Home/BlogThe 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:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.06 | -0.00 | -0.23 | -0.13 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | -0.00 | +0.01 | -0.01 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.50 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.15 | +0.27 | +0.03 | -0.07 | +0.22 | +0.74 | +0.02 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.26 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.26 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.17 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.01 | +0.59 | +0.23 | +0.20 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.06 | +0.08 | +0.05 | -0.36 | +0.46 | +0.33 | +0.11 |
| 2022 | Jul | +0.36 | +0.37 | +0.35 | +0.13 | +0.84 | +0.55 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.31 | +0.24 | -0.03 | +0.60 | +0.50 | -0.00 |
| 2022 | Sep | +0.24 | +0.43 | +0.06 | +0.03 | +0.88 | +0.69 | -0.28 |
| 2022 | Oct | +0.32 | +0.43 | +0.21 | +0.04 | +0.16 | +0.93 | +0.04 |
| 2022 | Nov | +0.17 | +0.21 | +0.13 | -0.16 | -0.51 | +0.51 | -0.56 |
| 2022 | Dec | +0.05 | +0.13 | -0.03 | -0.35 | -0.21 | +0.80 | -0.38 |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.14 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.08 | +0.17 | 0.00 | -0.11 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.12 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.23 | +0.16 | -0.14 | -1.44 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +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
Let the madness begin!
Another month to add to the new Monckton Pause.
2 months actually
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.
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.
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.
the Mar-to-Apr change was the largest (by far) of the 149 test cases I used to train the model.
You probably know this, but March UCAR quite an outlier on the high side while April is a bit on the low side of expectation, but nothing like March.
Yeah. I noticed that. And look at how dramatic the changes were from Feb to Mar to Apr. Record setting SSTs in Mar probably have something to do with this.
Feb
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/gfst62/ANOM2m_monthly/ANOM2m_NCEP_monthly_equir.php?date=Feb%A02023&file=ANOM2m_NCEP_2302_monthly_equir.png
Mar
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/gfst62/ANOM2m_monthly/ANOM2m_NCEP_monthly_equir.php?date=Mar%A02023&file=ANOM2m_NCEP_2303_monthly_equir.png
Apr
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/gfst62/ANOM2m_monthly/ANOM2m_NCEP_monthly_equir.php?date=Apr%A02023&file=ANOM2m_NCEP_2304_monthly_equir.png
According to NOAA, we are supposed to have set a SST record in April.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
I saw that. It is a 4.7-sigma event. Yikes.
Tell us all about your “predictions” you never posted
What would you like to know?
The temperature remains modulating between 0.0 and 0.5C after the last step change.
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.
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.
Both the variation and long term appear to be consistent with expectations.
https://i.imgur.com/83GZJ1T.png
It tells you that whatever condition caused the step change is still in place.
It also tells you it isn’t some linear systematic cause like fossil fuels.
“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.
Stephen, The UAH observations is what you would expect if you superimpose natural variability onto a log2(CO2) trend.
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 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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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
“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.
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.
“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’
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.
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?
Stephen keeps on knocking down the strawman..
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?
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?
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.
” 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.
“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
>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?
Yeah, oscillating above and below 0, but as you know ENSO and PDO are not perfectly periodic, so not a sin wave.
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.
So tell me, what the temperature will be in May 2027?
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.
I could eyeball it and give you that same number and not assume any correlation to CO2.
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.
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.
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.
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.
that sounds about right, within the usual caveats about low predictability
Yes despite our differences, I have to give you credit where it’s due.
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.
By my reckoning, the New Pause now starts in June 2014, some 14 months before the Old Pause ended.
You shouldn’t ignore the fact that the current pause is .2 C warmer than the last pause.
If you put both of those pauses together, there is a warming trend.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997.17/trend/plot/uah6/mean:13/from:1995/plot/uah6/from:2014.5/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997.17/to:2015.67/trend
Bellman is certainly capable of speaking for himself, but in case he doesn’t see this I’ll chime in now. If you track his posts you’ll know that he is not ignoring that. In fact, he has numerous posts on WUWT talking about this very thing.
Are you factoring a likely El Nino into your calculations?
If it eventuates it could easily be a strong one.
If….
Yes, if.
NOAA says 62% chance for May-Jun-Jul, 75% chance for Jun-Jul-Aug, 80% chance for Jul=Aug-Sep, … up to 88% chance for Nov-Dec-Jan.
Wouldn’t you expect someone to factor those odds into their estimate?
What odds did NOAA give for a 3 year La Nina?
What are the odds that all this warm water isnt going to arrive at the surface?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq_xz.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
Last 7 days change in ocean T
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
“Are you factoring a likely El Nino into your calculations?”
No. It’s simply a linear regression based on the average so far this year along with a linear rate of warming. I suspect we may see more warming, but I don’t like to speculate too much, that’s why the uncertainties are still quite large at this stage.
Even if there is a strong El Nino, I doubt it won’t have that much of an effect on this years figures. That would mostly affect next years average.
You doubt it “won’t” ?
Oops.
It’s really amusing to see that
– while people like Palmowski aka ren, the ankle-biting dachshund Eben and Blindsley Hood aka RLH never stopped to post links to NOAA’s NCEP Nino3+4 as long as ENSO was in persistent La Nina mode,
– their output has suddenly vanished since NOAA shows a significant transition to a strong El Nino mode:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
*
The bet is open as to when the three Coolistas tell us that El Nino will be gone as early as January next year!
I predicted when the La Nina finally ends Bindidork is gonna zshit himself.
So here it is.
So your prediction is that we will have an El Nino that will last until at least Jan 2024.
The observations remain well below the UN IPCC climate model projections.
When will the AGW hypothesis be declared scientifically false?
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.
“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
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.
Don’t forget that NOAA agrees with UAH.
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.
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.
Probably yes. I’m using the 3-digit file.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0.txt
I get +0.0005 C/decade for 2014/06 using the 3 digit file plus the 2 digit 2023/04 value.
There isn’t much difference between 0.0005 and 0.0003. They’re both effectively zero.
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.
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?
Exactly. Despite being in a pause nearly all of the time the global average temperature marches on as we ride the escalator upward.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Remember that UAH and NOAA (STAR) now agree.
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.
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.
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.
Please note that STAR and UAH are in much closer alignment now with RSS being the outlier.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Neither STAR nor UAH (satellite records) align well with ground/land based records on trend. RSS is the outlier now.
STAR uses the same method as UAH for their TLT product.
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.
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).
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.
“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
“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.
I agree, it is purely for entertainment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And quit trying to link me to some NASA press release. Thats borderline false accusation.
Get your facts right.
You’re the one who claimed NASA supports your claim, based on their press release last year. YOU have linked yourself to it.
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.
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.
First time this year its managed 15C in the central UK for two consecutive days. Bankrupting ourselves based on a fraud.
Let’s not forget that 2022 was the warmest year on record for both the UK and CET. April 2023 was also warmer than the 1961-1990 reference period in CET. Maybe we’re just getting too used to the heat?
Nah, we dont know that for sure. Unless all of their thermometers are located way out faraway from humanity, that conclusion cannot be proven for sure.
Weather stations located in built up areas.
You’d wonder why there isn’t a new warmest year every year in that case.
There can still be variability at built up stations, because theres also cold months. Not every month is going to be warmer than average. That aside, even those cold months have some warmth added to their values as a result of the location theyre built near. Average months are also warmer than typical as a result.
The UK climate going back over a hundred years – where’s the dangerous man-made warming and climate change?
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1481621
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.
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.
Way ahead of the red line Grand Solar Minimum update
https://i.postimg.cc/DwPnjHSy/Clipboard033.jpg
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.
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
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.
Picture give from May 2 at Space weather:
ttps://spaceweathergallery2.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=195756
https://spaceweathergallery2.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=195756
Going back to this
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
The lower monthly sunspot numbers reached high end of error of curve
and high monthly sunspots were a lot higher. When reach 2024, the monthly high won’t reach low end of error, and monthly low sunspot
will be near the bottom [will we will get spotless days] and doesn’t ever get high again [no double peak].
That is my guess.
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
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.
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).
Agreed. Monthly records late in the year cannot be eliminated. Annual record will likely have to wait until 2024 or afterwards.
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.
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
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.
We have progressed, virgins are just getting their tits cut off.
Do the mass contrail clouds interfere with the readings.
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.
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.
Nobody is going to Mars
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.
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.
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.
Nobody
Nobody will go to the Moon, again??
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
Instead of trying to figure out how to settle moons and planets, you could more easily populate Wyoming & Nebraska.
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.
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.
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
I do it because it is hard and I learn a lot in doing so.
bdgwx,
I learned to knit to get a Boy Scout badge.
Geoff S
What did you learn when you tried predicting monthly UAH values? What is the best root mean square difference you were able to achieve?
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
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.
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.
I agree the oceans are extremely important. That is why I mentioned ocean current cycles and ENSO.
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
What’s there to explain?… it is what it is.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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?
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.
E man
“They are measuring short term variability rather than the long term trend and are not significan”
not significant for what?
Geoff S
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?
* 0.23 C/decade
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?
I’ve already given it.
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
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?
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.
Long term Australia warming trend.
http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/tmean.aus.0112.53715.png
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
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You’ve missed the point yet again.
“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?
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.
Then you have no evidence of the linkage that you suggested?
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.
New hockey stick – Lord Monckton pause included
https://i.postimg.cc/3RVJ2vQt/foxstick.jpg
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
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.
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
Current temperature in Antarctica.
https://i.ibb.co/vc3y4fk/gfs-spole-sat-t2-d1.png
Thanks for today’s WEATHER report.
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?
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
NEUTRAL conditions persist in the TROPICAL PACIFIC atmosphere.
But the winds in the Pacific still blow from East to West.
Tropical Pacific at the equator I mean.
As they do for all but VERY STRONG El Ninos.
It is only during La Nina that clouds in the equatorial Pacific are pushed over so far west, due to strong easterly winds.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/spac/mimictpw_spac_latest.gif
For starters, precipitable water is not cloud.
Secondly, that statement is just wrong.
During El Nino (above, left), the trade winds decrease, ocean water piles up off South America, the sea surface temperature increases in the eastern Pacific, and there is a shift in the prevailing rain pattern from the western Pacific to the western Central Pacific. During La Nina (above, right), the trade winds increase, ocean water piles up in the western Pacific, the sea surface temperature decreases in the eastern Pacific, and the prevailing rain pattern also shifts farther west than normal. (Courtesy of NOAA National Weather Service.)
https://pacificislandsclimate.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/figure1-41.jpg
https://pirca.org/2016/04/07/what-happens-during-el-nino-and-la-nina-events/#prettyPhoto
Yes – thanks for the lesson. Next time pick something I don’t know.
Now justify your claim:
“It is ONLY during La Nina that clouds in the equatorial Pacific are pushed over so far west, due to strong easterly winds.”
Are you claiming that it never rains in the eastern equatorial Pacific outside La Nina?
Antonin Qwerty you know nothing about climate.
https://i.ibb.co/qnrfqfx/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-05-03-195206.png
Says the person who always presents WEATHER events as climate.
The ONLY thing you talk about is weather.
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.
How many years are there between 1980 and now?
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?
I am observing that Roy has updated to using the current 30 year period whereas GISS has not.
And do you believe that one baseline is preferable to the other?
If so, why?
Why is it that GISS has not followed the standard recommendation?
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.
RLH
Who says there is a “standard recommendation”?
Who recommends changing the baseline every ten years, and what is the reason?
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.
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.”
“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.
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).”
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
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.
“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.
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
“WMO has decided that both should be calculated”
Does GISS do that?
GISS doesn’t have to do that. It is a mind numbingly simple calculation that everyone should be to do on their own.
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
” 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.
There were no satellites measuring temperature in 1951.
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.
“you never constructed any anomaly time series by your own”
Sure. Blinny goes off on one of his rants again.
” 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.
Blinny knows better. There were no satellites measuring temperature in 1951.
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.
This presumes that satellites are not capable of more accurately measuring T over the oceans.
I don’t think any presumption was made either way.
Really. So what is the measuring density of non satellite T over the oceans historically?
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.
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.”
And for RLH
Note that STAR has recently updated their reference periods which effects the 1961-1990 period quite a lot.
“removal of spurious calibration drifting errors in NOAA-15, NOAA-14, NOAA-12, and NOAA-11 through recalibration”
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/emb/mscat/data/MSU_AMSU_v5.0/Monthly_Atmospheric_Layer_Mean_Temperature/Readme_STAR_V5.0_Mean_Layer_Temperature_CDR.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022JD037472
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.”
Which has nothing to do with my post, which was ONLY about what advice the WMO did or din’t give.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You’ve got something wrong, Ant.
You last value in the series doesn’t work. For example:
12 – 5 ≠ 3
And,
12 – 7 ≠ -2
Wow mate – I guess that voids my whole explanation.
Ugh ….
Possibly. Or maybe you’re commenting so much the quality drops off — as in quantity over quality.
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?
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.
Pretty sure you’re not the one who should be commenting about quantity. What’s wrong? Did you not understand the explanation?
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]
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.
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.
That has nothing to do with what we’re talking about, but your advocacy is noted.
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.
Did Central England start to get built up only after 1985?
https://tinyurl.com/psa4crua
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zharkova says the global average temperature will drop by 1.0 C in as little as 8 years.
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.
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
This was a recent prediction.
Zharkova 2020: Modern Grand Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling – DOI: 10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243
Zharkova discusses it later, or she learned more about global climate issues later- it’s not her field.
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.
This cycle has already exceeded Zharkova’s predictions for the cycle max, and she stated a tolerance of +/- 2%.
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.
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
And 1 W/m^2 variation in Solar constant, corresponds to only about 0.25 W/m^2 in average TOA solar flux.
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.
No, 0.25 W/m^2 global average.
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
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
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.
Could it be that El Nino is closer to Australia than the Sun?
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.
Surely every day is your day!
😎
I was responding to Ren’s “So the Earth’s position relative to the Sun affects the temperature in the Southern Hemisphere?”
You idiots do realise that anthropomorphising patterns in historical weather observations is a sign of “cargo cult” mentality, do you?
Next thing, you’ll be calling for offerings to placate the Drought God, or the Flood God!
Or you could give things like tropical revolving storms human names, and pray to them, or put up large signs telling them to go away!
