Home/BlogFor the last decade I’ve been providing long-range U.S. Corn Belt forecasts to a company that monitors and forecasts global grain production and market forces. My continuing theme has been, “don’t believe gloom and doom forecasts for the future of the U.S. Corn Belt”.
The climate models relied upon by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are known to overestimate warming compared to observations. Depending upon the region (global? U.S.?), temperature metric (surface? deep ocean? lower atmosphere?) and time period (last 150 years? last 50 years?) the average model over-estimate of warming can be either large or small.
But nowhere is it more dramatic than in the U.S. Corn Belt during the growing season (June, July, August).
The following plot shows the 50-year area-averaged temperature trend during 1973-2022 for the 12-state corn belt as observed with the official NOAA homogenized surface temperature product (blue bar) versus the same metric from 36 CMIP6 climate models (red bars, SSP245 emissions scenario, output here).
This kind of sanity check is needed because efforts to change U.S. energy policy are based upon climate model predictions, which are often wildly out of line with observed history. This is why environmentalists emphasize models (which can show dramatic change) over actual observations (which are usually unremarkable).
That must explain why Red states keep getting hand-outs from blue states:
https://www.newsweek.com/gavin-newsom-confronts-sean-hannity-blue-states-subsidizing-red-states-1807434
Damn socialists!
They started socialism and are most socialist states in the world.
They’re RED. Hard to out-red-bait the Reds. Always be fasta.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard says:
”Seventy-one percent of the GDP in America are [in] blue counties, progressive policies. Seventy-one percent of the countrys wealth. Seven of the top 10 dependent states are your states.”
Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
In this environment of federal control of the economy is exactly why GDP is going down in the country side as small banks, small businesses, family farms, along with all their workers are suffering.
GDP is based upon the address of the taxpayer, thus all the profits from major corporations are attributable to a single address. Indeed, by far most of the wealthiest most profitable corporations currying favor of the US government are in the blue states.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Meanwhile we are told that the problem with oppression has a residence/headquarters in a red state.
The only thing amazing about all that is we keep thinking the oppression comes from where the propagandists tells us its coming from.
Gill, Gill,
This is an Arby’s.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Always amusing how you indoctrinated woke again government worshippers post the gospel you have been sermonized as if it is somehow original and profound.
Oh, Billy:
https://tinyurl.com/a-little-fascism
Freedom Fighters love to cry about freedom when they’re in the opposition, but somehow often end up committing a little fascism here and there when they’re in power.
Perfect example of your indoctrination in the “woke again” religion, where you once again post the gospel you have been sermonized as if it is truthful and profound with no ability to question.
Much less an available logical explanation.
One of the aggravating features of the mainstream media is the tolerance of the use of Gross State Product contribution vs federal income tax to show that blue states are better than red states. Their tolerance is perhaps due to their ignorance of the measures. Gross State Product is not government expenditures. Gross State Product due to federal spending spending in the state is not the same thing as federal spending in the state. The latter includes welfare payments while the former does not. Yes, California payments in federal income tax exceeds its Gross State Product due to federal spending. This imbalance no doubt is due to the high incomes of of those in the entertainment industry as well as Silicon Valley. However, when welfare spending is included, California receives more federal dollars than it pays in federal income tax.
One of the silly aspect of Freedom Fighters is when they try to rationalize their way out of a tough pickle by editorializing while relying on a trivial factoid:
https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2023/03/24/All-States-Became-Net-Beneficiaries-Federal-Funds-During-Pandemic-Report
On balance per capita, California ranks 43th.
I do not think that you understand the issue. For most people, the issue of GSP contribution compared to federal tax dollars is not of particular interest. But that is often the metric used to mislead people on the distribution of non-GSP payments across various states and on issue of “dependency on the federal budget.
If you want to say that blue states tend to have higher incomes than red states, there is no debate on that issue. Contrary to media imagery, the Republican Party is the party of the low-incomes, particularly the working low-incomes. Meanwhile, through their connections in government, the wealthy find sympathetic ears for programs, loopholes, and treatment that protect and enhance their wealth. Yes, the well-known wealthy people are Democrats who help shape and take advantage of how the government tilts the playing field.
I do not think a Yes But followed by a rant counters my demonstration that your analysis was pure baloney, Enquirer. Red states bite the hand that feed them while crying about God and Freedumb. That you caution this red baiting with more empty rhetoric tells more about your sorry self than anything.
“Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats. Not all families stay on the same side of the political spectrum 15 support candidates from both parties.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2014/07/09/are-americas-richest-families-republicans-or-democrats/
Hardly a list of the richest people Nate. Some of those famiilies as your link says has the fortune divided up among hundreds of family members.
Perhaps you have a citation for us, Gill?
why willard? its in nates link. moron!
A link to a list that would meet your own requirements, Gill.
Is it whole foods that make you this thick?
Willard wants another free sammich.
Willard in case you haven’t noticed there are lists of the world’s (nation’s) richest people all over the web.
So once again Gill has no idea what he is talking about.
People all over the world give to the GOP, Gill?
Am I supposed to care?
Willard says:
That must explain why Red states keep getting hand-outs from blue states:
——————————
You mean by building their products in China, using slave labor enslaved by socialism, then they say they are trying to exchange it for a puny welfare check?
Yeah indeed they have a plan. It kind of looks like something out of the past seen as the Empire builders.
> their products
Whose, Gill?
Keep the red baiting coming!
Willard needs to be spoon fed on this. How about Apple for starters
Gill believes he can try to play Climateball without carrying his weight.
Willard still begging for sammiches .
Gill is still shadowboxing.
Indeed, I agree you are a shadow.
One day you will be able to touch me, Gill.
For that you will have to move your feet.
When the facts are in your favor, pound the facts.
When the facts are against you pound the table.
How’s your fist doing there Willard?
How to remove Willard (et al) from this thread (DropBox files):
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/xgdoigbxynh7xzq09kmns/h?dl=0&rlkey=axxrnd7ca64r0gjsfuwcezf82
Adding the Decrufter to Your Browser
====================================
1. Find and download the decrufter files from DropBox at https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/xgdoigbxynh7xzq09kmns/h?dl=0&rlkey=axxrnd7ca64r0gjsfuwcezf82
2. The “HOW TO INSTALL.txt” has these instructions.
3. Open your Firefox, Chrome, Brave, or Edge (Chromium-based) browser.
4. Download and install the “User Javascript and CSS” extension (UJCSS) by tenRabbits. Pin the extension to the browsers toolbar.
5. Navigate to DrRoySpencer.com.
6. Click the UJCSS icon and click “+ Add new”.
7. Supply a name (next to “<- Settings") such as "Dr. Roy Cruft Eraser".
8. In a text editor, open the DrRoy-Decrufter.js file and paste it into the JS pane of the UJCSS tab (see appropriate .png image.)
9. Notice the list of "offenders" as "regular expressions" (geek stuff). Edit this as needed for future offenders.
10. Click the yellow "Save" button.
11. A green "Successfully saved" popup breifly displays.
12. Close the UJCSS tab and fresh the DrRoySpencer.com tab. Poof! All of the offenders' posts are gone!
How to not read WizGeek:
1. Spot Wizgeek says.
2. Skip the comment.
3. There is no third step.
Willard says:
”Damn socialists!”
Your right Willard. The Red States are trying to get those federal funds spent on socialism out of their states as the money is used to squash coal production, oil production, even farm production, ranching, forestry lock downs. Turn off the federal spending in enforcing that crap and see what happens.
If Earth had 1/2 as much gravity, what would it’s global average temperature. be?
I know where you are going with this. But I really don’t want to spend any more time on it.
I don’t know where I am going with this- other than it seems it has lot questions.
I would guess global average temperature would be significantly higher.
Where’s Christos when we need him?
If it had the same spin, wouldn’t it be colder?
“If it had the same spin, wouldnt it be colder?”
Everything same, just 1/2 of gravity.
Why, cooler?
So, I would say you have less surface air pressure and air density and lapse rate is less.
And you have higher troposphere.
Also it seems the evaporation of water [vapor pressure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water ] isn’t effected by gravity but pressure of atmosphere is halved.
So would need twice as much water vapor pressure to equal 1 gee
Earth.
But mainly it seems Earth atmosphere would have a more uniform temperature and more uniformity = higher global temperature.
But I starting wondering about the tropopause and not sure how 1/2 gravity it would effect it.
I’m thinking 1/2 gravity, then lower mass. Lower mass, less atmosphere. Less atmosphere, colder.
Lower gravity less weight.
But though though less mass of air at surface.
If have lower density air which is 15 C, it would be less cold.
And less density hot air would likewise heat less- but
this never been a problem in regard on Earth.
Or a 70 C temperature sidewalk could be called a problem-
particularly if not wearing shoes.
And when I say warmer I don’t mean hot- I mean more towards greenhouse global climate rather being our current Ice Age global climate.
Oh, actually ground could get hotter, due less convectional cooling.
But as said one would more water vapor. So hottest ground or sidewalk could get on Earth is around 70 C which requires an air temperature around 40 C or more. And due to local conditions or weather effects you could get the ground heating up to 75 C.
What is highest measured ground temperature:
“The highest natural ground surface temperature ever recorded may have been an alleged reading of 93.9 C (201.0 F) at Furnace Creek, California, United States, on 15 July 1972. In 2011, a ground temperature of 84 C (183.2 F) was recorded in Port Sudan, Sudan.”
-wiki
Hmm. Well normally it’s 70 C and I can’t explain these situations.
But if 1/2 gravity it seems 75 C could be more common.
gb,
Unlike Dr Spencer, I have no idea where you are going with this.
Is gravity reduced due to changed composition, hollow interior, reduced size or what?
How hot is it? Is the interior glowing hot?
I don’t believe gravity affects temperature, per se. I assume water at 20C will be at 20 C regardless of whether it is at zero G or otherwise.
I would be happy if you let me know if I am wrong, and importantly, why.
I think he’s saying if the Earth were half the mass but the same size. I think it would fly apart.
I guess I am thinking of finding a planet like Earth- and if planet had 1/2 of Earth’s gravity, it seems could be counted as being like Earth.
Also I was thinking about Earth before it got it’s Moon- I tend to go with idea that there was a pronto Earth which got hit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis
And also about making a planet like Earth with the plan of having it
have 1/2 of Earth’s gravity.
[If you were making a Earth like planet which had 1/2 the gravity, you might want it to have more geothermal energy than Earth has.]
But mainly I thinking of it, as climate question: How much effect does having 1 gee gravity, affect our global average temperature.
And I was wondering mostly about troposphere and tropopause above it.
Or in the past, I have wondered a lot about what the effect of 1/2ing or doubling the Earth’s atmospheric mass would be.
INM-CM5-0. The russian climate model. Model ECS 1.9 C. Even that’s too much.
A global climate model ensemble for downscaled monthly climate normals over North America
Colin R. Mahony, Tongli Wang, Andreas Hamann, Alex J. Cannon
First published: 13 February 2022
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7566
Others agree with you. They suggest that increased evapotranspiration is the underlying cause of the unexpectedly low rate of warming in the Corn Belt.
Any thoughts?
https://www.science.org/content/article/america-s-corn-belt-making-its-own-weather
AKA, negative feedback from the greening of the globe.
”The amount of corn harvested in this region annually has increased by 400% since 1950, from 2 billion to 10 billion bushels. Iowa leads the country for the most corn produced per state.”
Havent we been told that warmer is better for everything? But not in the corn belt..
Its better in the corn belt and it has warmed. The only thing fukked up as usual is every single model overestimated how much warming would occur.
“Its better in the corn belt and it has warmed.”
Not according to this Roy post.
Roy said: ”Climate Models Greatly Overestimate Corn Belt Warming”. He didn’t say there was zero warming.
the blue bar shows about .13 degrees warming since 1973. the red bars of the models that show a mean model warming about 4 times greater than that.
As to being better, farmers are producing far higher yields per acre in part due to CO2 increases. Roy doesn’t go into that but its well documented.
Bill Hunter: “the blue bar shows about .13 degrees warming since 1973.” should read: “the blue bar shows about .13 degrees warming per decade since 1973.” or .65 degrees warming over the 50-year period. It is stated in the description of the vertical column.
Yes we read the article.
And we understand that he failed to mention the mitigating factor of agricultural intensification in the region.
Nate gives a gobbledygook answer.
What is the agricultural intensification?
Definition. Source. References. An increase in agricultural production per unit of inputs (which may be labour, land, time, fertilizer, seed, feed or cash).
Hmmm, so what is it in the corn belt Nate? All of the above? Labor goes down with improved equipment which goes up. Maybe they need less fertilizer with more CO2 being absorbed by plants? Land use in the region may have gone up but that doesn’t explain increase in yield per acre. Growing seasons have probably increased due to less extreme weather contrary to warmist nutcase predictions thus increasing time intensification.
So how does your answer respond to the topic at hand Nate. Quite simply your ilk’s propensity to prophesize disaster has put you in a community of tinfoil hat backseat drivers.
How do you respond to that?
Read the several posts on this topic.
Once again the conversation gets too specific and Nate bails out.
And endless stream of faux grievances from Bill.
Just commenting on how every time the conversation moves to a level of detail below the talking points your handlers fed you. . . .suddenly you are complaining and dodging.
Have you thought of building corn audit dot org, Gill?
No need to JAQ off in an Arbys.
Did you find the other posts on the topic? Yes u did.
Now quit bitching.
Hmmm, there are other posts but none of the has nor points to a statistically sensible argument in support of your points.
We already know you don’t even know if one exists.
>This kind of sanity check is needed because efforts to change U.S. energy policy are based upon climate model predictions, which are often wildly out of line with observed history.
The leftists are in control and are insane.
A research project for you, Troglodyte:
https://twitter.com/hilaryagro/status/1229177598003077123
I ignore your links, Wiltard. I think most do.
I could not care less what you think or do, Troglodyte.
Now you’re lying, Wiltard.
Hey, wait, that’s your modus operandi.
Nobody cares about another troglodyte on the Internet, Troglodyte:
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm
Willard, please stop babbling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
INM-CM5-0, Russian climate model. Model ECS 1.9 K. Even that’s too high.
CIESM, Chinese climate model, has an ECS of 5.67 K.
Might be of interest to someone.
A global climate model ensemble for downscaled monthly climate normals over North America
Colin R. Mahony, Tongli Wang, Andreas Hamann, Alex J. Cannon
First published: 13 February 2022
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7566
Got a 60% chance of cyclone formation in Atlantic:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
Over here, on other side, still got 20% chance of one forming.
Let’s do sun:
Solar wind
speed: 489.1 km/sec
density: 1.63 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 120
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 157 sfu
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.83×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.3% Below Average
Maintaining moderate activity, and room for it to get busy in next week. No one has predicted it right, but still no one predicted it
wrong, yet. {Unless you count my guess that it would be a lot more active in June].
In terms Hurricane season, it seems everyone is going with a normal one.
“28th most important thing in the world”- Dale
Episode 2142 Scott Adams: Trump & Truth, Systemic Racism Cortisol Theory, Schiff Censure, AI Debates
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_fXaoPFX80
I would like to see Kennedy vs Biden AI debate
It would be so much better than the real thing.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/16/texas-heat-wave-water-break-construction-workers/
As the saying goes, the cruelty is the point.
Roy chose the right side.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“As the saying goes, the cruelty is the point.”
That’s one up on you – you don’t have a point at all.
Are you still claiming that the GHE is really a synonym for “cooling over time”?
As opposed to what? Instantaneous magic cooling? You might as stick to pointless trolling. If you get good enough, you might even be able to annoy someone! You don’t seem to be succeeding all that well at present.
Try harder.
Mike Flynn,
I did not know you were the kind of guy to try to find your soul.
Where was the last place you looked, deceitful cretin?
Cheers.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote
“As the saying goes, the cruelty is the point.”
Thats one up on you you dont have a point at all.
Are you still claiming that the GHE is really a synonym for “cooling over time”?
As opposed to what? Instantaneous magic cooling? You might as stick to pointless trolling. If you get good enough, you might even be able to annoy someone! You dont seem to be succeeding all that well at present.
Try harder.
You already said that, Moron Mike.
Deceitful cretin.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote
“As the saying goes, the cruelty is the point.”
That’s one up on you you don’t have a point at all.
Are you still claiming that the GHE is really a synonym for “cooling over time”?
As opposed to what? Instantaneous magic cooling? You might as stick to pointless trolling. If you get good enough, you might even be able to annoy someone! You dont seem to be succeeding all that well at present.
Try harder.
Moron Mike,
Try harder?
So that you will copy-paste your stupid trolling again?
Deceitful cretin.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote
“As the saying goes, the cruelty is the point.”
Thats one up on you you dont have a point at all.
Are you still claiming that the GHE is really a synonym for “cooling over time”?
As opposed to what? Instantaneous magic cooling? You might as stick to pointless trolling. If you get good enough, you might even be able to annoy someone! You dont seem to be succeeding all that well at present.
Try harder.
Moron Mike,
You know the drill –
Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor.
Do you think an atmosphere would keep him warm for a longer time than without an atmosphere?
Cheers.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote
“As the saying goes, the cruelty is the point.”
Thats one up on you you dont have a point at all.
Are you still claiming that the GHE is really a synonym for “cooling over time”?
As opposed to what? Instantaneous magic cooling? You might as stick to pointless trolling. If you get good enough, you might even be able to annoy someone! You dont seem to be succeeding all that well at present.
Try harder.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Here you go:
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons
Sometimes it is difficult to discern whether the moronic posts like yours are from stupid people, the woke again indoctrinated government worshippers or paid propagandist trolls.
Oh, Billy.
In return, the URL under your name leads to teh Goddard.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Dr. Spencer
I do not know where you get your model numbers from. I was looking at how models compare with observation and here is one I came up with.
https://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/hausfather_2020_evaluating_historical_gmst_projections.pdf
The models seem to match observations fairly closely. In the article they point out some run hot, others cold but not by a huge amount.
Norman,
You wrote –
“I do not know where you get your model numbers from.”
Maybe you could try asking?
Fool.
Norman
Pardon the previous sarcasm (or not, as you wish).
Try reading Dr Spencer’s words, particularly ” . . . versus the same metric from 36 CMIP6 climate models (red bars, SSP245 emissions scenario, output . . . ), and follow the link.
That might be a good place to start.
You don’t need to pardon that sarcasm.
“I do not know where you get your model numbers from”
Try
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Corn-belt-JJA-Tas-obs-vs-CMIP6-550×465.jpg
Apparently, according to bdgwx, this has been well know about for decades.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1499315
My post is in reference to the US cornbelt region. Norman’s post is in reference to the whole planet. As such I don’t think my post is meaningfully relevant to Norman’s post.
I think it is broadly agreed that the models, local or global, are running too hot.
The outright provable deception is the real issue. People and organizations that are purposefully deceptive are not to be trusted. Jurors sitting for a trial are given various instruction by the judge. Two are very important and translate to daily life: Statements by the attorneys are not facts. If you believe a witness has lied, you can disregard their entire testimony.
Tim S,
Are you implying that because Michael Mann is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, nothing he says is true? Or maybe that because Gavin Schmidt is an incompetent and deceptive mathematician, that his claims to be a “climate scientist” are laughable?
What is your point?
“People and organizations that are purposefully deceptive are not to be trusted”
Strange how people always think that ‘god’ is on their side.
You must be able to state the specific impact of CO2 from human activity on any climate factor be it atmospheric temperature, ocean temperature, ocean salinity, snowfall, storm frequency or severity, drought frequency or severity, etcetera.
What we should be asking for is the specific evidence showing CO2 has a specific effect on temperature. No one has been able to do that.
Senator Malcolm Roberts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-uQ9XmG7ig&ab_channel=TomNelson
> No one has been able to do that.
Wanna bet?
Wee Willy Idiot,
Are you challenging his claim, or just demonstrating that you are an idiot?
If you are challenging his claim, then all you need to do is demonstrate that CO2 has a specific effect on temperature.
You can’t even describe the GHE! All you can do is imply it creates “slower cooling”.
You idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Are you Kennui?
No?
Then what are you braying about?
Deceitful cretin.
Wee Willy Idiot,
Are you challenging his claim, or just demonstrating that you are an idiot?
If you are challenging his claim, then all you need to do is demonstrate that CO2 has a specific effect on temperature.
You cant even describe the GHE! All you can do is imply it creates slower cooling.
You idiot.
Playing dumb again, Moron Mike?
Here:
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons
Deceitful cretin.
Wee Willy Idiot,
Are you challenging his claim, or just demonstrating that you are an idiot?
If you are challenging his claim, then all you need to do is demonstrate that CO2 has a specific effect on temperature.
You cant even describe the GHE! All you can do is imply it creates slower cooling.
You idiot.
Deceitful cretin:
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ken,
The fact that we’re here falsifies the whole CO2 effect on climate theory.
https://media.tenor.com/gy2pftWodqYAAAAC/giggles.gif
Willard, please stop trolling.
Today’s temperatures are not unprecedented.
We are in the coldest last couple millions years as compared to last tens of millions of years. Our interglacial period has been the coolest, and we are thousands of years from the warmer part of this cooler interglacial period.
We have recovered from the coldest time of this interglacial period which is known as the Little Ice Age.
Past interglacial periods had sea levels 4 meter higher than present sea levels. And all had ice free polar sea ice in the summer {and somehow the polar bears survive thousands years of this].
> not unprecedented
I’ll bite – since when?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Spray more irrigation water on fields than in the past and have vastly more growing plants releasing water, and it will be more wet…and cooler.
And that seems to be the case in the corn belt.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/261/phdi/1/8/1895-2023?trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1970&endtrendyear=2023
So extra water is more important than CO2?
Why do you post dumb non-sequiturs?
So you did not mean what you posted?
Severe thunderstorms and tornadoes in the southern US. The low resembles a tropical cyclone.
https://i.ibb.co/MPJYcg7/goes16-ir-us.gif
The temperatures this summer is quite moderate.
https://i.ibb.co/chzjDFL/gfs-T2ma-us-21.png
The end of the ski season in the Sierra Nevada is still a long way off.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/namer/mimictpw_namer_latest.gif
The issue this year is simple. We still have the La Nina effect, less water vapor and high pressure in high latitudes from where the air flows south. With low solar activity, there is a stagnation of zonal circulation in the North Pacific and Atlantic.
Very weak solar wind.
https://space.umd.edu/pm/latest2week.png
Solar Minimum Update
Every corner of the United States has been affected by a string of violent storms so far this year, some which have reduced entire towns to ruins and led to tremendous losses of life.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/weather/2023/06/16/photos-storms-air-floods-2023-climate-disasters/70326505007/
So is that the end of La Nina or the Sun?
To a cycle nut?
The idiots are loud in here.
I’m sure a cycle nut, even of junior caliber, could find more than two ways to go But ABC:
https://climateball.net/but-ABC
ABC standing for Anything But CO2.
I just follow and post the data (with accurate filters applied).
Willard seems to think that
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1499315
is wrong.
Richard does not seem to think.
He just reacts.
Willard is still an idiot.
You must be able to state the specific impact of CO2 from human activity on any climate factor be it atmospheric temperature, ocean temperature, ocean salinity, snowfall, storm frequency or severity, drought frequency or severity, etcetera.
Actually the storms are due to wavier jet stream
which is the result of cooling stratosphere
which is the result of lower energy from the sun.
No evidence of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion having any effect.
You are saying stuff, Kennui.
Easier when one has no skin in the game.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If temperatures in the climate system are modulated by the Sun and only the Sun wouldn’t you expect the troposphere and hydrosphere to cool as well?
The hydrosphere’s temperature, on average and taken as a whole, is quite low already.
“At 2000 meters, (6,560 feet) the global average temperature is about 2.5C (36.5 F), and at some locations the ocean bottom temperature is less than 1C (33.8 F)”
“is quite low already” which has nothing to do with whether it has been cooling.
bdgwx says:
”If temperatures in the climate system are modulated by the Sun and only the Sun wouldnt you expect the troposphere and hydrosphere to cool as well?”
No, not necessarily at the same time. There is the issue of feedbacks and how long they last and what order they occur in.
Since even the warmists acknowledge regional climate length periods of cooling and warming and even claim them to be out of sync with true forcings. . . .even asking such a question calls into question as to how well they have thought out their own theory.
A classic example of this is the period from 1760 to 1850 where glacial ice was rapidly advancing creating tremendous cooling feedbacks without any cooling occurring in the climate system.
The classic explanation was after a 60 year one degree advance in temperatures at the end of the Maunder Minimum the feedback system continued with sufficient feedback cooling to offset the LIA recovery until the ice advanced to lower elevations where they stopped providing new acreages of cooling feedback. . . .then an ice area change pause ensued as the LIA recovery again became realized in climate temperatures and beginning to sponsor its own positive feedback program with retreating glacial ice.
Then as Dr Syun Akasofu proposed this was all layered into a well documented multi-decadal ocean current turnover pattern that features shorter climate variation processes.
Then along comes the corporate environmental community to take advantage of the situation and proclaim all climate variation as being due to CO2 when clearly it is not.
“which is the result of cooling stratosphere
No evidence of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion having any effect.”
No, Ken.
As Roy noted a couple of weeks ago, discussing the stratospheric cooling.
“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.”
Nate takes ”benefit of the doubt” to be his best statistically sensible proof of the effects of CO2.
Gill fails to mention that stratospheric cooling is predicted by greenhouse theory.
As if Manabe was onto something and the Sky Dragon cranks were full of it.
Willard says:
Gill fails to mention that stratospheric cooling is predicted by greenhouse theory.
As if Manabe was onto something and the Sky Dragon cranks were full of it.
————————
Manabe in hearing of the Nobel Prize exclaimed he was surprised the Nobel committee would give an award in physics for ”applied physics”, but continued that he was greatly honored and appreciative.
Obviously Manabe gave the theory arising out of Modtran the benefit of the doubt also.
“Manabe gave the theory arising out of Modtran”
Modtran came after Manabe’s work.
Perhaps the Modtran name had not yet been invented yet which leaves us wondering what the name of the science was that Manabe applied. When you ask that question you always get referred to Modtran.
So what shell is the pea under Nate? Have a statistically sensible argument to make here in this game of sneaking peas out from under shells. Apparently not! You have chosen to renege every time you have been challenged on this.
” which leaves us wondering what the name of the science was that Manabe applied.”
As ever Bill spews ignorance combined with certainty that science must be getting it all wrong.
Nate punts yet again.
Willard says:
”Solar Minimum Update
Every corner of the United States has been affected by a string of violent storms so far this year, some which have reduced entire towns to ruins and led to tremendous losses of life.”
Thats funnier than sheesh. Willard actually believes climate change caused a sinkhole. LMAO!
This is a very well known and researched topic already. It has been known for decades that the agricultural intensification in the midwest would suppress temperatures. Models don’t handle the suppression well because of a lack adequate land use inputs and parameterization schemes. Here is but an extremely small subset of the available literature within just the last few years.
Mueller et al. 2016 DOI 10.1038/nclimate2825 – Cooling of US Midwest summer temperature extremes from cropland intensification
Lin et al. 2017 DOI 10.1038/s41467-017-01040-2 – Causes of model dry and warm bias over central U.S. and impact on climate projections
Alter et al. 2018 DOI 10.1002/2017GL075604 – Twentieth Century Regional Climate Change During the Summer in the Central United States Attributed
to Agricultural Intensification
Zhang et al. 2018 DOI 10.1002/2017JD027200 – Diagnosis of the Summertime Warm Bias in CMIP5 Climate Models at the ARM Southern Great Plains Site
Qian et al. 2020 DOI 10.1038/s41612-020-00135-w – Neglecting irrigation contributes to the simulated summertime warm-and-dry bias in the central United States
Coffel et al. 2022 DOI 10.1029/2021GL097135 – Earth System Model Overestimation of Cropland Temperatures Scales With Agricultural Intensity
“This is a very well known and researched topic already”
Which the data published by Roy agrees with.
Yet he fails to mention any of these causes.
bdgwx is in full alarm mode. His cult is in “Epic fail” mode, as Spencer indicates.
But, like a good cult troll, he continues to rely on his invalid “papers”.
Reality always wins.
Bdgwx says:
”Qian et al. 2020 DOI 10.1038/s41612-020-00135-w Neglecting irrigation contributes to the simulated summertime warm-and-dry bias in the central United States”
Goes to show its a ‘living’ planet not some dumb physics experiment.
No doubt next we will have projections of humans getting sick from eating too much corn. Already see the precursors of that on the internet in the anti-GMO forums.
bdgwx says:
Models dont handle the suppression well because of a lack adequate land use inputs and parameterization schemes. Here is but an extremely small subset of the available literature within just the last few years.
—————–
Actually bdgwx models are handing hardly anything well out beyond about 10 days.
“Models don’t handle the suppression well because of a lack adequate land use inputs and parameterization schemes”
As the post at the top shows.
“This is a very well known and researched topic already.”
As the top post ignores.
Nice to see that Willard and BW agrees with Roy (who just posted data which agreed with the papers previously published).
Nice to see Richard expressing both his reactance and his cycle nuttery.
Nice to see that Willard agrees with Roy.
Nice to see that Richard agrees that the meteorological fallacy is silly.
It is nice that Willard agrees with Roy.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1499315
Let’s all sing Kumbaya:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-black-voters-in-alabama-redistricting-case
Willard tries (and fails) to deflect when things get tricky.
Richard plays squirrels but whines when we play along:
https://www.wsfa.com/2023/06/14/alabama-ranks-45th-overall-child-well-being-up-46th/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Not this time, Mike Flynn:
https://oanow.com/news/state-and-regional/big-profits-big-bills-alabamians-pay-some-of-the-nation-s-highest-electricity-costs/article_4d824ca8-a277-11ed-bcb1-532f13fc54fb.html
Willard, please stop trolling.
You might already know:
https://energyandpolicy.org/alabama-power-matrix-scandals/
Just like your good old days at Enron.
Willard tries again (and fails) to deflect when things get tricky.
Nice to see that Richard agrees that Alabama Power is operated by the Southern Company as a private monopoly that gouges its clients.
I’m sure he also agree that it’s a very big polluter:
https://www.al.com/news/2022/12/alabama-coal-plant-still-the-largest-greenhouse-gas-emitter-in-united-states.html
Willard tries again and again (and fails) to deflect when things get tricky.
Richard has yet to address the point he first replied to in this thread. Meanwhile:
https://www.donaldwatkins.com/post/criminal-rico-complaint-filed-against-alabama-power-southern-company-matrix-perkins
Richard might prefer to suggest, like Roy did under oath, to RICO climate scientists instead.
Willard tries again, again and again (and fails) to deflect when things get tricky.
Or, as you have said, playing at squirrels again.
Since Richard insists that I follow up with my investigation on Alabama Power:
https://www.al.com/news/2023/02/alabama-power-to-refund-customers-62-million-on-august-bill.html
I hope Richard understands why due diligence to Alabama Power is relevant here.
Willard says:
”This came after the company reported it was above the allowed rate of return range by $62 million in 2022.”
Is this a tempest in a teapot? Is there any state in the US that doesn’t have a utility commission that mandates rates of profit after the fact? This is pretty routine. Where corruption enters in is when a company is negligent and the commission allows the cost of the negligence to pass through to customers instead of punishing investors.
Like California and the fires started by neglected PG&E transmission easements even while the Company was aware of the negligence.
Gill, Gill,
This is an Arbys.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard and bdgwx agree on here that the models are running too hot, as the data published by Roy here at the top also shows.
Richard and Kennui agree that the meteorological fallacy is silly.
They also recall that the meteorological fallacy is to reject the climate simulations of a planet by comparing it with cherry-picked regions or finer time scales.
“the meteorological fallacy”
is just something made up by Willard.
Except that what Roy published is supported by various scientific papers.
Willard,
The Willard fallacy is to believe that future states of a chaotic system such as the atmosphere are predictable. Even the IPCC doesn’t fall for that one.
One of the characteristics of a deterministic chaotic system is that the the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Determining the GHE to be a “silly acronym” won’t help you to appear intelligent. Neither will claiming that “cooling over time” is responsible for observed temperature increases.
That really is silly.
Just like you, idiot.
I’m glad that Richard and Mike Flynn agree that Roy’s overall argument is probably caused by some form of bias.
We can put that meteorological fallacy to rest.
At long last!
Willard,
The Willard fallacy is to believe that future states of a chaotic system such as the atmosphere are predictable. Even the IPCC doesnt fall for that one.
One of the characteristics of a deterministic chaotic system is that the the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Determining the GHE to be a silly acronym wont help you to appear intelligent. Neither will claiming that cooling over time is responsible for observed temperature increases.
That really is silly.
Just like you, idiot.
The Moron Mike fallacy is to repeat the same talking points refuted a thousand times in the hope to make him appear less of a deceitful cretin.
Willard,
The Willard fallacy is to believe that future states of a chaotic system such as the atmosphere are predictable. Even the IPCC doesnt fall for that one.
One of the characteristics of a deterministic chaotic system is that the the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Determining the GHE to be a silly acronym wont help you to appear intelligent. Neither will claiming that cooling over time is responsible for observed temperature increases.
That really is silly.
Just like you, idiot.
“I’m glad that Richard and Mike Flynn agree that Roys overall argument is probably caused by some form of bias.”
No bias at all as what he posted agrees with previously published papers. The models are runinng WAY too hot.
The ‘meteorological fallacy’ makes the naive assumption that the whole is less than the parts. But what else should we expect from Willard the idiot?
The meteorological fallacy assumes that models have powers it does not have.
When trying to dunk on models, it sets up demands that are not actually possible to meet.
The meteorological fallacy assumes that models are not made up of parts.
The meteorological fallacy is also when a cycle nut rolls over a 5y window six times and pretend it’s climate.
Willard has not heard about DSP and various work.
Richard has been clobbered over various formal concepts over the years, and he still act as if he was some kind of formal guru.
Oh well.
Willard is just an idiot.
This time I won’t let it stand, Richard.
Remember when you tried to intimate that a step function was continuous?
Willard is still an idiot.
Or perhaps the time when you spoke of a bath tub when there was none?
Willard still thinks that a full window OLS applies to more data than it covers.
Another deflection, this time operated with a mind probe.
Oh look, another squirrel.
I don’t think what you think I think about OLS, dummy.
It’s a linear tool, BTW. Aren’t you supposed to be against lines because they’re unnatural?
A full window OLS only applies to that window and no further. Because it tends to be only long term, they have a very slow rate of change. They are useless on long term sine waves (of any sort). S-G (and LOWESS) are built on short term OLS. They are well acknowledged to have some short term predictive values. In all disciplines other than climate science that is.
It was you who brought up the range of predictive values and how important that it was in order to predict the markets short term.
> In all disciplines other than climate science that is.
Glad that Richard acknowledges that his work does not apply to climate science.
Glad that Willard acknowledges that climate is not a science.
P.S.> Filters are a well known part of DSP.
Richard claims he’s better than climate science.
Willard is just an silly squirrel.
Too hot…yes. I haven’t verified the graph though. The last time a critique was posted about modeling it was discovered that there was a mix up between the ‘tas’ and ‘tos’ fields and CanESM5 got overweighted in the ensemble due to the way the data was pulled. The graph in this post may end up being correct this time. I just cannot verify it right now.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/
Glad to see that Richard agrees with Nick:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-676606
Weepy Wee Willy,
“Glad to see that Richard agrees with Nick:”
Awwww, what about Mikey, Mike Flynn, Warnie, and all the rest? Do they agree with each other?
They probably all agree that you are an idiot, so it must be true.
I’m glad that you finally agree that you’re Mike Flynn, Moron Mike.
Deceitful cretin.
Weepy Wee Willy,
“Glad to see that Richard agrees with Nick:”
Awwww, what about Mikey, Mike Flynn, Warnie, and all the rest? Do they agree with each other?
They probably all agree that you are an idiot, so it must be true. You also wrote “Im glad that you finally agree that youre Mike Flynn, Moron Mike.”
You really do live in an alternate reality, don’t you?
Idiot.
Not Warnie, Mike. Amazed.
There were other sock puppets. They all agree with you.
Which is understandable, for they’re your puppets.
Weepy Wee Willy,
“Glad to see that Richard agrees with Nick:”
Awwww, what about Mikey, Mike Flynn, Warnie, and all the rest? Do they agree with each other?
They probably all agree that you are an idiot, so it must be true. You also wrote “I’m glad that you finally agree that you’re Mike Flynn, Moron Mike.”
You really do live in an alternate reality, dont you?
Idiot.
“Glad to see that Richard agrees with Nick:”
Only if he agrees with what Roy posted.
Roy tacitly conceded that Nick was right.
Just like when Richard tacitly concedes his many blunders over various formal concepts.
Unlike Willard who never acknowledges that he is an idiot.
“Roy tacitly conceded that Nick was right”
So he posts this data at the top of the page. I think not.
Did Roy dispute that from the 68 runs he posted, 50 were coming from one model, Richard?
Do you?
Do you agree that
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Corn-belt-JJA-Tas-obs-vs-CMIP6-550×465.jpg
references different models?
P.S. I think that there are 36 different models mentioned.
Richard tries again and again (and fails) to deflect when things get tricky.
Willard fails to admit there is a difference between 68 runs and 36 models.
Almost as though he is talking about different things.
(W) Did Roy dispute that from the 68 runs he posted, 50 were coming from one model, Richard?
(R) Willard fails to admit there is a difference between 68 runs and 36 models.
Almost as though Willard is talking about 2 different cases.
It’s as if Richard did not get what bdgwx was talking about. As if he tried again and again (and failed) to deflect when things got tricky.
Willard is just an idiot.
Richard deflects.
No U do.
Not here, dummy.
Here’s to what you’re supposed to be responding:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1499476
As I said, there are 2 cases, not just one.
There are two cases indeed, Richard.
The one you keep ignoring, which is the case mentioned by bd.
And then there’s yours, which you try to peddle here.
Willard does not like it when real data backs up what has been proposed for a long time. The models are running too hot.
“Too hotyes. I havent verified the graph though”
Are you suggesting that Roy’s data is incorrect?
No. I’m saying I don’t know if it is or isn’t.
I await your verdict that it is correct then.
You may be waiting awhile. I have a long list of data analysis tasks in my queue already. This isn’t my priority right now and may never be.
So you can’t (or won’t) say that Roy is correct.
Or incorrect either.
Lol…that is what I’m saying. Again…I don’t know if the graph is correct or not. Therefore I can’t say either way. I’m not sure how to word that differently to make it more clear.
But you will offer your opinion regardless.
Quote it.
“The graph in this post may end up being correct this time”
I’m not making any statements about the graph whether by opinion, suggestion, evidence, or otherwise. Again…it’s because I just don’t know. And I’m really sorry. I’m assuming your posts are in good faith here, but I just don’t understand what you’re asking.
“Im not making any statements about the graph whether by opinion, suggestion, evidence, or otherwise.”
And yet your quotes show otherwise.
…imply otherwise…
[HOW IT STARTED] But you will offer your opinion regardless.
[HOW IT’S GOING] And yet your quotes imply otherwise…
Willard is just an idiot.
Richard gets caught putting words in bdgwx’ mouth.
Richard deflects.
Willard is still an idiot.
“The graph in this post may end up being correct this time”
May does not imply is, dummy.
What you’re supposed to say is that bdgwx intimates that Roy can’t be trusted on this. And he’s right. But you won’t admit that.
It’s been how many years, now, three? And you’re still into “idiot” signaling.
Too slow. Too clumsy. Too angry.
You suck at Climateball, Richard. Git gud.
Yeah, the graph being correct is a possibility.
Only A possibility?
“May does not imply is”
Only suggests it. : )
That is what I’m saying. We shouldn’t assume Roy’s graph is correct. I want to be careful to point out that this doesn’t mean I’m assuming it is incorrect though. My comments in this blog are a statement that I agree with Roy in general models overestimate the warming in the US cornbelt. I presented evidence in support of it and evidence for reasons of why it is so. But that is not a statement that I think his graph is correct or incorrect either way.
But, as you said, despite all that you do not have the time to check if it is or isn’t.
That is what I’m saying. I just have too much on my plate right now.
But enough time to suggest that Roy may, or may not, have got things wrong (or right).
I’m responding to “Willard and bdgwx agree on here that the models are running too hot, as the data published by Roy here at the top also shows.” by making it clear that my position on US cornbelt temperatures is not based on the data in this blog post.
“my position on US cornbelt temperatures is not based on the data in this blog post”
but that they are broadly the same in conclusion.
The point you still don’t address is that Roy is rediscovering a known fact, Richard.
That’s poor scholarship.
Now Willard does not want theory backed up by real data. Especially when it shows the models are too hot.
I don’t get it, RLH. There is region, the corn belt, that is running ccoler than the models. But there is a mitigating factor there, and youve already agreed it makes sense.
So I’m not sure why you think this is meaningful or significant wrt AGW?
The current state of play with respect to the GHE –
bobdroege – “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better. Supported by Bindidon and others.
Willard – “cooling over time”. Supported by Norman and others.
Ball4 and others agree with bobdroege, or Willard, or both, or neither, expressing confidence levels exceeding 95%.
If 36 climate models produce 36 different results, at least 35 must be unfit for purposes. If all 36 disagree with observations, then anybody who whole-heartedly supports such models is detached from reality.
Sorry about the typos. My bad.
> and others.
Don’t be so humble, Mike Flynn. We all owe it to you.
They’re your words, remember?
The current state of play with respect to the GHE
bobdroege Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better. Supported by Bindidon and others.
Willard cooling over time. Supported by Norman and others.
Ball4 and others agree with bobdroege, or Willard, or both, or neither, expressing confidence levels exceeding 95%.
If 36 climate models produce 36 different results, at least 35 must be unfit for purposes. If all 36 disagree with observations, then anybody who whole-heartedly supports such models is detached from reality.
If Moron Mike produces 36 comments that read all the same, at least 35 of them aren’t fit for the purpose of communication.
And since he’s a deceitful cretin, it’s probably 36 comments.
The current state of play with respect to the GHE
bobdroege – “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better”. Supported by Bindidon and others.
Willard – “cooling over time”. Supported by Norman and others.
Ball4 and others agree with bobdroege, or Willard, or both, or neither, expressing confidence levels exceeding 95%.
If 36 climate models produce 36 different results, at least 35 must be unfit for purposes. If all 36 disagree with observations, then anybody who whole-heartedly supports such models is detached from reality.
6 more comments to go.
You can do it, Moron Mike!!!!
The current state of play with respect to the GHE
bobdroege Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better. Supported by Bindidon and others.
Willard cooling over time. Supported by Norman and others.
Ball4 and others agree with bobdroege, or Willard, or both, or neither, expressing confidence levels exceeding 95%.
If 36 climate models produce 36 different results, at least 35 must be unfit for purposes. If all 36 disagree with observations, then anybody who whole-heartedly supports such models is detached from reality.
You did it, Mike!
Oh look, a squirrel.
Look, Mike Flynn!
Oh look, Willard is a squirrel.
The current state of play with respect to the GHE
bobdroege – “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better”. Supported by Bindidon and others.
Willard – “cooling over time”. Supported by Norman and others.
Ball4 and others agree with bobdroege, or Willard, or both, or neither, expressing confidence levels exceeding 95%.
If 36 climate models produce 36 different results, at least 35 must be unfit for purposes. If all 36 disagree with observations, then anybody who whole-heartedly supports such models is detached from reality.
Swenson,
bobdroege is making fun of you!
Bumbling Bobby,
And Im supposed to care because . . . ?
You idiot.
Who cares if you don’t care, I sure don’t care.
Does your not caring make you moar of an idiot, or moar of a maroon?
Have you found the Greenhouse Effect yet?
Seen any Unicorns lately?
How’s that Maypo taste?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
What is greenhouse effect?
What is greenhouse global climate?
It’s sort of a question that people living in regions which don’t get much sunlight, might ask.
How could you grow a tropical plant in England??
You could build a greenhouse.
And one might ask what is a greenhouse effect, when you are living in an icehouse global climate- particularly when not living in warmer times of an interglacial period
If live in the cold and dim Germany, what effect could call it, if Germany was warmer at some time in the distant past.
In all past interglacial periods, Germany was much warmer than it is now {though still didn’t get much sunlight}.
So, you could say a greenhouse effect is about warming places which don’t have much sunlight.
Anyhow a greenhouse effect of Europe {and doesn’t include Canada}
is the Gulf Stream.
But in past Europe was also much warmer than it is now. What cause that greenhouse effect?
But Europe in the past was also much colder than it is now- just 20,000 years ago it was very cold in Europe.
And there used to be critters running around on Antarctica. Eating grass and stuff.
Who’d have thought?
For a month very weak solar wind.
https://i.ibb.co/XYSwmdj/plot-image.png
German Princess Gloria On Green New Deal: Going to Be Worse Than Communist East Germany!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/19/german-princess-gloria-on-green-new-deal-going-to-be-worse-than-communist-east-germany/
Yes, politicians can make things much worse the East Germany.
History is full of examples.
South of Calgary right now:
https://twitter.com/PDS_Weather/status/1670524695182213120/photo/1
And at the very same latitude, you have right now, at 20:09 UTC, 23 C in Eastern Germany.
Maxima C forecasts for
Tue: 29
Wed: 32
Thu: 32
Fri: 25
Minima C forecasts for
Tue: 15
Wed: 18
Thu: 17
Fri: 20
*
Yes, Ken: it’s getting colder in Canada, but not so in Europe, despite all what is told you by Coolists, especially Gosselin’s TricksZone.
*
People intentionally telling us how cold it was in the UK during March, also intentionally omit to tell us how it looks like right now there:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20230624&daytime=day&iid=UK
Solar Minimum Update
From North America to Europe to China, vast swaths of the Northern Hemisphere experienced extreme drought in the summer of 2022, straining water resources, ruining crops, and priming the landscape for perilous wildfires.
Attribution initiative scientists concluded climate change made these drought conditions at least 20 times more likely. The soaring temperatures would have been virtually impossible without climate change, the analysis also found.
The Western US saw shrunken water levels, worsening drought, and fallowed farmland. And China and Europe saw thousands of heat-related deaths. The heat and drought in Europe claimed least at 15,000 people, according to the World Health Organization.
The 2022 Northern Hemisphere summer is a good example of how extreme events caused by climate change can also unfold over large regions in longer periods of time, Otto said.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/15/world/extreme-weather-events-climate-change/index.html
And this year (2023) California is wetter than average.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/water-and-drought/article275055516.html
“Meteorologists forecast that May will bring above-normal rainfall and chilly weather to parts of California”
So is the UK
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2023/march-2023-weather-review
Richard tries again and again (and fails) to deflect when things get tricky.
Willard is just an idiot.
“From North America to Europe”
and I quote California and the UK.
Richard tries again and again (and fails again and again) to deflect when things get tricky.
Willard is just an idiot.
Considering that Richard is our deflecter-in-chief, perhaps he should not have issued his “tries again and again (and fails) to deflect when things get tricky.”
Willard is still an idiot.
Deflector-in-chief is something that applies much more to Willard.
Not really, Richard. You deflect toward your pet topic of the moment.
Constantly. In every. Single. Subthread. Whatever the topic.
And then you spam, and spam, and spam, and spam again.
When you do that against me, you allow me to play squirrels with you. Considering my playful play style and my openness to new information, do you really think I care one bit to play squirrels? Not at all.
Worse is that your peddling poisons a blog on which you ought to play local. As a visitor, do you really think I should care if you poison your own damn well? Not one bit.
You don’t have that much time to learn to play Climateball properly, you know.
Deflector-in-chief is something that applies much, much more to Willard.
Mind you, playing squirrels just reinforces the point.
Not really, dummy.
It does not.
Willard confirms what everybody knows, he is a squirrely idiot.
A squirrel for a squirrel, dummy. So, if you get a squirrel, dummy, that’s because you threw one, dummy. Which means that whining about squireling makes you a dummy, dummy.
Now Willard claims he is a dumb squirrel.
Now Richard returns to his silly trolling.
Now Willard claims he is a silly squirrel.
Richard claims he is Mike Flynn.
Willard does his silly squirrel act again.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You two should get your own chat room.
No point in casting your pearls of unappreciated wisdom before us peasants.
Oh, Kennui:
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
The squirrel (Willard) raises its head again.
Does Kennui’s comment addresses the point that attribution initiative scientists concluded climate change made drought conditions in 2022 at least 20 times more likely, Richard? No, it didn’t. Neither did your “what about other places where it was wet?”
Which was silly, for water tends to not disappear. It moves around. So if droughts increase at some place, you can expect overly wet seasons elsewhere.
Sure. Idiot.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The current state of play with respect to the GHE
bobdroege Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better. Supported by Bindidon and others. Doesn’t seem to realise that atmosphere keeps maximum temperatures about 33 C cooler than the airless Moon.
Willard cooling over time. Supported by Norman and others. Doesn’t seem to accept that atmosphere keeps maximum temps about 33 C cooler than the airless Moon.
Ball4 and others agree with bobdroege, or Willard, or both, or neither, expressing confidence levels exceeding 95%.
If 36 climate models produce 36 different results, at least 35 must be unfit for purposes. If all 36 disagree with observations, then anybody who whole-heartedly supports such models is detached from reality.
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
All models will fail, as long as scientists ignore some of the incoming solar radiation. They Use TSI when they are calculating incoming radiation, but its only valid for a planet without atmosphere. The atmosphere is acting like a lens bending radiation towards the center of Earth raising the intensity of the radiation. I believe they should add ca 4,5W/m2 to the TSI to include all of the radiation
As a layman, I find it hard to follow, or argue, with the statistics in the climate change debate. Its over my pay grade. But allow me to point out that he is only taking about Summer temps. As a country living 67 year old, I can attest that our Midwest Summers are not hotter. The Winters are. The lakes I have observed since 1963, no longer freezer over for 3 full months. Now its around 6 weeks, late Dec to early Feb. And its thin ice unlike pre 2000. Last Winter the ground didn’t even freeze below the top 2 inches unlike in the past when it would be many inches of frost. This is normal now. I heard Dr. Roy on the Mark Reardon radio show recently state (approximate quote)..”The real background warming rate is too small for someone to observe in a lifetime”. I have to disagree. I have watched the change in Winters. I think you need to look at a whole year.
Senator Grassley appears to differ
https://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/status/1670460448766926848
For New Hartford, IA
“June is the wettest month in New Hartford with 5.1 inches of rain, and the driest month is January with 0.9 inches. The wettest season is Autumn with 40% of yearly precipitation and 9% occurs in Spring, which is the driest season. The annual rainfall of 35.1 inches in New Hartford means that it is drier than most places in Iowa.”
“Corn is stressed as we say when hot and drought. Welcome relief last night at Grassley farm .6 inch. Since May 1 4.2 inches but far short of 8 inches last year. But may help corn to b less stressed #cornwatch”
“Corn is stressed as we say when hot and drought.”
Hope this guy isnt in a position of authority. Does he need to read and write English on a daily basis?
“June is the wettest month in New Hartford with 5.1 inches of rain”
[ELI] Senator Grassley appears to differ
[RICHARD] Hope this guy isnt in a position of authority.
You can’t make this up.
Willard can’t even get his quotes right
“Hope this guy isn’t in a position of authority” was said by Swenson, not me.
At this point is there any difference between Richard and Mike Flynn?
Willard does his silly squirrel act again.
Weary Wee Willy,
Has your fantasy totally divorced you from reality? Do you now believe that Richard, Mike Flynn and myself are one and the same?
Even if they were, would that make you accept the fact that the atmosphere keeps maximum temperatures about 33 C cooler than they would otherwise be?
You don’t seem to realise that the atmosphere acts like a giant piece of shade cloth, allowing only about 65% of sunlight through. That’s probably because you are a delusional SkyDragon cultist. Or are you a reality denying idiot of some other type?
Carry on.
Moron Mike,
I know you’re Mike Flynn’s latest sock puppet. Everybody knows that.
Earlier I wrote Richard’s name instead of yours. Now I’m playing along. He tries to play the hall monitor, but like you he sucks at it. But unlike you he’s playing home, whereas you’re just a silly Sky Dragon crank.
Long live and prosper.
The current state of play with respect to the GHE –
bobdroege – “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better”. Supported by Bindidon and others. Doesn’t seem to realise that atmosphere keeps maximum temperatures about 33 C cooler than the airless Moon.
Willard – “cooling over time”. Supported by Norman and others. Doesn’t seem to accept that atmosphere keeps maximum temps about 33 C cooler than the airless Moon.
Ball4 and others agree with bobdroege, or Willard, or both, or neither, expressing confidence levels exceeding 95%.
If 36 climate models produce 36 different results, at least 35 must be unfit for purposes. If all 36 disagree with observations, then anybody who whole-heartedly supports such models is detached from reality.
Eli Rabett,
He has the right to be as different as he wishes.
Do you have a point, or are you just trolling?
The point is #cornwatch, Mike Flynn.
No pint at all, then.
Whoops. No point either.
You would need a pint, Mike.
Silly rabbit! (or is that squirrel?).
No difference at all between Richard and Mike at this point.
No difference between Willard and an idiot.
Willard appealed to the authority of someone who appears to be semi-literate “Corn is stressed as we say when hot and drought.”
Well, gee. This guy is no mental giant. His intended audience would seem pretty dim if they don’t know that plants like corn don’t do as well in drought conditions (I assume that’s what he is trying to say).
Corn benefits from increased CO2 according to some studies “It is concluded that elevated carbon dioxide increased the responsiveness of corn growth to nitrogen application . . .”, and burning fossil fuels results in CO2 and H2O at a minimum.
Both CO2 and H2O are essential for plant growth, and plants suffer if levels of either of them drop to low levels.
Burn more coal, oil, and gas. More plants, more food. What’s wrong with that?
Moron Mike,
I did not appeal to Chuck’s authority. I did not even cite him. Here is an authority I would cite:
https://theclimatebrink.substack.com/p/is-co2-plant-food
At 2:00, David Lobell, “one of the world’s experts on climate change and agriculture, a professor at Stanford, a MacArthur genius grant recipient, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and an all-around good guy,” reminds that most crops we grow won’t benefit from more CO2, especially corn, for it’s optimized at our current level.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Well, you certainly won’t like this, from the US National Bureau of Economic Research, will you?- “We consistently find a large CO2 fertilization effect: a 1ppm increase in CO2 equates to a 0.4 % yield increase for corn.” – 2023.
Maybe the authors are not “one of the world’s experts on climate change”. Might be scientists, for all I know.
I suppose you are convinced that corn doesn’t benefit from the H2O that results from burning fossil fuels, either – especially in drought conditions?
That’s because you are a delusional idiot.
Moron Mike,
Here is the paper you cite:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w29320
Here is a quote that shows you’re a deceitful cretin:
You’re projecting a linearity that does not exist.
Oh, and your authority cites mine, twice in fact, so there.
Wasted Wee Willy,
I repeat “We consistently find a large CO₂ fertilization effect: a 1 ppm increase in CO₂ equates to a 0.4%, 0.6%, 1% yield increase for corn, soybeans, and wheat, respectively.”
If you want to apply a “thought exercise”, retrospectively, and turn it into some sort of linear “projection”, you are quite mad.
If you dont believe that corn benefits from adequate CO2 and H2O, you are free to do so. If you want to remove “GHG”s from the atmosphere, and exterminate the human race, go your hardest. You are obviously an idiot!
Are you still convinced that the GHE causes “slower cooling”? Maybe you are confused – the Earth cools slowly all by itself. It’s done so for four and a half billion years. No GHE necessary.
Oh well, “slower cooling” seems to agree more with reality than that other idiot, bobdroege, who defined the GHE as “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Dumb and dumber.
Moron Mike,
You don’t have to say –
“I repeat”
You always do.
You’re stuck at misunderstanding C4 carbon fixation –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation
If you study properly, EM will have a test for you.
Deceitful cretin.
Wasted Wee Willy,
I repeat “We consistently find a large CO₂ fertilization effect: a 1 ppm increase in CO₂ equates to a 0.4%, 0.6%, 1% yield increase for corn, soybeans, and wheat, respectively.”
If you want to apply a thought exercise, retrospectively, and turn it into some sort of linear projection, you are quite mad.
If you dont believe that corn benefits from adequate CO2 and H2O, you are free to do so. If you want to remove GHGs from the atmosphere, and exterminate the human race, go your hardest. You are obviously an idiot!
Are you still convinced that the GHE causes slower cooling? Maybe you are confused the Earth cools slowly all by itself. Its done so for four and a half billion years. No GHE necessary.
Oh well, slower cooling seems to agree more with reality than that other idiot, bobdroege, who defined the GHE as Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.
Dumb and dumber.
Moron Mike,
From your own cite:
You were saying, deceitful cretin?
Witless Wee Willy,
” . . .and that CO2-driven yield increases . . .”.
You must have overlooked that part. Maybe you also forgot that you were insisting “most crops we grow wont benefit from more CO2, especially corn, . . . ”
That might explain why you are now reduced to scuttling away like a cockroach, trying to insist that the fanciful speculation “climate change will likely have a negative impact on agriculture in aggregate,” was what you really meant to say, not “most crops we grow wont benefit from more CO2, especially corn,” which is completely untrue.
CO2 and H2O are essential for photosynthesis. I give you a reference supporting my contention that you are a nitwit, and you try to change the subject away from CO2-driven yield increases!
By the way, have you managed to accept the fact that the atmosphere limits surface temperatures to less than 100 C, preventing us from boiling to death? Then you could change your description of the GHE (which you described as a “silly acronym”), to just “cooling”, rather than “slower cooling”. You are an idiot anyway, if you don’t accept that the Earth has cooled without the need for the cooling effect of your “silly acronym” – the GHE!
Carry on floundering.
Moron Mike,
No, I did not forget the marginal increases.
Have you forgotten the word marginal, deceitful cretin?
Willard you donkey,
“No, I did not forget the marginal increases.”
An increase in an increase. More.
You originally quoted “most crops we grow won’t benefit from more CO2, especially corn, . . . “, but that is obviously untrue, if you are now claiming an increase in yield.
Maybe this a sign of the intellectual deficit disorder which you exhibit. For example, you call the GHE a “silly acronym”, and then proceed to say that it results in not “cooling”, but “slower cooling”! Just like “no increase at all” turns into “increase”, but it doesnt really count for you – because it is “marginal”.
You idiot. Just admit you made a mistake, and retain some semblance of relevance, unless you want to keep shooting you self in the foot, and looking even more stupid and ignorant.
Are you still insisting that the GHE causes “slower cooling” rather than increasing temperatures? No need to worry at all, in that case. You’re just being an idiot troll.
Go for it.
Moron Mike,
A marginal increase is marginal. Get over it.
And climate change will likely have a negative impact on agriculture in aggregate.
The opposite of what you tried to argue.
Deceitful cretin.
Willard while being a volunteer mouthpiece for the biggest money scam in history has no statistically sensible argument to support his claims by.
Gill tries to portray the scientific community as bigger than all the corporate drones he defends in the name of freedom.
Wasteful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Gill tries to portray the scientific community as bigger than all the corporate drones he defends in the name of freedom.”
You are just gibbering now. You don’t even know what you are trying to say, do you?
Idiot.
What are you braying about, Moron Mike?
You know, knowledge ain’t free.
You got to pay attention.
Cheers.
Willard says:
”Gill tries to portray the scientific community as bigger than all the corporate drones he defends in the name of freedom.”
that was biggest centralized scam in history Little Willard not biggest community or richest community.
Corporate drones? What gives you the idea I defend any corporation? Just pulled that out of your arse like you do all your facts?
Gill, Sir,
This is an Arby’s.
You got caught saying stuff once again. It’s no big deal.
Willard says:
Gill, Sir,
This is an Arbys.
You got caught saying stuff once again. Its no big deal.
———————————
No Willard with you spinner wannabees in here its more like the Loving Hut where the top of their menu is ”PLEASE BE VEGAN TO SAVE OUR PLANET!”
They claim if you go vegan you will ensure peace.
Then its followed up with a warning about allergens in their food ” such as wheat, soybeans, tree nuts, or peanuts.”
And of course the menu looks like Arby’s with most dishes suggesting meat and fish products.
Its amazing how gullible you people are.
Gill, Gill,
You rant no better than Bordo.
No human ate as much meat as North Americans after WWII. Historically, and even compared to meat-only diets. This has been imported since then, in the richest parts of South Asia and South America. It obviously is unsustainable on a 10B planet. If prices do not convince otherwise, land use will.
Eating that much meat is plain dumb. It is not good for your health, and is not good for your wallet. Are you so dumb as to seek status through barbecue prowesses?
Considering how you fail to carry your weight here, I doubt you are that much of a cook.
Classic Willard. Weeping in his crystal ball believing he knows better than anybody else. . . .sad.
Eli pretends the corn crop has never been stressed before.
Is that you, Richard?
Is that the squirrel talking?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here is the IPCC summary of how well models do against reality.
At section 1.3.6 of the IPCC AR6 wg1 report it states Although these studies generally showed good agreement between the past projections and subsequent observations, this type of analysis is complicated because the scenarios of future radiative forcing used in earlier projections do not precisely match the actual radiative forcings that subsequently occurred. Mismatches between the projections and subsequent observations could be due to incorrectly projected radiative forcings (e.g., aerosol emissions, greenhouse gas concentrations or volcanic eruptions that were not included), an incorrect modelled response to those forcings, or both. Alternatively, agreement between projections and observations may be fortuitous due to a compensating balance of errors, for example, too low climate sensitivity but too strong radiative forcings.
So it could just be chance?
Low temperatures in the upper stratosphere over the southern polar circle.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2023.png
This blog is like a Maxwell’s Demon.
It’s demon allows only news about non-warming to pass through its gate to the masses.
It seeks small regions of the planet that are cool, or not warming, and only shows us those.
And no mention of mitigating factors are mentioned.
But of course, we know that when no demon is at work, and we zoom out, we see that whole continents are warming.
All of them.
Significantly. And remarkably, in unison.
North America
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/northAmerica/land/60/5/1850-2023?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1972&endtrendyear=2023
Europe
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/europe/land/60/5/1850-2023?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1972&endtrendyear=2023
Asia
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/asia/land/60/5/1850-2023?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1972&endtrendyear=2023
South America
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/southAmerica/land/60/5/1850-2023?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1972&endtrendyear=2023
Africa
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/africa/land/60/5/1850-2023?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1972&endtrendyear=2023
Oceania
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/oceania/land/60/5/1850-2023?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1972&endtrendyear=2023
Nate,
So? Thermometers respond to anthropogenic heat – just like heat from any other source. Increased temperatures result from increased heat.
Maybe you believe this increased heat is due to a GHE which you can’t describe. I’m laughing at such silliness.
Accept reality. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. The sun warmed surface loses all its heat during the night. Maybe you have some alternate reason for higher temperatures recorded by many thermometers which makes sense?
“Maybe you believe this increased heat is due to a GHE which you cant describe. Im laughing at such silliness.”
Nah. Described for you many times. Ignored by you many times.
Laughing inappropriately many times is a concern.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Described for you many times.”
Only in your imagination.
Sorry for your dementia, and total lack of integrity.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote –
.As for the rest of the world, it wont do shit if you don’t deem to lift up your pinky.”
You idiot.
Are you still convinced that “slower cooling” really means getting hotter? What about a “marginal increase” really being a decrease, in your fantasy world?
Norman, your erstwhile supporter, has now acknowledged that cooling is really – cooling! Temperature is dropping!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You respond to Nate –
“Woebegone Wee Willy”
Is there something you’d like to tell me?
Go on.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
“As for the rest of the world, it wont do shit if you dont deem to lift up your pinky.”
You idiot.
Are you still convinced that “slower cooling” really means getting hotter? What about a “marginal increase” really being a decrease, in your fantasy world?
Norman, your erstwhile supporter, has now acknowledged that cooling is really cooling! Temperature is dropping!
Carry on.
Moron Mike,
Why do ou copy-paste a misplaced comment?
Deceitful cretin.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
As for the rest of the world, it won’t do shit if you don’t deem to lift up your pinky.
You idiot.
Are you still convinced that “slower cooling” really means getting hotter? What about a “marginal increase” really being a decrease, in your fantasy world?
Norman, your erstwhile supporter, has now acknowledged that cooling is really cooling! Temperature is dropping!
Carry on.
Moron Mike,
https://sentientmedia.org/meat-consumption-in-the-us/
Well on the way to Soylent Green. . . .literally. Lab-based Frankenfoods. This should turn out medically about as well as bleeding to remove evil spirits.
Gill, this is an Arbys.
Because the ocean data is SO accurate before 1955 all over the globe.
https://imgur.com/gallery/Ulah5KV
Relevance to this post? None.
You have data from 1850 which covers the ocean.
Nope, these are all land.
Your ref allows, ocean land & ocean and land as one of the choices.
Northern, southern hemisphere and global also covers the oceans.
All choices show a significant uptick AFTER the satellite series start.
How long do you think that the 30% (approx) land will exceed the ocean 70%?
P.S. Oceania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania#/media/File:Oceania_(centered_orthographic_projection).svg
All are land regions. Sorry.
Got any explanation for their synchronous warming?
“All are land regions”
The oceans (alone) track them quite well.
How long do you think that the 30% (approx) land will exceed the ocean 70%?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1500422
“The oceans (alone) track them quite well”
Thus suggesting the ocean data is valid.
Or both are suspect.
https://imgur.com/gallery/Ulah5KV/comment/2328651285
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1500422
Nate: How long do you think that the 30% (approx) land will exceed the ocean 70%?
What is striking to me, is that all the continents showed nearly synchronous increase in warming rate in the late 20th century.
Obviously any UHI artifact could not behave that way, with population density increasing rapidly in Europe, well before Africa, Asia or South America.
Got any explanation for their synchronous warming, RLH?
“How long do you think that the 30% (approx) land will exceed the ocean 70%?”
Again even though most of the added energy to the Earth system has ended up in the ocean,
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/GRAPHS/heat_content2000m.png
with its much larger heat-capacity, the ocean’s temperature does not increase as rapidly as the low heat-capacity land surfaces.
Nate says:
Got any explanation for their synchronous warming, RLH?
——————–
there was no synchronous warming during the 20th century. Ben Santer cherry picked out a 17 year period and declared it as the fingerprint of anthropogenic warming. Then the next 20 years failed to synchronize, warmed slower while emissions went up.
“there was no synchronous warming during the 20th century.”
Have no answers? Just deny the facts. (Troll Handbook, Ch. 5)
“we zoom out, we see that whole continents are warming.
All of them.
Significantly. And remarkably, in unison.”
All of them warming doesn’t mean they are warming in a synchronous way. For example, the models cannot explain the warming and the ice free northern passages of the 1930’s and 40’s that was proclaimed as the hallmark of anthropogenic change in the naughts and spawned predictions of an ice free arctic and the disappearance of glaciers in a short few years, by scientists sitting in high positions including the National Academy of Sciences, that all proved out to be hogwash.
Its a prime example of the total lack of discipline displayed by academia and it has been doing nothing but getting worse.
“all the continents showed nearly synchronous increase in warming rate in the late 20th century.”
Bill: “there was no synchronous warming during the 20th century”
“For example, the models cannot explain the warming and the ice free northern passages of the 1930s and 40s”
So not a continent, not in late 20th century, synchrony not addressed.
Assertion not supported.
Nate the assertion was there was some synchronous warming from the LIA recovery. What it isn’t synchronous to is CO2 emissions.
“Nate the assertion was there was some synchronous warming from the LIA recovery.”
Fact check:
“there was no synchronous warming during the 20th century.”
If the facts are on your side Bill, there is no need to lie.
Nate says:
”Fact check:
”there was no synchronous warming during the 20th century.”
If the facts are on your side Bill, there is no need to lie.”
It is well understood that when perturbed it can take centuries to fully respond unless say the perturbation declines. thus we have synchronous warming continuing from the LIA recovery. we only don’t know its amount.
others would like to attribute that warming to claimed untested perturbations by men.
so bottom line is while their is some synchronous wrming we don’t know it source despite you shouting out that we do.
check your facts.
“there was no synchronous warming during the 20th century.”
“thus we have synchronous warming continuing from the LIA recovery. we only dont know its amount.”
As ever, your assertions fall apart and devolve into gobbldegook.
Well obviously you need to take it out of context to make a case. Problem is you are 100% transparent. There is no synchronous warming with an identified cause but it doesn’t stop you from challenging people on something you deny being identically challenged. This is like your completely absent statistically sensible argument in support of what you believe is causing climate change.
Me:
“What is striking to me, is that all the continents showed nearly synchronous increase in warming rate in the late 20th century.”
Bill sez:
“there was no synchronous warming during the 20th century.”
Then it became:
“Nate the assertion was there was some synchronous warming from the LIA recovery.”
Now its
“There is no synchronous warming with an identified cause ”
Of course I didn’t mention any cause.
And then you (briefly) were happy to assert a cause, the LIA. But the LIA was an effect, not a cause.
Its causes were the Maunder Minimum which ended in 1710, then occasional volcanoes, the largest in 1815.
We know well the effect of volcanoes is brief cooling lasting < 5 years. See Pinatubo, etc.
Then, you would have the LIA abruptly end again in 1980, an effect without a cause, yet causing nearly synchronous warming in all those continents.
As ever Bill, you shoot nonsense assertions from the hip, then have to walk them back with new nonsense assertions.
I might as well be debating with my dog.
Nate says:
Me:
”What is striking to me, is that all the continents showed nearly synchronous increase in warming rate in the late 20th century.”
Bill sez:
”there was no synchronous warming during the 20th century.”
————————–
global warming synchronous with what Nate? Does anybody need to guess what you think that is?
===================
Nate says:
”Nate the assertion was there was some synchronous warming from the LIA recovery.”
”Now its
”There is no synchronous warming with an identified cause ”
Of course I didnt mention any cause.”
”””””””””””’
So it was just a coincidence in your view? Actually you dodn’t need to mention a cause in every post Nate . Anybody who has been in this forum reading comments for one day would easily know what you believed the cause was.
=============
Nate says:
And then you (briefly) were happy to assert a cause, the LIA. But the LIA was an effect, not a cause.
Yes but effects have causes or else they would not be an effect. I am surprised you are ignorant of that fact. Something without a cause is the status quo. For example some versions of chaos is thought to have no cause. . . .thus chaos would be the status quo.
=============================
Nate says:
”Its causes were the Maunder Minimum which ended in 1710, then occasional volcanoes, the largest in 1815.”
We know well the effect of volcanoes is brief cooling lasting < 5 years. See Pinatubo, etc.
—————
Perhaps the volcano helped deepen the Dalton minimum but the cooling was well underway before the eruption as the eruption didn't occur until about 18 years after the beginning of the minimum.
Anyway these stratospheric eruptions show that absorbing energy in the stratosphere cools the surface so that knocks another leg off the mainstream GHE chair.
================================
Nate says:
Then, you would have the LIA abruptly end again in 1980, an effect without a cause, yet causing nearly synchronous warming in all those continents.
As ever Bill, you shoot nonsense assertions from the hip, then have to walk them back with new nonsense assertions.
I might as well be debating with my dog.
———————
Science is well aware that areas of the deep ocean is still cooling from the aftermath of the LIA which itself may have significantly warmed the ocean via huge sea ice extents.
What we don't know is if that LIA recovery is still contributing to the modern warming. However, Drs Akasofu and Easterbrook are at least two people that hold that as a possibility. You can go debate with them but no doubt they would feel like they are debating with their dogs as it seems the only argument you can mount is ad hominem in nature.
“Science is well aware ” and all that follows is more of your speculations and mutterings…
Nate is simply unaware of science.
Hunter claimed that:
Got some supporting references for that ridiculous statement?
that fact has been discovered in the North Pacific.
the north pacific ocean is the most isolated area of the worlds oceans along the thermohaline current systems. Actually as I recall some of these areas were still warming from the MWP.
I am not going to go search for a link for you. So you can choose to believe it or not or you can search out the facts. Fact is they do have a few ocean bottom sampling locations. Shouldn’t be too hard for you.
Deep Argo is a project underway, still in pilot testing, to have some oceans wide trends for us in perhaps a decade.
“I am not going to go search for a link”
Tee hee hee.
participating here is not a business for me, so i don’t collect links on everything climate.
Hunter’s sure a funny guy. He makes a statement which is pure BS, then backs away with a sort of “I remember reading somewhere…” excuse. Having read some of the literature myself, let me point out that sea-ice insulates the water below it as the ice thickens during the freeze season.
The Thermo Haline Circulation produces sinking waters in only a few locations and is primarily associated with the formation of sea-ice, mostly in the Greenland, Iceland Norwegian and Barents Seas in the NH and around Antarctica in the SH. There is little if any THC sinking in the North Pacific, AIUI. The deepest waters of the Earth’s oceans are sourced from these sinking waters and retain the cold temperatures of their source regions.
First of all Swanson the deep ocean is colder than the ground below it and the sky above it.
Thus thermodynamically that requires a cold input to keep it cold and counteract conduction from what the ocean is enveloped by.
Nate and Swanson you guys are such freaking incompetent’s.
You want to make a big deal about me not having a link. So I go OK I will run one google search and see if it pops up.
https://www.techexplorist.com/bottom-pacific-ocean-getting-colder-possibly-little-ice-age/19904/
A pair of scientists- one from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, the other Harvard University, has found evidence of deep ocean cooling that is likely due to the Little Ice Age.
So now that both of you have made complete asses of yourselves bow your heads in shame.
“i dont collect links on everything climate.”
Obviously that makes it easier to misrepresent stuff, or just make it up, post it, and see if people let you get away with that.
We won’t. Just stop.
OK. Interesting. Good job.
Now, it is one paper, and others do not necessarily agree with this analysis.
What they finding, though, makes some sense, that T variations at the surface, will get stored in the ocean, just as it is happening now.
And the deeper, the longer it lasts.
They show that the LIA cooling at the surface was -0.25 C, and had recovered by 1880. Currently the warming is +1.0 C above that.
So again your claims that the current warming is simply recovery from the LIA, don’t make any sense.
The recent acceleration in OHC storage is not explained by the LIA recovery.
The increase in the OHC over just the last 10 y was 100 ZJ. (10^23 J).
The decrease in OHC during the LIA, he showed, was that much in ~ 100 years. Figure 4.
Source
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/GRAPHS/heat_content2000m.png
Hunter guy, I objected to your comment claiming that the Earth’s oceans are still cooling because of the LIA and that increased sea-ice might have caused ocean warming.
If you would take a hour of so to read the report from SCIENCE, you might appreciate the problems with your reply. For example, the report gives results for a rather low resolution ocean model used to simulate the circulation. The comparison with the Challenger data used adjusted data and is necessarily just a snapshot of measurements taken along the voyage track in that single cruse. There are also more details in the supplement to the report, which should also be read.
Of course, as you later note, the bottom waters of the oceans are continually replenished by the TC sinking process. It’s also well known that hundreds of years pass between the time the THC waters sink in the polar North Atlantic and their appearance in the North Pacific. That doesn’t imply that the Pacific bottom waters are actually being cooled, just that there’s a time lag for the deep water to migrate toward the Equator.
“just a snapshot of measurements taken along the voyage track in that single cruse. ”
What Bill has pointed out earlier might actually be relevant here:
“What we are dealing with is an extrapolation built on top of a sampling program….”
“Sampling for the deep ocean is virtually unsampled, is subject to lower levels of mixing and thus will contain more anomalous areas”
E. Swanson says:
Hunter claimed that:
Science is well aware that areas of the deep ocean is still cooling from the aftermath of the LIA which itself may have significantly warmed the ocean via huge sea ice extents.
Got some supporting references for that ridiculous statement?
then, ”Hunters sure a funny guy. He makes a statement which is pure BS, then backs away with a sort of ”I remember reading somewhere” excuse.”
then, after providing Swanson a link he goes into the strawman building business and exclaims:
E. Swanson says:
at 9:18 AM
”Hunter guy, I objected to your comment claiming that the Earths oceans are still cooling because of the LIA and that increased sea-ice might have caused ocean warming.”
No Swanson I did not claim the oceans were still cooling because of the LIA!
I said ”areas” of the ocean were cooling and I provided you evidence of that.
So to give you credit you recognize the THC sinking process that comes in good part from brines squeezed out of freezing seawater and the fact that summer ice extent retreat accelerates the volume of ice that freezes during the winter advance injecting more cold into the ocean bottom.
And also that since summer arctic surface temps are colder in the summer that strongly implies that ice melt retreat is likely due to warmer surface waters being carried to the Arctic (probably mostly by the Gulf Stream) that melts the ice from the bottom up.
That warm water may be a peak warming of ocean water in an ocean cycle that occurs during times of high levels of ice. Then the cycle repeats.
Now I am not even implying, nor am I claiming, nor do I believe, that this accounts for a large part of the global warming we have seen. So please don’t go there. The point is that climate is likely a complex interweb of many processes and the only thing I am objecting to in this comment section is Nate’s claims he knows how much the ocean has warmed and how then he starts claiming that CO2 is the only possible explanation.
Nate says:
at 9:52 AM
just a snapshot of measurements taken along the voyage track in that single cruse.
What Bill has pointed out earlier might actually be relevant here:
What we are dealing with is an extrapolation built on top of a sampling program.
Sampling for the deep ocean is virtually unsampled, is subject to lower levels of mixing and thus will contain more anomalous areas
—————–
Apparently we agree there are huge uncertainties as to the fate of the missing heat. Efforts to quantify it as sinking into the deep ocean is fraught with uncertainty.
Hunter replies:
Gee, thanks, it sure makes me feel great after some 40 years of study on the issue. But then, Hunter wanders off track:
Here I should point out that less sea-ice over the Arctic Ocean results in less solar energy being reflected and thus more being absorbed by the ocean. This in turn results in reduced ice thickness and also less multi year ice at the end of the melt season. It’s not high levels of SI extent, it’s lower levels which result in warmer water in the Arctic which you mention.
Yes, the THC is complicated. The Gulf Stream waters Hunter refers to spread out after exiting the US East Coast, becoming the North Atlantic Drift current. Some of that water turns back toward the South and some continues toward the North to form the Norwegian Current, which then enters the GIN seas, etc, all of which produce warmer Winters in Northern Europe.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-of-the-subarctic-Atlantic-showing-the-main-surface-and-deep-currents-The-locations_fig1_353070012
Hunter should take note that most of the climate models in use project a decrease in the strength of the THC due to AGW. There’s evidence which suggests this is already underway, such as seen cooling in the Irminger Sea.
Swanson says:
Gee, thanks, it sure makes me feel great after some 40 years of study on the issue. But then, Hunter wanders off track:
the fact that summer ice extent retreat accelerates the volume of ice that freezes during the winter advance injecting more cold into the ocean bottom.
——————————
You will have to explain why thats off track. This isn’t controversial. When ice doesn’t melt back much in summer there isn’t much freeze back in the winter. Winter ice extent has shrunk as much as summer ice extent. Thickening of ice is older ice and its a slow process of snow melting and refreezing on top of ice that doesn’t melt during the summer.
Swanson says:
Here I should point out that less sea-ice over the Arctic Ocean results in less solar energy being reflected and thus more being absorbed by the ocean. This in turn results in reduced ice thickness and also less multi year ice at the end of the melt season. Its not high levels of SI extent, its lower levels which result in warmer water in the Arctic which you mention.
———————-
Well you also have to consider that water emits so much better than ice it makes up the difference (per SB emissivity parameters). Overall the water should win out because the Arctic is a net loser of heat to space so the better emitter should benefit more over the less reflective.
Swanson says:
Hunter should take note that most of the climate models in use project a decrease in the strength of the THC due to AGW. Theres evidence which suggests this is already underway, such as seen cooling in the Irminger Sea.
————————-
I am not aware of the logic behind that projection. Seems to me
that if more brines are sinking that would do just the opposite. Perhaps with your 40 years of study you can explain.
There’s much to object to in Hunter’s post. Starting with:
That’s flat out wrong. See the graphs (remove the ‘*’ to view) at:
https://nsid*c.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Note that this year’s maximum was quite low and the current extent is currently on a track near that of the 2012 record low minimum. And, there is an ongoing decline in the amount of multi-year sea-ice, in addition to the loss of extent at yearly minimum.
Hunter continues:
you also have to consider that water emits so much better than ice it makes up the difference (per SB emissivity parameters).
My understanding is that the IR emissivity of sea-ice and water in the wavelengths associated with thermal emissions are similar. Snow over SI adds confusion, since there can be a dependence on the condition of the snow.
Furthermore, Hunter says:
You need to do some more homework, as much of the concerns associated with the THC arise from model studies of the impacts of climate change on the THC. Please understand that melting SI causes a freshening of the surface waters of the Arctic Ocean, which, combined with the input of fresh waters from continental runoff, result in less sinking than that sourced in the relatively salty GIN seas. This must be balanced against the loss of fresh water equivalent via seasonal SI export thru the Fram Strait, etc.
E. Swanson says:
Theres much to object to in Hunters post. Starting with:
Winter ice extent has shrunk as much as summer ice extent.
———————
well thanks for improving my argument. No doubt unintentional but you quoted a statement with a typo that I over looked. I was trying to say ‘has not’ instead of has.
Arctic winter extent has not shrunk as much as summer resulting in larger annual volume refreezes of ice.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34785-6
”These trends reveal that increases in summer melting are to some extent compensated by increasing ice production during winter”
E. Swanson says:
Hunter continues:
you also have to consider that water emits so much better than ice it makes up the difference (per SB emissivity parameters).
——————-
It doesn’t make any difference if its the same or if its different. At first you featured ice reflection and now you are pulling it back. If the reflection is the same then your argument is prima facie destroyed. Maybe you should spend a little time thinking about your comments and their consistency before lashing out. Does this conversation agitate you and cause you to do that? If so, why?
E. Swanson says:
Furthermore, Hunter says:
I am not aware of the logic behind that projection.
You need to do some more homework, as much of the concerns associated with the THC arise from model studies of the impacts of climate change on the THC. Please understand that melting SI causes a freshening of the surface waters of the Arctic Ocean, which, combined with the input of fresh waters from continental runoff, result in less sinking than that sourced in the relatively salty GIN seas. This must be balanced against the loss of fresh water equivalent via seasonal SI export thru the Fram Strait, etc.
—————–
Well yeah that could be a factor that affects the trend from time to time.
Maybe early on that was a big factor. But you got the most freshwater imbalance in 2007 when the largest volume ever recorded melted. Its now 16 years later and the freshwater mixes and spreads to other areas pulses in freshwater are getting smaller.
Further the trend in Arctic ice has been positive now for 9 1/2 years. and as indicated in the study above ice production has been increasing since the 1970’s.
Hunter references an article about sea-ice from NATURE. The authors give some important background information, then switch to a model study for analysis. Their model focus is on SI formation, not overall decline. I need to read it more carefully.
But next Hunter drifts into comments about reflection, writing:
I previous comment was referring to the LW emissivity of sea-ice vs. water, which are similar. For SW reflection, (called albedo) there is considerable difference between the two, that difference being part of the Arctic Amplification due to AGW.
Hunter ends with:
Yeah, 2012 saw the least extent at the end of the melt season, but recent minimums have been rather close to that level. Compare March data with September data at:
https://nsid*c.org/data/seaice_index/compare-animate
E. Swanson says:
” I need to read it more carefully.
——————————
Well this is just one source. There are ice volume databases where one can see how much new ice is formed each year and how the trend in new ice has increased over time. This doesn’t offset all of the melting each year but there is a notable flatening of annual net ice loss that has now extended out at least 16 years.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
But next Hunter drifts into comments about reflection, writing:
It doesnt make any difference if its the same or if its different. At first you featured ice reflection and now you are pulling it back.
I previous comment was referring to the LW emissivity of sea-ice vs. water, which are similar. For SW reflection, (called albedo) there is considerable difference between the two, that difference being part of the Arctic Amplification due to AGW.”
——————————–
It doesn’t matter Swanson. Thats always been a red herring. The Stefan Boltzmann emissivity factor is in play when you start talking about grey bodies.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter ends with:
Further the trend in Arctic ice has been positive now for 9 1/2 years.
Yeah, 2012 saw the least extent at the end of the melt season, but recent minimums have been rather close to that level.”
—————————————————-
Yeah that too. But I was referring to the overall annual trend in Arctic ice extent. Move it back to 17 years and the trend is only slightly negative.
Hunter mumbles a meaningless comment:
He just trying to forget that it was he that posted a stupid comment about emissivity above.
He also wrote:
Hunter wants to use the annual average instead the yearly minimum, since it understates the effects of AGW. That’s a typical denialist trick since the annual minimum is more sensitive to the effects of ongoing warming.
E. Swanson says:
Thats always been a red herring. The Stefan Boltzmann emissivity factor is in play when you start talking about grey bodies.
He just trying to forget that it was he that posted a stupid comment about emissivity tlyabove.
—————————
Swanson apparently can’t argue the point and instead acts like a 3 year old and just jerks and whines.
E. Swanson says:
I was referring to the overall annual trend in Arctic ice extent.
Hunter wants to use the annual average instead the yearly minimum, since it understates the effects of AGW. Thats a typical denialist trick since the annual minimum is more sensitive to the effects of ongoing warming.
———————
Apparently Swanson can’t understand how one teases out how much new ice freezes each year and apparently believes it is diminishing when there isn’t a single study that supports his point of view and many that support mine.
Swanson you can see more new ice by
the difference in trends of summer ice extent and winter ice extent. Summer ice extent is declining much faster than winter meaning that there has to be more new ice year to fill the widening gap.
I brought up another means t
I brought up another way to measure it that also seems to befuddle him. You can use ice volume databases that gives you figures of ice volume at the summer minima and the winter maxima. The new ice refreeze number is the winter maxima volume minus the summer minima volume from the previous summer. Plot it out for each year and find the trend.
I don’t see Hunter’s reason to focus on the amount of sea-ice volume formed each year. It may be increasing, but that implies that there is also more melting during the summer months. More energy is required to melt the larger volume, which is the result of warmer temperatures in the Arctic, that being one example of the effects of AGW.
E. Swanson says:
”I dont see Hunters reason to focus on the amount of sea-ice volume formed each year. It may be increasing, but that implies that there is also more melting during the summer months. More energy is required to melt the larger volume, which is the result of warmer temperatures in the Arctic, that being one example of the effects of AGW.”
