UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2023: +0.18 deg. C

May 2nd, 2023 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April 2023 was +0.18 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is down slightly from the March 2023 anomaly of +0.20 deg. C.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 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 16 months are:

YEARMOGLOBENHEM.SHEM.TROPICUSA48ARCTICAUST
2022Jan+0.03+0.06-0.00-0.23-0.13+0.68+0.10
2022Feb-0.00+0.01-0.01-0.24-0.04-0.30-0.50
2022Mar+0.15+0.27+0.03-0.07+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+0.20
2022Jun+0.06+0.08+0.05-0.36+0.46+0.33+0.11
2022Jul+0.36+0.37+0.35+0.13+0.84+0.55+0.65
2022Aug+0.28+0.31+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+0.13-0.16-0.51+0.51-0.56
2022Dec+0.05+0.13-0.03-0.35-0.21+0.80-0.38
2023Jan-0.04+0.05-0.14-0.38+0.12-0.12-0.50
2023Feb+0.08+0.170.00-0.11+0.68-0.24-0.12
2023Mar+0.20+0.23+0.16-0.14-1.44+0.17+0.40
2023Apr+0.18+0.11+0.25-0.03-0.38+0.53+0.21

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for April, 2023 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


2,690 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2023: +0.18 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Petwap says:

    Let the madness begin!

  2. skeptikal says:

    Another month to add to the new Monckton Pause.

  3. bdgwx says:

    In mid April my expectation was 0.08 +/- 0.24 C. By the end of April my expectation was 0.05 +/- 0.21 C. I was expecting a significant drop. According to my model a 2023/04 value of >= 0.18 C had only a 10% chance of occurrence.

    It is interesting to note that the 4-month lagged ONI value is -0.8. So the 2023/04 value is still influenced by La Nina. The same will be true for the 2023/05 value as well. It won’t be until 2023/06 at the earliest that we start seeing more ENSO-neutral values.

    I’m still not ready call out all of those sub-zero (on the 1981-2010 baseline) predictions we saw on here (and other blogs) as failed predictions. But, at this point, everyone has to know that it would be very unlikely. My calculations put the odds at less than 1-in-100.

    • Richard M says:

      I saw your prediction and thought it was too low. We still have low Antarctic sea ice. Polar factors have almost immediate UAH effects vs. the 3-4 month lag for equatorial factors.

      My own thoughts were we should see something similar to March. Turned out to be correct. Whether I got the cause right is another question.

      I think a lot of those sub-zero predictions also failed to account for the lower level of Antarctic sea ice.

      • bdgwx says:

        I’m not using sea ice in my model. When I get time I’ll explore the relationship and see if the model training identifies a contribution from it.

        My technique for predicting the latest month is best described as a 50/50 weight of the long term expected value and the expected change. The long term expected value comes from CO2 + ENSO + AMO + volcanic aerosols + solar irradiance. The expected change comes the real-time observations throughout of the months provided by the GFS analysis+forecast, NCAR reanalysis, and JRA reanalysis.

        The reason for the low expectation for 2023/04 is that the expected Mar-to-Apr change was large and negative. In fact, the Mar-to-Apr change was the largest (by far) of the 149 test cases I used to train the model.

      • Eben says:

        Tell us all about your “predictions” you never posted

        • bdgwx says:

          What would you like to know?

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          The temperature remains modulating between 0.0 and 0.5C after the last step change.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Since 2016 it has been in that band, averaging about 0.25C. Before that, it was averaging -0.2C. This implies that the temperature change is nonsystematic.

          • Nate says:

            It tells you ENSO contributes a lot in the short term,

            http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Nino34+Tglb_2015-2023.pdf

            but also the warming trend is still present.

          • bdgwx says:

            Both the variation and long term appear to be consistent with expectations.

            https://i.imgur.com/83GZJ1T.png

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            It tells you that whatever condition caused the step change is still in place.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            It also tells you it isn’t some linear systematic cause like fossil fuels.

          • Nate says:

            “It also tells you it isnt some linear systematic cause like fossil fuels.”

            In spite of the general increase in sunlight we have been experiencing this Spring in my area, this week we had a rather cool spell.

            Stephen would suggest, based on this data, that there isnt a systematic cause of our seasonal warming, like the tilt of the Northern Hemisphere toward the Sun in this portion of Earth’s orbit.

            Climate science is not ignoring the natural causes, such as ENSO, of temperature variation, that make it depart from a continuous linear warming due to another cause, like AGW.

            But for some weird reason, Stephen wants us to ignore these natural contributions.

          • bdgwx says:

            Stephen, The UAH observations is what you would expect if you superimpose natural variability onto a log2(CO2) trend.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            No, it isn’t. Chic has shown you with the Woodfortrees site that CO2 follows temperature. Murray Salby has shown that in many of his presentations. He’s shown that CO2 progresses as an integral of temperature. CO2 follows temperature on short and long, time scales. Only imbecile propagandists dispute that fact.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            >Stephen would suggest, based on this data, that there isnt a systematic cause of our seasonal warming, like the tilt of the Northern Hemisphere toward the Sun in this portion of Earths orbit.

            No, strawman. Seasonal changes are systematic, but not due to fossil fuel.

          • Nate says:

            Stephen,

            The strawman is your claim that AGW should be the ONLY driver of T variation. On time scales of < 10 y, ENSO is in the drivers seat.

          • bdgwx says:

            I’m not talking about Salby or his work. I’m talking about the variation in the UAH record. log(CO2) models are not inconsistent with the observations because CO2 is not the only agent modulating the tropospheric temperature. Just considering ENSO, AMO, volcanic activity, and solar irradiance is enough to explain nearly all of the variation.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            >The strawman is your claim that AGW should be the ONLY driver of T variation. On time scales of < 10 y, ENSO is in the drivers seat.

            You'll need to show where I've made that claim.

          • Nate says:

            Stephen,

            “The strawman is your claim that AGW should be the ONLY driver of T variation. On time scales of < 10 y, ENSO is in the drivers seat.

            You'll need to show where I've made that claim."

            You keep saying thinks like this when referring to the recent T record.

            "It also tells you it isnt some linear systematic cause like fossil fuels."

            NO Stephen, the data are entirely consistent with ENSO-caused variation PLUS a gradual increase from some other 'linear systematic cause', which is consistent with AGW.

          • Nate says:

            Stephen,

            As I noted, within a decade ENSO is in the drivers seat.

            This shows that the warmest year in each decade is an El Nino year. Coolest in each decade is a La Nina year.

            https://www.climate.gov/media/10685

            So the fact that 2016 was warmest in last decade is no surprise.

            But also each decade is warmer than the previous one, since the 1970s, so the gradual warming trend is evident.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            NO NATE! We’re not seeing a gradual linear increase. We’re seeing a step change that oscillates for a decade or more. Then another step change. That’s classically nonsystematic.

          • bdgwx says:

            Stephen, these step changes are exactly what you would expect with a systematic force on the climate superimposed with natural variability.

            https://imgur.com/83GZJ1T

          • Nate says:

            “Were not seeing a gradual linear increase. Were seeing a step change that oscillates for a decade or more. Then another step change. Thats classically nonsystematic.”

            Here is surface data since 1970 with a 5 year smoothing (in blue).

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60/detrend:0.92/plot/jisao-pdo/scale:0.1/mean:60/from:1970/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60

            There looks like what could be step changes in 1970s and 2010s.

            A linear trend is removed. What remains is much smaller variation (in red).

            Volcanoes in 80s and 90s could explain the dips we see.

            The remaining small oscillations seems to correlate to PDO (in green).

            It may explain your apparent step changes.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            BGDWX,

            The Systematic Force would be fossil fuels. And it should correlate linearly to CO2. CO2 is clearly progressing as y=mx + b. Which is exactly what Salby said. CO2 is progressing as the integral of temperature. We aren’t seeing any kind of correlation the other way around. The step change in temperature doesn’t correlate to CO2. The step change is nonsystematic.

          • Nate says:

            “The Systematic Force would be fossil fuels. And it should correlate linearly to CO2. ”

            After all this discussion Stephen, are you still ignoring that natural variation can contribute, and cause the data to vary around a linear trend?

            And when natural it is included, it explains the so-called ‘step change’

          • bdgwx says:

            Stephen,

            First, I’ll remind you that Salby’s model does NOT predict temperature. He has no idea why the temperature trajectory exhibits a step change. None whatsoever.

            Second, CO2+variation models explain both the CO2 trajectory and the temperature trajectory. And they do so with remarkable skill.

            So if you’re trying to figure out why the so called step change in temperature occurs then you’re going to have abandon Salby’s model and instead use models that actually provide explanations of the observations you are analyzing.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Yes, you’re right. Salby was a scientist foremost. He didn’t offer speculation. He only noted that it appeared nonsystematic, which is the most logical explanation. Why speculate when you have no idea?

          • Nate says:

            Stephen keeps on knocking down the strawman..

          • bdgwx says:

            So let me get this straight. Salby says the temperature “appears” to be nonsystematic using a model that does not even make statements regarding changes in temperature and that’s somehow not speculation?

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            No, it is logically inferred. If the temperature is making step changes and then oscillating for years in a band, one could logically conclude that it is caused by something outside of the system. There is a difference between speculation and logical inference. Have you ever read Sherlock Holmes? Did he speculate?

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            You guys are funny. Physicists like Salby and Berry falsify AGW but you claim that if they don’t have an alternative explanation they must accept yours. LOL.

          • Nate says:

            ” If the temperature is making step changes and then oscillating for years in a band, one could logically conclude that”

            it is caused by a linear trend plus a slowly oscillating contribution.

            And one could test that by fitting the data to a linear trend, removing that trend, and seeing that what remain is small and oscillating. And also test whether those oscillations correlate well to know natural variation in the system.

            Like this:

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60/detrend:0.92/plot/jisao-pdo/scale:0.1/mean:60/from:1970/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60

            If one were using logic.

          • Nate says:

            “Physicists like Salby and Berry falsify AGW”

            Among all physicists their views are extreme outliers..

            https://www.aps.org/newsroom/pressreleases/climate.cfm

            In any case this is an appeal to authority.

            https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            >it is caused by a linear trend plus a slowly oscillating contribution.

            You’ll need to explain the mathematics of that. So is that Y=mx + b + sine theta?

          • Nate says:

            Yeah, oscillating above and below 0, but as you know ENSO and PDO are not perfectly periodic, so not a sin wave.

          • bdgwx says:

            Stephen,

            Here is the math I use.

            TLT = -0.27 + [1.8*log2(CO2lag1/CO2initial)] + [0.14*ONIlag4] + [0.20*detrend(AMOlag2)] + [-2.8*AODlag2] + [0.05*anomaly(TSIlag1)]

            The root mean squared difference is 0.12 C.

            The log2(CO2) term contributes +0.13 C/decade to the trend.

            The log2(CO2) term contributes nothing to the variation.

            The other terms contribute 0 C/decade to the trend.

            The other terms contribute everything to the variation.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            So tell me, what the temperature will be in May 2027?

          • bdgwx says:

            Assuming CO2 growth continues at the same pace as has been observed over the last 5 years then the math says 0.37 +/- 0.26 C.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            I could eyeball it and give you that same number and not assume any correlation to CO2.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            You’re essentially doing a short-term curve-fit mathematical construct based on no physics, plus or minus 80 percent. That confident? That’s kind of how all these climate science models are generated.

          • bdgwx says:

            You’re moving the goalpost. First, it was a claim that the step-change behavior can’t be explained using CO2. Nate and I showed you it could. Now the argument is that my trivial model is a curve fit not based on physics. That is obviously false since every single component in the model has been shown to have a physical causative mechanism for its modulation of the energy flows into and out of the atmosphere.

          • Donald says:

            I graphed the below, purely systemic function which includes two sine waves with differing amplitudes and periods, and a linear function of smaller amplitude. Try it yourself.

            (2 * sin(6.28319 * X / 100 )) + (1.3 *sin(6.28319 * 0.7 * X / 100) ) + (X * 0.025) graph that function for X = 1 to 720 to generate 3 “cyclical steps”

            Obviously, the results are purely systemic, but you will “see” 3 very clear steps, even though the math requires no step function and depends exclusively on 2 cyclical (net 0) functions and one (overwhelmed) linear function.

            Clearly, you have not excluded the impossible.

            And yes, even the fictitious Sherlock Holmes speculated. All the time.

    • TheFinalNail says:

      The simple ENSO vrs UAH with 5-month lag predicted a slight dip this month, but UAH temps rising from May month-on-month until July at least. Precludes volcanic influence, etc.

  4. Bellman says:

    A bit of a mixed bag compared to previous Aprils. Very average for the month since 2016, but warm compared with most months before 2016.

    Overall, tied with 2017 for the 8th warmest April. The top 10 warmest Aprils now look like this:

    Year Anomaly
    1 1998 0.62
    2 2016 0.61
    3 2019 0.32
    4 2020 0.26
    5 2022 0.26
    6 2005 0.20
    7 2010 0.20
    8 2017 0.18
    9 2023 0.18
    10 2002 0.11

    My crude statistical prediction jumps up again, as it increasingly looks like January was on the cold side.

    The prediction for the year is now 0.15 +/- 0.11, compared to last months 0.13 +/- 0.13.

  5. Ken says:

    The observations remain well below the UN IPCC climate model projections.

    When will the AGW hypothesis be declared scientifically false?

    • Willard says:

      When it will stop warming, Kennui.

      Roy already showed you we were on a 4.5C path, which is 50% above the current mean estimate.

    • Nate says:

      “AGW hypothesis be declared scientifically false”

      The projections have always had a range of probable global T rises.

      Here is one from 42 y ago. We have certainly been within that projected range.

      https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

      • barry says:

        The mid-range scenario there gives a warming of 0.6C from 1976 to 2020, and the higher range is 0.7C. Going by Had.CRUt4, usually the lowest of the land surface records, the global temperature rise has been 0.78C.

        The model has a climate sensitivity of 2.8C per doubling CO2.

        Using the lowest non-land surface record, UAH, the result is 0.59C, if we extend the full trend back to 1976.

        Definitely within the range of the forecast from the 1981 paper.

  6. bdgwx says:

    The Monckton Pause extends to 106 months. I was expecting the pause to extend to 107 months, but the higher than expected 2023/04 value results in one less month.

    Looking forward through the end of 2023 I am expecting the Monckton Pause to extend to 112 months by the time we get to December. That is assuming the monthly values slowly climb to 0.35 C by December as a result of the waning La Nina.

    • Bellman says:

      Might depend on rounding. I think it starts in June 2014, which would mean 107 months. The rate of warming since then is positive but tiny: +0.0003C / decade, so I’d count that as a zero trend.

    • bdgwx says:

      There seems to be confusion on the expectation of Monckton Pauses so I thought some commentary might be helpful here. I downloaded the CMIP5 data from the KNMI Climate Explorer to see what modeled expectations actually are.

      According to CMIP5 we expect the most recent month to be in a Monckton Pause lasting 8 years about 20% of the time. UAH shows about 24% while ERA5 shows about 15%. In other words, UAH says the pauses are a bit more than expected while ERA5 says they are less than expected.

      However, the big epiphany that I’m seeing a lot of people miss is the expectation for being in a pause regardless of whether we are at the end, middle, or beginning. If we reframe the question in terms of only existing in a pause regardless of where we find ourselves within it then the expectation is nearly 100%. In other words, we expect to be in a pause last 8 years pretty much all of the time.

      • Entropic man says:

        https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=465

        Seven pauses since 1970, each about 0.14C warmer than the last.

        Now, when will the current pause end? And will the next pause be another 0.14C warmer?

        • bdgwx says:

          Exactly. Despite being in a pause nearly all of the time the global average temperature marches on as we ride the escalator upward.

        • Clint R says:

          Yes, Earth has been in a natural warming trend since the 1970s.

          Thats reality.

          But, trying to claim specific causes of that warming often leads to cultism. Beware, as cultism aint science.

        • Richard M says:

          If you can keep the AMO and PDO in their positive phases then you have a chance. Doesn’t seem likely though.

          The AMO appears to be the real driver and it started its last phase change in 1995. If it last 30 years, which seem to be fairly common, then you are looking at 2025 as the start of the next negative phase.

          There’s also a variation within the AMO itself that appears to have peaked in 2022-23. This could be the last peak which would also point to a possible 2025 transition.

          The PDO is less predictable but if it stays negative into the next negative AMO phase, we are looking at a more significant cooling. The result would be a never ending pause which eventually hooks up with the first pause. That would probably take about 10 more years unless we also had a major volcanic eruption.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            The PDO is NOT in its positive phase, so we can’t “keep” it there.
            The decadal running average has been negative for 28 years.

            And no – the PDO aligns much more closely with global temperatures than the AMO.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            I should say … it aligns much more closely with changes in the rate of change of temperature, ie. accelerations and “pauses” (which used to be increases and decreases).

          • Richard M says:

            The PDO index almost always registers negative during La Nina events (and positive during El Nino events). Hence, we need to see what happens during neutral times to see the true state.

            This is also the reason the PDO aligns closer with global temperatures. In this case it is more of an effect. Not a cause.

            We haven’t seen any good neutral condition since 2014 so all I’m saying is we need to be careful in drawing any conclusions from the PDO index itself. It moved into a positive phase in 2014. It appears like it could be negative now but there’s sure way of telling.

      • RLH says:

        Remember that UAH and NOAA (STAR) now agree.

        • bdgwx says:

          The pause via STARv5 is 103 months through 2023/03. My guess is that it will extend to 104 once the 2023/04 data is published.

        • E. Swanson says:

          The STAR TLT v5 has a global trend of 0.129 k/decade for 1/1981 thru 3/2023, but 0.180 for 2000 thru 3/2023. The interesting thing is that their SH results for 1/1981-3/2023 are 0.078 k/decade but jump to 0.143 for 1/2000-3/2023. I suspect that the reason the 1981-2023 trend is less is that the positive spike from the 1998 El Nino is now firmly in the first half of their data set.

        • bdgwx says:

          More interesting facts…

          From 2002 through 2022 using the TMT corrected values per Fu et al. 2004 (similar to Zou et al. 2023) we have the following trends.

          UAH: +0.156 C/decade
          RSS: +0.153 C/decade
          STAR: +0.184 C/decade

          STARv5 is a double edged sword. Even through the 1979-2022 trend is lower the 2002-2022 trend is much higher. This is something Zou et al. 2023 mention in their publication.

          Aside from the possibility of an acceleration in the warming as hinted by STAR the other point suggested by START is that the structural uncertainty in these satellite datasets is relatively high.

          • RLH says:

            Please note that STAR and UAH are in much closer alignment now with RSS being the outlier.

          • E. Swanson says:

            From my first reading of the STAR v5 paper, I see that they created their TLT using an equation much like that of UAH v6:

            STAR TLT = 1.430*TMT- 0.462*TUT + 0.032*TLS
            UAH LT = 1.538*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.01*LS

            The STAR approach differs from that of UAH in the limb adjustment process used to produce the TMT, TUT and TLS:

            “After the swath radiance data are obtained, a limb-adjustment is conducted in which radiances at off-nadir view angles were adjusted to those at the nadir direction. This adjustment allows the use of the off-nadir footprints in the same way as the nadir observations to increase observational samples and reduce noise and sampling-related biases in TMT.”

            The adjustment for each swath is based on a radiation model.

          • bdgwx says:

            The Fu et al. 2004 formula (Zoe et al. 2023 is nearly identical) for the TTT product is:

            TTT = 1.156*TMT – 0.153*TLS.

    • Robert Ingersol says:

      Exactly how is the Moncton Pause defined? You have to go back before September 2008 to get a significant positive trend in UAH v6.0. That is 176 months if I counted correctly. Of course that is mostly due to the very wide uncertainty range in the UAH record. Using GISTEMP v4, you only have to go back to June 2011, 141 months.

      • bdgwx says:

        It is the longest period ending on the current month in which the trend is less than 0 C/decade. For UAH that is 2014/07. Though it is incredibly close to starting in 2014/06. As you point out though the pause is not statistically significant.

        If using the Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 method with the ARMA corrections you have to go back to 2008/06 for the positive trend to be significant.

        For GISTEMP you have to go back to 2011/06.

        • RLH says:

          Neither STAR nor UAH (satellite records) align well with ground/land based records on trend. RSS is the outlier now.

          • bdgwx says:

            STAR uses the same method as UAH for their TLT product.

          • RLH says:

            So you agree that RSS is the outlier now? Please note that it is mainly the early RSS records that have been adjusted. All agree the recent records.

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH, The latest STAR v5 product(s) aren’t any better or worse than the RSS v4, especially if one is concerned with the various versions of a TLT. RSS excludes data from 70S to the end of the scan areas, as well as over Greenland and other regions with high elevations. I recall that RSS also excludes the effects of large storms, which lift precipitable ice into the views of the scans, a process not mentioned for UAH or the new STAR analysis.

            Furthermore, the RSS TLT works directly with the individual swath data from the MSU ch3 and AMSU ch5 before calculating their product, whereas both UAH and STAR do it differently. RSS does not need to combine three channels of data, each with their own peculiarities, to create their TLT series. There’s no guarantee that the three channel combination provides a valid temperature vs. time result, since the equations for combining the three channels, shown above, are calculated for only one representative temperature vs. altitude model which does not include possible seasonal impacts, particularly during polar winters. For example, one should be aware that the UAH TLT trend over the North Polar ocean (0.27) is 2.5 times that of the global ocean trend (0.11).

          • bdgwx says:

            RLH, I’m fine calling RSS an outlier according to the 1979-present trend. But in doing so I have to accept that STAR is an outlier according to the 2002-2022 trend. I also have to accept that STAR uses the same Spencer et al. 2017 methodology as UAH did for their TLT products. So if I’m going to tell people that RSS is outlier than I would be obligated to inform them that STAR and UAH are not completely independent.

      • Nate says:

        “You have to go back before September 2008 to get a significant positive trend in UAH v6.0. That is 176 months if I counted correctly. Of course that is mostly due to the very wide uncertainty range in the UAH record.”

        Yes indeed. Given the long-term trend of 0.14 C/decade, the ENSO driven swings of 0.4 C, finding any significant change in trend over less than 2 decades is impossible.

        “Using GISTEMP v4, you only have to go back to June 2011, 141 months.”

        Lower uncertainty, but still need ~ 1.5 decades before the (2 sigma) error on trend is less than the trend itself.

        http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

      • Bellman says:

        “You have to go back before September 2008 to get a significant positive trend in UAH v6.0.”

        Significance has nothing to do with Monckton’s work.

  7. Clint R says:

    Hunga-Tonga is still in play — estimate it’s now adding 0.!°C. H-T had much higher influence a year ago. We should expect to see the effect last another 8-12 months.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Please link to your source for that timing. Because you seem to be preparing an excuse for likely El Nino warming. And I note the deliberate typo to disguise the extent of your claim.

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry Ant but this H-T blast was so “unprecedented” that the cult hasn’t had time to put out the usual “peer-reviewed” nonsense. At this stage, Cultists will just have to think for themselves. And they hate that

        You can expect the next El Niño to cause warming. That’s something CO2 can NOT do.

        But thanks for noticing my typo. Correction below:

        Hunga-Tonga is still in play — estimate it’s now adding 0.1°C.

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          Oh really? Then where do you get your “information” from?

          Please don’t say NASA again – we both know their press release said the effect wouldn’t start for three years and that it might not be noticeable above noise.

          • Clint R says:

            Yes really.

            The warming caused by Hunga-Tonga can be seen in a quick statistical correlation between La Niña-with vs LN-without.

            Correlation is easy, it’s the causation that’s hard. That’s when people must understand the science, and be able to think for themselves.

          • Clint R says:

            And quit trying to link me to some NASA press release. Thats borderline false accusation.

            Get your facts right.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            You’re the one who claimed NASA supports your claim, based on their press release last year. YOU have linked yourself to it.

    • Bindidon says:

      Clint R

      ” Hunga-Tonga is still in play estimate its now adding 0.[1] C. H-T had much higher influence a year ago. We should expect to see the effect last another 8-12 months. ”

      Stop your brazen, absolutely unproven ‘ball-on-a-string’-like hints on your own cultish blah blah, and show us finally a valuable source allowing us to verify your allegations.

      • Clint R says:

        Bin, can you give me even one instance where you have chosen reality over your cult beliefs? You can’t leave your cult, so why should I waste time on you? That’s why you still reject the reality of a ball-on-a-string.

  8. Tim Wells says:

    First time this year its managed 15C in the central UK for two consecutive days. Bankrupting ourselves based on a fraud.

  9. DanW says:

    After a warmer February in the US48 it has been colder than average. Early May in the northeast has been unseasonably cool. In no way can one say we are challenged by climate overheating.

    • Fishnski says:

      Record snow today in the WV Mtns..
      …”All you snow lovers out there…you’re witnessing Canaan snow history today. The current snowfall event here and what is yet to come in the next 48 hours will likely set new daily, monthly and even possibly state snowfall records for the month of May.

  10. Eben says:

    Way ahead of the red line Grand Solar Minimum update

    https://i.postimg.cc/DwPnjHSy/Clipboard033.jpg

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 470.1 km/sec
      density: 5.19 protons/cm3
      Sunspot number: 87
      The Radio Sun
      10.7 cm flux: 148 sfu
      Updated 02 May 2023
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 20.89×10^10 W Warm
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: -0.0% Average
      https://www.spaceweather.com/
      “The profusion of sunspots reinforces a growing consensus that Solar Maximum may be coming earlier than expected–perhaps as soon as late 2023. The peak could bring 50% to 100% more sunspots than we are seeing today, cementing Solar Cycle 25 as an above-average cycle.”
      [see picture of spots near equator}
      Coronal holes near equator and looks like equatorial spot coming from
      farside.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 473.2 km/sec
        density: 6.12 protons/cm3
        Sunspot number: 134
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 157 sfu
        Updated 03 May 2023
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 20.80×10^10 W Warm
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: +0.25% Above Average

        Well, in terms of sunspot number, it’s encouraging
        for May.
        Still got large Coronal holes.

        https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
        96.4 sunspots for April.
        Hmm
        And I guess May could be 130 for Month- which sort of sideways, but if June was 140, doesn’t beat Jan, but if July was also around 140, it could be something like that.
        Then by say Sept, it’s dropping, thereafter it keeps on dropping

        • gbaikie says:

          Solar wind
          speed: 431.6 km/sec
          density: 4.88 protons/cm3
          Sunspot number: 143
          The Radio Sun
          10.7 cm flux: 157 sfu
          Updated 03 May 2023
          Thermosphere Climate Index
          today: 20.68×10^10 W Warm
          Oulu Neutron Counts
          Percentages of the Space Age average:
          today: +0.40% Above Average
          48-hr change: +0.5%
          Still got large Coronal holes near equator
          Now got two large sunspot near equator.
          Which seems to “prove” the solar max will be short
          and therefore, weak. But sunspots number month in June
          and July will be high and as said above be crashing by Sept.

          These not normal in term Neutron counts for Solar Max- but late
          May thru July, I think you will get normal or above Neutron counts-
          or will be Solar Max levels.

  11. TallDave says:

    so much for the late-breaking SST panic

    of course we’ll probably still get a new El Nino and associated record high soon

    unfortunately even with new highs we’ve still wasted tens of trillions of dollars (per climate orgs) on a superstitious belief in models that predicted several times the observed rate of warming, lowering global living standards in a moral panic future generations will doubtless remember in proper context with postwar Polynesian cargo cults and the apocryphal throwing of virgins into volcanoes

    • bdgwx says:

      I’m not expecting record breaking UAH TLT values until 2024 at the earliest. And it depends on the magnitude of the coming El Nino. My model shows a 0.14 C per unit ONI enhancement of temperature. For example, 2016 had a 0.14 * 2.6 = 0.36 C enhancement. If the El Nino only peaks at say 1.0 then the enhancement would only be 0.14 * 1.0 = 0.14 C or 0.26 C less than 2016. The 0.13 C/decade trend would not be able to overcome the weak El Nino.