You SkyDragon cultists are a simple and gullible lot, aren’t you?
Keep praying – maybe you can make the Earth hotter if you sacrifice a few virgins or something.
> Next thing
Are you making a real prediction, Mike Flynn, or are you just ranting with But Religion?
Here:
https://climateball.net/but-religion/
If you could clarify what you are braying about, you would have done so a long time ago.
In July, the Earth is 5 million kilometers farther from the Sun than in January.
http://ocs-pl.oktawave.com/v1/AUTH_2887234e-384a-4873-8bc5-405211db13a2/spidersweb/2017/07/punk-odsloneczny.jpg
Yet the UAH July average for the northern hemisphere is greater than the UAH January average for the southern hemisphere.
Gee – is it possible that other factors are also at play? Could it be that nothing is as simplistic as you try to make out?
You are cherry-picking Ren’s posts, he tends to have a broad range of comments re global weather.
Thanks for agreeing that he deals only with weather, not climate.
Ren has offered no indiction he is reporting anything other than weather. It has been you and other alarmists who have freaked out and accused him of anything else.
No indication? Oh really? Perhaps you’d care to explain why he reports ONLY cool events.
AQ,
Gee, could it be that you are trying to be gratuitously offensive?
Do you really think that anybody would waste their time choosing to take offense at the comments of an anonymous dimwit?
I suppose some might.
Oh well.
No, Mike Flynn.
Here is only one commenter who tries to be gratuitously offensive and that is you.
Cheers.
Please don’t respond to the idiot. Just talk over the top of him.
Message is for Willard.
W
Back in my days
Exactly when were your days?
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1370003-memes
The Guardian is an alarmist climate rag. They are praying for an EN.
The Grauniad reported the Bureau of Metrology, Bordo.
Come on.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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”.
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.
Ant, misrepresenting me and making false accusations are troll tactics.
“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
works for me.
I said where the CLIMATE sits, not ENSO.
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?
“I want a long-term neutral ENSO”
“Long-term neutral” means THERE ARE NO EL NINOS OR LA NINAS”.
Why are you so deliberately obtuse?
Or many of both, say from 1850 onwards.
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.
“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.
Many of both fulfills the requirement too.
Nonsense. What do you think Antonin wants to determine? Seems you’ve forgotten.
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.
Please provide PROOF that “the after-effects of the 2016 EN has persisted for years”, without simply ASSERTING that the higher temperatures is “proof”.
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?
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.
“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.
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!
Did you post in the wrong thread? Nothing you said is about the topic on this thread.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Of course STAR (NOAA) now agrees with UAH.
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.
Blinny says that Nino 3.4 remaining the same since 1877/1878 means that things are warming.
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.
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.)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
— 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.
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.
Gbaikie
They found the hotspot.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007
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.
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.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Ent, how many passenger jets flew backwards today?”
About half of them (smile emoji)
Those were the hover jets.
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.
YOU are the joke, Ent.
You get caught perverting reality, so you pretend it was just a joke.
Sorry, but the truth is out.
You have no sense of humour, no understanding of vectors, no feel for science.
God, I miss fandom!
See Ent, none of that is true.
You just make up crap because you’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
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.
All except your final BS paragraph is exactly what I said, so not sure what you are arguing with.
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.
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.
“unless you work for NOAA or GISS and want to fudge things”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
So you don’t know what case this is?
https://schachtmanlaw.com/category/scientific-misconduct/
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?
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!
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Swenson,
“barry,
You wrote
‘The lawyer who wrote this is an ignoramus’ ”
Nope, I didn’t write that.
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.
We will see what the court case produces won’t we.
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.
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.”
Guess we will have to wait until 2035 to see who is right then.
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.
“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.
[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.
“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/
So Roy (and NOAA) use a weighting function that closely resembles the lapse rate. Quelle surprise.
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.
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.
“constant at -6.5k/km in the troposphere when used in the calculation of the weighting functions.”
You don’t say.
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.
Height and pressure are in a direct relationship to temperature at -6.5k/km as stated above.
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.
As I said before height and pressure are in a direct relationship to temperature at -6.5k/km as stated above.
Why do you think the various channels response curves are asymmetrical and not normal distributions which are symmetrical about the centers?
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.
Notice the log scale to the left on that graph.
“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?
RLH wrote:
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:
“above the tropopause”
carries very little weighting in both UAH and STAR.
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/3-s2.0-B9780128119891000142-f14-05-9780128119891.jpg
“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
BIGHTNESS temperatures (of oxygen) reflect the actual temperatures of the air surrounding them.
testing blah blah
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.
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)
RLH wrota a reply:
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.
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
Heads up – there are no temperatures on your graph.
Is the vertical bar graph on the RHS not in degrees C? It doesn’t say so, but can it not be assumed?
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!
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.
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
The Arctic’s ice extent is shrinking slowly.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/SICE_curve_extent_LA_EN_20230421.png
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.
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
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
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-sopol.jpeg
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.
Blinny says that the surface temperature does not reflect the amount of ice that is measured.
“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.
Amazing how curve fitting works, sometimes.
When it doesn’t, find a better cycle nut.
Why do think that filtering is curve fitting?
Do you think that a LOWESS (for a similar window) would provide anything different?
” 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!
“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.
“60/50/39 month CTRM according to Vaughan Pratts recommendations”
I use a VP 60 month/5 year filter for my plots.
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.
” 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.
So the unchanging surface temperatures in the Antarctic are unimportant as far as Blinny is concerned.
” 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.
“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.
” 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.
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.
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.
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?
RSS South Polar for Feb 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/rss-southern-polar.jpeg
RLH
You were looking for data on the relationship between ENSO and the long term warming trend.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=41wHffAUo5E
“Global average surface temperature (from NASA GISS) 19802019”
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.”
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.
“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?
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
Interesting.
I think space exploration would be faster direction.
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?
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].
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.
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.
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
binny van der klown’s rants are too comical to ignore.
” In any case just ignore Bindebils rants… ”
Hello, ankle-biting, stalking dachshund.
Which rants did you mean?
This one, for example?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
*
All you are able to do is to insult others and to post graphs you hide the origin of.
To set against
https://i.postimg.cc/bNBdzQNF/nino3-4-may2023-plume-S2-S.png
Which rants ???
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1481778
“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.
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.
Bordo’s bluster is too burlesque to brush off.
test v
> I refuse to absorb nonsense about Einsteinian relativity
That will make Sabine sad:
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2013/09/what-is-special-relativity.html
That’s too bad, for Bordo seemed to be warming to her.
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”.
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.
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.
> 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.:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/is-perpetual-motion-possible-at-the-quantum-level-20230503/
I believe in you.
C’mon.
“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.
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.
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.
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/
Failed Assassination Attempt On Putin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reD4ntGIuQ0
speak the truth
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
More serious, less frivolous explanation…
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
more detailed…
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm
First link is to a reputable source with less detail on the issue and is from 6 years ago.
Second link is to a 12 year old post from an unnamed blogger with a heavily biased agenda, who is engaged in curve-fitting and citing papers that do not support his contention.
Furthermore, the tangential links the blogger hopes support his case are unlinked in later research by the same authors he cites, on the same subject.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/29/12/jcli-d-15-0508.1.xml
These researchers also corroborate the ‘frivolous’ entry above.
The unnamed blogger’s references do not link the PDO to global temperatures. That is all his own curve-fitting exercise.
barry,
The PDO is a name given to historical temperature measurements.
Global temperatures is a name given to historical temperature measurements.
No science to be seen.
Yes Flynnson, we get it.
You find science offensive, for some reason.
When science is shown to you, you cover your eyes, plug your ears and and wish it all would go away.
Maybe you should consider stopping your visits to this science forum?
Nate,
If you think that having a grasp of basic arithmetic is “science”, you would make a good SkyDragon cultist.
You haven’t shown anybody any “science”, have you?
You cant even describe the object of your cult’s worship – the GHE!
Keep dreaming.
PDO for Apr 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/pdo.jpeg
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.
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
https://i.stack.imgur.com/ly8dr.gif
Noice.
Coolio..
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*!
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.
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.
“over the target” = troll seeking ridicule and finding it.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
P.S. As was mentioned earlier if you change the scale from linear to log on the left then the band distribution changes from asymmetrical to symmetrical.
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/3-s2.0-B9780128119891000142-f14-05-9780128119891.jpg
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSU-weighting-functions.gif
https://dr282zn36sxxg.cloudfront.net/datastreams/f-d%3Ac50e02938e0884cfa8b93aab65d16efaac1f11330287d1bbf7edd31b%2BIMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD_TINY%2BIMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD_TINY.1
RLH wrote:
RLH, The lapse rate is determined by the fall in temperature with altitude. If you had taken the time to read the WIKI page on lapse rate, you might have noticed that the lapse rate is not a constant but is determined by local conditions, including convection.
You say altitude, I say height.
True the actual figure is a mix, locally based, of dry and moist lapse rates. (A dry adiabatic temperature profile will have lapse rates near 9.8 C/km, while the moist adiabatic lapse rate is near 6 C/km.)
The actual temperature, baring inversions, deceases as the altitude/height is increased.
richard…”The actual temperature, baring inversions, deceases as the altitude/height is increased”.
***
This is where I have problems with lapse rate theory. Local inversions are what they say, local. I cannot understand a definition of lapse rate that includes local weather and is not a representation of underlying static atmospheric conditions.
When we state local pressure, is it not riding on top of STP? Standard pressure at sea level is 1 atmosphere. As far as I understand, any variance is +/- from that value.
Standard temperature is defined as 0C (actually 273.15K). As altitude increases, do not both pressure and temperature decrease in step?
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.
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.
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.
Gordo wrote:
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?
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.
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.
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.
I know that you and RLH view this differently, by the way.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Global warming – from the coldest time of the last 10k yearz
https://youtu.be/LmmmgiPha_Y
in Greenland…
Are you saying that what happens in Greenland is not relevant to the rest of the planet
Are you saying that when it’s Winter in Greenland it’s Winter in Antarctica?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
CTV is a right-wing rag who is part of the climate cult. Did they print the date from which these so-called records are based? Betting it is 1960.
C’mon, Bordo.
You’re supposed to be above and beyond ad hom.
bad hair day.
Comb it with that:
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/extreme-april-heat-in-spain-portugal-morocco-algeria-almost-impossible-without-climate-change/
Just weather, wee willy.
C’mon, Bordo.
You like what Ren poasts, so it’s science.
Whatever you don’t like thus becomes weather.
Willard,
Are you really stupid enough to believe retards who wrote “The world is approaching the moment when nearly all heat waves will have a climate change fingerprint.”?
Surely anybody so deluded to believe that something (weather) can be affected by its average (climate) is living in some sort of SkyDragon fantasy world?
That’s the sort of thing some incompetent mathematician (Gavin Schmidt) or faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat (Michael Mann) would believe, I suppose. Do you think your content creator and unemployed physicist (Sabine Hossenfelder) would agree that an average has any influence over the numbers from which it is derived?
How are you going with your quest to find a description of the mythical “greenhouse effect”, anyway? Do you think the Chinese might have stolen it, perhaps? They get the blame for everything else that can’t be blamed on the Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, French, Brazilians, South Africans, Iraqis, Afghans, and all the rest. Dear oh dear, good old US intellectual property goes missing again!
Is that your excuse?
Mike Flynn,
See above –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1482092
Long live and prosper.
Worried Wee Willy,
Are you really stupid enough to believe retards who wrote The world is approaching the moment when nearly all heat waves will have a climate change fingerprint.”?
Instead of posting some completely irrelevant link, you could just be honest, and answer “yes”.
Keep avoiding reality, if you wish.
Mike, Mike,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1482656
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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
How does the AGW theory explain faster warming in the western Pacific?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The last 7 days ocean observations.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
P.S. We just had a 3 year La Nina. We have never had a 3 year El Nino.
El Ninos tend to be briefer but stronger.
Year ONI Max or Min State
1982 2.2 Strong El Nino
1997 2.4 Strong El Nino
2015 2.6 Strong El Nino
1988 -1.8 Strong La Nina
1999 -1.7 Strong La Nina
2010 -1.6 Strong La Nina
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Looks like the world has been cooling recently.
The last 7 days ocean observations.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
And thats worth repeating why?
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.
You seem to rely on people who got their forecasts wrong for the last 3 years (leading to Blinny and others being wrong in their forecasts also).
Why should we believe that they are right now? Is is because they are simply predicting an El Nino (again).
A year ago you were citing these people positively for a record-breaking la Nina. Michelle l’Heureux was someone whose work you took seriously. Today you are trashing them.
I wondered if we might take up the conversation with the latest developments, but it seems you just want to be argumentative. Oh well.
Why should we believe that they are right now? Is is because they are simply predicting an El Nino (again).
Why are you talking about el Nino? The conversation was about the xtended la Nina. Do you not remember?
Are you saying that La Nina does not happen cyclically with El Nino?
Are you saying that if I talk about an increased frequency of la Ninas recently, that I’m actually talking about el Ninos?
“You seem to rely on people who got their forecasts wrong for the last 3 years”
Oh? All the major forecasts are in general agreement:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20230426.nino_summary_4.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20230426.nino_summary_6.png
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?
“Much of this variation is due to the global circulation pattern”
Care to put a timescale to these variations?
Regional variation means spatial variation.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Are you saying that El Nino is bound to happen this year?
Who are you asking? I can’t see anyone in this saying anything that would prompt your question.
Well you seem to be relying on a big El Nino.
Sorry, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Could you please quote what you are responding to so I can understand you?
You seem to be relying on a big El Nino occurring this year.
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.
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?
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…
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.
barry…here’s a good article by Joe d’Aleo on the PDO.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_The_Great_Pacific_Climate_Shift_and_the_Relationship_of_Oceans_on_Global_Temperatures.pdf
Yes, I’ve seen it ages ago – 2008 or so. It’s a lot of curve-fitting to suggest that the PDO is the cause of global warming.
One of the problems with pinning global warming on the PDO is that the PDO is an oscillating pattern, while the global temp trend upwards. As in:
https://tinyurl.com/46ccanar
If global temps were tied to PDO, global temps would just have been long-term oscillating around a mean since 1900.
Not assessed is whether PDO leads or lags global temperature change, or leads or lags shifts in ENSO regimes. I was reading yesterday that ENSO researchers think ENSO leads PDO.
