So I climbed in the cabin and I settled down inside.
    He asked me if I’d seen a road with so much dust and sand.
    I said (spoken): Listen, mate, I’ve travelled ev’ry road in this here land.

    ’cause I’ve been ev’rywhere, man,
    I’ve been ev’rywhere, man;
    Crossed the desert sand, man;
    I’ve breathed the mountain air, man.
    Of travel I’ve had my share, man;
    I’ve been ev’rywhere.

    I’ve been to Tullamore, Seymour, Lismore, Mooloolaba,
    Nambour Maroochydore, Kilmore, Murwillumbah,
    Birdsville, Emmaville, Wallaville, Cunnarnulla,
    Condamine, Strathpine, Proserpine, Ulladulla,
    Darwin, Gin Gin, Deniliquin, Muckadilla,
    Wallambilla, Boggabilla, Kumbarilla, I’m a killer.

    Moree, Taree, Jerilderie, Bambaroo,
    Toowoomba, Gunnedah, Caringbah, Woolloomooloo,
    Dalveen, Tamborine, Engadine, Jindabyne,
    Lithgow, Casino, Boggabri, Gundagai,
    Narrabri, Tibooburra, Megalong, Wyong, Tuggerawong, Wanganella,
    Morella, Augathella, Brindabella, I’m the teller.

    Wollongong, Geelong, Kurrajong, Mullumbimby,
    Mittagong, Molong, Grong Grong, Goondiwindi,
    Yarra Yarra, Bouindarra, Wallangarra, Turramurra,
    Boggabri, Gundagai, Narrabri, Tibooburra,
    Gulgong, Adelong, Billabong, Cabramatta,
    Parramatta, Wangaratta, Coolangatta, what’s it matter.

    Ettalong, Dandenong, Woodenbong, Ballarat,
    Canberra, Milperra, Unanderra, Captain’s Flat,
    Cloncurry, River Murray, Kurri Kurri, Girraween,
    Terrigal, Fingal, Stockinbingal, Collaroy and Narrabeen,
    Bendigo, Dorrigo, Bangalow, Indooroopilly,
    Kirribilli, Yeerongpilly, Wollondilly, don’t be silly.

    I’ve been here, there, ev’rywhere,
    I’ve been ev’rywhere.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UAh7ogwAYQ&ab_channel=errYuck

  36. Swenson says:

    Earlier, Nitwitted Nate wrote –

    “No, but Flynnson seems unbothered by a surface with 390 out and 240 solar in, and isnt cooling.

    Maybe he can explain this glaring discrepancy?”

    Nate believes in magic. He seems (unclearly) to be convinced that a surface emitting more energy than it is exposed to, is somehow heating! Either Nate has discovered some of Gavin Schmidt’s “new physics”, or he is confused. A body emitting more energy than it absorbs is cooling – no ifs, buts, or maybe.

    If a body is absorbing more energy than it is emitting – it heats, or occasionally maintains a steady temperature for a short period (phase changes).

    So yes, I’m unbothered by Nates idiocy – claiming a surface can be exposed to 240 something-or-others, emit 390 of them, and still get hotter! Nate is confused, ignorant, stupid, or infected with mad SkyDragon beliefs. He believes in a GHE which he cannot even describe, and which apparently causes bodies to simultaneously cool and heat up, according to Nitwit Nate’s preference de jour!

    What an inept ninny he is!

    • Clint R says:

      Nate is still trying to add/subtract fluxes. He doesn’t understand, like his cult, that radiative fluxes aren’t conserved. An imaginary BB sphere receives 960 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2. 960 does NOT equal 240.

      Energy is conserved, but radiative fluxes are NOT conserved.

      • Entropic man says:

        “Energy is conserved, but radiative fluxes are NOT conserved. ”

        Yes,we know.

        Why are you making a fuss about a trivial point.

        • Clint R says:

          Sorry Ent, but “we” don’t know. Your cult tries to conserve flux. They average solar flux down to a measly 170 W/m^2.

          That ain’t science.

          • Entropic man says:

            I think that’s a straw man. Flux is a convenient measure of rate of energy flow. I don’t recall anyone trying to conserve flux outside the context of energy conservation.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          “Yes, we know.”

          Well, some of you certainly had a hard time understanding it. One of you wrote an entire article based on your confusion over this “trivial point”.

      • Entropic man says:

        For those wondering what Clint R is going on about.

        Flux is power/area. Spreading the same power over a larger decreases the flux, so flux is not conserved.

        The area of a disc is πr^2. Allowing for albedo a disc the diameter of the Earth receives a flux of 960W/m^2 from sunlight.

        The area of a hemisphere is 2πr^2 so the flux averaged over the dayside of the Earth is half that of the disc, 480W/m^2.

        The area of a sphere is 4πr^2 so the flux averaged over the whole Earth is 1/4 that of the disc,240W/m^2.

        For all three cases the total energy received in a given time is the same. Energy is conserved.

        • Clint R says:

          Correct, energy is conserved but radiative fluxes are NOT conserved.

          • Entropic man says:

            On this we agree, as do almost all of those competent to hold an opinion ( but apparently not Swenson and Cristos).

            So what are we arguing about?

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            Are you sure you accept the law of the conservation of energy?

            The accepted figure for total solar irradiance is around 1366 W/m2, but you use a figure of 960 W/m2. You seem to have made about 400 W/m2 simply vanish!

            Maybe you don’t understand what the conservation laws are all about?

            Are you sure you are not thinking about SkyDragon “conversation” laws, where SkyDragons try to talk fantasy into fact?

            Maybe you could describe where the description of the GHE refers to the conservation laws, or physics at all, before you start looking like a really stupid or ignorant SkyDragon.

            Good luck with describing the GHE.

          • Willard says:

            Energy balance models are all about conservation of energy, Mike Flynn.

            I wrote an article about that.

            You simply are forgetting one of the prarameters.

            Cheers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You wrote an article parading your ignorance and confusion about something utterly trivial…a permanent internet record of your complete and utter failure to grasp the absolute basics of your opponent’s argument. A failure that I’ll never let you forget, for the rest of your life.

          • Willard says:

            That reminds me:

            [W] Quick question: in Joe’s diagrams, there is an equation at the top right. Do you know what it means? I only found it at one place in his work.

            [G] No, you will have to ask Joe on that one.

            Online. Forever.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Good, a permanent record of my honesty. No shame in it – hard to know what an equation means when none of the terms are defined.

            Your failure, on the other hand, was absolute and fundamental.

        • Swenson says:

          EM,

          The “averages” are physically nonsensical. For a start, as you indicate, the atmosphere only allows about 70% of the radiation normal to the atmosphere to actually reach the surface – hence the nominal 1366 W/m2 insolation being reduced to your 960 W/m2.

          Your 960 W/m2 is a maximum – normal to the radiation. As the angle of incidence increases, the radiation has to traverse a greater depth of atmosphere, losing even more energy, quite apart from the reduction in intensity due to being spread over a larger area. In addition, the depth, opacity, and density of the atmosphere are continuously varying, so any person who claims that their calculations about solar input lead to any useful conclusions relating to “global warming” is either ignorant, stupid, or just off with fairies, so to speak.

          As an instance of “average” silliness, what average energy input was responsible for the Earth cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so? If you believe the Earth is now heating up due to the effect of a GHE on existing sunlight, what fresh physical laws have sprung into existence to explain the apparent magical increase in the amount of the Sun’s energy being absorbed by the Earth – and retained overnight, of course?

          You can’t even describe the GHE without making yourself look foolish, which is why you don’t even try. I don’t blame you.

          Maybe you could just agree with the “climatologist” Raymond Pierrehumbert, who stated that “CO2 is just planetary insulation” (as it has been for billions of years), and discover you have a textbook to write, or an urgent appointment to attend, and scurry away!

          Off you go, now.

    • Nate says:

      “Maybe he can explain this glaring discrepancy?”

      All I see is color commentary.. Where is the explanation?

      There is still a discrepancy. There is still 150 W/m2 output according to Swenson, yet the Earth isn’t cooling as he expects.

      Swenson fails to explain this. And we know why. Because a GHE makes this discrepancy disappear.

      But that is unacceptable to Swenson. What would he troll about?

      Hence he must avoid answering.

      • Swenson says:

        Idiot Nate,

        You wrote –

        “All I see is color commentary.. Where is the explanation?

        There is still a discrepancy. There is still 150 W/m2 output according to Swenson, yet the Earth isnt cooling as he expects.”

        I have not mentioned any “150 W/m2 ouput”, you lying swine! Only joking, I mean no disrespect to our porcine relatives.

        You just make this stuff up as you go, hoping that some mentally defective SkyDragons will accept your fantasies as fact. And I’m sure, some are dumb enough to believe anything.

        “Color commentary”? What are you blabbering about, fool?

        As to the Earth cooling, I expect nothing but reality. According to physical laws, a body emitting more energy than it receives is cooling. Current measurements have the Earth losing energy at a rate of some 44 TW. SkyDragons try to confuse the issue by saying “it’s the Sun – 44 TW is miniscule by comparison”, conveniently overlooking the fact that all of the heat of the day is lost during the night – plus a bit of the Earth’s internal heat.

        And history bears this out. The Earth has indeed cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so. You may believe in a GHE which allowed the Earth to cool to below its current temperature, and then recently heated it up by a degree or more, but no sane, rational, scientifically minded person would.

        You are so delusional that you proselytise a GHE which you can’t even describe! How bizarre is that?

        Carry on Nate – keep asking me to “explain” why your fantasies are not supported by reality. Don’t blame me if you wind up looking like you live in some weird SkyDragon fantasy.

      • Nate says:

        “I have not mentioned any ‘150 W/m2 ouput’, you lying swine!”

        No you didnt. You did mention 390 output and 240 input.

        “Go on, tell me that you agree that a body radiating 390 watts upwards and receiving 240, is heating due to a GHE!”

        I dunno about down under, but where I came from 390- 240 = 150 Net.

        • Swenson says:

          Nate,

          390 and 240? Yes, I quoted your obviously imaginary figures back to you. Thanks for the apology, though.

          You also wrote –

          “I dunno about down under, but where I came from 390- 240 = 150 Net”

          I’m glad to see that your grasp of arithmetic is as good as a 6 year old child. You probably need to brush up your English spelling though.

          However, what is your cryptic piece of arithmetic meant to imply? You might be trying to convince the singularly dim that a body losing energy is getting hotter, but only a fanatical SkyDragon would be likely to believe that cooling is really heating!

          Toss out a few more kindergarten standard pieces of meaningless arithmetic, if you think it will make you look clever. If you can learn how to do arithmetical averages, you can call yourself a “climatologist”, I dare say. With some guidance from Bindidon, you can probably use your crayons to draw brightly coloured graphics, and claim that you can predict the future!

          Any 6 year old child can predict the future. Just ask them if night follows day.

          Give it a try. See if you are smarter than a 6 year old.

        • Nate says:

          ” Yes, I quoted your obviously imaginary figures back to you.”

          Just to remind you where these numbers that you previously did not dispute, come from.

          390 W/m^2: because the Earth’s surface emissivity is quite close to that of a black body, its average T is 288 K, the SB Law finds its average upward emission will be:

          sigma*T^4 = 5.67e-8*288^4 = 390 W/m^2

          240 W/m^2. This is the average solar flux abs*orbed by the Earth, as measured by satellite and other means at the top of the atmosphere.

          Some of this 240 is abs*orbed by the atmosphere, so the amount reaching the Earth’s surface will be less than 240, but it is the upper bound on what the surface is receiving.

          I realize that numbers are challenging for you, but do you now, in retrospect, want to dispute these numbers? Go ahead.

          Regardless, the main point is the LARGE discrepancy between the outgoing and incoming radiant flux to the Earth’s surface.

          How do you account for this discrepancy without invoking a GHE?

          Or you are welcome to try to make a case that there is no discrepancy.

          Your choice.

          • Clint R says:

            Nate, the “discrepancy” comes from your tangled bad physics and your cult beliefs.

            The “240 W/m^2” refers to an imaginary sphere. That value has no meaningful application to Earth. You don’t understand ANY of this.

          • Nate says:

            You are highly confused Clint. Even DREMT understands where 240 comes from. Why don’t you?

          • Clint R says:

            The confusion is all yours, troll Nate.

            As I stated, the “240 W/m^2” comes from an imaginary BB sphere absorbing 960 W/m^2. That results in the sphere’s surface emitting 240 W/m^2, at a temperature of 255K. Your cult then tries to compare that to Earth.

            That ain’t science.

            You don’t understand any of this.

          • Nate says:

            Dude, 240 is the MEASURED average SW input at TOA. Do you know of a different measured value? Show us that, or shut up.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong again, troll Nate.

            The “average SW input at TOA” is not even mentioned much. The TOTAL average solar input at TOA is about 1368 W/m^2, the “solar constant”. You’re WAY off.

            You don’t understand any of this.

          • Nate says:

            I see youve been brushing up on the Troll Handbook.

            Chapter VI. Techniques for playing dumb, when you have no good answers.

            As noted above “240 W/m^2. This is the average solar flux abs*orbed by the Earth, as measured by satellite and other means at the top of the atmosphere.”

            The “TOTAL average solar input at TOA is about 1368 W/m^2” is not the average solar flux abs*orbed by the Earth.

            But it can be used along with the average Albedo = 0.3 of the Earth to calculate the average solar flux abs*orbed by the Earth.

            If you find a different answer perhaps you can show us how you calculate it.

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Nate, you’re not even trying. You’re just going in confused circles.

            As I stated, the “240 W/m^2” comes from an imaginary BB sphere absorbing 960 W/m^2. That results in the sphere’s surface emitting 240 W/m^2, at a temperature of 255K. Your cult then tries to compare that to Earth.

            That ain’t science.

            You don’t understand any of this.

          • Nate says:

            Troll Clint, youre not even trying.

            I told you 240 W/m^2 is the average solar flux abs*orbed by the Earth, as measured by satellite at the top of the atmosphere. It can also be calculated directly from the solar constant and the Earth’s average albedo.

            What is YOUR answer for the average solar flux abs*orbed by the Earth?

            If you can’t tell us a different answer and how you find it, then your complaint about my number being wrong has nothing to support it.

            It is just your usual bullshit.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong again, troll Nate.