      • TheFinalNail says:

        There has been a sizeable spike in ENSO 3.4 since Feb this year which seems to be ongoing. With a ~5-month lag, anomalies in UAH_TLT could start getting pretty high from August onwards. We might see a new monthly record or two late in the year (not withstanding volcanoes, etc).

        • bdgwx says:

          Agreed. Monthly records late in the year cannot be eliminated. Annual record will likely have to wait until 2024 or afterwards.

          • Walter says:

            Bdgwx

            I’m genuinely interested in what you think is going to occur after the El Nio. Large El Nio’s occurring only 8 years away from each other is unheard of.

          • bdgwx says:

            It’s a good question. Like you say two super El Nino’s (more than 2.0 on ONI) occurring within 8 years would be unprecedented. Since it is not climatology favored I definitely lean more towards the less than 2.0 camp. A blend of dynamic and statistical forecasts puts us in the 1.0 to 1.5 range. I do, however, acknowledge the rapid transition from La Nina to El Nino that often precedes strong El Ninos. It’s probably worth mentioning the official NOAA forecast has an 85% of El Nino by January of 2024 so it’s not a lock that an El Nino would even occur.

            But assuming the ONI is 1.3 in 2024/01 per the IRI forecast we might expect UAH TLT to approach 0.5 C assuming AMO does not dive too much.

            https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table

          • TheFinalNail says:

            I don’t think a super-El Nino is required any more for new monthly/annual UAH_TLT temperatures to be set. The underlying warming trend should be sufficient to elevate the extra heat generated by even moderate El Nino temperatures to new record highs.

    • gbaikie says:

      We have progressed, virgins are just getting their tits cut off.

  12. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Do the mass contrail clouds interfere with the readings.

  13. gbaikie says:

    The global average surface temperature is about 15 C.
    15 C air temperature is cold air temperature.
    Global average land surface temperature is about 10 C.
    Global average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C.

    Humans are still mostly living on the land.

    When they start living on the ocean, they will be warmer and
    happier.

    When some people live on Mars, Humans on Earth will start living
    on the Earth’s ocean.

    But in century or two, billions of people we live in the orbits
    of Venus.

    • gbaikie says:

      Venus orbit is about 2 months travel from Earth.
      If have relatives living on Mars, it’s about 3 month from Venus to Mars. And it’s about 1/2 year to Jupiter.

      With Venus, solar panels work a lot better, than solar panels on Earth.

      Currently launch costs from Earth is high, but it has been lowering
      over the decades, and probably will lower to around $100 per kg to low Earth orbit.
      It would be hard to lower it to about $10 per kg.
      But simple answer to doing it, is lowering our current energy costs-
      by a 1/10th- and that is quite possible right now. That was possible
      decades ago, or as they said, electricity could have been free- too cheap to add the costs to meter it- unless doing something that uses a lot electricity. That was predicted in 1950’s.
      In Venus orbit, it’s free for residential use because solar panels work in Venus orbit. But for industrial use or other large uses of energy, such as traveling in the solar system, electrical power will a lot cheaper than is possible on Earth surface: 1/100th to 1/1000th the price. So visiting relatives on Mars or Earth is cheaper than airline ticket on Earth.

      • Eben says:

        Nobody is going to Mars

        • gbaikie says:

          Nobody will first go to the Moon in couple years, but before this
          we should have quite a few lunar robotic landers going to lunar surface. And an Indian lunar orbiter is right now taking better pictures of lunar polar region than LRO has been doing for over decade.
          The Vulcan Centaur Peregrine launch was planned to launch on May 4 2023, but looks like it’s delayed until summer.
          Falcon 9 IM-1
          https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
          Is planned in June [sometime] it also was delayed from last year.
          There are no others which are scheduled for 2023. But should be more in 2024. With Vulcan Centaur, it’s a new rocket- and this will be it’s test launch [so to speak- or they were probably given launch at a lower price, and compared to a tested rocket launch. And of course Falcon-9 is most successful rocket in history, but also cheapest rocket, other than Falcon Heavy.
          The Falcon Heavy has 4 launched for 2023 [planned, and one just launched with heavy payload which required expending all 3 boosters [first time that was done}.
          The Vulcan rocket would be called heavy commercial rocket a decade ago, and is competition to Heavy Falcon for payloads beyond LEO [because it’s got LH2/LOX second stage and it’s new and improved second stage being tested].
          It’s the same engine which going used for New Glenn rocket- which would be rightfully called a heavy commercial rocket which suppose to lift more to LEO [and beyond] than the Falcon Heavy. And you call it competition for Starship in regards to lunar missions.
          But there no competition for Starship [if it successfully does more test launches] for Mars.

          • gbaikie says:

            Well, New Glenn is suppose to be reusable, which includes it’s second stage. I said no competition because Starship can aerobrake at Mars and land without using much rocket power to land. But if New Glenn can recover it’s second stage, then it to can aerobrake at Mars {in theory] also. And problem could related to boil off of LH2, but that seems rather minor IF New Glenn can recover it’s second stage by re-entering from Earth orbit.

          • gbaikie says:

            For decades Mars fans, have said, getting to Mars is cheaper than getting to Moon, because you can use Mars atmosphere.
            Or true, if robotic payload is small and can use a parachute, but landing anything over ton, hasn’t been done, and there “plans” which might do, more 10 tons, but they are just wild plans.
            Anyways you need to do 10 ton to Mars surface, to do crewed Mars.
            Starship is designed to do 100 tons to Mars surface. But New Glenn could do, tens of tons to Mars surface [maybe] and could do many tens of tons to Mars orbit.

            But I think you need artificial gravity for crewed Mars missions.
            Bezos, unlike Musk could test artificial gravity. Bezos could because he doesn’t talk much- and Musk doesn’t even mention it.
            And Musk could done it, years ago. And Bezos hasn’t done more than suborbital, yet.

          • Eben says:

            Nobody

          • gbaikie says:

            Nobody will go to the Moon, again??

          • gbaikie says:

            Btw, as far as 2023 robotic lunar landers:
            ” More missions will be attempting landings this year. India will try again with its Chandrayaan-3 mission launching this summer. Japan is launching its first lander, the Smart Lander for Investigating Moon (SLIM), as soon as August. And Russia will launch its first lunar lander mission since 1976 with the long-delayed Luna-25 mission later this year, even if theres widespread skepticism about its chances for success (see Russia returns to the Moon (maybe), The Space Review, March 13, 2023).
            Landing on the Moon is very challenging. Its not easy to do, Kearns said. But I will tell you that all of these companies that NASA has awarded particular task orders to to deliver have put great effort into this.

            The brightest spotlight, though, is likely going to be on American companies backed by NASAs Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. Astrobotics Peregrine lander and Intuitive Machines IM-1 mission are both scheduled to launch this summer as the first missions by those companies and the first in the overall CLPS program, intended to stimulate the development of lunar landers with NASA as one of potentially many customers.

            In fact, if all had gone according to earlier plans, Peregrine would have been launching this week. In February, United Launch Alliance announced it set a May 4 date for the inaugural launch of its Vulcan Centaur rocket, carrying Peregrine as well as two experimental satellites for Amazons Project Kuiper broadband constellation. That launch, though, is on hold after a fireball erupted from another Centaur upper stage being tested by ULA at the Marshall Space Flight Center in late March. ULA says it now expects the launch to take place no earlier than June or July.”
            https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4576/1

    • DanW says:

      Instead of trying to figure out how to settle moons and planets, you could more easily populate Wyoming & Nebraska.

      • Entropic man says:

        Would you want to populate Wyoming and Nebraska?

        The daughter of a friend fell in love with a hunter from Wyoming and moved from Ireland to be with him. Unfortunately the locals were very unfriendly and the insects far too friendly so she moved back to Ireland.

      • gbaikie says:

        Nobody is trying to figure out how to settle Moons and planets- but I would say you need to find mineable water to settle anywhere in space. There also other requirements.
        You don’t have to settle the Moon, to use the Moon for many things, but use the moon for a lot things, you need to find mineable water- or launch costs. Or mineable water on the Moon, would lower launch costs to the Moon.
        Mineable water on Mars is not really about lowering the launch costs to Mars.
        The interest in Mars is mostly about settling Mars, and cheaper water is needed to settle Mars. Cheaper water is still fairly expensive water as compared to water on Earth.
        Another interest in Mars is did it or does it have life.
        If there is life on Mars, it’s possible humans can’t live on Mars anytime, soon. So, one could say need to find life on Mars and determine if that life is a threat to human or life in general on Earth. Most imagine that only extinct life could exist on Mars- and it would be scientific usefulness to find it.
        I don’t hold this view. I think what important is, does this life a problem related to living on Mars. And I think it’s more likely their is life on the moons of Jupiter- and tend to think it’s at best 50% chance. But again, if there is life, it’s most important factor is it a threat to human existence. Or not life is better than alien life, but have consider the potential threat of it. So, I would say finding alien life is not a high priority in near term- except in regards to it, potentially could be harmful. I am also against gain function research on viruses.

        But back to Mars water, I think cheap Mars water is about $1000 per ton, and cheap enough lunar water is about $500,000 per ton.
        And assumption would be that over decade of time, the water would become a lot cheaper. So, if there enough water which mineable, eventually it could become as cheap as water on Earth.
        In terms of living in Venus orbit, imported water could start at around 100,000 per ton, and eventually be much cheaper than water on Earth.

  14. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Why do the usual suspects bombard this site every month with grave and wise prognostication?
    Are you all horse racing or stock market or casino gamblers predictably losing money, seeking a money-free surrounding to babble about your chicken entrails procedures?
    When will you learn that you cannot predict these monthly UAH values? If you have a temporary flush of success with the global values you will likely flunk some of the regional figures. The Monckton pause over Australia is now 11 years.
    You cannot properly quantify variables that you think are influencing temperatures because you cannot show that you know all of them. You cannot use ML values of CO2 as a variable because they are screened and not properly representative of CO2 in some locations that might matter. Also, we continue to lack an accepted equation T = f(CO2) +/- error.
    I had a chuckle the other day from a new pharmacy product named “Pregnisticate”. At least you can test its forecasting skill within 9 months.
    Geoff S

    • bdgwx says:

      I do it because it is hard and I learn a lot in doing so.

      • Geoff Sherrington says:

        bdgwx,
        I learned to knit to get a Boy Scout badge.
        Geoff S

        • bdgwx says:

          What did you learn when you tried predicting monthly UAH values? What is the best root mean square difference you were able to achieve?

          • Geoff Sherrington says:

            bdgwx,
            I did not ever try to predict future UAH values.
            All my life I have seen failure after failure of predictions of weather from one day to the next.
            This leaves no hope for an exercise like yours, but please keep at it because it diverts you from more serious enterprise.
            Geoff S

  15. Tim S says:

    The noise in the data is very large, and I believe it is real. I think the actual temperature of the atmosphere really does vary that much over all time scales due to many factors including random chaos. There seem to be random thermodynamic effects, of which thermal radiation is probably just one. The only thing that has a clear and distinct indication over the history of the data set is ENSO. The long term drift could be due to many different factors. The most likely candidates are ocean current cycles and greenhouse gases in some combination.

    • gbaikie says:

      It’s weather. It’s been known you can’t predict global average temperature, because one is suppose to 30 year average of them.

      BUT global climate temperature is easy to predict.
      Global climate temperature is the average temperature of the entire ocean- which is about 3.5 C.

      And more than 90% of all global warming is warming our cold ocean.

      Our cold ocean is why we are in an Ice Age- which also called a icehouse global climate.

      • Tim S says:

        I agree the oceans are extremely important. That is why I mentioned ocean current cycles and ENSO.

  16. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Here is the lower troposphere over Australia, updated with the April estimate.
    No warming for 11 years now.
    Please explain (but please do not guess).
    Geoff S
    https://www.geoffstuff.com/uahmay2023.jpg

    • skeptikal says:

      What’s there to explain?… it is what it is.

    • barry says:

      Start 4 months earlier and the trend is 0.10 C/decade, start 4 months later and the trend is -0.16 C/decade.

      Here is the trend Apr 2012 – Apr 2023 trend with statistical significance included, ordinary least squares.

      -0.01 C/decade (+/- 0.26)

      The range of possible trends for that period of time to 95% CI is -0.27 to 0.25 C/decade.

      Short answer – the variability in the data makes it impossible to determine any underlying warming trend, cooling trend or neither.

      • Swenson says:

        barry,

        You wrote –

        “Short answer the variability in the data makes it impossible to determine any underlying warming trend, cooling trend or neither.”

        That’s reality for you.

      • Entropic man says:

        Depends on your timescale. For most of the temperature datasets the variability of the data is similar in size to the decadal warming trend.

        Over the short term, a decade or less, the trend is smaller than the variation and any trend will not be statistically significant.

        For significance you need a multi-decade timescale. Thus a 0.13C rise in the last decade of UAH data is not significant, while a 0.26C rise over 20 years or the 0.6C rise over 45 years are significant.

        This makes Monkton pauses rather meaningless because they rarely last longer than a decade. They are measuring short term variability rather than the long term trend and are not significant.

        • Swenson says:

          Absolutely. For example, over the longest possible interval, the Earth has obviously cooled – the surface is no longer molten.

          Over a much shorter period, the midday surface is warmer than the overnight minimum.

          What are you trying to say (apart from the blindingly obvious)?

          • Entropic man says:

            Swenson.

            You really don’t get this , do you?

            The period over which you need to gather data depends on what you want to measure.

            If you want to know how much the Earth has cooled since its formation you need 4.5 billion years of data.

            If you want to measure day/night variation you collect data over days.

            If you want to measure seasonal variation you collect data over years.

            If you want to measure current long term trends in global temperature the internal variation and the decadal trend are both about 0.2C. To be confident that you can separate the long term trend from the short term variation you need about 30 years of data.

          • Clint R says:

            Ent, how many passenger jets flew backwards today?

            Yesterday?

            The weeks, months, and years before?

            How much data do you need to admit you’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll?

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            You wrote –

            “The period over which you need to gather data depends on what you want to measure.”

            Any fool can measure a “trend”, and many do.

            Just spouting vague nonsense like “To be confident that you can separate the long term trend from the short term variation you need about 30 years of data.” doesn’t really say much at all, does it?

            Although you avoid saying so, I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you agree with Gavin Schmidt’s paper “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature”, or something similar, which you can’t actually describe!

            You seem to be as besotted as Bindidon, and others, with performing basic arithmetical operations on historic temperature records for no good reason at all. I repeat, what are you trying to say?

            If you are trying to convince people that you can predict the future, good luck. Anybody who believes you deserves what they get.

        • Geoff Sherrington says:

          E man
          “They are measuring short term variability rather than the long term trend and are not significan”
          not significant for what?
          Geoff S

    • barry says:

      Geoff,

      I wonder how you would answer this question.

      The temperature trend for Australia from 2006 to present is 0.26 C/decade.

      Please explain?

      • barry says:

        * 0.23 C/decade

      • Swenson says:

        The temperature has risen?

        The methods of measuring temperatures has produced higher temperatures?

        The equipment used for measuring temperatures is faulty?

        The temperature sensors are not actually measuring the air temperature at all?

        The temperature measuring equipment output is being used by people with a conscious or unconscious bias towards believing in some mythical “greenhouse effect”, resulting in “adjustments” being applied?

        You posed the gotcha, but I’m sure you have a ready answer (wrong, of course).

        What is your explanation?

      • Geoff Sherrington says:

        barry asks “The temperature trend for Australia from 2006 to present is 0.26 C/decade. Please explain?”

        No, I will not answer that question because it does not relate to mine.
        My question was about a pause in the numbers for 11 years.
        If there is to be a turning poiunt in these numbers, as in a positve trend being replaced by a cooling trend, one might expect a term of little change between.
        Nothing to do with cherry picking start dates to make a point. I don’t do those silly arguments.
        Geoff S

        • barry says:

          Of course it relates to your question. It includes the entire time-period in your question, it’s the same data, and the same question, but the trend is different.

          I answered you, is it so difficult to return the courtesy?

    • Nate says:

      Geoff,

      “Here is the lower troposphere over Australia, updated with the April estimate.
      No warming for 11 years now.
      Please explain (but please do not guess).”

      Australia weather is more strongly influenced by ENSO, than the globe as a whole.

      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/images/La-Nina-in-Australia.pdf

      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/images/El-Nino-in-Australia.pdf

      The high T in the middle of your selected period are when El Nino dominated, and the low T at the start and end are La Nina dominated.

      Overall the decade was warmer than the previous one, which was warmer than the one prior to that.

  17. angech says:

    ENSO and SOI are a zero prediction game.
    No one knows.
    Roy measures the surface temp changes every day.
    The increase in heat or decrease in heat of the ocean surface comes from how much energy the sun is allowed to provide each and every day.
    A combination of sun temperature first and foremost,
    followed by cloud cover and finally atmospheric winds.

    At 0 C there is a 50% chance of a rise or fall, full stop.
    El Nino and La Nina are predicated on a 5 month rise of temps
    over 0.8 C.
    This deviation from the base line has some where between 20 and 25% chance occurring either way over a year.
    Hence taking the 205 model we have one La Nina and one El Nino every 5 years.

    Easy to see why predictions early in the year are so unreliable.
    BOM and all others fit smooth curves to a falling slope and predict the outcome 5 months ahead on the basis of that slope.
    The higher it was and the steeper it falls the more they predict massive El Ninos, each year, and get it right one in 5.

    The range of values is known and unpredictable.
    Not one service predicted the 3 La Nina’s, weak though they are in advance.
    Not one.

    Since the sun has a variable output the energy output varies with the sun, basically.
    We get a bit hotter we have an El Nino, cooler La Nina.
    At any stage the likelihood can be predicted by trend followers until of course the trend changes, like now actually.
    Where will it go/
    50% upwards.
    50% downwards.
    Always from the moment one is in.
    The tren away from the line dictates it goes further away.
    Probability says the further it deviates from the mean the more pressure to come back.
    Hence Random walk theory applies

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      “Roy measures the surface temp changes every day”

      Oh no he doesn’t. He “measures” temperatures at an average altitude of 3 km that contain only a 30% contribution from the surface.

      • angech says:

        Antonin Qwerty
        “He measures temperatures at an average altitude of 3 km that contain only a 30% contribution from the surface.”

        What a nit picking comment.

        If he adds a 30% contribution from the surface, your quote not mine,
        Then he must have measured the surface temperature to get that accurate contribution.

        I believe the TLT is a product from a combination of at least 4 different satellite measuring sources at different altitudes and related anyway to pressure more than altitude.
        It is reported above as a global temperature.
        The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly.
        If I refer to it as a surface temperature. The troposphere is the lowest layer of our atmosphere. Starting at ground level, it extends upward to about 10 km (6.2 miles or about 33,000 feet) above sea level.
        You will notice that it is adjacent to the surface.
        There is as far as I know no true surface measurement since the land stations measure the temperature of the air 2 meters above the ground, and not from the surface it would be even more inappropriate to refer to them as surface measurements as well.

        Sill, keep picking those nits if that is what you need to do.

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          It ain’t nitpicking matey. The stratosphere is cooling as the troposphere warms. Satellites measure temperatures averaged about 30% of the way to the tropopause. “Coincidentally” the UAH trend is about 30% less than the surface temperature trend.

          • Swenson says:

            AQ,

            Are you really so detached from reality that you think anybody has actually measured a “global surface temperature” at all?

            Go on, tell me what it was yesterday. The day before?

            You idiot, 70% of the surface is covered by ocean, just for starters! You are possibly referring to foolish SkyDragon cultists, who redefine “surface” to mean something other than the surface, and who believe that thermometers surrounded by air somehow measure air temperatures!

            You are probably even deluded enough to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 in a quantity of air results in an increase of temperature!

            What a fool you are! Do you really believe Gavin Schmidt’s nonsensical paper “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature”?

            A rhetorical question – of course you do!

            Carry on.

    • angech says:

      Basically it is like people following the sharemarket who adopt the same faulty techniques.
      Exemplified by two comments.
      Past performance is no guarantee of future outcomes and
      the trend is your friend [until it is not].
      Javier mistakes climate conditions as being drivers of ENSO like financial reports are drivers of share value.
      Following the trends from past similar situations gives you a trend, a direction, but both current temperatures and depth temperatures and trade winds are responses to the real drivers.
      Just like financial reports show where the company was in the recent past, not the Bud light advertising or the cryptocurrency management going on in real time.

      This is why the SOI did a series of recent fluctuations in what the BOM can only forecast as a strong smooth dip.
      Change can occur suddenly at any time in the real drivers of the climate, the daily sun output, the amount of clouds and where they are and to a much lesser extent winds and currents.
      They are the real drivers, that is why the sudden reversals occur.

      • barry says:

        angech,

        If you have a spread out portfolio and you wait long enough you will make money.

        Like the sharemarket, you can predict it will get warmer, but you can’t predict the exact trajectory of each share/region, or make a low-risk prediction in a short time-frame.

        • Swenson says:

          barry,

          You wrote –

          “If you have a spread out portfolio and you wait long enough you will make money.”

          As to the share market, you possibly don’t realise that the companies forming any index are constantly changing, with poor performers being dropped, and replaced with better ones.

          Some people convince themselves that they cannot lose if they invest with a fund which tracks the index – the index is rigged to get rid of losers, isn’t it?

          Unfortunately, even a body looking after about eight trillion dollars, and administering index funds, says –

          “All investing is subject to risk, including the possible loss of the money you invest. Diversification does not ensure a profit or protect against a loss. There is no guarantee that any particular asset allocation or mix of funds will meet your investment objectives or provide you with a given level of income.”

          The only people guaranteed to benefit are the people administering the money, and they have to work for a living, bleeding suckers like you.

          The future is unknowable. If you are silly enough to believe that someone else will work to give you money while you sit on your backside telling yourself how clever you are, good luck to you! You no doubt fully deserve whatever you get.

    • Nate says:

      “Since the sun has a variable output the energy output varies with the sun, basically.
      We get a bit hotter we have an El Nino, cooler La Nina.”

      Strange idea. Evidence?

      • angech says:

        Since the sun has a variable output the energy output varies with the sun, basically.
        We get a bit hotter we have an El Nino, cooler La Nina.

        Nate
        If the sun gets a little bit warmer then the earth and its surface get a little bit warmer.
        When we have an El Nino the earth surface gets a little bit warmer.
        One of them is actually increasing the energy.
        The other is a response to the increased energy.

      • Nate says:

        Then you have no evidence of the linkage that you suggested?

        • angech says:

          Nate
          If you cannot understand the link between the sun being responsible for the temperature of the earth surface then no one can help you.
          If you refuse to believe it you are being wilfully obtuse.
          Since your comments show you refuse to believe it you are will fully obtuse.

          The motivation to being so is of interest.
          Since you can read and write you have thinking capacity and understand that varying a heat source changes the temperature of the object it is warming.

          Ergo you do not wish to believe this because reality conflicts with one of your other core beliefs.
          What could that be?

          On this site, on this discussion the implication is that you wish to believe something else magical makes the earth temperature hotter during El Ninos and colder during La Ninas.

          It cannot be varying the anthropogenic CO2 production unless you can, dare I say it, provide the links.

  18. Eben says:

    New hockey stick – Lord Monckton pause included

    https://i.postimg.cc/3RVJ2vQt/foxstick.jpg

  19. Antonin Qwerty says:

    For the benefit of Richard M:

    You claimed that the AMO has a greater effect on temperatures than the PDO.

    In the following scatter plots, each point is a 5-year period
    (1855-59, 1860-64, 1865-69, etc.)

    For each period is graphed the average AMO/PDO against how much the average NOAA surface temperature changed over that of the previous 5 years, and provided the correlation coefficient.

    AMO:
    https://tinyurl.com/AMO-vs-Delta-NOAA

    PDO:
    https://tinyurl.com/PDO-vs-Delta-NOAA

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Yuk, I didn’t proof that last paragraph.

      For each 5-year period, the average AMO/PDO is graphed against the change in average NOAA surface temperature over that of the previous 5 year period. The correlation coefficient is also provided.

  20. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The temperature in Antarctica is dropping very quickly. In July, the Earth is the farthest from the Sun in orbit.
    Low temperatures in the upper stratosphere above 60 S.
    Latest (2023/05/02) 1-day area-weighted 2m temperature anomalies calculated from the NCEP Climate Forecast System (CFS) and CFS Reanalysis (CFSR). The anomaly values fluctuate day-to-day and week-to-week depending on prevailing weather patterns. For context, daily temperatures for the domains below are available via interactive charts for the entire CFS/CFSR 1979present record. Anomalies are based on 19792000 climatology for the specific day of the year.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2023.png

    World Northern Hemisphere Arctic
    + 0.44 C + 0.59 C + 1.98 C
    Tropics Southern Hemisphere Antarctic
    + 0.47 C + 0.29 C – 1.79 C

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      Current temperature in Antarctica.
      https://i.ibb.co/vc3y4fk/gfs-spole-sat-t2-d1.png

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Thanks for today’s WEATHER report.

    • Bindidon says:

      What else do you expect, Palmowski?

      It’s October there in the Southern Hemisphere.

      An hemisphere dominated by cold oceans, colder circumpolar currents, and coldest surfaces on Earth’s greatest ice sheet.

      Nevertheless, your nice coloured DAILY temperature graphs are permanently contradicted by UAH’s LT data over the last decade.

      While the South Pole shows no warming at all in the LT since 1979, it shows 0.11 C / decade since 2013.

      Is there any reason why you never show how the Antarctic Sea Ice behaves?

  21. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    La Nina conditions continue in the atmosphere.

    The first tropical storms will hit Southeast Asia.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/wpac/mimictpw_wpac_latest.gif

  22. Entropic man says:

    You may have noticed that temperature anomalies are calculated using a baseline average. This is based on a thirty year mean.

    For UAH this is 1991-2020. For GISS it is 1951-1980.

    Using a 30 year mean is not accidental. It reflects the need to pull a reliable baseline mean out of decadally variable data. Calculating your baseline mean using thirty years of data makes it considerably more reliable.

    • RLH says:

      How many years are there between 1980 and now?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Are you asking why Dr Spencer has chosen not to use a 40 year baseline? If so, do you want me to answer that for you?

        • RLH says:

          I am observing that Roy has updated to using the current 30 year period whereas GISS has not.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            And do you believe that one baseline is preferable to the other?
            If so, why?

          • RLH says:

            Why is it that GISS has not followed the standard recommendation?

          • bdgwx says:

            RLH, probably for similar reasons considered by HCRUT using 1961-1990, BEST using 1951-1980, or NOAA using 1971-2000. Actually it appear like there is not much of a standard at all.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            RLH
            Who says there is a “standard recommendation”?
            Who recommends changing the baseline every ten years, and what is the reason?

          • barry says:

            I’m also curious about this ‘standard recommendation.’ Does it apply to all fields that use time series, or just global climate study?

            An obviously good reason to keep the baseline you started with is to make easier data comparisons over the years the set is maintained.

          • RLH says:

            The WMO would disagree

            “Climate normals are presently updated once every 30 years, and the current official climate normal period is 1961-1990. The resulting averaged data are called WMO Climatological Standard Normals.”

          • RLH says:

            “NCEI generates the official U.S. normals every 10 years in keeping with the needs of our user community and the requirements of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and National Weather Service (NWS). The 19912020 U.S. Climate Normals are the latest in a series of decadal normals first produced in the 1950s.”

            NCEI changes it every 10 years.

          • RLH says:

            The WMO again

            “Climatological standard normals: Averages of climatological data computed for the following consecutive periods of 30 years: 1 January 1981 to 31 December 2010, 1 January 1991 to 31 December 2020, etc. (Technical Regulations).”