D’Aleo has combined the PDO and AMO into one signal. I wonder how it was done, considering that from the supposed 1976/77 climate shift, they swing in opposite directions.
https://tinyurl.com/3dju2wya
PDO for April 2023 from NOAA data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/pdo.jpeg
ENSO (from the 1870s) does not show much warming over that whole period.
If you take a shorter period then you can show some difference.
The ENSO data show no trend because they are detrended.
The HadISST1 data for the NINO3.4 region shows a small trend over the period.
https://i.imgur.com/8zZsTtJ.png
The compilers of HadISST1 also did a graph of the HadISST NINO3.4 region data.
https://i.imgur.com/Gmte7gQ.png
The global HasISST1 data shows a more marked rising trend from 1979.
https://i.imgur.com/Te7ARSP.png
HadISST1 publication paper that the latter 2 figures were taken from…
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JD002670
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
Last 50 y, 5 y smooth, linear trend (0.92 C) removed.
Small remainder (stdev 0.05) correlates to PDO and volcanoes.
Are you saying that NOAA is wrong?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/pdo.jpeg
Are you also saying that the big El Nino in 1878 did not happen?
Im showing data since 1970, and noting correlations. Your questions can’t be for me.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Im showing data since 1970, and noting correlations.”
Oh goody!
Do you want a gold star?
Perhaps Flynnson was abused by a scientist as a child. Nothing else can explain his deep antipathy to science and logical thinking.
I am asking you if the 1878 El Nino was at least as big as the one in 2016.
How would I know? The relevance of one-off events to climate change is what?
“How would I know?”
By reading the many papers that say that there was an El Nino in 1878.
“The relevance of one-off events to climate change is what?”
Maximums are not important now apparently.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Perhaps Flynnson was abused by a scientist as a child. Nothing else can explain his deep antipathy to science and logical thinking.”
You can’t produce any “science” to be antipathetic about! Are you denying that thermometers respond to the temperature of their environment?
What “science” are you blabbering about? Maybe you are one of those delusional SkyDragon cultists who claim that CO2 has magic planet warming properties, but you can’t actually describe how this might come about, or where this magical occurrence may be observed, measured, and documented. Some fools claim the existence of a “greenhouse effect”, which they can’t describe in any way that accords with reality! Are you one of those?
What “logical thinking” do you believe I demonstrate antipathy towards? You can’t produce examples because the dog ate them?
Oh dear, your ad hominem attack doesn’t seem to be all that well supported, does it?
Maybe you need to do some research into the scientific method, and try and figure out what you are talking about. You seem a little confused.
Carry on.
Getting deja vu on this 1878 El Nino. Seems you couldnt tell us its significance for climate before, either.
Serial ad-hom grenade thrower Swenson moans about ‘your ad hominem attack’.
Aww, poor pathetic troll.
And still adds nothing of value to the discussion.
” I wonder how it was done, considering that from the supposed 1976/77 climate shift, they swing in opposite directions. ”
Exactly, barry.
*
” Not assessed is whether PDO leads or lags global temperature change… ”
This you can estimate only when detrending the temperature series you compare to the PDO:
https://tinyurl.com/5n7d3hes
*
” … or leads or lags shifts in ENSO regimes. I was reading yesterday that ENSO researchers think ENSO leads PDO. ”
Indeed, also not assessed, as you can see in the comparison PDO vs. MEI:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vo2LXFNMd1ripgz99FQc2Svxq01U8ahx/view
(The indices were converted into percentages because their value ranges considerably differ.)
I wouldn’t bet on who’s the leader of anything here.
*
Most people btw ‘forget’ that the detrended AMO cannot be compared to temperature time series – unless you detrend them too.
Here is a comparison of AMO undetrended to Had-CRUT and GISS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1alycZI-rbKOXsiBKiRDpwI3L1T2LIoPb/view
*
Last not least: comparing the recent MEI to the OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) by inverting one of the two, is interesting as well:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bj5jp6xb8BqPByqwAxzo9foMeJtB486a/view
Sources
PDO
https://psl.noaa.gov/pdo/data/pdo.timeseries.hadisst1.1.csv
AMO undetrended
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/amon.us.long.mean.data
OLR
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/olr
Had-CRUT (Globe) and GISS (LOTI) as usual.
Binny,
And your point is . . . ?
Nothing? As usual?
Any fool can play with historical figures. You do, for example.
And what is YOUR point, Flynnson?
To distort, misrepresent, discredit and denigrate, as usual?
You dumb ass!
Binny,
You wrote –
“And what is YOUR point, Flynnson?
To distort, misrepresent, discredit and denigrate, as usual?
You dumb ass!”
My point was that asking you what your point was, was pointless, as you didn’t have one. Your response merely serves to reinforce my point.
You can’t even provide examples of the distortions, misrepresentations, discreditings, and denigrations which you claim absolve you from responsibility for being a pointless data dissector!
Don’t blame me because you’ve wasted your time trying to appear intelligent by imitating a 12 year old graphic artist. That’s not actually science, but you don’t seem to care. Nor do I, come to think of it.
Oh well, I tried. Go off and try using different colored pencils. Maybe the future will be clearer if you do. Good luck.
Tamino once posted that he had analysed the AMO response time and found that it lagged global temps. His opinion is that it is an alias of global temps.
I can’t remember if anyone has done a similar analysis for the PDO. I don’t know how one might determine an inflection point in such noisy data, down to the monthly scale.
Thanks for the graphs. Lead/lag is impossible to tell visually.
PDO from NOAA data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/pdo.jpeg
ONI for Mar 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/oni.jpeg
barry
Tamino has been discredited here and at WUWT since ever, especially by those who never would be able to scientifically contradict him.
He is a great specialist in time series statistics, and surprised many people when presenting ‘change point’ analysis results helping very much in comparing analogous time series. { His last head post is dated 2022, August 5, hopefully he’s still alive. }
To ‘enjoy’ the dumb Flynnson, who never has anything relevant to say and hence permanently urges in saying something irrelevant, here is more of this ‘fool playing’ with heavily colo[u]red , historical figures:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12HtQq7eVIaJ4zn182I6Kzs5fhxxvZzT7/view
I tried to find out how ‘Its the Sun, stupid’ might appear when lagging solar wrt the rest using different shifts, but… no success.
It is as stupid as is ‘Its CO2, stupid’.
Yes, the solar correlation to global temps broke down 40 years ago. I read about that in 2007, and the correlation has only gotten worse since then.
Or we could be seeing longer timescales (say 60-70 years) in the major components of the temperature series.
Sources
MEI historical
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.ext/table.ext.html
MEI since 1979
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
MEIv2 for Mar 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/meiv2.jpeg
Sometimes, the ‘official’ time series exist in different variants, what is a bit confusing.
I used in the PDO vs MEI percentile graph above
http://ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ersst/v5/index/ersst.v5.pdo.dat
But today I discovered
https://psl.noaa.gov/pdo/data/pdo.timeseries.ersstv3b.csv
https://psl.noaa.gov/pdo/data/pdo.timeseries.ersstv5.csv
and
https://psl.noaa.gov/pdo/data/pdo.timeseries.hadisst1.1.csv
which of course begins somewhat later.
*
Why this variant salad?
Well ersstv5 is probably later than ersstv3b.
barry
You wrote above:
” The ENSO data show no trend because they are detrended. ”
I can’t really agree. If this was the case, MEI V2 wouldn’t show any significant trend decline for 1979-2023.
Not ENSO is detrended: rather, the SST data out of which some of its indices are computed has itself no trend (only 0.01 C / decade for 1871-2022 for NCEP and HadISST1 SST).
But anyone who has compared different historical SST series (COBE-SST2, ERSST V3b and V5, HadISST1 SST) knows that even their Tropics resp. global data do not show a very high trend (0.04 C / decade):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yt24KzRb0qzwMplIF25nHgDIUayHfIAB/view
*
I read here about El Nino 1877/78 allegedly being the ‘greatest evah’.
This is not so terribly correct.
Here is the top 25 of a sort of MEI’s historical and recent indices since 1871:
1983 5: 2.89
1983 4: 2.79
1983 2: 2.74
1983 3: 2.68
1983 1: 2.57
1998 4: 2.55
1878 3: 2.50
1982 12: 2.48
1998 2: 2.43
1878 2: 2.36
1982 11: 2.28
1998 3: 2.27
1941 5: 2.27
1998 5: 2.26
1997 6: 2.25
1998 1: 2.23
2015 9: 2.21
1972 8: 2.21
1997 8: 2.20
1997 9: 2.17
1877 11: 2.17
1997 7: 2.11
2015 10: 2.11
1972 7: 2.09
1877 10: 2.07
*
According to NOAA’s MEI (which suddenly gained interest among the Coolistas because its La Nina 2020-2023 indices went way below those of NOAA NCEP), the ‘biggest’ El Nino was in 1982/83.
1982/83 is ignored by most people who use to confound UAH’s LT data with ENSO indices, which of course is wrong.
We don’t see this El Nino event in any temperature series because it has beeen completely hidden by the El Chichon eruption in 1982, which had ‘only’ VEI 5 but was very rich in aerosols.
“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”
https://www.insidescience.org/news/historys-greatest-el-nino-may-have-caused-severe-19th-century-famine
Short ENSO data can show a trend just due to variation.
ONI is detrended SST data. The Japanese also detrend NINO3 SSTs, like NOAA, with a 30 year sliding window. As I recall MEI run a principal component analysis for the suite of variables that underlie the anomalies, which effectively detrends the SSTs.
Are you disputing the source I quoted or just disagreeing with its conculsion?
I’m talking to Bindidon. If you want clarity just read our exchange.
I thought we had agreed that you always see things getting warmer.
” I thought we had agreed that you always see things getting warmer. ”
Really, Blindsley Hood?
I would rather say that barry and I view you as one of those Coolistas denying any aspect related to warming.
Apart from the fact that you seem to admit the lunar spin: what is the difference between you and Robertson, Blindsley Hood?
Any idea?
Me? I am not a coolist (except in your mind). Just someone who follows the data (as my blog shows) https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/.
Blindsley Hood
This is just a start:
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/data/quinn/quinn15251987.gif
More tomorrow when I have some idle time to comment your so ‘highly competent’ source.
Looks like you are just confirming that El Nino has been present in its current strength right back to the late 1500s.
Well I hope you read widely as there are many papers that concluded that the 1878 event was very strong indeed.
P.S. You might like to read what Michelle LHeureux had to say on the matter.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/11/jcli-d-19-0650.1.xml
You might like to read to the end:
So you agree. 1878 and 2016 events are the same? So the maximums have not increased at all in that period.
Check out the series, Richard –
1877, 1982, 1997 and 2015.
Anything that stands out?
“the 1878 event was very strong indeed.”
And yet RLH, you have been unable to identify how this one-off event in the central Pacific, is significant to global climate change.
Study of probability distribution of El Nino/La Nina magnitudes.
Gaussian.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD013508
“A 19971998 El Nio will occur once in approximately 70 20 years, while an El Nio 25% larger will occur once in approximately 700 200 years.”
It puts 1878 in with the largest late 20th century events.
But even if a bit larger, such events may be rare, but not unexpected.
And??
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
More snow in the Sierra Nevada.
https://i.ibb.co/t3MVP9c/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-05-06-150955.png
A chocolate factory in Belgium.
https://www.chocolatenation.be/en
What does chocolate have to do with snowfall?
What does Snowfall in Sierra Nevada have to do with anything?
A lot of energy and water is locked up in snowfall.
Lots of calories in a chocolate factory.
In Belgium?
In general.
1 oz of Chocolate, 152 calories
Latent heat of ice (snow), 80 calories per gram (times 28.3 grams to an oz).
I also think there is a lot more volume of snow than there is chocolate.
Chocolate with frosting on top can look like snow on a mountain.
I think that the Sierra Nevada got a little more than a dusting.
Are you suggesting that insurance premiums are on the rise and a key driver is climate change?
So now it is insurance premiums as well as chocolate that is driving climate change.
So now snowfall is driving global cooling.
Apparently global warming is causing more snow.
Apparently contrarians forget about the ClausiusClapeyron relation.
Nothing.
What does an 1878 el Nino have to do with PDO data from 1970 onward?
But if we had the ‘biggest ever’ El Nino in 1878, what then the growth in equatorial temperature?
When you refer to the “biggest” El Nino in 1878, do you mean the highest absolute temperature or the highest anomaly?
If the latter, what was the baseline for the 1878 El Nino and how does that compare with the 2016 El Nino and the current baseline?
Numbers, please.
I was referring to something quoted by another source (see elsewhere).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1482850
How can you say that when the increase in the frequency of la Nina events over the last 40 years has recently achieved statistical significance?
Was 1878 only 40 years ago?
Was 1878 a la Nina?
1878 was an El Nino year.
Then it has nothing to do with the increased frequency of la Ninas in the last 40 years. A topic you seem keen to avoid. Perhaps because you require a strong el Nino this year?
What has what happened in 1878 to do with what has happened in the last 40 years?
“you require a strong el Nino this year?”
You are the one suggesting that, not me.
“What has what happened in 1878 to do with what has happened in the last 40 years?”
Absolutely nothing, and yet you keep talking about 1878 when I’ve been talking about the last 40 years and la Ninas.
I’m afraid it is you who has the fixation with el Ninos, not me.
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
Are you saying that this is caused by the (now past|) La Nina or the upcoming (according to you) El Nino?
RLH,
Are you saying that Arctic sea ice is tied to the Julian-Madden Oscillation?
Did I say that?
Did you say anything?
Yup. Whereas you just said nonsense.
Did I say anything?
Nothing of value. As usual.
Whereas No U.
No U involved.
Are you saying you’re just saying nonsense?
U are just an idiot.
Found an answer to your riddle yet, Richard?
The riddle as to if you are an idiot? There is no doubt about that.
So you don’t even recall your riddle, dummy?
The riddle as to if you are an idiot? That’s solved already.
So you’re going to play dumb again, dummy?
Why are you avoiding the discussion about the recent increased frequency of la Ninas, RLH? Is it because you require a strong el Nino this year?
You are the one suggesting a large El Nino, not me.
I’ve never said such a thing, while you’ve definitely said you’re worried about global warming.
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.
“An unusually chilly start to May in India and eastern US”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/05/weather-tracker-unusually-chilly-start-may-india-us
Are you saying that the PDO isn’t responsible for weather in the UK?
