Epic Fail in America’s Heartland: Climate Models Greatly Overestimate Corn Belt Warming

June 17th, 2023 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

For 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).


2,541 Responses to “Epic Fail in America’s Heartland: Climate Models Greatly Overestimate Corn Belt Warming”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Willard says:

    That must explain why Red states keep getting hand-outs from blue states:

    “This is on its way to becoming the fourth-largest economy in the world. What are you arguing for? Mississippi’s economic policy?” Newsom asked in response to Hannity’s claim. “Literally, that’s what you’re arguing for. The great Sam Brownback’s Kansas policy? It was a debacle, no economic growth. Seventy-one percent of the GDP in America are [in] blue counties, progressive policies. Seventy-one percent of the country’s wealth. Seven of the top 10 dependent states are your states. We’re subsidizing your states, Sean, because of your policies.”

    https://www.newsweek.com/gavin-newsom-confronts-sean-hannity-blue-states-subsidizing-red-states-1807434

    Damn socialists!

    • gbaikie says:

      They started socialism and are most socialist states in the world.

    • Swenson says:

      Willard, please stop trolling.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      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.

    • Billyjack says:

      Always amusing how you indoctrinated woke again government worshippers post the gospel you have been sermonized as if it is somehow original and profound.

      • Willard says:

        Oh, Billy:

        Republicans at the federal and state level are adding behavior modification requirements to a wide array of public benefits programs, thus driving a divide between red and blue states.

        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.

      • Billyjack says:

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Much less an available logical explanation.

    • An Inquirer says:

      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.

      • Willard says:

        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:

        Overall, the balance of payments between the states and the federal government was $2.8 trillion in the states favor. This was the second largest net deficit in history, second only to the $3.1 trillion gap recorded in 2020.

        https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2023/03/24/All-States-Became-Net-Beneficiaries-Federal-Funds-During-Pandemic-Report

        On balance per capita, California ranks 43th.

      • An Inquirer says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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/

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Perhaps you have a citation for us, Gill?

      • bill hunter says:

        why willard? its in nates link. moron!

      • Willard says:

        A link to a list that would meet your own requirements, Gill.

        Is it whole foods that make you this thick?

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        So once again Gill has no idea what he is talking about.

      • Willard says:

        People all over the world give to the GOP, Gill?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Am I supposed to care?

    • Bill Hunter says:

      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.

    • William O. B'Livion says:

      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?

    • WizGeek says:

      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!

    • Bill hunter says:

      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.

  2. gbaikie says:

    If Earth had 1/2 as much gravity, what would it’s global average temperature. be?

    • Roy W Spencer says:

      I know where you are going with this. But I really don’t want to spend any more time on it.

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Where’s Christos when we need him?

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        If it had the same spin, wouldn’t it be colder?

      • gbaikie says:

        “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.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        I’m thinking 1/2 gravity, then lower mass. Lower mass, less atmosphere. Less atmosphere, colder.

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

    • Swenson says:

      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.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        I think he’s saying if the Earth were half the mass but the same size. I think it would fly apart.

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

  3. javs says:

    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

  4. Entropic man says:

    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

    • Bill Hunter says:

      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.”

    • Nate says:

      Havent we been told that warmer is better for everything? But not in the corn belt..

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “Its better in the corn belt and it has warmed.”

        Not according to this Roy post.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Roland Felix Hirsch says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        Yes we read the article.

        And we understand that he failed to mention the mitigating factor of agricultural intensification in the region.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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?

      • Nate says:

        Read the several posts on this topic.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Once again the conversation gets too specific and Nate bails out.

      • Nate says:

        And endless stream of faux grievances from Bill.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Have you thought of building corn audit dot org, Gill?

        No need to JAQ off in an Arbys.

      • Nate says:

        Did you find the other posts on the topic? Yes u did.

        Now quit bitching.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

  5. stephen p. anderson says:

    >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.

  6. javs says:

    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

  7. gbaikie says:

    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.

  8. gbaikie says:

    “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.

  9. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    Gov. Greg Abbott approved this week a law that will eliminate city and county ordinances like Austin and Dallas mandated water breaks. Texas is one of the states where most workers die from high temperatures.

    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.

    • Swenson says:

      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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        You already said that, Moron Mike.

        Deceitful cretin.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        Try harder?

        So that you will copy-paste your stupid trolling again?

        Deceitful cretin.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        What are you braying about, Mike?

        Here you go:

        https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons

    • Billyjack says:

      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.

  10. Norman says:

    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.

  11. Tim S says:

    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.

    • Swenson says:

      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?

    • RLH says:

      “People and organizations that are purposefully deceptive are not to be trusted”

      Strange how people always think that ‘god’ is on their side.

  12. Ken says:

    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

    • Willard says:

      > No one has been able to do that.

      Wanna bet?

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Are you Kennui?

        No?

        Then what are you braying about?

        Deceitful cretin.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Playing dumb again, Moron Mike?

        Here:

        https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons

        Deceitful cretin.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      Ken,
      The fact that we’re here falsifies the whole CO2 effect on climate theory.

    • gbaikie says:

      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].

  13. Nate says:

    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

  14. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Severe thunderstorms and tornadoes in the southern US. The low resembles a tropical cyclone.
    https://i.ibb.co/MPJYcg7/goes16-ir-us.gif

  15. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The temperatures this summer is quite moderate.
    https://i.ibb.co/chzjDFL/gfs-T2ma-us-21.png

  16. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    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

  17. 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.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/weather/2023/06/16/photos-storms-air-floods-2023-climate-disasters/70326505007/

    • RLH says:

      So is that the end of La Nina or the Sun?