          • RLH says:

            The WMO again (again)

            “The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has updated the U.S. Climate Normals to the 1991-2020 baseline period to provide a most recent baseline for climate information and services to climate-sensitive sectors and a standard reference to compare variations in temperature, precipitation etc to the 30-year average.”

            https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/updated-30-year-reference-period-reflects-changing-climate

          • barry says:

            The WMO again:

            “Together with an array of other decisions and recommendations on climate data, monitoring and science, the WMO Commission for Climatology is therefore recommending that WMO adopt a new global standard of making decadal updates of climate normals for most purposes, while at the same time maintaining the 1961-1990 period as a stable reference for monitoring long-term climate variability and change

            Maintaining 1961-1990 as the base period for monitoring and assessing long-term climate variability and change would promote a better understanding of changes over the course of this century and beyond. The 1961-1990 reference period would be retained for climate change purposes until there is a compelling scientific case for changing it.”

            The decadal/tri-decadal updates are a recommendation, not a standard, and not standard practise at all for long-term global climate monitoring.

          • RLH says:

            “at the same time maintaining the 1961-1990 period as a stable reference for monitoring long-term climate variability and change”

            And presumably publishing what the differences in the 2 reference periods are. Over land and sea.

          • barry says:

            I believe the 2017 recommendations from WMO are the most recent, though I could be wrong.

            “A 1981-2010 averaging period is much more likely to be representative of conditions in 2017 than the 19611990 period. On the other hand, there are clear benefits of using a stable benchmark as a reference point for long-term datasets, both in practical terms (not having to recalculate anomaly-based datasets every 10years), and in terms of communication an “above average” year does not suddenly become “below average” because of a change in reference period. As these two primary purposes of climate normals have become mutually inconsistent in terms of their requirements for a suitable averaging period, WMO has decided that both should be calculated (subject to availability of data).”

            https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=4166

          • RLH says:

            “WMO has decided that both should be calculated”

            Does GISS do that?

          • bdgwx says:

            GISS doesn’t have to do that. It is a mind numbingly simple calculation that everyone should be to do on their own.

          • barry says:

            WMO: “WMO has decided that both should be calculated”

            RLH: Does GISS do that?

            I don’t believe so. Neither does UAH.

            “Q. Why does GISS stay with the 1951-1980 base period?
            A. The primary focus of the GISS analysis are long-term temperature changes over many decades and centuries, and a fixed base period yields anomalies that are consistent over time.

            However, organizations like the NWS, who are more focused on current weather conditions, work with a time frame of days, weeks, or at most a few years. In that situation it makes sense to move the base period occasionally, i.e., to pick a new ‘normal’ so that roughly half the data of interest are above normal and half below.”

            https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q102

    • Bindidon says:

      ” Who recommends changing the baseline every ten years, and what is the reason? ”

      1. It is WMO.

      2. The reason to regularly move the reference period forward is that then you can integrate newer data into your anomaly time series.

      *
      But the reason for GISS to keep anomalies wrt 1951-1980 is that this period is very rich in data. The more stations are active within a period, the more data you can collect to generate anomalies out of single station data, and the more valuable the resulting time series then will become.

      *
      A typical example is sea level data processing.

      After a steady historical increase of tide gauge stations providing valid data for processing (vertical land motion correction, minimum lifetime, data for anomaly constructions for a given period) from the beginning until about 2010, since then their number has decreased dramatically.

      A possible explanation for this decrease could be that tide gauge managers are less interested in reporting data to the permanent sea level monitoring system, as satellite-age tide gauge data show trends very similar to satellite altimetry.

      • RLH says:

        There were no satellites measuring temperature in 1951.

        • Bindidon says:

          Who told that, Blindsley Hood?

          What about trying to READ before you write?

          *
          You can easily construct a 1991-2020 baseline out of GHCN V4 stations, but it won’t be as accurate as a 1951-1980 baseline because you have more stations active during that period.

          But it is always easy to displace a complete anomaly time series from one reference period to another when you have data for both periods.

          The 1991-2020 displacement for an anomaly-based time series over 1880-2023 wrt 1951-1980 is equal to the sum of all anomalies for the period 1991-2020.

          Your problem is that you never constructed any anomaly time series by your own and thus keep guessing about what they really mean.

          • RLH says:

            “you never constructed any anomaly time series by your own”

            Sure. Blinny goes off on one of his rants again.

          • Bindidon says:

            ” Sure. Blinny goes off on one of his rants again. ”

            No, Blindsley Hood: I simply tell the truth.

            You never presented ANY anomaly-based time series – be it for USCRN or HadISST1 SST data, let alone for any other data like METEOSTAT, GHCN, PSMSL, A(nta)rctic Sea Ice, Greenland’s ice sheet mass balance or any one else.

            Never.

        • RLH says:

          Blinny knows better. There were no satellites measuring temperature in 1951.

          • Bindidon says:

            This is of no interest here, Blindsley Hood, as you can compare GISS, NOAA, Had-CRUT etc anomalies to UAH anomalies by displacing the former to the mean of UAH’s reference period.

            You still didn’t grasp this point: exactly like Robertson, Clint R, the Hunter boy and the Pseudomod failed to grasp what you surprisingly seem to have understood concerning the lunar spin.

      • RLH says:

        This presumes that satellites are not capable of more accurately measuring T over the oceans.

        • barry says:

          I don’t think any presumption was made either way.

          • RLH says:

            Really. So what is the measuring density of non satellite T over the oceans historically?

          • barry says:

            Do you go through phases in your life where you become fixated on things, and people ask you why you are obsessing about stuff that is only tangentially related to the conversation? Just wondering if this dissociative behaviour happens to you beyond this blog.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Bindidon

        That WMO reference is only for the reporting of WEATHER.

        They say: “it is necessary to update the climate normals for operational services for decision-making, for example for as forecasts of peak energy load and recommendations on crop selection and planting times.”

        They then say: “However, for the purposes of historical comparison and climate change monitoring, WMO still recommends the continuation of the 1961-1990 period for the computation and tracking global climate anomalies relative to a fixed and common reference period.”

  23. Entropic man says:

    No need.

    Thirty years is a compromise.

    A shorter period would reduce confidence by increasing the effect of variability.

    A longer period would reduce the ability to resolve changes in the rate of change.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Not sure what you mean by your final sentence. NOAA uses a 100 year baseline period. A baseline is just a zero point – nothing more. Changing the baseline merely shifts all data up or down by the same amount. I think you’re confusing the baseline with a running average.

      • Entropic man says:

        Quite possible. Let me illustrate my point using sea level data.

        https://sealevel.colorado.edu/

        Note the quadratic fit on the graph.The slope increases over time, illustrating acceleration in the rate of change.

        If you measure the overall slope the rate of rise is 3.4mm/year.

        Measure the initial slope and you get 3mm/year. Measure the most recent slope and you get 5mm/year.

        If I used the whole graph for my baseline calculation I would see no acceleration.

        If I split the graph into equal early and late periods I would see acceleration, but probably underestimate it. Shorter baselines allow me to see more detail in the acceleration profile.

        Unfortunately too short a baseline period would reduce confidence as any trend, or variation in the trend, becomes lost in the noise.

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          I really don’t think you understand what a baseline is.

          The baseline is merely the range of data which is averaged to determine the zero point, though I don’t know how that was determined in your example.

          Let’s say I have the following data values:
          6, 7, 3, 8, 1, 5, 9, 7, 12, 12

          And let’s say I determine the baseline to be the first 5 values.
          The average of those first five values is 5.
          So I set that to zero, meaning 5 is subtracted from each value:
          1, 2, -2, 3, -4, 0, 4, 2, 7, 3

          If I instead decided to use all values (average 7) for my baseline, then I would set that average to zero, meaning 7 is subtracted from each value:
          -1, 0, -4, 1, -6, -2, 2, 0, 5, -2

          There is no loss of resolution, just a shift.

          I understand exactly what phenomenon you are describing, but “baseline” is not the correct word for describing it.

          • Clint R says:

            You’ve got something wrong, Ant.

            You last value in the series doesn’t work. For example:

            12 – 5 ≠ 3

            And,

            12 – 7 ≠ -2

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Wow mate – I guess that voids my whole explanation.
            Ugh ….

          • Clint R says:

            Possibly. Or maybe you’re commenting so much the quality drops off — as in quantity over quality.

          • Entropic man says:

            Just speculating about the second order consequences of choosing different periods of time when calculating baseline temperatures.

            Have you any thoughts on the optimum design of baselines for global temperature anomalies?

          • Swenson says:

            AQ,

            You wrote –

            “Wow mate I guess that voids my whole explanation.
            Ugh .”

            Or it just shows that your grasp of arithmetic is about average for a SkyDragon cultist.

            Either that, or you are demonstrating sloppiness and ineptitude, and then trying to dismiss your failings by being sarcastic!

            Not a good look, AQ, not a good look.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Pretty sure you’re not the one who should be commenting about quantity. What’s wrong? Did you not understand the explanation?

          • Swenson says:

            AQ,

            You wrote –

            “Pretty sure youre not the one who should be commenting about quantity. Whats wrong? Did you not understand the explanation?”

            Well gee. You’re “pretty sure” about whether someone should be commenting or not!

            Good for you! I’m “pretty sure” nobody at all values your opinion at all.

            If you can provide any evidence to show that you are not a complete fool, feel free to produce it.

            [laughing at pretentious dimwit]

        • barry says:

          Entropic,

          Are you thinking of the practise of using monthly averages to determine baselines for temperature anomalies? I can see that using, say, one year’s worth of data for the baseline, and then choosing a different year could result in wildly different trends for the same period (say 30 years).

          30 years is a good minimum, as the uncertainty in trends over that period reduce to negligible, so the monthly averages would not change a whole lot between different 30-year baseline periods. We looked at that when the baseline for UAH changed, and there was a difference in the resulting trends, but only to 3 decimal places.

          • RLH says:

            Newer series tend to be more accurate than previous ones.

            Zou et al. (2021) developed a TMT time series using satellite microwave sounders only in stable sun-synchronous orbits which covers the period from 2002 to present. Such a TMT time series has an accuracy of 0.01 K/decade in trend detection, exceeding the GCOS (2016) stability requirements of 0.02 K/decade. As a result, this time series can be used as a reference measurement for climate variability and atmospheric temperature trends for the period from 2002 to present.

          • barry says:

            That has nothing to do with what we’re talking about, but your advocacy is noted.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          You are using the word acceleration far too loosely. Also, you are placing too much faith in the ability of satellite telemetry to measure sea level rise. You simply cannot calculate acceleration from the rate of change of a fairly linear graph. What you are seeing is a variation in the small-scale linearity of a simple curve.

          The sats that produce UAH data are measuring O2 levels over several kilometres of atmosphere and they are not trying to measure depth per se. The depth is calculated from the frequencies received from O2 and not the distance itself.

          When an ocean is varying in level, sometimes up to a hundred feet during severe weather, it is impossible to measure in millimetres. They are surely using a good deal of guestimates to arrive at such precise measurements. That is further complicated by variations in the satellite altitudes.

  24. Nate says:

    Did Central England start to get built up only after 1985?

    https://tinyurl.com/psa4crua

  25. Entropic man says:

    Interesting.

    Most of the early CET data was recorded by gentleman hobbyists at their country houses so UHI would not be a factor.

    But 1985?

    That suggests that UHI was not a factor even in current CET temperatures.

  26. Entropic man says:

    If changes in emission from the Sun were the primary cause of the long term warming trend, surely we would see an 11 year climate cycle following the 11 year sunspot cycle.

    • bdgwx says:

      FWIW my machine learning model for predicting UAH values does pick up on an ever so slight contribution from TSI. The standard deviation of the effect is only 0.02 C though.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Read Zharkova on that, it is more complex than what you stated. Just as the axes of planetary orbits vary over time in the direction they point, so do the cycles of sunspots vary with time.

      During the Little Ice Age, there were apparently two major peaks. The last occurred near the end of the 17th century and the LIA ended circa 1850. That’s about 50 years between the peak and the end. From what I have read from Zharkova, we are on our way to a similar peak (sunspot minimum) and it should recover by 2050.

      I hope she’s wrong and that’s from a skeptic.

      • bdgwx says:

        Zharkova says the global average temperature will drop by 1.0 C in as little as 8 years.

        • gbaikie says:

          She would have been wrong- but I think she changed her mind about that. I would say she thinks temperature could return to 1970-80s which about .5 C.

          • gbaikie says:

            I guess should look at it:

            “Similarly to Maunder Minimum, as discussed above, the reduction of solar magnetic field will cause a decrease of solar irradiance by about 0.22% for a duration of three solar cycles (25-27) for the first modern grand minimum (2020-2053) and four solar cycles from the second modern grand minimum (2370-2415). This, in turn, can lead to a drop of the terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0oC from the current temperature during the next three cycles (25-27) of grand minimum 1.”

            {so 20 years from now} continuing:
            “Therefore, the average temperature in the Northern hemisphere can be reduced by up to 1.0oC from the current temperature, which was grown by 1.4oC since Maunder minimum. This will result in the average temperature to become lower than the current one to be only 0.4oC higher than the temperature measured in 1710. Then, after the modern grand solar minimum 1 is finished, the solar activity in cycle 28 will be restored to normal in the rather short but powerful grand solar cycle lasting between 2053 and 2370, as shown in Figure 3, before it approaches the next grand solar minimum 2 in 2370.”
            https://solargsm.com/grand-solar-cycle-and-minimum/

            But somewhere she did talk of shorter time periods and I believe
            it was what I said.
            I tend we stay flat to decreasing a bit over next 10 years, if throw in some huge eruptions, maybe .5 C

          • bdgwx says:

            This was a recent prediction.

            Zharkova 2020: Modern Grand Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling – DOI: 10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243

          • gbaikie says:

            Zharkova discusses it later, or she learned more about global climate issues later- it’s not her field.

          • gbaikie says:

            This is later:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj4whLHXYes
            And it’s long [about 2 hr, but she gets to point by about 28 min
            point.

            I will note the Little Ice Age started much earlier than 1750 when
            this last grand min occurred. Also what she talking in terms coldest
            is only about 15 year, after this 25 cycle.
            And 15 years doesn’t make “global temperatures- and more like dip in 1970’s- when know you the NYT said we are entering an “Ice Age”.
            She is actually talking about weather- after this there is longer period of Solar Grand Max- a bigger one than we had in 20th century.
            She actually saying in terms of global warming, we going to get a lot warming after Grand Solar Min.

            Any how I have different view, about global climate, though I said, if we have solar grand min, it will affect global weather- or I agree about that.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        This cycle has already exceeded Zharkova’s predictions for the cycle max, and she stated a tolerance of +/- 2%.

        • Swenson says:

          AQ,

          Gee, another person unable to predict the unknowable future, is it?

          Peer into your crystal ball. Cast the runes.

          You aren’t claiming that you can predict future climate states, are you? You can’t even describe the greenhouse effect in any way that agrees with reality, can you?

          You can’t explain the present, but you imply that you can predict the future.

          Fool.

      • Nate says:

        Zharkova quotes out-of-date reconstructions of the solar constant from 1995 that show it increasing by maximum 3 W/m^2 from the Maunder minimum.

        Those reconstructions have been significantly revised since satellite measurements, and current ones show that it increased by only ~ 1 W/m^2 since the Maunder minimum.

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JA015431

        http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iTSI_TIM_Reconstruction_20yr_low-pass_box.png

        • Nate says:

          And 1 W/m^2 variation in Solar constant, corresponds to only about 0.25 W/m^2 in average TOA solar flux.

          • gbaikie says:

            It seems it’s 1 W/m^2 at TOA, it could be 1 W/m^2 at Earth surface.

            Or it’s measured at Earth surface and could converted to TOA.

          • Nate says:

            No, 0.25 W/m^2 global average.

  27. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Very little heat has been accumulated beneath the surface of the Pacific.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202305.gif

  28. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    What are the forecasts for Australia? So the Earth’s position relative to the Sun affects the temperature in the Southern Hemisphere?
    https://i.ibb.co/QrKb697/gfs-T2ma-aus-21.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Ren…I think you mean the angle of the Earth’s axis in its orbit affects the temperature in the SH. You are being interpreted by alarmists as claiming the position of the Earth in its orbit is affecting the temperature, which is true.

  29. Willard says:

    Could it be that El Nino is closer to Australia than the Sun?

    Australia could swing from three years of above-average rainfall to one of the hottest, driest El Nio periods on record, as models show an increasing likelihood the climate driver may form in the Pacific in 2023.

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/04/australia-could-swing-from-three-years-of-la-nina-to-hot-and-dry-el-nino-in-2023

    Back in my days, Sun cycles were applied to the Earth as a whole.

  30. Clint R says:

    Fun to watch all the cult excitement over the upcoming El Niño. They seem pretty sure an EN will somehow “prove” their AGW nonsense.

    An El Niño is a natural ocean oscillation. We see both surface and UAH temperatures rise during an EN, but that has NOTHING to do with the bogus GHE. It has to do with how the ocean cools itself. The thermal energy in the warm water at the surface is transferred to the atmosphere and then emitted to space. Never to be seen again.

    Other oceans and sections of oceans do the same thing. It’s just that the equatorial Pacific (ENSO region) is the “800# gorilla in the room”.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Not at all mate. El Ninos can only be compared to El Ninos, neutral to neutral, and La Ninas to La Ninas. It was you guys who wanted to compare the recent La Ninas to 2016, believing it “proved” your argument. And it was you guys who have been excited for the past three years. I want a long-term neutral ENSO so that we can see precisely where the climate sits.

      • Clint R says:

        Ant, misrepresenting me and making false accusations are troll tactics.

      • RLH says:

        “I want a long-term neutral ENSO so that we can see precisely where the climate sits”

        One from the 1850 to 2022 suffice?

        https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/ens-oni.jpeg

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          works for me.

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          I said where the CLIMATE sits, not ENSO.

          • Swenson says:

            AQ,

            Who cares what you “said”?

            The “climate” doesn’t “sit” anywhere, you nitwit. It’s the statistics of historical weather observations. Weather changes chaotically, so you may be inadvertently trying to “sit” on a strange attractor, thereby showing you are living in a knowledge free zone!

            Go on, “say” something else – I don’t mind laughing at your silliness.

            How are you going finding a description of the greenhouse effect? Too hard for you, I suppose.

            Maybe you could try annoying anyone who asks for a description of the greenhouse effect. Do you think that might help disguising the fact that you are stupid, as well as ignorant?

          • RLH says:

            “I want a long-term neutral ENSO”

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            “Long-term neutral” means THERE ARE NO EL NINOS OR LA NINAS”.
            Why are you so deliberately obtuse?

          • RLH says:

            Or many of both, say from 1850 onwards.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            WHAT?? I want to judge where the climate is NOW, not in 1850 or at any other time in that period. I am WAITING FOR the next multi-year ENSO-neutral period.

            Is your obtuseness actually deliberate, or are you really that unintelligent? I am beginning to worry for you.

        • barry says:

          “One from the 1850 to 2022 suffice?”

          That’s not a long-term neutral ENSO. That’s the whole series, with el Ninos and la Ninas, too.

          I believe Antonin means a ~2-year neutral phase, which happen fairly regularly throughout the record (most recently 2012-14). This gives enough time for the GST response to relax. The longest neutral phase since 1950 is 4 years, 1959-63.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Just about all warming since 1998 can be explained by ENs and their after-effects. The after-effects of the 2016 EN has persisted for years. You can hardly claim such warming as being produced by anthropogenic sources. That’s especially true since the 2016 EN came on the back of an 18 years flat trend.

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          Please provide PROOF that “the after-effects of the 2016 EN has persisted for years”, without simply ASSERTING that the higher temperatures is “proof”.

          • Swenson says:

            AQ,

            Asking for “PROOF” are you? You do realise that the scientific method does not work like that, do you?

            In case you live in a fantasy world, here’s what a guy called Albert Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

            In the absence of experimental support, one ASSERTION is as valuable as any other ASSERTION. Shouting (using CAPITALS) doesn’t make your ASSERTION any more factual.

            Another smart guy, Richard Feynman, wrote “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

            You don’t even appear to have a hypothesis, let alone a theory! Running around just trying to make others look stupid won’t change the fact that you can’t even specify what you are attempting to achieve. Can you name anyone who values the anonymous opinions of a dim nitwit like you?

            How hard can it be?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            aq…”Please provide PROOF that the after-effects of the 2016 EN has persisted for years…”

            ***

            Look at the 1998 EN. It rose to a peak then immediately descended to below the baseline, where it began. Then, for some unknown reason, it rebounded to about 2.5C (before UAH baseline re-adjustment).

            The average remained about 2.5C for another 18 years, before the 2016 EN drove it up again. This time the global average did not immediately drop to it previous value. It varied up and down with two sine wave shapes (re running average curve) for the next 6 years at an elevated global average.

            The evidence since 1998 dismissed the AGW warming meme. There is no explanation for why global warming would suddenly go flat for 18 years. A far better explanation is variations in the ocean oscillations. If you look at it closely, there has been little or no warming since 1998.

            Starting at -0.3C in 1979 and considering 4.4 decades of coverage, we have 4.4 (0.13C/decade) = 0.57C warming. That takes you from -0.3 to +0.27C in 2023. The 0.27C represents true warming since 1998 when the UAH anomalies officially changed from -ve to +ve. That’s 2.5 decades, so the real warming since 1998 is about 0.11C/decade.

            However, most of that is accounted for by the 2016 EN and its after effects. No evidence of CO2 warming I can see.

          • barry says:

            “There is no explanation for why global warming would suddenly go flat for 18 years.”

            Sure there is, from Roy Spencer himself.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/

            If you want to find the longest possible non-positive trend, you just pick a point in a time series to start from that is a very high anomaly.

            1998 is just such a cherry-pick.

            Start your trend in 1997 or 1999 and suddenly you get a warming trend.

            What there is no explanation for is why some ‘skeptics’ don’t understand statistics.

            If you want to find an even more recent non-warming trend, guess which year is the prime cherry-pick to start your trend from? That’s right. 2016.

          • Swenson says:

            barry,

            Your touching faith in “statistics” is admirable, but irrelevant.

            The atmosphere behaves chaotically, and therefore you can obtain any trend you like – just by picking appropriate start and end points.

            “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC.

            You are free to believe that you are right, and that the IPCC is wrong. What authority are you going to appeal to?

            None at all? Colour me unsurprised!

          • barry says:

            Did you post in the wrong thread? Nothing you said is about the topic on this thread.

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        You wrote –

        “I want a long-term neutral ENSO so that we can see precisely where the climate sits.”

        Want in one hand, pee in the other, see which fills up first.

        See where the climate “sits”? You can’t even describe this “climate”, can you?

        Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, donkey. It’s numbers which can be derived by a 12 year old. Some fools believe they can predict the future state of the atmosphere by examining the past.

        Are you one such fool, or just a wayfaring troll, attempting (but failing) to be annoying?

        Go on, describe the “greenhouse effect” in a way which accords with reality. Can’t do it, can you?

        Pathetic.

        • Willard says:

          Mike Flynn,

          So you cant find it for yourself? What effect are you talking about? Are you asking for another sammich than the one you kept asking for more than a decade here and elsewhere?

          Have you watched the video yet?

          Are you really as thick as you seem, or are you only pretending, because you are stupid?

    • Bindidon says:

      Antonin Qwerty

      ” I want a long-term neutral ENSO so that we can see precisely where the climate sits. ”

      Sorry: the ENSO time series are in puncto climate not at all representative for the Globe – neither NINO3+4 nor MEI’s region.

      *
      Look for example at a comparison of NCEP’s Nino3+4 data to HadISST’s data for the Globe:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oJwePq2gSmRNItNczSnlQkoClMr6UL32/view

      You see that even when considering only ocean data, we can’t compare the small Nino3+4 area to the Globe.

      It’s exactly the same mistake as when you compare Australia or the US to the global land surface.

      *
      And the most irrelevant conclusion, of course, comes from Blindsley Hood, who compares the Nino3+4 index for 1877/78 with the index for 1997/98, sees that they are about the same, and proudly proclaims: no temperature increase visible!

      This is just as stupid as comparing a UAH anomaly in 1979 to an anomaly of the same magnitude in 2022 and saying: no warming.

      Not even a 12-year-old would make that mistake.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”This is just as stupid as comparing a UAH anomaly in 1979 to an anomaly of the same magnitude in 2022 and saying: no warming”.

        ***

        The problem is, you don’t understand anomalies. They represent absolute temperatures over a 30 years period for UAH. They represent the absolute average for a month and the difference between that average and the average over 30 years.

        You can tell from the red running average curve that the average absolute temperatures have not varied much from the baseline since 1998.

        Of course, the baseline has changed but not by a heck of a lot.

        • RLH says:

          Of course STAR (NOAA) now agrees with UAH.

          • bdgwx says:

            It agrees with the overall trend from 1979-present. That agreement arises as a result of the cancellation of difference between the 1st and 2nd halves of the period. STAR shows less warming in the 1st half and more warming in the 2nd half. In other words, STAR says the warming is accelerating.

      • RLH says:

        Blinny says that Nino 3.4 remaining the same since 1877/1878 means that things are warming.

  31. Can’t believe that people are still talking about Monckton “pauses.” That bit of cherry-picking has been debunked thoroughly.

    Here’s a couple of my recent YouTube videos that you might find interesting.

    “Solving The EV Charging Problem”
    https://youtu.be/s7S-vl68tdQ

    and

    “Where Did The Antarctic Sea Ice Go?”
    https://youtu.be/uj7hFh6wBGQ

    Enjoy.

    • Clint R says:

      We haven’t seen you here for awhile, Mark.

      Did you ever come up with a valid definition of the GHE?

      (Your last “example” of a hot vacuum tube failed miserably.)

      • Swenson says:

        Clint R,

        Nobody can describe the greenhouse effect in any way that reflects reality.

        A bit sad – I can describe other mythical creatures like the unicorn or hippogryph. Even things like phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or caloric can be described.

        Alas for the poor greenhouse effect – such a phantasm it even eludes description. Mysterious indeed!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      It’s hidden in plain sight, Mark, go to the top of the page and have a look at the red running average curve. Since 2016, the trend has been flat.

      • gbaikie says:

        Earth is still cold. China added about as much as US emits doing that time and average surface temperature is about 15 C.
        Earth would be better if it’s average temperature was about 17 C.
        Solar panels and wind mills are still useless ways of making electrical power for an electrical grid.
        Trillions dollars have been wasted making them.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          gb…there is a problem with averages, as you know. If the average rose to 17C, it would mean in some parts of the world it would rise to 22C and in other places would need to drop about the same amount to achieve that average.

          Look at the temperature discrepancies on this global map.

          https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/April/202304_Map.png

          You see a warming of 2.5C in some parts of the Arctic (for April 2023) and a cooling of -2.5C in other parts. Much of the Tropics shows no warming at all.

          The things is, those colours move every month, indicating roving areas of warming/cooling.

          • gbaikie says:

            Well it’s changing weather.
            Warm 3.5 ocean by .5 C you will get 17 C.

            Or add water to Sahara desert [trillion tons per year] and should add .5 C, so, one would get about 15.5 average surface air temperature {or would increase global water vapor, which is much stronger greenhouse gas}.
            If somehow warmed our cold ocean to 4 C, it would also increase global water vapor- but that not all it does.

          • Swenson says:

            gbaikie,

            Adding water to the Sahara might have the opposite effect!

            A cut and paste –

            “During the African humid period, lakes, rivers, wetlands and vegetation including grass and trees covered the Sahara and Sahel creating a “Green Sahara” . . .”

            Seems fair to me. Removing the “most important” GHG (H2O), seems to have made the Sahara hotter!

            Must be the “reverse greenhouse effect”? Very flexible, this GHG stuff – makes things hotter, colder, wetter, drier . . .

            Have fun.

          • gbaikie says:

            — May 3, 2023 at 10:13 PM

            gbaikie,

            Adding water to the Sahara might have the opposite effect!

            A cut and paste

            During the African humid period, lakes, rivers, wetlands and vegetation including grass and trees covered the Sahara and Sahel creating a Green Sahara . . . —

            Well the conventional view is the Sahara gets hotter and draw in moisture. Which seems wrong to me.

