UAH Global Temperature Update for November, 2022: +0.17 deg. C

December 6th, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Sorry for the late posting of the global temperature update, I’ve been busy responding to reviewers of one of our papers for publication.

The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November 2022 was +0.17 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is down from the October anomaly of +0.32 deg. C

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).

Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 22 months are:

YEARMOGLOBENHEM.SHEM.TROPICUSA48ARCTICAUST
2021Jan+0.13+0.34-0.09-0.08+0.36+0.50-0.52
2021Feb+0.20+0.32+0.08-0.14-0.65+0.07-0.27
2021Mar-0.00+0.13-0.13-0.28+0.60-0.78-0.79
2021Apr-0.05+0.06-0.15-0.27-0.01+0.02+0.29
2021May+0.08+0.14+0.03+0.07-0.41-0.04+0.02
2021Jun-0.01+0.31-0.32-0.14+1.44+0.64-0.76
2021Jul+0.20+0.34+0.07+0.13+0.58+0.43+0.80
2021Aug+0.17+0.27+0.08+0.07+0.33+0.83-0.02
2021Sep+0.26+0.19+0.33+0.09+0.67+0.02+0.37
2021Oct+0.37+0.46+0.28+0.33+0.84+0.64+0.07
2021Nov+0.09+0.12+0.06+0.14+0.50-0.42-0.29
2021Dec+0.21+0.27+0.15+0.04+1.63+0.01-0.06
2022Jan+0.03+0.06-0.00-0.23-0.13+0.68+0.10
2022Feb-0.00+0.01-0.02-0.24-0.04-0.30-0.50
2022Mar+0.15+0.27+0.02-0.07+0.22+0.74+0.02
2022Apr+0.26+0.35+0.18-0.04-0.26+0.45+0.61
2022May+0.17+0.25+0.10+0.01+0.59+0.23+0.19
2022Jun+0.06+0.08+0.04-0.36+0.46+0.33+0.11
2022Jul+0.36+0.37+0.35+0.13+0.84+0.56+0.65
2022Aug+0.28+0.32+0.24-0.03+0.60+0.50-0.00
2022Sep+0.24+0.43+0.06+0.03+0.88+0.69-0.28
2022Oct+0.32+0.43+0.21+0.04+0.16+0.93+0.04
2022Nov+0.17+0.21+0.12-0.16-0.51+0.51-0.56

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for November, 2022 should be available within the next several days here.

The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:

Lower Troposphere:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt


4,171 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for November, 2022: +0.17 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Petwap says:

    Let the madness begin!

  2. Bellman says:

    Always interesting to see the difference between tropospheric and ground temperatures in specific locations. The UAH map shows England as average, but at the surface it was very warm CET was almost 2C above the 1991 -2020 average.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Comparing specific locations would be difficult. Of course, the LT is not surface data, so any direct link to actual surface measurements is dubious. The UAH LT product is a gridded average with 2.5×2.5 degree resolution and the processing to produce these data is also the result of another averaging scheme. I suspect that the mathematical process to create the monthly maps further smears the data.

      • RLH says:

        “Of course, the LT is not surface data, so any direct link to actual surface measurements is dubious”

        About as dubious as any direct link between surface data and whole atmosphere figures.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swannie…”the LT is not surface data”

        ***

        So halfway up Everest, above the 4 km measuring level of Channel 5, is not the surface, and well up on Everest (South Col) at the 8 km mark is not surface?

        And you are trying to tell me that the AMSU unit on sats, where the channel 5 weighting curve reaches well below 4 km, cannot measure lower than 4 km?

        There are other places on Earth where the surface reaches 4 km above sea level.

        • barry says:

          Each channel collects O2 radiation at a specific wavelength.

          If they measure only one wavelength, and wavelength, as you say, is specific to a discrete layer of atmosphere, how is it that the weighting curves span many kilometres of atmospheric altitude?

          The answer is that O2 gives of that specific wavelength captured by each of the channels throughout the curve. An O2 molecule can give off the specific wavelength that, say, channel 7 reads at any altitude along the curve. O2 does not only emit at a specific wavelength at a specific altitude, or those curves would be impossible. There wouldn’t be a curve in that case.

          Thus, AMSU units cannot tell you the temperature at a specific height, including the tops of mountains.

          In the UAH v6 methods paper Roy explains that mountainous regions interfere with LT measurements.

          “The Arctic region changed from +0.43 to +0.23 C/decade. Note that trends are noisy over Greenland, Antarctica, and the Tibetan Plateau, likely due to greater sensitivity of the satellite measurements to surface emission and thus to emissivity changes over high altitude terrain; trends in these high-altitude areas are much less reliable than in other areas.

          No, the LT is not surface data. It can’t be distinguished from the rest of the curve, and where the land reaches up into the curve it actually interferes with the LT measurement to detrimental effect.

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”The answer is that O2 gives of that specific wavelength captured by each of the channels throughout the curve”.

            ***

            The AMSU receiver is designed to respond to O2 frequencies over a range. Chanel 5 receiver is designed to capture O2 emissions centred at 4 km, which will be so many Ghz. As far as I can see channel 5 has the capability of receiving O2 emissions from the surface.

            Each frequency is emitted by O2 at a certain temperature hence a certain altitude. That’s what weighting curves represent, the emission per altitude. Knowing the relationship between altitude and frequency it should be possible to convert frequency per altitude to the temperature per altitude.

            I am not claiming it is as simple as that. Roy has told us they don’t use frequencies straight from the surface due to natural microwave emissions at the surface that interfere.

            Once the AMSU channel receives the data, it heterodynes the frequency band into lower intermediate frequencies, then it is detected (converted to D*C) where the relative frequency levels can be detected wrt the 4 km centre frequency for channel 5. The signal is then digitized and transmitted to the surface station.

          • RLH says:

            “Each channel collects O2 radiation at a specific wavelength”

            Each channel collects O2 radiation over a range of wavelengths, peaking at a specific frequency, is the more correct picture.

          • barry says:

            “The AMSU receiver is designed to respond to O2 frequencies over a range.”

            No, they are set at specific wavelengths.

            Channel 5 = 53.56 GHz
            Channel 7 = 54.94 GHz
            Channel 9 = 57.29 GHz

            “Each frequency is emitted by O2 at a certain temperature hence a certain altitude.”

            No, this is your fundamental misunderstanding.

            Any object emits at a range of frequencies regardless of temperature, with the peak emissions corresponding to the temperature. You’ll recognize Wein’s curve.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Wiens_law.svg

            At each of the different temperatures there you see that a broad range of emissions with the peak of the curve corresponding to the blackbody temperature.

            Look at those curves. Each curve represents a different temperature, and the curves greatly overlap at the range they emit. As you can see in the graph, a blackbody at 5500K emits from about 200 to 2000 n/m (it’s more but at each end of the wings the intensity is too low to show on a graph). As you can see, the blackbody emissions at 4500K cover almost the same range.

            That’s two temperatures 1000K different, with plenty of overlapping frequency range.

            Thus an O2 molecule at 1C will emit much the same range of frequencies as an O2 molecule at 10C, but their peak emission is different, as is their intensity.

            The AMSU instruments are tuned to a specific frequency, and they pick that frequency up at a broad depth through the atmosphere.

            Roy Spencer:

            “For AMSU channel 5 that we use for tropospheric temperature monitoring, that brightness temperature is very close to the vertically-averaged temperature through a fairly deep layer of the atmosphere. The vertical profiles of each channels relative sensitivity to temperature (weighting functions) are shown in the following plot:”

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSU-weighting-functions.gif

            “For those channels whose weighting functions intersect the surface, a portion of the total measured microwave thermal emission signal comes from the surface. AMSU channels 1, 2, and 15 are considered “window” channels because the atmosphere is essentially clear, so virtually all of the measured microwave radiation comes from the surface. While this sounds like a good way to measure surface temperature, it turns out that the microwave ’emissivity’ of the surface (it’s ability to emit microwave energy) is so variable that it is difficult to accurately measure surface temperatures using such measurements. The variable emissivity problem is the smallest for well-vegetated surfaces, and largest for snow-covered surfaces. While the microwave emissivity of the ocean surfaces around 50 GHz is more stable, it just happens to have a temperature dependence which almost exactly cancels out any sensitivity to surface temperature.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/

            So, no, MSU instruments cannot accurately measure the temperature of the surface, as Roy said, and they measure a deep layer of atmosphere at a single frequency. Because O2 molecules do not emit a single frequency at a given altitude or temperature. No object does.

          • barry says:

            More from Dr Spencer.

            “The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere.”

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

            “Fig. 2. October 2019 LT temperature anomalies relative to the 1981-2010 average annual cycle. Note the anomalies have a smooth transition between land and ocean, as would be expected for deep-layer tropospheric temperatures (but not necessarily surface temperatures).”

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/page/12/?q=node%2F526

            “The merging procedure utilized to generate homogeneous time series of three deep-layer atmospheric temperature products from the nine microwave sounding units (MSUs) is described.”

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/11/8/1520-0442_1998_011_2016_aotmpf_2.0.co_2.xml

          • barry says:

            And others:

            “The brightness temperature for each channel corresponds to an average temperature of the atmosphere averaged over that channel’s weighting function. For each channel, the brightness temperature can be thought of as the averaged temperature over a thick atmospheric layer.

            http://apdrc.soest.hawaii.edu/datadoc/msu_rss.php

            “Satellite-borne microwave sounders estimate the temperature of thick layers of the atmosphere by measuring microwave emissions”

            https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-1-2.html

          • barry says:

            “Since 1979, microwave sounding units (MSUs) on NOAA polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen. The intensity is proportional to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere, as demonstrated by theory and direct comparisons with atmospheric temperatures from radiosonde (balloon) profiles. Upwelling radiance is measured at different frequencies; these different frequency bands sample a different weighted range of the atmosphere. Channel 2 is broadly representative of the troposphere, albeit with a significant overlap with the lower stratosphere…

            https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/28535

            “The Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) operating on NOAA polar-orbiting satellite platforms were the principal sources of satellite temperature profiles from late 1978 to the early 2000’s. The MSUs were cross-track scanners that made measurements of microwave radiance in four channels ranging from 50.3 to 57.95 GHz on the lower shoulder of the Oxygen absorp.tion band. These four channels measured the atmospheric temperature in four thick layers spanning the surface through the stratosphere.”

            https://www.remss.com/missions/amsu/

          • barry says:

            If Spencer, Christy and other atmospheric sounding experts can’t convince you, no one can.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere.”

            ***

            A deep layer refers to the overall layer a channel can measure. Channel 5 is centred at 4 km but can measure frequencies from the surface to several km above 4 km. Channel 5 measures best at 4 km but it still has a significant reception right down to the surface.

            The bell curve shape of the weighting functions should be replicated per channel reception in the AMSU. In other words, each channel receives O2 data from other channels, due to overlap.

            I would guess there are 3 dB points on each curve indicating half power.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”If Spencer, Christy and other atmospheric sounding experts cant convince you, no one can”.

            ***

            I am in agreement with Roy and John as far as I understand the technology and Roy’s description of it. From what you write, you don’t seem to understand it at all.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo wrote:
            Channel 5 is centred at 4 km but can measure frequencies from the surface to several km above 4 km. Channel 5 measures best at 4 km but it still has a significant reception right down to the surface.

            Barry has it right when he wrote:

            No, they are set at specific wavelengths.
            Channel 5 = 53.56 GHz

            Each channel measures INTENSITY of the received energy around the center frequency. For the novice EE, that might be called SIGNAL STRENGTH. The signal is compared with that from two other black body sources, which provides a scale of “brightness temperature”.

            The weighting function is the THEORETICAL intensity for a particular ASSUMED set of conditions. Some of the radiant energy which reaches the AMSU Ch 5 comes from the surface and some from the stratosphere and that results in the data used to calculate the MT. The LT is not “raw” data, it’s the result of a calculation combining the MT, the TP and the LS data to compensate for the effects of the known cooling in the stratosphere.

          • RLH says:

            “No, they are set at specific wavelengths”

            The CENTER of each channel is set at a specific wavelength. They are NOT set to a single frequency nor are they infinitely small in bandwidth.

          • barry says:

            Cite to corroborate please. What is the range?

          • RLH says:

            Barry: Are you suggesting that they are set to an infinitely small bandwidth as that is a single frequency means? Practical physics requires that they have a bandwidth over which they respond.

            See https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSU-weighting-functions.gif

          • barry says:

            You have no idea what you’ve posted. That is the curves of weighting functions, representing the sensitivity of the MSU instruments to O2 emissions at the given frequency.

            And maybe read the first few posts in this thread to see what the point is. Gordon is saying that MSU instruments can isolate readings to a specific altitude, instead of the deep layers reflected in those curves.

          • Mark B says:

            barry says: Cite to corroborate please. What is the range?

            The AMSU channel bandwidths are summarized at the link below.

            https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Meteorological_missions/MetOp/AMSU-A1_channels

            At some level of detail (e.g. channel noise density estimation) this matters, but I’m not clear how germane it is to the topic at hand. Fundamentally the basis of UAH measurements is the strength of specific O2 spectral emission lines.

          • RLH says:

            Barry: Note the table containing

            Centre frequency (MHz), Bandwidth (MHz)

            in the paper cited by Mark B.

          • barry says:

            Ok, the relevant channels have a range of between 170 and 400 Mhz around the centre frequency, less than 1 percent of the frequency.

            Gordon’s view is:

            “Knowing the relationship between altitude and frequency it should be possible to convert frequency per altitude to the temperature per altitude.”

            It actually undermines his argument because the readings are fuzzier.

            The point remains. MSU instruments have no way of telling whether the radiance they capture comes from a 2km or 8km altitude.

          • barry says:

            Thanks for posting that information, Mark.

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          @GR
          Yes, mountains are not warming as much as sea level areas. Thanks for confirming what the surface data says.

    • Clint R says:

      England is probably catching the heat coming from Greenland. The cult teaches that more ice means more heat. Greenland ice sheet SMB is now in record territory — again.

      http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20221205.png

      (For the braindead, THAT is sarcasm.)

    • Mark Wapples says:

      The UK is only a small part of the northern hemisphere. Further afield the much colder weather has dragged down the average. The UK has been blessed until now sitting on the warm side of the jet stream, however next week it is due to change.

    • Bellman says:

      To be clear, given some of the replies above, I’m not suggesting there is anything wrong with this. Just that over small areas the tropospheric temperatures won’t necessarily reflect those at the surface.

      • RLH says:

        I the same way as the surface records do not fully reflect the bulk atmospheric temperatures.

      • spike55 says:

        The surface temperature is highly affected by airport and urban and development readings. Its not representative of the whole “surface” at all.

        The TLT is much less affected by the local warming around surface thermometers.

    • Bindidon says:

      Once more, Robertson deliberately dissimulates the reality.

      *
      On the one hand, John Christy & al. explain each month in their GTR (Global Temperature Record), e.g. in:

      https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/november2022/GTR_202211Nov_1.pdf

      that the ” satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level “.

      But on the other hand, Roy Spencer clearly stated in 2015

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

      the following already:

      2.1 LT Calculation

      ” We have fundamentally changed the calculation of the lower tropospheric temperature product, LT, from a multi-angle method to a multi-channel method.

      The main reason we changed methods for LT calculation is the old view angle method had unacceptably large errors at the gridpoint level.

      While the errors cancel for global averages on a monthly time scale, on a regional or gridpoint basis they can be large “.

      *
      This is the reason why the evaluation of O2’s microwave emissions for LT have since then been replaced by an average of the three layers above, according to the formula

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

      which gives a homogeneous result independently of the size of the observed region (Globe, Nino3+4’s 5N-5S — 170W-120W, or even a single grid cell e.g. above Huntsville, AL).

      *
      It is evident that Roy Spencer’s explanation has more weight in describing LT anmaly calculations than a general statement about what satellite sensing is able to deliver.

      But Robertson never cares about such repeated corrections. He always comes back with his unchanged personal narrative.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        yet another Duplicate Comment with neither showing up

        Roy explained it in the following two paragraphs…

        “The MSU and AMSU instruments measure the thermal microwave emission from atmospheric oxygen in the 50-60 GHz oxygen absor.p-tion complex, and the resulting calibrated brightness temperatures (Tb) are nearly equivalent to thermometric temperature, specifically a vertically-weighted average of atmospheric temperature with the vertical weighting represented by weighting functions”.

        “The MSU instrument scan geometry in Fig. 2 illustrates how the old LT calculation required data from different scan positions, each of which has a different weighting function (see Fig. 2 inset). Thus, only one LT retrieval was possible from a scan line of data. The new method uses multiple channels to allow computation of LT from a single geographic location”.

        Unlike what you have been claiming they still use AMSU instruments to gather O2 emission data from all altitudes, as John Christy claimed. As Roy explained, they don’t use data from near the surface because their are spurious microwave frequencies generated by the surface. However, they could go as low as needed and obviously they get the right temperatures.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Gordo wrote:

          As Roy explained, they dont use data from near the surface because their are spurious microwave frequencies generated by the surface. However, they could go as low as needed and obviously they get the right temperatures.

          Gordo is in LaLa land again. As Roy explained, they use intensity measurements from three channels to calculate the LT. There are no such “spurious microwave frequencies”.
          SEE my comment above.

        • Bindidon says:

          Robertson

          ” However, they could go as low as needed and obviously they get the right temperatures. ”

          Again you show your stupidity coming from an incredibly opinionated brain. You are not able to think other than keeping contrarian against all odds.

          Roy Spencer explained in 2015 that there is NO WAY to obtain correct grid data when using observations as the source, and therefore UAH had to construct the LT data as a sytnhesis of MT, TP and LS!

          Will that finally go into your pea brain?

          • RLH says:

            When will you acknowledge that this is the reverse of what is applied to surface data in order to get a bulk atmosphere temperature.

          • spike55 says:

            “there is NO WAY to obtain correct grid data when using observations”

            You are talking about the erratically spaced urban and airport “surface” fabrication… right ?!

          • Bindidon says:

            spike55

            I’m sure you never compared the 135 pristine (*) USCRN stations (114 in CONUS, 21 in AK) to the over 900 GHCN daily weather stations located in the 1 degree grid cell around them (92 of them in airports, yes yes):

            TMIN

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TYN-ijaz-QZXEEAI7EM-vTR_NO4vqv-j/view

            TMAX

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/10dNcZA1OvOQr_32Tgh5iwzcviwKRjW6K/view

            Maybe that speaks to you?

            *
            (*) Some years ago, a Heartland-paid guy named Gary Boden looked at two (!) paired USCRN stations showing for a short period of time different data and claimed that would be enough to doubt about USCRN as a whole! Great.

          • Bindidon says:

            Linsley Hood

            ” When will you acknowledge that this is the reverse of what is applied to surface data in order to get a bulk atmosphere temperature. ”

            Try to express your personal thoughts in such a way that they become a bit less nebulous, and add some valuable proof to them.

          • spike55 says:

            “Maybe that speaks to you?”

            Maybe if you aware enough to realised that USCRN is now controlling the homogenisation of data.

            Hence stopping the warming.

            Try having a rational thought at some point. !

    • David Guy-Johnson says:

      2c above November on the CET isn’t very warm. Less cold would be more accurate. It certainly wasn’t that much warmer than usual in my neck of the UK

      • Bellman says:

        It was warm for November. One of the 10 warmest out of the 360 year record.

        • TheFinalNail says:

          The whole year has been warm in the UK so far. December would need to reach near record low levels if 2022 isn’t to set new warmest year records in both the UK (since 1884) and CET (since 1659) data.

      • Bellman says:

        “It certainly wasnt that much warmer than usual in my neck of the UK”

        Would be interesting to know where that neck is. Checking the MO data for the UK as a whole, November was the 3rd warmest on record – 1.7C above the 1991 – 2020 average.

  3. TechnoCaveman says:

    Thank you Dr. Spencer for the graph and the work. Was getting worried as this comes out earlier.

    Sunspots are on a bit of uptick before the 5.9 month cycle in Feb/Mar. Expect them to die back down as this cycle has been above predictions but below expectations.

    Side note, frigid weather is driving coal sales. While more countries can build nuclear powered subs, even America has trouble building an atomic or nuclear power plant.

    • Bindidon says:

      TechnoCaveman

      ” While more countries can build nuclear powered subs, even America has trouble building an atomic or nuclear power plant. ”

      France has the highest nuke plant density per capita.

      But they utterly failed in trying

      – to move up in the 1980-1990’s to 4G plants based on liquid sodium cooling (Superphenix) which were thought to endlessly breed Pu239 out of U238;
      – to design and implement a new 3G generation (EPR, European Pressurized Reactor): Olkiluoto in Finland with a 12 year delay, Flamanville ‘at home’ quite similar.

      Of the 58 traditional reactors based on Westinghouse licenses, 33 % are since many months in huge maintenance, and that just in front of winter and Putin’s fascist war against Ukraine.

      Why the UK nonetheless ordered lots of EPR’s for Hinkley Point and successors, no one knows.

      *
      Would you ‘as America’, when looking at such a disaster, be willing to invest in nuclear?

      Hmmmh.

  4. Bellman says:

    Indeed. December could be the first below average month in the CET since May last year. Still allmost certain though that this will be the warmest calendar year on record.

    • Rawandi says:

      The planet is more important than the UK, and 2022 sure won’t be the warmest year on record.

      • Bellman says:

        Indeed. For 2022 UAH is likely to be 6th or 7th warmest.

        • Matt Dalby says:

          For those of us who live in the UK and sometimes get into discussions with global warming alarmists a record warm year is something that will get thrown back at us for a long long time even though it’s irrelevant on a global scale and nothing more than cherry picking data. Plus it’ll be splashed across most media outlets without any context being given and used to push the alarmist agenda.

          • Bindidon says:

            Matt Dalby

            I’d enjoy you telling the same to all these cooling alarmists who tell us the Globe is cooling just because UAH’s Global anomaly series shows a negative trend since a few years.

          • TheFinalNail says:

            Before the 20th century the warmest average year in CET was 10.5C, set in 1834. That record held for 115 years until it was broken in 1949 (10.6C). The 1949 record stood for a further 57 years, until 2006 (10.8C). The 2006 record only lasted 8 years, until 2014 (11.0C). The 2014 record looks set to be broken this year (likely ~11.2C).

            A similar pattern of increased frequency of new record warmest years can be found in the UK record over the same period. Both CET and the UK data also have long term warming trends. Is this just a coincidence?

          • Bellman says:

            “For those of us who live in the UK and sometimes get into discussions with global warming alarmists a record warm year is something that will get thrown back at us for a long long time even though its irrelevant on a global scale and nothing more than cherry picking data.”

            Just as every cold month gets thrown back as an argument that global warming has stopped and we are heading into an ice age.

            Anybody who uses individual months or years of UK weather to claim anything about global temperatures doesn’t understand our weather. However, it is obvious we are seeing more hot years in recent years, and that there is a upward trend over the last 50 years or so.

            It would be cherry picking to point out what’s happening in the UK and ignore the rest of the world, but the fact is the rest of the world is warming and so is the UK.

          • Bellman says:

            To avoid cherry picking just one year I could point out that of the top 10 warmest calendar years in the CET’s 360 year history, 8 will have come from the 21st century.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      bellman…we can all read the graph Roy provides above and see clearly that 2022 was nowhere near a record.

      • TheFinalNail says:

        It looks likey to be the record warmest La Nina-influenced year, ahead of 2021.

      • Bellman says:

        I never said 2022 was a record globally, just that it’s likely to be a record in the CET data.

        According to UAH 2022 is likely to be the 6th or 7th warmest year (out of 43).

        What is unusual about the recent run of years is how consistently warm they have been. Assuming 2022 doesn’t collapse in December, the last 8 years will all be in the top ten warmest years.

    • Bellman says:

      I think I might have spoken too soon. It’s now looking possible this will be an unusually cold December and it might be enough to drop 2022 below the record. A good illustration of how unpredictable the weather is here.

      • Bellman says:

        Update to my previous update.

        CET 2022 now definitely going to beat the record, probably by about 0.1C or so.

        Maximum CET temperatures are the real driver here. They are going to smash the annual record by around 0.5C.

  5. Bellman says:

    That was meant to be in reply to Mark Wapples comment about UK temperatures getting colder next week.

  6. Clint R says:

    “Sorry for the late posting of the global temperature update, I’ve been busy responding to reviewers of one of our papers for publication.”

    I thought the world had ended….

    😊

  7. Alex A says:

    Thanks for doing this. What’s the general view on CO2 saturation? One would have thought that all the extra CO2 would have made a bigger difference to the temperature?

  8. Lou Maytrees says:

    According to the Various Regional LT Departures Chart from the 1991-2020 average as shown below the UAH LT Satellite Graph:

    For the past 23 months:

    Globe = +.165*C per month

    USA Lower 48 = +.377*C per month

  9. Tim Wells says:

    Really cold across in the UK, we are paying through the nose for green fraud, the solar panels and wind turbines aren’t working while our politicians cry for more to drive down costs. The UK is a an asylum run by the lunatics. P.S. Our MPS can heat their houses to our discontent (claim the lot on expenses along with their monthly rent and council tax) while we shiver in our houses.

    • barry says:

      Cold weather in the UK during Winter? Global warming is a hoax!

    • Brace yourself.

      President Biden is getting into the holiday spirit by slapping a bow and some American Flag wrapping paper on a sweet little surprise for Europe…The Inflation Reduction Act. Inside they’ll find a wide array of pro-American manufacturing programs that are less than favorable for the Europeans.

      Europe has enjoyed 75 years of safe and lucrative trade thanks to the guns and butter deal we know as globalization, but the Americans have outgrown that model. They are ready to bring some of their manufacturing home, and not in a small quantity…we’re talking 12 zeros here. This comes at a time when Biden needs some new footing with the organized labor faction and nothing speaks louder than money.

      Europe isn’t happy about the American’s leveling out the playing field and WTO action has been threatened, but at the end of the day, the Biden administration is going to get its way.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Biden will have to deal with Republican majority in the House. He learned nothing from the Midterms.

        • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

          The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) was passed by the 117th United States Congress and signed into law on August 16, 2022.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            maguff…”The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) was passed by the 117th United States Congress and signed into law on August 16, 2022″.

            ***

            It figures that a climate alarmist would fail to grasp the irony. The inflation was caused by the Democrats, in a big way, and now they are paying lip service to reducing it.

            It is horrific to watch the decay of the US under Biden’s watch.

          • barry says:

            You kidding me? The biggest thing killing the US right now is the MAGA crazies in the Republican party and Donald Trump himself.

            Trump, who lied about election fraud – including months before the election actually happened, who refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, who incited the storming of the Capitol building, and who now says the constitution should be disregarded in favour of re-installing him to power.

            The only thing worse than him is the Republican party that spinelessly caved to his BS for 5 years.

        • bobdroege says:

          Biden will just show the republicans his veto stamp.

      • barry says:

        I was quite surprised that the Dems bucked the norm and kept the senate in the mid-terms, and did surprisingly well in the house, despite losing it to the Repubs.

        The red wave expected by Republicans (and many others) turned out to be a red ripple.

        Trump’s midterms saw the Dems gain 41 seats in the house.

        Biden’s midterms saw the Repubs gain 10 seats, with 2 left to call.

        Dems won 3 times as many seats in Trump’s midterms as Repubs did in 2022. Looks like sleepy Joe was a safer bet for the Dems than Trump was for the Republicans.

        • Matt says:

          It’s not Biden vs. Trump. Firstly, everything has changed with the voting changes the pandemic allowed the Democrats to get through that are still in effect or at least further in that direction than they were before the pandemic. That caused a shift in voting patterns where less engaged people vote more and ballot harvesting is widespread. Secondly, not sure how significant it is, but I read that the Dobbs decision seems to have energized single young women for the 2020 election. Thirdly, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine relieved pressure on Biden that he would have otherwise felt, as the inflationary pressures caused in Europe from high energy prices and the resulting strong dollar has both obscured and partially mitigated the inflationary pressures from Biden’s policies and from policies that the Democrats were pushing forward during the pandemic. It’s easy to say “everyone is experiencing inflation, some a lot worse than here”. The relative levels of inflation would be a lot different without the Ukraine situation.

          Trump, on the other hand, was harmed by the media blitz against him. But that’s ammunition spent that cannot be reloaded. If Trump were to be reelected again, the same effect would unlikely be seen.

          In any case, the Republicans still pretty handily won the popular vote.

          • barry says:

            Trump won’t make it to the candidacy.

            “I read that the Dobbs decision seems to have energized single young women for the 2020 election.”

            Yes, polls show that it was a significant factor.

            “In any case, the Republicans still pretty handily won the popular vote.”

            Yes indeed. Repubs have 3 million more votes than Dems for the House total. In 2018, Dems had 8 million more votes than Repubs.

          • barry says:

            “Trump, on the other hand, was harmed by the media blitz against him.”

            That may have impacted swing voters, but the Dems follow their news channels and the Repubs follow theirs.

            Biden’s win wasn’t so much a result of his candidacy but of Americans voting against Trump. While Trump’s midterms gained 2 R seats in the Senate, the House lost R seats in the two elections following his instalment. If Warnock wins Georgia Dems will have gained senate seats two elections in a row.

          • barry says:

            With the runoff going to Warnock, that makes a very rare 2 senate seat midterm gain of the President’s party.

          • barry says:

            Tsk – Dems secured ONE more seat. And it’s still very rare for that to happen in the midterms for the sitting president’s party.

          • Nate says:

            “If Trump were to be reelected again”

            Given his stated desire to break his Presidential vow to protect the Constitution, it is hard to understand why any real conservative would vote for him.

          • Matt says:

            “Given his stated desire to break his Presidential vow to protect the Constitution, it is hard to understand why any real conservative would vote for him.”

            I suppose we can have a Pretend Republic for a while… What comes after that, I do not know, but I doubt it’s good. You make a good argument that conservatism is doomed.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Andrea…it’s time we in the true West took a look at the excesses of the European Union. I am not talking about Biden and his Mickey Mouse politics, the Democrats aligned with the EU to oust a democratically-elected president in the Ukraine which led to the current war. I am talking about Trump’s point that the EU, through NATO, are not pulling their weight or paying their fair share. Unfortunately, the freeloaders include Canada.

        The EU is highly dependent on the US to protect them and they don’t dare cross the US. You can bet anything Biden has created is idiotic, based on lip-service with no substantial meaning.

        When you really look at it, the EU has gotten themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have cut off Russia, hence required fossil fuels, and if they cut off or alienate the US, they are in deep doo doo.

        Left up to Biden and his ilk, like Trudeau in Canada, we will soon be facing our own fossil fuel crisis.

        • barry says:

          Russian and US conservative propaganda.

          The US aligned itself with the revolutionaries, but called for peaceful negotiations and a democratic election. The US did nothing material to “oust” the then president of Ukraine. Only policy measure aside from aid that had been ongoing in the Ukraine for 20 years through Republican and Democrat governments, was to ban 20 members of the Ukranian government from entering the US.

          It wasn’t just the Democrats.

          John McCain (a Republican) visited Ukraine in 2013 and publicly expressed his support for the revolutionaries and a peaceful resolution involving elections.

          Recent European aid through the war makes up two thirds of assistance to that country.

          You read conspiracy theories and gullibly regurgitate them.

          Not to mention that you disregard the Ukranian people’s own agency in Ukranian matters. Patronising.

          • JMurphy says:

            Hear hear! Shameful to read such Russian propaganda and conspiracy theories here. And, coming from what I would think is an American Republican viewpoint, I can only imagine that that great Republican American Ronald Reagan must be spinning in his grave, seeing as how his great party has become apologists for a still-communist thinking dictator like Putin. For shame.

  10. Alvar Nyrn says:

    Just as expected and as the technical analysis has shown for a long time.
    (Use e.g. Google Translate)
    Australia, Tropics and USA48, now or in a few months, are in declining climate in terms of scientific measures, 30 year moving average value. And all others most likely in a few monts more. Or less.
    https://alvarnyren.wixsite.com/aidtrade/post/mina-klimatmodeller-30

    • Bindidon says:

      Alvar Nyrn

      Before I start translating your stuff: which period of UAH 6.0 LT are you talking about?

      Here is a chart showing the Tropics from Dec 1978 till Nov 2020:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/11TBp6R5RmBbFwtBm_2agsYwevbLsh_zi/view

      Trend: 0.117 +- 0.010 C / decade

      *
      Which period are you talking about?

      Hopefully you didn’t start, like so many do, just before 1998… because then there is no chance to have any positive trend till today.

      • Walter says:

        You realize that the reason they cite the pause is because it contradicts the CO2 control knob narrative. Thats the most important thing. Not at all skeptics think that the world is going to cool, but it is a possibility for sure. Although I can agree with what you say regarding the cherry picking from 2016.

      • Alvar Nyrn says:

        I am talking of all parts from dec 1978. And I am talking about 360 months MA. That is what you call a climate period, and the MA is the only way to describe the situation correctly.

        • Bindidon says:

          ” … and the MA is the only way to describe the situation correctly. ”

          Here is the same Tropics plot as above, but with

          – a 360 month running mean

          plus (because the Savitzky-Golay filter complained about 360 months being too long to form a valid window)

          – a 180 month S-G filter output:

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MJJGdr-Spm53lG4UN8V36CSKOhOc4u3F/view

          Due to UAH LT’s excessive reaction to El Nino events, which are eliminated by the HQLP filter, the trend for the red S-G time series is reduced down to

          0.095 +- 0.001 C / decade, i.e. 80 % of the trend for the original time series.

          What exactly do you mean with ‘decline’ ?

          • Alvar Nyrn says:

            Decline is MA360 below zero. Now or in a few months is refering to the weakening climate overall and in all regions when using the TA OSC(illator) that is a comparison between two MA, MA5 and 35 in this case which is the most common and reliable way to register a weakness. Australia have already been in negative territory intermittantly and the strong period during 1992+ will be subtracted more and more.
            Time will tell.

          • RLH says:

            “HQLP filter”

            You do not use High Quality Low Pass filters in your work.

            Here is Sept data for the tropics with a 60 month HQLP filter applied (This removes all the high frequency components above 60 months/5 years)

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/uah-tropics.jpeg

  11. Dan Zielinski says:

    Sorry to bother you but the monthly UAH temperature image chart doesn’t appear to be downloading on your site. Thank you for all the work that you do.