    • Ken says:

      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.

    • Ken says:

      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.

      • Willard says:

        You are saying stuff, Kennui.

        Easier when one has no skin in the game.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • bdgwx says:

        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?

      • RLH says:

        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)”

      • Nate says:

        “is quite low already” which has nothing to do with whether it has been cooling.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.”

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate takes ”benefit of the doubt” to be his best statistically sensible proof of the effects of CO2.

      • 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.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “Manabe gave the theory arising out of Modtran”

        Modtran came after Manabe’s work.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        ” 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.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate punts yet again.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      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!

  18. bdgwx says:

    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

    • RLH says:

      “This is a very well known and researched topic already”

      Which the data published by Roy agrees with.

    • Clint R says:

      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.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      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.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      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.

  19. RLH says:

    “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.

  20. Willard says:

    “This is a very well known and researched topic already.”

    As the top post ignores.

  21. RLH says:

    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.

    • Willard says:

      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.

      • RLH says:

        “the meteorological fallacy”

        is just something made up by Willard.

      • RLH says:

        Except that what Roy published is supported by various scientific papers.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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!

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • RLH says:

        “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.

      • RLH says:

        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?

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • RLH says:

        The meteorological fallacy assumes that models are not made up of parts.

      • Willard says:

        The meteorological fallacy is also when a cycle nut rolls over a 5y window six times and pretend it’s climate.

      • RLH says:

        Willard has not heard about DSP and various work.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • RLH says:

        Willard is just an idiot.

      • Willard says:

        This time I won’t let it stand, Richard.

        Remember when you tried to intimate that a step function was continuous?

      • RLH says:

        Willard is still an idiot.

      • Willard says:

        Or perhaps the time when you spoke of a bath tub when there was none?

      • RLH says:

        Willard still thinks that a full window OLS applies to more data than it covers.

      • Willard says:

        Another deflection, this time operated with a mind probe.

      • RLH says:

        Oh look, another squirrel.

      • Willard says:

        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?

      • RLH says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        > In all disciplines other than climate science that is.

        Glad that Richard acknowledges that his work does not apply to climate science.

      • RLH says:

        Glad that Willard acknowledges that climate is not a science.

      • RLH says:

        P.S.> Filters are a well known part of DSP.

      • Willard says:

        Richard claims he’s better than climate science.

      • RLH says:

        Willard is just an silly squirrel.

    • bdgwx says:

      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/

  22. Swenson says:

    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 says:

      Sorry about the typos. My bad.

    • Willard says:

      > and others.

      Don’t be so humble, Mike Flynn. We all owe it to you.

      They’re your words, remember?

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        6 more comments to go.

        You can do it, Moron Mike!!!!

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        You did it, Mike!

      • RLH says:

        Oh look, a squirrel.

      • Willard says:

        Look, Mike Flynn!

      • RLH says:

        Oh look, Willard is a squirrel.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

    • bobdroege says:

      Swenson,

      bobdroege is making fun of you!

      • Swenson says:

        Bumbling Bobby,

        And Im supposed to care because . . . ?

        You idiot.

      • bobdroege says:

        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?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        bobdroege, please stop trolling.

  23. gbaikie says:

    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.

    • Swenson says:

      And there used to be critters running around on Antarctica. Eating grass and stuff.

      Who’d have thought?

  24. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    For a month very weak solar wind.
    https://i.ibb.co/XYSwmdj/plot-image.png

  25. gbaikie says:

    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.

  26. Willard says:

    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

  27. Torbjrn says:

    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

  28. G.R. says:

    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.

    • RLH says:

      For New Hartford, IA

      • RLH says:

        “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.”

      • Willard says:

        “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”

      • Swenson says:

        “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?

      • RLH says:

        “June is the wettest month in New Hartford with 5.1 inches of rain”

      • Willard says:

        [ELI] Senator Grassley appears to differ

        [RICHARD] Hope this guy isnt in a position of authority.

        You can’t make this up.

      • RLH says:

        Willard can’t even get his quotes right

        “Hope this guy isn’t in a position of authority” was said by Swenson, not me.

      • Willard says:

        At this point is there any difference between Richard and Mike Flynn?

      • RLH says:

        Willard does his silly squirrel act again.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

    • Swenson says:

      Eli Rabett,

      He has the right to be as different as he wishes.

      Do you have a point, or are you just trolling?

      • Willard says:

        The point is #cornwatch, Mike Flynn.

      • Swenson says:

        No pint at all, then.

      • Swenson says:

        Whoops. No point either.

      • Willard says:

        You would need a pint, Mike.

      • RLH says:

        Silly rabbit! (or is that squirrel?).

      • Willard says:

        No difference at all between Richard and Mike at this point.

      • RLH says:

        No difference between Willard and an idiot.

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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:

        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. In a thought exercise, we apply the CO₂ fertilization effect we estimated in our sample from 2015-2021 backwards to 1940

        You’re projecting a linearity that does not exist.

        Oh, and your authority cites mine, twice in fact, so there.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        From your own cite:

        We reiterate that climate change will likely have a negative impact on agriculture in aggregate, especially in regions exposed to extreme heat, and that CO2-driven yield increases may be offset by effects on food nutrition and quality (Loladze 2002, Taub and Allen 2008, Myers et al. 2014).

