Climate fearmongering reaches stratospheric heights

June 5th, 2023 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

A new paper by Santer et al. provocatively entitled “Exceptional stratospheric contribution to human fingerprints on atmospheric temperature” goes where no serious climate scientist should go: it has conflated stratospheric cooling with global warming.

The paper starts out summarizing the supposed importance of their work, which is worth quoting in its entirety (bold emphasis added):

“Differences between tropospheric and lower stratospheric temperature trends have long been recognized as a “fingerprint” of human effects on climate. This fingerprint, however, neglected information from the mid to upper stratosphere, 25 to 50 km above the Earth’s surface. Including this information improves the detectability of a human fingerprint by a factor of five. Enhanced detectability occurs because the mid to upper stratosphere has a large cooling signal from human-caused CO2 increases, small noise levels of natural internal variability, and differing signal and noise patterns. Extending fingerprinting to the upper stratosphere with long temperature records and improved climate models means that it is now virtually impossible for natural causes to explain satellite-measured trends in the thermal structure of the Earth’s atmosphere.

The authors are taking advantage of the public’s lack of knowledge concerning the temperature effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, making it sound like stratospheric cooling is part of the fingerprint of global warming.

It isn’t. Cooling is not warming.

The researchers’ first mistake is to claim they are reporting something new. They aren’t. Observed stratospheric cooling, even in the middle and upper stratosphere, has been reported on for many years (e.g. here). Lower stratospheric cooling has been evident in our Lower Stratosphere (LS) temperature product for over 30 years (first published here). Dr. Richard Lindzen tells me he had references to stratospheric cooling in his 1964 PhD dissertation. So why haven’t we heard about this before in the news? Because it has virtually nothing to do with the subject of global warming and associated climate change.

So, why mention stratospheric cooling in the context of climate change?

Climate researchers have been searching for “human fingerprints” of climate change for decades, something measurable that cannot be reasonably explained by natural variations in the climate system.

I will agree with the authors that stratospheric cooling (especially in the mid- to upper-stratosphere) is probably the best evidence we have of a human fingerprint on global temperatures, at least up where there is very little air, where no one lives, and where there are no observable resulting impacts on weather down here where life exists. Water vapor remains an uncertainty here, because more water vapor would also cause cooling, and our understanding of natural variations in stratospheric water vapor is quite poor. But for the sake of argument, I will give the authors the benefit of the doubt and agree that most of the observed cooling is probably due to increasing CO2, which in turn is likely mostly due to burning of fossil fuels.

Infrared radiative cooling by water vapor and carbon dioxide has long been known to be the primary way the stratosphere (and even higher altitudes) lose heat energy (gained from sunlight absorption by ozone) to outer space. This cooling mechanism is part of the so-called greenhouse effect: greenhouse gases warm the lower altitudes of planetary atmospheres, and cool the higher altitudes. In fact, without the greenhouse effect, weather as we know it would not exist. The greenhouse effect is energetically analogous to adding insulation to a heated house in winter: for a given rate of energy input, the inside of the house becomes warmer, and the outside of the house becomes colder.

The stratospheric cooling effects of CO2 and water vapor was first described theoretically by Manabe and Strickler (1964). Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere enhances upper atmospheric cooling, lowering temperatures. The temperature effect up there is large, several degrees C, meaning it is easier to measure with current satellite methods, as the authors of the new study correctly point out.

But what then happens in the troposphere (where we live) in response to more CO2 is vastly more complex. Theoretically, adding more CO2 should warm the lower troposphere radiatively. This warming then gets mixed throughout the depth of the troposphere from convective overturning (basically, “weather”).

But just how much tropospheric warming will be caused by increasing CO2?

After 30 years and billions of dollars expended on the effort in research centers around the world, the latest crop of climate models (CMIP6) now disagree on the expected amount of tropospheric warming more than ever before. This is mostly because of the insufficiently understood effects of water, especially the response of clouds (the climate system’s sunshade) and precipitation processes (which limit the most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor) to warming.

I consider it irresponsible to conflate stratospheric cooling with the global warming issue. Yes, strong cooling in the upper stratosphere is likely a fingerprint of increasing atmospheric CO2 (putatively due to fossil fuel burning), but for a variety of reasons, that is not reason to believe climate models in their predictions of tropospheric (and thus surface) warming trends. That is a very different matter, and the models themselves demonstrate they are not yet up to the task, now disagreeing with each other by a factor of three or more.

So now you hopefully understand why entitling such a paper “Exceptional stratospheric contribution to human fingerprints on atmospheric temperature” is essentially a non sequitur on the issue of global warming.


1,923 Responses to “Climate fearmongering reaches stratospheric heights”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Nate says:

    “The authors are taking advantage of the publics lack of knowledge concerning the temperature effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, making it sound like stratospheric cooling is part of the fingerprint of global warming.”

    I am puzzled why you think a scientific paper published in a scientific journal like PNAS, is “taking advantage of the publics lack of knowledge”. Isn’t it peer-reviewed by scientists and intended primarily for scientists?

    “I will agree with the authors that stratospheric cooling (especially in the mid- to upper-stratosphere) is probably the best evidence we have of a human fingerprint”

    This seems contradictory of the above statement. The two effects tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling were predicted to come together. We are in fact seeing both, and you agreeing that this is good evidence of human causation.

    • Nate:

      You say peer reviewed by “scientists” as if they are all immune to bias on the subject, and you say the paper is “primarily for scientists” despite really sloppy reporting on the paper, with wild claims leading to a misinformed public, for example:

      “…the potential of these rapid changes (stratospheric cooling) to visit sudden and unanticipated turmoil on our weather below.”
      https://www.wired.com/story/the-upper-atmosphere-is-cooling-prompting-new-climate-concerns/

      Yes, stratospheric cooling might be a fingerprint of human influence *in the stratosphere*. The models can get that right, because the physics is much simpler, but they get tropospheric warming wrong (which obviously most models do, because with a predicted range of 1.8 to 5.6 deg. C for 2XCO2, most of them will obviously be wrong).

      -Roy

      • Willard says:

        Why not quote the full para:

        But the new discoveries about the scale of cooling aloft are leaving atmospheric physicists with new worries – about the safety of orbiting satellites, about the fate of the ozone layer, and about the potential of these rapid changes aloft to visit sudden and unanticipated turmoil on our weather below.

        And why not quote the explanation:

        The question now being asked is how the extra CO2 and overall stratospheric cooling will influence the frequency and intensity of these sudden warming events. Mark Baldwin, a climate scientist at the University of Exeter in England, who has studied the phenomenon, says most models agree that sudden stratospheric warming is indeed sensitive to more CO2. But while some models predict many more sudden warming events, others suggest fewer. If we knew more, Baldwin says, it would lead to improved confidence in both long-term weather forecasts and climate change projections.

        https://e360.yale.edu/features/climate-change-upper-atmosphere-cooling

        Where’s the sloppy reporting?

      • RLH says:

        Anything is possible. Strange how ‘most’ of it says everything is always getting warmer.

      • Willard says:

        Strange how “the potential of these rapid changes aloft to visit sudden and unanticipated turmoil on our weather below” becomes “everything is always getting warmer.”

      • RLH says:

        Not strange is how Willard denies AGW as about ‘everything is always getting warmer’.

      • Russell says:

        Stratospheric Cooling became part of the campaign agains public comprehension of radiative climate forcing so long ago that Roy was still assuring readers of Science of a cooling trend in the satellite temperature record. :

        https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-war-against-fire.html

        Upon discovering he’d gotten the sign wrong, Roy had the exemplary good grace to publish a retraction,

        But another watt per square meter of forcing later he faces election to the American League ClimateBall Hall of Fame as the undisputed doyen of But Whatever.

        Couldn’t he just dust off and reword the satellite radiometric trend corrigendum . and publish it it WUWT and the US and Australian editions of the Spectator ?

      • Nate says:

        “really sloppy reporting on the paper,”

        Not uncommon. I don’t think the authors can be blamed for that.

        And reviewers don’t have the ‘public’s lack of knowledge’ problem.

        So this seems to be a red herring.

      • Willard says:

        “But the Press” is another weird trick:

        https://climateball.net/but-the-press/

      • Nate says:

        Nice summary..

      • gbaikie says:

        “The models can get that right, because the physics is much simpler, but they get tropospheric warming wrong (which obviously most models do, because with a predicted range of 1.8 to 5.6 deg. C for 2XCO2, most of them will obviously be wrong).

        -Roy”

        Most will obviously be wrong, because they include a time element in their prediction. But without including time element and just looking at temperature number, a few more “could be” correct- or close enough.

  2. Willard says:

    > Yes, strong cooling in the upper stratosphere is likely a fingerprint of increasing atmospheric CO2 (putatively due to fossil fuel burning), but

    Quite a big *but* to cry about irresponsibility, Roy!

    Putatively? Good grief.

    • Ken says:

      There is evidence that much of the increase in CO2 is due to ocean off-gassing. Meanwhile, the more widely touted explanation is combustion of fossil fuels. So ‘Putatively’ is the correct stance because no one really knows.

      • Willard says:

        Prepare to be mesmerized:

        Overall, warming associated with all human forcings agrees quite well with observed warming, showing that about 104% of the total since the start of the modern period in 1950 comes from human activities (and 103% since 1850), which is similar to the value reported by the IPCC. Combined natural forcings show a modest cooling, primarily driven by volcanic eruptions.

        https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/

      • RLH says:

        But no natural cycles/influences are longer than 5 years.

      • Nate says:

        Show us one that explains the T record.

      • RLH says:

        Are you assuming that there are no natural oscillations that are longer than 5 years?

      • Nate says:

        Asked many times, you are unable to show us evidence of one that accounts for the T record.

        So then, is this science or wishful thinking?

      • Nate says:

        ” no one really knows” whether anthro CO2 is causing the rise?

        Lots of evidence, so science knows.

      • Richard M says:

        Evidence and physics supports natural warming. We know CO2 didn’t do it from Miskolczi’s analysis of NOAA radiosonde data. It’s called falsification and is real science.

      • Ball4 says:

        Miskolczi’s analysis assumed “the various cloudy conditions of the actual atmosphere are regarded as maintaining their established average state”. So assuming at the start added CO2 ppm can have no effect does result in finding added CO2 ppm has no effect.

      • Mark B says:

        The atmospheric mass balance argument, essentially:

        CO2_atm_growth = (CO2_natural_emissions – CO2_natural_sinks) + CO2_anthro_emissions

        Given the observation 0 < CO2_atm_growth < CO2_anthro_emissions

        Implies the net natural term (in parenthesis) is necessarily less than zero.

    • Mark B says:

      re: “putatively”

      It must be difficult to balance an aura of credentialed credibility with reflexive contrarianism. Over the years, it seems Dr Spencer’s kryptonite is the carbon cycle.

  3. Bob Weber says:

    “…it is now virtually impossible for natural causes to explain satellite-measured trends in the thermal structure of the Earths atmosphere.

    Well it’s virtually impossible for Ben Santer to explain nature causes because his sees only what his mind thinks is there, nothing else, and as long as he’s convinced himself he’s seen it all, he sees nothing.

    Dr. Santer should correct himself for not knowing the ocean temperature sets the lower tropospheric temperature, naturally.

    Sunshine warms the ocean that then warms the LT with a 2 month lag.

    https://i.postimg.cc/L4QZQd3J/UAH-LT-v-Had-SST3.jpg

    • Nate says:

      “Sunshine warms the ocean”

      But what causes it to change its warming of the ocean over time?

      • RLH says:

        More H2O means more clouds?

      • Ken says:

        You’d probably be better off trying to figure why the ocean cools off during periods like the little ice age. The natural explanation then follows is the ocean is warming up to its normal temperatures since the end of the little ice age.

      • Nate says:

        “More H2O means more clouds?” Maybe maybe not. Clouds at night keep the surface warm. And more H2O is a feedback effect of warming from CO2.

      • Brock says:

        There has been much discussion about climate sensitivity. The claim is more co2 will raise the earths temperature, but there is an amplifying effect. The claim is a 1 degree rise due to a doubling of co2 results in a 3 degree rise overall. We see a natural irradiance variation of about a quarter watt per meter squared and a period of about a decade, but there is no sign of a cyclic signal in the CERES satellite data on the earths energy imbalance. An FFT on the satellite data should show what the climate sensitivity is; right now, it looks like its zero.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        Arid deserts are really, really hot. Not a lot of water vapour – where did the feedback from CO2 go?

        Actually, the hottest places on the planet have the least “greenhouse gases”.

        Negative GHE, perhaps.

        What do you think?

      • Nate says:

        Swenson, I think as usual, you ignore all other relevant factors to mislead people.

        I wonder, do deserts get more sunshine than other places?

        I wonder, is it easier to heat a place with little water to evaporate?

        I wonder, does moist air contain more heat (enthalpy) than dry air?

        Which city’s air contains more heat?

        Phoenix in the desert @ 40 C and 30% Relative Humidity (RH), or moist New Orleans @ 30 C and 80% RH?

        Hint: the warm moist air in New Orleans contains 85 KJ/Kg of heat and the hot dry air in Phoenix contains 76 KJ/Kg.

        https://www.herramientasingenieria.com/onlinecalc/psychrometrics/psychrometrics.html

      • RLH says:

        Clouds during the day keep the surface cool.

      • Nate says:

        Yes, but water vapor in a clear sky keeps it warmer.

        And remember Venus has lots of clouds but a huge GHE which makes it much hotter than Mercury.

      • Adam Gallon says:

        Venus has massive atmospheric pressure and vastly different atmospheric composition.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        Not according to Professor John Tyndall, who noticed that the less water vapour in the atmosphere, the hotter it was during the day, and the colder it was during the night.

        You know as little of physics as you do of chaos.

        Tell me how reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface makes it hotter, fool?

      • Nate says:

        Me: “Yes, but water vapor in a clear sky keeps it warmer.”

        “Not according to Professor John Tyndall, who noticed that the less water vapour in the atmosphere, the hotter it was during the day, and the colder it was during the night.”

        So the cooler it is during the night agrees with what I’ve said.

        But as explained to you earlier, but you ignored, water vapor comes from evaporation of water, which requires heat.

        So in a drier place, like the desert, it can get hotter during the day because none of the solar heat goes into evaporating water.

        Then when you have air with more water vapor, it’s heat content is higher even when at a lower temperature than dry air.

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1494751

      • RUSSELL Kish says:

        Martin Mlynczak, an atmospheric physicist at the NASA Langley Research Center, told Yale E360.

        Carbon dioxide impacts the upper atmosphere differently than the lower atmosphere. In the lower atmosphere, CO2 traps heat, causing warmer temperatures. However, “In the thinner air aloft, most of the heat reemitted by the CO2 does not bump into other molecules. It escapes to space,” Yale E360 stated. “Combined with the greater trapping of heat at lower levels, the result is a rapid cooling of the surrounding atmosphere.” (BS) Per the study, it’s “virtually impossible for natural causes to explain satellite-measured trends in the thermal structure of the Earth’s atmosphere.”
        SO IF THERE WERE LESS CO2 NOT RADIATING HEAT INTO THE OUTERMOST ATMOSPHERE IT WOULD GET WARMER?. HOW? THEY THINK CO2 IS LIKE EVAPORATIVE COOLING? NONE OF THAT MAKES SENSE TO me.

      • Nate says:

        This part “Combined with the greater trapping of heat at lower levels, the result is a rapid cooling of the surrounding atmosphere”

        makes perfect sense. More CO2 traps heat more heat in the troposphere that would otherwise have heated the stratosphere.

      • Richard M says:

        Nate claims: “More CO2 traps heat more heat in the troposphere that would otherwise have heated the stratosphere.”

        Not true. The added IR comes from the atmospheric window which completely avoids the stratosphere.

      • Nate says:

        “The added IR comes from the atmospheric window which completely avoids the stratosphere.”

        Evidence?

        Modtran shows CO2 changes in 13-15 microns range.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate Modtran is a computer model unsupported by a statistically sensible argument for how it works in the real world.

      • Nate says:

        Modtran is calculating the optical properties of the atmosphere, which is perfectly feasible.

        Not understood and therefore dismissed by the Ignorati.

      • bdgwx says:

        It might be useful to know that RRTM is probably the most widely used radiative transfer model. It is incorporated into many of the worlds top regional and global circulation models for weather forecasting and was used for the design and development of the GOES-R satellites. It is tested countless time everyday in the real world. It is consistent with the older and less capable MODTRAN model.

        Here is more information on the model itself.

        http://rtweb.aer.com/rrtm_frame.html

        Here is simple application of it for computing the global energy balance.

        http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/rrtm/

      • bill hunter says:

        Nate a greenhouse doesn’t work that way. you say modtran is feasible and i don’t disagree. but feasible doesn’t mean it works. you need a statistically sensible argument that it does and you aren’t aware of any such argument.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:
        ”It might be useful to know that RRTM is probably the most widely used radiative transfer model.”

        Well it seems nature and the IPCC are at odds on how to apply it. . . .that is of course with the ”assumption” that all warming is the result of human emissions. Unless you have a statistically sensible argument eliminating alternative theories it will remain an assumption.

      • Nate says:

        “feasible and i dont disagree. but feasible doesnt mean it works.”

        You have evidence otherwise? No.

        Expertise? No.

        Your opinion on this subject is? Worthless.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate my opinion doesn’t mean a thing. I agree. What I look for is if there is a statistically sensible science case for it. That has never ever been forthcoming and it is manifested by the fact that while energy is absorbed by CO2 scientists totally disagree both with if and by how much warming that will create. Some even believe it might result in slight cooling. Getting the opinion of the world’s governments on what they consider the best science is simply realizing that governments are controlling mechanisms and they will always fall, due to human nature of those who govern, on more control.

      • Nate says:

        When the argument is about science facts, and you lack the expertise, you cannot substitute politics or conspiratorial thinking when a science argument is required. It just doesnt work and isn’t convincing.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate the only statistically sensible science argument anybody needs to produce to rally an army to attack climate change is one by those that are pro war.

        You have been asked to refer us to a statistically sensible science argument to support your pro war position and have always failed to do so. EOS.

      • Nate says:

        I used the phrase ‘statistically sensible argument’ in a long discussion with RLH that involved…statistics, and you had no clue what it was all about.

        So you latch onto it, and turn it into a string of repeated meaningless buzzwords. Gibberish.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        So Nate says no science is necessary for what he wants to promote. Fine Nate. We already knew that.

      • Richard M says:

        Sorry Nate, I get my views from real scientists like Dr. William Gray.

        “The main problem with the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory is the false treatment of the global hydrologic cycle which is not adequately understood by any of the AGW advocates. ”

        Increased evaporation at the surface enhances convective currents (basic physics) which drives water vapor higher into the troposphere which is colder. This leads to more condensation (basic physics). The net result is less high altitude water vapor (basic physics) which compensates for the additional IR CO2 absorbs.

      • Ball4 says:

        Real scientist Dr. William Gray then needs to read up on, and learn from, L’Ecuyer et. al. 2015 which includes an adequate understanding of the global hydrological cycle in Earth’s longer term observed energy balance. The observed surface evaporation is shown balanced by precipitation during climate time frames which is why “real scientist” Gray calls it a “cycle”.

      • Nate says:

        “I get my views from real scientists like Dr. William Gray”

        who said in 2006:

        “And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle 40s to the middle 70s.”

        All others are not real scientists because they dont agree with Dr Gray?

      • Nate says:

        “Increased evaporation at the surface enhances convective currents (basic physics) which drives water vapor higher into the troposphere which is colder.”

        So warming results in cooling?

        This is your ‘one weird trick’ to vanquish AGW, and it is indeed weird.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:

        ”Increased evaporation at the surface enhances convective currents (basic physics) which drives water vapor higher into the troposphere which is colder.”

        Well an actual scientific physics description of how additional heat absorbed in the upper atmosphere gets back to the surface would certainly help. Models and theories that say it will happen falls far short of actual science.

  4. Richard M says:

    I recently responded to a climate cult member who thought stratospheric cooling proved all aspects of climate change theory. I told them I agreed that CO2 is likely a big reason for the stratospheric cooling, but meaningless when it comes to understanding the real impact of CO2.

    The expansion of the near 15 mm frequency band only compensates for the lower tropospheric cooling which CO2 is also causing. Climate cultists won’t accept that CO2 has a cooling influence in both parts of the atmosphere.

    The reasons are different however. In the stratosphere, the cooling occurs due to the inverse lapse rate. In the lower troposphere, the cooling is caused by increased evaporation at the surface (aka the water cycle).

    • Nate says:

      “Skeptics’ all seem to have ‘one weird trick’ to vanquish AGW, but all different.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Berry has already falsified AGW with three papers.

      • Entropic man says:

        We’ve been over this repeatedly .

        Berry’s hypothesis requires CO2 molecules to be pumped from the deep ocean to the atmosphere against both the laws of diffusion and the laws of thermodynamics.

        Until he comes up with a mechanism that is coherent, consistent and consilient nobody except denialists is going to take him seriously.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        We’ve been over it, and you still don’t understand. That’s a new one. And you still haven’t explained how that human carbon got into the deep ocean. That’s OK; neither has the IPCC.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Ent,
        Berry is a physicist. He understands that mass is conserved, all mass, including carbon. He used a concept called conservation of mass to explain it. If you had any math skills, you’d understand his explanation is correct.

      • Nate says:

        “Berry is a physicist. ”

        So what? Thousands of other physicists disagree with him, and you dismiss their views.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        It isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing. We know the physics is correct. You can’t dispute the conservation of mass. So, at that point, is the math correct? Even Happer says Berry’s math is correct.

      • Nate says:

        Nothing wrong with the math. Doesnt mean it is applicable to the Earth’s carbon cycle.

        Lots of previous work shows more complex equations which incorporate the buffering factor of the ocean, are required.

      • Nate says:

        This article from the American Institute of Physics explains in simple terms the significance of the Revelle Factor to atmospheric CO2.

        https://history.aip.org/climate/Revelle.htm

      • Entropic man says:

        Is the physics correct?

        The deep ocean CO2 concentration reflects the atmospheric concentration when the thermohaline circulation brought it down from the surface 1000 years ago. Nowadays the thermohaline circulation is delivering water with more dissolved CO2 due to a higher atmospheric concentration and near surface CO2 is also higher than it was.

        This creates a concentration gradient with higher CO2 concentration above and a lower CO2 concentration below.

        To move CO2 as Berry’s hypothesis requires needs three things.

        1) For CO2 to move against the concentration gradient.

        2) A mechanism for pumping the CO2.

        3) An energy source to power the mechanism.

        Berry’s papers are behind a paywall, he refuses to debate outside his website and Nate and I are banned from it.

        As his advocate here perhaps you might explain what mechanism is involved and it’s energy source.

      • RLH says:

        “Nate and I are banned”

        which does not make you correct on this point. Only dissenting.

      • RLH says:

        “near surface CO2 is also higher than it was”

        Sure coal and oil appeared by magic.

      • RLH says:

        “the thermohaline circulation brought it down from the surface 1000 years ago”

        The thermohaline circulation in only 1000 years old? I think not.

      • RLH says:

        “The Carboniferous Period lasted from about 359.2 to 299 million years ago* during the late Paleozoic Era.”

        That is when a lot of coal and oil was formed. i.e. The CO2 concentrations in the air of CO2 decreased at the same time.

      • Entropic man says:

        RLH

        “Nate and I are banned”

        It means that we can’t debate with Berry, just with his proofreader Anderson.

        the thermohaline circulation brought it down from the surface 1000 years ago

        The thermohaline circulation in only 1000 years old? I think not. ”

        I agree. It has been going for at least 10,000 years which allowed CO2 to cycle from the poles to the deep ocean and back to the surface ten times. Since CO2 concentration was around 280ppm throughout that was plenty of time for the deep ocean concentration to stabilise.

        The Carboniferous Period lasted from about 359.2 to 299 million years ago* during the late Paleozoic Era.

        That is when a lot of coal and oil was formed. i.e. The CO2 concentrations in the air of CO2 decreased at the same time. ”

        Remember why. Plants evolved the ability to make lignin at the beginning of the Carboniferous but decomposed only evolved the ability to digest lignin 50 million years later.

        The result was that enormous amounts of lignin accumulated, providing the raw material for most coal deposits. depletatmospheric CO2 and

      • Entropic man says:

        Sorry.

        The result was that enormous amounts of lignin accumulated, providing the raw material for most coal deposits and depleting atmospheric CO2.

        Consider that the Carboniferous started warm and ended with glaciation. I wonder if the reduction in CO2 might have caused the change?

      • RLH says:

        Limestone, dolomite and chalk form WAY more deposits that either coal or oil.

        They are probably the biggest deposits of CO2.

        “Extensive chalk deposits date from the Cretaceous Period (145.5 million to 65.5 million years ago)”

        None of that involved lignin.

      • RLH says:

        …than either coal or oil…

      • bdgwx says:

        SPA, let’s try this again.

        Consider a bag containing 400 blue marbles. Each day you add 100 blue marbles to the bag and remove 100 marbles at random from the bag. The amount of marbles in the bag remains steady at 400 marbles; all of them blue.

        Then I come along and add 100 red marbles to the bag in one shoot. The bag now has 500 marbles of which 400 are blue and 100 are red. The mixing ratio is 20% red.

        You are still adding 100 blue marbles and removing 100 marbles at random at each day though. Because the mixing ratio is 20% red that means about 20% or 20 of the red marbles will be randomly chosen for removal and replaced with blue marbles. After one day the mixing ratio has decreased to (100 – 20) / 500 = 16%. There is still 500 marbles in the bag. And because the mixing ratio has changed the next removal will only reduce the red marble count by about 16. The new mixing ratio after day two is (100 – 20 – 16) / 500 = 13%. There is still 500 marbles in the bag. Repeating this process over a 5 day period results in a mixing ratio of (100 – 20 – 16 – 13 – 10 – 8) / 500 = 7% with 500 marbles remaining in the bag. After 10 days it is 2%. After 25 days you no longer have any red marbles in the bag, but the bag still contains 500 marbles.

        Here is the epiphany. I am THE cause of the increase of marbles your bag from 400 to 500. This is true despite the fact that my unique red marbles have completely washed out after 25 days. Just because you no longer see red marbles in your bag does not in anyway invalidate the fact that I and I alone caused the number of marbles in your bag to increase. In the absence of my action of adding 100 marbles you’d still only have 400 marbles in your bag.

        Do you understand this simple example?

      • Brock says:

        Whats wrong with 500 marbles?

      • RLH says:

        Except that all life on Earth removes carbon for your bag.

      • RLH says:

        …from your bag…

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        BGDWX,
        Do you understand that your model doesn’t describe Berry’s model or the Physics Model (Conservation of Mass)? The input sets the balance level. Lb/E=inflow. Lo/E=outflow. Outflow is proportional to LEVEL. Inflow sets the balance level.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        dL/dt=Lb/E-Lo/E, when dL/dt=0, inflow=outflow. This is the same for all carbon, fossil fuel and natural.

      • bdgwx says:

        SPA,

        Yes. I understand bag of marbles example does not describe Berry’s model nor is it intended to be an exact analogy the real world. What it is intended to do is provide an example that can be used to discuss fundamental concepts that also come into play in the real world.

        I’ll ask again. Do you understand the concepts going on in the bag of marbles? What is the residence time of the marbles? What is the adjustment time of the marbles? Who is responsible marble increase in the bag?

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Yes, I understand your little colored marble exercise.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Residence time and adjustment time are meaningless in Berry’s physics model. E time is e-folding time. The IPCC uses “turnover” time. What is that?

      • Willard says:

        The bag of marbles certainly can’t represent faithfully what Ed is saying for he lost his.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…”Consider a bag containing 400 blue marbles”.

        ***

        Can none of you alarmists talk science without resorting to inane thought experiments? I doubt it, you have no real science outside of thought experiments and consensus.

      • bdgwx says:

        Residence Time (or turnover time, flushing time, retention time, etc.) is the time a parcel of mass spends in a reservoir. It is not a concept that the IPCC created. It is a concept in use in many disciplines of science anytime their is a reservoir with a flow rate. It is mathematically defined as T = m/f where m is the mass of the reservoir and f is the flow rate through it.

        The residence time of the bag of marbles is 500 marbles / 100 marbles/day = 5 days.

        Do you understand that the decay of the mixing ratio of red marbles does not tells us anything about who is responsible for the increase in marbles from 400 to 500?

        Do you understand that the law of conservation of mass unequivocally says that the marble transfer I initiated necessarily means I’m the one responsible for the mass increase?

        If you understand these concepts we can build on the example and make it a little closer to the way the real world works.

      • Nate says:

        “the Physics Model” is a standard mathematical model. It will not work if it makes incorrect assumptions about the ocean, as Revelle discovered.

        Here is the Bolin and Erickson paper that uses a more appropriate physics model containing the Revelle Factor, and with it accurately predicted the rise in atmospheric CO2, in 1958, that then occurred over the next 6 decades.

        https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/bolin.1958.carbon_uptake.pdf

        Berry was unaware of this paper when I pointed it out to him. Then I was banned.

        For someone supposedly trying to understand the Earth’s carbon cycle, not being familiar with the key pioneering work in the field is like trying to explain planetary motion without being familiar with Kepler’s or Newton’s work.

      • bdgwx says:

        Berry’s main mistake is in the belief that the ratio of human markers vs natural markers is the same as the ratio of mass that got their via humans vs nature. Those are not the same thing.

        In the marble example the observation that the ratio of red marbles to blue marbles decays to 0% does not mean that agent producing the red marbles is 0% responsible for the increase in the marble count. In the same way the observation that human CO2 molecules to natural CO2 molecules decays from X% towards 0% does not mean that humans are responsible for only X% of the increase of CO2 molecule count.

        Berry also does not seem to understand even the generalized concept that changes in mixing ratios within a reservoir act independently of changes in mass amount of the reservoir and that they can even change in opposite directions. This is true for any reservoir type. This isn’t a concept unique to the carbon cycle nor is it an invention of the IPCC.

      • bdgwx says:

        GR said: Can none of you alarmists talk science without resorting to inane thought experiments?

        The intent of thought experiments (like the bag of marbles) is to create a simple and intuitive example that can be used to explain fundamental concepts that are much easier to understand.

        And as I’ve said repeatedly. If someone cannot understand fundamental concepts in a simple idealized example they will not be able to understand the far more complex real world.

      • Geoff Sherrington says:

        bdgwx,
        Why do you add blue marbles, not some mix of red and blue?
        Geoff S

      • bdgwx says:

        It is to keep the scenario as simple as possible. Once it is understood it can be changed to bring it closer to reality.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:

        The intent of thought experiments (like the bag of marbles) is to create a simple and intuitive example that can be used to explain fundamental concepts that are much easier to understand.

        ————————–
        What should be easily understand is talking about a 200 marbles in a bag with a billion other marbles. Sure if you can show they are the only blue ones in the bag thats a good argument, but just trying to figure that out in a bag with a billion marbles you better have some pretty rigid controls in place and be able to explain what they are.

      • Willard says:

        What Gill is saying is that, like Ed, he lost all his marbles a long time ago.

        We already knew that.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Willard please stop trolling

      • Nate says:

        “Weve been over this repeatedly .”

        Yep.

        Stephen’s one weird trick is to come back periodically to proclaim again that Berry has falsified the anthro CO2 rise, having forgotten all the flaws in his work that had previously been pointed out to him.

      • bdgwx says:

        I noticed that Berry claims that his publication is peer-reviewed. It is published in Science of Climate Change. It appears this “journal” is operated by a group out of Norway called Klimarealistene which translates to Climate Realists. It looks like it is a contrarian blog that peddles the same myths, meme graphics, strawmen, etc. as any other contrarian blog just in Norwegian. It appears that Berry is redefining what “peer-review” means.

        https://scienceofclimatechange.org/

        https://klimarealistene.com/

      • Nate says:

        Wow! Many crackpot ‘publications’ there. They are in a different reality than ours.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate’s idea of a statistically sensible science argument is to wildly wave ones hand in the air while spewing ad hominem.

        I suppose if you were on the other side you would be impugning Science and Nature magazines as Nazi propaganda since it is owned by a firm founded by a registered Nazi. Right?

        What a magazine or any other privately owned journal chooses to publish is their basic right as long as they are willing to accept liability for what they publish. But that doesn’t make any article wrong and no article is made right either by the owner of the publication. Science just doesn’t work that way. You need a sound and statistically sensible science argument and be prepared to show evidence that the article is correct or wrong depending upon your inclinations. Simply declaring it correct or wrong isn’t sufficient.

      • Nate says:

        Troll Bill offers up a good example of dead-thread last-wording, in hopes that nobody will notice. And naturally it is full of unsupported nonsense.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate still lacks a statistically sensible science argument to support his claims so he attacks the guy that points that out.

      • Nate says:

        Nah, you’re just my stalker spewing your usual pointless venom.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Stalker? You stalk Roy on his forum and can’t even to point to the science why you think he is wrong. All you are is a troll.

      • Nate says:

        I stalk Roy?

        You’re dreamin.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        By your own definition Nate.

      • Willard says:

        There’s a Bingo of One Weird Tricks:

        https://climateball.net/the-bingo/

      • RLH says:

        There is a certainty about some people (i.e. Willard) being idiots.

      • Nate says:

        Berry’s weird trick is to assume the Earth’s carbon cycle is simple, while ignoring all previous work showing that it isn’t.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Berry’s weird trick is to assume that carbon obeys the conservation of mass. So do ALL atmospheric physics textbooks EVER written.

      • bdgwx says:

        It’s odd you mention the law of conservation of mass because Berry’s conclusion are a violation of it.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        How so?

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        BGDWX,

        Do you agree that dL/dt=inflow-outflow describes atmospheric carbon?

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        So nothing? You’re pushing an agenda. Not physics.

      • bdgwx says:

        Yes. I agree that dL/dt = inflow-outflow. That is the law of conservation of mass.

        Berry’s conclusion violates it because he says only 33 ppm of the CO2 in the atmosphere is attributable to humans.

        His egregious mistake is embodied by this statement: “Since
        human carbon must obey the same rules as natural carbon, the physics carbon cycle model computes the human carbon cycle using the e-times found in IPCCs natural carbon cycle (22).”

        His methodology is using the residence time to make a statement about who caused the mass change. Notice that he is NOT using the law of conservation of mass to figure out who caused the mass change.

        You CANNOT use the residence time of a reservoir to determine what caused mass changes in that reservoir.

        What he effectively did was calculate the mixing ratio of molecules that still have the human markers. The mixing ratio of molecules with human markers is NOT the same as the ratio of mass caused by humans.

      • Nate says:

        “Berrys weird trick is to assume that carbon obeys the conservation of mass. So do ALL atmospheric physics textbooks EVER written.”

        Sure, Stephen, and baseballs obey the law of gravity. But if you ignore air resistance, then you will think that even you can regularly hit home runs.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:

        You CANNOT use the residence time of a reservoir to determine what caused mass changes in that reservoir.

        What he effectively did was calculate the mixing ratio of molecules that still have the human markers. The mixing ratio of molecules with human markers is NOT the same as the ratio of mass caused by humans.

        —————————–

        Unfortunately bdgwx your criticism doesn’t hold water.

        You first need to understand the ‘entire’ carbon reservoir in the carbon cycle. Concluding only 33ppm is based upon the assumption that Henry’s law governs the reservoir proportionally as based on established experimental chemistry only.

        Political activists of all stripes draw their own conclusions that maximize what it is they want to maximize.

        Years and years of litigation and regulation support work makes that perfectly clear.

        So all I see in this thread from your side, at best, is the pot calling the kettle black.

        Coming from your side its a cinch if you assume that the warming world is 104% due to carbon emissions.

        But without that assumption you have no basis. So your argument is effectively the fallacy of confirming the consequent.

        Now I have been asking for sometime for anybody to post a statistically sensible argument or any experimental proof that CO2 is responsible for virtually all the warming versus being the consequence of that warming. Nate demurred after calling out others for such evidence. Seems were are at an impasse.

        So far AFAIK Henry’s law is the only actually established evidence. We know that humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by a minimum of 33ppm. . . .and we have some idea regarding how much CO2 has increased in total based upon a single sampling location. But that assumes that CO2 is uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. But the lack of a written blueprint of how man made emissions have caused the major increase (above 33ppm) in carbon in the atmosphere is far from proven. It may well be but as I said what someone wants to pick as an answer is highly variable.

        What we know is that enough energy is deposited into the atmosphere from human emissions to ‘potentially’ warm the surface by 1 deg C for a doubling of CO2. However, most scientists disagree on how much surfact warming will actually result after feedback.

        Even in the practice of medicine it is very difficult to estimate such effects even when the tested variable can be manipulated. Thats because its difficult to keep variables from changing in the natural environment when we don’t understand the effects of any of those variables any better.

        As a result even with huge advantages (many test subjects) medicine advances slowly and politics has stayed out of most of that advance which is very helpful.

        What we have here though is politics entering the equation because science is perceived as moving too slowly by some of the more impatient sorts.

      • bdgwx says:

        Bill Hunter, I standby what I said. I’ll repeat. You cannot use residence time to draw a conclusion about who is responsible for a mass change in a reservoir. Nor can you assume that the agent most responsible for mixing ratio changes is the same agent most responsible for mass amount changes.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:

        ”Bill Hunter, I standby what I said. Ill repeat. You cannot use residence time to draw a conclusion about who is responsible for a mass change in a reservoir.”

        Well thats true no matter what method you are using unless you fully understand how the CO2 thats there got there.

        Its no more an overreach to say in general only 33ppm is the anthropogenic contribution as it is to claim anything else as 33ppm is the only part of the contribution you can trace to its source and the chemistry involved.

      • Nate says:

        There is lot wrong in Bills latest gish gallop.

        Such as “based upon a single sampling location”.

        Then there’s today’s politics time-travelling back to the 1950s to influence the discoveries about the carbon cycle that made it possible to correctly predict the anthropogenic rise of atmospheric CO2 over the next 60 y.

        Anyone who wants to learn about these discoveries can read a nice history of that period here:

        https://history.aip.org/climate/Revelle.htm

        And go farther with their knowledge by reading and understanding this key paper from that period:

        https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/bolin.1958.carbon_uptake.pdf

      • bdgwx says:

        BH, It is an overreach to say that only 33 ppm of the 133 ppm rise is the human contribution because only 25% of the human markers washed out. It is no different than the bag of marbles example above. It is an overreach to say that I’m 0% responsible for the marble increase from 400 to 500 because none of the red marbles I added are in the bag anymore. I’m still the one that added 100 marbles. If I didn’t add those 100 red marbles then the number of marbles in the bag would not have increased. It’s an incredibly simple concept to understand which leaves me baffled as to why Berry and others cannot understand it.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        What is your source bdgwx?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:
        ”Then theres todays politics time-travelling back to the 1950s to influence the discoveries about the carbon cycle that made it possible to correctly predict the anthropogenic rise of atmospheric CO2 over the next 60 y.”

        Texas sharpshooting has been a sanctioned sport for as long as there have been self-proclaimed Texas Sharpshooters.

      • bdgwx says:

        The law of conservation of mass.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Thats ridiculous bdgwx!

        The marbles in the bag have no red marbles. If what you are talking about is the ‘entire’ carbon reservoir you have to recognize that mankind added zero carbon to it.

        If you want to exclude parts of the reservoir then you need to fully understand the ins and outs between the included part and the excluded part.

        Since we don’t know any of that, the human contribution is completely unknown beyond the molecules that bear the earmarks of fossil fuel combustion which can only be reasonably assumed the result of human burning of fossil fuels.