  12. Neil McLachlan says:

    One warming event this century which lasted 6 months. The planet only warms during a very strong El Nino. The planet won’t warm again unless there is another very strong El Nino. There is no evidence of CO2 warming in this data set or any other. There is only El Nino warming, La Nina cooling, Volcano cooling.

    There is no net positive feedback.

    CO2 warming is theoretical as Dr Roy Spencer said it’s a matter of faith.

  13. Bindidon says:

    Beware of people permanently using the word ‘cult’.

    ” The cult teaches that more ice means more heat. Greenland ice sheet SMB is now in record territory again. ”

    Apart from the fact that ‘more ice means more heat’ is their own invention, this is a typical sentence coming from one of these guys who only show at a minuscule portion at the end of a 140 year long time series because that end perfectly matches their narrative.

    Here’s how their narrative looks:

    https://tinyurl.com/mtv6epuc

    Don’t think such people would spend a second in looking at how 2019 behaved! They just would say:

    ” That’s already three BIG years ago, forget it! ”

    *
    Let’s have a quick look at Greenland ice sheet’s SMB since 1840, and quickly forget it (duh, that would be kinda ‘dissecting the past’):

    https://tinyurl.com/5n952ccd

    By the way, we see that as opposed to so many ‘skeptic’ claims, no one hides the Arctic warmth around 1930. It was there, basta ya!

    *
    Let’s now show at the sat period, 1979-2022:

    https://tinyurl.com/yeyujncm

    using a quadratic fit estimate for the 26 days remaining till Dec 31.

    The reality after Dec 31 could be lower or higher. No one really knows now.

    *
    What is so unusual in this sudden ramping up by 400 Gt from 2019 till 2022? The same happened only 40 years ago.

    And why would that truly impressive steep slope in 2022 suddenly make us forget that the 2019 SMB was the third lowest since 1840 after 1931 and 2012?

    Answer: Skeptics know everything better.

    • Clint R says:

      Yes Bindidon, everyone needs to be reminded of the cult’s nonsense. Thanks for bringing it up.

      The cult claims that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at a surface will add to 630 W/m^2, thereby meaning the surface will raise to temperature of 325K.

      315 W/m^2 is the flux emitted by ice. So the cult believes ice can raise something to 325K (52C, 125F).

      Thanks again for bringing this up, Bindidon. It’s important people see such nonsense.

      • Bindidon says:

        You, Clint R, are the cult here, inventing what other people allegedly would have wsaid what you put in their mouth.

        You are exceptionally right, Clint R: Its important people see such nonsense you all the time write here, like the ball-on-a-string and other insane, unscientific stupidities.

        • Eben says:

          Did you defect from west into communist East Germany ???

        • Clint R says:

          Bindidon, if you could translate that into English maybe I could help? You seem awfully confused.

          • Bindidon says:

            Send your complain to Google’s translator team.

            And please tell me when you finally managed to write in French and German as I do in English.

            I’m not confused at all, Clint R: You’re only writing this nonsense because you can’t contradict me any other way than by ‘ball-on-a-string’ing.

            You are only looking at what you want to see.

          • Clint R says:

            Bindidon, I can’t contradict NOTHING.

            You don’t have a viable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. And you can’t discredit the ball-on-a-string. That means you have NOTHING.

      • Nate says:

        “The cult claims that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at a surface will add to 630 W/m^2, thereby meaning the surface will raise to temperature of 325K. 315 W/m^2 is the flux emitted by ice.”

        Possible

        “So the cult believes ice can raise something to 325K (52C, 125F).”

        False.

        As has been explained to the loser-troll, Clint, multiple times, there is no way for ice of any size to shine more than its maximum emitted flux, 315 W/m^2, onto another surface.

        But he is apparently just too thick to understand this simple geometric fact.

    • barry says:

      “The cult claims that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at a surface will add to 630 W/m^2”

      Yep, for a blackbody, no reflection/transmission. Showed many times physics sources confirming that incident fluxes are summed.

      “thereby meaning the surface will raise to temperature of 325K.”

      … in a black body scenario with view factor of 1.

      • Clint R says:

        And 4 such fluxes would then result in 113C, 235F. Plenty hot enough to boil water!

        Congrats barry, you finally learned your cult is boiling water with ice.

        • barry says:

          Nope, and it’s been explained to you numerous times why that is.

          An ice cube gives off 315 W/m2. But that is not what arrives at the receiving surface – it’s substantially less. View factors/incidence.

          So how can you get the full 315 W/m2 from ice on a receiving surface? If the entire view factor for the receiving surface is 1. The entire field of view would have to be a dome of ice.

          Same whether it’s one dome of ice, or many little ice cubes making up the dome.

          Take one ice cube out of the dome and the receiving surface gets less than 315 W/m2.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong again, barry. The two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arrive at the surface: “The cult claims that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at a surface will add to 630 W/m^2”

          • Nate says:

            ” Wrong again, Barry. The two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arrive at the surface: ‘The cult claims that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at a surface will add to 630 W/m^2″

            Ice EMITS a maximum 315 W/m^2. TWO 315 W/m^2 emitted from ICE cannot ARRIVE simultaneously at a surface!

            The lying scumbag switches EMITS to ARRIVES.

          • Clint R says:

            Nate, I’m enjoying your meltdown. You don’t have a clue about the discussion, yet you jump in with a vicious attack. This “ice boiling water” nonsense has really got you fuming. It’s like the ball-on-a-string. Reality always wins, meaning your cult always loses.

            What is being discussed is fluxes ARRIVING. The only ones trying to divert from ARRIVING is your cult. Go back and find how this started.

            But even if you want to change to emitted fluxes, you have to then find what flux you want to use for ARRIVING. Then, you are faced with using the same bogus math that Folkerts used. And that STILL makes your cult WRONG. It’s like I’ve said from the first, if you don’t have enough ice to boil water, just bring more ice. That’s how your bogus math works.

            Now, please continue your meltdown. That’s why this is so much fun.

          • Nate says:

            “You dont have a clue about the discussion”

            Yes I do, loser, you and I discussed the very same thing, a couple of days ago, until you had no answers and ran away.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1403760

            Remember?

            Even when your lies and strawmen are pointed out for all to see, you shamelessly repeat them.

            Thats how we recognize pure trolling.

          • Nate says:

            And you use the ill-logic that ice cannot boil water to argue that two fluxes ARRIVING at a surface do SUM.

            Which ignores the fact that ice can NEVER produce two fluxes of 315 W/m^2 both arriving at the same surface.

            Yet YOU keep bringing up the strawman that WE are claiming that ice can boil water.

            We never do that, loser-troll.

          • Nate says:

            Correction

            And you use the ill-logic that ice cannot boil water to argue that two fluxes ARRIVING at a surface do not SUM.

          • Clint R says:

            Nate, I’m enjoying your meltdown. When all you’ve got are insults, false accusations and misrepresentations, it means I don’t have to waste much time responding. Yet others get to see you for what you are.

            Please continue.

          • Nate says:

            “false accusations and misrepresentations”

            sez loser Clint every time he has no answer.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Nate, if we give Clint the benefit of the doubt that he is not simply trolling, then the pretty clear conclusion is that he has fundamental blind spot that he can’t ever seem to understand. It’s as if he thinks that if a 315 W/m^2 flux leaves some some surface (eg a sheet of ice), then it remains a 315 W/m^2 flux until it is received by some other surface. That view works for some concrete examples — if I throw a 315 g ball, then you will receive a 315 g frisbee; if I mail a $315 check, you will receive a $315 check. But that view does NOT work for flux.

            It’s like the inverse-square law does not exist in Clint’s world. As if once a flux is created at 315 W/m^2, it forever retains its original ‘315 W/m^2’ness characteristic, rather than becoming weaker and weaker flux as it gets farther and farther from the emitting ice sheet.

            You know how it really works. I know how it really works. Every textbook and professor knows how it works. Either through ignorance or stubbornness or trollishness, the simple, correct answer eludes Clint.

          • Nate says:

            “ignorance or stubbornness or trollishness, the simple, correct answer eludes Clint.”

            Yep I think it actually is all three.

          • Clint R says:

            Fraudkerts invents more fraud and troll Nate swallows it.

            Norman used to wear out knee pads worshiping Fraudkerts, but I believe troll Nate wants to have his love-child.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Notice that when Clint is in over his heaed, he reverts to ad hom and insults. Never actually addressing the science.

            Maybe start with this. A sheet of ice 1m x 1m emits a 315 W/m^2 flux of thermal radiation. Does a surface say 5 m away receive a 315 W/m^2 flux from this sheet of ice?

          • Clint R says:

            Notice when fraudkerts gets caught making up crap, he tries to pretend he understands physics.

            How many podunk community colleges “terminate” professors? Fraudkerts must have really done more than just fraud….

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            A sheet of ice 1m x 1m emits a 315 W/m^2 flux of thermal radiation. Does a surface say 5 m away receive a 315 W/m^2 flux from this sheet of ice?

          • Clint R says:

            Fraudkerts, you can try all the distractons you want, but fluxes do NOT simply add. 315 W/m^2 and 315 W/m^2 arriving at a surface do NOT add to 630 W/m^2.

            You try to pervert physics, then you deny you’re doing it when you get caught red-handed.

            You’re a fraud.

          • Nate says:

            If you are not winning a debate, then it must be because your opponents are frauds, and members of a cult!

            Never mind that there is no evidence for that, you can surely do better than that!

            Your challenge is to make an actual logical argument with science facts to support your claims.

            Try that for a a change.

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Nate, I’m winning a debate not only because my opponents are frauds and members of a cult. But also because I’m on the side of science and reality.

            None of you cult idiots can make a logical argument, with science facts, to support your claims. Want to try?

            Show a valid technical reference that two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface will result in the surface being 325K. And omit all insults, false accusations, distractions, and misrepresentations.

            Try that for a change.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            A sheet of ice 1m x 1m emits a 315 W/m^2 flux of thermal radiation. In your understanding of physics, does a surface say 5 m away receive a 315 W/m^2 flux from this sheet of ice?

          • Nate says:

            “Show a valid technical reference that two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface will result in the surface being 325K.”

            There is never going to a technical reference with THOSE specifics.

            What law of physics are you questioning?

          • Nate says:

            The basic physics that you have been questioning, AFAIK, is whether light intensity from two sources arriving at the same point sums or not.

            Here is one source confirming that it does.

            “when there are two or more light sources, the total light intensity measured at any point in the environment is the sum of the intensities measured with just one of the sources on at a time.”

            https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~jfc/cs184f98/lec28/lec28.html

            Im sure their are many more confirming this.

            What other physics laws or principles do you want?

          • Clint R says:

            That’s a perfect example that you don’t understand ANY of this, Nate. That reference is talking about REFLECTED light. Your hero Fraudkerts is violating laws of physics by claiming two fluxes simply add at a surface, to raise the surface temperature so that it emits the sum of the two fluxes. That simply does NOT happen.

            You don’t understand ANY of this, but you have a history of swallowing anything Fraudkerts spews, while falsely accusing me.

          • Nate says:

            “That reference is talking about REFLECTED light. ”

            False.

            Show us something, a source, anything at all that agrees with you.

            Constantly saying that your opponents ‘don’t understand any of this’ is admitting that you have not convinced anyone.

          • Nate says:

            Why does the surface matter here at all?

            If two sources of light can SUM, then what facts or logic prevents them from then hitting a surface and being abs*orbed?

            It appears that you are simply making this nonsense up.

          • Clint R says:

            Nate, I gave you one more chance to see if you could behave like a responsible adult. You don’t have a clue about the relevant physics. You confuse “superposition” with “absorp.tion”. You don’t want reality, you want to pervert reality to fit your cult beliefs. You have no interest in learning. You just find things you can sling against the wall, hoping something will work.

            You support your cult beliefs with debate tactics. You use debate to avoid reality and to distort truth. You will argue about anything, believing that means you are smart. Your cult lives by arguing over definitions and semantics. Just look at how fraudkerts keeps attempting the same distraction. He’s got NOTHING. Fighting reality means that you’re an idiot and a loser. Reality always wins.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1407630

          • Nate says:

            “Nate, I gave you one more chance to see if you could behave like a responsible adult.”

            If that means behave better than you, then DONE.

            Apparently your ‘no insults’ etc requirements are not meant for you.

            “You dont have a clue about the relevant physics.”

            Again, no relevant physics shown, so….

            “You confuse ‘superposition’ with ‘absorp.tion'”

            False, Your issue was with superposition, and I addressed it.

            I made clear that I see that as a SEPARATE issue from absor.ption.

            I asked:
            “If two sources of light can SUM, then what facts or logic prevents them from then hitting a surface and being absor.bed?”

            Do you have a science answer or not??

          • Nate says:

            As usual, no answer. No science answer. Nothing.

            Then we can conclude is, there is no science reason why two sources cannot SUM, arrive at a surface, and if the surface has a high emissivity, be abso.rbed.

            Oh well. Moving on.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate you argue inconsistently. If the atmosphere is made up of 20 layers of co2 as suggested by your beliefs in global warming why don’t those layers all “sum up” and radiate out toward the nearest star rather than your theory suggesting they don’t add and only the top coldest layer radiates out to space meekly?

            Typical liberal thinking these days physics applies only if it supports what your daddy taught you. Of course it adds up beaming down. So your theory is radiation only adds in the direction of the pull of gravity? ROTFLMAO!!! Nate Bozo the Clown has absolutely nothing on you!

          • Nate says:

            “If the atmosphere is made up of 20 layers of co2 as suggested by your beliefs in global warming why dont those layers all ‘sum up'”

            Odd question, Bill. It suggests you don’t really have a good understanding of the model. The layers, by definition, are thick enough to be opaque.

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry troll Nate, but you’ve failed again.

            You were given a chance to make a logical argument, with science facts, to support your claims:

            Show a valid technical reference that two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface will result in the surface being 325K. And omit all insults, false accusations, distractions, and misrepresentations.

            But, you couldn’t do it. Instead, you tried to distract by claiming the requiurement was too specific! That’s called “weaseling out”. (In science, a “general” law applies to “specific” examples.)

            Then you found a link about superposition, and believed it might support your nonsense. But you didn’t understand that superposition has NOTHING to do with this issue.

            And notice Fraudkerts just repeats the same thing over and over, like he’s insane or suffering from dimentia.

            You two fail again, because you’ve got NOTHING.

          • Nate says:

            “You were given a chance to make a logical argument, with science facts, to support your claims:”

            I gave you logic, relevant facts and a reference that you dismissed. You shown no interest in science facts.

            “And omit all insults, false accusations, distractions, and misrepresentations.”

            All of these are things that make up the bulk of your posts. What is lacking in them is science facts.

            We have addressed the issue of superposition. Fluxes, arriving at the same point in space, SUM.

            You then complained that this SUMMING does not happen for fluxes arriving at, and being abso.rbed by surfaces.

            So I will ask again:

            If two sources arriving at the same point SUM, as my source showed:

            a. what law of physics prevents them from then striking a surface?

            b. if the surface has a high emissivity, what law of physics prevents them from being abso.rbed?

            If you cannot answer these simple questions, then your complaints have no basis in science.

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry Nate, but that’s NOT how it works.

            YOU are the one promoting nonsense, so YOU must answer questions. I’m not going to answer endless questions about YOUR distractions.

            And, I’m NOT going to waste any more time if you can’t support your nonsense.

            Show a valid technical reference that two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface will result in the surface being 325K. And omit all insults, false accusations, distractions, and misrepresentations.

            This is your last chance — Put up, or shut up.

          • Nate says:

            This was your last chance,

            You make the nonsense claims, but as ever, put up nothing to back them up.

            If you cannot back up your silly claims, then we all understand that they are BS.

          • bill hunter says:

            what object nate is not opaque to the radiation it omits dufus?

          • bill hunter says:

            that would be emits not omits.

          • Nate says:

            Look up what opaque means, Bill. Then you should have your answer “why dont those layers all ‘sum up’ and radiate out”.

          • Nate says:

            “what object nate is not opaque to the radiation it omits dufus?”

            Any layer containing too few abso.rbing molecules to prevent all the light at that wavelength from passing thru.

            A ruby that has too few of the right absor.bing impurities is pink, and sometimes called a pink sapphire.

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

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Thats correct.
            But there is no way for fluxes to add unless the viewfactor is <1.0.

            For solar flux, if a CO2 molecule gets in the way that solar flux will be blocked.

            Then all the CO2 can do is remit it. You then can't sum the CO2 emission and the blocked portion of the solar emissions.

            If you can come up with something that emits without absorbing then you would have something. But unfortunately for you nothing does that.

          • Nate says:

            What is correct?

            “For solar flux, if a CO2 molecule gets in the way that solar flux will be blocked.”

            WRONG. Again, your lack of knowledge of physics leads you astray, Bill.

            Tyndall explained it so clearly 150 y ago. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Radiation_(Rede_Lecture)

            “Imagine the superficial molecules of the earth trembling with the motion of heat, and imparting it to the surrounding ether; this motion would be carried rapidly away, and lost for ever to our planet, if the waves of ether had nothing but the air to contend with in their outward course. But the aqueous vapour takes up the motion of the ethereal waves, and becomes thereby heated, thus wrapping the earth like a warm garment, and protecting its surface from the deadly chill which it would otherwise sustain.”

            BTW, he showed same for CO2 molecules.
            He continued:

            “It might however be urged that, inasmuch as we derive all our heat from the sun, the selfsame covering which protects the earth from chill must also shut out the solar radiation. This is partially true, but only partially; the suns rays are different in quality from the earths rays, and it does not at all follow that the substance which absorbs the one must necessarily absorb the other. Through a layer of water, for example, one tenth of an inch in thickness, the suns rays are transmitted with comparative freedom; but through a layer half this thickness, as Melloni has proved, no single ray from the warmed earth could pass. In like manner, the suns rays pass with comparative freedom through the aqueous vapour of the air: the absorbing power of this substance being mainly exerted upon the heat that endeavours to escape from the earth. In consequence of this differential action upon solar and terrestrial heat, the mean temperature of our planet is higher than is due to its distance from the sun.”

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:
            ”Imagine the superficial molecules of the earth trembling with the motion of heat, and imparting it to the surrounding ether; this motion would be carried rapidly away, and lost for ever to our planet, if the waves of ether had nothing but the air to contend with in their outward course. But the aqueous vapour takes up the motion of the ethereal waves, and becomes thereby heated, thus wrapping the earth like a warm garment, and protecting its surface from the deadly chill which it would otherwise sustain.”

            thats certainly an observation but falls far short of a physics explanation of how it comes about.

            You have multiple ways to warm the sky. It is estimated that GHG absorb about 80watts of incoming solar and do so on the topmost layer of GHG.

            How the sky warms is primarily by convection. GHG actually cool the sky by not only reemitting that ~80 watts at the top layer but by having another 120 to 160 watts transported from the surface primarily by convection to TOA. If GHG did not exist in the atmosphere the atmosphere would be much hotter.

            I say primarily by convection because the more layers of GHG in the atmosphere the more dependent it is upon convection.

            So while it might be reasonable to assume this multiple pathways of heat transport might be responsible for a true greenhouse effect it is far from established that it is. And if it is our near surface atmosphere temperature which provides the basis for mean global surface (sic) temperature may be primarily due to the fact that GHG are inefficient at cooling the atmosphere. Thus additional CO2 in the atmosphere could lead to nothing, more warming, or more cooling with the result perhaps largely dependent upon how you define surface (sic) temperature.

            Myself I don’t have an established opinion. I like to see how the math and physics actually work out so I can audit it based upon established laws of physics and mathematics.

          • Nate says:

            Did you miss the second paragraph? It directly rebuts your post.

          • Nate says:

            In the modern understanding we can replace

            ” But the aqueous vapour takes up the motion of the ethereal waves, and becomes thereby heated”

            with “But the aqueous vapour takes up the motion of the ethereal waves, with the help of convection, and becomes thereby heated”

            There is no question that the atmosphere is heated this way.

            And then

            “thus wrapping the earth like a warm garment, and protecting its surface from the deadly chill which it would otherwise sustain.”

            A warm garment is also heated by the convection, conduction and radiation, and it is undeniable that it keeps us warm.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”A warm garment is also heated by the convection, conduction and radiation, and it is undeniable that it keeps us warm.”

            So you recognize that it isn’t due just to adding radiative fluxes together. Indeed, something may be necessary to create a condition but that doesn’t automatically make it the cause because there may be the need for other ingredients.

            One can mount the argument that the sky is capable of keeping the surface warm using SB equations and other physics due to the ability of water vapor to carry twice the energy aloft than indicated solely by its temperature and releasing that energy throughout the atmosphere including high in the sky into the tropopause. Likewise since water vapor is a full spectrum absorber of radiation the atmospheric window may flux in yet to be discovered ways. That is consistent with an already well accepted fact that a small percentage change in clouds of less than what we can reliably measure could account for not part of but the entire industrial age warming. CO2 could play an important role but it is far from established.

          • Nate says:

            So just checking, you’ve completely backed away from your post

            “For solar flux, if a CO2 molecule gets in the way that solar flux will be blocked.”

            after Tyndall thoroughly debunked it?

            “So you recognize that it isnt due just to adding radiative fluxes together.”

            Non sequitur.

            Climate science has not been ignoring convection, if thats what you are talking about, for at least 50 years.

            Manabe and Weathereld 1967, explicity included convection in their model, and all the GCMs that followed.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            So just checking, youve completely backed away from your post
            ”For solar flux, if a CO2 molecule gets in the way that solar flux will be blocked.”

            after Tyndall thoroughly debunked it?
            ————————-
            Tyndall debunked no such thing. CO2 blocks only the frequencies it emits and the sun emits IR.

            Nate says:
            Climate science has not been ignoring convection, if thats what you are talking about, for at least 50 years.

            Manabe and Weathereld 1967, explicity included convection in their model, and all the GCMs that followed.
            ————————-
            Yes they did in the exact proportions to support previous models and without verifying if the parameters he used correspond to anything in nature.

            One does not solve these kinds of problems by producing a model that produces the desired political outcome. Its about physics and not politics. Manabe was embarrassed getting a Nobel for his work. When somebody hands you a million dollars its surprising he would say anything but ‘thank you’.

            And I didn’t say they ignore convection they simply haven’t done to measure the change, if any. IMO, there is no expectation of any change. Convection and Conduction would warm the atmosphere in the absense of GHG.

            Add some GHG and the atmosphere would then be able to cool. That would provoke some convection to resupply the heat that was lost.

            If there are no GHG what would prevent the atmosphere from warming to a temperature found in Death Valley on a summer afternoon?

            I don’t see any mechanism that would make the ”coldest” emissions in the atmosphere be the emissions that would warm the surface.

            We know all you have are imaginative models and no facts regarding how it works.

            Finally we do know that the difference between what the surface emits and the sunlight/atmospheric radiation received is about 50 watts. And evaporation adds about 100watts of which 50 would be added if water didn’t double the normal amount of heat carried by each molecule? Do we need more explanation than that, not to speak of what the actual emissivity is of the surface.

          • Nate says:

            “Tyndall debunked no such thing. CO2 blocks only the frequencies it emits and the sun emits IR.”

            C.mon, dont be ridiculous. The sun emits a broad spectrum from UV, visible to IR. Only a teeny-tiny fraction of the spectrum is abs*orbed by CO2 or H2O. But they abs*orb a much larger faction of the IR emitted by the Earth.

            That was his point. Did you miss it?

            Manabe and Weathereld 1967

            “One does not solve these kinds of problems by producing a model that produces the desired political outcome.”

            Sure, climate change was a big political issue in 1967??!!

            Tee hee hee!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Obviously you were oblivious to politics in the universities of the 1960’s. After all you believed everything they said was science.

          • Nate says:

            Uncertain on the science? Just substitute time-travelling politics!

            Climate deniers say the darndest things!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            The LSD generation.

        • barry says:

          In short, temperature is not conserved, energy is.

        • barry says:

          (wrong thread) ^

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…summation of fluxes at a surface is not a summation of fluxes. It is a summation of heat produced ***IF*** the radiation is absorbed.

        Whether or not the flux is absorbed has to do with the temperature of the source versus the temperature of the absorbing body. If the absorbing surface is at room temperature and the source is ice, nothing gets absorbed.

        • barry says:

          “summation of fluxes at a surface is not a summation of fluxes. It is a summation of heat produced”

          In the greybody enclosure scenario with many surfaces at different temperatures I’ve cited here, from a few physics texts, the calculation is to sum the radiance incident on a surface, subtract the reflected portion, and account for the geometry of the surfaces (shape factor).

          https://www.thermopedia.com/content/70/
          https://www.eng.auburn.edu/~dmckwski/mech7210/radexchange.pdf (p. 13)

          Just summing temperature won’t work because it doesn’t take into account the emissivity of the surfaces. Shine two lamps at a white surface and measure the temperature. Do the same with a black surface. Different results.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            We are talking about the addition of fluxes. If you measure a temperature you are measuring the relative heat levels in a substance which is a measure of the kinetic energy of the atoms comprising the surface. At that point, the fluxes no longer exist.

          • barry says:

            We are talking about fluxes from different incident on a surface being summed. You said you can sum temperature – YOU introduced temperature to this discussion.

            You can’t sum temperatures arriving on a surface and get a correct temperature of the surface.

            Temperature is a red herring in this argument.

        • barry says:

          In short, temperature is not conserved. Energy is.

  14. Tim S says:

    This is a little off topic, but I have been looking at the video of the lava flows in Hawaii. The image of the heat haze gives the impression that the lava at the point of eruption is heating the air directly by radiation rather than by convection. This would support the greenhouse gas model in much the same way that furnace simulation models rely on CO2 and water vapor for the radiant effect in the combustion area. In that case, the hot combustion gases radiate heat to the furnace tubes. Greenhouse gases absorb and radiate heat very well at elevated temperatures over 1,000 F.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      tim…” The image of the heat haze gives the impression that the lava at the point of eruption is heating the air directly by radiation rather than by convection”.

      ***

      The air is being heated by direct conduction, not convection. In a similar manner, the entire atmosphere is being heated via conduction, especially in the Tropics.

      The haze to which you refer, which can also produce a mirage, is due to a difference in air density between a hot surface and different layers of air above it. Air density, of course, is related to the atoms/molecules of air, which is associated with heat, not radiation.

      *********************

      “This would support the greenhouse gas model in much the same way that furnace simulation models rely on CO2 and water vapor for the radiant effect in the combustion area”.

      ***

      Are you serious??? Do you really think, at furnace temperatures, CO2 and WV are the only means of radiation? WV would not even exist at those temperatures and CO2 as a trace gas would produce an insignificant amount of heat, as in the atmosphere.

      • Tim S says:

        Have you ever run a furnace simulation? The only parameters are temp., CO2 content and water vapor from the combustion. Flame size and shape are irrelevant. Flame is just visible light. The simulation is very sensitive to CO2 and water vapor content, as it is affected by the amount of excess air allowed for safety to ensure that zero oxygen does not occur. If any direct fired furnace or package boiler on earth ever had its 1,700 F combustion gases replaced with 5,000 F pure nitrogen it would fail to operate. There is that much difference. IR radiation is a necessary feature. Maybe you should get out, learn some science or just basic industrial technology before making a complete fool of yourself.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          tim s….” Flame size and shape are irrelevant. Flame is just visible light”.

          ***

          Seriously idiotic comments. The flames are burning hydrocarbons, for cripes sake. Where did you get this propaganda?

      • Tim S says:

        Just in case anyone is confused about this, at 15% excess air, which is 3% residual oxygen, the combined effluent resulting from natural gas combustion is about 27% CO2 and water vapor (9% CO2 and 18% water vapor).

      • gbaikie says:

        If you burn wood, natural gas/fossil fuels, it creates CO2 and water vapor. Burning natural gas or hydrogen makes a lot of water vapor.

  15. AaronS says:

    UAH team,

    Ever consider a Twitter page that has the up to date climate models projected out to like 2030 and a monthly update for global temperature estimates?

    Now that it could get traction from unbiased or perhaps less biased algorithms, it might be a powerful talking point for society. It just seems something that would be high impact.

    Thanks

    • gbaikie says:

      At 2030 AD global average air surface temperature will rise by less than .1 C
      And by 2040 AD could add another .1 C
      And by 2040 AD global average surface temperature will still be about
      15 C.
      15 C or 59 F is a cold air temperature.
      Earth has a cold global average air temperature because Earth is in
      an Ice Age.

      Earth present Ice Age is called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age which started about 33.9 million years ago.

      And the latest few million years has been the coldest.
      We are between glaciation periods, which is called an interglacial period, which is relatively a short period of time.

      Our interglacial period is called the Holocene interglacial period and the Holocene thermal maximum happened over 5000 years ago.
      Over 5000 years ago, Africa was wetter than it is today.
      And wetter period is called, African humid period:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period.
      During the Holocene thermal maximum global levels were 1 to 2 meters
      higher than present sea level.

      By 2100 AD we will still be in our Ice Age and global air temperature
      might be higher than 15 C.
      And the reason we in an Ice Age or also called icehouse global climate, is because Earth entire ocean is cold.
      Our present ocean is said to be 90% of it being 3 C or colder.
      And it’s guessed that average temperature of the ocean is about 3.5 C
      and by the year 2100 AD, our ocean will be about 3.5 C.
      As probably will be in century following it.
      The ocean holds enormous amount of heat, a million nuclear bombs wouldn’t measurable warm it. Or, it takes a long time to warm or to cool the entire ocean.
      NASA and NOAA say:
      “Covering more than 70% of Earths surface, our global ocean has a very high heat capacity. It has absorbed 90% of the warming that has occurred in recent decades due to increasing greenhouse gases, and the top few meters of the ocean store as much heat as Earth’s entire atmosphere.”
      https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-warming/

      If ocean could be warmed enough, Earth would leave this Ice Age.
      But if ocean were to warm by just .5 C this would also have a huge effect upon global climate [but we would still be in an Ice Age]
      In previous interglacial periods the ocean was 4 C or warmer and it caused and sea levels rise 4 to 9 meters.

      • gbaikie says:

        In previous interglacial periods the ocean was 4 C or warmer and it caused global surface temperature air to about 17 to 18 C and the sea levels to rise 4 to 9 meters above present levels.

        • gbaikie says:

          Btw, some imagine, higher CO2 level will delay Earth from returning
          to it’s next glacial period- and for very long time, ie, thousands or tens of thousand of years of delay.
          But everyone assumes without higher CO2, we will return- though whether it’s centuries [or shorter] or thousands of years, they might differ in opinion. Also there is no real definition of when a glaciation period begins, though the temperature records, indicate a gradual cooling [though it drops faster and rises back up, falls again, etc. And after 10,000 plus years, gets coldest with ice sheets covering Asia, America, and Europe. And then you get rapid global warming, and you in interglacial period, all Earth deserts green, and go from sea levels 100 meter lower, to higher sea levels than we have now.
          Anyhow, I have my theory on why this occurs.

          • gbaikie says:

            Well, not really a theory, I agree with everyone that the Milankovitch cycles are related or causal in terms of global warming and global cooling.
            There not a Milankovitch theory, really.
            It’s more of an observation, and guesses of why the Milankovitch cycles align with historical global temperatures.

            It similar to analyzing ice cores to determine past global air temperatures- not something you call a theory, though likewise there some explanation or interpretation which is “added”. There is likewise no ice core theory.

          • gbaikie says:

            Though there isn’t greenhouse effect theory, either.

            What might called greenhouse effect theory, is what I would say, is
            mostly, a fundamental misunderstanding of the planet Venus.

            {{And throughout history this goddess has been misunderstood- particularly by men.
            And puritan Americans [all the girls and boys] are not even up to a point of misunderstanding, rather they are in different time zone.
            I am not piling on about what Americans have done wrong, it’s just they doing something different. And people would have admit they doing things quite different, lately- and of course, will, predictably in future, we do lots other weird stuff.
            But I will point out {a truism}, all American stupidity doesn’t seem to directly hurt America, but instead “lands” elsewhere in the world- which does tends come back, and bite them. But it’s not really the same as karma.}}

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            GB says the planet’s thermal stability source is water due to the Earth’s perfect mass. I agree.

          • Willard says:

            > Though there isnt greenhouse effect theory,

            I thought you said you were a luckwarmer, gb.

            Try coherence. It works.

          • gbaikie says:

            — Willard says:
            December 8, 2022 at 3:30 PM

            > Though there isnt greenhouse effect theory,

            I thought you said you were a luckwarmer, gb.–

            Lukewarmer.
            And I also said, it appears that lukewarmer have proven to be correct, and these days, everyone has become a lukewarmer.

          • Willard says:

            Luckwarmers:

            http://rabett.blogspot.com/2015/02/luckwarmers.html

            No, they have not:

            https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/

            And yes, if you play the luckwarmer in one comment and a Sky Dragon crank in the next you are not being consistent.

          • gbaikie says:

            Willy, you might play your games, but you don’t claim
            to believe that China large CO2 emission is going to cause
            a large increase in global temperatures.

            I think higher CO2 levels which might by caused by China burning more
            4 billion tonnes coal per year might cause a small increase in
            global temperature.

            And I think China is currently at Peak Coal.
            China has been paying around $400 per ton for Coal for more 6 months and China is largest importer of coal in the world.
            https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal
            It appear to me, China would not import so much steam coal if
            it had a lot of domestic steam coal left.
            And it seems if China didn’t import so much coal, China would have
            a lot Chinese citizens freeze to death, this winter.

            Anyhow, I said I am lukewarmer. And Roy Spencer has said he is
            a lukewarmer.
            And no one on this blog has tried to argue global temperatures are going to suddenly increase.

            And everyone agrees that fairly recently, we were in cold period, which is called the Little Ice Age.
            And everyone agrees we in 33.9 million year Ice Age, which is called
            the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.

            And everyone in the world is a lukewarmer. Though they might want
            exaggerate how much warming will occur for various political reasons.

          • gbaikie says:

            If we were in danger from a slightly warmer world, why would so many people on board spend so much time arguing about the spin of the Moon?
            This blog is not about exploring the Moon, but everyone seems very
            interested in the Moon.
            I agree that exploring the Moon is exciting and important.

          • Willard says:

            gb,

            But China:

            https://climateball.net/but-china/

            Look. No need to play squirrels. It’s quite simple.

            Luckwarmers accept that the Greenhouse Effect.

            Sky Dragon cranks do not.

            You got to choose.

          • gbaikie says:

            “Luckwarmers accept that the Greenhouse Effect.”