Try harder to keep up with the topic Swanson. The acceleration of new ice freezing is what squeezes supercold brines out of the freezing sea water leaving freshwater ice as sea ice and supercold brines cooling the ocean bottoms.
The summer melt simply drifts away on top of the ocean and contributes to SSTs but not ocean bottom temperatures. As a reminder this thread was about Nate telling us how much the ocean warmed after extrapolating from the top of the ocean but actually the number he used is one that was as big as scientists thought they could get away with and still fell short of accounting for the missing SST heat. So thats about the time they dreamt up the idea for an atmospheric imbalance, and imbalance that only exists as needed heat to warm the deep ocean and they have no idea at all if that will warm the surface more.
Hunter displays his shallow understanding of the THC:
Much of the THC sinking occurs in the “Arctic Mediterranean” which includes the GIN seas in addition to the Arctic Ocean. The lower levels of the region are isolated by the relatively shallow depths of the Denmark Strait and the Faroe-Shetland sills. Any waters sinking below those sill depths will add to the outflows over those sills, flows which sink to great depths in the North Atlantic. Given that the melting of the Arctic Ocean waters leave fresher surface waters behind, there’s likely to be less sinking in that regions, not less. As I showed with a graphic above, the process is rather complicated, involving the high salt waters of the North Atlantic sub-tropical gyre and the Gulf Stream coupled with the low salinity surface waters of the Arctic Ocean.
Your make a simple statement:
which doesn’t come close to describing how things are changing. Not to mention your usual overly broad denialist conclusions at the end of your post.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter displays his shallow understanding of the THC:
”The acceleration of new ice freezing is what squeezes supercold brines out of the freezing sea water leaving freshwater ice as sea ice and supercold brines cooling the ocean bottoms.”
Given that the melting of the Arctic Ocean waters leave fresher surface waters behind, theres likely to be less sinking in that regions, not less.
Your make a simple statement:
”The summer melt simply drifts away on top of the ocean and contributes to SSTs but not ocean bottom temperatures.”
which doesnt come close to describing how things are changing. Not to mention your usual overly broad denialist conclusions at the end of your post.
————————-
Well you should depend more on data Swanson than your generalized perception of the situation by listening to dire warnings about Arctic ice from your handlers.
I don’t disagree that ”trends” in Arctic seaice melt (volume) would be a factor that would act to partly mitigate or perhaps even reverse the fact a lot more new ice was freezing each year not because of volume reduction but because of a sustained larger summer ice minimum that takes the ice well back from the 6 month winter line in the arctic. Even some of the winter warming is accounted for by the massive increase in annual winter refreezes releasing huge amounts of latent heat into the atmosphere.
But the volume reductions have not been happening now for 13 years. Science still says the upper ocean adjusts in less than 100 years and that isn’t even counting ocean currents and winds that push the freshwater south.
Yes there is a possibility of a large slowing of THC cold brine infusion during the first decade of the 21st century but the 2nd decade and thus far for the 3rd decade ice volume has not decreased. . . .and as you love to point out summer ice retreat hasn’t yet recovered nor has it shown signs of recovering. It only shows strong signs of not retreating much further if at all.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter displays his shallow understanding of the THC: ”The acceleration of new ice freezing is what squeezes supercold brines out of the freezing sea water leaving freshwater ice as sea ice and supercold brines cooling the ocean bottoms.”
Given that the melting of the Arctic Ocean waters leave fresher surface waters behind, theres likely to be less sinking in that regions, not less.
Your make a simple statement: ”The summer melt simply drifts away on top of the ocean and contributes to SSTs but not ocean bottom temperatures.”
which doesnt come close to describing how things are changing.
————————-
Well you should depend more on data Swanson rather than your twisted view of things.
Quite simply there has been increases in freshwater now for 13 years as sea ice volume isn’t decreasing in the Arctic.
the source of freshwater that you prophesize as mitigating the ongoing large increase in annual new ice production simply is no longer there. Yes it may have been in the first decade of the 21st century but its not there now.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
Nate says:
This blog is like a Maxwells Demon.
Its demon allows only news about non-warming to pass through its gate to the masses.
It seeks small regions of the planet that are cool, or not warming, and only shows us those.
And no mention of mitigating factors are mentioned.
But of course, we know that when no demon is at work, and we zoom out, we see that whole continents are warming.
————————–
People are tired of your support of data torturing. People don’t give a shit about global mean temperature. They care about a comfortable climate and mean temperature has absolutely nothing to do with comfort as nobody ever feels a mean temperature.
What is significant is hot days have become less hot, cold days less cold. If CO2 is to blame for that then bring it on. The bonus is additionally realized in faster growing plants less affected by cold and heat, more drought resistant plants requiring less irrigation. All positives.
You and your ilk like to pretend the future portends more disaster, wider fluctuations in temperature, wide fluctuations in crop failure. . . .all bullshit projections and people will continue to get more tired with the bullshit because they will increasingly understand it is nothing but a huge money scam.
> People dont give a shit about global mean temperature. They care about a comfortable climate
One is a proxy for the other, Gill.
Your less hot days meme is intriguing.
https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/more-extremely-hot-days
Care to support that meme?
Willard says:
”One is a proxy for the other, Gill.”
Indeed the proxy selected by fiat by corrupt politicians.
Willard says:
”Your less hot days meme is intriguing.
Climate Central analysis looked at 246 U.S. locations and calculated how many more days each year were extremely hot from 1970 to 2021.
Since 1970, 74% (184) of 246 U.S. locations analyzed reported more extremely hot days annually.
About 51% (126) of the locations had at least seven additional extremely hot days annually.
The largest change was in Austin, TX with 43 additional days above 100F.
https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/more-extremely-hot-days
Care to support that meme?”
——————-
Depends upon on you want to define extremely hot. First of all how many of those stations were around when it was last naturally hot? Like through the 1930’s?
Second, 100 degrees in Austin Texas or Southern California can hardly be called extremely hot. Back in the 1960’s when I went through basic training in San Antonio extremely hot was defined as over 105 degrees and some activities were curtailed. In California in Palm Springs, a favorite leisure playground of the rich, the average high temperature for July and August is 101 degrees.
I am not aware of any official measure of what is extremely hot but NOAA defines dangerously hot for prolonged exposure or strenuous activity as being between 103 and 112 degrees, depending upon humidity. And extremely dangerous as between 126 and 132 degrees.
And of course record temperatures have been decreasing. So in typical fashion those promoting government corruption will cherry pick whatever they can find to make a statement. So thanks for the demonstration of your complete lack of credibility.
Gill, Gill,
This is an Arby’s.
May I take your citation, please?
as soon as you give me yours Willard.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Oh, Gill.
I just did.
You want another one?
Here you go:
https://climatedata.ca/resource/heat-waves-and-climate-change/
Your turn. Will you blame Justin? Will someone else interject “but what about the Southern seas?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard says:
Oh, Gill.
I just did.
You want another one?
Here you go:
Across the Northern Hemisphere, heat waves are not just happening more often than in the past but, on average, affecting a 25% larger land area than they did in 1980; including ocean areas, heat waves grew 50% larger.
——————————
You see Willard thats where you go off the rails. My comments on less extreme weather is limited to the effects of increases in greenhouse gases.
Hottest days occur on days where the least amount of water is in the atmosphere. Thus if days are getting hotter since 1980 its because 1980 was in the trough of the most recent nadir of the multi-decadal temperature oscillation. some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Gill is saying that he believes his rants cover up for his lack of support.
Its simple Willard. Greenhouse gases absorb a lot of incoming sunlight sending a lot of it back into space before it ever reaches the surface. Sunlight is 50% IR. It is why the moon’s lit surface can be as high as 120C and the earth’s surface has never been higher than 56C. I will allow you to sort out what I mean by surface as it seems that confusion is one of the main ways that the con works.
sheesh how is a heat wave defined in Canada?
LMAO! if its high humidity and 93F outside they claim its the equivalent of 138F
If its 81F with high humidity they claim that results are: ”Great discomfort; avoid exertion”
If its 84F with high humidity they warn that results are: ”Dangerous; heat stroke quite possible”
ROTFLMAO!
Either the Canadians are a bunch of pussies or their masters very much want to scare them to death.
Still no citation, Gill?
Fine. You can continue soapboxing.
Willard says:
”Still no citation, Gill?
Fine. You can continue soapboxing.”
Willard wants a free sammich because he posts stuff he needs others need to explain to him what it means. what do want on your sammich willard?
Gill, Gill,
You made a claim. You did not support it.
Twisting the sammich request meme will not help you support your claim.
Willard I asked what you wanted on the sammich. Unlike you I intended to serve you up as to at least your favorite ingredient.
I like the cherry pick from 1970. You people are laughable.
Roy did the picking:
“The following plot shows the 50-year area-averaged temperature trend”
The first thing you see at wee willy’s link are stacks emitting large volumes of water vapour, being passed off as CO2. That’s your first clue for a propaganda alert.
It is followed closely by this quote…
“There is a clear scientific consensus that human activities primarily the burning of fossil fuels are causing the Earth to warm, and Canada is warming about twice as fast as the globe as a whole”.
The old consensus trick. They have no evidence but agreement.
Alarmists are seriously pathetic, emotionally-disturbed people.
I live in Canada and I am convinced it is getting colder in winter. In summer, it’s the same old, same old. We get hot then we cool and every so often we get a heat wave. Been happening as long as I can remember.
I recall summer nights as a kid being unable to sleep at night due to the heat at night. Remember it as an adult as well. Nothing new, move along folks.
Yes some “People dont give a shit” about others, nor future generations when they are old cranks.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Nate is playing his political game again. This is a direct quote from Dr. Spencer. Did you read it?
“the average model over-estimate of warming can be either large or small.
But nowhere is it more dramatic than in the U.S. Corn Belt during the growing season (June, July, August).”
If you want comment on his claim about this topic and state something about the science, you might be taken seriously. Otherwise, most people understand that politics is about misdirection and spin while science is about being competent and honest.
Well said, TS.
That’s why nobody would ever confuse you for a scientist.
Willard, please stop trolling.
With a title like ‘Epic Fail in American Heartland’, I think its clear who is playing politics.
Roy knows very well that small region climate prediction is much harder than predicting the global average.
I think the context is very clear. He works as a consultant to farming interests in the midwest, so he has an interest in that region. He has become aware that climate prediction in that area is grossly in error. That is a science observation.
> climate prediction in that area is grossly in error
Yet the models he’s using aren’t for that area, TS.
If you could look at the regional models, I could try to find the consultancy gigs you are alluding to.
“He has become aware that climate prediction in that area is grossly in error. That is a science observation.”
And if he was presenting science, he should have mentioned the mitigating factors specific to that region: agricultural intensification during the period of study.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1498939
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1499315
This has been brought up several times here, and he had no response to it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1500422
Nate says:
With a title like Epic Fail in American Heartland, I think its clear who is playing politics.
Roy knows very well that small region climate prediction is much harder than predicting the global average.
———————————-
Nate sounds like Roy agrees with the IPCC on its long range global climate change. Gee, he might if you think that the prediction could be off by up to 500% and still be called a good prediction.
Keep in mind Nate global climate is nothing more than the sum of regional climate and Roy is laying that out some regional climate for us.
You are using UHI biased data. All I have to say.
nate thinks he is posting on realclimate or skepticalscience. This is Roy’s UAH site, Nate, no censorship by Roy.
???
We have been keeping temperature records on our farm for over 100 years. I have done a quality check on the entries with the official weather station located less than 60 miles away, and the records match. I certainly can endorse the theme of Dr. Spencer’s post. In fact, he started 50 years ago when summer temperatures were a bit cooler than the century’s average. There is no doubt that we are experiencing cooler summer temperatures than we were in decades past. (At the same time, do not fear a cooling trends — the winters have become less cold as well.) Most likely, if the study used actual OBSERVED temperatures rather than NOAA’s homogenized surface temperature product, then a cooling trend would be observed rather than a tiny 0.1 degree increase. NOAA’s adjustments will bias the trend upward, especially the unwarranted adjustment for TOBS. I see the TOBs adjustment as an arrogant insult to the intelligence of temperature readers decades ago. These readers knew how to move down the max indicator each day so that yesterday’s high temperature is not mistaken for today’s temperature.
Regarding corn yields, our bushels per acre is more than four times what it was 60 years ago. Better hybrids play a large role, but also important are more consistent rainfall, lower stress from high temperatures (triple digits used to be common but now they are rare), AND higher CO2 content in the atmosphere.
Seems the more prosperous one becomes the less he/she wants to prosper and instead while away worrying about too many people and trying to figure out some way of stemming that.
California politicians blame climate change for drought. But the truth is water storage in California hasn’t been improved for over 42 years while the population has increased by 64%. An oversight that has arisen out of excessive kowtowing to corporate environmental interests and ignoring the real environmental interests of the actual population of California.
Here is the story: https://youtu.be/0eg0aPRuZu8
More Freedom Fighters editorials over reality constraints:
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/23/1165378214/3-reasons-why-californias-drought-isnt-really-over-despite-all-the-rain
As if cries for freedom will increase groundwater reserves all by itself.
Southern California is a desert. Impounding water has been a necessity for 120 years. The last 42 of them have seen no new projects despite many being on the recommended list. So water supplies haven’t kept up with the 64% increase in demand.
Obviously groundwater reserves have been tapped as an alternative because we still have drinking water here but it is a crisis manufactured by politicians.
Obviously Gill’s epilogue goes against the fact that pumping groundwater is unregulated.
Must be the gubmint’s fault too!
If gubmint can do anything about CO2 levels and global warming {and not get any help from China} then it can do almost anything.
That’s not an if, gb:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3
My turn. In the other thread, you said:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1494620
You know that your rhetorical question is false, right?
It’s a directive from Frank Luntz.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard says:June 20, 2023 at 12:15 PM
Obviously Gills epilogue goes against the fact that pumping groundwater is unregulated.
Must be the gubmints fault too!
——————————
Well no its not their fault.
But one should recognize that the gubmint is about as worthless as a zit on a prostitutes ass in doing something about when for decades engineers have been pointing out the problem to them and giving them a solution. Watch the video. Again its corporate environmentalism and the gubmint kowtowing to them that is the problem.
This problem isn’t any different than the major health crisis affecting the US population arising from metabolic syndrome that science has clearly linked to fructose. Yet we still subsidize the production of fructose. Yet another example of the rampant corruption affecting the swamp.
Metabolic Syndrome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6770027/
Gill, Gill,
This is an Arbys.
Yep where you get ”The Meat”.
Willard your website which you promote ruthlessly here is where you get ”The Fake Meat”
Gill, Gill,
You’re taking a chance:
https://sentientmedia.org/meat-consumption-in-the-us/
Not an investment advice, but.
Willard says:
”In response to changing consumer preferences, traditional meat producers are increasingly adding plant-based alternatives to their product ranges. A 2021 study found that the average American believes that the U.S. could go completely plant-based by 2039.”
Well having some experience in polling Willard, reports about poll responses are completely without any merit unless the entire context of the interview leading up to participant answers is not provided.
Reputable and professional polling companies always do that in their reports. You say its a study rather than a poll or survey, which immediately calls up the question of the professionalism.
But the results on their surface seems preposterous. One only need to walk through a number of grocery stores to see how ridiculous that is.
Fact is the science on vegetarianism is in its infancy and results that call that into question are already pouring in.
It is far more difficult to eat healthy as a vegetarian as it as an omnivore which we clearly evolved to be.
And just the memes ‘plant-based meat’ ‘vegan meat’ says tons all by themselves.
Gill, Gill,
This is an Arby’s, and you still have not supported your claim.
thats OK Willard. Enjoy your frankenfoods.
Are the 36 climate models wrong?
Or is there a system that merely encourages predictions which are warmer?
It seems to me they are merely victims of a stupid system.
They are probably paid enough, but it makes them look quite stupid and/or evil.
I say we living in the best of times, but is it the best of times for
climate modelers?
I think so, it’s just a small number of them are being forced to look like idiots, otherwise there is, in general, improvement in climate modeling, it just might not funded by governments.
It seems governments are not improving- but they are getting paid more.
“Are the 36 climate models wrong?”
No-body ranks them – so how would we know?
That would be a better system.
You could try comparing them to actual observations.
John Christy did that with over a hundred models.
Only one came close and even that one was wrong because it depended on all of the warming being caused by CO2 and ignored any natural variation.
The very fact of all those models being so profoundly wrong should render AGW hypothesis scientifically false.
Ken
” John Christy did that with over a hundred models. ”
You are referring to a very ancient comparison, above all biased by comparisons of UAH satellite data and radiosonde data (RICH, RAOBCORE, RATPAC) homogenized by using… satellite data.
His comparison with the models was made with regard to the atmosphere; the surface tells as usual different things.
*
Despite having been homogenized by using atmospheric satellite data, the RATPAC radiosondes correlate well not only with satellite data within atmospheric layers, e.g. at 500 hPa (5.5 km)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LgITui8Sm7EaWzOstUBL1ZyNRaOu5IQI/view
but with surface data as well:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OfHL6QmRVxS-W8y2OjREIsx3jfnTz0YV/view
Thus, it might be interesting to look outside of Christy’s area.
I’m not at all a fan of Gavin Schmidt, but a look at model/observation comparison coming from his corner is useful as well:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
*
To automatically denigrate everything coming from the Hansen/Schmidt/Trenberth corner without being able to scientifically contradict what they do: that’s the trivial, pseudoskeptic attitude a la Robertson & Co.
Source of the RATPAC-B monthly data used:
https://tinyurl.com/ywduenc8 (d c)
What is your comment on
https://www.realclimate.org/images/cmp_tmt-1-600×436.png
https://www.realclimate.org/images/cmp_tmt_trop-1-600×436.png
https://www.realclimate.org/images/tmt_hist-600×436.png
https://www.realclimate.org/images/tmt_trop_hist-600×436.png
Binny,
What has Gavin Schmidt “done”, according to you? Or Hansen or Trenberth?
Schmidt is a good juggler, apparently. Hansen equates coal trains to the Holocaust “Trains of Death”. Trenberth says it’s a travesty that he can’t find “missing” heat.
Go on, tell me what their scientific achievements are – the ones you claim that I am denigrating.
You idiot, you can’t do it, can you?
All you can do it is pretend that a GHE exists, but you can’t state what it is supposed to be doing, or describe it! Time for you to put your fingers in your ears, and say “Blah! Blah! Blah!”.
That might keep reality at bay for a while, at least.
binny…”Im not at all a fan of Gavin Schmidt…”
***
Come on, Binny, you’d kiss his butt in a heartbeat if you had the chance. You’d have to get in line behind Greta Thunberg.
” but you cant state what it is supposed to be doing, or describe it!”
Mike, since we know you’ve read its description here many times, by many posters, even several this month, this is obviously a lie.
If you’ve got the facts on your side, there is no need to lie.
But you do.
Repeatedly.
This is telling us that you are aware that you do not have the facts on your side.
Nate,
Pretending that you have an explanation, but you are not prepared to divulge it, just makes you look like the idiot you are.
Here’s a description for you –
Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.” -bobdroege.
Here’s another –
cooling over time.” – Willard.
Which one do you fancy, peabrain?
Are you a complete idiot, or are you trying to achieve that standard?
Keep everyone laughing, fool.
GHE described here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499245
here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1496873
here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1497284
And no sensible rebuttal was given by you.
and as predicted
“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.”
So obviously the predictions was accurate.
You did lie, and you continue to lie when you claim that no one can describe it.
Thus illustrating that you have no fact based argument against the GHE.
Clearly the GHE exists and it has been described in terms of temperature. But scientifically it hasn’t been described as to how the effect works. The 3rd grader radiation model is one that doesn’t work with gases and has never been demonstrated to work.
RW Woods demonstrated that its namesake the greenhouse works by restricting convection. One might argue that the TOA also restricts convection but in that location of the atmosphere the atmosphere’s temperature does not qualify as a greenhouse effect as its too cold.
“But scientifically it hasnt been described as to how the effect works.”
Yes it has.
you are lying nate. you have been asked to produce a statistically sensible argument or evidence and have proven yourself impotent in accomplishing that.
Bill you know very well that we have had lengthy discussions on the mechanism of the GHE.
Just quit your bitchin.
discussions that go well beyond science into highly imaginative stuff on how feedbacks do all the surface warming in an undescribed manner.
New evidence that polar bears survived 1,600 years of ice-free summers in the early Holocene
Susan Crockford
“New evidence indicates that Arctic areas with the thickest ice today probably melted out every year during the summer for about 1,600 years during the early Holocene (ca. 11.3-9.7k years ago), making the Arctic virtually ice-free. As I argue in my new book, this means that polar bears and other Arctic species are capable of surviving extended periods with ice-free summers: otherwise, they would not be alive today.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/20/new-evidence-that-polar-bears-survived-1600-years-of-ice-free-summers-in-the-early-holocene/
The Last Glacial Maximum was the coldest known period of time {in terms having enough evidence- many think Earth has had snowball periods- but many also disagree and there is a lack of evidence- whereas LGM being most recent has most evidence and there little disagree about how cold it was}.
There likewise agreement that sea levels were only about 1 to 2 meter
higher when this arctic ice free sea ice, occurred. Whereas previous interglacial periods had sea level 4 meters or higher and warmer ocean of 4 C or more. And lot of evidence of northern Europe had semi-tropical conditions during these warmer period- and also that Sahara desert was grassland with many forests and rivers- human settlement where none are today {they are uninhabitable}.
Valentina Zharkova
https://solargsm.com/
Predicts that we in Grand Solar Min, but after this we will enter another Solar Grand Max.
And that any significant cooling related to Grand Solar Min will be mostly related to increased volcanic activity associated with past Grand Solar Minimums, though Solar Grand Min will have large effect upon global weather and causing extreme cold weather events due the lower magnetic activity of the Sun.
Anyhow she says the warming from Solar Grand Max could be significantly more than our Solar Grand Max during the 20th Century {but we have a lot time to prepare for this}.
So, the issue I would like to address is will the next Solar Grand Maximum be much warmer the 15 C, Ie, 16 or 17 C.
Or cause an Arctic ice free polar sea ice in the summer?
So, first, we were in the coldest time of Holocene, which was called
the Little Ice Age. And it seems the Solar Grand Min, isn’t going to return to such colder condition. Or we will start the Solar grand max
with a higher average global temperature {our ocean could be about .1
C warmer as compared to LIA}.
And we talking about time of around 2070+ AD.
In 50 years, the world will change a lot.
Global population will have more older people- China will be worse and with significantly less population, also Japan and Russia. And India, south east Asia, African and middle East, will grow significantly in population- but likewise have more older
populations. The future crash of human population could be great concern- though will depend upon how successful Japan and China manage their significant lowering of population before this time period. We assume, Russia will fail a lot, as it’s always failed a lot. And large aspect of this, is that Russians are fleeing their country.
China will have burned thru all their coal, though Russia will have a lot of Coal and other fossil fuels.
But by 2070 AD it’s possible we are mining ocean methane hydrates by a significant amount- and thereby making coal fairly useless as something to export.
I suppose the warming might invigorate the populations in the colder countries.
Zharkova says 2.5C warmer by 2600 mostly due to Barycenter of sun with a resulting 25 Wm-2 more of solar energy reaching earth.
But I say the average temperature of ocean is global temperature.
Though NASA and NOAA say more the 90% of global warming is warming the 3.5 C ocean. So, say 10% of 25 Wm-2 = 2.5 Wm-2.
And takes centuries to warm the cold ocean.
But given enough time and ocean with average of 3.5 C becomes say 4 C, then one has ice free polar sea ice and average temperature of 17 to 18 C.
Which around the peak interglacial temperature when we had ice free polar sea. But then more heat is lost in polar region- because it’s warmer and warming the cold land area around it.
But this should also green the Sahara desert which would add to global average temperature- so, closer to 18 C
If the arctic is ice free in terms of sea ice, this could help Russia. And led me to new madness- can you have ocean settlements in the Arctic ocean.
Now, I tend to think ocean settlement will be mostly in the tropics, though could start outside the tropics- California or Florida coast.
If we still had a Hong Kong, I would say Hong Kong, but perhaps other places other than US.
Anyhow the madness, has made me wonder about floating breakwaters made of ice.
I thought of mining polar sea ice- mining say 5 meter thick sea ice, and stacking them, so there are thicker. And we want thicker ice to make the floating breakwaters- such as 20 meter thick sea ice.
20 meter by 20 meter square sea ice, and 100 long and float them vertical, so there are about 10 meter above the waterline.
And question is how long would they last.
Now mining sea ice I was thinking using ice sea which around 9 meter thick, and stacking much thicker. And had to be huge economy of scale- and thereby to be cheap enough. And needed nuclear powered tugs to tow it thousands of km.
But if have ice free polar sea ice in summer, one have a shortage of 9 meter thick ice- one might be limited to only 3 meter thick ice.
But if using the arctic ocean in summer, you might pay to use it in the winter.
So, say you build and maintain 10 km wide lanes. Ice breaker does 1 meter thick ice. And you mine ice when 1 meter thick or thicker.
So follow an icebreaker and widen it to 10 km- on either side stack 100 meter 1 meter thick ice. 1 km wide gives 10 meter thick 100 meter wide. And 2 km wide give 20 meter thick by 100 meter wide by 1000 meter long.
So clearing lane for shipping and clearing lane to transport the ice, barges away from shipping lane. So off the 10 km wide lane you have 20 km by 20 km area which had 1 meter thick sea ice:
20,000 x 20,000 x 1 meter = 400,000,000 cubic meter
And 100 x 1000 x 20 = 2000000 cubic meter or 200 of them from
20 km square area of 400 square km. And stacked ice takes 40 square km of the 400 sq km, allowing 160 square km of room to drag ice barges from the 10 km wide sea lane. And transporting barges can clear lanes of new ice forming in them.
So you keep sea lanes clear, and get a lot ice stacked up.
So, what do need the ice breakwater for?
Don’t need breakwater when sea is covered by polar sea ice, only when there isn’t any thick polar sea ice.
Hmm, well 20 km square open region ocean water could some waves in
it and if wanted bigger region of open water, then it would have more waves.
And if placed vertically, one stack more in 20 by 20 km area.
Russian KGB Member Tells All – America Is DOOMED!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_xZUXC6Ubo&t=2098s
Silly KGB member. America is always being overthrown.
It’s designed that way.
He sounds like an American Conservative.
US starts something and it lands in other countries-
including Russian KGB members.
Communist is strong in the world today.
Really?
How long before CCP changes it’s name?
I will give it, 10 years.
It will it go on as minority in China. But China won’t want it in their name.
I google Israel and India and it almost non-existent.
It’s still something in Japan, eg, “The JCP polled 11.3 percent of the vote in 2000” but they seem to have some relevant issues.
Canada worse than Japan. French:
Wiki:
Since then, the PCF’s ideology has been marked by significant ideological evolution on some topics, but consistency on other issues. Some of the most marked changes have come on individual rights and immigration. After having vilified homosexuality and feminism as “the rubbish of capitalism” in the 1970s, the PCF now fully supports both gay rights and feminism.
“Despite its moral conservatism in the 1930s and 1960s, the PCF was the most feminist party in France throughout the 20th century. Committed to women’s right to vote since the 1920s, in 1946, it elected seventeen of the first thirty-three women deputies. In 1956, there were only nineteen women in the National Assembly, but fifteen were Communists.”
Kind of like Japan- they have reasonable issues.
Oh since Aussie said it.
Nope, weakest, yet.
Solar wind
speed: 413.5 km/sec
density: 2.83 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 181
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 169 sfu
Updated 20 Jun 2023
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.01×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.0% Below Average
48-hr change: +0.3%
Much more active, now.
If it continues, my guess could be close to being
correct. Will it get as or even more active?
Hmm, I don’t know, but seems in stay at this level
for few more days. Let’s what they saying:
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
19 June – 15 July 2023
Solar activity is expected to be at low to moderate levels
throughout the forecast period (19 Jun-15 Jul).
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
likely to reach high levels on 19-24 Jun and again on 14-15 Jul due
to HSS influence.
Geomagnetic field activity is expected to reach unsettled to active
levels on 19-21 Jun, 27-28 Jun, 01-02 Jul, 08 Jul, and 12-15 Jul
with G1-G2 (Minor-Moderate) levels likely on 12-13 Jul due to
recurrent CH HSS effects. There is a chance for CME effects on 21-22
Jun related to the CME eruptions on 17 and 18 Jun. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Well, the Oulu Neutron Counts is still low activity for a solar Max.
And Thermosphere Climate Index is reasonable high but is lower compared to Jan.
Solar wind
speed: 460.2 km/sec
density: 6.00 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 155
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 180 sfu
Updated 21 Jun 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.01×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.0% Below Average
“CME TO STRIKE VENUS AND MARS: A CME launched into space by yesterday’s X-flare (described below) may not strike Earth, however, it will hit Venus and Mars, according to a NASA model. The strike on Venus (June 22nd) will probably erode a small amount of the planet’s upper atmosphere, while the strike on Mars (June 25th) could spark auroras visible to MAVEN and other Mars-orbiting satellites.”
{links to: Catching the Martian light show
Particles unleashed by the solar storm bombarded Mars atmosphere, causing bright auroras at ultraviolet wavelengths.}
So if can see the ultraviolet wavelengths- I don’t know if human eyes would see this light show- but “MAVEN and other Mars-orbiting satellites” can.
Daily Sun: 22 Jun 23
Solar wind
speed: 391.7 km/sec
density: 4.05 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 190
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 176 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.01×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.0% Below Average
It going to be about same for a few days, though it
might weaken a bit.
High spot number- one might imagine I predicted it, but it’s not
very active- moderately active is what, it is.
So far it’s been a weak cycle {it could change] and therefore since everyone was predicting a weak cycle, everyone so far has been correct.
There is still doubt about being in a solar grand min, but it seems
likely.
Daily Sun: 26 Jun 23
Solar wind
speed: 561.2 km/sec
density: 1.67 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 180
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 155 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.39×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.5% Below Average
48-hr change: -1.2%
Spot count remains high, and they say more coming {which might replace those leaving]. But no visible hint they are coming.
Jan was more active, June has had high spot numbers.
But doesn’t seem my July guess is panning out
Sunspot number has lowered, but the got big size spot which recently
grown lot. But a lot small spots have faded. Not sure what I make of one spot growing a lot. I look at spots growing and not fading:
Daily Sun: 28 Jun 23
Solar wind
speed: 445.8 km/sec
density: 2.02 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 141
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 151 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.22×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.0% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.6%
“New sunspot AR3354 has grown very rapidly in the past 24 hours. It merits watching as a possible source of Earth-directed flares. ”
Well, it could take out electrical grids- that is something to watch.
And mess with drones and Ukraine war.
This solar max wouldn’t have been a good time to send crew to Mars,
but the “-3.0% Below Average” adds some hope.
Hurricanes, I got one, Hurricane Adrian, but they saying it’s going to fade, but another one could be forming. I might get dozen of trying to give me some rain and exciting thunderstorms- like last year.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
But we got lots of water and still adding water from the snow we had:
https://cdec.water.ca.gov/resapp/RescondMain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7uvn6MhD_8
SpaceX is finishing the NEW Starship Pad Construction!
I found this more exciting than normal.
There are two very big lies in the climate crisis business, and it is a big business for various media who publish these lies. The first is that every crazy and extreme prediction is certain to happen. Those stories are typically preceded by the claim that “with climate change we can expect…” Or, “in a recent study scientists found…” The biggest lie that has school children in a state of hysteria is the claim that we must stop this and we can if we act now. The fact is that nothing is certain about any of the predictive science. There is no scientifically valid certainty to even the most mild predictions. The most important fact is that the efforts of people in North America and Western Europe to reduce greenhouse emissions are worthless if the rest of the world continues to increase emissions and the producer countries continue their production.
“But CAGW” is indeed the central square of the Climateball Bingo:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
Well played!
As for the rest of the world, it won’t do shit if you don’t deem to lift up your pinky. Every single molecule counts, something you ought to know better than me for, you know, you are a Very Serious scientist.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The fact is that I would rather contribute than be a nuisance like so many of you trolls who abuse Dr. Spencer’s very open policy to allow free expression for everyone except the most abusive pests. As they say, if you mud wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it.
Don’t sell yourself short, big guy. The only sciencey things you contributed so far is a puzzle and a bit about firefighting. Everything else was the usual contrarian crap.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The reductions are useless anyway. CO2 cannot cause the kind of catastrophic warming predicted by alarmists.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
We have used a finer-scale climate model to add details to the coarse global model results. This procedure, which climatologist call “downscaling,” is the culmination of work over the past few years as part of the USDA-NIFA Climate and Corn-based Cropping System CAP project (also known as the Sustainable Corn Project). The next few figures show a number of results from these downscaled climate models. The finest runs take five months of continuous computing time on 72 processors, so this is an intensive and time- consuming set of calculations.
[…]
To summarize, over the past sixty years the Midwest has seen a slight warming, mostly in the cooler half of the year, which has allowed the hardiness zones to go northward. There was also a 5-10% increase in average yearly precipitation, which is a couple inches increase for most states. The biggest change in terms of both the observations and the predictions is the increase in heavy rainfall. Heavy rainfall has increased significantly more than the annual or the seasonal totals. In fact, a consensus has evolved that a change in average precipitation isn’t a useful predictor of the change in extreme precipitation. There can be more frequent heavy rainfalls even if the average rainfall stays the same or declines slightly. This trend of increased heavy rainfall is predicted to continue and to strengthen in the future 30 years.
https://www.sustainablecorn.org/PDF_download.php/doc/publications/Climate-Change-in-the-CornBelt_0193-2016.pdf
The first emphasized bit should indicate that to get that kind of detail comes at processing cost. Anyone who really wish to inform the public about what is actually projected for the corn belt ought to benefit from that kind of work. Global circulation models ought to be left for other things.
“The finest runs take five months of continuous computing time on 72 processors, so this is an intensive and time- consuming set of calculations.”
Which provide precisely nothing of use to man nor beast. It is not possible to predict future climate states – IPCC.
You are an idiot if you believe otherwise.
Mike Flynn,
The only thing that could ever be of use to you –
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons
Yours truly,
“The finest runs take five months of continuous computing time on 72 processors, so this is an intensive and time- consuming set of calculations.”
Which provide precisely nothing of use to man nor beast. It is not possible to predict future climate states IPCC.
You are an idiot if you believe otherwise.
You already said that, Moron Mike.
Here is your pacifier –
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons
Sweet dreams.
“The finest runs take five months of continuous computing time on 72 processors, so this is an intensive and time- consuming set of calculations.”
Which provide precisely nothing of use to man nor beast. It is not possible to predict future climate states IPCC.
You are an idiot if you believe otherwise.
Go on, idiot, tell me you believe that models can predict future climate states.
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons
You should know all about being a moron. Idiot.
No U.
Willard, please stop trolling.
We all know there is no U in moron. Doesn’t prevent you being a moron or an idiot of course.
Yet another alarmist garbage paper.
C’mon, Bordo.
In matters of hot garbage, we can all bow to you.
wee willy, do you have a special trash heap where you find this pseudo-science?
Oh, Bordo.
You have no idea what the study is about, do you?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“We have used a finer-scale climate model to add details to the coarse global model results.”
Wishful thinking added to speculation.
That’s helpful, is it?
Idiot.
Deep Blue Sea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEYMxfM3vNU
Should I pray for them?
A lot comments about it:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/2023/06/22/the-titanic-submersible/#comments
eli rabbet…”Senator Grassley appears to differ…”
***
Hey, Eli, have you figured out yet that the 2nd law does not infer that when two bodies of different temperature are radiating at each other, that one of them is not radiating?
G&T tried to explain that to you but I did not see a rebuttal from you. You see, Eli, heat can only be transferred by its own means from hot to cold. With radiation, that does not mean one body is not radiating, it simply means that a body at a hotter temperature will not absorb the radiation from a body at a colder temperature.
Basic quantum theory, Eli. Check out Bohr’s explanation for radiation and electrons.
It also means your blue plate/green plate thought experiment is wrong.
> G&T tried to explain that
C’mon, Bordo.
Prove you read the piece.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“it simply means that a body at a hotter temperature will not absorb the radiation from a body at a colder temperature.”
Uhhh, if that were true, Gordon, the heat loss rate of a warm body to a slightly cooler environment would be the same as its heat loss to an extremely cold environment.
Which obviously does not match the real world, nor conform to the laws of physics, such as Kirchhoffs Law, which tells us how that the fraction of radiation absor.bed is not dependent on temperature of the source.
Troll Nate does not understand the laws of physics, such as Kirchhoff’s Law.
Oh well.
Pupman is in full meltdown.
Well worthless willard, since you troll here all the time, tell us what is wrong with Nates statement about Kirchoffs Law: …which tells us how that the fraction of radiation absor.bed is not dependent on temperature of the source.
Youre a worthless troll with NO knowledge of the science.
Prove me wrong.
As predicted, more meltdown from Pupman.
If only he could do the Shower Experiment.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Uhhh, if that were true, Gordon, the heat loss rate of a warm body to a slightly cooler environment would be the same as its heat loss to an extremely cold environment.”
Is this supposed to be your description of the GHE?
Newton’s Law of Cooling has been around for hundreds of years. Paraphrasing it in the form you do, just makes it unclear.
Maybe you are unaware of Newton’s Law of Cooling?
Try describing the GHE, if you want to do something original. You’d be the first.
Carry on.
nate…”]GR]it simply means that a body at a hotter temperature will not absorb the radiation from a body at a colder temperature.
[Nate}Uhhh, if that were true, Gordon, the heat loss rate of a warm body to a slightly cooler environment would be the same as its heat loss to an extremely cold environment”.
***
Nate…you are confusing heat dissipation with heat transfer. The 2nd law is about heat transfer, specifically, the direction in which it can take place. We are talking about heat transfer here, not heat dissipation. It’s OK, Swannie keeps making the same mistake.
The 2nd law does not address the rate of heat dissipation at a surface, only the direction in which it can take place. For heat dissipation, you need to turn to Newton’s Law Of Cooling, where the temperature of a surface and its environment come into play.
For heat transfer via radiation, the governing factor is the energy level of the electrons involved. They rise with temperature and that adjusts the potential energy level of the electron orbitals. Cooler bodies have lower potential orbitals and energy simply cannot be transferred, by its on means, from a lower potential to a higher potential.
“you are confusing heat dissipation with heat transfer.”
Heat dissipation requires heat transfer from the warm body to its environment. The rate of that obviously depends on the temperature of the environment, relative to the body.
Even for radiant heat transfer.
“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 (Th4 – Tc4) Ah ”
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
“Troll Nate does not understand the laws of physics, such as Kirchhoffs Law.”
As usual, Clint spews ad-homs, but no evidence that he knows what he is talking about.
If he did know anything about this topic, he could quote me and point about what, specifically, is wrong and why.
But he won’t. Because he’s deathly afraid his ignorance will be revealed.
As Eli knows, Gordo is fixated on his delusional view of physics, as he shows yet again:
Gordo should think about that a bit harder, if he is still capable of disinterested reasoning. What happens to that “back radiation” emitted from the cooler body? Does it simply vanish, as he has suggested above? But, that would violate the 1st Law of Thermo, so that explanation is clearly wrong.
Or perhaps, as he often claims, the cooler body blocks the IR radiation from the warmer body, but that’s another perversion of physics. Sad to say, Gordo refuses to accept experimental evidence and can not learn. Perhaps that’s because he has an agenda which precludes him from accepting widely accepted facts.
GR said: it simply means that a body at a hotter temperature will not absorb the radiation from a body at a colder temperature.
This is absurd.
GR said: Basic quantum theory, Eli.
It’s not basic enough. And I don’t mean that in a condescending way. I mean that if your takeaway from radiation physics is that hot bodies cannot absorb radiation from cold bodies than the theory was too complicated to be fully understood.
GR said:
It also means your blue plate/green plate thought experiment is wrong.
His BP/GP plate thought experiment is consistent with theory and observations. In fact, in a far more complex configuration the JWST sunshield is a real-life embodiment of the principals Eli was trying to explain.
Wrong bdgwx.
The BP/GP nonsense is NOT consistent with theory and observations. It is easily debunked by comparing the plates together versus slightly apart. For the ideal conditions, there wouldn’t be any difference in temperature. I don’t even have to mention entropy, to debunk the nonsense.
The JWST shield COOLS the spacecraft, it doesn’t warm it. Youre throwing crap against the wall you don’t understand.
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/observatory/sunshield.html
bdg…I have noted that you cannot debate my points using science. All you have are ad hom attacks.
For example, can you explain why it is absurd that radiation from a colder body cannot be absorbed by a hotter body. I have gone to great lengths using Bohr’s theory to explain why it is not possible. All you can say is that it’s absurd.
Until you understand this at a deeper level it will always be absurd to you. Meantime, you might give Clausius benefit of the doubt, that heat cannot be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body. He emphasized this applies to radiation as well.
The only way your view could be correct is having an averaging mechanism in atomic structure to process radiation from bodies of different temperatures. That’s not how it work. Electrons in atoms that receive the radiation, once raised to a higher orbital energy level, can no longer react to radiation from a cooler source.
It’s all there in Bohr’s basic equation, E = hf. E is the orbital energy level and can be expressed as Eh – El, where Eh is the upper energy level of the electron and El is the lower level. Of course, f = the angular frequency of the electron which is imparted to the EM when it is radiated. The intensity of the radiated quantum is E = Eh – El.
Where else would EM get an electric field, a magnetic field, and a frequency?
For incoming EM, the frequency has to match the angular frequency of the absorbing electron. If it does match, there is a resonance between the frequency of the incoming EM and the angular frequency of the electron, therefore the electron will absorb the EM.
If the EM source is a cooler body, E = hf must have a lower frequency. That lower frequency does not resonate with the frequency required by an electron orbiting in a mass of atoms at a higher temperature.
Of course, Clausius had no knowledge of Bohr’s work and issued conflicting statements. He talked about heat flowing both ways because in his day it was thought that heat was transferred through air and space by heat rays. They did not understand that heat first had to be converted to EM to be converted.
Many modern scientists, including author’s of textbooks, are still stuck in that ancient anachronism.
Neither Maxwell nor Boltzmann were aware of that either when they offered their statistical mechanics about gas molecules, arriving at a statistic explanation for heat, entropy, and other properties of a gas. They mislead science by offering a statistical explanation for heat and entropy as statistical entities without understanding the actual mechanisms involved.
That did not apply to Clausius because he used a macro approach based on heat engines in which P, V and T depended only on the initial and final states of the process.
You can easily prove that hot bodies absorb radiation from cold bodies using your IR gun. Just point it at a colder object. If you get a reading then the thermopile absorbed radiation from the colder object.
bdgwx, you don’t understand how an ‘IR gun’ works. Youre just throwing crap against the wall, hoping something will stick.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479752
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1480178
People can read through the discussion for themselves, and make up their own minds, Little Willy.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1480769
Thank you for sharing your insights and analysis regarding the overestimation of warming in the U.S. Corn Belt by climate models. It is indeed important to evaluate climate predictions and models against observed data to gain a comprehensive understanding of the situation.
While climate models serve as valuable tools for projecting potential future scenarios, they are not infallible and should be continuously refined and verified through empirical data. Discrepancies between model predictions and actual observations, as demonstrated in your analysis, highlight the need for further examination and adjustment of these models.
It is crucial to consider multiple factors when assessing climate change impacts on specific regions, such as the U.S. Corn Belt. Factors like land use changes, agricultural practices, and local weather patterns can significantly influence temperature trends and crop productivity. Integrating these elements into climate modeling can lead to more accurate predictions.
Furthermore, it is important to remember that climate change is a complex phenomenon with both global and regional variations. While certain regions may experience divergences from model predictions, it is essential to consider the broader picture and evaluate climate change impacts across different areas.
Continued research, data collection, and collaborative efforts among scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders are necessary to refine climate models and better understand regional climate dynamics. By incorporating real-world observations, we can enhance our ability to make informed decisions regarding energy policies, agricultural practices, and adaptation strategies.
In conclusion, your analysis highlights the need for a comprehensive approach that integrates climate models, empirical data, and regional factors when assessing climate change impacts. This ensures a more accurate understanding of the challenges faced by regions like the U.S. Corn Belt and aids in developing effective strategies to address them.
THANKS
READ ALSO: https://physicsalert.com/how-fast-do-the-clouds-move-understanding-the-dynamics-of-cloud-movement/
https://www.realclimate.org/images/cmp_tmt-1-600436.png
https://www.realclimate.org/images/cmp_tmt_trop-1-600436.png
How long will these series tend to drift apart? Measurements from theory that is.
I now get a 404 error from those links. I am not sure why.
They come from https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
Satellite-derived atmospheric temperatures and below.
It is also worthy of note that these differ a lot from “Global mean surface temperature anomalies” which brings into question surface versa satellite again.
Looks like this has nothing to do with models about the corn belt:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1500756
But global is supposed be be much easier than an area.
It actually is, dummy.
Aren’t you supposed to be a computer engineer or something?
But the global is made up of parts.
Yes, Richard, and the mereological fallacy is to project the properties of the parts to the whole.
For starters, regional models are often more computer intensive. You know why?
So how come global covers the various sub-areas? Does this mean it is even more inaccurate?
So the sum of the parts is more difficult than the individual parts themselves.
How come a representation of the globe covers all its parts yet we do not see the Big Ben, dummy?
The MSU/AMSU TMT satellite products are not surface measurements. And, FYI, the TMT data is contaminated by input from higher elevations into the Stratosphere where there is a well known cooling trend.
And the surface thermometers reside in the turbulent surface boundary layer which differs between day and night, land and ocean.
So, does RLH now agree that directly comparing the sat data with the surface data will be inconclusive because these are measurements of different states in a complex system?
The surface data has much more inaccuracies than ever the satellite series do.
swannie…you have the same myopic mind set toward UAH sat data that you have toward thermodynamics. You believe heat can be transferred cold to hot by it’s own means and you have similar delusions about the UAH sat data.
NOAA launched the sats originally for predicting weather. Why would they use such telemetry if it did not work, right to the surface? The weather we experience is near the surface, not at your delusional 4 km altitude.
Your heroes at RSS used it until they found it far more profitable to join with NOAA in their climate alarm.
Gordo goes full denialist, writing:
Gordo is the moron who still doesn’t understand how the MSU/AMSU works, calling the measured data simply “telemetry”. The ~4 km altitude is for the MT which UAH uses as the foundation of their LT product. I had nothing to do with that choice. But, comparing surface data against the MT is rather a bogus comparison, for the reasons repeatedly stated.
Then he badmouths the efforts of RSS, who are still using the old UAH version of their TLT. What a clown!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1497237
Le proverbe nous dit:
” Tel est pris qui croyait prendre. “
At least I check my links. Hence I know when they are not working.
How about this?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1500422
Richard tries (and fails) to deflect when things get tricky.
Willard is always talking to himself.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
When the AIR crop model was used to rigorously simulate effects of observed, historical weather during the period 19742019 on corn yield, it was found that climate trends during that period favored increased corn yield over much of the Corn Belt. Climate trends simulated over the period 1991 to 2055 by four climate models caused increased weather stresses and reduced corn yield. This implies, that without mitigation of negative effects of climate change, including adaptation by farmers and improvements to crop genetics and other technological factors, corn yield and production may be negatively impacted in the next few decades. As a result, communities economically dependent on crop production may face financial challenges.
https://www.air-worldwide.com/news-and-events/press-releases/climate-change-could-cut-corn-belt-crop-yields-by-up-to-40-percent-by-increasing-unfavorable-and-extreme-weather-by-mid-century-according-to-a-new-report/
But modulz. But modulz. But modulz.
Looks like realclimate agrees with Roy,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1500683
Looks like you’ve returned to spamming:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1499785
If you really are interested to use something from Gavin’s that’d be related to Roy’s post, here’s a place where you could start:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/evaluation-of-gcm-simulations-with-a-regional-focus/
Science is a real cool thing.
Pity that our Very Serious commenters are not that much interested.
Now refer to the post I gave rather than something else.
Willard, as usual, deflects again.
You can spam your spam all by yourself, Richard.
Now Willard is talking to himself.
You mean about himself.
But no, U.
No I meant talking to yourself.
I usually don’t call myself “Richard,” Richard.
But you do talk to yourself.
“You can spam your spam all by yourself, Richard” was addressed to you, Richard.
Your pet topic has nothing to do with my comment.
And still you talk to yourself.
Weary Wee Willy,
You quoted –
” . . . the GCMs are not synchronised with Earths climate.”
In other words, completely useless. Whoever wrote that does not appear to realise that climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations, do delusional SkyDragon cultists like Gavin Schmidt et. al. are reduced to blaming “people” for their failure to predict the future.
If that’s not idiocy, it’s something very similar.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Weary Wee Willy,
You quoted
” . . . the GCMs are not synchronised with Earth’s climate.”
In other words, completely useless. Whoever wrote that does not appear to realise that climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations, do delusional SkyDragon cultists like Gavin Schmidt et. al. are reduced to blaming “people” for their failure to predict the future.
If that’s not idiocy, it’s something very similar.
Moron Mike,
Idiocy is copy-pasting the same comment over and over again.
Weary Wee Willy,
You quoted
” . . . the GCMs are not synchronised with Earths climate.”
In other words, completely useless. Whoever wrote that does not appear to realise that climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations, do delusional SkyDragon cultists like Gavin Schmidt et. al. are reduced to blaming “people” for their failure to predict the future.
If thats not idiocy, its something very similar.
Deceitful cretin –
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons
Weary Wee Willy,
You quoted
” . . . the GCMs are not synchronised with Earths climate.”
In other words, completely useless. Whoever wrote that does not appear to realise that climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations, do delusional SkyDragon cultists like Gavin Schmidt et. al. are reduced to blaming “people” for their failure to predict the future.
If thats not idiocy, its something very similar.
Moron Mike,
Enjoy –
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-22/cph-e-safety-commissioner-compels-twitter-to-produce-documents/102505546
Weary Wee Willy,
You quoted
” . . . the GCMs are not synchronised with Earths climate.”
In other words, completely useless. Whoever wrote that does not appear to realise that climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations, do delusional SkyDragon cultists like Gavin Schmidt et. al. are reduced to blaming “peopl” for their failure to predict the future.
If that’s not idiocy, its something very similar.
Deceitful cretin,
Did you know that cows kill men more than sharks?
They have yet to perfect their ninja skills for sharks.
Weary Wee Willy,
You quoted
” . . . the GCMs are not synchronised with Earths climate.”
In other words, completely useless. Whoever wrote that does not appear to realise that climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations, do delusional SkyDragon cultists like Gavin Schmidt et. al. are reduced to blaming “people” for their failure to predict the future.
If that’s not idiocy, its something very similar.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Feel free to point my intentional typos if you like.
By the way, are you still claiming that “slower cooling” is actually heating, and that describes the GHE?
Idiot.
Copy-paste your comment again, Moron Mike.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Feel free to point my intentional typos if you like.
By the way, are you still claiming that “slower cooling” is actually heating, and that describes the GHE?
Idiot.
Good boy.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Feel free to point my intentional typos if you like.
By the way, are you still claiming that slower cooling is actually heating, and that describes the GHE?
Idiot.
I would rather point out that you are only repeating your comment, Moron Mike.
Go on.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Three tropical storms in the tropical Atlantic are headed for the Caribbean.
https://i.ibb.co/0htny4K/33d75cb7-3e46-4c28-a3d2-7b29e9e01600.jpg
Sunny Boy in the fitness room:
https://tinyurl.com/2uaywsrn
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1500422
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
… says the blog’s trolliest troll.
Says the poster who answers nothing.
Oh… I can answer a lot whenever meaningful.
The only reason for you to ask, hoever, is not to engage any fair discussion but is to endlessly annoy with your opinionated thoughts, e.g. when redundantly, excessively pointing at the TMT when I’m talking about the surface.
And what is really annoying is your stalking at places like this
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1500850
having nothing to do with what you want to show.
You are a stalker, Bindsley H00d. You can’t stop putting your personal, egomaniacal narrative above anything else.
*
But you will soon have a lot of fun with my new comments which once more have to do with your CTRM manipulations.
It will be about a comparison of your fiction
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ZOvn2_2PJbIbzVOGpUcsAPLtO7vKxif/view
with my reality
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MUbKpT-7jXGLkpZdUdtp_ukNDRmks9yn/view
Both are identically based on Vaughan Pratt’s coefficients (1.2067, 1.5478) for the cascaded triple running mean.
But only my correct 60 month CTRM really shows how wrong simple running means are, because your 149 month running mean is way too flat for this purpose.
Anyone can imagine what would happen when you try to show us a ‘5 year low pass’ based on Pratt’s coefficients for quintuple running means.
I’ll do that using my approach.
Of course: anyone also can anticipate that only your variant is the right one, n’est-ce pas, Blindsley H00d?
So you know nothing about anything. Why would anyone be surprised by that.
So Blinny thinks that VP is wrong in his choice of 60, 50 and 39 as intervals.
He has no response of why 60, 50 and 39 are such a very good match for a 5 pass 60 S-G.
Blindsley H00d
Don’t try to divert with your poorish trials to discredit me, and show us instead the EXACT place where Vaughan Pratt (AND… NOT YOU) posted ‘his choice of 60, 50 and 39’.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/#comment-417636
This is VPs comment to Greg thread where he says
“c(1,1.2067,1.5478)”
which calculates to 60, 50 and 39 as the nearest integers for a 60 width window.
Then compare it to an SRM of 60 to see the differences.
60 divide 1.2067 = 49.7223833595757, nearest integer 50
60 divide 1.5478 = 38.76469828143171, nearest integer 39
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Why do leftists hate science?
Obviously, they say, math is racist.
Snow Flakes can’t handle the truth.”
Totalitarians don’t want you to know the truth.
Nothing defines a ‘leftist’ like ‘Snow Flake’ and ‘Totalitarian’.
Right on:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/moms-liberty-chapter-apologizes-quoting-adolf-hitler-newsletter-rcna90662
You got to hand it to Freedom Fighters – they got an ethos.
Adolph was a leftist too.
Oh, Kennui:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
Never change.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ken
Are you really THAT gullible?
In fact, in the 1920s, the wily, brazen Hitler founded the “National Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany.”
Hitler and his closest associates (propaganda minister Josef Goebbels, but above all SS commander-in-chief Heinrich Himmler, the worst, by far most cruel of all Nazis in their top hierarchy) never had anything to do with workers, let alone with leftists:
– As early as the 1930s, the three not only had Jews murdered, but all leftists – communists, socialists, social democrats, left-wing Christians (regardless of whether they were Catholics or Protestants), the physically and mentally handicapped, Roma and Sinti Gypsies;
– They made it possible for Germany’s big industry to let healthy Jews and leftists work en masse to the point of deadly exhaustion without pay, of course.
John Christy – live
https://youtu.be/ULpGDnuz308
Earlier, RLH wrote –
“The surface data has much more inaccuracies than ever the satellite series do.”
Neither are of much use at all, unfortunately. Interesting curiosities of no real value.
Recording a temperature for later examination seems quite pointless. No facts change, and by the time the record is examined, it is of no use.
Mechanisms affected by air temperature have sensors fitted here and there, so that real time monitoring is possible and useful. For example intake air temperature sensors on cars with ECUs.
Accuracy is not critical, either.
Claiming that examining historical temperatures is evidence that CO2 possesses miraculous heating properties is just silly.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A feud has been boiling between Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert for months. It finally reached a new level on Wednesday.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-calls-boebert-a-little-bitch-on-the-house-floor
Why can’t troglodytes get along?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Because they are both right wing?
Nope.
Idiot.
Kerry Breen
Wed, June 21, 2023 at 7:02 AM PDT2 min read
A series of images taken by two satellites flying past Mercury captured multiple “tectonic and volcanic curiosities” as well as an impact crater on the planet.
The satellites, jointly named the BepiColombo mission, are operated by the European Space Agency and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency.
The photographs were taken during the mission’s third gravity-assisted flyby at the planet, the ESA said in a news release. There will be six such flybys in total. The images were taken from 236 kilometers, or about 146 miles, above the planet’s surface.
https://news.yahoo.com/probe-captures-stunning-close-views-140242804.html
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
High convection in Texas.
https://i.ibb.co/Fmjmjnv/goes16-ir-us.gif
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The Eastern Corn Belt Region (ECBR) is an important agricultural sector for the U.S. This study analyzes the climate extremes over the contemporary (19802018) and future (20362099) periods over the ECBR. We evaluated the performance of 32 downscaled models from the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s Localized Constructed Analogs (LOCA) of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) to simulate extreme temperature and precipitation indices. The LOCA downscaled models were evaluated for the recent past against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)-supported gridded observational dataset DAYMET. Results reveal key trends throughout the region that are consistent with previous studies, including significant increases in extreme minimum temperatures, reduction of cold nights, increase of warm nights, and decreases in diurnal temperature ranges. Much of the region demonstrates extreme warming trends in the coldest night of the year (more than 5 C) and an increase in the heaviest precipitation events over 19802018.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094722000494
“Much of the region demonstrates extreme warming trends in the coldest night of the year (more than 5 C)”
So most of the warming comes at night?
Glad you ask:
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/22/with-climate-change-nights-are-warming-faster-than-days-why
Night time and winter warming is what greenhouse effect is all about.
Also stratospheric cooling, which for some reason has been forgotten as a successful prediction of the AGW theory:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/
Willard, as usual, references something that does not prove his case, but something different entirely.
Richard, as usual, says stuff.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Also stratospheric cooling, which for some reason has been forgotten as a successful prediction of the AGW theory:”
What “theory” is that”
AGW is due to anthropogenic heat. Why would heat cool the stratosphere?
Is this a variation n your description of the GHE being “slower cooling”?
Idiot.
Willard just talks (even mutters) to himself.
Wiltard is diabolical.
Mike Flynn,
I’m glad you ask –
“What “theory” is that.”
There are two versions. One for dummies:
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-dummies
One for you:
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Also stratospheric cooling, which for some reason has been forgotten as a successful prediction of the AGW theory:”
What “theory. is that
AGW is due to anthropogenic heat. Why would heat cool the stratosphere?
Is this a variation n your description of the GHE being “slower cooling”?
Posting irrelevant links won’t help you. You can’t even describe the GHE!
Idiot.
Moron Mike,
I’m glad you repeat your silly sammich request.
It has already been served.
Ask again, deceitful cretin!
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Also stratospheric cooling, which for some reason has been forgotten as a successful prediction of the AGW theory:”
What theory” is that?
AGW is due to anthropogenic heat. Why would heat cool the stratosphere?
Is this a variation on your description of the GHE being “slower cooling”?
Posting irrelevant links wont help you. You cant even describe the GHE!
Idiot.
“AGW is due to anthropogenic heat. Why would heat cool the stratosphere?”
Swenson would know such stuff, if he bothered to read the many descriptions of the GHE that have been posted.
(Min + Max)/2 has many times been shown to distort the daily data, by us much as a couple of degrees. A much better approach is to sample things as often as possible.
Richard tries (and fails) to deflect when things get tricky.
Willard is just an idiot.
An idiot who has Vaughan’s email, Richard.
What about you?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Blinny thinks that VP who said that 12, 10, and 8 was the CTRM for a 12 month filter really meant sone other calculation completely. Without any proof of his weird maths or reasoning either.
A simple comparison to a 12 month SRM will show that 12, 10 and 8 CTRM is very close to each other along with a reading of VPs reasoning. His attempt to remove the distortions that a 12 month SRM (which leaves inverted peaks that the 10 and 8 month SRMs remove) is completely beyond him.
See VP comment of
“3: 1.2067, 1.5478 Leakage 0.31% or -50.1 dB”
or 12, 10, 8 to the nearest integer numbers of months.
Nowhere does VP say
add together 12 + 10 + 8 to make 30.
Blinny won’t respond as usual in order not to appear a complete idiot.
Even Barry agrees that Blinny is wrong.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-727350
P.S. SRMs are very poor in frequency response which a CTRM (an near Gaussian alternative) does not have
https://ptolemy.berkeley.edu/eecs20/week12/freqResponseRA.html
Of course I reply, Blindsley H00d.
Not Vaughan Pratt was the one who proposed a 12 month CTRM based on 12, 10, 8 months – corresponding to Pratt’s coefficients (1.2067, 1.5478).
It was your mentor Greg Goodman:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/
who published a small Excel file:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gp34rlw06mcvf6z/R3M.xls
*
And you gullibly replicated Goodman’s stuff:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/16/crowdsourcing-a-full-kernel-cascaded-triple-running-mean-low-pass-filter-no-seriously/
*
Dont try to divert with your poorish trials to discredit me, and show us instead the EXACT place where Vaughan Pratt (AND… NOT YOU, let alone Goodman) posted his choice of 12, 10 and 8 for a 12 month CTRM.
At best did he comment this strange 12,10,8 stuff; he nevertheless did not propose it. Goodman did.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/#comment-417636
VP himself said “c(1,1.3371,1.7878)” which calculates to 12, 10 and 8 as well as 60,50 and 39 (rounded to the nearest integer).
Go on, say it was not VP now.
P.S. Greg originally said 1.3371 but later amended it to VPs suggestion (see [Update])
“Vaughan Pratt points out that shortening the window by a factor of 1.2067 (rather than 1.3371 originally suggested in this article) reduces the stop-band leakage. This provides a useful improvement.”
Sorry. Bad ‘copy and paste’
“c(1,1.2067,1.5478)” The previous one was Greg’s original proposal whic he then later corrected to “c(1,1.2067,1.5478)”.
Blindsley H00d
You are and keep wrong, as I predicted.
Vaughan Pratt ONLY proposed coefficients helping in calculating the column sequence size:
2: 1.3937 Leakage 2.5% or -31.9 dB
3: 1.2067, 1.5478 Leakage 0.31% or -50.1 dB
4: 1.1252, 1.3440, 1.6275 Leakage 0.039% or -68.3 dB
5: 1.0832, 1.2343, 1.4352, 1.6757 Leakage 0.0047% or -86.5 dB
NOWHRE did he tell at which value the column sequence had to start.
That was Goodman’s idea you gullibly replicated.
VP gave cogent arguments of why x, x/1.2067 and x/1.5478 are the 3 factors for a window of x.
He accepted that 12, 10, 8 was the calculation for a 12 month CTRM.
This kas been long accepted by many on here and elsewhere. Now Blinny wants to suggest that all the postings to data are wrong even though VP gave precise reasoning as to his choices (to do with making all this near gaussian in its response).
Does Blinny have any evidence that his solution is near Gaussian in its frequency response?
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/#comment-740964
The F3 VP mentions is his CTRM
“F3 cuts off very hard at (normalized) frequency 1.0 whereas the Gaussian has a little leakage there..”
Thus the 1 in his “c(1,1.2067,1.5478)” is the base on which the calculations are done.
P.S. Nowhere did VP say that 1 + 1.2067 + 1.5478 was the way it worked or that anything other than 1 was the base frequency.
“NOWHRE did he tell at which value the column sequence had to start.”
He just stated that the normalized frequency was 1.
So Blinny decides to be a complete idiot instead, not bothering to read VPs comments and Greg’s [Update].
He also does all this without any analysis of the frequency response to his suggestions.
Blindsley H00d should have a look at two charts showing cascaded quintuple running means according to Vaughan Pratt’s coefficients (1.0832, 1.2343, 1.4352, 1.6757):
– one in ‘Goodman/RLH mode’, with a 60/55/49/42/36 smoothing sequence:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TrVZGhLpNKSQQdliTPUiAQmrAd400k0p/view
and one in ‘Bindidon mode’ with a 15/14/12/10/9 smoothing sequence:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lUHWqZT9rWlYe6hQxBDRYSQDl4RpUrM2/view
We see here that when using Vaughan Pratt’s excellent coefficients, the quintuple running mean looses leakage AND gains in expressiveness with regard to the triple running mean.
*
Since when using Goodman’s idea, the running mean’s size starting at 60 months increases linearly (5: 242, 6: 289, 7: 336, 8: 383, 9: 430, 10: 477), it becomes evident that if Vaughan Pratt would propose even stronger leakage dampers, the active part of the running mean would become ridiculously small.
*
Blindsley H00d can tell us here what he wants.
Maybe he asks Vaughan Pratt?
Blinny is just plain wrong. He wants VP to have said something different to what he said in the past.
Where is Blinny’s analysis of the frequency response of his ‘solution’?
Why is it non gaussian?
Why is a CTRM of 60, 50 and 39 so gaussian like?
Why is a CTRM of 60, 50 and 39 close to an SRM (without the distortion that a SRM brings) of 60?
Blinny can have his delusions but VP was clear that the normalized frequency was 1.
Maybe he asks Vaughan Pratt?
If he has enough courage to do, of course.
Do you have his email?
An easier job for a genius like you to find it is hardly imaginable.
Does Blinny’s calculation of https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lUHWqZT9rWlYe6hQxBDRYSQDl4RpUrM2/view
follow (with some distortion) a SRM of 60? Why not?
Blindsley H00d
1. ” Does Blinny’s calculation of … follow a SRM of 60?
Typical dishonesty by the Blindsley H00d liar: even without having the real data at hand, you immediately see that the CTRM and the CQRM do NOT follow the SRM at all.
Quite the contrary is the case.
In all places where the SRM incorrectly inverts the data’s behavior, the CTRM and the CQRM correct the SRM’s errors by moving up to the data peaks and down to the data drops.
2. ” … with some distortion … ”
Where is the distortion? How would you be able to calculate it without having the complete time series in order to analyze it (if you ever had a too to do that, what you certainly don’t).
What a sissyish person!
“you immediately see that the CTRM and the CQRM do NOT follow the SRM at all.”
Blinny proves he is an idiot. A CTRM (and a CQRM) should simply follow an SRM quite closely as you are only removing the distortions it brings (as VP and Greg showed).
A good example of a 13 month SRM is published by Roy every month. Why does not Blinny show that my 12 CTRM does not follow that?
” Why is a CTRM of 60, 50 and 39 close to an SRM (without the distortion that a SRM brings) of 60? ”
That is now REALLY BRAZEN!
The 60/50/39 CTRM is wrong in many places just BECAUSE it is close to the SRM!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ZOvn2_2PJbIbzVOGpUcsAPLtO7vKxif/view
You just need to look for example at 1989. There, your 60/50/39 CTRM incorrectly follows the SRM, while my 60 CTRM and 60 CQRM correctly don’t.
When will you post a cascaded quintuple running mean (using Pratt’s coefficients, of course) as I myself did for you, Blindsley H00d?
You are only removing the distortions an SRM brings, not producing a completely different response.
Idiot.
More and more brazen, more and more dishonest.
My 60 CTRM is visibly a much more different response to the 60 SRM than is your 149 CTRM.
All what yours does is to flatten everything, look at the 242 month quintuple running mean and try to imagine what remains in the case of an octuple running mean or so.
Nothing!
So why does a 12 month CTRM align so closely to a 13 month SRM?
“The 60/50/39 CTRM is wrong in many places”
Blinny is deluded. Simple as that.
It seems that Blindsley H00d does not understand what exactly is the relation between Vaughan Pratt’s coefficient and the sequence of running mean sizes out of which you finally implement the cascades.
Let us take the triple running mean as example.
You start with 1, continue with 1/1.2067 = 0.828706389326262, and end with 1/1.5478 = 0.646078304690529, and have then in the sum 2.47478469401679.
If you start with 149 months, you obtain
149 / 2.47478469401679 = 60.2 ~ 60;
60 * 0.828706389326262 = 49.9 ~ 50;
60 * 0.646078304690529 = 38.7 ~ 39.
If you start with 60 months, you obtain
60 / 2.47478469401679 = 24.24 ~ 24;
24 * 0.828706389326262 = 20.1 ~ 20;
24 * 0.646078304690529 = 15.7 ~ 16.
*
The same is done with double, quadruple, quintuple, n-tuple running means.
*
This running mean size computing should of course be replaced by an integrating solution using only the Pratt coefficients which then act like fractional columns.
“and have then in the sum”
VP never articulated that step. He just left them at 60, 50 and 39.
Blinny still does not explain why his ‘solution’ is not Gaussian in its frequency response, whereas the conventional reading of VPs work is.
Where did 149 and 2.47478469401679 come from? They are not in VPs calculation at all.
x, x/1.2067 and x/1.5478 are in there.
Once more, Blindsley H00d
– (1) lied about Vaughan Pratt having ‘just left them at 60, 50 and 39’;
– (2) didn’t understand what I wrote;
– (3) claimed about ‘Blinny still does not explain why his solution is not Gaussian in its frequency response’.
1. As I repeatedly wrote, Vaughan Pratt didn’t say anything about the window sizes for a 60 month CTRM to be computed out of his numbers.
He only published the numbers themselves here:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/#comment-417814
” The novelty in my method (assuming no one thought of it before) is to choose suitable points in the first side lobe as the window widths for the subsequent box filters.
2: 1.3937 Leakage 2.5% or -31.9 dB
3: 1.2067, 1.5478 Leakage 0.31% or -50.1 dB
4: 1.1252, 1.3440, 1.6275 Leakage 0.039% or -68.3 dB
5: 1.0832, 1.2343, 1.4352, 1.6757 Leakage 0.0047% or -86.5 dB ”
*
2. It is evident that when determining the window sizes starting from 60 for the consecutive single running means building the triple cascade, the first step is to compute
(a)
60 / 1.2067 = ~ 50
60 / 1.5478 = ~ 39
In the same vein, you obtain in the quintuple case
(b)
60 / 1.0832 = ~ 55
60 / 1.2343 = ~ 49
60 / 1.4352 = ~ 42
60 / 1.6757 = ~ 36
But doing the job that way, you never obtain any 60 month triple nor quintuple running mean: you get 149 resp. 242 running means. Anything else is pure fantasy.
*
What is for me correct is to use Vaughan Pratt’s numbers such that the cascade’s end window itself is 60!
*
To obtain the consecutive window sizes ending with 60, you have to perform some little reverse engineering. I repeat:
” Let us take the triple running mean as example.
You start with 1, continue with 1/1.2067 = 0.828706389326262, and end with 1/1.5478 = 0.646078304690529, and have then in the sum 2.47478469401679. ”
Dividing the end window size by this sum gives exactly the start window’s size; the next window sizes are obtained in the same way as above.
This is confirmed by giving as end window size the number ‘149’:
” 149 / 2.47478469401679 = 60.2 ~ 60;
60 * 0.828706389326262 = 49.9 ~ 50;
60 * 0.646078304690529 = 38.7 ~ 39. ”
giving the same numbers as in (a).
The reverse calculation for the quintuple case gives the same window sizes as in (b) when starting with and end window of ‘242’.
Now if you specify the end window size as ’60’, you obtain similarly:
” 60 / 2.47478469401679 = 24.24 ~ 24;
24 * 0.828706389326262 = 20.1 ~ 20;
24 * 0.646078304690529 = 15.7 ~ 16. ”
*
3. As these sizes are based on the same Pratt coefficients, they should give the same amount of leakage suppression: who could ever doubt that?
As explained on many places on the web, an infinite sequence of consecutive numbers a la Pratt gives the same result as a Gaussian filter. What the heck does the Gaussian behavior of a filter have to do with its start window size?
What matters is the size of the consecutive windows, and nothing else.
Thus, Blindsley H00d owes us ONCE MORE a mathematical proof for his ‘non Gaussian’ claim; me thinks we can wait a while before obtaining this it.
*
I love it when people like Blindsley H00d name me ‘Blinny’ and call me an idiot!
Oops
” you get 149 resp. 242 running means ”
of course should read
” you get 149 resp. 242 month running means “
“But doing the job that way, you never obtain any 60 month triple nor quintuple running mean: you get 149 resp. 242 running means. Anything else is pure fantasy.”
What is pure fantasy is Blinny pulling 149 and 242 out of that sequence without any evidence that they are needed. Compared to 12 they are almost isignificant.
VP continuously refers to Gaussian as being his guide. With c(1, 1.2067, 1.5478) as being his normalized conclusion.
e.g. “The difference between F3 and a Gaussian filter is quite subtle:” (F3 refers to a CTRM)
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/#comment-740940
Nowhere does Blinny consider this, in fact his solution is anything but Gaussian.
“60 / 2.47478469401679 ”
His creation of 2.47478469401679 out of the air without any maths or science to back it up is not surprising.
“have then in the sum 2.47478469401679”
Likewise something that Blinny just makes this up without any reason of why 1/1.2067 and 1/1.5478 should be simply added together.
Blindsley H00d
” His creation of 2.47478469401679 out of the air… ”
You simply did not read the comment.
I repeat for the last time:
” Let us take the triple running mean as example.
You start with 1, continue with 1/1.2067 = 0.828706389326262, and end with 1/1.5478 = 0.646078304690529, and have then in the sum 2.47478469401679.
Dividing the end window size by this sum gives exactly the start windows size; the next window sizes are obtained in the same way as above. ”
*
Did you really not understand that the sum of the three factors
1
1/1.2067
1/1.5478
exactly corresponds to the factor by which you have to divide the size of the end window in order to obtain the size of the start window?
*
Why, do you think, do I obtain your numbers when giving the real end window sizes (149 and 242) ?
This is confirmed by giving as end window size the number 149:
149 / 2.47478469401679 = 60.2 ~ 60;
60 * 0.828706389326262 = 49.9 ~ 50;
60 * 0.646078304690529 = 38.7 ~ 39. ”
And for the CQRM a la RLH (an allegedly 60 month low pass with a 242 month window size, the same applies.
The sum of
1
1/1.0832
1/1.2343
1/1.4352
1/1.6757
gives
4.02689888661694
Recomputing the RLH window sizes from the REAL end window size of 242 months gives
242 / 4.02689888661694 = 60.10 ~ 60
The rest being computed out of the ’60’ as usual.
Here are the numbers for the ‘double’ case:
1
1 / 1.3937
gives
1.71751452966923
In the RLH fantasy we have for the second window size:
60 / 1.3937 = 43
Recomputing the start window from 60 + 43 = 103 in the double case gives
103 / 1.71751452966923 = 59.97 ~ 60
The 43 is computed as usual.
*
And here are the numbers for the ‘quadruple’ case:
1
1/1.1252
1/1.3440
1/1.6275
gives
3.24800838063101
In the RLH fantasy we have for the second, third and fourth window sizes:
60 / 1.1252 = 53
60 / 1.3440 = 45
60 / 1.6275 = 37
The REAL size for the end window of the quadruple running mean is
60 + 53 + 45 + 37 = 195 months.
Recomputing the start window from 195 gives
195 / 3.24800838063101 = 60.04 ~ 60
*
In the same way you obtain, from a REAL end window size of 60, the corresponding numbers for the respective start windows.
*
Don’t tell me that you, the boy with a Master degree in IT, were not able to understand such a simple reverse engineering thing.
*
This however does not satisfy an engineer who perfectly understands that this bloody window size computing is no more than a cheap workaround for spreadsheets and trivial programs, and should be replaced by an integrating software using the Pratt coefficients directly.
” What is pure fantasy is Blinny pulling 149 and 242 out of that sequence without any evidence that they are needed. ”
Of course they are needed.
Look at your alleged ’60 month’ CTRM:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ZOvn2_2PJbIbzVOGpUcsAPLtO7vKxif/view
If your CTRM had a 60 month window: why is its active range exactly the same as that of the 149 month SRM?
The same is valid for all other Pratt coefficient series (2,4 and 5).
Why can’t you simply admit such a simple thing?
Do you really think you could kid me with your manipulation?
“Vaughan Pratt didnt say anything about the window sizes for a 60 month CTRM to be computed out of his numbers.”
He just gave his normalized calculation of c(1, 1.2067, 1.5478) which allows for 60, 50, 39 to be derived for a monthly, 5 year dataset.
So you finally admit that
” Vaughan Pratt didn’t say anything about the window sizes for a 60 month CTRM to be computed out of his numbers. ”
As I wrote, he only published coefficients out of which YOU – and not Vaughan Pratt – derived the 60/50/39 CTRM window sizes.
“What the heck does the Gaussian behavior of a filter have to do with its start window size?”
Gaussian is consider the ideal filter transform.
“A Gaussian filter will have the best combination of suppression of high frequencies while also minimizing spatial spread, being the critical point of the uncertainty principle.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_filter
“Mean filter is the worst filter for frequency domain, with little ability to separate one band of frequencies from another. Gaussian filter has better performance in frequency domain.
Mean filter is the least effective among low-pass filters. Ideally it should stop high frequencies and pass only low frequencies. In reality it passes many high frequencies and stops some of the low frequencies (slow roll-off and poor stopband attenuation).”
What the heck does the Gaussian behavior of a filter have to do with its start window size?
You posted as usual a lot of teachy material you picked up out of the web, but did not answer my question.
“Gaussian filter has better performance in frequency domain.”
The width of a gaussian window determines its frequency.
” The width of a gaussian window determines its frequency. ”
No. Only the CONTENTS of the window do.
The contents are a Gaussian function. The width determines its frequency.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/GaussianFunction.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_filter
See Butterworth filters in the analogue domain.
“owes us ONCE MORE a mathematical proof for his ‘non Gaussian’ claim”
If a CTRM of 60, 50 and 39 is Gaussian (ala VP) then anything other than that is most definitely not.
” If a CTRM of 60, 50 and 39 is Gaussian (ala VP) then anything other than that is most definitely not. ”
I repeat:
As explained on many places on the web, an infinite sequence of consecutive numbers a la Pratt gives the same result as a Gaussian filter.
What the heck does the Gaussian behavior of a filter have to do with its start window size?
What matters is the size of the consecutive windows computed out of the Pratt coefficients, and nothing else.
Thus, Blindsley H00d owes us ONCE MORE a mathematical proof for his non Gaussian claim; me thinks we can wait a while before obtaining this it.
The width of a gaussian window determines its frequency.
Blinny does not understand what a normalized function is.
Is c(1,1.2067,1.5478) a normalized function?
Is c(1,1.2067,1.5478) a function where the 1 represents any base frequency?
I made a very first, superficial check of how TMIN and TMAX behave in CONUS’ Corn Belt by using all GHCN daily stations available in a rectangle starting at the north west edge of North Dakota (49N, 104W) and ending at the south east edge of Kentucky (36N, 81W).
1. 1900-2022:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1to67hqYQBi0Id7886ochN0J7oMzLKKwL/view
Tmin: 0.07 C / decade
Tmax: -0.01 C / decade
2. 1979-2022
Tmin: 0.19 C / decade
Tmax: 0.07 C / decade
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b23EyGyAb_gcSRkc6r8GAfMwvoLKeGRI/view
*
This is of course a quick shot; a correct comparison should be obtained by restricting the stations to really rural corners !!!
A quick check in the literature
Sampling frequency of climate data for the determination
of daily temperature and daily temperature extrema
William A. Gough, Ana aknic-Catovi, Andrew Zajc
There are more.
This place is like a children playground without parental supervision
… and you as usual forgot to include yourself at the very top of the list.
Blinny is just showing how stupid he is.
Ooh, what a nice, sissyish sentence – out of the mouth of a 75+ year old polemicist.
Blinny is still showing how stupid he is.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
In Search of the Greenhouse Signal in the 1990s (and when did they know?)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/22/in-search-of-the-greenhouse-signal-in-the-1990s-and-when-did-they-know/
“As for using proxy data to detect a man-made greenhouse effect, I dont think were ever going to get to the point where were going to be totally convincing. Thomas Wigley, National Center for Atmospheric Research, (April 28, 1998)”
And I believe later, the IPCC said they were very confident it was .2 C or more.
I have never been confident about any bureaucracy.
I had hoped it would happen in few decades, and I still have hope.
I posted a comment earlier on lies in the media about climate. The following is a genuine quote from a major news organization. It is a very clear example of junk science that was translated to fake news. Can anyone explain or defend this”
“Glaciers in the Hindu Kush region of the Himalaya mountains are melting at the fastest rate ever and could shed as much as 80% of their ice by the end of this century if global warming continues unchecked, a group of international scientists warned in an alarming new report.
The study says the melting of the glaciers will directly impact billions of people in Asia causing floods, landslides, avalanches and food shortages as farmland is inundated. Indirectly, the melting of such a vast reserve of fresh water could impact countries as far away as the United States, even the whole of humanity, according to the report by the Nepal-based International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD).
The academic paper warns the ice and snow reserves in the Hindu Kush Himalayas (HKH) region are melting at an “unprecedented” rate and that the environmental changes to the sensitive region are “largely irreversible.”
Seems straightforward enough. A glacier acts as a water reservoir, storing water as ice through the Winter and releasing it as meltwater during the Summer.
A glacier is flowing ice. It’s source is snowfall at the top of a mountain valley. The ice flows down the valley. The tip of the glacier is in equilibrium. Ice is melting as fast as it arrives, which ultimately depends on the average temperature at that location.
Global warming is moving average temperature contours to higher altitudes. The tips of the glaciers melt at higher altitudes and you measure them receding towards their sources. The volume and flow rate of the glacier decrease and it releases less potential irrigation water during the Summer.
When the source gets too warm for ice to persist all year the glacier disappears. All the accumulated snow from the Winter melts in Spring and there is no water flow downstream at all through the Summer.
EM,
The problem might be that your scenario posits that the 6 month drought (while precipitation during winter is not available), followed by 6 months of flood (when the stored ice turns to water) is a “good thing”.
It is just the way it is – neither good nor bad. My personal experience is that some people would prefer rivers to flow more evenly through the year, others (rice farmers) are happy with flooding rivers and lots of water at various times.
If I want more “equable” weather (and hence climate), if I have the means, I move. Americans move to Palm Springs or Florida, Brits dream about the south of France or the Costa Del Sol.
“Global warming” is just full panic mode by people who refuse to accept that anthropogenic warming is a fact. That’s my view, unless you can show otherwise – describing the mythical GHE might be a good start. Good luck with that.
“followed by 6 months of flood (when the stored ice turns to water) is a good thing.”
Rivers are fed by glacier melt and provide water when its needed for agriculture, in the spring and summer.
No flooding necessary.
Nate,
Maybe you are not aware of the raging flooding that can occur when the ice melts, in conjunction with monsoon rainfall which is not coming down as snow.
“The Dudh Kosi river originates from the high-altitude areas of Mount Everest (8848 metres) and the snow and glacier melt contributes significant portion of streamflow, especially during the dry season.”
It’s possibly not as simple as some assume. Just saying rivers are fed by glacial melt is not only simplistic, but wrong, if ignoring rain precipitation and snowmelt inputs.
Each years 100s of climbers gather at the base of mountains throughout the Himalaya and experience no melting of glaciers. Of course, most of the base camps are around 18,000 feet.
We know glaciers are melting around the planet but where is the acknowledgements that they expanded dramatically during the 400+ years of the Little Ice Age?
The Mer de Glace glacier near Chamonix, France, expanded so much during the LIA that it expanded down a valley wiping out established farms and villages. Now it’s retreating.
I note that Nepal plans to move the main Everest base camp to a lower altitude because the Khumbu glacier on which it currently sits is thinning and becoming unstable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61828753
EM,
The Nepalese Everest base camp is adjacent to the Khumbu glacier. If the glacier recedes, there will be greater area available to camp on.
A good thing? The present camp area is overcrowded, as is the climbing route during the climbing season. It is surprising that more people don’t perish on the mountain, even though it is not a “hard” climb, technically.
Talking about GHE is nonsensical. What is it supposed to do? Make the planet hotter after four and a half billion years of cooling?
Don’t make me laugh! Only joking, I enjoy a good laugh at the expense of the dsabled.
swenson…although the Everest climb is not as technically demanding as a climb on K2, or some other Himalayan giants, it’s no cake walk either. Although many wusses can now reach the top, especially with their private Sherpa helper, several top-ranked mountaineers have died up there.
On the north side of Everest, avalanches are a major concern at lower altitudes and on the south side same thing. The main problem with Everest seems to be the extra height. Most deaths seem related to cerebral and pulmonary edema, altitude-related problems.
Storms are a major concern on all the mountains but the peak of Everest sits in the jet stream. The plume seen on many Everest photos is jet stream winds in excess of 100 mph blowing snow off the top. Climbers camped at the South Col at about 8000 metres can be subjected to these winds. Besides being weakened by 1/3 of the oxygen at sea level, they can freeze to death as well.
Exhaustion is another major problem. Everest is among the most exhausting climbs of them all, due basically to the altitude and the cold weather near the summit.
Reinhold Messner was the first to solo Everest without support. He did it from the more difficult north side. He reached the summit but was so spent after the effort that he broke down emotionally back at base camp. This is a top class mountaineer who was very fit at the time.
Annapurna is rated as possibly the most difficult mountain to climb due to the number of avalanche hazards and the cold.
Tim, media of all stripes hype weather events. Like the weather channel naming ordinary winter storms.
But it gets particularly problematic when media feel they need to alter the news to keep their audience.
Such as a Fox news anchor fretting over and wanting to undo the reporting of Biden’s victory in Arizona:
“‘It’s hurting us,'” Baier reportedly added. “‘The sooner we pull it even if it gives us major egg and we put it back in [Trump’s] column the better we are in my opinion.'”
Nate,
What’s “problematic”? What’s wrong with free speech?
I can’t see anything wrong with free speech. You?
You can say that both sides do it, so it is okay, but this is not politics involving opinions and lifestyle preferences, this is science. The fact is, that it is almost exclusively the conservative media that will acknowledge both facts: There IS some kind of effect and the science is too complex with too many known and unknown influences to make effective or accurate measurements and trends, let alone predictions (unknown unknowns for the Rumsfeld fans).
wee willy…”Conservative opinions about sexuality amid the Nazis led to extreme homophobia….”
***
What is extreme homophobia, wee willy? A phobia itself is about extreme as fear gets, but you say there is an even more extreme form of phobia.
A phobia is an irrational fear that paralyzes people. With agoraphobia, people get to the point where they cannot leave their homes. Some develop phobias about bridges and the moment they step onto a bridge they become paralyzed.