        Nutcases with political agendas that understand any of this will make assumptions about those ins and outs and their causes as sort of a ‘fad’ theory. A theory akin to the unregulated nutritional supplement market without the legally-mandated disclaimers regarding medical advice.

      • RLH says:

        “The law of conservation of mass”

        Nobody created Carbon. It was there already. It was just moved from one point to another.

      • Nate says:

        “Since we dont know any of that, the human contribution is completely unknown”

        Bill pretends to be unaware that FF carbon has been sequestered from the carbon cycle for millions of years, and is only now being added back into it.

        We know that. But Bill doesnt. Because he has lost his marbles.

      • bdgwx says:

        No Bill, the law of conservation of mass is not ridiculous. If I transfer 100 marbles from my possession into the bag then I have 100 less and the bag has 100 more. Therefore I am the cause of the marble increase. This is true despite the fact that the markers associated with my transfer are washing out. Likewise, when humans transferred 465 GtC from the fossil stock into the carbon cycle then the fossil stock has 465 GtC less and the carbon cycle has 465 GtC more. Therefore humans are the cause of mass increase. This is true despite the fact that markers associated with the human transfer are washing out. It is literally that simple.

      • bdgwx says:

        RLH, no offense but duh. That’s how the law of conservation of mass works. Specifically humans moved carbon from the fossil reservoir to the carbon cycle. And because mass also isn’t destroyed that necessarily means the carbon cycle now has more mass than it did before. Humans moved the mass therefore humans are the cause of the decrease in the fossil reservoir and increase in the carbon cycle.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:

        No Bill, the law of conservation of mass is not ridiculous. If I transfer 100 marbles from my possession into the bag then I have 100 less and the bag has 100 more. Therefore I am the cause of the marble increase.
        ———————
        thats true for the marbles you are adding to the bag in your hand.

        But its not necessarily true for the carbon cycle and that because the carbon reservoir is huge, the carbon does not remain in the corner of the carbon reservoir that is the atmosphere, we don’t understand well how carbon moves around the corners of the carbon reservoir and finally the carbon you put in the reservoir had to be first extracted from the reservoir. So all you are doing is moving marbles around in the bag, briefly removing them and putting them back.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:

        ”Bill pretends to be unaware that FF carbon has been sequestered from the carbon cycle for millions of years, and is only now being added back into it.

        We know that. But Bill doesnt. Because he has lost his marbles.”

        Perhaps millions of years but there is one helluva shitload of it compared to the carbon in the atmosphere or the entire ocean for that matter and there is no science that says its sequestered permanently. We have very little idea of how much interchange there is.

        Bottom line Nate is if CO2 doesn’t warm the climate or even maybe cools it slightly our contribution is like the 33ppm as stated.

        Since you have acknowledged you have no statistically sensible argument for warming of the atmosphere by carbon emissions you can’t say one way or the other that our contribution is greater than that.

      • bdgwx says:

        BH,

        The law of conservation of mass applies to the carbon cycle as well regardless of how big it is or how it moves around once it is there.

        You can also use the law of conservation of mass within the carbon cycle itself. Because both the biosphere and hydrosphere are gaining mass that necessarily means they cannot be the source of the mass increase in the atmosphere. There must be another source adding mass to the atmosphere in such a great quantity that it is enough to account for the increase in all 3 reservoirs (atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere).

      • Nate says:

        “Perhaps millions of years but there is one helluva shitload of it compared to the carbon in the atmosphere or the entire ocean for that matter and there is no science that says its sequestered permanently. We have very little idea of how much interchange there is.”

        Bill makes no sense, but in the end is always certain that ‘we’ meaning ‘he’ don’t know anything.

        “Bottom line Nate is if CO2 doesnt warm the climate or even maybe cools it slightly our contribution is like the 33ppm as stated.”

        Can’t win the current argument, try to change it change it into a metaphor!

      • Nate says:

        ” we dont understand well how carbon moves around the corners of the carbon reservoir ”

        There is a miswiring in Bill’s brain, which erroneously transfers ‘things Bill doesnt know’ into the ‘things science doesnt know’ department.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:
        ”There must be another source adding mass to the atmosphere in such a great quantity that it is enough to account for the increase in all 3 reservoirs (atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere).”

        Well glad you made that clear. Thats how political science works. they simply ignore by far the largest reservoir of carbon in the carbon cycle which is the geosphere. You also left out the cryosphere. You left out more than 99.9% of the carbon in the carbon cycle in order to make a political point. . .certainly not a scientific point. Unless of course you are gullible enough to believe its a scientific point.

        ”Our planet is one giant, finely balanced ecosystem. Life as we know it depends on a complex series of interactions between five interdependent systems: air (atmosphere); land (geosphere); ice cryosphere); living things (biosphere); water (hydrosphere). Collectively, these are known as the Earth System.”
        https://tinyurl.com/2dk9f43e

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:
        ”Bill makes no sense, but in the end is always certain that we meaning he dont know anything.”

        Nate once again resorts to ad hominems and mindless spew rather than a statistically sensible argument. He knows nothing folks.

      • bdgwx says:

        BH, the law of conservation of mass is not a political science law. It is a physical science law similar to the law of conservation of energy. And I’m not ignoring any carbon. When I say biosphere I am including the soil and permafrost. I just call it the biosphere because the carbon compounds are of primarily organic origin. Some sources actually just call this the land reservoir (Friedlingstein et al. 2023) even though it includes living vegetation and is primarily organic. Either way, make no mistake, I am including vegetation, permafrost, soils, etc. And before you accuse me of ignoring the slow carbon cycle (ie. rock weathering and like), which BTW operates at 1/1000 the rate of the fast carbon cycle, or any other relevant talking point understand that just because I haven’t written a 1000 page response to you including all of the minutia of the carbon cycle does not mean that I or more aptly scientists have ignored it.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:

        ”BH, the law of conservation of mass is not a political science law. It is a physical science law similar to the law of conservation of energy.”

        Of course it isn’t unless of course you aren’t using the correct mass and ignoring the largest part of the carbon cycle. When you don’t ignore some of the carbon moving between reservoirs one can they determine if your partial look of only .1% of the carbon reservoir is correct. If more than .1% of the total carbon interchanging between parts of the earth’s carbon reservoir it must be accounted for you to conclude anything about the conservation of mass. You haven’t done that.

        bdgwx says:

        ”And Im not ignoring any carbon.”

        Thats completely false! You are ignoring way more than 99.9% of the earth’s carbon.

        bdgwx says:

        ”And before you accuse me of ignoring the slow carbon cycle (ie. rock weathering and like), which BTW operates at 1/1000 the rate of the fast carbon cycle, or any other relevant talking point understand that just because I havent written a 1000 page response to you including all of the minutia of the carbon cycle does not mean that I or more aptly scientists have ignored it.”

        Well at least you anticipated that. Fact is being 1/1000th the rate as you say than the fast carbon cycle it has way more than a 1,000 times more carbon in it. Its only something some people want to ignore to jump to conclusions by. . .thats political science.

        Limestone is 44% CO2 and comprises 15% of sedimentary rock. Its among the fastest weathering rocks and it pretty much covers the entire earth surface including the bottoms of the oceans.

        As NASA says: ” It is likely that changes in ocean temperatures and currents helped remove carbon from and then restore carbon to the atmosphere over the few thousand years in which the ice ages began and ended.”

        These are chemical processes that are going to primarily vary in relationship to temperature and relative abundance. Fact is bdgwx is you DID ignore it. You didn’t mention it until you anticipated where I was going all the while claiming to have fully accounted for your conservation of mass argument. You are just too easy bdgwx. You need to start thinking for yourself rather than just listening to what your daddy tells you. You are certainly smart enough to do that.

      • bdgwx says:

        BH said: You are ignoring way more than 99.9% of the earths carbon.

        That is an extraordinary claim. I know of about 45,000 GtC in the shallow (endogenic) reservoirs. If you’re saying I’m ignoring 99.9% of the carbon then there must be 45,000,000 GtC in the shallow (endogenic) reservoirs that I (and presumably scientists) don’t know about, but which you do. And if I include the deep (endogenic) reservoirs which I know of about 1e9 GtC of carbon then there must be 1e12 GtC that I (and presumably scientists) don’t know about, but which you do. And I’m not even including the carbon that I know must exist below the mantle. Can you provide extraordinary evidence for the claim that there is 45,000,000 GtC in the shallow (exogenic) reservoirs and/or 1e12 GtC in the deep (endogenic) reservoirs?

      • Nate says:

        “Nate once again resorts to ad hominems and mindless spew rather than a statistically sensible argument. ”

        Bill seemingly forgets how often he butts-in to my conversations with others to weigh-in with nothing but tossed ad-hom grenades directed at me, and misrepresentations of my posts.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:

        That is an extraordinary claim. And Im not even including the carbon that I know must exist below the mantle. Can you provide extraordinary evidence for the claim that there is 45,000,000 GtC in the shallow (exogenic) reservoirs and/or 1e12 GtC in the deep (endogenic) reservoirs?

        Nothing extraordinary about bdgwx. Its notable that your argument just waved it off. Thats because its political science.

        Fact is 15% of sedimentary rock (surface rock) is limestone which is 15% carbon dioxide. the ocean bottom is almost 100% coated with thick layers of high carbon materials. Your thousand to one ratio is way small in relationship to how much carbon is available to chemical and erosive processes. Fossil fuels are but a drop in the bucket. The net anthropogenic contribution is a small fraction of one part per million to the surface reservoirs.

        Sources on this are innumerable. I don’t have time today to begin to tap the literature. What should be remarkable is the total ignorance of this within IPCC arguments. But its not surprising to an old hand like myself. Wearing horse blinders in pursuit of political objectives is the soup du jour in processes like the UN and many other fora.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:
        ” ”Nate once again resorts to ad hominems and mindless spew rather than a statistically sensible argument. ”

        Bill seemingly forgets how often he butts-in to my conversations with others to weigh-in with nothing but tossed ad-hom grenades directed at me, and misrepresentations of my posts.”

        Thanks again Nate for acknowledging that you don’t have one shred of a statistically sensible argument here.

      • bdgwx says:

        BH, If you are unwilling or unable to provide a source of your claim that there is 45,000,000 GtC in the exogenic and/or 1e12 GtC in the endogenic reservoirs then I don’t have any choice but to dismiss it.

      • Nate says:

        Thus Bill demonstrates his now classic “misrepresentations of my posts.

        One reason why honest debate with him isn’t possible.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:

        ”BH, If you are unwilling or unable to provide a source of your claim that there is 45,000,000 GtC in the exogenic and/or 1e12 GtC in the endogenic reservoirs then I dont have any choice but to dismiss it.”

        The earth’s crust is 27,700,000,000 Gigatons. Carbon makes up .025% of it. That works out to 69,250,000 GtC.

        Certainly you are welcome to dismiss it. But thats one heckuva a lot of marbles unaccounted for in your conservation of mass argument. Seems to me you can discard that argument.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:

        Thus Bill demonstrates his now classic misrepresentations of my posts.

        One reason why honest debate with him isnt possible.
        ———————-
        Now Nate is getting pouty. He claims I misrepresented his statistically sensible argument he made and seems to be missing.

      • bdgwx says:

        BH,

        Can you provide a reference for that 69,250,000 GtC figure?

        And what is 69,250,000 GtC / 1e12 GtC?

      • bill hunter says:

        first link i saw said 70,000,000 GtC but I didn’t save the link.

        https://www.britannica.com/science/carbon-chemical-element

        .025% of earth’s crust

        https://tinyurl.com/2yda62em

        The mass of the Earth’s crust 2.77 * 10^22 kg

        you will have to do a little math.

        one can also calculate that ~39,000,000 GtC of that is in limestone which was laid down as part of the normal processes of the earth belching CO2 up from and through the crust into the oceans and atmosphere and supporting robust life on this planet. so that is one helluva lot of loose and unaccounted for marbles for any conservation of mass argument.

      • bill hunter says:

        and of course the earth’s crust makes up only about 1% of the earth’s mass.

      • bdgwx says:

        BH,

        Yeah, those are the links I got when I googled for it. The intent of my questions was actually to get you to rethink what you wrote. Specifically I wanted you to double check your math because 0.025% * 2.77e22 kg does not equal 69,250,000 GtC. It is actually 6,925,000 GtC.

        Remember, you said I’m ignoring 99.9% of the carbon. I know of about 1,000,000,000 GtC. 7,000,000 GtC is only 1/143 of what I know and 1/143000 of what you said is there.

        My reference is Lee et al. 2019: A Framework for Understanding Whole-Earth Carbon Cycling.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:

        ”I know of about 1,000,000,000 GtC. 7,000,000 GtC is only 1/143 of what I know and 1/143000 of what you said is there.

        My reference is Lee et al. 2019: A Framework for Understanding Whole-Earth Carbon Cycling.”

        well I did make a mistake with a decimal. But as you say you claim you have accounted for the exchange rates of 1,000,000,000 GtC with in the earth’s reservoirs and I am not seeing anything like that in the reference you provided. It says it doesn’t know what the rate of exchange is with the bulk of the carbon reservoir. . . .despite throwing out a figure with a question mark after it.

        to me as an accountant thats freaking hilarious. Imagine reading a financial report with question marks after the figures. LOL!

      • Willard says:

        What is 0.025% times 2.77e22 kg, Gill?

      • bdgwx says:

        BH,

        Now you’re moving the goal post again. First, it was a challenge that you cannot use the law of conservation of mass to determine the cause of the increase. Then it was that I (and presumably scientists) forgot about 99.9% of the carbon. Now it is that we do the rates of exchange.

        Except…the only exchange rate that isn’t known or even estimated is the transfer between the lower and upper mantle which works on billion year time scales. All of the exchange rates that operate on 10,000 year or less time scales are known. Once again we can apply the law of conservation of mass. Multiplying the rates by time we can see that the only natural reservoirs that are even capable of accounting for the addition mass in the atmosphere are the terrestrial biosphere and surface ocean. And, like as been said repeatedly, those can be eliminated with a further application of the law of conservation of mass since their mass is increasing too.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:

        Now youre moving the goal post again. First, it was a challenge that you cannot use the law of conservation of mass to determine the cause of the increase. Then it was that I (and presumably scientists) forgot about 99.9% of the carbon. Now it is that we do the rates of exchange.

        Exceptthe only exchange rate that isnt known or even estimated is the transfer between the lower and upper mantle which works on billion year time scales. All of the exchange rates that operate on 10,000 year or less time scales are known.

        Once again we can apply the law of conservation of mass.
        ————————
        Thats certainly not true.

        You would not make a good accountant as one must close the loop not leave it open.

        The In and Out between the reactive marine sediment and ocean is ‘estimated’ to be .06 up to .08 down. The net corresponds to the .02? movement into the sediment.

        Since its obvious they aren’t measuring it but using some kind of proxy like estimated biota sinking to the bottom they are only scratching the surface.

      • bdgwx says:

        It’s actually 0.6 GtC up and 0.8 GtC down for a net of 0.2 GtC down. Let’s say the up doubled to 1.2 GtC for a net of 0.4 GtC up then it would take 1600+ years to deliver the increase seen in the hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere plus the amount of time it takes to move through the deep ocean and surface ocean. But you still have a law of conservation of mass problem. Where did the 670 GtC of human carbon go if not into the atmosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:

        Its actually 0.6 GtC up and 0.8 GtC down for a net of 0.2 GtC down. Lets say the up doubled to 1.2 GtC for a net of 0.4 GtC up then it would take 1600+ years to deliver the increase seen in the hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere plus the amount of time it takes to move through the deep ocean and surface ocean. But you still have a law of conservation of mass problem. Where did the 670 GtC of human carbon go if not into the atmosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere?

        ———————-
        well before one answers that question one has to establish if your premises are correct. Where is your reference to the work done to establish your premises? Do you even know or did you just copy it from the paper you already referred to?

      • Intelligent climate realists (aka “skeptics:) do not deny AGW, which includes CO2 emissions, the urban heat island effect, land use related albedo changes, dark soot falling on Arctic ice and snow, and a reduction of air pollution, all of which can cause global warming.

        I also add deliberately, or accidentally, inaccurate “manmade” temperature measurements and adjustments, that can create “global warming” on paper, which does not exist in reality.

        It is only CAGW that reasonable climate realists object to. Sometimes described as AGW x2 to AGW x4.

        CAGW has never before happened. So there are no historical data for CAGW. And there are never any data for the future climate. Therefore, CAGW predictions MUST BE data-free.

        A data-free prediction is not science, especially after always wrong CAGW predictions since the 1979 Charney Report, and over a century of always wrong environmental predictions of doom.

        The data-free CAGW prediction is not science, and that is why Climate Realists do not accept it. I consider CAGW predictions to be climate astrology.

        In my opinion, the stratosphere scare will not work because few people ever heard of the stratosphere, and no one lives there.

        For the annual IPCC “How to Climate Scare the Fools in 2023 Contest”, I submitted: “Climate Change Will Kill Your Dog”. That will scare more people than the stratosphere malarkey.

        This RS article was in the top four of my daily list of 20 climate science and energy articles, recommended on my blog this morning. Dr. Spencer is a consistently good author, who makes my job as a blog editor easy.

        At the link below is my daily list of 20 conservative articles refuting the coming climate change crisis hoax, and the completely unnecessary Nut Zero: Also, a list of 20 good conservative articles follows, on various other subjects. No ads. No money for me. I just want to publicize the best 40 conservative articles I’ve read every day.

        https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/

      • Richard M says:

        Nate responds with the typical science denial we see from most climate cultists. No facts, just pure denial.

        Also, there may be multiple reasons humans aren’t responsible for the warming we’ve seen. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

      • Nate says:

        What post are you responding to, and why here, Richard M?

  5. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Infrared radiation in the upper stratosphere is released when an O2 molecule breaks down into monoatomic oxygen in the presence of another air molecule. O2 is broken down only by absorbing the highest-energy UV photon. These particles are released during solar eruptions. When these eruptions are fewer and weaker the temperature in the upper stratosphere must drop. A lesser role is played by galactic radiation, which can also produce ozone, but mainly at high latitudes and in regions with weaker geomagnetic fields. Secondary galactic radiation in the form of neutrons also produces radioactive carbon in the stratosphere from nitrogen, which combines with oxygen. The amounts of water vapor and tropospheric CO2 in the stratosphere are negligible and play little role in terms of stratospheric temperature. The following graphics show how an increase in solar activity affects the temperature in the upper stratosphere.
    https://i.ibb.co/9yJTXwL/mgii-composite-2.png
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2023.png

  6. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Temperatures in the lower stratosphere can rise during very strong volcanic eruptions when large amounts of volcanic ash, carried by strong stratospheric winds, enter the stratosphere. Particulate matter absorbs the entire range of solar radiation. Then temperatures near the Earth’s surface drop.

  7. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The decline in ozone production may affect the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2023.png

  8. stephen p. anderson says:

    The leftists bring out Santer et al. again. Regurgitating the same ole playbook.

    • Willard says:

      You might like:

      Ben Santer: Well, the meeting in Madrid lasted three days. And on the first day in plenary, the Kenyan representative said in plenary we do not need a detection and attribution chapter, there should be no Chapter 8. There is no scientific basis for anything that is said in this chapter, and all of this stuff was too preliminary and it should either be removed or down waited in the final version of the summary for policymakers, which was astonishing and shocking. We, dozens of scientists from around the world had just spent 1 1/2 years working on this chapter. So this statement take it out, take out Chapter 8 was shocking. And I pushed back strongly in plenary against that notion that there should be no Chapter 8. So that was the challenge that was evident in the first day. How do you defend the science in this highly charged political atmosphere where there are forces who not only seek to change or alter the science but also to remove it completely?

      Greg Dalton: So the chapter gets approved the balance of evidence for the first time the international scientific community says humans are playing a role are contributing to the observed disruption of the climate. Then Fred Seitz attacks you in the Wall Street Journal. What happened?

      Ben Santer: Well, Fred Seitz was a past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. So had been the holder of arguably the most prestigious position in American science, not a climate scientist, not someone who had been involved with the IPCC, not someone who had been present in Madrid and yet he was writing in the Wall Street Journal in an opinion piece in the summer of 1996 that I, Ben Santer, was guilty of the worst abuses of the peer-reviewed system that he had seen in his 40 years as a scientist, and arguing that Im guilty of serious professional misconduct.

      Greg Dalton: And Fred Seitz also has some links with tobacco companies, right. So was he playing the tobacco playbook on you?

      Ben Santer: Absolutely. And all those links with tobacco companies and being essentially a higher scientific gun for them came out in the book published by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt, that was a real shocker, an eye-opener for me because that book revealed that folks like Fred Seitz had been on the wrong side of the science, not just on the climate issue, but on the causes of ozone depletion and on pesticides and human health, cigarette smoking and cancer.

      Tobacco company representative: We do not believe that cigarettes are hazardous, we dont accept that.

      Prosecutor: Have they been proved to be unsafe?

      Tobacco company representative: I believe they have not been proved to be unsafe

      Ben Santer: It was indeed a playbook, a pattern of behavior. If you dont like the science cast doubt on the scientists sow uncertainty everywhere you can and get paid handsomely for it.

      https://climategen.org/blog/my-climate-story-ben-santer/

      • bill hunter says:

        so Seitz points out the BS Santer statistical study done by Santer for AR3 that failed to survive the ipcc publication date and Santer’s response was to pull the tobacco card! LOL!

      • RLH says:

        Can you buy a scientist? Apparently yes.

      • Entropic man says:

        Indeed. The leader petrol lobby, the tobacco lobby and the fossil fuel lobby have done so repeatedly.

      • RLH says:

        You think the climate lobby is any different?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Indeed! One should never believe somebody who lacks either the appearance of independence or any enforcable obligation to provide you with facts versus lies.

      • Swenson says:

        Whinnying Wee Willy,

        Do you any reason for posting random irrelevancies, or are you attempting to imply intelligence through idiocy?

      • Willard says:

        If you say so, Mike Flynn.

        Or if your silly sock puppet says so.

      • Entropic man says:

        “Prosecutor: Have they been proved to be unsafe?

        Tobacco company representative: I believe they have not been proved to be unsafe”

        Difficult to make someone believe if their job depends on them not believing.

      • Entropic man says:

        Fred Seitz reminds me of Clarke’s First Law.The

        “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”

      • Nate says:

        Elderly Lord Kelvin said in 1902 “Neither the balloon, nor the aeroplane, nor the gliding machine will be a practical success”

      • Entropic man says:

        My favourite is Richard van de Heit Wooley.

        On appointment as Astronomer Royal, he reiterated his long-held view that “space travel is utter bilge”. Speaking to Time in 1956, Woolley noted “It’s utter bilge. I don’t think anybody will ever put up enough money to do such a thing… What good would it do us?”

        Sputnik 1 went up in 1957.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        So far, he’s proven correct.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:

        ”Elderly Lord Kelvin said in 1902 Neither the balloon, nor the aeroplane, nor the gliding machine will be a practical success”

        Yep in the future we might be saying the same kind of stuff about Ben Santer. . . .except he isn’t anywhere near getting to a point where we will care about him, unlike William Thompson.

      • Willard says:

        In the future contrarian cranks may win:

        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/01/11/can-contrarians-lose/

        They always do. Which is a problem when doing science.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Willard says:

        ”In the future contrarian cranks may win.”

        Yeah that sometimes happens. But what happens most of the time is some visionary scientist actually figures out how it works well enough to actually write it down.

      • Willard says:

        Gill, Gill,

        It does not happen sometimes. It always happen.

        Remember Galileo. Every single contrarian won because he did.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        No what happens Willard is when science gets overturned it considered to be no longer science in order for science to continue to have a perfect record.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Santer is just another alarmist clown.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Well, Gordo, at least he understands how the MSU/AMSU instruments work and how the resulting data is processed. So far, you do not.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Wasn’t it you Swanson examining that data who came to the incorrect conclusion that Arctic summer time temperatures were increasing and baked up the idea and wrote a paper that UAH was too cool because of that?

      • Willard says:

        Arctic summer time temperatures is not increasing, Gill?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nope! Been decreasing. Winter temperatures in the Arctic have increased.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        The thing not stated wee willy is that Oreskes attacked Seitz and two other scientists after thy were dead. Oreskes is the historian, or whatever, who claimed consensus is a valid form of science.

        This nonsense about attacking skeptics in relation to the tobacco industry is shear desperation not to mention idiotic. It is par for the course with alarmists like Santer. The fact that it shocked him suggests he suffers from terminal naivete.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Hmmm, digging into the archives of an anti-tobacco lobbyist group. Since most of those documents don’t even seem to be about ”Fred Seitz” did you find any that represented a smoking gun for Fred having sold out his fame for a few dollars?

        Most people that do that lack fame and are instead doing it to gain fame. . . .or a promotion.

      • Willard says:

        Gill, Gill,

        What does the fact that Big Tobacco has correspondence with other people than Fred tells you exactly?

      • Swenson says:

        Wandering Wee Willy,

        Back to the point.

        How many words does your non-existent GHE description contain?

        Yes, I know, I’m taunting the mentally disabled – you.

        Learn to live with it, idiot.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        “Back”?

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Willard says:

        ”Gill, Gill,

        What does the fact that Big Tobacco has correspondence with other people than Fred tells you exactly?”

        What it tells me is completely irrelevant Willard. . . I am not advancing a narrative on the topic. I was just inquiring what you found that was relevant within the correspondence. Having trouble answering that question? I am not surprised somebody who simply believes what their daddy told them usually doesn’t bother to even look.

      • Willard says:

        Gill does not advance narratives:

        > Most people that do that lack fame and are instead doing it to gain fame. . . .or a promotion.

        He is just offering theories.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Thats not a narrative its a fact that is true as it is simply an application of the laws of supply and demand.

        People who cheat are more likely to be lacking anything to lose. As price goes up demand goes down.

  9. Entropic man says:

    Coming back to Sanger et al 2023 and stratosphere temperatures.

    The stronger Sun hypothesis predicts that increased solar insolation would produce a warmer troposphere and a warmer stratosphere.

    A cooler stratosphere indicates that the solar hypothesis is wrong since it does not fit the evidence.

    Remember “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.”

    Sorry, Eben, it is not “the Sun, stupid”.

  10. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Virtual Planetary Laboratory team members have also participated in projects related to comparative planetology of planetary atmospheres and orbital dynamics. In Robinson and Catling (2014), VPL scientists used simple models to explain why Earth, Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have a local minimum in their atmospheric temperatures near 0.1 bar (Figure 2). By understanding the generalities of this phenomenon, Robinson and Catling were able to conclude that many exoplanets will also have 0.1 bar temperature minima, which could be used to help deduce the surface temperature or pressure of a potentially Earth-like planet, thereby constraining its habitability.
    https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/annual-reports/2014/vpl-uw/solar-system-analogs-for-exoplanet-observations/index.html

  11. Tim S says:

    The problem with the media is that reporters who know very little if any basic science report highly speculate studies as absolute fact. Very often they start a sentence with the phrase “in the latest study”, as if that makes it more meaningful, or “with climate change we can expect”. Most of the public think that weather has always been the same pattern every year, and any change from year to year is evidence that “climate change is already happening”. Odd weather events and “new records” for 30 year-old weather reporting stations are another source of disinformation.

    • RLH says:

      Most of the public have been told that ‘it is always getting hotter’ to the point that they believe it to be fact.

      People are always surprised when I tell them that the El Nino event of 1878 was at least as big as the one in 2016.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Not only that, the public is mislead as to the degree of warming, that it could be catastrophic.

  12. Gordon Robertson says:

    roy…from article…”Cooling is not warming”.

    ***

    Why is it necessary to walk alarmists through such basic science? They confuse infrared energy with heat. IR is not heat.

    In some posts above, alarmists are taking shots at Berry’s theory about the ocean continuing to increase it’s out-gassing of CO2, contradicting the IPCC view the increase is due only to anthropogenic CO2.

    Another no-brainer. It is a well-established fact that CO2 is absorbed in colder water and out-gassed in warmer water. The Little Ice ended circa 1850 after 400+ years of cooling the oceans. As the oceans gradually warm, they out-gas CO2.

    What’s the beef, this is basic science? The oceans will continue to out-gas Co2 as they warm from the LIA. Berry simply stated it more eloquently and in greater detail.

    This is a double whammy. The LIA would also have reduced atmospheric CO2 levels, since the colder oceans absorbed some of it. It makes sense that with warming oceans, the level in the atmosphere would begin to increase. Over 400+ years, the reduction in atmospheric CO2 was likely significant.

    What is wrong with alarmists brains that prevent them understanding even the very basics of science?

  13. Joe says:

    Scientists & the media really need to start using a different term other than “the greenhouse effect” – because it’s misleading, & only gives a very rudimentary idea of what’s going on.
    It implies Earth is surrounded by a glass shell, blocking convection with space.
    The fact of the matter is, Earth’s atmosphere is an open system, and as such is constantly losing heat to space. Greenhouses don’t do that.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      exactly.

    • Willard says:

      > It implies Earth is surrounded by a glass shell

      It’s obviously not.

      The Earth is hollow.

      • Swenson says:

        Weary Wee Willy,

        As Joe said –

        “The fact of the matter is, Earths atmosphere is an open system, and as such is constantly losing heat to space.”

        You respond “The Earth is hollow.”

        How many words are there in the Greenhouse Effect description you claim to have? Or are you just going to respond “The Earth is hollow”?

        Idiot. The Earth is cooling, fool.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        The Earth cools more slowly than the Moon.

        Why is that – is it because there’s tin foil all around it?

        Deceitful cretin.

      • Swenson says:

        Wee Willy Wanker,

        You idiot. The Moon has a far greater surface/mass ratio! Of course it cooled faster! What rate does each cool at presently? You don’t know, do you?

        Have you now changed the description of the GHE to “a phenomenon which results in cooling of matter?” You can’t actually say, can you?

        That’s because you have no description. If you did, you could at least say how many words are in it!

        And you can’t!

        What a fantasizing idiot you are!

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Are you suggesting that you now dispute that the atmosphere plays a role in slowing down the cooling of the Earth?

        That would be a rare case of a sock puppet contradicting its master!

      • Swenson says:

        Weird Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “Are you suggesting that you now dispute that the atmosphere plays a role in slowing down the cooling of the Earth?”

        Are your gotchas getting more richly bizarre than ever?

        Are you suggesting you are not an idiot?

        Why won’t you tell anyone how many words there are in the GHE you can’t produce?

        Have you given up on claiming the GHE causes warming, cooling, both or neither?

        [laughing at idiot desperately clutching at barbed wire fragments while drowning]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You wrote –

        Something, I guess.

        Who cares?

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Joe says:

        Ok Ok, to satisfy both the warmists & skeptics it should be called,
        ‘the greenhouse -with lots of large holes- effect’, or something to that effect.

      • RLH says:

        “The Earth is hollow.”

        Just as it is flat. Idiot.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Joe says:

      ”Scientists & the media really need to start using a different term other than the greenhouse effect because its misleading, & only gives a very rudimentary idea of whats going on.
      It implies Earth is surrounded by a glass shell, blocking convection with space.”

      No doubt they would if they could. . . .but its a problem they haven’t yet figured out.

      • Nate says:

        “only gives a very rudimentary idea of whats going on.”

        No surprise there. Science generally can’t be accurately described in a phrase.

        Also see ’10 gallon hat’ by Tim F.

      • Swenson says:

        “Newton’s law of universal gravitation is usually stated as that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.”

        Feel free to describe the “greenhouse effect” using as many phrases as you like.

        Does it heat or cool objects? How much? Where? At night? And so on.

        I’m only taunting you – you can’t describe the GHE at all, no matter how many paragraphs you use.

        Oh well, I guess you can’t help being an idiot.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        The Moon cools fast. No atmosphere.

        The Earth cools more slowly. Atmosphere.

        The greenhouse effect.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Willard surmises that if he begs the question he will make a convincing argument.

      • Willard says:

        Gill uses words he fails to understand once again.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nope! You left out that the earth also warms more slowly.

        Since you are a card carrying member of that science cult that believes a man can become a woman and vice versa. . .one can just assume you will believe anything yo daddy tells you.

      • Willard says:

        Gill, Gill,

        If does not matter much if the Earth warms more slowly if in the end it cools more slowly.

        Take jobs with pension plans. The young might complain about getting less wine money right now. But the old won’t whine complain about having more for retirement.

        It’s as simple as that.

      • bill hunter says:

        willard claims that warming more slowly doesn’t affect mean temperature over time while cooling more slowly does.

        willard obviously will claim anything his daddy tells him to claim.

      • Willard says:

        Gill claims he does not understand stocks and flows.

      • Swenson says:

        Whacky Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “The Moon cools fast. No atmosphere.

        The Earth cools more slowly. Atmosphere.

        The greenhouse effect.”

        You didn’t mention –

        The Moon heats fast. No atmosphere.

        The Earth heats more slowly. Atmosphere.

        Both have cooled.

        What are you babbling about? “Greenhouse effect”? Maybe you are confused because you are an idiot. You can’t admit that your “greenhouse effect” results in a drop in temperature, can you?

        That’s because you are delusional, as well as being an idiot.

        Keep it up.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        There’s something about the atmosphere that creates an effect.

        An effect according to which the cooling of the Earth is being slowed down.

        How would you call that effect?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Willard says:

        Theres something about the atmosphere that creates an effect.

        An effect according to which the cooling of the Earth is being slowed down.

        How would you call that effect?

        ——————————-
        Its called the Greenhouse Effect Willard. The problem is if you don’t know how it works you can’t know how it varies.

      • Richard M says:

        I can only shake my head.

        “The Moon cools fast. No atmosphere.
        The Earth cools more slowly. Atmosphere.”

        Actually, the amount of energy radiated from both objects is darn near identical after factoring in albedo.

      • Swenson says:

        Richard M,

        Shake away.

        As I said, the airless cools much more quickly, and to lower temperatures, than the Earth.

        No atmosphere, you see.

        In reverse, the Moon also reaches a higher temperature, in a shorter period of time, than the Earth. The Earth’s atmosphere prevents about 35% of sunlight even reaching the surface.

        Too much head-shaking may have scrambled your brain. It certainly hasn’t made you look intelligent by rejecting reality.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Richard M says:

        I can only shake my head.

        The Moon cools fast. No atmosphere.
        The Earth cools more slowly. Atmosphere.

        Actually, the amount of energy radiated from both objects is darn near identical after factoring in albedo.

        ————————-

        Yes indeed its true. But the takeaway is that the moon has more extreme climate than the earth. Greenhouse gases, clouds, etc. make the climate less extreme.

        Thats the takeaway. Folks have been doing a whole lot of lying on something that is incredibly simple.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate you already struck out and clearly demonstrated that you had no supportable explanation for an alternative to a glass shell either here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1488801

        So just stop pretending you do.

      • Nate says:

        Nothing there but the usual blather from my stalker.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Yep the usual blather that Nate has zero response to even after spending 15 days trying to figure out a response.

      • Nate says:

        Nope, just not taking the bait..and going down yet another rabbit hole to nowhere.

    • Nate says:

      Greenhouses have internal convection, and lose heat to the outside by conduction and radiation, but not by convection.

      The Earth’s atmosphere has internal convection, and loses heat to space, but not by convection.

      So not that different, actually.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        I agree the atmosphere works like a greenhouse and I agree for the same reason you outlined above.

        But Modtran doesn’t work like that.

  14. Swenson says:

    Earlier, EM wrote –

    “The result was that enormous amounts of lignin accumulated, providing the raw material for most coal deposits and depleting atmospheric CO2.”

    And now I suppose you want to complain about mankind restoring the CO2 to the atmosphere?

    It’s obviously wonderful plant food, otherwise there wouldn’t be so much biomass under the ground in the form of “fossil fuels”. Is it the fact it has to be taken out of the ground?

    So do iron for steel, lime for concrete, raw materials for plastics, minerals for making glass, and all sorts of other things.

    Run away, find an isolated place, and starve while you freeze in the dark if you like. More stuff for me!

    Carry on.

    • Entropic man says:

      “And now I suppose you want to complain about mankind restoring the CO2 to the atmosphere?”

      Go right ahead.

      You’d like a return to Carboniferous conditions. Average temperature 5C warmer. High sea levels. Coastal plains all flooded. All our infrastructure under water but think of the fishing!

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        Are you sure? The fact that fossil fuels are found up to 12 km below present sea levels might indicate that sea levels might actually fall, not rise.

        As to average temperature, returning CO2 to the atmosphere is not going to reverse the cooling that has occurred over the past four and a half billion years (up to the start o& the Carboniferous), any more than CO2 can restore the heat from your cooling hot beverage.

        You say a lot of silly things, rejecting reality. The GHE is nonsense, and you can’t even tell me how many words are in its description, because you can’t count what doesn’t exist, can you?

        Go on, tell me the benefits of restricting food production by withholding that essential plant food, CO2. There are even idiots who want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, ensuring the demise of the human race! You are not one of those, I hope?

        I’ll wager you won’t even commit yourself to an “optimal” level of CO2 in the atmosphere, giving factually based reasons for your view!

        I’m always prepared to support my views with facts. You?

      • Entropic man says:

        “The fact that fossil fuels are found up to 12 km below present sea levels might indicate that sea levels might actually fall, not rise. ”

        The land also rises and sinks, witness fossil sea shells round on Mt. Everest.

        ” cooling that has occurred over the past four and a half billion years ”

        Distinguish between the Earth’s interior and it’s surface. The interior has cooled steadily forfour and a half billion years.

        In the past billion years the surface has varied irregularly between averages of 5C and 25C.

        “Go on, tell me the benefits of restricting food production by withholding that essential plant food, CO2. ”

        After 2 million years adapting to CO2 between 180 and 280ppm some plants are not coping well. Their biomass has increased, but a smaller proportion of it is edible.

        “Ill wager you wont even commit yourself to an optimal level of CO2 in the atmosphere, giving factually based reasons for your view!”

        Actually I can. The planet does not have an optimum temperature. Biomes move with the changes.

        We do have an optimum. Our civilization was mostly built in the 19th and early 20th centuries and optimised for local conditions when the global average was around 13.8C.

        We are now 1C above that optimum and drifting further away.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        You are talking nonsense again, but at least you accept the reality that sea levels have varied in a roughly 15000 m zone in the past, say from oil now at 12 km below sea level, to marine fossils at 6 km above present sea levels.

        As to average “global” temperatures, nobody can say with any accuracy what the present average global temperature is. Talking about temperatures in the past billion years is just silly.

        You ask the following silly question “Distinguish between the Earths interior and its surface.”

        Why? Before the advent of man, the source of ephemeral surface heating was the Sun. If you are trying to imply that the surface magically heated and cooled, while the matter beneath just kept on cooling, you need to be prepared for laughter. Maybe you can produce an inert object with a core temperature over 100 C, the surface of which will spontaneously get hotter and colder when exposed to continuous sunlight.

        You claim you can provide an optimal CO2 level, then claim there isn’t one! You go on to claim that “our” civilization is optimized for local conditions, and a global average of 13.8 C – which is just nonsensical word salad.

        You really have no clue, do you? Putting more CO2 back into the atmosphere (a side benefit of producing energy to better mankind as a whole) seems to have more advantages than disadvantages. Particularly, combined with the H2O which is also a combustion product of fossil fuels, food production increases, diurnal variations decrease, leading to increased habitable areas for humans.

        Panic if you wish. Neither you, nor anybody else, can prevent the climate from changing. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Accept reality, or look like an idiot.

      • Ken says:

        I agree; the earth does not have an optimum temperature.