Are you saying that the PDO caused what is happening in the USA and India?
Are you denying the influence of the PDO?
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.
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.
I, unlike others, just go with what the data says.
No.
You, like some others, just go with what your gut feeling says.
Strange how my blog is full of graphs that just plot data with VP HQLP filters and 5 pass, multi-pass S-G on them isn’t it?
Now you finally admit how deep you do manipulate us by running 5 pass filter sequences you dare to specify ‘5 year pass’ or the like.
My maths has ben proven to be correct. The base filter is one from VP and the S-G projection is one I added.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/first-post/
“We can verify that the parameters chosen are correct because the line closely follows the full kernel filter if used as a training/verification guide. I have removed the early part of the line for one very good reason. It is the same reason why this should not be considered an absolute guide to the future also. Like LOWESS, S-G will ‘whip’ around on new data like a caterpillar searching for a new leaf. It is likely that it will follow some similar trajectory but this is an estimate, not a certainty.”
P.S. My 5 year low pass is a 60/50/39 month VP. A cascaded triple pass running mean as per Vaughn Pratt.
” P.S. My 5 year low pass is a 60/50/39 month VP. A cascaded triple pass running mean as per Vaughn Pratt. ”
Here is one, generated last year:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sA-R00AZSucWYKd9M_MMT2uo473MH9as/view
… a second one:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oDK8ig7oWbtLgzCoHnh-C4hZOeVvObjD/view
… and a third one, dated March of this year, including NOAA STAR LT:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X43KTM8arJ6RdHgnBxd5GMLUd6xp2Gxi/view
*
I’m 100 % sure that if your filter outputs are flatter than mine then yours are not 100 % CTRM 60/50/39 resp. S-G 60.
“I’m 100 % sure that if your filter outputs are flatter than mine”
You’re 100% wrong in that then. The code I use (in c#) uses exactly VPs recommendations. See the fuller post above for more details. I have even published how to achieve the same results using Excel (that should be right up your street).
The facts are that VP uses a triple pass running mean cascaded together to produce a low distortion full kernel output.
In order to verify my use of S-G as a projection, I also use a 5 pass method (that others recommended) as my fuller posts shows.
Stop your arrogant blathering, Blindsley Hood, and show the charts corresponding EXACTLY to mines!
Not only I want to see your three outputs, some others want to laugh with me…
UAH Mar 2023 Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/04/uah-global.jpeg
RSS Feb 2023 Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/rss-global.jpeg
“some others want to laugh with me”
Sone others want to just laugh at you.
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.
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.
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…
You going to say anything about the topic, or just snarl like a dog?
I won’t hold my breath.
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.
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.
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.
The reason you believe my comments are contemptuous, troll barry, is that they include a heavy dose of reality.
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”
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/
It’s pretty sad when alarmists have to promote their dumb theories of climate change on the backs of people suffering from natural disaster.
Winter is coming to Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/2MBt2FV/gfs-T2ma-aus-9.png
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.
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.
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.
“Even in the Northern Territory, the NT Govt. warns”
That’s where Mike Flynn lives too. Funny that.
Yes, winter tends to occur every year, even in Australia!
Funny, that.
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
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
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.
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.
gb…you’re not thinking of stowing away on one of Musk’s spaceships, are you?
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”.
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
Berkelely Earth are a load of lying alarmists. Judith Curry parted ways with them when they started lying.
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.
UAH and NOAA/STAR.
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
“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.
Astronomically you would be correct but, for instance, the British met office uses 30N/30S as that division.
The observation about quartiles still stands.
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’.
C’mon, Bordo. Twas a quote.
Dry days. Drought. Extreme drought. All different levels of dryness.
Try not to be an absolute asshat.
wee willy tries to squirm out of the inference in his post, that drought in Afghanistan is related to anthropogenic causes.
After denying facts, Bordo goes for logic.
Will he succeed?
Stay tuned for Bordo’s Daily Limbo!
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!
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!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Six days into the new month and the page has already turned totally retarded
About average.
Don’t be too harsh on Bordo, Eboy.
Just posting to offer an example of nested posts.
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.
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.
“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”!
Yeah, they knew it all the time.
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/14833
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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
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.
“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.
Well, it’s better than some who said the heat was “lost” in the ocean.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Snowfall in the mountains in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/Z6h2VRS/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-05-07-085642.png
Link not found.
Yup.
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.
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
Tell us how exactly you use this to get all your forecast perfectly backwards
You tell us first why you can only make such stupid remarks, dachshund.
If you understand the system you can predict the future results, in your case that is zero.
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.
I predicted cooling 5 years ago, It has been cooling from then on,
Why didn’t you predict it ???
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.
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 ???
Because, according to Blinny, everything is always getting warmer.
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.
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
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.
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?
Robertson
You are not only one of the dumbest posters here.
You are the worst liar of all them.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
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
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.
> If the world was warmer, there would be less drought.
\_(ツ)_/
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.
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.
Did You Know?
Water generally evaporates more quickly at higher temperatures:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/08/climate-change-and-droughts-whats-the-connection/
When it evaporates quickly, where does it go?
Computer, What is a Drought
Source: https://www.c2es.org/content/drought-and-climate-change
Well, the +5000 year drought in Sahara doesn’t just end, it also reduces droughts elsewhere.
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.
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/
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.
In matters of uselessness we can only bow to you, Mike Flynn.
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.
wee willy…”A drought is a deficiency…”
***
Like the deficiency in wee willy’s brain, which is a vast wasteland.
> We dont need the transpiration part
Bordo’s imbecility shines through:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evapotranspiration
Like I said, evapouration works fine, nothing to do with transpiration.
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
Source
https://dataverse.geus.dk/api/access/datafile/45137?gbrecs=true
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.
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.
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.
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].
These sources are probably a bit more trustworthy than yours:
https://tinyurl.com/2kbbk845 — (d-c)
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
https://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/forecast-prevision/solar-solaire/solarflux/sx-5-flux-en.php
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/MgII_composite.dat
Ok.
But, https://www.spaceweather.com/
gives pictures and stuff:
https://spaceweathergallery2.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=195756
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.
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.
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%
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.
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.
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?
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/
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
Strange, then, that NOAA agrees with the approach that UAH uses.
You have TOTALLY missed the point here.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.
Bindidon, I think you missed the point of my last post. You previously wrote:
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:
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.
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.
test m
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Bordo continues to make things up:
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.
> Yet another contrarian
…canard, that is.
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.
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.
Truth isn’t indefensible, Mike.
What are you braying about?
Wily Wee Willy,
Neither Trenberth nor you can even describe the mythical “greenhouse effect”, can you?
Mike,
Perhaps you should reconsider your overall stratergery:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1482092
Cheers.
“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.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Are you trying to resurrect your silly idea that our actual global warming is caused by the inner core of the Earth, Mike?
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?
Mike, Mike,
Are you really gonna play dumb about your volcanoes bit?
Mike Flynn,
Do you recall the email number by any chance?
I do.
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.
So you do not recall the email number, Mike.
Fine.
Nobody expects silly sock puppets to have any attention to detail.
Keep braying!
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.
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.
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.
TL:DR, Mike.
Have you found the triple point of water yet?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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?
Oh Noes, what a dumb ass.
Not only dumb, but also incredibly, absolutely humorless.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
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!
No real scientist would say anything that dumb. The Vikings were farming Greenland 1000 years ago. Suddenly, alarmists are claiming Greenland has warmed to the point you can farm but nowhere around there can farm.
C’mon, Bordo:
https://climateball.net/but-this-odd-place#greenland
Yeah, no farming in Greenland.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://natur.gl/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ENG-Synthesis-Report-on-Agriculture-in-GL.pdf
Little Willy, bob, please stop trolling.
> Water is obviously a liquid, with peculiar properties.
The things one learns reading Sky Dragon cranks!
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.
“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.
barry,
Care to try answering Gordon’s question? No?
I wonder why?
Only joking. I know why – you don’t know.
It’s a rhetorical question, lame-brain.
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.
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.
Yep, you’re wrong.
Well, that’s authoritative!
Why?
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.
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.
The temperature scales were set TO the different phases of water AND with fahrenheit, to the temperature of the body. These scales were NOT devised and then magically fit with water phase changes. The fahrenheit scale was revised because it didn’t cleanly hit 180F for the point water boils.
You have this incredibly arse up.
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/cliffsnotes/subjects/sciences/how-did-we-end-up-with-both-fahrenheit-and-celsius-scales
I am no longer astonished that you get basics like this completely wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mike Flynn,
Please remind our readers of the triple point of water.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
For E. Swanson and barry, re. LT vs. MT/TP/LS
See the comment above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1483451
See also how NOAA/STAR now supports UAH.
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?
So you agree that RSS is now an outlier.
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?
Are you disputing that RSS is now an outlier, especially in the early record.
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?
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html
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.
Not according to NOAA/STAR v5.
https://imgur.com/a/Of4f2oo
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. “
https://imgur.com/gallery/gg7DENf
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?
That’s not what the image says.
https://imgur.com/gallery/gg7DENf
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.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2023/every/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2023/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:2003/to:2023/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:2013/to:2023/every/trend
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.
” 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”?
“The graph show the differences from Star v4.”
and RSS.
“How do you get from this to ‘UAH is not the outlier’?”
Because the UAH v6 – STAR v5 is closer to 0
“Do try to pay attention next time.”
And the TMT series produces how much percentage wise of the TLT series?
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?
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.
“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.
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
Sorry for the bad html there.
Here’s the link again.
“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?
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.
“The graph show the differences from Star v4”
So that is why it says STAR v5 in multiple lines in the graph /sarc
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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: Any comment of why STAR agrees so well with woodfortrees?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.45
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.
RLH,
Any comment on why you lie that RSS does not make any corrections to satellite data?
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.
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.
Thank you very much, bdgwx.
Let me add however that it is not my intention to play with weighting variants.
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.
Thanks.
I withdraw my previous comment, and will generate today evening ‘TLT = 1.430*TMT- 0.462*TTP + 0.032*TLS’.
Our garden has absolute priority!
Hey Bindidon,
I’m not exactly sure what you’re driving at, perhaps because I didn’t follow the whole conversation as it developed. I’ll keep reading and learn some more.
What if don’t find mineable water on the Moon?
Meaning, you go to 5 to 8 places in southern lunar polar region where you imagine there is could be mineable lunar and don’t find
any or don’t find enough. And do couple trips to northern lunar polar region, and again, nada.
It seems what NASA does, is start it’s Mars crew exploration of Mars.
But what does all the other countries which are focused on the Moon?
It seems other looking for mineable water, you explore Lava tubes {caves} on the Moon. If there are any in polar regions, I would focus on those, but more interesting ones could be no where close to lunar polar regions.
Another aspect is if launch costs [from Earth] lower enough, you could make rocket fuel without needing water. Roughly large scale mining of H2 and more 40% of mass of lunar surface is oxygen- which oxidized with AL, iron, silicon, etc. So, mine iron which can sorted because it’s magnetic. Remove iron, and sort the rest.
But launch cost lowering a lot in next 5 years- isn’t likely.
I guess you just focus science things- but that could just back looking for caves- if can find a cave goes to any significant depth- it’s going be pretty important in terms of science.
entropic…”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”.
***
That in no way proves Trenberth’s claim that heat which is allegedly missing in the atmosphere is being stored in the ocean.
It does raise a good point, however. If the Argo buoys submerge then surface occasionally to take air temperature how accurate can a thermometer reading be after being under water and surfacing with water flying everywhere? Not to mention sea spray.
Gordon,
As I understand it, ARGO floats – float!
In other words, they travel with the water which surrounds them, at any given depth while maintaining neutral buoyancy.
I wonder if the operators realise that oceans are heated from beneath, and that ocean currents can run in opposite directions at different depths. Any “profile” is nonsensical without spatial location of the measuring instrument at the time of measurement.
Meaningless measurements obtained at great expense.
Here’s a statement of ARGO objectives –
“The primary goal of the Argo program is to maintain a global array of autonomous profiling floats integrated with other elements of the climate observing system.”
The goal of ARGO is to maintain ARGO.
“Meaningless measurements obtained at great expense.”
Measurements? I don’t need no stinking measurements. I ‘know’ all I need to know, sez our resident science hater/denier, Swenson.
There are two ways of calculating the increase in ocean heat content. The first uses Argo temperature data. The second uses the rise in sea level as thermal expansion increases the ocean volume.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content#/media/File%3A1955-_Ocean_heat_content_-_NOAA.svg
Rate of increase is 10^22 Joules/year.
The energy imbalance between incoming radiation from space and outgoing radiation is driving global warming and ocean heating.
The imbalance is 1 Watt/metre^2. This results in a net heat uptake of 10^22 Joules/year.
Trenberth has found his missing heat.
EM,
Trenberth’s “missing heat” cannot be found, because it’s, well, missing!
The nonsense about “thermal expansion” is just, well, nonsense. Warm floats, and cools at night. Sunlight does not heat the ocean depths, and mixing is rubbish. Any warmer water released into the depths floats, and loses heat to its surroundings, until it is exactly the same temperature as its environment.
Oceans are heated from the bottom, and the volume of new sea floor being created by mid-ocean ridges “. . . are able to change sea levels positively or negatively by about 985 feet (300 m) from present values . . .”, according to one source. Nobody knows for sure.
On the other hand, other researchers point to other factors affecting ocean volume, concluding “This mechanism could explain why continental freeboard has remained approximately constant since the Archean despite probable increases in continental area.”
You don’t have a clue what you are talking about, do you?
I see now why you do not link to your sources. Let’s give the full quote:
“Changes in ridge volume are able to change sea levels positively or negatively by about 985 feet (300 m) from present values, at rates of about 0.4 inch (1 cm) EVERY 1,000 YEARS.”
https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/plate-tectonics/sea-level-changes-supercontinents-and-life.html
You’re citing tectonic changes of millenia while speaking of less than 20 years of ARGO floats.
You cut the sentence short at EXACTLY the point where it would start to change the meaning you want to convey. You dishonest PoS.
And I thought that you claimed that 20 years worth of data was not statistically significant.
That’s Barry’s MO. When I told him his authority figure, the IPCC, had admitted a flat trend over 15 years from 1998 – 2012, Barry intimated that 15 years is not significant. He is oblivious to the claim that CO2 warming should have no flat trends of that length, that the more it increases the faster the warming.