            The simple rule is cooler global climate has more deserts.
            And warmer ocean is warmer climate, less deserts.
            I am cold cause I am outside in desert, in region with highest recorded surface air temperature in the world, which happen over 100 years ago, when it was globally drier.
            Water vapor causes more uniformity in global temperature.
            More uniformity in global temperature is global warming.

            Or other than getting wetter or drier, the tropics remain the same, it’s the warming outside of tropics which is global warming.

            The jackasses think global warming is a warmer tropics. Remember the Hot spot that never happened?
            It’s never going to happen.

          • gbaikie says:

            Btw, the continent of Africa, doesn’t have shortage of water.
            They will add a trillion tons per year to the Sahara Desert- it might take more than 10 years.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            “As with other efforts to homogenize radiosonde data, results here may be affected by sampling limitations and inhomogeneities not successfully removed. However, we argue that our approach is well suited for producing a dataset to examine trends.”

            “We argue . . .”. Because they have no facts?

            Feynman again “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

            Keep arguing. No facts will be harmed in the process.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            People say that they argue for two main reasons. First, because it is commonplace in that context to announce what you intend to do. Second, because civilized people use arguments to convince their peers.

            Either that is news to you or you are the dumbest troll Climateball has ever known.

            Cheers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  32. Entropic man says:

    “Ent, how many passenger jets flew backwards today?”

    About half of them (smile emoji)

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Those were the hover jets.

      • Entropic man says:

        You don’t understand the joke any better than ClintR does.

        When an airliner’s nose is pointing in the same direction as the Earth’s orbital velocity vector the airliner is flying forwards.

        When it’s nose is pointing in the opposite direction to Earth’s velocity vector the airliner is flying backwards.

        • Clint R says:

          YOU are the joke, Ent.

          You get caught perverting reality, so you pretend it was just a joke.

          Sorry, but the truth is out.

          • Entropic man says:

            You have no sense of humour, no understanding of vectors, no feel for science.

            God, I miss fandom!

          • Clint R says:

            See Ent, none of that is true.

            You just make up crap because you’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.

  33. Gordon Robertson says:

    aq…”A baseline is just a zero point nothing more. Changing the baseline merely shifts all data up or down by the same amount”.

    ***

    We’ve had this argument before between posters. Here’s NOAA on baselines and anomalies…

    https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature

    “A temperature anomaly is the difference from an average, or baseline, temperature. The baseline temperature is typically computed by averaging 30 or more years of temperature data. A positive anomaly indicates the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly indicates the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline”.

    The baseline is a little more than AQ claims. Since the anomalies depend on the baseline, changing the baseline changes the relative position of the data to the baseline and not by equal amounts above and below the baseline. It is plain on the UAH graph above, that when the baseline was shifted, the anomalies moved down the way…all of them.

    That’s because anomalies are based on absolute temperatures and so was the baseline initially. However, as new baselines are calculated every 30 years, it does not change the original absolute temperatures, unless you work for NOAA or GISS and want to fudge things. If you move the average temperature up, those absolutes remain as they are and change only relative to the baseline.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      All except your final BS paragraph is exactly what I said, so not sure what you are arguing with.

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        You wrote –

        “All except your final BS paragraph is exactly what I said, . . . ”

        Well, that’s informative – not. Are you promoting yourself as the arbiter of “BS”?

        What’s your definition of “BS”? According to delusional SkyDragon cultists, “BS” is anything that the cultist disagrees with.

        You seem obsessed with supposed “air temperatures”.

        Have they some relevance to something, or do you try to use them instead of tea leaves, or chicken entrails, to predict the future?

        Good luck with that! Keep the humor coming.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        What I am arguing is that you think the final paragraph is bs. Anomalies are based on absolute temperatures and changing the baseline does not affect that.

        Besides, I was aiming my post more at Binny et al who has no idea what an anomaly is.

        NOAA and GISS are famous for fudging temperatures.

  34. Swenson says:

    Just for information, Michael Mann has tried again to have Naomi Orestes accepted as an “expert witness” in an upcoming defamation action.

    From a law blog –

    “Second, as shown by her misidentification of the burden of proof with the coefficient of confidence, Oreskes previously had shown a lack of understanding of scientific and statistical method. Mann might have considered that his case would be better supported by someone who had not made such glaring mistakes, in front of a national audience.”

    Only one independent lawyers opinion, of course.

    The judge wrote “Dr. Oreskes opinion in that regard would be entirely speculative given that she has not demonstrated any particular expertise or experience regarding Dr. Manns research. Neither her original expert report nor her supplemental declaration indicates any intimate knowledge of Dr. Manns work.”

    Delusional SkyDragon cultists such as Michael Mann (faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat) seem to live in a fantasy world, detached from reality.

    Trial set for June 12, 2023.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Naomi Orestes thinks consensus is a valid form of science. She is a science historian and responsible for the propaganda that 98% of scientists agree with the AGW meme. She interviewed 1000 scientists with a one loaded yes/no question to arrive at that conclusion.

      That shows the desperation of Mann when he strives to have her as an expert witness. I guess the rest of his alarmist buddies are too gun shy to offer their opinions and make a fool of themselves in court.

      • Swenson says:

        Gordon,

        Mann tried to have another six “expert witnesses” accepted, previously. From memory, the judge laughed at six of them, dismissing their silly claims of “climate expertise”, and allowed one, who actually had qualifications and experience – in the field of statistics – as valid.

        I wouldn’t bet on the outcome. The law sometimes works in mysterious ways.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          We have already seen that with the O.J. Simpson trial. He was guilty as sin but got off due to an idiotic move by prosecutor Marcia Clark to move the trial from the Malibu area to South Central LA, to give Simpson a fairer trial. The assistant prosecutor was Black and I wonder if he influenced her?

          After he trial, the jury foreman, a Black woman, claimed they were not going to convict him no matter what. There were 11 Blacks on the jury.

    • barry says:

      Is this the Enterprise Institute case? I thought it has already been adjudicated during discovery that the criticisms of Mann had no factual merit, and that the issue then devolved to whether the criticisms were protected speech, or made with actual malice?

      • Swenson says:

        barry,

        As far as I know, trial is set for June 12, 2023.

        The judge obviously doesn’t care much what Naomi Oreskes “thinks”. She “thinks” that the judge should accept her as an “expert witness”, but the judge has, once again, decreed otherwise.

        You can choose to accept reality, or reject it. Your “thoughts” probably have no effect on reality, but feel free to prove me wrong.

      • barry says:

        So you don’t know what case this is?

        • Swenson says:

          barry,

          So you can’t find it for yourself? What “case” are you talking about? Is the fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann involved in more than one defamation actions at the moment?

          Is it also scheduled for trial on June 12, 2023?

          Are you really as thick as you seem, or are you only pretending, because you are stupid?

        • Nate says:

          From the link:

          “On the general issue of reliability, Oreskes proferred an opinion that scientific research is made reliable by

          ‘the collective vetting and critical interrogation of claims through scientific workshop, meetings, conferences, and above all, publication in peer-reviewed journals, formal scientific assessments and reports of government scientific agencies and laboratories.’

          Even on superficial review, this description appears woefully inadequate and incomplete. For Oreskes, scientific reliability seems to be all about meetings, publications, and governmental reviews, with no room for actual data gathered in attempts to refute hypotheses, or room for interrogating the data and their quality.”

          The lawyer who wrote this is an ignoramus.

          He doesnt seem to realize that publications, and all the other methods are means of disseminating and interrogating the data!

          • Swenson says:

            barry,

            So you managed to get someone else to waste their time, did you? Couldn’t work out how to look things up for yourself?

            Good for you!

            I note your legal opinion that the lawyer is an ignoramus. Presumably you think the judge is an ignoramus too, just like Naomi Oreskes and Michael Mann (as their actions demonstrate).

            However, the judge is making the decisions – that’s why he is called “the judge”.

            As to publications, the judge said “Dr. Oreskes made no effort to compile or catalogue CEIs publications according to an objectively defined set of metrics.”

            You may consider the judge to be an ignoramus, but I am certain that you will not be writing to him to inform him of your opinion, indicating support for Michael Mann (fraudster, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat).

            Cases of this nature generally have a winner and a loser. Mann’s response to losing in the past has simply been to refuse to comply with the court’s decision. Presumably, if he wins, he will accept the losers following Mann’s example, and refusing to comply with the decision of the court. Only joking, of course.

            Time will tell. The future is unknowable.

          • barry says:

            “So you managed to get someone else to waste their time, did you? ”

            Well, you got me to waste my time by not providing a link in the first place, so it seems fair enough.

            “I note your legal opinion that the lawyer is an ignoramus.”

            I didn’t give that opinion. I note your reading skills remain abysmal.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”From the link:

            On the general issue of reliability, Oreskes proferred an opinion that scientific research is made reliable by

            the collective vetting and critical interrogation of claims through scientific workshop, meetings, conferences, and above all, publication in peer-reviewed journals, formal scientific assessments and reports of government scientific agencies and laboratories.

            ***

            hilarious…Oreskes thinks scientific research is about everything but the research itself. She adds lab work as almost trivial as if reports from a lab experiment is incidental to the real science of consensus and personal opinion. Little wonder we are saddled with the IPCC and its consensus-based reviews.

          • Swenson says:

            barry,

            You wrote –

            “The lawyer who wrote this is an ignoramus.” You now claim this not your opinion?

            I know delusional SkyDragon cultists redefine words to suit their purpose. In this case, you have the better of me – when you wrote “I didnt give that opinion.”, were you redefining “ignoramus”, “opinion”, or something else entirely?

            Oh well, it makes no difference, does it? Nobody values your opinion anyway, certainly not the judge in the case.

            Carry on.

          • barry says:

            Swenson,

            “barry,

            You wrote

            ‘The lawyer who wrote this is an ignoramus’ ”

            Nope, I didn’t write that.

        • barry says:

          Thanks, RLH, that was a useful link.

          Whoever writes the blog seems to have fixated on Oreskes, when many more expert testimony was denied, including Judith Curry on behalf of Mann’s opponents. Only one expert testimony of nine survived the objections, for the defendants.

  35. Gordon Robertson says:

    clint…”Other oceans and sections of oceans do the same thing. Its just that the equatorial Pacific (ENSO region) is the 800# gorilla in the room”.

    ***

    Until the mid-1990’s we did not know the PDO existed. I think the AMO may be fairly new in our awareness as well. It’s now thought the PDO may affect ENSO, and Tsonis et al surmised the phase of each oscillation wrt to the other determines warming/cooling globally.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2007GL030288

    See conclusions.

    • barry says:

      Interesting that you have shaken off your distaste for climate models.

      From the conclusion:

      “The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.”

      • RLH says:

        Guess we will have to wait until 2035 to see who is right then.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Don’t see how a comment by Tsonis et al suggests I have shaken off my contempt for unvalidated models. Part of the team, Swanson, is a die hard alarmist whereas Tsonis comes across as a lukewarm skeptic.

        I guess they had to agree to disagree on certain matters. In another article, by Tsonis, he suggested we set aside the anthropogenic theory and investigate the effects of ocean oscillations.

      • barry says:

        “Don’t see how a comment by Tsonis et al suggests I have shaken off my contempt for unvalidated models.”

        Did you not read the conclusion you asked us to read? They validated their hypothesis via a global climate model comparing a climate event in the observations with a similar event in 2035.

  36. Gordon Robertson says:

    [angech]Roy measures the surface temp changes every day

    [aquerty]Oh no he doesnt. He measures temperatures at an average altitude of 3 km that contain only a 30% contribution from the surface.

    ***

    More propaganda from the alarmist peanut gallery. Channel 5 on the sat AMSU units have a centre frequency at 4 km. That means they measure that frequency best therefore at the highest amplitude. However, the AMSU units are broadband receivers that measure a broad range of O2 emission frequencies that can range down to the surface. For whatever reason, UAH does not use the measurements right to the surface.

    Furthermore, the new system using two other channels in conjunction with channel 5.

    Still, they don’t need them since atmospheric temperatures are linear with altitude in that part of the atmosphere. They can interpolate and verify the accuracy using radiosonde data.

    • barry says:

      “For whatever reason, UAH does not use the measurements right to the surface.”

      You have been quoted the reason many times.

      Dr Roy Spencer:

      “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 (its 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/

      • RLH says:

        So Roy (and NOAA) use a weighting function that closely resembles the lapse rate. Quelle surprise.

        • E. Swanson says:

          RLH (and Gordo) doesn’t understand what the weighting functions represent. They are the calculated contribution at each pressure level to the total microwave energy of each channel as measured at the satellite. Each channel has a different curve and a different pressure level at peak contribution. That does not mean that the data is a measurement at the pressure level of the peak.

          Lapse rate is the change in temperature thru the atmosphere as pressure height decreases, which is assumed to be constant at -6.5k/km in the troposphere when used in the calculation of the weighting functions. This curve does not in any way resemble the weighting functions.

          • RLH says:

            The various channels measure temperatures at different heights. They go down in value as the measurement distance from the surface increases.

            The weighting functions for for middle, upper and pause that UAH and NOAA use to get the surface value reflect that set of observations.

            Just as if the surface value for 2m was used to create a set of values for the 3 layers in reverse would do.

          • RLH says:

            “constant at -6.5k/km in the troposphere when used in the calculation of the weighting functions.”

            You don’t say.

          • barry says:

            The weighting functions represent the sensitivity of the instrument to readings of brightness temperature of O2 molecules at different altitudes.

            It’s got nothing to do with the lapse rate.

          • RLH says:

            Height and pressure are in a direct relationship to temperature at -6.5k/km as stated above.

          • barry says:

            You don’t know what you’re talking about. The weighting functions for each channel are not based in any way on the lapse rate.

            “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.”

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

            The fact that successive channels measure lower temperatures as their peak sensitivity records higher in the atmosphere, is exactly what you would expect if the instruments function properly.

            It’s like measuring air temperature with a thermometer every 500 metres upwards and then claiming that the thermometer design was based on the lapse rate.

            Quelle surprise indeed.

          • RLH says:

            As I said before height and pressure are in a direct relationship to temperature at -6.5k/km as stated above.

          • RLH says:

            Why do you think the various channels response curves are asymmetrical and not normal distributions which are symmetrical about the centers?

          • barry says:

            If the curve of the weighting function follows the lapse rate temperature, why do you think the curves don’t follow the temperature when they extend up into the stratosphere, where the lapse rate is inverted?

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

            (Notice the curves are symmetrical in that graph)

            Dr Roy Spencer:

            “Individual satellite temperature-sounder channel weighting functions often do not have sufficient vertical resolution to provide useful layer temperature information.”

            Each curve is not based on lapse-rate temperature through the atmosphere, because each instrument cannot read the lapse rate temperature through the atmosphere. They can only provide a vertical average. The curves are based on each instrument’s sensitivity to O2 microwave emissions through the atmosphere, and each instrument is tuned to a different frequency band in the 50-60 GHz range.

          • RLH says:

            Notice the log scale to the left on that graph.

          • RLH says:

            “The curves are based on each instruments sensitivity to O2 microwave emissions through the atmosphere, and each instrument is tuned to a different frequency band in the 50-60 GHz range.”

            Why do you think that each channel is different in frequency as it goes higher up?

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH wrote:

            The various channels measure temperatures at different heights. They go down in value as the measurement distance from the surface increases.

            No, above the tropopause, the BIGHTNESS temperatures increase with altitude. The Lapse Rate of -6.5 k/km is rather an average which is useful for calculations.

            Further evidence of RLH’s confusion:

            The weighting functions for for middle, upper and pause that UAH and NOAA use to get the surface value reflect that set of observations.

            No, the UAH LT or STAR TLT are not measurements of surface temperature. They represent a correction to the MT/TMT’s distortion by stratospheric cooling trend and exhibit another weighting curve with a lower peak than either of the MT/TMT products.

          • RLH says:

            “above the tropopause”

            carries very little weighting in both UAH and STAR.

          • RLH says:

            “No, the UAH LT or STAR TLT are not measurements of surface temperature. They represent a correction to the MT/TMTs distortion by stratospheric cooling trend and exhibit another weighting curve with a lower peak than either of the MT/TMT products.”

            They are a way of creating a surface figure by extrapolating downwards from above.

            The same way that 2m figures are used to create upper layer figures from below.

            2m is inside the chaotic boundary layer, averaged over day and night.

            https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.meteo300/files/images/lesson11/2000px-Atmospheric_boundary_layer.svg.png

          • RLH says:

            BIGHTNESS temperatures (of oxygen) reflect the actual temperatures of the air surrounding them.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            testing blah blah

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”You dont know what youre talking about. The weighting functions for each channel are not based in any way on the lapse rate”.

            ***

            Richard is correct, the pressure in the weighting functions can be directly related to temperature at a specific altitude. Otherwise the lapse rate would have no meaning. That’s a complaint I have about the theory underlying the lapse rate, they try to make it look as if pressure is not related and that somehow, rising parcels of air are causing it.

          • barry says:

            RLH, you can see that each curve does not follow the lapse rate.

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

            The peaks correspond to temperature, the curves do not.

            A curve that followed the lapse rate would be a straight or straightish diagonal line, reflecting warmest temperatures at the surface and coolest higher up.

            A curve that followed the lapse rate would inflect as it passed through the stratosphere, where temperatures are cooler at the bottom and warmer at the top – any curve reaching the stratosphere should turn into a sine wave (instead of a bell curve).

            A curve that instead reflected the brightness temperature of O2 in a pre-set frequency band, would exhibit a peak corresponding to the temperature of O2 in that frequency band, but the curve would die off both above AND below the peak depending on altitude. Fewer and fewer molecules emit at the specified frequency the higher AND lower in altitude you go.

            That’s why we see bell curves and not slopes or sine waves. The individual curves are not a function of the lapse rate.

            (Swanson, I know you are well-versed in this topic, so please correct any details of mine you think are incorrect)

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH wrota a reply:

            carries very little weighting in both UAH and STAR.

            RLH doesn’t specify which data he is writing about. Is it the TMT perhaps? With the Tropopause at around 13-14 km the TMT exhibits a strong influence from the Stratosphere up to about 24 km, as shown in the NOAA STAR v5 release note I linked to. By combining their TMT, TUT and TLS using their weighting, the result is nearly zero influence in the TLT above ~13 km. But one must be aware that this is all the result of theoretical calculations.

            Your other comment about the lapse rate ignores the WIKI link I provided. The lapse rate in the Tropopsphere is not a constant.

  37. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Frigid stationary highs in the South Pacific are causing a rapid drop in surface temperatures.
    https://i.ibb.co/DfGwcJJ/gfs-pacific-sat-mslp-anomsd-d1.png

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Heads up – there are no temperatures on your graph.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Is the vertical bar graph on the RHS not in degrees C? It doesn’t say so, but can it not be assumed?

      • Bindidon says:

        Antonin Qwerty

        ” … there are no temperatures on your graph. ”

        Exactly.

        And the lack of any knowledge let alone intelligence you see in the ignoramus’ guess:

        ” Is the vertical bar graph on the RHS not in degrees C? It doesnt say so, but can it not be assumed? ”

        OMG.

        And such dumb people like Robertson insult me with ‘van der klown’ but aren’t even able to see that Palmowski’s graph deals with mean sea level pressure!

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          In that case, the pressure is marked on the graph. It’s like one of your graphs, too hard to read. Also, no meaningful title to tell you what it is measuring.

  38. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Blocking circulation is occurring in both hemispheres, and this is no coincidence.
    A powerful Arctic high in the coming days will cause frosts at night in Central Europe, and air from the north may reach Italy.
    https://i.ibb.co/vj7TYLk/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-05-04-070217.png

  39. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The Arctic’s ice extent is shrinking slowly.
    http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/SICE_curve_extent_LA_EN_20230421.png

    • angech says:

      Arctic Sea Ice Extent.
      May 3rd, 2023: 12,756,382 km2, a drop of -13,273 km2.
      was near second lowest now 14th lowest very slow.
      Fits in with lower sun output and a cooling atmosphere and 3 weak La Nina’s.

      • Bindidon says:

        angech

        ” … and 3 weak La Nina’s. ”

        Are you serious? The last La Nina certainly was not weak at all.

        Chart of MEI indices with all superposed 2/3-dip La Ninas since 1871:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view

        Sort of index sums with number of consecutive months below Nina’s treshold (-0.5):

        1892: -54.67 40
        1908: -52.22 41
        1973: -48.71 36
        2020: -46.80 34
        1954: -40.45 31
        1915: -38.97 31
        1998: -37.66 36
        1873: -36.82 33
        2010: -32.99 22

  40. Bindidon says:

    Sea ice extent, Arctic & Antarctic: superpositions of recent years and 1981-2010 average

    Absolute daily values (first 180 days)

    1. Arctic

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zduPq2XEOZgj6X3CLezp2OZvEPgVAhac/view

    The Arctic sea ice is currently high, surpassed only by years with a very icy winter/spring phase (2012, 2013, 2014).

    2. Antarctic

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vapu5ep4spJG6t-pRtlS6ZXtjOFpv0X9/view

    Antarctic sea ice is quite low.

    *
    It’s always amazing to see how much is said on this blog about the Arctic and how little is said about… the Antarctic.

    Maybe it’s because Antarctica doesn’t fit the Coolista narrative well enough…

    *
    Source

    Arctic

    https://tinyurl.com/2bauk2aa

    Antarctic

    https://tinyurl.com/p8y8dehf

      • Bindidon says:

        Blindsley Hood

        It’s about sea ice extent, and not your pushing ego.

        And as usual, you manipulate us:

        (1) In your diagram there is no projection at all, just an impression of it, which the end of a Savitzky-Golay filter output is supposed to ‘cleverly’ convey – which also is why you always leave out the beginning, isn’t it?

        (2) Never and never is this blue line the result of a 5-year HQLP: it is way too flat for such a small filter window.

        • RLH says:

          Blinny says that the surface temperature does not reflect the amount of ice that is measured.

          • RLH says:

            “Never and never is this blue line the result of a 5-year HQLP: it is way too flat for such a small filter window”

            Strange how it fits so well with the 60 month HQLP filter then.

          • Willard says:

            Amazing how curve fitting works, sometimes.

            When it doesn’t, find a better cycle nut.

          • RLH says:

            Why do think that filtering is curve fitting?

          • RLH says:

            Do you think that a LOWESS (for a similar window) would provide anything different?

          • Bindidon says:

            ” Strange how it fits so well with the 60 month HQLP filter then. ”

            That, Blindsley Hood, is simply due to the fact that your HQLP filter never and never has a 60 month window.

            I have shown often enough the amazing difference between your alleged 60 month filters and

            – a 60/50/39 month CTRM according to Vaughan Pratt’s recommendations;
            – a real, 60 month Savitzky-Golay output.

            You really seem to think you can kid us with your alleged technical skill.

            One day, you will finally accept Robertson’s butt-kissing and will, like Vournas, suddenly start to deny the lunar spin.

            For sure!

          • RLH says:

            “HQLP filter never and never has a 60 month window.”

            So now you are saying that the values I plot using a 60 month window using a method approved by Vaughan Pratt is not a HQLP filter at all. Interesting.

          • RLH says:

            “60/50/39 month CTRM according to Vaughan Pratts recommendations”

            I use a VP 60 month/5 year filter for my plots.

          • RLH says:

            P.S. You need to use a 5 pass, multi-pass, S-G filter to get data that approaches VP of the same window. As I have proved on many occasions. I did not come up with that method, as I have also mentioned before.

        • Bindidon says:

          ” Blinny says that the surface temperature does not reflect the amount of ice that is measured. ”

          That is the very best.

          Blindsley Hood is so stubborn that he doesn’t even realize the nonsense he’s writing.

          Are rising surface and tropospheric temperatures in the Arctic consistent with rising sea ice there, Blindsley Hood?

          Of course, they don’t.

          Just as unchanged surface and tropospheric temperatures in Antarctica are not at all consistent with sinking sea ice there.

          • RLH says:

            So the unchanging surface temperatures in the Antarctic are unimportant as far as Blinny is concerned.

        • Bindidon says:

          ” So now you are saying that the values I plot using a 60 month window using a method approved by Vaughan Pratt is not a HQLP filter at all. ”

          As usual, you insinuate things I never wrote.

          What I wrote was that the filter plots you show in your charts can never and never be the result of a single HQLP filter with a 60 month window, let alone could they be the result of a 60/50/39 month filtering a la Pratt.

          You admitted to me in an answer last year that you run more than one filter on your data (if you really are the person doing the job, which I’m starting to seriously question).

          You are dishonest, Blindsley Hood.

          • RLH says:

            “let alone could they be the result of a 60/50/39 month filtering a la Pratt.”

            They are just that despite your ignorant claims. I have always championed VPs methods and follow them precisely.

            I added in the 5 pass, multi-pass, S-G projection to get results that reflect what the current data shows.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” So the unchanging surface temperatures in the Antarctic are unimportant as far as Blinny is concerned. ”

        Again: you insinuate things I never wrote.

        You are dishonest, Blindsley Hood.

        • RLH says:

          And you just ignore facts that do not fit within your consistent ‘it’s always getting warmer’ claims.

          Let us see what your graph with 60/50/39 month VP filter shows for the data for the South Polar that Roy publishes.

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH, The UAH v6 SoPol data is seriously flawed, since the UAH v6 LT weighting curves peak at about 4 Km and the ice sheet elevations over the Antarctic reach that altitude. In other words, the UAH SoPol data isn’t just atmosphere, but also has a strong surface fraction. That’s why RSS excludes data poleward from 70S and data over greenland, where the elevations reach ~3 Km.

            It’s even worse for the new STAR v5 TLT, which has peak weighting at about 2.5 Km.

          • RLH says:

            So now you are against NOAA as well as UAH.

            Could it be that NOAA siding with UAH in the choice of satellites in the early period is mainly your objection?

  41. Entropic man says:

    RLH

    You were looking for data on the relationship between ENSO and the long term warming trend.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=41wHffAUo5E

    • RLH says:

      “Global average surface temperature (from NASA GISS) 19802019”

      • RLH says:

        Try comparing the El Nino of the 1870s with today.

        “An exceptionally strong El Nio may have caused 1876-1878 famine that killed tens of millions. (Inside Science) — What may be the greatest El Nio ever identified may have caused record-breaking droughts that helped trigger disastrous famines, likely killing more than 50 million people globally, a new study finds.”

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          I wonder if ENSO may have been the cause of the 1930s heat waves and record temperatures in parts of Canada and the US in the 1930s? Although I associate droughts with La Nina it could be El Nino as well.

        • barry says:

          “Try comparing the El Nino of the 1870s with today.”

          Are you saying that this el Nino is the cause of the long-term global warming trend?

          Or have you suddenly changed to a different topic?

  42. Norman says:

    Gordon Robertson

    You have discredited this You-Tuber in the past but I think you might find this one very interesting. You have expressed concern over how modern science is done and she agrees with you on this point.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu4mH3Hmw2o

    • gbaikie says:

      Interesting.
      I think space exploration would be faster direction.

      • gbaikie says:

        She is selling me on idea of getting Brilliant. I heard a lot other places [largely, space related] selling it.
        Anyone have it?

        My obsession over the years is how to get to Mars faster, using a different planetary trajectory other than Hohmann.
        I don’t doubt hohmann is most efficient in terms being the most efficient. It’s most efficient in terms of delta-v, but it’s long distance of travel.
        Or going to Venus to Mars with hohmann is shorter distance to Mars as compared to Earth to Mars.
        Or hohmann leg [transport trajectory] is 1/2 orbit, the orbit of Venus to Mars and back to Venus, travels shorter distance because Venus is closer to Sun.
        Or in terms closest planet to Earth in terms of distance and travel time is Mercury, and then Venus, and finally Mars. And velocity is also a factor, but mainly the distance travel.

        So, one can do hohmann + patched conic to Mars, and shortens distance
        and I want another way to shorten the distance to Mars, and not use “too much” delta-v.
        Related to this, is can you use Earth for gravity assist, if going from Venus to Mars. Or if go from Venus to Mars you cross Earth’s orbital distance or sometimes if going to Mars from Venus you flyby Earth.
        Or Venus to Mars is 7.2 month without doing patched conic, Earth to Mars with patched conic is about 7 month. Venus to Mars with patched conic, is a lot less than 7.2.
        So, assuming doing patched conic type trajectory from Venus to Mars, also leave Venus so you do gravity assist with Earth. Can make the travel distance shorter, with the gravity assist from Earth?