        That is probably the best message we can give to the climate wankers.

      • Willard says:

        The best is the enemy of the good, just like the crank is the enemy of the contrarian.

      • RLH says:

        Just like Willard is an idiot.

      • Willard says:

        And the cycle nut.

      • RLH says:

        Just because I believe that there are natural oscillations (of varying periods) does not mean I think that they are sine wave like cycles.

      • Willard says:

        Just because you try to portray cycles as sine waves, that does not mean periodic functions are not cyclical.

      • RLH says:

        Orbital factors are predictable, most natural systems other than that are oscillations, not cycles.

      • RLH says:

        P.S. Statistical analysis uses sin (and cos) waves but as most wavelet analysis (for example) shows these normally are not regular.

      • Willard says:

        What does ARMA stands for, again?

      • RLH says:

        P.P.S. “A major drawback of the SMA is that it lets through a significant amount of the signal shorter than the window length. Worse, it actually inverts it. This can lead to unexpected artifacts, such as peaks in the smoothed result appearing where there were troughs in the data. It also leads to the result being less smooth than expected since some of the higher frequencies are not properly removed.”

        “From a statistical point of view, the moving average, when used to estimate the underlying trend in a time series, is susceptible to rare events such as rapid shocks or other anomalies. A more robust estimate of the trend is the simple moving median over n time points”

        Or you could just go with what VP said.

      • RLH says:

        “In ARMA it is assumed that the time series is stationary and when it fluctuates, it does so uniformly around a particular time.”

      • Willard says:

        “a time series with cyclic behaviour (but with no trend or seasonality) is stationary”

      • RLH says:

        with no trend or seasonality

      • RLH says:

        “In general, a stationary time series will have no predictable patterns in the long-term.”

      • Willard says:

        > with no trend or seasonality

        Exactly.

        Now, what is climate change?

      • RLH says:

        Well on Earth we sure have seasons. And even anomalies have regular signals in them.

      • Swenson says:

        Weird Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “Now, what is climate change?”

        Are you really so stupid or ignorant that you don’t know what climate is?

        Rhetorical question – of course you are so stupid and ignorant that you don’t know what climate is.

        You might be an idiot, but at least you are capable of boasting about how stupid and ignorant you are.

        Carry on.

        [sniggers at dimwit trying for a gotcha]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        If I emphasize change, chances are that I’m not asking what climate is.

        Cheers.

      • RLH says:

        Willard normally claims that is an upwards trend in the climate then argues that even with a trend, climate is stationary. You can’t make these things up.

      • Willard says:

        > even anomalies

        Are anomalies stationary?

      • Willard says:

        Richard usually claims that climate change can be explained with cycles, and is about to discover why this is false.

      • RLH says:

        Willard lies as always. Cycles (implying regularity) are not the same as natural patterns (which do not have a regular, repeatable rhythms, like clouds/weather systems/fronts, etc.)

        Natural factors are very rarely predictably cyclic (except for orbital factors).

      • Willard says:

        Richard is confused once again: natural cycles are cycles. That’s why we call them cycles. They contain some kind of periodicity. That does not imply we can predict their occurrence, their amplitude, or whatnot. First they’re chaotic, and second they’re noisy. And noise is stationary.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        wee willy, why are you so dense as to take on Richard, who is light years ahead of you in the field of statistics?

      • Willard says:

        C’mon, Bordo.

        You wouldn’t be able to recognize someone who knows stats even your betting account depended on it.

      • RLH says:

        “natural cycles are cycles. Thats why we call them cycles.”

        Natural cycles are oscillations. Thats why we incorrectly call them cycles.

        Cycles are like sin waves. Oscillations are natural with a predominant period but other things too that beat against that predominant period.

      • RLH says:

        P.S. We need to split things into 2 separate areas.

        1. Is things that are predictably periodic like orbital factors, 24 hours and 365.25 days for instance. Lunar cycles, though predictable, are quite complex.

        2. Weather fronts, pressure, clouds, precipitation, even global temperature which by their very nature (when not related to 1) are quite chaotic.

      • Willard says:

        > Oscillation is the repetitive or periodic variation, typically in time, of some measure about a central value (often a point of equilibrium) or between two or more different states. Familiar examples of oscillation include a swinging pendulum and alternating current

        Not a cycle, obviously.

      • Willard says:

        > Cycles are like sin waves

        Richard might never let go of that false notion.

        This is the unit root to all his conceptual difficulties.

      • RLH says:

        Willard will always be a idiot.

      • RLH says:

        “All real-world oscillator systems are thermodynamically irreversible.”

        Real-world oscillator systems INCLUDE regular cycles. They are not limited just to them.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Only an idiot would believe that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is man-made. One of those idiots, as revealed in the video, is Barack Obama.

      I noted in the video that the quote is attributed to John Cook, claimed in the article to be from a university. Cook, who runs skepticalscience has an undergraduate degree even though he passes himself off as a solar scientist. He is currently employed as a cartoonist.

      The real studies that began the 97% claim, pre Cook, used sample sizes of about 1000 and 3000 respectively and they asked one simple question to which anyone, including myself, would have to reply in the affirmative. One of those studies is by Naomi Oreskes, a person who claims consensus is a valid form of science.

      Oreskes was called by Mike Mann in his libel suit. The more one pursues the source of the 97% claim, the more one is lured into a black hole of deceit.

  15. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The thermosphere in the 25th solar cycle does not reach the warm level and the graph drops. In this cycle, there will be one stronger solar peak and solar activity will decline rapidly. Unlike in the previous cycle, spots appear synchronously in both solar hemispheres.
    https://spaceweather.com/images2023/03jun23/TCI_Daily_NO_Power_Percentiles.png

  16. Blackbody properties and blackbody emission curve are physical abstractions.

    It is not defined the actual physical mechanism a blackbody emits
    EM radiation.

    Real materials emit EM radiation.

    The material’s emissivity (ε) is the physical criteria of how well a material emits EM radiation, compared to black body.

    A real material’s emissivity ε = 1 means that at temperature T the material emits of the same exactly intensity EM radiation as does the black body at the same temperature T.

    The material’s emissivity ε = 1 does not mean the material’s emission spectra curve should be the same of the black body.

    ***
    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      christos…blackbody theory dates back to about 1850, when Kircheoff first offered the theory. His theory references only bodies in thermal equilibrium. The point is, it is not even a theory but an unproved hypothesis.

      There is an excellent explanation of the theory by mathematician Claes Johnson, which includes the pros and cons of the theory. Blackbody theory is usually presented incorrectly.

      Read the chapter ‘1.3 Blackbody radiation in Words’…

      https://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf

      From the paper…

      -“A blackbody acts like a transformer of radiation which absorbs high-frequency radiation and emits low-frequency radiation. The temperature of the blackbody determines a cut-off frequency for the emission, which increases linearly with the temperature: The warmer the blackbody is, the higher frequencies it can and will emit. Thus only frequencies below cut-off are emitted, while all frequencies are being absorbed”.

      -“A blackbody acts like a censor which filters out coherent high-frequency (dangerous) information by transforming it into incoherent (harmless) noise. The IPCC acts like a blackbody by filtering coherent critical information, transforming it into incoherent nonsense perceived as global warming”.

      -“The net result is that a warm blackbody can heat a cold blackbody, but not the other way around. A teacher can teach a student but not the other way around. The hot Sun heats the colder Earth, but the Earth does not heat the Sun. A warm Earth surface can heat a cold atmospheric layer, but a cold atmosphere cannot heat a warm Earth surface. A blackbody is heated only by frequencies which it cannot emit, but has to store as heat energy. There is no “backradiation” from the atmosphere to the Earth. There is no “greenhouse effect” from “backradiation”. fig. 5 propagated by NASA thus displays fictional non-physical recirculating radiation with an Earth surface emitting 117% while absorbing 48% from the Sun”.

  17. Paul Fairchild says:

    I am new to the climate change debate but I do have a question. Adding energy to a gaseous system can raise the temperature, yes. But the atmosphere is not constrained except by gravity. So why wouldnt the system also change volume, PV=nRT, minimizing the temperature rise? If there is a simple explanation I appologize.

  18. Norman says:

    stephen p. anderson

    I am hoping you have enough science left in you to consider evidence. I know you strongly believe in Berry’s assessment of CO2 in the atmosphere but strong evidence proves he is incorrect. You can still believe what you want but evidence does not support his ideas at all.

    First, the human race is emitting currently 34 billion metric tons of CO2 a year. The atmosphere has a mass of 5.1480 x 10^18 kg. 34 billion metric tons equals 34 x 10^12 kg. If you divide up you get that this amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere would add 6.6 PPM per year (per mass). The rise in CO2 is at this time 2.6 PPM per year so you are adding much more CO2 than it is rising in the atmosphere. That is one blow against Berry but the biggest is actual measured evidence to prove his ideas are without merit.

    Here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04

    This is a year of monitoring CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This does not show any outgassing of CO2 from the oceans and you suppose. The Southern oceans are warmed in our winter but the CO2 concentration is highest in the North were most CO2 emitters are. It even shows CO2 levels dropping during Summer months in North as plant growth consumes atmospheric CO2 but then in Winter the CO2 levels increase again (this could not logically be from ocean outgassing as the water is much colder and in the Artic getting covered with ice).

    If you look at the evidence with an open mind you will see Berry’s hypothesis is wrong and disproven by the evidence available. I can’t make you reject it but the evidence certainly does.

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      Norman,
      Maybe you should read his papers instead of offering something he has already demonstrated as false. He goes through the mathematics of all human emissions from 1750 to the present based on your (IPCC) numbers and estimates. He demonstrates mathematically that humans could have only caused at most 30ppm of the 130ppm increase. Maybe you should stop assuming and look at his Physics Model.

      • Nate says:

        “Maybe you should read his papers”

        Stephen, you will never get balanced view of this issue unless you read papers other than Berry’s. Like the ones from 60 y ago that showed that his model was insufficient.

    • Ken says:

      The ocean is warming; albeit slowly. So off-gassing must occur. The only real point of contention is how much of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to off-gassing and how much is due to emissions.

      I too tend to think the global increase in atmospheric CO2 is mostly emissions. But I think Berry is right in that not all of it is emissions.

      It doesn’t mean anything; the earth does not have an optimum temperature.

      • bdgwx says:

        The ocean certainly outgasses. But it also takes carbon from the atmosphere as well because of the over pressure. The rate of uptake has increased more than the rate of outgassing which is why the ocean is a net sink. According to Takahashi et al. 1993 (DOI:10.1029/93GB02263) a change dT = 1 C results in about a 17 ppm reduction in buffering due to the increased outgassing. So had the ocean not warmed by about 1 C then it would have taken 99 ppm from the atmosphere instead of the 82 ppm that it actually took. It might be useful to know that humans pumped 315 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere. Of that 82 ppm got taking by the hydrosphere, 99 ppm got taken by the biosphere, and 130 ppm stayed in the atmosphere. See Friedlingstein et al. 2023 (DOI:10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022) for details.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        No, that’s stovepipe physics and a misapplication of the Bern Model. Berry corrects that too. Studying physics and calculus at Caltech and then getting his Ph.D. in physics at Nevada made it simple.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        BGDWX,
        You and Nate, and Ent need to confer. You can’t keep your stories straight.

      • bdgwx says:

        I lot of people have PhDs. Having one does not justify assuming that the agent most responsible for the mixing ratio of reservoir parcels is the same agent most responsible for the mass within the reservoir.

      • Willard says:

        FWIW,

        [Ed]’s theoretical PhD thesis is recognized as a breakthrough in the science of rain formation and in the use of computer-based numerical models. His model of the microphysics of rain formation is summarized in cloud physics textbooks and taught in university courses.

        https://wcdirectory.ametsoc.org/uploads/curriculum-vitae/edwin-x-berry-berry-8545.pdf

        No real chemistry there, and 1965 was a looooooong time ago.

      • Nate says:

        Stephen, really? He went to CalTech, so he must be right.

        That is horrible logic.

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      In reality, man has only contributed about 16-20ppm of the 420ppm CO2. However, Berry took the most conservative approach, made the most conservative assumption, and concluded that man contributed 30ppm. Natural emissions dwarf human emissions. And Mother Earth adapts to the changes. Berry’s math falsifies AGW and supports the evidence (EVIDENCE-that’s for you Norman) CO2 follows temperature on short and long time scales.

      • Norman says:

        stephen p. anderson

        I downloaded the Berry CO2 paper and am reading through it. I think he makes a wrong assumption that he goes on to disprove. He makes the claim that the IPCC claims that human made CO2 stays in the atmosphere and only natural made returns to sinks. I do not believe any scientist is making this claim and I think he is correct to disprove it if someone did.

        He gives an example of a bucket being filled with water. I can use this to show you how human added CO2 will increase the total flow of CO2.

      • Norman says:

        Without a new source of CO2 there would be a net balance in ocean and atmosphere with some fluctuations caused by various effects but overall you would not get more CO2 without some input source.

      • Norman says:

        Something in my post is messing up the submission. Sending it in parts for you to analyze stephen p anderson

      • Norman says:

        So with the water bucket example he has an input source and a hole that removes the water and the bucket achieves a certain level based upon how much is added and how much is removed. In nature the inflow comes from the outflow, it just circulates between sinks and atmospheric CO2.So if you have this bucket with circulating water you can get variations in the bucket level, say the inflow changes but the total amount does not. Now you have a new source of water that was not part of the previous circulating system. Even if you add a much smaller amount than the total amount circulating the bucket level will increase over time.

      • RLH says:

        Assuming the inflow does not increase the outflow.

      • Swenson says:

        Norman,

        All your blather about buckets is admirable, but it still wont help you.

        CO2 warms nothing, no matter how many buckets you put it in.

        Maybe you could tell me how many words are in the description of the GHE, if you are too shy to post the description itself. And no, an irrelevant link to something that is not a description, is not a description.

        I’ll help you out. You could start by saying “The GHE is a phenomenon which may be observed . . . “, then follow with a useful description. Or maybe it can’t be observed at all? Maybe the fact that the Earth has cooled, rather than getting hotter, is not due to the GHE phenomenon?

        Come on, destroy the skeptics by demonstrating that you have a valid description of the GHE at your fingertips. Wave it proudly, and don’t hide your light under a bushel (or a bucketful of CO2, if you prefer).

        If you can’t even describe the GHE, people might well assume that you are just another delusional SkyDragon cult idiot, don’t you think?

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

      • Norman says:

        RHL

        I think you are an intelligent poster so I can reason with you. I think Berry’s Logic it terribly flawed and he is only looking at a portion of the issue and not the larger picture. He is so wanting to prove AGW wrong he blinds himself. I think he might be quite intelligent but I think his logic is very poor.

        The level in the bucket will still increase even with an increase in outflow because you are adding more to the whole, the inflow is from the same source as the outflow.

        Maybe think of the hydrological system and ocean level. You can have various sinks for ocean level. Ice on land lowers the level, water vapor in the air lowers the level. Rivers and lakes on land lower the level. Water stored in deep underground systems can permanently lower the level if it is not removed.

        So the ocean level can vary as different sinks store more or less of the ocean portion but the total water of the entire system does not change. Now if you start massive irrigation projects and start pumping out deep reserves of water that was no longer part of the hydrological system then the ocean level will rise relative to the variations. It might go down if more ice is being formed on land but it will not go down as much with the addition of the new source of water. You are adding to the total amount and that is where Berry’s logic is so bad. He is concerned mostly that nature is emitting far more CO2 than man so man’s effects are minimal. The glaring difference is humans are adding from sources that were no longer part of the carbon cycle. It will increase the overall amount so the natural flow will increase and can vary but the overall amount will go upward for all parts of the carbon cycle. Plants will store more, water can hold more (Henry’s Law), atmosphere will store more. Everything will go up. Just as with the water cycle. If you add more water to the system each portion can store more because it has more.

        I think Berry is missing this in his paper and it is a glaring logic problem. Most likely why he would not attempt to get it published because that would be a question asked.

        If you add more substance than the overall amount increases, right?

      • Willard says:

        > I think you are an intelligent poster

        That’s overly generous, Norman.

      • RLH says:

        Norman: Anything to with inflow and outflow IRL has to deal with the position of them relative to the surface. You can create more inflow by moving the input to a lower level (as any sailor will tell you).

        You need a better model to describe what you are thinking of.

    • Willard says:

      > not all of it is emissions

      Ed is right.

      It is more than all of it:

      If you extrapolate the background trend (ignoring the hockey stick blade at the end) you will see that from first principles, a slow cooling is a reasonable expectation for the natural trend. This would mean that the anthropogenic contribution is not sharing in the warming with natural factors, but actually pulling against a (relatively small) natural cooling, probably orbitally forced. Thus if one had to express anthropogenic warming as a percentage of total warming, the total fraction would be over 100%.

      And indeed, on top of the natural background cooling, indications are that the natural forcings (volcanic, solar) are also slightly toward cooling. None of this is overwhelming – the natural trends and forcings on global mean temperature are small, and internal variability (basically just the slow sloshing around of the water masses of the ocean) is also important on the decadal time scale.

      https://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2015/01/more-than-all.html

    • Clint R says:

      I haven’t been keeping up with Ed Berry’s research, but if it annoys Norman and the other trolls so much, Ed must be doing something right.

      I know my tomato plants are so big they’re scary. The monsters must be consuming large amounts of CO2. They compete with the trees, bushes, and grass. I hope they don’t run out of food.

      • Willard says:

        > I havent been keeping up with Ed Berrys research, but

        Sums up your decade of trolling under various sock puppets, Pupman.

        You might like:

        [T]he evidence is very clear that, on net, the changes going on in the atmosphere, including all the climate changes, are a risk to a lot of major production systems and to a lot of food insecure areas. So there’s definitely a reason that we that we continue to work on how to adapt to these changes.

        https://theclimatebrink.substack.com/p/is-co2-plant-food

      • Clint R says:

        If Skeptics could ever get organized, things could get straightened out. Industries that add CO2 to the atmosphere could get tax breaks based on how much they add. This would benefit the transportation industry — planes, trains, and truckers.

        Some say we cant get to 800 ppm, but they said we couldnt get to Moon.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        I concur, Clint. This planet will need all the CO2 in the atmosphere it can produce once it turns cooler. However, it’s (cooling) one of the Creator’s ways of curbing our excesses. Then we get to start again.

      • Clint R says:

        We will need more CO2 in the atmosphere to feed 10 billion hungry mouths. CO2 can not warm, it can only cool. But at 800 ppm, any cooling would be lost in the noise.

      • Swenson says:

        Wistful Wee Willy,

        Appeals to journalism now? Predictions of imminent doom, even?

        You really are exceptionally gullible if you believe anyone can foresee the future better than a twelve year old child.

        Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations. Of course it changes, you idiot. Sometimes for the better – the breaking of a drought, or for worse – the coming of a drought.

        Do you your climate is going to get better or worse? Hotter, colder, drier, wetter?

        Does everybody else like the same climate as you?

        You are an idiot. Accept reality.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Do you have a point, and why is the Earth atmosphere slowing down the cooling of the Earth?

      • Swenson says:

        Whacky Wee Willy,

        Are you claiming that the GHE is responsible for cooling the Earth?

        If so, you are more of an idiot that I thought.

        Ah, the magic of the indescribable GHE! Cools, heats, does both simultaneously – or neither.

        There is no GHE, you fool. You can’t even decide whether it should heat or cool the planet.

        At least you are forced to accept the reality that the Earth has cooled.

        Good for you (although you don’t really have a choice, do you?j.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You claim that there is no greenhouse effect. You also claim that the Earth atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.

        How do you reconcile the two claims?

        Thanks in advance!

      • Swenson says:

        Wee Willy Wanker,

        You wrote –

        “Mike Flynn,

        You claim that there is no greenhouse effect. You also claim that the Earth atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.

        How do you reconcile the two claims?

        Thanks in advance!”

        Of course there is no greenhouse effect. Delusional SkyDragon cultists invented the term for no particular reason that I can see – and you can’t think of one either, can you?. I suppose you believe in the gas-operated electrical rubber guitar effect, too. I can’t describe that any better than you can describe the greenhouse effect, so neither exists.

        As to the cooling of the Earth, what are you babbling about? What is the role of the non-existent GHE in cooling? None at all, unless you can at least describe the mythical GHE.

        If it doesnt exist, how can it have an effect?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        So you can’t reconcile the claim that there is no greenhouse effect with the claim that the Earth atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.

        That’s fair. Neither would I.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Witless Wee Willy,

        There is no greenhouse effect.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You keep asserting that there is no greenhouse effect. Yet you keep claiming that the atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.

        Is it just the name that displeases you, deceitful cretin?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        wee willy…addressed to a mysterious Mike Flynn…

        “You keep asserting that there is no greenhouse effect. Yet you keep claiming that the atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth”.

        ***

        Newton explained it. The difference in temperature between the surface and the atmosphere in contact with it determines the rate of heat dissipation. Nothing to do with radiation or GHGs.

        Of course, convection makes it work. The surface heats mainly O2/N2 molecules and they rise, allowing cooler air to reach the surface. The rate of dissipation is controlled by the temperature of the descending air.

        Explanation courtesy I. Newton, as channeled by G. Robertson, Esq.

      • Swenson says:

        Witless Wee Willy,

        There is no greenhouse effect.

      • Willard says:

        To be an esquire you have to be a gentleman, Bordo.

        C’mon.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Nate says:

        “If Skeptics could ever get organized”

        Tee hee hee. They can’t even agree on which ‘one weird trick’ proves AGW wrong.

      • Clint R says:

        No tricks needed, troll Nate. Reality proves GHE wrong.

  19. E. Swanson says:

    The cooling trend claimed for the lower stratosphere isn’t as simple as it would appear. As shown in the attached graphs, all three groups which provide MSU/AMSU data products for the Lower Stratosphere show little cooling after about 1999. Simply calculating a trend over the entire data set would produce a negative rend, but this result is strongly influenced by the warming spikes from El Chichon and Pinatubo.

    Data for UAH and RSS last year:
    https://app.box.com/s/ou8mtneeceekeek5an2263k3osrclyws

    PFD file of NOAA STAR data (may require download):
    https://app.box.com/s/7gnza1xap51gglofgx6y0ptvhuvdryak

    • bdgwx says:

      I noticed that too. Do you have any ideas to what is going on?

      • Clint R says:

        bdgwx, it’s real easy to figure out *what is going on*.

        Your cults nonsense isnt working. Reality always wins. So you have to torture the data, in your continuing effort to pervert science.

      • Ken says:

        Buzz off Clint. Some people are making real contributions to the discussion. All that your insults do is discourage discussion.

        BUZZ OFF CLOWN.

      • Clint R says:

        Ken, where have I ever insulted anyone that didn’t insult me first?

        Why do you fake skeptics feel the need to attack REAL Skeptics?

        Jealousy? Envy? Immaturity?

      • Willard says:

        Perhaps here, Pupman:

        Curt, your rambling incoherent comment would be great fodder for an artist. A good cartoon needs both an artist and hilarity.

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/do-gcms-model-a-flat-earth/#comment-114329

        Ah, the good ol’ days

      • Swenson says:

        Ken,

        You shouted “BUZZ OFF CLOWN.”

        If nobody “buzzes off”, you are powerless to do anything at all about it!

        Why issue commands that you can’t enforce? Do you really think anybody is going to do what some anonymous commenter demands? At least Bindidon would threaten torture or slow death by disease if people failed to dance to his tune. He is also an impotent idiot.

        Maybe you could toss a few facts into your comments. “Discussions” by delusional SkyDragon cultists change nothing at all.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Kennui made an inexcusable mistake –

        He should have said BUZZ OFF BUFFOON.

        When you’ll grow up you and Pupman might one day become clowns.

        For now you’re just sock puppet buffoons.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        test

      • Willard says:

        C’mon, Bordo.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • E. Swanson says:

        bdgwx, I should have read the Santer et al. PNAS paper before posting. They mention the change in trend for the LS/TLS data and suggest it’s a combination of a reduction in the effects of the recovery of the Ozone Hole over the Antarctic combined with an increase in the altitude of the Trpopause due to the GHE warming. One other point of interest is that the NOAA STAR TLS has a peak emission weighting at a lower altitude than RSS or UAH.

        There are some differences between the three data sets, some of which is due to the different base periods each group selected to calculate their anomalies. One other point of interest is that the products may have theoretical peak emission weighting at somewhat different altitudes.

      • Swenson says:

        How does any of this gobbledygook affect the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years? Is CO2 in the atmosphere a modern phenomenon?

        CO2 levels have been far higher in the past, but the planet cooled anyway.

        What are you babbling about?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        We have CO2 in the atmosphere since a long time.

        We have CO2 produced by humans since humans are here.

        The two types of CO2 have a different signature.

        Ask any chemical engineer.

        Long live and prosper.

      • Swenson says:

        How does any of this gobbledygook affect the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years? Is CO2 in the atmosphere a modern phenomenon?

        CO2 levels have been far higher in the past, but the planet cooled anyway.

        What are you babbling about?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Today, the Earth has an atmosphere.

        Yesterday, the Earth had an atmosphere.

        Tomorrow, the Earth will have an atmosphere.

        The atmosphere slows down of the cooling of the Earth at all time.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Whinnying Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “Mike Flynn,

        Today, the Earth has an atmosphere.

        Yesterday, the Earth had an atmosphere.

        Tomorrow, the Earth will have an atmosphere.

        The atmosphere slows down of the cooling of the Earth at all time.

        Cheers.”

        And? No increase in temperature? No imminent danger of boiling, roasting, frying, or toasting? That’s a relief – no need to worry about CO2 then, is there?

        By the way, did you forget to include “The atmosphere slows down the heating of the Earth at all time [sic].”?

        You don’t need to to thank me – from time to time, I help out those less fortunate than myself. God knows why.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You copy-pasted my comment. Then you played dumb.

        Do you know any chemical engineer by any chance?

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Whinnying Wee Willy,

        You wrote

        “Mike Flynn,

        Today, the Earth has an atmosphere.

        Yesterday, the Earth had an atmosphere.

        Tomorrow, the Earth will have an atmosphere.

        The atmosphere slows down of the cooling of the Earth at all time.

        Cheers.”

        And? No increase in temperature? No imminent danger of boiling, roasting, frying, or toasting? Thats a relief no need to worry about CO2 then, is there?

        By the way, did you forget to include “The atmosphere slows down the heating of the Earth at all time [sic].”?

        You dont need to to thank me from time to time, I help out those less fortunate than myself. God knows why.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Once again you copy-pasted my comment and played dumb.

        Do you know any chemical engineer by any chance?

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • bdgwx says:

        Those seem like reasonable hypothesis to me.

      • Clint R says:

        bdgwx, is there ANY cult nonsense that does not seem reasonable to you?

        Ice cubes boiling water, reasonable?
        Passenger jets flying backward, reasonable?
        15μ photons warming a 288K surface, reasonable?

        You swallow it all, just like the rest of the cult idiots.

      • Willard says:

        Two of your rhetorical questions refer to the same Sky Dragon crank talking point, Pupman.

        You only have three talking points. Why forget one?

      • Clint R says:

        Worthless willard, as a troll you have the advantage of never having to make sense. You just throw up any nonsense because you don’t have to clean the walls.

        Someday, you’ll have to grow up.

      • Willard says:

        The three Dragon cranks talking points are about plates, the Moon, and the zero-dimension energy balance model, Pupman.

        Ten years of sock puppetry and you still suck at trolling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      swannie…if y0u had not claimed heat can be transferred cold to hot, by its own means, then adamantly defended that position, I might be more inclined to take you seriously on other matters.

      Someone claimed you have had a paper published, how about submitting one about your theory that heat can flow, by its own means, from cold to hot.

      • Ball4 says:

        “how about submitting one about your theory that heat can flow, by its own means, from cold to hot.”

        Scottish physicist JC Maxwell has already established that could happen between 2 gases in contact at different temperatures, Gordon, as you have been told many times before. Maxwell’s theory was then generalized by a German physicist Boltzmann by 1871. There is no need for a new paper.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        When Maxwell went to school in Scotland, they called him Daftie Maxwell. Daft as in foolish.

        Maxwell was wrong about several things. Of course, he was operating in the dark, having no knowledge of the relationship between electrons and EM.

        You, on the other hand, have no excuse. The proof is out there in spades that heat cannot be transferred by its won means from cold to hot.

      • Ball4 says:

        It’s ok & expected for a science rookie like Gordon to be repeatedly wrong about JC Maxwell work but inexcusable & laughable for Gordon to comment on a science blog before learning how the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of gas particle KE works to transfer thermodynamic internal energy from a colder to a warmer gas.

        Gordon could at least ask for help understanding from more astute commenters.

      • Christopher Game says:

        I am puzzled by the apparent proposal of Ball4 ‘that Maxwell said that heat can flow by its own means from a colder to a hotter gas’. Perhaps I have misunderstood what is intended here? Please put me right.

      • Christopher Game says:

        On further reading, I find below Gordon Robertson saying
        “your premise that a cooler body can increase the temperature of a hotter body. Direct contravention of the 2nd law.” Unless you have something remarkable to add, don’t bother to try to sort this out for me. It’s probably unsortable in the present company. Gordon Robertson has his fixed idea. Cancel my request for an explanation in more detail.

      • Ball4 says:

        Christopher, what is remarkable is the work of Maxwell-Boltzmann in statistics showing the distribution of molecular speeds exchanging momentum and kinetic energy with each other in a system at thermodynamic equilibrium resulting from kinetic theory.

        M-B distribution showed there is a portion of the number of molecules vs. KE in the cooler sample at certain higher energy states than the number of molecules in the warmer sample. For that M-B regime in number of molecules vs. energy state, KE & momentum moves from the colder sample to the warmer sample producing universe entropy thus in accord with 2LOT.

        On net though, of all the molecules contacting each other momentarily at any instant, the total molecular speed KE transfers from warmer object to cooler since the avg. energy is greater than the most probable energy value producing universe entropy in the process thus also in accord.

        You should be able to research their work on your own or google string one example at: “ECE6451-28”

      • Christopher Game says:

        Ball4 7:50AM. Thank you for your reply. You have lost me. I don’t understand, and I don’t see where this is going.

      • Christopher Game says:

        Ball4 at 7:50AM 19 June. Ahh! Now I see what you are getting at:

        You are talking about two bodies of gas in direct contact, so that molecules can pass between them. This is a problematic scenario, because it admits diffusion of different components of the gases. If the gases are of different composition, so that diffusion of matter is likely, then, according to Max Born, who I think is right, it is not justified to speak of heat transfer; the situation is too complicated.

        We may restrict ourselves to the case when the two gases are of one common molecular species. Then you are saying that some fast molecules may pass from the low temperature gas into the contiguous high temperature gas, and that some slow molecules from the low temperature gas may pass into the contiguous high temperature gas. That is a microscopic account. Statistically, those microscopic contributions will be outweighed by others. Is that what you mean? I think heat transfer refers to net macroscopic transfer of energy, not to such microscopic considerations.

        Is Gordon clear about what you mean here?

      • Ball4 says:

        What I mean is M-B distribution of ideal gas particle speed thus KE.

        M-B distribution of molecular speeds in Maxwells ideal gas kinetic theory applies to a sealed gas container in equilibrium with the thermodynamic internal energy of its environment. There is no mixing with anything outside the container. KE is exchanged both ways across the border.

        At any instant, there is a measure of the total KE of the molecules in the container which is not transferred across the border; only the KE is transferred. There is also a measure of the avg. KE of those molecules which is termed temperature.

        Science rookie Gordon is hardly ever clear about physics relevant to the atm.

      • Christopher Game says:

        Ball4 8:17AM 22 June. I am still not clear about what you mean or where you are going.

        How is the container sealed? What is the nature of the “border”. Are the walls rigidly held in place? Evidently they are impermeable to matter. Are they impermeable to conduction and radiation of heat? How is kinetic energy (KE) “exchanged both ways across the border”? What does it mean to say that “sealed gas container [is] in equilibrium with the thermodynamic internal energy of its environment”? What is the nature of the surroundings [environment] that possess the thermodynamic internal energy with which the container is in equilibrium?

        What is this relevant to?

      • Ball4 says:

        Relevant to the start of this subthread at 6:47 pm.

        You were “puzzled” & my responses show that M-B long ago worked out energy “can be transferred from cold to hot” in ideal gas kinetics. All your questions can be answered by looking up their work. Gordon has not accomplished the pre-req.s to understand M-B; perhaps Christopher has done so.

      • Christopher Game says:

        Ball4 4:43PM 22 June. You are not stating your position clearly enough to make it coherent to look up the classic literature. You talk of just one “sealed container” at the same time as talking of a warmer and a cooler sample. That is incoherent. To persuade a reasonable reader, you would need a coherent statement of your position.

      • Ball4 says:

        Christopher, to someone that has accomplished the pre-req.s, that the M-B sealed container can be warmer or cooler than its environment ought to be evident. It might even be in equilibrium with its environment. You are making a good case that Christopher, like Gordon, has not accomplished the pre-req.s to understand even the basic studies in meteorology.

      • Christopher Game says:

        Ball4 June 22 8:25 PM

        I prefer to stay with conventional terminology. You are talking about a vessel that contains the ‘system’, with walls that separate it from its surroundings. I need you to specify respectively the natures of the system, of the walls, and of the surroundings. Then I need you to specify the process or processes that you are talking about. That is what is needed for a coherent statement of your case.

      • Ball4 says:

        Christopher’s answers are all provided in the work M-B published in the late 1800s. A modern beginning text book on meteorology such as Bohren & Albrecht ‘Atmospheric Thermodynamics’ 1998 sec. 2.4 “The Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution of Molecular Speeds” will provide the specifications Christopher seeks.

      • Christopher Game says:

        Ball4 June 23, 2023 at 11:20 AM

        I am seeking to know specifically and explicitly what Ball4 is focusing on to draw to our attention that he is expecting us to check in his sources, not a general exposition of the topic. Ball4 has made some statements that are not coherently specific; I am seeking coherent focused specification of his own point, not a general exposition of the topic.

        (To prevent distracion, right here and now I will refrain from comment on Bohren & Albrecht’s Atmospheric Thermodynamics 1998.)

      • Ball4 says:

        As I’ve written all along in this sub-thread my own point is specifically, explicitly, and coherently focused with citation on: “learning how the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of gas particle KE works to transfer thermodynamic internal energy from a colder to a warmer gas.”

      • Christopher Game says:

        Ball4 says: June 24, 2023 at 9:32 AM

        “As Ive written all along in this sub-thread my own point is specifically, explicitly, and coherently focused with citation on: learning how the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of gas particle KE works to transfer thermodynamic internal energy from a colder to a warmer gas.”

        Thermodynamic internal energy is a property of a thermodynamic body or system. Thermodynamics is simply concerned with macroscopic properties and processes.

        The MaxwellBoltzmann distribution of gas particles is not simply concerned with macroscopic properties and processes. Instead, it is concerned to explain macroscopic properties and processes in terms of microscopic factors.

        Thermodynamic processes are considered in two ways. As differences between thermodynamic states specified by state variables. And as physical processes with no holds barred. As a formal science, thermodynamics abjures talk of physical processes with no holds barred, and cleaves strictly to talk of differences between thermodynamic states specified by state variables, with one crucial exception: thermodynamics recognises a distinction for closed systems between transfers of energy as thermodynamic work and transfers of energy as heat. For closed systems, transfers of energy as work are fully and precisely specified by changes in state variables other than temperature and entropy. The prime examples are pressure and volume; they may be called worklike variables. For closed systems, processes that transfer energy not fully and precisely specified by worklike variables are transfers of energy as heat.

        It is regrettable that at present the lead of the Wikipedia article on heat is a shambles.

        According to Planck (1926), friction is the most characteristic mode of transfer of energy to a body as heat. Another mode of transfer of energy to a body as heat is radiation. With exceptions for intermediate magnetic fields, radiative transfer obeys the Helmholtz reciprocity principle. I think you are perhaps concerned with transfer of energy as heat from one thermodynamic system to another in direct contact with it? In this case one can recognise both radiative and conductive transfer. In some cases, such as in stars, radiation dominates. In some other cases, conduction dominates.

        Your wording … how the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of gas particle KE works to transfer thermodynamic internal energy from a colder to a warmer gas is vague or incoherent. For a rational discussion, I would need something clear and coherent.

      • Christopher Game says:

        Correction: where above at June 24, 2023 at 10:03 PM I wrote
        “For closed systems, processes that transfer energy not fully and precisely specified by worklike variables are transfers of energy as heat”
        I ought to have written
        “For closed systems, processes that transfer energy not fully and precisely specified by internal energy and worklike variables are transfers of energy as heat.”

      • Ball4 says:

        Christopher, physically for closed systems, processes that transfer energy not fully and precisely specified by worklike variables are transfers of energy by virtue of a temperature difference. Neither work nor heat exist in an object which does contain thermodynamic internal energy.

        The M-B distribution of molecular speeds in a container of ideal gas is neither vague nor incoherent. You can learn why by reading the citation I provided or reading another reliable text of your choice.

      • Christopher Game says:

        Ball4 June 26, 2023 at 9:52 AM.

        You have lost me. Thank you for your posts.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo is stuck with his usual denialist claim that thermal IR radiation violates the 2nd Law. Perhaps it’s his duty to publish his proof that this is true, thus proving that all the text books on such are wrong. We await his deep dive into the world of peer reviewed scientific publication.

      • Swenson says:

        ES,

        All radiation is thermal. IR radiation is radiation with wavelengths greater than visible light.

        All radiation is subject to the same physical laws.

        I am assuming that you believe that radiation can be lost by a cold object (making it drop in temperature) with the energy being absorbed by a hotter object (making it hotter).

        The consequence of course, is that the now colder object would continue to get colder, and the hotter to get even hotter, until the colder object reached a ground state at absolute zero!

        Complete balderdash! You are quite mad. You couldn’t possibly be so ignorant, could you?

        Breaking the conservation laws (the energy raising the temperature of the hotter object had to come from colder) doesn’t work. Your colder object has to magically create energy to replace that which was passed to the hotter object.

        Is this your silly attempt at justifying the mythical which you can’t describe?

      • Nate says:

        “All radiation is thermal.”

        So if I apply power to an LED its emitted radiation is thermal?

        Balderdash.

        As is all that follows it.

      • Clint R says:

        Nate, an LED is a manmade device. The S/B Law does not apply to LEDs.

        You can’t understand ANY of this.

      • Ball4 says:

        “The S/B Law does not apply to LEDs.”

        More laughs induced by Clint R who doesn’t realize the S/B law theory was proven by manmade devices since BB radiation does exist.

        Swenson 1:02am also laughably issues yet another comment failure “All radiation is thermal” since there exists external radiation in addition to thermal radiation or the sun could not warm the Earth thru deep space.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Flynnson throws up another strawman claiming it produces results which are obviously “Complete balderdash!”. Trouble is, his strawman has nothing to do with the GHE, since his warm body must also include energy supplied from an external source if it is to represent the GHE. The GHE does not “magically create energy”, the energy supply comes from the external source.

      • Clint R says:

        Yes Ball4, quoting me exactly is a good learning technique — highly recommended.

        Read my words, quote me exactly, and you can’t go wrong. Understanding may take awhile, but hang in there.

        Memorization helps.

      • Ball4 says:

        Thanks for agreeing you were wrong Clint R 8:55 am; that’s a good first step on the path to learning about the S/B law, hang in there, stay the course, crack open a physics book & after some reading comprehension occurs: your physics understanding will increase.