        You were saying, deceitful cretin?

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        No, I did not forget the marginal increases.

        Have you forgotten the word marginal, deceitful cretin?

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Willard while being a volunteer mouthpiece for the biggest money scam in history has no statistically sensible argument to support his claims by.

      • Willard says:

        Gill tries to portray the scientific community as bigger than all the corporate drones he defends in the name of freedom.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        What are you braying about, Moron Mike?

        You know, knowledge ain’t free.

        You got to pay attention.

        Cheers.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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?

      • Willard says:

        Gill, Sir,

        This is an Arby’s.

        You got caught saying stuff once again. It’s no big deal.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        Classic Willard. Weeping in his crystal ball believing he knows better than anybody else. . . .sad.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Eli pretends the corn crop has never been stressed before.

  29. Ian Cunningham says:

    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?

  30. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    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

  31. Nate says:

    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

    • Swenson says:

      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?

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        You wrote –

        “Described for you many times.”

        Only in your imagination.

      • Nate says:

        Sorry for your dementia, and total lack of integrity.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You respond to Nate –

        “Woebegone Wee Willy”

        Is there something you’d like to tell me?

        Go on.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        Why do ou copy-paste a misplaced comment?

        Deceitful cretin.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        Investment firm UBS predicts that annual sales in the plant-based meat market will grow from $4.6 billion in 2018 to $85 billion in 2030. According to global consultancy AT Kearney, 60 percent of meat eaten globally in 2040 will be from plant-based or lab-grown alternatives. 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. Yet when faced with falling local demand, some meat companies instead resort to increasing their exports to countries with rising meat consumption levels. In September 2020, for example, the U.S. pork industry exported a record 29 percent of total pork production to buyers outside the U.S.

        https://sentientmedia.org/meat-consumption-in-the-us/

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Gill, this is an Arbys.

    • RLH says:

      Because the ocean data is SO accurate before 1955 all over the globe.

      https://imgur.com/gallery/Ulah5KV

      • Nate says:

        Relevance to this post? None.

      • RLH says:

        You have data from 1850 which covers the ocean.

      • Nate says:

        Nope, these are all land.

      • RLH says:

        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%?

      • Nate says:

        All are land regions. Sorry.

        Got any explanation for their synchronous warming?

      • RLH says:

        “All are land regions”

        The oceans (alone) track them quite well.

      • RLH says:

        How long do you think that the 30% (approx) land will exceed the ocean 70%?

      • Nate says:

        “The oceans (alone) track them quite well”

        Thus suggesting the ocean data is valid.

      • RLH says:

        Nate: How long do you think that the 30% (approx) land will exceed the ocean 70%?

      • Nate says:

        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?

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.”

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate the assertion was there was some synchronous warming from the LIA recovery. What it isn’t synchronous to is CO2 emissions.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • 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.”

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “Science is well aware ” and all that follows is more of your speculations and mutterings…

      • Bill hunter says:

        Nate is simply unaware of science.

      • 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?

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “I am not going to go search for a link”

        Tee hee hee.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        participating here is not a business for me, so i don’t collect links on everything climate.

      • E. Swanson says:

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • E. Swanson says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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”

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter replies:

        So to give you credit you recognize the THC sinking process that comes in good part from brines squeezed out of freezing seawater…

        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.

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • E. Swanson says:

        There’s much to object to in Hunter’s post. Starting with:

        Winter ice extent has shrunk as much as summer ice extent.

        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:

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • E. Swanson says:

        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:

        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.

        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. Compare March data with September data at:
        https://nsid*c.org/data/seaice_index/compare-animate

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter mumbles a meaningless comment:

        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 above.

        He also wrote:

        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. That’s a typical denialist trick since the annual minimum is more sensitive to the effects of ongoing warming.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • E. Swanson says:

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • 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.

        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:

        The summer melt simply drifts away on top of the ocean and contributes to SSTs but not ocean bottom temperatures.

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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

    • Bill Hunter says:

      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.

      • Willard says:

        > 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.

        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?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Gill, Gill,

        This is an Arby’s.

        May I take your citation, please?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        as soon as you give me yours Willard.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

        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?”

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Gill is saying that he believes his rants cover up for his lack of support.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Still no citation, Gill?

        Fine. You can continue soapboxing.

      • bill hunter says:

        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?

      • Willard says:

        Gill, Gill,

        You made a claim. You did not support it.

        Twisting the sammich request meme will not help you support your claim.

      • bill hunter says:

        Willard I asked what you wanted on the sammich. Unlike you I intended to serve you up as to at least your favorite ingredient.

      • Walter says:

        I like the cherry pick from 1970. You people are laughable.

      • Nate says:

        Roy did the picking:

        “The following plot shows the 50-year area-averaged temperature trend”

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        Yes some “People dont give a shit” about others, nor future generations when they are old cranks.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate, please stop trolling.

    • Tim S says:

      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.

    • Walter says:

      You are using UHI biased data. All I have to say.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      nate thinks he is posting on realclimate or skepticalscience. This is Roy’s UAH site, Nate, no censorship by Roy.

  32. An Inquirer says:

    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.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      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.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Here is the story: https://youtu.be/0eg0aPRuZu8

    • Willard says:

      More Freedom Fighters editorials over reality constraints:

      In drought years, groundwater has supplied up to 60% of California’s water. But the pumping has been largely unregulated. So over the decades, water levels have fallen dramatically in California’s aquifers. Before this winter, some groundwater wells were at the lowest points ever recorded. That’s because in the Central Valley, groundwater hasn’t been replenished after previous droughts.