Have you ever encountered a person who becomes paralyzed with fear when thinking about homosexuality? Or, shock and horror, when encountering a homosexual? The word homophobia is a desperate attempt by homosexuals to justify certain sexual perversion and they have taken it to a hysterical level where they brand anyone homophobic who dares to question their lifestyle.
In San Francisco, a group in the homosexual community, obviously embarrassed by the sexual inference of the word, lobbied newspapers to reference them as ‘gay’, rather than homosexual.
We know how that one turned out. My philosophy is live and let live. Whatever goes on in private between consenting adults and does not involve minors, is the business of the people engaged in such practices. However, when those same people ‘come out’, and start pushing their lifestyles on others as being harmless and ‘gay’, then we have the right to question it and comment on it.
Also when groups representing homosexuals begin lobbying to have children in schools indoctrinated with their perversions as being perfectly normal, then I think parents and others have an equal right to speak out about it.
Heterosexuals are not beyond perversion but I don’t see them trying to pass off their lifestyles on children in schools. Encouraging children to identify themselves as a different sex than the sex they were born is abhorrent to me and I am going to say so, even if the thought police come after me.
Rather than engage is such conversations, the homosexuals get huffy and start branding people who question their lifestyles as homophobic.
Nuts to them, I say.
“when those same people come out, and start pushing their lifestyles on others”
Gordon is clearly opposed to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, when he disagrees with the speech or the expression.
Nate,
Are you not happy with Gordon exercising his freedom of speech?
Why is that?
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Are you not happy with Nate exercising his freedom of speech?
Why is that?
“Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay or bisexual. It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear and may also be related to religious beliefs.”
Oh well, I must be homophobic. I know one homosexual who gets loud and obnoxious when he is drunk.I have definite negative feelings towards him when he starts spilling his drink. I feel quite justified.
Do homosexuals suffer from heterophobia?
You idiot.
Moron Mike,
What are you braying about?
You lost your footing in the threads once again, since you are replying to a comment about free speech, something you obviously have not thought very deeply.
Cheers.
“Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay or bisexual. It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear and may also be related to religious beliefs.”
Oh well, I must be homophobic. I know one homosexual who gets loud and obnoxious when he is drunk.I have definite negative feelings towards him when he starts spilling his drink. I feel quite justified.
Do homosexuals suffer from heterophobia?
You idiot.
Moron Mike,
You keep copy-pasting your comments in the wrong subthread.
Not that it matters much.
> Heterosexuals are not beyond perversion but I dont see them trying to pass off their lifestyles on children in schools.
You don’t? I mean, srsly? Are you sure?
C’mon, Bordo.
What do you mean by “lifestyle,” BTW?
Oh, and since you mention perversion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
You and your silly semantic games.
My climate Model never fails
https://i.postimg.cc/8zCH8xnP/mblk.jpg
“What matters is the size of the consecutive windows computed out of the Pratt coefficients, and nothing else”
What Blinny says is that VP and his normalized function is wrong.
” What Blinny says is that VP and his normalized function is wrong. ”
No.
As usual, a sissyish comment intentionally misrepresenting and distorting what I wrote.
So Blinny, what does a normalized function do?
And what is the correct size/width for a 12 month CTRM (or a 60 month one either)?
Is c(1,1.2067,1.5478) a normalized function?
” Is c(1,1.2067,1.5478) a normalized function? ”
Again and again: how could that ever depend from the data on which it is applied?
YOU are here the one who says that applying Pratt’s coefficients
1, 1.2067, 1.5478
on a triple window with as start size 60, giving 50, 39 as successors is correct, whilst doing the very same with as start size 24, giving 20, 16 as successors is automatically wrong.
You confound function and the data it is applied on – probably because you still did not underśtand how the ’24’ start window was computed.
I never said that 12,10,8 or 24,20,16 was wrong. That simply falls out from VPs function.
What I said was that adding together 24+20+16=60 was not what VP concluded at all.
On one hand you agree that in c(1,1.2067,1.5478) the first 1 means that this is the base window but then you claim that 24+20+16=60 means that 60 is the base window. Both cannot be correct.
What about CAREFULLY reading e.g.
https://www.statisticshowto.com/types-of-functions/normalized-function-data-normalization/
before you start again inventing something, Blindsley H00d?
Is c(1,1.2067,1.5478) a function where the 1 represents any base frequency?
” Is c(1,1.2067,1.5478) a function where the 1 represents any base frequency? ”
Of course!
And that’s the reason why
– a 35/25 C2RM and a 60/43 C2RM
– a 24/20/16 C3RM and a 60/50/39 C3RM
– a 18/16/14/11 C4RM and a 60/53/45/37 C4RM
– a 15/14/12/10/9 C5RM and a 60/55/49/42/36 C5RM
respectively pairwise drop, according to Vaughan Pratt’s excellent work, the very same amount of leakage off their source.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1501785
So you agree that a 60/50/39 C3RM is what VP intended. I’m glad you finally you agree with that conclusion.
And that 60 is the base window.
” So you agree that a 60/50/39 C3RM is what VP intended. Im glad you finally you agree with that conclusion. ”
Typical Blindsley H00d insinuation.
1. Nowhere did I agree to that. Nowhere!
2. Nowhere did Vaughan Pratt write anywhere that a 60/50/39 C3RM would be what he intended. Nowhere!
Why are you persistently insinuating, Blindsley H00d?
You said “a 60/50/39 C3RM”.
You also agreed that c(1,1.2067,1.54787) was what VP said and that the 1 was the base window.
> if I have the means, I move.
Mike Flynn has the right of it:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/18/asia/pakistan-deaths-migrant-boat-disaster-greece-intl-hnk/index.html
What if Mike Flynn did not have any means?
Wiltard,
What are you braying about?
Do you really want to pull me in, Troglodyte?
Please beware your wishes.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Ooooooh! An impotent and meaningless threat!
Are you going to flap your wrist at him, and give a petulant stamp of your little foot, if he “pulls you in”?
[laughing at powerless troll]
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
If you ask me to respond, I will.
Think about that.
If you can.
Can you?
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Ooooooh! An impotent and meaningless threat!
Are you going to flap your wrist at him, and give a petulant stamp of your little foot, if he pulls you in?
[laughing at powerless troll]
Moron Mike,
Why is Iron-Man not Fe-Male?
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Ooooooh! An impotent and meaningless threat!
Are you going to flap your wrist at him, and give a petulant stamp of your little foot, if he pulls you in?
[laughing at powerless troll]
Moron Mike,
Suppose someone publishes your personal address.
Would you feel as sanguine about free speech?
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Suppose someone publishes your personal address.
Would you feel as sanguine about free speech?”
Ooooooh! Did you get that out of “Gotchas for idiots?”
Publish away, idiot, publish away. Do you really think that you can manipulate someone into breaking the law, and facing the consequences, while you skulk in the background?
Good luck with that, fool.
Moron Mike,
What are you braying about?
The gotcha is just for you.
Are you suggesting you are an idiot?
I hope not, for you are not an idiot.
You are a deceitful cretin.
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Suppose someone publishes your personal address.
Would you feel as sanguine about free speech?”
Ooooooh! Did you get that out of “Gotchas for idiots?”
Publish away, idiot, publish away. Do you really think that you can manipulate someone into breaking the law, and facing the consequences, while you skulk in the background?
Good luck with that, fool.
Moron, Mike,
You copy-pasted your comment again.
Suppose an Aussie decides a political campaign against morons.
He keeps suggesting we need to eliminate them.
How would you feel about that free speech, moron?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Why are there 300 Pakistanis on a fishing trawler?
Most trawlers around here are crewed by less than 10.
Back to the topic of this blog post. Just in time, we find that Texas is experiencing a massive heat wave with many record high temperatures reported so far. Really bad for agriculture too and it ain’t over yet.
The Texas heat wave is so bad that meteorologists are apologizing for it
E. Swanson
Keep cool!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-waves-fueled-by-climate-change-topple-records-around-the-globe/
You missed your calling Binny. During WW II you could have gotten work with Goebbels propaganda ministry.
Mind you, it was not just the Germans who used propaganda, The BBC got started in it during WW II and have never let up. Ironically, the BBC are now one of the premier climate alarmists on the planet.
The Hunga-Tonga Effect (HTE) hasnt ended yet. Were in for a couple more months of warming, even before the El Niño builds.
Here’s another story about unusual warmth in the world’s oceans:
Beyond extreme ocean heat wave in North Atlantic is worst in 170 years
ES,
Does that mean it was worse 170 years ago? Oh well, if it’s cooler now than it was 170 years ago, no need to panic about the prospect of the sea boiling anytime soon.
Another bullet dodged?
swannie…”NOAA defines a marine heat wave as a period with persistent and unusually warm ocean temperatures….”
***
This is nothing more than idiotic climate alarmist dogma aimed at scaring people. What does ‘unusually warm ocean water’ mean? Is it a tenth of a degree warmer, or even a degree warmer? Because water at 5.1C rather than 5C does not give me confidence it feels any warmer.
I’d like to take these alarmists nitwits and dunk them in the English channel or the North Sea. During WW II, returning bomber pilots dreaded landing in these water because there was a good risk of dying from hypothermia.
NOAA makes it sound like they are now so warm the pilots would enjoy a dip in the water.
Gordo insists on throwing out another red herring, so that he can continue to ignore reality:
https://twitter.com/ScottDuncanWX/status/1669418588648685574
Hit the road, Swannie. Too bad you did not get to experience real heat waves like those in Texas in the 1930s when heat wave records were set.
Gordo pulls another red herring out of some dark orifice. He apparently can’t understand that the reports of new records in Texas are based on data which includes all those older data points. Besides, “official” summer is just beginning, one might think that all time records would be of interest.
“San Angelo reached an all-time record high of 114 on Tuesday and then tied that record again Wednesday.”
“Del Rio reached an all-time record high of 115 on Wednesday, breaking the previous record of 113 set Tuesday.”
“Some of the other all-time record high temperatures set during the month of June include 118 at Rio Grande Village, 117 at Falcon Lake, 116 at Cotulla, 115 near Laredo and at Cope Ranch, 113 at Carrizo Springs, and 112 at Comanche and Bronte”
both high and low records continue to get set. what he is referring to is most of the high records were set during the natural warming period of the nineteen thirties. we are in another such phase and waiting another decade for it to abate makes a lot of sense if we get another 3/10ths warming it isn’t necessarily a bad thing. getting ones panties in a bunch over it has all the earmarks of neurosis and/or substance abuse.
Hunter knows that one can argue over a few data points while losing the overall picture. The “Dust Bowl” in the U.S. of the 1930’s was the result of man made agricultural errors which exacerbated the effects of recurring drought conditions. Then too, was the reported warming before 1940 actually global or an artifact of other ongoing conditions, such as changes in shipping in the North Pacific after Japan invaded Manchuria?
Of course, for Hunter and other Denialist, any excuse to denigrate climate science will do. Meanwhile, the people living in Texas and surrounding areas are living with exceptional temperatures.
yep a mysterious climate warming that the climate change models are unable to replicate.
manchuria?????
Hunter, some history for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasion_of_Manchuria
https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/public/Manchuria_Background.pdf
After the trade embargo, lots of shipping between the US and Japan stopped, along with the associated measurements of sea surface temperatures. As the shipping shifted southward, the data would have incorporated more measurements from areas with warmer water. After Pearl Harbor, all commercial shipping stopped. I think that effect has led to efforts to correct for that bias.
So you believe that the Pacific Ocean cooled to offset the warming observed?
Here is a chart of sea surface temperature from icoads.
It seems have characteristics of a modeling exercise in how SST strongly deviate from air temperature, wind speed, sea level pressure, and cloudiness after about 130 years of tight correlation.
One would suspect that this at a minimum is the result of modeling historic arctic SST’s, ignoring the low ice conditions of the 1930’s and 40’s and who knows what other aggressive assumptions they employ to satisfy the political agenda.
https://icoads.noaa.gov/index_fig3.html.
While this deviation could be real and due to sea ice melt and we already know that the temperature modeling for the arctic in the 1930’s and 1940’s is ignored and instead modeled on CO2 as a proxy for seaice melt.
One needs to show how this reduced sampling affects the error on global SST measurement, as those who have published T series have done.
Here is an example of the sea surface temperature record with the calculated error range indicated in light blue.
It is of course larger in the past. Still we can resolve the warming over the last century or so.
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data//temperature/HadSST4.pdf
Nate says:
One needs to show how this reduced sampling affects the error on global SST measurement, as those who have published T series have done.
————————-
it has no effect on ssts.
You realize that your plot is of % of ocean sampled?
I thought this was the thread on your claim of how many joules the ocean warmed, which we don’t know.
On this thread yes indeed its on % of ocean sampled which pollutes the long term surface record beyond any hope of recovery. . . .unless of course they remove all the latitudes higher that 80 degrees. Then all you have to deal with is crappy undersampled SSTs from 60 to 80 which the older surface record versions also had to deal with.
Yes I realize that the poles have high pressure relative to temperature and higher temperature in the arctic due to sea ice loss an artifact not seen in the major seaice loss of the 1930’s and 1940’s so thats why I say it looks like its being modeled with assumptions of CO2 as you idiots want the mid-20th century warming to go away and are treating it exactly like these moron robot stormtrooper loyal soldiers to the Fuhrer tried to do with the LIA and MWP. Its beyond me how all you can be so stupid and actually think the public is that gullible. Yeah some of it is and we have our fair share of them in here.
You seem quite confused:
You said
“Here is a chart of sea surface temperature from icoads.” And tried to make some point about it.
But that is not what it was at all.
In short Nate icoads, without any explanation for the huge diversion, shows all signs of the discredited hockey stick of Phil Jones pasting two different datasets together. I strongly suspect thats the case as we know ice was clear in both northern passages in the 1930’s and 40’s and no diversion shows up there. whereas for the 1980 plus it actually took a number of years before the ice diversion began in the mid 90’s. When I saw that chart for the first time yesterday I was sitting next to a PhD scientist whom I showed it to him, he agreed it was very very strange.
Look at the chart you posted, nitwit!
Its not what you say it is.
You are making a claim here. . . .whats your support?
I claim you are a nitwit, and continue to be very confused.
The support is you saying this:
“Here is a chart of sea surface temperature from icoads.”
https://icoads.noaa.gov/index_fig3.html.
We see that is not a chart of sea surface temperature at all.
Here is you doubling down:
“In short Nate icoads, without any explanation for the huge diversion, shows all signs of the discredited hockey stick”
Thus proving that you continue to be very confused.
Well you are correct I did make that mistake. But how does that change my comment about appending different record sets together ala the disgraced hockey stick?
Hockey stick was reconstructed temperature record..
I don’t see the connection..
What appending?
The hockey stick was created by appending an instrument record to a proxy record and even going so far as to erase the part of the proxy record that didn’t agree with the instrument record. The same processes are used in the long term instrument record as different instruments are appended together and the written results of the old records which are inconsistent with the conclusions drawn from the new instruments results in changes to the old record. Net result over time has been cooling of the 1930’s to 1940’s as originally recorded in the instrument record.
“The same processes are used in the long term instrument record as different instruments are appended together and the written results”
Not at all the same.
In your ‘expert’ view, no long term measurement record, for which instruments have changed, been updated, and neccessary corrections made, are valid.
So Roy’s T record..the Mauna Loa CO2 record..the OLR record, the solar intensity record…toss em all out!
Ignoramus.
It’s the Sun, Stoopid!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17Wc-b_OZhrzorLsE_ZibKU82F1w1U-_g/view
This cooling mechanism is part of the so-called greenhouse effect. 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.
A bunch of nonsense. There is no greenhouse gas effect. Unlike the greenhouse gas effect that has not been detected in the real world, carbon dioxide possesses a chemical potential, available in thermodynamic tables, and this chemical potential is equivalent to potential energy that compresses the atmosphere and cools down the stratosphere. For more, please see https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/1/72
Nabil,
They ignore stuff like thermodynamics and science in their model.
You are mistaken.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691#Bib1
Scientists who use modeling and can’t spell it correctly.
EM,
“A recent modelling study confirms CO2 as the principal knob governing earths temperature. Despite principal plausibility being achieved in this way there are still several open research questions, one being the “missing heat”. Also, as the state-of-the-art climate models mostly overestimated the global warming during the last 20 years, additional data driven and model independent corroboration is desirable to support the attribution assessment.”
Are you really boasting about your gullibility, appealing to the authority of the clowns who wrote this sort of nonsense?
Just another gaggle of delusional SkyDragon cultists, totally disconnected from reality.
Swenson says:
EM,
A recent modelling study confirms CO2 as the principal knob governing earths temperature. Despite principal plausibility being achieved in this way there are still several open research questions, one being the missing heat. Also, as the state-of-the-art climate models mostly overestimated the global warming during the last 20 years, additional data driven and model independent corroboration is desirable to support the attribution assessment.
Are you really boasting about your gullibility, appealing to the authority of the clowns who wrote this sort of nonsense?
Just another gaggle of delusional SkyDragon cultists, totally disconnected from reality.
—————————————–
yep it is nonsense. computer games are also modeling studies where fantasy can be made to appear realistic.
and lets not forget that the only thing studied in the above modeling study was an itemization of the model failures to predict climate change.
giving a head job to the establishment when itemizing shortcomings is the only way to ensure continued funding of your projects and getting blacklisted.
that would obviously be and avoid getting blacklisted.
Not good enough, Ent, explain, based on his paper, why you think Nabil is wrong. Citing duffers at the IPCC is not proof.
I have already pointed out why they are duffers, at multiple level. The science upon which the IPCC leans is simply not there. I summed up their explanation of AGW as follows…
1)19th century scientists like Tyndall claimed CO2 can absorb infrared energy
2)after the Industrial Era, which began around 1750, CO2 levels in the atmosphere began to rise and 100 years later the planet began warming..
therefore…
3)anthropogeic CO2 is warming the planet.
To arrive at that dumb conclusion, the IPCC had to purposely ignore evidence that the Little Ice Age had just ended (circa 1850) and the warming is actually a rewarming from the cooling of the LIA.
The IPCC are not allowed to pursue that line of reasoning since their mandate is solely to find evidence of anthropogenic warming. They exclude any other evidence and have minimized the LIA rewarming theory by ignorantly claiming it was a natural phenomenon to Europe only.
Nowhere do they try to explain how temperatures could decline 1C to 2C in Europe without the rest of the planet being cooled as well.
C’mon, Bordo.
Ranting about the IPCC is not enough. You got to explain why you think the paper EM cited is wrong.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
No he don’t!
You are an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Then EM doesn’t either!
So sad, too bad.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“You got to explain why you think the paper EM cited is wrong.”
No he dont!
You are an idiot.
Pay attention wee willy, I condemned the entire IPCC, not just one paper.
Come on, Bordo.
If EM condemns all of Sky Dragon cranks, it would be OK?
That can be arranged.
Wiltard,
Nabil has math in his paper. You have to falsify his math like Berry falsified the IPCC’s math. The paper Ant presented doesn’t falsify anything. It repeats the fairytale and misspells a simple word like modeling.
Troglodyte,
Nabil’s paper contains arithmetic.
You might as well argue that your accountant is a mathematician.
Silly Stephen.
The paper is written in English. We spell it modelling.
Gordon
The IPCC summarises the current science as an amid for policy makers. It doesn’t do the science.The science relating to GHGs and global warming is a small subset of a much larger body of knowledge.
You are not condemning the IPCC. You are condemming most modern physics, using a device which would not work if you were correct.
Noooo,
That isn’t the only thing you Brits do wrong.
Wiltard,
Again, he falsified the IPCC’s model (with math). Restating the same false mathematical model doesn’t falsify his falsification.
Ant, Wiltard,
What have you Brits done since Issac Newton? Apparently, not a damn thing but advance socialism and scientific propaganda. Do you lead in any technology field? Really? Do you build anything or discover anything? You spend all your days worshiping Marx.
Funny how you never contribute anything, Troglodyte.
With all of his commendable thermodynamic calculations, Nabil is finding what is already well known: the amount of heat produced directly by human energy consumption.
And he assumes that most of this is fossil fuels, and most of it is returned to the Earth’s surface.
He finds that over the last decade years (line 10 in his table) the energy returned to the Earth’s surface is ~ 5×10^21 J.
But, we know that the energy accumulated in the ocean over the last 10 y (which is 90% of the stored energy) is ~ 1.3 x 10^23 J.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/GRAPHS/heat_content2000m.png
So we have observed ~ 25 times more accumulated energy.
So the energy provided by the mechanism in Nabil’s paper is woefully too small to account for the observations.
And this was well known.
no we don’t know that. the ocean temps are not randomly sampled about 2/3rds of the ocean remains virtually unsampled.
measuring land near surface atmosphere temperatures is far easier and we recognize we could be off by 2C absolute.
“no we dont know that.”
As ever, if data doesnt fit Bill’s narrative, deny the data. No facts needed!
i am reminded of “Dewey wins” after surveying house wives at the local grocery store.
Bill offers nothing to support his rejection of data he doesnt like.
He just defers to the authority of a non-authority: himself.
What we are dealing with is an extrapolation built on top of a sampling program that has measuredo only the top one third of the ocean with a good deal of that top one third poorly sampled. Sampling for the deep ocean is virtually unsampled, is subject to lower levels of mixing and thus will contain more anomalous areas and yet you feel its good science to extrapolate data points to the bottom of the ocean. Thats no good science in any realm of science.
There is little penetration of surface heat into the deep ocean below 2000 m, where the temperature is cold, stable and unperturbed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:THERMOCLINE.png
of course its perturbed! it wouldn’t be cold if it weren’t the ocean is like a grilled cheese sandwich. melted cheese surrounded by hot layers of bread varying between -4c and 1c with boiling water around volcanos and geothermal vents.
Bill, in real science it is necessary to be quantitative.
That isn’t.
The amount of heat from volcanoes in the ocean: is it a significant contributor to the total heat content of the ocean?
What did you read of mine that made you think that?
There is nothing there. The ocean is likely getting colder due to the loss of seaice. And not being able to measure the volume of supercold brines from seawater freezing falling to the ocean bottoms make it laughable that anybody wants to think they can extrapolate ocean heat content from shallower depths.
“The ocean is likely getting colder because ”
Again a non-quantitative opinion from a non-expert, without a shred of evidence provided.
Pointless.
Yes, your Lord Kelvin quote is a good one. Science needs to be quantitative to be useful.
My criticism of the Nabil paper was quantitative, and provided data to support my assertions.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1502455
Try to do that.
“Climate change is based on a radiative forcing methodology, and thermodynamic analysis of the climate does not appear to be utilized. Although equivalent to the radiative model, the thermodynamic model captures details of thermodynamic interactions among the earths subsystems.”
The paper doesnt consider the radiative effects of CO2 at all, so it makes no sense to claim this analysis is “equivalent to the radiative model”.
“Through 2005, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by 99.91 ppmv. The total heat exchanged with the surface between 1750 and 2005 is equal to 7.07 1019 99.91/0.17 = 4.16 1022 J, Equation (14). The equivalent radiative forcing is 4.16 1022/(5.14 1014 3.15 107) = 2.57 W m−2. The quantities in the denominator, 5.14 1014 and 3.15 107, are the area of the surface of the earth, m2, and the number of seconds in one year, respectively.”
Here you have calculated the heat exchanged by your analysis over from 1750- 2005. Then for some reason assume all of it is delivered in one year!
That makes no sense.
Then you compare the result to that found by standard radiative forcing.
“Through 2005, the calculated radiative forcing by Equation (14) is 2.57 Wm−2, sample calculations, and the observed radiative forcing by IPCC is 2.64 Wm−2 as discussed in the Introduction. ”
This comparison makes no sense, since the radiative forcing has been ongoing over many many years.
Also Nabil says
“A bunch of nonsense. There is no greenhouse gas effect.”
So it is very strange that your paper’s analysis claims to find equivalence to the standard GHE radiative forcing calculation.
Nabil,
You’ve awakened the chief propagandist and obfuscator.
Nabil,
He will tell you that you didn’t consider the Revelle Factor. He’s a man of science.
As ever, Stephen, you think your heroes are infallible, and can’t be questioned.
Either he has answers for these discrepancies or he doesn’t. Let’s see.
Those were found in a quick read–suggests there are more to be found.
the pot calls the kettle black.
There are some obvious errors in Nabil’s paper.
He seems to have no answers. Neither does the peanut gallery.
i haven’t read it. what errors are you aware of?
Tee hee hee…can’t be bothered to read my posts before launching ad-homs.
what I didn’t read was Nabils’ paper but I did read your insult to the guy reporting on it. If anything you are a hero worshipper as you believe science stuff you can’t even begin to produce a statistically sensible argument in support of. . . .which as you know the idiom arose from you in another one of your insults.
So if you cant be bothered to read the paper you dont need to weigh in.
i’m weighing in because i already know you don’t know what you are talking about so there is no way Nabil’s paper could be any worse.
you could fix that if you could provide a statistically strong and sensible argument for your system of beliefs. but we already know you can’t
Ok just trolling then.
I don’t see calling out hypocrisy as trolling.
“im weighing in because i already know you dont know what you are talking about”
When you interject with ad-homs like this, while being ignorant about what’s actually being discussed, that is pure trolling.
Just stop.
And of course the entire energy calculation can be accounted for a change in cloud cover smaller than what is currently detectable.
Since we still poorly understand the dynamics of phase changes in water plenty of uncertainty exists just from that alone.
“change in cloud cover smaller than what is currently detectable.”
Evidence?
for quick starters for the internet challenged:
https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/qa-why-clouds-are-still-one-biggest-uncertainties-climate-change
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL102706
We know that clouds introduce uncertainty in the amount of GW.
Where is it saying what you said?
“And of course the entire energy calculation can be accounted for a change in cloud cover smaller than what is currently detectable.”
here is a simpler one for you.
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/cloud-climate/#:~:text=Clouds%20can%20block%20light%20and,that%20heat%20from%20the%20Sun.
Nope, neither one says what you asserted. Obviously it was just made up.
Boy you are really a beginner on this stuff Nate. Guess I have to hold your hand.
Trenberth’s albedo calculations are uncertain via a range of 12 watts within the studies he hand selected. that represents about a 10 to 13% uncertainty in how many clouds there are.
And he is a big climate change proponent. That range in variation is 12watt/m2 in which is more than twice the total warming of the industrial age.
“Trenberths albedo calculations are uncertain via a range of 12 watts within the studies he hand selected. that represents about a 10 to 13% uncertainty in how many clouds there are.”
Quote, with context please. Your units dont make sense.
Compare this to the variation in ocean heat content observed.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/04b9828c-36f9-49ea-b190-333c004849f2/grl62546-fig-0001-m.png
The top of atmosphere satellite measurements of the variation in energy added to the Earth system year by year, agree within a small uncertainty (much less than 1 W/m^2), with the measurements of the changes in ocean heat content.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
Your complaints that ‘we don’t know’ such things just are not quantitatively correct.
I already provided you the links to cloud uncertainty and Trenberth gives you the figures of the affect on climate.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.xml?tab_body=pdf
You can’t quote any of them?
I showed you the recent measurements that clearly don’t agree with you.
On a short term, daily or weekly basis cloud fraction may vary significantly with weather.
On an annual or decadal basis, not so much.
The energy stored in the ocean comes from a years long persistent energy imbalance. And it agrees with that measured by satellite.
First your graph of TOA radiation and heat uptake are both consistent with fewer clouds.
Second, The Trenberth discussion shows a 20.4watt/m2 range of difference in mean albedo which is primarily provided by clouds.
third, the most difficult to measure is albedo because it tends to be directional. Reflection isn’t evenly distributed like actual emissions.
Obviously notbody on your reading list is going to talk about this.
So lets just say you didn’t get your money’s worth in your education.
The uncertainty is variation in albedo that could be related to aerosols, cosmic rays, residual warming from the LIA, possibly magnetic shanges, earth wobble, multi-decadal shifts in ocean currents, multi-decadal change in solar activity and I am sure thats not all that might be on the list.
Thats why despite you have your brain locked entirely on one means for climate change that doesn’t make it so. You need a statistically sensible argument to put forward. But instead what we get when we run into a G&T who appear to have attempted to show no such argument exists gets blamed for impugning the total gaarbage 2nd law violating 3rd grader radiation model that you still cling to.
And out of respect, I will acknowledge that there is a remote possibility that CO2 could result in significant warming as one cannot rule out what one cannot test. But its abundantly clear the 3rd grader radiation model is bogus.
And Oh BTW, not only is it bogus its the only blueprint of the GHE ever provided. It used to be featured on even Harvard Universities website as their students got sucked in. But it is nowhere to be found now.
“Second, The Trenberth discussion shows a 20.4watt/m2 range of difference in mean albedo which is primarily provided by clouds.”
Again, no quotes, no context. Without a quote, where I can read and see the context, this is meaningless.
The paper I showed you was quite recent, 2021, and as I noted had uncertainty less than 1 W/m^2.
Then you offer lots more unsupported assertions, speculations, and ad-homs.
“The Trenberth discussion” is from 2009.
Blinny: Notice how VP only corrected the Greg’s ratios from 1.3371 to 1.2067 etc. but did not change the way it was applied. He also agreed that 12, 10 and 8 was the correct application for a 12 month CTRM.
Notice also that c(1, 1.2067,1.5478) gives both 12, 10 and 8 as well as 60, 50 and 39. No additions necessary to get to the results.
Notice also that SRM(12) and SRM(60) match quite closely to CTRM(12) and CTRM(60) as well as Gaussian(12) and Gaussian(60) and S-G(12) and S-G(60). I’m certain that is no coincidence.
” Notice also that SRM(12) and SRM(60) match quite closely to CTRM(12) and CTRM(60)… ”
*
What a load of nonsense, Blindsley H00d!
It’s only a few days ago that you proudly replicated Goodman’s words coming from Wiki:
” 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. ”
*
And today you suddenly write that the SRM matches ‘quite closely’ to the CTRM?
*
Here is a superposition of SRM60, CTRM60 and CTRM149:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nD1BanQrGpqArnNWSkt9eZri0UnNtO0T/view
The red line is the CTRM starting with window size 60 and a real window size of 149 months.
It is ‘plain correct’. But absolutely useless when we want to compare it to the SRM because the 60/50/39 CTRM works like a grader machine scraping everything away.
*
Conversely, the CTRM with end window size 60 has the same real window size as the SRM, allowing for an exact comparison; and here we see Vaughan Pratt’s coefficients in action!
All places where the blue SRM wrongly bumps up / down are visibly corrected when we look at the black line.
This, Blindsley H00d, is the reason why I stick to the use of Pratt’s coefficients in such a way that ALL CxRMs have the same active end window, and not and end window decreasing when the number of windows increase.
And despite a reduced leakage as computed by Vaughan Pratt, the resulting multiple running means keep nearer to the source.
This is exactly what I want.
*
You want something different, Blindsley H00d?
DO IT YOURSELF!
But stop boring me, please.
Binny,
You wrote –
“But stop boring me, please.”
Boredom is something you choose to feel. Rather like choosing to take offense, and then blaming someone for offending you!
All a bit juvenile, even childish.
Mike Flynn,
Kennui will be chagrined to hear that.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
VP only corrected Greg’s original factors and did not question the widths or base.
You misuse VP factors to try and get what he did not say.
Your final window sizes, composed as they are by adding together individual factors, is without any supporting maths and is ludicrous.
As can be plainly seen, your filters actually work as on the first data point.
Thus your CTRM(60) is actually a CTRM(24).
Greg Goodman did not write
https://mathresearch.utsa.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Weighted_moving_average_graphs
which contains the words
“A major drawback of the SMA is that it lets through a significant amount of the signal shorter than the window length.”
which lists its author as “Page creator Khanh” and stems from “Date of page creation 15:35, 16 October 2021”
Another fail on your part.
Neither is Greg Goodman listed on the Wiki as a contributor or editor.
“the 60/50/39 CTRM works like a grader machine scraping everything away”
Oh what an idiot you are.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1502115
Einstein and Euler put to the test at the edge of the Universe
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Einstein_and_Euler_put_to_the_test_at_the_edge_of_the_Universe_999.html
“The cosmos is a unique laboratory for testing the laws of physics, in particular those of Euler and Einstein. Euler described the movements of celestial objects, while Einstein described the way in which celestial objects distort the Universe.”
I was wondering, how many gravity waves are there.
Like in the milky way galaxy and in terms of the “bigger ones”.
Rather simply saying a infinite amount- if you include “all sizes”.
Of course one have define what the “bigger ones” are.
Hmm, how about a size that we measure if it’s coming from 1/2 the diameter of milky way distance, as being the “bigger ones”.
g,
You wrote “I was wondering, how many gravity waves are there.”
42.
gb…”while Einstein described the way in which celestial objects distort the Universe”.
***
Einstein was full of bs.
Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock claimed Einstein’s theories of relativity were not even theories, but thought experiments with no scientific proof. Furthermore, he claimed Einstein did not understand measurement. I take that to mean Einstein’s theories about time and length dilation, based on the speed of an object wrt the speed of light, cannot be justified since both are fixed measures that cannot vary.
Gravity waves exist only in Einstein’s theoretical universe. You won’t find them in our universe.
Why wouldn’t Gravity waves exist in Newton’s theoretical universe?
Newton believed in God, so if God made matter disappear, would Newton say that couldn’t be detected that this matter disappeared?
Or the opposite God created a planet- such planet created wouldn’t be detectable?
Or if mass gets closer, it seems Newton would say the force gravity increases. Or two cannon balls fall, it’s twice the force as compared just one cannon ball falling.
It seems your “problem” is with the term, wave.
g,
“Newton believed in God, so if God made matter disappear, would Newton say that couldnt be detected that this matter disappeared?”
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I saw a man who wasn’t there,
He wasnt there again today,
I wish, I wish he’d go away!
Maybe God made him disappear before he was there. Who knows?
Nature and nature’s laws were swathed in night.
God said “Let Newton be.” and all was light.
It did not last;the Devil answered “No”.
“Let Einstein be.” restored the status quo.
And then along came Feynman & Co.
Now we’re all totally buggered!
Such is life.
gb…”Why wouldnt Gravity waves exist in Newtons theoretical universe?”
***
Because there is no such thing as a gravity wave. The origin of the bs is in the space-time nonsense of Einstein. Same thing with gravity wells.
Does no one speak in terms of science anymore?
So, you don’t like the terms of gravity well or gravity waves.
I would say the gravity well of Venus is useful.
But I could also say the orbits of Venus are useful, but it seems
to me, that the term gravity well of Venus is a better way to say roughly the same thing.
But I might want to be more specific and say Venus L-1 is useful.
Venus L-1 as is Earth’s L-1 is a vast region of space. Earth’s L-1 has a point which about 1.5 million km from Earth, and in between
Earth and the Sun. And you can orbit things around this point.
Earth has two sets of L-points. Earth/Sun L-point {1,2,3,4,and 5}
and another 5 L-points called Earth/Moon L-points.
These aren’t really in orbit, but they are in Earth’s gravity well.
But if don’t like gravity well you use the term Hill sphere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_sphere
But it’s not as common of a term, as compared to gravity well.
gb…don’t fall for that crap.
Hill sphere -> gravity well = gravitational field.
Th idiots don’t like the word gravity or gravitational field since they think it is related to space-time, not a force.
Newton was a true scientist who did his own experiments. Einsteinians use thought experiments and talk a lot of bs.
gravitational field.
Venus gravitational field is useful in many ways.
If gravitational waves do not exist, perhaps you would explain what LIGO is detecting?
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligo-gw-interferometer
In Venus gravity field {the field being 3 dimensional space] about 1 million km away from Venus in the direction of the Sun is a very big region we can call L-1. And things put in L-1 roughly stay in L-1.
And you could put two small satellites in there which remain about 1/2 million km away from each other.
And these two satellite could be designed to know where [and when] they are very precisely and communication this to each other.
And there by be able to detect differences in the gravity field.
The gravitational field does change as it orbits the sun, so you could say you measuring all it’s changes.
They are using devices which essentially measure light. What does light have to do with gravity?
Science is so messed up these days we are going to have to end this nonsense and start anew. Physicist, David Bohm, acknowledged that. He claimed Newtonian and quantum mechanics have reached the ends of their respective roads and we will need to back up and re-evaluate.
Bohm was an expert in QM.
So, answers given is Swenson: 42 and Robertson: 0
I would guess, millions
“They are using devices which essentially measure light. What does light have to do with gravity? ”
You did read the LIGO link?
LIGO uses pairs of mirrors 4km apart. Laser light is used to measure the distance between each pair of mirrors to a small fraction of a wavelength using interferometry.
Each pair has another pair at 90 degrees to the first and the installation is duplicated at Hanford and Livingston.
When a gravitational wave passes the distance between the mirrors changes. This changes the interference fringes.
Having two pairs of mirrors allows detection of waves from any direction. Having two sites allows you to calculate the direction more accurately and distinguishes real events detected at both sites from noise generated at only one site.
And yet there is scientific disagreement as to whether the waves have been detected.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032022-600-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/
Bill Hunter
There is always scientific disagreement. It is the anvil on which good theories are forged.
The first LIGO detection event may well have been a false positive, but I note that as the library of detection events built up and the quality of the data improved, the criticism died down.
There are now three sites in operation as of March 2023.
We agree. One who is widely considered to be the GOAT by many.
”When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science.”
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin
Interesting..but..
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/two-independent-analyses-confirm-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/
nate not all scientists agree. they are measuring something. the question is what. some scientist thought he had measured aether also.
Do Cosmic Rays Precede Earthquakes?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/23/do-cosmic-rays-cause-earthquakes/
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
–I came across an article with a provocative headline, Scientists Link Cosmic Radiation to Earthquakes for the First Time.–:
https://www.newsweek.com/scientists-cosmic-radiation-earthquakes-1807690
“Scientists have made a link between cosmic radiation and earthquakes for the first time.”
Neither seems to explain it well.
In regards to Willis, more sunspot are less cosmic rays, not more cosmic rays
Other one:
“A new study from the project found a strong connection between cosmic radiation and earthquakes, although not in a way that anyone expected.”
So, it says:
“The most intriguing outcome of our study is that we see a connection between the two seemingly disconnected science realms: cosmic rays and seismicity,” Homola said. “But we cannot conventionally point to a possible causal relation: neither cosmic rays causing earthquakes, nor some process inside Earth causing a regular and complex effect with radiation that precedes a seismic shock.”
So that, is what “anyone expected” and it’s “not, in that way”??
gb…the problem is that no one knows what causes earthquakes. The plate tectonic theory is popular due only to consensus.
Personally, I can’t see how an earthquake, which moves a bazillion tons of earth at a time, could be caused by cosmic rays. One would think that the ability of the rays to move that much material would have a devastating effect on humans.
Plate tectonics theory claims that large slabs of the planet move past other large slabs, eventually diving into the ocean and being recirculated through the Earth. The surfaces the slabs move past are called fault lines in some cases. If two large slabs of the planet are moving past each other along a fault line, why would there not be earthquakes along the slabs over large distances. In other words, we should experience 100s of quakes every time that happened.
Why is there always just one quake with a definite epicentre.
Why would cosmic waves produce such a movement? The article is about correlation, not causation. They make no attempt to explain the mechanism.
— Gordon Robertson says:
June 24, 2023 at 5:18 PM
gbthe problem is that no one knows what causes earthquakes. The plate tectonic theory is popular due only to consensus. —
I knew about it before consensus {there was a crazy one miner…
and I seen a globe of the Earth.
–Personally, I cant see how an earthquake, which moves a bazillion tons of earth at a time, could be caused by cosmic rays. One would think that the ability of the rays to move that much material would have a devastating effect on humans.–
{but fracking is different}
I don’t have opinion on it- it’s said there is some degree of correlation, so seems an interesting idea. It’s seems the idea is cosmic rays {or GCR} are transformed into muons:
“The muons that hit the Earth result from particles in the Earth’s atmosphere colliding with cosmic rayshigh-energy protons and atomic nuclei that move through space at just below the speed of light. Muons exist for only 2.2 microseconds before they decay into an electron and two kinds of neutrinos.”
https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsmuons
wee willy continues to defend homosexuals which makes me wonder about him.
“It [homophobia]has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear and may also be related to religious beliefs”.
***
Where is the irrational fear in having a concern over people using body parts for sexual practices where that area has some of the most toxic bacteria in the body?
The US government spent trillions of dollars on AIDS research, which had been blamed on a harmless virus, when the problem was right under their noses all along. Luc Montagnier who was credited with discovering HIV but who only admitted to inferring a virus, later claimed AIDS is oxidative stress related to lifestyle. He added that a healthy immune system will handle HIV.
There was a strong homosexual lobby aimed at distancing male homosexuals from AIDS. Questionable lifestyle practices were blamed on a virus that could not be seen on an electron microscope. It had to be inferred with the proof of its action based on an assumption that has been recently discredited.
My concern with the homosexual lifestyle has nothing to do with ‘contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy’, and I have no irrational fear of homosexuals. I don’t want anything to do with them, but neither do I wish them harm. What I want to see from them is owning their sexual preference and to stop trying to sugar coat it as something it is not.
Most of all, stay the heck away from children.
Come on, Bordo.
You already are our crankiest crank.
Do you really need to be a bigot?
Whingeing Wee Willy,
What’s wrong with being a bigot? You obviously are. Do you need to be a bigot? Or do you just enjoy it?
I’m a bigot – I admit I am antagonistic towards delusional SkyDragon cultists, purely on the basis that they are delusional SkyDragon cultists. Do you think I should “accommodate” them, or be “nice”?
You idiot.
I know logic is not your strong suit, wee willy, however, a bigot I am not. I have never treated a homosexual as other than a human being. The only way I would recognize one is if he/she is going out of his/her way to be noticed. I don’t go into peoples’ bedrooms to spy on them.
These days, a person does not have to go far to be inundated with LGBTQ propaganda. Pride events are in everyone’s face and I have to wonder what there is to be proud of. Why are these people so insecure they require everyone to admire them and validate their pride? Not only that, people are required to agree with it all or be branded homophobic.
I have generally ignored all the Pride bs until recently when they started working with children in schools to promote their lifestyle.
What I can’t understand wee willy is why you can’t see the same thing. Why are you so immature that you feel the need to belong?
Is your position not bigotry?
Come on, Bordo.
Of course you are a bigot. You are the turning into most bigoted bigot among all the bigots I have ever encountered in all of Climateball. Homosexuality is not a *lifestyle*. It is a sexual orientation. You falling for the grooming trope of the right-wing echo chambers is only too predictable.
Speaking of grooming:
https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/former-soccer-coach-argues-he-shouldnt-have-to-register-as-sexual-offender-6188748
Had you had a more decent sex education, you might have been less of a bigot, but I doubt it.
We alas covered your Montagnier crap in the last thread. This has nothing to do here.
So Willard what was it that Gordon said that caused you to label him a bigot?
Have you tried reading, Gill?
You just called him a bigot and didn’t say why
Please don’t answer as its important you keep your record of not defending your bullshit in place.
I actually did told Bordo, Gill.
It is very very important that Gill understands why Bordo is a bigot.
Good job keeping your line of stinky bullshit totally undefended. Keep up the good work!
wee willy…”Homosexuality is not a *lifestyle*. It is a sexual orientation. You falling for the grooming trope of the right-wing echo chambers is only too predictable”.
***
If two men or two women have a relationship with no sex involved, what do we call it. Usually a friendship.
I get it that people can have a relationship based on love alone, with the understanding that love has nothing to do with sex. When men in particular live together without a sexual interaction, you can’t really call it a relationship. Traditionally, we are not built that way, people got together to have families, and fundamentally, to procreate the race.
I have made it clear that I am not concerned about what anyone does behind closed doors as long as it is consensual and does not involve minors. When they ‘come out’ and want to claim their lifestyle is normal, they open themselves to judgement and criticism. Problem is, they can’t live with the criticism and resort to lobbying and insults to counter it.
What you fail to grasp wee willy, is that people outside of the LGBTQ movement have rights too. As long as they don’t engage in hate crimes or violence toward the LGBTQ set, they have a right to their opinions. The LGBTQ can’t live with that kind of democracy, they want to brow beat people into accepting them whether those people like it or not.
Worse still, they want to condition children at an early age to accept their lifestyles as being normal. Not on my watch. If they can influence children with propaganda, I have the right to influence the children to see the other side of the equation.
Personally, I’d rather leave the children alone, free from propaganda, to allow themselves to reach their own understanding eventually. If a child grows up and naturally develops an interest in same sex relationships they are free to do that. I find it abhorrent that anyone would try to push a child in either direction.
Worse still, here in Canada the government is trying to cut parents out of the equation. The government seems to think it’s OK for teachers to encourage children to identify as the opposite sex and that parents should have no say in the matter. Even someone as narrow-minded as you should see the wrong in that.
I have no time for perverts, either heterosexual or homosexual, who prey on people, especially children. Agai, I don’t care was goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults.
With regard to Montagnier, you seem to take exception to his revelation that AIDS is caused by oxidative stress produced by lifestyle, and that HIV can be handled by a healthy immune system.
Montagnier won a Nobel for allegedly discovering the HIV virus.
(Disclaimer: I am not claiming HIV does not exist, I don’t know. I am only questioning a dubious scientific methodology). Montagnier claimed only to having inferred a virus because he could not see a virus on an electron microscope, as required by rules for identifying a virus laid out by his own institute, the Louis Pasteur Institute.
The irony here is that a member of his team, Dr. Barre-Sioussi, sat on the panel at the LPI which created the rules for identifying a virus. When no virus showed up on the electron microscope, why did she not say something? I can only presume that the glory of discovering HIV overruled her scientific integrity.
Montagnier went on to develop a so-called new method for identifying a virus based on his claim that a serum taken from a person with AIDS killed uninfected cells in a test tube. As part of his new method, he introduced some retroviral theory that has never been proved. A pioneer in the field when retrovirology was invented in the early 1970s, cautioned against the presumption that RT represents a virus. He knew it is a common enzyme in the human body.
It is explained decently here…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15325002/
The crux of the proof is reverse transcriptase, an enzyme considered to be a possible marker for a virus. Problem is, RT is a common marker in the human body and can be produced by various conditions in the body, like disease. That has not stopped the medical community from adopting Montagnier’s method and making it the basis for identification of most modern viruses, including covid.
The question is this: why would anyone want to replace a tried and trued method for identifying a virus, which requires the visual identification of the virus on an electron microscope, with a method that infers a virus but can’t prove it is there?
It gets worse. The Montagnier method was used by Fauci et al to produce a test for HIV, which is now a test for covid. It uses the PCR method for DNA amplification invented by Kary Mullis. Mullis immediately cried foul, claiming that PCR cannot be used diagnostically to claim a virus that cannot be seen on an electron microscope. Mullis pointed out that PCR amplifies all DNA in a mix and if the virus cannot be seen in the mix before amplification it can’t be seen after amplification.
Fauci, in a moment of unmitigated ego, told Mullis he was wrong. Mullis retorted by calling Fauci a liar, and he repeated that claim many times, calling Fauci a liar. Fauci did not dare to take Mullis to court.
In the end, Montagnier saw the light. He got it that HIV, if it exists at all, is a harmless virus as claimed by Duesberg in the beginning of the madness. Duesberg was a world renowned researcher who had discovered the first cancer gene. He had been honoured by the National Academy of Science and California awarded him the scientist of the year award, yet no one listened.
Here we are today with wee willy still defending pseudo-science that reveals the truth about his homosexual friends.
So, Gill. Do you still have any problem identifying the bigotry?
No but apparently you do Willard as you don’t have the balls to stand up against bigotry and call it out when you see it. It seems though you are bigoted against anybody who doesn’t think as you think and you aren’t even willing to say what it is.
Gill, Gill,
Homosexuality. That was the topic. Bordo has bigoted views in it.
Now, how do you feel about having played dumb?
Willard takes the view that if refuses to take a stand on anything, he can’t be accused of supporting anything at all. Who can disprove what you don’t say?
For example, Willard’s inept attempts to avoid describing the GHE. He finally claimed that the GHE was due to “not cooling, slow cooling”, and then scuttled away after realising how silly he sounded. Willard is like many delusional SkyDragon cultists, thriving on innuendo and implication.
Veiled accusations of political incorrectness, vague, pointless, and irrelevant accusations of homophobia, bigotry, anti Semitism – you name the card, Willard will try to play it!
He’s an idiot. Luckily, he’s easy to laugh at, and there are no harmful consequences to laughing at incompetent nitwits like Willard the Fool.
Mike Flynn brays about something, but what?
Willard says:
”Gill, Gill,
Homosexuality. That was the topic. Bordo has bigoted views in it.”
APPARENTLY willard is ok with child molestation as all isaw was Gordon calling child molesters preverts.
that makes you a child molesting pervert.
Willard takes the view that if refuses to take a stand on anything, he cant be accused of supporting anything at all. Who can disprove what you dont say?
For example, Willards inept attempts to avoid describing the GHE. He finally claimed that the GHE was due to not cooling, slow cooling, and then scuttled away after realising how silly he sounded. Willard is like many delusional SkyDragon cultists, thriving on innuendo and implication.
Veiled accusations of political incorrectness, vague, pointless, and irrelevant accusations of homophobia, bigotry, anti Semitism you name the card, Willard will try to play it!
Hes an idiot. Luckily, hes easy to laugh at, and there are no harmful consequences to laughing at incompetent nitwits like Willard the Fool.
<:
APPARENTLY Gill ignores that the vast majority of child abuse is committed by heterosexual males.
Gordon clearly stated heterosexual and homosexual child abusers were perverts.
Apparently you believe only the heterosexual ones are.
See, Gill?
It’s better when you do some work on your own.
For then I can destroy it:
Bigots certainly are entitled to their bigoted views.
They are entitled simpliciter.
that would be defined as sexual harrassment and that has always been unacceptable in front of children and adults alike.
For instance that group that got the Dodger baseball team in a pickle sponsor a group disrespecting the Catholic religion ostensibly because they believe homosexuality is among the many sins, that cover everybody surrounding their beliefs about an obligation to procreate. Fact is the Catholic rules about procreation, marriage, hedonism, abstinance, etc. applies to everybody both heterosexual and homosexual. Its one of the reason that parents of homosexual children strongly leaned toward getting those kids to take vows of celibacy and many went into training for becoming a priest or nun.
Big mistake by the Dodgers whose most important fan base are Hispanic and mostly Catholic. Apparently the group, sisters of perpetual indulgence, are so self centered they fail to see the full breadth of the Catholic belief and how it doesn’t just apply to them.
But thats the way of the world these days. As people move away from beliefs in higher powers the outcome is typically a process of becoming self centered or members of a fringe group of such and they simply become bullies.
What appears to bother Gordon, and others I have met is that gay people are out in public and in media.
They just don’t want to see gay couples in front of them. IOW they want to restrict freedom of expression because it is distasteful to them.
Straight love is fine in front of them, and of course has been portrayed in the media forever and not deemed to be ‘recruiting’ children.
Visible gay love is deemed to be ‘recruiting’ of child children.
Obviously this makes no sense and is just an excuse to suppress distasteful speech and expression.
Nate puts Sodom and Gomorrah out as a public model teaching irresponsibility and murdering the inevitable consequence of infants as the ideal social model.
most parents are a lot smarter than that.
As usual, Bill tries to tell me what my opinions are. And they are strange.
Gill does not need to read. He just knows.
perhaps you should then say what you think should be acceptable. you whine about being misunderstoood perhaps arises out of your own misunderstanding.
Perhaps the bigotry is kinda obvious and you are just playing dumb.
If you want to hear bigotry you will hear it. . . .whether it exists or not.
ent…”When the source gets too warm for ice to persist all year the glacier disappears. All the accumulated snow from the Winter melts in Spring and there is no water flow downstream at all through the Summer”.
***
Glaciers need precipitation to maintain their length. A glacier can shorten due to a lack of precipitation.
Indeed.
IIRC most of the retreating glaciers are doing so because of increasing temperature. Perhaps you could give examples of glacier retreat due to reduced precipitation.
EM,
Here’s one to start you off –
“. . . new study of Patagonias Gualas Glacier highlights the role of precipitation in the glaciers fluctuation.”
Mind you, I’m sure that at least some delusional SkyDragon cultists will claim that “global warming” means less precipitation (except where it results in more precipitation, of course).
Very flexible this GHE. No wonder no accepted description exists. Ball4, for example, claims there are two GHEs – an “earthen” GHE, and a “planetary” GHE – with descriptions of each apparently “on the internet”. Ball4’s attempts to weasel his way out of being caught in a lie, just leads to more confusion.
An interesting new, rapidly growing glacier is Tulutsa.
“The 25-year-old Tulutsa Glacier is the fastest growing new glacier in the world. While most of mountain glaciers are shrinking or disappearing because of global warming, this US glacier keeps advancing at an accelerated pace.” In an active volcanic crater, to boot.
Tricky things, glaciers.
The Tulutsa Glacier formed in the crater created by the explosive eruption of Mt. St Helens. The Southern edge of the crater receives no direct sunlight and is high and cold enough for snow precipitating in Winter to persist all year and accumulate over years.
Instant glacier, for reasons having nothing to do with climate change.
EM,
And getting bigger, not smaller. Does climate only change in one direction, do you think?
What would happen if you stopped the climate from changing?
Are you delusional?
Antarctica. Polar expert, Duncan Wingham, was asked why some Antarctica glaciers seem to be retreating, was it due to warming. Wingham replied that it’s far too cold in Antarctica for glaciers to melt therefore the cause had to be precipitation.
I would suggest it is the same at Everest base camp at 18,000+ feet (Khumbu glcier on south side). The only time it gets warm is during the summer monsoon season. The rest of the year it’s in the negative C range. The glacier on the north side is even colder.
Ergo, if there is melting of the Khumbu glacier it is likely seasonal and due to warm winds blowing in from the Indian Ocean (monsoon).
Unfortunately the increased Summer melting of the Khumbu glacier coincides with the climbing season.
The base camp is set up on the glacier because it is the only reasonably flat ground available. The combination of increased meltwater and increased crevasse formation in recent years is making the base camp dangerously unstable. While there is an accepted risk in climbing, the base camp should meet reasonable safety standards.
Large temperature drop in the stratosphere above 60S. Let’s see the size of the ozone hole in previous years. You can see that the temperature in the south was dropping by October.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2023.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
Blinny: Why would VPs c(1, 1.2067,1.5478) mean that 1 + 1.2067 + 1.5478 was the intended result?
Why would the c(12, 10, 8) CTRM closely match the 13 month SRM?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/uah-global.jpeg
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2023_v6_20x9.jpg
How long do we wait for Blinny to reply?
Thank you Dr. Spencer.
Graph of over estimation has been an easier conversation. Global warming seems to start on common ground. Then the over estimation of solar generation and temperature forecasts build up. People are then willing to say “perhaps things are moving too fast” or “things are not as bad as predicted”. Both of which are wins for me.
Yes, sea level rise and the lack of it, even makes its way in.
Going the distance to show sun spots is still too much, but at least the conversation has started. People still related the sun to a light bulb of constant temperature. The many solar cycles from 5.9 months to 11.5 years to 80 years is a bit much. Non science person seems to max out at why tides have two cycles when “there is only one moon !!” (sigh, had to give up on that conversation)
Kindly,
Modern man using a 40,000 year old processor, the brain.
Earlier, the idiotic Willard tried his trolling best to avoid addressing the imaginary GHE by writing –
“Of course you are a bigot. You are the turning into most bigoted bigot among all the bigots I have ever encountered . . . ”
Ooooooooh! That will no doubt leave his opponent quaking in his boots! Not.
Everyone is bigoted in their own way. The idiot Willard himself is bigoted – seems to dislike bigots, homophobes, climate realists, right wing politicians, and all sorts of strangers he really knows nothing about.
A case of the pot calling the kettle black? Or just another delusional SkyDragon cultist trying to avoid admitting that his description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” leaves a lot to be desired.
What’s the difference between Willard and a slimy scumsucking bottom feeder? Don’t know? Neither do I.
swenson…”Boredom is something you choose to feel. Rather like choosing to take offense, and then blaming someone for offending you!”
***
Words from someone who has obviously experienced and pondered life.
I’d take it further. I would not call it a choice, boredom comes when we expect to be entertained and that expectation is not fulfilled. In other words, we live in a world of expectation.
I am not beyond guilt in that respect. I normally have the TV going while on the computer. I seldom sit back and watch a program and tend to consider the TV a non-essential. That was true to me until recently when we lost the TV signal for a few days and I found myself not as much bored as nonplussed. It began fretting over not having TV.
Earlier, Willard was doing his utmost to avoid the GHE.
He wrote “Homosexuality. That was the topic. Bordo has bigoted views in it.”
Gee. Imagine that. Some people don’t like homosexuals – or lesbians, or Jews, or Christians, or atheists, or Chinese, or Russians, or delusional SkyDragon cultists, or Gavin Schmidt . . .
Maybe the world is full of bigots. People like Willard try to use bigotry as a weapon, because they are bigoted against anybody who opposes their bizarre denial of reality.
If Willard wants to believe, for example, that homosexuals and all the rest) should be lauded and heaped with praise purely on the basis that they are a minority, then he is free to do so. I dont share his view, because Willard is an idiot – and who would want their lives ruled by idiots? Mind you, some politicians say some bizarre things at times, which might cause people to wonder whether some politicians’ grip on reality might be a wee bit tenuous.
Still no description of the GHE which accords with reality, is there?
Go for it Willard. Call me a bigot. Tell me that there are no racial differences between say, caucasoids and negroids. The US government OMB requires five minimum categories: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other. How racist is that?
Call me Mike Flynn if you like.
You idiot – your attempts at social engineering are inept, and can’t turn the GHE fiction into fact.
Come on, Bordo.
You are a Sky Dragon crank.
You hold bigoted views regarding many things, like homosexuality.
Your victim playing is a bit silly,
Here’s your opportunity to come out of the closet wee willy.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Well, that’s a change. Calling me Bordo, now, are you?
Trying to be annoying, possibly? You wrote “You hold bigoted views regarding many things, like homosexuality.” That’s your unsought and unsupported opinion, and worth what I just paid for it – not a thing.
I can be bigoted about anything I like. There is nothing you can do about, except whine. Are you bigoted against bigots for any particular reason, or just because you have an irrational dislike of bigots?
You are an idiot, but at least you’re incompetent as a troll!
Still sticking to your view that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“I can be bigoted about anything I like.”
Indeed you can.
Some call it privilege.
Cheers.
Wee Willy Wanker,
I can be bigoted about anything I like. There is nothing you can do about, except whine. Are you bigoted against bigots for any particular reason, or just because you have an irrational dislike of bigots?
You are an idiot, but at least youre incompetent as a troll!
Still sticking to your view that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Go on, try some more political correctitude, while I keep laughing at your ineptitude.
Moron Mike,
You can be a deceitful cretin as much as you want to –
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons
Nobody forces you to be one.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> Gordo pulls another red herring out of some dark orifice.
Think about all the bacterias.
Come on, Bordo.
Use your brain, wee willy, if that’s still possible. Anyone with a half a brain knows that hepatitis A is caused by hand-to-mouth, where the hand has been in contact with human feces. Hep A is also listed as an AIDS opportunistic infection.
I feel annoyed by the lobbying done by homosexuals to suppress information about AIDS and focus the cause on a harmless virus. It conveniently absolves them of responsibility fro causing the issues about AIDS.
If you look over the 30 odd opportunistic infections defined by AIDS, most of them are directly related to lifestyle. For example, homosexuals in the New York and San Fransisco steam baths, where AIDS was first noticed, had a high incidence of Kaposi’s sarcoma and lung cancer. Neither is known to be caused by a virus.
The lung cancer cause is well known. The steam bath crowd were using amyl nitrate, or poppers, which they inhaled directly from a bottle passed around in the steam baths. The poppers loosen certain muscles that are involved in the sexual practices but they also damage the lining of the lung, resulting in lung cancer.
Kary Mullis offered an additional issue. When multiple participants are involved in a steam bath, bacteria from the interaction becomes borne in the steam particles. The participants are breathing that bacteria in with the steam
The irony is that John Lauritsen, a concerned homosexual, who is skeptical about the HIV/AIDS theory, took this news to a San Fransisco gay advocates group and they told him to mind his own business. They don’t want it getting out that AIDS is caused by lifestyle practices and not a harmless virus.
An interview with Lauritsen, who has been skeptical of the HIV/AIDS theory since 1983…
Lauritsen is a gay man I can respect. He dared to stand up and be counted and his own crowd turned on him.
https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/mcinterviewjl.htm
It’s also known that only 16% of gays get AIDS and those are the hard core types who hang out in steam baths sharing multiple partners while doing various drugs. That’s how Freddy Mercury of Queen caught it as well as George Michael. Elton John, who has stuck to monogamous relationships has had no problem.
You are in denial, wee willy, that AIDS is a lifestyle issue and has nothing to do with HIV. You have been duped by the populist notion that AIDS is caused by a virus that has never been physically isolated. Also, by strong homosexual lobbying aimed at suppressing the effect of extreme sexual interactions featuring multiple partners and drug abuse.
Duesberg reported this in the 1980s and was rewarded by the loss of his career. That is very disturbing to me, that a top scientist could lose his career over trying to tell the truth.
Worried Wee Willy,
“Gordo pulls another red herring out of some dark orifice.”
It’s a pity you can’t pull a full description of the GHE out of your fantasy. You started with “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Do you think you might need to apply a bit of touching-up here and there?
Idiot.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about, and why are you such a deceitful cretin?
Nobody forces you to be one.
Worried Wee Willy,
“Gordo pulls another red herring out of some dark orifice.”
Its a pity you cant pull a full description of the GHE out of your fantasy. You started with “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Do you think you might need to apply a bit of touching-up here and there?
Idiot.
Moron Mike,
Nobody forces you to be a deceitful cretin.
Worried Wee Willy,
“Gordo pulls another red herring out of some dark orifice.”
Its a pity you cant pull a full description of the GHE out of your fantasy. You started with “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Do you think you might need to apply a bit of touching-up here and there?
Idiot.
Moron Mike,
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Global worming
https://rumble.com/v2vpl6a-forrest-fire-blamed-on-climate-change-allegedly-caused-by-democrat-donor.html
ent…” The IPCC summarises the current science as an amid for policy makers. It doesnt do the science.The science relating to GHGs and global warming is a small subset of a much larger body of knowledge.
You are not condemning the IPCC. You are condemning most modern physics, using a device which would not work if you were correct”.
***
The IPCC pushes only the papers that agree with AGW and the GHE. It has become essentially impossible for a skeptical paper to reach the review stage. Although the IPPC claims only to be reviewers, their assessments contain a lot of propaganda.
That’s largely because the IPCC has a mandate to only review papers supportive of the AGW theory. The IPCC mandate is to find evidence of anthropogenic warming. They have gone far beyond that mandate by downplaying solid evidence of the Little Ice Age and its effect on cooling the climate.
The IPCC was formed in 1988 with John Houghton as a co-chair. He was a climate modeler and he has seen to it that climate modeling is a basic source of information for their advice to policymakers.
IPCC corruption was highlighted in the Climategate email scandal when Coordinating Lead Author, Phil Jones of Had-crut, bragged that he and ‘Kevin’ would see to it that a certain skeptic paper would not reach the review stage.
I feel personally vexed by that chicanery since the paper was co-authored by John Christy of UAH, a climate scientist of high integrity. The irony here is that the ‘Kevin’ to whom Jones referred appears to be Kevin Trenberth, a fellow Coordinating Lead Author on IPCC reviews. Trenberth was involved in another peer review case involving skeptics where a journal editor was forced to resign.
A seriously questionable practice of the IPCC in their reviews is to release a Summary written by 50 politically-appointed Lead Authors before the main paper is released. When the main summary is released, it is amended to suit the Summary.
If this is what you stand for in Science, Ent, nothing more can be said.
I’m not much interested in debating the merits of the IPCC, especially the memes you pull from right wing and fossil fuel lobby websites.
As I said, the debate should be about the science. Sceptics such as John Christy, Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen and Roger Pielke Jr have no trouble with getting published. Their problem is that they have difficulty finding much to say.
The evidence for CO2 induced global warming and climate change has become so comprehensive that the sceptics are only able to kibbitz about minor details and debate policy outcomes.
Nothing paradigm changing is being published by sceptics because there is nothing paradigm changing that they can say, within the constraints of evidence, coherence, consistency and consilience.
Ultimately the IPCC bases its conclusions on the evidence published in papers supporting AGW because there are no papers genuinely falsifying AGW.
It would be like you complaining that Nature won’t publish your paper proving that electrons do not exist.
Entropic man says:
”The evidence for CO2 induced global warming and climate change has become so comprehensive that the sceptics are only able to kibbitz about minor details and debate policy outcomes.”
Total bullshit! There is no obligation for skeptics to prove your imagination wrong. Your argument is nothing but another failed attempt to provide a statistically sensible argument for your point of view.
What your argument amounts to is proof you have no clue what the scientific method is.
Remember how the game is played.
Different scientists put forward hypotheses, possible explanations of a set of observations. That includes a mechanism and testable predictions fir the outcome if further observations and experiments.
Well you also need a control so that a single variable can be tested. Essentially what the push for action on climate change comes from is the desire to have an experiment to establish the fact. A government-sponsored experiment with the body politic.
Damn, that went up unfinished.
Second attempt.
Remember how the game is played.
Different scientists put forward hypotheses, possible explanations of a set of observations. That includes a mechanism and testable predictions for the outcome of further observations and experiments.
Depending on the outcome, the hypothesis may be falsified, confirmed or modified. The modified hypothesis is then retested. After a number of iterations the evidence builds until the hypothesis becomes generally accepted as the best explanation available and part of the current paradigm.
Burden of proof.
The onus to validate a new hypothesis is very definitely on those who propose it. As testing of a successful hypothesis proceeds evidence in its favour accumulates until there is enough for the hypothesis to be generally accepted.
At that point the onus shifts.Those wishing to falsify the hypothesis are expected to make their case to show that the existing evidence is wrong or has been misinterpreted.
IMHO the CO2 AGW hypothesis has reached that stage. There is a large body of existing evidence in its support, published for all to read, described in many books, literature and ARs.
The onus is now on those such as yourselves, Gordon and Bill, to provide counter arguments, alternative hypotheses and evidence in their support.
Entropic man says:
Burden of proof.
The onus to validate a new hypothesis is very definitely on those who propose it. As testing of a successful hypothesis proceeds evidence in its favour accumulates until there is enough for the hypothesis to be generally accepted.
At that point the onus shifts.
———————————-
Well what is generally accepted is GHG are a necessary condition for a greenhouse effect. However the evidence doesn’t exist that it is a sufficient condition to produce our greenhouse effect. What hasn’t been establish nor is anywhere near being generally accepted is the exact mechanism of producing a planetary greenhouse effect. If we knew that we could calculate the effects for all the planets.
So except via declaration by political fiat the moral onus has not yet shifted.
“Well you also need a control so that a single variable can be tested. Essentially what the push for action on climate change comes from is the desire to have an experiment to establish the fact. A government-sponsored experiment with the body politic. ”
I don’t think it was intentional. More or less by accident we have spent 140 years doing an experiment to see what happens when you increase the CO2 con penetration by 50%.
Not a well designed experiment.
The only available control is the conditions before 1880 and we only have limited measurements from the time and a few proxies.
You can’t isolate a single variable. The effect of increasing CO2 is mixed in with variations in weather, pollution, ENSO and other cycles.
What can you do?
First you can study the processes in the lab. You can shine longwave radiation from one direction into air and see what happens. You find that around 15 micrometres wavelength CO2 reduces the transmitted radiation and redirects some of it back towards the source. A surface alongside the source absorbs some of that redirected radiation and it’s temperature increases. Change the CO2 concentration and see how the values change.
You can use that data to calculate and measure how the same process proceeds in the atmosphere. Measurements show the predicted decrease in outward longwave temperature, increase in back radiation and increase in surface temperature.
Similarly you can measure changes in other variables in the lab and look for the equivalent in the atmosphere.
Put it all together and you find that the change in global temperature matches the change expected due to CO2, while all the other variables cancel out.
Nobody has put forward a tested alternative explanation which explains the observations, or provided good evidence that the existing data has been misinterpreted. That is what I came here for originally, but nothing has come close.
You’ve got to be kidding. Those defending the GHE on here can’t even decide if "back-radiation" is a transfer of heat from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface, or not. Currently, on another thread, it’s being argued that "back-radiation" is both a transfer of heat from cold to hot, facilitated by work done by the Sun, and it’s part of an insulation-type effect, where the heat flow is always from hot to cold!
ent…”First you can study the processes in the lab. You can shine longwave radiation from one direction into air and see what happens. You find that around 15 micrometres wavelength CO2 reduces the transmitted radiation and redirects some of it back towards the source. A surface alongside the source absorbs some of that redirected radiation and its temperature increases. Change the CO2 concentration and see how the values change”.
***
This sounds similar to the experiment performed by evolutionists. They took the 5 elements they thought responsible for the beginnings of evolution in a lab and tried to create life. They got a puddle of tar, with no life, and concluded the environment require to produce the tar would not support life.
There is no point doing your experiment when it is already known, based on the Ideal Gas Law, that CO2 can warm the atmosphere no more than it’s mass percent in the atmosphere, about 0.06%. That means, ideally, that for every degree C of warming, CO2 contributes no more than 0.06 C.
Besides, one might think your experiment had already been done by now. Alarmists are not interested in scientific experiments, they thrive on propaganda and outright lies.
ent…”You find that around 15 micrometres wavelength CO2 reduces the transmitted radiation and redirects some of it back towards the source. A surface alongside the source absorbs some of that redirected radiation and its temperature increases”.
***
To see the problems with your experiment, you need to learn more about processes at the atomic level. If you do, you will learn it is not possible for re-radiated IR to warm the source of the IR. If you put a surface beside the source, it won’t warm unless it is cooler than the source of the back-radiated energy, meaning you’d need to pre-cool it.
Your argument based on your thought experiment holds no water. You need to learn how IR works at the atomic level. I am not asking you to take my words for it but to study atomic level physics so we can compare notes.
The notion that back-radiated IR can warm the source is an anachronism dating back to the mid 19th century. They believed in that era that heat flowed via heat rays between bodies of different temperatures. Clausius knew heat could not be transferred cold to hot by radiation but he was confused by the heat ray theory which was wrong. Clausius spoke of a two-way transfer of heat via radiation and he was obviously referring to the anachronism based on heat ray theory. In the same breath he claimed heat radiation via radiation must obey the 2nd law.
Bohr changed the theory forever in 1913 but there are diehard modernists who refuse to learn the new theory. They still believe heat as energy can still be transferred via radiation from cold to hot. That’s the old heat ray theory, they actually believe heat can be transferred cold to hot by heat rays, even though they know full-well that heat cannot be transferred through a vacuum or with very low efficiency through air.
Ironically, the old theory is still taught in modern mechanical engineering texts. No surprise there, in EE texts they still teach that electrical current flows positive to negative. The ME text do not supply practical examples of heat being transferred cold to hot by its own means, they only supply equations that have no meaning.
Entropic man says:
”What can you do?
First you can study the processes in the lab. You can shine longwave radiation from one direction into air and see what happens. You find that around 15 micrometres wavelength CO2 reduces the transmitted radiation and redirects some of it back towards the source. A surface alongside the source absorbs some of that redirected radiation and its temperature increases. Change the CO2 concentration and see how the values change.”
the only such experiment was that two compartment box experiment that showed zero effect that was discussed at length in here about a year or so ago. the conditions you listed above are insufficient to produce a greenhouse effect without adding an additional power source.
—————————-
”Put it all together and you find that the change in global temperature matches the change expected due to CO2, while all the other variables cancel out.”
who convinced you of that? you have been deceived. probably by Bill Nye the science guy deceiving children. if you have a legitimate study on this you should produce it.
—————————–
”Nobody has put forward a tested alternative explanation which explains the observations, or provided good evidence that the existing data has been misinterpreted. That is what I came here for originally, but nothing has come close.”
again what observations?
its really funny how folks think definitive experiments exist when they don’t.
just shows how gullible folks can be
The only measurable effect upon climate has been Urban heat island effects. And it’s not a very predictable effect.
Global climate is related to the average ocean temperature which is about 3.5 C
No one disagrees that CO2 is a weak effect and that many variables having a larger effect, changes in water vapor is one example out many with a larger effect.
One could ask what could be largest effect of doubling CO2, and one ask what main factors related to a doubling CO2 which has most effect. For instance, it’s imagined increasing CO2 levels will increase water vapor and that this increase in water vapor causes a higher global surface air temperature.
But it’s just example, there are other factors involved other than water vapor.
But getting back to question, what most warming effect from doubling of CO2?
Say you pick 3 C, some portion will be from increase in water vapor and another factor is time.
Idiots say it’s already too late, one could say the idiots are allowing to delayed effect from the presently unmeasurable effect of increasing CO2 levels.
NASA says more than 90% of global warming is warming our cold 3.5 C ocean, and one see warming the ocean, as a delayed effect.
And one find other factors which connected.
So, when asking what largest effect of doubling CO2, it’s including
water vapor, time, and other factors.
An example is doubling CO2 could cause large increase if water vapor, which in turn could green the Sahara Desert and most think greening the Sahara Desert would increase global temperature.
It’s fact that every time the Sahara desert has been much greener, global average temperature has been significantly higher than 15 C.
Also when CO2 was lowest, Africa was much drier then it is now, as also was entire world.
So, if magic moment were happen and CO2 was say 600 ppm, how long does it take to increase water vapor, and things like greening deserts?
If our ocean temperature was 4 C rather than 3.5 C, is there any dispute that this would very significantly increase global water vapor?
Hmm, I am thinking in terms being alarmist, one could worry about a lot more fog.
Or seems when Earth’s ocean the was about 8 C, there could have been a terrifying amount of fog.
gb,
I wonder whether fog needs a drop in temperature to form. I assume so, because humidity can be extreme in the tropics without fog formation.
Just wondering – no offense intended.
Another consideration (per John Tyndall), more “aqueous vapour” in the atmosphere reduces the Suns heating effect, and slows cooling at night, leading to reduced diurnal variations. This might explain the preponderance of cold blooded reptilian life in ages gone by.
Who knows?
Does warm water and cold air make fog?
“Steam Fog Steam fog, also called evaporation fog, requires a body of water. It forms when cold air moves over relatively much warmer water. When this occurs, water from the water’s surface evaporates and water vapor is added to the colder air. The cold air then saturates quickly and fog forms.”
https://legacy.azdeq.gov/environ/air/ozone/AQCode/TypesofFog.pdf
No, Ed Berry has falsified AGW.
That turns out not to be the case.
His “falsification” requires the bulk flow of CO2 molecules against a partial pressure gradient at zero energy cost. That is not consistent or consilient. It is physical and thermodynamic nonsense.
EM,
You cannot even describe the GHE, can you? Talk of a hypothesis, let alone a theory, is just madness.
Experiments by John Tyndall, confirmed by everybody since, show that increasing the amount of CO2 (for example) between a heat source and a thermometer, results in the thermometer cooling, not heating.
As a matter of fact, the atmosphere reduces the amount of the Sun’s radiation striking the surface by around 35% – even NASA agrees. Hence, the maximum surface temperature on Earth due to the unconcentrated rays of the sun is about 90 C, compared with the airless Moon’s 125 C or so.
A reverse GHE of about 35 K, do you think? The less GHGs, the higher the temperature?
Make sure your GHE description accords with fact. Otherwise, someone is likely to describe you as an idiot. Maybe even me.
Idiot.
stephen…”What have you Brits done since Issac Newton?”
***
I don’t know about since, but prior to Isaac wee Scots invented haggis. Many people think it’s food but it was so repulsive it drove off the Romans and the Vikings.
I just remembered, we Scots also invented Irn Bru, a grrrrreat soft drink that is super with chips (French fries). The poobahs made us cut down the amount of iron in it.
The bottle at the link below, that I don’t think is available today, at least abroad, was what I grew up with. I can still feel the fizzy effect as it burns down my nostrils.
https://www.agbarr.co.uk/our-brands/barr-soft-drinks/irn-bru/
Wait, Bordo –
Does Troglodyte really believe that I’m a Brit?
He chose the right date for that blunder!
Worried Wee Willy,
“Gordo pulls another red herring out of some dark orifice.”
Its a pity you cant pull a full description of the GHE out of your fantasy. You started with “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Do you think you might need to apply a bit of touching-up here and there?
Idiot.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons
Deceitful cretin.
Worried Wee Willy,
“Gordo pulls another red herring out of some dark orifice.”
Its a pity you cant pull a full description of the GHE out of your fantasy. You started with “not cooling, slower cooling.
Do you think your description of the GHE might need a bit of touching-up here and there?
Idiot.
You already said that, Moron Mike.
Worried Wee Willy,
“Gordo pulls another red herring out of some dark orifice.”
Its a pity you cant pull a full description of the GHE out of your fantasy. You started with “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Do you think your description of the GHE might need a bit of touching-up here and there?
Idiot.
You said that too, Moron Mike.
Slow Monday morning, right?
Its a pity you can’t pull a full description of the GHE out of your fantasy. You started with “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Do you think your description of the GHE might need a bit of touching-up here and there?
Idiot.
Moron Mike,
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons
The perfect description for the deceitful cretin that you are.
We British attempted to colonize North America.
The result is a continent full of eejits who no longer speak English or spell it properly.
On the evidence available our attempt to form a civilization in North America has been a dismal failure.
The most wonderful Brit prediction:
https://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP7CH5PA1LE.html
Definitely straying away over the past couple of years from the British Brexit attitude.
Good thing for you Brits that we were there to save your asses- twice. You’d be speaking German and chanting “Heil Hitler.”
You took your own sweet time about it. You were three years late entering WW1 and three years late entering WW2.
And get off that moral high horse. In both cases you only took part because you realised it was in your own selfish interest.
If you’d stayed out you would now be living in the plot of “The Man in the High Castle”.
EM thinks WW2 started in 1938. he also disrespects us merchant marine deaths arising out of the battle of the atlantic. em is a first class ignorant jerk.
What’s with the ‘we’, you’re Irish are you not? We are trying to ascertain whether you’re from Eire, the home of the IRA, who sided with the Nazis in WW II, or the real Ireland in the north.
Need we remind you that Brits flocked out of Britain en route to the Americas to get away from the oppression in Britain?
As it stands today, we in the US and Canada speak real English while you Brits have mangled the language to a point where no one can understand it. For example, when a Cockney is asked, “what is a Bison”, he replies, “it’s something you wash yer ‘ands in mate”.
I hear gas(petrol) is running around Can $3.33/litre. Are you still paying licence fees for a radio or TV?
Racist much are you?
Tongue in cheek Richard, I was taking the P*** out of ent for his snarky comments about Canada and the US.
I am as much of a Brit as you or Ent and I share the same dark humour valued by many in the UK. However, I have lived most of my life in Canada and understand the situation here better. It’s not as dark as Ent is making it out to be.
I can go to the US any time I want, have a good time, and survive. There are 330 million people in the States and it is seriously spread out compared to the UK. Violence happens but it’s usually between gangs and family disagreements.
I don’t like violence anywhere and I know of no Yank who values it. It’s too easy to take shots at the US without understanding the full picture and why they feel they have a right to protect themselves.
RLH,
I certainly am. So is the US Census, and any government body which allows people to nominate their race or ethnicity.
The UK, for example – census 2021 –
“Asian, Asian British, Asian Welsh”
“Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African”
“Mixed or Multiple”
“White”
“Other ethnic group”
Black Welsh? Racist much?
Anybody who confuses black with white might be visually challenged. It’s a funny thing, we ascribe character traits to breeds of dogs (all canis familiaris), and claim that a thoroughbred Irish Wolfhound is completely different to a Chihuahua. How racist is that?
I accept reality, just like a forensic pathologist, who looks at bones and says they belong to an Asian female aged about 25. Races exist. What’s the problem?
Swenson:
Me, I thought the 2021 census asked
“The ethnic groups were:
Asian or Asian British
Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Chinese
Any other Asian background
Black, Black British, Caribbean or African
Caribbean
African
Any other Black, Black British, or Caribbean background
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups
White and Black Caribbean
White and Black African
White and Asian
Any other Mixed or multiple ethnic background
White
English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British
Irish
Gypsy or Irish Traveller
Roma
Any other White background
Other ethnic group
Arab
Any other ethnic group
In Wales, Welsh is the first option in the White category”
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/style-guide/ethnic-groups
RLH,
You’re right – I kept the list short by using the categories for the five high level ethnic groups for England and Wales.
I thought that Gypsy and Roma were of Indo-Aryan origin, but things must have changed. From the UK Govt –
“Finally, it should be noted that there is also a distinction that the government makes, for the purposes of planning policy, between those who travel and the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller ethnicities.”
Oh dear! Beware the fine difference between those who travel, and travellers! That damned Oxford Dictionary insists that a traveler is a person who is travelling or who often travels.
Beaurocracy writ large!
I can’t help myself laughing, so I’ll finish with this extract –
“In the UK, it is common in data collections to differentiate between:
Gypsies (including English Gypsies, Scottish Gypsies or Travellers, Welsh Gypsies and other Romany people)
Irish Travellers (who have specific Irish roots)
Roma, understood to be more recent migrants from Central and Eastern Europe
The term Traveller can also encompass groups that travel. This includes, but is not limited to, New Travellers, Boaters, Bargees and Showpeople.”
All good fun – jobs for all.
Gordon Robertson says:
”I dont like violence anywhere and I know of no Yank who values it. Its too easy to take shots at the US without understanding the full picture and why they feel they have a right to protect themselves.”
YEP the brits decided to disarm their colonies and got their tail smoked. that led directly to the second amendment right after the first because they wanted to disarm us for saying politically incorrect stuff. now we have a bunch of eurocuk sucking democrats trying to do the same thing.
“You’re right”
So if we were to do as you say and just list the 5 top level characterizations you would have
Asian or Asian British
Black, Black British, Caribbean or African
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups
White
Other ethnic group
Others being a subset of those 5. Not quite what you said is it.
RLH,
Not quite with you.
I just quoted from the census website. You wrote –
“So if we were to do as you say and just list the 5 top level characterizations you would have . . . “.
I didn’t say to do anything. You must be making something up to list.
Here’s an extended quote –
“The ethnic group question’s two stages
Since 1991, the census for England and Wales has included a question about ethnic group.
The ethnic group question has two stages. Firstly, a person identifies through one of the following five high-level ethnic groups:
“”Asian, Asian British, Asian Welsh”
“Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African”
“Mixed or Multiple”
“White”
“Other ethnic group”
Secondly, a person identifies through one of the 19 available response options, which include categories with write-in response options.”
If you are not happy, don’t blame me.
You said
“I kept the list short by using the categories for the five high level ethnic groups for England and Wales.”
I listed them and they are not what you said.
RLH,
You wrote –
“I listed them and they are not what you said.”
I copied and pasted directly from the UK Govt. website.
Maybe there are different lists on different parts of the website?
Don’t blame me if the UK Government does what it does.
Here are some details if you want to complain –
“Contact details for this article
Sarah Wood, Charlotte Standeven, Elliott Gwynn
census.customerservices@ons.gov.uk
Telephone: +44 1329 444972″
Whom to believe? You or the UK Government?
Off you go – let me know how you go. I can’t be bothered.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The Kansas experiment refers to Kansas Senate Bill Substitute HB 2117, a bill signed into law in May 2012 by Kansas state Governor Sam Brownback, and its impact on Kansas. It was one of the largest income tax cuts in the state’s history. The Kansas experiment has also been called the “Great Kansas Tax Cut Experiment”, the “Red-state experiment”,[5] “the tax experiment in Kansas”, and “one of the cleanest experiments for how tax cuts affect economic growth in the U.S.”[7] The cuts were based on model legislation published by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), supported by supply-side economist Arthur Laffer, and anti-tax leader Grover Norquist. The law cut taxes by US$231 million in its first year, and cuts were projected to total US$934 million annually after six years, by eliminating taxes on business income for the owners of almost 200,000 businesses and cutting individual income tax rates.
Brownback compared his tax policies with those of Ronald Reagan, and described them as “a real live experiment”, which would be a “shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy”, and predicted that by 2020 they would have created an additional 23,000 jobs. By 2017, state revenues had fallen by hundreds of millions of dollars, causing spending on roads, bridges, and education to be slashed. With economic growth remaining consistently below average, the Republican Legislature of Kansas voted to roll back the cuts; although Brownback vetoed the repeal, the legislature succeeded in overriding his veto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment
In fairness, Sky Dragon cranks sometimes make more sense than supply-side economists.
Willard as usual spinning a yarn regurgitating his Daddy’s propaganda.
Fact is Kansas GDP grew 54% faster than reliably Democrat state of Illinois over the term of the tax cuts.
While the Kansas tax cuts may have been far from optimal tax cuts since 2012 have generally been beneficial. The following gives a much better picture of the situation as opposed to simply arguing the proof was in a legislature subsequently raising taxes.
https://taxfoundation.org/kansas-experiment-kansas-tax-cuts-critique/
”In fact, far from tax cuts precipitating a Kansas-like crisis, tax collections have risen more on average in the past decade in the 25 states that cut income taxes (31.9 percent in inflation-adjusted terms) than in the four states and D.C. that raised them (27.8 percent). ”
Bottom line is taxes are necessary but what determines how the taxes benefit a state is how the tax money is spent. Legislatures generally tax everybody then hand the money out to their largest supporters, bureaucratic institutions and rich supporters, whether or not they are actually doing anything worthwhile to the economy.
Draining the swamp is definitely more effective than tax cuts but tax cuts become a now brainer after you have drained the waste in the swamp.
“Direct benefits for the affluent
The act received criticism for shifting the tax burden from wealthy Kansans to low- and moderate-income workers. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the bill cut the taxes of ‘the wealthiest 1% of Kansans by 2.2%’ while it projected that the poorest 20% of Kansans would see ‘their taxes increase by 1.3%’. Bryan Lowry of The Wichita Eagle estimated that almost 70% of Kansas lawmakers, as well as Governor Brownback and his wife, benefited personally from the tax cuts through business or property that they owned, which being non-wage income, was exempt from taxes under the 2012 law.”