            Satellites do NOT measure absorbed solar. That’s a measurement (resulting in an estimate) made at SURFACE. Again, your 240 W/m^2 is bogus. That comes from an imaginary sphere and has no meaningful application to Earth.

            If you want to know a realistic value for average absorbed solar, do you agree to not comment here for 30 days?

          • Nate says:

            “If you want to know a realistic value for average absorbed solar, do you agree to not comment here for 30 days?”

            No, thanks. I am not in the habit of trading something of value for something of zero value. You are as bad at business as you are at science.

            We all know you don’t have any sensible answer.

            Let’s make it easier for you. Find the total solar energy absor*bed by the Earth each second on average. Then divide that energy by the total area of the Earth in m^2, and tell us what you find. My answer is 240 J.

            This agrees with measurements from satellites. Your opinion that it has been done all wrong is noted. But since no evidence accompanies it, and you offer no alternative method or result, it will remain unsupported opinion, ie bullshit.

          • Clint R says:

            Don’t miss this opportunity to learn, troll Nate. 30 days is nothing, you’ll be back before Christmas. Take the offer, or remain a braindead cult idiot. You have a choice.

          • Nate says:

            Loser trolls have nothing to offer.

          • Clint R says:

            Exactly troll Nate. That’s the point I’ve been making for months — you cult idiots have NOTHING.

    • Earth’s average SW absorbed solar energy: Jsw.not-reflected.average = 111 W/m^2

      A planet reflects incoming short wave solar radiation. A planet’s surface has reflecting properties.

      1. The planet’s albedo “a”. It is a surface quality dependent value.
      2. The planet’s spherical shape. For a smooth planet the solar irradiation reflection is (0,53 + Φ*a)Jincoming.

      What we had till now:
      Jsw.incoming – Jsw.reflected = Jsw.not-reflected
      Here
      Jsw.absorbed = (1-a)*Jsw.incoming

      And
      Jsw.reflected = a*Jsw.incoming

      What we have now is the following:
      Jsw.incoming – Jsw.reflected = Jsw.not-reflected

      Φ = (1-0,53) = 0,47
      Φ = 0,47

      Φ is the planet’s spherical surface solar irradiation accepting factor.
      Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*a) * Jsw.incoming

      And
      Jsw.not-reflected = Φ* (1-a) * Jsw.incoming

      Where
      (0,53 + Φ*a) + Φ* (1-a) = 0,53 + Φ*a + Φ – Φ*a =
      = 0,53 + Φ = 0,53 + 0,47 = 1

      Conclusion:
      A planet’s not-reflected fraction of the SW incoming radiation in total is:
      Jsw.not-reflected = 0,47*(1-a)*Jsw.incoming

      For Planet Earth
      Average albedo a = 0,306
      Solar flux So = 1.361 W/m^2
      Jsw.not-reflected = Φ*(1-a)*So =

      Jsw.not-reflected = 0,47*(1-0,306)*1.361 W/m^2 =
      = 0,47*0,694*1.361 W/m^2 = 444,26 W/m^2

      Averaged on the entire Earth’s surface we obtain:
      Jsw.not-reflected.average = [ 0,47*(1-a)*1.361 W/m^2 ] /4 =
      = [ 0,47*0,694*1.361 W/m^2 ] /4 = 444,26 W/m^2 /4 =

      = 111,07 W/m^2

      Jsw.not-reflected.average = 111 W/m^2

      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Also, I should note that the average solar flux is a mathematical abstraction.
        Solar flux does not average over the planet surface in the real world.
        When we “imagine” solar flux averaging on the entire planet surface it is like having (the false equilibrium concept), it is like having the actual planet being enclosed in an imaginary sphere, which sphere is emitting towards the planet surface a constant flux of 240 W/m^2.
        But it is not what happens in the real world!

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          christos…”the average solar flux is a mathematical abstraction”.

          ***

          People in the Arctic or Antarctica during winter would agree. Even further south, at the latitude of Vancouver, Canada, the solar flux in winter is not enough to keep one warm outdoors.

          I was out walking in the dark last night (it gets dark by 5:30 PM) and it was 3C. During the day, I think it reached 8C.

          It’s 3C right now at 6:15 PM and I would not go outside unless I was wearing several layers of clothes. When I was younger, and even more stupid, I ran around all winter with a shirt and sweater, but that was running from a warm car to a warm location.

          The amount of solar flux we get at a latitude near 50 degrees north is not enough to appreciably warm the land surface or the air.

          I’ll tell you one thing, CO2 is warming nothing in my part of the world.

          • Yes, exactly!

            Thank you, Gordon.

            It is unusually warm this November in Athens, Greece. For tomorrow temperature prognosis is min 13C and max 22C.

            At my desk, where I sit, the temperature is 18C 24 hours. There should be some minor variations, but it doesn’t show on the thermometer display.

            When it is 18C indoors I have to be dressed warm, otherwise sitting at 18C is chilly.

            It is a good temperature though – we haven’t spent energy to warm our home yet. Spending energy for heating has become a serious problem, because the costs of energy are very high!

            https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  37. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Temperatures in Colorado dropped to -20 degrees Celsius overnight.

  38. Eben says:

    Half way through the month the sun activity is steadily marching west,
    Or as Bindicklown sez – way ahead of the predictions

    https://i.postimg.cc/sg0GdfCZ/cycle25-prediction-focus.png

  39. Bindidon says:

    Don’t know why some people always feel this strange need to hide their sources.

    https://tinyurl.com/3b64be5w

    • Swenson says:

      Bunny,

      You wrote –

      “Dont know why some people always feel this strange need to hide their sources.”

      Have you added this information to the already vast list of things you don’t know?

      You don’t know where to find a description of the GHE, either, but I presume this is already on your list of things you would like to know. The forecasts you have linked to seem to vary by 100% or so. It would be nice if you could indicate which forecast is correct, and why you bothered showing so much incorrect nonsense. (The other forecasts).

      Don’t tell me you don’t know – only a fool would try to make someone else appear foolish by linking to obviously false information!

      Why do you present guesses and speculation as fact – or don’t you know the difference?

      Best add that to the list of things you don’t know, then.

      Carry on.

    • Eben says:

      Bindicklown is an idiot, the source is right on the chart, nobody is hiding anything,
      The reason i post it this way is to capture the chart as it appears at the time of posting, if I link to the original image and few weeks later somebody reads the post it will show something else and make no sense,
      But Bindicklown is too stupid to ever figure this out

      • Bindidon says:

        Babbling Edog, I was sure you would either not understand or intentionally misrepresent what I wrote.

        I repeat: you’d better show the source on the blog as is: many people lack the time to look at so tiny details as a link typeset using tiniest characters.

        To ‘to capture the chart as it appears at the time of posting’ is your personal problem.

        Feel free to insult me: apart from the admission of the Moon’s rotation, nothing distinguishes you from Robertson, Clint R, Swenson.

      • Bindidon says:

        But nonetheless: thank you for the tiny link.

        I have read MacIntosh & alii’s paper and its revision, but was not aware of the Helio4cast corner. Good corner.

  40. Swenson says:

    Earlier, the distinctly witless Nate hammered away at his keyboard, producing what he no doubt thought was a world-shattering gotcha –

    “Still waiting for you to explain how 390 units of radiation out and 240 units of radiation in, a large NET energy output, DOESNT result in the Earths surface cooling, in fact rapidly cooling?”

    After I had stopped laughing, I wondered whether I should bother responding to such a pathetic attempt to pass off fantasy as fact. Oh well, I suppose I must. I’ll paraphrase 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.”

    In Nate’s case, I will state “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.

    The Earth doesn’t appear to be “rapidly cooling”. Recent estimates based on measurement, indicate that the Earth is cooling at a rate of one to four millionths of a Kelvin per annum. Of course, to a SkyDragon, this is anathema, and may have been redefined to be “rapid cooling” for all I know.

    Nate plucks figures out of his fantasy (or possibly his arse), and then demands an explanation for reality being different to his unsupported assertions. Just another example of a SkyDragon attempting to deny reality. About as stupid as claiming that a GHE allowed the planet to cool to 255 K, then deciding that temperature was stupidly cold, and heating it to its present temperature!

    So Nate will have to keep waiting for someone else to turn his fantasies into fact. It’s beyond me – I can’t see into Nate’s obviously twisted mental processes.

    I’ll just have to get along without Nate’s intellectual guidance – laughing as I go!

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        “If your calculations are not supported by reality, reality must be wrong.” – SkyDragon Manual.

        You really are stupid aren’t you?

        Nobody has ever measured the “average temperature” of the Earth’s surface, you donkey! Nobody has ever measured the “average energy” reaching the surface of the Earth, either.

        Using figures someone has pulled out of their arse, to create other figures which are equally ridiculous, is just stupid!

        Just like other stupid SkyDragons who believe that they can add and subtract temperatures, by calling them W/m2!

        Accept reality, Nate. You can’t even describe this GHE, can you? That’s because it’s not real.

        Do another calculation – use some “equations” to “prove” that decreasing the amount of sunlight reaching a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. For example, increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        Or describe the GHE, if you prefer. How hard can it be?

  41. Gordon Robertson says:

    swenson…”There is Antarctica, of course. Average ice covering is around 2 km”.

    ***

    Antarctica has mountain ranges that allow glaciers to flow both ways. When you see the ice shelves surrounding Antarctica on the ocean side, the same applies on the inner side. I don’t have a problem with glacial ice filling valleys to the depth of 2 km.

    There is also a mountain range that splits Antarctica east-west.

    https://www.mountainiq.com/antarctica/

    • Swenson says:

      Gordon,

      I just accept that what is – is (until it isn’t, of course, then I change my views).

      Here’s a journalistic snippet which is probably true –

      “Everything about Antarctica is hyperbolic. It is the coldest, highest, driest, and windiest continent. Now, it can add another extreme feather to its cap: Scientists have found the continent to be host to the greatest concentration of volcanoes on Earth.”

      Might be the thickest ice on Earth covering the longest volcanic range on Earth!

      I don’t intend to lose any sleep about the ice melting anytime soon. I must be a “climate denier” – whatever SkyDragons want that to mean.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        sven…that’s short for svenson. Note that a ‘w’ is just 2 v’s. Maybe we could write it sv^2enson.

        Just trying to be more friendly since you often refer to me as Gordon.

        Along the same line as your quote, polar expert Duncan Wingham was queried about glaciers melting in Antarctica. He replied that its far too cold for glaciers to melt there.

        I have read a couple of solo attempts by people walking to the South Pole in summer. Why anyone would want to do that I don’t know. Anyway, it is claimed temperatures never rise above 0C in summer so they must dress accordingly. Also, they encounter blizzards en route.

        In the last book I read, the guy was constantly worried about frostbite…in summer, yet the climate scofflaw, Michael Mann, claimed it has warmed in Antarctica the past 50 years. Of course, his research was much like his hockey stick study, seriously flawed.

        • bobdroege says:

          Yeah Right, no melting of ice on Antarctica.

          A picture is worth more than all of Gordon’s screeds.

          https://www.antarctica.gov.au/news/2022/climate-change-poses-greatest-threat-to-antarctica/

          • Swenson says:

            Bob,

            And now you see why dimwitted SkyDragon claims of “snowball earth” are completely ridiculous, don’t you?

            By the way – “Supraglacial (surface) water on a glacier is formed by the ice melting during the summer. It flows off the glacier, incising a number of cracks similar to an ordinary river system[1]. These channels are often sinuous, and the water can flow at rates of up to several metres per second.”

            And – “Underneath Antarcticas vast ice sheets theres a network of rivers and lakes. This is possible because of the insulating blanket of ice above, the flow of heat from within the Earth, and the small amount of heat generated as the ice deforms.”

            I suppose you are stupid enough to blame surface water due to radiation from the Sun on a GHE that you can’t even describe, are you?

            Give it a try. See how you go.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            More bs from BOM. From your link…

            “The Antarctic environment is still in comparatively good condition, but the pressures on the continent and the surrounding ocean are increasing, Dr Welsford said.

            For example, ice shelves are melting faster due to warming of the upper ocean and lower atmosphere, the human footprint in the region is expanding, and the krill fishery is increasing catches to levels last seen in the 1980s.

            ***

            What the heck is a melting ice shelf? Whoever made that statement is a raving idiot. The scientists who made this dumb claim has a Ph.D in biology and population dynamics of shallow reef wrasse species. He works for the Department of Fisheries.

            There is no way ice shelves are melting. They are continuing to do what they have always done, they are ‘calving’.

            Here’s how calving works, Bob. Glaciers flow to the ocean and the ice continues out over the ocean. Some alarmist twinkie claimed the ice shelves float on the water, an idiotic statement. As the ice is suspended over the ocean, partly in it, it is subjected to gravitational forces and tidal action. Eventually, the stresses on it cause the ice to fracture and a large chunk of the shelf breaks off.

            That’s when it begins to float, when it is no longer part of the glacier. Alarmists are so blatantly ignorant of the geology so they have to make up bs like global warming being the cause of the calving.

            Another point. The shelves are protected from wave action largely by flow ice abutting the shelves. For some reason, ocean currents, or whatever, the flow ice goes AWOL, exposing the shelves to 100 foot waves. That speeds up the calving process.

          • Swenson says:

            Gordon,

            Another thing “collapsing ice sheet” SkyDragons don’t seem to accept, is that ocean tides exist even in the Southern Ocean.

            “So what?” a SkyDragon might ask. Well, ice shelves which result from glacial outflow (most of them) are usually between 50 and 800 meters thick. Ice this thick is not very flexible, compared with the water supporting it, and the water can only support ice when about 90% of the ice is displacing the water it floats in.

            This creates enormous stresses in the ice shelf, which is constantly fracturing and refreezing on a micro scale, before the accumulated stresses finally exceed a certain limit. Then the ice sheet fractures. It doesn’t “collapse”. That’s just more misleading SkyDragon jargon. As is the nonsense about the ice sheet “melting” – either from above or below – due to the GHE!

            It all gets very complicated. The US National Park Service, at least, acknowledges one reason for glacial flow –

            “Heat emitted from the Earth surface (due to radioactive decay and leftover heat from Earth’s formation) that melts the ice.”