        • gbaikie says:

          Another way to look at it.
          If do Earth to Mars hohmann, if go out to Mars distance and don’t interact with Mars gravity, you return to Earth distance, and then go back out Mars distance {etc}.

          What I want is a trajectory, where leave Earth go to Mars distance and return to Venus distance [or Mercury distance].

          Which can be related to Low Earth orbit, in which you point a gun in direction ahead of orbit {or forward] and bullet goes to lower Earth orbit.
          How make bullet hit Earth, is point gun in opposite direct, and does hohmann, and easily hits Earth [goes a lot lower orbit], but talking pointing gun in forward direction and have it go higher then your orbit and then fall below your orbit.
          So something like pointing gun forward and at 45 degree angle {which is not a hohmann].

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gb…”She is selling me on idea of getting Brilliant”.

        ***

        I have often thought about going back to university. When I was there, I felt too rushed and hurt myself by spending far too much time trying to understand theory when I should have been doing problem sets.

        I considered looking up the Brilliant courses but I am sure they will be no different than the nonsense taught in modern university physics classes.

        The problem I have now is not the mathematics, it is the physics. I refuse to absorb nonsense about Einsteinian relativity, profs putting Newtonian theory down, the more far-out theories in quantum theory, etc. For me, it will be the same old, same old…with mathematical proofs being pushed in lieu of physical explanations.

        I just read a lecture given by Einstein to explain his theories on relativity. He glossed over the explanation of time, essentially reinventing it based on the speed of light. That suggests his definition of time is not the same as the time we use in the real world, and can be conveniently changed to suit. His definition of space is even more alarming. He had obviously entered a disconnect between the math explaining the 4 dimensions of space and time and the physical reality.

        He had the nerve to claim that Newton’s gravitational theory is lacking and that his mathematically-based space-time, which is not based on a physical reality is correct.

        The danger in science, as physicist David Bohm pointed out, is representing reality mathematically without having a physical reality to back it. That represents Einstein’s relativity theory to a tee.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Thanks Norman. You were right, I found this video much more interesting than her video supporting AGW.

      One thing I did note near the end of the video was her plugging the course material, especially her specialty in quantum theory supporting entanglement theory and quantum computing. It struck me as ironic that she would slam particle physics, albeit correctly, yet see no parallel between that and the more remote quantum theory just mentioned. They have been pushing the same seemingly unprovable theories like entanglement theory since at least 1930 with no success. There are still no working quantum computers available to the average user and as far as I know, none that actually work.

      Much of what she talked about re particle physics reveals how science has gone off the rails. She mentioned the tendency of particle physicists to claim a bad theory is good science since it can be disproved. She pointed out that Popper claimed a theory can never be proven, but it can be falsified. Some particle physicists have turned that around to mean an experiment is good science if it can be falsified, even though the experiment is nonsense and/or based on a model.

      I also found it ironic re models used in particle physics that she found fault with them but saw no problem with models in climate science. The issues she found with the application of models in particle physics are the same as those used in climate science.

      Another thing that stood out to me was this. Scientists can’t even tell you how an atom works, via direct observation, yet they are trying to tell us how particles work that no one has ever seen and which are invisible in normal studies of atoms. In chemistry, for example, they never seldom go lower than protons, neutrons and electrons. Although I find particle physics to be fascinating on the face of it, I have found it hard to accept many of the claims made about it.

      She mentioned the lack of instrumentation to measure at the particle level, which I take to mean beyond the proton, electron and neutron level, yet that is the same problem faced by any scientists investigating atomic theory at a larger scale. If they had the instrumentation it would immediately make quantum theory obsolete and likely put Newtonian physics back in business at the atomic level.

  43. Eben says:

    Experimental forecast,
    yes it could well dive back into La Nina ,
    but at this point it’s basically all over the place

    In any case just ignore Bindebil’s rants

    https://i.postimg.cc/bNBdzQNF/nino3-4-may2023-plume-S2-S.png

  44. gbaikie says:

    “People Believe What They Want to Believe”

    Do I believe in Heaven?
    I believe I am in a heaven.
    Do believe evil will punished when you die?
    I believe evil is punished when you live.
    Lies have immediate punishment and eternal punishment.

    What is a true religion? It’s religion you find.
    I didn’t have religion when I was a kid.
    If I was a Jew, that would suggest the Jewish religion is
    probably the true religion [for me and others].
    Or would imagine I would have spend a lot time interested in the Torah and Jewish history and what Jews were doing. I wondering
    why people tend to oppress us. It is quite an interesting thing-
    a bit sad, also.
    But I got some kind of kind religion, my religion was that kids
    shouldn’t focus on religion- do it later. So, anyhow, it seems
    to help me be interested in other religions. Which I think is useful
    thing.
    Life isn’t fair- no one would like life being fair. If Heaven is fair
    I not going there.

  45. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…”That does not mean that the data is a measurement at the pressure level of the peak.

    Lapse rate is the change in temperature thru the atmosphere as pressure height decreases, which is assumed to be constant at -6.5k/km in the troposphere when used in the calculation of the weighting functions”.

    ***

    The data is about oxygen microwave emissions and the altitude from which they are emitted. The weighting functions represent the bandwidth per channel associating the bandwidth of O2 emission frequencies to pressure level, hence to altitude.

    My take is that a weighting function indicates the sensitivity of the AMSU receivers to O2 emissions/kilometre altitude. Although a normal receiver would indicate its input in watts or volts, the weighting function describes it as a form of ratio related to altitude.

    The weighting function is not likely related to the electronics of the receiver but it gives a general idea of the reception amplitude of the O2 microwave emission wrt to the altitude from which it was sent.

    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Weighting-functions-at-nadir-for-the-AMSU-A-instrument-on-the-NOAA-satellites-for-the_fig1_249612992

    Channel 5 measures its peak amplitudes of O2 microwave emissions in the vicinity of 4 km, which is about halfway up Mount Everest. We have to remember that the sats fly well above that altitude, therefore they measure from the surface to 4 km and higher. Note that the weighting functions run along the vertical altitude axis and channel 5 cover emissions from sea level to 30 km.

    Note also, how some functions overlap. The information in overlapped regions is common and I suppose can be used for purposes of confirmation. Therefore the AMSU electronics receiving data from channel 5 can receive some of the same data on other channels, which represent different and separate electronic amplifiers.

    Note the symmetry of channel 7 and channel 9 and how channel 5 is cutoff at the surface high on the downside limb of the curve. Therefore, O2 frequencies detected down to the surface are well received, almost as well as at the centre frequency of about 4 km.

    As Roy said, they don’t use frequencies right to the surface since the surface also emits microwave frequencies. I presume they use a statistical filter to cut off those unwanted frequencies which also eliminates any good frequencies from O2 near the surface. The AMSU units certainly won’t differentiate between atmospheric and surface radiation in the same frequency band, unless they have a filter built in, which I doubt.

    However, pressure and temperature are in lock-step from the surface right through the better part of the troposphere. I am talking static conditions, not convection-induced temperatures. There should be no problem interpolating.

    As Richard (rlh) has pointed out, there is a special zone near the surface where much of our weather takes place. I am sure things can go awry in that region re temperatures/pressure relations but I think, in general, the static conditions may be retrievable.

  46. Willard says:

    > I refuse to absorb nonsense about Einsteinian relativity

    That will make Sabine sad:

    I got issues. Here’s one. I don’t like what people say about special relativity. Because we’re friends, special relativity and I.

    http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2013/09/what-is-special-relativity.html

    That’s too bad, for Bordo seemed to be warming to her.

    • Swenson says:

      Willard,

      It’s easy to see why the “content creator” chooses not to work as a physicist!

      Ah well, she’s right, everyone else is wrong, and prospective employers obviously don’t appreciate her brilliance!

      At least she “thinks” about “definitions” and “terminology”.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Based on her explanation, I think she is as much in the dark as anyone else. We are talking about gravity…holding a brick in front of you and letting it go, then observing what happens. Minkowski and Gallilean spaces are nothing more than gibberish.

      She said it all when she claimed Einstein based relativity on symmetry. Symmetry my pitutey!!! Talk science not abstract mathematics.

      Einstein’s problem is explaining time and space. She (in video) claimed that gravitational force is the same as acceleration in a flat space. More nonsense. There is no physical relationship between force and acceleration since the former is real and the latter is not.

      It is real in the sense we can see something happening with something like a dragster when it accelerates from a stop, however, when we try to explain it we need to introduce time. Even then, acceleration is a property of the mass in motion. The mass is real, the acceleration is not, it is based purely on observation by a human observer, although we can sense it when a mass accelerates if we are riding on the mass.

      Time is not real either, so how can we claim acceleration is real if it’s expression depends on something that is not real?

      It’s important to see the distinction. Start with a mass sitting still. It is real, most people would agree. We apply a force that can move the mass and it starts to move. What’s the difference now? We have the same mass and the same force. Nothing has changed physically, the only difference is that the mass is moving.

      So what? Nothing has changed and until we want to measure the rate at which the position of the mass is changing, the mass has no particular new properties. Newton noted that the rate at which the position changes is related to a property of the mass he called inertia.

      We humans give the mass new, superficial properties by defining properties related to the motion of the mass. We define the rate of change of position as velocity and the rate of change of velocity as acceleration. Then we multiply the velocity by the mass and call it momentum.

      As long as the velocity is constant, there is nothing to write home about. However, if the mass collides with another body, there is a transfer of energy. So, we might say a moving body has more energy than a body at rest. We know that energy as kinetic energy.

      Einstein went way too far by claiming acceleration produces a force on a man riding in a box. He conveniently forgot that the motion in the first place was caused by a force and without the force the acceleration ceases immediately.

      Only a force can produce such a force. The fact that a human experiencing an acceleration can produce stresses on his/her body has nothing to do with acceleration per se, it is about the force that causes the acceleration. Take the force away and the body stops accelerating immediately.

      Many times, in reference to a G-force, I see people explaining it as being due to acceleration. Not true, it is a force that causes a G-force, hence the name G (gravitational)-force.

      • angech says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        May 4, 2023 at 11:34 PM
        The mass is real, the acceleration is not, it is based purely on observation by a human observer, although we can sense it when a mass accelerates if we are riding on the mass.

        Not so.
        If the mass is a rocket and it is causing an acceleration you will sense that acceleration.
        If the mass is a rocket not causing an acceleration, but being accelerated by an apparent external force, like in a free fall, you cannot sense that you are accelerating as you and the rocket are weightless.

        Not sure where you are going with this comment.

    • Willard says:

      > Based on her explanation, I think she is as much in the dark as anyone else.

      What you think is of little relevance, Bordo.

      It’s what you can show that matters.

      Do you have what it takes to revolutionize physics?

      If you stay here and rant for another ten years, otters will beat you to the punch, e.g.:

      A new phase of matter called a “time crystal” plays with our expectations of thermodynamics. The physicist Vedika Khemani talks with Steven Strogatz about its surprising quantum behavior.

      https://www.quantamagazine.org/is-perpetual-motion-possible-at-the-quantum-level-20230503/

      I believe in you.

      C’mon.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        “What you think is of little relevance, Bordo.

        Its what you can show that matters”.

        ***

        I clued in long ago that what I think is of little relevance. The real world/universe does not give a hoot what I think or anyone else, and that includes Einstein and his groupies.

        I have shown what you need to understand, that time has no existence. You have yet to explain how it has existence, ergo you are not putting in the required effort. You seem willing to accept what everyone else has taught you.

        This is a defining moment in your life wee willy. Do you take the step into awareness or do you keep hanging out in the populist world of authority figures?

        Do you believe the Sun revolves around the Earth? If not, do you understand the illusion related to human observation that creates the impression it does? Time is the same kind of illusion. Simply look, it’s ridiculously obvious. The only thing interfering is your ego.

        Come on, take the step. Go past where Einstein and his groupies are stuck.

  47. gbaikie says:

    Aerospace Company Airbus Designs New Space Station With Artificial Gravity Space
    03 May 2023 By Matt Williams, Universe Today
    https://www.sciencealert.com/aerospace-company-airbus-designs-new-space-station-with-artificial-gravity

    Designs for expensive space station with artificial gravity, without
    any testing of artificial gravity.

  48. gbaikie says:

    Joint venture announced to build ‘underwater space station of the ocean’
    https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2023/05/04/noaa-proteus-underwater-ocean-habitat/2731683173160/

    Another one linked from: https://instapundit.com/

    At least earlier ones have tested before.
    A underwater station has one advantage, don’t need breakwaters- unless you also want station above at the surface.

  49. gbaikie says:

    SPACEX/STARLINK KICKED THIS REVOLUTION OFF: Answering the Call: How Apple Started Working with Satellite to Save Lives. It wasnt that long ago that Apple was not part of the satellite ecosystem. It is one of the most revered companies in the world, and while a lot of the industry uses Apple products in their daily life, connecting Apple and the satellite industry had never been done before. But that all changed late last year, when Apple inked a deal with Globalstar to bring its Emergency SOS via satellite to iPhone 14 users, providing access to emergency services to people that are off the grid and away from a terrestrial and wireless connection.
    Posted at 6:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds
    https://instapundit.com/

  50. gbaikie says:

    Failed Assassination Attempt On Putin
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reD4ntGIuQ0
    speak the truth

  51. barry says:

    Regarding the PDO leading global temperature changes (and ENSO regimes):

    “…the PDO is not a well-oiled machine like ENSO; it’s the ocean surface temperature’s aggregated response to all sorts of atmospheric and oceanic processes. For the most part, the atmosphere is what changes the temperature pattern across the North Pacific Ocean, not the other way around. The PDO is therefore a response, not an agent of change itself.

    But what about those regimes—time periods of consistently positive or negative PDOs? If the processes aren’t really connected, how do those periods arise? Well, it could be a natural result of the efforts to try and capture all of the influences in the variability of the Aleutian Low, which manifests itself in ocean temperatures in the North Pacific, via one index, the PDO.

    Each “regime” of the PDO could be due to a random assortment of processes ranging from ENSO to ocean reemergence to random weather. In fact, it is known that ENSO can have periods where El Niños occur more often than La Niñas (Wittenberg et al., 2014). Since ENSO has such an influence on the PDO, these PDO regimes could be reflecting ENSO regimes.”

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/going-out-ice-cream-first-date-pacific-decadal-oscillation

  52. Gordon Robertson says:

    entropic…” When an airliners nose is pointing in the same direction as the Earths orbital velocity vector the airliner is flying forwards.

    When its nose is pointing in the opposite direction to Earths velocity vector the airliner is flying backwards”.

    ***

    I am sure there is an attempt at a joke in there but your logic is the basis of the propaganda that the Moon rotates about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the surface. If you want to regard that kind of logic as apt then I agree that the Moon spinning as it keeps the same face pointed at Earth is a joke, albeit a bad joke.

    Your point above does rely on a reference frame. It is incorrect at any time to claim a jet is flying backwards unless it is of the Harrier type which actually can fly backwards. An aircraft flying in the opposite direction to the Earth’s rotation is not flying backwards, it is always flying forward. If it did not, it would very likely crash.

    If you are joking and I am missing the thrust of your joke, perhaps you need to making your comparisons a lot more absurd, or more clever.

    • Entropic man says:

      How parochial you are.

      Your planet is rotating on its axis once every 24 hours, revolving in orbit around the Sun once a year and travelling in a spiral path towards Vela at about 300 kilometres/second, yet you can only think of movement relative to the surface on which you stand

      • Clint R says:

        How do you know Earth is *rotating on its axis once every 24 hours*, Ent?

        You believe your cult. You cant figure it out for yourself.

        But, it you were able to think for yourself, you would know Earth is spinning relative to its host (Sun). Moon is NOT spinning relative to its host (Earth), so Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.

        You can’t figure that out because you’re braindead. That’s why you must make up crap like passenger jets flying backward. Talk about *parochial*!

        • Nate says:

          1 % of the time Clint steps outside of himself, wants to be taken seriously, and chastises people about their insults, lack of science, etc.

          99 % of the time he reverts to Clint troll mode, tosses insults, offers no real science, and can’t be taken seriously.

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry troll Nate, but you wouldn’t know the difference between “science” and a “seance”.

            Remember, you weren’t able to answer ANY of the simple physics problems. Reality is a bitch, huh?

            But thanks for your ineffective flak, confirming I was over the target.

          • Nate says:

            “over the target” = troll seeking ridicule and finding it.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ent…parochial I may be but I am talking about a phenomenon that involves my parish of Earth wrt a moving body that is orbiting it. I don’t care what is going on elsewhere unless we happen to collide with another significant body along the way. I am not lying awake at nights worrying about that prospect.

  53. Gordon Robertson says:

    barry…”Each curve is not based on lapse-rate temperature through the atmosphere, because each instrument cannot read the lapse rate temperature through the atmosphere. They can only provide a vertical average. The curves are based on each instruments sensitivity to O2 microwave emissions through the atmosphere, and each instrument is tuned to a different frequency band in the 50-60 GHz range”.

    ***

    I have never claimed the weighting functions follow the lapse rate through the entire atmosphere, I claimed they follow it through the linear portion n the troposphere. All I have ever referenced is channel 5, where its lower limb corresponds to the lapse rate. We have talked mostly about the 4 km altitude which is covered by channel 5.

    I don’t think the weighting curves are related to the AMSU channel sensitivities. The channel amps in each AMSU unit will be sensitive to the particular frequencies they cover. It seems to me the weighting functions are more an abstraction than a reality. They vary with the scan angle of the scanning beam.

    The AMSU scanners won’t care about scan angles, etc., just the amount of each frequency they receive. It will be up to the scientists to decipher what the signals mean. I think that may be where the weighting functions come in.

    • RLH says:

      “each instrument is tuned to a different frequency band in the 50-60 GHz range”

      Each instrument/channel shows different temperatures in the atmosphere as you get higher up, due to the lapse rate.

      • E. Swanson says:

        RLH, No, the instruments weighting functions are the result of pressure vs. altitude. The O2 emission lines combined exhibit “pressure broadening”, thus more emissions lower down for frequencies further away from the line for each channel, AIUI. I can’t claim to be an expert on the science, though I have a couple of text books giving many details and the math involved. It’s the same theory as that for CO2 emission/absorp_tion and the GHE.

        • RLH says:

          Pressure/height are the same thing effectively. The lapse rate determines the fall in temperature with height. The different center bands are to with that change.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          swannie…”the instruments weighting functions are the result of pressure vs. altitude”.

          ***

          The instruments detect frequencies/wavelength only. They have no idea where the frequencies emanated, either the source or the altitude. That is left up to the scientists to work out.

          AMSU receivers are not much different than communications systems with their antennas and amplifiers. A comm system receives EM signals based on their frequency since the antennas are tuned to those frequencies. With microwave, rather than antennas they use parabolic dishes or horns that focus the signal on an LNB down converter. An LNB is essentially the unit that receives the input energy and converts it from microwave EM to a higher frequency electrical signal. Ergo, this unit knows nothing about altitude or the EM source.

          The weighting functions themselves are graphed with both altitude and pressure along the vertical axes. In other words, they are equivalent. Along the x-axis I saw for the first time the other day the units 1/km. Until then I had seen no units.

          When you see 1/sec, it is usually a reference to cycles/sec or hertz. I am wondering if 1/km is a reference to the equivalent wavelength as in wavenumber. If that’s the case, they are comparing the frequency/wavelength of the x-axis to the altitude/pressure along the y-axis. It may only be a logarithmic ratio for all I know.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo, For the dozenth time, the MSU/AMSU insturments are passive radiometers. They measure the INTENSITY of the microwave radiation at a specific frequency for each channel at each scan position, including the calibration positions of deep space and the heated “warm” target.

            The weighting functions are THEORETICAL calculations based on the physics of O2 thermal emissions, including the effects of pressure broadening of the appropriate spectral emission “lines” from lower altitude to higher altitudes. The pressure broadening declines with increasing altitude because (who would have guessed) the pressure declines as altitude increases.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”the MSU/AMSU insturments are passive radiometers. They measure the INTENSITY of the microwave radiation at a specific frequency for each channel at each scan position…”

            ***

            Makes no sense, Swannie. You are missing the point that intensity is proportional to frequency in such a radiometer and has nothing to do with altitude from which the radiation is sent. When I say proportional to frequency, I mean the AMSU acts like a bandpass filter, passing frequencies at a max at the centre frequency and other related frequencies at a proportional level either side of the centre frequency.

            Channel 5, for example, responds best at an O2 radiation frequency located at its centre frequency around 4 km. However, the same channel responds to all frequencies of O2 from the surface to 4 km and beyond.

            BTW…channel 5 has a bandwidth of 170 mhz. Instruments so designated respond to frequencies, not amplitude. Also. The AMSU microwave radiometers are heterodyne receivers, where the received radio frequency (RF) is downconverted to a lower intermediate frequency (IF). That is the instrument scans O2 frequencies and all altitudes but only responds to frequencies within 170 Mhz of the centre frequency of 53.596 Ghz.

            If O2 did not radiate at different frequencies based on its temperature it would be useless as a temperature measuring device. Furthermore, if O2 did not respond to temperatures at different altitudes by radiating at different frequencies it would be of no use.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo wrote:

            Makes no sense, Swannie. You are missing the point that intensity is proportional to frequency in such a radiometer and has nothing to do with altitude from which the radiation is sent.

            If O2 did not radiate at different frequencies based on its temperature it would be useless as a temperature measuring device.

            As usual, Gordo continues to display his usual EE’s confused ignorance of the problem. The emissions from O2 are limited to specific frequencies representing molecular vibration frequencies. There is are not a continuous Planck spectrum representing the temperature of the gas. The emissions at frequencies near those line frequencies are the result of line broadening by pressure.

            For example, the Wien’s law temperature for 60 GhZ (~0.5 cm) works out to (if I’ve done it correctly):

            T = (2.898 mm⋅K)/(5mm) = 0.58K

            Not a particularly representative value of the atmosphere, is it?

    • barry says:

      RLH,

      If all you’re saying is that the channels correspond to a particular layer of atmosphere, and the peaks are associated with the temperature at that altitude, then no problem.

      You err when you say or imply that the weighting function curves are a product of the lapse rate. This is apparent from even a cursory glance at the figures we’ve linked here. We see bell curves where we should be seeing a slope that actually matches the lapse rate, if that was the determining feature for each curve.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”We see bell curves where we should be seeing a slope that actually matches the lapse rate, if that was the determining feature for each curve”.

        ***

        The bell-shaped curves are representative of what an AMSU receiver would see. For example, the channel 5 receiver on an AMSU unit would see the bell shaped curve in the weighting diagrams, or an approximation thereof.

        If the x-axis on the weighting curve is frequency, then the curves tell you the frequency weighting from O2 emissions as seen by channel 5 in the AMSU unit.

    • barry says:

      Gordon,

      Got no problem with most of what you said. The curve for channel 5 kind of approximates a curve we might see for lapse rate, but is not a function of the lapse rate. Like all the other channels, it reflects the instrument’s sensitivity to O2 molecules in the specific frequency band for that channel.

      This is a good chart of the curves for each of the channels.

      https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sheldon-Kusselson/publication/252235249/figure/fig9/AS:668690320195591@1536439604279/AMSU-weighting-functions.png

      You can see that Ch 5 curves in near the surface, opposite to what it should do if the curve was tied to lapse rate.

      And in the higher channels cutting into the stratosphere, we would be seeing the curves flare out as they ascend if the curves were a function of lapse rate. But we don’t, because each instrument is sensitive to a specific radiative frequency band, not to temperature.

      • barry says:

        I know that you and RLH view this differently, by the way.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”You can see that Ch 5 curves in near the surface, opposite to what it should do if the curve was tied to lapse rate”.

        ***

        I don’t think you can compare the weighting function curves to the lapse rate since they have different ordinates. Lapse rate is altitude versus temperature whereas weighting function is altitude versus frequency of emission.

        When you see the weighting function for channel 5 come near the surface it is saying that wavelengths that would be emitted by O2 near the surface are seen by the AMSU units at that weight compared to the peak of the curve at 4 km. According to the curve in comparison to an amplifier response curve, you might claim the surface frequency is about 3 db down (0.707 peak) near the surface. That means the electrical signal generated by the AMSU unit for channel 5 in the AMSU unit would be about 0.707 of the peak amplitude produced by frequencies near 4 km.

        Btw, if the weighting curve I posted the other day is measured in 1/km along the x-axis the functions are stated in wavenumbers, which are the the inverse of a wavelength. They tell you the number of cycles to expect in a cm, or in a km in the case of the diagram I posted. Having said that, the diagram uses 1/km which would be the number of cycles in a km which does not make a lot of sense to me.

        Then again, the units along the x-axis are very small. I’d really like to know what they are up to.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          It may b that the 1/km unit along the x-axis means exactly what it says and is not a wavenumber indicator. If the y-axis is altitude/pressure and we are trying to get a weighting wrt that re O2 emission frequencies, the x-axis may be a simple weighting per kilometre of frequency/wavelength to altitude/pressure.

      • barry says:

        “I don’t think you can compare the weighting function curves to the lapse rate”

        This is what I’ve been saying to RLH. It’s the crux of our conversation.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          I did not pick RLH up as stating it exactly that way. I think he knows you can’t convert a weighting function directly to a lapse rate, I took him to mean it is converted during the analysis of the AMSU data, likely using the relationships in weighting functions.

          Roy pointed out that during look-ahead scans, the depth of the scan varies from a vertical scan, therefore different weighting functions must be used with the increased scan depth.

          I am sure the science and math used is mind boggling to us observing from the outside. It’s tough to get good information on this and I am still struggling to understand it.

        • barry says:

          RLH wasn’t totally clear in his responses, but he kept arguing when I said the same thing you said – that the curves reflect sensitivity to O2 radiance readings for each channel. While I was repeating this point upthread, he was rebutting me;

          “So Roy (and NOAA) use a weighting function that closely resembles the lapse rate. Quelle surprise….

          Why do you think the various channels response curves are asymmetrical and not normal distributions which are symmetrical about the centers?….

          BIGHTNESS temperatures (of oxygen) reflect the actual temperatures of the air surrounding them.”

          If he understands that the curves are not reflective of lapse rate, then he’s done a very good job of giving the impression he thinks the opposite.

          That’s the problem with being argumentative – never clarifying where there is agreement.

          • Swenson says:

            barry,

            You wrote –

            “Thats the problem with being argumentative never clarifying where there is agreement.”

            Facts are facts. Arguments are opinions.

            All the opinions in the world (plus $5) will buy a $5 cup of coffee. Argue away – not a single physical fact will be changed in the process, and you still won’t be able to describe the mythical greenhouse effect!

            Carry on being argumentative.

  54. Eben says:

    Global warming – from the coldest time of the last 10k yearz

    https://youtu.be/LmmmgiPha_Y

    • Nate says:

      in Greenland…

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Same point I have been trying to make, that we are experiencing re-warming from a cooler time rather than warming from an AGW effect.

      Although I am not sold on lowering a thermometer into an ice borehole and claiming it represents past temperatures, there is plenty of proxy and other evidence to back up the Little Ice Age, which appears prominently in their diagram.

      It is interesting that when a thermometer is lowered into a borehole in rock, the temperature rises but when lowered into a borehole in ice, the temperature drops. Don’t know what to make of that.

      • Swenson says:

        Gordon,

        The thermal profile of glaciers shows that temperature increases with depth, after the top few meters or so. Anybody who claims that temperature in a glacier drops with increased depth is probably a “climate scientist” who rejects reality in favour of modelling fantasies.

        However, some other SkyDragon cultists seemingly shoot themself in the foot by writing –

        “Deuterium data (δD) were used to reconstruct changes in summer temperature in the McMurdo Dry Valleys over the last 900 years. The study showed that there were three distinct periods: the Medieval Warm Period (1140 to 1287 AD), the Little Ice Age (1288 to 1807 AD) and the Modern Era (1808 to 2000 AD).”