            Greenhouse Effect and Greenhouse Effect theory
            are different things.

            Some imagine the Greenhouse effect is caused solely
            due to CO2 gases.
            “It’s not many people who imagine this, but:
            The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to Earth’s surface by greenhouse gases. These heat-trapping gases can be thought of as a blanket wrapped around Earth, keeping the planet toastier than it would be without them. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and water vapor. (Water vapor, which responds physically or chemically to changes in temperature, is called a “feedback.”) Scientists have determined that carbon dioxide’s warming effect helps stabilize Earth’s atmosphere. Remove carbon dioxide, and the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse. Without carbon dioxide, Earth’s surface would be some 33C (59F) cooler. ”
            https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/

            Think NASA gets some things right, but not this.

          • gbaikie says:

            If there was a greenhouse effect theory, why NASA allow
            that?

          • gbaikie says:

            It’s simply ass backward.
            If Earth is cold, one will get dangerous low CO2 levels, like we got 20,000 years ago.

            All Ice Ages cause low CO2 levels. Earth currently has low CO2 levels.
            Having ocean with average temperature of about 3.5 C, causes low CO2 levels.
            And when the average temperature of Earth ocean is 5 C or colder, it’s in an Ice Age- and it has lower CO2 levels.

            And when an Ice Age gets the coldest it ever gotten [20,000 years ago] it gets dangerously lower CO2 levels [plants die].
            Having 180 ppm with not kill a human [human’s breath is about 40,000 ppm- somehow having no CO2 will kill humans or other animals, but plants need higher level of CO2 then an animal, animals needs plants. No plants every higher lifeform dies.
            There is recent idea that all life need oxygen, or without oxygen
            no know life could exist. I don’t have opinion about it.

          • Willard says:

            Keep waffling, gb.

          • gbaikie says:

            It’s quite simple, just name an author of the greenhouse effect
            theory.

          • Willard says:

            Right after you name the author of number theory, gb.

            My offer that you keep waffling is still on the table.

          • gbaikie says:

            google says:
            Andr Weil
            David Burton
            Andrew Granville
            George Andrews
            G. H. Hardy

            And there are more, just google: Number theory author

          • Willard says:

            Which one is the author, gb?

            I asked for *the* author of number theory, not random authors who wrote about number theory.

            Just like you did.

            Number theory is as old as the Euclidean algorithm at least.

            The point you might wish to waffle over is that scientific theories do not have authors.

          • gbaikie says:

            willard:
            “I asked for *the* author of number theory, not random authors who wrote about number theory.”

            These not authors of books, rather they are authors of theories regarding number theory.

            Al Gore is not stupid enough to say he is an author of greenhouse theory, but he wrote a stupid book about global warming.
            Probably with a lot help, Al Gore wrote a book called, An Inconvenient Truth. {also the movie}.
            People author stuff written in some textbook, again such people don’t claim they are an author of the greenhouse effect.

            And I asked: “… just name an author of the greenhouse effect
            theory.”

            It’s not Al Gore and it’s not some textbook, it’s an author of the
            greenhouse effect theory.
            You could give list of them, or an author you have the most confidence in being correct.
            But I am just asking for one.
            And I don’t care if think actually correct.
            Just existing theory not proven to be wrong, yet.

            Let me give more examples of what are not authors of the greenhouse effect theory:
            From wiki:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
            “Arrhenius was the first to use principles of physical chemistry to estimate the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are responsible for the Earth’s increasing surface temperature.”

            Not an author of the greenhouse effect theory
            Of course, this not true, either, otherwise the IPCC could give a predictions rather a bunch of different projections.
            Or IPCC could state how warming has occurred from CO2 levels and have a prediction of much will occur with future CO2 levels.
            And:
            “In the 1960s, Charles David Keeling demonstrated that the quantity of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions into the air is enough to cause global warming.”

            Not author of greenhouse effect theory and also, nor is the above statement correct.

          • Willard says:

            > theories regarding number theory

            What’s a theory of a theory, gb?

          • gbaikie says:

            What Is Number Theory?
            –Number theory is the study of the set of positive whole numbers
            1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, . . . ,
            which are often called the set of natural numbers. We will especially want to study
            the relationships between different sorts of numbers. Since ancient times, people
            have separated the natural numbers into a variety of different types. Here are some
            familiar and not-so-familiar examples:
            odd 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, . . .
            even 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, . . .
            square 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, . . .
            cube 1, 8, 27, 64, 125, . . .
            prime 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, . . .
            composite 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, . . .
            1 (modulo 4) 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, . . .
            3 (modulo 4) 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 27, . . .
            triangular 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, . . .
            perfect 6, 28, 496, . . .
            Fibonacci 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, . . . —
            https://www.math.brown.edu/johsilve/frintch1ch6.pdf
            And etc
            And how about wiki:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory

            There also what called philosophical matters related
            to numbers. Also a lot religious crazy stuff related to it.
            In a word, it’s endless.
            And does endless, exist?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard says:

            Look. No need to play squirrels. Its quite simple.

            Luckwarmers accept that the Greenhouse Effect.

            Sky Dragon cranks do not.

            You got to choose.

            ——————————-
            No you don’t Willard. Even the CAGW nutcases will deny that the greenhouse effect acts like a greenhouse effect because they want it to work another way to support their predictions.

            What if it works like a greenhouse? Then the greenhouse effect would be saturated except for the addition of water vapor where water vapor is currently very sparse. Then CO2 would do nothing. Is saying the atmosphere really does act like a greenhouse is that denying the greenhouse effect?

            Its like taking all the versions of Fauci telling us masks both do and don’t work. Which one do you deny?

            For you its like a religious belief. Thats why you continue to hang around.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            As usual little Willie has no response. He doesn’t know how the greenhouse effect works either despite his constant and vacuous claim every expert does.

  16. Gordon Robertson says:

    barry…and swannie…”The AMSU receiver is designed to respond to O2 frequencies over a range.

    No, they are set at specific wavelengths.

    Channel 5 = 53.56 GHz
    Channel 7 = 54.94 GHz
    Channel 9 = 57.29 GHz

    Each frequency is emitted by O2 at a certain temperature hence a certain altitude.

    No, this is your fundamental misunderstanding.

    Any object emits at a range of frequencies regardless of temperature, with the peak emissions corresponding to the temperature. Youll recognize Weins curve”.

    ***

    No misunderstanding on my part, Barry. You don’t even understand the difference between frequency and wavelength.

    53.56 Ghz is a frequency, not a wavelength. According to my calculations the wavelength should be about 5.6 mm.

    The channel 5 AMSU receiver is set to receive 53.56 Ghz as its centre frequency because that is the frequency emitted by O2 at the 4 km altitude. Channel 5 is capable of detecting O2 emissions right to the surface, albeit at reduced amplitudes wrt the centre frequency.

    If you look at the block diagram of the AMSU receiver it has a heterodyning unit to convert incoming radiation over a broad range of frequencies, centred around 53.56 Ghz. That means it is receiving O2 emissions from various altitudes centred at about 4 km. If the AMSU unit did not have that ability it would be useless for determining temperatures at different altitudes.

    Objects may emit over a continuum if they are heavily laden with elements, like the surface. However, discrete elements emit and absorb only at discrete frequencies, the frequency being reliant on the temperature.

    For example, pure sodium emits EM at a frequency coincident with the colour yellow. You can see the colour in sodium vapour lamps. And let’s not forget that Planck’s curve is based on light, which is essentially a continuum of emissions from a wide variety of sources. It’s a mistake to impose Planck’s curve on a solid surface.

    If you heat a piece of iron with a torch, it will eventually glow red. As it warms, it glows orange, then yellow, until it reaches the state we call white hot, where it begins to melt. The iron at no time emits a continuum of colours, only specific wavelengths/frequencies directly related to the temperature.

    The iron may emit more than one colour depending on where it is heated. It stands to reason that a piece of iron that is heated by a torch will have a continuum of temperatures along its length, hence colours. That’s not what I’m getting at. I am referring to a piece of iron where the temperature is uniform and produces one specific colour.

    • barry says:

      “The channel 5 AMSU receiver is set to receive 53.56 Ghz as its centre frequency because that is the frequency emitted by O2 at the 4 km altitude.”

      Under assumed conditions, yes. A theoretical construct.

      But CO2 emits at that frequency throughout the atmosphere, just most intensely at the 4km mark.

      Therefore, channel 5 will measure O2 emissions at that frequency throughout the deep layer, with the instrument being most sensitive to the emissions at 4km, as Roy says.

      What the AMSU units can’t do is to isolate measurement to that 4km height, nor can any post-processing do so. And this is the bit that you get wrong despite Spencer, Christy and others quoted above making clear that the AMSU channels measure O2 radiance at the frequency throughout a deep layer of atmosphere.

      And that’s is why you have been unable to provide a single reference supporting your misconception, while there are several references above setting the record straight.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”the AMSU channels measure O2 radiance at the frequency throughout a deep layer of atmosphere”.

        ***

        First, O2 emits over a broad range of frequencies depending on its temperature. That’s basic quantum theory based on the original Bohr model.

        Also, the statement above re deep layers proves my point. Each channel on the AMSU unit measures O2 emissions over a deep layer. With channel 5, the layer likely extends from 4 km downward and an equal distance upward. However, if the channel was only measuring O2 at one frequency, what good would that do?

        What’s the point of have a weighting curve for channel 5 showing a bell curve centred at about 4 km where the curve represents the relative amount of O2 emissions versus altitude?

        Again…a statement by Roy…

        The MSU and AMSU instruments measure the thermal microwave emission from atmospheric oxygen in the 50-60 GHz oxygen absor.p-tion complex, and the resulting calibrated brightness temperatures (Tb) are nearly equivalent to thermometric temperature, specifically a vertically-weighted average of atmospheric temperature with the vertical weighting represented by weighting functions.

        There is nothing in the weighting function curves about temperature, only the relative amount of O2 emissions versus altitude (pressure). Roy claims they ‘calibrated brightness temperature’ from the microwave emissions using the AMSU units. So, how do the AMSU units come into the picture?

        If you look at a block diagram for channel 5, it shows a heterodyning unit behind the antenna and RF section. The purpose of a heterodyning unit is to beat a local oscillator frequency against incoming frequencies to get an intermediate frequency. The bandwidth of the IF is several megahertz. Why would they bother converting to a bandwidth that wide if they were converting only the centre frequency of 53.56 Ghz?

        There is a reason for heterodyning, they are converting a broad band of O2 frequencies per channel. That means there is a broadband of O2 emission frequencies entering the AMSU antenna per channel.

        Roy has also explained that the sat AMSU units are calibrated to set points. One of them is the temperature of cold space and the other is an internal heat source. So, they have a range of temperatures established with which to compare the brightness temperatures of received O2 emissions.

        • barry says:

          “First, O2 emits over a broad range of frequencies depending on its temperature.”

          Yes, that was the point of citing the Wein curve upthread.

          So, an O2 molecule at 1C emits over a broad range of frequencies that is similar to the range emitted by an O2 molecule at 10C.

          The MSU instruments have no way of knowing if the frequency received by an O2 molecule was emitted by a molecule at 10C or 1C.

          Therefore, the MSU instrument can’t isolate a specific layer (say at 4km) because the instruments don’t measure temperature, they measure radiance.

          “Each channel on the AMSU unit measures O2 emissions over a deep layer.”

          Good, you agree.

          Roy confirms the point.

          “the resulting calibrated brightness temperatures (Tb) are nearly equivalent to thermometric temperature, specifically a >b>vertically-weighted average of atmospheric temperature”

          It seems you’ve abandoned the idea that the MSU instruments can isolate temperatures at a specific height. We no longer disagree.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Gordo copied Roy’s statement:

          The MSU and AMSU instruments measure the thermal microwave emission from atmospheric oxygen in the 50-60 GHz oxygen absor.p-tion complex…

          Gordo used that comment to support his previous sentence:

          O2 emits over a broad range of frequencies depending on its temperature.

          Gordo still doesn’t understand that gasses emit thermal radiation at very specific frequencies in spectroscopic bands, not a wide range like the emissions from a solid or liquid near BB surface.

          The MSU/AMSU instruments measure only the net result of the emission and absorp_tion from the surface thru the entire column of the atmosphere. The physics is similar to that of any greenhouse gas, except that a narrow band within the “complex” is targeted which selectively provide the desired range of altitude for measurement. The weighting curves are the result of a theoretical calculation of this process and would be difficult to actually measure in the atmosphere.

  17. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny the site-idiot…”Roy Spencer explained in 2015 that there is NO WAY to obtain correct grid data when using observations as the source, and therefore UAH had to construct the LT data as a sytnhesis of MT, TP and LS!”

    ***

    Speak for yourself, and not for Roy. He said no such thing.

    Anyone who suggests an equation can be applied to the atmosphere without observing the temperature of oxygen molecules and using that data in the equation is a raving idiot.

    The equation uses data from channels 5, 7 and 9. Those channels are real, physical telemetry which detect oxygen emissions from the surface upward as claimed by John Christy. You are far too stupid to understand that. If you look at the weighting function for channel 5, it extends right to the surface.

    • Bindidon says:

      Robertson

      The ignorant idiot: that’s you.

      Read what Roy Spencer wrote, and stop telling you eternal, egomaniac nonsense.

      UAH’s LT is a product made out of a synthetic mix of MT, TP and LS.

      Basta ya!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Since when is a mix of real data a synthetic mix? You can’t even explain your delusion.

        Tell me where UAH gets the data for MT, TP, and LS. Do you think they conjure it out of a hat like they do at NOAA and GISS?

        • Bindidon says:

          Robertson

          ” Tell me where UAH gets the data for MT, TP, and LS. ”

          When will you stop keeping so stubborn?

          I never said that MT, TP and LS wouldn’t be constructed out of real sensing.

          I repeat for the umpteenth time that this is NOT the case for LT: LT is a synthetic combination of the three layers above it.

          Basta ya.

          • Nate says:

            “LT is a synthetic combination of the three layers above it.”

            Do you mean 3 layers, each centered above it?

          • Mark B says:

            “LT is a synthetic combination of the three layers above it.”

            The LT product might better be described as a weighted combination of overlapping layers which include, to various degrees, the desired LT signal.

            “Three layers above it” implies (to me anyway) that the layer measurement boundaries are distinct which isn’t the case and is the core issue.

          • Bindidon says:

            Nate

            ” Do you mean 3 layers, each centered above it? ”

            No, I mean the atmospheric layers above LT: MT, TP, LS, according to the (probably ad hoc) formula:

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

            It is easy to demonstrate that LT data is, down to 0.01 C, identical to this combination.

            I proved that using the Globe, the Nino3+4 area, and even one single grid cell located above Huntsville.

          • Bindidon says:

            Here is for example the comparison of the grid cell average for the small Nino3+4 region 5N-5S — 170W-120W

            – using the LT grid data (blue)
            – using the MT/TP/LS combination (dashed red)

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c1tQQ-XuYa6ddJ705uOgg4K6-_f7qIg-/view

            If I wouldn’t have dashed the red lines (anomalies, running mean) you couldn’t see the blue lines behind.

          • Nate says:

            “No, I mean the atmospheric layers above LT: MT, TP, LS”

            The layers all overlap don’t they? The MT layer not is ALL above the LT, is it?.

          • Bindidon says:

            Nate

            ” The layers all overlap dont they? ”

            Yes I agree: it seems rather evident that they hardly could be disjoint.

            All I can say is that when processing their respective 12-month climatology (the ‘acg’ files in the four layer directories), you obtain a yearly average as follows (I spare us the exact numbers):

            LT: 264 K
            MT: 251 K
            TP: 226 K
            LS: 211 K

            With a lapse rate of about 6.5 km you can obtain an idea of how distant their (supposed) centers might be.

          • Bindidon says:

            Ooops? I meant of course ~ -6.5 K / km.

  18. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim s…” Flame is just visible light”.

    ***

    You claim I am making a fool of myself then you make a statement like that. According to you, light is not emitted by electron transitions in material but just appears out of nothing at high temperatures.

    Tell me this. What is producing the high temperature? It is combustion of a material like a gas, for example. That gas is made of hydrocarbons that burn in oxygen. When the hydrocarbons burn as a flame, they produce light. So, a flame is not light, it is a burning hydrocarbon that produces light, heat, CO2 and WV as a product of combustion.

    Even a simple candle, which is made of wax, burns by converting the wax to a hot gas using oxygen. The paraffin making up the candle wax is nothing more than hydrogen and carbon atoms bonded by electrons in a hydrocarbon chain. Two products of combustion are water vapour and CO2. So, hydrogen is released at high temperature and combines with oxygen to produce WV and carbon combines with oxygen to produce CO2.

    You are making it sound as if the CO2 is radiating heat when it’s only a product of combustion. The heat is produced by the burning of hydrocarbons in oxygen.

    Even engineering textbooks make egregious error talking about this. They refer to radiation as radiative heat transfer, which is nonsense. That is an anachronism dating back to the mid 19th century when scientists believed heat was transferred through air by ‘heat rays’.

    It was not till 1913 that Bohr put forward the true relationship between heat and electromagnetic energy. He did that by relating the kinetic energy of electrons to the EM emitted when they give up KE by dropping to a less energetic orbit. Of course, KE, by definition, in this case, is heat.

    It’s nonsense to talk about one electron having heat but over bazillions of them in a mass going through the same downward transitions is a heat loss. Conversely, when you add heat to a mass, the electrons all jump to higher energy (KE) levels and the temperature of the mass rises. Raise the temperature high enough and they will jump right out of the mass, possibly destroying it.

    When so-called experts talk about radiation being a prime dissipator of heat, you need to take that with a generous pinch of salt. It’s virtually impossible in a non-vacuum environment like a furnace to distinguish how heat is related to radiation, conduction, and convection, especially at high temperatures as found in a furnace.

    I am talking here specifically of the combustion chamber.

    In the immediate vicinity of a high heat source, in air, how do you tell what is producing the heat: the molecules of air immediately adjacent to the source or radiation.

    You can bring your fingers very close to the glass on a burning 100 watt lamp and feel very little. It’s only when you touch the glass that you get burned. Therefore radiation from the lamp is insignificant even though the nearby filament is at 3000C.

    • barry says:

      This:

      “Flame is just visible light”

      is not the same as saying

      “light is not emitted by electron transitions in material but just appears out of nothing at high temperatures”

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Nice cherry pick, Barry. I was being facetious and you cherry picked my statement to make it appear as if I was claiming light is not emitted by electron transitions.

        Tim S claimed a flame is ***just*** visible light, suggesting it is only EM. As I tried to point out, EM is one product of the flame, which is the combustion of hydrocarbons in oxygen.

        Tim was trying to link the greenhouse myth, in which CO2 is a raised to a super-gas, to a furnace. He got the comparison completely wrong by focusing on CO2 and WV as products of combustion. inferring that CO2 was a prime radiator of heat in a furnace. That’s bs, both in the atmosphere and in the furnace.

        It’s the 99% nitrogen and oxygen in the air that produces the heat in a furnace plus the radiation. Yes, O2 and N2 can radiate at those temperatures.

        http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/atspect.html

        Nitrogen radiates all the way down to the red region.

        There are spectral graphs for both nitrogen and oxygen at the following link, about 5/8th way down. Below lightning photos.

        https://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/fileadmin/itp/emeritus/zawischa/static_html/atoms.html

        Note the nice bright red line for O2.

        In the opening paragraphs, they liken the electron to a wave but they have it wrong. It is considered wave-like because it orbits with an angular frequency. The Schrodinger wave equation treats orbiting electrons as particles with angular frequencies.

        The wave function used by Schrodinger is akin to the same equations used to observe a pendulum motion or a mass-spring unit. In the example, they seem to use a guitar string as the wave function source. All of them can be represented by continuous sine waves hence are wave functions.

        Have only skimmed the article but it seems to be a good example of fundamental quantum theory.

      • barry says:

        The facetiousness did not translate in print.

    • Tim S says:

      In the context of my comment, it made a lot of sense. Let me help you some more. Flame size and shape does not contribute to furnace performance. It dose not matter. The radiant effect, which is absolutely dominant in the fire box area, is not affected in any way by the visible light from a flame. Flame shape and color does not contribute to the radiant effect. Visible light from a flame produces very little if any radiant heat. This is also true of campfires and other sources of flame. Flames from hydrogen or certain alcohols, which are not visible, provide a radiant effect from their combustion products of CO2 or just water vapor in the case of hydrogen.

      Flame impingement on a metal surface is an entirely different matter. Impingement in a furnace is a serious problem. A blow torch works best with direct application of the blue flame to the metal surface because the combustion reaction is now on the metal surface and the heat rate is dramatically increased. Does that help? If you want to learn, listen to people who have knowledge. Otherwise, I have no help for you.

    • Tim S says:

      Let me quote myself:

      “Just in case anyone is confused about this, at 15% excess air, which is 3% residual oxygen, the combined effluent resulting from natural gas combustion is about 27% CO2 and water vapor (9% CO2 and 18% water vapor).”

      Those greenhouse gases are absolutely essential for heat transfer in any smooth surface area of any furnace or package boiler. In the upper area of most furnaces above the bridge wall where the combustion gases have cooled, there are finned tubes for convective heat transfer in what is aptly named the “Convention Section”. Finned tubes actually interfere with radiant heat transfer, and the fins overheat anyway. The fire box area with smooth surfaces is also aptly named the “Radiant Section”. This is not rocket science. This is basic Industrial Technology 101. The excess air is an essential safety feature to ensure complete combustion and prevent the possibility of a back fire or explosion from unburned fuel.

      • Swenson says:

        “Those greenhouse gases are absolutely essential for heat transfer in any smooth surface area of any furnace or package boiler.”

        Nonsense. A pure inert gas at the same temperature works just as well (adjusted for specific heat, etc.).

        The term “greenhouse gas” is just a piece of SkyDragon silliness.

        Although, commercial greenhouse operators do use CO2 in higher concentrations, along with often electric greenhouse heaters, to maximise greenhouse plant yields.

        You really have no clue wha5 you are talking about, do you?

        • Tim S says:

          This post confirms my belief that most of you habitual posters on this site know very little about anything of importance, and/or are just here to argue and troll each other. You cannot make such a stupid statement without being completely ignorant or blatantly trolling. There is NO other alternative. Knock yourself out:

          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666821122001144

          “The primary sources of radiation in the RS are the combustion products which are assumed to be uniform in temperature. According to [21] there is a great difference in the emissivity of the various gases at the same temperature. Furthermore, the diatomic gases such as O2, N2 have very poor emissivity, hence are ignored in fired heater design work. Under this assumption, H2O and CO2 are the only radiating flue gas components that are considered. To simplify the combustion calculations, the fuel gas is assumed to contain only hydrocarbons. Contaminant gases such as CO2 and N2 in the fuel gas stream do not partake in the combustion reaction. However, these contaminant gases are accounted for in calculating the amount of flue gases released and in calculating the thermo-physical properties of the fuel gas.”

          • Swenson says:

            Tim S,

            From your link –

            “In this work, a custom dynamic mathematical model of an industrial vertical-cylindrical type natural gas fired natural draft heater is developed . . . ”

            However, the modelling is based on physical principles, which have nothing at all to do with greenhouse gases, the GHE or any other SkyDragon silliness.

            As I stated, it is feasible (although generally a complete waste of time and money) to heat water in a boiler using air heated by electricity. As a matter of fact, a small heat gun can heat air to around 500 C without difficulty. Even air containing no CO2 or H2O! Don’t believe it? Professor John Tyndall did it 150 years ago – although he heated his gases with a copper plate, from memory.

            Maybe you should read your reference again, and see what the authors are investigating, and why. You may not be aware that gas to liquid heat heat exchangers take hot air without combustion products (from air compressors, for example), and allow the hot air to lose its energy to a liquid, cooling in the process. No greenhouse gases needed.

            As I said before, you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

            No GHE. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, whether you like it or not.

            Got any more irrelevant SkyDragon silliness?

          • Tim S says:

            Classic trolling. That is a complement because it means you probably are not a stupid as you seem.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim S,

            From your answer, it seems you have no answers.

            If you support the SkyDragon silliness called the GHE, you have as little chance of explaining how the GHE cooled the Earth for four and a half billion years or so, as any other SkyDragon.

            Nobody has even managed to describe the GHE, so explaining how something non-existent is supposed to work is an exercise in futility.

            But give it a try, if you aren’t worried that someone might make you look ignorant, stupid, or both. By the way, you might mean compliment instead of complement, but that is neither here nor there, compared with your “greenhouse gas” nonsense.

            No GHE. Accept reality.

          • Nate says:

            Swenson has an unusually hard time with the concept of ‘relevance’. Most of what he posts has no more relevance to the existence of the GHE than the price of milk.

            And here he shows how he cannot appreciate the relevance of basic heat transfer science that others post, to the GHE and heat transfer in the atmosphere.

            He often states that ordinary science seems like magic to him, and therefore it needs to be doubted, diminished or dismissed outright.

            Here he again mentions Tyndall, who famously debunked Swenson’s belief that the GHE requires ‘magic insulation’, and left him speechless.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1402815

          • Clint R says:

            I’ve tried to follow the comments from Tim S, but he doesn’t seem to have a point. He talks a lot about a gas-fired boiler, and seemingly tries to imply that has something to do with the bogus GHE. A gas-fired boiler is real. The GHE is bogus.

            Maybe he could try to make his point as succinctly as I just made mine?

          • Tim S says:

            The problem here is that people who deny the existence of the GHE because they are stupid or simply trolling distract from the real question. How does the small contribution made by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, due to fossil burning, affect the large contribution from water vapor? And yes, for trolls who are obsessed with spell check errors (a classic trolling tactic), the word is affect, not effect. Increasing CO2 does have an affect on the overall effect. The problem for climate science is to accurately quantify the overall and real long term effects from increasing CO2 on the extremely complex climate system. This problem is greatly complicated by political considerations because public policy is a political question.

          • phi says:

            Tim S,
            We must render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. The misunderstanding of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect clearly finds its origin in the incredible pseudo-physics invented by Manabe in his 1967 article. A situation which worsened further around 1980 with the invention of the stupid notion of radiative forcing.

          • Tim S says:

            Let me state the obvious. There is a GHE and the satellite record proves it. The satellite record very clearly proves that ENSO affects global temperature and that leads very strongly to the conclusion that humidity levels make that effect possible. The other very clear evidence is obvious to anyone who lives a location where humidity levels fluctuate. Done!

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            You wrote –

            “There is a GHE and the satellite record proves it.”, which is about as useful as “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus”.

            You can’t even describe the GHE, much less explain why it cooled the Earth’s surface from the molten state, to its present temperature.

            The satellite “record” proves nothing. The satellite coverage does not even cover the surface, and as Dr Spencer has pointed out, has to be based on numerous assumptions and estimates.

            As to CO2 having an effect on weather (and climate is just average weather), of course it does – and so does everything else in the Earth’s sphere of influence, plus anything at all which impinges on it!. The fluid dynamics of the atmosphere are chaotic, and there is no theoretical minimum disturbance to initial conditions which determines future outcomes in a chaotic system. In other words, the approximate present does not determine the approximate future.

            If you don’t like chaos theory, Richard Feynman came to the same conclusion about ultimate unpredictability using quantum electrodynamic theory – the most rigorously tested theory in the history of mankind.

            No GHE. You can’t even describe such a mythical beast, can you? You might as well keep being confused about gases, heat, radiation, emissivity, and all the rest.

          • Willard says:

            > people who deny the existence of the GHE because they are stupid or simply trolling

            Why not boat?

          • Nate says:

            “No GHE. You cant even describe such a mythical beast, can you?”

            Tyndall described it. You saw it Flynnson. And you had no answer for it or interest in it.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1402815

            Why do you keep asking for something you clearly have no interest in seeing?

            Yet another sign of insanity.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  19. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere is broken into two parts according to the geomagnetic field in high latitudes. One part will swirl over northern Canada, bringing heavy frost to the northern US. The other vortex will spin over Siberia and bring Arctic air to Europe.
    https://i.ibb.co/rcccDSk/gfs-z100-nh-f00.png
    https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif
    https://i.ibb.co/YTXJvNs/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-07-112657.png

  20. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…one of the better comedians on the blog…”As Roy explained, they use intensity measurements from three channels to calculate the LT. There are no such spurious microwave frequencies.

    ***

    Yes, and Roy explained why.

    “The MSU instrument scan geometry in Fig. 2 illustrates how the old LT calculation required data from different scan positions, each of which has a different weighting function (see Fig. 2 inset). Thus, only one LT retrieval was possible from a scan line of data. The new method uses multiple channels to allow computation of LT from a single geographic location”.

    Nothing to do with what you alarmists are braying about.

    • Bindidon says:

      Wrong again Robertson.

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

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

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

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

      and the plots were nearly identical.

      But you do not understand such things.

      There is NO valuable microwave sensing at LT level because it creates too many errors at gridpoint level.

      The fact that MT, TP and LS all three are OF COURSE the result of microwave sensing has nothing to do in this discussion.

      You are opinionated and denying facts to such an extent that you are not even able to correctly read what Roy Spencer wrote in 2015.

      This, Robertson, has by the way NOTHING to do with ‘alarmism’.

      Basta ya.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        biny…”…the UAH team has decided to replace LT evaluation by microwave sensing by a function computing, for each grid cell, a combination of the three layers above:

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

        ***

        Roy has explained clearly why they did that and your explanation is not even close. You seem to have it locked between your ears that UAH no longer uses real data from AMSU units but are fabricating data based on an equation.

        You seem to be under a delusion that MT, TP and LS data appears magically out of a black box.

    • Bindidon says:

      And in the expectation that you will now understand how stupid your allegation of ‘LT going down to the surface’, here is another bit of text out of

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

      The new LT weighting function is less sensitive to direct thermal emission by the land surface (17% for the new LT versus 27% for the old LT), and we calculate that a portion (0.01 C/decade) of the reduction in the global LT trend is due to less sensitivity to the enhanced warming of global average land areas “.

      But people like you never learn because they want to keep their own narrative above anything else, even Roy Spencer’s own text.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Gordo posts a quote from Roy without any understanding of what it means. The old TLT converted each swath of data into a product for each point along the ground track in space and time. The new processing can only provide monthly values for the MT, TP and LS on a 2.5×2.5 degree grid. The LT is calculated from these data based on the theoretical models of the respective channel weighting functions.

      Gordo’s introduction of “spurious microwave frequencies” is completely wrong, as each channel provides measurements for specific frequencies with a narrow band width to isolate the desired O2 emission bands, although there is also some input from upward emissions from the surface.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swannie…”Gordo posts a quote from Roy without any understanding of what it means”.

        ***

        This from someone who believes heat can be transferred from cold to hot by its own means.

        • E. Swanson says:

          I wouldn’t put it that way. Any material which emits thermal IR EM at a specific wavelength can absorb same when an incident flux arrives. As a result, any emissions from a colder body with appropriate wavelengths intercepted by a warmer one will be absorbed. With the Green Plate model, the emissions from the GP to the BP will result in the BP’s temperature increasing. That does not violate the 2nd Law.

          Of course, Gordo also still can’t understand the absorp_tion-emission processes in gasses, so he has no clue what happens with the microwave emissions in the O2 bands.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Swanson, please stop trolling.

  21. phi says:

    About the difference between lower troposphere and surface with evidence of the UHI effect:
    https://www.zupimages.net/up/22/16/804k.png

    • Bindidon says:

      phi

      All what you were able to show is that the lower troposphere and the surface are two places on Earth which behave very different.

      You would see exactly the same when comparing the lower troposphere to the middle troposphere, wouldn’t you?

      • phi says:

        No.

        What is highlighted is that the tropospheric amplification due to the increase in absolute humidity with temperature is indeed present in the high frequencies but not in the trends.

        I did not make the LT – MT comparison but in principle we should not see such a phenomenon.

        As it is known on the other hand that UHI is not properly treated in surface measurements, it is quite logical to assume that we have a measurement of it there.

        • Bindidon says:

          ” As it is known on the other hand that UHI is not properly treated in surface measurements… ”

          Some really, scientifically valuable proof (please coming from another corner than WUWT guest posts) would be welcome.

          GISS for example reduces all UHI corners down to their rural context (ah, yes: I forgot that some think UHI is everywhere; they very probably never compared for example Las Vegas to stations within 50-100 km around them).

          • phi says:

            The UHI effect is known and important. It necessarily impacts the measurements. However, these measures are corrected upwards and not downwards.
            https://www.zupimages.net/up/19/47/dyn5.png

          • Bindidon says:

            I wrote:

            ” Some really, scientifically valuable proof (please coming from another corner than WUWT guest posts) would be welcome. ”

            Ce graphe personnel, de plus vieux comme Mathusalem, une preuve tangible? Vous vous moquez du monde, ma parole.

          • phi says:

            It couldn’t be more tangible and reproducible.
            So go discuss cooking on a blog more suited to this subject.
            Non mais!

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            There is no GHE, and the future cannot be predicted by “experts” who “dissect” the past.

            Play with graphs and temperatures to your heart’s delight.

            Not a single fact will be changed, but you are free to waste your time in any meaningless way you choose.

            Others may think what you are doing is a valuable contribution to science, but I doubt it.

            Carry on.

          • Bindidon says:

            And the very best is that your good ol’ graph has only to do with the accumulated differences in GHCN V3 (deprecated since years) between adjusted and unadjusted data, and has nothing to do with UHI.

          • Bindidon says:

            And this is a real comparison of adjusted vs. unadjusted data in GHCN V3:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YPpBGeP8K5YzwIt3oFcIU16XqLKoxI04/view

            Your graph is no more than a pure, intended exaggeration.

          • phi says:

            My poor Bindidon, you still have much to learn. It is not a matter of simply comparing the qca to the qcu but of evaluating the overall methodological bias. Your graph provides very little information because it only highlights a minor part of the problem. I gave the formula used, you can reproduce my results.

            I make an evaluation of the warming added by the method in the global index. Most of the bias comes from connecting series that your comparison cannot highlight.

            That said, my assessment is a bit dated and it’s fairly certain that the bias is now even more improtant.

            Yep, it has everything to do with UHI.

          • Bindidon says:

            Oh the Frenchie becomes quite condescending as it seems.

            That happens mostly to people who have nothing real to offer.

            phi: I propose that you come back here when you bring a consistent proof of any correlation between adjusted/unadjusted GHCN V3 data and UHI.

            Until then: please refrain from your unproven claims.