            SkyDragons don’t seem to like facts, but real scientists apparently agree with me (or me with them). The Earth is still hot inside, and this becomes obvious from time to time.

          • bobdroege says:

            You two are a couple of complete morons.

            “He replied that its far too cold for glaciers to melt there.”

            That’s why I posted that picture, showing meltwater coming off of a glacier.

            If it’s too cold for ice to melt, then why is there water flowing off the glacier, because it gets warm enough for ice to melt.

            Morons.

            Swenson, I’ve explained the greenhouse effect to you more than once, stop with your babbling about no one describing it too you.

            Makes you look like a moron.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            That’s right Bob, zero melting of ice on the Antarctic continent proper. All the claimed melting is near the tip of the Antarctic peninsula, closer to the tip of South America than the South Pole.

            Here’s the kind of bs you get from these alarmist idiots, obfuscated dog doo doo.

            “Between 1992 and 2017, global warming caused the loss of almost 2700 gigatonnes (2700 billion tonnes) of ice from the Antarctic ice sheet including through the collapse of large ice shelves contributing about 8 mm to mean sea level rise. The speed of this ice loss has quadrupled since the end of the 20th century.

            While the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica have experienced the most change, Dr Welsford said recent events suggest that climate change signals are now surfacing in the Australian Antarctic Territory, in East Antarctica where Australias Antarctic stations are located and Australian research efforts are focussed.

            In 2019-20, for example, parts of coastal Antarctica, including at Australias Casey research station, experienced a three-day heatwave, breaking minimum and maximum temperature records. Caseys highest maximum of 9.2C, was 6.9C higher than the mean maximum temperature for the station over the past 31 years”.

            ***

            Look up the Casey research station which is near 66 degrees south. It’s near the tip of the peninsula, right up there by South America. The bs artists are inferring melting on the continent proper when they really mean the tip of the peninsula. Liars!!!

            That’s the same bs Mann pulled off in his study claiming Antarctica had warmed the past 50 years. He and his co-author, Stieg, used warming temperatures at the tip of the peninsula, which is surrounded by warming ocean currents, to skew the reading of the continent proper.

            The Larsen ice shelf, which draws most attention for so-called ice shelf collapses, is in the same vicinity.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swenson…”Ice this thick is not very flexible, compared with the water supporting it, and the water can only support ice when about 90% of the ice is displacing the water it floats in.

            This creates enormous stresses in the ice shelf, which is constantly fracturing and refreezing on a micro scale…”

            ***

            That’s the point. As you so rightly point out, ice shelves don’t collapse, part of them literally breaks off, in a process called calving. There is a tremendous stress on them to break off and why they don’t break off sooner is a testament to the strength of thick ice.

            They have been repeating that process for millions of years. Then some idiots come along with a theory that global warming causes it.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            “All the claimed melting is near the tip of the Antarctic peninsula, closer to the tip of South America than the South Pole.”

            No way dude.

            https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/east-antarctica-ice-shelf-the-size-of-new-york-city-collapses-accelerated-melt

  42. Gordon Robertson says:

    willard seems to be AWOL. I wonder if he has his hands stuck to a wall in an art gallery.

  43. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A stationary low centered over Manitoba is producing secondary lows that will reach the Great Lakes and cause snowfall. Arctic-continental air from over Canada, dry and very cold, reaches the central part of the US. There is no change in the longer forecast.
    Circulation in the polar vortex indicates a further influx of a waves of Arctic air into the US from over eastern Siberia over Alaska.
    The pattern of the polar vortex also indicates a Russian frost in Europe.
    https://i.ibb.co/Y2HMPP3/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-17-095015.png
    https://i.ibb.co/5GXXxwq/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…Manitoba is a seriously cold place during winter. I was staying in Regina and it was -50C. Winnipeg, Manitoba was -55C.

      Environment Canada, who are uber-climate alarmists, have fudged all the old temperature records to make them a lot warmer than they were. Of course, they get their data from the likes of NOAA and NASA GISS and Tony Heller has proved both outfits fudge the temperature record.

      I know for a fact it was -55C in Winnipeg that day because I read it in the newspaper. Furthermore, everyone I talked was talking about the -50C in Regina. Being from the warmer west coast I was mightily impressed by how cold it was. It did not suddenly appear in my mind from imagination.

      Heck, the record cold day in Prince George, BC was about -50C in 1950 and a few years ago it hit -40+ C. Winnipeg is, on average, a lot colder than Prince George yet EC rates its coldest temperature at about -38C. Liars!!!

      NOAA and GISS have homogenized the record to show a smooth trend from 1850 onward. Cheaters!!!

  44. Bindidon says:

    It’s amazing how people can exaggerate cooling just because it fits their narrative:

    ” The pattern of the polar vortex also indicates a Russian frost in Europe. ”

    https://i.postimg.cc/xd1VdX1w/Screenshot-2022-11-17-at-13-27-05-Forecast-Wetter-Online.png

    -6 C during mere two nights, and soon does Northeast Germoney land in the frosty Russia.

    Here is Europe’s forecast for Sunday night:

    https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20221120&daytime=night&iid=euro

    -6 C in Tromsö! That’s warm there for mid November.

    ren, as a Polish guy, in fact should better know what a ‘Russian frost’ really is.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      What can you hope for when you know nothing.
      https://i.ibb.co/BgQd1CY/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png

      • Bindidon says:

        ren

        Tell that to the WetterOnline forecasters I got the information from.

        And don’t forget to explain them how exactly you were able to extract out of that GFS 100-hPa Height Forecast that ‘the pattern of the polar vortex also indicates a Russian frost in Europe’.

        They will hire you, for sure!

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Ren likely meant cold air from Siberia. Of course, that’s too complicated for Binny the Blubberer.

        • Swenson says:

          Bunny,

          Do all SkyDragons think that weather forecasters can forecast the weather any better than I can?

          Or only the really, really, dumb ones.

          Here’s what the Australian BOM forecasters do –

          “Computer weather models, or technically, numerical weather prediction models, are the main tools we use to forecast the weather. In a nutshell, they take all of the mathematical equations that explain the physics of the atmosphere and calculate them at billions of points within the atmosphere around the Earth. The weather models require enormous computing power to complete their calculations in a reasonable amount of time, meaning they use some of the most powerful supercomputers in the worldour supercomputer, for example, can handle more than 1600 trillion calculations per second! The models take the past and current weather observations of the atmosphere and ocean as the starting point, and plug them into the mathematical equations that calculate the weather into the future.”

          Just like you, they “dissect the past” to predict the future. Foolish “experts” predicting the future?

          After a bit more blurb explaining that models aren’t any good, the BOM goes on to say –

          “It’s also important to remember when looking up the forecast for your town or city that many features of the weather, like rain and showers, can often be on a very local scaleand differ even from suburb to suburb. So the next time you see a forecast for a ‘shower or two’ but you see mostly blue sky at your place, give your friend on the other side of town a call they might be sheltering from a downpour!”

          Gee! That’s encouraging isnt it? Believe the forecasters – or toss a coin after looking out of the window.

          You SkyDragons are simple, trusting, souls, aren’t you?

        • Bindidon says:

          This blog really becomes infested by arrogant Ignoramuses.

          The best is simply to ignore their trash, especially Flynnson’s.

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            You wrote –

            “This blog really becomes infested by arrogant Ignoramuses.

            The best is simply to ignore their trash, especially Flynnsons.”

            With any luck, some SkyDragon even more stupid than you will applaud.

            At least you seem to be accepting that CO2 has no role in increased surface temperatures. Or are you about to flip-flop again, hoping that nobody noticed your attempt to wriggle out of being caught out by another commenter?

            Time to serve up some more “dog poop”, “twat”, “flatulence”, “arrogant Ignoramuses”, etc. – all supported by nothing more than your SkyDragon opinion of your own overwhelming magnificence, of course.

            Do you think you could find the odd fact to insert into your silliness? How hard can it be?

            [laughs at SkyDragon ineptitude]

        • Bindidon says:

          Unlike Ignoramus Robertson, ren is an intelligent person, and would never mean Siberia when talking about ‘Russian frost’ coming into Europe.

          How ignorant of real facts Robertson all the time is: this you can see here

          https://postimg.cc/7561zkk0/7177f5ba

          -22 C till -33 C (Siberia’s average!) in Europe in November?

          Such harsh temperatures we had the last time in FEBRUARY 1956.

          What a dumb Robertsonian nonsense!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”ren is an intelligent person”

            ***

            Then, why don’t you treat him like he is an intelligent person rather than making smart-assed comments about him?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      test bnm

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren is reporting the facts. It’s cold. No catastrophic warming or climate change.

      Climate change theory is a mental disorder.

      • Bindidon says:

        I would rather say, Robertson:

        Ignoring, like you do, the existence of viruses, Einstein’s results, the lunar spin, evolution, the correctness of the 2020 US election, the brutal aggression of the Russian Nomenklatura not only against Ukrainian civilists and their homes but also against their own people (over 100,000 mostly inexperienced Russian soldiers died until now):

        That, Robertson, is really mental disorder.

        Climate change theory is a thing one must be able to contradict.
        You are not able to contradict anything, and are only able to discredit and denigrate.

        But even this you mostly manage to do wrong:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365217

        • Swenson says:

          Bunny,

          You wrote –

          “Climate change theory is a thing one must be able to contradict.”

          It’s very difficult to contradict something that doesn’t exist – “climate change theory”, for example.

          Climate is the average of historical weather records. It changes, due to weather continuously changing.

          What theory are you babbling about? Can you write it down? If you do, I’ll try to contradict it when I stop laughing at your stupid attempts to create fact from fantasy.

          Off you go now.

  45. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Currently, the heaviest precipitation in Michigan, with temperatures of 0 C.
    https://www.wmta.org/live-west-michigan-camera-gallery/grand-rapids-public-museum-west-michigan-live-camera/

  46. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The surface temperature anomaly in the North Atlantic is falling rapidly.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png

  47. Why blackbody is not a planet?

    1.Blackbody emits EM energy uniformly from its entire surface, planet doesn’t emit uniformly.
    2. Blackbody doesn’t get its energy from an outer radiative energy source. Planet gets solar irradiated 24/7.
    3. When rotating faster, planet emits EM energy more uniformly. There is NO “more uniformly” for the blackbody EM energy emission.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Ken says:

      Let us know, won’t you, when you find a better way to describe climate on global scale.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ken…as John Christy of UAH has explained, it can’t be done, climate and the atmosphere are far too complex to be understood to that extent.

        That’s why climate models are such a joke.

        I think the point being made by Christos is that planetary temperature models based on S-B equations are faulty.

      • Swenson says:

        Ken,

        Climate is the average of historical weather records.

        If you don’t know how to calculate averages, a competent 12 year old can help you out.

        If you can’t find a competent 12 year old, look for a “climatologist” with a supercomputer. He can provide you with 135 different answers, of which at least 134 will be incorrect – at great expense, of course.

        I do hope you weren’t just trying to be sarcastic, for no particular reason.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          It’s not like Ken to be sarcastic for no particular reason. After all, he has a high regard for my posts and is particularly supportive. He admires the number of words I can fit into a post, when a few words would be adequate, to Ken.

          Unless, of course, he is being sarcastic. Hmmmm!!!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      christos…remember…there is no such thing as a blackbody. It’s fiction. The theory was proposed by Kircheoff circa 1850 and it applied only to theoretical bodies in thermal equilibrium.

      At the time BB theory was created, no one knew anything about the relationship between atoms and electromagnetic radiation. Since BBs are based on EM, I regard it as a fantasy to create a theory about EM when nothing was known about its origin.

      In 1850, the only information on EM came from Faraday’s experiments with magnetism and electromagnetic fields. Maxwell took Faraday’s work and created a theoretical and mathematical explanation for EM. It was quite clever, actually. However, Maxwell had no idea about the extent of EM theory as related to electrons.

      I would guess that BB theory began as a thought-experiment, a black box experiment in electrical engineering. Given the input and output of a black box we had to guess what was inside the box, normally an inductor/capacitance/resistor network. That’s all Kircheoff had, and he developed a theory of what he thought might be going on inside the box. Today, we are stupid enough to believe the fantasy without questioning it.

      I think BB theory should be scrapped (discarded). I don’t understand the point of continuing to teach such nonsense.

      In 1850, scientists believed that infrared energy, which is lower frequency EM, was ‘heat rays’. They actually believed that heat was radiated through space as rays.

      Clausius, who created the 2nd law and the theory of entropy, was ahead of his time. He understood the relationship between heat and atoms although he could not possibly know about the relationship between EM and electron transitions in atoms. Electrons were not discovered till the 1890s and Bohr did not find the relationship between electrons and EM till 1913.

      Even Clausius thought heat was transmitted through space therefore his allegations about radiation theory must be taken in that context. He was right about heat transfer and entropy, however. He even stated that heat transfer by radiation must obey the 2nd law. Unfortunately, since he thought heat could be transferred directly between bodies via radiation, he misunderstood the actual mechanism of radiative heat transfer.

      It is imperative to understand that heat cannot flow physically between bodies by radiation. Heat is not transferred physically from the Sun to the Earth by radiation. Radiation has no capacity to carry heat, which is a property of atoms. However, if radiation from the Sun is absorbed by human skin, a reaction takes place in the skin that produces heat locally.

      That can only happen if the source is hotter than the target.

      The radiation is absorbed by electrons in atoms of the skin, which rise to higher kinetic energy levels. Since heat is that kinetic energy, an upward transition of electrons is an increase in heat. So, the heat is produced locally by electron transitions.

      If you want to read a good explanation of blackbody theory, look up Claes Johnson on the subject.

      Here’s a starting link. You need yo follow the links at the end of the article to get more information.

      http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/search/label/black%20body%20radiation

      • Christos Vournas says:

        Thank you, Gordon.
        I am reading it right now.

      • Swenson says:

        Gordon,

        Various people have various views about various things. 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.”

        The predictions based on the theory of quantum electrodynamics have never failed, or been shown to be false. Precise, too – “The electron magnetic moment has been measured to an accuracy of 1.710−13 relative to the Bohr magneton.” – Wikipedia.

        That’s better than measuring the distance between New York and Los Angeles to better than the thickness of a thin human hair.