        But unfortunately, your blog laughable comments may then decrease & lose the long earned title of blog laughing stock

      • Nate says:

        “Nate, an LED is a manmade device.”

        True, but does nothing to support Swenson’s erroneous belief that ‘all radiation is thermal’

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Ball4, please stop trolling.

      • Ball4 says:

        I never started.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        #2

        Ball4, please stop trolling.

      • Christopher Game says:

        Swenson writes “All radiation is thermal.” I would say that laser light is not ordinary thermal radiation, but is still radiation.

  20. Norman says:

    test

  21. gbaikie says:

    LeoStellas CEO raises his sights in the satellite revolution
    https://cosmiclog.com/
    “Its been four years since LeoStella, a joint venture created by BlackSky and Thales Alenia Space, opened the doors of its Tukwila factory and began building Earth observation satellites that BlackSky could launch into low Earth orbit, otherwise known as LEO.

    Since then, the company has taken on other customers as well including Loft Orbital Solutions, which offers a turnkey solution for flying and operating satellite payloads; and NorthStar Earth and Space, which is building a satellite constellation to monitor space traffic.

    This week, LeoStella announced the completion and delivery of its 20th satellite which happens to be the third satellite its built for Loft Orbital.”

    And the Sun:
    Solar wind
    speed: 412.7 km/sec
    density: 0.51 protons/cm3
    Sunspot number: 151
    The Radio Sun
    10.7 cm flux: 169 sfu
    Updated 06 Jun 2023
    https://www.spaceweather.com/
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 20.00×10^10 W Warm
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: -0.7% Below Average
    48-hr change: -0.7%

    “HOW BIG WAS CARRINGTON’S SUNSPOT? If you want to have a bit of fun with ChatGPT, ask it the following question: “How big was Carrington’s sunspot?”

    ChatGPT’s response: “Richard Carrington’s observations of the great solar storm in 1859 did not provide a direct measurement of the size of the sunspot.”

    Poor Carrington must be turning in his grave. The astronomer made beautiful drawings of the sunspot,…”
    “On Sept. 1st, 1859, two kidney-shaped beads of blinding white light appeared just above a giant sunspot he had numbered “520.” He had never seen anything like it.

    “Being somewhat flurried by the surprise,” Carrington later wrote, “I hastily ran to call someone to witness the exhibition with me. On returning within 60 seconds, I was mortified to find that it was already much changed and enfeebled.” They watched the lights fade away.

    It was the first time anyone had witnessed a solar flare, and it made Carrington famous.”

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 360.0 km/sec
      density: 6.86 protons/cm3
      Sunspot number: 133
      The Radio Sun
      10.7 cm flux: 172 sfu
      Updated 07 Jun 2023
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 20.17×10^10 W Warm
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: -0.6% Below Average
      48-hr change: +0.2%

      It is getting a bit more active.
      I was guessing June and July would more active,
      and so far, not close, but it might happen.
      Spots are growing, maybe they will grow a lot more.

    • gbaikie says:

      “Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
      05 June – 01 July 2023

      Solar activity is likely to be at low to moderate levels (R1-R2,
      Minor-Moderate) throughout the outlook period, due to several
      complex regions currently on the visible disk and the anticipated
      return of several regions that have produced moderate level activity
      currently on the farside of the Sun. ”
      https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast

      So they saying no to my guess about June {and July}.
      I am guessing June has about 30% chance of proving them wrong.
      I give would higher odds, but they should know a lot more, than I do.

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 335.0 km/sec
      density: 4.10 protons/cm3
      Sunspot number: 177
      The Radio Sun
      10.7 cm flux: 172 sfu
      Updated 08 Jun 2023
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 20.21×10^10 W Warm
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: -0.8% Below Average
      48-hr change: -0.1%

      We still have couple of moderate sized coronal holes on nearside.

      “SUNSPOTS THROUGH THE SMOKE: Elon Musk wants to go to Mars. Canada is a lot closer. Smoke from Canadian wildfires is turning skies across northeastern provinces and US states the color of the Red Planet. One side effect of the rusty gloom is the sudden visibility of sunspots.

      “Smoke has filtered the sun an eerie orange color on and off for weeks here along the East Coast,” reports Neil Winston of Calvert County, Maryland. “As the sun dips low in the sky, it has made an opportunity to image the numerous sunspots without a solar filter.”

      I will note, the sun when low on horizon is dimmer than a Mars’ sun- or you shouldn’t look at the Sun when on Mars- it will damage your
      eyes. Maybe it would be safe during period of a heavy Mars global dust storm- when, the sun is low on the horizon on Mars.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 298.2 km/sec
        density: 7.32 protons/cm3
        Sunspot number: 149
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 169 sfu
        Updated 09 Jun 2023
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 20.21×10^10 W Warm
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -0.8% Below Average
        48-hr change: -0.1%
        “MANY FARSIDE SUNSPOTS: Helioseismic maps of the farside of the sun show multiple large active regions, probably sunspots. This means the sunspot number should remain high as the sun turns on its axis in the weeks ahead. Disappearing Earthside sunspots will be replaced by farside counterparts.”

        Well most of sun we not seeing- on what is nearside.
        3 numbered spots {probably were small] have disappeared on nearside in terms of matter of days on nearside, a lot changes in a week.
        I waiting for “the anticipated return of several regions that have produced moderate level activity currently on the farside of the Sun”
        and I guess we had them- unless they just about to peak around the corner.
        Anyhow looks like it’s going to stay about same for next couple days.
        Will later part of June and first part of July be stronger or weaker
        it seems chances are lower than 30%.
        Is the parrot just resting?
        Is it going to almost same as 24, weaker first peak, followed by stronger second peak. Or are going to have stronger first peak, followed by weaker second peak.
        Or nothing like 24.
        Well, it seems safe bet is the above forecast:
        “Solar activity is likely to be at low to moderate levels”
        And we will have wait for something exciting.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 366.3 km/sec
        density: 6.13 protons/cm3
        Sunspot number: 116
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 164 sfu
        Updated 10 Jun 2023
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 20.32×10^10 W Warm
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -0.1% Below Average
        48-hr change: +0.8%

        Seeing nothing coming from farside with spots leaving from nearside.
        Coronal holes making a sad face.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 389.9 km/sec
        density: 0.89 protons/cm3
        Sunspot number: 116
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 146 sfu
        Updated 13 Jun 2023
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 20.40×10^10 W Warm
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -1.4% Below Average
        48-hr change: -0.6%
        “QUIET TUESDAY: With every visible sunspot in decay, NOAA forecasters have lowered the chances of solar flares today to 15% for M-class flares and only 1% for X-flares.”

        Nothing coming from farside, and spots will be going to farside {not right away- a day or two}. I guess we got that activity they were talking about on the farside or it disappeared. So NOAA appears right about moderate to low activity for June. One could say we have moderate activity, but I tend think going towards low.
        Are going to get spotless in week or in month?
        I tend to think it will take months before this happens.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 356.8 km/sec
        density: 2.79 protons/cm3
        Sunspot number: 98
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 146 sfu
        Updated 14 Jun 2023
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 20.40×10^10 W Warm
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -1.2% Below Average
        48-hr change: -0.1%
        “NEW SUNSPOTS: A pair of new sunspot groups is emerging near the sun’s southeastern limb: movie. One of them is potentially large and could pose a threat for flares as it turns toward Earth later this week”
        Spots have left and are leaving but farside spots have arrived and coming. The new 3333 spot looks healthy/strong/vibrant but not sure they mean that one or other one {not numbered yet] following it.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 634.4 km/sec
        density: 5.11 protons/cm3
        Sunspot number: 107
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 144 sfu
        Updated 15 Jun 2023
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 20.24×10^10 W Warm
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -0.5% Below Average
        48-hr change: +0.9%

        A lot of different coronal holes.
        Continues to be moderate to low solar activity.
        Updating the Update:
        “Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
        12 June – 08 July 2023

        Solar activity is likely to be at low to moderate levels (R1-R2,
        Minor-Moderate) throughout the outlook period due to several complex
        regions currently on the visible disk and the anticipated return of
        several regions that have produced moderate level activity currently
        on the farside of the Sun. ”
        https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast

        But it seems it is generally fading, but it’s an unpredictable
        sun, but can guess that a spotless day seems unlikely within a month,
        and fading could turn around give us some very memorable sun spot action.
        But seems pretty certain my guess of June and July being more active
        is going to wrong.

        The parrot is not dead, it’s just resting.

  22. Mark B says:

    I’m probably not the target audience for this blog post, but as a scientific critique of the paper it’s bizzare.

    “… it has conflated stratospheric cooling with global warming.”
    The phrase “global warming” does not appear anywhere in the paper.

    “The authors are taking advantage of the publics lack of knowledge concerning …”
    Alternatively, it’s a technical paper intended for a technical audience.

    “The researchers first mistake is to claim they are reporting something new.”
    They cleverly conceal this by citing Manabe 1967 in the first sentence of the abstract. Also in quite a few of the 67 referenced papers.

    “So, why mention stratospheric cooling in the context of climate change?”
    Because it’s a projected effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 as per Manabe 1967 as cited in the first sentence of the abstract and other references as repeated throughout the paper.

    “But what then happens in the troposphere (where we live) in response to more CO2 is vastly more complex.”
    As noted in the paper. Also, kind of the point of looking at less noisy metrics in addition to the TLT as noted in the paper.

    • Clint R says:

      Mark B, Dr. Spencer is trying to stand against all the nonsense that has taken over science. You can endlessly pick apart his words, if you are attempting to distract from his message.

      You have to ask yourself if you prefer reality or perversion.

      Do you want to belong to a cult that claims ice cubes can boil water?

      • Willard says:

        Roy was talking about the press, Pupman.

        Have you tried reading?

      • Mark B says:

        Clint R says: You have to ask yourself if you prefer reality or perversion.

        You, on the other hand, might be the target audience.

      • Clint R says:

        Exactly Mark, I prefer reality.

        That’s why it is funny how you desperately attempt to attack Spencer while ignoring all of the perverted trolls here.

  23. Gordon Robertson says:

    wee willy…re tobacco documents…

    Do you understand that back in the ’60s, people were considered weirdos if the did not smoke. If Seitz or anyone else spoke on behalf of the tobacco industry no one would have even noticed.

    Then, some 50 years later, idiots who are alarmists try to denigrate scientists like Seitz, after his death in 2008. The alarmist hero, Naomi Oreskes, co-wrote a book in 2010, which was focused on destroying the reputation of Fred Seitz due to some dubious connection to the tobacco industry back in the ’60s. The cowards wrote a book and Seitz was not around to defend himself.

    The theme of the book is seriously weak. Oreskes is try to discredit scientists like Seitz and Singer by trying to draw a parallel between their statements on behalf of the tobacco industry in the 60s and their current skepticism about global warming. Why can’t she discredit them on the scientific facts?

    If alarmists like Oreskes had the basic science to back them, they would not need to stir up unrelated muck, they could simply present the facts and the average person would get it. They don’t have those facts, therefore they are reduced to cretinous ploys like trying to tie scientists to oil and tobacco companies and/or spreading fiction about a no-existent greenhouse effect.

  24. Gordon Robertson says:

    ent…earlier you made a statement about fossils being found high on Everest. It would seem obvious, based on such evidence, that Everest was at some point covered in water to a high altitude.

    A major problem with geology is absolute verification. I was watching a program on earthquakes in Mexico and all of their early detection alert systems were near the oceans, focused on the fault line that ran off the coast. Wouldn’t you know that an earthquake of significant strength happened between them and the ocean, rendering the early alert useless.

    I hear so many people talking about plate tectonics as if it is a fact. It’s not, it’s a theory, actually, more of a hypothesis, that many geologists still argue about. One of the glaring problems with the theory is that earthquakes tend to have an epi-centre. If a slip is occurring along a 200 mile fault line, why is there not numerous quakkes happening along the 200 mile fault? In fact, there should be one major quake over the 200 miles.

    The truth is, many geological theories have little or no proof. Whereas it may seem obvious that seashells near the top of Everest strongly suggest that area was once at sea level, we simply don’t know. Rather than keeping our minds open to other possibilities, we focus on the obvious and set ourselves up for missing the less obvious.

    That’s what we are currently experiencing with global warming/climate change. Someone jumped on an obvious theory that anthropogenic gases that built up following the Industrial Era are warming the atmosphere. Not only do they believe that, they are starting to claim it is misinformation to claim otherwise.

    • Ken says:

      Derp.

    • bobdroege says:

      As usual Gordon, you need to look up terms you are using lest you make a fool of your self.

      Look up what an epicenter is in regards to earthquakes.

      Your post shows that you do not know what an epicenter is.

      And yes, the top of Mt Everest was once at sea level, the sea level was not once at the top of Mt Everest.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      bobdroege, please stop trolling.

  25. Gordon Robertson says:

    norman…”So with the water bucket example he…”

    ***

    Just curious, do you prefer sitting on an overturned water bucket at home. We had a character in Scotland called Oor Wullie who sat on a metal upturned bucket we refer to in Scotland as a pail.

    Don’t know if this will make it through.

    https://m.facebook.com/BeingScottish/posts/on-this-day-in-1936-the-oor-wullie-comic-strip-first-appeared-in-the-sunday-post/10158276072673559/

    It’s braw being Scottish.

    If not, try this…

    https://www.scottishtourer.co.uk/blog/2021/05/25/searching-for-oor-wullie-the-scottish-icon-when-out-in-a-motorhome

  26. Swenson says:

    Just as a matter of interest, the US DOE paid to publish this –

    “The greenhouse effect gets its name from the process that actually occurs in a greenhouse. In a greenhouse, short wavelength visible sunlight shines through the glass panes and warms the air and the plants inside. The radiation emitted from the heated objects inside the greenhouse are of longer wavelength and therefore are unable to pass through the glass barrier, maintaining a warm temperature in the greenhouse.”

    Maybe they are talking about the mythical “greenhouse effect”, rather than the non-existent “greenhouse effect”?

    These Government funded idiots don’t even seem to understand how a “greenhouse” operates.

    Maybe Willard the Idiot can’t describe the “greenhouse effect” because he can’t decide which “greenhouse effect” to describe.

    • Willard says:

      Mike Flynn,

      It’s easy to describe the greenhouse effect.

      The atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth because of it.

      You accept that, and yet deny the greenhouse effect.

      Deceitful cretin.

      • Swenson says:

        Weird Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “Mike Flynn,

        Its easy to describe the greenhouse effect.

        The atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth because of it.

        You accept that, and yet deny the greenhouse effect.

        Deceitful cretin.”

        You still havent described the greenhouse effect, have you? Bob, duck and weave – the Earth cools. If you want to believe that the Earth cannot cool without the “greenhouse effect”, go for it.

        Nobody else seems to agree.

        Carry n with your idiocy.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        There is no need for me to describe the greenhouse effect.

        You did.

        Like teh Jesus, you freed us all.

        Thank you.

      • bobdroege says:

        “Bob”

        Da dude doesn’t seem to know who he is arguing with.

        As for Newton’s law of cooling, apply this:

        “In the case of heat transfer by thermal radiation, Newton’s law of cooling holds only for very small temperature differences.”

        I assume they mean smaller than 280 K or so.

        Sharpest knife in a drawer full of hammers.

      • Swenson says:

        Bumbling bobby,

        Newton’s law of cooling –

        “The rate of heat loss of a body is directly proportional to the difference in the temperatures between the body and its environment.”

        If you don’t like it, you can “apply” anything you like. It makes no difference – unless you are a delusional SkyDragon cultist, of course, who doesn’t accept Newton’s Law of Cooling, and think Newton didn’t really mean what he wrote.

        You can “assume” anything you like. You can “assume” you are clever, but you remain an idiot, as ever.

        Only an idiot would put a sharp knife in a drawer full of hammers which only an idiot would put in a drawer.

        Idiot.

      • Swenson says:

        A pair of incompetent dim nitwits. Oh well.

        You have obviously never heard of bobbing [and weaving], nor ducking [and weaving]. To bob, duck and weave is more or less synonymous with performing the lateral arabesque in this context, but Dumb and Dumber appear to be having an incompetence competition, to see who can outperform: the other.

        [laughter ensued]

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        It’s bob and weave.

        Not bob, duck, and weave.

        Cheers.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        Now I am the one laughing, you don’t understand how to apply Newton’s Law of Cooling.

        The Earth cools by at least five different mechanisms, Newton’s Law only applies if you can limit it to one mechanism.

        It’s bad to be relegated to the janitor’s closet when you think you are smart enough for the corner office.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.

  27. Swenson says:

    Earlier, Willard invented a non-existent effect –

    “Mike Flynn,

    Theres something about the atmosphere that creates an effect.

    An effect according to which the cooling of the Earth is being slowed down.

    How would you call that effect?”

    What a stupid gotcha! An effect which slows the cooling of the Earth? Some nameless “effect”, existing only in Willard’s fantasy.

    Here’s something from UK school which might help Wee Willy (although it is for 14 year old students, and possibly beyond Wee Willy’s understanding) –

    “So why do things cool down?

    It’s very simple.

    An object will cool down if its temperature is greater than the temperature of its surroundings.”

    For anyone marginally less stupid than the idiot, Newton’s Law of Cooling states “the rate of loss of heat from a body is directly proportional to the difference in the temperature of the body and its surroundings.”, according to at least one source.

    Obviously too much for an idiot like Willard to comprehend, who believes objects cannot cool without the application of an “effect” which he can’t actually describe!

    He’s not the sharpest tool in the toolbox.

    • Willard says:

      Mike Flynn,

      Once again you invoke the Law of Cooling.

      If size was all that matters, why would you be talking about the atmosphere, and why would your spouse choose you?

      • Swenson says:

        Weak Wee Willy,

        What are you burbling about, fool?

        14 year old physics too much for you, is it?

        Idiot.

      • Willard says:

        Braying again, Mike?

        The atmosphere. Why does it matter. Go ahead, improv.

      • Swenson says:

        Weak Wee Willy,

        What are you burbling about, fool?

        14 year old physics too much for you, is it?

        Idiot.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        Playing dumb again?

        At least you did not call me Bob this time.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Weak Wee Willy,

        What are you burbling about, fool?

        14 year old physics too much for you, is it?

        Idiot.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        The atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth, and Newton’s Law of Cooling does not explain why the atmosphere is warmer than space.

        Cheers.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  28. Willard says:

    Our Sky Dragon Cranks are so close to getting it:

    [MORON MIKE] The difference in temperature between the surface and the atmosphere in contact with it determines the rate of heat dissipation.

    [BORDO] the rate of loss of heat from a body is directly proportional to the difference in the temperature of the body and its surroundings

    All they need is to ask themselves why is the atmosphere warmer than space.

    • Swenson says:

      Witless Wee Willy,

      Have you lost it completely?

      You wrote –

      “All they need is to ask themselves why is the atmosphere warmer than space.”

      Presumably, you imagine that you have unearthed some previously unknown gem of knowledge – that if two things have different temperatures, one is warmer (or colder) than the other.

      Bad luck, Willard. Nothing new there. No greenhouse effect needed or mentioned in the laws of thermodynamics.

      You don’t need to ask yourself anything – why would anybody appeal to the authority of an idiot? Rhetorical question of course.

      Carry on.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You are right. I have uncovered some deep, hermetic knowledge –

        Two of our Sky Dragon cranks may have rediscovered the greenhouse effect!

        Wonderful, innit?

      • Swenson says:

        Wee Willy Wanker, this would be the mythical “greenhouse effect” which you cannot describe, but claim to be responsible for the continuous and remorseless cooling of the Earth?

        You are surely an idiot of the first water.

        Newton’s Law of Cooling is enough for me. I suppose you ascribe Newton’s Laws of Motion to another effect which you also can’t describe?

        You are an idiot twice over.

        Keep it up. No adverse side effects from laughing at idiots like you, I believe.

        Correct me if I’m wrong.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        There is no need to correct you.

        You are not even wrong, as Pauli would say.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Wee Willy Wanker, this would be the mythical “greenhouse effect” which you cannot describe, but claim to be responsible for the continuous and remorseless cooling of the Earth?

        You are surely an idiot of the first water.

        Newton’s Law of Cooling is enough for me. I suppose you ascribe Newton’s Laws of Motion to another effect which you also cant describe?

        You are an idiot twice over.

        Keep it up. No adverse side effects from laughing at idiots like you, I believe.

        Correct me if Im wrong.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        Newton’s Law of Cooling does not explain why the atmosphere is warmer than space.

        Cheers.

    • gbaikie says:

      Space is not warm nor cold.
      If in spacesuit, you need refrigeration.
      If on Mars [which is somewhat close to vacuum] a spacesuit, doesn’t
      a heater, it needs refrigeration.
      In terms of living mammal, space is warm.

      • Clint R says:

        The reason a spacesuit would “need refrigeration” is if it’s being irradiated by solar flux. In the “shade”, the spacesuit would require warming.

      • Nate says:

        ” In the ‘shade’, the spacesuit would require warming.”

        Now you understand why the Green Plate is colder.

      • Clint R says:

        Would the GP be colder if it were in full contact with BP?

        Now you understand why you don’t understand ANY of this?

      • Nate says:

        Here’s an experiment to find out: Heat an iron skillet on the stove with burner on high for 2 minutes.

        -Hold your hand 5 mm away from its surface for 5 seconds.

        -Now put your hand in full contact with the surface for 5 seconds.

        Did your hand get colder or hotter in full contact?

        What can you conclude about the transfer of heat by conduction vs other modes?

      • gbaikie says:

        No it wouldn’t.
        But do have heated boots and gloves, because ground can be cold and objects one has to handle, can be cold- or a lightyear from any star, space is not hot or cold.
        Though there is solar wind everywhere, and it’s very hot but it’s very low density.
        Or it’s like our thermosphere or Low earth orbit is +1000 C and it’s not hot or cold.

      • Willard says:

        The baseline temperature of outer space, as set by the background radiation from the Big Bang, is 2.7 kelvins, gb.

        Perhaps that is not cold enough for you?

      • gbaikie says:

        You missing the fact that Humans are not reptiles.
        But things can passively cool to your 2.7 K. So, living in space gives free refrigeration. Or spacefaring civilization does not require active cooling for refrigeration whether for beer, or ice cream or something much colder, like LOX and other rocket fuel.
        So free sunlight and free refrigeration costs.
        Humans on Earth surface spend a lot energy using refrigerators.
        Because for some things, 15 C is not cold enough.
        Earth cold air has some advantages, it cools engines, and one use it
        to make LOX.
        If mining Mars atmosphere you going to get a lot waste heat- so another reason you need lake on Mars- so can heat water to get rid of waste heat from mining Mars sky. And of course to cool your powerplants.

      • Willard says:

        Humans are not reptiles, so space is not warm or cold?

        OK.

      • gbaikie says:

        Liquid cooling and ventilation garment
        “A liquid cooling garment (LCG) is a form-fitting garment that is used to remove body heat from the wearer in environments where evaporative cooling from sweating and open-air convection cooling does not work or is insufficient, or the wearer has a biological problem that hinders self-regulation of body temperature. ”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_cooling_and_ventilation_garment

        Astronauts commonly wear a liquid cooling and ventilation garment in order to maintain a comfortable core body temperature during extra-vehicular activity (EVA). The LCVG accomplishes this task by circulating cool water through a network of flexible tubes in direct contact with the astronaut’s skin. The water draws heat away from the body, resulting in a lower core temperature. The water then returns to the primary life support system (PLSS), where it is cooled in a heat exchanger before being recirculated.

        In an independent space suit, the heat is ultimately transferred to a thin sheet of ice (formed by a separate feed water source). Due to the extremely low pressure in space, the heated ice sublimates directly to water vapor, which is then vented away from the suit.”

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        You wrote –

        “Humans are not reptiles, so space is not warm or cold?

        OK.”

        You obviously don’t understand the mechanism of cooling, nor understand why mammals need cooling in circumstances where reptiles need heating.

        Carry on being a troll of the supremely idiotic and ignorant variety.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You obviously know why the atmosphere slows the cooling of the Earth.

        Yet you will not spell it out.

        Would it be because you are a deceitful cretin?

      • Swenson says:

        Wonky Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “Mike Flynn,

        You obviously know why the atmosphere slows the cooling of the Earth.

        Yet you will not spell it out.

        Would it be because you are a deceitful cretin?”.

        What part of Newton’s Law of Cooling do you not understand, idiot troll?

        You do realise that the atmosphere is colder than the surface, don’t you? How about the mantle being hotter than the surface?

        Are all delusional SkyDragon cultists as thick as you? Reject reality if you wish, convince yourself that the Earth has not cooled over the past four and a half billion years, that the surface does not cool each night – or even that you are a complete blithering idiot, as thick as two short planks!

        It makes no difference to the facts, does it?

        If you want to keep whining and plaintively bleating, be my guest. You seem to enjoy looking like a fool.

        [derisive laughter for dimwitted reality denier]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You realize that the atmosphere is warmer than space, right?

        Cheers.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Space has no temperature.

      • Willard says:

        The baseline temperature of outer space, as set by the background radiation from the Big Bang, is 2.7 kelvins (−270 C; −455 F).

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

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Sure, but it’s more accurate to think of space as having no temperature.

      • Willard says:

        > Sure, but

        Hmmm.

        If space has no temperature, then perhaps heat can’t escape to space, for Stefan’s law (or Newton’s law for that matter) only applies to bodies with temperature…

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        You can’t heat space, it’s (largely) a vacuum. That’s not to say objects don’t radiate out to space based on their temperature and emissivity. They do…and if said objects are not receiving enough radiation to keep them warm, said objects will cool. Does that mean space is being “heated”, in the process? Of course not.

      • Nate says:

        “its more accurate to think of space as having no temperature”

        Not sure why people keep forgetting that their personal feelings about stuff aint physics.

        ‘No temperature’ is neither accurate nor useful for determining heat transfer.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        …can’t heat space, it’s (largely) a vacuum. That’s not to say objects don’t radiate out to space based on their temperature and emissivity. They do…and if said objects are not receiving enough radiation to keep them warm, said objects will cool. Does that mean space is being “heated”, in the process? Of course not.

      • Willard says:

        Exactly, Nate.

        The universe is so vast and filled with such a multitude of objects, some blisteringly hot, others unimaginably frigid, that it should be impossible to give space a single temperature.

        Yet, there is something that permeates the entirety of our universe with a temperature that is uniform to 1 part in 100,000. In fact, the difference is so insignificant that the change between a hot spot and a cold spot is just 0.000018 K.

        This is known as the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and it has a uniform temperature of 2.7 K (-45⁰F/-270⁰C). As 0 K is absolute zero this is a temperature just 2.725 degrees above absolute zero.

        https://www.space.com/how-cold-is-space

        The idea that space is the absence of matter or that space has a uniform temperature are not very accurate. The most plausible candidate for space as emptiness would be the microwave background, which indeed has a temperature.

        Of course we could say that an astronaut stuck outside the space station will not freeze to death, because there is not enough particle to convert or conduct temperature, and the space suit prevents radiation to reach the body. This, at least, is less confused than to say that non-radiative gases *holds to* but does not [a-word] radiation!

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/space-human-body/#:~:text=One%20common%20misconception%20is%20that,space%20itself%20has%20no%20temperature.

        “One common misconception is that outer space is cold, but in truth, space itself has no temperature.”

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        “This, at least, is less confused than to say that non-radiative gases *holds to* but does not [a-word] radiation!“

        There is no confusion at all, for those who understand that N2/O2 can receive energy through collisions with other molecules, and directly via conduction from the surface. N2/O2 does not need to absorb IR energy directly to gain energy.

      • Willard says:

        Graham does not always hold that that molecules *hold* to energy, but when he does it is because radiation *collides* with them.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        No, that is not what I said. It is not the radiation that is colliding with them. You really need to learn to read.

      • Willard says:

        And so Gaslighting Graham has returned!

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        “There is no confusion at all, for those who understand that N2/O2 can receive energy through collisions with other molecules, and directly via conduction from the surface. N2/O2 does not need to absorb IR energy directly to gain energy.“

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Why do I waste my time?

      • Nate says:

        A blog post is quoted as evidence about the T of space?

        By “Mark Springel is a research assistant in the Department of Pathology at Boston Childrens Hospital”

      • Nate says:

        If we put a thermometer in interstellar space, away from sunlight or gas clouds, what T would it settle on?

        HINT: its only way of thermally equilbrating with its surroundings is by radiation.

      • gbaikie says:

        https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/space-human-body/#:~:text=One%20common%20misconception%20is%20that,space%20itself%20has%20no%20temperature

        That explains things pretty well.
        Let’s look at this part:
        –What does this mean for future space missions?

        The prospect of interplanetary missions compounds known health concerns regarding space travel. With our current technology, a manned mission to Mars would take more than two years, and by conservative estimates, simply getting to Mars might take 6 to 8 months. Radiation measurements recorded by NASAs Curiosity rover during its transit to Mars suggest that with todays technology, astronauts would be exposed to a minimum of 660 120 millisieverts (a measure of radiation dosage) over the course of a round trip [14]. Because NASAs career exposure limit for astronauts is only slightly greater at 1000 millisieverts, this recent data is cause for great concern.–

        We need to study the effects of artificial gravity. We should have already done it. We didn’t know effects of microgravity, and we are likely not to know the effects of “artificial gravity” and it seems
        it will take more time then determining effects of microgravity- which I would say, we still don’t know much about- other than it disable humans upon returning to Earth. But key aspect is the human body adapts to it’s environment {more proof, God wants humans to become a spacefaring civilization. Or also God is good. But than again, perhaps not, maybe we being fooled and the entire glorious Universe can only to look at with telescopes.}.
        But anyhow, the radiation issue is problem, but a lot radiation more than 1/2 can blocked, and Starship could/might get to Mars in 6 months {or less}. But having solar grand min, is going to change those levels, higher, and we don’t know how much higher.
        But possible we won’t get a solar grand min.
        And it also good idea to use the orbit of Venus. Using Venus lower time of planetary launch window. It’s possible to do round trip of Earth {to Venus] to Mars and back in 1 year rather than more than 2
        years. And Venus is closer to sun and has less radiation- how much lower, I don’t know. We should find out.

        Anyways we should find out what effect of a year in Mars artificial gravity is. And also test longer. But even 6 month of time would give some clues of it’s affect, or even 3 months.
        What could the effects be?
        Maybe people would live longer, or maybe just bad or worse effects.
        It’s a crime, we have tested it.
        Anyhow, Musk is partnering some group who might get it flying in a year or so.

      • gbaikie says:

        — Nate says:
        June 9, 2023 at 3:43 PM

        If we put a thermometer in interstellar space, away from sunlight or gas clouds, what T would it settle on?–

        How about a dead human in 1 AU distance from the Sun.
        It would mummify.
        So within a month should have Egyptian mummy at Earth orbital distance. How warm would it be?

        Put it in interstellar space, and it might picked up by
        the heart of gold spaceship.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        So anyway, as I was saying…space has no temperature.

        https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=space+has+no+temperature

      • Ball4 says:

        Space has no kinetic temperature; space does have a measured brightness temperature.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Ball4 troll, begone.

      • Nate says:

        Yeah, anybody interfering with DREMTs fertilizing of this blog needs to begone.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Troll Ball4, begone.

      • Nate says:

        So? Nobody answered my question about the temperature measured by a thermometer in deep space.

        OK. Since it can only equilibrate with its surroundings by radiation, it will ultimately read 2.7 K, and then emit radiation equal to what it receives from the background radiation of space.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Begone, Ball4 troll.

  29. gbaikie says:

    “There are five known Icehouse periods in Earth’s climate history, which are known as the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Late Paleozoic, and Late Cenozoic glaciations”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth

    “The Huronian glaciation (or Makganyene glaciation) was a period where several ice ages occurred during the deposition of the Huronian Supergroup, rather than a single continuous event as it is commonly misrepresented to be. The deposition of this group extended from 2.5 billion years ago (Gya) to 2.2 Gya, during the Siderian and Rhyacian periods of the Paleoproterozoic era.”

    One or more of the glaciations may have been snowball earth events, when all or almost all of the earth was covered in ice.Although the palaeomagnetic evidence that suggests ice sheets were present at low latitudes is contested,and the glacial sediments (diamictites) are discontinuous, alternating with carbonate rocks and other sediments indicating temperate climates, providing scant evidence for global glaciation.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huronian_glaciation

    • gbaikie says:

      “The Cryogenian (from Ancient Greek: κρύος, romanized: kros, meaning “cold” and γένεσις, romanized: gnesis, meaning “birth”) is a geologic period that lasted from 720 to 635 million years ago.”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenian

      “The Andean-Saharan glaciation, also known as the Early Palaeozoic Icehouse,[1] the Early Palaeozoic Ice Age, the Late Ordovician glaciation, the end-Ordovician glaciation, or the Hirnantian glaciation, occurred during the Paleozoic from approximately 460 Ma to around 420 Ma,..”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andean-Saharan_glaciation

      “At its height during the Hirnantian, the ice age is believed to have been significantly more extreme than the Last Glacial Maximum occurring during the terminal Pleistocene.”

      “The late Paleozoic icehouse, also known as the Late Paleozoic Ice Age (LPIA) and formerly known as the Karoo ice age, was an ice age that began in the Late Devonian and ended in the Late Permian, occurring from 360 to 255 million years ago (Mya),”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Paleozoic_icehouse

      “Data from Serpukhovian and Moscovian marine strata of South China point to glacioeustasy being driven primarily by long-period eccentricity, with a cyclicity of about 0.405 million years, and the modulation of the amplitude of Earth’s obliquity, with a cyclicity of approximately 1.2 million years. This is most similar to the early part of the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, from the Oligocene to the Pliocene, before the formation of the Arctic ice cap, suggesting the climate of this episode of time was relatively warm for an icehouse period.”

      • gbaikie says:

        So, first one: “2.5 billion years ago (Gya) to 2.2 Gya” lasted
        300 million.
        Second one: “720 to 635 million years ago” was 80 million years.
        Third: “460 Ma to around 420 Ma” was 60 million years
        Fourth: 360 to 255 million years ago was 95 million year.

        And ours is 33.9 million years.

        I just checking exactly what is meant when it’s said, Earth not mostly been in an Icehouse climate.

        But if just say in last billion years {cause it’s round number]:
        80 + 60 + 95 + so far 33.9 million equals: 268.9 million of 1000 million, so just over 1/4 of the last billion years.

        But one ask different question, in last billion, when has been as cold as the Last Glacial Maximum [which was about 20,000 years ago]
        Or slightly different, when has been as cold as our last couple million years {when Greenland became a “permanent” ice sheet]?

        But of course, failing to evidence, doesn’t mean there was not more icehouse global climate. Or haven’t found it, yet.
        Of course another aspect is the evidence we yet to find in in terms
        past impactors, of safe to say we had 5 dinosaur extinction type of impact events in last billion years. Of course in terms sheer numbers, the amount super volcanic events. Such as Yellowstone or 20 other ones found on land, and who knows the number under the ocean, firing off every 1/2 million years, or so.
        So, hundreds to thousands of these in last billion years.

      • gbaikie says:

        Oh, I wonder how many super volcanoes are under the continent of Antarctica and big island of Greenland?

  30. Bindidon says:

    Two intelligent answers to ‘It’s the Sun, Stupid!’ are for example Javier’s comments within Archibald’s old head post he repeats since 15 years with minimal changes over time:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/06/the-sun-in-june-2023/#comment-3730908

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/06/the-sun-in-june-2023/#comment-3730905

  31. Entropic man says:

    Gordon and others.

    entearlier you made a statement about fossils being found high on Everest. It would seem obvious, based on such evidence, that Everest was at some point covered in water to a high altitude.

    A major problem with geology is absolute verification.”

    You may have encountered plate tectonics, the current geology paradigm. Continental plates move across Earth’s surface driven by currents in the underlying mantle.
    Where their edges interact you get earthquakes and volcanoes.
    When two plates collide you get a crumple zone where the edges get pushed up into a mountain range.

    The Himalayas formed when India collided with the Southern edge of Asia.
    Sediments formed on the continental shelf underwater were pushed six kilometres upwards fossils and all. The sea level was never that far above the geoid.

    Absolute variation is something you don’t get in science. Particularly in field sciences, you can’t do lab experiments so you depend on the evidence left behind.
    From that you build hypotheses and test them by seeking further evidence.

    • Entropic man says:

      Gordon Robertson.

      Tell me more about absolute verification.

      How do you acheive it?

      What examples of absolute verfication can you give?

      When you can’t achieve absolute verification, what degree of verification would allow you to accept something as a working hypothesis?

      • Willard says:

        > How do you acheive it?

        Smoking.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Absolute verification requires an eye-witness account. Someone, somewhere, must have witnessed plate tectonics in action. No one has. We need an eye witness that India collided with the southern part of Asia.

        BTW, there is another theory for orogenesis (mountain building). I don’t have it handy, I just know there is one. No one has ever witnessed a mountain range forming, and as Swenson points out, the Earth’s crust would have had to be lot hotter and more pliable than it is now in order for plate tectonics to explain it. With that more pliant crust, internal forces could explain mountains.

        For the Big Bang, we need an eye-witness or at least evidence that significant mass can suddenly appear out of nothing.

        For evolution, we need an eye witness or clear cut evidence that one species converted to another. That would require fossils with intermediate qualities of both species. We also need clear cut evidence of so-called natural selection.

        In particular, we need evidence that life could have formed from 5 elements then gone on to create more complex structures with high degrees of intelligence. They tried it in the 1950s and all they got was a blob of tar, while reaching the conclusion that the environment required to create the blob could not support life as we know it.

        Sorry mate, even though I am not religious, intelligent creation is the only viable explanation. Although I am quite prepared to die and never be heard from again, I find it kind of neat, the possibility that some kind of intelligence exists well beyond our minds. When I observe the wonderful and natural intelligence behind the human being, I feel encouraged.

        For space-time, we need evidence that time exists. We also need to become aware of what part the human mind plays as observer. The human mind is prone to distortion and is not reliable for observing relative motion. It has trouble distinguishing whether the Sun rises in the morning or if it’s the Earth horizon descending.

        The only alternative is to descend into the dark world of thought experiment. It cheers me that a far more qualified person than myself, Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, thought Einstein screwed up royally by resorting to thought experiment. I personally think big E, did not understand that time has no existence.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ps. I don’t care about working hypotheses. I’m happy to claim I don’t know.

      • Willard says:

        C’mon, Bordo.

        Science’s most important results come under the form of laws. These laws are often universal. Being universal, they apply to every single instance they cover. How can you verify *every* instance of a law?

        Take the Law of Cooling – The rate of heat loss of a body is directly proportional to the difference in the temperatures between the body and its environment. Have you checked every body in the universe, every environment, and every temperature?

        No, you have not. You simply generalized your observations.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        wee willy…”Take the Law of Cooling The rate of heat loss of a body is directly proportional to the difference in the temperatures between the body and its environment. Have you checked every body in the universe, every environment, and every temperature?”

        ***

        This is something you would not understand unless you had actually done science. If you look up a table of different elements and different substances you will find just about every element/substance listed as to its rate of heat dissipation.

        How do you think they got them? By measuring them.

        It is known in chemistry how different combinations of atoms, and atoms bonded by electrons (molecules), behave under different conditions. It’s no longer a mystery because certain scientists have worked it out in a lab.

        Of course, alarmist climate scientist would know nothing about that since none of them have ever been in a lab. If they had been, they’d know that alarmist science is a load of bollocks.

      • Willard says:

        Come on, Bordo.

        You speak of atoms. Have you verified every single atom of the universe? No, you did not.