Wiltard believes, like all leftists, that government owns the fruits of your labor. Abraham Lincoln described the leftists’ motto as “you work, I eat.”
As usual Troglodyte keeps yapping without doing the reading
Like Sky Dragon cranks, Freedom Fighters are not stingy on special pleading.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ent…” IMHO the CO2 AGW hypothesis has reached that stage. There is a large body of existing evidence in its support, published for all to read, described in many books, literature and ARs.
The onus is now on those such as yourselves, Gordon and Bill, to provide counter arguments, alternative hypotheses and evidence in their support”.
***
The gold standard is still the 2nd law. Clausius stated it in words as follows…heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body. He emphasized in a separate paper that the 2nd law applies to radiation.
The AGW theory fails the test of the 2nd law. To get around that, climate alarmists have re-stated the 2nd law incorrectly by using a balance of IR energies rather than heat. As G&T pointed out, the 2nd law is about heat and IR is an entirely different form of energy.
One important basis of the AGW theory is that IR back-radiated from GHGs in a cooler atmosphere can be absorbed by the surface to warm it beyond the temperature it is warmed by solar energy. That theory is a direct contravention of the 2nd law. In an attempt to get around that restriction, alarmists have introduced a vague ‘balance of energy’, claiming if it is positive, the 2nd law is not contradicted.
Positivity is determined by the direction of IR radiation. If the radiation from the surface is greater than radiation from GHGs in the colder atmosphere, the direction of energy is regarded to be positive therefore the 2nd law is not contradicted.
This is serious pseudo-science. The 2nd law has nothing to do with the direction of radiation flow but the direction of heat transfer. Again, IR is not heat and heat is not transferred physically by IR. The latter notion is the old heat ray theory dating back to the 19th century.
When a body is hotter than another body, and heat loss is not replaced by an external source in the hotter body, and the hotter body radiates energy, the heat involved with the radiation process is lost at the time the radiation is produced. In essence, there is no heat to transfer because it is dissipated in the process.
If the radiated energy contacts a body that is cooler, the reverse process occurs wherein the radiation is converted back to heat in the cooler body. That is new heat and it has nothing to do with the heat in the warmer body. Ergo, no heat is transferred between bodies. The end result is a creation of heat in the cooler body but the heat was created in the cooler body and did not come through the air or through a vacuum.
The AGW theory suggests that heat is being transferred both ways by radiation and that is simply not possible. The atomic theory proposed by Bohr, which has been largely adopted i quantum theory, proves it isn’t so. According to the theory, all radiation pertinent to the atmosphere, including light and heat, is mediated by electrons in atoms. When electrons in the atoms of a hotter body are at a certain orbital energy level, it is simply not possible for IR from a cooler body to raise them to a higher level which would be required for a higher temperature.
THE AGW and the GHE theories are both based on the anachronism that heat flows through air and a vacuum via radiation. The theory is wrong and the scientists who created that theory were misinformed. Heat cannot be trapped by GHGs in the atmosphere because heat does not leave the surface via radiation.
Heat cannot be transferred back to the surface by cooler GHGs because that not only contradicts the 2nd law it is also representative of perpetual motion. If a body radiates IR, it cools. If gases absorb the IR and radiate a portion of it back to the surface, even if that energy could be converted to heat, it needs to make up for the initial heat lost when the radiation was first radiated. The net result would still be a heat loss. Perpetual motion is about energy being recycled to increase the energy of a body. It’s not possible.
Neither the AGW or GHE have ever been verified therefore the onus us not on skeptics to disprove it but for the proponents to verify it.
Gordon Robertson
Your argument is based on two false assumptions.
1) That the greenhouse effect violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
2) A warmer surface cannot absorb a photon emitted by a cooler object.
ent…I supplied proof to support my statements, where is your proof that I am wrong? Then again, you biologists proselytize evolution theory without proof.
Gordo regurgitates his usual mantra again, especially the part about:
Gordo is simply repeating unsubstantiated claims from G&T’s old paper, who did not provide any evidence to support either point. Gordo has been repeatedly asked to provide proof that the GHE represents “Perpetual Motion” or to explain what happens to the thermal IR radiation from a colder body which is intercepted by a warmer one. Of course, “The net result would still be a heat (that’s energy) loss” and nobody argues otherwise.
Gordo’s appeal to authority offers nothing but hand waving and double talk, as if his words are facts.
swannie…I hear you had a paper published. Can’t imagine how it got accepted unless your dad is a journal editor.
I supplied all the required proof to support my points.
No Swannie, heat is not energy loss, heat dissipation is energy loss and heat loss is a key point in my argument.
When the Earth’s surface radiates energy the radiated energy is accompanied by a loss of heat at the surface. That is, kinetic energy in electrons representing heat is lost when the electrons drop to a lower orbital energy level. At the same time, electromagnetic energy is radiated by the electron to space.
Heat cannot leave a surface by radiation, it must first be converted to EM which has none of the properties of heat. EM has no mass and heat cannot exist without mass.
G&T both have expertise in thermodynamics. The only other commenting scientist with such a background is Pierre Latour who has a degree in chemical engineering but who worked mainly in the field of thermodynamics. It’s ironic that scientists who are trained specifically in thermodynamics and who have worked applying it all agree on the 2nd law. Meantime you think they are wrong and that heat can be transferred by its own means from cold to hot.
It’s futile trying to respond to someone like you Swannie because you don’t even begin to understand atomic physics or basic quantum theory. Until you do, if you ever do, you will be talking through your hat.
E Man and Swanson, let’s settle an argument. Is the "back-radiation" from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface supposed to be a transfer of heat, facilitated by work done by the Sun, or is it supposed to be a transfer of energy, the flow of heat being always in the other direction (surface to atmosphere)?
Or, is it supposed to somehow be both!?
Cult Leader grammie wants to play his usual game of semantics. From an engineering point of view, “heat” is one form of available energy which can be transferred between masses and “IR radiation” is another mechanism which can transfer energy between bodies.
Swanson avoids the simple question. Let me rephrase, then:
Is the "back-radiation" from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface supposed to be a transfer of heat, facilitated by work done by the Sun, or is it supposed to be a transfer of IR radiation, the flow of heat being always in the other direction (surface to atmosphere)?
Exactly, ER:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1502892
I explained why it is a 2LoT violation. Nothing has changed. However, that is not the subject of this thread.
> ER
Sorry, ES.
Swanson and E Man both fail to answer the simple questions. Funny.
swannie…”heat is one form of available energy which can be transferred between masses and IR radiation is another mechanism which can transfer energy between bodies”.
***
Swannie waffles between energy, heat and IR. Why is it, when you get stuck, you freely inject the word energy for heat or IR?
What energy does IR transfer between bodies, Swannie? Since IR cannot exist as IR in the source and it cannot exist as IR in the target, the only place it can exist is between the source and the target.
When IR is created in a source, it is already outside the source and when it is absorbed in a target, it is no longer IR. The only energy transferred by IR is IR, or in the larger picture, EM.
Heat can never be transferred by IR because heat cannot exist as IR, which is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. Furthermore, IR has no mass but heat cannot exist without mass.
A communication antenna is a simple example even though the creation of the EM by the antenna does not come from transitioning electrons. It was discovered in the early 1800s that electrical current running in a conductor produced a magnetic field about the conductor. With a direct current, the electric field and magnetic fields cannot exist as a coordinated wave and be emitted through space. Even low voltage alternating currents won’t generate an EM signal far because the E and M fields don’t coordinate.
If the frequency of the AC is increased to the radio frequency level, the E and M field join together in phase but aligned 90 degrees apart. That EM signal can be generated over large distances.
The point is that an electric current in a conductor can produce an EM signal that exists only outside the conductor. If the EM signal is intercepted by another conductor, it can ‘induce’ an electric current in that conductor. The EM exists only in the space between conductor and the current that produced the EM in the emitting conductor has nothing to do with the current induced in the receiving conductor.
Same with heat and EM. Electrons representing heat can generate EM. If that EM is intercepted by a cooler body, the cooler body will acquire heat and warm. The heat in the receiving body has nothing to do with the heat in emitting body.
You guys are labouring under the delusion that IR can transfer heat between bodies of different temperatures in both directions. Have no idea who would teach you such pseudo-science.
Gordo still doesn’t get it as he continues thinking of things from an EE perspective. Thermal IR radiation is one form of energy transfer between bodies, as is conduction and convection. “Heat” is related to “heat content”, that is to say, the internal energy stored in a mass at a certain temperature. As a body emits thermal IR, it loses it’s internal energy content as it’s temperature declines and the reverse is also true. The Sun’s short wavelength EM warms the Earth while the outgoing long wave IR EM cools it.
He ends with:
Nothing earlier in his post supports this conclusion, it’s just another repetition of his usual denialist mantra about the 2nd Law.
wrong! the fact that heat travels in one direction means the GHE doesn’t make it more likely a record temperature will be set. Further it requires you to reject the 3rd grader radiation model used as propaganda to hype climate change as that system does not operate as described as proven by RW Woods. It will in fact make new record temps a bit less likely as it absorbs more incoming sunlight. Further it requires you to adopt many of Joe Postma’s premises in order to support a GHE at all.
Follow-up question. Are the following two descriptions of the GHE contradictory, or complementary?
1) The GHE involves heat being transferred from the colder atmosphere to the hotter surface, but it’s OK because as per the Clausius statement of 2LoT, there is another change occurring at the same time, that being work done by the Sun.
2) The GHE only ever involves heat being transferred from the hotter surface to the colder atmosphere. All the extra back-radiation from increased CO2 does is reduce the rate of heat loss away from the surface. Since the surface is also receiving a constant supply of heat from the Sun, it thus warms.
Not sure of the phrasing of 2). Are you using “only” where I Would use “net”?
No, I am using the word "only" in its dictionary definition sense. There is no need for the word "net" to be used in 2), since we’re talking about heat, which is already the "net".
dremt…”…as per the Clausius statement of 2LoT, there is another change occurring at the same time, that being work done by the Sun”.
***
To be fair to Clausius, that discussion took place as an aside to his development of the 2nd law. It was not presented on the basis of ‘by it own mean’ but as a general discussion of the meaning of ‘by its own means’, which he called compensation. In other words, without compensation, heat can never be transferred cold to hot.
He was trying to make the point that in order for heat to be transferred cold to hot, the same amount of heat had to be transferred in the opposite direction.
We know that compensation is required with an air conditioner, for example. In order to extract heat from a cold room we must first compress a refri.g.e.rant running through a coil in the cold room. The gas in the cold room tubing is at low pressure and in the gaseous state. When that gas, containing the heat extracted from the cold room is compressed it changes state to a high pressure, heated liquid. That is the compressor increases the gas pressure and momentarily increases the temperature of the liquid.
That liquid is run though another coil which is exposed to air that is warmer than the air in the cold room. The liquid is warmer than the air and heat is transferred to that air. The end result is a high pressure liquid with a reduced temperature.
That hi P liquid is sent through a nozzle that aerates it and the liquid converts back to a low P gas, ready to absorb more heat from the cold room.
I think that is what Clausius was referring to by the two-way process. Could be wrong.
My point is that GHE defenders can’t even decide what version of the GHE they are defending. The two I’ve presented above are contradictory – it can’t be the case that in the GHE, heat is always moving from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere (as per 2), and that heat is moving from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface (as per 1), since they see heat as the “net” movement of two opposing flows of IR radiation. It has to be either one or the other. They have to choose. Yet, we have GHE defenders trying to defend both 1) and 2), as if they were complementary! Or, some of them will support 1), and some of them 2).
They can’t even get their story straight. They can’t agree amongst themselves, yet they also never argue amongst themselves. It’s pitiful.
You were supposed to marvel over the stratagem Gaslighting Graham set up, Bordo, That you return to your usual spiel about Clausius does not help him create the impression that it does not rely on a silly equivocation.
Come on, help him out a bit,
No equivocation.
“I explained why it is a 2LoT violation. Nothing has changed.”
By endlessly stating that back-radiation causes heat flow from cold to hot, and that must be a 2LOT violation.
Now you claim to know that back-radiation is not heat flow.
Thus the entire basis of your claims of a 2LOT violation is MOOT.
Oh well.
if it isn’t a flow of heat from cold to hot how can it make the hot hotter as you believe it can?
Exactly, bill. Presumably you’re talking about “back-radiation”. In reality, “back-radiation” is neither a flow of heat from cold to hot, nor is it a part of any process of insulation. So it cannot lead to an increase in temperatures.
What I showed when discussing the GPE, for instance, is that Eli’s cohorts treat it as though it is a transfer of heat from cold to hot.
“if it isnt a flow of heat from cold to hot how can it make the hot hotter as you believe it can?”
It has been explained dozens of times. Most recently it was explained pretty clearly by DREMT:
“2) The GHE only ever involves heat being transferred from the hotter surface to the colder atmosphere. All the extra back-radiation from increased CO2 does is reduce the rate of heat loss away from the surface. Since the surface is also receiving a constant supply of heat from the Sun, it thus warms.”
Not sure what DREMTs problem is with it now.
“Elis cohorts treat it as though it is a transfer of heat from cold to hot.”
Eli certainly never did that.
Previous DREMT:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1476103
“We have isolated the back-radiation transfer as being responsible for raising the temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP, and thus that must be a transfer of HEAT from cold to hot. A 2LoT violation.”
New DREMT:
“In reality, ‘back-radiation’ is neither a flow of heat from cold to hot”
Nate says:
”The GHE only ever involves heat being transferred from the hotter surface to the colder atmosphere. All the exouy ra back-radiation from increased CO2 does is reduce the rate of heat loss away from the surface. Since the surface is also receiving a constant supply of heat from the Sun, it thus warms.”
so you say! If that were true you would be able to easily demonstrate it. But all attempts have failed.
I take it Nate has confused himself again, bill. No surprises there.
Obviously DREMT can’t make up his mind.
When lecturing Bob, he insists that back radiation is not a heat transfer from cold to hot.
“Energy flows in two directions, heat only in one direction.”
ANd he is correct.
But previously he argued that it must be a heat transfer from cold to hot, because sky-dragon-slayers ideology says that the GHE, and the GPE are 2LOT violations.
So physics and logic push him one way. But ideology pushes him the other way.
So he cannot commit. He’ll try to have it both ways.
“so you say! If that were true you would be able to easily demonstrate it. But all attempts have failed.”
bill hunter says:
“Clearly the GHE exists”
…take it Nate has confused himself again, bill. No surprises there.
We know DREMT has no way out of his contradictions.
And we know he reads my posts, so he can’t use that as an excuse!
…it Nate has confused himself again, bill. No surprises there.
Nates problem with being unable to reconcile the idea that the GHE exists and his idea of how it exists obviously stems from his daddy telling him the 3rd grader radiation model did it.
However the 3rd grader radiation model has been so totally debunked his daddy’s only live on blogs like SS. No credible scientist is going to promote it.
Trouble with Nate is, he doesn’t listen to anyone but his daddy, bill.
It’s like, I explained everything in my 12:03 PM comment. Bet you anything you like he didn’t listen, and maybe just quoted a couple of lines divorced from their full context, and repeated his errors. It’s what he does.
Once again, in reality, “back-radiation” is not a flow of heat from cold to hot, nor is it a part of any sort of process of insulation, so it cannot increase temperatures.
Then there is the fantasy that is Eli’s solution to the GPE. In that fantasy, there is a temperature increase in the BP, when the plates are separated, and a temperature decrease in the GP. Since we can isolate that the only change on separation of the plates is the introduction of the “back-radiation” transfer, we know that this must be responsible for those temperature changes, and thus it is being treated as a flow of heat from cold to hot. Now, none of them will admit that it’s being treated as a flow of heat from cold to hot, of course, but that is what they are doing, whether they admit it, or not.
Another alternative is that there is no change in the energy transfers upon separation, and that the energy flows between the plates when pushed together are exactly the same when separated. That was Clint R’s suggestion. Either way, there should be no increase in temperature on separation.
If they disagree, they need to show their account of the energy flows between the plates when pressed together. They will never do this, however.
“the 3rd grader radiation model ”
whatever that is, it aint what science uses.
Bill, you say there is a greenhouse effect (Then why?), but you don’t understand the mechanism.
That’s ok.
Science doent need you to understand it for it to be correct, and will carry on without you.
“Once again, in reality, back-radiation is not a flow of heat from cold to hot”
True. Because of how heat is defined.
“nor is it a part of any sort of process of insulation, so it cannot increase temperatures.”
Assertion without a shred of evidence.
…if they disagree, they need to show their account of the energy flows between the plates when pressed together. They will never do this, however.
” so it cannot increase temperatures.”
I don’t get the logic here.
-They agree that back-radiation is not heat flow.
-They agree that back-radiation is a flow of energy.
-They agree that the heat flow is a the NET of the two way energy flow
-If there is back radiation that increases, logically that will cause a reduction in NET two way energy flow, a reduction in heat loss.
-They understand that there is separate heat source for the warm body.
Put these facts together, steady heat input from a source, reduced heat loss, what is the result? Warming.
It is just not that complicated.
…they disagree, they need to show their account of the energy flows between the plates when pressed together. They will never do this, however.
“they need to show their account of the energy flows between the plates when pressed together”
Done many times. 200 W/m2 heat flow by conduction. And?
They need to show their account of the energy flows when the plates are separated. And they need to satisfy the laws of physics.
…disagree, they need to show their account of the energy flows between the plates when pressed together. They will never do this, however.
“They will never do it.”
False.
DREMT can’t win on the facts. Has to play childish games.
“Since we can isolate that the only change on separation of the plates is the introduction of the back-radiation transfer, we know that this must be responsible for those temperature changes, and thus it is being treated as a flow of heat from cold to hot.”
Just stop right there.
This is simply bad logic. And it is entirely your own.
I have a steady income which is EQUAL to all my expenditures.
My savings account stays at a constant value.
Now I move to a cheaper apartment in the same building, and pay less rent, all else stays the same.
Now my savings account starts growing. The only change was that I pay less rent.
By DREMTs logic, my landlord must be sending money to my savings account!
This is simply BAD LOGIC.
What has happened is that the flow of money to my landlord is simply REDUCED, while my income and other expenses stayed constant.
In the plates situation, the flow of heat to the green plate upon separation is simply REDUCED, while the input from the heat source stayed constant, and other heat outputs stayed the same (until my plate warms).
…they need to show their account of the energy flows between the plates when pressed together. They will never do this, however.
And if one pretends not to hear about one’s logical failures, then its as if they never happened.
And one will repeat them.
…need to show their account of the energy flows between the plates when pressed together. They will never do this, however.
[By the way, that needs to be a full diagram showing all energy flows, including the back-conduction from the GP to the BP]
“the back-conduction from the GP to the BP”
which is semantics, but doesnt change the fundamental, ever-ignored truth that heat transfer by conduction across a thin piece of metal is much much much much stronger than heat transfer by radiation across a vacuum gap.
Separating two metal plates in a vacuum results in a drastic reduction in heat transfer.
Anyone ignoring this obvious fact is being led by ideology.
…to show their account of the energy flows between the plates when pressed together. They will never do this, however.
[By the way, that needs to be a full diagram showing all energy flows, including the back-conduction from the GP to the BP]
Again, if you pretend you never heard about it, your silly logical failures don’t exist!
And you can keep on repeating them.
Quite pathetic.
…show their account of the energy flows between the plates when pressed together. They will never do this, however.
[By the way, that needs to be a full diagram showing all energy flows, including the back-conduction from the GP to the BP]
Gordon,
You wrote –
“If a body radiates IR, it cools. If gases absorb the IR and radiate a portion of it back to the surface, even if that energy could be converted to heat, it needs to make up for the initial heat lost when the radiation was first radiated. The net result would still be a heat loss. Perpetual motion is about energy being recycled to increase the energy of a body. Its not possible.”
Which explains why the surface cools every night, even when a low level inversion exists, where the air is hotter than the surface. The temperature still falls. GHE supporters are totally unable to explain radiation frosts.
NASA gets a good crack at perpetual motion – “Finally, a net of about 17 percent of incoming solar energy leaves the surface as thermal infrared energy (heat) radiated by atoms and molecules on the surface. This net upward flux results from two large but opposing fluxes: heat flowing upward from the surface to the atmosphere (117%) and heat flowing downward from the atmosphere to the ground (100%). ”
100% in, but 117% out. I’d like one of those.
“This net upward flux results from two large but opposing fluxes: heat flowing upward from the surface to the atmosphere (117%) and heat flowing downward from the atmosphere to the ground (100%).
***
I can’t blame NASA overall for this pseudo-science, they have good engineers for space flights, etc. A while back, during the Clinton era, the head of NASA wanted to bring GISS under control by firing Hansen due to his political activity. All Gore intervened and saved Hansen’s job.
The statement above indicated that whoever wrote that at NASA has no idea about the difference between heat and IR. Nor the 2nd law.
swenson…”even when a low level inversion exists, where the air is hotter than the surface. The temperature still falls”.
***
That’s right. No matter how hot it gets during the day, it’s always cooler when the Sun disappears, even with an inversion. I don’t recall experiencing it getting warmer as the night went on.
ent…”Ultimately the IPCC bases its conclusions on the evidence published in papers supporting AGW because there are no papers genuinely falsifying AGW”.
***
That is one of the most stupid statements you have offered. I gave you evidence that the IPCC rejects papers from skeptics and you completely ignored it. It’s right there in the Climategate emails where the head of Had-crut, Phil Jones, brags about blocking a paper co-authored by John Christy.
So much for your theory that scientists like John, Roy, and Lindzen find it easy to get published. Lindzen complained about a paper being held up for months and when he inquired he was told it was related to his skeptical views. Roy complained that he had a paper rejected by a reviewer who plainly did not understand the paper. John was houded by Trenberth who complained about a paper he had co-authored. Due to Trenberth’s pressure, the journal editor resigned.
Wake up, man.
At the time, Jones was a Coordinating Lead Authoe on IPCC reviews. That means he gets to appoint lead authors and such. John Christy has served as a lead author and a reviewer in early reviews and has been open to serving again, but he is not invited.
Use your brain Ent. I would not think that someone with a degree in biology would be so narrow-minded.
Neither did you address my statement that the IPCC allows 50 politically-appointed lead authors to write and issue the Summary for Policymakers before the main report is released. Then the main reported is amended to suit the Summary.
The IPCC is corrupt and you are too blind to see that.
Why argue with a conspiracy theorist? You will assume that any evidence I put forward will be part of the conspiracy.
Gordo’s brain is stuck in conspiracy mode, not unlike Sen. James Inhofe 10 years ago. Cherry picking comments from a few e-mails does not prove systematic efforts to exclude alternate points of view about AGW. Besides, Roy and John have their own group of politically minded supporters who have an anti-environment agenda. If memory serves, John is funded by grants from the U.S. Agricultural Department.
Roy has published books denying AGW and signed the The Cornwall Declaration On Environmental Stewardship promoted by the creationist organization the Cornwall Alliance. Can one seriously claim that Roy and John are actually unbiased science investigators?
it is only anti-environmental if you are wrong. and that goes for your position equally. true environmentalism is doing the right thing. many orgs call themselves environmentalist but by being wrong by definition they are damaging the environment for others even if not for themselves. actually thats most frequently the case where the nimby effect prevails.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
18 years. 7 stations. 5 states. I am bidding farewell to TV to embark on a new journey dedicated to helping solve the climate crisis.
After a death threat stemming from my climate coverage last year and resulting PTSD, in addition to family issues, Ive decide to begin this journey *now*.
https://twitter.com/ChrisGloninger/status/1671534139969863680
Freeze Peach strikes again!
Yet another alarmist bites the dust.
Cmon, Bordo.
Is that you taking the piss once again?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Climate coverage? What an idiot! If the climate has changed to your detriment, 15 years of drought, perhaps, you don’t need some dimwit telling you that the climate has changed!
What’s the climate crisis? Too much rain? Too little? Temperature too hot? Too cold?
Maybe if Mr Peabrain Snowflake dons a sandwich board saying “Stop Climate Change! Beware the Climate Crisis!”, and roams the streets rattling his tin cup, he might decide that his previous life wasnt so bad – death threat, PTSD and all!
You really are an idiot, Willard.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Do you think sending threats should be protected by Free Speech?
Deceitful cretin.
Climate coverage? What an idiot! If the climate has changed to your detriment, 15 years of drought, perhaps, you dont need some dimwit telling you that the climate has changed!
Whats the climate crisis? Too much rain? Too little? Temperature too hot? Too cold?
Maybe if Mr Peabrain Snowflake dons a sandwich board saying Stop Climate Change! Beware the Climate Crisis!, and roams the streets rattling his tin cup, he might decide that his previous life wasnt so bad death threat, PTSD and all!
You really are an idiot, Willard.
Death threats? It seems that governments make death threats all the time – do you realise that the US government spends large amounts of money to buy things that go bang? Not threatening death to anyone at all with nuclear tipped ICBMs? Of course they are!
If there is a law against certain forms of words, so be it. Utter the words, pay the penalty. Do I agree with such laws? No. Do I support freedom of speech? Of course I do, you idiot. I wouldn’t have said so on many occasions if I didn’t.
How are you going with your threat to publish my address? Do I care? No. It would take considerable time to write down everybody else who already knows it, from the postman to the highest levels of Government. It’s also on a few hacker sites on the Dark Web, I believe.
Publish away, idiot.
Milksop Mike,
Publish away? What are you braying about?
What threat? Did you feel threatened, you little milksop?
Cheers.
Wimpy Wee Willy,
Your gotcha not working too well, now? What a pity! What other slimy scum-sucking tactics are you going to try? Maybe you could accuse me of being racist? What about homophobic? Anti-something or other? You idiot, you can say what you like – I choose not to feel offended, insulted or annoyed, particularly if an idiot like you is blabbering away.
Go on, try and threaten me. With what? Are you going to hold your breath until you turn blue? Gee, that would really scare me – not.
Do you still claim that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling.”?
What a delusional idiot you are!
Does not work, Moron Mike?
Threaten you?
What are you braying about?
Pray tell more about your persecution fantasies.
Wimpy Wee Willy,
Your gotcha not working too well, now? What a pity! What other slimy scum-sucking tactics are you going to try? Maybe you could accuse me of being racist? What about homophobic? Anti-something or other? You idiot, you can say what you like I choose not to feel offended, insulted or annoyed, particularly if an idiot like you is blabbering away.
Go on, try and threaten me. With what? Are you going to hold your breath until you turn blue? Gee, that would really scare me not.
Do you still claim that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling.”?
What a delusional idiot you are!
Moron Mike,
If all you got is copy-pasting your comments, then I would venture to believe that what you call my “gotcha” works well enough.
Cheers.
Wimpy Wee Willy,
Your gotcha not working too well, now? What a pity! What other slimy scum-sucking tactics are you going to try? Maybe you could accuse me of being racist? What about homophobic? Anti-something or other? You idiot, you can say what you like I choose not to feel offended, insulted or annoyed, particularly if an idiot like you is blabbering away.
Go on, try and threaten me. With what? Are you going to hold your breath until you turn blue? Gee, that would really scare me not.
Do you still claim that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling.”?
What a delusional idiot you are!
Moron Mike,
Another copypasta, another gotcha win!
Thanks a bunch, bananaman!
Its against US stalking law to threaten somebody with bodily harm. But the perpetrator in the example above is one Lucy Richards who is facing trial and up to 5 years on each count.
Thus your argument doesn’t apply to the direction of this conversation that doesn’t involve stalking or threats and as such no charges were brought.
Wut?
willard is confused again. anybody volunteer to bring him up to speed? or shall we just allow him to spin in circles as usual.
Gill, Gill,
Mike Flynn is the Freeze Peach absolutist, not me.
You’re the one who’s confused.
willard you are always hallucinating and never investigating before coming to stupid conclusions.
i don’t take such words literally without defining the actual limits. like does free speech encompass yelling fire in an auditorium. if so i would disagree but not get my panties in a bunch over it like you do.
Gill, Gill,
You’re playing dumb once again.
Search for “unfettered free speech” on this page.
Willard, please stop trolling.
free speech has always meant you can say anything except something that would credibly cause some body bodily harm. like tell a blindfolded person to take ten steps forward where a cliff lay 9 steps out.
bill…please don’t confuse wee willy by talking sense. He was apparently discombobulatd by your explanation above. He will call you a bigot if you persist, or a homophobic.
Bordo, Gill,
It’s a bit late to try to save Mike Flynn’s face.
At least you tried, something he wouldn’t do for either of you.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Entropic Man wrote –
“Ultimately the IPCC bases its conclusions on the evidence published in papers supporting AGW because there are no papers genuinely falsifying AGW.”
Anthropogenic Global Warming is due to Anthropogenically Generated Warmth. Or AGW = AGW.
If anybody has a different speculation, I’d like to see a description of the effect involved, and reproducible experiments supporting any disprovable hypothesis. Ho! Ho! Ho!
As Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
My hypothesis is that thermometers respond to heat, and measure degrees of hotness.
Yours? Only joking, delusional SkyDragon cultists like yourself can’t even provide any other reason for thermometers showing the temperatures which they do.
Fool.
As Feynman said It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.
And there’s the problem. Of all the hypotheses put forward to explain recent global warming, the only one which agrees with experiment is the CO2 AGW hypothesis.
but it doesn’t agree with the co2 models so you can toss that out too.
My hypothesis is that thermometers respond to heat, and measure degrees of hotness.
Supported by theory and experiment, I believe.
You can’t even describe your mythical GHE, can you?
Idiot.
EM you have seen several attempts to produce a greenhouse effect but they have all failed.
Why is that?
Obviously the GHE is NOT created by the 3rd grader radiation model despite what yo daddy might have told you.
The idiot, Willard, continued with his gotchas –
“Moron, Mike,
You copy-pasted your comment again.
Suppose an Aussie decides a political campaign against morons.
He keeps suggesting we need to eliminate them.
How would you feel about that free speech, moron?”
Why would I change my support for unfettered free speech? Willard’s witless attempt at social blackmail fails. His is a typical tactic of the dimwitted supporters of censorship and repression.
As Winston Churchill said “Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
Here you go, Willard.
I’m not outraged if someone says something back to me. That’s one difference between me and an idiot like you. You choose to be offended, insulted, or have hurt feelings on account of what I say, whereas I choose not to let what others say affect my emotions – if I feel like it.
Wave your hurt feelings around until your arms drop off. See if I care, idiot.
If you imagine that your display of hurt feelings will make people accept your GHE description of “not cooling, slower cooling”, you might be out of luck.
Carry on.
Moron Mike Flynn bumbles –
“Why would I change my support for unfettered free speech?”
Because of what happened in Rwanda, mayhaps?
He certainly shouldn’t try to emulate this other crank:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/alex-jones-files-bankruptcy-following-sandy-hook-verdict-court-filing-2022-12-02/
Alex did a bit more than spread lies. He incited hateful conduct toward mass shooting victims and their relatives.
Moron Mike can console himself. He may be deceitful, but at least he is a cretin.
Willard you idiot,
I support unfettered free speech. Do the people of Rwanda not, mayhaps?
You go on to whine that “Alex did a bit more than spread lies. He incited hateful conduct toward mass shooting victims and their relatives.”
You obviously don’t support unfettered free speech, but what is that opinion supposed to mean to me?
Am I supposed to be scared? If so, it’s not working. Are your tactics erroneous, or are you just incompetent?
Go away, and try and bend someone else to your will. A Rwandan, mayhap?
I’m glad you ask, deceitful cretin.
Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines was a Rwandan radio station that played a significant role in inciting the Rwandan genocide.
Thank you.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
“Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines was a Rwandan radio station that played a significant role in inciting the Rwandan genocide.”
I’m assuming you believe that unfettered free speech is a “bad thing”. Idiots like you often think they have some right to determine what may or may not be said, sometimes under penalty of death.
You would no doubt have supported up to 20 years imprisonment, accompanied by massive fines, for anybody in the US who was swinish enough to “use in speech or written form any language that was disloyal to the government, the Constitution, the military, or the flag;”, and that was after the adoption of the First Amendment!
I support unfettered free speech, whether you approve or not. Why should I value the opinions of an idiot like you?
Here is what you support, Moron Mike:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170403111115/http://www.guns.com/2016/12/08/conspiracy-theorist-charged-for-threatening-parent-of-sandy-hook-victim/
These are fine with you, deceitful cretin?
well i am a proponent of free speech with the exception of credible threats of violence. its not clear to me that luci richards is guilty of a credible threat of violence from what is published here and in willards link noting there are 4 counts and only 3 messages perhaps taken out of context.
There’s only one way to find out, Gill.
one needs to allow the process to play out.
Here is a process graph:
https://www.tiktok.com/@tysaiahfranklin/video/7148626782084697390
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You can’t help yourself, can you?
You can’t stand the thought of unfettered free speech, so the best you can do is provide a stupidly irrelevant link to something which presumably has nothing to do with free speech.
Feel free to correct me if Im wrong, and provide some facts to support your lunatic assertions.
[laughing at troll attempt to fly off at a tangent]
Willard says:
Here is a process graph:
———————————-
well she did the smart thing.
she probably wasn’t guilty of the crime but plead guilty to a single count in exchange for the prosecutor agreeing to another 90 days in jail down from 20 years.
the prosecutor obviously wasn’t enthusiastic.
Gill, Gill,
You’re racehorsing once again.
whats the matter Willard? Do you think she did the wrong thing? Obviously she did the right thing with a lynch mob ready to hang her out to dry for getting angry.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Watch a small space rock [6 meter diameter] for about 20 mins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPizXwW6x5I
{from Italy}
INEVITABLY:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IutDYxqjZBA&t=258s
Putin reacts to the Prigozhin’s Wagner rebellion
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
All I saw was a video of Howdy Doodey, aka Ronald Reagan.
Our current president didn’t enter your mind?
The ancientness or old fashionness has some Reagan quality to it,
but Joe seems like a much older fish.
Joe seems like the father of Adolf.
“Sweden recently stirred the global climate conversation by overturning its green energy targets and shifting its focus back to nuclear power. Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson cited the need for a more stable energy system, pointing out the inherent instability in wind and solar energy sources.”
Sweden Deals Body Blow to EU Climate Change Agenda
5 hours ago
Charles Rotter
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/25/sweden-deals-body-blow-to-eu-climate-change-agenda/
I seems there was some general movement towards using nuclear energy
quite awhile ago. I guess things move slowly, but Sweden actually moves quicker.
Cindy died:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
When someone starting with D is going to be next?
I got two slightly possible ones on my side but about 4 of them have already gone, nowhere.
Chandrayaan-3 | Lander Vikram, rover Pragyan to return for another tryst with the moon
Chandrayaan-3 lander, rover named after those in the previous mission; Indias third moon exploration mission slated for mid-July launch
June 25, 2023 07:52 pm | Updated June 26, 2023 11:39 am
Going land rover in lunar polar region, but after it launches it will take a while to get to moon.
There has others which have been delayed, eg:
3rd Quarter Falcon 9 IM-1
4th Quarter Vulcan Centaur Peregrine
Hopefully Chandrayaan-3 will actually launch in mid July and will
be using India’s largest rocket.
you are lying nate.
Not again, surely!
swenson…”Experiments by John Tyndall, confirmed by everybody since, show that increasing the amount of CO2 (for example) between a heat source and a thermometer, results in the thermometer cooling, not heating”.
***
It has occurred to me that Tyndall discovered that certain gases absorb IR and that he, like all scientists of his time, thought that meant the CO2 was trapping heat. As I mentioned before, all scientists in the latter part of the 19th century believed heat moved through air as heat rays. Even Clausius and Planck were confused by that.
This in not meant as a knock on Tyndall, I think he did stellar work back then. However, his later claim that CO2 ‘could’ heat the atmosphere was based on the belief that heat moved through the atmosphere as heat rays, hence the CO2 trapped heat. We need to remember he also claimed that any heating would be beneficial. He did not seem to think it would be catastrophic.
We can understand Tyndall, Clausius and the rest of the lads making that error but there is no excuse for modern alarmists who push the same theory. Heat does not move through the atmosphere as heat, it is converted to IR, a completely different energy form, and the heat involved is lost in the conversion.
That’s not to say that CO2 absorbing the IR won’t warm but the warming is not enough to raise atmospheric temperatures any more than about 0.06C max. And that’s a theory because no one has ever measured it. A trace gas in a mixed gas cannot warm the mix more than the percent mass of the trace gas and for CO2 that’s about 0.06%.
It’s clear that alarmist climatologists don’t understand basic gas theory.
Once again you argue from a false assumption, in this case that heat and other forms of energy are not interconvertable.
Look at how energy changes state. It does not suddenly become another form of energy, there is an intermediary process involved.
I gave an example earlier of electromagnetic energy being produced by a rapidly alternating current in a conductor (antenna). In essence, electrical energy is converted to electromagnetic energy. But what does that mean?
Start with electrical energy. What is it? No one knows. Wiki defines it as “electrical energy is energy related to forces on electrically-charged particles and the movement of those particles (often electrons in wires, but not always)”. That cannot define the EM produced or what it can do.
Doesn’t tell us anything other than ‘something’ is related to forces on electrically-charged particles. How about elecromagnetic energy? Wiki apparently doesn’t want to touch that one but NASA chimes in with…”Electromagnetic energy travels in waves and spans a broad spectrum from very long radio waves to very short gamma rays”.
Again, no explanation. Such an answer one might expect from a child in elementary school or junior high school. They are talking about it and not answering the question they posed as to what it is. At one time you’d get slapped over the knuckles with a ruler for offering such a gaffe.
Let’s make it simple, what is energy. The web returns brilliant answers like ‘energy is the ability to do work’.
Duh!!! But what is it? No one knows!!! So, how can energy change states if no one knows what the heck it is? When I talk about heat and EM/IR I am talking from definition not from a state of energy. I am claiming the definition and requirements of heat does not describe the definition and requirements of EM.
From my personal perspective, energy is simply a word used to define certain process motivators in nature. I think energy is real as a motivator but I have no idea what it is.
I regard heat as ‘something’ that defines the actions of atoms as they move. Something that motivates them to move. Possibly it exists in a dimension or reality we have yet to discover. Have no idea.
In a solid, the motion is the vibration of atoms in a lattice, but that is not heat, it is work. Something is causing those atoms to vary their level of vibration and that is heat, whatever it is.
Electrical energy is something that causes electrons to move through a conductor, or through air, or a gas. I think it is safe to claim that electrical energy is something that governs the motion of electrons. But wait, we know EM and heat can do the same thing, at least wrt motion within the atom. Maybe we need to define electrical energy as something that causes electrons to move outside the atom, even if that is just to the next atom. We call it an electromotive force, I think meaning n electron-moving force.
But wait again. An electrical current is about charges that electrons carry. Somehow those charges can be transferred electron to electron in a conductor at near the speed of light while the electron ambles along at centimetres per second.
How would you explain heat being converted to another form of energy?
Thus, according to Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon,
everything else equals, the higher is the planet’s or moon’s the
(N*cp) product, the higher is the planet’s or moon’s the average surface temperature Tmean.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Swenson
On unlimited free speech.
The limit on free speech should be when it becomes damaging to other people.
The analogy I use is this.
My freedom to wave my fists around does not allow me to punch you in the nose.
EM,
If other people choose to feel “damaged” or “offended”, that is their choice. If there are laws which allow people to be prosecuted because someone feels “offended”, who is next to be accused by some precious petal?
If I find your hand waving “offensive”, do you face prosecution? If you do, I suggest you are stupid for “offending” me. Or do I just start waving a gun around, and watch you soil your trousers?
On the other, what is wrong with unfettered free speech? Your silly analogy about punching people in the nose is irrelevant to unfettered free speech. If you don’t like freedom of speech, just say so. Stand up for your beliefs.
What a snowflake you are.
Still no description of the GHE? Feel offended as you like, but I still think you are a delusional SkyDragon cultist.
If we ever meet, remind me to punch you in the nose. My defence will be that I have unlimited freedom to wave my arms around.
your defense won’t work as you have already threatened to commit bodily harm which is a violation of 18 U.S. Code 2261A – Stalking
[MIKE FLYNN] If there are laws which allow people to be prosecuted because someone feels offended, who is next to be accused by some precious petal?
[GILL] your defense wont work as you have already threatened to commit bodily harm which is a violation of 18 U.S. Code 2261A Stalking
willard is confused again. anybody volunteer to bring him up to speed? or shall we just allow him to spin in circles as usual.
There’s nothing confusing with your double bind, Gill.
Also, you forget that Mike Flynn would explicitly ask EM to punch him in the nose. He could even sign a waiver if you insist.
the guy that delivers the first punch is always the one most at risk. asking for a waiver could help mitigate some of that risk.
You presume that EM would obey Moron Mike’s request.
Nobody ever does.
EM would simply express his speech through dance.
Bill Hunter
I doubt Swenson would press charges under 2261A. He believes in unfettered freedom of expression.
EM,
There are many laws restricting freedom of speech. There are penalties if you are convicted of breaking them.
You aren’t suggesting that I do not have the right to disagree with a law, passed by a majority of the winners of a beauty contest, I hope. That would make you one of Bindidon’s fellow travellers. Maybe you could borrow a riding crop and a pair of highly polished jackboots from him – then you could stomp around looking fierce, and threatening people with electrocution, disease and death if they used any words of which you didn’t approve.
Here, I can say what I wish, when I wish, and how I wish, and there is not a darn thing you can do about it – except whine and grind your teeth. Tough. That’s reality for you.
Just like the reality that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, as the surface does every night. Whether you like it or not.
No GHE.
Entropic man says:
Bill Hunter
I doubt Swenson would press charges under 2261A. He believes in unfettered freedom of expression.
—————————
more than that he is probably hoping you try. . .you being a girly man and all.
So testosterone suppresses reading skills.
The nice thing about America is that if you punch Swen in the nose, he can pull out his gun and shoot you.
She can do it with less consequences.
And more woman are getting armed.
Yes only in American are verbal fights or fist fights turned regularly into gun fights.
No worries mate, Swenson lives in Australia.
Swenson
Let’s consider a possible example.
I suspect that Gordon Robertson’s homophobic comments are projection; an attempt to cover up his closet homosexual tendencies which his friends and congregation would abhor.
Would unlimited freedom of speech allow me to put up a notice on his church notice board saying so?
em takes the board into his world of infantile imagination. yep i am stupidphobic. you bet.
Infantile imagination is rather an Aussie suggesting he can threaten people at gun point.
It’s not even clear Mike Flynn has a knife, and even if he did he’s no Crocodile Dundee.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You live in a dream world. People don’t just threaten people with violence – they shoot them, stab them, beat them to death, run them over, and all the rest. I can’t think of a crime free country. You?
I am surprised that you don’t accept reality.
Mike Flynn,
You’re a silly sock puppet realizing sociopathic fantasies.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You live in a dream world. People dont just threaten people with violence they shoot them, stab them, beat them to death, run them over, and all the rest. I cant think of a crime free country. You?
I am surprised that you dont accept reality.
There you go.
EM,
Why not? He might advertise widely that you are a pedophile, necrophiliac and cannibal, in response.
Not only in your church, but in your workplace and your golf club. If he has more money than you, you will regret posting your unsupported assertions on his church notice board.
You might need to consider the consequences of your actions. Sometimes, fanatics take violent exception to the exercise of freedom of speech. Bombings and multiple shootings have been known to result.
Sometimes it’s better to let sleeping dogs lie.
In the meantime, you still haven’t said why you are opposed to unfettered freedom of speech, apart from the fear of having your feelings hurt. Quite frankly, your feelings are not my responsibility, nor mine yours.
Off you go now, feel as offended as you like about my lack of sympathy for your snowflake, easily bruised “feelings”.
” Or do I just start waving a gun around, and watch you soil your trousers? ”
I once spent six months on a paramilitary death list, which rather puts your threat into proportion.
It would have been interesting to watch you practicing unfettered freedom of speech in Belfast during the 1980s. Kneecapping would have been the least of your troubles.
EM,
Oh dear, have I hurt your feelings? Take a teaspoon of cement and harden up.
Entropic man says:
It would have been interesting to watch you practicing unfettered freedom of speech in Belfast during the 1980s. Kneecapping would have been the least of your troubles.
————————
semms EM thinks speech should be limited to his point of view. Typical!
“once spent six months on a paramilitary death list”
What was that about EM? Care to elaborate?
Should a person’s state of immaturity be taken into account? If I say something to a more mature person and he/she receives it as not harming anyone, and I say the same to a more mature person and he/she is horrified, where does one draw the line?
I don’t think people need to go out of their way to harm others but I think people have to take a certain amount of responsibility for their own emotional well-being.
> Should a persons state of immaturity be taken into account?
C’mon, Bordo. Stop looking at young girls.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
You do not know what is wrong with inciting a genocide, Mike Flynn?
No wonder you act like you do.
Cheers.
For the bore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njj_rG_9HKM&ab_channel=OxfordUnion
Thank you for citing one of my favorite Brexit freaks, Kennui.
In return:
Wistful Wee Willy,
True. I’m glad you appreciate reality.
That’s not reality, Moron Mike.
It’s just a value judgment.
Prove it, idiot.
“Boredom is something you choose to feel. Rather like choosing to take offense, and then blaming someone for offending you!”
Wistful Wee Willy,
True. Im glad you appreciate reality. At least you are not disagreeing. That’s a start, I suppose.
Thats not reality, Moron Mike.
Its just a value judgment.
Wistful Wee Willy,
True. Im glad you appreciate reality. At least you are not disagreeing. Thats a start, I suppose.
I appreciate reality, Moron Mike.
I also appreciate you.
You are not reality, nor do you speak for it.
Wistful Wee Willy,
True. I’m glad you appreciate reality. At least you are not disagreeing. That’s a start, I suppose.
You wrote –
“You are not reality, nor do you speak for it.”
That’s your firm opinion, is it?
Carry on.
Moron Mike,
You are just the sock puppet of a human bean.
So no, you do not speak for reality.
Cheers.
Wistful Wee Willy,
True. Im glad you appreciate reality. At least you are not disagreeing. Thats a start, I suppose.
You wrote
“You are just the sock puppet of a human bean.
So no, you do not speak for reality.”
Thats your revised and upgraded, even firmer, firm opinion, is it?
Carry on.
You are so free that you keep copy-pasting your comments, Moron Mike.
Wistful Wee Willy,
You wrote
“You are just the sock puppet of a human bean.
So no, you do not speak for reality.”
Thats your revised and upgraded, even firmer, firm opinion, is it?
Carry on.
Deceitful cretin,
One of the Beligian signatories is Drieu Godefridi:
https://www.wikiberal.org/wiki/Drieu_Godefridi
This is not a serious list.
Willard looks at a list of 1,500 signatories searches for somebody he doesn’t like and decides the whole list is bogus. bright guy! LMAO!
Gill lulzes when people pay due diligence to stuff.
Gill talks about due diligence a lot.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
gbaikie says:
“If Earth had 1/2 as much gravity, what would its global average temperature. be?”
–
Let’s see:
If Earth had 1/2 gravity, at the same distance from the sun, and with the same rotational spin…
And, of course, with the same 4,5 billion years of previous history.
–
***
To answer the question let’s apply the planet surface temperatures comparison method.
–
We have Venus, which is closer to the sun, and which has almost the same gravity as Earth. Because of higher initial temperatures, Venus was able to hold in its atmosphere only the most heavy gases, like CO2.
Thus, Venus does not have water, O2 and N2.
–
Mars has Earth’s 1/3 gravity, and Mars is further from the sun, than Earth.
Because of its smaller gravity, Mars was able to hold in its atmosphere only the most heavy gases, like CO2.
–
Mars and our Moon have some water deposits at their polar regions, where the surface temperatures are permanently very low.
–
So, if Earth had 1/2 gravity, at the same distance from the sun, and with the same rotational spin…
Earth would have been an airless and waterless planet – like planet Mars at Earth’s distance from the sun.
–
Therefore, Earth would have been on average surface temperature colder than it is now, but, because of a higher, than our Moon’s, rotational spin, Earth would have been warmer than our Moon’s average surface temperature.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“We have Venus, which is closer to the sun, and which has almost the same gravity as Earth. Because of higher initial temperatures, Venus was able to hold in its atmosphere only the most heavy gases, like CO2.
Thus, Venus does not have water, O2 and N2.”
Venus 3 times as much N2 as Earth has.
“So, if Earth had 1/2 gravity, at the same distance from the sun, and with the same rotational spin
Earth would have been an airless and waterless planet like planet Mars at Earths distance from the sun.”
I thought some would think it would have less atmosphere, but I didn’t expect waterless
“Therefore, Earth would have been on average surface temperature colder than it is now, but, because of a higher, than our Moons, rotational spin, Earth would have been warmer than our Moons average surface temperature.”
Yes, assuming Earth without ocean and atmosphere, it would have lower surface temperature and faster spin would make higher temperature than Moon.
If Earth didn’t have a transparent ocean [it was muddy or didn’t exist or whatever} Earth would absorb a lot less energy from the sun.
Christos,
I was wondering if it had half the mass at the same volume would it fly apart? Or would the volume be a lot bigger?
Stephen, I don’t know.
Earth’s Volume about 1.0910^21
If radius is 6,378,160 meter
And Earth has average density of 5514 kg per cubic meter
And mass of 5.97×10^24 kg
If planet had radius of 8000000 meters:
2.1410^21 cubic meter and made stuff like Earth or Venus or Moon
I would guess it have twice the gravity.
If planet had radius of 6,000,000 meters:
9.0510^20 cubic meter
If 5,500,000 meter 5500 km radius: 6.9710^20 cubic meter
Or roughly 69% volume of Earth.
So, 6 million meter radius has about 90% and 5.5 million meter
radius.
I would guess if remove 1/2 earth inner dense core and rest from
mantle, the 6 million radius world would a lot less density.
Say 4000 kg per cubic meter rather than 5514 kg
Or with 5.5 million, you remove say 20% from core and rest from mantle, and density might more than 4000 kg
reference:
“Although the core and mantle are about equal in thickness, the core actually forms only 15 percent of the Earth’s volume, whereas the mantle occupies 84 percent.”
Or if don’t want change mass of core, have to make much earth radius smaller, and if want drastic remove the amount of core then don’t have change radius of Earth much.
So, I think earth was impacted by large mars size object and it transfered a large part of it’s core to Earth.
Or Proto Earth could have had about 1/2 of Earth’s present gravity and part of reason I asked the question.
But supposing my wild guesses are somewhat close.
9.0510^20 cubic meter times 4000 kg, 9.05 x 4000 = 36200
3.62 x 10^24 vs Earth of 5.97×10^24 kg for 6 million meter radius
5.5 million radius:
6.9710^20 x 4000 = 27880 or 2.788 x 10^24 mass of planet
Though it could be more than 4000 kg density.
Both seem somewhere in ballpark.
And something slightly different:
100 meter tall cylinder which is 10 meter in diameter and with two ends.
10 meter = 393.701″
1/4″ or .25″ = 0.00635 meter
The ends have .25″ stainless steel and cylinder wall thickness is .125″ or 0.003175 meter thick
The cylinder can have up to 13 psi of air pressure.
[Start with 10 psi of air at 30 C- 30% O2 and 70% N2]
Say it spends 90% of the time in full sunlight of 1360 watt per square meter.
How warm is the air?
Depends on where sunlight is heating it. And is air in microgravity.
A match burns differently in microgravity due to lack of convection from lack buoyancy from warmer
vs cooler air. In ISS they blow the air around to give uniformity to the air.
Without this the end pointing at the sun, would get hot air while rest of it would have cold air.
If we spin it so both ends face the sunlight, both end get heated plus rest of it is also heated by
sunlight. We can also just have one side of lengthwise cylinder is heated and the ends don’t face the
sun. It could spun and not be spun, doing this.
Let’s start with not spinning it and have one of lengthwise part of cylinder facing the sunlight
So, area of cylinder is radius times 2 or diameter 10 meter times pi [3.14159} times 100 = 3141.59 square
meters. But it’s cross section to sunlight is 10 x 100 = 1000 square meter.
And 1/2 cylinder in sunlight is 3141.59 / 2 = 1570.795 square meter.
So sunlight reaching it, totals 1000 times 1360 = 1360000 watt which lighting area of 1570.795 square meter.
Roughly you could average it: 1360000 / 1570.795 = 865.803 watts per square meter.
Which is not very accurate. One look at the 180 degree arc of cylinder, and say the middle part 45 degrees
either way an totaling 90 degrees of the 180 degree is getting most of the 1360 watts per square meter of sunlight
And other 90 degrees is getting sunlight a high angle {and shiny stainless steel is reflectiong a lot of the sunlight
it’s getting]. Or this thing would blinding to look at in space, though on unlit side, all see is reflected starlight,
and/or earthlight and/or moonlight. Though if can see it in longwave IR, you can see that depending on how warm it is.
So, if not mixing the air, the air next to 90 degree part in most sunlight could be around 120 C as is stainless steet 1/4
section of the 10 meter diameter cylinder.
Or terms length of steel: 31.4159 / 4 = 7.853975 meter of curved steel. This steel will conduct heat to steel near it
So side in sunlight is 31.4159 / 2 = 15.70795 – 7.853975 = 7.853975 and two ends / 2 = 3.9269875 meters stainless steel.
Steel or stainless steel does conduct heat well, copper conduct heat about 20 times faster. And 3.9269875 meters [or 12.9
feet] will not transport much heat to other half of cylinder.
So part of it is hot, but most it, is cold. Most of air, and most metal cylinder.
And next can move on idea of mixing the air somehow. Some other way transporting it’s heat, uniformly.
Ah, I knew there was reason stopped at this point: What about the radiant energy emitted?
So ii it, and you are 7 to 8 meters [24 feet] away from this 120 C stainless steel which is also 7 to 8 {24 feet] wide.
And you don’t have to be in a spacesuit.
And you answer the question.
If you are warm, I don’t have devise some way of transporting the heat. Makes it easy.
gb,
“And 3.9269875 meters [or 12.9 feet]”
Is that US precision compared to the rest of the world?
Only joking. Measuring to 0.000 000 1 m is reserved for “climatologists”. NOAA claims predicted tides are within 0.5 feet or so of observations, so I suppose 12.9 feet is close enough for Government work.
Depending on the surface finish of your steel, inside and out, and the density of the air, the average temperature of the air is likely to be well below freezing. Even though the sunward surface may be at 120 C, a polished interior surface at that temperature may be emitting only a few W/m2, most of which will penetrate the air without significant attenuation, delivering no appreciable warmth to the gases, and be lost to outer space on the dark side, nominally at 4 K or so.
Something like the air in a cold castle, with a raging fireplace – plenty of radiant heat, but the air temperature may remain below freezing. Stand close to the fire, your face may get too hot, while your bum remains icy.
“Depending on the surface finish of your steel, inside and out, and the density of the air, the average temperature of the air is likely to be well below freezing.”
It’s possible to make it very cold. Using stainless because Starship is using stainless. It’s 9 meter, and upper stage is 70 meter tall and of course has heat shield on one side- if face that heat shield at sun- it will be quite cold.
And I want to make it spin- or 1/2 time the ends could be pointed
at sun. Anyhow broadside to sun is warmest it gets- though one do things to make warmer.
And thinking about Venus orbit which has twice as much sun.
I spend a lot time thinking of using Venus orbit.
So in microgravity the air doesn’t convect {well}, and also mean air doesn’t warm the colder side of cylinder wall {much] either.
[but you think of it as slowing it down- with time periods hours or days- it’s different}
So, if was made of copper [instead of steel] or had some other means of transferring heat, that leaves radiant heat transfer as potential highest amount of heat transfer to far side of cylinder.
And with ISS this coldness near hull causes unwanted water condensation {or you would want to avoid this- which you will get if humans are breathing the air}.
Now, a climate type question is, does CO2 somehow help this {or if using any other, say, a super greenhouse gas is used}?
christos…”And, of course, with the same 4,5 billion years of previous history”.
***
If the Sun was much hotter 4.5 billion years ago, that might explain certain things. It would explain Swenson’s claim that the Earth has been cooling since. Of course, Venus would have been much hotter and Mars may have been able to sustain life as Earth does now.
If Earth had been much hotter, that would end the Doomsday claims of climate alarmists that the planet is doomed if we don’t cool it off by reducing carbon emissions. Of course, that claims is stupid to begin with, that a trace gas like CO2 could possibly warm the planet to the point life could not be sustained. Life has obviously survived much hotter temperatures.
If the Sun was much hotter it would mean its mass was much larger and that would affect the orbits of the planets.
“The new Report provides an independent assessment of the most important parts of AR6. We document biases and errors in almost every chapter we reviewed. In some cases, of course, one can quibble endlessly about our criticism and how relevant it is for the overall ‘climate narrative’ of the IPCC. In some cases, though, we document such blatant cherry picking by the IPCC, that even ardent supporters of the IPCC should feel embarrassed.”
https://judithcurry.com/2023/05/13/clintels-critical-evaluation-of-the-ipcc-ar6/
Afraid you’ve been suckered, old man.
Clintel is just the latest in a long series of climate disinformation organisations.
EM,
You haven’t produced a description of the GHE, have you?
Just another unsupported assertion that such a mythical thing exists. You can’t even bring yourself to say what the GHE is supposed to do, can you?
Make things hotter? Colder?
Where and when, and by how much?
You feel free to spout any nonsense you like, but if anybody disagrees with you – it’s an outrage! (To paraphrase Winston Churchill).
Idiot.
Sure. People can judge for themselves.
https://clintel.org/about-us/
These are the people who have signed this
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/WCD-version-02182311035.pdf
“TOTAL SIGNATORIES 1500”
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY / UNITED KINGDOM
1/1500
nope willard you are out of date. Monckton is one of 1,574
Willis Eschenbach, Generalist and Author of many (peer-reviewed) critical Climate Articles with numerous Citations
So much better than the “undersigned.”
Willis Eschenbach?
Is this the same guy with a Steel Greenhouse?
The one that works because two spheres of different radii have the same surface area, according to Willis?
You gullible idiot.
Moron Mike,
Willis is one of the 293 Muricans who signed that declaration.
Among the 99 Frenchies, there is Alexandre Krivitzky, Psychoanalyst, Member of the International Psychoanalytical Association.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Who cares who signed what?
What are Muricans? Is this more of your puerile secret language – like skillz, modulz and lulz?
You idiot, physical facts are not decided by vote! Neither for nor against any particular speculation.
That’s why you are a gullible idiot.
I do, Moron Mike. Should I care what you care about or not?
Amongst the 77 signatories from Germany, there’s one by some Matthias Thiermann, Parliamentary adviser in the Bavarian Parliament.
Fun to see that the contrarian bench is very smol.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Who cares who signed what? You don’t count, because you are an idiot whose opinions nobody values.
What are Muricans? Is this more of your puerile secret language like skillz, modulz and lulz?
You idiot, physical facts are not decided by vote! Neither for nor against any particular speculation.
Thats why you are a gullible idiot.
Moron Mike,
Among the 158 signatories of that declaration who are Aussies, there is Don Andersen, Retired Teacher, Programmer.
Isn’t that wonderful?
Wonky Wee Willy,
Who cares who signed what? You dont count, because you are an idiot whose opinions nobody values.
What are Muricans? Is this more of your puerile secret language like skillz, modulz and lulz?
You idiot, physical facts are not decided by vote! Neither for nor against any particular speculation.
Thats why you are a gullible idiot.
Moron Mike,
I forgot.
#40 of the Frenchies is Ralph Ellis, BSC in aviation.
Do you know him by any chance?
Like you, I met him at Judys:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/02/dust-deposition-on-ice-sheets-a-mechanism-for-termination-of-ice-ages/#comment-815232
Smol contrarian matrix.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Who cares who signed what? You don’t count, because you are an idiot whose opinions nobody values.
What are Muricans? Is this more of your puerile secret language like skillz, modulz and lulz?
You idiot, physical facts are not decided by vote! Neither for nor against any particular speculation.
Thats why you are a gullible idiot.
By the way, what is a smol? Your statement “Smol contrarian matrix” appears to be a product of your gibberish generator – meaningless, yet strangely pointless and irrelevant.
Moron Mike,
I care who signed what.
I know many of the names, perhaps most.
Another one, #95 of the Frenchies, Etienne Vernaz, Former Director of Research of CEA (Commissariat lnergie Atomique) in France, Professor at INSTN (Institut National des Sciences et Techniques Nuclaires)
That guy is a true creationist:
https://france.arocha.org/fr/news/reponse-detaillee-a-la-conference-detienne-vernaz/
If you do not care who signed what, why do you keep replying to me?
Wonky Wee Willy,
Who cares who signed what? You dont count, because you are an idiot whose opinions nobody values.
What are Muricans? Is this more of your puerile secret language like skillz, modulz and lulz?
You idiot, physical facts are not decided by vote! Neither for nor against any particular speculation.
Thats why you are a gullible idiot.
By the way, what is a smol? Your statement Smol contrarian matrix appears to be a product of your gibberish generator meaningless, yet strangely pointless and irrelevant.
Deceitful cretin,
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Smol
Alternatively, ask your spouse.
Cheers.
the urban dictionary exists to translate the language of those who flunked english or dropped out. Willard thinks thats cute.
We already knew that Gill flirted with Nazis, but we didn’t know he flirted with Gramer Nazis too.
Entropic man says:
Afraid youve been suckered, old man.
Clintel is just the latest in a long series of climate disinformation organisations.
—————————
when asked to come up with link us to a statistically sensible argument for a climate emergency all he come up with is a slur against 1500 scientists and professionals who have signed on saying there is none.
> when asked
Hmmm. Big hmmm.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard is here to grunt out an ignorant post when others in here balk.
Playing dumb does not suffice to Gill.
He has invent questions.
Good post, Richard.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
John Warnock, Astro Economist
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/WCD-version-02182311035.pdf
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Willard attempts to defend being allowed to determine who is allowed to say what –
“Here is what you support, Moron Mike:
According to court documents, one message said, in part, You gonna die, death is coming to you real soon.
Death is coming to you real soon and theres nothing you can do about it, a similar message reiterated.
LOOK BEHIND YOU IT IS DEATH, read another.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170403111115/http://www.guns.com/2016/12/08/conspiracy-theorist-charged-for-threatening-parent-of-sandy-hook-victim/
These are fine with you, deceitful cretin?”
Willard is masturbating too frequently or too vigorously, and it has scrambled his thought processes (besides making his palms hairy).
I support unfettered free speech. I also support the rule of law – where, when, and if I have to. Prisons are full of people who disagree with the rule of law. I’m not in prison.
Willard is an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
You are tapdancing around the fact that you disagree with these laws.
Cheers.
I support unfettered free speech. I also support the rule of law where, when, and if I have to. Prisons are full of people who disagree with the rule of law. Im not in prison.
Willard is an idiot, and light footed enough to be a tap dancer, I guess.
At least he has realised that his homosexual protestations of love remain, alas, unrequited.
Willard’s description of the GHE – “not cooling, slower cooling”. Who’d have guessed that the GHE resulted in cooling, not heating?
Willard is twice the idiot he appears to be.
Here is the part you are still missing, Moron Mike –
“You arent suggesting that I do not have the right to disagree with a law, passed by a majority of the winners of a beauty contest, I hope.”
Cheers.
“Here is the part you are still missing, Moron Mike
“You aren’t suggesting that I do not have the right to disagree with a law, passed by a majority of the winners of a beauty contest, I hope.”
Cheers.”
You idiot – how could I be missing something which I wrote? Maybe your comprehension is lacking.
I can disagree with anything I like, you idiot, and you can’t stop me. Others can look at facts, and decide whether to agree or disagree with anything anyone at all might say.
As Voltaire said “I am very fond of truth, but not at all of martyrdom.” You don’t appear to be fond of truth.
Carry on trolling.
Moron Mike,
You are free. Absolutely free. And you copy-paste your comments?
Sad, deceitful cretin.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Here is the part you are still missing, Moron Mike
“You arent suggesting that I do not have the right to disagree with a law, passed by a majority of the winners of a beauty contest, I hope.”
Cheers.”
You idiot how could I be missing something which I wrote? Maybe your comprehension is lacking.
I can disagree with anything I like, you idiot, and you can’t stop me. Others can look at facts, and decide whether to agree or disagree with anything anyone at all might say.
As Voltaire said “I am very fond of truth, but not at all of martyrdom.” You dont appear to be fond of truth.
Carry on trolling.
Moron Mike,
You support unfettered free speech.
You support the rule of law.
You disagree with the laws that constrain free speech.
Notice how adding the last clause gives a very different color to your argument?
Nevermind. You may not be able to resist playing the deceitful cretin.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Think about it. You can support something without agreeing with it.
Such as a law enacted by the winners of a beauty contest, (referred to as a democratic government) if you happen to be aware of the consequences of breaking a particular law with which you disagree.
For example, enough people disagreed with the Sedition Act of 1918 (which severely abridged freedom of speech) that it was repealed in 1920, but chose to obey it regardless whether they disagreed or not.
You can’t even enunciate what you believe in, because you are a gutless wish-washy troll. Come on, admit you don’t support unfettered free speech. Tell me that you believe physical facts are determined by consensus.
You idiot.
Moron Mike,
You are right, of course.
We all support you here. Few agree with you. Not even you most of the times.
That may not be the meaning of *support* that is relevant here, deceitful cretin.
We all support you, you and your silly semantic games.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Mike Flynn said –
“Here, I can say what I wish, when I wish, and how I wish”
That must explain why he says so little.
Mike may be a deceitful cretin, but he is our deceitful cretin.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Thank you for confirming that here, I can say what I wish, when I wish, and how I wish – and there’s nothing at all you can do about it.
I guess Mike Flynn could do the same if he wished. So could you.
Idiot.
It is my honor to confirm that all your liberty goes into saying less than nothing, Moron Mike.
Let’s celebrate!
Weepy Wee Willy,
Thank you for confirming that here, I can say what I wish, when I wish, and how I wish and theres nothing at all you can do about it.
I guess Mike Flynn could do the same if he wished. So could you.
Idiot.
Hey, Mike
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zAG3-t-fHbY
Seeing is believing.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Thank you for confirming that here, I can say what I wish, when I wish, and how I wish and theres nothing at all you can do about it.
I guess Mike Flynn could do the same if he wished. So could you.
Presumably, you have linked to something irrelevant and pointless, and precisely nothing to do with my views on unfettered free speech. Why do you bother?
Idiocy?
Moron Mike,
You say –
“I guess Mike Flynn could do the same”
You, silly sock puppet, are Mike Flynn.
Feel free to continue to play the deceitful cretin.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Thank you for confirming that here, I can say what I wish, when I wish, and how I wish and theres nothing at all you can do about it.
I guess Mike Flynn could do the same if he wished. So could you.
Presumably, you have linked to something irrelevant and pointless, and precisely nothing to do with my views on unfettered free speech. Why do you bother?
Idiocy?
Swenson
You’ve been on the internet too long.
I suggest that you shut down your device and go out to the nearest bar for a drink.
There your entertaining notions and interesting debating style will receive the respect they deserve.
EM,
I will accord your suggestion the contempt it deserves.
I suggest you explain why you can’t describe the GHE.
You are free to ignore my suggestion. That’s fair, isn’t it?
I’m curious – what mental defect leads you to believe that I would value your opinion? Congenital idiocy, perhaps?
To the contrary.
As a fellow human being I care deeply about your welfare. You need to get out more.
EM,
You wrote –
“To the contrary.
As a fellow human being I care deeply about your welfare. You need to get out more.”
To the contrary of what, precisely? I said “Im curious what mental defect leads you to believe that I would value your opinion? Congenital idiocy, perhaps?”
Some other form of idiocy leads you to believe that I would value your opinion?
You may care as deeply as you wish about my welfare, but I still see no reason at all to value your opinion. Whether you live or die is nothing to do with me, and you are not obliged to take any notice of my opinions at all.
You seem to be silly enough to think I should believe in a GHE which you can’t describe, nor even say what it is supposed to do. Heat, cool, nothing at all?
Have you considered taking up social work? You don’t seem at all suited to deal with facts and reality.
Carry on.
To the contrary, Moron Mike.
What makes EM suggest that you go test your debating skills locally with live fellow travellers is not a cognitive defect. It is empathy. Empathy is only a defect to a sociopath.
That you are still playing dumb may be related to a mental defect, however. It depends if you are more a cretin than you are deceitful.
In any event please rest assured that you are a deceitful cretin.
Long live and prosper.
It’s uncanny how Wiltard is a cross between Goebbels and Gollum.
stephen…when Goebbels was in the bunker at the end with Hitler they were discussing suicide. Goebbels had decided that he, his wife would commit suicide while killing their children first. When far more compassionate Nazi, Albert Speer, offered to take the children and look after them, Goebbels declined the offer.
I have always considered that people who oppose free speech to the point of censorship, like Goebbels have something more wrong with them. The same crowd is operating today re free speech.
Grand Solar Maximum update
https://youtu.be/hsV2untzJ54
re free speech…comedian Rowan Atkinson (Blackadder, Mr. Bean) giving a serious talk on free speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc&ab_channel=TheChristianInstitute
I presume the Brits on here will know more about this but it appears some twit in the UK has passed a law that seriously restricts free speech.
We are facing the same nonsense here in Canada.
http://reformsection5.org.uk/
But as a much smaller proportion of Venus’ atmosphere.
Don’t be afraid to answer the questions I asked you earlier.
Have you clarified 2)?
You implied that energy flows moderated by the greenhouse effect only flow from surface to space. The net flow is from surface, but as part of the process energy also flows from atmosphere to surface.
"The net flow is from surface, but as part of the process energy also flows from atmosphere to surface."
That’s exactly what 2) says. It just uses the word "heat" as you guys use it re. radiation, which is that heat is the "net" flow of two opposing IR radiation transfers. So, with that clarified, you are now free to answer both questions.
Given that proviso both statements are correct.
Impossible. Both cannot be correct, if "heat" is to be understood as the "net" flow of two opposing IR radiation transfers.
To say that both are correct, would be to say that the "net" energy flow is from the atmosphere to the surface, in 1), but at the same time the "net" energy flow is from the surface to the atmosphere, in 2)!
You have to pick one or the other, EM.
EM,
There is no Greenhouse Effect.
The surface warms during the day, cools at night. That is why you cannot describe the GHE. Does it have two diametrically opposed effects?
Even when a low level inversion exists at night, where the atmosphere is hotter than the surface, the surface still cools. Go on, explain the role of the mythical GHE in nightly cooling, or planetary cooling over the past four and a half billion years.
If you can’t, that would make you a delusional SkyDragon cultist, wouldn’t it? An idiot who refuses to accept reality.
Some people should try to explain why nightly cooling decreases over time since 100 years:
1. For the (conterminous) US, as shown by John Christy
https://web.archive.org/web/20210112005636/https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Record-Temperatures-in-the-United-States.pdf
2. For the Globe (by my use of the same processing method as in (1)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17KWfBfbbCs8u4AHIbu8XGrONYskYDKeD/view
Would the nightly cooling keep constant: then, the green and the blue lines would keep flat.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1502115
What changed in 1979?
EM,
For context:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Energy flows in two directions, heat only in one direction.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Back-radiation is only going one way. It is a single flow of energy.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1503114
…and the opposing flow of energy to the “back-radiation” is the upwelling IR.
So, you have no point.
thus it can not affect extreme warm temperatures but instead slightly lowers extreme temperatures via the same underlying light absorbing characteristics underlying modtran.
With various emphases:
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364682617301190
Oh, Geez, if it’s Science Direct then it must be true.
Worthless willard found another link he can’t understand: The net radiation (Rn) is generally defined as the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation of both short and long wavelengths
There is no such thing as *net radiation* between different fluxes. Trying to compare fluxes is like trying to compare *dozens*. Does a dozen elephants compare to a dozen raindrops?
The cult is clueless. That’s why this is so much fun.
No sensible response from our Sky Dragon cranks means Team Science does win another argument.
Well played, Bob & Nate!
Little Willy finds something in support of what I just said. An unusual method of debating, but it is appreciated nonetheless.
[GRAHAM] Back-radiation is only going one way. It is a single flow of energy.
[TEAM SCIENCE] The longwave radiation exchange is a two way process.
[GRAHAM] Exactly what I said.
Back-radiation does only go one way. In your link, it was described as “downward radiation, Ldn”.
Why are you so clueless?
Gaslighting Graham still does not get that there is a thing called the longwave radiation exchange.
Next he’s gonna argue that in
A = B – C
A does not contain a subtraction.
“Gaslighting Graham still does not get that there is a thing called the longwave radiation exchange…”
…on the contrary, that’s what I meant by “energy flows in two directions, heat only in one direction”.
dremt…”on the contrary, thats what I meant by energy flows in two directions, heat only in one direction.
***
I am constantly refining my own understanding of this stuff so please don’t take this as a criticism, but an alternate POV.
The following is obviously my opinion.
I think a problem with this discussion is the notion that energy flows between two bodies. I consider that misleading. When a body radiates energy as EM,it does so isotropically. Ergo, both bodies are radiating energy isotropically. At no time is there a net transfer of energy between them, only an outward movement of energy from either body.
If you look up the meaning of ‘flow’ it is generally in reference to a flow of particles. Although I have used flow to describe EM, I am now questioning that usage.
EM cannot be transferred between bodies. At the moment of its creation, it is external to the radiating body. If it is absorbed by a cooler body, it is still external to the body and is never absorbed. Rather it is converted to another form of energy at the target and from another form of energy at the source. Therefore EM cannot be transferred between bodies.
I am sure this will be regarded as nit-picking but it is the reality. There can never be a flow of EM, especially a net flow. EM spreads out as an ever-decreasing field intensity-wise and cannot be regarded in the same manner as electric charges flowing through a conductor, or water molecules running through a hose.
My intention is not to nit-pick or be overly analytical but to gain some precision in the debate, as a means to better visualization.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1503629
dremt…from your link…”Im only accepting the GHE defenders definition of heat as being the net flow of energy for the sake of argument”.
***
I kind of figured that. I know from past postings you have a good understanding of the 2nd law and heat.
And so this is why Gaslighting Graham said that backradiation was heat in his first formulation. It can’t be energy for it is unidirectional, whence energy can be bidirectional!
God this is dumb.
Wasted Wee Willy,
“God this is dumb.” You might as well talk to God. Nobody else seems to be taking much notice of your inept trolling attempts.
Carry on.
Moron Mike,
O God would be vocative.
Had you read the old thread with Ralph Ellis, you might have learned that.
Presuming you are not too much of a deceitful cretin.
Cheers.
Your total failure to understand the most basic things is indeed very, very dumb.
1) The GHE involves heat being transferred from the colder atmosphere to the hotter surface, but it’s OK because as per the Clausius statement of 2LoT, there is another change occurring at the same time, that being work done by the Sun.
2) The GHE only ever involves heat being transferred from the hotter surface to the colder atmosphere. All the extra back-radiation from increased CO2 does is reduce the rate of heat loss away from the surface. Since the surface is also receiving a constant supply of heat from the Sun, it thus warms.
1) and 2) are contradictory. If we take “heat” to mean the “net” energy flow between two opposing streams of IR radiation, as the GHE defenders would have it, for 1) to be correct there would have to be more downwelling radiation (back-radiation) than upwelling radiation. Whereas for 2) to be correct, there would have to be more upwelling radiation than downwelling radiation (back-radiation). So, clearly, 1) and 2) cannot both be correct. That is going with “heat” as the GHE defenders want to define it.
DREMT
“If we take heat to mean the net energy flow between two opposing streams of IR radiation,”
You are using a very strange definition of heat. No wonder we can’t have a sensible conversation.
Perhaps we need to agree on a common meaning for some very basic terms such as energy and heat before we even try to discuss the GHE.
Yes, the GHE defenders definition of “heat” as applied to radiative transfer is a strange one, but that is what you all abide by. It’s amusing that you’re now trying to pretend otherwise in an attempt to get yourself out of this pickle. Trouble for you is, 1) and 2) are still contradictory no matter how you define “heat”, as long as you apply that definition consistently between 1) and 2). The GHE cannot both involve a transfer of heat from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface, as per 1), and always involve heat transfer in the other direction, as per 2).
You were wrong, EM.
Ent, the braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll, is BACK!
He pontificates: “No wonder we can’t have a sensible conversation.”
Ent, you immature incompetent. There can’t be a sensible conversation here because of trolls like YOU. You’re the one that claims passenger jets fly backward. You claim this to protect your cult’s bogus belief in ancient astrologers.
Grow up, accept reality and abandon your false beliefs. Then, maybe we can educate you properly.
ent…”Perhaps we need to agree on a common meaning for some very basic terms such as energy and heat….”
***
They have both been well defined since the mid 19th century but those definitions contradict the AGW and GHE theories, therefore climate alarmists have had to meddle with the definitions.
Heat is the energy related to atomic motion. Energy cannot be defined, it is stated only as the ‘ability to do work’. If you consider work in a solid, it involves the vibration of atoms in a lattice. If you add heat, the vibrations increase and if you remove heat, they lessen. If you remove heat all the way down to 0K, the vibrations will stop altogether.
Words like heat, mechanical, electrical, chemical wrt to energy are only words used to describe a specific application of the undefined energy. In all cases, these different energies are unspecified motivators that cause an action.
Electromagnetic energy is defined as an electric field in phase with a magnetic field but orthogonal to it. Heat is defined as the kinetic energy of atoms. Of course, Maxwell and Boltzmann defined temperature of a gas as the same energy, which was pretty stupid in that they failed to define temperature.
The thing to get is that EM and heat have absolutely nothing in common as far as energy is concerned. Climate alarm depends on them being closely related.
Planck was more astute, he pointed out that humans invented temperature, density, distance, time, etc., based on properties of natural phenomena like water and distances and motions on the Earth. It’s plain that temperature is a measurement of relative heat levels, which is related to the kinetic energy of atomic motion.
If you have two bodies of different temperature radiating EM, the radiation is isotropic to each body and has nothing to do with the other body. There is never an intention of a body to radiate EM specifically at a target. The reality is that the other body is simply in the way and intercepts a fraction of the radiation.
Ergo, bodies do not exchange EM, there is no flow between them and no net flow. If a human brain wants to see a flow that flow is relative to that human mind and is an illusion.
If a hotter body radiates EM, that EM is derived from the equation E = hf. E is the energy difference between the orbital levels an electron dropped while emitting the EM and f is the angular frequency related to the orbiting electron. h is Planck’s constant.
EM from a hotter body has the proper frequency and intensity to excite electrons in a cooler body but the opposite is not true.
ent…”If we take heat to mean the net energy flow between two opposing streams of IR radiation,
***
Heat is energy, not a measure of energy. Heat it thermal energy named from the Greek word therme, meaning heat. Therme = thermal.
Heat as energy will flow naturally from hot to cold in a solid or liquid. With a gas or a vacuum, thermal energy must be converted to EM at the source and back again to heat at the cooler target. Technically, this is not a transfer of heat but a dual conversion between energy states.
“If we take heat to mean the net energy flow between two opposing streams of IR radiation”
That was me, not Ent, Gordon. However, I’m only accepting the GHE defenders definition of “heat” as being the “net” flow of energy for the sake of argument. Normally, it would be somebody like Ent saying that. Only this time he’s pretending that is not the way he defines “heat”. All very amusing.
> a dual conversion between energy states
Gaslighting Graham can only bow to you in terms of freakish geniusness, Bordo.
I wonder if or when we will finally see Entropic Man acknowledge his mistake:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1503360
EM obviously recognizes that either the two claims are compatible, or the second breaks thermo.
Most GHE defenders would say that neither “breaks thermo”. However, honest GHE defenders would admit that the two are contradictory.
P1. Energy is bidirectional.
P2. Backradiation is unidirectional.
C. Gaslighting Graham is a freaking genius.
What you said here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1503578
Is a total misrepresentation of what I’ve been saying. For what I am saying, try:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1503588
and
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1503611
Gaslighting Graham needs to accept a valid inference for once:
(GASLIGHTING GRAHAM) Back-radiation is only going one way.
(ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM) Energy flows in two directions, heat only in one direction.
The only relevant inference is that Gaslighting Graham is a freaking genius.
“Back-radiation” only flows in one direction. That does not mean it is a flow of heat. It just means that “back-radiation” is the name for one of the two opposing energy flows.
However, people often erroneously treat “back-radiation” as though it is a flow of heat. Like when they come to the conclusion that there is a temperature rise as a result of it.
Gaslighting Graham proved once again that backradiation *cannot* be energy.
A freaking genius.
No, that is your continued deliberate “misunderstanding”. You’re just trolling.
wee willy…”Graham proved once again that backradiation *cannot* be energy…”
***
That’s about as dumb as what your buddy Eli Rabbett claimed when G&T explained the 2nd law to them.
G&T tried to explain the 2nd law is about heat transfer and can only take place from hot to cold. Eli et al chimed in that if two bodies are radiating toward each other, the 2nd law would mean, according to Eli et al, that one body was not radiating.
You, like Eli et all, simply don’t get it that IR from a cooler body will be rejected by a hotter body. Some ask what that mans re the rejected radiation. Personally, I don’t care, it just isn’t absorbed.
“You, like Eli et all, simply dont get it that IR from a cooler body will be rejected by a hotter body. ”
Obviously not. OMG..where do you guys get such nutty ideas?
The heat loss by radiation from a warm body DEPENDS on the temperature of the cold surroundings.
Precisely because of the input of the IR from the cooler body to the warmer body.
Here is a typical source:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
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)”
Notice the minus sign in front of the cold body temperature.
That indicates it is a flux being input to the warm body and NOT REJECTED.
Ah, I see Nate has commented, waiting until the discussion is pretty much at an end before he does so, I note (as usual). So, no doubt he will have had the integrity to set Little Willy and Entropic Man straight. Good on him.
“pretty much at an end”
Tee heee hee!
And again, we get no answers, just juvenile ad homs.
…so, no doubt he will have had the integrity to set Little Willy and Entropic Man straight. Good on him.
Exactly, Nate.
Graham is pure genius.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Twofold purpose post
Sometimes, sun spot numbers published during the month by the Belgian SILSO as daily estimates don’t appear with exactly the same value in the official daily report after month’s end.
Still, even though such numbers don’t impact the monthly SSN reports (let alone their 13-month averages), it’s interesting to mention them for the current solar cycle 25:
2023 06 21 2023.470 222 25.4 27 32
2023 06 22 2023.473 230 16.3 25 31
2023 06 23 2023.475 223 12.9 28 32
Because SC25’s daily report then precedes SC24’s daily maximum of 220 (which occurred on February 27, 2014) by about 600 days in advance with regard to their respective start.
Still no GHE, oh what a pity! It’s the Sun, Stoopid.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1502115
As I predicted, the second purpose of the post – to incite Blindsley H00d’s eternal stalking – succeeded perfectly.
As I predicted, Blinny never answers anything.
Unlike my prediction above, which succeeded perfectly, yours is wrong, a failure if not an intentional lie.
I have answered your dumb stalking a while ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1501839
But you did not understand what I wrote, which is visible here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1502058
because your reaction makes no sense.
You are as always opinionated, stubborn and permanently, exclusively stick to those you appeal the authority of, in this case Goodman (not: Vaughan Pratt).
*
For the last time I answer; after that you may claim as long as you want I wouldn’t reply.
*
For you, there is ideologically only one ‘correct’ world:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JhsE353Gu_JahT-HxjES45lV2_E7xuoe/view
which makes no sense to me because already C5RM a la Goodman hast 242 of 534 inactive months.
I extended Vaughan Pratt’s series to level 6 and 7:
6 1.0622 1.1843 1.3391 1.5399 1.7008
7 1.0517 1.1593 1.2911 1.4749 1.6208 1.7859
giving as ‘Goodman windows with Pratt coefficients’
6 56 51 45 39 35
7 57 52 46 41 37 34
That means that if the leakage as computed by Pratt did not vanish at level 5 but would not before level 7, the inactive window then would be 327 months long, what is much more than half UAH’s data: that’s the small black line in the middle.
In case of a 90 month C7RM, the inactive window becomes… 491 months wide, what shows how nonsensical your extension of Goodman’s 12/10/8 looks like.
For you with your Butterworth complex and your endless search for data flattening, that’s all right.
For me, it isn’t, and therefore I deliberately chose this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DrnLeTEtiWZoI7b1r1ALYXVrnBWCy07U/view
because that way, I combine the decrease of leakage and distortion with an increase of expressiveness.
*
Vaughan Pratt’s interest in Goodman’s stuff and what you, Blindsley H00d think about it, is, when I read his answer on my mail to him, equal to zero dot zero.
Get over it!
His interests are focused on analyzing AGW.
*
Think what you want, Blindsley H00d.
Anyway, I won’t get rid of your endless stalking: you place your egoistic and egocentric show-off far above leaving others in peace.
“I have answered … a while ago”
As I did not pose the question about 12 month CTRM and a 13 month SRM until just now that is impossible.
As is your reading of what VPO proposed.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1502115
P.S. VP proposed that c(12,10,8) CTRM was a better replacement than a 12 month SRM. He gave precise mathematical reason for that. You seem to think that he meant 12+10+8=30 months. That looks nothing like a 12 month SRM but instead a 30 month filter (which it is).
“when I read his answer on my mail to him”
Did you ask him if c(12,10,8) was a 12 month filter or a 30 month one?
You two should roll up your charts into a tube and fight each other with them like light-sabers
Do you understand the principles involved?
I have been trying to understand the overall principle. If I draw a straight line through all the data points on the UAH graph from 1979 onward, by fitting the line to a visual average of all data points I get a trend line over the entire range from 1979 – 2023. If I want to do it more accurately, I can use one of many algorithms that do the same thing albeit far more precisely.
If I look at Roy’s graph above, I see he has included a red running average curve, which smooths out the data points to produce a localized curved trend (over a 13 month range rather than a 44 month range). I take it you and Binny are debating the use of such filters with regard to which one is best for a specific purpose.
Having said all that, I still don’t see how noise can be produced.
If you lookup any analysis about Simple Running Means (SRM) then they will give a standard response about the distortions it contains.
This is mainly to do with sampling with a square wave a continuous function.