          • phi says:

            Bindidon,
            It’s not up to you to tell me what to do; ridiculous. Begin by acknowledging or disproving the magnitude of the GHCN warming bias.

  22. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Already on December 5, the thermometer in Oymyakon, Siberia, showed -56 degrees C.
    https://i.ibb.co/0s17kSW/318449555-592591656201148-1049168078063291799-n.jpg

    • Bindidon says:

      Ojmjakon is, together with Verkhoyansk and a few others, one of the coldest places in Northeast Siberia.

      It is so cold there that during winter months, the lower troposphere often is warmer than the surface.

      RSM00024688 63.2500 143.1500 740.0 OJMJAKON

      RSM00024688 61-129 1968 12 8 -60.3 (C)
      RSM00024688 61-129 1968 12 9 -60.3
      RSM00024688 61-129 1982 12 6 -59.9
      RSM00024688 61-129 2021 12 8 -58.9
      RSM00024688 61-129 1982 12 5 -58.8
      RSM00024688 61-129 1997 12 2 -58.8
      RSM00024688 61-129 1997 12 3 -58.8
      RSM00024688 61-129 1993 12 9 -58.7
      RSM00024688 61-129 1997 12 1 -58.3
      RSM00024688 61-129 2021 12 7 -58.1

      Interesting however is that when restricting the output to years starting with 2010, you see that 2021 already was colder than other years in the decade:

      RSM00024688 61-129 2021 12 8 -58.9
      RSM00024688 61-129 2021 12 7 -58.1
      RSM00024688 61-129 2021 12 2 -54.5
      RSM00024688 61-129 2010 12 4 -54.4
      RSM00024688 61-129 2021 12 1 -54.3
      RSM00024688 61-129 2021 12 5 -54.2
      RSM00024688 61-129 2021 12 4 -54.1
      RSM00024688 61-129 2010 12 3 -53.7
      RSM00024688 61-129 2011 12 6 -53.4
      RSM00024688 61-129 2020 12 9 -53.4

      Some hope for Global Cooling?

  23. Bindidon says:

    A look at UAHs lower stratosphere (LS) 2.5 degree grid data

    August 2022

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n6rXv2cSP0mRCE2nJ4DHeflLVmvF0jmD/view

    September 2022

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cr2RYXTwO4nGOFCT-oWxecqU5JG8Opr-/view

    October 2022

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kut91328oJEKMjXNwTCBavpxP64x3G9z/view

    The cold region moved from 30S-60S toward the South Pole, and became bigger and a lot colder.

    We will see how it looks in November when the LS grid data for this month is available.

  24. Unless you live under a rock, you’ve probably heard that Europe has placed a $60 price cap on Russian crude exports.

    This is uncharted territory for EVERYONE.

    But the real fun part is: The single global price for crude that we’ve all enjoyed for the last 85+ years is GONE. Meaning that global shipping becomes riskier and riskier by the day.

    In terms of energy, we are well on our way to how things were in the 1930s. Exciting!

    • gbaikie says:

      Well it’s possible, if you elect a brain dead President.

      • gbaikie says:

        Or to loosely quote President Obama, someone who will screw up
        everything.
        But I kind of like a weak President.
        And I regard politicians as shades of various kinds of shit.

        Nancy Pelosi also noted the some dems are glasses of water with a label of D on them.
        You should note she didn’t say cups of shit- as she is wise
        Politician and would be slightly aware that she is also a cup of shit.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      andrea…”Unless you live under a rock, youve probably heard that Europe has placed a $60 price cap on Russian crude exports”.

      ***

      Not very clear, Andrea. Do you mean European imports from Russia?

      If that’s the case, they are shooting themselves in the foot since most of their oil imports came from Russia recently.

      The truth is, Europe shot themselves in the foot. They lied to Russia about NATO, promising Russia they would not expand NATO beyond Germany. Then they expanded it to other European countries along the Russian border. When they tried to include the Ukraine, the Russians called foul.

      The truth is, the EU stuck their noses where it did not belong, in the Ukraine. They tried to separate the Ukraine and Russia by interfering in Ukrainian politics. The EU, along with influence from the US, actually succeeded in having a democratically-elected, pro-Russian president removed from office, something we normally find abhorrent in a democracy.

      It back-fired big-time. The president in question had been elected in a large part by pro-Russian Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine. They rebelled in 2014 when their chosen president was violently removed from office by Ukrainian, anti-Russian nationalists. So, they rebelled.

      Three subsequent Ukrainian presidents promised to fix the problem but accomplished nothing. In 2022, the Russians went in and fixed it for them. After initiating this war, the EU imposed sanctions on Russia, so Russia cut off their oil supply. I call that shooting yourself in the foot. In other places they might call it cutting off your nose to spite your face.

      If The EU is stupid enough to carry on this nonsense then they deserve to freeze in the dark. The people of Europe don’t. However, as long as stupid leadership is in control in Europe that is an unfortunate outcome. Not only will innocent Ukrainians keep on dying, so will innocent Europeans.

      I get blamed for being pro-Russian and I’m not. I am pro-human, and human problems don’t get fixed through blatant propaganda.

  25. WizGeek says:

    Maybe our wondrous planet simply is returning to the global climate profile circa 250 CE after having been through a geologically brief cooling period?

    Such an amazing and complex intertwining of galactic disk dust, solar variance, tectonic plate exposure, deep sea and land volcanism, and, yes, humanity still is beyond our full comprehension.

    It is as though we’re asked to describe the scenery of an eight hour road trip having only been awake for five seconds.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      Not back far enough.

      It is the Eocene epoch that many of the experts looking at and projecting Earth’s future climate now study.

      • Swenson says:

        TM,

        You wrote –

        “It is the Eocene epoch that many of the experts looking at and projecting Earths future climate now study.”

        Couple of points.

        1. It is not possible to predict future climate states, according to the IPCC, so the experts are wasting their time. You may be worshipping false Gods.

        2. Richard Feynman said that science is belief in the ignorance of experts. I agree.

        And by the way, the Earth has continuously cooled for four and a half billion years or so. In what alternative universe do you expect it to reverse this trend, and why?

        Accept reality. No GHE.

        • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

          Swenson, are the words projection and prediction synonymous? Please inform.

          • Swenson says:

            TM,

            What a stupid gotcha!

            Do you think you know the answer, and are trying to make me look stupid?

            Or maybe you are really appealing to me as an authority on such things, and are prepared to accept what I say without question – which would make you gullible.

            So no, I decline your request. If you are really interested in making some imagined semantic point, you might care to inform yourself as to the practical difference between projection and prediction.

            But you won’t, will you? That would mean you were just trying to be a silly SkyDragon, posing witless gotchas.

            Dimwit.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            “Do you think you know the answer, and are trying to make me look stupid?”

            You do that very well yourself already.

          • Swenson says:

            TM,

            An unsupported assertion, from an acknowledged trol,l carries all the authority of its author.

            Still dont know the difference between “prediction” and “projection”?

            You could always look the words up in a “dictionary”, I suppose.

            Carry on trolling.

            [laughing at juvenile gotcha poser]

          • Eben says:

            Wait ,I knew this one, climate projections are made by debils who don’t understand anything about climate, just take snippets of data, draw straight lines through it and extend it into the future,
            Climate Predictions are made by people who understand the underlying causes that change climate

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Swenson at 5:02 PM

            To recap:

            [Me] …many of the experts looking at and projecting Earths future climate…

            [Swenson] “…It is not possible to predict future climate states…”

            [Me] …are the words projection and prediction synonymous?

            [Swenson] “…trying to make me look stupid?”

            [Me] You’re doing just fine on your own.

          • Swenson says:

            TM,

            What a stupid gotcha!

            Do you think you know the answer, and are trying to make me look stupid?

            Or maybe you are really appealing to me as an authority on such things, and are prepared to accept what I say without question which would make you gullible.

            So no, I decline your request. If you are really interested in making some imagined semantic point, you might care to inform yourself as to the practical difference between projection and prediction.

            But you wont, will you? That would mean you were just trying to be a silly SkyDragon, posing witless gotchas.

            Dimwit.

          • Swenson says:

            Trolling TM,

            You wrote –

            ” . . . many of the experts looking at and projecting Earths future climate . . . ”

            Experts? Looking at? Future climate?

            Any fool can make any projection they like. Many do, and claim to be “expert” projectionists. It doesnt matter. If you are trying to claim that “projections” are somehow better at divining the future than “predictions”, then you are even more detached from reality than the average deranged SkyDragon – who believes in a GHE that he can’t even describe!

            Go on, tell me which “experts” believe that climate is anything but the average of past weather observations. How hard can it be?

            You are getting desperate aren’t you? Implying that there is any use at all for “experts” who can “project” the future, but can’t “predict” it. What about weather “forecasts”? Predictions? Projections? If weather can be “forecast”, can the average of “weather” be “forecast”?

            You really believe wriggling and obfuscating, don’t you?

            Still no GHE. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so. Accept reality.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Swenson at 10:00 PM

            “…Many do, and claim to be “expert” projectionists.”

            A projectionist is a person who operates a movie projector, particularly as an employee of a movie theater.

            Blah, blah, blah.

          • Swenson says:

            Dimwit,

            Would I prefer I call them “projectors” instead?

            You would probably whine that a “projector” is a piece of equipment, blah, blah, blah!

            Only joking of course. From Merriam-Webster, a projectionist is “one that makes projections”, but you might not like a reference from an American dictionary, I suppose.

            Maybe a selection from the Cambridge English Corpus might impress you more –

            “Evidence that is potentially problematic for the projectionist approach has recently come from a series of studies on auxiliary selection and other reflexes of split intransitivity.”, or even better –

            “It further calls for a theoretical account that combines some of the fine-grained semantic distinctions incorporated in projectionist models with the syntactic mechanisms embodied in constructional models.”

            Models?

            Gee, that sounds like some nonsense you might utter, trying to defend the idiot SkyDragons who believe that they have miraculous abilities to peer into the future – whether you call it predicting, projecting, forecasting, or just plain old-fashioned fortune selling!

            All irrelevant- you can’t even describe the mythical GHE upon which all these predictions of doom are supposedly based on, can you? That’s why you are reduced to gotchas, and silly semantic games.

            Keep trying.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            maguff…”…are the words projection and prediction synonymous? Please inform”.

            ***

            Informing….

            The IPCC used the word ‘prediction’ till expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, advised them that climate models cannot predict. So, they changed prediction to projection.

            In TAR, they were still making the claim that future climate states cannot be predicted. Then they started using climate models to make predictions, until Gray caught them at it. Now, they use the word projection, in which they are claiming to offer several likely scenarios but actually make them sound like one prediction.

            Naturally, idiotic politicians in their infinite gullibility or dishonesty (take your pick) latch onto these lies and spread them to a gullible public to scare them into accepting stupid solutions.

          • Willard says:

            C’mon, Gordo –

            Recent multi-model estimates based on different CMIP3 climate scenarios and different dynamic global vegetation models predict a moderate risk of tropical forest reduction in South America and even lower risk for African and Asian tropical forests (see also Section 12.5.5.6) (Gumpenberger et al., 2010; Huntingford et al., 2013).

            https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

            More than ten years trolling this website and you still have not RTFR.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Swenson at 5:17 PM

            Here’s the link to your quote from Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/projectionist

            pro-​jec-​tion-​ist
            one that makes projections: such as
            a: cartographer
            b: a person who operates a motion-picture projector or television equipment

            Why did you cherry-pick?

          • Swenson says:

            TM,

            Here’s what you wrote –

            “A projectionist is a person who operates a movie projector, particularly as an employee of a movie theater.”

            Why did you cherry-pick?

            Trying to be clever?

            As I said, if I called someone who projects (such as a SkyDragon “climatologist”) a projector, you would probably whine about my use of the word projector! I assume you would not complain about a forecaster, or a predictor – even a fortune teller!

            No matter, you are determined to get bent out of shape because I keep pointing out that your silly SkyDragon insistence that the climate can somehow be foreseen, regardless of whether you call it predicting, projecting, or forecasting, is just wishful thinking.

            If you wish to do a dance about cherry-picking, why do you not accept that the GHE has cooled the Earth? Dimwitted SkyDragons try to cherry-pick furiously – the last so many years, decades, centuries or whatever.

            Try and get it through your thick SkyDragon skull that the GHE is a myth! The Earth has cooled over the period from its birth to now. No amount of playing silly semantic games can help you out of your self-excavated hole.

            Oh, and by the way, one who projects the future is a projectionist, according to me. What would you call such a person? A fortune seller of the SkyDragon variety?

            Carry on trying to defend the indefensible.

          • Swenson says:

            TM,

            Even the eminenently Woeful Wee Willy wrote –

            “Recent multi-model estimates based on different CMIP3 climate scenarios and different dynamic global vegetation models predict a moderate risk of tropical forest reduction in . . . ”

            SkyDragons just can’t help themselves, can they?

            “Model estimates” now become “predictions”.

            Go on, say that the nonsense Wee Willy quoted is so vague as to be meaningless. Unless you believe that the results of “estimates”, “models”, and “climate scenarios”, can be used to “predict” anything at all!

            Go on, cherry- pick something out of that. I’m an even better cherry-picker that most (if not all) SkyDragons, but try if you must.

            Off you go, now.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            I didn’t write what you think I wrote.

            So what are you braying about?

          • Swenson says:

            Woebegone Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “I didnt write what you think I wrote.

            So what are you braying about?”

            More unsubstantiated assertions? More stupid questions?

            Why do you bother, fool? (That’s a rhetorical question, of course – I don’t expect you to answer, and I am unlikely to do anything except laugh, if you do).

            Have you managed to explain why the GHE cooled the Earth for four and a half billion years, rather than making it hotter?

            Didn’t think so!

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Swenson at 12:00 AM

            “Why did you cherry-pick?”

            Rhetorical question.

            I know why. It’s because you’re a liar and a cheat.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Gordon Robertson at 6:58 PM

            Funny story about Vincent Gray. Also not true!

            The IPCC report defines the terms Climate Prediction and Climate Projection.

            Must all you deniers be liars and cheats?

          • Willard says:

            Come on, Tyson.

            Gordo and Mike Flynn might be liars and chests, but they are *our* liars and cheats.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tyson, Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Nate says:

            “Have you managed to explain why the GHE cooled the Earth for four and a half billion years, rather than making it hotter?”

            Have you managed yet to put two and two together, and figure out if there is any point to this oft repeated statement?

            It appears not.

            Stating that the insulating power of the GHE did exactly what insulation is supposed to do for a hot thing, slow, but not prevent, its cooling, adds little of relevance to this discussion.

            But perhaps you can tell us some other interesting factoids like water is wet, or rabbits are good at hopping, and subsequently re-inform us on these topics hundreds of times.

            That will be equally as useful to the discussion.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            Tyson, Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Nate says:

            Tyson, Little Willy, didnt post recently, you are mistaken.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #3

            Tyson, Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  26. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Even lower surface temperatures of the equatorial Pacific.
    https://i.ibb.co/jM7xcyz/ct5km-ssta-v3-1-pacific-current.png
    Strong planetary waves in the upper stratosphere in the polar vortex belt.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_OND_NH_2022.png
    Temperatures in the upper stratosphere above the 60th parallel are falling.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_OND_NH_2022.png

  27. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    These are daily temperatures (C) in the north of the US. How much will it be at night?
    https://i.ibb.co/L5ySG77/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-07-213347.png

  28. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    I expect snow in England today and more frost.
    https://i.ibb.co/crpQZtw/gfs-z100-nh-f00.png

  29. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Unusually strong pressure over Greenland. 1077 hPa at sea level.
    https://i.ibb.co/DLn6L8d/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-08-154628.png

    • Entropic man says:

      That’s in the early Pleistocene, with global temperatures on a gradual cooling trend and roughly equivalent to the present.

      There’s a weaker glacial cycle and the Greenland ice sheet is probably starting to grow.

      https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1809600115

      • gbaikie says:

        Right now, it’s pretty cold in northern Greenland.

        What I thought interesting is the cold allows it to be the oldest DNA.
        Also interesting was about weird creatures which were living way up there.

        Right now, we not anywhere close to how warm it was during the last interglacial period which far warmer for thousands of years and such warmer world, didn’t wreck the DNA. And there were many interglacial period between this early Pleistocene and the present time. Or many interglacial periods, warmer then now and many times of many thousands of warmer periods warmer than we are right now.

        And right now, we not a warm as it was when Sahara desert green and inhabited by people.

        So, it seems our Sahara desert would first have become mostly grassland, before we could get that warm, again.

  30. Bindidon says:

    Antarctica was once located near the equator.

    And about 4.5 billion years ago or so, Earth was in a molten state, imagine! And since then it has even been cooling, non-stop!

    I’m literally… Amazed.

    • Willard says:

      You’re not Amazed, Binny.

      That was Mike Flynn’s old sock.

    • Swenson says:

      Bunny,

      The physics of cooling amazes you? Really?

      How did you work out that Antarctica was located near the Equator? Did you read the Tarot?

      Maybe Antarctica was at the North Pole, and gravity dragged it to the South Pole, just like some idiots at NOAA claim happens to water from the North Pole!

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

      At least you now accept the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so. Due to the GHE, do you think, or do you believe that the atmosphere (complete with CO2 and H2O) only formed recently?

      No wonder you can’t even describe the GHE!

  31. Bindidon says:

    Oh, look at how much Greenland’s ice sheet is likely to start growing:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LkGou41kbLSR246s57Sw1LLGCRNB9DSn/view

    Im literally… Amazed again!

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      Fortunately, the trend has been reversed for the past 10 years. Warmer North Atlantic surface means more snow in Greenland.
      http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20221208.png
      https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png

      • Eben says:

        Somebody explain to me why Greenland needs ice, do they have some special crops that grow on ice ? or industry that needs it ?
        I live on land that had a mile of ice on it just 12k years ago, I don’t know anybody who complains it melted and wishes it returns.
        This is a retarded debate

        • Norman says:

          Eben

          Consider the effect on Coastal areas if all the ice in Greenland were to melt.

          https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/climate-change-impacts/greenlands-ice-melting

          It would raise sea level 23.6 feet, that would flood lots of coastal areas.

          In your other example, the melting of all that ice in the past had drastic changes.

          https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth107/files/Unit2/Mod4/Figure17.jpg

          Change in sea level of around 120 meters or 360 feet. This rapid sea level rise could be the reason for many flood stories written in ancient times.

          • Eben says:

            Better buy a boat, quickly

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            “Better buy a boat”
            ???

            No. Better write a letter to the grandkids apologizing for the pile of doo doo you’re about to hand them.

          • Swenson says:

            TM,

            You wrote –

            “Better write a letter to the grandkids apologizing for the pile of doo doo youre about to hand them.”

            Would your suggestion be based on a prediction, a forecast, a projection, or do you just make up stuff about the future as you bumble along?

            Do you have to put a lot of thought into the nonsense you utter, or do you just hammer away at random on your keyboard?

            Keep hammering.

        • Swenson says:

          Norman,

          According to Harvard geophysicist Jerry Mitrovica recently –

          “When Greenland melts, places as far away as Norway and Scotland could actually see the sea level fall by as much as 50 meters. ”

          Who do you want to believe? A “concensus” of SkyDragon cultists, or someone who actually knows what they are talking about, backed up by peer reviewed publication in Science?

          I suppose you just believe whatever you are told to believe, and just ignore any inconvenient alternatives.

          That’s the SkyDragon ethos, isn’t it?

          Ignore four and a half billion years of GHE induced global cooling, and pretend it was really heating!

          Oh well . . .

      • Bindidon says:

        ” … reversed for the past 10 years. ”

        That would be nice.

        But when I look at 2019, third lowest point since 1840:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EUs-5sqcdeU4Dyh4Rdd81dR_QLQHwk8u/view

        I’m doubting a bit.

        And warmer North Atlantic surface indeed means more snow in Greenland, but also more coastal glacier calving, which is not included in the surface mass balance.

    • angech says:

      Fake graph.
      So obvious you should be ashamed to post it

      • angech says:

        How could anyone know or make a real graph about Greenland SMB that includes the dates 1840 to 1970?
        Data only legitimately derived from GRACE which did not exist then.
        Perhaps Michael Mann swapped jobs and tree rings.
        Certainly the graph is fake news as far as real observation goes.

    • Bindidon says:

      Oh look: angech speaking about an allegedly ‘fake graph’ though he is very certainly 100 % unable to prove it is.

      ” How could anyone know or make a real graph about Greenland SMB that includes the dates 1840 to 1970? ”

      *
      Poster angech, you are an Ignoramus.

      You should ASK where the graph comes from instead of claiming nonsense and insulting people doing a lot of work to present existing data you yourself know nothing about.

      I have mentioned the source of that data many times.

      *
      Programme for Monitoring of the Greenland Ice Sheet (PROMICE)
      (Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland GEUS)

      Greenland ice sheet mass balance from 1840 through next week

      https://tinyurl.com/428ecbej

      From that page you move to

      – yearly:

      MB_SMB_D_BMB_ann.csv

      (This is the source for the graph above.)

      *
      or

      – daily data:

      MB_SMB_D_BMB.csv

      Using the daily data, we can for example produce the chart below:

      https://tinyurl.com/mtv6epuc

      but I doubt that a cheap polemicist like you would ever be able to do the job.

      • Swenson says:

        Bunny,

        Who cares about whatever the “graphs” show?

        As I said to Norman –

        “According to Harvard geophysicist Jerry Mitrovica recently

        When Greenland melts, places as far away as Norway and Scotland could actually see the sea level fall by as much as 50 meters.

        Peer reviewed. Published in Science.

        So what is your concern about Greenland Ice Sheet Mass Balance?

        Just think – if sea levels fall around Germany, for example, how much more land will become available? Lots?

        • Bindidon says:

          Hellooooom again, you blathering stalker!

          Do you have something to say?

          No?

          Ah yes, Flynnson is just urging to say something irrelevant.

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            Who cares about whatever the graphs show?

            As I said to Norman

            “According to Harvard geophysicist Jerry Mitrovica recently

            When Greenland melts, places as far away as Norway and Scotland could actually see the sea level fall by as much as 50 meters.”

            Peer reviewed. Published in Science.

            So what is your concern about Greenland Ice Sheet Mass Balance?

            Just think if sea levels fall around Germany, for example, how much more land will become available? Lots?

          • Nate says:

            As usual Flynnson the troll latches onto one thing and ignores all else, like sea level rise in the other 95% of the world.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Sea level has been rising for 15,000 years and currently is far below the average rate of sea level rise over that time.

          • Nate says:

            Evidence?

          • Nate says:

            Nevrmind. Sea level rose from 20000 – 6000 years ago for good reasons, massive ice sheet melting.

            The current rate is again high, higher than its been in 6000 years. The remaining ice sheets and glaciers are melting.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            business as usual for the last 15,000 years. Like I said.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            During the previous interglacial sea level rose 10 meters higher than present.

          • Nate says:

            Our interglacial isnt done..

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Thats correct.

      • angech says:

        Bindidon
        In 2007, Denmark launched the Program for Monitoring of the Greenland Ice Sheet (PROMICE) to assess changes in the mass balance of the ice sheet. The two major contributors to the ice sheet mass loss are surface melt and a larger production of icebergs through faster ice flow. PROMICE is focused on both processes. Ice movement and discharge is tracked by satellites and GPSs. The surface mass balance is monitored by a network of weather stations in the melt zone of the ice sheet, providing ground truth data to calibrate mass budget models.

        My question was
        How could anyone know or make a real graph about Greenland SMB that includes the dates 1840 to 1970?

        The only way to do it properly is with satellites. The only way to have it valid is while the satellites are up there measuring.
        No satellites.
        Fake data.
        Fake manufactured, cheap guesswork.
        Despite many of the recent 10 years being above the average SMB
        the comments say the level has fallen..
        What is the point of having an SMB when you have to run around pretending that more is less?

        • angech says:

          The major contributors to the ice sheet mass loss are global temperature variation and the warmth of the currents reaching the Arctic each year which vary.
          Other factors are direction of ice loss [Fram] and air pressure with arctic cyclones.
          Surface melt is the action, not the contributor.
          Faster ice flow always occurs naturally in Summer when ice bergs naturally break off.
          The flow is always faster than in winter.
          Amazing brains, these Danish guys.
          When you read that explanation you understand films like Frozen.

        • Bindidon says:

          angech

          ” Fake data.
          Fake manufactured, cheap guesswork. ”

          You are, like Robertson, Swenson and a few others, an arrogant, ignorant and above all cowardly person.

          • angech says:

            You are, like Robertson, Swenson and a few others, an arrogant, ignorant and above all cowardly person..
            And those are my good traits?
            Thank you.

            Now after you feel better I would appreciate your views on any of the following.
            what the SMB of Greenland means.
            How it is calculated.
            How one connects recent satellite estimations, the only way of actually attempting to measure it with huge standard deviations.
            With the Michael Mann style proxy guesswork of anything pre satellite.

            If you want to defend your science here, instead of just being a repeat graph poster,do so.
            Argue the actual amount of SMB loss .
            Who estimates it.
            What the errors are.
            How you justify putting said graph together.

            Scientific discussion proceeds with clear facts and trying to understand them as you have pointed out here a numbers of times in the past.
            Helping my understanding, or La of it would be appreciated.

          • angech says:

            You are, like Robertson, Swenson and a few others, an arrogant, ignorant and above all cowardly person.

            I would not choose to-apply those descriptions to those people who have with you and others made this blog what it is today.

            Doing so is just expressing frustration and anger, letting off steam which makes one feel good temporarily but leaves permanent mild regret at intemperance and upsetting people for decades afterwards.

            However the heavy hand banter at this site mixed in with often very intelligent scientific arguments is what draws me back to it.
            Please continue to enjoy feeling free to say whatever you want and in proving your assertions.

  32. gbaikie says:

    Climate Alarmism w/ Professor Richard Lindzen
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spKTb3wMmJM

    I will call it an evangelist of bitcoin has discussion with
    Richard Lindzen.

    Kind of a wild ride- and in the end, Saifedean Ammous urges Richard to get on twitter.

  33. gbaikie says:

    Richard Lindzen says tropics doesn’t change {I agree}
    He also says it’s wrong that tropics is controlling aspect.
    I disagree, though I what I think he meant the whole hot spot thing.
    Which has been disproven and of course is wrong.

    I have said more than 80% of sun’s energy which is absorbed at the surface is absorbed by the ocean [which covers 70% of planet] and
    said the Tropical ocean absorbs more than 1/2 of the sunlight [though
    in tropics the ocean is about 80% of tropics.
    The tropical ocean of course has large effect on global weather, and many falsely assume global climate is some kind summation of weather
    in the entire world. I would say Richard Lindzen has focusing on weather and I would say, weather is important [or very important].

    But in terms of being in interglacial period, or in a glacial
    period, during our 33.9 million ice age, it not about the tropics- which have change much in last 33.9 million years.

    Instead, it’s about polar sea ice. And weather in general would be related to this, if you mean natural variable is weather- which is roughly assumed to be the case.
    But interglacial and glacial periods are related to the Milankovitch cycles which are not weather- rather it’s how Earth moves around the sun and this affect polar sea ice.

    • Bindidon says:

      ” But interglacial and glacial periods are related to the Milankovitch cycles which are not weather- rather its how Earth moves around the sun and this affect polar sea ice. ”

      It very certainly won’t affect it earlier than in about 5,000 years.

      Look at the three Milankovitch periods: we are in the miidle of all three.

      • gbaikie says:

        It doesn’t look good, but I am optimistic, and I agree CO2 might add enough warming in the near term.
        But I am more optimistic that human being will become a spacefaring
        civilization.
        But it’s possible that this is not possible.
        Though there is also other things to be optimistic about.
        One of these things, is we could have ocean settlements within the near future. And there are other things, maybe even more important.

  34. angech says:

    JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT: 10,970,478 KM2 as at 08-Dec-2022

    – Extent gain on this day 270k which is 189 k more than the average gain on this day (of the last 10 years) of 81k,

    The immense variation in Arctic ice belies the fact that or interpretation of ice gain or loss is ephemeral at present.
    It links in to the global temperature.
    Most of the time we have been in 10th year highest territory, a big disappointment for warmists in so many areas.
    The very weak 3 La Ninas have produced this.
    La Nina is just a representation of decreased solar heating [albedo or sun]
    Could we have a 4th or 5th in a row.
    You bet.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      There’s no way to estimate sea ice using satellites. The ice is not one huge covering of ice, it is many sections that butt against each other, producing pressure ridges that extend 40 feet or so in the vertical direction. Arctic ice is riddled with these ridges and that ice is not included in satellite images.

      • angech says:

        Theres no way to estimate sea ice using satellites.?

        Yes there is.

        Is it highly accurate? ??
        Is it reasonably accurate?
        Yes

        • RLH says:

          Until you prove that satellite orbits can be determined within a millimeter, given the influence on them of other orbital bodies in the solar system, then calling it accurate to a millimeter is not possible.

          • angech says:

            RLH says:
            December 10, 2022 at 12:20 PM
            Until you prove that satellite orbits can be determined within a millimeter, given the influence on them of other orbital bodies in the solar system, then calling it accurate to a millimeter is not possible.

            Another attempt to diss information.

            What is wrong with you guys?
            Seriously.

            So what?
            The first and only message I get from your comment is that you dislike the data presented by the satellites .
            Presumably because it currently upsets one of your per narratives.
            Which one is it today?
            Is it because it shows ice had diminished over the last 40 years when you know it has been steady because there is no CO2 or no global warming.
            No back radiation?

            Can you estimate sea ice using satellites.
            Yes.
            (Bindidon, I apologise)

            Do satellites measuring ice extent over thousands of kilometres have millimetre accuracy?
            No.
            Is it important or significant?
            No.
            Please try another line of reasoning.
            Or persist with your measurement inanity.

          • barry says:

            “Until you prove that satellite orbits can be determined within a millimeter, given the influence on them of other orbital bodies in the solar system, then calling it accurate to a millimeter is not possible.”

            And who said they were accurate to a millimetre?

            Why, nobody. You just fabricated this dispute out of thin air.

  35. gbaikie says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 519.8 km/sec
    density: 9.71 protons/cm3
    Daily Sun: 09 Dec 22
    Sunspot number: 115
    The Radio Sun
    10.7 cm flux: 143 sfu
    https://www.spaceweather.com/
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 15.30×10^10 W Neutral
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: +1.5% Elevated
    48-hr change: -1.0%

    I was going say I am hopeless failure at predicting
    Neutron count, but it dipped down a bit.

    It also doesn’t look like going as predicted:
    https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
    “Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
    05 December – 31 December 2022

    Solar activity is expected to be at very low to low levels. M-class
    (R1-R2, Minor-Moderate) flares are possible on 05-13 Dec and 18-31
    Dec due to current and returning M-class producing regions.”

    • gbaikie says:

      spaceweather.com had other things to say:
      “ORION IS COMING IN HOT: NASA’s Orion spacecraft is hurtling toward Earth for a nail-biting grand finale to its maiden 25-day space voyage. On Sunday, Dec. 11th, Orion will skip across the top of the atmosphere like a pebble on the surface of a pond, bleeding away some of its kinetic energy before it plunges toward the Pacific Ocean like a 5,000 degree Fahrenheit meteor. Will Orion’s experimental heat shield work? Tune into NASA TV on Dec. 11th for live coverage.”

      We all hoping it works on Sunday. And:
      PHOTOS OF THE LUNAR OCCULTATION: On Dec. 7-8, the full Moon passed directly in front of Mars, producing a rare lunar occultation visible across North America and Europe. Photographer Gwenael Blanck watched the Red Planet disappear from Paris, France:
      “I was really excited when the clouds over Paris parted just as Mars was approaching the edge of the Moon,” says Blanck. “Perfect timing!”

      The occultation was rare in part because it occurred within a week of Mars’s closest approach to Earth. The disk of the Red Planet was unusually wide, and it shone with a brightness greater than any star in the sky. During the occultation, Mars was twice as bright as Sirius, allowing people to see and photograph the planet even when it was very close to the edge of the full Moon. ”

      [It too cold here, for me to even consider looking at it.]

  36. Bindidon says:

    Sea ice extent on 2022, Dec 8

    Arctic

    https://tinyurl.com/44mwwt8s

    Antarctic

    https://tinyurl.com/2p8sw8zp

    Globe

    https://tinyurl.com/knxexby7

    *
    We shouldn’t keep fixated on the Arctic all the time. For example, 2022 was a good year for Arctic sea ice rebuild, but in the Antarctic it kept below 2021 nearly all over the year.

    What matters is not how much more or less sea ice extent you have in a day. We must consider how full years behave.

    *
    Below is a descending sort of various year and period averages for Global sea ice extent (absolute values in Mkm^2), from Jan 1 till Dec 8 (day 344 of 365/66):

    2014: 23.55
    2013: 23.42
    81-10: 23.32
    2015: 23.04
    2012: 22.45
    2021: 22.17
    2011: 21.81
    2020: 21.70
    2016: 21.51
    17-21: 21.50
    2018: 21.44
    2022: 21.41
    2017: 21.18
    2019: 21.04

    (2011/13/14/15 aren’t present in the three charts above.)

    Here you see that 2012, best known as the year with the highest Arctic sea ice melt season, in fact was a very icy year in the Antarctic: it was all the time above the 1981-2010 average.

    Conversely, 2019 was a year with sea ice loss at both Poles.

    *
    Source

    https://tinyurl.com/s6d98by4

    • Swenson says:

      Bunny,

      You wrote –

      “We shouldnt keep fixated on the Arctic all the time. For example, 2022 was a good year for Arctic sea ice rebuild, but in the Antarctic it kept below 2021 nearly all over the year.

      What matters is not how much more or less sea ice extent you have in a day. We must consider how full years behave.”

      Good to see you have appointed yourself the resident dictator of what people must and must not not do. When you say “we”, presumably you are referring to yourself and God?

      If people do not obey your dictates, what then? Thirty lashes on the foreskin with a boiled lettuce leaf? Or will you stamp your little foot, and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue?

      You idiot, you can’t even explain the fact that four and a half billion years of the GHE just made the Earth colder, not hotter!

      Issue some more commands. See who leaps to obey. Laugh uproariously, make a nice cup of tea and have a good lie down. You’ll feel better.

      Carry on.

      • Bindidon says:

        Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!

        Do you have something to say?

        No?