        As you know, in the double slit experiment, if you count the photons one by one, they behave as particles. If you don’t, the photons behave like waves. The editors of the relevant Wikipedia entry gloss over this, and obviously don’t want to accept the reality of reality. Bad luck for them.

        Nobody understands the the “why” of quantum electrodynamics, any more than they they understand the “why” of gravity (and an uncountable number of other things).

        All good fun, isn’t it? If it looks like rain, take an umbrella. Or mindlessly believe the forecast of clear skies, when you eyes are telling you otherwise . . .

  48. Gordon Robertson says:

    This article by Claes Johnson on blackbody radiation is well worth the read. It reveals the ‘phantom physics’ used by Planck and Einstein in the early days of quantum theory.

    http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/search/label/black%20body%20radiation

    A quote from Planck re his work…

    “…the whole procedure was an act of despair because a theoretical interpretation had to be found at any price, no matter how high that might be…”.

    Another from Einstein…

    “All these 50 years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, “What are light quanta”? Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken”.

    Honesty in science is refreshing.

    • Swenson says:

      Feynman –

      “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”

      Makes me feel good – not so stupid after all.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I think Feynman was talking about the finer intracacies of the theory, especially trying to visualize it which is impossible. However, they have made good practical use of the more straight-forward aspects of quantum theory in electronics and chemistry. It is apparent that Feynman was right when he claimed the theory works but no one knows why. To this day, no one knows how it works.

        For example, in chemistry, they create probability clouds of a molecule that show where an electron is most likely to be located. Using those clouds, they can predict how the clouds on one atom will interact with the clouds on another atom to shape a molecule.

        Linus Pauling started that back in the 1930s. He went to Europe to learn what they were doing with quantum theory but found the equations to complex for chemistry so he modified them!!! Can you imagine someone being bright enough to do that?

        On another occasion, the FBI approached him when he began releasing the dangers of nuclear radiation. They wanted to know how he got the information about atomic bombs. Linus told them he worked it out on his own.

        Meantime, soldiers in the army were being exposed to nuclear dust from nuclear tests and when they returned from the field, they used a whisk broom to dust them off. Duh!!!

        In electronics, the theory of how electrons move through a conductor is related to quantum theory as is the theory of semiconductors.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ps. not to say that I think I understand quantum theory.

          After a lengthy period of studying electrons and their application I think I may have gotten a sense of what is going on. Not sure. However, I have also gotten a sense of what is not going on, like electrons interacting with other electrons a mile away. I base that opinion on the folly of trying to measure the interaction.

          When you work with electronics circuitry you need to wear two hats at least. With one hat on, you can theorize what is going on in the circuit by looking at a schematic diagram. Then you have to take off that hat and put on another hat to do measurements and use them to reason on a different level altogether.

          It can be quite baffling at time, like when you look at a CRT screen and see a small circle drawn by an electron beam on the bottom corner. I tried to use scanning theory and the transistor theory associated with scanning the beam to try to understand how it could possibly produce a circle on one part of the screen with the rest completely blank. I have sen that on an oscilloscope (a Lissajous figure) but this circuit did not work like that.

          After spending hours on the problem, I called a colleague. He asked if I had checked the fuses. I confirmed. ‘Both of them’, he wondered? What do you mean both of them??? There was another damned fuse on the other side of the circuit board, and it was blown. If I’d had the proper schematic diagram I could have reached that solution logically but seldom when working in the field do you have everything you need.

          That’s another hat…experience. You can have all the theory in the world but sometimes you’ll come across a problem that defies all logic and any theory you have learned. We called those problem ‘dogs’.

          It has always amused me in electronics that when I thought I knew what was going on, there was always something else to figure out. For example, I was working as a technician before returning to the uni to study electrical engineering. I had been repairing transistorized circuits for a living and thought I knew how transistors worked. Wasn’t even close, even though I had taken courses on the subject.

          Therefore I don’t pretend to know what is going on in the field now, or in quantum theory.

    • bobdroege says:

      Didn’t take me long to find a critical error.

      “A warm body carries higher frequencies than a colder body”

      In warmer bodies, it’s the amplitudes that are higher, with the frequencies being the same.

      Sorry Claes, stay in your lane.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Sorry, Bob, when an electron jumps to higher orbital levels it has a higher kinetic energy.

        KE = 1/2 mv^2.

        The ‘v’ is the angular velocity and if it is higher, the electron frequency is higher, since it is the number of revolutions per second.

        Warmer objects have electrons residing at higher orbital levels, hence higher frequencies.

        Don’t know what you mean by amplitude. In E = hf, E could be regarded as the amplitude I guess but it’s the difference in potential energy between orbital energy levels.

        • bobdroege says:

          Gordon,

          “Sorry, Bob, when an electron jumps to higher orbital levels it has a higher kinetic energy.”

          Nope, and when and electron absorbs just enough energy to leave the atom, then it has no kinetic energy.

          And no, in the kinetic energy equation “v” is plain velocity, not angular velocity.

          Angular velocity has the units radians/second.

          Try again.

          In bodies, or solids, temperature increases, increase the vibrations of atoms and molecules, which can be modeled as harmonic oscillators, particle in a box, or a guitar string, which as you should know, the more energy you put in, it still vibrates at the same fundamental frequency plus harmonics, or multiples of the fundamental frequency.

          In E=hf

          E is energy
          h is Planck’s constant
          f is frequency

          Basically Claes is closer to the truth than you are, but still you are both wrong.

  49. John B says:

    I did my own limited research on 3 remote stations in the northern UK (Stornoway, Tiree and Lerwick) and compared them with 3 urban stations in the SE (Sheffield, Oxford and the CET series). I used the summer (J-J-A) mean max temp taken from the online Met office data.
    I came up with a trend 0.02 degC/decade, or 0.2 degC/Century for the remote stations and a 0.11 degC, or 1.1 degC/Century for the urban stations. Quite a difference in trends. I have no idea if the online Met office temperature data had a UHI bias correction.

  50. Swenson says:

    Nate wrote –

    “Dude, 240 is the MEASURED average SW input at TOA. Do you know of a different measured value? Show us that, or shut up.”

    First, SkyDragons like Nate don’t seem to realise that averages are calculated, not measured.

    Second, waffling about something as vague as “SW input at TOA” is typical SkyDragon nonsense.

    Third, nobody at all can actually measure TSI. Such an instrument (of infinite bandwidth) does not exist!

    In any case, total solar irradiance is estimated at 1361 W/m2 by NASA.

    Nate and his “Dude . . . “, is just deeply embedded in his fantasy. Reality means nothing to SkyDragons.

    So much for idiot SkyDragons like Nate.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      swenson…”Third, nobody at all can actually measure TSI. Such an instrument (of infinite bandwidth) does not exist!

      In any case, total solar irradiance is estimated at 1361 W/m2 by NASA”.

      ***

      That’s the point. You could have 1360 W/m^2 but how much power is in each band and is the power ratio between bands constant? Do fluctuations in the Sun skew the power bandwidths?

      Planck confessed to an act of desperation when he produced his theory which treated each frequency like a tiny oscillator. There are millions of such oscillators. He arbitrarily applied a cutoff filter to his calculations to attenuate the higher frequencies and avoid the ultraviolet catastrophe produced by E = hf. As f increases, E goes to infinity.

    • Nate says:

      ‘SW input at TOA’

      Anybody who visited this site for as long as Flynnson has would have encountered and should have learned terms like SW -short wave and TOA -top of atmosphere, many times. Not to mention basic models for how the GHE works. The fact that he seems unable to digest combinations of two or more of the often used terms, or retain any of these facts, or deal with simple arithmetic, suggests that he has a severe learning disability, or perhaps brain damage.

      Perhaps we should have more sympathy when he appears confused and posts drivel.

      I will try.

      • Clint R says:

        Troll Nate, it was YOU that got so completely confused. Now, you’re trying to blame your mess on someone else.

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/the-warming-that-happens-in-vegas-stays-in-vegas/#comment-1397323

        That’s why you’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.

      • Nate says:

        “SkyDragons like Nate dont seem to realise that averages are calculated, not measured.”

        Not clear that Swenson knows what he is even saying here.

        Is any measurement that involves using math, no longer a measurement? Then what your automobile speedometer tells you your speed is, not a measurement?

        What your digital thermometer tells you the temperature is, not a measurement?

        I think maybe his notion of what a measurement is rather confused.

        • Swenson says:

          Nate,

          You idiot – tell me the name of the instrument which shows the average solar radiation being absorbed by the Earth?

          You see? You can’t!

          You can’t even describe the GHE, you can’t define SW, and maybe you think that TOA is as described by NASA – “The top of the atmosphere is the bottom line of Earths energy budget, the Grand Central Station of radiation.”!

          You have reached the point where you don’t even know what you are trying to believe. If you accept that Earth cooled from a molten state, you can’t provide any new physical reason to explain the Earth not only stopping it’s cooling, but then deciding to heat up!

          Do you ask God for answers? Does He respond?

          You dimwit – learn some physics, accumulate some facts.

          Handwaving and pointless diversions – overcoats, digital thermometers, or similar, just make you look like a clueless SkyDragon cultist trying to look clever!

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Hey Swenson,

            That’s easy. They measure the solar irradiance at a point on the Earth perpendicular to the Sun, and then whatever value they get, they divide it into 1361 and determine how much they must multiply by. It’s called circular science.

        • Nate says:

          ” tell me the name of the instrument which shows the average solar radiation being absorbed by the Earth?”

          The CERES satellite system.

          Do I need to explain what a satellite is? It seems any sciency term passes straight thru your head without pausing.

          Not sure why you are here at a science blog commenting regularly on science, when you clearly have so little interest in it or aptitude for it?

          Perhaps that’s why no one takes your posts seriously.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            You’re dreaming. I suggest you get someone to explain that the CERES system does not measure “the average solar radiation being absorbed by the Earth.”

            Maybe you are referring to this misleading publicity from NASA – “What impact do clouds have on Earths climate? This is one of the most pressing scientific questions of our time. One way NASA is working to answer that question, among others, is by launching the latest in a long line of successful spaceflight instruments, CERES FM6. The instrument measures reflected sunlight and thermal radiation emitted by the Earth.”

            Is this part of the CERES system to which you refer, or are you fantasising about some other facet of your imagination?

            So no, the instrument does not measure any “average temperature”. As I said an average is merely an arithmetical operation performed on numbers.

            You really don’t have a clue, do you?

            Even Bindidon is now taking the view that CO2 is of no interest to him – having no predictable and quantifiable effect on temperature, weather, or the cost of baked beans.

          • Nate says:

            “The instrument measures reflected sunlight and thermal radiation emitted by the Earth.”

            Yep this is where your lack of aptitude in science and math is quite a drawback.

            Measuring how much sunlight is reflected from the Earth and the sun’s output, tells you how much of it was abs*orbed!

            Again it requires simple arithmetic, so …

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            You wrote –

            “Measuring how much sunlight is reflected from the Earth and the suns output, tells you how much of it was abs*orbed!”

            Well no, it doesn’t, and CERES was not designed for that purpose anyway.

            You might notice that NASA says –

            “The instrument measures reflected sunlight and thermal radiation emitted by the Earth.”

            Nothing about the Sun’s output.

            Quite apart from that, you claimed that CERES “measures” the “average solar radiation being absorbed by the Earth”, when even NASA doesn’t make such an outrageous claim. Averages are calculated.

            I suggest that anyone interested might see what bandwidth is supposedly being measured, and what it means. Here is part of a press release from on of the CERES equipment suppliers –

            “CERES will enable the detection and the localization, from space, of radars, radios or communications and to precisely determine their technical characteristics, making France one of the few country to have access to this technical achievement.”

            Maybe you didn’t know that CERES is a French reconnaissance surveillance system. NASA apparently lacks the expertise to operate this type of system – or more likely, can’t be bothered. Another possibility is that the French will take anyone’s money to carry instruments into space, regardless of the claims of the instrument’s ability.

            So keep on with your claims of mythical “average measuring” instruments, which are part of a system you apparently know nothing about.

            Nobody has ever measured the temperature of the Earth’s surface. That’s a SkyDragon fantasy. Certainly not using instruments carried on the CERES satellites.

          • Nate says:

            Nate sez: ‘Measuring how much sunlight is reflected from the Earth and the suns output, tells you how much of it was abs*orbed!’

            Swenson sez: “Well no, it doesnt, and CERES was not designed for that purpose anyway.”

            “Incoming solar radiation is measured from total solar irradiance instruments while CERES observes reflected solar and emitted thermal infrared radiation. The difference between incoming and reflected solar radiation is ABSO*RBED SOLAR RADIATION. Red indicates energy being added while blue indicates a loss (reflected or emitted) of energy.”

            https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4794

            Oh well, Sewnson’s declared ‘truths’ are proven again to be bullshit.

            No surprise.

            Let’s face it, any science that requires the least bit of thought is too complicated for Swenson, and thus he must reject it.

            His posts on science cannot be taken seriously.

          • Nate says:

            First he says:

            “NASA is working to answer that question, among others, is by launching the latest in a long line of successful spaceflight instruments, CERES FM6. The instrument measures reflected sunlight and thermal radiation emitted by the Earth.”

            Then he says:

            “Maybe you didnt know that CERES is a French reconnaissance surveillance system. NASA apparently lacks the expertise to operate this type of system or more likely, cant be bothered.”

            Tee hee haw!

            Swenson just can’t get anything right!

            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clouds_and_the_Earth%27s_Radiant_Energy_System

  51. Bindidon says:

    Maybe some arrogant twat reads information

    https://tinyurl.com/3xfsm3s7

    before boasting his own absolute ignorance, and by the way comfortably, cowardly discrediting science and other people’s work behind a pseudonym?

    You behave in between as this blog’s dumbest dimwit, Flynnson!

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      How scientific is it of you to spend your life fixating on CO2 when almost all of the infrared absorp.tion is due to water and almost all the CO2 is due to nature?

      • Norman says:

        Stephen p anderson

        Or maybe your source information is wrong. One person says all the CO2 rise is natural and you have no skeptical thinking on this even though several other intelligent researchers contradict Berry’s findings. In your mind he cannot be wrong, everyone else must be. Why is that logical thinking? Also CO2 contributes about 10% to GHE. That is still a significant amount.