        The Medieval Warm Period warmed all by itself – no nasty SUVs around at that time?

        Then it cooled – all by itself. No doubt due to a lack of fossil fuel pollution.

        Then it warmed again – no doubt due to SUVs being introduced in 1808.

        Apparently temperatures changes of the order of 2 C were involved.

        Either the researchers are dreaming, or the greenhouse effect is a fantasy. Or both. Who knows?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          I just found it strange, the claim that glaciers remember the temperature at which the snow that forms them was deposited. The guy who offered the claim seemed to be challenging the cause of current warming, whether it was due to recovery from the cooling or due to anthropogenic causes. I gave him points for asking the question.

          There are issues in glacial ice due to the extreme pressure of the ice gathered above. The pressure at the base of the ice is so intense it changes the state of the ice from the solid we associate with ice to a plastic form of ice that will flow. According to the geology course I took, that’s how a glacier flows downhill. Gravity alone apparently won’t force the ice to slide downhill.

          It’s the same with ice on land like in Antartica. The ice is averages 2100 metres in thickness across Antarctica and that means tremendous pressure as depth increases. Jaworowski pointed out that CO2 at such depths changes state to a solid, called a clathrate. When the ice comes to the surface and the pressure is reduced, it converts back to a gas. However, liquid gets added as well and the combo prompted Jaworowski to question how reliable are the CO2 concentrations extracted in ice cores.

  55. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Storms drenched California for months and piled on epic amounts of snow in the Sierra Nevada. The states May 1 snowpack clocked in at 254% of average for the date.

  56. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    MADRID – Record-breaking April temperatures in Spain, Portugal and northern Africa were made 100 times more likely by human-caused climate change, a new flash study found, and would have been almost impossible in the past.

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/spain-s-april-heat-nearly-impossible-without-climate-change-1.6385931

  57. barry says:

    RLH,

    Per the conversation last year about more la Nina-like conditions over the last 40 years, I wonder if you read this update at ENSO-blog?

    “Since at least 1980, the tropical Pacific warming pattern has become more La Niña-like in the observations. This means that SSTs are warming faster in the western tropical Pacific Ocean than the eastern Pacific, and that surface winds are blowing stronger from east-to-west along the equatorial Pacific Ocean (5). This is opposite to the El Niño-like trend many climate models are projecting into the future because of greenhouse gases. Right now, there is a vigorous debate in the climate community whether the La Niña-like trend we are observing now is being driven by greenhouse gases or has natural causes. Because natural variations in the ocean circulation are slow, it is difficult to estimate the signal of global warming in a short observational record.”

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/how-pattern-trends-across-tropical-pacific-ocean-critical-understanding-future

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      How does the AGW theory explain faster warming in the western Pacific?

    • barry says:

      If you read the article you will understand what’s being discussed, and what link, if any, GW might have to faster rising temperatures in that region.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        What’s the point of reading it if they can’t answer the simple question I asked. That is, how can GHG that are supposed to be well-mixed affect only one part of the ocean?

        The same is claimed for the Little Ice Age by alarmists that it affected only Europe. I want to know how temps can drop 1C to 2C in Europe without the rest of the planet being affected.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          From the article…”If temperatures warm faster in the western Pacific than in the eastern Pacific, the background tropical circulation could become more La Nia-like (3). But if the trend pattern changes as global temperatures continue to rise, meaning the east starts warming faster than the west in the future, the whole circulation across the tropical Pacific could become more El Nio-like”.

          Again, if GHGs are well mixed why would that happen? Why would ENSO stop reversing? If anything it would make ENSO cycles stronger but not favour one over the other.

          I don’t think the article is well thought out.

        • barry says:

          The faster rate of warming in the Western Pacific than the Eastern is a pattern consistent with increased frequency of la Ninas. whereas the opposite would be consistent with increased el Nino frequency.

          What is being discussed is whether AGW is changing the frequency of la Ninas or not. That’s the link to one region of the Pacific warming faster than another – ENSO’s bimodal SST patterns.

        • barry says:

          How global warming might cause one mode of ENSO to dominate is not to do with AGW somehow selectively warming one part of the ocean faster than the other, but is rather a more complex set of ocean/atmosphere interactions affected by a warming world.

          IOW, they are not contending anything like what your question suggests, which is beside the point that RLH and I have been discussing, to which this article is an update.

        • Nate says:

          Climate has regional variation, even without AGW.

          There are deserts, rainforests, temperate zones, and ice sheets.

          Much of this variation is due to the global circulation pattern, including the jet streams, which is driven in part by thermal energy.

          The climate feedbacks have regional differences, eg ice-albedo feedback amplifies the warming of the Arctic.

          This gradient of the warming may change the jet streams.

          Why wouldnt you expect climate change to have regional variation?

          • RLH says:

            “Much of this variation is due to the global circulation pattern”

            Care to put a timescale to these variations?

          • Nate says:

            Regional variation means spatial variation.

    • Swenson says:

      barry,

      Heres a small sample of the “experts” from your link –

      “However, recent work by Dr. Richard Seager (here and here), among others, suggests models are either deficient at correctly estimating this internal variability or the response to greenhouse gases may not be right.”

      And so on.

      Maybe you didn’t read the article? At least your blog writer asks the experts a fair question :

      “Why cant you just measure past trends and assume they will continue? Whats the problem here?”

      Anybody who reads the “experts” responses should understand why pseudo -“patterns” such as ENSO are meaningless when trying to predict the future.

      Can you at least appeal to an authority who supports you, rather than me?

      • barry says:

        Why do you believe I didn’t read the article? Do you imagine I have some need for models to be right all the time?

        • Swenson says:

          barry,

          You wrote “Why do you believe I didnt read the article?”.

          Because you’re stupid?

          I just asked you if you had read the article. If you don’t want to answer, that is your right.

        • barry says:

          Of course I read the article. I have no idea what’s up your arse, but you have nothing more valuable to offer than a morbid attitude. Buzz off.

    • RLH says:

      Are you saying that El Nino is bound to happen this year?

      • barry says:

        Who are you asking? I can’t see anyone in this saying anything that would prompt your question.

        • RLH says:

          Well you seem to be relying on a big El Nino.

        • barry says:

          Sorry, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Could you please quote what you are responding to so I can understand you?

          • RLH says:

            You seem to be relying on a big El Nino occurring this year.

          • barry says:

            Sorry, I dont know what youre talking about. Could you please quote what you are responding to so I can understand you?

            Really. Quote me.

          • barry says:

            RLH,

            Have you gone to find the quote and discovered that I have not once talked about any upcoming el Nino, and that this idea is purely in your own mind?

    • barry says:

      I opened this thread to invite RLH to discuss a topic he was keenly interested in last year. He’d read an AP article with Michelle l’Heureux saying that if the la Nina extended a couple months more, then an increase in la Ninas over the last 40 years would become statistically significant.

      Before I posted here I asked at the blog l’Heuereux posts at if there had been an update. Her reply linked me to an article on it. So I thought RLH would be keen to check out a follow up to a subject that had been important to him last year – a statistically significant increase in la Ninas. It was something he posted about voluminously at the time.

      This topic wasn’t a keen interest for me, and I shared the update with RLH for him, not for me.

      Then ‘skeptics’ piled on and trashed the researchers RLH had been relying on last year.

      RLH himself trashed them, apparently forgetting his keen interest in their work last year.

      I was trying to do a kindness for RLH. The skeptic milieu, including RLH, treated that to a bunch of sour rejoinders.

      No good deed goes unpunished…

  58. Gordon Robertson says:

    Post failed…lost my place

    richard…”Each instrument/channel shows different temperatures in the atmosphere as you get higher up, due to the lapse rate”.

    ***

    They do after external processing but all the AMSU unit can do is detect different frequencies of O2 emissions and convert them to a relative D-C level. After encoding the D-C level in binary and transmitting it back to Earth, it’s up to the scientists like Roy and John Christy to make sense of it.

  59. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    More snow in the Sierra Nevada.
    https://i.ibb.co/t3MVP9c/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-05-06-150955.png

  60. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    Northern and central Vietnam regions are going through a heat wave that has pushed temperatures up to 43 degrees Celsius (109.4 degrees Fahrenheit) in certain areas.

    https://e.vnexpress.net/news/environment/heatwave-sends-temperatures-up-to-43-degrees-in-northern-central-vietnam-4601936.html

  61. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The heaviest snowfall is forecast on the summits above 6,000 feet up to 10 inches. Snow is expected to range between 4 to 6 inches near Yosemite Valley and Mammoth Lakes. The Lake Tahoe area is expected to see 2 to 4 inches.

    Winds are also expected to pick up Saturday afternoon as the low-pressure systems cold front passes, leading to 25 to 30 mph gusts along the I-80 pass between Auburn and Reno as well as Highway 120 toward Yosemite. Blowing snow will become an issue in the evening, reducing visibility and raising a slight risk for whiteout conditions.

    • barry says:

      Are you saying that the PDO isn’t responsible for weather in the UK?

      • RLH says:

        Are you saying that the PDO caused what is happening in the USA and India?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Interesting question re PDO. ENSO seems to be the predominant force affecting global weather likely because it is situated in the Tropics and can circulate heat directly which has a disrupting force on the jet stream. However, the PDO is claimed to influence ENSO, being in the same ocean but further north. The AMO likely has an influence as well.

    • Bindidon says:

      Oh how interesting!

      The Guardian, endlessly vilified by the Coolistas for “just talking about warming”, is now suddenly being mentioned by The British Empire’s Number One Coolista.

      Reason obvious!

      ” It has been a historically chilly start to May in India… ”

      OMG.

      • RLH says:

        I, unlike others, just go with what the data says.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Sunspots!!! They are missing. Cools the place down according to Zharkova. Of course, the IPCC wants nothing to do with such theories because the liars at the IPCC can only talk about human influences, of which there are none.

        • barry says:

          How can you be so egregiously, permanently, and demonstrably wrong? The IPCC reports have entire sections dedicated to discussing natural drivers and components of climate change,including sunspots and what their lack means.

          Honestly, you ‘skeptics’ seem to get your talking points from some bottomless well of ignorance.

          “For the time before satellite measurements became available, the solar radiation variations can be inferred from cosmogenic isotopes (10Be, 14C) and from the sunspot number. Naked-eye observations of sunspots date back to ancient times, but it was only after the invention of the telescope in 1607 that it became possible to routinely monitor the number, size and position of these ‘stains’ on the surface of the Sun. Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, numerous observers noted the variable concentrations and ephemeral nature of sunspots, but very few sightings were reported between 1672 and 1699 (for an overview see Hoyt et al., 1994). This period of low solar activity, now known as the Maunder Minimum, occurred during the climate period now commonly referred to as the Little Ice Age (Eddy, 1976)….

          During the latter part of the 18th century, Wilhelm Herschel (1801) noted the presence not only of sunspots but of bright patches, now referred to as faculae, and of granulations on the solar surface. He believed that when these indicators of activity were more numerous, solar emissions of light and heat were greater and could affect the weather on Earth. Heinrich Schwabe (1844) published his discovery of a ‘10-year cycle’ in sunspot numbers. Samuel Langley (1876) compared the brightness of sunspots with that of the surrounding photosphere. He concluded that they would block the emission of radiation and estimated that at sunspot cycle maximum the Sun would be about 0.1% less bright than at the minimum of the cycle, and that the Earth would be 0.1°C to 0.3°C cooler.

          These satellite data have been used in combination with the historically recorded sunspot number, records of cosmogenic isotopes, and the characteristics of other Sun-like stars to estimate the solar radiation over the last 1,000 years (Eddy, 1976; Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, 1997; Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 1997). These data sets indicated quasi-periodic changes in solar radiation of 0.24 to 0.30% on the centennial time scale. These values have recently been re-assessed (see, e.g., Chapter 2).”

          https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4-3.html

          “Of course, the IPCC wants nothing to do with such theories”

          Geeze, Gordon, all you have to do is google ‘IPCC on sunspots’ before you post such a fatuous remark. In the 21st century with access to much of the world’s knowledge at the stroke of a few keys, there really is no excuse for this witlessness.

          • Clint R says:

            Troll barry, your cult believes fluxes simply add. Your cult believes passenger jets fly backward. Your cult believes atmospheric CO2 is the same as a CO2 laser. Your cult believes Earth is like an imaginary sphere.

            You call people “lying dog” because you don’t understand your own cult nonsense.

            Maybe you need to clean up your act before you pontificate so self-righteously.

            I won’t hold my breath…

          • barry says:

            You going to say anything about the topic, or just snarl like a dog?

            I won’t hold my breath.

          • Clint R says:

            The topic was your egregious attack on Gordon for expressing his opinions. That was the topic I was addressing.

            That’s another problem with you cult idiots, troll barry. You can’t accept reality.

          • barry says:

            I didn’t attack Gordon for expressing his opinions. He is free to spout total nonsense to his heart’s content, just as I am free to point out his egregious errors with as much flair as suits me.

            I’m also free to point out that it’s rich for you to be a tone nazi here. You’re as contemptuous in your remarks as anyone else.

            The topic Gordon brought up was his contention that the IPCC fails to consider sunspots influence on global temperatures. He’s wrong, it’s demonstrated, you’re just nipping at my heels. Buzz off.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”How can you be so egregiously, permanently, and demonstrably wrong? The IPCC reports have entire sections dedicated to discussing natural drivers and components of climate change,including sunspots and what their lack means.

            Honestly, you skeptics seem to get your talking points from some bottomless well of ignorance”.

            ***

            The IPCC pays lip service to real science but it is offered in a condescending manner. For example, they downplay the effect of the Little Ice Age which discredits their ridiculous propaganda that trace gases in the atmosphere are responsible for not only heating it, but dissipating the heat they allegedly produce.

            The IPCC dismisses the LIA, the alternative to their inane anthropognic theory, as a transient effect over 400 years in Europe only. Only ignorant boneheads could reach such a conclusion. They don’t normally offer straight answers like that, however, they usually couch them as vague probabilities based on a scale invented by the IPCC.

            It is obvious that the IPCC is promoting anthropogenic causes of warming, which they give a high likelihood while dismissing natural processes by giving them low probabilities. The truth is, they have no idea whether their offerings have any degree of accuracy. If they did, there would be no need to offer their opinions using probabilities.

            I fear you have an odd obsession with the IPCC. I don’t, I regard them as a load of charlatans who propagate political propaganda.

          • Clint R says:

            The reason you believe my comments are contemptuous, troll barry, is that they include a heavy dose of reality.

          • barry says:

            Gordon,

            How am I obsessed with the IPCC when it was YOU who mentioned it?

            It may be challenging to accept that reconstructions of temperatures prior to the instrumental record show warming and cooling at different times in different regions and different seasons, and that these do not all line up neatly in some temporal unity.

            But these are the facts.

            The fact of natural causes of climate change does not preclude anthropogenic causes of climate change. The LIA, whether a regional or global event, is no challenge to AGW.

            The high probabilities of anthro warming against natural applies only for the late 20th and early 21st centuries. No one contends AGW was operating at any significant level (ie, by land clearing) prior to then.

            You have a lot of work to do to make your remarks match reality, including the uncertainties. But even the least effort would keep you (maybe) from making stupidly ignorant statements like:

            “the IPCC can only talk about human influences”

  62. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM STRIKES AGAIN

    Rwandans grieved Thursday for lost loved ones and destroyed homes after powerful floods and landslides tore through the country killing at least 130 people and leaving many thousands homeless.

    The government was still counting the cost as families prepared to bury their dead in the aftermath of a natural disaster caused by torrential rains in the steep and hilly country.

    Rivers of mud swept away homes and other infrastructure and cut off roads in several parts of the country, particularly the Western Province bordering Lake Kivu where the worst devastation was reported.

    […]

    East Africa often suffers from deadly weather during the rainy seasons, and Uganda has also suffered in recent days with six people reported dead in a landslide.

    Last month, at least 14 people died after heavy rains triggered floods and landslides in southern Ethiopia, while hundreds of livestock perished and scores of houses were damaged.

    In May 2020, at least 65 people died in Rwanda as heavy rains pounded the region while more than 200 people died in floods and landslides in the first four months of 2018.

    Experts say extreme weather events are happening with increased frequency and intensity due to climate change — and Africa, which contributes the least to global warming, is bearing the brunt.

    https://www.africanews.com/2023/05/04/rwanda-families-grieve-count-cost-after-floods-landslides-kill-130/

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      It’s pretty sad when alarmists have to promote their dumb theories of climate change on the backs of people suffering from natural disaster.

  63. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Winter is coming to Australia.
    https://i.ibb.co/2MBt2FV/gfs-T2ma-aus-9.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I recall watching a rugby game on TV from Sydney in winter. It rained a lot. I don’t know if they get snow in Australia other than cursory snowfall on the odd hill they refer to as Alps. 🦁 ☺

      When I lived in Auckland, NZ for a bit, we’d sometimes get a nip of frost in the morning and by noon it was 60F (15C).

      Having lived in real winters in Canada, I can’t imagine winter in Australia. At least, in Oz, if you get tired of the cold and damp, you can go north and find better weather in the same country. We don’t have that luxury in Canada.

      • Swenson says:

        Gordon,

        People get caught in blizzards and die, from time to time. However, per capita, more Australians die from hypothermia in Australia, than Swedes in Sweden. How funny is that?

        Even in the Northern Territory, the NT Govt. warns – “If your swimming be aware that most swimming holes are very cold and long exposure, even during summer, can lead to hypothermia.”

        Yep. Even in direct sun, with shade temperatures over 45 C, you can still die of cold! Or, as some tourists have found, drinking too much water (not even cold water) can kill.

        Dangerous stuff, water, whether frozen, cold, or warm.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          re swimming in cold swimming holes, the hypothermia is compounded by alcohol consumption, same as hyperthermia in hot tubs. I have heard it’s dangerous swimming around fresh water crocs, not to mention venomous sea snakes.

        • Nate says:

          “Even in the Northern Territory, the NT Govt. warns”

          That’s where Mike Flynn lives too. Funny that.

    • Swenson says:

      Yes, winter tends to occur every year, even in Australia!

      Funny, that.

  64. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    This is not the end of snowfall in the mountains of Kalifornia.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/namer/mimictpw_namer_latest.gif

  65. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM KEEPS WINNING

    Average temperatures in Afghanistan rose 1.8 degrees Celsius from 1950 to 2010, about twice the global average.

    https://www.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-hunger-climate-change/31564617.html

    • gbaikie says:

      https://berkeleyearth.org/policy-insights/

      It was 0 C and now, it’s around 1.8 C
      But it has wide swings in yearly of about 2 C,
      if we get some global warming it’s temperature should be more uniform.
      Right now global average temperature is about 15 C and 15 C is cold.
      We have been and will remain in an icehouse global climate, but in warmer part of interglacial period global average temperature can be about 17 C- which is still cold.

      • gbaikie says:

        If you move to Mars, the air temperature varied a lot more, but it’s close to vacuum and so the air is not cold.
        Or if take an air cooled motor from Earth, it overheats on Mars- that is a slight problem- but you could live underwater on Mars- of course in water is 15 C, it’s cold.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          gb…you’re not thinking of stowing away on one of Musk’s spaceships, are you?

          • gbaikie says:

            I think mostly about ocean settlements on Earth- and pipelaunchers [which are related].
            What I think is important is determining whether or not the lunar polar region have mineable water. And that possibility I become aware of in 1998. Before that, I was interested in possibility of mining water from space rocks. I am also interested in Quasi moons of Earth- and Quasi moons of other planets- Mars, Venus, even Mercury. I believe they all are have dust rings.

            If Mars has mineable water, we could get Mars settlements, which requires ocean settlements. And in that situation- Venus orbits seems more interesting, than Mars.

            But the Moon and Mars might not have mineable water. You just need one of them to have mineable water- and be able to live in Mars weak gravity well. And not have alien life which would complicate any possibility of anyone living there.

            In the nearest term, I might want to travel sub-orbitally.
            What kind of important about Starship, is what all launch companies do, when SpaceX can prove it works. There is lots interesting stuff happenning because of madman Musk. The space starts up, have been happenning before Musk- start up was said to way to turn large fortune into a small one- lots of people trying a failing.
            The winds have change, people {perhaps dislusional] now imagine you could make a lot money doing it.
            I like Stratolauncher, also. Many people think it’s doomed- but that’s “normal”.

          • gbaikie says:

            Which reminds me, telescopes.
            “Superfast sky survey

            So what will these new instruments actually be, and what will they do? Of the four next-generation scopes preparing to revolutionize astronomy, the Vera C. Rubin Observatory should be the first to land on the scene. What sets the Rubin Observatory’s Simonyi Survey Telescope apart is not its size its 8.4-meter primary mirror would fit in comfortably at several current mountaintop observatories but its ability to image wide swaths of sky quickly.

            Situated atop Cerro Pachn in north-central Chile, the Rubin Observatory should take just 15 seconds to deliver sharp images covering 9.6 square degrees of sky equivalent to the area of more than 40 full Moons, and nearly 5,000 times the field of Hubbles Wide Field Camera 3.

            https://astronomy.com/news/2020/10/four-new-giant-telescopes-are-about-to-rock-astronomy

            “First light Expected in August 2024”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_C._Rubin_Observatory

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Berkelely Earth are a load of lying alarmists. Judith Curry parted ways with them when they started lying.

        • gbaikie says:

          Ok, but they give temperature of all countries in the world- and why I know Canada’s average temperature which is about -3 C.
          It might include UHI effects, but at least they attempt to give a temperature. Show me somewhere else, that does [and is as handy].
          And also why I know average land average is about 10 C and if average global temperature is about 15 C, then average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C.
          And tropical ocean about 26 C, and remaining 60% is about 11 C which together equals 17 C.

          • RLH says:

            UAH and NOAA/STAR.

          • RLH says:

            P.S. The Tropics (if you use 30N to 30S for that designation) is 50% of the surface area of a globe/sphere.

            Thus quartiles of our planet are

            1. 90N to 30N
            2. 30N to the equator
            3. 30S to the equator
            4. 90S to 30S

          • gbaikie says:

            “P.S. The Tropics (if you use 30N to 30S for that designation) is 50% of the surface area of a globe/sphere.”
            But tropics is 23.5 N and S, and therefore about 40% and rest world 30% N and S.
            But it might be good to think of tropics in general sense as 50%.
            A degree of latitude is about 111 km times 30 = 3330 km and for North and South x 2.
            Or instead of using tropics, one might say the region which receives more most of the sunlight is between 30 degree latitude north and south. Or roughly 6660 times 40,000 km = 266,400,000 of 510 million square km.
            Or we have term peak solar hours of anywhere which about 6 hours of the 12 hour of daylight whereas 30 N to S is peak sunlight region and in this region about 80% of area is ocean. And this ocean region is the tropical ocean heat engine.
            But the 23.5 degree region gets most of sunlight, not sure how how 30 degree N and S “peak sunlight region gets but some number close 80%.
            Or it’s silly to use solar panels in Germany.

          • RLH says:

            Astronomically you would be correct but, for instance, the British met office uses 30N/30S as that division.

            The observation about quartiles still stands.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      The climate of Afghanistan has always been rated as arid. They simply don’t get much in the way of precipitation. More arid, less arid…it’s all dry.

      As for your claim the temperature there has risen 1.8C, I say bollocks. It should have risen no more than Spain, Italy, Greece, and Northern California.

      To be classified under ‘wee willy lies’.

      • Willard says:

        C’mon, Bordo. Twas a quote.

        Dry days. Drought. Extreme drought. All different levels of dryness.

        Try not to be an absolute asshat.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          wee willy tries to squirm out of the inference in his post, that drought in Afghanistan is related to anthropogenic causes.

          • Willard says:

            After denying facts, Bordo goes for logic.

            Will he succeed?

            Stay tuned for Bordo’s Daily Limbo!

          • Swenson says:

            Says Whacky Wee Willy “After denying facts, Bordo goes for logic.”

            Wee Willy Retard can’t actually produce the facts, or the denial, and can’t explain what “going for logic” means – if anything.

            Nevertheless, seeing how Willard can’t even describe, let alone explain, the mythical “greenhouse effect”, he has to attempt to cloud the issue.

            What a donkey!

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn does not even realize that the fact that the average temperatures in Afghanistan rose 1.8 degrees Celsius from 1950 to 2010, about twice the global average is a fact.

            What a silly sock puppet!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  66. Eben says:

    Six days into the new month and the page has already turned totally retarded

  67. Gordon Robertson says:

    Good article on climate…

    https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/climate_v_wx

    “The bottom line is large swings in day-to-day, month-to month and even year-to year weather does not necessarily imply large, rapid changes in climate. Weather, over time, will become part of the 30-year normal”.

    Obviously, heat waves, droughts, floods, etc., are not necessarily indicative of climate change, especially not a global climate change, whatever that means. We are reading far too much into weather events and claiming them as climate events.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      More wisdom on the Jet Stream from NOAA’s National Weather Service…

      https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/jet

      Must be a different section of NOAA than their climate division. Just like NASA where their climate division, GISS, has not much in common with the science produced by NASA itself.

    • Swenson says:

      “Weather, over time, will become part of the 30-year normal”.

      I’m shocked – shocked I tell you!

      NOAA finally acknowledges that climate is the statistics of historical weather observations over an arbitrary time period!

      I suppose that the SkyDragon cultists at NOAA will claim that they knew it all the time.

      So much for weather being driven by “climate change”!

        • Swenson says:

          barry,

          Does your link quote NOAA admitting that weather is not driven by climate change, or are you providing irrelevant links, hoping that you can fool everyone?

          You seem to be avoiding admitting that NOAA agrees with me writing “So much for weather being driven by “climate change”.”

          Time for you change your story, I guess. I suppose you really meant to say something else, is that it?

          Let me know.

        • barry says:

          NOAA have being calculating climate as the average of weather statistics for decades. That’s what the link shows, contrary to your boneheaded remarks.

          Here’s an even earlier example.

          https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/14837

          Please ask your nurse to help you remember what you say. It’s tedious having to remind you.

          • Swenson says:

            barry,

            That’s not the question which you are trying to avoid. I wrote that NOAA seems to admit that “climate change” has no effect on weather!

            You keep repeating what even NOAA has admitted for years – that climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations.

            Idiots such as yourself seem to claim that “climate change” has some effect on weather, which is completely nonsensical,- by definition.

            Go on, tell me that the statistics of weather have any effect on the weather!

            Idiot.

          • gbaikie says:

            NOAA says more than 90% of global warming in warming our cold ocean.

            I would say, warming or cooling our 3.5 ocean is only way to warm or cool Earth’s global climate.

          • gbaikie says:

            “More than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped in the Earth system due to human-caused global warming has been absorbed by the oceans.”
            https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

            “The ocean is absorbing more than 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity.”
            https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

          • Swenson says:

            NOAA –

            “The ocean is absorbing more than 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity.”

            At least NOAA have stopped burbling about some mythical “greenhouse effect”, and now grudgingly admit that “human activity” generates heat.

            As to this heat being “absorbed” by the oceans (never to be seen again) – a la K Trenberth, this is just complete nonsense. Oceans have cooled from initial creation at boiling point, and even the vast amounts of heat from mid-ocean ridges and thermal vents, cannot stop this cooling.

            Just simple physics. Any delusional SkyDragon cultists who choose fantasy over fact are obviously in the grip of religious mania.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          “they knew it all the time”.

          ***

          NOAA is a big outfit, like NASA. NASA has GISS as their climate division and they appear to have nothing to do with NASA proper. I am guessing that NOAA employs dissidents as well who, for whatever reason, are allowed to express their own opinions, albeit misguided.

          The links I provided are to their weather division, who seem to have integrity.

          NOAA is affiliated with GHCN which has over 100,000 stations in their database but NOAA climate division uses less than 1500 surface stations globally to compute their fictitious temperature record. NASA GISS get their temperature data from NOAA as does Had-crut then both fudge it further.