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

        Like his all time repeated, insulting blah blah

        ” You idiot, you cant even explain the fact that four and a half billion years of the GHE just made the Earth colder, not hotter! “

        • Swenson says:

          Bunny,

          Well worth repeating, isn’t it?

          “You idiot, you can’t even explain the fact that four and a half billion years of the GHE just made the Earth colder, not hotter!

          You are even saying it yourself!

          Keep it up.

      • gbaikie says:

        Earth is just going thru a cold period, right now,

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “You idiot, you cant even explain the fact that four and a half billion years of the GHE just made the Earth colder, not hotter!”

        No. More precisely, 4.5 billion years of the GHE has slightly slowed the cooling. The interior would be cooler now if there was no atmosphere and no GHE. The earth is COOLER than it was, but WARMER than it might have been. No contradiction. No disproof of the GHE.

        • gbaikie says:

          I have always wondered whether our ocean keeps Earth interior warmer or whether it cools it.
          Obviously more of Geothermal heat is a higher average per square amount from ocean floor.
          One could say this is due to the thinnest of ocean surface floor.
          Or the obvious answer is ocean cools more, but I still wonder about whether the ocean does cause more cooling.

        • Swenson says:

          Dim Tim,

          You idiot, you can’t even explain the fact that four and a half billion years of the GHE just made the Earth colder, not hotter.

          Slow cooling is not heating, you dimwit.

          You even admit that the Earth has cooled, when you say “The earth is COOLER than it was, . . .”!

          Exactly. Cooler, not hotter. SHOUTING won’t help, either. Saying ” . . . but WARMER than it might have been.” Here’s a scoop, Tim – thermometers don’t measure what “might have been”. Some idiot SkyDragons claim that a GHE which they can’t even describe, is actually making the Earth hotter – raising its temperature! Even you aren’t that silly, are you?

          Here’s the facts – the Earth has cooled. The surface is no longer molten, but more than 99% of the sub-surface is hot enough to glow in the visible spectrum.

          The Earth continues to lose energy at a rate of about 44 TW or so, as the radiogenic heat reserves decrease. A body losing energy is cooling.

          Slow cooling is not heating (that is, not increasing in temperature, whatever semantic silliness you attempt.)

          Try describing the GHE which resulted in the Earth cooling (not getting hotter) over the past four and a half billion years or so, if you like. Can’t do it, can you?

          Carry on being an idiot. I don’t mind.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Slow cooling is not heating, you dimwit.”
            I never said it was! You should pay attention, rather than repeating the same irrelevant strawmen.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tim, please stop trolling.

          • Nate says:

            So Tim is called a ‘dimwit’ three times and ‘idiot’ twice and his posts misrepresented.

            But Tim is the one called out for trolling.

            All can see that our ‘troll police’ have no integrity.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            Tim, please stop trolling.

  37. Eben says:

    Speaking of Sun, here is the latest comparison chart

    https://i.postimg.cc/YCCxkxDj/comp11.jpg

  38. gbaikie says:

    Japanese billionaire selects crew for circumlunar Starship flight

    “WASHINGTON A Japanese billionaire has selected an eclectic group of people who will accompany him on a SpaceX Starship flight around the moon, although it remains uncertain when that mission will take place.

    In a Dec. 8 video, Yusaku Maezawa revealed the eight people he selected, along with two alternates, for his dearMoon circumlunar flight. The announcement was the culmination of a competition he started more than a year and a half ago.”
    https://spacenews.com/japanese-billionaire-selects-crew-for-circumlunar-starship-flight/

    “The selection process had been shrouded in mystery since a March 2021 deadline for submissions. In a release, the project said it received more than one million applications from 249 countries and regions around the world. (There are 193 nations who are members of the United Nations.)”

    I didn’t apply, but more than 1 million did. I wonder what portion of the million were actually serious. I would rather have someone else do it, but could be something someone should do, if someone was younger and wanted to do it.
    And probably a lot people decided to do things with far more risk and far less potential reward. And you going to need to get training and you don’t have much of idea when and if it’s going actually happen.

    Of course, that is question, when is going to happen.
    Once the Starship does a successful test launch, could get some better idea of when.
    Considering SLS has almost finished it’s test flight and seems it could launch crew in two years, if had chance to go, would you?
    {You don’t have chance to go, but if did}
    And will Starship launch these 9 within 2 years [or before SLS]?

  39. Gordon Robertson says:

    phi…”The misunderstanding of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect clearly finds its origin in the incredible pseudo-physics invented by Manabe in his 1967 article. A situation which worsened further around 1980 with the invention of the stupid notion of radiative forcing”.

    ***

    Good points. G&T covered that in their paper on the GHE. The radiative forcing nonsense began with the advent of desktop computers where basic models could be run by every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Radiative forcing does not exist in a real atmosphere.

  40. gbaikie says:

    Russia is weak, and Putin is puppet.
    Discuss.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gb…I see you’ve been indulging in western propaganda. According to them, Putin has been losing the Ukrainian war for 8 months or more.

      He threatened the other day to send back 100 missiles for every one fired at Russia. We’ll see how weak he is. Or how stupid the West is for pushing him to that extent.

      • gbaikie says:

        “gbI see youve been indulging in western propaganda.”

        I spend some time with:
        https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC3ehuUksTyQ7bbjGntmx3Q

        And this samples a lot russian progaganda, clips
        {far too many as far I am concern}:
        https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=speak+the+truth

        Far more indulgence with those two, than all the rest.
        The first does one every week, and second in theory is daily but it’s not- roughly, a few a week.
        Since the Aussie, Perun talks for hours, mostly Perun.
        And since, winter & war in Ukraine was 6 days ago, another one should be coming up, soon.
        But obviously Russia appears weaker than many assumed it was and I would guess most people don’t imagine Putin is a puppet.
        But to me, Putin appears too similar to our dear leader, Biden.

        One advantage of Biden, is I can’t be disappointed in his actions.
        Probably many Russians are disappointed in their brave leader.
        With Russian talking heads, their reality is they doing brutal war against Russians, but sometimes they say they fighting the Nazis, and sometimes the whole world is Nazis, and whole world against them.
        But sometimes a lone wolf, will mention bombing civilians isn’t a really good idea- mainly, cause it doesn’t win wars. But none them mention that they bombing what they regard as Russia.
        It seems as weak as your typical MSNBC show. Or something like The View [which I will not watch}.
        In terms of Putin the puppet, he doesn’t seem to want to be seen as being in charge, and he doesn’t seem understand what going on.
        Both Putin and Biden seem more like hostages, than leaders.

      • barry says:

        Disappointed with sleepy Joe? Who has already signed 3 times more more legislative bills in his 2 years than Trump did in his 4? Who brought sanity back to US government?

        And the major bills he has signed have been arguably good for the country, including reducing the sudden rise in poverty begun in 2020, and increasing jobs.

        • gbaikie says:

          Trump worked on Middle East peace plan. Biden is supporting Iran getting more nuclear weapons.

          I am not disappointed with sleepy Joe. In some ways, he is better than Obama.
          I thought Trump would only get 1 term. I am not Rep, but a fair number of Reps were terrified Trump would get a second term.
          But these Reps are clueless of lefties- they feared dems would work with the president [who was a New York Dem}.
          But Lefties eat their own.

  41. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Due to strong highs in the Arctic, the extent of sea ice will increase rapidly.
    https://i.ibb.co/b6Gn117/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-10-125937.png

  42. CO2isLife says:

    There are literally hundreds of locations that show no warming. Do the laws of physics cease to exist at these locations? Until you can explain why CO2 didnt warm these locations you cant blame CO2 for warming other locations. At least that is how it works in real science.
    https://imgur.com/a/IrE63Xo

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      No. Weather and climate show variations. Some days and weeks and years some places get warmer and some get cooler. The laws of physics are perfectly in line with these sorts of variations.

      The expected effects of CO2 would not be for every location to show exactly the same warming, but for locations to show some warming superimposed on the chaotic background. A place that might have cooled by 1 C without increased CO2 might only cool by 0.5 C. A place that might have warmed by 1 C without increased CO2 might warm by 1.5 C.

      There SHOULD literally be 100’s of locations that show no warming (or even cooling). There should just be even more that show warming, with a net increase in temperature overall.

      • Clint R says:

        REAL science destroys the GHE nonsense. The nonsense is kept alive through endless efforts by the cult to pervert reality. That’s where we get such nonsense as ice cubes can boil water.

      • RLH says:

        “There should just be even more that show warming, with a net increase in temperature overall”

        There should also be areas that show UHI since 1870 given that the physical infrastructure has increased significantly in that time.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Also true.

          • Bindidon says:

            Yes, Tim, but the so-called ‘skeptics’ deliberately ignore that many places on Earth have temperatures well below the norm around them.

            All of this is of course ‘natural’.

            But if they thought the other way around, rest assured they would soon invent an RCI (‘rural cool island’) to support their narrative.

            That’s what they are, the ‘skeptics’.

          • RLH says:

            But how much of the measured increase in temperatures are due to that UHI?

        • gbaikie says:

          More than 90% of global warming is warming our average ocean temperature of 3.5 C.

          So, one could say 90% of measurement of global warming is measuring
          the average temperature of the ocean. And the guess is the ocean has warmed recently by about .1 C.
          And the ocean is suppose to measured with very very accurate thermometers.

          • Bindidon says:

            ” And the guess is the ocean has warmed recently by about .1 C. ”

            Keep guessing strong, gbaikie. It helps!

          • gbaikie says:

            Solar wind
            speed: 492.4 km/sec
            density: 8.92 protons/cm3
            Daily Sun: 10 Dec 22
            Sunspot number: 116
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 149 sfu
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 15.29×10^10 W Neutral
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: +1.8% Elevated
            48-hr change: -0.6%

            –THIS EXPLOSION DEFINITELY WON’T: The sun just shot an interestingly narrow stream of plasma into space. SOHO coronagraphs watched it jet away from the southwestern limb of the sun on Dec. 9th
            This was no ordinary CME. The jet was less than 50 thousand km wide at its base, but it stretched more than 15 million km into space. Coherent blob-like structures can be seen traveling down the stream as the eruption progresses.

            The underlying physics of this event is a bit of a mystery. It might be a strangely skinny helmet streamer. Helmet streamers are magnetic arches rooted in the sun, which are sculpted and stretched by the solar wind. They’re normally 10 to 100 times wider than this one, though.

            One thing is certain: It won’t hit Earth. Maybe next time. —
            https://www.spaceweather.com/

            It seems it will keep moderately active and seems like in short term
            will more rather less.
            I guessed the Neutron Counts would get down +0 but it hasn’t.

      • Swenson says:

        Dim Tim,

        It’s a pity that you cannot even describe this silly supposed GHE, isn’t it?

        You yammer on about “The expected effects of CO2 . . .”, but of course you can’t actually measure these “expected effects”, can you?

        Without some reproducible experimental support, you are just another SkyDragon fantasist. When faced with the fact that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, all you can do is start shouting that your mythical GHE doesn’t actually stop the Earth from cooling, but slows the rate at which this happens.

        Cooling is cooling, Tim, whether you like it or not. Temperature falls. If temperatures rise, it is called heating, and even you admit that the Earth has cooled from its creation to now.

        Whether the Earth is hotter or colder than someone thinks it “should be” is irrelevant. You “should be” capable of accepting reality, but you aren’t. That’s the nature of delusionalSkyDragon cultists – deny reality, and substitute bizarre religious fantasies.

        Keep praying – maybe a miracle will occur, and four and a half billion years or so of physical laws will be tipped on their head, the oceans will boil, and we will all be really, really, sorry that we laughed at the silly SkyDragon cultists. Only joking – that’s sarcasm.

        Carry on shouting.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim…”There SHOULD literally be 100s of locations that show no warming (or even cooling)”.

        ***

        There are, most of the planet shows no warming.

        See white areas…

        https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/november2022/202211_Map.png

        • barry says:

          Yes, for the month of November 2022 some places were cooler than the 1991-2020 average, and some places were warmer. And the average for the whole globe for November 2022? Warmer. As Tim said.

          Now, has the globe unequivocally warmed since 1991?

          Yes, yes it has, even using the preferred data index of ‘skeptics’, good old UAH v6 LT.

          0.14 C/decade (+/- 0.08)

          It appears ‘skeptics’ will never learn the difference between weather and climate, and statistical averages.

    • gbaikie says:

      Global warming is only about a more uniform global temperature and an increase in global water vapor.

      We are cold and dry, and have more 1/3 total land area being deserts.
      Deserts have wide swings in daily temperature and seasonal temperature, and they are hot and also very cold.
      The tropics [excluding the deserts] has uniformity in temperature, but even deserts in tropics do not get as cold nor as hot as other deserts.
      The tropics gets the most intense sunlight and the most sunlight, and have most amount of greenhouse gases.
      The tropics aren’t effected much in terms of global warming or cooling- other than their deserts become wetter or drier. And when they become wetter and aren’t deserts, they have higher average temperature, but they don’t get as hot [compared to when they were deserts].

      • gbaikie says:

        Wiki give the amount of sunlight at noon and sun at zenith and on a clear day. This only happens in the tropics. As only in the tropics is the sun ever at zenith.
        That amount of sunlight is about 1050 watts of direct sunlight plus
        70 watts of indirect sunlight, giving a total amount sunlight of 1120 watts per square meters.
        No where else in the world can get as much sunlight, unless it’s higher than sea level.
        [oh yeah, forgot, the above 1120 watts of both direct and indirect sunlight is when at sea level elevation].

    • Bindidon says:

      ” At least that is how it works in real science. ”

      In real science ???

      I would rather say ‘… how it works in CO2IsLife’s childish pseudoscience.

      *
      S/he has been explained so many times how wrong it is to presuppose that CO2’s effect has to be identical at any place on Earth – independently of any other factor locally superseding CO2’s effect.

      Especially at all very cold places on Earth (Antarctica, North Siberia etc) it can be shown that its effect is inverted.

      *
      It is incredibly dumb to think so trivial as does CO2IsLife, but it seems that s/he can so pretty good live with such nonsense that s/he endlessly replicates it everywhere.

      The very best in the story is that CO2’s effect is equal to zero dot zero in all places where H2O’s effect prevails: for example, in the Tropics, where its atmospheric abundance can reach up to 4 %, i.e. 100 % more than CO2’s.

      Two French researchers – Jean-Louis Dufresne and Jacques Treiner – have shown in 2011 how CO2 works:

      https://tinyurl.com/yp7efy89

      Of course

      – it is about 100,000 times more complex than CO2IsLife’s elementary school level

      – no ‘skeptic’ will ever be willing let alone able to read its French translation.

      *
      ‘Skeptics’ love it simple. Anything complex is for them wrong by definition.

      • Clint R says:

        Gosh Bindidon, all that blah-blah and you still end up with NOTHING.

        No wonder Eben has so much fun ridiculing you.

        • Bindidon says:

          The babbling Edog aka Eben has exactly the same difficulties to ridicule me with real facts as you have, Clint R.

          You are only able to come up with your eternal ‘… and you still end up with NOTHING’.

          That’s all you can write, regardless what it’s about: GHE, lunar spin, etc etc.

  43. When it is acknowledged Earth’s atmosphere is very thin – it will become obvious, Earth doesn’t have any greenhouse warming effect.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      christos…as someone said, ‘we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do’.

    • Norman says:

      Christos Vournas

      Your claim “Earths atmosphere is very thin” is based upon what? It is thick enough to support heavy passenger jets in flight? If you compare it to Jupiter it is very thin but what an unscientific statement. It means nothing in an analytical sense and you use your incorrect assumption to form an even more incorrect conclusion.

      Here is real data.

      https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6395fb0472960.png

      This is actual measured Downwelling IR from the “thin” atmosphere. It will be absorbed by the surface and lower the total amount of heat lost by the surface via radiant heat transfer. I think you need to get out of your incorrect nonscientific opinionated thinking and look at the real evidence. Please at least try. We already have enough opinionated unscientific posters on this blog who reject evidence and give their endless opinions on things. You can be scientific and go with evidence or you can be like the other so called skeptics who just make things up like one who thinks the GHE would mean “ice cubes can boil water” Some individual posters on this blog are true idiots that cannot reason or logically think. Will you drift to that level of stupidity? I hope not!

      • Clint R says:

        Norman, a couple of corrections:

        1) Earth’s atmosphere cannot “support heavy passenger jets in flight”. The jets would need “lift” and “propulsion” to counter gravity and drag.

        2) Downwelling IR does NOT mean it will be “absorbed by the surface”.

        But your link is a good example of “It’s the Sun, stupid”. Notice the difference between daytime and nighttime.

        And if you want to “get out of your incorrect nonscientific opinionated thinking”, you should admit:

        * Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface will NOT result in the surface emitting 630 W/m^2

        * Earth does NOT have a “real 255K surface”

        Admitting just those two things will start you on the road to reality. Then we can work on the fact that you don’t have a viable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.

        • Norman says:

          Clint R

          The lift of a jet comes from a reduction of pressure over the top of the wing and the atmosphere below holds it up as it moves through the air so the lift is caused by the “thin” atmosphere. Without an atmosphere the plane would not have lift.

          https://web.mit.edu/16.00/www/aec/flight.html

          2) “Downwelling IR does NOT mean it will be absorbed by the surface.”

          The point is it WILL be absorbed by the surface, almost all of it since the surface has a high emissivity for IR bands. You can state your opinions forever, but it will not make then true.

          And yes a blackbody receiving two fluxes of 315 W/m^2 at its surface will raise to a temperature where it will emit 630 W/m^2 to equal the incoming energy. Your opinion is noted. It is wrong. You have had many posts showing you are wrong but you are not able to understand the logic and reason behind the posts.

          So you may become scientifically minded if you accept you are wrong and opinionated and the evidence DOES not support you false opinions. Your opinions are not science. They are false fabrications of your ignorance of real science.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, you got 1) about half right. It takes both “lift” and “propulsion”.

            But you’re still confused about 2). A cold sky can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer surface. And two fluxes do not simply add.

            You got one thing exactly correct, however — Opinions ain’t science.

            So, I hope you can support your opinion with a valid technical reference that a surface receiving two fluxes of 315 W/m^2 will raise to a temperature where it will emit 630 W/m^2. As we both agree, opinions ain’t science.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            The forward propulsion of a jet engine will not keep the jet in the air if it is flying horizontally. It will still accelerate to the Earth. The propulsion forces the air over the wing which creates the low pressure. It has to be moving fast enough to create a low enough pressure for the lift. Not sure what your point is with that one. No atmosphere no jet flight.

            2)The important point is you are not addressing my point. You are diverting to another. Your firs false and unscientific claim was that DWIR will not be absorbed by the Earth surface. This is not correct. Then you diverted and state a cold sky cannot raise the temperature of a warmer surface. That is correct to a point. The DWIR and the solar input will result in a higher surface temperature because the DWIR reduces the heat loss by radiation of the surface. The Radiant heat loss is what it emits minus what it receives from the air so the loss is reduced leading to a warmer solar heated surface.

            On the fluxes adding do your own experiment with heat lamps. It will demonstrate to you very clearly that two fluxes do simply add. Turn one on at an object and log the temperature. Turn on the other and observe the temperature goes up. You have clear evidence two fluxes simply add at a surface. You are entitled to your opinions. They are wrong and unscientific.

            You can do your own experiment on the two fluxes of 315 adding to produce a temperature that emits around 630 W/m^2. Get two strong heat lamps. Measure the flux one produces at the surface and turn on the second lamp. Get them set up so the surface receives 315 W/m^2 from each lamp and then see what happens. Science will prove you wrong. You will never do such an experiment and if I took the time and effort for you, you would still deny the results. E. Swanson already did a similar experiment for you on another thread and it fell on deaf ears. Do it yourself and be amazed at how bad your opinions are. Let real science do the talking. You might actually like science if you learned what it is. It is not coming on blogs, insulting and denigrating posters who make scientific claims then offering your endless wrong opinions over and over.

            Now is the time for you to do science. Get your heat lamps and thermometers and go to town. If you want try to prove you are right, that would be interesting. You can turn on two heat lamps on a source and it does not warm up after you turn on the second one because your false claim that fluxes do not add at a surface will be shown correct if the object does not increase in temperature.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, you look like an idiot after all that blah-blah, yet NO science.

            Opinions ain’t science.

            No valid technical reference for your nonsense means you got NOTHING.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            You offer your opinion ” you look like an idiot after all that blah-blah, yet NO science.”

            Yet what did I state that was an unscientific opinion. You will offer them all day. What was mine that you consider to be idiotic?

            What you consider opinionated blah-blah is me suggesting you do an experiment with heat lamps. I think maybe you have severe ADD you can’t follow a post more a few words.

            So will you do some experiments on your own or not. You are wrong on many points.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, you still look like an idiot, all blah-blah but NO science.

            Opinions ain’t science.

            No valid technical reference for your nonsense means you got NOTHING.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            Your response to my rational post was expected. When you are not able to intelligently respond to a poster you rely on repeating your previous post. Does doing that make you feel intelligent or special in some way?

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, an “intelligent response” would be you providing the valid technical reference for your nonsense. You know, the reference you claimed you always provided….

            With no valid reference for your nonsense, you’ve got NOTHING.

          • Nate says:

            “providing the valid technical reference for your nonsense”

            Yeah like Clint does……never ever.

      • Norman:

        “Here is real data.

        https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6395fb0472960.png

        This is actual measured Downwelling IR from the thin atmosphere. ”

        From the graph in the link a read there is measured about 300 W/m2 IR downward radiation at night.

        Also the 255K refers to the 240 W/m2 outgoing IR radiation to outer space. And at night too.-
        Thus we shall have at night from atmosphere:
        300 + 240 = 540 W/m2

        It is impossible!

        Our atmosphere is invisible, but we cannot do without it.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

        • Nate says:

          “lso the 255K refers to the 240 W/m2 outgoing IR radiation to outer space. And at night too.-
          Thus we shall have at night from atmosphere:
          300 + 240 = 540 W/m2”

          Why are you adding these numbers?
          One is up to space, and the other is down to the surface.

          They are observed, so clearly must be possible.

          And Modtran shows that they make sense.

          http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot

  44. Eben says:

    How do you like them short mild snowless winterz predicted by global warmistas ???

    https://climateimpactcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/06dec22_snow1.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Heck, I was looking forward to a mid-winter cruise through the Arctic Ocean. Maybe lying on the beach near the mouth of the Mackenzie River, sunbathing in January.

      I was wondering how that would be possible with no Sun shining, but hey, that’s a minor problem for climate alarmists.

  45. Willard says:

    Grand Solar Minimum Update

    > Regions around the world are experiencing multiple increasing climate extremes and impacts. The maps show regions where recent decades have seen increases in extreme heat, heavy rainfall, agricultural drought, and the length of the fire weather season, as well as changes in river flows, and glacier mass. Regions with decreasing extremes are also shown. Confidence in attribution of trends to human-caused climate change varies between impacts and regions, and information is not available for all impacts. There are numerous other impacts related to human-induced climate change, such as coastal flooding and risks to biodiversity leading to widespread decline in ecosystems, that are also of concern but not shown here.

    Source: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-impacts/global-impacts-of-climate-change—observed-trends

    Eboy might particularly like:

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/metofficegovuk/images/research/climate/climate-impacts/climate-impact-trend-maps/climate_maps_web_artboard-16.png

    • Swenson says:

      SkyDragon fantasy – 2000

      “According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

      Reality today (Daily Mail) –

      “Snow STOPS flights: Planes are grounded as runways close at Manchester airport as temperatures plunge to MINUS 10C today and RAC warns don’t drive to watch England match – with snow on way for London tomorrow.”

      The current Met Office SkyDragon fantasy has all bases covered – increasing extremes, and decreasing extremes. Heavy rainfall, drought, and the length of the fire weather season! Coastal flooding, widespread decline in ecosystems (whatever that word salad is supposed to mean).

      Reasons? None given – the numbskulls believe that people will just mindlessly accept whatever drivel is dished out by the Met Office! Luckily, there are many mindless SkyDragons like Witless Wee Willy, who believe any nonsense at all.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      The Met Office is right up their with the best of climate cheaters. Think Climategate email scandal.

      Funny how Willard descends to the depths of scumbbag science.

      • Willard says:

        Come on, Gordo.

        East Anglia. MET Office. Two different entities.

        Get your fabrications straight.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Rubbish…get your facts straight.

          • Willard says:

            Come on, Gordo:

            East Anglia:

            https://www.uea.ac.uk/climate/past-future

            MET Office:

            https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/

            You are a cranky uncle.

          • Swenson says:

            Wiggling Wee Willy,

            A bumbling gaggle of SkyDragons by any other name would still smell.

            Which organisation of the two is the most useless?

            I will uncritically accept your decision, even if you decide it is impossible to differentiate the degree of uselessness shared by both.

            Carry on.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            What ar enough braying about, Sky Dragon crank?

          • Swenson says:

            Wiggling Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “What ar enough braying about, Sky Dragon crank?”

            That sounds like the braying of a SkyDragon cultist donkey – cannot spell, cannot even be bothered to read the nonsense you are posting!

            In case you are only trying to play dumb, rather than actually being dumb, here you go –

            A bumbling gaggle of SkyDragons by any other name would still smell.

            Which organisation of the two is the most useless?

            I will uncritically accept your decision, even if you decide it is impossible to differentiate the degree of uselessness shared by both.

            Carry on.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            What are you braying about?

          • Swenson says:

            Wiggling Wee Willy,

            You wrote

            What ar enough braying about, Sky Dragon crank?

            That sounds like the braying of a SkyDragon cultist donkey cannot spell, cannot even be bothered to read the nonsense you are posting!

            In case you are only trying to play dumb, rather than actually being dumb, here you go

            A bumbling gaggle of SkyDragons by any other name would still smell.

            Which organisation of the two is the most useless?

            I will uncritically accept your decision, even if you decide it is impossible to differentiate the degree of uselessness shared by both.

            Carry on.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            What are you braying about?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  46. Bindidon says:

    Rutgers’ Snow Lab, Northern Hemisphere

    https://tinyurl.com/497fdsd9

    The snow excess in this season wrt the mean of 1981/82-2010/11 you can see on the green line.

    The excess was very early this year, as it began in week 38, i.e. in September.

    No anomalies needed here, the absolute data speaks for itself.

    I hope that the excess will keep alive till Xmas for the kids!

  47. gbaikie says:

    A New Way to Produce Primordial Black Holes in the Early Universe
    “Primordial black holes remain an intriguing option to potentially explain dark matter. A new study has found a plausible scenario for creating them in the early universe.

    Astronomers do not understand roughly 80% of the mass of every galaxy. The unknown portion is known as dark matter, and astronomers typically assume that its a form of matter that does not interact with light. One option for the dark matter is for it to be made of black holes, which as their name suggests do not emit radiation. However, these black holes cannot be made through the deaths of stars. First, there havent been enough generations of stars in the age of the universe to produce enough black holes. And second, even if the universe was older, there simply isnt enough raw material to make enough stars in the first place. So this kind of black hole formation cant explain all of the dark matter.”
    https://www.universetoday.com/158890/a-new-way-to-produce-primordial-black-holes-in-the-early-universe/#more-158890
    “Instead if we want to make the dark matter be made out of black holes, those black holes have to be primordial. That means they are not made from the deaths of massive stars, but instead through some exotic process in the early universe.”

    It seems if “Astronomers do not understand roughly 80% of the mass of every galaxy”
    It’s probably not one thing.
    Or it seems to me that the odds are against it.

    And it seems to me, one can roughly say nothing disappears from this Universe.
    Or given enough time, “maybe” a significant amount could disappear, but I mean, we have not had enough time, therefore can posit nothing much has disappeared from this universe.
    Though I would not say nothing much has been added to this Universe- as I think there no reason or evidence for saying this.
    So, when matter and anti-matter combine it doesn’t disappear from this universe.
    And mass we detect is what it began with [unless there some addition, later- which I am not going to rule out].

    Anyhow, maybe problem is we have not used enough anti-matter, perhaps we can do that after we become a spacefaring civilization.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gb…”The unknown portion is known as dark matter, and astronomers typically assume that its a form of matter that does not interact with light”.

      ***

      There’s another possibility, astronomers are incapable of thinking at that level. For the average astronomer, if something does not emit light, it is a black hole. They seem to have extended that hypothesis to other area that don’t qualify as a black hole.

      According to blackbody theory, any matter should emit infrared energy, at least. That leaves us with some interesting speculation. Either BB theory is wrong, dark matter theory is wrong, or the scientists are wrong, or all three are wrong. That means we’re back to “we don’t know”, a situation I prefer.

      • gbaikie says:

        “….That means were back to we dont know, a situation I prefer.”

        In our solar system, the sun and far more mass than all known planet, but we don’t know all significant planet like masses in our solar system.
        But will assume all the shining stars have most of mass.
        And since don’t know all planet size masses in solar system we don’t know planet size beyond solar solar. And there is a lot space between the stars.
        And it’s considered that Sol system ejected a lot of planet size object out of solar system and so possible that other star systems ejected a lot planets, maybe more than Sol system. And our sun is not the old, and so there has more time to eject planet size stuff away things which shine- and these are dark because we lack big enough telescopes and lack the time of using telescopes which exist to see them. So not seeing them, not because they don’t shine, but don’t shine enough, or no one has looked.

  48. Gordon Robertson says:

    maguff…”Funny story about Vincent Gray. Also not true!

    The IPCC report defines the terms Climate Prediction and Climate Projection”.

    ***

    Maguff, the simpleton, cannot research properly.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20081014204946/https://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gray2.ipcc%20spin.pdf

    Page 4 of 6…

    “As before, you search very hard to find anything at all that is below Likely; and as before, the
    probability figures are pure guesswork and have no relationship to mathematical statistics.
    These procedures are merely an orchestrated litany of guesswork.

    From the 1995 Report on, the IPCC always makes “projections, never “predictions”. They thus admit
    that their models are not suitable for “prediction” at all.
    Also as everything is “evaluated” but not “validated”. There can never be never preferred models or
    scenarios, as they have no way of choosing between them”.

    • Willard says:

      Come on, Gordo.

      Vincent is pulling your leg. The IPCC is not in the business of telling you how many kids humans will produce. Think.

      Besides:

      Vincent Courtillot ainsi que deux autres membres de l’IPGP, Claude Jaupart et Paul Tapponnier, sont accuss de manque d’thique scientifique pour avoir supervis, en tant qu’diteurs, la publication de dizaines de travaux issus de leur propre institut dans la revue scientifique Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL), affaire rvle en 2008 par les journaux Le Monde[19],[20] et Libration[21][source insuffisante]. Cette situation de conflit d’intrts aurait d, selon Friso Veenstra, directeur de publication au journal, les faire renoncer assurer la supervision de ces soumissions. tant donn l’intensit des controverses autour de la question climatique et la position sceptique de Vincent Courtillot ainsi que l’implication de Claude Allgre, qui se trouve tre parmi les auteurs des publications vises, cette affaire a eu un retentissement dpassant le cadre de la communaut des gophysiciens et a t reprise dans de grandes revues scientifiques[22]

      https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Courtillot

      He is a political shill who blockaded scientific progress for decades.

      • Swenson says:

        Whacky Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “Vincent is pulling your leg.”

        Which Vincent are you burbling about?

        Vincent Grey? Vincent Courtillot? Vincent Van Gogh?

        You seem confused. Or is this another cunning SkyDragon ploy to demonstrate stupidity through obscurity? If so, you are achieving your aim.

        Maybe you are just redefining “Vincent” in the usual SkyDragon fashion to mean anyone or anything that suits your purpose. Something like defining “slowly cooling” to mean “increasing temperature”?

        If anybody points out that you are looking like a fool, you could just call them a liar and a cheat!

        You don’t need to thank me.

        • Willard says:

          Mike Flynn,

          What are you braying about?

          • Swenson says:

            Whacky Wee Willy,

            You wrote

            Vincent is pulling your leg.

            Which Vincent are you burbling about?

            Vincent Grey? Vincent Courtillot? Vincent Van Gogh?

            You seem confused. Or is this another cunning SkyDragon ploy to demonstrate stupidity through obscurity? If so, you are achieving your aim.

            Maybe you are just redefining Vincent in the usual SkyDragon fashion to mean anyone or anything that suits your purpose. Something like defining slowly cooling to mean increasing temperature?

            If anybody points out that you are looking like a fool, you could just call them a liar and a cheat!

            You dont need to thank me.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            What are you graying about?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Who the heck is Vincent Courtillot? Courtillot is not French for Gray.

        Willard is slowly but surely losing it. That’s what you get Willard, as a Sky Dragon, when you try to deal with people like the skeptics here who understand science.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      Gordon Robertson,

      You gullible lackey. Review Comments for the IPCC reports are easily discoverable. Show me where Vincent Gray’s comments were ever accepted by the IPCC as constructive. His comments were generally rejected as mere opinions.

      Your link is to a self-referencing article by Vincent Gray which only proves that he is (was died in 2018) another denialist blowhard.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        maguff…denial sure hits you hard. You insult someone who is deceased who loyally served the IPCC since its inception as an expert reviewer. He talks about that briefly at the end of link 2 video. He reveals the scams as an expert reviewer.

        From one of your favourite sites…

        https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/vincent-gray

        https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/06/19/rip-skeptical-scientist-dr-vincent-gray-ipcc-expert-reviewer-dies-at-96/

        A good talk by Vincent in which he reveals the scams of climate change and the IPCC. Hard to watch because the volume is so low and ther are people trying to fix the Powepoint system. Worth it, however, to those who appreciated the brilliance of Vincent Gray.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        Gordon Robertson,

        You useful idiot.

        Since you will not research for yourself the easily discoverable IPCC Review Comments, I give you this reply to one of Gray’s comments about AR5:

        Rejected – Broad opinion statement has nothing to do with Chapter 1. The evidence he “wants” is found both in past IPCC assessments and in later chapters of this one.

        The rest of his comments received similar replies.

        As Isaac Newton said: science advances one funeral at a time.

        Q.E.D.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Tyson, please stop trolling.

  49. Swenson says:

    Earlier, I asked Tyson McGuffin if he had an explanation for the GHE apparently being responsible for the Earth having cooled for four and a half billion years or so, rather than getting hotter over that period.

    After a bit of toing-and-froing, taking refuge in semantics, and generally avoiding facing reality, TM unleashed a devastating bit of SkyDragon repartee, as follows –

    “Swenson at 12:00 AM

    “Why did you cherry-pick?”

    Rhetorical question.

    I know why. Its because youre a liar and a cheat.”