        That is the point you keep missing. That point refutes verificationism.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  32. Entropic man says:

    The legal system has a similar problem and is also unable to achieve absolute verification. They have come up with two standards of proof.

    In criminal trials guilt must be demonstrated by evidence and shown “beyond reasonable doubt”.

    In civil cases the standard is “on the balance of probabilities”. The case is decided on the evidence in favour of whichever party is more likely to be correct.

    Science is somewhere in between. Scientists tend to pick the hypothesis which best explains the evidence. While aware that it is not perfect, they tend to treat it as provisionally correct until better evidence or a better hypothesis comes along.

    The mistake made by the climate drnialists is to suggest that scientists believe in AGW as Christians believe in God.

    Scientist do not believe in and AGW climate change, they just regard it as the best working hypothesis and treat it as true until something better replaces it.

    I came here initially because I was promised something better than AGW, but no luck so far.

    • RLH says:

      Dealing with chaotic systems is not easy. It is always possible to create a ‘solution’ which does not hold long term. Also it is always possible to tilt the perception by altering what actually happened in the past in order to create statistics that are more favorable for your viewpoint.

    • Willard says:

      Exactly, EM.

      Beliefs are like bets, or rather the only part that matters in the public sphere is what you would bet:

      https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/06/03/beliefs-and-bets/

      Until contrarians put money where their mouth is, what they personally believe is of little concern. And Sky Dragon cranks like our duo of sock puppets will do as they please, as usual.

    • Swenson says:

      EM,

      You wrote –

      “Scientist do not believe in and AGW climate change, they just regard it as the best working hypothesis and treat it as true until something better replaces it.”

      Higher thermometer temperatures is obviously due to increased heat in the environment – if it is happening around the globe, and man-made heat is responsible, that is AGW.

      Climate is the statistics of weather. Weather is constantly changing. The statistics of the thing that is changing also change. That’s climate change.

      What more do you need? What previously unexplained phenomenon needs a new hypothesis?

      Are you claiming that you need an invented “greenhouse effect” to explain the cooling of the Earth over four and a half billion years, or the cooling of the surface each night? You seem to be confusing science with delusional SkyDragon cultism, but I may be wrong of course. You probably think so, but you can’t say why. For example, you cannot describe this “greenhouse effect” in any way that accords with fact, can you?

      Here’s part of what Wikipedia says about the scientific method –

      “It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation.”

      What observations need any more explanation than those supplied by present physical laws?

      You can’t provide any, but you think a “greenhouse effect” which you can’t describe, is needed to explain non-existent observations. Doesn’t seem very scientific to me.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ent…”Scientist do not believe in and AGW climate change, they just regard it as the best working hypothesis and treat it as true until something better replaces it”.

      ***

      We skeptics have proved here that AGW is not even a good hypothesis. We keep challenging alarmists to explain the current greenhouse effect and thus far no one has offered a clear cut explanation based on physics. In fact, the best ones offered contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics and Newton’s Law of Cooling.

      The typical explanation is one based on the S-B equation. Alarmists calculate an estimated temperature for an Earth with no atmosphere or oceans then compare it to an equally derived number of 15C for an Earth with both oceans and an atmosphere. The difference comes to around 33C and they offer that number up as proof of a greenhouse effect with absolutely no explanation of how it works, based on a real greenhouse. Recently, someone claimed the GHE is not meant to replicate a real greenhouse but still don’t explain what it means and why it is called a greenhouse effect.

      A while back, I offered evidence based on the Ideal Gas Law that CO2 in the atmosphere could warm it no more than the mass percent of CO2, which would be about 0.04C for every 1C overall warming. Then I noticed, right under my nose, that G&T had offered a similar number using a heat diffusion equation.

      Note that heat diffusion is not heat conduction, it represents the amount of heat CO2 at 0.04% could diffuse into a volume of atmospheric gas. G&T calculated, for a doubling of CO2, the amount of heat it could create would be in the neighbourhood of 0.06%.

      I have seen nothing from alarmists to prove their version that CO2 can increase atmospheric temperature by 9% to 25%. They draw these numbers out of a hat. Yet that’s what the models use to get their wildly exaggerated warming prediction.

  33. Entropic man says:

    Credit to RLH who has made three bets with me.

    • RLH says:

      Thank you.

    • Clint R says:

      Ent, I’ve got a bet for you — I bet you’ll be trolling here anonymously for the next six months, spouting your same nonsense like “passenger jets fly backward”. The bet is $50, payable to Dr. Spencer.

      Take the bet?

  34. Dan Pangburn says:

    A year ago, water vapor molecules had been increasing about 7 times faster than CO2 molecules. Sect 2.8 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . NASA/RSS has now reported average global water vapor through Dec 2022 at https://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r02_198801_202212.time_series.txt . The trend from Jan 1988 thru Dec 2022 is 1.36 % per decade so the increase in water vapor molecules in 3.5 decades is 0.0136 * 10000 * 3.5 = 476. From Mauna Loa data the CO2 increase in that time period is 420 – 350 = 70. With that, water vapor molecules have been increasing 476/70 = 6.8 times faster than CO2 molecules.
    Descrip_tion of how the water vapor measurements are made is at http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor

  35. Dan Pangburn says:

    Measured water vapor (28.73 base is added to the TPW anomalies) through Dec 2022 is graphed along with a calculated trajectory in Fig 7 at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com . Sect 6 there shows probable source of humanitys contribution to the extra water vapor.

  36. gbaikie says:

    Starlink: Over 1.5m subs
    May 9, 2023
    By Chris Forrester
    “A cash-flow prepared for Starlink some years ago by an investment bank suggested that the 1.5 million mark was not likely to be reached for some time. The first Starlink satellites were launched in May 2019, although the service became available in some limited locations in 2020.

    Starlink passed the 1 million subscriber mark in December 2022.

    In other words, Starlink has taken barely three years to achieve this new and very impressive subscriber number and which qualifies the business as the largest supplier of satellite-based broadband, and equally impressive has taken just four months to add around 500,000 users (from December 2022 to now).”
    https://advanced-television.com/2023/05/09/starlink-1-5m-subs-worldwide/

    What will happen when SpaceX gets a successful Starship test launch- some time in next couple of months.
    Musk had planned to launch starlinks on first attempt, and he might do it, on second attempt.

    • gbaikie says:

      Scientists Beam Solar Power From Space to Earth in World First
      Space
      06 June 2023
      By Matt Williams, Universe Today
      https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-beam-solar-power-from-space-to-earth-in-world-first

      I mentioned this before- more about it.
      And it’s related to starlink- get internet in remote location, but with beam power. you get electrical in remote location.

      I wrote about it months ago, not sure I posted it.
      But SPS have been about feeding an electrical grid- sending power to location of 100 square km footprint. But for years I have been thinking it of evolving into being able to get electrical anywhere.
      But it might “start with” being able to get electrical anywhere, before any grid power is done.

  37. gbaikie says:

    Order in chaos: Atmosphere’s Antarctic oscillation has natural cycle, discover researchers
    June 6, 2023
    by Jade Boyd, Rice University
    “Climate scientists at Rice University have discovered an “internally generated periodicity”a natural cycle that repeats every 150 daysin the north-south oscillation of atmospheric pressure patterns that drive the movement of the Southern Hemisphere’s prevailing westerly winds and the Antarctic jet stream.”
    https://phys.org/news/2023-06-chaos-atmosphere-antarctic-oscillation-natural.html
    Linked from: https://instapundit.com/

    • Swenson says:

      People have been finding all sorts of periodicities in the statistics of chaotic systems, since chaos was first thought about.

      How tempting to analyze the stock market, for example, run various Fourier analyses, and then use the resultant knowledge of recurrent cycles to accumulate a vast fortune. Fantasy, of course. Chaotic systems, by definition, are unpredictable in the sense that the expert’s results are no better than the twelve year old’s.

      Sad but true.

      If you don’t accept chaos theory, Richard Feynman comes to the same unpredictability conclusion in respect of any physical system like the atmosphere, from a QED viewpoint.

      It doesn’t really matter, though. Finding a “pattern” in an Antarctic “oscillation” is of no practical use whatever. Showing that the finest current “climate models” do not reflect reality, is just pointing out the blindingly obvious – a complete waste of money, effort, and time.

      I might just as well breathlessly announce that I have discovered that winter is colder than summer – except when it isn’t! Nobel Prize worthy? Probably not, unless you think like a “climate scientist”.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swenson…”How tempting to analyze the stock market, for example, run various Fourier analyses, and then use the resultant knowledge of recurrent cycles to accumulate a vast fortune”.

        ***

        I once did a statistical analysis of our local Lotto, the 6/49. Six numbers are drawn from balls in a container and they are number 1 to 49. If you calculate the number of individual permutations of 6 numbers per draw, drawn without replacement, the number of possible combinations is over 13 million. I realized quickly that even if I spent $100, when tickets were a dollar each, the 100 combinations barely dented the 1 in 13 million+ chances of getting the winner.

        In other words, if you buy 1 lotto ticket with 1 in 13million+ odds, buying 2 tickets gives you 2 in 13 million+ odds. Although one’s intuition might suggest more is better, the odds speak for themselves.

        So, I got a print out of all the winning numbers. It became apparent in over 1000 draws, that the results nearly always had at least 1 number in the categories 1 – 9. 10 – 20, 21 – 30, 31 – 40 and 41 – 49. One draw had the numbers 1,2,3,4 and two other numbers, but that occurred once in over 1000 draws.

        1000 draws is a spit in the ocean compared to 13 million+ draws.

        I sorted all the draws by columns in a spreadsheet calculator and noted that 78% of the time there was a number between 1 and 10 in each draw. I did the same for each column with the draw number sorted from smallest number to largest. The trick, though, was still to pick the right number between 1 and 10. Given that, I had to predict the next number given that number. Then the next and the next.

        One thing I did notice was that out of 1000+ draws, no combination of 6 had been repeated. That encouraged me when I selected a set of numbers to check and see if they compared to any other set.

        It was encouraging, that making basic presumptions revealed the draws were not as random as one might expect. After all, the chance of drawing 1,2,3,4,5,6 is the same as drawing 1, 14, 25, 32, 41 and 44, yet patterns like the latter were far more normal over 1000+ draws than the odds might suggest. Maybe over a million draws that might change but who knows if the machines issuing the balls were completely random.

        I began spending $100 dollar to buy 100 tickets and using a refined system based on what I just described, I started getting 4 numbers out of 6 on a fairly regular basis. However, 4 out of 6 only got me $75 or so, and even a 5 out of 6 only got $2500. I needed the full 6 to win a million.

        It was a tremendous amount of work doing the compilations then filling out 100 cards to have them scanned. I did not spend more than several hundred dollar over a period of time but the thing I learned was the meaning of odds. It’s difficult to imagine what one in 13 million means till you try to beat it.

        Then again, someone winds it nearly every weeks or so. If they had considered the odds and not played…

      • Willard says:

        Oh, Bordo.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

        ;>

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Bordo tells a story in which he tried to predict lottery results.

        Do you not have a bit about that kind of predictions?

        Cheers.

      • gbaikie says:

        But some people believe they are lucky.
        And there are many gods of luck.
        Fact is that many people pervert their gods into gods of
        luck.
        As some religious expert would say, they treat God as their
        butler- asking God to doing things for them.

        But in global warming cargo cult some people actually know that the effects warming of CO2 has not been measured.

        There are many repeating cycles in global climate.
        We are in an icehouse global climate, and there been 5 of them found.
        Also a critical cycle of the Milankovitch cycles- this cycle tells
        you that we have past the interglacial peak global temperature and are heading towards a glaciation period.

      • gbaikie says:

        Willis Eschenbach looked at it, and saw nothing. But main issue related to it, was lack of data.
        Which I would say include all this cargo cult of global warming,
        laziness.

        And I repeat, 15 C is cold.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/09/dig-deeper-learn-more/

        Dig Deeper, Learn More
        3 hours ago
        Willis Eschenbach

  38. Gordon Robertson says:

    wee willy… aka modicum dickus…re why the atmosphere is warmer than space.

    There is this thing called gravity and it orders atmospheric molecules into a negative pressure gradient as it binds them to the planet. A negative pressure gradient in such conditions translates to a negative temperature gradient, meaning the atmosphere is hotter in general near the surface and cooler with increasing altitude.

    The fly in the ointment is the stratosphere, where O2 molecules absorb UV from the Sun causing them to warm slightly. This warms the stratosphere from about -55C at the base of the stratosphere to -15C at the top. Not exactly what one might relate to warming.

    The point is, as the atmosphere increases in altitude it gets cooler in general. As such, it acts as a natural buffer between the planets surface and space. It is an insulator to heat in that heat will not flow significantly through air via conduction, however, a large parcel of air at a certain temperature can rise through the atmosphere via convection. As that parcel rises it gradually loses heat as it thins out in the negative pressure gradient.

    As R.W. Wood pointed out, the retention of heat by nitrogen and oxygen for significant periods of time, is a better explanation for the action we call the greenhouse effect than the normal explanation of the GHE. The difference is, the glass in a real greenhouse traps that heat but in the atmosphere it dissipates gradually and quite naturally with altitude.

    The energy budget theory completely ignores that large natural dissipation of heat internally. Rather it offers an incorrect and exaggerated amount of heat back-radiated from GHGs in the atmosphere to the surface. In other words, those who created the energy budget were ignorant of basic thermodynamics and basic physics.

    It should be noted that the natural dissipation of heat with altitude is not a ‘something for nothing situation’. The atmosphere and oceans have been pre-heated for eons by the Sun and the current equilibrium state is not one of a natural energy in – energy out situation. It is more of a heat maintenance situation and the natural dissipation of heat is accounted for in such a situation.

    • Willard says:

      Come on, Bordo.

      As far as natural dissipation is concerned, you are the pro.

      So you are suggesting that radiative gases are responsible for the greenhouse effect.

      I can believe that.

      • Swenson says:

        Woeful Wee Willy,

        There is no greenhouse effect. Like all delusional SkyDragon cultists, you claim everybody else can describe the mythical greenhouse effect, but you are unable to do so – possibly for reasons of mental incompetence, I suppose.

        Carry on dreaming.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You accept that the Earth cools more slowly because of its atmosphere.

        Yet you claim there is no greenhouse effect.

        Deceitful cretin.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Sure, because it’s not the GHGs that insulate.

      • Willard says:

        Looks like Graham’s respite cured his JAQing off.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        It’s not the GHGs that insulate.

      • gbaikie says:

        “Its not the GHGs that insulate.”

        You mean it’s not just GHGs that radiantly insulate, but
        the entire mass of atmosphere, also??

        And/or referring other factors other than radiant effects of
        gases within atmosphere which have insulating and/or warming/greenhouse effect??

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        GHGs don’t radiatively insulate. The N2/O2 doesn’t radiatively insulate. The N2/O2 is the planetary insulation, however, because it “holds onto” the heat better than the GHGs, because it is not so radiatively active as GHGs. It “delays the cooling” by orders of magnitude more than GHGs can.

      • gbaikie says:

        “It delays the cooling by orders of magnitude more than GHGs can.”

        Yeah I agree, roughly. But it’s mass also reflects and defuses sunlight, though wraps sunlight around the edges of planet, also.
        More sunlight would reach the surface if there was 1/2 of mass of atmosphere, but 1/2 mass of atmosphere would have less uniformity
        of global temperature {which is mostly what greenhouse effect is].
        Anyhow, they call Ozone a greenhouse gases despite it directly being energized by sunlight’s UV light.
        Do think this “greenhouse gas” warms Earth?
        Obviously if UV is not absorbed in upper atmosphere, it would absorbed at surface, so does, it warm a bit more if absorbed in higher atmosphere compared to lower, is the question.

        I do think doubling of C02 does have a yet to measured warming effect.
        It seems to me the warming over last century, has been mostly, a recovery from Little Ice Age.
        And ocean cooled a bit during LIA, and has warmed a bit from the time of 1850 AD.

      • Willard says:

        You agree with the suggestion that non-radiative gases are the true radiative gases, gb?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Nobody is making that suggestion. For what is actually being suggested, scroll up and read.

      • gbaikie says:

        “The N2/O2 is the planetary insulation, however, because it holds onto the heat better than the GHGs, because it is not so radiatively active as GHGs. It delays the cooling by orders of magnitude more than GHGs can.”

        Another thing.
        Comparison of Earth and Venus.
        Venus is mostly CO2 with 3.5% Nitrogen.
        Venus upper atmosphere [including it’s thick [tall] clouds]
        is heated by sunlight. So one could say nitrogen is a small factor
        in ” delays the cooling by orders of magnitude more than GHGs
        can.”.
        So what delays cooling with Venus or is there little delay from
        Venus air and say clouds delay. Or what delays?
        Venus absorbs very little sunlight as compared to Earth and as compared to how close [twice the sunlight[ as compared to Earth.
        And spends a long time in night.
        Or perhaps it’s the longer night is what causes delay. Or the upper atmosphere has a 4 to 5 earth day delay, so longer night in terms of it’s upper atmosphere.
        I say CO2 doesn’t cool, largely because of Venus.
        Though I would also concede that Venus lacks exploration.
        Plus new evidence regarding the youngness of Venus surface, and perhaps it’s volcanologically active surface is causing the apparent delay of heat loss.
        Anyhow, how would you explain Venus, in terms of “delays the cooling by orders of magnitude more than GHGs can.

      • Willard says:

        [GRAHAM] The N2/O2 is the planetary insulation, however, because it holds onto the heat better than the GHGs

        [ALSO GRAHAM] because it is not so radiatively active as GHGs.

        [OXFORD REFERENCE ON RADIATIVE GAS] Any gas (such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and ozone) that [A-word] incoming solar radiation or outgoing infrared radiation.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy apparently cannot read.

      • Willard says:

        Apparently Graham has returned to gaslighting.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Not in the least, no.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Gordo regurgitates another blast of his delusional physics, for example his mention of vertical convection. He wrote:

      …a large parcel of air at a certain temperature can rise through the atmosphere via convection. As that parcel rises it gradually loses heat as it thins out in the negative pressure gradient.

      The air mass “rises” because the cooler, denser air surrounding it flows under it and lifts it. The fact is, the warmer parcels may have a lower density because they also include more water vapor, which has a lower density than air. As the parcel rises, the WV precipitates, forming clouds of liquid water, which also adds thermal energy to the rising column, warming it. As the parcel rises further, the cloud liquids can freeze, adding still more thermal energy to the rising parcel. The process causes the rising air to gain sensible “heat” by converting latent energy.

      The result is that the rising air will tend to be warmer than the surrounding cooler air even as the two masses mix via entrainment. Gordo also wants to forget that the upper air must then be cooled for it to sink. That cooling is the result of GHG’s emitting IR energy to deep space. And, as the cooler air descends, it is compressed and warms.

      The atmosphere convection acts as a thermodynamic heat transfer system, it’s not “natural dissipation of heat” with altitude. The energy exiting he atmosphere above TOA must equal that which enters the atmosphere minus that reflected or scattered.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        As Gordon said:

        “…the retention of heat by nitrogen and oxygen for significant periods of time, is a better explanation for the action we call the greenhouse effect than the normal explanation of the GHE.”

        The N2/O2 is the planetary insulator, not GHGs.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swannie…”Gordo also wants to forget that the upper air must then be cooled for it to sink. That cooling is the result of GHGs emitting IR energy to deep space. And, as the cooler air descends, it is compressed and warms”.

        ***

        Swannie doesn’t seem to understand that the heated surface air is rising into an ever-decreasing atmosphere of pressure and temperature. That means the rising air parcel must expand into ever decreasing pressure and temperature.

        If you are standing atop Mt. Everest, or even at base camp at 18,000 feet, you would not expect a sudden blast of warm air from an air parcels that began at sea level, or even a lower altitude.

        Must keep things in perspective, Swannie. A parcel of rising air will lose its heat naturally as it rises and that heat does not have to be radiate to space based on a cockamamey theory that only GHGs can radiate away atmospheric heat. By the time heated air rising to the altitude of the upper troposphere most of the heat will be gone.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo repeats his usual ignorance of thermodynamics as he continues to define “heat” as energy content. To be sure, an ideal gas will exhibit an increase in temperature as it is compressed or, conversely, will cool when it’s pressure is reduced. But, if this process is adiabatic, the internal energy will remain the same. As an example, in the atmosphere, descending air will exhibit an increase in temperature as it is compressed and the opposite is true for rising air masses. Weather events called Chinook winds are examples of this process.

        “Another common occurrence during a Chinook wind event is for the air to warm dramatically from the ridges to the foothills and plains below,” he added.

        The greatest temperature rises in the United States have occurred during Chinook wind events in Montana. In these cases, Arctic air was quickly eroded by mild air from the Pacific Ocean.

        What Gordo completely fails to understand is that the descending air has been cooled before it can sink. Another good example of this would be the down drafts from large thunderstorms as they mature.

        BTW, Gordo, I forgot to include that clouds also radiate IR, doing so in both directions. The outward radiation from the top of the cloud to deep space provides another mechanism which cools the upper air while the downward IR radiation below the cloud ceiling warms the surface. But, above the tropopause, there are only GHG’s which can radiate.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Swanson, please stop trolling.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Cult Leader gremmie, thank you for your support. We can always count on you to butt in with a mindless post when something important is being discussed.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Swanson, please stop trolling.

  39. Swenson says:

    Whiny Wee Willy does not like Newton’s Law of Cooling.

    He wrote –

    “Take the Law of Cooling The rate of heat loss of a body is directly proportional to the difference in the temperatures between the body and its environment. Have you checked every body in the universe, every environment, and every temperature?”

    He does not realise that a physical law holds until someone demonstrates by experiment that it doesn’t.

    Willard’s silly and irrelevant nonsense is about as silly as challenging Newton’s Laws of Motion because they haven’t been tested against every body in the universe, every environment, and every temperature!

    I asked the witless fool what part of Newton’s Law of Cooling he did not understand. His comment indicates he understands none of it. An idiot trying to pretend he isn’t. No, Willard, there is no GHE. Trying to dismiss physical laws because they don’t conform to his bizarre fantasy is likely to generate more derisive laughter than applause.

    • RLH says:

      Willard just thinks he knows better than Newton. Mind you, Newton’s Law of Cooling is only normally used when the difference in T is small.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_cooling

      • Willard says:

        Isaac was no verificationist, dummy.

      • RLH says:

        He was a lot smarter than you. For sure.

      • Willard says:

        You realize that the point was about verificationism, right?

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • RLH says:

        You realize that I was talking about you?

      • Willard says:

        You realize I was not talking about Newton, like, not at all?

      • Swenson says:

        RLH,

        I’m not sure why Wikipedia inserted that piece of opinion about small temperature, unless they consider bright red heat as a small difference of temperature compared with 25 C or so.

        Maybe the Wikipedia editor was thinking only of the lower temperature “linear” portion of the cooling curve, a first order differential equation. Newton’s Law of Cooling is used in hardening of steel, quenching from over 1000 C.

        Newton’s law can be derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann law, based purely on radiation being proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature etc.

        Once again, Wikipedia ignores fact in favour of misguided opinion.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        Have you tried *corroborating* with another source?

        If you are to opine on verificationism, you might as well learn the lingo.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        The Law of Cooling:

        Your confusion arises from wrongly thinking of Newton’s Law of Cooling as a fundamental law of heat transfer, where in fact it is simply an approximation that makes solving heat transfer problems much easier in the limit of small temperature differences. So Newton’s Law of Cooling is not strictly valid for all temperatures, or put in a different way, the heat transfer coefficient h in the law will take on different values at different temperatures. For simple systems like the one above, h can be derived from first principles, but in practice it must be estimated from experimental data.

        https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56553/are-newtons-law-of-cooling-and-stefans-law-related

        Cheers.

      • Nate says:

        “Newtons law can be derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann law, based purely on radiation being proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature etc.”

        Not quite Mike. A T^4 dependence can be approximated as linear for small T changes.

        So if radiation is the dominant heat loss mechanism, Newton’s law of cooling applies only for small T differences.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        Can you provide any data supporting the hypothesis that the Earth has cooled according to Newton’s Law of Cooling for the last 4 1/2 billion years or so?

      • Swenson says:

        Bobby Buffoon,

        Newton’s Law of Cooling – Law.

        Show a situation where it doesn’t apply, it is no longer a law.

        Off you go, now.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        I already did that.

        It only applies when there is only one mechanism of cooling.

        The surface of the Earth can cool by at least five different mechanisms, some of which do not follow the heat loss being directly proportional to the temperature difference, one being heat loss be radiation which follows a different law.

        Further more, it only applies when the thermal conductivity of the substance in question is constant, which is not always the case.

        Sorry old man, you are taking your junior high school science and arguing with those who know better.

        You have been schooled, now go ahead and call me a buffoon again.

        It makes me horny.

      • Swenson says:

        Bumbling bobby buffoon,

        You wrote (re Newton’s Law of Cooling) –

        “It only applies when there is only one mechanism of cooling.”, which of course you can’t actually describe.

        According to you.

        You are a buffoon, who thinks you can change or amend physical laws to suit your delusional SkyDragon cult beliefs. Good luck with that.

        If you don’t want to accept reality, you don’t have to. That’s what makes you not only a buffoon, but an idiot into the bargain.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        “which of course you cant actually describe.”

        Newton’s Law of Cooling only applies to conduction and convection.

        Cooling due to phase transfers and radiation follow other laws.

        If you could only use an encyclopedia, you might find I am correct, and not appealing to my own authority.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swenson…”Im not sure why Wikipedia inserted that piece of opinion about small temperature…”

        ***

        Obviously, the wiki article is wrong. Newton would surely have allowed for that in his law if it was the case.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        richard…”Mind you, Newtons Law of Cooling is only normally used when the difference in T is small”.

        ***

        Either that or the wiki article is wrong, which is far more likely. Experience tells us that the greater the temperature difference the faster a surface will cool.

    • Willard says:

      Mike Flynn,

      Have you considered convening with Bordo before writing that rant?

      Cheers.

  40. Ken says:

    World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (17502018)

    https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx

    • Ken says:

      “The assumption that the increase in CO2 since 1800 is dominated by or equal to the increase in the anthropogenic component is not settled science. Unsupported conclusions of the dominance of the anthropogenic fossil component of CO2 and concerns of its effect on climate change and global warming have severe potential societal implications that press the need for very costly remedial actions that may be misdirected, presently unnecessary, and ineffective in curbing global warming.”

    • bdgwx says:

      Funny…I just discussed the Skrable et al. 2022 publication with someone else this morning. They make the same tiresome and egregious mistake as Salby, Berry, Harde, etc. That is they erroneously believe that the ratio of human markers to natural markers is the same as the ratio for the attribution of the agent(s) responsible for changes in mass amount. I’ll repeat again and as many times as needed…the modulation of mixing ratios of identifying markers (like isotopes) is different than the modulation of mass amount. The agent most responsible for the modulation of mixing ratios is NOT the same as the agent most responsible for the modulation of mass amount.

      • Nate says:

        https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/06000/Comment_on_Skrable_et_al___2022_.9.aspx

        Uggh..I can see why Ken didn’t give us a link to this terrible paper.

      • Nate says:

        Oh I see he did. My bad..

      • Nate says:

        Commenter:

        “I was, however, perplexed by some conclusions regarding global warming the authors deduced as they moved beyond their actual findings to dabble in climate science. Specifically, Conclusion 3 asserts that the huge increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (from 410 ppm today) is mostly due to increases in temperatures from solar insolation in 1950 and afterwards. The publication of this paper in HPJ seems inappropriate because it has nothing to do with health physics (if we acknowledge that the Societys aim is radiation safety). Also, publishing this work in a journal having no relation to climate science shielded this manuscript from peer review by actual climate scientists. A cursory review of the data casts doubts on both the implication of insolation variations and on the oversimplification that fossil fuel-related CO2 is the only significant anthropic driver of global warming.”

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…”Ill repeat again and as many times as neededthe modulation of mixing ratios of identifying markers (like isotopes) is different than the modulation of mass amount. The agent most responsible for the modulation of mixing ratios is NOT the same as the agent most responsible for the modulation of mass amount”.

        ***

        What you are repeating is that you have no idea what component of the current atmosphere is made up of anthropogenic CO2.

        What is this agent? How do you measure it with a station on the flanks of a volcano that spews CO2?

    • Bindidon says:

      Ken

      Excellent info.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Although I’d like to see us evolve to a point where we no longer feel the need to kill and eat animals I think it is dumb to think that can be legislated. This legislation is not for the benefit of animals, it is clearly a politically-correct nonsense aimed at control.

    • Nate says:

      That’s from the Only-Tricks-ZOne for gullible people.

      This

      “The German governments SRU Council on the Environment recommends all citizens be limited to a meat equivalent of just 2 sausages a month in an all-encompassing totalitarian behavior control plan.”

      is fake news. It can only found on propaganda sites.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        At one time, that would have been immediately regarded as a hoax. With the current politically-correct idiots one cannot be sure.

        They have cross-dressers, a sexual fetish, now claiming to be members of the opposite sex, even though they are biologically not. In other words, a sexual fetish is now regarded as evidence of a mistake of nature.

        They are lobbying to get rid of police and offering no bail release to known criminals. It’s no longer unusual that a government would try to limit the meat intake of the population. I did not think even the German government with it’s inane political-correctness could be that stupid.

      • Nate says:

        As noted, it is for gullible people.

      • Willard says:

        Gullibility is one thing, bigotry is another.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  41. Willard says:

    For those who live in the US:

    > If the unsmoothed Land-Ocean Temperature Index value for 2023 reported by NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is above 1.02 degrees Celsius, then the market resolves to Yes. Outcome verified from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

    https://kalshi.com/markets/gtemp/global-average-temperature-deviation#gtemp-23

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Higher rates of stomach cancer have been related to processed meats like bacon, which used to be cured by nitrates. May not be the meat per se but the process used to cure it and cook it. In Scotland there has been a high rate of stomach cancer in Scots who indulged in the traditional ‘fry up’, a term used in reference to food cooked in the fat of bacon.

      I recall as a child in Scotland having an aversion to food cooked in grease. Of course, as a child you had no say in the matter and were forced to eat it. In my life, I have witnessed untimely deaths caused by cancer in people who ate such diets.

      Of course, there are always exceptions. I know of one lady who indulged in such diets, was grossly overweight, but did not smoke or drink. She lived till 92.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      A word on behalf of the animals…I don’t eat meat due to my aversion to seeing animals killed when there are perfectly good non-animal proteins available which can be made into delicious meals. I have not eaten meat for well over 20 years and I can’t imagine why I ever ate it. I am perfectly content and healthy on a vegetarian diet.

      I can understand people eating meat when it is the only good form of protein available, like out in the wilds. In our society, it’s just not necessary.

      It just occurred to me that the danger of eating animal products is not so much cancer as heart disease. The way we cook meat produces oxidants which help cross-link arteries as well as clogging the arteries.

      • Clint R says:

        It’s too bad more people aren’t vegetarians. It would help hold done the price of good beef. I had to pay about $50 last week for 4 tenderloins from Costco. Pricey, but worth every cent…

  42. Tim S says:

    One of the effects of increasing CO2 is increased plant growth rates. Could that possibly contribute to increased forest fire risk?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Don’t know, but there is a myth out there that fresh cut wood won’t burn. Forest fires are proof that is wrong.

      • Tim S says:

        I do not know under what conditions fresh cut wood will burn, but I do know that forest fires spread primarily by the undergrowth which is most small and dried wood. A crown fire burns mostly needles, leaves, and bark, not the trunk. There is also some evidence that crown fires spread to some extent by radiant heat. Imagine that!

      • Tim S says:

        I just realized that high school educated fire fighters know more about radiant heat transfer than the radiant heat deniers who post nonsense on this sight. Flashover is caused by radiant heat, and it is the CO2 and water vapor in the fire smoke that make that possible:

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

        “The hot buoyant smoke layer grows in depth, as it is bounded by the walls of the room. The radiated heat from this layer heats the surfaces of the directly exposed combustible materials in the room, causing them to give off flammable gases, via pyrolysis.”

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Tim,
        Come on. Who’s radiant heat deniers? So are you saying fire smoke in a room proves GHE? Why don’t you write a paper?

      • Willard says:

        Your incredulity is inversely proportional to your curiosity, Troglodyte:

        > When the layer of hot smoke within an enclosure grows deep enough to reach an opening, such as a door or window, the smoke flows out through the top of the opening into the adjacent space. The increased volume of the hot gases in the smoke and their accumulation in the upper layer result in a small but noticeable pressure increase inside the compartment. Since gases follow the path of least resistance, the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the compartment drives the flow of smoke through each opening. Ambient air will therefore flow back in through the bottom of the opening to replace the gases that have exited the compartment. The demarcation between flows is often visible in a doorframe or window.

        https://guides.firedynamicstraining.ca/g/fd203-enclosure-fires-sd/118397

        What hot gases in the smoke, again?

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Seems like a whole lotta convection and conduction going on. Just like in the atmosphere.

      • Willard says:

        Seems like you still lack the curiosity to read the page, Troglodyte:

        > To understand what can happen later in the fire development, however, it is crucially important to recognize that the hot smoke that is collecting near the ceiling is also emitting thermal radiation to its surroundings throughout the life of the fire. Thermal radiation from the ceiling and walls back into the fire enclosure increases in intensity as the surfaces heat up. This combines with radiation from the upper layer, leading it to preheat, begin to pyrolyze and produce fuel vapours from any combustible items in the enclosure. Radiation therefore has a major impact on the fire environment as the fire continues to grow.

        Op. Cit.

        Is your incredulity nearing flashover?

      • Tim S says:

        The proof requires some measure of intelligence and an understanding of the relationship between black body radiation and a type of spectrum that seems to involve a forbidden word.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        But, just like in the atmosphere, you want to ignore the chief means of heat transfer to the atmosphere, conduction, and convection.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Willard,
        So if you use a radiator to heat your home, is most of the heat transfer radiant heat that heats CO2 and H2O, or is it conductive and convective heat transfer to air which induces natural circulation? By the way, the air is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, hint, hint.

      • Tim S says:

        stephen, I gave Gordon the benefit of the doubt that he is not trolling, but just confused or worse. I gave you the same opportunity to learn something useful. By your trolling answer, you failed the test. I do not care what your problem is.

      • Swenson says:

        Is there supposed to be anything new here?

        Everything in the universe radiates IR, proportional to absolute temperature.

        All gases can be heated by absorbing IR. All heated gases emit IR.

        All gases cool if they are emitting more energy than they absorb.

        No amount of inert matter can raise the temperature of a gas which is warmer.

        Thus, there is no GHE – and which is why nobody can describe the GHE.

        As a side matter, firefighters wear clothing they with the best insulation qualities they can find – to keep them cool.

      • Willard says:

        > All gases can be heated by absorbing IR.

        How noble of you, Mike! Wink wink. Nude nudge.

        Have you thought this through?

      • Nate says:

        “All gases can be heated by absorbing IR. All heated gases emit IR.”

        Mike must’ve never been warmed by the radiant heat of a fire, that passes effortlessly through the air in between.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Tim S,

        Can you have conductive heat transfer from warm gases or vapor to colder gases or vapor or from warm objects to colder gas or air? Yes or no?

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Nate must have never lit a fire, left the room, then returned, and the air in the room was warmer.

      • Nate says:

        Yes I have. True, indoors the radiant heat heats the walls of the room and then the air.

        But I was thinking more of an outdoor fire. If you doubt that it is radiant heat passing through the air to warm you, just face away from the fire, or sit behind someone.

  43. gbaikie says:

    I have long thought skiing on Mars would be a thing. One could also sunbath on Mars, but can you surf on Mars?
    It seems you could, but it might be expensive activity- so you might ask would it be a better place to surf as compared to Earth- and therefore perhaps worth the effort.

    Now skiing has problem on Mars, due to ice not being slippery, like it is on Earth which also related to making roads of ice on Mars- but doesn’t seem like particular barrier to skiing on Mars.
    If have lakes on Mars, sunbathing is just a dome over the lake with enough air pressure in it. And one could do the same with surfing- but it seems you need a rather big dome- so it’s expensive. Would it somehow be to worth it?
    For instance, you could fly like bird on Mars, and it wouldn’t have cost much, would flying be more fun than surfing?

  44. gbaikie says:

    The Nanny State Strikes Again: 30C Heat Health Alert?
    “Once again, we find ourselves facing the alarming media rhetoric and an overly cautious government agency response that typically emerges at the first sign of weather that strays from the mild and mundane. This weekends forecast? A scorching 30C (or for our American friends, a balmy 86F). Cue the heat-health alert, with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) making it sound as though we are bracing for a Saharan onslaught, rather than a warm summer weekend.”
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/08/the-nanny-state-strikes-again-30c-heat-health-alert/

    Well, people could be used to wearing a heavy overcoat.

    Here, where I it was 52 F at night. and going to be 82 F as daytime
    high {and already 78 F} and highest forecast of week going to be
    86 F next Wednesday. A couple week it when over 90 F [32 C].

  45. gbaikie says:

    Where do you learn wisdom?
    [Dennis asked.]
    You get wisdom from exploration.

    But Dennis question is getting wisdom from institution [or I guess, books and other forms of media- though not going to get it from
    corporate news].
    Though you get wisdom by exploration and so, our lack of space exploration means we lack wisdom.
    I have said exploration is basis of science, but guess one can also
    say, science without exploration is foolish.

    Our Cold war PR of sending a man to Moon, had some science connected
    to, and very transformative, even though exploration was more of after thought. Or the risk and cost was worth it, if part of a war effort. Whereas gaining wisdom, was not by it’s self, worth the risk
    and national costs.
    And one could say because costs and risk has lowered, the wisdom gained from going to the moon could regarded as worth it

  46. Gordon Robertson says:

    bob d…”In the case of heat transfer by thermal radiation, Newtons law of cooling holds only for very small temperature differences.

    ***

    Where is there any heat transfer by radiation in the atmosphere? Alarmists claim heat is transferred from the surface to GHGs in the atmosphere but heat cannot be transferred physically from the surface to GHGs.

    As IR is produced, the heat associated with it is lost at the radiating surface. IR cannot transfer heat since it has none of the properties of heat, being an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. Also, IR will pass through a vacuum but heat can’t.

    I get it that energy from the Sun heats the Earth but it is not done by transferring heat physically from Sun to Earth. It is done via two transformations of energy, from heat to EM and from EM back to heat. Those transformations must obey the 2nd law. That means, heat on the Earth cannot be transformed to IR with that IR heating the Sun. Or heat from GHGs being transformed to IR and heating the hotter Earth’s surface.

    If the IR is captured by GHGs cooler than the surface, heat will be created but it is new heat and has nothing to do with the heat in the surface. The new heat is not heat from the surface therefore it is not transferred from the surface. IR has the property of being able to induce heat in a cooler object but it is carrying no heat of its own.

    Newton’s Law of Cooling is about temperature difference between a surface and its environment. That means heat has to be transferred physically as energy between the two and that can only happen via conduction and convection.

    When you talk about heat dissipation at the Earth’s surface, it can happen via conduction, convection, and radiation. It happens by conduction when air molecules in contact with the surface are heated and by convection when the heated molecules rise naturally. Note that heat must always be associated with atoms (mass). Any heat in a mass associated with the production of EM/IR is lost during the conversion process.

    I get it that heat APPEAR to be transferred by EM/IR but in the pursuit of precision in science we need to do better than using inference. We get away with inferring the Sun is revolving around the Earth when we claim it rises in the East and sets in the West but is it too much trouble to ask that we at least form a mental picture that the rising/setting is an illusion due to relative motion produced by a rotating Earth? In the same manner, it’s an illusion that heat is transferred via radiation as heat.