Vaughan Pratt (along with Greg Goodman) gave a distinct proof that a near Gaussian filter (CTRM/F3) gave much less distortions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_average
“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.”
testing….
I can understand the SMA producing distortion. It makes more sense to me when you mention sampling a continuous wave with a square wave, as they do in A-D conversion. I can see the distortion produced there, which in a real-life A-D converter is smoothed by a capacitor for a more sophisticated circuit representing a capacitive action.
Don’t know if you are familiar with a smoothing filter in a D-C power supply. If an AC wave is rectified, it produces the positive half of a sine wave in a half-wave rectifier and a series of positive half wave humps in a full-wave rectifier. In either case, the humps need to be filled in to produce as close to a D-C wave as possible.
Enter the smoothing filter with an accompanying resistor to adjust the RC time constant. The capacitor charges to the peak of the sine wave and when the sine wave decreases in amplitude, the capacitor bleeds off at a much slower rate due to the time constant. So, you get a varying D-C with a ripple voltage that represent a distortion from what is desired.
Modern power supplies use far more sophistication and a semiconductor chip to get the ripple almost flat. The same principle is applied in A-D converters. However, the frequencies are much higher than the 60 hz of power supplies and capacitor filtering is far more effective at smoothing out the square wave sampling voltages.
With respect to Roy’s data above am I far off by considering the running mean to be a series of tangent lines to a curve, where each tangent line is the trend over a small range of data?
If you look at Roy’s 13 month SRM it has little wriggles on it which show the high frequency leak through.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2023_v6_20x9.jpg
I have long had a history with analogue filters (Butterworth Filters
being my favorite) which JLH (my uncle) introduced to me a long time ago. He had a habit of designing analogue amplifiers with no overshoot.
https://sound-au.com/tcaas/index-1.htm
Thanks for link, your uncle would have been a good guy to know.
In the oscilloscope scan pdf you can see a square wave with a thickened flat portion. The thickening is distortion. Same with sine waves, if they thicken at the peaks it is distortion.
Creating a square wave output with no over-shoot is no mean feat on a power amp.
I recall a long time ago measuring 2nd harmonic distortion on an oscilloscope. If you drive the push-pull stage too hard the peaks of the sine way will thicken, flatten, then develop a definite dimple in the peak, which is 2nd harmonic distortion (or maybe the dimple is 3rd harmonic…don’t remember). Your uncle superimposed the distortion curve somehow on top of the clean sine wave signal.
If I recall correctly, it occurs at the sine wave peaks because that’s where you are drawing max current from the power supply. If you increase the output amplitude till the power supply can no longer supply the current, the peak starts to flatten. Before that it will show 2nd harmonic distortion because you are in a non-linear range since the cutoff occurs slowly before shutting off completely.
Of course, we did all that using a power resistor in place of the speaker. Besides taking the chance of blowing the speaker, you may blow your ear drums first. Also, speakers don’t take kindly to the power produced by pure, constant sine wave.
I also noted that he preferred a class A setup to a class B (or class AB). In the latter, the two sine wave halves are produced by separate transistors and on a scope you can see a tiny bit of distortion where the two halves meet up. We called it bees knees distortion because it looked like bees knees on the scope. You can hear it as a raspy sound. The proper name is crossover distortion.
Crossover distortion is usually handled by pre-biasing the output transistors so one is already on as the other turns off. However, there is a moment of non-linearity and that produces distortion.
I have studied Butterworth filters but never applied the theory to them. I did build myself a 3rd octave equalizer at one time. It was an ugly device build on a plywood board and used by us in our sound system for music. It worked not bad all the same.
I modded one channel of my brother’s Fender tube amp as an over-drive/distortion unit for guitar. Tube amps use a power output transformer and that acted as a low pass filter to smooth out the distortion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterworth_filter#/media/File:Buttergr.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterworth_filter
Note the crossover point is at 70% (not -3db) in the 1930 paper.
JLH also did class B (or class AB) amplifiers, all with no overshoot in mind.
https://www.petervis.com/manuals/linsley-hood-75-watt-amp/linsley-hood-75-watt-amp.html
https://www.petervis.com/manuals/linsley-hood-75-watt-amp/circuit-diagram.html
Robertson
” With respect to Roys data above am I far off by considering the running mean to be a series of tangent lines to a curve, where each tangent line is the trend over a small range of data? ”
You are so terrifyingly ignorant…
Why don’t simply try to learn how the reality looks like instead of guessing and inventing nonsense all the time?
I spent a few minutes for you in Google Docs.
Here is a simple spreadsheet file with UAH’s source data for the Globe and a 13 month running mean, presented in the simplest chart possible:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W8zBtPcjOE0Adow3Q1P25hhBaD1PadRp_OUmEJMJmGo/edit#gid=0
The blue line is UAH’s data, and the red line is the running mean.
The mean is nothing else than the average of the current cell together with 6 cells before and 6 cells after the current cell.
Do you get it now?
SOI’s upward trend.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
There has been a supposed “evaluation” of IPCC AR6 by @ClintelOrg. The chapter regarding the Sun received an excellent rating by @curryja too, even though it is full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations. I will explain some of the issues
https://twitter.com/damagedonegr/status/1666344987947040768
A hurricane may develop in the eastern Pacific. The ocean surface temperature is very high in this region.
https://i.ibb.co/NmLY4WT/goes16-ir-epac.gif
It’s tropical storm Adrian:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
And behind it there a 60% chance of forming another tropical storm.
They seem to be predicting Adrian will become tropical hurricane, tomorrow.
The high chance became, Beatriz:
TROPICAL STORM BEATRIZ:
“Beatriz is forecast to rapidly become hurricane on Friday”
And is going in right direction towards me, but will takes days to close enough, and might disappear.
My weather is well over 100 F tomorrow, and Saturday reaching 108 F.
Then days of cloudy weather, cools and by next Thursday {if believe in 7 day forecasts] it get colder than is now.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
The organisation has close ties to Forum voor Democratie, the main Dutch nationalist party, and its leader Thierry Baudet, who has quoted statements by CLINTEL in the countrys House of Representatives.
https://www.desmog.com/climate-intelligence-foundation-clintel/
“DeSmog, formerly known as DeSmogBlog, is a Canadian-based website that is critical of people and organizations that question man-made climate change and alleges climate change skeptics are part of a misinformation campaign. It was co-founded in January 2006 by James Jim Hoggan, the founder of the Hoggan and Associates public relations firm in Vancouver. In 2013, Hoggan founded DeSmog Canada as a non-profit news magazine that has the same mission as DeSmog.
DeSmog controversies include the 2009 ‘Climategate’ email scandal, in which one of its writers admitted the blog is more about public relations than science.”
“Capital Research Center (CRC) is an American conservative non-profit organization located in Washington, D.C. Its stated purpose is “to study non-profit organizations, with a special focus on reviving the American traditions of charity, philanthropy, and voluntarism.” According to The Washington Post, it also discourages donations by corporations and non-profits supporting what it sees as liberal or anti-business policies. It monitors the giving of major liberal donors in the U.S.”
CRC has nothing to do with DeSmog.
CRC
“In 2011, Politico reported that CRC had received millions of dollars from conservative philanthropists over the years, with a total budget in 2009 of $1.4 million. Donors have included foundations run by the Koch family, the Scaifes, and the Bradleys. As of 2017, CRC had received more than $265,000 from ExxonMobil.
David Clarke, the former sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, is the chair of CRC’s American Law and Culture program. In 2017, the CRC launched the website ‘InfluenceWatch’ which focuses on identifying funding sources of progressive organizations and initiatives, and of progressive politicians”
CRC owns your source, dummy.
Willard is very unhappy he has competition
Not sure why getting help to take down Richard’s own site would make me unhappy, Gill.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“CRC owns your source”
I don’t think so.
https://www.desmog.com/capital-research-center/
“the DeSmog team works to expose corporate misinformation from major fossil fuel interests, including the likes of ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and others with a documented history of undermining climate science and action”
“According to the most recent data available from Greenpeace, the Capital Research Center has received at least $699,200 from Koch-related foundations between 1987 and 2015.”
https://www.influencewatch.org/organization/desmog/
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/desmog-media-bias
DeSmog is a news media source with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Lean Left.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/capital-research-center-media-bias
Capital Research Center is a think tank / policy group source with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Lean Right
Read the damn links, dummy.
Willard can’t tell his left from his right.
https://www.allsides.com/topics/media-bias?search=media%20bias
Richard can’t tell that he quoted from Influence Watch, which is a project from the CRC.
Neither AllSides nor DeSmog owes their creation to Capital Research Center.
Allsides has its own bias, and Richard quoted a project from the CRC.
The first quote offered by Richard:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1503599
comes from a project by the CRC.
“Welcome to CRC’s work-in-progress, InfluenceWatch.”
https://www.influencewatch.org/about-us/
Why would I believe a right wing caucus?
Why would you quote from a website you distrust?
I just point out that left and right have a meaning that you seem to have forgotten.
I am just pointing out that you have quoted from a website that is a project from the CRC.
No it isn’t.
“Welcome to CRCs work-in-progress, InfluenceWatch.”
Hoggan was a PR man in the David Suzuki Foundation, an uber-alarmist site. I first saw him as a talking head in the CBC witch hunt of Fred Singer, offering up irrelevant information on Singer’s past. No one knew who he was and the CBC did not care as long as someone smeared Singer.
Hoggan was not particular about where he got his money for desmog, he accepted money from a convicted money launderer.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150216170159/http://sppiblog.org/news/the-truth-about-desmogblog-and-sourchwatch
https://web.archive.org/web/20070228114624/http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/four_corners_reaches_for_the_slime_bucket/
It makes no sense to me that alarmists continue to support people like Hoggan and desmogblog. Unless, of course, they are corrupt themselves.
As of November, 2010, the SPPI still described itself a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy. According to SourceWatch, In early 2011, Executive Director Robert Ferguson said SPPI had not been granted nonprofit status from the IRS for more than 3 years after it was formed.
https://www.desmog.com/climate-intelligence-foundation-clintel/
wee willy attacks the messenger while ignoring the truth about desmogblog, that they are funded by a convicted money launderer and run by a PR man who knows nothing about science.
C’mon, Bordo.
You attack Desmog without contesting the facts laid out.
What goes for you, goose, goes for the gander.
“DeSmog controversies include the 2009 Climategate email scandal, in which one of its writers admitted the blog is more about public relations than science.”
Indeed it is there to inform the public about the backgrounds of the people telling them stuff.
And?
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/desmog-media-bias
DeSmog is a news media source with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Lean Left.
“AllSides started in 2012, co-founded by John Gable (Lean Right bias) and Scott McDonald (Center bias).”
https://www.allsides.com/about/ownership
Balanced overall.
Not really:
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
If you look up John Christy and Roy on desmog you’ll get dirt on them too, none of it true. Why you would use a scumbag site like desmog for reference in unknown. It does reveal your true nature, however.
If you look up at the names in the list, Bordo, you would be hard pressed to find any crank that has yet to reach your level of crankiness.
You are very special.
Desmog is just a political smear site. May as well be reading campaign literature 24/7
Gill, Gill,
This is an Arby’s.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Desmog is just a political smear site.”
Nah. It shows real quotes and bios of people.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/desmog-media-bias
DeSmog is a news media source with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Lean Left.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/capital-research-center-media-bias
Capital Research Center is a think tank / policy group source with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Lean Right
Ok. Smearing means spreading false information.
They dont, because they present real bios and quotes.
That is left leaning.
https://www.allsides.com/about/ownership
This is right leaning.
But in fairness, to present real bios and quotes indeed indicates a left-wing bias.
IMO the science of climate change is not left or right. It just is uncovering what is happening.
The POLICY responses to it lean left or right.
But people do mix those things together.
People on the right feel they need to dismiss/doubt climate change science, (as every R candidate for President did in 2016) mostly because they don’t like the policy implications, and because they are required to oppose anything that the left is concerned about.
“AllSides started in 2012, co-founded by John Gable (Lean Right bias) and Scott McDonald (Center bias). AllSides For Schools, a separate non-profit project of the Mediators Foundation, was co-founded in 2015 by Gable, McDonald and Joan Blades (Left bias). Since 2016, AllSides and its properties, including AllSides.com and its mobile application, have been owned and run by AllSides Technologies, Inc”
So balanced overall.
“AllSides was founded in 2012 by John Gable, a former Republican political aide turned Silicon Valley manager working at Netscape, and Scott McDonald, a software developer.”
Nate says:
”People on the right feel they need to dismiss/doubt climate change science, (as every R candidate for President did in 2016) mostly because they dont like the policy implications, and because they are required to oppose anything that the left is concerned about.”
Boy our education system really went in the toilet when they steered away from traditional ethics.
Now the left feels everything the right does is because of the left. Talk about conceit.
The right does not like policy action on climate change because it most likely will result in a loss of prosperity for the people. The left never pays attention to national prosperity its all about satisfying every whim and because they know nothing about a cost/benefit risk analysis they just make up whatever they need to make it look right.
Sir, this is an Arbys.
Climate change is printing fake money, bet you didn’t know this
https://youtu.be/QqfnxAYcTxI
She’s too stupid to talk about science.
This sounds like a fortune teller who cried “Unless we take action on climate change, future generations will be roasted, toasted, fried and grilled.”.
Her exact words. Hopefully she’s not in charge of anything important like the IMF.
Oh, wait . . .
Well let’s see if there was heat related damage to agriculture, then …
https://www.bqprime.com/business/already-farmers-see-the-impact-of-heat-waves-on-agriculture#:~:text=Early%20onset%20of%20summers%20and,million%20tonnes%20the%20year%20before.
Or damage from severe weather:
https://www.fb.org/market-intel/new-estimates-reveal-major-2022-weather-disasters-caused-over-21-billion-in-crop-losses
EM wrote –
“Perhaps we need to agree on a common meaning for some very basic terms such as energy and heat before we even try to discuss the GHE.”
No point at all, until some delusional SkyDragon cultist manages to provide a cogent description of the so-far elusive GHE.
Here’s Wee Willy Wanker’s attempt “not cooling, slower cooling.”
Or the idiotic bobdroege – “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Ball4 claims to described the GHE “thousands of times”, and his description can be found “on the internet”.
EM can’t provide any sort of description at all. He prefers “discussion” about something he can’t describe. Devilishly cunning, or exceptionally stupid?
Who knows?
Mike Flynn,
It was not my attempt, goofball.
It was yours.
I think you should speak more respectfully of Mike Flynn. I remember Mike when he was here and he was a good guy.
” I remember Mike when he was here and he was a good guy. ”
Oh yes, he was, sometimes.
Especially along a Roy Spencer thread where ‘Mike’ tried to explain to you that GPS implementations must take into account Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity, which you bluntly dismissed, so he then cowardly backed off rather than lecture you.
Mike Flynn is still around.
He is a little more coward than when he was a little rookie.
LOL! Willard misses Mike Flynn so much he conjured up a sock puppet.
Gill, Gill,
Moron Mike’s latest sock was here before I was:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/07/observed-decrease-in-u-s-child-mortality-during-the-covid-19-lockdown-of-2020/#comment-504096
In fairness, that sock disappeared for a while. Mike tried a come back under another name. For some reason he got found out. His new sock returned.
Willard’s Mike Flynn obsession keeps on. I suppose he thinks it an excellent diversion away from the fact that his description of the GHE “cooling over time” is quite idiotic.
Delusional thinking.
Moron Mike,
Let me jog your memory:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/03/taxonomy-of-climateenergy-policy-perspectives/#comment-672180
Live well and prosper.
Whacky Wee Willy,
What are you on about?
Do you disagree with what Mike Flynn wrote? Are you appealing to his authority?
If you are, you are deranged. He has pointed out physical facts, which rather destroy your imaginary notion of global warming, or heating, or anything of that sort.
You could always stick with your description of the GHE being “not cooling, cooling over time”, and try and convince other idiots that cooling means getting hotter! Maybe Vaughan Pratt might be dumber than you, do you think?
You idiot.
Moron Mike,
Why would I disagree with your own description of the greenhouse effect?
Deceitful cretin.
Willard I know you ‘suspect that Swenson is Mike Flynn but you suspect a lot of stuff that isn’t a fact.
Where is your statistically sensible argument that Swenson is Mike Flynn?
Gill, you goose.
The inference is more direct than that.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Of course it was, idiot. Go on, try and weasel out of your stupidity by providing a different “description”. Can’t do it, can you?
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t!
Maybe you prefer bobdroege’s form of idiocy – “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Who’s the more clueless peabrain – you or bobdroege? Are you Dumb or Dumber?
[sniggering at nitwit hoist with his own petard]
Moron, Mike,
Perhaps you are too much of a cretin that it was your own argument, e.g.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/diagnosing-climate-sensitivity-assuming-some-natural-warming/#comment-287816
Perhaps you are just deceitful.
Chances are you are a deceitful cretin.
Deceitful cretin.
Wee Willy Desperate,
Not even a good try. Cooling is not heating. Slower cooling is not heating.
You said the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling” – presumably because idiots think that “cooling” is really heating.
Go on, then, try and describe the GHE – you are stuck with your idiotic “not cooling, slower cooling”.
The planet has cooled since its formation, and the surface does so every night.
There is no GHE, and you are an idiot troll.
Moron Mike,
You know the drill
Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor.
Do you think an atmosphere would keep him warm for a longer time than without an atmosphere?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”The longwave radiation exchange is a two way process. Longwave radiation emitted by the atmosphere (downward radiation, Ldn) is [A-ed] by the ground surface and simultaneously it is emitted from the ground surface to the atmosphere (upward radiation, Lup)”.
***
This demonstrates the utter pseudo-science on which AGW and the GHE theory is built.
Wee willy mangled the word in brackets, probably intentionally. He wrote it as [A-ed] whereas it should have been ‘absorbed’. Back-radiated longwave IR from a cooler atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the surface that radiated it in the first place.
This article fails to explain how IR from a cooler atmosphere can be absorbed at the same time IR is being emitted. Even if the GHGs and the surface were in thermal equilibrium, we know no heat transfer will take place. The GHGs would obviously need to be hotter than the surface and I’d like to see them explain how they got hotter.
Come on, Bordo.
At some point I just stop trying to find which A-word triggers the filter and edit them all.
The article does not need to explain something irrelevant for what it presented.
That is just a silly sammich request.
Willard, please stop trolling.
the filer is normally triggered by d-c, r-p, and p-t. The word absorbed has none of them but absorp-tion does, making a lie of what I just said.
Thanks, Bordo, but I will forget it.
Gordo, the article Willard posted reminds us that the upward IR emissions from a surface can be easily measured and the downward IR from the atmosphere can also be measured at the same time. Move those instruments to higher elevations in the atmosphere and one can then measure the upward and downward emissions from within the atmosphere. The fact is, the GHG’s would not need to exhibit a higher temperature than the surface for those downward emissions to be absorbed.
Same old story, Gordo insists back radiation from a cooler source can not be absorbed by a warmer body, but he still can not describe what happens to the energy represented by the thermal IR.
You keep playing this game Swanson despite the evidence to the contrary from RW Woods and the 2 comparment box experiment examined by you all here without anything close to what you project happening.
When are you going to give up?
Hunter suggests that I “give up” because R.W. Woods 1909 experiment proved that greenhouses are warmed primarily by curtailing convective losses. As V. Pratt demonstrated, that experiment didn’t dis-prove the GHE. I think that Hunter needs to get off his high horse and study some more recent physics. Quite a lot has been learned about the atmosphere since WW I when aircraft were made of wood and fabric.
swannie…measuring IR tells us nothing about heat. I am not arguing that IR can be measured up the way and down the way, I am claiming that IR down the way is from cooler trace gases therefore cannot be absorbed by a warmer surface.
The instruments of which you speak do not measure heat, they measure the frequencies of the IR and that is converted in the instrument according to a pre-calibrated algorithm calculated in a lab. If you compared the frequency of the out-going IR it would be higher than the back-radiated IR. The mistake made by alarmists is concluding that the measurement of IR is a measurement of heat. The returned IR frequncy would be too low to be absorbed by a hotter surface.
I am also claiming that IR radiated by the surface is at the expense of surface heat. In other words, the heat associated with it is lost as the IR is radiated. If a portion of the radiated surface IR is absorbed by trace gases, it can heat the gases and they will in turn radiate IR back to the surface. However, they radiate energy up the way, down the way, and laterally, therefore only a fraction of the energy they absorb is radiated back to the surface.
And remember, the absorbing GHGs are less than 1% of atmospheric gases over the entire atmosphere. They simply cannot radiate that much energy back compared to the amount that was originally radiated.
The AGW theory fails to account for losses. A massive amount of heat is lost over the entire surface of the Earth as IR is radiated and only a small percent is sent back. Even if it could be absorbed at the surface, there simply is not enough back-radiation to make up for the heat lost when the IR was radiated initially.
The energy budget is in serious error. There is simply no way more IR can be sent back than what is radiated. Even if that was the case, the back-radiated energy from a cooler source would produce no heat in the surface.
Gordo, as usual, gives a long list of falsehoods, beginning with:
Gordo still can’t be bothered to explain what happens to the downwelling IR energy, if it isn’t absorbed. It doesn’t dissipate, as Gordo has repeatedly claimed, since that would be a violation of the 1st Law of Thermo.
Furthermore, he gets lost in another rant, displaying his basic ignorance of science:
Sorry, Gordo, the instruments include pyroheliometers to measure downwelling SW and Pyrgeometer to measure downwelling IR radiation. HERE’s an example of such an instrument from Kipp & Zonen.
Woops, I grabbed the wrong url for the Wili about Pyrgeometer instruments. Here’s the correct one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer
ES,
You wrote –
“Same old story, Gordo insists back radiation from a cooler source can not be absorbed by a warmer body, but he still can not describe what happens to the energy represented by the thermal IR.”
You blithering idiot. Photons (energy) just keep going/being until they interact with matter. You must be the sort of idiot that believes that radiation from ice is absorbed by liquid water. Or that visible light cannot travel though transparent objects without let or hindrance!
Posing your stupid gotchas makes you look like an idiot to anybody who accepts reality.
You carry on pretending you know what you are talking about, but you can’t even describe the mythical GHE! How pathetic does that make you look?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“You must be the sort of idiot that believes that radiation from ice is absorbed by liquid water.”
ES is not alone:
https://www.metlink.org/experiment/boiling-water-with-ice/
Willard you idiot,
You don’t understand physics, do you?
The temperature fell, you nitwit.
Moron Mike,
You say –
“The temperature fell.”
Yet the water started to boil again.
How do you explain that?
Capitalism-ish
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2yoOOTC-Lk
Endless, Timeless, etc.
I would say Capitalism doesn’t exist.
No one believes in capitalism. People believe in doing their
job {whatever job it is- ie, bankers do their job. A farmer may
believe in doing the hard work of farming. If you think farmers
are noble and only good people in existence- that might count as an ism, depending the strength of our faith. And I wouldn’t necessarily call it a bad religion.
Maybe capitalism has idea, that if you “start” with money you have
good chance of getting more money. Which more or less, right, but is dependent on many factors. If start out with good education- it’s more predictive of the future. And educationalism is not really, a ism.
Serendipitously –
“George Washington University Law School professor Mary Anne Franks, who filed a brief in the case on behalf of First Amendment scholars, lamented Tuesday’s decision.
‘It is deeply disappointing that the Supreme Court has chosen not only to allow stalkers to act with impunity, but to do so on the basis that stalking is free speech protected by the First Amendment,’ Franks said.”
It’s a start. Your hurt feelings aren’t a good enough reason to send someone to jail.
This ruling supports 235 years of jurisprudence in determining the limits of free speech. Credible threat of harm is the limit. Being angry and saying you hope somebody dies doesn’t come close to qualifying.
“Counterman, citing mental illness and delusions, argued that his posts were not intended to be threatening and thus constitute protected speech.”
No wonder Mike Flynn found that story.
Wayward Wee Willy,
Have you appointed yourself naming censor? You assign commenters’ names as you see fit?
You’re an idiot. Just because Mike Flynn rebuffed your homosexual advances, you want to transfer your fixation to me. Eeeeew!
You’re a strange laddie, Wee Willy. No wonder nobody values your opinions. You live in a world of your own.
Keep it up. Are you still trying to say that “cooling over time” results in heating? Is that how the GHE affects nighttime cooling?
Idiot.
Moron Mike,
I know of only one moron who keeps harping about that kind of silliness:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/02/heat-waves-exacerbated-by-global-warming/#comment-714700
Perhaps you tried to hide your style for a while, but it’s really hard to hide for a long period.
You are Mike Flynn.
We all know it.
Cheers.
Wondering Wee Willy,
And? Is that it?
You idiot.
Moron Mike,
And?
And you still deny it.
That makes you a deceitful cretin.
Whining Wee Willy,
And? Is that it?
Yes, silly sock puppet.
There is nothing else to add.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
I’m not sure if anybody really cares about your Mike Flynn fixation, particularly as you can’t or won’t explain why it obsesses you to such a degree.
I suppose because I use an expression like “hoist with his own petard” you are going to claim that I am the reincarnation of William Shakespeare? Oh dear, Willard, if the best that you can do is whine about irrelevancies, you look pretty stupid.
Feel free to keep calling me whatever you like. It still won’t make a GHE description magically appear, will it? Have you considered you might actually be wrong, and that you have leapt to an incorrect conclusion? If leaping to conclusions was an Olympic event, I can assure everyone that you would be on the podium.
Idiot.
Moron Mike,
Enjoy:
https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/29/u-s-house-hearing-on-the-ipcc-process/#comment-576186
Live well and prosper.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Im not sure if anybody really cares about your Mike Flynn fixation, particularly as you cant or wont explain why it obsesses you to such a degree.
I suppose because I use an expression like hoist with his own petard you are going to claim that I am the reincarnation of William Shakespeare? Oh dear, Willard, if the best that you can do is whine about irrelevancies, you look pretty stupid.
Feel free to keep calling me whatever you like. It still wont make a GHE description magically appear, will it? Have you considered you might actually be wrong, and that you have leapt to an incorrect conclusion? If leaping to conclusions was an Olympic event, I can assure everyone that you would be on the podium.
Idiot.
Moron Mike,
I don’t give a toss about your “obsession.”
You obviously are Mike Flynn.
Copy-paste your comment again, deceitful cretin.
And if I don’t?
Idiot. I do as I wish.
Not repeating your comments all the time might be a better way to express the absolute freedom you revendicate, deceitful cretin.
And if I dont?
Idiot. I do as I wish.
Oh, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop your idiotic trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Arkansas owes a Jewish man $500 but wont pay up because he refuses to sign a pledge to not boycott Israel.
https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2023/05/02/arkansas-owes-a-jewish-man-500-but-wont-pay-up-because-he-refuses-to-sign-a-pledge-to-not-boycott-israel
Mike Mann, who is Jewish, refuses to pay a court judgement against him because he is a Mighty Climate Warrior, and can’t lose defamation cases!
His feelings were hurt, so he shouldn’t have to pay. On the other hand, he said “As someone of Jewish ancestry, I’m truly horrified that anyone could be so cynical and insensitive as to belittle the atrocities of Nazi Germany in this way. Absolutely disgusting:”
Oh the horror! People saying what they think! Disgusting!
This from a man who is a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat.
No doubt one of Weepy Wee Willie’s heroes.
Still no description of the GHE, although Willards “cooling over time” is as idiotic as they come. Surely someone, somewhere can come up with something better.
Mike Flynn,
Perhaps you ignore the context:
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-declines-to-review-challenge-to-law-restricting-israel-boycotts
Perhaps that now you know the context you will continue to ignore it.
Weird Wee Willy,
I don’t give a toss about your “context”. What are you babbling about, anyway?
Is it relevant to the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael,Mann?
Or to your description of the GHE as “cooling over time”?
I didn’t think so.
Carry on.
Moron Mike,
Your concerns are duly noted.
Here you go –
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-dummies
Live long and prosper.
Weird Wee Willy,
I dont give a toss about your “context”. What are you babbling about, anyway?
Is it relevant to the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann?
Or to your description of the GHE as cooling over time?
I didnt think so.
Carry on.
Moron Mike,
You are trying to deflect instead of addressing the freeze peach issue.
Deceitful cretin.
Weird Wee Willy,
I dont give a toss about your “context” What are you babbling about, anyway?
Is it relevant to the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann?
Or to your description of the GHE as cooling over time?
I didnt think so.
Carry on.
You already said that, Moron Mike.
Should I give a toss?
“I dont give a toss about your context. What are you babbling about, anyway?”
Very strange indeed that Mike chose to respond to your original post, then claims he doesnt know or care about what you are babbling about.
Maybe not so strange. Its Mike Flynn.
Nate, please stop your idiotic trolling.
wee willy…”[TEAM SCIENCE] The longwave radiation exchange is a two way process”.
***
Team Science is full of rabbit droppings. There is no long wave exchange.
> There is no long wave exchange.
In your head perhaps, Bordo:
https://www.wufi-wiki.com/mediawiki/index.php/Details:LongWaveExchange
Elsewhere it’s another story.
Wonky Wee Willy, you’ve done it again!
From your source –
“Therefore, while a component surface radiates its long-wave emission evenly into the whole half-space, only the radiation it receives from the solid angle occupied by terrestrial objects (the so-called terrestrial counterradiation) has comparable intensity. The long-wave radiation received from the solid angle occupied by the sky (the so-called atmospheric counterradiation), on the other hand, has usually less intensity than the emission radiated towards the sky – even if the atmosphere and the emitting surface have the same temperature. Thus a component surface emits more radiation than it receives from the surroundings as a whole, and it suffers a continuous heat loss.”
The surface emits more radiation than it receives – continuous heat loss – commonly known as “cooling”.
You dont understand what you link to, do you? Or do you go out of your way to appear idiotic?
Keep it up.
Mike Flynn,
You proclaim –
“The surface emits more radiation than it receives”
Have you really thought this through?
Witless Wee Willy,
That’s what your source says – “Thus a component surface emits more radiation than it receives from the surroundings as a whole, and it suffers a continuous heat loss.”
Are you just stupid, or really, really, stupid?
Do you even bother reading the authorities to which you appeal, or do you not understand what you read?
[laughing at idiot’s stupidity]
Moron Mike,
Here is the complete sentence –
“Thus a component surface emits more radiation than it receives from the surroundings as a whole, and it suffers a continuous heat loss.”
Usually, the radiation a surface receives does not come from its immediate surroundings. In the case of a kitchen range, that can change.
You can’t spend more money that you receive unless you borrow it. You can of course do like Enron did and fabricate some. That’s illegal in finance, and impossible in thermo.
Cheers.
Witless Wee Willy,
Thats what your source says “Thus a component surface emits more radiation than it receives from the surroundings as a whole, and it suffers a continuous heat loss..
Are you just stupid, or really, really, stupid?
Do you even bother reading the authorities to which you appeal, or do you not understand what you read?
[laughing at idiots continuing stupidity]
Moron Mike,
The Sun emits more radiation into the solar system than it receives from it.
The Earth cannot emit more than it received from the Sun.
And so on and so forth.
You are too much of a deceitful cretin to complicate any of this.
Weary Wee Willard,
In a fit of denial of reality, you burbled –
“The Earth cannot emit more than it received from the Sun.”
Of course it can – and does.
It’s a big blob of mostly glowing stuff, a long way from the Sun. The unconcentrated rays of the sun cannot heat anything on the Earth’s surface to more than 90 C or so. Even on the airless moon, about 125 C is the maximum.
Anybody, (with more mental capacity than you can muster), can work out that if the surface was once molten, and the interior is still glowing hot, that the Earth has indeed emitted vastly more energy than it has received from the Sun! It has cooled. More energy out than in. As Baron Fourier (he of the Series, Decomposition etc.) said, during the night, the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s primordial heat.
This is how physicists like Lord Kelvin worked backwards to calculate the age of the Earth, based on Fourier’s writings. Kelvin made a few assumptions which were wrong, so he got the wrong answer.
He still knew more than you.
He was no idiot.
Your pet Lord could not create energy out of thin air, Moron Mike.
Neither can you and your wild bunch of Sky Dragon cranks.
Sorry not sorry.
Willard, you are correct. CO2 cannot make anything warmer. That is why delusional,SkyDragon cultists are idiots.
It actually can, Moron Mike.
It actually can.
Willard, please stop the idiotic trolling.
These are not the magic words, Moron Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Carbon based lifeforms
https://youtu.be/PJB2jsKjQ7M
Dark Matter Evidence, Oort Cloud Shape, Size of Lagrange Points
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvQOatYAmIw
So, center of our galaxy is zone you can’t see {unless using infrared
wavelength}.
He mentioned interstellar objects.
We have seen them and there suppose to lot of them but lack the observational ability to see them {need more telescopes and/or can see large portion of sky {which btw we will be getting next year}.
But anyhow, I was wondering that since Sol is traveling so fast around our galaxy- why don’t see any interstellar objects going really, really fast.
Is finding alien life the most important scientific discovery?
It’s not clear to me.
How does it help anything?
It seems it could be dangerous or seem quite exciting.
It seems finding mineable water anywhere beyond Earth [the Moon counts] seems pretty important. And that it happen, soon, makes it
more important.
What have been the most important scientific discoveries?
Apparently, it’s popular question.
I tend to think waste treatment was important, which is related
to a popular, mention, ie:
–Louis Pasteur
Before French chemist Louis Pasteur began experimenting with bacteria in the 1860s, people did not know what caused disease. He not only discovered that disease came from microorganisms, but he also realized that bacteria could be killed by heat and disinfectant. This idea caused doctors to wash their hands and sterilize their instruments, which has saved millions of lives.–
https://www.carbonscientific.co.uk/blogs/news/what-are-the-greatest-scientific-discoveries-of-all-time
And for global warming cargo cultists, wiki gives:
“1896 Svante Arrhenius derives the basic principles of the greenhouse effect”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discoveries
But getting back to first one:
The Copernicum System
Gravity
Electricity
Evolution
Louis Pasteur
Theory of Relativity
The Big Bang Theory
Penicillin
DNA
Periodic Table
Quantum Theory
HIV/AIDS
Artificial Intelligence
Medical imaging
Antibiotics
The Internet
Detecting the first gravitational waves
Shaking up the human family tree
Revealing thousands of new exoplanets
CRISPR technology
Ebola outbreak
Higgs boson
A new spaceflight era
COVID-19 vaccine
And guy gives his preference:
Above all, my chosen top 4 scientific discoveries are down to my knowledge and interests so what interests me and what I have learnt over the years will undoubtedly have a huge influence.
Electricity
Internet
Periodic Table
Covid 19 Vaccine
I am sad to leave out work done on furthering space exploration, Ebola, Higgs boson, exoplanets, gravitational waves, antibiotics, medical imaging, The Big Bang Theory, The Copernicum System, Evolution and Pasteur as I think they all have their place, but when confronted with only 5 options then some wont make the cut.
I think I would pick:
Pasteur
space exploration
Discovering Space rocks hit Earth
exoplanets
Plate tectonics
And if there is mining water on the moon- US military gets
credit.
I would say electricity/magnetism and internet as they are important.
I know, space exploration includes space rocks and exoplanets, has a lot to do with internet:
Printing press
Pasteur
Electricity
Space exploration
You could say the Torah and it was an alien origin, rather
than human discovery.
Also a contender for mineable water could be discovering the effects
of artificial gravity.
If artificial gravity is very similar to natural gravity- it might
not be considered important.
But part of artificial gravity is testing the effects of lower gravity, ie Mars gravity.
This is fun.
So heat only exists when it is moving by conduction.
Therefore my “hot” cup of tea contains no heat.
Heat cannot travel from the Sun to the Earth.
When I warm my cold hands in front of a fire no heat travels from the fire to my hands.
This is why I prefer to use “energy” rather than “heat”. It allows for transformation between different forms of energy without having to specify every transformation.
I have no idea who you are responding to, but it seems like you are having fun bashing a lot of silly straw men.
As I explained:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1503611
No matter how you define “heat”, 1) and 2) are contradictory. You were mistaken to say they were both correct. Can you admit you were wrong?
DREMT
Here are the definitions I use.
Energy is the capacity for doing work.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, though it can be transferred or transformed. (1LOT)
Work is the transfer of energy from one location to another or its transformation from one form to another. Work can never be 100% effecient. Some of the input energy always escapes, usually as waste heat.(2LOT),
Heat is stored as the kinetic energy of particles in a fluid or the energy of vibration in a molecule or a solid. It can be transferred from one particle to another by conduction or collision, the transfer also being known as heat.
Electromagnetic radiation stores energy as an oscillation in an electric and magnetic field propagating at the speed of light. The quantity of energy is determined by the wavelength and each energy packet is known as a photon.
Care to comment before I go on to discuss the GHE?
There is no need to discuss definitions, and no need to discuss the GHE.
1) and 2) are contradictory, no matter how you define “heat”, as I explained in the linked comment.
You can either concede the point, or remain incorrect without conceding. Up to you.
Allow me continue my chain of reasoning. Are you happy with my descriptions of energy, heat and work?
OK. you remain incorrect without conceding.
Not what I was asking. Do you agree with my descriptions of energy, work and heat? If not, how do you describe them.
I’ll ask another necessary question too. Do you agree that a warmer and a cooler object can exchange energy by emitting and absorbing photons?
EM,
No wonder you can’t describe the GHE.
idiot.
You don’t listen, do you?
It doesn’t matter how you define “heat”, as long as your definition is consistent between 1) and 2).
If you try to defend 1), you are saying that the GHE involves heat transfer from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. That then contradicts 2), which states that heat transfer is always from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere in the GHE.
If you try to defend 2), you are saying that the GHE always involves heat transfer from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler surface. That then leaves you no possibility of defending 1), because “always” means “always”. There is no room for an exception to that rule, which 1) would be.
The only way you can try to suggest 1) and 2) aren’t contradictory is to change the way I have worded them. Which I will not permit.
[GRAHAM] It doesnt matter how you define heat,
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] you are saying that the GHE always involves heat transfer from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler surface.
This issue has been settled. bob and Little Willy lost.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] It doesnt matter how you define heat
[MIGHTY TIM] As you note later, heat, Q, is the net flow of energy between the two due to their temperature difference.
[BOB] the GHE is about the transfer of energy from cold to hot, not heat. Thats your problem, you think its about heat when its only about energy.
Random arrangements of out of context quotes, including false accusations from bob, won’t save you, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Perhaps what words mean matters after all.
It does not matter how you define "heat" for 1) and 2) to be contradictory, as I explained at 4:28 PM.
That’s why E Man kept trying to make it about definitions. So he could avoid the point being made, and make it look as if I was the one being evasive.
Anything that moves from cold to hot requires work. If it does not require work, it moves from hot to cold.
Pretty consistent.
…does not matter how you define "heat" for 1) and 2) to be contradictory, as I explained at 4:28 PM.
That’s why E Man kept trying to make it about definitions. So he could avoid the point being made, and make it look as if I was the one being evasive.
Anything that moves from cold to hot requires work. If it moves from hot to cold, it does not require work.
Hard to be more consistent than that.
Little Willy, there’s no point talking to you about any subject. Ever.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] There is no such thing as “net heat”,
[MIGHTY TIM] As you note later, “heat”, Q, is the net flow of energy between the two due to their temperature difference.
Exactly. "Net energy". Not "net heat".
Here are two propositions:
(P1) Heat is not energy.
(P2) Heat is net flow of energy.
These are inconsistent propositions.
It’s the GHE defenders definition of "heat" as it relates to radiation, Little Willy. Please continue to take pot-shots at it.
DREMT won the battle but lost the war,
In winning his little battle he admitted that there is downwelling IR from the atmosphere to the surface and that there are heat engines operating in the atmosphere.
Thereby admitting there is a Greenhouse Effect.
Good job DREMT, in knocking down a couple of straw men.
bob lost the battle, the war, and what little remaining dignity he had left.
“In winning his little battle he admitted that there is downwelling IR from the atmosphere to the surface”
It’s not my fault you have never paid attention to the fact that virtually no GHE skeptics question the existence of downwelling IR from the atmosphere to the surface.
“and that there are heat engines operating in the atmosphere.”
bob, I’m hardly likely to deny the existence of, for example, a Hadley cell. That doesn’t mean there’s a GHE!
Gaslighting Graham needs to take heed of at least two lessons from this episode. The first is that when he should learn to take his “It doesnt matter how you define heat” more srsly than he did. The second is to learn to treat quantifiers with more respect than he does. I wish I could hope he learns to dig what Bob’s saying and doing, but then it’s obvious that he won’t.
And the most beautiful of it all is that all Gaslighting Graham could realize that the two main types of models have been debated to death already in the links I provided. (In fact it’s the main story Sabine sells.) If there was a one-size-fit-all explanation, it would have been known decades ago. In the end, they are all more or less equivalent. So it’s not like there’s some kind of omerta that applies.
While Gaslighting Graham’s sentiment is understandable, the idea that there’s an inherent contradiction is preposterous. Worse is that he’s trying to sell one that applies whatever the definition of heat one could find. This can only end badly for him once we realize that the logical structure of the two claims makes both claims the two sides of a same coin.
Little Willy and bob were wrong. That is the take home message from this feature presentation.
Gaslighting Graham is still struggling.
Perhaps this will help –
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/#comment-17719
The comment thread is also nice. Bob will notice many remarks he made amidst Gaslighting Graham’s goading and baiting.
“the idea that there’s an inherent contradiction is preposterous. Worse is that he’s trying to sell one that applies whatever the definition of heat one could find.“
It’s obvious to anybody with basic reading comprehension skills. 1) and 2) are contradictory. Tim agreed. You lost.
Its good to see that DREMT has logical mind.
But when it comes to sky-dragon-slayer dogma, eg the GHE and the GPE violate the 2LOT, he is more than happy to switch it off.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1504161
I see Nate has jumped in late, again. I would simply repeat my previous comment, but I know from previous experience that when I do so, he seems to think we are having a discussion! I just don’t know how to get across to him that I’m no longer interested in talking to him, since he cannot be reasoned with.
I note that Graham still kneels to Mighty Tim. I also note that he still ignores that his first formulation of (2) contained a blunder. I finally note that he *borrowed* the correction Bob offered him without acknowledgment.
There are other notes.
The Hadley cells transporting heat towards the poles, making them warmer than they would be without the Hadley cells is one of the manifestations of the Greenhouse Effect.
So again you post a property of the Greenhouse Effect while simultaneously claiming the Greenhouse Effect does not exist.
That’s what you call a contradiction.
Also, downwelling IR is the Greenhouse Effect, except for the downwelling IR coming from the Sun.
So essentially you are saying no Greenhouse Effect deniers deny the existence of the Greenhouse Effect.
Well Played.
No kneeling, no blunder, no correction. I simply posted something irrefutably correct and then was trolled and insulted for five hundred comments for doing so.
Sure, bob, in your eyes everything is the GHE.
“I see Nate has jumped in late, again. I would simply repeat my previous comment, but I know from previous experience that when I do so, he seems to think we are having a discussion! I just dont know how to get across to him that Im no longer interested in talking to him, since he cannot be reasoned with.”
Indeed DREMT is happy to quote my posts when they work for him, or respond when he thinks it works for him, but when I poke gaping holes in his logic, or point out flaws in his physics, he is not interested in hearing about it.
Thats how denialism works.
DREMT,
Nope, I said specific things are the Greenhouse Effect, actually anything involving radiatively active gases causing the surface of the Earth to be warmer than it would be otherwise.
“Sure, bob, in your eyes everything is the GHE.”
That’s a gaslight.
Your Greenhouse Effect denier license has been revoked.
bob’s remarkably cocky for somebody who just lost a massive argument.
Bob,
You might like:
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/#comment-18769
Not unlike a remark of yours that Gaslighting Graham dismissed out of hand.
DREMT is remarkably cocky for someone who again lost the more important argument. As he has done repeatedly for 5 years.
bob was trying to push temperature inversions as being an example of heat flowing from cold to hot! Then when I pointed out that during a temperature inversion, heat still flows from hot to cold, bob tried to change it to, "no, it’s an example of heat flowing from the atmosphere to the surface, which you guys claim is impossible"…even though obviously we do not claim it is impossible when the atmosphere is warmer than the surface!
The sophistry is never-ending.
In fairness, Nate, Gaslighting Graham lost more than that.
How he tried to pretend yesterday that he was “just asking questions” to EM was a thing of beauty.
Oh, and what does Nate claim I’ve lost, exactly?
I asked Entropic Man and Swanson the question in order that they might help try and do what Tim eventually did. Knowing that you’re correct, and that you just need somebody honest and/or sane to talk to whilst everyone else around you is gaslighting you is kind of an unpleasant experience. Asking E Man to weigh in on the discussion is not "baiting and goading". I had hoped he would have just had the sense to back me but instead he got it completely wrong and then refused to acknowledge that he had.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] How is asking Entropic Man a question baiting and goading!?
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Swanson and E Man both fail to answer the simple questions. Funny.
I thought it was funny that as soon as you ask GHE defenders difficult questions on the GHE, they clam up. So what?
Gaslighting Graham is ready to gaslighting instead of simply own that he goads and baits.
Funny that.
But funnier is how Gaslighting Graham misrepresents the reason why Bob invoked temperature inversion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1500347
Fine, OK, I bait and goad to no greater extent than any of the people commenting here.
Thank you for linking to that, so people can see there’s no misrepresentation.
Gaslighting Graham tries to dodge that Bob indeed showed that his “The Sun does thermodynamic work, but none that facilitates the transfer of heat from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface” was not exactly true, but OK.
Still, funny.
An example of heat being transferred from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler surface is not an example of heat being transferred from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface.
Gaslighting Graham is now ready to deny the Clausius principle instead of conceding that the Sun can indeed facilitate transfer from cold to hot with a bit of work.
Funny how he himself seems stuck with a “basic” model of how things work IRL.
Of course the Sun can facilitate transfer of heat from cold to hot with a bit of work.
The key parts you’re missing are: transfer of heat from the cold atmosphere to the hot surface, and, even more crucially, as part of the GHE.
You realize Tim’s already said that 1) is wrong, yes?
Funny how Gaslighting Graham indirectly concedes that his
“The Sun does thermodynamic work, but none that facilitates the transfer of heat from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface”
makes no sense whatsoever to anyone who abides by Clausius principle, for work is exactly required in those cases. We’ll take his concession as half a win. This brings us to the crux of the matter:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1500412
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham’s questions were not that simple after all. In any event, funnier will be when he’ll realize that Bob is in fact on Vaughan’s side.
I’ve conceded nothing. Your desperate and pathetic "mis-readings" of my statements are laughable.
Funny how Gaslighting Graham can’t bring himself to get that if the Sun can facilitate transfer of heat from cold to hot with a bit of work, it can do it for just about anything. It’s as if he had never thought about how inversion, thermals or even evaporation work.
Pun intended. All this to say, like Bob did in that other thread, that local conditions may vary from what a general case. Singular cases do not refute our idealizations when we conceive them properly, e.g. as a rough average.
So here’s where we stand: (1) makes no sense or (1) follows basically from thermo. Whatever the response (both are fine with me), one thing is sure – Gaslighting Graham’s baiting and goading is seldom clear.
> from what a general case
can express, say with an equation.
It’s really hard to express laws with no ceteris paribus clause.
You can pretend that I don’t understand things which I understand perfectly well, all you like.
1) is wrong, Little Willy.
You lost the argument, already. Why are you still going!? Can you please just stop responding to me on this subject?
Either Gaslighting Graham fails to understand that his “questions” were far from being “simple” or his “simple” is pure goading and baiting.
Gaslighting Graham can also fail to understand that the real Earth and its real greenhouse effect is more complex than our various models of it, with contributions from various solar-driven heat engines that drive the water cycle and the general circulation pattern of the atmosphere. Or he’s just goading and baiting.
Without something like (1), we’re basically stuck with a purely radiative model that quickly runs contrary to observation. Without something like (2), it’d be really hard to render justice of the radiative aspect of the greenhouse effect. Since radiation kinda matters, that’s what usually is used in our “basic” presentations.
I’ve had enough, Little Willy. Can’t you tell that? If you have any compassion or decency as a human being, just STOP.
PLEASE.
STOP.
TROLLING.
[HOW IT STARTED] Just try to choose which one, 1) or 2), you are going to go with, and try to stick with it, in future.
[HOW IT’S GOING] 1) is wrong
Gaslighting Graham is more than a pathetic loser.
Little Willy shows no compassion or decency.
Nothing’s changed. There are two very basic descriptions of the GHE that I frequently see getting bandied about. They are contradictory. People need to choose which one they’re going to go for. Both are wrong, but 1) is more obviously wrong than 2). So it would make more sense for people to back 2), really.
You can do what you like though.
Here are two ways I can show clemency:
(1) This summer, I can step way from Roy’s as long as Graham does.
(2) I can follow up by explaining to him Vaughan’s argument, which ironically coheres with Bob’s viewpoint.
Both suits me.
OK, then. 60 days away from the blog, for us both, starting from now. I’ll take one for the team. It’s worth it to give people a break from your incessant yammering for 60 days.
Ok maybe temperature inversions are not the best example, but they are driven by the Sun.
But then there’s lightening, which is for sure an example of heat transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warm surface.
Or heat transfer from the colder surface of the Sun to the hotter bolt of lightening. Cause the lightening bolt is hotter than the surface of the Sun.
You can have it your way DREMT, but your Greenhouse Effect Denier license is still revoked.
Nate says:
Its good to see that DREMT has logical mind.
But when it comes to sky-dragon-slayer dogma, eg the GHE and the GPE violate the 2LOT, he is more than happy to switch it off.
————————–
Nate jumps in and immediately starts erecting huge strawmen to shore up his losing argument.
No Nate obviously the GHE (288k being warmer than the mean irradiation from the sun) doesn’t violate 2LOT. Its only your 3rd grader imagined radiation model that can’t produce a GHE and would require it to violate 2LOT to succeed. One strawman chopped down as Nate assumes his theory wouldn’t violate 2LOT because it JUST HAS TO WORK HIS DADDY TOLD HIM SO!!
And the GPE doesn’t violate 2LOT because the green plate doesn’t warm the blue plate and the blue plate doesn’t exceed equilibrium as what happens with the GHE.
bobdroege, nice try with the lightning but no cigar.
Lightning isn’t a movement of heat from a cold sky to the ground. Its caused by static electricity building up in a cloud, a completely different phenomena. The lightning bolt first heats the air around it up to 50,000 degrees F.
“No Nate obviously the GHE (288k being warmer than the mean irradiation from the sun) doesnt violate 2LOT”
Take it up with DREMT, he thinks it does.
Sorry Bill,
Charred trees tell a different story.
What drives the separation of charges you call static electricity?
Obviously Nate the GHE can’t violate 2LOT.
But you can speculate on how the GHE is created and be wrong because your method does violate 2LOT
Can you understand that or are you a bonehead?
Weird. DREMT thinks the GHE violates the 2LOT. I show that he’s wrong. Bill agrees with me. But I’m the bonehead?
Basically Bill just wanted to insult me, again, but couldnt find a good excuse.
sorry Nate but you are too stupid to figure out that the debate is about your explanation of how a ghe works. its obvious as rw woods showed us how a greenhouse works and your description of the ghe completely ignores that. same deal with the two compatrment box experiment that you failed to figure out. or more accurately you claimed there was something wrong with the experiment that you couldn’t figure out.
As ever lying, baiting and trolling.
Nate doesn’t even have the ability to mount an argument on the point.
For those interested in the green plate discussion.
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479752
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1480178
Anyone can read through the entire discussion, from much further up-thread right through to the very end, and decide as they wish. I have no further need to discuss the GPE, being satisfied that it’s been debunked nine ways to Sunday at this point. All I will do, whenever it’s raised, is link through to this discussion.
And yet I bet you can’t find one single line that is wrong.
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
Tell us one specific error that debunks the theory.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1504002
Tim,
You lose your bet.
What are the stakes? How stupid and gullible do you wish to appear?
Can you really not see the fallacy in the idiotic Eli’s fantasy?
Mike Flynn,
Perhaps you should not bet against someone who consistently beats the S&P 500.
Just a thought.
Willard, please stop the idiotic trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You need to learn the magic words.
Perhaps this will help –
“Anybody, (with more mental capacity than you can muster), can work out that if the surface was once molten, and the interior is still glowing hot, that the Earth has indeed emitted vastly more energy than it has received from the Sun! It has cooled. More energy out than in. As Baron Fourier (he of the Series, Decomposition etc.) said, during the night, the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earths primordial heat.”
Is this your way of replacing the theory of the greenhouse effect?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Anyone can see that Gaslighting Graham appeared on this website with a sock puppet based on the name of the thought experiment’s author:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-311862
Note the date.
OK, Little Willy. I see you have nothing constructive to add, as usual.
Readers will note that I contributed at least three important pieces of information: Gaslighting Graham is a sock puppet; he has been rehashing the plates since 2018; he is always very decent, very polite, very mild mannered.
Elsewhere in the thread I have showed how he proved that backradiation cannot be energy, which is pure genius.
Gaslighting Graham is thus gaslighting again.
No, I never “proved that back-radiation cannot be energy”.
I’ve been discussing the plates for some time, true. It is a useful example to show the fallacy of “back-radiation warming”. I will continue to link to that discussion I linked to.
As Vaughan Pratt agreed, the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. That’s that.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98571
He is projecting his false dichotomy into Vaughan’s mind.
No, it was a comment from a much more recent discussion, on this blog. Why did you not link to it?
Gaslighting Graham demands room service once again.
Such a fine chap.
Vaughan isn’t the one who implies that backradiation breaks thermo, which is the conclusion one should reach with his latest pet puzzle.
I didn’t demand anything, I asked why you hadn’t linked to the comments which I know full well you know about, and instead linked to an old comment, despite the fact that people’s opinions can change over time. My guess is that you are dishonest. That’s the best answer I can come up with.
Gaslighting Graham is gently gaslighting again. Of course his rhetorical question contains a request. Perhaps he should link to it himself. But he won’t, for he’s still on his stupid phone.
Perhaps he should work for what he believes is his support. Only then it will be worthwhile to point out that Vaughan’s point in that post has little to do here. And it wasn’t what Gaslighting Graham is trying to intimate here.
Meanwhile, enjoy:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98214
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-669859
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-673217
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
Vaughan Pratt agrees that GHGs cause warming and that more GHGs cause more warming. And he attributes this to IR radiation.
Eg “However the radiation directed downwards or sideways obviously can’t escape to space and will be eventually captured. ”
http://clim8.stanford.edu/Images/
The one thing he seems to be objecting to is that the warming can be explained SOLELY by ‘back radiation’. Radiation from the atmosphere to the surface is one part of the equation, but other ideas like the lapse rate and convection are also needed to truly understand warming.
"Vaughan Pratt agrees that GHGs cause warming and that more GHGs cause more warming."
Indeed, he would agree with you on those points.
"And he attributes this to IR radiation"
Hmmm. He does not attribute the warming to IR radiation impinging on the surface, thus warming it. As his comment that I quoted makes clear.
To clarify, Vaughan does not dispute that backradiation exists or that it plays a role. In his post at Judy’s, he’s explaining why the backradiation model fails to convince Sky Dragon cranks. In his comment here, he’s arguing that appealing to backradiation is not required.
One has to be a genius to quote a comment I asked Vaughan to write by email and expect it goes against what Team Science holds.
Gaslighting Graham is such a genius.
No clarification needed, Vaughan Pratt’s comments speak for themselves. If he were to agree with Eli’s solution to the Green Plate Effect, he would be arguing with himself. Not that it would surprise me if he did.
Gaslighting Graham returns to his illusory fixed point.
A perfect time to gain grounds:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98122
Sky Dragon cranks overinterpret a silly arrow.
A reasonable account of my 2), from here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1503588
“If he were to agree with Eli’s solution to the Green Plate Effect, he would be arguing with himself. ”
Nope. You could ask him if you like. There is a fundamental difference between “GHE” & earth precisely because there is no atmosphere and no lapse rate. How the energy gets from one place to another is different.
But there is also a fundamental similarity. The radiation to space from the Green Plate is weaker than the radiation from the Blue Plate. Just like the radiation to space from the upper atmosphere is weaker than the radiation from surface.
The weakening of radiation to space from a “cooler upper surface” results in a “warmer lower surface”. Pratt makes this very clear in his discussion. It is all ultimately about thermal radiation in both cases.
I have no doubt that if I asked him, he would argue against himself by agreeing with Eli’s solution to the GPE. Nobody expects consistency from GHE defenders.
“I have no doubt that if I asked him, he would argue against himself …” and yet you turn to him as an expert. Why would you reference someone that you clearly have no faith in?
I didn’t turn to him as an expert. I just assumed that one of your own asserting that the back-radiation account of the GHE was debunked by the Seim & Olsen experiment might open up some minds a bit.
> It is all ultimately about thermal radiation in both cases.
Exactly, Tim.
It is as if Graham just can’t realize that calculating backradiation is the result a simple subtraction.
I will assume that Tim is aware my 1) and 2), from here, are contradictory:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1503588
If he agrees, no need to respond.
I will assume that Tim gets that Graham’s (2) implies (1) or is unphysical crap:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1502631
I will grant Tim with a bit more intelligence than that.
Mighty Tim is intelligent enough to DESTROY Sky Dragon cranks all by himself:
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-dummies
Still no contradiction from Gaslighting Graham.
Calm down, Little Willy.
“I will assume that Tim is aware my 1) and 2), from here, are contradictory:”
I am now.
(2) is (basically) correct.
(1) is wrong on a few different levels. No intelligent, informed person would make that claim.
“1) The GHE involves heat being transferred from the colder atmosphere to the hotter surface, but its OK because as per the Clausius statement of 2LoT, there is another change occurring at the same time, that being work done by the Sun.”
* The GHE involves ENERGY being transferred from atmosphere to surface (in the form of thermal IR). As you note later, “heat”, Q, is the net flow of energy between the two due to their temperature difference.
* A flow of energy from cool to warm is OK because there is a larger flow from warm to cool [not because there is sunlight involved]. The heat is still from warm to cool as required by 2LOT.
> No intelligent, informed person would make that claim.
Bob actually endorsed a previous version of that claim, Tim:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1498983
In fairness, it was when Gaslighting Graham was not distinguishing heat from energy.
After all these years, you should know why Gaslighting Graham does what he does.
Little Willy loses another one, with his usual grace. bob endorsed and spent an enormous amount of time defending the exact same version of 1) that I presented to Tim.
Thank you, Tim, for settling that issue.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Meanwhile, it is fun to see him kneel to Mighty Tim for once.
Willard, please stop the idiotic trolling.
These are not the magic words, Mike Flynn.
Little Willy and bob spent about a five hundred comment discussion being absolutely wrong, as usual.
Gaslighting Graham spent more than five years denying the greenhouse effect to finally bow to Mighty Tim.
A great day for Team Science!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Why didn’t Gaslighting Graham cited and quoted the comment right after, in which the IPCC is quoted.
Nevermind:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-1389643
Let is also be noted that Gaslighting Graham does not dispute the existence of backradiation, but for some Sky Dragon crank reasons believes that non-radiative gases are responsible for it.
Weepy Wee Willard,
You idiot, your “description” doesn’t even say what the supposed “Greenhouse Effect” is supposed to do!
How stupid is this start – “Greenhouse gases effectively absorb infrared radiation emitted by the Earths surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and by clouds.”
Greenhouse gases absorb radiation from the atmosphere which is due to greenhouse gases?
You donkey – everything above absolute zero emits IR. Why is everything in the universe above absolute zero? Because at some time, it absorbed IR! Otherwise it would remain at absolute zero!
Learn some physics, peabrain. You don’t need to be as ignorant and gullible as you are, but that’s your choice and nought to do with me.
You are an Iidiot – and gullible to boot.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Weepy Wee Willard,
You idiot, your description doesnt even say what the supposed Greenhouse Effect is supposed to do!
How stupid is this start Greenhouse gases effectively absorb infrared radiation emitted by the Earths surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and by clouds.
Greenhouse gases absorb radiation from the atmosphere which is due to greenhouse gases?
You donkey everything above absolute zero emits IR. Why is everything in the universe above absolute zero? Because at some time, it absorbed IR! Otherwise it would remain at absolute zero!
Learn some physics, peabrain. You dont need to be as ignorant and gullible as you are, but thats your choice and nought to do with me.
You are an Iidiot and gullible to boot.
Moron Mike,
Greenhouse gases effectively absorb infrared radiation emitted by the Earths surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and by clouds. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earths surface. Thus greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface troposphere system. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Atmospheric radiation is strongly coupled to the temperature of the level at which it is emitted. In the troposphere, the temperature generally decreases with height. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of on average -19C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earths surface is kept at a much higher temperature of on average 14C. An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing, an imbalance that can only be compensated for by an increase of the temperature of the surface-troposphere system. This is called the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willard,
You idiot, your description doesnt even say what the supposed Greenhouse Effect is supposed to do!
How stupid is this start “Greenhouse gases effectively absorb infrared radiation emitted by the Earths surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and by clouds.”
Greenhouse gases absorb radiation from the atmosphere which is due to greenhouse gases?
You donkey everything above absolute zero emits IR. Why is everything in the universe above absolute zero? Because at some time, it absorbed IR! Otherwise it would remain at absolute zero!
Learn some physics, peabrain. You dont need to be as ignorant and gullible as you are, but thats your choice and nought to do with me.
You are an Iidiot and gullible to boot.
Moron Mike,
That description does not satisfy you.
Look it up on the internet, you donkey!
No, I do not think that “non-radiative gases are responsible for” back-radiation.
Vaughan Pratt’s quote speaks for itself.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Here is the Wiki entry alluded to in the quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model
There is also the main page on the greenhouse effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
The metaphor of a buildup might convince more Sky Dragon cranks. I doubt it’ll work for the few Roy still has.
In any event, the idealized model does not contradict the other models we got. It’s just a simplification.
So, the Wiki page did get amended. That is completely besides the point, of course. The point being, Vaughan Pratt clearly disagrees with the idea of back-radiation warming the surface by impinging on it.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Vaughan agrees that the greenhouse effect works. He also agrees that backradiation works. What he disputes is that appealing to backradiation is necessary. Which is true.
Gaslighting Graham has no contradiction to offer.
Vaughan Pratt clearly disagrees with the idea of back-radiation warming the surface by impinging on it.
Indeed the backradiation myth held by Nate, Swanson, EM, Bindidon and others are just simply victims of lies and propaganda arising from their Daddy’s. The initial efforts at propagandizing catastrophic anthropogenic climate change still holds a large portion of the world in believing the simple radiation model of layers of the atmosphere radiatively warming the surface actually works.
Every test signals that it doesn’t. So the theory has retreated to suggesting that it does work in the presence of a lapse rate which defies experimentation as there isn’t anyway to produce a lapse rate except via a celestial body with a gas atmosphere held by gravity.
The ignorance continues because the more they talk about it the more the listeners start going WTF!
I’m curious, what is the back radiation myth? The one I’ve been told I believe?
And why do you also think there is a greenhouse effect?
I am not revealing that yet. But I will say I think the variability has something to do with water vapor. . . .though thats not as far along as the reveal so at this point variability will not be in the main body. . . .which of course means everybody will ignore it. People aren’t really interested in why the greenhouse effect exists. They are happy about that. Folks want to know how it varies.
Gaslighting Graham believes in what you call a myth, Gill.
Perhaps you should settle that one with him.
Does bill disagree that back-radiation exists? That would surprise me. Not many people who question the GHE that think that.
Here are two contradictory positions:
1) Backradiation exists.
2) Backradiation is a myth.
Perhaps the Sky Dragon cranks could coordinate and agree on which proposition to drop.
Calm down, Little Willy. We don’t know yet if bill thinks back-radiation doesn’t exist, or not.
Wonky Wee Willy attempts a pointless gotcha –
“Here are two contradictory positions:
1) Backradiation exists.
2) Backradiation is a myth.
Perhaps the Sky Dragon cranks could coordinate and agree on which proposition to drop.”
Does he mean backradiation, back-radiation, or back radiation?
All of those terms are quite meaningless.
NASA claims “The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called back radiation) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. ”
I agree that 100% of the incoming solar energy definitely exists.
I agree that 100% of incoming solar radiation at night is zero.
According to NASA, at least, back radiation varies between 0 and 100% of the day’s solar radiation.
Willard might believe NASA has its fair share of delusion SkyDragon cultists, as I do. Blame them if “back radiation” seems pointless.
Here are two contradictory positions:
1) Backradiation exists.
2) Backradiation is a myth.
Here is an empirical fact:
3) Mike Flynn is braying.
Perhaps the Sky Dragon cranks could coordinate and agree on which proposition and which deceitful cretin to drop.
Wonky Wee Willy attempts a pointless gotcha
“Here are two contradictory positions:
1) Backradiation exists.
2) Backradiation is a myth.
Perhaps the Sky Dragon cranks could coordinate and agree on which proposition to drop.”
Does he mean backradiation, back-radiation, or back radiation?
All of those terms are quite meaningless.
NASA claims “The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called back radiation) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy.”
I agree that 100% of the incoming solar energy definitely exists.
I agree that 100% of incoming solar radiation at night is zero.
According to NASA, at least, back radiation varies between 0 and 100% of the days solar radiation.
Willard might believe NASA has its fair share of delusion SkyDragon cultists, as I do. Blame them if “back radiation” seems pointless.
Mike Flynn,
In matters of meaninglessness we all bow to you.
Cheers.
nate…”Im curious, what is the back radiation myth?”
***
The myth is that back-radiation from GHGs can be absorbed by the surface and converted to heat. Furthermore, the alleged heat created can raise surface temperature beyond what it is heated by solar energy. That’s not only a myth, it’s plain silly.
LOL!
My view is backradiation is kind of a cartoon depiction of an exchange of energy that does not require a medium to travel upon.
Its a mistake to call it a myth because it has properties. It just might not operate as described in the cartoon depiction i.e. if a medium of communication does exist.
Which of course is a contradiction well established in quantum mechanics where they believe such a medium of communication (spooky action at a distance) does exist and they are working hard to try to get something useful out of it.
What is a myth is that insulation or backradiation can warm something to a temperature higher than the sources of energy provided. Those who have no understanding of insulation thinks you can just keep warming stuff more than the square distance rule of a light source spread evenly around the object. You can’t do that without some other shenanigans. Shenanigans yet to be described for the earth’s GHE.
From there its pretty much as described still by the Grandfather of Global Warming, Dr. Roger Revelle: CO2 is a potential problem. But we don’t know if it is because the science isn’t there yet.
So its a lie to say CO2 is problem. Its more like treating the entire population of the world like we treat pharmaceutical companies or any business we think might be a problem.
We deny them permits to sell their product until they prove its safe. But now that restriction is going well beyond selling.
1) The folks that like it like that. . . .oh yeah its a big problem.
2) Those that don’t like it like that. . . .oh yeah its no problem.
And of course the government manipulators are smart they know that most will come down to number 2 if they don’t lie to them. So thats why you see all the claims that the science is settled and if we don’t act soon the world is doomed.
Its pretty simple to see what is going on provided of course you aren’t a moron.
Actually the contradiction above and the name of it ”spooky action at a distance” is what Einstein saw as a contradiction and called it ”spooky action” to mock those embracing the photon model and the spooky action simultaneously.
Einstein was pretty deep in his ability envision stuff and he did have an acerbic sense of humor.
Then he summed it all up shortly before his death:
”All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question “What are light quanta?” Nowadays every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”
Albert Einstein, 1951
Well if DREMT believes in back radiation, then Bill has to fall in line:
Sure enough it’s no longer a myth.
“Its a mistake to call it a myth because it has properties.”
LOL! is right.
“My view is backradiation is kind of a cartoon depiction of an exchange of energy that does not require a medium to travel upon.
It just might not operate as described in the cartoon depiction i.e. if a medium of communication does exist.”
Weird, Bill.
The whole idea that EM radiation needs a medium was debunked over a century ago by Michelson and Morley, then Einstein.
Nate is always a believer in the myths spread around the universities.
[GILL] Its a mistake to call it a myth
[ALSO GILL] Nate is always a believer in the myths spread around the universities.
Whereas Bill keeps showing us that he is, for some reason, anti-science.
No Nate I am not anti-science. I am very pro-science. What I am against is the elitist attitude of some scientists who think they know it all.
things like the 3rd grader radiation model is as a propaganda tool. It is excused as a simplification of an already inadequately described process that essentially it seems no scientist really understands. . . as voiced by the Grandfather himself.
A model for third graders might be too hard for Sky Dragon cranks, Gill.
Bob has a limerick. Would that work?
Thats the funny part Willard.
Obviously the 3rd grader model was created to inform 3rd grade level students (since this arose from Kevin Trenberth and his +billion dollar budget to create infomercials for all levels of the public)
What was surprising to the writers was they had Harvard University students and professors bite into it such that it ends up on their website for their students to refer to.
But early on that was piqued my interest in this topic having some degree of education in applied solar technology was that I had a hard time actually finding two scientists holding themselves out as experts in the area that actually agreed with each other. It doesn’t seem much has changed beyond a pretty general widespread white wash of 3rd grader radiation model diagrams across the internet. Obviously the warmists in here have hardly noticed the absence of the evidence that originally convinced them that the 3rd grader radiation model worked.
” Indeed the backradiation myth held by Nate, Swanson, EM, Bindidon and others are just simply victims of lies and propaganda arising from their Daddys. ”
As always, the Hunter boy is lying.
Neither did I ever write anything to support the backradiation idea, let alone would I be dumb enough to claim it’s a myth.
Binny,
Do I understand correctly? You don’t support it, but you don’t not support it, at the same time?
Seems a bit odd, but maybe you are.
My apologies Bindidon. I had no idea you were a skeptic.
Thanks, Hunter boy.
I’m much more skeptic about lots of things than you ever could imagine.
And those who don’t understand that I name the ‘Pseudoskeptic’s.
Indeed you can’t believe you have the answer, any answer, and be a genuine skeptic.
Gill, Gill,
It’s basic accounting:
http://cat5.envsci.rutgers.edu/~jlc449/150Tg/rad_plots/rad_explainer.html
Like what you did, minus the “creative” part.
Willard, are you trying to say that the GHE only makes the surface hotter when the sun is shining?
Or does surface cooling at night result from your “basic accounting”?
The planet has cooled for four and a half billion years – you obviously need a new accountant.
Mike Flynn,
Are you braying again?
Sounds like it.
Do go on, deceitful cretin.
Willard, are you trying to say that the GHE only makes the surface hotter when the sun is shining?
Or does surface cooling at night result from your basic accounting?
The planet has cooled for four and a half billion years you obviously need a new accountant.
Moron Mike,
Keep copy-pasting the comment in which you are braying.
Mike Flynn,
The Sun warms the Earth across 93 million miles of space.
If Earth retained all that incoming heat it would keep getting hotter until the oceans boiled away.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Exactly. A good thing it’s cooling because it is emitting more energy than it receives from the Sun.
Moron Mike,
The Earth cannot emit what it has not received.
One day you will have to come out of your closet and offer to the world your brilliant idea that it’s the Earth core that keeps it warm. I will be there for you.
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Exactly. A good thing its cooling because it is emitting more energy than it receives from the Sun.
Moron Mike,
The good thing about the First Law is that the Earth can’t emit more than it received.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Exactly. A good thing its cooling because it is emitting more energy than it receives from the Sun.
This should be simple for you Willard:
If the earth is cooling it is emitting more heat than it receives.
If the earth is warming it is receiving more heat than it emits.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Gill, Gill,
If the Earth is cooling *now* it is emitting more *now* than it is receiving *now*.
What it emits, it has received.
No wonder Sky Dragon cranks never use an equation.
Well yeah, but as Swenson is pointing out, some of it that it received it received billions of years ago.
Indeed, Gill, and I am eagerly awaiting Moron Mike’s theory of the Primordial Heat Effect. Will you help him with the inconvenient facts that the heat coming from the Earth core is very tiny and that more than half of it comes from a radiogenic source?
By “very tiny” I mean less than half a percent. And by less than half a percent I mean more than ten times less than half a percent.
Willard says:
”Rather than get hotter and hotter, Kirchhoffs law of thermal radiation says that the gases of the atmosphere also have to re-emit the infrared energy that they absorb, and they do so, also at long infrared wavelengths, both upwards into space as well as downwards back towards the Earths surface.”
——————
You are pointing out that shining a hot light on gases in freely expanding atmosphere doesn’t result in heating but instead results in work that causes the gas to convect, converting the absorbed energy into potential energy. If you put that same gas in a box it will heat as the box will increase the pressure. But Willard claims it must accelerate its rate of radiation, with half going back to the surface, to rid itself of the energy without heating. Unfortunately thats a violation of thermodynamic laws that pin the radiation to the temperature of the gas, so since the energy absorbed is dedicated to work and conversion to potential energy by lifting the gas higher in the atmosphere there is no additional radiation.
Willard says:
”In the long-term, the planets thermal inertia is surmounted and a new thermal equilibrium is reached ”
———–
Sorry Willard it didn’t get here. If it did get here the 3rd grader radiation model would actually work. But it doesn’t work like that in a gas environment that freely expands.
Willard says:
”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model
There is also the main page on the greenhouse effect:
The greenhouse effect occurs when greenhouse gases in a planets atmosphere cause some of the heat radiated from the planets surface to build up at the planets surface. A planet is warmed by absorbing light from its host star and cooled by radiating energy into space. The warm surface of a planet emits longwave radiation. Greenhouse gases absorb some of that radiation, reducing the amount of energy that escapes into space. This reduction in planetary cooling raises the planets average surface temperature. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere increases the warming effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
The metaphor of a buildup might convince more Sky Dragon cranks. I doubt itll work for the few Roy still has.
In any event, the idealized model does not contradict the other models we got. Its just a simplification.”
—————
Here Willard repeats himself using Wikipedia authored and edited by the Willards of the world. The blind leading the blind.
Gill, Gill,
This is an Arby’s.
I agree your post was a Fake Meat Fast Food joint.
You said absolutely nothing, Gill.
No I did say something. With you in here its more like a Fake Meat Fast Food joint like Loving Hut as you run around selling your fake stuff.
Not really, Gill.
I know Willard.
You are like the guy hanging around the corner of the jewelry store trying to sell fake Rolex watches to customers coming to and from the jewelry store.
The only difference between you and a shyster is you actually think you got a great deal on genuine Rolex watches at a $1,000 a watch from your distributor.
Eventually though when the police catch up with you they aren’t going to care what you thought.
Gill, Gill,
This is an Arby’s.
There are only Arbys in the USA and a few other locations. There are none in most of the world.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sir-this-is-an-arbys
Well that was always obscure to, Im guessing, most of us, certainly me.
But that explains it!
USA is not the world, or even Canada.
How many years you will have to be in the Internet to get that you are on the Internet, Richard?
Willard, please stop trolling.
How to remove Willard (et al) from this thread (DropBox files):
1. Download files from:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/xgdoigbxynh7xzq09kmns/h?dl=0&rlkey=axxrnd7ca64r0gjsfuwcezf82
2. Read “HOW TO INSTALL.txt” for easy installation details.
Enjoy.
Hurricane and tropical storm in the eastern Pacific.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/epac/mimictpw_epac_latest.gif
Willard summed up the idiocy of the SkyDragon cult when he wrote –
“The Earth cannot emit more than it received from the Sun.”
It is cooler now than four and a half billion years ago. It has received four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight. The sunlight has not prevented the Earth from cooling to its present temperature.
A body cools by losing energy, emitting more energy than it is receiving.
Willard and his ilk are idiots who reject reality.
Ask any of them to describe the GHE – they can’t. Willard’s attempt – “not cooling, cooling over time”.
What an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
The Sun warms the Earth across 93 million miles of space.
If Earth retained all that incoming heat it would keep getting hotter until the oceans boiled away.
Willard, I don’t believe it! You accept reality. Maybe now you might accept that if the Earth didnt emit more energy from the Sun than it received, the surface would still be molten.
Am I expecting too much?
Moron Mike,
If the Earth did not retain any of that incoming heat, it would be a ball of ice.
Assuming it still can retain its water, of course.
Cheers.
Wayward Wee Willy,
In your typical idiotic fashion, you wrote –
“Moron Mike,
If the Earth did not retain any of that incoming heat, it would be a ball of ice.
Assuming it still can retain its water, of course.
Cheers.”
You still don’t that the Earth was created as a molten blob, do you? No ice in sight .
Maybe you should consult an astrophysicist, or a geologist?
The Earth is still mostly glowing hot. Maybe you are a fan of D C’s “heat creep”, where the Earth was created at absolute zero, and the Sun’s heat “creeps” into the interior?
You are an idiot, resorting to ever more extreme fantasies, to justify your belief in a GHE which you claim is “not cooling, cooling over time”.
Keep it up.
Mike Flynn,
You did not need to bray incoherently in response to the inverse of a statement you agree with. Thank you nevertheless. I appreciate it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson, the least impact is to ignore Willard. Install the decrufter and just let he/she/it babble in silence.
Not so we willy. The receptors receiving the EM from the Sun are self-limiting. They will only produce so much heat.
After traveling 93 millions miles the intensity of solar radiation is a fraction of what it was when it left the Sun. It’s so weakened by that time that the Earth’s surface can handle it well.
Look at the Moon. One side is facing the Sun for 14 days and nothing disintegrates. In fact, the temperature of that surface is limited to a certain maximum temperature.
You need to study some atomic physics to see why. Alternately, you could set up a box in your back yard, with an absorber in it, while insulating the box so it can’t dissipate much energy. Put in a thermometer and see where the thermometer levels off. Sure, it will get hot, but there will be no thermal runaway.
Come on, Bordo.
There is no water on the Moon.
I wonder why. Perhaps your deep learning of atomic physics has helped you solve that one?
Willard,
You wrote –
“Come on, Bordo.
There is no water on the Moon.
I wonder why. Perhaps your deep learning of atomic physics has helped you solve that one?”
Look it up on the internet, you idiot! Then you might even find that there is, indeed, water on the Moon. You might even find an answer to the question “Where did water inside the Moons permanently shadowed craters come from?”.
Go on, tell everyone again that “There is no water on the Moon”!
You really are an ignorant and idiotic troll, aren’t you?
Moron Mike,
You are on the Internet.
Cheers.
You wrote
“Come on, Bordo.
There is no water on the Moon.
I wonder why. Perhaps your deep learning of atomic physics has helped you solve that one?”
Look it up on the internet, you idiot! Then you might even find that there is, indeed, water on the Moon. You might even find an answer to the question Where did water inside the Moons permanently shadowed craters come from?.
Go on, tell everyone again that “There is no water on the Moon”!
You really are an ignorant and idiotic troll, arent you?
Your idiot response “Moron Mike,
You are on the Internet.
Cheers.”, rather says it all, doesn’t it?
Moron Mike,
You said –
“Look it up on the internet, you idiot!”
Imagine if I used that line every time you asked for a description of the greenhouse effect.
No need to imagine, in fact.
“Imagine if I used that line every time you asked for a description of the greenhouse effect.”
You still couldn’t provide a description of the GHE, could you?
That’s why you are an idiot.
What a disastrous day for Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Here’s what NASA says –
“The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called back radiation) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the extra (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature.”
Unfortunately, the atmosphere radiates IR solely because it is above absolute zero. It radiates in all directions – up, down, forwards, backwards, sideways. Just as say, ice, does.
Whether the idiots like it or not, exposing a hotter object to a colder one does not increase the temperature of the hotter. The Earth’s surface cools at night, regardless of “back radiation”, which is manifestly less than “100 percent of the incoming solar energy” of the day.
The NASA idiots are confusing sunlight with some mythical CO2/H2O heat generating ability. A pack of fools who do not want to accept reality. There is no GHE, and nobody can even describe this mythical creature – more elusive than a unicorn obviously. Even I can describe a unicorn, but no one can describe the GHE!
Earth is warmed [mostly] by sunlight heating the ocean and land surface. The ocean surface absorbs most to sunlight reaching the entire Earth surface. And 80% of tropics is ocean surface, and tropics which 40% of total surface, receives more than half of sunlight reaching the surface.
The Ocean surface average temperature is warmer than average land surface. Because it’s warmer and because the ocean covers 70% of entire Earth surface, the warmer ocean surface creates global air temperature which is 15 C. Ocean average surface is about 17 C, and average land is 10 C.
The land surface which doesn’t absorb much of energy of sunlight, warms quickly. The ocean surface has ability to absorb a lot energy and not heat up much- this because it’s transparent to sunlight and top 2 meter of ocean absorbed about 1/2 of the sunlight- lower than 2 meters absorbs the other half. The enormous heat content of upper ocean surface maintain a higher global air temperature. Whereas land and particularly dry land rapidly cools at night.
gb,
You wrote –
“Whereas land and particularly dry land rapidly cools at night.” – and land with the least “greenhouse gases” heats more rapidly, and to higher temperatures, during the day.
The delusional SkyDragon cultists don’t like facts, it seems.
swenson…”Heres what NASA says
The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called back radiation) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earths surface responds to the extra (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature.
***
They did not indicate where that propaganda originated, did they? Sounds like something from Gavin Schmidt or his authority figure, Raymond Pierrehumbert.
Mike Flynn fumbles –
“A body cools by losing energy, emitting more energy than it is receiving.”
As if the body was losing energy it only itself produced.
So it’s another problem of quantification.
Just like Gaslighting Graham’s always.
Sky Dragon cranks just suck at logic.
Worried Wee Willy,
A body cools by losing energy, emitting more energy than it is receiving.
You are obviously stupid enough to believe that a body losing energy must be getting hotter! That’s why you describe the GHE as being “not cooling, cooling over time”.
Trying to rewrite physical laws is as silly as Kevin Trenberth trying to find heat which is demonstrably not there, and then claiming somebody must have hidden it – just to annoy Kevin , presumably.
You really are an idiot, Willard. The Earth has cooled over four and a half billion years, and the surface does so every night. The hottest parts of the surface are characterized by a severe lack of mythical “greenhouse gases”.
Carry on – try to fly off at a tangent.
Moron Mike,
None of what you said is relevant to what I said.
The Sun warms the Earth across 93 million miles of space. If Earth retained all that incoming heat it would keep getting hotter until the oceans boiled away.
Cheers.
Willard, I dont believe it! You accept reality. Maybe now you might accept that if the Earth didnt emit more energy from the Sun than it received, the surface would still be molten.
Am I expecting too much?
Moron Mike,
I got to ask –
Where do you think the energy received by the Earth comes from?
Willard, I dont believe it! You accept reality. Maybe now you might accept that if the Earth didnt emit more energy from the Sun than it received, the surface would still be molten.
Am I expecting too much?
Some energy comes from the Sun. Some is internal – primordial heat, radiogenic heat, tidal heat . . .
Your idiotic gotcha “Where do you think the energy received by the Earth comes from?” falls flat, demonstrating that you are extremely stupid. Maybe you were trying to ask an even more stupid gotcha, asking whether sunlight warms the surface which absorbs it.
Not terribly clever, Willard, not clever at all.
Try harder next time.
Moron Mike,
Primordial heat? Are you braying about something the Earth generates all by itself? Next you will suggest that this primordial heat is what keeps the Earth cozy, not the energy it receives from the Sun.
Perhaps you should consider publishing your idea of a self-perpetuating planet.
Willard, I dont believe it! You accept reality. Maybe now you might accept that if the Earth didnt emit more energy from the Sun than it received, the surface would still be molten.
Am I expecting too much?
Some energy comes from the Sun. Some is internal primordial heat, radiogenic heat, tidal heat . . .
Your idiotic gotcha “Where do you think the energy received by the Earth comes from” falls flat, demonstrating that you are extremely stupid. Maybe you were trying to ask an even more stupid gotcha, asking whether sunlight warms the surface which absorbs it.
Not terribly clever, Willard, not clever at all.
Self perpetuating planet? What are you babbling about? The Earth has cooled you idiot. You delusional SkyDragon cultists believe that it is getting hotter!
Try harder next time.
Copy-pasting your comment?
Keep braying, donkey!
Willard, I dont believe it! You accept reality. Maybe now you might accept that if the Earth didnt emit more energy from the Sun than it received, the surface would still be molten.
Am I expecting too much?
Some energy comes from the Sun. Some is internal primordial heat, radiogenic heat, tidal heat . . .
Your idiotic gotcha Where do you think the energy received by the Earth comes from falls flat, demonstrating that you are extremely stupid. Maybe you were trying to ask an even more stupid gotcha, asking whether sunlight warms the surface which absorbs it.
Not terribly clever, Willard, not clever at all.
Self perpetuating planet? What are you babbling about? The Earth has cooled you idiot. You delusional SkyDragon cultists believe that it is getting hotter!
Try harder next time.
Good boy.
Willard, please stop trolling.
nate…”[GR]You, like Eli et all, simply dont get it that IR from a cooler body will be rejected by a hotter body.
[Nate]”Obviously not. OMG..where do you guys get such nutty ideas?
The heat loss by radiation from a warm body DEPENDS on the temperature of the cold surroundings”.
***
I got that ‘nutty’ idea from Bohr and quantum theory. I was aided by a career in the electrical/electronics field where we apply quantum theory directly.
I guess some/many people fail to grasp that the electron is the basis of quantum theory, at least, the valid quantum theory that has not been distorted by sci-fi theorists. Bohr first postulated his theory of discrete hydrogen emission lines (Balmer series, etc.) on the properties of electrons changing theorized orbital energy level. The electrons require EM of a certain frequency to excite them to a higher energy level and as they return to the lower level, the emit a quantum of EM at a frequency proportional to the electron angular frequency.
Even modern atomic theory, based on Schrodinger’s wave equation is based on electron orbitals. I am trying to convey that the electron is not only the basis of electrical/electronics theory it is also the basis of quantum theory. Furthermore, it is the basis of chemistry wrt to atomic bonds and molecules.
Until you understand all that I guess you are stuck with the notion that the theory is ‘nutty’. It doesn’t make much sense but there you have it. The impression that EM can transfer heat in two directions is the nutty notion and that’s how it goes in physics.