Your comment is not even tangentially related to mine, RLH. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? No, I think rather you suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder.
Gordon, you can’t even get your facts straight. “Significant” is not the same as “statistically significant,” for just one example. CO2 warming can have flat trends of longer than 15 years if natural drivers combine against it, and depending on the rate of atmos CO2 increase over the period. On a pure statistical level, the variability in global temperatures means that statistically significant trends of a similar value to the variability won’t emerge for at least 25 to 30 years.
The ‘claim’ that CO2 warming should have no flat periods of 15 years is unfounded, and the examples given by the usual suspects are simply cherry-picks that start with a high temperature anomaly.
Gordon,
“Barry intimated that 15 years is not significant.”
No, the IPCC when referring to this period said it was not statistically significant, nor representative of long term trends.
I’ve quoted that for you many times, but you can’t keep your facts straight and espouse that I ‘intimated’ this context.
So you’re happy to quote the IPCC on the flat trend, but trash them for what they say about it. Your insight is duly discarded.
I see Swanson has already mentioned sea level.
The reason we know categorically that the oceans are taking up heat is because sea level is rising. Unless someone has a likelier candidate? Is it a change in overall salinity? The force of gravity getting weaker, perhaps? The basins between continents getting narrower? Aliens on the bottom of the oceans playing a practical joke?
barry,
Maybe you could learn some geology and physics, and read a few peer reviewed papers from real scientists.
Your fantasies about knowing “categorically” that your dreams are valid substitutes for fact are just cultist beliefs, founded on nothing.
My response to Entropic Man above may not suit your delusions, so feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong. You may wish to quote my exact words if you don’t want to look like a deranged cultist building strawmen, or not, as you wish.
Have fun.
You said nothing substantial either to Eman or myself. Only hypostheses can be falsified and you have offered none, as usual, just bile and waffle.
If you think you’ve said something substantive, prove me wrong and state clearly what it is. What, for example, do you think is the specific mechanism/s for rising sea level over the last 100 years?
barry, please stop trolling.
bdgwx
As promised: here are two comparisons of UAH 6.0 LT anomalies for the Globe:
– (1) original LT versus UAH’s weighting (1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
– (2) original versus weighting by Zoe et al. (1.430*MT- 0.462*TP + 0.032*LS)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11SFfVcuOjFPa8ak_Qgk-AvqpWULoMLPm/view
Linear estimates Dec 1978-Mar 2023, in C / decade:
– UAH weighting: 0.13 +- 0.006
– Zoe weighting: 0.12 +- 0.006
Who do you think needs your endless slicing and dicing of past temperatures ? It’s as useless as last week weather forecast.
We all already have the past temperatures, where is your forecast ???
Eben,
Binny is obviously a delusional SkyDragon cultist.
Why would he bother writing “As promised: here are two comparisons of UAH 6.0 LT anomalies for the Globe: . . . ” if he wasn’t?
These dummies think that comparing different numbers to each other for no good reason at all, is a sign of superior intelligence. Compared with a 2 year old child who cannot do basic arithmetic, I suppose they are.
Looking at historical data won’t help to predict the future of the atmosphere. They would do at least as well by examining the entrails of chickens. They could donate the rest of the chicken to the poor. At least somebody would benefit from their efforts to appear clever.
Hello, teethless but nonetheless ankle-biting dachshund.
Who do you think needs to read your endless, meaningless, reckless ranting against me?
Apart Flynnson and Robertson of course, who both never miss an opportunity to second bloody nonsense.
If you had a brain, you would understand that all people able to predict must base their predictions on the past’s analysis.
But you’ve got no brain, dachshund, and that’s why your supposed ‘predictions’ aren’t even worth the dustbin.
Where are your predictions ???
As usual: completely stoopid blah blah by arrogant ignoramuses.
Binny,
As opposed to your brilliant description of the “greenhouse effect”, I guess?
Only joking, you were so busy making silly comments that you mislaid your GHE description, didn’t you?
Feel free to prove me wrong. Or are you just another completely stoopid arrogant ignoramus talking blah blah?
The world wonders.
As you have proved, STAR now agrees pretty well (to within the last decimal place) with UAH, with RSS being the outlier.
https://imgur.com/a/Of4f2oo
https://imgur.com/gallery/gg7DENf
Blindsley H00d
” As you have proved, STAR now agrees pretty well… ”
I never proved anything the like.
You on the contrary proved once more the horrifying level of your stubborn, opinionated egocentricity.
You aren’t interested in discussions: what matters to you is solely to show off with your egomaniacal Coolista blah blah.
Bliny doesn’t like facts (especially those that go against him).
Earlier, a delusional SkyDragon cultist congratulates another –
“I cant contribute much except to say that I can confirm the calculations you did for the absolute global average temperature by month. Im actually glad you did it as it gives me confidence that I did it correctly as well.”
Woo-hoo! Cultist 1 confirms that Cultist 2 can waste time with equal ability!
I eagerly await more cultists confirming their ability to waste even more time, effort, and money achieving precisely nothing at all!
[laughing at own attempt at humour]
Meanwhile – the people who just made the law to ban gasoline cars think atmosphere contains 5% of CO2.
https://youtu.be/bJfrKNR3K2k
And data slicer Bindidork thinks he can power his lamp with a cube of ice
(Nobel prize pending)
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471866
Eben,
The usual ill-informed nitwit thinking that putting “right?” at the end of the sentence will stifle any laughter from the audience. The rest of the nitwits just followed along. They formed a consensus, so the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere must be between 5 and 8 percent, right?
Averaging the consensus would surely produce a percentage accurate to 0.00001 percent, right?
Apologies for any typos. I’m laughing just a bit, but I feel sorry for people who allow dimwits like these to make laws.
Life goes on, right?
> As I understand it, ARGO floats – float!
You heard it first at Roy’s, the best Sky Dragon cranks honey pot!
Woeful Wee Willy,
You didnt realise that, fool?
You must be a delusional SkyDragon cultist, reduced to lame trolling attempts because you can’t even describe the mythical GHE!
Is that your excuse for not realising that ARGO floats are a waste of time, effort, and money in relation to endeavouring to predict the unpredictable?
Carry on being an incompetent fool.
“The best Sky Dragon cranks honey pot!”
That’s so, sweet.
How often do the individual Argos floats measure the profile temperatures each month?
Are you hoping your minions will dive into google for you? Or is it possible you would look this up yourself?
They cycle once every 10 days, in the same parcel of water they float in.
If you have done that analysis already, what is the presumed accuracy given that frequency and dispertions?
P.S. Thank you for thinking I have minions.
RLH,
it’s worse than you thought. The rising float may ascend through different layers of ocean flowing in different directions at different speeds – none of which is recorded by the float.
The measurebators in charge of the ARGO program don’t seem to realise that the fluid dynamics of the ocean are chaotic in any case.
All well and good, measuring random temperatures to 0.005 C, but what’s the point? Data for data’s sake, unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
“If you have done that analysis already, what is the presumed accuracy given that frequency and dispertions?”
No, I haven’t read the documentation and memorised the analysis done by qualified people. So do tell us, and hopefully get to your point without dragging it out like a cheap cliff-hanger. If you have something to say, try not to suck all the attention in the room be doling it out in tiny portions.
“Deployments of Argo floats began in 1999, and the 3,000-float goal was reached in November 2007. “
ARGO is an acronym of 4 letters.
What is a profile temperature, and a profile temperature of what?
The only accuracy made for Argos is that is of the individual sensors. No accuracy of sampling measurements is given considering the relative sparsity in distribution and 10 day sampling period.
“ARGO is an acronym of 4 letters.”
That makes it more accurate does it?
“What is a profile temperature”
Do you not know how ARGO floats work?
Are you saying an acronym makes something less accurate?
No.
So you must be saying that you forgot about all the concerns you had about what satellites really measure back in the days where UAH was the outlier, Richard.
Are you saying that NOAA don’t now agree with UAH?
So you’re saying you want me to find it back for you.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Visible influence of the geomagnetic field in the north on the circulation in the stratosphere. It promises to be a cool May in the US.
https://i.ibb.co/618KpgY/gfs-z100-nh-f240.png
https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif
The sun has cooled a little for the last 3 years.
3 weak La Ninas as a result of lowering global temperature.
Several years of uptick in Arctic Sea Ice area in extent .
PIOMAS also increasing.
The second pause extending to 8 years despite an El Nio at the start.
UAH shows this very well but the close to earth surfaced homogenised airport temperatures continue to go up.
–
Using the worst cherry picking, personal experience in Southern Australia, it has definitely been cooler and colder and wetter than usual these last 3 years.
Hopefully the penny drops soon.
Natural forces causing no warming over 8 years = multidecadal warming cancelled?
Impressive!
All warming is caused by CO2. Nothing is ascribed to ‘natural’.
I’m certain that you are alone in that opinion.
Did I miss the /sarc off that comment? That is your position, not mine.
“Scientists have pieced together a record of the earths climate by analyzing a number of indirect measures of climate, such as ice cores, tree rings, glacier lengths, pollen remains, and ocean sediments, and by studying changes in the earths orbit around the sun. This record shows that the climate varies naturally over a wide range of time scales, but this variability does not explain the observed warming since the 1950s. Rather, it is extremely likely (> 95%) that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.”
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
So more than 100%.
Keep hoping for less, Richard.
Is > 95% more than 100%?
Likelihood cannot be more than 100%, dummy.
You said it, not me.
What you think I said and what I said are two different things, Richard.
One can earn 100% of their salary by being a professional better while having a few bets making up for more than 100% of their actual profit.
RLH,
let’s see – you’ve ;ied that I’ve said anything or care about any el Nino that may form this year.
You’ve lied that I think CO2 is the only thing that could cause warming.
Any other false views you’d like to ascribe to me, or are you happy to tell only the 2 lies about what I think?
So now you won’t agree that > 95% is down to CO2.
Could you be less clear, please? I almost understood you.
‘All warming is caused by CO2. Nothing is ascribed to natural.’
“That is your position, not mine.”
RLH erects quite a tall strawman, there.
So now you wont agree that > 95% is down to CO2
As you know, we all agree that natural cyclic phenomena such as ENSO, PDO, etc affect global temperature.
They just don’t explain the recent warming trend.
entropic…”RSS tends to follow the surface datasets”.
***
And we know the surface data sets are fudged. Speaks for itself, RSS sold out, leaving UAH as the only legitimate global temperature database.
NOAA and STAR now agree with UAH.
Realclimate did a post on the difference between the satellite and surface records in January.
https://www.realclimate.org/images/compare_obs_base1981-1990-600×492.png
You’ll notice that the surface temps are bracketed by the satellite temps. RSS is above the surface temps and STAR and UAH both below.
Qualitatively, the most simple reading is that the surface data sets are more ‘mature’ than the satellite sets – there seems to be less structural uncertainty.
But there’s no definitive answer. What they all have in common is near perfect correlation on year to year variability, and all have a rising trend over the same period. Apart from that the difference in trends is larger between the satellite data sets than the surface data sets.
Here’s the article.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/04/a-noaa-star-dataset-is-born/
As both you and realclimate agree, NOAA/STAR and UAH agree quite well, with RSS being the outlier in the satellite data sets.
And this is interesting why?
Because RSS was the last hope of the warmistas like you.
RLH reveals the reason for his infatuation with the UAH LT data and the recently updated STAR v5. Since these data report a lower trend, i.e., temperature increase, he insists that they must be correct and the RSS data is wrong. Of course, his assertions ignore the scientific explanations for the differences. He has provided no evidence that UAH or STAR more accurately capture temperature changes in the atmosphere than the RSS data analysis.
It is strange how STAR and woodfortrees agree so well.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.45
https://imgur.com/gallery/gg7DENf
What about looking at this chart?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:60/mean:50/mean:39/plot/rss/mean:60/mean:50/mean:39/offset:-0.356
It shows a 60/50/39 month CTRM comparison of the two.
The similarity of the recent slopes is interesting, to say the least…
Alternatively you could do
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/rss-global.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/04/uah-global.jpeg
and
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.45
Or if you want a 5 year filter
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:60/mean:50/mean:39/plot/rss/mean:60/mean:50/mean:39/offset:-0.45
Which do you think gives differences that are like
https://imgur.com/gallery/gg7DENf
THAT’s what you’re interested in? Some Punch and Judy climateball fight?
Fuck me, you’re shallow.
Climbing down to your level is what gets me in trouble.
Don’t flatter yourself. You keep assigning views to me that I don’t hold in order to have a fight. You’ve done all up and down this thread.
You told me repeatedly I “require” an el Nino this year when I haven’t said anything about that in this or any other thread.
You trashed the very people you relied on last year when I linked for you – out of collegial friendliness – an update to the work you were so interested in last year (extended la Nina).
You said I think, “All warming is caused by CO2. Nothing is ascribed to natural,” when I have many times here referred to natural long-term climate drivers, such as the Milankovitch cycles, insolation, volcanoes etc.
And now you tell me I’m vexed about RSS recently becoming an outlier among 3 satellite datasets.
These fantasies you project onto me come from your need to win a dust-up on a blog. Why? Is your life so terrible that you must concoct these stories in order to feel like a winner?
barry…you’ve got the religion. You react vehemently to any critique of anthropogenic warming, valid or not.
When I posted about the announced 15 year flat trend by the IPCC, you called me a liar. When I posted a link to the actual IPCC words, rather than apologize, or even acknowledge the truth, you claimed a 15 year trend was not significant.
Same with NOAA, when I posted they were now using less than 1500 surface stations globally you called me a liar. When I posted their actual words you tried damage control on me rather than acknowledge the words.
You can’t have it both ways. If you want a collegial friendliness you need to participate.
None of what you’ve said just now is true.
You don’t even remember.
I said that the word ‘hiatus’ wasn’t used in the IPCC. You found it in the technical report. That’s what you are failing to remember. I never disputed the 15-year trend, and in fact many times gave the actual value (0.05 C/decade), as well as the uncertainty (+/- 0.5). I’m doing this all from memory, don’t even have to check anymore after correcting you so many times on it.
Your memory on the 1500 stations is completely faulty.
I will continue to call you a liar every time you say that NOAA deliberately deleted, slashed, or cut thousands of stations from their repository.