    Well, that’s certainly sorted that out! Dont worry about facts or reality, just bury your head in the sand, and call anybody who challenges your cultist SkyDragon beliefs a liar and a cheat! Explanations or justifications? Who needs ’em?

    If I refer to the SkyDragon Michael Mann as a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, it’s because the facts show that he is . . . a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat.

    If you think that falsely claiming to be a Nobel Prize winner also makes him a liar and cheat, rather than suffering from delusional psychosis, you are free to do so.

    Still no GHE, and climate remains the average of historical weather observations, with precisely no power to affect anything at all.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      “…TM unleashed a devastating bit of SkyDragon repartee…”

      dev-as-tat-ing

      a) highly destructive or damaging.

      b) causing severe shock, distress, or grief.

      c) extremely impressive or effective.

      Which are you bleating about? Toughen up buttercup.

      • Swenson says:

        TM,

        “sarcasm
        /ˈsɑːkaz(ə)m/

        noun: sarcasm; plural noun: sarcasms
        the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.”

        Your ability to do anything

        a) highly destructive or damaging.

        b) causing severe shock, distress, or grief.

        c) extremely impressive or effective.

        with regard to me, is nil.

        Carry on dreaming, while you try to find something (anything) to contradict “Still no GHE, and climate remains the average of historical weather observations, with precisely no power to affect anything at all.”

        Or just keep trying to play silly semantic games.

        [laughs at wriggling Warmist worm]

  50. Gordon Robertson says:

    angech…”The major contributors to the ice sheet mass loss are global temperature variation and the warmth of the currents reaching the Arctic each year which vary”.

    ***

    There are other issues, like the currents in the Arctic Ocean that dump Arctic ice into the North Atlantic. It’s important to understand that Arctic sea ice is not a huge mass of ice. It is, in fact, many chunks of ice that can be relocated by wind and ocean currents.

    Roy also mentioned relatively warmer water variations in the North Atlantic. It would seem then that variations in temperature of the North Atlantic and North Pacific could be factors in reducing sea ice extent.

    https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/oct/HQ_07216_Sea_Ice.html

    “Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters”.

    It’s important to understand that the Arctic Ocean is not an ice sheet. It is, in fact, a collection of ice floes of variable sizes, and not an ice sheet, as in the Antarctic. As such. the ice can be compressed, and as the article claims, dumped into the North Atlantic.

    Something of interest…

    https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physicist-falsifies-gh-gas-theory.186598/

    Read about ‘ridge’ formations here…how much of the ice seen by satellites is hidden in vertical ridges?

    https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic-zone/essay_wadhams.html

    The following is a condensed version of another article. The climate alarmists are always rooting out scientific articles that don’t relate well to climate change bs and rep[lacing them with watered down versions.

    tinyurl.com/2zjdmhjw

    I’ll post the original link if I find it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      The most important factor might be the compressability of sea ice. Henry Larsen, who was captain of the St. Roch, an RCMP cutter that was first to sail both ways across the Arctic, in the 1940s. On the eastward journey it sailed from Vancouver to Halifax but it took two years. Larsen explained that the sea ice moved and hemmed them in on the northern shore of Canada.

      On the return trip, east to west, they sailed through in 87 days. Larsen explained that the sea ice always moves and is unpredictable. When it moves, it compresses into a smaller area. Satellite images would not show the extent of compression. Nor would they show the ice hidden in the vertical pressure ridges.

      • Nate says:

        All true, except “Satellite images would not show the extent of compression.” Not sure where you get that idea…

        The satellites measure areal density of the ice, so when it is compressed, they detect that as increased areal density.

        • Swenson says:

          Nate,

          You wrote –

          “The satellites measure areal density of the ice, so when it is compressed, they detect that as increased areal density.”

          Do you make this stuff up yourself, or are you a tad dyslexic, and unable to properly transcribe what you read?

          The devil is in the detail as usual. As NASA points out “New state-of-the-art snow accumulation models have been developed to provide this extra data in preparation for the launch of ICESat-2.”

          Models and estimates, guesses and assumptions, are still necessary. Even NASA refers to “new” models, presumably because the “old” models were unfit for purpose. Unfortunately, NASA doesn’t spend a lot of time telling people how inaccurate the “old” models were, nor how inaccurate the “new” models are. I suppose we have to wait for the “new” models to become “old”!

          In any case, measuring ice extent is about as useful as measuring temperatures. It predicts nothing, as the SkyDragon cultists’ “Ship of Fools” demonstrated. Wishful thinking does not overcome fact.

          Carry on with areal density assertions. Good for a laugh, if nothing else.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          nate…areal density is the mass per unit volume. Never heard of an instrument flying in a satellite that can measure mass per unit volume.

  51. Entropic man says:

    Perhaps you should research the matter of Arctic sea ice thickness and volume before going off half cocked as usual.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JC008141

    http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

    • Bindidon says:

      Adding a source never hurt

      https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/images/FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20221210.png

      Up until a few years ago, DMI also provided a data text file for thickness, but I can’t find it anymore.

      A comparison to PIOMAS

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/18wtrwRFIVe3JvkCxyGmJCJp5DYPPtAL3/view

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ent…”Perhaps you should research the matter of Arctic sea ice thickness and volume before going off half cocked as usual”.

      ***

      I’m surprised that you can read such a paper with your thick Irish mind.

      From paper 1…

      “Recent observations of large losses of Arctic sea ice are considered a key indicator of changes presently occurring in the climate…”

      The authors don’t explain the mechanism of so-called disappearing sea ice. During the winter, there is no solar input for months and little or none for a good portion of the rest of the fall/winter/spring. Even in summer, when all the ice is claimed to melt, temperatures seldom get much above 0C. Yet, these rocket scientists believe a trace gas can warm the Arctic.

      Here we have a couple of yahoos, using an unvalidated climate model and data from satellites, admitting there is very little change in sea ice thickness year to year, yet claiming on the other hand that the sea ice is disappearing.

      Only twits could reach such conclusions.

      I have offered good information on the local conditions in the Arctic that offer perfectly good natural reasons why sea ice extent varies year to year.

      From link 2….

      “Sea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System …”

      Enough said. I am tired of inferences based on unvalidated climate models.

  52. angech says:

    Gordon you seem to be trying to say, again, that you cannot estimate sea ice extent by satellite imagery

    This is simply wrong and you know it.
    You have satellites, they can measure and detect sea ice extent.
    Get over it.
    Stop trying to use it as an excuse for not using a valid measuring system that you are not happy with because warmists are.

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts on causes of SMB gain or loss though you interpose sea ice loss on the mix.

    Wind is an important vector for sublimation which the Great Danes and Bindidon completely neglect to mention, raising issues as to their scientific rectitude and knowledge
    Currents in and out of the Arctic are important.
    Rainfall in Summer might have an effect on increased melt as would cloud cover..

    Compression and ridging of ice is nothing new and not a concern..
    Yes it has an effect on estimates of area and can change quickly but in winter ice extent increases and in summer it reduces despite the temporary effects of ridging or compression.
    The volume may be different but that is a different measurement technique.
    The surface area and extent can be estimated and stated.
    Ice is not invisible.

    Any ice that gets too far away from the Arctic will melt quickly unless a large iceberg.
    It does not matter really whether it is thin or compressed, just where it travels to.
    The Arctic Ocean is not an ice sheet?
    I guess any ocean is an ocean.
    The Antarctic is an ice sheet.
    No, it is mostly covered with an ice sheet but it is either a very large island or a very small continent.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      angech…”Gordon you seem to be trying to say, again, that you cannot estimate sea ice extent by satellite imagery…”

      ***

      I am not claiming the sea ice extent cannot be estimated by satellites I am merely pointing out other factors involved that make an accurate estimation unlikely. Those who estimate sea ice extent don’t seem satisfied to report what the satellites see and leave it at that, they tend to suggest it is related to global warming.

      I have seen sat photo of the Arctic ocean where most of the ice is crammed against the northern Canadian shore, leaving the equally cold Siberian side ice free. Sometimes the North Pole, of all places is ice free, while the rest of the ocean is covered in ice. All I am trying to do is offer a more complete picture of the situation in the Arctic Ocean, which is not as simple as it may seem.

      • angech says:

        OK.
        I am not claiming the sea ice extent cannot be estimated by satellites

        The sea ice extent can be easily measured.
        Your point about sea ice compression is not relevant to the question of measuring the extent.

        Volume and extent both measure ice presence.
        Sometimes it is spread out thin, sometimes compressed.
        Generally there is a relationship between the two but if all one can measure is extent then monitoring and measuring extent has to suffice as a a useful tool which can and should be used as much as possible, bearing in mind caveats you have mentioned.

  53. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Another stratospheric intrusion will bring frigid air to southern California and Arizona.
    https://i.ibb.co/pwkcK0s/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f048-1.png
    If anyone thinks that the blockage of the polar vortex by the concentration of ozone over eastern Siberia will end, they are sorely mistaken.
    https://i.ibb.co/hDjvtwD/gfs-t30-nh-f120.png
    https://i.ibb.co/bLcn8yT/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png

  54. Eben says:

    Contrary to some predictions the Sun did not flame out last week

    https://i.postimg.cc/K8SR5vB2/EISNcurrent.png

  55. Willard says:

    Grand Solar Minimum Update

    A study has found that the costs to B.C.’s economy from 2021’s extreme weather events could be more than $17 billion.

    The report said it was the single most expensive year in B.C. for climate disasters.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/9316074/2021-bc-extreme-weather-events-cost/

    • Swenson says:

      Wee Willy Wanker,

      So 2021 “weather” events will cause large costs, but 2021 was the single most expensive year for “climate disasters”!

      Surely you are not stupid enough not to know that “climate” is the average of past “weather” observations? Or am I wrong – you really are stupid enough to believe that “climate” affects “weather”, is that it?

      Have you considered reading what you are going to post before actually posting it?

      Probably not, given some of the stuff you post.

      Maybe you could find something to support your claim that the GHE resulted in the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so? Or are you claiming that I am wrong, and the GHE made the Earth hotter?

      Or are you claiming nothing, and just trying to be a troll?

      Come on, Wee Willy – the world wants to know,

      [sniggers at clueless SkyDragon]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        What are you greying about?

        • Swenson says:

          Wee Willy Wanker,

          So 2021 weather events will cause large costs, but 2021 was the single most expensive year for climate disasters!

          Surely you are not stupid enough not to know that climate is the average of past weather observations? Or am I wrong you really are stupid enough to believe that climate affects weather, is that it?

          Have you considered reading what you are going to post before actually posting it?

          Probably not, given some of the stuff you post.

          Maybe you could find something to support your claim that the GHE resulted in the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so? Or are you claiming that I am wrong, and the GHE made the Earth hotter?

          Or are you claiming nothing, and just trying to be a troll?

          Come on, Wee Willy the world wants to know,

          [sniggers at clueless SkyDragon]

        • Willard says:

          Mike Flynn,

          What are you blathering about?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Come on, Willard, there is no such thing as blathering.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Wanker,

            So 2021 weather events will cause large costs, but 2021 was the single most expensive year for climate disasters!

            Surely you are not stupid enough not to know that climate is the average of past weather observations? Or am I wrong you really are stupid enough to believe that climate affects weather, is that it?

            Have you considered reading what you are going to post before actually posting it?

            Probably not, given some of the stuff you post.

            Maybe you could find something to support your claim that the GHE resulted in the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so? Or are you claiming that I am wrong, and the GHE made the Earth hotter?

            Or are you claiming nothing, and just trying to be a troll?

            Come on, Wee Willy the world wants to know,

            [sniggers at clueless SkyDragon]

          • Nate says:

            Flynsson repeats the same post, 3 times, hoping no one will notice it contains nothing but the usual blather.

            “blather
            Learn to pronounce
            verb
            talk long-windedly without making very much sense.
            “she began blathering on about spirituality and life after death”

            long-winded talk with no real substance.
            “all the blather coming out of Washington about crime”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      willard…it wasn’t a climate disaster. As you know, climate is theoretically an average of weather over 30 years. If we’d had the same issue every November, that would indicate a climate disaster. Since it was a ‘one of’, related to the La Nina, it’s not a climate issue.

      This November we saw no flooding whatsoever, which is relatively normal for BC in November. This year it was the abnormal cold that bothered us.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      swenson…the 17 billion was not for flood damage, it was largely to rebuild river dikes that were severely under height. The government had been told about the situation and ignored it. No one was thinking climate change then, it was after they got caught with their pants down they decided to blame it on climate change.

      Much of the flood damage was in the region where the dikes were overwhelmed. For the rest of us in BC, it was yet another wet November. Surprising how that happens in a rain forest climate.

  56. gbaikie says:

    It seems no one knows how much global warming is caused by amount CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere.
    At least one person at NASA thinks Earth’s CO2 causes Earth’s average temperature to be 33 C warmer than it would be
    without CO2 in the atmosphere:

    “Remove carbon dioxide, and the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse. Without carbon dioxide, Earth’s surface would be some 33C (59F) cooler. ”
    https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/

    Or cooler. How much cooler could reasonable be? Does anyone think Earth would be 40 C or more cooler. Or is 33 or more about the highest the effect of CO2 which is less than 1% of atmosphere – it presently apparently less than .1% of atmosphere. All greenhouse gases are less than 1%. Though if focus on the tropical region there is more than 3% of water vapor.
    The tropics has only about 20% of it’s area being land, and all human population lives on land areas. About third human population lives in tropics.

    “The tropics account for 36 percent of Earth’s landmass”
    https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/tropics
    The tropics are defined by the tilt of Earth axis which varies over time, though it shrinking presently, and is “the parallel of latitude 23 degrees 26ʹ north (tropic of Cancer) or south (tropic of Capricorn) of the equator” – google
    And descending air from tropical ocean creates tends to cause desert around 30 degrees north or south- called horse latitudes.

    Within tropical zone are large deserts [which don’t many people living there] and large rainforests such in Brasil [which also don’t many people living within them].
    More than 1/2 of sunlight reaching Earth surface falls within 23.5 degrees latitude north and south- and about 40% of entire
    land and ocean surface. And if widen to closer 50% of Earth surface, say around 30 degree, north and south, you get more desert,
    more portion of entire amount sunlight reaching Earth and a lot more people- more of India, more China, Egypt and etc.
    One could say most people are living where there is the most sunlight- though the notable exception is Europe.
    And there a good reason Europe is exception, as it warmed by the tropical Gulf Stream- it would be about 10 C colder
    without it.
    Instead the amount sunlight, one could talk about average temperature- most people live in regions with average temperature
    15 C or warmer- India average is 25 C, and in terms of large nation, a country with most people living in relatively small
    region- and also mention smaller nation near called Bangladesh average of 25.5 C which more people living a smaller region-
    more overcrowded- or limited in land area. Africa continent has about same population as India, it’s called hottest
    continent, but it’s large continent, it has desert area larger than US, but excluding desert area, it’s quite a large region.
    US has 3 times area of India, and Africa got 9 times more than India. US is not over populated, and neither is Africa- and large
    portion of US population are living where average temperature is 15 C or warmer. Florida is about 23 C, and a faster growing
    state [largely due to political reasons]. I think California has better weather [averages about 15 C] but is trainwreck in many ways, politically- though silicon valley was very powerful engine of technical innovation].
    But I am getting sidetracked {obviously].
    One thing was how much warming does cargo cult think CO2 levels cause, is it 33 C or more?
    And/or is bad for the movement to claim CO2 causes 33 C or more?
    Or is it better to double down and claim it is probably much more than 33 C?
    Is there any evident which supports more than 33 C?

    • studentb says:

      “But I am getting sidetracked {obviously]”

      Dementia setting in (obviously).

      • Swenson says:

        studentb,

        Presumably, you agree with the following utter nonsense from NASA –

        “Remove carbon dioxide, and the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse. Without carbon dioxide, Earths surface would be some 33C (59F) cooler.”

        You are such a dimwit that you uncritically accept the existence of something you can’t even describe – the “terrestrial greenhouse effect”!

        That’s called religion – trying to get others to believe in something that cannot be described, yet has awesome powers – causing floods, droughts, heat waves, more extreme weather, less extreme weather . . .

        Oh, and cooling the Earth for four and a half billion years or so, while simultaneously making it 33C hotter than it is!

        Carry on believing.

        • studentb says:

          Presumably?

          Presume away!

          Better still, try yelling at the clouds.

          • Swenson says:

            studentb,

            Presumably, you agree with the following utter nonsense from NASA

            Remove carbon dioxide, and the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse. Without carbon dioxide, Earths surface would be some 33C (59F) cooler.

            You are such a dimwit that you uncritically accept the existence of something you cant even describe the terrestrial greenhouse effect!

            Thats called religion trying to get others to believe in something that cannot be described, yet has awesome powers causing floods, droughts, heat waves, more extreme weather, less extreme weather . . .

            Oh, and cooling the Earth for four and a half billion years or so, while simultaneously making it 33C hotter than it is!

            Carry on believing.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swenson…”[from NASA] Remove carbon dioxide, and the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse. Without carbon dioxide, Earths surface would be some 33C (59F) cooler”.

            ***

            How does something collapse that doesn’t exist? You could remove all CO2 from a real greenhouse and it wouldn’t cool at all, never mind get 33C cooler.

          • Nate says:

            ” something you cant even describe the terrestrial greenhouse effect!”

            No worries.

            When Swenson asks for a description of the GHE, and GETS ONE from Tyndall, no less, he doesn’t show even the slightest interest.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1402815

            You see, for Swenson, the facts just don’t matter.

            Because he is only here to troll.

      • gbaikie says:

        Yeah, but what wanted to get to was immigration, but I didn’t get enough coffee.
        https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigration-by-country:

        United States 50.6 million
        Germany 15.8 million
        Saudi Arabia 13.5 million
        Russia 11.6 million
        United Kingdom 9.4 million
        United Arab Emirates 8.7 million
        France 8.5 million
        Canada 8.0 million
        Australia 7.7 million
        Spain 6.8 million

        One could roughly say Canada gets the most considering it’s
        population, but the numbers indicate Saudi Arabia got most cause
        they started with small population. But it seems to me mostly related to Saudi wealth and largely importing cheap labor [who are Muslim].
        Canada projected to 50 million people by 2080 AD
        Saudi going get to about 50 million by 2060 and be flat to 2080 AD
        Russia going drop to 118 million by 2080, and now about 145 million.
        I am more interested where people want go or leaving, Russia has as many leaving and as coming. Germany like Russia is crashing:
        72 million by 2080 and has +82 million now, but Germans aren’t fleeing like they are with Russia. And with Russia’s war, I imagine it will be updated, downward.

        Top 10 Countries with the Highest Number of Emigrants (Former Residents living Internationally) – United Nations 2020:
        India 17.9 million
        Mexico 11.1 million
        Russia 10.8 million
        China 10.5 million
        Syria 8.5 million
        Bangladesh 7.4 million
        Pakistan 6.3 million
        Ukraine 6.1 million
        Philippines 6.1 million
        Afghanistan 5.9 million
        What sort of surprising is Afghanistan, an I wonder how many are
        going to Saudi Arabia.
        According to this, China will have 972 million by 2080,
        I would guess much lower than this.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          gb…”One could roughly say Canada gets the most considering its population…”

          ***

          Not one Canadian was consulted before the immigration exodus began. Canada was built, like the US, on a European base of immigrants. Somewhere along the line, it was arbitrarily decided that our population base was too small to support growth (translation: profits for corporations and businesses). So, a decision was made , without consulting Canadians, to open the doors to Asian immigration.

          That is not a racist comment. European immigration was essentially put on hold while we sought immigrants and refugees from Asia and Africa. That is racism in itself. However, we sought out wealthy immigrants from Asia, encouraging them literally to come to Canada and bring your money.

          Canada is absolutely pathetic in that way. We have a humungous amount of natural resources yet very little has been put in place to develop them and profit from them. Rather, we are content to let international investors develop our resources off-shore. We are totally reliant on the US to refine our oil into gasoline. We had a nation fuel corporation called Petro-Canada and we sold it off to private interests.

          I was talking to a guy of Chinese descent who was a manager at a company I worked at. I commented to him that many of the Chinese immigrants being landed illegally on boats were from the poorer Asian classes. He told me essentially to give him a break, that it cost US$5000 to get on such a boat and no Chinese from the peasant class could ever afford that.

          We are essentially importing immigrants who are from the wealthier side of Asia and it goes without saying that much of that wealth was gained at the expense of the poorer classes through corruption.

          The aim seems to have been to get younger Asians installed in Canada with the idea of bringing their elders behind them. They get away with that somehow but when a landed immigrant from Europe tries it he/she is met with strong resistance. I recall a friend trying to bring his aging mother from the UK and the resistance was so strong he had to give up.

          • gbaikie says:

            “He told me essentially to give him a break, that it cost US$5000 to get on such a boat and no Chinese from the peasant class could ever afford that.”

            You can loan the peasant class the money. Or indentured slaves- a lot
            peasant class from beginning America arrived that way.

            And the criminal Cartel on US border are likewise charging a fee to cross into US, and probably more than $5000 dollars and this also what talking about generally with “human trafficking” but it’s girls without any money.
            Canadians don’t have a Mexican Cartel which not only controls Southern border but also the entire Mexican govt. But also of course it also involves US intel and FBI, like they have always involved with criminal activity as in with Vietnam and Afghanistan and endless known examples.
            And Chinese crime is also famous and doing this stuff, before US existed. Or Chinese nor US intel didn’t stop doing this.

  57. gbaikie says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 482.6 km/sec
    density: 10.42 protons/cm3
    Sunspot number: 111
    The Radio Sun
    10.7 cm flux: 142 sfu
    Updated 11 Dec 2022
    https://www.spaceweather.com/
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 15.24×10^10 W Neutral
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: +2.1% Elevated
    48-hr change: +0.6%
    –THE HEAT SHIELD WORKED: NASAs Orion spacecraft successfully completed a parachute-assisted splashdown in the Pacific Ocean today at 12:40 EST as the final major milestone of the Artemis I mission. Engineers will perform several additional tests while Orion is in the water and before powering down the spacecraft.–

    That’s good news.

    • Norman says:

      gbaikie

      Thanks for your update on Orion. Glad it was a success!

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 467.9 km/sec
      density: 6.36 protons/cm3
      Sunspot number: 142
      Updated 12 Dec 2022
      The Radio Sun
      10.7 cm flux: 148 sfu
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 15.40×10^10 W Neutral
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: +2.1% Elevated

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 339.7 km/sec
        density: 3.52 protons/cm3
        Sunspot number: 174
        Updated 15 Dec 2022
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 165 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 15.35×10^10 W Neutral
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: +2.3% Elevated
        –INCREASING SOLAR ACTIVITY: Yesterday, fast-growing sunspot AR3165 unleashed a remarkable series of M-class solar flares. All day long, no more than a few hours went by without a significant explosion:–

        • gbaikie says:

          Solar wind
          speed: 325.4 km/sec
          density: 3.74 protons/cm3
          Sunspot number: 140
          Updated 16 Dec 2022
          The Radio Sun
          10.7 cm flux: 166 sfu
          Thermosphere Climate Index
          today: 15.47×10^10 W Neutral
          Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)
          Min: 2.05×10^10 W Cold (02/2009)
          Oulu Neutron Counts
          Percentages of the Space Age average:
          today: +2.4% Elevated

          It seems things are fading rather than new small spots
          appearing and growing, but we will see happens in few days.
          Dec month might be significantly higher.
          But as for Jan month, I have no idea, though it seems
          odds favor more sideways.

          • gbaikie says:

            Solar wind
            speed: 288.5 km/sec
            density: 2.97 protons/cm3
            Sunspot number: 139
            Updated 17 Dec 2022
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 166 sfu
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 14.70×10^10 W Neutral
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: +2.4% Elevated
            –CHANCE OF FLARES TODAY: Following two days of non-stop flaring, active sunspot AR3165 is quieting. It could be gaining strength for a bigger flare. NOAA forecasters say there is a 50% chance of M-class flares and a 10% chance of X-flares on Dec. 17th.–
            And: RARE STELLAR OCCULTATION

            A fair size spot coming from far {as others leaving us]- or
            better chance Dec sunspots will be higher.
            But wind, thermosphere and neutron counts indicates quite
            weak for a solar max. And got couple big coronal holes facing us.

          • gbaikie says:

            Solar wind
            speed: 331.3 km/sec
            density: 5.29 protons/cm3
            Sunspot number: 128
            Updated 18 Dec 2022
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 155 sfu
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 15.20×10^10 W Neutral
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: +2.4% Elevated

            3169 is a head of snake from the farside.
            3170 might grow a bit

          • gbaikie says:

            Solar wind
            speed: 348.6 km/sec
            density: 8.93 protons/cm3
            Sunspot number: 132
            Updated 20 Dec 2022
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 152 sfu
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 15.43×10^10 W Neutral
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: +0.6% Elevated
            48-hr change: -1.8%

            Neutron counts drop a lot

          • gbaikie says:

            Solar wind
            speed: 632.3 km/sec
            density: 0.09 protons/cm3
            Sunspot number: 85
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 128 sfu
            Updated 24 Dec 2022
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 15.58×10^10 W Neutral
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: +0.5% Elevated
            48-hr change: +0.5%

  58. Peter Hartley says:

    Just out of curiosity, I downloaded the monthly Lower Troposphere data and examined its time series properties. It soon became evident that the properties vary for the different regions identified, so I separately examined TropicLand, TropicOcean, NHExtTropicLand, NHExtTropicOcean, SHExtTropicLand, SHExtTropicOcean, NPoleLand, NPoleOcean, SPoleLand and SPoleOcean. Although the documentation does not say, I assume that these are mutually exclusive sets that cover the whole surface.

    Here were some interesting results:

    1. For all 10 series, the hypothesis that they have a unit root was easily rejected at a very low significance level. In other words, the series are not integrated. Since CO2 in the atmosphere is integrated, this alone throws doubt on the hypothesis that CO2 drives Lower Troposphere temperatures in any simple way.

    2. Seven of the series were fractionally integrated (they are long-memory processes). The estimated fractional differencing parameters were (to 2 decimal places):
    TropicLand 0.24
    NHExtTropicLand 0.40
    NHExtTropicOcean 0.43
    SHExtTropicLand 0.32
    SHExtTropicOcean 0.37
    NPoleLand 0.28
    NPoleOcean 0.44

    These are probably not statistically different except for TropicLand and NPoleLand. Perhaps the land areas in the latter cases are not so concentrated or far from oceans. The lower values for the two SH series are perhaps consistent with that hypothesis?

    3. Five series showed evidence of short-run autoregressive dynamics:
    TropicLand ar(1) 0.79 ma(1) -0.33
    TropicOcean ar(1) 0.87 ma(1) -0.09 ma(2) 0.20
    NPoleLand ma(12) -0.11
    NPoleOcean ar(1) 0.57 ma(1) -0.77
    SPoleLand ar(1) 0.32
    SPoleOcean ar(1) 0.56 ma(1) -0.29

    4. Once these processes were estimated, the residuals easily passed tests for being white noise, suggesting no strong evidence of any further autocorrelation.

    Some questions/observations: What kinds of theoretical process could explain these estimated patterns in the temperature series? It is interesting that 4 of the 5 “Land” series have long memory (South Pole is the exception) suggesting perhaps lingering effects of changes over land? On the other hand, the 2 series with largest fractional differencing parameters are NHExtTropicOcean and NPoleOcean, reflecting perhaps lasting ocean current effects? NPoleLand has an annual seasonal, but none of the other series do. While TropicOcean does not display long memory, it has the most complicated short-run dynamics.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      The question is: why does the global temperature of the troposphere drop during La Nina?

      • angech says:

        Ren
        The question is: why does the global temperature of the troposphere drop during La Nina?

        All layers of the atmosphere depend on heating from the sun.
        La Nia is associated with cooler global climate.
        La Nia and El Nio are basically just a partial measurement of the amount of energy reaching the earth.
        Why complicare matters any more than that.
        Albedo causes with clouds might be another factor I guess..

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          angech…”Ren
          The question is: why does the global temperature of the troposphere drop during La Nina?

          All layers of the atmosphere depend on heating from the sun”.

          ***

          Agreed, but given that fact, why does this climate sub-system mediate global temperatures and climates? I think that is what ren is asking.

          • angech says:

            DA
            Agreed, but given that fact, why does this climate sub-system mediate global temperatures and climates? I think that is what ren is asking.

            I did not read his comment that way.
            I think he was replying to Peter Hartley who may have made that assumption in one of his 4 points?

            Peter uses the term retained memory which I dislike as it imposes thought on mechanical processes which does not exist.

            Secondly he claims his 10 areas are mutually exclusive, which they are not.

            Thirdly he chooses to use that show recurrent patterns to suggest that this is what you have termed a mediating factor.

            Those who seek patterns can assuredly find them.
            What significance they have is in the eye of the pattern seeker.
            Seek man made Climate change and you will assuredly find it .
            Seek to prove it does not exist and you will find what you want also.

          • Mark B says:

            Agreed, but given that fact, why does this climate sub-system mediate global temperatures and climates?

            Maybe this NOAA El Nino blog post is helpful:
            https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/where-does-global-warming-go-during-la-ni%C3%B1a-0

            Peter uses the term retained memory which I dislike as it imposes thought on mechanical processes which does not exist.

            He’s using statistical model terminology, “long term memory”. The statistics are a sort of black box approach, looking at the resulting time series without explicitly making any a priori assumptions about the system that generated the time series. I think what he’s seeing is in fact coupling from El Nino/La Nina intervals that bias the statistics for a few years. There is a hysteresis in El Nino dynamics that is arguably a sort of memory.

            Secondly he claims his 10 areas are mutually exclusive, which they are not.

            As I read the doc file, “tropics (-20 to 20)” is distinct, but “extratropics (20 to 85)” includes “npole (60 to 85)”.

            Thirdly he chooses to use that show recurrent patterns to suggest that this is what you have termed a mediating factor.

            Not sure I follow this point. His statistical analysis has found auto correlation over a period of several months and over a period of a few years. The first is just that monthly samples are not statistically independent, that is, last month’s temperature is a reasonably good guess for next month’s temperature and out several months. The second, as above, is mostly coupled to the El Nino phases that is pseudo cyclical over a few years.

          • angech says:

            Mark B

            Thank you for that review of the points mentioned

    • Bindidon says:

      Thanks for the info, but… you ‘speak’ to us as if you would expect the average poster on this blog to be familiar with statistical evaluations.

      For example, I like to process e.g. temperature data (surface thermometers, remote sensing by sats, radiosondes).

      But I lack any statistical knowledge – apart from trivial stuff like linear estimates, quadratic/cubic fits, HQLP filters and the like.

      Some deeper explanations of what you did, and what you expect at the end (‘Some questions/observations’) would be welcome.

    • studentb says:

      “In other words, the series are not integrated”

      ???? “not integrated” ????

      In other words, you are talking rubbish.

      • Swenson says:

        s,

        Another possibility is that you are just another stupid SkyDragon troll, trying to look intelligent and authoritative.

        Others can decide for themselves.

        Have you found an explanation for the GHE cooling the Earth for four and a half billion years or so, or do you believe that the Earth has actually become hotter as a result of your mythical GHE.

        You are not really adept at supporting your cultist SkyDragon fanaticism, are you?

        • studentb says:

          My my my.
          You are easily triggered.
          Get out of the wrong side of bed today?

          • Swenson says:

            s,

            Another possibility is that you are just another stupid SkyDragon troll, trying to look intelligent and authoritative.

            Others can decide for themselves.

            Have you found an explanation for the GHE cooling the Earth for four and a half billion years or so, or do you believe that the Earth has actually become hotter as a result of your mythical GHE.

            You are not really adept at supporting your cultist SkyDragon fanaticism, are you?

    • Bindidon says:

      1. What is, to start somewhere, to be understood under

      ‘In other words, the series are not integrated‘ ?

      2. You write:

      ” Since CO2 in the atmosphere is integrated… ”

      What does this mean?

      ” … this alone throws doubt on the hypothesis that CO2 drives Lower Troposphere temperatures in any simple way. ”

      Is this a wonder? Until now, what a I have read about CO2’s estimated action is that it starts above the Tropopause, a level above which H2O seems to be nearly absent.

      Thus your analysis should include the three remaining atmospheric layers (Mid Troposphere, TropoPause, Lower Stratosphere). Right?

      Here is the root, including the original data in 2.5 degree grid form:

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

      • Swenson says:

        Bunny,

        You wrote –

        “Until now, what a I have read about CO2s estimated action is that it starts above the Tropopause, a level above which H2O seems to be nearly absent.”

        Rubbish. You can’t even describe “CO2s estimated action”, can you? You are a gullible wee sauerkraut, aren’t you?

        I suppose you are going to claim that four and a half billion years or so of the Earth cooling is due to “CO2s estimated action”! Or do you think it was due to a GHE which you can’t describe either?

        Keep those graphs and dissections of the past up to date, even if it means you have to revise everything continuously. Have you considered just buying a crystal ball, or learning how to read the entrails of dead animals?

        Just as effective at predicting the future, and you can probably use the time you save to learn about physics or whatever interests you.

        • Bindidon says:

          Hellooooom again, you blathering stalker!

          Do you have something to say?

          No?

          Ah yes, Flynnson is just urging to say something irrelevant.

          And invokes the ‘freedom of speech’ to endlessly disturb others and to insult them.

          • Swenson says:

            Bunny,

            You wrote

            Until now, what a I have read about CO2s estimated action is that it starts above the Tropopause, a level above which H2O seems to be nearly absent.

            Rubbish. You cant even describe CO2s estimated action, can you? You are a gullible wee sauerkraut, arent you?

            I suppose you are going to claim that four and a half billion years or so of the Earth cooling is due to CO2s estimated action! Or do you think it was due to a GHE which you cant describe either?

            Keep those graphs and dissections of the past up to date, even if it means you have to revise everything continuously. Have you considered just buying a crystal ball, or learning how to read the entrails of dead animals?

            Just as effective at predicting the future, and you can probably use the time you save to learn about physics or whatever interests you.