Once again, according to Bohr, electrons are restricted to quantized orbitals. If the electrons absorb energy, either as heat or EM of the proper frequency, the electron will move to a higher energy level. The energy is kinetic energy in the form of the electron mass moving in an orbit around the nucleus, The KE also represents heat when taken en masse.
Bohr’s relationship of the electron to electron orbitals was taken from Einstein and Planck. It is E = hf, where E is the difference between orbital energy levels, Eh – El. If the electron transitions between those levels it emits a quantum of electromagnetic energy of intensity, Eh – El = hf.
If that quantum reaches a cooler mass, the frequency is sufficient to excite electrons in the atoms of the mass. However, quanta emitted by a cooler mass lack the frequency to be absorbed by a hotter mass.
If you look at the spectral line frequencies of an element, they are very fine with a precise frequency. There is no spectrum to speak off, only a line of one specific frequency. A spectrum will appear only if electrons in masses of slightly different temperatures are emitting. Atmospheric IR has a relatively wide IR spectra because the radiation comes from different temperature zones on the surface.
In the atmosphere, GHG temperatures vary wildly from thermal equilibrium at the surface to -50C higher in the atmosphere. There is no way under those conditions that IR from GHGs can be absorbed by the warmer surface. IR from the Sun has no problem being absorbed by th surface since it comes from a source many times hotter than the surface.
> a career in the electrical/electronics field
Come on, Bordo. You repaired hifi gear and you still dispute current flow.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Any engineer worth his salt will repair anything he can get his hands on. I could repair audio equipment before returning to university to study engineering. Before graduating from high school I was repairing electronic equipment, even TVs.
Heck wee willy, I have forgotten more than half the electronics crowd out there today have learned. I enjoyed looking through Richard’s uncle’s site. It took me back to days of yore.
Electronics is like riding a bike. Once you get the balance for riding you never forget it. I am constantly reviewing, however, since I tend to forget details over time.
I am sure an engineer could repair stuff, Bordo.
But we are talking about you now. Your few courses at the U does not an engineer make you,
In contrast to the UK, the title of engineer is protected in Canada.
Willard, please stop trolling.
wee willy now sets himself as an authority on how many courses I took. wee willy really wishes that I am not an engineer because it enables his appeal to authority to disqualify my opinions.
Problem is wee willy, I don’t give a hoot about authority or what anyone thinks of my academic status. My scientific understanding stands on its own merit and thus far no alarmists have been able to discredit my claims, or even come close.
C’mon, Bordo.
You know I’m right –
https://engineerscanada.ca/become-an-engineer/use-of-professional-title-and-designations
Our government protects me against your illusions of grandeur.
Willard, please stop the idiotic trolling.
These are not the magic words, Moron Mike Flynn.
wee willy is confusing P.Eng with a normal engineering degree. A P.Eng is something you apply for after graduation if you intend to work professionally as an engineer doing work that requires certification in a professional academy of engineers.
You don’t need a P. Eng. to be hired in an engineering capacity as long as someone else with a P.Eng signs off for the work. You dont specifically need a BASc degree to become a P. Eng if you can meet the requirements of the society issuing the P. Eng.
Come on, Bordo.
Which part of or any variation you do not get?
You are not an engineer.
Woeful Wee Willard,
You can’t even describe what current is, can you? Before you make a fool of yourself, here’s a quote “An electron hole is one of the two types of charge carriers that are responsible for creating electric current in semiconducting materials. A hole can be seen as the “opposite” of an electron.” – California Government body.
Which sort of current are you talking about? Are you “seeing” holes or electrons?
Trying to appear clever does not suit an idiot like you. Come on, Willard, tell me which way “current” flows (without describing the type of current carrier) , and I can show you an authority which says you are wrong.
Try engaging your brain, before hammering away on your keyboard.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Is this another of your silly sammich request?
Go on.
Willard, please stop trolling.
swenson… despite what the California body claims, the scientist, Shockley, who coined the term ‘hole’ admitted they don’t exist. He invented the term to make visualization easier.
Along the way, I have encountered all sort of analogies attempting to make physics easier. Water running through a hose is often used as an analogy for electric current. Maybe it’s because I am a stubborn Scot at heart but I have always found it easier, and more beneficial in the long run, to focus on electrons running down a conductor rather than water down a pipe.
Even that analogy is wrong because electrons move atom to atom through a conductor while somehow passing charges electron to electron near the speed of light. Can’t imagine being an electron and trying to navigate atom to atom though copper atoms. Would drive me batty.
With holes, I simply ignore them and visualize electrons moving through a silicon slab.
> With holes, I simply ignore them
That explains lots of things.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordo does another rant dance about quantum mechanics so that he can throw out another straw man:
Any material which emits thermal IR at a particular wavelength will absorb thermal IR from another source at that wavelength. For the receiving material, the temperature of the source does not matter. For solid and liquid surfaces, the emission vs. wavelength tends to occur over wide ranges, whereas, for gasses, the emissions occur at specific wavelengths. And, gasses emit at multiple wavelengths, depending on their molecular structure, etc.
Gordo’s straw man statement ignores the basic fact that the atmosphere is not a continuous material, but a compressible mixture of gasses. To describe what happens, one must consider multiple layers and for GHG’s, the first layer next to the ground is the one which can emit most directly downward toward the surface. The emissions from the cold Tropopause layer he alludes to aren’t what travels all the way back to the surface, those emissions would tend to be absorbed by the the layers just below. That’s because the lower layers exhibit greater pressure, which broadens the GHG’s emission lines thereby making the downward absorp_tion spectra wider than that of the emitting layer. The opposite is true for outgoing thermal IR radiation, where some emissions from the near the surface layerswith wider spectra can pass thru the upper layers to deep space.
It’s called physics, Gordo, you should try to learn some.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Thank you for your support.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Thankyou again for all your efforts to prove yourself an idiot.
The June UAH results come out next week. With the continuing HTE and the now-forming El Niño, a high Global anomaly should be expected. Certainly above 0.30C, and even above 0.40C wouldn’t be a surprise.
I say, 0.25 C
A quote from an IPCC paper by wee willy…
“Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earths surface. Thus greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface troposphere system”.
***
This demonstrates the corruption at the IPCC level. GHGs cannot trap heat. They trap, if anything, about 7% of surface radiation but radiation is not heat. The heat involved when the EM was produced was dissipated at that time and it is gone. Therefore, there is no heat to trap.
However, if the IR from the surface encounters cooler GHGs in the atmosphere, it can be converted back to a small amount of heat, which will likely be dissipated immediately via collision by the 2500 surrounding molecules of O2 and N2. How much IR will be left over to radiate back toward the surface?
This lame theory has holes large enough to drive a truck through.
C’mon, Bordo.
Don’t you ever get tired of repeating the same Sky Dragon crank crap every single day of your life?
Willard, please stop the idiotic trolling.
Moron Mike,
Can’t you recall the magic words?
Willard, please stop trolling.
wee willy…for the umpteenth time, I am posting for people who may be reading Roy’s blog and be confused by idiot alarmists like you. It would be a colossal waste of time posting to rebut your nonsense.
C’mon, Bordo.
You’re not repeating the same crap over and over again for the sake of any reader.
Willard, this is a Love Hut!
A quote from an IPCC paper by wee willy
Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earths surface. Thus greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface troposphere system.
***
The atmospheric radiation is emitted to all directions and a small part of directions is down. If it is 100 meters above the ground, a small part of directions is down, if 1000 meter above the ground a smaller part of direction is down. If 5000 meter, very small.
The largest portion of direction is sideways.
It also true that small portion goes straight up, but as go higher up slightly more goes in upward direction, but again most always goes sideways.
It’s like globe of Earth, down is southern polar region and up is northern polar region. Either or both are small percentage of surface area [or chance of direction]. Half of direction or chance is to go within 30 degree north or south latitude {some direction sideways}.
Though in terms general upward or downward you divide at equator, half goes towards downward and half upward, but as go higher, odds greatly favor going upwards rather towards Earth surface.
So, at surface, odds favor sideways and as you go higher up, odds increase for radiation to leave Earth. At surface a hemisphere, above surface a sphere.
Longwave radiation emitted sideways in the atmosphere will be absorbed and reradiated by other GHG molecules. It may take a number of repeats but eventually it will either escape to space or be absorbed by the surface.
Gordon, as usual, is spouting 1LOT violating nonsense. Energy does not dissipate in the atmosphere and disappear. It becomes heat. In due time that heat will excite a GHG molecule into producing more radiation.
EM,
Long wave radiation will be absorbed by anything colder than the emitting object – you should know that. Oxygen nitrogen, overcoats – anything. The hotter will cool, the colder will warm, until both are the same temperature.
If long wave radiation from a colder atmosphere impinges on the surface, it will have no heating effect whatever. Even if the atmosphere is warmer than the surface (say an inversion exists), at night the surface cools anyway. Higher temperature is not the sole criteria for heating.
Deny reality if you like. Deny planetary cooling, deny nighttime cooling, deny that winter is colder than summer.
You might even try denying that nobody has managed to provide a description of the GHE which is sensible. At least Willard’s effort “not cooling, cooling over time” doesn’t claim any heating, even though it makes no sense at all.
You can’t describe the GHE, can you? Are you an idiot, trying to pretend that something which you can’t describe does something you can’t measure?
Carts on being stupid.
Bullshit Swenson,
A photon does not carry the information indicating the temperature of the body that emitted the photon.
That’s the garbage intelligent photon theory.
Utter bollocks
FIRST OFF BOB nobody has a clue what photons carry, don,t carry or anything else beyond when a photon is received by a cold body we know how much enery it carries.
so its stupid to claim you do.
Bill,
Don’t give me that nobody knows voodoo bullshit.
It’s part of the standard model of particle physics.
A photon carries three pieces of information, one is its wavelength, frequency, or energy. If you know any one of those you know all three.
And the other two pieces of information tell you the direction the photon is traveling.
And lay off the caps.
It doesn’t look good to claim someone is making a stupid remark when you don’t now what the fuck you are talking about.
bobdroege says:
Bill,
Dont give me that nobody knows voodoo bullshit.
Its part of the standard model of particle physics.
————————-
Obviously Bob. Science only models what it knows at least when its science and not political science. that means the model only contains what we know. It should not contain anything we don’t know.
If you can’t navigate that logical puzzle you probably ought to take up a different pastime.
Bill,
You are absolutely correct,
“Science only models what it knows at least when its science and not political science. that means the model only contains what we know.”
That’s what I am saying, we only know that photons carry three pieces of information.
That is not political, even if you want to make everything about climate science political, some of it is not.
Actually all of it is not politics.
“If you cant navigate that logical puzzle you probably ought to take up a different pastime.”
I am fine with that particular logical puzzle.
You seem to have problems.
bobdroege says:
Bill,
You are absolutely correct,
Science only models what it knows at least when its science and not political science. that means the model only contains what we know.
Thats what I am saying, we only know that photons carry three pieces of information.
———————-
Sure I agree on what we know. But you said: ”A photon does not carry the information indicating the temperature of the body that emitted the photon.”
A beginning class in logic will teach you your statement does not follow from the premises we agreed upon. Its a fallacious statement in that the former does not confirm the negative. Thats something to yet be discovered or proven to not exist or proven to not at all be necessary.
I said: ”If you cant navigate that logical puzzle you probably ought to take up a different pastime.”
You said: ”I am fine with that particular logical puzzle.
You seem to have problems.”
All that proves is your are uneducated.
It was Swenson who claimed to know about new magical properties of photons.
Nate which magical property are you referrring to? I don’t see any.
Please regale us with what you see thats magical and a statistically sensible argument for why it is magical.
Bill,
Please show experimental evidence that you can determine the temperature of an object by measuring the properties of a single photon emitted from that object.
Or do you think you have enough information to revise the Standard Model?
bobdroege says:
”Please show experimental evidence that you can determine the temperature of an object by measuring the properties of a single photon emitted from that object.
Or do you think you have enough information to revise the Standard Model?”
Hmmmm, I never made any such claim bob. But I can understand why you are pretending I did so you can change the course of this conversation. If I said something stupid I would want to do that too.
Yeah, Bill,
This is what you said
“FIRST OFF BOB nobody has a clue what photons carry, don,t carry or anything else beyond when a photon is received by a cold body we know how much enery it carries.”
This is your voodoo bullshit I was referring to.
You may think you are correct, but really, you are clueless.
— Entropic man says:
June 29, 2023 at 2:46 AM
Longwave radiation emitted sideways in the atmosphere will be absorbed and reradiated by other GHG molecules. It may take a number of repeats but eventually it will either escape to space or be absorbed by the surface.-
The idea it’s absorbed by ocean or on land when sun is shining is rather silly. And I say it goes sideways, but not some long distance like all the way to polar regions.
But if radiation is bounced thru tens of miles of atmosphere- even N2 and O2 are going to absorb a significant amount.
Or it seems when say N2 and O2 don’t absorb, much- you are talking 1 atm of atmosphere, not 10 atm of atmosphere- which even sunlight doesn’t get thru, very well.
gb,
For certain pressures, Tyndall determined the blocking of IR by CO2 to be about 1750 times that of oxygen and nitrogen.
Air contains about 4 molecules of CO2 for 10,000 of O2, N2, etc.
This means roughly 50% of IR from the Sun is blocked by CO2, about 50% by the other constituents. A Tyndall also showed, if air contains H2O (aqueous vapour), all bets are off, so to speak.
> But if radiation is bounced thru tens of miles of atmosphere- even N2 and O2 are going to absorb a significant amount.
*Significant* does a lot of work here.
Perhaps Sky Dragon cranks ought to collectively work on quantifying its significance.
“Tyndall determined the blocking of IR by CO2 to be about 1750 times that of oxygen and nitrogen.”
Why do you insist on using 150+ year old data? Surely you know that science has advanced in the past 150 years. We have access to much higher purity samples with much better detectors.
The true ‘blocking power’ of CO2 is much higher than 1750x that of oxygen and nitrogen.
–A Tyndall also showed, if air contains H2O (aqueous vapour), all bets are off, so to speak.–
70% of surface is ocean…
Global climate is all about the ocean.
It’s said more the 90% of global warming is warming our cold 3.5 C ocean.
How much more than 90%??
And one could also say more than 90% of global cooling is cooling our cold ocean. And also, how much more than 90%?
But we are in Ice Age. We here because the average temperature of ocean is about 3.5 C.
And they say past interglacial period had an Ocean of 4 C or warmer, and meters higher in sea level for many thousands of years.
Tim Folkerts says:
”The true blocking power of CO2 is much higher than 1750x that of oxygen and nitrogen.”
Uh. . . .how high Tim?
Tim Folkerts earlier –
“And yet I bet you cant find one single line that is wrong.
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
Tell us one specific error that debunks the theory.”
Tim won’t bet. Not surprising.
Idiot Eli has an object receiving and emitting 400 W, from a source of about 5600 K. Gee, precise energy balance – energy out equals energy in.
The object’s temperature won’t change at all, in theory. The object has no heat capacity – either perfectly conductive, or infinitely thin – maybe a piece of vacuum? Its emission is stated to be identical on both imaginary sides. It is emitting in total all that it receives. No energy left for heating – it has all been emitted.
That’s just for starters. Eli is a delusional idiot – Tim is obviously more stupid than Eli, for believing his nonsense.
You are good at uncovering red herrings.
You don’t explain why any of your ‘objections’ actually matter.
So they are pointless.
Nate,
You idiot, what red herrings are you babbling about? If you want to believe idiotic nonsense, go right ahead.
Others can decide for themselves whether you are a passenger on the same Ship of Fools as dimwits like Eli and Tim Folkerts.
None of you seem capable of accepting nighttime cooling, let alone explaining the role of your mythical GHE in same.
What a pack of donkeys!
“The objects temperature wont change at all, in theory.”
Of course the temperature won’t change. The assumption is that the object has had plenty of time to reach a steady-state condition. But if the object were cooler, it would emit less and warm up. Or if it were warmer, it would emit more and cool down.
Maybe a quick review of basic calorimitry is in order:
Q = mcDelta(T)
When delta(T) is zero (steady temperature), no heat is required. Heat is only needed to CHANGE a temperature.
> mcDelta
I think you found Graham’s next sock puppet, Tim!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
A blocked hurricane west of Central America will cause a strong drop in surface temperatures in the area, and a tropical storm is making its way over land.
https://i.ibb.co/L60R6kL/6166b107-2143-4524-82f7-458821434fc8.jpg
The end of the Holocene
https://youtu.be/6c3yW6s0shQ
Well it’s about termination of Holocene and he “points” to 500 years [or 450 years] from now].
I would say that there is no definition of a termination of interglacial.
Or no past interglacial period can be marked as to where it ended.
Or as I said, one could argue it happenned 5000 years ago.
One could even argue, that we aren’t even exactly in an interglacial period.
Or interglacials end with gradual cooling.
And only thing one could call termination event is the end of glacial maximum.
So we are past our peak Holocene, but it wasn’t very warm peak of our interglacial period {if you want to call this an interglacial period}.
Also he focusing on Northern Hemisphere and glaciers on land- a common mistake.
It’s our ocean which warms, and most of ocean is in southern Hemisphere.
I would say the northern hemisphere is related because when arctic ocean freezes, it warms the ocean. Or if have ice free arctic ocean particularly during the winter {which doubt even it even occurred in Holocene, it warms the land a lot, but cools the ocean a lot.
Or maybe what you call a interglacial period is when arctic ocean has ice free polar sea ice during the winter.
He had some interesting things to say, and he right about milankovitch cycles not being a theory, but rather a hypothesis.
And didn’t know people thought Holocene was similar to that fat interglacial period which quite a while ago.
Looking back over the recent back-radiation debate a common theme emerges. Some accept the existence of back-radiation, or more accurately downwelling longwave radiation. Some do not.
The GHE sceptics share the belief that radiation emitted in the cooler atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the warmer surface.
This is a minority view, which most physicists regard as wrong, having measured both the downwelling longwave radiation and the surface warming when it is absorbed. This puts the burden of proof on the minority.
Come on Gordon and DREMT. Show us the experimental evidence for your belief.
Fresh from his recent argument loss, Entropic Man explodes back onto the scene as if nothing ever happened, to make some more blunders.
"Looking back over the recent back-radiation debate a common theme emerges. Some accept the existence of back-radiation, or more accurately downwelling longwave radiation. Some do not."
Everybody commenting in the recent back-radiation debate accepts the existence of back-radiation.
"The GHE sceptics share the belief that radiation emitted in the cooler atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the warmer surface."
Actually, I’ve never committed to that position. Never felt the need to. I’m not one to claim to know the fate of individual photons, and it’s irrelevant in any case; since, whether absorbed or reflected, radiation from the cooler atmosphere cannot result in the warmer surface reaching a higher temperature.
"This is a minority view, which most physicists regard as wrong, having measured both the downwelling longwave radiation and the surface warming when it is absorbed. This puts the burden of proof on the minority."
Measuring the DLR is not a problem, since we don’t dispute its existence. As for measuring the "surface warming when it is absorbed", don’t be silly. You can measure the warming of the surface (though, in some studies, warming was not observed at some locations anyway), you can measure the DLR. You can claim one causes the other. You can’t demonstrate it, though.
DREMT
YOU: ” radiation from the cooler atmosphere cannot result in the warmer surface reaching a higher temperature.”
It can if the surface is heated (which it is by solar input).
If the radiation from the cooler atmosphere is greater than the radiation from cold space it will indeed lower the amount of heat the surface is losing via radiant means (the amount emitted minus the amount absorbed as all textbooks on the topic state also included in all engineering texts that calculate radiant heat transfer).
Norman, maybe you don’t realise that the “amount of heat the surface is losing via radiant means” means that the surface cools at night, in the absence of sunlight. I’m surprised that you have never observed nighttime cooling.
If your textbooks refuse to accept this observable fact, trade them in for some that reflect reality.
Have you managed to find a description of the GHE to share here, or it still “on the internet” somewhere. Maybe you could ask the “college librarian” you claim knows all about the GHE description?
Only joking, I know you are an idiot.
Moron Mike,
I am quite sure that *the amount of heat the surface is losing via radiant means* refers to the amount of heat the surface is losing via radiant means.
Did you know that a surface could cool even with the presence of sunlight?
Norman is a slave to his cult beliefs. He finds things that he believes in, to support his false beliefs! That ain’t science.
He believes that bogus equation means that “cold” can warm “hot”. Norman, like his cult, has no meaningful background in radiative physics or thermodynamics. And, he refuses learning. Many of his cult even openly admit they believe ice cubes can boil water.
He’s been offered a chance to learn why the equation is bogus, but he rejects reality. He prefers being a braindead cult idiot.
Clint R
Your post is most certainly an example of internet trolling. You are out to provoke and get an emotional knee-jerk reaaction.
I note your continued opinion that the well established and widely used radiant heat transfer equation is bogus.
You have your unfounded and unsupported opinions. Experiments by Roy Spencer have shown your opinion is wrong.
There are a few others who subscribe to this false physics. A primarily made up opinion supported by statements but zero evidence.
You can’t teach why a well established equation that is widely used is “bogus” because it is not. Just your endless repetition of your opinion is all we have.
I do have much more knowledge of radiative physics than you since I have actually read a few textbooks on the subject. You have no real knowledge, just opinions and declarative statements.
When you do an actual experiment I will sit up and pay attention. As it stands now you are just an internet troll that does not understand the subject discussed but likes to annoy and provoke.
“Actually, Ive never committed to that position.”
Some people here oddly think that reality and the established laws of physics that describe it are just a matter of opinion.
Take it or leave it.
IOW observable facts can be ignored or dismissed if you don’t believe in them.
That is the essence of religion, not science.
“That is the essence of religion, not science.”
Belief in a GHE that can’t be described? Delusional SkyDragon cultists refuse to accept that the Earth has cooled since its creation. Sounds like religion to me.
What a pack of fools!
The greenhouse effect has been described many times, Mike Flynn.
Why dont you search the Internet, donkey!
people are describing UFO and Big Foots all the Willard. How tall, how robust, hairiness.
”When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science.”
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin
Advancing to where the actual chemical/electrical/mechanical processes of moving heat from the upper atmosphere to the ground the knowledge of the greenhouse effect is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science.
Doing it mathematically for the purpose of a computer model is like believing the expected total value of an investment is going to be 7 times greater than todays price in 30 years. So you go to your computer and install an inflation rate of 6.75% each year and viola! the computer does tell you that your $1000.00 investment will be worth $7,096.37 thirty years hence.
Great! Now all you have to do is hope you are right about the inflation rate.
Gill, Gill,
This is an Arby’s.
“radiation from the cooler atmosphere cannot result in the warmer surface reaching a higher temperature.”
Which can only happen if none of the radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface. Stop dodging.
You deny that radiation from the atmosphere can warm the surface. That puts you out on the lunatic fringe along with Gordon.
As for my losing the other debate. I attempted to discuss it in detail and you ran away rather than agree clear definitions for energy, heat and work.
"Which can only happen if none of the radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface."
So you believe.
"You deny that radiation from the atmosphere can warm the surface. That puts you out on the lunatic fringe along with Gordon…"
…and Vaughan Pratt, apparently, who stated "Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”"
"As for my losing the other debate. I attempted to discuss it in detail and you ran away rather than agree clear definitions for energy, heat and work."
If you’re just going to lie, as well as never concede defeat, I see no real point engaging with you.
Then shall we resume where we left off?
Do you accept each of the following statements?
Energy as the capacity for doing work.
Work is the transformation of energy from one form to another or the transfer of energy from one place to another.
Heat is energy stored as kinetic energy in a fluid or vibrational energy in a solid. Heat can be transferred directly from one atom or molecule to another by conduction.
Heat can be transferred indirectly from one object to another by converting the heat into emitted radiation whose energy is converted back into heat when absorbed.
Two objects at different temperatures can exchange energy by emitting and absorbing photons from each other. The warmer object will emit more photons than the cooler so there will be a net transfer of energy from warmer to cooler.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1504205
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1504263
Not a great help. You are defining heat entirely as an energy flow Q But how do you describe the energy stored in the hot tea in my thermos flask? Is this heat or not?
You stated that both 1) and 2) were correct. Tim has stated that 1) is wrong. If you wish to continue this dispute, you can continue it with Tim.
I’m not trying for a quick victory or defeat. I’m trying to agree enough common ground to sensibly discuss the physics. As long as you believe false ideas such as the impossibility of energy exchange between objects at different temperature there can be no discussion of the GHE, since you automatically deny a necessary part of the process.
…stated that both 1) and 2) were correct. Tim has stated that 1) is wrong. If you wish to continue this dispute, you can continue it with Tim.
To correct another misrepresentation, EM, here’s what Gaslighting Graham says of Vaughan’s position:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] He does not attribute the warming to IR radiation impinging on the surface, thus warming it.
Here’s what Vaughan himself say:
http://clim8.stanford.edu/Images/
H/T Mighty Tim. Will use that page for my Bingo. It’s a great page.
Vaughan Pratt also stated:
"Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”"
Another point, EM.
Gaslighting Graham tends to overinterpret Vaughan’s rejection of backradiation:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98571
In some sense, Vaughan anticipated a recurring theme from our very own Sky Dragon cranks.
In some sense, a comment from less than two years ago supersedes one from twelve years ago. Opinions change.
In some sense, Graham is always gaslighting a little bit.
Here’s what his new ultimate authority says:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1504074
That should put his “basically” into perspective.
I think this puts it all into perspective:
"Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”"
Another interesting perspective:
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/
It is doubtful that an equivalence has turned into a contradiction in the span of ten years.
He said what he said, two years ago.
In some sense, Gaslighting Graham has yet to display any understanding Vaughan’s point. Perhaps he should study the famous graph by Trenberth, which coheres with Vaughan’s point.
Neither does he understand Mighty Tim’s point. It is not even clear that by his own logic the two viewpoints should be contradictory. By chance we don’t need Gaslighting Graham’s logic for, as Bob observed earlier, they complement one another quite well.
Little Willy is off in a world of his own imagination again. A world in which he didn’t just suffer a humiliating defeat.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
“Basically.”
[DREMT] I will assume that Tim is aware my 1) and 2), from here, are contradictory.
[TIM] I am now.
That means he’s aware they’re contradictory, Little Willy.
Take two propositions, P and non-P.
Assume that P makes no sense.
Does non-P make sense?
I thought so.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Maybe we should introduce
3) What Vaughn Pratt actually thinks about how the greenhouse effect works.
I think I’ve just demonstrated the radiation exchange that DREMT, Swenson and Gordon deny.
I’m sitting by the log fire in one of the American houses in our museum.
I took two logs from the fire, rectangular solids about 12″ by 4″ by 4″ and both glowing orange.
I set them on the grate side by side, 6″ apart and the facing sides cooled to black.
I moved them inwards until the facing sides were 1″ apart and after two minutes both facing sides were glowing orange again.
Each log had warmed the other and the only way to do it was by exchanging radiation.
None of that matters much, EM. Gaslighting Graham only tags you along his biggest troll so far, oblivious of just about anything he could be told. Oblivious of everything he himself said to get that thrill, in fact.
I hope you know that our Sky Dragon cranks will reply that ice cubes refute what you just said.
"I took two logs from the fire, rectangular solids about 12″ by 4″ by 4″ and both glowing orange."
So, two logs at the same temperature.
"I set them on the grate side by side, 6″ apart and the facing sides cooled to black."
So, two logs at the same temperature.
"I moved them inwards until the facing sides were 1″ apart and after two minutes both facing sides were glowing orange again."
So, two logs at the same temperature.
I thought the dispute was over colder objects making warmer objects warmer still, using only the magical powers of "back-radiation warming"?
Nice to see Little Willy endorse your comment, though.
> Stop dodging.
Good luck with that.
Entropic man says:
”Each log had warmed the other and the only way to do it was by exchanging radiation.”
Hilarious. EM confuses himself with his own experiment.
Sorry EM both logs have a power source, combustion of fuel within the log. Move them closer together and the field of view changes via the square distance law for both logs. Its not a matter of backradiation causing the logs to exceed the equilibrium established by Stefan and Boltzmann. . . .the equilibrium changes when you move the logs closer together like the equilibrium of a planet changes per the distance it is from the sun.
> Its not a matter of backradiation causing the logs to exceed the equilibrium established by Stefan and Boltzmann
When would such “matter” happen, Gill?
Asking for a friend who pretends being an engineer.
Willard says:
When would such matter happen, Gill?
————————-
Backradiation isn’t a movement of heat. . .as DREMT has been repeatedly saying. Thus it cannot heat anything. It can help prevent something from getting colder. The movement of heat is the net value of primary radiation less backradiation and it always moves from hot to cold.
I don’t know why you guys have so much trouble with a simple concept.
Gill, Gill,
Telling me what is not backradiation does not tell me what backradiation is. Neither does it answer my question.
Care to try again?
Care to please stop trolling, Little Willy?
DREMT, Bill Hunter
“So, two logs at the same temperature. ”
Exactly, to the same picoKelvin? I very mu change doubt it.
The cooler log would warm while the warmer log would not. You would see one log begin to glow while the other stayed dark.
Willard.
I’m having great fun here. DREMT’s beliefs are as daft as Gordon Robertson’s but he doesn’t want to admit it. Watching him frantically trying to pretend otherwise is most entertaining.
And the other denialists are wetting themselves trying to prove me wrong.
Pity they never learned the old rule
” Better to say nothing and be thought a fool, rather than speak and remove all doubt”.
The lurkers are probably ROFL.
…at you, yes. You didn’t respond to Bill’s annihilation of your point, Entropic Man. The lurkers notice that kind of thing.
Indeed, EM.
As long as he kneels to Mighty Tim, it’s all good.
Indeed, DREMT. Entropic Man lost another one, taking Little Willy with him.
“Backradiation isnt a movement of heat. . .as DREMT has been repeatedly saying. ”
Which is why he sounds so dumb.
Backradiation forms when vibrational energy in a GHG molecule is transformed into radiation. It moves from the atmosphere to the surface where the radiation is absorbed and transformed back to vibrational energy which raises the temperature of the surface.
The radiation carries no information about the temperature of the molecule which emitted it, so the surface has no way of knowing. It is impossible for the surface to choose which photons to absorb and which to reflect.
Wrong comment, E Man. 9:01 AM.
DREMT
My answer was to Bill’s 9.50 comment.
Yes, Ent. That’s the problem. I said:
"You didn’t respond to Bill’s annihilation of your point, Entropic Man. The lurkers notice that kind of thing."
Bill’s demolition of your ridiculous logs example occurred in his 9:01 AM comment. Not in his 9:50 AM comment. You responded to the wrong comment…
Entropic man says:
So, two logs at the same temperature.
Exactly, to the same picoKelvin? I very mu change doubt it.
The cooler log would warm while the warmer log would not. You would see one log begin to glow while the other stayed dark.
————————
This is a stupid variation of a dead body warming from putting a blanket over it.
The combustion temperature of a material has a certain temperature. The logs not close together have cooled in their outer layers while still combusting in their inner layers. A temperature gradient exists inside the logs from excessive cooling.
Move the logs closer together than the outer layers exposed via the square distance law from the other log will begin to rewarm to their cumbustion temperature and the outer layers will combust and burn.
Understand that insulation works to move temperatures closer to the equilibrium of a heat source as modified by the square distance law. In combustion its a bit more complex but the same rules apply. However, pumping air across the combusting surface can cause the combustion to get hotter as combustion needs fuel, heat, and oxygen.
Likewise this is the problem with the green plate experiment. The blue plate isn’t insulated and thus its temperature is about 1/2 of equilibrium. . . .like a pane of glass in a window of a house that is trying to equalize between two different temperatures. But none of this applies to the surface of the earth because it is already insulated. If you want to figure this out you have to read Joe Postma more carefully and accept some of his premises that you currently reject.
Which premises, Gill?
Willard, pleased stop your idiotic trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You need to learn the magic words.
Perhaps this will help –
“Anybody, (with more mental capacity than you can muster), can work out that if the surface was once molten, and the interior is still glowing hot, that the Earth has indeed emitted vastly more energy than it has received from the Sun! It has cooled. More energy out than in. As Baron Fourier (he of the Series, Decomposition etc.) said, during the night, the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earths primordial heat.”
Is this your way of replacing the theory of the greenhouse effect?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
EM,
You wrote –
“This is a minority view, which most physicists regard as wrong, having measured both the downwelling longwave radiation and the surface warming when it is absorbed. This puts the burden of proof on the minority.”
Disproof, you mean. Of the bizarre notion that the radiation from cooler objects can raise the temperature of hotter ones.
Night time, plus four and a half billion years of planetary cooling. Proof enough? Tell me about the surface warming during those time periods. Willard, idiot though he is, accidentally told the truth about the GHE – ” cooling over time”.
He could have left out “over time”. All cooling occurs over time, but Willards not terribly attached to reality – just like you.
“Night time, plus four and a half billion years of planetary cooling.”
Which has no relevance to the issue being discussed.
Oh well, trolls will be trolls!
Well, Nate, it is interesting to see yet another idiot has appointed himself the arbiter of what is, and is not, relevant.
I’m happy to let others form their own views. You?
I’m sure you will tell others what to believe, and what not to believe.
Good luck – you’ll need it. My view is that you are an idiot, because you can’t even describe the GHE in any way that accords with reality.
Mike Flynn,
Would you like to share your theory of the Primordial Heat Effect?
Now is the time.
Little Willy, would you like to please stop trolling?
Now is the time.
Does Gaslighting Graham not know the magic words?
Now is the time to say them.
You’re an evil, sadistic sociopath, and the world will be a better place when you’re dead?
Proud of what he perceives as a win, after having knelt to Mighty Tim, Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
He could concede that Moron Mike’s theory of the Primordial Heat Effect would deserve due diligence. No, he has to PST instead.
Oh, sorry, I just thought those were the magic words. Apparently not.
Here are two propositions:
(P1) The PST formula contains three specific words, in a specific order.
(P2) The PST formula is just whatever Gaslighting Graham decides to choose when he’s PSTing.
These are inconsistent propositions.
I consistently held the first one.
Are the magic words, "you’re a worthless troll with no knowledge of physics, and pretty much everyone here wishes you would stop commenting?"
Apparently Graham is gaslighting again.
PST stands for “please stop trolling.”
Nothing else.
Since he’s being thick once again –
Gaslighting Graham can always have the last word.
All he needs is to use the PST formula.
Nothing else will do.
He should consider himself lucky.
Are the magic words, "you’re not welcome at this blog, go back to Curry’s"?
Keep it up, Willard.
We are getting the denialist and fringe scientist DREMT really pissed off as he fails to answer our points. Witness the way in which he has given up arguing the science and resorted to personal insults.
You mean insults like:
"lunatic fringe"
"Better to say nothing and be thought a fool, rather than speak and remove all doubt"
"DREMTs beliefs are as daft as Gordon Robertsons"
"Twit"
?
Will do, EM.
How Gaslighting Graham is now playing the ref is its own reward.
Oh, I almost forgot:
“Which is why he sounds so dumb.”
Poor Graham, forever the victim.
My favorite remains:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-311862
Oh, and more recently:
“Your IQ must be well down into double figures and dropping fast”.
Four insults sent my way and one to Clint R. As well as the baiting and goading we witnessed from him. Have I insulted E Man once, on the other hand, this thread? No.
Good night, EM.
Actually, five insults, not four. He’s been so insulting, I lost count. Then he turns up, saying this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1504747
oblivious to the fact that my beef with Little Willy has nothing to do with the argument he’s currently losing. My problem with Little Willy is that he is an utterly relentless troll.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once more.
He tried to speak for everyone.
It failed.
Beancounting insults won’t change that fact.
Poor Gaslighting Graham, forever the victim.
I said “pretty much everyone here wishes you would stop commenting”. I think that’s correct. “Pretty much” implies there will be some people that support what you do, of course. I probably shouldn’t try to speak for everybody, though.
That’s all besides the point that E Man’s comment was bizarrely out of touch with reality:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1504747
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1504902
Yeah, that’s all besides the point, Little Willy.
Entropic Man baits and goads me, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1504685
He insults me, five times. Meanwhile I’ve insulted him zero times. Then he comes along and says:
“We are getting the denialist and fringe scientist DREMT really pissed off as he fails to answer our points. Witness the way in which he has given up arguing the science and resorted to personal insults.”
I mean…no, nobody has got me really pissed off. However, if that’s your aim…wouldn’t that be trolling? No, his points have been answered. It is actually Bill’s points that Ent is avoiding answering. Given up arguing the science!? No, not at all. Personal insults have been EMs domain, not mine. Just because I insult Little Willy in a completely unrelated discussion…EMs comment is absurd.
Only you could defend it.
All this is besides the point.
Graham goads and baits EM here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1502964
Note the date.
Once goaded and baited, EM can respond in kind. Those who goaded and baited him have no truck in whining about any of this.
Climateball is co-construction. As long as players carry their weight, anything goes.
How is asking Entropic Man a question “baiting and goading”!?
qltm
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Just another daily win:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1505311
You were asked to please stop trolling, and failed to do so. You claim that you will never respond after a PST. You just broke that.
Another daily win.
“Im happy to let others form their own views”
Riiiight. Mostly you interrupt people forming and expressing their views to tell them how stupid they are.
Blinny now claims that http://www.woodfortrees.org must be wrong
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/uah6/mean:12
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:60/mean:50/mean:39/plot/uah6/mean:60
You are an opinionated and all the time insinuating liar, Blindsley H00d.
I never claimed that Wood For Trees must be wrong, and you know that.
*
What I say is that the cascaded triple 60/50/39 running mean is not a 60 month running mean but a 149 month running mean.
You can see this better with a cascaded quintuple 60 month running mean which also is not a 60 month running mean but a 242 month running mean:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:60/mean:55/mean:49/mean:42/mean:36/plot/uah6/mean:60
*
And you see it even much better with a cascaded quintuple 90 month running mean which also is not a 90 month running mean but a 363 month running mean, showing no more than about 170 of about 530 months:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:90/mean:86/mean:78/mean:70/mean:61/plot/uah6/mean:90
Dou you want to see how a cascaded septuple 90 month running mean would look like if it would make sense for leakage elimination?
*
Don’t try to manipulate the blog, Blindsley H00d.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:60/mean:50/mean:39/plot/uah6/mean:60/plot/uah5/mean:149
It doesn’t look anything like it.
Sorry, I meant UAH 6.0
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:60/mean:50/mean:39/plot/uah6/mean:149
Blinny: See above. I did just what you said and there is no comparison between a cascaded triple 60/50/39 running mean and a 149 SRM. You are just an idiot it seems. Anything to not agree that VP knew what he was talking about and you do not.
Note also that your claim that a 12/10/8 CTRM did not match a 12 month SRM has failed.
Ooops?! It looks like I pasted the first 5 numbers of a 90 month C7RM.
Here is the right chart:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:90/mean:83/mean:73/mean:63/mean:54/plot/uah6/mean:90
And here is the 90 month C7RM, dans toute sa grandeur:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:90/mean:86/mean:78/mean:70/mean:61/mean:56/mean:50/plot/uah6/mean:90
Is it not wonderful?
Blindsley H00d, you are yourself the opinionated idiot here.
You don’t understand what is the window of a running mean.
And the window of the 60/50/39 CTRM is exactly the same as the window for the 159 SRM.
No one claimed that they would show the same, you dumb ignoramus.
*
And again I ask you: If zero leakage was reached first if you used 7 instead of just 5 Pratt coefficients, what would you opinionated boy do with your wonderful ’90’ month C7RM?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:90/mean:86/mean:78/mean:70/mean:61/mean:56/mean:50/plot/uah6/mean:90
Tell it us, Blindsley H00d.
So why is there so much high frequency leak through in the 149 SRM?
VP, who agreed that the response he observed was near Gaussian, would not recognize your claim.
Please do not confuse things with 5, 7 or 9 factor CTRM (which just approximate even closer a true Gaussian filter) without including a Gaussian filter.
P.S. VP introduced his 3 stage CTRM/F3 filter in order to overcome the distortions that an SRM brings, so why would comparing his c(1,1.2067,1.5478) CRTM be comparable to a 3.8148 SRM?
What makes you think that the window width is anything to do with the corner frequency?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutoff_frequency
E. Swanson confirms his confusion about “back-radiation”: Gordo still can’t be bothered to explain what happens to the downwelling IR energy, if it isn’t absorbed. It doesn’t dissipate, as Gordo has repeatedly claimed, since that would be a violation of the 1st Law of Thermo.
E. Swanson has been guilty of confusing 1LoT with 2LoT, indicating he knows NOTHING about the subject. Here’s a little brain teaser for him:
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
The second law of thermodynamics states that for a spontaneous process, the entropy of the universe increases.
You say that energy dissipates ie. disappears. That is the destruction of energy which violates the 1ST LAW.
Twit.
Wrong Ent, I never said “energy disappears”. But thanks for another example of your effort to pervert reality.
So, when the energy “dissipates”, where does it go?
Where did all the photons go, Entropic Man? The question was put to the likes of you.
https://youtu.be/OGLZpmaR9D4
It doesn’t dissipate or disappear. It becomes kinetic energy of molecules in the atmosphere. In due course it excites vibrational energy by collision with GHG molecules and is emitted as radiation.
Ent responds to himself, ignoring everyone else.
DREMT
Your IQ must be well down into double figures and dropping fast.
I asked ClintR “So, when the energy dissipates, where does it go?”, In response to his earlier assertion that energy dissipates in the atmosphere.
You then asked “Where did all the photons go, Entropic Man?The question was put to the likes of you. ”
I assumed that you were referring to ClintRs comment about dissipation in the atmosphere, but in retrospect did you wander off after Clints red herring about a room?
My answer referred to energy dissipation in the atmosphere.
“It doesnt dissipate or disappear. It becomes kinetic energy of molecules in the atmosphere. In due course it excites vibrational energy by collision with GHG molecules and is emitted as radiation.”
Please pay attention. DREMT. You are very difficult to talk to when you keep losing the plot.
Keep it up, Clint R.
We are getting the denialist and fringe scientist Entropic Man really pissed off as he fails to answer our points. Witness the way in which he has given up arguing the science and resorted to personal insults.
Gaslighting Graham responds to himself, ignoring everyone else.
How Little Willy is now playing the ref is its own reward.
Willard, please stop the idiotic trolling.
Mike Flynn continues his idiotic trolling.
Willard, please stop your idiotic trolling,
These are not the magic words, Moron Mike.
Willard, please stop your idiotic trolling,
DREMT
Please invent your own insults. Plagiarising mine is a sign of laziness or lack of imagination.
Goodnight.
Sorry that you have lost so many arguments recently.
Pay no attention to Gaslighting Graham’s gaslighting, EM.
Kneeling to Mighty Tim exalted him.
I simply thanked him for doing what Nate didn’t have the integrity to do. I certainly didn’t “kneel” to anybody, weirdo.
Gaslighting Graham does not always thank, but when he does it is never insulting.
Though, to be fair, if Tim had realised he would be throwing bob and Little Willy under the bus, he might not have responded either. I think it was just because the preceding five hundred comment discussion in which Little Willy and bob were repeatedly and incessantly wrong whilst constantly insulting me for being correct was not known about by Tim.
It was the best of times for Gaslighting Graham. It was the worst of times for Gaslighting Graham. Vaughan swaying him one side, on the other side Mighty Time, making him fall on his knees for the first time.
Silly sock puppet.
Willard, please stop your idiotic trolling.
These are not the magic words, Mike Flynn.
Tell me –
“Anybody, (with more mental capacity than you can muster), can work out that if the surface was once molten, and the interior is still glowing hot, that the Earth has indeed emitted vastly more energy than it has received from the Sun! It has cooled. More energy out than in. As Baron Fourier (he of the Series, Decomposition etc.) said, during the night, the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earths primordial heat.”
Was that remark meant to be relevant to sidestep the need of something like a greenhouse effect?
Ah, Mighty Time.
Mighty Time will make us all fall to our knees, in the end.
Alright, I’ll allow that one.
Entropic man says:
”It becomes kinetic energy of molecules in the atmosphere.”
you mean the photon disappears and its energy dissipates into the kinetic energy of the molecules of the room?
Gill, Gill,
No need to wonder anymore. Mike Flynn solved our pickle –
“photons go where they go”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1504956
For once our silliest sock puppet is being useful!
Wrong link:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1504903
EM he did not say the photons disappeared, you assumed they disappeared. The room did go dark though. Why?
This is just a variation of the ridiculous idea of a pile of bricks in the middle of a room with 400w/m2 emitting walls going nuclear from all the backradiation getting generated and flying around warming shit up from your belief in the 3rd grader radiation model.
Bill
Clint’s room is a distraction. He claimed that energy absorbed by the atmosphere somehow “dissipates” and disappears in violation of 1LOT. He has now changed his claim to say that the energy does not disappear, but doesn’t say where it goes or what happens to it. That is the issue you should be addressing.
EM,
Energy radiated from the surface flees to outer space – never to be seen again. It has disappeared, as far as you are concerned!
Are you thick, or just pretending to be thick?
That is the question we are addressing.
ent…”energy absorbed by the atmosphere somehow dissipates and disappears in violation of 1LOT”.
***
Nothing to do with the 1st law which was written circa 1850 to describe the relationship between heat and work. The physicist Joule started the conversation circa 1840 when hr derived a relationship between heat and work.
The discussion actually began with Carnot and his heat engine theory. Clausius, Thomson and others began questioning the claim of Carnot that no heat loss was involved in a heat engine. That led to the 1st and 2nd laws. Clausius contributed the definition for internal energy in the 1st law as a summation of internal heat and work.
Heated air molecules in the atmosphere have little if anything to do with the 1st law. They have far more to do with the Ideal Gas Law. That’s where the natural dissipation of heat comes from and it can be seen easily in PV = nRT.
Presuming a constant volume and constant n, the equation can be written as …
P = (nR/V)T
It is plainly obvious that as air thins with altitude, P decreases and T decreases. It should be equally obvious that heat, being related to the motion of atoms, must dissipate naturally with altitude as the number of atoms per unit volume decrease.
grammie clone tosses out a straw man, trolling for replies. First off, please create such an environment with perfect reflectors. If you can’t do that, tell us what happens with reflectors which exhibit 99.9% reflection.
Here’s a hint. Say that our room is 5 meters between walls. Given the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second, so light traversing from one wall to the other would take 5/299,792,458 = 1.668 e^8 seconds. The question for the student is, what’s the intensity of the beam after 0.10 seconds?
ES,
He would buy perfectly reflecting mirrors from the same place as Eli Rabbet buys his infinitely thin black body.
Or where Tim Folkerts buys his hidden infinitely powerful self adjusting heat sources, or his water heating ice.
You posed a stupid gotcha “The question for the student is, whats the intensity of the beam after 0.10 seconds?”
Either you know the answer, and are trying to make someone look stupid, or you don’t know, and are just demonstrating your ignorance! Pointless, either way.
You don’t understand any of this, do you? You are so delusional, you believe in a GHE which nobody at all can even describe!
Why do you bother demonstrating how delusional and ignorant you are? Congenital idiocy, perhaps?
As expected, grammie clone has no answer to a simple question, just more BS to avoid discussing his own clownish straw man.
“with perfectly reflecting mirrors.”
Define perfectly reflecting.
Gill.
Oh, sorry. Not deflecting. Reflecting.
Willard, please stop your idiotic trolling.
Hey, Mike Flynn –
Where’s your theory of the Primordial Heat effect?
Weepy Wee Willard,
What is the Primordial Heat Effect?
Another product of your delusional fantasy?
Idiot.
For once the fantasy is all yours, Mike Flynn –
“Anybody, (with more mental capacity than you can muster), can work out that if the surface was once molten, and the interior is still glowing hot, that the Earth has indeed emitted vastly more energy than it has received from the Sun! It has cooled. More energy out than in. As Baron Fourier (he of the Series, Decomposition etc.) said, during the night, the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earths primordial heat.”
Unless you only meant this as a silly distraction?
Weepy Wee Willard,
What is the Primordial Heat Effect?
Another product of your delusional fantasy?
Idiot.
Moron Mike,
I am glad you are playing dumb –
Is this your way of replacing the theory of the greenhouse effect?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You haven’t really got a theory of the Primordial Heat Effect, because that effect is a product of your diseased imagination, isn’t it?
I can only assume that you don’t understand what “primordial” means, and have invented some imaginary effect to obscure your ignorance.
Being obscure won’t help you fool. Just own up up and admit you are clueless.
Nobody will laugh – they know it already.
Moron Mike,
I do not need a theory for the Primoridial Heat effect. You do. At least if you want the factoids you kept regurgitating for more than a decade to be relevant.
I certainly can live with you spouting irrelevancies.
Clint R
Others have gone into the thought experiment. Outside of “impossible” perfectly reflecting mirrors the room will go dark very fast even with very good “real” mirrors. Other strange effects take place if you find the “impossible” mirrors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0gAvXjx8Xw
Norman, explain to Ent that that does NOT violate 1LoT.
Then you can explain to him that passenger jets do NOT fly backward.
Then you can work on ice cubes boiling water and a cooler atmosphere raising warmer surface temperatures.
I doubt you can make much progress. He’s braindead —
absorbed by the lightbulb
Ent is a known braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll. He has no trouble perverting reality. He’s the one that claims passenger jets fly backward, just in an effort to support his belief in ancient astrology.
Here, he attempts to misrepresent Skeptics: Some accept the existence of back-radiation, or more accurately downwelling longwave radiation. Some do not.
Skeptics understand that photons move from the sky to the surface.
Ent tries again: The GHE sceptics share the belief that radiation emitted in the cooler atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the warmer surface.
The issue is NOT absorp.tion. The issue is a cooler atmosphere can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer surface. For absorbed photons to raise the temperature, they MUST increase the average kinetic energy of the surface.
“The issue is a cooler atmosphere can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer surface. For absorbed photons to raise the temperature, they MUST increase the average kinetic energy of the surface. ”
Which is what happens and is why the surface temperature increases.
Wrong Ent. Your fantasy ain’t science. Earth is in a warming trend, but it’s NATURAL. A colder atmosphere can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer surface.
Passenger jets do NOT fly backward.
“Earth is in a warming trend, but its NATURAL. ”
Show me.
If you do the calculation the ocean, ice , land and atmosphere are gaining 10^22 Joules/year. Give me the numbers showing where the energy warming the planet is coming from.
EM,
Show that the warming is not natural – I consider Anthropogenically Generated Warming to be part of nature.
Maybe you believe humans are unnatural?
Calculations??? Where are the measurements???
They will tax the air you breathe
https://youtu.be/2wrEOVo-mG4
Yong Zhong
IPCC CO2 Narrative
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm3KnZNOUgo
See also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nbof8KGOVw
And his youtube channal
https://www.youtube.com/@yongtuition/videos
Another duplicate comment without the original appearing…
The guy makes excellent points. One of them is that Tyndall predicted no more than a 5% absor.p.tion of IR by CO2. I did not follow the point about heat but the point is clear that Tyndall’s experiment was done in a glass tube in a lab environment, hence the temperature of the gas in the tube would be at room temperature.
That’s far from the case in the atmosphere where gas temperatures can easily be as low as -50C. If CO2 absorbs surface IR and the temperature of the gas is even 0C, how much of that translates to warming of the atmosphere?
When you factor in the inverse square law and temperature difference, how much can CO2 affect the air above the surface? R. W. Wood, a renowned expert with gases like CO2 claimed no more than a few metres. If CO2 warms that air, and it is immediately convected to higher altitudes with cooler air, what possible effect can that heating have?
Speaking of the inverse square law, the drop off in IR intensity is so steep with altitude that the IR would be useless beyond a few metres, as claimed by Wood. You can easily test that with a 1500 watt stove ring glowing red. You can’t feel any effect from it beyond a few feet.
It’s getting cold in the southern hemisphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_AMJ_SH_2023.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2023.png
The governmental obsession about their climate emergency is worse that the worst clown show.
Their three ring circus is mainly a bunch of fool making prediction which have all been wrong.
Since it’s their circus, it’s their job to explain it- and they haven’t explain why being in an Ice Age we should be concerned about a bit of warming after the Little Ice Age.
Next on the menu {and related}:
For 45 years, the Supreme Court has recognized a limited exception to that rule for university admissions, one based on the schools academic freedom to assemble classes that support their educational mission. Diversity was a compelling interest, the court had found.
But the Supreme Court did not itself find that diversity was a compelling interest. Rather, it deferred to universities claims that diversity was a compelling interest. A court defers to someone else when it says that it may have a different opinion on the matter itself but it will allow the opinion of the person or entity in question to control because of their expertise. So, for example, under the now moribund doctrine of Chevrondeference, the Court would defer to an agencys interpretation of the statute it administers, even if the Court would have interpreted the statute differently.
But no longer. As the majority opinion today noted: The universities main response to these criticisms is trust us. They assert that universities are owed deference when using race to
benefit some applicants but not others. While this Court has recognized a tradition of giving a degree of deference to a universitys academic decisions, it has made clear that deference must exist within constitutionally prescribed limits.
Trust us was essentially the argument offered by the University of Michigan in Grutter, and one that was cheerfully accepted by the majority there. Not so much today.”
https://instapundit.substack.com/p/affirmative-actions-demise-and-higher?sd=pf
And this also applies to UN- “trust us” is not going to work.
A dissenting view, of course, came from a recently appointed Black judge. Her dissent was obviously based on emotion rather than the law.
Something based upon emotion seems a reasonable measuring stick to
me- vs “the law”. But emotion assessment has little to do with the inability of defining what woman is. Unless it’s fear of stating the obvious- which sort of non adult or non professional, sort of thing.
The Verdict of Instrumental Methods
Pat Frank
LiG Metrology, Correlated Error, and the Integrity of the Global Surface Air Temperature Record has passed peer-review and is now published in the MDPI journal, Sensors (pdf).
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/29/the-verdict-of-instrumental-methods/
I will note this wouldn’t matter if father of global warming was vaguely close with his prediction of effect of CO2.
“the published uncertainties {in the global air temperature anomalies} are about half the instrumental lower limit of detection a physical impossibility.”
“The SST is unknown: In 1964 Robert Stevenson carried out an extended SST calibration experiment aboard the VELERO IV oceanographic research vessel. Simultaneous high-accuracy SST measurements were taken from the VELERO IV and from a small launch put out from the ship.
Stevenson found that the ship so disturbed the surrounding waters that the SSTs measured from the ship were not representative of the physically true water temperature (or air temperature). No matter how accurate, the bucket, engine-intake, or hull-mounted probe temperature measurement did not reveal the true SST.
The only exception was an SST obtained using a prow-mounted probe, but if the measurement was made when the ship was heading into the wind ‘or cruising downwind at a speed greater than the wind velocity.’
Stevenson concluded, ‘One may then question the value of temperatures taken aboard a ship, or from any large structure at sea. Because the measurements vary with the wind velocity and the orientation of the ship with respect to the wind direction no factor can be applied to correct the data. It is likely that the temperatures are, therefore, useless for any but gross analyses of climatic factors, excepting, perhaps, those taken with a carefully-oriented probe.’
Stevensons experiment may be the most important investigation ever carried out of the veracity of ship-derived SSTs. However, the experiment generated scant notice. It was never repeated or extended, and the reliability question of SSTs the VELERO IV experiment revealed has generally been by-passed. The journal shows only 5 citations since 1964.
Nevertheless, ship SSTs have been used to calibrate satellite SSTs probably through 2006. Which means that earlier satellite SSTS are not independent of the large uncertainty in ship SSTs”
Hopefully that was not Robert Louis Stevenson.
His observations were astute re disturbing the water hence warming it. NOAA does not seem the least concerned about water being sucked into an intake valve on a ship and using that water to determine the SST.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/3/1/1520-0450_1964_003_0115_tioaso_2_0_co_2.xml
Thanks for paper. Interesting stuff.
It is interesting as well that NOAA used a change in methodology of measuring the SST to retroactively overturn the IPCC announcement in 2013, that the previous 15 years had shown no trend. Even NOAA’s surface record showed no trend over the same period. I have no idea why they felt compelled to go back and rewrite the SST record to get a positive trend.
“resolution determines the upper limit of precision. The precision in your data cannot exceed your resolution”
gb…”There was no dismissive language”.
***
It would be nice to comment in an atmosphere of professionalism where people respond with concrete criticism rather than appeals to authority and ad homs. Then again, it would not be nearly as much fun.
I was visualizing Newton, Cassini et al participating in a blog, and Newton calling Cassini an idiot. Or Halley accusing Newton of appeals to authority because he referenced Decartes.
It’s interesting that the knock on thermometers is reading the scale and using them outside of their intended range. It is presumed that a mercury thermometer is linear, but is it? And over what range of temperatures is it accurate.
With regard to reading the scale, we were warned in university labs to be wary of parallax, a problem of view angle. If you look at the mercury level from above a graticule or below it, the temperature would read differently than if you look at the graticule with the eyes horizontal to the graticule. For that reason, on older analog voltmeters they had a mirror that reflected the needle position so you could line up the needle with the reflection.
But is the amount crucial with a mercury thermometer when considering issues related to global warming? In other words, are errors in the range of 0.01C crucial? I suppose if the error got as high as 0.05C it could be an issue with regard to precision.
That was another matter we studied, precision. There is no point stating a reading to three decimal places when the meter will only measure two decimal places. For that reason, we learned to state error margins i each reading and how to sum the errors to give an overall error margin. Conveniently, I have forgotten all that good stuff. The point is not to remember it precisely but to be aware of the issue.
Not dismissive at all:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/29/the-verdict-of-instrumental-methods/#comment-3740883
A reasonable reply to someone who confuses accuracy with precision and then uses Central Limit Theorem as his goto response.
We’ve already been over this, Richard.
You’re just wrong.
CLT requires that individual readings are not related. Are you suggesting that temperature readings are purely random and normally distributed?
“Put another way, CLT is a statistical premise that, given a sufficiently large sample size from a population with a finite level of variance, the mean of all sampled variables from the same population will be approximately equal to the mean of the whole population. Furthermore, these samples approximate a normal distribution, with their variances being approximately equal to the variance of the population as the sample size gets larger, according to the law of large numbers.”
“Additionally, the central limit theorem applies to independent, identically distributed variables. In other words, the value of one observation does not depend on the value of another observation. And, the distribution of that variable must remain constant across all measurements.”
Errors are independent, Richard, whereas nonsense propagates exponentially.
Willard, please stop your idiotic trolling.
“Errors are independent”
but the measurments are not.
plus the errors could be systematic.
Errors are errors of something, Richard.
Try this:
https://uncertainty.nist.gov/
Report.
(H/T bd)
Errors could be systematic in which case CLT would not apply.
Try with satellite measurements, Richard.
Tell me how Roy succeeded in replicating the warming trend.
Was it by propagating errors too?
NIST does not do systematic errors.
You mean this (with significant waviness in the output)?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/uah-global.jpeg
Yes, you can take that.
Now, do you see any systematic error increasing over time?
Willard, Willard, Willard, why have you taken to JAQing off again?
Do you think it makes you look clever?
Oh dear, another question!
The answer is obvious to anyone who looked at Richard’s graph, Mike Flynn.
Please step out of his way.
Willard, Willard, Willard, why have you taken to JAQing off again?
Do you think it makes you look clever?
Oh dear, another question!
You are stepping on Richard’s toes, Moron Mike.
Perhaps this will help –
Is this your way of replacing the theory of the greenhouse effect?
Weary Wee Willy,
I see you are impressed enough to quote me, so it must bet worth repeating.
Anybody, (with more mental capacity than you can muster), can work out that if the surface was once molten, and the interior is still glowing hot, that the Earth has indeed emitted vastly more energy than it has received from the Sun! It has cooled. More energy out than in. As Baron Fourier (he of the Series, Decomposition etc.) said, during the night, the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earths primordial heat.
What is this “greenhouse effect”? Describe it for me. Maybe it’s only in your imagination, and thus cannot be described?
You delusional SkyDragon cultist, accept reality.
Moron Mike,
However the radiation directed downwards or sideways obviously can’t escape to space and will be eventually captured. Only upwards radiation can escape to space provided it is not absor-bed by the atmosphere on the way up. The higher the source of that upwards radiation, the less atmosphere it has to punch through and the better its chances of escaping to space.
So what are you braying about?
Weary Wee Willy,
I see you are impressed enough to quote me, so it must bet worth repeating.
Anybody, (with more mental capacity than you can muster), can work out that if the surface was once molten, and the interior is still glowing hot, that the Earth has indeed emitted vastly more energy than it has received from the Sun! It has cooled. More energy out than in. As Baron Fourier (he of the Series, Decomposition etc.) said, during the night, the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earths primordial heat.
What is this greenhouse effect? Describe it for me. Maybe its only in your imagination, and thus cannot be described?
You delusional SkyDragon cultist, accept reality.
“do you see any systematic error increasing over time?”
Who said they did. Systematic errors increases the uncertainty of the claimed figures.
Pat did.
You could show how the uncertainty increases over time.
That should be enough to see how ridiculous this all is.
Perhaps you will show where he claimed that? AFAIK he claimed that the uncertainty in global T was a lot larger than others have claimed it was.
Gaslighting Graham and his silly quantifier games again. Pretty much everyone would have liked to see our dark triad of Sky Dragon cranks begone. That sentiment was here before I was. He knows it, and when he is confronted with it, he lulzes, and declares that he’s gonna keep doing whatever he pleases.
Gaslighting Graham is in no position to speak as if he belonged to the inner crowd.
Willard, you are an ineffectual idiot.
Oh, plenty of people probably want me gone, Little Willy.
And you.
Mike Flynn,
You are a silly sock puppet.
Willard, please stop your idiotic trolling.
These are not the magic words, Moron Mike, and you need to get a better feeling of when you are stepping on Gaslighting Graham’s toes.
Willard, please stop your idiotic trolling.
These are not the magic words, Moron Mike, and you need to get a better feeling of when you are stepping on Gaslighting Grahams toes.
Willard, please stop your idiotic trolling.
These are not the magic words, Moron Mike.
Perhaps this will help –
Is this your way of replacing the theory of the greenhouse effect?
Worth quoting, worth repeating.
Anybody, (with more mental capacity than you can muster), can work out that if the surface was once molten, and the interior is still glowing hot, that the Earth has indeed emitted vastly more energy than it has received from the Sun! It has cooled. More energy out than in. As Baron Fourier (he of the Series, Decomposition etc.) said, during the night, the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earths primordial heat.
What is this “theory of the greenhouse effect” you keep blabbering about?
Describe the greenhouse effect, and I’ll tell you if it needs a new “theory”.
You idiot, your fantasy is not fact.
Moron Mike,
Now every point of the atmosphere radiates heat uniformly in all directions. That is, if you imagine a virtual sphere say a foot in diameter anywhere in the atmosphere, the radiation being emitted from the very center of that sphere is equally strong everywhere it passes through the surface of that sphere.
So what are you braying about?
Worth quoting, worth repeating.
Anybody, (with more mental capacity than you can muster), can work out that if the surface was once molten, and the interior is still glowing hot, that the Earth has indeed emitted vastly more energy than it has received from the Sun! It has cooled. More energy out than in. As Baron Fourier (he of the Series, Decomposition etc.) said, during the night, the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earths primordial heat.
What is this theory of the greenhouse effect you keep blabbering about?
Describe the greenhouse effect, and Ill tell you if it needs a new theory.
You idiot, your fantasy is not fact.
Moron Mike,
You say that anybody can work it out.
Did you?
Cheers.
Worth quoting, worth repeating.
Anybody, (with more mental capacity than you can muster), can work out that if the surface was once molten, and the interior is still glowing hot, that the Earth has indeed emitted vastly more energy than it has received from the Sun! It has cooled. More energy out than in. As Baron Fourier (he of the Series, Decomposition etc.) said, during the night, the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earths primordial heat.
What is this theory of the greenhouse effect you keep blabbering about?
Describe the greenhouse effect, and Ill tell you if it needs a new theory.
You idiot, your fantasy is not fact.
Earlier, Willard displayed delusional idiocy by writing –
“Mike Flynn,
Would you like to share your theory of the Primordial Heat Effect?
Now is the time.”
There is no Primordial Heat Effect, as far as I am aware. Willard doesn’t accept the fact that the surface of the Earth was once molten, according to current scientific knowledge.
He also refuses to accept that the interior of the Earth is hot enough to radiate in the visible spectrum. Luckily, his ignorant stupidity invites me to state as fact that the Earth no longer having a molten surface shows that the Earth’s surface has cooled.
This demonstrates that four and a half billion years of continuously absorbing energy from the Sun has been insufficient to even maintain the Earth’s original surface temperature, let alone make it hotter! Of course, the quite deranged delusional SkyDragon cultists of Willard’s ilk have no clue about reality.
All quite funny, to see the Climate Clowns contorting their miniscule pseudo brains to avoid accepting reality. Yes, the Earth has cooled. Yes, the surface cools every night – and in winter etc. No, nobody has even managed to describe the GHE.
Mike Flynn,
You clarify –
“as far as you are aware”
That does not bring any comfort.
Here’s you:
Either this string of factoids explain why the Earth is at the temperature it is, or it is just another of your distractions.
Which is it?
Anybody, (with more mental capacity than you can muster), can work out that if the surface was once molten, and the interior is still glowing hot, that the Earth has indeed emitted vastly more energy than it has received from the Sun! It has cooled. More energy out than in. As Baron Fourier (he of the Series, Decomposition etc.) said, during the night, the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earths primordial heat.
I trust you are not disputing what I wrote?
You babbled earlier about some Primordial Heat Effect, which seems to be a product of your delusional fantasy. Maybe you don’t comprehend English, and do not know the definition of primordial. One definition states “existing at, or from the beginning.”
The primordial heat of the Earth is that which existed at the beginning, and is now demonstrably less. Don’t blame me if you are too lazy or incompetent to learn what words mean. Are you sticking with your description of the GHE as “not cooling, cooling over time”? Or are you claiming that you didn’t really understand what “cooling” means?
Maybe you should seek employment as an Idiocy Demonstrator. You appear eminently well qualified for the work.
Carry on denying that the Earth has cooled.
Moron Mike,
You stupidly ask –
“I trust you are not disputing what I wrote?”
I don’t need to dispute what you wrote.
All I need is to make you spit where you are going with it.
Cheers.
Whining Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about? “Make you spit”?
Are you deranged, as well as idiotic?
[snorting with derision at peabraipined dimwit]
Moron Mike,
Either you spit out a theory, or you keep being irrelevant.
More deceitful or more cretin. Your choice.
Whining Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about? Make you spit?
Are you deranged, as well as idiotic?
What “theory” are you concerned about? Do you know what a theory is?
[snorting with derision at peabraipined dimwit]
You are repeating yourself again, Moron Mike.
Perhaps this will help –
Is this your way of replacing the theory of the greenhouse effect?
Whiffling Wee Willy,
If it’s worth saying, it’s worth saying again –
Anybody, (with more mental capacity than you can muster), can work out that if the surface was once molten, and the interior is still glowing hot, that the Earth has indeed emitted vastly more energy than it has received from the Sun! It has cooled. More energy out than in. As Baron Fourier (he of the Series, Decomposition etc.) said, during the night, the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earths primordial heat.
You blabber about some “theory of the greenhouse effect”? What theory would that be, fool?
Moron Mike,
As you rise above sea level, whether by balloon ride, in a plane, or climbing a mountain, you will find the air cooling at a rate of about 3.5 F per thousand feet. This rate of cooling with altitude is called the atmosphere’s lapse rate. By the time the balloon has reached 35,000 feet the temperature should have dropped about 120 degrees.
So what are you braying about?
Whiffling Wee Willy,
If its worth saying, its worth saying again
Anybody, (with more mental capacity than you can muster), can work out that if the surface was once molten, and the interior is still glowing hot, that the Earth has indeed emitted vastly more energy than it has received from the Sun! It has cooled. More energy out than in. As Baron Fourier (he of the Series, Decomposition etc.) said, during the night, the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earths primordial heat.
You blabber about some theory of the greenhouse effect? What theory would that be, fool?
Moron Mike,
The history of greenhouse gases begins with the Swiss physician, mountaineer, and experimentalist Horace de Saussure in the 1780s who demonstrated that the Sun heated the tops of mountains just as strongly as the bottoms.
What are you braying about?
Weird Wee Willy,
You keep appealing to authorities who support me, rather than you.
De Saussure showed, like Tyndall after him, that “ground” temperature in sunlight increases with altitude, unlike air temperature which drops. Closer to the Sun – more radiation – higher temperature results.
You don’t understand any of this, do you?
Describe your mythical GHE to me, and I’ll point out where it doesn’t agree with reality.
At one time, you claimed the GHE was “not cooling, cooling over time”, but I assume you were experiencing some severe mental perturbation when you made that claim, so I won’t hold you to it.
Feel free to try a new and improved description. Maybe you could include CO2 and heating in it?
You’re right – Im poking fun at the mentally afflicted. Oh well, sue me, idiot.
And now for something completely different.
The usual pack of delusional SkyDragon cultists have raised the cry of “But where do all the photons go?”, thinking this to be the ultimate zinger, when it’s actually a damp squib.
The answer is, of course, that photons go where they go, and do what they do.
For example, there is no limit to the number of photons that can simultaneously occupy a given space. I see our phalanx of delusional SkyDragon cultists suddenly hammering away on their keyboards, crying “This cannot be, surely!”. But it is. Photons are classified as bosons, not subject to the Pauli exclusion principle. You think a vacuum is empty? Think again. How much photon energy is contained in any given space? Don’t ask me, I don’t know. Try and measure it, if you wish.
Photons have no minimum energy. Zero is not a minimum, because a photon by definition carries energy.
Photons do not necessarily interact with matter they encounter. Anybody wearing eyeglasses or looking through a window will observe this fact.
Electrons emit photons travelling at the speed of light, because photons are massless, and cannot travel at any other velocity. They just appear – no acceleration involved.
Counting photons changes their behavior, as the double slit experiment shows.
Photons can be considered as waves, particles, both or neither. It makes no difference. The photons emitted from a colder object cannot be coerced into being accepted by a hotter. Submerging ice in hot soup merely results in the ice getting hotter, and the soup getting cooler until both are at the same temperature, and can no longer be distinguished by temperature alone.
Maybe the braindead SkyDragon cultists can accept that their plaintive cry of “But where do the photons go?” just shows how ignorant and stupid they are, but probably not.
What a pack of idiots!
“The photons emitted from a colder object cannot be coerced into being accepted by a hotter. ”
Science deniers say the darndest things!
Photons are photons.
Hotter objects cannot be persuaded to pay attention to whether photons are from a ‘colder’ object or not.
Troll Nate, you haven’t learned anything. Photons differ. They are NOT all the same. The fact that they can be so different affects many things. It’s the reason you can’t boil water with ice cubes.
Swenson,
What a maroon!
“Photons do not necessarily interact with matter they encounter. Anybody wearing eyeglasses or looking through a window will observe this fact.”
The photons that pass through my glasses do indeed interact with said glasses, that’s why I wear them, to see moar better.
bobdroege,
Fair point. I should have been more careful in my choice of words.
I’ll let you explain the nature of that interaction, and why the photon travels through the glass without losing any energy. In other words, a photon of energy corresponding to the colour red, say, emerges from the glass/air interface with its energy intact – still appearing red. Or does it?
Off you go – correct my initial statement that “Photons do not necessarily interact with matter they encounter”.
I admit my use of the word “interact” was referring to photon/electron interaction.
Help away!
Swenson,
“Off you go correct my initial statement that Photons do not necessarily interact with matter they encounter
I don’t need to correct that statement anymore, you already admitted it was wrong.
Thanks for that admission.
A photon doesn’t have to lose energy in an interaction, they can change direction.
Clint R, DREMT, Swenson, Gordon Robertson, Bill Hunter and any others who reject established science…
You like to post your opinions on the subject of radiant heat transfer. Not one of you will accept anything stated about it in any textbook on Heat Transfer.
If you want to overturn real established science (based upon observation, experiment and logical thought process) then I suggest you all do some experiments to prove the established science is not correct.
One of you can get a vacuum pump and chamber to evacuate all the air (to eliminate conduction or convection…only radiant energy will be at play).
Inside the evacuated chamber have a heated object (heated by internal source or external like a heat lamp). Allow the heated object to reach a steady state temperature. Now just vary the temperature of the surrounding chamber. This will change how much IR it emits toward the heated object.
Established physics will say the heated object temperature (no change in the input energy that is heating the object…that remains a constant in your experiment) will vary directly based upon the chamber wall temperature. If the walls are cooled (say ice) the heated object temperature will drop because the walls are emitting less IR to the heated object and so it absorbs less and cools. If the chamber wall temperature is increased (say hot water) the heated object temperature will go up because it is receiving more energy from the chamber walls when they are hot than when they are cool.
You have argued against established science for long periods of time. You might believe your unsupported opinions are correct and established science is wrong. Until you do some testing and prove the science world wrong you are blowing smoke.
I hope at least one of you takes the time to do a series of experiments and then post the results here.
We already have had two people do experiments confirming established science.
E. Swanson with his plate experiment in a vacuum and Roy Spencer with cold ice vs a warmer lid.
Clint R wrongly suggested that the warmer plate was reflecting IR back to Roy’s heated plate. In his post Roy Spencer thought of that and made sure it was not the case.
The group of opinionated skeptics will not accept valid experiments as evidence, they all seem to refuse to accept textbook physics on the subject.
The only item left to end 10 more years of “skeptic” opinions is for any of the skeptics to do some experiments and prove to the science world that they are all wrong.
We all know that not one of the “skeptics” will even consider doing any type of experiment but they will go on and on with their misguided opinions of science for the next 10 years.
You dimwit. Any object (in a vacuum or otherwise) is already heated, or it wouldn’t be emitting IR!
You and the other idiots with your imaginary heat sources are just trying to promote the illusion that some sort of indescribable GHE exists (or in Ball4’s case, at least three GHEs – an earthen GHE, a planetary GHE, and an unspecified GHE), with unknown effects, and incapable of being scrutinized because you won’t or can’t describe it.
Not to mention, of course, the IPCC’s “enhanced GHE”, which has the same imaginary properties of all the other GHEs, but more of them, presumably.
Maybe you should try to describe the GHE before demanding that people do “experiments” to verify Newton’s Law of Cooling, amongst others. Maybe you don’t understand about things like heat sinks, insulation, mirrors, optics, physics – and all the other things that you deny , in favour of your cultist belief in something that you cannot even describe!
Carry on being a delusional idiot. No facts are being harmed.
norman…there is no equation of which I am aware that governs the effect of the wall temperature in an evacuated chamber with an object in the chamber.
I think you may be confusing that scenario with Newton’s Law of Cooling. That law governs the rate of heat dissipation of a body in an environment like air, where the rate depends on the difference in temperature between the surface and the temperature of the environment. That scenario involves a direct one-way heat exchange between the surface and the air.
There is a bogus equation that uses S-B but I have already pointed out the issues with it.
The equation is I = e.sigma.A(T2^4 – T1^4)
That equation is S-B applied incorrectly to two bodies of different temperatures. I say incorrectly because expanding the equation gives:
I = e.sigma.A.T2^4 – e.sigma.A.T1^4
Obviously the emissivity, e, and the area, A, must be the same, and that infers both radiations are from identical sources. The equation tells us nothing about why this relationship should apply.
S-B does not address a two way transfer of heat, only the relationship between a surface of temperature, T, and the intensity of radiation it emits. Therefore, the equation above tells us nothing.
So, all your textbooks equations are based on fiction. They obviously refer to the anachronism established in the mid-19th century, that heat flows through air as heat rays.
Gordon Robertson
You give an opinion of how you think science works. Your opinion goes against established physics and is just made up.
I am asking you to do real science (an experiment) and not give an opinion.
The experiment is easy for you to set up and do.
“The experiment is easy for you to set up and do.”
Go ahead and do it then. Show everyone how easy it is.
Idiot.
Been there, did that.
It wasn’t so easy, since one needs to operate with high levels of vacuum to suppress convection.
Swenson
You are the one claiming the established science is wrong. The burden of proof is on the skeptic. Also Roy Spencer and E Swanson have already done experiments supporting established science and the skeptics do not accept the results. As it stands the skeptics offer opinions. They will not prove anything with evidence and they will not accept anyone else’s experimental evidence. Since they make the claims they need to do experiments to prove their opinions are correct and established physics is wrong.
Experiments have been done, by skeptics, Norman. The results are rejected by you lot, for whatever reasons you can dream up. Swanson is the King of complaining about how skeptic experiments are conducted. It all just gets a bit silly, really.
Norman says:
”You are the one claiming the established science is wrong. The burden of proof is on the skeptic. ”
that is the claim you are making but you need to show a statistically sensible argument that what you claim is true. so far all you have managed to do is extrapolate some science into unestablished areas.
to wit we understand how greenhouses, windows and walls and insulations like spun fiberglass and closed cell foam products work. and you just extrapolate all that to an uncontained freely convecting gas environment and then try to label it as established science. crazy!
Norman don’t include me on your list of people who you claim environment doesn’t matter and realize in no way are describing the environmental effects in a scientifically accepted way. one cannot equate a an uncontained gaseous environment to a solid box for starters.
Norman, are you ready to stand by your claim?
If I debunk your bogus equation, will you stop commenting here for 10 years?
Just to verify your sincerity, don’t comment here for one month. Then, I will debunk your nonsense. You will then only owe 9 years and 11 months.
Show us you actually believe the nonsense you spew.
Clint R
More blah blah blah from you. Again I am not interested at all about your opinions (you call debunk),. I am asking you to do actual science with a real world test.
Blah blah again.
I am, accepting established science (not your opinion that it is nonsense).
As I stated to you more than once. Roy Spencer has already done science…he set up a test to show that the lower radiant energy of ice vs a room temp top, that emits more IR, will change the temperature of a heated plate.
You gave your opinion (the warmer plate reflects back IR to the heated plate and increases the temperature). Roy had that explanation covered and it does not so you were wrong with your opinion.
So I am not interested at all in your “debunk” opinion. I would be interested if you actually did an experiment.
Sorry Norman, but you’re wrong again. The ice lid is reflecting visible and near-visible wavelengths. Lower energy photons have no effect on the heated plate.
And, the blah-blah is all yours. I keep my comments short and to-the-point.
Clint R
Wrong! Roy Spencer already eliminated the potential for reflection. He explains in his blog post. I suggest you read it. Also it would be very easy to prove that reflection is not the cause of the observed temperature variation. Roy could just alter the temperature of yhe lid. Unless you think changing the lid temperature would alter its reflectivity properties.
Poor pathetic Norman, I almost feel sorry for you. You have NO comprehension of physics. If you can see something, you have NOT “eliminated the potential for reflection”. You’re seeing REFLECTED photons, you uneducated child.
What will you try next?
Clint R
You should feel more sorry for yourself. You are displaying extreme ignorance! Read Roy’s blog post on the experiment. He Cleary addresses your concern by moving his lamp. You keep posting these thongs and just make you look very very ignorant. For your benefit read his blog post before you say something really stupid.
Norman, this is what Ball4 does. He keeps claiming Spencer has done experiments that prove ice can boil water, but he never produces any evidence.
Show us you can think for yourself. Link to your favorite experiment and explain, in your own words, why you believe it proves “cold” can warm “hot”.
Or, just keep trolling here like a braindead cult idiot. Your choice, of course.
Don’t take any of Clint’s bets, he can’t debunk anything and will welsh on any bet.
Bobdroege
Quite correct. He is King of Trolls here. He can look at the experiment himself and read the whole blog post but he won’t. He loves trolling too much. It gets funny to be called a troll by Clint R who does nothing but troll. He never has a bit of science ever! He loves to distract and troll. I suggested the skeptics do their own experiment to prove established physics false. Instead of doing this He trolls.
Braindead bob is back stalking me again. He must have got an early parole —
I wasn’t addressing you.
Correct, you were stalking me.
Worth quoting in full. Willard the Fool –
“Gaslighting Graham and his silly quantifier games again. Pretty much everyone would have liked to see our dark triad of Sky Dragon cranks begone. That sentiment was here before I was. He knows it, and when he is confronted with it, he lulzes, and declares that hes gonna keep doing whatever he pleases.
Gaslighting Graham is in no position to speak as if he belonged to the inner crowd.”
I suppose some some other delusional SkyDragon cultists have access to Wee Willy’s store of secret knowledge, and can understand him.
Mike Flynn,
You are punting at the end of the thread once again.
Perhaps this will help –
Is this your way of replacing the theory of the greenhouse effect?
Silly Billy Willy,
Thank you for quoting me –
Anybody, (with more mental capacity than you can muster), can work out that if the surface was once molten, and the interior is still glowing hot, that the Earth has indeed emitted vastly more energy than it has received from the Sun! It has cooled. More energy out than in. As Baron Fourier (he of the Series, Decomposition etc.) said, during the night, the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earths primordial heat.
Greenhouse effect? What’s that?
You idiot.
Moron Mike,
The troposphere ends at the tropopause, which is nominally at about 35,000 feet (but lower at higher latitudes). Above the tropopause is the stratosphere, which contains most of the remaining quarter of the atmosphere.
So what are you braying about?
Anybody, (with more mental capacity than you can muster), can work out that if the surface was once molten, and the interior is still glowing hot, that the Earth has indeed emitted vastly more energy than it has received from the Sun! It has cooled. More energy out than in. As Baron Fourier (he of the Series, Decomposition etc.) said, during the night, the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earths primordial heat.
Greenhouse effect? Whats that?
You idiot.
Moron Mike,
The Earth is 4B years old.
Do you know how much energy it received from the Sun?
Roughly Earth’s temperature is:
“The temperature is around 1000C at the base of the crust, around 3500C at the base of the mantle, and around 5,000C at Earth’s centre. The temperature gradient within the lithosphere (upper 100 km) is quite variable depending on the tectonic setting.”
https://opentextbc.ca/geology/chapter/9-2-the-temperature-of-earths-interior/
Earth was much hotter, earlier, And none of this enormous amount heat is due to Sunlight.
And we currently in 33.9 million year Ice Age which is one of five known Ice Ages, and it called, The Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
And the last few million years has been coldest time of the 33.9 million years.
Or before 33.9 million ago, our ocean was much warmer, and so we lost a lot heat we got from the Sun over this last 33.9 million years.
Or none has been gained from the Sun over last 4 billion years.
And when consider the amount gained heat from the Earth Radioactive decay over 4 billion years, it dwarfs energy from sunlight.
So in terms net imports of the sun, Earth has been a large exporter of heat to our universe over last 4 billion.
And Sunlight isn’t warming any planet in solar system, but instead has dumped a lot into the universe, if we harvest as small as 1% of it, going into universe, energy would be very abundant and cheap and have infinite amounts in terms of needs of all life in this solar system.
So you do not know, gb?
Too bad.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
Moron Mike,
“The Earth is 4B years old.
Do you know how much energy it received from the Sun?”
Yes – don’t you?
Are you confused, or are you trying to say something?
Perfect, Moron Mike.
Then you know that it is bigger than what flows to the surface from the Earth’s interior, right?
–Willard says:
June 30, 2023 at 7:01 AM
So you do not know, gb?
Too bad.–
They have been estimates of amount lava that flows up from ocean floor- a few cubic km per year. If that is what you are asking.
In terms of land:
“The Puuōō eruption began in 1983, and ranks as the longest and most voluminous known outpouring of lava from Kīlauea Volcano’s East Rift Zone in more than 500 years. Lava fountains and flows have profoundly altered the landscape and repeatedly challenged residents with lava inundation. By the end of the eruption in 2018, lava flows had covered 144 km2 (55.6 mi2), erupted about 4.4 km3 (1.1 mi3) of lava”
https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/kilauea/puuoo-eruption-lasted-35-years
So, only 4.4 cubic km over many years.
Iceland has flowing lava.
8 Places Where You Can (Safely) Watch Lava Flow:
https://www.treehugger.com/places-where-you-can-safely-watch-lava-flow-4869327
And there are places on land where is flowing and we don’t know about it. But ocean floor is larger region and more volcanically active and less in known about it.
Rather exciting flowing lava you have sea floor spreading.
“Seafloor spreading rates have slowed down by roughly 35 per cent globally, according to a study that analysed data from the last 19 million years. Growing mountains might be one of the factors driving the slowdown, the analysis found.”
“Fifteen million years ago, the researchers found, the seafloor spread about 200 millimeters per year. But since then, it has slowed ..Fifteen million years ago, the researchers found, the seafloor spread about 200 millimeters per year. But since then, it has slowed ..”
“Seafloor-spreading rates are much more rapid in the Pacific Ocean than in the Atlantic and Indian oceans. At spreading rates of about 15 cm (6 inches) per year, …”
Etc.
Worried Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Perfect, Moron Mike.
Then you know that it is bigger than what flows to the surface from the Earths interior, right?”
Your gotchas are getting more stupid day by day.
You realise that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, right?
You are one deranged SkyDragon cultist, right?
[snigger]
The script writers who wrote the Star Trek series could have used wee willy’s his sci-fi knowledge.
Quite true, Bordo.
I know enough crap from Sky Dragon cranks that I could help shape mad scientist nonsense from multiple galaxies.
Your own elucubrations could help design the crankiest species.
ent…” I asked ClintR So, when the energy dissipates, where does it go?, In response to his earlier assertion that energy dissipates in the atmosphere.
You [dremt] then asked Where did all the photons go, Entropic Man?The question was put to the likes of you. ”
***
In their paper on falsifying the GHE, G&T pointed out the danger in taking radiation too literally. The idea that energy as radiation moves A to B directly, as would a real particle, simply cannot be done and requires Feynman diagrams just to talk about it. It is obvious to me, after years of working with it, that EM does no behave like a group of particles but as a wave.
I was watching a good video on quantum theory the other day in which the lecturer explained that the photon is a concept from quantum theory and is not meant to be taken literally, as are most concepts n quantum theory. He explained that running so-called photons through a polarizing mirror, theoretically of course, gives contradictory results. On the other hand, waves behave as expected.
Besides, with typical light from the Sun, there would have to be bazillions of different photon all with their own unique frequencies. I think the concept of photons should be taken very loosely with no attempt made to ask where they go.