When you posted their actual words there was no mention of NOAA deleting anything. I explained what happened. About 50 times now. And you still refuse to modify your view to the facts, which are recorded in the methods paper describing how historical station data was added, and none deleted. And that is also reflected in the same NOAA article that YOU link to, and which you always seem to edit out of your mind when you read it.
Here it is again to refresh your terrible memory.
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
No mention of deliberate slashing, deleting or cutting, and mention of the addition of historical data, as well as the fact that, at the time, only 1500 stations were accessible on a monthly basis.
Everything I’ve told you, too, and with more detail, over the past 5 years or so.
While you continue to lie about it.
Here, for the 30th time, is the methods paper that explains where the 6000+ stations came from, and how they were added to the record.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/monitoring-references/docs/peterson-vose-1997.pdf
Maybe you’ll read and understand it this time.
“Thirty-one different sources contributed temperature data to GHCN. Many of these were acquired through second-hand contacts and some were digitized by special projects that have now ended. Therefore, not all GHCN stations will be able to be updated on a regular basis. Of the 31 sources, we are able to perform regular monthly updates with only three of them…”
You also do not regard people you quote when they say that 1878 and 2016 as basically the same.
Do you think the last 7 days is of importance?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
That’s not the topic here, you obsessive-compulsive. Buzz off.
With emphasis:
> Some long-timers might even recall the rather tumultuous history, involving over-confident claims of precision, the discovery of systematic biases because of orbital decay, corrections, independent replication and more errors, more corrections, etc. This history should temper any claims now that the structural uncertainty has finally been beaten down, but its worth digging in a little deeper to see where it comes in.
Those were the days.
These are dumb claims made by alarmist trolls. There is no evidence that UAH sat data has been compromised at any time. Any errors were within bounds and promptly dealt with.
C’mon, Bordo:
https://www.nature.com/articles/29267
Stop ranting and start reading.
I am not interested in hearing double-talk from the like of Wentz. He was with RSS when they and UAH conferred on the problem and worked out a solution. It was agreed at the time that the error was well within the margin of error stated.
If Wentz wants to come back years later with another version, he can’t be trusted. RSS has sold out to NOAA.
As for you, dragging up this dirt while posting on Roy’s site, it makes you the rat you are by nym.
If you don’t like UAH data, offer your real reason for posting here instead of being such a spineless rat.
Do you agree with the STAR treatment of the various satellites?
“If Wentz wants to come back years later with another version, he can’t be trusted.”
And that’s why we can’t trust Spencer and Christy. As you persuasively argue, if they come back with another version (6.0), they can’t be trusted.
Good for the goose, good for the gander, ammiright?
Gordo has gone full denialist again, ignoring the historical background of the climate change problem.
Willard’s comment was from a paper in NATURE dated 1998. At the time, the UAH TLT time series was the only game in town using satellite data and that data presented in the IPCC 1995 report was heavily influenced by the cooling effects of the 1991 Pinatubo eruption. Frank Wentz, who founded RSS, pointed out a flaw in the UAH work, which UAH later agreed was a problem and corrected.
I’m beginning to think that Mystery Gordo is channeling James Inhoffe. I’m reading Inhoffe’s 2012 book, finding his perspective of the other side of the politics back then to be quite interesting.
So do you agree with what NOAA/STAR says?
Eben reminded us of Bindidon’s effort to use ice for his light bulb! I had forgotten that nonsense.
Then Ent displays his ongoing inability to understand “energy balance”. He’s still confusing flux with energy — “The energy imbalance between incoming radiation from space and outgoing radiation” Flux is NOT energy. A flux imbalance has NO meaning. Flux does not have to balance. No matter how many different ways this is explained to the braindead, they can’t understand.
Of course these two are joined by E. Swanson, worthless willard, barry, bob, and bdgwx to contribute more nonsense.
So, it’s time for another simple physics problem:
Assume Earth is actually radiating 390 W/m^2 over its entire surface area. Further, to keep things simple, assume Earth is radiating at 1.0 emissivity. Flux is NOT energy, so What is the actual energy Earth is emitting, for the conditions given?
Not one of the cult will be able to answer correctly, as usual.
“What is the actual energy Earth is emitting, for the conditions given?”
3.910^24 Joules/year
IHTFP
3.9 * 10^24 Joules/year
That’s incorrect, Ent.
It’s wrong for several reasons. But I can tell you’re trying to calculate the emission from somewhere in the atmosphere. The question is about the emission from the SURFACE.
You get to try again, but you still won’t be able to get it right because you don’t understand how to convert flux to energy.
Prove me wrong.
If you know I’m wrong, you must know the correct answer.
Prove it and show your working, child.
I’ll give the correct answer at some point. I want to allow plenty of time for your cult to respond. We haven’t heard from the usual suspects like Bin, barry, Norman, Nate, bob, or bdgwx. Of course we won’t get an answer from worthless willard.
The point of this exercise is to show that your cult doesn’t understand the basics. You just regurgitate what your cult HQ puts out, with no understanding. You are always claiming a “1W/m^2 imbalance”: The imbalance is 1 Watt/metre^2. This results in a net heat uptake of 10^22 Joules/year.” That’s cult nonsense. Flux does NOT balance!
You don’t even know how to balance energy, as you’ve just demonstrated.
I’ll side with Entropic Man, because as usual Clint R knows not.
The Earth emits what it emits, it doesn’t matter what the surface is emitting, it’s what gets to space that counts.
Energy in equals energy out or the Earth heats up or cools down.
Yeah bob, I suppose most of the cult will give the same cult answer. I just like to verify, from time to time.
You are the one chanting things over and over again, that leads me to believe that you are the one in a cult.
Flux does not balance
Ohm mady paddy won
Flux does not balance
Aleluja mon de bong passe
If chanting helps bob, here are some more you can add:
Fluxes do NOT simply add
Earth is NOT an imaginary sphere
Orbiting is NOT spinning
Ice cubes can NOT boil water
Learn those and I’ll give you some more. Chanting is a form of memorization, and memorization is a primitive form of learning — perfect for a cult…
Clint R,
Keep chanting or learn some physics.
Your choice.
” Eben reminded us of Bindidons effort to use ice for his light bulb! ”
Like the teethless but nonetheless ankle-biting dachshund aka Eben, Clint R is a 100 % liar.
I never and never wrote such nonsense.
While the energy generated by the ice cube would just suffice to light a very small lamp, the Earth absorbs about as much solar energy as is produced by ~80 billion 1GW nuclear plants.
When the cult calls me a liar, I know Ive won again.
Thats why this is so much fun.
Anybody can see that you utterly distort what I wrote, which has nothing in common with stalker Eben’s dumb remark:
” Eben reminded us of Bindidon’s effort to use ice for his light bulb! ”
Thus, yes, Clint R: you are a liar.
No distortion, Bin. Thats your direct quote:
While the energy generated by the ice cube would just suffice to light a very small lamp, the Earth absorbs about as much solar energy as is produced by ~80 billion 1GW nuclear plants.
For emphasis — While the energy generated by the ice cube would just suffice to light a very small lamp…
I guess you will have to resort to playing games with semantics and definitions now, huh?
Got the simple physics problem solved yet?
Again: you completely distort what I wrote.
Anything above 0 K emits radiation, Clint R.
For emphasis: … the Earth absorbs about as much solar energy as is produced by ~80 billion 1GW nuclear plants.
That was what I wanted to say, and you know that.
You always pervert what others write.
No wonder: you distort, misrepresent, discredit and denigrate anything.
E.g.: the science developed since centuries by physicists, mathematicians and astronomers.
Let’s review — You claim I’m distorting your words because I quoted you, but your words weren’t what you “wanted to say”!
You can’t blame others for quoting you, Bin. Unless you’re a braindead cult idiot..
198,900 X 10¹² Watts
At least youre on the surface, barry. So youre ahead of Ent and bob. Poor Bin is still arguing with his own words.
But you have a minor mistake and an egregious mistake — discussion later, in case troll Nate, bdgwx, Norman, or the worthless one wants in. I would venture none of them do, however.
Just letting you know in advance that I won’t be answering further questions until you have answered mine. You are in deficit.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479149
Happy for you to take the answer to the other thread and keep this one clear for whatever you’re interested in.
I remember that, barry. You were taking my words out of context and trying to pervert the meaning. That’s what you do. You even attempted it with Newton. I know all your cult tricks.
You’re finished here. You’ve already proved me right. You can’t even find the energy emitted by Earth’s surface given the flux. None of your cult can. You don’t know the science, you just rely on twisting and perverting reality.
Did you ever answer the “honesty” question? Do passenger jets fly backward, yes or no?
[PUP] You claim I’m distorting your words because I quoted you
[ALSO PUP] You were taking my words out of context and trying to pervert the meaning.
See how worthless you are willard?
I already stated I know all your cult tricks.
You have no correct answer to the energy question, as I predicted. Dang, it gets boring always being right.
Pup, Pup, Pup.
You have not done the Pole Dance Experiment.
You have not done the Garden Hose Experiment.
And you suck at playing riddles.
Why have you been trolling this website for so long?
As I said, Clint, I’ll resume answering your questions when you answer mine fully and honestly instead of dodging and deflecting, as you did again just now.
Can’t answer the “honesty” question, can you barry?
As I stated, you’re finished here. You already proved my point. You’ve got NOTHING.
Already answered that question. You’re in double deficit.
…when you answer mine fully and honestly instead of dodging and deflecting
See barry, you’re not getting it.
You have NO credibility. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.
You can’t see it in yourself, but look at worthless willard. LIke you, he has NOTHING. He just trolls here constantly, misrepresenting others, trying to pervert reality. A 12 year-old could do his job.
That’s you. Once you lose credibility, it’s hard to get it back, if ever.
You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
The silly Clint quizzes remind me of Charades with our toddlers.
Subject: animal.
Inevitably we’d fail to guess, then learn it was a half-eagle half-lion half-dinosaur.
Inevitably the attention-deprived Clint-child will inform us what his fake science is. No fun will be had.
Troll Nate didn’t even attempt to answer the simple physics problem.
No surprise.
Pup,
Forgot to mention the Shower Experiment.
You owe me big time.
My answer is correct. Total energy emitted for the whole surface is the energy emitted per square metre multiplied by the surface area in square meters. It’s trivial to work this out.
No barry, your answer is WRONG.
All will be explained after I’m convinced the other cult idiots have had a chance to answer. We know they’ve all seen it by now, it’s only a matter of them trying to come up with a response. They can’t think for themselves, so not likely.
There’s bdgwx, Norman, Nate, E. Swanson, Folkerts, Ken, and probably a few others I’ve overlooked. None will have the correct answer.
Darn, I’m going to be right again…
No, you’re not. Here’s a calculator for you.
https://calculator.academy/power-per-square-meter-calculator/
Correct answer coming soon, barry. Until then, keep proving your incompetence.
No harm done.
[BOB] The triple point of water is neither a freezing point nor a boiling point of water.
[MIKE] You can twist and turn all you like, but neither of you can actually describe the GHE.
So much art.
Who is Mike?
C’mon, Bordo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1259280
You can’t be that dumb.
Who is Mike?
C’mon, Bordo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-519008
You can’t be that dumb.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Documenting the total f&%kery taking place for May 9, 2023: Goodbye boreal forests.
Alberta Under State of Emergency as Hundreds of Fires Spread:
https://youtu.be/yMuLlG1jd6E
Western Siberia in Flames, Emergency Declared as Wildfires Take devastating Toll:
https://youtu.be/5xVTE_lgwWQ
“Goodbye boreal forests.”
In the long run you are right. As warmer and drier conditions spread northwards the Southern edge of the boreal forest dries out and burns.
The forest does not regenerate as forest. The burned areas become grassland, steppe in Asia and prairie in North America.
In the past 40 years or so in which climate loonies have been spreading their gospel, I have seen little evidence of what you claim in Canada.
They had a major fire in Fort McMurray recently which burned part of the town. It interested me mainly because I had been in Fort Mac quite a bit as part of my work in the Tar Sands. I recall driving though many kilometres of boreal forest to get there while driving north from Edmonton, Fort Mac being well north of the southern edge of the forest.
There is little evidence, if any, that boreal forest is converted to prairie as the forests die out due to drought. As you move north through any of the Canadian provinces that extend north, the trees begin to get progressively thinner and smaller in the inland regions. I would say that has far more to do with a lowered amount of sunlight per year than climate change.
Do you really think Alberta has never seen such fires before over the eons? Have you ever been to Alberta and seen the severity of lightning storms in that province?
This has nothing to do with climate change. Alberta has not had time to dry out after last winter, especially in the boreal forests as you call them. They are nothing more than swamps with a few skinny trees and there are 5.5 ***MILLION*** square kilometres of them in northern Canada.
I used to laugh at the idiocy of eco-alarmists who claimed the Tar Sands projects were endangering wildlife. The acreage of the projects is a spit in the ocean compared to the overall land surface area in which they are found yet the eco-loonies begrudge them even that. They whine about ducks dying in tailings ponds and most of the eco-loonies would likely eat a free duck dinner in a second given the opportunity.
> The acreage of the projects is a spit in the ocean
C’mon, Bordo.
One can see them from space:
https://youtu.be/kYA4btIYSgw
You can’t be that dumb.
It’s still a spit in the ocean compared to 5.5 million square km. I don’t think you understand how large Canada is.
C’mon, Bordo.
I crossed Canada. What about you?
Have you driven far enough north to actually see the boreal forest? Having walked in real forests in BC, I find it amusing to call that scrub and swamp a forest.
C’mon, Bordo –
Canada’s tar sands are “roughly” (H/T Roy) the size of Florida:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-big-are-canadas-oil-sands-infographic/
You can’t be that dumb.
Yeah…but you can be that dumb. All the Tar Sands companies operate out of an area just north of Fort McMurray. When people claim to work in the Tar Sands that’s the general area they are talking about.
We know there are tar sands deposits going over the Pole into Russia but when you capitalize it as Tar Sands, that means a small area north of Fort McMurray. All the major companies like Suncore, Syncrude, etc., work out of that area.
We can process the rest after exposing the eco-loonies as the idiots they are.
Come on, Bordo:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tar-sands-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-impact-on-global-warming
Your minimization is ludicrous, and do not get me started on what it does to freshwater reserves.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ent…
“What is the actual energy Earth is emitting, for the conditions given?
3.910^24 Joules/year”
***
You have offered the energy amount in joules, but that is a measure of work, not energy per se. So, what energy do you mean?