      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.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Obviously Gill’s epilogue goes against the fact that pumping groundwater is unregulated.

        Must be the gubmint’s fault too!

      • gbaikie says:

        If gubmint can do anything about CO2 levels and global warming {and not get any help from China} then it can do almost anything.

      • Willard says:

        That’s not an if, gb:

        After rising steadily for decades, global carbon dioxide emissions fell by 6.4%, or 2.3 billion tonnes, in 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic squelched economic and social activities worldwide, according to new data on daily fossil fuel emissions.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3

        My turn. In the other thread, you said:

        And you think the stupid lefties invented the term global warming?

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Gill, Gill,

        This is an Arbys.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Yep where you get ”The Meat”.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Willard your website which you promote ruthlessly here is where you get ”The Fake Meat”

      • Willard says:

        Gill, Gill,

        You’re taking a chance:

        Investment firm UBS predicts that annual sales in the plant-based meat market will grow from $4.6 billion in 2018 to $85 billion in 2030. According to global consultancy AT Kearney, 60 percent of meat eaten globally in 2040 will be from plant-based or lab-grown alternatives. 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. Yet when faced with falling local demand, some meat companies instead resort to increasing their exports to countries with rising meat consumption levels. In September 2020, for example, the U.S. pork industry exported a record 29 percent of total pork production to buyers outside the U.S.

        https://sentientmedia.org/meat-consumption-in-the-us/

        Not an investment advice, but.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Gill, Gill,

        This is an Arby’s, and you still have not supported your claim.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        thats OK Willard. Enjoy your frankenfoods.

  33. gbaikie says:

    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.

    • RLH says:

      “Are the 36 climate models wrong?”

      No-body ranks them – so how would we know?

      • gbaikie says:

        That would be a better system.

      • Ken says:

        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.

      • Bindidon says:

        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.

      • Bindidon says:

        Source of the RATPAC-B monthly data used:

        https://tinyurl.com/ywduenc8 (d c)

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        ” 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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “But scientifically it hasnt been described as to how the effect works.”

        Yes it has.

      • bill hunter says:

        you are lying nate. you have been asked to produce a statistically sensible argument or evidence and have proven yourself impotent in accomplishing that.

      • Nate says:

        Bill you know very well that we have had lengthy discussions on the mechanism of the GHE.

        Just quit your bitchin.

      • bill hunter says:

        discussions that go well beyond science into highly imaginative stuff on how feedbacks do all the surface warming in an undescribed manner.

  34. gbaikie says:

    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}.

    • gbaikie says:

      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.

      • Ken says:

        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.

      • gbaikie says:

        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

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

  35. gbaikie says:

    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.

    • gbaikie says:

      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.

  36. gbaikie says:

    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.

    • gbaikie says:

      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.

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

      • gbaikie says:

        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

      • gbaikie says:

        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

  37. gbaikie says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7uvn6MhD_8
    SpaceX is finishing the NEW Starship Pad Construction!

    I found this more exciting than normal.

  38. Tim S says:

    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.

    • Willard says:

      “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.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Tim S says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      The reductions are useless anyway. CO2 cannot cause the kind of catastrophic warming predicted by alarmists.

  39. Willard says:

    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.

  40. Swenson says:

    “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.

  41. gbaikie says:

    Deep Blue Sea
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEYMxfM3vNU

    Should I pray for them?

  42. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • Willard says:

      > G&T tried to explain that

      C’mon, Bordo.

      Prove you read the piece.

    • Nate says:

      “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.

      • Clint R says:

        Troll Nate does not understand the laws of physics, such as Kirchhoff’s Law.

        Oh well.

      • Willard says:

        Pupman is in full meltdown.

      • Clint R says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        As predicted, more meltdown from Pupman.

        If only he could do the Shower Experiment.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Nate says:

        “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

      • Nate says:

        “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.

    • E. Swanson says:

      As Eli knows, Gordo is fixated on his delusional view of physics, as he shows yet again:

      …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.

      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.

    • bdgwx says:

      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.

      • Clint R says:

        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

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        bdgwx, you don’t understand how an ‘IR gun’ works. Youre just throwing crap against the wall, hoping something will stick.

  43. 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/

  44. RLH says:

    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.

  45. Willard says:

    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.

      • Willard says:

        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:

        Do the global climate models (GCMs) we use for describing future climate change really capture the change and variations in the region that we want to study? There are widely used tools for evaluating global climate models, such as the ESMValTool, but they don’t provide the answers that I seek.

        […]

        We cannot use traditional regression, correlations or root-mean-square-error for evaluating the GCM simulations against historical climate, because the GCMs are not synchronised with Earth’s climate. They simulate ENSO and other types of natural variability which materialise at different times as those observed on Earth. Instead, we need to evaluate the GCMs in terms of their ability to provide similar statistics as seen in reality, such as averages, trends and interannual variability.

        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.

      • RLH says:

        Now refer to the post I gave rather than something else.

      • RLH says:

        Willard, as usual, deflects again.

      • Willard says:

        You can spam your spam all by yourself, Richard.

      • RLH says:

        Now Willard is talking to himself.

      • Willard says:

        You mean about himself.

        But no, U.

      • RLH says:

        No I meant talking to yourself.