Another concept in quantum theory is that of electrons orbiting a nucleus in quantum orbitals. That is fiction till it is observed and so are photons. Even Einstein claimed near the end of his career that no one knows if EM exists as waves or photons. The electron is not fiction, just the concept of them movig in certain orbitals.
We know nothing about energy either other than the effect is has in various circumstances. Myths like ‘energy can neither be created nor destroyed’ don’t help. For example, we know EM is created when an electron drops from one quantum level to another. It is also destroyed when it is absorbed by the same electrons.
Heat is no different. If you have a gas in a volume at a certain temperature, the amount of heat depends on the number of molecules nd their kinetic energy. The IGL is made up of several laws from several scientists.
Avogadro’s Law is V1/n1 = V2/n2.
Boyle’s Law tells us that P1V1 = P2V2 and Charles’ Law tells us that V1/T1 = V2/T2.
It’s easy to see through these relationships that decreasing the number of air molecules decreases the pressure and the temperature. That means heat gradually dissipates with temperature then simply disappears. EM generated to space should eventually disappear due to the inverse square law.
In other words, if you have a volume at temperature, T, and you keep increasing the volume indefinitely, the pressure will drop toward zero and the temperature will follow.
Not rocket science, it’s all there in the IGL.
Have you never heard the word adiabatic?
PV=nRT
PV/T=nR
In the atmosphere n and R remain constant.
V increases with altitude while P and T decrease.
All else being equal, in the atmosphere the internal energy per kilogram of a gas stays constant as you change P,V and T due to increasing altitude.
The internal energy per kilogram remains constant from the surface right to the top of the atmosphere and there is no energy dissipation with increasing altitude.
Ent, you’re all messed up again.
If the temperature goes down, the internal energy per kilogram goes down. Internal energy includes kinetic energy.
As usual, you’re not making sense.
Silly ClintR.
Why do you think it’s called the adiabatic lapse rate?
Do you not have a point, troll Ent?
EM,
The assumption behind the adiabatic lapse rate is that no heat exchange occurs between the air parcel and its surroundings.
Unfortunately . . . (I know, obscure.)
You need to go back to gotcha school. As Willard would say, you’re just JAQing off now.
ent…”Why do you think its called the adiabatic lapse rate?”
***
Obviously a mistake was made in the definition. A column of air cannot prevent heat from entering or leaving it.
V does not increase with altitude. The volume of the entire atmosphere is a constant. If you like, you can divide the atmosphere into constant concentric volumes, work out the details in each volume, then sum the volumes.
Why would you claim n is a constant if V is not a constant. n is the number of molecules per unit volume and it’s calculation is based on Avogadro’s number per unit volume. If n is constant then the volume containing n must be constant.
Internal energy cannot remain constant with altitude, it has to decrease. Internal energy in a gas involves the velocity of the molecules and the intra-atomic kinetic energies involved. Focusing just on the velocities of the molecules, the higher the temperature, the faster the molecules move, hence the higher the internal energy.
If you sum that KE over all the molecules, the KE is proportional to the number of molecules with a certain average velocity. If you reduce the number of molecules per unit volume the KE has to drop, hence the internal energy.
It is well known that the number of molecules at the top of Everest is 1/3rd the number of molecules at sea level. That’s why it is impossible to survive up there for any length of time without supplemental oxygen. The pressure is also 1/3rd and the temperature as well.
Pressure, temperature, and the number of air molecules go hand in hand in a constant volume. Lower the number of molecules and the pressure reduces and the temperature too. That’s the correct interpretation of the Ideal Gas Law.
You have to remember that the atmosphere is not in an actual container. Such a container would have no sides and no lid. It is gravity creating the impression of a container. The only wall on the atmosphere is the surface.
Space Weather Forecast: Calm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKTEvCoUfq8
Just figured out where our alarmists friends get their info…Star Trek. Flux capacitors and misplaced positrons. Don’t need the 2nd law with that sci-fi.
John R. Christy – a Bridge Too Far
https://youtu.be/XltFOh7Cg2U
Science News June 29, 2023 / 2:12 PM
Virgin Galactic completes first commercial spaceflight with 3 Italian passengers
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2023/06/29/virgin-galactic-first-commercial-flight-italian-air-force/1581688054275/
linked from: https://instapundit.com/
— “Today, our team successfully flew six people and more than a dozen research payloads to space in VSS Unity, our unique suborbital science lab. This historic flight was our first commercial flight and our first dedicated commercial research mission,” Colglazier said.
The Virgin Galactic CEO also provided details on the company’s next commercial spaceflight.
“‘Galactic 02′” our first spaceflight with private astronauts, is planned for August and we expect VSS Unity to continue with monthly space missions while we simultaneously work to scale our future spaceship fleet for a global audience,” Colglazier said. —
Once per month and scaling up, sounds like a good plan.
I suggest an experimental test of the Robertson hypothesis.
Start with two glowing logs close enough together to keep each other hot by exchanging radiation.
Set up an infrared sensor to measure the intensity of the longwave radiation coming off one of the logs.
Cool the other log slightly, perhaps with a small squirt of water mist, and measure the change in radiation from the warmer log.
If the logs behave as physics textbooks and engineering manuals describe the the warmer log will receive slightly less radiation from the cooler log, cool slightly itself and emit slightly less radiation.
If the logs behave according to the Robertson hypothesis the warmer log will immediately stop absorbing radiation from the cooler log. The radiation will be reflected instead and the sensor sees a pulse of increased radiation followed by a reduction in intensity as the warmer log cools.
Ent, you can’t understand ANY of this.
If you cool one log of a two log system, you will cool the system. That does NOT mean “cold” can warm “hot”.
You’re so ignorant of science you actually believe passenger jets fly backward!
“If you cool one log of a two log system, you will cool the system. That does NOT mean cold can warm hot. ”
Yes. Over time the whole system will cool.
I’m more interested in the immediate response. In your universe the warmer log suddenly becomes the warmer log and is suddenly banned from absorbing radiation from the other log. All that radiation which is suddenly no longer absorbed by the warmer log has to reflect off the log, which is why the Robertson hypothesis predicts a pulse of extra radiation.
Ent, you seem to live in a world of make-believe. Even worse, you appear to hate reality.
I like reality. What I hate is your delusional alternative.
Wrong Ent. You’re a terribly confused being. You steadfastly believe passenger jets fly backward. You believe anything that protects your cult beliefs. You’re as incompetent as you are dishonest.
At least you have your cult to comfort you.
“You steadfastly believe passenger jets fly backward”
Not relative to the air they don’t.
EM,
Do the experiment yourself, why don’t you? Idiot GHE supporters are always demanding that others waste their time. Waste your own for a change.
If you describe the GHE, and what relevance burning logs have to it, after I finish laughing, I will point out how idiotic you look.
I know it’s not going to happen, because you can’t even describe the GHE! You haven’t got a clue about the emissivity of charcoal surfaces at different temperatures, have you? If you don’t know the significance, do the you propose.
Idiot.
“Do the experiment yourself, why dont you? ”
I’m in the house with the log fire regularly. I’ll try it.
EM,
While you are sitting in front of the fire, maybe you could give some thought to describing the GHE? That way, you could relate logs in a fire to the GHE.
Otherwise, you wont be achieving anything new. I can explain the behaviour of burning logs, either singly or together, using known physical laws.
Here’s a thought – maybe you could think that the heat from burning logs is due to some effect involving the increased levels of CO2 noted in the vicinity of burning logs. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the correlation between CO2 and heat production was 100% or close to it.
There you go – CO2 causes temperatures to rise!
What do you think of that?
ent…”I suggest an experimental test of the Robertson hypothesis”.
***
Why do you guys have to resort to inane thought-experiments? If you have the physics, you should have no bother explaining your rebuttal. I don’t present myself here as an expert on anything, although I do have expertise in electronics, the electrical field and computer hardware. On this particular subject I do not regard myself to be an expert.
If you are going to offer a rebuttal to my claims re a two-way radiation transfer at least bone up on basic quantum theory as presented by Bohr. Although some modern pundits claim his theory is no longer valid, that is bs. His theory applied to the hydrogen atom and still does. The rest of it in the modern era is based on rules adopted from Bohr.
If you read Bohr, or someone explaining Bohr, you will get it that electrons live in certain quantized orbitals from which they can increase that particular orbit a certain amount. They rise to a higher orbital when heat is applied or a quantum of EM of the appropriate frequency is absorbed.
The rise in orbital energy level translates to a rise in kinetic energy of the electron. Where the rise of KE of one electron is insignificant, with a bazillion electrons it becomes very significant and is considered a rise in heat level. That rise in heat can be measured with a thermometer as temperature.
If you kept increasing the heat input, eventually the electrons would jump right out of atoms and bonds, producing a very hot mess.
If the electron(s) drop to a lower orbital level, they release a quantum of energy which has a frequency and intensity proportional to the change in orbital energy level and the angular frequency of the electron.
That action restricts the behavior of an atom wrt to the emission and absorp-tion of EM. It sets up rules that are explained by the 2nd law, namely that EM from a colder object cannot be absorbed by electrons in a hotter object. Stated simply, electrons in a hotter object are at a higher orbital energy level and EM from a cooler body cannot excite them further.
I realize this does not make sense to a mind steeped in orthodox science but I was introduced to it at a stage where my mind was more open to dogmatic theory. It’s tough to grasp that electrons are the mediator in EM theory. Logically, it doesn’t make a lot of sense that a tiny particle orbiting a nucleus is the sole arbiter of whether EM is absorbed or emitted but a closer look makes more sense.
A quantum of energy, or photon, if you insist, has an electric and magnetic field and a frequency. Where the heck would it get either field and a frequency, except from the electron, which has an electric and magnetic field? The frequencies of these quanta correspond to the angular frequency of electrons in their orbitals and Bohr recognized that from the frequencies in the hydrogen line spectra, which was already known.
The confounding part to me is the claim that the electron, moving at blinding speeds in its orbit, does not produce a continuous magnetic field but when it instantaneously drops between orbital levels and gives up KE, it does so via an electric and magnetic field.
There is one possible explanation. If a conductor is sitting still between a N-S magnetic field, with no current running through the conductor, no force is produced on the conductor. The moment a current is applied, a force is applied to the conductor at right angles to both the current and the magnetic field. That means it moves either up the way or down the way, and that is the basis of an electric motor.
The left hand rule tell us the direction of the magnetic field produced about a conductor if the thumb points in the direction of a D-C current flow. Of course, the idiots in EE tells us that would be the right hand rule based on current flowing in the wrong direction from +ve to -ve.
It has occurred to me that it applies because free electrons are flowing in a conductor and none of those electrons are orbiting a nucleus. It seems that electrons moving en masse can produce a stead magnetic but a sole electron orbiting a nucleus cannot. Apparently it can when it transitions down the way.
I repeat, there is no other source in an atom of EM than the electron.
Trick question: How long is the Summer? How long is the Winter? Any offers?
Yes.
And your answer is?
For a bonus, how long is Spring and Autumn?
Don’t you know?
I know the answer, for both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. Don’t you?
Why are you asking me then? Are you trying to make me look stupid, or just wasting time for no reason at all?
My guess: the June temperature drops to 0.20.
So much for the earlier predictions (by others) that the predicted El Nino was going to make this “the hottest year eva”.
It’s only June. I have another six months to win our bet.
You sure have.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2023/06/30/uk-in-line-for-hottest-june-since-records-began-in-1884/
Thank you.
I’ve been wondering whether the high expected June UK monthly average is just local weather or whether it reflects global warming.
The June UAH figure will be interesting either way.
https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/23624220.bbc-weather-apology-technical-issues-disrupt-forecasts/
richard…not to worry, we had one of those heat domes in June a couple of years ago here in Vancouver, Canada, and this year it came in May. June was relatively normal last year and this year.
It’s weather, you know? I think Clint has come closest by observing it is caused by Hunga Tonga or perhaps a combination of that and ENSO. Both affect the jet stream, which has a major influence on weather in the Northern Hemisphere.
If the HTE and El Niño continue on their current tracks, we could very well see a record warm satellite year. The funny thing is, it will have NOTHING to do with CO2.
An El Nino is always warmer than normal. A record year would require an El Nino on top of a warming trend. What do you think is causing the warming trend?
Get a responsible adult to read my above comment to you, Ent.
So if this year fails to top 2016, then either the El Nino was weak or the warming trend is not continuing.
Solar activity plus solar barycenter.
At its max Solar barycenter means 25Wm-2; not much but when compared to 3Wm-2 if CO2 is doubled … its enough.
Zharkhova thinks that barycenter combined with solar cycle projections will mean 2.5C warming by 2600.
“3Wm-2 if CO2 is doubled”
IF is your problem. Firstly that CO2 will double and that the doubling will cause a 3Wm-2 rise.
So Ant, you assume the El Nino is caused by CO2? Is that your definition of science?
“What do you think is causing the warming trend?”
***
It’s actually re-warming trend…re-warming from the Little Ice Age.
3Wm-2 if CO2 is doubled
“IF is your problem. Firstly that CO2 will double and that the doubling will cause a 3Wm-2 rise.”
If CO2 doubles is certainly a good question. It’ll take two hundred years at current rate of emissions.
Source of 3Wm-2 is Wijngaarden and Happer. I think they did a rigorous job with the arithmetic.
EM,
Anthropogenically Generated Warmth causes warming. What do you think causes warming?
stephen p. anderson says:
June 30, 2023 at 3:49 PM
So Ant, you assume the El Nino is caused by CO2? Is that your definition of science?
Silly, Stephen.
Where did you get that idea from? It’s certainly nothing I’ve said.
By how much, about 0.2C?
Climate comedy repeat itself, Another doomsday clock started
https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2023/06/28/king-charles-helps-unveils-climate-countdown-clock-at-london-summit/
Charles always was a bit of a looney, this time an eco-looney.
NHC issuing advisories for the Eastern Pacific on Hurricane Adrian and Hurricane Beatriz
Marine warnings are in effect for the Eastern Pacific
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
So, I got two and Atlantic doesn’t. It seems Adrian will be fading tomorrow
In terms of California water use, in California about as full as it
get and places outside are still filling:
Lake Powell:
Total inflows for water year 2023: 10,108,649 acre feet
Total releases for water year 2023: 6,002,412 acre feet
[This is 80.03% of the minimum required of 7,500,000 acre feet]
They should get their minimum required. There is still quite few launch ramps they can’t use {8} as water is still too low, but they got nine which can be used:
https://lakepowell.water-data.com/
Space weather:
Solar wind
speed: 498.6 km/sec
density: 10.58 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 112
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 162 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.37×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.3% Below Average
48-hr change: +0.7%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
There is spot coming from farside but AR3354 is spot “in the news”
and is still growing {or, not fading, yet}.
But July could be bleak and I had thought it was going to be quite active.
One might wonder when we going to get a few spotless days- within couple months or more than 1 year? and if or when this happens will it be thought there will be double peak?
I tend to think double peak or peaks will be very weak.
Related to crewed Mars, I have wacky idea:
Leave Earth on simple hohmann on March 3 2028 and arrive at Venus orbit at July 27 2028
Or in same Earth to Venus window and using more delta-v you can leave 13 days later, March 16 2028 and arrive at Venus about 81 days
earlier than July 27 2028- May 7th 2028. Or with simple hohmann transfer, it’s about 146 days and the time travel can
be shorten to about 52 days, but this require a lot rocket power {from Earth to landing on Moon is what mean by a lot of
rocket power**} and you using Venus atmosphere to slow rocket down a lot.
**Question: Not counting gravity assists and only counting propulsive maneuvers, what spacecraft has had the greatest total propulsive delta-v?”
Dawn- 22.89 km/s [***}
PSP- ~17.2 km/s {Parker Solar Probe}
New Horizons- 17.61 km/s
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/48016/what-spacecraft-has-had-the-greatest-total-propulsive-delta-v
So, I am talking about Parker Solar Probe trajectory as “lot of Delta-v- which reached Venus in 52 days {and then did gravity assist to get close to Sun- and, rather than gravity assist that gets closer to sun, one brakes using atmosphere to get in to Venus orbit.
As a note, greatest delta-v was sending crew to lunar surface and then returning to Lunar orbit [with the crew}.
Or NASA contract with SpaceX, is send Starship [upper stage] to lunar orbit, pick up crew and land them on the lunar surface
and then return back to lunar orbit. And/or Starship can go one way, and land 100 tons on lunar surface [and perhaps
more than 100 tons].
Starship also is suppose to get to Mars within 6 month and bring 100 tons payload which likewise is a lot delta-v and a lot braking with Mars atmosphere. Or with simple hohmann {longer time] to get to Venus orbit and using atmosphere to break, it’s slightly less delta-v than a simple to Mars- which takes about 8 months {258 days].
*** Dawn used ion engines and it is somewhat complicated if comparing to chemical rockets, I would say correct answer was New Horizon or Apollo lunar crewed missions.
Continuing:
“Anyhow not planning on going to Venus in 52 days, rather plan is 146 day which requires least amount of Delta-v if
you want a high orbit. Venus has more gravity than Mars, it would take more delta-v to go to Venus low orbit and would
require more delta-v to leave from low circular orbit, but will be using atmosphere, and it would be a highly elliptical orbit-
low periapsis [Pericytherion or Perigee if talking about Earth] and high apoapsis.
So hit atmosphere but keep enough velocity to it goes to high orbit and from high orbit it requires a small amount
of delta-v to raise the Pericytherion, say raise so it’s 300 km above atmosphere, so something like a 300 km by
100,000 km orbit- far from planet it doesn’t require much delta-v to alter the orbit, but requires a long time
to complete an orbit {50,000 km could be better- which would take about 2 weeks to do an orbit}.
So get there by July 27 2028 and then simple hohmann from Venus on August 11 2028 to Mars and arrive at Mars on March 15 2029.
So going back to start:
“Leave Earth on simple hohmann on March 3 2028 and arrive at Venus orbit at July 27 2028″
What could/will be or has to be done before March 3 2028?”
So, Starship landing crew on the Moon should happen couple years before this. And New Glenn rocket and it’s lunar lander suppose land
crew on the Moon after this- in 2029.
Dear moon was “planned” for this year, but might happen in 2024, 2025 or 2026. Or before this.
Though Dear Moon might morph to going around the Moon, Venus, Mars, and returning to Earth. But one assume Dear Moon is done before March 3 2028.
We could also assume we have artificial gravity station in LEO, before March 3 2028, and more than year testing artificial gravity.
–Will SpaceX have artificial gravity?
Vast plans to build an artificial-gravity outpost in Earth orbit. The first-ever private space station could launch to Earth orbit a little over two years from now. May 10, 2023–
So, launched early 2026??
We also assume more two dozen Starships [or a lot more] per year are launched by 2026.
And could have two dozen or more of New Glenn rockets being launched
per year before 2028 ends. {New Glenn is big rocket}.
And could 2 or 3 other types of reusable rockets before 2028 ends.
The war in Ukraine could be over before end of 2025. And Ukrainians and/or Russians could be making rockets {again}.
It seems we would a much better idea if the Moon has mineable water before 2027 AD starts.
Main things is could artificial station, the Gateway station, and a few more space stations in Earth’s orbit, operating before March 3 2028.
Anyhow not planning on going to Venus in 52 days, …”
Now, let’s plan on sending crew to Venus in 52 days, using a New Glenn with re-fueled second stage started at LEO. And gets to Venus orbit, May 7th 2028. And launch for simple to Mars is August 11 2028 or later if wants to go faster to Mars [not use simple hohmann].
Now what advantage of using New Glenn? It’s smaller rocket which can carry crew. But also big rocket- not big as Saturn V, or SLS and obviously not big a Starship. But compared to the rocket used for New Horizon or Parker Solar Probe it much bigger AND it’s being refueled in orbit. Being refueled in orbit, make it effectively bigger than Saturn V or SLS by about 150%- it can land more on the Moon than Saturn V, did.
The only issue is, that by 2028 Starship could be a completely different beast, then what is it is now. But in terms of the Starship, now, New Glenn would be better for sending crew, but not better for sending a lot cargo.
But you go there and wait awhile for the launch window to Mars, you could instead send it using less delta-v, roughly a simple hohmann, and refuel the second stage and get to Mars faster, get to Mars a couple months sooner than March 15 2029. So could be in artificial gravity station at Venus orbit, and go to Mars. And simple travel time is 7.2 month and simple with patched conic is about 5 month which from Earth to Mars is 7 months- and not hitting Mars atmosphere really fast and doesn’t take a lot delta-v. Or could push it, and get there in 3 to 4 month.
But point is it gives a lot options, including a lot of abort options to return to Earth {for emergency reasons}.
If going to send crew to Mars, you will use Venus orbit. You should start by going to Venus and have better capability to use Venus orbit as a part of Mars crew program.
ent…”The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
The second law of thermodynamics states that for a spontaneous process, the entropy of the universe increases.
You say that energy dissipates ie. disappears. That is the destruction of energy which violates the 1ST LAW”.
***
The 1st law states no such thing. It is about the relationship of external heat and work to internal energy. It is about heat and work, not energy in general and it says nothing about energy conservation or the creation or destruction of energy.
If you look closely at the 2nd law, a truth about it becomes obvious, according to Clausius. Heat is measured in calories (or BTU) and work is measured in watts or HP. Heat and work have different units and Clausius explained that based on the equivalence of heat and work. You can measure heat in watts or work in calories due to the equivalence found by the physicist Joule. However, the calorie is the amount of heat required to raise 1cc of water by 1C whereas the watt is related to the mechanical work done in certain time.
Work is mechanical energy, a force operating on a mass over a distance. Whatever causes the work is the energy and we have no idea what it is. Heat is the energy that motivates atomic motion and we have no idea what it is.
However, if you reduce the temperature to 0K, there is no heat and no work can be done by heat. Therefore, the 1st law no longer works.
The 2nd law is not about entropy. Clausius introduced the 2nd law before he defined entropy. He introduced entropy at first as the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat over a process. Later, he introduced a mathematical definition as…
S = integral dq/T
Clausius did not define entropy in relation to the universe, he merely pointed out that entropy is positive for irreversible processes and most processes in the universe are irreversible. All he ever said about that aspect is that entropy in the universe tends to a maximum. That means heat in the universe tends to a maximum.
Entropy defines the direction and magnitude of an irreversible process and since most processes are irreversible he ‘suggested’ a relationship to entropy. Many people today mistakenly presume entropy is a measure of disorder.
There is nothing in the entropy equation about disorder, only a heat summation. Entropy is about heat, with disorder being an outcome of the process creating the heat.
It is plain from S = 1/T.integral dq that entropy is a summation of heat quantities. ‘Integral dq’ states that clearly.
Can we get Artificial Intelligence to write a paper about pros and cons of wind turbines?
Better do batteries as well.
3Wm-2 if CO2 is doubled
“IF is your problem. Firstly that CO2 will double and that the doubling will cause a 3Wm-2 rise.”
If CO2 doubles is certainly a good question. It’ll take two hundred years at current rate of emis sions.
Source of 3Wm-2 is Wijngaarden and Happer. I think they did a rigorous job with the arithmetic.
Ken,
Lord Kelvin did an impeccable job with his calculations working out the age of the Earth. As well as not accounting for radiogenic heat, he made a couple of assumptions which led to a completely incorrect age (as it turned out).
This whole CO2 nonsense is just that. Nobody has ever managed to make a thermometer hotter by reducing the amount of heat reaching it. Tyndall’s meticulous experiments still stand. Increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer effectively “destroys” the IR radiation, and prevents it reaching the thermometer.
A short quote from Tyndall – “For every ray intercepted by air, oxygen, hydrogen, or nitrogenammonia intercepts 5,460 olefiant gas 6,030 ; while sulphurous acid destroys 6,480.”
The accompanying table includes carbonic acid (CO2) as 972.
The “interception” or “destruction” depends on pressure and IR wavelength.
Here’s another snippet –
“It proves that the ammonia which, within our glass tube, is as transparent to light as the air we breathe, is so opaque to the heat radiating from our source, that the addition of a plate of metal hardly augments its opacity. There is, indeed, reason to believe that a layer three feet in depth of this light transparent gas, is really as black to the invisible calorific rays, as if the experimental tube were filled with ink, pitch, or any other impervious substance.”
The point is that if a gas can prevent IR reaching a thermometer as effectively as a metal plate, the thermometer cools. Reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer results in cooling – not heating!
GHE cultists choose to fly in the face of reality. Crashing and burning is the likely result..
“The point is that if a gas can prevent IR reaching a thermometer as effectively as a metal plate, the thermometer cools. Reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer results in cooling not heating!”
Now you always forget that it also can prevent IR from reaching space, which is cold. So less heat escapes Earth, and it warms.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Now you always forget that it also can prevent IR from reaching space, which is cold. So less heat escapes Earth, and it warms.”
You idiot. The rate of heat loss may change, but heat loss results in cooling. Like at night, or over the past four and a half billion years.
Are you really that stupid, or just pretending?
Kelvin, aka Thomson, made a mistake when he advised Clausius to drop his in-depth explanation of internal energy and simply reference it as ‘energy’. Clausius had built in internal work and internal heat into the internal energy explanation and Thomson thought that might be too complex.
The moral to this story is this. Never trust a ponce who calls himself a lord.
See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU2CVFbiAf8
for an analysis of the Wijngaarden and Happer paper and the difference between linear and log scales.
It will be interesting to see if Yong actually is onto something.
King Charles III proposes his own vision for space, focused not on private enterprise but on achieving a globalist utopia
June 29, 2023 10:47 am Robert Zimmerman
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/king-charles-iii-proposes-his-own-vision-for-space-focused-not-on-private-enterprise-but-on-achieving-a-globalist-utopia/
Linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
I think the King should make a spaceport {at the Equator} and maybe have nice ocean settlements there.
King Charles??? He’s just Charlie to me.
Yawn.
Please read Bill of Rights 1688 and Coronation oath.
Whether you like it or not (and I don’t) he is King Charlie to you and me.
I don’t know why idiots make statements to the effect ‘he’s not my President’, or ‘not my Prime Minister’ fact is they are and you’re just showing off to be a delusional crank.
He’s no king to me, just a poser who wears funny costumes.
I asked ‘Are wind turbines economically viable’ and got this answer from an AI seach engine;
Pretty good on the fence answer
According to http://www.iAsk.ai Ask Ai Search Engine:
Wind turbines have become increasingly popular as a source of renewable energy in recent years. However, the question of their economic viability is complex and depends on various factors. In general, wind turbines can be economically viable under certain conditions, but there are also challenges and considerations that need to be taken into account.
The economic viability of wind turbines is influenced by several key factors:
1. Cost of Installation: The initial cost of installing wind turbines can be significant. This includes the purchase and installation of the turbine itself, as well as the construction of supporting infrastructure such as foundations and transmission lines. The cost varies depending on the size and capacity of the turbine, location, and other site-specific factors.
2. Electricity Generation and Revenue: Wind turbines generate electricity when wind turns their blades, which is then fed into the power grid. The revenue generated from this electricity depends on factors such as the wind resource at the site, the capacity factor (the actual amount of electricity produced compared to its maximum potential), and the price at which electricity is sold. Higher wind speeds and a higher capacity factor generally lead to greater revenue generation.
3. Operational and Maintenance Costs: Wind turbines require regular maintenance to ensure optimal performance and longevity. This includes inspections, repairs, and component replacements over time. The operational and maintenance costs can vary depending on factors such as turbine size, technology used, accessibility of the site, and local labor costs.
4. Financing and Incentives: Access to financing options and government incentives can significantly impact the economic viability of wind turbines. Subsidies, tax credits, feed-in tariffs, or other financial incentives can help offset the initial investment costs or provide ongoing support for electricity generation.
5. Grid Integration: The integration of wind power into the existing electrical grid can also affect its economic viability. Challenges may arise due to intermittency (wind availability fluctuates), grid stability issues, and the need for additional infrastructure upgrades to accommodate the variable nature of wind power.
6. Lifespan and Decommissioning: Wind turbines have an expected lifespan of around 20-25 years, after which they may need to be decommissioned and replaced. The costs associated with decommissioning should be considered when assessing the long-term economic viability of wind turbines.
7. Local Factors: The economic viability of wind turbines can vary depending on the specific location. Factors such as wind resource availability, land costs, proximity to transmission lines, and local regulations can all impact the overall economics.
In recent years, advancements in technology and economies of scale have contributed to a significant reduction in the cost of wind energy. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the global weighted average levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for onshore wind power has decreased by around 40% between 2010 and 2019. This reduction in costs has made wind energy increasingly competitive with conventional sources of electricity generation.
However, it is important to note that the economic viability of wind turbines can still vary from project to project. Some studies have shown that wind energy can be cost-competitive or even cheaper than fossil fuel-based electricity generation in certain regions. For example, a study published in the journal “Nature Energy” in 2018 found that onshore wind power is already cheaper than coal or gas-fired power plants in most parts of the world.
On the other hand, there are also studies that highlight challenges and limitations to the economic viability of wind turbines. These include:
1. Intermittency and Grid Integration: Wind power is intermittent, meaning it depends on wind availability. This intermittency can pose challenges for grid integration and require additional backup power sources or energy storage systems, which can increase costs.
2. Location Constraints: Not all locations have sufficient wind resources to make wind turbines economically viable. Wind speeds and consistency are crucial factors for the economic feasibility of wind energy projects.
3. Environmental and Social Considerations: The economic viability of wind turbines should also take into account potential environmental and social impacts. These can include effects on wildlife, visual aesthetics, noise pollution, and community acceptance. Mitigating these impacts may require additional investments or regulatory compliance measures.
In conclusion, wind turbines can be economically viable under the right conditions. Factors such as installation costs, electricity generation and revenue, operational and maintenance costs, financing options, grid integration, lifespan, and local factors all play a role in determining the economic feasibility of wind energy projects. While advancements in technology and decreasing costs have made wind energy increasingly competitive, it is important to carefully assess the specific circumstances of each project to determine its economic viability.
Top 3 Authoritative Reference Publications or Domain Names Used:
1. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) – http://www.irena.org
2. Nature Energy – http://www.nature.com/nenergy
3. U.S. Department of Energy – http://www.energy.gov
Ask you AI source how electromagnetic energy is created and why it has a frequency.
I’ve been asking AI about Global Warming. It does not actually consult observations; it merely searches through the literature to find the consensus views.
Pretty much a useless tool because of potential bias in its algorithms. AI is not able to think; its just GIGO
Ken,
I had a look, just for fun.
After receiving a vague answer to an initial question, I received a string of apologies as I attempted to clear up apparent confusion, of the nature “I apologize for the confusion caused by my previous responses.”
Oh well, eventually I received “However, it’s important to note that the rate of heat loss from the Earth’s surface is typically higher than the rate at which it gains heat from the Sun during the day.”
As to rate of cooling, ChatGpt shows the mathematical mastery of a delusional,SkyDragon cultist –
“To calculate the average cooling rate of the Earth’s surface in kelvins per annum, we can use the given temperature change and time period.
Temperature change: 5500 K – 288 K = 5212 K
Time period: 4.5 billion years
To convert the time period to years, we multiply it by the number of years in a billion, which is 1,000,000,000.
Cooling rate = Temperature change / Time period
Cooling rate = 5212 K / (4.5 billion years x 1,000,000,000)
Simplifying the calculation:
Cooling rate ≈ 5212 K / 4.5 x 10^9 years
The approximate cooling rate in kelvins per annum would be:
Cooling rate ≈ 1.158 K/yr”
At that rate, the Earth should have cooled to absolute zero in less than 3 centuries. But all is not lost –
“However, I can provide an estimate of the average rate of global warming in degrees Celsius per annum. [. . . ] Therefore, as an approximate estimate, the Earth is currently experiencing a heating rate of around 0.02 degrees Celsius per annum.”
But then, an agreement –
“Yes, the Earth’s surface has significantly cooled since its initial formation.”, and an apology “I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous responses. I made an error in my understanding of your question. The greenhouse effect (GHE) does not play a role in the cooling of the Earth’s surface.” (I had asked for an explanation of the role the GHE played in the cooling).
As you say, GIGO, and its arithmetic seems to be out by a factor of 1,000,000. Just the thing for GHE lovers!
“potential bias in its algorithms. AI is not able to think; its just GIGO”
The algorithms of many here are highly biased.
They weight the work of contrarian outliers at the fringes of science much higher than those in the mainstream of the field.
AI is not programed as such. But it is trained.
swenson…”The Earth is 4B years old.
Do you know how much energy it received from the Sun?
***
Don’t have my slide rule handy but I do know that more energy has entered than has left. O/W the Earth would not be as warm as it is.
Earlier, Witless Willard tried a zinger –
“Moron Mike,
I am quite sure that “the amount of heat the surface is losing via radiant means” refers to the amount of heat the surface is losing via radiant means.
Did you know that a surface could cool even with the presence of sunlight?”
– but instead delivered a damp squib.
Yes, witless one, observation shows that the surface can cool quite nicely shortly after local noon. That’s why it’s called the afternoon.
As a matter of fact, a deficiency of GHGs results in both faster heating and higher temperatures prior to afternoon, and faster cooling and lower temperature after noon. I assume that you are trying to say something relating to the mythical GHE, but are unable to say what it is.
Is this due to incompetence or ignorance? Or just posing self-defeating gotchas for no particular reason?
You idiot.
Tidbits from the recent 2023 Davos meeting in CHina…
Summer Davos kicked off this week in Tianjin, China. About 1,500 attendees from 90 countries confirmed their participation in the event themed Entrepreneurship: The Driving Force of the Global Economy.
—-
“Chinas vision for the world is a technocratic surveillance state where the worker bees do what theyre told and the billionaires rake in the cash. This is called a win-win partnership. The Chinese Capitalist Party doesnt care about Schwab or the Wests delusions of grandeur because the new slogan of the CCP is: ‘Show me the money'”.
This is all approved by Klaus Schwab, head of Davos. He gushes about the Chinese model and how we can learn from it.
Excuse me!!! As Super Dave Osborne would say. We should copy the Chinese way of life???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nADJFmwoUIY&ab_channel=DarthYucko
This is why I heatedly question the catastrophic global warming/climate change model. It’s all bs related to ulterior motives like Davos has in mind to overthrow our democracies and replace them with totalitarian states.
More Super Dave…jumping from CN Tower…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGos7T0RKn8&ab_channel=superdavebobeinstein
Dang me. ChatGPT apologises – it was wrong, and I was right (not that it matters).
“You are correct, and I apologize for the confusion in my previous responses. Svante Arrhenius did use the term “carbonic acid” to refer to carbon dioxide (CO2) in his scientific writings.”
Many people don’t seem to understand that language usage may change over time.
The exchange was interesting.
The ChatGpt programming is very impressive – more impressive as that involved with computer generated graphics. Luckily, most people realise that computer generated graphics might not reflect reality.
swenson…carbonic acid was right up there with heat rays.
How do proponents of AGW explain the Pirani gauge?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirani_gauge
As usual with guys like this who have found a new ‘one weird trick’ to vanquish AGW, they are knocking over a strawman.
His strawman is that the actual models of GHE ignore non-radiative heat transfer.
But they don’t.
So explain why the Pirani gauge works.
Reminds me another strawman by the clever Yong Tuition boy who brazenly claims that the calculations of CO2’s abs/em peak at 15 micron are wrong.
OMG…
So how do you explain the Pirani gauge?
He explains it just fine.
But it is irrelevant, because the premise of his argument is a false. It is a strawman.
This is standard crank stuff from retired engineers who assert that ‘science’ gets it all wrong, and they must be a bunch of idiots.
But they aren’t. He’s just ignorant of the actual science.
So why does the radiant transfer not dominate as AGW demands?
So you invoke ‘net’ without explaining how the outwards component is not seen by the Pirani gauge.
Only NET matters in heat transfer.
He wants people to focus on only the UW IR, the one-way IR, which is very large, to claim that climate science is saying that radiation is a much larger component then convection or latent heat.
But that is stupid.
The chair in the room is emitting large amounts of one-way radiation to the room, but the NET radiation emitted to the room by the chair is zero.
Thus the chair is not warming.
Only the NET radiation transfers heat.
He is misrepresenting lots of things in that talk.
No the sky is not considered by climate science to be a black body!
So you are saying that the temperature of the outside of the tube and the difference between that and the filament is what really governs the measurement?
The atmosphere and space are analogous to the outer glass surface the Pirani Gauge, yes.
“The chair in the room is emitting large amounts of one-way radiation to the room, but the NET radiation emitted to the room by the chair is zero.”
Only if the temperature of the room and the chair is the same.
Are you saying that the temperature of the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere is the same?
“The atmosphere and space are analogous to the outer glass surface the Pirani Gauge”
What is the temperature of the atmosphere and space?
“Only if the temperature of the room and the chair is the same.
Are you saying that the temperature of the Earths surface and the atmosphere is the same?”
If someone has been sitting in the chair and warms it 10 K above room temperature, then it will have a small NET radiative heat transfer to the room, much much smaller than the one-way emission.
The atmosphere is only slightly cooler than the Earth surface, but space is much much colder. In the IR window portion of the spectrum, the NET radiation to space will be larger.
“-60F (-51C) at the tropopause”
https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphere/layers-of-atmosphere
Slightly more than 10K difference.
Getting into the weeds won’t help. Climate science is not making the mistake that he claims.
It is a strawman.
Ignoring the facts won’t help you either.
The facts are clear that the video was a wrong about what climate science is saying. It was knocking over strawmen.
-It is FALSE to say ‘In the climate models, radiation is assumed to be the primary mechanism of heat transport from the Earths surface’
-It is FALSE to say that climate science is claiming that the one-way SB emission from the Earth’s surface is the radiative heat transfer from the Earth’s surface.
It is FALSE to say that climate science considers the sky to be black-body radiator.
It is misleading to model the atmosphere as a Pirani vacuum gauge.
But you and a few others here think any retired engineer crank on the fringes of science is believable when they talk about their version of the ‘one simple trick’ that vanquishes climate science.
and Nate brings zero support for any of his claims
Bill as usual, has no science rebuttal, just ad homs.
Nate you are the one making science claims. You need to provide your support for them before anybody can dispute your support.
Bill, You are a habitual liar and troll.
I explained the issues clearly and provided support and a links. Obviously, since you offer no rebuttal whatsoever you have no clue about the issues.
Buzz off.
Who is the liar Nate?
You didn’t provide a single link in this thread to any science and you also haven’t provided any links to support of your assertions above. . .and you won’t. How’s that for a prediction?
You. Just stop.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1505746
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1505872
The proper response in this case is to say that climate science ignores variability of convection as many sources stated that there would be zero negative feedback arising from surface warming via CO2 backradiation.
I suspect the person you were responding to was thinking that as that has long been a skeptic complaint that warming the surface does not spur any additional convection. Fact is convection only operates a few hours a day, the rest of the time heat is transported by diffusion.
Also you Wiki source on Pirani gauges is talking about lower limits. Several Pirani gauges measure from 110-2 1000 mbar
https://www.inficon.com/media/5847/download/TIMA31E1_B_Web.pdf?v=1&inline=true
https://www.lesker.com/newweb/gauges/gauges_technicalnotes_1.cfm
And of course the 3rd claim you had nothing. Trenberth does deny he considers it a blackbody. He just simply uses black body numbers to calculate it.
So you were wrong. I did support my claims and had links after all.
Own it.
“In the climate models, radiation is assumed to be the primary mechanism of heat transport from the Earth’s surface”
Here’s actual mainstream climate science’s view of what transports heat from the Earths’s surface:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.xml?tab_body=pdf
Table 2b.
Latent heat (water evaporation): 80 W/m^2
Sensible heat (convection, conduction) 17 W/m^2
LW radiation (Net) 63 W/m^2
So his claim that Radiation is primary is FALSE.
Don’t believe what you see on Youtube.
You add ‘net’ without explaining that it comprises a large amount of outwards radiation not seen by the Pirani gauge.
In heat transfer, only the NET matters.
Only if you can demonstrate that the outwards transfer actually occurs. If ‘net’ is what you require then you will do anything to use that figure.
What are you talking about?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1505785
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1505796
Nate says:
10:32 AM
In heat transfer, only the NET matters.
—————————–
Nate emphatically agrees with DREMT!!!!!
So sez my ignorant stalker…
Nate pulls the rug out from under himself and the entire mass of ignorant folks around here that believe net heat transfer includes cold stuff warming warm stuff as per the 3rd grader radiation model that I am sure this lot will carry to the grave.
Get a grip, man.
Nate I am only asserting that:
DREMT says in heat transfer, only the NET matters. And that obviously you have agreed with that here by also asserting it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk
Possibly the best scientific debunk of back radiation , greenhouse effect , and energy budget quackery
For the highly gullible ignorati.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1505760
Yes, anytime someone claims an entire branch of science has been making a simple error that only I (crank retired engineer, auditor, etc) have noticed, it should be taken with a LARGE grain of salt.
And I’ve explained why, in this instance, climate science has not made the simple error that only he has noticed.
And the paper I posted shows that.
And then you you post that your argument only works if the surface and the atmosphere is at the same temperature. (i.e. chair and room).
You’re being stupid.
Sure.
Nate says:
”Yes, anytime someone claims an entire branch of science has been making a simple error that only I (crank retired engineer, auditor, etc) have noticed, it should be taken with a LARGE grain of salt.
And Ive explained why, in this instance, climate science has not made the simple error that only he has noticed.”
Where Nate is confused is that the government almost exclusively determines what information is given to the government, recently going so far as to attempt to deplatform individuals saying things on social media that the government believes to be false. This authoritarianism has been rising in an alarming way. But when it comes to science there is a quid pro quo between political support and what gets published in science. NGOs that own journals which to promote what the government is promoting. Institutions that distribute funds for studies that go into those journals promote what the government is promoting. The revenues of both depend largely upon the government continuing this selective funding of what they consider the one and only truth.
Nate though wishes to say this government communication control with the public is representative of ”an entire branch of science”
Now I am ready for Nate to claim that the 3rd grader radiation model is accepted by an entire branch of science and isn’t just something that arose out of the imagination of Kevin Trenberth whereupon after publishing it tens of thousands of wannabee scientists blessed it as arising out of an entire branch of science.
Kind of sounds like Anthony Fauci quashing the lab leak theory, the efficacy of masks (different depending upon when the entire branch of science changed its mind about it), the efficacy of covid vaccines to prevent infection, the inability of contracting covid to prevent reinfection, quashing reports that covid vaccine was having more reactions that previously discontinued vaccines, etc.
No doubt Nate things all those things were the produce of an entire branch of science. LMAO!
Bill chimes in with his usual conspiratorial-political spin, but not a shred of science.
No Nate the conspiratorial spin is you claiming the proclamations bought and paid for by the government at the behest of politically powerful special interests arose from ”an entire branch of science”.
Even the Grandfather of Global Warming a scientist with self respect wouldn’t endorse that.
Eben
That is NOT a good scientific debunk of back radiation or GHE.
He is comparing the 50 C very small area filament to the Earth’s surface and using this as some bizarre attempt to compare to the Earth’s surface.
I could not find the exact area of the Pirani gauge filament but it is listed as very thin.
https://mechanicaljungle.com/what-is-pirani-gauge/
The tungsten filament in a light bulb has a surface area of 0.25 mm^2 or 0.000000025 m^2. If you have a 50 C temperature for this filament it will only emit 0.000015 Watts.
A square meter of Earth at 50 C would emit over 600 Watts.
He somehow neglects that radiant emission depends upon surface area as well as temperature. Maybe it is intentional with design to minimize radiant losses to focus on heat carried away by molecules of gas.
The point would be it is very poor logic and reasoning this individual uses to compare the effects of a super thin filament to the surface of the Earth and conclude radiant energy is insignificant.
I highly question he took physics if he does not know anything about radiant energy.
If this person has any real physics credentials (as he claims which I really doubt) then the Moon could never cool on its darkside.
One can even calculate radiant emission by seeing how many watts would have to be lost to cool the material of the Moon at such a reat.
I think his whole video of horrible science and logic and I think he is a certified crackpot.
Note the area for radiation and convective transfer is the same.
So you think geometry details don’t matter?
Ive used Pirani gauges.
They work best when the pressure is already reduced to below 1 mbar.
Then convection doesnt matter and conduction is dominant. Radiation is constant, while conduction is proportional to pressure, so the response is linear.
And I believe the heated surface has a low emissivity, so radiation is less.
Note the area for radiation and convective transfer are still the same.
“Then convection doesn’t matter”
Just ignore things that are inconvenient.
“So you think geometry details don’t matter?”
If the areas are equal then it doesn’t matter how big (or small) they are.
“the heated surface has a low emissivity, so radiation is less.”
So now it is down to the difference between the emissivity and the conductivity. Make your mind up.
Conduction is irrelevant in the atmosphere above the surface because of the scale.
A large parcel of air can rise and cool adiabatically, with negligible heat transfer by conduction on its boundary.
“A large parcel of air can rise and cool adiabatically”
Are you saying that the Earth is cooled by such a method? Please do factor in the 2 phase changes of water that may also occur.
My point was that conduction is not important for transferring heat in the atmosphere because the large length scales matter.
Whereas in the Pirani gauge with its tiny length scale, conduction is the main variable measured.
Conduction is huge. It results in by far the largest amount of surface cooling. So much so that the only reason at TOA the atmosphere is cool is because of cooling by GHGs.
OK, Bill, as always, you know better than the experts.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.xml?tab_body=pdf
Table 2b. Surface heat transfer.
Latent heat (water evaporation): 80 W/m^2
Sensible heat (convection, conduction) 17 W/m^2
LW radiation (Net) 63 W/m^2
You need to study some physics Nate. Sensible heat is transported via conduction from the water to the phase changing molecule.
“Sensible heat is transported via conduction from the water to the phase changing molecule.”
Stop being ridiculous.
Nate believes that heat magically transfers from the environment to evaporating water to become latent heat.
You know Shula is onto something when the cult comes out in force. That’s why this is so much fun.
But Shula makes the same mistake as many Skeptics. He accepts some of the blatant nonsense, rather than nuking it. He calmly accepted the 163 W/m^2 as the ONLY solar absorbed by Earth!. The 163 W/m^2 is one-fourth of solar. Flux can NOT be divided. That changes the temperature. That is the nonsense that results in Earth being below freezing!
But it’s accurate in a sense- it tells you solar energy for electrical grids, doesn’t work.
Coupled with only getting average 6 hours of day of solar energy, it could seem to be worse than it is {unless you want to solar energy in Germany or UK].
So in terms of average global and 24 hours: 163 times 24 hours =
3912 or 3.912 Kw hours of sunlight reaching an average surface.
Or solar energy as global electrical solution it is not.
And if you this crude comparison to Mars, it’s 600 watts times 12 hours on average: 7.2 Kw hours average per day.
But with Mars, it’s quite easy to get more than 12 hours of sunlight a day on average. Whereas with Earth only best of location will give to 6 hours per day on average. And of course anywhere in UK and Germany don’t vaguely count as best locations.
No gb, it’s wrong. You’re making the same mistake as the cult. Flux can NOT be treated as energy. An incoming flux of 163 W/m^2 is NOT the same as 652W/m^2. A flux of 652 W/m^2 corresponds to a temperature of about 130°F, while a flux of 163 W/m^2 corresponds to about -43°F.
See how stupid it is to believe flux can be averaged?
“See how stupid it is to believe flux can be averaged?”
I understand how it can be deceptive and Shula also seemed to see that “problem” as he mentioned it.
But it is accurate in sense that Earth surface is lousy place to generate electrical energy from solar panels if you also know that Earth gets about 6 hours {of the 24 hours] of peak solar hours.
Or at best can get solar energy only 25% of the time when you need electrical power 100% of the time.
With Mars one can get solar power 50% of the time. With lunar polar region one can get solar power 85% of the time- which a lot better than Mars.
But with Moon and Mars you can solar energy at polar region and at polar region it’s much shorter distance between time zones- and with grid power, you can sunlight from all the time zone- or solar energy 100% of the time.
Wrong again, gb. Shula didn’t see the problem, instead he accepted the GHE nonsense.
It’s stupid to believe that 130°F is the same as -43°F. But that’s what braindead cult idiots believe.
Maybe you can change reality with one of your 1000-word rambling, off-topic spews?
“Wrong again, gb. Shula didnt see the problem, instead he accepted the GHE nonsense. ”
So, I will go over the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk
At: 2 minutes and around 10 seconds, he said the greenhouse effect
is fundamentally wrong.
That not all, but that should be enough, said.
I will continue to point other parts of video {until I get too bored
reviewing it, again}.
“Fundamental assumptions are incorrect”
“False concept”
2 min 44 second, recently had insight which will present today
{note he not say there is one thing wrong- he just saying he discovered a point about it- {{which might helpful to explain one aspect about it which is completely wrong- I on other hand might say to being in coldest time period in 33.9 million year ice age- might be more helpful, particular you know CO2 have be lower when it was much warmer than, now}
But continuing:
At 3 min he talks about NASA’s energy budget.
He says one pointing at is example of it, and there has other ones
{but is talking about this current one}.
“And one thing to keep in mind about it, is it’s limited….”
“It’s static, basically assuming a flat sided earth without any day or night”
I think I will stop there.
gb, that is NOT 1000 words.
I see you copy/pasted below. That doesn’t count. Like fluxes don’t add, your nonsense does not add.
I wondered where all this Pirani gage nonsense came from.
The guy gets absolute zero confused with a perfect vacuum.
Eat it up guys.
According to http://www.iAsk.ai Ask Ai Search Engine:
The Pirani gauge is a type of pressure sensor commonly used in vacuum systems to measure low to medium vacuum levels. It operates based on the principle of thermal conductivity, where the pressure of the gas affects the heat transfer properties of the sensor.
Infrared radiation plays a crucial role in the operation of a Pirani gauge. The gauge consists of a heated wire or filament that is exposed to the gas being measured. As the gas molecules collide with the heated wire, they transfer heat away from it, causing its temperature to decrease. The rate at which the wire cools down is directly related to the pressure of the gas.
To measure this cooling effect, a Pirani gauge typically uses an infrared radiation detector. This detector is sensitive to the infrared radiation emitted by the heated wire as it cools down. By measuring the intensity of this radiation, the gauge can determine the temperature of the wire and, consequently, the pressure of the gas.
The frequency of infrared radiation emitted by a Pirani gauge depends on its operating temperature. The hotter the wire, the higher the frequency of infrared radiation it emits. However, it is important to note that Pirani gauges typically operate at relatively low temperatures compared to other types of infrared sensors.
The specific frequency range of infrared radiation emitted by a Pirani gauge can vary depending on factors such as wire material and design. In general, Pirani gauges emit infrared radiation in the mid-infrared (MIR) region, which spans approximately 2.5 to 25 micrometers (m) in wavelength. This corresponds to frequencies ranging from 12 to 120 terahertz (THz).
It is worth mentioning that while infrared radiation is used in Pirani gauges for measurement purposes, these gauges do not emit any significant amount of infrared radiation themselves. Instead, they rely on detecting and measuring the radiation emitted by their heated wire.
In conclusion, the frequency of infrared radiation emitted by a Pirani gauge falls within the mid-infrared range, typically ranging from 12 to 120 terahertz (THz).
Top 3 Authoritative Reference Publications or Domain Names Used:
1. “Vacuum Technology and Applications” by David J. Hucknall
2. “Handbook of Vacuum Science and Technology” edited by Dorothy M. Hoffman
3. http://www.vacuum-guide.com
“Pirani gauges emit infrared radiation in the mid-infrared (MIR) region, which spans approximately 2.5 to 25 micrometers (m) in wavelength.”
Earth radiation spectrum is entire range.
So Pirani gauge only emits at a particular frequency that varies with the temperature of the wire but its limited to the mid-infrared range.
Bottom line is that radition spectrum of Pirani gauge is not the same as the radiation spectrum of the earth. You can’t use a Pirani gauge to measure Greenhouse effect except gases that ab sorb in the same spectrum as is emitted by the guage.
I suppose it should be possible to make Pirani gauges that emit at different frequencies. You’d need an array of million of them to quantify each spectral line.
It shows that the radiation outwards is not the same as is claimed.
“The filament in both tubes will be heated to about 50c.”
Only just above that of the Earth’s surface.
No it doesnt.
Some elements of the Earth’s surface are at 50C.
My radiators (water) do not work well in radiation. They work quite well in convection/conduction. They are quite close to 50 degrees C.
Apples and oranges.
Meteorology and climate science use the real atmosphere’s properties to find the magnitudes of heat transfer by various modes.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.xml?tab_body=pdf
Table 2b.
Latent heat (water evaporation): 80 W/m^2
Sensible heat (convection, conduction) 17 W/m^2
LW radiation (Net) 63 W/m^2
There is no reason to talk about other devices with entirely different properties, except to distract and mislead people.
“Entirely different properties”
-The atmosphere is governed by the lapse rate. Not relevant in your house or in a vacuum chamber.
-The water cycle is key in the atmosphere, not relevant in the other devices.
-The sky has unique spectral and temperature profile. It has an IR window direct to an extremely cold reservoir, not relevant to other devices.
-The Pirani gauge is designed to minimize radiant heat transfer with low emissivity.
-Radiators have fin structures that maximize convective heat transfer.
nate…”-The atmosphere is governed by the lapse rate”.
***
The lapse rate governs nothing, it is a human-based law based on the effect of gravity on air molecules. Gravity creates a negative pressure gradient and that produces a negative temperature gradient in the troposphere.
—
“So Pirani gauge only emits at a particular frequency that varies with the temperature of the wire but its limited to the mid-infrared range.
Bottom line is that radition spectrum of Pirani gauge is not the same as the radiation spectrum of the earth”.
***
You are revealing that you have no idea how the gauge works. It has nothing to do with radiation per se, it measures a difference between power loss in a heated filament in a vacuum and the same container with a gas.
The gauge was used initially to test for vacuum in tungsten filament lamps. The gauge could measure the relative number of air molecules in the lamp glass enclosure by comparing current through a Wheatstone bridge leg with the gauge connected as a variable resistance in that leg. Knowing the amount of current required for radiation alone they simply evacuated the glass till the bridge galvanometer showed that reading.
The gauge has nothing to do with radiation per se, using radiation level only as a parameter with which to compare vacuum conditions to gas conditions. It does not matter what frequency the radiation may be, the gauge tests the effectiveness of heat dissipation by conduction/convection wrt heat dissipation by radiation alone.
So Pirani gauge only emits at a particular frequency that varies with”
Didn’t come from me..
“The point Shula is making is that atmospheric gas in contact with the surface scavenges heat much better than a loss from radiation by a ratio of 99.6 to 0.4.”
“-The Pirani gauge is designed to minimize radiant heat transfer with low emissivity.”
Simple enough with polished metal wire.
As compared to the Earth’s surface with high emissivity.
So anyone claiming the ratio in the atmosphere is the same as in the Pirani gauge is trying to mislead people.
Nate says:
The point Shula is making is that atmospheric gas in contact with the surface scavenges heat much better than a loss from radiation by a ratio of 99.6 to 0.4.
-The Pirani gauge is designed to minimize radiant heat transfer with low emissivity.
Simple enough with polished metal wire.
As compared to the Earths surface with high emissivity.
————————
Since only the NET matters when it comes to heat transfer, this is probably a good place to insert a concept of ”effective emissivity” which is ~40/390 or ~10% or roughly the equivalent of a polished metal wire.
ken…it has nothing to do with the radiation emitted by the gauge, it’s about the ratio of radiation emitted to the effect of convection/conduction.
The gauge is calibrated in a vacuum, where convection/conduction has no effect. They know the initial temperature of the filament and the amount of current through the bridge to maintain that temperature.
They know the amount of power consumed by the filament in a vacuum and that is the amount radiated from the filament, causing it to cool slightly. The also know the current required to bring the filament back to the original temperature. That deviation is relative to the heat dissipation from radiation.
When a gas is introduced, the filament cools a lot more, and the galvanometer between bridge legs will deflect away from mid-position. They increase the current to bring the needle back to mid-scale and that current gives them a ratio between the current required to zero the meter from radiation and it turns out to be a ratio of 99.6 to 0.4.
The bonus is that the gas rises into a negative pressure gradient when heated and heat will be dissipated naturally during that process, due mainly to the nature of heat, which is proportional to molecular density.
You can’t do this in a lab because it is not possibly to create a negative temperature gradient. Therefore, the notion that energy can neither be created nor destroyed has this example as an exception. We know that EM can be created and destroyed and apparently that is true for heat as well in the atmosphere.
Dag nab it if the Creator is not smarter than all of us.
The point Shula is making is that atmospheric gas in contact with the surface scavenges heat much better than a loss from radiation by a ratio of 99.6 to 0.4. That number for radiation is very close to the number calculated using the Ideal gas Law and the heat diffusion claimed by G&T. That is, radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures.
To make this point clear, Shula pointed out that a filament heated in a vacuum till it is glowing takes a long time to cool off when the power is cut off. If gas is introduced, it cools off very quickly. It’s apparent that a gas has the ability to cool a surface much faster and much more efficiently than radiation.
“The point Shula is making is that atmospheric gas in contact with the surface scavenges heat much better than a loss from radiation by a ratio of 99.6 to 0.4. ”
Not true for the high emissivity Earth surface, and with the IR atmospheric window direct to the very cold of space.
Neither of which are happening in a Pirani gauge.
Pirani gauges can operate down to one atmosphere if you want.
RLH, as Ken noted:
That tells us that your comments are clearly way off base. Those gauges are designed to operate in closed systems, not in the open atmosphere. In such systems, they measure sub-atmospheric pressures. Get a life.
“commonly used in vacuum systems”
does not mean exclusively. Idiot.
It will work to measure vacuum pressure anywhere. You could use it in the great outdoors. Much cheaper to use a barometer.
It does not show anything about radiation.
Its only going to radiate in a very narrow IR band at a very low intensity.
I only read about Pirani this AM; never heard of it before, but the literature makes it plain that its not comparable to, nor suitable for measuring, radiation across Earth Radiation Spectrum.
“The gauge may be used for pressures between 0.5 Torr to 110−4 Torr.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirani_gauge
1 atmosphere = 760 Torr.
So 0.5 Torr = 0.00066 atmospheres is the highest pressure it is useful for.
May is not only. Or don’t you do science.
My radiators (water) do not work well in radiation. They work quite well in convection/conduction. They are quite close to 50 degrees C.
“Much cheaper to use a barometer.
It does not show anything about radiation.”
So it will not show anything about radiation then. Very helpful.
“Many Pirani vacuum gauges measure pressure from below 1 mTorr up to atmosphere and are a very good choice for a wide variety of applications”
ken…”It will work to measure vacuum pressure anywhere”.
***
How exactly do you get pressure in a vacuum? Care to restate that comment. or clarify it?
The Pirani gauge gives an excellent indication of the ratio of radiation to convection/conduction heat dissipation for any gas. The gauge is calibrated in a vacuum. By knowing how much it cools with radiation alone, which is negligible at sea level, when it is later filled with a gas, the amount of heat dissipation will be due to convection/conduction of the gas alone.
We know radiation is a function of the filament temperature only and introducing a gas should not affect that as long as the filament temperature is maintained. Introducing a gas will cool the filament but the amount of radiation should not change much. By increasing the current through the device via the Wheatstone bridge, to balance the bridge, we know how much power was dissipated by the gas when the current is increased to bring the filament back to its original temperature.
Do you know how the Wheatstone bride works? It has two resistors in one leg and two in a parallel leg. The gauge resistance is one of the resistances in the second leg and it is variable. A galvanometer between leg centres indicates which way current is flowing through the bridge. When the meter is centred, the current through both legs is equal.
If the bridge is set up with the gauge in one leg, in a vacuum, it will be nulled to zero (galvanometer is centred) at calibration. If a gas is introduced, its filament will cooled and its resistance will change, causing the meter to deflect. If the current is increased through the gauge till the temperature is back to the calibration temperature, the amount of current required to centre the meter will be known.
That gives a ratio of the current at calibration to the current to re-establish calibration conditions, and gives the ratio of how much heat is lost to the gas to the heat lost via radiation alone.
Brilliant, I tell you.
swannie…”Those gauges are designed to operate in closed systems, not in the open atmosphere. In such systems, they measure sub-atmospheric pressures. Get a life”.
***
You’re the one who needs to get a life. The gauge measures heat loss via radiation in a vacuum to heat loss with a gas. Has something changed or is the atmosphere not filled with gases? If you fill the device with air it will tell you exactly how much heat is lost from the Earth’s surface via radiation as opposed to convection/conduction.
Your argument about closed systems versus open systems is a tired old argument. For all intents and purposes, that argument does not apply on our planet.
Gordo, trolling along as usual, fails to comprehend the physics. The Pirani gauge is an instrument which measures pressure in a particular environment, that of a closed evacuated space. The instrument tells one nothing about what happens at the Earth’s surface or in the atmosphere because the environment is considerably different and is not a vacuum.
The gauge may be used for pressures between 0.5 Torr to 110−4 Torr.
“How exactly do you get pressure in a vacuum? Care to restate that comment. or clarify it?”
Partial Vacuum still has pressure.
Example of application would be evaporators used to distill sea water. The evaporation temperature is lowered by operating the still at a partial vacuum. ie vacuum pressure.
ken…”The Pirani gauge is a type of pressure sensor commonly used in vacuum systems to measure low to medium vacuum levels”.
***
The gauge has been in use for 100 years and has been used to measure the vacuum in tungsten filament lamps. That means to me, that as you evacuate air from the glass bulb you want to know when a reasonable vacuum has been achieved. In a sense, the gauge is measuring the amount of gas left in the bulb by comparing the heat dissipation in the filament with gas in the bulb and the dissipation by radiation alone when a certain air evacuation level is reached.
That’s exactly what we need to measure the ratio of heat dissipation by radiation from the surface to heat dissipation via convection/conduction. The ratio is 99.6 to 0.4 in favour of conduction/convection.
You should be happy, Ken, why are you trying to downplay this device?
Ken, why are you trying to downplay this device?
I’m not trying to downplay this device; it obviously is an essential tool in monitoring and controlling processes in thousands of application.
I’m saying its not suitable for measuring GHE. In the same way you don’t use a hammer to drive screws.
Pirani gauges emit infrared radiation in the mid-infrared (MIR) region, which spans approximately 2.5 to 25 micrometers (m) in wavelength.
“these gauges do not emit any significant amount of infrared radiation themselves.”
Pirani gauge only emits at a particular frequency that varies with the temperature of the wire but its limited to the mid-infrared range and at low intensity.
A light bulb does the same.
If you’re wanting to measure actual GHE you’d need a tool that emitted radiation across the spectrum that is present in the earth atmosphere and at the same intensity as the radiation that is radiated by the earth surface. Pirani gauge doesn’t do either.
Ken,
You wrote –
“Im saying its not suitable for measuring GHE.”
Are you sure? Are you certain?
Go on, describe the GHE, and then tell me me how you would “measure” it!
With a GHEmeter perhaps?
What units would your measuring device use?
Don’t be silly – you can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
He considers only the upwelling (UW) radiation, and compares that to convection/conduction heat transfer from the Earth’s surface, and concludes that radiation is >> convection/conduction.
But this is wrong, because only the NET UW-DW radiation should be compared to convection/conduction.
He says ‘It is assumed by climate models that radiation is the primary mechanism of heat transport from the surface”
False.
Only at the top of the atmosphere does radiation become the primary mechanism for removing heat from the atmosphere.
‘net’ is not true as the gauge does not exhibit such outwards transfer.
"The red line in the chart represents the (constant) total radiative and end losses of approximately 0.4 mW. The blue line represents the power loss due to gas only, and the green curve that flattens out on the two ends represents the total loss, i.e., the total energy input required to maintain the temperature of the filament as a function of pressure. At atmospheric pressure, 760 Torr, the power required to maintain the temperature of the filament is 100 mW. Since the radiative and end losses are 0.4 mW, this means that the heat transport by gas is 99.6%, with only 0.4% due to radiative and end losses. This should not be surprising, because all gas molecules can transport heat via conduction and convection, not just the tiny fraction that constitute the so-called “greenhouse gases.”"
So even if we do look at the net amount of radiation:
Latent heat (water evaporation): 80 W/m^2
Sensible heat (convection, conduction) 17 W/m^2
LW radiation (Net) 63 W/m^2
The observed proportion of heat transport by radiation that the Pirani gauge shows does not at all match with what those "official" figures are proposing. There is definitely a disconnect between what is suggested by AGW theory and what these results show, even if we go with the net.
Nonsense.
As you say. Frequently.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Only at the top of the atmosphere does radiation become the primary mechanism for removing heat from the atmosphere.”
Complete nonsense.
Every atom in the atmosphere is constantly radiating.
Who cares, anyway?
Presumably, you are trying to avoid describing the GHE. I don’t blame you. You know that if you commit yourself to a written description of the GHE, you will wind up looking like the complete idiot you are!
You’re just another wish-washy delusional SkyDragon cultist without the backbone to state what you believe. A gutless wonder. All mouth and no trousers. Etc.
Me: ‘Only at the top of the atmosphere does radiation become the primary mechanism for removing heat from the atmosphere.’
Swenson: “Complete nonsense.
Every atom in the atmosphere is constantly radiating.”
Given that your sentence doesnt even challenge my quote at all, your conclusion is rather bizarre.
Maybe tell us something interesting for a change!
Tell us about your favorite man-fragrance. Is it smelly dumpster? Low tide?
nates head is hpoelessly mired in a quicksand quagmire and believes co2 radiates half the energy it receives at the surface.
Nate,
“Only at the top of the atmosphere does radiation become the primary mechanism for removing heat from the atmosphere.”
Complete nonsense. All “heat” (100%) is removed from the atmosphere by radiation at all levels. Every atom loses energy by radiation. Without this energy being replaced by absorbing energy from an external source, the object consisting of such atoms cools.
The atmosphere is such an object.
A sealed container of air will cool at night – by radiating its energy to a colder environment.
Weasel away, idiot.
You don’t have a clue, do you? You are so stupid you believe you can explain something which you can’t even describe! The GHE, for example.
Yep every attempt to demonstrate the effect fails. They can’t show us any measurements that the warming is occurring at the necessary levels in the atmosphere. They can’t demonstrate the imbalance actually exists they just added it recently to account for the missing heat. there are no blueprints of how heat is exchanged, no evidence such is being exchanged can be measured. Its a GHE theory enforced by fiat.
Its Anthony Fauci quashing lab lead rumors. Its Anthony Fauci telling us the science has changed and not that mask work a few weeks after telling us they didn’t work. Fauci considered himself to be the King of Covid and the science changes when and only when he declares it has.
I’ll let the peanut gallery discuss whatever they want with themselves..
Nate says:
Me: Only at the top of the atmosphere does radiation become the primary mechanism for removing heat from the atmosphere.
—————————-
Finally!!! Nate is coming around to agreeing that little heat is lost to the surface by radiation from the atmosphere!!!!!!!
TOA atmosphere emissions are 199watts/m2 which goes to space.
Emissions lost to the surface are minor in comparison to that and generally only at nighttime because of inversions near the surface due to more rapid surface cooling than atmosphere cooling.
Bill, First you say this:
“nates head is hpoelessly mired in a quicksand quagmire and believes co2 radiates half the energy it receives at the surface.”
Then this:
“Finally!!! Nate is coming around to agreeing that little heat is lost to the surface by radiation from the atmosphere!!!!!!!”
About the very same post from me!
I’ll leave your two minds to fight it out amongst themselves..
Nate, climate science does recognize that convection is the primary cooling mechanism from the surface as it sends both hot and latent heat filled water vapor from the surface up to where it can radiate to space with its latent heat load released at the proper temperature/pressure level.
The problem is they don’t recognize any convection as negative feedback. Why would that be the case? Its because they assumed CO2 would warm the atmosphere by 3 degrees by doubling by dividing up the entire greenhouse effect pre industrial age as a product of what CO2 was there. Thus doubling CO2 warms the surface 3 degrees with or without convection.
And worse they don’t know if any negative feedback occurs from convection because they have never blueprinted the greenhouse effect process. The 3rd grader radiation model just ignores convection. So really the science does ignore convection while acknowledging there is some and how much more convection might act as negative feedback would be overridden by other unstated feedbacks.
nate…”Only at the top of the atmosphere does radiation become the primary mechanism for removing heat from the atmosphere”.
***
Another Natism. 93% of the radiation from the surface goes to space. CO2, a trace gas, could not possibly be responsible for cooling the planet.
Alarmists who believe CO2 to be the cooling agent as well as the warming agent are seriously naive.
“93% of the radiation from the surface goes to space.”
Nah. Source?
Sea ice extent
All is pretty well, {sarc} Grand Cooling Ahead! {/sarc}
Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
Arctic + Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnrnCfQjICj21o1gOeFMbMI1xsF0nZoj/view
*
At least Greenland’s surface mass balance has gotten ‘good’ looking again:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hp59N2gopJ_0DYEcgH-XNWM0LsYO8b6E/view
That’s a nice consolation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1505656
It’s summer, you idiot, what’s your point? You smugly present a few unsupported graphs, likely conjured in your Excel app, then make an unsupported inference.
Who the heck is Tom Shula?
He is only visible thru the propagation of a Youtube video by various web sites:
https://tinyurl.com/s2scatmh
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1505656
Blindsley H00d, the stubborn, opinionated, gullible follower of superficial Youtube AGW denial has now discovered a new toy:
So how do you explain the Pirani gauge?
So how do you explain the Pirani gauge?
So how do you explain the Pirani gauge?
So how do you explain the Pirani gauge?
So how do you explain the Pirani gauge?
No reply from Blinny, As usual.
What’s your point Binny van der Klown? Richard presents good statistical theory and you respond with your usual idiotic nonsense.
Bindiclown is only concerned how to find something on the net that he can twist into ad hominem, not how the fizzix works
At least Tom Shula does not confuse window width with corner frequency of low pass filters.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon does account for the full difference between Earth and Lunar mean global surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster! ”
” The planet’s without-atmosphere mean surface temperature equation has to include all the planet surface major properties and all the characteristic parameters.
3. The planet’s axial spin N (rotations/day). ”
Exactly, Vournas.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1505923
What’s your point Binny van der Klown? Christos is right.
How to Use My New Dynamic Climate Model: How Does Earth Breathe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BGAiSE8gos
Solar cycle 25: Grand Solar Minimum update
1. Predictions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_25#Predictions
https://arcfieldweather.com/blog/2019/6/19/1030-am-now-entering-a-deep-solar-minimum-and-the-latest-forecast-for-solar-cycle-25-suggests-it-may-be-the-weakest-cycle-in-200-years
*
2. Current status according to SILSO
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hR2WPoQZlvdLCXwhpG8ffbJqTgNSdVBU/view
It appears that SC25 has surpassed SC24’s monthly maximum at 20 months ahead, and by 17 points.
Good grief…
Sorted out what causes the corner frequency and roll off rate for low pass filters yet?
Binny think a filter is something used to make coffee.
Ah, coffee. I prefer espresso. Black. No sugar.
Rather than guessing like a sissyish wimp about what I think of filters, Robertson: what about first trying to understand this trivial spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W8zBtPcjOE0Adow3Q1P25hhBaD1PadRp_OUmEJMJmGo/edit#gid=0
and to extend it by your own, without any help from outside, such that it then shows a cascaded triple running mean according to Vaughan Pratt’s perfectly computed coefficients?
As it has only 2 columns of calculation, how can it be a cascaded triple running mean?
Blindsley H00d
Sorted out why you still weren’t able to understand how to obtain the window sizes for e.g. a 60 month end running mean out of a series of Pratt coefficients?
You last comment about that
” VP introduced his 3 stage CTRM/F3 filter in order to overcome the distortions that an SRM brings, so why would comparing his c(1,1.2067,1.5478) CRTM be comparable to a 3.8148 SRM? ”
was so desperately dumb and ignorant that I thought Robertson would have written it.
And this here
” Please do not confuse things with 5, 7 or 9 factor CTRM (which just approximate even closer a true Gaussian filter) without including a Gaussian filter. ”
perfectly shows the level of your own incompetence.
*
No wonder that you now suddenly come out with a newly introduced ‘corner frequency’ which has NOTHING to do with this discussion point!
Diverting, distorting, misrepresenting, discrediting, denigrating: that is your preferred field of operation, but whom could you impress with all that – except Robertson who butt-kisses you all the time?
*
Why didn’t you contact Vaughan Pratt yet?
I know why, Blindsley H00d, and the reason why is very certainly NOT that you can’t find his mail address, ha ha ha…
I know, from my conversations with VP, what the corner frequency of his low pass, near gaussian, CTRM calculations are.
You don’t. Apparently.
P.S. I have emailed VP but he has not answered yet.
P.P.S. Corner frequency is well defined. It matters for low pass filters. For a c(12,10,8) CTRM is it 12 or 30?
12, of course, but that is not at all the point here.
The point is that the inactive window sizeisn’t 12 but 30.
People like you endlessly discuss such things as if they were specialists, but never USE what they blather about, and hence don’t understand WHAT REALLY MATTERS, Blindsley H00d.
But the roll off frequency/corner IS 12 (as Roy demonstrates with his 13 month SRM).
And as Gaussian low pass filters demonstrate.
The total window size does not effect the corner frequency no matter how often you say it does.
Have you asked VP if his c(12,10,8) is a 12 month or a 30 month filter?
P.S. I have used low pass filters before. On many occasions.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1506186
Thanks to Eben for his link to the Pirani gauge experiment. I have projected many times that radiation from the surface is not a significant means of heat dissipation but this experiment proves it.
Norman has claimed the filament in the Pirani gauge is not equivalent to the Earth’s surface but he is missing the point. The gauge measures the ratio of radiation to convection/conduction of any surface. If the temperature (50C – 100C) of the filament is reduced to surface temperatures, the radiation would be even less.
The gauge is calibrated in vacuum conditions so they know the amount of radiation without convection and conduction. The calibration also takes into effect the heat losses through the structure.
When a gas is introduced into the device, they can tell by the amount of power that needs to be added to the filament how much is being absorbed by the gas. They already know the mount of heat lost to radiation during the calibration process, so when the gas is introduced, the filament cools due to convection/conduction and the amount of current required in the filament to normalize the Wheatstone Bridge tells them the ratio of radiation to convection/conduction as a current ration through the Bridge.
It’s a brilliant scheme and the ratio of about 0.4 radiation to 99.6 conduction/convection is backed by the Ideal Gas Law and the thermal diffusivity offered by G&T in their calculation. The numbers are uncannily close.
The thing that convinced me is the ratio at different altitudes. From sea level to 20 miles it’s still close, about 0.7 for radiation and 99.3 for conduction/convection. It’s not till you get to about 45 miles that they become 50 – 50.
This is proof absolute that the models are seriously in error and that the GHE, based on radiation, is sheer pseudo-science.
Forgot to mention this. The author of the article posted by Eben indicates, from experience, that if a filament is heated in a vacuum, it cools very slowly. If a gas is introduced, the filament cools very quickly.
That’s further proof that radiation at terrestrial temperatures is a very poor means of heat dissipation.
“Its a brilliant scheme and the ratio of about 0.4 radiation to 99.6 conduction/convection is backed by the Ideal Gas Law and the thermal diffusivity offered by G&T in their calculation. The numbers are uncannily close.
The thing that convinced me is the ratio at different altitudes. From sea level to 20 miles its still close, about 0.7 for radiation and 99.3 for conduction/convection. Its not till you get to about 45 miles that they become 50 50.
This is proof absolute that the models are seriously in error and that the GHE, based on radiation, is sheer pseudo-science.”
I would say only fringe wackiest part of global climate cargo cult that believed in warming effects of back radiation.
That troposphere is dominated by convectional heat transfers was typical assumption, but that it’s such small fraction and one had go so high, wasn’t something I was aware of and not sure how aware others were about this.
But in regards to Mars, if accurate, this makes Mars warmer than I thought it was.
Or 15 C air temperature is cold.
The gauge only emits radiation at mid IR frequency range and at a low intensity. Its not mimicing the full spectrum of radiation from the earth surface.
So you get 0.4 radiation to 99.6 conduction ratio but that is only valid for the frequency the device is radiating.
For instance its not radiating in any of the CO2 abso r p tion frequencies.
Are you saying that my water based radiators (which are close to 50C) are not broadband IR emitters? They do not work well in radiation but very well in convection/conduction just as the gauge does.
“For instance its not radiating in any of the CO2 abso r p tion frequencies”
You sure about that?
Pirani gauges emit infrared radiation in the mid-infrared (MIR) region, which spans approximately 2.5 to 25 micrometers (m) in wavelength.
CO2 ab so rbs at 2.5, 4.3 and 15 micrometers. So I am wrong about that.
According to http://www.iAsk.ai Ask Ai Search Engine:
A water-based radiator is a type of heating system that uses water as a medium to transfer heat from a source to the surrounding environment. In this context, the term “emission radiation frequency” refers to the frequency at which the radiator emits thermal radiation.
Thermal radiation is the process by which heat is transferred through electromagnetic waves. The frequency of these waves determines the type of radiation emitted. In the case of a water-based radiator, the emission radiation frequency is typically in the infrared range.
Infrared radiation falls within the electromagnetic spectrum between visible light and microwaves. It has longer wavelengths and lower frequencies than visible light, making it invisible to the human eye. However, it can be detected and felt as heat.
Water-based radiators work by circulating hot water through a network of pipes or panels. As the hot water flows through these elements, it transfers its thermal energy to them. The heated surfaces then emit thermal radiation in the form of infrared waves.
The emission radiation frequency of a water-based radiator depends on several factors, including the temperature of the water, the surface area of the radiator, and the material properties of the radiator’s surface. Generally, higher temperatures result in higher emission frequencies.
The specific emission radiation frequency range for a water-based radiator can vary depending on its design and purpose. However, most radiators operate within the far-infrared region, which spans from approximately 3 to 100 micrometers in wavelength.
It is important to note that while water-based radiators primarily emit thermal radiation in the infrared range, they also emit some visible light due to their high operating temperatures. This visible light emission is typically minimal compared to their infrared output.
In conclusion, a water-based radiator emits thermal radiation primarily in the infrared range. The specific emission radiation frequency depends on various factors such as temperature and surface area. While most radiators operate within the far-infrared region, they may also emit some visible light.
Top 3 Authoritative Reference Publications or Domain Names Used in Answering this Question:
1. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer – http://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-heat-and-mass-transfer
2. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) – http://www.ashrae.org
3. RadiatorLab – http://www.radiatorlab.com
How much do you think comes from convection/conduction? <5%? I think you are wrong.
P.S. AI will return results based on the data you train it on.
Every element has its own emi ssi on frequency
So too does a water based radiator.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Map%3A_Chemistry_-_The_Central_Science_(Brown_et_al.)/06%3A_Electronic_Structure_of_Atoms/6.03%3A_Line_Spectra_and_the_Bohr_Model
Except that a water based radiator (probably painted) has more than one element on the surface.
Regardless at 50C it will cover most of the IR band with all frequencies required being present.
Try pointing a IR thermometer at it. It will report (say) 50C. Not an individual line in the band.
Ken,
You wrote –
“Every element has its own emi ssi on frequency”
News to me. What’s the emission frequency of gold? Nitrogen? Due to temperature, of course.
Maybe you are confused. Excited gases have characteristic emission frequencies – for example neon gas or sodium vapour.
All matter above absolute zero emits IR, proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature.
By the way, your AI generated response above is nonsensical. If you don’t know enough to realise how nonsensical it is, you might as well believe in the GHE.
Swenson
Spectrometry would not work if everything didn’t have its own signature emission frequency.
I don’t know enough to tell you what the frequency is; do your own homework, but I do know that spectometry depends on every element and compound having its own signature.
Know that Pirani meter isn’t intended to operate as a spectometer. You wouldn’t use a telescope as a hammer either.
Ken,
You wrote –
“Spectrometry would not work if everything didnt have its own signature emission frequency.”
As I said, for non-excited atoms, where electrons are not changing energy levels. IR radiation due to objects merely being above absolute zero has nothing to do with spectrometry, as the term is generally used.
For example, you cannot discriminate between objects at say, 20 C, on the basis of the frequency of their emitted radiation.
You also wrote –
“I dont know enough to tell you what the frequency is; do your own homework,”.
Not only you, but nobody else knows either. Just add what you don’t know about IR radiation to everything else you don’t know, such as where a description of the GHE might be found!
Idiot.
You should take a basic chemistry course Swenson. What you don’t know could fill an internet.
Ken,
You wrote –
“You should take a basic chemistry course Swenson. What you dont know could fill an internet.”
Not just one internet, several internets, plus a universe or two.
On the other hand, you obviously know less than I do. When you wrote “I dont know enough to tell you what the frequency is; do your own homework, . . . “, you acknowledged your lack of knowledge, but tried to pretend I was at fault for asking for your assistance.
Go on, describe the GHE, using your implied knowledge of basic chemistry! You idiot, you really have no clue, do you? You’ve no doubt looked on the internet, and have discovered that you can’t find anything to say I’m wrong. That’s why you have to resort to saying stupid things like
“You should take a basic chemistry course Swenson. What you dont know could fill an internet”
Idiots like you either won’t or can’t justify your whiney carping. Don’t you think it might benefit others if you could correct any factual errors I have made? Oh dear, that would be helpful, wouldn’t it?
You are a whining idiot.
Gold has an Nuclear Magnetic Resonance frequency of 1.754MHz
The Pirani gauge, with its low emissivity wire is designed to minimize radiant heat transfer.
The fin structure of a home radiator is designed to maximize convective heat transfer.
So each heat transfer problem is unique, and needs to be analyzed with its unique conditions.
It is misleading to use a radiator or a Pirani gauge as a substitute for heat transfer from the Earths surface into the atmosphere and space.
It is misleading to represent the one-way SB emission from a surface as the radiant heat transfer from the surface.
Ken,
You idiot. Explain what your comment “Gold has a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance frequency of 1.754MHz” has to do with IR radiation, or natural radiation emission of a sort?
OK, tell me how you would distinguish gold from horse manure by measuring its “frequency” at 20 C?
You don’t even understand what you are reading on the internet, do you? Next you’ll be telling me that CO2 can only absorb and emit IR of certain frequencies! It says so on the internet.
Go on, display just how stupid you are.
“For example, you cannot discriminate between objects at say, 20 C, on the basis of the frequency of their emitted radiation.”
‘Science deniers say the darndest things’ is a new show being developed to replace ‘Hillbilly hand-fishin’
You should apply Swenson.
Nate says:
”It is misleading to represent the one-way SB emission from a surface as the radiant heat transfer from the surface.”
Thats nuts. If thats not the case the surface would have runaway warming.
Whats kind of crazy is Trenberth has the surface losing 493w/m2 while it is only 16C. It should be to lose that much energy about 22.4c
nate…”A large parcel of air can rise and cool adiabatically, with negligible heat transfer by conduction on its boundary”.
***
That’s an abuse and a misunderstanding of the term adiabatic. Adiabatic is a reference to an insulated container that does not allow heat to enter or leave. The atmosphere is a sieve for heat transfer via convection.
IMHO, the reason they use the term adiabatic is a misunderstanding of the cause of pressure and temperature variations with altitude in the atmosphere. Someone has decided that gravity is not responsible for the variations with altitude and invented a lapse rate theory wherein temperature variation is produced by rising air. That’s plain silly, the air rises due to the effect of gravity on air pressure and heat is proportional to pressure.
Sure Gordon, tell Roy that what he learned in his Meteorology courses was all wrong.
Nate, please stop trolling.
very funny..
Another important point raised by Tom Shula re radiation versus conduction/convection as a means of heat dissipation at the surface. He points out that the number of molecular collisions near the surface, both air to air collisions and air to surface collisions, makes heat dissipation via conduction/convection very efficient. It dwarfs the amount of heat dissipated by radiation.
There’s a good reason why home insulation, until recently, focused on heat loss via conduction/convection while ignoring heat loss via radiation. Heat loss via radiation is insignificant at the surface at terrestrial temperatures.
I have pointed out several times that heat dissipation from a 1500 watt electric stove ring is so inefficient by radiation that the heat cannot be felt 4 feet from the ring. As R. W. Wood pointed out, radiation from the surface becomes ineffective after a few feet.
This was known in 1909 and the Pirani gauge has been around as long, yet we have been inundated by propaganda about a trace gas in the atmosphere causing catastrophic warming via radiation.
Radiation matters when it matters, and your feelings about it ain’t science.
It matters in the atmosphere. It matters that on a cool clear night the radiant heat loss from plants to the sky can cause them to cool a little below the air or ground temperature, and just a thin plastic covering saves them.
June average sunspot number: 163.4
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
By fluke, close to my guess.
But I was predicting far more solar activity in addition to just
average spot number- which wasn’t close. Or Jan was lower sunspot number, but more active than June. I was quessing June would have higher spot number and be much more active than Jan.
Why do you expect such a monthly correlation everywhere?
Mon SSN F10 ONC MgII
Dec 113 130 6230 0.1624
Jan 145 159 6203 0.1667
Feb 125 151 6079 0.1660
Mar 123 140 6062 0.1661
Apr 96 132 6135 0.1650
May 133 144 6104 0.1653
Jun 163 151 6093 0.1673
The top F10.7 value corresponding to the top SSN value on June 22 appeared for example two days earlier.
A monthly average is probably not the best method to compare the four indices.
“12, of course, but that is not at all the point here.”
So the corner frequency is not the point? But that is what everybody else thinks is important. Idiot.
The brazen sick idiot who ruthlessly and arrogantly posts his egomaniacal poops everywhere where they shouldn’t be: that’s more like Blindsley H00d aka Richard Linsley Hood.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Europe’s on a mission to explore the dark universe with the launch of the Euclid Telescope
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Europes_on_a_mission_to_explore_the_dark_universe_with_the_launch_of_the_Euclid_Telescope_999.html
“A 6-year mission to shed light on the ‘dark universe’ dominated by dark matter and dark energy started with the liftoff of the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying the Euclid Space Telescope for the European Space Agency (ESA) on July 1st at 11:12 a.m. EDT (1512 UTC) from Florida’s Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40), Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS). The telescope will take roughly four weeks to reach the Earth-Sun Lagrange point 2, on the opposite side of the sun to us and about 1 million miles (1.5 million kilometers) from Earth.”