        • Clint R says:

          Norman, 10% of zero is zero.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          Norman,
          Berry supports his theory with math and data. Also, many or most other atmospheric physicists who research this science agree with or don’t find any fault in Berry’s model. Now, your model is that CO2 outflow is only proportional to the level of human carbon above some longstanding baseline level of natural carbon and that the sinks “ignore” all of the natural carbon. Well, you’ll need to explain how all the sinks differentiate natural and human carbon and then reject human carbon.

      • Bindidon says:

        Anderson

        You are a completely stupid liar.

        I have NEVER been fixated on CO2 and have no interest in discussing this issue as it is far too complex for us.

        When I post charts showing rising temperatures, stubborn and ignorant dudes like you automatically conclude that I’m trying to push some “CO2 agenda.”

        The warming is there, Anderson; whether it is partly due to CO2 does not interest me at all when I comment on this blog.

        Simply because proving or disproving CO2’s role is way beyond my technical skills, let alone yours or Robertson’s, Flynnson’s etc etc.

        *
        I’m under the impression that all you can think about is securing “my cheap gallon” for your SUV.

        That is probably the only reason why you write such nonsense.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          No, my truck. With a 6.7L Hemi.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          Hey,

          By the way Blinny, you’re the only one who can come up with a complete oxymoron when you insult someone, “stupid liar.” It means I must be telling the truth.

        • Swenson says:

          Bunny,

          You wrote –

          “The warming is there, Anderson; whether it is partly due to CO2 does not interest me at all when I comment on this blog.”

          Thermometers are designed to measure “the degree of hotness” of an object. Have you just realised this? A higher reading indicates that the object is hotter.

          Do you really imagine nobody else knows this? Urban heat islands (and continental heat islands) show the ability of thermometers to respond to heat. Do you deny this essential property of thermometers – to respond to the temperature of their environment?

          Why do you bother posting what most people already know – that over the last century global energy use has increased a hundredfold, and all this energy eventually enters the planetary environment as “waste heat”. Are you so thick that you think that thermometers don’t respond to increased heat by showing higher temperatures?

          Do you think that thermometers show higher temperatures for some magical reason?

          Maybe due to the magic of a GHE which you can’t describe, but you claim not to the effect of CO2 – the presumed influence of which does not interest you at all!

          Very strange, Bunny – posting what everybody already knows, but not being able to explain why you are doing it!

          You might as well just carry on.

    • Clint R says:

      Poor Bindidon finds another link he can’t understand. That’s typical behavior of all the cult idiots, since they don’t understand any of the science.

      The “solar constant” is NOT constant so any value is only a close approximation. The solar flux exactly at TOA, and in line with center of mass, is always changing. Sun’s emission is always changing, however slightly. And Earth’s orbit is always varying. There’s about a 90 W/m^2 difference between aphelion (farthest from Sun) and perihelion (closest to Sun). That’s why you see values reported between 1360 and 1372 as a rough average. (One older source indicated 1340 W/m^2.)

      Satellites do not orbit at TOA, about 100 km above Earth. So when satellites are used to measure solar flux, multiple “adjustments” need to be made, based on the sat’s position.

      1370 Is the value used to obtain the after-albedo value of 960 W/m^2 {1370 * (1 – 30%) = 960}.

      Just pick your favorite number between 1360 and 1372. That’s as close as you can get.

      • Bindidon says:

        Clint R

        Your blah blah shows how little you know about TSI, so I’ll ignore it.

        Everything you write here, no matter what, is at ball-on-a-string level.

        • Clint R says:

          Well, you may have tried to ignore it binny, because you try to ignore reality. But, you failed. You see, you can’t ignore reality. Trying to ignore reality just makes you a loser.

          Did you ever find a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”? Without a model, you’ve got NOTHING.

    • Swenson says:

      Bunny,

      Presumably you trying to contradict something I said.

      What is it, and why do you think I erred?

      Can’t quite say?

      That’s rather surprising, considering the considerable amount of content I write here.

      Come on, you can do better than that – if you try really, really, hard.

      Have you found a useful description of the GHE, or have you ceased to believe that CO2 makes thermometers hotter in some inexplicable way? Maybe the SkyDragon cultists have been playing you for a fool – and won the game!

      • Bindidon says:

        #1

        Ha ha ha haaah

        • Swenson says:

          Bunny,

          Presumably you trying to contradict something I said.

          What is it, and why do you think I erred?

          Cant quite say?

          Thats rather surprising, considering the considerable amount of content I write here.

          Come on, you can do better than that if you try really, really, hard.

          Have you found a useful description of the GHE, or have you ceased to believe that CO2 makes thermometers hotter in some inexplicable way? Maybe the SkyDragon cultists have been playing you for a fool and won the game!

          • Bindidon says:

            #2

            Ha ha ha haaah

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Presumably you trying to contradict something I said.

            What is it, and why do you think I erred?

            Cant quite say?

            Thats rather surprising, considering the considerable amount of content I write here.

            Come on, you can do better than that if you try really, really, hard.

            Have you found a useful description of the GHE, or have you ceased to believe that CO2 makes thermometers hotter in some inexplicable way? Maybe the SkyDragon cultists have been playing you for a fool and won the game!

  52. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Did I write that it will be even colder in the US?
    https://i.ibb.co/sRSt9M3/gfs-T2m-us-1.png

    • gbaikie says:

      It’s well freezing here. I hope I get snow around Christmas- but just around Christmas.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Freezing in California??? Where do live, near the top of Mt. Whitney?

        • gbaikie says:

          I live in the general region which has the highest recorded air temperature- and I would guess Furnace creek is getting colder nights
          than in Lancaster:
          https://tinyurl.com/2p8kusbe
          Which was well below freezing last few days, next two nights are said to be about 24 F [-4.44444 C] and warm up a bit after that, but most of week will be far too cold for my dwarf lemon tree, which appeared to have died from the cold, but it came for what looked like certain death

          • gbaikie says:

            I checked, I was wrong it will be about 40 F

          • Swenson says:

            gbaikie,

            Furnace Creek has recorded -10 C. Also 49 C.

            That would make a SkyDragon happy. A nice place to live, with an average temperature of around 20 C – a bit cool for me, but about the same average as Sydney, Australia, in October.

            Ah, the miracle of averages! I don’t see a rush of new inhabitants to Death Valley just yet.

  53. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Bindidon
    How much do you want tomorrow morning in Berlin? Is -8 C enough? Do you think it will be warmer tomorrow because of such poor forecasts?
    https://i.ibb.co/1RfgYbr/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-18-185201.png

  54. Swenson says:

    A complete ignorant comment from bobdroege –

    “Didnt take me long to find a critical error.

    “A warm body carries higher frequencies than a colder body”

    In warmer bodies, its the amplitudes that are higher, with the frequencies being the same.

    Sorry Claes, stay in your lane.”

    Bob’s SkyDragon fantasies remain firmly embedded in nineteenth century ignorance. A clever chap called Albert Einstein received a Nobel Prize for showing that bobdroege’s firmly held religious belief is wrong, wrong, wrong!

    An example is people who believe that an energy flux of say, 1,000,000 W/m2 is capable of heating a teaspoon of water. Not if it is coming from ice, it’s not!

    And yes, it is quite easy to concentrate the infrared rays from ice with a suitable lens or mirror. The resultant focussed rays still won’t result in a higher temperature than the object emitting them. The same principle applies to the rays of the Sun – you can’t get a temperature higher than the Sun’s surface, no matter how cunning your lens or mirror design is.

    Bobdroege is a fool, but at least he is so ignorant he doesn’t know it.

    • bobdroege says:

      Svenson,

      I note in your response that you did not specify what got wrong.

      Thanks for you time.

      You fucking moron.

      • Swenson says:

        Bob Boofhead,

        You wrote –

        “Svenson,

        I note in your response that you did not specify what got wrong.

        Thanks for you time.

        You fucking moron.”

        Presumably you mean Swenson, but your brain got confused – hence “Svenson”. If you were just trying to be gratuitously offensive – well, try harder!

        What you wrote was wrong, wrong, wrong, and I pointed out why. Don’t blame if you can’t comprehend what you wrote. By the way, writing “I note in your response that you did not specify what got wrong” makes you look sloppy or inept. Did you omit a word?

        I assume “Thank you for your time” is supposed to be sarcastic or offensive – or perhaps you are thanking me for my efforts to improve your knowledge of English, physics, and civilised behaviour.

        Alas, my good offices appear to have fallen on stony ground, when you resort to stupid obscenities like “You fucking moron.”

        Do you think foul language will convince people of your boundless scientific knowledge?

        I don’t believe so, but I change my view if facts change. Have you any facts, or just more silliness and avoidance.

        [laughs at diversionary dimwit]

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          test

        • bobdroege says:

          Swenson or Svenson,

          It matters not, it’s just your sockpuppet nom de jour.

          You need to try harder when you claim I got something wrong.

          I didn’t, Claes Johnson did.

          You call me ignorant, I call you a fucking moron.

          I don’t care you fucking moron.

          And a childish twit to boot.

        • Swenson says:

          Blundering Bob,

          Well, if you want to retract your statement that “In warmer bodies, its the amplitudes that are higher, with the frequencies being the same.”, go ahead.

          That statement is wrong, wrong, wrong.

          Or stick with your assertion – I don’t care. The facts won’t change even a teensy bit, will they?

          The reason I call you ignorant, is that you give me no reason to think otherwise. You also appear to be thin skinned, and take offense easily – hence you lashing out with “fucking moron”, and so on.

          I rarely take offense at what people (even ignorant ones like you) say, and I don’t intend to make an exception in your case.

          So carry on, Blundering Bob. Try to convince others that you can describe the GHE (you can’t, of course). If anyone points out that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, GHE notwithstanding, you can always fend them off by shouting “You fucking moron!” at them.

          [laughing at delusional SkyDragon]

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            You got a cite that says this

            “Well, if you want to retract your statement that In warmer bodies, its the amplitudes that are higher, with the frequencies being the same., go ahead.”

            is wrong.

            I’d like to see it, pretty please with sugar on top?

            Now about the greenhouse effect, I’ve described to you several times, so instead of calling you a fucking moron, I’ll just call you a fucking liar.

            How about that?

            And by the way, you have no evidence of the average temperature of the Earth from 4 1/2 billion years ago, so again, you may be lying again.

            But you don’t know how much you don’t even know.

          • Swenson says:

            Blundering Bob,

            You asked for a “cite”. Dont be silly – are you too incompetent or lazy to look things up for yourself?

            As I said, if you want to rewrite the laws of physics, feel free. Don’t blame me if others laugh at your silliness.

            Nobody has described the GHE in any sensible way – ever! All an ignorant SkyDragon like you can do is claim you’ve done it “several times”, and then call me a “fucking liar”, for pointing out that you can’t actually provide the description you claim to have!

            Well done, Blundering Bob! By now others can see that you have nothing but foul language in your repertoire – certainly no facts.

            If you don’t want to believe that the Earth was originally molten, that is your choice, of course. Dug Ctton has developed a hypothesis called “heat creep” that you may be interested in. Carl Sagan and James Hansen also seem to believe that the Earth was formed cold, and since heated up. Maybe it did, although you would have to agree with concepts like the “gravitothermal effect”, not to mention the resultant gravity powered perpetual motion machines.

            Maybe you should just stick to calling people “fucking morons” and “fucking liars” when you are asked to provide some factual basis for your bizarre SkyDragon assertions.

            Keep blundering, Bob. At least you are a source of merriment from time to time.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            “You asked for a cite. Dont be silly are you too incompetent or lazy to look things up for yourself?”

            Really?

            You made a claim, back it up.

            Here is something that supports what I said.

            “The phonon is related to both the frequency of vibration and the temperature. If the temperature is raised, the amplitude of atomic vibration increases, and in quantum terms this is considered as an increase in the number of phonons in the system.”

          • bobdroege says:

            Google this if anyone is interested in my source

            “what is the relation between vibration of the molecules with temperature”

            The link would not get past Roy’s gatekeeper

            Thanks

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bob d…”Google this if anyone is interested in my source

            what is the relation between vibration of the molecules with temperature”

            ***

            I did and got no returns. You have to be careful with Google because the quotes make it an exact search. Without the quotes you get a wildly variable return based on each word.

            Anyway, we are not talking about molecular vibration, we are talking about electrons moving to higher orbital energy levels, or located there.

            Let’s talk about this molecule versus atom thing again. I learned in high school that molecules are simply an aggregation of atoms bonded by electron bonds. I actually took a course in electronics for 3 years in high school, so I have been well-steeped in atomic theory.

            When you talk about molecular vibration, you are talking about vibrations between atoms, particularly between the electrons in bonds and the rest of the atoms. Therefore, you are talking about the outermost atomic electron shells (valence electrons), not the core electrons.

            Temperature is related to all the electrons, core and valence, and it’s about the kinetic energy of each electron. The higher the energy level, the higher the KE and the higher the frequency.

          • Swenson says:

            Bumbling Bob,

            You wrote –

            “Google this if anyone is interested in my source

            “what is the relation between vibration of the molecules with temperature””

            First reference –

            “Molecules vibrate faster and faster as they heat up, and their vibrations cause other molecules around them to vibrate as well, warming cooler nearby molecules.”

            You don’t seem to realise that faster (frequency) has nothing to do with amplitude (bigger).

            The frequency changes, and is proportional to temperature. This is Wien’s displacement law –

            “Wien’s displacement law states that the black-body radiation curve for different temperatures will peak at different wavelengths that are inversely proportional to the temperature.” – Wikipedia.

            You see (again) – frequency changes with temperature, not amplitude. As I said before, “Well, if you want to retract your statement that “In warmer bodies, its the amplitudes that are higher, with the frequencies being the same.”, go ahead.”

            Now you can go back to spouting obscenities and foul language. Ordinary people with some some science knowledge realise that the frequencies of light emitted by a body at say, 37 C, are much lower in frequency than those emitted by a white hot piece of steel at say 1300 C.

            And of course, SW IR is emitted by bodies at a higher temperature than LW IR – SW and LW being inversely proportional to frequency, of course.

            As to phonons, you are trying to introduce a red herring. As phonons may be described as quantised units of sound, you have only managed to introduce a damp squib. It doesn’t really matter, you have your SkyDragon faith – belief in a GHE which only exists within the confines of your tortured mind.