      • Willard says:

        I usually don’t call myself “Richard,” Richard.

      • RLH says:

        But you do talk to yourself.

      • Willard says:

        “You can spam your spam all by yourself, Richard” was addressed to you, Richard.

        Your pet topic has nothing to do with my comment.

      • RLH says:

        And still you talk to yourself.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        What are you braying about?

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        Idiocy is copy-pasting the same comment over and over again.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        Enjoy –

        Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said about one-third of the complaints her agency received about online hate involved content on Twitter, noting a surge in harmful posts since the Tesla chief bought the platform last year.

        https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-22/cph-e-safety-commissioner-compels-twitter-to-produce-documents/102505546

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Deceitful cretin,

        Did you know that cows kill men more than sharks?

        They have yet to perfect their ninja skills for sharks.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Copy-paste your comment again, Moron Mike.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        I would rather point out that you are only repeating your comment, Moron Mike.

        Go on.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  46. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Three tropical storms in the tropical Atlantic are headed for the Caribbean.
    https://i.ibb.co/0htny4K/33d75cb7-3e46-4c28-a3d2-7b29e9e01600.jpg

  47. Bindidon says:

    Sunny Boy in the fitness room:

    https://tinyurl.com/2uaywsrn

  48. stephen p. anderson says:

    Why do leftists hate science?

    • gbaikie says:

      Obviously, they say, math is racist.

    • Ken says:

      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’.

      • Willard says:

        Right on:

        A local Indiana chapter of Moms for Liberty, a national conservative parents organization, apologized on Thursday for quoting Adolf Hitler in a newsletter.

        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.

      • Ken says:

        Adolph was a leftist too.

      • Willard says:

        Oh, Kennui:

        Hitler and the Nazis promoted a socially conservative view concerning many aspects of life, supported by harsh discipline and a militaristic point of view. Conservative opinions about sexuality amid the Nazis led to extreme homophobia which resulted in the systematic persecution of homosexuals. Hitler and his paladins also controlled what constituted acceptable artistic expression in Nazi Germany, abolishing what they considered to be “degenerate art”. The Nazis strongly discouraged and in some cases outright rejected the following behaviors, namely the use of cosmetics, premarital sex, prostitution, pornography, sexual vices, smoking and excessive drinking. In many ways, there was a distinct anti-intellectualism present within Nazi philosophy. Hearkening back to a simpler time, Hitler and the Nazis attempted to vindicate the glorious past as the key to a more promising future.

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

        Never change.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Bindidon says:

        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.

  49. Eben says:

    John Christy – live

    https://youtu.be/ULpGDnuz308

  50. Swenson says:

    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.

  51. Willard says:

    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?

  52. gbaikie says:

    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/

  53. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    High convection in Texas.
    https://i.ibb.co/Fmjmjnv/goes16-ir-us.gif

  54. Willard says:

    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

    • RLH says:

      “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?

      • Willard says:

        Glad you ask:

        Since that study three decades ago, many studies have affirmed the globally averaged pattern of greater nighttime warming than daytime warming and we now have a more complete sense of the magnitude of the change since 1901. We now know, too, that this pattern doesnt hold everywhere and differences in nighttime vs. daytime warming vary across the globe. Some regions, including North America, show clear and consistent signals of greater nighttime warming than daytime warming whereas others – such as Australia – dont exhibit clear trends.

        https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/22/with-climate-change-nights-are-warming-faster-than-days-why

      • gbaikie says:

        Night time and winter warming is what greenhouse effect is all about.

      • Willard says:

        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/

      • RLH says:

        Willard, as usual, references something that does not prove his case, but something different entirely.

      • Willard says:

        Richard, as usual, says stuff.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • RLH says:

        Willard just talks (even mutters) to himself.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Wiltard is diabolical.

      • Willard says:

        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

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        I’m glad you repeat your silly sammich request.

        It has already been served.

        Ask again, deceitful cretin!

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • RLH says:

        (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.

      • Willard says:

        Richard tries (and fails) to deflect when things get tricky.

      • RLH says:

        Willard is just an idiot.

      • Willard says:

        An idiot who has Vaughan’s email, Richard.

        What about you?

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

  55. RLH says:

    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.

  56. Bindidon says:

    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?

    • RLH says:

      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?

    • RLH says:

      Blinny can have his delusions but VP was clear that the normalized frequency was 1.

    • Bindidon says:

      Maybe he asks Vaughan Pratt?

      If he has enough courage to do, of course.

  57. RLH says:

    Does Blinny’s calculation of https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lUHWqZT9rWlYe6hQxBDRYSQDl4RpUrM2/view

    follow (with some distortion) a SRM of 60? Why not?

    • Bindidon says:

      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!

      • RLH says:

        “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?

  58. Bindidon says:

    ” 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?

    • RLH says:

      You are only removing the distortions an SRM brings, not producing a completely different response.

      Idiot.

      • Bindidon says:

        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!

      • RLH says:

        So why does a 12 month CTRM align so closely to a 13 month SRM?

    • RLH says:

      “The 60/50/39 CTRM is wrong in many places”

      Blinny is deluded. Simple as that.

  59. Bindidon says:

    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.

    • RLH says:

      “and have then in the sum”

      VP never articulated that step. He just left them at 60, 50 and 39.

    • RLH says:

      Blinny still does not explain why his ‘solution’ is not Gaussian in its frequency response, whereas the conventional reading of VPs work is.