    If we don’t make the effort to be as precise as possible, our minds become caught in a perpetual state of distortion.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      “Where is there any heat transfer by radiation in the atmosphere? Alarmists claim heat is transferred from the surface to GHGs in the atmosphere but heat cannot be transferred physically from the surface to GHGs.”

      You don’t have a clue.

      IR has energy, that’s a property of heat, which has the same units as energy, meaning heat has energy, so they both have a property in common.

      I heard it said you flunked out of university, is that true.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bob…”IR has energy, thats a property of heat, which has the same units as energy, meaning heat has energy, so they both have a property in common”.

        ***

        This has to rate as one of the most idiotic replies you have ever offered. You indicate a clear misunderstanding of the meaning of energy, seeming to presume it is some magical quantity that exists as a generic entity, even though it takes on different forms with totally different properties.

        Energy is a word we use very loosely to describe a motivating force of some kind.

        No, Bob, IR does not have energy it is energy. It is a form of energy totally different than the energy that is heat. And heat does not have energy, it is energy as well. They are radically different forms of energy, which is a total unknown.

        Energy has no measure. We measure the effect energy has on something. With IR moving through space and being absorbed by matter, we measure the effect the IR has on electrons in the absorbing material. Whether we measure a change in temperature or a change in electrical current, we are measuring an effect of energy not the energy itself.

        You stay back at 1st year science level if you like, I moved on from it long ago.

      • bobdroege says:

        Gordon,

        “Energy has no measure.”

        Well, I used to work for a company that sold energy, so it was measured at the point of production as well as at the point of sale.

        You probably have such a device connected to your computer.

        It is simply defined as the ability to do work, and you can measure it by the amount of work produced by the energy.

        I would assume that you would say that we can’t measure work either.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      So, how do we explain the process of heat dissipation via radiation and what affects the rate of dissipation? A thermos might give us a clue. A thermos is often a glass flask designed so there is a vacuum between the inner flask shell and the outer shell. If a hot liquid is inserted into the flask, heat via conduction and convection is stifled by the vacuum. Some heat will obviously escape via small areas of the flask not protected by the vacuum.

      I found that preheating the flask with boiling water before adding hot coffee kept the liquid temperature hotter for longer. I could fill the thermos with boiling hot coffee at 6 am and still have it be hot at noon.

      This kind of proves that radiation is not a good means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures. Hot liquid will heat the inner flask wall and it should radiate to the outer flask wall through the vacuum and warm it. The vacuum does slow down the rate of heat dissipation from inner wall to outer wall, but radiation from the hotter inner wall should eventually heat the outer wall. It certainly does not dissipate much heat over 6 hours.

      However, suppose we take two the newly filled thermoses and insert one in a bucket of ice while we sit the other, painted black, out in the hot sun on a summer’s day. Which one will cool faster?

      We have to note that a thermos is not a perfect insulator and that heat does escape via conduction and convection to a certain degree. Some heat will obviously be lost via conduction and convection according to Newton’s law of cooling. How about via radiation? Will subjecting the outer thermos covering, in which the vacuum flask is suspended with insulators, to different temperatures, affect the rate of radiation?

      • bobdroege says:

        Take your thermos apart and tell me how the surfaces look?

        Do they look like mirrors?

        That might help you figure out how they work.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Look even closer, Bob. Are the surfaces on the inside surfaces of the thermos flask like mirrors? I mean the surfaces containing the vacuum.

        You are suggesting that the mirror-like surfaces prevent IR emissions but we know from residential construction that until recently no concern was given to IR losses because they are essentially negligible at terrestrial temperatures.

        Recently, they have begin using reflective material to reflect IR back into homes but it makes little difference to heating costs. The main R-rated insulation is still aimed at slowing heat loss via conduction.

        I have two different types of thermoses. One is the type you describe and the other uses a stainless steel flask with styrofoam replacing the vacuum. It works pretty good but it does not retain the heat like a glass vacuum flask.

        Metal will block IR so it should not be a concern in that type of flask. Therefore the concern is heat loss via conduction and convection on the outer shell. It would seem the main difference is the use of styrofoam as an insulator versus a vacuum. Radiation makes little or no difference.

        As I said, radiation is not significant at terrestrial temperatures.

      • Willard says:

        > radiation is not significant at terrestrial temperatures.

        Your summer red neck must be cute, Bordo:

        https://youtu.be/sTJ7AzBIJoI

      • RLH says:

        As does your red face.

      • Willard says:

        I do not have the complexion, Richard.

        Whereas you

      • bobdroege says:

        Gordon,

        “You are suggesting that the mirror-like surfaces prevent IR emissions”

        Not at all.

        The vacuum flask prevents conduction and convection, and the silvered surfaces reflect IR.

      • RLH says:

        Your red face does not stem from your (lack of) complexion.

      • Willard says:

        Yours does.

      • RLH says:

        Willard is an idiot (with a red face).

      • Willard says:

        Richard just insults people who were correct when he was wrong.

      • E. Swanson says:

        gordo loves to display his ignorance of physics. His latest case is his utter failure to understand how a Thermos bottle works. SEE: Dewar Flask, something which has been discussed numerous times on this blog, especially the sort which employ mirror coatings on the inner surfaces.

      • RLH says:

        Willard is still an idiot (with a red face).

      • Willard says:

        Richard still insults people who were correct when he was wrong.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • RLH says:

        Willard won’t accept that there are data gaps in the early record. Instead he relies on things ‘just being right’ that are possibly made up by people who have an AGW agenda.

      • Willard says:

        Richard accepts data gaps so much that he never shows uncertainties in his toy grsphs, and is willing to fill the gaps with some cycle nuts stories. But at least he is starting to be more open about his nuttery.

      • RLH says:

        Willard:

        https://imgur.com/gallery/Ulah5KV

        shows some of the data gaps.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Once again, Swannie sticks his size twelves firmly in his moutht, failing to explain how I got the thermos theory wrong. My theory duplicates the theory at Swannie’s link.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo, the original Dewar flask used metal walls. Newer designs, such as the widely available Thermos bottles, use glass which has the inside surfaces coated with highly reflective silver. The coating results in improved insulation between the inside and outside which keeps hot contents hot for a longer period and the same for cold contents. Back when I was in grade school, I used to carry a lunch box to school including a Thermos bottle, with which I learned the hard way that the shiny glass could break.

        Your reflective insulation would also reduce energy conduction, but only if it is installed properly. I added some foil covered sheathing to a single wide I owned a few years back. It’s insulation effects were enhanced by the layer of vinyl siding, which provided a dead air space between the sheathing and the outside environment.

        But, as usual, you end pontificating denialist nonsense:

        As I said, radiation is not significant at terrestrial temperatures.

    • Nate says:

      “Newtons Law of Cooling is about temperature difference between a surface and its environment. That means heat has to be transferred physically as energy between the two and that can only happen via conduction and convection.”

      A good counter example is that the Earth’s surface cools MORE on a clear night than on a cloudy night, due to the additional radiative cooling direct to space through the IR window.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        You wrote –

        “That means heat has to be transferred physically as energy between the two and that can only happen via conduction and convection.”

        No, Nate, rewriting Newton’s Law of Cooling won’t help you create a non-existent GHE.

        You probably reject descriptions such as this “Newtons law of cooling describes the rate at which an exposed body changes temperature through radiation . . . “.

        Precisely why, as you say, the surface cools more rapidly at night, given clear skies and low water vapour. John Tyndall explained why, nearly 200 years ago.

        You need to keep up with changes in knowledge.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nate…”A good counter example is that the Earths surface cools MORE on a clear night than on a cloudy night, due to the additional radiative cooling direct to space through the IR window”.

        ***

        But, but, but…IR wont pass through a window, will it?

        Could it be, that on a clear night, the atmospheric air descending to the surface to replace rising, heated air, is cooler on a clear night?

      • Nate says:

        “But, but, butIR wont pass through a window, will it?”

        It is called the IR window because IR passes through it for wavelengths of 8 to 13 microns. There are water vapor lines in it, so more IR passes through when the air is dry.

        And indeed this is what causes the surface to cool faster on clear dry nights.

        It is unclear what Swenson is on about.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        You are confused. All radiation emitted by the surface at night is lost – never to be seen again. Gone. Vanished.

        That’s why the surface cools.

        Even the entire Earth system – lithosphere, aquasphere, atmosphere and all the rest, continuously loses energy to the vastness of space. Incoming energy from the Sun is quite insufficient to replace it, resulting in the progressive cooling of the Earth over the past four and a half billion years.

        You may be aware that the hottest and coldest places on Earth have the least amount of so-called “greenhouse gases” above them. You are obviously too stupid to understand why, and too deluded to try and educate yourself, so I won’t bother trying to explain the reasons.

        Delusional SkyDragon cultists like yourself are only slightly in touch with reality. Do you really believe that a GHE which you can’t describe is responsible for surface cooling in both the short and long term?

        Of course you do.

        Carry on.

      • Nate says:

        “You are confused. All radiation emitted by the surface at night is lost never to be seen again. ”

        OK so you think the IR window to space, open or closed, doesnt matter?

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

        The same amount of IR from the surface escapes to space???

        You don’t make sense. And maybe thats fine for the purposes of trolling.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        You wrote –

        “OK so you think the IR window to space, open or closed, doesn’t matter?”

        Inasmuch as all radiation emitted by the surface leaves to outer space, your question is meaningless. There is no IR window. All IR emitted by the surface is lost.

        That’s why the surface cools.

        Even you don’t believe the surface heats in the absence of sunlight, do you?

      • Nate says:

        “There is no IR window.”

        Denying basic science facts is for losers.

        Here’s another one you need to deny:

        https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html

        Equation 3.

        “Net Radiation Loss Rate
        If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as

        q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ah (3)

        where

        Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)

        Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)

        Ah = area of the hot object (m2)”

        So the T of the cold place matters.

  47. gbaikie says:

    “Climate change has important implications for the health and futures of children and young people, yet they have little power to limit its harm, making them vulnerable to climate anxiety.

    We surveyed 10 000 children and young people (aged 1625 years) in ten countries (Australia, Brazil, Finland, France, India, Nigeria, Philippines, Portugal, the UK, and the USA; 1000 participants per country).”
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/08/climate-anxiety-doomsday-cult-or-mental-illness/

    No children from China, which the country emitting the most CO2.
    Australia, Brazil, and Finland are not emitting much CO2- and what does Australia have to worry about. Brazil has nothing to worry about. Finland might less frozen.
    India not emitting much, global transport emits about as much.
    Maybe Australia could figure out how to stop the “natural burning of coal”- as there a lot of this occurring in the world {including in US and China} as well as in Australia. But that is something AUSSIE politicians could do and are responsible for doing something about- maybe the would less money to waste on wind mills, but stopping a coal fire, would far more important as global thing.
    And France, India, Nigeria, Philippines, Portugal, the UK, and the USA are likewise not the problem and have nothing to worry about.
    China likes it’s warming- but it’s still a cold country.

    Who to blame- teacher unions.

    • gbaikie says:

      Burning Mountain, the common name for Mount Wingen, is a hill near Wingen, New South Wales, Australia, approximately 224 km (139 mi) north of Sydney just off the New England Highway.[2] It takes its name from a smouldering coal seam running underground through the sandstone. Burning Mountain is contained within the Burning Mountain Nature Reserve, which is administered by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Mountain

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      The danger for children is idiots teaching them lies about global warming/climate change. As if that’s not bad enough, they are now teaching them its OK to embrace a perverted lifestyle before they understand anything about the sexual feelings involved. Also, they are pushing children toward the perversion of thinking they are the opposite sex, that nature made a mistake and assigned them the wrong sex.

      • gbaikie says:

        Yeah, it’s not good.
        But parents are responsible for their children.

        And it’s quite possible that the children, will correctly, blame their parents.

      • Willard says:

        Come on, Bordo.

        Cut the bigotry. It is not cool, and you got all these other ruminations.

        I await your follow-up on Mount Pelee.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  48. Tim S says:

    There was a comment somewhere above that seemed to suggest that the MaxwellBoltzmann distribution is a distribution of temperature. Unless there is something new in the science that I am not aware of, that is not correct. It is almost a philosophical question, but the relationship between the bulk temperature of a gas, sonic velocity, and kinetic energy has always been about the average kinetic energy. The distribution does not suggest a distribution of temperature, but the random chance result of collisions that do not occur in a straight line. It is easy to imagine a molecule that is hit form two sides and slows momentarily until the next collision without losing temperature or internal energy. In that sense, Maxwell’s Demon is nothing more than a thought experiment, and the kinetic theory of gases does not require the internal energy of each molecule to precisely match its kinetic energy at all times.

    • Clint R says:

      Maxwell’s Demon is interesting for several reasons.

      Maybe I’ll have time this weekend to explain.

      • Tim S says:

        Maxwell’s Demon is demonstrated by a technology that uses a membrane to separate N2 and O2 from air. The O2 molecule is just a bit smaller (but heavier with a lower sonic velocity), so it leaks through the membrane faster. N2 purity on the pressure side of the membrane is increased by restricting the output and slowing the flow rate.

      • Swenson says:

        Tim S,

        It’s interesting technology, but nothing at all to do with Maxwell’s Demon.

        Unfortunately, all attempts to translate the Demon from fantasy to fact have failed. The Laws of Thermodynamics remain intact.

        It would be nice, for example, to have a team of Demons furiously separating molecules with different velocities in sea water, powering a mighty liner across the ocean, leaving a trail of ice cubes in its wake (water, after the Demons had extracted its heat energy to power the liner’s engines).

        Delusional SkyDragon cultists believe in such fantasies, having imaginary Demons who can extract the heat from a colder objects to make warmer ones even hotter!

        Wikipedia has it both ways, saying “Real-life versions of Maxwellian demons occur, but all such “real demons” or molecular demons have their entropy-lowering effects duly balanced by increase of entropy elsewhere.” In other words, real-life demons exist, but they don’t, really.

        That’s helpful – not!

      • Tim S says:

        The membrane selects O2 strictly by its atomic radius. I agree that the laws of physics are not violated, but it is a separation process that is somewhat different than a RO membrane which does not select by size. The RO effectively separates by surface tension allowing the water molecules to free themselves from from an area of high ionic strength to an area of low ionic strength.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        What does this have to do with heat an the 2nd law?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      tim s…I think you are right about Maxwell and his collaboration with Boltzmann. I am not knocking the overall work of Maxwell just the nonsense he engaged in with Boltzmann re the use of statistical analysis to represent gas atoms/molecules interacting.

      Maxwell needed to use a thought experiment as his Demon because he lacked the understanding of EM and how it worked. In fact, he and Boltzmann resorted to statistical theory in desperation, trying to work out the basis of internal gas mechanics.

      With regard to Maxwell’s Demon, in the wiki article on that subject, they state…

      “The second law of thermodynamics ensures (through statistical probability) that two bodies of different temperature, when brought into contact with each other and isolated from the rest of the Universe, will evolve to a thermodynamic equilibrium in which both bodies have approximately the same temperature.[7] The second law is also expressed as the assertion that in an isolated system, entropy never decreases”.

      The 2nd law has absolutely nothing to do with statistical probability, nor has it anything to do with isolated systems or entropy increasing/decreasing. The 2nd law is about the direction of heat transfer and Clausius stated it as follows…’heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from colder body to a warmer body’.

      In a moment of idiocy, Boltzmann wrote a formula for entropy as …S = k.logW

      There is no physical interpretation for that formula because it is a statistical analysis of gas particles based on probability. Besides that, it does not address the definition of Clausius, that entropy is a summation of infinitesimal heat quantities, rather, it treats entropy as a measure of disorder when it is a measure of heat.

      Clausius explained in the same breath which he defined the 2nd law, that with an irreversible process, entropy can indicate disorder and I think Boltzmann took his statement far too literally and thought entropy as a measure of disorder. Disorder is a secondary outcome of a process involving heat transfer when it is irreversible but entropy itself was intended by Clausius to me a summation of heat quantities.

      Clausius invented and defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat in a process at temperature, T. He derived a formula for entropy, S, as…

      S = integral dq/T

      q = heat, there is no reference to disorder whatsoever.

      Entropy is a measure of heat and nothing else. It has nothing to do with the chaotic movement of molecules in a gas, even though Boltzmann represented it as such and Planck was stupid enough to blindly follow the definition of Boltzmann rather than the correct definition by Clausius.

      Because scientists have tended to buy into the statistical analysis of Maxwell and Boltzmann, rather than the actual definition by Clausius, which is the correct definition, since he defined entropy, that has lead to heat being redefined to suit the statistical definition, completely obfuscating the meaning of heat as energy. To the statistical crowd, heat is now regarded as a statistical entity rather than a real physical form of energy.

      This is the legacy of Maxwell and Boltzmann, who in a state of abject ignorance rewrote the good work of Clausius to make it appear that heat is a statistical entity. Boltzmann, in particular, is responsible for obfuscating entropy as a statistical entity. He was trying to create a statistical explanation for the 2nd law and entropy and he failed. I have seen it stated that he took his own life based on that failure.

      It is plain to me that Maxwell did not understand heat or the physics related to gas particles in motion, therefore his Demon is a lot of nonsense. He can be forgiven his ignorance since it would be 20 years or so before the electron was discovered and another 15 years before Bohr connected electromagnetic energy to the electron.

      Maxwell was a mathematician, not a physicist. It’s not clear to me what Boltzmann was, but I hardly consider him a physicist. In fact, many scientists of that era were more philosophers than physicists and I include Einstein and Planck in that category. I regard Clausius as a true physicist because he stuck to the basics of science, analyzing the real world phenomena.

      Maxwell did good work. For example, Faraday could not get his work accepted because he lacked the mathematical skills to present his work to the snobs of the day who held court in the field of science. If you could not state your work mathematically, it was ignored. Maxwell, worked with Faraday to present his work mathematically and that helped Maxwell gain insight to the field of electromagnetic energy.

      Maxwell had no idea what EM was, he had only a mathematical relationship based on the observations of Faraday. Some of the inferences reached by Maxwell on EM were plain wrong,

      It needs to be made clear that it was Faraday who did the physics and Maxwell who did the math. Boltzmann was a student of Stefan, who derived the T^4 relationship between radiation intensity and temperature, and I regard Boltzmann as a troubled passenger who managed to mess up physics more than he helped it. His work is of no value when it comes to visualizing physics and that is part of the problem we still have today. Too much of physics is in a state where it cannot be visualized and/or explained subjectively.

      Planck admitted freely and without embarrassment that he manipulated the math to arrive at his formula using his invented quantum number, h. For that, I admire him. He did not try to hide the fact that he arrived at a relationship for EM based on mathematical fudging. As Feynman put it, the theory works, but no one knows why.

      • Swenson says:

        Gordon,

        You wrote –

        “As Feynman put it, the theory works, but no one knows why.”

        Well worth saying again.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I agree…As Feynman put it, the theory works, but no one knows why.

      • Tim S says:

        Brownian motion and random walk are real life observable effects of the distribution.

      • Nate says:

        Gee Gordon, we had no idea that Maxwell was all wrong about E and M, and he and Boltzmann were all wrong about entropy and molecules.

        Glad you’re here to clean up the horrible messes they left us with.

        When can we expect to see that work?

      • bobdroege says:

        What to do with all those dead scientists under the bus Gordon is driving.

      • Tim S says:

        So what is the story with Gordon? Is he stupid, delusional, or just a very creative and long winded (worded) troll?

      • Willard says:

        You might wish to start here:

        I have become curious about something. The core of the Earth is alleged to be molten. Its also a fact that the deeper you dig into the Earth, the warmer it gets. Where is that heat coming from surely not from the Sun. Whats the possibility that the Earth generates some of its own heat from geothermal processes?

        When I studied a bit of geology, we learned that the Earth is actually oblate, like a pumpkin. That shape apparently comes from the stress of the gravitational pull of the Sun the Moon. As the Earth moves in its orbit about the Sun, it is flexing due to those stresses, and cracks in the Earth heat up as they rub against one another.

        There are estimates that the Earths core may be in the vicinity of 5,000 to 6,000C. That heat has to go somewhere. There is also a theory that the core may be turning at a differnt rate than the rest. There would be immense friction in that case, and immense heat generated.

        https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/08/gordon-robertson-on-a-molten-core/

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • bobdroege says:

        The core of the Earth is alleged to be molten.

        Well the charges have been dropped like ringing a bell.

        The core of the Earth has been found to be solid.

  49. Scrotum Face says:

    Ed Berry? Bahahahahaha … hahaha!!!

  50. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    Forest fires that have gathered strength over the last month have forced tens of thousands of people from their homes and sent a smoky haze billowing over a large swath of the United States.

    About 4.3 million hectares (10.6 million acres) have already burned, roughly 15 times the annual average of the past decade. Warm, dry conditions are expected to persist in the months ahead.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/wildfires-burn-across-canada-with-little-relief-sight-2023-06-08/

    But arson, but arson.

    I know, I know.

    • Ken says:

      Stop arson around.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I am guessing that many of these fires are caused by eco-loonies trying to make it appear like the fires are caused by a changing climate.

    • Nate says:

      “Dry, hot weather also breeds more lightning. In a normal season, half of Canada’s wildfires are started by lightning, but those fires account for more than 85% of wildfire destruction. The other half are human-caused.

      What might seem like slight increases in average temperatures have major consequences.

      “Most fires in the boreal forest of northern Canada are started by lightning. A one-degree Celsius increase in temperature amounts to about 12% more lightning. So the warmer it gets as the climate heats up, the more triggers there are for fires to burn,” said Struzik.

      In Quebec, for example, fires were sparked by lightning, but officials in Alberta have said that the cause of fires there is currently unknown. Elsewhere in the country, these fires have been human-caused in various ways from discarded cigarette butts to sparks from passing trains. ”

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-did-the-wildfires-in-canada-start-cause-nova-scotia-quebec/

  51. Gordon Robertson says:

    wee willy…”Why is it warmer now?”

    ***

    Duh!!! We emerged from the 400+ year Little Ice Age circa 1850. The planet has been warming since.

    • Willard says:

      So the planet has been warming because it has been warming.

      I suppose it’s better than to brag about having created a spreadsheet that is 15 times the max size!

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        Don’t be such an idiot. If you step into sunshine from shade, are you really so stupid as to think the heat you perceive is due to CO2?

        Not terribly convincing, Wee Willy.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You’re just a silly sock puppet who repeats the same things over and over again. You’ve been doing that for a while now.

        Not convincing.

        Perhaps you’ll like:

        https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/

        Or not.

        Nobody cares.

        Cheers.

      • RLH says:

        Willard is an idiot. But nobody cares.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        Dont be such an idiot. If you step into sunshine from shade, are you really so stupid as to think the heat you perceive is due to CO2?

        Not terribly convincing, Wee Willy.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        If you stood on the lit side of the Moon without a space suit, would you feel you’re missing an atmosphere?

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        Dont be such an idiot. If you step into sunshine from shade, are you really so stupid as to think the heat you perceive is due to CO2?

        Not terribly convincing, Wee Willy.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        If you keep repeating your silly comments, what kind of atmosphere does that leave to your fellow Sky Dragon cranks?

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        Dont be such an idiot. If you step into sunshine from shade, are you really so stupid as to think the heat you perceive is due to CO2?

        Not terribly convincing, Wee Willy.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor.

        Do you think an atmosphere would keep him warm for a longer time than without an atmosphere?

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        no. It has been warming since whatever caused it to cool during the LIA stopped cooling it.

        Get with the program wee willy, this is not rocket science.

      • Willard says:

        C’mon, Bordo.

        You don’t know?

        That’s saddening. You’re the Sky Dragon cranks’ know-it-all.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

    • Ken says:

      Warming is better than cooling.

  52. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim s…”I just realized that high school educated fire fighters know more about radiant heat transfer than the radiant heat deniers who post nonsense on this sight. Flashover is caused by radiant heat, and it is the CO2 and water vapor in the fire smoke that make that possible:”

    ***

    Tim…you won’t find many skeptics here who blindly accept the doctrine taught in universities if it makes no sense.

    I studied electrical engineering at the uni and they taught us that electrical current moves through a circuit positive to negative, which is bs. I brought it up with an EE prof since I had studied electronics previously and we were taught, for good reason, that current as electrons and their charges flow negative to positive.

    The prof did not get defensive, he simply explained that positive current flow is a convention dating back to the 1920s. He explained it did not matter what direction it flowed as long as we kept the voltage drop signs consistent in a circuit.

    To me, it does matter. Convention does not belong in universities and when you use a term like radiant heat transfer, you are following not only a convention, but an anachronism dating back to the 19th century. It was believed back then that heat could flow through air as heat rays and we now know that is nonsense.

    Bohr proved in 1913, that heat is not transferred via radiation and the kinetic energy representing heat is lost when it is converted to EM. The EM can flow through air, or a vacuum, but it is not heat being transferred, it is electromagnetic energy that has nothing to do with heat.

    When you refer to radiant heat transfer, you are inferring that heat is being transferred via radiation. It is not, the heat, as KE, that produced the IR is lost, when electrons transition to a lower energy level. Although the EM transferred from a hotter source can produce heat in a cooler target, the heat created is new heat and has nothing to do with the heat at the source. The new heat did not come from the source.

    If you want to engage me in such discussions, you need to drop the anachronisms and use precise language.

    Radiation at the temperature of a fire has a far greater effect than radiation at terrestrial temperatures. If it was that much of a danger, then workers working next to the open flame of a blast furnace would be cooked by radiation from the fire in the furnace. We know that UV from solar energy, especially in the Tropics or during summer can burn flesh but it does it slowly. I have never heard of workers getting tanned or burned by radiation from flames, even in a hot source.

    Has it ever occurred to you that the fireman were misinformed? Are they possibly talking about super-heated air causing flashover, which is related to plasma and not radiation.

    At Mount Pelee, in 1901, balls of super-heated plasma rolled down the slopes and across the water, setting ships on fire.

  53. Clint R says:

    It has been many years since I’ve thought about Maxwell’s Demon. Tim S mentioned it above, and it occurred to me that it would be a useful teaching aid. Many people are confused about entropy, especially as it involves 2LoT. Maxwell’s Demon is easy to understand.

    First, some brief history that hopefully ties it all together. Carnot gets the credit for starting it all, about early 1800s. Then, Clausius took it (Thermodynamics) to a new level, with the formulation of 1LoT and 2LoT. Clausius was the one that came up with the name, entropy. Then others, such as Maxwell, Boltzmann, and Kirchhoff joined in. As they were all REAL scientists, they were constantly challenging themselves and each other. Maxwell came up with the concept of the Demon, as a way to testing if 2LoT could really hold up. It caused them all to have to think more deeply.

    Wiki actually does a good job of describing Maxwell’s Demon.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

    Basically a box is divided by a partition into two equal sides. Both sides contain the same gas, at the same temperature. There is a door in the partition that can be opened to allow gas molecules to pass to the other side. A supernatural being, demon, can determine if a gas molecule coming at the door is high or low kinetic energy. He opens the door such that molecules with higher energy are gathered on one side of the box while molecules with lower energy are gathered on the other side. The result, of course, is one side of the box then has a higher temperature than the other side of the box.

    Additionally, it is specified that the door is massless. So the force required to open it would be zero, as in F = ma = (0)a = 0. And if the force is zero, the work is zero, as in W = Fd = (0)d = 0.

    So in the Demon scenario, no work is added, yet the molecules are organized’, seemingly violating 2LoT.

    Most of the scientists of the time recognized that there was no violation of 2Lot. They assumed (correctly) that something was happening to allow the organization’. Maybe the door was massless, but what about the arm that moved it?

    It was about a century later when the answer became clear. Claude Shannon solved it in 1948 with his work with communication systems at Bell Labs. The demon was adding intelligence. The demon was able to determine the energy of the molecules and open/close the door accordingly. Intelligence became a factor in 2LoT considerations. Shannon had developed what he called Information Entropy.

    https://www.historyofdatascience.com/claude-shannon/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

    • Willard says:

      > Intelligence became a factor in 2LoT considerations.

      Are you trying to replace Bordo, Pupman?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Shannon should have used a different word. Clausius took the word from the Greek word entropia, which Clausius intended as a reference to ‘transformation’. He wanted to use the word energy but it was already in use.

      Transformation is a major concept in the work of Clausius and although he commented that the net result of an irreversible processes is disorder, he did not intend entropy as a measure of disorder. Based on his equation, S = integral dq/T, entropy is obviously a reference to energy…thermal energy.

      Shannon obviously mistook the meaning and presumed entropy is a measure of disorder. That mistake has been perpetuated to the point that people these days think entropy is a measure of disorder.

      • Clint R says:

        Gordon, you’re trolling again.

        You’ve got NOTHING, but you’re attacking Skeptics.

        Shannon got it right, you’ve got it WRONG.

        Your own words: “he [Clausius] commented that the net result of an irreversible processes is disorder, he did not intend entropy as a measure of disorder.”

        REAL world processes are all irreversible, Gordon. You don’t even know how to misrepresent Clausius.

        But, I’m glad you’re a troll now. I was tired of trying to defend your nonsense.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        clint…you’re doing the attacking, I am trying to discuss, the way we used to. My beef is not with you and I am not out to make you look bad, my beef is with modern scientists who are murdering science, especially outsiders who have no idea what entropy means.

        Clausius adopted the word because in Greek it means ‘transformation’. Why would he use such a word to describe disorder, especially after going on about transformations in reference to heat and work?

        I got out of control with you once, when you took a shot at me, but I have let that go and hoped we could get along. Now you are taking shots again. Where is the anger coming from?

        Personally, I don’t care if anyone disagrees with me. I am on no ego trip about being right. Nor do I kid myself into thinking I am always right.

        When Swenson disagrees with me he states that and we discuss it calmly. We may agree to disagree and that’s cool with me. No insults. Same with Dremt.

        I have laid it out for you. Entropy as defined by Clausius is quantified by his formula…

        S = integral (dq/T)

        I am not claiming to be an authority on this nor do I feel a need to win an argument. All I am doing is presenting evidence.

        Since T is constant, you can pull it outside the integral sign and …

        S = 1/T.integral dq

        It’s blatantly plain that entropy is a summation of heat quantities since an integral sign as a sign of summation.

        In words, he described entropy as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat of a process at temperature T.

        Clausius claimed entropy represents heat. After defining it, he added that since most processes are irreversible, entropy can indicate disorder. It’s obvious from his equation that it does not measure disorder, but heat.

        Boltzmann tried to derive entropy and the 2nd law using statistical mechanics and he failed. It appears many scientists have adopted his failed method and his mistaken view that entropy is about disorder.

      • Nate says:

        ” he failed” I think you mean he failed to convince you.

        Cuz he certainly didnt fail in the field of Thermodynamics.

        Certainly Clausius agreed that heat was simply the motion of molecules.

        If so, then it makes sense Thermodynamic quantities like entropy ought to be related to the properties of molecular motion. Then Maxwell and Boltzmann explained what properties those are.

        Unless you doubt the existence of molecules, I don’t see why you have a problem with this.

      • Clint R says:

        Gordon, acknowledging that you’re a troll is not an insult — it’s reality. You offer nothing except your incompetent opinions and troll tactics, over and over. You didn’t know E/M can easily be measured. You don’t understand current flow. You don’t know how to measure energy. Now you can’t understand entropy.

        The entropy equation you keep using refers to temperature and energy, which you also can’t understand. You reject the reality that the concept of entropy has vastly expanded in the last 150 years. You reject both Boltzmanns work and Shannons work.

        I was patient with you because I liked that you thought for yourself. But even thinking for yourself, you MUST recognize and accept reality. You’ve merely formed your own personal cult. That ain’t science.

        Now, you get to spew another 5000 word blog-clogging, rambling, hodgepodge of your worthless opinions. I won’t be responding.

  54. gbaikie says:

    What if Russia nuked it’s polar arctic sea ice.

    So, we have the right to a warm water port, and we will make one.
    Next winter, they plan to use, say 200 nukes.
    Drill thru sea ice, put bomb, 100 meters underwater, and space it every 20 km.
    So 200 x 20 = 4000 km of cleared ice.
    So, going to do it, unless war in Ukraine is peacefully resolved- we get free access to the warm port in Black sea.

  55. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Circulation in the central South Pacific remains consistent with La Nina, and SOI is again positive.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/spac/mimictpw_spac_latest.gif

  56. gbaikie says:

    Long missions, frequent travel take a toll on astronauts’ brains, study shows
    “As we enter a new era in space travel, a study looking at how the human brain reacts to traveling outside Earth’s gravity suggests frequent flyers should wait three years after longer missions to allow the physiological changes in their brains to reset.

    Researchers studied brain scans of 30 astronauts from before and after space travel. Their findings, reported in Scientific Reports, reveal that the brain’s ventricles expand significantly in those who completed longer missions of at least six months, and that less than three years may not provide enough time for the ventricles to fully recover.”
    https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Long_missions_frequent_travel_take_a_toll_on_astronauts_brains_study_shows_999.html

    A key issue regarding microgravity is that life adapts to the different environment.
    A possible solution is using artificial gravity.
    But an artificial gravity environment is a strange environment- unlike microgravity and natural gravity. And we don’t know how life adapts to this new environment, or artificial doesn’t = natural gravity. Plus you adapt to microgravity, then artificial gravity, natural gravity of Mars, back to artificial gravity, then microgravity and finally Earth gravity, which might be worse than Earth to microgravity, Mars gravity, and microgravity and Earth gravity.

    • gbaikie says:

      Can you do a crewed mission to Mars without humans landing on Mars?
      It has been proposed.
      But you need to test artificial gravity.
      So, Earth gravity, mirogravity [or not], and artificial gravity at Mars {but a what artificial gee- Mars or Earth or 1/2 or 3/4rd Earth artificial gravity??}.
      So, crew go to Mars orbit. Mars orbit is less radiation than “open space” at Mars distance to Sun. It could be less than ISS radiation.
      Mars surface could a lot less than ISS radiation.
      So, in Mars orbit you have two starship docked and spinning and Starship can get to Mars in 6 months or less because they can use Mars atmosphere to shed the extra velocity needed to get to Mars within 6 months. The fastest we every done it, is about 7 months.
      From orbit, one has short distance of speed of light delay so from orbit, one operate robotic assets on the Mars surface in real time.

      So crew to Mars orbit, is just a better way to use robotic exploration. And with the Moon exploration, we going to have more experience with real time operation with robotic assets {it’s 1.5 second time delay with Earth though if have crew at Gateway station it’s roughly no delay.
      It’s been proposed, but I don’t like it. But another thing proposed in less than 1 month in orbit mission, which I dislike even more.

      My preference is land crew on Mars surface, and plan on having them there for a long time. But also always have abort option- plan to stay 4+ years, but if there are emergencies situations, have pathway for quickest return- which means have use Venus orbit as one of the pathways back to Earth.
      But if have artificial gravity in Mars orbit one have option returning Mars space station, rather returning to Earth. Or build up Mars orbiting station so it can handle various things which solve emergency situations.
      So could do, Mars spacestation doing robotical Mars surface exploration, build up this station to handle emergencies situation, and then land crew on Mars surface.
      Anyhow, it seems no matter what kind of Mars crewed mission, one is going using a lot robotic assets to explore Mars.

  57. Eben says:

    Grand Solar Minimum update

    https://tinyurl.com/yc2uty6t

    • gbaikie says:

      One talking GCR levels and other talking of solar Max to will volcanic activity.
      I will note that our solar max has high levels of GCR, when it should lower levels during Solar Max.
      And in Solar Max of 26, the GCR levels are predicting it being worse
      our current high amount of GCR.
      And of course during the solar min they will be even higher amounts of GCR.
      Or will have in period since 2019 of higher GCR and it’s going to get worse for going to Mars with crew, and really bad during solar min.

      • gbaikie says:

        …to will volcanic activity

        I meant to write: to do with volcanic activity

        Or one arguing the it’s to do with solar min [as solar min has higher GRC] but since we in solar grand Min, we have higher GRC, and weakness of 26 max will have say around +5 Oulu Neutron Counts

        Or currently:
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -0.1% Below Average
        48-hr change: +0.8%

        And in a solar max it should be, around -5%

        Or typical solar Max stay around -5% and can peak below -10%

        Or going to have change this graph:
        https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
        so the line can drawn much higher.

  58. Bindidon says:

    How might SC 25 look like?

    https://tinyurl.com/SC-25-ahead

    • gbaikie says:

      I would say, McIntosh is closest. And McIntosh indicates weakest solar max.
      But I tend to think it will be weaker.
      And all are weak.

  59. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…”Gee Gordon, we had no idea that Maxwell was all wrong about E and M, and he and Boltzmann were all wrong about entropy and molecules”.

    ***

    Nate, you have no idea, period. I did not say Maxwell was wrong about EM in general, I said he got some things wrong. His equations still stand. I happen to admire Maxwell, but I have gotten over my hero worship of scientists. I am far more critical of them than I was at one time. That does not make me right and I await constructive criticism of my views.

    Here is an excellent article explaining Maxwell’s equations. Note, as I claimed, that Maxwell simply put the math to existing science already done by the likes of Faraday.

    https://www.fiberoptics4sale.com/blogs/electromagnetic-optics/a-plain-explanation-of-maxwells-equations

    This is not what I am talking about re Maxwell. He made predictions based on this math and he was wrong. I offered an apology on his behalf since there was no way for him to know at the time that EM is produced by electrons in atoms.

    Some have criticized his equation as not predicting the photoelectric effect but that effect has nothing to do with electromagnetic energy in the form Maxwell presented it. His equations are about EM fields after generation, and not electrons torn from the surface of material.

    And, yes, Boltzmann was wrong about entropy and his approach to molecules in a gas was so obfuscated it cannot be visualized. I am calling for an end to this kind of obfuscated science where we must rely on math with no ability to visualize what is going on. That mans getting past quantum theory.

    Heck, even the S-B formula depends on Boltzmann’s constant which is derived from obfuscated math. The original constant of proportionality created by Stefan referred to EM intensity and not EM power. That’s basically why we are mired in the current nonsense about the GHE whereby S-B was applied incorrectly to presume a fictitious temperature for an Earth with no atmosphere and no oceans.

    In electronics, it is not possible to visualize electrons but we can verify the theory in part my measuring with meters and viewing with oscilloscopes. Furthermore, we can produce an arc and see something going on. We can measure the current in the arc and and equate that to the measured charge on an electron to tll how many of them are likely in the arc.

    With the Clausius definition of heat and entropy we can visualize those as well. Heat becomes the KE associated with atomic motion and entropy is the sum of infinitesimal heat transfers and a constant temperature. Try defining it using Boltzmann’s mess.

    If we cannot visualize what is happening we become dependent on mathematical speculation. Physicist David Bohm described such equations as garbage and that effectively describes Boltzmann’s equation for entropy.

    Boltzmann’s equation for entropy is based on disorder and not on the the definition of Clausius, who invented and defined the term. Boltzmann was an arrogant SOB to even try redefining entropy. The result of all the idiots who follow his science is heat and entropy being redefined in such a manner no one can understand them.

    Planck used Boltzmann to develop his equation and it was so obfuscated he admitted to having no confidence in it.

    • Ball4 says:

      “… entropy is the sum of infinitesimal heat transfers and a constant temperature.”

      No. Only in Gordon’s imagination & not in reality since constant temperature in such a process can only occur with an infinite reservoir of which none exist on Earth.

      Maxwell-Boltzmann successfully proved some thermodynamic internal energy transfers from colder to warmer body during a process as two bodies come to an equilibrium temperature.