            Off you go now, Bumbling Bob, invent some more new physics. Still no GHE, is there?

          • bobdroege says:

            Ssenson,

            That’s not my source, and that source also says this

            “Electrons, the negatively charged component of atoms, orbit a positively charged nucleus.”

            To me, that means that source is unreliable, it’s more like a news article, not scientific, that’s why you believe it, but it’s wrong.

            You swallow it like you swallow Claes.

            This is what my source says

            “If the temperature is raised, the amplitude of atomic vibration increases, and in quantum terms this is considered as an increase in the number of phonons in the system.”

            https://www.reading.ac.uk/infrared/technical-library/xxxxxxxxx-theory/thermal-vibrations

            Replace the x’s with absorbtion spelled correctly.

          • Swenson says:

            Bereft Bob,

            Well, if you don’t believe the University of Pennsylvania, I might not blame you. Penn U is silly enough to employ the fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann.

            However, you gave the search term – I gave you the first result, and now you seem to be complaining because your suggestion didn’t give the result you wanted. Don’t blame me, you idiot.

            Moving right along, you should actually read what you quote, before making yourself look like a fool. You might not realise that the document from which you quoted starts –

            “The concepts of temperature and thermal equilibrium associated with crystal solids are based on individual atoms in the system possessing vibrational motion.”

            Nothing at all to do with radiation from objects. You are confused about many things, and
            wavelengths of radiated energy being inversely proportional to the temperature of the emitting object, is just one of them.

            If you must appeal to authority, at least try to pick an authority which properly relates to your appeal.

            Maybe you would have been better off providing the explanation of the GHE which you claim to have, but you are determined to keep it a closely held secret, it would appear.

            By the way, if you feel like it, you might like to look up “WAS THE EARLY EARTH COMPLETELY MOLTEN?; Donald L. Turcotte, Joan C. Pflugrath, Department of Geological Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853” – Lunar and Planetary Institute Provided by the NASA Astrophysics Data System. Good enough for NASA and Harvard, but a SkyDragon would no doubt complain that nobody was actually there to witness it!

            Feel free to believe whatever you like – heat creep, the gravitothermal effect, perpetual motion, the GHE, phlogiston, caloric theory – anything at all. It’s no skin off my nose. Others can come to their own conclusions.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            “Nothing at all to do with radiation from objects. You are confused about many things, and
            wavelengths of radiated energy being inversely proportional to the temperature of the emitting object, is just one of them.”

            That’s because I wasn’t discussing radiation from objects.

            Here you go moron, the greenhouse effect.

            The presence of infrared active molecules in a planetary atmosphere cause the surface of the planet to be warmer than it would be without those molecules in the atmosphere.

            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.

            You may find it incomplete or not perfect, but it’s still a description of the greenhouse effect which does exist whether or not you understand it.

            So you can stop your incoherent babbling about no one being able to describe it.

            As to the Earth being completely molten at one time, that is almost certain, however what’s not certain, and what I asked you for a cite, is if it actually started off that way.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            Do you know there is a difference between Penn State and the University of Pennsylvania?

            Or are you truly a moron?

  55. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny erupts with a typical post of non-sequiturs…

    “Ignoring, like you do, the existence of viruses, Einsteins results, the lunar spin, evolution, the correctness of the 2020 US election, the brutal aggression of the Russian Nomenklatura not only against Ukrainian civilists and their homes…”.

    ***

    Once again, I have never claimed viruses don’t exist. All I have done is agree with Stefan Lanka, an expert in viral research, that the experiments performed to identify the major viruses are faulty. Montagnier, credited with finding HIV, admitted he could not see the virus on an electron microscope. Instead, he inferred a virus based on indirect means. That same indirect means has been used to infer covid, the bird flu virus, the swine flu virus, and who knows what other viruses.

    Einstein’s results, whatever that means, are based on a faulty assumption, that time exists as a real, physical phenomenon. Time is an invention of the human mind, it cannot change its length because the length of it basic unit, the second, is based o the rotational period of the Earth. Since time cannot change its duration, space-time cannot exist.

    There is no such thing as lunar spin. There is curvilinear lunar translation which gives the appearance the Moon is rotating on a local axis, but it is an illusion, like the Sun rising and setting.

    Evolution is a fairy tale, like those of the Brothers Grimm. Darwin must have been an avid reader of the Brothers to come up with such a sci-fi tale of how life evolved from non-living material. His theory about natural selection is perhaps the best fairy tale of all.

    Finally, the world has focused on defending the neo-Nazis and their supporters who run the Ukrainian government. They managed to over-through a democratically-elected president in 2014 while other so-called democracies applauded. In 2016, they managed to force through a law which honours Nazi war criminals like Stepan Bandera. They still hold candle-light vigils, by the thousands, to honours the SOB, who helped exterminate Jews and Poles.

    Naturally, when the Russians had finally had enough, after eastern Ukrainians implored them to intervene for 8 years, the Russians were charged with unlawfully invading a democratic country. The first thing the Russians did was eliminate the neo-Nazi battalion, the Azov battalion, which the US Congress had stopped supporting due to their neo-Nazi affiliations.

    Yes, many innocent Ukrainians are suffering, but at the hands of Ukrainian nationalists who hold a gun to Zelensky’s head, preventing him from ending the insanity.

    Over what??? The provinces captured by the Russians are provinces that wanted to withdraw anyway, due to their treatment by Ukrainian nationalists, who are white supremacists and hateful of anyone not Ukrainian. Why not let them withdraw and end the bloodshed?

    • RLH says:

      “Time is an invention of the human mind”

      Time INTERVALS are an invention of the human mind. Time itself is not. Please do try and distinguish the 2.

    • Bindidon says:

      Robertson

      ” Finally, the world has focused on defending the neo-Nazis and their supporters who run the Ukrainian government. ”

      *
      That’s enough to make anybody see what a liar you are.

      You’re acting like the worst asshole.

      That’s a vile word, but no offense: it’s just a reflection of your own vileness.

      *
      Most of the world knows that the neo-Nazis are more likely to be in Moscow than in Kyiv and that Russia had no any interest in alleged denazification whatsoever, let alone rescuing the Russophones from the alleged Ukrainian dictatorship.

      All the Russian Nomenklatura wanted for decades is to destroy Ukraine and leave it a Russian province, just as it tried to do with Georgia. Their goal is to restore their loved ‘CCCP’ and, beyond it, what is called “la Sainte Russie” in French.

      But you’re so dumb that you’d rather gullibly imitate what’s being propagated by Russians all over the Internet.

      Most unbelievable is your reference to the Azov battalion (yes: far-right Ukrainians, as are about 1% of its population, but they are fighting for their country, Robertson).

      Didn’t you know that Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin, the owner of the Wagner mercenary squad, got the green light from Putin to take prisoners out of Russian jails and send them off to war against Ukraine, where these poor guys are stuck on the front lines and are murdered immediately by the Wagner troops when attempting to escape?

      That, Robertson, is real, 100% Nazi behavior. The SS (Hitler’s most brutal warriors) often did the same against Wehrmacht soldiers in World War II.

      *
      Let me be add, Robertson, that with this incredible distortion of what is happening in Ukraine, you are yourself completely on par with all European neo-Nazis, ultra-right wing people, who are unisono defending Putin’s Russia.

      Your ignorance and misrepresentation finally is also completely on a par with the Trumping boy, who said shortly after Russia began invading Ukraine:

      “Putin is awesome!”

      *
      Freedom of expression and speech is a hard-won social good. But it is a good that you abuse and trample on this blog in an outrageous way.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny the blubberer…”Most unbelievable is your reference to the Azov battalion (yes: far-right Ukrainians, as are about 1% of its population, but they are fighting for their country, Robertson)”.

        ***

        About as naive a statement as you could make. You justify Naziism as people fighting for their country. Here’s wiki on their role model, Stepan Bandera…

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

        “Bandera remains a highly controversial figure in Ukraine,[12][13][14] with many Ukrainians hailing him as a role model hero,[15] martyred liberation fighter,[5] while other Ukrainians, particularly in the south and east, condemn him as a fascist[16] Nazi collaborator[15] who was, together with his followers, responsible for the massacres of Polish and Jewish civilians”.

        This SOB was wanted at Nuremberg and managed to escape, but the Russians caught up with him in 1959 and offed him. He was part of a nationalist movement established circa 1929, so the nationalists have been around for nearly 100 years.

        The movement is fascist and he was one of their extremists. Thousands in the Ukraine celebrate him every year in candle-light vigils. I find that seriously creepy, that scum like that would exist as the basis of a so-called democratic country. If they tried that in the US or Canada, or even modern day Germany, they’d be arrested. In the Ukraine, they are celebrated, mainly because they are armed and dangerous.

        ****

        “On 22 January 2010, the President of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, awarded Bandera the posthumous title of Hero of Ukraine.[21] The European Parliament condemned the award, as did Russia, Poland and Jewish politicians and organizations.[22][23][24][25][26] President Viktor Yanukovych declared the award illegal, since Bandera was never a citizen of Ukraine, a stipulation necessary for getting the award”.

        Bandera was born in Galicia, which is now in the Ukraine. The Ukraine was roughly carved out by the Bolsheviks circa 1918 and existed only as a province in Russia. The modern day Ukraine did not exist as a country till about 1990. Claiming Bandera is not a Ukrainian is a moot point since no one was really a Ukrainian when he was born. He was born in 1909, before the Ukraine even existed.

        Before it existed, the region now known as the Ukraine held several different factions who were at odds with each other. That situation exists today. You cannot simply draw a border in 1990 and claim all those factions are Ukrainian. The same situation exists in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, so I expect similar problems to erupt there.

        Your claim that the Russians are aggresing simply to reclaim land does not jibe with the Russian announced intention. They claimed to have invaded the Ukraine to get rid of Nazis and to claim the provinces they currently control. It was done because people in those areas are pro Russian and wanted to separate. That’s what has happened.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        “The SS (Hitlers most brutal warriors)…”

        ***

        Seems you have an admiration for the SS, calling them warriors. I call them scumbags and murderers. The SS certainly had elite divisions like the Waffen SS, who began as guards at concentration camps, initially to house German dissidents. The SS are far better known for operating the concentration camps in Germany. We know what that meant, brutality and murder.

        Kurt Meyer was part of the Waffen SS, even though he led the Hitlerjugend, or Hitler youth, an SS panzer division. I don’t know what to make of Meyer, his past is controversial. He did not keep very close tabs on the murdering SOBs who fought for him, but there is no real proof that he ordered the brutal murders they committed.

        He was lucky, since normally they would have executed him simply for being the leader. Fortunately for him, he was tried in Canada and not at Nuremberg. Our Canadian leaders in the field tended to be buffoons, even though some were very good. One of buffoons was put in charge of trying Meyer and that’s why he got off with jail time rather than execution.

        One medic in the field offered an interesting story about Meyer. He walked into their medical tent one day with an armed escort and demanded to see German soldiers being treated by the Allied medical core. He wanted to know if they were being treated equally with the Allied wounded. When he confirmed they were being treated well, he abruptly turned and left.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          The medic was an Allied medic and Meyer and his crew accidentally stumbled into them behind Allied lines. Seems they were en route to somewhere and got bombed. They lost tract of where they were.

          I have a grudging admiration for Meyer because he was a hands-on leader. He led from the front rather than hiding out far behind the front lines. That’s why he would have become disoriented following the bombing and strayed into an Allied medical tent.

        • Nate says:

          Putin is a ‘brilliant’. Summary of his recent ‘successes’.


          -Says Ukraine is a danger to Russia

          Enables Ukraine to become deadly to Russian soldiers

          -Says Ukraine isnt really a sovereign nation

          Inspires Ukrainian nationalism to an all time high among the populace

          -Says NATO is an existential threat to Russia as it stands

          Enables NATO to incorporate decades long neutrals Sweden and Finland into the alliance

          -Says Russian weapons are state of the art

          Displays the obsolete, out of date state of Russian weapons

          -Says Russians are united in patriotic unity

          Causes mass exodus of young men and mass protests after mobilization

          -Uses massive natural resources of oil and gas to hold Europe hostage

          Forces Europe to reconsider their dependence on Russian oil and gas

          -Says that the West is fractured and unable to unite

          Causes a unity of the West not seen since World War Two

          -Says the Russian military is an unmatched force

          Reveals Russian military to be a parade army that is in actuality a hollow shell force

          -Says if there are any failures in his ‘Special Operation’, then it isnt his fault

          Confirms to everyone it is most assuredly his fault”

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            very good Nate…not a shred of evidence to back your claims.

            It has been known for years that Putin has been debating with NATO over their intrusion in countries that border Russia. At one point, NATO agreed to stop their expansion after Germany. They lied.

            In the 1960s, when Russia tried to install missiles in Cuba, it nearly ended in a world war. Yet we think its cool to set up missiles in countries adjacent to Russia. Our problem is that leaders of NATO countries have a serious inability to think. Most of the countries in NATO are freeloaders who are totally dependet on the US to bail them out.

            It was sheer insanity for the West to trying getting NATO into the Ukraine. They were warned that Russian would not stand for it.

            It was sheer idiocy for the West to encourage the coup in the Ukraine in 2014 then help them celebrate their act of fascism. It is fascism when a democratically elected president is over-thrown by armed nationalists while the army and police stand by. So, why are we in the West supporting the over-throw of a democratically-elected president?

            We justified it on the basis that he had pro-Russian sentiments. That explanation may cut it in banana republics where we are completely ignorant as to how they operate but in a country like the Ukraine, which was presented as an exercise in democracy after 70 years of Stalin’s insanity, it is deplorable to support such an action.

            When you probe deeper into why the Ukrainian president was favouring Russia, it came down to economics. The alternative was to go with the European Union, who enforced their economic requirements via economic restrictions that would have put a burden on the average Ukrainian.

            It wasn’t as if the president was restricting democratic freedoms, or anything that required intervention for the EU and the West. Presidents before him had been so corrupt that the Ukraine was rated as the most corrupt country in Europe.

            Corruption is the legacy of the Ukraine since its inception as a nation circa 1990. That corruption carries on to this day, especially with the clown Zelensky, a former comedian who saved his best comedy act for the world stage. The SOB has imposed himself on the Ukrainian media to the point they are forbidden to report the truth. He has also interfered with the economics of the country to the detriment of the average Ukrainian.