    • RLH says:

      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.

    • Bindidon says:

      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!

      • Bindidon says:

        Oops

        ” you get 149 resp. 242 running means ”

        of course should read

        ” you get 149 resp. 242 month running means “

      • RLH says:

        “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.

      • RLH says:

        “60 / 2.47478469401679 ”

        His creation of 2.47478469401679 out of the air without any maths or science to back it up is not surprising.

      • RLH says:

        “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.

      • Bindidon says:

        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.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” 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?

      • RLH says:

        “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.

      • Bindidon says:

        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.

      • RLH says:

        “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).”

      • Bindidon says:

        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.

      • RLH says:

        “Gaussian filter has better performance in frequency domain.”

        The width of a gaussian window determines its frequency.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” The width of a gaussian window determines its frequency. ”

        No. Only the CONTENTS of the window do.

      • RLH says:

        The contents are a Gaussian function. The width determines its frequency.

      • RLH says:

        See Butterworth filters in the analogue domain.

      • RLH says:

        “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.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” 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.

      • RLH says:

        The width of a gaussian window determines its frequency.

      • RLH says:

        Blinny does not understand what a normalized function is.

      • RLH says:

        Is c(1,1.2067,1.5478) a normalized function?

      • RLH says:

        Is c(1,1.2067,1.5478) a function where the 1 represents any base frequency?

  60. Bindidon says:

    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 !!!

    • RLH says:

      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.

  61. Eben says:

    This place is like a children playground without parental supervision

  62. gbaikie says:

    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.

  63. Tim S says:

    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.”

    • Entropic man says:

      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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

      • Entropic man says:

        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

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

    • Nate says:

      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.'”

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        What’s “problematic”? What’s wrong with free speech?

        I can’t see anything wrong with free speech. You?

      • Tim S says:

        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).

  64. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • Nate says:

      “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.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        Are you not happy with Gordon exercising his freedom of speech?

        Why is that?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        What are you braying about?

        Are you not happy with Nate exercising his freedom of speech?

        Why is that?

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        You keep copy-pasting your comments in the wrong subthread.

        Not that it matters much.

    • Willard says:

      > 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:

      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.

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

      You and your silly semantic games.

  65. Eben says:

    My climate Model never fails

    https://i.postimg.cc/8zCH8xnP/mblk.jpg

  66. RLH says:

    “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.

    • Bindidon says:

      ” 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.

      • RLH says:

        So Blinny, what does a normalized function do?

      • RLH says:

        And what is the correct size/width for a 12 month CTRM (or a 60 month one either)?

      • RLH says:

        Is c(1,1.2067,1.5478) a normalized function?

      • Bindidon says:

        ” 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.

      • RLH says:

        I never said that 12,10,8 or 24,20,16 was wrong. That simply falls out from VPs function.

      • RLH says:

        What I said was that adding together 24+20+16=60 was not what VP concluded at all.

      • RLH says:

        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.

      • Bindidon says:

        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?

      • RLH says:

        Is c(1,1.2067,1.5478) a function where the 1 represents any base frequency?

      • Bindidon says:

        ” 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.

      • RLH says:

        So you agree that a 60/50/39 C3RM is what VP intended. I’m glad you finally you agree with that conclusion.

      • RLH says:

        And that 60 is the base window.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” 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?

      • RLH says:

        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.

  67. Willard says:

    > if I have the means, I move.

    Mike Flynn has the right of it:

    Karachi, Pakistan – More than 300 Pakistani nationals have been killed in the sinking of a overcrowded fishing trawler off the coast of Greece, the latest tragedy to expose the refugee crisis confronting the European Union as tens of thousands seek sanctuary from war, persecution and poverty.

    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?

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      Wiltard,

      What are you braying about?

      • Willard says:

        Do you really want to pull me in, Troglodyte?

        Please beware your wishes.

      • Swenson says:

        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]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        What are you braying about?

        If you ask me to respond, I will.

        Think about that.

        If you can.

        Can you?

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        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]

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        Why is Iron-Man not Fe-Male?

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        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]

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        Suppose someone publishes your personal address.

        Would you feel as sanguine about free speech?

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

    • Ken says:

      Why are there 300 Pakistanis on a fishing trawler?

      Most trawlers around here are crewed by less than 10.

  68. E. Swanson says:

    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

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

    • Clint R says:

      The Hunga-Tonga Effect (HTE) hasnt ended yet. Were in for a couple more months of warming, even before the El Niño builds.

    • E. Swanson says:

      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

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo insists on throwing out another red herring, so that he can continue to ignore reality:
        https://twitter.com/ScottDuncanWX/status/1669418588648685574

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

      • E. Swanson says:

        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”

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • E. Swanson says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        yep a mysterious climate warming that the climate change models are unable to replicate.

        manchuria?????

      • E. Swanson says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        So you believe that the Pacific Ocean cooled to offset the warming observed?

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • 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.

        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

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        You realize that your plot is of % of ocean sampled?

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        Look at the chart you posted, nitwit!

        Its not what you say it is.

      • Bill hunter says:

        You are making a claim here. . . .whats your support?

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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?

      • Nate says:

        Hockey stick was reconstructed temperature record..

        I don’t see the connection..

        What appending?

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

  69. Nabil Swedan says:

    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

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      Nabil,
      They ignore stuff like thermodynamics and science in their model.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Scientists who use modeling and can’t spell it correctly.

      • 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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        that would obviously be and avoid getting blacklisted.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        C’mon, Bordo.