    • Bindidon says:

      ” 3. Five series showed evidence of short-run autoregressive dynamics:

      TropicLand ar(1) 0.79 ma(1) -0.33
      TropicOcean ar(1) 0.87 ma(1) -0.09 ma(2) 0.20
      NPoleLand ma(12) -0.11
      NPoleOcean ar(1) 0.57 ma(1) -0.77
      SPoleLand ar(1) 0.32
      SPoleOcean ar(1) 0.56 ma(1) -0.29 ”

      Maybe you discuss such points with e.g. Dr Nick Stokes on his moyhu blog?

      https://moyhu.blogspot.com/

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      Peter Hartley, when there is no answer, one is left with a mindless attack. It is clear that anomalies are very unstable, especially on the continents. Just look at North America and Australia. The anomalies in the Arctic are so high that the ice is increasing.
      https://i.ibb.co/7gxjdgW/r00-Northern-Hemisphere-ts-4km.png
      https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular/loc=8.600,51.360

    • Peter Hartley says:

      I apologize. I found these results and wanted to note them down and report them to get comments, I expected from other time series experts. I thought others would just ignore them. However, I agree it was rude to post them on a public site without explanation.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        peter hartley….please feel welcome to contribute and be sure to ignore major idiots like studentb, whom I refer to as stupidb.

      • Bindidon says:

        Peter Hartley

        A very good contribution from your side would be e.g. to show us what happens with UAH’s monthly LT time series when you process them using sophisticated statistical tools eliminating anything which shouldn’t be present in them.

        What is the result?

        Are the changes restricted to small corrections along the time series?

        Do their linear estimates change upon such processing?

        Or does rather the standard error – as in Kevin Cowtan’s trend computer when the trend period becomes smaller?

        http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

        *
        What I miss in such trend computers and viewers (WoodForTrees and Nick Stokes’ included) is the possibility to use then with own data, e.g. temperature series they don’t support, or even tide gauge data coming from the PSMSL corner, etc etc.

      • Nate says:

        “peter hartley.please feel welcome to contribute and be sure to ignore ”

        Tee hee!

        Gordon simultaneously sucks up to Mr. Hartley, puts down others, and acts as if he perfectly well understands all the posted statistical jargon that wasn’t defined.

    • Mark B says:

      What kinds of theoretical process could explain these estimated patterns in the temperature series?

      This is an analysis of global temperature, but the same process could be applied regionally:
      https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022

    • studentb says:

      Brilliant!
      La Nina has been with us for nearly 3 years and you have just noticed it is “very stable”.
      What an insight!

      Next, I expect you will be telling us that weather is very variable.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        The surface of the western equatorial Pacific is still cool.
        https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        What do you say if La Nina doesn’t end in the spring of 2023?

        • studentb says:

          I say nothing.
          There is no need to state the bleeding obvious.
          Everybody can see that La Nina is still here and that the “western equatorial Pacific is still cool”.

          Imagine if I woke up each morning and posted:
          “The sun has just risen in the east”.

          Please desist with your inane observations.

          • Swenson says:

            s,

            You wrote –

            “Please desist with your inane observations.”

            Why should he? Would you accede to a pleading request from an idiot who can’t even describe the GHE, but believes in it anyway? Don’t you support freedom of speech?

            By the way, weather is very variable – and unpredictable, whether you like it or not. Hence climate, being the average of historical weather observations, is also unpredictable. Once again, whether you like it or not.

            The IPCC agrees, and has stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states. Someone in the IPCC had a rare moment where reality intruded into the collective IPCC fantasy.

            You need to work a lot harder if you are trying to be annoying. It’s hard to feel annoyed if you are laughing at the stupidity of an amateur troll.

            More effort needed.

          • studentb says:

            I don’t know how some people can cope with caring for dementia patients. The endless repetition must take enormous patience.

          • Swenson says:

            s,

            You wrote

            Please desist with your inane observations.

            Why should he? Would you accede to a pleading request from an idiot who cant even describe the GHE, but believes in it anyway? Dont you support freedom of speech?

            By the way, weather is very variable and unpredictable, whether you like it or not. Hence climate, being the average of historical weather observations, is also unpredictable. Once again, whether you like it or not.

            The IPCC agrees, and has stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states. Someone in the IPCC had a rare moment where reality intruded into the collective IPCC fantasy.

            You need to work a lot harder if you are trying to be annoying. Its hard to feel annoyed if you are laughing at the stupidity of an amateur troll.

            More effort needed.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            stupidb…”Imagine if I woke up each morning and posted:
            The sun has just risen in the east”.

            ***

            That’s about the level of your intelligence, thinking the Sun rises every morning.

          • Nate says:

            “some people can cope with caring for dementia patients.”

            Because they themselves are dementia patients. Swenson, for example, has posted the same red herring about the Earth cooling hundreds of times. He should be aware by now that it has no point.

        • Bindidon says:

          A possible answer

          ” Speak of the devil and the devil shows up. “

        • Eben says:

          Next thing you know Ren will be predicting fourth La Nina

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ren…ignore the idiot. I call him stupidb for a reason.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        stupidb…”La Nina has been with us for nearly 3 years and you have just noticed it is very stable.
        What an insight!”

        ***

        Your stupidity gets deeper every day. Amazing!!!

  59. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Snowfall is approaching London. This is not the end of snowfall in England.
    https://i.ibb.co/1bkcZW8/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-12-002306.png

  60. gbaikie says:

    –December 11, 2022

    ABOUT TIME, IF TRUE: US scientists reportedly make fusion energy breakthrough. The Financial Times today reported three separate sources confirmed a recent experiment at the federal Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California yielded successful results. The experiment reportedly produced a net gain in energy produced for the first time since observations began back in the 1950s. The Financial Times said the fusion reaction, produced about 2.5 megajoules of energy, which was about 120 per cent of the 2.1 megajoules of energy in the lasers, the people with knowledge of the results said, adding that the data was still being analysed. The US department of energy told the news outlet it will announce major scientific breakthrough at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on Tuesday.

    Heres the (paywalled) FT story.
    Posted at 10:35 pm by Glenn Reynolds–
    https://instapundit.com/

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gb…”US scientists reportedly make fusion energy breakthrough”.

      ***

      Just another PR announcement to get more funding.

    • Bindidon says:

      gbaikie

      I think we all should calm down upon such ‘success’.

      1. 2 Mj is a little over… 0.5 kWh, i.e. 0.0000000005 TWh.
      A modern nuclear power plant like the French EPR has a capacity of 1.65 GW and produces about 10 TWh per year at a (generously stated) load factor of 0.75.

      2. Due to cross-sectional problems, the only isotope mix we currently can think about is D+T.

      While deuterium is free available (about 25,000 Gt exist on Earth), tritium isn’t at all (a best 5 kg worldwide above the oceans), and hence must be bred using lithium (hum hummh !!!) and beryllium blankets in fission reactors, to be processed exactly as Pu239, which once was thought to be a wonderful 4G transformation of the fertile but non-fissile U238, a byproduct of the U235 enrichment.

      The next problem is that tritium is probably the most volatile material on Earth; no one knows how to store it, since it can escape out of even the densest steel-zirconium alloys.

      Tokamak was born around 1958…

    • angech says:

      Practical useable fusion energy comes from the sun for a reason.
      Space provides the perfect containment field for such violent locally destructible energy.
      Like an acid strong enough to dissolve any container true fusion energy at any scale larger than 2 atoms will incinerate and obliterate any holding field.

      Hence certain observations.
      There is an extremely small amount, limiting amount (LA) of fusionable material which will obliterate any holding mechanism capable of being built by humans as the temperature of any sustainable process is too hot for any material to survive

      The energy needed to produce and contain any fusion I s any orders of magnitude greater than any useful energy able to be produced

    • barry says:

      They have completed an experiment that physically demonstrates it is possible to do. Still a very long way from applied implementation, with several significant hurdles to overcome. But it is a significant step forward.

  61. gbaikie says:

    Japanese company’s lander rockets toward moon with UAE rover
    A Tokyo company aimed for the moon with its own private lander Sunday, blasting off atop a SpaceX rocket with the United Arab Emirates’ first lunar rover and a toylike robot from Japan that’s designed to roll around up there in the gray dust.
    It will take nearly five months for the lander and its experiments to reach the moon.

    The company ispace designed its craft to use minimal fuel to save money and leave more room for cargo. So it’s taking a slow, low-energy path to the moon, flying 1 million miles (1.6 million kilometers) from Earth before looping back and intersecting with the moon by the end of April.
    https://phys.org/news/2022-12-japanese-startup-historic-moon-mission.html
    Link from: https://instapundit.com/

    The rovers are not going to lunar polar region, though the flashlight orbiter will look for ice in polar region by using lasers.
    This was related to Google Xprize, which wanted small and cheap lunar missions [offered 20 million prize]. The idea of prizes is not to pay
    for things, but give incentive to do things. And it gave incentive for many attempts and some have been successful in terms helping things get to be launched, but one can argue does more than that.
    I think governments should be more prize type stuff, the Brits starting doing this centuries ago. Anyhow later ispace missions are going to lunar polar region as are others which beginning can traced back to the Google Xprize.
    I think X prizes should given for climate model type stuff.

  62. Gordon Robertson says:

    norman …”Your [Christos] claim Earths atmosphere is very thin is based upon what? It is thick enough to support heavy passenger jets in flight?”

    ***

    Come on, Normie, let your consciousness expand a little. Christos has made it clear on several occasions that he is talking about the thickness of the altitude wrt the diameter of the Earth.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      That is a poor choice of defining “thin” atmosphere. Venus thickness is similar to Earth’s yet it is considered very dense. Not sure he is using good thinking with that metric.

      So then I guess Venus, Mars and Earth all have very “thin” atmospheres based upon that definition but what is the value of that explanation. Venus atmosphere 90 times denser than Earth’s yet it is only 60 miles high.

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

      Basically that way of defining a “thin” atmosphere is meaningless. Can you do better or will you just ignore it?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…I had no quarrel with the article till they got stupid and started talking about a runaway greenhouse effect. You’d think after admitting the surface temperature is 450C+, they would clue in that a greenhouse effect could never heat the surface to that temperature.

        Considering a surface temperature about 30 times that of Earth, how would you explain the temperature and the predominantly CO2 atmosphere?

        If you look at a real greenhouse here on Earth, the interior is heated by solar energy, not CO2. In fact, CO2 has nothing to do with real greenhouse warming. You could remove the trivial 0.04% that is CO2 and the greenhouse would warm fine.

        I would suggest the heat at the surface is coming from some process within the planet.

  63. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Currently, there will be faster ice growth in the Greenland Sea.
    http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_map_thick_LA_EN_20221211.png

  64. Gordon Robertson says:

    swenson…”studentb,
    Presumably, you agree with the following utter nonsense from NASA…”

    ***

    Unfortunately, as you know, NASA is saddled with NASA GISS, their incompetent climate division. Even more unfortunate is the notion that stupidb would understand any of that.

  65. studentb says:

    Currently, the stock market is down.

  66. Gordon Robertson says:

    wonky wee willard…re connection between Met Office and U. of East Anglia….

    tinyurl.com/53872k98

    “Had-CRUT3 is a gridded dataset of global historical surface temperature anomalies. Data are available for each month since January 1850, on a 5 degree grid. The dataset is a collaborative product of the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

  67. Gordon Robertson says:

    Arctic sea ice extent as of December 10, 2022. It’s not even winter and the entire Arctic Ocean is choked with ice.

    https://tinyurl.com/mrxw5r3h

    The following link show the ice thickness which ranges from 2.5 metres to 3.5 metres thick off the Canadian north shore to 1.0 to 2.0 metres elsewhere. Winter has not even started yet. Ice won’t reach its thickest extent till February or so.

    http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/

    Methinks the demise of Arctic sea ice is somewhat exaggerated, little or no Sun to melt it.

    It states on the following link that the Sun is down all day as of December 12th. It’s the same all through winter and the map doesn’t even extend to the North Pole.

    Climate alarmists begone!!!

    • barry says:

      “Ice wont reach its thickest extent till February or so.”

      That occurs in March almost every year.

      “Climate alarmists begone!!!”

      As you’re talking about weather, I doubt they’ll even show up.

  68. Bindidon says:

    Some people are sooo incredibly ignorant that they don’t understand how (sea) ice melts.

    They really, really think the Sun is the origin of the process.

    But… as mentioned sooo often, ice melts from the bottom, and that’s due to the water below it being a bit too warm.

    Ignorants begone!!!

    • Clint R says:

      Bindidon, why is “the water below it being a bit too warm?”

      “The ice cover in the Arctic grows throughout the winter, before peaking in March. Melting picks up pace during the spring as the sun gets stronger, and in September the extent of the ice cover is typically only around one third of its winter maximum.”

      More simply, It’s the Sun, stupid.

      • Entropic Man says:

        So in your version of reality the long term decrease in minimum Arctic sea ice extent is because the sunlight is getting stronger.

        Have you told Eben?

        • Bindidon says:

          Oh Entropic Man… be careful!

          I wouldn’t wonder if Clint R would suddenly tell you that the sea ice decrease in the Arctic was kinda remnant of the Modern Maximum 60 years ago :- )

      • Bindidon says:

        Oh look, Clint R’s next ball-on-a-string.

        He must be even more ignorant than I thought.

        The sun’s power decreases from the tropics to the poles as the square of the cosine of the angle of latitude: at 75 degrees latitude this is less than 7%.

        Again, Clint R: it’s the Sun, of course, as it is our only power supply. But… not in the Arctic.

        It’s the water warmed by the Sun way, way, away from the Poles, stupid!

        • RLH says:

          “It’s the water warmed by the Sun way, way, away from the Poles”

          But now you acknowledge that the Sun warms the water that melts the ice. So what if it has a way to go before it does so?

    • RLH says:

      What warms the water?

      • Bindidon says:

        See above, Linsley Hood, and next time think before writing.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          So you’re saying the Sun doesn’t directly warm the water at the poles?

        • RLH says:

          Blinny claims that warm water melts the ice but somehow does not think the Sun warms the water first.

        • Norman says:

          Bindidon

          You may want to back of your position a bit. It is not correct.

          Here:
          https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/solstice-solar-radiation

          In the summer the artic receives more solar energy than the equator (the sun shines 24 hours, no night).

          “According to CERES, the amount of solar energy received at the North Pole is 30% higher during the summer solstice than the amount of solar energy received at the Equator.”

          Also:
          https://www.ucdavis.edu/climate/definitions/arctic-sea-ice#:~:text=In%20the%20summer%2C%20the%20ice,size%20of%20the%20winter%20maximum.

          “In the summer, the ice will melt due to warmer temperatures and longer exposure to the sun. During the summer, when sea ice will reach its thinnest by mid-September, the area covered by ice is about half the size of the winter maximum.”

          It is clear from the evidence that the solar input does directly melt ice. It does absorb solar IR very well and will also absorb visible light.

          I would not say the evidence supports your claim although in parts of the Arctic you would have a valid point when ocean currents from warmer water melt the fringe ice. The bulk of Arctic ice melt is from the Sun in summer months and would not be from warmer water moving in from somewhere, this only takes place at the edges of the sea ice.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”In the summer the artic receives more solar energy than the equator (the sun shines 24 hours, no night)”.

            ***

            There’s that word energy being abused again. They make it sound like the temperature in the Arctic in summer is higher than in the Tropics. So, you can go to the Mackenzie River delta, on the Arctic Ocean, and get a good tan.

            I recall being in Fiji once, waiting for a plane to arrive, and I decided to work on my tan. Within 5 minutes I was getting burnt skin. I had a good tan already and that 5 minutes put a red tinge on it.

            There is nowhere in the Arctic that will happen. Nor will you feel an intensity from the Sun as you get in Fiji. And that was in their Spring.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Again you display complete ignorance of science. In this case Chemistry. Why not learn something instead of giving us your incorrect opinions. You are not a genius at all and actually seem very ignorant (no knowledge of subject material).

            There is a great deal of energy that is required to change ice from solid to liquid (heat of fusion)

            Here read this an learn something.

            http://www.kentchemistry.com/links/Energy/HeatFusion.htm

            Contrast to water heat capacity.
            https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_General_Biology_(Boundless)/02%3A_The_Chemical_Foundation_of_Life/2.14%3A_Water_-_High_Heat_Capacity#:~:text=Water%20has%20the%20highest%20specific,one%20calorie%2C%20or%204.184%20Joules.

            The same amount of energy to melt on gram of ice would raise water temperature 80 C.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            You are ignora

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            You also are ignorant of physics. The Arctic will have a less intense Sun than Equator noon (Watts) but will deliver more overall joules to the surface than Equator. You are a clueless poster. Know nothing and spew ideas from crackpots like Gary Novak.

            I really do not understand why you think rational experimentally based physics is wrong and the crackpots who make up stuff with no logic, experiment or validation are right. Why is this the state of your thinking? Because of how you learned the way current flows? All this because of this thing? That is a sad reason to reject all science and cling to crackpot made up ideas.

        • Bindidon says:

          1. Anderson

          ” So youre saying the Sun doesnt directly warm the water at the poles? ”

          NO.

          It does, that is evident.

          But… how much in comparison to the Tropics?

          I repeat what you do not seem to have understood:

          The suns power decreases from the tropics to the poles as the square of the cosine of the angle of latitude: at 75 degrees latitude this is less than 7%. ”

          *
          2. Norman

          You have misunderstood and hence misrepresent what CERES means.

          They are talking about the amount of RECEIVED AND REFLECTED sunlight, and NOT about the amount of energy available for MELTING.

          ” In the June solstice, darkness dominates the south, while the north is now the location receiving and reflecting the most sunlight. ”

          And of course, Norman: the reply to Anderson is valid 4u2!

          *
          3. Linsley Hood

          ” Blinny claims that warm water melts the ice but somehow does not think the Sun warms the water first. ”

          As usual: brainless nonsense.

          Read correctly what I wrote, Blindsley Hood!

          *
          4. Thus I repeat: Sun warms the oceans, but it does that very CERTAINLY a lot more outside of the Arctic than inside of it!

          Is that so difficult to grasp, peopleszzz?

  69. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    In 2023, look for Republicans to blame Democrats for not making them do the right thing, and scientists for not convincing them that their Fox News echo chamber was toxic.

    From a weekend interview:

    Mitt Romney: “A price on carbon with border adjustment taxes, that’s the only thing that has an impact.”

    Interviewer: “But hasn’t your party rejected that over and over again?”

    Romney then proceeds to blame the Democrats for not overcoming obstinate Republican resistance to climate action.

    https://youtu.be/7vzIEzqpK7U

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Romney is from another planet. Calling him a Republican is just plain weird.

      Did you see any carbon taxes issued by the Feds during Trump’s tenure? They were going after NOAA for corrupt science and they ignored the Paris Accords.

    • Mark B says:

      TM, It looks like you linked the wrong video, hopefully I’ve got it correct here:

      https://youtu.be/ZtDLGVvK5bA?t=3288

      I think Romney is correct in that a carbon tax is the best way to approach this problem. It’s pretty much the econ 101 textbook approach to externalized costs, it can be implemented independently by any nation, and it lets market economics downstream do it’s magic.

      He’s also correct in saying (essentially) the Republicans are never going to back such a tax and will campaign against the issue if and when the Democrats put it on the table. To be fair the Democrats couldn’t have gotten that through the current Senate either.

  70. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A major snowstorm is developing over France.
    https://i.ibb.co/xFdbfNm/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-12-170836.png

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      Pressure over Iceland 1045 hPa.

    • Bindidon says:

      What? A ‘major’ snowstorm developing over Southwest France?

      Show us the exact source, ren, and not your anonymous, non-binding copy.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      Before you choke on those cherry pits:

      South America Heat Wave: Chile so far had quite escaped the extreme heat of its neighbouring countries; not yesterday. Temperatures rose to record levels in the Central regions with 40.5C at San Felipe in the Valparaiso Region, 0.3C from the Chilean record high for December.

      After a cool November, the past few days were very hot in Sub Saharan Africa, in particular in Senegal where many stations rose above 40C for several days in a row. Matam and Diourbel shot as high as 41.5C, not far from the December records.

      Mandora in Western Australia yesterday rose to a scorching 48.5C.

      Seasonality eh!

  71. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    With these issues eternally settled:

    1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis.
    2) Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the "moon on the left".
    3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
    4) "Revolution/orbit" is defined as "rotation about an external axis".
    5) The green plate(s) cannot warm/insulate the blue plate.
    6) The non-GHGs are the planetary insulators, not the GHGs.

    There’s nothing really left to debate. We need a new subject!

  72. Willard says:

    Grand Solar Minimum Update

    Nova Scotia faces increased risk of floods, wildfires and crop-killing intense heat because of climate change, according to a risk assessment released by the province Monday.

    The report predicts a warmer and rainier Nova Scotia this century with more intense storms, sea level rise and coastal and inland flooding.

    “Climate change is having an impact on the health and well-being of our province,” said Alex Cadel, a climate specialist with the Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Climate Change.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/climate-crisis-means-more-extreme-weather-ns-predicts-1.6675182

  73. studentb says:

    Long-term measurements of tide gauges and recent satellite data show that global sea level is rising, with the best estimate of the rate of global-average rise over the last decade being 3.6 mm per year (0.14 inches per year).

    • Bindidon says:

      Exactly, studentb

      I had much work & fun when processing the PSMSL & SONEL data sets, and comparing my little layman’s job to what professionals did.

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

      Especially funny was the Skeptics’ eternal claim that while sat altimetry showed for 1993-2020 near 3 mm/yr, the gauges allegedly never showed much more than a half of it.

      All these ignoramuses of course compared the gauge trends over their full lifetime (for a few of them over 100 years, oh Noes) to less than 30 sat altimetry years.

      But computing the gauges’ trends for the same period as for the altimetry of course gave quite different results: the average of all gauge trends was even a tiny bit higher.

      *
      How was that possible? The best way to prove it was to compute, for example from 1900-2015 to 1995-2015, all consecutive 5-year distant trends for the gauge average:

      1900-2015: 1.4 0.01 (mm/year)
      1905-2015: 1.4 0.01
      1910-2015: 1.4 0.01
      1915-2015: 1.4 0.01
      1920-2015: 1.5 0.01
      1925-2015: 1.5 0.01
      1930-2015: 1.5 0.01
      1935-2015: 1.5 0.01
      1940-2015: 1.5 0.01
      1945-2015: 1.5 0.01
      1950-2015: 1.6 0.01
      1955-2015: 1.7 0.02
      1960-2015: 1.8 0.02
      1965-2015: 2.0 0.02
      1970-2015: 2.1 0.02
      1975-2015: 2.2 0.02
      1980-2015: 2.4 0.02
      1985-2015: 2.5 0.02
      1990-2015: 2.7 0.02
      1995-2015: 2.9 0.03

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

      Apart from the slightly outlier NOAA, all evaluations have shown nearly the same trend change over time.

      *
      Last not least, a comparison of the best PSMSL evaluation (Sönke Dangendorf & al.) to the sat altimetry by NOAA shows how good they fit together:

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

  74. Russian media reporting that Putin has canceled the traditional December press conference he has been holding for years. In addition, the traditional message to the parliament did not pass, and the New Year’s reception in the Kremlin was also cancelled.

    This is a big deal, there was a New Year’s address, even when the USSR was collapsing on Dec 31, 1990.

    Santa has canceled all flights to Russia because Putin’s been a bad boy.

    A cynic might ask, everything is cancelled this year because the special operation is going according to plan then?

    • Bindidon says:

      Cynism? Not sure.

      I’d rather say like the Frogs:

      ” C’est le commencement de la fin. ”

      Coz never and never would the Putin guy have decided to cancel such events by his own. He must have ‘been decided’ to do.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      Shitler steals Christmas.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Putin is a prince compared to the new Ukrainian dictator, Zelensky. Democracy kaput in the Ukraine.

      • Bindidon says:

        One more time, Robertson shows his love to Fascist dictators like Putin, who proves since at least 20 years to be the best successor of Hitler and Stalin.

        Since Gorbachev’s presidency, there has been no democracy in Russia.

        I wouldn’t wonder when Putin’s cock sucker Robertson was paid by Russians to spew on this blog the same lies as those endlessly propagated by German and French Neo-Nazis.

      • barry says:

        Gordon clearly visits propagandistic websites, like Russia Today, or the subsidiaries that disseminate their nonsense.

  75. Willard says:

    Grand Solar Minimum Update:

    Drought-stricken Oregon saw a historic die-off of fir trees in 2022 that left hillsides once lush with green conifers dotted with patches of red, dead trees.

    The damage to fir trees was so significant researchers took to calling the blighted areas “firmageddon” as they flew overhead during aerial surveys that estimated the die-offs extent.

    The surveyors ultimately tallied about 1.1 million acres of Oregon forest with dead firs, the most damage recorded in a single season since surveys began 75 years ago.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/firmageddon-researchers-find-11-million-acres-dead-trees-oregon-rcna59671

  76. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Snowstorm in the south of France on Dec. 12, ahead of the astronomical winter.
    https://i.ibb.co/C6mcmQY/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-12-213100.png

  77. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Temperature anomalies in Australia. December will be below average.
    https://i.ibb.co/VpC1WxN/gfs-T2ma-aus-2.png

  78. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    More Vincent Gray (Gordon Robertsons authority) sanctimonious bullcrap…

    [VINCENT GRAY, NEW ZEALAND] It is the mean global anomaly that has increased, It is not correct to assume that this implies an increase in mean global temperature because this cannot be measured.

    [IPCC] Rejected. The global anomaly increase can only occur if the global mean temperature has also increased. To state otherwise cannot, logically, be correct.

    [VINCENT GRAY, NEW ZEALAND] Return to the mere opinions of the self-styled experts.

    [IPCC] Rejected. Comment is ad hominem with no science to act upon.

    [VINCENT GRAY, NEW ZEALAND] Your model does not allow you to know that much of the absorbed energy from solar radiation in the daytime is removed by convection and radiated at higher levels in the atmosphere. The temperature at the surface during the daytime and its variabilty is thus unknown. You are also not allowed to know that everything is different at night when there is no radfiation from the sun and the radiation from the earth declines, except the atmosphere can return part of the ordinary and latent heat it absorbed during the day.

    [IPCC] It is not clear how the reviewer’s comments relate to the material presented in the section under consideration.

    [VINCENT GRAY, NEW ZEALAND] The revisions accentuate the absurdity of the whole exercise. The “uncertainties” are actually ranges of the extent to which all of the figures vary with changed circumstances and the so-called “balance” is admittedly bogus. All of the figures involve calculations usiing non linear equations and skewed distribution curves, Even the supposedly constant solar radiation and TOA radiation received are constantly varying.

    [IPCC] We cannot follow the reviewer’s argumentation here.

    • Swenson says:

      TM,

      Does any of your comment help to explain why the only known effect of the GHE is not to have interfered with the cooling of the Earths surface from the molten state – over the last four and a half billion years or so?

      The IPCC seems to share the common SkyDragon silliness of rejecting fact, and replacing it with “expert” opinion.

      Even the IPCC cannot actually describe the GHE, resorting to nonsense such as this –

      “Greenhouse gases are gases in the atmosphere such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that can absorb infrared radiation, trapping heat in the atmosphere. This greenhouse effect means that emissions of greenhouse gases due to human activity cause global warming.”

      What garbage! Try and “trap” some heat – it cant be done! Wait for nighttime, maybe that will help? These IPCC idiots just reject the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.

      Im not challenging your SkyDragon cultist beliefs. I just dont want to pay for them. As Thomas Jefferson said ‘”t does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.”

      Unfortunately, SkyDragons want to do both – nutters like Bindidon threatens unbelievers with physical violence and death, and ignorant SkyDragon politicians are picking my pocket as fast as they can.

      Go out on the street, if you wish, waving your “Stop Climate Change” placard. Do me a favour, and dont whine if I run you over because you are trying to interfere with my right to use the roads which I am legally entitled to do. Go and demonstrate in your own backyard, or rent a sports ground. Trust me, Ill do my best to stay out of your hair.

      Dimwitted SkyDragon cultist.

      [laughing at delusional SkyDragon]

      • studentb says:

        Classic old man shouting at the clouds.
        Go Sweno!

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        Blah, blah, blah. Are you off your meds again?

        • Swenson says:

          You wrote

          I am confused.

          Then you followed up your silliness with –

          I am unclear why we should get ready for snow in Germany!

          Grow a pair, laddie! Take a teaspoon of cement and harden up! Make up your own mind although SkyDragon cultists dont have a sterling reputation for independent thought.

          Do you believe the Earth has increased in temperature over the last four and a half billion years or so? Or do you believe in some sort of magical Greenhouse Effect that leapt into existence a little while ago? SkyDragon cultists cant even tell you when their magical global warming started can they?

          So sad.

          Keep believing.

        • Swenson says:

          TM,

          You wrote –

          “Blah, blah, blah. Are you off your meds again?”

          Is that really the best you can do? I’ll give you something to deny, and I typed it really, really, slowly – just for you!

          “Does any of your comment help to explain why the only known effect of the GHE is not to have interfered with the cooling of the Earths surface from the molten state over the last four and a half billion years or so?

          The IPCC seems to share the common SkyDragon silliness of rejecting fact, and replacing it with expert opinion.

          Even the IPCC cannot actually describe the GHE, resorting to nonsense such as this

          Greenhouse gases are gases in the atmosphere such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that can absorb infrared radiation, trapping heat in the atmosphere. This greenhouse effect means that emissions of greenhouse gases due to human activity cause global warming.

          What garbage! Try and trap some heat it cant be done! Wait for nighttime, maybe that will help? These IPCC idiots just reject the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.

          Im not challenging your SkyDragon cultist beliefs. I just dont want to pay for them. As Thomas Jefferson said t does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.

          Unfortunately, SkyDragons want to do both nutters like Bindidon threatens unbelievers with physical violence and death, and ignorant SkyDragon politicians are picking my pocket as fast as they can.

          Go out on the street, if you wish, waving your Stop Climate Change placard. Do me a favour, and dont whine if I run you over because you are trying to interfere with my right to use the roads which I am legally entitled to do. Go and demonstrate in your own backyard, or rent a sports ground. Trust me, Ill do my best to stay out of your hair.

          Dimwitted SkyDragon cultist.”

          [laughing at delusional SkyDragon]

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            your silliness is duly noted.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            “Try and trap some heat it cant be done!”

            Surely you want to re-think that statement?

          • studentb says:

            Yell louder. There’s a good boy.

          • Swenson says:

            TM,

            You wrote

            Blah, blah, blah. Are you off your meds again?

            Is that really the best you can do? Ill give you something to deny, and I typed it really, really, slowly just for you!

            Does any of your comment help to explain why the only known effect of the GHE is not to have interfered with the cooling of the Earths surface from the molten state over the last four and a half billion years or so?

            The IPCC seems to share the common SkyDragon silliness of rejecting fact, and replacing it with expert opinion.

            Even the IPCC cannot actually describe the GHE, resorting to nonsense such as this

            Greenhouse gases are gases in the atmosphere such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that can absorb infrared radiation, trapping heat in the atmosphere. This greenhouse effect means that emissions of greenhouse gases due to human activity cause global warming.

            What garbage! Try and trap some heat it cant be done! Wait for nighttime, maybe that will help? These IPCC idiots just reject the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.

            Im not challenging your SkyDragon cultist beliefs. I just dont want to pay for them. As Thomas Jefferson said t does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.

            Unfortunately, SkyDragons want to do both nutters like Bindidon threatens unbelievers with physical violence and death, and ignorant SkyDragon politicians are picking my pocket as fast as they can.

            Go out on the street, if you wish, waving your Stop Climate Change placard. Do me a favour, and dont whine if I run you over because you are trying to interfere with my right to use the roads which I am legally entitled to do. Go and demonstrate in your own backyard, or rent a sports ground. Trust me, Ill do my best to stay out of your hair.

            Dimwitted SkyDragon cultist.

            [laughing at delusional SkyDragon]

          • Willard says:

            What are you braying about, Mike?

          • Swenson says:

            Weird Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “What are you braying about, Mike?”

            I am sorry that you suffer from a lack of comprehension, so I will repeat – just for you –

            TM,

            You wrote

            Blah, blah, blah. Are you off your meds again?

            Is that really the best you can do? Ill give you something to deny, and I typed it really, really, slowly just for you!

            Does any of your comment help to explain why the only known effect of the GHE is not to have interfered with the cooling of the Earths surface from the molten state over the last four and a half billion years or so?

            The IPCC seems to share the common SkyDragon silliness of rejecting fact, and replacing it with expert opinion.

            Even the IPCC cannot actually describe the GHE, resorting to nonsense such as this

            Greenhouse gases are gases in the atmosphere such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that can absorb infrared radiation, trapping heat in the atmosphere. This greenhouse effect means that emissions of greenhouse gases due to human activity cause global warming.

            What garbage! Try and trap some heat it cant be done! Wait for nighttime, maybe that will help? These IPCC idiots just reject the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.

            Im not challenging your SkyDragon cultist beliefs. I just dont want to pay for them. As Thomas Jefferson said t does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.

            Unfortunately, SkyDragons want to do both nutters like Bindidon threatens unbelievers with physical violence and death, and ignorant SkyDragon politicians are picking my pocket as fast as they can.

            Go out on the street, if you wish, waving your Stop Climate Change placard. Do me a favour, and dont whine if I run you over because you are trying to interfere with my right to use the roads which I am legally entitled to do. Go and demonstrate in your own backyard, or rent a sports ground. Trust me, Ill do my best to stay out of your hair.

            Dimwitted SkyDragon cultist.

            [laughing at delusional SkyDragon]

          • Willard says:

            Mike, Mike,

            Just *what* are you braying about?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

    • Dr Vincent Gray died in 2018.

  79. studentb says:

    “Get ready for more snow in Germany”
    What should I do?
    Should I get on a flight and leave Germany?
    But I am not in Germany.
    Should I get on a flight and go to Germany?
    Maybe for the skiing?
    I am confused.

    • Swenson says:

      s,

      You wrote –

      “I am confused.”

      Grow a pair, laddie! Take a teaspoon of cement and harden up! Make up your own mind – although SkyDragon cultists dont have a sterling reputation for independent thought.

      Do you believe the Earth has increased in temperature over the last four and a half billion years or so? Or do you believe in some sort of magical “Greenhouse Effect” that leapt into existence a little while ago? SkyDragon cultists cant even tell you when their magical “global warming” started can they?

      So sad.

      Keep believing.

      • studentb says:

        I have met quite a few obsessive/(on the spectrum) personalities in my time. The common theme is that no matter what the topic of conversation, they always digress in order to prattle on about their personal favourite topic.

        For example:
        “I am unclear why we should get ready for snow in Germany”

        Response:
        “Do you believe the Earth has increased in temperature over the last four and a half billion years or so?”