            It’s embarrassing to be from the West these days, if you are willing to embrace the truth. I have no reason to support Putin or his regime, all I have is an empathy for the Russian people who had suffered through more than 70 years of Stalin’s brutal regime. It got better after Stalin’s death but the suffering continued under leaders who followed.

            Here in the West we are focused on the corrupt and barbaric Russian leaders of the past while blaming the average Russian, who had nothing to do with it. When do they get a break?

          • Nate says:

            ” I have no reason to support Putin or his regime, all I have is an empathy for the Russian people who had suffered through more than 70 years of Stalins brutal regime. ”

            Good. Then you should feel empathy for the recently conscripted soldiers sent to Ukraine as cannon fodder, and many killed in this senseless invasion (and their families).

            Do you feel as bad for the tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians killed in this senseless invasion?

  56. Gordon Robertson says:

    Nuked potato with a bit of mayo…yum!!!!

  57. Gordon Robertson says:

    swenson…”The electron magnetic moment has been measured to an accuracy of 1.710−13 relative to the Bohr magneton. Wikipedia”.

    ***

    The problem here is the magneton is purely fictitious. It is defined as..

    muB = e.hbar/2me

    e = electron charge
    hbar = h/2pi
    me = mass of electron.

    What the heck does that have to do with an electron’s magnetic moment due to its angular velocity? I get it that an electron with its charge produces a magnetic field when it moves. So, it’s moving in its orbit therefore there should be a magnetic effect.

    That’s not the problem, the electric field and magnetic field produces EM. However, in the article, they are claiming that is the same as an electric current therefore the same charge and the magnetic field produced is the same as electrons moving in a conductor. I don’t classify an electron theoretically orbiting a nucleus as an electrical current.

    It’s ridiculous to presume that since only valence (outer orbital) electrons are involved in an electrical current, which is external to the atom. An electric current involves electrons moving atom to atom, not internally in an orbit within an atom.

    I have a lot of problems with the ‘h’ produced by Planck as used in the equation above. He admitted to fudging the value to shape the Planck EM curve. Although a lot of claims have emerged to measuring the value or values based on it I think it’s all highly theoretical.

    For example, in E = (E2 – E1) = hf, E is the difference in potential between two orbital energy levels E1 and E2, and f is the frequency of the electron, meaning the number of times it orbits per second. But, there is no transition between E1 and E2, it’s all quantized so E1 exists (theoretically) and E2 exists (same) but nothing exists in-between. The Planck constant,h, then becomes h = E2 – E1/f.

    What does that mean? Planck did not derive it to mean that but that’s how Bohr used it to relate the energy levels of electrons to electron frequency. Obviously, there is a relationship between Planck’s derivation and the behavior of the electron it it’s orbit.

    That’s not rocket science, the frequency and intensity of EM at a specific frequency is directly related to the frequency and orbital levels over which an electron dropped to produce the EM. One might expect the behavior of the electron in its orbit to be predictable by Planck’s theory provided his theory is correct.

    Therefore h = E2 – E1/f tells us the relationship between orbital levels and frequency is a constant. Still, what does that mean? If an electron is orbiting at level E2, with frequency, f2, when it drops to a lower level, E1, its frequency should drop to a new lower frequency, f1, in proportion.

    Still, what does that mean? An electron with frequency f2 has a kinetic energy, KE = 1/2 mv^2, where ‘v’ is related to the frequency. v is the basis of how many times the electron orbits per second. If the electron gives up KE as it drops to a lower energy level, it gives up velocity, therefore frequency.

    However, this transition happens instantaneously and there is the crux of the problem. Nothing in the macro world can occur without a time interval. Bohr postulated the impossible to make the theory fit, so he introduced h as a constant to relate one energy level to another wrt frequency.

    Bohr knew that hydrogen emitted and absorbed energy at discrete frequencies. He knew the frequencies ahead of time so he had to match them to the electron orbital energy levels he had theorized. Later, Schrodinger equated it all to the wave equation from Newtonian physics and created a mathematical domain in which the electron had to operate. It’s all highly theoretical.

    What it means, no one knows. As Feynman claimed, it works, but no one knows why. Therefore, if you’ll excuse my skepticism I’ll take the wiki claims with a generous pinch of salt.

    To this date, I still don’t think anyone understand the relationship between electric charges and magnetic fields in a conductor. We know the mathematical relationship, based on units we invented, which we got from observing nature, but we have no idea what the physical relationship might be.

    When scientists talk about electrons spinning on their axes, I just roll my eyes.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      btw…I don’t offer Claes Johnson as an ultimate authority, just an interesting point of view. There are things he claims to which I take exception.

    • Nate says:

      “Therefore h = E2 E1/f tells us the relationship between orbital levels and frequency is a constant. Still, what does that mean? If an electron is orbiting at level E2, with frequency, f2, when it drops to a lower level, E1, its frequency should drop to a new lower frequency, f1, in proportion.

      Still, what does that mean? An electron with frequency f2 has a kinetic energy, KE = 1/2 mv^2, where v is related to the frequency.”

      It appears to me Gordon, that you are trying to fit the behavior of the tiny quantum world into what you observe and know from the macro world.

      But there is no reason to assume that the two behave exactly the same. Some of the rules are the same, like conservation laws. But others are different.

      This is what we observe nature to be doing, and it makes no sense to argue that it can’t do that.

      Another thing.

      “However, this transition happens instantaneously and there is the crux of the problem.”

      Actually the transitions are not instantaneous.

      When you work out the quantum theory of transitions, the transition takes time, and during that time the electron is in a mixture of the two energy states. That mixture has a charge density cloud that is oscillating at f = (E2-E1)/h= f1-f2, and emits a photon with that frequency.

      Thus you can relate this somewhat to the macro world where charges oscillating (say in a radio antenna) at a frequency f produces EM waves at frequency f.

  58. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    These plots show time series (updated daily) of snow cover extent (million km2).
    https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/na_sce.png

  59. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    This is not the end of snowfall on the Great Lakes.
    https://i.ibb.co/gvZ3fv0/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-19-132133.png

  60. Eben says:

    More Grand Solar Minimum data from my secret sources

    https://i.postimg.cc/YSXGQbQV/number-of-c-m-and-x-clas.png

    Hint – qəʍ ʞɹɐp əɥʇ uo llɐ s,ʇı

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      The galactic radiation chart shows that the highest activity in the 25 solar cycle so far was in July and August 2022.
      https://i.ibb.co/F77hLqw/onlinequery.png

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        How is the lake effect in Berlin? It’s snowing nicely and will catch a frost.

        • Bindidon says:

          Zero dot zero effect.

          Most of the giant 5 mm snow cover is away and we have right now at 21:00 UTC+1 about 0 C on the terrace.

          Tout va bien / Alles gut!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Actually, that’s where you need to go these days to get any semblance of truth. I discovered the Yandex search engine recently and it’s amazing how many alternate scientific sources suddenly appear that are censored by Google. I know Yandex is not the dweb but it might as well be considering the trashy propaganda we are fed by the likes of Google.

    • Swenson says:

      Eben,

      The Sun’s weather looks as chaotic as ours.

      Space weather forecasts by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Centre, are unfortunately based on nonsense like their Whole Atmosphere Model (WAM). After Space-X lost about 38 satellites of 49 due to a solar storm, NOAA and Space-X blamed each other for the loss.

      A subsequent study stated –

      “The study also notes that insufficient measurements between the sun and Earth, limitations in SWPC modeling tools, and knowledge gaps in space physics all lead to prediction errors on geomagnetic storm timing and intensity.”

      No surprise there, is there? The same SkyDragon thinking permeates NOAA, NASA, and many others.

      Onwards and upwards – maybe NOAA needs another 134 rubbish models to blame mistakes on, just like SkyDragon apologists do on Earth.

  61. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…”Time is an invention of the human mind

    Time INTERVALS are an invention of the human mind. Time itself is not. Please do try and distinguish the 2″.

    ***

    For someone with a Masters degree you sure make some dumb comments. No…I am saying time itself was invented by the human mind. If you have scientific proof that contradicts my statement it would be nice to see your proof.

    If you put aside all your conditioned thought on the matter and simply ‘look’, what I am saying will become immediately clear.

    ‘Look’ at the Sun in your mind’s eye. Is it rising and setting? If you say yeas, you are hopeless. If you understand the illusion, then look at time with the same mind’s eye. It too is as much an illusion as the Sun rising and setting.

    By ‘look’, I mean to become choicelessly aware. Look without the conditioning. It is possible and can be done in an instant. Of course, if you are sufficiently steeped in knowledge it becomes difficult. Your conscious mind wants to run the show, shutting out insight and natural intelligence.

    The same applies to the Moon. If you simply look at the problem, without your pre-programmed expectations that the Moon must be rotating about an axis because it appears to be, the truth will unfold in an explosion of insight.

    • Willard says:

      > time itself was invented by the human mind.

      When?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        The idea of a 24 hour clock was introduce by Sanford Fleming in the mid-1880s. Apparently he came up with the idea of time zones as well and a universal coordinated time. The second was defined on a fraction of the Earth’s rotational period until 1967 when it was redefined by so many transitions of a cesium atom.

        However the idea of a 24 hour and 12 hour day goes back to the Babylonians and the Egyptians. Apparently the Babylonians had a thing for numbers like that.

        Prior to humans, time did not exist, only night and day.

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

        “The second (symbol: s) is the unit of time in the International System of Units (SI), historically defined as 1⁄86400 of a day this factor derived from the division of the day first into 24 hours, then to 60 minutes and finally to 60 seconds each (24 60 60 = 86400)”.

        “A mechanical clock, one which does not depend on measuring the relative rotational position of the Earth, keeps uniform time called mean time, within whatever accuracy is intrinsic to it. That means that every second, minute and every other division of time counted by the clock will be the same duration as any other identical division of time”.

        ***

        They simply won’t get it that a clock does not measure time. It does not count time intervals, it creates them. Mind you, a clock can run independent of the Earth’s rotation but it will lose synchronization unless there is a central clock that is synchronized to the Earth’s rotation.

        Even though the cesium atoms transitions became the basis for the second in 1967, the second is the same second that is 1/86,400th of one Earth rotation.

        It has to be. If it’s not, clocks will get out of sync with the Earth’s rotation and eventually midnight will show up as noon.

        • Entropic man says:

          Gordon Robertson.

          You need a constant second because other physical constants depend on it. You can’t change these value every time the date of Earth’s rotation changes.

          Velocity is metres/second, acceleration is metres/second^2, frequency is cycles/second, Watts are Joule seconds.

          All these use a second defined by cesium oscillation.

          Keeping clocks synchronised with Earth’s rotation relative with the Sun is done by changing the calender and adjusting the clocks. The Earth orbits the Sun in 365.256 days. That is 365 days, six hours, eight minutes and 38.4 seconds.

          To keep the calender and clocks in synch with the Sun you add an extra day every four years, leap years. You also add leap minutes and leap seconds as necessary, though these are not as obvious and usually not noticed outside the trade. You do not adjust the length of the second.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            entropic…I am not arguing against the usefulness of the second in science, I am arguing that the second does not exist as a natural phenomenon in the real, physical world. Therefore it cannot dilate, as Einstein inferred.

            Einstein’s entire theory re time dilation is based in the faulty notion that real clocks slow down as the velocity of the vehicle carrying them increases. That’s absurd.

            Our society is based on time and without it the human mind would not work very well. However, over the centuries, we have instilled time in our minds as it exists now. The day, hours, minutes, seconds, and calendars are all based on human invention and are stored as such. There is no way the Ancients thought in hours, minutes, and seconds, or in days and years.

            It would be very interesting to see how they observed reality without this extraneous garbage.

            The human mind, with its memory, stores fact in a fairly linear manner. The past, in effect, is stored in our memory in linear fashion. The future then becomes a projection of stored fact. If you shut down that part of your mind, which you can using various techniques, you come into an awareness of actuality.

            I use the word actuality here because reality, by definition, can include individual perception of actuality. Therefore, reality can become personalized to individual observation. What everyone is observing is the actuality, and the interpretation of what is observed becomes one’s personal reality.

            Richard (RLH) talks about intervals and those intervals would not exist for a human mind without its invention of time. There is no such thing in actuality as an interval, only humans minds require intervals, which they create based on the human invention of the clock.

            How did the ancient Egyptians measure small intervals with a sundial? How did the Babylonians measure small intervals? No one could have created an interval the length of a second without a clock with the required precision. That precision did not come about till at least 1600 AD when more precision was developed in clocks.

            As you pointed out in your second post, it likely came down to multiples of 12 and division by factors that easily divided into multiples of 12. I can see the Ancients dividing a day into 24 hours, which is 12 x 2. Then somewhere along the line, the hour was divided into 60 intervals of minutes. When more precision was required, they used the 60 again, to get the second.

            That’s where we stand today even though far more precise methods are used to establish the accuracy of the second using atomic clocks. It’s still the same old second derived from dividing the rotational period of the Earth by 24 X 60 x 60.

            I am totally aware of how arrogant it sounds to challenge Einstein on time. Having studied at the university level, I know better than to leap to conclusions since I have no idea how he thought of it. It has occurred to me that due to his use of kinematics rather than observing the actual forces and masses involved, that he was talking about time in an entirely theoretical manner. In other words, his reference to time dilating was merely a model for something else.

            However, that theory comes apart upon closer scrutiny. For example, Einstein claimed that clocks on vehicles moving at different velocities would show different times. In other words , he is claiming time changes with velocity. To that, I claim a resounding, “So what”???? Clocks don’t measure time, they are machines that generate it, and as machines, they are subject to error.

            A major critique of Einstein’s work came from the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen. He claimed Einstein’s theories are nothing but thought experiments, which they are, and that he did not understand measurement. It’s plain the latter was true since he failed to understand that time has no existence and is not the hands on a clock.

            Einstein’s work was done between 1905 and 1916. When he created the theory, that e = mc^2, he was building on a misconception from the late 1800s. Einstein believed that absorbed EM would increase the mass of the absorbing mass.

            Many people today think an atomic bomb converts mass to energy, which is nonsense. The mass of the uranium or plutonium that leads to the blast is not converted to energy. The protons, neutrons, and electrons survive the blast as radioactive particles. It is the energy binding those sub-atomic particles that is released in a chain-reaction that causes the light, heat, and explosive force of the bomb.