        Ranting about the IPCC is not enough. You got to explain why you think the paper EM cited is wrong.

      • Swenson says:

        Woebegone Wee Willy,

        No he don’t!

        You are an idiot.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Then EM doesn’t either!

        So sad, too bad.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Pay attention wee willy, I condemned the entire IPCC, not just one paper.

      • Willard says:

        Come on, Bordo.

        If EM condemns all of Sky Dragon cranks, it would be OK?

        That can be arranged.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Troglodyte,

        Nabil’s paper contains arithmetic.

        You might as well argue that your accountant is a mathematician.

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Noooo,

        That isn’t the only thing you Brits do wrong.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Wiltard,

        Again, he falsified the IPCC’s model (with math). Restating the same false mathematical model doesn’t falsify his falsification.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Funny how you never contribute anything, Troglodyte.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        no we don’t know that. the ocean temps are not randomly sampled about 2/3rds of the ocean remains virtually unsampled.

      • bill hunter says:

        measuring land near surface atmosphere temperatures is far easier and we recognize we could be off by 2C absolute.

      • Nate says:

        “no we dont know that.”

        As ever, if data doesnt fit Bill’s narrative, deny the data. No facts needed!

      • bill hunter says:

        i am reminded of “Dewey wins” after surveying house wives at the local grocery store.

      • Nate says:

        Bill offers nothing to support his rejection of data he doesnt like.

        He just defers to the authority of a non-authority: himself.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        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

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        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?

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “The ocean is likely getting colder because ”

        Again a non-quantitative opinion from a non-expert, without a shred of evidence provided.

        Pointless.

      • Nate says:

        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.

    • Nate says:

      “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.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Nabil,
        You’ve awakened the chief propagandist and obfuscator.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Nabil,
        He will tell you that you didn’t consider the Revelle Factor. He’s a man of science.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        the pot calls the kettle black.

      • Nate says:

        There are some obvious errors in Nabil’s paper.

        He seems to have no answers. Neither does the peanut gallery.

      • bill hunter says:

        i haven’t read it. what errors are you aware of?

      • Nate says:

        Tee hee hee…can’t be bothered to read my posts before launching ad-homs.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        So if you cant be bothered to read the paper you dont need to weigh in.

      • bill hunter says:

        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

      • Nate says:

        Ok just trolling then.

      • Bill hunter says:

        I don’t see calling out hypocrisy as trolling.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “change in cloud cover smaller than what is currently detectable.”

        Evidence?

      • Nate says:

        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.”

      • Nate says:

        Nope, neither one says what you asserted. Obviously it was just made up.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Nate says:

        “The Trenberth discussion” is from 2009.

  70. RLH says:

    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.

    • RLH says:

      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.

    • Bindidon says:

      ” 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.

  71. gbaikie says:

    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”.

    • Swenson says:

      g,

      You wrote “I was wondering, how many gravity waves are there.”

      42.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Gravity waves exist only in Einstein’s theoretical universe. You won’t find them in our universe.

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        And then along came Feynman & Co.

        Now we’re all totally buggered!

        Such is life.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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?

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • gbaikie says:

        gravitational field.

        Venus gravitational field is useful in many ways.

      • Entropic man says:

        If gravitational waves do not exist, perhaps you would explain what LIGO is detecting?

        https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligo-gw-interferometer

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • gbaikie says:

        So, answers given is Swenson: 42 and Robertson: 0

        I would guess, millions

      • Entropic man says:

        “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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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/

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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

      • bill hunter says:

        nate not all scientists agree. they are measuring something. the question is what. some scientist thought he had measured aether also.

  72. gbaikie says:

    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”??

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

      • gbaikie says:

        — 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

  73. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • Willard says:

      Come on, Bordo.

      You already are our crankiest crank.

      Do you really need to be a bigot?

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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?

      • Willard says:

        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:

        Disgraced former Vancouver Whitecaps womens soccer coach Bob Birarda is asking a judge that he not be required to register in Canadas sex offender registry following his sentencing last month for sexual offences against teenaged girls.

        Birarda, 55, was sentenced in November to two years in custody – including 16 months in jail and eight months of a conditional sentence – for sexual offences involving teenaged soccer players he coached over a 20-year period between 1988 and 2008.

        During those two decades, Birarda was a prominent figure in the soccer community, running a soccer academy in the Lower Mainland and coaching at both provincial and national levels.

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        So Willard what was it that Gordon said that caused you to label him a bigot?

      • Willard says:

        Have you tried reading, Gill?

      • bill hunter says:

        You just called him a bigot and didn’t say why

      • bill hunter says:

        Please don’t answer as its important you keep your record of not defending your bullshit in place.

      • Willard says:

        I actually did told Bordo, Gill.

      • Willard says:

        It is very very important that Gill understands why Bordo is a bigot.

      • bill hunter says:

        Good job keeping your line of stinky bullshit totally undefended. Keep up the good work!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        So, Gill. Do you still have any problem identifying the bigotry?

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Gill, Gill,

        Homosexuality. That was the topic. Bordo has bigoted views in it.

        Now, how do you feel about having played dumb?

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn brays about something, but what?

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

        <:

      • Willard says:

        APPARENTLY Gill ignores that the vast majority of child abuse is committed by heterosexual males.

      • bill hunter says:

        Gordon clearly stated heterosexual and homosexual child abusers were perverts.

        Apparently you believe only the heterosexual ones are.