        • Swenson says:

          You wrote

          I am confused.

          Then you followed up your silliness with

          I am unclear why we should get ready for snow in Germany!

          Grow a pair, laddie! Take a teaspoon of cement and harden up! Make up your own mind although SkyDragon cultists dont have a sterling reputation for independent thought.

          Do you believe the Earth has increased in temperature over the last four and a half billion years or so? Or do you believe in some sort of magical Greenhouse Effect that leapt into existence a little while ago? SkyDragon cultists cant even tell you when their magical global warming started can they?

          So sad.

          Keep believing.

          • studentb says:

            Louder! The clouds can’t hear you.

          • Swenson says:

            You wrote

            I am confused.

            Then you followed up your silliness with

            I am unclear why we should get ready for snow in Germany!

            Grow a pair, laddie! Take a teaspoon of cement and harden up! Make up your own mind although SkyDragon cultists dont have a sterling reputation for independent thought.

            Do you believe the Earth has increased in temperature over the last four and a half billion years or so? Or do you believe in some sort of magical Greenhouse Effect that leapt into existence a little while ago? SkyDragon cultists cant even tell you when their magical global warming started can they?

            So sad.

            Keep believing.

          • Galaxie500 says:

            Swenny

            The Earths temp has warmed and cooled many times in 4 half billion years what is your point?

          • Swenson says:

            Galaxie,

            You wrote –

            “Swenny

            The Earths temp has warmed and cooled many times in 4 half billion years what is your point?”

            No “point”, just stating an inconvenient fact for SkyDragons. The Earth has cooled, over the longest possible period known.

            No cherry-picking, by the way. Are you denying that the Earth has cooled, or are you just being silly, and claiming that the mysterious indescribable GHE has alternately cooled and heated the planet – using some form of magic, perhaps?

            Only joking, of course – nobody has managed to describe the GHE. A most unusual effect, which appears to have had no effect at all. The Earth has cooled – whether you like it or not!

            Maybe you could try another stupid attempt to avoid facing reality.

            Off you go.

          • studentb says:

            Louder!

          • Swenson says:

            s,

            Thank you for the opportunity. You may not be the only who needs repetition to comprehend .

            Again –

            Galaxie,

            You wrote

            Swenny

            The Earths temp has warmed and cooled many times in 4 half billion years what is your point?

            No point, just stating an inconvenient fact for SkyDragons. The Earth has cooled, over the longest possible period known.

            No cherry-picking, by the way. Are you denying that the Earth has cooled, or are you just being silly, and claiming that the mysterious indescribable GHE has alternately cooled and heated the planet using some form of magic, perhaps?

            Only joking, of course nobody has managed to describe the GHE. A most unusual effect, which appears to have had no effect at all. The Earth has cooled whether you like it or not!

            Maybe you could try another stupid attempt to avoid facing reality.

            Off you go.

          • barry says:

            “just stating an inconvenient fact for SkyDragons. The Earth has cooled, over the longest possible period known.”

            If you mean that the fact the globe has been different temperatures in the past, and is now cooler than when the surface was 1000C at conception, then, no, none of this is at all inconvenient to the understanding of AGW. Except in your level 2 mind, of course.

  80. gbaikie says:

    Mysterious Patterns Span The Arabian Desert, And We May Finally Know Why
    12 December 2022
    By Carly Cassella
    “The deserts of Saudi Arabia were once the lush and fertile homes of ancient people more than 8,000 years ago.

    Today, the remnants of these long-gone communities still stand frozen, or rather, desiccated in time.
    Right across the Arabian peninsula, from Jordan to Saudi Arabia to Syria, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Iraq, researchers have identified thousands of huge stone structures from the sky.

    The V-shaped arrangements were first noticed by British air force pilots in the 1920s, and for more than a century, experts have debated why they were built.

    Recent satellite images and drone surveys in the ʿUwayriḍ desert of Saudi Arabia now support a commonly held suspicion.

    Today, archaeologists working on these ancient stone patterns, sometimes known as ‘desert kites’, think they were most likely used as mass hunting traps.”
    https://www.sciencealert.com/mysterious-patterns-span-the-arabian-desert-and-we-may-finally-know-why
    Linked from: https://instapundit.com/

  81. gbaikie says:

    Mysterious Patterns Span The Arabian Desert, And We May Finally Know Why
    12 December 2022
    By Carly Cassella
    “The deserts of Saudi Arabia were once the lush and fertile homes of ancient people more than 8,000 years ago.

    Today, the remnants of these long-gone communities still stand frozen, or rather, desiccated in time.
    Right across the Arabian peninsula, from Jordan to Saudi Arabia to Syria, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Iraq, researchers have identified thousands of huge stone structures from the sky.

    The V-shaped arrangements were first noticed by British air force pilots in the 1920s, and for more than a century, experts have debated why they were built.

    Recent satellite images and drone surveys in the ʿUwayriḍ desert of Saudi Arabia now support a commonly held suspicion.

    Today, archaeologists working on these ancient stone patterns, sometimes known as ‘desert kites’, think they were most likely used as mass hunting traps.”
    https://tinyurl.com/2p9anhty
    Linked from: https://instapundit.com/

  82. Eben says:

    Can you see the superdeveloping La Nňa yet ???

    https://i.postimg.cc/dQzBxTr7/mei-lifecycle-11.png

  83. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Silly Swenson at 9:27 PM

    Says: “Try and trap some heat it can’t be done!”

    Please explain.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      maguff…trying quoting Swenson in the context he is writing. He is quoting the alarmist POV that heat can be trapped by CO2. Of course, I would not expect you to understand anything that deep.

    • Swenson says:

      TM,

      You wrote –

      “Silly Swenson at 9:27 PM

      Says: “Try and trap some heat it cant be done!”

      Please explain.”

      To those who understand, no explanation is necessary. To those who dont, no explanation is possible.

      If you dont understand what the IPCC says, dont blame me.

      Dimwit.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      Silly Swenson,

      “Try and trap some heat it can’t be done!”

      Try thinking about this. On a cold night go outside naked, you’ll be freezing, no?. Then, when you get arrested, the nice police officer will throw a blanket over you and you’ll immediately begin to feel warmer.

      Your body was generating the same amount of heat before and after your arrest but the blanket, by trapping heat, has warmed you.

      Now do you understand how heat can be trapped?

      • Clint R says:

        TM, you’re confused by the terminology. The thermodynamic definition of heat involves transfer. That’s what Swenson is referring to. If there is no transfer, there is no “heat”.

        Your cult gets confused because you don’t understand the science. The blanket is NOT “heating” anything. Thermal energy transfer from the body heats the blanket.

        • Willard says:

          Pup,

          Mike Flynn admitted he had no point.

          What about you?

        • Norman says:

          Clint R

          The blanket is slowing down the heat transfer allowing the skin temperature to increase as it gains energy from the body’s internal energy generating process. The term “Heat Trap” was just a simplified attempt to communicate with nonscientific general public.

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry Norman, but your cult’s effort was/is to pervert reality. But, realizing that the atmosphere is like a blanket destroys the GHE nonsense. Radiative gases act as holes in the blanket, cooling Earth.

            Maybe you haven’t noticed, but reality always wins.

            (Got any valid technical references for all your nonsense yet?)

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            Not a cult but real science. GHG will cool parts of the atmosphere they WILL not act to cool the solar heated surface. They will greatly reduce the radiation heat loss keeping the surface warmer. With your lack of any scientific education I won’t expect you to understand any of it.

          • Clint R says:

            It’s a cult, Norman. And you’ve swallowed everything they spew.

            You even make up stuff you can’t support, as you deny valid science like the ball-on-a-string.

          • barry says:

            “Radiative gases act as holes in the blanket, cooling Earth.”

            Well you got that back-asswards. Without radiative gases the surface would lose its heat directly to space, much quicker than having to pass that heat through radiative gases up through the atmosphere.

            It is this blanket of radiative gases that slow the escape of heat radiated from the surface up to space, thereby keeping the surface warmer than if there were no atmosphere.

            The blanket-on-a-person analogy is quite apt. The blanket/atmosphere doesn’t provide energy by itself, but moderates the flow of heat.

            Any continuously heated object that has its rate of thermal heat loss slowed must therefore get hotter. This is as basic as it gets.

      • Swenson says:

        TM,

        You are confused. Insulation does not “trap heat”, nor prevent an object from cooling.

        SkyDragon idiots try to talk about overcoats, blankets, and the like, because they are faced with the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and don’t want to accept reality.

        Wrap your blanket around a corpse, and it will cool – possibly more slowly, but slow cooling is not “getting hotter”.

        Try and “trap” (or even sillier “accumulate” some heat). Can’t be done. That’s why the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so. As Fourier pointed out, during the night, all the heat of the day is lost, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat. Rather like a just deceased human – it cools, no matter how many coats or blankets you wrap around it.

        So carry on trying to avoid facing the reality that nobody can even describe this mythical GHE without getting laughed at. Try another zinger. It will be equally as defective as the damp squib you just offered up for my amusement.

        • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

          Check this out:

          Cutaneous heat loss is reduced by insulators separating skin from the environment: insulation provided by the applied blankets reduced heat loss and consequently increased skin temperature.

          Heat Loss in Humans Covered with Co*t*t*on Hospital Blankets

          Bob Dylan wrote some lyrics just for you:

          “Idiot wind
          Blowing every time you move your mouth
          Blowing down the back roads headin’ south
          Idiot wind
          Blowing every time you move your teeth
          You’re an idiot, babe
          It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe”

          • Swenson says:

            TM,

            Your source says that the living bodies lost heat at a rate of around 81 W (joules per second). Insulation in the form of blankets reduced the rate of loss, but did not stop it. The lost heat was of course replenished by the body converting carbohydrates to heat internally. Once the body ceases to live, the temperature will fall – regardless of how many blankets it is wrapped in!

            You are confused. Insulation does not trap heat, nor prevent an object from cooling.

            SkyDragon idiots try to talk about overcoats, blankets, and the like, because they are faced with the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and dont want to accept reality.

            Wrap your blanket around a corpse, and it will cool possibly more slowly, but slow cooling is not getting hotter.

            Try and trap (or even sillier accumulate some heat). Cant be done. Thats why the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so. As Fourier pointed out, during the night, all the heat of the day is lost, plus a little of the Earths internal heat. Rather like a just deceased human it cools, no matter how many coats or blankets you wrap around it.

            So carry on trying to avoid facing the reality that nobody can even describe this mythical GHE without getting laughed at. Try another zinger. It will be equally as defective as the damp squib you just offered up for my amusement.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Swenson,
            your unhinged rant is duly noted.
            “It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe”

          • Nate says:

            Swenson has the strange idea that the Earth is like an unheated corpse. Does he really think the Earths surface isn’t being heated by the sun, while also being insulated by the atmosphere?

            Tyndall explained this to him very clearly, and he became mute.

            He shows zero interest in facts that disrupt his clueless narrative.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tyson, please stop trolling.

        • barry says:

          “Wrap your blanket around a corpse”

          Bad analogy. The Earth receives continuous energy, so the proper analogy is with a blanket and a live body generating its own heat.

          But you’ve done this silly diversion countless times and had the flaw explained nearly as many, so it’s likely you simply don’t have the wherewithal to understand the topic.

          I prefer that analysis to one in which you actually do know better and are being mendacious.

  84. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Frost in England, France and Germany.
    https://i.ibb.co/BcYwCgz/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-13-064556.png

  85. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Will there be a white Christmas in New York this year? Yes, it will be white.
    https://i.ibb.co/7pzVKsT/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-13-072320.png

  86. Galaxie500 says:

    Are you saying the Earth Temperature has never been cooler in the past?

    C02 is just one of the long term active drivers of Earth temperature. There are other factors involved Solar irradiance , aerosols.

    • Galaxie500 says:

      Reply to Swenson in wrong place apparently .

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Swenson is saying that the core and mantle have never been cooler. For some reason, he is adamant that this important when considering the temperature swings of the atmosphere. No one but Swenson knows why this should be germane.

    • Swenson says:

      Galaxie500,

      You wrote –

      “Are you saying the Earth Temperature has never been cooler in the past?”

      Presumably, you are trying for a gotcha, because you are a delusional SkyDragon.

      But because you wish to appear ignorant and deluded, I will answer your attempted zinger – no, the “Earth Temperature” has never been cooler in the past. All matter above absolute zero emits radiation. This loss of radiation results in a reduction in the “degree of hotness”, which is what thermometers measure.

      You are probably guilty of listening to people who have never measured the “Earth Temperature” in the present, let alone in the past.

      If you believe otherwise, you might like to try to support your assertion, by describing the change in physical laws which allow an object to spontaneously heat and then cool again. Presumably, you believe this happens repeatedly, at random, and due to some magical process know only to idiots such as yourself.

      You will notice that even your fellow nitwit, Tim Folkerts, believes “the atmosphere” magically gets cooler or warmer as a whole – depending one how Tim feels at the time. At least he agrees that the core and mantle cool continuously. He is probably ignorant enough to believe that the ocean is heated throughout by the Sun, and “stores” or “traps” heat, by some magical process.

      Maybe he believes that liquids and gas follow different unwritten laws of thermodynamics – once again, known only to idiot SkyDragons.

      Off you go now, try and come up wth a better gotcha. Your current attempt has failed miserably.

  87. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Even more rain in New South Wales.
    https://i.ibb.co/wRv4rqw/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-13-124909.png

    • Clint R says:

      It seems the northern Polar Vortex is delayed in forming. Since a PV requires energy, I suspect this long La Niña is the culprit.

  88. Willard says:

    Grand Solar Minimum Update

    Vegetable prices in the U.S. are around 40% higher this year and experts are saying climate change has played a prominent role. Bloomberg is reporting that Arizona produces 90% of leafy greens in the U.S. from November through March each year, but crop production has been greatly affected this year by a drought forming from reduced water levels in the Colorado River.

    https://gizmodo.com/food-prices-climate-change-inflation-drought-1849883609

    Coming up next – the Earth was once molten.

  89. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    I don’t think the Moon Dragon Cranks dispute that, as we orbit the Sun, the orientation of Earth’s axis remains the same with respect to the fixed stars, and this is the reason we have seasons.

    However, they dispute the fact that if the Moon did not rotate on its axis, it would also keep a fixed orientation with respect to the fixed stars as it orbits Earth. And observers on Earth would see all its sides.

    Is this
    a) unfathomable pinheadery from Moon Dragon Cranks, or
    b) willful ignorance.

    • Clint R says:

      Wrong again, TM.

      You don’t understand “orbital motion, without axial rotation”. That’s the advantage of the ball-on-a-string. It’s easy to understand. One side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit, just like Moon.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Tyson, the ‘debate’ comes down to choosing between two variations on the definition for “orbital motion”. Either:
      A) “orbital motion” imposes specific constraints on the orientation of the orbiting object.
      b) “orbital motion” does NOT impose any constraints on the orientation of the orbiting body.

      Option (A) is like a ball on a string. Like a horse bolted to a merry-go-round platform. Like a truck driving along an oval track. It is indeed a simple and intuitive option. The motion along the path in all cases necessarily causes a specific orientation of the object relative to the ‘fixed stars’ — the point where the string attaches must be toward the center; the nose of the horse must be forward; the hood of the truck must be forward. There is only “rotation about the object’s axis” when there is some ADDITIONAL change in orientation relative to the string / platform /car.

      Option (B) say there is “rotation about the object’s axis” whenever there is a change in orientation relative to the ‘the fixed stars’. So if the MGR horse always has its nose pointing north, it is not rotating. Period. This is the ‘simplicity’ of option (B).

      As with any ‘debate’ in science, the answer is found in experiment; in actual data about the actual universe.

      One huge problem with Option (A) is that it fails to describe the orientation of actual moons or planets in actual elliptical orbits. Option (A) is NOT ‘just like the moon’.

      A ball swung in a circle at varying speeds will change orientation relative the the ‘fixed stars at a varying rate. A truck driving around an elliptical track at varying speeds to model Kepler’s Laws will change orientation relative the the ‘fixed stars’ at a varying rate.

      But the actual moon changes orientation at a constant rate relative to the ‘fixed stars’. As predicted by Option (B).

      • Clint R says:

        Moon is Option (A), it always keeps one side facing the inside of its orbit. It is NOT rotating about its axis.

        Fraudkerts attempts to pervert reality by mentioning Moon’s slightly elliptical orbit, which has NOTHING to do with axial rotation.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        Tim Folkerts at 12:26 PM

        I agree with you.

        My point, though, is that the motion of the Earth’s axis is observable evidence of an orbit without rotation. Granted, on human timescales.

        The Moon’s motion is observable evidence of an orbit with rotation.

        Yet, Moon Dragon Cranks accept the former but deny the latter.

        I need more evidence before I decide if they’re guilty of unfathomable pinheadery or willful ignorance.

        So please, keep them talking.

        • Clint R says:

          TM, if you believe Earth is NOT rotating, but Moon is, there’s nothing anyone can do for you.

          You’re a confirmed braindead cult idiot.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      All wrong, Tim.

      Both "Spinners" and "Non-Spinners" impose specific constraints on the orientation of the orbiting object, for their definition of "orbital motion".

      For "Spinners", "orbital motion" is like the "moon on the right", which is motion in which one face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards some distant star, throughout. "Axial rotation" is then separate from this motion, in other words there needs to be an orientation change in addition to the "moon on the right" motion, for there to be axial rotation. You could think of the "moon on the right" motion as being "translation in a circle".

      For "Non-Spinners", "orbital motion" is like the "moon on the left", which is motion in which one face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit, throughout. "Axial rotation" is then separate from this motion, in other words there needs to be an orientation change in addition to the "moon on the left" motion, for there to be axial rotation. You could think of the "moon on the left" motion as being "rotation about an external axis".

      Now, when you look up definitions of "orbit", or "revolution", you will find many that simply say it is a path, or trajectory. These definitions support neither "Spinners" nor "Non-Spinners", since they specify nothing about orientation. However, you can find a few definitions that suggest "revolution/orbit" is a "rotation about an external axis". So that supports the "Non-Spinners". You can’t find any definitions that suggest "revolution/orbit" is "translation in a circle/ellipse". They do not use the word "translation" at all…so, no support for the "Spinners"…

      …so, overall, the definition argument is settled in the "Non-Spinners" favour.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “Now, when you look up definitions …”

        That is not how science is done. There could be 100’s of definitions with small or large differences in wording. They could be aimed at the public or experts. Support is not found in definitions or in pictures. Arguments are not settled by how many definitions you can find supporting a particular position.

        The only interesting or important support is whether the definition agrees with how the universe works. While either model works find for perfectly circular orbits, only one works accurately for elliptical orbits.

        No, definitions themselves never ‘settled’ anything.

        • Clint R says:

          Are you attempting more fraud, Fraudkerts?

          It doesn’t matter if the orbit is circular or elliptical. If the same side of the object always faces the inside of the orbit, the object is NOT rotating.

          • Willard says:

            Of course it matters that the orbit isn’t circular, Pup:

            https://www.geogebra.org/m/mMN9Vpe3

            Rotation preserves isometry.

            That implies a circle.

            Better luck next trolling time.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “If the same side of the object always faces the inside of the orbit, the object is NOT rotating.”

            But the ‘same side’ of the moon does not always ‘face the inside’. We see slightly different sides of the moon. So by your own definition, the moon IS rotating == slightly back and forth each orbit. Why? How does your model explain this? What torque causes this rotation?

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong again, Fraudkerts.

            The ‘same side’ of Moon always faces the inside of its orbit. What we see from Earth is due to libration, which is due to our slightly changing view as Moon travels its elliptical orbit. Moon is NOT moving “back and forth”. That’s your incorrect and invalid interpretation. You understand none of this.

          • Nate says:

            “Moon is NOT moving ‘back and forth’.”

            So you now realize that the Moon’s motion does not need to be described in an Earth-centric frame of reference.

            Progress is slow but steady. Keep it up.

          • Clint R says:

            Yeah troll Nate, I hope I was clear enough that hopefully fraudkerts will get it. Progress has been slow with him. But, at least people are learning what a fraud he is.

            Just like they’re learning what a troll you are.

          • Nate says:

            Now, by losing the Earth-centric view, you should be able to see that the Moon is indeed rotating as it orbits.

            But you might not be there yet.

        • Swenson says:

          Tim,

          Is that why SkyDragons define “slow cooling” as “getting hotter”?

          They definitely seem to think there is a significant difference between a “prediction” and a “projection” or “forecast”.

          I seem to recollect that you argued that “warming” is completely different to “heating”, when I used one or the other in relation to a rise in temperature.

          I agree with you about definitions, and add that the “science” is never “settled”, unlike some idiot at the helm of the IPCC at one time, who claimed that “the science is settled”!

          • Willard says:

            What are you braying about, Mike?

          • Swenson says:

            Silly Wee Willy,

            Your lack of comprehension is noted. I always try to help those less fortunate than myself, so maybe this will help you –

            Tim,

            Is that why SkyDragons define slow cooling as getting hotter?

            They definitely seem to think there is a significant difference between a prediction and a projection or forecast.

            I seem to recollect that you argued that warming is completely different to heating, when I used one or the other in relation to a rise in temperature.

            I agree with you about definitions, and add that the science is never settled, unlike some idiot at the helm of the IPCC at one time, who claimed that the science is settled!

          • Willard says:

            What are you braying about, Mike?

            Let’s hope it’s not the same silly semantic arguments coming from your lot of Dragon cranks!

          • Swenson says:

            Silly Wee Willy,

            Your lack of comprehension is noted. I always try to help those less fortunate than myself, so maybe this will help you

            Tim,

            Is that why SkyDragons define slow cooling as getting hotter?

            They definitely seem to think there is a significant difference between a prediction and a projection or forecast.

            I seem to recollect that you argued that warming is completely different to heating, when I used one or the other in relation to a rise in temperature.

            I agree with you about definitions, and add that the science is never settled, unlike some idiot at the helm of the IPCC at one time, who claimed that the science is settled!

          • Willard says:

            What are you braying about, Mike?

          • Swenson says:

            illy Wee Willy,

            Your lack of comprehension is noted. I always try to help those less fortunate than myself, so maybe this will help you

            Tim,

            Is that why SkyDragons define slow cooling as getting hotter?

            They definitely seem to think there is a significant difference between a prediction and a projection or forecast.

            I seem to recollect that you argued that warming is completely different to heating, when I used one or the other in relation to a rise in temperature.

            I agree with you about definitions, and add that the science is never settled, unlike some idiot at the helm of the IPCC at one time, who claimed that the science is settled!

          • Willard says:

            What are *you* braying about, Mike?

          • Swenson says:

            Silly Wee Willy,

            Your lack of comprehension is noted. I always try to help those less fortunate than myself, so maybe this will help you

            Tim,

            Is that why SkyDragons define slow cooling as getting hotter?

            They definitely seem to think there is a significant difference between a prediction and a projection or forecast.

            I seem to recollect that you argued that warming is completely different to heating, when I used one or the other in relation to a rise in temperature.

            I agree with you about definitions, and add that the science is never settled, unlike some idiot at the helm of the IPCC at one time, who claimed that the science is settled!

          • Willard says:

            What are you *braying* about, Mike?

          • Willard says:

            What are you braying about, Mike?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “You cant find any definitions that suggest “revolution/orbit” is “translation in a circle/ellipse”. ”

        Say what!?

        “An orbit is a regular, repeating path … ” NASA Knows! (Grades 5-8)
        “In celestial mechanics, an orbit is the curved trajectory of an object … ” wikipedia.
        “a path described by one body in its revolution about another (as by the earth about the sun or by an electron about an atomic nucleus)” Merriam-Webster.
        “The path of a celestial body or an artificial satellite as it revolves around another body due to their mutual gravitational attraction.” American Heritage Dictionary
        “orbit, in astronomy, path of a body revolving around an attracting centre of mass, as a planet around the Sun or a satellite around a planet.” Britannica.

        Every source I found says astronomical orbits are ‘paths’. The center of the satellite follows a curved line. None mentions ‘rotation about an external axis’.

        The consensus is against you.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Tim, you could not find a single one mentioning translation in a circle/ellipse. You just, as I already said, found a bunch defining “orbit/revolution” as a path, or trajectory…in other words, not mentioning orientation, so not supporting either side of the argument. Both sides can agree that an orbiting body follows a path or trajectory around the body it is orbiting. That kind of goes without saying. What is missing is the orientation it has whilst following that path.

          So, the “Spinners” need a definition that includes orientation just as much as the “Non-Spinners” do. When are you people going to get that? The “Spinners” orientation for “orbital motion” is like the “moon on the right”, where one side of the body remains oriented towards some distant star throughout the orbit. You could describe it as “translation in a circle/ellipse”. So you need to find a definition mentioning that. Good luck!

        • Nate says:

          STRAWMAN ALERT.

          An ORBIT is a path, a trajectory, ie a series of points, or positions in space.

          The rotation of the body is not restricted by this definition!

          So NO. Orbital motion doesnt need to be a pure Translation, since it allows for the body to rotate.

          • Clint R says:

            Thanks for alerting us to your straw man, troll Nate.

            No one has said that translation prevents rotation. Earth does both, for example.

          • Willard says:

            The strawman is the need for the concept of orbit to contain an orientation, Pup. Once we accept that celestial bodies spin, there is no need for that. Orbit, spin. Try it, it works.

            Moon Dragon cranks ought to accept that a satellite in a 3:2 spin-lock still spins. Same for any ratio except 1:1. Readers might notice how special is your pleading.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, it’s no strawman. Both "Spinners" and "Non-Spinners" have a concept of "orbital motion" than includes orientation…whether they understand that they do, or not! That’s proven by asking any "Spinner" a simple question:

            How does an object that is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis, remain oriented?

            The answer to that question is the orientation involved in their concept of "orbital motion". Any "Spinner" will answer that the orbiting object will move with one side always oriented towards some distant star.

          • Willard says:

            Gaslighting Graham still misses the concept of spin.

            Oh well.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Not at all, Little Willy. See my response further down-thread.

          • Willard says:

            Let readers decide if he succeeds in escaping the spin-orbit lock paradox Moon Dragon cranks are facing.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, Little Willy. Let readers decide exactly how confused you are.

          • barry says:

            Orbit and rotation are not inevitably linked. Which is why we have planets that don’t rotate in the direction they orbit.

            The definition and action of an orbit does not require the orientation of the orbiting object. That’s a separate matter. In celestial mechanics the calculations for orbit do not require rotation to estimate trajectory. It is incidental. It doesn’t matter if an object is rotating, or not rotating, or which direction the rotation is occurring. That will have no impact on its orbital trajectory.

      • Nate says:

        “For “Spinners”, “orbital motion” is like the “moon on the right”, which is motion in which one face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards some distant star, throughout.”

        Demonstrably False. Stop telling ‘Spinners’ what you want them to believe!

        Earth’s motion is an example of what ‘orbital motion’ looks like, and it most certainly doesnt have one face oriented to a distant star!

        That’s because ‘orbital motion’ means following an orbital path thru space WITHOUT a specified or rotation rate or orientation, other than the orientation of the rotational axis, tilted toward a fixed star throughout each orbit.

        This observational fact of the axial tilt of the Moon is shamelessly dismissed by the ‘non-spinners’.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        OK, so let’s just get one thing straight, in case anyone obnoxious gets themselves all "confused".

        When I say "orbital motion", I of course am referring to orbital motion without axial rotation.

        • Nate says:

          “When I say ‘orbital motion’, I of course am referring to orbital motion without axial rotation.”

          The Earth and all other planets have various rotation rates yet are bodies in Orbital Motion.

          Thus you find a need to SPECIFY a second parameter, rotation rate, when describing the motions to others.

          The fact that you need to do that SHOULD tell you that this parameter IS OBVIOUSLY NOT ALREADY SPECIFIED in the definition of ORBIT or ORBITAL MOTION!

          This should be quite easy to understand for anyone who is open minded.

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Nate, you forgot to alert us to your straw man.

            Earth has both motions — orbiting and rotating.

            Moon only has one motion — orbiting.

            And of course the ball-on-a-string is an example of “orbital motion WITHOUT axial rotation”.

            Your next straw man, please.

          • Willard says:

            An orbit is a trajectory, Pup.

            Rotation and translation are motions.

            Do keep up.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “An orbit is a trajectory, Pup.”

            Definitions where an orbit is said to be a path, or trajectory, don’t support the “Spinners” any more than they support the “Non-Spinners”, Little Willy. Both sides can agree that an orbiting body follows a path or trajectory around the body it is orbiting. That kind of goes without saying. What is missing is the orientation it has whilst following that path.

          • Willard says:

            Gaslighting Graham misses the concept of spin.

            Readers might wonder when he will find it.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Not at all, Little Willy. The thing about spin is, you have to make sure you are keeping it separate from the “orbital motion”. Kind of hard to do that, unless and until you have a fixed idea of what is “orbit without spin”.

            To look at motion like the “moon on the left”, for instance, and be able to say “that is both orbiting and spinning”, you have to first establish that “orbit without spin” is motion like the “moon on the right”.

          • Entropic man says:

            I don’t understand. If the Moon and the Earth are attached to opposite ends of the string, why does an observer on the Moon see the Earth rotating?

          • Willard says:

            Gaslighting Graham still misses that we already have an explanation as to why the Moon is now in a 1:1 spin-orbit lock with the Earth.

            Moon Dragon cranks still lack an explanation as to why the Moon would be the only celestial body that does not spin. In fact they still fail to acknowledge that all the other spin-lock ratios involve spin.

            Tyson is onto something.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Poor Little Willy. Always confused. No, “Non-Spinners” see all “1:1 spin-orbit lock” bodies as not rotating on their own axes. So that is not just our moon. It is most moons in the solar system, and beyond.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            As for Mercury, in its “3:2 spin-orbit lock”, yes, that is indeed rotating on its own axis. At a rate of half an axial rotation per orbit (“Spinners” see it as rotating 1.5 times per orbit, therefore “Non-Spinners” see it as rotating 0.5 times per orbit).

          • Willard says:

            Readers might like to know how many celestial bodies Moon Dragon cranks claim are not spinning.

            They might also note that Gaslighting Graham is compelled to hold the following absurdity:

            1:2 lock? Spinning.

            1:1 lock? Not spinning.

            3:2 lock? Spinning.

            A 1:1 spin-orbit lock is Very Special indeed in Moon Dragon cranks physics!

          • Clint R says:

            Moon has a 0:1 spin-orbit rate. Just like the ball-on-a-string has a 0:1 spin-orbit rate.

            Reality wins over blah-blah, every time.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Anything in what “Spinners” think of as being a “1:1 spin-orbit lock” is not rotating on its own axis, according to “Non-Spinners”. That ought to be obvious to anyone that understands the debate. Little Willy proves his ignorance, time and again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

    • Willard says:

      Very true, Tim. So simple only Gaslighting Graham could pretend to sincerely disbelieve that the Moon spins.

      You might like:

      https://tinyurl.com/tim-haz-three-pennies

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      "No, definitions themselves never ‘settled’ anything."

      I said:

      "…the definition argument is settled in the "Non-Spinners" favour."

      I did not say:

      "the moon issue is settled in the "Non-Spinners" favour by the definition argument."

      There is an ongoing argument, related to the moon issue, about definitions, Tim. That argument is settled in the "Non-Spinners" favour. That’s what I meant. I did not say that "science is done by definitions", or that the definition argument settles the overall moon issue, or anything that you are accusing me of saying. As usual, Tim bashes his straw men.

    • Willard says:

      Tyson,

      I think it’s a bit of boat.

    • studentb says:

      As I noted above:
      “I have met quite a few obsessive/(on the spectrum) personalities in my time. The common theme is that no matter what the topic of conversation, they always digress in order to prattle on about their personal favourite topic.

      For example:
      I am unclear why we should get ready for snow in Germany
      Response:
      “You dont understand orbital motion, without axial rotation…”

      OR
      “How are you today?”
      Response:
      “A ball swung in a circle at varying speeds will change orientation relative the the fixed stars at a varying rate…”

      We can see in these posts what can happen when a group of obsessives gets together. Boring, but somehow morbidly fascinating at the same time.

      • Swenson says:

        s,

        You wrote –

        “Boring, but somehow morbidly fascinating at the same time.”

        You are perfectly free to feel as bored as you wish, and equally free to be morbidly fascinated. I assume you think that somebody cares for your inability to fill in your time to better effect. Out of more than seven billion people on the planet, can you name more than one who cares for your opinion?

        You appear to be just another idiotic SkyDragon trying to appear intelligent and authoritative, and failing miserably.

        Have you managed to find an explanation for the fact that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, with the mythical GHE unable to prevent this cooling?

        A rhetorical question, of course, because neither you nor any other witless SkyDragon can even describe the object of their cult worship – the GHE!

        You might as well keep on being bored and morbidly fascinated. You haven’t got the brainpower to do anything else, have you?

      • Nate says:

        For most people, having nothing of substance to say is reason enough to not post.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      maguff…”…they [realists, aka non-spinners] dispute the fact that if the Moon did not rotate on its axis, it would also keep a fixed orientation with respect to the fixed stars as it orbits Earth. And observers on Earth would see all its sides”.

      ***

      I don’t recall a non-spinner even addressing such a stupid claim. The truth is, the Moon does not rotate on it axis mainly because it has no rotational axis nor any angular momentum about such a fictitious axis.

      The Moon does not keep a fixed orientation wrt the stars because it is orbiting the Earth while keeping the same face pointed at Earth. As it does so, it is lit by the Sun at various angles. Were it rotating on a local axis, we on Earth would see all sides of the Moon.

      • Willard says:

        Come on, Gordo.

        The silly GIF.

        Is all about.

        That counterfactual.

        How many times must Gaslighting Graham repeat himself before you start paying attention?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        This thread began with Tyson making it abundantly clear that “Spinners” see it as a “fact” that an object orbiting without rotating on its own axis would “keep a fixed orientation with respect to the fixed stars”.

        Funny how there have been so many attempts from other “Spinners” to try to pretend otherwise, since then…there have been at least three of them trying to claim that orientation is not a part of how “Spinners” see “orbit without spin”.

        …and yet, it obviously is…

      • Willard says:

        Tyson made a case for the following alternative –

        Either Moon Dragon cranks are ignoramuses or trolls.

        He forgot one possibility – it could be boat.

        Gaslighting Graham clearly shows that this possibility is quite plausible.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Tyson presented a false dichotomy, and Little Willy lapped it up.