          • Entropic man says:

            Even if you don’t believe in relativity, you have a problem.

            Start with three cesium clocks.

            Leave one on the lab bench as a control.

            Fly onother around the world.

            Take the third up a mountain for the weekend.

            When you bring them all back to the lab the flying clock has counted fewer seconds than the control and the mountain clock has counted more seconds than the control.

            Time has passed more quickly for the mountain clock and more slowly for the flying clock.

            Why?

          • Entropic man says:

            Aren’t all measurement units artificial?

            Some can be perceived and some are invisible.

            An inch or a litre can be visible, but you cannot lay an ampere, a volt and an ohm on the bench so that we can look at them.

            A second has no solidity, but can be perceived. I don’t know how the Babylonians did it. Galileo measured short intervals of time by counting his pulse or by singing.

            Pilots measure short intervals by counting seconds-1001,1002,1003 etc.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            “The mass of the uranium or plutonium that leads to the blast is not converted to energy.”

            Well, actually the uranium or plutonium is gone.

            Converted to something else.

            Namely usually two daughter nuclei, a number of neutrons, and some gamma rays.

            And a considerable amount of kinetic energy in the fission products, which provides heat, in a nuclear power plant.

            And the eggheads have cataloged these fission reactions, weighed the daughter products, and yes, mass is converted to energy.

        • Entropic man says:

          “However the idea of a 24 hour and 12 hour day goes back to the Babylonians and the Egyptians. Apparently the Babylonians had a thing for numbers like that. ”

          Not just the Babylonians. A system based on multiples of twelve gives much more flexibility of calculation.

          The problem with the decimal system is that you can only divide ten by two whole numbers, 2 and 5.

          You can divide twelve by 2,3,4 and 6.

          Hence the Babylonians time system of 60 (5*12) seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour and 24 (2*12) hours per day. They also divided angles into 360 (30*12) degrees.

          I sometime think it’s a shame that the world ended up with a base 10 number system instead of base 12.

          • Entropic man says:

            The old English currency used to be based on 12. We had 12 pennies in a shilling and 20 shillings in a pound. That’s 240 pennies to the pound.

            You could divide a pound by 2,3,4,5,6,8,10,12,15,16,20,24,30,40,48,60,80 and 120 and get a whole number of pennies.

            Try that with dollars and you can only divide 100 cents by 2,4,5,10,20,25 and 50 and get whole numbers of cents.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            How many thrupnies in a pound? How many ha’pennies? Don’t forget the sixpence and the farthing. Or the half-crown. Then there had to be a crown if there was a half-crown. A guinea? Two bob?

            Frankly, I much prefer the decimal system. A dollar = 100 pennies, 20 nickels (5 cents piece) or 10 dimes (10 cent piece) or 4 quarters (25 cent piece). In Canada, we now have the looney and tooney which are the coin-equivalent of paper money for a dollar and two dollars.

            Seems to me the decimal system was introduced for science. It’s easier to express quantities as 10 to the something, although precision can be lost in many cases.

            I remember how easy it was on engineering exams to convert everything to x.yyyy x 10^x, then cancelling exponents between numerator and denominator. It was also a good way to check your calculations for accuracy.

          • Entropic man says:

            Any base is easier when you are used to it, but ultimately bwase ten became universal because people counted on their fingers. If we had twelve fingers base 12 would be preferred.

            You can work in any base. Computer programmers work in base two, base ten and base 16 for different purposes.

          • Entropic man says:

            Indeed there is consideable advocacy for the duodecimal system.

            https://gizmodo.com/why-we-should-switch-to-a-base-12-counting-system-5977095

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodecimal

            I doubt it will happen. In England and the US there is still considerable resistance to changing from Imperial to metric units. Changing from decimal to duodenal would be even harder to sell.

            The key is to make sure everyone involved in a project is using the same units. Remember the Mars Climate Orbiter lost because the manufacturer used Imperial units while NASA used metric.

            http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/#:~:text=CNN%20Interactive%20Senior%20Writer%20%28CNN%29%20–%20NASA%20lost,operation%2C%20according%20to%20a%20review%20finding%20released%20Thursday.

          • Entropic man says:

            Duodenal should have been duodecimal.

            My gut reaction is that it was a spell checker problem.

      • Willard says:

        C’mon, Gordo.

        If Sanford created time in the 1880s, that would mean the 1880s did not exist before he created time.

  62. A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: let’s compare Te.moon =270K with Tsat.io =110K
    *********
    Let’s perform a thought experiment, let’s suggest Moon is a heavy cratered planet, and therefore, Moon has Φ = 1;

    It can be shown, Moon’s (thought experiment) mean surface temperature would be then very much close to the Moon’s effective temperature
    Te.moon = 270K
    *****
    The comparison coefficient is:

    [ (1-a) (1/R^2) (N*cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
    ***
    Moon:
    R = 1
    a = 0,11
    N = 0,0339 rotations/day
    cp = 0,19 cal /gr.oC

    Moon’s comparison coefficient calculation:

    [ (1-a) (1/R^2) (N*cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
    [ (1-0,11) (1^2) (0,0339*0,19)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
    [ (0,89) (1) (0,00641)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
    [ (0,89) (1) (0,2833) ]∕ ⁴ =

    (0,25213)∕ ⁴ = 0,70861

    *******
    Io:
    R = 5,20
    1/R^2 = 1/5,2044^2 = 0,0369
    a = 0,63
    N = 0,5559 rotations/day
    cp = 0,145 cal /gr.oC

    Io’s satellite measured mean surface temperature is
    Tsat.io = 110K

    Comparison coefficient calculation:

    [ (1-a) (1/R^2) (N*cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴

    [ (1-0,63) (1/5,2044^2) (0,5559*0,145)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
    [ (0,37) (0,0369) (0,08060)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
    [ (0,37) (0,0369) (0,53283) ]∕ ⁴ =

    (0,0072747)∕ ⁴ = 0,29205

    ******
    Let’s proceed,
    let’s compare Te.moon =270K with Tsat.io =110K:

    Te.moon /Tsat.io = 270K /110K = 2,4545

    *******
    Let’s compare the Moon’s and Io’s comparison coefficients:

    Coeff.moon /Coeff.io = 0,70861 /0,29205 = 2,4263

    *******
    2,4545 /2,4263 = 1,0116

    or only 1,16% difference !!!

    *******
    Conclusion:
    Everything is all right.
    It is a demonstration of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon!
    ===
    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  63. Adam says:

    This is website for a station on Slide mountain, at about 9600 ft above Reno. Definitely no UHI effect here:

    https://wrcc.dri.edu/weather/slide.html

  64. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…”It appears to me Gordon, that you are trying to fit the behavior of the tiny quantum world into what you observe and know from the macro world.

    But there is no reason to assume that the two behave exactly the same”.

    ***

    Not really, I am looking at a macro object and trying to visualize what is really going on to make it appear as a solid. That’s what I do in electronics. All I can see is a copper conductor or copper traces on a computer motherboard, I can’t see the electrons. So, I have to study how electrons are theorized to work at the atomic level.

    When I claimed there is no time change when an electron moves between energy levels it’s because Bohr defined it that way. I realize it does not sound scientific but that was the only way he could make the theory work.

    All he had was the measured emission and absorp-tion frequencies at which the hydrogen atom was known to emit/absorb. He also had Planck’s quantum theory derived from presuming EM was a series of oscillators. As oscillators they’d require discrete frequencies, so Bohr had to tie all that together with what was known at the time about electrons, which was not a lot.

    His mentor, Rutherford, had already proposed a theory about the construction of an atom but it could not account for the discrete frequencies of EM emitted and absorbed by the hydrogen atom. It was a friend of Bohr who reminded him of that and it turned on a light.

    The only way he could put it together was stipulating that electrons orbited a nucleus, at a certain distance from the nucleus, and that the electron was required to remain at a certain quantum level unless it absorbed EM or heat, at which time it instantly jumped to a higher quantum state.

    There was no allowance made for a time interval as it transitioned between states. As you claim, it makes no sense to use in the macro world, but the theory worked. It’s likely wrong, but as Feynman claimed, it works but no one knows why.

  65. Gordon Robertson says:

    Troubleshooting…getting Internal Server errors.

    part 1….

    entropic…” Start with three cesium clocks.
    Leave one on the lab bench as a control.
    Fly onother around the world.
    Take the third up a mountain for the weekend.
    When you bring them all back to the lab the flying clock has counted fewer seconds than the control and the mountain clock has counted more seconds than the control”.

    ***

    What does that mean?

    You have to distinguish between the cesium atom electron transitions and the clock. By themselves, the electron transitions in the Cesium atom have nothing to do with a clock. They are not driven by time, their operation is based on electrostatic forces and whatever causes electrons to move and keep moving. The atomic clock as a unit uses the cesium atom transitions as a time base.

    It was found, however, that the transitions are very regular and that they can be used as a timebase, just as the vibrations of quartz can be used as a timebase in computers and digital clocks. However, the quartz can be affected by temperatures and possibly by minute changes in air pressure or gravity. Why would a cesium atom not be affected by the same?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      part 2….

      With quartz, you can attach metal plates to it to slightly stress the crystal, and if they are aligned about an internal axis, when a spike of voltage is applied, the quartz crystal will vibrate at a designated frequency, which is very accurate.

      This behavior is an aspect of the piezoelectric effect, and although I am not clear on how the cesium atoms operate in an atomic clock, I am sure the principle are similar.

      The point is that neither the piezoelectric effect nor electron transitions in cesium atoms have anything to do with time. If you change the pressure applied by the plates on the quartz crystal, or change the shape of the crystal, it will vibrate at a different frequency.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      divide and conquer…getting lcoser…

      part 3…

      Do you understand what I mean? If you change the location of an atomic clock and it changes the time on the clock, it has nothing to do with time. It’s about changing the physical environment of the cesium.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      closer still…

      part 4….

      That is my argument about Einstein’s theories. If you take a rusty old alarm clock on a rocket ship and it changes time, so what? It’s not time changing, it’s the effect of the motion on the clock’s internal mechanisms that change the position of dials on the clock face.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I can almost smell the error…

      part 5…

      They tried to apply this effect to humans in a thought experiment. They claimed if one of a set of twins flew off into space at the speed of light and he returned sometime in the future, he would find his twin had aged but he had not.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      weird!!! passed the error text and it posted…

      part 6…

      Pause while that sets in….

      Do you not see how silly that conclusion is? Humans don’t age based on the hands on a clock, they age due to changes in their biochemistry, namely cell damage. A basic cause of this cell damage has been identified. On the end of each chomosome (DNA sequence) is a unit called a telomere. It is apparently there to protect the end of the chromosome from damage. As we grow older, the telomere shortens and the chromosome gets damaged.

      If you want to live for a long time, find a way to grow your telomeres.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      too weird…

      I get an Internal Server error if I try to post the entire message, or part of it, but if I post in smaller chunks it posts OK.

  66. Gordon Robertson says:

    An excellent article by NASA on the atomic clock. I take care not to associate NASA the corporation with NASA GISS the climate fudgers.

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/what-is-an-atomic-clock

    There is something important in the article concerning the 2nd law. Not directly but enough to support what I have been claiming about EM from colder bodies lacking the frequency to be absorbed by hotter bodies.

    As NASA points out, electron transitions require a unique and discrete frequency of EM to enable a transition. Each element has its own set of unique transition frequencies.

    There has been a debate here about whether an upward electron transition translates to an increase in temperature. Here’s a way to look at it. If a mass is heated with a flame, the electrons jump to higher energy levels en masse. If the mass is heated enough, it will melt or be otherwise destroyed. That’s because electrons transition to such a high level they jump right out of the mass, or break bonds universally.

    Therefore, if the mass is bombarded with EM of the correct frequency(s), the electrons on the surface will jump en mass to higher energy levels. This is similar to heating the mass with an external heat source, the temperature must increase in the mass.

    It makes sense from another angle as well. Electrons that receive thermal energy, or EM of the correct frequency, acquire kinetic energy and jump to higher energy levels. Those higher energy levels only exist when the electron is actually there. The empty potential levels contain no kinetic energy.

    Heat is defined as the kinetic energy of atoms. In a gas, the KE is also related to the motion of the gas molecules but in a solid mass, the atoms also vibrate and their vibration increases with temperature. The only way atomic vibration can change is via the energy in the electron bonds since the vibration is caused by a to and fro action related to electrostatic forces bonding the atomic nucleii and between the electron’s negative charge and the nucleii’s positive charge.

    It’s only when the electrons jump to higher energy levels, after gaining more kinetic energy, that the bond is stressed enough to cause more vibration. Of course, the higher vibration is related to temperature hence the kinetic energy in the electron bonds. If the outer orbital electron bonds gain energy then all the electrons likely gain energy. It would be frequency dependent for EM absorp-tion but for heat addition, all the electrons should be affected.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      Remember that the mass of an electron is 1/1803 of the mass of a proton, so the kinetic energy of electrons in their orbitals contributes bumpkis to the total kinetic energy of the atom or molecule.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Although the mass is 1/1803 that of the proton its charge is the same. When we talk about electric current, it doesn’t matter that the electron mass is much lower than the proton because the electron is the only particle that can move between nucleii.

        If you add heat to a mass, the heat’s effect on the electrons, especially the valence electrons, is the important factor. It is the rise in their kinetic energy that governs the vibration in the bonds and ultimately whether the mass will remain intact. If you increase the electron KE to the point where the electron bonds break down and/or electrons start flying off the mass, you lose integrity in the mass.

        Therefore, I think the electron KE is vitally important even though it is only a fraction of the mass of the proton.

        And, don’t forget the other factor in KE. KE = 1/2 mv^2. The velocity is squared. So, if you have a much larger mass standing still, while a much smaller particle is moving at a very high velocity, the smaller mass has a higher KE.

        • bobdroege says:

          Gordon,

          “If you add heat to a mass, the heats effect on the electrons, especially the valence electrons, is the important factor.”

          There is nothing keeping the nuclei in molecules, atoms, and solids from moving.

          In solids the atoms are vibrating back and forth like springs, do you know how to calculate the kinetic energy in a spring?

Leave a Reply