      • Willard says:

        See, Gill?

        It’s better when you do some work on your own.

        For then I can destroy it:

        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.

        Bigots certainly are entitled to their bigoted views.

        They are entitled simpliciter.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        As usual, Bill tries to tell me what my opinions are. And they are strange.

      • Willard says:

        Gill does not need to read. He just knows.

      • bill hunter says:

        perhaps you should then say what you think should be acceptable. you whine about being misunderstoood perhaps arises out of your own misunderstanding.

      • Willard says:

        Perhaps the bigotry is kinda obvious and you are just playing dumb.

      • bill hunter says:

        If you want to hear bigotry you will hear it. . . .whether it exists or not.

  74. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • Entropic man says:

      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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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).

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

  75. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    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

  76. RLH says:

    Blinny: Why would VPs c(1, 1.2067,1.5478) mean that 1 + 1.2067 + 1.5478 was the intended result?

  77. TechnoCaveman says:

    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.

  78. Swenson says:

    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.

  79. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

  80. Swenson says:

    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.

    • Willard says:

      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,

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Here’s your opportunity to come out of the closet wee willy.

      • Swenson says:

        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”?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say –

        “I can be bigoted about anything I like.”

        Indeed you can.

        Some call it privilege.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

  81. Willard says:

    > Gordo pulls another red herring out of some dark orifice.

    Think about all the bacterias.

    Come on, Bordo.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

    • Swenson says:

      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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        What are you braying about, and why are you such a deceitful cretin?

        Nobody forces you to be one.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        Nobody forces you to be a deceitful cretin.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  82. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • Entropic man says:

      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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        What your argument amounts to is proof you have no clue what the scientific method is.

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Entropic man says:

        “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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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?

      • bill hunter says:

        its really funny how folks think definitive experiments exist when they don’t.

        just shows how gullible folks can be

      • gbaikie says:

        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

      • gbaikie says:

        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?

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • gbaikie says:

        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

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        No, Ed Berry has falsified AGW.

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

  83. Gordon Robertson says:

    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/

    • Willard says:

      Wait, Bordo –

      Does Troglodyte really believe that I’m a Brit?

      He chose the right date for that blunder!

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        What are you braying about?

        https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons

        Deceitful cretin.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        You already said that, Moron Mike.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        You said that too, Moron Mike.

        Slow Monday morning, right?

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons

        The perfect description for the deceitful cretin that you are.

    • Entropic man says:

      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.

      • Willard says:

        The most wonderful Brit prediction:

        The language, the laws and the character of the North American continent are English, and every other race than the English race is in a state of inferiority. It is in order to release them from this inferiority that I wish to give the Canadians our English character.

        https://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP7CH5PA1LE.html

      • bill hunter says:

        Definitely straying away over the past couple of years from the British Brexit attitude.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Good thing for you Brits that we were there to save your asses- twice. You’d be speaking German and chanting “Heil Hitler.”

      • Entropic man says:

        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”.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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?

      • RLH says:

        Racist much are you?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • RLH says:

        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

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • RLH says:

        “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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • RLH says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

  84. Willard says:

    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.

    • bill hunter says:

      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.

      • RLH says:

        “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.”

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Wiltard believes, like all leftists, that government owns the fruits of your labor. Abraham Lincoln described the leftists’ motto as “you work, I eat.”

      • Willard says:

        As usual Troglodyte keeps yapping without doing the reading

        No one wants to be Kansas, true. But

        Like Sky Dragon cranks, Freedom Fighters are not stingy on special pleading.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

  85. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • Entropic man says:

      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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Gordo regurgitates his usual mantra again, especially the part about:

      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.

      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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      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!?

      • E. Swanson says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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)?

      • Willard says:

        Exactly, ER:

        “Energy flows in two directions, heat only in one direction.

        Yes!

        Now why did [Gaslighting Graham] insist endlessly that the back radiation in the GPE was a 2LOT violation???

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1502892

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        I explained why it is a 2LoT violation. Nothing has changed. However, that is not the subject of this thread.

      • Willard says:

        > ER

        Sorry, ES.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Swanson and E Man both fail to answer the simple questions. Funny.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • E. Swanson says:

        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:

        You guys are labouring under the delusion that IR can transfer heat between bodies of different temperatures in both directions.

        Nothing earlier in his post supports this conclusion, it’s just another repetition of his usual denialist mantra about the 2nd Law.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      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.

      • Entropic man says:

        Not sure of the phrasing of 2). Are you using “only” where I Would use “net”?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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".

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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,

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        No equivocation.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • bill hunter says:

        if it isn’t a flow of heat from cold to hot how can it make the hot hotter as you believe it can?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Nate says:

        “Elis cohorts treat it as though it is a transfer of heat from cold to hot.”

        Eli certainly never did that.

      • Nate says:

        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”

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        I take it Nate has confused himself again, bill. No surprises there.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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”

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        …take it Nate has confused himself again, bill. No surprises there.

      • Nate says:

        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!

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        …it Nate has confused himself again, bill. No surprises there.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        …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.

      • Nate says:

        ” 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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        …they disagree, they need to show their account of the energy flows between the plates when pressed together. They will never do this, however.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        …disagree, they need to show their account of the energy flows between the plates when pressed together. They will never do this, however.

      • Nate says:

        “They will never do it.”

        False.

        DREMT can’t win on the facts. Has to play childish games.

      • Nate says:

        “Since