      • Swenson says:

        Ball4,

        You wrote –

        “Maxwell-Boltzmann successfully proved some thermodynamic internal energy transfers from colder to warmer body during a process as two bodies come to an equilibrium temperature.”

        I suppose it’s like your description of the GHE – everybody else has details of these experiments, but not you. Like that other idiot, Donald Rumsfeld, you are sure they are somewhere – North, South, East or West. All people have to do is look, is that it? Why should you help?

        I understand, Ball4, you are an idiot who hasn’t learnt how to cope with reality.

        How many words are in the description of the GHE, or can’t you count them?

        Deluded fool.

      • Ball4 says:

        Many commenters can count the words in any correct description of an earthen GHE, except inept Swenson laughably can’t begin to count, or even understand, the words in a correct GHE description.

        Do carry on, laughing at inept Swenson comments is great entertainment.

      • Swenson says:

        Ball4,,

        You wrote –

        “Many commenters can count the words in any correct description of an earthen GHE, . . . “, but not you, is that it? Are you too superior to waste your time counting, or cant you count?

        Maybe you haven’t a description of any sort of GHE, let alone an “earthen” one. Do you think the description is inscribed on earthen tablets, perhaps? That sounds a little religious to me.

        How many words are in the description of the GHE, or cant you count them?

        Go on, keep trying to deny reality. The Earth has cooled, you idiot. The surface cools every night.

        Deny away.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ball4…”constant temperature in such a process can only occur with an infinite reservoir of which none exist on Earth”.

        ***

        Clausius explained that T is kept constant by drawing the heat from a bath large enough to keep the heat supply constant.

        If you really want to understand this, read Clausius on transformations.

        I regard Maxwell and Boltzmann as a couple of passengers in this area. Maxwell was a mathematician, not a physicist. Clausius specialized in physics and he based his research on real life phenomena. Maxwell and Boltzmann were a pair of nuisances trying to apply statistical analysis where it did not belong. As a result, we are left with theories that cannot be visualized.

        Anyone can take known data and fudge math till they get a working theory. That’s what Planck did with his equation. He fudged math till he got a relationship. For all we know, the same applies to Bohr’s theory re electrons in orbitals and Schrodinger’s wave equation. Feynman summed them aptly by observing that they work but no one knows why.

        We seem to have stopped doing real physics a century ago. Let’s get back to doing real science rather than dabbling like withc doctors in the quantum mechanics world.

        The advent of WW II scared us into such research because we feared that Hitler was working on a nuclear weapon. That forced us to escalate research in that direction and it paid off, albeit in a Draconian fashion.

        These days we must suffer through propaganda about killer viruses because science took a wrong turn and got the theory wrong. We have tests for these so-called killer viruses that don’t work, yet out of desperation we cling to the belief that they do. We force a vaccine on innocents that was never adequately tested, and because they are based on the same lacking viral theory, they cannot work either.

        What I want to see is science getting back to basics. We cannot see at the atomic level, or measure. So, why are we not working on finding ways to do that? Why are we messing with stupid theories like quantum theory or the kinetic theory of gases, which are based on intagibles?

        What happened to real science?

      • Ball4 says:

        Nothing has happened to real science; it is practiced every day in industry leaving science rookie Gordon far behind.

        Gordon, in any real thermodynamic internal energy transfer process between a rigid enough, fixed volume reservoir and a similar system in contact, the temperature of the reservoir must change even though that change be exceedingly small. It is possible to “sneak up” on the infinite reservoir by taking the limit of the entropy change as the reservoir’s specific heat capacity Cv approaches (but never reaches) infinity. Mathematically that limit does exist even though the infinite reservoir with constant T in any real process does not exist on Earth.

        The actual integral for dS is much more complicated than Gordon writes because in reality the temperature does change during such a process in both real volumes over time.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Ball4, please stop trolling.

      • Nate says:

        “Maxwell and Boltzmann were a pair of nuisances trying to apply statistical analysis where it did not belong.”

        Gordon, this is science denial and trolling, and not ‘sticking to the science and talking about it in a classy manner’.

      • Nate says:

        “we feared that Hitler was working on a nuclear weapon. That forced us to escalate research in that direction and it paid off”

        with the help of quantum theory.

        “We cannot see at the atomic level, or measure.”

        Sure we can. And quantum mechanics is verified.

        https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-of-STM-images-nc-AFM-images-and-3D-molecular-structures-model-30_fig1_323946137

      • Christopher Game says:

        Ball4 writes:
        “Maxwell-Boltzmann successfully proved some thermodynamic internal energy transfers from colder to warmer body during a process as two bodies come to an equilibrium temperature.”

        Perhaps he will explain in more detail what he means here?

      • Christopher Game says:

        On further reading, I find below Gordon Robertson saying
        “your premise that a cooler body can increase the temperature of a hotter body. Direct contravention of the 2nd law.” Unless you have something remarkable to add, don’t bother to try to sort this out for me. It’s probably unsortable in the present company. Gordon Robertson has his fixed idea. Cancel my request for an explanation in more detail.

      • Ball4 says:

        Gordon quite obviously hasn’t accomplished the training to understand M-B. Your request is a good one and Christopher seems to have the training to understand so I answered above at 7:50 am.

  60. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim s…”So what is the story with Gordon? Is he stupid, delusional, or just a very creative and long winded (worded) troll?”

    ***

    Maybe if you had the ability to respond with intelligence and a scientific curiosity, you might find out. Insults and ad homs go in one ear and out the other, unless I’m having a bad hair day.

    I am still awaiting an intelligent response from you.

    • Willard says:

      C’mon, Bordo.

      Which way does electricity flow?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      btw…I just noticed that I replied in detail to another one of your ad hom rants and you failed to respond. Strikes me that you are the type who is long on talk but limited in substance. In other words, your level of scientific understanding is severely limited and that you comment in blogs due to a need for acceptance.

      I have a higher calling. There are people out there who will be seriously harmed if idiotic alarmists have their way. That’s my only interest. However, in pursuing that calling I am beginning to notice chinks in the armour of scientists who are normally worshiped as being great but none of the worshipers can explain their alleged greatness, because most of them don’t understand the science involved.

      That’s all I am doing, challenging accepted values. If I am wrong, that’s OK. Thus far none of you alarmists have even come close to proving me wrong. Worse still, you are content to sit back and sling ad homs and insults when you could use your time better by proving me wrong.

      • Willard says:

        C’mon, Bordo.

        TS is just a run-of-the-mill contrarian. You could be one if you started to study science.

        I’m trying to post this link to a nice page, but for some reason it does not work. So here’s the shortened version:

        https://tinyurl.com/which-way-electrons-flow

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        This guy has roughly the right idea but here’s where he gets confused.

        “A major disadvantage to this thinking is that electrons can take minutes to hours to move from one end of a wire to another end, and everyone “knows” that electricity travels close to the speed of light”.

        ***

        He thinks the holes left in an atom’s valence band when an electron leaves one atom and jumps to another counts as a current flow. Current is measured in coulombs per second where the coulomb is a measure of the charge produced by 6.2 x 10^18 electrons. Note that current is charge flow, and not electron flow. The charges have a means of moving independently of the electrons.

        It was explained to me a long time ago using this analogy. If you have an old-fashioned wooden ruler with a slot down the centre, and you fill the slot with shooting marbles, touching each other, you can hold the first marble and tap it and the end one will shoot off. That is how electric charges as energy move electron to electron, hence atom to atom, down a conductor. The charges move at the speed of light but the electrons move only a few centimetres per second.

        I suppose you could apply that to protons if they were free but I have never heard of a current in a conductor with a proton flow. If there was such an animal, the wire would disintegrate since the proton nucleii hold the wire together.

        Therefore, electric current is due to the charges. Even though an atom is left with a temporary positive charge when an electron vacates, we have to remember that electrons are being added to one end of the conductor as fast as each electron moves on. Therefore, I seriously doubt that any atom has the time to form a positive charge.

        Even at that, with the simple model, an electron vacates one atom’s valence band, leaving a temporary hole. That hole is not a charge, it is just a hole. The entire atom can be claimed to have a net positive charge but the empty pace is not an electrical charge, like a proton. Therefore, it is empty holes moving in the opposite direction to the electron flow.

        Remember, the electron is moving slowly compared to the charge, which moves at the sped of light. THERE IS NO EQUIVALENT CHARGE MOVING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION!!! Such an equivalent charge is found in protons, and they are bound to the nucleus in a conductor and cannot move.

        Any hole would move at the same speed as the slower electron, therefore you’d have a negative charge moving -ve to +ve at the speed of light in one direction and a hole moving in the opposite direction at a few centimetres per second. Major trouble.

        My argument is that conventional has no place in a university. It might cause a lot of trouble to change the current convention but if we did, we’d be teaching truth rather than bs.

        The question arises as to how many other disciplines are teaching similar crap?

      • Clint R says:

        Gordon, it’s all about “convention”.

        Positive current flows into the positive terminal of a battery during charging, but flows out of the positive terminal during discharge.

        You would understand this stuff if you actually had a degree in EE.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        clint…you’re a bit confused about the difference between a battery, which relies on cations and anions inside the electrolyte and the current flowing in the external charging circuit. Positive charge flow in the electrolyte positive ions but that is not possible in a copper conductor.

        Current flows in an electrolyte using positively and negatively charged ions. However, at the external +ve and -ve terminals of the battery, the only current flowing is electrons. There is no way positive charges can flow through conductors since all the positive charges are in the nucleus and frozen in place.

        Any time I have charged a battery I connect positive to positive and negative to negative. When the battery is discharging, the negative terminal gives off electrons. You have to be careful when referencing the terminals whether you are viewing them wrt the external circuit or wrt the electrolyte. When you charge the battery, you want to return electrons to the negative terminal to reverse the chemical process in place during discharge and that means injecting electrons into the external negative terminal.

        You and I should not be butting heads, we need to keep the rabble alarmists in line.

      • Nate says:

        If you look up Hall effect, Gordon, you will find that it can be used to determine whether the charge carriers are positive or negative in a conductor.

        Basically a magnetic field causes the charge carriers to be pushed sideways to the current direction. If the carriers are positive, moving in the direction of the current, they are pushed in one direction, say to the right for an upward magnetic field. This produces a Hall voltage that is high on the right and low on the left.

        If carriers are negative and moving opposite to the direction of the current, they will also be pushed to the right. This produces a Hall voltage that is low on the right and high on the left.

        In some doped semiconductors, it is found that the charge carriers are positive. The ‘hole’ model is used to explain this. If you don’t like this model, come up with an alternative to explain the Hall effect results.

      • RLH says:

        “These positive charge carriers are called holes. Holes are actually missing electrons in the atomic lattice of the semiconductor, but they act essentially like positive charges.”

        https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node74.html

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        rlh…”These positive charge carriers are called holes. Holes are actually missing electrons in the atomic lattice of the semiconductor, but they act essentially like positive charges.”

        ***

        You are referencing semiconductor theory, where slabs of silicon are intentionally doped to produce and excess of electrons or a dearth of electrons. With an excess of electrons, the silicon is called n-type and with a lack of them it becomes p-type.

        Shockley invented the concept of holes to represent areas in the silicon where electrons were missing. In one of his papers he revealed the holes were not real wrt to positive charges but served only to offer a visualization.

        Personally, I have stuck with the real charge carriers, electrons, while ignoring hole flow, and have never encountered a problem. Since arrow is diode and transistor diagrams represent conventional current flow, I visualize electrons flowing against the arrows and everything is hunky dory.

        Although it’s not wise to talk in term of one electron, if an electron enters a p-type, it enters into a hole. Then it moves to another hole, and another. As it moves, the hole appears to move the other way. In a p-type silicon, electrons are called minority carriers, because they are outnumbered by holes, by design.

        Here’s where it falls apart. If a so-called hole reaches a copper conductor, there is no doping in copper. It has nothing but copper atoms and the holes built into copper atoms bonded in a lattice with valence electrons. The reason copper is a good conductor is the availability of electrons in its valence shell that are free to move.

        No one in the electrical or electronics field ever talks about hole flow in a copper conductor, only in a semiconductor, where an excess or dearth of electrons is intentionally doped into the silicon. There is no positive charge flowing in copper as electrons vacate an orbital, leaving a so-called hole.

        As I pointed out earlier, charge moves through a copper conductor at the speed of light, apparently moving electron to electron, while the electrons move a few centimetres per second. That means any holes created by electrons vacating them are moving in the other direction at the same slow rate. There are no charges moving in that direction. If there were charges moving +ve to -ve, they would need to move at the speed of light to balance the -ve charges moving -ve to +ve.

        Here’s a mechanical analogy. Draw a line in the ground with a hole dug in the ground. Now dig another hole along the line and use the material extracted to fill the first hole. Repeat for 10 feet. The holes dug appear to move in the direction you are moving down the line. Can you claim the empty holes have mass and that mass is shifting along the line as holes? That’s what some claim in EE theory.

      • RLH says:

        GR: I don’t think I was disagreeing with you. Holes are just the absence of electrons.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nate…”If you look up Hall effect, Gordon, you will find that it can be used to determine whether the charge carriers are positive or negative in a conductor.

        Basically a magnetic field causes the charge carriers to be pushed sideways to the current direction. If the carriers are positive, moving in the direction of the current, they are pushed in one direction, say to the right for an upward magnetic field. This produces a Hall voltage that is high on the right and low on the left”.

        ***

        Your basic electrical/electronics theory is lacking.

        There are two basic particles in atoms that carry charge. One is the electron and the other is the proton. They have equal and opposite charges but the proton has some 1800 times the mass of the electron.

        There are no other charge carrying particles in an atom.

        When an electron is removed from the valence band of an atom, the entire atom is said to carry a positive charge.

        This is not a real charge in a copper conductor, it is simply an indication that the atom is lacking its full complement of electrons in its valence band. In other words, it has a relative positive charge, not an independent positive charge that can move.

        BTW…I regard this theory as being a little too cute. With bazillions of electrons flowing between atoms, I find it a bit too convenient that atomic nucleii in a solid with multiple layers of electrons orbiting the nucleus, can remain ordered while electrons are literally ripped from and injected into their outer orbital.

        I am not confident that the theory I learned and which I am repeating here is all that solid. For the purpose of debate, it serves a purpose.

        However, with those atoms solidly bound in a copper conductor, those charged atoms are going nowhere. However, if the charged atoms were moving in a liquid like an electrolyte, the charge would be meaningful wrt to other charged atoms in the electrolyte. In a typical electrolyte of sulfuric acid, it breaks up into H+ and SO4- ions, which are charged molecules/atoms.

        A basic error made my people applying electronics theory incorrectly is confusing the meaning of holes in semiconductors. Schockley, who invented the concept of holes in the 1930s, acknowledged in a paper that he never intended the concept to be taken literally, as if holes were charged particles moving in a semiconductor. He offered the theory of holes only as an aid to visualization.

        With regard to the Hall effect, it is nothing more than a magnetic field diverting electron charges laterally from their normal direction of flow. The actual positive charges in semiconductors are protons in the nucleus of silicon atoms or in the impurity donor atoms that make the silicon an n-type or p-type. They cannot move because they are tightly bound in a lattice.

        BTW, a similar action occurs in field effect transistors. A charge on a gate either attracts (enhancement) or repels (depletion) electrons flowing in the source-drain channel. That cause a channel to restrict and expand, causing the resistance of the channel to vary. The action is similar to the grid action in a vacuum tube.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        rlh…”GR: I dont think I was disagreeing with you. Holes are just the absence of electrons”.

        ***

        Sorry, Richard, I misinterpreted your response. On re-reading it, I get your point. Hopefully, my reply did not come across as snarky, that was not my intention.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        clint…”Gordon, its all about convention.

        Positive current flows into the positive terminal of a battery during charging, but flows out of the positive terminal during discharge.

        You would understand this stuff if you actually had a degree in EE”.

        ***

        I argued your interpretation with an EE prof and he was good enough to be good-humoured about it. I was concerned that the theory I had learned, negative to positive, might interfere with my EE studies. He assured me it did not matter so-long as I kept the sign of my voltage drops consistent during circuit analysis.

        My concern is that universities are still promoting this convention rather than doing the right thing and teach the proper theory.

        Another concern is the amount of similar bs which is taught at the university level. I think we both agree that the theory currently being promoted re heat being transferred both ways via radiation is bs. It’s right there in mechanical engineering texts that heat can be transferred in both directions.

        That too is based on convention. The convention was established in the mid 19th century that heat flowed through air as heat rays. If that was the case, then heat may be able to flow in both directions even though Clausius stated that radiation must obey the 2nd law. Why that crap is still taught today is beyond me.

      • Nate says:

        “With regard to the Hall effect, it is nothing more than a magnetic field diverting electron charges laterally from their normal direction of flow. The actual positive charges in semiconductors are protons in the nucleus of silicon atoms or in the impurity donor atoms that make the silicon an n-type or p-type. They cannot move because they are tightly bound in a lattice.”

        As I said, the Hall effect detects the charge of the current carrier. And in many cases, doped semiconductors, not metal, it detects that the carriers are positively charged.

        It makes no sense to say “that make the silicon an n-type or p-type. They cannot move because they are tightly bound in a lattice.”

        If the protons don’t move they cannot be the current carriers!

        The Hall effect observations are direct evidence that the current carriers are positively charged and are the holes.

        You don’t believe in them, so you ignore this evidence. Your choice.

    • Tim S says:

      Our education system gets a lot of criticism, but I am certain that even the most average high school science student (like many of the trolls on this site), understand more fundamental physics and physical chemistry than you have demonstrated. That’s right, even a high school student gets enough physical chemistry to understand why chemicals have different spectra and why small molecules are particularly active.

  61. Gordon Robertson says:

    wee willy aka modicum dickus…

    “You might wish to start here:

    I have become curious about something. The core of the Earth is alleged to be molten. Its also a fact that the deeper you dig into the Earth, the warmer it gets. Where is that heat coming from surely not from the Sun. Whats the possibility that the Earth generates some of its own heat from geothermal processes?

    https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/08/gordon-robertson-on-a-molten-core/

    ***

    Thanks Modicum Dickus for establishing that I have been commenting since at least 2008, 15 years, and that I have evolved over that 15 years. You, on the other hand, have only appeared out of your rat hole recently.

    Perhaps you could explain what was wrong with my 2008 comment? Or perhaps you don’t accept that temperatures at the Earth’s core are equivalent to temperatures at the Sun’s surface.

    • Swenson says:

      Gordon,

      Fritz Perls wrote “. . . it is not surprising to learn that a great astronomer said: “Two things are infinite, as far as we know the universe and human stupidity.” Today we know that this statement is not quite correct. Einstein has proved that the universe is limited.”

      Willard’s stupidity quotient seems unlimited. He is reduced to attempts at being annoying, but he is both impotent and incompetent, due to his marginal attachment to reality.

      But hey, in WillyWorld, he is seen as wise and respected, rather than reality of being an idiot and an object of derision.

      He can’t even decide whether his mythical GHE makes things hotter or colder! How sad is that, even for a delusional SkyDragon cultist.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        What are your braying about?

        If you could tell if you think if an atmosphere on the planet Endor would keep Chewbacca warm for a longer time than without an atmosphere, that would be great.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swenson…”Two things are infinite, as far as we know the universe and human stupidity”.

        ***

        Speaking of myself, I identify with the extent of human stupidity. Even though I am not religious in a conventional sense, I thank the Creator regularly for allowing me to survive my own stupidity. Wee willy takes that stupidity to a different level.

    • Willard says:

      > I have evolved

      You did?

      Perhaps you ought to tell Moron Mike your new position on that old silly take of yours that is now is!

  62. gbaikie says:

    What Role Will NASA Play In Developing ISRU On The Moon?
    https://www.universetoday.com/161894/what-role-will-nasa-play-in-developing-isru-on-the-moon/#more-161894
    “Ice mining isnt technically challenging, but there is a lack of data about where sufficient amounts of ice might be found. Plenty of speculation has focused on south polar ice caps that might hold water in their permanent shadows. Some missions in the near future, such as PRIME-1, hope to explore ices availability in those regions further. But for now, while the technology might be there, there is no guarantee that the resource itself is.
    That is precisely the role NASA sees itself playing derisking the efforts of collecting water, oxygen, and metals from the surface of the Moon to a point where commercial partners will come on board to support the development of the infrastructure themselves. Engaging those commercial partners early and often will be vital to getting their buy-in, but there still needs to be a killer app that can only be created on the Moon in order for its true commercial potential to take off.”

    Killer app, hmm.
    That Mars is habitable and has mineable water would be Killer app in regards to the Moon.
    Many have said that the Moon is gateway to solar system and that makes it a gateway. And if the Moon has mineable water, than that could make Mars more habitable.

    If NASA can determine that there is no mineable water on the Moon, it should quickly turn to Mars crew exploration of Mars. But if they can find mineable lunar water, they should also quickly turn to Mars crew exploration. And if do lousy job of determining either- they should pack it up and leave exploration to someone, else. If can’t do the Moon, you are incapable of exploring Mars.

    • gbaikie says:

      A way to look at it, is we probably going to be exploring the Moon for more than a century, but NASA lunar crewed exploration should take a short period to time, wheres Mars crew exploration program will require decades.
      If the plan was to explore the Moon for decades, one would not say explore the Moon and then explore Mars.
      With the Moon we are largely exploring it, because there could mineable water in polar regions which is at the surface. If it was supposed lunar water was 1000 meters below the surface rather than at the surface, we might not look for it. You have ask how many holes to do need to drill. Anyways we looking for mineable water at the surface of small region of the Moon. One might make one deep- say 100 meter hole on lunar surface for “scientific reasons” and you will drill holes on Mars 100 meter or more deep. So might also want to drill 100 meter hole on the Moon, because you will be drilling holes on Mars, you could drilling hundred of holes on Mars.
      You are not interested in mining the surface of Mars, you interested in whether Mars is a habitable planet. And the Moon doesn’t need to be a habitable planet/Moon. Or no claims the Moon is habitable- doesn’t seem to have much water and it’s gravity is 1/6th of Earth’s.
      Mars has more gravity, it has lots of CO2 and N2 and trillions of tonnes of water. And it Mars didn’t seem habitable, we would not be spending tens billions of dollars on robotic exploration of it.
      We would just focus on the Moon.
      So Mars is vast region to explore, and we have not even decided where is best place to explore, is.
      And probably where we started will be related to where it’s is easier to land and have a Mars base. With one base on Mars, it’s easier to explore the rest of Mars, but we probably end up with having many bases on Mars. Or first base might be anywhere close to caves on Mars, and we want to explore caves on Mars- and have a base near caves or in caves. Caves are better than drilling, but probably going to do a lot of drilling. We might drill into what think in underground cave structure.
      Anyhow Mars crew exploration program is not flags and footprints or Apollo program- it will require at least 2 decades.
      And during those decades, there could be a lot things going on with the Moon- many countries are interested in Moon- though if no mineable lunar water, less interested. And Congress might fund various kinds NASA projects regarding the Moon during those 2 or more decades exploring Mars- if Congress funds it, then NASA would do it while exploring Mars. Which true of anything- like outer planets, Mercury, or whatever.
      So Mars exploration is going to take a large part of the NASA budget, like ISS, did- which was about 1/2 of entire budget. Or Congress will have increase NASA’s budgets depends on what else “big projects” it wants other than, Mars exploration.
      And part of doing Mars program will include ending the ISS program.
      One might even say, just starting lunar Gateway station may require ending ISS program.
      Without Starship working {it’s still being tested] NASA might have spend a lot more time with lunar crew program and gateway station.
      But if FAA doesn’t delay the launch, Starship could be starting it’s part of lunar program before end of the year with test lunar landing the Starship on lunar surface in early part {before summer} of 2024 and be launching from KSC by that time, also.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gb…every time you talk about Mars I feel like going out for a Mars bar.

      How was your coffee this morning?

      • gbaikie says:

        I didn’t really get enough coffee this morning.
        But I got another one, now.

        But Mars is sort of like global warming- I am not very
        interested in either.

        But I have been interested in why NASA hasn’t explored space.
        One of my answers to Fermi paradox, is the universe for some reason has bureaucracies.
        And when people talk about Heaven is seems it’s some sort of horrible
        bureaucracy.

      • Entropic man says:

        “One of my answers to Fermi paradox, is the universe for some reason has bureaucracies. ”

        You may be right. One possible explanation for the Fermi Paradox is that every civilization has bureaucracies.

        They are willing to fund astronomers to build cheap telescopes to listen for signals.

        They are unwilling to fund expensive transmitters which would be heard over interstellar distances.

        Let some other planet spend the money!

      • Entropic man says:

        Another possibility is that there are predators out there.

        The predators are stealthy to avoid alerting prey civilizations.

        They prey keep quiet and hope to go unnoticed.

        Fortunately, except for a few over-the-horizon radars, our radio traffic is weak enough to drop below the noise level beyond about 1 light year.

        Another possibility is that n=1. In which case we are the only candle in the dark. It would be a shame to snuff it out through our own stupidity.

      • Nate says:

        “They are unwilling to fund expensive transmitters which would be heard over interstellar distances.”

        And “They prey keep quiet and hope to go unnoticed.”

        makes sense.

        We could build powerful directed light or radio beams to query who is out there, but is it a risky idea?

      • Entropic man says:

        “We could build powerful directed light or radio beams to query who is out there, but is it a risky idea? ”

        If superior technology brings superior morality and ethics then subcontract will be benign. Otherwise otherwise.

        Considering the moral and ethical status of the three most technologically advanced countries on the planet I would prefer to assume that a “dark forest” exists out there and keep my head down.

      • Nate says:

        I suspect that anybody out there who is advanced enough to come an here and hurt us, already knows we’re here…

  63. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    So why doesn’t Earth’s core fry us all? For a start, the core is surrounded by a mostly solid mantle of rock. The crust we live on floats on that mantle, giving us more protection than empty space would. But the most important reason we dont all melt is the difference between heat and temperature. Roughly speaking, heat is energy and temperature is density of energy, basically how much energy is crammed into a given size.

    A spark from a sparkler can have a temperature of 1,500C, but won’t really hurt you. On the other hand, a bath of boiling water at only 100C would kill you. That’s because the bath contains much more heat energy.

    To melt the whole Earth, you would need much more energy than the heat in its core. The Sun is huge and could easily do that, of course but luckily its 150,000,000km away.

    https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/how-hot-earth-core/

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      “Roughly speaking, heat is energy and temperature is density of energy, basically how much energy is crammed into a given size”.

      ***

      You are an idiot, wee willy. Heat is energy and temperature is a human invention to measure the amount of heat relative to a set point, like the freezing point and boiling point of water.

      • Willard says:

        C’mon, Bordo.

        What is being measured when we measure temperature was here before anyone could measure it.

        You silly semantic game is silly. You have no training in it. You suck at it.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

  64. Willard says:

    OPEN PROBLEM

    Probably no other country than Iceland has so many geothermal resources on its territory, so why is this country called Iceland?

    https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/08/where-does-earth%e2%80%99s-energy-come-from-a-note-from-mark-duffett/#comment-58201

    • gbaikie says:

      It’s said that with all that Texas drilling, Texas might have found a lot geothermal resources.

    • Ken says:

      A Viking named Flki Vilgerarson came to Iceland ; his daughter drowned en route, then his livestock starved to death. The sagas say that the rather despondent Flki climbed a mountain and saw a fjord (Arnarfjrur) full of icebergs, which led him to give the island its new and present name.

      ~wikipedia

    • Ken says:

      Definition of a Bore; someone who goes to the encyclopedia, finds what he is looking for, then closes it. I guess this definition is out of date but the answer took all of 5 minutes to look up on wikipedia.

      You really are a bore.

      • Willard says:

        Definition of a reactionary populist:

        In political science, a reactionary or reactionarist can be defined as a person or entity holding political views that favor a return to a previous political state of society that they believe possessed characteristics that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore a past status quo.

        Meanwhile, reactionary populism describes extreme right-wing populism and is practically synonymous with the radical right. It is most associated with anti-immigration policies and extreme nationalism; Donald Trumps campaign was a perfect example. This sort of parties has also very strong followings in many European nations today.

        https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/reactionary-populism/

        You are a reactionary populist crank, Kennui.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      better question…why are you quoting a 2008 post from Jennifer Marohasey’s site. Still looking for dirt on me?

      • Willard says:

        C’mon, Bordo. No need to clutch your pearls. We all can see them daily.

        You might like this reminder as to why I call Kennui Kennui:

        Ennui only rouses himself from his torpor to cajole other Warriors to be more interesting – without, of course, ever contributing anything of interest himself. Ennui has limited weaponry at his disposal, but his majestic affectation of boredom provides an effective defense to attacks. When pressed in battle he will announce his intention of moving on to a more stimulating forum, but instead he will generally lurk quietly until the threat passes.

        https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

    • RLH says:

      “The name Iceland is primarily a gender-neutral name of English origin that means Land Of Ice.

      Iceland is a place name, the moniker of a Nordic Island Country in Europe. Iceland’s capital is Reykjavik. Iceland was formerly named Garoarsholmur (Garoars Isle) and/or called Snaeland (Snowland).”

    • Ken says:

      Dullard.

      • Willard says:

        Kennui only rouses himself from his torpor to cajole other Warriors to be more interesting – without, of course, ever contributing anything of interest himself. Ennui has limited weaponry at his disposal, but his majestic affectation of boredom provides an effective defense to attacks. When pressed in battle he will announce his intention of moving on to a more stimulating forum, but instead he will generally lurk quietly until the threat passes.

        https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

    • Ken says:

      Have I got a deal on a perpetual motion machine for you.

      • gbaikie says:

        Well, do you doubt Starlink is going to make billions of dollars?

        Why would starlink make billions dollars? Because it is global internet AND it will be a lot cheaper than it is, now.
        Economy of scale will allow lower costs, and lower price will get more customers {+ 1 billion of customers}.
        Same applies with SPS- except it’s not beam a lot power to one spot, and then but in a grid. Instead, beaming power to a ski slope or village or islands or wherever, including ISS. Or other space stations or other satellites.
        So if you subscribe to starlink you get internet anywhere. If you subscribe to beamed power, you get electrical power anywhere.
        It doesn’t mean you don’t use grid power, it means you use grid power and get some amount of electrical power, anywhere. Or it means you need to buy less batteries or worn out rechargeable batteries will last longer.
        So amount of power beamed to you could vary depending on your subscription, it could less than 50 watts. Beaming electrical power which is only 50 watts- solves global poverty.
        How much is solving global poverty, worth?
        But you could also get say up to 1 kw or more. Then you doing off grid type stuff. But you have like .5 Kw which buy during peak hours so reduce electrical bills and get power anywhere you want it.
        So the requirement of .5 or 1 kw it requires a bigger receiver on your end and you order more wider footprint of power.

        So could solar panel on your roof which also receives beamed power.
        And could then decide you want x amount not delivered to roof, and instead it tracks and beam it to different receiver- some place you going camping or at the beach or whatever.
        So monthly amount and pay for what much you need.
        And you get power and internet with same receiver. So with fixed solar panel on roof, it can give solar power, beamed power, and internet.

  65. gbaikie says:

    It doesn’t like Atlantic hurricane season is doing much. yet.

    And it seems quite likely that we are in a Grand solar min, and possible we have past the solar max peak. And could be returning to solar min like condition within 6 months, but more than a year or two before we in the solar min 25.

    And so, this isn’t any about global climate, but should effect global weather as seems it’s already done.
    But also there are theories that in coming years of Grand solar min,
    it could cause more volcanic activity and it seems depending upon what kind eruptions that happen, it could be characterized as effecting global climate by some amount- and affect global weather.
    And decades of grand solar min and it’s volcanic activity could have significant effect upon global climate- if returning global climate conditions of 1970’s is called a significant effect.
    If nothing else it should have some effect upon members of cargo cult of global warming.
    And in say 5 years, we have past Pause, turn into the “Great Pause” and in another 5 years be having whispers of global cooling.
    But it seems expecting little ice age like conditions is not at all likely, unless little ice age conditions is very cold weather events.
    But it seem it would require a rather significant volcanic eruption.
    And one argue it’s not global cooling, but rather short term cooling from the eruption and no one could have predicted it.

    A current argument is we alarming amounts of global warming and that government must spend trillions of dollars [more] to stop the warming. Of course we had many decades of this so called alarming amounts global warming, and have spend trillion of dollars and the trillions of dollars have done nothing to prevent alarming amounts of global warming.
    Governments have done nothing to lower global CO2 levels, and onlt they have done is increased global CO2 emission with stupid governmental policies.

  66. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    It is currently the peak of solar activity in the 25th solar cycle. It can be seen that it is no higher than in cycle 24, which was much weaker than the previous few cycles.
    https://i.ibb.co/6vhby4H/353614541-733611445432501-7402278709732241978-n.jpg
    https://solen.info/solar/polarfields/polarfields.png

  67. Swenson says:

    Earlier, someone demonstrated a certain degree of ignorance by writing –

    “Mike must’ve never been warmed by the radiant heat of a fire, that passes effortlessly through the air in between.”, after I pointed out that all gases can be heated by absorbing IR, and all heated gases emit IR.

    All gases have a temperature, and emit IR, commensurate with their temperature. Likewise, they absorb IR emitted by objects hotter than themselves.

    Depending on the physical properties of the gas, such as specific heat and density, molecular structure and so on, it will absorb more or less photons that it intercepts, as John Tyndall showed over 150 years ago.

    Some idiots think that the atmosphere is transparent to IR, but cannot then explain why the atmosphere heats up during the day, nor why it cools at night. Approximately 35% of the radiation from the Sun never reaches the surface, as both John Tyndall and NASA have measured.

    Vacuum is truly transparent to IR, resulting in surface temperature on the Moon reaching about 127 C, compared with maybe 90 C on Earth.

    But facts are anathema to delusional,SkyDragon cultists. Not only can they not describe their non-existent GHE, they can’t even decide whether it is supposed to make thermometers hotter or colder!

    What a bumbling pack of idiots.

    • Nate says:

      You don’t mean the John Tyndall that first one who described the GHE?

      You couldn’t possibly mean the guy who noted that because H2O and CO2 gases are transparent to solar radiation (visible and short-wave IR) but lack transparency to long-wave IR:

      “Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat; but checks its exit, and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”

      Not him? Because he plainly described the GHE, and thus your repeated protestations that no one can describe it look rather silly when you also try to use him as your authority.

      • Clint R says:

        Wrong Nate. That is NOT a description of the GHE. That’s a description of how Sun heats the planet, or as you may have heard, “It’s the Sun, stupid”.

        Sun heats the surface, then the surface heats the atmosphere. But the idea that CO2 can then somehow re-heat the surface is absolute cult nonsense. CO2 is a weak coolant, allowing low energy photons to escape to space. Add enough CO2 to the atmosphere, say 2000 ppm, and you could notice a slight reduction in Earth temperatures.

      • Norman says:

        Clint R

        Just totally wrong on many levels. You have chastised Gordon Robertson for peddling nonsense on this bog so you go ahead and do the same. CO2 cools the upper atmosphere NOT surface. CO2 lowers the amount of heat leaving the surface. Radiant energy from a cold object can be ab*sorted by a hotter object. That is reality, verified by experiment done by Roy Spencer and established physics. Your spewing nonsense does not change physics at all, it just makes you look ignorant.

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry Norman, but I no longer respond to your troll tactics. The rules have been explained to you. You’re welcome to clean up your act and try again, but we both know that isn’t going to happen…

      • Norman says:

        Clint R

        You are still totally wrong regardless of your rules. You do not know real physics at all, just your stupid opinions over and over.

      • Clint R says:

        See why I have rules for you Norman?

        Your comment contained your opinion, an insult, and a false accusation.

        A responsible adult would have known not to use such tactics.

      • Norman says:

        Clint R

        How about this. You claim a hot object cannot absorb energy from a colder one. This goes against established physics with a working radiant heat transfer equation that states that the heat lost by the hot object is the amount of energy it loses via emission minus the amount it gains from its surroundings. Roy Spencer also did an actual experiment on his blog that verified this established and much used physics.

        Since you make the claim this equation is bogus, you need some really strong experimental evidence to prove established science is wrong and you view is correct.

        Science and reality are about evidence not statements of belief. Established and used science says radiant energy will be absorbed by a hotter object. It does not violate 2nd Law in the least as the Heat flow is still from hot to cold. But as the cold object gets hotter less heat flows from the hot to cold.

        I will see if you reply and provide valid evidence to support your claim.

      • Clint R says:

        That’s better Norman. You’ve avoided the childish insults and misrepresentations. But you’re still using veiled false accusations and straw men.

        Clean it up so that I will believe you will keep it clean. No back-sliding.

      • Swenson says:

        Norman,

        You wrote –

        “Roy Spencer also did an actual experiment on his blog that verified this established and much used physics.”

        Well, no, he didn’t, if you are implying that a colder body can lose energy to a warmer one, without itself becoming colder itself. Conservation of energy means that as a warmer body acquires more energy and heats, the colder must lose an exactly equivalent amount – the total does not change.

        In your magical kingdom, a colder body can emit infinite amounts of energy, without becoming colder in the process.

        Accept reality. Physical laws, such as the conservation laws, are called laws for a reason. No matter how devout your faith, or how passionate your belief, you haven’t demonstrated your ability to break any physical laws.

        Are you an idiot, or just abysmally ignorant?

      • Norman says:

        Clint R

        Will the EMR emitted by colder surroundings slow down the rate of heat transfer from a warmer body?

        Does the temperature of the cold surroundings have an effect on the rate of heat loss of the hotter body?

        In these questions assume radiant heat transfer is the only mode of exchange, a vacuum condition where convection and conduction are not taking place and no other sources of energy are involved.

      • Swenson says:

        Norman,

        You wrote –

        “Does the temperature of the cold surroundings have an effect on the rate of heat loss of the hotter body?”

        Of course it does. That’s why the hotter body cools – heat loss. Didn’t you know that heat loss is called cooling? Newton’s Law of Cooling will let you calculate the rate of cooling, if you feel like it.

        No wonder you can’t describe the GHE – you are probably stupid enough to think that slow cooling really means “getting hotter”! It doesn’t – the temperature is falling.

      • Clint R says:

        Congratulations, Norman! You did it. A comment without any troll tactics! Good job.

        Your two questions are basically the same, so will have the same basic answer — No.

        That is the simple answer and is good 99.9% of the time. But in reality, there is a more complicated answer. The complications are emissivity and ΔT. In a simple scenario, with both objects having the same emissivity and also having a large ΔT, the simple answer works. With different emissivities and temperatures very close together, complexities arise.

        But for Earth and space, the 99.0% holds, i.e., space does not affect Earths emission.

      • Norman says:

        Clint R

        Thank you for answering the questions. To make it more than your opinion do you have any evidence to support your “no” answer? Currently established physics says the temperature of the cold surroundings does affect the rate of heat transfer so I would need more than your opinion. An experiment or something.

      • Clint R says:

        Norman, first a word of caution, don’t automatically assume it’s just my opinion. That’s getting into the realm of “false accusation”. You don’t want to go there. It’s okay to ask for more details, if you don’t understand. But automatically attacking because things don’t match your beliefs is cultism.

        Unfortunately the literature on “radiative physics” is rather polluted. That’s because it is not a field of study common to most people, so mistakes never seem to get corrected. For example, you see the “radiative heat transfer” equation all over the Internet, but you never find it is a reputable physics book. The bogus equation has NO scientific derivation, and is easily debunked. It is popular among the GHE cult, because they believe it means “cold” can warm “hot”.