          There are divisions within NOAA, like the weather division I just linked to, who seem upfront about current science but the climate division not only fudges the temperature record it lies about it. They claimed 2014 at the hottest year ever, based on a 48% likelihood when UAH showed 2014 as being nowhere near a record.

          An example of NOAA chicanery is them re-assessing the 1998 – 2012 trend AFTER the IPCC had declared it flat. NOAA went back and fudged the SST to show a trend after their surface record had shown the same flat trend as the IPCC claimed.

          I don’t know what to make of NOAA overall. They have Chris Landsea working in their hurricane centre and he has integrity. Yet, Karl, the leader of their climate division at one time knew how Mann et al had fudged the fossil record to eradicate declining temperatures and show a warming. Karl knew about it and said nothing.

          • gbaikie says:

            Well, it’s better than some who said the heat was “lost” in the ocean.

          • barry says:

            Gordon,

            As usual, little of what you said is rooted in any fact-based understanding. It’s clear from your post that you only give credence to people who challenge the mainstream consensus of AGW, simply because they do.

            You favour NOAA/GHCN whenever it produces a cooler result than UAH, and you promote results born from climate modeling whenever the results suit your preference.

            There’s no examination of the validity of evidence with you. You assign credence based on your beliefs. It’s pure bias confirmation, no investigation.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Bad argument, Barry, you need a pint of Foster’s lager.

            BTW…what is the preferred pint down there these days? I don’t drink these days, just curious.

          • barry says:

            I don’t drink beer. It’s different preferences per state, and there is a lot of craft beer in the market, a lot more choices than before. I don’t know what is most popular.

            Bad argument? No, you give credence to methods based on the results or who publishes them. This is very clear from what you have written here many times over the years.

    • E. Swanson says:

      As Gordo’s link noted, “climate” is the statistics of day-to-day weather, such as the daily calendar temperatures averaged over several years, called “normal”. Climate changes are the result of changes in weather patterns. Daily extreme events neither prove nor disprove climate change, but, over time, they impact the statistical comparisons between previous periods and recent periods.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swannie…”Daily extreme events neither prove nor disprove climate change, but, over time, they impact the statistical comparisons between previous periods and recent periods”.

        ***

        That would be great provided the cooling events were included. They are ignored by alarmists.

        • E. Swanson says:

          I disagree. For my part, I would not be surprised to see more extremes at each end of the spectrum, especially during the NH Winter months. That’s because I think the tropic-to-pole circulation could strengthen, thus more warm air masses moving toward the North and then more cold air masses returning to complete the circulation. Time will tell.

  68. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Snowfall in the mountains in Australia.
    https://i.ibb.co/Z6h2VRS/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-05-07-085642.png

  69. Bindidon says:

    Typical Robertson nonsense

    ” NOAA is affiliated with GHCN which has over 100,000 stations in their database but NOAA climate division uses less than 1500 surface stations globally to compute their fictitious temperature record. ”

    Robertson not only is the dumbest, most ignorant poster on this blog; he is also a persistent liar.

    *
    NOAA is not ‘affiliated with GHCN’: the GHCN, USHCN and USCRN station sets are integral part of NOAA’s data.

    Both Roy Spencer and John Christy have made heavy use of all that, and certainly will have, like me, a big, big laugh at Robertson’s ridiculous lies concerning these ‘1500 stations’, a lie based on a document posted by NOAA in 2009, and subsequently saved over the years by numerous Internet users into the Wayback Machine, and which he permanently repeats.

    I also use to save documents into the Wayback Machine whenever I suspect their editors to silently modify them.

    **
    The very best of all is when Robertson also endlessly tries to claim I wouldn’t know what anomalies are, though he himself never downloaded and presented any anomaly-based data, let alone would be be ever able to construct anomalies wrt a reference period out of any absolute data.

    All he knows about anomalies is NOAA’s simple text:

    A temperature anomaly is the difference from an average, or baseline, temperature. The baseline temperature is typically computed by averaging 30 or more years of temperature data. A positive anomaly indicates the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly indicates the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline. ”

    That is, roughly spoken, about 20 % of what you have to know when you want to generate anomalies.

    What anomalies really are he knows nothing about: it consists of removing what is named the ‘seasonal dependencies’, or, speaking the same language as Roy Spencer, the ‘annual cycle’.

    This means that one can’t simply build a baseline as an average of all absolute values belonging to a given reference period.

    You have to build separate averages for all time units you deal with: e.g. months or days.

    Thus, for example, in a monthly time series, a January anomaly wrt the mean of a 30-year long period like 1991-2020 is constructed by subtracting the mean of the 30 absolute January values from the absolute January value just considered.

    *
    What Robertson also completely ignores is how to compare anomalies coming from different absolute contexts, and possibly based on different reference periods, e.g. an anomaly time series generated at NOAA wrt the mean of 1901-2000, a second series made by GISS wrt the mean of 1951-1980, and a third one made at UAH wrt the mean of 1991-2020.

    He simply compares these anomalies altogether without asking himself why they differ by huge amounts, and hence stubbornly thinks

    – that NOAA and GISS intentionally fudge their data, giving anomalies way higher than UAH’s,

    and

    – that when, being aware of this problem, I recompute all the anomalies such that they become based wrt the same reference period, I intentionally produce faked results.

    Both is absolute nonsense! None of my former engineer colleagues would ever think like does Robertson.

    *
    An important point in anomaly construction is that when constructing an anomaly time series out of several sources (weather stations, tide gauges, atmospheric grid cells etc etc), you can’t simply average the absolute values of all your sources to a monthly or daily time series, then compute a baseline out of the average and finally the anomalies.

    Rather, you must perform the anomaly construction for each single source (provided it has sufficient data in the reference period) and then average these single anomaly time series into a global or regional average.

    This ensures that all anomalies are constructed with respect to the same context: anomalies generated e.g. out of the data of a rural station located at 2000 m altitude must be generated out of absolute data belonging to the station itself, and not out of some arbitrary mixture of stations located anywhere.

    • Bindidon says:

      Here’s an example of a small job the lying genius Robertson could do in a few hours with his eyes closed.

      *
      It is an evaluation of all GHCN daily stations available in March 2023 at NOAA’s site:

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

      { Caution: don’t click on the ‘all’ link: this results in a display of a directory with over 100,000 entries. }

      Of all stations, about 40,000 have TMIN and TMAX data.

      For the year 2022, 13364 of them were located in 2122 cells of a 2.5 degree grid (the maximum was in 2003 with 18821 stations in 2237 cells). Thus, about 70 % of the land surfaces were covered.

      *
      Before the monthly time series are generated, the data (absolute values and anomalies) are first averaged in grid cells to avoid distortions caused by over-representation. Some grid cells in the US include over 300 stations.

      Then the latitude bands are averaged and finally a latitude weighting is applied – as with all evaluations (UAH’s included of course).

      1. Absolute values

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mSmvQowCS1m0PE9_fckw2CO7JOZp3s0x/view

      Linear estimates in C / decade

      1880-now

      Tmin: 0.18 +- 0.01
      Tmax: 0.06 +- 0.01

      1979-now

      Tmin: 0.29 +- 0.05
      Tmax: 0.33 +- 0.06

      2. Anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XhA5BIxcVCeCkPn2xYXVkwK7-QfnWQ9Z/view

      Linear estimates in C / decade

      1880-now

      Tmin: 0.11 +- 0.00
      Tmax: 0.06 +- 0.00

      1979-now

      Tmin: 0.19 +- 0.01
      Tmax: 0.27 +- 0.01

      • Eben says:

        Tell us how exactly you use this to get all your forecast perfectly backwards

        • Bindidon says:

          You tell us first why you can only make such stupid remarks, dachshund.

          • Eben says:

            If you understand the system you can predict the future results, in your case that is zero.

          • Bindidon says:

            Didn’t you understand?

            I asked you to tell us why you can only make stupid remarks, Dachshund – and not to produce more of them.

          • Eben says:

            I predicted cooling 5 years ago, It has been cooling from then on,
            Why didn’t you predict it ???

          • Bindidon says:

            Did you still not understand?

            I asked you to tell us why you can only make stupid remarks, Dachshund and not to produce more of them.

            1. You never predicted anything, but solely pasted alleged ‘predictions’ made by others.

            2. Nothing is easier than ‘predicting’ a cooling from the highest point of a time series. Any 12-year old would understand that.

          • Eben says:

            If it was so easy why didn’t you predict it ,
            So why five years ago you were posting your charts with straight warming lines extended to the future ???

          • RLH says:

            Because, according to Blinny, everything is always getting warmer.

          • Swenson says:

            Binny,

            The future is unknowable.

            Why would you think otherwise? Even the IPCC states that it is not possible to predict future climate states.

            Maybe you could appeal to the authority of Albert Einstein, who refused to accept Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. He said he was convinced that God does not roll the dice.

            You accuse me of wanting to distort, misrepresent, discredit and denigrate. Go on then, choose one – Einstein or Heisenberg! Einstein was wrong – and nobody at all is incapable of being wrong at times.

            You refuse to believe the IPCC about the impossibility of predicting future climate states. Why do you choose to distort, misrepresent, discredit and denigrate other SkyDragon cultists?

            You can’t name one person who believes that you can foretell the future, but you still fantasize that you are right, and everybody else in the world doesn’t realise how clever you are!

            It’s OK, Binny , I’m just having a laugh at your expense. If you choose to be feel upset, offended, or insulted, it just shows how lacking in self-control you are.

            Fool.

          • Eben says:

            Every time Bindidork gets caught by simple question he can’t honestly answer he starts acting like a caged monkey and just throw zshit at everybody

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny van der klown…”It is an evaluation of all GHCN daily stations…”

        ***

        How many times do I have to repeat this? Although GHCN has over 100,000 data entries, NOAA uses less than 1500 of them for the land/surface temperatures profile.

        NOAA has slashed 90% of the GHCN records since 1990. They simply don’t use them.

        • barry says:

          They didn’t slash anything. Will you please stop telling this lie time and again, year after year?

          For perhaps the 50th time, the majority of stations in the GHCN record do not update their data to GHCN. The reason there are so many stations at all is is because periodically NOAA acquires historical records that aren’t digitised, are not relayed to GHCN by the host countries, and are from stations that no longer exist.

          The biggest historical data acquisition NOAA undertook was in the mid-90s, and THAT is why there are so many stations in the record prior to then. Many of those stations around the world no longer operate, so how on Earth are they supposed to keep collecting data from them?

        • Bindidon says:

          Robertson

          You are not only one of the dumbest posters here.

          You are the worst liar of all them.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Bindidon, please stop trolling.

  70. Willard says:

    A drought in Argentina continues to beat up soybean plants in a season to forget for farmers in the top exporter of soy meal and soy oil. The second-quarter harvest is estimated at just 29 million metric tons, the lowest since 2002, and could drop even further with no respite from the dryness in sight, according to the Buenos Aires Grain Exchange. The historical comparison shows just how punishing the drought has been, since 2002 predates Argentinas soy-planting boom of the mid-2000s, when the South American nation had 38% less acreage than today.

    https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/a-non-stop-drought-is-pummeling-argentina-s-soy-plants-chart-1.1893966

    • gbaikie says:

      If the world was warmer, there would be less drought.
      But in our icehouse global climate, you going to have droughts, and the modern world what do is allow dams to be made.
      Or the degree severity of effects of drought in Argentina is dependent on Argentina govt allowing enough dams to made and governing of the dams made.
      It’s likely Argentina govt hasn’t been governing as well as it “should have”.
      We have world of governments not governing well and it’s generally a matter comparison of bad to Worse. Or one ask how corrupt various
      governments are, and Argentina isn’t known to be the worst, nor the best- and might call it, typical, and therefore bad.
      So, they probably didn’t make enough dams and/or have mismanaged them.
      Kansas has extremely severe drought conditions which would be bad news for the farming- unless govt did excellent job of having enough water- which probably is unlikely.
      Though I can’t imagine what Kansas govt would do, other than prepare
      for the worse drought.

      • Willard says:

        > If the world was warmer, there would be less drought.

        \_(ツ)_/

        • gbaikie says:

          Instead of trillions wasted on Solar and wind farms, war, other pointless stuff, US govt could spend money {a trillion} on Greening the Sahara Desert.
          Thereby warming the world and causing less droughts in the World.

          I don’t know what more important, greening Sahara desert or exploring the Moon and Mars. BUT such exploration doesn’t cost much, so we can do both.

          • gbaikie says:

            One way to do this {but not the only way} is work out global agreement on mining ice [sea ice] in the polar regions to bring frozen ice to Africa and Middle East.
            And to do this, would require nuclear powered tugs.
            This would align with the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as it’s peaceful use of nuclear energy done by at least one of nuclear powers.

          • Willard says:

            Did You Know?

            Water generally evaporates more quickly at higher temperatures:

            https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/08/climate-change-and-droughts-whats-the-connection/

          • gbaikie says:

            When it evaporates quickly, where does it go?

          • Willard says:

            Computer, What is a Drought

            A drought is “a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time (usually a season or more), resulting in a water shortage.” Indicators of drought include precipitation, temperature, streamflow, ground and reservoir water levels, soil moisture, and snowpack.

            Source: https://www.c2es.org/content/drought-and-climate-change

          • gbaikie says:

            Well, the +5000 year drought in Sahara doesn’t just end, it also reduces droughts elsewhere.

          • gbaikie says:

            The ice can used to make liquid water, ice itself is also useful.
            They can be “temporary” ocean settlements or vacation resorts.
            And blocks of ice can useful, in general, in desert.

          • Willard says:

            Did You Know?

            Soil moisture is a function of both precipitation and evapotranspiration. Because potential evapotranspiration increases with temperature, anthropogenic climate change generally results in drier soils and often less runoff in the long term.

            https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/8/

          • Swenson says:

            Wasted Wee Willy,

            ” . . . generally results in drier soils and often less runoff in the long term.”

            Except when it doesn’t?

            Well, that’s completely useless, isn’t it?

            Did you know that Antarctica is the driest continent? Almost no precipitation. Not due to high temperatures, I assume. Go on, show how wrong I am, and how clever you are.

            Only joking – you’re a fool.

          • Willard says:

            In matters of uselessness we can only bow to you, Mike Flynn.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            no need for increasing stupidity in the English language, evapotranspiration is evaporation. We don’t need the transpiration part. We are talking about plants sweating.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            wee willy…”A drought is a deficiency…”

            ***

            Like the deficiency in wee willy’s brain, which is a vast wasteland.

          • Willard says:

            > We dont need the transpiration part

            Bordo’s imbecility shines through:

            Evapotranspiration (ET) is the combined processes by which water moves from the earths surface into the atmosphere. It covers both water evaporation (movement of water to the air directly from soil, canopies, and water bodies) and transpiration (movement of water from the soil, through roots and bodies of vegetation, on leaves and then into the air). Evapotranspiration is an important part of the local water cycle and climate, and measurement of it plays a key role in agricultural irrigation and water resource management.[

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

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Like I said, evapouration works fine, nothing to do with transpiration.

  71. Bindidon says:

    Breaking News

    A group of warmistas secretly invaded Greenland a few weeks ago and started artificially melting huge amounts of ice there:

    http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20230505.png

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hp59N2gopJ_0DYEcgH-XNWM0LsYO8b6E/view

  72. gbaikie says:

    Perun gives another weekly report:

    Ukraine’s Planned Counteroffensive – force readiness, leaks, politics & expectations
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIYC_WUSw4c

    Summary, they have troops for counteroffensive, it’s not going to win
    to war, it’s going go into 2024.
    No one going to do a peace deal, Russia has unacceptable terms as viewed by most of World [including China].
    But I would say if we had leadership, it could be done. Trump or lots others could do it. Rather interfering, it seem presidental race, could lead to some peace deal but probably not before 2024, but this war could end somewhere in beginning of 2024, but not due to any military victory but rather to different efforts at making an agreement to end the war.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gb…”its not going to win to war, its going go into 2024″.

      ***

      It will go on till we in the West smarten up and tell the truth about what is going on in the Ukraine. Until we talk to the Russians in good faith about the situation rather than blindly supporting the Ukraine, this war will go on and Ukrainians will continue to die.

      • gbaikie says:

        When has West {or anywhere] told the truth?
        It seems you saying this war just goes on for very long time.

        I think they will just run out of ammo before we could get the truth
        about, just about anything.

  73. gbaikie says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 450.8 km/sec
    density: 20.91 protons/cm3
    Sunspot number: 99
    The Radio Sun
    10.7 cm flux: 152 sfu
    Updated 07 May 2023
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 20.45×10^10 W Warm
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: +0.4% Above Average
    48-hr change: -0.2%
    Coronal holes have not changed much, but I imagine
    they are fading and it seems Neutron counts will be going
    well below zero. Or sun seems it will be getting more
    active {as I thought it would}. All the sunspots have long distance
    to travel before reaching farside, so, going get more spots coming from farside [probably- we will stay at 99 for awhile with others adding to it in coming days].

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 477.2 km/sec
      density: 7.69 protons/cm3
      Sunspot number: 99
      The Radio Sun
      10.7 cm flux: 157 sfu
      Updated 08 May 2023
      https://www.spaceweather.com/
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 20.45×10^10 W Warm
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: -2.3% Below Average
      48-hr change: -3.3%
      “There are no equatorial coronal holes on the Earthside of the sun. Credit: SDO/AIA”
      I see no new spots coming from farside- maybe tomorrow.
      Neutron counts seem to a dip rather than a trend.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 427.3 km/sec
        density: 6.39 protons/cm3
        Sunspot number: 103
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 172 sfu
        Updated 09 May 2023
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 20.31×10^10 W Warm
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -2.3% Below Average
        48-hr change: -3.3%
        Seeing two spot near equator coming from
        farside- spot number will go up soon.

        –Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
        08 May – 03 June 2023

        Solar activity is expected to be low to moderate throughout the
        period with M-class flare activity (R1-R2 (Minor-Moderate)) likely
        over 08 May-03 Jun. —
        https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast

        I am expecting moderate to high, and the higher in June and July.

        • gbaikie says:

          Solar wind
          speed: 578.1 km/sec
          density: 3.44 protons/cm3
          Sunspot number: 151
          The Radio Sun
          10.7 cm flux: 180 sfu
          Updated 10 May 2023
          Thermosphere Climate Index
          today: 20.58×10^10 W Warm
          Oulu Neutron Counts
          Percentages of the Space Age average:
          today: -4.4% Below Average
          48-hr change: -2.1%

          • gbaikie says:

            Solar wind
            speed: 507.5 km/sec
            density: 7.46 protons/cm3
            Sunspot number: 154
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 170 sfu
            Updated 11 May 2023
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 20.79×10^10 W Warm
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: -5.7% Low
            48-hr change: -3.1%

            Hmm. Why is Neutron Counts so low. I didn’t expect this
            low until another month or two.
            It would seem to indicate a lot sunspot on the farside, which indicate the higher solar activity is coming faster than I thought.
            I was expecting the Parker Solar Probe would reach perihelion
            at highest solar activity:
            http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
            Now, looks like might happenned before it gets there. Could be good news for probe: 36 days 3 hours.

          • gbaikie says:

            Solar wind
            speed: 458.5 km/sec
            density: 4.70 protons/cm3
            Sunspot number: 134
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 149 sfu
            Updated 13 May 2023
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 20.80×10^10 W Warm
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: -4.7% Low
            48-hr change: +1.0%
            Don’t see any spot coming from farside and
            and lots leaving to farside.
            Though they have detected large sunspots/very active
            large region on farside. But it seems short term
            going to get less sunspots.
            And so, May sort of doing what thought it would,
            we will wait to see this farside sunspot coming
            in a few days.

  74. gbaikie says:

    Goodbye Climate Alarmism: The Age of AI Alarmism Has Begun
    “Biden has just appointed Harris to promote responsible AI in my opinion the opening salvo in an attempt to install fear of AI as a replacement for the failed climate alarmist movement.”
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/07/goodbye-climate-alarmism-the-age-of-the-ai-alarmist-has-begun/

    But about the space, optimism?

    • gbaikie says:

      Czech Republic latest nation to sign on to NASA’s moon-focused Artemis Accords
      “The non-binding agreement establishes a set of guidelines to guide cooperation when it comes to space exploration in the Artemis Program.

      “The Artemis Accords guide us towards a future of optimism and promise,” said Jennifer Littlejohn, acting assistant secretary of State for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs.”

      “More countries are expected to sign on to the accord in the coming months, NASA said Wednesday.
      Last month, the space agency announced the four-person crew to fly the Artemis II mission, which will orbit the moon.
      The astronauts are scheduled to fly by the moon aboard NASA’s Orion spacecraft before returning to Earth in the mission’s most critical phase so far. The mission, which is slated to last 10 days, could lift off sometime next year.”
      https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2023/05/03/czech-republic-signs-nasa-artemis-accords/5681683147524/
      linked: https://instapundit.com/

  75. Bindidon says:

    By accident I saw upthread a comment posted by E. Swanson, with as text:

    ” RLH, The UAH v6 SoPol data is seriously flawed, since the UAH v6 LT weighting curves peak at about 4 Km and the ice sheet elevations over the Antarctic reach that altitude. In other words, the UAH SoPol data isnt just atmosphere, but also has a strong surface fraction. ”

    *
    Sorry: I have to insist on what I already wrote last year, namely that with the beginning of revision 6.0, the UAH team decided to stop remote sensing for the LT layer and replace it with a calculation based on a mixture from MT, TP and LS.

    *
    The reader is invited to read UAH’s thread posted at that time (April 28th, 2015):

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

    Therein you find in section 2:

    Major Changes in Processing Procedures with Version 6

    among lots of technical explanations:

    The LT computation is a linear combination of MSU2,3,4 or AMSU5,7,9 (aka MT,TP, LS):

    LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS

    *
    I have shown last year in November that UAH’s LT data in revision 6.0 is, regardless which part of the Globe is considered, absolutely identical to a time series generated out of MT, TP and LS data according to the formula above.

    Example: the Globe

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view

    Therefore, claims that UAH would be still scanning O2 microwave emissions till down to the surface are unfounded, as are concerns that geological formations such as in Antarctica, Greenland, the Himalaya or the Andes could cause distortions.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      “UAH team decided to stop remote sensing for the LT layer”

      ***

      You are wrong. It states right in the article they still use the AMSU units. In fact, you have confused what it says in the article about the new equation.

    • barry says:

      Bindidon,

      The new LT is a combination of 3 channels, each of which reach the surface (in that O2 molecules are emitting in the readable frequencies near ground level). The curve for channel 4, for example, is still very broad and bulgy where it intersects with the surface.

      https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sheldon-Kusselson/publication/252235249/figure/fig9/AS:668690320195591@1536439604279/AMSU-weighting-functions.png

      Whether UAH is able to winnow out the near-surface emissions in the processing is another matter, but it would seem from the “new” LT curve on the page you linked, the combination still includes near-surface O2 radiance, as the “new” LT curve is broad and bulgy where it intersects the surface.

      Perhaps I don’t get your meaning?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        You got Binny’s meaning fine, Bary, he think UAH have discarded the AMSU instruments and are now using a formula to guess at the temps. I asked him earlier where they get the data for the equation and he had no answer.

      • barry says:

        No, Bindidon is well aware that AMSU instruments are the devices used to record radiance from O2 molecules to infer temperature. Perhaps he’ll clarify what he means.

      • RLH says:

        Strange, then, that NOAA agrees with the approach that UAH uses.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gb…”if we had leadership, it could be done. Trump or lots others could do it”.

      ***

      Any leader with a spine and half a brain could do it.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Bindidon, I think that you don’t understand the importance of the weighting functions, as have been repeatedly discussed. They represent the fraction versus altitude of the measurements by the MMSU/AMSU. They are given for v6 in Figure 7 of your reference.

      The old TLT thru v5 relied on the scans from MSU3/AMSU5, which is the same data set as is used to calculate the TMT series (Christy et al. 2002). The TLT processing algorithm was first described in Spencer and Christy (1992b), J. Climate, 5, 858866.

      T2R = 4*[T4+T5+t8+T9]/4-3*[T1=T2+T10+T11]/4

      Where T1…T11 are the brightness temperatures measured at scan positions 1 thru 11.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      “claims that UAH would be still scanning O2 microwave emissions till down to the surface are unfounded, as are concerns that geological formations such as in Antarctica, Greenland, the Himalaya or the Andes could cause distortions”.

      ***

      The sats are located well above land features such as the Himalaya where the altitude of channel 5’s centre frequency is located only halfway up some of the Himalyan giants. However, channel 5 can scan as high as 30 km.

      You’d have to consult Roy on the details. I realize that UAH cuts of emissions near the surface to prevent interference from ground-based microwave sources but I would think, considering the relatively small area area of the Hilmalaya, compared to the overall surface area, that the amount of microwave radiation may not be an issue.

    • Bindidon says:

      E. Swanson and barry (Robertson is too ignorant and opinionated to follow such a discussion)

      I have perfectly understood what you mean.

      Firstly, I have of course to admit having been a bit optimistic re. the influence of the lowest O2 emissions on the computation of MT out of all AMSU sensings.

      Thus, yes, yes! I have to reconsider my somewhat naive position above, concerning biases created by geological formations.

      But… this is not what I primarily discussed.

      *
      What I discussed were just the 100% matching facts that

      – (1) in April 2015, Spencer, Christy and Braswell unequivocally wrote:

      The LT computation is a linear combination of MSU2,3,4 or AMSU5,7,9 (aka MT,TP, LS):

      LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS

      and that

      – (2) all LT data I have processed or generated last year for comparison have shown identity of the LT data with the data generated out of the weighted average of MT, TP and LS according to the formula above.

      To be 100 % clear: with ‘all data’ I did not only understand the 27 zonal/regional summaries contained in the four usual ‘ncd~c’ files, but also

      – (2.1) any portion of the 2.5 degree grid data, e.g. Nino3+4’s region (5S-5N — 170W-120W) and even the single grid cell encompassing the University of Alabama at Huntsville

      https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+University+of+Alabama+in+Huntsville/@34.7251606,-86.6507763,3295m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x88626bf4d43d52b5:0x7bfb2dd5d27d92e7!8m2!3d34.7251606!4d-86.6404712!16zL20vMDNqYzF0?hl=en

      – (2.2) the absolute data time series, reconstructed for each of the four atmospheric LAYERs (lt, mt, tp, ls)

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

      out of their anomaly grid (the files ‘tLAYERmonamg.YEAR_6.0) together with their 12-month grid cell baselines (the files tLAYERmonacg_6.0).

      You see later on a few links to all that in an attached comment below.

      The average deviations were about 0.005 C (maximum 0.02) and were most likely due to the fact that UAH’s zonal and grid data have only two digits after the decimal point.

      Here are the 12-month 2.5 degree grid cell baselines generated out of the 9504 active grid cell values for LT and the weighting of MT/TP/LS:

      Jan: 263.179 | 263,162
      Feb: 263.269 | 263,252
      Mar: 263.427 | 263,411
      Apr: 263.843 | 263,826
      Mai: 264.448 | 264,431
      Jun: 265.099 | 265,081
      Jul: 265.418 | 265,401
      Aug: 265.233 | 265,216
      Sep: 264.637 | 264,620
      Oct: 263.945 | 263,927
      Nov: 263.406 | 263,389
      Dec: 263.191 | 263,174

      *
      What of this above did you not understand?

      Wouldn’t there inevitably be greater differences between LT data and the weighted average of MT/TP/LS if LT data were the result of a dedicated sensing?

      • bdgwx says:

        I can confirm your absolute global average calculations for each month. I get those exact same values when processing the grid. That gives me confidence that my calculations are correct as well.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Bindidon, I think you missed the point of my last post. You previously wrote:

        I have to insist on what I already wrote last year, namely that with the beginning of revision 6.0, the UAH team decided to stop remote sensing for the LT layer and replace it with a calculation based on a mixture from MT, TP and LS.

        The earlier version of the LT, thru v5, was the result of a calculation using the data also used to produce the TMT. It was NOT data from a separately measured layer. The surface influence for the old TLT v5 vs. the new LT v6 can be seen in the theoretical weighting functions presented by Roy’s Figure 7. As Roy noted:

        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).