Not taking a shot, just found this quote from Planck reenergy and entropy interesting…
From his Nobel Prize speech in 1920…
“Now what one measures are only the differences of entropy, and never entropy itself, and consequently one cannot speak, in a definite way, of the absolute entropy of a state. But nevertheless the introduction of an appropriately defined absolute magnitude of entropy is to be recommended, for the reason that by its help certain general laws can be formulated with great simplicity.
As far as I can see the case is here the same as with energy. Energy, too, cannot itself be measured ; only its differences can. In fact, the concept used by our predecessors was not energy but work….”
***
I’m going to say more about this is a separate post re Planck’s definition of entropy as adapted from Boltzmann rather than Clausius, who invented the concept of entropy and defined it absolutely. Boltzmann had no business redefining the meaning and broadening the inference by means of probability functions.
With regard to energy, we have no means of measuring it, we don’t even know what it is. All we can do is measure the difference in energy levels using other phenomena like work.
Woke up today working out something related to heat and work. I just posted a quote from Planck in which he stated essentially that we cannot measure energy, just the difference in energy states. Essentially, we can do work to lift a mass vertically, representing two states of potential energy, and performing kinetic energy to do the lift, but we cannot measure the energy directly. We can only measure the muscular exertion required over a distance.
We are talking about a force applied over a distance. What we call kinetic energy, KE = 1/2 mv^2, is actually a force but the source of the force is never described. Potential energy in this case, P = mgh, describes the potential energy available if the mass fell over a distance h in our gravitational field near the surface.
In other words, even though we refer to KE and PE as energy, they are both described by forces, one a force in action and the other a pending force. Both energies in this case are referencing gravitational force.
How about heat? I know there is a difference of opinion on this but for now, give me benefit of the doubt that it is related to the motion of atoms. In a solid, that motion is the vibration of atoms and their vibrational extent increases when some form of energy is added. I call that energy heat but anyone can call it what they want.
How about mechanical energy? I just described it, a mass is moved over a distance. The difference between thermal energy and mechanical energy is that heat deals with the internal atoms and their motion while mechanical energy deals with the motion of the entire mass. I am not talking here about gases or liquids.
How about Joule’s experiment in which he agitated water mechanically and found a relationship between the amount of mechanical energy input and the rise in heat in the water. It’s now called the mechanical equivalent of heat, hence the reference to heat in terms of joules rather than calories. Otherwise, the 1st LOT would not work since you can’t have heat in calories and work in joules.
So, what’s happening in Joule’s experiment? He used a small paddle to agitate the water molecules and the water temperature rose. The same thing happens when the molecules are agitated by adding heat. Therefore, Joule reasoned there is an equivalence between thermal and mechanical energy. The 1st law relies on that equivalence but is it correct to call the 1st law a law of conservation of all energy when the only energies involved are heat and work?
How about electrical energy? There is somewhat of an equivalence between it and heat as well. When electrons are forced through a conductor by a power source (EMF) they are reacting to a potential energy difference between the negative and positive power source terminals. As the electrons move though the solid atom lattice of the conductor, they are continually colliding with other particles in the conductor, causing heating.
There is a complication here too since it is claimed the electrons transfer heat through a conductor.
I think it is overly simplistic to use the word ‘colliding’. Some scientists claim electrons form clouds in a conductor which is a bit silly. They actually move atom to atom since there are no spaces between atoms through which they can move or form clouds. Not only do they move atom to atom, they move between the outermost orbital bands.
As the electrons move through the conductor, they create another form of energy called magnetic energy. It seems to be a property of the charges carried by the electrons. The EMF produces an electric field around the conductor and the electron charges produce a magnetic field. They combine to form electromagnetic energy.
However, there is no relationship between that EM and the heat generated in the conductor, that I am aware of. This is no longer a case of Bohr’s quantum theory where EM is generated by electron transitions. Or is it?
barry…”Realclimate did a post on the difference between the satellite and surface records in January”.
***
That’s enough to dismiss it right there. Realclimate is run by geologist Michael Mann and mathematician Gavin Schmidt, who now heads NASA GISS.
Mann was front and centre in the Climategate email scandal, interfering with peer review and as author of ‘the Trick’, a device used to hide declining temperatures. He made misogynist statements about scientist Judith Curry when she began to abandon the alarmist meme.
Schmidt was working for James Hansen when GISS announced 2014 as the hottest year ever based on a 38% probability. When news came out about Mann’s Draconian ‘trick’, Schmidt defended him.
Come on, Barry, ho could you quote from the alarmist trash bucket called realclimate?
Yes, Gordon, I’ve already pointed out that you assign credence based on the results or the personalities, never on examination of the methods.
The point there was to see the different temp records lined up, which you can also do yourself at woodfortrees. But the STAR satellite temp record isn’t available there, so this was the first page I came across that just graphed the lot together.
IOW, realclimate’s take doesn’t really matter for the purpose. But good on you for reflexively trashing them without bothering to work out that it was irrelevant for the purpose of posting the graph.
“Ive already pointed out that you assign credence based on the results or the personalities…”
***
Not so. I assign credence based on integrity. I think realclimate lacks integrity. Swenson sums up Michael Mann best and anyone who would partner himself with someone like Mann, is suspect.
It’s impossible to judge anyone’s integrity without direct experience or clear, irrefutable evidence.
My Dad looks at the news and people on television and judges them all the time. “I don’t like him,” he says of someone he’s never met and now sees talking to an interviewer.
My Dad does understand the scientific method, majored in philosophy. He knows that his views are ill-informed, but he still holds to them strongly. He’s able to recognize his biases and has learned to live with them.
You’re like my Dad, except you don’t seem to have the insight to realize that you ARE biased.
Your judgement on integrity isn’t rooted in any hard observation. It’s all narratives in your head
When Steve Mosher wrote his book slamming the CRU emails and their authors, you would have characterised him as a person of integrity. But when he dug into the work behind the emails he changed his mind, and suddenly you became interested in ways to dismiss him. That he had worked in marketing gave you just what you needed to write him off.
Your ‘judgements’ of validity and integrity are based solely on your biases. From these you weave stories that you present as reasoned analysis.
barry, please stop trolling.
In the upside down world of trolls, Barry’s on-point posts are labelled trolling.
…please stop trolling.
from a quote by RLH earlier…
“it is extremely likely (> 95%) that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.
***
I realize this quote was not offered by RLH as proof of anything, just part of a debate.
The 95% idiocy gives this away as an IPCC claim. The IPCC offers a 95% confidence level, based on their own weird scale, but can supply no dirct proof of an anthropogenic cause, hence the guess.
By the same token, they supply no proof the current warming is not re-warming from the Little Ice Age. In fact, they try to discredit the LIA as a phenomenon local to Europe, when there is plenty of proxy evidence and anecdotal evidence suggesting it was global.
> “The Trick”, a device used to hide declining temperatures
Bordo can’t be that dumb. It’s been 15 years and he can’t confuse the trick with the other meme. Let’s see if he can recall it.
Furthermore:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-59176497
That’s Moshpit, a Black Hat guy who would not admit that if he did not have to.
I have no interest in what Mosher has to say. We all read the emails and saw the chicanery going on at the highest alarmist levels. They are all evil scumbags.
Nothing you apologists say will ever change that. I have noted that you offered no rebuttal to the emails.
Come on, Bordo.
Mosh is the guy who got the emails.
Remember the ones you have not really read and just made a scene about them?
Yeah, the emails.
He read them all in one night.
The guy has some kind of photographic memory.
That would be be Steven Mosher, who claims to be a “scientist” but who is actually a Bachelor of Arts with an English major, would it?
The same guy who claimed to be an “aerospace engineer” (he wasn’t) and an “open source software developer” (he later said he really meant he supported the idea of open source software)?
Most of his career appears to involve marketing, and he markets himself very effectively to gullible cultists like Willard.
More of an Asshat guy than a Black Hat guy, perhaps. Depending on time and place, Steven’s CV has proven to be very flexible – if contradicting itself from time to time. Maybe his memory is flexible as well.
All in all, a perfect “authority” to whom Willard is likely to appeal.
I gathered that Mosher was a dingbat but did not realize how much. Thanks for expose.
Mike Flynn,
Where did you see Mosh claiming that he was a scientist, again?
Something tells me you do not know the guy very well.
Weepy Wee Willy,
His LinkedIn profile claimed he had been a “Scientist” with Berkley Earth since March of 2013.
We seem to agree that Steven Mosher is not a scientist of any sort, despite being described as such by Berkeley Earth.
What kind of photographic memory do you claim he has? In 2010 he wrote “As a former data analyst for Northrop Aircraft , former statistican and former software engineer . . . “.
He can’t even seem to distinguish fact from fantasy. Even his fantasies are inconsistent. He wrote to a Parliamentary Committee “As a former data analyst for Northrop Aircraft , former statistican (sic) and former software engineer . . . “.
Really?
Believe what you wish.
Wait, Mike –
Are you suggesting you found evidence that Mosh was indeed a scientist and you refuse to share?
That is quite sad.
“Thats Moshpit, a Black Hat guy who would not admit that if he did not have to”.
***
After what Swenson revealed about him, he likely saw a business opportunity and like a typical opportunist saw no problem changing sides.
As ever, you assign credibility based on the results, never on the validity of the methods. You are nothing but politics.
I was at climateaudit in 2007 watching Mosher, John V and a few others piecing together the US temp record as Anthony Watts’ surfacestatons.org project published the stations they thought were good quality. Mosher was determined that there was something wrong the official records and he and the others spent months working out a better method to piece together the weather station records as they came through.
Mosher was a natural to join with Richard and Elizabeth Muller, Judith Curry and Robert Rhode, most of whom were critical of the mainstream view of climate change, to construct a new global temperature record based on the criticisms of the methods of the major temp records.
As with the climateaudit attempt, the Berkeley Earth team corroborated the official temperature records.
The only other skeptic group I can think of that actually did the hard work and constructed a global temp record with new methods, was Jeff Condon and Roman M at the AirVent.
Like the other attempts, this one corroborated the Had.CRU temp record.
Roy Spencer, another skeptic, also corroborated Phil Jones’ surface record.
These skeptics did the work. That’s why they don’t get quotation marks around the word skeptic.
The people who dismiss their efforts are ‘skeptics’, who never did a lick of actual work to test anything. They are all political animals.
Mosh followed the evidence and it changed his mind. ‘Skeptics’ follow the politics and don’t have minds of their own.
barry,
Maybe you are missing the point.
Eight billion people generate a lot more heat than no people. Over the last 150 years, the amount of energy used per capita has increased by a factor of 100 or so, and the population has increased by some 600%.
All energy use results in conversion to low temperature “waste” heat. Thermometers demonstrate this increase in heat over the years.
Anthropogenic global warming, if you like. Nothing to do with any nonsensical “greenhouse effect”.
Are you seriously trying to deny reality? I know you won’t like what I am saying, but if your best figures show increases in nighttime minima, greater in areas of population density, industrial use, and so on, then you might be hard put to come up with an alternative explanation.
Or you can just deny physics and reality, and preach SkyDragon cultist beliefs – based on a GHE which none of them can actually describe!
Does Berkeley Earth agree with NOAA/STAR?
Does it really matter?
Thermometers respond to heat. If different bodies come up with different answers to a “global average temperature (stupid and pointless term, but no matter), how do you know any of them are correct? What difference does it make anyway?
Some fools believe that they can predict future climate states! Silly, aren’t they?
“Thermometers respond to heat.”
Thermometers respond to local heat. Sampling theorem says you need a lot more of them than we have to determine a ‘global average’ air temperature from ground to space. The first 2km or so is known to be a daily chaotic value.
“you need a lot more of them than we have”
I don’t buy it.
Is that just a hand-wave? Show us what you calculated to arrive at that conclusion, RLH.
How many samples do you think you need to take in the first 1-2km, chaotic surface boundary layer?
For sampling theorem see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
Show us what you calculated to arrive at that conclusion, RLH.
rlh…”Thermometers respond to local heat. Sampling theorem says you need a lot more of them than we have to determine a global average air temperature from ground to space. The first 2km or so is known to be a daily chaotic value”.
***
Agreed. I approached the prof in my probability and statistics course to ask him if Gallop polls were accurate. He replied, “Oh, no you don’t, what do YOU think”? I offered my opinion that the polls were inaccurate. He asked why. I offered that the sample sizes were far too small to be representative of the population.
He agreed.
It’s the same with NOAA using less than 1500 reporting stations to cover the land surface. With Gallop polls, pollsters massage the results to the point they can offer a confidence level that is far too high for their massaging theories. Same with NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut.
NOAA manipulates the data using interpolation of measured stations to arrive at synthesized temperatures for intermediate stations then homogenize the real and synthesized results to offer an average that excludes colder temperatures.
Not only that, 1500 stations to cover the global surface area is ridiculously small. As I pointed out in a previous post, it averages 1 thermometer per 100,000 square km over land and 1 thermometer per 90,000 sq. km over the oceans.
Anyone who thinks such a system can offer anything near an accurate global average is off in la la land.
Nate: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1484256
“How many samples do you think you need to take in the first 1-2km, chaotic surface boundary layer?”
Poor attempt to evade MY question, RLH.
Since YOU made the specific claim that “Sampling theorem says you need a lot more of them than we have to determine a global average air temperature from ground to space.”, I asked YOU to show us how YOU arrived at that conclusion.
Show us your numbers, and the calculations you did to justify this conclusion.
If you can’t, then we will understand that your claim is simply more blather, not based on anything at all.
It’s not a question of ‘liking’ what you say.
Distill down to points and hypotheses.
1) Cause of global warming is “waste heat” due to growing human population.
2) Evidence is increased nighttime temperatures.
To test:
1) Quantify waste heat and see if it accounts for global warming
2) Quantify waste heat for cities to see if this accounts for the changing diurnal temperature range in urban areas
3) Check to see if nighttime temperatures are also rising faster than daytime in rural areas – because GH warming is also supposed to cause nights to warm faster than days
THIS is what my mind does when you postulate something. Your contribution is not remotely fearsome, bub.
As i’ve already looked at this stuff, I can sum up:
Waste heat is orders of magnitude too small to account for global warming over the 20th century.
Waste heat gets closer to changing diurnal heat budget, but still way too little to account for the total change.
Rural areas are also warming faster at night than during the day.