        To understand concepts like this, you need a basic understanding of absorp.tion, entropy and temperature. Remember that absorp.tion requires wavelength compatibility. Photons not absorbed, or transmitted, are reflected. Reflection is VERY common, and happens all the time.

        A basic discussion of entropy is here:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1496363

        A basic discussion of temperature is here:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1493684

      • Nate says:

        “Currently established physics says the temperature of the cold surroundings does affect the rate of heat transfer so I would need more than your opinion.”

        Indeed.

        “For example, you see the radiative heat transfer equation all over the Internet, but you never find it is a reputable physics book. The bogus equation has NO scientific derivation, and is easily debunked.”

        So no source at all to support this false assertion that established physics is bogus.

        What he said to Gordon applies perfectly here to Clint:

        “But even thinking for yourself, you MUST recognize and accept reality. Youve merely formed your own personal cult. That aint science.”

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Nate,
        I know all you goofballs worship Tyndall as your GHE God but reading his supposed description of GHE is, well, lacking. As a matter of fact Tyndall said CO2 has an insignificant contribution to the atmosphere. Of course it has been removed from most of the internet sites.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        stephen…”Tyndall said CO2 has an insignificant contribution to the atmosphere. Of course it has been removed from most of the internet sites”.

        ***

        He also said any warming would be a good thing, as did Arrhenius.

      • Nate says:

        ” As a matter of fact Tyndall said CO2 has an insignificant contribution to the atmosphere.”

        Oh he did? Got a quote?

      • Willard says:

        > You couldnt possibly mean the guy who noted that because H2O and CO2 gases are transparent to solar radiation (visible and short-wave IR) but lack transparency to long-wave IR:

        Good point!

      • Swenson says:

        Weepy Wee Willy,

        Why couldn’t I possibly mean John Tyndall?

        You can’t say, can you?

        That’s because you’re an idiot!

        Carry on.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        You don’t mean anything. But you mean well.

        Keep it up, deceitful cretin!

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        Tyndall also speculated that meteoric impacts made the Sun hot, that the luminiferous ether existed, and various other speculations. Like every other scientist, sometimes his speculations proved to be wrong.

        His experiments showed that about 35% of solar radiation doesn’t even reach the surface, and that the surface (ground) temperature increases with altitude. Some idiots believe that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer makes it hotter!

        You could read his later books, if you wanted to. He changes his views about several things, based on meticulous experimental results.

        You wrote –

        “Because he plainly described the GHE, and thus your repeated protestations that no one can describe it look rather silly when you also try to use him as your authority.”

        Well, no, he didn’t. You claim he did, but you cannot find any reference to a “greenhouse effect” in any of Tyndall’s published works. You will no doubt claim that you didn’t really mean “greenhouse effect”, but something else, I suppose. Go on then, provide Tyndall’s description of the “greenhouse effect” if you are delusional enough to believe that you are connected to reality! Oh, something backed by experiment, of course.

        Idiot. The Earth is cooler now than four and a half billion years ago, and the surface cools every night.

      • Nate says:

        “Because he plainly described the GHE, and thus your repeated protestations that no one can describe it look rather silly when you also try to use him as your authority.”

        “Well, no, he didnt. You claim he did, but you cannot find any reference to a greenhouse effect in any of Tyndalls published works.”

        He had to call it what we call it today for it to count as a description of the GHE??

        Wrong idiot.

        You missed the point of his simple, clear, description again.

        It takes real effort to remain ignorant in the face of such clarity!

        Try again:

        Now, you already reluctantly agreed that gases can be transparent to certain wavelengths.

        With this: “Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat; but checks its exit”

        he is saying that H2O and CO2 are transparent to solar emitted wavelengths. But they are not transparent to terrestrially emitted wavelengths.

        Thus by simple logic, he finds ” and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”

        That’s it. A basic description of how the GHE works.

        And yet you have no sensible rebuttal.

        Oh well.

      • Swenson says:

        You idiot.

        As I pointed out to your fellow dimwit, Willard, if you had bothered to read Tyndall’s words, he was talking about nighttime. He pointed out that without an atmosphere, temperatures would rapidly drop to those of the dark Lunar surface, and mankind could not survive.

        Likewise, without an atmosphere, temperatures would rise to those of the sunlit Moon – some 127 C or so, once again eliminating mankind.

        Maybe you could describe the GHE, before lurching off into telling everyone “how the GHE works”. Are you now claiming that the “greenhouse effect” is just another name for the atmosphere?

        Tyndall believed the earth had cooled. You don’t seem to accept the fact that the atmosphere didn’t stop theEarth cooling. Or do you believe the GHE is responsible for objects cooling?

        If you do, others might believe that you are an idiot, as I do.

      • Nate says:

        “f you had bothered to read Tyndalls words, he was talking about nighttime.”

        False. This is made up. No quote no credit.

        Tyndall offered a clear description of the GHE. What you incessantly ask for.

        Calling me an idiot followed by no rebuttal of Tyndall shows that you are a just a loser and a troll.

        Now you will continue to lie and pretend that no one has offered a description of the GHE, when obviously it was offered 150 y ago by Tyndall.

        Your inability to understand it is a YOU problem.

    • Bindidon says:

      Flynnson once more insults other people with a stupid

      ” What a bumbling pack of idiots. ”

      This absolute idiot wrote once more:

      ” All gases have a temperature, and emit IR, commensurate with their temperature. Likewise, they absorb IR emitted by objects hotter than themselves. ”

      though having been contradicted so many times with the hint that Earth’s main atmospheric constituents (N2, O2)indeed absorb and emit IR, but with an intensity of, for N2, about 1,000,000 times less than H2O and CO2, and for O2 about 10,000 times.

      This is really the beginning of dementia, isn’t it? The same behavior as Robertson, who endlessly repeats the same nonsense all the time – regardless of any correction he himself wasn’t able to contradict.

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        Yes, I wrote “All gases have a temperature, and emit IR, commensurate with their temperature. Likewise, they absorb IR emitted by objects hotter than themselves.

        You disagree?

        Maybe you think gases are heated by magic? By colder magical objects?

        Maybe you don’t believe that people claim to be able to measure “air temperature”? You may not believe that superheated air exists, but it will kill you really, really, quickly whether you believe it or not

        Maybe you could state what you are complaining about, and support it with fact. Otherwise, you will just look like an idiotic sour kraut, of the delusional SkyDragon cultist variety.

        The surface cools every night, idiot.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        “O₂, N₂, H₂, He, or Ar, which do not have absorbance bands in the infrared region of the spectrum. This booklet is an introduction to the principles behind FTIR gas spectroscopy and will address basic FTIR theory, how it works, and the practical aspects that must be considered for FTIR analysis of gases.”

        A little light reading from ThermoFisher

        chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://assets.thermofisher.com/TFS-Assets/MSD/brochures/gas-phase-ftir-spectroscopy-introduction-BR52338.pdf

      • Swenson says:

        Bereft bobdroege,

        You believe anything, don’t you? Do you really believe that IR only consists of the wave number band from 3200 to 1200?

        You are an idiot. All matter in the universe emits and absorbs IR. I could ask you how a gas maintains a temperature of 20 C without absorbing IR, but you would only start whining about reality.

        You could always gain some understanding of spectroscopy and spectrometry, and the characteristics of IR (light) sources before you essay at trying to look clever. Is all of this supposed to have some relevance to a GHE which you claim someone else (but not you) can describe?

        Maybe you should let that imaginary person explain why you are an idiot, and save me the trouble. Not that I mind, but it’s too easy to take advantage of the intellectually disadvantaged.

        Have you considered taking up trolling? Willard keeps at it, so it can’t be hard, can it?

        Give it a try.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        “Do you really believe that IR only consists of the wave number band from 3200 to 1200?”

        No, the band is a little wider than that.

        I linked to a company that makes and sells spectroscopy equipment, they disagree with you.

        Who do you think is correct?

      • Swenson says:

        Bumbling bob,

        You wrote –

        “I linked to a company that makes and sells spectroscopy equipment, they disagree with you.”

        You idiot, I took the values off their website!

        You also wrote “No, the band is a little wider than that”. Infinitely wider – all the way from infinity (or zero, if you prefer wavenumbers), to whatever frequency at which visible light occurs.

        You really have no idea, do you?

        IR is all light with wavelengths longer than those of visible light. An infinite number. Yes, frequencies don’t occur in discrete steps, and nor do temperatures, whether you think they should or not.

        Maybe you believe that oxygen and nitrogen don’t absorb or emit IR, but then you might have difficulty in explaining how the temperature of air goes up when rapidly compressed, with all components having the same temperature, and emitting the same wavelengths.

        Have you located a description of the GHE yet? Are you keeping it a secret, perhaps?

        Idiot.

        .

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson.

        It’s not the range of IR which they disagree with you, anyway the IR range is not all light with wavelengths longer than visible light, at a certain point you have microwaves and then radio waves at longer wavelengths.

        The gases O2, N2, He, Ar, and H2 are not active in the IR range.

        You want to divert the argument to what is the range of IR, well then, isn’t that nice?

        I think you don’t understand how compressing a gas causes it to heat up, you have to add energy to do that, and that additional energy is what causes the temperature increase in accordance with the Ideal Gas Law, you know PV=nRT?

        Since I have already provide you with a description of the Green House Effect, further descriptions are available for a lost item fee. 50 bucks and I’ll provide that for you.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        “You idiot, I took the values off their website!”

        God damn, but you are stupid, you took that range off of a chart representing the spectra of a few common gases, not meant to represent the whole IR range.

        Do continue to be stupid, it makes me horny.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”Earths main atmospheric constituents (N2, O2)indeed absorb and emit IR, but with an intensity of, for N2, about 1,000,000 times less than H2O and CO2, and for O2 about 10,000 times”.

        ***

        Why does N2/O2 have to emit in the IR band to cool the planet? We know O2 emits in the microwave spectrum and that has to cool the planet.

  68. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Temperature recovery during MM
    https://i.ibb.co/pQvLG0W/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-06-12-124532.png

  69. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The largest temperature drops will be approaching during the local minima between cycles 25 − 26 and cycles 2627 when the lowest solar activity level is achieved using the estimations in Figure 2 (bottom plot) and Figure 3. Therefore, the average temperature in the Northern hemisphere can be reduced by up to 1.0C from the current temperature, which was increased by 1.4C since Maunder minimum. This will result in the average temperature to become lower than the current one to be only 0.4C higher than the temperature measured in 1710. Then, after the modern grand solar minimum 1 is over, 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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243

    • Bindidon says:

      ” Therefore, the average temperature in the Northern hemisphere can be reduced by up to 1.0C from the current temperature, which was increased by 1.4C since Maunder minimum. ”

      This is known as wrong since years.

      The temperature increase appeared since the end of the Little Ice Age, what is a completely different statement.

      The Maunder Minimum was only a small part of the LIA.

  70. Gordon:

    “There is no greenhouse effect from backradiation. fig. 5 propagated by NASA thus displays fictional non-physical recirculating radiation with an Earth surface emitting 117% while absorbing 48% from the Sun.

    Exactly. Earth’s surface emits almost the same amount of energy, as it receives from both, the sun and the inner core.

    It is “almost”, because Earth’s surface is never in a 100% radiative energy equilibrium.
    Currently, Earth’s surface is in some millennia long natural warming trend, thus Earth’s surface annually accumulates some more energy than Earth’s surface is able to IR emit to outer space.

    ***
    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  71. gbaikie says:

    Case Closed: It Was a Lab Leak
    “The Sunday London Times, out today, has a long, long article about the origins of the covid-19 virus in the lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Until the far-off day when Chinese sources open up honestly, it will stand as definitive proof of not just the lab leak hypothesis, but the conclusion that covid-19 was a human creation. Its conclusions are unqualified:

    Scientists in Wuhan working alongside the Chinese military were combining the worlds most deadly coronaviruses to create a new mutant virus just as the pandemic began.

    Investigators who scrutinised top-secret intercepted communications and scientific research believe Chinese scientists were running a covert project of dangerous experiments, which caused a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and started the Covid-19 outbreak.

    The US investigators say one of the reasons there is no published information on the work is because it was done in collaboration with researchers from the Chinese military, which was funding it and which, they say, was pursuing bioweapons.”
    ttps://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/06/case-closed-it-was-a-lab-leak.php

    Linked from:
    http://www.transterrestrial.com/

    • Willard says:

      REVEALED: reporters at @thetimes working alongside the internets most prominent SARS-CoV-2 origins conspiracists combined the worlds most idiotic lab leak theories to create this long read of nonsensical reheated horseshit.

      So lets get into this tepid excuse for journalism

      https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1668239114037067776

    • Tim S says:

      The SARS-CoV-2 virus does not exist anywhere in nature. After more than 3 years of intense study, no intermediate animal has been identified to make the jump from bats to humans. The very first strain was exceptionally efficient at infecting humans, and later strains became even more efficient. The Chinese Communist have lied about everything and have refused the most basic investigation. The WHO were manipulated by the Chinese, and participated in a public relations stunt designed to appear like an investigation. Top secret information from a foreign source (Thailand?) claim to have proof of the lab leak. Gain-of-function research was known to be done at the lab and can completely explain all of the above. Despite that, some still claim it came directly from nature. I have to admit that the space alien theory cannot be disproved.

  72. Bindidon says:

    A lot of fun for the opinionated Coolistas and Zharkova lovers:

    Gradual onset of the Maunder Minimum revealed by high-precision carbon-14 analyses

    Hiroko Miyahara & al. (2021)

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84830-5

    We find that a 16 year-long cycle had occurred three solar cycles before the onset of prolonged sunspot disappearance, suggesting a longer-than-expected preparatory period for the grand minimum.

    As the Sun has shown a tendency of cycle lengthening since Solar Cycle 23 (19962008 CE), the behavior of Solar Cycle 25 can be critically important to the later solar activity.

    Wonderful.

    *
    An interesting paper:

    Solar cyclic activity over the last millennium reconstructed from
    annual ¹⁴C data

    I.G. Usoskin & al. (2021)

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.15112.pdf

    • RLH says:

      There are many papers written from both sides of this. Only one side will be correct.

      • Eben says:

        It is pretty obvious From Bindiclown’s constant nagging on your posts that he is totally clueless about The sun , re-posts snippets of websites he finds on Googl without even knowing what it is about

  73. gbaikie says:

    Falcon 9 deploys 53 Starlink satellites on SpaceX’s 40th launch of the year
    https://www.spacedaily.com/

    1/2 way thru year, but will be less than 80. But should have total 4 Falcon Heavy and 2 or 3 starship launch attempts. Or more payload to orbit than in 2022 {which was insane amount}.
    But 2024 will more insane, and not just SpaceX, globally it could be wild.
    Vulcan Centaur Dream Chaser 1 is scheduled early 2024 and Vulcan Centaur Peregrine is to be announced {TBD} but probably before Fall of 2023. And New Glenn is thought to launching in 2024 and New Glenn is planned to put crew on the Moon. And should expecting a lot out of India and China in 2024 {though also Japan}.
    Though the world’s past leaders, Russia and Europe are struggling.

  74. gbaikie says:

    US-German satellites show California water gains after record winter
    https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_German_satellites_show_California_water_gains_after_record_winter_999.html
    “Early data shows the greatest net gain of water over the winter in nearly 22 years, but the state’s groundwater levels still suffer from the effects of years of drought.

    After years of intense drought and diminishing groundwater, California just saw its greatest year-over-year water gains in two decades, according to data from the GRACE-FO (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On) satellite mission, a partnership between NASA and the German Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ). This past winter’s bonanza of atmospheric rivers alleviated some of the water deficit that the state incurred during periods of drought over the last 10 years, which included the three driest years on record in California.”

  75. gbaikie says:

    Neumann Space signs contract with Space Inventor to provide greater access to space
    https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Neumann_Space_signs_contract_with_Space_Inventor_to_provide_greater_access_to_space_999.html
    “Neumann Space, a technology leader of in-space electric propulsion today announced that it has signed a contract with Space Inventor, a leading European manufacturer of microsatellites that will enable it to gain greater access to space as part of its program of in-orbit demonstration (IOD).

    As part of the contract, Space Inventor will provide Neumann Space with the opportunity to integrate its next generation Neumann Drive as an IOD payload on board a 6U EDISON Satellite scheduled for launch in the second half of 2024.

    The EDISON Mission is a part of the European Space Agency’s Pioneer programme, designed to support emerging companies seeking to provide new and innovative satellite communications technologies and services.”

    I have no idea what this is
    🙂

  76. gbaikie says:

    Something Versus Nothing
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7og2_48D6FQ
    Dennis is having fun in Serbia.
    Europe is more enjoyable than America- wokeism is
    lacking in Europe as is other things. European leadership is disparaging what is happening in US {though probably in Canada, I would add}.

  77. Swenson says:

    “The removal, for a single summer night, of the aqueous vapour from the atmosphere which covers England would be attended by the destruction of every plant which a freezing temperature could kill. The moon would be rendered entirely uninhabitable by beings like ourselves through the operation of this single cause.” – John Tyndall.

    It seems as though delusional SkyDragon cultists refuse to accept that a reduced rate of cooling is still cooling. It is obvious to most people that the surface cools at night, in the absence of sunlight.

    Still no description of the GHE – probably because it doesn’t exist. Its supporters are not even prepared to say whether their GHE makes thermometers hotter or colder!

    Not one of them will acknowledge having a description in their possession. They keep claiming that it’s “over there”, or “on the internet” – somewhere else, just like Donald Rumsfeld’s weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which were also nowhere to be found, being imaginary!

    Bumbling idiots, furiously trying to convince others that fantasy is preferable to fact.

    • Willard says:

      Mike Flynn,

      Deceiful cretin:

      Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat; but checks its exit, and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.

      https://theconversation.com/john-tyndall-the-forgotten-co-founder-of-climate-science-143499

      • Swenson says:

        Wee Willy Wanker,

        Of course it does you fool – at night! Otherwise, as Tyndall wrote –

        “The removal, for a single summer night, of the aqueous vapour from the atmosphere which covers England would be attended by the destruction of every plant which a freezing temperature could kill. The moon would be rendered entirely uninhabitable by beings like ourselves through the operation of this single cause.”

        Are you one of those delusional SkyDragon cultists who believe falling temperatures are due to “CO2 heating”?

        You donkey, Tyndall’s experiments showed that about 35% of sunlight doesnt even reach the surface (as NASA agrees, more than a century later), resulting in lower, not higher, maximum temperatures! Oh well, if deranged GHE believers want to believe that less sunlight means higher temperatures, Im not surprised.

        They are probably ignorant idiots like you.

        Carry on.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        What are you braying about?

        It seems that Sky Dragon cranks work hard not to get that reducing the rate of cooling of a planet results in a warmer planet.

        Do continue to play dumb!

      • bobdroege says:

        You put the lid on the pot

        The water starts boiling

        Take the lid of the pot

        The water stops boiling

        You do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself about

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

  78. Eben says:

    The planet saver called Kerry

    https://youtu.be/myIV79Uvp6Y

  79. Swenson says:

    Earlier, Willard wrote –

    “It seems that Sky Dragon cranks work hard not to get that reducing the rate of cooling of a planet results in a warmer planet.”

    Willard has definitely lost touch with reality if he refuses to accept that the planet has cooled, rather than becoming “warmer”. Reducing the rate of cooling of anything which is cooling does not make it “warmer”, whether it’s a planet, or a Thermos of soup.

    Sure, the Earth is warmer than absolute zero, but so is everything in the universe.

    No, Willard, you idiot – slow cooling does not result in warming, no matter how many “silly semantic games” you try to play. Stick to idiotic trolling attempts – you’ll appear less stupid.

    Carry on.

    • Willard says:

      Mike Flynn,

      You still play the moron –

      “Sure, the Earth is warmer than absolute zero”

      The atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.

      Slows down.

      It’s not just a difference in temperature.

      It’s a difference of temperature in time.

      Deceitful cretin.

      • Swenson says:

        Wee Willy Idiot,

        Well, gee. The Earth has taken four and a half billion years to cool to its present temperature. What are you whining about? Lord Kelvin was a bit out, wasn’t he – he calculated the age of the Earth to be no more than 40 million years. He was ignorant of radioactivity and radiogenic heat. He thought it should have cooled faster, too.

        Are you claiming that the GHE is responsible for the slow rate of cooling of the Earth? Or are you just being an idiotic troll? You wrote –

        “It’s not just a difference in temperature.

        It’s a difference of temperature in time.”

        You are certainly babbling now. So the surface has cooled – that’s hardly earth-shattering news. Do you think the Earth should have cooled faster than it has? It didn’t, you idiot.

        What you “think” affects not a single physical fact. If you need a GHE to explain the cooling of the Earth, you are quite deranged. You might as well stick to trolling – you have now decided that the GHE allows the Earth to cool, rather than get hotter, but you still refuse to describe the GHE!

        I don’t blame you. Why look like more of an idiot than you are?

        Carry on.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        The Chewbacca Defense again?

        Deceitful cretin.

      • Swenson says:

        At last you have revealed part of the GHE description –

        The greenhouse effect is a phenomenon, which can be observed as follows –

        “The atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.

        Slows down.

        Its not just a difference in temperature.

        Its a difference of temperature in time.”

        Is that it, or is there more?

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        Another:

        “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1497308

        Deceitful cretin.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

  80. Gordon Robertson says:

    clint…who has hidden behind several other nyms in the past, talks to me about trolling. He has claimed…

    “You didnt know E/M can easily be measured. You dont understand current flow. You dont know how to measure energy. Now you cant understand entropy.

    The entropy equation you keep using refers to temperature and energy, which you also cant understand. You reject the reality that the concept of entropy has vastly expanded in the last 150 years. You reject both Boltzmanns work and Shannons work”.

    ***

    I began to notice an immaturity in your character a while back in the manner you became intolerant with posters who disagreed with you. Rather than take the time to explain your disagreement, you simply attacked. It occurred to me that you simply lacked the understanding of science to respond coherently but I gave you benefit of the doubt. After this unwarranted attack on my abilities I am now convinced you are just another dumbass with a big mouth.

    No energy can be measured directly because no one knows what energy is. Whatever it is, energy motivates matter to do something or other, but the source of that motivation is a mystery.

    EM cannot be measured directly because there is no instrument that can detect it to measure it. A traditional method with lower frequency EM is to use an antenna in which EM induces a voltage/current. The voltage/current is another form of energy called electrical energy, so we use electrical energy to measure EM. But what is electrical energy?

    The relationship between electrical and magnetic energy was investigated in the 19th century by experimenters like Faraday. Lenz, etc. They found the phenomenon indirectly by holding a compass near a current-carrying conductor and noted that the compass needle deflected, indicating a magnetic field.

    To this day, no one knows what an electric field is, or a magnetic field. They know the properties but cannot explain the energy. They can distinguish one energy from another based on the properties but they cannot explain the energy itself. So, how do you measure something you know nothing about? You do it by observing the effect it has on matter.

    As far as current flow is concerned, if you dare to contradict my understanding of current flow I will kick your sorry butt.

    I explained entropy to you and you were too dumb to understand the explanation, which I took straight from the words of Clausius. He explained it in words as a summation of heat quantities, but you don’t even understand heat, regarding it as a measure of energy without stating the kind of energy.

    I warned you not to mess with me, and if you insist, I will gladly reveal you as the idiot you are. It will surely be a major embarrassment for you to be shut down by someone you regard as a troll.

    You don’t even know what a troll is.

    • Clint R says:

      Same rules now apply to you, Gordon. If you want to learn, drop the troll tactics.

      • bobdroege says:

        Troll Fight!

        We’re gonna have a Troll Fight!

        Get your tickets!

        Popcorn anyone?

      • Ken says:

        Trolls are winning. UN is trying to push censorship on everyone with a contrary opinion to the narrative.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        The UN are far to stupid to be trolls. They really believe their propaganda and a real troll does not care about understanding, he/she simply wants to disrupt and interfere.

      • Swenson says:

        bobdroege, please stop trolling.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        You don’t need a ticket, you are a contestant, the odds are in your favor.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        clint is too stupid to understand the meaning of troll. No troll who values his trolling, would ever write a lengthy post on the basics of physics. A troll is far more likely to offer insults and ad homs, which can be effectively posted in short blurbs. Trolls hate detail and get agitated when posts get longer than a few sentences. They don’t want detail getting in the way of their hate speech.

        An especially good indicator of a troll is his emotional state and maturity level. He tries to control, and when his control is resisted, he breaks out the insults and ad homs.

        Another mark of a troll is his inability to deal with criticism. When someone disagrees, the troll responds with anger and more insults.

        Finally, some trolls fancy themselves as group leaders and teachers. When someone challenges that control, the troll responds with the typical ad homs and insults.

  81. Gordon Robertson says:

    norman…”You claim a hot object cannot absorb energy from a colder one. This goes against established physics …”

    ***

    Not really, Norman. It is a well-known fact that energy cannot move from a region of lower potential energy to a region of higher potential energy, by its own means. We all know that water from a pond won’t flow freely up a hill, unless it is pumped. A boulder won’t spontaneously raise itself to a higher level.

    We also know that heat can’t be transferred from a lower potential energy state to a higher potential energy state, by its on means. When we do move heat from a colder region to a hotter region we do it by means of special gases and we compress the gas with a compressor. When we compress the gas, we raise its pressure and its temperature, and we can release that heat through a radiator to a hotter region that the cooler region from which the heat was extracted to warm the gas.

    We can’t compress the gas without a machine to compress it and the power to run the machine.

    Quantum theory corroborates that for heat. In order to raise the temperature of matter it is necessary to excite electrons in atoms to a higher energy states. Bohr proved that the energy and frequency of EM has to be specific in order to have it be absorbed by electrons in atoms. That specificity cannot be met by EM from cooler bodies which contacts a hotter body.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      You are scrambling concepts together that don’t match at all. In simple terms you are trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

      Yes a rock cannot move from a lower gravitational potential to a higher one without an energy input. That is NOT at all the same as an object radiating energy.

      I have told you to try a simple experiment to prove you are not correct in your declarations. Why you will not do it is your own problem.

      I have done it, take an IR camera and stand between a hotter object and a colder one. Turn the camera to the hot object. Only IR gets through the lens to the array and only IR from the object it is pointed act goes through the lens. The hot object will show up in the camera based upon the IR it gives off. Turn to the cold object and it also gives off IR.

      Also it is hopeless with you on molecular vibrations. You need to let it go, You just can’t understand how it works and keep ignoring it. A whole science of spectroscopy based upon it that identifies unknown compounds based upon it, equations on molecular vibrations that work and produce results that can be measured and you still reject established and used science. When you are at that level of science denial it is hopeless. You don’t even want to learn. In one post said you are humble and can admit you are wrong. I see zero evidence of that at all. You are wrong and just ignore the mounds of evidence that prove you are wrong (like many IR spectrometers that produce IR spectra of compounds based upon their known molecular vibrations).

      Science denial gets really old on this blog. Wish the science deniers would at least try to learn some before they choose to post.

      • Ken says:

        GR is a blatherskite. He only writes his own; he doesn’t read anyone elses or if he does, he isn’t learning from it.

        There is no point in casting pearls before swine.

      • Willard says:

        [KENNUI] Trolls are winning. UN is trying to push censorship on everyone with a contrary opinion to the narrative.

        [ALSO KENNUI] GR is a blatherskite. He only writes his own; he doesnt read anyone elses or if he does, he isnt learning from it. There is no point in casting pearls before swine.

        These two comments have been written at a 2-min interval.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ken…I have tried to engage you in a conversation about your authority figure, Happer. You have offered nothing that would suggest you understand what Happer is talking about. I have pointed out several issues with Happer’s paper yet you seem unable to address my critique.

        I have also tried to encourage you to work out the science for yourself. You seem prone to finding an article that suits you and regurgitating it, even if you misunderstand what the article is saying. Why don’t you consider studying at a university level? You may not even have to attend university if you begin at a level you can fully understand then apply yourself.

        For example, you read a wiki article on the Moon, in which it was clearly stated that the Moon orbits the Earth, yet you insisted for some reason that it is orbiting the Sun. You mistook an implied orbit of a non-existent barycentre for the orbit of the Moon about the Sun and called me a blatherskite when I tried to point out the error.

        Who is the real blatherskite here?

        We agree on important issues like climate alarm, the truckers’ protest, Trudeau being an idiot, and the covid nonsense, so I have no interest in making you look bad. However, I can do nothing about you agreeing with Norman and his pseudo-science. The fact that you don’t contradict what he wrote earlier suggests to me that you fail to grasp the error in his post.

      • Willard says:

        C’mon, Bordo.

        We all know the answer to rhetorical question.

        It’s Mike Flynn.

        Now, if you could stop politicking, that’d be great.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”Yes a rock cannot move from a lower gravitational potential to a higher one without an energy input. That is NOT at all the same as an object radiating energy”.

        ***

        You are missing the underlying point. As you raise a rock above the surface, you are increasing its potential energy. If the rock is released at a higher potential energy, it will fall to the surface due to gravitational force. The rock cannot move from the surface, by its own means, to a higher level of potential energy.

        This principle is exactly the same for a body radiating energy in that energy of any type cannot move from a lower state of potential energy to a state of higher potential energy by its own means. The mechanism differ but the principle is still the same.

        With radiation, the mechanism involves electrons and their energy levels. The energy levels of electrons are governed by the temperature of the mass in which they exist. If you increase the temperature, the electrons will move to higher energy levels and if you increase it enough, they will leap right out of their energy orbitals, resulting in the destruction of the mass.

        That applies equally to radiation. If electrons are bombarded by EM radiation from a much higher temperature source, they will jump to ever increasing orbital energy levels. However, if that heat source is lower than the ambient mass temperature in which the electrons exist, they will not even absorb the EM.

        —–

        “I have done it, take an IR camera and stand between a hotter object and a colder one. Turn the camera to the hot object. Only IR gets through the lens to the array and only IR from the object it is pointed act goes through the lens. The hot object will show up in the camera based upon the IR it gives off. Turn to the cold object and it also gives off IR”.

        ***

        The cameras are not measuring heat, they are responding to frequencies emitted by either body. As Swenson keeps pointing out, all matter above 0K emits EM. It’s not surprising then that both bodies at different temperatures are emitting IR.

        You are inferring something more. You are inferring that IR given off by the cooler body is absorbed by the hotter body, and that is not possible.

        —-

        “Also it is hopeless with you on molecular vibrations. You need to let it go, You just cant understand how it works and keep ignoring it. A whole science of spectroscopy based upon it that identifies unknown compounds based upon it….”

        ***

        I keep trying to explain that the word molecule is simply a name for two or more atoms bonded by valence shell electrons. There is nothing in a molecule but the nucleii of various atoms and the electrons that bond them. Therefore, any radiation into or from a molecule is subject to electron radiation and absorp-tion.

        Electron bonds and electronegativity account for all of the vibration and rotation. Electrons set up all the polarities in molecules, without them, molecules could not exist nor would there be any charges, as referenced in dipoles.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        YOU: “I keep trying to explain that the word molecule is simply a name for two or more atoms bonded by valence shell electrons. There is nothing in a molecule but the nucleii of various atoms and the electrons that bond them. Therefore, any radiation into or from a molecule is subject to electron radiation and absorp-tion,”

        I keep telling you the correct science answer and you continue to reject in favor of your misguided beliefs. There is a charge difference in some molecules and when they vibrate the charge vibrates as well generating an electromagnetic field. If the vibration goes to a level above ground state it will release the energy in the form of an IR photon and go down to a lower vibrational state. The charges are what is moving in the molecule. The electrons are not transitioning in this energy exchange, only the charges of the molecules that vibrate back and forth and have a specific frequency of vibration that matches the IR emitted.

        You are so anti-science it is not really funny. You don’t know enough real science to realize how ignorant you are as you blather on and on about things you know nothing about.

        You are far far from a humble learner that can admit when they are wrong. You are very arrogant and stuck in your twisted deluded thinking that no evidence can change.

        Here you claim most arrogantly “You are inferring something more. You are inferring that IR given off by the cooler body is absorbed by the hotter body, and that is not possible.”

        Based on what??? Your opinion of how you think things should work. You have no evidence at all to support it but you make it as a factual claim when it is not at all. Just your misguided ignorant opinion of things you can’t understand.

        Basically you are a science denier. You will not examine evidence and when presented to you you reject it without consideration.

        https://www.masterorganicchemistry.com/2016/11/23/quick_analysis_of_ir_spectra/

        The link is of a whole established science you deny and reject in favor of your own invalid interpretation of EMR emission. Just based upon what you believe and nothing more.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      “We all know that water from a pond wont flow freely up a hill, unless it is pumped.”

      The trees beg to differ, they don’t pump water from the ground to the treetops.

      • Swenson says:

        bobdroege,

        Of course they do. Do you believe the tree gods magically make water flow uphill?

        Pumps are not all mechanical contrivances. Biological pumps exist, and trees use one type, as this extract from Nature points out –

        “Unlike animals, plants lack a metabolically active pump like the heart to move fluid in their vascular system. Instead, water movement is passively driven by pressure and chemical potential gradients.”

        I have to point out that if you dont like my use of “pump”, you shouldn’t have changed a pond into a tree.

        Cold objects do not magically create energy to heat hotter ones (if they didnt, the cold body would get even colder, which it doesn’t), and the reason you cannot describe the GHE is because it doesn’t exist.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Thanks, Swenson, it’s a chore, at times, keeping up with the dimwits. I reasoned there was some sort of pumping action but you put it better…”Do you believe the tree gods magically make water flow uphill”?

      • bobdroege says:

        It’s actually called capillary action, like how I use a capillary tube to draw a sample up into the tube to deliver a precise amount of fluid for testing.

        Under certain circumstances, water does flow up hill.

      • Willard says:

        Come on, Bordo:

        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-large-trees-such-a

        Hard to tell if you are more incredulous than incurious.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        bobdroege, Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  82. Norman says:

    Clint R

    Above you posted this: “For example, you see the radiative heat transfer equation all over the Internet, but you never find it is a reputable physics book. The bogus equation has NO scientific derivation, and is easily debunked. It is popular among the GHE cult, because they believe it means cold can warm hot.

    These are you words and it is very easy to prove them wrong.

    Here:
    https://tinyurl.com/3kpbf5ta

    If the link works it takes you to a site that offers free heat transfer textbooks. I downloaded three of them and all three include the “heat transfer” equation in the texts and verify that the heat transfer of a hot object is based upon what it emits minus what it receives from its surroundings. If you dig deeper you also find they are most certainly aware of reflection but that does not alter the radiant heat transfer equation.

    There are three that prove your statement false. Do you have even one source that proves you correct? If so link to it I would be interested in reading it. Also evidence is NOT LINKING to posts you made on this blog. That is not science. Science is about evidence. Links to your own posts is circular reasoning and invalid as evidence. Support your claims.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      “…all three include the heat transfer equation in the texts and verify that the heat transfer of a hot object is based upon what it emits minus what it receives from its surroundings”.

      ***

      I think you are misunderstanding the situation for radiation. The difference between the two temperatures determines the direction of the heat transfer. It does not imply that heat is being transferred both ways simultaneously.

      The Sun is hotter than Earth therefore it heats the Earth through the conversion of EM. Radiation from the Earth does not heat the Sun.

      A large quantity of ice suspended above the Earth’s surface does not heat the surface, but radiation from the surface can cause heating in the ice.

      I have seen this crap presented in textbooks but they never offer a concrete example. What good is an equation that has no application?

      If radiation is applied, it is normally with convection and conduction as part of the problem. Heat can only be transferred one way by conduction/convection, so why would radiation involved be transferring it both ways?

      • Ball4 says:

        Gordon, yet again, EMR is NOT heat. EMR transfers internal thermodynamic energy both ways between objects.

        Heat cannot be transferred either way by conduction & radiation between solids since the vibrating molecules remain fixed in place; radiation is involved with 2 bodies in view emitting/absorbing EMR both ways.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        b4…”EMR is NOT heat. EMR transfers internal thermodynamic energy both ways between objects”.

        ***

        In the first sentence you correctly claim EM is not heat. In the second sentence you contradict that by claiming it transfers internal thermodynamics energy, which is heat.

        I don’t know how you got so screwed up about the reality of heat as energy. You mince words by differentiating internal energy as heat but you cannot understand the same energy flowing from that body into another body that is connected to it as a heat flow. Fourier had no problem with that when he created his heat flow equation.

        Clausius claimed that all internal energy is comprised of heat and work. Work represents the internal vibrations of atoms and heat is the energy that motivates them to move. The internal energy of the 1st law was defined by Clausius and he explained it in words as a summation of internal work and heat. Thompson convinced him to substitute the words energy for heat and work. I think Thompson should have minded his on business.

      • Ball4 says:

        Gordon still cannot understand the same energy flowing from that body into another body that is connected to it is a KE flow since the vibrating molecules remain in each solid body & only transfer (“flow”) their thermodynamic KE both ways.

        Same with EMR exchange between bodies: EMR is NOT heat. KE is NOT heat. Internal energy is the total KE of all the object’s molecules at any one time & no one can tell if that internal energy came about from work or a difference in temperature. There is no work in a body; there is no heat contained in a body.

        Gordon remains living in the 1800s when heat was thought to be a physical substance that could be poured from one body to another which was disproved experimentally by Joule mid-century.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        YOU: “If radiation is applied, it is normally with convection and conduction as part of the problem. Heat can only be transferred one way by conduction/convection, so why would radiation involved be transferring it both ways?”

        Heat is transferred only one way. Energy is transferred both ways in conduction as well. If the hot object is conducting to a colder one the amount of heat conducted depends upon the temperature of the colder receiving object. The warmer the cold one is the less heat is transferred.

        Here:
        http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatcond.html

        Conductive heat transfer also depends upon the temperature of the cold body the heat is conduction to. You can play with the calculator to see the effect.

    • Clint R says:

      Thanks for proving me correct, Norman.

      You will never find that RTE in any credible physics book.

      • Norman says:

        Clint R

        You seem confused. I did not prove you correct. You are proven wrong. Heat transfer text books DO include the Radiant Heat Transfer equation.

        Again if you have any physics book you consider “credible” (a word you throw out with no context) give me the name of the book and publisher and I can research it.

        So far every text book I have read on heat transfer includes this equation as do College level lectures you can find online.

        If you don’t provide evidence than you are just stating your unsupported opinion.

        “An opinion is a statement describing a personal belief or thought that cannot be tested (or has not been tested) and is unsupported by evidence. A hypothesis is usually a prediction based on some observation or evidence. Hypotheses must be testable, and once tested, they can be supported by evidence. If a statement is made that cannot be tested and disproved, then it is not a hypothesis. Sometimes it is possible to restate an opinion so that it can become a hypothesis.”

        https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/node/651#:~:text=An%20opinion%20is%20a%20statement,can%20be%20supported%20by%20evidence.

        What you posted is an opinion. It is your personal belief (what you believe credible is) and you have no supporting evidence of any physics book on radiant heat transfer that does not include this equation.

      • Clint R says:

        Norman, you’re back to trolling, again. Consequently, I won’t waste me time.

        I recommend reality. You should try it.

      • Norman says:

        Clint R

        The post is not at all trolling. You asked for credible physics books that include radiant heat transfer equation. I linked you to 3 available ones you can download. No I am not the troll here. I defined opinion for you which is also not trolling. You have yet to provide evidence to support your claim.

      • Clint R says:

        All wrong, Norman. You’re twisting and distorting my words. You’re TROLLING.

        I mentioned that the bogus equation will not be found in a credible physics book. I said it was common all around the In