        Those curves are calculated starting with a surface “height” [altitude] of 0.0, i.e. sea-level. For higher elevations over land, the influence is greater, particularly so over the Antarctic, Greenland and the mountains of the Himalaya or the Andes.

        RSS still uses the old UAH calculation for their TLT, thus they exclude the high elevations. The latest NOAA STAR v5 appears to exhibit a surface influence close to the UAH v6, but the altitude of peak weighting is lower and close to that of the older UAH v5. As a result, the influence of those high altitude areas will be similar to the RSS TLT and is the reason for RSS exclusion those regions.

        I submit that NOAA STAR should adopt the same exclusions in their TLT processing.

      • Bindidon says:

        E. Swanson

        I have perfectly understood what you mean. It’s all correct!

        You, on the other hand, still don’t understand what I’m talking about.

  76. Gordon Robertson says:

    test m

  77. gbaikie says:

    Re: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1483194

    I was thinking maybe this global climate cargo cult is all about hating the Russia. Russian can’t possibly use solar panels.
    It’s the left eats their own, sort of thing.
    I don’t dislike the Russian {or Chinese, North Koreans, etc] I just dislike their governments.
    Though I am not fond of any govts {also}.
    One big thing I like about settlements on Mars, is they sort of have to create better govt, or everyone, just dies.
    Where Venus orbit could have a fairly crappy govt and still do fine.

  78. Gordon Robertson says:

    gb…”NOAA says more than 90% of global warming in warming our cold ocean”.

    ***

    That’s the old Trenberth dodge, making Trenberth the modern Artful dodger.

  79. Gordon Robertson says:

    In the Climategate email scandal, Trenberth lamented it a travesty that global warming had stopped because, according to him, they lacked the instrument sensitivity to separate it from natural warming.

    • Willard says:

      C’mon, Bordo.

      First of all, it has nothing to do with Da Paws.

      Second of all, it’s not what you call “the CG scandal.”

      Why do you always end up making stuff up?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        wee willy lives in a different galaxy. In our galaxy, Trenberth made his statement in the middle of the 15 year period the IPCC claimed as a flat trend. Therefore he noticed it long before they admitted it in 2012.

        Secondly, it was revealed in the Climategate email scandal, and his admission would never have come to light had not the hacker exposed them. I’d like to know why alarmists feel the need to hide such information. Does the hoi polloi not have a right to know?

        • Willard says:

          Bordo continues to make things up:

          As Trenberth has explained, this email referred to the fact that when it was written in October 2009, measurements of the amount of heat in the Earth’s climate system didn’t match what they should have been based on the overall global energy imbalance (more incoming than outgoing energy) measured by satellites. This discrepancy was due to the limitations of our observational systems, particularly in the deeper oceans – a limitation that at the time frustrated climate scientists like Trenberth.

          https://www.desmog.com/2019/11/18/3-climategate-myths-have-not-aged-well/

          Yet another contrarian that did not age well, a bit like Bordo.

          • Willard says:

            > Yet another contrarian

            …canard, that is.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            desmogblog???…get serious wee willy. The site funded by a convicted felon.

            Swenson’s quote was exactly what he said. the rest is damage control.

          • Swenson says:

            Wonky Wee Willy,

            “This discrepancy was due to the limitations of our observational systems, particularly in the deeper oceans.”

            Go on, tell me how the “limitations of our observational systems” have changed.

            Trenberth was caught out admitting an inconvenient truth. His several later attempts to deny saying what he did make him look look like he is either a fool or a fraud. Incompetent at least.

            Neither Trenberth nor you can even describe the mythical “greenhouse effect”, can you?

            Carry on trying to defend the indefensible.

          • Willard says:

            Truth isn’t indefensible, Mike.

            What are you braying about?

          • Swenson says:

            Wily Wee Willy,

            Neither Trenberth nor you can even describe the mythical “greenhouse effect”, can you?

          • Entropic man says:

            “Go on, tell me how the limitations of our observational systems have changed.”

            Thousands of ARGO submersible buoys monitoring both the mixed layer down to 700 metres and the deep ocean down to the abysmal plane at 2000 metres.

          • RLH says:

            “Thousands of ARGO submersible buoys monitoring both the mixed layer down to 700 metres and the deep ocean down to the abysmal plane at 2000 metres.”

            Over how many square miles/km? At what density is that?

      • Swenson says:

        C’mon Wee Willy,

        Mutilating the English language makes you look juvenile, not sagacious.

        Here’s what Trenberth wrote –

        “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Later on, as is usual with SkyDragon cultists who are caught out, he claimed he really meant something else entirely. Obviously needed some lessons on how to convey his thoughts in English.

        Trenberth is delusional, in any case. A sample –

        “The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries.” No it can’t Kevin. “Heat” is not something that can be “stored” or “trapped”.

        Carry on being delusional, Willard.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          swenson…”Heat is not something that can be stored or trapped.”

          ***

          Thanks for clarifying that for the alarmists. That principle was well understood in the mid-1800s by Tyndall and Clausius but these days, heat is seriously misunderstood.

          Without the Sun there is no heat. We see the effect of that in the Arctic and Antarctic every year. Doesn’t matter how deep the ocean, without the Sun things get very chilly.

        • gbaikie says:

          It seems volcanic heat can stored in deep oceans.
          In terms global climate, lots of cold polar waters can be stored in deep ocean.
          It seems in past Earth’s climates heated salty water could fall into the deep ocean. And we some of it happening in modern world, but I never seem any kind of estimate or amount that occurs in our present world.

          It’s said submarine say 100 meters below the surface can be strongly effected severe storm on the surface. But generally there not much science in our global warming cargo cult.

          No one seems to know what Venus temperature would be if it was at 1 AU distance from the sun.

          • gbaikie says:

            I was also just thinking what if Earth was at 1 AU but it had a lot more of an eccentric orbit. What would Earth average temperature be- or would it be warmer or cooler?

            And maybe because Earth does get closer and further from the sun, it’s somehow related to mixing the ocean???

            Anyhow, generally for a long time, I have considered mixing the ocean as way to warm Earth. It seems rather obvious to me.

          • Swenson says:

            gbaikie,

            Water is obviously a liquid, with peculiar properties. However, warm water is less dense than cold water of similar composition – salinity etc.

            It floats to the surface, in other words, where it stays – until it cools, contracts, and sinks.

            Ocean currents are caused by convection – heating from beneath, combined with chaotic fluid dynamics.

            Trenberth’s “hidden heat in the oceans” speculation demonstrates his abysmal knowledge of the relevant physics. Not to worry, though, scientists at the National Science Foundation refused to accept Archimedes’ principle for several years, believing that when sea-ice melted, sea levels would rise!

            At least, after six years of denial, the NSF finally posted ” . . . we regret the error.”

            If you can’t believe the NSF and the US Office of Naval Research, who can you trust?

            Maybe we should look at the motion of the Royal Society – Nullius in Verba – Take nobody’s word for it!

          • gbaikie says:

            Swenson

            In other times on Earth you have a part of tropic with large and shallow ocean- which get a lot warmer and a lot saltier and it’s connected to the rest of the deep ocean.
            This will give very salty water flowing at bottom of shallow ocean out into less salty deeper ocean.
            We get this on fairly small scale around middle east- Red Sea and Persia Gulf. So the scale one could 10 or 20 times bigger than that.

          • Swenson says:

            gbaikie,

            As far as I know, the Red Sea is saltier than normal is due to water flowing into it and evaporating, rather than the other way round.

            However, you are right that if the increased density due to salinity exceeds the decreased salinity due to temperature, such water will sink. Unfortunately, the physical phenomenon of diffusion results in salinity dropping to be equal to the surrounding environment.

            I wasn’t aware of the following (from a dive site) –

            “Whereas in other seas the temperature ranges between 5 to 7 C, the Red Sea has a temperature of 20 C even at a depth of 1,000 m. It is caused by a trench along the sea floor, formed by plate tectonics, whose volcanic activity heats up the water. The surface temperature averages at 25 C and can easily reach 32 C on the coasts and reef flats.”

            Lake Tanganyika is also hot due to geothermal heat. The geothermal activity is evidenced by a 220 kw geothermal power plant close to the lake. SkyDragon cultists probably think Lake Tanganyika is hot due to “climate change”, or something equally silly.

          • Willard says:

            Are you trying to resurrect your silly idea that our actual global warming is caused by the inner core of the Earth, Mike?

          • Swenson says:

            Wandering Wee Willy,

            In a fit of delusion you wrote –

            “Are you trying to resurrect your silly idea that our actual global warming is caused by the inner core of the Earth, Mike?”

            I certainly haven’t said such a thing, which is no doubt why you can’t quote me. As to “Mike”, I doubt you could quote him, either.

            The inner core of the Earth is cooling. What mental defect would lead you to believe that the Earth would get hotter because it is cooling?

            Are you quite mad, Willard?

          • Willard says:

            Mike, Mike,

            Are you really gonna play dumb about your volcanoes bit?

        • Willard says:

          Mike Flynn,

          Do you recall the email number by any chance?

          I do.

          • Swenson says:

            Willard,

            Bully for you.

            Do you have any better examples of your intellectual brilliance?

            If somebody memorizes the Bible, does that make them smarter than somebody who claims to remember some sort of “number” associated with an email? You, for instance?

            C’mon Willard, at least claim you can remember something useful. The description of the GHE, perhaps?

            You might be an idiot, but at least you’re useless.

          • Willard says:

            So you do not recall the email number, Mike.

            Fine.

            Nobody expects silly sock puppets to have any attention to detail.

            Keep braying!

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Winkie,

            You wrote –

            “So you do not recall the email number, Mike.”

            If you say so, irrelevant donkey, if you say so. Why would anybody but you bother to remember an arbitrary number of no relevance whatever? You are definitely strange, Willard.

            How are you getting on remembering the description of the GHE? Slipped your mind at the moment? Gee, best take those memory lessons again. Maybe you can “remember” some more fictitious “email numbers”, but it won’t help you with creating a description for a mythical “greenhouse effect”.

            Have you any more “numbers” to present? What other nonsense can you boast about “remembering”?

            Do tell everyone – they are no doubt waiting with bated breath! Or not.

          • Willard says:

            Mike, Mike,

            Do you have the email number?

            If you have it, you could remind readers of it.

            But we all know why you won’t do that.

            Long live and prosper.

          • Swenson says:

            Witless Wee Willy,

            You wrote (in a surfeit of trollish stupidity) –

            “Mike, Mike,

            Do you have the email number?

            If you have it, you could remind readers of it.”

            Why do want to know? Which number are you referring to?

            Why would I want to “remind readers” of anything? Who cares about an email “number” which you can’t even specify! If you could, you would no doubt wave it around to the delight of the cheering multitudes.

            You’re a dimwit, pretending you have a secret number which is so secret that you cannot divulge it! Good luck with your fantasy. You might be able to find somebody who cares, but it’s unlikely to be me.

            Have you also a super-secret description of the GHE that you are not going to divulge?

            You’re a fool, but at least you’re delusional.

          • Willard says:

            TL:DR, Mike.

            Have you found the triple point of water yet?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  80. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”A group of warmistas secretly invaded Greenland a few weeks ago and started artificially melting huge amounts of ice there…”

    ***

    see the warming over Greenland…

    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/April/202304_Map.png

    go a but southeast and see the same amount of cooling.

    Go back a year and the patterns are different.

    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/April2022/202204_Map.png

    In fact, go back a month and it’s different…

    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/march/202303_Map.png

    Temperature anomalies in the Arctic are always moving. Why?? Until you can explain that there’s no point braying about anthropogenic warming.

    For some reason, in April 2023, March 2023 and April 2022, there has been a warming anomaly parked over Greenland. However, we must remember that a 2.5C warming anomaly can be on top of seriously cold temperatures. Whether it’s enough to cause melting is not clear.

    It is known that he North Pole suddenly warms to 0C in mid-winter while surrounding areas are -50C. Why?? Is anthropogenic warming that selective?

  81. Swenson says:

    From an article –

    “Temperatures on Greenland havent been this warm in at least 1,000 years, scientists report.”

    So its still colder than it was 1000 years ago?

    Crikey! Needs a lot more heating!

  82. Willard says:

    > Water is obviously a liquid, with peculiar properties.

    The things one learns reading Sky Dragon cranks!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      What other substance could be used as a set point for freezing and boiling at terrestrial STP? That is essential for life yet you can wash your socks in it? You can sail on it and swim in it.

    • barry says:

      “What other substance could be used as a set point for freezing and boiling at terrestrial STP?”

      The ‘set points’ for freezing and cooling are BASED on the phase changes in water. You make it seem like the set points pre-existed and presto, water fit the bill.

      • Swenson says:

        barry,

        Care to try answering Gordon’s question? No?

        I wonder why?

        Only joking. I know why – you don’t know.

      • barry says:

        It’s a rhetorical question, lame-brain.

        • Swenson says:

          barry,

          Do all delusional SkyDragons waste time making pointless comments about rhetorical questions?

          Were you trying to imply the question was not rhetorical at all, by saying “. . . you make it seem . . .”?

          Thermometer scales like Celsius, Fahrenheit, Reaumur, all use the freezing point and boiling point of water as calibration points – for good reason.

          Just accept that water has interesting properties, and is used for calibration for good reason. Trying to make people look stupid to disguise your ignorance won’t increase your IQ.

          You are so stupid you believe that the changing statistics of historical weather observations (climate change), can somehow change future weather observations! Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

          Dimwit.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swenson…”Thermometer scales like Celsius, Fahrenheit, Reaumur, all use the freezing point and boiling point of water as calibration points for good reason”.

            ***

            Not only that, the density scale (not the one used to measure wee willy’s IQ) is based on the density of water as is the calorie, the true measure of heat.

        • barry says:

          Yep, you’re wrong.

          • Swenson says:

            Well, that’s authoritative!

            Why?

          • barry says:

            Because nothing happening now can change future observations. Those observations will be taken or not and the results will be what they will be.

            The rest of your post is straw man argument. When you make a point that doesn’t caricature a point of view, I might then be able to take it seriously.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”You make it seem like the set points pre-existed and presto, water fit the bill”.

        ***

        That’s exactly how it worked. The set points related to the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water pre-existed and did fit the bill. Once those set points were established by humans, it was a matter of how many degrees to insert between them…100 for the Celsius scale and 180 for the Fahrenheit scale.

        Kelvin was worked out a bit differently, it being based on the triple point of water at freezing. However, the number of degrees in Kelvin between measuring points is the same as in the Celsius scale. They obviously did not want to re-invent the wheel.

        BTW…this is all pointed out by Planck in his book on heat.

    • Tim S says:

      Water actually does possess unique properties. An entire branch of chemistry is devoted to water. There is a philosophical question here. Do minerals only dissolve in water because water is special, or do minerals only exist because of water? I think I know the answer. As for the melting and boiling points, only the melting point is a truly reliable physical property. Boiling point depends on pressure, and therefor, the location on earth and the weather. The concept of dew point is also of interest in temperature measurement.

      • Swenson says:

        Tim,

        You’re quite correct about boiling points. A spot of philosophical fun – when does water commence to boil, and how could you reliably measure the “boiling point”?

        Putting a container of water on a heat source is hopeless – a rolling boil indicates anything but thermal equilibrium! The bottom water is hotter than the top (otherwise there would be no convection), the steam bubbles in the water are above the boiling point (otherwise they would be liquid), and so on.

        Just stick a thermometer into the water, and pretend it’s 100 C? Good enough for Government work, anyway.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim s…”Do minerals only dissolve in water because water is special, or do minerals only exist because of water? I think I know the answer”.

        ***

        Likely has something to do with water’s ability to dissociate into H+ and OH- ions.

  83. Swenson says:

    Wonky Wee Willy,

    Obviously, delusional SkyDragon cultists have no idea about water, and its peculiarities. They think that melting sea ice causes sea levels to rise (they don’t realise that frozen water is less dense than liquid water), they don’t realise that water warmed by sunlight does not sink, but rather floats on the surface, and so on.

    Like you, they don’t know much at all.

    • Willard says:

      Mike Flynn,

      Please remind our readers of the triple point of water.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        wee willy chimes in with a term he fails to understand but which sounded good from his authority figure. He failed to mention that the Kelvin scale is based on the triple point of water near 0C, which is the point we have been making. That is, the freezing point and boiling point of water are set points in our thermometer systems.

        • bobdroege says:

          The triple point of water is neither a freezing point nor a boiling point of water.

          So it’s not the point you were trying to make.

          • Swenson says:

            bobdroege,

            So what is the point he was trying to make? You don’t believe that commonly used temperature scales are based on the freezing and boiling points of that wondrous substance dihydrogen oxide?

            You and that other idiot Willard can twist and turn all you like, but neither of you can actually describe the GHE which you both seem to believe provides heat without energy (or is that vice versa?). You cant say what it is you believe, can you?

            Carry on about talking about irrelevancies – the triple point of water, as you say, does not occur at 0 C, or 32 F (for those primitive countries still using it).

            Why bother mentioning it? Idiocy? Delusional triple point fixation? Trolling practice?

            Carry on.

          • bobdroege says:

            “You dont believe that commonly used temperature scales are based on the freezing and boiling points of that wondrous substance dihydrogen oxide?”

            No I don’t, fancy that!

            Not anymore they are not.

            “By international agreement, between 1954 and 2019 the unit degree Celsius and the Celsius scale were defined by absolute zero and the triple point of water.”

            From here

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

          • Swenson says:

            Bumbling Bobby,

            Maybe you could put some thought into telling me something I don’t already know.

            Why do you think I agreed with you regarding the triple point of water not occurring at 0 C?

            You still can’t describe the GHE in any way that agrees with reality, can you? Maybe you could quote the ridiculous Wikipedia “description” if you are singularly gullible and can’t see anything wrong with it.

            Feel free to look foolish.

      • Swenson says:

        Wonky Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “Please remind our readers of the triple point of water.”

        No. Why should I? You obviously can’t be bothered, so why should I waste my time.

        I do as I wish, you idiot. Don’t blame me for your learning disabilities.

        • Willard says:

          Mike Flynn,

          So you don’t care to try answering the question.

          No?

          I wonder why.

          Only joking?

          We all know why – you don’t know.

          Cheers.

          • Swenson says:

            Wondering Wee Willy,

            You idiot, you didn’t ask a question, did you?

            Go on, try again – give me your best gotcha! Watch me laugh at your idiocy!

            I am happy to let others make up their minds about your ineffective attempts to troll.

            I won’t bother asking you for a description of the GHE, because I know you don’t have one.

            Carry on being an idiot.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            There is a question in

            “Please remind our readers of the triple point of water.”

            If you can’t see it, that’s just par for your ignorant course.

            Cheers.

          • Swenson says:

            Woebegone Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “There is a question in

            “Please remind our readers of the triple point of water.””.

            Don’t be coy or shy, fool. Just spit it out.

            You can’t, can you? If you know the triple point of water, you aren’t asking any sort of question – you’re just trying to be unhelpful, by not telling people what it is.

            You need to learn how to be a troll, if you can’t even describe the mythical GHE. Only joking, accepting reality requires less effort – you don’t have to do anything at all!

          • Willard says:

            I leave spitting to Sky Dragon cranks like you, Mike.

            All you need is to admit you have not the email number.

            This way we will all know you rely on secondary sources.

            Cheers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

    • RLH says:

      See also how NOAA/STAR now supports UAH.

      • Bindidon says:

        Blindsley Hood

        This is known to us.

        Could you stop endlessly pushing your little egomaniacal blah blah?

        We are currently discussing completely different things.

        If you can’t contribute technically to that stuff, what about keeping outside?

        • RLH says:

          So you agree that RSS is now an outlier.

          • Bindidon says:

            Could you stop endlessly pushing your little egomaniacal blah blah?

            We are currently discussing completely different things.

            If you cant contribute technically to that stuff, what about keeping outside?

          • RLH says:

            Are you disputing that RSS is now an outlier, especially in the early record.

          • barry says:

            Yes, UAH and STAR are now more aligned, so RSS is the outlier from those data sets. Now can you please take your off-topic obsession to a thread where it is being discussed?

        • Entropic man says:

          You’ll find a graph of different temperature anomaly datasets adjusted to a common baseline.

          RSS tends to follow the surface datasets. UAH tends to be low.

          If anything, UAH is the outlier.

          • RLH says:

            Not according to NOAA/STAR v5.

            https://imgur.com/a/Of4f2oo

          • RLH says:

            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JD037472

            “Mid-Tropospheric Layer Temperature Record Derived From Satellite Microwave Sounder Observations With Backward Merging Approach”

            Cheng-Zhi Zou, Hui Xu, Xianjun Hao, Qian Liu

            “We present a new version (v5.0) of the NOAA Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) mid-tropospheric temperature (TMT) time series. “

          • Entropic man says:

            From the paper you linked.

            “The new record yields a trend of 0.14 K/decade during 19792021 with an even greater rate of warming after the year 2002 (0.22 K/decade)”

            That is a larger rate of warming than UAH since 1979. d

            It also suggests that it UAH is not an outlier, then UAH has warmed at around 0.22C/decade over the last 20 years. Would you agree?

          • RLH says:

            That’s not what the image says.

            https://imgur.com/gallery/gg7DENf

          • Entropic man says:

            Just for fun, I plotted the data. Linear trend since 1979 is 0.13C/decade.

            Linear trend since 2003 is about 0.18C/decade. The warming rate has accelerated, but UAH is still warming slower than STAR.

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH, Your graph is for the differences between the TMT data sets. EMan’s comment was a reference to the actual TMT time series, as it appears in the STAR paper, not the TLT time series. Perhaps you should plot the TLT series instead, as we all know that the TMT understates warming.

            Do try to pay attention next time.

          • Entropic man says:

            ” That’s not what the image says. ”

            The graph show the differences from Star v4.

            The rate of warming for Star v5 is 70.9% higher than for Star v4.

            The rate of warming for RSS is 51.2% higher.

            The rate of warming for UAH is 4.5% higher.

            How do you get from this to “UAH is not the outlier”?

          • RLH says:

            “The graph show the differences from Star v4.”

            and RSS.

          • RLH says:

            “How do you get from this to ‘UAH is not the outlier’?”

            Because the UAH v6 – STAR v5 is closer to 0

          • RLH says:

            “Do try to pay attention next time.”

            And the TMT series produces how much percentage wise of the TLT series?

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH, Yes, the STAR TLT is close to their TMT. But, does that prove that they successfully removed the stratospheric component from the TMT, which is the goal of the effort?

          • RLH says:

            As I’ve said many times before, the LT figure is implied by the ratio of MT and TP data. In both UAH and STAR.

          • RLH says:

            “does that prove that they successfully removed the stratospheric component from the TMT, which is the goal of the effort?”

            Try reading their paper and see.

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH, In reply to your question above, <a href="https://app.box.com/s/l2g3kcxx4a1n6q9bay95wpvyi8cx42b3"HERE's something I've been working on.

            Notice the small contribution from the TLS and the fact that the TUT has a negative impact, given that the TUT has a warming trend

          • E. Swanson says:

            Sorry for the bad html there.
            Here’s the link again.

          • RLH says:

            “greater rate of warming after the year 2002 (0.22 K/decade)

            Care to calculate the global cooling that has been going on since 2016?

          • RLH says:

            TMT * 1.430 = 0.136
            TUT * -0.462 = -0.008
            TLS * 0.032 = -0.007

            Combined = 0.121

            You have to go to 3 figures to get the other corrections. TMT is by far the bulk of the difference.

          • RLH says:

            “The graph show the differences from Star v4”

            So that is why it says STAR v5 in multiple lines in the graph /sarc

          • Entropic man says:

            Read the Y axis. It is labelled Difference in Temperature.

            There are four lines. The coloured lines are the differences seen between Star v4 and Star v5, RSS or UAH.

            The dotted line along the origin is Star v4.

            None of the lines actually plot Star v4, Star v5, UAH or RSS data.

          • RLH says:

            They all plot the DIFFERENCE between STAR v5 and the other sources, with UAH being the smallest of them. Thus STAR v5 and UAH agree quite well, especially in the earliest period, where RSS continues to use satellites without any correction to get a large trend overall.

          • barry says:

            RLH,

            “RSS continues to use satellites without any correction to get a large trend overall.”

            That is a complete fabrication.

            You are trying to push the idea that RSS uses an inferior processing method for the TLT data (and other layers), and you can’t even correctly describe their methodology.

            You’re not just slightly incorrect, you are hugely incorrect. Of course RSS apply many corrections for satellite drift and other biases. The main difference you are obsessed about is how data from NOAA14 to NOAA15 satellites is handled. Both UAH and RSS use data from both, and the main difference is that UAH uses a few years LESS NOAA14 data than does RSS.

            But you – YOU say “where RSS continues to use satellites without any correction to get a large trend overall.”

            Because you don’t have the concentration to say anything other than sweeping BS statements like this.

            You are not remotely qualified to judge the validity of the various methods when you don’t even understand them. I am not qualified either, but at least I can understand plain English from the various methodology papers. Which is how I know your ideas are vacuous.

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLS, as his usual approach, cherry picked one column of data from my analysis of the NOAA STAR TLT v5. What about this column?

            —————-SH
            —————-Trend T 2001
            TMT * 1.430 = 0.081 0.259
            TUT * -0.462 = -0.003 -0.033
            TLS * 0.032 = -0.008 0.001

            TLT Combined = 0.071 0.227

            RLH isn’t interested in the big jump in trend after 2000. A similar difference appeared in the Global Ocean data. Are these the result of some data processing error, either by STAR or by me? He isn’t at all curious, since the global results match UAH and his denialist world view.

          • RLH says:

            “Are these the result of some data processing error, either by STAR or by me?”

            STAR must be wrong then, because they disagree with RSS.

          • RLH says:

            “You are trying to push the idea that RSS uses an inferior processing method for the TLT data (and other layers)”

            Tell NOAA who agree that UAH was more accurate in the early record.

          • barry says:

            Graph shows RSS and UAH. Woodfortrees is a website, not a temperature record. Your question makes no sense.

            Woodfortrees does provide a combination dataset of 2 satellite and 2 surface records, and here is the result.

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.45/plot/wti/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.19

            “Woodfortrees” is smack bang between RSS and UAH.

          • barry says:

            RLH,

            Any comment on why you lie that RSS does not make any corrections to satellite data?

    • bdgwx says:

      I can’t contribute much except to say that I can confirm the calculations you did for the absolute global average temperature by month. I’m actually glad you did it as it gives me confidence that I did it correctly as well.

      What’s fun is now that you are processing the grids you can play around with different weighting functions and see how it alters the results. You can even use different weighting functions for different regions.

    • Bindidon says:

      For E. Swanson and barry, re. LT vs. MT/TP/LS (2)

      Here are some comparisons I made last year using UAH’s 2.5 degree grid.

      1. Nino3+4

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

      2. The cell encompassing UAH

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/18bSH3pQeQeOkIb09XzSLgDHWPIAn_NVJ/view

      3. The reconstruction of the absolute data

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vcJFlZkO8CX6ji0T212NHZ1ZpIvMGgJN/view

      *
      I can’t imagine that these amazing resemblances could have happened by accident.

    • Bindidon says:

      Thank you very much, bdgwx.

    • bdgwx says:

      Here are some more weighting functions.

      From Zoe et al. 2023:

      TTT = 1.15*TMT 0.15*TLS

      TLT = 1.430*TMT- 0.462*TTP + 0.032*TLS

      From Fu et al. 2004:

      TTT = 1.156*TMT 0.153*TLS.

      Note that TTT is the “total troposphere temperature” or sometimes it is called a TMT-corrected temperature. The intent with it is to remove the stratospheric contamination.

      Note that TTP is called TUT in the STAR dataset.

      • Bindidon says:

        Thanks.

        I withdraw my previous comment, and will generate today evening ‘TLT = 1.430*TMT- 0.462*TTP + 0.032*TLS’.

        Our