Caveats: these changes are not uniform around the world. Some areas and regions have had little to no change to the diurnal range. This goes for some cities and more rural areas.
Observation – a solar cause is ruled out, because if the sun was causing global warming, days would warm faster than nights, and we don’t see that.
Can you confine your reply to the technical?
amending:
“Waste heat gets closer to changing urban diurnal heat budget, but still way too little to account for the total change.”
“Some areas and regions have had little to no change to the diurnal range.”
Do they have the same CO2 change as the others?
Why do climate deniers keep erecting the same tired strawman that there are no confounding variables in this GHG gas emission experiment?
“Some areas and regions have had little to no change to the diurnal range.”
So any change in CO2 over time does not have an effect on them then.
So now you admit that other confounding factors can have a larger effect than CO2.
Of course there could, dummy.
We all know about the ice ages and the time Antarctica was a *tropical* paradise.
Remember when you objected that Antarctica was not in the tropics?
The Antarctic is not currently in the tropics.
It never was, Richard.
“Tropical climate” is a freaking figure of speech.
Also, you’re dodging the fact that you already know that your strawman is full of straw.
Just as you (U) are also.
“Around 450 million years ago parts of Antarctica were actually north of the equator, and the continent only arrived at its present position at the South Pole within the last 70 million years or so.”
Do you admit that a uniform warming is not an actual prediction of AGW for Earth?
“Fifty five million years ago, there were more than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” said Professor Stephen Pekar, of City University of New York. “That heated the world enough to melt all its ice caps. Sea levels would have been almost 200ft higher than today.”
You should check that out.
Could you also check out why some cities do not exhibit this diurnal range change due to UHI? You’ll find some in Brazil.
Here’s a reference top get you started RLH:
Assessment of Urban Heat Islands in Brazil based on MODIS remote sensing data
https://www.academia.edu/download/65023593/Versao_Final.pdf
barry, all that blathering ain’t science. You don’t get to make up your own science to match your cult beliefs.
The true “waste heat” is the thermal energy absorbed and emitted by CO2 (15μ photons), That level of energy is so low it can’t raise the temperature of Earth.
You STILL don’t understand the basics:
1) Sun warms Earth (It’s the Sun, stupid.).
2) Sun provides more energy that Earth needs.
3) Earth’s systems work to rid Earth of any extra energy (Thermodynamics works.)
4) Earth maintains a temperature in a fairly constant range.
grammie clone pretends he knows how he climate system works, writing:
Of course, he leaves out the fact that CO2 is one of only a few pathways to cool the upper atmosphere, radiating thermal IR radiation to deep space. But CO2 also radiates in both directions, so it warms the layers below and, repeated layer by layer, warms all the way down to the surface.
Wrongo, Swanson. I’ve mentioned CO2 cooling Earth many times. You’re just now catching on, which shows how effective I am. I’m even able to teach an ignorant, immature troll some basic physics!
CO2 emits to space, but the emission back to Earth cannot raise the temperature of a 288K surface. Ice cannot boil water. CO2’s 15μ photon has even less energy that the WDL emission from ice.
So no warming from CO2.
> cooling the Earth
The upper atmosphere, Pup.
You and your silly equivocations!
” CO2s 15μ photon has even less energy that the WDL emission from ice.”
Yeah, but CO2 gas is not a blackbody, so the Wien Displacement Law does not apply.
But the surface is perfectly capable of absorbing that particular wavelength of photon.
Clint will ever deny that long wavelength photons carry energy and have no problem warming things.
But he could check by sticking his balls in a microwave oven.
nate…”Clint will ever deny that long wavelength photons carry energy and have no problem warming things”.
***
You were referencing microwaves as in a microwave oven. Many of the microwave ovens have power sources of 1500 watts. They are equivalent to the 1500 watt rings on an electric stove.
Clint is arguing that ice lacks that power and he is right. Doesn’t matter if you have an iceberg or a chunk of ice the size of Manhattan breaking off the Larsen ice shelf, radiation from the ice lacks the power to warm anything that is warmer than ice.
That’s the key, the 2nd law. Radiation from a colder source cannot warm a hotter object, by its own means. And ice in contact with a warmer object cannot transfer heat to it, by its on means.
You can extract heat from ice and use it, as in a heat pump, but that process will not occur naturally. It is simply not possible for ice to heat anything naturally that is warmer than ice.
That goes for the atmosphere as well. Heat cannot be transferred from GHGs in a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that caused them to warm in the first place.
He was clearly speaking of photons. To long in wavelength they cant warm, he claims.
And clearly wrong.
That’s not the ‘waste heat’ Swenson introduced to this discussion, Clint, so if you have a problem with that go complain to him.
Gordon,
Every man and his dog has confirmed that the radiative emissions of ice cubes alone cannot raise an object to a higher temperature than the ice.
But this is a red herring to the discussion of the GHE and the 2nd Law. And you know it. In your own words:
“…prior to raising the GP, the BP had reached an equilibrium temperature between heat produced by solar energy and heat dissipated via radiation in the vacuum. In other words, if you cut off its ability to radiate, its only means of cooling, the temperature of the BP would be higher. When the GP was raised, it cut off half the radiation of the BP forcing the BP to that higher temperature.
That’s why the 2nd law was not contradicted, it had nothing to do with it. No heat was transferred from the GP to the BP, the only effect of the GP was to block heat dissipation due to radiation.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1287494
This is EXACTLY what Tim, Nate, bobroege, Swanson and others have been saying all along. It is on this point that you are in disagreement with DREMT, Clint, Swenson etc.
I wouldn’t say it’s exactly what those people have been saying, barry. Gordon goes with the GP somehow physically "blocking" the radiation from the BP. Whereas Swanson et. al go with the GP absorbing the radiation from the BP, radiating back to the BP, and the BP absorbing that radiation, which, along with the radiation from the heat source, causes the BP to increase in temperature. Of course, Gordon would likely say that second description violates 2LoT…
Just a reminder that the 2LOT determines what actually happens in the world with heat transfer and other things.
How that is described in words doesnt change what happens, nor whether 2LOT allows it to happen.
“the BP absorbing that radiation, which, along with the radiation from the heat source, causes the BP to increase in temperature.”
At least DREMT now acknowledges that the radiation from the heat source can be a partner in causing the increase in temperature.
A step forward, perhaps, toward understanding that 2LOT is not violated.
…wouldn’t say it’s exactly what those people have been saying, barry. Gordon goes with the GP somehow physically "blocking" the radiation from the BP. Whereas Swanson et. al go with the GP absorbing the radiation from the BP, radiating back to the BP, and the BP absorbing that radiation, which, along with the radiation from the heat source, causes the BP to increase in temperature. Of course, Gordon would likely say that second description violates 2LoT…
“Gordon goes with the GP somehow physically “blocking” the radiation from the BP. ”
Weirdly, somehow, some people express incredulity that opaque plates are opaque to IR light.
“GP absorbing the radiation from the BP, radiating back to the BP, and the BP absorbing that radiation”
And people seem incredulous that an opaque non-reflective plate would ‘abso.orb radiation’, and thus warm, and radiate IR radiation back toward the source, as the SB law requires.
Then they are incredulous that what is radiated back would be abs.orbed by an identical opaque, non-reflective plate.
IOW they are incredulous of what must occur according to ordinary physics and common sense.
Too bad incredulity is not a valid argument.
…say it’s exactly what those people have been saying, barry. Gordon goes with the GP somehow physically "blocking" the radiation from the BP. Whereas Swanson et. al go with the GP absorbing the radiation from the BP, radiating back to the BP, and the BP absorbing that radiation, which, along with the radiation from the heat source, causes the BP to increase in temperature. Of course, Gordon would likely say that second description violates 2LoT…
“prior to raising the GP, the BP had reached an equilibrium temperature between heat produced by solar energy and heat dissipated via radiation in the vacuum. In other words, if you cut off its ability to radiate, its only means of cooling, the temperature of the BP would be higher. When the GP was raised, it cut off half the radiation of the BP forcing the BP to that higher temperature.”
This is quite a logical and factual statement by Gordon. And it agrees with Bill when he stated that the moving the GP behind the BP would result in the BP warming, because it is reducing heat loss.
It shows that when his comrades are thinking logically, and for themselves, DREMTs erroneous notions are rejected.
…it’s exactly what those people have been saying, barry. Gordon goes with the GP somehow physically "blocking" the radiation from the BP. Whereas Swanson et. al go with the GP absorbing the radiation from the BP, radiating back to the BP, and the BP absorbing that radiation, which, along with the radiation from the heat source, causes the BP to increase in temperature. Of course, Gordon would likely say that second description violates 2LoT…
Barry,
You wrote –
“Observation a solar cause is ruled out, because if the sun was causing global warming, days would warm faster than nights, and we dont see that.”
Who suggested that the Sun causes temperatures to rise at night? Certainly not me.
You haven’t managed to contradict a single thing I said.
If you feel like providing some calculations, go for it. I believe it’s impossible, but prove me wrong if you think you can.
Just saying “waste heat is magnitudes too small” without demonstrating that it has no effect on heat measuring instruments in the vicinity is unconvincing.
If you have another suggestion for some method of increasing nighttime minimum temperatures (if this is the case), please provide it.
You can’t can you?
Swenson,
I follow the silver rule with you. “Do unto others as they do unto you.”
Because you never provide corroboration in the form of references to research and the like, I don’t feel obliged to improve the courtesy. That would be a lop-sided affair where your words are taken as verified without actually being verified, and I do the labour of furnishing you with substantiation.
If you want a discourse where we substantiate what we say, then you know what to do. You initiated the waste heat claim – you may now corroborate your view.
Which I have definitely contradicted.
I asked you to be technical in your reply. You have the opportunity to be the one to upgrade our conversation.
barry…”Observation a solar cause is ruled out, because if the sun was causing global warming, days would warm faster than nights, and we dont see that”.
***
Barry…if you are going to get technical on us, you need to start from a technical basis.
For one, what is waste heat? First we have to establish what is meant by heat, when you use the term waste heat you have presumed everyone understands and agrees on what it is. That has lead to inane theories by alarmists that upwelling and downwelling infrared energy is heat and can be used to over-ride the 2nd law.
Do you mean anthropogenically produced heat?. If so, how do you measure it accurately and distinguish it from heat produced naturally? And are you claiming such heat is contributing to global warming? If so, can you explain the mechanism?
The skeptical argument is not about a variable warming from the Sun, we are not arguing that global warming is a result of a variation in solar output. We (some of us) are arguing that the Sun is currently re-warming the planet following 400+ years of the Little Ice Age.
When Swenson introduced the notion of waste heat to the discussion, why do you imagine it is incumbent upon me to define it?
You ‘skeptics’ just waffle out a bunch of assertions and then demand proofs against. That’s not how a technical conversation works.
The claimant must first substantiate the claim, otherwise it’s worthless.
This is more of a whine than a reply, Barry.
It’s a statement of fact. ‘Skeptics’ demand proof and never provide any.
barry…how about the proofs we skeptics have supplied that the Moon does not rotate on a local axis. Or that the GHE or AGW are not possible in the atmosphere? Or that the IPCC are a load of political liars?
Or that a flat trend occurred between 1998 and 2012 and that NOAA uses less than 1500 thermometers globally to measure surface temps.
Or that UAH sat data is not measured at one altitude (4 km) but can measure from the surface to 30 km?
Just scratching the surface here.
Blather is not proof, nor corroboration.
Against NASA, Newton, Cassini and modern astronomy and astrophysics (much cited by ‘spinners’), the non-spinners have cited Tesla (and DREMT cited some due from the 19th century that researchers at the time considered a crank and serial pest).
No proof given that the GHE is not possible. A paper by 2 unqualified people was offered (G&T), with a third of the paper explaining how a real greenhouse works, against dozens of papers and dozens more other scientific sources explaining the GHE (eg, Ramanathan and Coakley 1978, Manabe and Wetherald 1965)
‘Skeptics’ can’t even define what the IPCC is properly, let alone ‘prove’ that anyone running the institution is a political liar.
The trend between 1998 and 2012 is not disputed (0.05 C/decade +/- 0.5 – per Had.CRU, mentioned in IPCC AR5). So that’s a false controversy.
NOAA uses thousands of weather stations to calculate its global temperature record. It did so back in 1997, and has even more now. I just supplied upthread the 1997 methods paper detailing how many are used, and have a few times cited more recent methods paper with more stations. Your ‘evidence’ is a web page that you say you need to “read between the lines” to to arrive at your erroneous conclusion. Your ‘proof’ is the distorted lens through which you view the matter.
I have been telling YOU for ages that AMSU instruments measure a deep swathe of the atmosphere, while you have claimed that the instruments can isolate surface radiance to yield a surface temperature – a claim which you have wisely abandoned.
Skeptics have provided so little to corroborate their views that I can remember all of it.
barry, no citations are necessary for the moon discussion. It’s just a simple perception shift from thinking that “orbital motion without axial rotation” (OMWAR) is as per the “moon on the right” (MOTR) in the below GIF, to thinking that OMWAR is as per the “moon on the left” (MOTL):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
“Axial rotation” is then separate to that motion.
It’s as simple as that. OMWAR is as per the MOTL.
Not interested. Bye.
Yeah, it wasn’t really for your benefit, anyway, barry. Just for anyone reading that might have an open mind.
[GRAHAM] barry, no citations are necessary for the moon discussion
[ALSO GRAHAM] Yeah, it wasnt really for your benefit, anyway, barry
Every single time.
Yes, you try to pretend there is some inconsistency or contradiction every single time, when there is none.
“inconsistency or contradiction every single time, when there is none”
ever. By definition. For a narcissist.
…you try to pretend there is some inconsistency or contradiction every single time, when there is none.
And so once again Gaslighting Graham about something he learned before he was six years old.
plays dumb
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
And just to contextualize what happened here – the topic was Steven Mosher and his change of mind regarding the CRU emails and what he wrote about them.
Then out of the blue Swenson started talking about waste heat, saying that I’d “missed the point.”
Ironically, it was the other way around.
Having suddenly changed topic expects me to ‘prove’ his claim wrong.
The intellectual depravity of ‘skeptics’ causes them to think that their statements are rolled gold that others have to work to disprove. Somehow they didn’t get the life memo that if you make the claim it’s on you to corroborate it.
Just the arrogance, you know?
barry, please stop trolling.