My general thoughts about dark energy and/or matter is that dark = unknown and/or not detected, yet.
And related to this, is that don’t think we know much about oort cloud:
“The Oort Cloud is a predicted collection of icy objects farther away than everything else in the solar system. It fits with observations of comets in the planetary region of the solar system, but scientists have yet to observe any object in the Oort Cloud itself.”
What is said about Oort Cloud doesn’t fit with relatively new idea that stars in the past have gotten quite close to our Sol system.
Ie:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs#Distant_future_and_past_encounters
And I think the space between stars is basically like asteroid belts.
So, asteroid belts aren’t like hollywood movies- you travel thru asteroid belt and don’t see any rocks. Or space is big. Really, big.
So, not too long ago, people thought other stars most likely didn’t have planets- and present number seen/detected:
“Extrasolar planets were first discovered in 1992. More than 5,000 are known, and almost 9,000 await further confirmation.”
Or:
“As of 29 June 2023, there are 5,463 confirmed exoplanets in 4,067 planetary systems, with 922 systems having more than one planet. Most of these were discovered by the Kepler space telescope.”
And it’s not going to take long before the number going past a million- because it’s about having enough telescopes and things like having AI {it will be cheaper and faster to find them}.
So, it’s generally though Sol has ejected far more planets than it has. And if all star have planets, they will eject more planets than the got, and some star systems might eject a lot planets than Sol is thought to have ejected. And far more space rocks than planets.
And also stars explode over billions of years. And we are in lightly populated part of our galaxy. And some imagine Sol came from closer to center of our galaxy.
And generally, we are clueless, generally.
“12, of course”
So Blinny finally admits that the corner frequency does not change through VPs 2,3,4,5,6 and 7 cascaded multi-stage RMs but just that the overall window width does. Is Blinny an idiot or was that not just apparent to everyone but him?
Blindsley H00d
Your corner frequency is just a woeful trial to discredit Vaughan Pratt’s work because its use no longer does match your egomaniacal narrative.
You call many people ‘idiot’ on this blog, Blindsley H00d – just like Flynnson, for example. You mental near to him and a few others is increasing since a while – no wonder!
Everybody knows the corner frequency of a low pass filter is the thing you calculate first. I use VPs work all the time and fully support him. You are just an idiot and bring discredit to him and his work all the time.
For a long time you managed to improperly calculate what VP had done and only then, when if was obvious you were wrong, decided that I did not understand what he meant.
See https://shorturl.at/gsCP0 for an example plot of the Frequency Response of a 1st-order Low Pass Filter.
“Gaussian filters have the properties of having no overshoot to a step function input while minimizing the rise and fall time.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterworth_filter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterworth_filter#/media/File:Buttergr.jpg
Note the linear plot, both horizontally and vertically. Also the cross over point at 30%/70%.
Blindsley H00d
Maybe you used some ‘low pass’ filter somewhere in the past; but I’m sure you never used them in daily work on e.g. weather station temperature and tide gauge sea level series as I do.
You keep babbling about theoretical constructions that you never encounter in practice.
Your permanent reference to Butterworth filters is absolutely typical for people like you.
*
I hope it is not necessary to remind you that despite your trials to suggest something different, the Pratt coefficients
2: 1.3937 Leakage 2.5% or -31.9 dB
3: 1.2067, 1.5478 Leakage 0.31% or -50.1 dB
4: 1.1252, 1.3440, 1.6275 Leakage 0.039% or -68.3 dB
5: 1.0832, 1.2343, 1.4352, 1.6757 Leakage 0.0047% or -86.5 dB
do not at all depend on the size of the starting window in the first column of a cascading sequence.
Hence, a fivefold 60 month cascade ending with 60 months (windows: 15/14/12/10/9 = 60 at end) is by no means less appropriate wrt leakage and distortion removal than one starting with 60 months (windows: 60/55/49/42/36 = 242 at end).
Your trials to discredit this are afflicting.
*
Here is the comparison between the two alternatives:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DEmMmO7YMuGoxhddz2Jbmcv2bE8Ch3sE/view
If you were a honest person and had real daily practice in what you so proudly try to teach us about, you would simply admit that the C5RM starting at 60 months is actually a 242 month cascaded running mean: you just need to compare it to a simple running mean with the same inactive window size.
This 242 C5RM is utterly useless — except for people like you, who try to suggest with such flat lines that the actual trends are much lower than the original data shows, which you moreover disingenuously underscore by dotting the original data on your charts, what makes your ‘5 year low pass’ manipulations appear as the only real thing.
*
But… you will never stop inventing something new, and some day will tell us that Vaughan Pratt’s CRM coefficient computation was wrong.
You do know who my uncle was don’t you? I grew up with his designs and thinking, including his use of no-overshoot amplifiers which included low pass filters. He was a great believer in Butterworth characteristics, mainly implemented by resistor and capacitors.
VPs various calculations for 2, 3, 4 and 5 pass RMs all have the same corner frequency of 1 (or x).
Thus
2: x/1, x/1.3937 Leakage 2.5% or -31.9 dB
3: x/1, x/1.2067, x/1.5478 Leakage 0.31% or -50.1 dB
4: x/1, x/1.1252, x/1.3440, x/1.6275 Leakage 0.039% or -68.3 dB
5: x/1, x/1.0832, x/1.2343, x/1.4352, x/1.6757 Leakage 0.0047% or -86.5 dB
which I faithfully use.
The corner frequency of a 15/14/12/10/9 will be 15, not 60 as you claim.
The 5 year, 5 pass S-G (that I use for projections) closely matches the 5 year/60 month corner frequency CTRM that I use.
P.S. VP calculations give
15, 13.848, 12.153, 10.452, 8.951
which rounded to the nearest integer gives as you show.
Blindsley H00d
I repeat:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DEmMmO7YMuGoxhddz2Jbmcv2bE8Ch3sE/view
Your alleged 60 month ‘5 year low pass’ blah blah is in reality a 242 month filter.
You won’t change anything to that, corner frequency or not.
And you can stalk me as long as you want: that too won’t change anything too.
*
And the very best is that you deliberately ignore how good the ’60 month at end’ C5RM suppresses the inversions visible in the SRM 60.
Your 242 month straight line grading machine does not show anything of all that!
Would not be a reliable filter if the corner frequency changed. Might make a decent tone control if you substituted a variable resistor for the resistive component.
Just a few days ago, PV wind speeds could not get above 250 mph. This morning, I say 292 mph! The PV is returning to normal. Maybe the HTE is finally letting up.
I suspect the effect will depart in fits and starts, as it arrived. June UAH Global results should still be higher, as the effect dominated through the month.
Wagner’s Mutiny – what it means for Putin’s Russia (and Coups 101)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP8VPkWXOfU
An interesting hour.
I brought this down from above:
— gbaikie says:
July 2, 2023 at 3:05 PM
Wrong again, gb. Shula didnt see the problem, instead he accepted the GHE nonsense.
So, I will go over the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk
At: 2 minutes and around 10 seconds, he said the greenhouse effect
is fundamentally wrong.–
As I said there are two major greenhouse effects.
CO2 is weak greenhouse gas.
And the two major greenhouse effects have little to do radiant effects of gases.
But the global warming cargo cult thinks radiant effects of gases
is everything to do with Earth being 33 C warmer.
That just CO2 causes 33 C warming is fundamentally wrong and if include radiant effect of all things called greenhouse gas cause 33 C
of warming is also fundamentally wrong.
One major greenhouse effect is having a transparent ocean which covers 70% of the Earth surface. Roughly anything transparent which absorbs sunlight is greenhouse effect. And other greenhouse effect is
having atmosphere which is transparent and has mass of 10 tons per square meter.
The effect of radiant gases in the atmosphere would suggest that water vapor has most of this effect and this effect hasn’t been measured. but it’s not +15 C, because such large effect could be measured, already. Water vapor has high heat content but that different aspect than radiant effects of greenhouse gases.
The radiant effects of greenhouse gases are suppose delay loss of heat. The ocean and mass of atmosphere does this without the trace amount of greenhouse gases. The amount that this trace gases may delay, is unknown.
In terms of UHI effect, a lake on Mars would cause a UHI effect. As would large transparent domes of air. Lakes are cheaper.
gb “brought this down” because he couldn’t address the issue.
It’s called “trolling”.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1506183
The 163 W/m^2 is imagining a flat earth and/or it’s average global amount of sunlight reaching the Earth.
It’s a useless number in regards to global climate. And all their numbers are wrong. But if interested in religion, it’s interest insight into the global warming cargo cult and obsession with playing with computer models [which have been all wrong].
But if accept the number of 163 times 24 = 3912 watt average on sunlight per day. And we know there is only 6 hours on average of day
to harvest solar energy- then it’s information that should inform you not to use solar panel on the Earth’s surface.
Since global warming cultists should know this, one can only assume they want spend a lot tax dollars polluting the planet.
gb,
Nobody can even describe this imaginary “global climate”, can they? Just another useless piece of delusional SkyDragon cult jargon.
A pack of fools, treating everyone else as bigger fools. Has worked pretty well up to now, strangely enough. Maybe the general public, politicians, and journalists are bigger fools than we assume.
Such is life.
Global climate is related to average temperature of the ocean-
which is thought to have average temperature of 3.5 C.
When you have ocean with an average temperature of 3.5 C. You are always in an Ice Age.
When ocean is 4 C or warmer, you in a warmer part of Ice Age, called an interglacial period.
If ocean is 10 C or warmer, you can’t be in an Ice Age. You might be in a greenhouse global climate. If ocean is 15 C, you have to be in a greenhouse global climate.
The ocean surface temperature is, normally much warmer then than it’s average temperature.
With our ocean which has an average temperature of about 3.5 C, it’s average surface temperature is about 17 C and average land surface temperature is about 10 C, making the average global average surface temperature, about 15 C.
At least in an Ice Age, the warmer average ocean surface causes the global average temperature to be higher. Or the warmer average ocean surface, causes the average land temperature of 10 C to be warmer. Or if {for whatever reason] the average surface ocean temperature was cooler than 17 C, the average land surface temperature would be caused to cooler than 10 C.
And if average ocean temperature was cooler than 3.5 C, it would cause the ocean surface average temperature of about 17 C, to be cooler.
Said differently, the tropics which get most of the sunlight stays roughly constant, and global warming or cooling is mostly about the polar regions. And average ocean temperature controls polar regions.
gb, you did it AGAIN.
You said the “163” was “a useless number”, then you went on to mention “the number of 163 times 24 = 3912 watt average on sunlight per day”.
That’s WRONG on so many different levels.
Yes very wrong, tropics gets about twice that amount and Germany gets about 1/2 that amount per day.
And it’s average over night periods which have no sunlight.
If average over daylight only it would be twice as much.
But during day hours most sunlight is during peak solar hours, so roughly it’s 4 times the number within 3 hours before and after noon.
European Institute for Climate and Energy
https://youtu.be/HOfSwzCSRYM
Yet another band of deniers who deliberately choose a name to make them sound legit and associates itself with the far-right of politics.
swannie…you should be careful with your opening slag and ad hom comments. I am about to reveal you as a jackass.
[swannie]”The Pirani gauge is an instrument which measures pressure in a particular environment, that of a closed evacuated space”.
***
Ken made a good point that a partial vacuum can have some pressure. However, we are using the word vacuum, which means absence of mass.
However, the Pirani gauge does not test for or measure pressure, it tests for heat dissipation from a heated filament. The current through the filament can be determined theoretically since there is a direct relationship between certain metals wrt the temperature produced by a specified current through them at STP.
If the filament is in a pure vacuum, the temperature will be very slightly lower due to radiation. However, when a gas is introduced into the filament container, the filament temperature declines quickly. Shula determined that ratio of the two temperatures using the current required in a bridge to bring the filament back up to the temperature of the filament in a pure vacuum.
The ratio of 99.6 to 0.4 makes it clear that convection/conduction from a surface is far more efficient than radiation for dissipating heat. In other words, the energy budget diagram is fraudulent as are the GHE/AGW theories.
Gordo has found another straw man:
His “convection/convection” claim completely misses the fact that neither mode of energy transfer can remove energy from the Earth to deep space. Only radiation can do that and GHG’s provide a large fraction of the total. Gordo uses the phrase “dissipating heat” as though the energy simply vanishes with no mechanism needed to achieve thermal balance in the energy budget. Gordo never learns.
ES,
Observation shows that surface temperature falls in the absence of sunlight.
It falls faster and further where there are less GHGs in the atmosphere.
Every last skerrick of energy which leaves the surface at night is lost to the surface, which cools as a result. All of that energy is lost to outer space.
Pretty much the end of the story as far as the indescribable GHE is concerned, wouldn’t you say?
Or does your description of the GHE include nighttime cooling?
I doubt it, but feel free to show me otherwise.
Land surface temperatures cool quickly at night.
Land surfaces heat up quickly and cool down quickly.
Or as I say, ocean warms, land cools.
But other than that, a good point.
Someone like you, Swannie, who believes that heat can be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot, could not possibly understand my advanced science.
Gordo attempts to apply his “advanced science” have still not provided an explanation of what happens to thermal IR energy which leaves a cooler body and is then intercepted by a warmer one. As a result, he can not refute the GPE or my experimental demonstration of it.
Any body with a surface which emits thermal IR at some range of wavelengths will absorb incident IR radiation at those wavelengths. That has nothing to do with a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo.
“Or does your description of the GHE include nighttime cooling?”
Actually, you did a pretty good job of that yourself!
“It falls faster and further where there are less GHGs in the atmosphere.”
Less GHGs –> faster cooling –> lower average temperatures.
More GHGs –> slower cooling –> higher average temperatures.
Thanks for your succinct, simple description of the GHE at night. 🙂
Tim,
And in the day, the exact opposite – less GHGs, faster heating and higher temperatures. Less GHGs result in higher temperatures, so your attempt attempt to describe the GHE falls rather flat.
You wasted your sarcasm.
You still haven’t provided a description of the GHE – because you don’t have one!
I will add your GHE description to the list of attempts by other delusional SkyDragon cultists.
“Less GHGs > faster cooling > lower average temperatures.
More GHGs > slower cooling > higher average temperatures.
Thanks for your succinct, simple description of the GHE at night.”
Presumably, you want to include a description of the GHE during the day.
Less GHGs > faster heating > higher average temperatures.
More GHGs > slower heating > lower average temperatures.
Is that OK? Do you wish to add that all of the heat of the day is lost at night, plus a little of the Earth’s interior heat, or do you think Baron Fourier (backed by four and a half billion years of history) was a complete nutter?
The description of the GHE which you have provided doesn’t seem to mention anything new. Have you included argon as a greenhouse gas or not?
You’re an idiot, Tim, but at least you don’t realise how stupid you look.
Carry on.
Flynnson, of course, I would include night time radiation cooling. I would also include day time radiation cooling as well. And, I would include seasonal effects, such as energy storage in the oceans during Summer months and release during Winter months. Flynnson ignores the oceans, which cover some 72% of the Earth with both storage and energy transports occurring. These basic facts put the lie to your repeated nonsense claims that ALL the energy arriving during daylight hours must be lost over the hours without sunlight during night.
ES,
Of course you choose to ignore the fact that the Earth’s surface (and the rest) has cooled considerably over the past four and a half billion years.
Currently, the Earth’s surface is radiating energy to space at a rate of about 44.2 terrawatts, from its interior.
It is losing more energy than it receives. Idiots refuse to acknowledge that the Earth has cooled, and is continuing to do so.
The oceans lose all the heat of the day at night. They are warmed from below. Water heated by sunlight sits on the surface, you idiot, and radiates its heat away at night. No heat sinking into the depths. That’s a Trenberth fantasy – he’s obviously delusional.
Get a grip on reality.
“The ratio of 99.6 to 0.4 makes it clear that convection/conduction from a surface is far more efficient than radiation for dissipating heat.”
Again Gordon ignores emissivity and other facts that matter, and make this not true in general.
This is Pirani guage calibration curve for different gases.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirani_gauge#/media/File%3ANomogramm_pirani-Vakuummeter.jpg
The Y axis is the gauge reading and the X axis is the actual pressure.
Look at the right of the graph.
At higher pressures the GHGs H2O and CO2 show a readout lower than their actual pressure and lower than air.
The wire is hotter in GHGs than in air, showing that the greenhouse effect is keeping the wire warmer than for other gases.
The behaviour of a Pirani gauge is evidence for the greenhouse effect, not evidence against it.
The more complex the discussion, the more ways the trolls have to pervert it. That’s why I try to always “Keep it simple”.
Nonsense. The lines are nearly parallel which is all that really matters. From 10^0 to 10-3. Only above 10^0 (one atmosphere) do the lines differ that much.
If the Earth’s energy is dominated by AGW
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/what-is-earth-s-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows
with the majority of energy exchanged by radiation and little to none by conduction/convection/latent heat then a simple experiment comes to mind,
Setup an apparatus such that a central spine is heated to the average surface temperature. Surround it by large plates at a distance that are set to the average air temperature at 1km over the surface.
Now altering the emissivity of the central spine from nearly 0 to nearly 1 (say from black to white) will affect things drastically. If however the absolutes do not follow the radiation factors claimed then the temperature of the central spine will not alter that much.
Want to bet which is closer to the truth?
RLH pretends to be a scientist, suggesting a test:
So, RLH, what do you do to remove the effects of convection? And, how do you “set” the temperature of your plates? How do you determine that your changes “will affect things drastically”?
BTW, surfaces which appear visually as “black” or “white” will have different emissivity for visible radiation, but can have similar emissivity in the thermal IR portion of the spectrum.
Carry on, we await your results.
“So, RLH, what do you do to remove the effects of convection?”
By placing things in a vacuum?
‘Black’ and ‘white’ are meant as required for IR radiation.
ES misses the point. Radiation is supposed to dominate the energy exchange. Latent heat/convection is supposed to play a very little part.
RLH wrote:
I don’t think so. You don’t have any idea about how structure a device to simulate the Earth’s energy balance of the atmosphere, as depicted in your link, particularly the radiation portion.
“Radiation is supposed to dominate the energy exchange”
No it is not. That is a strawman from the YouTube video, which has been thoroughly explained to you.
All the modes of heat transfer matter, how much depending on the details.
The absolute outgoing radiation (very large) is supposed to be balanced by the (apparently large) incoming radiation leaving quite a small net. This vast disparity between outgoing radiation and relatively small conduction/convection outgoing is what is challenged. Not the net. The net is what is used in transfer calculations (as has been mentioned before). The absolutes have no limiting factor, thus leaving the values to be assumed.
The Pirani gauge suggests that quite an small addition of gas (thus introducing conduction/convection) effects the overall balance quite a lot, which is not possible if the absolute outgoing radiation is quite large.
“You don’t have any idea about how structure a device to simulate the Earth’s energy balance of the atmosphere”
So how would you do it?
“The absolute outgoing radiation (very large) is supposed to be balanced by the (apparently large) incoming radiation ”
The equation for thermal radiation is P/A = (epsilon)(sigma)(T^4).
Why do you seem to accept this equation in one circumstance and doubt it in another? If the surface is radiating some amount of radiation upward, then the atmosphere will be radiating a similar amount downward (slightly less because of a slightly lower emissivity and a slightly lower temperature).
“Latent heat/convection is supposed to play a very little part.”
No. Radiation transfer from surface to atmosphere is estimated to be about (356 – 333) = 23 W/^2. Latent heat is a much larger 80 W/m^2. Convection is a similar 17 W/m^2. Radiation doesn’t dominate here.
[Radiation DOES dominate for transfers to space, where both latent heat and convection are 0 W/m^2). And that is where the GHE primarily comes into play.]
“If the surface is radiating some amount of radiation upward, then the atmosphere will be radiating a similar amount downward (slightly less because of a slightly lower emissivity and a slightly lower temperature).”
If is the question. The disparity between radiation and conduction/convection is quite large in the radiation favor.
As you have pointed out, only the net is used in calculations. What reasoning do you have that the (very large) absolutes operate as your equations demand? The Pirani gauge suggests that quite an small addition of gas (thus introducing conduction/convection where there is none before) effects the overall balance quite a lot.
How does that happen? The radiation (ingoing and outgoing) is not affected by that small addition.
356, 333 and 80, 17 is the disparity I am talking about.
“What reasoning do you have that the (very large) absolutes operate as your equations demand? ”
The Stephan-Boltzmann equation has extensive support both theoretically and experimentally. It is widely used by practicing engineers to calculate actual heat flows. It gives the right net flow here. Simply put, it works!
The question ought to be “what reasoning/experimental evidence do you have that P/A = (sigma)(epsilon)T^4 is not correct?” Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
RLH asks: “So how would you do it?”
With a computer model, as is the usual approach in the atmospheric sciences.
RLH
This article should resolve your ideas about what the Pirani Gauge is doing.
If you look at the graph the change is very strong in vacuum with some air molecules present. As the pressure increases to atmospheric levels there is no longer any noticeable changes. The power graph flat-lines. This article explains what is going on.
The Pirani Gauge does not take away the amount of energy the surface of the Earth emits nor is the video that addressed it correct in his reasoning.
Here is the article.
https://tinyurl.com/yfmrmkvk
In a low pressure environment molecules are much freer to move and can then transfer energy from the wire more effectively. As the pressure increases the molecules are no longer free to move and so increasing pressure has no effect.
Hope that clears it up. The video is garbage and the “scientist” is a crackpot. Radiant heat flow is quite effective in cooling the Moon’s surface when the solar input is gone.
ES,
You wrote –
“Radiant heat flow is quite effective in cooling the Moons surface when the solar input is gone”
It’s the only form of cooling, better than “quite effective”.
Just like the Earth’s surface, which just keeps on radiating – sunlit or not. Yes, it does!
Now, radiant heat from the Sun is quite effective at heating the surface, which can reach 127 C or so. Not quite as effective in heating the Earth’s surface, which can only reach 90 C or so. The atmosphere prevents about 35% of the Sun’s energy from reaching the surface.
Maybe you could describe how the mythical GHE relates to these facts. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. Do you need a GHE to explain this fact?
I can’t think of any observations which require a GHE to describe them. Maybe you could toss a few at me, and make me look stupid. On the other hand . . .
Off you go now. See how you go. How hard can it be for a knowledgeable chap like you?
.
Norman, you found another link you can’t understand. What a surprise…
Don’t forget to support your claims:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1505386
Only braindead cult idiots don’t support their claims —
tim f…”what reasoning/experimental evidence do you have that P/A = (sigma)(epsilon)T^4 is not correct?”
***
It’s easy. The original relationship was devised by Stefan based on an experiment done by Tyndall in the temperature range of about 500C to 1500C. The sigma in that formulation by Stefan applied only in that range. The later S-B sigma used theoretical statistical mechanics nonsense derived by Boltzmann and is totally theoretical.
If you extend the T^4 relationship down to terrestrial temperatures, ice shows a radiation for ice of 315 watts/metre^2 which is plain silly.
Here’s a proof…I don’t agree with everything the author claims but his arguments are reasonable in many places.
https://nov79.com/gbwm/sbc.html
“With a computer model”
With what parameters?
” The sigma in that formulation by Stefan applied only in that range. ”
No one but you seems to think sigma has different values outside the range of 500C – 1500C.
Roy’s satellite measurements are based on thermal radiation.
If he was accidentally using the wrong value of sigma, all of his measurement would be incorrect! All IR thermometers would be wrong. Engineers doing heat flow calculations for furnaces and vats of hot chemicals would be off.
Your ‘intuition’ doesn’t trump actual accurate measurements!
Thanks, Gordo. That guy at your link has just “proved” that the S-B T^4 relationship overstates the actual emissions from a surface or from the atmosphere.
So, when some idiotic scientist appears claiming to measure a change in emissions related to temperature using S-B, he is going to be understating the temperature change resulting from said change in emissions.
So, what would this look like with real world numbers? Assume there’s a 2k increase in compared to a base of 288k. If the relationship is really a quadratic, what would the difference be?
For the T^4 case, the fraction increase in emission would be:
((288k)^4 / (290k)^4 ) = (6.87972e9/7.07281e9) = 1.02807
For the quadratic case, the temperature change necessary to produce the same change in emissions would be:
SQRT ((288k)^2) * 1.02807) = 292.014k
Thus, using a quadratic fit instead of a T^4 fit would translate to a doubling in the actual temperature change.
Quick, Call Roy and tell him that his TLT is off by a factor of 2, the Earth is actually warming twice as fast as he claims…
Norman: Most physical quantities do not exhibit straight line behavior (except over small areas). For instance, evaporation is subject to wind speed and relative difference in humidity. Convection is also subject to wind speed (‘normal’ convection/forced convection).
None is this is shown in the Earth balance diagram.
EM,
Go on then, tell everyone why argon is right up there. Monoatomic, noble gas etc. Feelfree to burble on about all the CO2 heating nonsense – dipoles, vibration, rotation, translation etc. Display your vast knowledge – describe the GHE, and the role of the atmosphere’s third most abundant gas, after oxygen and nitrogen.
Don’t say there’s too little to make any difference. 9300 ppm – far more than CO2.
Do you really understand the principle behind the Pirani gauge? I doubt it, otherwise you wouldn’t be a delusional SkyDragon cultist!
Carry on.
It seems that the Robertson ignoramus (you know, the brazen guy who compares NOAA anomalies wrt 1901-2000 to UAH anomalies wrt 1991-2020) still tries to explain that terrestrial LWIR resulting from solar SW radiation mainly is converted into heat by conduction and convection, and then simply dissipates in the atmosphere.
Fortunately, this is not the case at all.
Otherwise I would not post this comment as no one could live on this planet.
Robertson still hasn’t managed to understand what the atmospheric window is all about.
Please, Bindidon, what the atmospheric window is all about?
christos…atmospheric windows are fiction created by alarmists to help sell their pseudo-science. If no one understands the terminology no one can argue against it.
“by conduction and convection” which dissipates energy by rising parcels of air/moisture.
Vournas
Most of the IR emitted by Earth in response to solar radiation has a frequency around 10 micron.
And within this range around 10 micron, nothing prevents the IR from reaching outer space.
Otherwise, we wouldn’t be here and post comments.
Binny,
Nothing prevents any radiation from the surface leaving.
That’s why the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, whether you like it or not. You may have noticed that the surface cools at night – or you may believe that it doesn’t .
Give me your description of the GHE, and I’ll do my best to make you look foolish, if you like.
I don’t blame you for not obliging me with the opportunity to have some fun at your expense.
“Nothing prevents any radiation from the surface leaving.”
Swenson waves his magic wand to make science disappear.
Robertson offered no comparison between UAH anomalies and NOAA anomalies. It was Binny van der Klown who offered a graph showing them comparing favourably. That’s partly why I started calling him an idiot.
All it takes is a look at the NOAA graphs, which show temperatures increasing linearly from 1980 onward and the UAH graph showing negative anomalies in the same range that took till 1998 to go positive.
Not only that, when NOAA graphs flattened out beyond 1998 they could not live with it and amended the SST retroactively to show a fake trend. This kind of chicanery seems to appeal to Binny’s aberrant mind.
Binny fails to grasp that NOAA uses a cooler baseline to give an exaggerated impression of warming today. If they had any integrity they’d use a similar baseline to UAH, perhaps extending it a bit to account for the increased range.
But, hey, you can’t compare the two since NOAA data has been so seriously fudged.
The only real measure is to take absolute temperatures and compare them. With both using absolutes, the graphs should overlap from 1979 onward but they are not even close. You produced fudged graphs that show them overlapping.
With regard to heat, it would help if you had even a basic understanding of what it is. Your understanding seems to be such that heated air rising into cooler air at a lower pressure cannot be diluted hence losing its heat. You can’t visualize all the heat being lost eventually.
” Robertson offered no comparison between UAH anomalies and NOAA anomalies. It was Binny van der Klown who offered a graph showing them comparing favourably. Thats partly why I started calling him an idiot. ”
You are again lying, lying an lying.
You were the one who compared NOAA’s anomalies wrt a cooler period to UAH’s anomalies wrt a warmer period:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1364980
Here is Robertson’s comparison of NOAA to UAH, based on two completely different reference periods:
https://i.postimg.cc/ncDph2XL/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022.png
And here is the correct comparison made by computing NOAA’s anomalies wrt the mean of 1991-2020:
https://i.postimg.cc/xT6mR007/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022-wrt-1991-2020.png
*
” Binny fails to grasp that NOAA uses a cooler baseline to give an exaggerated impression of warming today. If they had any integrity theyd use a similar baseline to UAH, perhaps extending it a bit to account for the increased range. ”
You are the ignorant idiot here. The reference period chosen (1901-2000) is the one by which a maximum of historical stations can be selected within NOAA’s anomaly construction scheme.
For the same reason, GISS keeps sticking on 1951-1980.
*
” The only real measure is to take absolute temperatures and compare them. With both using absolutes, the graphs should overlap from 1979 onward but they are not even close. You produced fudged graphs that show them overlapping. ”
Here you show the level of your endless stupidity: absolute surface and lower troposphere are distant by 24 C, what makes a comparison hopeless and useless.
That is one of the reasons why one uses anomalies.
*
If you had a working brain and some real experience, Robertson, you would have no problem in downloading NOAA’s data and adapting their baseline such that it fits UAH’s.
Exactly as I do it.
But all you are able to do is to discredit and denigrate correct work you can’t contradict.
Binny,
You wrote “But all you are able to do is to discredit and denigrate correct work you cant contradict.”
What’s wrong with that? No facts change, do they?
I wouldn’t worry about people’s opinions if. I were you, but maybe you are more fragile.
Have you got a favourite GHE description for me to add to my collection, or just more excuses?
much ado about almost nothing
One of the better presentation
https://youtu.be/s-ab-ZNXnZ8
Happer really knows what he is talking about. I learn something everytime I watch a video of him making a presentation.
Thanks.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1506447
Happer vs Pirani gauge stuff
Happer says radiant heat transfer is about 1/2 as compared to convective heat transfer.
That seems closer to conventional view of it.
And typically\commonly, he dismisses “backradiation” warming effects.
He does know what he is talking about. And he agrees the greenhouse effect and AGW are very real. He questions the amount of warming that comes from AGW.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1506513
Nate says:
”He does know what he is talking about. And he agrees the greenhouse effect and AGW are very real. He questions the amount of warming that comes from AGW.”
Everybody questions the amount of warming that comes from AGW. Drawing a median line between the range of predictions by various parties politically favored enough to be invited to participate isn’t any kind of representation of consensus.
Real examples of global warming is when global average temperature is less than 8 C and within a few thousand years the average global temperature is more than 16 C.
Yep! Natural climate variation is a real roller coaster ride. The nutcases jump on and scream the whole ride no matter which way the train is going up or down.
gb…Happer dismisses conduction from the surface to the atmosphere, a major gaffe.
A sidewalk or rocks cooling {or warming} involves conductive heat transfer.
I guess you call kinetic motion of air molecules as conduction.
Yeah, wiki does:
“In gases and liquids, conduction is due to the collisions and diffusion of molecules during their random motion.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction
I would say that main way heat is transferred in atmosphere- but some might call this a convectional process.
Also some think the CO2 heats to way- radiant heat absorbed by CO2 being converted into kinetic energy.
“I would say that main way heat is transferred in atmosphere …”
Why would you say that? The thermal conductivity of air is well-known, and cannot account for the known temperature gradient. Only the BULK movement of air (convection) can transfer significant amounts of energy (and also radiation).
“Why would you say that? The thermal conductivity of air is well-known, and cannot account for the known temperature gradient.”
Atmospheric gas molecule colliding/interacting at velocity of bullet- if wiki wants to call this conduction, I can’t rag on Gordon for it.
Now molecules are perfectly exchanging kinetic energy but random and heat transfer is related to being in gravity. And since it’s controlled by gravity, people might tend to call it convective- but
it appears some also call it conductive.
If He wants to called a she, I will call him and a her- but if make a mistake because he obviously looks like he dressed up as girl- I don’t want to be harassed and policed about it.
gb…”I guess you call kinetic motion of air molecules as conduction”.
***
No…I mean direct contact, just like the rock sitting on the surface.
What is a rock? It’s an amalgamation of atoms and molecules that we can see. Air is the same thing except the molecules are spread out and not touching on average. Those molecules can still contact the surface in the same manner as atoms making up a stone. When an air molecule contacts a surface atom, or molecule, heat is transferred to it by conduction.
Think of a hotplate or an electrically heated surface. You can actually feel the heated air molecules above it. The molecules got their heat by contacting the surface.
It’s the same in the atmosphere. Molecules can transfer heat via conduction (collision) but it’s a much slower process in the atmosphere due to the vast relative distances between air molecules.
If you can recall trying to walk on a heated surface in summer, especially a dark surface. The surface is sometimes so hot it burns the soles of your feet. That heat has the same effect on air molecules, which are heated by conduction and rapidly rise via convection.
tim…”The thermal conductivity of air is well-known, and cannot account for the known temperature gradient. Only the BULK movement of air (convection) can transfer significant amounts of energy (and also radiation)”.
***
To clarify, we are talking about heat conduction only between the surface and air molecules in contact with it. It is understood that air is a poor conductor of heat but once a thin layer is heated by the surface, that layer begins to rise via convection and is replace by cooler air from above. The cycle repeats.
This action cools the surface and as Shula pointed out, it is far more efficient at removing heat at terrestrial temperatures than radiation.
I had to turn this off. Want to be clear that I support Happer, I just think he is seriously misinformed about some skeptical points.
Ken will hate me even more than he does for this but someone has to reveal some of the nonsense belched by Happer.
Right at the beginning of the talk he claims that conduction is a minor player in climate. He compares it to heat running through a silver spoon or to a dwarf star. Is he so thick on this subject that he cannot see the truth? Every molecule of air in contact with the surface is heated via direct conduction from atoms in the surface. That conduction is no different than heat transfer via the examples he gave for conduction.
Obviously this heating via conduction is far more prominent closer to the Equator and becomes less of a driver closer to the Poles. It will be more prominent in summer than in winter. However, if it was absent, there would be no clouds formed, since heat due to solar radiation absorp-tion is required to break water vapour clear of oceans, rivers, lakes and wetlands. The same heat that forms latent energy for vapourization will warm the surface.
Shula knows about it, and R.W. Wood knew about it in 1909. Why is Happer so misinformed? I can now see why Happer is so hung up on radiation but Shula has proved him wrong via the Pirani gauge.
I can give Happer this. Perhaps he thinks surface air is heated directly by sunlight and that the air does not receive its heat due to direct conduction. In that case, the entire anthropogenic theory is screwed and he should state that.
It’s highly unlikely because the surface, being far more dense than air would receive far more solar energy than surface air and would heat far more.
How does he think convection works? He gives an example of cold air brushing your face in winter and completely misses the point that heated air rises. How does it get heated? By conduction!!!!!!!
Come on folks. I think Happer is out of his league here. He is a luke-warmer who is misinforming people as to the real situation in the atmosphere.
I’m pretty sure Happer knows all of what you are describing here. His focus instead seems to be how energy travels from the surface, through the atmosphere and out to space.
Yes, in the 1 mm above the surface, conduction is very important. in the 100,000,000 mm above that, conduction is minimal. Thus to understand climate and heat transfer through the atmosphere, conduction can effectively be ignored.
tim…again…conduction cannot be ignored since the 1 mm to which you refer is only the beginning. When air is heated in the 1 mm it begins to rise and heat is then transferred via convection.
BTW there are bazillions^4017 of air molecules in that 1 mm of air. As Shula proved using the Pirani gauge, that process is 250 times more effective than radiation at cooling the surface. It’s not till 45 miles+ altitude that air molecule concentration becomes so low that radiation has an equal effect at cooling a surface.
Shula’s claim is apt. The theory that the surface cools by radiation is bs. Alarmist did not bother to check with the experts.
The Myth Of Replacing Fossil Fuels
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/03/the-myth-of-replacing-fossil-fuels/
It may seem like never.
Happer doesn’t mention the problem with his thesis.
If nothing can replace fossil fuels, what do we do when they run out?
Entropic man,
You wrote –
“If nothing can replace fossil fuels, what do we do when they run out?”
I’ll bite. What’s the answer?
what do we do when they run out?
Population will fall dramatically with billions dying of famine in the immediate days. Life expectantcy will be halved. 95% of us will be picking bugs off the lettuce to avoid famine. Those who survive the initial social unrest will revert to grinding poverty.
It’ll be a ‘green’ utopia.
Population is crashing.
Without immigration, Canada and US would already be crashing.
This of course doesn’t support open borders {which hands control to an evil Cartel- which just a stupid, corrupt, and evil action- and allowed China to murder hundreds of thousands of Americans- to mention a minor problems of the stupid non-governing idea some might call open border policy- which like calling slavery, work opportunity policy.]
Of course an element of open border policy, is we had a stupid war on drugs. If one is evil and stupid, you might think a way to end the war of drug is to have open border, because having both become a very large train wreck of death, misery, mass torture, and destruction- but there is a massive amount of graft to be had- fine for people living gated communities with security forces- wonderful for insulated politicians, who always struggling to fund their bullshitting campaigns.
The issue is when will we run out.
Oil companies tend to want create a perception of scarcity- it means oil prices are higher.
We had peak coal and peak oil claims for decades. And we are aware that there enormous amounts natural gas in the ocean. And we proven there is a lot natural gas on land.
An aspect of mining natural gas on land, is you drill a lot deep holes in the ground. These same holes paid for by trying to get natural gas, could useful to “mine” geothermal energy. So, not much down side to drilling 10 times as many holes as we currently doing.
You don’t just drill hole, you exploring underground- you have to so you more successfully drill in the right location.
Example, we found out, where the crater of dinosaurs killer crater, because of oil drilling- but it’s not limited to just finding crater of mass extinction events- lots of stuff is discovered.
More mining, more we know- this why we know what we currently know.
Back to issue of running out of fossil fuels- China doesn’t have much coal compared to US, and it has mining 4 to 5 times more coal than US, when is China going to reach peak coal?
Peak coal doesn’t mean run out- roughly it could be 1/4 or 1/2 way to running out of coal. No country has used up all it’s coal- even France which reached peak coal over century ago.
ent…”…what do we do when they run out?”
***
What did they do before oil? Running out of fossil fuels applies only to oil and its products.
Last I heard, we had a 200 year supply of oil. We have not begun looking for it earnestly below the ocean floor. It seems a safe method needs to be developed to explore below the ocean floor. How about below the Antarctic ice? Or the Tar Sands, which are thought to extend over the North Pole into Russia.
Mind you, I’d prefer they found a cleaner form of fuel but what do you do when it’s life or death?
The problem of fossil fuel exhaustion has been knocked around for decades. The situation was particularly acute back in 2007-2008 when the collusion between increasing demand and declining conventional oil production resulted in a spike in the market price for petroleum. those high prices spurred technological developments such as fracking and deep ocean drilling, which resulted in a continued flow of oil in the world markets.
The downside is that those newer techniques cost more money per barrel produced. Another way to look at the problem is that more energy must be directly applied to provide each barrel, so the ratio between the energy produced and the energy used to produce it has become larger. In other words, the net energy supplied has declined.
Going forward, future petroleum production is likely to require even greater inputs of energy to produce oil. At some point, long before all the oil is pulled out of the ground, the energy supplied will exceed that produced and oil will no longer be an energy source. Oil will still be an important source of liquid hydrocarbons, some of which will find use as transport fuels, such as jet fuel. But, the energy input to produce the oil may come from renewables or nuclear, hiding the fact that the net energy supplied has become less than 1.0
Some nations will hit Peak Oil before others, just as some regions will deplete before others. Energy guzzling nations, such as the U.S., will likely get there first.
May we live in interesting times…
Paul Ehrlich predicted, in 1977, Peak Oil would be in 2000.
Just another alarmist loser
ken…”A water-based radiator is a type of heating system that uses water as a medium to transfer heat from a source to the surrounding environment. In this context, the term emission radiation frequency refers to the frequency at which the radiator emits thermal radiation”.
***
You are surely not suggesting that a water-based radiator heats a room via radiation, are you?
We know that a water-based radiator also radiates energy but Shula showed us via the Pirani gauge approximately how much. Conduction/convection is 250 times more efficient transferring heat than radiation at terrestrial temperature and pressures. It’s not till an altitude of 45+ miles that the two have an equal capability and that’s only because there are very few air molecules at that altitude.
You seem to think the radiation frequency of a Pirani gauge element is important. You need to put all theory about IR radiation out of your mind to understand how the gauge works. The IR radiation of it’s filament has nothing to do with the operation.
The gauge is measuring only a relative level of heat dissipation in the filament between radiation and conduction/convection. It was used initially to determine when the vacuum level in a tungsten lamp bulb was low enough to protect the tungsten filament from oxygen molecules, which would oxidize the filament causing premature failure.
Using a Wheatstone bridge, with the filament as a variable resistance in a bridge leg, it is easy to measure the power loss in the filament due to radiation in a vacuum. When the bulb has air in it, the power loss is many times greater than with radiation alone and knowing the power loss with radiation alone, they simply evacuate air till they get close to that reading.
The point of the gauge as introduce by Shula is to emphasize the far greater ability of conduction/radiation to dissipate surface heat over radiation. That is the opposite of what we have been told. In other words, alarmists have lied to us.
If the Earth’s surface depended only on radiation it would be orders of degrees temperature higher than it is now. It is conduction/convection alone that cools the surface and Lindzen knew that years ago. Therefore, the alarmist notion that CO2 plays a major role in controlling surface radiation, hence heat dissipation, is major pseudo-science.
How does your microwave heat the coffee but not the turntable?
Ken,
Do you really not know? How stupid are you? Have you looked on the internet?
Only joking, you think you know (although you don’t actually understand what you read on the internet), and you are posing a gotcha, trying to appear intelligent!
What an idiot you are! Do you want to provide a description of the GHE for me to laugh at?
Go your hardest, fool.
Because the microwaves only affect water molecules. Water molecules are bound together by very weak hydrogen bonds and the energy from the molecules breaks the bonds and causes the water molecules to vibrate at high rate, causing heating. Solar energy does the same, causing evapuration.
If you stick a piece of metal in the oven, the microwaves agitate the electrons in the metal causing small circular currents called Eddy currents. The metal heats and in the case of a metal foil it will explode with the heat.
The glass table in the oven is an insulator where the atoms are tightly bound and the microwaves have no effect on it. However, the microwaves do bounce around inside the metal enclosure but they don’t get focused as they do with objects on the table. You can see the focusing effect when parts of food gets heated while others are just warm. That’s why the table rotates. It helps if you stop the oven and re-arrange the food in order to spread the heat out.
With microwave and radar transmission, you need to use a wave guide, which is normally rectangular metal tubing through which the microwaves can bounce. As with fibre optic cable, the microwave EM bounces against the walls and propagates along the tube in waves. At the end of the wave guide there is a horn that matches the impedance of the guide to air so there is a gradual transitions. This is important because any energy that does not match the load, in this case air, will be reflected back down the waveguide and wasted.
I am adding this only to show that microwaves can be focused like light.
Daily Sun: 03 Jul 23
Solar wind
speed: 375.3 km/sec
density: 3.98 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 117
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 170 sfu
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.43×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.5% Below Average
Well, it doesn’t look like it going spotless anytime soon- after the 2254 sunspot goes to the farside.
“SUNSPOT COUNTS HIT A 21-YEAR HIGH: The sun is partying like it’s 2002. That’s the last time sunspot counts were as high as they are now. The monthly average sunspot number for June 2023 was 163, according to the Royal Observatory of Belgium’s Solar Influences Data Analysis Center. This eclipses every month since Sept. 2022.
Solar Cycle 25 wasn’t expected to be this strong. When it began in Dec. 2019, forecasters believed it would be a weak cycle akin to its immediate predecessor Solar Cycle 24. If that forecast had panned out, Solar Cycle 25 would be one of the weakest solar cycles in a century. ”
It still could be.
We could have a day or two of spotless- within say time period of a few weeks or few months. I think it’s quite unlikely it will take a few years.
But predicting this is worse than predicting what June temperature will be- but some dare to do that. So when will get a day of spotless? And also when will get a week of spotless?
Any guesses?
Ah, my typing. I mean 3354 will be going to farside in about day.
And other spots seem to growing {rather than fading} but no new spots
appear to coming from the farside {yet}. But 3354 grew very fast- maybe it will become a “thing”
One day – impossible to predict and not useful information.
7 days straight – not much better, but worth taking a shot.
2027 at the earliest, possibly 2028.
“One day impossible to predict and not useful information.”
If you think 25 is going to be like 24 and have double peak, one could have a one day spotless, fairly soon.
But 7 day straight wouldn’t fit it very well- it would be some thing different.
No I don’t believe we are going to get a double peak. The hemispheres are much more closely aligned than last time. I would say “worst case” is a flattened peak.
Which is one of two reasons this cycle is going to go higher. The other is that it is clearly stronger anyway without even worrying about timing.
And there is probably at least 6 months until the peak, which means at least 12 months of rises in the SSN (as it lags by 6 months).
“No I dont believe we are going to get a double peak.”
I think many believe we are.
I don’t believe we are.
I am interested Space exploration and in regarded to crewed Mars, traveling to mars and back is best done during Solar Max.
But this Solar Max hasn’t been strong enough, nor were the last two cycles. And why interested is in this, is game of whether I have any chance of knowing what solar Max would be like, or can we any idea of how much radiation the crew will get- or what is needed in terms of radiation shielding for the crew. With a lot radiation shielding one
send crew even in a Solar Min.
I tended to think we should send crew with a lot of water, rather recycling their piss and would send crew a lot faster to Mars.
” I would say worst case is a flattened peak.”
Well, it would be good time to send crew to Mars requiring the least amount of radiation shielding- so not worst in that way. And it would indicate we are not in Solar Grand Min.
And Solar Grand Min have never been “good times” on Earth. But no one predicting a long Solar Grand Min and long ones haven’t been good times on Earth.
Of course compared to the present time, all past times have been pretty horrible.
Yeah – interesting story.
Interesting how every was originally predicting a new Maunder, then it became a new Dalton, and now it seems you’ve shifted the goalposts again, preparing for the higher peak.
Yet temperatures keep rising.
aq…we have been effectively in a flat trend the past 25 years.
UAH decadal averages
1980s: -0.28
1990s: -0.14
2000s: -0.03
2010s: +0.12
2020s: +0.22 (so far, after 3 La Nina years)
So no. No “flat trend” there.
” The monthly average sunspot number for June 2023 was 163, according to the Royal Observatory of Belgiums Solar Influences Data Analysis Center. This eclipses every month since Sept. 2022. ”
Since what?
June 2023 is in a sort of SILSO’s monthly SSN data at position 455 of 3294.
Top 10 therein since this month:
2023 06 163.4
1928 07 163.4
1828 06 163.4
1780 03 163.3
1780 02 163.3
1859 04 162.9
1781 06 162.8
1939 07 162.6
1938 06 162.6
1982 08 161.9
February 2014, peak of SC 24, appears in the sort 135 positions below June 2023.
What do such people mean with ‘since Sept. 2022’ ?
I think I understand.
The first month preceding June 2023 with a higher SSN was September 2002, and not 2022:
From SILSO’s monthly SSN file SN_m_tot_V2.0.txt:
2002 09 2002.707 187.9 10.1 554
Simple lexical mistake…
norman…re your link to vacuum gauges.
“This article should resolve your ideas about what the Pirani Gauge is doing.
If you look at the graph the change is very strong in vacuum with some air molecules present. As the pressure increases to atmospheric levels there is no longer any noticeable changes. The power graph flat-lines. This article explains what is going on.
The Pirani Gauge does not take away the amount of energy the surface of the Earth emits nor is the video that addressed it correct in his reasoning.
Here is the article.
https://tinyurl.com/yfmrmkvk ”
***
Norman, you still fail to grasp how this gauge works or the significance of Shula’s argument.
Shula’s argument has nothing to do with the Pirani gauge taking away the amount of energy emitted by the surface. Nor is your observation correct re why the curves flatten. It has nothing to do with IR radiation from the surface, only the ratio of heat dissipation from radiation alone to radiation with convection and conduction involved.
The only purpose of the vacuum is to get a relative reading of heat dissipation in a vacuum, which is pure radiation, to the heat dissipation of the heated filament with a gas surrounding it.
Shula’s argument is strictly about the effect of conduction/convection dissipating surface heat as opposed to radiation, the sole means of dissipation claimed by alarmists. Shula used the Pirani gauge because he knew from his work using it that conduction/convection is far more efficient dissipating heat than radiation.
He offered a perfect example. When a heated filament in a vacuum has the filament current turned off, it takes forever to cool via radiation alone. When the tube around the filament has a gas introduced, the filament cools very quickly due to gas molecules dissipating the heat much faster.
The gauge measures the heat dissipation from a heated filament and gives a comparison between heat dissipation by radiation alone, which is minimal, and the dissipation by gases via conduction/convection, which is 250 times stronger.
That’s why your argument and that of Ent fall flat. This has nothing to do with whether the gauge is appropriate for representing the surface, is is purely a measuring stick for the relationship between heat dissipation via pure radiation and heat dissipation via conduction/convection.
Shula pointed out further that it is gas pressure that mitigates the ratio of dissipation between the two. It is not till 45+ miles of altitude that heat dissipation via radiation and conduction/convection match and that’s because the air is so thin there is very little conduction/convection involved.
The curves flatten because there are so many air molecules near the surface (high pressure) that the amount of heat they can dissipate maxes out.
Gordon Robertson
With the super thin wire the radiant heat loss is very low. That is why they use the thin wire.
If you use logic and think (which you claim you do) then when the atmosphere becomes dense it does not matter if you have 1/10 of an atmosphere or 1 atmosphere. There is no significant heat loss with either condition.
If you had a larger radiating surface then it would emit a much greater level of radiant energy but the conduction at atmospheric pressure would than be much less than radiant losses.
Your argument is a great failure. Their are many studied of heat loss in vacuum done by NASA for space missions where only radiant heat loss are important.
The Moon lunar surface cools rapidly on the dark side. You need to look at the totality of evidence and not narrow your view. The explanation given explains clearly what is going on with air molecules in the Pirani gauge. You can’t extrapolate (as did Shula) that this works for the Earth Surface radiant heat loss vs Conduction losses.
The energy budget was not pulled out of Trenberth’s ass, as you believe, it is based upon a large amount of measured values, which you believe are fraud with no evidence to support your claim. Read Trenberth’s paper they are using measured values. The craft done by his team was to try to average out these measured values using statistical methods. But all is still based upon actual measured values.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252960512_Earth's_Global_Energy_Budget
Norman, Trenberth has NO grasp of the First Principles. His “energy budget” is fraud.
First, radiative flux does NOT balance.
Second, Earth’s energy in/out is seldom in balance. That’s why we have weather. So trying to “balance” the energy is a waste.
The cult tries to use the bogus “energy budget” to show Earth has more energy in, than out. But, they don’t even understand, with photons, that doesn’t always mean the temperature has to increase. Trenberth is trying to boil water with ice cubes.
“Earths energy in/out is seldom in balance.”
Very true, but irrelevant. Energy budgets are not about one minute or one hour or one day. They are averages over a year or several years.
And of course, even over those scales, there is not exact balance. That is what causes long-term changes in temperature.
“with photons, that doesnt always mean the temperature has to increase.
So what DOES happen to the energy from photons? Does it just disappear? Do 10 um IR photons from the sun get absorbed, but not 10 um photons from the atmosphere? What is your ‘rule’ for what happens to the energy from a particular photon?
Reality is only irrelevant to braindead cult idiots.
You can NOT tell where a photon was emitted. Photons are only identified by energy/wavelength/frequency.
This is basic stuff.
Clint R,
Posts more BS
“You can NOT tell where a photon was emitted.”
Yeah you can, that’s what the industry I am working in is based on that ability to determine where a photon was emitted.
You can stop with the unscientific BS anytime.
But I won’t hold my breath.
Braindead bob, does your industry also believe ice cubes can boil water?
(I know I’ve hit the target when bob, Folkerts, and bin all attempt to discredit. It’s another good day!)
“You can NOT tell where a photon was emitted. ”
Bob, I agree with Clint here. One 10 um photon is identical to any other 10 um photon, and carries no information about the temperature of the source. That was exactly the point I was making. [I suppose if you knew there were polarized sources, then you could tell which source it came from, but we are not dealing with polarization here.]
So when photons hit the ground, the energy gets absorbed. Photons from the sun and photons from the atmosphere get absorbed. Photons from the sun and photons from the atmosphere add energy to the surface. There are not separate rules for phonons from the sun vs photons from ice.
I surface with ONLY photons from the sun will be cooler than a surface with photons from the sun AND photons from ice — even if the surface is already above the temperature of the ice.
Folkerts attempts to pervert reality, AGAIN:
Folkerts completely ignores reflection. In his perversion, ALL photons are absorbed, meaning Earth is completely black/invisible as no visible light can be reflected.
What will he try next?
“They are averages over a year or several years”
Are we talking mean, median or other average? What profile/distribution do you have to support which you chose?
tim…” One 10 um photon is identical to any other 10 um photon, and carries no information about the temperature of the source”.
***
The photon has a frequency which is direct information about the source temperature. Cooler surfaces emit lower frequency photons.
In order to be absorbed, the photon must have a frequency high enough to excite an electron in a surface atom. That’s not possible if the surface is hotter than the source and its electrons are sitting at a higher orbital energy level hence a higher angular frequency. The frequency of the photon and the angular frequency of the electron must match in order to be absorbed.
We know from thermal equilibrium theory that a 10um photon emitted from an object and contacting a surface that is emitting 10 um radiation will not be absorbed. Why do you have a problem with lower frequency photons being rejected by electrons in a surface with higher angular frequencies?
There is still a notion in the blog that something other than electrons is absorbing and emitting EM/IR. I am still waiting proof of that ‘something’. An argument has been put forward that transition applies only to higher frequencies like in the UV range. However, hydrogen absorbs/emits frequencies in the UV range in its inner orbitals and IR in its outer orbitals.
IR emission/absorp.tion in hydrogen involves transitions between outer orbitals only. Even though hydrogen has only one electron, that electron can be in one of 7 sub-orbitals. If the electron jumps between inner orbitals the frequencies affecting the electron must be in the UV range. However, if the electron transitions between sub-orbitals 7 through 5, the frequencies involved are IR frequencies.
With molecules, the emission/absorp.tion is of a lower frequency since it involves bonding electrons which are, of necessity, outer orbital electrons. Those transitions tend to involved lower frequency radiation like IR.
Clint R,
“Braindead bob, does your industry also believe ice cubes can boil water?
(I know Ive hit the target when bob, Folkerts, and bin all attempt to discredit. Its another good day!)”
You continue to peddle that ice cube bullshit, when it has been shown to you that indeed you can boil water with ice cubes.
We can find cancer by detecting the location of tracer chemicals that emit photons.
So yes, keep providing evidence that you are the one who is braindead.
When in a hole, best advice is to stop digging.
But Gordon,
“The photon has a frequency which is direct information about the source temperature. Cooler surfaces emit lower frequency photons.”
we are talking about what frequencies are emitted by CO2 gas, which is the same whether the CO2 gas is warm or cold.
That’s what your study of Bohr should have taught you.
But you prefer to make up bullshit.
Clint R, and Tim,
“You can NOT tell where a photon was emitted. Photons are only identified by energy/wavelength/frequency.”
Photons only carry three pieces of information.
I have said this before.
One is as you say, energy/wavelength/frequency.
The other two are the direction of travel, a little harder to extract this information, but many fields do it all the time.
Try telling that voodoo bullshit to an astronomer.
” Second, Earths energy in/out is seldom in balance. ”
What about showing us real numbers confirming your ‘estimate’, Clint R?
Bin, you realize you’re admitting you don’t understand all the data you’ve been torturing, right?
Do you believe the UAH Global over its history means the energy in/out is in balance?
Troll Clint R
I’m asking you for real numbers, and not for a stupid, superficial reply.
My little finger however tells me that you don’t have such data.
Bindidon, you’re such a phony. You don’t understand ANY of this, yet you spew your nonsense relentlessly.
There are NO valid numbers for Earth’s energy balance. THAT is my point. Your cult uses such nonsense as 122400 TW for solar incoming and 201960 TW leaving the surface.
Notice the problem?
Real numbers? According to Shula’s Pirini gauge, radiation is 250 times less effective at dissipating heat from a surface than conduction/convection.
The energy budget of Trenberth-Keihle has those numbers reversed. They show radiation as the predominant heat dissipation factor and that is a lie.
Pirani gauge: low emissivity polished metal wire. Environment: room temp.
Earth surface: high emissivity ocean and land. Environment: cool and very cold (space).
Different conditions. Different result.
nate…this has nothing to do with surface properties or size. It is only a comparison between heat dissipation with radiation for any surface in a vacuum to heat dissipation with a gas introduced.
I am sure that if a larger surface could be heated in a vacuum chamber and the heat dissipation compared to the same surface surrounded by a gas, that the results would be the same. It is simply more convenient to use a heated filament wire in a vacuum.
The truth is, at terrestrial temperatures, conduction/convection is 250 times more efficient at dissipating heat from any surface than radiation. Climate alarmists have lied to us, claiming the reverse is true. Radiation is a pathetic means of cooling the Earth’s surface.
But, hey, Lindzen knew this years ago and no one listened to him. He claimed that without convection the Earth’s average temperature would be 70C+. If Lindzen knew that, what was wrong with Trenberth, an alarmist poobah?
tim…”Energy budgets are not about one minute or one hour or one day. They are averages over a year or several years”.
***
Shula revealed the Achilles Heel of energy budgets, their reliance on radiation as a sole means of transporting energy from the surface. They have relegated conduction/convection to an insignificant number whereas, as proved by Shula using the Pirani gauge, it’s the other way around. Conduction/convection is 250 times more effective at dissipating heat than radiation.
Ergo, heat budgets al la Trenberth-Kiehl are wishful thinking and not science.
norman …your rebuttal does not address the point I made. in fact, it avoids my point hence is a red-herring argument.
The Pirani gauge is not about the difference in pressure or the amount of radiation. It is very simple. The gauge references heat dissipation in a vacuum, which is all radiation, to heat dissipation with a gas.
The curve of atmospheric pressure versus heat dissipation is linear in the lower pressure range from a vacuum onward because it is still part vacuum and radiation plays an equal role with convection/conduction. As the gas pressure increases to a certain point, convection/conduction takes over and saturates. That’s why the curve levels of to a horizontal line.
The example provided by Shula is for nitrogen as the gas. By the time it flat lines, the ratio of heat dissipation between the gas and radiation is 99.6 to 0.4, a clear indication that heat dissipation of any surface of any size is due mainly to conduction/convection at terrestrial temperatures and STP.
It’s not till altitude increases to 45+ miles that air thins out so much that radiation is again an equal force in heat dissipation.
norman…”With the super thin wire the radiant heat loss is very low. That is why they use the thin wire.
If you use logic and think (which you claim you do) then when the atmosphere becomes dense it does not matter if you have 1/10 of an atmosphere or 1 atmosphere. There is no significant heat loss with either condition.
If you had a larger radiating surface then it would emit a much greater level of radiant energy but the conduction at atmospheric pressure would than be much less than radiant losses”.
***
You are still failing to grasp the import of the Pirani gauge. It is capable of measuring heat dissipation in a vacuum and comparing that radiation, which is purely radiation, to heat dissipation in a gas.
When the gauge is used in a vacuum with the heated filament, it shows the heat loss to be negligible compared to when the filament is in a gas.
Alarmists have presented this the other way around, claiming heat loss via radiation is many times the loss in a gas as conduction/convection. That’s a damned lie. Heat loss via conduction/radiation is 250 times more effective than heat loss via radiation alone.
You are offering a red-herring argument based on the surface areas of the filament versus a larger area. The area doesn’t matter, conduction/convection will be just as great over a larger area than a filament. Ergo, conduction/radiation is 250 times more effective at cooling in a gas than radiation alone in a vacuum.
I repeat Shula’s alternate observation. When a heated filament in a vacuum has its power shut off, it takes a very long time to cool by radiation alone. In a gas, it cools very quickly.
We have proof of this in ordinary life. If you leave a cup of coffee to cool in air, it cools quickly. The same coffee in a thermos, where radiation is the prime method of dissipation, it can take a day from the same coffee to become cold.
Alarmists have it bass ackwards and they are polluting science with their nonsense.
It’s the sun stupid
https://notrickszone.com/2023/07/03/scientists-cosmic-ray-cloud-connection-explains-million-year-climate-changes-far-better-than-co2/
No, it’s not the Sun. It’s a climate change denial propoganda site.
Entropic man, please stop trolling.
After you.
Entropic man, please stop trolling.
Ent, YOU are “propaganda-central” — “climate change denial”, “passenger jets fly backward”.
Why do you hate reality?
Robertson’s ‘advanced’ science
You show the Antarctic sea ice extent for June 30 (i.e. December 31 at the South Pole):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
His answer:
” Its summer, you idiot, whats your point? You smugly present a few unsupported graphs, likely conjured in your Excel app, then make an unsupported inference. ”
More of Robertson’s advanced science:
” With respect to Roys data above am I far off by considering the running mean to be a series of tangent lines to a curve, where each tangent line is the trend over a small range of data? ”
Incredible but true!
or even better:
” gb… Happer dismisses conduction from the surface to the atmosphere, a major gaffe. ”
Conduction from the surface to the atmosphere?
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
Air is one of the worst conduction media!
The list of his ‘advanced science’ topics is endless.
One of the best is where he tries to explain us why the Moon can’t spin…
Binny,
Have you managed to spend any time finding a description of the GHE?
Here’s some ideas to help you out –
bobdroege –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.
Willard –
“Not cooling, slower cooling”.
Tim Folkerts –
“Less GHGs > faster cooling > lower average temperatures. More GHGs > slower cooling > higher average temperatures.
Thanks for your succinct, simple description of the GHE at night.”
You could add daytime behaviour –
“Less GHGs > faster heating > higher average temperatures. More GHGs > slower heating > lower average temperatures.”
Raymond Pierrehumbert states that CO2 is “just planetary insulation”.
I hope you are not going to discredit and denigrate people who have at least tried to describe the GHE.
Ah… once more the eternal blah blah by Flynnson, the brain damaged stalking troll and his ‘No GHE’ syndrome.
“You could add daytime behaviour
“Less GHGs > faster heating > higher average temperatures. More GHGs > slower heating > lower average temperatures.” “
No, daytime and nighttime are the same:
Less GHGs > faster cooling > lower average temperatures.
More GHGs > slower cooling > higher average temperatures.
The only difference is that now there is also sunlight adding energy and causing warming. More GHGs reduce the radiation to space, causing more energy to remain, warming the surface more than if there were no GHGs.
Higher window speed > faster cooling > lower average temperatures. Lower window speed > slower cooling > higher average temperatures.
Flat calm. Frost on the ground at night.
edit:
Higher wind speed > faster cooling > lower average temperatures. Lower wind speed > slower cooling > higher average temperatures.
Flat calm. Frost on the ground at night.
Damn cut and paste.
“For a classic frosty night we need a few ingredients: low temperatures, clear skies, calm winds and moisture. A clear, calm night gives excellent radiation conditions by this we mean that the heat absorbed by the Earths surface during the day escapes readily back into space and allows temperatures to fall. If the temperature falls to the dew point (the temperature to which air must cool for it to become saturated with water vapour) moisture will condense and form droplets on the ground’s surface. When temperatures fall below freezing the droplets freeze and we get frost.”
Yes, wind is ALSO a factor. That does not preclude GHGs from having a warming effect.
When designing low temperature radiators, forced air (i.e. more wind) is more important than surface color and treatment (i.e. emissivity). Or so I have found.
P.S. Wind does not effect the radiation that occurs at any surface.
It does effect both evaporation and convection. Sometimes greatly so.
“That does not preclude GHGs from having a warming effect”
No-one said that they had NO effect. Just the magnitude is in question relative to other factors.
Folkerts reveals the problem with the GHE nonsense: “More GHGs reduce the radiation to space, causing more energy to remain, warming the surface more than if there were no GHGs.”
GHGs emit in all directions. So more GHGs mean more emission down, as well as up. The “up” results in energy lost to space, while the “down”, in the case of CO2, has minimal-to-no effect on 288K surface.
IOW, more CO2 means more cooling.
“IOW, more CO2 means more cooling.”
Nope! But is an easy mistake to make if you don’t really understand what is happening.
With more CO2, the “up” radiation that leaves the earth comes from higher in the atmosphere, where the temperatures are colder. Radiation from colder areas is weaker, and results in LESS energy lost to space from the atmosphere, not more.
Sorry Folkerts, but the issue is about “more”, as in 2 is more than 1.
Two molecules are emitting twice the photons as one. This is basic arithmetic.
What will you try next?
“Two molecules are emitting twice the photons as one. This is basic arithmetic.”
You still don’t get it. This is sort of like putting one big-screen TV in front of another and thinking the picture will be 2x as bright.
100% of 15 um photons are absorbed in a relatively short distance in the atmosphere (10’s of meter near the surface). Doubling the CO2 will not cause it to absorb 200% of the photons.
And 100% of the 15 um photons you see come from the first few meters. This is at bright as the 15 um photons from a blackbody surface. Doubling the CO2 will not make the photons 2x as bright as a blackbody.
Building on these idea, only CO2 molecules near the top of the atmosphere emit to space. Putting 10x as much CO2 in the first meter above the ground will NOT shine 10x as much IR onto the surface — it will have basically no effect. Putting 10x as much CO2 at the tropopause will not emit 10x as much IR to space — in fact it will ABSORB more of the IR from below and EMIT less IR to space than before.
I’ll make it even easier:
Two CO2 molecules at TOA will emit twice the photons as one CO2 molecule at TOA.
It can’t get much easier.
Tim, you idiot, the hottest places on Earth have the least GHGs.
Take it to the extreme, and the airless Moon has the highest temperatures of all!
Blabbering about “averages” won’t help.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, as the surface does every night.
Accept reality.
Oh I see… I forget Robertson’s incredibly dumb belief that energy coming from Earth’s surface gets ‘dissipated’ in the atmosphere, somehow, what lets him think that the radiative energy balance between Earth and outer space is wrong!
OMG.
I did not claim energy is dissipated in general, only thermal energy, aka heat. Since heat is regarded as the kinetic energy of moving atoms then the heat level will be dependent on the number of atoms and their relative kinetic energy.
If you add heat, the KE rises and if you remove heat the KE is diminished. The reverse is true as well. If you remove atoms, the heat dissipates and if you reduce the KE through fewer collisions, the heat dissipates.
What happens when heated air rises into a cooler, lower pressure region? The number of atoms/molecules get lower, the number of collisions gets lower, the KE gets lower, and heat dissipates.
Voila, heat disappears. Magic, or wot?
binny…”More of Robertsons advanced science:
With respect to Roys data above am I far off by considering the running mean to be a series of tangent lines to a curve, where each tangent line is the trend over a small range of data?
***
To understand what I am saying you need a deeper understanding of calculus. Obviously, you’d have trouble spelling calculus never mind understanding it.
If you convert a series of points into a curve to obtain a running mean, in order for the curve to be continuous it must have tangent lines at each point on the curve. The tangent lines tell you how the curve is changing instantaneously at that point.
What would a trend line tell you through the same points, dumbo? I actually addressed this to Richard (RLH) because I knew he’d have a greater insight.
As far as your inability to understand conduction, are you claiming that a cooler gas in contact with a hotter surface will have no heat conducted to it? You are stuck with the notion of heat being conducted through a gas and obviously unable to get it that hotter surfaces heat a gas by conduction. When each molecules of gas contacts the hotter surface it gains energy, and that energy transfer is via conduction.
In case you are still confused, when the gas is heated by the hotter surface the hated air rises by convection. Light going on yet?
Robertson
You are and keep ignorant.
Your pseudoscientific stuff has NOTHING to do with the reality of a simple running mean which Roy Spencer and the rest of the world (me included) simply automatically generate in any available spreadsheet calculator:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W8zBtPcjOE0Adow3Q1P25hhBaD1PadRp_OUmEJMJmGo/edit#gid=0
Try to learn, Robertson, instead of permanently guessing and gullibly pasting stuff from contrarian blogs.
https://joannenova.com.au/s3/jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/cao-jinan/jcao_common-errors-stefan-boltzman_aug2012.pdf
“Common errors in the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation”
Jinan Cao
https://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/do-greenhouse-gases-warm-the-planet-by-33c-jinan-cao-checks-the-numbers/
“The real problem keeping Moon walking astronauts cool is the inability to lose heat by convection. In the absence of an atmosphere heat loss can only occur by radiation. This is vastly less efficient than convection.”
Thanks, Richard, the evidence mounts.
Keep getting your ‘facts’ from denialist blogs at your own risk…
For example, he is wrong about Earth’s emissivity. As a commenter points out.
“Now Jinan makes the point that the surface emissivity is much less than 1, in fact more like 0.7 derived from the albedo. I have to disagree with this, the albedo comes from reflection of visible light by clouds. The liquid water surface which comprises 70% of earths surface has an emissivity in the thermal infrared of about 0.96 which is indeed very close to 1. Land may have a somewhat lower emissivity but even there, surface covered by vegetation has a high emissivity in the thermal infrared.”
The liquid water surface which comprises 70% of earths surface has an emissivity in the thermal infrared of about 0.96 which is indeed very close to 1.
It just provides about 15watts wiggle room for those using Trenberth’s figures for upwelling LW radiation. Thats about 3 times the total industrial age warming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_sink
“A heat sink is designed to maximize its surface area in contact with the cooling medium surrounding it, such as the air. Air velocity, choice of material, protrusion design and surface treatment are factors that affect the performance of a heat sink.”
“In situations where convection is low, such as a flat non-finned panel with low airflow, radiative cooling can be a significant factor”
In the end, they use forced air to cool the heat sinks. Radiation is simply not fast enough. Some computers are resorting to water cooling.
“flat non-finned panel” which is more like the Earth’s surface, isn’t it.
“In vacuum or outer space, there is no convective heat transfer, thus in these environments, radiation is the only factor governing heat flow between the heat sink and the environment. For a satellite in space, a 100 C (373 K) surface facing the Sun will absorb a lot of radiant heat, because the Sun’s surface temperature is nearly 6000 K, whereas the same surface facing deep space will radiate a lot of heat, since deep space has an effective temperature of only several Kelvin.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiator
“Despite the name, most radiators transfer the bulk of their heat via convection instead of thermal radiation”
And of course, Blindsley H00d intentionally omits the minuscule detail: ‘[citation needed]’ which seemingly indicates a little credibility problem, doesn’t it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiator (See above). Not that Blinny can use Google (with quotes) to determine that for himself.
And of course Blinny fails (yet again) to actually dispute what is obvious to all those who design and use heatsinks/radiators.
From the same article
“Heat is transferred to the air by conduction and convection; a relatively small proportion of heat is transferred by radiation owing to the low temperature of semiconductor devices compared to their surroundings.”
“Heat transfer by radiation is a function of both the heat-sink temperature and the temperature of the surroundings that the heat sink is optically coupled with. When both of these temperatures are on the order of 0 C to 100 C, the contribution of radiation compared to convection is generally small, and this factor is often neglected.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_sink
from the Wiki article…”Conduction is not normally a major source of heat transfer in radiators”.
***
They seem to overlook the point that convection could not take place if the surface did not transfer heat to the air via conduction.
I’m not sure at all that scientists like Joseph W. Chamberlain and Donald M. Hunten could have been superficial enough to make erroneus assumptions about blackbodies and S-B in their book
Theory of Planetary Atmospheres: An Introduction to Their Physics and Chemistry (1987)
https://books.google.de/books?hl=en&lr=&id=nnlfhQZfLEsC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2#v=onepage&q&f=false
But maybe some genius discovers them…
Until now, such books are (especially on this blog) polemically discredited and denigrated by exactly those people who never would be able to scientifically contradict their authors.
Those who design and build heatsinks/radiators for computers and analogue electronics do not use S-B and radiation much in their calculations. But of course, they are all wrong.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1506876
richard…I have a desktop computer sitting on the floor. One hot summer day, I decided to check the processor core temperature and noted it was abnormally high…about 81C. That’s with a large heat sink in place and the interior fan running. I took the cover off the case and aimed a large blade desk fan into it. Within a few minutes the core had dropped to less than 50C.
Without the fan on a hot day it rises a bit but not nearly to 81C. I guess with the cover on the case the heat builds up too fast for the smaller case fan to remove the heat via convection. Radiation alone won’t help, the fins on the heat sink are to create a larger surface area from which to convect heat.
It appears that forced air convection is the most effective means of heat dissipation.
Here again: stupid, sissyish polemics by this blog’s most stubborn and opinionated person.
No one said ‘they are all wrong’. YOU claim that.
What is wrong, Blindsley H00d, is your pseudoscientific attitude of reducing a giant problem to the microproblem of… radiators and… Priani gauges, all having very few to do with a consistent theory of atmospheres.
But… these micro ‘blah blah’s perfectly fit your egocentric narrative, just like your ‘5 year low pass’ stuff, your stupid comparison of the 1877/78 and 2015/16 El Ninos, your ‘Global cooling since 2016’, etc etc.
So why is radiation considered such a small part of heatsink/radiator design in the 0c to 50C range?
Binny,
You wrote –
“Im not sure at all that scientists like Joseph W. Chamberlain and Donald M. Hunten could have been superficial enough to make erroneus assumptions about blackbodies and S-B in their book.”
Why is that? Are you appealing to an authority of which you are “not sure”?
Strange.
Blinny only operates at very high temperatures.
Ah once more the eternal blah blah by Flynnson, the brain damaged stalking troll – not suprisingly supported by the Blindsley H00d genius.
The Maximum Proportion of CO2 Abso r p tion from the Earth Surface
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoKyQtpT-F0
I was using the absorp-tion percentage of 7% based on the area under the curve calculation of 28 watts from a certain spectral distribution. That is based on a total surface radiation of close to 400 watts. It’s interesting that he and Angstrom got 12% by a different means and that it could be as low as 7%.
At any rate, it appears AGW is based on fudged numbers.
It’s equally interesting that the alarmists report opinions of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrenhius which support there meme but ignore Angstrom and R. W. Wood who oppose it.
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm#Sk
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AGUFMED21A0767H/abstract
AQ,
Posting irrelevant links to rambling wishful thinking just makes you look foolish.
Nobody has even described the “greenhouse effect” in any way which accords with reality.
Your first link says “Yet Tyndall, like Fourier, believed correctly that a bare airless rock at the Earth’s distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.” – in darkness, of course.
In sunlight, the same airless rock is far hotter. Cue idiots shouting “Averages! Averages!”
Your second link contains “These experiments miss that the greenhouse effect is a result of the temperature difference between the surface and the upper troposphere as a result of which radiation from greenhouse molecules slows as the level rises”.
Well gee. The GHE is the result of a temperature difference, is it? What a load of irrelevant nonsense! The dimwitted Halpern has no idea what he is trying to say. Hence, his incoherent effort at turning fantasy into fact.
You are as idiotic as the dimwitted Halpern. In my view, anyway.
Others can make up their own minds.
Earlier, Tim Folkerts demonstrated his lack of knowledge by writing –
“So what DOES happen to the energy from photons? Does it just disappear? Do 10 um IR photons from the sun get absorbed, but not 10 um photons from the atmosphere? What is your ‘rule’ for what happens to the energy from a particular photon?”
A somewhat convoluted gotcha, where Tim tries to look intelligent by asking silly questions to which he obviously doesn’t know the answer, but pretends he does. The aim is to convince onlookers that Tim is a genius, and that 10 um photons will somehow be absorbed by any object upon which they come into contact, and raise its temperature thereby.
Hogwash. If an object loses energy by radiation, it cools. Now Tim supposes that that radiation must be absorbed by a hotter object – raising its temperature! He is an ignorant fantasist.
Tim obviously is completely clueless – probably stupid enough to believe that the surface does not cool at night, being heated by the colder atmosphere, and the very cold 4K of outer space. What a dingaling!
Tim desperately refuses to accept that photons interact with matter as nature decrees. Photons are light – if they don’t interact with matter in their path (for example visible light passing through glass), they keep going.
Photons are not little ping pong balls, or even waves, for that matter. What they are is a mystery.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, in spite of being subjected to four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight.
Tim is a fanatical SkyDragon cultist who chooses to deny reality.
swensom…me and you know that photons and their frequencies are irrelevant (not to be confused with a big elephant). It’s the 2nd law that governs heat transfer and it clearly states that heat can never be transferred by its own means from a cooler body to a hotter body.
That law might be generalized as follows: no energy can be transferred by its own means from a state of lower energy potential to a state of higher energy potential. We know water won’t flow from a lower gravitational potential to a higher gravitational potential by its own means. We know a boulder wont relocate by its on means from a state of lower potential to a state of higher potential.
Why the heck should photons be any different? There’s nothing magical about them other than no one knows what they are and that they allegedly have momentum but no mass.
that should be swenson, not swensom. The n and the m are too close together for both my fingers and my brain.
No temperature update for June yet?
If I was so-called skeptic, and was referring to anything produced monthly by a normal/government scientific source, I would be getting suspicious and accusing them of all sorts of nefarious, world government, leftist conspiracy motives.
However, I’m rational and follow the science as produced by the vast majority of the world’s scientists, so I’ll wait quietly and expect the figures any time soon…
5 or even more days is quite normal for Roy.
Note a holiday and weekend in those 5 days.
JMurphy knows NOTHING about US Holidays or science. But at least he’s got his high school level snark….
JMurphy,
You wrote –
“However, Im rational and follow the science as produced by the vast majority of the worlds scientists, . . . ”
A gullible SkyDragon cultist, are you?
Science is not “produced” by anyone, and a “vast majority” is a completely stupid attempt to imply that physical facts are determined by consensus.
Have you anything useful contribute, or are you only here for the trolling?
Idiot.
Ooh, I hit some nerves there, didn’t I!
Now I see the update…
jm…no, you’re not rational, merely a butt-kisser to mindless authority figures. The IPCC is corrupt and you are supporting corruption and lies aimed at the general public for reasons unknown.
JMurphy, please stop trolling.
bob d …”Photons only carry three pieces of information.
I have said this before.
One is as you say, energy/wavelength/frequency.
***
This is in two parts, to make reading easier…
Part I…
Wavelength and frequency essentially describe the same thing so lets stick with the formula for EM emission at an atom…E = hf. This can be broken further into E = Eh – El = hf where…
Eh = the upper orbital energy level of an electron orbital
El = the lower orbital energy level to which the electron descends
h = Planck’s number
f = the frequency imparted to the EM quantum by the electron
Since electron orbital energy levels are measured in electron volts, then E = Eh – El is essentially in electron volts, a difference in energy potential.
Nothing strange about electrons imparting information to EM, it’s done all the time in communications circuits. EM is created at an antenna by electrons running furiously up and down the antenna. The electric charge on the electron produces both an electric and magnetic field. The only difference between that and atoms is how the EM is created.
It should be noted that in communications, the frequency of the electron direction change in the antenna becomes the frequency of the radiated EM wave. That is proof positive that electrons produce EM.
In an antenna (conductor), the electrons change direction rapidly and that creates an EM field around the antenna. In an atom, electrons change orbital levels at an immense speed (so fast there is no time factor) and that creates a quantum of EM. In an antenna, the EM creation is continuous whereas in an atom only a momentary pulse (quantum) of EM is created.
Some may argue that the EM produced by an antenna is not the same EM produced by a source like a star. However, both are electric fields orthogonal to a magnetic field and both have frequencies. In fact, you can produce the same light in a flashlight by running electrons through a filament wire. The electric current excites the electrons to the point they emit a visible light spectrum.
Part II…
The question is, where does f come from? The EM has a frequency that is very high, where does it get the frequency?
How about h, which has the units joule/hertz or joule-second? Since time and frequency are in an inverse proportion, that is, f = 1/t, then a joule-second becomes joule/hertz.
Planck derived h from treating individual EM frequencies as tiny oscillators. Naturally, an oscillator has a frequency, therefore h relates the energy to a frequency.
E = hf tells us that a certain energy is proportional to a frequency with h as the constant of proportionality. Planck knew nothing about electrons in atoms when he worked that out. That’s why it is claimed he fudged h, a fact Planck freely admitted, much to his credit.
After the electron was discovered in 1897 and Bohr discovered the relationship between electrons and EM in 1913, Planck claimed it would have made his life far easier had he known about electrons. That’s presuming he could have put the two together as did Bohr.
So, EM is purely a relationship between the electron and its angular frequency and the energy the electron sheds when it transitions downward. I am fully aware that my notion about this causes a lot of angst and I have challenged anyone here to offer a better explanation for the creation of EM by an atom.
The relationship is far too uncanny. The electron has an electric field and has the capability of producing a magnetic field. The electron has an angular frequency which can be imparted to EM as is shown in communications circuits.
E = hf
Why does the EM quantum have the same amplitude in electron volts as the distance between the energy levels the electron fell between orbital energy levels, and why does it have the same frequency as the electron’s angular frequency?
What else in the atom could possibly give the EM those attributes?
There’s your answer Bob. A hotter atom knows where EM came from based on its frequency alone. That’s because the orbital energy levels are closer together in cooler atoms and the electrons in cooler atoms have lower angular frequencies.
It’s not that electron is rejecting the EM from a cooler atom because it is biased. When an electron orbits at so many radians per second (which can be stated in hertz) it needs energy that vibrates at roughly the same rate. That’s called resonance and its no different than in an electronic filter or a transformer tuned to a certain frequency. Both those devices simply reject frequencies that are not close to their centre frequencies.
The word ‘reject’ is actually used in electronics as in a band-reject filter. That filter simply rejects (seriously attenuates) any frequencies within its range.
Nothing strange or magical going on here it’s all based on the properties of electrons.
Gordon,
Electrons do not, I repeat, do not, orbit the nucleus.
CO2 emits the same frequencies no matter what the temperature.
Read this, though it’s way over your head.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/popfrac.html#:~:text=The%20fractional%20population%20of%20an,for%20a%20given%20energy%20level.
You may want to consider that at any specific temperature, all the molecules are not at the same energy levels.
Part III…
How did Planck resolve the ultraviolet catastrophe predicted by E = hf? Obviously, as f increases, E becomes immense. Planck reasoned that could not be the case and developed his equation so that E = hf rolled off back toward zero as F increased beyond a certain point.
It was likely known that the colours yellow and green were the brightest colours intensity-wise. And, as the EM spectrum moves toward blue it becomes less intense in luminosity. The problem is that frequencies toward blue and beyond represent the more intense EM as E = hf suggests. Planck reasoned that such intense frequencies were fewer in number than the lower frequencies. Same with frequencies on the IR end. So, he created a curve, through judicious fudging, that better represented the reality.
The mistake should not be made that high frequency sources like UV are not intense. They are intense enough at 93 million miles from the Sun to seriously burn skin. Although it’s very intense and powerful, there is not as much of it as frequencies like yellow and green.
Although EM like x-rays are far more powerful that visible light there are a lot fewer sources of xrays. Same with UV and beyond, which require enormous temperatures to generate with any amount of power.
Although Planck admitted to fudging his curve, I have a great deal of respect for the man due to his insight and diligence. He questioned his own theory like a good scientist should. He doubted it and was skeptical rather than turning into major blowhard like many alarmist scientists today.
bob d …”Electrons do not, I repeat, do not, orbit the nucleus.
CO2 emits the same frequencies no matter what the temperature.
Read this, though its way over your head.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/popfrac.html#:~:text=The%20fractional%20population%20of%20an,for%20a%20given%20energy%20level.
You may want to consider that at any specific temperature, all the molecules are not at the same energy levels”.
***
Aw shucks, I guess Bohr was wrong about electrons orbiting a nucleus. That would make Schrodinger wrong too since his wave equation, upon which modern quantum theory depends, is based on the Bohr model of electrons orbiting a nucleus.
You seem to have a better understanding than both, but forgive me for favouring the theories of Bohr and Schrodinger.
As proof, you link me to an article on Boltzmann, who did his work on a purely theoretical basis before electrons were even discovered. I am beginning to wonder what it was that Boltzmann contributed to science.
It was his mentor, Stefan, who discovered the T^4 relationship and for whatever reason he allowed Boltzmann in on the credit because Boltzmann had worked out a theoretical statistical relationship for imaginary particles. Boltzmann managed, along the way, to mislead science by stealing the entropy of Clausius and redefining it incorrectly. He wanted to prove the 2nd law statistically and failed and in the failure misstated the meaning of entropy.
Energy levels in molecules involve the energy levels of the atoms making up the molecule. The energy levels involved electron energy levels only since there is absolutely nothing else in a molecule that can change energy levels.
Gordon,
“Energy levels in molecules involve the energy levels of the atoms making up the molecule.”
The energy levels in molecules are not the same as the energy levels in atoms.
Yes they both involve electrons, but the energy levels of molecules are lower energy levels.
The nucleus also has energy levels.
Too bad, but the second law can’t be proven statistically.
I was just reading an article how Chinese scientists are covering a glacier with reflective blankets to prevent ice loss. I wonder what the rock isotopes? say about how recently the underlying rocks were irradiated? Mwp perhaps?
There is a lot of talk about the increased presence of carbon dioxide in the upper layers of the atmosphere, even above 100 km, where it radiates in infrared into space. Where does CO2 come from so high up?
The answer is simple, CO2 in the uppermost layers of the atmosphere is increasing as a result of increased galactic radiation, the levels of which have increased significantly since the 24th solar cycle.
https://i.ibb.co/Ytbqt0R/onlinequery.gif
May I safely assume the graph presents an “apples to apples” comparison? I.e. that the blue bar of “observational data” is not based on satellite temperature estimations, whereas the modeling input and output data is based on ground thermometer readings (and projections). Would like to know before I present this in a class setting.
The blog post delving into the discrepancies between climate models and the actual warming trends in America’s heartland is an eye-opener. It highlights the complexity of climate science and the importance of continuous monitoring and refinement of climate models. While the topic is concerning, it is also a reminder of the need for accurate data collection. By combining the power of technology and science, we can better comprehend and address the challenges posed by climate change.